Video

The documentary is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. Simply a look at a small pixel of the larger image, and therefore too "compartmentalized". Europe lost its top tier position as global leaders because their leaders could not find a suitable balance of power between the states, which was equally acceptable for all. Note that with Versailles and many other bad choices, they ALL lost. WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and GB off to the other. This is how the quote "peace for 20 years" (Foch) should be interpreted. WW1 and WW2 was simply another "30 years war" with the difference being that Atlanticists (the naval powers) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination. In the end they ALL lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After WW2 this "rift" was simply *"ruled"* to be further east, and the desirable status quo of "Europeans set up against each other per outside ruling" was moved a few hundred miles eastwards. Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.

Grandfather had this. Was at the Somme. He died prematurely, my father was a toddler at the time and the youngest of a large family.

Nothing compared to what some men had to go through in world war 1 to get the vote.

*Of course they would say that the other side is dangerous or "unreasonable."* There is already an entire essay waaaaay down dealing with such "finger pointing"-tactics ("spiral model"). Every "side" feeling justified by its own actions, stating these are "only reactions" (pointing fingers) due to the other side. Again, nothing countered. *They were saying the same about "bad bad Russians" after the 1990s...* Always the other side, but the *encirclement strategy can be plotted on a map, and that started after the 1890...history "rhyming". Central Europe unifying was a Concert of Europe "balance of power" issue (to balance out the rise of Russia, and already clarified) and Italy joining in 1882 was due to the kickstarting "Scramble for Africa" and the threat of a stronger France (Mediterranean balance of power). Such "encirclement" fears can be balanced by seperate neutrality/entente accords. "On 1 November 1902, five months after the Triple Alliance was renewed, Italy reached an understanding with France that each would remain neutral in the event of an attack on the other." [wiki] Likewise, any of the encirclers of the Entente Powers could have avoided the encirclement of the Dual Alliance, with a non-agression accord, entente, or similar, with Berlin. They did not. That makes it a strategy of encirclement, not a geographical oddity.

"The (not serious, as already revealed by historians) "Berlin war scare" was not an actual attempt to wage war on France." - Herr von Bernhard. Irrelevant. Regardless of their actual intent, Germany's threats of war had a substantial impact on European diplomacy and military planning. The credibility of the threat, whether genuine or a strategic bluff, was significant enough to provoke real fears and reactions from other powers. The spectre of war had cast it's shadow on Europe. The movement of troops, the fortification of borders, and the heightened diplomatic activity demonstrated that the scare had tangible effects, influencing the political and military landscape of Europe. Even if Germany’s intention was not to escalate to full-scale conflict, the fear it generated was real and had lasting consequences on European diplomacy and alliances. The international community’s reaction to the Berlin war scare of 1905 largely reflected a consensus that Germany’s level of threat was disproportionate to its stated interests. Historians view the Berlin war scare as an example of how exaggerated threats and aggressive posturing can backfire. Germany’s efforts to use the threat of war to achieve diplomatic gains were seen as an overreach that ultimately strengthened the opposition it sought to weaken.

"should any constellation of powers try to encircle and encroach on France, then Paris would have every right to protect its own citizens, and try to break up such a harmful encirclement" - Herr von Bernhard. Such as seeking an alliance with Russia? France was indeed faced with the possibility of a two front war by the Triple Alliance. Germany and Italy shared two distinct borders with France.

BBC - let's talk about how devastated the UK was after the war of Monarchies 1914-1918. The treaty would hand over Palestine to the Zionists during the conference.

If one has universal principles, one does not wear "rose colored glasses," meaning what is "right" for one group in a set of circumstances, also applies as "right" for all others. Therefore, following such an age-old wisdom (Golden Rule): - should any constellation of powers try to encircle and encroach on the USA, then Washinton DC would have every right to protect its own citizens, and try to break up such a harmful encirclement - should any constellation of powers try to encircle and encroach on the UK, then London would have every right to protect its own citizens, and try to break up such a harmful encirclement - should any constellation of powers try to encircle and encroach on Russia, then Moscow would have every right to protect its own citizens, and try to break up such a harmful encirclement - should any constellation of powers try to encircle and encroach on Germany, then Berlin would have every right to protect its own citizens, and try to break up such a harmful encirclement (CONTEXT in 1906) - should any constellation of powers try to encircle and encroach on France, then Paris would have every right to protect its own citizens, and try to break up such a harmful encirclement - and so on... The below statement by Tschirschky (Berlin) is therefore perfectly valid, *since it is an "if"-construct in language (so called "conditional"), meaning that people who have problems with words don't understand that the opposite is therefore also correct.* If there are no attempts to create a harmful coalition against Germany, there would also be no Berlin REactions. There are however, a set of unprincipled human beings who seem to think that their ideology of democracy/corporatism, which has killed millions over the years, displaced multiple millions more or made them homeless, have turned millions into refugees, and have siphoned off immeasurable wealth for a few of its top tier citizens, should get "special rights" to "do onto others" what they would never accept as acceptable, if "done onto" (grand strategic encirclement). I thank the below commenter, for providing more evidence *for* the theory presented in the below comments section (100 interlinked essays) with every single one of his comments.

"Since France was already in an alliance with Russia at the time (1894) it was not for Berlin to take steps to change this setup on the continent." - Herr von Bernhard "Germany’s policy always had been, and would be, to try to frustrate any coalition between two States which might result in damaging Germany’s interests and prestige; and Germany would, if she thought that such a coalition was being formed, even if its actual results had not yet been carried into practical effect, not hesitate to take such steps as she thought proper to break up the Coalition." - Heinrich von Tschirschky, German Foreign Secretary, 1906

I said so years ago. To quote myself, *"the key to save Europe was a rapprochement between Paris and Berlin."* The final attempt of a rapprochement between Germany and France was 1905, with a *comprehensive European security agreement, signed but unfortunately never ratified* (MORE than adequate details, in the below comments section). _At the same time, it was also the final attempt _*_by Berlin_*_ to save France from its "buck catcher"-role in grand strategy, which it took with the "entente" (1904), _*_for_*_ London._ AS ALREADY EXPLAINED, but simply ignored: The (not serious, as already revealed by historians) "Berlin war scare" was not an actual attempt to wage war on France. Meaning, that the next logical conclusion is that it was an attempt at wedge diplomacy, to drive a rift between London/Paris, to enable pro-European French politicians to gain the upper hand, *and sign up for Bjorko/Triple Alliance,* an attempt which unfortunately failed. Beware of the propaganda techniques of the "dividers" and their "forked tongue" snake, doing the work *for* them, free of charge. See Dunning-Kruger. It is the "10%" who *"think* they think" doing this free divisive work, by skewing timelines, cherry-picking facts, and then "writing history" whichever way they want. These snakes/dividers will inform the interested hobby historian that "Bjorko was merely The Reinsurance Treaty 2.0" even though they *have already been informed this is a lie, and then they simply repeat the lies.* _Geopolitical reality, supported by primary sources: Bismarck EXCLUDED France per stipulation, and Bjorko INCLUDED France per treaty clauses._ Since France *was* already in an alliance with Russia at the time (1894) it was not for *Berlin* to take steps to change this setup on the continent. Therefore, and logically, and decently, this new setup of a *comprehensive European security agreement* (post-1905) could only be reached if St. Petersburg made this new proposal for a "threesome" (lol) to Paris. "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X *The picture Malcolm X painted, is faaaaaar bigger than that.* If you're not careful, the entire apparatus steered by the global elites will have you hating the people who are being ideologically encircled and divided, _and loving the people who are doing the ideological encircling and dividing..._ *Follow such deceivers and dividers, at the own risk...* BECAUSE: And 1905 was also the final attempt *by Berlin* to save Great Britain from *its* "buck catcher"-role for the American Century. MORE than sufficient data in the below comments section. *In the end, all lost, and became "poodles" of the American Century. I'm sure, they were very sad...* Read the theory, and try to counter it. I do not need MORE evidence, *for* the theory. Strangely enough, just like the Bible which started off with a few simple commandments, ended up as a multi-chapter book, because some people do not understand the *"meaning of words,"* this comment is getting longer and longer and looooonger... Choose "newest comment first", and please read the below essay called "THE IMPACT OF IDEOLOGY ON HISTORY", and then the entire thread of interlinked essays below that, all connected by a common aim: *do not bow down to ANY man-made system.* Create a balance of all powers, on all tiers of human cooperation.

Throughout the annals of history, Europe has been a continent marked by incessant conflict, where nations have repeatedly clashed, driven by deep-seated enmities and long-standing rivalries. For centuries, these European powers nurtured a legacy of mistrust and jealousy, each one wary of the ambitions of the other. The intricate web of alliances and hostilities that defined European diplomacy was a reflection of this pervasive atmosphere of suspicion. As time progressed, the rise of new industries and advancements in technology empowered these nations to muster even larger armies, equipped with ever more devastating weapons. The industrial revolution not only fueled economic competition but also transformed the nature of warfare, enabling governments to field forces capable of unprecedented destruction. This newfound power did not bring peace but rather intensified the competition among European states. The desire to expand influence, secure resources, and assert dominance on the global stage grew stronger, leading to a volatile environment where the spectre of war loomed ever larger. The drive to extend their reach beyond Europe, into distant lands, became a natural extension of their continental ambitions. In this crucible of competition and mistrust, the seeds of even greater conflicts were sown, as each nation sought to carve out its place in an increasingly interconnected and contentious world. Then, suddenly, America appears on the scene, and we are expected to believe that the chaos was solely its fault? In reality, Europe was simply a train wreck waiting to happen - barrelling down the tracks with the end of the line in plain view, yet refusing to slow down. Attempting to blame America overlooks the fact that Europe was already hell bent on a collision course with disaster, born from centuries of rivalry and unchecked ambition. Someone was inevitably going to be around to pick up the pieces.

THE IMPACT OF IDEOLOGY ON HISTORY Below, we witness the speech by an ideologue Roosevelt, looking for potential "buck catchers". Introducing it does not counter the theory, but intends to distract *from* it...the Red Herring. Just like the new attempt above is another straw man. The theory does NOT state that America *caused* (a defined concept that is sneakily introduced as "straw man" by @Bolivar) Europe's long-standing differences, many leading to wars. So: *Suddenly, after ages of wars, "America appears on the scene" and uses the divide-and-rule technique of power.* Washington DC threw their weight behind one side of a thousand year struggle (France vs. the Holy Roman Empire, with interchangeable terminology) and in the end France "won" proudly strutting around like a peacock... There...fixed it. Just like Roosevelt's speech informed the public of where divide-and-rule was going to be practiced, because it was of course *co-written by strategists* from the State Department ("think tanks"). Doesn't impress me at all. They simply inform the public where they are going to meddle next, with expansive aims. *Another attempt by @Bolivar to weaken the theory, actually strengthens it, by supplying MORE supporting evidence FOR the theory.* Me: 😂🤣 Search the term ideology in a dictionary. It is a noun, and a defined term. *Fact: No human system, or man-made system, can escape the definition or the "meaning of words".* Beware of those people who want to change the meaning of words. They WILL deceive you. An ideology is a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. Like the ideology of democracy. YES, believe it or not, what YOU believe in is an ideology. Similar to this concept of "ideology" are systems of beliefs, systems of ideas, and systems of ideals. *In order to break out of the theory level of things, towards a real existing form of POWER, all of these ideas need "dumb, stupid animals" as tools (quote Henry Kissinger).* They need you, yes YOU, to lie and kill so they can steal in the background, and YOU yes "you" reading this, are not better than anybody else on this planet lying and killing for an ideology, if you _also_ lie, and kill for an ideology. These dumbed down masses of the ideologically indoctrinated reveal themselves by the way they speak. They are ALL the tools, of others. These power players preach from their "boxes" called "TV" and millions bow down to them, and these power players have deceived millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology, and become ideologically indoctrinated warriors. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Why "Iraq" had to be destroyed after 2000, is explained in an essay in the below comments section, like waaaaaay down: the "nutshell" version is that Baghdad could not be CONTROLLED, and if these ideologues cannot CONTROL a region of the planet, they would rather see it destroyed. They have you chanting "Oh, it's all about oil", but that is only partially true. TODAY *Millions look at such deaths for ideological expansion, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives. Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders. The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send soldiers to kill for, is democracy in marriage with corporatism, and the slogan they have chanted since World War 1 is "Make the world safe for democracy".* _Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", because it results in endless cycles of causal effects, but their leaders call upon them to kill to spread democracy._ One of them, must be wrong. *When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.* -------------------------------------------------- With regards to the speech by Roosevelt in 1942 and the words used by a politician. Here is my assessment: "Sniff, sniff...how moving. A "list". How impressive." GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS The propagandist (role in strategy) hasn't realized that the names of the tribes in the speech are interchangeable. The ONLY thing it depends on is which "side" these tribes which are listed (groups) support. *The dividers/encirclers.* *Or the divided/encircled.* NOTHING ELSE The moral apostle, will happily watch on as millions of these "brave Chinese youth" (see politician's speech/role in strategy) get killed tomorrow, and not even bat an eye. *Those implementing their ideologies will happily sacrifice millions of Chinese, now "rebranded" as Taiwanese, as "investment material" (Quote Rep. Crenshaw) and cheer them on like a football team, and all they need as justification are a few man-made scraps of paper to overrule the moral compass:* as long as the systemic overlords gain big time "investing" in millions of deaths, and calling it the "acme of professionalism" (Gen. Kellogg) these moral apostles will press any button, or pull any trigger, just following orders, and they will proudly do so... With regards to other "rebranded" tribes. The rebranded "Russians" after the Cold War, after the 1990s these were the "Ukrainian tribe, on OUR side now". Of course, the ideologically indoctrinated would have gladly nuked these Ukrainians during the Cold War, and all it depended on was who they supported, in order to be termed "good" or "bad" (Fun fact, if they were Not-sees, they were "good", as long as they fought commies...weird). _As long as they die for the favoured ideology, and the own gains, either personally or systemically, these moral apostles don't care._ *No amount of logic and reason has ever convinced such "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbing, carnivorous" enablers and tools.* They ONLY respond to the facts which favor the ideology of the encirclers, and the dividers, those who fight and die for an IMbalance of power which can be gained from, and have systemically always done so. See the below comments section. *Do you notice what they ignore, or suddenly don't have ANY "opinion" about?* Weird how they have opinions about EVERYTHING, but when it comes to the own ideology killing, poisoning, and making millions over millions homeless and turning millions more into refugees, they suddenly turn into "finger pointing" stuttering dumbasses... They don't understand the concept of *"shove **_your_** favourite ideology up where it belongs",* because they are poor little snowflakes, indoctrinated ideologues from youth onwards, and therefore easily deceived. They don't understand the concept that not everybody bows down to man-made system, and that upsets the b00tlickers deeply. NOT bowing down to ANY man-made system, is my prerogative and the overlords don't own me, and I don't owe any overlords anything.

If you have any doubt as to what the decent youth of Europe think about the false promises the Axis masters make to the young people of the world, look to the brave young men of France and all the occupied countries who prefer to face the firing squad rather than a lifetime of slavery and degradation under Hitler. In such unfortunate countries as Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania and Italy, whose Governments have found it necessary to submit to Hitler and do his bidding, the Quislings have organized youth movements too but these are only movements of youth by the tens of thousands to the slaughter of the Eastern front, where the Nazis need cannon-fodder in their desperate attempts to shatter the stalwart Russian Army. In China, heroic youth has stood steadfast for more than five years against all of Japan's attempts to seduce and disarm them with such transparent lies as the promise of "Asia for the Asiatics." For the Chinese know that this only means "All of creation enslaved by the Japanese." [...] Before the first World War, very few people in any country believed that youth had the right to speak for itself as a group or to participate in councils of State. We have learned much since then. We know that wisdom does not come necessarily with years; that old men may be foolish, and young men may be wise. But in every war, it is the younger generation which bears the burden of combat and inherits all the ills that war leaves in its wake. In the economic crises that followed the false prosperity after the first World War, many young men and women suffered even more than did their elders. For they were denied the primary opportunities for education, for training, for work, or even for food enough to build up healthy bodies. As a result, they were tempted to seek some simple remedy not only for their own individual problems, but for all the problems that beset the world. Some listened to alien, siren voices which offered glib answers to all the questions. "Democracy is dead," said these voices. "Follow us, and we will teach you efficiency. We will lead you to world conquest. We will give you power over inferior races. And all that we ask you to give in return is-your freedom." Other young people in the democracies listened to gospels of despair. They took refuge in cynicism and bitterness. However, the day finally came when all theory had to give way to fact-the terrible, tangible fact of dive bombers, panzer divisions, the actual threat to the security of every home and every family in every free country in the world. And when that fact became clear to our youth they answered the call to arms-many millions of them; and, today, they are determined to fight until the forces of aggression have been utterly destroyed. [...] In the concept of the Four Freedoms, in the basic principles of the Atlantic Charter, we have set for ourselves high goals, unlimited objectives. [...] _We have profited by our past mistakes. This time we shall know how to make full use of victory. This time the achievements of our fighting forces will not be thrown away by political cynicism and timidity and incompetence._ --- Franklin D Roosevelt, Broadcast to International Student Assembly, September 3, 1942

*The events later called WW1 & WW2 were a part of the same conflagration which started around the year 1900, with the naval powers encircling their continental neighbours.* For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used by Washington DC was the same, which is to make use of existing divisions. An ACTIVE means, of making use of such divisions, is known as the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy. A proactive means to further own interests at the expense of others, is to favor some (increasing the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decreasing the power of the snubbed). *For the ACTIVELY ENGAGED "divider"* the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division *for* the higher power, are not important. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. As an example of such "99% ancillary details, we can refer to any speech, by any politician ever. Empty words, directed at the listeners limbic brain system. See above speech. BECAUSE..it doesn't matter _how_ division is implemented, or _how_ existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware _that_ they are aiding division: what matters *is* _that_ it is implemented. For the divider it is not important _why_ the tools cooperate, but the fact _that_ the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere. _Why_ and _that_ are different premises... *The empire in search of gain disguised by the "only interests"-narrative, does not care about the **_"why" or "what" you think is "true"..._* The conflagration unfolding after 1914 was another European 30 years war (with a 20-year break in between) and had virtually the same powers set up against each other, with a few exceptions (Japan and Italy as newbies or "turncoats"). Details are not important. They are the "99%" of history, which bear no impact on HOW events unfolded. The powers set up thus were: 1) the naval powers (Great Britain/USA) with their continental "buck catchers" (like France after 1904, and Russia after 1907, for example). against: 2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and kept from reaching sufficient spheres of influence to grow, by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy started as premeditated action by the naval powers around 1900. In case anybody doubts the validity of the above assessment I suggest a "map", which is a primary source of information more valuable than words spoken by another human being, prone to lies and deception. This setup continued after WW1, with the only change being that instead of a small number of large "encirclers," (pre-1914) there were now a large number of small "encirclers" (post-1919). The end effect of the setup of 1) and 2) was that Western- and Central Europe were virtually destroyed as centers of power, *and the USA then used the effect to grind the British Empire into a more manageable "junior partner"-status by use of a premeditated strategy planned after 1940,* just after the start of the "second round" of this conflagration. Or as Ricky Gervais would quip, "kick the midget British Empire" in the "bollocks" because after WW2 London was so weak that it could not forge a useful "pattern of relations" (George Kennan, see below) to fight back, and save its own markets from their "best friends". After 1945 the USA used its own might as "hammer" and the might of the SU/USSR as an anvil (grand strategy/geopolitics). Stalin (Moscow) of course, smelling the weakness of the British Empire, and the other remaining European states' weaknesses, happily obliged to this "anvil status" in grand strategy after WW2, overtly proclaimed with the Truman Doctrine, after it was covertly planned following the defeat of France (1940 strategy papers). Stalin tore up the Percentage Agreement, which the Empire desperately needed as markets to recover from WW2. If one has failed to engineer a just global balance of power in a timely fashion, but rather has narcissistic and self-centred imperialist aims and goals, then THIS happens: "What actually occurred was that Britain and other countries became hopelessly indebted to the United States once again (edit: during World War 2) ... “We have profited by our past mistakes,” announced Roosevelt in a speech delivered on September 3, 1942. *“This time we shall know how to make full use of victory.”* This time the U.S. Government would conquer its allies in a more enlightened manner, by demanding economic concessions of a legal and political nature instead of futilely seeking repayment of its wartime loans (of World War 1). The new postwar strategy sought and secured foreign markets for U.S. exports, and new fields for American investment capital in Europe’s raw materials producing colonial areas. Despite Roosevelt’s assurances to the contrary, Britain was compelled, under the Lend-Lease agreements and the terms of the first great U.S. postwar loan to Britain, to relinquish Empire Preference and to open all its markets to U.S. competition, at a time when Britain desperately needed these markets as a means by which to fund its sterling debt. Most important of all, Britain was forced to unblock its sterling and foreign-exchange balances built up by its colonies and other Sterling Area countries during the wartime years. Instead of the Allied Powers as a whole bearing the costs of these wartime credits to British Empire countries, they would be borne by Britain itself. Equally important, they would not be used as “blocked” balances that could be used only to buy British or other Sterling Area exports, but would be freed to purchase exports from any nation. Under postwar conditions this meant that they would be used in large part to purchase U.S. exports. (page 115/116) By relinquishing its right to block these balances, Britain gave up its option, while enabling the United States to make full use of its gold stock as the basis for postwar lending to purchased generalized (primarily U.S.) exports. At a stroke, Britain’s economic power was broken. What Germany as foe had been unable to accomplish in two wars against Britain, the United States accomplished with ease as its ally.(Page 117) Furthermore, under the terms on which it joined the International Monetary Fund, Britain could not devalue the pound sterling so as to dissipate the foreign-exchange value of these balances. Its liability thus was maximized - and so was America’s gain from the pool of liquidity that these balances now represented." SOURCE: "Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire," 2nd edition 2003. Hudson gives a perfect description of the "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy, as performed on a weakened own friend when the time was ripe for the pushover... *No markets = no trade = no money = no power = no influence = no Empire.* If one no longer is the "balancer of powers," one is no longer the arbiter of power. When Europe failed, as all states fought to mutual exhaustion, who gained most? *Only ONE attribute decides whether a system is THE DIVIDER, or becomes a part of "the divided": POWER.* _After 1945 London was turned from its role of "divider of the world" into the role of "one of the divided"._ The role of FAVORITE junior partner, the "peaceful handover of power" and related "special relationship"-narrative. _London went from chief divider of the world to "chief of the divided" in less than a quarter of a century._ London poured their division upon the planet, incl. their neighbours, waging the finger and exposing every weakness, in search of alignments for own gain, however carefully hidden. But in the town of Washington DC today, it is well-known that their (economically) fat and (systemically) psychopathic "saviours" economically thrashed London in their hour of weakness after 1945, to within inches of their (colonial) lives, and took their beautiful Empire away from them. Inspired by "The Wall/Pink Floyd": Take out one "brick" at a time, hoping the "bricks" won't notice how the entire entity is weakened... Thus, they pulled the bricks out of the wall of European strength, until it collapsed. And that collapse included London, and their Empire, not altruistically but the causal effect of London's wish to CONTROL or dominate their neighbors.* Their own failure came about as an effect of their own inbuilt systemic greed and individual stupidity.

If you need the specific data, links to the sources, the names of the US strategy papers, etc. just ask. In 200 or 300 years (in case the planet still exists) analysts will view WW1 and WW2 in a completely different light, because they will no longer be emotionally attached to the specific events, and all the minor details will fade away. That means the systemic analyses will gain traction, and in the same way we analyze the 30 Years War from 1618 to 1648 (a series of worldwide conflicts as global conflagration), the Seven Years War from 1756 to 1763 (series of conflicts as global conflagration) and the series of wars now known as the Napoleonic Wars from 1803 to 1815 (as global conflagration), because nobody looks at these events with an emotional attachment anymore. That means the systems and strategies they employed steering these events move into the foreground, where they belong. Most people have absolutely no idea of any specifics of these wars, since they simply don't care. This will happen to WW1 and WW2 over the next few dozens of years, as the specifics fade away into the background. WW1 was a breakout attempt out of an implemented imperialist encirclement attempt after 1900. Per definition, a "preventive war." How do we as historical analysts know for a fact that it was an encirclement strategy? Because it can be plotted on a map (1891-1894, 1904, 1907), and we therefore do not need any expertise from others. Note that during the first encirclement stage (1891-1894) Berlin was being lured by the potential of an Anglo-German Alliance, with talks. Only to be told in 1895 that London wasn't interested anymore, just after the encirclement by Russia and France was finalized. Three years later (1898), the Lords were back, asking for "alliance talks" again... Berlin: "Yeah, right...whatever. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Unlike George Bush, I think I got that right... WW2 was a pre-pre-preventive war, in order to *prevent* the future encirclement of Germany, and the foreseeable and anticipated breakup of the Axis per wedge-diplomacy, whenever it suited London in some foreseeable future (standpoint of the mid-1930s). London was dragging along a weakened France (after 1871) which was its "continental army" (quote: Wilhelm II) within the "divide and rule"-setup of Europe. For a renewed total encirclement of Germany as happened before 1914, and all that was needed for that to proceed by London, was a German growth in economic power after the 1930s, as a repeat of history in the late-19th century.

For Asians, because Europeans are a lost cause: To counter an outsider's attempts of creating division, as per "divide and rule"-strategy, it needs leaders with foresight who unite in times of peace, and do not try to impose themselves (systemically) over their neighbours. The desired outcome for the dividers, is that those encircled, will "shoot first" so they have an excuse to "just shoot back", and the enraged own tools then willingly follow the various tools, and they are ALL tools... They WANT "history to rhyme" so they can gain again. "BALANCE OF POWER, a phrase in international law for such a “just equilibrium” between the members of the family of nations as should prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon the rest. The principle involved in this, as Hume pointed out in his Essay on the Balance of Power, is as old as history, and was perfectly familiar to the ancients both as political theorists and as practical statesmen. *In its essence it is no more than a precept of common-sense born of experience and the instinct of self-preservation; for, as Polybius very clearly puts it (lib. i. cap. 83): “Nor is such a principle to be despised, nor should so great a power be allowed to any one as to make it impossible for you afterwards to dispute with him on equal terms concerning your manifest rights.”* (Wiki, similar Britannica, etc.) A "balance of power"-logic, has NOTHING to do with imperialism or the creation of enemies, but to create the power to be able to guard own interest and to secure the manifest rights of the own populations against the greed of outsiders.. It is the exact opposite. Create a just balance of all powers, if not, suffer the consequences.

More gish gallop below... This time there will be no response. Growing up in a *divide-and-rule world,* I became used to it, even though did not know what these "finger pointers" were experiencing at the time. Since I could observe the effects, I resolved to figure out how large groups of people deal with *disturbing information* they could not cope with, and they cannot counter with the scientific method. They burried it. "The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.[1]" en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Skip the gish gallop. @Bolivar is trying to bury discomfort under a torrent of words. ‐------------------------ Because, as can be qualified by reading the below comments section, his state/nation has never fought anybody the own lordships had not previously created FIRST with the own policies. *That includes the current riots in GB: a long term causal effect of own wars.* It does not matter how much, or how often, you "...but, but, but finger point" around. The own dear lords and and their capitalist/corporatism means and ways, employing little minions as proxies, and their attempts to CONTROL everything to their own advantage, finally engineered their own defeat. *And they did it all by themselves. Nobody put a gun on their chests, and the intention to "sit on the fence" (strategy) while all other Europeans fought to extend themselves or end up exhausted on the other side of the English Channel, leaving them to swoop in and skim off the gains, simply failed.* Take for example, Korea... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Korea ...from a looooong list of nations simply carved by foreign imperialists drawing lines on the map. The apologetics for such top-down implementation of decisions without asking those affected *by* these decisions, doesn't figure in. Imperialism is *always* apologized for as "my poor little leaders, just wanting the best for everybody..." (Guideline for moral action = Golden Rule, leading to the suggested guideline for debate: never engage in debate with anybody without a clear moral standpoint) Your people (as a collective) never protected anyone else on the planet unless it was useful to the own expansion or own interests. Your nation (collective) never defended anybody unless it served the own beneficial purpose. Your lordships never created states by drawing lines on the map, or introduced humanitarian improvements anywhere on the planet, unless it was also FIRST useful for the own gain. It does not matter what YOU have been led to believe is your "history," how you choose to distort narratives by skewing the timeline, or simply ....ooooops "forgetting" to add vital data. So, again, *you (today/personally),* your family, your ancestors never fought anybody your lordships did not greatly aid in setting up FIRST. Never fought any war these overlords did not lay the foundation for FIRST. And that incl. socialism which originated in the 19th Century as a bottom up movement DUE TO the observed globally operating systems of gain, power, and inhumane exploitation generally and collective falling under the terms imperialism/colonialism in conjunction with capitalism (incl. but not limited to, your very own British Empire which also practiced it). Even the slowly emerging forces of socialism/communism was an effect of previous wrongful OWN deeds, too numerous to mention, and therefore socialism/communism was NOT a "cause." All the terrorists your system historically fought, did not suddenly appear out of the blue, because nobody wakes up one morning, with sudden aspirations of becoming a career terrorist. Name me ONE terrorist organization, that was not created out of OWN previous meddling or imperialist actions? Name just ONE thing the people around you are not constantly whining about (refugees, migrant crises, invasive government, divisive politicians) that was not caused by your own leaders? Just ONE.

The notion that monarchical principles justify interference in the affairs of other nations requires scrutiny. Historically, European monarchs and ruling elites formed an "in-group" that used the concept of maintaining the balance of power and preserving the Holy Roman Empire to justify their interventions. However, this rationale was more about protecting their own interests than any universal right or principle. Concepts such as the "Holy Roman Empire" frequently took a back seat when it conflicted with issues of self-interest. These interventions were driven by the monarchs' desire to preserve their own power and prevent revolutionary changes that could undermine their authority. This "in-group" worked to uphold a system that benefited their continued rule, frequently at the expense of emerging democratic movements and national sovereignty. Being "an accident of birth" in one nation grants no inherent legal or moral rights to interfere in the affairs of any other nation, nor does it grant any special dispensation when visiting organised violence on another nation.

"Compared to Franklin, Adams held a distinctly pessimistic view of the Franco-American alliance. Adams believed the French to be involved only for their own self-interest, and he grew frustrated by what he perceived to be lethargy in providing substantial aid to the U.S. "It is interest alone which does it," he said, "and it is interest alone which can be trusted." Adams wrote that the French meant to keep their hands "above our chin to prevent us from drowning, but not to lift our heads out of water." His straightforward manner eventually led to a collision with Vergennes." He was right. Self interest was absolutely paramount from the French perspective, and would remain so.

Why did so many Europeans choose to leave Europe and move to America? Many Europeans left their homelands to escape religious persecution, like the Pilgrims and Puritans, who sought a place where they could practice their faith freely without interference from state churches. America also promised the chance to own land and improve one’s economic situation. For those from overcrowded and economically struggling regions, the New World offered fertile land and fresh opportunities in farming, trade, and craftsmanship. Life in Europe was often marked by poverty, famine, and social unrest. America represented a chance to escape these hardships and start anew in a land full of possibilities. Additionally, many were drawn by the opportunity to escape the rigid class systems and authoritarian governments of Europe. Some came as part of European efforts to establish colonies, while others were simply enticed by the lure of adventure in uncharted territories. Ultimately, the vast majority moved to America to escape the inequities, troubles, and strife of the Old World, not to bring them with them. Given the chance to start afresh in a new country with a new constitution, why on earth would anyone in their right mind choose to implement or mimic the very systems they had sought to escape?

"Second, to fully realize its potential, the country had to be unified around a common civic identity that would prevent outside powers from meddling in and manipulating its internal political, regional, and sectional rivalries." - Herr von Bernhard Poor Poland tried to implement such reforms. They were crushed and erased by the glorious "Monarchic Principles" of The Three Eagles (or is it Vultures?).

Why was Germany's Monarchic system better than the system America created, Herr von Bernhard?

"EDIT: HINT, HINT, HINT, HINT, HINT, COUGH, COUGH, COUGH...: THE "MAIDAN"-STYLE REVOLUTIONARY TRAINING EXPERTS HANDING OUT COOKIES, GET IT?" OK, Herr von Bernhard. How does the French Revolution start? Let's test your knowledge. What part does America play in the outbreak of the French Revolution, outside of simply existing [**]? The French Revolution set out to create a new "America" for themselves? They looked at America, decided they liked that, and so set out to create a French version of America, instructed of course by the American's themselves? Nice story. Except for one thing. It's wrong. They set out to follow a British model. The Americans, of course, had rejected that model. I guess you forgot that part? [** Because here's another "shocker" for you. The French Revolution happens whether America wins the revolutionary war or not. It doesn't matter whether America emerges as a nation, whether they return to being the 13 colonies, or whether they are simply "wiped from ze map", Bernhard style. America is simply irrelevant. The French Revolution was driven by entirely by internal dynamics and political considerations. It arose from a, really quite bizarre, set of circumstances that were essentially cemented in place the moment France took out loans to go fight the British.**] Edit : ** ... and failed to secure a complete and decisive enough victory to push through the territorial acquisitions they wished to impose on Britain.

Huw Edwards the nonce, spoils this documentary.

For what it's worth... The relevant lines will be highlighted. TO REPEAT, even though already posted previously, waaaaay down in the comments section: ------US opinions and views of "old Europe" (the Old World vs. New World) were of course shaped long before WW1, and go far deeper than the superficially interesting events shown to us here re. Wilhelm's court. Interesting, but not profound. Having already observed "old Europe" in their ways during the "first global war" (aka "Seven Years War", _ which was also fought in North America)_ widespread US opinions and analyses alike would simply be affirmed again and again. Regarding GB, obviously in terms of the recent relevant past (aka "living history" for those living it): *"In March 1786 Jefferson joined Adams in London* on several items of official business and came away with all his prejudices against the “rich, proud, hectoring, swearing, squibbing, carnivorous” (aka imperialism/colonialism) English nation confirmed. Carried to court by his friend, who had been cordially received a year before, Jefferson was snubbed and humiliated by George III. Nor did he find much friendliness anywhere. “That nation hates us,” he concluded, “their ministers hate us, and their king more than all other men.” ...In February 1788, Adams sailed for home (edit: from Europe). For Jefferson, as he wrote to Abigail (in private, and in French I believe), it was the end of an epoch. It was the end of one epoch and the beginning of another in Europe too. The continent was turbulent from the Black Sea to the North. The Russians and the Turks were at war. *In Holland, a bourgeois democratic revolution had been defeated and its leaders, **_who had been instructed in the American Revolution by John Adams,_** (EDIT: HINT, HINT, HINT, HINT, HINT, COUGH, COUGH, COUGH...: THE "MAIDAN"-STYLE REVOLUTIONARY TRAINING EXPERTS HANDING OUT COOKIES, GET IT?)* were cruelly suppressed or driven into exile by the Stadtholder, William V, Prince of Orange, in league with the old oligarchs and with the intervention of Britain and Prussia (edit: the monarchical principle of keeping the Holy Roman Empire, therefore the European balance of power, intact by suppressing such revolutions). Adams and Jefferson agonized for the *Dutch Patriots,* (edit: HINT, HINT, HINT, COUGH, COUGH, COUGH, the _"freedom fighters not terrorist"-narrative,_ cos they are OUR "trained terrorists") but felt that they had been betrayed by their own excesses as well as by their Bourbon ally. The fact that France (Edit: HINT, HINT, HINT, The "Pistol pointing at the Heart of England"-narrative COUGH, COUGH, COUGH), pledged to the Patriots, had not lifted a finger in their support offered a melancholy lesson for the United States. “In fact,” Jefferson wrote to his friend, “what a crowd of lessons do the present miseries of Holland teach us. Never to have an hereditary officer of any sort; never to let a citizen ally himself with kings; never to call in foreign nations to settle domestic differences; never to suppose that any nation will expose itself to war for us, etc.”* (from ugapress manifoldapp) *Me: "etc." :-)* _Edit: I'm sure they were very disappointed by the trainees, same as Georgia so far (since the year 2000, see below comments section)._ Re "etc.", it was at least partly clarified: "... the proud wave of democracy was spreading and swelling and rolling, not only through that kingdom, but into England, Holland, Geneva, and Switzerland, and, indeed, threatening an inundation over all Europe.” While in spirit on the side of the )HINT, HINT, COUGH, COUGH) *"reformers,* Adams was skeptical of their success and of one thing was absolutely sure: (HINT, HINT, HINT, HINT, COUGH, COUGH, COUGH...) *“that if they aimed at any constitution more popular than the English, they would ruin themselves, after setting Europe on fire and shedding oceans of blood.”* (HINT, HINT: The evolving violence from the "revolutionary spirit", same as the 1980s in Yugoslavia, which could always be exploited in a divide-and-rule strategy of power). Edit: Of course, should revolutionary France and revolutionary Holland unite, that would CONSTITUTE, note the definition of the word, the "pistol pointing at the heart of England", about which there are two or three other essays down in this comments section. Such a constituted reality, would not please the London lords at all, and it could be expected that (HINT, HINT, HINT, HINT, HINT, COUGH, COUGH, COUGH...) *“the English, they would ruin themselves, after setting Europe on fire and shedding oceans of blood.”* Set Europe alight, by proxy... To continue: ... *And of course, in grand strategy and geopolitics should "old Europe" ever fail...* At the time these thoughts were written down by a few influential individuals, the USA was weak and insecure, a victim of constant wars herself, on the "dole" of old world money lenders, and intent on breaking free. "He (Adams) no longer spoke of France as “our natural ally,” Britain as “our natural enemy,” her friendship “lost forever” - his habitual language during the war - but argued that it had never been America’s interest to injure Britain more than necessary to secure independence and that the old friendship should now be restored as a means both of countering French influence and of securing American trade and prosperity. This, he said, not the French alliance, was “the cornerstone of the true American system of politics in Europe.” (all quotes from ugapress manifoldapp) Friends one day, rivals the next. No eternal friends. No eternal enemies. Only interests. Where have I heard that one before? The only thing that mattered in terms of implementation was power and leverage, and time would provide these. The article offers an interesting read, and offers a glimpse regarding the divisions within Washington DC, *and of course how the strategists intended to use the divisions within "old Europe" to their own advantage.* END OF *One thing one realizes when engaging with people, is that they either CANNOT understand something (lack of skill), or they do nor WANT to understanding something explained to them (ideological blindness, like idealism), which is ALL related to how divide-and-rule works. Dozens of such cases are mentioned in different essays in the below comments section, which are ALL interlinked, and have the same theme.* It is about how POWERS exploit the revolutionary spirit to implement the divide-and-rule strategy of power onto others, whilst inoculating themselves against it. They "do to others" but want to avoid "getting done unto." INOCULATION OF THE OWN SYSTEM 1) "Second, to fully realize its potential, the country had to be unified around a common civic identity that would prevent outside powers from meddling in and manipulating its internal political, regional, and sectional rivalries." and "Washington was conscious of the dangers that political parties and partisanship posed to the young republic by amplifying private interests and passions." and "...his views on the importance of national unity for a non-aligned, sovereign republic mostly reflected the positions of the new Federalist Party ..." Although it does not specifically mention "divide and rule" it seems clear that strategists understood that countries had to be "inoculated" against foreign attempts to split the nation, by forging a particular identity, and avoiding European powers from using "favoratism" to create disunity by appealing to the ambitions or greed of individual US political actors or groups of citizens. 2) The US elites, “...a globalist, internationalist, and activist mindset could irreparably damage a republic by transforming it into an empire that routinely disregards the interests of its own citizenry for the aggrandizement of its courtier class.” (please copy/paste and search entire article) According to the authors, that is indeed what happened, and I would state is has a long history. Around the year 1900 when the USA started on its journey of global imperialism by declaring war on Spain. This war was of course not vital to the existence of the USA since Spain posed no existential threat to the USA, and the USA was already secure "with weak neighbors North and South and fish on both sides" (Bismarck), so the war can be termed a "war of choice" for Washington DC with the intent of territorial expansion towards China/East Asia. The "marching route" of the "empire". Excuses were made "Gulf of Tonkin" and "WMD"-style as cover story for the masses and the ...HINT, HINT..."dumb, stupid animals"... Now, ad all the other essays to this data. For example, the essay starting, "The Democratic Paradox: Dutch Revolutionary Struggles over Democratisation and Centralisation (1780-1813) / De democratische paradoxDe Nederlandse revolutionaire strijd over democratisering en centralisatie (1780-1813)(met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) by Thomas Poel" regarding the chaos of the revolutionary spirit from 1780-1813, as was also the case in Yugoslavia during the entire 1980s, and was equally exploited by the USA/collective West which feared that Yugoslavia would gravitate towards Moscow (per "strategy paper 131"-something or other, I'm to lazy to google everything again). Note, that in dozens of exchanges so far, the debaters actually acknowledged that they DID "get" that it constitutes a "template" of history, which can be juxtaposed onto various similar events. Many "get it" which pleases me greatly, and encourages me to carry on. *To repeat: One thing one realizes when engaging with people, they either CANNOT understand something (lack of skill), or they do nor WANT to understanding something explained to them (ideological blindness), which is ALL related to how divide-and-rule works.* Dozens of such cases are mentioned in different essays in the below comments section, which are ALL interlinked, and have the same theme.

Herr von Bernhard, You claim that the United States, following its founding in 1776, sought to solve its "problem" of size and power by fomenting the Napoleonic Wars in Europe to facilitate its expansion in North America. Are you referring specifically to the Napoleonic Wars or are you also referring to the Revolutionary Wars? The Napoleonic Wars occurred decades later and were rooted in European internal dynamics, so how do you substantiate this claim? Can you provide your specific historical evidence or reasoning that directly connects US actions during the late 18th century to the origins of either the Revolutionary or Napoleonic Wars?

@Tracy Thank you for your kind words. Are you from China? In case you are, and you decide to come here, IMO the people from China should be proud of their own names, and not use these "westernized" ones to communicate. The essay about how history doesn't have a start or stop, and isn't about good or bad people fighting eternal wars, has been swiped. I'll try to repost it here. rgds

Because if one is waaaaaaaay ahead of the curve, like 200 years ahead of the "curve", one already does the global analysis of history. *ideology* Source: Dictionary noun 1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. "the ideology of democracy" Similar: beliefs, ideas, ideals This "box" called "TV" billions bow down to, has got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives in sinecure comfort... Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders who appear to them in these "boxes". The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should sent "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) to kill for, is democracy in colusion with corporatism, and the slogan they chant is "Make the world safe for democracy". Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders constantly lie and call upon them to kill to spread democracy. One ideal, must be wrong. When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature. Spot the *pattern* of all those stories. 1. Every event contributing to a single hegemony on North America, as single hegemony, "fish on both sides" _is opportunistically spun to become good deeds_ or "it turned out cool" a hundred years later, or whatever. It doesn't matter how may lied, how many died, or how much was stolen. 2. Every event trying to contribute to balancing that resulting power out, is spun to become bad deeds, or naïve, or whatever, *regardless* of whether these were acts of peace or war. Suddenly, it matters how may lied, how many died, or how much was stolen. Like I said: My eyes are on Asia. I do not care about stupid people in large hordes, surrounding me in Europe now, never mind what "tune" they sing and dance to. *Asia must prepare itself for a similar "template" of stories (as 2.) directed at their populations. The collective West's populations too, see 1. and 2., with regards to how the mainstream in the Anglo-saxon influenced USA/collective West is going to write history, for "their people", who of course, are always on the "right side of history."* "Poor little us. No ulterior motives." It IS just like that, so don't argue. A culture of secrecy, a culture corruption, a culture of impunity, a culture of aloofness and a sense of superiority is systemic and incapable of change until it is the proverbial shtf moment. "The measure of intelligence is the ability to change." - Albert Einstein My advice to Asians. THEY. WILL. NEVER. CHANGE. (in pursuit of their "happiness" as "skimming off 50% of the world's wealth as default right, or the own manifest destiny, see footnote) *Therefore, balance "them" out, and create your own version of the "single front door", if not, you will lose again (just like 200 years ago, see below comments section).* The snakes WILL come back, to avoid the single hegemony/alliance/understanding, or whatever form of unity you will try to establish your own manifest rights. Footnote: "In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population ...Our real task in the coming period is to develop *a pattern , of relationships* that allow us to maintain this position of inequality." Obviously, simple math means that it left the rest of the world (around 94%) to somehow get along with the rest left over. To have considered that as even remotely fair, regardless of any other circumstances, speaks volumes. Today it is still roughly 30% in the hands of 4% of the global population. Again, silence on this speaks volumes. How were, and are the 1%-ters in the West and their international friends (global elites/globalists) going to ensure that this desirable and ADMITTED *"inequality"* and dollar disparity continues. *THAT is the question which SIR Bolivar is trying to deflect from, with endless cycles of bs.,* and which has been answered by me: with the divide and rule technique of top-down power, in efforts to split the main BRICS nations apart. The techniques are more than adequately explained, and can be observed. "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] *but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.* Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do." - Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order "They" on the rest of the planet have not forgotten. We (incl. me in Europe) have used our GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER to "reach" all other regions of the planet with "organized violence" for more than 200 years, without any fear of "them" ever being able to fight back.

Everybody's got a theory. I have a critical question. Here is an observation, actually corroborated by statistics covering the post-war years, as economic data, etc. from the 1940s to the 1990s... "In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of the population ...Our real task in the coming period is to develop *a pattern , of relationships* that allow us to maintain this position of inequality." Obviously, simple math means that it left the rest of the world (around 94%) to somehow get along with the rest left over. To have considered that as even remotely fair, regardless of any other circumstances, speaks volumes. They did not only provably WANT it, they also implemented it. How were, and are the 1%-ters in the "newly united West" (post-WW1/WW2) and their international friends (global elites/globalists) going to ensure that this desirable and ADMITTED *"inequality"* and dollar disparity continues? Answer: With the divide and rule technique of top-down power, in efforts to split the main BRICS nations apart. The techniques are more than adequately explained, and can be observed. It does not rely on another human being, prone to lying and deception, to convey what is happening today and what happened in the past... "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] *but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.* Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do." - Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order The rest of the planet has not forgotten. They have used a lucky GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION of POWER to "reach" all other regions of the planet with "organized violence" (a divide-and-rule strategy to keep others "down" in power) for more than 500 years, without any fear of "them" ever being able to fight back. In the same way Rome could "reach" Britain, by holding them "like midgets" against the forehead, and they could not fight back because Rome was simply too far away, the same became true in subsequent eras (see below comment section). Spain was too far away from South Americans (Incas/Aztecs) for those empires to "reach Spain" and fight back, but in reverse it was possible. Watch "Ricky Gervais on War, Racism and Stephen Hawking" on CZcams. *If a comedian can grasp the concept of having a geographical advantage of power, created by distance, without a single day at Westpoint, then so can you.*

Of course, the below "propaganda hitpiece" is just part of the the entire "propaganda 💩show" some people call "history." Of course, as stated already dozens of times, one cannot simply *pin a flag on a timeline, and say "history starts here, cos I like the "sound" of it.* Of course, the "historian" [😂😅] SIR Bolivar has already been informed of the background of the below essay and simply ignores that it was an expansionist France ("buck passer" in strategy), looking at nibbling bits off the Holy Roman Empire, and ... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolutionary_War ...was looking for a willing "buck catcher" in the crumbling Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The big issue for France was always Central European power, the fear of encirclement for itself (Spain), and the basis for almost 1,000 years of wars with constantly changing alliances... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Holy_Roman_Empire A strong resurging Poland in the late-18th century, after it had been "beaten down to size" previously, would have placed Prussia/Holy Roman Empire in the two-front war scenario, in such a "big picture" (grand strategy). The divide-and-rule strategy of "carving up Poland" by her *three* neighbors, as criticized so propagandistically below, is just that. A distortion of reality. The intention to fool by ideology of moral superiority, and "feelings" steered by the limbic brain. Such "history" then *already starts with misdirection, obfuscation, and half-truths as the default setting.* When it comes to such "historians" [🤣😅] it is always interesting to find out what their true nature is, by asking for an analysis of a similar strategic situation. For the USA, endagered by a potential two-front war by France allying with Mexico or the British Empire in North America, and how Washington DC ... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War ...then dealt with it. After their founding in 1776, the USA had a "little problem": size/power. Their leaders set out to solve the problem using violence and war, and by (still minor) acts of fomenting a war in Europe, the Napoleonic Wars, in which shadows they could expand in North America at the expense of neighbors. Longer essays explaining the details of how this "fomenting" in the form of the prototype Color Revolution (Holland) worked, in the below comments section. Another expansive aim was towards Mexico, which the later General Grant stated it reminded him in every way of what Europeans were doing in Europe. *Something extraordinary happened before that:* it was exactly these actions by "bad bad pwussia" [😂🤣] in which shadows the USA could successfully fight for its independence, for that is where Europe's focus was bound... Silence on the own use of violence/war, whilst criticizing violence/war, is how imperialists then expose themselves, also as already concluded, a long time ago. Do not argue with fools, they will drag you down...

"Something extraordinary had happened: in the course of the second and third Polish partitions, Frederick William II, perhaps the least impressive figure to have mounted the Prussian throne over the last century and a half, secured more territory for his kingdom than any other sovereign in his dynasty’s history. Prussia grew in size by about one third to cover over 300,000 square kilometres; its population swelled from 5.5 to around 8.7 million. With its objectives in the east more than fulfilled, Prussia lost no time in extracting itself from the anti-French coalition in the west, and signing a separate peace with France at Basle on 5 April 1795. Once again, the Prussians had left their allies in the lurch. The scribes and pamphleteers employed to produce Austrian propaganda dutifully thundered against this foul retreat from the common cause against France. Historians have often taken a similar line, denouncing the separate peace and the neutrality that followed as contemptible, ‘cowardly’, ‘suicidal’ and ‘pernicious’." Of course, such allegations of perfidy only make sense if you subscribe to the opinion that Prussia was engaged in some "national mission" for the good of Germany and the Germans. They weren't. Their actions should instead be viewed through the prism of self-interest. The terms of the Treaty of Basle were, on paper at least, highly favourable for a Prussia who had already secured extensive annexations in the East at Poland's expense. It secured a dominant position within the German Neutrality zone which, in the absence of a war with France, meant Prussia could focus it's attentions on asserting it's influence over the smaller German states within the zone, which it lost no time in doing. It also ensured that French aggression would be focused now on Austria, and that was perfectly in line with Prussian aims; there was more to 'neutrality' than just avoiding the fight with the French. So, the king could now sit safely inside his neutral zone, surveying his acquisitions, and looking smug... But, there's always a catch... "Prussia was now isolated. Over the past six years, it had allied itself with - and then abandoned - virtually every European power. The king’s known predilection for secret diplomacy and chaotic double-dealing left him a lonely and distrusted figure on the diplomatic scene. Experience would soon show that unless Prussia could count on the assistance of a great power in defending the German demarcation line, the neutrality zone was indefensible and therefore largely meaningless. An issue of longer-term significance was the disappearance of Poland from the European map. Even if we set aside the moral outrage committed against Poland by the partitioning powers, the fact remains that independent Poland had played a crucial role as a buffer and intermediary between the three eastern powers. Now that it no longer existed, Prussia shared, for the first time in its history, a long and indefensible border with Russia. From now on, the fortunes of Prussia would be inseparable from those of its vast and increasingly powerful eastern neighbour. By taking refuge in the north German neutrality zone agreed with the French at Basle in 1795, Berlin also signalled its utter indifference to the fate of the Holy Roman Empire [...]"

The below post. The above post... A snake. He knows fully well by now just how his eternal "forked tongued" leaders have treated Europe like a "chessboard" for their games, and he thinks "pointing fingers" can cover up deception. When Chief Joseph the Young pointed out how they were deceived by "forked tongues" he obviously recognized they had the wisdom to "see" but lacked the power to throw these "forked tongues" out of their territory (status quo/own lands/ sphere of influence). On the other side of the Atlantic, the leaders of Europe had the power, but lacked the wisdom to "see." Europe no longer interests me. My eyes are on Asia. I will observe, carefully, if they can "see." See the below comments section. More than adequately explained.

Are you attempting to find some exceptionalism somewhere, Herr von Bernhard? You seem to be determined in your attempt to demonstrate that certain nations behaved differently to others. Just how did Prussia emerge victorious from the great German d*ck measuring contest to secure their position as the biggest d*cks in Germany? Did they just follow your "2000 year old golden rule"? Were they just the nicest people in the neighbourhood? Were they just the popular kids that played nice with all the other boys and girls and shared all the toys? "Quack"? "We're special because geography"? Everybody has to deal with geography. Geography should dictate strategy. History, on the other hand, showed them to be no different and certainly no better than anyone else in their fight to secure dominance, so why should they be treated any different once they get there? Especially when they openly declare that the quest for power is not over. They definitely did not undergo a miraculous transformation into angels or saints that would make them worthy of any special consideration. You won't find any exceptionalism. Neither in America, nor in Prussia, nor in Germany. Nations have always been driven by self-interest.

The below of course, *is already the deception,* of imperialists and those who fund them, who don't understand the simple logic of *"go tf home then, and take all your systems of CONTROL with you."* They want to talk, and talk, and talk, and obfuscate, and a little bit more whatabout whatabout whatabout [fingers pointing] whilst they are vacuuming off the riches of the world themselves, systemically or personally as their "50% cut" (for a small minority, ruling by division) all nice and "moral", same as always... Follow such people, at own risk.

"@Bolivar has already admitted that all the "arguments" he presents are purely eristic and therefore baseless" Where? Quote please? Thank you.

"protected by a horde of apologists who suddenly don't understand defined words, like a "sphere of influence"" - Herr Ralph von Bernhard I am fully aware of what a "sphere of influence" is. The issue isn't my understanding; it's the absence of any legal or moral justification in your argument. I've repeatedly asked you to explain why you believe any nation has the right to impose its sphere of influence over another. Perhaps today will be the day you finally provide a satisfactory answer.

*Whilst growing up in South Africa, in the sinecure comfort of a divide-and-rule system, surrounded by the MSM news outlets informing me of terrorists and wars in the occupied territories (SWA, a WW1 mandate all decent and correct on paper) it didn't take me long to figure that "we" were creating "them."* Because of me, and what the ingroup ("us") did, we caused everything we were complaining about, by subjecting the outgroup a situation and to conditions we would never find acceptable, if put in exactly the same conditions. It was "us" (ingroup) and all the paid proxies aiding "us", which created "them" because we ignored the GOLDEN RULE. As soon as I reached the age of reason, read a few books uncovering the main lies (misdirection, half-truths, etc.), found out about strategies of power, like the benefit of paying proxies from a geopositional tier of power, *that "we" had made "them."* States are amoral, meaning neither moral nor immoral. Individuals are moral or immoral but sadly, in large ingroups, the group-think becomes self-centered, based on own interests. The "gardens" (quote Borrell) who think that they deserve the gardens, and therefore all other groups become the "jungles" in their collective hivemind. The outgroups do not deserve the GOLDEN RULE applied, and need to be kept down in power. I heard a lot of eristic "clutter" while I grew up: Blah blah "my country" [let's ignore the GOLDEN RULE], blah blah "our beautiful history of heroes" [let's ignore the GOLDEN RULE], blah blah blah lets argue about the meaning of words while our beautiful "gardens" persist [let's ignore the GOLDEN RULE], blah blah let's keep our "economic boots" of CONTROL on their outgroup necks [let's ignore the GOLDEN RULE], blah blah blah, let's have yet another "right/wrong" debate [let's ignore the GOLDEN RULE], but but but, the tyranny of these masses means "we" (ingroup) have to divide the "jungles"/lower powers [let's ignore the GOLDEN RULE]. *Me: So you've got a theory? Cool. You want to "talk" about all those theories? No thanks, because THAT is already how YOU become a part of the divide-and-rule world.* Talk, and talk, and talk and debate and talk, whilst in the background, the WRONGS persist. So you've got a theory? Cool. Everybody's got one... But when your fancy theory meets my moral universal principle, which is 2,000 years old (Golden Rule), and your theory doesn't pass the test, you can stick your theory where the sun don't shine, up alongside your shiny house on the hill, the stiff upper lip, and that "white feather" you wish to pin on my chest, *because all the talking IS already the deception.* Correctly, George Carlin stated that we should never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. This is unfortunately correct, even though the ingroup instinct is to "point the finger" and not consider oneself a part of such a group. That means the only logical thing left to do in the face of sheer overwhelming odds of being faced with such large numbers of high-IQ stupid people (not a contradiction) is to leave such places where such stupidity accumulates naturally, apologized for as the "just our interests"-line of argument and arrogance, ignorance, indifference, and complacency infests entire societies. Europeans were no smarter and no more moral than that at any point in history, and this was used against them both following the year 1900, and again following the year 2000. Common logic (lol) to AVOID UNITY ON THE CONTINENT, the endsieg of the outsiders: "Let's encircle and encroach our neighbours, and then "play the stupid" (strategy of power) and blame geography. When this goes horribly wrong *TWICE,* (recent history aka "WW1" and "WW2") we simply keep on doing the same stupid thing over and over again as happened after the year 2000, hoping that only OTHERS will die as (quote Rep. Dan Crensaw) "investment material" or as the "acme of professionalism" (quote US Gen. Kellogg). [let's ignore the GOLDEN RULE]." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE CHALLENGE WILL NOT DISAPPEAR IF IT IS IGNORED The challenge is still on: Name one war, or crisis, for which our own leaders in pursuit of CONTROL, territory and/or greed (often vested, see multiple examples in more than 100 essays below) have not lain the foundations for. Just one war you or your family, also historically as family history, got stuck "into trenches" for, which was not also the creation of the own elites. Just one...

"protected by a horde of apologists who suddenly don't understand defined words, like a "sphere of influence"" - Herr Ralph von Bernhard I am fully aware of what a "sphere of influence" is. The issue isn't my understanding; it's the absence of any legal or moral justification in your argument. I've repeatedly asked you to explain why you believe any nation has the right to impose its sphere of influence over another. Perhaps today will be the day you finally provide a satisfactory answer.

Everybody's got a theory. But when your new recent theory meets my moral universal principle, which is 2,000 years old (Golden Rule), and your theory doesn't pass the test, you can stick your theory where the sun don't shine... Suddenly, all the "Who started it?"-theorists and screamers can't understand what an encirclement strategy means, nor that they would never allow themselves to become encircled/encroached upon, as they *do to others* and "Who started it" is simply ignored. The straw separates from the chaff, by who is actually willing to go to the "muddy trench" themselves, and not try to set up others as tools, while flaunting all their theories. They get very upset, if they can't throw that logic back, like the 5-olds they are.

"To "make the world safe for democracy" (note, just another man-made system of power in which the divide-and-rule strategy florishes) is the admission that regime change was the objective" - @ralphbernhard1757 Actually, the "primary sources" state otherwise. Russia was the most autocratic monarchy in Europe. Russia fought for the Entente against the Central Powers. Britain was a constitutional monarchy. Germany was a constitutional monarchy. Germany's parliament may have had more limited powers, with the appointed government, and ultimately the monarch, holding greater authority, but the voting franchise was larger and more inclusive than that of Britain. It wasn’t a democracy in the modern sense, but it was not a regime that the Entente were explicitly aiming to change from the outset. The only people that changed the form of governance within Germany was the German themselves. Germany underwent a revolution. This "regime change", if you choose to call it so, began under Wilhelm IIs rule towards the end of the war, when they finally created a government composed of elected representatives of the people, for the very first time. Simultaneous changes were made to limit the powers of the Kaiser and transfer those powers to a government that reflected the wishes of the people, and not the wishes of the Kaiser. Vague promises had been made in 1916 to implement changes to the system in response to growing calls from the democratic parties, a year before America joined the war. Unfortunately for Germany, this top down revolution was simply regarded as being too little too late by the people, and their regime implemented revolution was simply overtaken by a bottom up revolution that swept Germany as news of the defeat spread. Given that the revolution started within the military, Wilhelm's desire to march the army back to Germany under his leadership to reassert his position through force of arms was simply a non-starter. The fears of a civil war and violent revolution, such as had occurred in Russia, were simply too great, and even Wilhelm's most staunch monarchist supporters within the military were not prepared to take that step, although their desire to maintain their own reputations and shift blame for the defeat was also a significant factor. Wilson did indeed use the phrase "safe for democracy" to support his request for a declaration of war before the joint session. In 1917. A year after the German Reichstag's calls for change, and vague promises of reform from the regime, and almost 3 years after the war had begun. He used this phrase as an attempt to garner both domestic and international support. Bulgaria entered the war as a constitutional monarchy. It remained a constitutional monarchy. Yugoslavia was created by the wishes of the Slavs as a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural nation with a constitutional monarchy. The war was not being fought over "regimes" or methods of governance. It was fought by nations for many reasons, usually to maintain or expand power, in a competitive, nationalist focused international system.

"@Bolivar has already admitted that all the "arguments" he presents are purely eristic and therefore baseless" Where? Quote please? Thank you.

The challenge is still on: Name one war, or crisis, for which our own leaders in pursuit of CONTROL, territory and/or greed (often vested, see multiple examples in more than 100 essays below) have not lain the foundations for. Just one war you or your family, also historically as family history, got stuck "into trenches" for, which was not also the creation of the own elites. Just one... Why start with the fascist powers (1920s/1930s), which replaced the Central European monarchies, which themselves where removed with the biggest regime-change operation the world had ever seen called World War 1/Great War? (see evidence stated in the below comments section). To "make the world safe for democracy" (note, just another man-made system of power in which the divide-and-rule strategy florishes) is the admission that _regime change_ was the objective, and the events (primary sources) prove it. _History did not "start" in the 1930s._ *This is a core premise in the theory. That is that most people tend to point at effects while being steered by their own emotions (see the below essay about how the brain works). They simply assume everything they witness are the "causes" of other systems, whilst actually being effects of own previous systemic actions unknown to them personally.* Literally, millions of _"asleep waking up"_ when the guns start firing... Beware of the "finger pointers". They come with all kinds of "arguments'' why their favorite ingroup should be "allowed" to do to other groups what they would never put up with as an acceptable situation, *if put in exactly the same situation (being encircled or encroached upon by a neighbor or neighbors, as started by the own "side" or by proxy).* The concept of the GOLDEN RULE. The only rule we the people should ever follow. Not other men or women (so-called "leaders"). These "pointing fingers" are attached to very small amygdalas, the tinyest part of the brain, and these people feel they never owe anybody an answer for their own personal standpoint, the own ideology, the own systemic greed, the own systemic desire to CONTROL, or any other objective. *Follow such people, at your own expense.* @Bolivar has already admitted that all the "arguments" he presents are purely eristic and therefore baseless (see the below two essays), since he will never personally stand up for his exposed "virtues", to defend them to the point of the "muddy trench". *He will argue until you, the reader of this, goes there without any route of return* but you'll never see him there next to you. [Scroll down to the essays clustered around "how to goad the other side into shooting first", how Bismarck intended to get the "street rabble" to "act first" to have an "excuse to just shoot back", with many systemic examples of this STRATEGY of POWER, where he admits it]

@Sp00nexe Doublespeak was not invented in 1984. Since you already know what happened. "Just helping our friends" = supporting some dumbass to do our bidding. "Give us the tools and we will fight" = If you have to beg for support, you ARE already "the tool"... And these overlords? In the end, they "run off with all the effin money" (quote George Carlin, explaining how divide-and-rule works). Because that is what the lords did when the Empire folded. They took _their own_ money to the tax havens they had invented for themselves in the meantime, and left the average citizen to pull the cart out of the rut... This will repeat. ---------------------------------------------------- "The astonishing outcome of the war in Europe (edit: WW2) had turned the United States into the patron and protector of the European empires." - John Darwin, After Temurlane GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS "Astonishing" is the incorrect word. It is "divide and rule". It is how the strategy works. A power gets others to divide systems and to fight its wars and implement division *for the greater power* which enjoys a natural geopositional advantage by funding these crises/wars. Preferably without the "buck catchers" (concept of the proxy) ever finding out about their role in the strategy. An example here is getting France to fight the new declared enemy of communism (per Truman Doctrine), in Indochina, as explained in greater detail waaaaaay down in the comments section, as "buck passing". Get the weakened empires (by WW2), to further weaken themselves, and become more embedded in the post-war order, and advance US interests, and contribute to war profiteering which is skimmed off in the background: *American Century/MIC/corporatism: MY 50% "cut" of the world. See below comments section.* Unfortunately, because of the power of the MSM, these dumbasses who allow themselves to be misused as tools, rather than to simply set the planet free (end colonialism on the spot after WW2) will always be the systemic "heroes" in the divide-and-rule setup of the world. The guy "begging for help" (France) to give them the tools to fight their subjects, are automatically the "good guy" never mind what happened before that in history...and on the home fronts they are talking, and talking, and talking... *Divide-and-rule: Pay or otherwise support somebody else to do the fighting for your systems in Indochina (France).* If one acts like an imperialist power, supports imperialist powers, and aids and funds imperialists causes and wars, then one IS an imperialist power. The USA acted like an imperialist power, and supported imperialist causes, making Washington DC an imperialist force: this is regardless of what anybody thinks, makes as a statement, or holds dear as a personal opinion. This is how the syllogism should work: take two (or more) proven theories, and deduct the third from that. Or as the street would say "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..." It is easier to divide people and systems than it is to unite them (see below comments section). Dividing the opposing systems, is the *first* and easiest step towards increasing the own systemic power (see below comments section). Once divided, another system's power and strength is decreased, *like taking bricks out of a wall, one by one...* [see the essay just below the one addressed to @sabinehahn starting with "The people of the greater ME..."] *Around the year 1900, Washington DC obviously saw their "opportunity" to step in and divide Europe even more than it already was, by means of favouritism (see below comments section),* as the monarchic principle waned at the end of the 19th century, the death of Queen Victoria being the symbolic "sword in the neck" of the end of the era of European balance of power (est. 1815) as historically steered by London. This has nothing to do with an emotion attached to a certain favored group or system: it is a purely unemotional systemic analysis of what happened. And then they repeated their "success" again and again, protected by a horde of apologists who suddenly don't understand defined words, like a "sphere of influence". They come with their "re-interpretations" and their "honest questions" (lol) like "What is a sphere of influence?", or to "Boohooo, please, please explain it, I don't understand...let's talk and talk some more, and eternally debate...", whilst in the background as everybody is talking, and talking, and talking, and debating, and talking, and debating for 5 or 10 or 20 years, their empires are encroaching into the spheres of influence of other powers. That is what "democracy" wants you to do: talk eternally while their top-tier systems (super rich) graze off the rest of the planet, until there is nothing left and they finally come for YOU. Somebody doesn't "understand" (lol) what some or other defined term means? *How about the GOLDEN RULE, and "put yourself in their shoes" to help that confused brain along a bit? When Russia takes away the BEAUTIFUL Panama Canal, by deceit or by proxy, all these "arguers" suddenly don't need these long debates anymore.* They quickly understand, and scream out their anguish. Suddenly, so offended, like the children they are. Henry Kissinger had a much more suitable description for these easily-influenced and deceived...the mere lowly "tools" of the top-tier corporatist systems of power, who buy their politicians like NASCAR drivers and all that's missing is the labeling...

There is already an essay down here, explaining how a just equilibrium as "balance of power" can be explained to a child. If you wish, scroll down to it... If a person cannot understand an explanation, simple enough for a 5-year old to "get", they are waaaaay too deep down their very own "rabbit holes" to ever be able to see out again. That is, most of the USA/collective West, and their citizens. *When your sense of justice has been sufficiently distorted, your sense of duty will be exploited.* The divide and rule technique. The defenders of the divide and rule strategy of power are amongst us. Quote: "By their deeds you will know them." Look at the events. *Do not listen to their words.* By the EVENTS they implement, the dividers expose themselves. THE "MUDSILL" of the WORLD In all systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life. *That "class" is you.* Yes, you personally, whoever reads this. That is, a class requiring a low order of intellect and little skill. The rulers and dividers looooove the uneducated who think they are smart, but are in fact simply tools used in great games on all tiers. *The Mudsill Theory: The GEOPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS on the lower-tiered scale of the economy.* This theory as observation of events over a long period of time, has already been worked into several of the essays below, as the "cheap pool of labor" in order to keep the cost of production down (a bully tactic). What is fair does not concern the power players and those who wish to CONTROL the flow of the resources, the planet's ONLY determining factor, which cannot be miraculously increased, with a snap of the finger. _It is not money which is the root of all evil, as they would wish you to believe. As almost always, that truism is simply only half the story._ That it is easily printable "money," which is the root of evil, is only the cover story. _It is the resources which are limited, and it is these resources which POWER wishes to CONTROL. It includes you, yes YOU, as human resource which must be controlled._ Money, esp. fiat currency, can be printed. The resources remain constant, and can only be increased incrementally, in small amounts over a long period of time (mining, industry, allocation of resources). Therefore the only function of feds (FSB) is to ensure that not so much money is created (digital or printed), so as to undermine the entire reason for its own existence. If too much is created, it will inflate away the CONTROL they wield over the entire system of debt slaves on multiple tiers... Those who wish to CONTROL the resources are not the politicians. The controllers are an ingroup made up of a wide selection of filthy rich and powerful individuals and organizations, and act in unison, and as George Carlin has explained, "they KNOW what is good for themselves," meaning that it goes without meetings to know what is good for their own systems, the super rich tier. As long as the systemic actors at the tops of the pyramidal shaped systems of POWER act as collaborative effort, such efforts are rewarded. If those seeking gain however, should ever, EVER, try to scam their _own kind from the own tiers of power_ (see Bernie Madoff), there will be consequences and such actors will become outcast. If they scam _you_ though, they will be rewarded, unless they become too callous and transparent. *The Mudsill Theory: A GEOPOLITICAL ANALYSIS, on the higher-tiered scale of GLOBAL POWER.* On the international tiers, all empires need smaller nations and states to do the work of division. Smaller states and smaller less powerful organizations do the bidding of the bigger systems, and then become the tools of their power. Especially dirty work so the empire may keep its "hands clean" (strategy of power). The rotten apples are not coincidental, or merely unavoidable, because that's how ALL the top tiers eventually gain. They will justify whatever they do, using words, and they need YOU as a tool to implement wrongful deeds, so they can continuously gain. _In all the world's systems (countries/nations) there must be a lower tier to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of division and war._ *If one is the "balancer of power" one can add weights to the scale, on order to create a balance of power.* One can also remove weights _from_ the scale, in order to create an IMbalance, which is favorable to oneself, the one "removing" the weights from the scale, with a proactive strategy. See below comments section for the essay explaining this in detail. "Fair" means balancing in a concert by gathering around a *round table (diplomacy),* under which all voices are considered. _One can however, if one is greedy, try to engineer an imbalance of power, to favor oneself._ You don't like "fair"? Fine, die to implement "unfair" then, cheering your verses, your slogans, and waving your banner... That was the Treaty of Versailles and other post-WW1 treaties which intended to gain from the weakness of Central European power. That means simply removing weights from the scales of power, to create an imbalance, to favor the own position of POWER. That then created weaker systems, which could be steered and "managed" against each other. Edit: Never mind @Bolivar. He is one of those types who thinks putting 3 people on one side of a scale, and *160 million* on the other, is a "balance of power." 😂 Here's what they never tell you: These "3" can play divide-and-rule games with the 160 million, but the 160 million cannot play divide-and-rule back at the "3". That constitutes an imbalance. Then, he accuses others of "not understanding anything" which is psychological projection of course... END OF PART I

PART II *"The 'Mudsill' Theory," by James Henry Hammond* Speech to the U.S. Senate, March 4, 1858 *"In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life. That is, a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill.* Its requisites are vigor, docility, fidelity. Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society and of political government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on this mud-sill. Fortunately for the South, she found a race adapted to that purpose to her hand. A race inferior to her own, but eminently qualified in temper, in vigor, in docility, in capacity to stand the climate, to answer all her purposes. We use them for our purpose, and call them slaves. We found them slaves by the common "consent of mankind," which, according to Cicero, "lex naturae est." The highest proof of what is Nature's law. We are old-fashioned at the South yet; slave is a word discarded now by "ears polite;" I will not characterize that class at the North by that term; but you have it; it is there; it is everywhere; it is eternal. The Senator from New York said yesterday that the whole world had abolished slavery. Aye, the name, but not the thing; all the powers of the earth cannot abolish that. God only can do it when he repeals the fiat, "the poor ye always have with you;" for the man who lives by daily labor, and scarcely lives at that, and who has to put out his labor in the market, and take the best he can get for it; in short, your whole hireling class of manual laborers and "operatives," as you call them, are essentially slaves. The difference between us is, that our slaves are hired for life and well compensated; there is no starvation, no begging, no want of employment among our people, and not too much employment either. Yours are hired by the day, not cared for, and scantily compensated, which may be proved in the most painful manner, at any hour in any street in any of your large towns. Why, you meet more beggars in one day, in any single street of the city of New York, than you would meet in a lifetime in the whole South. We do not think that whites should be slaves either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race. The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves. None of that race on the whole face of the globe can be compared with the slaves of the South. They are happy, content, unaspiring, and utterly incapable, from intellectual weakness, ever to give us any trouble by their aspirations. Yours are white, of your own race; you are brothers of one blood. They are your equals in natural endowment of intellect, and they feel galled by their degradation. Our slaves do not vote. We give them no political power. Yours do vote, and, being the majority, they are the depositories of all your political power. If they knew the tremendous secret, that the ballot-box is stronger than "an army with banners," and could combine, where would you be? Your society would be reconstructed, your government overthrown, your property divided, not as they have mistakenly attempted to initiate such proceedings by meeting in parks, with arms in their hands, but by the quiet process of the ballot-box. You have been making war upon us to our very hearthstones. How would you like for us to send lecturers and agitators North, to teach these people this, to aid in combining, and to lead them?" (end of) _Me: "Senator, with all due respect, would you actually fight and die for your proclaimed 'rights and virtues'? No blah, blah, blah...answer the question, or expose your true nature."_ *Because he was of course trying to "argue" a wrong into a "right" and a virtue, because he wanted something for his own immoral man-made system: CONTROL.* Their arguments all have one thing in common: they are "clutter", or "smoke", behind which the REAL aims are hidden. The "99%" of everything you will ever hear, of people who don't really believe in what they "fight" for when there is NO danger to their person, or own families. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic The arguments are all eristic in nature to distract from a core basic premise: the GOLDEN RULE. Men like him love to talk, and talk, and talk, and debate and talk and talk, while their beautiful man-made systems of "gardens" persisted and thrived in the background, with other in the "jungles"... Ignore the GOLDEN RULE, suffer the consequences. *With regards to eristic speeches like this, to "create smoke" and to distract, just remember: millions of people could "see" his "point of view," proving again and again that it doesn't matter how many people support a "POV", at any specific point on the timeline incl. today, doesn't make it morally "right."* Moral "right or wrong" is ONLY determined by whether it passes the GOLDEN RULE. These people, who want one thing above all other things (CONTROL) will argue *you* up to that point called the "muddy trench," which was the Civil War a few years later. Even today, what happens is that _you_ (the reader of this essay) might or might not see these "arguers" there. They've argued YOU into the trench, but they are faaaaar too fine and valuable to ever fight and die what they state is soooooooooo important to the whooooole world. They will argue entire countries and regions of the world into "bloody trenches" vociferously screeching their "wrongs/rights" from their pulpits and the "soap boxes" of the world ("our" politicians, newspapers, and other influencers) but when push comes to shove, they personally make their "strategic withdrawals" and see to it that YOU stay there and fight, whilst they and their "class" skims off the advantages in the background. Also interesting, is that everybody who isn't on the "biggest soap boxes" ("our" politicians, newspapers, and other influencers) chanting the rote-learned story like everybody else, is always the guy on the soapbox... Thank you, in advance, for the compliment. As far as I'm concerned, I'm nobody's "mud sill," because we live in a system (capitalism/democracy) in which the biggest idiots can flaunt their un-Christian standpoints (ignoring the core premise, and universal principle, which is the GOLDEN RULE) but still claim that all they wish to do is "always save the world", when in reality they wish to CONTROL and "manage" the resources for their own advantages, "moderate" people against each other, and "extend" others as they intend to enter the spheres of influence of other states and world powers... The people screaming "soapbox" the loudest, mostly ARE already on their own "soapbox", simply stating their "rights" to expand. Set "newest comment first". See below, "my 50% cut of the world" as the "right" of a single-digit minority of the world. Today, these "12%-ters" still want 30% as "their cut" of the planet. Those who rule are going to divide everybody else as they see fit, as they can "manage/moderate", or how it falls into place, and that is what YOU are going to fight for if you live in this "garden" of the USA/collective West. Your "rights" to CONTROL that setup against the equilibrium of the GOLDEN RULE, _the_ only rule we should follow.

Huw knew

Germany wasn't jealous of the French...utter nonsense.... Germans had them under their thumb..

Cooperation between human systems is by nature chaotic, because human nature is complex but at least somewhat predictable. Today, around 12% of the world (USA/collective West) look at the "gardens" they are in, and consider this the natural state of affairs: it *must* simply be like this ("gardens" and "jungles"), because it has always been like that in all of recent living memory. The state of affairs is not "natural", because a natural state of affairs is equilibrium, or a balance. It is also not kept unbalanced "naturally," but by unnatural means (power politics), by use of *proactive* strategies of power. In other words, these strategies, implemented by the USA/collective West, are never a reaction, but are proactively implemented in order to keep an unnatural status quo ("gardens" and "jungles"). ------------------------- When the dividers came to Britain with the Roman Empire (see the footnote in the essay starting with "China is the center of the new "Axis of Evil", just below), it did not matter to the dividers _why_ some local Brits cooperated with the empire, to divide and overpower or destroy the local systems of power, or how divided Brits already were before Rome arrived, which local Brit collaborator got what and how much for cooperation with the empire: what *is* important, is _that_ enough cooperated for Rome to overpower Britain. Why that series of events (almost) repeated in Central Europe, but failed, is also unimportant 99% ancillary detail. What is important is _that_ Rome failed in Central Europe (see the essay about "Arminius the turncoat" waaaaay down in the comments section). It doesn't mean that such 99% ancillary detail theories are wrong, or unimportant, or uninteresting: it simply means they do not rank high enough in power to determine the course of history. POWERS have always done it. "Divide" the opposition any way possible. If you have trouble imagining how "division" works, then imagine a wall from which single bricks are extracted one after the other, by POWER or allure (usually money), until the wall gets fragile or even collapses. *The group that can divide all others groups, and avoid them from uniting into larger entities, will rule over all the others.* It is not complicated, never mind what any dissenters wish to inform you of, or all that so-called news filling your screen with 99% ancillary details every day. Formula in any divide-and-rule strategy, carried out as premeditated aim or instinctively, and regardless of the tier of power. Maximum unity for "us" (ingroup doing the division). Maximum division for all others (outgroups to be divided for gain). *For the American Century after the year 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger chunk of land than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": the technique used was the same.* For the "divider" the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in order to achieve the useful division *for* the higher power, are not important. These are the 99% ancillary details of history. It doesn't matter _how_ division is implemented, or _how_ existing divides are deepened, or who aids for whatever reasons, or whether those aiding and abetting division are even aware _that_ they are aiding division: what matters *is* _that_ it is implemented. For the divider it is not important _why_ the tools cooperate, but the fact _that_ the tools cooperate in creating division in overpowering a chunk of the planet somewhere. _Why_ and _that_ are different premises... *The empire does not care about the **_"why"._* Of course, no superficially observed series of events can be concluded to be a non-falsifiable theory, if there is not a substantial amount of evidence to corroborate it, and if you wish, please have a look at the below comments section. I have devoted the entire below thread to explaining how "divide and rule works, using multiple examples from different eras, different locations on the map, and different points on the timeline, in order for it to be a neutral study. Please choose "latest comments first".

Tobacco built Bristol & the law building. So what.

"Obviously, if somebody still can't figure out that colonialism/imperialism, and the entangled/aligned internationalism/globalism is a bad development" - Herr von Bernhard Why the attempt to conflate two distinct concepts?