29.30 is the time they talk about india

Versailles was divide-and-rule. ‐-------------- "Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy. Here’s how the strategy typically works: *Creating Divisions:* Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones-such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances. *Fostering Competition and Distrust:* The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions. *Maintaining Control:* With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation. Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally. The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors. SETTLER COLONIALISM The last 500 years of European/white settler colonialism as a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique. The strategy was "farms/forts" and a systemic, slow advance into the lands of ingenious peoples all over the world. Same happened in North America, Australia, New Zealand, the Levant, South America, Southern Africa, etc. Broken promises, broken treaties, looking for excuses to make the next 'step' (ratchet principle). The only places the strategy of slow ponderous expansion failed was where the local systems were too numerous or organized (East Asia). The "template" might have various regional differences, but the end effect is always the same. Slow, step-by-step advance of the own ideology, economic systems, corporations and political power.

Herr von Bernhard, your reference to The Onion’s 'strategy' - to just sit back and watch while a nation collapses under its own weight - might be more applicable to Germany’s revolution than you realize. By 1918, Germany was spiralling into chaos under the combined pressures of war, economic hardship, and political dysfunction. The rest of the world indeed watched on, observing the Kaiserreich implode as mutinies and strikes spread across the country. But the irony doesn’t stop there. As the revolution unfolded, Germans themselves began pointing fingers and lining up scapegoats to explain the crisis: communists, socialists, Jews, the military, and, of course, foreign powers. This pattern of blame is strikingly similar to the approach you seem to favour - assigning external actors undue influence over what was clearly an internal collapse. Sun Yat-Sen’s observation rings true here: 'If a country is weak while its people are strong, the people will vent its wrath by overthrowing the Government. This shows that the people cannot be trifled with.' Germany’s collapse wasn’t the result of some grand external conspiracy; it was the inevitable outcome of a government that had overextended itself and alienated its people. And while the rest of the world 'just sat back and watched,' it was ultimately Germany’s own citizens who brought about the revolution. It’s almost as if you’ve adopted the very scapegoating tactic you decry - pointing fingers at foreign powers while ignoring the internal dynamics that made the Kaiserreich’s fall all but inevitable. Perhaps it’s time for you to reflect on whether this narrative serves to enlighten you or simply perpetuate the same cycles of blame.

The marching route of the empire, which started when the USSR economically faltered in the late-1980s. Systemic/ideological expansion into. Eastern Europe. Balkans. Black Sea. Caucasus region. Keep on marching, marching, and when there is a reaction or resistance, start "pointing fingers" (narrative control). This type of imperialist behaviour as evident by Washington DC, and their subservient "collective West/NATO", did not only start after WW2. *How old is this game called "marching empire"? Answer: Old, very old...* For the "fighting for freedom and democracy"-crowd... _In 1914 the Puerto Rican house of deputies voted unanimously for independence from the United States._ *Thereupon, the United States declared it unconstitutional.* Wilson (Footnote) made Puerto Rican citizens of the United States without asking them and without their consent. Puerto Ricans thereafter had to buy everything from US-flagged shipping corporations, which made everything in Puerto Rico more expensive and made American shipping companies and trading companies rich: the price was paid by poor people in Puerto Rico, whose declared independence was RULED unfavourably by the "eternal freedumb and eternal democracy"-lovers. Later, the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917, *forced Puerto Ricans to join the US army via the detour of the "granted US citizenship."* Note, this as not decided BY Puerto Rico's leaders, but FOR them. How convenient. You are forced into the trenches of a collectively racist USA ("Jim Crow"-style divide-and-rule system of domestic rule) taking away your freedom to live life in independence, but don't expect any great rewards apart from the muddy trench. Even today, Puerto Rico is still the "pool of cheap labor" for their stronger neighbour USA. *"We cannot develop our own economy. In the old days we were drafted into your wars even when we had nothing against the people we were fighting! I want talk about the fact that Spain already granted us autonomy in 1897 which was the same relationship that Canada has with Britain but since we are not white, we don't count, and there are many more crimes the USA has done!"*- Albizu Campos. The "Arminius" of the Caribbean. No, one cannot develop if one is in the shadow of an empire which constantly siphons off your most capable individuals ("brain drain"). Just like 2000 years ago when Arminius was trained to become "Roman" in order to aid the expansion of the Roman Empire, so was Campos. The strategy of using tools for systemic expansion is as old as civilizations. The "empire" uses such "morphed locals" (strategy of power) as tools to further the goals of the empire by giving them all kinds of benefits in return for going against the interests of their fellow inhabitants. A few like Campos however see the light, and turn against those who wish to downgrade them to a subservient status and role within the empire. After periods of great upheavals, often the results of the own US top-down imposition (wars, invasions, sanctions), many leave their homelands resulting in such brain drain, analogous to many Central- and South American countries which are similarly kept from economic prosperity by the wars the empire wages in these outer regions of the own core territories. *The empire favours some, and sets these up against others: divide-and-rule.* Exactly those people a region of the planet needs to prosper, leave the rimlands around the empire to go to the "empire" which created the poverty and duress in the first place. For reference, as exemplary: Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, New York, on Thursday, 20 June 2024 (available for free as PDF-file). Similar behaviour by other powers in their "backyards" is of course correctly criticized, but the own behaviour narrativized in flowery language. Of course these empires are either ALL wrong, or ALL right. How the apologist wriggles and writhes about trying to twist wrongs into "rights" simply exposes the various biases of the advocate. *It's a subsection of divide-and-rule, to keep regions in the periphery "down" (in power) and "out" of the decision-making processes which affect them in geopolitical terms.* All the talk about freedoms like "freedom of speech" etc, means nothing. The ONLY thing which counts is how powerful the opposition gets. If one is weak, one is allowed to whine ones ails on the soap box, but as soon as one gains in power and numbers, the "empire" shows its true face. Camps, t0rture centres, terror campaigns, terror bombing, drone wars, regime change ops, subversive warfare, smear campaigns, you name it, the empire uses it. *Those who stand up to division and subjection, soon become "the enemy".* In both cases (Arminius/Campos) the "trained tools" became turncoats and agitated against the empire, using their knowledge to good effect. Arminius, more successfully than Campos because the region (Central Europe) offered the means for an armed resistance (forested, excellent territory for guerrilla warfare and armed resistance), whereas the Caribbean (small isolated and CONTROLLABLE islands) which was under the boot of much stronger US/European powers, it was obviously not possible. In both cases, the "empire" only understands the "language" it uses itself. *Don't expect many Americans to care much. Their life is mostly/partly still good, based on keeping their periphery "down" and "out" of power. That is true even today. The "system" trains "finger pointers" to sneer and make fun of their weak neighbours, kept weak and in a state of permanent duress, and their well-paid MSM-talking-head-tools point the way...* The "good life" and the "good ol' days" when they super-prospered and which they collectively long back to, was not coincidental, but planned. *In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."* Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other with revolving "patterns of relationships" (aka divide-and-rule), then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet while these were still weak and recovering from the divisions created. From the 1950s thru 1980s the USA/collective West reigned supreme, decreasing in strides after that. *Note, that this observation has nothing to do with the majority of American citizens who are just as good/bad as anybody else on the planet. The sane half of their society is powerless to implement changes, since the system is fixed in place (pyramidal structure of top-down power).* I've spoken to many people from The Philippines, South Korea, Puerto Rico, and many other places who didn't have a CLUE about their true history, and how the "empire" they worship and still bow down to is actually the historical CAUSE of everything they are suffering at the moment (geopolitics/grand strategy). All they learn about in the curriculum is the "rah, rah 'merica freedom and democracy"-bs. but they are not taught where they fit into the BIG PICTURE as individuals, and as islands/peninsulas/regions on the map (geopolitics/grand strategy) which are either useful or useless in the heads of the strategists. _Today: A new era IS arriving. Millions of global inhabitants are no longer dependent on their libraries, their TVs or their own politicians and leaders, and can find out what happened for themselves._ *In the BIG PICTURE of the marching route of the empire,* Puerto Rico was simply a small stepping stone. Look at a map, of how this "marching route" went from the US East Coast with its "old money" and industries, via the Caribbean and Colombia (carved up on the map as "Panama", Panama Canal Zone, and Columbia) in order to secure US interests, and then this "marching route" continued across the Pacific, as similarly annexed/captured territories of Hawaii (previously independent), and ex-Spanish territories like the Philippines and Guam. From there, via the later McCollum Memorandum, it led straight to Pearl Harbor after their "old friend Japan" was dumped after WW1 (1922), left with nobody to ally with. The same "marching empire" big picture is also the strategic reality all over the world. Into the "the West", into South America, then into the Pacific, then into West Asia, into Africa, all causing resistance movements... and now (post 1990s) *...into Eurasia, never "satiated". Bismarck, about the rich being "satiated" before the populace is **_"fed up"_** with all the forever wars...* For a slightly light-hearted approach to "countering the marching empire", search for _"FBI uncovers Al-Qaeda plot to just sit back and enjoy collapse of USA" (The Onion)._ No, this is not a joke or satire, but an actual strategy of power. Just sit back and watch on while your enemy collapses on multiple tiers, all the while everybody is viciously pointing fingers at who is to blame. Literally choking on their own blame games, while their leaders fiddle about on the rooftops... Me: ROTFL, learnt ...NOTHING. In their effort to "extend" others, they are actually extending themselves, uniting all against them, and are too rich, proud, hectoring, squibbing, to realize. Footnote The Wilson admin used the multiple tier/multiple hurdle/multiple cut-off technique of power, and made Puerto Rican citizens of the United States without asking them and without their consent. This technique means that if "they" are not stopped here, some other tier will stop "them" on the next level.

Herr von Bernhard. Given the ultimate consequences of Germany removing the monarchy and electing for a Republic, do you think the Germans underestimated the risks? Would the civil war, which they feared, have been a better alternative? While it's easy to reflect on such matters in hindsight, do you honestly believe that the Germans, with the immediate pressures they faced, could have foreseen the consequences of dismantling the monarchy just 20 years into the future? I think they had far more pressing concerns in the moment. And let's not forget, the revolution itself started within the ranks of Wilhelm's beloved navy. That was a particularly bitter blow to him, as his later musings suggest.

Herr von Bernhard, you suggest that Europe could have been free of outside interference and focused solely on its own interests. However, in pursuing global domination through it's empires, Europe didn't just exert control - it sowed deep misery, exploitation, and division across the globe. While you might lament the end of European empires, do you truly believe the continuation of such a system, with all the human suffering it entailed, would have been justifiable or sustainable? Was the price of that 'independence' worth the legacy of exploitation and instability it created worldwide, the shadows of which are still with us today? If that's your vision, and what you believe to be a "loss", then I'll give it a hard pass. Thank you, but no thank you.

Herr von Bernhard, given the millions who died during the Chinese Civil War, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, as well as the other extreme costs imposed on the Chinese people to achieve their 'unity,' do you believe Europe should be willing to pay such a heavy price for the same kind of unity? Is the immense human toll of these events truly a model worth pursuing? Is 'unity at any price' really worth the cost?

What did Europe lose, Herr von Bernhard? Why do you keep making such statements but persistently refuse to answer the simple question? Edit : Perhaps you need some prompts/hints? Power? Influence? Empires? Global dominance? Colonial exploitation? The disproportionate wealth derived from the above? The majority of the world's population would see Europe's "loss" as a nett positive? It's really not a difficult question. Why the reluctance/inability to answer it?

*The Chinese (an assortment of ethnic groups, religions and linguistically related peoples in East Asia) were collectively wise enough to wake up out of their own CENTURY OF HUMILIATION and create a strong unity, as a balance of power with a single front door for own interests.* CHINESE CENTURY OF HUMILIATION For that historical analysis, one must first become realistic about the forces which were imposed on the own systems, from OUTSIDE. During these roughly 100 years, these OUTSIDERS used China as playground and a battlefield of systems/ideologies. As China started rising in power again after the 1970s, the OUTSIDERS (not from this region) intended to REPEAT their previous "success" of rule by division. Break up China, into smaller administrative regions, easy to rule, dominate, and use as steered TOOLS from outside by a variety of means (money, ideology, etc.). *If somebody does not understand, for lack of intellect, because of affording a high opinion of the own ideological standpoints, of own political- or military priorities, or otherwise, what "an outsider" is, I suggest a dictionary: under "o".* Notice how a certain type of person will now show up and state "But, buT what diD thSe chiNee peeplil lose foR 100 yearS?"-rhetoric, too dumb to figure how dumb that sounds... *Forces of OUTSIDE division, do not DIVIDE other regions of the planet because they care about the "locals". These OUTSIDERS divide others for own interests.* One must also first become realistic with regards to what strategies of power were employed by the "sides". *DIVIDE-AND-RULE* "The policy which Britain has been pursuing for the last two centuries has brought her prosperity and greatness. After each victory, Britain seems, on the surface to have gained for herself no advantage whatever; all she did, she claimed to be an act of international chivalry and justice but a deeper analysis of British statesmen's claims reveals that they never speak the truth. Britain's key policy is to attack the strongest country with the help of weaker countries and then to join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of other countries and so on, and so on. British foreign policy has remained basically unchanged for two centuries. When Britain befriends or colonizes another country, the purpose is not to maintain a cordial friendship for the sake of friendship but to utilize that country as a tool to fight all threats to her supremacy. Therefore Britain always remains in a commanding position by making other countries fight her wars while she herself reaps the fruits of victory." Taken from The Vital Problem of China by Sun Yat-Sen, 1917 *Virtually a template that describes every aspect of the divide-and-rule strategy, and that Europeans could have learned from, but never did, until all went down.* Unlike the Chinese after WW2, Europeans didn't learn the lesson. THE EUROPEAN CENTURY OF HUMILIATION (1914 - today/ongoing) Just like in China during its "Century of Humiliation" (1839-1947), in Europe, the local political forces which strove to put Europe First, as balance to the Wilsonian "America First" had to compete with outside dividers which had the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of POWER during the 20th and 21st centuries. A union which could be free of outside meddling, completely independent and which was there for European interests first and foremost, and not at the behest of outside imperialist powers and their proxy domination. During these roughly 100 years, the European playgrounds were a battlefield of systems/ideologies, all continuously using *Europe,* NOT THEIR OWN LANDS, as battleground. *Trying to overcome the OUTSIDE DIVIDERS by playing the same game of more divisions, with yet more divided European systems, is of course a dumb strategy, because the DIVIDERS will always win. You don't fight fire with fire but with water.* Unfortunately, it took the Chinese millions of deaths and misery, to OVERCOME these OUTSIDE DIVIDERS. An effect of mass death and starvation which these outside dividers then finger point at, with their dumb "look aT hoW eVil the communist are"-rhetoric, too stupid to figure out that their previous own IMPERIALIST actions CAUSED this as an attempt to squeeze them out of China. One doesn't fight division with more division, if the intention is more unity in a region. If systemically weak, and while systemically weak, the outside dividers will simply politically capture the rising powers, and morph or incorporate these. This political/cultural capture set out to take over Central Europe's main power, Germany after 1920. The weak Weimar Republic was the perfect environment and breeding ground for an outside empire's takeover (cultural-, political-, economic capture). It was part of the "Americanization of the World" (W.T. Stead/1901), which TRIGGERED a political response, just like in China after 1945. This RESPONSE was that of focussing more on traditional values, and top-down political rule, based on the own previous history. Therefore, in order to overcome the outside division, those searching for more internal unity will choose a top-down form of unity, not the bottom-up form of division which WILL be systematically captured in a weak state/country. Previously the regime change operation WW1, had removed exactly those gatekeepers which would have kept new up-striving ideologues out of positions of control and power: Had a monarch stayed on as regional hegemony, the "little corporal" would have been kicked all the way back to the Alps selling postcards... *Of course, in their narratives of the "right side of history", the DIVIDING POWERS operating from the lap of luxury just loooove democracy:* It can be used to pat the own back when things go right, and it can be used to point the finger at entire regions of the planet & and the peoples living here, if things go wrong. Meanwhile (reality) it ONLY works in systems of widespread wealth and equality, and will disappear into oceans of "post political division" (aka revolutions and uprisings) if the wealth falters, and the equality is erased as the dividers cling to their money. Its virtues disappearing in a sea of corruption. IN REALITY, ALL THE TALK MEANS NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL. It is simply emotional capture, to ensure those who "love their countries" stay on to face what had been sown. *That is the future of the USA, as it was for the UK after 1945. From "ruler of the world" to "downtrodden economic collapse (1970s), taken as "poodle" under the wing of the USA.* Unlike the UK, or Western European "poodles" there will be no "wing" for Americans to slip under, as they fail to match the rise of the Far East/Central- and East Asia around the year 2000. The USA (collective) has ONE more chance to return to the _"good ol' days"_ (debatable) of the post-WW2 era when everybody else was "down and out" (power/military might/influence). They MUST divide everybody else, or go down the same path as London after 1945. That WW2 had already resulted in a weakening of the European powers, for the benefit of whoever was left (grand strategy) was also already clear. *WW1 and WW2 was one global struggle with multiple layers and which merely had a 20 year gap in between.* Do we live in eternal peace interspersed by wars, or do we live in eternal war, interspersed by peace? After 1945 the chasm created by divide-and-rule, was just shifted across from Western Europe to Eastern Europe. The dividing line was drawn between the Baltic and the Balkans, and it was drawn by OUTSIDERS. Today, instead of a great power becoming encircled resulting in "something silly in the Balkans" (after the 1890s), it is a great power becoming encroached upon, resulting in "something silly in the Ukraine" (after the 1990s). The line was drawn, again by OUTSIDERS, between the Baltic and the Black Sea. The "marching route" is clear. Who is encroaching on who is also clear. Certain people never learn, and repeat the same transparent strategy again and again, as long as others can be made to suffer the abject ill effects, they won't care about the effects of their own systemic meddling and their own marching route. *If Europeans were collectively too dumb to figure out what they collectively "lost" with the conflagration of 1914-1945, then they will also be collectively too dumb to figure out why and how they will lose AGAIN, if "WW3" is carried out as LONG WAR on their territories, as desired by their "best fwiends" who just so happen to gain if millions of others lose. Beware of those who turn up, telling you are a "winner on the right side of history" as you sit in the ruins created by LONG WAR.* Why the desirable LONG WAR (stated by Zelensky) is desirable for the OUTSIDE POWERS, see the below comments section with more than 100 essays describing exactly this strategy (LONG WAR = desirable for the Atlanticist strategists/SHORT WAR to settle matters, for the "encircled/encroached upon" on the inside of Eurasia as desirable strategy). This is an example of history rhyming, for those with the geopolitical/grand strategic insight. None of this is of course any kind of justification, apologetics, or any other form of reasoning but CAUSALITY. CAUSE. EFFECT. Don't like the EFFECTS? Then don't "sow" the causes... If you are systemically too stupid to figure out that you ARE systemically "sowing", then that is not my concern.

What did Europe lose, Herr von Bernhard? Why do you keep making such statements but persistently refuse to answer the simple question? Edit : Perhaps you need some prompts/hints? Power? Influence? Empires? Global dominance? Colonial exploitation? The disproportionate wealth derived from the above? The majority of the world's population would see Europe's "loss" as a nett positive?

Herr von Bernhard, if Berlin was "confident of being able to repulse any French/Russian attack (two-front war)," as you have stated in earlier discussions, how does that align with your narrative of Germany being "encircled"? Genuine encirclement implies a sense of strategic vulnerability - not confidence in overcoming such challenges. Could you clarify this apparent contradiction? It also raises the question of why, if they were comfortable with the position as it stood (Franco-Russian alliance) they would risk antagonising or alienating Britain by threatening the security of her maritime lifelines?

Herr von Bernhard. You recently described Bismarck as "a staunch anti-French advocate", but not "the"? There were more? What evidence do you have for Bismarck's alleged "staunchly anti-French" position? We know he was pro-Prussian/German, we know he was anti-Catholic and held negative views of Slavs and Poles, but what evidence do you have for any staunch anti-French sentiments? Bismarck was far to pragmatic to be driven by any such feelings in his foreign diplomacy. Bismarck's decision to orchestrate war in 1870 was not driven out of any personal anti-French sentiments, but on the pragmatic realisation that only France could fulfil the role he desired at that moment in time, and which opportunity had presented him with.

Herr von Bernhard. It’s interesting that you frame the “encirclement” of the continental alliances as a premeditated strategy by the naval powers to prevent them from “reaching sufficient spheres of influence to grow.” Yet, I’m struck by a glaring inconsistency here: how do you reconcile this argument with your professed disdain for imperialism? If imperialism is as reprehensible as you claim, then surely no nation (whether maritime or continental) has an inherent right to exert a sphere of influence or expand its dominance. After all, what is a “sphere of influence” if not a euphemism for imperial control? It represents one power asserting its will over others, usually at the expense of the sovereignty and independence of weaker states. This is no less imperialistic when pursued by Germany, Austria-Hungary, or Russia than it is when executed by Britain or the United States. Your criticism of British and American naval supremacy as tools of “encirclement” implies that the continental powers were unfairly thwarted in their own ambitions to grow. But consider what that “growth” would have entailed. Germany’s desire for Mitteleuropa, Russia’s expansion into the Balkans and Central Asia, and Austria-Hungary’s domination of smaller neighbours were not simply benevolent enterprises - they were imperial projects in their own right. If Britain’s use of naval power to constrain these ambitions was imperialistic, then so too were the ambitions themselves. This brings me to a fundamental question: what right does any nation have to “reach sufficient spheres of influence to grow”? If imperialism is inherently wrong, then no nation (continental or maritime) can claim a moral or practical justification for such growth. Suggesting otherwise implies that certain forms of imperialism (e.g., continental expansion) are acceptable, while others (e.g., maritime dominance) are not. This seems less like opposition to imperialism and more like selective criticism. Finally, let’s not forget that Britain’s policies were not entirely unprovoked. German naval expansion directly threatened British security. Russian ambitions in the Balkans and beyond destabilized the region and raised alarms in both Britain and Austria-Hungary. Encirclement, far from being a capricious strategy, was frequently a response to the aggressive posturing and imperialist ambitions of continental powers. So, I ask you: if imperialism is wrong, how can you lament the failure of the continental alliances to expand their spheres of influence? And if you believe they were justified in their ambitions, doesn’t that undermine your stated opposition to imperialism altogether?

"Divide and rule" (or "divide and conquer") is a political or strategic strategy used to gain or maintain control over a region of the planet by causing division and fostering internal conflict. The idea is to weaken opponents or rival factions, preventing them from uniting against the DIVIDING power. The strategy is based on the principle that a divided enemy is easier to manage, control, defeat or destroy. Here’s how the strategy typically works: *Creating Divisions:* Those in power may intentionally exploit existing differences or create new ones-such as between ethnic groups, social classes, religions, political factions, or other groups within a population. By emphasizing these differences, the leadership makes it harder for these groups to cooperate or form alliances. *Fostering Competition and Distrust:* The ruling power might manipulate one group to distrust another, using propaganda, misinformation, or manipulation of resources to create rivalries or tensions. *Maintaining Control:* With internal divisions, the groups are less likely to pose a unified threat to the ruling power. Any resistance is weakened by competing priorities, distrust, or fragmentation. Historically, divide and rule has been used by empires and colonial powers to maintain dominance over colonized regions. For example, the British Empire used divide and rule in India, exploiting divisions between various religious and ethnic groups (e.g., Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs) to prevent them from uniting against British colonial rule. Similarly, European powers used the strategy in Africa, creating borders and fostering divisions that continue to impact the region’s stability today. The technique is exposed via the events and actions, and can be hidden behind MSM steered smokescreens of manipulation and storytelling, creating false narratives favouring the DIVIDING power, or claiming these actions to be favouring peace, favouring conciliation, favouring unity, favouring economic progress, favouring trade, or other, whereas in reality the attempt is the exact opposite. Not every single group or power involved necessarily has to understand their role within the divide-and-rule strategy, which is why it persists eternally. The effectiveness of divide and rule lies in its ability to prevent the emergence of collective opposition by exploiting or manufacturing internal conflicts, making it a powerful tactic for maintaining control over diverse populations or competitors. SETTLER COLONIALISM The last 500 years of European/white settler colonialism as a subsection of the divide-and-rule technique. The strategy was "farms/forts" and a systemic, slow advance into the lands of ingenious peoples all over the world. Same happened in North America, Australia, New Zealand, the Levant, South America, Southern Africa, etc. Broken promises, broken treaties, looking for excuses to make the next 'step' (ratchet principle). The only places the strategy of slow ponderous expansion failed was where the local systems were too numerous or organized (East Asia). The "template" might have various regional differences, but the end effect is always the same. Slow, step-by-step advance of the own ideology, economic systems, corporations and political power.

"Figuring out the USA foreign policy" is actually quite easy. They wish to avoid unity formatting in Eurasia, West Asia, Africa, South America, East Asia, and everywhere else. That's it. Rome: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubris and jingoism. The British Empire: used divide-and-rule unto others, hidden behind a history of hubbris and jingoism. The American Century: uses divide-and-rule onto others, and is currently hiding behind stories of hubris and jingoism... It means to AVOID the unity of all others.

*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. 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.

Stopping Russia from getting more political influence in the Black Sea region, growing at the expense of the Ottoman Empire, was already the argument for the Crimean War almost 200 years ago (1850s, Great Game). France and GB were of course growing into Mediterranean ... at the expense of the Ottoman Empire at the same time. There is no hypocrisy like imperialist hypocrisy. 😂

Wiki: *"Although initially against it, Bismarck eventually gave into the Army and to intense public demand in Germany for acquisition of the border provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, thereby turning France into a permanent, deeply committed enemy.* Theodore Zeldin says: "Revenge and the recovery of Alsace-Lorraine became a principal object of French policy for the next forty years. That Germany was France's enemy became the basic fact of international relations."[14] *Bismarck's solution was to make France a pariah nation, encouraging royalty to ridicule its new republican status, and building complex alliances with the other major powers - Austria, Russia and Great Britain - to keep France isolated, diplomatically.* [15][16] ... The Alsace-Lorraine issue remained a minor theme after 1880, and Republicans and Socialists systematically downplayed the issue and the monarchists (who emphasized the issue) faded away. Revanchism was not a major cause of war in 1914 because it faded after 1880. J.F.V. Keiger says: "By the 1880s, Franco-German relations were relatively good."[19][20][21] After 1880, the rapid growth in the population and economy of Germany left France increasingly far behind. *In the 1890s, relationships remained good, as Germany supported France during its difficulties with Great Britain over African colonies. ... After Bismarck's removal in 1890, French efforts to isolate Germany became successful;* with the formation of the Triple Entente, Germany began to feel encircled.[27] Foreign minister Delcassé, especially, went to great pains to woo Russia and Great Britain. Key markers were the Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894, the 1904 Entente Cordiale with Great Britain, and finally the Anglo-Russian Entente in 1907 which became the Triple Entente." [end of] or "Bismarck did not wish the breakup of the Ottoman Empire to create rivalries that might lead to war, so he took up Tsar Alexander II of Russia's earlier suggestion that arrangements be made in case the Ottoman Empire fell apart, *creating the Three Emperors' League with Austria-Hungary and Russia to keep France isolated on the continent."* [end of] This narrative is historically correct, because it also corroborates with grand strategy incentives, and with geopolitical realism. Making France Europe's pariah provided the incentive for Russia to align with Berlin, because any treaty with Berlin "split" Western Europe in two, with the dividing line between Germany and France: as long as France remained in "pariah status, the "next Napoleon" (Paris) could not find any "buck catchers" in Central European states and Kingdoms to march towards Moscow, as happened in 1815. As the informed history buff knows, the alliance of the willing marching on Moscow was composed of massive numbers of Germans, only under French command. Fairly simple sound deductive reasoning. In other words, as long as the "Second Reich" (Berlin) remained united, indivisible by Paris, and in alignment of sorts with St. Petersburg, Russia was safe. However, good relations and an alliance between Russia and Germany was a thorn in the sides for London, who would go to any lengths (even war) to try to torpedo or deny, to denounce or otherwise rattle such good relations or single alliance/alignment/power formatting. See the below thread, FOR MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE. Of course, history such this exemplifies that it was mainly France which blocked a Franco-German rapprochement after it became psychologically possible during the 1890's. Berlin would have had _no_ drive at all to create a hostile neighbour on its border, since the WERE already the continent's top dog after 1871, and since relations with both Russia and France _were_ both "good." *The described political clout misused to create tension on the continent, with an encirclement strategy against her neighbour, could _also have been used, instead, to create an alignment between Paris and Berlin. aka "rapprochement".* *One CAN make the argument that a rapprochement with Paris was of subservient nature to Berlin after 1890, because wooing London into the Triple Alliance came first. But one cannot make the argument that it was mainly Berlin which caused any of such realignments to fail.* ------------------------- AVOID THE SINGLE HEGEMONY = DIVIDE-AND-RULE After 1890, just like previously in European history, who had the incentive to change these good relations between other European powers, who could stand to gain a "continental army" in order to play divide-and-rule with Europe? The instigator was clearly London, who was (by own admission) in "Splendid Isolation" (overt and public narrative of the 1890s). Examples of this AVOID the single alliance, or hegemony taking shape, is stated in dozens of the below essays. It will NOT be constantly repeated for anybody not wishing to read, nor understand geopolitics. Who called their post-1878 war warmongering the acme of professionalism? The Treaty of San Stefano bugged London greatly, and it was mainly London storming ahead of the other Mediterranean powers with warmongering to avoid it, dragging along others like A-H or France. Why? Because San Stefano enabled Russian entry into the Med as "warm water port"-narrative, and getting access to the Med was the entire reasoning behind the Russo-Turkish War in the FIRST place (geopolitics/grand strategy). The "poor people"-argument was, as always in great power politics, secondary or tertiary arguments, for the "plebs". *London warmongering caused an "almost war" after the Russo-Turkish War of 1878/79 which (quote some London lords relishing behind closed doors) "drove a permanent rift between Russia and Germany"* (there is an entire essay, with sources for this "acme of professionalism" as the ongoing rhetoric of those who play divide-and-rule with neighbours and "friends" alike, in the below comments section). London had previously also always instigated against greater alliances forming on the continent, to avoid the single hegemony taking shape, which therefore fits a pattern.

I thought Wilhelm was Emperor - not a King! Surely you can only abdicate if you're a King or a Queen.

Inaccurate fact: The bloke who danced the ballet didn't die of a stroke, he died of a heart attack.

"All these London lords would have needed to do, starting around the year 1900, was to be completely unemotional/unbiased, and balance the powers as the world with a firm alliance system of European states." - Herr von Bernhard Oh dear, we're back to the idea that Britain possessed some mythical ability to resolve what you’ve already described as a thousand years of deeply entrenched rivalry and conflict. Let’s be clear: despite its reputation, Europe was not a schoolyard, and Britain was not some all-powerful "schoolteacher" capable of strolling in and making everyone play nice. “Germany! Give France back their marbles, shake hands, and go play together nicely!” LOL. The complexities of European history and the competing interests of the great powers of the time were far beyond a simple “balance of powers” fix. Britain could not just step in and magically patch up centuries of animosity, territorial disputes, and national ambitions. It wasn’t a matter of just waving a magic wand and saying, "Everyone get along now." Each country had its own deeply rooted goals and fears, and the balance of power was never a static solution - it was a delicate, shifting web. Britain, of course, had its own interests and couldn’t just be the “impartial mediator” in a continent full of rival empires. To believe that such an approach would have solved the complex dynamics of pre-World War I Europe is to ignore the very real power struggles and ideological rifts that were in play. If only it were as simple as "Let’s all get along!" But history, as we both know, is far messier than that.

Herr von Bernhard. You often repeat the claim that Wilhelm’s dismissal of Bismarck represented a shift in Germany's diplomatic approach, yet your evidence for Wilhelm being in any way less German-centric or less anti-French than his predecessor has yet to be presented. Wilhelm’s reign was marked by a series of provocative actions, such as his support for the Moroccan crises, which escalated tensions with France, rather than fostering a more conciliatory relationship. Moreover, his failure to maintain good relations with Russia and the resulting Franco-Russian alliance ultimately isolated Germany. Far from signalling a move away from an anti-French stance, Wilhelm's foreign policy decisions (driven by imperial ambitions and a desire for greater global influence) only intensified Europe’s geopolitical divisions. Without evidence of a deliberate shift in policy away from anti-French sentiments, it's hard to accept the argument that Wilhelm’s policies were any less focused on German interests and French opposition than Bismarck’s.

What did Europe lose, Herr von Bernhard? Why do you keep making such statements but persistently refuse to answer the simple question? Edit : Perhaps you need some prompts/hints? Power? Influence? Empires? Global dominance? Colonial exploitation? The disproportionate wealth derived from the above? The majority of the world's population would see Europe's "loss" as a nett positive?

In case you decide to come here. What Sachs and Diesen explain in the second half of the video, also happened at the end of the "era Bismarck" after the 1890s, as Germany went into a new age of trying to gravitate westwards, towards GB and France. Letting Bismarck go, a staunch anti-French advocate, WAS already the diplomatic signal sent out to Paris and London, that Berlin was ready for the New Course. The New Course was of course not ONLY about internal reforms, but also about geopolitical changes necessary at the time of a change in the GLOBAL balance of power. *It was London and Paris which gave Berlin the "cold shoulder".* 1) First Paris, which allied with Russia, instead of trying hard at a rapprochement with Germany. 2) Then followed by London, which had superficially signalled interest in an Anglo-German Alliance, but (weird, weird FACT, exactly AFTER Russia and France placed Germany in the predicament of the "2-front war") and just after Germany became encircled by the Franco-Russian Alliance (1891-1894) stated in 1895 that it had not further interests in an alliance with Germany. With that the prospect of gaining a foreign navy to take care of its international interests had to be buried. *Let's not, for the sake of the "narrative", forget how a timeline works.* Only after that all unfolded (1 and 2), was when the "era-Tirpitz" started, and the intention voiced to build an own navy to take care of the own global interests, rather than via an alliance system with France and Great Britain. Any "narrative" stating that it was Berlin which would have tried to torpedo such a new global balance of powers would be flawed from the outset, since it already starts on the wrong foot: the advocates stating that would FIRST have to make a case for WHY the power who would stand MOST to gain from a western European alliance system and new GLOBAL balance of power, would be the one trying to torpedo such talks. Again, all of this "rhymed" 100 years later. Putin did not appear out of the blue in 1999. He came AFTER Russia's 10-year attempt at "leaning westwards" were all given the "cold shoulder" by the arrogant USA/collective West after the collapse of the USSR in the early-1990s, as Sachs and Diesen admit in their talk. Otherwise, great talk... ------------------------------ *Why a new GLOBAL balance of power was necessary at the same time: around 1900.* From the intro of Capitalism in America (available as free PDF file), in which the authors make a case for the changing *balance of power* in the world in a slightly tongue in cheek manner: Greenspan and Woolridge create an imagined scenario of a "Davos Summit in the 17th Century" as the rulers in their empires and kingdoms around the world, principally places like Spain, Portugal or China, argue about "who is the greatest": "... plucky Briton makes the most unlikely case of all. His tiny country has broken with a corrupt and ossified continent and is developing dynamic new institutions: a powerful Parliament, a mighty navy (backed up by a few pirates), and a new species of organization, the chartered corporation, which can trade all over the world. In all of the arguing in [this imagined] Davos, one region goes unmentioned: North America. The region is nothing more than an empty space on the map-a vast wilderness sitting above Latin America, with its precious metals, and between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, with their trading routes and treasure troves of fish. The wilderness is populated by aboriginal peoples who have had no contact with the Davos crowd. There are a few Europeans in New England and Virginia-but they report that the life is hard and civilization non-existent. The entire North American continent produces less wealth than the smallest German principality." The entirely unemotional concept of the "Balance of Power". By the 19th Century, "plucky Brits" *had* achieved dominance, largely because *of* a *geographical advantage* which gave London the possibility to stand off and separated from continental power struggles, and gain from crisis and wars here... Of course, the fact that something was only termed or defined during the Napoleonic Wars, does not mean the concept did not exist as a matter of fact before that, because the concept goes back thousands of years. "The term balance of power came into use to denote the power relationships in the European state system from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to World War I. Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the “balancer,” or “holder of the balance.” It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration-the maintenance of the balance itself. Naval supremacy and its virtual immunity from foreign invasion enabled Great Britain to perform this function, which made the European balance of power both flexible and stable." [britannica website] All these London lords would have needed to do, starting around the year 1900, was to be completely unemotional/unbiased, and balance the powers as the world with a firm alliance system of European states. The world obviously went from a *"European balance of power"* into a new *global balance of power* as described by Alan Greenspan and Adrian Woolridge in their book (rising USA after the mid-19th Century), and is generally understood as America's golden age around the year 1900. *In case you like light-hearted meme videos, somebody should make one about London lords, the guardians of the British Empire under the heading "you had one job, and failed", and they ended up as the biggest loser of all :-)* Of course, the largest part of all in the ability the USA had in taking over as the world's dominant power, was the 2 European world wars, which brought ALL down in power, and easy to subvert when ALL ended up exhausted. Rather that simply "balancing GLOBAL power" around the year 1900, in an unemotional manner, London/GB (for various reasons, incl. European imperialism) "passed the buck" of her defense to her "new best friends" (ententes) France and Russia, her new "continental armies", starting around the year 1900. The block mentality of blockheads took over in Europe, and it created the situation of "encircling/encroaching" on the monarchies in the Central Europe. Not only the globe was not balanced anymore after around 1900, but neither was the continent of Europe. If London was not going to be an impartial balancer, then the states here would re-balance the power themselves, as they noticed power shift against them. *Furthermore, encroaching on and surrounding a rival is never a good idea.* As Sachs and Diesen admit, it wasn't a good idea after the 1990s, when the Cold War ended, and it wasn't a good idea after the 1890s as the centers of GLOBAL power shifted from single European states and alliances, over to North America/USA. Anyways. End effect of "passing the buck" of the Empire's defense to France and Russia, was that London lost its position in the world herself. After WW2 the ability to turn local conflicts into "world wars" went from London to Washington DC. London first lost her role as "balancer", then her role as "keeper of Pax" (Pax Britannica), then her power and influence, then her Empire. THE FINAL EPISODE "At the end of the war [WW2/post-1945], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a *"financial Dunkirk”.* The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate.* And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. *By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500]

*Who gains if there is disunity everywhere else in the world?* The deceivers, obfuscators, narrative creativity fans, spinners, framers, all the way over to the outright liars (by omitting). All those who wish to gain from the division of others, will twist themselves into a knot in order to AVOID answering. *It is their entire nature.* Avoid unity everywhere, avoid answering questions, avoid addressing the effects of their own politics, avoid addressing the effects of their own actions, AVOID, VETO, DENY, BLOCKADE... and then remain quiet with regards to the roles they played in fostering divisions all over the globe, even within their own peoples... *This can only be achieved from a unique position of the higher ground: geography/power. It has nothing to do with being "right".* Most of our history is too narrow, and can only serve as data to figure out the big picture. After around 1900, 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, ALL Europeans lost. WW1 and WW2 was one struggle which roots go back a 1,000 years: the battle for continental supremacy or "Who is the top dog in Western Europe?", and a balance of power between France and The Holy Roman Empire, with Russia off to one side of that, and Great Britain 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 the naval powers (GB and the USA) stepped in and supported France as the "favored nation" as a proactive divide-and-rule strategy of intended global control and domination (see footnote). Side with the weaker power, to AVOID unity and a single great power rising in Europe. *The Big Picture. Yet, for you, the little minion, they have neatly "compartmentalized" the history lesson you must rote-learn for class...* Foster division. Notice how throughout history, that certain types were never there on the frontlines, when push came to shove... _These types foster division from the background. The first step, often kept quite or apologized for, is to deceive to AVOID unity elsewhere, and thereby divide others, accompanied by the repetitive "nice-sounding stories."_ Then... 1) Divide-and-gain. If not. 2) Divide-and-control. If not. 3) Divide-and-rule. If not. 4) Divide-and-conquer. If not. *5) Divide-and-destroy.* ...then, when everybody else is down and out (exhausted), start again with 1) accompanied by a whole lot of finger pointing. The Albion. The Albion 2.0. In the end ALL Europeans lost and became subjected to the American Century, whose post-WW2 Truman Doctrine was simply more divide-and-rule, to drive a rift between Europeans. After the Cold War 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. The new "Iron Curtain" will soon be declared, under some or other fancy term, to divide the eternal "good guys" and the new "bad guys". *Just remember that there will always be a "bad guy" waiting for you. All you have to do, is to believe the story...* All of the above, as always, more than adequately elaborated and explained in great detail in more than 100 essays dealing with various subsections of history, in the below comments section. Read Mackinder (1904), which found its logical continuation with the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine, and Churchill's Iron Curtain.

This is equivalent to a 2030 documentary interviewing the last WW2 veterans. Not long away now...

I like this video

Snowballs tidys crushed cord and pearl tiggs to death

Micah’s daddy was sent to hell by shell shock

I yi yi. More trite clap trap history written by the winners. Have a look in Gaza - see if you think you should believe that history.

Honoring wildwood. 💍 We stay Great stamp in divine History.😂👑🦂🙋🏻‍♂️💎🌦️🏹

*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.

By the way, just because Britain might not have gone to war with Nazi Germany in Sep 1939, doesn't mean she wouldn't have been pulled into the war at a later date and now at a much worse disadvantage. That's what Hitler hoped would happen, if Britain entered a war against Nazi Germany at all. Hitler wanted his war and he was going to get one. If one thinks a post-war Britain would have lived in peace with a triumphant Nazi Germany, then nothing at all has been learned from that last horrible century. The appeasement philosophy that still persists is now why the West is not properly opposing Putin's Russia.

"Those who refuse to learn from History, will repeat it."

I don't know why, but the message of this man sounds hollow.

Evils of racism my arse!!! Diversity has f**ked this country!!!!

In looking back, in my silly opinion, Frank Joseph is the most villain, Wilhem only wanted to save face, yes, Wilhelm was a weak a**, the Czar. & the king were his cousins, being....a little arm disabled.Wilhem was a little...uneasy (heck a lot ....damaged)

Herr von Bernhard, I am validating neither your position nor your argument. True unity does not spring from dismissing or denigrating those who think differently from you. True unity comes from engagement - from dialogue and understanding differing points of view, even if you do not agree with them. Casting others out from your "ingroup" simply because they do not hold the same worldview as you is not a path to unity. Your rhetoric, which demands we should simply dismiss "the fools" and the "rolling masses," is nothing more than a cop-out. You must be prepared to take the time to understand and comprehend the grievances of others, rather than issuing a blanket dismissal simply because they dare to think differently. Unity requires more than just accepting different perspectives - it requires the willingness to listen, empathize, and engage. There is no single truth to which you alone hold the key, and true understanding comes from the effort to see the world from others' viewpoints and accept that their views are no less valid than your own. Humans are not monolithic, and differing opinions are an inevitable and necessary part of our existence. True unity requires more than simply tolerating those differences - it demands that we actively engage with them, seek to understand them, and even learn from them. To dismiss, shun, or fail to engage with and understand those who hold different perspectives is not to promote unity; it is to foster division. To repeat, I am not validating your position or argument. From my own perspective, your rhetoric demonstrates neither a path to unity nor the moral and ethical capacity for it.

@lowestofhedead Thank you for acknowledging the validity of the observations, and the impact of the divide-and-rule strategy of power (theory) on evolving events. Over the past 10 years or so, I've studied at least 100,000 comments in the "digital Colosseum of human behaviour" which is the www. Can't remember who came up with that, but shoutout. Sometimes hundreds of comments a day, from the shallow "one-liners" right through to the longer essays. From the flippant platitudes and the obnoxious, to the deep and poetic. Yes I've often thought about creating a means to advocate my own standpoint, but I've so-far decided against it. Why? What can be gained from something, that has not already been tried 100 years ago, 500 years ago or 2000 years ago? One will in end effect simply create "disciples", "advocates", "fanbases" and other followers which will then create a response to these advocates: the emergent "opposite pole" (per theory presented below). All then end up more or less loudly presenting their "truths" That will then create "divides" as people argue their "wrongs/rights, and it will CONTRIBUTE to the divide-and-rule world, not be the solution. _By offering the solution to friction resulting out of interhuman relations, one will eventually only contribute to the "divides," which is counterproductive._ Sound familiar? It should, because thousands of years ago several prophets set out to solve friction, by advocating a few set rules of behaviour, and what resulted out of that was conflict, wars, and million-fold suffering as the "disciples" started mingling their worldly "interests" into the fray, with hundreds of offshoots from the original prophets and their simple messages, all ending up ki!!ing each other... The issue is that there are billions of people on the planet who cannot see any "issues", and in the simplified worldview presented to them by the propaganda channels, there are always and perpetually only a few "bad guys". When the "bad guys" come, then the "good guys" must fight them. In their world view, solidified by thousands of novels and movies, the "good guys" are the "default good", and therefore the "other side is the default bad" (sic.). Once such thinking patterns become emergent, by not acknowledging own faulty behaviour, one already becomes a part of the PROBLEM, not the "solution." *All throughout history, the very people causing every single problem with the own entitled standpoints, are also the ones who give us the "solutions" to these problems they have caused themselves. Note, however "Qui bono?".* There are hundreds of examples of the divide-and-rule strategy of power in the below comments section. Please choose "latest comments first" (three little bars at the top of each comments section). The issue that the further one reads down, the more likely one will become confronted with the own "self", which is a hurdle almost impossible to cross for the overwhelming majority of mankind. Note that the INTENTION to divide others, is the root cause of all evil, which breeds an "opposite pole" (emergent resistance), and vice-versa. The INTENTION to unite, creates an opposite pole, with the intent to break up emerging unity. We are not outnumbered. We are out-organized. Out-powered. Out-monetized. Out-narrativized... PIC: Political Industrial Complex FIC: Financial Industrial Complex NIC: Narrative Industrial Complex MIC: Military Industrial Complex CIP: Cultural Industrial Complex They play "5D-chess" with the minds of 2D-checkers players who think they are "smart". Suggested narrative strategy against the eternal dividers and their narrative control: 1) always mention *divide-and-rule* at regular intervals 2) always point out WHY the current event is a part of a strategy of top-down *divide-and-rule* 3) always point out HOW divisions are implemented by use of resources (including "human resources" aka men/women) 4) point out WHICH way individuals (and currently, also AI) are used as TOOLS OF DIVISION in a region of the globe 5) repeat WHERE the particular narrative fits into the Big Picture 6) unlike the DIVIDERS who keep their devious means a secret, we the opposition will play with open cards 7) see 1) thru 6), repeat and mention and explain it again and again and again Therefore, as per 2) the strategy of top-down influenced and bought "narrative CONTROL" is already "divide-and-rule" to CONTROL your mind, in order to create the useful "ingroup." The "divide and control/rule/conquer"-world is intact. It is practically as old as modern civilisation, and has never been defeated. Those with true power will do their utmost to ensure that the "divide and rule"-world we live in today, will rule for all times, because the DIVIDERS win, if all others fail. *How to stand up to, and overcome the divide-and-rule system of power.* The divide-and-rule system is a formless headless global system composed of every imaginable race, religion, ethnicity, language group, class, creed as an "ingroup" of power. This ingroup which intends to DIVIDE emergent unity elsewhere, contains all forms of "personal conviction" as "-ism" imaginable, with only a little input from top tiers. Their aim is to AVOID unity. *Therefore the only way to oppose it is to create an opposite pole (balance of power) made up of every imaginable race, religion, ethnicity, language group, class, creed (ingroup). The only potentially successful opposition to divide-and-rule, is to create a formless headless system which manages itself, with a very simple motto: "Avoid disunity/no leaders."*

"Don't waste any time. Step to the side, and let this rolling mass of slogan-chanting banner-waving unicolor fools storm past, then take off in the OPPOSITE direction. It doesn't matter how many there are, or what "truths" they loudly proclaim, just leave and let them storm ahead into the trenches their own leaders have dug for them..." - Herr von Bernhard It's ironic that you fail to recognise your own banner waving. It’s almost as if you're blind to the fact that your own rhetoric embodies the very behaviour you claim to scorn. Perhaps you believe your “banner” and your "slogans" represent the only truth, making them exempt from scrutiny - an assumption that runs counter to the very scepticism you preach. If unity were truly the goal, the intelligent and constructive approach would be to engage with the "rolling mass" you so dismissively describe. Asking questions, understanding their grievances, and addressing the root causes of their discontent would pave the way for reconciliation and progress. Instead, your rhetoric promotes a divisive stance - walking away without attempting to build bridges. "They don't think like us, so shun them or dismiss them". That is simply marginalization. If the goal is truly unity, then engaging with those who think differently is essential.

@cherylrusso1805 Yes you are quite right. In case any outside power should ever try to divide Americans, they would unite. Washington DC and an entire steered apparatus will see to it. Only very few would take sides with the outsiders. The exact opposite is that has been happening on the Arabian Peninsula ever since the era of European imperialism and before. The invaders are winning. Outsiders who came for own gain fostered the divisions between the tribes (tribalism) and strategized to gain riches at the expense of Arabs, the indigenous inhabitants. One can draw parallels to the Americas after Europeans arrived. Throughout history every Arab leader whose standpoint was "unity" has been systemically demonized in our Western narratives, with "bad" behavior prioritized (key word, "Black Legend"-concept). If the local leadership does not allow the extraction of common wealth, the followers were collectively sanctioned (the modern "naval blockade") until they revolt against leaders wishing unity, they were waged war on or bombed to create disunity. Then top-down rule is imposed, and the cycle repeats. It has always been "unifiers" against "dividers". So far the dividers have always "won." The biggest losers are, as elsewhere on the planet, the innocent people. Commoners, toilers. They have no clue how outsiders dictate their future with the divide-and-rule strategy. cheers

Trying to explain how systems use strategies of power to people blinded by ideology or idealism is a waste of time. Like trying to explain what color looks like to somebody who is blind, or what classical music sounds like, to somebody who is deaf. These people would rather end up in the muddy trench, or remain ignorant, deceived into going there by their own leaders, rather than think... *Don't waste any time. Step to the side, and let this rolling mass of slogan-chanting banner-waving unicolor fools storm past, then take off in the OPPOSITE direction. It doesn't matter how many there are, or what "truths" they loudly proclaim, just leave and let them storm ahead into the trenches their own leaders have dug for them...* Apart = separate = divide. Apartheid = divide-and-rule. Jim Crow = Apartheid = divide-and-rule. Apart = separate = divide. *Critical question: how does a minority CONTROL a majority? How does a faraway empire, control a large group of people? Correct answer, call "them" (outgroup) a "potential tyranny" and divide them. Just remember: YOU are also the "tyranny" in their heads.* THE PATTERN ALWAYS RHYMES Arabian Peninsula = Between the sea and the sea (Mediterranean/Indian Oceans) and should have included ALL peoples who lived here. The "barriers" were in the brain (divisive tribal thinking), to the detriment of all when the "dividers" came. The lines in the sands were historically drawn by "empires" to achieve gain, and are currently USED by "empires" to perpetuate gain for the own systems. The DIVIDED are led like lambs to the slaughter. Blind with regards to their own roles in the divide-and-rule strategy of OUTSIDERS. *Historically, who gained from DIVISION?* Who would have gained from a fair UNITY on the Arabian Peninsula, when the faraway "empires" came for them after WW1? _Correct answer: the people who lived there._ After WW1 the British- and French empires used the divide-and-rule technique, to carve up the Arabian Peninsula and subvert all the people living here. The lines were drawn to carve up the oil resources, strategically valuable territory, and to AVOID one power from gaining too much of the POWER which these reserves would afford them. *The "divide-and-rule strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it creates ingroups of "empire fans" who gain and can become very very rich, even as millions of others suffer.* THE PATTERN ALWAYS RHYMES *Look over the horizon. Eurasia. When carrying out a geopolitical analysis, do not make the same mistakes as European tribes did 125 years ago, and 30 years ago, when they FAILED TO UNITE in time.* Don't make the same mistakes as Native Americans, and Incas and Aztecs did 500 years ago, who FAILED TO UNITE in time. Do not make the same mistakes as Africa's black tribes and the Boers did 150 years ago, who FAILED TO UNITE in time. *Don't make the same mistake Chinese rulers during their "Century of Humiliation", and many many more all over the world, who all failed to look past the limited horizons open to them. YOUR "horizons" are given to you by the texts in your own history books, which tend or intend to LIMIT your horizon, not open it.* Treaty of Versailles = Divide and rule of and over neighbours (Europe/Eurasia), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours whom the dividers wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weakened local systems who "lost the war" and which they wished to create top down). After WW1 European leaders who did not understand the logic of Chesterton's fence, and destroyed what they did not understand (European Balance of Power, as per Concert of Europe, 1815). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such systemic "line drawing" agreements/accords? Zoom into the present... THE PATTERN ALWAYS RHYMES *Abrahamic Accords = Divide and rule of and over direct neighbours (Arabian Peninsula), and the misguided logic they imposed on their neighbours whom they wished to keep "down" in power, and "out" of their own systems of rule (divide-and-rule onto and over the weaker local systems). Who was "let in" and who was "left out" of such agreements/accords?* The leaders of West Asia are all "divided loyalties" as long as they bow down to outside interests and value their own vested interests before the interests of the entire region (oil resources which had been turned into US/EU/Swiss assets _for a few chosen ones_ over the span of 50 years, or the *"my precious borders"-mentality* of ideologues, past the well-being of the majority of the own peoples). *One of the biggest misconceptions of history is the ability of the ideologically/systemically indoctrinated individual to view themselves as unique when part of a bigger group, whereas as a general rule their own histories rhyme with other historical events, based on the systemic analysis. The will to keep the own systems APART from their neighbours (divided by ideology and rulings) always backfires, when one is no longer "King of the Mountain" (strategy of power). By the time everything implodes, the rulers/dividers are long gone, having previously brought their own wealth and families to safe havens.*

"The marching route of the empire. Systemic/ideological expansion. Eastern Europe. Balkans. Black Sea. Caucasus region. Already explained, more than TWO YEARS ago..." Drang nach Osten, a 19th-century German nationalist intent to expand Germany into Slavic territories of Central and Eastern Europe. Also the favoured routes of expansion for the Imperial Russian Empire. I suppose a clash or two was inevitable?

As none of your listed wars were fought in the name of unity, Herr von Bernhard, no one fought to oppose it either. The Seven Years’ War (1756-1763) was driven by imperial dominance and territorial expansion, with European powers vying not for unity, but for influence, resources, and control over colonies. The Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) were fueled by Napoleon Bonaparte’s ambition to extend French dominance across Europe, not to unify it, but to consolidate power under his rule, disrupting the established European order. World War II (1939-1945) was defined by aggressive expansionism, territorial conquest, and ideological conflicts. Similarly, World War I (1914-1918) was sparked by complex alliances, nationalist ambitions, and imperial competition-none of which were rooted in a desire for European unity, but rather in strategic interests and the balance of power. Do not confuse conquest, expansionism, and the pursuit of power with 'unity.' That is folly. Hitler was not offering Europe "unity", no matter what you have previously stated.

You didn't answer the question, Herr von Bernhard : How does Germany's decision to support factions seeking independence in Yugoslavia fit into your narrative of malicious intent? Can you explain why Germany chose to act as it did, within the bounds of your own stated premise, and without the usual deflections or finger-pointing? Remember, your statement : ""Russia wanted Yugoslavia to remain intact (old "warm water port"-narrative), and the USA/EU/NATO wanted to break it up into smaller, less powerful pieces/states it could use as extensions of the own power, access economically and militarily into the Balkans and the adjacent Black Sea, and squeeze Russian influence "out"."" What was Germany's "agenda" that you failed to spot in 1989?

Yes, many people can be deceived. Bringing a "majority" on "my side" doesn't PROVE anything, except that one can bring people on the own "side". Already addressed, years ago. Nothing countered. Theory intact.

The assertion that anyone opposing Russian aggression in Ukraine must either be a blind follower of Western narratives or a "paid Putin puppet" is a false dichotomy. This oversimplification ignores the complexity of the situation and the principles at stake. Many people oppose Russia’s actions out of a commitment to international law, sovereignty, and the defence of an independent nation. This position aligns with broader European values like stability, peace, and the rule of law, without requiring blind allegiance to Western policies. Acknowledging Western self-interest - whether economic or strategic - does not invalidate the legitimacy of Ukraine’s struggle for survival or the broader European interest in resisting aggression. Legitimate criticism of profiteering, prolonged conflict, or questionable policies by Western powers does not equate to undermining Ukraine or endorsing Russian aggression. These critiques often aim to improve accountability and outcomes. Your framing of the conflict as a mere proxy war between global powers conspicuously omits any acknowledgment of the Ukrainian people, their wishes, agency, and sacrifices. That silence is deafening and very telling. Ukraine is a sovereign nation, not your chessboard and not a battleground for external powers to exploit. Its people have overwhelmingly demonstrated their desire for independence and self-determination. From the Maidan Revolution to today’s resistance, Ukrainians have actively shaped their destiny, rejecting domination by Russia and seeking closer ties to Europe. The Ukrainians have a long and rich history, and framing the conflict as purely geopolitical erases the lived experiences, aspirations, and suffering of millions of Ukrainians. This narrative dismisses their fight for survival as a strategic game, which is not only inaccurate but morally untenable. The Ukrainian people have consistently exercised agency, from protests in 2014 to their ongoing resistance. Reducing them to pawns of external powers insults their sacrifices and ignores the reality of their fight. Boris Johnson’s acknowledgment of Western interests reflects a pragmatic understanding of geopolitics, not an endorsement of Russian aggression, which he has been consistent in denouncing. Zelensky’s remarks about the West’s long-war approach highlight frustrations with external priorities, but they do not diminish his leadership or Ukraine’s legitimate fight for sovereignty. Europe’s support for Ukraine reflects shared values - sovereignty, stability, and the rule of law - not blind allegiance to the U.S. or NATO. Unity in opposing Russian aggression allows for diverse opinions on strategy and critiques of Western actions. This is not evidence of contradiction, neither is it a formal statement of policy, but of democratic discourse and free speech. People can, and do, hold differing opinions. Your posts focus narrowly on power struggles and Western interests, ignoring the Ukrainian people’s agency and aspirations. This glaring omission reveals a deeply flawed understanding of the conflict. Any honest discussion must centre on the people whose lives and futures are at stake. Ukrainians are not simply tools to validate and push your narratives of “Western meddling” or “Germany as victim.” Ukraine’s fight is not about serving external interests but about defending its right to self-governance and independence. No other nation on the planet would do any less, and that includes Russia. Ignoring this perpetuates a dehumanizing and incomplete view of the war. By framing the conflict as solely a proxy war, you erase the voices and struggles of Ukrainians who have fought, suffered, and sacrificed for their independence and their right to self-determination. Recognizing their role and agency is essential to any honest and ethical analysis of this war. Attempts such as yours to obscure or diminish their agency serve only to perpetuate a narrative that dehumanizes Ukraine and distorts the truth. But. of course, for you the truth is always secondary to the desired narrative, isn't it?

"When people start thinking in terms of dichotomies like winning/losing, left/right wing, us/them, right/wrong, unity/division, they are already all "losers."" - Herr von Bernhard "Europe is already lost, and it lost around the year 1900." - Herr von Bernhard (loser?)

Meanwhile, after more than two years Boris Johnson has admitted that the war in the Ukraine is a proxy war for US/collective Western interests, and Vladimir Zelensky has stated that "there are those in the West who don't mind a long war [in Ukraine]" to extend Russia, using his peoples as tools for the gain of outsiders who drool over the profits (Mitch McConnell), or lust after the systemic expansion possible as result of great upheavals amongst human beings. Does this take the wind out of the sails of the "paid Putin puppet"-screamers, blindly chanting their MSM narratives against those who have said this from day 1? Not at all. In order to fit their world views, these tools will deny reality, rattle down the narrative to a point of making total fools of themselves. They would now have to believe that Boris Johnson, or Vladimir Zelensky are "paid Putin puppets", in order to square a circle... This is exactly what is meant with fools arguing their way into the trenches their own leaders have deceived them into. *The Atlanticists' strategists and world views, far away from the divisions they foster and pay for by proxy, the constant crises they instigate, the cold wars they lay the foundation for, or the hot wars they avoid avoiding (double negative); and whose navies give them access to the world's resources (incl. "human resources") have always wanted long wars, if there was prospect of systemic gains using a geographical advantage (distance from warring states) or if there was any danger of unity formatting in Europe/Eurasia.* Where the "tool" Berlin fits in, as TOOLS off expansion, HAS already been explained. The marching route of the empire. *Systemic/ideological expansion.* Eastern Europe. Balkans. Black Sea. Caucasus region. Already explained, more than TWO YEARS ago... A part of this essay is being blocked by yt. So I'll try to post the rest in the subsection...

You didn't answer the question, Herr von Bernhard : How does Germany's decision to support factions seeking independence in Yugoslavia fit into your narrative of malicious intent? Can you explain why Germany chose to act as it did, within the bounds of your own stated premise, and without the usual deflections or finger-pointing? Remember, your statement : ""Russia wanted Yugoslavia to remain intact (old "warm water port"-narrative), and the USA/EU/NATO wanted to break it up into smaller, less powerful pieces/states it could use as extensions of the own power, access economically and militarily into the Balkans and the adjacent Black Sea, and squeeze Russian influence "out"."" What was Germany's "agenda" that you failed to spot in 1989? This is your narrative, Herr von Bernhard. If you believe blame is being apportioned, then that is due to the nature of the narrative you chose to introduce, not the further discussion of said narrative.