I was repeatedly 'grumpy and disgruntled' but loved it. Two charming and erudite people, fascinating discussion, and thoughtful comments. Things can't be so bad, I remind myself, in a world where these discussions are being held and contributed to by commentary such as found below. Thank you.
@ralphbernhard1757
27 күн бұрын
@@b.alexanderjohnstone9774 @b.alexanderjohnstone9774 The strategy can be revealed by looking at known cases of it being implemented, and then comparing it to unknown cases of it being implemented. For example 1878, after San Stefano... en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Stefano ....when London set out to split apart the Three Kaiser League, with a war threat. Of course, sources and "narrative history" is not going to reveal that. One has to look at the hidden part of history usually not elaborated in TV docs, or popular history books (sources: theses or in-depth specialized research). That is the strategy. With own actions, one attempts to divide the opposition.
@michaelpearse5603
26 күн бұрын
Thank you! :)
@Ballardian
Ай бұрын
34:00 "Can societies become modern without becoming Western?" Hasn't China already answered that question? The US stupidly and arrogantly assumed that if China modernised and became more capitalist then it would adopt western style values and government. It didn't.
@michaelpearse5603
Ай бұрын
By now (but not in 2003, when the book was written), it seems it has.
@sabinehahn9774
Ай бұрын
Yes, it is our inherent disrespect towards other cultures that becomes our downfall. It didn't have to be, but we were arrogant.
@craigmillward2676
Ай бұрын
So pleased you are revisiting the themes contained in this book Meic & Koelle. I read it for the first time last year and found it resonated very strongly. Some parts obviously need updating, and others need expanding to take note of 20 years of world events. I am therefore hoping you are going to consider this series as your opportunity to give us a revised and updated edition.
@michaelpearse5603
Ай бұрын
Thank you, Craig! Sadly, the publisher does not do 2nd editions. I may need to see if I can get another publisher to do so. If you have any contacts or ideas....
@b.alexanderjohnstone9774
27 күн бұрын
Brilliant profundity at circa 43. The west didn’t exactly love it when the 'west' was imposed on us in circa 1700s England. We 'colonised' ourselves first. Many many others said it before Marx, although his critique remembered as if unique.
@CRegensche1n
Ай бұрын
Such an interesting show He is touching on so many issues that i am covering in my dissertation Why have i never heard of his book?!
@ralphbernhard1757
26 күн бұрын
Why does the rest hate the West? The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris (Sykes-Picot/Balfour Declaration/WW1), then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Draw lines on the map without asking any of those affected. Endless wars, constant dissent. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? Same types of people and systems. Different times. Same games. ------------------------------------- The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. Once the dividers have reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) so the own systems of gain can siphon off wealth like a giant vacuum cleaner. The intention was simply to avoid unity in Africa, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Give them money, and they will dance for the dividers... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Four corners of the globe. Different rules. Same games. -------------------------------------- The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. In the beginning stages of era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power on the local systems (Aztecs/Incas), then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC. As the own power increased incrementally, the entire world became the playground after around 1900. _Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbours._ *Forget "nukes". The "divide and rule/conquer"-strategy is the most powerful force on the planet.* Ever since the two-faced "snake" slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), human beings have fruitlessly warned and have continuously been warned, against "divisions" within a peaceful status quo. Such divisions create GAIN for OUTSIDERS (Eden as a "system" divided by lies and deceit). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent with everything's a war war war... Insert levers of lies, mistrust... Create favourites: favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER, to those who volunteer to act as proxies... Point the systemic finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... *In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity."* [Critical question: Who is "we"?] And that is what they did. And that is what you are fighting for. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a "pattern" of alignments which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other. It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia for the template. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? That is what empires have always done. Create the default rival/enemy on their own marching routes. It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the default rival/enemy. Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it immediately becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them in the divide and rule technique of power. Because ..."most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams *War is a great "divider." It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through families, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with themselves.*
@mark4asp
Ай бұрын
The first 4 minutes are filler and intro. This goes on way too long. I stopped listening at that point.
@PauloAdriano-zo2ng
Ай бұрын
He's slow and plodding, like clotted English cream.
@CRegensche1n
Ай бұрын
Low attention span detected
@mark4asp
Ай бұрын
@@CRegensche1n I should pay attention for 4 minutes of filler designed to captivate me for advertisers?
@b.alexanderjohnstone9774
28 күн бұрын
So US were arrogant, British too, when we ran the world, fair enough, but compared to what? Tell me who was not? Rome? Ottomans? At least we were/are polite. China never stopped asserting superiority. I don't fear criticism, that's our strength historically, but I get a bit fed up when it's shorn from context. Most things can be made to look bad in isolation. Compared to what? Is the question. (I actually loved this conversation, cheers).
@michaelpearse5603
27 күн бұрын
Well, as you can see from most of the comments here (and on the others in this series), many people are VERY reluctant to let go of talking about politics (or international relations). Those who watched long enough to see that we're changing the conversation are annoyed at us for doing so, as though there was something we just don't 'get'. And many more didn't watch long enough to see that - and are just venting their politics here. We're wanting to say that most ordinary people don't think much about politics. Their sense of unease and alienation at the West comes from ... well, from the things that we ARE talking about here.
@ralphbernhard1757
26 күн бұрын
*"The balance of power is one of the oldest and most fundamental concepts in international relations theory.* Although there are many variations of balance of power theory and interpretations of the concept, all are premised on the minimum of a tendency and the maximum of a lawlike recurrent equilibrium model. According to this model, imbalances and concentrations in military and material capabilities among the great powers are checked, and the equilibrium is restored in order to ensure the survival of the major powers in the international system. The great powers have several mechanisms to restore the balance, including internal military buildup where economic wealth is converted into military power, the formation of counterbalancing alliances, passing the buck of balancing to another state, partition and compensation in postwar peace settlements, and emulation. In contrast, many scholars find that secondary and tertiary states are more likely to bandwagon or join with the more powerful state or coalition of states rather than balance against it. Based on structural realism as advanced by Kenneth Waltz in Theory of International Politics (New York: Random House, 1979), the self-help anarchic system and shifts in the relative distribution of capabilities mean that balances of power recurrently form in the international system. How states balance will depend on the distribution of capabilities among the greater powers. In bipolar distributions of power (two great powers) states will balance through internal military buildup. In multipolar distributions of power (three or more) states will balance through the formation of counterbalancing alliances. Finally, according to John Mearsheimer, in balanced multipolar distributions of power (three or more equally powerful states), great powers are likely to pass the buck of balancing or “buck pass” to a “buck catcher” the responsibility of balancing. In the current unipolar distribution of power, a number of scholars contend that states are engaging in soft balancing and leash slipping rather than traditional hard balancing. Others contend that no balancing is occurring and the imbalanced or unipolar distribution is both durable and stable." (Balance of Power Theory, Steven E. Lobell, DOI: 10. 1093/OBO/ 9780199743292- 0083) "BALANCE OF POWER, a phrase in international law for such a “just equilibrium” between the members of the family of nations as should prevent any one of them from becoming sufficiently strong to enforce its will upon the rest. The principle involved in this, as Hume pointed out in his Essay on the Balance of Power, is as old as history, and was perfectly familiar to the ancients both as political theorists and as practical statesmen. *In its essence it is no more than a precept of commonsense born of experience and the instinct of self-preservation; for, as Polybius very clearly puts it (lib. i. cap. 83): “Nor is such a principle to be despised, nor should so great a power be allowed to any one as to make it impossible for you afterwards to dispute with him on equal terms concerning your manifest rights.”* (Wiki, similar Britannica, etc.) A "balance of power"-logic, has NOTHING to do with imperialism. It is the exact opposite. Create a just balance of all powers, if not, suffer the consequences. The concept of the "balance of powers" can of course easily be misinterpreted, or be intentionally construed, as the "other side" (ingroup vs. outgroup dynamics) being imperialist, or wanting to "rule the world." In that manner, the _own_ (ingroup) imperialism, or wish to rule and dominate the world can be hidden. Notice how in books and debates, the "soft words" are often elevated in importance, because the dissenters think that the world was built on soft words, even though Theodore Roosevelt stated clearly what would follow if soft words don't work. Intebtions to balance, are countered by the own system's proactive *use of the divide and rule"-technique of top-down power.* For example, the beautiful soft words during the Indian Wars in North America, _but which way were the borders moving_ as the other side was being "battered down"? (§§footnote) There is no right or wrong. There is no "good side" or "bad side". *There is only cause and effect.* The "effect" is created by the POWER which determined or dictated the "cause." Who wielded the POWER? That is the question. §§footnote This Woodrow Wilson quote exposing his imperialistic mindset, in another context, but top-down POWER nonetheless. *Of course, one can be a "progressive" or a "liberal," and an "imperialist" at the same time.* Political leaders, states, and empires alike, can be a lot of different things all at the same time, all in parallel. Evidence? The British Empire, or the French Empire, or the USA after 1898...
@seekingabsolution1907
25 күн бұрын
We were not polite, also the romans were a mostly Mediterranean power, they didn't rule the world the way Britain and France did in the 1800s. You are justifying our actions based on precedent from our history which doesn't apply to the history of those we colonised. India had a similar but distinct history of empires which were far more pluralistic for most of its history and the british rule in that land killed more people than any other government in human history. Largely by turning it into a cash crop plantation.
@seekingabsolution1907
25 күн бұрын
@@michaelpearse5603actually most people in the global south are keenly aware that their material conditions are shit and even the smallest amount of time invested in finding out why will show that their problems are rooted in both historic and modern day colonialism. They aren't stupid, and it is condescending of you to assume they would miss this very obvious fact when the effects of it are all around them.
@ralphbernhard1757
Ай бұрын
*It's divide-and-rule.* At the turn of the previous century, around 1900, Washington DC set out to divide (Europe) and gain (from collective European madness). Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically. In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today *still* carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact). Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it. *"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene* And "observe the details and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump (Trump Doctrine") and others... All of these terms can be googled for more context. Note that in order to play this game, the divider must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily. What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favouritism of mostly Paris and London? *London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.* Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars. *A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany (1871), was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy), and this "division" of the continent was subsequently strengthened, not weakened by the "ententes" (1904/1907): Divide-and-rule.* The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not generally disputed by most historians. To avoid = to separate = to "divide" others... A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine. *It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.* The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..." A declaration which would not last long. LOL, no. They were *not* satiated. After a period of strategic consolidation following the Civil War (1865), leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence". The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippines and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895. To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied... How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain? *Answer: favouritism.* "Favor" some above others...temporarily. For London, it meant "nodding off" the conquests of GB/British Empire in Africa, by not offering any substantial opposition to the Second Boer War, as "interests" were coordinated (see the Great Rapprochement between London and Washington DC following 1895). Sign away the independence of people, for own gains elsewhere, which is typical of the behavior of an empire. It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well. *It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.* Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but a global divide-and-rule strategy of power: divide Europeans and all others, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacitly supported the German position and insisted on Moroccan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism. Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, *and* at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today. Classical of typical globally effected divide-and-rule policies: - the "ententes" which London made with France (1904) and Russia (1907), which encircled Germany almost completely by adding the oceans to the "encirclement" (this would have pleased Washington DC strategists greatly) - the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, which "divided" Europeans with a "ruling" - the post-WW2 Truman Doctrine similarly "drew lines on the map" which "divided" Europe into "friends" and "enemies" *A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.* IT WAS THE (QUOTE) "POLICY OF THE WORLD" Or, one could state that if one is far enough away from the effects of the own decisions, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else. One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets. *Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.* From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy." Elements of this technique involve: - creating or encouraging divisions ... - to prevent alliances that could challenge ... - distributing forces that they overpower the other - aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate - fostering distrust and enmity Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories." [edited for clarity re. the states/empires level of things] *"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.* Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact. _It does not matter if the actors are aware that they are aiding and abetting a divide-and-rule strategy of power they are probably not aware of._ What matters is that The American Century looooves capitalism, corporatism, and democracy, because it offers the unending flow of those in search of profit and in search of personal/systemic POWER, who then cooperate with the hegemony at the expense of the own populations. *For* the "empire" ruling in the background divide-and-rule means advantages on multiple tiers resulting out of the fact *that* it is implemented (an example here, are the actions of Sir Lawrence of Arabia, who might or might not have known of his "role" in the Empire's divide-and-rule strategy of the Levant, and ME around WW1).
@jeffersonclippership2588
Ай бұрын
Sir, this is a Wendy's
@ralphbernhard1757
Ай бұрын
@@jeffersonclippership2588 It is crafted for those who have at least a few working brain cells, and is not suitable for meme fanboys...
@sabinehahn9774
Ай бұрын
@@ralphbernhard1757 can I please copy this and repost? It has cleared quite a lot of things for me.
@ralphbernhard1757
Ай бұрын
@@sabinehahn9774 Hello Sabine. Please do. Feel free to use the information as you please, and spread it as far as you can. 🙏✌️
@b.alexanderjohnstone9774
27 күн бұрын
Smaller European states did not want to 'unite' in Europe under Napoleon or Kaiser or Hitler. Britain could have done nothing alone, without European states opposed to hegemony but I'm glad you are made happy by the thought of all Europe under the thumb of the conqueror. I wish Britain had ever been as powerful (and as brutally badass) as you seem to think! Britain never wanted anything from Europe except peace and balance.
@ralphbernhard1757
6 күн бұрын
*ideology* Source: Dictionary noun 1. a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. "the ideology of democracy" Similar: beliefs, ideas, ideals This "box" called "TV" billions bow down to, has got millions to believe they should lie and kill for their ideology. When the ideology they openly and proudly flaunt kills millions, their leaders say that the death of 500,000 children was "worth it" (Madeleine Albright), and there are no repercussions at all. Millions look at such deaths, and don't even bat an eye. They carry on with their lives in sinecure comfort... Millions cheer and cherish their ideologues and dear leaders who appear to them in these "boxes". The ideology their ideologically indoctrinated leaders openly state they should send "dumb, stupid animals" (quote Henry Kissinger) to kill for, is democracy in colusion with corporatism, and the slogan they chant is "Make the world safe for democracy". Strange, that their Bible says not to "lie, steal, and kill", but their leaders constantly lie and call upon them to kill to spread democracy. One ideal, must be wrong. When one criticizes an ideologue's ideology, they expose their true nature.
@sabinehahn9774
Ай бұрын
Interesting conversation, but the constant laughing is somewhat annoying.
@jeffersonclippership2588
Ай бұрын
I mean there was the whole imperialism and colonization thing.
@cl1mbat1ze
Ай бұрын
That doesn’t fully explain it. Colonialism was a net good, with British colonialism probably being the most beneficial and with the fewest atrocities. Of course, it’s still understandable that there is animosity, but there are countries with no animosity at all.
@ralphbernhard1757
Ай бұрын
@@cl1mbat1ze Spot the imperialist apologist....
@jeffersonclippership2588
Ай бұрын
@@cl1mbat1ze why do you hate Islam when them colonizing Spain was a net good?
@cl1mbat1ze
Ай бұрын
@@jeffersonclippership2588 I don't know if that's true, actually, haven't looked into it. But the reason I hate it now is because it is backwards, misogynistic, anti-gay, comes with crime and rape, and terrorism, naturally. It doesn't lead to a single positive outcome in western countries, only negative ones.
@rockthepunchx9547
Ай бұрын
Hating imperialism/colonisiam that happened 100 years is a recent thing. The present situation is imf world bank giving out loans to deranged government and they hiding it away in tax haven.
Пікірлер: 96