Відео

So Disraeli, the father of modern conservatism, was an adulterer, a lech, a fop, a cynic, and generally vengeful little brat. How much does that surprise me? Not a jot!

At 0:26 “concentration camps, empty..”. Not true! Due to the challenges of finding new homes, relocating and dealing with the massive volume of migration, the physical and political dangers of returning to your original home town in some cases, many found themselves living in the concentration camp still after the war ended! Imagine being stuck in the same place, albeit now with food and medical attention. The reason: many camps became displaced persons' (DP) camps, so not uncommon to be liberated in ‘45 and then have to continue living in the same camp for months and even years in some cases. What an indignity!

😏Propaganda,Clement attlee was good prime minister who gave india independence and other colonial countries and revived uk economy unlike murder evil churchill🇬🇧👍🏼

😏Good leader attle who gave india independence but if murder Churchill was in power then india would never be independent 🇮🇳👉🏼

Great programme about a great man. But who at the BBC signed off the impressions clearly was having an off day 😂

17:40 she got the ick

Id like to know what the questions were in the Tit Bits paper

Haig didn't care about his men. He approved the murder of thousands of his own men for the slightest thing. Sadly his son was quite brainwashed.

Bolivar2153 keeping you big as hell

"Believers" believe in realities which cannot be proven, because of their feelings. Exemplary. *They "believe" in the "right" to do onto others, what they would NEVER consider acceptable, if these exact same actions are carried out against them, either individually, or systemically.* It is, and has always been, the root cause of all evil. Those who feel sooooo superior others, will use advantages for own gains, thereby creating everything they end up complaining and whining about, right through to the tier of the "muddy trench." This can even be proven, by the way the "systemic slimeballs" try to avoid questions... It is the "non-answers" which give them away.

The tin soldiers defending their systemic greed are usually easily exposed: they utter fallacies like *"defending (superior) Western values",* whereas in reality all they are doing is defending the dividers, who operate and instigate from superior positions of power. They think reality disappears if they simply do not address it. Their own inbuilt stupidity means they are defending greed in the form of "50% for us" (to quote US strategist Kennan), because what they don't realize is that they were *born into a belief system.* The main reason why that belief system persisted, was because of the GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION or POWER. Nothing else. This isn't an fallacy in reasoning, or a false premise, or syllogism. Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system capitalism, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind. Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system corporatism, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind. Overwhelmingly, people who are born into the belief system democracy, will perceive it to be god's gift to mankind. *All belief systems, mainly persists because advocates are born into the belief system (observation) or have been coddled into believing in it being superior as they grew up.* They are defending "greed" in the form of "50% for us" (or variations of that), for the minority, and that this minority of the world which is based in the USA or collective West has the right to rule over the rest of the world, by division. Greed can be proven to be the MOTIVATION (see below comments section) of the top tiers, even if not necessarily by all who live in such systems, and it can be corroborated by observation, a primary source of information. --------------------------------------------------------------- Most people think they are logical and reasonable. However most people are not logical, nor are they reasonable, but are usually biased and illogical, and are therefore easily deceived by their own top tiers, who need them as tools to create great gains, usually for those at the tops of the pyramidal shaped structures of POWER (aka "instruments of power"). *A technique for exposing such illogical and unreasonable forms of argumentation, is as follows.* 1) One asks an open question, or states a commonly held belief/theory. This can be anything, but since the topic of the documentary is "Wilhelm II/WW1", one can ask the question: "Why did the USA declare war on Germany in 1917 (WW1)?" 2) One then awaits an answer. 3) If the debater is knowledgeable about history, then the answer will usually be something along the lines of the agreed upon historical narrative. One then poses a counter-question, pending an answer: How do you know that the USA declared war because of the "submarine threat" or because of the "Zimmerman Telegram"? (or, whatever was mentioned) _4) One awaits the answer, which then exposes exactly how logical and reasonable the debater is._ 5) the correct answer to the question posed in 3) is of course something like (logic/reason): _"I personally don't know that for a fact today, but that is what we have been told, or what sources say (other human beings individually/group writing something down)..."_ which is then followed by the currently valid explanation for the question posed. When you get such an answer, you know that you're dealing with a low single-digit percentage amongst mankind, who *is* actually a logical thinker. As far as any other answer, don't bother debating: these "debaters" will slither and slime about, because they wish to reach a certain preconceived outcome. Specifically, try to wiggle and slime their way around answering questions, or avoiding "offending" historical reality, all in defense of the supreme nature of the chosen man-made system they were coddled into following. They do their "premise/criteria hopping" thinking others are as stupid as they are, and that others will not realize how they slither and slime about in defense of their man-made systems of greed... These debaters will simply assume that everything written down is 100% "fact" (note that the word "fact" has a definition). Note that in this regard, one can prove _that_ something was written down (fact), but one cannot prove what was meant with it (theory). They will repeat their historical leaders words, and state these as being "facts." Note, while these strings of "words" can be proven to be facts by sources, the motivations/reasons at the time cannot be known. Current debaters who simply believe another human being, then must also believe or assume that the motivations of such past leaders were pure and unquestionable. When one does that, one bows to authority. If one simply believes that everything written down is a "fact", one bows down to authority, which is a cognitive bias. *The logical thinkers know that ALL historical narratives are merely "theories" or "hypotheses" (which are different definitions), strung together out of a selection of facts & words.* That means, everything everybody "believes" is a theory.

These was such nice peacemakers. Such a great time in history

Good documentary shame about the nonce hosting it

Critical questions, addressed in the essay "history is 99% ancillary details regurgitated again and again". Who else was already making "Weltpolitik"? (observation) Who was "nodding off each others conquests"? (facts, as presented in the below comments section) Note, OBSERVATIONS; not "justifications/jealousy/opinion" (or any other logical fallacy) on behalf of the question. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SIR Bolivar, Empire apologist supreme: crickets....

SIR Bolivar: "Or German "concerns" regarding the AfD in Germany? "Systemic danger" or "no systemic danger"?" No "systemic danger" but a consequence of flawed politics of the past (cause and effect). What are the MAIN REASONS people voted "right" again in Europe? (of course, the "finger pointer" SIR Bolivar is "pointing" at his favorite scapegoat again, Germany, ignoring the overall picture of the general right shift). Oh, right. The MAIN REASONS for this right shift. The war in the Ukraine (which could have been easily avoided" around the year 2000, and the topic of "migration" (all mainly effects of PREVIOUS WARS in the ME), and the attempt to keep the rest of the world as the "jungles" both "down" and "out" of the own luxury "gardens" (Joseph Borrel). *Democracy should act as a barometer, but there are systemic dumbasses in charge, who do not get the "message" which is sent to them.* _Logic and reason? Address the CAUSES of mass migration, and end the war, as up _*_90% of the populations in the USA/collective West want_*_ per poll results._ Politicians: But, but LOOK OVER THERE, look, look, look over there... (fingers pointing). Luckily, I have not been a part of such a dumbass system for more than 20 years...

When the FBI and other agencies infiltrate US far-right potentially violent organizations operating within the USA, thereby keeping them from uniting and forming bigger groupings, then that is the "divide and rule"-technique. The technique is neither "good" nor "bad". It is amoral. It has "light" and "dark" potential, for when one implements it in situations where there is no systemic danger, but purely for own systemic gains (multiple tiers from "vested" to "corporate" and "national"), one drifts to the dark side.

@canad3nse Only, the theory is not about "good vs. bad", as clearly stated in the theory. It is about one of the oldest lessons of wise observers. That every system eventually "reaps" what it "sows". *Your systems "sow" division all over the world, from a position of power, because they can?* The time of sowing will be nice, accompanied by lotsa living in AC luxury whilst skimming off the majority of the world's resources for a minority to enjoy, but the time of "reaping" will come. The analogy of "reaping what was once sown" is easy to understand. It was written for the largely agricultural listeners, and they understood the parable. They were content in their commons, and used to working for communal good from which all gained. _You sow a good seed, carefully selected, you will earn a good harvest._ If you recklessly sow weeds and dirt, that is what you will "reap". That is regardless of how many "good seeds" are contained in the mix. London thought it could gain advantages over their neighbors in Europe, by sowing division on the continent, and eventually got their own Empire "divided" with the final coup de grâce from Washington DC, who finally armwrestled them down when they were at their weakest, enforcing concessions, whilst withholding the means necessary to keep Empire together. Read the below essays carefully, and see how Washington DC effectively applied the divide and rule technique on Europe (which incl. GB), starting in small steps right after its inception, but with gathering momentum after having achieved its own final unity after the Civil War (1865), and a short period of consolidating power up to the late-1890s, whilst the London lords applied the divide and rule technique on their neighbors in Europe. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Theories based on good vs bad leave a lot of room for bias and interpretation depending on the vantage point of the storytellers of history. These stories are therefore overwhelmingly subjective, and therefore appeal to the emotions of an audience. On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: The theory is a systemic analysis which is overwhelmingly neutral and objective and is therefore a dull topic to most people on the planet. Why "dull"? Because people want to hear "stories". The theory, however, is not a "story". It states how INTENTIONS lead to EFFECTS. At its core level, the theory states that throughout history there were two opposing forces in action when it comes to the concept of gain. All other human interaction when it comes to the topic of gain are subject to this. These opposing forces are not the commonly held truism as being the forces of good vs. bad/evil, but rather those forces which wish to unite to create their own systemic concord, using a variety of techniques, and those forces which gain from division, using a variety of techniques of power. What evolves out of that as causal chain of events is then the friction, which is created as these opposing forces collide, which then fosters the emergence of narratives of good and evil, by providing the catalyst (human nature). Note: words have definitions and meanings and context matters, not only when it is beneficial from their own standpoint. Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces of concord/discord (causality). Anybody may of course try to find exceptions to this rule, and will find none, unless one engages in typical human behavioral patterns. Name the struggle, and one can point out whether it arose out of the attempt to create concord, or discord. Every single good vs. bad narrative (the "stories" people tell themselves, as they are creating systemically useful "ingroups and outgroups") ever has arisen from this very simple axiom. On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: At its most fundamental core, the theory states that where there are intentions by systems to create unity, the opposing forces to such unity, or systemic actors, would then try to divide observed forces of unity, using key strategies, and vice-versa: where intentions of trying to create division are observed by actors trying to create unity in systems, key strategies are employed to overcome these divisions, to achieve unity in a system. These take place at the same time, making a timeline difficult to assess, contributing to the favoring of pleasing narratives for own causes, as a way of convincing large numbers of people. *Like a double-helix, these forces envelope the timeline of history. It does not HAVE a "start" or "stop."* The tier of interaction is irrelevant, and where there is an intention of achieving systemic gain, the strategies will closely resemble each other: from the micro- to the most macro level of all: International Relations.

“SIT UP MISS!”….. “I HAVE A GIFT FOR YOU !”

Ralph is saying again about his good vs bad theory 💀

25:35 you can tell by this line alone that this documentary is old

Which part of the theory is a "justification" for any man-made system? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Theories based on good vs bad leave a lot of room for bias and interpretation depending on the vantage point of the storytellers of history. These stories are therefore overwhelmingly subjective, and therefore appeal to the emotions of an audience. On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: The theory is a systemic analysis which is overwhelmingly neutral and objective and is therefore a dull topic to most people on the planet. Why "dull"? Because people want to hear "stories". The theory, however, is not a "story". It states how INTENTIONS lead to EFFECTS. At its core level, the theory states that throughout history there were two opposing forces in action when it comes to the concept of gain. All other human interaction when it comes to the topic of gain are subject to this. These opposing forces are not the commonly held truism as being the forces of good vs. bad/evil, but rather those forces which wish to unite to create their own systemic concord, using a variety of techniques, and those forces which gain from division, using a variety of techniques of power. What evolves out of that as causal chain of events is then the friction, which is created as these opposing forces collide, which then fosters the emergence of narratives of good and evil, by providing the catalyst (human nature). Note: words have definitions and meanings and context matters, not only when it is beneficial from their own standpoint. Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces of concord/discord (causality). Anybody may of course try to find exceptions to this rule, and will find none, unless one engages in typical human behavioral patterns. Name the struggle, and one can point out whether it arose out of the attempt to create concord, or discord. Every single good vs. bad narrative (the "stories" people tell themselves, as they are creating systemically useful "ingroups and outgroups") ever has arisen from this very simple axiom. On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: At its most fundamental core, the theory states that where there are intentions by systems to create unity, the opposing forces to such unity, or systemic actors, would then try to divide observed forces of unity, using key strategies, and vice-versa: where intentions of trying to create division are observed by actors trying to create unity in systems, key strategies are employed to overcome these divisions, to achieve unity in a system. These take place at the same time, making a timeline difficult to assess, contributing to the favoring of pleasing narratives for own causes, as a way of convincing large numbers of people. *Like a double-helix, these forces envelope the timeline of history. It does not HAVE a "start" or "stop."* The tier of interaction is irrelevant, and where there is an intention of achieving systemic gain, the strategies will closely resemble each other: from the micro- to the most macro level of all: International Relations.

"Herr von Bernhard, could you please elaborate on which aspect of the 'monarchic principle' you believe justifies the right to conquest and territorial expansion?" Fairly easy answer: none. Where have I ever "justified" anything? Of course, the poor sod, SIR Bolivar, doesn't understand the difference between words like "an explanation" and a "justification". To such poor sods, every single analyst explaining a crime (for example) is also also "justifying" the crime. According to such sods, every explanation with regards to how the Nazis rose to power, is therefore also a "justification". SIR Bolivar, is now (according to his own "sod logic") justifying the rise of the Nazis... SIR Bolivar, could you please elaborate on which aspect of the 'democratic/capitalist principle' you believe justifies the right to conquest and territorial expansion?

Poor SIR Bolivar, the British Empire's bravest warrior, getting really really desperate with the finger pointing antics, and who "never admits a fault or wrong; never concedes that there may be some good in your enemy; never leaves room for alternatives; never accepts blame; concentrates on one enemy at a time and blames him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it." (see footnote) *One of the easiest ways to expose imperialists, is if they point at other imperialists, implying that imperialist actions are ok "because everybody does it."* Then they use psychological projection, to try and point out that others are "flawed", equally biased, or whatever. Notice how he tries to "throw every argument back", a tactic most people grow out of when they grow up. Simple logic/reason: Do not follow ANY man-made system which is in search of gain. You WILL be deceived, lied to, misinformed, distracted by ancillary details, overwhelmed by meaningless blather, uprooted by spinners, contained by framers, bs.-ters... Footnote: From A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler: His Life and Legend. OSS.

"monarchic principles" : Wilhelm assumed the role of King of Prussia and German Emperor by virtue of the circumstances of his birth. Wilhelm IIs legitimacy was derived solely from hereditary monarchy, based on dynastic succession. He became the German Emperor and King of Prussia purely by virtue of his birth into the Hohenzollern family. Nothing else. These hereditary titles did not grant him any legitimate rights to impose his authority over any other nations. Whilst it may be a contentious view, Hitler could be argued to have carried greater legitimacy. Hitler’s rise to power involved electoral processes. The Nazi Party won significant support in elections, and Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. Although his subsequent actions dismantled democratic institutions, his initial ascent was through a form of electoral legitimacy. Neither figure, however, possessed legitimate authority over other nations purely by virtue of their positions, and their respective actions in foreign policy were driven by imperial ambitions rather than any recognized right to rule those territories. Herr von Bernhard, could you please elaborate on which aspect of the 'monarchic principle' you believe justifies the right to conquest and territorial expansion?

Herr von Bernhard. Your "theory" applied to Prussia/Germany : "...since its founding [Prussia/Germany] has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the [European] continent then [...]" Weltpolitik. "The [Prussia/Germany] has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent ([Europe]), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself. This is the theory." "Central to the technique of division, is to choose a favorite, or favorites (favoritism can be disguised as "merit"). Take the centre of the chessboard and to - To make people join you, separate them from their past (or distort the past). - When you size up your targets, look for what connects them to the past, the source of their resistance. - A joint is the weakest part of any structure. Break it and you divide people internally, making them vulnerable to suggestion and change. - Divide their minds in order to conquer them." "The TUNE of the divide and rule strategy is always the same, and all it needs to succeed on any tier of society, is a position of power." "The solution is to divide to rule. To do so you must first establish yourself as the center of power (edit: infiltrate the other systems' ingroups. Take out the other system's watchdogs and create new "rulings")." "The divide-and-rule strategy is invaluable in trying to influence people's minds. Start by seeming to take your opponents' side on some issue, occupying their flank ([as Berlin did at Brest-Litovsk, or as Prussia did with regards Austria and German "unification"). Once there, however, create doubt about some part of their argument, tweaking and diverting it a bit. This will lower their resistance and maybe create a little inner conflict about a cherished idea or belief. ([a little project, such as "independence", or "unity"]). That conflict will weaken them, making them vulnerable to further suggestion and guidance..." "Zoom in. Zoom out. It is always the same strategy." "The TUNE of division they sing, is always the same." Is this a fair an accurate implementation of your "theory", Herr von Bernhard?

A lot a blah, blah (finger pointing), but the theory has still not been countered. Same counts for all the sub-theories, in more than a 100 essays in the below comments section. Again, let the below be a reminder what happens to those who fall for the deception of the dividers. They will talk and talk, but what they never address what they wish to keep quiet. Their own wrongful deeds, done in the name of "division." ----------------------------------------------- Theories based on good vs bad leave a lot of room for bias and interpretation depending on the vantage point of the storytellers of history. These stories are therefore overwhelmingly subjective, and therefore appeal to the emotions of an audience. On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: The theory is a systemic analysis which is overwhelmingly neutral and objective and is therefore a dull topic to most people on the planet. Why "dull"? Because people want to hear "stories". The theory, however, is not a "story". It states how INTENTIONS lead to EFFECTS. At its core level, the theory states that throughout history there were two opposing forces in action when it comes to the concept of gain. All other human interaction when it comes to the topic of gain are subject to this. These opposing forces are not the commonly held truism as being the forces of good vs. bad/evil, but rather those forces which wish to unite to create their own systemic concord, using a variety of techniques, and those forces which gain from division, using a variety of techniques of power. What evolves out of that as causal chain of events is then the friction, which is created as these opposing forces collide, which then fosters the emergence of narratives of good and evil, by providing the catalyst (human nature). Note: words have definitions and meanings and context matters, not only when it is beneficial from their own standpoint. Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces of concord/discord (causality). Anybody may of course try to find exceptions to this rule, and will find none, unless one engages in typical human behavioral patterns. Name the struggle, and one can point out whether it arose out of the attempt to create concord, or discord. Every single good vs. bad narrative (the "stories" people tell themselves, as they are creating systemically useful "ingroups and outgroups") ever has arisen from this very simple axiom. On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: At its most fundamental core, the theory states that where there are intentions by systems to create unity, the opposing forces to such unity, or systemic actors, would then try to divide observed forces of unity, using key strategies, and vice-versa: where intentions of trying to create division are observed by actors trying to create unity in systems, key strategies are employed to overcome these divisions, to achieve unity in a system. These take place at the same time, making a timeline difficult to assess, contributing to the favoring of pleasing narratives for own causes, as a way of convincing large numbers of people. *Like a double-helix, these forces envelope the timeline of history. It does not HAVE a "start" or "stop."* The tier of interaction is irrelevant, and where there is an intention of achieving systemic gain, the strategies will closely resemble each other: from the micro- to the most macro level of all: International Relations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is elaborated in more than 100 essays in the below comments section. The theory is based on observation (primary sources) and it is specifically stated that it does NOT rely on what any other human being states as "truth." Why not? Because human being are known to lie, distort, misdirect, deceive and mislead for gain. As far as "pied pipers" of all rank and file are concerned, preaching their division in Eurasia and the rest of the planet, from the sinecure comfort of the distinctive observable geopositional locations, follow these at own expense.

"No, one does not have to be 100% "the same" (cultural or linguistic) in order to have political unity. In the EU, Poles and Portuguese are not the same." - Herr von Bernhard It's crucial to emphasize that unity does not require uniformity. In contexts like the European Union, where diverse nations such as Poland and Portugal coexist, unity is achieved through mutual agreement, cooperation, and a shared commitment to common goals. While there are undeniable cultural and linguistic differences, these differences do not hinder political unity; instead, they enrich the collective identity. Unity entails a collective desire and willingness to collaborate, negotiate, and compromise for the greater good. It acknowledges and respects diversity while fostering a cohesive framework where disparate parts can work together effectively. In the EU, this means navigating disagreements and embracing diversity while maintaining a focus on overarching objectives that benefit all member states. Therefore, political unity thrives not on sameness, but on the ability of diverse entities to come together, find common ground, and pursue shared aims through collaboration and mutual respect.

"Of course, anybody may simply look up the definition of the word "unity" and see that it is fairly similarly explained in many dictionaries as "the opposite of division" (vocabulary), or "state or fact of being united or combined, as of the part of a whole" (Dictionary), or "the state of quality of forming a whole from separate parts" (Collins), or "being in agreement or working together" (Oxford)." - Herr von Bernhard A brief English lesson for the benefit of Herr von Bernhard (no one else need take offence) : Cambridge English dictionary : _unity_ the state of being joined together or in agreement Collins English dictionary : _unity_ is the state of different areas or groups being joined together to form a single country or organization. When there is unity, people are in agreement and act together for a particular purpose. Merriam Webster : _unity_ the quality or state of not being multiple : a condition of harmony Wiktionary : _unity_ the state or fact of being one undivided entity, Agreement; harmony. Dictionary : _unity_ state or fact of being united or combined, as of the part of a whole, oneness of mind, feeling, etc., as among a number of persons; concord, harmony, or agreement. Cambridge Learners Dictionary (For the benefit of Herr von Bernhard) : _unity_ a situation in which everyone agrees with each other or wants to stay together Of course, one can cherry pick their definitions, and one can exclude many of the definitions provided, or selectively reduce them to a fraction of the full definitions provided and ignore the many aspects of "unity" to focus on the single part that supposedly advances ones argument. But for the complete picture, one needs these details. They are not "ancillary". These definitions focus on the idea of oneness, harmony, and being joined together. However, they also apply broader terms, encompassing not just the state of being one, but also the processes and qualities that lead to this state, such as collaboration, mutual support, and shared purpose. _Unity_ is the state of being united or joined as a whole, characterized by harmony, agreement, and a sense of solidarity among individuals or groups. It encompasses the integration of diverse elements into a cohesive entity, often achieved through shared goals, values, or beliefs. Unity implies a synergy where the collective strength and coherence of the united components exceed their individual capabilities, fostering a sense of belonging and mutual support. Some synonyms for "unity" : Cohesion: Emphasizes the sticking together of parts within a whole. Solidarity: Highlights mutual support and shared responsibilities. Harmony: Suggests a pleasing arrangement of parts that work together seamlessly. Integration: Refers to combining diverse elements into a unified whole. Concord: Implies a state of agreement and peaceful coexistence. Togetherness: Reflects a sense of closeness and collective identity.

"Germany/the established Eastern European hegemony" Are you now defending the principle of an imposed imperialist hegemony, Herr von Bernhard? Do you also defend Hitler's attempts to create an "Eastern European hegemony" through his efforts to "gain" at the expense of those very same nations?

- destroy the unity of top-down hegemonic rule (monarchic principles as in the rest of Germany, Austria-Hungary)" - Herr von Bernhard "monarchic principles" : Wilhelm assumed the role of King of Prussia and German Emperor by virtue of the circumstances of his birth. Wilhelm IIs legitimacy was derived solely from hereditary monarchy, based on dynastic succession. He became the German Emperor and King of Prussia purely by virtue of his birth into the Hohenzollern family. Nothing else. These hereditary titles did not grant him any legitimate rights to impose his authority over any other nations. Whilst it may be a contentious view, Hitler could be argued to have carried greater legitimacy. Hitler’s rise to power involved electoral processes. The Nazi Party won significant support in elections, and Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. Although his subsequent actions dismantled democratic institutions, his initial ascent was through a form of electoral legitimacy. Neither figure, however, possessed legitimate authority over other nations purely by virtue of their positions, and their respective actions in foreign policy were driven by imperial ambitions rather than any recognized right to rule those territories. Herr von Bernhard, could you please elaborate on which aspect of the 'monarchic principle' you believe justifies the right to conquest and territorial expansion?

The tin soldiers defending their systemic greed are usually easily exposed: they utter fallacies like *"defending (superior) Western values",* whereas in reality all they are doing is "defending" the dividers, who operate and instigate from superior positions of power. They are defending "greed" in the form of "50% for us"... This isn't an fallacy in reasoning, or a false premise, or syllogism. *It can be proven to be the MOTIVATION (see below comments section) of the top tiers, and it can be corroborated by observation, a primary source of information.* There is only *"them"* (what divides) and *"us"* (what unifies). Create a balance of powers, preferably in times of peace (personal standpoint). If not, lose. By that time, I'm loooong gone (personal strategy). Now, over to the eternal dissenters...

*Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide-and-Rule Strategy* Robert Greene was not the first, but merely another author who actually only took previous works on the matter, to re-write the strategies using different words. The concepts are always the same and go back thousands of years, because the constant factors are human nature (in systems) and strategies (ideas), which are big in scope but limited in number. One can therefore write endless numbers of books and theses about the same concepts, using different words. *From Robert Greene's "101 empire rules":* (following paragraphs are largely taken from gra..ham.mann d o t n et, and slightly edited, as instructional with re. to the book "33 Strategies of War") When you look at others, do not look at the outside. Look at the parts. By separating the parts, sow division from within, you can weaken them. In setting up your strategy, work on their minds to create internal conflicts (revolutions, government overthrows, wars to sow dissent). The joints are the weakest part of any structure. The best way to make an enemy divide up in smaller bits is to occupy the centre (political centers of power). Central to the technique of division, is to choose a favorite, or favorites (favoritism can be disguised as "merit"). Take the centre of the chessboard and to - To make people join you, separate them from their past (or distort the past). - When you size up your targets, look for what connects them to the past, the source of their resistance. - A joint is the weakest part of any structure. Break it and you divide people internally, making them vulnerable to suggestion and change. - Divide their minds in order to conquer them. *Divide and rule is a powerful strategy for governing any group/system/entity.* It is based on a key principle: within any organization people naturally form smaller ingroups based on mutual self-interest as a primitive desire to find strength in numbers (around 1900, it was often "imperialism"). These subgroups form power bases that, left unchecked, will threaten the organization (around the year 2000, this was "US domination in the unipolar world") as a whole. The solution is to divide to rule. To do so you must first establish yourself as the center of power (edit: infiltrate the other systems' ingroups. Take out the other system's watchdogs and create new "rulings). Individuals in any system must know they need to compete for the approval (aka FAVORITISM) of the overlords who implement the "rulings". The divide-and-rule strategy is invaluable in trying to influence people's minds. Start by seeming to take your opponents' side on some issue, occupying their flank (as Washington DC did following the turn of the previous century, around 1900). Once there, however, create doubt about some part of their argument, tweaking and diverting it a bit. This will lower their resistance and maybe create a little inner conflict about a cherished idea or belief. (a "project", like the EU). That conflict will weaken them, making them vulnerable to further suggestion and guidance... (end of quotes) Zoom in. Zoom out. It is always the same strategy. *It doesn't matter if one takes the example of "Native Americans" (17th-19th century), or "Europe around 1900", or "Eurasia 1990s", as the post-Cold War world), or the British Empire in India, or European/World history in the late 19th/early 20th century, the technique is always similar.* The *TUNE* of division they sing, is always the same. The "tune" the defenders of the top-down imperialist technique of "divide and rule" sing, is ALSO always the same. It's "just the best that could be done" or "whatever, still on the right side of history." The "dividers" know their b00tlickers well. These b00tlickers will always point at the EFFECTS, and ignore the causes. Stalin was of course correct, when he stated "1.000.000 deaths simply a statistic." It goes for himself who implemented "unity" killing millions, as well as equally for his opposite ideologies, all of which are man-made systems, who accept millions of deaths to spread their own seed...

Rescinding Brest-Litovsk was of course the Allied "divide and rule" technique of power. A weakness was exploited (Germany/the established Eastern European hegemony), and the entire region bathed in blood again, after it had been largely at peace for around a year. The Allies' motivations can be researched, by scrolling down to the comment directed @Michael around a year ago The nutshell version here, which can be validated by sources, which are in these longer essays, and will not be constantly repeated: - destroy the relative peace as the "status quo" - force the removal of the hegemony (status quo) and all its systems of gain - destroy the unity of top-down hegemonic rule (monarchic principles as in the rest of Germany, Austria-Hungary) - empower own "favorites" by imploring them to become "turncoats" (a divide and rule technique) and lie, kill, steal more... - draw off Bolshevik forces, away from the own planned invasions of Russia elsewhere (Murmansk, Siberia, etc.) - make the desired territory "safe for own corporations" (Smedley-Butler style) All of these short statements are followed up by evidence/sources in the longer essays, since they follow the systemic analysis of "systems/strategies". *Anybody trying to argue the "good guys vs. bad guys" bs. will only expose the own biases, and will lay open how fallacious argumentation works.* What SIR Bolivar, and the b00tlickers of history's "global dividers" take from that is the following "ArE you DefenDing the gerMan atTemptS aT hegem0ny?", thereby exposing their bias. *Exactly as foreseeable.* He is of course "projecting" (psychological projection), because he thinks that because he defends everything his overlords do (the divide and rule technique, to create *division),* that everybody else will do the same (defend those who tried to create the opposite pole of power, by creating *unity).*

Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..." Note that while Robert Blackwell stated exactly "what happened" with regards to the combined and interlocked North American/European historicity, he did not state HOW these overlords in Washington actually did it. The "how" is in the below comments section, if you simply skip across the "dissenting" or meaningless comments... (SUB)THEORY: ------------------------------------------- The USA/Washington DC has always fought wars to create systemic disunity/division somewhere else on the planet, for own systemic gains, using a variety of means at its disposal (power). The only wars it has ever fought in history on the own continent (North America), was to create systemic unity/gain for itself. This is the theory. According to the scientific process, these proclaimed "rules" must now be countered, by trying to find exceptions to these two rules. According to the concept of "meaning of words" (aka definitions) all exceptions to the rules which have been proclaimed, must be questioned: does this war for which the foundation was lain, or the war which was instigated, "false flagged" into being, not avoided, funded/supported, goaded, or declared, lead to disunity in another region of the planet (another continent). *The theory, as stated by the words used, is not interested in anything else. It can either be falsified or it cannot.* So far, it HAS not been countered... ----------------------------------------- *The TUNE of the divide and rule strategy is always the same, and all it needs to succeed on any tier of society, is a position of power.* To quote "Kyle Reese" (pun intended): "These control freaks are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity or remorse or fear, and it absolutely will not STOP ... EVER, until you are ... under their CONTROL..." (no pun intended). No pun intended, because "control" over others is what these control freaks of history want. Note, that during history this did not apply to the overwhelming majority of the commoners of the past, who toiled in their wake. Similarly as it does not apply to the overwhelming majority of US/collective West citizens today or in the past, but only a very small fraction of their leaderships, who follow the divide and rule strategy as "an understanding", more than "words written down" to be analyzed. *Similarly, one must not "look for words" as most historians do as the axiom of scholarly research, but look at the actions actually carried out.* Those who desire division elsewhere in order to create weakness by instigating smaller systems which can be exploited by bigger systems, but but advocate OWN unity (strength) in the own systems at the same time, will start such arguments about the meaning of words, to cause confusion, and appeal to people's emotions (Limbic brains). The theory (and all its sub-theories) therefore remains intact, until effectively countered. To repeat: Theories based on good vs bad leave a lot of room for bias and interpretation depending on the vantage point of the storytellers of history. These stories are therefore overwhelmingly subjective, and therefore appeal to the emotions of an audience. On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: The theory is a systemic analysis which is overwhelmingly neutral and objective and is therefore a dull topic to most people on the planet. Why "dull"? Because people want to hear "stories". The theory, however, is not a "story". It states how INTENTIONS lead to EFFECTS. At its core level, the theory states that throughout history there were two opposing forces in action when it comes to the concept of gain. All other human interaction when it comes to the topic of gain are subject to this. These opposing forces are not the commonly held truism as being the forces of good vs. bad/evil, but rather those forces which wish to unite to create their own systemic concord, using a variety of techniques, and those forces which gain from division, using a variety of techniques of power. What evolves out of that as causal chain of events is then the friction, which is created as these opposing forces collide, which then fosters the emergence of narratives of good and evil, by providing the catalyst (human nature). Note: words have definitions and meanings and context matters, not only when it is beneficial from their own standpoint. Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces of concord/discord (causality). Anybody may of course try to find exceptions to this rule, and will find none, unless one engages in typical human behavioral patterns. Name the struggle, and one can point out whether it arose out of the attempt to create concord, or discord. Every single good vs. bad narrative (the "stories" people tell themselves, as they are creating systemically useful "ingroups and outgroups") ever has arisen from this very simple axiom. On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: At its most fundamental core, the theory states that where there are intentions by systems to create unity, the opposing forces to such unity, or systemic actors, would then try to divide observed forces of unity, using key strategies, and vice-versa: where intentions of trying to create division are observed by actors trying to create unity in systems, key strategies are employed to overcome these divisions, to achieve unity in a system. These take place at the same time, making a timeline difficult to assess, contributing to the favoring of pleasing narratives for own causes, as a way of convincing large numbers of people. *Like a double-helix, these forces envelope the timeline of history. It does not HAVE a "start" or "stop."* The tier of interaction is irrelevant, and where there is an intention of achieving systemic gain, the strategies will closely resemble each other: from the micro- to the most macro level of all: International Relations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is elaborated in more than 100 essays in the below comments section. The theory is based on observation (primary sources) and it is specifically stated that it does NOT rely on what any other human being states as "truth." Why not? Because human being are known to lie, distort, misdirect, deceive and mislead for gain.

Dr. Brown, Thanks yet again for a deeply interesting documentary-although I feel that the arguments of the appeasers ultimately fall short when confronted by aggressive German military might!

"Germany/the established Eastern European hegemony" Are you now defending the principle of an imposed imperialist hegemony, Herr von Bernhard?

"- destroy the unity of top-down hegemonic rule (monarchic principles as in the rest of Germany, Austria-Hungary)" - Herr von Bernhard "monarchic principles" : Wilhelm assumed the role of King of Prussia and German Emperor by virtue of his being born into the Hohenzollern family. Wilhelm IIs legitimacy was derived solely from hereditary monarchy, based on dynastic succession. He became the German Emperor and King of Prussia purely by virtue of his birth into the Hohenzollern family. Nothing else. These hereditary titles did not grant him any legitimate rights to impose his authority over any other nations. Whilst it may be a contentious view, Hitler could be argued to have carried greater legitimacy. Hitler’s rise to power involved electoral processes. The Nazi Party won significant support in elections, and Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. Although his subsequent actions dismantled democratic institutions, his initial ascent was through a form of electoral legitimacy. Neither figure, however, possessed legitimate authority over other nations purely by virtue of their positions, and their respective actions in foreign policy were driven by imperial ambitions rather than any recognized right to rule those territories.

Rescinding Brest-Litovsk was of course the Allied "divide and rule" technique of power. A weakness was exploited (Germany/the established Eastern European hegemony), and the entire region bathed in blood again, after it had been largely at peace for around a year. The Allies motivations can be researched, by scrolling down to the comment directed @Michael around a year ago The nutshell version here, which can be validated by sources, which are in these longer essays, and *will not be constantly repeated:* - destroy the relative peace as the "status quo" - force the removal of the hegemony (status quo) and all its systems of gain - destroy the unity of top-down hegemonic rule (monarchic principles as in the rest of Germany, Austria-Hungary) - empower own "favorites" by imploring them to become "turncoats" (a divide and rule technique) and lie, kill, steal more... - draw off Bolshevik forces, away from the own planned invasions of Russia elsewhere (Murmansk, Siberia, etc.) - make the desired territory "safe for own corporations" (Smedley-Butler style) All of these short statements are followed up by evidence/sources in the longer essays, since they follow the systemic analysis of "systems/strategies". Anybody trying to argue the "good guys vs. bad guys" bs. will only expose the own biases, and will lay open how fallacious argumentation works.

Of course, anybody may simply look up the definition of the word "unity" and see that it is fairly similarly explained in many dictionaries as *"the opposite of division"* (vocabulary), or "state or fact of being united or combined, as of the part of a whole" (Dictionary), or "the state of quality of forming a whole from separate parts" (Collins), or "being in agreement or working together" (Oxford). *Below we can therefore see the typical "divider" at work, trying to "argue about the meaning of words" (2 Timothy 2:14), which is an age-old technique within the "divide and rule"-world.* He will tell you that when Scots, or the Irish, were united with others in Britain to create unity (the UK), that they where all the same. Me: ROTFL, whatever... No, one does not have to be 100% "the same" (cultural or linguistic) in order to have political unity. In the EU, Poles and Portuguese are not the same. Those who desire division elsewhere in order to create weakness by instigating smaller systems which can be exploited by bigger systems, but but advocate OWN unity (strength) in the own systems at the same time, will start such arguments about the meaning of words, to cause confusion, and appeal to people's emotions (Limbic brains). The theory (and all its sub-theories) therefore remains intact, until effectively countered. --------------------------------------------- Theories based on good vs bad leave a lot of room for bias and interpretation depending on the vantage point of the storytellers of history. These stories are therefore overwhelmingly subjective, and therefore appeal to the emotions of an audience. On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: The theory is a systemic analysis which is overwhelmingly neutral and objective and is therefore a dull topic to most people on the planet. Why "dull"? Because people want to hear "stories". The theory, however, is not a "story". It states how INTENTIONS lead to EFFECTS. At its core level, the theory states that throughout history there were two opposing forces in action when it comes to the concept of gain. All other human interaction when it comes to the topic of gain are subject to this. These opposing forces are not the commonly held truism as being the forces of good vs. bad/evil, but rather those forces which wish to unite to create their own systemic concord, using a variety of techniques, and those forces which gain from division, using a variety of techniques of power. What evolves out of that as causal chain of events is then the friction, which is created as these opposing forces collide, which then fosters the emergence of narratives of good and evil, by providing the catalyst (human nature). Note: words have definitions and meanings and context matters, not only when it is beneficial from their own standpoint. Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces of concord/discord (causality). Anybody may of course try to find exceptions to this rule, and will find none, unless one engages in typical human behavioral patterns. Name the struggle, and one can point out whether it arose out of the attempt to create concord, or discord. Every single good vs. bad narrative (the "stories" people tell themselves, as they are creating systemically useful "ingroups and outgroups") ever has arisen from this very simple axiom. On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: At its most fundamental core, the theory states that where there are intentions by systems to create unity, the opposing forces to such unity, or systemic actors, would then try to divide observed forces of unity, using key strategies, and vice-versa: where intentions of trying to create division are observed by actors trying to create unity in systems, key strategies are employed to overcome these divisions, to achieve unity in a system. These take place at the same time, making a timeline difficult to assess, contributing to the favoring of pleasing narratives for own causes, as a way of convincing large numbers of people. *Like a double-helix, these forces envelope the timeline of history. It does not HAVE a "start" or "stop."* The tier of interaction is irrelevant, and where there is an intention of achieving systemic gain, the strategies will closely resemble each other: from the micro- to the most macro level of all: International Relations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is elaborated in more than 100 essays in the below comments section. The theory is based on observation (primary sources) and it is specifically stated that it does NOT rely on what any other human being states as "truth." Why not? Because human being are known to lie, distort, misdirect, deceive and mislead for gain. As far as "pied pipers" of all rank and file are concerned, preaching their division in Eurasia and the rest of the planet, from the sinecure comfort of the distinctive observable geopositional locations, follow these at own expense.

"Brest-Litovsk established a Central- and Eastern European unity." - Herr von Bernhard "Unity" refers to the state of being united or joined as a whole, especially among individuals, groups, or nations. It encompasses a sense of mutual cooperation, common purpose, and shared identity that binds different entities together. In a political context, unity often implies a harmonious agreement and collaboration among various regions, states, or nations, working together towards common goals while respecting their differences and maintaining collective stability and solidarity. In the context of international relations or regional agreements, unity implies voluntary cooperation and alignment of interests, often achieved through negotiation and consensus, rather than through imposition or coercion. The claim that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk "established a Central- and Eastern European unity" is highly contentious and can be challenged on several grounds: 1. Imposed Treaty, Not Voluntary Unity: The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed in March 1918, was an imposed settlement dictated by the Central Powers (primarily Germany and Austria-Hungary) on Soviet Russia. It was not a voluntary agreement among Central and Eastern European nations aimed at creating unity but rather a means for the Central Powers to consolidate their control over the region and extract significant territorial concessions from Russia. 2. Territorial Redistributions: The treaty resulted in the cession of vast territories from Russia to the Central Powers, including areas that are now part of Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), and Finland. This redistribution did not create unity but rather shifted control of these regions to German and Austrian influence, often against the wishes of the local populations. 3. Occupation and Control: In many of the territories affected by Brest-Litovsk, German and Austro-Hungarian military occupation followed, leading to significant unrest and resistance. The local populations were generally not consulted in the redrawing of borders and establishment of control, leading to further divisions rather than unity. 4. Short-Lived Impact: The effects of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk were short-lived. With the defeat of the Central Powers later in 1918, the treaty was nullified, and the territories it affected were subject to new negotiations and settlements, particularly at the Treaty of Versailles and subsequent treaties. The brief period during which Brest-Litovsk was in effect did not allow for any lasting unity to be established in Central and Eastern Europe. 5. Continued Conflict: The immediate aftermath of Brest-Litovsk saw continued conflict in the region, including the Russian Civil War, various independence movements, and territorial disputes. Rather than fostering unity, the treaty contributed to ongoing instability and fragmentation in Central and Eastern Europe. 6. National Aspirations: Many of the territories affected by Brest-Litovsk were home to burgeoning nationalist movements seeking independence or greater autonomy. The imposition of German and Austro-Hungarian control through Brest-Litovsk often clashed with these aspirations, leading to further conflict and division. Brest-Litovsk did not establish a Central- and Eastern European unity but rather imposed German and Austro-Hungarian control over vast territories in the region. The treaty led to significant territorial losses for Soviet Russia and was characterized by occupation and unrest, with local populations often resisting the new arrangements. The short-lived nature of the treaty and the continued conflicts it fuelled further demonstrate that it did not foster unity but rather exacerbated divisions and instability in Central and Eastern Europe. Herr von Bernhard's definition of "unity" appears somewhat arbitrary and selective.

"You have simply tried to shift the FOCUS of the theory away from the MOTIVATIONS, which are always "GAIN."" - Herr von Bernhard No. I haven't. I have _always_ stated that Prussian/German strategies and intentions were _always_ based upon GAIN for their own "system". The attempts to shift this focus have _always_ been yours.

The theory as stated below, *and as stated,* is valid on ALL tiers in which "GAIN" is the motivation. The theory includes all systems of gain, such as democracy and capitalism, and does not exclude these for the sake of the "nice story line." One of the oldest pieces of advice giving to the powerless: Do not argue with idiots. They will try to drag you down to their own level (engage you in endless circular debates) and then beat you with experience. Attributed to many throughout history: Mark Twain, George Carlin, and other related quotes. All that needs to be decided is who the "idiot" is. The theory as stated below, *and as stated,* is valid on ALL tiers in which "GAIN" is the motivation. In order to persist, the "divide and rule/conquer"-world relies on the enablers (roles). Enabling the system of global divide and rule to perpetuate, as explained on the small tier by great minds: George Carlin BTW is such a great mind. As always it is only the concepts behind the words which are important, not the messenger. Carlin simply explains the strategy of POWER, the "divide and rule"-strategy of POWER, and he does it in another context, on another tier, that of the US domestic political level of events. Search for "George Carlin explains divide and rule" here on YT. Hilarious, unless of course...one is waging the "but, but, but"-finger around. Whatabout, whatabout, whatabout... *It's how "divide and rule" works. Period.* Set up systems, against other systems. Even minions lower down constantly arguing, are a useful tool in this DaR-world, as they ALL end up arguing in endless cycles. Even age-old wisdom eventually end up in the divide, and create a rift between the lower tiers of the people, enabling the rule of the HIGHER TIERS OF POWER. In US domestic politics: "We have to defeat this divide-and-rule strategy, which goes back thousands of years. That’s how the few CONTROL the many." (edit: combined left-right support for a COMMON unified cause = unity at the base). Four time US presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, Sun Magazine interview, 2019 AVOID THE UNITY (TOP DOWN) = AVOID THE COMMON CAUSE FROM BECOMING IMPLEMENTED (BOTTOM UP) The theory as stated below, *and as stated,* is valid on ALL tiers in which "GAIN" is the motivation. At this point, after four years of elaboration, only a dumbass would think it's about a specific group (bias). When all the little minions are arguing, pointing fingers, punching it out, then powers move in the shadows and implement the own goals. How it works on a lower tier, like at the company level? The same. The bigger the company, the BIGGER the achievements gained by divisions. Corporations even call their own "divide and rule"-setups "divisions." The execs mix all kind of people who naturally don't get along, then offer the resulting lower tiers different pay, different perks, different conditions. Why? What would happen if all the little minions lower down in the company hierarchy saw eye-to-eye on all issues? Correct. In case such divisions do not exist, these lower tiers will overwhelmingly unite, and then get together to ask for more money, better working conditions, etc, or simply overwhelmingly leave the company altogether (unity) if a fair solution isn't offered. Since the company will most likely go bust if large numbers of lower tier employees leave altogether, the manager/owner class uses the "divide and rule" technique of POWER. Set the lower tier minions up against each other. Here is how it is implemented: If some of the employees/minions are unhappy, offer a few of the employees/minions better conditions, and create jealousy and envy. If only some of the workers strike, its not a problem: hire strikebreakers to replace them, and then play the long game of dragging feet with negotiations and see who's got the longest breath (strategy)... *See? The theory as stated below, and as stated, is valid on ALL tiers in which "GAIN" is the motivation. It has nothing to do with bias, but can be adapted for any region of the planet, and for all tiers of co-operation.* EMPIRES work the same way. Only the tiers of POWER change. The roles remain exactly the same. Find out how this template is perpetually implemented, or suffer the consequences. No system of gain will tell YOU, the little minion. Not your own corporation, and not your democratic leaders, and not your empire which has employed the technique ever since forever. They won't inform YOU the little minion and tool HOW it works, and WHY it perpetuates, because it is also THEIR own most powerful strategy. Why does such a transparent strategy persist? "Ten percent of any population is cruel, no matter what, and 10 percent is merciful, no matter what, and the remaining 80 percent can be moved in either direction." (Susan Sontag) The "80%-ters" are overwhelmingly distracted, therefore ignorant, indifferent, and complacent, and will swing either way in large numbers. The system of divide and rule is self-perpetuating.

According to his own "list", SIR Bolivar must now acknowledge that in the past 200-300 years, the chief "ideology" which intended to expand and gain at the expense of other systems, was "capitalism/democracy". BOTH are of course, in symbiosis, an "ideology", and expanding it have lead to multiple crises, overpowering of other systems, and wars: it is even openly and proudly stated that we should "fight wars for democracy" and millions of people don't bat an eye when they hear such words. In other words, so-called leaders saying we should kill to spread democracy. *Why is this erroneous? Because of bias. It is simply accepted that "we" (ingroup) are "better," and enough own citizens therefore either directly or indirectly support lying for the own ideology, stealing because of it, and killing others for it, which then have EFFECTS (see theory).* All of these wars fought by our own "sides" are already included in the theory, stated in the introduction as: *(The theory) states how INTENTIONS lead to EFFECTS.* Since those in search of gain *know* that most people won't get involved in such struggles, they try to hide their intentions. In fact, very simple to understand. There is nothing controversial about this concept of lying, deceiving, misdirection, etc. at all, except by people who think *only* the "other side" does it. Unlike many of the other theories out there, this theory includes ALL "intent of gain motivations". The theory has nothing to do with human fallacy, but simply studies the systems, without resorting to bias.

The below two comments of course do not COUNTER the theory, but elaborate on it. All "aspects" in the below 2 comments, are already covered under a single category, as intention of *"gain"* (which are of course, multiple and varied: personal, systemic, ideological, etc.) and which are often hidden behind other "excuses" (human nature). Often these ulterior motives are simply burnt, OPERATION LEGACY-style, hoping that the riff-raff (we, the people) won't notice, of which the lesson is of course, simple: do not trust another human being, even the OWN leaders. They lie, deceive, are masters of misconstructing "words", they misdirect, and aaaaaaaaall those tricks of the trade... Therefore, logically and reasonably elaborated, never simply "believe" another human being. Especially not the ones in power, on BOTH "sides". Look at the events, and the events only. This specific issue of how "motives" are kept hidden, is already addressed, and elaborated, in more than 100 essays in the below comments section, with specific examples. The "issue" for SIR Bolivar and his type, is NOT the theory. The Issue is himself. His "type" is the reason why a few simple "commandments"a few thousand years ago, end up in a massive book called "Bible." They simply cannot acknowledge that there are simple "rules", and then start arguing "about the meaning of words". Throughout history, people who "argue about words" either have ulterior motives themselves, or they become the willing tools of those who *do* have such motives, and those who intend to GAIN, are looking for others to do it *for* them. -------------------------------------------------------------- Here is the FULL theory. Theories based on good vs bad leave a lot of room for bias and interpretation depending on the vantage point of the storytellers of history. These stories are therefore overwhelmingly subjective, and therefore appeal to the emotions of an audience. On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: The theory is a systemic analysis which is overwhelmingly neutral and objective and is therefore a dull topic to most people on the planet. Why "dull"? Because people want to hear "stories". The theory, however, is not a "story". *It states how INTENTIONS lead to EFFECTS.* At its core level, the theory states that throughout history there were two opposing forces in action when it comes to the concept of gain. All other human interaction when it comes to the topic of gain are subject to this. These opposing forces are not the commonly held truism as being the forces of good vs. bad/evil, but rather those forces which wish to unite to create their own systemic concord, using a variety of techniques, and those forces which gain from division, using a variety of techniques of power. What evolves out of that as causal chain of events is then the friction, which is created as these opposing forces collide, which then fosters the emergence of narratives of good and evil, by providing the catalyst (human nature). Note: words have definitions and meanings and context matters, not only when it is beneficial from their own standpoint. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) Now one can read all that, or simply do the following. Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces of concord/discord (causality). Anybody may of course try to find exceptions to this rule, and will find none, unless one engages in typical human behavioral patterns. Name the struggle, and one can point out whether it arose out of the attempt to create concord, or discord. Every single good vs. bad narrative (the "stories" people tell themselves, as they are creating systemically useful "ingroups and outgroups") ever has arisen from this very simple axiom. On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: At its most fundamental core, the theory states that where there are intentions by systems to create unity, the opposing forces to such unity, or systemic actors, would then try to divide observed forces of unity, using key strategies, and vice-versa: where intentions of trying to create division are observed by actors trying to create unity in systems, key strategies are employed to overcome these divisions, to achieve unity in a system. These take place at the same time, making a timeline difficult to assess, contributing to the favoring of pleasing narratives for own causes, as a way of convincing large numbers of people. Like a double-helix, these forces envelope the timeline of history. It does not HAVE a "start" or "stop." The tier of interaction is irrelevant, and where there is an intention of achieving systemic gain, the strategies will closely resemble each other: from the micro- to the most macro level of all: International Relations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is elaborated in more than 100 essays in the below comments section. The theory is based on observation (primary sources) and it is specifically stated that it does NOT rely on what any other human being states as "truth." Why not? Because human being are known to lie, distort, misdirect, deceive and mislead for gain. As far as "pied pipers" of all rank and file are concerned, preaching their division in Eurasia and the rest of the planet, from the sinecure comfort of the distinctive observable geopositional locations, follow these at own expense.

"Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces of concord/discord (causality)" - Herr von Bernhard Really? Economic Factors: Many conflicts and power struggles are driven by economic interests, such as the desire for resources, wealth, and trade advantages. Cultural and Religious Differences: Conflicts often arise from deep-seated cultural and religious differences that cannot be easily categorized into simple concord/discord dynamics. Ideological Beliefs: Wars and crises are frequently influenced by differing ideologies and belief systems, such as democracy versus authoritarianism, capitalism versus communism, etc. Historical Context: The historical context and unique circumstances surrounding each conflict play a crucial role. These contexts include colonial histories, territorial disputes, and historical grievances. Human Behaviour: While concord and discord are aspects of human behaviour, other psychological factors such as leadership, charisma, fear, and aggression also play significant roles. Random Events and Accidents: Some conflicts and crises arise from unplanned events, misunderstandings, or accidents that escalate beyond control. ------ Amongst many other widely regarded strategists, still studied to this day, even Clausewitz recognised that there was at least a trinity of broad forces at play. Subordination to Political Objective (the rational, structured force): This refers to the strategic, calculated, and purposeful aspect of war and events, guided by political goals and objectives. Primordial Violence, Hatred, and Enmity (the irrational, impulsive force): This represents the raw, emotional aspect of war, driven by the passions of the people involved. It includes the chaotic and violent elements that fuel conflicts, such as nationalism, hatred, and the desire for revenge. The Play of Chance and Probability (the non-rational, random force): This encompasses the uncertainties, frictions, and unpredictable elements inherent in life and war. It highlights the role of chance, luck, and unforeseen events that can significantly influence the course of events and conflicts. Sometimes "shit just happens".

"Fits the theory. Gain at the expense of a neighbor, by taking some territory or taxpayers, to grow oneself to earn a seat at the table of the big powers." "Discord vs concord"/"unity vs disunity" is the theory as presented by yourself. These are the criteria by which you must provide your explanation. If the theory is capable of reducing everything to your binary dichotomy, how difficult can it be to demonstrate your theory with real world examples? "Simply asking to explain a random "war"" ... is a problem? Does your theory only work in certain selected circumstances? This was not your claim. If the cause is binary, the answer must be simple, no matter the example presented? "Name the struggle, and one can point out whether it arose out of the attempt to create concord, or discord."

The below comment is of course a simplification of the theory presented. Simply asking to explain a random "war" (note, there were THREE Silesian Wars, fought under different backgrounds) does not disprove anything. First it will be asked to qualify the "request". The theory remains intact. Distorting it, does not qualify as "countering". THAT is "Strawmanning". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man --------------------------------- Here is the FULL theory. Theories based on good vs bad leave a lot of room for bias and interpretation depending on the vantage point of the storytellers of history. These stories are therefore overwhelmingly subjective, and therefore appeal to the emotions of an audience. On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: The theory is a systemic analysis which is overwhelmingly neutral and objective and is therefore a dull topic to most people on the planet. Why "dull"? Because people want to hear "stories". The theory, however, is not a "story". It states how INTENTIONS lead to EFFECTS. At its core level, the theory states that throughout history there were two opposing forces in action when it comes to the concept of gain. All other human interaction when it comes to the topic of gain are subject to this. These opposing forces are not the commonly held truism as being the forces of good vs. bad/evil, but rather those forces which wish to unite to create their own systemic concord, using a variety of techniques, and those forces which gain from division, using a variety of techniques of power. What evolves out of that as causal chain of events is then the friction, which is created as these opposing forces collide, which then fosters the emergence of narratives of good and evil, by providing the catalyst (human nature). Note: words have definitions and meanings and context matters, not only when it is beneficial from their own standpoint. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations) Now one can read all that, or simply do the following. Every single struggle for power ever, every single crisis about a man-made system ever, and every single war ever, has arisen out of these two opposing forces of concord/discord (causality). Anybody may of course try to find exceptions to this rule, and will find none, unless one engages in typical human behavioral patterns. Name the struggle, and one can point out whether it arose out of the attempt to create concord, or discord. Every single good vs. bad narrative (the "stories" people tell themselves, as they are creating systemically useful "ingroups and outgroups") ever has arisen from this very simple axiom. On Reciprocity between Systems and Strategy: At its most fundamental core, the theory states that where there are intentions by systems to create unity, the opposing forces to such unity, or systemic actors, would then try to divide observed forces of unity, using key strategies, and vice-versa: where intentions of trying to create division are observed by actors trying to create unity in systems, key strategies are employed to overcome these divisions, to achieve unity in a system. These take place at the same time, making a timeline difficult to assess, contributing to the favoring of pleasing narratives for own causes, as a way of convincing large numbers of people. *Like a double-helix, these forces envelope the timeline of history. It does not HAVE a "start" or "stop."* The tier of interaction is irrelevant, and where there is an intention of achieving systemic gain, the strategies will closely resemble each other: from the micro- to the most macro level of all: International Relations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This is elaborated in more than 100 essays in the below comments section. The theory is based on observation (primary sources) and it is specifically stated that it does NOT rely on what any other human being states as "truth." Why not? Because human being are known to lie, distort, misdirect, deceive and mislead for gain. As far as "pied pipers" of all rank and file are concerned, preaching their division in Eurasia and the rest of the planet, from the sinecure comfort of the distinctive observable geopositional locations, follow these at own expense.

@ralphbernhard1757 "Whatever. The foundation for all limited wars was lain 100 years before that during and after the Thirty Years War. Limited wars were not "illegal", but were seen as a way to "balance power [...] blah, blah, blah""" Too much BS Herr von Bernhard. The criteria was "concord vs discord", "unity vs disunity". This is how you are required to explain these wars and their intricacies. If you wish to include the overarching rivalry between Prussia and Austria, then by all means include them and then explain them using the criteria you have provided. If the criteria provided is binary, the answer must therefore be very simple.

Of course, anybody can scroll down the comments section, to see whether the intention of the theory is to "point the finger away from Germany", when in fact the strategies of power are always elaborated and in the foreground. SIR Bolivar himself quoted me several times, when I stated that in July 1914 Berlin the "enabler" (role in strategy) used Austria-Hungary as the weaker power, to beat down Serbia, in order to "pave the way" for an alliance with Constantinople (breakout attempt/ulterior motive). In other words, use A-H "blood" as a breakout attempt from the Triple Entente's encirclement strategy, without getting involved itself, and then gaining an ulterior advantage. *Only the strategies are elaborated, not the "words" used, which can be manipulated.* Now, he simply "forgot" about that again... It is clearly pointless to try having a debate with anybody who use constantly shifting criteria, or simply "forgets" data in order to make accusations which are unfounded.

It's this time of the day again... Some people need their nap. I only brought up "racism" because YOU mentioned it first. Forgot already? Under such circumstances (short memory) any "debate" is pointless. The technique: 1) bring up a "topic" ("Willi was a racist", to QUOTE @Bolivar, who stated this FIRST) 2) I point out it was a racist world, and that racism (Darwinism) was the NORM during the era of imperialism 3) See below, how this is then "Strawmanned" As far as the theory is concerned, racism is/was never a "reason" but an "excuse" for actions. Learn the difference between these concepts. The power imbalance could be exploited by the superior power, and a "story" made up so the liars, stealers, and killers, and their tools, could cover up any "feelings" of guilt which might have arisen. For every single war ever, the "reasons" given for these wars were "excuses." The "excuses" were then generally incorporated into the "story" known as "history" and the real reasons kept hidden. The motivation: gain in some form. The easiest gain, for the least risk, was always to take from those with the least power (exploit a power imbalance).