In times of the Ukraine War and the Gaza Genocide, the story of the 1914 Christmas Truce reminds us of the humanity within us that wins over systems of war and barbarism.
“The arms race that was going on at the time…”. Prophetic words, Pascal. Today, the “heads” of Europe, and I use that term (heads) advisedly, are arguing for a new arms race “in preparation for a confrontation with that evil demon, Putin.” Prophetic words, Pascal
Correction: You mean "evil demon UN NWO ZIONIST Netanyahu of the new Palestine Holocaust, & Christian Syrian and Kurd extinction, thanks to coordinating countries, US, UKR, Turkey's cooperation.
S$π i tt y leaders make for s$π i tt y times.. crying shame, enjoying the program gents, thanks, Merry Christmas and let's say a prayer for all those stuck in conflict zones 😢
Well, Israel bombed and killed Palestinians on Christmas day. Probably tells you something about their (absolute lack of) humanity. I'm starting to think there was a reason why these people were evicted from every place they historically migrated to…
Sadly Pascal is correct, people never learn, they're w a r like , until they're immersed in it which of course by then, the damage is done and it's too late.
Thank you both. This year I haven’t been able to send cards or messages because my heart is really hurting in deep pain, Christmas is a time of celebration of love and peace, but this time the killing of innocent children and families,in plain sight, are being ignored, is like my own life has not value. Then what the point for me of wishing Merry Christmas ?? I don’t exist………tragic moments for humanity. Thank you again .
Sleepwalking into war again. Trying to remain neutral in the face of a grand strategy by global players is futile if the players intend to outwit each other by using people as "tools" on the "chessboards. The bigger picture can be distorted, and reality can be manipulated to deceive millions of people. The history of the encirclement policy of a Eurasian superpower repeated itself after 1990. The intent of the hegemonic power is to "transform" the smaller systems into tools of encirclement (proxies) or "unsinkable aircraft carriers" for its own systemic control or expansion. Then produce the entire story as "protecting freedom/friends/democracy," a "fight for freedom," or some other story that sounds good in Hollywood (a "bread and circuses" strategy for the domestic masses).
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American century after 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
For the "divider," the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere. "How"* and "that" are different premises…
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategist who openly admit this.
The conflagration that took place after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established were: 1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907). set up against: 2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems). If not. Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground). If not. Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.). If not. Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever). If not. Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after 1990 (Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primary" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim. Written down, for all to see, and this time the "targets" of the global strategy were not Central Europe, but rather China and Russia. Only this time the new rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves.
My father was in the trenches and one night he said he was on watch with a younger soldier. They were hiding in a fox hole, and the other young man was consumed with homesickness and tooth ache. He cried on and off all night when dawn came they left the hole to return to their own lines and saw a German soldier crawl out of another hole a few yards away. He must have been aware of their presence the whole time.
Gentlemen, thank you for this episode of humanity. My fantasy contribution would be The School for Good and Evil by Soman Chainani (beware of labels and (r)evolutions). The old haters and their families should lead the charges at the front lines. Where are the peace drones? And here's to germinating a peace pandemic in the New Year!
I think Winston Churchill participated in World War I trenches as a major after being ousted from the navy position he had because of the Gallipolli outcome. He writes about mud at least,
All that is said about the "Christmas Truce of 1914" is true enough. But, let's not forget the "Oath of the Elbe" of 25 April 1945 when Soviet and American troops met for first time on the river Elbe. They celebrated in the nearby east German town of Torgau. Troops on both sides pledged to do everything in their power to prevent future wars.
It was talked about and praised in the Soviet Union and in America. The conservative US army's magazine "Stars and Stripes" devoted an entire issue to the event. President Truman even wrote to Stalin about it. …
But, then, as soon as September 1946 Truman forgot all about it when he fired Henry A Wallace who was probably the only person in Washington who wanted peace and open dialogue with the Soviets
This since 150years ago was all a zionist war. To get a piece of land call israel. The biggest stupid is the ottomin empire. They were played into the war. Stupid stupid. Without the ottomin empire, the war would have been useless. Palestine was under the ottomin control.
Greetings Pascal and John I have some questions for you I'm sorry to be the guy that has to ask these questions or maybe I'm not but it seems that other people think that they can decide what systems are best for everybody and as a result I have many questions I hope you don't mind. I'm unapologetic for asking these questions for the same reasons that people are unapologetic for politically ignoring them.
1. *How can we continue to ignore the basic economic fact that some countries, due to their geographic or resource limitations, simply cannot produce enough to meet their domestic needs without being dependent on imports?*
2. *Is it ethically justifiable for global economic systems to impose structures that perpetuate the dependency of resource-poor countries on imports, while ignoring the realities of their limited production capacity?*
3. *Can we, in good conscience, ignore the impact of a global financial system that forces nations with limited resources to participate in trade mechanisms that benefit wealthier nations, rather than addressing their unique structural limitations?*
4. *How can economies that rely entirely on imports and exports be expected to survive under current international economic policies that exacerbate tariffs, trade barriers, and global instability?*
5. *In a world where some countries cannot produce their own necessities, how can we reconcile the growing inequality in access to resources and the expectation that these nations should be able to generate sustainable economic growth?*
6. *Is it not a form of economic imperialism to maintain a system that forces resource-scarce nations to trade with wealthier countries under unequal terms, often leading them into perpetual debt cycles?*
7. *How long can we deny that countries with limited productive capacity cannot be expected to conform to the same economic models as self-sustaining nations without facing systemic collapse?*
8. *If global trade policies were designed to promote equity, how can we justify the continued exploitation of countries with limited resources, leaving them trapped in a cycle of dependency with no real hope for economic independence?*
9. *Why do we continue to force countries with few natural resources to accept the myth of a 'level playing field' in global markets when it is evident that these nations can never compete on the same terms as resource-rich economies?*
10. *Can any truly sustainable and equitable model exist when nations are forced to import basic goods but have no means to expand their local industries due to a lack of capital, technology, or resources?*
11. *How can the international community ignore the fact that expecting countries with limited resources to develop robust economies without addressing the systemic barriers of debt, tariffs, and international regulations is an exercise in futility?*
12. *Is it not absurd to expect countries that lack the necessary infrastructure, education systems, and industrial base to compete in a global economy that rewards production and innovation, rather than simple resource extraction and export?*
13. *Can we honestly believe that a nation can thrive under current trade dynamics when the costs of importing basic resources outweigh the value derived from their limited exports?*
14. *What will it take for global policymakers to acknowledge that some countries, due to the sheer impossibility of achieving self-sufficiency, will always face economic instability under current systems?*
15. *Why do we continue to impose economic models that demand countries to grow at unsustainable rates despite their inherent resource limitations, and what are the consequences of this oversight?*
16. *In a world where global supply chains are increasingly fragile, can we truly expect countries with limited natural resources to survive without catastrophic economic consequences in the face of disruptions?*
17. *How can it be justified that countries with limited productive capacity are expected to bear the burden of global economic volatility, especially when their economies are not structured to absorb such shocks?*
18. *Is it not irresponsible to continue advocating for economic growth models that disregard the basic reality that certain countries can never be self-sustaining due to their inherent resource scarcity?*
19. *What are the long-term political and social consequences of continuing to ignore the fact that some countries are effectively 'locked in' to unsustainable economic frameworks by their lack of natural resources and productive capabilities?*
20. *How much longer can the international community, particularly wealthier nations, avoid confronting the issue that some economies are inviolable because their basic structures are not designed to withstand the current global economic paradigm?21. **How can we continue to justify wars fought over resources when the root cause is the denial of economic self-sufficiency to countries that lack the means to support themselves?*
22. *If these questions of resource scarcity and economic dependence have sparked countless conflicts, why do we still ignore their underlying causes and continue to impose systems that exacerbate these very issues?*
23. *How many more wars must be fought, and how many more lives must be lost, before we acknowledge that global economic frameworks are designed to keep certain nations dependent and in perpetual conflict?*
24. *What does it say about the world when the same fundamental questions about resource distribution and self-sufficiency continue to be ignored, and the suffering caused by these inequities is allowed to persist unabated?*
25. *Why is it that even though the consequences of these systemic inequalities have been demonstrated through wars, revolutions, and crises, the global powers that benefit from the status quo refuse to make meaningful changes?*
26. *Can we continue to pretend that global peace and prosperity are possible while we perpetuate an economic system that forces countries to depend on the whims of international trade, which is inherently unequal?*
27. *How can we ignore the fact that the same countries subjected to colonial exploitation are now facing the same economic constraints, under different guises, leading them into new cycles of conflict?*
28. *What is the true cost of ignoring the resource disparities between nations, and how long can we allow the illusion of fairness in the global economy to dictate international relations?*
29. *When will the global community realize that allowing countries to remain economically dependent on imports and exports for survival, with no ability to create viable self-sustaining markets, is a formula for long-term instability?*
30. *Why is the international economic order still structured in such a way that resource-poor nations are constantly faced with the impossible task of competing in markets they can never truly be self-sufficient in?*
31. *How much longer can we allow the economic elite to benefit from the exploitation of nations that are trapped in the cycle of debt and dependency, while continuing to ignore the causes of the instability they endure?*
32. *Why is the international community not only ignoring the fundamental causes of conflict over resources but is actively reinforcing the conditions that lead to such conflicts through unequal economic agreements?*
33. *How can global leaders claim to promote peace when their policies are predicated on the continued impoverishment of nations with limited resources, thus breeding resentment and fueling conflict?*
34. *If we continue to see wars fought over economic and resource-based disparities, can we continue to call these conflicts 'random' or 'politically motivated' when they are, at their core, driven by systemic economic imbalances?*
35. *What does it mean for the future of global cooperation when the forces that perpetuate these imbalances refuse to be addressed, thus condemning future generations to inherit the same unresolved conflicts over resources?*
36. *When we look at the historical record of war and strife, how much evidence is needed before we accept that the refusal to address these systemic resource inequalities is one of the central causes of global instability?*
37. *Why, despite centuries of conflict and the repeated failures to address the root causes of resource inequality, do we still allow the same flawed economic systems to perpetuate the conditions for war?*
38. *How can we pretend that economic models based on inequality, dependency, and extraction will ever lead to peace, when they are the very cause of the conflicts we claim to resolve with force?*
39. *If wars are fought to maintain control over resources, what are we willing to sacrifice as a global society to finally confront and resolve the economic structures that perpetuate these power struggles?*
40. *How can we claim to be advancing as a global civilization when the same fundamental issues of resource control, economic dependency, and inequality continue to drive our most destructive conflicts, yet remain largely unaddressed by those in power?*
I unfortunately don't have any room for the last 20 questions
Can you do a deep discussion between you two of all the paths and options available at the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and especially the likely timeline of consequences in each?
There needn’t have been a war if the German social democrats had kept their commitment to class solidarity. It was only the Bolsheviks that kept to it (and that was the key to the success of their revolution).
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same. 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 outsiders 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. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent. Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history. Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting? Different Empires. Different era. Same games… ————————————- The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. 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. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could 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. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers… Divide-and-rule. Oldest trick in the book… Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games. ————————————– The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. 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), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, 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-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER. Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life…"and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." 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" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war… Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side". In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. … Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet. And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) 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. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide. Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book… Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games. THE LINK OF THE WORLD. The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had 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? 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 in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system 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.
A Christmas article worth reading starts with the following sentence: "This year as in every other year, Christianity and fundamentalist capitalism, two great allies, are joining their forces to extract billions of dollars, all over the world, mainly from the poor." Christian Dogma Should be Questioned, Andre Vltchek, Dec 19, 2014. Counterpunch.
48:27 "The same people who profit out of peace were very often profiting out of war."
An exchange between Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara
"What most people don't seem to realize is that there is as much money to be made from the wreckage of a civilization as from the upbuilding of one."
"And what does all that mean?"
"Your family and my family and everyone here tonight made their money out of turning a wilderness into civilization. That's empire building. There's good money in empire building. But, there's more in empire wreaking."
It is a myth not a historical event
I agree, nothing good is going on in the world. Which is probably why Santa is taking his time off this year…. especially Israel, Ukraine and USA.
I think the film, Joyeux Noel (2005), is based on the Christmas Truce.
Unfortunately those neocons who are over obsessed with greed n dominance will never learn from history
“The arms race that was going on at the time…”. Prophetic words, Pascal. Today, the “heads” of Europe, and I use that term (heads) advisedly, are arguing for a new arms race “in preparation for a confrontation with that evil demon, Putin.”
Prophetic words, Pascal
Biblical Christmas is actually Jan 7, 2025.
Catholic Pope Gregory VIII changed it at the prodding of Julius Caesar.
Correction: You mean "evil demon UN NWO ZIONIST Netanyahu of the new Palestine Holocaust, & Christian Syrian and Kurd extinction, thanks to coordinating countries, US, UKR, Turkey's cooperation.
S$π i tt y leaders make for s$π i tt y times.. crying shame, enjoying the program gents, thanks, Merry Christmas and let's say a prayer for all those stuck in conflict zones 😢
More nonsense from Pascal. What a joke. 😂.
Well, Israel bombed and killed Palestinians on Christmas day. Probably tells you something about their (absolute lack of) humanity.
I'm starting to think there was a reason why these people were evicted from every place they historically migrated to…
Sadly Pascal is correct, people never learn, they're w a r like , until they're immersed in it which of course by then, the damage is done and it's too late.
Thank you both. This year I haven’t been able to send cards or messages because my heart is really hurting in deep pain, Christmas is a time of celebration of love and peace, but this time the killing of innocent children and families,in plain sight, are being ignored, is like my own life has not value. Then what the point for me of wishing Merry Christmas ?? I don’t exist………tragic moments for humanity. Thank you again .
excellent episode
Glad your geust touched on the class w a r aspect at the end, and rent seeking being explicitly not capitalist, good on him.
Sanity and hope. Thank you
I really hate this story because they went right back to fighting after Christmas, didn't they?
Sleepwalking into war again.
Trying to remain neutral in the face of a grand strategy by global players is futile if the players intend to outwit each other by using people as "tools" on the "chessboards. The bigger picture can be distorted, and reality can be manipulated to deceive millions of people. The history of the encirclement policy of a Eurasian superpower repeated itself after 1990. The intent of the hegemonic power is to "transform" the smaller systems into tools of encirclement (proxies) or "unsinkable aircraft carriers" for its own systemic control or expansion. Then produce the entire story as "protecting freedom/friends/democracy," a "fight for freedom," or some other story that sounds good in Hollywood (a "bread and circuses" strategy for the domestic masses).
The events later called World Wars I and II were part of the same conflagration that began around 1900, when the naval powers encircled their continental neighbours. For the American century after 1900, Europe was simply a slightly larger area than Britain was for Rome around the year "0": The technique used by both empires was the same, namely, exploiting existing divisions. Exploiting such divisions for one's own ends is the "divide-and-rule/conquer" strategy. A proactive means of advancing one's own interests at the expense of others is to favor some (increase the power of the favoured) at the expense of others (decrease the power of the outcast). In the initial stages while the UK kept its power to be the "divider in in chief" herself, Washington DC did not have to engage much, apart from the overt favouritism of WW1, disguised behind the "nice sounding story".
For the "divider," the multitude of reasons, motivations, ideologies, justifications, opinions, excuses, or the interests of those who cooperate in achieving the beneficial division for the higher power are not important. For the dividing power, it does not matter how the division is implemented, or how existing divisions are deepened, or who is helping for whatever reasons, or whether those who favor and abet the division even know that they are supporting the division: what matters is that it is implemented. For the outside divider with a geographical advantage of distance from violent events, it is not important why the chosen tools choose work together for the gains of the empire, but the fact that the chosen tools work together to create division and overwhelm a part of the planet somewhere.
"How"* and "that" are different premises…
The empire is in search of profit, only "interests" are important. There are more than enough examples of strategist who openly admit this.
The conflagration that took place after 1914 was another European 30-year war (with a 20-year break in between). The divisions thus established were:
1) the naval powers (Britain/USA) with their continental allies (such as France after 1904 and Russia after 1907).
set up against:
2) the continental alliances, which were encircled and prevented from reaching sufficient spheres of influence for their growth by the naval supremacy of 1), and this encirclement strategy began as a deliberate action by the naval powers around 1900.
Divide-and-gain (power for own systems).
If not.
Divide-and-control (a situation from the high ground).
If not.
Divide-and-rule (by drawing lines on the map, weakening others, etc.).
If not.
Divide-and-conquer (markets, sphere of influence, whatever).
If not.
Divide-and-destroy (those who refuse to bow down to exploitation and division).
This strategy was simply repeated after 1990 (Wolfowitz Doctrine/US imperialist claim to power with "US primary" as the top priority, and Yugoslavian unity the first victim.
Written down, for all to see, and this time the "targets" of the global strategy were not Central Europe, but rather China and Russia. Only this time the new rivals were shifted further east. The final goal of our off-continental (non-Eurasian) "friends" is to crush China as they once crushed Europe, using the block mentality of blockheads, in the form of divided neighbours as "tools" on a "chessboard" and later claim total innocence and "world saviour"-status for themselves.
My father was in the trenches and one night he said he was on watch with a younger soldier. They were hiding in a fox hole, and the other young man was consumed with homesickness and tooth ache. He cried on and off all night when dawn came they left the hole to return to their own lines and saw a German soldier crawl out of another hole a few yards away. He must have been aware of their presence the whole time.
Sabaton – The christmas truce : https://youtu.be/HPdHkHslFIU?si=B52ApGoXLE9Rk-ag
A musical interpretation
Gentlemen, thank you for this episode of humanity. My fantasy contribution would be The School for Good and Evil by Soman Chainani (beware of labels and (r)evolutions). The old haters and their families should lead the charges at the front lines. Where are the peace drones? And here's to germinating a peace pandemic in the New Year!
I think Winston Churchill participated in World War I trenches as a major after being ousted from the navy position he had because of the Gallipolli outcome. He writes about mud at least,
Instead of arming Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan; US tax payer money should be spent on infrastructure, healthcare, education, homelessness etc.
Russia is not our enemy. Iran is not our enemy. Chi na is not our enemy. Merry Christmas, greetings from Australia
All that is said about the "Christmas Truce of 1914" is true enough. But, let's not forget the "Oath of the Elbe" of 25 April 1945 when Soviet and American troops met for first time on the river Elbe. They celebrated in the nearby east German town of Torgau. Troops on both sides pledged to do everything in their power to prevent future wars.
It was talked about and praised in the Soviet Union and in America. The conservative US army's magazine "Stars and Stripes" devoted an entire issue to the event. President Truman even wrote to Stalin about it. …
But, then, as soon as September 1946 Truman forgot all about it when he fired Henry A Wallace who was probably the only person in Washington who wanted peace and open dialogue with the Soviets
🎄🙏
for the algorithm 🎄✨
Fantastic episode, learnt a lot of history and it is good to hear a frank discussion of how wrong war is. Thank you.
This since 150years ago was all a zionist war. To get a piece of land call israel. The biggest stupid is the ottomin empire. They were played into the war. Stupid stupid. Without the ottomin empire, the war would have been useless. Palestine was under the ottomin control.
Merry Christmas everyone 💝
Greetings Pascal and John I have some questions for you I'm sorry to be the guy that has to ask these questions or maybe I'm not but it seems that other people think that they can decide what systems are best for everybody and as a result I have many questions I hope you don't mind. I'm unapologetic for asking these questions for the same reasons that people are unapologetic for politically ignoring them.
1. *How can we continue to ignore the basic economic fact that some countries, due to their geographic or resource limitations, simply cannot produce enough to meet their domestic needs without being dependent on imports?*
2. *Is it ethically justifiable for global economic systems to impose structures that perpetuate the dependency of resource-poor countries on imports, while ignoring the realities of their limited production capacity?*
3. *Can we, in good conscience, ignore the impact of a global financial system that forces nations with limited resources to participate in trade mechanisms that benefit wealthier nations, rather than addressing their unique structural limitations?*
4. *How can economies that rely entirely on imports and exports be expected to survive under current international economic policies that exacerbate tariffs, trade barriers, and global instability?*
5. *In a world where some countries cannot produce their own necessities, how can we reconcile the growing inequality in access to resources and the expectation that these nations should be able to generate sustainable economic growth?*
6. *Is it not a form of economic imperialism to maintain a system that forces resource-scarce nations to trade with wealthier countries under unequal terms, often leading them into perpetual debt cycles?*
7. *How long can we deny that countries with limited productive capacity cannot be expected to conform to the same economic models as self-sustaining nations without facing systemic collapse?*
8. *If global trade policies were designed to promote equity, how can we justify the continued exploitation of countries with limited resources, leaving them trapped in a cycle of dependency with no real hope for economic independence?*
9. *Why do we continue to force countries with few natural resources to accept the myth of a 'level playing field' in global markets when it is evident that these nations can never compete on the same terms as resource-rich economies?*
10. *Can any truly sustainable and equitable model exist when nations are forced to import basic goods but have no means to expand their local industries due to a lack of capital, technology, or resources?*
11. *How can the international community ignore the fact that expecting countries with limited resources to develop robust economies without addressing the systemic barriers of debt, tariffs, and international regulations is an exercise in futility?*
12. *Is it not absurd to expect countries that lack the necessary infrastructure, education systems, and industrial base to compete in a global economy that rewards production and innovation, rather than simple resource extraction and export?*
13. *Can we honestly believe that a nation can thrive under current trade dynamics when the costs of importing basic resources outweigh the value derived from their limited exports?*
14. *What will it take for global policymakers to acknowledge that some countries, due to the sheer impossibility of achieving self-sufficiency, will always face economic instability under current systems?*
15. *Why do we continue to impose economic models that demand countries to grow at unsustainable rates despite their inherent resource limitations, and what are the consequences of this oversight?*
16. *In a world where global supply chains are increasingly fragile, can we truly expect countries with limited natural resources to survive without catastrophic economic consequences in the face of disruptions?*
17. *How can it be justified that countries with limited productive capacity are expected to bear the burden of global economic volatility, especially when their economies are not structured to absorb such shocks?*
18. *Is it not irresponsible to continue advocating for economic growth models that disregard the basic reality that certain countries can never be self-sustaining due to their inherent resource scarcity?*
19. *What are the long-term political and social consequences of continuing to ignore the fact that some countries are effectively 'locked in' to unsustainable economic frameworks by their lack of natural resources and productive capabilities?*
20. *How much longer can the international community, particularly wealthier nations, avoid confronting the issue that some economies are inviolable because their basic structures are not designed to withstand the current global economic paradigm?21. **How can we continue to justify wars fought over resources when the root cause is the denial of economic self-sufficiency to countries that lack the means to support themselves?*
22. *If these questions of resource scarcity and economic dependence have sparked countless conflicts, why do we still ignore their underlying causes and continue to impose systems that exacerbate these very issues?*
23. *How many more wars must be fought, and how many more lives must be lost, before we acknowledge that global economic frameworks are designed to keep certain nations dependent and in perpetual conflict?*
24. *What does it say about the world when the same fundamental questions about resource distribution and self-sufficiency continue to be ignored, and the suffering caused by these inequities is allowed to persist unabated?*
25. *Why is it that even though the consequences of these systemic inequalities have been demonstrated through wars, revolutions, and crises, the global powers that benefit from the status quo refuse to make meaningful changes?*
26. *Can we continue to pretend that global peace and prosperity are possible while we perpetuate an economic system that forces countries to depend on the whims of international trade, which is inherently unequal?*
27. *How can we ignore the fact that the same countries subjected to colonial exploitation are now facing the same economic constraints, under different guises, leading them into new cycles of conflict?*
28. *What is the true cost of ignoring the resource disparities between nations, and how long can we allow the illusion of fairness in the global economy to dictate international relations?*
29. *When will the global community realize that allowing countries to remain economically dependent on imports and exports for survival, with no ability to create viable self-sustaining markets, is a formula for long-term instability?*
30. *Why is the international economic order still structured in such a way that resource-poor nations are constantly faced with the impossible task of competing in markets they can never truly be self-sufficient in?*
31. *How much longer can we allow the economic elite to benefit from the exploitation of nations that are trapped in the cycle of debt and dependency, while continuing to ignore the causes of the instability they endure?*
32. *Why is the international community not only ignoring the fundamental causes of conflict over resources but is actively reinforcing the conditions that lead to such conflicts through unequal economic agreements?*
33. *How can global leaders claim to promote peace when their policies are predicated on the continued impoverishment of nations with limited resources, thus breeding resentment and fueling conflict?*
34. *If we continue to see wars fought over economic and resource-based disparities, can we continue to call these conflicts 'random' or 'politically motivated' when they are, at their core, driven by systemic economic imbalances?*
35. *What does it mean for the future of global cooperation when the forces that perpetuate these imbalances refuse to be addressed, thus condemning future generations to inherit the same unresolved conflicts over resources?*
36. *When we look at the historical record of war and strife, how much evidence is needed before we accept that the refusal to address these systemic resource inequalities is one of the central causes of global instability?*
37. *Why, despite centuries of conflict and the repeated failures to address the root causes of resource inequality, do we still allow the same flawed economic systems to perpetuate the conditions for war?*
38. *How can we pretend that economic models based on inequality, dependency, and extraction will ever lead to peace, when they are the very cause of the conflicts we claim to resolve with force?*
39. *If wars are fought to maintain control over resources, what are we willing to sacrifice as a global society to finally confront and resolve the economic structures that perpetuate these power struggles?*
40. *How can we claim to be advancing as a global civilization when the same fundamental issues of resource control, economic dependency, and inequality continue to drive our most destructive conflicts, yet remain largely unaddressed by those in power?*
I unfortunately don't have any room for the last 20 questions
15:55 Subtle eyebrow raise from Pascal for Przemyśl. Love these two knowledgeable, thoughtful podcasters.
It's all the foolishness and fault of the Sir Marmaduke Carmichael Zutts (and Zanzibar Buckbuck McFate on the other side).
Can you do a deep discussion between you two of all the paths and options available at the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and especially the likely timeline of consequences in each?
It is not in human nature to use violence, no, that is absolutely right!!! 💕
Correction, rent is at the core of financial monopoly capitalism. Reference Prof. Michael Hudson.
There needn’t have been a war if the German social democrats had kept their commitment to class solidarity. It was only the Bolsheviks that kept to it (and that was the key to the success of their revolution).
After the disaster of Gallipoli, Churchill, guild ridden, did indeed joint the warm war effort… and "veteran" does apply to him.
The USA/collective Western plot is always the same.
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 outsiders 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. Exploit and foster endless wars, meddle for constant dissent.
Divide-and-rule connects the dots on the timeline of history.
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of distance from the events resulting out of the own meddling and political activities, being able to reach all the other regions, but could not be reached itself as hegemony, at any given point of a historical timeline? Pax Romana, Rome. Pax Britannica, London. Pax Americana, Washington DC. All they ever wanted was pax, because they said so, but who picks up the pieces of great wealth and the systemic gains when all the others can be avoided from uniting?
Different Empires. Different era. Same games…
————————————-
The people of the Africa have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Tribalism makes it easy to divide people, then keep them poor under the "kind foot" of exploitation. 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. Once the dividers had reached peak power for themselves, by simply drawing lines on the map without asking any of those affected (Congo Conference/1884) the own systems of gain could 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. During the Cold War, Moscow took on the role of arming the resistance to the colonial dividers. Today, all African dissenters fighting against unity, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Give the weak mind money, and they will dance for the outside dividers…
Divide-and-rule.
Oldest trick in the book…
Different people and systems. Different places on the map. Same games.
————————————–
The people of the Americas, including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. 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), and as European colonial powers' influence decreased during the 19th century, 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-control/rule/conquer strategy is the most powerful force on the planet, because it can be employed equally in times of peace to CONTROL, in times of crises to RULE, and in times of war to CONQUER.
Ever since the two-faced snake slithered down that tree of unity (fable), speaking out of both sides of the mouth (lies, deceit), the wisest human beings have fruitlessly warned, and the easily divisable have continuously been warned against divisions within a peaceful status quo. When you bow to the division caused by deception, you will lose the good life…"and much that once was, is lost; for none now live who remember it." 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" (sic.), constant dissent with everything's a war war war…
Insert levers of lies, mistrust. The two-party-duopoly is two cheeks of the same golden hind which set out to create favourites: Favouritism, by granting access to the own POWER/WEALTH, to those who volunteer to act as proxies and extensions for the own power projection. The small picture lives of domestic political chaos, of the big picture reality of international insanity. Point the systemic (MSM) finger, everywhere else, by use of the own paid stooges of power by presenting their deep state-orchestrated three-letter-agency astroturfed violence on multiple tiers as being the reactions of "the poor oppressed people, who need our help for freedom and democracy" (sic.). Liars, deceivers, creators of the BLACK LEGEND for the "other side".
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. … Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." Kennan: A prototype GLOBALIST. And that is what they did to increase their own wealth. Set up people against each other, then siphon off the wealth of entire regions of the planet.
And that is what you are fighting for. That is what the hegemon has always done, pretending to be the "good pax", but playing "good cop/bad cop" with the world, from a position of power. In the past, the "good cops" were the INTERNATIONALISTS, and the "bad cops" were the IMPERIALISTS. In the present that has morphed into the "good cops" being the GLOBALISTS/NEOLIBS, and the "bad cops" being the NEOCONS. Name-branding and doublespeak for the slumberland plebs, enchanted by their "bread-and-circuses"-existences.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Eurasia are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues, with a (quote) "pattern of relationships" which are beneficial to the own rule. Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the Middle East/North Africa) 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. Read W.T. Stead (Americanization of the World, 1901) for the guideline of political-, cultural- and economic capture. Read Smedley-Butler (War is a Racket) for the modus operandi of imperialism/militarism.
Some say Europe is a divine goddess. I say, it is a humble apple tree, from an allegory as old as modern civilizations, because it is easy to divide.
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book…
Four corners of the globe. Different cultures and religions. Same games.
THE LINK OF THE WORLD.
The entire system they favor in the USA/collective West is based on a pre-set managed and moderated division, for the benefit of a very few at the top of the pyramids accompanied by the often-repeated nice-sounding storyline. Create the script of the own heroes. Their entire scripted money-funded history sounds like a Hollywood superhero movie that sounds too good to be true. Guess what? It is. It is what they are NOT telling you, that they try to hide.
Who wields the POWER? Who has had 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? 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 in the USA/collective West, locked in the eternal struggle for wealth and personal gain which they have been deceived into thinking is "good greed", but which WILL be exploited by the snakes who deceive them on the domestic tier of the divide-and-rule system 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.
A Christmas article worth reading starts with the following sentence:
"This year as in every other year, Christianity and fundamentalist capitalism, two great allies, are joining their forces to extract billions of dollars, all over the world, mainly from the poor."
Christian Dogma Should be Questioned, Andre Vltchek, Dec 19, 2014. Counterpunch.
48:27 "The same people who profit out of peace were very often profiting out of war."
An exchange between Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara
"What most people don't seem to realize is that there is as much money to be made from the wreckage of a civilization as from the upbuilding of one."
"And what does all that mean?"
"Your family and my family and everyone here tonight made their money out of turning a wilderness into civilization. That's empire building. There's good money in empire building. But, there's more in empire wreaking."
– From Margaret Mitchell's Gone With The Wind