Divide and rule!
The article deals with the principle of global governance "Divide and rule" with examples, as is done in real governance in the world.
It is necessary to conquer with the mind that which cannot be overcome by force.
(Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor)
The slogan: “Divide and rule!” - heard by many. However, for most, it is exclusively a legacy of the past, covered with a thick layer of dust, just like other famous exclamations and phrases, including: “O times, morals!”, “In war as in war!” Or “Carthage must be ruined! "
Few people understand that this principle is one of the fundamental principles that is by no means a state, but a supra-state (global) government. And from those who understand this, not everyone can cite clear and distinct examples of various kinds, showing how this principle works.
Therefore, today we will talk about this very topic in order to make this principle more understandable to a wide circle of readers.
And we begin with a story about a broom.
Broom, ancient parable
One old man had three sons.And they could not get along together. The old man really wanted his sons to live in peace after his death. He decided to teach them that.
One day, the father called them to his place and asked to break the broom in half. At first the eldest son tried, but no matter how hard he tried, nothing happened. The same failures befell middle and younger. Then the father untied a broom, and asked each son to break several straws. This, of course, they easily managed.
Then the father said:
- Here is also in life. If you will be together, then no one will break you, and individually you will be as easily defeated as you can break a couple of straws.
I don’t know if this parable is a Russian folk story (although it’s similar in style), but it’s not important at all. It is important that the principle of management is very well shown in it - how much stronger people (states) become together, and how weaker they are separately, how much easier it is to manage them and, if necessary, “break” them in every sense of the word.
In essence, the principle: “Divide and rule!” Is about that. However, its use in life is much broader.
Next, we look at many different examples and see how this principle has been applied in the past and continues to be applied to the present.
Separation on religious and confessional grounds.
As the reader should have understood, the essence of the principle: “Divide and rule!” Is the fragmentation of a single humanity as a whole (or of any state) into various smaller groups. Moreover, the smaller each group, the better.
I am not a very deep connoisseur of specific religious denominations, so I ask the reader to forgive me in advance for any inaccuracies or roughness. They are possible, but do not change the essence of what is at stake.
If we consider humanity as a whole, then from the point of view of this principle, the initial task of global governance is the cultivation of various religious teachings. Probably, it is now extremely difficult, if not impossible, to answer the question whether the creation of various religions is a product of global governance efforts, but their presence certainly answers the principle we are considering, therefore global governance is interested in different religions and the more it is better.
Moreover, the larger the religion, the more important (in accordance with the same principle) to divide this religion into a number of confessions (areas) within the framework of one religion.
For example, we note that in the most “numerous” religion - Christianity - there are a number of parallel existing confessions - Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Old Believers (perhaps the list can be continued).
And here, by the way, it is already absolutely possible to say that some confessions received a “start in life” precisely thanks to global governance. Let me remind you that in the first millennium AD, the Roman Empire was one of the centers of global governance, which itself contains a number of vivid examples of this principle: “Divide and rule!” And it was in the Roman Empire that Christianity was divided into confessions. After the emperor Constantine adopted Christianity, the Roman Empire was divided into Eastern and Western, and the religious basis of the Western Roman Empire was made up by the so-called "katholics" as they called themselves ("katholics" means "pure").
The bottom line is that Christianity among the people was given the status of religion specifically for the common people, the common people. And so, when the emperor Constantine adopted Christianity, it was presented (looked) for the broad masses of the people as the desecration of their religion by a deliberately “vicious” power class.Hence the emergence of “pure” Katholics who refused to accept the authority of such an emperor, and who refused to consider Christianity at all what became the “state” religion in the Eastern Roman Empire. We draw attention to the fact that it was with the reign of Emperor Constantine, who officially adopted Christianity, that the Inquisition began, and its essence and purpose was to impose on everyone and everyone that (orthodox) understanding of Christianity, which became “official”. All dissenters were called heretics and destroyed. The Christianity of the Eastern Roman Empire subsequently became “Orthodox”, and it was from there that it came to Russia when Vladimir Red Sunshine baptized Russia.
When the Western Roman Empire grew strong and got on its feet, Catholic Christianity followed the same beaten path of the Inquisition, destroying everyone who had the courage (or arrogance) to understand some aspects of Christianity in their own way.
All those who disagreed under the monstrous torture were forced to renounce their views and submit to the “officially proclaimed”, to admit that their “free-thinking” was from the devil, and so on.Most, however, were executed, and not just forced to agree with the officially approved canons.
I note that the Inquisition was terminated only by Napoleon, that is, it existed from the 5th century AD to almost the 19th century AD. In other words, the Inquisition as a historical phenomenon extends to the vast majority of that time, which we call “our era” (from the birth of Christ). I suggest the reader to think about it - almost all of our chronology, people lived in a rigidly imposed understanding of the provisions of Christianity, and all those who did not agree with this were simply destroyed in the most brutal ways. Since the abolition of the Inquisition, only about 225 years have passed, that is, according to the social and social measures “nothing,” about 9 generations of people.
My grandmother, for example, was still born in Tsarist Russia. And her great-grandmother lived during the times of the Inquisition.
But the division into Catholics, Orthodox, Old Believers and Old Believers (Old Believers and Old Believers are not the same) - this is not all. There are many different churches that claim their special status (the church is not in the sense of being a building, but in the sense of an institution, for example, the Vatican, the ROC, and so on).I am not strong in the names of churches and their relations, and moreover, it is not at all interesting to me, therefore I will not develop this line of thought here, people of the dignity of church and those interested in it know everything thoroughly, and the rest can study the matter if desired.
I do not claim that all Christian denominations, without exception, occurred with the direct participation of global governance, but the fact that at least some of the denominations were formed by global governance, in particular, the initial schism of Christianity in the Roman Empire, is absolutely certain.
As for Islam, there are also a number of areas here, and also at least some of them are the fruit of global governance efforts. As the direction of Islam, we can mention the Sunnis, the Shiites, the so-called "radical Islam", the Taliban, and so on.
One may ask the question: “Why does global governance create so many different denominations within the framework of the main world religions?”
In general, the answer should be obvious. First, the more denominations, the smaller the number of each of them. This is the analysis of a single broom into several different parts.Secondly, these branches can be broken down separately or used against each other. Discrepancies in matters of religion are a very "good" reason for starting religious wars and using them to divide territories, resources, countries and peoples, and even completely wipe out certain peoples and (or) states from the face of the earth.
Religious wars are a managerial maneuver, and it is all the more obvious that all religions proclaim human life above all else, and killing a person as the most serious crime or one of the most serious crimes. In war, people are killed by thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions, but this is considered “justifiable” because it is war. Good explanation, isn't it? I note that religious wars occupy a very large part of all wars in our history. And in particular, the flood of Europe by “migrants”, by a strange coincidence representing for the most part radical Islam, is nothing more than the creation of a religious war. The very same, as a result of which Europe should have ceased to exist, as Barack Obama told about from the UN rostrum when he spoke about the historically objective and inevitable emergence of new states and peoples in Europe.
Separation according to national and administrative grounds.
Here everything seems to be simple. If there is one large state with which it is difficult to cope entirely, then it is necessary to divide this state (for example, from the inside) into several smaller independent, that is, sovereign (souvenir) states.
For example, as was done with the USSR in 1991. One state was divided into several states, each of which individually could not pursue an independent policy due to insufficient resources.
I note that this was not the first division of our country into several souvenir states. For example, during the reign of Ivan IV the Great (Grozny) Russia was largely merged (reunited) - apparently, after the previous division.
But here it is actually more complicated and interesting.
Why did the division of the USSR into sovereign (souvenir) states become possible? Because the USSR was a union of republics, and a republic, according to international law, is a form of state. That is, the USSR was initially composed of elements, each of which was administratively formed as an independent state. In addition, each such element, in addition,that it was formed as an independent state, also had a dominant nationality, that is, the USSR was initially complicated according to the principle of not only state separation, but also national division. If I may say so, each of the elements of which the USSR was complicated had at least two “degrees of freedom” by which it was possible to break it off — administrative and national. As it was done in 1991, I hope all sensible people remember. Provocateurs in each of the republics shouted that they were “feeding” the federal center, and that it was time to finish it, and in the center opposite, the provocateurs shouted “enough to feed other territories!”
From the point of view of the broom as a whole, it is completely unimportant which of them was right and who was wrong - one way or another, they took the whole broom by rods, and as a result they lost everything. Every former republic of the former USSR lives worse today than in the USSR. Better live only those small groups of people who, as a result of grappling (this is not a typo), managed to steal enough to ensure a comfortable living. All the rest, and their 95 percent minimum, live much worse.
By the way, it is necessary to pay attention that Russia (Russian Federation) was created absolutely by the same principle as the USSR, and therefore it does not cost anything to break it into pieces using the same actions as the USSR. The processes are absolutely similar, therefore they are absolutely similar to the construction of states. As the USSR consisted of republics, being a federation, and Russia consists of republics, and is a federation. Notice that in each subject of the Russian Federation there is a governor (almost the president), his own government, his own Duma (parliament). Fully equipped in form and in fact the state apparatus. The fact that there are people in it who do not know management is not at all an obstacle to the possibility of the formal separation of such a subject of the federation.
And by the way, the threat of the disintegration of the Russian Federation into a number of sovereign (souvenir) states is by no means a utopia. First, such a scenario was already attempted “on the sly” immediately and implemented in the “dashing nineties”, when Yeltsin proclaimed a parade of sovereignties under the slogan: “Take as much sovereignty as you can!” When in 2000, Putin first became interim President of Russia, then Russia as a state already did not exist.In many of the republic could get only at the invitation of local residents. And if, for example, you did not have friends or relatives somewhere in Sakha-Yakutia, then you could not get there. Republics have already introduced their customs services, their monetary units (for example, the Ural francs). The process of disintegration of Russia into separate "princedoms" was in full swing.
From this point of view, we will look at today's events between Chechnya and Ingushetia. There really is a very difficult game, in which global management and the State Department (Americans) are involved, but, as always, they don’t devote simple players to it, they have no idea which games they really are. Neither Kadyrov, nor Yevkurov (who signed the agreement on the exchange of territories between Chechnya and Ingushetia), nor the parliaments of these republics that ratified the agreement, understand this. They are all used "blindly." But in particular, precisely because they are being used “in the dark,” and that they do not understand what they are actually doing, they are absolutely sure that they are sharing their lands. Do you understand? - Their lands, and not the lands of Russia. This is the division of Russia by the same mechanism that broke the USSR.The leaders of each republic within Russia who lack understanding at the level of conceptual politics and conceptual power, who do not have knowledge of management methodology, think that they share some kind of “their own” lands, resources, territories, and people. They absolutely do not think in categories that they dispose not of their own, but of Russian land. And they have no idea about what games they are involved in at the same time, and what will be the result of such a division (in particular, that all of them will eventually be eliminated along with the population). They do not understand that all their strength, all their stability is a consequence of being under the same roof of Russia. Without Russia, they are no one to call them in any way. But they, in their misunderstanding, play with fire, performing actions that can have the most terrible consequences both for Russia as a whole and for them in particular.
I will emphasize it again, because this is something that many do not understand and underestimate. Russia is literally on the edge of the abyss, having the federal structure that it has. And splitting up Russia according to this principle is not just “easy” - elementary! Much easier than crushing the USSR.Because in the USSR there were only 15 republics. In Russia, 85 (eighty-five) subjects of the federation, including 22 republics. This “trishkin caftan” can be broken into pieces just in the blink of an eye, no one will have time to blink an eye.
Our people have somehow got used to a relatively quiet life after the year 2000, and having lost their vigilance, they do not understand much what he owes to Putin, and what particularly dictates Putin’s extremely cautious actions in ruling Russia. And they are dictated in particular by the fact that our statehood is by no means as “monolithic” as it seems. And many leaders of the subjects of the Federation sleep and see in a dream how they are not governors within Russia, but kings in all sorts of Kazan, Far Eastern or Voronezh principalities. It is not clear to them in their ambitions and ignorance what this is fraught with for themselves, they just want to be kings. They do not consider their provinces as subjects of the Russian Federation - they regard them as their own lands, where they are masters, where each of them is “King and God.” This is the level of their understanding of management processes, but this is our reality in which we live.And this danger over Russia, this sword of Damocles, above it, must be seen and remembered about it every minute.
From this point of view, one can also recall those morons (in the medical sense) who are worn with the idea that the Russians in Russia have no lands of their own, thrown at their empty heads. And now they are yelling at every corner, that the Russians, the most numerous people of Russia, do not have their own land! Well, really morons. Because when this land suddenly appears one day (and the idea for global governance is very prolific, therefore the idea of such a law must be thrown at the State Duma of the Russian Federation with appropriate promotion in the information field), then all Russians throughout Russia will say: “Now you have your own land there is (for example, the Moscow Ryazan, Tver, Kaluga and Novgorod regions) - and throw it there! ”And from all other regions they will start driving Russians there on the pretext that this is“ their ”land, and where they live is not their land .
And again, we remember how it all ended for the USSR, when Armenians, Ukrainians, Latvians, Estonians, Georgians and all the others “divided” one common land according to their “own” republics.
All those who today are yelling about the land for Russians inside Russia are morons who pour water on the same mill that destroyed the USSR.But if after the collapse of the Soviet Union at least Russia remained, then with the collapse of Russia, nothing will remain. Therefore, these morons must either be brought to light, or (in clinical cases) these should be patients of the Ministry of Internal Affairs or psychiatric hospitals. These are the real provocateurs who simply do not understand what they are doing. And their curators are well aware, they also receive money for it.
Separation of conceptual basis.
This was well told by Nikolay Starikov on the example of India and Pakistan. Who does not know - it was one country that was artificially divided into two different countries, creating an artificial problem that did not exist. I recommend to find and listen to where Starikov talks about it.
However, we have a much closer and sore example - Ukraine. Ukraine was originally created as an "anti-Russian." That is, from the Russian people they took part and began to diligently grow up generation after generation of “anti-Russians”. Those who look at Russians just as “klyatyh Muscovites”, who allegedly are “the source of all their troubles”. For all the absurdity of this view, we see more than thirty million people (the exact number of the population of Ukraine from 1991 to the present day I don’t know by memory), who generally believe in it.Moreover, today not only those who were born after the collapse of the USSR, and who do not know another story, believe in this, but also many of those who lived in the USSR, and should understand that all this is just a blatant lie and complete nonsense. The degree of television suggestion is simply terrifying, and I take this opportunity to once again want to remind my readers that the TV should be turned off in my apartment once and for all. Throw it in the trash and forget about its existence.
You can talk about the “Ukraine” project as an “anti-Russian state” and about Ukrainians as “anti-Russian people” for a long time, and you can study historical documents for a long time. But we have the format of the article, and we have no opportunity to go deep into it. We consider this only as one of the examples to one of the fragments of the article, so we have little space.
I note that the creation of anti-states for global governance is necessary not only to maintain a constant voltage, which, with the addition of efforts, can be easily brought to a “hot war.”
It is also a possible way of the future “mutual annihilation” (complete annihilation) of the state and its anti-state, as well as creating the ground for the necessary control in the relevant territory.For example, there is Palestine near Israel. And there are such “strange” organizations, such as Hezbollah (and not only it). All this is strange only until such time as it is not clear that Hezbollah is needed by those people who rule Israel. These organizations create the appearance of attacks on Israel and thus give Israel a reason to inflict constant attacks on these organizations and territories. This all for a long time creates hatred for Israel in the surrounding territories, and also creates an image of an aggressive state for Israel. This is all global governance needs to one day destroy Israel as the state and the people inhabiting it. Those people who rule Israel either understand this or not. But this does not change the essence of the matter.
When Israel was credited with the recent downing of our IL-20 aircraft over Syria, we were very “intrusively” offered to become the country that would end the whole song and destroy Israel. Putin wisely abandoned this role for Russia, because the result would be, eventually, (and fairly quickly) the destruction of Russia itself (from the inside first and foremost, and then with the support from the outside).And it was precisely into this trap that all those who demanded a “symmetrical” response to Israel, and who shouted that “Russia has lost” without responding once again to the destruction of its aircraft and the death of its military, joyfully fled. It is clear that all these are not simple things, but politics in general, and global politics in particular is a matter where you have to think a lot and think well (and think quickly), and not chop left and right with a sword. He who behaves in a primitive and predictable way, very quickly becomes a victim.
Separation by political projects.
Again, well, you can see the example of Russia today. Global management does not know which ideas will receive the greatest support from the people in the future, which future options they will tell about in the media will be the most attractive.
They know that in Russia there are many who would like to return to the times of the USSR, and they are planning to slip instead of the “Stalinist USSR” either its surrogate of the “Trotskyist” type (lots of blood without a real social state), or again a socialist project like “Brezhnev USSR "or" Khrushchev USSR ". All this is the so-called "Project USSR 2.0" And for this project they have a number of performers. For example, the notorious Grudinin, who was run in at the recent presidential elections.For nothing, that Grudinin turned out to be an extremely incompetent politician, therefore he seriously compromised himself. But this does not mean that his card is a bit forever. They can help him, teach him the "right words" and so on. In addition to directly the identity of Grudinin or someone else, we need a political platform (the party). And here there is the same Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which can not only participate in purely provocative actions to incite Russian Maidan, as it does today, but it can also promote the same topic of return to the USSR (of course, in fact, return to the pseudo-USSR ). And then there Kurginyan and "The Essence of Time."
It may also outweigh at some point the “monarchical” project, and here too there are its “kings to choose from.”
It may also outweigh any version of the “hard dictator” who “will come and put things in order”. And here, too, have their own versions of dictators.
And so on.
And people choose between all these options, not realizing that in fact there is no choice - all these options are cards in one hand.
In this case, the principle: “Divide and conquer!” - helps to intercept the control of any scenario, offering the people a pseudo-choice, which is actually fictitious.
The world capitalist division of labor.
Each state can be easily managed if it is made dependent on the production of a single product.
For example, Turkey produces tomatoes. And if Turkey is doing something wrong, then it is blocked by exporting tomatoes to it with appropriate “political” decisions. Turkey is left without money and in order not to fall into the abyss is ready to do what is needed.
Or, for example, Germany is doing something wrong, as it is prescribed to it by various scenarios. Then Germany says: “Germany, you are very much dependent on your car industry. Do you remember that automobile engines cannot be produced without one rare metal? And this metal in the world market supplies exactly two countries. We will tell them now, and they will stop supplying, and tomorrow your auto industry will be covered with a copper basin. Do you want Do not want? Well then, Germany, do what they say to you, and do not show off! ”
Or, for example, Russia today is very much dependent on the export of hydrocarbons. Therefore, Russia can be influenced by lowering world energy prices. Or by stopping the supply to Russia of any goods or drugs that Russia itself cannot produce.
There are similar levers of influence on almost every country. And the smaller the country, the easier it is to act in a similar way. That is why, in particular, only a large state like Russia (or, for example, China) can dictate its will to global governance to a certain extent (if there are relevant leaders in Russia who understand and use it) and have the very effect of “monopoly” (speaking the language of the previous article), which individual sovereign (souvenir) states will never have, into which global management would like to divide Russia, and for what it has grown those managers who are now on their feeders and dream t be "kings" in their own states.
If Russia has its own will, then simply because of the size, scale, and resources of Russia, this cannot be taken seriously. And if Russia is divided into 85 souvenir states, then none of them a priori can have its will. Moreover, the Russians are so problematic for global governance that it is generally easier to destroy and populate the territory with other nations (as planned in the future with the same Europe, as Barack Obama already mentioned, we have considered above).
Separation by education.
Here there are two types of separation.
First, not giving real historical knowledge to peoplecan be divided people and his history. A nation that does not remember its history, does not know its roots, does not have its own identity, and is ultimately doomed to destruction. A people without a story is like a man who has no memory. Imagine yourself in the city center, on the way, for example, to work, and suddenly you lose all your memory. You do not know who you are, where you are going, why, and so on. A people without knowledge of history is the same. And it is easy to understand that this person can easily be taken anywhere and done with him anything. Therefore, knowledge of its history is vital for the people, and by depriving the people of history, they can be easily controlled (manipulated) and can be easily destroyed if necessary.
Secondly, giving people a highly specialized education and not giving people a general outlook for knowledge (in the USSR there was just a broad education), they can be made dependent on their specialty (divided by profession). Such people will again be easily manageable, because they are not oriented in life in general and know only one particular specialty,and will be forced to agree to any conditions, if only they are given the work they can do to earn their own bread.
Maybe you do not know, but there are many countries in the world where history is not studied at all. And this is by no means anywhere in Africa. For example, in a completely “civilized” Norway in school there is no such subject as History at all. And there is no such subject as Literature either. Why? Because Literature is much the same story. And unlike the history textbook, which you can write as you like, Tolstoy cannot rewrite the same novel War and Peace. He really is what he is. And a person who has read a lot of different classical literature, besides the fact that he will be generally educated and will have certain views on life, he will still be more or less aware of various aspects of history from literary sources. So, it will not be possible to deceive him in these moments, to mislead him. Therefore, history and literature as subjects of global governance in schools are generally not needed (for the broad masses of the people).
On the issues discussed above, the topic of the principle “divide and rule!” Is certainly not exhausted.But the format of the article has its limits, so this is the time to finish.