Divide and conquer was how a few thousand white guys conquered 150 million Indians. They used the bloody Indians to do it. As Ian Barrow wrote in his East India Company history, “It is one of the great ironies of the Company’s history that its Indian empire was effectively won by its Indian troops.” Rich men on elephants sold out poor men to the colonizers, for peanuts. It's not that the Brits were superior fighters, they were superior liars. They were not so much conquerors as divide and conquerors.

Today, in the same way, America (their heirs) uses a few million Jews to conquer half a billion Arabs. They used the bloody Semites to do it. As the late, great Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said, “it ['Israel'] was established for the express purpose of dividing and partitioning the Muslim world.” Rich men on oil sold out poor men to the colonizers, for football teams and DRM-locked weapons. For peanuts. Brits, Americans, same shit, different day, it's all one White Empire. These are not superior fighters, they're just superior liars, and they're still dividing and conquering to this day.

The East India Cuntery

In the years of company rule of India (remember that we were, and are, colonized by corporations), the East India Company (EIC) raised private, corporate armies that grew to be larger than the British Army by the 1850s. This STD ridden (at least 30% of them), marauding (called “prize money”), and deeply corrupt force (officers were allowed to 'profit' from supplies) was manned by mostly Indians and mastered by a few British. As Barrow wrote, “almost all officers were British and none was Indian. Many British men also served as enlisted soldiers. Although officers were British the army recruited Indians, known as sepoys, a corruption of the Persian sipahi. Recruitment was so successful that for most of the eighteenth and all of the nineteenth centuries sepoys far outnumbered Europeans. It is one of the great ironies of the Company’s history that its Indian empire was effectively won by its Indian troops.”

I mention this at length because this is how divide and conquer works. Colonialism is like a thick layer cake where most of the structure is chocolate, with just a thin layer of white frosting on top. Each layer is stacked according to petty advantages, each bringing its weight to bear on those below. The soldiers don't even have to be that good, the division itself does that work.

The EIC armies were initially small and were never very good. As Barrow said, “The Company did not have significantly better troops, training, or weapons, especially when factoring in the distance between Britain and India.” For much of its existence, the EIC armies had no cavalry, was divided both internally and territorially, and officers were promoted based on seniority, meaning it was largely led by morons. What the EIC did have, however, was the strategy of divide and conquer, which can overcome all sorts of tactical foibles.

As Barrow said, “What tipped the balance was a combination of a diplomatic strategy that divided Indians, financial resources with which Indians could not compete, and control of the sea. By using treaties and threats, the Company was able to isolate neighboring states so that it rarely had to fight a combined force.” Divide and conquer is a hell of a drug and, if that doesn't work, you can always ram opium down their throats like China.

The men on elephants were divided against each other, enabling relative mice to conquer them. As Barrow said about the alliance that betrayed Tipu Sultan, “Had a similar alliance been formed against the Company, the Madras presidency may have been imperiled. Each conquest gave the Company additional land revenue that, in conjunction with the sale of cotton and opium to China, provided the Company with the money to pay for an enormous standing army.” China, of course, tried to stop the opium, and was attacked by the British drug-pushers. Divide and conquer was the imperial strategy writ large, and they could play people against each other that barely knew each other at all.

Within India, 0.001% of the population (the comprador class) were tied in 'treaties' while 0.01% of the population (the peasant soldiers) tied the rest up. That's all it took. This is basic divide and conquer, and it's still happening. As I've said, colonizers merely changed words and kept colonizing. It behooves us to remember that the strength of colonizers is not actually fighting. It's lying. Like about World War II.

WWII

Unlike Americans at the time, Americans today believe they won World War II (the Soviets did), liberated the death camps (the Soviets did, for the most part), and that it ended (the 'Cold' War killed millions more, just not white people). This is because Americans (and the rest of White Empire, and everyone in general) has been relentless propagandized after World War II, leading to the creation myth of 'Israel'. We have to unravel this to understand the entity (and that it is, in fact, a non-entity). The truth is that America never gave a shit about the Jews and merely used them as pawns for their own cynical ends.

Remember that America pushed away boatloads of Jews into the concentration camps and didn't want them after the war either. European Jews were not allowed to go back to their homes or given refuge in America. No, American Senators were as Hitler as Adolf, and followed his same twisted logic of anti-communism.

To Hitler, Marxists and Jews were synonymous, he called it “the Jewish doctrine of Marxism.” This was echoed in the United States after the war, because they didn't want the Jews either. As Senator James Eastland—the segregationist, slave-owning Senator from Mississippi—said (via David Nasaw's The Last Million),

“I say that we are getting away from American ideals when we admit to this country from eastern Europe people with an Oriental philosophy, a philosophy not compatible with that of the people of the United States. Let us not increase the power of those forces already making a dangerous onslaught against the foundations of American institutions. Let us not admit even 200,000 as an opening wedge.”

That ‘Oriental philosophy’ was not Confucianism, they were talking about Jews, codedly in public and openly in private. Americans had learned not to say 'Jew' after the Holocaust, but they still hated them. Where I lived (in Upper Arlington, Ohio), Jews couldn't really buy homes until the 1970s. Remember that colonizers just changed words and kept colonizing. Senator Eastland, for example, technically employed 'sharecroppers' on his plantations but this (and the America prison system) were just slavery rebranded. Also remember that when reading Empire, every accusation is a confession. The Americans viewed Jews as a ‘wedge’ and that's precisely how they used them.

When that historical turd Eastland accused Jews of being “an opening wedge” into America, it was a confession. That's precisely how America used Jewish refugees, as a 'wedge' slammed into the Middle East. The also racist Senator Robert F. Rich said, “I am not going to throw the doors wide open and permit America to be the dumping place for all humanity.” They, of course, had no problem 'dumping' this problem on Palestine, because who gave a shit about a bit of Semite on Semite violence? Jews, of course, are people, not a problem and should have been given much of Germany and France for their troubles. But America was in a hurry to assimilate Nazis, and made Jewish children their stormtroopers, at the Palestinian peoples expense. This was never a refuge. It was, instead, a ticket to war for generations. Many Jews, leaving a war zone for a war zone, were like, ‘WTF is this?’ As David Nasaw wrote,

For many of the Jewish displaced persons who immigrated to Israel, the exhilaration of leaving Germany and arriving in their new homes was followed rather quickly by disappointment, approaching desperation. They had miraculously survived one war in Europe. They were now entering another war zone. The young adjusted more quickly, the adults more slowly; some would never feel secure or at peace in their new homes. They tried to forget their past—were told over and over again that they were Israelis now, not Europeans, that they must learn and speak Hebrew, not Yiddish or Polish or German or Russian.

Since then, the children and grandchildren of these refugees (plus those of regional Jews) have been conscripted into serving on the most dangerous frontline of western imperialism. 'Israel' itself is the deeply antisemitic idea that European Jews should 'go back where they came from,' taken to its most illogical conclusion. 'Israel' is now 'allied' with historical antisemites like America and Germany, but America has no allies, only interests. Even Germany gets its pipelines bombed and deindustrialized if America feels like. 'Israelis' are just pawns, and for all the deranged cutting they do, their fate is not in their hands. Now the Jews are trapped in a permanent war zone, among a hostile population, completely dependent on their colonial masters, just as intended. This is classic divide and conquer, using a transported Jewish population as a 'wedge' right in the heart of the Middle East. It is a 'wedge issue' as American politicos say.

In American politics, a 'wedge issue' is something (like abortion or transsexuality) used to divide and conquer their own population. The hordes scream and fight in the Cable-TV Colosseum, thinking that their thumbs mean something. They might as well sit on them. It's divide and conquer waged upon their own population.

Classic British divide and conquer, on the other hand, uses entire human populations as a 'wedge', appointing minorities to rule over a majority, which is what happened in occupied Palestine. The Jewish minority gets petty privilege, but they're always dependent on colonial support against the majority, making them a reliable overseer class. Historically, this comprador minority can be recruited from the local population or even imported wholesale from somewhere else. Indians, for example, being especially eager toadies, were shipped all over the place. Indians were sent to administer Africa, which is where vile specimens like Rishi Sunak and Priti Patel come from. No one is harsher to a poor man at the door than a rich man's servant. Indians have long been colonialism's middle managers, and still are. But I digress.

In 'Israel', Empire imported (and dramatically enlarged) a Jewish minority to rule over the majority of the Middle East. 'Israel' can rape and kill the natives as much as they want, but if they defy their colonial masters they'll be dead. Under this 'rules-based order' (just 'rule' rebranded) only 'Israel' is allowed to have nuclear weapons, and only 'Israel' is allowed to bomb and assassinate anywhere across the whole Middle East. This 'Israel' is not a real country, it's just the colonial constabulary. 'Israel' is just Empire's colonial police state which would collapse in an instant without American insistence. Thus, if 'Israel' doesn't exist without America it logically exists within America. White Empire is one phenomenon, and the Jews are just quasi-white pawns on the much larger chessboard of White Empire.

Thus Ze Americans executed Hitler's penultimate solution, deporting as many Jews as possible out of Europe, to better focus on Hitler's ultimate goal, killing commies. The Americans are just Nazis that won. Hitler's totalitarian race state only lasted 12 years, while the Americans have been going for centuries. Their convenient deportation of the Jews from Europe had the added, cynical, benefit of dividing and conquering the Middle East. And it's still divided. Just look.

A Clear Enough Picture

I have gone through thousands of words, but this picture will do. This is 'Israel's' Prime Monster Benjamin Netanyahu (née Mileikowsky) showing a map of the Middle East, quite visibly divided. He actually drew a line down the middle in red marker at the UN. Does it get any clearer? This is the point and purpose of 'Israel'. Divide and conquer.

Luckily the Resistance knows it, and they know their enemy. Whereas the second General Secretary of Hezbollah, Sayyed Abbas al-Musawi said, “You Jews, leave our land, you have no home among us, go back from where you came,” his successor Sayyed Nasrallah developed a more accurate philosophy as early as 1998. He said,

Most assuredly our attitude towards Israel is not an attitude towards Jews or Judaism. Since the West doesn’t want to understand that Hezbollah is anything other than an exact copy of Iran, let us consider Iran’s attitude towards the Jews. They enjoy there all their political, social, and economic rights, for they are citizens, and have representatives in the legislative authority. Thus our war is not against Judaism or Jews but against Zionism, which created its racial state in Israel.

Let us [be clear] that Islamic intellectualism and religion have throughout Islamic history never laid the foundation for a hostile attitude against Judaism and Jews. The war between ourselves and Israel is a war against Zionism and its plans, and not against Judaism as a religion or against those who believe in that religion.

This was not a mere changing of nomenclature but a more specific knowing of one's enemy, which is essential in order to fight them. Explaining what the Resistance was fighting for Nasrallah said, in 1996,

We would like to allay the fears of those who think that Hezbollah intends to impose Islamic rule by force, and to tell them that we shall not impose Islam; for us, this is a matter of general principle. We are now intent on removing colonialism from this region, doing away with colonial means of information and culture, and making the people understand Islam as it should be understood; a lot of Muslim political terminology has been distorted by colonial interpretations.

We do not believe in multiple Islamic republics; we do believe, however, in a single Islamic world governed by a central government, because we consider all borders throughout the Muslim world as fake and colonialist, and therefore doomed to disappear.

We do not believe in a nation whose borders are 10,452 square kilometers in Lebanon; our project foresees Lebanon as part of the political map of an Islamic world in which specificities would cease to exist, but in which the rights, freedom, and dignity of minorities within it are guaranteed.

Therefore, in order for this project to be realized, priority should be given to removing Israel from the scene, because it was established for the express purpose of dividing and partitioning the Muslim world. We are not only against the partition of Lebanon, but also against the partition of the Muslim world; this explains why we see no alternative to fighting Israel, with all means at our disposal, until it ceases to exist. Then we will attend to following [certain] steps.

This idea of a unified Muslim world is supposed to scare the shit out of people because racism, but there's nothing wrong with the Muslim world being Muslim, and Islam is a perfectly valid governing philosophy (as I've discussed in The Hermeneutics Of Hamas). It's just undividing and unconquering. Muslim rule has, historically, led to flourishing among the Jewish community, but too many of them have taken the word of the Europeans who genocided and deported them. And, as the colonized should know by now, these words are worthless.

In his map, Netanyahu showed a line connecting Europe to India, the original point of all colonization, to the east or west. Today, it is really the same colonial project, using the same methods. 'Israel' is a literal colony of nearly 7 million Jews plunged into the heart of the 500 million strong Muslim World to keep it permanently divided and spurting blood, to better 'frack' the oil out.

Divide and conquer is why 'Israel' exists and persists in the Middle East at all. It is why, as Joe Biden said, “Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region.” As much as America talks about 'peace in the Middle East', this is not in her interest at all. A united Middle East scared the living shit out of America in the 1970s oil 'crisis' and they keep the region divided and conquered to 'frack' it for energy.

Crusaders or carbon crusaders, British colonizers or Americans, it is, as my historical thesis goes, same shit, different day. America's Middle East strategy is the same as the British. Go extremely force light and make entire regions frack themselves. Whether it's rocks or Iraq, petroleum or Palestine, ecocide or genocide, it's the same old divide and conquer.

Bibliography

• The East India Company, 1600-1858; Barrow, Ian.
• The Last Million, David Nasaw
• Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler
• The Quran, Goodword edition
• Voice of Hezbollah: The Statements of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Nicholas Noe

If, like me, you don't live near a large library, you can find these books at LibGen or Anna's Archive.