One of the common methods of destroying a country is for a third party to separate two disparate peoples who are different but co-existing in the same space and make them think the other is out to get them. The third party does this by causing false-flag operations that are blamed on one of the parties and then the third party creates a retaliation event that is blamed on the other party and now the two of them are at war with each other. The third party privately offers 'help' to each of the conflicting sides in the form of propaganda, weapons, money - allowing both sides to escalate and cause more deaths, destruction and chaos.
Both sides think the third party is their ally while they publicly state their neutrality. However, in private, both sides now feel obligated to the third party for their 'help' and will do the will of the third party when compelled. The third party now owns both sides.
This is devious and evil - but has been written about many times in books as a strategy for conquering nations and their people.
We have seen this over and over. If you truly investigate, it seems one group (with funding from another group) seems to often be the instigator and funder of these conflicts.
One of the common methods of destroying a country is for a third party to separate two disparate peoples who are different but co-existing in the same space and make them think the other is out to get them. The third party does this by causing false-flag operations that are blamed on one of the parties and then the third party creates a retaliation event that is blamed on the other party and now the two of them are at war with each other. The third party privately offers 'help' to each of the conflicting sides in the form of propaganda, weapons, money - allowing both sides to escalate and cause more deaths, destruction and chaos.
Both sides think the third party is their ally while they publicly state their neutrality. However, in private, both sides now feel obligated to the third party for their 'help' and will do the will of the third party when compelled. The third party now owns both sides.
This is devious and evil - but has been written about many times in books as a strategy for conquering nations and their people.
We have seen this over and over. If you truly investigate, it seems one group (with funding from another group) seems to often be the instigator and funder of these conflicts.
Thank you. Agreed that they have nothing to lose by backing all sides. Once dust settles, they have an "in".