How to Start a War, and Why

Conflict is used to change society.

• You can also listen to this article as a podcast (although you will miss the illustrative maps).

• Remember - I'm not an expert on anything.  I'm simply offering you a glimpse of one person's view of how the World looks at the moment.  That view changes constantly as I learn more.  You will know more than me about some things, and less about others.  So do not be offended if my current view is different from yours.

• I initially dashed this article off to meet a deadline, and have since added a little polish and the odd link.

---

Why?

But why? Surely no-one would WANT to start a war?

First you have to appreciate that there are and were people who want war.  It’s not only that certain people make vast sums of money from it. If you still haven't watched both the interviews with Norman Dodd, chief investigator for the Reece Commission, on YouTube, Rumble or Bitchute etc., you should do that!

If you have seen the interviews with Norman Dodd, you don't need telling:

There are those who recognise that war (and conflict in general) is the fastest method if you want to change society.  Such people recorded the result of their research into how to change society in the minutes of their meetings!  

(Reading "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein is a quick dip through the notion of "progress" by destruction and conflict; although I wouldn't bother with anything she has written since).  

After covid, many more people are familiar with the notion that a crisis is also an opportunity.

These people have recognised something which we all learn by the age of 2, when doing things like stacking bricks:

it is much easier to destroy things than to create them.

So when they want to change society, they first destroy the existing one, and the easiest way to create mass societal destruction is warfare.  

The events of 1914-1919 destroyed the Russian empire, the German empire and the Ottoman empire.  

After the intermission, part II was created exploiting tension between Germany and Russia.  Germany had first to be built up to be capable of taking on Russia, hence the "miraculous" financial and morale recovery usually (reluctantly) credited to Hitler, rather than mention the Wall Street investment.  

In WW2 the destruction took place of Germany (again) and the British empire (the largest the World had seen), the Japanese empire and the French empire.  The power base was moved from Britain (where it had been since Cromwell) to the US. Britain finished paying off its war debt to the USA in 2006!

Large-scale wars were needed to bring down the old empires. Smaller conflicts were appropriate for the next changes to society. Right now (2025-03) the manufactured conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine are still being held up in front of your face, but the biggest hot conflict - one not held up in front of your nose by the media - is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The US needs the mineral resources there, the coltan, cobalt and lithium. They incite agression from the surrounding countries (Rwanda, Uganda …) then those with power in the DRC are willing to sell the minerals to the US on very preferential terms.¹

How

I think by now we can skip pretty quickly past lies and false flag attacks as means of starting wars; similarly the treaties used for starting WW1 and 2 are well-known.

In the wake of covid more people are sensitive to the presence of lies.  James Perloff does an excellent run through the lies told to the US in order to get them into every war that they have been in since the nineteenth century, that you have probably seen by now.  There are a couple of different versions of talks by him on YouTube, Rumble, Bitchute etc.

Before the twentieth century (or certainly the nineteenth century) it was easier to just tell your army where they were to go.  With the increasing importance of (the illusion of) democracy in the twentieth century, it was more important to persuade the masses that it was worth spending a lot of their money on war, by way of the conviction that your target was in fact a dastardly enemy, and it was one's moral duty to sacrifice oneself for one's country.   Hence lies became essential.

 My own view is that the obvious reality is that if you take a sufficiently large number of people of any category - German or British, agnostics or devout Christians, plumbers, golfers … the left-handed, then you will find all the variation that one finds in one's own populace or any other large group - the good and bad; tall and short; rich and poor; generous and stingy; empathetic and psychopathic; the "live-and-let-live" and power-hungry bastards etc.

But generally people are, apparently, easy to convince that this obvious reality is not the case. After subjecting them to stress, they can be persuaded by some fable that the "enemy" populace is somehow fundamentally different, and worthy of hatred; and thus they are gulled into wars.

False flag attacks are also lies, and provide the proximate cause for "justified and righteous" retaliation, and are almost essential in modern “democracies”.

So much, so well-known.  The themes I should like to suggest could do with some more attention are the rôles of

• A Exclaves

  • Germany (WW2)

  • US (WW2)

  • Ukraine

  • Gaza

• B Lower grade conflict than war, including

  • immigration

  • issues of dissent

  • borders

  • terrorism

---

A Exclaves

You probably know what an ENclave is - a country that is completely surrounded by one other country.  You may not know that an exclave is a piece of a country that is separated from the rest of that country.

1  Starting WW2 with Germany

To provide the trigger for WW2, an exclave of Germany was created.  East Prussia was cut off in the "Treaty of Versaille" at the end of WW1, by putting a strip of Poland through Germany up to the Baltic.

1  This is what Germany looked like before it was Germany, in 1900 - still partly a collection of principalities in the process of amalgamating

2 When amalgamation was "completed" it looked like this by 1914 (the start of WW1)

Once united, Germany started to outcompete the British Empire. They were building a railroad from Berlin to Baghdad in the Middle East. There was a danger they would be getting “our oil under your country”! They were doing outrageous things like making things of a higher quality goods for lower prices; and providing instructions … in the language of the purchaser!

3  This is what the countries allied to Germany in WW1 looked like.

4  After WW1 and the Treaty of Versailles, in which the powers decided what to do with Germany (and the Ottoman Empire) they did this to it:

That yellow piece where it says "West Prussia" is now (1919) Poland; so East Prussia, although still politically a part of Germany is now an exclave - cut off.

We'll try not to spend time on Czechoslovakia and Austria in this article.  But you might like to think about whether the "Sound of Music" version of history is likely to be completely representative.

Reading the Wikipedia article on the "Anschluss" - the combining of Austria with Germany - contrasts somewhat with the “man-in-the-street” narrative, which is that “Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia² and Austria; but finally, invading Poland is going too far, clearly he intends to invade everywhere”. A more accurate version, seems to be that Austria was somewhat keen to amalgamate with Germany, given the economic boom going on in Germany, in stark contrast to the grimmer situations in Austria and Czechoslovakia. Just how keen is a matter of dispute. That author bends over backwards to minimise it, but here’s a bit of his introduction.

"The idea of an Anschluss (a united Austria and Germany that would form a "Greater Germany")^[b] began after the unification of Germany excluded Austria and the German Austrians from the Prussian-dominated German Empire in 1871. Following the end of World War I with the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in 1918, the newly formed Republic of German-Austria [again] attempted to form a union with Germany, but [in 1919 the powers] forbade both the union and the continued use of the name "German-Austria" (Deutschösterreich); and stripped Austria of some of its territories, such as the Sudetenland.

Prior to the Anschluss [in 1938], there had been strong support in both Austria and Germany for unification of the two countries." (Emphasis added)

A lot of that article is objective; the parts that aren't are pretty obvious.

For sure, Hitler's Germany had ambitions to create more lebensraum to the East (of which I disapprove)!  It was hypocritical of Britain to criticise this on moral grounds, who had colonised more than any other power at that time.  Germany was feeling very vulnerable after suffering starvation and shortage of resources in and after WW1, and was eyeing the fertile land and oilfields around Ukraine.  (People normally think of WW1 finishing in 1918: not for Germany it didn't.  "We" kept up the starvation blockade through 1919).  

"Hitler wanted to conquer the World" seems to be a version of history with some traction; but it seems more likely to me that there's quite a large element of WW2 propaganda there, from MI5, and the version with more modest German ambitions is closer to the truth.  (I wasn't there though: I don't know.  I would welcome any evidence - not opinion - one way or the other).

For most of my life I have imagined that the treaty that Britain had with Poland was some long-standing moral obligation, but recently learned in fact it was in just a few months prior to declaring war on Germany that Britain set up a flurry of such agreements with countries around Germany, so as to have the means to start the war.

How to provoke a war?  You attack an exclave.  

You can imagine that after WW1’s propaganda and fighting, Germany was not popular with Poland.  It wasn't hard to provoke terrorism against East Prussia - surrounded by Poland, and the enemy in the recent war.  I've read that 58,000 Germans had been killed in E. Prussia by the time that Germany responded, after many attempts at negotiation, with the invasion of Poland.  

I've also read that William Bullet (the US ambassador) was going around saying the appropriate thing to different countries.  “Poland” was encouraged not to negotiate, but to believe that the US and UK would back them, which meant that Germany would never invade, so they could ignore its pleas.  The UK and France were encouraged to believe that Germany would not invade Poland, and so could make guarantees to Poland that would not need to be fulfilled (and which they could not fulfil, and which they could not afford).  Meanwhile, in subversive action reminiscent of US activity in dozens of countries around the World since WW2, the terrorism against E Prussia was escalated, until Germany eventually invaded Poland.

Now, different people emphasise different parts of that picture.  To be sure the situation outlined above may be disputed somewhat, or aspects de-emphasised by some "establishment" proponents.  It doesn't accord well with the whole "Hitler - lone gunman; inexplicably evil; hypnotised a whole nation" version of history, which avoids any suspicion of some blame elsewhere, doesn’t mention the Wall Street funding, or any hint that Germans might have been behaving explicably.

2  US entry to WW2

What was Honolulu, where Pearl Harbour was situated, if not a kind of exclave which was attacked (after various kinds of provocation against Japan)?  Was the "outrageous", "unforeseeable" (and completely manipulated) attack on Pearl Harbour effective in getting the US population to about-face and want war?

3  Ukraine

Now compare the E Prussia exclave situation to Ukraine.  The Eastern part of Ukraine is culturally largely Russian.  The entire region had all recently been part of the Soviet Union.  It is not a literal exclave, part of Russia, but close.  People in Russia can drive to visit close relatives in Eastern Ukraine; people who have been visiting their relatives all their lives in a place which had been the same country.

In 2014 Victoria Nuland and other Neocons engineer a government takeover in Ukraine, and almost immediately the new government attacks Eastern Ukraine.  It is shelled by central Ukraine from 2014, escalating over the years until eventually Russia steps in.  I'm shocked ... shocked!  Russia invaded Ukraine!  ( I'm shocked ... shocked!  Germany invaded Poland)!

4  Gaza

Again, Gaza is not a literal exclave of anywhere, but it is inhabited almost exclusively by Moslem Arabs.  How are the nearby Moslem Arab countries that Israel has been subverting or attacking since its inception - Lebanon, Syria, Iran and so on - going to feel about sufficiently ostentatious callous murder through the bombing of Gaza - the most densely populated place in the World?  This is a place where the average age is 17; where almost everyone is a refugee or the offspring of refugees; where 1 million of the population of 2 million are children.  Is Israel’s reaction against Gaza emotive enough to trigger offensive action against Israel, which would trigger an overwhelming response?

The Israeli citizens may be convinced by the message that they have been force-fed from birth, that everyone irrationally hates them, and representatives of Gaza are attacking them continuously, sufficiently for the Israeli government to be able to get away with bombing Gaza; but obviously that will not be how most of the rest of the World sees it.

The "Hamas is just Mossad in Gasa" narrative seems at least as likely as the version wherein Hamas thought they would do their constituents a favour by attacking Israel, when the consistent record of such actions is that Israel kills about 20 times as many in retaliation.

If this leads to WW3, then society will surely alter radically. Whether that means the 90% population reduction of the Georgia Guidestones, or the technocracy envisioned by the WEF, or something else, who knows?

B Lower grade conflict

As well as outright war, change can be achieved through lower-grade conflict.  That is why so much conflict has been evident for the last 120 years.

1 Divide and rule with Immigration

It's only about a century since passports were introduced.  Before that people were free to travel if a country would let them in.  Immigrants were not normally a problem: they were often the most resourceful and energetic representatives, and therefore welcome.  Most people do notwant to uproot and go and live somewhere completely different. If a lot of people are moving it almost certainly means that something very unpleasant is happening where they live. Passports are intended to be viewed as permissive - they allow you to access other countries; but the reverse is the truth.  Passports are permission from your state.  You should not need permission from your state if you live in a free country.  More people are waking up to the fact that they do not live in a free country, that the state feels that it owns them, and can grant or with-hold permission to travel, to work, to a bank account, to leave your house, to look after your health as you would like ...

I would maintain that - despite the increase in mobility -

immigration if it happens naturally is not a threat:

It is the rate of immigration that causes problems.  

If you want to provoke a war, you increase artificially the rate of immigration by making life increasingly unpleasant in nearby countries.  I'm sure you can think of your own examples: the US exploits and subverts countries to its South (Mexico, meso-American countries, South American countries; China has Cambodia, Vietnam etc., Europe has Africa.

The Vietnam war was started using immigration.  

When I was a child I was puzzled by the narrative in which South Vietnam was being invaded by North Vietnam, when what was reported on the TV was fighting taking place in the South of South Vietnam, not at the Northern border.

Read Blum’s - "Killing Hope; U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" (2004).  Listen (on YouTube) to Fletcher Prouty tell how (after moving the redundant arms from WW2 to Vietnam in 1945 (!), ready for the next enterprise) the US terrorised 1.1 million Northern Vietnamese, and then shipped them to the South of South Vietnam and dumped them, with no jobs or means of growing food (where they became known as the Vietcong).  (And it's worth pondering how bad that terrorism had to be to provoke people whose families had lived in the same village for uncountable generations, to want to move).

That sudden influx of people who have of necessity to turn to crime to survive, creates a conflict between the two peoples, the indigenous and the immigrants.

Remember - it is not immigration per se that is the problem: it is the excessive RATE. If we want that to cease, we have only to stop subverting and exploiting other people's countries.

2024-02-04 Edit: that paragraph may have been largely true when I wrote it, and certainly for most of the past century plus, but the “only” in that last sentence is wrong. Recently there is Bret Weinstein’s disturbing podcasts, or discussions with Chris Martenson, Michael Yon, and another with Tucker Carlson, which raises the possibility of the systematic infiltration of many Chinese “immigrants” into the South of North America, which he became aware of on his recent (2024-01) trip to the Darien Gap in the central American isthmus. It has made the mainstream media over the last couple of years too, in an unobtrusive way; which you will find now you know what to search for.

Unlike the long-standing stream of economic migrants which are consonant with my thesis that “we have only to stop subverting and exploiting other people's countries” to avoid excessive migration, there is no suggestion that “we” (the West i.e. largely the USA assisted by Europe) have been subverting China. On the contrary: just as “Wall St. funded Hitler” [and/or look up interviews with Anthony Sutton on YouTube], and Russia, we have been helping China industrially too, not subverting it. So this invasion by stealth could be an act of war (preparation) or at least subversion on China’s own initiative. In which case stopping “subverting and exploiting other people's countries” would be insufficient! However, what is happening is that the powers-that-be in the US are financially incentivising Chinese to immigrate to the US, by bribing them with tax-payers’ money. If you can get the Chinese immigrants to talk, a lot of them say they are doing it for the money.

To people who still think their government is benignly disposed to them, this makes no sense: it’s puzzling and put down to incomprehensible incompetence. As soon as you realise that those with real power have been in the process of transferring hegemonic power from the US to China since the 1950s or ‘60s, it (and many other things) make sense.

Here is an excellent article on the current situation (2024-01) in the US.

… and a brief insight into the situation in the UK

2 Divide and rule with issues

The ethical dilemma posed by excess immigration is exploited twice by the powers-that-be.  As well as exacerbating conflict between immigrant and resident, it can also be used to create conflict within the existing population.  

People have a natural empathy for other folk in difficulty.  At the same time, when the host society is vandalised in some way so as to exacerbate its own problems, foreigners are seen as a drain on resources and extra competition for jobs e.g.  The BBC or other propaganda organs will exploit that by engineering discussion between someone who is mainly concerned by one set of problems (those of the immigrants) and someone else motivated by the other set of problems (lack of jobs e.g.).  Under normal circumstances, most normal people are capable of seeing both problems, and having concern for both, and want to solve both.  But as stress is increased, one's capacity for empathy is reduced; and the listening public are trained along one line or the other.  So conflict is created in society.

I've just mentioned how a country can be divided into factions over conflicting issues, with the topic immigration.  This must be a familiar enough tactic to avoid discussing abortion, Woke nonsense or religion, surely?

For sowing division, politics may come to mind first - with the Left/Right lie. I’ve explained in some detail why the whole left-right concept is flawed in “Why You Should Stop Using the Concepts Left- and Right-wing”.

3 Divide and rule with borders

A physical division helps create conflict.  Look at how countries have been divided into two groups - usually with the excuse of reducing conflict - and the conflict between them exacerbated.  

• Ireland was divided into Northern Ireland and Eire.  That's most familiar to me, a citizen of the UK. A lot of dirty tricks like false flag attacks were employed. That is a mainstream view.

• India was divided into North and South (called Pakistan and India).  This was the largest division.  This was achieved (in “Partition”) largely by expelling Muslims to the North.  It comes under the definition of genocide. (We still naively think of ourselves as “the good guys”)!

• The most recent was the splitting of Sudan into North and South.

Haiti/Dominican Republic; Cyprus; the arbitrary lines dividing the Middle East, especially the Kurds; the list goes on until you get to the boil on the backside of humanity - Israel/Palestine.³  Any hint of conflict there?

These were largely done with the ostensible justification of reducing conflict.

To find an equally absurd notion you have to go to the introduction of the Federal Reserve - for the purpose of controlling inflation!!

We are constantly told lies.  When you recognise that, and stop paying attention to what you are told but instead to what you see, it is easier to understand what is going on in the World.

4 Divide and Rule with Terrorism

Consider the "years of lead" in Italy.  If you are unfamiliar with this period of endemic terrorism, a congenial way to apprise yourself is to read The Don Camillo Omnibus, which deals - in an amusing and human way - with the societal divide in Italy (created by the CIA) between the Communists and Catholics, employing “The Strategy of Tension”.  The purpose of terrorism is to keep the population in a state of low(ish)-grade fear.  This stops people thinking rationally, as we witnessed most recently with the covid débâcle.

Normally when people in power want to keep something secret, there is little to stop them doing so, but occasionally they get found out, like when a messenger is struck by lightning⁴, or there is a revealing car-crash.  The Tension in the "Years of Lead" was brought about by Operation Gladio.  Inform yourself about it, and learn how

that terrorism was (almost certainly) the work of the establishment,

not free-lancers with a chip on their shoulder.  

It's a small world: that operation in Italy was put into action (if memory serves) by General Lyman Lemnitzer, who, as Chairman of the Joint (Military) Chiefs was one of those responsible for Operation Northwoods, a typically immoral plan, which resulted in his demotion by President Kennedy.  

It's an interesting world we find ourselves in, if commonly an unpleasant one due to the continuous massive destruction effected by those who want to change the World to their liking.  It may be unpleasant to focus on the destructive aspects of reality, but if you do so occasionally, you are much less likely to fall for stunts like "covid" and get those dubious injections.

---

I tend to write about things that are always true, rather than the latest developments. (There are plenty of people writing about those). If you found any value in this article, let me suggest what I think of as my most important article “What’s Wrong with The Greater Good”.

“Coping with Disagreement and Being Wrong” is better than it sounds, too (I can’t think of a better title, I’m afraid)!

Did you know tht you can get to the Homepage of a substack artcle by clicking on the title (WhatDoINo in this case)?

1.

2. Hitler took over the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia by agreement rather than by military conquest; but it was more resented by Czechoslovakia generally than was the case with Austria. In 1919 at Versailles, the US ambassador Archibald Coolidge had argued for the Sudetenland Germans to have their right to self-determination respected, in which case they would have been part of Germany, but Allen Dulles overrode him, stressing the need to keep Czechoslovakia united. Pre-WW2, Germany was alleging that here too (as well as Poland) Sudeten Germans were being terrorised.

3. For the over-sensitive - the allusion here is of never being able to rest comfortably, due to the problem; no slight on the place or people should be imputed.

4. As you would expect, this is contradicted by some:
https://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/illuminati.html