Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

The A-C Rule

Posted by Bob on December 19th, 2009 under Blasts from the Past, Coaching Session


Posted by Bob on April 4, 2006 at 2:53 pm

One of the basic premises of international relations is what I refer to as “The A-C Rule.”

Country A, let’s say France, has a country that borders on it, say Germany. France is A, Germany is B.

So since they share a border, it is for sure that A and B, Germany and France, will be most likely to go to war with each other and to be in competition with each other.

Then there is a Country C. Country C is on the OTHER side of Country B. In 1939, it was Poland that bordered on Germany on the opposite side from France. France is A, Germany on its border is B and the country on Germany’s OTHER border is C.

The enemy of my enemy is my natural ally. So France and Poland were likely to beunited bymutual hostility to Germany, Country B.

Graduate professors in International Relations love to point out that the oldest treaty of alliance in existence was ona clay tablet in cunieform script.

That clay tablet recorded an alliance of Countries A and C against the country which bordered on them both, Country C.

Which explains why his British cousins left Czar Nicholas to die at the hands of the Bolshevike. They were LITERALLY his cousins.

But by the time the Czar fell in 1917 Britain and France had made the war into a crusade “to make the world safe for democracy.”

The reason France and Britain made common cause with Russia was because, in 1914 when the war began, France was on one side of Germany and Russia, which held the half of Poland Germany did not hold, was GEOGRAPHICALLY in position C, bordering Germany on the other side from France.

Britain, due to power of the British Fleet and English Channel in 1914, did not feel that it bordered on anybody.

But Russia was also on the other side from Britain and France POLITICALLY. It was an unapologetic Czarist despotism.

POLITICALLY as well as geographically, Germany was between the Western Allies and Russia. It had a despotism, but nowhere near the despotism Russia had.

This often happens. Country C is often further away from Country A politically than each is from Country B.

The Allies, in their “War to save democracy” with their new American ally, could not afford to accept the Czar as a refugee from the Bolshevik Revolution which threatened his life in Novermber of 1917.

So the A-C Rule is very, very, VERY practical. More often than not, it is a matter of life and death.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
  1. #1 by Tim on 12/19/2009 - 5:16 pm

    “The Allies, in their “War to save democracy” with their new American ally, could not afford to accept the Czar as a refugee from the Bolshevik Revolution which threatened his life in November of 1917.”

    Ironically, the Jewish Elites in America appear to be in a similar position to the Czar. Of course, there is one difference. The Czar was actually loved by some people.

  2. #2 by backbaygrouch4 on 12/19/2009 - 7:45 pm

    The basic concept that two nations bordering a third nation and without a mutual border an find a common cause is sound. However the illustration used falls short of the minimal accuracy needed to be effective. A sound argument can undercut by inappropriate examples.
     
    One, there is no evidence that the British were ever in a position to rescue the Czar’s family. You cannot fault someone for being unable to accomplish the impossible.
     
    Two, Britain and France did not make the war into a crusade to make the world safe for democracy. That bit of hokum was invented by Woodrow Wilson to sell the war to the American public.
     
    Three. While despotism can be an elastic term it does not really describe Czarist Russia which by the time of the outbreak of the war had a functioning legislature, the Duma, and was on the road to a representative form of government. Germany was by no reasonable definition a despotism. It was a functioning democracy by most yardsticks and by comparison to most countries to this day.
     
    The bare example of the Anglo-French combination with Russia is sufficient without the questionable details. Further examples would buttress the case. Suggestions: France and the Ottoman Empire against Austria, England and Portugal versus Spain, and, of course, the centuries long, Auld Alliance.

  3. #3 by Dave on 12/19/2009 - 11:15 pm

    It is not unusual for an entire people to become lost.

    The focus for their life as a people disappears, knowledge of what is needed gets lost, and they become disoriented in their attitude toward themselves.

    This makes them susceptible to manipulators, recognizing what is lacking, supplying reasons for things.

    These manipulators bring plagues upon the people in the form of adventures for war and exaction of monies upon any excuse.

    This is also why “alliances” come in endless absurdities.

    And why great penalties are levied upon the loss of a true compass for a people.

  4. #4 by Dave on 12/20/2009 - 1:24 am

    Backbaygrouch,

    The important thing is what BWs point means for us contemporaneously.

    For example, let us assume the Islamic revolution now underway in Pakistan succeeds (I think it is showing unmistakable signs of real progress).

    That equals “country A”

    This will certainly make it more probable that the Hindu nationalists will succeed to power in India (in effect, a revolution in India). That equals “country B”

    This will create enormous new opportunities for profitable alliances for the countries bordering Pakistan and India. “Countries C “.

    Now the irony is, and BW’s real point, for the sake of just an example, is that this will likely ignite Han Nationalism also, but nonetheless, China (Han China, a militant opponent of Islam) will likely ally with the Islamic revolutionaries in Pakistan (if those revolutionaries demonstrate competence in winning the peace in the post-revolutionary phase).

    What does all this mean for us? If these events transpire (which I think is possible), they represent an enormous international defeat for Political Correctness.

    Political Correctness is international. When it falls, it will fall globally.

    And what rises are White Nationalism, Islamic Triumphalism, Hindu Nationalism, and Han Nationalism, all simultaneously. Expediency will dictate all manner of absurd alliances.

    These are the cadences of history. A, B, C.

  5. #5 by Simmons on 12/21/2009 - 12:20 pm

    Personally I loathe ABC politics its the “nanny nanny boo boo” of human relations, kindergarten variety. But its what we have so we have to make the best of it.

    I prefer our enemies create our friends, and from the newfound alliance between the neocons and the Koskids against the tea party types, this is working fine.

    A couple of months ago they nearly broke the empire up over the use of the race card before cooler heads realized what they faced, but now they are back to it. I could hardly ask for more, and if I could it would be Obama reciting some Bill Ayers anti-white prose, but maybe in time.

    “Our intellectuals” will pen page long screeds in rebuttal to the charge of “racist”, we will simply say “anti-racism is anti-white and nothing more.”

    Singlethink will prevail

You must be logged in to post a comment.