reSee.it - Related Post Feed

Saved - October 9, 2023 at 3:11 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Joe Biden and his administration are baffled by recent events. Last month, $6 billion was unfrozen for Iran, despite Donald Trump's warning that it would destabilize the Middle East, endanger Israel and Americans, and harm the global economy. Now, Americans have died in attacks, Hamas has taken hostages, and an Iran-funded group is attacking Israel from Lebanon. Biden's global policy seems focused on self-interest, while Trump's approach made the world safer.

@Travis_in_Flint - 🇺🇸Travis🇺🇸

Joe Biden and his administration are scratching their heads wondering how this could’ve happened. None of them appeared to have a clue. Just last month after $6 billion was unfrozen for Iran, Donald Trump released a video statement telling them exactly what would happen. He said making this deal would Iran would destabilize the Middle East, make Israel and American citizens targets, and hurt the global economy. Now, we’re realizing again that Trump was right. Sec Blinken has reported that Americans have died in the attacks. Hamas took lots of hostages because they’re emboldened after Iran did it so successfully. Another Iran funded organization is hitting Israel from Lebanon. We’re also hearing that US weapons are being used in the fight. Biden is an utter failure. His global policy appears to be centered around how much money he can funnel back to himself and his donors. The world was a safer place with Donald Trump

Saved - October 25, 2023 at 8:13 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Joe Rogan and Dave Smith discuss General Wesley Clark's claims that the US planned to attack seven Middle Eastern countries, including Iran, after 9/11. They explore the propaganda used to justify these wars and the massive profits made by weapons manufacturers. Secretary of State Blinken warns Iran of a decisive response to any attacks on US personnel, raising concerns about a potential war.

@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat

.@JoeRogan and @ComicDaveSmith highlight the startling claims made by General Wesley Clark, who asserted that the U.S. government had formulated plans to attack seven Middle Eastern countries, ultimately culminating with Iran, days after the tragic events of September 11, 2001. The conversation delves into the propaganda used to justify these wars, the staggering profits amassed by weapons manufacturers—amounting to trillions of dollars—and the tragic toll of millions of innocent lives lost. "They decide they want to fight these wars. Then, they make up an excuse that they tell the American people. Then, these weapons companies rake in hundreds of billions of dollars in profits, and babies get slaughtered. That's what really happens. Innocent men, women, and children die." Today, Secretary of State Blinken warned Iran that the U.S. will respond 'decisively' to any attacks targeting U.S. personnel. This statement follows his warning, issued two days ago, that the U.S. expects increased hostilities from Iran directed at U.S. forces. The question remains: Will the Biden administration and the U.S. government finally get its war against Iran?

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses a memo outlining a plan to invade seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and ending with Iran. They express frustration that this plan was not widely discussed in the media and highlight the propaganda used to justify each war. The speaker believes that these wars were premeditated and that excuses were made to deceive the American people. They criticize the immense profits made by weapon companies at the expense of innocent lives. The speaker condemns the atrocities committed and questions the perception of the United States as a force for good.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is a memo that describes how we're gonna take out 7 countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran. Speaker 1: It's not like that plan was followed perfectly to a tee, but a lot of it sure was. It's fucking Insane that this was just said and that's not just like, like if we didn't have such a corrupt press, how do they not talk about that every day? Every day. Like why does that never come up? Oh, it's like, oh, as we fought all of these wars, no one went. But this is exactly what I heard mister four And what's really interesting about it, right? Is it just reveals this prop like the And what's really interesting about it. Right? Is it just reveals this prop like the way propaganda works because if you think about it, we start fighting the war in Afghanistan. We're in the War in Afghanistan by late 2001. It's not till 2003 we're in Iraq. Right? And then, it's not till, 2010 that we're in Libya. 2012, we're in Syria, you know. And then then in Yemen, then in all the and it's like each time They had their own little propaganda story for why we had to go into this war now. And you're like, no motherfucker. This was always planned. You decided in 2001 you were doing this. So don't tell me this is because Gaddafi is about to go genocidal, or because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, or because, Bashar Assad is is killing his own people. It's like, no, no, no, no. This is just your latest little excuse now for the war that you already wanted to do, and that's how this shit really works, man. It's like they they decide they wanted to fight these wars, then they make up a bullshit excuse that they tell the American people, then these weapon companies rake in 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars in profits and babies get slaughtered. That's what really happens. Like innocent men, women, and children some. Die, get exploded to death, starve to death, get displaced. Like, it's just the most evil shit in the world. And we wanna think of ourselves as a good
Saved - October 25, 2023 at 3:34 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The Pentagon is sending a substantial military presence to the Middle East, including carrier strike groups, destroyers, missile defense systems, fighter jets, and more. They anticipate continued attacks on US troops by Iranian proxies and have vowed a decisive response. The situation raises concerns about the likelihood of a US-Iran war. Recent attacks, attributed to Iranian-backed groups, have prompted the Pentagon to prepare for further escalation. They aim to defend their forces and respond resolutely.

@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat

The Pentagon is deploying two carrier strike groups, eleven Burke-class destroyers, a number of Ticonderoga-class cruisers, amphibious assault ships, THAAD and Patriot missile defense systems, multiple squadrons of fighter jets, strategic bombers, and undisclosed assets to the Middle East. The Pentagon expects Iranian proxies to continue to target U.S. troops in the region and has already stated that they will respond "decisively." What's the probability that this escalates into a war between the United States and Iran? PENTAGON: "Between October 17th and the 24th, U.S. and coalition forces have been attacked at least ten separate times in Iraq and three separate times in Syria via a mix of one-way attack drones and rockets... We know that the groups conducting these attacks are supported by the IRGC and the Iranian regime. We are seeing the prospect for more significant escalation against U.S. forces and personnel across the region in the near term coming from Iranian proxy forces and, ultimately, from Iran. So, by virtue of our announcement over the weekend, we are preparing for this escalation, both in terms of defending our forces and responding decisively."

Video Transcript AI Summary
Between October 17th and 24th, US and coalition forces were attacked multiple times in Iraq and Syria by Iranian-backed proxies using drones and rockets. The groups responsible for these attacks are supported by the IRGC and the Iranian regime. The US is preparing for further escalation and is ready to defend its forces and interests. They have significant capabilities in the region, including naval assets and fighter aircraft. The US has also deployed additional military capabilities to enhance deterrence and respond to any contingencies. They aim to prevent the conflict between Israel and Hamas from expanding regionally but are prepared to protect their partners and interests. Force protection is a priority, and all necessary measures will be taken to defend troops and interests overseas.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Between October 17th and 24th, US and coalition forces have been attacked at least 10 separate times in Iraq and 3 separate times in Syria via a mix of one way attack drones and rockets. So again, those are the initial numbers. We're continuing to work to CENTCOM to ensure we get you the facts on these. Speaker 1: These at least 13 attacks, on U. S. Forces in Iraq and Syria, Do you believe that Iran is responsible for these? Were these all conducted by Iranian backed proxies? Speaker 0: Well, you know, I I think We've been pretty clear on this and I and my colleagues at the White House yesterday talked about this as well. We know that the groups conducting these attacks are supported by the IRGC and the Iranian regime. What we are seeing is the prospect for more significant escalation against US forces and personnel across the region, in the very near term coming from Iranian proxy forces and ultimately from Iran. So by virtue of our announcement over the weekend. We are preparing for this escalation both in terms of defending our forces and responding decisively. And I just want to emphasize the point that I made earlier, which is that we always reserve the right to defend ourselves, and we will never hesitate to take action when needed to protect our forces and our interests overseas. So to be clear, we have significant capabilities in the theater right now. Right? I mean, you've got the Ford that's in the Eastern Mediterranean. You've got an expanded number of fighter aircraft throughout the region in addition to the naval assets that are already in the central command AOR. So there should be no confusion whether or not, you know, we have the ability to respond to any potential threats right now. The announcement over the weekend, as highlighted, is intended to enhance those capabilities, and sustain those capabilities for as long as we may need in order to continue to both deter and protect our troops. Since that Hamas terrorist attack, we've also been crystal clear that we do not want to see the situation in Israel, broaden widen rather into a broader regional conflict and as you've heard President Biden, Secretary Austin, and other senior US leaders say, our message to any country or group Thinking about trying to take advantage of this situation to widen the conflict is don't. We've already deployed a significant number of additional U. S. Military capabilities into the region to bolster our regional deterrence efforts, strengthen our capabilities there and enhance our ability to respond to a range of contingencies. In addition to the capabilities that we've already announced, I can also confirm that the New Jersey Air National Guard's 119th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron arrived within US Central Command's area of responsibility today with additional F 16 Fighting Falcon Squadron, bolstering US posture to deter further aggression in the region. Again, it is our aim to avoid any regional expansion of Israel's conflict with Hamas, but we stand ready and prepared to protect and defend our partners and our interests and will act to do so. Finally, in terms of force protection, the message is simple. As secretary Austin has consistently made clear, we will take all necessary measures to defend our troops and our interests overseas.
Saved - November 3, 2023 at 3:49 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Shi'a militias have launched numerous attacks on US bases since the killing of Soleimani. Despite Iraq's call for US forces to leave, they remain. The recent strikes are not unusual enough to justify US escalation into a catastrophic war. The war machine's corporate puppeteers prioritize profit over lives and the global economy. We need new leadership to contain the conflict and rely on Tehran's restraint. It's time for a responsible approach to maintain peace.

@amaryllisfox - Amaryllis Fox

This is what craven provocation of war looks like. Shi'a militias have launched over a hundred fifty attacks against US bases since we killed Soleimani in 2020. Much like Israel's lobbing of missiles across the Lebanese border, this activity has been in the normal range of the Middle East's delicate status quo. The US has tolerated it, given its troops remain in Iraq, a majority Shi'a country, even after Iraq's legislature unanimously voted for US Forces to leave its territory in 2020, US Forces have killed over 300,000 civilians in Iraq and Syria, and our military operations in both countries are egregious violations of international law. Any claim that recent Shi'a militia strikes are unusual enough to justify US escalation into a potentially catastrophic regional war are fatuous chunks of red meat designed to be repeated by useful idiots. The corporate puppeteers of our war machine are revving up their money machines without a single thought for the blood that may be spilled or the calamitous damage to the global economy (and your cost of living) that may result. Until we get such corrupt influences out of govt, our only hope to keep this conflict contained is praying for the restraint of Tehran's response. You know it's time for new leadership in Washington when the current crop leave you dependent on the mullahs' good judgement to keep your country out of war. Time for a grown-up in the situation room and a return to American strength by keeping the peace. #Kennedy24 #Syria #Iran #Biden #Trump #WarMachine

Saved - October 31, 2023 at 12:22 AM

@RNCResearch - RNC Research

"Do you think the message that you're sending out to Iran is being well-received?" Biden State Department spokesman Matt Miller: "We have been very clear." Iran-backed proxies have attacked U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq 23 times in just the past two weeks. https://t.co/V0mkGxsT9h

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker was asked if the message they are sending to Iran is being well received. They declined to comment on how Iran has interpreted their messages, but stated that they have made it clear that they will defend US interests and personnel in the region. They mentioned conducting military operations last week to reinforce this stance. They have directly communicated this to the Iranian government and expressed hope for a de-escalation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Do you think the message that you are sending out to Iran is being well received in Iran? And if not, then what happens? I'm not going to speak to, what the Iranians have received. I will or what the Iranians have received or how they have interpreted the messages. I will say that we have been very clear. We have made, quite clear that we will defend United States interests and United States personnel in the region. You saw us conduct military operations, last week to reinforce that fact. We have made this clear, directly to the Iranian government, and we hope that they will choose a path of de escalation.
Saved - November 9, 2023 at 4:01 PM

@RNCResearch - RNC Research

"Why did you strike Iran's Revolutionary Guard?" BIDEN: "Because they struck us" "Do you plan to hit them again?" BIDEN: "If they strike us" REMINDER: Iran-backed militias have attacked U.S. forces in the Middle East at least 42 times since October 17th. https://t.co/GMSssRegoK

Saved - November 16, 2023 at 1:33 AM

@NikkiHaley - Nikki Haley

Joe Biden just green lit $10B to Iran. Iran's proxies are targeting American troops abroad and just killed dozens of our citizens in Israel. Joe Biden needs to wake up—we look like fools paying terrorists who attack us and chant "death to America." https://bit.ly/3FYwZPE

Bitly | Page Not Found | 404 bit.ly
Saved - November 16, 2023 at 3:16 PM

@TrumpsMustache - Trump's Mustache

And the militias will keep doing it.....striking them doesn't impact Iran a bit... FJB and his weak foreign policy... He'll continue to coddle Iran and China Pentagon: Almost 60 Troops Injured by Iran-Proxy Forces in Iraq and Syria https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/11/15/pentagon-confirms-almost-60-troops-injured-by-iran-proxy-forces-in-iraq-and-syria/ via @BreitbartNews

Pentagon: Almost 60 Troops Injured by Iran-Proxy Forces in Iraq and Syria The Pentagon said there were nearly 60 American troops injured by attacks conducted by Iran-backed groups in Iraq and Syria. breitbart.com
Saved - December 31, 2023 at 3:05 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Under President Trump's leadership, these recent events did not occur. However, the United States' weakened position and withdrawal from the Middle East have proven to be fatal, as warned. Iranian-backed forces have attacked the US over 100 times, leading analysts to predict increased Islamic activity as the anniversary of Soleimani's elimination approaches. It is clear that the US is in decline, and future military expeditions may harm itself. Reports of vulnerability at the southern borders highlight our weakness. Prayers are needed for our military and a change in leadership.

@RealJackHibbs - Jack Hibbs

Just for the record, these things did not take place under the strong leadership of President Trump. The continued weakness of the United States and its departure from the Middle East theater of influence has now proven fatal as many of us warned. Iranian backed forces have attacked yet again, the United States, which now puts it over 100 military missions against US forces. US military analyst are predicting an increase in Islamic activity against the United States and US interest worldwide as we approach January 3 and the anniversary of the elimination of terror mastermind Soleimani. It is obvious that the United States has seen her best days and that her military expeditions from here on out, could prove to be a self-inflicted wound. Weakness always breeds violence, and the United States has never been weaker. if reports are true, coming from our southern borders, then we are weaker than we could have imagine leaving us terribly vulnerable. Pray for our military, but pray, especially for a change in leadership from top to bottom for The “United” States of America https://youtu.be/qjR_0w02quU?si=IgLRmrP9Xr-L7YF7

Saved - January 20, 2024 at 7:17 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The Behshad, a floating intelligence and targeting platform manned by the IRGC, is directing Houthi attacks in the Red Sea. CENTCOM wants to take it out, but the Pentagon and White House fear it would escalate the war. Those who believe actions against Iran will lead to war fail to realize that this is already war. Iran's playbook involves using proxies to pressure the West for concessions, knowing that the current administration is prone to making them. They understand this well because Biden's team is similar to Obama's.

@MPPregent - Michael P Pregent

There is a floating intelligence and targeting platform - the Behshad - manned by a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) called the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) directing Houthi attacks against commercial vessels in the Red Sea. CENTCOM wants to take out this platform directing and coordinating these attacks, but the Pentagon and the White House won’t let that happen - they falsely believe that doing so would broaden the scope of the war. Those making the argument that any actions that make Tehran feel pain “will lead to war with Iran” don’t understand that THIS IS WHAT WAR WITH IRAN LOOKS LIKE - and we are letting them win. The Playbook: Iran turns up the heat through its proxies in order to get the West to make concessions that economically and militarily benefit Tehran. Iran knows better than any country that there is no better team at making concessions and ceding leverage than this WH. They know it so well because Biden's team is Obama's JCPOA/Iraq/Syria team.

Saved - January 29, 2024 at 12:12 AM

@LindseyGrahamSC - Lindsey Graham

Hit Iran now. Hit them hard.

Saved - January 29, 2024 at 12:14 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
My heart goes out to the families who lost loved ones in the recent attacks. It highlights the brutal nature of our enemies in Iran. Some believe that stronger action against Iran would deter future attacks. Let's come together and support these heroes and their families through prayer.

@NikkiHaley - Nikki Haley

As a military spouse, my heart breaks for the families who lost loved ones. This shows the barbaric nature of our enemies in Iran. And it shows that they would not be attacking our troops if Joe Biden weren't so weak in his treatment of Iran. We should retaliate with the full force of American strength. It's the only way to prevent further war. If we do not, these attacks will only continue. Join us in lifting up these heroes and their families in prayer.

Saved - April 15, 2024 at 1:14 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Biden's Iran policy is concerning as it refuses to support Israel in taking offensive military action against Iran's nuclear facilities. This means Iran could develop a nuclear arsenal without fear of military attack. Biden's appeasement of Iran and efforts to cripple Israel's actions against Iran's military and terrorist operations will make Iran a nuclear power. This will have severe consequences, including potential closure of navigable waters for oil transport and the strengthening of the China-Russia-NK-Iran axis. Missile defenses are not enough to prevent attacks; destroying the capacity to launch missiles is necessary. There are allegations that Biden colluded with Iran to prevent Israel from neutralizing Iran's military capabilities. The Biden regime's actions against Israel are morally corrupt and hostile. These tactics are beneath contempt and stain America's reputation. Biden and Blinken are impulsive, ignorant, reckless, and dangerous, escalating military conflicts and abandoning rational foreign policy. Be very worried.

@marklevinshow - Mark R. Levin

BREAKING!! I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the lunacy of Biden’s Iran policy. Biden’s position in refusing to support Israel from taking offensive military action against Iran means that BIDEN WILL NOT SUPPORT ANY MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRAN’S NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND THAT IRAN WILL HAVE A FUNCTIONING NUCLEAR ARSENAL WITH WHICH TO THREATEN THE UNITED STATES, ISRAEL, THE ARAB WORLD, AND THE REST OF THE WORLD WITHOUT FEAR OF MILITARY ATTACK. The best time for Israel to hit Iran’s nuclear sites, with critical U.S. support, would’ve been now. Biden’s appeasement of Iran and intentional funding of Iran, lack of deterrence against Iran and efforts at crippling Israel’s efforts to neutralize Iran’s military and terrorist operations, ensures that Islamist-fundamentalist Iran will become a nuclear power. And once that occurs there will be few options to limit Iran’s ambitions short of a devastating confrontation with frightening risks. What will we do if Iran closes the Red Sea and other navigable waters used to transport oil? And It will also contribute even further to the firepower of the China-Russia-NK-Iran axis and cause other Middle East countries to acquire nuclear weapons. THIS is the world Biden and Blinken are creating while sanctimoniously lecturing about their efforts to de-escalate military confrontations. Again, the crucial point is that Biden has not only signaled to Iran that no effective action will be taken to stop its nuclear program but Biden has actually acted to ensure that Iran’s final path to building nuclear weapons is open and clear. That’s what is meant by no support for offensive military action against Iran. The idea that missile defenses are the answer to preventing offensive strikes against Israel or any country is lunacy. On its face it’s illogical. It’s a deterrent under certain circumstances. Maybe in many circumstances. But ultimately you don’t stop missile attacks by chasing another country’s. You stop missile attacks with certainty by destroying that country’s capacity for launching missiles and/or deterring such attacks by subjecting that country to punishing offensive military attacks. Despite Biden’s massive and current propaganda operation to the contrary, facts are facts. Furthermore, it’s beyond debate that the duplicitous Biden actually colluded with Iran through intermediaries to create the events that took place in the skies over Israel a few nights ago. And, of course, Israel was in the dark about it. (This is the same Biden regime that outrageously demands tactical approval over Israel’s battlefield decisions.) Why? Because it wouldn’t have gone along with such treachery and put its people through such a heinous subterfuge. Think about how morally corrupt, among other things, the Biden regime's actions truly are. Biden and the Iranian regime sympathizer, Blinken, coordinated with Iran over the timing, types of missiles, and even Iranian propaganda. The purpose was to prevent Israel from pulverizing Iran’s military capabilities. Indeed, the Biden regime began leaking immediately to their favorite reporters and media outlets (many of the same press sympathizes they relied on during the Obama regime to promote the Iran nuclear deal) that Israel had provoked Iran and hadn’t told the U.S. in advance about the planned attack on Iran’s terrorist compound in Damascus. Obviously, Israel didn’t forewarn Blinken because he would’ve leaked it to the media! Moreover, Israel is not obliged to get permission from Biden on how and whether to defend its people. Biden and Blinken are hostile to Israel and seek to overthrow its democratic government. They’ve repeatedly told this openly to the entire world, including the Iranians. Every one of these shocking and appalling Biden regime mobster tactics, and there are more, with the attendant scheming, plotting, leaking, usurping, and back-stabbing against a longtime essential and loyal ally, which is in a daunting and bloody war literally triggered by the insane policies of the Biden regime, is beneath contempt and a stain on America’s character and reputation as the world’s moral beacon. It is Biden and Blinken who are impulsive, ignorant, reckless, incompetent, and dangerous. It is they who’ve abandoned a rational and prudent foreign policy in pursuit of incoherent and ideologically-driven utopian ambitions. And it is they who’ve escalated military conflict on multiple continents. For them, there is no good or evil, right or wrong. Hence, they fund Iran and threaten Israel. They seek Netanyahu’s ouster and the ayatollah’s approval. Be worried. Very worried.

Saved - November 11, 2024 at 2:12 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’ve been reflecting on the Ukraine war and its roots, emphasizing that it was never just about NATO. Many argue that U.S. actions, including the overthrow of Yanukovych and NATO's eastward expansion, provoked Russia. Jeffrey Sachs and others highlight that the war could have been avoided with proper negotiations and respect for agreements like Minsk II. There’s a consensus that the conflict serves the interests of global elites, and NATO's existence perpetuates war. The narrative of an unprovoked invasion is misleading; the complexities of history reveal a different story.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

"Not About Nato" "Never About NATO" "Nothing to Do With NATO" NATO training, NATO weapons, NATO mercenaries, NATO specialists, NATO intelligence, NATO money. UKRAINE WAR

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Putin sent a draft treaty demanding NATO not to expand, which was a precondition for avoiding war in Ukraine. NATO expansion is not the core issue; the conflict is about Ukraine's democratic integrity and Putin's desire to rebuild a Soviet-like empire. Ukraine is facing restrictions on political parties, religious organizations, and free expression, which highlights the struggle for democracy. The invasion stems from Putin's ambitions rather than NATO's actions. Comparisons are drawn between Putin and historical figures like Hitler, emphasizing the threat he poses not only to Ukraine but globally. The conversation underscores the need to recognize the true motivations behind the conflict, which are rooted in power and influence rather than NATO's presence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Putin actually sent a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what what he sent us. And that was that that was a precondition for not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO across his borders. Speaker 1: Flashback. Speaker 0: This is fundamentally not about NATO expansion. Speaker 2: It was Speaker 1: never about NATO enlargement. It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO expanding toward Russia. This was never about NATO. It's absolutely nothing to do with NATO expansionism. And it has nothing to do with NATO. Speaker 2: This is not about NATO. Not about NATO. Speaker 1: It's not really about NATO. This is not about NATO. Seriously, it's not about Speaker 3: NATO. Speaker 2: This was never about NATO. Speaker 1: It was never about NATO. Let's be honest. Speaker 2: This doesn't have anything to do with NATO? Speaker 1: Nothing to do with NATO at all. Speaker 2: Yeah. He's claiming it's, like, security purposes, but we Speaker 1: can see the clear reason. Speaker 3: But NATO is not the reason. Speaker 1: This is Speaker 2: not about NATO expansion. This is about the democratic expansion. Ukraine bans religious organizations. We are protecting democracy right now. Ukraine is banning political parties. Speaker 1: Because it's a democracy. Ukraine restricts Speaker 2: books and music. It's about democracy. Ukraine won't hold elections. It's about democracy. And it's not about NATO expansion. Speaker 1: This war in Ukraine is not about NATO. It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO. It has Speaker 3: nothing to do with NATO. Speaker 2: Nothing to do with NATO expansion. Speaker 3: It's not about NATO expansion. Speaker 2: Nothing to do with with NATO. It isn't really about NATO. Speaker 1: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO enlargement. In fact, it has nothing to do with NATO. Speaker 2: It's not about NATO encroaching. Speaker 3: It's not about NATO. NATO is just as a fictious imaginary adversary for for for mister Putin and for Russia. Speaker 2: It was never about NATO. Speaker 1: That's not what it's been about. It's been about him trying to expand his sphere of influence. Speaker 3: Hang on. I mean, the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, Russia has wished for a sphere of influence over Ukraine. But if the west had not challenged Russian interests so directly, I think that there there was a a chance to avoid this war. Speaker 0: He wanted us to sign the promise never to enlarge NATO. We rejected that. Speaker 1: The reason why Putin invaded Ukraine is because of his evil Speaker 2: Evil. Speaker 0: It's about that Putin wants to rebuild Soviet empire of evil like president Reagan told. Speaker 2: It's about Putin being sick. I don't Speaker 1: know how you negotiate peace with a madman, but Nobody negotiated with Hitler. People are comparing him to Hitler. To Hitler. Remember Hitler. Speaker 2: He's a Hitler. Speaker 1: We're back when the Nazis invaded Poland. Speaker 2: This is exactly the same what Hitler was doing to choose. Speaker 1: This is the same. Putin will not stop. Speaker 2: Putin is reminiscent of Hitler. Hitler. This reminds me of Hitler. Hitler. Hitler. Speaker 3: He's the new Hitler. Speaker 2: Well, Hitler Speaker 1: This is about a butcher trying to kill people everywhere in the world, just not Ukraine, Syria, all over the place. I hear you. Senator Lindsey Graham, always great to talk to you. Thanks so much. Thank you. Alright. Straight ahead.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/2QiQ3kTUvI

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Piers Morgan Has Received Totally 100% Real and Accurate Lesson in Geopolitical History From Jeffrey Sachs ENJOY‼️‼️‼️ 📑You seem very reliant on accepting Putin's worldview rather than perhaps the stark reality of the barbarism with which he's executed this war. Yeah, maybe because I know too much about the United States. Because the first war in Europe after world War two was the US bombing of Belgrade for 78 days to change borders of a european state. The idea was to break Serbia, to create Kosovo as an enclave, and then to install Bondsteel, which is the largest NATO base in the Balkans, in the southwest Balkans. So the US started this under Clinton, that we will break the borders, we will illegally bomb another country. We didn't have any UN authority. This was a, quote, NATO mission to do that. Then I know the United States went to war repeatedly, illegally, in what it did in Afghanistan and then what it did in Iraq and then what it did in Syria, which was the Obama administration, especially Obama and Hillary Clinton, tasking the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad. And then what it did with NATO illegally bombing Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi and then what it did in Kiev in February 2014. I happened to see some of that with my own eyes. The US overthrew Yanukovych together with right wing ukrainian military forces. We overthrew a president. And what's interesting, by the way, is we overthrew Yanukovych the day after the European Union representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych to have early elections, a government of national unity and a stand down of both sides that was agreed. The next thing that happens is the opposition, quote unquote, says, we don't agree. They stormed the government buildings and they deposed Yanukovych. And within hours, the United States says, yes, we support the new government. It didn't say, oh, we had an agreement that's unconstitutional what you did. So we overthrew a government contrary to a promise that the European Union had made. And by the way, Russia, the United States, and the EU were parties to that agreement. And the United States an hour afterwards backed the coup. Okay, so everyone's got a little bit to answer for. In 2015, the Russians did not say, we want the Donbas back. They said, peace should come through negotiations. And negotiations between the ethnic Russians in the east of Ukraine and this new regime in Kiev led to the Minsk II agreement. The Minsk II agreement was voted by the UN Security Council unanimously. It was signed by the government of Ukraine. It was guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. And you know what? And it's been explained to me in person. It was laughed at inside the us government. This is after the UN Security Council unanimously accepted it. The Ukrainian said, we don't want to give autonomy to the region. Oh, but that's part of the treaty. The US told them, don't worry about it. Angela Merkel explained in Die Zeit in a notorious interview after the 2022 escalation. She said, oh, you know, we knew that Minsk two was just a holding pattern to give Ukraine time to build its strength. No, Minsk too was a UN security council unanimously adopted treaty that was supposed to end the war. So when it comes to who's trustworthy, who to believe and so forth, I guess my problem, Piers, is I know the United States government, I know it very well. I don't trust them for a moment. I want these two sides actually to sit down in front of the whole world and say, these are the terms. Then the world can judge, because we could get on paper clearly for both sides of the world, we're not going to overthrow governments anymore. The United States needs to say, we accept this agreement. The United States needs to say, Russia needs to say, we're not stepping 1ft farther than whatever the boundary is actually reached and NATO's not going to enlarge. And let's put it for the whole world to see once in a while, treaties actually hold.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The U.S. has a history of intervening in foreign conflicts without UN authority, such as the bombing of Belgrade, wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and the overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya. In Ukraine, the U.S. supported the ousting of Yanukovych despite a prior agreement for early elections and national unity. The Minsk II agreement, aimed at resolving the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, was ignored by the U.S. government, which viewed it as a means for Ukraine to strengthen militarily. Trust in the U.S. is lacking, and there is a call for both sides to negotiate openly, with clear terms that prevent future interventions and respect existing boundaries. Treaties should be upheld for lasting peace.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You seem very reliant on accepting Putin's worldview rather than perhaps the stark reality of the barbarism with which he's executed this war? Speaker 1: Yeah. May maybe because I know too much about the United States. Because the first war in Europe after World War 2 was the US bombing of Belgrade for 78 days to change borders of a European state. The idea was to break Serbia to create Kosovo as an enclave and then to install Bondasteel, which is the largest NATO base in the Balkans, in the Southwest Balkans. So the US started this under Clinton, that we will break the borders. We will illegally bomb another country. We didn't have any UN authority. This was a quote NATO mission to do that. Then I know the United States, went to war repeatedly, illegally, in what it did in Afghanistan and then what it did in Iraq, and then what it did in Syria, which was the Obama administration, especially Obama and Hillary Clinton tasking the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad, and then what it did with NATO illegally bombing Libya to topple Nurmur Qaddafi. And then what it did in Kiev in February 2014. I happened to see some of that with my own eyes. The US overthrew Yanukovych together with right wing Ukrainian military forces. We overthrew a president. And what's interesting, by the way, is we overthrew Yanukovych the day after the European Union representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych to have early elections, a government of national unity, and a stand down of both sides. That was agreed. The next thing that happens is the opposition, says, we don't agree. They stormed the government buildings and they deposed Yanukovych. And within hours, the United States says, yes. We support the new government. It didn't say, oh, we had an agreement. That's unconstitutional what you did. So we overthrew a government contrary to a promise that the European Union had made. And by the way, Russia, the United States, and the EU were parties to that agreement, and the United States an hour afterwards backed the coup. Okay. So everyone's got a little bit to answer for. In 2015, the, Russians did not say, we want the Donbas back. They said peace should come through negotiations, and negotiations between the ethnic Russians in the east of Ukraine and this new regime in Kyiv led to the Minsk two agreement. The Minsk 2 agreement was voted by the UN Security Council unanimously. It was signed by the government of Ukraine. It was guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France, And you know what? And it's been explained to me in person. It was laughed at inside the US government. This is after the UN Security Council unanimously accepted it. The Ukrainian said, we don't wanna give autonomy to the region. Oh, but that's part of the treaty. The US told them, don't worry about it. Angela Merkel explained in in a notorious interview after the 2022 escalation. She said, oh, you know, we knew that Minsk 2 was just a a holding pattern to give Ukraine time to build its strength. No. Minsk 2 was a UN Security Council unanimously adopted treaty that was supposed to end the war. So when it comes to who's trustworthy, who to believe and so forth, I guess my problem, Pew, is is I know the United States government. I know it very well. I don't trust them for a moment. I want these two sides actually to sit down in front of the whole world and say these are the terms, then the world can judge because we could get on paper clearly for both sides of the world. We're not gonna overthrow governments anymore, the United States needs to say. We accept this agreement, the United States needs to say. Russia needs to say. We're not stepping one foot farther than whatever the boundary is actually reached, and NATO's not going to enlarge. And let's put it for the whole world to see. You know, once in a while treaties actually hold.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/ET4HGOvsd3

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Russia is Aggressively Approaching NATO More Than 1000 km Everything Is Putin’s Fault! "Not About Nato" | "Never About NATO" | "Nothing to Do With NATO" | UKRAINE WAR NATO training, NATO weapons, NATO mercenaries, NATO specialists, NATO intelligence, NATO money. ... but nothing to do with NATO. Facts 👇

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Putin sent a draft treaty to NATO, demanding no further enlargement as a condition to avoid invading Ukraine, which NATO rejected. The conflict is not about NATO expansion; it's about democracy and Putin's desire to expand his influence. Ukraine is facing internal issues, such as banning political parties and restricting freedoms, while the war is framed as a fight for democracy. Some draw parallels between Putin and historical figures like Hitler, suggesting that his actions are reminiscent of past aggressions. Ultimately, the narrative emphasizes that NATO is not the core issue; the war stems from Putin's ambitions and actions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Putin actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And that was a precondition for not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO close to his borders. Speaker 1: Flashback. Speaker 0: This is fundamentally not about NATO expansion. Speaker 1: It was never about NATO enlargement. It's not about NATO. It's not Speaker 2: about NATO expanding toward Russia. This was never about NATO? It's absolutely nothing to do with NATO expansionism. Speaker 1: It has nothing to do with NATO. This is not about NATO. It's not about NATO. It's not really about NATO. Speaker 2: This is not about NATO. Seriously, it's not about NATO. This was never about NATO. Speaker 1: It was never about NATO. Let's be honest. Speaker 2: This doesn't have anything to do with NATO. Nothing to do with NATO at all. Speaker 1: Yeah. He's claiming it's, like, security purposes, but we can see the clear reason. But Speaker 2: NATO is not the reason. Speaker 1: This is not about NATO expansion. This is about the democratic expansion. Speaker 2: Ukraine bans religious organizations. We are protecting democracy right now. Ukraine is banning political parties. Because it's a democracy. Ukraine restricts books and music. It's about democracy. Ukraine won't hold elections. Elections. Speaker 1: It's about democracy. And it's not Speaker 2: about NATO expansion. This war Speaker 1: in Ukraine is not about NATO. Speaker 2: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO. It Speaker 1: has nothing to do with NATO. Nothing to do with NATO expansion. It's not about NATO expansion. Speaker 2: Nothing to do with Speaker 3: with NATO. It isn't really Speaker 2: about NATO. It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO enlargement. In fact, it has nothing to do with NATO. It's not about NATO encroaching. Speaker 1: So it's Speaker 2: not about NATO. NATO is just as a fictitious imaginary adversary for for Speaker 1: for mister Putin and for Russia. Speaker 2: It was never about NATO. Speaker 1: That's not what it's been about. It's been about him trying to expand his sphere of influence. Speaker 3: Hang on. I mean, the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, Russia has wished for a sphere of influence over Ukraine. But if the west had not challenged Russian interests so directly, I think that there there was a chance to avoid this war. Speaker 0: He wanted us to sign the promise never to enlarge NATO. We rejected that. Speaker 1: The reason why Putin invaded Ukraine Speaker 2: is because of his evil Evil. Speaker 0: It's about that Putin wants to rebuild Soviet empire of evil like president Reagan told. Speaker 2: It's about Putin being sick. I don't know how you negotiate peace with a madman, but nobody negotiated with Hitler. People were comparing him to Hitler. Hitler. Remember Hitler? Speaker 1: He's a Hitler. Speaker 2: We're back when the the Nazis invaded Poland. Speaker 1: This is exactly the same Speaker 2: what Hitler was doing to choose. Speaker 1: This is the same. Putin will not stop. Speaker 2: Putin is reminiscent of Hitler. Hitler. This reminds me of Speaker 1: Hitler. Hitler. Hitler. Speaker 3: He's the new Hitler. Speaker 1: Oh, Hitler. Speaker 2: This is about a butcher trying to kill people everywhere in the world, just not Ukraine, Syria, all over the place. I hear you. Senator Lindsey Graham, it was great to talk to you. Thanks so much. Thank you. Alright. Straight ahead.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/oSN20t4Bpu

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

MUST WATCH👏👏👏‼️‼️‼️ Ukraine war cause and the end game explained: War of the globalist elite, Blackrock, and bankers. Colonel Douglas Macgregor: 📑 In Ukraine, which I think happening there. And what, do you know, what is the end game? Well, for the globalists that are running the show, this is a globalist neocon elite, both on the hill as well as in the White House. And these elites in Europe, particularly in Paris, Berlin, London, they're all interested in seeing Blackrock take over Ukraine, number one, so that it can be systematically stripped of its resources and turned into a subjugated state that belongs to the larger globalist elites. But they also want to see that happen to Russia, which is why this war was never about Ukraine. It was always about what can be done to destroy Russia. And of course, since the people in charge didn't perform any strategic analysis, they never thought about purpose, method, or end state. They concluded that Russia today is still the Russia of 1992. It's weak, it's prostrate, its economy is ineffective. Remember the McCain statement, oh, Russia is Spain with a gas station. All of these arrogant displays of american hubris, treating Russia as though it was a third class nation with a fourth class military. Well, we're getting an education right now. We paid no attention to the Russians, who had legitimate concerns about what we were doing in eastern Ukraine. We were building an army to attack them. We put a hostile government into that country in 2014. And we kept telling them that it made no difference to us what they thought or what they cared about. They said, we don't want NATO on our border. No one paid attention. President Trump tried to listen, but he was surrounded by people who subverted him, people who were not loyal to the president, who took an oath of obedience to the orders of the president and then ignored them. So what's the outcome? You've got a very serious war that could become regional, even global, and no one in the White House seems to really grasp that. But we're losing. The globalists are losing. And when the ground dries, and in June, you're going to see a massive russian offensive. And most of what we call this thing called Ukraine is going to be swept away, especially that government in Kiev. But that government doesn't represent the interests of the ukrainian people. They represent the interests of this globalist elite who are interested in resources and stripping them and using them and exploiting them to make money. Yeah, it feels like the biggest threat to America is actually what's happened to the petrodollar. When you have Putin now talking with the Saudis and Putin now talking with Xi, and you get rid of the petrodollar, and all of a sudden all that borrowing that we do where we're living way above our means, that's no longer possible, plausible or worse. I think what you're saying is this war has become financial as well as military. And the globalists understand that they're going to lose this war. And what will come of this is that the BRICS, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, are going to be increased by 81 additional members. And all of these people are going to go to a currency that is backed by gold. And once they go to that currency backed by gold, whether it is one currency or a basket of currencies, it doesn't make any difference. Yes, we are in a lot of trouble. The globalists know that, and it is why they are so desperate right now. And the greatest fear that I have is that when the Russians do attack and it becomes abundantly clear that Ukraine is finished, I mean, it's already obvious to anybody who visits the place for any length of time. It's in ruins. But once that occurs, I fear that there will be pressure to commit US forces in Poland and Romania, along with Polish forces and potentially Romanian ones, to western Ukraine. And if that occurs, the gloves will come off, because truthfully, thus far, Putin has exercised tremendous restraint, tremendous patience. He does not want a war with the west. If he wanted that, wed already have it. But if we intervene in western Ukraine, it's over. We'll be in a full fledged war. Expand on that a little bit, because it's sort of interesting. You know, I think we grossly miscalculated. Putin had made several speeches over the last 20 years, repeatedly saying, please do not advance the border to Russia. Do not try to transform Ukraine into a hostile actor, an actor with hostile intentions towards Russia. What happens in Ukraine is of existential strategic interest to us, just as theoretically, what happens in Mexico is of existential strategic interest to us. Although this administration has decided to ignore it. He expected that we would negotiate, that he would demonstrate that this was serious, and that Russia wanted its population in eastern Ukraine, which is really russian, to have equal rights before the law. He wanted to end the oppression of the Russians that lived there, and he wasn't going to surrender Crimea. The reason he went into Crimea is he was afraid it was going to be turned into a US naval base. Biden said. Our goal is regime change. Our goal is to get rid of Putin, and our goal is ultimately to divide Russia into constituent parts, then exploit it. All of his supporters, his staffers, everyone in the globalist camp knows this is the truth. The so called oligarchs Kolomoisky, Soros and others were all part of this. None of this is news. Finally, he said, enough's enough. He stopped. They set up a strategic defense. They ran an economy of force mission, and now they have a force in place that can go as far as it needs to go, which includes to the polish border. They have a plan for 31, 31 month war against us if we insist on fighting it. And we are in no shape to fight a war. We can't even recruit the United States army or the Marines. The Marines are running around trying to recruit illegals and are being encouraged to do so by the administration. Is that what you want in the ground force, to fight for this country? Forget it. It's not going to work.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The conflict in Ukraine is driven by globalist elites aiming to exploit the region's resources, with a focus on undermining Russia rather than supporting Ukraine. The current U.S. leadership has underestimated Russia, failing to recognize its strategic interests and the consequences of NATO's expansion. The war has financial implications, with the potential shift away from the petrodollar threatening U.S. economic stability. As Russia prepares for a significant offensive, there are concerns about U.S. military involvement in Eastern Europe, which could escalate into a larger conflict. Putin has shown restraint but may respond aggressively if Western forces intervene. The situation reflects a severe miscalculation by U.S. leadership, which is unprepared for a prolonged military engagement.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Or in Ukraine, which is happening there. What do you you know, what what is the endgame? Speaker 1: Well, for the globalists that are running the show, this is a globalist neo con elite in both on the hill as well as in the White House and these elites in Europe, particularly in Paris, Berlin, London. They're all interested in seeing BlackRock take over Ukraine, number 1, so that it can be systematically stripped of its resources and turned into a subjugated state that belongs to the larger globalist elites. But they also wanna see that happen to Russia, which is why this war was never about Ukraine. It was always about what can be done to destroy Russia. And, of course, since the people in charge didn't perform any strategic analysis, they never thought about purpose, method, or end state. They concluded that Russia today is still the Russia of 1992. It's weak. It's prostrate. Its economy is ineffective. Remember the McCain statement? Oh, Russia is Spain with a gas station. All of these arrogant displays of American hubris, treating Russia as though it was a third class nation with a 4th class military. Well, we're getting an education right now. We paid no attention to the Russians who had legitimate concerns about what we were doing in Eastern Ukraine. We were building an army to attack them. We put a hostile government into that country in 2014, and we kept telling them that it made no difference to us what they thought or what they cared about. They said we don't want NATO on our border. No 1 paid attention. President Trump tried to listen, but he was surrounded by people who subverted him. People who are not loyal to the president, who who took an oath of obedience to the orders of the president and then ignored them. So what's what's the outcome? You've got a very serious war that could become regional, even global, and no 1 in the White House seems to really grasp that. But we're losing. The globalists are losing. And when the ground dries and in June, you're straight you're gonna see a massive Russian offensive, and most of what we call this thing called Ukraine is gonna be swept away, especially that government in Kyiv. But that government doesn't represent the interest of the Ukrainian people. They represent the interest of this globalist elite who are interested in resources and stripping them and using them and exploiting them to make money. Speaker 0: Yeah. It feels like, you know, the biggest threat to America is actually what's happened to the petrodollar. When you have Putin now talking with the Saudis and Putin now talking with Xi, and you get rid of the petrodollar and all of a sudden all that borrowing that we do, where we're living way above our means, that's no longer possible, plausible, or or worse. Speaker 1: I think what you're saying is this war has become financial as well as military, and the globalists understand that they're going to lose this war. And what will come of this is that the BRICS, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, are going to be increased by 81 additional members. And all of these people are going to go to a currency that is backed by gold. And once they go to that currency backed by gold, whether it is 1 currency or a basket of currencies, it doesn't make any difference. Yes. We are in a lot of trouble. The globalists know that, and it is why they are so desperate right now. And the greatest fear that I have is that when the Russians do attack and it becomes abundantly clear that Ukraine is finished. I mean, it's already obvious to anybody who visits a place for any length of time. It's in ruins. But once that occurs, I fear that there will be pressure to commit US forces in Poland and Romania along with Polish forces and potentially Romanian ones to Western Ukraine. And if that occurs, the gloves will come off because truthfully, thus far, Putin has exercised tremendous restraint, tremendous patience. He does not want a war with the west. If he wanted that, we'd already have it. But if we intervene in Western Ukraine, it's over. We'll be in a full fledged war. Speaker 0: Expand on that a little bit because it's sort of interesting. You know? Speaker 1: I think we've grossly miscalculated. Putin had made several speeches over the last 20 years repeatedly saying, please do not advance the border to Russia. Do not try to transform Ukraine into a hostile actor, an actor with hostile intentions towards Russia. What happens in Ukraine is of the existential strategic interest to us just as theoretically, what happens in Mexico is of existential strategic interest to us, although this administration has decided to ignore it. He expected that we would negotiate, that he would demonstrate that this was serious and that Russia wanted wanted its population in Eastern Ukraine, which is really Russian, to have equal rights before the law. He wanted to end the oppression of the Russians that lived there, and he wasn't going to surrender Crimea. The reason he went into Crimea is he was afraid he was gonna be turned into a US naval base. Biden said, our goal is regime change. Our goal is to get rid of Putin, and our goal is ultimately to divide Russia into constituent parts then exploit it. All of his supporters, his staffers, everyone in the globalist camp knows this is the truth. The so called oligarchs, Kolomoisky, Soros, and others were all part of this. None of this is news. Finally, he said, enough's enough. He stopped. They set up a strategic defense. They ran an economy of force mission, and now they have a force in place that can go as far as it needs to go, which includes to the Polish border. They have a plan for a 31 31 month war against us if we insist on fighting it, and we are in no shape to fight a war. We can't even recruit the United States Army or the Marines. The Marines are running around trying to recruit illegals and are being encouraged to do so by the administration. Is that is that what you want in the ground force to fight for this country? Forget it. It's not gonna work.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/foarxpw0Dl

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

The Ukraine - Russian War Was Provoked! Finally the Truth Be Told!!! Jeffrey Sachs: The Untold History of the Cold War Thanks Tucker for bringing the truth to light! Everyone Should Read This! The Ukraine - Russian War was planned well in advance. Professor Jeffrey Sachs is the President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. He is the author of many best selling books, including The End of Poverty and The Ages of Globalization. Here he is with probably the smartest and most accurate assessment of the Ukraine war, and American foreign policy more broadly, ever caught on tape.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022 was labeled unprovoked, but the narrative oversimplifies complex geopolitical dynamics. The U.S. aimed to align Ukraine with NATO, encroaching on Russia's borders, a strategy rooted in historical imperialism dating back to the 19th century. This expansionist approach disregarded Russia's concerns, which had sought cooperation after the Cold War. Promises made to Russian leaders about NATO's non-expansion were broken, leading to heightened tensions. The U.S. actions, including military bases and missile deployments near Russia, were perceived as aggressive, prompting a defensive response from Moscow. Ultimately, the situation reflects a long-term strategy of U.S. dominance rather than a mere unprovoked attack.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay. So the the one thing that we know, we heard about the movement of Russian troops into Eastern Ukraine in February of 2022 was it was unprovoked. Here's a here's a selection of what we know about that. Speaker 1: Russian military has begun a brutal assault on the people of Ukraine without provocation, without justification, without necessity. This is a premeditated attack. Russia's unprovoked and cruel invasion has galvanized countries from around the world. Speaker 0: Russia's unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine. Speaker 1: Russia conducted an unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine. This unprovoked Russian war of aggression has got to be met with strength. Speaker 0: Vladimir Putin decided, unprovoked, to start this war. So was it unprovoked? Speaker 1: Well, we did hear that a lot of times. That's what I said. I I actually asked a research assistant of mine to count how many times we heard that in the New York Times in that 1st year from February 2022 to February 2023. In their opinion, comps was 26 times unprovoked. Of course, things aren't unprovoked. It's almost a brand Speaker 0: name. Unprovoked invasion. Speaker 1: It's it's the lazy person's dodge for, actually trying to think through what's going on, and it's And it's very dangerous because it's wrong. It gets the whole story completely wrong, and it misunderstands the trap that we set for ourselves as the United States to push Ukraine deeper and deeper and deeper into this hopeless mess that they're in right now. Speaker 0: So in what sense was it provoked? Like, what started this? Speaker 1: Basically, it started very simply, which is, that the United States government, let's not call it the US people, they had nothing to do with this, but the US government, said, we're gonna put Ukraine on our side, and we're gonna go right up to that 2,100 kilometer border with Russia. We're gonna put our troops and NATO and maybe missiles, whatever we want because we are the sole superpower of the world, and we do what we want. And, it it goes back actually a long way. It goes back a 170 years. The Brits had this idea first. Surround Russia in the Black Sea region, and Russia's not a great power anymore. And that was, Lord Palmerston's idea in the Crimean War 1853 to 1856. And the Brits taught us what we know about empire, and they basically taught us the idea. You know, Russia, it needs an outlet. It needs an outlet to the Middle East. It needs an outlet to the Mediterranean. You surround Russia in the Black Sea. You have rendered Russia a second or third rate country and Zbig Brzezinski, one of our lead geo strategists of the current era, wrote in 1997, let's do this. Let's make sure that we basically surround Russia in in the Black Sea region. They got this idea that we'll expand NATO so that every country in the Black Sea around Russia is a NATO country. Right now, well, back then, Turkey was a NATO country but we said, okay, we'll get Romania and Bulgaria and we'll get Ukraine and we'll get Georgia. Now Georgia, not our Georgia, Atlanta Georgia, Georgia of the Black Sea. We used to call Speaker 0: it Soviet Georgia. Speaker 1: Yes. Soviet Georgia, if you want call it that. Home of Stalin. It's not NATO North Atlantic. It's way out there on the eastern edge of the Black Sea region. People can look at a map. But we said, yeah. We'll make Georgia part of NATO too. And the reason was very clear, and Zwig was very explicit about it that this is our way to basically dominate Eurasia. If we can dominate the Black Sea region, then Russia's nothing. If we make Russia nothing, then we can basically control Eurasia, meaning all the way from Europe to Central Asia, and through our influence in East Asia, do the same thing and that's American unipolarity. We run the world. We are the hegemon. We are the sole superpower. We are unchallenged. So that's the idea. Speaker 0: But why would you want that? Why would the Brits want that? Why does the US State Department want that? What about Russia, which is not actually much of an expansionist power, is so threatening? Speaker 1: It's it's, it's not about Russia. It's about the US. It's it's about Britain before that. I think it's a little bit like that old game of risk. I don't know if you played that as a kid, but you the idea was have your peace on every place in the world. You know? That that was the game. And you read the American strategist, whether it's Zbig Brzezinski, although he's a very moderate, or the neocons who have run US foreign policy for the last 30 years. US the the the neocons are very explicit. The US must be the unchallenged superpower in every place in the world. In every region, we must dominate. It's quite a it's quite a load for us American people. What they say is we are going to be the constabulary duty holder. What a fancy word for saying, we'll be the world's policeman. They they say it explicitly. They say that's lots of wars. We have to be ready for all these wars. To my mind, it's a little crazy but their idea was after the end of the Soviet Union, well, now we run the world. And to come back to Russia, the idea was, well, Russia's weak. It's down. It's we're the sole superpower. They're they're on on their back or on their knees, whatever it is, and now we can move NATO where we want, and we can surround them. And, the Russians said, please don't do that. Don't don't bring your troops, your weapons, your missiles right up to our border. It's not a good idea. And the US, I was around in those years involved in in Russia and in Central Europe. The US was, we don't hear you. We don't hear you. We do what we want. They kept pushing inside the US government in the 19 nineties when this debate was going, should NATO expand? Some people said, yeah. But, we told Gorbachev, and we told Yeltsin we weren't gonna expand at all. No. Come on. Soviet Union's done. We can do what we want. We're the sole superpower. Clinton bought into that. That was Madeleine Albright's line. NATO enlargement started, and our most sophisticated diplomats, we used to have diplomats at the time. We don't have them anymore, but we used used to have diplomats like George Kennan, said this is the greatest mistake we could possibly make. We had the defense secretary, Bill Perry, who was Clinton's defense secretary, who agonized, god. I should resign over this. This is terrible. What's going on? But he was outmaneuvered diplomatically by Richard Holbrook and by Madeleine Albright, and Clinton never thought through anything systematically, in my opinion. And so they decided, okay. Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, 1st round. And then Brzezinski, in the 1997 article in Foreign Affairs Magazine, which is kind of the bellwether of Yes. Foreign policy, wrote a strategy for Eurasia where he laid out exactly the timeline for this US expansion of power, and he said late 19 nineties will take in Central Europe, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic. By the early 2000, we'll take in the Baltic states. Now let's get close to Russia. By 2005 to 2010, we'll invite Ukraine to become part of NATO. So this wasn't some flippant thing. This was a long term plan and was based on a long term geo strategy. Now the Russians are saying, are you kidding? We wanted peace. We we ended the Cold War 2. You didn't just defeat us. We said, no more. We disbanded the Warsaw Pact. We wanted peace. We wanted cooperation. You call it victory. We we just wanted to cooperate. I know that for a fact because I was there in those years, what Gorbachev wanted, what Yeltsin wanted. They didn't want war with the United States nor were they saying we're defeated. They were saying we just wanna cooperate. We wanna stop the Cold War. We wanna become part of a world economy. We wanna be a normal economy. We wanna be a normal society connected with you, connected with Europe, connected with Asia. And the US said, we get it. We get it. We won. You do everything we say, and we determine how the pieces are gonna go. So in the early 2000, Putin comes in. First business for Putin was good cooperation with Europe. You go back to the early 2000s. Again, I know the people. I watch closely. I was a participant in some of it. Putin was completely pro Europe and pro US, by the way. And we don't wanna talk about this. We don't wanna admit it because we don't want anything other than unprovoked. So everything is phony, what we say. Everything is a lie. But just to say, the US kept doing unilateral things that were really outrageous. In 2,000 in 1999, we bombed Belgrade for 78 days. Bad move. Absolutely. We bombed a capital of Europe for 78 days. Speaker 0: What was looking back, what was the point of that? Speaker 1: The the point of that was to break Serbia into create a new state Kosovo where we have the largest NATO military base in Southeast Europe. We put bond steel base there because we wanted a base in Southeastern Europe, and again, you look at the neocons. It's nice of them. They actually describe all of this in various documents. You have to make the links, but in a document called rebuilding America's defenses in the year 2000, they say the Balkans is a new strategic area for the US. So we have to move large troops to the Balkans because their idea is literally the game of risk, not just you need good relations or peace. We need our pieces on the board. We need military bases with the advanced positioning of our military everywhere in the world. So they wanted a big base in, in Southeastern Europe. They didn't like Serbia. Serbia was close to Russia. Anyway, we're the sole superpower. We do what we want. So, they divided the country, which they now claim you never do and you never change borders. We broke apart Serbia, established by our declaration a new country, Kosovo. We put a huge NATO base there, and that was the goal. So that was 99. Speaker 0: It wasn't to save the oppressed Muslim population? Speaker 1: Excuse me? Speaker 0: It wasn't to save the oppressed Muslim population? Speaker 1: It was very much to save the military industrial complex to have a nice location in Southeastern Europe. It killed all those people, wrecked the city. It was a little bit sad, but we do lots of sad things and lots of destructive things, lots of wars. We're the country of perpetual war. We don't look back. We're not even supposed to talk about this because this was unprovoked, remember? So in 2002, the US unilaterally pulled out of the anti ballistic missile treaty, unilaterally. Well, that was one of the stabilizers of the relationship with Russia and it was one of the stabilizers of the the global nuclear situation, which is absolutely dangerous. And the US unilaterally started putting Aegis missiles into, first, Poland, then Romania. And the Russians are saying, wait a minute. What do we know you're putting in this? You're a few minutes from Moscow. This is completely destabilizing. Do you think you might wanna talk to us? So then comes 2004, 7 more countries in NATO, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Now, starting filling in the Black Sea, Romania and Bulgaria. Suddenly, they're now North Atlantic countries but it's all part of this design, all spelled out, all quite explicit. We're surrounding Russia. In 2007, President Putin gave a very clear speech at the Munich Security Conference, very powerful, very correct, very frustrated where he said, gentlemen, you told us in 1990 NATO would never enlarge. That was the promise made to President Gorbachev, and it was the promise made to President Yeltsin, and you cheated, and you repeatedly cheated, and you don't even admit that you said this, but it's all plainly documented, by the way, and as you know, in a 1,000 archival sites, so it's easy to verify all of this. James Baker III, our secretary of state, said that NATO would not move 1 inch eastward, and it wasn't a flippant statement. It was a statement repeated and repeated and repeated. Hans Dietrich Genscher, the foreign minister of Germany, same story. The Germans wanted reunification. Gorbachev said, we'll support that, but we don't want that to come at our expense. No. No. It won't come at your expense. NATO won't move 1 inch eastward, mister president, repeated so many times in many documents, many statements by the NATO secretary general, by the US secretary of state, by, the German chancellor, now, of course, all denied by our foreign policy blob because we're not supposed to remember anything. Remember, this was all unprovoked. So back to 2007, Putin gives this speech and he says, stop. Don't even think about Ukraine. This is our 2,100 kilometer border. This is absolutely part of the integrated economy of this region. Don't even think about it. Now I know from insiders, from all the diplomatic work that I do, that Europe was saying to the US European leaders, don't think about Ukraine, please. This is not a good idea. Just stop. We know, from our current CIA director, Bill Burns, that he wrote a very eloquent, impassioned, articulate, clear, secret as usual memo, which we only got to see because WikiLeaks showed to the American people what maybe we would like to know once in a while, but Yeah. We're never told. Speaker 0: What our government's doing. Speaker 1: What they're doing and how they're putting us at nuclear risk and other things. Okay. This one did get out, and it's called niet means niet. No means no. And what what Bill Burns very perceptively, articulately conveys to Condoleezza Rice and back to the White House in, 2008 is Ukraine is really a red line. Don't do it. It's not just Putin. It's not just Putin's government. It's the entire political class of Russia. And just to help all of us as we think about it, it is exactly, as if Mexico said, we think it would be great to have Chinese military bases on the Rio Grande. We can't see why the US would have any problem with that. Of course, we would go completely insane. But And we should. And we should. Of course. It's the whole idea is so absurdly dangerous and reckless that you you can't even imagine grown ups doing this. So what happens is the what for what I'm told by European leaders, and by long detailed discussion, Bush junior says to them, no, no, no, no, it's okay. Don't worry. I hear you about Ukraine. And then he goes off for the Christmas holidays and comes back, whether it's Cheney, whether it's Bush, whatever it is, says, yeah, NATO's gonna enlarge to Ukraine. And the Europeans are shocked, pissed. What are you doing?

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/VVJnZeGuMR

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

They promised NATO would not expand to the East! At the🇩🇪reunification meeting (GDR and FRG) in 1990,🇩🇪Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher told his US counterpart, James Baker, that NATO would not expand to the East. Present also is E. Schevardnadze, Soviet Foreign Minister. https://t.co/pIvSMNMQfi

Video Transcript AI Summary
Der Westen verspricht, die NATO nicht weiter nach Osten auszudehnen, im Gegenzug zur deutschen Einheit. In Washington erklärt der damalige Außenminister, dass es keine Absicht gibt, das Radioverteidigungsgebiet nach Osten auszudehnen. Dies betrifft nicht nur die DDR, die nicht einverleibt werden soll, sondern gilt allgemein. --- In exchange for German reunification, the West promises not to expand NATO further east. In Washington, the then Secretary of State states that there is no intention to extend the radio defense area eastward. This applies not only to the GDR, which is not to be incorporated, but is a general principle.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Im Gegenzug zur deutschen Einheit verspricht der Westen, die NATO nicht weiter nach Osten vorrücken zu lassen. In Washington macht der damalige Außenminister weitreichende Zusagen. Speaker 1: Wir waren uns einig, dass nicht die Absicht besteht, das Radioverteidigungsgebiet auszudehnen nach Osten. Das gilt übrigens nicht nur in Bezug auf die DDR, die wir da nicht einverleiben wollen, sondern das gilt ganz generell.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/kPF0iHBmY2

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Brilliant!!! The best video @0rf ‼️👏👏👏 Watch Matt Orfalea Bitch Slap Those Who Said The Ukraine Invasion Was "Not About NATO" The biggest threat in the world is NATO. NATO exists to solve the problems created by NATO’s existence. NATO is a military alliance that feeds on war. To justify its existence, NATO constantly needs an external enemies and conflicts. NATO DISBAND!

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Putin sent a draft treaty to NATO, demanding no further enlargement as a precondition to avoid invading Ukraine, which NATO rejected. The conflict is not about NATO expansion; it revolves around democracy and Ukraine's internal policies, such as banning religious organizations and political parties. This war is fundamentally about Putin's desire to expand his influence and rebuild a Soviet-like empire. Comparisons are drawn between Putin and historical figures like Hitler, emphasizing that he poses a broader threat beyond Ukraine. The situation reflects a struggle against tyranny rather than a direct confrontation with NATO.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Putin actually sent a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And that was a precondition for not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. Speaker 1: So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO across his borders. Flashback. Speaker 0: This is fundamentally not about NATO expansion. Speaker 1: It's never about NATO enlargement. Speaker 2: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO expanding toward Russia. Speaker 1: This was never about NATO? Speaker 2: It's absolutely nothing to do with NATO expansionism. And it has nothing to do with NATO. This is not about NATO. Speaker 1: It's not about NATO. It's not really about NATO. This is not about NATO. Speaker 2: Seriously, it's not about NATO. Speaker 1: This was never about NATO. Speaker 3: It was never about NATO. Let's be honest. This doesn't have anything to do with NATO? Speaker 1: Nothing to do with NATO at all. Speaker 2: Yeah. He's claiming it's, like, security purposes, but we can see the clear reason. But NATO is not the reason. Speaker 1: This is not about NATO expansion. This is about the democratic expansion. Ukraine bans religious organizations. We are protecting democracy right now. Ukraine is banning political parties. Because it's a democracy. Ukraine restricts books and music. It's about democracy. Ukraine won't hold elections. It's about democracy. And it's not about NATO expansion. Speaker 2: This war Speaker 1: in Ukraine is not about NATO. Speaker 2: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO. It has nothing to do with NATO. Nothing to do with NATO expansion. Speaker 1: It's not about Speaker 3: NATO expansion. Speaker 1: Nothing to do with with NATO. Speaker 2: It isn't really about NATO. Speaker 1: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO enlargement. In fact, it has nothing to do with NATO. Speaker 2: It's not about NATO encroaching. Speaker 1: So it's not about NATO. NATO is just as a fictitious imaginary adversary for Speaker 2: for for mister Putin and for Russia. Speaker 1: It was never about NATO. Speaker 3: That's not what it's been about. It's been about him trying to expand his sphere of influence. Speaker 4: Hang on. I mean, the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, Russia has wished for a sphere of influence over Ukraine. But if the west had not challenged Russian interests so directly, I think that there there was a chance to avoid this war. Speaker 2: He wanted us to sign Speaker 0: a promise never to enlarge NATO. We rejected that. Speaker 2: The reason why Putin invaded Ukraine is because of his evil Evil. It's about that Putin wants to rebuild Soviet empire of evil like president Reagan told. Speaker 1: It's about Putin being sick. Because I don't Speaker 2: know how you negotiate peace with a madman, but nobody negotiated with Hitler. Speaker 1: People were comparing him to Hitler. To Hitler. And remember Hitler? Speaker 2: He's a Hitler. Speaker 1: We're back when the the Nazis invaded Poland. Speaker 2: This is exactly the same what Hitler was doing to choose. This is the same. Putin will not stop. Speaker 4: Putin Speaker 1: Putin is reminiscent of Hitler. Hitler. Speaker 2: This reminds me of Hitler. Hitler. Hitler. Speaker 4: He's the new Hitler. Speaker 1: Who Hitler? This is about a butcher trying to kill people everywhere in the world, just not Ukraine, Syria, all over the place. I hear you. Senator Lindsey Graham, always great to talk to you. Thanks so much. Thank you. Alright. Straight ahead.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/f8yZsUdiuw

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

‼️ Ukraine War Was Provoked — Jeffrey Sachs Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi discusses the Ukraine conflict and the actions of the West, which provoked the war, with Jeffrey Sachs, President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. #GoingUnderground #JeffreySachs You know that the so called journalists, some would say stenographers, are repeating this word unprovoked when it comes to Russia moving to save the ethnic Russians in the east. What do you do? You just flinch every time you hear this phrase unprovoked, which is used by. I don't flinch. I laugh. And yes, I do cringe a little bit, because, first of all, this is a provoked war. Second, the word unprovoked is provoked in the sense that it is part of the talking points of all of these reporters. They wouldn't even come up with the same word, same exact word repeated endlessly were it not so phoney. So this is a war that had many provocations. It was a war that could easily have been avoided. When I say many provocations, it goes back to the US plan to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia, back to the 1990s. Does big Brzezinski, contrary to promises that were made at the end of what we thought was the end of the Cold War, I should say the unilateral US withdrawal from the ABM treaty in 2002, the 78 days of bombing of Belgrade by the United States and its allies in 1999 to break that country apart and install a NATO military base in Kosovo carved out from Serbia. The overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, where Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for european affairs at the time, was point person for this and absolutely in collaboration on regime change. The absolute failure of the US, Germany and France to abide by, defend and insist on the implementation of the Minsk, two agreements provoked. Of course it was provoked. Wars don't come out of nowhere. And anyone watching the history of this has seen these provocations all along. And a point that I keep making is that at the end of 2021, this was already nine years into conflict, which started with the overthrow of Yanukovych by the United States and right wing forces in Ukraine. Nine years later, the big war could have been avoided and the fighting could have stopped when Russia put on the table a revised U. S. Russia security arrangement based on Ukraine's neutrality, on the non enlargement of NATO. And I told the White House, then take it. Negotiate. Of course, there, you phoned them up. But negotiate? I mean, did you speak to the State Department? I spoke to the White House and I said, don't have a war over this. This is obviously avoidable.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The term "unprovoked" used by journalists regarding Russia's actions is misleading. This war has numerous provocations, stemming from U.S. actions like NATO expansion plans since the 1990s, the 2002 withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and the 1999 bombing of Belgrade. The overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, supported by U.S. officials, and the failure to uphold the Minsk II agreements also contributed to the conflict. By the end of 2021, after nine years of tension, a major war could have been avoided if the U.S. had engaged in negotiations over Russia's proposal for Ukraine's neutrality and NATO non-expansion. I urged the White House to pursue diplomacy to prevent war.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know that the so called journalists, some would say stenographers, are repeating this word unprovoked when it comes to Russia moving to save the ethnic Russians in the East. Do you just flinch every time you hear this phrase, unprovoked, which is used by Speaker 1: I don't flinch. I laugh, and I guess I do cringe a little bit because, first of all, this is a provoked war. 2nd, the word unprovoked is provoked, in the sense, that it is part of the talking points of all of these reporters. They wouldn't even come up with the same word, same exact word repeated endlessly were it not so phony. So this is a war that had many provocations. It was a war that could easily have been avoided. When I say many provocations, it goes back to the US plan to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia back to the 19 nineties does Big Brozinski contrary to promises that were made at the end of what we thought was the end of the Cold War, I should say. The unilateral US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002, the 78 days of bombing of Belgrade by the United States and its allies, in 1999 to break that country apart and install a NATO military base in Kosovo carved out from Serbia. The overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, where, Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs at the time was point person for this, and absolutely in collaboration on regime change. The absolute failure of the US, Germany, and France to abide by, defend, and insist on the implementation of the Minsk II agreements. Provoked, of course, it was provoked. Wars don't come out of nowhere, and anyone watching the history of this has seen these provocations all along and the point that I keep making is that at the end of 2021, this was already 9 years into conflict, which started with the overthrow of Yanukovych by the United States and right wing forces in Ukraine. 9 years later, the big war could have been avoided and the fighting could have stopped when Russia put on the table a revised US Russia security arrangement based on Ukraine's neutrality on the non enlargement of NATO. And I told the White House then, take it. Negotiate. Of course, there are Speaker 0: You phoned them up. Speaker 1: Agree, but negotiate. Speaker 0: I mean, did you speak to the state department? Speaker 1: I spoke to the White House, and, I said don't have a war over this. This is obviously avoidable.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/AUs2RaLUWY

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

'Putin didn't want the war' John Mearsheimer on Ukraine War in Ukraine is the Fault of US, British and NATO Expansion. We Believed That We Could Win The War.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Putin initially sought to avoid war and aimed for a diplomatic solution before February 24, 2022. After the conflict began, he engaged in negotiations with Ukraine, focusing on NATO expansion and seeking a neutral Ukraine, without intentions to annex further territory aside from Crimea. However, the U.S. and U.K. influenced Zelensky to abandon negotiations, believing Ukraine and the West could win the war. Initially, this seemed plausible in 2022, but by 2023, the situation has shifted, indicating a challenging year for Ukraine and a potential advantage for Russia in the conflict.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Putin did not want this war. He went to great lengths before February 24th, 2022, when the war started to, head it off at the past. He wanted to come up with a diplomatic solution. And then shortly after the war broke out in February, he was negotiating with the Ukrainians, to work out a deal. And at that point in time he was not talking about incorporating any Ukrainian territory, safe for Crimea, which had already been annexed into Russia. And all he really cared about, it's quite clear from all the reports of the people who were involved in the discussions was NATO expansion into Ukraine. He wanted a neutral Ukraine and if he had gotten a neutral Ukraine, this is right after the war started, I believe there's a good chance the war could have been shut down. But it was the Americans and the British who moved in and basically told Zelensky that he had to walk away from the negotiations because we believed that we could win the war. We meaning Ukraine plus the West. And in 2022, it actually looked like that might be the case. But now it's quite clear that 2023 has been a disastrous year for the Ukrainians and if anything, the Russians will win the war.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/3Hun2JY8qL

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

EXACTLY 100% UK politician Farage says Russia's invasion of Ukraine was provoked by EU and NATO expansion Reform UK party leader Nigel Farage said on Friday that he believed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was "provoked" by the eastward expansions of the European Union and NATO.

Video Transcript AI Summary
In 2014, I predicted a war in Ukraine due to NATO and EU expansion, which I believed provoked Russia. I've been warning about this since the 1990s, and I was criticized for it. Recently, George Robertson, a former NATO secretary general, echoed this sentiment, stating that EU expansion directly contributed to the conflict. Regarding Brexit, two main expectations were controlling our borders and reducing immigration, yet numbers have surged due to a conservative government prioritizing cheap labor. Additionally, Rishi Sunak's promise to eliminate 4,000 EU laws was abandoned, hindering regulatory simplification.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I stood up in the European Parliament in 2014, and I said, and I quote, there will be a war in Ukraine. Why did I say that? It was obvious to me that the ever eastward expansion of NATO and the European Union was giving this man a reason to his Russian people to say they're coming for us again and to go to war. But you were echoing him. I was sorry. You were echoing him. That's what Putin said. No. No. No. No. Sorry. I've been saying this actually since, actually, since 19 nineties. Ever since ever since Yeah. So he war. But hang on a second. We provoke this war. It's you know, of course, it's his fault. He's used what the government used to the invasion of Ukraine. And very interestingly, once again, 10 years ago when I predicted this by the way, I'm the only person in British politics that predicted what would happen. And, of course, everyone said I was a pariah for daring to suggest it. George Robertson, former labor cabinet minister, who went on to become the secretary general of NATO, has in the last couple of weeks said the war is a direct result of EU expansion But I'm asking you about because in your judgment, you wanna be prime minister. So let me ask you about someone else's view. My judgment has been way ahead of everybody else's in understanding this. My point is this. There were two realistic expectations from Brexit. One, we control our borders and reduce the numbers coming in. They've exploded. They've trebled to to numbers you can't even believe. And secondly and that's because of a conservative government that didn't even try because their big backers want cheap foreign labor. With the economy for the moment. And yeah. And secondly, it was a realistic expectation. Indeed, when Rishi Sunak was became prime minister, he was gonna scrap 4,000 EU laws. He then binned that policy. So we've not seen the simplification of regulation. Yeah.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/sqevUOVKX4

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

US Presidential Candidate @RobertKennedyJr Robert F. Kennedy Jr: We had the opportunity twice to settle this war on terms that were very, very good for the american people. Putin really wanted was us to keep NATO pledged and not put NATO into Ukraine, which is a legitimate demand by him. President Biden sent Boris Johnson over there to force Zelensky to tear up the treaty. 📑We had the opportunity twice to settle this war on terms that were very, very good for the american people. In April of 2022, President Putin and President Zelensky signed an agreement that was refereed by Naftali Bennett, the prime minister of Israel and also the prime minister of Turkey. It was a great agreement. All Putin really wanted was us to keep NATO pledged and not put NATO into Ukraine, which is a legitimate demand by him. He was withdrawing his troops after initialling that treaty. And President Biden sent Boris Johnson over there to force Zelensky to tear up the treaty. Since then, 600,000 ukrainian kids have died for a reason they never, nobody should have died. And we're now on the brink of closer to nuclear exchange.

Video Transcript AI Summary
In April 2022, an agreement was signed between President Putin and President Zelensky, facilitated by the leaders of Israel and Turkey. This agreement was favorable for the American people, primarily addressing Putin's demand to keep NATO out of Ukraine. Following the signing, Putin began withdrawing troops. However, President Biden intervened, sending Boris Johnson to pressure Zelensky into abandoning the treaty. As a result, the conflict escalated, leading to the tragic loss of 600,000 Ukrainian children and bringing the world closer to nuclear confrontation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We have the opportunity twice to settle this war in terms that were very, very good for the American people. In April of 2022, President Putin and President Zelensky signed an agreement that was refereed by Naftali Bennett, the prime minister of Israel and, and the prime also the prime minister of Turkey. It was a great agreement. All Putin really wanted was us to keep NATO pledged and not put NATO into Ukraine, which is a legitimate demand by him. The, he was withdrawing his troops after initialing that treaty and President Biden sent Boris Johnson over there to force Zelensky to tear up the treaty. Since then 600,000 Ukrainian kids have died for a reason they never nobody should have died. And we're now on the brink, closer to nuclear change

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/Jyvi3FlijI

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

U.S. uses NATO as 'war machine' to maintain global hegemony Pepe Escobar “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.” ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World

Video Transcript AI Summary
This conflict is primarily against Russia and aims to destabilize Europe. The neocons have sought to deindustrialize Europe and sever its economic ties with Russia, particularly targeting Germany, to make Europe subservient to their agenda. We are approaching a critical point where, if their efforts against Russia fail, they might resort to extreme measures, including limited nuclear options, similar to past interventions in Libya and Iraq. Historically, NATO has not succeeded in promoting peace or security, and past actions have led to significant destruction without achieving stability.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Against Russia, that's number 1. Number 2, it's a war against Europe because one of the objectives of the neocons who launched this war and who have been working to launch this war for at least 8 years is to deindustrialize Europe, cut off the economic ties between, especially Germany and the EU and Russia, and turn Europe as a whole into a vassal of the empire. We are reaching a very dangerous threshold, which is when they throw everything against Russia and it doesn't work, they will be sufficiently paranoid and crazy to try I would say this is the ultimate red line, a limited nuclear this is what they did to Libya. They destroyed a country because in their minds, they needed control over a very fertile and important part of Northern Africa. In Iraq in 2003, the Americans started and NATO continued. We all know what happened. There is not a single historical example of NATO promoting peace and security. History shows that to us.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/OM8d6m8bpR

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

David Sacks Brilliant Quotes The Ukraine - Russian War Was Provoked! Biden provoked — yes, provoked — the Russians to invade Ukraine with talk of NATO expansion. Afterward, he rejected every opportunity for peace in Ukraine, including a deal to end the war just two months after it broke out. Now the war is deep into its third year, with no end in sight. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead. Hundreds of billions of our taxpayer dollars have gone up in smoke. President Biden sold us this new Forever War by promising it would weaken Russia and strengthen America. Well, how does that look today? Russia's military is bigger than before, while our own stockpiles are dangerously depleted. 📑Good evening, America. I'm David Sacks, a legal immigrant who worked hard to achieve the American dream. (Thank you.) Now I'm concerned those same opportunities won't be there for future generations. As I look out at this convention, I see a party that is strong and unified behind President Donald J. Trump, and his pick for Vice President, Senator J.D. Vance. And what about the Democrats? They're in disarray after shielding President Biden from a vigorous primary and gaslighting the entire country about his fitness to serve. We still don't know which puppet Democrat Party bosses will install as their nominee, but we know what their agenda will be: four more years of chaos and failure, both at home and abroad. In my hometown of San Francisco, Democrat rule has turned the streets of our beautiful city into a cesspool of crime, homeless encampments, and open drug use. Democrats — led by Border Czar Kamala Harris — have allowed millions of illegal migrants to invade our country. They tasked Homeland Security not with stopping the illegal aliens, but with busing them all over our country. Democrats have recklessly spent trillions of dollars on wasteful and unnecessary government programs, setting off the worst inflation since Jimmy Carter. But worst of all, the Biden-Harris administration has taken a world that was at peace under President Trump, and they lit it on fire. First, President Biden botched the Afghanistan withdrawal, displaying incompetence and weakness for the whole world to see. Then, he provoked — yes, provoked — the Russians to invade Ukraine with talk of NATO expansion. Afterward, he rejected every opportunity for peace in Ukraine, including a deal to end the war just two months after it broke out. Now the war is deep into its third year, with no end in sight. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead. Hundreds of billions of our taxpayer dollars have gone up in smoke. President Biden sold us this new Forever War by promising it would weaken Russia and strengthen America. Well, how does that look today? Russia's military is bigger than before, while our own stockpiles are dangerously depleted. Every day, there are new calls for escalation, and the world looks on in horror as Joe Biden's demented policy takes us to the brink of World War III. In the Middle East, America is now losing a war with the Houthis. And the administration's policy towards Gaza has been so incoherent that the only thing that pro-Israel and pro-Palestine protesters agree on is the chant “eff Joe Biden.” Rather than bolstering confidence in American leadership, as he promised, President Biden has become the symbol of an America in decline. This may be our present, but it does not have to be our future. We can replace the Biden-Harris cabal with a president who is strong and smart rather than sleepy and senile, or in her case, clueless and embarrassing. A president who understands that you build the most powerful military in the world to keep America safe, not to play the world's policeman. A president who is willing to talk to adversaries, as well as friends, because that is the only way to make peace. A president who will stand up to the warmongers, instead of empowering them. My fellow Americans, we need a leader who commands respect and demands reciprocity from other nations. We need strength and savviness in the White House Situation Room — even if the crisis hits after Biden's bedtime. We need a president who can be president and lead, not a puppet controlled by his or her staff. We need order in our cities, order at our border, and order restored to a world on fire. My friends, we need President Donald J. Trump back in the White House. Thank you.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Good evening, America. I'm David Sachs, a legal immigrant concerned about the future of our opportunities. I see a strong Republican party united behind President Trump and Senator JD Vance, while the Democrats are in chaos, failing to address President Biden's fitness for office. Under Democrat rule, cities like San Francisco suffer from crime and homelessness, and the Biden administration has mishandled immigration and economic policies, leading to inflation and international instability. Biden's foreign policy has been disastrous, from the Afghanistan withdrawal to escalating tensions in Ukraine and the Middle East. We need a strong leader who prioritizes American safety, engages with adversaries, and restores order at home and abroad. It's time to bring President Trump back to the White House. Thank you.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good evening, America. I'm David good evening, America. I'm David Sachs, a legal immigrant who worked hard to achieve the American dream. Now Thank you. Now, I'm concerned those same opportunities won't be there for future generations. As I look out at this convention, I see a party that is strong and unified behind president Donald j Trump and his pick for vice president, senator JD Vance. And what about the Democrats? They're in disarray after shielding president Biden from a vigorous primary and gaslighting the entire country about his fitness to serve. We still don't know which puppet Democrat party bosses will install as their nominee, but we know what their agenda will be. Four more years of chaos and failure, both at home and abroad. In my hometown of San Francisco, Democrat rule has turned the streets of our beautiful city into a cesspool of crime, homeless encampments, and open drug use. Democrats, led by border czar, Kamala Harris, have allowed millions of illegal migrants to invade our country. They tasked Homeland Security not with stopping the illegal aliens, but with busing them all over our country. Democrats have recklessly spent 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars of wasteful and unnecessary government programs, setting off the worst inflation since Jimmy Carter. But worst of all, the Biden Harris administration has taken a world that was at peace under President Trump, and they lit it on fire. First, President Biden botched the Afghanistan withdrawal, displaying incompetence and weakness for the whole world to see. Then, he provoked, yes, provoked the Russians to invade Ukraine with talk of NATO expansion. Afterward, he rejected every opportunity for peace in Ukraine, including a deal to end the war just 2 months after it broke out. Now the war is deep into its 3rd year with no end in sight. 100 of thousands of people are dead. 100 of 1,000,000,000 of our taxpayer dollars have gone up in smoke. President Biden sold us this new forever war by promising it would weaken Russia and strengthen America. Well, how does that look today? Russia's military is bigger than before, while our own stockpiles are dangerously depleted. Every day, there are new calls for escalation, and the world looks on in horror as Joe Biden's demented policy takes us to the brink of World War 3. In the Middle East, America is now losing a war with the Houthis, And the administration's policy towards Gaza has been so incoherent that the only thing that pro Israel and pro Palestine protesters agree on is the chant f Joe Biden. Rather than bolstering confidence in American leadership as he promised, president Biden has become the symbol of an America in decline. This may be our present, but it does not have to be our future. We can replace the Biden Harris cabal with a president who is strong and smart rather than sleepy and senile. Or in her case, clueless and embarrassing, A president who understands that you build the most powerful military in the world to keep America safe, not to play the world's policeman. A president who is willing to talk to adversaries as well as friends because that is the only way to make peace. A president who will stand up to the warmongers instead of empowering them. My fellow Americans, we need a leader who commands respect and demands reciprocity from other nations. We need strength and savviness in the White House situation room even if the crisis hits after Biden's bedtime. We need a president who can be president and lead, not a puppet controlled by his or her staff. We need order in our cities, order at our border, and order restored to a world on fire. My friends, we need president Donald J. Trump back in the White House. Thank you.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/lwApyCBuww

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Col Doug Macgregor: We Cultivated This Conflict, We Encouraged It The Russians Have Tried Everything They Possibly Could To Avoid A Confrontation With The West 📑And that's the problem we have in the west. The lie is this was an unprovoked invasion. That's absolutely false. You've had on Professor Mearsheimer and others that have talked at length about this. We cultivated this conflict, we encouraged it, and then ultimately we unleashed it. It was not the Russians who sought this confrontation with us at all. In fact, from the very beginning, the Russians have tried everything they possibly could to avoid a confrontation with the west. Putin has recently said that provided these f 16s go into Ukraine and fly from ukrainian bases, he absolutely under no circumstances will permit the attack of any basis inside the NATO alliance. He doesn't want a confrontation. We're the ones provoking it. But this man's position that he outlined is not sustainable. It cannot go on much longer.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The narrative in the West claims that the invasion was unprovoked, which is false. This conflict was cultivated and encouraged by us, not initiated by Russia. From the start, Russia has sought to avoid confrontation. Putin has stated that if F-16s are deployed from Ukrainian bases, he will not allow attacks on NATO bases, indicating he does not desire conflict. The current stance outlined is not sustainable and cannot continue for much longer.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That's the problem we have in the West. The lie is this was an unprovoked invasion. That's absolutely false. You've had on Professor Mearsheimer and others that have talked at length about this. We cultivated this conflict. We encouraged it and then ultimately we unleashed it. It was not the Russians who sought this confrontation with us at all. In fact, for the very beginning, the Russians have tried everything they possibly could to avoid a confrontation with the West. Putin has recently said that provided, these f sixteens go into Ukraine and fly from Ukrainian bases, he absolutely under no circumstances will permit the attack of any bases inside the NATO alliance. He doesn't want a confrontation, we're the ones provoking it. But this man's position that he outlined is not sustainable, it cannot go on much longer.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/c6HRZqy1Pt

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Former US presidential candidate Stein: We had a proxy war in Ukraine that could have been avoided if we had simply respected the promise we made to Gorbachev when Germany reunited, and we said we would not move one mile to the east. And everyone knew that if we moved east, we would be attacking the Russian border. And it should be noted that what Russia is doing on the border is what we did when Russia brought its weapons to Cuba. Fortunately, our leaders talked. That is not happening now. They seem obsessed with using competition, using weapons, to show that “I am stronger than you.” And now we are climbing the ladder of escalation in both Ukraine and Israel.

Video Transcript AI Summary
In Ukraine, we are engaged in a proxy war that could have been avoided if we had honored the promise made to Gorbachev regarding NATO expansion. Moving eastward would infringe on Russia's borders, similar to their missile placement in Cuba. In the past, leaders communicated effectively to prevent escalation, but that seems lacking now. Instead, there is a focus on competition and military might, leading to increased tensions in both Ukraine and Israel.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In Ukraine, where we are fighting a proxy war, which could have been avoided had we simply respected the promise that was made to Gorbachev at the time that Germany reunited, and we said we are not moving 1 inch to the east. And it was well known that if we did move 1 inch to the east, we were going to be treading on Russia's border. And I just wanna make the point that what Russia is doing around this border is exactly what we did when, Russia moved its missiles into Cuba. Fortunately, our leaders had the good sense to talk with each other. They don't seem to do that now. They seem hell bent on using basically competition, weapons, and showing that I'm tougher than you are. And we're now moving up this escalation ladder right now in both Ukraine and, in Israel.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/hrL1PMlISP

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

Brilliant!!! The best video @0rf ‼️👏👏👏 Watch Matt Orfalea Bitch Slap Those Who Said The Ukraine Invasion Was "Not About NATO" The biggest threat in the world is NATO. NATO exists to solve the problems created by NATO’s existence. NATO is a military alliance that feeds on war. To justify its existence, NATO constantly needs an external enemies and conflicts. NATO DISBAND!

Video Transcript AI Summary
President Putin sent a draft treaty to NATO, demanding no further enlargement as a precondition to avoid invading Ukraine, which NATO rejected. The conflict is not about NATO expansion; it centers on democracy in Ukraine, where political parties are banned, and elections are not held. Putin's actions are driven by a desire to expand his influence, reminiscent of historical aggressors like Hitler. The war is framed as a struggle against tyranny, with comparisons drawn to past conflicts. Ultimately, the narrative emphasizes that NATO is not the real issue; rather, it is about resisting authoritarianism and protecting democratic values.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: President Putin actually sent a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And that was a precondition for not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. Speaker 1: So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO across his borders. Flashback. Speaker 0: This is fundamentally not about NATO expansion. Speaker 1: It's never about NATO enlargement. Speaker 2: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO expanding toward Russia. Speaker 1: This was never about NATO? Speaker 2: It's absolutely nothing to do with NATO expansionism. And it has nothing to do with NATO. This is not about NATO. Speaker 1: It's not about NATO. It's not really about NATO. This is not about NATO. Speaker 2: Seriously, it's not about NATO. Speaker 1: This was never about NATO. Speaker 3: It was never about NATO. Let's be honest. This doesn't have anything to do with NATO? Speaker 1: Nothing to do with NATO at all. Speaker 2: Yeah. He's claiming it's, like, security purposes, but we can see the clear reason. But NATO is not the reason. Speaker 1: This is not about NATO expansion. This is about the democratic expansion. Ukraine bans religious organizations. We are protecting democracy right now. Ukraine is banning political parties. Because it's a democracy. Ukraine restricts books and music. It's about democracy. Ukraine won't hold elections. It's about democracy. And it's not about NATO expansion. Speaker 2: This war Speaker 1: in Ukraine is not about NATO. Speaker 2: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO. It has nothing to do with NATO. Nothing to do with NATO expansion. Speaker 1: It's not about Speaker 3: NATO expansion. Speaker 1: Nothing to do with with NATO. Speaker 2: It isn't really about NATO. Speaker 1: It's not about NATO. It's not about NATO enlargement. In fact, it has nothing to do with NATO. Speaker 2: It's not about NATO encroaching. Speaker 1: So it's not about NATO. NATO is just as a fictitious imaginary adversary for Speaker 2: for for mister Putin and for Russia. Speaker 1: It was never about NATO. Speaker 3: That's not what it's been about. It's been about him trying to expand his sphere of influence. Speaker 4: Hang on. I mean, the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Obviously, Russia has wished for a sphere of influence over Ukraine. But if the west had not challenged Russian interests so directly, I think that there there was a chance to avoid this war. Speaker 2: He wanted us to sign Speaker 0: a promise never to enlarge NATO. We rejected that. Speaker 2: The reason why Putin invaded Ukraine is because of his evil Evil. It's about that Putin wants to rebuild Soviet empire of evil like president Reagan told. Speaker 1: It's about Putin being sick. Because I don't Speaker 2: know how you negotiate peace with a madman, but nobody negotiated with Hitler. Speaker 1: People were comparing him to Hitler. To Hitler. And remember Hitler? Speaker 2: He's a Hitler. Speaker 1: We're back when the the Nazis invaded Poland. Speaker 2: This is exactly the same what Hitler was doing to choose. This is the same. Putin will not stop. Speaker 4: Putin Speaker 1: Putin is reminiscent of Hitler. Hitler. Speaker 2: This reminds me of Hitler. Hitler. Hitler. Speaker 4: He's the new Hitler. Speaker 1: Who Hitler? This is about a butcher trying to kill people everywhere in the world, just not Ukraine, Syria, all over the place. I hear you. Senator Lindsey Graham, always great to talk to you. Thanks so much. Thank you. Alright. Straight ahead.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/g6rSuqrvcj

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

The war has always been between the US and Russia In 2016, Victoria Nuland told Congress that US advisors serve in 12 Ukrainian ministries, US-trained police operate in 18 Ukrainian cities, the US Treasury helped close 60 Ukrainian banks, and the US spent $266 million on training Ukrainian soldiers.

Video Transcript AI Summary
US advisers are actively supporting nearly a dozen Ukrainian ministries, focusing on service delivery, fraud reduction, tax collection, and institutional modernization. Newly trained police officers are now patrolling 18 cities. Free legal aid attorneys, funded by the US, have achieved two-thirds of all acquittals in Ukraine's courts. US Treasury and State Department advisers have assisted in closing over 60 failed banks, safeguarding depositor assets. Recognizing the link between reform and security, the US has invested over $266 million in the security sector, training 1,200 soldiers and 750 National Guard personnel, and providing essential gear. In FY16, this support will continue with further training and equipment for Ukraine's border guards, military, and coast guard.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And US advisers serve in almost a dozen Ukrainian ministries and localities, helping to deliver services, eliminate fraud and abuse, improve tax collection, and modernize Ukrainian institutions. With US help, newly vetted and trained police officers are patrolling the cities, the streets of 18 Ukrainian cities. In courtrooms across Ukraine, free legal aid attorneys funded by the US have won 2 thirds of all the acquittals in the countries. Treasury and state department advisers have helped Ukraine shutter over 60 failed banks and protected the assets of depositors. And since there can be no reform in Ukraine without security, over $266,000,000 of our support has been in the security sector, training 1200 soldiers and 750 Ukrainian National Guard personnel and supplying lifesaving gear. In FY16, we are continuing that training and equipment of more of Ukraine's border guards, military, and coast guard.

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

https://t.co/jr1YYsZX1u

@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

This guy knew. NATO expansion! https://t.co/hbdSij54Mz

Saved - September 10, 2024 at 12:48 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
It has been 50 days since Kamala Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee, and she recently released her campaign policy page. I find her claims about tax cuts for middle-class families misleading, as her plans could lead to increased audits and a significant tax burden on them. Her housing proposals may raise home prices without addressing affordability, and her education policies seem to ignore the needs of non-college graduates. Additionally, her childcare and energy plans lack detail and have resulted in higher costs. Lastly, her border policies appear to reward illegal immigration, and her support for veterans has been inadequate, particularly following the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.

@JDVance - JD Vance

It has been 50 days since Kamala Harris became the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. In the dead of night yesterday, she finally released her campaign policy page. Here's what I think of it 🧵

@JDVance - JD Vance

⁨⁨1) Kamala Harris claims she wants to cut taxes for middle class families, but here's what's in her plan: IRS Audits for working families: Getting audited is a horrendous experience, even if you’ve done nothing wrong. Harris cast the tie-breaking vote to hire 87,000 IRS agents to audit more people. As recently as last summer, 63% of new audits fell taxpayers earning less than $200,000. The IRS, like Kamala Harris, claims that it’s not going to increase audits on people making under $400K, but the Treasury Inspector General stated the agency’s strategic plan, “did not include specifics on how the IRS was going to ensure it met this commitment.” That’s because they have no intention of ensuring they’re not going to audit middle class families—that’s where they’re going to find the money to pay for their massive spending proposals. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, under questioning in the House, could not deny that 90 percent of new audits under the IRA would be on households earning less than $400,000. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found that the majority of additional taxes the IRS recommended from audits from 2010-2021 came from taxpayers with income less than $200,000. It’s even harder to pretend that taxing working men and women isn’t their focus when you think about the reporting requirement Biden-Harris signed into law to require businesses to fill out a 1099K form on transactions over $600 made using third-party payment platforms. The reporting threshold before their bill was $20,000. There’s no minimum number of transactions in their bill, so a single transaction over $600 that triggers the reporting requirement creates more paperwork. Even Senate Democrats have backed different bills to blunt the impact of this enormously burdensome mandate. The Government Accountability Office found this aspect of the Harris tax record would result in at least 30 million new 1099K forms getting sent out in 2024. The Joint Committee on Taxation found that over 90 percent of the tax burden will fall on middle class families and gig workers. The Biden-Harris tax plan, as explicitly outlined in their formal budget request to Congress would increase taxes by $5 trillion. That’s going to stack on top of her inflationary climate spending bills and drag the economy down further. It’s been estimated that “the tax changes in the Biden-Harris budget would reduce long-run GDP by 1.6 percent…wages by 1.1 percent, and employment by about 666,000 full-time equivalent jobs.” That’s nearly a million people out of work and lower wages for everyone in order to shift money towards the Harris Green New Deal—as she said to CNN in her first interview after nearly a month as the Democratic nominee, her values haven’t changed on that policy, which she supported enthusiastically when she was in the Senate. All in all, the Biden-Harris record has been a massive wealth transfer from working people to the Green New Deal’s constituencies—the Harris tax plan is going to be more of the same, no matter what kind of claims she makes during the campaign.⁩

@JDVance - JD Vance

2) Kamala claims she wants to make rent more affordable and home ownership more attainable, but that's not what her plan would do at all. Kamala wants to give every first time homebuyer a $25,000 check toward downpayment assistance. What she fails to leave out is that this would likely raise the average home price by the same amount, making her plan moot. We also haven't heard how the debt-burdened federal government would pay for such a plan. There’s also no guarantee that this down payment assistance will be limited to citizens. The campaign has yet to lay out what requirements there will be, beyond being a first time homebuyer and having a two year history of rental payments. One reporter has indicated that only an SSN or taxpayer identification number will be required. If that’s true, then this would leave open the door for millions of illegal immigrants to get this assistance. And this wouldn’t be the first time housing assistance has gone to noncitizens—there are a number of federal housing subsidies that noncitizens are eligible for: including the HOME Investment Partnership Program and Treasury’s pandemic era Emergency rental assistance program. But under Kamala, the potential for assistance to go to illegals isn’t the only issue. Couple that with Kamala’s CFPB and DOJ effectively forcing banks to lend to noncitizens. They’ve rewritten guidance mandating that banks cannot deny loan applications strictly on citizenship grounds, even though citizenship and residence status bear a large impact on loan repayment prospects. Vice President Harris also mentions how she'll spur the construction of "3 million more rental units." While she outlines an admirable plan, it's tough to take it seriously. This Vice President has overseen an administration that has enacted new red tape for multi-family and single-family construction. We've seen her Housing and Urban Development Department enact green energy requirements for new rental units, mandatory strictly-cosmetic updates to public housing units, and more regulations that will make it harder to grow the rental supply. That's not the end of it. The Vice President seems to think that the ongoing housing crisis is strictly due to a supply problem, but it's not. Her policies have also driven demand for housing through the roof, particularly when looking at the price and availability of rental units. As I've outlined before, and as academic research supports, mass immigration drives up demand, threatens the American dream of homeownership, and makes housing less affordable for working Americans. When a city’s immigrant population increases, the area’s home prices and rental costs rise by a comparable amount. But the effects vary by neighborhood: home values are negatively correlated with the immigrant concentration. The result: only current homeowners in non-immigrant, wealthy neighborhoods stand to benefit from mass immigration. Working-class residents see their rental costs soar, and their home values decline. It's common sense, we can't fix our housing crisis until we address the crisis at the border.⁩

@JDVance - JD Vance

3) Vice President Harris claims she'll "take on the everyday obstacles and red tape that can make it harder to grow a small business." However, under her administration, the SEC has promulgated at least 47 rulemakings, the majority of which have not been mandated by Congress, and we've seen Treasury enact burdensome compliance regulations, with some even aimed at small businesses, like the Administration's preferred implementation of the Corporate Transparency Act. This doesn't sound like cutting red tape to me. It sounds like the opposite: enacting overbearing regulations that stifle innovation and kill job creation.

@JDVance - JD Vance

4) Kamala Harris claims she wants to make our education system a pathway to the middle class. Take it from me, a working-class kid who went to Ohio State on the GI Bill and then to Yale: education can absolutely be pathway to the American Dream. But I’m not naive enough to think that our current system works for everyone. It obviously doesn’t. Fewer than one-in-five American students goes smoothly from high school to college to a career that uses their degree. Kamala Harris doesn’t want to address these problems. Instead, she wants to double down on the failures of our education system. She wants taxpayers to write off more student loans, to increase subsidies that will only drive up tuition costs, and to send even more money to some of the worst-performing universities in the country. Here’s what I’d like to know: What will Harris say to Pennsylvania ironworkers who are upset that they have to pay for someone else’s college degree? The answer, I’m afraid, is absolutely nothing. Kamala Harris, like the rest of our education establishment, treats the majority of hard-working Americans without a college degree as an afterthought. We’re the only developed country in the world without a distinct, vocational education pathway, and yet Kamala Harris thinks the solution is to send even more money to universities.⁩

@JDVance - JD Vance

5) Kamala says she wants to invest in affordable child care, but again that's not what her plan would do: As I’ve said before, I want our public policy to increase access to affordable childcare options and empower parents with the flexibility and resources to make the best childcare decisions for their family. Harris says that she wants families to “afford high-quality child care.” That may sound nice, but as always, Harris is light on detail and heavy on slogans. What might she mean by this? It’s tough to say, but the best indication would be the national childcare plan that she’s already laid out with President Biden as par of their “Build Back Better” plan. We all know how those policies turned out: skyrocketing inflation. But the childcare provisions of their plan were so extreme that not even a Democrat-controlled Congress could pass them. They wouldn’t have worked for many American families. Most parents who use a paid childcare center say they prefer a faith-based provider. What would Harris’s plan do for them? Nothing. Childcare providers based in a house of worship would have been excluded from funding opportunities. Other faith-based providers would be subject to additional regulations in order to access funding that might not have been able to meet. Many parents prefer to stay at home with a young child or have a loved-one watch them. Would Harris’s plan support these families? Not at all. Her proposal was only supports childcare centers and would offer no support to families that prefer not to send their children to daycare. Ensuring families have access to affordable childcare is an important challenge for our policy to help tackle. But the answer cannot be to force families into Kamala’s preferred one-size-fits-all model. We can support parents and their children without leaving millions of families behind.⁩

@JDVance - JD Vance

6) Kamala Harris made it clear that she views American energy policy as a part of her wider fight against global warming. For example, she takes credit for passing the Inflation Reduction Act, which she claims lowered household energy costs while building a green energy economy. The reality of the IRA’s climate record, however, is much different. CBS News reported earlier this month that the cost of electricity has increased more than 28.5 percent since 2019, with the average American now paying nearly $300 each month just in utilities. These higher costs can be attributed to a shrinking supply of American electricity. More specifically, Harris's environmental policies have shuttered reliable coal power plants, slowed the approval of new natural gas plants and failed to enact permitting reform for American generation and transmission infrastructure. Instead, they have placed an increasing burden on less reliable sources of energy, such as solar and wind. These renewable sources are more dependent on conducive weather than coal and gas plants, which means they are most prone to failure exactly when Americans are most reliant on electricity to do things like heat their homes. Kamala’s energy policies are making Americans poorer and more vulnerable to extreme weather. As for the “new green energy economy,” let us look at the IRA’s effort to make American roads more conducive to electric vehicles. The IRA allocated $7.5 billion to build new EV charging stations along highways. In the almost two years since the IRA became law, the Biden-Harris administration has built just eight charging stations. This program is part of the wider Harris push to replace gas-powered cars with EVs, which has also fizzled. Many automakers, including Ford and General Motors, are delaying or curtailing EV rollouts amid lower-than-expected consumer demand, despite rosy predictions from administration officials and $7,500 federal tax credits to buy new EVs. Meanwhile, dealers are complaining that they cannot move the EV inventory they already have. Kamala Harris also pledges to advance “environmental justice” and pays fealty to international climate agreements. At best, the policies spawned by progressive and foreign ideologues will go the way of the EV push: billions of tax dollars wasted with American energy and auto workers left with uncertain futures. At worst, Kamala’s climate policies will increase energy costs for all Americans, degrade their standard of living with new climate mandates, leave them vulnerable to dangerous weather and make America a worse place to live. We all want cleaner air and water. What we do not want is more climate hysteria.⁩

@JDVance - JD Vance

7) Kamala Harris says she wants to secure our borders. Her record tells a different story: Harris touts her record prosecuting international criminals as California’s Attorney General. One of the reasons why California has so much migrant crime is because it is a sanctuary state that shields illegal aliens from deportation. Hence foreign criminals feel more protected in California. Another thing Attorney General Harris did as California’s AG was write a 2015 letter to the US Senate defending California’s sanctuary state policies and opposing a bill that would penalize the state’s noncooperation with federal immigration law. It is safe to assume that there would have been a lot fewer migrant criminals to prosecute in California if the state and AG Kamala had allowed ICE agents to do their jobs and deport them. Kamala Harris then claims to have supported a bipartisan border security bill that would have deployed more agents and drug scanners. I believe she is referring to Sen. Chris Murphy’s Border Act of 2024 (S.4361). What she won’t tell you is that the bill also codifies catch-and-release, allows up to 1.8 million illegals to enter before the border could be closed, gives billions of taxpayer dollars to the same NGOs that are driving the invasion and expands the executive parole powers used by Biden instead of limiting them. The bill’s author Sen. Murphy put it best when he admitted that, under his bill, “the border never closes.” I think all of that is totally unacceptable when our nation is facing a historic border crisis, which is why I and my Republican colleagues opposed it. Kamala Harris should have instead pushed for a standalone vote on new border agents and scanners. Kamala Harris also brags that, thanks to her efforts, border crossings are currently at 4-year lows. It is worth remembering that almost four years ago, on their first day in office, Biden and Harris issued executive orders that stopped border wall construction and stopped deportations. They then rescinded Trump’s Remain In Mexico policy, allowing every migrant with a dubious asylum claim to enter America while waiting in an years-long case backlog. As a direct result of these actions, America endured consecutive months record-breaking illegal immigration. Only once their Border Act was rejected, and border security consistently polled as a top concern of voters, did Biden and Harris issue orders that give the appearance that they care about illegal border crossings. She cannot take credit for nominally lower border crossing numbers after she spent almost four years holding the border wide open. But the most destructive part of the Kamala Harris border plan is where she says that she wants to give her 8.5+ million illegal aliens an “earned pathway to citizenship,” which means rewarding illegal aliens with amnesty and the right to vote in our next election. Promising amnesty and citizenship will create a gigantic magnet for illegal immigration that will entice people around the world to race across our borders. If there’s a takeaway from this section, it’s that Kamala opened our borders to 8.5+ million illegal aliens, lied about it for almost four years, blamed others when she got caught and now wants to reward those illegals with citizenship.⁩

@JDVance - JD Vance

8) Kamala Harris has said she wants to support veterans and their families. She has completely failed to do so as Vice President: Right from the beginning, Biden and Harris charted a bad course, putting U.S. soldiers in harm's way. In Afghanistan, as the situation turned chaotic in 2021, a lot more could and should have been done to keep our people safe. People on the ground warned Biden and Harris - through a dissent channel cable - that the situation would get chaotic. The administration didn't listen. And so when the time came to move our people out of Kabul, we ended up running the operation out of Kabul's own airport, right in the city. It was chaos, and ISIS terrorists exploited that chaos to murder 13 U.S. service members at Abbey Gate on August 26, 2021. And the thing that gets me is this: Kamala Harris never once bothered to pick up the phone and call those families. Kamala Harris never once supported an investigation into the decisions that led to Abbey Gate. If Kamala Harris cared about veterans, she would have demanded accountability. She didn't. I think our veterans and their families deserve a genuine investigation into what happened at Abbey Gate. That's about accountability, yes, but it's also about making sure it doesn't happen again. The same mistakes that led to our losing people at Abbey Gate were repeated again and again and again. At Tower 22 in Jordan on January 28, 2024, we lost three service members to a drone launched by an Iran-backed militia. Different time, different place, different enemy - but a lot of the same mistakes. By that time, our forces had been under fire in Syria and Iraq dozens, hundreds of times since October 7 - and we weren't shooting back. The situation was chaotic, we weren't in control, it was only a matter of time before our people paid the price. Take your pick of military operations under this administration - from the pier to nowhere in Gaza to the Red Sea operation against Houthi militants, the common thread running through them is our soldiers get thrown into situations where they are sitting ducks, where they very often come to serious harm, with no serious thought given to how we're going to get the other side to stop shooting at us. That absolutely has to stop, and it will stop under President Trump. When Russian forces attacked us in Syria on President Trump's watch, we killed them. When we took on ISIS in the Middle East, we destroyed them. Our goal should never be to send our troops into harm's way as some kind of symbol of resolve. We send our troops in to win. That's how it should be.⁩

Saved - March 16, 2025 at 5:41 PM

@PeteHegseth - Pete Hegseth

Godspeed to our Warriors. Houthi attacks on American ships & aircraft (and our troops!) will not be tolerated; and Iran, their benefactor, is on notice. Freedom of Navigation will be restored. America—under President Donald Trump—will NEVER back down. https://t.co/famlvsEBiJ

Saved - March 16, 2025 at 5:40 PM

@POTUS - President Donald J. Trump

"To all Houthi terrorists, YOUR TIME IS UP..." –President Donald J. Trump https://t.co/P4qwgyDs8c

Saved - June 12, 2025 at 12:13 AM

@SenTomCotton - Tom Cotton

Today @SecDef confirmed that Iran’s terrorist regime is actively working towards a nuclear weapon. For the sake of our national security, the security of our allies, and millions of civilians in the region this cannot be allowed to happen.

Saved - June 13, 2025 at 5:04 AM

@Mike_Pence - Mike Pence

Iran must never be allowed to obtain a usable nuclear weapon. The Mullahs in Tehran refused to dismantle their nuclear program. Now it must be destroyed. Our prayers and unwavering support are with Israeli Forces. America Stands With Israel🇺🇸🇮🇱

Saved - June 13, 2025 at 9:22 AM

@goddeketal - Dr. Simon Goddek

> Israel attacks Iran > Normal Americans: “What the fvck?” > Politicians: “We stand with Israel.” > Every statement reads like it came straight from AIPAC HQ In case you were wondering: yes, you're living in an occupied country. https://t.co/MrjhzKSGys

Saved - June 23, 2025 at 2:22 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
From June 9th until last night, the situation escalated dramatically from the belief that Israel could manage on its own to the US deploying B-2 bombers against Iran. Both the Israelis and the Trump administration misled the Iranians and the American public throughout this process. I believe Iran did not seek war, as they attempted to avoid escalation, even after the killing of Soleimani. However, given the Trump administration's actions, Iran may feel compelled to retaliate, potentially leading to a full-scale regime change war. This is not peace through strength; it feels like war by deception.

@LibertyLockPod - Clint Russell

From June 9th until last night we went from "Israel can handle this on their own" to US B-2's dropping bombs directly on Iran. Every step of the way both the Israelis and the Trump administration lied to both the Iranians and the American people It is quite clear to me that Iran did not want war with America. They talked tough but tried everything not to escalate with us. Including a rather tepid response even after Trump took out Soleimani in 2020. Given the constant escalations from the Trump admin I'd be shocked if Iran doesn't realize they must fight back in order to increase domestic pressure in the US. This likely means shutting down Hormuz and hammering American bases in the region. If US troops are killed this will immediately shift to a full-on regime change war. Likely the plan all along. This isn't peace through strength. It is war by deception. Which happens to be Mossad's motto

Saved - October 1, 2025 at 1:56 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I questioned whether the term "Woke Right" is part of a foreign influence operation by the Israeli Government in my monologue on "The Matt Gaetz Show." I noted that White House insiders criticized Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu for meddling in U.S. politics and using American influencers to promote this term. I also responded to a comment, calling out someone for being vague and suggesting they are a pawn of Netanyahu.

@VishBurra - VISH BURRA 🏴‍☠️

I have to ask, is the astroturfing of the term “Woke Right” a foreign influence operation being peddled by the Israeli Government? I broke down the evidence in my monologue for “The Matt Gaetz Show” on One America News Network tonight with Patrick Casey.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The piece examines the woke right, a vague label that surged after the October 7 Israel-Gaza war to describe a small, vocal online fringe. It focuses on who uses the term and for what purpose rather than defining it. Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL calls it a "generational problem" and a "TikTok problem" as fewer young Americans back Israel. He frames the issue as a broader fringe influence on both sides that fuels antisemitism. JT Lonsdale, Palantir cofounder, discusses the "new woke right" on CNBC, associating it with Carlson, Bannon, and others. Matt Brooks of the Republican Jewish Coalition warns the woke right is existential for Israel and urges MAGA to stay pro-Israel. Netanyahu invokes the term, prompting questions about foreign influence. Patrick Casey argues the term is owned by others and should be used cautiously.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Tonight, I want to focus on an obscure concept that has made its way into political discourse in the recent years. I'm talking about the woke right. What is it? I wish I could actually tell you. The main critique of this term is that it's, in fact, vague, amorphous, and bends to the will of the person who uses it, usually to attack or smear someone as too radical or too right wing in their thoughts or ideas. Lots of ink has been spilled over the last year as to warn readers of the scourge of the woke right and how it's especially popular amongst young people, particularly young men. Niche and obscure academics have used the term sparsely since 2021, though its use really took off after 10/07/2023 when the Israel Gaza conflict reignited. Many people started using the term to describe a very small but very vocal segment of the online right that could be considered anti Semitic. But the term didn't just stay to that small segment. As I had mentioned, the meaning of the term is vague and amorphous, thus the targets of the term also started to resemble nothing close to who this term was originally used to label. So I don't want to focus on what it means or who has been smeared with that label. Instead, I want to focus on who is using it and for what purpose. The main concern after October 7 was that young Americans' opinions and sentiments towards Israel was sinking fast. CEO of the Anti Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt, stated as much in this leaked audio with his donors and board members. Speaker 1: But I also wanna point out that we have a major, major, major generational problem. All the polling I've seen, ADLs polling, ICC's polling, independent polling suggests this is not a left right gap, folks. The issue in The United States support for Israel is not left and right. It is young and old. And the numbers of young people looking to come on this, you know, massacre was justified as shockingly and terrifyingly high. And so we really have a TikTok problem, a Gen Z problem. Speaker 0: A generational problem, not left or right. A TikTok problem, a Gen Z problem. Greenblatt sounds terrified. So, what to do? How does one solve this sentiment issue around Israel when talking about America's younger generation? Well, fast forward a year later, and here's Greenblatt on MSNBC with a new song he's eager to sing. Speaker 2: What I'm focused on, really, are how the fringes, like the woke right, the Tucker Carlsons, the Steve Bannons, the Candace Owens, and the sort of radical left, the Hassan Pikers, and people like Mehdi Hassan, unfortunately. Max Blumenthal have been fomenting antisemitism, blaming this war on the Jews or the Zionists or the neocons. And I think that kind of classic antisemitism, I find very troubling. Speaker 0: Sounds like Greenblatt has found his new crusade. The push to mainstream this term and concept doesn't stop there, of course. Here's JT Lonsdale, cofounder of Palantir, going on CNBC to push the same line during the twelve day war. Speaker 3: I don't understand what this new woke right's doing. I think we've actually shown that the vast majority of the right does not want them to have a nuke and supports that activity. There's a lot of Islamist bot accounts online right now trying to pretend that they're on the right, that they're against doing this, but Speaker 4: They're they're right now. The new what you think what he is describing is the new woke right. I heard. Yeah. Does the new woke right is that is Steve Bannon and Yeah. And Tucker Carlson part of that? Speaker 3: Those guys are part of it, and a bunch of Pakistani accounts online pertaining to be Christians are part of it. Speaker 0: Lonsdale founded Palantir with Alex Karp, the same Alex Karp that bragged about Palantir doing this. Speaker 5: We built PG, which single handedly stopped, the rise of the far right in in in Europe. Speaker 0: Proud of stopping the right wing in Europe? How did that turn out, by the way? Because it looks like a cutscene from a Elder Scrolls video game as we speak. Make sure to thank Alex Karp for hellish scenes like this coming out of Scotland since he's so eager to take credit for stopping the only people who could have prevented this scene from happening. What do you think Palantir intends to do to the right in America, by the way? I shudder to think. It doesn't stop with Lonsdale or Carp either. Matt Brooks, CEO of the Republican Jewish Coalition and allegedly American political organization, has declared war on the woke right because he sees it as an existential threat not to America, but to Israel. Speaker 5: The bigger issue, and this is something that I've spent a lot of time thinking about and I'm to prime minister Netanyahu and others about, is the threat from the woke right is existential. And by that I mean if we don't combat the woke right now and if it follows the trajectory of what happened in the Democratic Party and gets a foothold and ultimately becomes the mainstream of the Republican Party, there is no party and nobody in politics to support Israel. Israel will be alone. Without a strong pro Israel Republican party, there is no support for Israel. If we lose the Republican party, Israel has nobody. Those voices on the woke right have got to know that you if you are MAGA, you are also pro Israel. And if you wanna try and argue that Israel is not an ally and Israel is a liability, well, let me just tell you, you're gonna have to go through the Republican Jewish coalition first. Speaker 0: And rest assured, that concept has made its way all the way to the top of Israel's leadership. Speaker 6: If you're telling me that there's work to be done on Gen Z and across the West, yes. And by the way, it's not only our our job. We are, as your colleague Douglas Murray has said, we're the litmus test for the survival of the West because these people are against the West. They're not for the West, they're against the West. And there's the horseshoe effect of the walk left meeting the walk right and challenging the basic precepts of Western civilization. And I think that has to be challenged not merely by Israel or by me, but by you. And I know that you're doing it, and I wanna commend you for doing it. Speaker 4: Well, we've certainly been challenging the woke right. Speaker 0: Is incredibly important to note that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the only head of government, the only leader of a nation, to use the term woke right unironically in this manner. No other world leader has mentioned or uttered this term. None. Not even President Trump. Netanyahu gives the game away right there. That this is about America's Gen Z. This is about their sentiments towards Israel. And that combating the woke right will determine the West's survival. I want to say that it is highly inappropriate for the leader of a foreign nation to not only comment on the domestic politics of Americans, but then also incite rage and foment anger among our fellow Americans in response to domestic politics he doesn't like. It is not okay for foreign leaders to try and divide Americans for their own political interests. I have to ask, is the astroturfing of the term woke right a foreign influence operation being peddled by the Israeli government? That's exactly what it looks like. I know many countries try to influence our domestic politics China, Russia, and the like. Guess what? They are all labeled as our adversaries and enemies. This is not the behavior we expect of our allies. Some might even say our greatest ally. If Bibi and Israel do not want to be accused of interfering with America's internal politics, then they need to stop doing exactly that. I don't think Israel came up with this woke right concept, but I do think that they cynically co opted it for their national interests and now want to use it to drive a wedge in not just American domestic politics, but particularly to divide up and destroy the MAGA right. This is not the type of behavior an ally of The United States should be engaging in. The only thing that Israel should be concerned with is if it has good relations with the American government, not particular factions within America. And so a word of advice to BB and Israel. Americans know you have a you have big issues to resolve right in your own backyard, and we hope you bring the problems you face to a swift end. But when it comes to American domestic politics, listen to our founding father, Ben Franklin, and just mind your business. Joining me now is the man who wrote a piece for Chronicles magazine declaring the woke right crusade has already failed. He's the writer and host of Restoring Order, Patrick Casey. So what do you think, Patrick? Do I have a case here? Has this term woke right been co opted by the Israeli government, and are there others who have done the same by just co opting it for their own purposes? Speaker 4: Sure. Well, thank you for having me on. I to answer your question, I think that a lot of different people who have have who have, problems with the direction that the right is moving in have gravitated toward this term woke right. First of all, I think that the term is completely ridiculous. I think that, you know, there are some elements of of kind of like the extreme fringe right that are I certainly want nothing to do with, that are, you know, all they do is whine and they say ridiculous things, and, you know, maybe they do really hate Jews, and that's all they wanna talk about. But it's it's worth pointing out that the guy, as far as I can tell, came up with the term or at the very least pioneered it, popularized it. James Lindsay is referring to far more than just like some extreme freaks, the the outer edges of the right. You know, James Lindsay is someone that has made it very clear that no critique of liberalism is to be allowed. That anyone who is critiquing liberalism is therefore guilty of of being part of this this woke right. And the the point that I'm getting at here is that I understand there's some people that either stuff I see on the right that I that I disagree with, people should be very careful about using this term because it applies to a lot more. And in fact, James Lindsay has applied it to Ioram Hazoni, who's an Israeli nationalist. You know, this is saying that he's more loyal to Israel than than America and things like this. So it's when you use a term that someone else has created and basically owns, you're picking up a lot of baggage and you might not be aware of it. So when it comes to Netanyahu, yeah, of course, he he definitely sees that there is declining popularity and support for Israel in America, even even on the right, not just on the left. And so I don't think he really knows any of that. I think someone just told him this is a good term that you should use to talk about people right of center who are critical of Israel. But it's just definitely a term that anyone who regardless of honestly, regardless of of their position on Israel, anyone right of center who's like a real Trump supporter, a real nationalist, real conservative should just not be using whatsoever.

@VishBurra - VISH BURRA 🏴‍☠️

Literally just broke on Breitbart. https://www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2025/08/28/netanyahu-you-cant-be-maga-if-anti-israel/

Exclusive - Netanyahu: You Can’t be 'MAGA' If You’re Anti-Israel Benjamin Netanyahu told Breitbart News that the "woke right" is not only anti-Israel, but anti-American and anti-Trump. breitbart.com

@VishBurra - VISH BURRA 🏴‍☠️

Someone from the WH is listening…

@VishBurra - VISH BURRA 🏴‍☠️

White House insiders SLAM Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu for getting involved in American domestic politics and mustering American influencers to attack Americans using the bizarre term “Woke Right”. https://t.co/TsshaYz8KO

@VishBurra - VISH BURRA 🏴‍☠️

I have to ask, is the astroturfing of the term “Woke Right” a foreign influence operation being peddled by the Israeli Government? I broke down the evidence in my monologue for “The Matt Gaetz Show” on One America News Network tonight with Patrick Casey.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The woke right is an obscure, vague label whose use surged after Oct 7, shifting from a descriptor to a strategic target. The focus is on who uses it and why. Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL says: "the issue in The United States support for Israel is not left and right. It is young and old." He adds: "a TikTok problem, a Gen Z problem," and identifies fringes—“the woke right”—fomenting antisemitism. JT Lonsdale of Palantir calls it "the new woke right" and notes "There’s Islamist bot accounts online" pretending to be on the right. Matt Brooks warns: "If we lose the Republican party, Israel has nobody." Netanyahu is said to be "the only head of government, the only leader of a nation, to use the term woke right unironically in this manner." The host asks, "Is the astroturfing of the term woke right a foreign influence operation being peddled by the Israeli government? That's exactly what it looks like." Patrick Casey says "the woke right crusade has already failed" and that the term should be avoided by right-of-center voices.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Tonight, I want to focus on an obscure concept that has made its way into political discourse in the recent years. I'm talking about the woke right. What is it? I wish I could actually tell you. The main critique of this term is that it's, in fact, vague, amorphous, and bends to the will of the person who uses it, usually to attack or smear someone as too radical or too right wing in their thoughts or ideas. Lots of ink has been spilled over the last year as to warn readers of the scourge of the woke right and how it's especially popular amongst young people, particularly young men. Niche and obscure academics have used the term sparsely since 2021, though its use really took off after 10/07/2023 when the Israel Gaza conflict reignited. Many people started using the term to describe a very small but very vocal segment of the online right that could be considered anti Semitic. But the term didn't just stay to that small segment. As I had mentioned, the meaning of the term is vague and amorphous, thus the targets of the term also started to resemble nothing close to who this term was originally used to label. So I don't want to focus on what it means or who has been smeared with that label. Instead, I want to focus on who is using it and for what purpose. The main concern after October 7 was that young Americans' opinions and sentiments towards Israel was sinking fast. CEO of the Anti Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt, stated as much in this leaked audio with his donors and board members. Speaker 1: But I also wanna point out that we have a major, major, major generational problem. All the polling I've seen, ADLs polling, ICC's polling, independent polling suggests this is not a left right gap, folks. The issue in The United States support for Israel is not left and right. It is young and old. And the numbers of young people looking to come on this, you know, massacre was justified as shockingly and terrifyingly high. And so we really have a TikTok problem, a Gen Z problem. Speaker 0: A generational problem, not left or right. A TikTok problem, a Gen Z problem. Greenblatt sounds terrified. So, what to do? How does one solve this sentiment issue around Israel when talking about America's younger generation? Well, fast forward a year later, and here's Greenblatt on MSNBC with a new song he's eager to sing. Speaker 2: What I'm focused on, really, are how the fringes, like the woke right, the Tucker Carlsons, the Steve Bannons, the Candace Owens, and the sort of radical left, the Hassan Pikers, and people like Mehdi Hassan, unfortunately. Max Blumenthal have been fomenting antisemitism, blaming this war on the Jews or the Zionists or the neocons. And I think that kind of classic antisemitism, I find very troubling. Speaker 0: Sounds like Greenblatt has found his new crusade. The push to mainstream this term and concept doesn't stop there, of course. Here's JT Lonsdale, cofounder of Palantir, going on CNBC to push the same line during the twelve day war. Speaker 3: I don't understand what this new woke right's doing. I think we've actually shown that the vast majority of the right does not want them to have a nuke and supports that activity. There's a lot of Islamist bot accounts online right now trying to pretend that they're on the right, that they're against doing this, but Speaker 4: They're they're right now. The new what you think what he is describing is the new woke right. I heard. Yeah. Does the new woke right is that is Steve Bannon and Yeah. And Tucker Carlson part of that? Speaker 3: Those guys are part of it, and a bunch of Pakistani accounts online pertaining to be Christians are part of it. Speaker 0: Lonsdale founded Palantir with Alex Karp, the same Alex Karp that bragged about Palantir doing this. Speaker 5: We built PG, which single handedly stopped, the rise of the far right in in in Europe. Speaker 0: Proud of stopping the right wing in Europe? How did that turn out, by the way? Because it looks like a cutscene from a Elder Scrolls video game as we speak. Make sure to thank Alex Karp for hellish scenes like this coming out of Scotland since he's so eager to take credit for stopping the only people who could have prevented this scene from happening. What do you think Palantir intends to do to the right in America, by the way? I shudder to think. It doesn't stop with Lonsdale or Carp either. Matt Brooks, CEO of the Republican Jewish Coalition and allegedly American political organization, has declared war on the woke right because he sees it as an existential threat not to America, but to Israel. Speaker 5: The bigger issue, and this is something that I've spent a lot of time thinking about and I'm to prime minister Netanyahu and others about, is the threat from the woke right is existential. And by that I mean if we don't combat the woke right now and if it follows the trajectory of what happened in the Democratic Party and gets a foothold and ultimately becomes the mainstream of the Republican Party, there is no party and nobody in politics to support Israel. Israel will be alone. Without a strong pro Israel Republican party, there is no support for Israel. If we lose the Republican party, Israel has nobody. Those voices on the woke right have got to know that you if you are MAGA, you are also pro Israel. And if you wanna try and argue that Israel is not an ally and Israel is a liability, well, let me just tell you, you're gonna have to go through the Republican Jewish coalition first. Speaker 0: And rest assured, that concept has made its way all the way to the top of Israel's leadership. Speaker 6: If you're telling me that there's work to be done on Gen Z and across the West, yes. And by the way, it's not only our our job. We are, as your colleague Douglas Murray has said, we're the litmus test for the survival of the West because these people are against the West. They're not for the West, they're against the West. And there's the horseshoe effect of the walk left meeting the walk right and challenging the basic precepts of Western civilization. And I think that has to be challenged not merely by Israel or by me, but by you. And I know that you're doing it, and I wanna commend you for doing it. Speaker 4: Well, we've certainly been challenging the woke right. Speaker 0: Is incredibly important to note that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the only head of government, the only leader of a nation, to use the term woke right unironically in this manner. No other world leader has mentioned or uttered this term. None. Not even President Trump. Netanyahu gives the game away right there. That this is about America's Gen Z. This is about their sentiments towards Israel. And that combating the woke right will determine the West's survival. I want to say that it is highly inappropriate for the leader of a foreign nation to not only comment on the domestic politics of Americans, but then also incite rage and foment anger among our fellow Americans in response to domestic politics he doesn't like. It is not okay for foreign leaders to try and divide Americans for their own political interests. I have to ask, is the astroturfing of the term woke right a foreign influence operation being peddled by the Israeli government? That's exactly what it looks like. I know many countries try to influence our domestic politics China, Russia, and the like. Guess what? They are all labeled as our adversaries and enemies. This is not the behavior we expect of our allies. Some might even say our greatest ally. If Bibi and Israel do not want to be accused of interfering with America's internal politics, then they need to stop doing exactly that. I don't think Israel came up with this woke right concept, but I do think that they cynically co opted it for their national interests and now want to use it to drive a wedge in not just American domestic politics, but particularly to divide up and destroy the MAGA right. This is not the type of behavior an ally of The United States should be engaging in. The only thing that Israel should be concerned with is if it has good relations with the American government, not particular factions within America. And so a word of advice to BB and Israel. Americans know you have a you have big issues to resolve right in your own backyard, and we hope you bring the problems you face to a swift end. But when it comes to American domestic politics, listen to our founding father, Ben Franklin, and just mind your business. Joining me now is the man who wrote a piece for Chronicles magazine declaring the woke right crusade has already failed. He's the writer and host of Restoring Order, Patrick Casey. So what do you think, Patrick? Do I have a case here? Has this term woke right been co opted by the Israeli government, and are there others who have done the same by just co opting it for their own purposes? Speaker 4: Sure. Well, thank you for having me on. I to answer your question, I think that a lot of different people who have have who have, problems with the direction that the right is moving in have gravitated toward this term woke right. First of all, I think that the term is completely ridiculous. I think that, you know, there are some elements of of kind of like the extreme fringe right that are I certainly want nothing to do with, that are, you know, all they do is whine and they say ridiculous things, and, you know, maybe they do really hate Jews, and that's all they wanna talk about. But it's it's worth pointing out that the guy, as far as I can tell, came up with the term or at the very least pioneered it, popularized it. James Lindsay is referring to far more than just like some extreme freaks, the the outer edges of the right. You know, James Lindsay is someone that has made it very clear that no critique of liberalism is to be allowed. That anyone who is critiquing liberalism is therefore guilty of of being part of this this woke right. And the the point that I'm getting at here is that I understand there's some people that either stuff I see on the right that I that I disagree with, people should be very careful about using this term because it applies to a lot more. And in fact, James Lindsay has applied it to Ioram Hazoni, who's an Israeli nationalist. You know, this is saying that he's more loyal to Israel than than America and things like this. So it's when you use a term that someone else has created and basically owns, you're picking up a lot of baggage and you might not be aware of it. So when it comes to Netanyahu, yeah, of course, he he definitely sees that there is declining popularity and support for Israel in America, even even on the right, not just on the left. And so I don't think he really knows any of that. I think someone just told him this is a good term that you should use to talk about people right of center who are critical of Israel. But it's just definitely a term that anyone who regardless of honestly, regardless of of their position on Israel, anyone right of center who's like a real Trump supporter, a real nationalist, real conservative should just not be using whatsoever.

@VishBurra - VISH BURRA 🏴‍☠️

@misfitpatriot_ It’s vague and you’re a meathead. That’s how you ended up as Netanyahu’s pawn.

Saved - January 28, 2026 at 10:56 PM

@tedcruz - Ted Cruz

We should be arming the protesters in Iran. NOW. For the Iranian people to overthrow the Ayatollah—a tyrant who routinely chants “death to America”—would make America much, much safer.

@TehranBureau - Tehran Bureau

From trusted source in Tehran: Tell all of your friends [abroad], everyone you know: there is absolutely nothing else we can do here inside Iran. Nothing. They are killing people in such ways, they’ve descended upon people so brutally, they're attacking us in such ways... We’ve lost so many lives that no one dares go out anymore. They shoot directly with bullets. They kill outright. And even after killing, they come and behead you, and do countless other violent things to you. For God’s sake, whatever can be done, you are the ones who can do it. You must not abandon these gatherings. All of you must keep these protests going. We cannot do anything inside Iran. Going out into the streets is literally suicide. It’s not about bravery anymore. It’s madness. You go out and they shoot you point blank. They don’t even ask why you came. They just kill you. There is absolutely no way for us to gather unless we had weapons, unless we were armed like them. Otherwise they have weapons everywhere. There has been so much killing. So much. So whatever is to happen now is up to you. You are the ones who can somehow save us. [Breaks down into a sob. Crying, the caller continues...] When you see what’s happening, when you hear what’s happening… I’ve done so much yelling and choked on so much teargas, my voice is bad. We follow what you're doing. When we see you gather in protest in front of an embassy it brings us joy. It still gives us a lingering hope that we can do something. It's your responsibility now. We did absolutely everything we could. As our fellow Iranians it's your responsibility. You can influence foreign policy. You can tell the world what's happening. The placards you hold. The YouTube videos. Distributing images and video. Gathering in front of embassies. Even if you have just the weekends. Please do something for us on Saturdays and Sundays. Please don't let your gatherings get smaller as the weeks go on. No one will stop you there. No one will kill you. No one is singling you out. We don't even have the freedom to walk about in our own town. We no longer even know who is friend or foe. We don’t even know who we’re speaking to anymore. We no longer know if those recounting what's happening is an enemy. Because if one wrong word slips from our mouths, they turn us into a corpse even before we've had a chance to return home. For God’s sake, I beg of you, don’t abandon these gatherings. Our only hope now is you. What’s now obvious is that America won’t do anything. You’re our only hope. Please tell your friends. You’ve seen how many young people have been killed. So many, so many young people. For the sake of the youth. I know that based on the videos that have reached Iran International [satellite station] since yesterday, now that the internet has come back briefly, they will probably cut the internet again and people will go into silence, the country will go back into a blackout. For God’s sake, please help us. Help us save our country from these people. Stand together so we can live in a flourishing country. For God’s sake, help us. We are in Tehran. What I saw in Tehran, and what they’re saying about the provinces and small towns... They couldn’t fully control Tehran’s gatherings with the forces they had, but in the small towns it was killing after killing. Towns with populations of only 20 or 30 thousand people truly had many deaths. Thousands, hundreds… The things we’ve heard, the things we’ve seen go far beyond mass killing. It was horrific. Truly horrific. I beg you. I beg you. Don’t abandon these gatherings. Please. #Iran #IranMassacre

Saved - February 3, 2026 at 3:07 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I see Andrei Martyanov warn that a U.S. strike on Iran would be catastrophic for American interests. Even 2,000 Tomahawks would have limited effect, given Iran’s size and dispersed assets. Iran will retaliate, and killing leaders could backfire, turning them into martyrs and fueling resistance. The fallout could devastate the region and lash U.S. forces with serious casualties—this isn’t hype, it’s military reality.

@DanielLDavis1 - Daniel Davis Deep Dive

🚨 URGENT WARNING: A U.S. Strike on Iran Would Be CATASTROPHIC for American interests. Andrei Martyanov lays it bare: “If the United States attacks Iran... (There would be) American casualties," and Israel itself will suffer serious losses. Even if the United States were to unleash “2,000 Tomahawks” against Iran, it would have minimal effect, because the country is so vast and important assets spread so wide. Plus, Martyanov warns, Iran will impose serious repercussions; they will not go quietly into the night. Even killing leaders like Khamenei? “He becomes a martyr. And Iranian people... they will fight back.” No one knows Iran's full capabilities—but the fallout could devastate the region and result in serious casualties for U.S. forces. This is not hype; it is military reality. Watch the full clip NOW before escalation spirals → https://open.substack.com/pub/danieldavisdeepdive/p/us-overestimating-our-military-capabilities?r=2sqew7&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true 👉 #IranWar #USIran #AndreiMartyanov #MilitaryReality #MiddleEastCrisis #DanielDavisDeepDive

Video Transcript AI Summary
First speaker: Let me ask you. Regardless of what he thinks, what do you think, militarily speaking, looking at all just the fundamentals, if if The United States attacks Iran in any capacity and they respond back and they hit, we'll say, Al Udeid or any of these other bases that are in the area, the the the naval area at Bahrain, what would happen? What do you think would be the result on the ground? Second speaker: American casualties and then Israel will be destroyed. That's all nearly destroyed. That's pretty much what is gonna happen. And, the issue here is, how they can, basically preserve their US Navy's assets in the area. Obviously, United States has tomahawks, and many people do not understand. United States has about two and a half thousand tomahawks in general. It's the block four and block five, which is still I mean, it's it's a long range. It's about 2,000 kilometers. But the point is for the country like, Iran, 2,000 Tomahawks are nothing. You know? And so, they can still hit some political leadership. But, the moment they begin to fly, there will be a really, really serious repercussions for the liberal and fifth column in, Iran. And after that, we might have only the hardening of the regime if you wish. Because even if they kill Khamenei, okay. So what is gonna happen? Well, he becomes a martyr. And, Iranian people, they're they're they're courageous. I mean, they will fight back.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let me ask you. Regardless of what he thinks, what do you think, militarily speaking, looking at all just the fundamentals, if if The United States attacks Iran in any capacity and they respond back and they hit, we'll say, Al Udeid or any of these other bases that are in the area, the the the naval area at Bahrain, what would happen? What do you think would be the result on the ground? Speaker 1: American casualties and then Israel will be destroyed. That's all nearly destroyed. That's pretty much what is gonna happen. And, the issue here is, how they can, basically preserve their US Navy's assets in the area. Obviously, United States has tomahawks, and many people do not understand. United States has about two and a half thousand tomahawks in general. It's the block four and block five, which is still I mean, it's it's a long range. It's about 2,000 kilometers. But the point is for the country like, Iran, 2,000 Tomahawks are nothing. You know? And so, they can still hit some political leadership. But, the moment they begin to fly, there will be a really, really serious repercussions for the liberal and fifth column in, Iran. And after that, we might have only the hardening of the regime if you wish. Because even if they kill Khamenei, okay. So what is gonna happen? Well, he becomes a martyr. And, Iranian people, they're they're they're courageous. I mean, they will fight back.
Saved - March 1, 2026 at 1:51 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I see the US–Israel strike as aggression during negotiations, with uncertain hit targets and mixed effects. Iran’s IADS stayed intact, they absorbed a first strike, then hit back with missiles and drones. Mossad networks seem dismembered; Iran’s internet is down. A real oil shock risk looms as Hormuz closes and strikes target energy. I suspect Trump aims for a short war, but terms and outcomes remain uncertain.

@ArmchairW - Armchair Warlord

Well. War with Iran it is. I had hoped it would not come to this juncture, but here we are. Some thoughts after the day's fighting.⬇️ 1. As an initial matter, the Trump Administration's actions here are aggression and perfidy. This attack on Iran was unprovoked and occurred during negotiations in which the Iranians were by all indications willing to make significant and lasting concessions to assuage American and Israeli concerns about the peaceful nature of their nuclear program. Soon enough we will regret setting this precedent. 2. US and Israeli forces appear to have achieved tactical surprise by launching a limited decapitation strike first against senior figures in the Iranian regime. The measure of performance of the strike - did they hit what and whom they intended to hit - is currently the subject of... significant debate. The measure of effectiveness of the strike - did it dislocate the Iranian defensive response or cause panic and infighting in the regime - was negative. The Iranian military deliberately cleared what was at the time an airspace crowded with civilian traffic, brought air defenses online, and began launching retaliatory strikes about an hour later. 2A. The Iranians only brought their air defenses online after their airspace was clear of civilian traffic, suggesting they felt confident in their ability to absorb a limited first strike and also indicating that they very much wanted to avoid repeating Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 with wild defensive fire. 3. Iran has thus far had some success penetrating US and Israeli missile defenses on the far side of the Middle East and considerable success smashing up US bases (and local critical infrastructure) in the Gulf and Iraq with their plentiful arsenal of short-range missiles and cruise drones. There's nothing really new and game-changing here from the Twelve Day War, as I pointed out earlier. They have a lot of missiles and drones and seem more than happy to contest with us on throw-weight. 4. As I pointed out earlier, the considerable standoff that US and Israeli aircraft are operating from has wrecked sortie generation. Coalition strikes on Iran throughout the day have been remarkably modest following the initial wave of attacks, likely due to a combination of delay from forced refueling, disruption to remote bases due to Iranian missile attacks, forced use of standoff weapons due to Iranian AD coverage, and Iranian AD attriting incoming salvos. Effects have not been particularly impressive either - I've seen a grand total of two strikes with noticeable secondaries. 4A. As long as the Iranian IADS network remains intact enough to deter Coalition forces from flying "downtown" into Iranian airspace proper, there's very hard limits on the amount of coercive power that can actually be applied to Iran. We only have so many standoff missiles and don't have a Russo-Chinese missile printer to call upon. And I remind the reader that our bigger and stronger adversaries (Russia and China) are very invested in ensuring that IADS network remains intact so as to preserve their ally. 5. There has been no noticeable regime fracture or civil insurrection in Iran. Everyone in the regime seems to have fallen in line immediately and all the demonstrations in Iran through the day have been pro-government. This is to be expected - the Iranians have not only rehearsed this, they've had multiple repetitions of executing it over the past year. 6. Mossad's attack network in Iran seems to be well and truly dismembered - as I suggested it had been earlier. There have been no reports of commando or insurgent activity in Iran over the course of the day. The Iranian internet is shut down at the moment and nobody seems to be posting online via Starlink. 7. Oil shock is a real prospect here. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. The Bab al-Mandeb is likely going to be interdicted soon by the Houthis. Iran has already begun limited strikes on oil and gas infrastructure in the region. Air and missile campaigns are inherently indecisive, and Americans are not going to tolerate a weeks or monthslong campaign that spikes oil to $150+/barrel. 8. Claims are floating around - out of Israel, of course - that this entire affair was a scheme cooked up by Trump and Netanyahu and that the negotiations were always a sham. I suspect that isn't the case, and that Trump was herded into action by Netanyahu threatening to attack unilaterally after the US "coercive task force" was finally fully assembled in the Gulf. So how does this end? Well, Trump has been quite explicit that he's aiming for a short war (probably trying to beat the markets), so I wouldn't be surprised if this is over relatively quickly. On whose terms... well, that's another matter altogether.

View Full Interactive Feed