TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed
@ricwe123 - Richard
How the US organized the coup in Ukraine in 2014 . Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt in full swing..... pt.1 https://t.co/K9hc0KNg2C
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss the role of Klitschko in the government and the need to keep the moderate Democrats united. Speaker 0 believes Klitschko should not join the government, while Speaker 1 agrees and suggests that Klitschko should focus on his political work outside the government. They also mention the importance of Yatsenyuk, who has the necessary experience, and suggest regular communication with him and Tony Book. Speaker 0 suggests setting up a call with Klitschko, but Speaker 1 believes Klitschko may take time to join the meeting with the others. They agree that reaching out to Klitschko directly would help manage the dynamics and allow for faster progress.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What do you think?
Speaker 1: I think we're in play. The The Klitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here, especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister. And you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now. So we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's next phone call we want to set up is exactly the one you made to Yachts.
And I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad he said what he said in response.
Speaker 0: Good. So, I don't think CLEACH should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's a good idea.
Speaker 1: Yes. I mean, I guess You think in terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking In terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate Democrats together. The problem is going to be tiny book and his guys. And I'm sure that's part of what Yanekovich is calculating on all of this.
Speaker 0: I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's he's the guy you know, what he needs is cleech and the Tony Book on the outside, he needs to be talking to them 4 times a week. You know? I I I just think Klitsch going in, he's gonna be at that level Working for Yatsenyuk, it's just not gonna work.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. I think that's I think that's right. Okay. Good.
Well, do you want us to try to set up a call with him as the next step?
Speaker 0: My understanding from that call, but you tell me was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yachts was gonna offer in that context The Three way you know, the 3 plus 1 conversation or 3 plus 2 with you. Is that not how you understood it?
Speaker 1: No. I think I mean, that's what he proposed. But I think just knowing the dynamic that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they've got. He's probably talking to his guys at this point. So I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the 3 and it gives you also a chance to move fast
@TheMilkBarTV - MilkBarTV
How world leaders spoke about Putin before the war in Ukraine. https://t.co/EG8utHIH7H
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two American speakers express trust in Vladimir Putin, with one stating that he found Putin to be straightforward and trustworthy. Another speaker praises Putin for his initial move towards democracy and describes him as very smart. The same speaker also mentions having a good relationship with Putin and states that he kept his word in their agreements. Another speaker acknowledges the challenges faced by the Russian president, including the need for economic restructuring and rebuilding civic society. This speaker believes it is understandable that Putin presents himself as a strong and patriotic leader. Lastly, one speaker expresses confidence in improved cooperation between NATO members and Russia. However, another speaker predicts that Putin will eventually take over all of Ukraine.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is this a man that Americans can trust? I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to, get a sense of his soul.
I wouldn't have invited him to my ranch if I didn't trust him.
Speaker 1: Well, here's Biden 20 years ago praising Vladimir Putin for moving toward democracy. I'm close to amazed by how far Putin seems to have come in making throwing his lot with the West. I don't think anybody since Peter the Great has made such a significant, at least Initial move to the west.
Speaker 2: Mister Putin has got he got all he's very smart.
Speaker 0: Well, you know him better than most people.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think we had a really good blunt relationship.
Speaker 0: Did Putin ever renege on a personal agreement he made to you?
Speaker 2: He did not.
Speaker 0: So behind closed doors, he could be trusted?
Speaker 2: He kept his word in all the deals we made.
Speaker 3: We have to understand the scale of the problems that the president of Russia has to deal with, and they're unlike any of
Speaker 0: the problems that any
Speaker 3: of the problems that any of the rest of us in in the Western world have to deal with. I mean, he's dealing with an economy that needs absolutely fundamental restructuring, civic Society that needs to be rebuilt after the years of Communism and external relations that have a whole series of historical Legacies that have to be overcome. So I don't think it's surprising that he is and presents himself as a strong leader, as a patriotic leader for Russia.
Speaker 0: I am Confident that this new level of cooperation between NATO's members and Russia will now change the world and for the better.
Speaker 2: I got along with him great. But ultimately, he's gonna take over all of Ukraine.
@SprinterFamily - S p r i n t e r
35 years in 40 seconds : How Russia aggressively approached the borders of the NATO bloc https://t.co/K71O8q68KZ
@TedLogan1010 - Ted Theodore Logan
A brief history lesson. The Balfour Declaration, the Rothschilds and the founding of Israel. https://t.co/tBKndFHKe8
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Balfour Declaration, a 100-year-old letter, expressed British support for a Jewish home in Palestine. It was sent by Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild. The letter was addressed to the Rothschild family because they were influential and interested in Zionism. Lord Rothschild's great uncle, Walter, received the letter. The declaration favored the establishment of a national home for Jews in Palestine while protecting the rights of non-Jewish communities. Lord Rothschild considers it a significant moment in Jewish history. The Rothschild family played a dual role as leaders of diaspora Jewry and supporters of pioneer communities in Israel. Lord Rothschild's cousin, Dorothy, played a crucial role in connecting Chaim Weizmann with the British establishment. She educated and trained him on integrating into British society. The archives contain letters that showcase Dorothy's involvement and love for her husband and the Zionist cause.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's 67 words long. It's a 100 years old, and it changed the course of history for the Middle East and the Jewish people. The Balfour Declaration, the expression of the British government support for a Jewish home in Palestine, was sent by British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour to the 2nd lord Rothchild. I'm here in Buckinghamshire at Waddesdon Manor to speak with the 4th lord Rothschild about the Balfour declaration, what it means for Britain, for the Jewish people, and the Rothschild family.
Speaker 1: The foreign office, November 2, 1917. Dear lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of his majesty's government, The following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the cabinet.
Speaker 0: So it's possibly the most famous letter in modern Jewish history, and it begins with 3 words. Dear lord Rothschild, why was it that this letter was sent by the foreign secretary to your great uncle Walter?
Speaker 2: It's an interesting question because he was really interested in ornithology, Although he became interested in Zionism, I think the reason was this, that it was primarily A movement from Eastern Europe, but they didn't clarify who was in charge of that movement. And in addition, it was our fraud in Great Britain. So they felt that The Rothschild family, should be the one to whom it was addressed. And Walter was Lord Rothschild, and he was as an artist. And, those rarely are the background reasons.
Speaker 0: So Walter received the Balfour Declaration, and and I have a copy here. And I wonder if I could possibly ask you to read it for us.
Speaker 2: Yes, indeed. Yep. I'm going to put on my spectacles to make sure I read it Accurately. His majesty's government deal with favor the establishment of Palestine John is a national home for the Jewish people, and we'll use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object. It being clearly understood that nothing should be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non Jewish communities in Palestine All the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration To the knowledge of the Zionist Federation, yours, Arthur Balfour.
Speaker 0: And here it is, the Balfour Oration. What do you feel when you when you see it here?
Speaker 2: I've genuinely felt it's one of the most extraordinary moments In the history of the Jewish people, if you think it took 3000 years, to get to this.
Speaker 0: And, of course, the Rothschild family then as now filled 2 roles. Because it wasn't just a leader of diaspora jury, it also played a very significant role in the early years of the establishment of the pioneer communities in Israel as well. I just wanna revisit for a moment Your cousin Dorothy, who you mentioned, who at a extraordinarily young age, still in her teens, played such a critical role as a go between and a and a facilitator for Chaim Weizmann. Can you say a little bit about that?
Speaker 2: Well, she married my cousin, Jimmy, when she was 17.
Speaker 0: So this is, this is your cousin Dorothy Dolly?
Speaker 2: Yep. Missus Joan Jarastrow.
Speaker 0: And from her teenage Years onwards, she was a major supporter of Israel, wasn't she?
Speaker 2: Major supporter. I mean, she worships her husband Who've been deeply committed, son of Baron Itmar. It was due to him, I think, that she became interested. But once she became interested, she became Passionately interested. After his death, she became even more committed.
She just wanted to carry out His wishes and what he cared deeply about. And you can read letters from her to Weitzman and from Weitzman to her when she was only 17. And what she did, which is crucially important, was to connect Uplightsman with the British establishment.
Speaker 0: I think she also trained him in how to deal. She helped educate her how how It's true that
Speaker 2: age, but she did tell the Weitzman, you know, how to Kind of integrate, had to insert himself into British establishment life which he learned very quickly.
Speaker 0: So I'm here in the Archives where there is a treasure trove of remarkable documents from the time of the Balfour Declaration. We have the correspondence here between the teenage Dorothy and her husband James. And it's really a love story. Here we have detailed letters describing her dealings with Zionist leaders, Her advice and her suggestions regarding the the conferences of the Zionist movement. And here we have a letter that the young Dorothy, still not 20, sent to doctor Chaim Weizmann, where she's talking about the meetings that she's arranged for him.
And as we've heard, she was helpful in in training and preparing him to enter into the highest echelons of British society to advance the cause of the Zionist movement.
@iluminatibot - illuminatibot
Illuminati’s Plan for Three World Wars https://t.co/2D3W0jUHXa
Video Transcript AI Summary
Albert Pike predicted three world wars. The first war was meant to overthrow the czars in Russia and establish atheistic communism. The second war aimed to destroy Nazism and establish a sovereign state of Israel and Palestine. Pike also anticipated a third war, where the leaders of the Islamic world and political Zionism would mutually destroy each other, while other nations would be exhausted by the conflict.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Predicted 3 world wars. The 1st World War, he said, must be brought about and I'm quoting from Albert Pike. The 1st World War must be brought about in order to permit the Illuminati to overthrow the power of the czars in Russia end of making that country a fortress of atheistic communism. The divergences caused by the agents of the Illuminati between the British and German empires, will be used to foment this war. He says, quote, the 2nd World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the fascists and the political Zionists.
This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism must be will be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel and Palestine. He's now thinking about this Third World War, and he says that it will, because by the differences between the political and the leaders of the Islamic world. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam, the Muslim Arabic world, and political Zionism, the state of Israel mutually destroy each other. What it says. Meanwhile, the other nations, once more divided on this issue, will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual, and economic exhaustion.
@RobertKennedyJr - Robert F. Kennedy Jr
Here’s the truth about the war in Ukraine https://t.co/pBf4XkTO21
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the war in Ukraine and claims that Russia tried to settle it on favorable terms. They argue that the US spends a significant amount of money on military contracts and expanding NATO. The speaker criticizes the allocation of funds, stating that the money could have been used to address homelessness. They also mention that the war will require further expenses for rebuilding. The speaker suggests that politicians and defense manufacturers benefit from this situation, referring to it as a money laundering scheme. They question the loan given to Ukraine and its repayment prospects. The speaker highlights the loan conditions imposed, including austerity measures and the sale of government-owned assets to multinational corporations. They express concern over the ownership of these corporations, specifically mentioning BlackRock. The speaker concludes by stating that the strategy of keeping people divided allows those in power to continue their actions unchecked.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's a war that should have never happened. It's a war that Russians tried repeatedly to settle on terms that were very, very beneficial to Ukraine and us. The major thing they wanted was for us to keep NATO out of the Ukraine. The big military contractors and want to add new countries to NATO all the time. Why?
Because then that country has to conform its military purchases and NATO weapon specifications, which means certain companies, North Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Lockheed and get a trapped market. March of 2022, we committed a $113,000,000,000. Just to give you an example, we could have built a home for almost every homeless person in this country. We then committed another 24,000,000,000 since that 2 months ago, and now president Biden's asking for another 60,000,000,000. But the big, big expenses are gonna come after the war when we have to rebuild all the things that we destroy.
Mitch McConnell was asked, and we really afford to set to spend a 113,000,000,000 to Ukraine. He said, don't worry. It's not really going to Ukraine. It's going to American defense manufacturers. So he just admitted it's a money laundering scheme.
And who do you think owns every one of those companies? And BlackRock. So Tim Scott, during the Republican debate, said, don't worry. It's not a gift to Ukraine. It's a loan.
Raise your hand if you think that that loan is ever getting paid back. Yeah. Of course, it's not. So why do they call it a loan? And if they call it a loan, they can impose loan conditions.
And what are the loan conditions that we impose on? Number 1, extreme austerity program. So if you're poor in Ukraine, you're gonna be poor forever. Number 2, most important, Ukraine has and put all of its government owned assets up for sale to multinational corporations, including all of its agricultural land, the biggest single asset in Europe. In Ukraine, there's been a 1000 years of war fought over that land.
It's the richest farmland in the world. It's the breadbasket of Europe. 500,000 kids almost. Ukrainian kids have died to keep that land as part of Ukraine. They almost certainly didn't know about this long condition.
They've already sold 30% of it. The buyers were DuPont, Cargill, and Monsanto. Who do you think owns all of those companies? BlackRock. Yeah.
BlackRock. And then in December, president Biden and gave out the contract to rebuild Ukraine. And who do you think got that contract? And Iraq. So they're doing this right in front of us.
They don't even care that we know anymore because they know and that they can get away with it. And how do they know that? Because they have a strategy. And that strategy is old, old strategy, which is they keep us at war with each other. They keep us hating on each other.
They keep the republicans and democrats fighting each other and black against white and all these divisions that they saw.
@iluminatibot - illuminatibot
Rothschild dynasty and the three world wars https://t.co/8H7DLzncyA
Video Transcript AI Summary
The United Nations is accused of being part of a conspiracy to destroy US sovereignty and enslave Americans under a one-world dictatorship. The masterminds behind this conspiracy control the media and manipulate information to brainwash people into accepting a global government. The Illuminati, financed by the Rothschilds, has been promoting wars and revolutions since the French Revolution. In the US, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the Illuminati's hierarchy. The media is owned and controlled by international bankers. Albert Pike, a leader of the Illuminati, devised a plan for three world wars and revolutions to advance their agenda. The ultimate goal is to create a one-world government and destroy Christianity. Jacob Schiff, sent by the Rothschilds, came to the US to control the money system and manipulate the government. The conspiracy aims to establish a dictatorship led by the United Nations, the CFR, and a few select individuals, while enslaving the rest of humanity.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The question of how and why the United Nations is the crux of the great conspiracy to destroy the sovereignty of the United States and the enslavement of the American people within a UN one world dictatorship is a complete and unknown mystery to the vast majority of the American people. The reason for this unawareness of the frightening danger to our country and to the entire free world World is simple. The masterminds behind this great conspiracy have absolute control of all of our mass communications Nations media, especially television, the radio, the press, and Hollywood. We all know that our state department, the Pentagon and the White House have brazenly proclaimed that they have the right and the power to manage the news, to tell us not the truth, but what they want us to believe. They have seized that power on orders from their masters of the great conspiracy.
And the objective is to brainwash the people into accepting the phony peace bait, to transform the United States into an enslaved unit of the United Nations one world government is that our so called leaders in Washington, who we elected to safe Guard, our nation, and our constitution are the betrayers. And that behind them are a comparatively small group of men whose sole objective is to enslave the whole world of humanity in their satanic Sea plot of 1 world government. Now as a matter of further intelligence, a term used by the FBI. Let me clarify the meaning of the expression. He is a Sea liberal.
The enemy, meaning the one word conspirators, have seized upon that word liberal as a cover up for their activities. It sounds so innocent and so humanitarian to be liberal. Will make sure that the person who calls himself a liberal or is described as a liberal is not in Truth, a red. Now then, this satanic plot was launched back in the 17 States when it first came into existence under the name of the Illuminati. This Illuminati was organized by one Adam Weishaupt, born a Jew, who was converted to Catholicism and became a Catholic priest.
And then at the behest of the then newly organized house of Rothschild, defected and organized the Illuminati. Naturally, the Rothschilds financed that operation. And every war since then, beginning with the French Revolution, has been promoted by the Illuminati operating under various names and guises. In the United States, they set up what they called the Council on Foreign Relations, Simms, commonly referred to as the CFR. And this CFR is actually the Illuminati in the United States and its hierarchy, the masterminds in control of the CFR, to a very States.
Great extent are the descendants of the original Illuminati conspirators. But States, to conceal that fact, most of them changed their original family names to American sounding names. For example, the true name of the Dylans, Clarence and Douglas Dillon, one secretary the US Treasury Department is Lebowski. There is a similar establishment of the Illuminati in England operating under the name of the British Institute of International Affairs. There are similar secret Illuminati organizations in France, Germany, and other nations operating under different names.
But at all times, States. The operations of these organizations were and are masterminded and controlled by the internationalist bankers States who in turn were and are controlled by the Rothschilds. Now just why States. The conspirators choose the word Illuminati for their satanic organization. Weishaupt himself said Set.
The word is derived from Lucifer and means holders of the light. Using the lie that his objective was to bring about a one world government to enable those with mental ability to govern the world and prevent all wars in the future. In short, using the word peace on earth as his bait, perhaps the most vital directive in Weishaupt's plan was to obtain absolute control of the press so that all news and information could be slanted so that the masses could be convinced that a one world government is the only solution to our many and very problems. Now, s How do you know who owns and controls our mass communications media? I'll tell you.
Practically, All the movie lots in Hollywood is owned by the layman's, Coon Loeb and Company, Goldman Sachs and other internationalist bankers. All the national radio and TV channels in the nation are owned and controlled by those same internationalist bankers. In 18/34, the Italian revolutionary leader, Giuseppe Mazzini was selected by the Illuminati to direct their revolutionary program throughout the world. Mazzini had enticed an American general named Albert Pike into the Illuminati. Pike was United by the idea of a one world government.
And, ultimately, he became the head of this Luciferian conspiracy. Between 1859 and 18 71, he, Pike, worked out a military Blueprint for 3 world wars and various revolutions throughout the world, which he considered would forward the conspiracy to its final stage in the 20th century. Long before Marconi invented radio, Scientists in the Illuminati had found the means for Pike and the heads of his councils to communicate secretly. It was the discovery of that secret that enabled intelligence officers to understand how apparently unrelated States. One such as the assassination of an Austrian prince at Sarajevo took place simultaneously throughout the world, which developed into a war or a revolution.
Pike's plan was as simple as it has proved effective. It called for communism, Nazism, political Zionism, and other international movements be organized and used to foment 3 global world wars and at least 2 major revolutions. World War 3 is to be fomented States by using the so called controversies, the agents of the Illuminati operating under whatever new name are now Now stirring up between the political Zionists and the leaders of the Muslim world. That war is to be directed States in such a manner that all of Islam and political Zionism, Israel, will destroy each Serb. While at the same time, the remaining nations once more divided on this issue will be forced to fight themselves into a state of complete exhaustion, physically, mentally, spiritually, and economically.
Now can any thinking person and doubt that the intrigue now going on in the near, middle, and far east is designed to accomplish Statistic objective? Pike himself foretold all this in a statement he made to Mazzini s on August 15, 18, 71, Pike stated that after World War 3 has ended, those who will inspire to undisputed world domination will provoke the greatest social cataclysm the world has ever known. Quoting his own words taken from the letter he wrote to Mazzini and which letter is now catalog in the British Museum in London, England. He said, we shall unleash the nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a great social cataclysm, which in all its horror will show clearly to all nations Shins, the effect of absolute atheism, the origin of savagery and of most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the people forced to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries will exterminate those destroyers of civilization and the multitudes disillusioned with Christianity whose deistic spirits will be from that moment on without direction and leadership and anxious for an ideal, but without where to send its adoration will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer brought finally out into public view, a manifestation which will result from a general reactionary movement, which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time.
Anyway, the ending of the civil war destroyed, temporarily, all chances of the house of Rothschild South to get a clutch on our money system, such as they had acquired in Britain and other nations in Europe. S I say temporarily because the Rothschilds and the masterminds of the conspiracy never quit. So they had to start from scratch, but they lost no time in getting started. Shortly after the civil war, a young immigrant who called himself Jacob h Schiff arrived in New York. Jacob was a young man with a mission for the house of Rothschild.
Jacob was the son of a rabbi born in one of Rothschild's houses in Frankfurt, Germany. After a comparatively brief training period in the Rothschild's London bank, Jacob left for America with instructions to buy into a banking house, which was to be the springboard to acquire control of the money system of the United States. Actually, Jacob came here to carry out 4 specific assignments. States. Number 1, and most important, was to acquire control of America's money system.
States. Number 2, find desirable men who, for a price, would be willing to serve as stooges States for the great conspiracy and promote them into high places in our federal government, our congress, in the US Supreme Court and all federal agencies. Number 3, create Sea. Minority group strife throughout the nations, particularly between whites and blacks. Number 4, create a movement to destroy religion in the United States, but Christianity to be the Chief target.
In the final phases of the conspiracy, the one world government will consist of the king dictator, sir, head of the United Nations, the CFR, and a few billionaires, economists, and scientists who have proved their devotion to the great conspiracy. All others are to be integrated into a vast conglomeration of mongrelized humanity, actually slaves.
@cryptoradish - Crypto Radish
The Mind-Blowing Russian Game that Explains How Small Groups Take Over the World 😱🌎 https://t.co/DLk10UUenH
Video Transcript AI Summary
The game Werewolf involves players with different roles like villagers and werewolves. At night, werewolves choose someone to kill, and in the morning, the villagers discuss who the werewolves might be. Villagers win by killing both werewolves, while werewolves win by killing most villagers. The game was created to show how an uninformed majority can be misled by an informed minority.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You ever heard of a game called Werewolf? No. Everyone gets a piece of paper. It's either got villager written on it, but 2 have the word werewolf. Someone runs the game to make sure no one's cheating.
And they go, okay. It's nighttime. Everyone close your eyes. Werewolves choose someone to kill. And the werewolves go they say, okay.
Everyone close your eyes. It's morning time. Open them again. During the night, Francis was killed. There's then a conversation, and this is where it gets interesting, between all the villagers and the 2 werewolves over who the werewolves are.
Then at the end of the day, the the villagers have to decide who they're gonna kill, and they say, well, we're gonna kill Constantine. It's revealed by the person running the game. I'm afraid Constan was a villager. And the game continues. Mhmm.
The villagers win the game if they kill both werewolves. The werewolves win the game if they kill all but 2 villagers, and the werewolves usually win. The game was invented by a student of sociology in Russia who wanted to prove his thesis that an uninformed majority will always lose a battle of information against an informed minority. So that just shows when you have hidden information, you can completely manipulate a large group of
@iluminatibot - illuminatibot
Rothschild dynasty and the three world wars https://t.co/h8bOrBG8Ht
Video Transcript AI Summary
The United Nations is part of a conspiracy to destroy US sovereignty and enslave Americans. The media is controlled to brainwash people into accepting a one world government. The Illuminati, financed by the Rothschilds, aims to create wars and revolutions to achieve world domination. Plans for World War 3 involve pitting political Zionists against Muslims to exhaust all nations. The ultimate goal is a one world government led by a dictator, with the rest of humanity enslaved. The Rothschilds aim to control the US money system and promote their agents in key positions. They also seek to create racial and religious strife to further their agenda.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The question of how and why the United Nations is the crux of the great conspiracy to destroy the sovereignty of the United States and the enslavement of the American people within a UN one world dictatorship is a complete and unknown mystery to the vast majority of the American people. The reason for this unawareness of the frightening danger to our country and to the entire free world is simple. The masterminds behind this great conspiracy have absolute control of all of our mass communications media, especially television, the radio, the press, and Hollywood. We all know that our state department, the Pentagon, and the White House have brazenly proclaimed that they have the right and the power to manage the news, to tell us not the truth, but what they want us to believe. They have seized that power on orders from their masters of the great conspiracy.
And the objective is to brainwash the people into accepting the phony peace bait to transform the United States into an enslaved unit of the United Nations 1 World Government is that our so called leaders in Washington, who we elected to safe guard our nation and our constitution, are the betrayers. And that behind them are a comparatively small group of men whose sole objective is to enslave the whole world of humanity in their satanic plot of 1 world government. Now as a matter of further intelligence, a term used by the FBI, let me clarify the meaning of the expression, he is a liberal. The enemy, meaning the one word conspirators, have seized upon that word liberal as a cover up for their activities. It sounds so innocent and so humanitarian to be liberal.
Will make sure that the person who calls himself a liberal or is described as a liberal is not in truth a red. Now then, this satanic plot was launched back in the 17 sixties when it first came into existence under the name of the Illuminati. This Illuminati was organized by one Adam Weishaupt, born a Jew, who was converted to Catholicism and became a Catholic priest. And then, at the behest of the then newly organized house of Rothschild, defected and organized the Illuminati. Naturally, the Rothschilds financed that operation.
And every war since then, beginning with the French Revolution, has been promoted by the Illuminati operating under various names and guises. In the United States, they set up what they called the Council on Foreign Relations, commonly referred to as the CFR. And this CFR is actually the Illuminati in the United States and its hierarchy, the masterminds in control of the CFR, to a very great extent, are the descendants of the original Illuminati conspirators. But to conceal that fact, most of them change their original family names to American sounding names. For example, the true name of the Dillons, Clarence and Douglas Dillon, once secretary of the US Treasury Department, is Lipowski.
There is a similar establishment of the Illuminati in England operating under the name of the British Institute of International Affairs. There are similar secret Illuminati organizations in France, Germany, and other nations operating under different names. But at all times, the operations of these organizations were and are masterminded and controlled by the internationalist bankers who in turn were and are controlled by the Rothschilds. Now just why did the conspirators choose the word Illuminati for their satanic organization? Weishaupt himself said that the word is derived from Lucifer and means holders of the light.
Using the lie that his objective was to bring about a one world government to enable those with mental ability to govern the world and prevent all wars in the future. In short, using the word peace on earth as his bait, Perhaps the most vital directive in Weishaupt's plan was to obtain absolute control of the press so that all news and information could be slanted, so that the masses could be convinced that a one world government is the only solution to our many and very problems. Now do you know who owns and controls our mass communications media? I'll tell you. Practically, all the movie lots in Hollywood is owned by the layman's, Coon Loeb and Company, Goldman Sachs, and other internationalist bankers.
All the national radio and TV channels in the nation are owned and controlled by those same internationalist bankers. In 18/34, the Italian revolutionary leader, Giuseppe Mazzini, was selected by the Illuminati to direct their revolutionary program throughout the world. Mazzini had enticed an American general named Albert Pike into the Illuminati. Pike was Luciferian conspiracy. Between 1859 18 71, he, Pike, worked out a military blueprint for 3 world wars and various revolutions throughout the world, which he considered would forward the conspiracy to its final stage in the 20th century.
Long before Marconi invented radio, scientists in the Illuminati had found the means for Pike and the heads of his councils to communicate secretly. It was the discovery of that secret that enabled intelligence officers to understand how apparently unrelated developed into a war or a revolution. Developed into a war or a revolution. Pike's plan was as simple as it has proved effective. It called for communism, Nazism, political Zionism, and other international movements be organized and used to foment 3 global world wars and at least 2 major revolutions.
World War 3 is to be fomented by using the so called controversies, the agents of the Illuminati operating under whatever new name, are now stirring up between the political Zionists and the leaders of the Muslim world. That war is to be directed in such a manner that all of Islam and political Zionism, Israel, will destroy each other while at the same time, the remaining nations once more divided on this issue will be forced to fight themselves into a state of complete exhaustion physically, mentally, spiritually, and economically. Now can any thinking person doubt that the intrigue now going on in the near, middle, and far east is designed to accomplish that satanic objective? Pike himself foretold all this in a statement he made to Mazzini on August 15, 18, 71. Pike stated that after World War 3 has ended, those who will inspire to undisputed world domination will provoke the greatest social cataclysm the world has ever known.
Quoting his own words taken from the letter he wrote to Mazzini and which letter is now catalogued in the British Museum in London, England, he said, we shall unleash the nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a great social cataclysm, which in all its horror will show clearly to all nations the effect of absolute atheism, the origin of savagery, and of most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the people forced to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitudes disillusioned with Christianity whose deistic spirits will be from that moment on without direction and leadership and anxious for an ideal but without knowledge where to send its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer brought finally out into public view, a manifestation which will result from a general reactionary movement, which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time. Anyway, the ending of the civil war destroyed, temporarily, all chances of the house of Rothschild to get a clutch on our money system, such as they had acquired in Britain and other nations in Europe.
I say temporarily because the Rothschilds and the masterminds of the conspiracy never quit. So they had to start from scratch, but they lost no time in getting started. Shortly after the civil war, a young immigrant who called himself Jacob h Schiff arrived in New York. Jacob was a young man with a mission for the house of Rothschild. Jacob was the son of a rabbi born in one of Rothschild's houses in Frankfurt, Germany.
After a comparatively brief training period in the Rothschild's London bank, Jacob left for America with instructions to buy into a banking house, which was to be the springboard to acquire control of the money system of the United States. Actually, Jacob came here to carry out 4 specific assignments. Number 1, and most important, was to acquire control of America's money system. Great for the great conspiracy and promote them into high places in our federal government, our congress, in the US Supreme Court, and all federal agencies. Number 3, create minority group strife throughout the nations, particularly between whites and blacks.
Number 4, create a movement to destroy religion in the United States, but Christianity to be the chief target. In the final phases of the conspiracy, the one world government will consist of the king dictator, head of the United Nations, the CFR, and a few billionaires, economists, and scientists who have proved their devotion to the great conspiracy, all others are to be integrated into a vast conglomeration of mongrelized humanity, actually slaves.
@TaraInExile - Tara In Exile
Living in Russia's really opened my eyes. Don’t buy into all the mainstream media propaganda—there's a lot more to the story than what they tell you. https://t.co/onXJCDLzhR
Video Transcript AI Summary
Living in Russia is a wonderful experience, and the reality differs greatly from American propaganda. Russians welcome Americans. Transportation is accessible, easy, clean, and efficient, with low crime. Food is clean, GMO- and pesticide-free, and costs a third of what it does in America.
Medical care is accessible and affordable, as is education, which sets up a healthy, thriving middle class. 80 to 85% of people in Moscow own their flats or dachas. The speaker visited Saint Petersburg, Vladivostok, and Moscow, and saw a lot of farming in the countryside. Young entrepreneurs at the Saint Petersburg Economic Forum said it is easy to start a business in Russia due to less red tape and reasonable taxes.
These factors allow Russians to thrive, making them happy with their leadership and country, fostering innovation and trade with countries like China, India, and South Africa. The speaker encourages people to think critically, get a tourist visa, and see Russia for themselves.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Many of you have reached out and asked me what it's like to live in Russia. It has been a really wonderful experience. And one thing I really wanted to relay to all of you is how many lies and propaganda we've been told about Russia in America. It is amazing how different it is from what we're being told here in America. Russians, first of all, are very welcoming of Americans and really like them to be there.
I was welcomed with open arms even though I didn't know the language and didn't really know the culture. Also, transportation is accessible, easy, clean, efficient, and there's low crime. Food is clean. There's no GMOs. There's no pesticides, and it's a third of what it costs in America.
There's accessible medical care, which I had to use while I was there, and it was very affordable, as well as education. Now I talked to other Russians who went through the education system there, and it's really a great system, and they can go all the way through university. This sets up a healthy, thriving, middle class, and working university. This sets up a healthy, thriving, middle class, and working class, and that's what you see when you go to Russia. 80 to 85%, for instance, in Moscow of people own their own flats or and or dashes, which are the little houses outside in the country.
I went to Saint Petersburg, Vladivostok, and Moscow. So I got to see a lot of different cities and also in the countryside as well. There's a lot of farming and agricultural starting up. I went to the Saint Petersburg Economic Forum and I met some young entrepreneurs. And they talked about how easy it is right now to start a business in Russia, to cut through the red tape, and the taxes aren't prohibitive.
All of these things are making Russians thrive as a people. And so that's why they're happy with their leadership and happy with their country. And it makes for a lot of innovation and a lot of trade that they're able to do with other neighboring countries like China and India and South Africa. So that said, what I wanna relay to all of you is, you know, find out for yourself. Think critically.
If you don't believe me, get a tourist visa and go to Russia. See for yourself.
@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones
RFK JR. Devastates Military Industrial Complex By Explaining True Reasons Behind Russia / Ukraine War https://t.co/wLDVeOuKtE
@MichelleMaxwell - Michelle Maxwell
Very important history lesson. https://t.co/oNYQsRIQZW
Video Transcript AI Summary
In 1872, Rockefeller eliminated 90% of oil companies, leading to a Supreme Court ruling in 1911 that broke up Standard Oil into 34 companies for violating antitrust laws. Despite this setback, he aimed to dominate the market. Concurrently, he recognized the potential of petrochemicals for pharmaceuticals, viewing natural health as a threat. To gain control, he funded medical schools and hired Flexner to evaluate their curricula. This effort helped establish allopathic medicine, which relies on synthetic substances for treatment, ultimately shaping the foundation of Western medicine.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So in 18/72, Rockefeller bought up, shut down, or bankrupt 90% of the oil companies. Our good old constitution came into place, and in 1911, the Supreme Court found Rockefeller in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and split Standard Oil into 34 independent companies, so they said you can't have the monopoly on this, you're done. You think that changed who he was? No. He promised to bankrupt America.
At that very same time, they were learning how to turn Petro chemicals exactly what he had at his fingertips with the oil into pharmaceuticals. Now, John d Rockefeller's biggest threat was natural health. So what does he do? Being the businessman he is, he donates money to the medical schools because he wants to control. And What do you do when you wanna control someone?
You give them money. And then, he hired a guy by the name of Flexner to study the school's curriculum, to figure out what they were teaching everybody, and to persuade the government to establish allopathic medicine which use the unnatural substances to treat diseases. This is how western medicine was founded.
@iluminatibot - illuminatibot
THE ROTHSCHILDS & THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION https://t.co/1ztU61nSMc
Video Transcript AI Summary
Lev Davinovich Rammstein, a Jewish Marxist, was expelled from Germany and arrived in New York City in 1917. Funded by the Rockefellers and aided by President Wilson, he was sent to Russia to incite revolution. British intelligence discovered connections between Russian leaders like Kerensky and Lenin and German interests as early as 1915. Trotsky, originally named Braunstein, was monitored by U.S. authorities and eventually transported to Russia with Lenin via a sealed train, protected by German officers. The revolutionaries received substantial funding from Western banking interests, including the American International Corporation, which represented major financial figures. Jacob Schiff and Elihu Root contributed millions to support the revolution, leading to the rise of communism and significant global conflict.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A Jewish Marxist sympathizer by the original name of Lev Davinovich Rammstein was living in New York City as of 1917, having been publicly expelled from Germany a few years before. He would be given $10,000 from the Rockefellers and a passport arranged by president Wilson. Lev would be set aboard on the US Christian Afford to set sail for Petrograd, Russia, that he might incite a revolution. Lieutenant colonel John Bain MacLean, known for his ties to Canadian intelligence, would publish in his magazine the following. Originally, the British found through Russian associates that Kerensky, Lenin, and some lesser leaders were practically in German pay as early as 1915, and they uncovered in 1916 the connections with Trotsky living in New York.
From that time, he was closely watched by the bomb squad. In the early part of 1916, a German official sailed into New York. British intelligence officials accompanied him. He, Trotsky, was held up at Halifax, but on their British intelligence instruction, he was passed on with profuse apologies for the unnecessary delay. After much maneuvering, he arrived in a dirty little newspaper office in The Slums, and there he found Trotsky, from whom he bore important instructions.
From June 1916 until they passed him on to the British, the New York bomb squad never lost touch with Trotsky. They discovered that his real name was Braunstein and that he was German, not a Russian. Having arrived in Russia with the help of the US and British, Trotsky would later receive the company of Vladimir Lenin. Lenin, who was in Switzerland, was put aboard a sealed train in order to pass safely through Germany along with his entourage of revolutionaries. 2 German officers would ensure the silent transport made it to Russia safely.
These revolutionaries would, of course, need funding for their operation provided by none other than Western banking interest. In 1915, the American International Corporation was formed to fund the Russian Revolution. Its directors represented the interest of the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, DuPont, Coon, Loeb, Harriman, and the Federal Reserve. They included Frank Vanderlip and George Herbert Walker. Rothschild's man Jacob Schiff would personally deposit 20,000,000 to revolutionaries, and as recorded in the congressional record of September 2, 1919, Elihu Root, lawyer for Kuhn and Loeb, and former secretary of state would deposit another 20,000,000.
Between European and American banking interest, they create the great communist menace of the 20th century for which millions would die in domestic purgings and foreign wars in the years to come.
@RWMaloneMD - Robert W Malone, MD
Last year, Jeffrey Sachs delivered a most important history lesson at the European Union. This is why Ukraine is at war. Ask yourself, who actually is the aggressor in this conflict? https://t.co/8dPkv1EC5b
Video Transcript AI Summary
Putin's intention in the war was to keep NATO, meaning the United States, off Russia's border. After the Soviet Union ended in 1991, NATO agreed not to move eastward, but the US later decided to enlarge NATO eastward to Ukraine and Georgia. Despite Russia's unhappiness, NATO enlargement continued.
In 2008, the US pushed for NATO enlargement to Ukraine and Georgia, leading to protests from Russia. The US then installed missile systems in Poland and Romania. In 2014, the US actively worked to overthrow the Russia-leaning Yanukovych government in Ukraine. Later, Ukraine, supported by the US, refused to enforce the Minsk Two agreement, which would have given autonomy to Russian-speaking regions. In 2022, the US asserted its right to place missile systems anywhere, leading to the war. Putin's initial aim was to negotiate Ukraine's neutrality, but Ukraine withdrew from near-agreement due to US influence, furthering the proxy war.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What was Putin's intention in the war? Not the propaganda that's written about this. Oh, that they failed and he was gonna take over Ukraine. The idea was to keep NATO. And what is NATO?
It's The United States off of Russia's border. No more, no less. When the Soviet Union ended in 1991, and an agreement was made that NATO will not move one inch eastward. Now what happened after 1991, the United States decided there would be no end to eastward enlargement of NATO, and the decision was taken formally in 1994 when president Clinton signed off on NATO enlargement to the East, all the way to Ukraine and into Georgia. So the NATO enlargement, as you know, started in 1999 with Hungary, Poland, and The Czech Republic, and Russia was extremely unhappy about it.
But these were countries still far from the border. So the next round of NATO enlargement came in 02/2004 with the three Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and Slovakia. At this point, Russia was pretty damn upset. So as everybody recalls, in 02/2007, president Putin said, stop. Enough.
And, of course, what that meant was in 02/2008, the United States jammed down Europe's throat enlargement of NATO Ukraine and to Georgia. This is right up against Russia. And Russia protested because if Russia decided to have a military base on the Rio Grande or the Canadian border, not only would The United States freak out, we'd have war within about ten minutes. And a month later, a war broke out. That gets Georgia destroyed.
And starting in 02/2010, the US put in Aegis missile systems in Poland and then in Romania. And Russia doesn't like that. In 02/2010, Viktor Yanukovych was elected on the platform of neutrality. Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. What Russia was negotiating was a twenty five year lease for Sevast Opol naval base.
That's it. Not for Crimea, not for the Donbas, nothing. In 02/2014, the US worked actively to overthrow Yanukovych. Everybody knows the phone call by my Columbia University colleague, Victoria Nuland, and The US Ambassador, Peter Piat. Listen to it.
It's fascinating.
Speaker 1: I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's a good idea. I think Yatz is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience, and, you know, fuck the EU.
Speaker 0: No. Exactly. And I think we've gotta do something to make You don't get better evidence. Then came especially Minsk Two. It said there should be autonomy for the Russian speaking regions in the East Of Ukraine.
It was supported unanimously by the UN Security Council. The United States and Ukraine decided it was not to be enforced. There were many thousands of deaths in the shelling by Ukraine in the Donbas. And one of the issues on the table in December 2021, January '20 '20 '2 was does The United States claim the right to put missile systems in Ukraine? And Blinken told Lavrov in January 2022, the United States reserves the right to put missile systems wherever it wants.
So the war started. What was Putin's intention in the war? It was to force Zelensky to negotiate. Neutrality. And that happened within seven days start of the invasion.
Ukraine walked away unilaterally from a near agreement. Why? Because The United States told them to. The idea was that there would be Ukraine, Romania, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia that would deprive Russia of any international status by blocking the Black Sea. And the American senators who are as nasty and cynical and corrupt as imaginable say this is wonderful expenditure of our money because no Americans are dying.
It's the pure proxy war. And since The US talked the negotiators away from the table, about a million Ukrainians have died or been severely
@VrilNews - Real Vʀɪʟ News ⥥ 🇻🇦
🎥 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗧𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 - 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 (Translated from Russian 🇷🇺) I’ve seen a lot of well-poisoning surrounding Great Tartary, so here’s the story from the “horse’s mouth”! https://t.co/pwWdpFNcQn
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 claims that the name "Russia" comes from " рассеяния," the territory of the "great race" (white people) who voluntarily migrated from other star systems. This area was part of the ancient Slavic-Aryan Empire, also known as Great Tartaria, the largest country in the world, according to the 1771 edition of the British Encyclopedia. Great Tartaria encompassed Western Siberia, Eastern Siberia, and the Far East.
The Slavic-Aryan Empire's population was primarily Slavic, with equal rights for other groups. People identified as "children of Tarkh and Tara," ancient Slavic guardians. Humans arrived on Earth 40,000 years ago via "star gates." The "Ury," highly developed beings from the planet Urai, became teachers, preserving knowledge through "волхвы" (priests).
Slavic tribes were called "Urus" and later differentiated with prefixes like "эт-русские" (enlightened Rus) and "пруссы" (Perun's Rus). After the Ury disappeared, society divided into castes. Tribes adopted names based on leaders (Sarmatians, Scythians). Despite divisions, they remembered the Slavic-Aryan Vedic Empire.
In 1999, a stone slab depicting a 3D map of West Siberia with advanced technologies was discovered. Slavic-Aryan Vedas describe "Vaitmans" and "Vaitmars" for planetary travel. The разрушение of Asgard Iriyskiy in 1530 weakened the empire, leading to бунты in European provinces and the falsification of Russian history.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: А кто такие были славяне? Это варвары? ВАРБАРЫ? Люди, которые говорят непонятные вещи? Это люди второго сорта.
Это почти звери!
Speaker 1: Россия. Название страны Россия возникло от другого слова Россия, которое, в свою очередь, образовалось от названия рассеяния территория, по которой расселялась великая раса, то есть белые народы. Белые народы добровольные переселенцы на Землю с других звездных систем космоса. Впоследствии слово рассеяния перешло в латинский язык рутения и стало переводиться как просто русь. Россинией называлась часть древней Славяно-Арийской империи, в древние времена занимала территорию современного континента Евразия, лежавшую западнее репейских Уральских гор.
Земли восточнее Урала до Тихого океана и далее от Лукоморья до центральной Индии носили имя Земля святорасы страна асов, ас Бог, живущий на Земле, представителей развитых цивилизаций. Аббревиатура раса образовалась при сокращении фразы рода асов страны асов. Свято-раса это четыре великих рода асов: доарийцы, харийцы, расены, святорусы, жившие общино-родовым укладом. Иноземцы называли эту страну по-разному. Одним из последних иноземных имен, известных в Европе до конца 18 века, было Великая Тартария или Могучая Асия древнейшая держава белых людей на азиатской части континента Евразия.
Великая Тартария самая большая страна мира, как о ней говорится в первом издании Британской энциклопедии 1771 года. Тартария громадная страна в северной части Азии, граничащая с Сибилью на севере и западе, которая называется Великая Тартария. Тартары, живущие южнее Московии и Сибири, называются астраханскими, черкасскими и дагестанскими. Живущие на северо-западе от Каспийского моря называются калмыкскими тартарами и занимают территорию между Сибирью и Каспийским морем, узбекскими тартарами и монголами, которые обитают севернее Персии и Индии, и, наконец, тибетскими, живущие на северо-западе от Китая. Энциклопедия Британика, первое издание, том 3, Эдинбург, 1771 г, стр.
887). Как следует из Британской энциклопедии 1771 года, существовала громадная страна Тартария, провинции которой имели разные размеры. Самая большая провинция этой империи называлась Великой Тартарией и охватывала собой земли Западной Сибири, Восточной Сибири и Дальнего Востока. На юго-востоке к ней примыкала Китайская Тартария, просьба не путать с Китаем. На юге от Великой Тартарии была так называемая Независимая Тартария, Средняя Азия.
Тибетская Тартария располагалась на северо-западе от Китая и юго-западе от Китайской Тартарии. На севере Индии находилась Монгольская Тартария современный Пакистан. Узбекская Тартария была зажата между независимой Тартарией на севере, Китайской Тартарией на северо-востоке, Тибетской Тартарии на юго-востоке, Монгольской Тартарии на юге и Персии на юго-западе. В Европе тоже было несколько тартарий: Московия или Московская Тартария, Тартарий Тартария никакого отношения к современным татарам не имеет, точно так, как и Монгольская империя никакого отношения не имеет к современной Монголии. Монгольская Тартария находилась на месте современного Пакистана, в то время как современная Монголия находится на севере современного Китая или между Великой Тартарией и Китайской Тартарией.
Между Монгольской империей 18 века и современной Монголией тысячи километров расстояния, и они лежат по разные стороны от величайшего на Земле гималайского горного массива, и населяли их совершенно разные народы, ничего общего между собой не имеющие. А слово могл могл имеет греческое происхождение и означает великий и никакого отношения к самоназванию какого-либо азиатского племени не имеет. Еще совсем недавно это была часть одного целого единой Славяно-Арийской империи, в средние века в Западной Европе называемой Великой Тартарией. Причиной появления такого количества Тартарии является отпочкование от Славяно-Арийской империи окраинных провинций. Как следствие, ослабление империи в результате нашествия орд Джунгар, которые захватили и полностью разрушили столицу этой империи Асгард Ирийский, ныне город Омск.
В 7038 году о сотворении мира в звездном храме или в 1530 году нашей эры. Но даже и после потери окраинных провинций в конце 18 века Славяно-Арийская империя была самой большой страной мира. Славяно-Арийская империя включала в себя часть юго-востока Европы, Западную Сибирь, Восточную Сибирь, Дальний Восток, значительную часть Северной Америки и многие острова и архипелаги. Во времена Петра I его Великая империя представляла собой территорию Московии или Московской Тартарии, что опять-таки говорит о том, что относительно недавно она сама была провинцией Славяно-Арийской империи, отделение которой произошло во время правления Дмитрия Донского, захватившего абсолютную власть во Владимиро-Суздальском княжестве. До Дмитрия Донского в этом княжестве провинции Славяно Арийской империи абсолютной монархической власти не существовало.
Основным населением Славяно-Арийской империи были славяне, в большей своей части русские. В то же время на ее территории проживали и многие другие народы, имевшие равные права с основным населением. Примерно так, как это обстоит и в современной России. Когда иноземцы спрашивали жителей этой страны о том, кто они, ответом им было: Мы дети Тарха и Тары, брата и сестры, которые были, по представлениям древних славян, хранителями земли Русской. Богиня Тара покровительница природы, ее старший брат Тарх Даждьбог, хранитель древней великой мудрости.
Даждьбог дал представителям расы великой девять книг, содержащих священные Веды. Человек пришел на планету Земля через так называемые Звездные врата энергетические комплексы с использованием гравитационных и пространственно-временных спенсионных систем для перемещения между планетами и звездными системами около 40 000 лет назад. Предки человечества Земли прибыли на нашу планету из разных звездных систем: великой расы великого дракона огненного змея и представителей звездных систем мрачной пустоши Среди переселенцев была относительно немногочисленная группа высокоразвитых гуманоидных существ, очень близких современному человеку, образующих своеобразную касту, которую остальные переселенцы называли уры. Уры представители планеты Урай, ур обжитая благодатная территория. Уры обладали огромными возможностями, лежавшими за гранью воображения большинства из простых людей, не принадлежащих к этой касте.
Уры стали учителями, наставниками всех остальных. Уры обучали и помогали осваивать изначальные технологии, передавали необходимые знания и знания, которые должны будут быть востребованы только через тысячелетия. Уры зашифровали их и передали на сохранение специальной касте хранителей волхвов, которые в нужное время должны были передать сохраненные знания, пронеся их через тысячелетия, сохранив все, что возможно. Волхв священнослужитель, верховный жрец, хранитель древних священных текстов. Для этой цели хранители-волхвы получили два рунических алфавита, каждый из которых использовался волхвами разных уровней посвящения: даарийские и хаарийские письмена.
Даарийские и хаарийские письмена два из четырех видов письменности великой расы: даарийские траги, хаарийские руны, святорусские образы буквицы, руники, черты, резы и расенские молвицы. Память об учителях-урах осталась в словах, например, в слове культура, что означает систему моральных и духовных представлений, которая передавалась урами своим подопечным-русам. Наличие двух каст у древних славян проявлялось в именах, которые им давали соседи. Так большинство азиатских соседей называли жителей Славяно-Арийской империи урусами, объединяя само название этих двух каст в одно целое. Одно время название славянских племен складывалось из добавления к корню рус приставок, отражавших особенности этих племен по отношению к остальным русам, например, эт-русские, прусы.
Приставка эт перед самоназванием русов означает просветленные русы носители высокой культуры, доказательство которой сохранилось на севере Италии в виде надписей на камнях и произведениях искусства. Имя пруссов-славян, означавшее перуновы русы, другое самоназвание венеды. Перуновы русы Перун бог-покровитель всех воинов, защитник земель и рода свято-руссов русичей, белорусов, эстов, литов, латов, платгалов, земгалов, полян и других. Венеды жители Великой Венери, куда переселились роды и племена венедов, соответствуют современной территории Западной Европы. Название воинственных племен западных славян сохранялось в самоназвании территории, ими занимаемой вплоть до 19 века, даже после того, как германские готские племена захватили эту землю в 9-10 веках нашей эры и уничтожили большинство пруссов славян ассимилировав остатки их своей среде и приняв их имя после чего пруссами стали называть одно из германских племен проживавшие на этих землях которое сыграло ключевую роль в объединении германских племен в единое государство в девятнадцатом столетии.
До исчезновения уров все славянские племена имели второе имя урусы. После исчезновения уров функции, выполняемые ими, вынужденно распределились между их подопечными русами. Это привело к формированию нескольких каст: касты волхвов, носителей знаний и традиций, касты профессиональных воинов, защищавших от внешних врагов, каст ремесленников, хлеборобов и скотоводов. Над всеми этими кастами стояла родовая аристократия. Кочевые племена славян-скотоводов стали называть себя скоттами, земледельцев полянами, жителей лесов древлянами.
Позже происходило дальнейшее обособление славянских племен друг от друга, когда спасаясь от голода, возникшего в Сибири во время последнего похолодания, часть славянских родов покинула родину в поисках новых земель для обитания. Ушедшие роды брали в виде самоназвания имена своих вождей князей. Роды, ушедшие с князем Сарматом, стали называть себя сарматами, ушедшие с князем Скифом скифами. Но это не были другие народы, это были все те же славяне, и когда в дальнейшем они по тем или иным причинам возвращались на свою прародину, то вновь становились просто русами. Временем возникли новые славянские племена, новые славянские народы с большими или меньшими отличиями в языке, традициях и представлениях сербы, болгары, македонцы, хорваты, чехи, словены, поляки и многие другие.
Но вне зависимости от этого все эти племена вплоть до средних веков помнили и знали свою Славяно-Арийскую Ведическую Империю, существовавшую несколько десятков тысяч лет. Славяно-Арийская ведическая империя. Древние славяне и арии владели фундаментальными знаниями о материальном и нематериальном мирах. Эти знания назывались Веды славяно-арийские священные предания. В районе Южного Урала около деревни Чандар в 1999 году профессор Чувыров обнаружил каменную плиту, на которую была нанесена рельефная карта Западно-Сибирского региона, выполненная технологиями, неизвестными современной науке.
Подобную карту невозможно создать и сегодня. Кроме естественного ландшафта, на этой трехмерной карте, для создания которой как минимум нужны искусственные спутники, изображены две системы каналов общей протяженностью 12 000 километров шириной по 500 метров, а также 12 плотин шириной 300-500 метров, длиной до 10 километров и глубиной до 3 километров. Недалеко от каналов обозначены ромбовидные площадки. В конце XX века стали доступны славяно-арийские веды. В этих переведенных на современный русский язык уникальных манускриптах говорится о том, что до последнего ледникового периода, явившегося следствием войны между Великой Россинией и Антелонией произошедшей 13 с лишним тысяч лет назад, на большие расстояния планетарного масштаба перемещались посредством Вайтман и Вайтмар, которые могли нести в своем чреве до 144 Вайтман и путешествовали на ближние и дальние планеты.
Так вот загадочные ромбические площадки на трехмерной карте Западной Сибири есть не что иное, как посадочные площадки для этих самых Вайтмар и Вайтман. Последние Вайтмары покинули нашу Мидгард-землю около полутора тысяч лет назад, когда началась Ночь Сварога. Ночь Сварога название темного, тяжелого времени в славянской традиции, когда наша Солнечная система проходит через пространство темных миров, или Кали-юга в арийской или индийской традиции. На каменной плите были и письменные знаки, нанесенные иероглифослоговым письмом, который почему-то сразу отнесли к древнекитайскому языку, что в дальнейшем полностью не подтвердилось. Вбитая нам славяном идея примитивности праславян настолько въелась в мозги российским ученым, что в них даже и не возникла мысль о том, что надписи сделаны славяно-арийскими рунами.
Предполагается, что таких плит было 348, которые все вместе создавали трехмерную карту мира. Другим документом является Книга Велеса, последние записки в которой сделаны новгородскими волхвами в конце 10 века и охватившая более 20 тысяч лет истории славян. В ней также говорится о Великом похолодании (13 019 лето от Великой стужи и 11 008 г. До н. Э.), возникшем вследствие катастрофы, вызванной падением осколков малой луны Фатты в ходе войны между метрополией Великой Россинией и вышедшей из-под родительской опеки провинцией Антланией Атлантия остров в Атлантическом океане, где поселился славянский род Анты.
Впоследствии земля стала называться Антлань, то есть земля антов. Древние греки называли ее Атлантида, жители атланты. Их потомки современной малороссы, украинцы. Украина, то есть окраина земли святорасы. Фата-леля месяц три малых планеты Луны Земли.
Период обращения Фаты древнегреческая Фаэтон 13 дней, Лели ближайший к земле и самый малый из лун 7 дней. Резкое похолодание и изменение климата на территории всей Сибири и Дальнего Востока вынудило огромное число древних славян покинуть метрополию и переселиться на незанятые земли Европы, что привело к значительному ослаблению самой метрополии. Этим и попытались воспользоваться южные соседи аримы, жители Аримии, так в те времена древние расичи называли Древний Китай. Расичи представители из всех родов великой расы. Война была тяжелая и неравная, но тем не менее Великое Расение одержало победу над древним Китаем Аримией.
Это событие произошло 7519 лет назад. Победа была столь значительной и тяжелой, что день сотворения мира в Звездном храме, заключение мирного договора 22 сентября по христианскому календарю наши предки избрали новой поворотной точкой отсчета своей истории. По этому славянскому календарю сейчас лето, год 7519 от сотворения мира в звездном храме. Русская история имеет более семи с половиной тысяч лет новой эры, наступившей после победы в тяжелой войне с Древним Китаем. И символом этой победы стал русский воин, пронзающий копьем змея, известный в настоящее время как Георгий Победоносец.
Древний Китай в прошлом назывался не только Аримией, но также и страной Великого Дракона. Образное название страны Великого Дракона сохранилось за Китаем до сих пор. В середине 11 века по христианскому календарю дочь Ярослава Мудрого, княжна Анна, стала французской королевой. Приехавшая из дикой Киевской Руси, княжна не считала, приехала в просвещенную Европу, и воспринимала Париж как большую деревню, чему есть документальные подтверждения в виде ее писем. Она привезла с собой в глухую провинцию, которой тогда считалась Франция, библиотеку, некоторая часть книг из которой вернулась в Россию только в XIX веке, часть книг из которой вернулась в Россию только в 19 веке, попав в библиотеку Сулакадзаева.
Именно этот человек сделал первый перевод Велесовой книги на современный русский язык, которая представляла собой деревянные дощечки с нанесенным на них руническим письмом. После смерти Сула-Кадзаева его вдова продала большую часть его библиотеки Романовым, после чего никто больше о книгах ничего не слышал. Только маленькая часть из его библиотеки попала в руки других коллекционеров, в том числе и Велесовы книга, с которой Миролюбов в 1942 году сделал фотографии. В этой книге, написанной волхвами, отражена история части славяно-русских племен, покинувших свою родину в Семиречье. Так назывались семь сибирских рек: Ирий, Иртыш, Обь, Енисей, Ангара, Лена, Ишим и Тобол, по-другому Беловодье.
Беловодье или Земля свято расы Ирий белая чистая вода. Содержание Велесовой книги полностью перекликается со славяно-арийскими Ведами и археологическими открытиями последних десятилетий, что полностью отметает возражения истинных историков. Слово история возникло из слияния двух слов из, сторы, я, что означает рассказы из прошлого иудейского народа. Действительно, Велесовы книга к истории иудейского народа не имеет никакого отношения, ибо Велесовы книга отражает прошлые события славян. Получается интересная картина: людей имеют право иметь свое прошлое, свою историю, все другие тоже, а у нас, славян, прошлого не может быть, тем более великого.
И даже фотографии 1942 года объявляются фальшивками, в то время как большинство известных исторических документов, на которых построена современная история, представляют собой только печатные или рукописные копии средних веков. После снятия этих копий все без исключения оригиналы исчезли или сгорев на страх инквизиции, как еретические книги, или погибнув в случайных и не очень пожарах. Почти одновременно сгорели Александрийская, Этрусская в Риме, Афинская, Царьградская, Константинопольская библиотеки. Исчезли библиотеки Ярослава Мудрого и Ивана Грозного. Оригиналы сгорают или исчезают, в то время как столь своевременно снятые с них копии лелейно сохраняются, не объявляются еретическими, и на их основе пишется история цивилизации.
И все это происходит только в средние века, точнее в 15-17 веках в Европе, и этому есть объективные причины. Столица Славяно-Арийской империи город Асгард Ирийский храмовый город был разрушен ордами джунгар в лето 7038 от сотворения мира 1530 г. Н. Э. Этот город гигантских каменных пирамид, город волхвов, ведунов был богатейшей сокровищницей знаний, которые хранились в искусственных подземных пещерах под пирамидами.
Ведуны, владеющие священными преданиями славяно-арийскими Ведами. Он не имел крепостных стен, но очень долгое время никакой враг был не в состоянии приблизиться к этому городу. Город был окружен невидимой энергетической защитой, сквозь которую не могли пройти не то, что вражеские армии, а даже отдельные люди, если они имели грязные помыслы или дурные намерения. С наступлением ночи Сварога это защитное поле постепенно ослабевало в силу объективных причин, и в конце концов черным магам удалось нейтрализовать эту энергетическую защиту буквально перед штурмом города ордами Джунгар, что не позволило высшим волхвам вовремя восстановить это защитное поле. Ворвавшиеся в великолепные храмы грандиозные пирамиды орды уничтожили большинство волхвов, сожгли или уничтожили бесценные хранилища
Speaker 0: древних рукописей
Speaker 1: и книг, принесенных в Асгард Ириский еще из Дарии. К счастью, далеко не все было уничтожено и в этих хранилищах, так как наиболее ценное всегда хранилось в специальных подземных хранилищах, спрятанных глубоко под землей. Даария страна, которая находилась на затонувшем материке в Северном Ледовитом океане в Студеном море Даарийском, в древние времена называлась Арктида, Гиперборея, Северия, Арктагея. После уничтожения храмового города Асгарда Ирийского ордами джунгар при некоторой помощи черных магов, единое пси-поле империи, поддерживаемое высшими волхвами при помощи пирамид, значительно ослабло. Это ослабление особенно сильно проявилось в окраинах провинций империи, в первую очередь в европейских.
В результате правители этих провинций, хотя и носили титулы королей и герцогов, и были назначаемыми наместниками, подняли бунт и объявили себя суверенными, независимыми от власти империи. Империя потеряла былое могущество, которое было еще четыре века назад, когда была предпринята первая попытка окраинных провинций отделиться от метрополий. Только с разрушением Асгарда Ирийского со второй попытки это у них получилось, и в бывших провинциях началось уничтожение любых следов, свидетельствовавших о связи с бывшей метрополией. Благодаря этому стала возможна фальсификация русской истории с приглашением примитивными славянами варягов себе в понижение, появление трехсот лет монголо-татарского ига, которого просто не существовало в природе, так как именно русские славяне и были монголами-тартарами, как называли наших предков жители западноевропейских стран. Уничтожались старые книги, писались новые, откорректированные так,
@MYLUNCHBREAK_ - MY LUNCH BREAK
Breaking the Foundation of History? https://t.co/k31qMZaTfI
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions the mainstream narrative surrounding historical buildings, particularly in Edinburgh, Scotland. They highlight the Caledonian Hotel and the Scott Monument, suggesting their construction timelines and purposes are misrepresented. The speaker doubts the official story of the Scott Monument being solely dedicated to writer Sir Walter Scott, pointing out discrepancies in construction timelines and materials.
The speaker also examines other Edinburgh structures like the museum on The Mound, buildings near the castle, and Balmoral Hotel, questioning the speed and ease of their construction in the 18th and 19th centuries. They point out the repetition of names like "Robert Burns" in Scottish history and architecture, suggesting a hidden significance.
The speaker then shifts focus to other locations, including the Saint Louis Art Museum, where they believe hidden technology from a past civilization is concealed. They also discuss the Trinity Church and the Ames Monument, questioning the logistics of their construction and the official timelines. The speaker shares photos of Boston from the 1800s, highlighting the contrast between the grand buildings and the apparent lack of population and primitive infrastructure. They also present evidence suggesting the United Shoe Machinery Building in Boston predates its officially claimed construction period.
Finally, the speaker analyzes the Frederick's Church in Copenhagen, Denmark, questioning the feasibility of transporting millions of pounds of marble from distant quarries using horses and wagons in the 1700s. They highlight the recurring names associated with the church's design and construction, suggesting a pattern of fabricated narratives. The speaker concludes by pointing out the frequent occurrence of fires in old world buildings, interpreting them as nods to a hidden group.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I was gonna wait until I went back to this incredible location to cover this city again. But there are so many buildings here in this location that we're just gonna start in on this place right now. Welcome back to Edinburgh, Scotland, where we know about the Scotts Monument. We've talked about it a little. But today, we are gonna be going even deeper into the narrative and the buildings surrounding it, including the Caledonian, a five star hotel in Edinburgh, Scotland that holds a narrative that will show the world how childish and beyond immature the mainstream narrative really is.
A narrative that if it was ever trusted in your mind, should be done being trusted after what I show you next. A hotel that had a master architect by the name of John Moore Dick. If you can believe that one, where we have seen these ridiculous names so many times before. In my opinion, they are just total jokes where they were probably laughing while entering that name into the story. And this whole thing was just supposedly constructed in four years.
And, of course, they have to throw the fire narrative right into the story where the hotel was built on top of the stone v shaped station building that had recently been built as a replacement for the previous wooden station, which was, of course, damaged in a fire in June of eighteen ninety. And right next to this building, we have the Scotts Monument that is now a monument that you can't miss while walking around Edinburgh, all supposedly dedicated to a writer, sir Walter Scott, because we just whip these things together for writers nowadays. No. We don't. One of the largest monuments dedicated to a writer in the world, in my personal opinion, based on everything that we've seen, this was not created for a writer.
This was here much longer than we are told, especially when we are told that Scott died in 1832 and four years later, a hundred and eighty eight years ago. They just had so many master architects just hanging around the city that they were able to hold a competition, and the winner drew this up and knocked it out no problem. All for a writer that we only have a painting of. Now we have a massive flaw in the narrative when we see that there is a monument of sir Walter himself, a marble statue fashioned from a single piece of marble. Now the sculptor took six years just to sculpt this little tiny statue, and it's not even the same material or color as the rest of the structure, which is odd in itself.
In my opinion, it was put there by our civilization, yet the entire monument supposedly took eight years. Yet in all of the construction photos, the thing is done as we have seen all over the world. And when we take a look at this photo, you can see the bottom of the photo is showing something in the dirt. Is this thing bigger than we can see under the ground? Let me know what you think in the comments below.
And we have a few more photos that are very interesting with none of it looking like it was brand new at all. Here's another photo from the area where we can clearly see an obelisk and the Edinburgh Castle in the background, which we have gone inside of in episode eight. Now this entire city is insane. If you've gone to Harry Potter land at Universal Studios, you are getting ripped off. All you gotta do is go to Edinburgh for the real thing.
I'm just gonna show you this city on Google Earth for a minute. Alright. So if we go over here, right across the road, we have the museum on The Mound, which we are told has an extensive basement area where we know that these buildings most likely are all connected underground. We have shown this in Wisconsin. And if they're connected in Wisconsin, then they are definitely connected here in Scotland.
Built over 220 ago and completed in just five years, and this is what we're told. Even faster than the Scotts Monument little statue. It's incredible. And the owner of this building is the Bank of Scotland, another bank that gets an old world building. And we continue over here.
We have what looks like a church, but they had so many of these structures that they just called this one a meeting place of the general assembly. And they admit it. It looks like a church, but it's never actually been a church. And now, well, it's called the hub where they hold events. Just a nice place to hold events.
So that's a first for me. I've never seen where they just have so many church looking buildings that they just need to use it for something else. And this one was constructed in just five years, also taking less time than that little statue at Scott's Monument. And the clock was, of course, built by a guy and his son, which we've seen all over the world. The sons of the eighteen hundreds just knew how to get the job done.
These buildings, this city, it is incredible. So right over here, right next to all of this, we have this massive castle where the mainstream narrative now just gets wild. Predating Donkeys Incorporated. Predating the eighteen hundreds masterminds when the story's beginnings are from nine hundred and thirty one years ago, when they know that the queen died there in the year 01/1993. And then they had to wait four hundred and eighteen years to get anything else done when the great hall was finally completed for king James the fourth, where the king had little time to enjoy his new addition because he died two years later.
This is all documented. We have the paperwork on all of this. No. Fifteen sixty six, James the sixth comes around, and we've talked about the reoccurring names. And this is, in my opinion, another example of this with brother in laws that are also named Henry the eighth.
And then we get a 13 old king. When 16 o three rolls around, now the mainstream narrative is very entertaining if you really believe it. It's like a good sitcom. So James the sixth, the 13 old king that we are told about from four hundred years ago, born in a castle and loved witchcraft. So we can see how close this all is to the Scotts Monument.
And right down the street, we just have palace after palace after palace. Have we found a place that is a better example of the old world that's possibly taking over my number one spot over Budapest? This place is incredible. Located at 1 Prince's Street, we have the Balmoral or originally the North British Station Hotel, a 167 room palace hotel where they needed another competition to knock out another palace. Can you believe this?
They had so many master architects in the eighteen hundreds while people were riding around on donkeys, saddling up to ride around town with wagons attached to the back. They hold these competitions to construct massive palaces that last forever. Palaces that you don't see being constructed today in any of our towns, yet they were just supposedly throwing them together all over the place, over and over and over, built in just six years from 1896 to nineteen o two. So the exact same amount of time that it took to build the statue over at Scott's Monument. I definitely wanna stay here in this hotel one day in the near future.
And if I do, I'll make sure to share all about it. I wanna see the inside and hopefully take a tour and see if these places have a basement. Alright. And then we're gonna zoom out on Google Earth and see that they have multiple golf courses. Now I know this is where we are told that golf originated in Scotland, but we also know that golf courses cover a lot of land.
We've seen multiple times how golf courses are most likely covering something up from the old world, like we have shown in our Balboa Park episodes, episode 55 and episode 56, as well as episode 33. There's something interesting going on here for sure, and we are just getting started today. Now we showed the obelisk, which is located at Kelton Hill, right next to everything that we've shown today. And this is when we get the connection, where we get the Robert Burns Memorial, where there is a life-sized statue of Burns himself. Burns himself.
Burns himself? Really? Is this not another fire narrative throwing it right into his name like we've seen with f l Ames or Flames. And then the monument is, of course, no longer publicly accessible. And we all know this story revolves around Robert Burns, yet the name Robert is thrown in a few more times just to make sure that the clue has been given.
When we see Robert Ferguson and Robert Louis Stevenson, what are the odds that we get, like, five people's names in a short story, yet three of the five names are the exact same name over and over all over the world. In my opinion, that is not possible that this would happen over and over and over. There is without a doubt in my mind something to these repeating names. And what is with all these dates of construction? I thought we were told that everything in Europe was built hundreds of years ago.
That is the narrative that we are told. Yet these is construction dates, all in the '17 and eighteen hundreds, are all at the exact same time as all of the construction that is going on over in The USA. Besides for this massive castle that had a story about a 13 old baby king that sounds a lot like a tale if you ask me. It's very interesting that we get palaces in Europe all over Edinburgh that looks so much older than the buildings in The USA and so many more of them in such a confined area, literally walking distances, yet they are supposedly built at the exact same time as the ones in The USA like we've been told today. So let's just keep this in mind as we continue.
So then we go over to the assembly rooms located on 54 George Street, also in Edinburgh. And it's just building after building in this city where they tell us that the building was designed by a guy named John Henderson, and this guy won a competition in 1781. So we have another contest between all of the master architects of the seventeen hundreds. Not only that, but we are also told that Henderson died before the building was done, which we have also seen over and over and over. And you can't leave the fire narrative out of it when they extend the building in 1818, and William Byrne is chosen.
So they didn't burn this one down, but they made sure to throw a Byrne in there. And, of course, the government has taken over this building as well. And I'm just gonna show you all another example of this so that you understand what I'm talking about. And you know it's not just a one off. When we click on a random castle in Delmony, Scotland, and they throw this sentence in here, which overlook the grazings around the mouth of the cockle burn.
Or we go over to the Butte House, the official residence of the first minister of Scotland, where in the middle of this AI generated story, in my opinion, of course, They throw in this hotel switch up where Ullman died in 1826, but the hotel continued to operate under the new ownership of his widow, missus Grace Oman, where her maiden name is, you guessed it, Burns, the Delmony House, where they have commissioned Robert Adam to design a new house. And in 1788, Robert Byrne helped out. They throw this in. We're the son of the third earl, repeating names, and further plans were commissioned in eighteen o five with two more Williams and another Byrne. So we get Robert and William Byrne and two Williams, a third Earl, and a fourth Earl.
Oh, and, of course, another William William Wilkins down here. And you can't forget about Robert Adam and Robert Byrne as well. And this is all one paragraph like we have seen all over the world with these buildings narratives. I'm surprised they didn't throw a fifth Earl in there just for fun. And the interior section, that section holds some names for everyone if you'd like to find those in there yourself.
And let's have some fun today. Let's show how insane this all really is. When we stay in Scotland for all of this, we're still in Edinburgh. We have the Kirk Of The Canongate, wherein 1863, fire damaged the church and probably destroyed the Canongate's records. Probably.
Maybe. But the mainstream narrative is forever unsure when we know that they probably still have these records, and we are probably not being shown these records. We can even go to the Craig House located at Craig House Road, also in Edinburgh, where the original house, we are told, burned down in a fire in 1544 on the dot. They have all of the documents for that. No.
The Cuthbert's Church, Edinburgh, which I'm gonna tie this whole thing back in, where it is located right next to the hotel that we talked about at the start of this episode, the Caledonian. And we know that that hotel held a fire story in 1890. Well, Saint Cuthbert's Church had some conflicts, we are told, where there was a fire set to the church in 1573. And not only did they have this fire, we are also told that in 1689, the church was damaged again by a cannon fire from the castle. Now I was really under the impression that the narrative was that in Europe, these buildings were all constructed in the fifteen hundreds or earlier.
So it's really interesting to see that they were also, so we are told, being thrown together at the exact same time as the ones in The USA. Yet they are all so incredible and also close to each other. Whereas in The USA, they are spread out across all the states. So here we have the drum, which we are told had previous houses on the exact same site. You are all free to think what you like as always, but the repetition is overwhelming in my opinion.
Once you see the truth, there is no going back. So here we go. In 1584, he commissioned the Mason architect to build a new house. The house was built in one year with it being damaged by fire some years later and again in 1629. But, of course, we are told that it was rebuilt each and every time.
Hundreds of years ago, no problem at all. I emailed the Highclere Castle located in Hampshire, England, and I like to ask these buildings directly what their history is, especially when the narrative doesn't give you exact dates of construction. So here's what happened. I said, hi. I am doing a project and just need to know what year did the construction start and end to actually build this castle?
The second question, who was the architect? Third, which construction company was used? Now let's get some answers. They replied with, good morning. Thank you for your email.
May I firstly ask what the project is? So they obviously know that I'm onto them, or else they would just simply answer the questions. They also say, you might find this blog entry helpful for your questions. So they're directing me away on some treasure hunt. So I redirect it back to them.
I say, I've come across that information before but was unsure of the exact start and completion date of the construction for this castle. I say, can't seem to get a date anywhere, which seems odd. They reply with, thank you, but, again, Highclere is a private home. What is your talk about? So they cannot answer these simple questions.
And this is when we press harder because we know, because they have zero documented evidence proving exactly when this castle was built, because it was built by a previous civilization, and they are occupying their work. So I tell them that I'm doing a project about castles and buildings that have incredible architecture. So they reply, it was first built in July, which, remember, is one thousand two hundred and seventy four years ago. This is before the Saint Mark's Basilica, which we were told was built in four years, in the year August. So about one hundred years before that, before people even knew how to make paper, this individual truly believes that this castle was constructed.
No problem at all. So I press harder because we're gonna prove that this is all nonsense and that the castle itself has zero clue about the construction of its own building. I reply saying, okay. So construction began in July, one thousand two hundred and seventy four years ago. That is incredible.
And do you know when the original castle was completed then? And this is when a new person begins writing me, and they are clearly unhappy about what we have exposed. Thank you for getting in touch. Yes. There has been a house, which is actually a castle, not a house.
So a castle on this site since then in various forms and rebuilds. Though I'm afraid that I'm not too sure when it was officially finished. So there we have it. They do not know when the construction dates are. And you can tell that they did not wanna expose this because the next paragraph, they are basically threatening me, saying that if I make a video and wish to use any images, then I have to get in contact to discuss the copyrights with their legal team.
So we're just gonna use Google Earth for this one since they were so kind. And I then had to reply saying, wow. Okay. So you guys have no idea about your own construction dates. Interesting.
We have a lot of awesome stuff to go through today, including finding a building's photos from before the construction date. So, guys, so I said in episode 45 that I was going to cover this Saint Louis Art Museum. So let's get into it right now. Let's go inside of a building that was built by a civilization before cowboys and Indians. A civilization that had incredible tools that we can only dream of today that was able to construct massive cathedrals all over the world.
Let's go inside their building and fully understand that they constructed this building. And I think that it's time that everyone knows that these incredible buildings were not built by our timeline, and our narrative is lying. When they say that people that were uneducated were able to build these insane projects in less than five years, all during the exact same time for some random fare, and the buildings were so worthless that they could just knock them all down right after, which is the complete opposite of the truth. They are attempting to degrade this incredible construction and pretend like it was so easy, yet our civilization can't even build a sidewalk that lasts for twenty years. For anyone on the fence or anyone new to this topic, get ready to have your mind blown and see what the previous civilization was all about.
So let's just go right into the basement. I don't even wanna wait around. We have what they call the stone sea, where right here in the narrative, as a side note, they say the artist fabricated 25 arches, each measuring 10 feet high. He fabricated them? What a bizarre choice of words for a supposed construction process.
This is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen in my life. It's literally just sitting in this weird, confined area that nobody can even really see anymore because they have built this new part of the building around it, hiding it from everyone. And they even have the blinds pulled down inside, so you wouldn't even notice them if you didn't know what you were looking for. It's weird. It almost looks to me like these are charged magnets pulling an energy from the earth.
So let's continue with the narrative, where the supposed artist of these stones says that he was really trying to get underneath the skin of this place, to look beneath the surface of the site to what's there. The courtyard is being used in effect as a window into the ground. There is strange going on here for sure. He continues on in the very next paragraph to say that bedrock isn't this dead static material, but it is something that is alive and moving. He said he wanted to reveal some of that fluidity that is in the ground.
Now in my opinion, Gladstone was briefed on this technology and some of the things that it does and was pinned as the artist. If this is true, that these are pulling an energy from the earth right here in Saint Louis, then we are just getting started with finding out what the past civilization was capable of and what technology they were really in possession of. The situation that these things are in, these things are 100% still operational. They still work, and I'm going to prove this soon. And this is why they have boxed this modern structure around them so that nobody will even really notice that they are there.
They are clearly not just art. They have a purpose, and they are the past civilization's technology. There is an energy in Saint Louis that previous civilization knew about, and I believe that they still know about it today. So this is when Gladworthy admits that these are technology where the tight space compresses the sculpture and gives it tremendous energy. So let's get this straight.
They are still using these and attempting to hide it from everyone by blocking it off with this new cafeteria. Incredible. I think the fact that they have hidden this from everyone with a brand new cafeteria is very telling. There isn't even that many people inside the building for it to need a cafeteria. It's very strange.
Now we have the Trinity Church, which is incredible and clearly from the previous civilization, but I wanna go deeper than just looking at this church. I wanna look into the guy that supposedly drew it up, Henry Hobson Richardson. And here we are given a partial list of buildings where they tag this character as the creator, and it gets really weird when we go and click on this one, the Ames Monument. Look at how many massive buildings he was just knocking out in no time in the exact same time frame, all on the East Coast Of The United States Of America. And then all of a sudden, there is a slip up.
He is pinned with something in Wyoming at the exact same time. And what do we have here? A pyramid, of course. And let's see where this thing is located because this is where things get very strange. Let's all take a look at this thing together using our knowledge on the topic, using common sense and facts, remembering what the AI, ChatGPT, has told us about logistics.
Here we go. Remember, he was not even close to Wyoming in 1878, 1879, or 1880. He was in Massachusetts building the Sever Hall in 1878, building the Oaks Ames Memorial Hall in 1879 to 1881. So he knocked that one out with ease in just two years. It's very simple stuff in the eighteen hundreds when today, this project would never be completed in less than twenty four months.
We all know this. Oh, and how can I forget to mention that Sever Hall was also built in less than twenty four months? Insane. He was also off building the rectory for Trinity Church in 1879 to 1880. So this one took less than twelve months.
This isn't possible at this point, and we all know this. It's not even close to possible, actually. But because this is what they're telling us, let's keep going. He was also building the f l Ames Gate Lodge in 1880, which also wrapped up in less than twelve months. I think this guy deserves a statue and a holiday.
This is incredible and a total lie. Stony Brook Gatehouse in the same year of 1880 took a solid year to complete, which is probably the only one that would make sense that it was built in a year if he had no other projects going on at the same time, but he did. Thomas Crane Public Library, also in 1880, built in less than a year. Very easily since he, of course, had the supercharged horses and wagons, the twin turbo stallions. And he also had time to knock out houses for people, the doctor John Bryant house in 1880, and there's no photo of this place.
But here he was in New York as well, building the Albany City Hall in New York in 1880. And this one took a lot longer and was a struggle, taking a whole three years to build. How pathetic in the eighteen hundreds. No wonder we don't get a day off for work for this guy. Oh, now I know why it took him so long to get this thing done in 1880.
The building was destroyed by a fire. So wait. Oh, so they did get it done in less than a year originally, but the fire destroyed the whole thing. And a new design by Richardson was commissioned, of course. The cornerstone was laid by the local Wait.
Sonic. Oh, did I say that? Fraternity in 1881. So they got this whole building all cleaned up and out of the way so fast in 1880 that they were ready to lay down the cornerstone in 1881. All the plans were ready to go.
Very simple and easy a hundred and forty years ago. The building was completed and opened in less than twenty four months. Winter was not an issue, of course. So, yeah, just knocking out massive buildings very easily. And, of course, we get this fire story in there, which we all know what that is by now.
If you are new here, you will enjoy learning about the fires. It's a clear giveaway that the building is from the old world, a nod to their group. Right in the middle of all these incredible buildings that he has thrown together at rapid speeds, construction that we have never seen in the history of our lifetimes. In 1879, I guess he had some spare time to get out into the middle of Wyoming in the eighteen hundreds to build a random pyramid, which was built to last forever. This is not logistically possible in itself, let alone with all these other buildings being built at the same time, But let's keep going.
We have more reoccurring names, which we all know about at this point. Oh, and did I mention we have a photo of this thing from 05/06/1869, which is eleven years before it was said to be constructed, and they state that it was built by the Union Pacific Railroad. Yeah. That couldn't be any more contradicting. How is that acceptable?
I personally could never look at this kind of information and fully trust the mainstream history ever again. It honestly is fairy tale stuff for adults at this point. Now I found some really cool pictures that I've been waiting to share with you all from the eighteen hundreds, and they are very strange. They are so out of place and just totally looks like our new civilization is just completely lost in the photos. This one is from Boston on 88 Commonwealth Avenue.
At some point in between 1890 and 1899, you have dirt roads. You have these people occupying these buildings that they have zero clue where it came from. And here, we have a few photos of Boston in 1890. And where is everybody? I thought we were told that Henry Richardson was off knocking out massive structures for decades before this.
Looking and sounding a little more strange now? We have all of these incredible buildings and no people. Why would you need all of these buildings for such a small population? You wouldn't. The previous civilization was here before.
They constructed all of these buildings, and they needed every single one of them. Here in Boston from the sky, it's obviously a drawing and not real from 1899, but look how the city is clearly laid out. It even has land that is perfectly formed right on the water. Here we have the Boston Public Library with dirt roads. And, of course, it's still here today, looking better than ever, exactly like our buildings that we build today.
Oh, no. Not like our buildings today. In fact, nothing like them. And then I went on to the historic New England website, and they have a page called Old Boston, which is pretty telling in itself. And the description here says, these are five images showing the development of Beacon Hill from drawings by J.
H. Smith made on the spot in 1811 and 1812. The guy is depicting horses and wagons with nothing around and a huge mound that looks to me like they've dug this massive structure out from underneath the dirt. And this is one of the strangest pictures for me. It's from 1840 in Boston where the population was only 93,000 people.
And right before this photo in 1839, what do you know? Boston's lunatic asylum was established. Check out episode 13 if you're interested in that topic. Very interesting stuff. And people look so out of place, and they look like farmers.
Nothing against farmers, but they're in a palace with dirt roads and horses. I'm not sure that I've seen many stranger depictions of the past in this one. If we zoom in on the massive building with incredible columns, we can see that it is the Boston Insurance Office. Well, we also know that this is from State Street, Boston. So let's have some fun and go even deeper.
We have the four columns exactly like the depiction from 1840. But can anyone see what is missing from the 1872 photo? Only thirty two years later, something is missing. How about the entire bottom portion of this building? It's completely covered up, and the top of the building has also changed.
So someone went in here and did something to these buildings and this area between 1840 and 1872. In 1862, we get the Boston Educational Commission to make sure everyone is being told what to think. And here we have the National Theater in Boston, where in 1852, the theater burned down, but they rebuilt it, thankfully. So then eleven years later, it could just be destroyed by another fire, And we all know about the fires, a great nod that this is an old world building. So we have this picture of State Street, and then we have an actual photo of the same street sixty years later in the year 1900.
And everyone is still riding around on horses and wagons. This is another photo of State Street in Boston from 1850 where there aren't any people on the street. I think it's very important to share these photos so that everyone can see them. They're not easy to find anymore, which is interesting in itself. And in my opinion, these fully prove that we are correct.
These photos are displaying a civilization that was so technologically weak where they were riding around next to massive palace buildings looking like, oh, I don't know, that they might be in the wrong timeline. And here is the same road with zero people again from June of eighteen seventy five. And it gets even weirder when we see this photo from 1898, twenty three years later, where they are digging up the dirt road with their incredible technology of shovels and wheelbarrows. And what is really going on here? Are they tearing apart the previous civilization's road that was under all this dirt hiding?
These are massive and no ordinary brick. Comment below what you think this is. I think this is a destruction process, but would love to hear your ideas. And here we have this US post office building, which was the first post office building in the city of Boston to be owned by the United States federal government. They knocked this one down to build the John w McCormick post office and courthouse, and this is where I found that they are fully lying to us.
Remember in the beginning of this episode when I said I found something massive? Are you ready to see what I found? Here we go. We are told that the John w McCormick post office and courthouse was constructed between 1931 and 1933, but I have found a massive flaw in their story. And the flaw is that this building was not always called the John W.
McCormick post office and courthouse, and they have changed the name of it so that we would not be able to find it in the archives. I found out that this building was actually called the United Shoe Machinery Building. And I think we're becoming a serious issue for the mainstream history because I found the United Shoe Machinery building in a photo from 1930, and that building is done. We were told that they built it in 1931 to 1933, and I didn't just find one photo. I found a lot of them.
And this is incredible because this proves that we just need to go find what the building's name was before they say that they founded it, and it will then appear in the photos that predate the mainstream timeline. These buildings are older than we are told, and I think we found something massive today. And not only did they change the name of the building, but they have also changed the name of the street with it being located at 50 High Street. And now the building has that street address erased from the side. So there's a lot more on the way.
So if you like this kind of stuff, hit that subscribe button. Does this not look like the top of a massive building or what? This thing looks like it could be so much bigger underground than we can see. This is the Fredericks Church or otherwise known as the Marble Church. And why would this thing be called the Marble Church?
Well, because pretty much the entire thing is made of pure marble, including the exterior facade and much of the interior. Located in Copenhagen, Denmark, the foundation stone was set by King Frederick the fifth on 10/31/1749. He didn't build it, and they didn't give us a construction company or tell us how many horses brought the materials from the mysterious land. And, of course, our architect is dead again five years after we get the project started. And I'll get back to this guy later in this episode.
So who can step in and finish this marble project in the seventeen hundreds? Could anyone? Oh, of course, they'll find somebody because everybody was born with this in their DNA in the '17 and eighteen hundreds. But they went home to suffer in their log cabins in the winters for some reason, but we were never supposed to question that. So the project was taken over by Andreas Fredrick Krueger, who looks a lot like William Strickland and the Austin Powers guy from episode 40.
Just add some glasses. He can Uber his way over to America with Christopher Columbus on the Santa Marina. Side note that these are not real pictures. They are paintings, in my opinion, created by the AI. Are we all ready to find some incredible stuff today and see what is on the front of this building?
Let's do it. Now can we zoom in on this map? Can we all see what is located right next to this marble palace? An incredible Star Fort. This entire area is very interesting.
Very clearly, a city where the past civilization was thriving, And so many things look burned. It's very strange. Alright. Now let's go check out this area on Google Earth. I wanna show you all the surrounding area and how cool this Star Fort really looks and these buildings that are, in my opinion, connected to the Frederick's church.
I'm sure that all of this stuff is connected through tunnels. We have shown this in episode 42. Now let's go check out the Frederick's church, and let's see what we have here right on the front of their church showing us that this was linked to everything that we have talked about, linked to Grand Tartaria. The griffin was their symbol. It was right on their flag.
And then Russia's flag shows the man on the horse trampling and stabbing the griffin as if to say that they have taken over the Tartarian empire. And this current civilization stole all of their buildings and is claiming them as their own to us. And these buildings were the past civilizations work. We have found the Griffin symbol on buildings all over the world. This technology was worldwide.
This structure is massive and looks like it could be four times the size underground. This is incredible. I'm gonna do my best to absolutely blow your mind right now. Here we go. So this structure is made of pure marble in the seventeen hundreds, and we all know about the construction process and how they need horses and wagons to pull this marble from somewhere to get it to the site.
The marble is not just sitting there on the site ready for them to put it into place. They have to actually get it there, and this is something that we have talked about a lot. And it's worth noting again because I asked the AI chat GPT how many pounds of marble was used in this project to build the Frederick's Church in the seventeen hundreds. A time period where people wrote letters with feathers. A time period before cars, planes, and trains, and light bulbs, and the rest.
And the answer was shocking and completely destroys any possibility that this narrative could be true. The size of the church, the marble church, is a sizable structure with a large dome, and its exterior and interior are extensively clad in marble. It's likely that many thousands of tons of marble were used in its construction, and that's not even close to it. Wait for it. Marble has an approximate density of around 2.7 grams per cubic centimeter or 2,700 kilograms per cubic meter.
This means that one cubic meter of marble weighs approximately 2.7 metric tons. With these considerations, the amount of marble used in pounds could be in the range of several millions of pounds. Are you kidding me? Do you know how long it would take to move several millions of pounds of marble in the seventeen hundreds? Who was responsible for this?
Why is this not even close to mentioned? So in order to fully understand this, we need to know where this marble is coming from. If it's, like, 20 feet away, then I'll be quiet, but it better be 20 feet away. Here we go. The marble used in the construction of the marble church in Copenhagen, Denmark primarily came from quarries located in various parts of Europe.
The specific quarries that provided the marble for the church varied, but marble was sourced from different regions. To meet the project's needs, Carrera, Italy, Drammen, Norway, and other places such as Greece, Spain, and Portugal. So let's see what this looks like on a map from Drammen to Frederic's church. A hundred and thirty two hours of walking? Right.
Okay. So we all understand that horses need water. Right? In fact, we have proved this, that 30 horses would need approximately 300 gallons of water per day in episode 42. So this is absolutely insane.
So let's check the other locations. And, hopefully, these are closer for the horses' sake. Now how far is Carrera, Italy from Copenhagen, Denmark? Oh, okay. Only a three hundred and forty six hour walk.
They did not transport millions of pounds of anything from Carrera, Italy to Copenhagen. Before we go any further, did any of us miss it? This was so easy for them that they could be picky with which color marble they desired. Greece is not happening either. That is five hundred and thirty five hours away in the seventeen hundreds, Pretty much the same thing with Spain.
And our last hope is Portugal. Ah, dang. Even further. Only twenty five days nonstop walk. So all of this being said, let's just use common sense here.
This story is ridiculous. It doesn't make any logical sense. You can't ride a horse for a month straight to bring a little bit of marble to the site. How much marble could one horse even bring if it did finally get there? What makes more sense?
A month long marble trip over and over and over for decades with millions of gallons of water tagging along the side of the wagon, or a previous civilization had this construction process down. They were more advanced than we are, and this horse and wagon nonsense is a complete and total lie. Based on these logistics that are based on factual evidence, you can decide. You no longer need to listen to the crazy narrative about horses and wagons carrying marble from Spain to Copenhagen. There's a much more logical alternative now that uses common sense and actually asks regular questions that need to be answered, like how many pounds of marble was used?
Where did it come from? How many horses? How many men? Once the millions of pounds of marble is at the site, then what? Who was trained to put the pieces together in the seventeen hundreds?
Did they have separate horses to carry the thousands of pounds of water that the horses would need all along the trail? It's incredible stuff. We are told that Frederik's Church has the largest dome in Scandinavia with a span of 31 meters, and the inspiration was probably Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome. It might be, but who knows? What a joke.
So I have suggested in the past that AI has created 99% of these so called mainstream narratives with reoccurring characters with the same themes and the same verbiage, birthdays and dates of construction exactly the same. And here we go again with another example that, in my opinion, proves this. We are told that in 1740, the church was designed in the district of Copenhagen named Frederick Stadden. Then they named the church Frederick's Church and say that the king laid the first stone. Well, what do you know?
His name is also Frederick, and the original plans for the church were abandoned by Johann Frederick. What? Then in 1874, Andreas Frederick sold the ruins. Are they joking at this point? And to top it off, Andreas sold it to Carl Frederick.
My mind is blown. I don't know about you guys. Like, are you kidding me? This is shocking. Honestly, what more needs to be said?
I know we have done it before, but I think we just proved that it's all complete nonsense right there. Are you guys a little bit taken back by that one? I was pretty surprised how many times I needed a screenshot that exact same name. This is crazy. How have we accepted this for so many years?
What was just shown to us is not acceptable in my mind. That isn't someone being honest with me. It's not even close, and that's not even close to mathematically possible in real life to have the exact name for so many major key points for such a major building right in the beginning of the story. Could you imagine building a building now and you read the narrative in three hundred years? And it says, my lunch break sold the building to king lunch break, then breaks his leg.
And the king sends him lunch, and the building is filled with millions of pounds of marble and from thousands of miles away, brought to you by horses and wagons. But forget to tell you how many horses are men, of course. It's absolute nonsense. Now as promised from earlier, and I'm gonna butcher this name, but here we go. I'm gonna get back to this Nicola Egdafid guy, the Danish architect, who supposedly designed Frederick's Church and, of course, died five years after the project began.
As we have seen so many times in other narratives, the narrator is using this guy to explain away four other old world buildings. So he had these horses on marble trips all over the world for just this Frederick's Church. And I thought that was all he was up to in the seventeen hundreds. So here we are just gonna prove how ridiculous this narrative really is During the exact same time period in the seventeen hundreds, when they were supposed to have no roads, no cars, no trains, no planes, no light bulbs, and living in wooden sheds, freezing in the winters, and suffering, we have this genius that I'm guessing none of us have ever heard about. They pinned this guy as the architect of the following.
The Amelianborg Palace, Malca's Mansion, Lederborg Palace, and Kristianborg Palace. The amount of materials would be just insane. And which stone carving mastermind was in charge of making these pillars in the inside? All during the exact same time period in the seventeen hundreds. How much closer to just saying that they're lying could this get?
Oh, just so we all know it's from the past civilization, you'll enjoy this one a lot. Let's close the book on this nonsense in Denmark once and for all. As a community, we know too much now. We are given a bunch of nonsense in this fake story, and then we get to the main point and the nod to the hidden group that this is in fact from the old world. Palace today bears witness to three eras of Danish architecture, so they say, as a result of two serious fires.
Unbelievable. It's all over the world. The first fire occurred in 1794 and the second fire in 1884. Let's be clear. This is a nod in my opinion.
This is not an actual event that took place. This is simply added to the narratives to show which building is from the past civilization, and the fire story gives it all away, all over the world each and every time. It's just incredible. As for the fires that happened today and ones that you can actually see with our eyes, they are destroying these buildings right in front of our faces. No need to place blame on anyone.
And then they go ahead and collect the insurance check, such as the Windsor Castle. On 11/20/1992, you get another fire in an old world building, this time destroying a 115 rooms. And how does this fire start? Remember the old story of the faulty electrical switch is always a good one. This time, it is a faulty spotlight that lit the curtain on fire.
What a joke. This isn't working anymore at all. Just completely destroying the past civilization's work. I think it is important to stop and look at these structures once in a while. After everything that we have seen and everything that we have learned and everything that we know about the fake stories, the fake narratives, the fake characters, and just appreciate what is still here of the past civilization that we can still see with our eyes.
Incredible stonework, Entire cities that simply don't belong in our ridiculous timeline. Repurposed buildings. Explanations and dates that don't make any logical sense. It's incredible stuff.
@Glenn_Diesen - Glenn Diesen
The Ukraine War is to a large extent a consequence of the Russiagste hoax https://t.co/XD5Cp3pkKN
@TedLogan1010 - Ted Logan
A few tidbits they may have left out of your World History class! Watch while it’s still legal. Credit: @WarsawErik https://t.co/onCSl4vpwM
Video Transcript AI Summary
Did six million j really perished in World War two German concentration camps? Or is that number just a little bit exaggerated? The latches can be opened from the inside or the outside, as I am showing right here. You cannot lock somebody into this room. They couldn't lock them in, and some gas chamber doors were made with wooden doors. Wooden doors to gas chambers? Come on. It's not airtight. He found no cyanide residue at all. The Auschwitz exhibit is a fake, pure and simple. Why would they have soccer and swimming pools to people they're about to exterminate? Not a single person died of poison gas.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Did six million j really perished in World War two German concentration camps? Or is that number just a little bit exaggerated? Let's look at the evidence. And let's start with gas chamber doors that did not lock.
Speaker 1: Here we see the door to the Mauthausen gas chamber. It does not lock. It doesn't lock. The latches can be opened from the inside or the outside, as I am showing right here. You cannot lock somebody into this room.
You cannot lock somebody out.
Speaker 0: They couldn't lock them in, and some gas chamber doors were made with wooden doors. Wooden doors to gas chambers? Come on. And look at those gas chamber windows. Cheap thin glass windows on wooden frames to a gas chamber?
Really? Come on. No one pushed that out to save their own lives? Look closely at all the gas chambers of wooden walls and glass windows too. It's not airtight.
If they poured lots of poison gas inside it, it would also wipe out anyone standing outside, including all the German guards. Also, chemical analysis on all the walls of the gas chambers showed that no poison ever existed in them.
Speaker 2: In the nineteen eighties, American expert Fred Lukter, who builds gas chambers for American penal systems, took scrapings from the walls of the Auschwitz gas chamber for chemical analysis. He found no cyanide residue at all. The Auschwitz exhibit is a fake, pure and simple.
Speaker 0: Now let's go into the soccer teams, the theater, and the sewing rooms that existed in the camps. All this is real footage during the war, not to mention the swimming pools. Why would they have soccer and swimming pools to people they're about to exterminate? And those swimming pools still exist to this day. Here they are.
Speaker 1: Finally, we have the Auschwitz Swimming Pool. Yes. That's right. Swimming pool. A beautiful pool with a diving board and starters blocks for races.
To their credit, the Auschwitz camp officials have not tried to remove this distraction. But if you wanna see the pool, you need to know already that it exists because you won't find it on the tour.
Speaker 0: The Impartial International Red Cross was allowed to inspect the camps during wartime to make sure that all prisoners were being treated well. Here's a report by the November 1944, only months before liberation at Camp Auschwitz. The report states, no traces of installations of exterminating civilians, period. Also, old records of the Jewish population? Before World War two, about 15,700,000.
After World War two, about 15,700,000 again. So where is the 6,000,000 missing number? Real numbers of the 270,000 bodies that were found. All were documented and they did autopsy reports on every single one of them. Conclusion, not a single person died of poison gas.
Most common cause of death, typhus and starvation. When the Germans were losing, they ran away and abandoned the camps, had them locked without any food. It's sad. Many people passed away, but it was not six million. And of the 270,000, half of them weren't even J's.
They said they hid the bodies by cremating them, but some of the cremation smoke stacks didn't even have any soot in them. How was that even possible? And one chimney is not even connected to the building. A lot of these things on display were created and built after World War two. Manipulate evidence for propaganda and creating a false sense of sympathy.
There is a reason why it is illegal to question the h cost or make it extremely taboo. Because as soon as you start scratching the surface and asking questions, the whole thing falls apart way too easily. Truth does not fear investigation. So go ahead and listen to evidence on both sides, and you make your own decision.
@gregreese - Greg Reese
False Flags and America’s Greatest Ally https://t.co/uwMXE40ozy
Video Transcript AI Summary
There were many involved in nine eleven—the Pentagon, the executive branch, and the CIA—with prior knowledge and investments. And then there was Israel. The dancing Israelis, who posed for pictures in front of the burning towers, told the FBI that Israel now has hope that the world will understand us. Over a 100 Israelis were arrested after 9/11; they were trained in military intelligence and explosives, posing as art students with fake IDs, infiltrating government buildings. The US response was to destabilize the Middle East and to start viewing the American people as domestic terrorists. This is known as a false flag. Netanyahu has made it clear he supports Hamas, and the evidence shows that they are also a creation of the intelligence agencies. Having helped to build up Hamas, Netanyahu has now vowed to destroy it.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: There were many involved in nine eleven. The Pentagon, the executive branch, and the CIA, And several people with prior knowledge were heavily invested and made small fortunes when thousands were murdered that day by their own government. And then there was Israel. The dancing Israelis, who posed for pictures in front of the burning towers, told the FBI that Israel now has hope that the world will understand us. The news media caught the same sentiment from a smiling Israeli girl on nine eleven.
Speaker 1: Well, big catastrophe, and, I'm Israeli. And I hope that
Speaker 2: now people understand what we have to deal with, the kind of people that
Speaker 1: we're dealing with on a day to day basis.
Speaker 0: Over a 100 Israelis were arrested after 09:11. They were trained in military intelligence and explosives, posing as art students with fake IDs and infiltrating government buildings. And they were all let go, including over a dozen who were living in the World Trade Center as part of the WorldView's Artist in Residence program. They occupied Floors 90 And 91, where walls were unfinished and structural beams were exposed. The same floors that American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into later that year.
The US government response to nine eleven was to destabilize the Middle East and to start viewing the American people as domestic terrorists. This is known as a false flag and often involves a government being complicit in the murder of its own people and then blaming it on an enemy as an excuse to justify war. This is what nine eleven was, and it's what ten seven was. Israeli intelligence and the IDF had detailed knowledge of Hamas's plan weeks before October 7. IDF units were moved from Gaza, where the attack occurred, just days before the attack.
Israel's state of the art surveillance system somehow didn't work that day, and hours went by before a proper military response. Every terrorist cell we know of seems to be associated with the CIA, Mossad, and MI six. Nine eleven was blamed on CIA asset Osama bin Laden, and Hamas is no different. Netanyahu has made it clear on multiple occasions that he supports Hamas, and the evidence shows that they are also a creation of the intelligence agencies. A former director of Israel's intelligence agency, Shin Bet, says they helped Hamas hold power.
Speaker 3: We did something very, simple. We did everything in order to make sure that Hamas will go on controlling Gaza, and Palestinian authority will control the West Bank so they will fight each other. So what we did, with the permission of our prime minister, is to let Qatar to transfer a huge amount of money in cash, probably more than $1,400,000,000, and to make sure that they will be able to send, you know, people to work in Israel and to achieve or to get intelligence if they need. By doing it, we increase the power of Hamas.
Speaker 0: And a former prime minister of Israel confirms this.
Speaker 1: So are you saying Benjamin Netanyahu deliberately boosted Hamas to try to prevent a Palestinian state?
Speaker 4: Yeah. Sure. He deliberately and systematically even even told this on record. Whoever wants to avoid the threat of a two state solution has to support my policy of paying protection money to the Hamas.
Speaker 1: Having helped to build up Hamas, Netanyahu has now vowed to destroy it.
Speaker 0: Greg Reese reporting. The Reiss report is now fully funded by my Substack subscribers. Subscribe today and support my work at gregreese.substack.com.
@JOKAQARMY1 - mrredpillz jokaqarmy
World history that you should know. https://t.co/lxXQiXXlD4
Video Transcript AI Summary
Usury is illegal. In Christian nations, lending money for an interest rate was illegal. Because it was illegal, who did the lending? The Jews. So there was Christians who could lend for 0% or didn't lend at all. And then these people called the Jews would come over and start lending money. They would start charging money. And in a couple generations, guess what would happen to the economy? The Jews owned everything, and then guess what the king did? Rounded them up and threw them out of the country. This went on for thousands of years. This is why the Jews in history have had no country, because the king would have it, it would say no usury, no money lending, and they would start the money lending, they would start the central bank, compete with the king. There is a reason why it was illegal.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Is called usury. Usury is illegal. So in Christian nations, lending money for an interest rate was illegal. So because it was illegal for the Christians, who did the lending? The Jews.
So there was Christians who could lend for 0% or no didn't lend at all. And then these people called the Jews would come over and start lending money. They would start charging money. And in a couple generations, guess what would happen to the economy? The Jews owned everything, and then guess what the king did?
Rounded them up and threw them out of the country. Then they go to the next country, and what would they do? Same thing. And what would that king do? Round them up, kick them out of the country.
This went on for thousands of years. This is this is why the Jews in history have had no country, because the king would have it it would say no usury, no money lending, and they would start the money lending, they would start the central bank, compete with the king. The king would kick them out. They go to the next country, do it again. So this has happened over and over and over again because this quote right here from Napoleon, he he would show the compound interest tables, and he said in a very short amount of time, compound interest would eat up every piece of property in France.
In fact, I'm gonna show you how powerful compound interest is. Very scary thing. There's a reason why it was illegal. Illegal, illegal, illegal in the Christian nations and the Christian
@JOKAQARMY1 - mrredpillz jokaqarmy
Solutions to defeat the New World Order. https://t.co/EcTCuCxUXv
Video Transcript AI Summary
"People wanna defeat this new world order, but no one is offering solutions."
"The solutions are here. We just need to change our habits."
"Instead of fake news, do your own research."
"Instead of big box stores, support your local farmer's market."
"Instead of Gmail, use Proton."
"Instead of Chrome, use Brave."
"Instead of Amazon, use Public Square."
"Instead of pills, use plants."
"Instead of chat GPT, use your brain."
"At the end of the day, we have the power."
"If we all just make a little effort, that's how we can change the world."
"Instead of acquiescing to ridiculous mandates, stand up for yourself."
"Instead of being silent, speak up."
"Instead of giving into fear, give into love and opportunity."
"And by going for the easy convenient choice that was carefully laid in front of us, we're always gonna make the enemy stronger."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: People wanna defeat this new world order, but no one is offering solutions. The solutions are here. We just need to change our habits. Instead of fake news, do your own research. Instead of big box stores, support your local farmer's market.
Instead of Gmail, use Proton. Instead of Chrome, use Brave. Instead of Amazon, use Public Square. Instead of pills, use plants. Instead of chat GPT, use your brain.
Instead of porn, build a family. Instead of investing in tech stocks, invest in gold or real estate. Instead of blindly buying from propped up brands, research who owns it and only buy from brands that share your values. Instead of acquiescing to ridiculous mandates, stand up for yourself. Instead of being silent, speak up.
Instead of giving into fear, give into love and opportunity. At the end of the day, we have the power. And by going for the easy convenient choice that was carefully laid in front of us, we're always gonna make the enemy stronger. If we all just make a little effort, that's how we can change the world. And please, if you have solutions, add them in the comments, and I'm gonna make a part two of this.
@iluminatibot - illuminatibot
The biggest manipulation of history https://t.co/ndMeKILEPg
Video Transcript AI Summary
Coca-Cola, having abandoned cocaine content and sticking to cola, noticed that people favored Coke in summer and less in winter, thinking of it as not a winter drink. Advertisers wanted to tempt people to drink Coca-Cola in winter as well and conceived a plan to anchor Coca-Cola in Christmas. At the time, Christmas wasn’t as big as Easter in cultural importance; Easter was the major Christian tradition, withMass and the focus on Christ’s birth versus his death and return.
To shift Christmas, Coca-Cola advertisers turned to Santa Claus. They found Saint Nicholas was being decanonized and merged him with Kris Kringle. Kris Kringle, described as a Danish thief whose job was a chimney sweep who could pop his shoulders out to fit down a chimney, was integrated into the Santa narrative. Coca-Cola then altered the character’s appearance: removed the young, green-and-brown-clad Saint Nicholas and transformed him into an old man with white hair, colored in Coca-Cola red and white, even giving him pink skin to align with Coca-Cola colors. This produced Santa Claus as a Coca-Cola icon, linking him to Christmas and the idea that he drinks Coca-Cola and brings presents, which helped elongate Christmas into a central holiday.
As a result, Christmas became the emotionally charged, central Christian holiday in the United States, shaping how people viewed the season. This shift influenced other religious celebrations; for Jews, who might have wished for a Christmas tree, Hanukkah did not hold the same weight, yet competition emerged for attention during that period. The spread continued to influence other celebrations like Kwanzaa as Coca-Cola advertisers sought to boost Coke consumption during the season.
The broader claim is that these advertising efforts changed not only holiday tradition but also religion, culture, and economics, illustrating the potential impact of targeted marketing. The passage closes by suggesting the hypothetical influence on government thinking when marketing strategies shape cultural and religious practices.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Coca Cola was doing the math on its sales. I believe by that point, already abandoned the cocaine content. It was just cola at that point. But once you name something cocaine cola, how do you ever walk back from that? You know what I mean?
It's too good of a name. So they noticed something. People bought Coca Cola in the summer. A little bit in the fall, a little bit in spring, not in the winter. People didn't think of it as a winter drink.
So the Coca Cola advertisers were like, wow, wouldn't it be great if we could somehow trick people or convince people or talk people or Cokes or whatever, brainwash people into drinking Coca Cola in the winter too. So here's what Coca Cola advertisers came up with. They thought, what if we somehow worked Coca Cola into Christmas? Now, I know what you're thinking. Christmas is such a big deal.
Not back then. Back then, Easter was the big deal. Christmas was important. People would go do mass to commemorate Christ's birth, but everybody's born. The real interesting thing is to be killed, executed, and then come back two days later.
That's that's fascinating, which is why people had focused on Easter. So what the Coca Cola advertisers did was they found a saint who was about to be decanonized, Santa Claus, the Catholic church with like, he hasn't performed a miracle in a while. Let's unemploy him. They grabbed him. They merged him with the story of Saint Nick.
And then they got a they got somebody got inspired. And the inspiration was to merge him with Kris Kringle. Kris Kringle was a Danish thief whose job in the day was a chimney sweep. He could pop his shoulders out and he could fit down a chimney. He would rob your house and then work his way back up, but you'd have a clean chimney.
And they merged this together, but they then took Saint Nicholas out of he was usually portrayed as a young man and skinny young man in green and brown clothing. They stuck him in Coca Cola colors, red and white. They even decided to give him some pink in his skin to keep the Coca Cola colors going, so they made him an old man so he could have white hair, and then they stuck him on the bottom. That's why periodically, you'll see Santa Claus on a Coca Cola can around Christmas time because they made him up, and they transformed Christmas. So instead of Christmas being an important emotional event and especially involved event necessarily.
I mean, were nice traditions around it, stockings, and maybe a Christmas tree. They turned it into this thing where all of a sudden this mythical being who drinks a lot of Coca Cola is bringing you presents. I guess that's how he stays up so late because think about how many hours it would take to bring presents to everybody. And in the process now, the average Christian in United States at least thinks Christmas is the important Christian holiday. And it's forced other religions to think about what holiday they could promote during that time period, like Hanukkah.
Hanukkah was never especially important. I mean, it's important, but not like you wouldn't revolve evolve like a whole bunch of time and energy and effort around it. But then, right, if you're Jewish and you're like looking at your kids going, we wish we had a Christmas tree. You need something to compete with this. And the next thing you know, there's a Kwan zaa because of Coca Cola advertisers trying to get you to drink more Coca Cola.
They've changed our religion. They've changed our culture. They've changed us economically. So you can imagine what happens when you have a government deliberately thinking about these things.
@Glenn_Diesen - Glenn Diesen
Guy Mettan: Russophobia Made War Inevitable https://youtu.be/kDavKFoGEXE https://t.co/BggG48sfnX
Video Transcript AI Summary
Guy Mettin argues that Russophobia is rooted in religious and historical narratives that long predate modern geopolitics. He traces the irrational hostility toward Russia to deep-seated religious split dynamics, notably the Schism between Western Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in the eleventh century, and the way Catholic propaganda cast Byzantium’s Orthodox as schismatic, barbarian, and despotic. After Byzantium fell, Russia claimed the Orthodox heritage, which then fed a narrative of confrontation with Western Europe. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Western powers weaponized this narrative to justify anti-Russian sentiment as Russia rose as a European power after Peter the Great and Catherine II. A key example is the forged “testament of Peter the Great,” which France’s Louis XV, Napoleon, Britain after Vienna 1815, and later U.S. circles used to cast Russia as aiming to conquer the West, justifying preemptive actions and fear-driven policy. He notes the testament’s repeated misuse by Napoleon, the British, and even post-Vienna propaganda that shaped decades of Russophobia, including cartoons and cultural depictions like Bram Stoker’s Dracula as a symbol of Russian aristocracy.
He emphasizes that this phobia has two functions: the belief that Western security depends on opposing Russia, and the idea that failure to act against Russia invites invasion. This dual function persists in contemporary discourse, where European calls for more weapons to deter Russia echo the old premise that what happens on Russia’s borders determines Europe’s fate. He asserts that Russia has not historically aggressed against Western Europe in the way Western narratives claim; rather, invasions often originated from the West (Teutonic knights, Mongols, Poland, Sweden, Napoleonic France, Germany, Britain). Russia’s own incursions into Europe have been responses to aggression by others, such as Napoleon’s invasion or Hitler’s World War II actions.
The discussion turns to how the West constructs an ethical framework in which liberal democracy and human rights are presented as universal ideals, and any actions by Russia are interpreted through that lens. This leads to a paradox: when European powers sanction Russian academics or journalists in the name of defending freedom of expression, it appears inconsistent with the First Amendment protections observed in the United States, while Europe pursues sanctions that curb scholarly debate. He cites specific cases: sanctions against Swiss journalist Xavier Meurice and Jacques Bou, and mentions the sanctioning of other researchers; he also highlights Thierry Breton’s sanctioning by the United States as an example of perceived contradictions in Western policy. He contrasts the greater freedom of opinion in the U.S. with growing European censorship and the suppression of discourse on topics such as NATO expansion and U.S. involvement in Ukraine.
Mettin discusses how Western journalists and NGOs may be influenced or embedded within foreign policy aims. He recalls Udo Ulfkotte’s critique of the “corrupted journalist” ecosystem—NATO/N Atlantis-linked influence, seminars, and conferences designed to mold media narratives. He recounts personal experiences in Sarajevo during the 1990s, where journalists were invited by NATO and the UN and later found the narrative they were fed to be constructed. He argues that funding sources, such as Open Society foundations, can bias investigative journalism, leading to a loss of independence, as observed in his experience with the Consortium of International Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) under Soros-Open Society money.
The conversation shifts to the global dimension of Russophobia. He notes a growing anti-Russian sentiment is not shared elsewhere; in parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, there are relatively more favorable or nuanced attitudes toward Russia, which gives him optimism that the anti-Russian stance in Europe may eventually wane. He suggests broadening analysis to Ukraine and Eastern Europe—Finland, the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Moldova—to understand how resentment toward Soviet-era rule persists and morphs into modern attitudes toward Russia, even as the Soviet past fades.
Towards the end, he mentions Orban in Hungary as an example of a leader who can separate past anti-Russian sentiment from a rational present-day policy, arguing for a more principled approach. He closes with an endorsement of discussing these issues openly and hopes that the hate of Russia will eventually diminish. He invites listeners to read his book, Russophobia, and thanks the interviewer, Maxime, for the dialogue.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Welcome back. We are here today with Guy Mettin, a journalist, a politician in parliament, and also the author of books such as creating Russophobia from the great religious schisms to anti Putin hysteria. So thank you very much for coming back on or for the first time, but it's good to see you again at least.
Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Glenn. As you know, we we had meetings in the past years, and it's a pleasure to be with you today again. And and also to share this wonderful podcast you are doing since now many months with a great success.
That's a good thing. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I appreciate that. And, well, I was thinking before we get into the the current hatred of Russia or the current affairs, which is also very deeply irrational, one can argue, especially because how it very evidently undermines our own national interest, I thought it could be interesting to delve into the historical origins, the way you see it of Russophobia, because you argue that hostility, well, the irrational hostility towards Russia is centuries old. I often make a distinction because when we talk about phobia, it's usually irrational fear or hatred. I always make the point.
There's rational reasons to fear Russia, but phobia often refers to the irrational aspect. So Yeah. Where where do you locate this true historical starting point in terms of origin of Russophobia?
Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, ten years ago when I tried to understand why the phobia of Russia was so high in the Western allies, I tried to understand and because it was also very surprising for me to see it and to see how it functioned. I had this impression, not only since ten years, but but maybe since, let's say, twenty years at the beginning of this century, just to mention an accident, an incident who gave me this feeling of of irrational phobia. It was if you remember, the Uberlingen plane crash in 2002. In 2002, there was a Russian airlines who crashed in New Berlin and near the Swiss border with 75 young Russian children on board.
And when the it was in the night, there was a collision. They it collided with the DHL plane. And in the minutes following the the crash, all the agencies, you know, the the news agencies, they said, oh, there was a crash around midnight and between the Russian plane and the Belgian DHL plane. But we think maybe the pilots, the Russian pilots, they didn't understand well English, so they didn't interpret correctly the orders. And after that, oh, but maybe they were drunken.
So that's why and so it it went during one day, twenty four hours, and after that, after the inquiry, we just discovered it was a failure of the Swiss air guides people who were at the origin of these disasters. Nothing to do with Russian, nothing to do with the Russian plane, Russian pilots, but it was the cliches, the stereotypes against the Russian who made this explanation, the first explanations with all the, you know, bad, yes, bad representation of Russian. So all the press in Switzerland, but also in Europe, accused the Russian to be the the cause of this crash without any proof, any evidence, but just based on stereotypes. So, that was very disturbing for me as a Swiss citizen and also close to a journalist to discover that. And after that, I tried to just a bit.
What what happens? You know? Why it's so irrational? And that's why I I started to dig, to to dig, and I discovered that the roots of this racial phobia, even the modern racial phobia, was based on religious, very old religious, you know, roots. I mean, the the schism between the Orthodox and Catholic church in the eleventh century.
And even now, we can see that this religious gap is still crunch functional in in our contemporary Europe.
Speaker 0: But how how do you see it evolving over the centuries? Because it became a very big topic, especially in Britain two hundred years ago, and it it kinda goes back into what you said as well. It's it almost becomes like a loyalty test that is everyone kinda have to embrace the stereotypes, and you have to repeat it. But but what what people often seem to think is, you know, if you repeat it, then you're with us. If you contest it, then you should be met with some suspicions.
But what is kind of another consistency is though it always tends to undermine our own interest because if there's some hostile policies were based on rational a rational assessment, then it would be one thing. But if it's not rational, then pretty much by definition, leads to very poor policies and poor policies often, of course, don't serve our own interests.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. That's right. And that's that's why it is religious origins are so important because we can say religion could be a part of reason, but, no, it's not only rational, you know, it's something more than the pure reason. And just to come back to this religious origins, you know, it started with, yes, Charles the Great, a former emperor in the even in the ninth century.
So, it's it's very it's very old. But it became more obvious after the tenth century and until to schism in the eleventh. You know, it was in the year October, the official divide between the Western Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox. I don't mention the the religious clauses because it's too complicated for us and not in our focus today. But it was after that schism that the Catholic propaganda start to develop stereotypes against at that time the Greek Orthodox in Byzantium, you know, in Constantinople.
And they said, oh, you know, we cannot trust these Orthodox because they are the schismatic. It's not us, the Catholic, but it's them. They did the division, but it was completely wrong because it was the Catholic which separated from the orthodox, not the orthodox living the church, you know, first line. Second thing is, oh, but they are barbarian people, you know. They are despotic and barbarian people.
The emperor of results is a tyrant. He's a despot, you know. He's an authoritarian leader. And also, wish to conquer us. So, they built the wording, the narrative about against the orthodox, which is which is exactly the same narrative used against Russians nowadays, and that's very, very astonishing.
And after the collapse of the Byzantine Empire in the fifteenth century when they lost the war against the Ottoman, against the Turks, all these stereotypes were thrown to the Russian because Russia, at the time with the Tsar, but also with the with the Orthodox church, they decide they they said, oh, as Byzantium doesn't more exist, we are the heirs. We will take the heritage, religious heritage of the Orthodox church which collapsed at that time. And that's why all this propaganda turned against the the Russian at that time, let's say, at the Renaissance after 1453. And the modern one, the modern wasophobia is born in France in late eighteenth century when the king of France, Louis Louis the fifteen, who married the Polish princess, turned against the the Russian. And why they did it?
Why he did it? Because at the time, at the eighteenth century, Russia became a European power with the reforms of Peter the Great and after with the expansion and development brought by Empress Catherine II, Russian became a very big empire. And so for the king of France, who was the major power, was the main power at the time, it was hard to accept that a very remote Eastern Empress was asking for sharing the power on the European continent. It was very disturbing for the king of France to have this rival, to have this new competitor. And that's why he make, he developed his propaganda minister, you know, at the time it was the black cabinet, the name of that.
They forged a fake document called the testament of Peter the Great. And in this testament, Peter the Great was supposed to say to his successors that the holy goal of the Russian the Russian empire was to conquer the West, you know, to invade the Western European continent and to be the unique hegemonical power in Europe. Completely fake, but that was the starting of the unrational, let's say, phobia against the Russian. Napoleon used that in 2018. He published this fake document for the first time to justify his preemptive war against Russian tsar Alexander the first in eighteen twelve, eighteen thirteen.
He said, oh, but you know, as the mission of, as the goal of the Russian is to conquer us, we have to attack him at first in order to prevent invasion. That's why now we have to mobilize and to send our armies to Moscow. So and the British after that, they translated this fake document after the Vienna Congress in 1815. And even The United States, you know, in the modern twentieth century, they used this same document, adapted and changed with the same stereotypes against the modern Russian Russian. It
Speaker 0: is yeah. The testament is quite fascinating, though, because as you said, was used so many times, but it's not just the it's also how it was used. Because in the late eighteenth century when it was used also by the Poles to then argue that the the security of France was intrinsically linked to that of Poland because the whole premise was that the Russians would always move forward. So if you can't stop them in Poland, then they would just march on, and then all of Europe would fall. And this is this is also, yeah, how it was used or cited when Napoleon invaded.
It was also, by the way, when the French and British invaded Crimea, this was also it was used again Exactly. By Hitler during World War two. Harry Truman used it in the early stages of the Cold War, and it's just interesting because it has two functions. One, all all our security is dependent on what happens on the front lines of Russia's borders, but also what you said. If we don't attack them, then they will eventually come for us.
So we always have to like, now the Europeans are saying, well, this is more or less the same thing, that whatever happens in Ukraine will affect us. Because once the Russians have taken Ukraine, they will come for us, irrespective of the whole premise that Ukraine would never be attacked if it was part of NATO, but this is kinda the main the main thought. But, no. It is interesting that this is something that persists. And now, of course, very See, they we need more weapons because we have we have to prepare for war because otherwise Russia will attack us.
So war is now unavoidable, it seems.
Speaker 1: It's very fascinating, yes, how it was used because as and it's it's funny too. You know? I I think it's ridiculous because if you we look in the history, the Russian, they never attacked the Western Europe. In fact, if you look at the historical facts, not, you know, war narratives. Russia was attacked by the at first, by the totonic knights, you know, in the thirteenth century, the East in the East, you know, in Poland and Russia and around the nowadays Kaliningrad and so on.
It was the first attack. The second one was the Mongols, you know, with the golden horde. It was also in the thirteenth century. And after that, you have the Polish. The Polish, they forget the Polish people, they just forget that they attacked was Russian and most they invaded Moscow.
They occupied Moscow in the sixteenth seventeenth century, in 1613. You know? They they just don't they never mentioned that. But the Polish people, they attacked Russian centuries before, you know, that modern Russia came into Poland. And after that, you had Napoleon, the French, who invaded the Sweden.
The Swedish, you you come from Norwegian. Your neighbor countries was also occupying this part of Russia in seven seventeen, eighteen century until two. They were beaten by Peter the Great at the Poltava battle. You know? And after the Swedish, you had the French.
After that, you have the German. So and also the British and the German at the first Crime Year War. So you have constantly invasion coming from the West, one from the East, the Mongols, but six invasion coming from the from the West and nothing from Russia. Russia came to Paris after, but it was after Napoleon because Russia was attacked by Napoleon. It was a reaction.
It was not their decision to come. Same with Stalin in '45. They say, okay, there was Soviet occupation in Eastern Europe. But who attacked? It was Hitler.
Without Hitler attack, no Russian in Eastern Europe. No Soviet occupation. So, it's completely, you know, turned in the bad way. And this document, just to finish this, it's it's fascinating. After the Vienna Congress, you know, you had two main winners in Europe.
You had the British with the novel, you know, Nelson, Trafalgar, and so on. But the main the main winner against Napoleon was not the the British, the the British Empire. It was the Russia, Russian Empire. It is the Russian armies who defeated Napoleon. So two big winners, the main main winner being Russia.
And in 1805, unfortunately for the British, they just discover, oh, that's good. Now we are we have put Napoli on the side. It's no more a danger for us. But, oh, look, unfortunately, we have to share the victory with these Russians guys. And so they started just after the Napoleonic Wars to fight against the Russian because they cannot accept to share, let's say, the world with the the Russians.
And they they took the wrong testament, the the fake testament, they translated it into English, they published in the books and, you know, in the newspaper, and you have during decades, the first decades of the nineteenth century, a growing Russophobia in London, in the allied circus, the leadership circus in the media. And as as I mentioned in my book, you know, you have cartoons of the time, you know, of that time in the time of the newspaper, I mean, published showing, you know, a vampire, you know, with teeth like that just flying upon London and with the head of the Tsar Nicholas the first who was trying to suck the blood of the poor, innocent British citizens, you know, because they represent the bad Russian not as nowadays with the bad beers or the angry beer, but now at the time it was the vampire, the Dracula. And Dracula, it was written, the novel was written by Bram Stoker, you know, British imperialist writer in order to discredit the Russians. It was at the parent's part of Romania, was occupied by Russian empire. And so it's describing Dracula as a symbol of the of the Russian aristocrats, you know, trying to suck the blood of the people.
So it's it's fascinating to show how the propaganda used any tool and with the same, yes, let's say, stereotypes until valid valid until today.
Speaker 0: But it often seems to me, though, that the Russians kind of always serve this perfect playing the role of our opposite other. That is the the bad guy to our good guy because this is very deep in the human nature, I think, that we always divide ourself into who are the who's in group versus out group because often human beings, we find solidarity within our group based on who our adversary are. And the Russians always had this perfect role as the adversary because if we're the West, you know, they represented the East. We were the Europeans. They were Asiatics.
You know, when we said we represented civilization, we said the Russian represented barbarian, and it tended to be, I think, historically, very ethnic focused. You even saw this at the end of the second world war in '46, for example, Conrad Adenauer, he even wrote that Asia stands stands on the Elbe. So this is they're right here, Asia. And they even had The US general Patton, who, again, every American would know. Yeah.
He even wrote that we have to to understand Russians, we have to realize that they're not European. They're Asiatic, and therefore, they don't think like we do. So if you wanna understand a Russian, you can't understand them any more than you understand a Chinese or a Japanese, and the the only thing we have to learn about them is how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. This is what he actually wrote. But then my my my point is that after it seemed the World War two, because of the Cold War, the ideological aspect, we shifted more into natural division as versus them due to the ideological division.
So we said, you know, capitalist versus communist, democracies versus autocracies Yeah. Christians versus atheist. But in the post Cold War era, though, when there's not that many ideological differences, really, it seems as if the real division of Europe, everything has to be cast now as liberal democracy versus authoritarian. This is the this is the placeholder for good guys versus bad guys. Yeah.
But did you see, I guess, ethnicity making a comeback? Because I've seen comments about the Russian DNA. I saw Washington Post, was it, who said that, oh, now that Russia's looking east, they're embracing their inner Mongolian from the golden horde. This is how we spoke even at the end of World War two, and I was kinda making a little bit of a comeback. And, of course, I think the Ukrainian war contributed to this because in the Ukrainian nationalist idea with the difference between Ukrainians and Russians is that the Russians lived under the under the Mongols for two and a half century, and this is why they're not actual Europeans unlike the Ukrainians.
So it kinda pushed the ethnic propaganda into the mix again.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. No. That's you are completely right. It's also that's why the religious origin are so important because in religion, you you think in terms of good and bad, you know.
So if you can say, I am the representative of the good, my god my god is the good one and the gods of the other people are the bad ones. That's why it's so important, these religious origins still active today. And it's also funny to say, to see how this religious gap divide is important today, functions until today. For instance, you have this line, you know, between the Western, let's say, religious protestant and Catholic coming from Finland, Baltic countries, and cutting Ukraine in two parts. We have the Western part, the who are linked with the Catholic Pope and the Eastern part linked to Moscow to Orthodox Russian Orthodoxy and to Romania and so that's still active today, and the way of thinking bad and and and good, that's the same thing.
And now, yes, we call it liberal democracy, human rights. It's no more religious, let's say, concepts or ideology, but new one, but based on the same type of of division. And you let all the arguments, yeah, authoritarian, democracy, imperial, and free free markets, you know, and free expansion, free economy. And so that's that's the same the same, yeah, topic. And that's, that's quite fascinating.
And what is, why wasophobia is so efficient? Because it has this, it's a superposition of concept from religion, all religions, from let's say, licensed or yes, political profound, let's say like that, ideology. And this and also you have, for instance, the yellow peril, you know, the the Europe developed also in Europe at the the end of the nineteenth century, you know. The yellow peril, it was to the to show how the Azyats, you know, were bad. You know?
How is it the Chinese and also the Japanese were threatening the European culture, European civilization. So the yellow peril, which is also a kind of xenophobia or asiaticophobia. So when you add this yellow peril, this xenophobia, and rejecting the washroom into the bad Asian camps, that's also a way to add more water to the Russophobia. That's why it's so effective in in the western propaganda because, yeah, that's what we could mention and how we could try to explain, but because it's so so it's so stupid. If you look at the results of this racial phobia now for European countries, you know, with all the economic loss, with with the industrial loss, losses, and so on.
But that's why it's so irrational because, rationally, you cannot explain that yet.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But this is why it's so powerful as well because Exactly. Yeah. If people buy into the premise that this is just us fighting bad guys, then essentially anything becomes permitted. And I know you're Swiss, so any do you know they sanctioned one of your citizens, colonel Yeah.
Who you know, and as a colonel in Swiss intelligence, actually used to work with NATO and and because he reached the wrong conclusions. I hear now that they also might put on sanctions list the the the Swiss journalist there, Roger Koppel as well. So it is just it it's so destructive. But Mhmm. Again, anyone who might say something which would favor the Russians are then just seen as taking the side of the enemy.
And for me, the whole war in Ukraine kinda demonstrates it because there's so much that is undisputable. Like, you can't contest it in terms of facts. For example, the involvement of NATO countries in toppling the government in Ukraine both in 2004 and '14 Mhmm. Again, which was not to promote democracy, but they all had geopolitical purposes, very well proven. We know that The US ceased the control over almost all levers of government in Ukraine, also well documented.
We know that The US from the first day began to read began to develop the intelligence service of Ukraine from scratch to make them a proxy. We know that they helped to rebuild the army there. They trained it. They armed it. They took control over the media, civil society.
They helped supported purging the Russian language, political parties, media. I mean, everything is there, but it's not even possible to discuss it because anyone who would bring it up would seen as supporting evil almost. And no one's questions whether or not, well, to what extent does this help our security? Because you can make a very strong argument that all of this made sure that Ukraine will be destroyed, and we might walk into a nuclear exchange with Russia. But we don't talk about this.
It's just it's just everyone has to march along the line. I mean, you couldn't pull this off with any other country, I think. Yeah. So it's it's quite, yeah, it's quite a powerful instrument. But do you think
Speaker 1: Just a
Speaker 0: Sorry.
Speaker 1: No. Just an anecdote. You know? I was last time I visited Kiev, it was in 2001. And when just two months before the events, you know, February 22, and when I came back, I was invited to a TV show with an American scholar, you know, a good friend of mine.
And I said, oh, I just come back from Kyiv. And he told me, oh, but you know, two years ago, it was just after the first election, only one, the election of Zelensky in '19. Oh, I was visiting also Kyiv two years ago, and, you know, I was invited to give some lecture, and I enter in the building, a very big building, quite new, and I was very surprised because it was the CIA building in Kiev, you know, with two, three hundred CIA agents working in Ukraine for, yes, for changing the government for top, you know, trying to develop your Western agenda. And they were, and I said I said to him, but you're okay, good. Tell to the TV why you don't mention that you met in Kyiv at the time the building where two three hundred CIA agents were staying.
Oh, no, no, I can't, I cannot mention that. So, it's, but it's so, just to illustrate what you said, you know, That's the reality, but it's forbidden to mention it. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Well, that's a strange thing. When the when the Europeans, be it public or politicians refer to The United States, they're they're often a condescending view, they they're seen as aggressive, often deceptive. And you you can criticize The United States some yeah. Rightly, but also sometimes wrongly. But because they're kind of the the other.
Well, we are Europeans. But as soon as the Russians enter the mix, once we talk about Russia and you say, well, perhaps American strategy doesn't revolve around developing democracy in Ukraine. Maybe this is geopolitical. Just not not maybe we can also very easily prove that the The US intelligence services are there to develop Ukraine as a proxy against the Russians. Exactly.
Suddenly, becomes almost a conspiracy theory because now the Americans are part of the West. They're part of us. Yeah. Now by questioning The US or even their moral righteousness, you are now essentially then making excuses for Russia. It is a fascinating dynamic because, otherwise, if you're not Russia's not part of the conversation, you can criticize The United States.
Actually, most would do. But as soon as Russia's there, America's all of its objectives are holy and virtuous, and anything is a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. No. No. No.
So it's it's fascinating to see how Russia is kind of taboo, you know, in all the meanings of this of this world, in the in the Western, let's say, narrative and explanation. Even for academy, what is surprising also, it's even in the academy, you are a professor university, I am in the media, but it's a complete taboo in the academies as well as in the media to try to tell the truth when you explain, you know, that Victoria Noland, she mentioned, you know, the 5 billions of dollars invested when she mentioned it was in December 2013. She mentioned three months just before the Maidan coup d'etat, oh, you know, it was we can find it on the congress, you know, archives. She said, oh, but we invested $5,000,000,000. Now we are waiting to for being paid back, you know, of this investment.
That's just official declarations, but you cannot mention it in any media. And just to come back to Jacques Bou and, you know, the sanctions against Xavier Moro, Jacques Bou and Natalie Young, another Swiss activist woman from Cameroon and Switzerland. She's global national. She was also sanctioned by the same type of sanction in June, in May. And there were also two German journalists, very important journalists who were sanctioned last year, in the first train of sanctions last year.
So, just to mention these colleagues too, not to forget them, by the way. But what is interesting now, it's yes, one site, you know, last it was four days ago when Thierry Breton, you know, the former French commissioner, was forbidden to go to United States. And you know it. And all the media in France and abroad, they said, oh, that's incredible. United States is sanctioning Thierry Breton.
It's a new machisma. The freedom of expression is no more permitted, you know, and The USA now is prohibiting freedom of expression because they are sanctioning Theory Breton. So it's so contradictory. It was just one week after the European Union decided to sanction Jacques Bou, Xavier Meaux and others for freedom of expression. So, there is a complete contradiction, you know, in the same lights just a few days later, and that's the first point.
And the second one, just to mention also The United States. What is interesting for me, in United States, have more freedom of opinion, more freedom of expression than in Europe. Because that's the first amendment of the constitution. And I think even if the, let's say, the political ideological fight is very strong in USA, you have this kind of freedom, which is recognized by all camps, let's say. But in Europe, it's not more the case, as we could see with the sanctions against Jack Doe and Xavier Moro and other Russian academics, you know, because we can understand that there are some sanctions against Russian militaries, let's say, or secret services that we can say can be understandable, but not against academics, scholars, regular scholars, which are just trying to understand and to explain the world.
So this European growing authoritarianism is very preoccupying.
Speaker 0: And I've spoken to many academics or Russian scholars across Europe, and you always say the same idea that is well, they do recognize that it's impossible to discuss, for example, the Ukraine war without discussing NATO expansion. But everyone knows very well that if you bring that up, then that's something that the Kremlin has said. So then you would repeating the Kremlin talking points, they say, and then your career is over. If you're able to keep your job, at least you'll be so smeared that it will be the last job you have. So it's it is it's quite efficient.
But The same taboo as with the work language. You know? If you mention some non work language on on the American
Speaker 1: campuses, your career is completely broken, you know. That's the same type of, let's say, politically correctness prohibition, you know, and prohibition of real words, of the truth. Yeah. That's with Russian, that's exactly the same behavior. And yes, your academic career or your media career as a journalist will be broken in the minute, you know, if you do it.
Yeah. And that's the that's the the sign of a true censorship. It's exactly as in the old times with the, let's say, with the church, Catholic church and the inquisition trying to condemn. Even the inquisition was fairer, was more correct than the actual censorship. Because during the inquisition time, you have the right to do due process, a due suing.
You have a judicial, you have a defencer, you have, you know, you cannot be condemned without judgment. But now with this type of sanctions, you are condemned without any judgment. You don't know which law you are breaking when you are submitted with sanctions. And that's a big difference. And I think our situation in Europe is actually worse than in the ancient inquisitorial times.
Speaker 0: It's I guess the problem, though, is that the company lost because you can't even compare actions. So you can compare, of course, what Russia has done with something that the West have done. Like, for example, if it comes to seizing assets and all, you know, you can make the point that, well, we didn't seize any any not a single McDonald's after The US invaded Iraq and or or any other of the many, many wars over the past thirty years. But you're not but you you can't compare because the assumption is it's well, if if we did it, this is our side, then we might have done the wrong reason, but it's no. We did it the wrong thing, but we did it for the right reasons.
Russia, best case, they could do the right thing, but they would do it for the wrong reasons. So they're they're always and it's because what what what you alluded to, which is that what ideological fundamentalism entails is when it's not what you do, it's who you are. So for the EU, it it it is democracy. It is freedom. So if it censors people, it's because they undermine freedom.
They undermine democracy. So you advance if you advance your own your own power and your own position in the world, you're advancing freedom and democracy. This is that's the problem when you link an ideal to an entity of power. It becomes, yeah, absurd. But Yeah.
I I did wanna ask you, to what extent do you think journalists in the West now, are they aware that they are just reproducing all of this brassophobic framework, or are they is this are they not aware of what they're doing? Because part of the problem is you manipulate some of the underlying assumptions as opposed to, you know, you don't have to meet in a dark, you know, smoke filled room and agree on how to present Russia. If if everyone agrees, kind of already buys into the premise that this is a struggle between freedom and and slavery or democracy and autocracy, then then, you know, the propaganda rights itself and the stereotypes come. Yeah. In my view, the the journalists, I
Speaker 1: mean, the journalists in international relations, yeah, they are aware of what they are doing. They try to hide that, in fact, but in their, you know, in their own deep feeling, are they are aware because they know they know they are linked with NATO, with the Atlantis, with the neo conservatives ideology. They are not crazy in what I can say, you know, and in my own journalistic experience. But they are so close. They became so close from this way of thinking, let's say, Atlantis, Atlantis way of thinking.
They are not, yes, day by day aware, but in fact they are. You know, there was in, it was in 2014, I think, a German journalist, Udo Ulf Cote, who published a book about the corrupted journalist. He explained and he showed how NATO, how the, let's say, the neo conservatives step by step, they were able to buy the journalists consciousness, inviting them to seminars, inviting them to moderate workshops in Brussels, NATO countries, visiting military camps and so on, and inviting in good hotels and just that. And how, yes, step by step, little by little, they were able to because it's very easy, you know. You have maybe forty, fifty imported media in Europe.
And so, you have maybe 50 people to convert to your ideas, to your ideals or to, let's say, to corrupt in order to make them share your views. I mean, corrupt, it's not by giving cash money. It's by all this kind of, let's say, invitation and, you know, prestige and so on. And it's it's like it function. Even when I was chief editor of my newspaper, I saw so many times, you know, this kind of invitation.
I remember I was personally invited to Yugoslavia during the Yugoslavian wars, you know, in '93 in Sarajevo. It was we were invited. It was fifteen, eighteen French chief editor, director of TV, you know, star of journalism. It was completely paid, invited by the by the NATO. It was the UN at the time, but let's say mainly NATO.
And we were completely invited there, hotel paid, plane paid, and so forth. To do what? When I was there, I discovered it was a completely fake invitation because we were supposed to tell the narrative of the time about the good Bosniak, let's say, Bosniak against the bad Serbian. So all the invitation was made and arranged to make this narrative and make us share this narrative. And when I discovered that, after two, three days in Sarajevo, I came back, I took military, Italian military airplane, and I came back because I didn't wish to be the just the tool of this narrative construction.
It was thirty years ago, but it is the same now for Ukraine war and what we are seeing now. And it's very, very efficient. With the crisis of the press, with the reduction of the journalists affected and also the media competition between the media, it's still easier to do it now because there are less, let's say, job that is to corrupt.
Speaker 0: I did this interview with The US colonel Lawrence Wilkerson. He was a chief of staff to The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, under the Bush administration. And he he said that during his time in the White House that they they put up these whiteboards in the White House of of of European politicians of who they wanted to elevate and who they wanted to, well, let's say, an early retirement, make sure that their career didn't prosper or or get rid of. And so so once they decided which ones would do the bidding of Washington, and interestingly, on top of the list, they put a Stoltenberg, a Norwegian politician who Yeah. Would then be picked, of course, as NATO secretary general.
But, anyway, see, he then made the point that they then then they just activate their their the journalists across Europe, the NGOs, their influence within governments, think tanks, and how they use all this mechanism to decide who who should represent Europe because, you know, it shouldn't be left to democracy. And and, yeah, this was also premised on the need then to to to do make to do make sure that the journalists, if if they wanna be relevant, be seen as legitimate, and they have to kinda go to the same events, they have to be sponsored by the same people, and, you know, they have to gravitate towards them. Yeah. And they do the same, of course, with NGOs and everything else. So it is a it is a science behind this, though, a a quite exact one, and it works because they don't need a big army.
Just if you can control what people hear and
Speaker 1: And it's a few dozens of people. You know? It's not thousands of people. It's just a few dozens, you know, a few hundreds, let's say, but it's very, you know, very small group. And, you know, you can you can buy them very easily.
You you gave them some grants to go to Harvard, go to Columbia School of Journalists. Well, I don't, you know this guy? Or three months invitation to United States to study, let's say journalists there and there, or also giving scoops. I know a Swiss journalist, you know, he received, let's say, so called scoops directly from the CA CIA agent from the US embassy in Bern giving, oh, you know, you have to investigate this thing. Maybe it's a Russian oligarch near Putin doing this bad thing, you know, and they give some official, let's say, documentation.
So that's the the starting of investigation, but just to look always in the same direction, to ignore the other facets of the reality. You know, in 2010, I was with some friends organizing the Congress of Investigative Journalists, Consortium of International Investigative Journalists in Geneva. 400,500 participants came, including Samuel Hirsch. You know, he was our guest star at the time, as you know, and also, you know, so many, many big, big names, you know, Glenn Greenwald, people like that. And I discover I was the treasurer of the organization, and we received money from Soros Foundation Open Society for even without asking that.
And at the time, I didn't I was not aware myself, and so it was good to receive some help from a foundation and another foundation to also American one to organize that. And I said, oh, that's very friendly from from them to give some support. Oh, very happy. But after that, you know, the the one year later, I discover that all this source company, open societies and other, they they bring so much money inside the consortium that it was completely corrupted. Why?
Because with this money, it was good for the journalists, but they were able to orient the results, the investigation in such ways, just corresponding to the NATO Atlantis agenda, for instance, the targets, you know, Russian targets, you know, or in Middle East, Iranian, and so on, that after two, three years, all this organization was completely, in my view, lost. And Semo Ursch and Glengrid, they left it. In 2013. We were in Rio. It was the last year they came because they were also aware that thanks to this money, seeming good at the first glance, but in fact was correcting all the system.
And also, you have you you talk about NGOs. NGO like Bellingcat. Bellingcat is a supposed NGO with journalists to develop OSINT, you know, OSINT research, your open source information. That's the meaning of Ossent. And journalists, are like, the investigative journalists like to use Ossent data, but it's completely biased.
It's completely distorted because with Pelinkat, it's just close to the British MI6 to organize, you know, to to shape to shape the narrative of the media. In in England, you have this government communications headquarters, GCHQ, with 7,000 collaborators, employees, each day, they are collecting data and are also shaping the narrative. And after they release it for the news agency, for the main media, and that's how it function in fact. It's not only a single corrupted journalist, it's all a system and that's why it's so difficult to, yeah, to fight against, yeah. NGOs, academics, intelligence services, media, and also the owners.
I don't know the situation in your country, Norway, but in Switzerland, when I started in journalists, were maybe 100 daily papers, a little less than 100. Now there are only twenty, twenty five, but these papers are actually owned by four people, four billionaires. The same in France. You have five, seven billionaires in Italy, same thing. And all these billionaires, they are just sharing the same agenda.
They are just sharing the same, let's say, neoconservative or athleticist agenda. So if you have all this environment, all this biotope, let's say, which surrounds the press, that's you have the explanation of what happens and why the mainstream media are so distorted and biased on Ukrainian war and, you know, about Russia and so on. Yeah.
Speaker 0: This is quoted by George Orwell, who wrote about the Spanish civil war and how he said that history stopped. He wrote that as a quote, I saw newspapers in London retailing, yeah, these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructure over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written, not in terms of what happened, but what ought to have happened according to various party lines. I often think about this because you do see that they're writing emotional histories and using emotional rhetoric and the language is all skewed. And as long as you have the as oral, the road to superstructures, yeah, the people would you know, they could have discussions, but they would not deviate from these main structures.
If if I can ask a last question, though. If if you would because you wrote Rhassophobia almost a decade ago. If you would update the version today, what what chapter do you think you would
Speaker 1: Oh, you can add every day. You know? There are so so many things to to to tell, and so each day you have a new event, you know, to which brings water to the, yes, this was a phobia, modern contemporary was a phobia. No. I think what could be interesting now is to show how it developed, let's say, inside Ukraine and Eastern European countries from Finland Finland, yeah, is Scandinavia, but also in Sweden and Poland, you know, Bulgaria, Romania.
I was yesterday with a Romanian friend also very active in the media, and we he told me how it was how the, let's say, the coup d'etat came in in Romania's election last year with the the eviction of the Kalin Georgescu, and when they choose this new president, Nico Schwerdan. And so because he he followed the Romanian affairs since Chiusescu, and he has all, you know, the roots, and he knows personally the the people, you know, he's now 80 years old, and it was fascinating to say that, and in Moldavia also. So, for me, it could be interesting to try to understand. We can we have an apparent explanation because there was this Soviet occupation which was not very agreeable, which was not, which was tyranny at the time during forty, more than forty years, forty five years. And we can explain that.
I think we can understand that the Soviet rule was not so agreeable, and there was some resentment against the Soviet people. But Soviet disappeared now. Now there is a new Russia during ten years from, let's say, 1990 to 2000 before Putin, if we don't like Putin, let's say before Putin, ten years without Soviet rule, with democracy or some kind of democracy in Russia, And why now, as Soviet disappeared now, there are so much, let's say, resentment against the Russian, the modern Russian, which have nothing to do, who have nothing to do with the Soviet past. So maybe that's a new focus to try to better understand and to find, yeah, to make some, let's say, development to this this feeling, I must also add, this was a phobia is only comes only from the West. You have no more or far in Africa, no more or so far in Asia, no more so far in Latin America.
So, why? You know, and these people are even more pro they are, you know, if you ask them, they are in fact more in favor of Russia than in favor of Europe or in favor of the West. So this is the new, this is also completely new now. And I have the that's why I am optimistic, just to finish on an optimistic note. When I speak with my colleagues from the South or from from China and so on, for me, it's it's let's say, warming.
Let's say, it give me some courage because sometimes we can feel very alone, very lonely, you know, and this fight. But when we go outside Europe and we can share our views with other colleagues, it's it's very supporting to see how they analyze, how they see the world, you know, from outside with distance. And they have not at all the same vision of Russia than we have in European continent now. And that's also a good motive of optimism. And I think this hate of Russia, this hatred will now go against the haters problem.
I don't know when, but I am sure it will come one day or another one. This
Speaker 0: is probably one of the mistakes of the Europeans now because when Europe kind of prides itself of doing anything to stand up to Russia, they kind of assume that most of the world hates the Russians as much as they do.
Speaker 1: But Yeah.
Speaker 0: Much of the world now are kind of shocked and even appalled by by how the Europeans are acting. And as I said, many even sympathizing with the Russian position, not necessarily invasion of Ukraine, but but but this struggle they had with NATO over the past thirty years. And, well, I I on on this channel, I in I interviewed Vaclav Klaus once, the former
Speaker 1: Oh, yes.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Prime minister and president of Czech Republic. You know, he he pretty much yeah. He hates communism and points. This is very fair for for good reason.
They did terrible things in his country. But he had a quote once, which I thought was always brilliant, who links to Russophobia, and which he said that he knows many kind people in his country who hate communism so much that he would hear the phrase, oh, I hate communism so much. I can't even read Dostoevsky, you know, who died in 1881. That's but but but kinda this is the point. Like, you can you can I mean, if if I was from Poland or Czech Republic, I would I would resent communism as well?
You can have even post post communism, like hatred and historical grievances of czarist Russia. But still, it goes the whole point of this quote I like is it goes so far that it shows the rationality of it. And once you're not rational, you can't advance your own interests anymore.
Speaker 1: And it's also interesting to note that the only European leader who is also a heir of the Soviet times, I mean, Orban in Hungary, the Hungarians, they also suffered from the Soviet rule. You know, in 1956, they just made a revolution against they tried to to get rid of, you know, Soviet rule. So, they were very anti Russian during the Soviet regime. But now, there are not more. So, it's a counter example, you know, how, let's say, a rational president leader can act without Russophobia.
But being a former anti Soviet, you know, say, it's possible. I mean, and now in Western Europe, everybody dislikes Orban, but in fact, is the only leader which acts rationally. He said that was the past. We didn't like them in the fifties, sixties, seventies, but now it's finished. That's the past.
And let's do with them as with the other people, the other nations, the other countries. So, it is also maybe also a question of the optimist. It could be possible to do it, you know. It is possible. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think it's Orban has a rational approach. At least when he speaks, he makes sound arguments, not the same emotional rhetoric.
Speaker 1: So Exactly.
Speaker 0: Which is what we need now in Europe. But yeah. Thank you so much. And I will leave a description to your book, Rhosophobia, in yeah. Sorry.
I will leave a link in the description.
Speaker 1: Sorry. My English is not perfect. I used to speak French, but I tried to do my best and very happy to be with you, Daniel.
Speaker 0: Maxime.
@Glenn_Diesen - Glenn Diesen
Richard Sakwa: The Deep Roots of the Ukraine War https://youtu.be/LzftxR-Q6DA https://t.co/XQUey967JJ
Video Transcript AI Summary
Richard Sakwa, a professor of politics at the University of Kent, discusses the Ukraine war, diplomacy, and the deeper roots of the conflict across four to five interlinked levels, emphasizing how shifting narratives and power dynamics shape the path to peace.
- Current phase and diplomacy: Sakwa notes that Europe is shifting from a war-framed narrative (unprovoked invasion, good-versus-evil) toward recognizing mutual security concerns and engaging in diplomacy. He cites the evolving European appetite for diplomacy, referencing past proposals (Kirill Dmitriev–Steve Witkoff peace framework) and recent 20-point peace plan, which Moscow finds unacceptable in full. He highlights that Washington and European capitals are now planning to engage Moscow more substantively, with the battlefield still central for months, before durable diplomacy can take hold. He frames this as a liminal moment where deeper root causes must be addressed if negotiations are to succeed.
- Four to five layers of roots: Sakwa articulates a multi-layered framework to understand the war’s origins.
1) Internal Ukrainian layer: He contrasts two visions of Ukrainian statehood since 1991. The monist vision posits a primordial Ukrainian nationalism that can shed Russian (and Polish-Lithuanian) colonial legacies to reveal an inherent Ukrainian state. The alternative “Russo-Ukrainian” vision (the book and concept he has developed) portrays Ukraine as pluralistic, tolerant, multilingual, and multi-confessional. Moscow’s demand for denazification and protection of linguistic and cultural rights sits within this frame, illustrating a core domestic-divide issue in Ukraine.
2) Russo-Ukrainian interstate/intercultural layer: Sakwa emphasizes a mimetic dynamic (citing Rene Girard) where proximity and shared space between Russia and Ukraine fuel intense conflict, rooted in their shared East Slavic, Orthodox-leaning civilizational space and long entwined history. This layer explains why hostility persisted for decades and why nationalist tendencies in Ukraine resist rapprochement with Russia.
3) Intra-European layer: He argues we must go back to 1945 and beyond to understand postwar arrangements. The post-1990s “Atlanticist” settlement—NATO and EU leadership shaping Europe—marginalized Russia, fueling security dilemmas and NATO enlargement. He suggests that the Cold War’s end did not produce a pan-European continental unity; instead, European powers reinforced a Western-centered security order that contributed to the current conflict.
4) United States–Russia superpower layer: He describes a deteriorating US-led framework where attempts to manage Europe and Russia were compromised by changing US policies and leadership (including Trump’s unpredictable positioning). The envisaged peace by “above” (grand bargains among great powers) has faltered, revealing a weakened Western-led order and fragile strategic coherence.
5) Civilizational and new security architecture layer (potential fifth): He mentions a broader civilizational struggle narrative (Russia versus Western liberal order) and the possibility of shifting toward a post-Western Russia that remains European in identity. He also notes discussions about building parallel institutions (BRICS, SCO) as alternatives to Bretton Woods and a more plural security order, including the idea of a pan-European, post-American European security framework.
- Civilizational and identity dynamics: The dialogue highlights decolonial tendencies in Ukraine, cautioning that portraying Russia as an imperial relic risks domestic and international instability (purging culture, language, media, and political parties). Solzhenitsyn’s observation about Russians and Ukrainians being both brotherly and destabilizing is invoked to illustrate the double-edged sword of deep cultural ties. Sakwa argues for a nation-building Ukraine that is distinct from Russia while not being anti-Russian, to avoid inflaming internal and regional security tensions.
- European strategic trajectory and a post-American Europe: The conversation critiques ongoing European war-centering and NATO expansion, warning that a divided Europe risks becoming dependent on the US and vulnerable to external powers, including China. Sakwa advocates a pan-continental vision—potentially a North Eurasian confederation—rooted in UN Charter norms and multilateral cooperation, rather than renewed bloc confrontation. He fears the United Nations system itself is deteriorating under great-power politics, as seen in US withdrawals and the politicization of international bodies.
- Outlook and optimism: Both speakers acknowledge a subdued optimism about small openings for diplomacy but remain broadly pessimistic about rapid resolution. Sakwa emphasizes the need for new ideas and a reimagined security architecture, warning that the current trajectory risks prolonging conflict and deepening divisions.
In closing, Sakwa stresses that diplomacy is on the agenda but remains uncertain in its effectiveness, with a wary prognosis for a quick end to the war. The discussion underscores that resolving Ukraine’s crisis requires addressing deep-rooted structural issues across Ukrainian internal politics, Russo-Ukrainian relations, European security order, US–Russia dynamics, and broader civilizational narratives, while pursuing a cooperative, rules-based international framework.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Welcome back. Today, are very privileged to be joined by Richard Sakwa, a professor of politics at the University of Kent, also a prolific author and the best Russia scholar we have here in Europe. So thank you for coming back on.
Speaker 1: It's my pleasure. Thank you for your kind words.
Speaker 0: Well, the the Ukraine war now appears to be coming to an end, and this forces the Europeans to change the narrative a bit. We even saw chancellor Mertz changing his rhetoric that seemingly lays the ground to restore diplomatic ties. He made, for example, the point that Russia is a European country. We have to engage with it. So I think this is important because this war, as we know, has been fought both on the battlefield and also with narratives.
So if you wanna keep a war going and boycott diplomacy, then, of course, you have narratives like an unprovoked invasion, which is good because then negotiations become essentially appeasement that rewards aggression, and peace has to be achieved on the battlefield. But when you're losing the war and it's time to put an end to it, then you need diplomacy, then need recognition of mutual security concerns. So one would expect a shift away from these narratives of a fight between good and evil where you can't negotiate. So we may therefore have an opportunity to end this war actually through diplomatic means, and toward this end, it's a good opportunity then to discuss the the deeper roots of the Ukraine war if we're gonna solve the root causes, which the Russians keeps demanding. And lucky for us, you just finished the talk with that exact title that is, yeah, the deep roots of the Ukraine war.
So I was wondering if you can, yeah, flesh out your arguments because to understand how we got here, and it's a complex one, both on the as a division of Europe between, yeah, between NATO and Russia, but this also has a a issue, of course, between Russia and Ukraine, but also within Ukraine. We have this third layer of deep dividing lines within Ukraine. So I was wondering if you can yes. That's a very large topic, but if you can unpack your argument.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Sure. But before doing so, can I just say that you you you know, you hopefully we are coming to the end of the war, but I'm not entirely convinced about that? I think that, you know, to quote Churchill, we are at the end of the beginning, but unfortunately, I'm not entirely sure that we're at the beginning of the end. We're suddenly into a new phase.
We're into a new phase in which I think the European powers, in a very sort of confused and contradictory manner, are beginning to a little some chinks of reality are entering into their calculations.
Speaker 0: Very quickly, I do think, may maybe I sound a bit more optimistic than I am. I do still think that this is gonna be resolved on the battlefield, but Yeah. But this was the first ray of sunshine after still demanding that Russia pay reparations and all of this. As we're moving away from this, I think, as the narrative shifts, this is allows us or enables us to do many more things. If we're allowed to discuss their security concerns, at least diplomacy can progress.
But, maybe I overstated my optimism, but
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 0: No. You're absolutely right. Please go ahead.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No. But you're absolutely right. We are into a new phase, in which diplomacy is astonishingly on the agenda of the European powers. If you remember a couple of years back, well, a year and a half ago, when there was a European council meeting, Robert Fitsow from Slovak Republic, said that he was astonished in the whole discussions.
There was never any suggestion that the European Union and its leaders should engage with Russia. And when Viktor Orban, who was at the head of the was chair of the European Council for the 2025, I think, diplomacy, he was severely ostracized. But yes, think the beginning of 2026, the European leaders are beginning to understand. However, if you remember in autumn, we had the 28 peace plan, was the Kirill Dmitryev Steve Witkoff proposal, which had a lot of it was a framework for good discussion. And of course, the European powers and Zelenskyy immediately mobilized, and as you know, in the early days of 2026, they have outlined now finally adopted a 20 peace plan, and this 20 peace plan still contains so much which is simply unacceptable to Moscow.
And so where we are now is that, Witkoff and Jared Kushner are planning to go to Moscow. And I think there has been some resistance in Moscow even to even to welcome them because, clearly, Laviev and Putin always say we're open for diplomacy, but they're saying, look, we're going around in circles. What's the point? We come to something, you come over, we talk, we end we outline our core issues, you go back, and it's completely blocked when it comes to European powers. And Trump is very volatile as we know.
So it literally is a loose cannon swiveling from one side to the other. So so that's where we are. Unfortunately, I think the battlefield is where the main action will be for the next few months until finally we may get to some serious diplomacy, not just amongst the Western powers, but engaging with Moscow more substantively. Anyway, so that's just to set the where we are now. But as you say, everything where we are now has deep roots.
I've been arguing that there are at least four, possibly five, layers to this conflict. I'd just say that the first one, obviously, is the internal Ukrainian one. Now we can formulate it in a number of different ways. I've been suggesting that there were two models, two visions of Ukrainian statehood after 1991. There was the, what I would call, the monist vision.
This is the idea that there's been some sort of primordial, very interesting word, primordial vision of Ukrainian nationalist nationality and even statehood since the beginning of time. All you have to do is to shed, to cast off the accretions of Russian colonialism, and indeed earlier on, it was Polish colonialism as well, Polish Lithuanian dominance. But it's like Michelangelo's David. You just cut have the marble and inside you have this fantastic, marvelous statue inside and all you had to do was cut off the the excess marble. This is completely false vision of how states develop, but it's it also misapplied the vision of post colonialism.
Now as far as I understand it, post colonialism is all about hybridity. It's how that states develop in, you know, in complex relationships. You can call it imperial, colonial, or whatever, but nevertheless, they are changed by this interaction, whereas the primordial vision suggests that you can get rid of it all. The alternative is, and this is to whom I've dedicated the book, the Russo Ukrainian War, follies of empire, to the other Ukraine. This is the vision of Ukraine which is pluralistic, tolerant, multilingual, multi confessional, generous.
A lot of the monist people, those who believe in, you know, deep Ukrainian nationalists, also tolerant and pluralistic, so one mustn't entirely make it too stark a contrast. But in ideal terms, we do have this vision and that in Russian demands that is now represented or it's given the terminology, the denazification of Ukraine. I think that's a very poorly chosen term because it it very much simplifies the elements, though it does deal with that issue of intolerance and lack of pluralism, involved in the society. So that is clearly one of the key demands that linguistic and other rights should be respected. That's the first level.
The second level is precisely the Russo Ukrainian relationship, very specifically an interstate, but also an intercultural relationship. Now one way in which we could look at that is through, you know, all sorts of theories, but the way I'm wanting to go, if only I had more time, is to focus on it as, you know, through the prism of mimetic theory, Rene Girard, who says that basically two states or two people well, he gives the example, for example, a lord and a serf. Now a serf usually would be in conflict with another serf because the distance between that serf and the lord is just so huge, and lords would then be quarreling amongst themselves. Whereas so in other words, the closer you are, the more liable you are to have these conflicts emerging. And, of course, Russia and Ukraine occupy a very similar, I'm not saying the same, very similar civilizational cultural space.
East eastern, well, eastern Slavic, Orthodox, and a shared history, of course, most of the country. And hence, this memetic geography is so intense, and this helps to explain in part why Ukrainian nationalists believe that as an article of faith, they have to distance themselves from Russia, and this led to this very particular relationship right from the beginning of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. And, of course, this goes back to the nineteenth century. So that's the second level, and of course, we could talk a lot about that in this memetic vision. I think it's important, and that that helps to explain why until 2022, the depth of hostility, which was a type of both countries in a sense where this narcissism of small differences, not to negate the substantive issues, but nevertheless, that was part of it.
The third level is this intra European one. Here, we've come we completely messed up. And here, we have to say, you talked about the deep roots. We need to go back not just to 1989, '91, the end of the Cold War, though that's important. We have to go back all the way to 1945, and in many ways, this war, so Ukrainian war, is putting elements and items back on the agenda that were not solved and resolved in the early postwar years.
For example, there's been a lot of discussion recently about Germany and that after 1945 and Potsdam, implicitly, the idea was and which the Soviet Union returned to many times afterwards, that the idea was then to have a demilitarized neutral Germany in the center of Europe. If that had happened, that there wouldn't have been a cold war. There wouldn't have been that division of Germany. The whole politics would have changed. And then you'd say, well, why did we have the original Cold War, which was then reproduced in new forms after 8991, the collapse of communism, the end of the first Cold War?
Well, you could say, and this is where I always argue, that we had two failures. One, the emergence of what I would call the political West Laviov and the Russians love to talk of the collective West, and the Western powers love to talk about the transatlantic alliance, this very powerful body which has dominated for eighty years. So in other words, the postwar settlement after 1945 was an Atlanticist settlement which subordinated and failed to establish a genuine pan continental unity. After 1989, the end of the Cold War, Gorbachev's common European home, Mithyrion's confederation of Europe, all these ideas were effectively saying, okay, let's rethink 1945, instead of which we just got more of more of the same, which is NATO and European Union putting itself forwards as the single the singular body which can represent all of Europe, which of course marginalized Russia, which led to the security dilemma, NATO enlargement, and the war. So that's the third level, and of course, the fourth one is United States, US Russian superpower relations, and paradoxically, we thought, and we talked about peace at the beginning, that we thought that peace could come from above.
In other words, that Russo US could, with Trump and put him personally, working together, establishing a framework which is then, well, partially imposed, but hopefully by consent, on the European powers and indeed a settlement within the Ukraine itself. Unfortunately, it looks as if The United States under Trump, even though he put questions on the table, returned to and asked questions that should have been asked in nineteen forty five, forty six, and again in nineteen eighty nine, ninety one, he's put them on the table. Unfortunately, Trump does not have coherent answers. It does mean that the old political West, the old Atlantic power system clearly is on its last legs. That's for sure.
Russia and Moscow and indeed other countries thought this was a great opportunity. Of course, the European powers in Kyiv regard that with huge alarm, but clearly things are moving and changing. So as we said, yes, we are in 2026 has opened with a bit of a bang and there's a lot of moving elements there. So we're in another sort of liminal moment just as we were in 1945, as we were in 1989, 2026 looks as if it's gonna be one of those dates.
Speaker 0: I very much agree this whole idea of a decolonial identity. It's very dangerous because what it means is it views the Russian element in the Ukrainian identity as being a foreign imperial relic, something to get rid of. This is, of course, problem domestically and and abroad because well, we saw this. If you're gonna shed if you're gonna embrace this idea as they did after 2014, then you have to begin to purge the political parties, purge the culture, the religion, the media, language, and across the board. And I I often cite Solzhenitsyn.
He was making the point that this close connection between the Russians and Ukrainians were a double edged sword, because for some Ukrainians, it was the source of brotherhood with the Russians. But for most of the western Ukrainians, it was the exact opposite. It was what prevented them from being completely sovereign. Because if you essentially want people, then why would you be a separate state? So I I always agree that it would be good for Ukraine to develop as a as a nation building project to be distinctive from Russia.
So this is Ukraine. We are different, but not anti Russian because then you trigger both domestic issues as well as international security issues. It would be a bit like Russia decoupling completely or de Tatarizing. I mean, you can't just get five hundred years together and cut it off and pretend as if, you know, after after all this year, it has to be included into the more inclusive concept of what it then means to be Russian. You can't cut off these other groups.
And but with the Russian, it's also it's more complicated because as you said, whatever relationship they have with the ethnic Russians or Russian speakers in Ukraine, this impacts the relationship with Russia and also makes them more vulnerable to being exploited by foreign actors. Because I think that as if Ukraine well, if you have foreign elements, be it traditionally the Germans or the Americans or British want to create a Europe, which is more de Russified, then you're gonna align with these more nationalist elements within Ukraine. But how do you see the interaction, though, between these different levels? How do you I mean, it looks if The US and Russians can make some kind of a deal, it makes it easier to sort the other issues, don't it? Doesn't it?
But but but, like, a nationalist government in in Kyiv doesn't only seek NATO membership. It would also seek to purge the the Russian culture out of the historical Russian lands, which is also not acceptable. So how how do you see this, working together?
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's part of the difficulty, in fitting it all together. It's like a Rubik's cube when it's so hard to get affaced altogether. And of course, all these issues, interact with each other. For example, The United States, and explicitly Spigniew Brzezinski back in the nineteen nineties in the grand chessboard, where he said that them they've worked assiduously.
The US embassy in Kyiv has worked assiduously to exploit the divisions within Ukraine to facilitate and empower one constituency as part of the attempt to contain and marginalize and, well, even humiliate, if you like, Russia. And so there's been a lot these level of course, now when The United States has changed its tune, they no longer well, we don't know what Trump's doing because he's playing he also is quite deceptive in all sorts of ways. For example, the drone strike or whatever it was towards Valdez, the 91 drones in the January were clearly, you know, with facilitated by The United States one way or the other. So, but, yeah, it's a fundamental question, how do these things all fit together? And it's, you know, I separate them purely for analytical purposes, otherwise, you know, in a sense to say that these are the threads.
You know, other approaches to it would say, well, you know, these levels are a bit mechanical and we could name other levels, one of the fifth one, for example, would be this larger the way the war is presented as a larger civilizational struggle, the Russian barbarian hordes to the East. And that, of course, brings us back not just to the 1945, the eighty years, postwar years, but then to the larger question, which I do think is fascinating, and a lot of Russian commentators like Sergei Alexanderich Karyagarnov, for example, focuses on the five hundred years of Russia's difficult relationship with Europe and that this civilizational conflict, and of course many in the West, Biden explicitly said it was a war for civilization, again, for the rules based order was one manifestation of it, but more widely, the Western culture, the rule of law, and so on against the Russian despotism. These are exactly the civilizing mission, and Macron has talked about it as well. It's a repeating nineteenth century visions of empire fighting against, visions of empire which have not died. And of course, commentators like Karagunov do argue that ultimately this war is an opportunity for Russia precisely to define its identity, to give up this five hundred year false attempt to become a European power, though he himself is ambiguous.
So the way I would say it is that we are seeing the emergence of a post Western Russia, but not a post European one. And because just simply geography won't you know, Russia is a European power. It's also an Asian power, a Eurasian power, but it's their neighbors. So well, and I speak as a European and I've always argued that we do need and as a as one of the last goalists in England to argue that we do need to have a pan continental vision, one form or another, some sort of political community because, as you well know, in Russia, we have a 145,000,000 citizens who are, you know, obviously a huge diversity of people, the Buryats and many, many others, but ultimately their culture is European. They have a common sense of cultural orientations, well, I'm gonna put it multiple religious faiths, so I don't want to emphasize the Christian, but certainly a highly Christianized culture amongst other religions to be respected, of course, just as Europe has to face that as well.
So in other words, the civilizational dimension is both exacerbating, but ultimately perhaps provides a framework for that peace which we so much desire.
Speaker 0: Yeah. This but then I can understand why the Russians now demand to resolve all the underlying issues. But as I said, the underlying the root causes, they go so far back. And if if especially if you look at the geopolitical dimension, you know, Dostoevsky was writing writing in the eighteen hundreds that the the goal in order to divide Europe and contain Russia, he wrote that the the goal of the English is to make the Slavs hate Russia as much as they do. And then, of course, in in World War one, you you saw the Germans presenting themselves largely as liberators of of of different Slavs then, but particularly the the Ukrainians because they argued, you know, well, we were gonna liberate you from Russian rule, but every historian recognizes that what they indeed wore was just to take that part of the world and decouple it from from Moscow and put it under German German Serb influence instead.
So, example, the way the World War well, World War one didn't end, but the the Russian German deal of or the treaty of Brest Litovsk, that was seen as well, essentially, what what's what's NATO was going for today. We and you saw the same thing in World War two. The the Nazis were then approaching the Ukrainian nationalists saying, well, we also empathize with your, you know, your struggle for freedom. They also present themselves as liberators. But in reality, this is for being a German dominated region.
And then, of course, we had the Orange Revolution back in 2004, also supposed to put pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit into the EU orbit, which is German led, and again, do the same thing in 2014. So we do the same thing over and over again. It looks either, you know, we accept that Ukraine is part of the Russian orbit, but I don't think that is reasonable, at least not anymore, given the how public sentiment has shifted in Ukraine, or it becomes a bridge instead of some kind of a frontline. But then it then you need some pan European security system that that that actually, yeah, doesn't make Ukraine a frontline, which would be good for its economic development, its ability to, you know, respect all the people who live within its borders. But but but how can you break this cycle?
Because no matter what peace deal we get out of this, the the animosity will continue. The the the idea of, you know, the Russians being essentially our primary other, that is our main outgroup, all of this will likely continue for quite some time. So how do you actually deal with the root causes here?
Speaker 1: Yeah. As you say, the root once you start dealing with the root causes, you find it's a very, tangled web of interlocking conflicts and ideas which are repeating. One which way we can break this endless cycle, and as you say, cycle isn't just this last ten years, it's even the last thirty odd years since the end of the Cold War, or even that cycle since 1945, and it goes way back into the nineteenth century, the Crimean War, and so much more. But I'm arguing that, well, as you say, we maybe don't know how to get there, but usually after a war, if you're going to have some sort of enduring peace, you do need to have some new ideas on the table. Now what we haven't even got to the first stage yet, that's why I say we're only at the end of the beginning, is that where are these new ideas?
Instead of new ideas, we have a European Union and most of the European powers doubling down on war fever, if you like, this virulent eugosophobia cancellation of Russia, which even The United States is finding excessive, JD Vance, Hegsef, and others, not always because not because they love Russia, but because they'd like to focus on China, which is perhaps the only new element in all of this. In other words, they perpetuate a vision of international politics, which has to be conflictual spheres of influence, as you suggest, that either if Ukraine isn't a bridge, then it becomes a barrier and so on. Luther would need to, as it were, a classic negotiating technique is that you move, you escalate up if you like, and try to look at the picture more widely, more broadly, which is what I think we have to do. So the first element of that is to generate a new debate about you talked about a pan European security system, yes, but that will only be a reflection perhaps of some larger pan European community, political community. Now it seems absurd to be even talking, even thinking about it at this moment, but it's precisely in the darkest days of a war that we do need to start thinking the unthinkable.
How do we get there? I don't know. But that's where the second leg comes in because the danger in all of this at the moment is that this war, this it's another, it's a European civil war and of course, is what Trump's the Trumpists see it as, by the way, more and more, is that this endemic European civil war, and indeed in much of the global South, it is seen as yet again another war of the global North, and that's why so many countries in the global South want nothing to do with it, and they haven't joined the sanctions, and they just say, look, these ridiculous Europeans, they had one world war. Wasn't that enough for them? So they had to have a second, and now they want a third.
Well, guys, we don't want anything to do with it. But that then takes us to the other huge danger today, and that is to the United Nations based charter international system. Already we see Ukrainians trying to effectively to exploit it as far as they can, but ultimately to say to denigrate it, to smash it, to destroy it. And of course, the Israelis do as well. They have nothing but contempt.
We've seen that Trump just in the early days of 2026, pulled The United States out of, what was it, '56 international organizations. So The United States is defecting not just from the political West, its Atlantic alliance system, which many people would welcome to say it's time to put NATO to bed. It served its rather disruptive functions very well since 1989. But what we now need to do is to, you know, to also is he's defecting also from the charter international system, which The United States did so much to establish in 1945. That is catastrophic in my view.
We have many Russian commentators arguing that it's time to build parallel institutions, maybe the BRICS, Shanghai Corporation Organization, alternative financial institutions to the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Bank, IMF. Well, that's perhaps, you know, one way in which you could try to break out from this very vicious circle in which we just you know, for four years of war, we've just been repeating the same thing over and over and over again. Since 2014, repeating the same issues over and over again. Since 1989, oh, who was for NATO enlargement? Who's against it?
Oh, the Eastern Europeans wanted to join NATO. How could we stop them? This sets banal, bankrupt sort of thinking. We need to think about international politics in a new way, and this is where peace movements, where peace thinking is so important. This old classic American style international relations, which is all about power politics and so on.
Well, you know, somebody would say that humanity is facing so many challenges, and now it's stressed, just challenges, environmental and others, but also opportunities. The technological achievements in recent years are, you know, fantastic. The fact that we can sit here and talk on this machine is just unbelievable. It's it's science fiction. And yet what do we do constantly?
We squander the opportunity. And now the Europeans want to spend the next decades only arming, our magnificent foreign minister Yvette Cooper was in your country in Northern Norway, yesterday calling for massive new defenses up in what was it? Kirkenes, as we would say in English. She was up, I think, up there the other day, you know, and of course, we've just sent a huge military force to Greenland, all of one soldier to defend it against our ally. But this is just this is just so you know, we're we're getting to a level of farcical politics.
Speaker 0: In the Norwegians, we sent twice as many soldiers to Greenland as England, so we sent two.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well done, Matthew.
Speaker 0: It's no. It's not very impressive at all. But but I'm wondering if you're a bit hopeful about the new international distribution of power, though, because now that well, in the past, at least from a perspective of political realism, when when the power is concentrated in Europe, you assume that the competition between the European powers would result in them, well, as, you know, dividing the world among each other. So it kinda didn't make sense. You can have this, yeah, fragmented Europe, but still being the center of the world.
But now that the distribution power has shifted dramatically away from Europe, and this is quite evident also, well reflected in the national security strategy of The US, that is how little regard it has for Europe, how the relevance of it. But in in such a Europe, we we can't really have afforded these dividing lines. We're not the center of the world anymore. So if if if we have a divided Europe today, it's not even not even after World War two where The US will essentially try to build up the frontline states, and it will be you know, it can be in a good position. Instead, the divided Europe is one where the Western Europeans become too dependent on The US, Russia becomes too dependent perhaps on China, and this allows The US to begin to, I guess, convert all of this dependence, be it economic or security dependence into massive loyalty.
So the Europeans have to do everything they're told, I mean, and only becoming weaker and less relevant. So you would think that if there was ever a time for Europe to try to, yeah, well, do as the charter of Paris for a new Europe in 1990 stipulated, that is to have a Europe without dividing lines, you see now that at least the distribution of power favors it. Because after the Cold War, I can see why we went for the hegemon. That is the Europeans team up with The US, and we can have collective hegemony. You know, if the Russians would have joined the common Europe, then it wouldn't have brought America in in the same way.
So it it wouldn't have been a system for for collective hegemon. So there was a strong incentive there. But today, the the the unipolar order is gone. I just don't see the same well, from a structural perspective, I don't see the same incentives anymore to keep Europe divided as it was in the past. I mean, from my perspective, the redividing Europe was a price we paid to keep the Americans, know, present and focusing on Europe.
But if the Americans are deprioritizing it anyways, why why are we making an enemy out of Russia? It doesn't really make any sense.
Speaker 1: Indeed. And worse than that, we bandwagoned and spoiled relations with China to some degree. They're now trying to mend their fences, but because The United States in 2018 started the tariff war, Europe then paused the investment treaty which we've been working on for years and so on. Indeed, it doesn't make sense. What we do see now clearly is a decoupling of the Atlantic power system, but as you know, European strategy is to see this out to try to, as it were, placate the demonic energy of Donald j Trump and hope that in 2028, some new leader is elected and normality is restored.
So I don't see that there's any much strategic thinking much beyond that, except in one rather deleterious respect, and that is to build up a European army. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, is now arguing that Europe needs to build up itself as a military power, which of course, I mean, it may be it's sensible in all sorts of ways if it was done in a positive sense to say that Europe needs to stand on its own feet and to become an independent agent. But what is Europe? United Kingdom has left. Norway is not in, but, of course, it's very close to to Europe.
But it's it's not this European Union that I think is one of the lessons of this war, that on a functionalist level, some of those elements of the European Union will be reproduced in a in a new format. But this European Union is quite clearly going to you know, we don't know how this war is going to end, but I think it's going to end badly. It's really ending badly for NATO. It's been discredited and such like, and I think also for the European Union. That's why I think that we need to start thinking what sort of Europe do we want after this war, and the one that we want is the one that was on the agenda in 1945 and the one that was on the agenda in nineteen eighty nine-ninety one, and that is, as you imply, a pan continental vision.
And of course, it would be a post American Europe, but not an anti American one. We'll work with The United States. Who wants to be in conflict? Again, it will be maybe genuinely going back to that normative foundations of the European Union, which is as a peace project. But at the moment, Europe is reconstituting itself, this post American Europe as a war project, a war to a long war, as they say, as Marc Rutte and others have been warning, against Russia for the next a generational war.
And indeed, they say in Britain, a a war a whole society war, which means of course, what they mean by that, you need to have internal repression. Some of us have really felt the harsh blows from that respect, the censorship and so on. This is a catastrophic way. So what this is why I think it's so important to outline an alternative, and that is a genuine progressive pan continental vision. It'll be hard.
And within that, a rump NATO, a rump reconstituted European Union will play a part, but we need to have something you know, a North Eurasian confederation would be my way of arguing this one.
Speaker 0: I keep hearing the rhetoric that, you know, we well, we have to keep the alliance systems and the anti Russian block alive because well, look how necessary it is because of Ukraine. But this was, again, the two different logics of of of of the role of NATO. Did it is NATO well, would NATO become more relevant because now we see the threat of Russia, or would it discredit itself for actually provoking a war? And, you know, it's hard to point out that the frontline states, which we claim that we have to protect, be it the Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, all of these countries are being crushed or or who may be crushed as a consequence of reviving the block politics. It's I
Speaker 1: I
Speaker 0: I just I have a genuine problem in understanding why the British, for example, are taking the lead as well as other Europeans in in doing this generational struggle against the Russians. What exactly is it? Why? I mean, why again, the the Russian objective since the end of the Cold War was to find a common a com create a common Europe, and they warned against expanding NATO as this would redivide the continent, recreate the logic of the Cold War, this whole zero sum competition over the shared neighborhood. And everyone recognizes Russia didn't put any claims to Ukraine before the the coup in two thousand fourteen, but thereafter, they they responded in this way.
It's just it's very strange to me to I I don't see a cohesive argument being presented in terms of why the whole imperial argument that, well, Russia's just this imperialist wanting to swallow territory, rebuild the Soviet Union. Well, this wasn't the case the day before the coup in Ukraine in 2014. I mean, I think you're the one who wrote in one of your books that NATO is now a security organization that exists for the purpose of dealing with the conflicts that derives from its own existence. I I mess up the language, of course, but more or less, that was your point.
Speaker 1: It is. Yes. Indeed. I mean, if Russia wasn't simply about territorial expansion, imperialist expansion, then it could easily have annexed or taken over the Donbas well, but in those seven years, between 2014 and 2021, it didn't. It hasn't absorbed, even though plenty of books, by the way, say that Russia has taken over Abhazia and South Ossetia.
It hasn't. It's recognized them as independent states. Of course, that perhaps to be negotiated with Georgia in due course. But the larger question, why? Is a is a question which we really have to focus on.
You you there's all sorts of answers to that. The first one is, you know, the psychosocial one, is that you have a totally degraded elite. Certainly, in The United Kingdom we do. Just look at the our leaders and all the top political parties. All you're repeating thoughtlessly the same militaristic, militant talk, except just a very few exceptions who are no longer in parliament mainly.
So you could put then you have this larger, you know, within that framework, which goes back to the, for example, Anglo Russian rivalry before the evolution, Crimean war, and all the way back. But there's a lot of counter evidence as well that, you know, Russia when Tony Blair, right at the beginning in the year 2000, when Putin came to power, it was quite clearly that, you know, there's an attempt to reset and Putin came on a state visit. So there were elements, but of course, then the Anglo American invasion of Iraq spoiled all of that, and of course, then Libya and ABM treaty and everything else. So there's, if you like, the psychosocial approach, there's the historical approach of Russophobia, there's it's really or or even you could say there is this. You could yet again go back to Rene Juga, this sort of mimetic rivalry between two representations of modernity, that Russia will always have its own civilisational distinctiveness, and that is to be welcomed just like the British distinctiveness is its own.
And of course, my specific argument after 1945, all of this, you know, we were allies in the war, of course, that all of this is because of the element of US hegemony, which had attempted to dominate after 1945. Didn't immediate. By 1947, this hegemonic project had taken shape. Right? That it was gonna dominate Western Europe, and we know that Dulles brothers are quite cynical and ruthless in imposing that, both one in the State Department, one in the head of the CIA.
So it was quite clearly that they were going to dominate Western Europe, and this is why you didn't get the unification of Germany, in in a positive sense, so you got the negative unification. And of course, 1989 was, we know, we could now see, these were negative revolutions because they have not the the countries this is why the bitterness of a country like the Baltic Republics, like Lithuania against Russia, is that the one of the failures of the European Union is that instead of transcending the logic of conflict, it has actually facilitated and amplified it. So there's, you know, many elements there, but you have no beginning. Way back in 1990 or was it 1991, I was at the political studies association conference, our British political science association conference, and Landsbergis, who was a leader of Lithuania at the time, Vittatis, I think, Landsbergis, it was a long time ago, gave us the keynote speech. And I remember the delegates, there's a very large body, 500, 600 political scientists.
We were shocked at his language, his violent racist anti Russian language. This is nineteen ninety, ninety one, where Russia had facilitated the independence under Yeltsin of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia. So it was just astonishing. Where did this come from? And of course, these were the hidden demons, and these demons, instead of being slaughtered, they're being fed and nurtured.
And we have, you know, leading scholars from Estonia and someone talk about memory of politics, for example. All it boils down to is we hate Russia, that we have to have memory of politics to make sure that no one ever forgets this, and that the and we must then use all instruments at hand, and the Poles go along with this, to destroy the historic enemy. Now as I've been arguing for a long time, you know, my father was Polish. He he nearly was one of those, the cohort captured and taken to Klatyn. He met the Soviet forces on us as a Polish army reservist, on the 09/17/1939, and yet he never had the bitterness.
He he understood the larger issues and, you know, maybe that's why I am what I am because, yes, he understood how awful things were. You know, Katyn, the murder of nearly 24,000 Polish officers in cold blood. But, you know, his you know, if we don't digest his history, then we're doomed to repeat it. And unfortunately, we are repeating it in an even worse form than anything ever before.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, yeah, that is the problem when it becomes when you see one side being right, one is wrong, or good or bad, then whenever you have a form of unification in general, it's it it it doesn't harmonize the two sides. You know, the the Germans had the same discussions. That is when the West and East of Germany unified, the the assumption was always, well, the Western part got it right, so let's just discard all the stuff from the East. But, you know, the in in Eastern Germany, there wasn't only, you know, cloudy skies every day.
They did have other things. But I I want to to ask about this the the distribution power, whether you think it can Right. Help us now. Because, again, in when Russia was the largest power or you can call it an an adversary, you such as was in the nineteenth century to British or the twentieth to, well, the political West, then there's a natural in in incentive there to balance off the Russians, and then you embrace all the required ideologies which portrays them as everything you're not. But but in the under the current distribution with China being the larger power and even overtaking the American economy in terms of purchasing power parity already twelve years ago, you know, you would have an incentive then to not push Russia away.
This was even the Germans and the French before 2022 had this logic. Let's not push the Russians too far away because then they end up with China. And indeed, now you see part of the idea of Trump seems to be inspired by the advice of Kissinger, who made the point that, you know, you don't put these two Eurasian giants together. Like, let's you know, China is the big one. You should get the Russians on our side of the ledger, and then but, you know, so you have the incentives there in terms of power.
Yeah. But we're not we're not doing anything. It's all the things we knew wouldn't work or what's most dangerous, that is to go to war essentially against Russia, we we did all of these things anyway. So it's very hard to see it as only being about power politics because there is something more profound there in terms of, yeah, the the the hatred of well, I, yeah, would use the word hatred of Russia because it's been ongoing for so long.
Speaker 1: Just say, in Washington, of course, there's a big debate. You have the Eldridge Colby school of thought, which is very much focused on China, and as the main adversary, and this was reflected in part by the National Security Strategy, and then you have the Montlubios and others who are still fighting the Cold War, certainly vis a vis Cuba, but also vis a vis Russia. So you you but then in other words, you have a debate going on in Washington of the sort that we're not even beginning in London or Paris or Berlin yet, Brussels, in the way that you suggest. Because, yes, the world has moved on. Europe is marginalized.
It just it's it's lost its firmness of the ally. Even whoever is elected in 2028, we can't go back to what it was before that, you know, and even then before, there were always tensions within the Atlantic power system. And, yes, the balance of economic and indeed political authority is moving. You know, it's a multipolar world. It genuinely is.
And, you know but, of course, multipolarity take operates at many different levels. At the power level, yes. Definitely China is now emerging as as a separate power. But of course, that's one reason why there's so much effort to delegitimate it and so much work to say that this is a despotic communist dictatorship, and pointing out the deficits and deficiencies in that system, which of course are there. So yes, multiplarity ultimately, and this is where I would, you know, pitch my wagon, is really a normative vision based on the United Nations charter.
Today, a 193 sovereign independent states in the United Nations, and we powers need to work, and I use the word comedy, that work together too. And that was what the initial idea of the five permanent members in the Security Council was that they would have a special responsibility. It wasn't just a privilege to have this permanent veto power, but the responsibility was to work and try to work together to solve global issues and to work together. And, of course, what we saw at the end of the Cold War, after the end of the Cold War, is that you have France and The United Kingdom almost always voting with The United States and taking the lead with it. So you've got a block of three.
Also, the British have managed to take over the secretariat and manipulate it. You now have the United Nations General Assembly chaired by, you know, you couldn't make it up, under Lina Beerbok, a virulent Russophobe, which is undermining the credibility of the General Assembly. Of course, they have to respect the views of the global south, but nevertheless, through agenda setting for the sort of motions they put and and such like. So in other words, the catastrophe today is that the international system, the United Nations, has become an instrument of what you could call it a new Cold War, an instrument of great power politics and contestation rather than a forum for the settlement of these disputes. So we're in a very dark place and and it's entailing the destruction of the greatest achievement which we've had in the last eighty years, that is the United Nations, not just as an institution, but as an idea, an idea that we find peaceful ways, a way of working the normative foundations and of sovereign states working together.
So it isn't just West failure, it's West failure plus sovereign states working through internationalism, multilateralism within the framework of the United Nations and its norms. So that is what we're now that's even worse. Perhaps the worst thing what we're losing now is that we're losing that spirit of 1945.
Speaker 0: Well, can just put it in a wider context, though, that all historical efforts to create an inclusive security architecture, one that actually reflects international law, one where you seek security with the other members instead of against nonmembers. In other words, if you wanna distinguish between a collective security architecture and an alliance, is whether you have the Concert of Europe or League of Nations or the United Nations. It's always the threat that the that group that the countries will begin to group into alliance systems that is little exclusive blocks, and then the loyalties to that block will go beyond that of the collective security architecture or translate into current institutions that will put NATO head of the United Nations. And, well, this is essentially what was done, especially since '99. So but as we wrap up, do you have any final thoughts of optimism, or do you think, as you said, we're going to a bit of a dark place?
Speaker 1: No. I I I'm actually started this year very, very pessimistic, and unfortunately, I think that I can't see in particular because of the looking at it from a European perspective, there's almost yes. The leaders are now saying we need to actually have diplomacy with Russia. Well, isn't that amazing? That diplomacy you actually talk to in peace talks, actually, you talk to the other side across the table.
So there's certainly a tiny glimmer of understanding that we need to move towards a new dynamic in these peace talks to bring an end to this awful war. This awful war, which just last Monday exceeded in length what the Russians called the great fatherland war, the great patriotic war from 1941 to 1945. But unfortunately, for The United Kingdom, the second world war lasted five and a half years. So I have a feeling that there's still some ways to go before we get towards some sort of resolution. So I'm very pessimistic.
Speaker 0: Well, being allowed to argue for diplomacy without being smeared, censored, and canceled, I guess that is a positive development, but we're setting the bar a bit low. Nonetheless, yes, something something appears to be going in the right direction. But, yeah, share your pessimist share your pessimism as this has been a very rough start to 2026. So thank you very much for taking time.
Speaker 1: My pleasure. Thank you.