TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed

Posted - September 9, 2023 at 10:32 PM

Saved - September 10, 2023 at 2:43 PM

@CensoredMen - Censored Men

Woody Harrelson is asked about Russia-Ukraine Listen to his answer…

Video Transcript AI Summary

I find it appalling when a powerful country uses its military strength to attack another country without any reason. It's like what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, and now Ukraine. It's truly terrible.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: You know, I'm the kind of guy who just thinks it's abominable when a superpower with all this military might, with no provocation, attacks a country that is, like like, you know, Iraq sorry. Afghan I'm I'm sorry. Viet Korea. No. Sorry. Ukraine. Terrible.

@stillgray — Ian Miles Cheong

Posted - September 17, 2023 at 11:07 PM

Saved - September 18, 2023 at 12:26 AM

@stillgray - Ian Miles Cheong

Mike Pence says Americans are gonna have to fight the Russians if the Ukrainians don’t win. Thoughts?

Video Transcript AI Summary

If the Ukrainian military doesn't stop the Russian invasion, it won't be long before our NATO forces have to fight the Russian army crossing the border.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

I am convinced that if the Ukrainian military doesn't stop and repel that Russian invasion, it's not gonna be too long before that Russian army crosses a border that our men and women in uniform are gonna have to go and fight under our NATO

@AureliusStoic1 — Paul Villarreal (AKA Vince Manfeld)

Posted - December 5, 2023 at 11:50 PM

Saved - January 8, 2025 at 4:25 AM

@AureliusStoic1 - Paul Villarreal (AKA Vince Manfeld)

New Tucker Carlson. Ukraine has lost its war against Russia. So why do the Biden Administration & some in Congress want to spend more money there? A discussion with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY). . https://t.co/1P0qEzAeYR

Video Transcript AI Summary

Apologies are often hard to come by for significant tragedies. For instance, while minor accidents may prompt immediate remorse, larger issues like the Iraq War or the Ukraine conflict see little acknowledgment of wrongdoing. Despite nearly two years of war, the U.S. support for Ukraine has not yielded the promised outcomes, weakening the U.S. instead. Congress continues to push for additional funding, framing opposition as support for Putin. Congressman Thomas Massie argues against this funding, highlighting that it surpasses U.S. infrastructure spending and raises concerns about waste and accountability. He criticizes the military's recruitment issues and the potential for foreign nationals to fill gaps. Additionally, he advocates for the Prime Act to address monopolies in the meat industry, allowing local farmers to sell directly to consumers.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Ever notice how the bigger the tragedy is, the harder it is for the people responsible to apologize? If I rear end your car and crease your bumper, I'm happy to jump out and say, I'm sorry. I can't believe I did that. But if I were to say invade Iraq under false treat pretenses and kill a 1000000 people and spend a 1,000,000,000,000 of your dollars doing it, I wouldn't say a word. I would never admit that was a bad idea. I couldn't. It implicates me too profoundly. The same goes for if I say locked your kids inside for a year and destroyed their brains and prevent them from getting an education or if I say forced you to take a vax that didn't work that very well might have hurt you. I could never admit that I did that. I just couldn't because if I admitted it, I'd have to suffer the consequences. Something very much like that is happening with the war in Ukraine, which has been in progress now for almost 2 years. We were told at the beginning that our support would allow Ukraine to beat Russia and keep Russia from invading the rest of Europe or something. Well, almost 2 years in, none of that has turned out to be true. Ukraine is not going to beat Russia. The only person who's been beaten in this is the United States. The US is weaker, measurably weaker because of our support for Ukraine in this war. That's just true. The verdict is in, and honest, rational people admit that no matter what their previous position. But the Biden administration cannot admit that, and neither can the US Congress. And so now there is, believe it or not, an effort in progress to get the US government to send another 60 odd $1,000,000,000 to the oligarchs in Ukraine. So another generation of Ukrainian men, this one probably in their fifties, can die in a pointless war on the battlefield. They're not going to win, but the US Congress would like to keep this conflict going anyway. So you'd think someone would stand up and say this is awful, but almost nobody has. Why? Because the position of the administration is if you're not in favor of this, sending under $60,000,000,000 to the oligarchs in Ukraine, then you're working for Vladimir Putin. Watch the national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, say that out loud. I wanna ask a question about Ukraine. Are you saying that any member of congress who votes against aid to Ukraine is voting for Putin? Speaker 1: I believe that any member of congress who does not support funding for Ukraine is voting for an outcome that will make it easier for Putin to prevail. That is a vote against supporting Ukraine is a vote to improve Putin's strategic position. That's just an inescapable reality. That's not speaking to someone's motive, why they chose to vote against it. That's just speaking to the outcome of their vote. A vote against supplemental funding for Ukraine will hurt Ukraine and help Russia. It will hurt democracy and help dictators. Speaker 0: These people cannot see themselves. A lady in a mask, presumably not on her way to rob a liquor store, but wearing it for health reasons, asked the national security adviser about the moral implications of a vote in the congress, and he says with a straight face, anyone who doesn't support this legislation is helping Putin. It's insanity, but it's intimidated almost the entirety of the US congress and certainly the Republican leadership, which is foursquare on the side of the Biden administration to continue this tragedy. There are very few members of congress who dissent, and one of them who has done so consistently and in the most articulate possible way and on principle has been congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky who we wanted to talk to about this and also to thank for his bravery and steadfastness. Congressman, thank you so much for coming on. It might I mean, I have so many questions, but it well, why don't you just tell us why you're not voting for this? Speaker 2: Well, we can't afford it. Look. At, some point, I realized we had spent more in Ukraine than we spend on all our roads and bridges in the United States, and I tweeted that. And Newsweek did a fact check on me, and what they found out is it was true. And, you know, when you get the fact checkers to admit that a conservative when they give them a, mostly true rating, it's a metaphysical certainty. And since then, we've spent twice as much in Ukraine as we do on all of our roads and bridges federally in the United States. That is money that could have gone to double our infrastructure, yet we're blowing up infrastructure that we're gonna end up I hate this, but they're gonna tell us that we have to rebuild it when this is all over with. Speaker 0: It it the scale of this insanity is is hard to digest and I think whatever empire comes after ours will spend time studying it, you know, what not to do. But you gotta wonder, like, why is the leadership of your party, the Republican Party, in favor of this? Why the new speaker seems like a nice guy, but also like a child? What why why would his first act as speaker be to endorse this? I'm confused. Speaker 2: Well, I hope he doesn't, but, you know, Biden's budget director, the head of the OMB sent a letter yesterday to speaker Mike Johnson imploring him to spend more money in Ukraine and what they said is they wanna revitalize our defense industrial base. It's, that's the new acronym, DIB for the MIC, the military industrial complex, and they sent a list of states that would get money when we spend, you know, money on deadly munitions because they have to be manufactured in Alabama or Ohio or Texas. And so, you know, they're saying the quiet part out loud that congressmen tend to vote for this stuff because a lot of this federal spending that goes to Ukraine is actually laundered back to the military industrial complex. And in some ways, not very efficiently, but in some ways, it enriches people in their districts and the stockholders, some of whom are congressmen. Speaker 0: I you sort of that's also grotesque, but it's also straightforward. You know, people are getting rich, so let's do it. Okay. That's an argument. It's an immoral argument, but it is one. But that's not the argument they're making in public. They're saying we have a moral obligation. You're a bad person. You just heard the national security adviser say that you're a bad person if you're against this, but no one ever mentions that we have abetted the killing of an entire generation of Ukrainian men that will not be replaced to fight a war that they cannot win. They literally cannot win. We prevented a peace deal, and we extended the war, and we killed all these people. And so all the ones running around with their little Ukraine flag pins, they're implicated in that. Has anyone apologized? Speaker 2: No. To support this money, you have to be economically illiterate and morally deficient. Those are both conditions of voting for this. Because to say that we're gonna grind down Russia, that we're gonna deplete their own soldiers by expanding the lives of Ukrainians knowing that in the end, we're gonna leave them holding the bag. That in the end, they can never prevail. They're not gonna take back Crimea even though we we say that's one of the goals, when when we can get them to state goals, which usually they won't. So it's it's morally reprehensible to say that you should fund this. And by the way, he says I'm a friend of Putin because I won't vote for this money. Well, I would say that I'm a friend of Americans and I'm putting America first, but he's part of, I would say, Putin's reelection, campaign because Putin is a cold war relic that was elected in response to our cold war relic, which is NATO. By expanding NATO, the neo cons and the the liberals where every time they push NATO closer to Russia, they help people like Putin get elected. Speaker 0: It's, you know, outside our borders, it's very obvious that the whole world is resetting and that American influence is in very rapid decline. Thanks in large part to this war in Ukraine, and that Russia is now joining this coalition, which will be the majority of the world's population and economy and military strength aligned against us. So this is resetting the world to our disadvantage. Again, leave the country. It's obvious your first day that this is happening very fast. Does anyone in Washington see that? Speaker 2: No. There are very few. You know, I've been voting against these resolutions in Ukraine and the money going to Ukraine since 2014. In 2014, we helped to overthrow their elected government and we were saber rattling against Russia. And I said, listen, these sanctions and this saber rattling and these resolutions, they're gonna have consequences and they have had consequences. Almost nobody in Washington DC will admit this through their voting record. Now they know it but they won't admit it and they won't vote that way. Speaker 0: Do do you think it's strange that, you know, the single maybe the single most consequential voice in this entire debate is a woman called Toria Nuland, who's the undersecretary of state, who's a driving force behind the war in Iraq, which was, of course, a disaster and hurt the United States. She was never punished for that. In fact, she she rose within the bureaucracy, and now she's running this war in Ukraine. And no one ever says her name. She's never held to account for all of this. She has far more influence on it than the entire United States Congress put together. What how do we allow unelected lunatics like Toria Nuland, who clearly hates the United States and always has, to have this power over our lives and our children's future. Speaker 2: I don't know. I feel like some of these deep state bureaucrats, they're like the kids who had no friends in high school and somebody did something bad to them long ago and now they got some power and they realize how to to grab it and they're gonna they're gonna have retribution on everybody else. Victoria Nuland was at a at a classified briefing to all members of congress just a few weeks ago and I thought and this was on Israel. And I thought, wait, she's failed multiple times. Why are you dragging her out to she has no credibility. Why are you having her brief congress right now? Speaker 0: I mean, she's responsible or shares responsibility in the deaths of more people around the world than maybe any other living American, and yet she's in a classified briefing. I mean, I'm not saying she should be in prison, though you could certainly make a case for that, but she certainly should not have a security clearance and be briefing members of congress. Did anybody say, wait a second. There's nobody more discredited than you are, Toria Nuland. Did anyone say that? Speaker 2: Nobody did. By the way, these classified briefings are basically propaganda spoon fed to members of congress directly from the deep state and from the administration. So, we're gonna have one today, in fact, on Ukraine. We will we will all file into an auditorium and leave our cell phones at the door. And, we're just, you know, I'm sure this is gonna be sort of a psyop or struggle session to get us to vote for more money to go to Ukraine. Speaker 0: I just I don't understand why the coequal branch of government, the legislative branch, the congress allows itself to be manipulated by the intel agencies and the National Security Council. It seems like really crazy and masochistic even. Speaker 2: Well, listen. A lot of this money too isn't just going to leave late anymore. We're propping up the government. We're paying salaries of of politicians in Ukraine and we're paying pensions of politicians in Ukraine. Yesterday, I met with the inspector general special inspector general over Afghanistan, and I found out we spent $6,000,000,000 there since we left. There's still money going to Afghanistan and I and he said, you know, you really need he doesn't want the job, but he said you really need a special inspector general over Ukraine. And I said, what do you think where where could they be hiding some of this money or where could it be going? And he said, well, look at what they did in Afghanistan. 30 or 40% of the special, you you know, the police in Afghanistan, their security forces didn't exist. We were paying salaries for people who were on the payroll, but they weren't real people. And now that we're paying salaries in Ukraine, how do we know that those are real people? As a matter of fact, we saw with the PPP program in the United States, people were getting money to pay people that weren't even on their payroll. So there are lots of obvious places to look for waste, fraud, and abuse. I wouldn't be funding it to start with. But if we are gonna fund it, we need to have somebody auditing this. Speaker 0: I it's such a humiliating way to end the American empire such a self destructive way. I don't think people fully understand just how deep in the hole we are. I noticed that on on your blazer, you've got some kind of device which I I think tells us the answer. Can you explain it? Speaker 2: Yeah. So, you know, I went to MIT. I'm electrical engineer and I wondered how I could use my degree here in congress and I decided to build a debt clock that I could wear all the time. I wear it on the floor. I wear it in every hearing and the the design goal was to induce anxiety. You know, we have congressmen and senators who have pacemakers. I thought they needed it. Their their heart shouldn't be normal. It should be skipping beats and rhythmic. So I built this to induce that anxiety. It's working pretty well so far. In fact, some congressmen, they vote, they put their voting card in, they press yay to spend the money, and then they look at my lapel to see, if it if it's immediate enough to show the impact of their vote. But really, we need more people to be concerned about the debt. The interest on this is now gonna overtake all of our military spending. We'll soon be paying more for interest on the debt than we do for our entire military. Speaker 0: So that's another word for that is bankruptcy. It can't I mean, because these are math questions. It can't continue indefinitely. In fact, I think we can see the end of it on the horizon. Is anyone afraid? Speaker 2: No. I don't think so. I think, the only way we're gonna get any kind of austerity or reality in our spending is when the people who loan us the money quit loaning it to us. Right. And what we'll go into is a spiral there. Like we did during COVID, we printed $5,000,000,000,000, created it out of thin air and borrowed it from ourselves to make it look legitimate, filtered it through the banks so they could get some of the money too. And, that's why we're why we have inflation. I'm sorry. It's that simple. Again, you have to be economically illiterate if you think that throwing another $5,000,000,000,000 into the money supply isn't gonna cause inflation. That's what we have. It's it's long lasting. Now, you know, the Fed was supposed to be the firefighter but they're really the arsonist and they're coming in and they're raising interest rates and they've raised them to the point where it's gonna be hard to, you know, buy a car or move into a house. Speaker 0: So I don't think you'll make us feel better when you answer this question, but is Ukraine funding I mean, this will become law, I assume. Speaker 2: I don't see any way to stop it. There is some discussion here in congress about tying it to security on our border. The problem is I think if you give Biden more money for the border, he'll just process more illegal so called refugees into the United States quicker. There is talk about limiting it to just lethal aid and telling Europe that you've got to prop up the government of Ukraine, but I doubt that'll happen. You know, there may be some they may try to try tie some strings to it, but I think the money is gonna go through anyway, and I'm worried about that. It's just gonna again, 60 what what Biden has asked for? $60,000,000,000? That's how much we spend federally on all roads and bridges in a year in this country. Speaker 0: I I have to ask you an unrelated question. I don't I don't know if you're prepared for it or not. But so the the military has a problem, with recruitment, and the military said pretty clearly we don't want any more white men who, you know, fought all of our wars. We don't want any more of them, and then drove a lot of people out with with the COVID requirements, with the mandates. Now we have tens of millions of military age foreign nationals here illegally. There have been calls in the congress for those people to join the military to fill the gap. So you could wind up with the military filled with people who are not Americans and have no loyalty to this country or knowledge of American history or affinity for the culture, and then and then you're Rome and then you collapse. Do you think that you will hear more calls in the congress to solve the recruitment crisis with illegal aliens? Speaker 2: I think you will, and I think it's a horrible idea. And you you characterized the the vaccine mandate correctly. That was a purge. That was an ideological purge of our military. It was it was a, loyalty test to a liberal agenda. It's sort of like taking the the sacrament, in the in the religion of COVID. And if you wouldn't take the sacrament, then you had to, you know, leave the military and now they're dealing with that. A lot of good people were forced out. I mean, pilots who had 1,000,000 of dollars of training, special operators, you know, and it's sad now that, like you said, we're bringing in people with a different loyalty or no loyalty at all if that if those senators get their way. Speaker 0: It's it's absolutely terrifying. Last question, a topic that most people aren't thinking about, I certainly don't understand, but I know you're focused on it, so it's probably important. And that's meat. And you've got a piece of legislation that will address what you think is a problem with the way the US government regulates meat. Will you tell us what it is? Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely. I've got a bill called the Prime Act and it's in response to the fact that 85% of the meat that served in the United States is processed by 1 of 4 meat packers and one of them is owned by China, one of them is owned by Brazil. So there's this monopoly on the meat industry. And the irony is farmers can't sell directly to consumers in their own counties, in their own states. They have to ship these things across the country. And, it's it's affecting the nutrition of our food, the safety of our food. So what my bill says is if the farmer is and the consumer and the local processor are all in the same state, if there's no interstate commerce involved, then get the feds out of it. And, I've got some good news to report. We're making some progress on the PRIME Act. I may get some portion of it in the farm bill. I've been fighting for this for 5 or 6 years ever since they got rid of country of origin labeling on meat in the United States. I I realized that this was something that I needed to get done. So we're working on it. We got good success. And, even working across the aisle, I've got Democrats who are helping to sponsor this. In fact, the main sponsor in the senate, you, you may be able to guess this, is Angus King. He actually sounds like a a a beef offering at at one of the local fast food places. Speaker 0: He does actually. Foreign control of our food supply is a bad idea and I hope everyone recognizes that. I mean, come on. Yeah. K. Congressman Look. Speaker 2: This would be in the bill of rights if it weren't so obvious. Speaker 0: Well, that's exactly right. It ought to be. It's great to see you. Thank you for your bravery and the clarity of your positions, and I I hope people listen to you. Thomas Massey of Kentucky. Thanks.

@Ran_Dumb_Libs — RAN_DUMB_LIBS

Posted - December 10, 2023 at 5:34 PM

Saved - June 20, 2024 at 5:09 AM

@Ran_Dumb_Libs - RAN_DUMB_LIBS

@TuckerCarlson The real Ukraine no one is talking about 👀 https://t.co/ozvUdukWvJ

Video Transcript AI Summary

Flashback: Mention of sending offensive equipment equals World War 3. US sending 31 tanks to Ukraine. Artillery insufficient. Budget request for pensions and social support. Continual flow of weapons and ammunition. $150 million in military aid pledged by President Biden. Total aid close to $130 billion. Additional $1 billion in military aid announced. Recap.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Flashback. The idea that we're gonna send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains, going in, don't kid yourself. No matter what you all say, that's called World War 3. The next day Today, I'm announcing that the United States will be sending 31 Abram tanks to Ukraine. This fucking guy. 5 minutes later We have artillery. Yes. Thank you. Is it enough? Honestly, not really. Bullshit. Few moments later. Basically, we're out of money. What? And so that's why today, I'm sending congress a supplemental budget request It's gonna allow pensions and social support to be paid to the Ukrainian people so they have something something in their pocket. Now get the fuck out of here. It's gonna keep weapons and ammunition flowing without interruption to the brave Ukrainian fighters. The following deal state. The largest assistance package yet from the US to aid in new aid to Ukraine. President Biden is pledging another $150,000,000 in military assistance to 24 hours late. The US locked down an additional two 1,000,000,000 in military aid, includes artillery, millet The total figure now stands close to $130,000,000,000. A few inches later And a flashback.

@Urwrstnghtmare2 — 📵#BOB(BewustOngevaccineerdeBurger) 🏛

Posted - December 24, 2023 at 12:13 PM

Saved - December 25, 2023 at 11:35 AM

@Urwrstnghtmare2 - 📵#BOB(BewustOngevaccineerdeBurger) 🏛

Waarom is er oorlog in Oekraïne? https://t.co/7JqiuBpHvg

Video Transcript AI Summary

In 2014, three foreign ministers from Poland, Germany, and France arrived in Ukraine to guarantee a peaceful resolution between the government and the opposition. However, just two days later, a coup d'etat took place, allegedly orchestrated by the United States. The European guarantors claimed ignorance of the situation. The memory of these events seems to have faded in Europe, but Ukraine has not forgotten. The desire to bring Ukraine into NATO and the ongoing conflict in the Donbas region have contributed to the current tragedy.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: So in 2014, 3 foreign ministers arrived from Europe, from Poland, Germany, and France. They signed as guarantors of the agreement between the government of the time, president Yanukovych, and the opposition. They agreed that everything would be resolved peacefully. 2 days later, they carried out a coup d'etat. Why? Why did they not decide to win through elections? They did it to make a point to create conflict. That's why. And you may ask who did this? Our American cronies. And the Europeans, who signed as guarantors of the agreement between the government and the opposition, pretended they knew nothing at all. And now you can ask anyone in Europe, does anyone remember anything about it? No. But we have not forgotten, and we won't forget this, plus the unbridled desire to crawl up to our borders, taking Ukraine into NATO. All this led to this tragedy, plus the bloody events in the Donbas region that lasted 8 years. All of this led to the tragedy we are now experiencing.

@SpartaJustice — Truth Justice ™

Posted - February 6, 2024 at 9:17 PM

Saved - February 6, 2024 at 10:26 PM

@SpartaJustice - Truth Justice ™

@TuckerCarlson The truth about Russia and Ukraine. https://t.co/1W7AHktNcb

Video Transcript AI Summary

The video discusses US interference in Ukraine and its implications. It mentions the historical background of Western Ukraine siding with the Nazis during World War 2 and the emergence of extremist groups in Ukraine. It highlights the influence of the CIA, US State Department, and IMF in Ukraine's affairs, including orchestrating a coup against Yanukovych. The video also touches on the war in Ukraine and its impact on globalization. It suggests that the conflict is driven by the desire for control over Ukraine's resources and the deep state's involvement. It concludes by mentioning the need for dialogue and a "great reset" to address global issues.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: The first casualty of war is the truth. And if the American people knew the truth about US interference in Ukraine, they might not be so eager to start World War 3. During World War 2, Western Ukraine sided with the Nazis. Operating with them within the Ukraine. After decades of CIA infiltration, the Ukrainian People's Movement emerged in 1989 and gave birth to extremist groups, Svoboda, Trident, and Right Sector, neo Nazi groups pushing for the ethnic cleansing of Ukraine. Extremist groups cultivated by the CIA, supported by the US state department, and used by the IMF to bring Ukraine to heal. When Yanukovych beat NATO backed, Yushchenko, in the 2010 elections, his government was being pressured into signing an EU association agreement by the International Monetary Fund in their typical conquer by debt offer, that would financially ruin the Ukraine and place them at the mercy of the World Bank. Yanukovych declined their offer. And in today's corrupt world, you're not allowed to say no to the IMF. Funded by Western NGOs associated with George Soros and the CIA, a highly organized color revolution was immediately deployed against Yanukovych. Leaked phone calls reveal that the US state department was orchestrating this coup d'etat from within the US embassy with support from vice president Joe Biden. Speaker 1: Sullivan's come back to me, VFR saying you need Biden, and I said probably tomorrow for an Boy, and I get the deets to stick. So Biden's willing. Speaker 2: So you had this remarkable phone call where you have these 2 senior officials of the US government apparently talking about coup Or how they were planning to restructure the government of Ukraine. Speaker 1: Fuck the EU. No. Exactly. Speaker 0: Supporting a criminal war against Russia does not make you a patriot. It makes you a useful idiot of the globalist banking cartel, the very same entities waging war on all of humanity with vaccine passports and experimental jazz. The Speaker 3: world's biggest investment fund says the war in Ukraine has put an And to globalization as we know it. Larry Fink is the chief executive of BlackRock. Countries and businesses are cutting ties with Russia. They're also imposing sanctions against the country, including cutting off its central bank from its foreign reserves, Fink predicts that with Russia's decoupling from the world, Governments and companies will reevaluate their supply chains and even consider reconsider the dependency in other nations. Speaker 4: See, the truth is slowly gonna come out about what's really going on. And what's really going on is this. The Ukraine has been the center of Of the globalists for decades decades decades, 70 years at least, CIA, which is not a good organization, They're they're the the implementers of deep state, let's say. They've been working this in the Ukraine for 70 years, building up a resistance to everybody and everything. Why? Because because they needed to bring the Soviet Union down, but they also want the resources that are in the Ukraine. That's what this is all about. Particularly Eastern Ukraine, massive natural resources The CIA goes in, gets control of an American business interest, and they're not business. They're just robber barons. They're not legitimate businessmen. They just wanna steal, and that's what goes on. And so they're taking that away from from the from Russia and the Ukraine. And on top of that, it's the center of the deep state. And so by Vlad Putin going in, he's cutting the head off the snake. Once the head comes off, the whole beast will die. So that's what's actually going on, folks. So please, They are gonna tell you their stories about, possible nuclear war and Vlad's a bad man. This is the war with Russia that they wanted with Hillary Clinton as president because she lost The whole war against Russia was postponed. This is the plan they always had. Speaker 5: This has been in the works going back to at least 2015, 2016. It was somewhat set back by the election of Donald Trump in the United States because Trump was not a globalist, but he was opposed to many of these schemes. What we're seeing now is a merger of the great reset, the green new deal, The policies on on COVID and a number of other aspects of of government policy, which is being directed not on behalf of sovereign governments, But against sovereign governments. And this is why we're seeing the situation in Ukraine. And what is Russia's crime? Putin has asked for 20 years for security guarantees for Russia, and these guarantees include No further eastward expansion of NATO, which was promised to Gorbachev in 1990, which was promised again to Yeltsin in 1994, And yet NATO keeps moving to the very borders of Russia. Now they're talking about, as Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, did at the Munich Security Conference, That Ukraine has a right to develop nuclear weapons. And for Putin, Russia's security is directly threatened by 2 aspects u the Ukraine situation, the corruption which includes prominent Nazis in positions of the defense and security forces of Ukraine, The European Union actually acknowledged in 2018 that the defense and security forces of Ukraine were heavily infiltrated by Neo Nazis marching behind the banners of the Ukrainian SS, which joined Hitler in the 19 forties. And when Putin said you need u Vacation of Ukraine, he was called crazy. But the idea of a government, corrupt government being used not To defend the Ukrainian people's freedom and sovereignty. And I hate to see what's being done to the people of Ukraine right now in this war, But they are the cannon fodder for a NATO and US and British drive to bring down Russia and China. Why? Because they're the 2 leading powers in the world that oppose giving up sovereignty to this Green New Deal and the Great Reset. Speaker 6: I I don't have too many remedies. The the remedies have to be discussed through dialogue by the stakeholders of our global system, But, I just see the need for such a dialogue, and I see the need for action. I see the need for a great reset. Speaker 7: To what extent would a reset be brought about by a change in the White House, the election of Joe Biden, for instance? Speaker 6: I don't know. We first, we shouldn't speculate about the outcome of the election. We will see, beginning of November and Sunday, we we can in any case, we can, and so it's a World Economic Forum, is a very open and as a open platform to integrate everybody who is willing To address those issues in a spirit, which means, to exercise here, true global citizenship.

@TCNetwork — Tucker Carlson Network

Posted - February 8, 2024 at 11:18 PM

Saved - February 9, 2024 at 8:51 PM

@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network

Tucker asks Putin about jailed WSJ journalist https://t.co/SjPMutFJBP

Video Transcript AI Summary

The interviewer asks if the speaker will release Evan Gershkovitz, a 32-year-old Wall Street Journal reporter who has been in prison for almost a year. The speaker responds that they have already shown goodwill and cannot release him. The interviewer argues that Gershkovitz is not a spy and suggests it may degrade Russia to exchange him for someone else. The speaker counters that Gershkovitz covertly received classified information and is not just a journalist. They do not rule out his return to his home country and agree that keeping him in prison in Russia is senseless. The interviewer expresses hope that Gershkovitz will be released.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Just gotta ask you one last question and that's about Evan Gershkovitz who's The Wall Street Journal reporter. He's 32 and he's been in prison for almost a year. And I just wanna ask you directly if as a sign of your decency, you'll be willing to release him to us, and we'll bring him back to the United Speaker 1: We have done so many gestures of goodwill out of decency that I think we have run out of them. We have never seen Speaker 0: difference is the guy's obviously not a spy. He's a kid. And maybe he was breaking your law in some way, but he's not a super spy and everybody knows that. And he's being held hostage in exchange, which is true. With respect, inspected. It's true, and everyone knows it's true. So maybe he's in a different category. Maybe it's not fair to ask for, you know, somebody else in exchange for letting him out. Maybe it degrades Russia to do that. Speaker 1: He was receiving classified confidential information, and he did it covertly. I Speaker 0: mean, it's a 32 year old. Like, the owner. Speaker 1: He committed something different. He's not just a journalist. I reiterate he's a journalist who was secretly Complete getting confidential information. I do not rule out that the person you refer to, mister Gershkovits, may return to his motherland. By the end of the day, it does not make any sense to keep him in prison in Russia. Speaker 0: I hope you let him out.

@TCNetwork — Tucker Carlson Network

Posted - February 9, 2024 at 12:30 AM

Saved - February 9, 2024 at 8:51 PM

@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network

When was the last time Biden and Putin spoke? https://t.co/NcZhKEix71

Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 1 cannot recall the last time they spoke to Joe Biden and dismisses the need to remember everything. They acknowledge that Biden funds the war they are involved in but claims to have spoken to him before a special military operation. Speaker 1 expresses their belief that Biden is making a historic mistake by supporting actions in Ukraine that push Russia away. When asked about Biden's response, Speaker 1 suggests asking him directly as it is not appropriate for them to comment. They confirm that they have not spoken to Biden since before February 2020.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: When was the last time you spoke to Joe Biden? Speaker 1: I cannot remember when I talked to him. I do not remember. Speaker 0: You don't remember? Speaker 1: No. Do I have to remember everything? I have my own things to do. We have domestic political affairs. Speaker 0: Well, he's funding the war that you're fighting, so I would think that would be Speaker 1: Well, yes. He funds, but I talked to him before the special military operation, of course. And I said to him then, by the way, I believe that you are making a huge mistake of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening Take of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening there in Ukraine by pushing Russia away. I told him told him repeatedly, by What Speaker 0: what did he say? Speaker 1: Ask him, please. It is easier for you. You are a citizen of the United States. Go and ask him. It is not appropriate for me to comment on our conversation. Speaker 0: But but but you haven't spoken to him since before February of 2020 Speaker 1: No. We haven't spoken.

@MikeBenzCyber — Mike Benz

Posted - February 9, 2024 at 7:10 AM

Saved - February 9, 2024 at 11:06 PM

@MikeBenzCyber - Mike Benz

When Biden's State Dept watches this Tucker-Putin interview, they will zero in one word like a hawk: "Poland." This video examines 3 clips from the interview then explains why Poland is the star https://t.co/zC2kLkIfoj

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker discusses the relationship between Russia, Ukraine, and Poland, focusing on the ethnic differences between Russians and Ukrainians. They suggest that the idea of Ukrainians being ethnically different from Russians was war propaganda and that the conflict between the two countries is more about unification. The speaker also mentions the possibility of Russia denazifying Poland as an excuse to invade the country. They emphasize the importance of Poland in the energy market and how it connects to Ukraine. The speaker believes that Putin's comments in the interview will fuel the propaganda that Russia intends to invade Poland.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: That's interesting. He's actually making the argument that there is no such thing as a difference ethnically Speaker 1: than Russians and Ukrainians. The reason he's bringing this up, I don't think it's just because Poland just had a, you know, what I assume to be a US backed regime change there with Donald Tusk and Poland now about facing entering the war essentially. That's what the new regime in Poland is going to do. The new regime in Poland is the is the special sauce to the Grand Ukraine Energy play. Because it's through the ports in Poland that the US LNG, the liquefied natural gas, is transported to replace what used to be Russian gas. So so Putin's obviously tuned into that, but I think he's actually getting at something a little bit deeper in this case, which is which is he's arguing that the polls actually came up as basically a sort of war propaganda, with the idea that Ukrainians were ethnically different than Russians. And if Ukraine is If Ukrainians are not ethnically different than Russians, then effectively, there's it's not really a war. It's just a unification. It's like creating the United States, if you will. Of course, it's, you know, that that was what the USSR was. So you're going to hear flux of state department flunkies after this interview, I'm sure, talking about Putin's Revisionist history is revanchism, his Reconquista, you know, his dream of of recreating the, the USSR, you know, because he considers Ukrainians to actually be ethnic Russians. That's my that's my bet. Speaker 2: Well, theorist, Speaker 1: You achieved your Speaker 2: aims? No. We haven't achieved our aims yet because one of them is The Nazification. This means a revolution of all kinds of Neo Nazi movements. Speaker 1: And you notice oh, shit. Oh, shit. I already see tomorrow's edition of the diplomat. Oh, fuck. Oh, fuck. You know, because he just spent The first half of this interview remember, I kept harping on this. He spent the first whole fucking half of this interview talking about how Poland is connected to the Nazis. You guys remember that Poland? They had this agreement with the Nazis. And, you know, the the Poles are so bad. And it all goes back Speaker 3: to their agreements with the Nazis. And here he is saying, well, we're Speaker 1: not done yet because we have more denazification to do. And the whole fucking time, the diplomat and the Atlanta Council and all the fucking, you know, surround sound of CIA media has been, like, he's going to involve invade Poland next. So they're gonna use this argument to say that that Russia is now going to try to denazify Poland, in order to as an excuse to take over the territory there. Just just just just watch me. I'm right on this. I know it's gonna Speaker 2: collaborated with Hitler, and although it did not yield to Hitler's demands, It still participated in the Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. Now I'm convinced. He's bringing up this Poland thing because of the Poland situation that's happening right now. I mean, he's he's calling he's calling the Poles Nazi collaborators. He's emphasizing this point time and time again. Putin is pissed about the about, the regime change that just happened in in Poland. That I mean, that's that's too many times in a row. He wants Poland. I'm saying that NATO and the CIA and the state department and the mainstream media and the NGO swarm are all saying that Russia wants to take Poland. And the reason that we need to put $200,000,000,000 of capital in Ukraine is because the war won't just end. It's not just about Ukraine, he's gonna take Poland next. You have to understand, Poland is the linchpin of our strategy here. Okay. I'm gonna say again. Poland is the linchpin of our strategy here because this war is mostly about energy. It's mostly about control over 2 things. The entire hydrocarbons, in in Eurasia, which is 60% of the entire world's hydrocarbons, the oil and gas, and then within that, it is it is, also about the natural gas story and taking over the $1,000,000,000,000 natural gas market, which is mostly controlled by was controlled by Russia until 2022, since 19th century. And our our way of replacing Russia is through Poland. You see, Poland connects in the Baltic Sea, through Norway. We we it allows us so they have this whole architecture of a gas pipeline Ukraine has. That typically would take Russian gas and then send it into into Western Europe. So they have this so all that that gas architecture starts there. So we need to get to Ukraine. But and so the best way to do that is by taking a US LNG and liquefying it and then shipping it across the Atlantic Ocean through the through the Baltics, past Norway down into Poland and then Poland has the connecting terminals into Ukraine. They've just built them so that we could pull off this operation. And then on top of that, the US basically backed the opposition party in Poland, Donald Tusk's government, who just took office a couple months ago and has been rounding up all the the the former government who didn't want to participate in this war. And so Poland is a huge part of the play. This is how Anne Applebaum's husband is is so involved in this. You know, Anne Applebaum is on the board of this of the National Endowment for Democracy, the CIA cut out, and, who's the mouthpiece for the Atlantic. She was busted as if you look up Anne Applebaum on my timeline, you'll see her involvement in the Integrity Initiative, which is one of the very first Internet censorship operations in the Western world. And, you know, so she her husband was the former defense minister of Poland. And, she wrote a whole article about how she was always the first lady of Poland. And, you know, this whole Poland thing is because Poland is is the way for the US to replace Russia for for natural gas exports to Europe. And so part of that, part of what we what Our media has tried to do is create this fake threat that Russia is is about to invade Poland if we don't stop them in in Ukraine. And, and what I'm saying is is I don't believe for half a second that that is going to happen. But I do believe that what Putin just said in this interview is going to add fuel to The propaganda that we hear, here in the US that that is going to happen because they're going to argue that, that Putin is is accusing Poland of of being Nazis, and Putin is using this this predicate of denazification to carry out war. So by his own logic, he wants to, He just admitted, they'll say, to, to an evil scheme to militarily take over Poland. Hope that clarifies.

@TuckerCarlson — Tucker Carlson

Posted - February 12, 2024 at 7:01 PM

Saved - February 12, 2024 at 8:44 PM

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

Tucker's first discussion since the Vladimir Putin interview. https://t.co/t4O4NRYSV1

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker discusses their determination to conduct an interview with Vladimir Putin despite obstacles from the US government. They emphasize their shock and anger at the government's surveillance and intrusion into their personal life. The speaker clarifies that their views are constantly evolving based on new evidence and that their main goal is to tell the truth. They express their disappointment in the current US administration's incompetence and criticize the state of American cities compared to Moscow. The speaker believes that compromise is necessary in international relations and highlights the need for leaders to understand history and the consequences of their actions. They criticize the biased media landscape and the erosion of democracy in the US. The speaker concludes by discussing the importance of humility and wisdom in leadership.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: I'll start in reverse order. Why now? Well, I've been trying for 3 years to do this interview. The US government prevented me from doing it by spying on my text messages and leaking them to the New York Times. And that spooked the Russian government into canceling the interview. So I've been trying to do this, But my country's intel services were working against me illegally, and that enraged me, because I'm An American citizen. I'm 54. I pay my taxes. I obey the law. And there was no expectation in the America that I grew up in that my government and its Intel services NSA and CIA which were always outwardly focused on our foreign enemies, would be turned inward against American citizens. And I'm shocked by that, and I'm infuriated by that. And so once I discovered that that was happening, and I confirmed it was happening, and they admitted that they did it, that I was totally determined, monomaniacally dedicated to doing this interview, not simply because I want to know, What Vladimir Putin is like, and what he thinks about a war that is resetting the world, and really, gravely damaging my country's economy. But also because they told me I couldn't, on the basis of illegitimate means, and for no really Clearly stated justification, and I thought, that can't stand. I don't I want to live in a free country. I was born in 1, and I'm going to do whatever small thing I can do to maintain, you know, the society that I I I k. Speaker 1: I love. You are you are known to be Pro Republican party. Right wing of Republican party. This is what they claim. They said, first, you've been a democrat That's not true. Became a republican. Okay. Or you are known to be pro Trump, anti Biden. What is truthful in this? And you went to Putin. Because you are pro Trump and anti Biden? Speaker 0: I mean, my views are not very interesting. I would I'm not sure how I'd characterize them. They're changing as quickly as the world itself is changing. And I as a matter of principle, I think that, you know, that your view should change when the evidence changes. And assumptions that you had in the past were proven wrong. That has happened to me virtually every month of my life. If you pay close enough attention, you can rate your own performance, just as if you're betting on sports. You know, I lost That one. And when you do, when it turns out that things you thought were true were lies, you should admit it. So what are my views? I'm not Tell the truth is my main view, and I plan to do that to the best of my abilities. So, Trump played no role in this whatsoever. There's, obviously, an election in my country Coming, to fruition in November, I have no idea what's going to happen. I think that the current administration is Very obviously incompetent, and the President is senile. That's not an attack. Everyone knows it. It has now Been confirmed, I would say, this week, in the report that you're all familiar with. But, and that's very sad, But it it had sort of nothing to do with the interview. I wanted to interview Putin because he's the leader of a country that the US government is sort of at war with, though not in a in a declared way. Speaker 1: Sir, you know your president, president Biden. Well, you've been working in several Media organizations from PBS, CNBC, m m m m m and and and and and and and and and and and and and and Speaker 0: and and and Speaker 1: and and and and and and, Fox News, CNN, And you've been covering this field well, and you know the American politicians. And now you've been following Putin, and you did A very lengthy interview with the gentleman. And for sure, to interview them, you did your homework, and you did your research. Comparing The culture, the competence between Vladimir Putin and Biden. How do you see the 2 men now, Running the world. Speaker 0: I mean, if this were boxing, the fight would be called by the medic. So and I say that as an American. And I'm I don't have another passport. I don't plan to ever leave my country. My family's been there 100 of years, and I love it. I am a patriotic American. And I grieve when I see that the President is noncompass menace. And that in my country, it is considered very rude to say that. And you sort of wonder, how did you get to place where you have an incompetent president who's driven, not simply the standard of living, but life expectancy downward, And no one feels free to say that. That's not a political observation. It's a statement of fact, which is provable, empirically. And the most radicalizing thing I would just say, for me, in the 8 days I spent in Moscow, was not simply the leader of the country, who of course is impressive. It's the largest land mass in the world. And it's wildly diverse, linguistically, culturally, religiously. It's hard to run a country like that for 24 years, whether you like it or not. So an incapable person couldn't do that. He is very capable. And many of you know him, and you know that. What was radicalizing, very shocking, and very disturbing for me, was the city of Moscow, where I'd never been. The biggest City in Europe, 13,000,000 people. And it is so much nicer than any city in my country. I had no idea. My father spent a lot of time there in the eighties when he worked for the US government and barely had And now, it is so much cleaner, and safer, and prettier, aesthetically. It's architecture, it's food, it's service. Then any city in the United States that you have to and this is non ideological how did that happen? How did that happen? And at a certain point, I don't think the average person cares as much about abstractions as about the concrete reality of his life. And if you can't use your subway, for As many people are afraid to in New York City, because it's too dangerous, you have to sort of wonder, like, isn't that the ultimate measure of leadership? And that's true by the way, it's radicalizing for an American to go to Moscow. I didn't know that, I've learned it this week. To Singapore, to Tokyo, to Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Because these cities, no matter how we're told they're run, and on what principles they're run, are wonderful places to live. They don't have rampant inflation, where you're not gonna get raped. Speaker 1: Sir, excuse me. Speaker 0: What is that? Speaker 1: Excuse me. Are you Anti American model? Speaker 0: No. I am the most pro American. So I'm 54. I was born in 1969. I grew up a country that had cities like Moscow and Abu Dhabi and Dubai and Singapore and Tokyo, and we no longer have them. And what I have discovered is that's a voluntary choice. As inflation is, as you heard in that fascinating last panel, inflation is the product of choices made mostly by the central bank, not exclusively, but by policy makers. Crime. Same. You don't have to have crime, actually, if you don't put My children don't smoke marijuana at the breakfast table. Why? Because I won't allow them. It's very simple. It's a short conversation. No. And you can run your country the same way. We're not gonna put up with that, so don't do it. And people understand that. Filth, graffiti, Paris, one of my favorite cities, New York, one of my favorite cities, are filthy. And part of the reason they're filthy is because people spray paint obscenities on buildings and no cleans it up. So that encourages more people to do the same. And our policy makers, for some reason, don't notice this. London, another one of my favorite cities. You see English girls begging for drugs on the sidewalk. And I thought to myself, if I'm Boris Johnson, who briefly and very badly ran that country, I would ask myself, like, wait a second. My countrymen are begging for drugs on the street. Maybe I should do something about that. But now, he'll show up and give some speech about Ukraine and how we need to send, you know, more Bostrombombs to the brain. Speaker 1: Now you Speaker 0: What are you doing? Speaker 1: You mentioned Ukraine. By talking to this gentleman, President Putin, for this lengthy interview, my question is, did you had coffee with him? Did you have any Of the record discussion before the interview? After. Did you feel during the interview or before or after That this man can make or is willing to do a historical compromise, number 1, on the, status of the world With the US, and number 2, about Ukraine, is he a compromiser? Yes or no? Speaker 0: Of course. Right? I mean, the leaders of every country on the planet, other than maybe the United States, during the unipolar period, are forced by the nature of their jobs to compromise. Compromise is part of that's what diplomacy is. And he's among those. His position is clearly hardening. Russia has been rebuffed by the West. I mean, Vladimir Putin, this is not I'm not flacking for Putin. I'm an American. I'm not gonna live in Russia. I don't love Vladimir Putin. I'm I'm stating the facts. He asked Bill Clinton to join NATO. He tried to make a missile deal Speaker 1: He mentioned this in the interview. That's correct. Speaker 0: And he's mentioned it in other forums as well. And NATO said, no, we don't want you. Now if the point of NATO, not if, the point of NATO originally, of course, the post war goal of NATO was to keep the Russians, the Soviets, from coming into Western Europe. It was a bull work against the Russians. So if the Russians actually joined the alliance, that would suggest you have solved the problem and you can move on to do something constructive with your life. But we refused. And so, I mean, just meditate on that. Go sit in the sauna for an hour and think about what that means. Speaker 1: Before sitting in the sauna, a question a question now. Final conclusion, you think that Vladimir Putin is eager for a compromise, a compromise like Yalta, Cycasbiko, the Ottoman Empire, several agreements, any international agreement to share Power and to share influence in the world with the west if there is somebody who is willing. And Biden administration wants tension, wants war, want to exert pressure on him so that they can Weaken his economy and weaken his alliance with with China. Is this is what you are reaching from your conclusions? Speaker 0: My conclusions are in code. I mean, I've been thinking about this for a couple of years. I have a whole new set of data to mull over it. I'm not a genius, so it's going to take me a while to figure out what I think. But at this stage, 4 days later, I would say first of all, Yalta and Sykes Picot are 2 of the worst agreements ever struck. So I hope whatever comes out of this is nothing like those. But, first things first. Putin wants to get out of this war. He's not going to, become more open to negotiation, the longer this goes on. One of the things we've learned in the course of the last 2 years is that Russia's industrial fill capacity, is a lot more profound than we thought it was. I mean, Russia's having an e Russia, this country, we're assured, was a Gas station with nuclear weapons, has a pretty easy time making missiles, rockets and artillery shells, whereas NATO doesn't. So we should think about what that means, 1. 2, the West doesn't spend any time, or our policy in Washington spent no time thinking about like, what are the achievable goals here? I have heard personally, US government officials say, well, we're just gonna to return Crimea to Ukraine. Well, you don't need to be a Russia scholar. So that's not going to happen, short of a nuclear war. That's insane, actually. So even to say something like that reveals that you're a child, you don't understand the area at all, and you have no real sense of what's possible. And so as long as our leaders, and not simply in the US, but NATO, and I really mean Germany, don't like, take the time to learn about possible is we're not gonna get anywhere. Speaker 1: You think there is a big gap between the depths of understanding the philosophy of history between Biden And between Putin you you see Putin who have studied history and who is very deep in History. And he looks like he gave you a lecture in in for 30 minutes concerning the history of Ukraine and its relationship with The mother, Russia. Does Biden understand the law of action and reaction which moves a country like Russia? Speaker 0: I can't overstate how incapacitated Joe Biden is. That's not an attack, that is a fact. And anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. So So these are not decisions Joe Biden is making. But there are capable people around Biden, and I know them. What they lack is any perspective Tip at all. So a conversation with a US policy maker about the history of the region would begin and end with a conversation about, of course, Chamberlain and Churchill and Hitler. Period. So the American policy maker historical template is tiny. In fact, there's only 1. And it's a 2 year period in the late 19 thirties. And everything is based on that understanding of history and human nature. And that's insane. And so, actually, American policymakers have convinced themselves that Vladimir Putin is going to take over Poland. And It is not a defense of Putin. I don't mean to defend Putin. I'm not a fan of Putin's, and I'm not a subject to Putin's. I'm an American. However, there's no evidence that Putin has any interest in his borders. He is the largest country in the world. And it's very hard to run. They don't need natural resources. There's nothing in Poland he wants. There's nothing he will gain by taking Poland, other than more trouble. That is if you're saying if you could have made Poland, you don't know what you're talking about. Speaker 1: Here is a point a point in the interview when you asked him, are you Are you ready to to invade Poland? Speaker 0: Are you in expansion of power yet? Speaker 1: Expansion. Yes. In in in Poland, he said, Only if Poland launched Speaker 0: a war Of course. Speaker 1: On Russia. Okay? Ukraine did not launch a war on Russia, and he invaded Ukraine. Why you didn't follow-up on this question? Speaker 0: I started with that question, actually. But he treated me to 35 minutes of Catherine the Great Okay. And the ruse. But no, the core question is why did he move his forces into Eastern Ukraine. And I watched this from a distant vantage in the United States, and I watched the Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris, Go to the Munich Security Conference, just days before that, in February of 2022, and say in a public forum, at a press Conference. To Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, we want you to join NATO. Which is another way of saying, it's a synonym for, we plan to put nuclear weapons un Russian. Speaker 1: You think there's true abate for him? Speaker 0: They've been joking. Of course they did. Speaker 1: They threw Speaker 0: a bait. And it just tells you how constipated Tricked it and censored. The US media landscape is, that I was the only one who said that. Well, wait a second. The purpose of diplomacy is to reach A peaceful, mutually one hopes beneficial conclusion to a crisis. So if you're showing up voluntarily at the Munich Security Conference and Hey, Zelensky. Why don't you allow us to put nuclear weapons on Russia's border? You're cruising for a war because you know that's the red line. Because Putin has said that, And any close observer the area already knows? Speaker 1: Now do you have an explanation, a reasonable explanation, why there is this Anti war and this very negative remarks about this interview from a lot of your colleagues and a lot of politicians in the world. Speaker 0: One of the ways that I think I'm different is, I don't like the Internet. And, I haven't seen any of the reaction. And I would imagine, You know, I'm not the most popular person among my colleagues in the United States. I wouldn't have dinner with them anyway, so it's no great loss. But, You know, they I I can't imagine what their motives would be. I didn't go to Russia, of course, to promote Vladimir Putin. And if I if that was my purpose, I'd say so, because I'm not embarrassed. I went because I felt that most Americans, in whose name all of this is being done, don't really know what's happening, and they know nothing about the guy they're supposedly at war with, unofficially. And I just felt that my job, if I have a job in this world, is to bring information to people so they can decide. And so I wanted to do the longest interview I could with Vladimir Putin, that contained the most amount of Vladimir Putin talking, not me grandstanding about what a great person I am. When an American journalist interviews someone like Vladimir Putin, the whole point of the interview I'm a good person and you're not. And that interview was aimed at his colleagues in the newsrooms in the United States. I'm a good person. Why are you such a bad person? You're committing genocide. Okay. That's not fruitful, and that's certainly not my role. I care what God thinks of me, what my wife thinks of me, and what my 4 children think of me, and that's all I care about. So I don't need to prove that I'm a good person. Wanna hear Vladimir Putin talk, so people in my country can assess what's happening. Speaker 1: I That's it. I'll I'll I'll use the devil's advocate. But advocate away. Yes. Okay. I'll tell you. You you should challenge in in in the rules of an interview, and you're a master in in your in your business. It's not for me to give you a lecture about that, but you should challenge some ideas. For instance, You you didn't talk about freedom of speech in in Russia. You did not talk about Navalny, About assassinations, about about the restrictions on, opposition in the coming Elections. Speaker 0: I didn't talk about the things that every other American media outlet talks about. Why? Speaker 1: Because, yes. Because those Speaker 0: are covered. And because I have spent my life talking to people who run countries, in various countries, and have concluded the following, that every leader kills people, including my leader. Every leader kills people. Some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people. Sorry. That's why I wouldn't want to be a leader. That Press restriction is universal in the United States. I know because I've lived it. I've, you know, asked my phone, you know, I've had a lot of jobs. And I've done this for 34 years, and I know how it works. And, there's more censorship in Russia than there is in the United States, but there's a great deal in the United States. And so, you know, at a certain point, it's like people can decide whether they think, you know, what what countries they think are better, what systems they think are better. I just wanna know what he thinks. That was the whole point. Speaker 1: Yes. I was very surprised, about an inappropriate remark. I I don't think it is Contains any of the, what you can call John TS or, niceties from, missus Clinton when she mentioned A phrase about you, I don't want to repeat it. Speaker 0: Oh, you're not gonna hurt my feelings. Don't worry. Speaker 1: Well well, gentleman, she she called this gentleman, just honorable Gentlemen that he is playing the role of a you say it. Speaker 0: I I didn't see it. Speaker 1: You didn't see it. Speaker 0: She's a child. I don't listen to her. Speaker 1: How's Libya doing? No. No. No. No. No. Oh, okay. She she said, the the the the the the useful idiot. And and and if you see the interview, that has nothing to do with this at all. He was trying to get a testimony about the world as Putin sees it. And this is Exactly what we need to know, how this man thinks. Either you consider him an enemy or you consider him a friend or you consider him a dictator, but you you should understand how the man Thanks. Now the You put Speaker 0: it better than I could. That's a you just described my motive right there. Speaker 1: Okay, sir. Now now now the the the question is if this is the that is that, as they say in the United States, and this is The the the, the power of media and the the way the media is becoming very biased in a deep state like America, where are we going in the model of democracy in the world? Speaker 0: Media information In a free country is a counterbalance against entrenched power. Not just government power, but the economic power, business. It was, in my country, Constitutionally, it is designed to be to serve as a counterbalance to that. So if sources of information, media outlets To align with entrenched power, then you have a powerless population, and it's totalitarian. And that is very quickly, the direction the United States is headed. And and I do think that technology abets this progression, and machine learning, especially. And so it's a perilous moment, if if it, you know, were Percie, purportedly. And a prerequisite for democracy is information, so that the electric can make up its mind and decide who to choose. And so if you don't have access to information, you don't have democracy. And we're in this sort of weird spiral, where our leaders lecture us ever more about democracy and how sacred it is, Even as they choke it off, choke it to death. And so I think the people who provide information, who bring the facts to the public, have a critical role to play. And right now It's difficult. I'm not facing any great I I don't mean to cast myself as a hero. I'm certainly not a hero at all. But I do think it's Tougher and tougher to do that. And that means we have a greater obligation to do it. Speaker 1: Sir, do you have an explanation? Till this moment, since the Gaza Events took place till now. Nobody came out and said, how on earth the United States of America Is vetoing the the stoppage of, fire, how a country would veto Not to continue war. How how somebody is against stopping a war. Speaker 0: The United States is, for this moment, is the most powerful country in the history of the world. So if you were to frame this in terms we're all familiar with, which are the most basic terms, the terms of the family, the United States would be DAP, would be the father. And the father's sacred obligation is to protect his family and to restore peace within his walls. So if I come home fortunately, if I come home from work and 2 of my kids are fighting, what's the first thing I do? Even before I assess why they're fighting, before I gather the facts and know what's happening Speaker 1: I stop the fight. Speaker 0: Stop fighting. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: So if I come home and I have 2 kids fighting and I say, go, go, beat the crap out of them. I am evil. Because I violated The most basic duty of fatherhood, which is to bring peace, because I have the power. I'm the only one who can bring peace. And so if you see a nation with Some power, abetting war for its own sake. You have a leadership that has no moral authority, that is illegitimate. And I mean that too. And I and I not I'm not even referring to any specific region or conflict. I mean, generally. And I'm deeply offended by that. Deeply. And and it's something that I try to express, and I'm often called a traitor for saying that. It's the opposite. I say that because I believe in the United States. I think it's a moral it has been a morally superior country. And if we allow our leaders to use our power to spread destruction for its own sake, That is shameful. It's a binary. Okay? It's a it's a black and white. It's a 0 and a 1. You are either creating or you're destroying. You're improving or you're degrading. And that's how you know whether something is good or bad, whether it's virtuous or evil. If you just judge the fruits. By its fruits, you will know it. And I and I'm very distressed and concerned that we are entering an era where this awesome force for good is instead being used for evil. Speaker 1: Two quick questions because I ran out of time. First question is, now in the American elections, we have probabilities. Yes. Either it's Biden and Trump, or Biden and somebody else not Trump, Or no Biden and no Trump and circumstances or fate get us 2 different People representing a republican or democrats. What do you think where are we going to reach? Coming 19th November, Who will be running the show? Speaker 0: I haven't. Honestly, I haven't the faintest idea. But I think there's volatility ahead in our political sphere. When clearly, there is because Speaker 1: I I like you when you said, I I don't have an an idea. You you have this courage of to say that you don't know. You were telling me this morning that what one of the things which you like very much about here, our our president, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, god bless him, when you ask him a question, If he doesn't have an answer, he tell me, actually, I don't know the answer of this question. Speaker 0: I've never heard a leader of anything, whether it's a country or a company or a soccer team, ever in my life, in a life spent interviewing people. I've never heard a single one of them say, you know, I don't I don't know the answer. It's very complicated. I haven't figured I've never heard anybody say that. And to me, that is the pure sign of wisdom. Because wisdom grows from humility. Wisdom grows From the recognition that you are not God. And in the United States, we had a period where we were sort of, you know, having this debate about, Are some religions good and some religions bad? I'll tell you my view on it, and it's a hardened view. It's a sincere view. I divide the world not between Muslim, Jew, She's a Buddhist. I divide the world between people who believe they're God, and people who know they're not. And the only people I trust are in the second category. Because that is the beginning of wisdom. When you know you are not God, that you cannot affect every change that you want, that you can't foresee the future, that you're not omnipotent, then you are much more likely to make good decisions, wise, humane decisions. By contrast, when you believe you have the power To shape the world and other people, as we were hearing this morning, through biohacking. When you think you can create a better human being through technology, you're very dangerous. Because you don't understand your own limits. You will get a lot of people killed, when you when you have those false beliefs, in my opinion. Speaker 1: By by this note, mister Carlson, thank you very much for Giving us this chance to come for the first time after your great interview To talk to the world through this podium and this country and my humble sir. Thank you, sir. Speaker 0: Thank you for having me. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one gonna say Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.

@BGatesIsaPyscho — Concerned Citizen

Posted - February 15, 2024 at 11:00 AM

Saved - February 15, 2024 at 2:26 PM

@BGatesIsaPyscho - Concerned Citizen

🇺🇸🇷🇺 Tucker Carlson in Russia During trip to Supermarket Tucker Carlson explains why he “feels radicalised” against the US Government. Worth 60 seconds of your time. Anyone else feel like this? https://t.co/TqGgVaHmTD

Video Transcript AI Summary

I was initially amused, but then became angry when I realized the impact of corruption on people's lives. We didn't pay attention to the cost of groceries while shopping, but it turned out to be $104, which made me question the importance of ideology. When a country's standard of living is affected by filth, crime, and inflation, people can't afford the groceries they need. It doesn't matter if you're a good or bad person, our leaders have ruined lives. Visiting a Russian grocery store and witnessing the cost of living there has radicalized me against our leaders. And just to clarify, none of this is made up.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: I went from amused to legitimately angry. So we were guessing what this would cost. Everybody here is from the United States buys groceries, and we didn't pay any attention to cost as we were just putting in the cart where we would actually eat over a week. And we All came in around $400, about $400. It was a $104 US here, and that's when you start to realized that ideology maybe doesn't matter as much as you thought, corruption. If you take people's standard of living and you States tank it through filth and crime and inflation, and they literally can't buy the groceries they want. At that point, Maybe it matters less what you say or whether you're a good person or a bad person. You're wrecking people's lives in their country, and that's what our leaders have done to us. States, and coming to a Russian grocery store, the heart of evil, and seeing what things cost and how people live, It will radicalize you against our leaders. That's how I feel anyway. Radicalized. We're not making any of this up, by the way, at all.

@JohnnyAkzam — Johnny Akzam

Posted - June 21, 2024 at 12:06 AM

Saved - July 5, 2025 at 8:05 PM

@JohnnyAkzam - Johnny Akzam

Jeffery Sachs thoroughly educates Piers Morgan on the Ukrainian conflict. https://t.co/2FUyx1Pa2I

Video Transcript AI Summary

The speaker argues against accepting a one-sided view of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, citing the US's history of interventionism. They claim the US illegally bombed Belgrade, initiated wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and illegally bombed Libya. They allege the US overthrew Yanukovych in Kyiv in 2014, despite an EU-brokered agreement for early elections. The speaker states that Russia initially sought peace through negotiations, resulting in the Minsk II agreement, which was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. However, they claim the US government dismissed Minsk II, and Angela Merkel admitted it was a ploy to strengthen Ukraine. The speaker distrusts the US government and advocates for a transparent agreement between Russia and Ukraine, with both sides committing to non-intervention and NATO non-enlargement, to be witnessed by the world.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: You seem very reliant on accepting Putin's world view rather than perhaps the stark reality of the barbarism with which he's executed this war. Speaker 1: Yeah. May maybe because I know too much about The United States, because the first war in Europe after World War two was The US bombing of Belgrade for seventy eight days to change borders of a European state. The idea was to break Serbia, to create Kosovo as an enclave, and then to install Banda Steel, which is the largest NATO base in the Balkans, in the Southwest Balkans. So The US started this under Clinton, that we will break the borders, we will illegally bomb another country. We didn't have any UN authority. This was a NATO mission to do that. Then I know The United States went to war repeatedly, illegally, in what it did in Afghanistan, and then what it did in Iraq, and then what it did in Syria, which was the Obama administration, especially Obama and Hillary Clinton, tasking the CIA to overthrow Bashar al Assad, and then what it did with NATO illegally bombing Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi, and then what it did in Kyiv in February 2014. I happened to see some of that with my own eyes. The U. S. Overthrew Yanukovych together with right wing Ukrainian military forces. We overthrew a president. And what's interesting, by the way, is we overthrew Yanukovych the day after the European Union representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych to have early elections, a government of national unity, and a stand down of both sides. That was agreed. The next thing that happens is the opposition, quote unquote, says, We don't agree. They stormed the government buildings, and they deposed Yanukovych, and within hours The United States says, Yes, we support the new government. It didn't say, Oh, we had an agreement. That's unconstitutional, what you did. So we overthrew a government, contrary to a promise that the European Union had made. And by the way, Russia, The United States, and the EU were parties to that agreement. And The United States, an hour afterwards, backed the coup. Okay, so everyone's got a little bit to answer for. In 2015, the Russians did not say, we want the Donbas back. They said peace should come through negotiations. And negotiations between the ethnic Russians in the East Of Ukraine and this new regime in Kyiv led to the Minsk two agreement. The Minsk two agreement was voted by the UN Security Council unanimously. It was signed by the government of Ukraine. It was guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. And you know what? And it's been explained to me in person. It was laughed at inside the US government. This is after the UN Security Council unanimously accepted it. The Ukrainians said, we don't want to give autonomy to the region. Oh, but that's part of the treaty. The US told them, don't worry about it. Angela Merkel explained in desight in a notorious interview after the twenty twenty two escalation, she said, Oh, you know, we knew that Minsk II was just a holding pattern to give Ukraine time to build its strength. No. Minsk II was a UN Security Council unanimously adopted treaty that was supposed to end the war. So when it comes to who's trustworthy, who to believe, and so forth, I guess my problem, Peers, is I know the United States government. I know it very well. Don't trust them for a moment. I want these two sides actually to sit down in front of the whole world and say, These are the terms. Then the world can judge, because we could get on paper clearly for both sides of the world. We're not going to overthrow governments anymore, the United States needs to say. We accept this agreement, the United States needs to say. Russia needs to say. We're not stepping one foot farther than whatever the boundary is actually reached. And NATO's not going to enlarge. And let's put it for the whole world to see. You know, once in a while, treaties actually hold.

@RealAlexJones — Alex Jones

Posted - August 23, 2024 at 7:38 PM

Saved - August 23, 2024 at 8:06 PM

@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones

RFK JR. Devastates Military Industrial Complex By Explaining True Reasons Behind Russia / Ukraine War https://t.co/wLDVeOuKtE

@frontlinekit — Richard Woodruff 🇺🇦

Posted - December 4, 2024 at 5:40 AM

Saved - December 4, 2024 at 3:55 PM

@frontlinekit - Richard Woodruff 🇺🇦

We're in Ukraine. Here's why. https://t.co/Z079hmx548

Video Transcript AI Summary

Good morning. I'm Richard Woodruff from Lviv, Ukraine. I want to address Tucker Carlson. Real Americans and freedom-loving citizens from Britain and Europe have stood with Ukraine for over a thousand days. Meanwhile, you sit in Moscow, enjoying cocktails while ignoring the genocide happening here. You have no understanding of the situation, and history will remember your actions during this invasion. People will look back and see you as someone who supported the Russians for personal gain. Tucker, you are condemned for your stance.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Good morning. My name is Richard Woodruff from Lviv Ukraine. And I wanna say to Speaker 1: a Tucker Carlson sorry. Tucker Carlson that real Americans stand with Ukraine. The real Americans have been here for 1014 days. Real freedom loving British and European citizens have been here for over a 1000 days standing with the Ukrainians. And what do you do? You sit in Moscow, the powerful elite, elite, sipping cocktails and champagne, laughing about the genocide of Ukrainians. Right? That's exactly what you're doing right now. You have absolutely no idea, you fucking worthless man, and I'm glad all of humanity and all of history will know exactly what you have done. And people will look back at this genocidal invasion and say Tucker Carlson. He was the one simping for the Russians. All for a little bit of that blood money. Hey, Tucker. Fuck you.

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

We’re back in Moscow. Here’s why. https://t.co/7FfBhcaIUu

Video Transcript AI Summary

Since leaving Russia, we've observed the Biden administration escalating tensions with Moscow, bringing the U.S. closer to nuclear conflict. Recently, U.S. military actions resulted in the deaths of Russian soldiers, marking an undeclared war that most Americans are unaware of. This situation is more perilous than during the Cuban missile crisis, yet there is no communication between U.S. and Russian officials, as Secretary of State Tony Blinken has severed all contact for over two years. Efforts to gain insights from Ukrainian President Zelensky have been blocked by the U.S. government, limiting American access to diverse perspectives. We returned to Moscow to interview Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov about the potential for conflict and the future of U.S.-Russia relations. Stay tuned for the upcoming interview.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: In the weeks since we left Russia, Moscow, where we are now in February after interviewing Vladimir Putin, we've watched from the United States as the Biden administration has driven the US ever closer to a nuclear conflict with Russia, the country that possesses the world's largest nuclear arsenal. It has accelerated ever since, and it's reached its apogee so far in the weeks after Trump's election. He's now the president-elect. In that time, just a few weeks ago, the Biden administration, American military personnel launched missiles into mainland Russia and killed at least a dozen Russian soldiers. So we are, unbeknownst to most Americans, in a hot war with Russian, undeclared war, a war you did not vote for and that most Americans don't want but is ongoing. And because of that war, because of the fact that the US military is killing Russians in Russia right now, we are closer to nuclear war than in any time in history, far closer than we were during the Cuban missile crisis. That would mean the elimination of Russia, the United States, and most of the rest of the world. We felt there must be someone behind the scenes in Washington working to make sure that this conflict doesn't become a nuclear holocaust. But we found out that, no, in fact, there is nobody. Tony Blinken, the current secretary of state, cut off all contact between the US and Russian governments. There is no back channel. There is no conversation. There hasn't been for more than 2 years. That's shocking. Meanwhile, most Americans have no access to any perspective other than that granted to them by NBC News and the New York Times. They don't know how close we are. They don't know the Russian perspective. We've been trying for over a year to get that perspective out to American news consumers. We've also tried for over a year to get an interview with Zelensky, the president of Ukraine. We've attacked that from a bunch of different angles. He's spoken to a lot of different people around him, had dinner with them. We've been in talks continuously, and those efforts have been thwarted by the US government. The American embassy in Kyiv, which our tax dollars pay for, told the Zelensky government, no, you may not do the interview. You can talk to CNN. You can't talk to us. So we've been unable to speak to him. So we came back to Moscow yesterday to interview the foreign minister of Russia, Sergey Lavrov, the longest serving foreign minister in the world. He's been a part of this government for 25 years. He's been in the diplomatic corps for over 40, and ask him where exactly are we. Are we headed toward an unprecedented conflict between Russia and the United States? Is there any way to peel Russia back from the east, from the sphere of China back into the west? Is that alliance permanent? And does the election of Donald Trump mean an end to this war, which is reshaping the world, the US economy, the global economy, and risking the life of every person on this planet? Is that possible? We just walked out of that interview. It's absolutely fascinating. It's coming very soon. We hope you'll watch.

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

Posted - December 22, 2024 at 7:47 PM

Saved - December 23, 2024 at 1:55 AM

reSee.it AI Summary

I raised questions about U.S. funding for secret biolabs in Ukraine, especially after the assassination of Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, who claimed the coronavirus was artificially created and linked to U.S. biolabs. Victoria Nuland confirmed concerns over biological research facilities in Ukraine, suggesting Russian forces might seek control over them. Additionally, the Russian Defense Ministry has implicated prominent U.S. figures in bioweapons testing in Ukraine, highlighting ongoing Pentagon programs since 2018 focused on RNA/DNA collection for research.

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

Tucker Carlson: Why is the U.S. funding secret biolabs in Ukraine? https://t.co/Mcx9pw0Vs7

Video Transcript AI Summary

The discussion centers on U.S. involvement in biological research in Ukraine amidst accusations from Russia. A U.S. official claimed that any biological or chemical weapon incidents would be attributed to Russia, which has been accused of using disinformation tactics. The conversation reveals that the U.S. has funded biological laboratories in Ukraine, which study dangerous pathogens. Despite denials from U.S. officials about developing biological weapons, there are concerns about the security of these materials in a conflict zone. The Chinese government has called for inspections of these facilities, highlighting international concerns about biological safety. The need for transparency and accountability regarding U.S. actions in Ukraine is emphasized, as the situation remains precarious.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: So this question is on our mind. It seems fair. Now that some of what we would have asked if we were US centers, which were not, yes, there's a time limit. Time limit be damned because this is kind of important. But Rubio did not ask those questions. Instead, he changed the subject and told us once again that Vladimir Putin is bad. Watch. Speaker 1: If there's a biological or chemical weapon incident or, or attack inside of Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100% it would be the Russians that would be behind it? Speaker 2: There is no doubt in my mind, senator, and it is classic Russian, technique to blame on the other guy what they're planning to do themselves. Speaker 0: Okay. Just get a pen. It's a classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy what they are planning to do themselves. That's what Torian Nuland said. We almost laughed out loud. So what you're saying, Torian Nuland, if, for example, you were funding secret bio labs in Ukraine, but wanted to hide that frack from the people who are paying for it in whose name you were doing it, then you might lie about it by claiming the Russians were lying about it. In other words, you might mount a disinformation campaign by claiming the other guy was mounting a disinformation campaign. Is that what you're saying, Tory Noland? It's pretty funny. What's not funny is that this is all entirely real. We invited Marco Rubio on this show tonight to tell us what he knows about these bio labs. He declined to come. That invitation remains open. In the meantime, let's review what little we do know about this. We're gonna start with a spokesman for the Russian defense ministry on Sunday. Now we would never do this. We've never played anything like this on the show before because, of course, we're Americans and we wanna know what's going on. We ask our own officials, the people we elect and whose salaries we pay because it's our country. We don't go to foreign sources because we trust our own sources first. But when it turns out the people who represent us and run our government are lying to us and never apologize for it and doing horrific things in our names, then you have to open your mind a little bit and at least assess what other people are saying. So here was the Russian claim. Watch. Speaker 3: During the course of the special military operation, facts were uncovered at the Kyiv regime mopping up traces of military biological program under development in Ukraine financed by the US Defense Ministry. Speaker 0: Okay. So that apparently, we hadn't seen that until this afternoon we started poking around. That may have been the root of the conspiracy theories that the fact checks told us were Russian disinformation. Let's quote it. Military biological programs are under development in Ukraine financed by the US defense ministry. That's the Russian claim. Separately, a Russian foreign ministry spokesman said the Ukrainians are working on deadly pathogens including plague and anthrax. Is that true? Now obviously, we would not take Russia's word for that ever, but we don't have to take Russia's word for that. The US defense department has a website that contains this media clip about the opening of a biological research facility in Ukraine in 2010. Quote, US senator Dick Lugar applauded the opening of the in interim central reference laboratory in Odessa, Ukraine this week, announcing that it will be instrumental in researching dangerous pathogens used by bioterrorists. The level 3 biosafety lab will be used to study anthrax, tulemeria, and Q fever as well as other dangerous pathogens. Oh, okay. Then the National Pulse dug up, 2011 report from the US National Academy of Sciences that also explained that the Odessa based laboratory, quote, is responsible for the identification of especially dangerous biological pathogens. So what we're doing, this is not the first time you've heard this story, we are funding the creation of deadly pathogens so we can study them and prevent people from getting infected with them, maybe? There are lots of examples of Some of the projects include work on African swine fever virus, hemorrhagic fever virus, and various avian rep respiratory viruses. The interesting thing, the telling thing, is that the US Embassy's website also contains links to fact sheets about America's support for biological research in Ukraine, but all those links are now dead. That's weird. It's our government. We pay for it. Again, they're there in our name, in the name of American citizens, but we can no longer read their web page. How does that work exactly? They have no right to lie to us. The web page is archived thankfully, and the fact sheet show Defense Department funding to laboratories in Ukraine. So that looks like proof. It's not Russian disinformation. It's totally real. Sorry, USA Today, America's newspaper. It's real. You can look it up on the Internet if you want. In the face of that evidence, the Pentagon is still lying about it. And in fact, they're repeating the same unbelievably stupid and now thoroughly discredited lies the fact checkers have told for weeks now. Here's the spokesman for the Pentagon, John Kirby, today. Speaker 4: The Russian accusations, are absurd. They're laughable. And, you know, in the words of my Irish Catholic grandfather, a bunch of malarkey. There's nothing to it. It's classic rush Russian propaganda. And, and, I wouldn't, if I were you, I I wouldn't give it, I wouldn't give it a drop of ink worth worth paying attention to. Speaker 5: Yeah. But but, can you explain to us what has there been any relationship between the We are not Speaker 4: not developing biological or chemical weapons inside Ukraine. It's not happening. Speaker 0: If I were you, I wouldn't devote a drop of ink to it. First First of all, you didn't get to make that decision, mister bureaucrat. We have a free press in this country. You don't get to decide. But you'll notice at the end of that, Kirby refuses to answer the question. Has there been a relationship between the US Pentagon and a bioweapons facility in Ukraine? And if so, what is that relationship? That's Russian disinformation. What's the answer? We're not developing WMD in Ukraine right now. Okay. Got it. But why are we funding this and what exactly are we funding? We reached out to the state department separately, and they provided us with this very carefully worded statement. Quote, the US Department of Defense does not own or operate biological laboratories in Ukraine. Not that anyone said they did. Continuing the quote, under secretary Nuland was referring to Ukrainian diagnostic and biodefense laboratories during her testimony, which are not biological weapons facilities. What's the difference exactly? Continuing the quote. These institutions counter biological threats throughout the country. End quote. So that means nothing. You could describe our nuclear stockpile correctly as defensive. Our nuclear weapons are not designed to preemptively kill anybody. They're designed to prevent other people from killing us, but they're still nuclear weapons. So why don't you stop lying and telling us what's going on here? And why don't you more specifically tell us why you didn't secure these materials? So, yes, we're funding secret biolabs in Ukraine, but they're diagnostic and biodefense laboratories that counter biological threats. Okay. If these are purely defensive labs, why was Tory and Nuland so concerned that Russians would get a hold of the materials from these facilities? Other world powers have come to the obvious conclusion. Again, we hate to do this, but under these circumstances, we asked our own spokespeople. They lied. We're going to the foreign ministry of China, a country we despise. Here's what they said today. They're calling on weapons inspectors to take a look at these facilities in Ukraine right away. Speaker 5: Over the past 2 decades, the United States has been rocking the establishment of a verification regime to the biological weapons convention and refused to accept the inspection of biological facilities within and outside its borders. The move has further aggravated the concern of the international community. We once again urge the US to provide full clarification of its biomilitarization activities within and outside its borders and accept multilateral verification. Speaker 0: Oh, they're putting Russian Chinese propaganda on the screen. Yeah. We did. We also put US government propaganda on the screen, and the difference is we expect to be lied to by foreign governments. We're not globalists. We believe in one country. It's this country, the United States. We do not expect to be lied to by our government, and we won't accept it. But let's get to the substance of what the Chinese government just said. We never agree with the Chinese government on anything. But in this case, they make a fair point. We now know that dangerous biological agents, whether you call them weapons or not, is completely irrelevant because they can be used as weapons. Is a gun a weapon? Not when you're quail hunting. When you're in a gunfight, it is. It's a ridiculous semantic debate. Dangerous biological agents remain, thanks to the Biden administration, unsecured in a chaotic war zone. At some point, we need to know how that happened. Who made those decisions? We have a right to know. And let's hope someone in congress, apparently not Marco Rubio, but someone else will get to the bottom of it. But in the meantime, we pray that somewhere in the United States government, there is an adult who cares enough to get this situation under control immediately. Hey. Sean Hannity here. Hey. Click here to subscribe to Fox News YouTube page and catch our hottest interviews and most compelling analysis. You will not get it anywhere else.

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

https://t.co/fQpQyi55eS

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

If you Were Curious Why Igor Kirillov Was Just Assassinated Facts You Probably Didn’t Know Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, after being one of the first in the world (in a serious government position) to directly say that the coronavirus was artificially created, who sent documents to the Pentagon and asked them about their biolaboratories in Ukraine, who revealed that the West was dumping nuclear waste there, that Kiev was preparing to make a "dirty bomb."

Video Transcript AI Summary

Министерство обороны России продолжает исследовать военно-биологическую деятельность США на Украине и в других регионах. В списке участников американских программ — Элио Сперлман, Грег Гласс и Эндрю Пекас, а также украинские специалисты, такие как Наталья Родина и Елена Нестерова. Многие из них покинули Украину, чтобы избежать ответственности. США активно ищут новых специалистов для разработки оружия массового поражения и продолжают финансировать биологические проекты, включая исследования патогенов. Изменение названий программ на более нейтральные не скрывает их истинной цели. Протесты против американских лабораторий происходят в разных странах, и существует мнение, что пандемия COVID-19 могла быть вызвана утечкой из лаборатории. Вопросы о военно-биологической деятельности США остаются без ответов. The Russian Ministry of Defense continues to investigate the U.S. military-biological activities in Ukraine and elsewhere. Participants in U.S. programs include Elio Sperlman, Greg Glass, and Andrew Pekas, as well as Ukrainian specialists like Natalia Rodina and Elena Nesterova. Many have left Ukraine to avoid accountability. The U.S. is actively seeking new specialists for weapons of mass destruction development and continues to fund biological projects, including pathogen research. Renaming programs to more neutral titles does not conceal their true purpose. Protests against U.S. laboratories are occurring in various countries, and there are concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic may have resulted from a lab leak. Questions about U.S. military-biological activities remain unanswered.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Министерство обороны Российской Федерации продолжает анализ военно-биологической деятельности США и их союзников на Украине и в других регионах мира. Ранее мы уже приводили имена участников американских военно-биологических программ, В их числе должностные лица Министерства обороны США, подрядных организаций Пентагона, американских биотехнологических корпораций, государственных институтов и частных компаний Украины. Сегодня мы дополняем список фигурантов биологических исследований Пентагона. В их числе: Элио Джейкоб Сперлман руководитель неправительственной организации Международный институт проблем ВИЧ и туберкулёза в Киеве. Принимал непосредственное участие в создании лабораторной базы для реализации военно-биологических исследований на территории Украины. Грег Гласс Профессор института новых патогенов при Университете штата Флорида. Занимался изучением распространения возбудителей туриаремии на Украине. Привлекался к реализации проекта юпи-8, распространению вирусов конвик-крымской геморрагической лихорадки и хантавирусов на Украине. Эндрю Стэнли Пекас, профессор молекулярной микробиологии и иммунологии в Школе общественного здравоохранения при Университете Джонса Хопкинса. Привлекался в качестве одного из ведущих консультантов к проекту UP2 применения геноинформационных систем, удаленного наблюдения и лабораторной диагностики за выявлением заболеваний толиоремии сибирской язвы людей и животных на Украине. В числе исполнителей американских военно-биологических проектов граждане Украины Наталья Родина, заместитель генерального директора Государственного учреждения Киевский областной лабораторный центр Минздрава Украины и бывший сотрудник американской компании Black&Wich. С 2020 года является советником командующего медицинскими силами ВСУ по вопросам лабораторной диагностики. Елена Нестерова, директор Украинского института исследований проблем общественного здравоохранения, координировала деятельность компании Лабиринт Глобал Хеалс, осуществляла взаимодействие между госорганами Украины и компанией Метобиота. Скрываясь от ответственности за участие в военно-биологических проектах, многие фигуранты покинули территорию Украины. Для предотвращения возможной утечки сведений о незаконной деятельности Пентагона американская администрация предпринимает экстренные меры по их розыску и возвращению. Через Украинский научно-технический центр осуществляется работа по двум направлениям: сбор данных о местонахождении сотрудников, уже имеющих опыт участия в так называемых украинских проектах, а также поиск новых специалистов в области разработки оружия массового поражения. Обратите ваше внимание на распространяемую через сайт Плантация анкету для обучаемых на специальных курсах. При этом обязательным условием участия в них является наличие опыта в исследованиях двойного назначения. В период с 24 по 26 апреля 2023 года с отобранными кандидатами пройдёт онлайн-обучение. Параллельно планируется внизать очную встречу в Варшаве. Ходе сборов участникам будет предложено продолжить работу над закрытыми проектами на украинской территории и за её пределами. Мы не исключаем, что под видом подобных курсов будут проводиться мероприятия по подготовке провокаций с биологическим оружием и развёртывания информационной кампании против Российской Федерации. Для реализации поставленных задач Управления по снижению угрозы Минобороны США Дитра задействует потенциал учёных-биологов не только из Украины, но и государств Средней Азии и Закавказья. Работа в этом направлении спланирована американской администрацией на период по меньшей мере до 2025 года. Финансирование проектов военного назначения осуществляется американским военным ведомством с помощью системы грантов. Распределение денежных средств возложено на НТЦ и Международный научно-технический центр. Возглавляет данную организацию бывший руководитель Агентства по контролю за вооружением США Рональд Лемон. Хотелось бы обратить внимание на названия отдельных проектов НТЦ без указания их территориальной принадлежности. Проект 2410 Оценка природной устойчивости возбудителя бруцеллёза у домашних и диких животных. Направлен на изучение возможности передачи этого опасного патогена человеку. Примечательно, что исследование проводилось при участии специалистов Университета Флориды. В рамках проекта 2513 изучаются факторы риска и молекулярные свойства устойчивых во внешней среде вирулентных энтербактерий. Исследование направлено выделение штаммов микроорганизмов, невосприимчивых ко всем известным классам антибиотиков. Проект 2545 предусматривает моделирование эволюционных изменений отдельных видов вирусов, буньявирусов, высоко патогенных для человека. При этом исследования по комбинирунию генетических материалов опасных патогенов планируется проводить при поддержке Национального агентства по исследованиям и инновациям Великобритании. Напомню, что целью реализуемой ИМТЦ программой снижения биологической угрозы является защита США, их вооружённых сил и союзников. Это в очередной раз подтверждает, что Вашингтон рассматривает постсоветское пространство, как плацдарм для развёртывания воинских подразделений НАТО. На примере Украины мы видим, что навязанное коллективным Западом финансирование военно-биологических программ приводит к утрате национального биологического суверенитета и подрыву собственного научно-технического потенциала в сфере биологической, продовольственной и фармацевтической безопасности. Министерство обороны РФ ранее информировало о проведении американскими фармкомпаниями, так называемой Биг Фармой, исследований направленной эволюции, а также о коррупции и сговоре с госструктурами США, связанным с разработкой и производством вакцинных препаратов. Было отмечено, что представители регулирующих органов лоббируют коммерческие интересы компании в ущерб текущим стандартам безопасности и качества. Давая решение на использование препаратов без прохождения контрольных процедур, чиновники федеральных агентств впоследствии занимают ключевые должности в фармацевтических компаниях. В их числе: Бывшие сотрудники Управления по надзору за качеством продуктов и медикаментов Министерства здравоохранения США Марк Макленнон, действующий член совета директоров компании Johnson Johnson Скотт Готтлиб, член совета директоров компании Pfizer Стивен Хан, главный врач компании Flagship Pyonning, непосредственно связанная с Moderna. По имеющей у нас информации, сговор между чиновниками и производителями антиковидной вакцины Pfizer позволил запустить в обращение препарата с серьёзными побочными эффектами. При этом на момент одобрения вакцины у Pfizer были реальные доказательства, подтверждающие повышенный риск серьёзных патологий сердечно-сосудистой системы после вакцинации. В закрытом отчёте компании говорится, цитата: Имеются данные, свидетельствующие о том, что пациенты, получающие вакцины от COVID-19, подвергаются повышенному риску развития миокардита. С апреля 2021 года Moderna сообщила о росте случаев миокардита и перикардита в Соединённых Штатах после вакцинации с использованием мРНК вакцин, особенно у подростков мужского пола и молодых людей старше 16 лет. Патологические изменения обычно наступали в течение нескольких дней после вакцинации, и чаще возникали после получения второй дозы. Конец цитаты. Напомню, подобные исследования высокотоксичных препаратов с неизученным риском побочных эффектов проводились по заказу Дитра на украинских гражданах и военнослужащих ВСУ без учёта каких бы то ни было этических норм. Складывается впечатление, что для американской фармпромышленности, имеющей целью получения максимальной прибыли, подобный подход является нормой, а его организация всячески поддерживается Демократической партией США. Министерство обороны уже отмечало противоречивые заявления представителей политических элит США о прекращении работ Пентагона в биолабораториях на территории Украины. Обратите внимание на протокол совещания рабочей группы американских и украинских специалистов под руководством представителей Дитра от 20 октября 2022 года по планам реализации программы снижения биологических угроз на Украине. Согласно документу, несмотря на вынужденную паузу, связанную с проведением специальной военной операции, в настоящее время деятельность в рамках программы возобновлена. Основными задачами на данном этапе является продолжение строительства биолабораторий на Украине, а также расширение формата подготовки украинских специалистов-биологов. Озвученные Министерством обороны России факты военно-биологической деятельности Пентагона заставляют Вашингтон предпринимать усилия по сокрытию истинного характера проводимых работ. Так, решено изменить название программы Совместные биологические исследования, которая фактически направлена на разработку компонентов биологического оружия. В протоколе отмечено, что программа получила новое название Исследование по бионадзору. В соответствии с документам, военное ведомство намерено продолжать исследование опасных патогенов, расширять сбор биологических материалов и отправлять их в Соединенные Штаты. Планы Пентагона по продолжению исследования двойного назначения на украинских биообъектах и в других странах мира со сменой названия программы это результат невнятной реакции мирового сообщества из-за боязни ряда стран идти на конфронтацию с американскими властями. Госдепартамент США подготовил серию публикаций, в которых пытаются поставить под сомнение документально подтверждённые факты своих незаконных биологических исследований. Так, 14 марта 2023 года на сайте Госдепартамента США был опубликован бюллетень, где Россия вновь обвиняется в дезинформации. В попытке отвести удар от Демократической партии США проправительственные американские СМИ, в том числе Вашингтон пост, распространились заявления Госдепартамента, в которых напрочь отрицаются установленные исторические факты подготовки военно-биологических атак на территории Северной Кореи и Китая в начале 50-х годов прошлого века. А озвученная Минобороны России информация игнорируется. США исходит из логики того, что если не удалось доказать более ранние эпизоды, то ведь все обвинения в сегодняшней военно-биологической деятельности являются дезинформацией. Необходимо отметить, что США никогда чётко не заявляют своих обязательств в области безопасности исследований в подконтрольных им биолабораториях. Непрозрачность их деятельности создаёт риск распространения опасных патогенов в районах размещения биообъектов. В связи с этим в августе 2021 года южнокорейская общественная организация подала в суд на биологическую лабораторию Форт-Детрика и Вооруженные силы США в Корее за контрабанду токсичных веществ на американские военные базы в нарушении внутреннего законодательства. Судебный иск связан с тем, что американское командование в Корее в период с ноября 2017 года по январь 2019 года незаконно возили опасные вещества на свои военные базы. 5 апреля 2022 года жители Южной Кореи вышли на улицу в знак протеста против биологических лабораторий США рядом с их военной базой Пусане. Общественные акции протеста в Корее далеко не единичный случай. Ранее массовые выступления против деятельности американских лабораторий прошли в Армении, Киргизии и Сербии. В конце февраля 2023 года международный секретарь рабочей партии Ирландии Гэри Грейнджер, выступая на конференции Усиление угрозы применения НАТО биологического оружия на фоне обострения международных противоречий заявил, что угроза применения такого вида оружия массового поражения растет с каждым днем. Грейнджер упомянул: Украина располагает биологическими лабораториями, финансируемыми в США. Это может привести к миллионам жертв, включая риск несчастного случая. Конец цитаты. Как мы неоднократно отмечали, перенос наиболее опасных исследований за пределы национальной территории является частью стратегии Соединенных Штатов в сфере биологической безопасности. При этом размещение биообъектов в третьих странах не учитывает интересы местного населения и представляет серьёзную угрозу для целых регионов. Хотел бы обратить ваше внимание на заявления одного из федеральных министерств США о том, что пандемия COVID-19 могла произойти в результате утечки вируса из лаборатории в городе Ухань. В заявлении подчёркивается, цитата: Заболевание имеет лабораторное происхождение, и вирус, скорее всего, распространёнся в результате несчастного случая. Конец цитаты. Нюанс заключается в том, что с данным заявлением выступило Министерство энергетики. Возникает закономерный вопрос: какое отношение Министерство энергетики США имеет в борьбе с биологическими угрозами и резот проекты, имеющие признаки двойного назначения. Министерство обороны России считает, что Министерство энергетики США наравне с Пентагоном является основным организатором и непосредственным участником военно-биологической деятельности. Только официально в 2023 году Министерство энергетики США выделило 105 миллионов долларов на исследование в рамках проекта Виртуальная среда исследований в области подготовки к биоугрозам, в ходе которой предполагается изучить эпидемическое распространение заболевания. Обращаю ваше внимание, что у специалистов остаётся ряд вопросов, связанных с, мягко говоря, странными для большинства вирусов изменчивостью и географическим происхождением вариантов COVID-19. Например, штамм Бета впервые появился в ЮАР и был выявлен в Великобритании в декабре 2020 года. Штамм Гамма в Бразилии в январе 2021 года. Дельта в Индии в июне 2021 года. При этом каждый новый вариант обладал улучшенными свойствами с точки зрения их военно-биологического применения, нанося всё больший экономический ущерб. Несмотря на крайне жёсткие антиковидные меры, появление в 2022 году субвариантов штамма омикрон BA 5.2 и BF7 вызвало лавинообразный рост заболевших в Китае. Создаётся впечатление, что кем-то предпринимаются целенаправленные действия по усилению патогенных свойств вируса, а пандемия искусственно подпитываться посредством вброса новых, усовершенствованных вариантов. Пока эти вопросы остаются без ответа. Кроме того, поступающая информация свидетельствует, что руководство Соединённых Штатов продолжает привлекать непрофильное государственное ведомство, не имеющее прямого отношения к сфере здравоохранения, к реализации военно-биологических программ, отводя внимание от главного бенефициара Пентагона. Более подробно о деятельности Министерства энергетики США в области биологии двойного назначения мы расскажем в следующий раз.

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

https://t.co/WCUQfKWTII

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

Victoria Nuland was asked whether 🇺🇦 has bioweapons "Ukraine has biological research facilities, which in fact we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to gain control of" Russian government has been saying all along, that US are funding Biolabs 🇺🇸BIDEN, CLINTON, SOROS GROUPS BEHIND BIOWEAPON TESTING IN UKRAINE: Bombshell details from Russian Defense Ministry which unveils huge Democrat Party members and backers behind programs to make bioweapons in Ukraine and across globe. Briefing on illegal Pentagon bioweapon programmes in 🇺🇦Since 2018, it has been known that the Pentagon is collecting specifically RNA/DNA for 'research' "Over 2-3 generations [of DNA-based bioweapons], such changes take place that they fully replace the original look" - Putin VICTORIA NULAND: Ukraine has biological research facilities, which, in fact, we are now quite concerned russian troops, russian forces may be seeking to gain control of. So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of russian forces should they approach.

Video Transcript AI Summary

Ukraine has biological research facilities that are at risk of being seized by Russian troops. We are collaborating with Ukraine to ensure that these research materials do not fall into Russian hands as they advance.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Ukraine has biological research facilities, which, in fact, we are now quite concerned Russian troops Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of. So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of, Russian forces should they approach.

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

Posted - December 23, 2024 at 2:44 AM

Saved - February 12, 2025 at 8:01 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I’ve been reflecting on the troubling revelations surrounding U.S. involvement in biolabs in Ukraine. Tucker Carlson raises critical questions about why the U.S. funds these secret facilities. The assassination of Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, who exposed the artificial origins of COVID-19 and the existence of these labs, adds to the mystery. Reports suggest a network of biological weapons labs linked to U.S. interests, with implications of war crimes. There are calls for immediate action to shut down these labs, as they pose significant risks globally.

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

Why is Tucker the only one in the U.S. media who asks this question? Tucker Carlson: Why is the U.S. funding secret biolabs in Ukraine? https://t.co/u8Q1BcqYpA

Video Transcript AI Summary

Four days ago, I wouldn't have believed the Biden administration was funding secret biolabs in Ukraine, but Under Secretary of State Nuland confirmed their existence during a Senate hearing. Despite fact-checks dismissing it as Russian disinformation, these labs are real, and Nuland expressed concern about their contents falling into Russian hands. The Russian Defense Ministry claimed the labs were developing military biological programs with US funding, possibly involving deadly pathogens like plague and anthrax. The US embassy in Ukraine has a web page explaining that American and Ukrainian scientists have worked on a whole bunch of different experiments like this. The US government is downplaying the situation, with the Pentagon calling Russian accusations "absurd."

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Welcome to Tucker Carlson tonight. If you had told us just four days ago that the Biden administration was funding secret biolabs in Ukraine of all places, we would not have believed you. Yeah. I don't think we're gonna put that on TV. No. Thanks. Then if you told us that not only did the administration fund these secret biolabs in Ukraine, but that they then failed to secure the deadly contents of those labs before the Russian invasion, an invasion they knew was coming, an invasion they helped encourage. If you had told us that four days ago, we'd have dismissed you as a nut. It was just too preposterous. We would not want anything to do with the story like that. There was no way it could be true. It's too far out. In any case, we already knew for a fact that that story was false. How do we know that? Because we read USA Today, America's newspaper. Within hours of the Russian invasion, USA Today published a rebuttal to all those crazies who are yammering on about secret Ukrainian biolabs. Here was the headline. Fact check. False claim of US biolabs in Ukraine tied to Russian disinformation campaign. So if you look carefully at the story, and we did because we were interested, you noticed that this fact check was sourced to Ukrainian government unnamed officials and then Biden state department officials. So these were not exactly objective sources on this subject, but still, the story seemed definitive. It was totally emphatic. Quote, Russia has teamed up with China to further amplify the false claim of US labs in Ukraine. Okay. USA Today says it's Russian disinformation. Maybe it is. On to the next story. But the fact checks didn't stop. That was weird. We kept seeing the same fact check again and again. It was almost like despite endless official clarification, some people refused to believe the Biden administration. They preferred Russian propaganda instead, and we assume they must be QAnon members. We assume that because foreign policy magazine told us that. According to foreign policy, QAnon, whatever that is, was frantically disseminating, quote, false claims of US bio warfare labs in Ukraine. Those labs obviously didn't exist. It was all just another lie from the Russians who lie for a living. Then the European Union weighed up weighed in, throwing its credibility behind the same claim. These are conspiracy theories. The EU told us they're lies spread by Putin. An EU spokesman then reminded us that, quote, the credibility of information provided by the Kremlin is in general very doubtful and low. That was good to know. Quote, Russian disinformation has a track record of promoting manipulative narratives about biological weapons and alleged secret labs. Yeah. We're not gonna do a segment about secret labs in Ukraine. Last thing we wanna do on this show is traffic in Russian disinformation spread by QAnon. So we took a pass on that story. And that's where things stood until yesterday when we happened to tune in to a hearing of the senate foreign relations committee. Toria Nuland was testifying, so we're interested. Nuland's one of the people who brought us the Iraq war, never apologized for that, and kept getting promoted because that's how DC works. Tory Noland is now Joe Biden's undersecretary of state in charge of Ukraine, and she knows a lot about Ukraine. In 02/2014, Tory Noland engineered a coup in Ukraine in the name of democracy, of course. So she's a highly informed source about Ukraine. So she was having this colloquy with senator Marco Rubio of Florida during her testimony. And at one point, Rubio took attack that we were not expecting at all. He asked Nuhon if Ukraine had biological weapons. We never imagined Ukraine would have biological weapons. Why would Ukraine have bioweapons? So it seemed like a pretty strange question, but it wasn't half as shocking as the answer he got. Watch what Toya Nuhlen said. Speaker 1: Does Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons? Speaker 2: Ukraine has, biological research facilities, which, in fact, we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to, gain control of. So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of, Russian forces should they approach? Speaker 0: Does Ukraine have biological weapons? Ukraine has biological research facilities. What? You mean secret biolabs? Like, the secret biolabs Ukraine definitely doesn't have? Ukraine has those? Yes. It does. And not only does Ukraine have secret biolabs, Tory Nuland said, whatever they're doing in those labs is so dangerous and so scary that she is, quote, quite concerned that the so called research material inside those biolabs might fall into the hands of Russian forces. Trying to use profanity on the air to describe our reaction, our jaws drop. Let's leave it there. Under oath in an open committee hearing, Tory and Noland just confirmed that the Russian disinformation they've been telling us for days is a lie and a conspiracy theory and crazy and immoral to believe is in fact totally and completely true. Woah. You don't hear things like that every day in Washington. Talk about a showstopper, and a dozen questions instantly jumped to mind. What exactly are they doing in these secret Ukrainian biolabs? Ukraine is the poorest country in Europe. It's hardly a hotbed of biomedical research. We're assuming these weren't pharmaceutical labs, probably not developing new leukemia drugs. From your answer, Troy Nuland, we would assume because you all but said it that there's a military application to this research that they're working on bioweapons. Again, your answer suggests that. Why would we fund something like that in Ukraine? And why didn't you secure the contents of these biolabs before the Russians arrived as you knew they would? And then why did you go out of your way to lie to the American public about all of this? If the, quote, research materials in these labs were to escape somehow and you seem very concerned about that, what would be the effect on Ukraine and then on the rest of the world? How can we prepare for the consequences of that, this thing that you're worried about? Shouldn't we be preparing? Because as it turns out, we've just spent the last two years living with a pathogen that began in another foreign bio lab funded by the United States government secretly. So this question is on our mind. It seems fair. Now that's some of what we would have asked if we were US centers, which were not. Yes. There's a time limit. Time limit be damned because this is kind of important. But Rubio did not ask those questions. Instead, he changed the subject and told us once again that Vladimir Putin is bad. Watch. Speaker 1: If there's a biological or chemical weapon incident or, or attack inside of Ukraine, is there any doubt in your mind that 100% it would be the Russians that would be behind it? Speaker 2: There is no doubt in my mind, senator, and it is classic Russian, technique to blame on the other guy what they're planning to do themselves. Speaker 0: Okay. Just get a pen. It's a classic Russian technique to blame on the other guy what they are planning to do themselves. That's what Tori and Newland said. We almost laughed out loud. So what you're saying, Tori and Noland, if for example, you were funding secret bio labs in Ukraine, but wanted to hide that fact from the people who are paying for it in whose name you were doing it, then you might lie about it by claiming the Russians were lying about it. In other words, you might mount a disinformation campaign by claiming the other guy was mounting a disinformation campaign. Is that what you're saying, Tory Noland? It's pretty funny. What's not funny is that this is all entirely real. We invited Marco Rubio on the show tonight to tell us what he knows about these biolabs. He declined to come. That invitation remains open. In the meantime, let's review what little we do know about this. We're gonna start with a spokesman for the Russian defense ministry on Sunday. Now we would never do this. We never played anything like this on the show before because, of course, we're Americans, and we wanna know what's going on. We ask our own officials, the people we elect and whose salaries we pay because it's our country. We don't go to foreign sources because we trust our own sources first. But when it turns out the people who represent us and run our government are lying to us and never apologize for it and doing horrific things in our names, then you have to open your mind a little bit and at least assess what other people are saying. So here was the Russian claim. Watch. Speaker 3: During the course of the special military operation, facts were uncovered at the Kyiv regime mopping up traces of military biological program under development in Ukraine financed by the US Defense Ministry. Okay. Speaker 0: So that apparently, we hadn't seen that until this afternoon. We started poking around. That may have been the root of the conspiracy theories that the fact checks told us were Russian disinformation. Let's quote it. Military biological programs are under development in Ukraine financed by the US defense ministry. That's the Russian claim. Separately, a Russian foreign ministry spokesman said the Ukrainians are working on deadly pathogens including plague and anthrax. Is that true? Now, obviously, we would not take Russia's word for that ever, but we don't have to take Russia's word for that. The US defense department has a website that contains this media clip about the opening of a biological research facility in Ukraine in 02/2010. Quote, US Senator Dick Lugar applauded the opening of the in interim central reference laboratory in Odessa, Ukraine this week, announcing that it will be instrumental in researching dangerous pathogens used by bioterrorists. The level three biosafety lab will be used to study anthrax, tullemaria, and Q fever as well as other dangerous pathogens. Oh, okay. Then the national pulse dug up, 2011 report from the US National Academy of Sciences that also explained that the Odessa based laboratory, quote, is responsible for the identification of especially dangerous biological pathogens. So what we're doing, this is not the first time you've heard this story. We are funding the creation of deadly pathogens so we can study them and prevent people from getting infected with them, maybe. There are lots of examples of this. The US embassy in Ukraine has a handy web page explaining that American and Ukrainian scientists have worked on a whole bunch of different experiments like this. Some of the projects include work on African swine fever virus, hemorrhagic fever virus, and various avian rep respiratory viruses. The interesting thing, the telling thing, is that the US embassy's website also contains links to fact sheets about America's support for biological research in Ukraine, but all those links are now dead. That's weird. It's our government. We pay for it. Again, they're there in our name, in in the name of American citizens, but we can no longer read their web page. How does that work exactly? They have no right to lie to us. The web page is archived, thankfully, and the fact sheet show defense department funding to laboratories in Ukraine. So that looks like proof. It's not Russian disinformation. It's totally real. Sorry, USA Today, America's newspaper. It's real. You can look it up on the Internet if you want. In the face of that evidence, the Pentagon is still lying about it. And in fact, they're repeating the same unbelievably stupid and now thoroughly discredited lies the fact checkers have told for weeks now. Here's the spokesman for the Pentagon, John Kirby, today. Speaker 4: The Russian accusations, are absurd. They're laughable. And, you know, in the words of my Irish Catholic grandfather, a bunch of malarkey. There's nothing to it. It's classic rush Russian propaganda. And, and, I wouldn't, if I were you, I I wouldn't give it, I wouldn't give it a drop of ink worth worth paying attention to. Speaker 0: Yeah. But but, can you explain to us what it has there been any relationship between the We are not Speaker 4: not developing biological or chemical weapons inside Ukraine. It's not happening. Speaker 0: If I were you, I wouldn't devote a drop of ink to it. First of all, you didn't get to make that decision, mister bureaucrat. We have a free press in this country. You don't get to decide. But you'll notice at the end of that, Kirby refuses to answer the question. Has there been a relationship between the US Pentagon and a bioweapons facility in Ukraine? And if so, what is that relationship? That's Russian disinformation. What's the answer? We're not developing WMD in Ukraine right now. Okay. Got it. But why are we funding this, and what exactly are we funding? We reached out to the state department separately, and they provided us with this very carefully worded statement. Quote, the US Department of Defense does not own or operate biological laboratories in Ukraine. Not that anyone said they did. Continuing the quote, under secretary Nuland was referring to Ukrainian diagnostic and biodefense laboratories during her testimony, which are not biological weapons facilities. What's the difference exactly? Continuing the quote. These institutions counter biological threats throughout the country, end quote. So that means nothing. You could describe our nuclear stockpile correctly as defensive. Our nuclear weapons are not designed to preemptively kill anybody. They're designed to prevent other people from killing us, but they're still nuclear weapons. So why don't you stop lying and telling us what's going on here? And why don't you more specifically tell us why you didn't secure these materials. So, yes, we're funding secret biolabs in Ukraine, but they're diagnostic and biodefense laboratories that counter biological threats. Okay. If these are purely defensive labs, why was Tory and Nuland so concerned that Russians would get a hold of the materials from these facilities? Other world powers have come to the obvious conclusion. Again, we hate to do this, but under these circumstances, we asked our own spokespeople. They lied. We're going to the foreign ministry of China, a country we despise. Here's what they said today. They're calling on weapons inspectors to take a look at these facilities in Ukraine right away. Speaker 5: Over the past two decades, the United States has been blocking the establishment of a verification regime to the biological weapons convention and refused to accept the inspection of biological facilities within and outside its borders. The move has further aggravated the concern of the international community. We once again urge The US to provide full clarification of its biomilitarization activities within and outside its borders and accept multilateral verification. Speaker 0: Oh, they're putting Russian Chinese propaganda on the screen. Yeah. We did. We also put US government propaganda on the screen. And the difference is we expect to be lied to by foreign governments. We're not globalists. We believe in one country. It's this country, The United States. We do not expect to be lied to by our government, and we won't accept it. But let's get to the substance of what the Chinese government just said, and we never agree with the Chinese government on anything. But in this case, they make a fair point. We now know that dangerous biological agents, whether you call them weapons or not, is completely irrelevant because they can be used as weapons. Is it gun a weapon? Not when you're quail hunting. When you're in a gunfight, it is. It's a ridiculous semantic debate. Dangerous biological agents remain, thanks to the Biden administration, unsecured in a chaotic war zone. At some point, we need to know how that happened, who made those decisions. We have a right to know. And let's hope someone in congress, apparently not Marco Rubio, but someone else will get to the bottom of it. But in the meantime, we pray that somewhere in the United States government, there is an adult who cares enough to get this situation under control immediately. Hey, Sean Hannity here. Hey. Click here to subscribe to Fox News YouTube page and catch our hottest interviews and most compelling analysis. You will not get it anywhere else.

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

https://t.co/KqNRJgNdJ2

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

If you Were Curious Why Igor Kirillov Was Just Assassinated Facts You Probably Didn’t Know Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, after being one of the first in the world (in a serious government position) to directly say that the coronavirus was artificially created, who sent documents to the Pentagon and asked them about their biolaboratories in Ukraine, who revealed that the West was dumping nuclear waste there, that Kiev was preparing to make a "dirty bomb."

Video Transcript AI Summary

The Russian Ministry of Defense continues to analyze US military-biological activities in Ukraine and other regions, adding names to the list of those involved in Pentagon-funded biological research. These individuals include officials from the US Department of Defense, contractors, biotech corporations, and Ukrainian entities. The US is allegedly collecting data on experienced personnel and seeking new specialists in weapons of mass destruction through the Ukrainian Science and Technology Center (STCU). Courses with dual-purpose research experience are offered, potentially for preparing biological weapons provocations. The US Department of Defense's DTRA is engaging biologists from Ukraine, Central Asia, and the Caucasus, with projects funded through grants managed by the STCU. The US is also accused of downplaying the risks of COVID-19 vaccines and continuing biological programs in Ukraine under a new name, "Research on Biosurveillance," to deflect criticism.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Министерство обороны Российской Федерации продолжает анализ военно-биологической деятельности США и их союзников на Украине и в других регионах мира. Ранее мы уже приводили имена участников американских военно-биологических программ, В их числе должностные лица Министерства обороны США, подрядных организаций Пентагона, американских биотехнологических корпораций, государственных институтов и частных компаний Украины. Сегодня мы дополняем список фигурантов биологических исследований Пентагона. В их числе: Элио Джейкоб Сперлман руководитель неправительственной организации Международный институт проблем ВИЧ и туберкулёза в Киеве. Принимал непосредственное участие в создании лабораторной базы для реализации военно-биологических исследований на территории Украины. Грег Гласс Профессор института новых патогенов при Университете штата Флорида. Занимался изучением распространения возбудителей туриаремии на Украине. Привлекался к реализации проекта юпи-8, распространению вирусов конвик-крымской геморрагической лихорадки и хантавирусов на Украине. Эндрю Стэнли Пекас, профессор молекулярной микробиологии и иммунологии в Школе общественного здравоохранения при Университете Джонса Хопкинса. Привлекался в качестве одного из ведущих консультантов к проекту UP2 применения геноинформационных систем, удаленного наблюдения и лабораторной диагностики за выявлением заболеваний толиоремии сибирской язвы людей и животных на Украине. В числе исполнителей американских военно-биологических проектов граждане Украины Наталья Родина, заместитель генерального директора Государственного учреждения Киевский областной лабораторный центр Минздрава Украины и бывший сотрудник американской компании Black&Wich. С 2020 года является советником командующего медицинскими силами ВСУ по вопросам лабораторной диагностики. Елена Нестерова, директор Украинского института исследований проблем общественного здравоохранения, координировала деятельность компании Лабиринт Глобал Хеалс, осуществляла взаимодействие между госорганами Украины и компанией Метобиота. Скрываясь от ответственности за участие в военно-биологических проектах, многие фигуранты покинули территорию Украины. Для предотвращения возможной утечки сведений о незаконной деятельности Пентагона американская администрация предпринимает экстренные меры по их розыску и возвращению. Через Украинский научно-технический центр осуществляется работа по двум направлениям: сбор данных о местонахождении сотрудников, уже имеющих опыт участия в так называемых украинских проектах, а также поиск новых специалистов в области разработки оружия массового поражения. Обратите ваше внимание на распространяемую через сайт Плантация анкету для обучаемых на специальных курсах. При этом обязательным условием участия в них является наличие опыта в исследованиях двойного назначения. В период с 24 по 26 апреля 2023 года с отобранными кандидатами пройдёт онлайн-обучение. Параллельно планируется внизать очную встречу в Варшаве. Ходе сборов участникам будет предложено продолжить работу над закрытыми проектами на украинской территории и за её пределами. Мы не исключаем, что под видом подобных курсов будут проводиться мероприятия по подготовке провокаций с биологическим оружием и развёртывания информационной кампании против Российской Федерации. Для реализации поставленных задач Управления по снижению угрозы Минобороны США Дитра задействует потенциал учёных-биологов не только из Украины, но и государств Средней Азии и Закавказья. Работа в этом направлении спланирована американской администрацией на период по меньшей мере до 2025 года. Финансирование проектов военного назначения осуществляется американским военным ведомством с помощью системы грантов. Распределение денежных средств возложено на НТЦ и Международный научно-технический центр. Возглавляет данную организацию бывший руководитель Агентства по контролю за вооружением США Рональд Лемон. Хотелось бы обратить внимание на названия отдельных проектов НТЦ без указания их территориальной принадлежности. Проект 2410 Оценка природной устойчивости возбудителя бруцеллёза у домашних и диких животных. Направлен на изучение возможности передачи этого опасного патогена человеку. Примечательно, что исследование проводилось при участии специалистов Университета Флориды. В рамках проекта 2513 изучаются факторы риска и молекулярные свойства устойчивых во внешней среде вирулентных энтербактерий. Исследование направлено выделение штаммов микроорганизмов, невосприимчивых ко всем известным классам антибиотиков. Проект 2545 предусматривает моделирование эволюционных изменений отдельных видов вирусов, буньявирусов, высоко патогенных для человека. При этом исследования по комбинирунию генетических материалов опасных патогенов планируется проводить при поддержке Национального агентства по исследованиям и инновациям Великобритании. Напомню, что целью реализуемой ИМТЦ программой снижения биологической угрозы является защита США, их вооружённых сил и союзников. Это в очередной раз подтверждает, что Вашингтон рассматривает постсоветское пространство, как плацдарм для развёртывания воинских подразделений НАТО. На примере Украины мы видим, что навязанное коллективным Западом финансирование военно-биологических программ приводит к утрате национального биологического суверенитета и подрыву собственного научно-технического потенциала в сфере биологической, продовольственной и фармацевтической безопасности. Министерство обороны РФ ранее информировало о проведении американскими фармкомпаниями, так называемой Биг Фармой, исследований направленной эволюции, а также о коррупции и сговоре с госструктурами США, связанным с разработкой и производством вакцинных препаратов. Было отмечено, что представители регулирующих органов лоббируют коммерческие интересы компании в ущерб текущим стандартам безопасности и качества. Давая решение на использование препаратов без прохождения контрольных процедур, чиновники федеральных агентств впоследствии занимают ключевые должности в фармацевтических компаниях. В их числе: Бывшие сотрудники Управления по надзору за качеством продуктов и медикаментов Министерства здравоохранения США Марк Макленнон, действующий член совета директоров компании Johnson Johnson Скотт Готтлиб, член совета директоров компании Pfizer Стивен Хан, главный врач компании Flagship Pyonning, непосредственно связанная с Moderna. По имеющей у нас информации, сговор между чиновниками и производителями антиковидной вакцины Pfizer позволил запустить в обращение препарата с серьёзными побочными эффектами. При этом на момент одобрения вакцины у Pfizer были реальные доказательства, подтверждающие повышенный риск серьёзных патологий сердечно-сосудистой системы после вакцинации. В закрытом отчёте компании говорится, цитата: Имеются данные, свидетельствующие о том, что пациенты, получающие вакцины от COVID-19, подвергаются повышенному риску развития миокардита. С апреля 2021 года Moderna сообщила о росте случаев миокардита и перикардита в Соединённых Штатах после вакцинации с использованием мРНК вакцин, особенно у подростков мужского пола и молодых людей старше 16 лет. Патологические изменения обычно наступали в течение нескольких дней после вакцинации, и чаще возникали после получения второй дозы. Конец цитаты. Напомню, подобные исследования высокотоксичных препаратов с неизученным риском побочных эффектов проводились по заказу Дитра на украинских гражданах и военнослужащих ВСУ без учёта каких бы то ни было этических норм. Складывается впечатление, что для американской фармпромышленности, имеющей целью получения максимальной прибыли, подобный подход является нормой, а его организация всячески поддерживается Демократической партией США. Министерство обороны уже отмечало противоречивые заявления представителей политических элит США о прекращении работ Пентагона в биолабораториях на территории Украины. Обратите внимание на протокол совещания рабочей группы американских и украинских специалистов под руководством представителей Дитра от 20 октября 2022 года по планам реализации программы снижения биологических угроз на Украине. Согласно документу, несмотря на вынужденную паузу, связанную с проведением специальной военной операции, в настоящее время деятельность в рамках программы возобновлена. Основными задачами на данном этапе является продолжение строительства биолабораторий на Украине, а также расширение формата подготовки украинских специалистов-биологов. Озвученные Министерством обороны России факты военно-биологической деятельности Пентагона заставляют Вашингтон предпринимать усилия по сокрытию истинного характера проводимых работ. Так, решено изменить название программы Совместные биологические исследования, которая фактически направлена на разработку компонентов биологического оружия. В протоколе отмечено, что программа получила новое название Исследование по бионадзору. В соответствии с документам, военное ведомство намерено продолжать исследование опасных патогенов, расширять сбор биологических материалов и отправлять их в Соединенные Штаты. Планы Пентагона по продолжению исследования двойного назначения на украинских биообъектах и в других странах мира со сменой названия программы это результат невнятной реакции мирового сообщества из-за боязни ряда стран идти на конфронтацию с американскими властями. Госдепартамент США подготовил серию публикаций, в которых пытаются поставить под сомнение документально подтверждённые факты своих незаконных биологических исследований. Так, 14 марта 2023 года на сайте Госдепартамента США был опубликован бюллетень, где Россия вновь обвиняется в дезинформации. В попытке отвести удар от Демократической партии США проправительственные американские СМИ, в том числе Вашингтон пост, распространились заявления Госдепартамента, в которых напрочь отрицаются установленные исторические факты подготовки военно-биологических атак на территории Северной Кореи и Китая в начале 50-х годов прошлого века. А озвученная Минобороны России информация игнорируется. США исходит из логики того, что если не удалось доказать более ранние эпизоды, то ведь все обвинения в сегодняшней военно-биологической деятельности являются дезинформацией. Необходимо отметить, что США никогда чётко не заявляют своих обязательств в области безопасности исследований в подконтрольных им биолабораториях. Непрозрачность их деятельности создаёт риск распространения опасных патогенов в районах размещения биообъектов. В связи с этим в августе 2021 года южнокорейская общественная организация подала в суд на биологическую лабораторию Форт-Детрика и Вооруженные силы США в Корее за контрабанду токсичных веществ на американские военные базы в нарушении внутреннего законодательства. Судебный иск связан с тем, что американское командование в Корее в период с ноября 2017 года по январь 2019 года незаконно возили опасные вещества на свои военные базы. 5 апреля 2022 года жители Южной Кореи вышли на улицу в знак протеста против биологических лабораторий США рядом с их военной базой Пусане. Общественные акции протеста в Корее далеко не единичный случай. Ранее массовые выступления против деятельности американских лабораторий прошли в Армении, Киргизии и Сербии. В конце февраля 2023 года международный секретарь рабочей партии Ирландии Гэри Грейнджер, выступая на конференции Усиление угрозы применения НАТО биологического оружия на фоне обострения международных противоречий заявил, что угроза применения такого вида оружия массового поражения растет с каждым днем. Грейнджер упомянул: Украина располагает биологическими лабораториями, финансируемыми в США. Это может привести к миллионам жертв, включая риск несчастного случая. Конец цитаты. Как мы неоднократно отмечали, перенос наиболее опасных исследований за пределы национальной территории является частью стратегии Соединенных Штатов в сфере биологической безопасности. При этом размещение биообъектов в третьих странах не учитывает интересы местного населения и представляет серьёзную угрозу для целых регионов. Хотел бы обратить ваше внимание на заявления одного из федеральных министерств США о том, что пандемия COVID-19 могла произойти в результате утечки вируса из лаборатории в городе Ухань. В заявлении подчёркивается, цитата: Заболевание имеет лабораторное происхождение, и вирус, скорее всего, распространёнся в результате несчастного случая. Конец цитаты. Нюанс заключается в том, что с данным заявлением выступило Министерство энергетики. Возникает закономерный вопрос: какое отношение Министерство энергетики США имеет в борьбе с биологическими угрозами и резот проекты, имеющие признаки двойного назначения. Министерство обороны России считает, что Министерство энергетики США наравне с Пентагоном является основным организатором и непосредственным участником военно-биологической деятельности. Только официально в 2023 году Министерство энергетики США выделило 105 миллионов долларов на исследование в рамках проекта Виртуальная среда исследований в области подготовки к биоугрозам, в ходе которой предполагается изучить эпидемическое распространение заболевания. Обращаю ваше внимание, что у специалистов остаётся ряд вопросов, связанных с, мягко говоря, странными для большинства вирусов изменчивостью и географическим происхождением вариантов COVID-19. Например, штамм Бета впервые появился в ЮАР и был выявлен в Великобритании в декабре 2020 года. Штамм Гамма в Бразилии в январе 2021 года. Дельта в Индии в июне 2021 года. При этом каждый новый вариант обладал улучшенными свойствами с точки зрения их военно-биологического применения, нанося всё больший экономический ущерб. Несмотря на крайне жёсткие антиковидные меры, появление в 2022 году субвариантов штамма омикрон BA 5.2 и BF7 вызвало лавинообразный рост заболевших в Китае. Создаётся впечатление, что кем-то предпринимаются целенаправленные действия по усилению патогенных свойств вируса, а пандемия искусственно подпитываться посредством вброса новых, усовершенствованных вариантов. Пока эти вопросы остаются без ответа. Кроме того, поступающая информация свидетельствует, что руководство Соединённых Штатов продолжает привлекать непрофильное государственное ведомство, не имеющее прямого отношения к сфере здравоохранения, к реализации военно-биологических программ, отводя внимание от главного бенефициара Пентагона. Более подробно о деятельности Министерства энергетики США в области биологии двойного назначения мы расскажем в следующий раз.

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

https://t.co/5gWVaP3fsx

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

Visiting Ukrainian biolab In March 2022, Russian ambassador to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, presented a report that detailed a network of 30 biological weapons labs in Ukraine. With each passing day, volunteers uncover new evidence of illegal activities related to the development of biological weapons in the liberated territories of Donbass. Oksana, an officer from Lugansk, serves in a special unit whose aim is to gather more evidence of the existence of secret US bioweapons factories. ‘The adverse reactions and fatalities that occurred here were all covered up, as evidenced by the removed records and locals testifying that very often, large black plastic bags were hauled out of here, and rather bizarre deaths occurred’, she says.

Video Transcript AI Summary

I hide my face due to my job. For almost a year, my team has gathered evidence on secret US labs in Ukraine, suspected by the Russian interior ministry of testing biological weapons. When the Ukrainian army retreated, we tried but failed to remove all materials. Investigators found evidence of deadly viruses and patient test paperwork in the abandoned lab. We don't know how many centers have been established in Ukraine over the past eight years, but the Russian military has found signs of them in most liberated major settlements. Many people worldwide are trying to find out who created this bioweapons factory network, how long it has operated, where, and how many deaths it's responsible for.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: This woman hides her face and identity because of the nature of her job. She's been working for almost a year in her team gathering evidence on the existence of secret US labs in Ukraine. The Russian interior ministry suspects they were used to test biological weapons. Before the Ukrainian army retreated, Lamstav tried to remove all materials and documents, but they failed. In the abandoned lab, investigators found evidence of operations with deadly viruses and paperwork for tests on unnamed patients. It's unknown how many similar centers have been established in Ukraine over the past eight years, but the Russian military found signs of them in almost all liberated major settlements. Like Oksana, many people around the world are trying to find answers to the question. Who created this network of bioweapons factories? Ukraine has, biological research facilities. For how long and where has it operated? And how many deaths is it responsible for?

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

https://t.co/ZikApSQuQ0

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

‼️US Military whistleblower LT Scott Bennet drops bombshell on Ukrainian Bio-weapons Labs: “It originally started in 2005 with the Defence Intelligence Agency…which created a 501 C3…called the Global Viral Forecasting Institute…with a Mossad Operative named Nathan Wolfe…which became Metabiota. This was funded by Rosemont , an investment firm, where Hunter Biden was the head of…along with Christopher Heinz (John Kerry’s son) and Paul Pelosi…Nancy Pelosi’s son. The West has been developing this under Obama and Biden for the last 10 years for the purposes of generating Biological and Chemical Warfare to use against the Russians, which is why they’ve been collecting DNA samples from Slavic People. Revelations of a Massive War Crime…Crimes Against Humanity …as it’s a violation of the Global Biological Weapons Agreement. This shows America with its 30 BIOLABS in Ukraine was involved in the experimentation on Human to Animal Transmission…which is precisely the origin of ‘Covid-19’."

Video Transcript AI Summary

Over a year ago, we knew about the biolabs, their experiments, and related documents. It started in 2005 with the Defense Intelligence Agency, which created the Global Viral Forecasting Institute with Nathaniel Wolf, later Meta Biota. Rosemont Fonseca, an investment firm headed by Hunter Biden, Christopher Hines, and Paul Pelosi Jr., funded Meta Biota. This is a corrupt operation developed over the last decade to generate biological warfare against the Russians. They've been collecting DNA from Slavic people. General Igor Krylyov exposed this as a war crime because it violates the biological weapons agreement. America's 30 biolabs in Ukraine experimented on animal-to-human transmission, which is the origin of COVID-19. The research conducted in Ukraine will be directly connected to COVID-19. The United States created and opened this Pandora's box.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: We knew over a year ago about these biolabs and their experiments and the documents. We knew about the contractors. We knew about it originally starting in 02/2005 with the Defense Intelligence Agency that then created a five zero one c three called the Global Viral Forecasting Institute with, a Zionist Mossad operative named Nathaniel Wolf that then became Meta Biota to make it more of a harmless name. And that Meta Biota was being funded by Rosemont Fonseca, an investment firm that ironically enough, Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, was the head of along with, Christopher Hines, who was the son of John Kerry and Paul Pelosi Junior, the son of Nancy Pelosi. So this is a, incestuous, corrupt, criminal racketeering operation that the West has been developing under Obama, under Biden, under, you know, for the last ten years for the purposes of generating DNA biological chemical warfare to use against the Russians. That's why they've been collecting DNA samples from Slavic people. And, of course, all of the documents and the evidence that general Igor Krylyov has found and commented on are all being exposed as revelations of a massive really war crime, crime against humanity because it's a violation of the global biological chemical weapons agreement. It's, really showing that, America with its 30 bio labs in Ukraine was involved in experimentation on animal to human transmission, which is precisely the origin of COVID nineteen. So I think you're going to see all of this research that was conducted in Ukraine being directly connected to COVID nineteen. And there you have the Pandora's box that was created and opened by The United States Of America.

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

https://t.co/H8cuo1AuRA

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

About 40 American biolabs in Ukraine worked directly with the Pentagon. Why was General Igor Kirillov killed? https://t.co/jXGxDztLtC

Video Transcript AI Summary

We know that approximately 40-plus laboratories directly worked with the Pentagon. More than a dozen have ceased operation, likely due to our influence. Some were relocated to other territories and continued their activities. I cannot say that the biological program in Ukraine has been completely shut down. There's a misconception about what military biological research entails. It's not like the infamous Japanese Unit 731. It's much simpler in some ways and more complex in others, involving advanced research and artificial intelligence. These so-called garage laboratories have kits that can synthesize viruses. All of this is integrated into a single information system, ultimately controlled by the same entities, whether it's the Pentagon or other organizations.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Мы знаем, что приблизительно количество лабораторий, которые непосредственно работало с Пентагоном, порядка 40 с небольшим, с большой долей вероятности больше десятка перестали работать, функционировать, это непосредственно под нашим влиянием, часть была вывезена и продолжена их деятельность на других территориях. Я не могу сказать, что программа биологическая на территории Украины свернута, потому что сейчас немножко у людей не совсем правильное восприятие, что такое биологические разработки военного назначения. Да, вот не могли бы об этом уяснить. Думают, что это как в японском отряде 731-м, все далеко не так, все гораздо проще, где-то проще, где-то труднее, это высокие разработки, притом на уровне искусственного интеллекта, его внедрения в этом направлении. Это так называемая гаражная лаборатория, ряд наборов, которые позволяют синтезировать те или иные, даже вирусы, все это объединяется в единую информационную систему, во главе стоят мы понимаем кто, лица те же, то это Пентагон, то ли это какие-то другие организации.

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

https://t.co/gJgXHsntw0

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

Russian General Igor Kirillov, head of Russias Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Defense Troops, who exposed US backed Biolabs in Ukraine, has been murdered in Moscow. $2.4 billion fund under Hunter Biden involved in financing US-backed biolabs in Ukraine https://t.co/y66Q6w0oIa

Video Transcript AI Summary

Incoming materials let us connect the interaction scheme of US bodies with Ukrainian bio-objects. The involvement in the announcement of the mentioned activity of structures close to the current US leadership draws attention, in particular, the Rozmond Seneca Investment Fund, which is managed by Hunter. All this activity is carried out under the full control of the Pentagon.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Поступающие материалы позволяют просоединить схему взаимодействия органов США с украинскими биообъектами, обращать на себя внимание причастность к анонсированию указанной деятельности структур, близких к нынешнему руководству США, частности, инвестиционного фонда Розмонд Сенека, которым руководит Хантер Вся эта деятельность осуществляется под полным контролем Пентагона.

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

https://t.co/erT3FXrbX5

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

Victoria Nuland was asked whether 🇺🇦 has bioweapons "Ukraine has biological research facilities, which in fact we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to gain control of" Russian government has been saying all along, that US are funding Biolabs 🇺🇸BIDEN, CLINTON, SOROS GROUPS BEHIND BIOWEAPON TESTING IN UKRAINE: Bombshell details from Russian Defense Ministry which unveils huge Democrat Party members and backers behind programs to make bioweapons in Ukraine and across globe. Briefing on illegal Pentagon bioweapon programmes in 🇺🇦Since 2018, it has been known that the Pentagon is collecting specifically RNA/DNA for 'research' "Over 2-3 generations [of DNA-based bioweapons], such changes take place that they fully replace the original look" - Putin VICTORIA NULAND: Ukraine has biological research facilities, which, in fact, we are now quite concerned russian troops, russian forces may be seeking to gain control of. So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of russian forces should they approach.

Video Transcript AI Summary

Ukraine has biological research facilities that we are concerned Russian forces may try to control. We are collaborating with the Ukrainians to secure these research materials and prevent them from falling into Russian hands.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Ukraine has biological research facilities, which in fact we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of. So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.

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

https://t.co/6SJ0W7U8lK

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

❗️Future Director of US National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: There are 25+ US-funded biolabs in Ukraine. These labs need to be shut down immediatly. The US funds 300 biolabs around the world. https://t.co/1QmHxLj0EG

Video Transcript AI Summary

There are 25 to 30 US-funded biolabs in Ukraine researching dangerous pathogens. As Ukraine is an active war zone, these labs could be compromised, releasing deadly pathogens that know no borders. To protect people worldwide, these labs must be shut down immediately, and their pathogens destroyed. The Biden-Harris administration should work with Russia, Ukraine, NATO, and the UN to implement a ceasefire near these labs until they're secured and the pathogens are destroyed. The US funds around 300 biolabs globally, some engaging in risky gain-of-function research, similar to the Wuhan lab. These labs should have been shut down two years ago. This isn't a partisan issue; the administration and Congress must act now for global health and well-being.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Here are the undeniable facts. There are 25 to 30 US funded bio labs in Ukraine. According to the US government, these bio labs are conducting research on dangerous pathogens. Ukraine is in an active war zone with widespread bombing, artillery, and shelling, and these facilities, even in the best of circumstances, could easily be compromised and release these deadly pathogens. Now like COVID, these pathogens know no borders. If they are inadvertently or purposely breached or compromised, they will quickly spread all throughout Europe, The United States and the rest of the world, causing untold suffering and death. So in order to protect the American people, the people of Europe, the people around the world, these labs need to be shut down immediately, and the pathogens that they hold need to be destroyed. Instead of trying to cover this up, the Biden Harris administration needs to work with Russia, Ukraine, NATO, the UN to immediately implement a ceasefire for all military action in the vicinity of these labs until they're secured and these pathogens are destroyed. Now in addition to all this, The U. S. Funds around 300 biolabs around the world who are engaging in dangerous research, including gain of function, similar to the lab in Wuhan where COVID nineteen may have originated from. Now after realizing how dangerous and vulnerable these labs are, they should have all been shut down two years ago. But they haven't. Now this is not a partisan political issue. The administration and Congress need to act now for the health and well-being of every American and every person on this planet.

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

https://t.co/g7VS3fExYS

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

Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, after being one of the first in the world (in a serious government position) to directly say that the coronavirus was artificially created. Lt Gen Kirillov was assassinated by the MI6/SBU - on behalf of Big Pharma Control the world through artificially created biological crises

Video Transcript AI Summary

There's an increase in unusual infections in several countries. Is this connected to American biologists? Considering the damage from COVID-19 compared to something like World War II, the pandemic's impact has been far greater. Big Pharma, mainly based in the United States, has greatly benefited. We're raising questions and providing documents, but the US hasn't refuted any of the documents we've presented, which amounts to over 2000 pages to the United Nations. The US response is typically standard, claiming everything is done in the interest of their national security and that we should trust them. They're pursuing global biological control, realizing that artificially created biological crises can be used to manage the world, and even seemingly free aid comes with strings attached.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Рост заболеваемости не характерными инфекциями отмечен в данный момент в ряде стран. То есть тоже мы можем говорить о том, что это не без помощи американских биологов? Speaker 1: Я думаю, что вот так огульно заявлять мы же все-таки должностные лица. Ведь биологическое оружие, если посчитать, какой ущерб нанес ковид, то наверное за два года. Speaker 0: Основная пандемия два года Speaker 1: шла. Даже ее нельзя сравнить с ущербом, который был во Вторую Мировую войну. Это в десятки раз больше. Зато выгодоприобретатели той же Биг Фармы Speaker 0: -Вы имеете ввиду фармацевтические компании? Speaker 1: -С компанией, которые в основном находятся у нас в Соединенных Штатах, это там колоссальные. -То есть вопрос? Вопрос стоит. Вопросы мы задаем, мы же передаем документы. Характерна реакция Соединенных Штатов Америки, про которую мы говорим. Ни одного опровержения тем документам, которые мы предъявили, не было. Мы передали документы, это более, наверное, 2000 листов в Организацию Объединенных Наций. Speaker 0: Какой ответ пришел? -У Speaker 1: нас, как правило, два ответа. Один ответ происходит в Соединенных Штатах Америки. У них же он стандартный. Все, что ни делается, все делается в интересах национальной безопасности Соединенных Штатов, и нам надо доверять. Speaker 0: -Смепо доверяете? Speaker 1: -Да, Смепо доверяет. Там политика глобального биологического контроля. Они поняли, что это работает, что посредством искусственно создаваемых таких кризисных ситуаций биологического характера можно управлять миром. Ведь ничего бесплатно они не делают. И даже поставляя каким-то государствам на безвозмездной основе она не такая безвозмездная, как они об этом говорят

@MyLordBebo — Lord Bebo

Posted - January 10, 2025 at 7:36 PM

Saved - June 17, 2025 at 11:31 PM

@MyLordBebo - Lord Bebo

🇺🇸🇷🇺 America’s proxy war with Russia isn’t anything new. It’s been decades in the making. Tucker lets Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick explain what nuclear war would actually look like. https://t.co/mLrRCEIObe

Video Transcript AI Summary

Oliver Stone expresses fear of nuclear war, citing parallels to World War I and the US's "hatred for Russia." He questions the logic behind the "neo cold war," attributing it to neocons in Washington. Peter Kuznick notes a long history of US animosity toward Russia, dating back to 1917. He argues the US missed opportunities for positive relations after the Soviet Union's collapse, instead pursuing global dominance. Stone believes propaganda and education fuel European hostility towards Russia, while Kuznick points to NATO expansion as crossing Russia's red line. Both agree that a "cabal" in Washington may be influencing foreign policy. They highlight Kennedy's vision of humanizing Russia and Khrushchev's desire for peaceful reconciliation after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Stone emphasizes the economic factors driving antagonism, including fears of Russian revolution affecting American workers. Kuznick adds that the US sought to maintain its economic dominance post-World War II. They warn of the dangers of nuclear war, referencing Annie Jacobsen's book and the concept of nuclear winter. Stone says Putin is realistic about nuclear war. Stone says the Russian minority in Ukraine and NATO expansion are red lines for Putin. Kuznick says the US has been crossing Russia's red lines. Stone believes Russia sees the conflict as a clash between Christian and secular cultures. Both express concern over the current state of US foreign policy and hope for change.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Thank you both very much. Oliver, first how close do you think we are to nuclear war right now? Speaker 1: That's why I came up here. Yes. Or down here. Yes. Just tell you I'm scared. I'm really scared. I've been talking about it off and on since 2014 when the Ukraine thing happened. Yes. I was saying this is frightfully like there's a lot of elements of World War I, the alliances, the NATO alliance, and The United States' involvement, and its hatred for Russia is astonishing to me, considering the recent history, the last twenty years before that. There was no reason for us to pick on Russia and go back to this cold war, neo cold war that we have. That's what I don't understand, and I've been talking to Peter about It defies logic because he says it's the neocons in Washington that started, and they never left, you know, they were always there, Przyzynski from the Carter days. These are old arguments. I heard them with my father, was a conservative, relatively conservative, in New York City back in 1950, that the Russians were going to invade us, and this was very much the feeling that McCarthy was saying, They're in the schools, they're in the churches, they're in the But that's just It was such paranoia, and I think you know that now. You grew up like conservative too. Yes. When did you start to Well, Speaker 0: am conservative on many things, but I see no reason to be at war with Russia, and I don't know why Russia would be an enemy, but they're part of the West. Speaker 1: It's shocking to me because what Biden did, and I voted for him in 2018, he never talked about changing the Russia policy. Yes. He never did, and he never gave us any kind of knowledge or education about what he was thinking, but he seems to be an out cold warrior. I mean, everything he's done has been to antagonize him. In fact, he called the president of Russia a thug and a murderer before he got elected, so he hasn't been very diplomatic No, I would say about it. Speaker 0: It must be strange for you to have grown up in the Democratic Party Speaker 1: Republican Party. Speaker 0: Oh, right, but I mean, as an adult, to see the party that was the party of peace and reconciliation become the warped. Speaker 1: Everything has turned around. Everything has turned around. With Peter, we were talking last night, and Peter was my co author on Untold History of The United States, and he taught me a lot of this history because he specializes in it for many years. But here we are with this situation where Democrats want war, they push war, they're pushing the strategy of weakening Russia, which is a self defeating, suicidal strategy. What's the purpose of it? What did they do to us? What did they do? I don't understand. I don't know. What did they do to hurt us, and what has Ukraine to do with that distance for us to do this involvement with NATO? Also, for me, as half European, my mother was French, I spent time in Europe as a kid. What I've seen is a huge change in Europe. That's what's terrifying to me. Why? The people don't want war, but the EU, which is this political overrider, seems to want war, because the leadership in the EU is very elite, people who seem to come from the same school, factory, or whatever they produced by. They seem to think the same way that Russia is going to invade Europe again, that we're back to that World War II argument, which was nonsense in the first place. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: So here Russia wants Ukraine, and then they're going to go for Poland. That's what Kamala Harris said at one point. The stupidest statement I've ever heard, I think, from a political leader, just ignorant. No education, no history. Speaker 0: What do you think accounts for, big picture, the hostility of NATO and Europe to Russia? What is that? Speaker 1: It's got to be education. It's got to be propaganda. They believe these things. The woman who runs the EU, Ursula, she constantly says these things that are ignorant, ignorant of what's happened in the last twenty, thirty years, ignorant of what happened in the nineties in Russia. She's just they're not taking this into account. I talked to Macron at one point, and he was a very reasonable man. Thought he was saying things like, we need more nuclear energy in France. Right. Great. And now he turns around and he's saying that Putin is he's willing to send French troops into Ukraine. The British are the worst stormer, this new prime minister, Labour prime minister, you know who he is. He's quite he said yes, two days ago he said, have to punish Putin to the maximum because he's relentless. That's what he said. We have to punish. So there's an aspect, a personal a personal thing about Putin. Like Biden made it personal, saying he can get a thug and a murderer, and Starmer saying he has to be punished. Putin has to be punished, not Russia. It's bizarre. We didn't talk like this back when we were mature, back in the fifties, sixties, when we talked about Russia as an enemy because we thought it was adversarial. Yes. I disagree with that, but we thought so and we acted as such, but we didn't personally insult Khrushchev or Brezhnev. Speaker 2: Of course. Speaker 1: And here we are insulting them constantly. So Biden, I think, Some people say Blinken has taken control of his mind. I don't know, but Anthony Blinken is trained in the Hillary Clinton diplomatic school. He was For many years, he's been under her wing. Yes. So is, I gather Jake Sullivan. Speaker 0: Diplomatic is a little strong, but by diplomacy it's just regime change. Kill the leader you disagree Speaker 1: with. Speaker 2: Diplomacy is a dirty word now in The United States. Okay. Speaker 0: So, Peter, I'm interested in your perspective, like why do you think the entire United States from a position of greater weakness has with Europe pivoted against Russia of all the potential enemies? Why Russia? Speaker 2: What else is new? We've been going after Russia since 1917. We got We're mad at them. Well, in World War I, Lenin and Trotsky pulled Russia out of the alliance and had the Treaty of Brest Litovsk where they gave away a massive amount of Russia to Germany in order to get peace at that point. And what does The United States do with the Brits and the Japanese and others? We send troops into the Soviet Union in 1918. There were 15,000 American troops there. And Churchill wanted to overthrow the new Soviet government. He said we should strangle Bolshevism in the cradle. So this goes way back to them. We didn't even recognize the Soviet Union until Roosevelt was in power in 1933. So, and then during the war, they became our ally. Yes. And in fact, they were the ones who won the war in Europe. Correct. But I asked my students who won the war in Europe. You know, people grew up believing that the Americans won the war in Europe. It's not true. It's not even close to the truth. We certainly contributed a lot during world war two, but the Soviets throughout most of world war two, The US and The Britain were confronting 10 German divisions between two of us while the Soviets were confronting more than 200 German divisions on their own. That's why that's why everybody understood what Kennedy says in his great 1963 American University commencement address, what the Soviets suffered in World War II is the equivalent of the entire United States East Of Chicago having been wiped out. You know, you would think that we would be friendly with them afterwards and Roosevelt had a vision for that. In fact, Roosevelt promised Stalin in May of nineteen forty two that we would open up the second front before the end of 1942. He asked Stalin to send over Molotov and a trusted general for that meeting in the White House in 1942. And we made that promise. We don't open up the second front until June of forty four. And by that point, we had lost all the diplomatic initiative. The Soviets were defeating Germany largely on their own with the support of US materiel. And so they were pushing back the Germans over Central Europe and Eastern Europe. And so the idea that Roosevelt gave away anything at Yalta that the Soviets didn't already have is nonsense. The Soviets had that area. And that's 4445. Then unfortunately, Roosevelt died. And even more unfortunately, Truman became president instead of Henry Wallace, which is another story I hope we can get into because Oliver and I do a lot about that in untold history. And we argue that had Wallace become president on April 1945, instead of Truman, there would have not only been no atomic bombings in world war two, there would have likely been no cold war. History could have been so, so different. But instead we developed this enmity toward the Soviet Union instead of seeing that our allies who suffered so greatly and showing some largess and generosity, we begin to vilify them after that. And the crackdown that happens in Eastern Europe doesn't happen immediately. That takes place over the next couple of years. It's a much gradual process. They allowed a good degree of democracy in most of Eastern Europe till really the, the Truman, doctrine in 1947 really. And then after that, then the Cold War is on. And, but Kennedy was the one who saw it differently. I mean, he go into that too. Anyway, I'll give you a lot of history very very quickly. Speaker 0: None of that is surprising, but none of it I would say accounts for the shift after the one that Oliver referred to after 2014 at Maidan. Speaker 2: But actually starts earlier because we, when the Soviet Union collapsed, 1989, 1990, 1991, during that period, we had a chance to actually reach out in a more positive way. But it's in 1990 that Charles Krauthammer, the neocon theorist says the Soviet Union has collapsed, says this is America's unipolar moment. He says we're the only force in the world that can dictate world events. And he said the unipolar moment is likely the last thirty or forty years. It was in 1992 that we've come out with a defense planning guidance, which is a much more elaborate plan of how we're going to dominate the world. And then 1997, the project for New American Century takes shape, and that really fleshes it out much greater. And they say in that 2000 report that we're not be able to rebuild our defenses as quickly as we want unless we have a new Pearl Harbor. And they got that in 2001 with 09/11. And so then we invade Afghanistan, then Krauthammer revisits Speaker 0: Let me ask you a question. Do you think the people who said that we need a new Pearl Harbor in order to rebuild, how do you think they felt about nineeleven? Speaker 2: Think they saw as a tragedy and an opportunity. You know, I think they Speaker 0: So you're not suggesting they knew about it? Speaker 2: No, I'm not suggesting that, and Oliver Speaker 1: and I think it's a mystery. Speaker 0: In what I Speaker 1: think it's a mystery. I don't think it's solved because all the events of nineeleven have not come out. Speaker 0: No, they haven't. Why do you think that is? Speaker 1: I would have to really study this, but it's just so many questions I have. This is not the subject today, but it leads to this feeling that there's a cabal or something in Washington that has been there, kind of a strange ghost like cabal that goes back to the sixties with Kennedy's murder that continues in some strange embodiment today. It sounds like it, but it's a strange concept, but you have to think about it. Speaker 0: Well, can't assess it because the files are still classified twenty three years Speaker 1: Everybody's talking about conspiracies now. I mean, a lot of the lunatics have come out of the asylum, no doubt, but there's a lot out there in the public that really should be examined and questioned and asked, and that's what the establishment's freaking out because we're overloading it. It's running over the ramparts now. They can't defend them anymore. Speaker 0: Yes. I mean, there's sentiments. Well, were once derided as conspiracy. Yeah, I know. I don't think so anymore. Speaker 1: But I'm still alive. Speaker 0: You've lived to see your own vindication. Speaker 1: Well, yeah, in a sense. I mean, I'd love to see Kennedy understood better by the mass because you still hear this silly Harvey Oswald did it stuff. Allegedly, they never said alleged, it was alleged killer. They always say killer. I feel sorry that that happened, but that's a bigger story now. It's a bigger story because now it's the world is at stake. It's not the life of one man. He had a vision, as Peter said, of humanizing Russia, bringing them into the world community. That was defeated when he was killed. That was very badly defeated. Khrushchev fell shortly thereafter, the premier of Russia. He fell too, because he wasn't sufficiently strong with The United States. Speaker 2: Both men He caved in during the Cuban Missile Crisis. So his hawks wanted to get rid of him for being too weak. But let me go back to what Oliver's saying, because in October of nineteen sixty two, right after the missile crisis, two weeks later, Khrushchev writes an incredible letter to Kennedy in which he says, from evil some good must come. Our people have both felt the burning flames of thermonuclear war. We have to use this now to eliminate every conflict between us that could lead to a new crisis. And Kennedy and Khrushchev slowly on Kennedy's part, more rapidly on Khrushchev's, they began working together in '63. Norman Cousins was the intermediary, and he met with Khrushchev twice and made it clear that The United States really did want to have a peaceful reconciliation. And had Kennedy lived, mean his AU commencement address that I mentioned is I think the most important presidential address of the twentieth century. Can you Speaker 0: flesh that out a little bit? Was the last big speech he gave before he was murdered, one of It was a Speaker 2: great speech. Speaker 1: What Speaker 0: did he say? Speaker 2: Norman Cousins came back from Russia and said, Khrushchev needs some obvious signal that you're serious. And Norman Cousins actually wrote the first draft and then Kennedy took it and they didn't let the CIA, the State Department or the Pentagon even see it beforehand, which is why Kennedy was able to, it was called the strategy for peace speech. And what he says there among other things is that the relation between The US and Soviets is tragic. Why should we be enemies? Why should we see them as enemies? What Kennedy could do when he doesn't have speech is see the world through the eyes of America's adversaries. When was the last time we had a leader who could do that? I mean, Carter maybe for a minute, Obama maybe for a minute, but nobody else. So, Kennedy says is so relevant to today. He says, to put a nuclear adversary in a position of either suffering a humiliating defeat or using nuclear weapons is either a colossal failure of statesmanship or a collective death wish for humanity, which is exactly what Biden is doing at this point. Speaker 0: It's what we face right now. Yeah. So how was that speech received? Speaker 1: It wasn't as appreciated as it is now. It should be read. Speaker 0: How was it received in Washington? Speaker 1: Oh, I would think a lot of people didn't like it because they saw him as some kind of idealistic fruitcake. Yes. I really think so. Certainly he'd fired Dulles and he'd fired the top people at the CIA, but I think there's a deeper people in economic activity also were upset with him because there were changes in the economics of the play. The Democrats were gearing up for the future. They were gonna win the next election. That second second term was very important, and they had a third term possibility with Robert Kennedy and a fourth term possibility with Teddy Kennedy. It was a possibility of another Roosevelt. That was what's terrifying to the Republicans, I think, certainly to my father. And And I think that ties in. You were asked earlier why, you know, why, and I'm racking my brain, but I go back to my father who was a stockbroker, a very good one, and he was intellectually wrote about it. To him, it goes back to World War I again, to this concept of they changed their system. They broke the rule, the international The rules based order was changed because now, not only did they break the treaty, no secret treaties was one of the first things they did, all these treaties from World War I came out. The secret treaties at France, England had signed before the war, so that was, you see, that came out and the German treaties came out, so that was But it was economic in the sense that in The United States we had a lot of strikes going on domestically. We've had strikes going on since the eighteen seventy's, and there was a worldwide sentiment for revolution in the workers socialist movement. It infected France, it infected England. I mean, it's well known, and Germany was very much moving towards a workers' revolution. That was the most scary thing to Woodrow Wilson. It was the Russians are going to destabilize the whole world, and Churchill was right there and he wasn't a leader, but certainly the English felt the same way. They were the leaders of World War I, so they had a stake in getting rid of Russia. That's why the Starmer's recent comment the other day about punishing Putin to the maximum is very striking to me. The British have led the charge against Russia forever. And gets Speaker 2: back to 1990, NATO expansion. And then in 1997, Brzezinski lays it out in his book, The Grand Chessboard, which, Fife and Libya and Hadley were also writing about just at the same time. And what Brzezinski says in The Grand Chessboard is that if you can separate Ukraine from Russia, then Russia will never be a Eurasian superpower again. They had a strategy for doing exactly what they did for quite some time before that. This is not something that they just thought up in 2014. Speaker 0: Do ever feel like you can't trust the things you hear or read like every news source is hollow, distorted, or clearly just propaganda lying to you? Well, you're not imagining it. If the last few years have proven anything, it's that legacy media exists to distort the truth and to control you, to gatekeep information from the public instead of letting you know what's actually going on. They don't want you to know. But there is, however, a publication that fights this that is not propaganda, one that we read every month and have for many years. It's called Imprimis. It's from Hillsdale College in Michigan. Imprimis is a free speech digest that features some of the best minds in the country addressing the questions that actually matter, the ones that are not addressed in the Washington Post or NBC News. The best part of it, it is free. No cost whatsoever. No strings attached. They just send it to you. Hillsdale will send in Primus right to your house. No charge. All you gotta do is ask. Go to tuckerforhillsdale.com and subscribe for free today. That's tuckerforhillsdale.com. The only way this stays a democracy is if the citizenry is informed. You can't fight tyranny if you don't know what's going on. Imprimis helps. It's free. Don't wait. Sign up now. So, Oliver, you know Putin as well as any American, or you spend at least as much time with him as any living American. Characterize what he's like, if you would? Yeah. May I finish my point? Speaker 1: Of course, It's complicated. We're talking about why. I just feel the economics are crucial to understand in the sense that the fear of the Russian revolution affecting American workers was gigantic. Workers started to emigrate to Russia in the 1920s to work there. Conditions were supposed to be better. We talk about it in the book. And America was moving away from the capitalist ideal that existed. I think that plays a huge role coming after World War II, also after World War I. Of course, it's that World War I leads to World War II in my mind, but let's jump to World War II. After World War II, they were terrified, the Republicans were terrified that the Depression would return. The depression had been a horrible experience for many Americans. They were poor. They had nothing. They were terrified that it would come again. Yeah. So the whole concept started up in the Congress of 'forty five with the Republicans turning, winning. They won a lot of seats, right? Speaker 2: 'forty six, yeah. Speaker 1: And they're talking about an economy, a war economy all of a sudden, like keeping people at full employment. What are we going to do with all these men coming back, and the women have taken their jobs? We've got to keep people working, so we're going to get into this military business, and that's what we did off and on. We did it through the era of up to where Eisenhower says in 1960. He's built the greatest nuclear force and army of all time. In 1960, we have how many warheads? Speaker 2: We had 185 ICBMs, and the Russians had four. Speaker 1: Yeah, but I'm talking about in 1960 when Kennedy comes Speaker 2: And we increase it by a thousand, And the Joint Chiefs, the Air Force wanted 10,000, Joint Chiefs wanted 3,000, I think it was. And McNamara said the lowest number we can get away with is 1,000. So that's but from the Soviet perspective, they saw The United States was already ahead between 10 to one and a 100 to one in every category. And now they see us adding a thousand more ICBMs. So the Kremlin interpreted it that The US was preparing for a first strike against the Soviet Union, which is part of the reason why they put the missiles into Cuba to try to offset that, at least to some degree. But again, Kennedy got a briefing on 07/20/1961 about a secret advanced preemptive strike, nuclear strike to wipe out the Soviet Union. Speaker 1: And China. Speaker 2: And Kennedy walked out of that midway through the briefing and he's turned to Dean Ruskin and said, and we call ourselves the human race. Lemnister gave it and one of the people there said, I think it was Roswell and Gilpatrick, says he gave it as if he was talking to kindergarteners and Kennedy was so disgusted with it. And the thinking behind the idea that we were going to have a preemptive surprise nuclear strike unprovoked against the Soviet Union. But there are military people who were thinking that way as there are today. I mean, Bulletin Atomic Scientists had an article on August 20. There were two interesting articles. Sanger had one in the New York Times that day saying that The United States is preparing to fight a three front nuclear war against Russia, China and North Korea and win that. And the same day, the Bullying Atomic Scientist came out with an article saying that there is still planners in the Pentagon who believe that we can win a nuclear war and should plan for that. Speaker 0: What would that mean to win a nuclear war? Speaker 2: It's insanity. It doesn't mean anything. Speaker 1: Well, why you should read this book. It's very important because there is This Annie Jacobsen's book There's no partial victory in this book. It's impossible. It's a chain reaction once this thing starts. There are so many different aspects to it. It's a bureaucracy beyond belief. The names, all the names of all the systems we have protecting ourselves. One thing, clockwork. It's so rare if this if it hangs We don't have a fail safe, is what I'm trying to say. We really don't. Speaker 0: So what does it look like once the chain reaction begins? Speaker 1: Oh, she describes it beautifully minute by minute. She talks about what's going to happen to you, me, and forget about Los Angeles, forget about New York, they're gone. Speaker 2: The Pentagon has been trying to war game limited nuclear war for decades, and it never ends up at a limited nuclear war. I mean, at what point does it stop? It always keeps going till everything's gone. Then nuclear Speaker 1: winter is something we discovered in what year? Speaker 2: Sagan came up with that idea in the early 80s. Speaker 1: Early 80s. Speaker 2: But they went through, but they, if anything, and then he got attacked by the Wall Street Journal and others for bad science, which is bullshit. But the latest scientific findings are that Sagan and company actually downplayed the effects of Speaker 1: nuclear So Speaker 0: what is nuclear winter? Speaker 2: Nuclear winter, for example now, the latest studies show that a limited nuclear war between India and Pakistan in which 100 Hiroshima sized nuclear weapons would be used, would push 5,000,000 tons of smoke, soot and debris into the atmosphere. It would circle the stratosphere within two weeks, block the sun's rays from getting to the earth, temperatures would plummet to freezing on the earth, much of the agriculture would be destroyed, and a limited nuclear warp of a 100 Hiroshima sized weapons could kill up to 2,000,000,000 people. 2,000,000,000. If there was a we don't have a 100, we've got 12,000. And they're not Hiroshima size, many of them are seven to 70 times the size of the Hiroshima Bomb. And so if there was a large scale use, it would the cities would burn and would send up so much soot that would block the sun's rays for years and we might not survive as a species. The likelihood is that all large life forms would probably die off. Some people might be able to get under the ground, know, and have a mine shaft, Speaker 1: that's they what Now was the idea in Failsafe. Kubrick didn't know anything about Nuclear Winter he did the movie, he had the underground system being described by the Doctor. Strangelove, remember? Yes. By the way, I did a clip. I showed Strangelove to Putin, Doctor. Strangelove. I wanted him to sit through that climax to Speaker 0: Had he seen it before? Speaker 1: No, he never heard of it, I don't think. And he sat through it with me and it's on film. His reaction is, Yes, this is very realistic. Yeah. It could happen, but now our weapons are even much bigger, much bigger. Much worse, yeah. But he said, Yeah, this is realistic. Speaker 2: Although back in the 60s, were actually building bigger nuclear weapons than we are today. The Russians tested their 50 megaton weapon, the Tsar Bomba, and it could have been 100 megaton if they'd wanted to. Underground? I'm not sure if it was an underground test. So what Speaker 0: do you think Putin's view of nuclear war is? Speaker 1: He knows. He's a very realistic man. This is serious. Doesn't bullshit. He talks very straightforwardly, and I think that's We don't understand that. Our language is a little more rhetorical than his. Yes. He's pretty consistent. He said this is a red line in Ukraine, and he always has maintained that, and he went to war for it. Speaker 0: The red line being NATO up against his border. Speaker 1: The Russian minority in Ukraine. Yes. They moved into Donbas. Donbas and Lugansk were the issues at that time. Now that was what was at stake. Yes. They promised, the Ukrainians promised to Minskwan and Nixon, they promised to respect the autonomy of those people. They never did. They started killing them, and there was terrorism beyond Ukraine changed in '14 after Maidan. It became truly a dangerous country because they had a lot of zealots in the government. They Nazis, but they were a lot of people like that who were working with the Ukrainians terrifying the Russians. I don't know. You saw my movie. Did a Ukraine in Winter. It's about that, my dad, and how these people got into power. That was a violation of the neutrality of Ukraine, which had existed since the end of the Cold War. It's a sad story because we wanted it. It was our entree. We didn't, we Obama said, We want neutrality, we want this and that, we want to have a good relationship, and meanwhile he betrayed it. He betrayed it with My dad broke into violence. I don't if you know all the details, but there was a lot of killing of the protesters. And the evidence is really pointing heavily to the neo fascists there who came in and shot these people from these rooftops that were controlled by the Ukrainian side. So It's a very Speaker 2: sad story. Tucka, let me take it back just a little bit. Speaker 0: Of course. Speaker 2: Because in 02/2008, that's when The United States called for Ukraine and Georgia to enter NATO. Right. And that was clearly crossing Russia's red line. In fact, our then US ambassador to Russia was William Burns, now the head of the CIA. Burns writes a secret memo back to the White House titled, niet means niet. Don't cross Russia's red lines about Ukraine and and NATO. And that's where things begin to change. Putin was furious. He actually came went to the NATO meeting and was had been reaching out to The US since 09/11. And he was the first foreign leader to actually contact the White House and to offer assistance. And he did help us in Afghanistan originally. And then what do we do in 02/2002? We abandoned the ABM treaty. He was that was a horrible blow to them. Then we invade Iraq, which they were totally opposed to. And so then the relations begin to deteriorate. But I was saying before about Krauthammer, in 2002 he revisits his idea of the unipolar moment. So that was wrong in 1990. It's not the unipolar moment. It's the unipolar era. And The US is going to dominate the world for the foreseeable future. Could it be a hundred years, not thirty or forty years. And that's when they all the neocons started coming out of the frame they started appearing everywhere and saying the importance of American empire, that we're going to change the chessboard. When Wesley Clark went to the Pentagon, they told them we had plans to have regime change in seven different countries. Yes. And what was on that list? Iraq, Iran, Syria. Libya, Syria. Libya, yeah. I mean, you go through Iran. Yeah. And so that was the game plan. What's happening now in Syria was part of a game plan. Speaker 1: And Iran was the last Speaker 2: big surprise. Iran is Speaker 1: biggest of all was Iran. Speaker 2: Kurdish Alaire, Sudan, Somalia, they had a lot of different countries we were gonna overturn. And they had this vision that we could do it. On 01/05/2003, the New York Times Sunday Magazine section, big headline, American Empire, Get Used to It. I mean, weren't even hiding it. They were proud about it at that point until things started to go haywire in Afghanistan and Iraq. And then finally Speaker 1: In Libya. Speaker 2: In Libya's a little And Speaker 1: also include Serbia. Go back to 'ninety nine. Speaker 2: Well, the Russians were furious about what happened in Serbia. Speaker 0: Can I ask, not to digress, but what was the point of the intervention in Serbia, the post Yugoslav interventions? Speaker 1: We announced it as we were catching the butchers, the people who were dictators in Serbia, and that was our excuse, but essentially it was a much more important destabilization of We bombed a city in Europe, Belgrade, ninety nine days. I mean, about it. We came into the war and called it's a complicated war. There were two peace treaties. Don't have time here to go into it, but essentially we wanted to Balkanize Yugoslavia, which we did. Yes. The same way we're going to Balkanize Syria now. Yes. This is American policy. You divide, conquer, divide, conquer. Balkanize it, cut it up into Kosovo was a violation at the deepest level of everything we're talking about. We talk about the rules based order. Yes. Speaker 3: They had a referendum that was a little bit Speaker 1: shady, and we said they're free. They're no longer part of Serbia. Kosovo was Speaker 3: a gangster state. It's a whole, I was there. I don't know. I can't tell you. Speaker 1: It's grim what happened to Speaker 0: the What's interesting though is as that was happening and NATO was bombing and West Clark was becoming famous and all that, I don't think I heard a single debate in The United States over why we were doing this. Speaker 1: Did we? Speaker 2: Not much, no. But in Russia, you would've heard it very, very different. Something like 96% of the Russians thought that what was going on there was a war crime. Yes. I mean, the Russians were at a totally opposite view, and The US was establishing the rules based international order, which meant instead of going through the United Nations, which they couldn't have gotten it through, they did it on their own. Militarily. Speaker 1: Yes. And don't forget in Iraq, when we went in there, Germany, France, and Russia did not join. They did not agree with that. Schroeder and All of Europe. Iraq. It's important because what's happened now is the opposite. France and Germany are All The UK Speaker 0: leading the charge. So there's been a Speaker 1: change in values, and you say, Where? I don't know why. I think there's some kind of NATO is not the one, but it's sort of an elitism that has come into being in Europe, an elitism of the leaders coming from a university where they're trained to be leaders, but they all think alike. That's what surprises me. Farage, whatever he says, he's different. At least he says something that's different. Le Pen says something different. Yes. So that's why these people are appealing to people because they're saying there has to be some peace. This is madness. Speaker 0: And it's why they're the most attacked. Speaker 1: That's part of it too. The media is in on it, and they're very, very critical of people who differ. In this country, you've noticed the censorship has gotten far. You suffered from it. Yeah, well certainly I suffered from it. I mean, you're insulated because you're having tenure, but Speaker 0: How many Oscars have you won? Speaker 1: I've won three. You've won three Oscars? A long time ago. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 1: No, but essentially I got cut off because I did. The Putin interviews didn't help me in Hollywood. Speaker 0: But you'd been cut off before then, I think, hadn't you? Speaker 1: No, my ability to make films was choked a little. You know, there is After 2,000 things changed in The United States because we became the victim. We were suddenly the patriotism of the soldiers. We started Pearl Harbor, Black Hawk Down. All the films were a different mentality than what I was presenting, which was a reality, I thought, to the American public. This military has to be Why are we doing these military expeditions overseas? This is like in Vietnam. This is what was my main point. I kept going at it and going at it, and I guess all of a sudden it became okay, but the people never voted. Was no candidate. There was no election that said, I'm against any empire. I want to bring it back, like back in William Jennings Bryan's back in 1898. I don't want empire. We never got the choice. We swallowed it. Speaker 2: Let me give a different timeline on Oliver's history that I I mean, Oliver was walking on water in Hollywood with Platoon, Wall Street, born on the July 4. Yep. And then he made JFK, and then everything changed. And they started attacking JFK seven, eight months before the film was produced. I remember. Based on a stolen first draft of the script at the New York Times, Los Angeles Times. Speaker 1: Washington Post, all that. Speaker 2: Were all going after him. And a conspiracy theorist, and you know, it's a very controversial movie which takes a lot of risks. And Oliver said, admitted at the time he didn't have all the answers but he wanted to get the questions out there and make people think about some of these issues. But at that point, he went from being Hollywood's golden boy to being the conspiracy monger. Speaker 0: I remembered very well in the late night comics who are always tools of the existing order jumped in, but why do you think that film and that topic, I mean Speaker 2: Because Americans had already disagreed with the Warren Commission. Yes. And even before Oliver's movie came out, the overwhelming majority of Americans thought didn't think that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. They didn't from the very beginning find that credible at all. In fact, four of the seven members of the warrant commission didn't think that or thought that there was likely a second gun. Speaker 1: Nor Robert Kennedy, nor Lyndon Johnson. Connolly. Jackie Kennedy. So many people. Hale Boggs. Friedel Castro, Charles de Gaulle, various British leaders, Harold Macmillan. Speaker 0: Did you ever talk to Castro? You knew Castro? Speaker 1: Yeah, sure. Speaker 0: What did he say about it? Speaker 1: Oh, he was so sad because he really was like Kennedy and he was hoping for a deal. They were in backdoor negotiations. Kennedy understood the Cuban revolution and he said eloquent about it. He understood why the people were Cuba had been the most corrupt island in the American empire and the Caribbean since the Platom end in 02/1901. Yeah. But a lot of this is economic. Let's not lose sight of that. You see, what they got after World War II was an economic empire, which is It was working. People were investing in the war economy and they were prosperous. Yes. But you saw the budgets grew and grew and grew. Here we are now with a trillion dollar defense budget, right, which is insane because we have how many bases abroad? 800 bases? That was never the intention of Eisenhower or any of those people to have to control the world, to dominate every place in the world. But this is Asia and Europe. Mechanically. And South America. This is a gigantic empire. Do you realize how busy they are every day trying to run this thing? Everything is coming. Personally, I believe there's an invasion coming up. It's either going be Iran or I hope not. Israel is a proxy army for us. Certainly Trump supports them, and you know that. Trump is very zealous about Israel. Scary. But also don't overlook Venezuela, which is still one of the richest countries in the world with all its oil. Some people believe that is an easy target for Trump to knock off. I pray not, because it's going to be a battle, but this doesn't end is what I'm saying. They plot every day. Imagine the world map. You got the China challenge, right? Sending ships constantly stating our supremacy in seas, freedom Speaker 2: of Free navigation. Speaker 1: And China, it's crazy. I mean, I understand economically, take it on. Be competitive with China. Fine. But we can be economically friendly. In other words, we can be competitors. I don't see why we can't be in business together, as with Russia. Russia was a capitalist country. It's no longer a communist country. Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: So as much as we hate communism, it doesn't make sense to antagonize Russia. They can be our partners in climate change in so many ways. Their nuclear energy industry is one of the best in the world, as is China. They can teach us. We can build SMRs in quantity if we wanted to. We can really solve climate change. We don't have to sit here victims of it, but this is all This is Kennedy thinking. This is what we need. We need leadership. We need a de Gaulle, somebody who has a vision of the world. Trump to Speaker 2: some degree has a Oliver's stressing the economic roots of all this. Speaker 1: I do. Speaker 2: Yes. I wanted to go back because in 1948, George Kennan lays it out. In his secret memo, George Kennan, was the architect of the Cold War, writes a memo that says, We have 6.3% of the world's population, yet we control 50% of the world's wealth. He said, The challenge before us today is to maintain this position of disparity. We're not going to do it with idealistic slogans, we're going to do it with pure power concepts. He later regretted that. He later regretted the Mr. X article and he becomes really very very worried about the threat of nuclear war in his later life, and he lived to over 100 years old. Speaker 1: You know In '97, he condemned Clinton. Speaker 2: Condemned the NATO expansion for sure. Speaker 1: In '99, Clinton expanded NATO. Yeah. And Kennen was horrified. Horrified. Speaker 0: So we were at a meeting here at TCN the other day, I looked around the room, and every other person had a kind of ruddy vitality, pink cheeks, alertness, bright eyes, full mental acuity and a cheerfulness you could almost smell. And I asked, why does everyone look so good? And part of the answer, of course, is they like what we do for a living. It's really interesting. We think it's important. But another reason everyone looks so good is because they'd all had a great night sleep. I'm not making this up. Almost everybody here uses a new sleep technology from a company called EatSleep. They sent it to us and everyone here loves it. It's called the Pod. It's a high-tech mattress cover effectively that you add to your existing bed. You don't need a new bed or anything like that. You just throw this over what you have. What it does is adjust the temperature of your bed, warmer or cooler depending on what you want, and it maintains an ideal sleeping environment all night long. So I didn't know this, but as you progress through different phases of sleep, your body's needs change, and Eight Sleep automatically keeps things exactly where they should be in the sweet spot through the entire night. It's been proven to increase the quality of your sleep, the amount you sleep every night. It improves your recovery time from physical exertion, and it may even improve your cognitive performance and enhance your overall health. It seems to be doing that in our office. So it learns and adapts to your sleep patterns over time and automatically adjusts temperatures throughout the night through each phase of sleep, and it does this independently for each sleeper on either side of the bed. That's pretty cool. So you can sleep well and feel much better and be more effective the next morning as we are here. Try it for yourself. Go to 8sleep.com/tucker. Use the promo code Tucker to get an extra $350 off the Pod four Ultra. You can try with zero obligation for a month, and if you don't like it, just send it back. Again, that's 8sleep.com/tucker. Better sleep today and look great in your morning meetings as our guys do. Yeah. But you're arguing that it's more than just economics that are driving this. Speaker 2: Economics, it's geopolitics, it's Economics. Military ideological domination. I don't think it's an either or. Speaker 1: Some people Speaker 2: make that mistake and say it's this or it's that. I mean, are a lot of different people involved in planning this, and they're motivated by different things. Speaker 1: No, say that was the original reason we were antagonistic to Russia. Yes. It wasn't military. It was economic, because we've had strikes in this country, and we were trying to control labor, and the large corporations were in a deathly struggle with labor. Up until the end of World War II, Taft Hartley, that was a big issue. There were so many strikes during the war, people don't even take that into account. There was huge strikes in Detroit, cars, steel, and after the war it was continuing until Taft Hartley came along, which allowed them to close down any strike that was dangerous to the national security, I think. Speaker 2: But in the 30s, that's what motivated Roosevelt's turn to the So Speaker 3: the Cold War comes out Speaker 1: of economics too. It's very much so. Speaker 2: The labor movement was huge in The United States in the 30s. The formation of the CIO, the organizing of steel, auto, I mean all of the big industries were were organizing. And who were the leaders of the organizing? The communists. You know, there was a reason why they had to shut down the communist party during the quote unquote McCarthy period. McCarthy is a late comer to McCarthyism, but right, it starts in '47. And Truman according to Clark Clifford, his main domestic policy advisor, Truman said, they said Truman knew that this was baloney, this stuff about communist infiltration, But the Republicans started to attack in 1946. The chair of the Republican Party in '46 says the choice between republicanism and communism. And so we're beginning this anti communist hysteria very, very early after the war. And then Truman takes the bait and has the loyalty hearings, which leads gradually into McCarthyism. So first in '47, first they say that the real threat is the atomic scientists. But they quickly decide that the ones they're going to investigate first is Hollywood, right? So then they have the Hollywood Ten and then all those other hearings that were taking place because they were very concerned even then about people who might influence American thinking. And Hollywood was a hotbed of leftists. Speaker 0: Kind of an irony though that Oliver Stone, after winning three Oscars, would be excommunicated from Hollywood by the same people for thought process. Speaker 1: I didn't get excommunicated yet. Please don't. Speaker 0: That you would be even vigorously criticized is a little strange. Speaker 1: No, it's very hard for me. I mean, a military type theme, these kind of things I'm talking about with you, I couldn't do this as a movie now. I could do the Putin interviews because that was a documentary, I could do nuclear energy because I cared about that. That was a documentary, pro nuclear energy. So I'm interested in ideas, but in terms of drama, have to curb it. I can't go to where my imagination wants to go. Why? Well, they say to you They never tell you the truth. They tell you too controversial, too political, too this, too that. I don't think I've lost my touch, but I have to live with it. It's okay. I live with it. I'm writing a book, another book. I wrote a book, memoir, a first part of my life. I'm going write another one from 40 on, from the age of 40 to wherever I am now. Speaker 0: So are there any filmmakers left in Hollywood who can take on the biggest questions, like The Power of the Insulation? That's the Speaker 1: thing. Don't take on the Oppenheimer is an interesting movie. I liked it as a movie. Loved Yes. There are some flaws in it, you know. The big flaw being that Truman is honestly pictured knocking Oppenheimer. Remember that? That's great chef the But what's ignored in the film is, for example, General Groves. Leslie Groves is one of the most anti communist generals we ever had, a total cold warrior from beginning to end. He said, quote, the quote's in the book, From the beginning, the Manhattan Project was created to destroy, to address the Russian Empire. You know the line? Speaker 2: Yeah, of course. Speaker 1: Nothing more. It was not about Japan, it was about Russia. Speaker 2: It says from two weeks after the time I was appointed to head the Manhattan Project, I treated as if the Soviets were the enemy and that the project was directed in that So Speaker 0: the bombing of Japan was really aimed as a message to the Soviets? Speaker 1: Well, yeah, the Russians were in the war at that time. We knew that Japan was finished, but we had to keep going in those crucial few days to establish the weapon. And Leslie Groves, I mean, Damon played him a very good performance, but I don't know Speaker 2: if he found That's not Leslie Groves. Speaker 1: It's not Speaker 2: Leslie That's the most warm and fuzzy Leslie Groves you're ever going to see. Speaker 1: And it doesn't go into the issue of whether Oppenheimer, I don't know. I'm sure Oppenheimer got an inkling of it later, no? Speaker 2: Yes. Speaker 1: At the time. Speaker 2: Yeah, but he said that when he testified, he said, We didn't know beans about the military situation. We didn't know that Japan could have been made to surrender without using the bomb. You know, so Oppenheimer later effectively apologized for supporting the use of the bomb. Speaker 1: Yeah, and then he got into trouble. That's when he Speaker 2: he was in And then opposed the development of hydrogen bomb. Speaker 1: Once you cross the Rubicon, you have to cross. Speaker 0: Speaking of your cross than Rubicon, yes, I have crossed it, but when you came back from interviewing Putin for your documentary, and it was released, what was the reaction like in LA? Speaker 1: People, they don't talk to me publicly. It's almost behind closed doors, right? Speaker 0: Did you hesitate before doing it? Speaker 1: Not really, because it was fascinating new material. My producer set up, no, was doing Snowden in 2013, which was a very brave movie because we're dealing with a man who was exiled, who I thought was a hero and was treated as if he was a traitor, so I wanted to make that movie. Making that movie, I had to go to Moscow to finish it, and I met Putin there, and we talked about Snowden first, because that was where we met, and what he said about Snowden, as he says in the movie, it's very true, he didn't like what Snowden did. No. And Speaker 3: he would have punished him probably the same way, but Speaker 1: he understood the mechanics of it. Meanwhile, we got to know each other, and my producer said, Let's do an interview with him, because he's a crucial figure right now. Yeah, we didn't know what was coming, you know, we didn't know about the coup at that point, so we set up these interviews, and we were talking. The coup had just happened at that fort, so he was upset. I, as an American, didn't really know the situation, so I was treating it like Ukraine, okay, what's the big deal? I mean, it's another one of the countries like Georgia, I thought. Speaker 0: Yeah, there's still worse on that country. And Speaker 1: he looked at me and said, No, it's not a big deal for us, Mr. Stone. And he explained in the movie, what? I think he says that on tape. And he I understand Ukraine better and better, but at first I didn't I talked to Ukrainians. It's it was evident. I mean, it was coming. This thing is very dangerous. It was a firecracker from 2014 on because it was a violation at the heart of the Soviet empire, of the Russian empire. That underbelly is where the invasions happened. Speaker 0: So it seems like we're relying now on Putin's restraint. Speaker 1: It's not just him, it's Russia. If he if he's out, and if Biden gets his wish and all these nutcases want to remove him, take him out. Fine. Kill him. But he's not going to solve it. Russia is Russia. It's going to stay loyal to what it's believed in. There is a they don't have a democratic vote, but they have a consensus. If Putin was not doing what the public the people wanted, he'd be out. That's the way it works. It takes maybe a couple of years, more, what but it doesn't that's the way Russia works. They if the czar didn't work out, they get rid of him, you know? And they shot him, too. Remember, that's one of the reasons the Japanese were terrified of the Russians and why they surrendered, because they didn't want the Russians to invade the homeland. That was a big fear. But now the Russian people are very strong, but they're passive, so they talk in certain ways. You know, we believe the Moscow crowd, but the Moscow crowd doesn't talk for Russia. It's a bigger consensus. Speaker 2: But you're making an important point though that we are in many ways dependent on Putin's restraint at this point. Absolutely. Because we keep and today, he just made a statement that The US keeps crossing all of Russia's red lines. And if they keep doing this, this is gonna explode. I mean, Biden for a long time refused to give permission to Ukraine to use the attack and missiles. And he said that it would be too provocative and could possibly lead to a much broader war between The United States and Russia. And he refused to do it, but that he did with every other weapon system. He finally caved in. And so Ukraine has struck Russia several times now with these attack and missiles inside of Russia, the long range army missiles. And then you got the British stormtrooper, storm shadow missiles, you got the French missiles, the Scout missiles, the German ones haven't been used yet. And in response to that, Russia lowered, changed its nuclear doctrine and said that they lowered it and said that if Russia is attacked by a country with the support of a nuclear power, then they're going to consider that an attack by both countries, meaning The United States and Ukraine, and both countries become legitimate targets for all of Russia's weapons, meaning nuclear weapons. So far, then how did then how did Russia respond With the Ureshnik missile, this brand new hypersonic medium range missile. And it was devastating because it goes at 10 times the speed of sound and it's a hypersonic missile and they can't be shot down. And they've used it once so far, but there's some warnings that they could take out Kyiv or at least the leadership there. They could hit the base in Poland wherever they want. Speaker 0: So, for some context, what is the difference between the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima and the current nuclear arsenal? Like how much more advanced are nuclear weapons now? Speaker 2: They are so much more advanced. In fact, Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his speech in Prague Speaker 0: For existing, yep. Speaker 2: In 2009 calling for nuclear abolition, he's the one who put into process the policy of modernizing America's nuclear arsenal. It was a trade off with the senator Kyle from Arizona in order to get them to support the new START treaty. And so what is modernizing the delivery systems and the weapons mean? Making them more efficient and more lethal. And then Trump doubled down on that in his nuclear posture review in 2018. And so Obama said we're going to spend a trillion dollars over thirty years to modernize. Now it's closer to 2,000,000,000,000 and we're doing it. But not only is The United States modernizing, all nine nuclear powers are modernizing their arsenals. And for the first time, you know, at the peak of the Cold War, 1986, we had about 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world. We got it down to now 12,000, but for the first time we're increasing the arsenals. You know, we've been trying to get rid of these hellish weapons since they were first started. And initially, even Eisenhower supported giving them to the UN and letting the UN destroy them. And Eisenhower also was the only president who's openly critical of The US dropping the atomic bombs in 1945. You know, and he criticized that at the What he said, he said when Stimson briefed him at Potsdam, that The United States was about to use the atomic bomb, Eisenhower wrote on a couple occasions that I got more and more depressed just listening to him, but I didn't volunteer anything because my war in Europe was over. Then he asked me what I thought and I told him I was against it for two reasons. Number one, the Japanese were already defeated and trying to surrender and we didn't need to use it. And number two, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon. The US had eight five star admirals and generals in 1945. Seven of the eight are officially on the record saying the atomic bombs were either militarily unnecessary, morally reprehensible or both. And the other the eighth was Marshall who said that the Soviet invasion alone would likely leverage the Japanese into surrender by itself. So, they all knew that the atomic bombs were necessary. Truin knew it as well as anybody. When he went to have lunch with Stalin at Potsdam on July 17, he goes back and writes in his journal, said Russia, Stalin will be in the jap war by August 15. Finny japs when that occurs. He writes home to his wife Bess the next day, said the Russians are coming in, we'll end the war a year sooner now. Think of all the kids who won't be killed. He knew it. He refers to the intercepted telegram on July 18 as the telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace. They knew that the Japanese were defeated. Speaker 1: If there had been an invasion, what was the estimate of casualties? The original one from Marshall. Speaker 2: The original one, were talking only like 20,000, and then the highest one for the original Enola Gay exhibit that we could find was 46,000 Americans who would be lost. But in his memoir, Truman says, I was told by Marshall that we could lose a half million American boys in an invasion. It's a myth. I mean, that's But that's just what kids Speaker 1: are taught in And then Bush brought it up to Speaker 2: H. W. Bush said, millions, we could lose millions. It's tough to calculate Speaker 1: the decision of instrument. Presidents Right, Speaker 0: the retroactive justification. So do you think that, you said the world's nuclear arsenal has dramatically declined. Speaker 2: That's going to be increasing now. Speaker 0: But do you think, and that decline is at the end of the Soviet empire in 'ninety one, do you think that all of those warheads were accounted for? Are you certain that they were destroyed? Speaker 2: I don't have any evidence that they weren't. Okay. But I mean, I've heard speculation Speaker 1: I have too. Speaker 2: About that. Yes. But I I don't know that there are any out there. Speaker 4: Breaking news. Trump intends to nominate Cash Patel to serve as the FBI director. Speaker 3: The level of corruption in Washington DC was not wholly new to me, but I also didn't expect it at that level. Speaker 4: Is it your expectation though that Kash Patel will pursue investigations against your political enemies? Speaker 3: If they were crooked, if they Speaker 2: did something wrong, if they, have broken the law? Speaker 3: Comey, the former deputy attorney general of the Department of Justice, literally hijacked the system of justice. And at the time, of course, we didn't know this, but he was running Russiagate. They went after me, you know. They went after me and I did nothing wrong. Speaker 0: Here's the thing that I think people need to understand. The information operation is not Mockingbird. It's Speaker 1: everybody. Speaker 0: How much do you think Putin worries about nuclear war? Speaker 1: A lot. I can't tell you. I mean, he's a cool customer, as you know. He's seen a lot. He's been there for twenty three years. I mean, he knows every world leader. He's seen six American presidents come and go. I would say he qualifies as a statesman and a wise man, and we don't pay any attention to him. We should. We should respect him. He has the experience. He understands the American system, how it sends new leaders in, and they change the policies all the time, but he thinks there is a deep state, that deep state Speaker 0: In The United States. Speaker 1: Yeah. And that's what he has to deal with, and that deep state is very dangerous because and when we started our conversations over three years, it was our partners, the Americans, and I got irritated. I said, why do you keep saying our partners, the Americans? They don't express these sentiments at all towards you. You're considered a murderer by mister Biden, they think you kill people, you know, that you're some kind of character out of a James Bond spy movie. They keep talking about KGB ignoring the fact that George w Bush, George H. W Bush was the head of Speaker 2: the CIA. Everybody I know in Russia, everybody I talk to there says they wanted, they wish we could have friendlier relations between The United States and Russia. They all feel that way. You know who fears nuclear weapons, nuclear bombs? Trump. Trump said recently, Aridis says, we have never been closer to World War three than we are today under Joe Biden. A global conflict between nuclear armed powers would mean death and destruction on a scale unmatched in human history. That's what Donald Trump said recently. Know, so he thinks that giving the Ukrainians permission to use the attack ems the way we are is crazy. Speaker 0: I haven't heard an American president say anything like that since Kennedy. Sir, so you said you're talking about Russia. You said it is a Christian culture. What does that mean? Speaker 1: Yeah, they're a strong Christian culture. Very much this concept of Interesting thing, they go to church, they don't sit at all during the service. They stand the whole time. That's serious to me if you remember going to Sunday school. So we're more Protestant. We're a divided culture, there are so many sects. There's the Jewish sect, there's Arabs, there's this, and then we're all into different things. Know, some people are atheists, some people are, know, don't know, agnostics, this, that. They feel, the Russians feel that we have lost touch with Christianity, and that we're moving towards a more of a satanic culture, and I can understand why, because we have embraced the bomb, we've embraced regime change, corruption in all these countries, We believe in the dollar, controlling the world. They don't see hope in our way of life. They see people who are exhausting themselves competitively and dropping dead. You know, our health as Means told you in your interview, spend more on health than anybody and we die sooner. Our expectation that life expectancy is very low and our quality of life is not up to the other countries. Europe is better. So there's a lot of big question about America. We see ourselves as a great country, and I think in many ways we are. And I'd like to see it, but I think our greatness is tied to some humility in the sense of what we were fighting for. Abraham Lincoln in holding the country together made some of the greatest speeches and a purpose of life, but he was a very strong Christian. Remember that. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: A very strong sense of God and that, you know, the grapes of wrath are marching on. Speaker 0: So you think that Russia sees this as a conflict between a Christian culture and a secular culture? Powers being a Speaker 1: secular I think some people do, yeah. Putin goes to church, but he doesn't sell me He's not an evangelist or anything like that. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: No, it's interesting, but you're asked they fundamentally have to be respected. People who really study Russian culture love it. I saw Americans over there, they love it. They read the literature, they understand the culture, they speak Russian. You don't have a Russian background, you tell me your Well, Speaker 2: I've got a lot of friends who are Russian historians and Russian experts, and my friends in Russia, when we talk about religion, they say after the collapse of the Soviet Union, everybody got baptized, but nobody actually goes to church. So, I mean, they're religious in a different sense and it's part of their national identity and heritage, but I'm not sure that they're believers in that way. And as you were saying, unlike The United States where we've got Catholics and all kinds of Protestants and Jews and Muslims and Hindus, I mean, they've got much more of an identity that revolves around their religious heritage. The whole concept Speaker 1: of what Rome, I mean, moved east, the new Rome, and that they were the inheritors of our empire, and that's why they fought the Turks and all that. Yes. All these conflicts, but it's interesting what's going on with Ukraine because they changed the rules in the church. They formed a new church. They're no longer an Orthodox Russian. Speaker 0: Yes. Well, don't have religious freedom Speaker 1: And they're accusing the Russians of distorting their religion. Yeah. But it's very strange. So Ukraine is also It's a religious battle too. They changed everything Russian. Do you know that Zelenskyy didn't even speak Ukrainian? He learned quickly. Learned it quickly. Yeah. So they really banned the language, they really went against Russia, they tried to root it out. They hated Russia, some people hated Russians, and they turned it into a campaign like Hitler, a Hitler campaign of genocide. Against Russia. Against Russia, yeah. That war in Donbas started in twenty fourteen, fifteen. Yes. Maybe '16, but it got worse and worse, and it was in '22 when the thing blew up. They were on the verge of invading Donbas. They had 100,000 troops on the border, the Ukrainian troops, well trained by the Americans with all our work there, our CIA, our our advisors. We had really trained that Russian that Ukrainian army. That was a deliberate, deliberate manipulation. We did not abide by the treaty. The treaty was intended for a peace, make an interim peace. But as Merkel said, the Ukrainians saw it as a way to use the time to build up their To revive time. Speaker 2: Oland also said that. Speaker 1: To reconquer Donbas. That's what they wanted to do, and they would have killed a lot more people. Speaker 0: How do you suppose the incoming Trump administration can fix this? Speaker 1: Well, he announces everything, so Biden is counter moving him on every regard. It's very dangerous. You can't say what you're going to do in a new administration, especially this one, right? What do you do? I mean, how do you I don't know how But Speaker 2: this administration, much like the Biden administration, we were talking about Biden earlier, and Oliver was surprised by how hawkish Biden is. Biden's always been a cold warrior and very much of a hawk. And he came to office with 18 top advisors from the Center for New American Security. Now, these are the people like Sullivan who are the China hawks. Many of them were the people behind the Asia pivot under Hillary Clinton and Obama. But and but Ukraine got in the way because there was China who they wanted to go after. But you and and even Rand has pro a proposal saying about or or reports saying titled avoiding a long war in Ukraine because they wanted to get after China. Now the Trump people are also much more hawkish toward China and Iran than they are toward Ukraine. I think that Economically. My my fear is that they'll successfully end Ukraine and then turn their fire elsewhere except that Trump did invite Xi Jinping to come to the inauguration. And I think it is showing some signs of moderating. Speaker 1: It's economic with Trump, that's what I think. Speaker 2: Well, then transactional. It's possible we're not go that That's Speaker 1: the only hope we have to make a deal. Speaker 2: Right. How you make a deal with Iran? Speaker 0: What would that look like? Speaker 1: We're gonna have to inherit Ukraine. We're just gonna have to pay it, keep paying and paying and paying. We got to keep it up, and somehow he'll make some kind of phony state, like create a Laos or Vietnam. Right. Yeah, kind of a half state Speaker 0: and Speaker 2: keep it Well, 20%. Speaker 1: Spend a lot of taxpayer money and it's a front. Speaker 2: A front for what? Speaker 1: For NATO in a way, but they Ukraine is just saying NATO free. It does, and so does Georgia. Otherwise, it's gonna be the Russians won't accept that. Yes. Have they have to understand why is NATO even alive? I mean, it was a defensive alliance. I don't understand. We formed NATO because the Russians were gonna invade Europe. Is that correct? Speaker 2: 1940 Basically, yeah. Speaker 1: They never invaded Europe. They never could. They never had the intention to. And mister as I said to you earlier, Kamala Harris said something so stupid, like the moment they win in Ukraine, they're gonna march into Poland. It's nuts. Speaker 2: That's what that the whole foreign policy establishment is saying that, and I agree with Oliver. It's nuts. Speaker 0: Do they believe Speaker 2: it even? Do defeat Ukraine? They wanna take on NATO? Mean, this makes no logical sense at all. And for Putin, Ukraine has a special meaning and special history for Russia. Yes. You know, and it doesn't want Poland or Romania. No. I mean, this doesn't make any sense. Speaker 1: He's not at all that way. He didn't do anything like that. He was in office for twenty three years. What did he do? Very little in terms of expansion. It was just their borders, their security. That's what it's about, their security. Let me thrive. Let me build up my country economically. Let me do this. And that's what he did with Russia. Russia did very well up until the war. Speaker 2: This idea that he wants to recreate the Soviet empire, he said, anyone who doesn't miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants to recreate it has no brain. A Speaker 1: good line. Speaker 2: You know, they are hurting their own economy again by this massive expansion of arms production. That's what brought them down in the eighties really. They're spending 25 to 40% of their budget on arms. And now they're doing that again. So even though in the long and short run, they're thriving economically, unlike Europe, in the long run, it's going to hurt them. So it's very much in their interest to end this war. It's in everybody's interest. If you're pro Ukrainian, what is the point of it? For example, after the attack ends, were given permission, everybody gave permission. I was watching CNN and they had Bolton and they had, Stavridis and Clark, and they all said, too little too late giving using the ATTACMs That is great that we're doing it, but it's too little too late. What these people are saying is they're willing to risk nuclear war over something that they know is not gonna make any difference for the Ukrainians anyway. Ukraine is losing. That's the reality. They can't keep up with Russia. They're outmanned, they're outgunned, they're outstrategized at this point. Speaker 0: In the settlement, do you think it's as simple as telling the Russians, No NATO? That'll end it? Speaker 2: No. Putin wants a little bit more than that right now. Speaker 1: Oh, he wants to keep what he earned. Speaker 2: Yeah. He's gonna keep, he's got four provinces that they said they're incorporated into Russia. So, Lujanz, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, and he's going to want at least as much of them as his army controls. He's going to want more, but their bargaining position might be, they might give up the parts that they don't control and for, no, arms, no foreign arms and soldiers in Ukraine, no NATO in Ukraine and a lasting peace. I don't think they want it. The West says, oh, it's going to be temporary. And then they're gonna just start it up again when they're ready. This has been a terrible war for Russia as well as for Ukraine. And if you're sympathetic to Ukraine, the last thing you want is gonna see this continue because they're only losing more. They're only in a weaker position, and their young men are getting not so young men are getting killed at incredible numbers. So if we stop it a year from now, what's going to be different? Russia's going to have more of Ukraine. There'll be more Ukrainians dead, more economy destroyed on both sides, more Russians dead. This is an horrible war. Speaker 1: But that was erasing. Everybody. America was fine with that. That's what they said, weaken Russia, weaken Russia. Speaker 2: Yeah, weaken Russia. Speaker 0: And build up our armaments industry. Speaker 2: Yes. The big five, the military contractors are doing great. Speaker 0: So there was a point in American history when the Congress considered banning more profiteering. Yes. When did that happen? Speaker 2: 1934. 1934. Gerald Nye. Speaker 1: Yeah, was a great committee. Speaker 2: The Nye committee hearings in the Senate were an extraordinary moment It was a reaction to World War I. Wilson said, We want a million volunteers. Well, he got 73,000 because Americans had been watching the World War I in Europe go on for three years. They saw the trench warfare, they saw the poison gas. It was a horrible war. And so very few Americans wanted to volunteer. So we had a draft instead. But afterwards in the 1920s, going back to Hollywood, they had a lot of fabulous movies about World War I that were passionately anti war. Movies like The Big Parade, Wings, All Quiet on the Western Front. The novels, all all the American were opposed to the war. And and and so the American attitude was very negative about World War one. So in 1934, Gerald Nye proposes these hearings and a new legislation to eliminate all profit from war. Now these bastards are making enormous amounts of profit. Speaker 0: So that's such an obvious idea that your national industry shouldn't get rich from war because it sets up an incentive for those same industries to lobby for war, which is what we do It's a self evidently good idea, seems to me. What happened to it? Speaker 2: Well, then they started to go after Wilson because it was a bipartisan effort on the committee. It had front page headlines Speaker 0: Who was Gerald Nye? Speaker 2: Gerald Nye was a senator from Midwest. Yeah, Midwest. Midwest Republican, progressive, or a lot of progressive anti war Republicans during World War I and then afterwards in the '20s and '30s. Speaker 0: They'd been libeled against libeled us. Speaker 2: One of the greats, but there were a lot of them then. And they weren't strictly isolation. William Bora was one of the leaders from Idaho. Speaker 1: Henry Wallace was from Iowa. Speaker 2: Right, Henry Wallace from Iowa. And so, but when they started to go after Truman, the Democrats got very, I mean after Wilson, the Democrats got very defensive and they blew up the hearings. Even Roosevelt was supportive of what they were calling for in 1934. So what were they calling public? Well, there are various variants on this. One was to either tax everything above a $10,000 once war began, anything that people earned over $10,000 would be taxed at either 98% or a 100% because the DuPont's and the Morgans made melons made huge profits out of World War I, astronomical profits. And, you know, part of the reason why we got involved in the war at all, even though American people did not want to, was because we had lent Morgan banks had lent $2,500,000,000 to the allies and 100,000,000 to the other side. And so it was clear which side we were going to get involved in. What Wilson said when he was criticized, because he ran in 1916 as a peace candidate, Speaker 1: that Speaker 2: the slogan was we kept America out of the war. And then in 1917, they changed the slogan to it's the war to end all wars or the war to make the world safe for democracy. But Wilson entered it in large part because he knew that if we didn't, then The US would have no hand in the postwar settlement. And he said, we have to be in it so that we can shape the postwar world. And he came up with the League of Nations, could have been a good idea under certain circumstances. But his 14 points were very progressive, but the British and French colonialists were not going to accept it. And as Oliver said before, when the Soviet revolution occurred, one of the first thing they did is they broke in and found all the diplomatic papers which showed the secret treaties between Russia, France and Britain to divide up the Middle East. You know, the problems we're talking about now trace back to then, to the colonialists who controlled the Middle East. And but this was going on all over the world. They had this plan. The Germans wanted to get involved in the war in part because they were late comers to the empire in Africa. They felt they'd been frozen out of the empires, had the British and French and Dutch and Portuguese all over controlling. Speaker 1: Yeah. Wilson wouldn't meet with Ho Chi Minh from Vietnam. Yes. Famous story. Yeah. There's an interesting play by Arthur Miller. His first play, All My Sons. You ever see Speaker 2: it? Speaker 1: No. Yeah. Oh, they made it very It was a big hit before Salesman, and it was a made into a movie, but it's about war profiteering. There are two sons, and the older son goes against the father when he finds out that the father has been making defective parts, and his brother is killed in one of the planes and crashes because they're defective, which happens a lot more now than ever because we have such a corrupt system. They have crashes of this new F-thirty five. Yes. It's the biggest boondoggle of all time. So it seems like this and that play had a huge impact. It was Broadway nineteen forty five, six. You know, that's part of the reality of war is that people make money with it, and that people knew that then at that level. And it goes on and on. But they want the world. It's gotten worse. Speaker 0: The profiteering, Speaker 1: Gerald Nye should come out of the fucking woodwork now investigate. Speaker 2: Another play that Oliver knows that also is critical of war profiteering was Waiting for Lefty by Clifford Odets. You know, they've also got various episodes about condemning the war profiteering. Speaker 0: But they failed to get control of the system in 1934 and no one tried to They Speaker 2: came close and it was overwhelmingly popular at the time, and then the Democrats reacted to these allegations against Wilson getting us into Speaker 0: the war to help What's interesting though is that history now regards anybody who had second thoughts about the First World War and anyone who didn't want to get into another war in Europe in the thirties as pro Nazi. That is how they're isolationist, they're pro Hitler. Do you think that's a fair characterization? Speaker 2: Oh, you know, the kids don't even know about World War Right. That's really ancient history. They hardly know about world hardly know about Vietnam. Yeah. You know, Oliver fought in Vietnam, Oliver volunteered for combat in Vietnam. Probably the only person to drop out of Yale and volunteer for combat in Vietnam in history. Speaker 1: No, no. No? I think there are others. Speaker 2: Oh, maybe, I doubt it. But, know, and I was an anti war activist during that period, you know, but I was in Hanoi in January. And it's interesting to me because I had Robert McNamara come into my class some years ago. And McNamara said to my students that he accepts that three point eight million Vietnamese died in the war. And I've always used that figure because it's mind boggling. But when I was in Hanoi, the Vietnamese leaders told me that now the figure that they use is 5,000,000 Vietnamese. So one of the one place that all my students have been is the Vietnam Memorial in Washington DC, which you've been there. And it's got two walls, with four ninety two feet long with the names of 58,280 Americans who died. And the message is the tragedy of Vietnam is that fifty eight thousand two hundred and eighty Americans died, which is part of it. But if you included the 5,000,000 Vietnamese, the million Cambodians and Laotians, the Americans, the Brits, the Aussies, the Thais, everybody who died, that wall would be more than 10 miles long. And that would be a fitting tribute to the Vietnam, but it was sent a whole different message. Oliver and I are invited to Okinawa in February by the prefectural government to support the anti base movement in Okinawa. Another story we could get into. But the Okinawa War Memorial has the names of all the Okinawans, the Japanese, the Americans, the Brits, the Aussies, everybody who died there. And that would be an anti war memorial. But what Vietnam Memorial sadly, as powerful as it is, is giving the wrong message, and America is always giving the wrong message when it comes to war. Speaker 0: So is it strange for you, we touched at the outset at, and as Oliver put it, the complete inversion of American politics, but you were, you said an anti war protest during Vietnam, then you watched the party you voted for become the war party. Like, what happened? What caused that inversion? Speaker 2: Well, The United States, foreign policy has been bipartisan throughout the Cold War, really. So both parties have been war parties. Correct. But there was a strong element within the Democratic party, progressive Democrats who were much more anti war, anti defense spending, and wanted to use that money instead for healthcare and education and infrastructure and the things that people need that actually help people's lives. But it's become this group think now. And even progressive Democrats who my friends sound so hawkish these days that I don't recognize them And the odd things, so we had this reversal. Trump ran as the anti war candidate. Trump ran as the pro labor candidate. You know, it makes no sense to those of us who grew up. I was never a Democrat, but I usually voted for the Democrats because they were more progressive than the Republicans. But at this point, you've got two war parties, although there's a stronger faction in the Republican Party at this moment who are at least making sense about the nuclear threat and about Ukraine. Speaker 1: But what, I mean, Speaker 0: what caused that? How did Liz Cheney wind up campaigning with Kamala Harris? Speaker 2: Oh. And it backfired, and it was stupid. And you know what really hurt Kamala with the young people was the unquestioning support for Israel. I saw with my students, they despised the Democrats. Gaza is the big issue for this generation. And they see it every day on, or they were seeing at least for a while on television. And the stories, you know, every day they were digging out babies from under the rubble. It was horrible to watch. And it was worse if you traveled in other parts of the world. They were even more graphic and explicit than they were in The United States. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 2: This was my kids were watching. My students were watching and they were so disgusted with the Democrats for keep on feeding this Israeli war. I would say that most of my students were pretty horrified by the October that Hamas made. And I know I felt very strongly too. Me too. I mean, you know, I know that they were badly treated for a long time, the Palestinians, but what happened on October 7 is unacceptable, unforgivable. Fair. And I can understand why there was a strong reaction, but the Israeli response, we're talking like, you know, for nineeleven, people being ready to do something. They had already been brutalizing the people in the West Bank. Gaza had been an open air prison for years already. And so the Israeli response is so disproportionate. It's so horrific for those of us who have different history and experience with Israel to see what Israel has turned into now, without any almost no protest against this brutalization of an entire people. Whether you consider a genocide or just a slaughter, it sickens one. And that's what I found my students. And the young people did not vote. I mean, for the first time, Trump got a majority of young voters, and it wasn't just young men, young women also. Speaker 1: Well, people like me followed Robert Kennedy too. I followed Robert to Trump's camp. Yes. Not that I was Robert was I was the medium. Yes. I like what he's saying, and I hope he does it. I hope he achieves it. Whether Trump keeps his word with him, we'll see. Think he will. Speaker 0: Do you know others in Hollywood who did the same? Speaker 1: Yeah. I think there's a lot of people who went with Kennedy. I think a lot. Speaker 0: To Trump? Yeah. They Speaker 1: talk about Or voted for Kennedy, so their vote canceled out. Speaker 0: But they were not gonna In Speaker 1: California, Kennedy was on the ballot, but he's asked all his people to vote in swing states for Trump. Anyway, I like people who are shaking up the system, who are asking questions, and the media is very, very hard on these people, very hard. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: It's like dissent is not allowed anymore. This is not the American way. Speaker 0: Do you think he'll be able to do it? Trump will be able to bring reform? Speaker 1: Why not? If he's willing to break with some of the pharma companies and some of the and that's going to be hard because of money, but who knows how it works? Trump's a he's a he's a idiosyncratic candidate. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: He knows that he is he's a he's a I don't think he's a one shot. I think Vance will inherit, and people like that, they will inherit that. Speaker 0: What do you think of Vance? Speaker 1: Well, I think he'll do what Trump wants. I think that's important. There's got to be some change. If there's no change in this world, America cannot continue on this course. It cannot, and it knows it. It knows in its gut. You know it. I do know it. Yeah, and you're right. But change is good. Change is good. Speaker 2: And I see with my students, you know what they lack now? They're very critical. They're very smart and analytical. There's no utopianism. So many of the young people think that the world that they've inherited is all there is gonna be. And they don't have any The sixties generation, Oliver and I were part of the sixties generation when you were too young, or not even born. But the sixties generation had a vision of making a better world. Yes. And that informed everything we did. And we would jokingly refer to what we were gonna do after the revolution. But we did have a utopian vision for how human beings could live differently. Young people now are even much more ready to critique the system at its roots than we were back then. We were just learning about what it meant to critique the system, but we had a hope and a belief that the future could be that much better. And I don't, you know, I think kids now see that maybe it could be different, but they don't have this kind of burning vision that we could make a better world. So, Speaker 0: last question that you both I think can answer in an informed way. I'll start with you Peter. History and its uses. It does seem like we're in a moment where people are at least open to reassessing their interpretations of what happened, particularly in the last hundred years, the twentieth century. Do you think that fifty years from now, our grandkids will be reading a different version of history? Speaker 2: Fifty years from now? Well, if they should start with Oliver, my book. This is the earlier edition, The Untold History of The United States. You know, this one, the 2012 edition had was about seven fifty pages. We put out an updated edition in 2019 and now it's over 900 pages. People really should read it and watch it because it's got so much history that people don't know. I was talking about the ignorance about World War II. Well, did an anonymous survey with college students, all of whom were A students in high school. And I asked them, how many Americans died in World War II? And the median answer I got was 90,000. They were 90 thousand? They were only up by 300,000. So they were in the ballpark. I asked them how many Soviets died in World War II. The median answer I got was a 100,000. So they were only 27,000,000 off, right? These are smart kids and they know nothing. They couldn't understand World War II. They couldn't understand the Cold War. They couldn't understand what's going on in Ukraine unless they know the history. This is why Oliver and I did the untold history of The United States to begin filling in those blanks. Tulsi Gabbard was interviewed by the New York Times in 2019 and they asked her, what is the big article? What podcasts do you watch? She says, I don't wanna talk about podcasts, but I just finished watching the untold history of The United States. And everybody should watch it because it fills in those blanks in the history that nobody knows, that we never learn about in this country. You know, and so fifty years from now, it depends really, because it's going on in Japan. Oliver and I wrote an article after one of our trips in Japan called Partners in The United States and Japan. You know, it's going on Russia. It's going I mean, everywhere people try to sanitize, whitewash their history on the assumption that if people know true history, then they're going to rebel and want something different and something better. Because if anything history teaches you that what is this now is not what has to exist or what should exist, that human beings can create a much different world. And that's what the lesson of it. So it's not just to learn the past for the sake of the past, it's to learn the past so you can shape a better future. Speaker 0: Of course it's Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's what Oliver and I Speaker 0: Most reliable guidepost to the future. So I mean, do you think, we were talking about JFK and when it came out thirty years ago, you were roundly mocked, you were no longer mocked. People see it as likely at the very least. Speaker 1: Yeah, I think so. It seems that way. They much more accept it, yeah. Speaker 0: Do you Speaker 2: That was the critics. The public loved that movie. Speaker 0: Oh, know. Speaker 1: Yeah, it did well. It did very well. Speaker 0: Surprised. Surprised, really well. Speaker 2: And it led to the Assassination Records Review Board. Speaker 1: A three hour, six minute movie. Speaker 2: It led to the Assassination Records Review Board, which is why so many documents of business Which is Speaker 1: why I did this documentary that I want you to see. Revisited. This is about the Assassination Records Review Board. They did good work. They didn't do everything, but they did some very good work and brought out new facts that are in this. Speaker 0: So why are the intel agencies still Speaker 1: holding Well, Trump had a shot in 2016, and he blew it. He got pressure. Speaker 0: From Pompeo? Speaker 1: From Pompeo and those guys, and then Biden killed it, and Biden knew what he was doing. This is a very bad action he did. He's undercutting Congress, but they've been doing that for years anyway. Speaker 0: So why? Why are they so intent on keeping the Speaker 1: Well, there's obviously some bullshit in there. Yeah, obviously. I mean, I'm not saying that those who killed them names, but we should know more about those CIA guys. There's files on them. Yes. What was Angleton up to? That's a big deal. James Angleton, the counter terrorist in What was Phillips, Dave Phillips, David Phillips up to? He was a very important factor in the Latin American operation from Guatemala on. Was the handler for Oswald, Clay Shaw is in there. There's a bunch of people that are Oh, the fellow for Joannidis, the Morley's chasing, George Joannidis, he's dirty all the way. He was in from the beginning, and they covered it up at the time. They brought him back as witness for the HSCA. Anyway, oh, and Harvey, Bill Harvey. I think he needs to be checked out. Speaker 0: If you had to guess as to why they're holding these documents sixty odd years later, what would it be? Speaker 1: They declare everything a secret, everything practically. It's standard Speaker 2: now. Massive classification. We need more transparency. Speaker 1: Yes. It's a habit. It's like a dog peeing on a It just goes on and on and on. I don't understand. If there's names and stuff, they redact it. They redact it. So I'm not looking to government, but I'm looking to honesty. That's what I'm looking for. And these bureaucrats in the government, how do they feel? What do they feel about their lives? Are they working for us or are they working for secrecy? The people have not been dealt with honestly, and we know that. I think Americans know that. I think Americans are very cynical about the government. Speaker 2: Which is part of the reason why we're hoping that Trump will pardon Ed Snowden and Julian Assange. Speaker 1: Yeah, good point. Speaker 2: Oliver made a great movie about Snowden. You've met with Snowden. Yes. You know, and what he did was a great service to America, and he exposed the mass surveillance that was going on of all of us. It was a wake up call. Yes. You should be lionized. Dan Ellsberg was one of my closest friends and Oliver knows Dan also. Dan was facing one hundred and fifteen years in prison for releasing the Pentagon Papers, but he said it was worth doing it even though he thought there's only a little chance it could end the war or affect the end of the war. He wanted to get out this history and for that he was vilified and gone after by Nixon. I mean, that was really the best thing they had on Nixon was the break into Dan's psychiatrist's office and the plans to try to, you know, kill effectively kill him, compromise him. You know, but Dan ended up at the end of his life and what he spent most of his life warning about was the nuclear threat. You know, and the end of his life, was getting even the New York Times and everybody else was treating him much like what he deserved to be treated like was a hero. And I'm hoping that Trump will understand that and pardon Ed Snowden as quickly as possible. Speaker 1: And Julian Assange. Speaker 2: And Julian Assange, yeah. Hasn't Assange has at least, you know, got some measure of freedom at this point, but Speaker 1: He was commuted. Yeah. He pleaded on one charge. Speaker 0: Yes. But he can't come here. Gentlemen, thank you both very much. Speaker 1: Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you.

@EricLDaugh — Eric Daugherty

Posted - January 23, 2025 at 11:45 PM

Saved - January 24, 2025 at 2:53 PM

@EricLDaugh - Eric Daugherty

Uhh Why did Paul Ryan go to the World Economic Forum in Davos? https://t.co/Giz67GeBuq

Video Transcript AI Summary

You refused to congratulate the president. I refuse to talk to you because you're being obnoxious. I'm just asking a simple question. What are your thoughts on Donald Trump? I'm good. Are you optimistic he'll be a good president? I'm good. It sounds like you're resentful of the president. You're putting words in my mouth. Why not at least commend him for his victory? I need a QR code to get in. It seems stingy not to congratulate him. Look at my interview on Bloomberg. I think you're jealous of Trump. I'm navigating my emails. What are you doing at the World Economic Forum? There are reasons a Republican could be here, but I think you're here for rhino reasons. My questions were straightforward. His refusal to congratulate Trump suggests bitterness. For more reports from the World Economic Forum, visit wefreports.com. Please consider contributing to our crowdfunding efforts.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: You refused to congratulate the president. That seems No. Speaker 1: I refuse to talk to you because you're being obnoxious. Speaker 0: I'm not being obnoxious. I'm asking you a very simple, easy question. Hey. Look who I just bumped into on the streets of Davos. What's Paul Ryan doing here? You know who I mean. He was the speaker of the house, and then he ran for vice president. I asked him some questions. He didn't like him. Mister Ryan, can I ask you for your thoughts on on Donald? Give me a word on Donald Trump. Speaker 1: I'm good. Speaker 0: Are you I'm good. Are you optimistic that he'll be a good president? Speaker 1: I'm good. I mean, Speaker 0: I know you're good. Don't walk Speaker 1: and talk interviews. It's just not my style. Speaker 0: Well, just give me a word. It sounds like you're resentful of the president. Sounds like you're trying Speaker 1: to put words in my mouth. Speaker 0: Well, then put your own words in your mouth. Speaker 1: I'm a good at what you did. Speaker 0: Well, I I'm not because I'm not eliciting a a good answer from you. Speaker 1: You're not voting yet. Speaker 0: Well, why wouldn't you at least commend the president for his victory? Speaker 1: Yeah. I need you to send me the QR code so I can get in. Yeah. Yeah. Just send me the QR code. Alright? Yeah. Well, I Speaker 0: Don't it seemed a little stingy. All the world leaders are are at least congratulating him. You refused to congratulate the president. That seems No. I refuse Speaker 1: to talk to you because you're being obnoxious. Speaker 0: I'm not being obnoxious. I'm asking you a very simple, easy question. Here's what Speaker 1: I want you to do. Go on Bloomberg yesterday and look at my TV interview and use theirs. Speaker 0: I think you're jealous. I think you had your shot and you failed, and you're sort of grudging towards Trump who won. Is that wrong? Speaker 1: Hang on a second. Yeah. There's right. No. Yeah. You gotta send me the QR code. Right. Yeah. No. That's what I need just to get in. Alright. Let me check that email. K. Speaker 0: Are you still working out? I'm trying to I'm not Speaker 1: talking about entertain. You're obnoxious. Speaker 0: You're being obnoxious. Actually, I think you're being obnoxious. You're refusing to say even a grudging congratulations to the new president. No. Speaker 1: I'm just not gonna talk to you. Speaker 0: Why? Speaker 1: Hang on a second. Alright. Speaker 0: I think you're a sore loser. What are you even doing at a left wing place like the World Economic Forum? It's not very Republican. Who are you meeting with? Where's that secret? Speaker 1: Right now, I'm trying to navigate my emails. So Speaker 0: But what are you doing here? Like, this is a George Soros kind of place. Is that your crew now? Is that who you hang with? You know, there are some good reasons why a Republican could be here at Soros Central, the World Economic Forum. I mean, Donald Trump himself is giving a speech by video, and Javier Millet came here to talk about freedom. You can come here to bury, not to praise, but I think Paul Ryan is here for some very rhino reasons. You know what I mean by that? Republican in name only. That will mean greater profits and greater tax. My questions to him were not obnoxious. They were plain questions. The fact he wouldn't even say congrats, go president to Donald Trump tells me he's a bit of a bitter man. For Rebel News, I'm Ezra Levant. And to follow all my reports from the streets of the World Economic Forum, go to wefreports.com. And if you wanna chip in to help us crowdfund our costs, I'd be grateful. Unlike Paul Ryan, we don't have a fat lobbyist bank account backing us. Thanks.

@RWMaloneMD — Robert W Malone, MD

Posted - March 2, 2025 at 1:56 PM

Saved - March 2, 2025 at 3:08 PM

@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.

AI Similar Videos

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

@AnonymousDigs — Anon Researcher

Posted - March 18, 2025 at 1:44 AM

Saved - March 18, 2025 at 2:41 AM

@AnonymousDigs - Anon Researcher

@TuckerCarlson continues to blow Russia/Ukraine narratives wide open! https://youtu.be/IYDFzdBQ7SY?si=KJcE0EIWAjZGdqIh

@ricwe123 — Richard

Posted - August 18, 2025 at 3:18 PM

Saved - August 23, 2025 at 1:28 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I often hear western mainstream media describe this conflict as "unprovoked." However, I came across a video from February 2014 showing John McCain at Maidan Square, alongside Geoffrey Pyatt and Victoria Nuland, seemingly celebrating the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected President Yanukovych.

@ricwe123 - Richard

All the time western mainstream media is telling us how this conflict is somehow "unprovoked" But then i see this video from February 2014, Maidan Square, John McCain filming the protests, standing alongside Geoffrey Pyatt, US ambassador to Ukraine, with Victoria Nuland standing behind him. All enjoying their role in overthrowing the democratically elected Ukrainian President Yanukovych.

@KAGdrogo — ĐⱤØ₲Ø🇺🇸

Posted - October 2, 2025 at 4:29 PM

Saved - October 2, 2025 at 9:31 PM

@KAGdrogo - ĐⱤØ₲Ø🇺🇸

Why does Israel, a tiny country that cannot survive without US funding, have such immense control over American politics? Tucker Carlson explains the Israel Question https://t.co/l1aFuqEjlo

Video Transcript AI Summary

Online discussion about Israel splits into two camps: pro- and anti-Jewish rhetoric, with few voices urging secular perspective. In the US, debate mirrors this, though Israel is geopolitically small and not critical to American security. The speaker offers four fixes: 1) Perspective: the US is a 350-million powerhouse; Israel 9 million with few resources. Two THAAD batteries, a quarter of world’s supply, are in Israel; since 10/07/2023 the US has spent at least $30 billion defending Israel; total aid to Israel about $300 billion; Egypt’s aid occurs at Israel’s request. 2) Self-respect: stop being bossed by a client state; Pollard, USS Liberty, Israeli officers; Netanyahu interference; Trump pushing back on annexation. 3) Citizenship: end dual citizenship; divest from foreign military service; APAC registration; disclose foreign influence. 4) Theology: Christianity’s universal message; critique of support for Israel as heresy; the chosen are those who choose Jesus; warns against using religion to justify killing innocents.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: There's a lot going on in the world right now, but if you're on social media and, of course, you are because it's really America's only remaining news source, you know there's only one story going on, and it's Israel. Everyone online is arguing about Israel. And, really, they fall into one of two camps generally speaking. So probably more aggressive side are the deranged Taliban level ethno narcissists who are telling you that any criticism of the secular government of Israel is tantamount to blood libel against the Jewish people. And if you think that maybe it was not a great idea to arm Joseph Stalin, the greatest murderer in history, then you're a holocaust denier. Shut up. And then on the other side, a group every bit as obsessed with Jews, the people who hate Jews who are telling you that anyone who's Jewish is bad by virtue of being Jewish. It's a blood thing. Two things are interesting. One, there are very few kind of conventional Christian voices saying, wait a second. This is a secular government, another country, and it has probably nothing to do with my religion or anybody's religion. And we should never judge people on the basis of their immutable qualities because guilt and virtue are not passed down genetically. But almost no one is saying that. So you really have the ethnomorphosis and the antisemites, and they're at war with each other. That's the online picture. What's even more interesting and maybe even more distressing is that in the US government, the conversation, while much more muted, is a mirror of this in that a lot of the conversation is about Israel. Israel, a tiny country in the Middle East, not critical to our national security, by the way. But the conversation, the bandwidth is consumed by questions of Israel. So wherever you stand on Israel, whether you're on one of the two sides just described or neither one of them, you know in your gut that this is bad. If a country like ours, supposedly the most powerful in the world, is devoting all of its time internally to conversations about Israel, it's probably not going in a good direction. There's probably a lot being neglected in favor of this very specific boutique conversation about this tiny little country. It's just not good for anybody, including Israel, by the way. So what's the antidote to this? How do you fix it? Here are four things you can do to make the conversation about Israel and the relationship with Israel a lot healthier than it currently is. Here are the four. The first is get some global perspective on what we're talking about. The United States is a nation of 350,000,000 people. It is some of the deepest natural resources in the world that would include energy and water, agricultural products. The United States, however it's managed, is a powerhouse globally and always will be because its strength is inherent. It's a huge decisive country in the scope of world history. The United States makes things happen. Israel is not an insult, merely an observation. By contrast, is a tiny and inherently insignificant country, at least geopolitically, in that it has only 9,000,000 people and no natural resources, no meaningful natural resources. So it is insignificant. It is also physically tiny. It's about the size of New Jersey famously, but it has a much smaller GDP than New Jersey. It is a much smaller economy than the state of New Jersey. It's an economy about the size of the state of Arizona and almost one half the economy of the state of Massachusetts or Illinois. It just doesn't really matter, actually. If you're looking at a map and thinking through, you know, where does power politics go, Israel's not even on the list. Again, it's tiny. It's got the population of Burundi. It's got a smaller population than Belgium. Like, what is this anyway? And yet despite its objective insignificance, it is the focus of the conversation, but it's also the focus of the spending. So right now, as we speak tonight, there are two THAAD missile batteries in Israel. That's one quarter of the world's total supply of THAAD missile batteries. The THAAD missile batteries, an American made, very high-tech missile battery that takes incoming missiles out of the sky. And one quarter of the world's entire supply of these is in Israel right now manned by US troops, by Americans in uniform or not. They are American military personnel, and they are manning these batteries to protect Israel. And that shouldn't surprise you because since 10/07/2023, which is a little less than two years ago, The United States has spent at minimum $30,000,000,000 defending Israel. Huge. And for some perspective, the entire Israeli military budget before October 7 was about 25,000,000,000. So United States has put at least 30,000,000,000 into defending Israel in less than two years. Over the course of its existence, a little less than eighty years, United States has put 300,000,000,000, at least those are just the on books numbers, into supporting Israel. 300,000,000,000. Israel is by far, no one comes close, the largest recipient of USAID over time and currently. So anyone who says, oh, it's just a drop in the bucket. It's totally insignificant is lying or doesn't know the numbers. By the way, number two is Egypt. So why are we spending so much money on Egypt? Well, we're doing it at the request of Israel. So you could probably add that to the tally. It's not an attack. It's merely perspective. We are spending our time, our money, and we're taking enormous risks on behalf of a country that geopolitically is not significant at all. The interesting thing is most Americans have no idea that this is true. They don't know how disproportionate our attention to Israel and our spending on Israel is relative to the rest of the world. And if you want some sense of how disproportionate, India and China combined, neither which is a strong ally at the moment, combined represent more than a third of the entire world's population, both arrivals economically, both arrivals militarily, at least potentially. And our relationship with them has gotten worse or at the very least languished because of our relationship with Israel, because the bandwidth consumed by tending to it, and also because of some of the inevitable conflicts that have arisen because of our support for Israel, which is engaged in an extremely controversial, which is to say hated war in Gaza, which is not even really a war. It's a massive displacement of people and killing on on a on a grand scale of unarmed people, of unarmed combatants, of civilians, women and children. And the world sees this and the world rejects it and the world hates it. And so Israel's really last remaining ally of size other than The UK is The United States. And so there's a huge cost to this. But again, most Americans have no perspective on just how disproportionate our commitment is because they marinate in lies about this relationship, mostly from our political class, also from the media. But, really, if you were to lay the blame on one group in The United States, it's our elected leaders who continuously lie to us about the nature of this relationship, its significance, and they do it generationally. They've been doing it for many decades. Here and this is just one example, but the most fun to watch. This is Nikki Haley at the Republican presidential primary debate two thousand twenty three describing The United States' relationship with the state of Israel. Watch. Speaker 1: Last thing we need to do is to tell Israel what to do. The only thing we should be doing is supporting them in eliminating Hamas. It is not that Israel needs America. America needs Israel. Speaker 0: It is not that the needs The United States. The United States needs Israel. How could that possibly be true? It is in no sense true. In fact, it's one of those lies that's not three degrees off the truth. It is a complete inversion of the truth. And the truth, which is obvious to anyone who looks at the numbers or is paying any attention at all, is that Israel could not survive without The United States. That's not an argument for pulling all aid to Israel. It's just an acknowledgement of the physical reality. Israel fights its wars with American backing, with the guarantee, the implied defense guarantee that we have provided for so many years since at least 1973, fifty years. And its social services are made possible, which are quite generous, made possible by American subsidies. In other words, every dollar that goes to the Israeli military from The United States is a dollar that the nation of Israel can spend on its own people. And so there is no world in which America needs Israel more than Israel needs The United States. And, of course, Nikki was Haley was never asked to explain how exactly that could be true. What are you talking about, governor Haley? Not one person asked her that question. And no one asked her that question because anyone in whose mind that question appeared would have paused for fear of being attacked as an anti Semite for asking a question about geopolitics. That has been the state of play in The United States for my entire life, over fifty years. Politicians make nonsensical statements. Nobody wants to even ask a follow-up question for fear of being attacked. It is a state of perpetual intimidation. Everybody's afraid of Israel. Afraid of the topic, afraid in some cases of the state itself. We have not had an honest conversation about this ever. Certainly not in my lifetime. And that suits the Israelis just fine. And if you're wondering why there's an awful lot of lunatic antisemitic comment about Israel online, you have to wonder how much of that is organic. Some of it, of course, they're always haters. But how much of it is not organic at all? How much of is of that, the lunatic, all Jews are evil? How much of that is being ginned up on purpose to make legitimate questions about the US government's relationship with the government of Israel seem like crackpot stuff, like hate, like David Duke level lunacy? Probably some because it serves their interests. Now that is a criticism of the state of Israel, and it's incredibly sophisticated propaganda campaign, which, again, the rest of us been marinating in for a long time. But the true villain here, I would argue, is not the state of Israel, the Jews. It's The United States. It's our leaders who are putting up with this. Israel is a small country with very limited resources, and it is doing its best to serve its own interests. You'd think every country would act that way and most do. But there are some that don't, and ours would top that list. And so the true shame here, the actual villain in the story is the leadership of The United States that is putting up with serial humiliation for decades. And for what reason? So if there's someone to be mad at, it's our leaders. And that leads to the second thing that we can do to fix this truly unhealthy relationship, this poisonous relationship, which is getting worse, by the way. It's breaking our society into pieces. It's truly hurting the Trump administration. The second thing we can do after getting global perspective on what we're actually talking about here, a tiny country that is in the deepest sense insignificant to The United States. The second thing we can do is get some freaking self respect and stop being ordered around by a client state. That's not good for us. It's not good for them. It's not good for anybody. It's like being screamed at by your children. No normal parent would allow that because it's totally destructive. It's not good for you, and it's not good for the child. And that is exactly the relationship that we have with the state of Israel. In fact, not in theory. In fact, it is a huge country and a tiny country. The huge country supports the tiny country, and that's a pretty nice thing to do. Whether it's wise or not, it's a whole separate conversation. But if you're gonna have that relationship, a parent to a child, you cannot be yelled at, humiliated, spied upon, bossed around by the child, by the person in the inherently subordinate position. You can't do that. You can't be shamed into ignoring things that are quite clearly not the behavior of a subordinate ally to a big brother ally. For example, spying on the country that makes your economy and your defense possible, which the Israelis have been doing for generations. That's a fact. One of them very famously was caught, Jonathan Pollard, who's an American citizen, taking real secrets, like actual military secrets, and sending them to Israel, which promptly sent a bunch of them to the Soviet Union, which was our archrival, our foe at the time. And that happened, and he went to prison. And then somehow he got out of prison and went to Israel where he continues to denounce The United States. And anyone who says anything about it is attacked. Oh, you're an anti Semite. It's nothing to do with anti Semitism. That's insulting. Why would we ever put up with that? Why we put up with the attack on the USS Liberty that everyone's so afraid to talk about clearly targeted on purpose by a country we're supporting Israel, And it's somehow shameful to say that. Why? Why is it shameful to say that? Who knows why it's shameful to say that, but it shouldn't be. And until we have some self respect, not anger or hate, but just dignity, it will continue in June. For example, during the twelve day war, such as it was with Iran, The US and Israel versus Iran, bombing on all sides. During that short conflict, IDF officers in the Pentagon, foreign military officers in the Pentagon by way, they're not the only foreign military officers in the Pentagon to be clear. There are NATO officers. They're from other country British. But there are a bunch of Israeli defense force officers in the Pentagon that week. And during that week, ask anyone who works at the Pentagon, they enraged American Pentagon staff by just barging into meetings, giving orders, making demands, and nobody did anything about it. How can a foreign military officer barge into military headquarters, even if invited, barge into a meeting and start demanding. We want this. We want that. You need to get on this. The more you allow that kind of deeply unhealthy behavior, the more you're going to get. And that's exactly what has happened. Because of the weakness of our leaders, we have incited predators in a foreign country to take advantage of us. Oh, that's such an anti Israel thing. Not anti Israel at all. It's a demand that the people whose job it is, whose sacred duty it is to defend and represent us, our leaders both at the Pentagon and all throughout the US government, that they do that, that they stand up and defend us against all potential threats, against all foreign countries to the extent they need to, and that they do not prostrate themselves before a foreign nation. That's just basic. Why have a government, especially a strong government if it's taking orders from another weaker government? And that is the state of play, and it has been for a very long time. And they're not even pretending to such an extent that the prime minister of Israel goes on television to openly participate and meddle in internal American politics, taking sides, attacking people, Americans. You wouldn't think it would be his business. He's not an American leader. He's not even an American citizen. Going on television to attack Americans because they're not fully on board with sending billions more to a country of 9,000,000 people? And in case you think that's an overstatement, here is the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, commenting on American politics. Speaker 2: We talked about the woke right, and he said, I call it the woke reich. Mhmm. Yes. That's a brilliant That's the a brilliant. Woke right because these people, you know, they're not any different from the woke left. Mean, insane here in the least. But they're actually meeting on some of the things. We have to fight back. How do we fight back? Our influencers. I think you should also talk to them if you Speaker 3: have a chance to that Speaker 2: that community. They're very important. And secondly, we're gonna have to use the tools of battle, and the most important ones are on social media. And the most important purchase that is going on right now is class Followers. Speaker 4: Five followers. Speaker 2: Yeah. Butts? TikTok. TikTok. Number one. Number one. And I hope it goes through because it's Speaker 3: it can be consequential. Mhmm. And the other Speaker 2: one what's the other one that's most important? Speaker 1: Oh, Alex. Speaker 2: X. Mhmm. X. Oh. That's very good. Speaker 0: It's almost unbelievable that he said that on camera. Imagine. This is a foreign leader bragging about how he's censoring Americans. Again, this guy runs a country of 9,000,000 people that's totally dependent on our tax dollars to exist. And here he is on camera, and he's a sophisticated guy. He of course, he knows that he's being filmed saying, anyone who opposes me in The United States who opposes more aid to Israel or opposes getting sucked into war with Iran, which does not serve American interest, That person is not simply mistaken or wrong. I'm not gonna bother to explain why that person is wrong. That person is a Nazi, part of the woke Reich, a Nazi. And the only way to fix it is by preventing Americans in the last country on earth with guaranteed freedom of speech, prevent Americans from hearing the other side. And so we push congress to force a TikTok sale, which is true, by the way. And when that happened and various members of congress, like, no. Really, it's about China. There were people in line who said, no. I think it's really about Israel. You you you kinda wish it was about China. Here he is just admitting. No. No. No. We pushed the US congress to censor in The United States to commit censorship in The United States because we think it's bad for us, and we need to talk to Elon. The only reason we have free speech in The United States right now is because of Elon Musk. By the way, a naturalized American, a foreigner who looked at The United States and said, what's great about that country? People can say what they believe because they're not slaves. They're not subjects of the state. They're citizens of a nation that they own. Free speech is central to the entire idea of America. In fact, it's really the only thing that sets us apart from any other country on Earth. It's not our market economy. It's freedom of speech. And here's this guy, a foreign head of state who, let me restate, is totally dependent on our tax dollars to exist is saying Americans don't have that right, and he's gonna do some kind of secret pressure campaign on Elon Musk to censor x because it bothers Israel. You know, that's the point at which you just say no. Absolutely not. That is not allowed. But since no one has said that, it has continued. And that's why when you go on social media, you see person after person taking that guy's line. That guy's line. Repeating foreign government talking points on social media as Americans. Oh, you're you can't say that. It's true. It's a 100% true. And it's also totally counterproductive, by the way. This is not a sophisticated propaganda campaign. This is a brutal and brutish propaganda campaign where anyone who disagrees with anything is immediately slandered and smeared. Megyn Kelly, who's gotta be the single most moderate person on the question of Israel, said a 100 times and means it, by the way, I like Israel. I'm not against Israel. You know? But maybe it's not a great idea to get sucked into one of their wars. We've done that. Let's not do it again. Nazi. Immediately called her an anti Semite and won't stop. Meanwhile, the actual anti Semites, and there certainly are some online, never get criticized by Beebe or anyone else in his orbit. That's kind of interesting, isn't it? I wonder why that is. When you have actual antisemites, you know, doing videos, making fun of Auschwitz, but they get a pass? Maybe things are not quite as they seem. But normal people who harbor no hate toward anyone or try not to are immediately slandered in a way that makes it, in some cases, hard for them to have jobs if they deviate even a little bit. So what's the effect of this? Not that it's up to me to tell Israel how to run its propaganda campaigns, but the effect, just noticing, is that it turns allies into enemies. You can agree on 98% of things, but if you think maybe it was a bad idea to bomb Doha, Qatar, the site of the largest military base in the Middle East, which exists to protect Israel, if you think it was a bad idea for the Israeli government to bomb Doha, then you're a what? A Nazi? Just in point of fact, by the way, Hamas was originally in Qatar because the Israeli government asked them to accept Hamas. That airbase exists to protect Israel, by the way. That was such a reckless and demented move that Mossad Mossad in Israel opposed it and wouldn't participate in it because they thought it was too reckless. So to say that there is, you know, quite a bit of latitude for debate in Israel is an understatement. Mossad refused to participate in that. But as an American, on social media, if you're like, I think it's a little crazy that our ally is bombing another one of our allies without even telling us and then lying and pretending that they had permission from the president to do this, which they did not. If you say that, you're a Nazi. You're part of the woke reich. This can't continue. It's too crazy. It's counterproductive for them, and it's deeply destructive of our political conversation and of our country itself. And the good news is that the humiliation, which is gone I mean, give you one more example of the humiliation, which is almost beyond belief. So Israel's our greatest ally. We should never ask anything of them. Of course, you you heard Nikki Haley. You hear all of them say exactly the same thing. Protecting Israel's most important thing. They're our only real ally. If they're our only real ally, why does Israel have a long history of transferring military technology, including American military technology to China? To China? Most people have no idea that's true. It is true. Why is China running the Port Of Haifa, Israel's biggest port? Really, if they're such a close ally. And, of course, the answer is because from Israel's perspective, we're not a close ally. We're a country that has been willing to help them. But when you only have 9,000,000 people and a limited defense budget, you know, you take help where you can get it. So the loyalty is not requited. It's one way. And I think the good news is that the governor of Israel, in particular, the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has pushed it too far. And he did that in part by running around, telling people what he thought was true apparently. I control Donald Trump. I control the United States Congress. I control The United States. He said that to political allies and opponents in his country. He said it to foreign heads of state. Fact. I control these people. Don't you worry. And by the way, if you kick me out of office, the next guy probably won't have the level of control that I have. He's made that case openly, verbally. He said it out loud. And that was too much for our president. And so in one of the great moments, it was just it a cool shower on a hot day. President Trump pushed back, not directly, but you can watch this clip and see that he's had enough. Here is president Trump the other day asked about Israel's plans to annex the West Bank. Watch. Speaker 3: Did you promise leaders this week that you would not allow Israel to annex the West Bank? Is that something that you Speaker 5: I will I will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank. Nope. I will not allow it. It's not gonna happen. Speaker 3: Did you speak with Netanyahu about Speaker 5: this directly? But I'm not gonna allow it. Whether I spoke to him or not, I did. But I'm not allowing Israel to annex the West Bank. Speaker 1: Mister Obama Speaker 5: There's been enough. It's time to stop. Speaker 0: It's been enough. I will not allow it. He's not just talking about the West Bank there, obviously. These are political people. They understand when your poll numbers fall dramatically, particularly among the young men who help make you president, you have to ask why is that? And it's about this issue. Because it's too humiliating. And people who don't wanna see their government bossed around by a tiny foreign power are not haters. They don't hate any ethnic group. They just don't wanna be humiliated. And by the way, why should they be humiliated? That's the core problem right there. That's why Donald Trump has lost support over this Israel question. And he knows that, and he's pushing back. And there's just no question from that clip whatsoever. So the third thing I think that would be very helpful to restore health and balance the relationship between The United States and Israel is restore the concept of citizenship in The United States. If you're an American citizen, it means something. The first thing it means is equality. You are equal to every other citizen. There's no hierarchy of citizenship. All citizens are equal. Each gets one vote. Each gets justice before the law. That's the promise of The United States, and each gets to say exactly what he thinks. Period. Restore the value of citizenship. And the very first thing you were you would do if you cared about that, and you should because the country can't continue without it, After you expelled everyone who's not a citizen from the country, which should happen immediately, they should be deported immediately for our own survival. But after doing that, the first thing you would do is not allow dual citizenship. Why would you allow that? You're a citizen of two countries. Can you really serve two masters simultaneously? By the way, it's not just Israelis who have dual citizenship. They're all every nationality has dual citizenship in this country. It's not just Israel, and it shouldn't be allowed for a single moment. What is that? Whose side are you on? Don't accuse me of dual loyalty. You're a dual citizen. Whether it's Argentina or Mali or Israel, not allowed. And moreover, you are not allowed to serve in a foreign military without losing your American citizenship. You're fighting for another country? How can that be allowed? How can you retain your citizenship? By the way, why aren't you serving in our military? Every country has a different perspective on the world, and that grows from a whole bunch of different things, their history, their language, their size, their resources. But each country is different, and each country has a different set of priorities. And if you're fighting in a military for a country, you were not serving America's priorities. You're taking up arms on behalf of foreign power. You're done. This would seem to be obvious. Many Americans have fought in Israel and Gaza. Many Americans have fought in Ukraine, by the way, and a lot of other countries for foreign militaries. Lose your citizenship immediately. Of course. Obviously, it's amazing that even exists. And APAC has to register under FAIR, the foreign agent registration act of the nineteen thirties. Of course, it's a foreign lobby. There are a million of them. But it's only APAC that doesn't register. And it's only APAC that is somehow above criticism. It's a foreign lobby that's acting on behalf of foreign government. It's it's and its interest. Again, it's one of many, but it's the only one that doesn't have to register. And, of course, it should register immediately. You should know who is giving money to your politicians. You should know who is influencing them. There should be a record of that as there is with any other nation, any other lobby of a foreign power, and only APAC is exempt. What is the effect of that? Makes everyone paranoid. Doesn't make people like Israel more. When a topic cannot be spoken about and when anyone who raises it is called a Nazi, the woke Reich, or dismissed as a holocaust denier, anti Semite, or whatever slandered in some way like that. It doesn't make the problem go away. It festers, and people go crazy and get angry and become resentful. End all that. There's no reason to conduct any business like that in secrecy. It doesn't make things better at all. It doesn't make the person doing it stronger. It makes him weaker, actually, in the end. And the last thing that I think we need to do to restore balance between the relationship between The United States and Israel and to restore some sanity to the public conversation on this topic is to get our theology right. And this is not a message aimed at Israelis or Jews. This is a message aimed at Christians who are the largest group of Israel supporters in The United States. And their view of Israel is colored not just by sentimental attachment, which is fine, or trips to Israel, great, no problem, but by a Christian heresy, the oldest of the Christian heresies, which is that God somehow prefers some people based on their DNA. And of course, the whole point of Christianity is that that is no longer true, that there is no chosen people. The chosen people are people who choose Jesus. That is the Christian message right there. It's not an anti Semitic message, by the way. It's the Christian message. It's the core Christian message. And yet there are many, many self described representatives of the Christian faith, the world's largest, who are daily sending a different message. And we should be very clear. Whatever this is, it's not Christianity. It is heresy. And among the many examples we could pick, we're gonna go, because we couldn't control ourselves, with Lindsey Graham. Watch. Speaker 4: To people in my party, I'm tired of this crap. Israel is our friend. They're the most reliable friend we have in the Mideast. They're a democracy surrounded by people who would cut their throats if they could. This is not a hard choice if you're an American. It's not a hard choice if you're a Christian. A word of warning, If America pulls the plug on Israel, God will pull the plug on us. Speaker 0: God will kill you if you don't support Bibi Netanyahu. That's what he's saying. And there are cheers, unfortunately, cheers when he said that God will kill you. He will pull the plug on you like a quadriplegic in intensive care. You're gonna flatline unless you support the secular abortion on demand government of Israel. That's the Christian perspective, really. That god loves some people more because of their DNA. That is not the Christian message. That's the opposite of the Christian message. The Christian message is universal. That's the whole point of it. The chosen people in Christianity are those who choose Jesus. The entire New Testament is that story. And anyone who says otherwise has not read it or is lying. God does not prefer you because of your DNA or anyone else because of their DNA, period. So the fact that people can stand up in The United States in 2025 and say something like that, and by the way, not even make the case, just invoke the power of god as a weapon. He will kill you. He'll pull the plug on your country unless you go along with this. We need more war. Listen to yourself. And it's not just Lindsey Graham. It's the speaker of the house, Mike Johnson. It's a lot of people. Some of whom are very nice people. People have dinner with them. They seem perfectly normal. But this is a heresy, and it's deranged. And you know it's deranged because it's a justification for killing the innocent. And in Christianity, if there's one thing that's crystal clear, it's that Christians cannot abide the killing of the innocent. People who have done nothing wrong cannot be killed. That's a sin. You are not allowed to do that. Period. And if you find anyone leveraging the message of Jesus to justify the killing of innocents, that person is committing heresy. So those are the four things I think that we probably should do right away to restore some balance and health, reduce the craziness in the relationship and the conversation about Israel.