reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Ep. 34 Of all of Biden’s crimes, backing the Ukrainian government as it throws priests in jail may be the most revealing. https://t.co/ZCVV4uPzs9
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Ukrainian government has banned the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), an ancient Christian denomination, and there has been little international outcry. The UOC has been subjected to harassment, property theft, and imprisonment of its clerics by the newly established autocephalous church, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU). The OCU claims that the UOC is connected to the Russian FSB, but there is little evidence to support this. The banning of a religious denomination is a violation of the Ukrainian constitution, international law, and the EU Charter. The silence of Christian leaders on this issue is concerning, as it sets a dangerous precedent for Christian denominations worldwide. The powerful Ukraine lobby and the lack of awareness about the situation contribute to the lack of response from Western leaders.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you take 3 steps back, a lot of what's happening around the world seems like an attack on Christianity. Thanks to the NeoCon project, virtually the entire ancient Christian population of Iraq was eliminated. The US government, under several presidents, has funded effectively the killing of Christians in Syria. And this continues throughout the Middle East and in Eastern Europe. In Ukraine, the most obvious example.
The Ukrainian government has now banned an entire Christian denomination. And virtually no one in the United States has said anything about it. We thought it would be worth learning more. Bob Amsterdam is an attorney representing that denomination. He joins us now.
Mister Amsterdam, thank you very much, for coming on. Explain, if you would, to people who haven't been following this, what's the denomination, what's its status now, and why?
Speaker 1: The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is the home of orthodoxy in Ukraine. It's been around for a 1000 years. 5 years ago, the Ukrainian government in its wisdom set up, what is called an autocephalous church, An independent church, independent of Russian any connection to the Russian canons and decided that that church should replace the spiritual home of Ukrainians. That church called the OCU Has been engaged in an absolutely vicious unlimited campaign to, steal, property, harass, intimidate, and and jail clerics, force conscription on believers, act in a manner that is is almost unbelievable in a civilized society. And they'll use the excuse that this church, which by the way, completely separated from Moscow in May of last year, is somehow connected to the Russian FSB.
But based on the testimonies, I've reviewed, There seems to be little substance to this allegation. And in fact, there are other institutions in Ukraine, like the secret police, Who have been far more infiltrated by Russia than this particular church. Yet, there is a reason for it and it's a sad reason. The politicians in Ukraine, including perhaps the president, wanna take the populist vote Of those behind this new church and therefore feel it is in their political interests to destroy this ancient branch of Christianity. And and I absolutely can tell you that the the damage that has been visited on the leadership of this church, Including 5 year jail sentences for 75 year old clerics, just Down you that in the 21st century, a country that wants to join the EU would ban a religion, let alone an ancient Christian form of that religion.
Speaker 0: And and moreover a country whose functions of government and national defense are effectively solely funded by the United States taxpayer. So the I think Americans have an interest in this. And if you ask Christian leaders in this country, and I have, Shouldn't we be concerned when the Ukrainian government, which we're all for apparently, is banning a Christian denomination? They just say, well, no. They're not really Christians.
They're Russian agents. If you could respond to that in a little more detail.
Speaker 1: You know, I'd be happy to because firstly, I carry no water for Putin. I'm banned from Russia. I defended one of Putin's biggest enemies. And it is very hard for this Particular branch to obtain counsel because people are so afraid of being connected to Russia. We have mobilized so much hate and animosity towards Russia, that it is it is completely obscene.
And there is a A huge PR ban on saying anything that is critical of the Ukrainian government or president Zelensky. And as a result of that, We fail to understand the context of internal Ukrainian affairs. And the the Russian connection, the allegation of FSB connections, were it to be true, The evidence against, these 4, metropolitans would be substantive, and yet they're they're painfully inadequate. The charges of 1 Metropolitan who has 400 children he's adopted relates to hurting the feelings of other Christians or Other denominations. I mean, these charges are on their face, political charges.
Speaker 0: So as an attorney who's operated in a bunch of different countries over many decades. And, you know, I would encourage people watching this to look up your resume. I think it speaks for itself. You're not an agent of the Russian government. It seems to me that it's like prima facie unacceptable For a so called Western liberal government to ban a religious denomination, I thought that was a traditional red line.
If you're doing that, By definition, you're authoritarian. Am I missing something?
Speaker 1: Tucker, not at all. There is no basis Under the Ukrainian constitution or under international law or the laws of war or Ukraine's Own resolution in terms of limited rights during the war for the begin for for the banning of a religious denomination. And, you know, on our departures podcast that we have, we actually have a lengthy interview where we explain all of this. This goes beyond anything acceptable. It's a violation of the EU Charter.
It's a violation of the Copenhagen criteria That the Ukraine would have to satisfy to enter the EU, this has nothing but a, Tammany Hall Local political logic. And I have to tell you frankly, I'm a I'm a Jewish person. I do not understand how it is That Christian leaders are not up in arms because I think their silence on Ukraine is dangerous for Christian denominations Throughout the world. And I'll tell you part of the reason I'm doing that is because of my concern for Christian brothers and sisters and and what it means for them That that we see raids on churches. We see violence.
We see balaclava covered individuals, beating clergy, Kidnappings, it is completely shocking. The UN has spoken out, German experts on orthodoxy is have spoken out. Many orthodox denominations don't recognize the quote, new state church that the Ukraine have set up. And it is shocking to me that a country such as the United States with with strong Christian leadership, I thought, Could allow this to go on because what the Ukrainians try to tell you is that it's the same religion. This OCU state church is the same religion.
But in fact, my clients, the the church I represent, their prayers are in church Slavonic. Their liturgy is different. And and I can tell you as as somebody who is not a youngster, were somebody to come into my church or synagogue And change the language and change the leadership, I would be horrified. There's nothing more intimate Then one's relationship to his god. And this intervention for callous political Purposes is unacceptable and it is shameful that not only Christian, but all leaders of all denominations have not spoken out Against the Ukrainian government.
Speaker 0: Well, it does seem a little weird that it falls to a Jewish lawyer from the US to defend a Christian denomination, and bless you sincerely, bless you for that. But where is Russell Moore, the editor of Christianity Today? Where is the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, A purported Christian. I mean, they're backing this. What is that?
Do you have any theory as to why this is happening?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. The Ukraine lobby is immensely powerful. And, there is a humongous ban On truth right now, in the United States with respect to what's happening in Ukraine, Many of our leaders in the United States aren't even hearing this. It's the same in Europe.
You cannot get through The the massive, PR machine that the Ukrainians have put together and, you know, I'm on their side. I I am absolutely pro Ukraine in terms of the devastation they've suffered as a result of the war. But why that is being channeled against my clients, the Holy Synod, men who are dedicated to God And their their followers, who let me be frank, are the most devout part of the Ukrainian populace. Why these innocents Are being persecuted in this way is beyond my comprehension.
Speaker 0: Probably because they are the most devout. I I have to say there's so few people of principle left in public conversation and you're demonstrably one of them. Grateful for what you're doing and for telling us about it. Mr. Jamsham, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: John here, people say the news is full of lies on Canada's motorcade.
reSee.it AI Summary
American citizen Gonzalo Lira has been imprisoned in Ukraine since July for criticizing President Zelensky. Biden officials support this, aiming to apply the same standard in the US. The media also back this. Lira's father shares his statement. Is Ukraine truly the democracy it claims to be? Where is our State Department? #FreeGonzaloLira
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Ep. 47 Gonzalo Lira is an American citizen who’s been tortured in a Ukrainian prison since July, for the crime of criticizing Zelensky. Biden officials approve of this, because they’d like to apply the same standard here. The media agree. Here’s a statement from Gonzalo Lira’s father. (00:00) American Zelensky critic jailed in Ukraine (05:14) Where is our State Department? (08:40) Lira arrested after criticizing Biden (11:49) Is Ukraine the democracy we’re told it is?
Video Transcript AI Summary
In February 2022, the Russian military invaded Eastern Ukraine, leading to a disproportionate amount of media coverage and support for Ukraine in the US. However, there was little actual news from Ukraine. American citizen Gonzalo Lyra provided honest reports on social media about life in Ukraine and the progress of the war. He revealed that Russia was winning the war and its economy was fine, while the US economy suffered. Lyra was arrested by the Ukrainian government and attempted to escape to Hungary but was arrested again. His father, Gonzalo Lira senior, criticized the US government for its lack of action and support. He argued that the US needs to change its foreign policy and protect democracy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In February of 2022, the Russian military rolled across the border of Eastern Ukraine. And then for the next year and a half, the American media and political establishment spent, what's fair to say, a disproportionate amount of time talking about Ukraine and America's obligation to support Ukraine pay for Ukraine's military and its government and, of course, support it morally and above all to hate Russia. And most Americans obeyed. Politicians wore Ukrainian flags on their lapels. American citizens put Ukrainian flags on their mailboxes and on their bumper stickers.
But one thing most Americans didn't get a lot of was actual news from Ukraine. What was it like to live there? What was happening inside that country that we were supporting and paying for? We couldn't really know because there's virtually no coverage of it. But on social media, there were a few people reporting in what seemed like a pretty honest way from within Ukraine, and one of them was an American citizen called Gonzalo Lyra.
He'd lived in Ukraine for quite some time, and he posted, particularly on Twitter, his accounts of what life was like there and his view of how the war was going. And so for people who are interested in what was happening, he was worth watching. Here's one of his reports.
Speaker 1: The Russian economy is sailing on, sailing on. European economy, people are starting to die of hypothermia in the UK, Because they don't have access to the cheap energy of Russia from before. See? And so everything that the West has thrown at the Russians has boomeranged right back at them. And so now, they're panicking, And they're trying to figure out a way out of the situation.
And they figured that if you throw more tanks, it'll help. It won't help. The right the Ukrainians, rather. They had, like, something like, 2,000 tanks before the start of this conflict. You think a couple of 100 now is gonna help?
I mean, why are they asking them? Because those 2,000 tanks are gone. That's basic, you know? And so, what, a couple of 100, maybe 300 tanks, is that gonna change the outcome of the conflict? Oh, well, the Russians are just gonna destroy them.
In the West, all the propaganda has said that, the, you know, Zelensky is a hero, a Winston Churchill figure, you know, and and the Kyiv regime are just angels and stuff like that. No. They're they're bloodthirsty murderers, the Kyiv regime. I'm I'm telling you right now.
Speaker 0: So he made a couple of points. One, Russia is not losing the war with Ukraine. Russia is winning. 2, the Russian economy, despite the sanctions from United States and Western Europe, and despite the war, has not been destroyed. The Russian economy is actually fine.
And in some ways, it's improving. It's becoming more independent, more commodities based, and that's an advantage for a country with a lot of commodities like Russia. Meanwhile, the US economy and US military power has suffered as a result of the war. Now Lira, to the extent that people responded to him in this country, in our media, was denounced as a Russian puppet and a liar and a propagandist. But in fact, now we can admit he was right.
What you just heard was true, factually true. Russia is not losing the war in Ukraine. Russia is winning. Russia's economy is fine. Ours is not.
So what happened in did by the government of Ukraine, the one that we pay for, the supposed democracy that we support for moral reasons against the autocracy of Russia, he was arrested. And then he was let out, and then he tried to leave the country. He tried to leave Ukraine. Here's a video, his last video. This is Gonzalo Lira.
Speaker 2: I will definitely be sent to a prison labor camp where I will most certainly die. And so I decided that the smart thing was take my chances in terms of getting across the border right now I'm maybe 5 kilometers away From the border with Hungary. Over the last 2 days, I rode my bike just about 1300 kilometers from Kharkov all the way here to the border, and my intention is to cross the border, get to Hungary. And in Hungary, I'm going to ask for political asylum. So either I will cross the border into Hungary in the next couple of hours or I will be arrested again, and, god knows what will happen to me.
Speaker 0: He never made it. 5 miles from the Hungarian border 5 kilometers rather from the Hungarian border, he was arrested. Gonzalo Lieura remains in prison tonight, a political prisoner in country that we were told was free, country whose government we are still paying for. The Biden State Department is uninterested in the fate of this American citizen. In fact, of course, they support his imprisonment, and no one in the national media seems interested in his fate whatsoever.
So we thought it'd be worth speaking to his father, Gonzalo Lira senior, who joins us now from Chile. Mister Lira, thanks so much for joining us. Have you heard from your son? Do you know where he is, and do you know how he's doing?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Tucker.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: For the opportunity of saying, what is going on with my son, Gonzalo? Today, it will mark The 7th full month that he's been arrested in Ukraine, he has not gone into trial. He's awaiting trial. He was appointed a court attorney that doesn't speak English. He's an Ukrainian attorney.
Insofar as the US Embassy, they haven't done a thing. Neither I nor his sister living in the USA, and I'm reading because I don't want to lose anything, Neither I nor his sister living in the USA have been able to communicate with Gonzalo. The US Embassy has not answered our inquiries. The embassy in chief never offered a defense attorney, never visited him except For the first time, he scored appointment last November 8th. The embassy has just Burned out, Gonsalvo.
An American citizen by birth is in jail because he was exercising his right for freedom of speech. This defense, as I said before, is in the hands of a court appointment Ukrainian attorney That doesn't speak any English. The USA government, with its silence in the face of this Scandalous incidents suggest a degree of complicity or at least tacit approval of Gonzalo's arrest since nothing else convincingly explains the conspicuous lack of response. Let me just read further if I may, Tucker.
Speaker 0: I hope you will.
Speaker 3: Gonzalo was arrested last year. On April 15th, Good Friday, till the next Friday, 22nd, For that 4 weeks, without any charges, he was simply detained. They stole all of his equipments. He couldn't continue working after he was released for at least 2, 3 weeks trying to obtain equipment to continue. His criticism of Zelensky Nazi regime supported by the US government, by mister Biden, Bubbaix, you know, he is making gurgles, you know, that we have to defend democracy.
What democracy? Ukraine has never had democracy, let alone today with this man Zelensky. He's a well known dictator. They were going to have election stock, and they canceled those elections. During the Vietnam War, There were elections in South Vietnam in the middle of the war, Tucker, if you remember.
I do remember. I lived those years in the USA. Let me say more. Last April 27th this year, Monsanto put on a web video. This time and for the first time, Tucker, heavily criticizing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
4 days later, the Zelensky police detains through that terrible sinister Gestapo called SPU.
Speaker 1: My thinking is that the Democratic Party establishment will try to get rid of Joe Biden and shoehorn in Kamala Harris, Because Kamala Harris, make no mistake about it. She's an idiot. I mean, she is I mean, I seriously believe that she has under 90 IQ points. I mean, she is so stupid.
Speaker 3: Isn't it odd, Tucker, that 4 days later, after condemning Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, once Harris arrested, why was he not detained earlier when he was let go the previous year, May 22nd Of last year, Volcanoes the same language, the same criticism against the war. He predicted from day 1, practically, That Ukraine would never win a war against Russia. He also said, this is gonna bleed the USA and the NATO countries Holding on for Ukraine to hold a battle with Russia, which will never be won, will never be, you know, succession. Did the green the state department, Tucker, give the green light to Zelensky to Brit to put my son in jail? This is something that it is unbelievable.
Speaker 0: I mean, the obvious conclusion is if the US government is approving and maybe even encouraging what happened to your son, a man being thrown into prison to die because he criticized the regime. If they're okay with that in Ukraine, why wouldn't they be okay with that in the United States?
Speaker 3: I really don't understand. It just puzzles me. It just puzzles me also with the the prompt Defense or the reporter, you know, the Wall Street Journal reporter that was detained in Russia. Well, he was really exchanging his military secrets. And my said, wait.
They were defending this man. I don't even know if he's a US citizen. But, anyway, his name, I I I wrote it somewhere, totally different to Monsanto. No one from the US Embassy he's defending, my son. He lived in the US all of his life.
He's a Dartmouth graduate. I mean, he he lived in the USA. He has, you know, published counterparts, one of his, you know, books. He's he's he's been writing also. He's a He's a writer.
And the US hasn't done anything. I cannot understand. If we're going to protect democracy and the world, let's start by taking out that topic called Zelensky and let Congress in the USA, for crying out loud, once and for all, he speech this man. He cannot continue. The US is sliding down every day, Tucker.
The Chinese are winning us. I mean, what kind of foreign policy are we getting into? The worst of it all He said, either they don't know history because they're a bunch of ignorance in the White House. Jose don't know I mean, with Bush senior, with president George Bush senior, Gorbachev proposed him, we are going to dissolve the Soviet Union as such, and with it, we'll dissolve the Warsaw Pact, which was our response to NATO. But give me assurance that the countries that today belong to the Soviet Union and will be independent countries Will not go into NATO.
Putin, the only thing he was asking, Tucker, was not to have Ukraine enter the NATO alliance. He didn't wanna be surrounded by NATO countries Just like John Kennedy didn't want the USA to have missile for crying out loud in Cuba, Putin was doing the same. The big question is, what if Ukraine had complied Of not going into NATO force, you know, alliance, nothing would have happened. There wouldn't have been a Russian invasion. Like we said before, the US is bringing money, but it is costing a fortune.
It's costing the military. It's costing more day by day. The whole population is Getting involved now in the USA, the constant protest now that we have the other problem with Israel. Where are we going to? When are we going to be the great nation we wear?
Or is it too late, Tucker? We have to change the government. This man cannot continue with this policy in the world. It's the wrong policy. The world is beginning to hate the USA Because I see the USA, and the sign is military weapons.
War. Years back, the protector of the small country, Tucker. I live those years. Second World War sang for the USA. It was England's and Europe savior.
Well, what happened to that country? This that is happening to my son is a victim of this Biden government And his relation with that puppet Zelensky. Zelensky is a man that has made opponents, political opponents disappear. Gonzalo published 2 years ago a list. I think it was 12 or 17 individuals that had disappeared.
They were tortured and then, you know, killed. And Gonzalo said, if I'm off the air for more than 24 hours, add me on the list. He's a brave man telling the truth all alone. From day 1, he predicted what would be, happen. That Ukraine would never win a war with Russia, and that the USA and NATO countries would bleed with Armenians.
I mean, would support them to to kingdom come. But what is the cost now? A 115,000,000,000 is what I heard, at least, the USA giving Ukraine. Can you imagine a 115 seen 1,000,000,000 in the location in the hills in the USA. We have poverty.
We have a high percentage of poverty, Tucker. We didn't have homeless in my years. The best years in my view, 50, 60, and the beginning of 70th, I lived on sheets, The 60th song. America was fantastic country. I want the USA to come back to them, to be the savior of the world, To feed to be the grandfather that helps, that is constantly watching out.
Not the one who's making wars around the world supporting dictators, cheap people like Zelensk. This is the worst talker to believe. I've read a lot about what's going on. I see bloggers like my son, the George Galloways, Khrushchevhorus. There's a whole bunch to run to run.
I read. I get involved, and I've seen that we're going down. We are having terrible policies in the USA, and this cannot continue. I want you please, Tucker. You're a man that is heard in the USA.
That is power. Information is power. You have it. Make something out of this, please. That's a 80 year old father who's really fighting for his 56 year old son.
Help me. Give me a hand.
Speaker 0: Well, I think you're you're helping him by what you just said, mister Lira. And I'm grateful to hear it, and I'm confident that when people step back and listen to what you're saying without emotion, they'll see that we've made a terrible mistake. And we're we're really hoping, that your son is out soon, and I hope that you will keep us informed, about what the state department does. I hope this pushes them. Thank you.
John Deere, people say the news is full of lies. Kennedy's motorcade. 139 people. The death of Jeffrey Epstein.
@elonmusk - Elon Musk
An American YouTuber has been imprisoned for 5 years in Ukraine, and allegedly tortured, for making videos. This is not ok.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Ep. 74 The Ukrainian government canceled elections and killed an American journalist. Congress is about send them another $60 billion. J.D. Vance is trying to stop it. https://t.co/x6mQFfuZFL
Video Transcript AI Summary
Ukraine's war against Russia is unwinnable due to its lack of resources and population compared to Russia. The US Senate recently proposed sending another $60 billion to Ukraine, despite its corrupt and authoritarian government. JD Vance, a Republican senator, opposes this legislation and believes it will only lead to more Ukrainian deaths and hinder future US diplomacy. He also criticizes the lack of concern for the humanitarian impact of the war, which has claimed the lives of approximately 400,000 Ukrainians. Vance argues that the focus should be on addressing pressing issues within the US, rather than engaging in endless wars.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It became very clear to anyone paying attention several months ago that Ukraine cannot win its war against Russia. The Ukrainian military will not be able, even with Western backing 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars of it, to expel the Russian military from parts of Eastern Ukraine. Ukraine doesn't have the industrial capacity, neither does NATO or the United States, and it doesn't have the people. Russia has a 100,000,000 more in population than Ukraine does. And that means that further support from the West for the Ukrainian military only means more dead Ukrainians and a further degraded Western economy in the US and in Germany particularly.
So it's not simply a fool's errand. It's self destruction. It's insane. It's cruel. It's abetting the killing of an entire generation of Ukrainians.
This is very obvious. No honest person at this point will deny it. And yet somehow the United States Senate, which is always several years behind reality and its absence just a few weeks ago decided to send another $60,000,000,000 to the Ukrainian government, which is both corrupt and authoritarian. They've canceled elections. They banned an entire Christian denomination, and then they killed an American journalist for noting any of this.
And yet, the United States Senate proposed under Mitch McConnell a plan to send another $60,000,000,000 to Ukraine. Well, imagine the surprise. All rational people around the world to wake up this morning and discover This could actually happen. And so with that in mind, we thought it'd be worth talking to one of the very few Republican senators who's bothered to make the countercase. And that would be JD Vance of Ohio who joins us now from the United States.
Senator, thanks so much for coming on. If you wouldn't mind telling us where This legislation is right now what you expect to happen and what you think should happen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Tucker. So there are 2 big things that will happen here. So tonight, we will clear a major procedural vote or we won't. So this is really the best opportunity tonight to kill this legislation. Encourage everybody to do everything that they can, contact everyone they can to ensure that we actually do kill the legislation.
It is very close. The Democrats have banded together with 17 Republicans, we only need 8 of those Republicans to flip their vote to kill this thing, and I think that we'll get at least 1, who will in fact flip their rose. So that that that's where it sits in the Senate. The second thing, and frankly, the best opportunity we have to kill this is in the house, and that's part of what I'm trying to do is notify people about how bad this legislation is so that after it clears the senate, if it does, then it goes to the house and the house has a real opportunity to at least make it better, but hopefully kill it. And I I wanna say just just a couple of things here, Tucker, that are Extremely important to know about this legislation.
Number 1, is that it sends $61,000,000,000 to Ukraine to fund, as you said, a hopeless war in Eastern Europe, it will decimate the Ukrainian population even more than it's already been decimated. So it's a terrible, terrible piece of legislation on the policy. The second thing I wanna say, Tucker, though, is that it doesn't just fund Ukraine in 2024, and this is the most important point. It actually funds Ukraine in 25 and 26. Now what's the problem with that?
Say, for example, that we have a new president in 2025, that president would be handcuffed by the promises that we are making in law to Ukraine today. If you go back to to 2019, Tucker, to sort of give give you a sense of why this matters. In 2019, the US House impeached then President Donald Trump on the theory that they had appropriated money to Ukraine, and Donald Trump refused to send it to Ukraine. So if Trump is elected president again And become president on January of 2025, he will conduct diplomacy. And if that diplomacy does not include sending additional 1,000,000,000 to Ukraine.
There is a theoretical argument, a predicate, if you will, for impeaching Donald Trump because they have tried to tie his hands. And the final point I'll make on this, Tucker, is that the Washington Post has already has already said, based on leaks from inside the intel community, the purpose of this legislation is to tie a future president Trump's hands. We're not just sending 1,000,000,000 to Ukraine in 2024, we're trying to make it impossible for the next president to conduct diplomacy on his terms. It's anti democratic and it will lead to endless war in the all over the world.
Speaker 0: So the political calculation behind this seems incredibly dark, so does the humanitarian effect. I noticed that no one on Capitol Hill seems interested in finding out how many have died in this war. Reliable estimates in the area, these are not partisan, are that about 400,000 Ukrainians have died. That's about as many Americans has died in the entire second world war over the entire duration, and it's, of course, a much smaller country. So how do senators, Republican senators get away with saying we're doing this on behalf of Ukrainian people on behalf of democracy when it's destroying an entire generation and it's not a democracy.
Like, what's the thinking here?
Speaker 1: Well, Tucker, they bought into the propaganda that what is in the best interest of Ukraine is to prolong this war. And so Zelensky comes to Washington. You know, he's tougher than a lot of them are, and I think they get, you know, a a little bit of excitement from that, and Zelensky tells them a story that his war is in the best interest of the whole of Ukraine. Now never mind that there are people within Ukraine protesting the draft. Never mind that the average age of a soldier there is pushing 45 years old, and never mind that the 650,000 wealthiest Ukrainians left the country at the beginning of the war.
They didn't stay and fight. So the idea that this is unanimously supported by the Ukrainian population is, of course, preposterous and absurd. No one believes it. But but here's here's the really crazy, and I and I think, ultimately, the very cynical thing that's going on, Tucker, is that everyone knows that this war will lead to the destruction of Ukraine. I've had conversations with democratic colleagues where they get this sort of dark look in their eyes and they say, effectively, that they wanna fight Russia to the last Ukrainian drop of blood.
I I I think if you really ask these guys, they recognize that this is not in the best interest of Ukraine. This is fundamentally in the interest of military contractors and people who think that America's most pressing challenge is to defeat the Russians. Of course, that's not a preoccupation that I share. I don't think Russia should have invaded, Tucker, but I also think that we gotta much more focused on more pressing problems, like the demographic collapse of the United States, like the open borders, and like what's going on in East Asia. So It's a massive campaign, Tucker, to distract people from the real problems in the world and the real problems that exist in this country.
Speaker 0: And underlying it all, as you just said, is is an impulse that's that's indefensible and I think deeply immoral. So I I'm so grateful for you having the courage to talk about this in public, and I and I hope common sense in your position prevails. Senator Jenny Vance of Ohio. Thank you. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization.
Societies are defined by what they will not commit. Watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@Truth_InMedia - Truth In Media
Volodymyr Zelenskyy isn't who you think he is. Woke celebrities and warmongering politicians adore him, but very few Americans know about the shadowy billionaires backing this actor-turned-president. Episode 2 of "Zelenskyy Unmasked" is here... https://t.co/YCzVx4VipV
Video Transcript AI Summary
Vladimir Zelensky, a former actor turned president of Ukraine, is backed by oligarchs, including Igor Kolomoisky, who controlled his rise to power. Despite being portrayed as a hero by the media, Zelensky has failed to deliver on his promises, leading to growing authoritarianism in Ukraine. Critics question his true intentions in the ongoing conflict with Russia, suggesting he may be a puppet for larger interests. The truth behind Zelensky's leadership and who is truly in control remains a mystery.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Vladimir Zelensky isn't quite who he's portrayed to be. Even if you believe that he is a righteous servant of democracy, one thing is without a doubt, he is an actor in more ways than one. But he's not an actor who simply became president. He had backing. What virtually no American knows about Zelensky is that he appears to be backed by shadowy billionaires accountable to no one other than their own business interests.
Zelensky's image isn't something that just happened. It appears to be carefully coordinated and orchestrated. Zelensky as a leader is being portrayed by the dominant mainstream media as a noble saint, selfless, brave, chic even. A hero to woke actors and warmongering politicians alike, Zelensky is the world's biggest celebrity, and he's being billed as something more. He is the new George Washington, the new Winston Churchill.
So what's the truth? I'm Ben Swan, and this is Zelenskyy Unmasked.
Speaker 1: And who was Zelensky? I mean, this is a guy that used to play the piano with his penis when he was a comedian playing the president of the Ukraine. Ukraine.
Speaker 2: The history of Zelensky is interesting, and it's exactly what you would expect for a person who, is acting as the president of a country right now. He was in a TV show, a servant of the people, and he was a comedian. And in that TV show, he was a teacher who became president. And he wanted the country to join NATO and join the EU and all of the things that, you know, he's acting as now. So then his financial backers then started a party, and they called that party the servant of the people party.
And they ran him as president with exactly the same platform that he had in the television show.
Speaker 0: Vladimir Zelensky didn't just become president of Ukraine. Not surprisingly, he had help. What mainstream media won't tell you is where that help came from. A name you've probably never heard, Igor Kolomoisky is one of Ukraine's leading oligarchs, and he's the owner of the 1 plus 1 media group, one of Ukraine's largest media conglomerates. Kolomoisky's network aired Zelensky's hit TV show, Servant of the People, the one that made him a star.
Kolomoisky also has been accused of being one of the most notorious gangsters in Ukrainian history. He's accused of embezzling 1,000,000,000 of dollars and of hiring people to kill his rivals. That aside, Ukraine's worst kept secret is that Kolomoisky was pulling the strings of Zelensky's presidential campaign. And even though he's Jewish, US government officials claim that Kolomoisky was the brainchild and bank roller of Ukraine's Neo Nazi Azov battalion. Soon after Zelensky's servant of the people party was launched, Kolomoisky got the attention of the FBI.
The US justice department claims that his Privat Bank ran a Ponzi scheme, which stole 1,000,000,000 from investors and hid $70,000,000 of it in the United States. It was Kolomoisky's money and the enormous power he wielded, which was needed to complete Zelensky's transformation from TV to his country's top man.
Speaker 3: The show was so popular and Ukrainian presidents were so bad that they took him, ran him, and he beat the people, not because he's qualified, but because they were so sick of the old system. They thought this actor could pretend to be president better than presidents were actually being president.
Speaker 2: So clearly, it was a production to create a television show and then eventually turn it into a party. But they knew that the people of Ukraine wanted peace as most people in most countries want.
Speaker 4: Ukraine At least he's promised to end the war. That's what we are hoping for.
Speaker 2: So he ran as a peace candidate, and he ran arguing that he would push for peace with Russia, peace reversal, and he went in the direction that his backers wanted. Zelenskyy took reversal, and he went in the direction that his backers wanted.
Speaker 0: Zelensky took office in 2019 amidst the catastrophic collapse of public confidence in Ukraine's government and frustration with that society's endemic corruption. Hope quickly turned to despair, however, once it became clear that under Zelensky, nothing had changed. The economy remained in shambles. Corruption was still rampant, and the Donbas war still raged on. Zelensky had failed to live up to any of his promises.
Speaker 3: The war comes, and they take this man with 23% popularity who shut down all democracy, and we turn him into Winston Churchill.
Speaker 0: And pretty soon, Zelensky was everywhere on the cover of Time, Newsweek, Wired, Vanity Fair. He was even photographed for vote. You can't make this stuff up. He and his wife post for cover photos while he was in the midst of leading a war, supposedly for his country's survival. Really?
And he had time for this. Actually, he had time for this and a lot more. The actor turned president also made his way to the US stage by recording messages, which were played live at the Grammy's and the Golden Globes. He rang the bell at Wall Street virtually, and he visited congress live and in person. A weird sand statue of him was erected in Estonia, and congressman Joe Wilson, a republican from South Carolina, introduced a bill to erect a permanent bust of Zelensky at the US Capitol.
By the way, you can now purchase a miniature version of this would be bust on Amazon for 1999.
Speaker 5: He was selected to act in this role, and he's doing a fantastic job as an actor. Quite frankly, this is the role of a lifetime, and he's killing it.
Speaker 0: And it's clear that Zelensky got a lot of help in prepping for this role.
Speaker 6: So, basically, today, the Ukraine is run by the deep state, the the military in in in Washington, the people who want war to make money from war, the in in the military industrial complex in United States, and Zelensky is a puppet within this whole big show.
Speaker 2: It was from the very beginning, this was some kind of a in my opinion, it was some kind of an intelligence pushed, media operation to this day. And that's why he's always behind green screens. That's always why he's doing covers for various magazines, etcetera, because this is really a production for people worldwide to think that they have a president of a country, and he's just a hollow figure.
Speaker 0: Here's Here's something you're not gonna see on CNN. Throughout history, intelligence agencies have invested massive amounts of money to manage public relations campaigns. That's just a fact. These campaigns have been waged to spread disinformation in the interest of getting public opinion behind a war. And you don't have to look very far back in the past to find examples.
I'll give you one right here. 1990, a girl from Kuwait who said her name was Nayira, testified that she witnessed babies being taken out of incubators and killed by Saddam Hussein's forces. Turned out, that was a lie. And the girl wasn't just some random girl, She was the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the United States, Saud al Sabah. The story about the incubators, by the way, it never happened.
But it was too late once we knew for sure. The publicity campaign associated with that lie swayed public opinion against Saddam Hussein and in favor of a US invasion of Kuwait. 12 years later, US secretary of state Colin Powell took his turn at lying with an eye towards Iraq. Remember this famous shot of him holding up vials of those biological weapons samples? He testified before the world that the country had weapons of mass destruction.
This bold faced lie prompted the US invasion of Iraq and the deaths of over 1,000,000 Iraqi people. So the question that thinking people must grapple with, could the same thing be happening in the case of Ukraine?
Speaker 2: It's interesting because for the most part, that, that production has been successful. He's been pushed as a, you know, a hero of democracy and this poor kind of you know, this small democratic free country has been attacked by a brutal and angry emotional person, not a country. It's it's the the traditional Marvel Comics hero villain scenario. He's a hero. He's a good guy, stands for everything good, and he's attacked by the equivalent of Lex Luther in a Superman movie, which would be Vladimir the evil Vladimir Putin.
And they've been, you know, pretty successful with with that in the United States simply because that's the only story that's allowed to get out.
Speaker 0: The reality of things in Ukraine are much more grim. Under Zelensky's watch, the Russian language has come under attack as has the Orthodox church. Alternative media outlets have been banned as have opposition political parties. Zelensky's cult like status in the west is masking the rising tide of authoritarianism in Ukraine. And not just that.
It appears that even Zelensky is starting to believe his own hype.
Speaker 3: Now he actually believes he's a man of gravitas, that he is Winston Churchill.
Speaker 0: Like the original Churchill, Zelensky isn't necessarily all about peace either, even though the PR machine that surrounds him tells us that he is. As numerous military analysts have asked, what's the endgame here? There's much agreement that long term, Ukraine doesn't really have much of a chance in this war. So why is there no effort toward peace?
Speaker 3: 10 years from now, when they write the history of this conflict, he's gonna be the most reviled man in the world because he is responsible for
Speaker 0: for the
Speaker 3: deaths of 100 of 1000 of Ukrainians. Hundreds of thousands of people he swore to protect, he slaughtered. For what? Because he's addicted to weapons infused, ego driven narcissism.
Speaker 4: Ukraine is becoming a nation of widows and orphans. There's 300,000 dead Ukrainians. Douglas McGregor would say 350,000. All right, I'll go on the conservative side there and 30,000 Russians. I don't know, they see the figures 101, whatever.
Let's say 400 1,000, 500,000, whatever it is. It all could have been avoided. This all and you know what? Nobody in DC that's connected, whether it be Raytheon, Victoria Nuland, Joe Biden, Lloyd Austin, they don't give a rat's ass about any of those Ukrainian vets at all.
Speaker 2: Zelensky is part of a pattern right now throughout the US empire where you put an actor in place who appears to be making decisions, but he's not. So he's just another one of many, and they bring him out, and he does what he's told.
Speaker 0: If Zelensky just does what he's told, that would mean he's a hollow leader. It also means somebody else is pulling the strings. Who is it that appears to be telling Zelensky what to do, what to think, what to say? Who is really running Ukraine? We'll investigate as we continue to unmask Zelensky.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Ep. 97 Bob Amsterdam is an international human rights lawyer who’s been banned from Russia by Vladimir Putin. He says Ukraine is the single most repressive country he’s been to. “The idea it’s a democracy is a farce.” Once again, they’re lying to you and making you pay for it. https://t.co/hrLVZg4EFn
Video Transcript AI Summary
The House of Representatives approved a $95 billion foreign aid package for Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan, with Ukraine receiving $61 billion. This includes $14 billion for weapons, $15 billion for military training, and $8 billion for pensions. Critics highlight that while American taxpayers fund this, the U.S. faces its own crises. Some lawmakers argue that Ukraine's fight is America's fight, despite evidence of Ukraine's authoritarian practices, including the persecution of Christians. Bob Amsterdam, a lawyer representing the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, describes a climate of fear and oppression in Ukraine, where dissenters face persecution. He emphasizes that U.S. support is enabling these actions, calling for accountability and awareness of the situation on the ground.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: On Saturday, the House of Representatives, the legislative body that writes the laws for our bankrupt country, approved $95,000,000,000 in American tax dollars in foreign aid to Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. Taiwan, by the way, happens to be one of the richest countries in the world. That package, that spending package, passed overwhelmingly 316 to 94. So let's narrow out a piece of it. That would be the 61 $1,000,000,000 that went to Ukraine.
Now, so far, congress has given the Ukrainian government nearly a $174,000,000,000 in munitions and so called aid. Then you add another 60,000,000,000 that Joe Biden gave to Zelensky, and the total is over $230,000,000,000, and that's just the money that was publicly appropriated that we can account for. There's a lot more than that. So let's take a look at what's in the package that just passed on Saturday. The bankrupt country sent across the world to the Ukrainian government.
There's 14,000,000,000 to purchase weapons. There's 15,000,000,000 for military training and intelligence sharing since the US intel agencies are running the Ukrainian intel agencies even as they assassinate people. Then there's $8,000,000,000 for the Ukrainian government, its pensions for its bureaucrats, $8,000,000,000 for its pensions, and then there's a 300,000,000 to help Ukraine secure its border none to secure our border 300,000,000 to help Ukraine secure its border just the priorities are clear that's all real before the vote Nancy Pelosi went on the house floor to demand that our colleagues keep the money flowing to Zelensky If you vote any other way, you're somehow for rape. Watch.
Speaker 1: I hope that our colleagues will choose democracy and decency rather than autocracy and evil, because I fear that if you choose the Putin route, you will have blood on your hands. Blood of the children, blood of their mothers, raped in front of their parents, raped in front of their children.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Vote for this or you have blood on your hands. And by the way, that's a person who's gotten stupendously rich, you wonder how, while serving in the United States Congress. But she's not sending any of her own money to Ukraine. She's sending your money to Ukraine.
So alongside this, the house advanced legislation would allow Biden to place frozen Russian assets in a special slush fund specifically for Ukraine. That'd be $8,000,000,000 worth of material the US government just stole from Russian citizens without a trial. We don't like you. We're taking it. That money currently sits in US bank accounts.
And it's possible not to be cynical that all of this money is being sent to Ukraine because it's much easier for our ruling class to steal once it's offshore. So the bottom line here is that we are at war with Russia and we're doing so on behalf of Ukraine. And why are we doing this? There are several emergencies unfolding in the United States, economic and indeed military were being invaded. But you should not worry about this, says congressman Jerry Conley of Virginia, because we're not actually sending money to a foreign country.
Ukraine is America. Watch.
Speaker 2: Today, we cannot disappoint those who seek what we have, freedom. The freedom to self determine, the freedom to decide their sovereignty and their alliances and their form of government. Some say, well, we have to deal with our border first. The Ukrainian Russian border is our border.
Speaker 0: Right. A democracy that canceled elections. But after the vote passed overwhelmingly, members of congress showed just how closely we are now aligned with Ukraine by waving and cheering and displaying the flags of a foreign government inside the congress. Watch this. Oh, they love Ukraine.
But do they really love Ukraine? Ask any person in that room. How many Ukrainian people? How many soldiers? How many civilians?
How many Ukrainians have died in the war that you are paying for, and not one of them can answer the question. They don't know how many Ukrainians have died. They have no idea because they don't care that's how much they love the Ukrainians. So maybe it's not really about Ukraine. And if you're wondering, take a look at a tweet, a statement sent out by a man called Nate McMurray.
He's a Democrat from New York now running for Congress, and he wrote this, Slava Ukraine, die MAGA, die. You lose. In other words, maybe the real enemy is not the Russian government. Maybe it's you. But it wasn't the Democrats who made this possible.
It was the Republican speaker of the house, Mike Johnson of Louisiana, and he forced this spending bill through he allowed it to come to a vote because he says he is a Christian and his Christian faith requires that requires funding war after the vote Mike Johnson was a little more specific about why he did it watch
Speaker 3: 3 of our primary adversaries Russia and Iran and China are working together and they're being aggressors around the globe and they're a global threat to our prosperity and our security. Their advance threatens their free world, and it demands American leadership. If we turn our backs right now, the consequences could be devastating. So this afternoon, the house acted and we sent over to the senate, and it will be transmitted shortly, our supplemental national security legislation. I've said it very simply.
I'll say it once again. It's an old military adage, but we would rather send bullets, to the conflict overseas than our own boys, our troops. And I think this is an important moment, an important opportunity to make that decision. We allowed the house to do that, and I expect the senate will make the same decision.
Speaker 0: Every word a lie. Of course, we've already sent troops. There are American soldiers in Ukraine right now and more on the way today. We are in a hot war with Russia, and they're gonna tell you that in stages, not all at once. So where's Zelensky as all of this is going on well it shouldn't surprise he's not in the front lines he's on American television laughing in your face here is an NBC right after the vote listen carefully to this so let's he says American taxpayer should be grateful to send 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars from their bankrupt country that is currently being invaded to his country where the money is being stolen.
That's just the price of protecting democracy.
Speaker 1: How long should Americans be expected to fund the war in Ukraine?
Speaker 4: The Americans are not funding the war in Ukraine. 1st and foremost, protect freedom and democracy all over Europe. And Ukraine is fighting, and Ukraine is sending its best sons and daughters to the frontline and de traduces the price for all Europe, for all NATO. It reduces the price for everyone, including the US.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So we're funding
Speaker 4: freedom and democracy when we send 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars to Ukraine.
Speaker 0: Now, of course, if we were defending democracy when we send 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars to Ukraine. Now, of course, if we were defending democracy, we would ask the American people what they think. And if a majority of them oppose this, we wouldn't do it because that's the fundamental democratic principle. Principle. You serve the people you rule because it's their country and they're in charge.
But, of course, that's not at all what's happening. And it does raise the question once again. If we're defending democracy in Ukraine, is Ukraine a democracy, A country that canceled its presidential elections. Well, let's see. In Ukraine, right now, tonight, Christians are being persecuted by the state we're paying for.
For the crime of belonging to the wrong religion, priests are getting thrown in jail. Churches are being seized by the government. Your tax dollars 60,000,000,000 more thanks to Mike Johnson are funding all of this so it's very hard to get information about what is actually happening in Ukraine because the big media outlets lie about it deciduously and have for more than 2 years But one of the most reliable and honest voices on this question is a man called Bob Amsterdam. A little background of Bob Amsterdam. He is a lawyer.
He represents the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. He is not a Ukrainian Orthodox Christian. He is in fact Jewish. I think he's probably pretty liberal. He's not pro Russia.
He is in fact banned from going to Russia. A couple of his friends were murdered in Russia. He is not acting on behalf of the Russian government or even for faith reasons, Ukrainian Orthodox Church. He is one of the rare American attorneys who believes still even in 2024 that human rights are worth protecting, telling the truth is important, and he has, returned in the last month from Ukraine, and we thought it would be worth asking him. What's it actually like there?
We're honored to have, once again, Bob Amsterdam. Bob, thanks so much for coming on. So give us I'll stand back and allow you to give us the overview of what is happening in Ukraine right now.
Speaker 5: Well, thank you, Tucker. And to be transparent, I supported the bill because it is the parishioners of our church who are on the frontline.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 5: And they need all the help they can get. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is a church that is guided and bound by God's words. It is a church that is a 1000 years old and its priests are dedicated to Christ's teachings. And in fact, separated themselves completely from the Russian Orthodox Church in 2022 after the full scale invasion. And I want to make it very clear.
There are studies in Ukraine that demonstrate that our church is exactly as nationalistic and patriotic as the new state church that was founded 5 years ago. However, elements within the government have declared war on the UOC and they have persecuted mercilessly priests, clerics, parishioners. And I knew that it was a tremendous risk to go to Ukraine after having spoken out so strongly against this attack, but I had to go because I had to make sure that given the amount of money the Ukrainians are spending defaming anyone who contradicts their version of reality, I had to make sure that I saw, you know, what was happening on the ground. And after 10 days in Ukraine, I can tell you that there is not a hint of democracy. The country is run by an organization called the SBU, the secret police, heavily infiltrated even today by Russia.
The parliamentary members, I met with 8, they are under incredible pressure from the secret police. In fact, they were all interviewed and interrogated after I left. A number of them had previously been subjected to interrogations. The priests I met, I met a number of them who had been beaten and interrogated in the past. And in fact, one of them, after my meeting with him, had his home raided the next day and he was dealt with so harshly, he suffered a heart attack.
The I was followed everywhere. Ukraine not only has shut the media, but they have become a font of disinformation. They just received well, in fact, they just spent $3,500,000 in Washington to tell Americans that everything they're doing to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church isn't happening. And that in fact, it's the Russians who are persecuting Christians and not them. To which I say, any persecution of Christians is wrongful, but it is to Ukraine that professors democracy and freedom.
And it is Ukraine that has absolutely no semblance of rule of law that is terrorizing its own business community separately targeting wealthy people for expropriation, especially if they have any religious connection to our church. And it is Ukraine that is actively setting the SBU, secret police, on individuals like myself who speak out on behalf of this religion. And let me tell you, since the passage of the bill in the house, Ukraine has gone into full war mode against my church. They are launching a massive PR campaign internally and again, in Washington, attacking the church, attacking me, attacking everyone connected with the church because they can't stand the truth to come out. So what is shameful about our American conduct is what Robert Destro, the former Undersecretary for Human Rights said, which is that some of this targeting of the church came from Washington, that it was partially planned because Washington saw our church, which had a spiritual connection to Russia, as somehow being a threat.
And I want to stress that, that our church is Ukrainian, many of the men on the front line are members of our church who sit there and watch day by day as secret police wearing death masks come and steal their religious home. Imagine how they feel with knowing that their parents and their families are losing their places of worship. And if a new bill is passed, Bill 8371, they won't even be able to gather to pray because the churches will be taken from them, but it may even be a crime for them to meet and pray. This unlimited attack on this historic church is unconscionable and I am absolutely heartbroken that American Christians have not taken up this fight.
Speaker 0: It's disgraceful, and I've expressed that directly to the speaker of the house who says he's a Christian. How can you pay for the persecution Christians with US tax dollars? Are you aware of any and and I just wanna state for the 3rd time. Neither of us speaking right now was orthodox. I don't know much about it.
So it's not like I'm defending my own church. You're not. But why can't Christian leaders, Christian legislators in the United States speak up and say that's just wrong, and we're not gonna send money to a foreign country to build a tyranny as they have and persecute Christians? Like, why is that hard?
Speaker 5: You know, it's interesting. I actually defended this church 40 years ago in one of my first cases where we fought the KGB that was trying to take over a church in Canada. So I've studied orthodoxy over the years and there is absolutely no reason why any Christian of any denomination would hesitate at all. And in fact, it's important for you to know that the majority of orthodox denominations recognize our church and they do not recognize the state church. The state church is heavily patriotic, heavily nationalistic.
Our church is focused solely on god. It is focused solely on the spiritual realm.
Speaker 0: So you said that this legislation passes Saturday, and today's Monday, the the real crackdown on the church begins. It sounds like there's a connection between those those two facts.
Speaker 5: Listen, we've been working for weeks to file a document, which I'm going to announce on your show. We're filing a document with the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. This is going to be available publicly to everyone. It's a lengthy document that urges the United States government to find Ukraine a country of particular concern because of their attacks on religious freedom. The Holy Synod of the Church of England has condemned Ukraine.
Not only that, the United Nations continuously condemns Ukraine for their attacks on Christians. So why it takes the Church of England to stand up, but American churches and evangelists have not, that again is is a question that defies logic.
Speaker 0: So you said you were for the the bill that passed on Saturday. I'm glad you said that. Of course, you and I disagree on that, which I think gives you more credibility in this conversation. But let me ask you about the connection between the secret police force that you say effectively runs Ukraine now and the US intel services. We know that they have assassinated people, a number of people, including America.
They've tried to assassinate Americans. I can say that conclusively. Could they be doing those kinds of things without the knowledge of the US government?
Speaker 5: No. And and as I said, there is an argument and I don't want to spend time on today. There is an argument that the U. S. Government is in a way behind an attack on Christians.
It goes down to some decisions that were made in 2014 about the danger of the church. And let me be clear, Putin does instrumentalize the Russian Orthodox Church. In our case, that instrumentalization does not occur. Our leaders have been very specific and clear about it. They are Ukrainian patriots.
I was shocked by how many of them didn't even speak Russian. But most important to understand is, we are a church. We are not political players. Bishop Onofre is a man of God. Our leaders are men of God and they only want to tend to their flock.
And important to note, our church is a church that set up 70 parishes outside of Ukraine to tend to refugees and the man who set up those parishes is under investigation and interrogation and harassment today. That father is under harassment because he dared speak out at a meeting of the Council of European Churches and tell that council what the truth was And he was immediately detained. He was immediately harassed by the secret police. And no Western newspaper has covered the power of the secret police. And it is to your credit that you've allowed us on to speak to facts that no one seems to understand in the West.
Speaker 0: And very few people who are not hard partisans have gone to Ukraine, actually. I and it's dangerous to go to Ukraine. More day for me, it would be much more dangerous than going to Moscow, I would say. And so I I I wonder what it feels like when you're there. I mean, we keep hearing it's this beacon of freedom in the region, in the world.
That's why we're sending them 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars. Does it feel like a free country when you're there?
Speaker 5: No. I mean and you're talking to somebody who's traveled in Russia defending, opponents of Putin
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 5: Which I I still do. I still defend opponents even though I'm I'm banned, but exactly the opposite. I was followed everywhere, talk about disinformation, a TV crew set upon me after I had a meeting with the government and then put on TV that I represented the Russian patriarch as opposed to the Ukrainian patriarch. And also, by the way, he gave out my hotel location. So no, it felt like this was a full on intimidation.
And I regularly represent opposition groups. I'm banned in 7 countries for representing opposition groups and fighting for human rights. And I will tell you that it is rare to feel the level of oppression and fear, and I've never seen parliamentarians as cowed and as frightened as I saw in the Rada of Ukraine. So all of this talk of democracy is complete farce and how we continue to listen to this and how we don't try to build up Ukrainian institutions and why our business people are talking about investing in Ukraine without getting guarantees about rule of law. All of this defies imagination.
Speaker 0: Are are you an American? I assume.
Speaker 5: Yes. I am.
Speaker 0: How does it I mean, how does it make you feel? The the US State Department, the administration, the Congress too, but the US government basically takes over Ukraine. We're paying for the pensions. So, I mean, that's a that's a high level of of control, and this is what we get. We get an authoritarian state that assassinates people and where legislators are afraid?
Speaker 5: Listen, you know, to be very frank about it, I'm also a student of
Speaker 4: of
Speaker 5: history. And I keep going back to what we did in the '50s, which was basically decide we were going to support autocrats and he may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch. I think the issue for us is I would have thought by now we'd have learned that what we need to invest in are institutions. And, you know, our government has forgotten the concept of rule of law. We've sanctioned everybody and their brother who looks or smells Russian, even if they're opponents of Vladimir Putin.
We have we have lost the sense of rule of law. And by the way, the Ukrainian sanctioned people so they can steal their assets and so they can make sure political opponents stay silent or they'll lose their means of support. It is in fact, somebody is on trial, a guy named Shilo. He is on trial in Ukraine for vast corruption and no one's talking about his relationship to the presidential administration. So this ongoing predation, corporate So this ongoing predation, corporate rating, rating of churches, which the Ukrainians have pioneered, this this illegal rating of churches is something I've never seen.
And if you go to our website, save the UOC, you will see 100 and 100 of churches and parishioners crying and screaming and priests being beaten, and these are our allies. These are the people we're funding, which we aren't even man enough to have the leverage to say, you know, could you stop beating up Christians for a little while, and could you perhaps protect minorities? I mean, I won't I can't even begin to tell you the number of journalists who have told me it's okay with them that these churches are being stolen because, you know, your guys are Russian sympathizers. My god. Firstly, they're not.
Secondly, you know what? Even if, god forbid, there were a few, there were, you use the courts and investigations and the presumption of innocence. You don't close down a 1000 year old church and sentence millions of Ukrainians to losing their houses of worship during a time of war.
Speaker 0: And and look, in a free country, you don't punish people. You're not allowed to punish people for their attitudes. You punish them for their actions. So if they're working against the Ukrainian state, I think the Ukrainian state has a right to protect itself from that. But if they have bad attitudes in a free country, there's nothing you can do about it because you can't criminalize a person's conscience.
Speaker 5: Let's talk about attitude. You know, god god save them. Of the 60 clergy who had been killed in this war, half were UOC. The only priest on trial in Moscow today is a UOC priest who was assisting the Ukrainians. None of this gets mentioned.
None of this gets discussed. Why? And let's be very clear. We're dealing with Tammany Hall politics. We're not dealing with fear of Russians.
The Zelensky government has lost part of its its electoral base in the east and now has to has to basically appeal more to the west and the more nationalist elements. So this is sort of a grudge match and they're going to take down this church. They're gonna view it as a victory to take down this church and defeat Christ's children because they think they'll pick up votes. That's how cynical this is. It has nothing to do with the Russian threat because if there was a real Russian threat, they produce evidence.
They are unable to produce evidence, so they produce sanctions, which they administer with absolutely no cause and no evidence. I I wanna ask you about about where the
Speaker 0: money is going. So Saturday night, I happen to have dinner with, some Ukrainians, Ukrainian born Ukrainian speakers, very nice people, and they have raised money for the last 2 years to send to troops in Ukraine. And and they go back and forth from between the US and Ukraine. And they told me that there are no bandages in frontline field hospitals in Ukraine, and that the basic necessities, mittens, holsters for side arms, all of which they have supplied are not there. And so it raises the question if you're getting 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars to support your troops, why don't the troops have bandages in their field hospitals?
Speaker 5: You know, Tucker, I will tell you, I haven't studied, this deeply other than a number of my clients have had their assets stolen for absolutely no legitimate reason other than the government that has people there that likes and covet their assets. But I will tell you that Ukrainian corruption before the war was at some of the highest levels known to mankind. So nothing about the distribution of funds after the war would surprise me. In fact, there's an EU audit that actually talks about the grotesque level of corruption and war profiteering. So again, one of the things I would say about any aid to Ukraine is I hope it is monitored.
I hope there are audits. I hope somebody is watching where the money is going so that it goes to the troops. I know that they spent $3,500,000 to try to justify their closure of these churches and deflect attention from that. They use $3,500,000 recently, which should have gone to the troops, should have gone to defending their homeland. They use that to carpet bomb Washington and people like me who were defending the church.
Speaker 0: So in other words, your tax dollars are being used to defame you through sleazy PR agencies and lobbyists in Washington. That's what you're saying?
Speaker 5: Oh, absolutely. And I mean, it's happening daily. But, you know, they're defaming me. That's okay. But defaming the church, defaming men of God who are facing arrest, some journalists for the Ukrainian church are facing life sentences for reporting the truth about the activities of the government in seizing churches and jailing priests.
These young men, they are in a cell, a cell right now where there are 20 beds for 28 men. They don't they have to revolve their sleeping. These their crime is they've reported on church seizures.
Speaker 0: It's, what what you're saying is shocking. Last question. Where the hell is the state department, which is supposed to be monitoring human rights?
Speaker 5: Let let me tell you. As I said, we we're file we're filing this, we're filing this in the next few days. We hope the State Department will wake up. I've certainly met with them. I've certainly seen that they are entirely drinking the Kool Aid.
We've developed a bit of a cult of personality about the leadership in Ukraine.
Speaker 0: I've noticed.
Speaker 5: And it is time for our reporters to wake up and start reporting on the Shiloh case, the levels of corruption that are going on, and, obviously, the attack on this church.
Speaker 0: Bobby Amsterdam, you're a brave man, and I appreciate you telling us all of this. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Thank you for having me.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
reSee.it AI Summary
I explored the story of Andrey Melnichenko, a prominent Russian oligarch targeted by the Biden administration. I discussed his background, the reasons behind his sanctions, and how Putin's leadership has transformed Russia. I pondered the potential for nuclear conflict and whether Donald Trump could mitigate escalating tensions. The Russia-China alliance and Melnichenko's international bans were also examined. I reflected on the implications of Putin's potential disappearance, the challenges of climate change, and the perceived lack of strong leadership in the West, questioning humanity's future and the actions of climate activists.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Andrey Melnichenko is one of those fabled “Russian oligarchs” the Biden administration has decided to rob and destroy. Here’s his story. (1:57) Who Is Andrey Melnichenko? (5:17) Why Is Andrey Melnichenko Being Sanctioned? (26:56) How Did Putin Change Russia? (34:54) Are We on the Cusp of Nuclear War? (42:33) Can Donald Trump Stop This Escalation? (44:44) The Russia/China Alliance (46:41) How Many Countries Is Melnichenko Banned From? (52:34) What Would Happen if Putin Disappeared? (58:05) Climate Change (1:44:05) Why Is There a Lack of Strong Leaders in the West? (1:51:47) Is Humanity in Danger? (1:54:21) Climate Activists Destroying Art
reSee.it AI Summary
I had an insightful interview with Mike Benz, covering various topics. We discussed 'The Blob' and its influence on international censorship, including connections to the 2014 Ukraine situation. We explored the implications of Elon Musk's role in the free speech debate and the threats of DHS censorship. The conversation also touched on progress in Congress, strategies to gain power over tech companies, and the complexities surrounding Burisma and Ukraine. Finally, we delved into the broader implications for free speech on the internet and the looming specter of World War 3.
@ShawnRyan762 - Shawn Ryan
My interview with @MikeBenzCyber. Chapter Markers: 00:00 - Introduction 13:11 - 'The Blob' 19:07 - 2014 Censorship & the Ukraine connection 29:00 - Influencing international censorship policy 32:35 - The power of ‘The Blob’ 48:06 - Elon/X free speech proxy war 55:43 - DHS censorship threats 1:30:17 - Headway in Congress 1:42:20 - How do we gain power over tech companies? 1:51:24 - Tim Walz China connection 1:56:38 - Burisma & why we’re in Ukraine 2:29:14 - Free speech on the internet 2:37:21 - World War 3
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a series of posts highlighting significant stories that the media overlooked. Tucker Carlson expressed concerns about a potential world war as a means to silence Trump. Whoopi Goldberg urged caution against fearmongering about Trump. Axios CEO defended traditional media against Elon Musk's claims about social media. A CBS poll showed 59% approval for Trump's transition. Stephen A. Smith criticized the Democratic Party's weak position. Other posts discussed nuclear weapons for Ukraine, mRNA vaccine concerns, and allegations of aid mismanagement in Ukraine.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
10 Shocking Stories the Media Buried Today #10 - Tucker Carlson warns that the Deep State has decided that WW3 is the only way to stop Trump from exposing their crimes. “Those people, out of options, have decided the only way to stop Trump and... having their crimes revealed is with a world war,” Carlson said. Carlson explained that Permanent Washington doesn’t care about domestic policy or making the country better. Instead, they only care about foreign policy because “k*lling people” makes them “feel like God” and “that’s where the money is.” “I remain deeply concerned that this group, which includes nearly everyone in DC from both parties, wants Trump to take the country to war—either against Russia or, far more likely, Iran,” Carlson warned, emphasizing, “A war with Iran is a world war.” He explained that Iran is now aligned with some of the world’s largest economies and most powerful militaries. As such, “A war with Iran means a war, in effect or by proxy, with Russia, China, Turkey, and much of the rest of the world. So that’s a world war.” Meanwhile, despite a mandate from the American people to an end to the war in Ukraine, the current regime is now considering the unthinkable—arming Ukraine with nuclear weapons. (See 9 More Revealing Stories Below)
Video Transcript AI Summary
Concerns are growing that those opposed to Trump, having exhausted other means to undermine him, may resort to instigating a world war to prevent his return to power and the potential exposure of their actions. The focus of Washington is on foreign policy and military power rather than domestic issues like border control or the drug crisis. A war with Iran, which is now allied with major global powers, could escalate into a world war involving Russia and China. The ongoing situation in Ukraine is seen as a failure, with no clear victory in sight. Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran or Russia lacks the wisdom necessary for leadership.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I am very concerned that the people who have hated Trump for 8 years and run out of ways to destroy him, indicting him well, first calling him a racist, spying on him with the federal intel agencies, sicking the FBI on him, trying to put him in prison, then trying to kill him at least twice, probably more, actually, but at least twice. And, that those people, out of options, have decided the only way to stop Trump and the disclosure that a Trump administration will bring. Once again, disclosure is what they fear, having their crimes revealed. That the only way to stop Trump is with a world war. And, so I've been pretty fixated on that for for months, probably more than a year.
I've just thought a lot about it, and I know a lot of the people involved, and they're very, very, very focused on war. Permanent Washington doesn't care about domestic policy in case, like, case your viewers, I'm sure, know this, but just wanna restate it. They don't care about domestic policy. They don't care about fixing the country, closing the borders, ending the drug crisis, getting the cartels out of, you know, the entire southwest. They don't care about that.
What they care about is exercising power abroad, killing people because it makes them feel like God and making money. And that's where the money is, 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars. So they care about foreign policy. And I have been concerned and remain concerned that that group of people, which is basically everyone in DC in both parties, wants Trump to take the country to war either against Russia or, comma, far more likely, comma, Iran. And I think what people outside I I don't I don't know how to to the degree which is understood, but I just will say it.
A war with Iran is a world war. This is not 2,002. Iran is now part of a coalition that includes the biggest economies in the world and the largest militaries in the world. So a war with Iran means a war in effect or, you know, by proxy, but still a war with Russia, China, Turkey, and a lot of the rest of the world. So that's a world war.
It's not just as simple as we're gonna take out their nuclear facilities. Okay. How are you gonna do that? And how are you gonna how are you going to ensure that that doesn't destroy the United States in the process? Of course, they they don't care whether it destroys United States.
That that's the actual answer. They don't care. And if they cared, they would pause and think about it. But, anyway, I don't wanna be bitter about it. But to me, it's really simple.
Anybody who would even consider having a war with Russia or Iran should not be in any position of power at all in this administration or any other administration. It's super simple. And I and I think especially Ukraine is so obvious. Now there is some debate on Iran, and I'm not, of course, I'm not endorsing Iran. I'm not a Shiite.
But there's really no debate at this point about the debacle that has been Ukraine. Ukraine's not gonna win. It's just completely destroyed Ukraine. It hasn't crushed Russia. It's really hurt the United States.
So anyone who can't say that out loud should not have a job in the federal bureaucracy. So that's my litmus test. It's not about people or personality. Of course, I know them all as I know you do too, and I and I like a lot of them. I even like some of the guys I disagree with.
One in particular, I like very much. Nice guy. Good guy. But it's just a it's a simple practical test for whether or not you should wield power. Do you have the requisite wisdom to lead my country?
And if you're still defending the war in Ukraine, you do not have the requisite wisdom to lead my country. That's my opinion.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#9 - Whoopi Goldberg unexpectedly SHUTS DOWN co-host’s attempt to fearmonger about Trump before he even takes office. ANA NAVARRO: “I'm not going to wait and see. I mean, this guy has told us he's a retribution. He's going to be a dictator.” WHOOPI GOLDBERG: “There's nothing to be done until you know what you're fighting. Pissing in the wind doesn't help—you just get a wet face.” ANA NAVARRO: “What I'm saying is I have no false expectations that at 78, he's going to, all of a sudden, turn into another human being. I spent weeks telling people that he was apocalyptic. I'm not going to change now.” WHOOPI GOLDBERG: “You lose credibility in many different ways. If you don't know what you're talking about and you accuse him of something, then they're going to blow it back. That's why I say we need to wait and see.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
We're all in a position of waiting and observing, but I refuse to just sit back. This individual isn't going to change, and I won't mislead others about his nature. I've spent time warning people about the potential dangers he poses, and I stand by that. Reacting to every situation with anger diminishes credibility. It's crucial to approach this carefully; if we make unfounded accusations, it can backfire. We need to be clear about what we’re dealing with before taking action.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I think what what we're all saying is we're gonna sit and watch. We're gonna wait and see because we can't do anything else except I'm not gonna wait and see. I mean, this guy is What do you want? He's not gonna have your attention. He's not gonna be doing what are you doing?
Like, he's not nothing to be done until you know what you're fighting. It's it's pissing in the wind doesn't help. You just get a wet face. But I mean, I'm not I have no what I'm saying is I have no false expectations that at 78, he's going to all of a sudden turn into a another human and everything. And I'm not gonna spend my people tune out.
I spent weeks telling people that he was apocalyptic. I'm not going to change now. No. It's not just getting mad. Treating every single single thing like a fire.
Lose credibility. Well, here's the thing. You lose credibility in many different ways. If you don't know what you're talking about and you accuse him of something, then then they're gonna blow it back. That's why I say, we need to wait and see exactly what you're gonna do.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#8 - Axios CEO melts down over Elon Musk telling 𝕏 users, “You are the media now” — mounts passionate defense of dying legacy media "My message to Elon Musk is b*llshit. You're not the media!" The MSNBC panel applauds: “Social media people lying every day, every hour, every minute about the news, what you do matters. What the New York Times does matters. What the Wall Street Journal does matters." They are incensed that 𝕏 exposes their lies — one reason their industry is in total collapse. Credit: @WesternLensman
Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon Musk claims that everyone is the media, but having a Twitter account and a blue checkmark doesn't make someone a reporter. True journalism requires hard work and dedication, not just opinions shared online.
It's crucial to recognize the value of professional journalism amidst the misinformation spread on social media. The efforts of reporters and editors at reputable outlets like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and NBC News are significant. Their work is essential to providing accurate news and countering the false narratives proliferating online.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Everything we do is under fire. Elon Musk sits on Twitter every day or x today saying, like, we are the media. You are the media. My message to Elon Musk is bull. You're not the media.
You having thank you. You having a blue check mark, a Twitter handle and 300 words of cleverness doesn't make you a reporter. You don't do that by popping off on Twitter. You don't do that by having an opinion. You do it by doing the hard work.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Come on. So clap everyone.
Speaker 0: Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah.
Speaker 1: First of all, I've gotta say, extraordinary content, it needed to be said. Yeah. It continues to need to be said when all of the garbage is flying around on social media, lying about reporters, lying about the hard work they do, lying about the hard work editors do, lying about everything up and down about not only their alternative set of facts, but alternative set of facts about what people like you do. Or or if social media people lying every day, every hour, every minute about the news, what you do matters. What The New York Times does matters.
What The Wall Street Journal does matters. What Jonathan Lemire does matters. What The Financial Times does matters. What NBC News and MSNBC reporters do matters. It matters.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#7 - Trump Transition Has 59% Approval in CBS News Poll President-elect Donald Trump's incoming administration starts off with mostly good will from the public: a majority of Americans overall are either happy or at least satisfied that he won and are either excited or optimistic about what he'll do as president. Trump's handling of his presidential transition gets approval from most Americans overall and brings near-universal approval from his voters, along with a net-positive response about his selections for Cabinet posts, in particular, Sen. Marco Rubio, who is Trump's pick to be secretary of state. Overall, Republicans today are more excited about what Trump will do as president now than they were in 2016 when he was first elected. Read More: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-trump-transition-cabinet-picks-2024-11-24/
Video Transcript AI Summary
A recent CBS News YouGov poll shows that 60% of Americans approve of Donald Trump's transition efforts. This indicates a desire for political stability, contrasting with the turmoil during his previous election. With Republicans controlling the presidency, House, and Senate, it's essential for Democrats to cooperate rather than obstruct. While they can serve as a loyal opposition, excessive resistance could backfire politically. The American public is calling for action, and Trump and the Republicans should respond to this mandate.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, the first thing I would point out is that in the CBS News YouGov poll that was released this morning, 60% of the American people approve of the way Donald Trump is handling his transition so far. So with all the picks and all the news that's come out of Mar a Lago, there is widespread approval, from the American people that, hey. It seems like it's going okay. We need a couple of years of political peace in this country. When Donald Trump got elected, there was no peace, and it was constant dragging him down and investigations that were bogus and so on and so forth.
This government needs to be allowed to operate. Republicans won the election. They have the presidency. They have the house. They have the senate.
Democrats need to fall in line here a little bit. They could be loyal opposition, but that doesn't mean you have to be totally obstructive. I think if they are, it's gonna hurt them politically. The American people said we need some action, and they and Donald Trump and the Republicans ought to be able to, take that action. It's the mandate delivered by the American people.
CBS News poll finds Trump starts on positive note as most approve of transition handling
Democrats say they're concerned or scared Trump will threaten their rights, but fewer than half feel motivated to oppose him.
cbsnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#6 - Stephen A. Smith admits Democrats got their “ass kicked” this election, and to make matters worse, “they have no bullpen.” “A blind man could see the Democrats got their ass kicked.” The problem with the Democrats, Stephen A. says, is that they “greased the skids” on the Democratic process. While Republicans chose Trump because that’s who they genuinely wanted, Democrats sabotaged Bernie Sanders in 2016 simply because it was Hillary’s “turn.” Now, the Democrats’ bench is so weak that they seriously entertained running an 82-year-old (Biden) as their top option. “What are you thinking [with Biden]? And then I looked at the bullpen, and they had no one. They had no one. They had no one that could compete with Donald Trump,” Smith concluded.
Video Transcript AI Summary
That was a thorough defeat for the Democrats, similar to a boxing match where one side clearly dominated. The Republicans have consistently supported Trump despite his controversies, while the Democrats seem to have chosen their candidates through manipulation rather than voter preference. Biden's rise was aided by figures like Clyburn, and despite expectations of a Republican wave in the midterms, he emerged victorious. Now, with Biden running for reelection at 82, many question the party's judgment. The Democrats lack a strong contender to compete with Trump, especially in terms of charisma, which is crucial in politics.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That was an ass kicking. It really, really was. And when you see stuff like that, you know, Canelo Alvarez, triple g Sounds
Speaker 1: like what happened to the Democrat.
Speaker 0: I did that. How about that? And you know what? And then, yeah, that wasn't ass kicking. That was if we're being honest about it, it was a thorough ass kicking.
Ain't no way around it, Bill. Alright. I mean, you know more politics than me, but damn it. Yeah. A blind man can see the democrats got their ass kicked.
Yeah. It was like, you know what? I like that analogy. Democrats similar to Terrence Crawford, Errol Smith junior. Yep.
That works.
Speaker 1: I mean Who's
Speaker 0: that kinda asking?
Speaker 1: It won't work on a lot of people like me who don't know who these people are.
Speaker 2: Right. Why why do you think it
Speaker 1: is that that, boxing became a sport that I was always interested in when it was Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier and even up to, you know, who got his ear bit off
Speaker 0: of Like Tyson of Holyfield.
Speaker 1: Holyfield. Tyson of Holyfield. And it's been years now. Is that because UFC
Speaker 0: Combination of 2. Number 1, you can and I love the fact that you made that analogy because the kinda ass kicking that the democrats just received is similar to a lot of that stuff. I would tell
Speaker 1: you they should do about it? The democrats? Yeah.
Speaker 0: How about having some how about listen, I like Westmore mayor governor of Maryland, but, you know, you have to use your baseball analogy, you have no bullpen. Who is it? Trump's been the the Republican nominee since 2016.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay? It is clear that that's who conservatives want in the White House. Okay? That's who they supported. They didn't give a damn about 34 indictments.
They didn't give a damn about 2 impeachments. They didn't give a damn about all the legal issues and the law fit that the Democrats engaged in. They said, Joe, that's who we want. The this is the difference, and I said this to a lot
Speaker 2: of people, Bill. The the conservative said, we want that guy. That's who we want. And
Speaker 0: the voters decided who the Republican nominee is going
Speaker 2: to be. When you look
Speaker 0: at the Democrats, they didn't do it with Obama. That's true. Okay? They did what? They greased the skids.
This is the person we want. It's her turn. It was Hillary's turn in 2016.
Speaker 1: Alright, Biden. Not Obama. Obama earned it.
Speaker 0: No. No. That's what I said. He earned it. But in 20 and I'm not even trying
Speaker 2: to imply that They voted. Hillary
Speaker 1: ran in the primaries.
Speaker 2: I'm not
Speaker 0: trying to I'm not even trying to imply that she but remember, they they were complaining that Bernie Sanders had some momentum and was compromised by the Democratic Party because they were saying it was Hillary's turn.
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders Remember that? Bernie Sanders, I love him, but he's too far left, and he would have been a bigger disaster than Kamala was.
Speaker 0: That's fine. But what I'm saying to you is still an oil bill. What I would and and I oh, shoot. It's rare that I disagree with you. What I'm saying is the only thing
Speaker 2: I will push back on is that's fine,
Speaker 0: but that's for the voter to decide. Right. And a lot of times, the Democratic Party seems as if they've got their claws in the mix. Take Biden for example. Okay.
So, you know, Clyburn helps him get through South Carolina. He ultimately goes to the Democratic nomination. He's the Democratic nominee for the president. He ultimately wins the election. There was supposed to be a red wave in 2022 in the midterms.
The Republicans didn't pull that off, and Biden is feeling himself and saying
Speaker 2: I ain't going anywhere. I'm not gonna
Speaker 0: I I I told y'all
Speaker 2: I was gonna be a
Speaker 0: transitional president. I told y'all I was gonna be a one term dude. I'm just here as a stopgap. Pave the way for the future of the of the Democratic party, And then all of
Speaker 2: a sudden, he had all the power of that power.
Speaker 1: He was a veritable John the Baptist.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. He was the guy who goes before. Come on, bro.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Bill, the the the point is is that your ass was gonna be 82 years old in the White House. Come on now. And then I I I I'll never forget this. Bill, I swear to you.
I love your show real time. I'm a huge fan. I watch it every chance I get. I have never
Speaker 1: No. Real fans watch it every week. You watch it every chance
Speaker 0: you get.
Speaker 1: I'm just fucking with
Speaker 0: it. Because I got multiple jobs. But here's the deal, Bill. But I Tivo it.
Speaker 2: I mean,
Speaker 0: that's about the DVR in rather. That's Tivo. Tivo. DVR.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna send you a telegram
Speaker 2: about that.
Speaker 0: You told him what's up. Here's the deal, man. I have never wanted to be on your show more than I wanted to
Speaker 2: be on your show when Biden announced that he
Speaker 0: was gonna run for reelection. Because I'm like this. What y'all gonna say now? This is some straight bullshit. You got a situation where you won you won the midterm.
You denied, you halted
Speaker 2: on you you warded off
Speaker 0: the red wave, and you,
Speaker 2: knowing you're gonna
Speaker 0: be 81 in election time, knowing you're gonna be 82 in office. Right? It wasn't I'm sorry. It wasn't the midterm. It was when the State of the Union address took place.
And I saw these people remember, the liberals, you so what do you call yourself progressives?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Oh, so you're looking forward
Speaker 0: with a dude that's gonna be 82 and would leave office when he's 86. Really, y'all? I'm sitting there like, you got to
Speaker 2: be shit me. This is
Speaker 0: what you're talking about? And I'm like, I knew I wasn't voting for Trump. I knew that wasn't gonna happen, but I was saying to myself, what are you thinking? What are you thinking? This and then I looked at the open.
Speaker 2: They had no one. They had no one. They had no one that could compete with Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Well, not on a charisma level. Fair.
Speaker 2: Okay. Fair enough.
Speaker 1: No way. Well, charisma is
Speaker 2: what gets you both, bruh.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
While you’re here, don’t forget to follow (@VigilantFox) and hit the bell 🔔 for more daily news roundups.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#5 - US officials looking at giving nuclear weapons to Ukraine. https://vigilantnews.com/post/us-officials-discussed-giving-nuclear-weapons-to-ukraine/
US Officials Looking at Giving Nuclear Weapons to Ukraine
Extremely concerning!
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#4 - Australians Stunned by Professor Dalgleish on Sky News: mRNA Vaccines Linked to Unbelievable Damage Dalgleish minced no words in criticizing the hasty implementation and widespread use of mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. He expressed grave concerns about these vaccines, stating, “These vaccines were not vaccines, particularly the ones that ended up after AstraZeneca with all the clots, and they were shut down. But the messenger RNA vaccines of Pfizer and Moderna have caused unbelievable problems and damage to people, and I don't think we will ever really be able to get over that!” Read More: https://www.aussie17.com/p/australians-stunned-by-professor
Video Transcript AI Summary
The lockdowns during the COVID pandemic were unnecessary and caused significant harm, with Australia following a global trend except for Sweden. The rollout of vaccines, particularly mRNA vaccines, has led to severe side effects, including an increase in cancer cases. Vaccinating children, who are at low risk from COVID, was especially misguided, as it was primarily aimed at protecting others. The vaccines were misrepresented as safe and effective, despite evidence to the contrary. The pandemic response appears to have been a controlled experiment, with significant negligence from health authorities. The origins of the virus point to a lab escape, raising further concerns about accountability and transparency in the handling of the pandemic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now joining us now to discuss the COVID pandemic. We haven't talked about that for a while, so let's get stuck into it with Angus Dalglish, the Emeritus professor of oncology at the University of London and principal of the Institute of Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy. Angus, great to have you on already. Your title is making me nervous. Tell me, what is the single there's so many things, and you're you're an expert on this.
So many things that Australia did wrong around COVID from lockdowns and mask mandates to vaccine mandates. What for you now with hindsight, the benefit of hindsight, admittedly, what is the single worst thing Australia Australian governments inflicted on the Australian people during COVID?
Speaker 1: Well, the first thing I would say was the lockdown. There was absolutely no need for this, and I think it was universally agreed, that everybody who's looked at this, and this seems to have been a controlled initiative, initiative, like, around the world. Everybody did it except Sweden. And I got I really admire Angus Tignall, the chief medical officer there who said, no. They're not doing it.
We'll cause far more harm than anything else. But I think we're here today to discuss, you know, the the the dreadful use of vaccines and the mandates that have caused so much problem. And it's very clear now that, why on earth did they do this? I mean, I have no idea because from the very beginning, these vaccines were not vaccines, particularly the ones that ended up after AstraZeneca with all the clots, and they were shut down. But the messenger RNA vaccines of Pfizer and Moderna, of course, unbelievable problems and damage to people, and I don't think we will ever really be able to get over that.
I mean, the the whole concept I challenged from day 1, I said, you know, right from beginning, this virus escaped from the laboratory. It has 6 inserts that could only have been put in manually. My peers said, well, this can occur randomly. I said, no. Once, but not 6 times.
This has been it. Yeah. And the most important thing, we said that the vie the vaccine was 80% homologous to humans, so it was bound to cause major side effects. Now why did everybody go along with it? I mean, we we informed everybody, the government through the 5 eyes process that this would happen, but everybody ignored it.
So why did this happen? And now we know that it's even worse than that, that the vaccines were the quality control was appalling. They changed the mechanism of manufacture between the trial and the rollout of that 6,000,000,000 people. This thing was full of contaminants. It was full of sequences that can actually get into your genome, and and my big concern is that a lot of them explain why, that couple of years into this epidemic, we still have massive excess deaths.
Excess deaths in Australia, New Zealand, and everywhere. And a lot of these now are due to cancer, and that's basically what I want to discuss here. The red flags are so enormous. Why has the government not banned these vaccines immediately? For a start, probably it doesn't exist anymore.
And if it does, it doesn't kill anybody anymore. So why are you using vaccines, boosters that we now know increase the rate of cancer, and the cancers are appalling. They're turbo cancers.
Speaker 2: Oh, that's terrifying because not only did everybody go along with this, we were forced to take it. If you wanted to keep your job, if you wanted to travel, if you wanted to enter a shopping mall and buy essential things, you you had to do this. And not just adults, but children. In Victoria, we had kids who couldn't enter clothing stores, who couldn't go, to just everyday places without their vaccine pass, without, so what is gonna be the impact on children who are at the lowest risk from COVID? We knew that from the start, who've been forced to take these vaccines.
Will we even know the full extent of the damage that's being caused to some of these kids?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I think this is right. It was draconian, dystopian, and totally unnecessary. I mean, I criticized our own chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, and I'll use the words again as a total moron. He basically wanted to vaccinate our children in order to protect their grandparents. So in that one sentence, he's telling you nothing about vaccines.
You only vaccinate to protect somebody else. You do not vaccinate to protect other people. And by that sentence, he said, well, the vaccines didn't work because
Speaker 3: all the grandparents and parents are
Speaker 1: already being vaccinated. It was unbelievably stupid. No child died of COVID unless they had some underlying condition like, leukemia. It was absolutely a hurt that they would even think of this, and they were pushed into this by Pfizer and all the people that Pfizer and Moderna wanted to get this into everybody. These were not vaccines.
These were horrible gene therapies that could actually integrate into your genome, and this is one of the reasons we're seeing this horrendous rise in turbo cancers. I am terrified what they have done to my children. I think everybody who went along to that should actually stand up to try and defend themselves and go to court. This is unbelievable. They, incompetence, medical negligence, everything, and nobody is accepting responsibility for this.
It is unbelievable case of cognitive dissonance, and I hold everybody to account. I hold the chief medical officers to account, the chief scientific officers to account. They're so called in the UK. We had Sage, one of the most inappropriate, ever. But, you know, let me it it it's unbelievable to have to now I I cannot believe the MHRA and the TGA and the FDA, the level of incompetence and negligence, and they have to be held.
This is neuroboat trial stuff. They are so old. Now we know about the contamination. Your TGA have stood up and said, oh, we've done this little study, that study, what have you, but it doesn't really matter because they're safe and effective. They started with the mandate that these vaccines were safe and effective.
No. They were never ever effective. The very I've looked at the first submissions of Pfizer to the FDA. There was no evidence that they were effective whatsoever. Oh, no.
Basically, hope. And they were never ever safe. And the the first mandate sorry. The the first submission of Pfizer showed that they caused every single side effect you could ever possibly want, and yet the FDA still approved them. And the TGA and the MHRA went along with it.
This was absolutely criminal measures. Their job was to say, are they safe? Are they effective? No. They were not.
And, yes, they signed off on it.
Speaker 3: Professor, professor, you know, we had in Australia, and I know a lot of other countries had pandemic plans put together a long time before this happened, and none of them called for lockdowns. And yet pretty much every nation went along with the lockdown plan except for Sweden, which did very well, comparatively when you look at it. Why do you think so many nations like Australia all went in with this, you know, in the wake of this pandemic that we know was caused by a virus that was done in a lab that was doing research that was paid for by the US to get around its own
Speaker 1: restrictions. Well, I totally agree. As I said, we we my colleagues and I were the first to point out that this escaped my lab, there was no other explanation. There was 6 positive charge in this, virus. 2 of them had been previously published out of the Wuhan in West Medley Leadership.
So why did they cover up? Why did they do the lockdown? Why did they do the mandate? I'm sorry that I couldn't believe that my peers in humanity will descend to such lows. They this basically the whole thing was planned.
The whole lockdown was an experiment in control, And, there was this man, Hacken Project, and his department of defense, they were doing this genetic engineering, which Obama quite rightly said should never have been done as a gamer function. Fauci was told not to do it. So what did he do? He got it done elsewhere, including the William Ham, a laboratory in China, and he lied, I believe, Rand Paul, how did Mark O'Neill. The greatest thing that's happened is that, Robert f Kennedy has written a brilliant book about how evil Fauci is, the real Anthony Fauci.
Well, and If he gets into power in January, this whole thing, I believe, will be over. He will basically hold the walls of account for this because I believe this is the greatest trial of the century, what happened over this.
Speaker 0: Well, professor Dalglish, I agree with you. It'll be fascinating once Robert Kennedy gets there into, into a seated power, and it'll be absolutely fascinating. Thank you so much for your insights. I will point out that the TGA would would disagree with you on excess mortality. They would argue that that's due to people missing diagnosis and so on, but I I can imagine your response to that.
We don't have time for it, but I think, your views are perfectly clear, and you've argued that case brilliantly. Thank you so much, professor.
Australians Stunned by Professor Dalgleish on Sky News: mRNA Vaccines Linked to Unbelievable Damage
"The messenger RNA vaccines of Pfizer and Moderna have caused unbelievable problems and damage to people"
aussie17.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#3 - Rand Paul Warns Denver Mayor Who Threatened Trump on Deportations: You Will Lose, and You Will Be Removed Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) issued a rather stern warning to Denver Mayor Mike Johnston (D), suggesting that any effort to deny the new administration's mass deportation efforts could result in his removal from office. Senator Paul concurs with the insurrection label and suggests that the Supreme Court would squash any such effort by Johnston. He further speculates on whether someone like Johnston might face criminal prosecution and predicts he'd likely be removed from office. Read More: https://redstate.com/rusty-weiss/2024/11/25/rand-paul-warns-denver-mayor-who-threatened-trump-on-deportations-you-will-lose-and-you-will-be-removed-n2182445
Video Transcript AI Summary
The mayor of Denver is challenging federal law, which could lead to a Supreme Court case. This resistance may result in his removal from office, and while criminal prosecution is uncertain, he is likely to lose in court. Such actions are seen as a form of insurrection against federal authority, which most people have historically rejected. The mayor's stance is viewed as being on the wrong side of history, and he may face legal consequences if he continues to defy federal law.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That the mayor of Denver, if he's going to resist federal law, which is a long standing standing history of the supremacy of federal law. If he's going to resist that, it will go all the way to Supreme Court, and I would suspect that he would be removed from office. I don't know whether or not there'd be a criminal prosecution for someone resisting federal law, but he will lose. And people need to realize that what he is what he is offering is a form of insurrection where the states resist the federal government. Most people objected to that and rejected that long ago.
So I think the mayor of Denver is on the wrong side of history and really, I think will face legal ramifications if he doesn't obey the federal law.
Rand Paul Warns Denver Mayor Who Threatened Trump on Deportations: You Will Lose, and You Will Be Removed
redstate.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#2 - Tucker Carlson makes stunning claim on who is really running the White House. He told Clayton Morris on Redacted that he used to think Tony Blinken was running the White House. Now, he thinks it has to be Satan himself. “I really think that you’ve got dark forces in charge.” Tucker says the only reason the US would approve anti-personnel mines and long-range missiles against Russian forces is to “kill innocents, period.” “That’s the only effect,” Carlson stressed. “And they know that. And so they’re doing it anyway because killing is the point. So it’s evil. I think we should say that. I don’t think it’s a matter of defending democracy. The president of Ukraine is not elected. He’s a dictator. He literally passed his term and kept serving,” Carlson continued. “And that country shut down a Christian denomination — put priests in jail. How many more markers of dictatorship do you need to call it what it is? Which is totalitarian. So everything about it is horrifying.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Over a million Ukrainians are dead or maimed, and the country is devastated. Recently, the Biden administration approved the use of anti-personnel mines, contradicting its previous stance against them. These mines, which resemble leaves, pose a danger to children and civilians. Questions arise about who is truly in charge in the White House, with speculation about figures like Antony Blinken or Jake Sullivan. The situation in Ukraine is grim, with the president acting like a dictator, suppressing dissent and imprisoning clergy. The complicity of Western European nations in this conflict reflects a dying empire, marked by nihilism and desperation. This chaotic period resembles the collapse of Rome, where a once-great power engages in self-destructive violence, leading to widespread suffering.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, over a 1000000 Ukrainians dead now, or permanently maimed, an entire generation of young men wiped out, a country destroyed. And they're still they're still trying to sell this thing. And then, of course, over the past few days, we've seen the madness that is unfolding in the White House, allowing long range missiles to be used from Ukraine at NATO's direction. Make no mistake. Anyone watching this knows that Ukrainians don't even know how to use these missiles.
It's NATO that's doing it, of course, and attacking inside of Russia. And and now and then with add add on top of that, the Biden administration now has ok'd anti personnel mines to be used, something they've long said absolutely we won't use. These are basically a lot of like the same petal mines that are thrown into the ground in Donetsk and the Donbas region. And children go to the playgrounds and they find these little petal mines that look like leaves. They pick them up and their arms are blown off or they're killed.
And the Biden administration was absolutely against this. This was their stance. And now suddenly within the past week, all of this has changed. So who the hell is running the White House? I mean, you've got again, I I I know you're humble about this, but you've got amazing sources there.
Like, Biden is not who is running the White House? Who is our de facto president? Is it Antony Blinken right now? Is it Jake Sullivan? Who is doing this?
Speaker 1: Well, if you'd asked me yesterday morning, I would have said Tony Blinken, who's been running it since the beginning. But now I would say Satan because anybody I really think that you've got, you know, dark forces in charge. I mean, there's no there's no justification for using anti personnel minds in this conflict, which we can't hope to be solved with anti personnel minds resolved in any way. The only effect of that move is to kill innocents. Period.
That's it. That's the only that's the only effect, and and they know that. And so they're doing it anyway because killing is the point. So it's evil. I think we should say that.
I don't think it's a matter of defending democracy. The president of Ukraine is not elected. He's a dictator. He literally passed his term and kept serving. He's a dictator.
An anti and that country's shut down a Christian denomination, but priests are in jail. Like, how many more markers of dictatorship do you need to call it what it is, which is totalitarian? So, everything about it is horrifying. I'm I'm so glad that you mentioned what's happening in the UK and France. There's the complicity of Western European countries in this really I hope books are written about it, but there's something about a dying empire, you know, collapsing demographically, totally pointless finance based economy, no self respect at all, nihilism rising.
There's something about that mix, the final days of a dying civilization that causes it to lash out in this kind of orgy of killing for its own sake. It's it's really the darkest thing I could it's like you you imagine Rome collapsing and, you know, the vandals toppling buildings and, you know, having orgies in the streets and all stuff. Really, it's the end of an empire is more like a kind of suicide, a kind of murder suicide where, you know, the formerly great power kills itself and then takes a lot of people out as it does. It it's, like, more horrifying than I ever thought.
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
#1 - Former Polish Minister Says At Least Half of US Aid Was Laundered by Ukrainians, and Much Was Given to Democrats Kiev laundered money for the Democrats, taking a cut of what was left over, Piotr Kulpa has claimed President Biden meets with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky at the White House. Ukraine did not receive as much foreign aid as claimed by the administration of US President Joe Biden, and whatever help it did get was largely embezzled, a former Polish deputy minister has claimed. Up to a half of the funds that reached Kiev was stolen by Ukrainian officials, Piotr Kulpa has alleged. US aid programs are a mechanism to “write off large sums of money that finance shady systems under the Democratic Party’s control,” he alleged. The incoming Trump administration could review government finances and discover the truth that “Ukraine got very little” compared to the amounts mentioned in public statements, Kulpa claimed. Read More: https://www.azerbaycan24.com/en/ukrainians-have-stolen-up-to-half-of-us-aid-ex-polish-deputy-minister/
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
BONUS #1 - Trump to Remove ALL Transgender Personnel from Military on Day One https://vigilantnews.com/post/trump-to-remove-all-transgender-personnel-from-military-on-day-one/
Trump to Remove ALL Transgender Personnel from Military on Day One
“They would be medically discharged, which would determine that they were unfit to serve.”
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
BONUS #2 - Hillary Clinton exposed in yet another massive hoax. https://vigilantnews.com/post/hillary-clinton-exposed-in-another-huge-hoax/
Hillary Clinton EXPOSED In Another Massive Hoax
Now, it all makes sense.
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
BONUS #3 - The Greatest Medication You’ve Never Heard of https://vigilantnews.com/post/the-greatest-medication-youve-never-heard-of/
The Greatest Medication You’ve Never Heard of
It's not ivermectin, and it's not hydroxychloroquine. But it does have something in common with both of those drugs.
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
BONUS #4 - Google AI threatens student with a bone-chilling message. https://vigilantnews.com/post/disturbing-google-ai-threatens-student-with-bone-chilling-message/
DISTURBING: Google AI Threatens Student with Bone-Chilling Message
"This is for you, human. You and only you."
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
BONUS #5 - Bill O’Reilly drops a METEOR story, leaving NewsNation panel speechless. https://vigilantnews.com/post/bill-oreilly-drops-meteor-story-leaving-newsnation-panel-speechless/
Bill O’Reilly Drops ‘Meteor Story,’ Leaves NewsNation Panel Speechless
This is a “holy smokes” reveal.
vigilantnews.com
@VigilantFox - The Vigilant Fox 🦊
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this post, please do me a quick favor and follow this page (@VigilantFox) before you go. In other news, one of the most vaxxed parts of America is now facing a heart attack crisis. This data is horrifying. https://t.co/6Y0gx6QyDK
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
Zelensky is a criminal. He's shut down churches. Dragging Christian men with crosses around their neck to their death. Corrupt oligarch. Suspended elections. Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: Zelensky is a danger to the world. https://t.co/vHdl6JH1f5 https://t.co/HqXfZvAzE1
Video Transcript AI Summary
Zelensky's presidency has involved fulfilling obligations that have contributed to Ukraine's destruction. Key tasks include eliminating the Russian language, enforcing Ukrainian-only education, and creating a division within the Orthodox Church. He has suppressed freedom of speech by shutting down opposition media and banning political parties. Zelensky has also engaged in rewriting history, replacing Victory Day with Europe Day, and promoting a narrative that vilifies Russian identity. Furthermore, he has facilitated foreign control over Ukrainian land and turned the country into a testing ground for military and biological experiments. With significant foreign aid and military support, Ukraine's economy is heavily indebted, raising concerns about its future stability and sovereignty. Zelensky's actions reflect a commitment to foreign interests rather than the welfare of his citizens.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: My name is Scott Ritter. In the first episode, I told you how Volodymyr Zelensky came to power, who he really is, and who recruited him. Everyone knows that agents are given tasks. Zelensky is no exception. However, in his case, it's more like obligations, debts that cannot be ignored, like a deal with the devil.
Over the course of 4 years of presidency, he's accomplished or brought to fruition at least an important task. Each of them, to varying degrees, has contributed to the destruction of Ukraine. Today, we'll examine all of them in detail. So task number 1, to eliminate the Russian language.
Speaker 1: If people in the east and Crimea want to speak Russian, let them. Leave them alone. Provide them with the opportunity to speak Russian on a legal basis. Language should never divide our home country.
Speaker 0: 2014, the words of this charming guy in a t shirt resonated with many people in Ukraine, not just Russians. There were also many Ukrainians who spoke Russian and feared its prohibition. There were reasons for these concerns. Immediately after the Maidan protests, the Verkhovna Rada decided to repeal the law on the principles of the state language policy. This law had been in effect since 2012 and granted regional status to the Russian language in the areas where was the native language for at least 10% of the population.
The repeal of this law became one of the reasons for the succession of Crimea in the civil war in the Donbas region. In the meantime, Zelensky himself had always spoken Russian and, most importantly, had defended it for many years until he became the president. In 2020, Zelensky made all schools in Ukraine Ukrainian language only. In my home country, the United States, documents and websites are created in 2 languages, English and Spanish. There are many Spanish language schools, and no one forces them to switch to English.
This is fair and understandable. What's not understandable, why is English and not Russian the second language in Ukraine? Can you explain that to me? Are there many English Americans or Australians there?
Speaker 1: The greatest inconsistency in what Zelensky and the Kiev government say lies in the fact that after starting the civil war in 2014, while attempting to restrict and prohibit the use of the native language by the population of Donbas, they now say, we will unite all territories into one nation. However, what is happening in Donbas today is an attempt of the Western Ukrainians, Galatians, and those who are anti Russian to carry out ethnic cleansing. This presents a real problem, and this aspect is often silenced in the west.
Speaker 0: Not only is it being silenced out, the west also supports it, and Zelensky is happy to do his best. Since January 2021, the entire service sector in the country has been switched to Ukrainian. You know, Zelensky once named Ukraine the center and heart of Europe. It seems to me that he got it wrong with the organs. It is heartless to violate the rights of 12,500,000 of his own citizens.
In the summer of 2021, the constitutional court of the country upheld the law on the Ukrainian language. Violations of this law are subject to fives. How could one hate his own people so much as to punish them for their native language? But take a look at this video. President Zelensky is pretending hard and diligently that he has forgotten Russian.
Perhaps someone will tell him that this is a disgusting play that won't convince even a a child. Another obligation of such type to western handlers was task number 2, to finalize the church split.
Speaker 1: Suitcase. Train Suitcase. Train station.
Speaker 0: Russia. April of 2023. Siege in the Kyiv, Pytchevs, Lava. What you see is a result of a long and painstaking work of my fellow countrymen. December 2018, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine or OCU emerged in Ukraine with the support of Petro Poroshenko in the United States.
One might wonder why. Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarch already existed in the country, but, apparently, the term Moscow was a significant hindrance for the Ukrainian authorities to pray. That's why they created their own church with blackjack and their own tomos. In 2019, the OCU received a decree from the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, granting them autocephal, that is the independence from the Russian Orthodox Church.
Speaker 2: It formally remained part of the Russian Orthodox Church. Except for that formality, everything that Kyiv possibly could've asked for was granted by Moscow. The Tomos issued from Constantinople is a very different thing entirely. Supposed on the assembly, but under the control of Constantinople. That almost every detail of church life within the so called schismatic church must be approved by Patriarch Bartholomew, who, of course, himself is then under the control of the state department and the CIA.
Speaker 0: The head of the OCU, Seri Epifidis Domenico, started receiving frequent visits from American guests. In 2019, William Taylor charged the affairs to Ukraine, came to meet him. And in January 2020, former CIA director and US secretary of state Mike Pompeo Pompeo paid a visit. The purpose of this visit will be revealed by him a bit later.
Speaker 1: I made sure the US supported international recognition of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Help the Metropolitan escape Russian influence.
Speaker 0: Epiphanias awarded Mike Pompeo with a medal from this. Then there were meetings with Kurt Volker, the former US special ally for Ukraine. After that, there was a meeting with US secretary of state Antony Blinken. The meeting schedule resembled that of a foreign affairs minister. Americans used Zelensky to complete the division of Ukrainian Orthodox believers into the right and wrong factions.
The right ones attended the sanctuaries of the new church. While with the assistance of the Ukrainian authorities, they seized temples from the canonical church and expelled the priests. Finally, the situation escalated to the Kyiv Pytiersk Lavra. As far as I know, it is one of the most important and ancient orthodox shrines dating back over a 1000 years. Unfortunately, the key for Kyivskavra was under the administration of monks from the canonical Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.
The Ministry of Culture of Ukraine decided it was heresy and terminated the lease agreement with the monastery. Security forces and nationalists besieged the walls in Volodymyr. Now the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church is under the threat of prohibition, and Volodymyr Zelensky continues to train his persuasive skills in his speeches.
Speaker 1: Today, another step has been taken to strengthen the spiritual independence of our state and protect our society from old and cynical Moscow manipulations with religion. Ukraine. Ukraine is a territory of the greatest religious freedom in our part of Europe.
Speaker 2: It's been very successful in creating, I would say, kind of a fake Ukrainian, artificial Ukrainian identity that is hostile to Russia, that defines itself in in in opposition to a Russian identity. It grew somewhat during the Soviet time, but really has taken advantage of the last period since 1991, since Ukraine became an independent state.
Speaker 0: In this substitution of Ukrainian's identity, common roots are being torn apart, and common shrines are being violated. The great victory over the Nazis in 1941, 1945 had always united this nation. Even Volodymyr Zelensky recalled it not long ago.
Speaker 1: You know, my grandfather, Semyon's brothers, and their families were killed by the Nazis. At that time, my grandfather was at the front. In the end, he endured the entire war and returned as a victor.
Speaker 0: Volodymyr Zelensky's grandfather, Semyon Ivanovich, commanded a mortar platoon during the great patriotic war. In Soviet Ukraine, people like Sinon Zelensky were glorified with monuments and memorial sites. However, under Volodymyr Zelensky, all of these monuments have been destroyed as it was in the 19 forties under Hitler. Rewriting history has become the 3rd task for Zelensky. Victory day on May 9th was replaced with Europe day by the president of Ukraine.
If he remains in power a little longer, I am certain that Ukraine's will start celebrating July 4th, the Independence Day of the United States together with us. I've witnessed how everything Russian is being canceled in the west with the start of the special operation. Flags, poets, artists, musicians, they've all been banned. I am convinced that this was a planned campaign. The same thing happened in Ukraine, and it became another tool of division.
Speaker 1: I want to remove Lenin and instead put someone who will be admired by everyone in the country. It's called literary characters. Definitely not politicians. What's stopping you? Ukrainian?
Ukrainian. If you want to rub it into your neighbor, put up Gogol.
Speaker 0: Gogol, Bulakov. Under president Zelensky, Bulkov was officially labeled as Russophobic, and his memorial plaque was removed from the wall of a university in Kyiv. Writer Nikolai Ostrovsky, who apparently came from Ukraine, didn't satisfy him either. Scientist Mikhail Lobonos, writer Maxim Gorky, and finally, Alexander Pushkin. The great writer was the one who offended Ukrainian authorities the most.
But what about freedom of speech and the media? It was precisely this issue that the head of I personally stand for freedom of speech, and you know that very well. I'm not sure if you're
Speaker 1: I personally stand for freedom of speech, and you know that very well. I will never in my life shut down any channels. I don't have the right. I don't have the authority.
Speaker 0: Just a year and a half later, with full belief in the circumstances presented, following the teachings of Stanislavski, he made the following statement.
Speaker 1: This trio of channels contain talking armies that deceived and brainwashed you very professionally.
Speaker 0: On February 3, 2021, 3 Ukrainian television channels, ZIK, News 1, and 112 Ukraine were shut down. The decision was made by the National Security and Defense Council under Zelensky's order, of course.
Speaker 1: There is currently no threat to freedom of speech or media business
Speaker 0: in Ukraine. I'll repeat those words. There is no threat to freedom of speech. This was set on the day when 3 television channels were shut down. A year later, Zelensky fulfilled another obligation.
Let's call it task number 5. He banned the opposition.
Speaker 1: What is it for? Certain political parties' activities are suspended at the time of martial law.
Speaker 0: On March 20, 2022, the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, under Zelensky's orders, banned 11 opposition parties. No one in Ukraine objected to the funeral of freedom of speech. Those who could have objected were either killed, arrested, or fled the country.
Speaker 1: We were told that under Zelensky, dollar would cost 45. There would be chaos in Ukraine. There would be war, but none of this happened.
Speaker 0: Zelensky is not much of a prophet. Although in 2019, there was no order on the organization of training for a battalion tactical group of the 4th operational brigade to carry out combat special tasks in the joint forces operation as part of the armed forces of the Ukrainian brigade. This is a secret document confirming Ukraine's preparation for an attack on Donbas in March 2022. Evidence can be found in other documents as well, including the new military strategy approved by Zelensky after the meeting at MI 6, which we discussed in the first episode.
Speaker 1: We see words from Oxford dictionary and a term existential threat never used before. Also, for the first time ever, we see in this document the use of population as a human shield. The document stated that Ukraine should prepare for active offensive actions to liberate Donbas. It was clear that the war till the last Ukrainian was being planned.
Speaker 0: As you can see, the provocation was successful. Russia struck a few days earlier than Ukraine, and Zelensky was taken aback in fright.
Speaker 1: On my way from the Kremlin, I called Zelensky and said, listen, I just came from a meeting. Putin has no intention of killing you. Zelensky asked, are you sure? I replied, 100% sure. 2 hours later, Zelensky returned to his office and recorded a video saying, I'm not afraid.
Everyone's in place. We're all working.
Speaker 0: President doesn't leave Kyiv and stays with the people. What an artist does? Perhaps he'll finally be awarded with an Oscar. After all, he tries his best, especially in this video.
Speaker 1: This is where I live. Is this the president's bed? Were you here on 24th? I was. Well, we also went down to the bomb shelter.
Speaker 0: Looking at a tiny room, one can't help but sympathize with the president. This poor guy lives and works in purely Spartan conditions.
Speaker 1: So this is where I live. Well, could you say this is your home? It's my home. I've lived here for a year.
Speaker 0: I also believed it. Alas, the head of Ukraine lied again.
Speaker 1: There is a well equipped bomb shelter on Bank of a Street. It was built during the Soviet era when the Soviet Union faced a real nuclear threat. These are long term facilities that allowed every member of the apparatus to function. Not just one individual. So there are no small rooms there, of course.
Well, anything can be staged.
Speaker 0: Who cares about the truth when everyone is watching the tragic comedy starring Zelensky? The first thing his PR team did after February 24, 2022 was a new image, the military style, as if the president had just returned from the front lines, the unshaven look, the sunken face due to sleepless nights of hard work. However, our colleges would argue all the signs of cocaine abuse are evident, constant nose sniffing, an inappropriate reaction, speeches solely from the prompter. A British specialist took precautions and created a hologram of the Ukrainian president.
Speaker 3: All of these technological possibilities can change public life.
Speaker 0: This addiction can be explained. It is quite common in the acting industry for which Zelensky comes from. Unfortunately, for the country, the Ukrainian president not only didn't quit, but apparently let himself go. It all began with weed.
Speaker 1: Medical marijuana, in my opinion, is normal. It is sold in small quantities, droplets.
Speaker 0: In 2020, Zelensky proposed legalizing cannabis in the country. At that time, his suggestion didn't go any further. However, everything changed when the war began. It's no secret that Ukrainian soldiers get stoned before going into battle, and wheat is the least harmful substance they consume on the front lines. Will they have someone to look up to in that regard?
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 0: This is very pleasing to American and British intelligence agencies. It would be a sin not to take advantage of a drug addicted president for their own purposes. He is completely manageable. I suppose the western handlers supply him with the purest drugs. It brings to mind the opium wars when England, in order to advance its interests, addicted almost the entire Chinese elite to drugs.
I cannot speak for all of Zelensky's inner circle, but he himself alone was enough to accomplish what would never work with a sober person. For example, turning the country into an experimental playground and convincing others that it would be great.
Speaker 5: We are interested in testing modern systems in the fight against, the enemy, and we are inviting arms manufacturers to test the new products here. So I think for our partners in Poland, in United States, France, or Germany, it's a good chance to test the equipment.
Speaker 0: The 6th goal Zelensky was tasked with was to turn Ukraine into a testing ground, not only for weapons, but also for experiments on people. In 2005, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency or DTRA was established in the country. It's a pet project of the US Department of Defense, and one of its tasks is to study biological threats, including deadly viruses and bacteria.
Speaker 1: Since 2005, the American side has been involved in modifying Ukrainian laboratories. Selecting and training personnel, and gradually advancing its interests, goals, and tasks in the research field. They are approaching the old Soviet developments. The collection of pathogens and strains in Ukraine remaining from the Soviet Union was estimated at $2,000,000,000 The American side did everything to obtain this collection.
Speaker 0: After the Maidan, the DTRA expanded its operations in Ukraine with the assistance of Milena Suprin, a US citizen and the daughter of Ukrainian immigrants. In Ukraine, she served as the acting minister of health. Suprin opened the doors of all bio laboratories in the country to Americans, and they've allowed to establish new ones. From that moment, mass experiments on Ukrainians, both civilians and military personnel, have begun. Then the documents of the DTRA, a new abbreviation appeared, UP, which stands for Ukrainian project.
Speaker 1: There were genetic samples collected in large quantities from 4,000 servicemen of the Ukrainian army from different regions of the country. North, south, west, east, including Kyiv, Odessa, Kharkiv, and Lviv. With 1,000 individuals in each city participating in this blood donation. This was part of the UP 8 project. Officially, it was presented with benevolent intentions.
Namely to determine human body resistance to specific pathogens depending on the region of the country.
Speaker 0: According to some reports, in January 2016, in Kharkiv, approximately 20 Ukrainian soldiers died within 2 days from a flu like virus. Another 200 soldiers were hospitalized.
Speaker 1: The intelligence of the Donetsk People's Republic has previously reported on research activities involving American military specialists. Research took place in a closed laboratory located in the village of. It is situated 30 kilometers from the city of Kharkiv. According to our information, the leakage of the California strain of deadly influenza occurred precisely from there.
Speaker 0: From this day onwards, Ukraine turned into a petri dish. Outbreaks of cholera, hepatitis, and botulism were recorded here. But what wouldn't you do for the sake of science, especially in a foreign country? Therefore, in 2020, DTRA spent another $80,000,000 on research in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: There wouldn't be an order from the US secretary of defense to carry out work on the development of genetically targeted biological weapons on Ukrainian territory. However, it was possible that they would write an order for research to be conducted on combating certain diseases like tularemia more effectively. That's what they would write, and this is what can be found in official documents.
Speaker 0: The Pentagon's plans were disrupted by Russia's special operation. Now the Russians could gain access to documents and bio materials. This alarmed the United States to such an extent that in March 2022, deputy secretary of state Victoria Nuland left the secret out in the senate.
Speaker 6: Ukraine has biological research facilities, which, in fact, we are now quite concerned Russian troops Russian forces may be seeking to, gain control of.
Speaker 0: Foreign specialists in the areas of plague, cholera, and hepatitis left Ukraine. Instead, the country was filled with soldiers of fortune. However, these guys have been welcome there since the days of the Maidan. This became President Zelensky's 7th commitment. 2015, the orbital operation was launched.
It was British training program for the Armed Forces of Ukraine conducted, of course, in accordance with NATO standards. In 2016, Ukraine and United States signed the concept of development of partnership between the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and the Department of Defense of the United States for 5 years. The auto of 2017, American instructors discussed logistics and cooperation with the Nazi affiliated ASOG battalion. The following year, ASOG battalion was visited by Canadian military personnel as well.
Speaker 3: I think, the Ukrainian embassy here in Washington, in violation of the Geneva Conventions on diplomacy, recruited these people, recruited soldiers, recruited mercenaries, for their war against the Russian Federation. CIA is involved, perhaps not directly, but, and military intelligence, perhaps not directly. But they're there to advise, to con to give counsel, to make suggestions, to link people up and help with
Speaker 0: organization. A year ago, NATO secretary general Jan Stoltenberg stated that NATO had trained tens of thousands of Ukrainians.
Speaker 7: They have trained Ukrainian troops for years, so tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops, are now at the at the forefront of being trained also for several years being being trained by NATO, allies. They're now at the front fighting against the invading Russian, forces.
Speaker 0: In February 2022, hundreds of foreign mercenaries joined them. Among them was the communist and anti fascist John McIntyre, who served in the US military like myself. He arrived in Ukraine with the sole purpose of gathering evidence of crimes committed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and sharing it with the world. Throughout this time, John risked his life as he could be exposed at any moment. A year later, he managed to escape to Russia.
Speaker 8: It's accurate if it's Stavki or Slovakia. I can never remember, but, I actually seen a church that was blown up. It was so sad to see. I mean, it was the most beautiful church I'd ever seen. They they said, oh, that's a Russian church.
Yeah. So this is the wrong kind of church because they speak the wrong kind of language. You know?
Speaker 0: John said that a mercenary in Ukraine earns around $1,350 per month. However, if a mercenary in Ukraine is involved in combat operations, he gets $3,500 a month. That kind of money, one can kill even unarmed people with impunity.
Speaker 8: There is 3 soldiers, Nazar Kuzmin, Rico Chavez, and Aurelio from, France. Basically, they took, I believe, 2 or 3 Russian POWs, and they put them in, like, a a trench in the position. And they shot them in the back
Speaker 0: In fact, there's been a long standing affinity between the United States and Ukrainian nationalists. It began immediately after World War 2 when the Americans took the fleeing accomplices of Bandera under their wing. 1948, the CIA launched a secret operation against the USSR. Later, it was given the code name aerodynamic.
Speaker 3: Frank Wissner senior, who was a, a CIA, officer in charge, he worked with people who had been given him by the US Army Counterintelligence Corps, Stepan Bandera and, Mikaela Lebed, who were, essentially Nazi collaborators and murderers, war criminals, etcetera. He put together with their assistance recruiting and training, Ukrainian dissidents to return to the Ukraine or to be taken out of the Ukraine, trained, and then sent back with weapons. And the intent was to divide the Ukraine from the then Soviet Union and make it into an independent country.
Speaker 0: The connection between Ukrainian nationalists and terrorists when the CIA could be exposed. This meant war with Soviet Union. Therefore, the intelligence agencies slightly modified their subversive activities.
Speaker 3: They, organized something called Prowog, which was a company in New York City that recruited dissidents and Neo Nazis and old Nazis from the Ukraine, to make radio broadcast, print newspapers, and pamphlets and things. In, I think, 1957, they had something like, $1200 of radio broadcast and, a 100,000 or so newspapers and magazines that they printed and distributed both in the United States and Canada and also into the Ukraine.
Speaker 0: At the same time, in Canada, a secret operation called red skid was launched. There is much less information available about it compared to the aerodynamic. The only known fact is that it also involved Ukrainian nationalists.
Speaker 3: They worked with the American intelligence services and with the British to bring a lot of, right wing, neo Nazis or old time Nazis, people who collaborated with Webbed and, Bandera, into Canada and created a tremendous organization called the, Ukrainian, Conference of Canada.
Speaker 0: Today, Canada is the 3rd country in terms of the number of Ukrainians. There are more Ukrainians than in my home. For comparison, Ukrainian diaspora in the United States amounts to around 1,000,000 people. While in Canada, it constitutes 1,300,000 people. They represent a significant political force.
And, of course, they lobby for the interest of Kyiv and the right wing radicals in the country. What surprised me is that the descendants of some nationalists are shaping Canada's policies today. For example, deputy prime minister and minister of finance, Chrystia Freeland. Her much loved grandfather, Mykhailo Komjak, worked as the editor in chief of a Nazi newspaper, Krakauer Snackrikken, Krakauer News, in Poland, historical figure of the 20th century. That's how this newspaper referred to Adolf Hitler.
Its readers were convinced that the population of Galatia was ready to fight and die for a holy and just cause designed by you know who. Undoubtedly, children are not responsible for the actions of their parents, but Freeland calls her grand father not a criminal, but a victim, a victim of the Soviet regime, of course. In 2016, Freeland paid tribute to her ancestor on Twitter. Turns out that her grandfather worked diligently to restore freedom and democracy to Ukraine by supporting Hitler and the holocaust, I suppose. Frelin herself made a contribution to the destruction of the USSR.
In the 19 eighties, she brought anti Soviet propaganda materials, money, and video and audio recording equipment to Soviet Ukraine for local nationalists. As a result, she was banned from entering the Soviet Union. Today in Russia, Freeland is also considered persona nongrab. However, in the west, her photo with a flag of the Ukrainian insurgent army, a terrorist organization, does not hinder her political career. It was Freeland, together with former prime minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson, who convinced Western European countries to quickly supply weapons to Ukraine.
In 2022, Canada provided Ukraine with $2,000,000,000 in direct financial assistance, an additional $500,000,000 through bonds, and over $2,500,000,000 for military and humanitarian aid. Moreover, in Canada, the United States, United Kingdom, and other countries, PLOST, which is an analog of Hitler Jugend, the Hitler Youth, operates freely, a youth organization of Ukrainian nationalists that during World War 2 trained militia for the OUN and SS Volunteer Division Galatia. It was established as early as 1911. Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukovich emerged from PloST. Among active members of this organization were also Canadian minister, Chrystia Freeland.
Members were present during the Maidan protests and later participated in the killings of residents in Donbas. In 2019, under pressure from the Ukrainian diaspora, Zelensky became the 1st president to officially recognize the class movement in Ukraine through legislation. It has now become the primary educational structure for young Ukrainians funded by the state. This is just one aspect of Zelensky's bloody agreement. Let's call it task number 8, the legalization of Nazism.
A few years ago, Neo Nazis caused outrage in Western media. However, today, Nazism and fascist insignia become a fashionable trend. Swastikas, SS symbols, and the Totankov skull become a norm. Even president Zelensky post photos of them on his social media accounts.
Speaker 8: It's, it's just kinda funny, like, the, it's funny to me, like, the links that the Ukrainian, media and the western media had to go to, like, hey, guys. Remove your swastikas for the camera. Like, we're trying to get a good shot here. You know? Your swastikas making us look bad.
You know? But some of them are open Nazis. Open Nazis. Yeah. I mean, like, there's numerous, evidence on the Internet of white people with swastika flags and stuff like that, tattoos, and throwing up the Hitler's salute, all that stuff.
I mean, it's
Speaker 0: In the middle of the last century, Hitler caused deaths of millions of innocent people. His ideology was rooted in hatred towards entire nations. Today, this ideology could be seen within the Ukrainian government and its army.
Speaker 8: Basically, you know, you have this culture of, like, Stefan Bandera and, like, oh, Hitler was good and so on and so forth. And I've asked him, like, okay. You know, you're fighting side by side by these Polish guys. You know? Like, you genocide, like, you know, a 100,000 Polish and Jewish.
You know? Why are you, not cystic? You know? And they say, oh, well, this was war. This was way back.
Like, no. This is genocide. Like, you know? So they basically denied this genocide even still to this day, you know.
Speaker 1: We often forget history too quickly in the west. I come from Brittany, and several mass killings during World War 2, whether in Oradur or in Brittany, were committed by Ukrainian forces serving in the Nazi German army. And yet, the west once again seems to believe that having Neo Nazis in Ukraine is acceptable while we fight them in the west. There is a clear inconsistency as if there
Speaker 0: were the good and the bad Nazis. So it turns out that the good Nazis are the ones who hate and kill Russians and fight against Russia.
Speaker 4: For these actions, the US and Western Europe seem to forgive all of their sins. So it turns out that the good Nazis are the ones who hate and kill
Speaker 0: Russians and fight against Russia. For these actions, the US and Western Europe seemed to forgive all of their sins.
Speaker 1: It was necessary to build a Nazi Ukraine. It was being built during Poroshenko's presidency, of course, But bringing it to a state of a military conflict required, so to speak, shaping its population structure and preparing the population for war. And for that, a Jew was the best fit because it provided a colossal excuse. What Nazism, so to speak, could exist with a Jewish president? Where are you from?
Where are you from? Tell me, where are you from? He fainted.
Speaker 0: As I have discovered, Zelensky himself is not against the Nazis and the atrocities committed by the Azov battalion.
Speaker 9: Azov was one of those many battalions. They are what
Speaker 0: they are.
Speaker 9: They were defending our country. And later, I want to explain to you. Everything, from, all the components of those volunteer battalions later, were, incorporated into the the military of Ukraine.
Speaker 0: Most likely, you haven't heard about it. The TV channel cut out the journalist's question in Zelensky's response. A Jewish president should not respond to such a matter about those who rob and kill unarmed people. We remember the main thing is the picture. Western partners even overlook the fact that the president of Ukraine and his associates rob their own army and the supplied weapons.
They want to offset the expenses through Ukrainian land. This is agent Zelensky's 9th task. Fertile lands represented interest even for him. Ukrainian constitution even has a a separate article dedicated to Black Earth or Chernozil.
Speaker 1: Even during my time there, in the central office, I heard that the same Monsanto Corporation set its sights on the entire south of Ukraine, from Odessa to Mariupol. During the conflict, it seemed to me that over 30% of major Dutch corporations were present there. Land was actively sold to companies like Cargill
Speaker 9: Cargill.
Speaker 1: And other global corporations that were operating in the region.
Speaker 0: For example, Cargill's revenue in 2020 2 amounted to a $165,000,000,000. The GDP of Ukraine as a whole in 2021 before the war amounted to approximately $200,000,000,000 Until 2021, there was a moratorium on the sale of land in Ukraine. It was extended 10 times during that period, and land was leased out. However, Zelensky urgently needed loan. The IMF offered money in exchange for lifting the moratorium.
Ukrainians were afraid that foreigners would start buying up land. November 2019, the president, perhaps still in the role of the righteous screen character, Goluborodkov, hurried to reassure the people.
Speaker 1: Foreigners and companies with foreign founders will be able to purchase Ukrainian land only if the consent of the Ukrainian people is granted through an all Ukrainian referendum.
Speaker 0: Spoiler. There was no referendum. In July 2021, the moratorium on the sale of land was lifted. Yes. Foreigners do not have a formal right to buy land, but there is a loophole.
Technically, Ukrainian companies under foreign control can make purchases.
Speaker 1: In our country, this is called a straw man. It exists everywhere in the world where local residents can protect themselves to some extent. In such cases, a fictitious person, a straw man, is employed, and you act as you please. In
Speaker 0: February 2018, the Institute of Agricultural Economics assessed Ukrainian land. It turned out to be inexpensive. $2,500 per hectare was the maximum price, but that's the upper limit. The majority are willing to buy land for $1,000, and here's how much agricultural land costs in my home country. So we're in 2018, black soil.
Now let's assess arable land in Western Europe, same year, 2018. So Ukrainian land is inexpensive. It is nearly 13 times cheaper than the most expensive land, which is in Italy. That's why there is high demand for it among Europeans. It makes sense for them to invest in agriculture in Ukraine since they have limited access to journalism.
But why should we be concerned about it? Land in America is fine.
Speaker 1: This oil is located in Europe, not in the US. If it is removed from the food cycle, Europe will have much less chance of being self sufficient and acting independently. And that's why there is a plan to reduce Europe's food security in order to better control neighboring countries. The US doesn't need the grain, but they need control. And control comes only when you control food security of other countries.
And Ukraine was a very, very successful project from the perspective of the US.
Speaker 0: I would say that Ukraine remains a very successful project for the United States. These are not just agricultural corporations that are making money. In 2022, the investment firm BlackRock offered to help Ukraine rebuild its economy. Of course, this refers to the future prospects. At BlackRock, we see The BlackRock company has the
Speaker 1: extent of their assets and the influence they have, both on German and Ukrainian politics. In May 2023,
Speaker 0: Zelensky signed an agreement with BlackRock. Last September, the cost of reconstruction and economic recovery of the country was estimated at nearly 350,000,000,000 dollars. However, later Kyiv increased the expenses to $1,000,000,000,000. After Zelensky's agreement with BlackRock, people started writing on Twitter that Ukraine was becoming privatized and sold to funds. And, you know, it seems to be true.
Speaker 9: BlackRock in
Speaker 1: BlackRock doesn't invest in recovery. Instead, it builds dependencies and spheres of influence through reconstruction. Politics, army, and economy form a 3 headed dragon currently running the world.
Speaker 0: I'm not sure about the entire world, but Ukraine will definitely be working for BlackRock and similar companies for the next 300 years. And at the same time, for the governments of United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. From 2014 to 2021, America allocated over $2,500,000,000 to Ukraine. These are the findings of the Akhil Institute for the World Economy, a German research institute. Since the beginning of 2022, United States have been the leader in terms of military aid provided to Ukraine.
From January 2022 to January 2023, Kyiv received over $46,000,000,000 for military purposes. Yes. We spent less on the war in Afghanistan. $43,000,000,000 over a little more than 9 years. United Kingdom doesn't spare an expense also.
In 2022, they transferred nearly $3,000,000,000 to Kyiv, and they plan to spend the same amount in 2023. Over the course of the year, NATO countries have provided Ukraine with approximately $120,000,000,000 in assistance.
Speaker 1: I may turn out to be a bad prophet, but I am confident that as soon as peace is established in Ukraine the flow of dollars and credits will stop. And instead, we will be grabbed by the throat on all fronts demanding the repayment of these debts. Nobody will care that Ukraine is currently incapable of repaying its debts. It simply cannot. Its debts now exceed our gross domestic product significantly.
Speaker 0: In May 2022, Biden signed the lend lease law. This means that Ukraine started receiving weapons and equipment on credit, just like the Soviet Union, United Kingdom during World War 2. Agreeing to this plunder became commitment number 10 for Zelensky in this deal with the dep. The president of Ukraine called it a historic step. I would call it a leap into the abyss.
Do you know when Russia repaid its debt to the US for lend lease in 2,006? It took them over 60 years to repay the debt. Ukraine already owes the European Union a $132,000,000,000, which is 90% of its GDP. Even freezing payments will not allow the economy to settle its debts on time. Meanwhile, the country is experiencing rampant inflation.
Food prices have risen by 26.5%. The poverty rate has jumped from 5.5% to 24%, percent affecting over 7,000,000 people. The country has lost 1 fifth of its territory. And most importantly, 100 of thousands of lives have been lost.
Speaker 2: Iran is a peace candidate. He turned around and betrayed that. And what's always astounded to me is that how he manages to keep so many regular Ukrainian boys going into this war to get themselves killed, in in a war that they simply cannot win. And they yet they keep going. Just just in Bakhmut, by the way, the Ukrainians lost more men than the United States lost in the entire Vietnam War.
Speaker 0: So the rights of millions of citizens have been trampled upon. Ukrainian men are being sent to the front lines to be slaughtered like sacrificial lambs, snatched right off the streets. The Russian language and culture have been practically eradicated. The canonical church is on the verge of being outlawed. The country has been turned into a safari for foreign mercenaries and a testing ground for bloody experiments.
Agent Volodymyr Zelensky has accomplished the tasks assigned by foreign intelligence agencies. The question is, will those in power still need someone who knows too much and wants too much?
Video Transcript AI Summary
Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer, discusses the rise of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, emphasizing his background as an actor in the series "Servant of the People." Zelensky's portrayal of a president set the stage for his real-life election, aided by powerful oligarchs like Igor Kolomoisky. Despite presenting himself as a man of the people, Zelensky's presidency has been marred by corruption and manipulation, with significant financial ties to offshore accounts and questionable real estate holdings. His administration's handling of the war with Russia and the ongoing conflict in Donbas reflects a deeper geopolitical strategy influenced by Western powers. The narrative suggests that Zelensky operates under the guidance of foreign intelligence, raising concerns about his independence and the true nature of his leadership.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good afternoon. My name is Scott Ritter. Allow me to introduce myself for those who don't know me. I'm a former United States Marine Corps intelligence officer. I participated in Operation Desert Storm and served as the chief weapons inspector for the United Nations in Iraq.
My main interests are international relations and armed conflicts in different parts of the world. I'm convinced that we all should know a little more about a person who, to the applause of those I call the global elite, is ready to fight to the last Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. Mister president, there have been numerous publications about you, but everything seems to disappear from the web. Your image is carefully managed and not without reason. You immediately understood why I named my film agent Zelensky, didn't you?
Let's begin.
Speaker 1: You have had many film roles. Which one is your favorite? I would say that servant of the people is probably my favorite.
Speaker 0: The year is 2015. It's the premiere of the first season of serving the people series. According to the credits, the producer was Volodymyr Zelensky. In reality, he wasn't producing it by himself. Instead, his promotion had begun.
No wonder such a role became one of his favorites. Zelensky portrayed the character Vasily Golubarovkov, a school history teacher who becomes the president of Ukraine.
Speaker 2: I want to compare that situation to situation where, for example, you come into the plane, you're boarding, and you're taking your seat. And now you see the, man who look like a pilot, who dressed like a pilot, who speak like a pilot, greeting passengers, actor, who played a pilot in response for your life.
Speaker 0: Before the presidential elections, no one had seen a single press conference from the showman. Only interviews and videos were broadcast. Well, you understand, it makes possible to retake or rewrite a dumb answer. Almost all statements Zelensky made were on behalf of the cinematic president, Golovirovko.
Speaker 1: To all the people who want to quarrel with us, to divide our country, to separate us by color, by language, and so on, to all of you, I can't speak for myself as I am a person of culture. So let one of the characters familiar to everyone, Vasily Golubarovka, say it. And all the rest of you, villains, go to hell. In all this story, the Ukrainian population became the object of manipulation. The creation of the TV series servant of the people, in which he was prepared for his role, marked the beginning of imposing an image on people that he could be a potential head of state.
And after that, he ran for elections. It was an absolutely skillful manipulation.
Speaker 0: Now watch the hands. The final third season of servant of the people was released just 4 days before the first round of the presidential election. Vasili Golubarovskoe emerged victorious, became the head of the country, and transformed it into a powerful and prosperous nation. They are. This is the best pre election campaign in the history of mankind, and it worked.
In real life, on 21st April, Volodymyr Zelensky defeated Petro Poroshenko with over 70%, 73, 23% of the votes. Clearly, such a scenario was not created in Ukraine nor by Ukraine. Here, our compatriots are ahead of the entire planet.
Speaker 2: The role of Hollywood in Washington DC, it's is first of all, it's not a decision makers, but this is creators of idea, concepts. So if the idea flying well with the audience, you can repeat that idea in real life, in real politics, and it's gonna play. So this is similarity in that Servant of People TV series and a film of Kishorov produced and directed to head of state when it was a black president who come from a Democratic Party and serve the people.
Speaker 0: And if this works, why not replicate the scheme in the country close to Russia? And why not elect someone there based on the same principle? Someone who is unconditionally following orders.
Speaker 3: That is a a carefully prepared operation, by one of the intelligence services or all of the intelligence services in the United States and in NATO, to make sure that their guy is, in charge and will do what they tell him to do rather than somebody who has ideas of his own.
Speaker 0: A carefully prepared operation by one of the intelligence agency. What a revelation. Michael, thank you for this. It allows us to look at the following facts with an understanding of who is behind it. Let's figure out how and with whose help Washington started pushing actor and comedian Zelensky.
Speaker 1: Do we have any connection? Yes. Of course. Well, we have business relations. We are TV partners.
We all work for these. How many? 5 or 6 families?
Speaker 0: 5 or 6 families. Was I rewatching The Godfather just now? As if Zelensky is talking about the mafia, and it seems to be true. Igor Kholomoisky is a billionaire in an oligarch. Currently, he's under investigation by a US Federal Court for money laundering.
Back then, he was a figure of importance even across the ocean.
Speaker 1: In 2014, Kolomoisky becomes the uncrowned king of Ukraine. Not only the governor, not only the ruler of Ukrainovnafter and head of the bank that is much stronger than any state bank. He became the leading oligarch.
Speaker 0: 8 years ago, why was it decided to make Kolomoydsky the key player in the operation to bring Milolitsky to power? In 2015, Petroporoshenko nationalized his main assets, such as the Yukonoftan company and later private bank. There's undoubtedly a personal vendetta at play. During the presidential elections, Kolomoisky was happy to criticize Poroshenko on his 1 plus one channel, and at the same time, to support Zelensky. Is it possible to say that it was Kolomoisky who brought Zelensky to power?
Definitely not. Mister Volodymyr has other puppeteers behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: Are you dependent on Igor Valeryvitch? And could it mean that after your victory in the presidential elections, Kolomoisky will rule Ukraine?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I am a completely independent person. No offense, but a man who could control me hasn't yet been born.
Speaker 2: If Zelenskyy will be really on that rope of Kolomoyeskyy, I predict the private bank will be run by Kolomoyeskyy again, but it's not happened. So that's mean he has no obligation to do more. He just not putting him in a jail and that's enough for Kolomoyesky to be very thankful for him. After that, he will start playing the card as as his masters of puppet program.
Speaker 0: By the time Zelensky came to power, these puppeteers had already provided him with a financial cushion. It's doubtful that anyone remembered his earnings from the movies.
Speaker 1: Regarding Zelensky and his inner circle, it is also important to take into account all the manipulations and financial frauds that characterize this team. Firstly, Zelensky concealed some parts of his stakes in companies before the presidential elections. And then in particular, his mentor, Kolomoisky, used them for money laundering.
Speaker 0: Empty words, by no means. As I mentioned, we will operate with facts. In the fall of 2021, investigative journalists published the so called Pandora Papers. Nearly 12,000,000 confidential documents from financial companies in different countries were revealed, including offshore data on 35 world leaders. Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his partners from the cartel 95 studio were among them.
Ukrainian president indeed owned offshore companies, including the stake in Malteks Multicapital Corporation. Zelensky modestly omitted this information in his declaration. But most importantly, in 2012 to 2016, Kolemovsky transferred $41,000,000 to Zelensky's offshore company.
Speaker 1: He could be jailed in a normal country for such an offense.
Speaker 0: But this is Ukraine, and Zelensky is its president. And according to the offshore documents, he's a very wealthy president.
Speaker 1: Are you planning to use the state residences?
Speaker 2: Very bad.
Speaker 1: Guys, let some kids live in these residences. Like some vacation camps for people who really need it.
Speaker 0: In my opinion, it sounds cute, especially when you don't know about the residency. Ready to find out? Let's go. Firstly, a villain in Miami for himself worth $34,000,000. I've been to Florida and can understand the taste of the president of Ukraine.
Secondly, a house in Israel for his parents on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. It's worth $8,000,000. Europe, Zalewski prefers Italy. Tuscany, the best wines. By the way, one of the most expensive resorts in the country, Forte d'Almarbi.
Houses here are worth their waiting goal. In 2017, together with his wife, he bought a villa 600 meters from the sea. According to the declaration, it was worth about $3,800,000 at that time. Is that all? Not at all.
From the south, we moved north, not to Siberia, of course, but to London. Old center, legendary Baker Street, opposite the Sherlock Holmes Museum. There's another Zelensky residence, an apartment worth $3,000,000 Why? Probably the state will visit his owners with a report. More on that later.
Apparently, the real estate was purchased through the company of his business partner, Sergei Sheffer. That's why he's called Zelensky's personal wallet in Ukraine. I almost forgot about real estate. Georgia, not the state, the country. A new multistory apart hotel in the city of Batumi.
You might ask, Batumi? What is that? Well, take a look. It's also a seaside resort. Apartments are under renovation with an expensive finish, panoramic windows, and views in the city and the mountains.
Hint, it was built for well-to-do people. At least 5 apartments here belong to Zelensky. Finally, the settlement of Levadia, an elite residential complex emperor.
Speaker 1: Look. A magnificent view of Zelensky's house opens up. Here it is, a seashore over there.
Speaker 0: Lions, wide staircases, and columns. On the roof, there's a luxurious terrace, a pool, and a wonderful sea view. But guys, it's Crimea. Crimea, which is currently under Russian control. Zelensky made a mistake here, and the Russians were surely figure out how to use it to their advantage.
Zelensky's penthouse was purchased here in 2013, right before the so called Crimean spring. Nowadays, such a property could be worth about $1,000,000. However, a different amount is stated in his declaration. 1,384,000 Hibernia's were about $164,000. Well, we don't even need to mention the real estate in chief or the official residence of the head of the Republic in Concha Zaspa.
Even without those, it's quite a collection of villas, houses, and apartments. However, the Ukrainian president is in no rush to give them to children, at least not to other people's children. Unfortunately, we have to admit the obvious. Volodymyr Zelensky has always been stingy and greedy.
Speaker 1: When I saw this person running between tables and collecting tips, roughly speaking, making compliments with an ugly smile, right from that moment, he disgusted me. He was performing at events where the payment had already been made in advance. His group was paid in cash and still, he was running around collecting money from the tables. That looked it showed what he had initially been like.
Speaker 2: He was visiting Hollywood here in Los Angeles. He privately requested for meeting with and, like, you know, some kind of arrangements to meet and have a dinner with the famous Hollywood, stars like Leo DiCaprio or others. In private, not through the protocol. As a president, already sitting president who want a private dinner with a great star. This is, telling a lot about his greed, about his ego.
Speaker 0: Actors are forgiven for having villas worldwide and making big money. That's their personal business. There are questions for a president who presents himself as a man of the people and a fighter against corruption while hiding a dirty history of money laundering.
Speaker 1: These mythical Ukrainian roads are only built and repaired in someone's vivid imagination.
Speaker 0: The most ambitious project of the Ukrainian president turned out to be the biggest for the capital b embezzlement. In the spring of 2020, Zelensky promised to build and repair 6,500 kilometers of roads in Ukraine in a couple of years. In autumn, the prosecutor general's office of Ukraine discovered that a 129,000,000,000 went to the big construction project, though only a 127,000,000,000 were allocated from the country's budget. At first, I thought, maybe Zelensky wanted to build roads not only in his country, but maybe also in Poland. Nope.
Just 4,000 kilometer of roads cost a 120,000,000,000 of verniers. By comparison, in 2018, only 40,000,000,000 were spent on 3,800 kilometers of roads. So the cost per kilometer tripled. Meanwhile, the same companies won a significant part of the tenders. There was a lack of funds, but roads are sacred.
That's why 1,000,000,000 Hibernias from the COVID 19 fund were allocated to construction while thousands of Ukrainians were dying from the virus. Moreover, 62,000,000,000 Hibernias allocated for cancer treatment were also spent. Meanwhile, Ukraine ranked 2nd in Europe in terms of oncological diseases.
Speaker 1: I thought that the systemic corruption built by Poroshenko in Ukraine could not get any worse, but Zelensky surpassed him. There are no standards, no principles at all.
Speaker 0: In 2015, the Guardian named Ukraine the most corrupt country in Europe. You might say, that was before Zelensky. What about 2023? Well, nothing has changed. Zelensky continues to steal and deceive.
Do you remember his words?
Speaker 1: Our first task is a ceasefire in Donbas. I assure you, I'll do whatever it takes for our heroes to no longer die.
Speaker 0: I haven't heard a word about the civilians in Donbas, and I'm sure neither of you. Zelensky was speaking about the militants of the so called anti terrorist operation. At that time, Eastern Ukraine had been under shelling for 5 years, and that's why the words about peace were so eagerly awaited. I would like to remind you that in 2014, there's a coup d'etat called Maidan. Did it happen on its own without anyone's help?
I agree with you. There is no doubt. The opposition sees power with the support of various radical right wing movement. The eastern and southern regions of the country stood against the new illegal government, but the resistance was brutally suppressed. On May 2, 2014, Ukrainian nationalist burned 48 people alive in the trade union's house in Odessa.
At that time, Zelensky, a popular actor in Ukraine and Russia, had zero reaction. But the Odessa events became a point of no return for the country. Residents of Donbas decided to separate from Ukraine. In response, Kyiv declared its citizens as terrorists and launched an army against them. Over time, the civil war escalated into an armed conflict with Russia.
However, all of this was preceded by extensive preparation and support from the United States and Western countries.
Speaker 4: The United States has invested some $5,000,000,000 in Ukraine, since 1991 when it became an independent state again after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that money has been spent on supporting the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to have a strong democratic government that represents their interest.
Speaker 0: As a result, destroyed cities, chaos, and the loss of life on both sides of the conflict. In our country, it's usual to blame everything on Russia. But what did president Volodymyr Zelensky do himself to prevent this horror? Firstly, he could have implemented the Minsk agreements. In September 2014, Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France signed them.
One of the critical conditions for peace was granting special status to Donbas. December 2019, a joint conference following the Normandy format meeting.
Speaker 1: It is necessary, of course, to extend the agreement term on the special status of certain regions of Donbas and ultimately make this norm permanent.
Speaker 0: Here comes the moment for Zelensky to repay debt for wealth, for coming to power. Just look at it. He doesn't even hide his smirk during the speech of Russian president Vladimir Putin. Apparently, he already knew that the mess agreements were just a string, covering the preparations for a full scale war between Ukraine and Russia. As for Russia and Donbas, they were deceived from the very beginning.
Furthermore, both Zelensky and Petro Poroshenko were eager to join not only the European Union, but also NATO. And NATO secretary general Jan Stoltenberg has been promising to accept Ukraine for many years. Of course, this irritates and angers Russia. Who wants to have a constant military threat at their door step? As an American, I wouldn't be happy either.
For example, with Chinese military bases on the Mexican border. But Russia is different. Let's turn Ukraine against it, arm it to the tee, and sit it in the battle. US foreign policy expert James Jatres accurately assesses what is happening.
Speaker 5: Our policy, however, is to weaken and destroy Russia. Now for that purpose, yes, we are interested in Ukraine. Ukraine is a club we can beat the Russians with. It has nothing to do with Ukraine, nothing to do with Ukrainians who are simply expendable people as far as these governments are concerned.
Speaker 0: But it seems like the authorities of Ukraine don't really care. Besides, president Zelensky and his team are adding fuel to the fire.
Speaker 1: I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest memorandum. If they aren't held again or their results don't guarantee security for our country Ukraine Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest memorandum is not working, and all the package decisions of 1994 are being questioned.
Speaker 0: The Budapest memorandum is an agreement under which Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees. In 1994, it was signed by Russia, United States, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Ukraine had to agree because it didn't have the money to maintain a nuclear arsenal. And recent history has shown that the world is very lucky it turned out that way. Even if
Speaker 1: we couldn't maintain them, we could reduce the nuclear capabilities instead, and we could use it to blackmail the entire world. And they would give us money for the maintenance.
Speaker 0: Imagine that, a nuclear power that blackmails the whole world demanding money. Would you like to have such a neighbor? I'm sure you wouldn't. No one would. The president of Ukraine practically declares his desire to regain nuclear weapons, and Russia initiates a special military operation.
To bring it to this point, Ukraine had to be made an enemy of Russia or anti Russian.
Speaker 1: The idea was to create a Nazi Ukraine because only a Nazi Ukraine could fight against Russia. Only the Nazis. Any other type would never fight against Russia, so they needed to build a Nazi Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Nazis to Ukraine.
Speaker 0: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine started saturating itself with nationalism. Yushchenko became the first Ukrainian president made by the west. Actually, not just a president. Even his personal life was America's achievement. I have to give credit to our system.
We know what an excellent work is. Take a look in the nineties. A high ranking employee of the US State Department, Katherine Chymachenko, a native of Chicago and the daughter of Ukrainian immigrants, came to Kiev for work. As a child, like many other children in the diaspora, she went through the scout camp. I'll tell you more about that later.
Then she became a member of the Neo Nazi Organization National Alliance.
Speaker 1: Initially, Yekaterina Chymoshenko sought a husband among the executives who could really leave Ukraine. So Chymachenko asked Yushchenko's assistant, Rybuchak, to put her near Yushchenko on a plane heading from Kyiv to Washington. 9 hours after the flight, he was absolutely in love, left his 2 children and wife, and went to Chymachenko as a banker.
Speaker 0: At that moment, the flywheel started spinning with new force. Zelensky, under careful dictation, completes the bloody plan. Yushchenko was the first to make nationalism and Russophobia the ideology of Ukraine at the state level. In 2006, he rehabilitated the nationalist Ukrainian organization, OUNUPA, which executed Poles and Jews during the 2nd World War. In 2010, he bestowed the titles of heroes of Ukraine upon fascist collaborators, Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukovich.
He even threatened to expel the Russian Black Sea Fleet from Crimea. Essentially, Lysenko severed ties with Russia, giving our country a blank check. Perhaps you'll ask me again if my imagination is playing tricks on me.
Speaker 1: At the time, one of the offices in the SBU building was allocated to CIA personnel. There were even anecdotal cases when the US ambassador, together with his entourage, handed out diplomas to the graduates of the SBU Academy. And there were the representatives of American intelligence agencies.
Speaker 0: In 2010, Yushchenko lost the election to Viktor Yanukovych. The new president stripped Bandera and Zhukovic of their hero titles and sought to restore relations with Russia. But turning Ukraine into an anti Russian state was only a matter of time. Let's dig a little deeper. A joint institute of the US and German ministries of defense.
Previously, they trained intelligence agents there. Since 1993, they have trained political elites and specialists from different countries to promote democracy. That's the official version.
Speaker 1: They were focused on searching for suitable agents. It means how to attract people to an active position, to confrontation. Of course, all security officials and military personnel were recruited through the Marshall Center.
Speaker 0: Graduates of the institute, ministers, ambassadors, parliamentarians, and advise, 14,000 significant people from a 157 countries, including Ukrainians. The program consists of lectures, seminars, internships at major universities in Western Europe and the United States, receptions, and museum visits. But the main thing is career advancement in their homeland. This is what Ukrainian political scientist, Andrey Mishin, could have obtained. In 1998, he worked at the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was preparing an important agreement with Russia.
It was about military political cooperation.
Speaker 1: The west advised us in every possible way to remove this topic. Again, they insisted on the removal of dual citizenship between Russia and Ukraine. And deputy minister San Sanich Charlie said that the political adviser to the United States embassy in Ukraine wanted to meet with
Speaker 0: me. Adrian Myshyn only held the position of the second secretary. The political adviser was several ranks above him. This was unusual, but the conversation turned out even more bizarre.
Speaker 1: It all started with a strange question. Andrei, do you understand that Russia will soon disintegrate? How? He says, well, you see how they recruit, how they provoke you. There was Chechnya, and there will be another Chechnya.
Maybe Siberian Republic and Tardustan. You know, it's like a funnel. The same as how the Soviet Union collapsed. Everyone can be drawn into this funnel. That's why Ukraine should join NATO.
We are very interested in the young generation of politicians and security officials who could work with us.
Speaker 0: Later, Mishi was taken to Moldova, Switzerland, Italy, Georgia, and the United States on behalf of the Marshall Center. They gave lectures on international conflicts and military patriotic education for youth and provided them with analytical literature. In return, they required short reports, for example, on the sociopolitical situation in Ukraine and the preparation of lectures for American military personnel, special agents, and diplomats. All topics were related to Russia and the former Soviet republics. After the Maidan in 2014, the Marshall Center became a mecca for the highest ranking Ukrainian officials and military personnel.
Here's one of the letters from the Marshall Center addressed to the chairman of the security service of Ukraine, Valentin Nelievichhenko. It's an invitation to a seminar on the strategic development of Ukraine. Students are Ukrainian ministers and generals, instructors, representatives of intelligence agencies from the United States and the United Kingdom.
Speaker 1: I think 100% of high ranking Ukrainian officials, one way or another, have received training at this center. Essentially, they were training people with one task, to counteract the Russian Federation now or in the future solely for that purpose.
Speaker 0: One of the seasons of the TV series, Surrender the People, is dedicated to presidential elections. Candidate Gola Virodko hires a professional PR specialist, but later fires it, and along with a team of friends, developed and runs his election campaign. Did presidential candidate Zelensky do the same? Of course not. During the elections, his campaign headquarters secretly worked with the Washington lobbying agency, Signal Group Consulting.
The task was to arrange meetings between Zelensky, the Trump administration, and members of congress. Zelensky's headquarters denied this connection, but here you can see the documents, the service agreement, and signal groups report to the US Department of Justice stated that Zelensky paid them nearly $70,000. Quite affordable for a presidency, isn't it? Perhaps the actors spared money, or maybe they gave him a good discount on their PR services. However, Zelensky was eager to please the US and UK authorities.
Therefore, after the elections, the number of foreign PR agencies increased. Please meet Andrew Mack. Since November 2019, he has been an external adviser to the Zelensky. He's an American citizen and a descendant of Ukrainian immigrants. The director of the lobbying firm, SKD Knickerbocker, Stephen Kruppin, former speechwriter for president Barack Obama, now works for Zelensky.
Shai Franklin founded the lobbying firm, Your Global Strategy. It builds bridges between Ukrainian government and American mayors. It seems that one of these guys had a hand in quite a terrible idea. We are talking about a glamorous photo shoot amid hostilities. The main character of the photo session is the first lady of Ukraine, Olynya Zelenska, a desperate housewife alongside her brave hero husband.
Zelensky, as usual, looks unshaven and stern. His military style compliments his wife's luxurious outfits. Take note of how well she wears the $7,800 Louis Vuitton coat. The extras are wearing uniforms from the military brand 5 dot one one multicam. The average cost is about $8,000.
The very famous and expensive American photographer, Annie Leibovitz, did the photo shoot. In the past, she worked with John Lennon and Demi Moore. Her fee for a single working day is $75,000. It goes without saying the team of stylists, makeup artists, and journalists surely didn't work for free. Those who have forgotten during this time, innocent people are suffering and dying.
The country is devastated and heavily relied on foreign aid. Because of this, the photo session did not sit well with some Ukrainians and foreigners. Some even compared to Zelensky's photoshoot to the pictures of Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun. And all of this is part of the payment for Zelensky's hard work as an agent serving America and the British crown.
Speaker 1: We had a meeting at the Mi 6 office. Unfortunately, I can't disclose all the information. It's a matter of state affairs.
Speaker 0: Problem. Autumn 2020. Ukrainian media accidentally, or maybe not, learned about Zelensky's secret meeting with Richard Moore, the head of Mi 6, not just anywhere, but at the headquarters of British Intelligence Service. According to the president, the meeting was about protecting Ukraine's sovereignty.
Speaker 1: Yes. The meeting of Volodymyr Zelensky is something new because if we look at World War 2, the cold war, we have never had real meetings between the leader of a country in a state of war and a group of intelligence representatives.
Speaker 0: As a secret service agent, I'd like to tell you that there are special norms of decency and protocol. When a president of a sovereign country is on a foreign territory, he should meet with his counterpart. The only exception is if the head of intelligence himself comes to Ukraine to meet with Zelensky.
Speaker 1: Coming down to the lowest level, to the head of the intelligence agency is not a simple admission of guilt. At that time, the person becomes an actual professional agent. It is clear. One handler always works with one agent. In the case of Zelensky, the head of Mi 6, Richard Moore, became his direct handler.
Moore.
Speaker 0: Trust my experience. You can't just make someone work as an agent without a hook or substantial grounds. And if we carefully trace the events leading up to this remarkable meeting, we will find them. In the summer of 2020, British intelligence almost captured the internationally renowned Wagner PMC members. These Wagnerians took Makhmut, for example, Palmyra in Syria.
They significantly interfered in spreading British policy in Africa. It happened that the mercenaries slipped right under the nose in MI 6. Whether it's true or not, they say the operation failed due to the office of the president of Ukraine. Somebody called and warned them. Now no one will figure out if it was a mistake, a calculation, or foolishness.
That's why Richard Moore didn't bother investigating. They summoned Zelensky to show him his place and at the same time, to discuss the extent of his independence and freedom in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: They expect proposals about independent media from us. They are ready to finance them together with Ukraine to provide Ukraine with information that corresponds to the main issue. Protection of freedom and human rights, and above all, shield the information that defends our country.
Speaker 0: Everyone understands. The MI 6 office gave the president of Ukraine a precise directive. The thing is, after the Maidan in 2014, there are quite a lot of Ukrainian opposition media. Obviously, they were preventing the creation from an image of Russia as an enemy to Western countries. It was decided to end the dissenters with Zelensky's hands.
And to prevent the president from getting bored and to help him practice English, he was surrounded by British security. This was in the spring of 2022 in the midst of war. Mucha, look at these scenes. Do you see a patch on the sleeve of 1 of the guys near Zelensky?
Speaker 2: Oh, don't push The
Speaker 0: Ukrainian flag is upside down. A local would have been shot on the spot for this, but this guy is okay. You know why? He does as the right to. He's a foreigner like everyone else around Zelensky.
In fact, judging by their pronunciation, they're
Speaker 1: British. As we can see, Zelensky's security team consists of Brits. Quite marvelous because we have the so called 9th administration, the president's security, with 1,800 professional military guys, special forces, and combat swimmers.
Speaker 0: Well, not surprising. Firstly, UK intelligence services most likely helped Zelensky with the theatrical staging in Bucha. Secondly, the British follow every step of their agent, even during the meeting with the pope. Oh, this episode deserves special attention. It seemed to me like a meeting between a priest and a devil.
Judge for yourselves. Zelensky went to the Vatican in a black sweatshirt with the emblem of the UNO, Ukrainian Nationalist Organization. He gave the pope an icon with a black silhouette instead of Christ, which is outright satanism according to church chemist. He plopped into a chair before the host. For those unaware, this is a gross violation of etiquette, and he didn't pay much attention to pope Francis's peaceful initiatives.
Italians considered that route. I'm sure this whole comedy was a distraction. The central communication of Zelensky took place not in the pope's office, but in the next room without the involvement of pope Francis, but with the participation of the minister of foreign affairs of the holy sea, archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, a native Brit whose cardinals are conducting powerful propaganda in Ukraine. Ukrainian president spoke with Gallagher for almost an hour and a half, but the main detail is that the head of MI 6, Richard Moore, was also present at the meeting in the Vatican. Maybe this fact explains the record breaking motorcade of the leader of independent Ukraine over 20 cars.
Speaker 2: To be sure that that guy did not make a trick to make a suddenly make a peace with Vladimir Putin. They take hostages, his kids, and a wife in a Great Britain. This is another layer of security for masters of puppets.
Speaker 0: How is it possible to reprogram the whole country and its people against Russia? Is how is Ukraine paying back now? I'll tell you more in the next episode. We've just started.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
The REAL Zelensky Zelensky is a criminal. He's shut down churches. Dragging Christian men with crosses around their neck to their death. Corrupt oligarch. Suspended elections. Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: Zelensky is a danger to the world. https://t.co/Haczvhy3Af https://t.co/fwS7Hoi5Di
Video Transcript AI Summary
It's absurd to claim one person is worse than another. We oppose the war for various reasons: it's a form of money laundering, it's harming Christians, and it's unnecessary. Even the New York Times previously described Zelensky as corrupt. Now, he's suspended elections, shut down churches, and is conscripting young Christian men to die. I view Zelensky as equally corrupt and criminal. I've seen videos of him dragging Christian men to their deaths, which is appalling. He is responsible for misappropriating billions of dollars, with no accountability for where the money is going. I find him utterly despicable.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's about realizing that trying to tell us that this person is worse than this person is a nonsense. We do not support the war for a ton of reasons because it's money laundering, because it's killing Christians, and because we don't have to. I understand. I'm sure you may recall since you seem to be an avid follower of my tweets where I pointed out that even the New York Times was talking about how corrupt Zelensky was just a couple of years before the war. They were describing him as a corrupt old man.
But that wasn't my question. He's now suspended elections. He's shut down churches. Okay? He is conscripting young Christian men to their deaths.
I believe Zelensky is just as corrupt. I believe he is a criminal. I'm watching videos of him dragging Christian men with crosses around their neck to their death. He sickens me. He is the person that is taking 1,000,000,000 of dollars away from us.
It's magically all being lost. They just don't know where all this money is going to. I find him to be absolutely despicable.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer, discusses Volodymyr Zelensky's rise to power, highlighting his role in the TV series "Servant of the People," which set the stage for his presidential campaign. Zelensky's election was seen as a manipulation of public perception, aided by oligarch Igor Kolomoisky and U.S. intelligence. Despite promises of reform and anti-corruption, Zelensky's administration is accused of embezzlement and maintaining ties with corrupt practices. His wealth, including luxury properties, contrasts with his public persona as a man of the people. The narrative suggests that Zelensky serves Western interests, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict with Russia, raising questions about his independence and the influence of foreign powers on Ukraine's political landscape.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good afternoon. My name is Scott Ritter. Allow me to introduce myself for those who don't know me. I'm a former United States Marine Corps intelligence officer. I participated in Operation Desert Storm and served as the chief weapons inspector for the United Nations in Iraq.
My main interests are international relations and armed conflicts in different parts of the world. I'm convinced that we all should know a little more about a person who, to the applause of those I call the global elite, is ready to fight to the last Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. Mister president, there have been numerous publications about you, but everything seems to disappear from the web. Your image is carefully managed and not without reason. You immediately understood why I named my film agent Zelensky, didn't you?
Let's begin.
Speaker 1: You have had many film roles. Which one is your favorite? I would say that servant of the people is probably my favorite.
Speaker 0: The year is 2015. It's the premiere of the first season of serving the people series. According to the credits, the producer was Volodymyr Zelensky. In reality, he wasn't producing it by himself. Instead, his promotion had begun.
No wonder such a role became one of his favorites. Zelensky portrayed the character Vasily Golubarovkov, a school history teacher who becomes the president of Ukraine.
Speaker 2: I want to compare that situation to situation where, for example, you come into the plane, you're boarding, and you're taking your seat. And now you see the, man who look like a pilot, who dressed like a pilot, who speak like a pilot, greeting passengers, actor, who played a pilot in response for your life.
Speaker 0: Before the presidential elections, no one had seen a single press conference from the showman. Only interviews and videos were broadcast. Well, you understand, it makes possible to retake or rewrite a dumb answer. Almost all statements Zelensky made were on behalf of the cinematic president, Golovirovko.
Speaker 1: To all the people who want to quarrel with us, to divide our country, to separate us by color, by language, and so on, to all of you, I can't speak for myself as I am a person of culture. So let one of the characters familiar to everyone, Vasily Golubarovka, say it. And all the rest of you, villains, go to hell. In all this story, the Ukrainian population became the object of manipulation. The creation of the TV series servant of the people, in which he was prepared for his role, marked the beginning of imposing an image on people that he could be a potential head of state.
And after that, he ran for elections. It was an absolutely skillful manipulation.
Speaker 0: Now watch the hands. The final third season of servant of the people was released just 4 days before the first round of the presidential election. Vasili Golubarovskoe emerged victorious, became the head of the country, and transformed it into a powerful and prosperous nation. They are. This is the best pre election campaign in the history of mankind, and it worked.
In real life, on 21st April, Volodymyr Zelensky defeated Petro Poroshenko with over 70%, 73, 23% of the votes. Clearly, such a scenario was not created in Ukraine nor by Ukraine. Here, our compatriots are ahead of the entire planet.
Speaker 2: The role of Hollywood in Washington DC, it's is first of all, it's not a decision makers, but this is creators of idea, concepts. So if the idea flying well with the audience, you can repeat that idea in real life, in real politics, and it's gonna play. So this is similarity in that Servant of People TV series and a film of Kishorov produced and directed to head of state when it was a black president who come from a Democratic Party and serve the people.
Speaker 0: And if this works, why not replicate the scheme in the country close to Russia? And why not elect someone there based on the same principle? Someone who is unconditionally following orders.
Speaker 3: That is a a carefully prepared operation, by one of the intelligence services or all of the intelligence services in the United States and in NATO, to make sure that their guy is, in charge and will do what they tell him to do rather than somebody who has ideas of his own.
Speaker 0: A carefully prepared operation by one of the intelligence agency. What a revelation. Michael, thank you for this. It allows us to look at the following facts with an understanding of who is behind it. Let's figure out how and with whose help Washington started pushing actor and comedian Zelensky.
Speaker 1: Do we have any connection? Yes. Of course. Well, we have business relations. We are TV partners.
We all work for these. How many? 5 or 6 families?
Speaker 0: 5 or 6 families. Was I rewatching The Godfather just now? As if Zelensky is talking about the mafia, and it seems to be true. Igor Kholomoisky is a billionaire in an oligarch. Currently, he's under investigation by a US Federal Court for money laundering.
Back then, he was a figure of importance even across the ocean.
Speaker 1: In 2014, Kolomoisky becomes the uncrowned king of Ukraine. Not only the governor, not only the ruler of Ukrainovnafter and head of the bank that is much stronger than any state bank. He became the leading oligarch.
Speaker 0: 8 years ago, why was it decided to make Kolomoydsky the key player in the operation to bring Milolinski to power? In 2015, Petropurshchenko nationalized his main assets, such as the Yukonoftan company and later private bank. There's undoubtedly a personal vendetta at play. During the presidential elections, Kolomoisky was happy to criticize Poroshenko on his 1 plus one channel, and at the same time, to support Zelensky. Is it possible to say that it was Kolomoisky who brought Zelensky to power?
Definitely not. Mister Volodymyr has other puppeteers behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: Are you dependent on Igor Valeryvitch? And could it mean that after your victory in the presidential elections, Kolomoisky will rule Ukraine?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I am a completely independent person. No offense, but a man who could control me hasn't yet been born.
Speaker 2: If Zelenskyy will be really on that rope of Kolomoyeskyy, I predict the private bank will be run by Kolomoyeskyy again, but it's not happened. So that's mean he has no obligation to do more. He just not putting him in a jail and that's enough for Kolomoyesky to be very thankful for him. After that, he will start playing the card as as his masters of puppet program.
Speaker 0: By the time Zelensky came to power, these puppeteers had already provided him with a financial cushion. It's doubtful that anyone remembered his earnings from the movies.
Speaker 1: Regarding Zelensky and his inner circle, it is also important to take into account all the manipulations and financial frauds that characterize this team. Firstly, Zelensky concealed some parts of his stakes in companies before the presidential elections. And then in particular, his mentor, Kolomoisky, used them for money laundering.
Speaker 0: Empty words, by no means. As I mentioned, we will operate with facts. In the fall of 2021, investigative journalists published the so called Pandora Papers. Nearly 12,000,000 confidential documents from financial companies in different countries were revealed, including offshore data on 35 world leaders. Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his partners from the cartel 95 studio were among them.
Ukrainian president indeed owned offshore companies, including the stake in Malteks Multicapital Corporation. Zelensky modestly omitted this information in his declaration. But most importantly, in 2012 to 2016, Kolemovsky transferred $41,000,000 to Zelensky's offshore company.
Speaker 1: He could be jailed in a normal country for such an offense.
Speaker 0: But this is Ukraine, and Zelensky is its president. And according to the offshore documents, he's a very wealthy president.
Speaker 1: Are you planning to use the state residences?
Speaker 2: Very bad.
Speaker 1: Guys, let some kids live in these residences. Like some vacation camps for people who really need it.
Speaker 0: In my opinion, it sounds cute, especially when you don't know about the residency. Ready to find out? Let's go. Firstly, a villain in Miami for himself worth $34,000,000. I've been to Florida and can understand the taste of the president of Ukraine.
Secondly, a house in Israel for his parents on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. It's worth $8,000,000. Europe, Zalewski prefers Italy. Tuscany, the best wines. By the way, one of the most expensive resorts in the country, Forte d'Almarbi.
Houses here are worth their waiting goal. In 2017, together with his wife, he bought a villa 600 meters from the sea. According to the declaration, it was worth about $3,800,000 at that time. Is that all? Not at all.
From the south, we moved north, not to Siberia, of course, but to London. Old center, legendary Baker Street, opposite the Sherlock Holmes Museum. There's another Zelensky residence, an apartment worth $3,000,000 Why? Probably the state will visit his owners with a report. More on that later.
Apparently, the real estate was purchased through the company of his business partner, Sergei Sheffer. That's why he's called Zelensky's personal wallet in Ukraine. I almost forgot about real estate. Georgia, not the state, the country. A new multistory apart hotel in the city of Batumi.
You might ask, Batumi? What is that? Well, take a look. It's also a seaside resort. Apartments are under renovation with an expensive finish, panoramic windows, and views in the city and the mountains.
Hint, it was built for well-to-do people. At least 5 apartments here belong to Zelensky. Finally, the settlement of Levadia, an elite residential complex emperor.
Speaker 1: Look. A magnificent view of Zelensky's house opens up. Here it is, a seashore over there.
Speaker 0: Lions, wide staircases, and columns. On the roof, there's a luxurious terrace, a pool, and a wonderful sea view. But guys, it's Crimea. Crimea, which is currently under Russian control. Zelensky made a mistake here, and the Russians were surely figure out how to use it to their advantage.
Zelensky's penthouse was purchased here in 2013, right before the so called Crimean spring. Nowadays, such a property could be worth about $1,000,000. However, a different amount is stated in his declaration. 1,384,000 Hibernia's were about $164,000. Well, we don't even need to mention the real estate in chief or the official residence of the head of the Republic in Concha Zaspa.
Even without those, it's quite a collection of villas, houses, and apartments. However, the Ukrainian president is in no rush to give them to children, at least not to other people's children. Unfortunately, we have to admit the obvious. Volodymyr Zelensky has always been stingy and greedy.
Speaker 1: When I saw this person running between tables and collecting tips, roughly speaking, making compliments with an ugly smile, right from that moment, he disgusted me. He was performing at events where the payment had already been made in advance. His group was paid in cash and still, he was running around collecting money from the tables. That looked it showed what he had initially been like.
Speaker 2: He was visiting Hollywood here in Los Angeles. He privately requested for meeting with and, like, you know, some kind of arrangements to meet and have a dinner with the famous Hollywood, stars like Leo DiCaprio or others. In private, not through the protocol. As a president, already sitting president who want a private dinner with a great star. This is, telling a lot about his greed, about his ego.
Speaker 0: Actors are forgiven for having villas worldwide and making big money. That's their personal business. There are questions for a president who presents himself as a man of the people and a fighter against corruption while hiding a dirty history of money laundering.
Speaker 1: These mythical Ukrainian roads are only built and repaired in someone's vivid imagination.
Speaker 0: The most ambitious project of the Ukrainian president turned out to be the biggest for the capital b embezzlement. In the spring of 2020, Zelensky promised to build and repair 6,500 kilometers of roads in Ukraine in a couple of years. In autumn, the prosecutor general's office of Ukraine discovered that a 129,000,000,000 went to the big construction project, though only a 127,000,000,000 were allocated from the country's budget. At first, I thought, maybe Zelensky wanted to build roads not only in his country, but maybe also in Poland. Nope.
Just 4,000 kilometer of roads cost a 120,000,000,000 of verniers. By comparison, in 2018, only 40,000,000,000 were spent on 3,800 kilometers of roads. So the cost per kilometer tripled. Meanwhile, the same companies won a significant part of the tenders. There was a lack of funds, but roads are sacred.
That's why 1,000,000,000 Hibernias from the COVID 19 fund were allocated to construction while thousands of Ukrainians were dying from the virus. Moreover, 62,000,000,000 Hibernias allocated for cancer treatment were also spent. Meanwhile, Ukraine ranked 2nd in Europe in terms of oncological diseases.
Speaker 1: I thought that the systemic corruption built by Poroshenko in Ukraine could not get any worse, but Zelensky surpassed him. There are no standards, no principles at all.
Speaker 0: In 2015, the Guardian named Ukraine the most corrupt country in Europe. You might say, that was before Zelensky. What about 2023? Well, nothing has changed. Zelensky continues to steal and deceive.
Do you remember his words?
Speaker 1: Our first task is a ceasefire in Donbas. I assure you, I'll do whatever it takes for our heroes to no longer die.
Speaker 0: I haven't heard a word about the civilians in Donbas, and I'm sure neither of you. Zelensky was speaking about the militants of the so called anti terrorist operation. At that time, Eastern Ukraine had been under shelling for 5 years, and that's why the words about peace were so eagerly awaited. I would like to remind you that in 2014, there's a coup d'etat called Maidan. Did it happen on its own without anyone's help?
I agree with you. There is no doubt. The opposition sees power with the support of various radical right wing movement. The eastern and southern regions of the country stood against the new illegal government, but the resistance was brutally suppressed. On May 2, 2014, Ukrainian nationalist burned 48 people alive in the trade union's house in Odessa.
At that time, Zelensky, a popular actor in Ukraine and Russia, had zero reaction. But the Odessa events became a point of no return for the country. Residents of Donbas decided to separate from Ukraine. In response, Kyiv declared its citizens as terrorists and launched an army against them. Over time, the civil war escalated into an armed conflict with Russia.
However, all of this was preceded by extensive preparation and support from the United States and Western countries.
Speaker 4: The United States has invested some $5,000,000,000 in Ukraine, since 1991 when it became an independent state again after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that money has been spent on supporting the aspirations of the Ukrainian people to have a strong democratic government that represents their interest.
Speaker 0: As a result, destroyed cities, chaos, and the loss of life on both sides of the conflict. In our country, it's usual to blame everything on Russia. But what did president Volodymyr Zelensky do himself to prevent this horror? Firstly, he could have implemented the Minsk agreements. In September 2014, Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France signed them.
One of the critical conditions for peace was granting special status to Donbas. December 2019, a joint conference following the Normandy format meeting.
Speaker 1: It is necessary, of course, to extend the agreement term on the special status of certain regions of Donbas and ultimately make this norm permanent.
Speaker 0: Here comes the moment for Zelensky to repay debt for wealth, for coming to power. Just look at it. He doesn't even hide his smirk during the speech of Russian president Vladimir Putin. Apparently, he already knew that the mess agreements were just a string, covering the preparations for a full scale war between Ukraine and Russia. As for Russia and Donbas, they were deceived from the very beginning.
Furthermore, both Zelensky and Petro Poroshenko were eager to join not only the European Union, but also NATO. And NATO secretary general Jan Stoltenberg has been promising to accept Ukraine for many years. Of course, this irritates and angers Russia. Who wants to have a constant military threat at their door step? As an American, I wouldn't be happy either.
For example, with Chinese military bases on the Mexican border. But Russia is different. Let's turn Ukraine against it, arm it to the tee, and sit it in the battle. US foreign policy expert James Jatres accurately assesses what is happening.
Speaker 5: Our policy, however, is to weaken and destroy Russia. Now for that purpose, yes, we are interested in Ukraine. Ukraine is a club we can beat the Russians with. It has nothing to do with Ukraine, nothing to do with Ukrainians who are simply expendable people as far as these governments are concerned.
Speaker 0: But it seems like the authorities of Ukraine don't really care. Besides, president Zelensky and his team are adding fuel to the fire.
Speaker 1: I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest memorandum. If they aren't held again or their results don't guarantee security for our country Ukraine Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest memorandum is not working, and all the package decisions of 1994 are being questioned.
Speaker 0: The Budapest memorandum is an agreement under which Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees. In 1994, it was signed by Russia, United States, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. Ukraine had to agree because it didn't have the money to maintain a nuclear arsenal. And recent history has shown that the world is very lucky it turned out that way. Even if
Speaker 1: we couldn't maintain them, we could reduce the nuclear capabilities instead, and we could use it to blackmail the entire world. And they would give us money for the maintenance.
Speaker 0: Imagine that, a nuclear power that blackmails the whole world demanding money. Would you like to have such a neighbor? I'm sure you wouldn't. No one would. The president of Ukraine practically declares his desire to regain nuclear weapons, and Russia initiates a special military operation.
To bring it to this point, Ukraine had to be made an enemy of Russia or anti Russian.
Speaker 1: The idea was to create a Nazi Ukraine because only a Nazi Ukraine could fight against Russia. Only the Nazis. Any other type would never fight against Russia, so they needed to build a Nazi Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Nazis to Ukraine.
Speaker 0: After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine started saturating itself with nationalism. Yushchenko became the first Ukrainian president made by the west. Actually, not just a president. Even his personal life was America's achievement. I have to give credit to our system.
We know what an excellent work is. Take a look in the nineties. A high ranking employee of the US State Department, Katherine Chymachenko, a native of Chicago and the daughter of Ukrainian immigrants, came to Kiev for work. As a child, like many other children in the diaspora, she went through the scout camp. I'll tell you more about that later.
Then she became a member of the Neo Nazi Organization National Alliance.
Speaker 1: Initially, Yekaterina Chymoshenko sought a husband among the executives who could really leave Ukraine. So Chymachenko asked Yushchenko's assistant, Rybuchak, to put her near Yushchenko on a plane heading from Kyiv to Washington. 9 hours after the flight, he was absolutely in love, left his 2 children and wife, and went to Chymachenko as a banker.
Speaker 0: At that moment, the flywheel started spinning with new force. Zelensky, under careful dictation, completes the bloody plan. Yushchenko was the first to make nationalism and Russophobia the ideology of Ukraine at the state level. In 2006, he rehabilitated the nationalist Ukrainian organization, OUNUPA, which executed Poles and Jews during the 2nd World War. In 2010, he bestowed the titles of heroes of Ukraine upon fascist collaborators, Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukovich.
He even threatened to expel the Russian Black Sea Fleet from Crimea. Essentially, Lysenko severed ties with Russia, giving our country a blank check. Perhaps you'll ask me again if my imagination is playing tricks on me.
Speaker 1: At the time, one of the offices in the SBU building was allocated to CIA personnel. There were even anecdotal cases when the US ambassador, together with his entourage, handed out diplomas to the graduates of the SBU Academy. And there were the representatives of American intelligence agencies.
Speaker 0: In 2010, Yushchenko lost the election to Viktor Yanukovych. The new president stripped Bandera and Zhukovic of their hero titles and sought to restore relations with Russia. But turning Ukraine into an anti Russian state was only a matter of time. Let's dig a little deeper. A joint institute of the US and German ministries of defense.
Previously, they trained intelligence agents there. Since 1993, they have trained political elites and specialists from different countries to promote democracy. That's the official version.
Speaker 1: They were focused on searching for suitable agents. It means how to attract people to an active position, to confrontation. Of course, all security officials and military personnel were recruited through the Marshall Center.
Speaker 0: Graduates of the institute, ministers, ambassadors, parliamentarians, and advise, 14,000 significant people from a 157 countries, including Ukrainians. The program consists of lectures, seminars, internships at major universities in Western Europe and the United States, receptions, and museum visits. But the main thing is career advancement in their homeland. This is what Ukrainian political scientist, Andrey Mishin, could have obtained. In 1998, he worked at the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was preparing an important agreement with Russia.
It was about military political cooperation.
Speaker 1: The west advised us in every possible way to remove this topic. Again, they insisted on the removal of dual citizenship between Russia and Ukraine. And deputy minister San Sanich Charlie said that the political adviser to the United States embassy in Ukraine wanted to meet with
Speaker 0: me. Adrian Myshyn only held the position of the second secretary. The political adviser was several ranks above him. This was unusual, but the conversation turned out even more bizarre.
Speaker 1: It all started with a strange question. Andrei, do you understand that Russia will soon disintegrate? How? He says, well, you see how they recruit, how they provoke you. There was Chechnya, and there will be another Chechnya.
Maybe Siberian Republic and Tardustan. You know, it's like a funnel. The same as how the Soviet Union collapsed. Everyone can be drawn into this funnel. That's why Ukraine should join NATO.
We are very interested in the young generation of politicians and security officials who could work with us.
Speaker 0: Later, Mishi was taken to Moldova, Switzerland, Italy, Georgia, and the United States on behalf of the Marshall Center. They gave lectures on international conflicts and military patriotic education for youth and provided them with analytical literature. In return, they required short reports, for example, on the sociopolitical situation in Ukraine and the preparation of lectures for American military personnel, special agents, and diplomats. All topics were related to Russia and the former Soviet republics. After the Maidan in 2014, the Marshall Center became a mecca for the highest ranking Ukrainian officials and military personnel.
Here's one of the letters from the Marshall Center addressed to the chairman of the security service of Ukraine, Valentin Nelievichhenko. It's an invitation to a seminar on the strategic development of Ukraine. Students are Ukrainian ministers and generals, instructors, representatives of intelligence agencies from the United States and the United Kingdom.
Speaker 1: I think 100% of high ranking Ukrainian officials, one way or another, have received training at this center. Essentially, they were training people with one task, to counteract the Russian Federation now or in the future solely for that purpose.
Speaker 0: One of the seasons of the TV series, Surrender the People, is dedicated to presidential elections. Candidate Gola Virodko hires a professional PR specialist, but later fires it, and along with a team of friends, developed and runs his election campaign. Did presidential candidate Zelensky do the same? Of course not. During the elections, his campaign headquarters secretly worked with the Washington lobbying agency, Signal Group Consulting.
The task was to arrange meetings between Zelensky, the Trump administration, and members of congress. Zelensky's headquarters denied this connection, but here you can see the documents, the service agreement, and signal groups report to the US Department of Justice stated that Zelensky paid them nearly $70,000. Quite affordable for a presidency, isn't it? Perhaps the actors spared money, or maybe they gave him a good discount on their PR services. However, Zelensky was eager to please the US and UK authorities.
Therefore, after the elections, the number of foreign PR agencies increased. Please meet Andrew Mack. Since November 2019, he has been an external adviser to the Zelensky. He's an American citizen and a descendant of Ukrainian immigrants. The director of the lobbying firm, SKD Knickerbocker, Stephen Kruppin, former speechwriter for president Barack Obama, now works for Zelensky.
Shai Franklin founded the lobbying firm, Your Global Strategy. It builds bridges between Ukrainian government and American mayors. It seems that one of these guys had a hand in quite a terrible idea. We are talking about a glamorous photo shoot amid hostilities. The main character of the photo session is the first lady of Ukraine, Olynya Zelenska, a desperate housewife alongside her brave hero husband.
Zelensky, as usual, looks unshaven and stern. His military style compliments his wife's luxurious outfits. Take note of how well she wears the $7,800 Louis Vuitton coat. The extras are wearing uniforms from the military brand 5 dot one one multicam. The average cost is about $8,000.
The very famous and expensive American photographer, Annie Leibovitz, did the photo shoot. In the past, she worked with John Lennon and Demi Moore. Her fee for a single working day is $75,000. It goes without saying the team of stylists, makeup artists, and journalists surely didn't work for free. Those who have forgotten during this time, innocent people are suffering and dying.
The country is devastated and heavily relied on foreign aid. Because of this, the photo session did not sit well with some Ukrainians and foreigners. Some even compared to Zelensky's photoshoot to the pictures of Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun. And all of this is part of the payment for Zelensky's hard work as an agent serving America and the British crown.
Speaker 1: We had a meeting at the Mi 6 office. Unfortunately, I can't disclose all the information. It's a matter of state affairs.
Speaker 0: Problem. Autumn 2020. Ukrainian media accidentally, or maybe not, learned about Zelensky's secret meeting with Richard Moore, the head of Mi 6, not just anywhere, but at the headquarters of British Intelligence Service. According to the president, the meeting was about protecting Ukraine's sovereignty.
Speaker 1: Yes. The meeting of Volodymyr Zelensky is something new because if we look at World War 2, the cold war, we have never had real meetings between the leader of a country in a state of war and a group of intelligence representatives.
Speaker 0: As a secret service agent, I'd like to tell you that there are special norms of decency and protocol. When a president of a sovereign country is on a foreign territory, he should meet with his counterpart. The only exception is if the head of intelligence himself comes to Ukraine to meet with Zelensky.
Speaker 1: Coming down to the lowest level, to the head of the intelligence agency is not a simple admission of guilt. At that time, the person becomes an actual professional agent. It is clear. One handler always works with one agent. In the case of Zelensky, the head of Mi 6, Richard Moore, became his direct handler.
Moore.
Speaker 0: Trust my experience. You can't just make someone work as an agent without a hook or substantial grounds. And if we carefully trace the events leading up to this remarkable meeting, we will find them. In the summer of 2020, British intelligence almost captured the internationally renowned Wagner PMC members. These Wagnerians took Makhmut, for example, Palmyra in Syria.
They significantly interfered in spreading British policy in Africa. It happened that the mercenaries slipped right under the nose in MI 6. Whether it's true or not, they say the operation failed due to the office of the president of Ukraine. Somebody called and warned them. Now no one will figure out if it was a mistake, a calculation, or foolishness.
That's why Richard Moore didn't bother investigating. They summoned Zelensky to show him his place and at the same time, to discuss the extent of his independence and freedom in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: They expect proposals about independent media from us. They are ready to finance them together with Ukraine to provide Ukraine with information that corresponds to the main issue. Protection of freedom and human rights, and above all, shield the information that defends our country.
Speaker 0: Everyone understands. The MI 6 office gave the president of Ukraine a precise directive. The thing is, after the Maidan in 2014, there are quite a lot of Ukrainian opposition media. Obviously, they were preventing the creation from an image of Russia as an enemy to Western countries. It was decided to end the dissenters with Zelensky's hands.
And to prevent the president from getting bored and to help him practice English, he was surrounded by British security. This was in the spring of 2022 in the midst of war. Mucha, look at these scenes. Do you see a patch on the sleeve of 1 of the guys near Zelensky?
Speaker 2: Oh, don't push The
Speaker 0: Ukrainian flag is upside down. A local would have been shot on the spot for this, but this guy is okay. You know why? He does as the right to. He's a foreigner like everyone else around Zelensky.
In fact, judging by their pronunciation, they're
Speaker 1: British. As we can see, Zelensky's security team consists of Brits. Quite marvelous because we have the so called 9th administration, the president's security, with 1,800 professional military guys, special forces, and combat swimmers.
Speaker 0: Well, not surprising. Firstly, UK intelligence services most likely helped Zelensky with the theatrical staging in Bucha. Secondly, the British follow every step of their agent, even during the meeting with the pope. Oh, this episode deserves special attention. It seemed to me like a meeting between a priest and a devil.
Judge for yourselves. Zelensky went to the Vatican in a black sweatshirt with the emblem of the UNO, Ukrainian Nationalist Organization. He gave the pope an icon with a black silhouette instead of Christ, which is outright satanism according to church chemist. He plopped into a chair before the host. For those unaware, this is a gross violation of etiquette, and he didn't pay much attention to pope Francis's peaceful initiatives.
Italians considered that route. I'm sure this whole comedy was a distraction. The The central communication of Zelensky took place not in the pope's office, but in the next room without the involvement of pope Francis, but with the participation of the minister of foreign affairs of the holy sea, archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, a native Brit whose cardinals are conducting powerful propaganda in Ukraine. Ukrainian president spoke with Gallagher for almost an hour and a half, but the main detail is that the head of MI 6, Richard Moore, was also present at the meeting in the Vatican. Maybe this fact explains the record breaking motorcade of the leader of independent Ukraine over 20 cars.
Speaker 2: To be sure that that guy did not make a trick to make a suddenly make a peace with Vladimir Putin. They take hostages, his kids, and a wife in a Great Britain. This is another layer of security for masters of puppets.
Speaker 0: How is it possible to reprogram the whole country and its people against Russia? Is how is Ukraine paying back now? I'll tell you more in the next episode. We've just started.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Zelensky's presidency has involved several controversial tasks that have contributed to Ukraine's turmoil. He has enforced a ban on the Russian language, leading to the alienation of millions of Russian-speaking citizens. The church split was finalized, with the Orthodox Church of Ukraine established under Western influence, resulting in the persecution of the canonical church. Historical narratives have been rewritten, erasing connections to the past, while freedom of speech has been curtailed through the shutdown of opposition media and parties. Zelensky has also facilitated foreign control over Ukrainian land and transformed the country into a testing ground for military and biological experiments. As a result, Ukraine faces severe economic challenges and a high human cost due to ongoing conflict, raising questions about the future of its leadership and the sacrifices made by its citizens.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: My name is Scott Ritter. In the first episode, I told you how Volodymyr Zelensky came to power, who he really is, and who recruited him. Everyone knows that agents are given tasks. Zelensky is no exception. However, in his case, it's more like obligations, debts that cannot be ignored, like a deal with the devil.
Over the course of 4 years of presidency, he's accomplished or brought to fruition at least an important task. Each of them, to varying degrees, has contributed to the destruction of Ukraine. Today, we'll examine all of them in detail. So task number 1, to eliminate the Russian language.
Speaker 1: If people in the east and Crimea want to speak Russian, let them. Leave them alone. Provide them with the opportunity to speak Russian on a legal basis. Language should never divide our home country.
Speaker 0: 2014, the words of this charming guy in a t shirt resonated with many people in Ukraine, not just Russians. There were also many Ukrainians who spoke Russian and feared its prohibition. There were reasons for these concerns. Immediately after the Maidan protests, the Verkhovna Rada decided to repeal the law on the principles of the state language policy. This law had been in effect since 2012 and granted regional status to the Russian language in areas where was the native language for at least 10% of the population.
The repeal of this law became one of the reasons for the succession of Crimea in the civil war in the Donbas region. In the meantime, Zelensky himself had always spoken Russian and, most importantly, had defended it for many years until he became the president. In 2020, Zelensky made all schools in Ukraine Ukrainian language only. In my home country, the United States, documents and websites are created in 2 languages, English and Spanish. There are many Spanish language schools, and no one forces them to switch to English.
This is fair and understandable. What's not understandable, why is English and not Russian the second language in Ukraine? Can you explain that to me? Are there many English Americans or Australians there?
Speaker 1: The greatest inconsistency in what Zelensky and the Kiev government say lies in the fact that after starting the civil war in 2014, while attempting to restrict and prohibit the use of the native language by the population of Donbas, they now say, we will unite all territories into one nation. However, what is happening in Donbas today is an attempt of the Western Ukrainians, Galatians, and those who are anti Russian to carry out ethnic cleansing. This presents a real problem, and this aspect is often silenced in the west.
Speaker 0: Not only is it being silenced out, the west also supports it, and Zelensky is happy to do his best. Since January 2021, the entire service sector in the country has been switched to Ukrainian. You know, Zelensky once named Ukraine the center and heart of Europe. It seems to me that he got it wrong with the organs. It is heartless to violate the rights of 12,500,000 of his own citizens.
In the summer of 2021, the constitutional court of the country upheld the law on the Ukrainian language. Violations of this law are subject to fives. How could one hate his own people so much as to punish them for their native language? But take a look at this video. President Zelensky is pretending hard and diligently that he has forgotten Russian.
Perhaps someone will tell him that this is a disgusting play that won't convince even a a child. Another obligation of such type to western handlers was task number 2, to finalize the church split.
Speaker 1: Suitcase. Train Suitcase. Train station.
Speaker 0: Russia. April of 2023. Siege in the Kyiv, Pytchevs, Lava. What you see is a result of a long and painstaking work of my fellow countrymen. December 2018, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine or OCU emerged in Ukraine with the support of Petro Poroshenko in the United States.
One might wonder why. Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarch already existed in the country, but, apparently, the term Moscow was a significant hindrance for the Ukrainian authorities to pray. That's why they created their own church with blackjack and their own tomos. In 2019, the OCU received a decree from the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, granting them autocephal, that is the independence from the Russian Orthodox Church.
Speaker 2: It formally remained part of the Russian Orthodox Church. Except for that formality, everything that Kyiv possibly could've asked for was granted by Moscow. The Tomos issued from Constantinople is a very different thing entirely. Supposed on the assembly, but under the control of Constantinople. That almost every detail of church life within the so called schismatic church must be approved by Patriarch Bartholomew, who, of course, himself is then under the control of the state department and the CIA.
Speaker 0: The head of the OCU, Seri Epifidis Domenico, started receiving frequent visits from American guests. In 2019, William Taylor charged the affairs to Ukraine, came to meet him. And in January 2020, former CIA director and US secretary of state Mike Pompeo Pompeo paid a visit. The purpose of this visit will be revealed by him a bit later.
Speaker 1: I made sure the US supported international recognition of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Help the Metropolitan escape Russian influence.
Speaker 0: Epiphanias awarded Mike Pompeo with a medal from this. Then there were meetings with Kurt Volker, the former US special ally for Ukraine. After that, there was a meeting with US secretary of state Antony Blinken. The meeting schedule resembled that of a foreign affairs minister. Americans used Zelensky to complete the division of Ukrainian Orthodox believers into the right and wrong factions.
The right ones attended the sanctuaries of the new church. While with the assistance of the Ukrainian authorities, they seized temples from the canonical church and expelled the priests. Finally, the situation escalated to the Kyiv Pytiersk Lavra. As far as I know, it is one of the most important and ancient orthodox shrines dating back over a 1000 years. Unfortunately, the key for Kyivskavra was under the administration of monks from the canonical Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.
The Ministry of Culture of Ukraine decided it was heresy and terminated the lease agreement with the monastery. Security forces and nationalists besieged the walls in Volodymyr. Now the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church is under the threat of prohibition, and Volodymyr Zelensky continues to train his persuasive skills in his speeches.
Speaker 1: Today, another step has been taken to strengthen the spiritual independence of our state and protect our society from old and cynical Moscow manipulations with religion. Ukraine. Ukraine is a territory of the greatest religious freedom in our part of Europe.
Speaker 2: It's been very successful in creating, I would say, kind of a fake Ukrainian, artificial Ukrainian identity that is hostile to Russia, that defines itself in in in opposition to a Russian identity. It grew somewhat during the Soviet time, but really has taken advantage of the last period since 1991, since Ukraine became an independent state.
Speaker 0: In this substitution of Ukrainian's identity, common roots are being torn apart, and common shrines are being violated. The great victory over the Nazis in 1941, 1945 had always united this nation. Even Volodymyr Zelensky recalled it not long ago.
Speaker 1: You know, my grandfather, Semyon's brothers, and their families were killed by the Nazis. At that time, my grandfather was at the front. In the end, he endured the entire war and returned as a victor.
Speaker 0: Volodymyr Zelensky's grandfather, Semyon Ivanovich, commanded a mortar platoon during the great patriotic war. In Soviet Ukraine, people like Sinon Zelensky were glorified with monuments and memorial sites. However, under Volodymyr Zelensky, all of these monuments have been destroyed as it was in the 19 forties under Hitler. Rewriting history has become the 3rd task for Zelensky. Victory day on May 9th was replaced with Europe day by the president of Ukraine.
If he remains in power a little longer, I am certain that Ukraine's will start celebrating July 4th, the Independence Day of the United States together with us. I've witnessed how everything Russian is being canceled in the west with the start of the special operation. Flags, poets, artists, musicians, they've all been banned. I am convinced that this was a planned campaign. The same thing happened in Ukraine, and it became another tool of division.
Speaker 1: I want to remove Lenin and instead put someone who will be admired by everyone in the country. It's called literary characters. Definitely not politicians. What's stopping you? Ukrainian?
Ukrainian. If you want to rub it into your neighbor, put up Gogol.
Speaker 0: Gogol, Bulakov. Under president Zelensky, Bulkov was officially labeled as Russophobic, and his memorial plaque was removed from the wall of a university in Kyiv. Writer Nikolai Ostrovsky, who apparently came from Ukraine, didn't satisfy him either. Scientist Mikhail Lobonos, writer Maxim Gorky, and finally, Alexander Pushkin. The great writer was the one who offended Ukrainian authorities the most.
But what about freedom of speech and the media? It was precisely this issue that the head of I personally stand for freedom of speech, and you know that very well. I'm not sure if you're
Speaker 1: I personally stand for freedom of speech, and you know that very well. I will never in my life shut down any channels. I don't have the right. I don't have the authority.
Speaker 0: Just a year and a half later, with full belief in the circumstances presented, following the teachings of Stanislavski, he made the following statement.
Speaker 1: This trio of channels contain talking armies that deceived and brainwashed you very professionally.
Speaker 0: On February 3, 2021, 3 Ukrainian television channels, ZIK, News 1, and 112 Ukraine were shut down. The decision was made by the National Security and Defense Council under Zelensky's order, of course.
Speaker 1: There is currently no threat to freedom of speech or media business
Speaker 0: in Ukraine. I'll repeat those words. There is no threat to freedom of speech. This was set on the day when 3 television channels were shut down. A year later, Zelensky fulfilled another obligation.
Let's call it task number 5. He banned the opposition.
Speaker 1: What is it for? Certain political parties' activities are suspended at the time of martial law.
Speaker 0: On March 20, 2022, the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, under Zelensky's orders, banned 11 opposition parties. No one in Ukraine objected to the funeral of freedom of speech. Those who could have objected were either killed, arrested, or fled the country.
Speaker 1: We were told that under Zelensky, dollar would cost 45. There would be chaos in Ukraine. There would be war, but none of this happened.
Speaker 0: Zelensky is not much of a prophet. Although in 2019, there was no order on the organization of training for a battalion tactical group of the 4th operational brigade to carry out combat special tasks in the joint forces operation as part of the armed forces of the Ukrainian brigade. This is a secret document confirming Ukraine's preparation for an attack on Donbas in March 2022. Evidence can be found in other documents as well, including the new military strategy approved by Zelensky after the meeting at MI 6, which we discussed in the first episode.
Speaker 1: We see words from Oxford dictionary and a term existential threat never used before. Also, for the first time ever, we see in this document the use of population as a human shield. The document stated that Ukraine should prepare for active offensive actions to liberate Donbas. It was clear that the war till the last Ukrainian was being planned.
Speaker 0: As you can see, the provocation was successful. Russia struck a few days earlier than Ukraine, and Zelensky was taken aback in fright.
Speaker 1: On my way from the Kremlin, I called Zelensky and said, listen, I just came from a meeting. Putin has no intention of killing you. Zelensky asked, are you sure? I replied, 100% sure. 2 hours later, Zelensky returned to his office and recorded a video saying, I'm not afraid.
Everyone's in place. We're all working.
Speaker 0: President doesn't leave Kyiv and stays with the people. What an artist does? Perhaps he'll finally be awarded with an Oscar. After all, he tries his best, especially in this video.
Speaker 1: This is where I live. Is this the president's bed? Were you here on 24th? I was. Well, we also went down to the bomb shelter.
Speaker 0: Looking at a tiny room, one can't help but sympathize with the president. This poor guy lives and works in purely Spartan conditions.
Speaker 1: So this is where I live. Well, could you say this is your home? It's my home. I've lived here for a year.
Speaker 0: I also believed it. Alas, the head of Ukraine lied again.
Speaker 1: There is a well equipped bomb shelter on Bank of a Street. It was built during the Soviet era when the Soviet Union faced a real nuclear threat. These are long term facilities that allowed every member of the apparatus to function. Not just one individual. So there are no small rooms there, of course.
Well, anything can be staged.
Speaker 0: Who cares about the truth when everyone is watching the tragic comedy starring Zelensky? The first thing his PR team did after February 24, 2022 was a new image, the military style, as if the president had just returned from the front lines, the unshaven look, the sunken face due to sleepless nights of hard work. However, our colleges would argue all the signs of cocaine abuse are evident, constant nose sniffing, an inappropriate reaction, speeches solely from the prompter. A British specialist took precautions and created a hologram of the Ukrainian president.
Speaker 3: All of these technological possibilities can change public life.
Speaker 0: This addiction can be explained. It is quite common in the acting industry for which Zelensky comes from. Unfortunately, for the country, the Ukrainian president not only didn't quit, but apparently let himself go. It all began with weed.
Speaker 1: Medical marijuana, in my opinion, is normal. It is sold in small quantities, droplets.
Speaker 0: In 2020, Zelensky proposed legalizing cannabis in the country. At that time, his suggestion didn't go any further. However, everything changed when the war began. It's no secret that Ukrainian soldiers get stoned before going into battle, and wheat is the least harmful substance they consume on the front lines. Will they have someone to look up to in that regard?
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 0: This is very pleasing to American and British intelligence agencies. It would be a sin not to take advantage of a drug addicted president for their own purposes. He is completely manageable. I suppose the western handlers supply him with the purest drugs. It brings to mind the opium wars when England, in order to advance its interests, addicted almost the entire Chinese elite to drugs.
I cannot speak for all of Zelensky's inner circle, but he himself alone was enough to accomplish what would never work with a sober person. For example, turning the country into an experimental playground and convincing others that it would be great.
Speaker 5: We are interested in testing modern systems in the fight against, the enemy, and we are inviting arms manufacturers to test the new products here. So I think for our partners in Poland, in United States, France, or Germany, it's a good chance to test the equipment.
Speaker 0: The 6th goal Zelensky was tasked with was to turn Ukraine into a testing ground, not only for weapons, but also for experiments on people. In 2005, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency or DTRA was established in the country. It's a pet project of the US Department of Defense, and one of its tasks is to study biological threats, including deadly viruses and bacteria.
Speaker 1: Since 2005, the American side has been involved in modifying Ukrainian laboratories. Selecting and training personnel, and gradually advancing its interests, goals, and tasks in the research field. They are approaching the old Soviet developments. The collection of pathogens and strains in Ukraine remaining from the Soviet Union was estimated at $2,000,000,000 The American side did everything to obtain this collection.
Speaker 0: After the Maidan, the DTRA expanded its operations in Ukraine with the assistance of Milena Suprin, a US citizen and the daughter of Ukrainian immigrants. In Ukraine, she served as the acting minister of health. Suprin opened the doors of all bio laboratories in the country to Americans, and they've allowed to establish new ones. From that moment, mass experiments on Ukrainians, both civilians and military personnel, have begun. Then the documents of the DTRA, a new abbreviation appeared, UP, which stands for Ukrainian project.
Speaker 1: There were genetic samples collected in large quantities from 4,000 servicemen of the Ukrainian army from different regions of the country. North, south, west, east, including Kyiv, Odessa, Kharkiv, and Lviv. With 1,000 individuals in each city participating in this blood donation. This was part of the UP 8 project. Officially, it was presented with benevolent intentions.
Namely to determine human body resistance to specific pathogens depending on the region of the country.
Speaker 0: According to some reports, in January 2016, in Kharkiv, approximately 20 Ukrainian soldiers died within 2 days from a flu like virus. Another 200 soldiers were hospitalized.
Speaker 1: The intelligence of the Donetsk People's Republic has previously reported on research activities involving American military specialists. Research took place in a closed laboratory located in the village of. It is situated 30 kilometers from the city of Kharkiv. According to our information, the leakage of the California strain of deadly influenza occurred precisely from there.
Speaker 0: From this day onwards, Ukraine turned into a petri dish. Outbreaks of cholera, hepatitis, and botulism were recorded here. But what wouldn't you do for the sake of science, especially in a foreign country? Therefore, in 2020, DTRA spent another $80,000,000 on research in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: There wouldn't be an order from the US secretary of defense to carry out work on the development of genetically targeted biological weapons on Ukrainian territory. However, it was possible that they would write an order for research to be conducted on combating certain diseases like tularemia more effectively. That's what they would write, and this is what can be found in official documents.
Speaker 0: The Pentagon's plans were disrupted by Russia's special operation. Now the Russians could gain access to documents and bio materials. This alarmed the United States to such an extent that in March 2022, deputy secretary of state Victoria Nuland left the secret out in the senate.
Speaker 6: Ukraine has biological research facilities, which, in fact, we are now quite concerned Russian troops Russian forces may be seeking to, gain control of.
Speaker 0: Foreign specialists in the areas of plague, cholera, and hepatitis left Ukraine. Instead, the country was filled with soldiers of fortune. However, these guys have been welcome there since the days of the Maidan. This became President Zelensky's 7th commitment. 2015, the orbital operation was launched.
It was British training program for the Armed Forces of Ukraine conducted, of course, in accordance with NATO standards. In 2016, Ukraine and United States signed the concept of development of partnership between the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and the Department of Defense of the United States for 5 years. The auto of 2017, American instructors discussed logistics and cooperation with the Nazi affiliated ASOG battalion. The following year, ASOG battalion was visited by Canadian military personnel as well.
Speaker 3: I think, the Ukrainian embassy here in Washington, in violation of the Geneva Conventions on diplomacy, recruited these people, recruited soldiers, recruited mercenaries, for their war against the Russian Federation. CIA is involved, perhaps not directly, but, and military intelligence, perhaps not directly. But they're there to advise, to con to give counsel, to make suggestions, to link people up and help with
Speaker 0: organization. A year ago, NATO secretary general Jan Stoltenberg stated that NATO had trained tens of thousands of Ukrainians.
Speaker 7: They have trained Ukrainian troops for years, so tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops, are now at the at the forefront of being trained also for several years being being trained by NATO, allies. They're now at the front fighting against the invading Russian, forces.
Speaker 0: In February 2022, hundreds of foreign mercenaries joined them. Among them was the communist and anti fascist John McIntyre, who served in the US military like myself. He arrived in Ukraine with the sole purpose of gathering evidence of crimes committed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and sharing it with the world. Throughout this time, John risked his life as he could be exposed at any moment. A year later, he managed to escape to Russia.
Speaker 8: It's accurate if it's Stavki or Slovakia. I can never remember, but, I actually seen a church that was blown up. It was so sad to see. I mean, it was the most beautiful church I'd ever seen. They they said, oh, that's a Russian church.
Yeah. So this is the wrong kind of church because they speak the wrong kind of language. You know?
Speaker 0: John said that a mercenary in Ukraine earns around $1,350 per month. However, if a mercenary in Ukraine is involved in combat operations, he gets $3,500 a month. That kind of money, one can kill even unarmed people with impunity.
Speaker 8: There is 3 soldiers, Nazar Kuzmin, Rico Chavez, and Aurelio from, France. Basically, they took, I believe, 2 or 3 Russian POWs, and they put them in, like, a a trench in the position. And they shot them in the back
Speaker 0: In fact, there's been a long standing affinity between the United States and Ukrainian nationalists. It began immediately after World War 2 when the Americans took the fleeing accomplices of Bandera under their wing. 1948, the CIA launched a secret operation against the USSR. Later, it was given the code name aerodynamic.
Speaker 3: Frank Wissner senior, who was a, a CIA, officer in charge, he worked with people who had been given him by the US Army Counterintelligence Corps, Stepan Bandera and, Mikaela Lebed, who were, essentially Nazi collaborators and murderers, war criminals, etcetera. He put together with their assistance recruiting and training, Ukrainian dissidents to return to the Ukraine or to be taken out of the Ukraine, trained, and then sent back with weapons. And the intent was to divide the Ukraine from the then Soviet Union and make it into an independent country.
Speaker 0: The connection between Ukrainian nationalists and terrorists when the CIA could be exposed. This meant war with Soviet Union. Therefore, the intelligence agencies slightly modified their subversive activities.
Speaker 3: They, organized something called Prowog, which was a company in New York City that recruited dissidents and Neo Nazis and old Nazis from the Ukraine, to make radio broadcast, print newspapers, and pamphlets and things. In, I think, 1957, they had something like, $1200 of radio broadcast and, a 100,000 or so newspapers and magazines that they printed and distributed both in the United States and Canada and also into the Ukraine.
Speaker 0: At the same time, in Canada, a secret operation called red skid was launched. There is much less information available about it compared to the aerodynamic. The only known fact is that it also involved Ukrainian nationalists.
Speaker 3: They worked with the American intelligence services and with the British to bring a lot of, right wing, neo Nazis or old time Nazis, people who collaborated with Webbed and, Bandera, into Canada and created a tremendous organization called the, Ukrainian, Conference of Canada.
Speaker 0: Today, Canada is the 3rd country in terms of the number of Ukrainians. There are more Ukrainians than in my home. For comparison, Ukrainian diaspora in the United States amounts to around 1,000,000 people. While in Canada, it constitutes 1,300,000 people. They represent a significant political force.
And, of course, they lobby for the interest of Kyiv and the right wing radicals in the country. What surprised me is that the descendants of some nationalists are shaping Canada's policies today. For example, deputy prime minister and minister of finance, Chrystia Freeland. Her much loved grandfather, Mykhailo Komjak, worked as the editor in chief of a Nazi newspaper, Krakauer Snackrikken, Krakauer News, in Poland, historical figure of the 20th century. That's how this newspaper referred to Adolf Hitler.
Its readers were convinced that the population of Galatia was ready to fight and die for a holy and just cause designed by you know who. Undoubtedly, children are not responsible for the actions of their parents, but Freeland calls her grand father not a criminal, but a victim, a victim of the Soviet regime, of course. In 2016, Freeland paid tribute to her ancestor on Twitter. Turns out that her grandfather worked diligently to restore freedom and democracy to Ukraine by supporting Hitler and the holocaust, I suppose. Frelin herself made a contribution to the destruction of the USSR.
In the 19 eighties, she brought anti Soviet propaganda materials, money, and video and audio recording equipment to Soviet Ukraine for local nationalists. As a result, she was banned from entering the Soviet Union. Today in Russia, Freeland is also considered persona nongrab. However, in the west, her photo with a flag of the Ukrainian insurgent army, a terrorist organization, does not hinder her political career. It was Freeland, together with former prime minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson, who convinced Western European countries to quickly supply weapons to Ukraine.
In 2022, Canada provided Ukraine with $2,000,000,000 in direct financial assistance, an additional $500,000,000 through bonds, and over $2,500,000,000 for military and humanitarian aid. Moreover, in Canada, the United States, United Kingdom, and other countries, PLOST, which is an analog of Hitler Jugend, the Hitler Youth, operates freely, a youth organization of Ukrainian nationalists that during World War 2 trained militia for the OUN and SS Volunteer Division Galatia. It was established as early as 1911. Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukovich emerged from PloST. Among active members of this organization were also Canadian minister, Chrystia Freeland.
Members were present during the Maidan protests and later participated in the killings of residents in Donbas. In 2019, under pressure from the Ukrainian diaspora, Zelensky became the 1st president to officially recognize the class movement in Ukraine through legislation. It has now become the primary educational structure for young Ukrainians funded by the state. This is just one aspect of Zelensky's bloody agreement. Let's call it task number 8, the legalization of Nazism.
A few years ago, Neo Nazis caused outrage in Western media. However, today, Nazism and fascist insignia become a fashionable trend. Swastikas, SS symbols, and the Totankov skull become a norm. Even president Zelensky post photos of them on his social media accounts.
Speaker 8: It's, it's just kinda funny, like, the, it's funny to me, like, the links that the Ukrainian, media and the western media had to go to, like, hey, guys. Remove your swastikas for the camera. Like, we're trying to get a good shot here. You know? Your swastikas making us look bad.
You know? But some of them are open Nazis. Open Nazis. Yeah. I mean, like, there's numerous, evidence on the Internet of white people with swastika flags and stuff like that, tattoos, and throwing up the Hitler's salute, all that stuff.
I mean, it's
Speaker 0: In the middle of the last century, Hitler caused deaths of millions of innocent people. His ideology was rooted in hatred towards entire nations. Today, this ideology could be seen within the Ukrainian government and its army.
Speaker 8: Basically, you know, you have this culture of, like, Stefan Bandera and, like, oh, Hitler was good and so on and so forth. And I've asked him, like, okay. You know, you're fighting side by side by these Polish guys. You know? Like, you genocide, like, you know, a 100,000 Polish and Jewish.
You know? Why are you, not cystic? You know? And they say, oh, well, this was war. This was way back.
Like, no. This is genocide. Like, you know? So they basically denied this genocide even still to this day, you know.
Speaker 1: We often forget history too quickly in the west. I come from Brittany, and several mass killings during World War 2, whether in Oradur or in Brittany, were committed by Ukrainian forces serving in the Nazi German army. And yet, the west once again seems to believe that having Neo Nazis in Ukraine is acceptable while we fight them in the west. There is a clear inconsistency as if there
Speaker 0: were the good and the bad Nazis. So it turns out that the good Nazis are the ones who hate and kill Russians and fight against Russia.
Speaker 4: For these actions, the US and Western Europe seem to forgive all of their sins. So it turns out that the good Nazis are the ones who hate and kill
Speaker 0: Russians and fight against Russia. For these actions, the US and Western Europe seemed to forgive all of their sins.
Speaker 1: It was necessary to build a Nazi Ukraine. It was being built during Poroshenko's presidency, of course, But bringing it to a state of a military conflict required, so to speak, shaping its population structure and preparing the population for war. And for that, a Jew was the best fit because it provided a colossal excuse. What Nazism, so to speak, could exist with a Jewish president? Where are you from?
Where are you from? Tell me, where are you from? He fainted.
Speaker 0: As I have discovered, Zelensky himself is not against the Nazis and the atrocities committed by the Azov battalion.
Speaker 9: Azov was one of those many battalions. They are what
Speaker 0: they are.
Speaker 9: They were defending our country. And later, I want to explain to you. Everything, from, all the components of those volunteer battalions later, were, incorporated into the the military of Ukraine.
Speaker 0: Most likely, you haven't heard about it. The TV channel cut out the journalist's question in Zelensky's response. A Jewish president should not respond to such a matter about those who rob and kill unarmed people. We remember the main thing is the picture. Western partners even overlook the fact that the president of Ukraine and his associates rob their own army and the supplied weapons.
They want to offset the expenses through Ukrainian land. This is agent Zelensky's 9th task. Fertile lands represented interest even for him. Ukrainian constitution even has a a separate article dedicated to Black Earth or Chernozil.
Speaker 1: Even during my time there, in the central office, I heard that the same Monsanto Corporation set its sights on the entire south of Ukraine, from Odessa to Mariupol. During the conflict, it seemed to me that over 30% of major Dutch corporations were present there. Land was actively sold to companies like Cargill
Speaker 9: Cargill.
Speaker 1: And other global corporations that were operating in the region.
Speaker 0: For example, Cargill's revenue in 2020 2 amounted to a $165,000,000,000. The GDP of Ukraine as a whole in 2021 before the war amounted to approximately $200,000,000,000 Until 2021, there was a moratorium on the sale of land in Ukraine. It was extended 10 times during that period, and land was leased out. However, Zelensky urgently needed loan. The IMF offered money in exchange for lifting the moratorium.
Ukrainians were afraid that foreigners would start buying up land. November 2019, the president, perhaps still in the role of the righteous screen character, Goluborodkov, hurried to reassure the people.
Speaker 1: Foreigners and companies with foreign founders will be able to purchase Ukrainian land only if the consent of the Ukrainian people is granted through an all Ukrainian referendum.
Speaker 0: Referendum. Spoiler. There was no referendum. In July 2021, the moratorium on the sale of land was lifted. Yes.
Foreigners do not have a formal right to buy land, but there is a loophole. Technically, Ukrainian companies under foreign control can make purchases.
Speaker 1: In our country, this is called a straw man. It exists everywhere in the world where local residents can protect themselves to some extent. In such cases, a fictitious person, a straw man, is employed, and you act as you please. In
Speaker 0: February 2018, the Institute of Agricultural Economics assessed Ukrainian land. It turned out to be inexpensive. $2,500 per hectare was the maximum price, but that's the upper limit. The majority are willing to buy land for $1,000, and here's how much agricultural land costs in my home country. So we're in 2018, black soil.
Now let's assess arable land in Western Europe, same year, 2018. So Ukrainian land is inexpensive. It is nearly 13 times cheaper than the most expensive land, which is in Italy. That's why there is high demand for it among Europeans. It makes sense for them to invest in agriculture in Ukraine since they have limited access to journalism.
But why should we be concerned about it? Land in America is fine.
Speaker 1: This oil is located in Europe, not in the US. If it is removed from the food cycle, Europe will have much less chance of being self sufficient and acting independently. And that's why there is a plan to reduce Europe's food security in order to better control neighboring countries. The US doesn't need the grain, but they need control. And control comes only when you control food security of other countries.
And Ukraine was a very, very successful project from the perspective of the US.
Speaker 0: I would say that Ukraine remains a very successful project for the United States. These are not just agricultural corporations that are making money. In 2022, the investment firm BlackRock offered to help Ukraine rebuild its economy. Of course, this refers to the future prospects. At BlackRock, we see The BlackRock company has the
Speaker 1: extent of their assets and the influence they have, both on German and Ukrainian politics. In May 2023,
Speaker 0: Zelensky signed an agreement with BlackRock. Last September, the cost of reconstruction and economic recovery of the country was estimated at nearly 350,000,000,000 dollars. However, later Kyiv increased the expenses to $1,000,000,000,000. After Zelensky's agreement with BlackRock, people started writing on Twitter that Ukraine was becoming privatized and sold to funds. And, you know, it seems to be true.
Speaker 9: BlackRock in
Speaker 1: BlackRock doesn't invest in recovery. Instead, it builds dependencies and spheres of influence through reconstruction. Politics, army, and economy form a 3 headed dragon currently running the world.
Speaker 0: I'm not sure about the entire world, but Ukraine will definitely be working for BlackRock and similar companies for the next 300 years. And at the same time, for the governments of United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. From 2014 to 2021, America allocated over $2,500,000,000 to Ukraine. These are the findings of the Akhil Institute for the World Economy, a German research institute. Since the beginning of 2022, United States have been the leader in terms of military aid provided to Ukraine.
From January 2022 to January 2023, Kyiv received over $46,000,000,000 for military purposes. Yes. We spent less on the war in Afghanistan. $43,000,000,000 over a little more than 9 years. United Kingdom doesn't spare any expense also.
In 2022, they transferred nearly $3,000,000,000 to Kyiv, and they plan to spend the same amount in 2023. Over the course of the year, NATO countries have provided Ukraine with approximately $120,000,000,000 in assistance.
Speaker 1: I may turn out to be a bad prophet, but I am confident that as soon as peace is established in Ukraine the flow of dollars and credits will stop. And instead, we will be grabbed by the throat on all fronts demanding the repayment of these debts. Nobody will care that Ukraine is currently incapable of repaying its debts. It simply cannot. Its debts now exceed our gross domestic product significantly.
Speaker 0: In May 2022, Biden signed the lend lease law. This means that Ukraine started receiving weapons and equipment on credit, just like the Soviet Union, United Kingdom during World War 2. Agreeing to this plunder became commitment number 10 for Zelensky in this deal with the dep. The president of Ukraine called it a historic step. I would call it a leap into the abyss.
Do you know when Russia repaid its debt to the US for lend lease in 2,006? It took them over 60 years to repay the debt. Ukraine already owes the European Union a $132,000,000,000, which is 90% of its GDP. Even freezing payments will not allow the economy to settle its debts on time. Meanwhile, the country is experiencing rampant inflation.
Food prices have risen by 26.5%. The poverty rate has jumped from 5.5% to 24%, percent affecting over 7,000,000 people. The country has lost 1 fifth of its territory. And most importantly, 100 of thousands of lives have been lost.
Speaker 2: Iran is a peace candidate. He turned around and betrayed that. And what's always astounded to me is that how he manages to keep so many regular Ukrainian boys going into this war to get themselves killed, in in a war that they simply cannot win. And they yet they keep going. Just just in Bakhmut, by the way, the Ukrainians lost more men than the United States lost in the entire Vietnam War.
Speaker 0: So the rights of millions of citizens have been trampled upon. Ukrainian men are being sent to the front lines to be slaughtered like sacrificial lambs, snatched right off the streets. The Russian language and culture have been practically eradicated. The canonical church is on the verge of being outlawed. The country has been turned into a safari for foreign mercenaries and a testing ground for bloody experiments.
Agent Volodymyr Zelensky has accomplished the tasks assigned by foreign intelligence agencies. The question is, will those in power still need someone who knows too much and wants too much?
Video Transcript AI Summary
The UK is seen as irresponsible, echoing the attitudes of the 19th-century British Empire and causing global tensions. Recent comments by President Macron are also viewed as reckless. Zelensky is perceived as a threat because he seems to be pushing for a full-scale war between NATO and Russia. The belief is that if the conflict remains between Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine will ultimately lose. Zelensky's actions appear aimed at drawing NATO into a broader conflict.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I personally find the UK utterly irresponsible in general, because, they talk like the 19th century British Empire, and get everyone else into hotter water as a result of that. France's remarks of President Macron's remarks that is in recent weeks have been highly irresponsible. Zelensky is a danger to the world in my view because, of course, what what does Zelensky want? He wants a full fledged war between NATO and Russia because if it's a war between Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine loses. So he's trying to pull NATO into a full war.
reSee.it AI Summary
The mainstream media is hiding the truth about Zelensky. I came across a brilliant video titled "Zelensky Unmasked," which reveals his carefully crafted image and the PR machinery behind it. The episode portrays him as a criminal who has shut down churches, dragged Christian men to their deaths, and is linked to corrupt oligarchs. It also mentions that he has suspended elections. Prof. Jeffrey Sachs warns that Zelensky poses a danger to the world.
@ivan_8848 - Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil
THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA DOESN’T WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS MUST WATCH! Brilliant Video ‼️ "The King is Naked" #ViewFromAbroad ACTOR is a First-Class Crook and Liar "Zelensky Unmasked": the second episode focuses on Zelenksy’s carefully crafted image and the PR-machine responsible for it. Zelensky is a criminal. He's shut down churches. Dragging Christian men with crosses around their neck to their death. Corrupt oligarch. Suspended elections. Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: Zelensky is a danger to the world.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Vladimir Zelensky's rise to power is not as straightforward as it seems. Initially a comedian and actor, he was backed by influential oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, who played a significant role in shaping his presidential campaign. Zelensky's portrayal as a heroic leader has been meticulously crafted by mainstream media, despite his failure to fulfill promises of reform and peace in Ukraine. Under his administration, corruption persists, and dissent is suppressed. While he is celebrated in the West, the reality in Ukraine is grim, with rising authoritarianism and significant loss of life due to ongoing conflict. Zelensky's leadership raises questions about who truly controls Ukraine, suggesting he may be a puppet in a larger geopolitical game. The investigation into his true role continues.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Vladimir Zelensky isn't quite who he's portrayed to be. Even if you believe that he is a righteous servant of democracy, one thing is without a doubt. He is an actor in more ways than one. But he's not an actor who simply became president. He had backing.
What virtually no American knows about Zelensky is that he appears to be backed by shadowy billionaires accountable to no one other than their own business interests. Zelensky's image isn't something that just happened. It appears to be carefully coordinated and orchestrated. Zelensky as a leader is being portrayed by the dominant mainstream media as a noble saint, selfless, brave, chic even. A hero to woke actors and warmongering politicians alike, Zelensky is the world's biggest celebrity, and he's being billed as something more.
He is the new George Washington, the new Winston Churchill. So what's the truth? I'm Ben Swan, and this is Zelensky Unmasked.
Speaker 1: And who is Zelensky? I mean, this is a guy that used to play the piano with his penis when he was a comedian playing the president of
Speaker 2: the Ukraine. The history of Zelensky is interesting, and it's exactly what you would expect for a person who, is acting as the president of a country right now. He was in a TV show, a servant of the people, and he was a comedian. And in that TV show, he was a teacher who became president. And he wanted the country to join NATO and join the EU and all of the things that, you know, he's acting as now.
So then his financial backers then started a party, and they called that party the servant of the people party. And they ran him as president with exactly the same platform that he had in the television show.
Speaker 0: Vladimir Zelensky didn't just become president of Ukraine. Not surprisingly, he had help. What mainstream media won't tell you is where that help came from. A name you've probably never heard. Igor Kolomoisky is one of Ukraine's leading oligarchs, and he's the owner of the 1 plus 1 media group, one of Ukraine's largest media conglomerates.
Kolomoisky's network aired Zelensky's hit TV show, Servant of the People, the one that made him a star. Kolomoisky also has been accused of being one of the most notorious gangsters in Ukrainian history. He's accused of embezzling 1,000,000,000 of dollars and of hiring people to kill his rivals. That aside, Ukraine's worst kept secret is that Kolomoydsky was pulling the strings of Zelensky's presidential campaign. And even though he's Jewish, US government officials claim that Kolomoydsky was the brainchild and bank roller of Ukraine's neo Nazi Azov battalion.
Soon after Zelensky's servant of the people party was launched, Kolomoisky got the attention of the FBI. The US justice department claims that his Pribot Bank ran a Ponzi scheme, which stole 1,000,000,000 from investors enormous power he wielded, which was needed to complete Zelensky's transformation from TV personality to his country's top man.
Speaker 3: The show is so popular, and Ukrainian presidents were so bad that they took him, ran him, and he beat the people not because he's qualified, but because they were so sick of the old system. You do.
Speaker 2: What did I mention? It had nothing but left for the
Speaker 3: They thought this actor could pretend to be president better than presidents were actually being president.
Speaker 2: So clearly, it was a production to create a television show and then eventually turn it into a party, but they knew that the people of Ukraine wanted peace as most people in most countries want.
Speaker 4: But they knew at least he's promised to end the war. That's what we are hoping for.
Speaker 2: So he ran as a peace candidate, and he ran arguing that he would push for peace with Russia, peace with the Donbas, etcetera, and he won. Of course, when he won, unfortunately, he did a complete, political reversal, and he went in the direction that his backers wanted.
Speaker 0: Zelensky took office in 2019 amidst the catastrophic collapse of public confidence in Ukraine's government and frustration with that society's endemic corruption. Hope quickly turned to despair, however, once it became clear that under Zelensky, nothing had changed. The economy remained in channels. Corruption was still rampant, and the Donbas war still raged on. Zelensky had failed to live up to any of his promises.
Speaker 3: The war comes, and they take this man with 23% popularity who shut down all democracy, and we turn him into Winston Churchill.
Speaker 0: And pretty soon, Zelensky was everywhere on the cover of Time, Newsweek, Wired, Vanity Fair. He was even photographed for vote. You can't make this stuff up. He and his wife posed for cover photos while he was in the midst of leading a war, supposedly for his country's survival. Really?
And he had time for this. Actually, he had time for this and a lot more. The actor turned president also made his way to the US stage by recording messages, which were played live at the Grammys and the Golden Globes. He rang the bell at Wall Street virtually, and he visited congress live and in person. A weird sand statue of him was erected in Estonia, and congressman Joe Wilson, a republican from South Carolina, introduced a bill to erect a permanent bust of Zelensky at the US Capitol.
By the way, you can now purchase a miniature version of this would be bust on Amazon for 1999.
Speaker 4: He was selected to act in this role, and he's doing a fantastic job as an actor. Quite frankly, this is the role of a lifetime, and he's killing it.
Speaker 0: And it's clear that Zelensky got a lot of help in prepping for this role.
Speaker 5: So, basically, today, the Ukraine is run by the deep state, the the military in in in Washington, the people who want war to make money from war, the in in the military industrial complex in United States, and Zelensky is a puppet within this whole big show.
Speaker 2: It was from the very beginning, this was some kind of a in my opinion, it was some kind of an intelligence pushed, media operation to this day. And that's why he's always behind green screens. That's always why he's doing covers for various magazines, etcetera, because this is really a production for people worldwide to think that they have a president of a country, and he's just a hollow figure.
Speaker 0: Here's something you're not gonna see on CNN. Throughout history, intelligence agencies have invested massive amounts of money to manage public relations campaigns. That's just a fact. These campaigns have been waged to spread disinformation in the interest of getting public opinion behind a war. And you don't have to look very far back in the past to find examples.
I'll give you one right here. 1990, a girl from Kuwait who said her name was Nayira, testified that she witnessed babies being taken out of incubators and killed by Saddam Hussein's forces. Turned out, that was a lie. And the girl wasn't just some random girl. She was the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the United States, Saud Al Sabah.
The story about the incubators, by the way, it never happened, but it was too late. Once we knew for sure, the publicity campaign associated with that lie swayed public opinion against Saddam Hussein and in favor of a US invasion of Kuwait. 12 years later, US secretary of state Colin Powell took his turn at lying with an eye towards Iraq. Remember this famous shot of him holding up vials of those biological weapon samples? He testified before the world that the country had weapons of mass destruction.
This bold faced lie prompted the US invasion of Iraq and the deaths of over 1,000,000 Iraqi people. So the question that thinking people must grapple with, could the same thing be happening in the case of Ukraine?
Speaker 2: It's interesting because for the most part, that, that production has been successful. He's been pushed as a, you know, a hero of democracy and this poor kind of the, you know, the small democratic free country has been attacked by a brutal and angry emotional person, not a country. It's it's the the traditional Marvel Comics hero villain scenario. He's a hero. He's a good guy, stands for everything good, and he's attacked by the equivalent of Lex Luther in a Superman movie, which would be Vladimir the evil Vladimir Putin.
And they've been, you know, pretty successful with with that in the United States simply because that's the only story that's allowed to get out.
Speaker 0: The reality of things in Ukraine are much more grim. Under Zelensky's watch, the Russian language has come under attack as has the orthodox church. Alternative media outlets have been banned as have opposition political parties. Zelensky's cult like status in the west is masking the rising tide of authoritarianism in Ukraine. And not just that, it appears that even Zelensky is starting to believe his own hype.
Speaker 3: Now he actually believes he's a man of gravitas, that he is Winston Churchill.
Speaker 0: Like the original Churchill, Zelensky isn't necessarily all about peace either, even though the PR machine that surrounds him tells us that he is. As numerous military analysts have asked, what's the endgame here? There's much agreement that long term, Ukraine doesn't really have much of a chance in this war. So why is there no effort toward peace?
Speaker 3: 10 years from now, when they write the history of this conflict, he's gonna be the most reviled man in the world because he is responsible for the deaths of 100 of 1000 of Ukrainians. Yeah. Hundreds of thousands of people he swore to protect, he slaughtered. For what? Because he's addicted to weapons infused ego driven narcissism.
Speaker 6: Ukraine is becoming a nation of widows and orphans. There's 300,000 dead Ukrainians. Douglas McGregor would say 350,000. Alright. I'll go on the conservative side there and 30,000 Russians.
I don't know. They say the figures tend to want. Whatever it is. Let's say 400,000, 500,000, all we got. Whatever it is, it all could have been avoided.
This all and you know what? Nobody in DC that's connected, whether it be Raytheon, Victoria Nuland, Joe Biden, Lloyd Austin. They don't give a rat's ass about any of those Ukrainian debts at all.
Speaker 2: Zelensky is part of a pattern right now throughout the US empire where you put an actor in place who appears to be making decisions, but he's not. So he's just another one of many, and they bring him out, and he does what he's told.
Speaker 0: If Zelensky just does what he's told, that would mean he's a hollow leader. It also means somebody else is pulling the strings. Who is it that appears to be telling Zelensky what to do, what to think, what to say? Who is really running Ukraine? We'll investigate as we continue to unmask Zelensky.
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss the complex relationship between Piers Morgan and Zelensky, questioning why Piers admires a leader who fits the definition of a dictator. I touch on various topics, including Zelensky's financial gains from war, the potential abolition of NATO, U.S. financial support for Israel, and the controversial idea of assassinating Putin. I also explore the morality surrounding nuclear war, the persecution of Christians, and the state of free speech in the UK. Lastly, I reflect on Piers' happiness post-corporate media and his views on Donald Trump.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
A dictator is someone who ignores elections and rules by violence. Zelensky meets that definition but Piers Morgan loves him anyway. (0:00) Why Is Piers Morgan Deeply in Love With Zelensky? (20:58) Zelensky Is Getting Rich From War (25:29) Should NATO Be Abolished? (36:48) Should the US Send Money to Israel? (44:57) Should Putin Be Assassinated? (46:30) The Morality of Nuclear War (1:03:57) The Killing of Christians Around the World (1:11:32) Is Piers Happier After Leaving Corporate Media? (1:14:28) Why Gun Control Fails (1:22:01) Does the UK Have Free Speech? (1:31:15) Why Are World Leaders Trying to Reduce the Population? (1:35:59) Piers’ Thoughts on Donald Trump Includes paid partnerships.
Video Transcript AI Summary
We are in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, discussing the complexities of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. One argues that Zelensky is a dictator, citing his lack of elections and suppression of dissent, while the other defends him as a leader fighting against an illegal invasion. They debate the nature of dictatorship, the morality of supporting leaders like Zelensky, and the implications of U.S. foreign policy. They touch on historical parallels, the consequences of military actions, and the importance of national interests. The conversation shifts to broader themes of governance, freedom of speech, and societal issues, ultimately expressing concerns about the future of both Ukraine and Western democracies.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here's more. Thank you. Sorry. Telling off colored jokes off camera.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: No. My pleasure.
Speaker 1: We are in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 2: We are.
Speaker 1: I'm not even gonna ask you how you wind up here, but I'm glad to see you.
Speaker 2: Well, we're both here for the same reason, actually.
Speaker 1: We've both gone to the oil business.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: I never yeah. So I wanna ask you I wanna start just on a very hostile note. Okay? Because I feel like that's a good way to frame that. Good.
Good. Let's see.
Speaker 2: So start with me to continue.
Speaker 1: Zelensky is a hero. How could you say
Speaker 2: that? I don't agree with you about him or or Ukraine. I went to I went to interview him in, in Kyiv and he's an extraordinary story. Obviously, this comedian who becomes president having played a The piano. Comedian who was president in a in a comedy show.
Right? And I've seen what you said about it. I mean, what's interesting to me on a bigger picture about Ukraine, Russia, your views, all the conservative views in America, is that thirty years ago, there would have been no element of resistance from the conservative side about taking on a Russian dictator who'd invaded the European country. I know it's a lot more complicated. I know the history but a lot of very smart people on Mhmm.
A lot of people you've interviewed and, you know, I do learn a lot each time I talk about all the history obviously. My brother was a British army colonel. My sister married a British army colonel. They've all engaged in conflicts around around the world and so it's complicated. There's no doubt that on the Russian side, they believe they were provoked into doing this.
I know that you have sympathy with that view. There's also no doubt from the Ukrainian side that they believe since the they've been this sovereign democratic country, albeit not perfect. You think deeply flawed. I think they've been imperfect trying to improve and Zelenskyy has actually, I think, been a force for good, not bad. Mhmm.
But ultimately, what's happened now is that you have a situation whereas Donald Trump told me recently you know they it's just the mowing fields now where you have thousands of young men being killed often on a daily basis Mhmm. Both sides And no one's winning this war, it seems to me. And if anyone is gonna win, it's likely to be Russia, not Ukraine. And then what happens? And that concerns me enormously.
If the West allows Putin to just take the land he's taken, what guarantee do we have he won't try and take the rest of Ukraine? He took Crimea. He's back for more. I think he wants the whole of Ukraine. I think he won't stop there if he's allowed to get it.
I think he's a pretty ruthless evil Russian dictator.
Speaker 1: How are we defining just to to find the term so we can follow this in a way what's a dictator
Speaker 2: a dictator to me is somebody well I would start by saying you have no respect for democratic norms. Election a free and fair election.
Speaker 1: So, like, an unelected leader would be a dictator.
Speaker 2: Well, you wouldn't argue that Putin, for example, has free and fair elections.
Speaker 1: No. I've I've I've never I'm not that interested, actually.
Speaker 2: Are you not?
Speaker 1: In not not really. It's not my country. I'm interested in my leaders whether, you know, they have the consent of of their people. I'd it's not of great interest to me. Whether, I I I do think Putin's, like, way more popular than, you know, Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: To his people.
Speaker 1: Yes. More popular than Russia than Biden was ever popular. I
Speaker 2: wouldn't dispute
Speaker 1: that. But why why
Speaker 2: are you so against Zelensky?
Speaker 1: No. I'm just trying to understand when you you dismiss Putin as a dictator, which totally fair, I guess, but I'm just trying to understand what you mean by dictator. So the first criterion for dictatorship is that you're not elected and what else? Because Zelensky is obviously not elected either.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I your So I'm just trying to
Speaker 1: kind of figure out what you're talking about.
Speaker 2: Well, your well, your comparison with Zelensky and Putin over the last two years, I found baffling because you seem to think there's some moral equivalence between the 2, and Zelensky hasn't illegally invaded another country. Do do you not have a problem with what what is Wait.
Speaker 1: Hold on. I just wanna know what a dictator is. I just wanna know I mean, I bet, you know, maybe he's a better guy than Putin or whatever, and you could say some things about 1 or nothing. But, like, if we're just gonna define dictator, the first feature of a dictator is he's not elected. So Zelensky is not elected.
He's also well, he's banned a religious denomination. He's murdered his political opponents. He has banned a language group. Those all seem like features of dictatorship to me. Now, he has the support of the British intelligence agencies.
That doesn't mean he's not a dictator, though. That sounds like a dictator. I mean, if it was If I just gave you a piece of paper and I'm like, here are some qualities of a European leader. You would say, well, that guy, that's not legitimate. That guy's a dictator.
I can't support that. But his name is Zelensky. And he was once a comedian and he does my show, so he's not a dictator. I think it's a dictator.
Speaker 2: Well, I I would argue that if you look at the history of Ukraine since the since it became a, I want a better phrase, democratic country as they would say, well, I mean, by the same criteria you support, Putin being popular in his country, I think just under 90% of Ukrainians voted for it. You you wouldn't dispute that?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, the country had a coup sponsored by the United States government, the CIA in 02/14. So everything that happened subsequent to that, I don't think we could call part of the democratic process. But just Zelensky personally is not elected. He's not an elected leader. He rules by force.
There's no election that gives him legitimacy. So that's not a defense of Putin. It's merely an attack on the idea that Putin's the only dictator in this contest. How is Zelensky not a dictator?
Speaker 2: Do you think Putin's a dictator?
Speaker 0: I guess. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess. I mean, I if I stand up outside the Kremlin and say down with Vladimir Putin, I'm probably in trouble. I certainly don't live in Russia.
Speaker 2: Right. I I certainly think that Ukraine has had a lot of corruption.
Speaker 1: No. No. But is Zelensky a legitimate how is he legitimate if he's not elected? Well, how could you support an unelected leader?
Speaker 2: Well, he's the president of the country. Well, he
Speaker 1: calls himself that, but there's no election that made him president. He blew past the election and said, oh, there's a war. I can't we can't have an election. We're gonna change the constitution. So how is that a legitimate leader?
How could you support something like that? That seems, I don't know, like a dictatorship.
Speaker 2: Well, I would categorize my support for him as supporting him against an illegal invasion by Russia.
Speaker 1: So this is this is, like, why we support Stalin against Hitler because
Speaker 2: Well, in a way, we had
Speaker 1: the demand. So Stalin must be good, but no. Stalin's also a dictator. So, like, how about we just don't support dictators if we're against supporting dictators? Or you could take my position, which is I don't want a dictatorship in my own country because I live in a free country, but we're gonna have relations with the country that helps us most up to a certain limit.
We're not gonna, like, be allies with Stalin because that's too evil. We're not, you know, Winston Churchill or, you know, FDR
Speaker 2: or something.
Speaker 1: We we're not gonna go that far. But in general, we will deal with countries that help us. But when we start having moral conversations about other countries, then we have to stick by our own standards. And by your standard, you're supporting a dictator. I wonder how you can do that, Pierce Pollard.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying they're morally pure in Ukraine. I'm not saying they're not riddled with
Speaker 1: is not a dictator?
Speaker 2: Here's my point to you. My defense of
Speaker 1: them Bloodthirsty dictator. My Bloodthirsty dictator.
Speaker 2: My defense of them is based on the illegal invasion by Russia. You and I can argue about whether Russia was goaded and provoked into doing that. I do not think anything justifies what they actually did.
Speaker 1: Okay. That that's a that's a totally fair position. I mean, I guess I disagree sort of, but I don't think what you're saying is crazy at all. But the
Speaker 2: point was How is that
Speaker 1: more illegal than running a country without an election and banning a religious denomination? I don't understand that. So, yeah, you could certainly say Putin did a lot of bad things. I would readily agree to that from the extent to the extent I understand it. But we're supporting my government and your government particularly Mhmm.
Are supporting this dictator in Ukraine who's oppressing Christians, who is banning people's native language and books in their native language. He's a book burner. And, like, that's totally cool because we hate Putin. That's not totally cool, isn't it?
Speaker 2: So would you just let Putin take Ukraine?
Speaker 1: I would say let's have an election in Ukraine and let the Ukrainian people elect their own leader and get rid of the midget dictator who now oppresses them, Zelensky. And I would definitely not support a guy who's not elected as a democratic figure because by definition, he's not. By definition. I don't care who his enemies are. He's not worth calling a beacon of democracy if he doesn't even have a why not have an election in Ukraine today?
Because we've got a war. We had elections in our country during the second world war, so did you. Like, why why not hold him to democratic standards?
Speaker 2: I've got no problem with saying he should have an election.
Speaker 1: What about banning a Christian denomination?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I don't agree with any of those things.
Speaker 1: Well, how can we ever support that?
Speaker 2: Because ultimately We're paying for that. Because ultimately, we have to make a calculation about whether we're happy with Russia invading what is a sovereign European democratic country. In the same
Speaker 1: Well, it's not a sovereign country. It was controlled by The United States.
Speaker 2: Well, they They
Speaker 1: installed their government in a coup in 02/14. Because they have very puppet of The United States and Great Britain.
Speaker 2: But they
Speaker 1: are They're not sovereign.
Speaker 2: You think they're a democracy?
Speaker 1: Well, their leader's not elected. So by definition, they're not a democracy. It may be a great place to vacation or they've got you know, we're getting a lot of money from, you know, defense deals or they've got pretty well, there are lots of great things you could say about the Ukrainians. They're actually great people from what I can tell. I know a bunch of them.
They're awesome. But they're definitely not a democracy.
Speaker 2: So should Putin just take the land? No. So what happens?
Speaker 1: I don't know. We should stop paying for the slaughter of the entire Ukrainian population.
Speaker 2: Because we don't know. I mean, either he's allowed to take it or he isn't. Either we now say, yes. You take Why
Speaker 1: is it up to us? I don't understand. We're not
Speaker 2: Well, who else can stop him?
Speaker 0: Well, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, when, you know, Congo invades its neighbors, like, it's not axiomatic that we should be involved.
Speaker 2: But when Saddam invaded Kuwait, why did America go and support that? Did you Because there's a oil issue. Support that?
Speaker 1: Well, I was in college and drunk.
Speaker 2: Did you basically agree with it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I had a lot of joy in you. Storming Norman Schwarzkopf. Okay to drink beer in the morning.
Speaker 2: Do you think looking back at it, was was it right to do what America did with the allies? British were there too.
Speaker 1: I don't know. They fell him
Speaker 2: from Kuwait? It wasn't a NATO country.
Speaker 1: Well, that was I mean, that's the kind of war that in theory I would support. You say, we have, you know, energy interest in this region. We wanna keep it stable. When you start getting theoretical, like, we're preserving democracy by supporting dictators And
Speaker 2: we take energy from from Ukraine, though. This is an energy component to that. Maybe. I I don't see the That's what I'm thinking is that the What I don't
Speaker 1: like is the moral overlay because it's fatuous and fraudulent. Mhmm. He's not this is not a democratic country. He is a dictator. We've supported many dictators.
We supported Mobutu in Zaire which no longer exists because he was a boric against the Soviets we thought or in a million others.
Speaker 2: No. But you've already said that you would support the expulsion of Saddam from Kuwait.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know that I would.
Speaker 2: Led by America. Well, you just said you did. Right? So No. No.
Speaker 1: I said I was drunk in college. I haven't really thought I said, but theoretically, you could make the case
Speaker 2: Because they
Speaker 1: had energy. We need cheap energy. We're gonna go to war to preserve cheap energy. You know, that's not a crazy thing to say. Maybe I could support that.
Speaker 2: Right. So what's the difference? I don't know between that and what's happened with Russia and Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Well, because We need Ukraine's energy. Has We need Ukraine's We do.
Speaker 2: We don't.
Speaker 1: We don't.
Speaker 2: 25% of the world's weakest income that Ukraine.
Speaker 1: I I'm aware, which is why you probably don't wanna kill all of its farmers and sell all of its farmland, which is what we've allowed to happen. Zelensky
Speaker 2: We're not good at it. The Russians are.
Speaker 1: Well, no. This war wouldn't exist if it weren't for the money in arms that we're sending to Ukraine. It would have been over in one day. It never would have started. If we hadn't sent
Speaker 2: When you say over, what do you mean? What would have happened?
Speaker 1: I don't think I think it's very clear and I don't know that anyone would disagree with this that Russia would not have invaded Eastern Ukraine if the Biden administration hadn't sent Kamala Harris to the Munich Security Conference in February, to say to Zelensky, on camera, we're gonna make you a NATO country. Meaning, we're gonna put American NATO arms on the Russian border. Like, you would not allow Chinese we your country probably would. But you shouldn't allow Chinese missiles in Scotland peering over Hadrian's Wall aimed at London. You'd be like, no.
It's our you know, you can't do that on our border. And the Russians are like, no. You can't do that on our border. And we're like, shut up. You're Russian.
You have no right to determine what happens on your border. Piss off.
Speaker 2: But it but if
Speaker 1: but if that actually happened But if
Speaker 2: my point is if the defense of expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait was that we have energy interest in that country Well, no
Speaker 1: one ever said
Speaker 2: and therefore we should kick him out. But that's obviously what we all knew, and it was done very quickly and competently by general Norman Schwarzkopf and it was great great military operation, but the but surely the principle in ideology is not different and what's interesting is every every republican every republican back
Speaker 1: in idiots. Oh my god. They support the Ukraine. Oh my god.
Speaker 2: No. But I mean every Republican in '91 would have supported that conflict.
Speaker 1: Well, whether or not Whereas now members of the Senate support something is
Speaker 2: Well, what don't they support of it. I can promise Well, every Republican voter, I think, would have supported it.
Speaker 1: Whereas whereas what's interesting five five years ago, I'm just saying.
Speaker 2: And what's changed is a lot of Republican supporters now, conservatives in America, are against supporting Ukraine anymore. And I'm curious about that change in what has been what thirty five years. There's been a real sea change and it may be because Americans are understandably war weary. They're fed up with spending a lot of money on foreign wars, foreign conflicts. There's a good argument America hasn't really won a foreign war since World War two.
You know, you look at from Vietnam onwards, endless quagmires, endless problems, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on and so on. And I look at what's happened in Ukraine, and I'm just looking at it pragmatically. Do we just let a Russian do we let Russia, led at the moment by Vladimir Putin, who are we categorized as a dictator, or do we let him just take what he wants even if he uses it and dresses it all up as I'm doing this because I fear about NATO encroachment which may well be may well be his reasoning may well be his reasoning but many people think it's not his reasoning.
Speaker 1: Okay. Many people think They think Why would you want to put US missiles on Russia's border? I don't understand. Because Yeah. But So obviously unacceptable for any sovereign nation to tolerate.
Speaker 2: Here's the other part of the argument.
Speaker 1: He has nuclear weapons. Why would we want that?
Speaker 2: Look. A lot of people used. Well, we have nuclear weapons too. A lot of the argument
Speaker 1: Do you guys have nuclear weapons?
Speaker 2: We do. Nuclear
Speaker 1: Yes. We have
Speaker 2: nuclear weapons. Why? Why? Nuclear's a terror.
Speaker 1: Great Britain has nuclear weapons?
Speaker 2: Yes. We do.
Speaker 1: Do you think that's a good idea?
Speaker 2: Yes. Absolutely. You know why? Because Freaking me out. You say if Ukraine had nuclear weapons, they wouldn't have been invaded.
Do you can we agree on that? We told them to give up their nuclear tariffs.
Speaker 1: Invaded We told if the West hadn't said, we're going to use you as a staging ground for intimidating Russia. Like, why would we wanna do that? Why not just allow what we've done is push Russia into the Chinese
Speaker 2: Communist Party. How
Speaker 1: does that help us?
Speaker 2: Many people in that region say, actually, what's happened to Ukraine is precisely why they should have been in NATO. Because if they had been in NATO, Putin wouldn't have invaded them.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: And also they say Many
Speaker 1: people say that.
Speaker 2: Also say, if we hadn't collectively basically bullied Ukraine into giving up their nuclear deterrent, he wouldn't have done it either because they would have had a nuclear weapon to defend themselves.
Speaker 1: This is super crazy. Is it crazy? Yes. It is.
Speaker 2: Crazy than your theories?
Speaker 1: Well, actually, I I don't I don't I don't think I mean, I have a million theories, but these are not among them. It's not a theory to say that Russia moved into Eastern Ukraine because The United States wouldn't give up on pushing for Ukraine admission into NATO. When NATO did not want Ukraine And there's also the criteria for emission. So But
Speaker 2: I think you're only giving half a picture. I'm not I'm not oblivious to that, but I would add this component to it, which is also not surely beyond the realms of fantasy. Vladimir Putin knows that a lot of that part of Eastern Ukraine, they still speak Russian. He has resented the breakup of the Soviet Union famously and that actually he wanted to take back land that he believes
Speaker 1: Banning should have should belong to Russia their language
Speaker 2: should belong to Russia.
Speaker 1: Okay. In general, possessions are overrated, but there are some things you really would not want stolen. And to me, family shotguns, including a whole bunch of them I got from my father, are at the top of that list. So I keep my dad's shotguns in a Liberty Safe because it's safe, and it's also really attractive. Liberty Safe just created something really cool.
It's a limited edition safe that commemorates the inauguration of Donald Trump, America's forty seventh president. The original design celebrates Trump and his swearing in, while upholding Liberty's equipment to building their safes right here in The United States, and they went all out on this 1. It's the special 47 edition. It features a 1 of a kind artwork that pays homage to the president. It's very, very cool.
Not all safes are created equal. There are plenty out there, and a lot of the manufacturers slap an American sending name on the label, but they are not made here. They're from China or other foreign markets. Liberty safes are made in The United States. For over thirty years, Liberty has made it safes right here and that matters.
Because when you buy a Liberty safe, you're supporting American workers and American values. Their products are more than just a place to protect your dad's shotguns, for example. They are a symbol of this country. So celebrate this historic moment. Secure the things that you want to keep forever in a Liberty Safe.
Visit libertysafe.com or find a Liberty dealer or retailer near you to order your limited edition safe today. Liberty Safe made in America.
Speaker 2: Okay. Did you accept that?
Speaker 1: I I think it's true of look. I'm not an expert. I've interviewed Putin. Mhmm. You know, I've been there a couple of times.
I don't speak Russian, so I hope I don't get over my skis and pretend to know things that I don't. But what's very obvious is they have an interest and have for over three hundred years in controlling Crimea Mhmm. Crimea, where their fleet is based. They had a referendum in Crimea. The people of Crimea are Russian and wanna remain part of the Russian Federation.
So he didn't take Crimea. It's Russian. It's filled with Russians. They had a referendum that nobody disputes. People should be allowed to choose their own government.
That's the basic precept of democracy.
Speaker 2: You didn't take Crimea.
Speaker 1: Okay. Should people be allowed to choose their own government?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. So the people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to align with the Russian government. So that's illegitimate. Why?
Speaker 2: When did they do that?
Speaker 1: Right after the coup in fifteen, I think.
Speaker 2: Right. So after they've been invaded. Why do you think why do you think why do you think so many Russians vote for Putin in Russia?
Speaker 1: I don't think it was invaded. Russia has controlled Crimea for three hundred years.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But it wasn't I mean,
Speaker 1: it is the Russian It
Speaker 2: wasn't it wasn't Russia's. And in the same way that that that you say with the people in Crimea voted overwhelmingly in favor. Of course they did. They would have been killed if they hadn't. Same way as in Russia.
Speaker 1: In a secret ballot?
Speaker 2: The same way Russia Wait.
Speaker 1: Wait. Wait. Hold on. So you're saying that the election was conducted under duress and people's votes were known to the Russian government? I don't think that's true.
I think it's a secret ballot.
Speaker 2: Exactly the same way that people in Russia vote for Putin. You think it's an overwhelming show of support for him. A lot of it is driven by fear.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay. That may or may not be true. I don't know. But the only measure the only measure we have of popular consent is an election. Mhmm.
And when conducted by secret ballot, if we think it's not being it's not the twenty twenty election, it's, like, kind of a legitimate election, That's what we go with. And I'm just is there have you ever met anybody who believes that if a free and fair referendum were held once again in Ukraine, that Ukraine would vote Ukraine I mean, rather than cry Crimeans would vote to align with Zelensky the Zelensky government in Kyiv. I don't think so. It was 97%. Look.
I'm just saying self determination is the core idea in democracy. They don't have it in Ukraine because they haven't had an election. They ignore the election because it's run by a dictator called Zelensky. If you wanted to say he's a dictator, that's fine. You support a dictator.
The US, your government has supported many dictators, so has mine. That's kind of a fact of life. There are very few democratically elected leaders. Sometimes even our leaders aren't really democratically elected, as you know. I just don't like the moral bullshit that attaches to all of this.
Speaker 2: That's fair enough.
Speaker 1: When we tell the population, we're on the side of democracy, and he's Winston Churchill.
Speaker 2: I don't claim I don't claim his mother Theresa against him.
Speaker 1: No. But you have to though. You're like, he's a marvelous person. I like him.
Speaker 2: I'm allowed to, aren't I?
Speaker 1: I guess you like dictators. I've never said a Putin is a marvelous person because, like, he's a little dictator y for me. I I think he's really smart. I admire what he's done for Russia, but I'm not gonna sniff his jock because he's kind of a dictator. But you're like, oh, I love that Zelensky.
He's so great.
Speaker 2: I do like him.
Speaker 1: How can you like a man who's a dictator?
Speaker 2: I don't think he's a dictator.
Speaker 1: In what sense? He's not elected. He rules by force. He rules with guns. He kills his opponents.
He's assassinated a ton of people, including, you know, I I know someone he tried to assassinate, fact. How is that worth supporting? Do you feel a little guilty for supporting someone?
Speaker 2: No, I don't.
Speaker 1: Really? No.
Speaker 2: In fact, I think we should try and do more to help him win. How much
Speaker 1: do you think he's gotten
Speaker 2: from this 1? No idea.
Speaker 1: Does it bother you that he's gotten rich?
Speaker 2: He's not as rich as Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, if all comparisons are to Putin, then all bets
Speaker 2: are off. Putin is well, Putin is financially raped in Belize's country for Maybe.
Speaker 1: I I don't know. Maybe. I don't talk about it. Okay. Let's see.
Yeah.
Speaker 2: He's got personal net worth of a hundred billion
Speaker 1: ripples, whatever it is. How we would know that, but great. He does. He's evil. We'll we'll just we'll just stick with that.
But the question is, why would you support personally a dictator who's gotten rich on a war in his country who bans a Christian denomination and who murders his political government.
Speaker 2: Would he literally only been the Does
Speaker 1: that bother you at all?
Speaker 2: He believed in his country for two years. Well, he
Speaker 1: He didn't done a lot of oppression in
Speaker 2: two years. He didn't get rich on corruption in two years.
Speaker 1: But can I ask you when you talk to
Speaker 2: his Putin's been doing this for thirty years?
Speaker 1: Why don't you have an election? Why don't you stop murdering your political opponents? Why don't you let people practice their Christian domination? Why don't you let Russian speakers speak Russian and read Russian books? That's what non dictators do.
Speaker 2: Did you say any of that to Putin?
Speaker 1: Of course not. Why not? Because I'm not his friend. Mhmm. I don't have the relationship with Putin that you have with Zelensky.
I didn't tweet after my interview. You're a very handsome man. I love you. I love you.
Speaker 2: I didn't call him a very handsome man. I think you did. I don't think he's a very handsome man.
Speaker 1: Hot hot is maybe what you said. I don't
Speaker 2: think I called him hot. Okay.
Speaker 1: Well, you said I really admire you and I think
Speaker 2: But you're asking me to ask all the questions of Zelensky. You didn't ask Putin.
Speaker 1: He's a personal friend of yours. I'm not friends with Putin. I'm not the guy you said.
Speaker 2: Friends with Zelensky. I admire
Speaker 1: his read your Twitter feed. I admire him.
Speaker 2: I admire
Speaker 1: him. I'm you can't fool me, period.
Speaker 2: You can't miscategorize me. I don't I'm not a friend of his. I've only met him once, but I do admire his fortitude as a leader. I love the fact he stayed in Kyiv when the Russians went in. He could have fled.
Many would have done that position. Everyone thought the Russians would win in a few days. Yeah. They didn't. I agree.
I do admire the fortitude that he showed as a lead a leader. Those characteristics I like. Doesn't mean he's
Speaker 1: called him a magnificent leader. In fact, I'm pretty sure
Speaker 2: I think he has been.
Speaker 1: Okay. So I'm just asking since I I didn't call Putin a magnificent leader at all. Mhmm.
Speaker 2: But nor did you ask him any of the questions that you want me to ask.
Speaker 1: I didn't feel like I didn't wanna do what everybody does,
Speaker 0: which is, you're so glad
Speaker 1: bad, Vladimir Putin, meaning I'm so good. I'm gonna give you a moral extra. I'm like, whatever. It's your country. Country's actually doing great.
I was super impressed by Moscow. I'd recommend it to everybody just because it's beautiful and orderly, which I like. Not moving there. They don't have freedom of speech, which is a prerequisite for me. But I didn't feel like that was my job.
I just wanna hear what the guy says. We're fighting a war against him, and no one's heard him say
Speaker 2: Why do you believe him?
Speaker 1: I don't know that I do.
Speaker 2: Do you know? I mean, you believe his reasoning.
Speaker 1: I believe something.
Speaker 2: You believe the reasoning for the war. They're fully all in on the Russian kind
Speaker 1: of no question about that.
Speaker 2: Well, there's no question about that. Well, there's no question about that. Questions about that.
Speaker 1: Really think so. I don't think any informed person I mean, the Bill Burns, the
Speaker 2: Only 10% of people in Eastern Ukraine actually want Russia to take them over.
Speaker 1: Okay. I know I don't know how we know that, but I believe that, but
Speaker 2: it doesn't It's a poll. Same poll you you know, you you're quoting
Speaker 1: me about Crimea. Well, that wasn't a poll.
Speaker 2: It was
Speaker 1: an election. The vast Which are critical to democracy. I don't know if you knew that. But the vast You're a magnificent leader.
Speaker 2: An election is a poll. They're called polls.
Speaker 1: An election is a poll. A poll is not an election. Right? So there are different criteria for polls.
Speaker 2: Well, a poll can be an election. Yes.
Speaker 1: Now we're getting metaphysical, but I would just say I would just say if you believe in democracy, you believe in elections. If you have a leader who's not elected, he's not a democratic leader, he's a dictator, which is okay. That's fine. It's a foreign country. I wouldn't call any dictator magnificent just because it seems a little more
Speaker 2: How could Zelensky have an election in the middle of a war out of interest?
Speaker 1: I don't know. How did how did Franklin Roosevelt do that in the middle of the second World War? How how did he do that?
Speaker 2: Because no one had invaded America.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, but how about
Speaker 2: the The people could actually vote.
Speaker 1: Well, they're
Speaker 2: You've got half of half of Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Making billions of dollars Half
Speaker 2: of Ukraine
Speaker 1: is in Kiev today. How about the nonoccupied parts of the country? He's making a good faith effort to have an election, but he doesn't want to because I I think he's pretty darn unpopular because he is a lackey of western powers who sold his country out. And Ukrainians know perfectly well that he's getting rich, and so is the entire leadership. I was in Courcheable France 2 Weeks ago, which is probably the richest town in Europe.
Speaker 2: It's a
Speaker 1: ski town in France near Geneva. And everybody at the Hermes store was Ukrainian using my money to buy hundred thousand dollar handbags. Nobody seems to care about that. I care because that's not freedom fighting. That's grifting.
That's theft. And everybody in Europe knows that, and you know that too. Go to Romania. All their, you know, high end car dealerships are sold out because Ukrainians have bought the car. So to be clear, when What the hell is this?
Speaker 2: So when okay. Well, so when Putin invaded Ukraine, you'd have given him what he wants? Take whatever you want?
Speaker 1: Well, as I've as I've said, and I really mean it from my heart. I mean, I have no kind of I'm not getting rich from this. So, I'm saying what I sincerely believe, which is pushing Ukraine to join NATO. When NATO doesn't want Ukraine, there's no strategic reason, no actual reason to have Ukraine in it or to have NATO at all. We shouldn't have NATO at all.
Oh, that's preposterous. What's the point of NATO?
Speaker 2: To keep keep Keep the Soviets
Speaker 1: from invading Western Europe. Oh, well, it's been thirty five years since they Actually,
Speaker 2: to keep peace.
Speaker 1: How's that worked? To keep peace. We now have the bloodiest war in eighty years in the middle of Europe because of NATO. So how's this peacekeeping actually
Speaker 2: could argue as many people do that actually the reason is because Ukraine wasn't in NATO. Had it been, Putin wouldn't have invaded.
Speaker 1: That's a super this is like an addiction, and I've been through addiction, so I'm not judging at all, but it's like, I feel really shitty. I've gotta have a glass of vodka to feel better.
Speaker 2: Are you mocking my mental health? I'm
Speaker 1: yes. But I'm also saying that I've lived this, so I know what it feels like. It's the thing that is killing you. It's truly killing you, whether it's NATO or vodka. You become convinced it's saving you.
So you wake up hungover, and you're like,
Speaker 0: oh, I feel so bad. Give me a screwdriver.
Speaker 1: And if you're a screwdriver, you feel better and you don't realize that you're starting the cycle again.
Speaker 2: Would Putin have invaded Ukraine if it had been a member of NATO? No. He wouldn't have done because then America would have been an obliger of
Speaker 1: never here's what I know. For a fact, Putin said this for twenty years. Ukraine cannot be a member of NATO. They will not accept that anymore that we would accept Chinese missiles in Tijuana or you would accept Sri Lankan missiles in Glasgow. You just not
Speaker 2: NATO is is a defensive organization.
Speaker 1: How is it defensive?
Speaker 2: Because it has never acted proactively aggressively.
Speaker 1: Where were you when the Yugoslavia war was going on? And they were bombing the shit out of Christians in Yugoslavia. Do you remember that?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: That was pretty offensive.
Speaker 2: NATO has always operated in a defensive defensive How would really? Yes.
Speaker 1: That's how they created Kosovo, defensively?
Speaker 2: It was defensive.
Speaker 1: Oh, it was.
Speaker 2: Yes. It was.
Speaker 1: The aggressor there. Well, you know, my my brother-in-law was Italy there. Just a minute. What you're saying is insane.
Speaker 2: It's all insane.
Speaker 1: They could
Speaker 2: NATO has never actually acted unilaterally because
Speaker 1: of Soviet Union collapsed.
Speaker 2: Attacked anybody without being attacked. It's always been defensive.
Speaker 1: When? Okay. Who in Yugoslavia attacked NATO? Look. Just note.
Here's the point where you just submit defeat. Bow your head and be like, you know what? I bow before superior knowledge. I totally got this wrong. I can't believe I had such a silly idea.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry. Nice good guys in Yugoslavia. I'm saying
Speaker 1: they're nice good guys. You're just saying that was not a defensive action. That was an offensive action. Bill Clinton's like, I don't like what you're doing. I'm gonna use NATO to kill you, and he did and then created Kosovo as NATO base.
Speaker 2: Because they were absolute genocidal maniac.
Speaker 1: Been naughty. I'm not defending their base.
Speaker 2: But that's all they were being defended against.
Speaker 1: Who are we defending? The Yugoslavians that
Speaker 2: were being pillaged and raped and murdered.
Speaker 1: By other Yugoslavians. Yes. Okay. This is getting intense.
Speaker 2: But NATO is a defensive organization. You
Speaker 1: can say it all you want. Just like you can say Zelensky is a a beacon of democracy when he's not elected and he's banning parts of Christianity, but he's a dictator.
Speaker 2: So just to be clear Just
Speaker 1: to be honest about what things are.
Speaker 2: Just to be clear, you would have let Putin take what he wants. Because what's the alternative? When he invaded Ukraine.
Speaker 1: So I try and deal, especially as I get older, in the world of reality and achievable goals. And here's the reality. Russia is a nuclear armed power. It's the largest country on earth by land mass. It's also the remnants of a global empire.
So they have a sense of themselves as a global player, and they are because of energy and resources in general. Uranium. I mean, they have a lot of resources the world needs. So they're a real country. They're not Afghanistan.
You can't just tell them what to do. Get in line, bitch. They're not gonna accept that. Okay? So they have said since the fall of the Soviet Union, you cannot have NATO on our border because it's a critical national interest of ours.
So unless you wanna risk nuclear war, which we are now doing, you can't move NATO to their border whether you want to or not. That's just a fact. And if you do, you're gonna get a war. We've known that since the fall of the Soviet Union. We promised not to do it.
And we tried to bring he he asked to be in NATO in 02/. He asked George w Bush to be nobody contest that. This evil dictator who wants to invade Liechtenstein asked to be in NATO. Why wouldn't we let him in NATO? Why did Condi Rice say, well,
Speaker 0: it can't be in NATO?
Speaker 1: Why do we have morons like Condi Rice in our US government? I don't know.
Speaker 2: So when he invaded, though, what would you let him do?
Speaker 0: We're in a we're in a hall
Speaker 1: of mirrors now. Look. No. Really? Okay.
Speaker 2: We're in a very clear moral Here
Speaker 1: we do.
Speaker 2: Moral moment in history where Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine. It is a European country.
Speaker 1: And we side with the dictator and we fund disinformation services
Speaker 2: in the
Speaker 1: assassinating people. Yeah.
Speaker 2: But what do what do you do? Do you let him take
Speaker 1: moral about this. Look. In the real world, we do things we can't achieve. And if we can't achieve something, we don't try and do it because millions will die as we're watching. So
Speaker 2: what do you what do you let him do there?
Speaker 1: Well, you start with a realistic understanding of the limits of your power, which is all adults have to do. My neighbors may offend me. I want them to turn down the music. I can't just go over there and shoot them. I just can't.
It's it's against the law and I'll pay a penalty if I do that. So I have to negotiate with them. Will you please turn down the music? Shut up. No.
Please do it. If they won't, I maybe threaten them. Like, I live in the material real world. Right.
Speaker 2: But once but once actually he's invaded, what do you do? Then you have to
Speaker 1: decide, like, is it worth it? Is it worth it?
Speaker 2: So that's interesting to me.
Speaker 1: A million Ukrainians are gonna die.
Speaker 0: Their farmland's gonna
Speaker 1: be sold to BlackRock. The Ukrainian nation will cease to exist. They'll flood it with third worlders. So what do you do?
Speaker 2: What do you do?
Speaker 1: What would I do? Yes. I would say, like, if I took over the government in February, and were on the verge of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, I would say, guys, it's not worth trying to impose something that this country will never accept because if we try to do that, we'll get a war.
Speaker 2: So do you let let Putin take Ukraine?
Speaker 1: You don't let anybody do anything.
Speaker 2: You basically assess the war.
Speaker 1: What to do because you're gambling with the other people's lives. By the way, if a million Brits had died, you might have different perspective, but it's very easy to be like, oh, more Ukrainians should die for the cause of democracy. Let me let me assure you elect.
Speaker 2: Let me assure you, if Russia invaded Britain, that would not be the view of the British people. Our view would be to fight to the last man and woman to kick him out. But my question really
Speaker 1: You really think so?
Speaker 2: My my question is not You just got invaded
Speaker 1: over the last forty years and did nothing, so I don't think so. I don't think you would do that. I think you'd be like, we can't fight back because we have nuclear weapons, but no real military. So we'd like to negotiate just like all conquered nations do.
Speaker 2: But but but
Speaker 1: They negotiate on the basis
Speaker 2: of reality.
Speaker 1: What can I actually achieve?
Speaker 2: But respectfully, you're not answering my question, which you don't have to because you're interviewing me in this bit. But the question is, once Putin invaded, do do you let him take the whole country? What do you do?
Speaker 1: If I were in charge then?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: If I had come in if I came in in I would say to the state department, I would say to the NATO leadership, I
Speaker 2: would say I'm talking about Feb. 0, 0 Feb. 0, early month.
Speaker 1: Point, I'm cleaning up a mess caused by the previous administration.
Speaker 2: So assume it's happened.
Speaker 1: Let's say Donald Trump who's actually coming in Right. In that exact circle. Right.
Speaker 2: And he's now wrestling with this very problem.
Speaker 1: He certainly is. And it's it's
Speaker 2: He doesn't wanna get Putin to win. And that's my point to you. Do you actually want him to win? Well Well I
Speaker 1: mean, if your lodestar is whether other people win, you will lose. Right. K. That's a shitty way to go through life.
Speaker 2: But what do
Speaker 1: you trying to prevent you a win Uh-huh. No. I'm trying to win. I'm trying to win for my wife, my children Again. My neighborhood, my country.
Speaker 2: But once he's invaded I don't
Speaker 1: care whether you win it.
Speaker 2: Once he's invaded, what do you do?
Speaker 1: Well, your victory has nothing to do with anything. What I care about is my victory.
Speaker 2: You're in this as much as we are.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. I care about my country and whether we win, which is good for us because I'm in charge. My country is a good deal around it.
I'm in charge of nothing.
Speaker 2: Is it good for America that Putin wins?
Speaker 1: This whole thing has been a disaster, but we're gonna lose the US dollar over this. Okay? Because we follow the advice of people like Boris Johnson who have no skin in the game whatsoever, but they get to feel like a moral charge,
Speaker 0: be like, we're on the side of democracy.
Speaker 1: Okay. It's it's so infuriating, it's making I'm sorry to be so mean to the Brits because it's our fault too.
Speaker 2: We can take you.
Speaker 1: In fact, we started this, but you guys went along like little peekingese. You shouldn't have done that.
Speaker 2: But why are you not asking my question?
Speaker 1: What would I do if I were Trump right now?
Speaker 2: No. No. No. Once he invaded Putin, what do you let him take?
Speaker 1: I'd call Putin. Let him take? I would say,
Speaker 2: at that point Let him take.
Speaker 1: To what extent can you clean it up? You you call Putin and you say, alright. This happened. First thing we're gonna do is recognize it's not in our interest, your interest, the world's interest to have NATO missiles on your border. Mhmm.
We don't want that. There's no reason to want that because we don't wanna drive you into the arms of China. You are really part of Europe, and you should be part of the West because the West is Christian world that has a lot in common And
Speaker 2: what have he said?
Speaker 1: Culturally, religiously, linguistically, historically, and we wanna be a block against the rising
Speaker 2: And he says, you know Obviously. And he says, actually, I want Ukraine.
Speaker 1: If you're the leader of The United States, your number 1 goal is to keep Russia, the world's largest land mass with some of the world's deepest energy reserves from aligning with China, which has too many people, not enough land, and not enough energy. So if they get together, they create a block that is bigger than you economically and militarily. So you cannot let that happen. That's number 1 goal. You cannot let that happen.
And that retard in charge of our country just allowed that to happen because he hates The United States as an acted against his interest consistently from day one, twenty twenty to Jan. 20, 2025 when he left. Thank god. So that's the goal. Do not allow to the extent you can control it, do not allow Russia to align meaningfully with China.
They have much more in common with us. They're part of Europe. Do you guys don't want to invent that support?
Speaker 2: I'd love to be pedantic.
Speaker 1: You're not being pedantic.
Speaker 2: What do you let Putin take?
Speaker 1: I don't care. What I care about Don't care? I care, but what I care about is the balance of power in the world. And if the West finds itself in a place where it's got a much smaller collective economy and a much less powerful collective military than the East, then we're in serious trouble. Syria there's no balance in the world.
The Chinese are in charge of everything. And so you can't let that happen.
Speaker 2: But if you roll over and you let Putin take what he wants Roll
Speaker 1: over, it's all this, like, dip measuring contest
Speaker 2: Let me just let me just respond. Roll over. Let me just respond. If you roll over and you let him take what he wants in Ukraine, why should China not go and take what they want in Taiwan, for example? They would just take Well,
Speaker 1: they are gonna take what they
Speaker 2: want in Taiwan. I'm not sure they will, especially with Trump as president.
Speaker 1: Part of China.
Speaker 2: I don't think they will.
Speaker 1: Okay. Why do why do we get to dictate what China does with Taiwan? Like, there's spheres of You'd
Speaker 2: be happy for them to take back to us.
Speaker 1: I'm not happy. I'm not happy with any conflict ever. I hate violence. I'm a Christian. I'm just saying that great countries have spheres of influence.
So Saudi Arabia, where we are now, everyone's like, oh, the Saudis are, you know, interfering in Yemen. Well, Yemen's right there. It's in their world. Like, they have an absolute interest in making sure that, like, nothing crazy goes on in Yemen. We have the same interest in Mexico and in Canada.
And we have some crazy cross dressing prime minister in Canada, so we take them out because they're on our border. And that's what great powers do. That's what they've always done. That's what they always will do. So it's totally fair for us to recognize that the countries around Russia know we shouldn't be invading or torturing them or oppressing them, of course.
But that's their sphere. And big picture, holy smokes. You do not want the 2 largest powers in the world, apart from The United States, to get together and align against us.
Speaker 2: Why do you support why do you support Israel against Hamas, for example? Why do you support America giving them billions of dollars?
Speaker 1: Well, I I don't.
Speaker 2: You don't support Israel being supported by America?
Speaker 1: Well, I I support Israel in the sense that I I really like Israel. I brought my family on vacation to Israel.
Speaker 2: Would you agree with America supplying them with a lot of arms?
Speaker 1: To the extent that it that it helps The United States, I'm for it, of course. I I think what we need is
Speaker 2: So you do believe in America interfering in countries a long way away. It just depends which country. No. I I Your your principle, it doesn't really apply in Israel.
Speaker 1: I'll for the third time just to be totally clear. I believe The United States, like every country, should to the extent that it can act on behalf of its own people and their perceived interest. We can debate what those interests are.
Speaker 2: But that doesn't apply in Israel.
Speaker 1: I don't know what you mean.
Speaker 2: America's supporting Israel because it's an ally.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what those words mean. I'm just saying my personal They're an ally.
Speaker 2: Right? I mean, they
Speaker 1: they both You know what that means to be an ally. I mean, we have no
Speaker 2: It means that when Israel wants to attack in Gaza and attack Hamas, America will help it because it's his ally.
Speaker 1: That's not what it means
Speaker 2: to be an ally.
Speaker 1: To be an ally. Okay? Well, fundamentally enough. Greater allies than my own children. When they come to me and say I wanna do this, I assess whether it's good for them or not.
And if I don't think it is, I don't support it. Right. Because they're my true allies. They're my children.
Speaker 2: But why would you support America getting involved in Israel?
Speaker 1: A country that your allies says I wanna do this does not mean axiomatically you support it. Maybe it's not good for you or me.
Speaker 2: So do you support America supporting Israel to the tune of billions of dollars?
Speaker 1: It depends. If you can make
Speaker 2: it What's what's in America's interest is what's happening? It it
Speaker 1: does in all cases. It's not just about Israel. Would you
Speaker 2: support what's happening then in the support in the attacks in Gaza, for example? Because I don't see the difference between that and what's happening in Ukraine. This is a long way away from America. There's no direct involvement with America. Well, it There's no there's no mainland involvement with America, and yet you think it's right that America supports Israel or put words in your mouth.
But you don't think it's right I know.
Speaker 1: Those are the words that came out of my mouth.
Speaker 2: You don't think it's right America supports Ukraine?
Speaker 1: I have a simple solution. When Russia invokes it. I have a simple Let me explain what I think. And then that way, we'll we'll get Am I wrong? We'll get right to what I think.
Speaker 2: Am I wrong?
Speaker 1: I I actually tuned out midway through. I'm not exactly sure what you said.
Speaker 2: You can't tune out when
Speaker 1: I'm right. No. It was more a lecture about what I think, and then I'm like, wait. I know what I think.
Speaker 2: I think I'm the
Speaker 1: most expert on what I was a juke. I think I'm the uncontested premier of my own head.
Speaker 2: That is true.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to unload its contents on you
Speaker 2: right now. Explain Tell you why what is America's national interest in Israel?
Speaker 1: I'll define the parameters as well because I'm happier with that. I would say I would say I support the right of all sovereign nations to act within what they believe is their own interest. Like, we don't always know our own interest in our personal lives or between nations. Like, we think it's good for us, but it may not be. The vodka in the morning analogy.
Not good, actually, but I thought it was. Now I know it's not. But to the extent that we think we know, I think countries should act on behalf of their own citizens. That's that's the basic idea in democracy. Okay?
And there's certainly a you could make a case that whatever we're giving to Israel this year in the form of direct aid, military assistance, loan guarantees, however we're doing it, is good for The United States. I think you just have to make that case.
Speaker 2: Why is it good for The United States?
Speaker 1: Well, you could make that case.
Speaker 2: But why is it?
Speaker 1: I'm not convinced. What
Speaker 2: is the case?
Speaker 1: Well, Well, I don't know. You'd have to be an advocate for it. You are a vociferous advocate for it. So why don't you tell me?
Speaker 2: For what?
Speaker 1: For USAID to Israel in the current conflict.
Speaker 2: Actually, I'm I'm I haven't expected a view about that at all. I'm just curious about your the difference in your You're not
Speaker 1: an Israel hater, are you? Why do you hate Not at all.
Speaker 2: Not at all.
Speaker 1: Why do you hate why are you attacking Israel? I don't like I don't know why. Like, what what problem do you have with Israel?
Speaker 2: I have no problem
Speaker 1: with Israel.
Speaker 2: I have no problem with Israel whatsoever.
Speaker 1: It feels like you do. Isn't Netanyahu a dictator?
Speaker 2: Actually, I don't like Netanyahu. I think you should
Speaker 1: You hate Israel?
Speaker 2: I think you should go. But but that's what let me just ask you 1 more time. Woah.
Speaker 1: Hang on. Hang on. Now we're getting into I'm not comfortable with this.
Speaker 2: Here's my question. I don't know. Should
Speaker 1: I be platform e? That's my question. You just said you don't like Netanyahu?
Speaker 2: I'm trying to work out whose whose brand suffers more when we platform each other. But let me ask you this. Let me ask you this.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna need a second.
Speaker 2: One more time. Just quietly for the people at the back. You don't like America getting involved in helping Ukraine against Russia because there's no national interest for America in doing that in your eyes.
Speaker 1: Well, there's a negative national
Speaker 2: interest to put down 1.
Speaker 1: So I get that. Using the US dollar as the world's 0 currency because of this war.
Speaker 2: Alright. K. So fine. No
Speaker 1: greater national
Speaker 2: interest. That's your but your position is America First that there's no interest for America Shouldn't be doing it. Every country It's a problem between it's a problem between, Ukraine and Russia. Okay. That's fine.
A lot of people have that view. I respect it. What I can't understand is the difference in your logic and principle about supporting Israel in its war with Hamas, which is many thousands of miles away from America. Have I There's no there's no direct
Speaker 1: Have I been a great advocate for the The war it does? I I missed that part of the conversation.
Speaker 2: Well, you support America supporting Israel. You don't support America supporting Ukraine.
Speaker 1: I don't support America supporting any nation on the planet to its own detriment. Every element of our foreign policy should serve The United States. Okay. That's the point of our government is to serve the people who live there called citizens. That's what democracy is.
There's no other reason. So if I'm in charge of a country and I decide, actually, I should do this because people who pay me want me to do it or I'm making money to do it, then I'm by definition illegitimate. That's not democracy. That is a species of oligarchy or whatever. You could assign a name to it.
That's not democracy. So I just believe in our system. And our our leaders should act on behalf of their own people or what they think is the their own people's interests. And I would apply that to Israel. I'd apply it to Ukraine.
I think there have certainly been times where we have benefited from our alliance with Israel. You know, it's an alliance just like we have an alliance with Israel.
Speaker 2: They are allies then.
Speaker 1: I don't know what ally means.
Speaker 2: It's short for alliance.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You're right. It is. Yes. Funny.
I never
Speaker 2: heard that. Got you.
Speaker 1: You got
Speaker 2: me. You've literally just
Speaker 1: When it comes to etymology, you are the unchallenged king.
Speaker 2: Boom. You're
Speaker 1: blowing my mind, Piers Morgan.
Speaker 2: My English linguistics I just wanna
Speaker 1: say, you guys invented the
Speaker 2: language, though. It is our language. You lot fucked it up. We actually it's our language.
Speaker 1: As a PG Wodehouse fan, I totally It's
Speaker 2: a root, not a route. It's Iran, not Iran, and it's a hurricane, not a hurricane.
Speaker 1: Hurricane is embarrassing.
Speaker 2: These are all our world. I don't know. That's not true.
Speaker 1: We gave them to you. Hurricanes.
Speaker 2: You change them. We have hurricanes.
Speaker 1: You don't have hurricanes or pecan? We have
Speaker 2: 1 in 87. It locked down all the trees in my house.
Speaker 1: You had a hurricane?
Speaker 2: Yes. I think
Speaker 1: it's a typhoon when it happened.
Speaker 2: Famously, the BBC weatherman at the time announced on the BBC main news on the night, there were people ringing in saying, is there gonna be a hurricane in The UK? And no one knew what happened. And let me tell you, there is not. Four hours later, every tree in South Of England fell down. Are you serious?
Yes. We called it a hurricane is my point.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, you don't have enough experience. As someone who spends a lot of time in Florida, it's a hurricane. I'm gonna tell you a cocktail. Of all the New Year's resolutions you're likely to put off, the 1 you're most likely to put off and keep putting off is buying life insurance, and you should have life insurance.
It's kinda crazy not to because the future is unknown. You gotta have life insurance. But you may not have life insurance because it's a huge hassle, and it can be a huge rip off. But there is an answer, policy genius. It makes it very easy and much cheaper.
You can find life insurance policies start at just $292 per year for a million dollars of coverage. And some options, and this is the best part, are a % online and lets you avoid unnecessary medical exams, the guy with the gloves. You don't want that if you can avoid it, and you may be able to avoid it. Forty percent of people wind up looking back and wishing they'd had better life insurance or any life insurance. It could have helped their families enormously.
Policygenius can fix that for you. Peace of mind. That's what they're really selling. The address, policygenius.com/tucker, or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much money you could save and how much hassle you could save. Policygenius.com/tucker.
Speaker 2: Would you kill Putin if you could? Would I? Not personally.
Speaker 1: No. But do you think it should be the policy of the UK government, the US government, under because it is now the policy to kill Putin.
Speaker 2: No. I would prefer the people of Russia to vote him out, but I also feel the same way about Netanyahu and the people in Israel.
Speaker 1: So you're not calling for the assassination Netanyahu? No. Or Putin? No. No.
Do you think that, if Putin were to leave either by force or choice that Russia would have a more pro western leader after?
Speaker 2: Not necessarily, no. Okay. Highly unlikely.
Speaker 1: Highly unlikely. I think that's a fair assessment. Then why would you want since there's no evidence that the majority of Russians don't want Putin, there's overwhelming evidence that they do want Putin. So he appears to be the choice of his own country, which you may not like or whatever, but it seems true. And he's the most pro western leader we're likely to get in our lifetimes, then why are we against Putin exactly?
Speaker 2: Because I don't believe him in the way that you seem to.
Speaker 1: Don't believe I don't believe anybody.
Speaker 2: That he has this very well intentioned, perfectly reasonable, understandable reason why he had to illegally invade a democratic country Illegal. And take a third of his people and take a third of his land of people. And you think that's fine?
Speaker 1: And I'm saying when you make reference to what's legal in the middle of a war What's illegal? When your country and mine blew up Nord Stream and destroyed the Western European economy. Was that illegal?
Speaker 2: You're talking to the editor of the paper that opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq. You supported that?
Speaker 1: What? I supported the invasion of Iraq.
Speaker 2: That was illegal too.
Speaker 1: I apologize for twenty two years, but I wanted to
Speaker 2: that was illegal? I don't even know what that means. Like in the law. What law? Against international law.
Speaker 1: What who makes international law?
Speaker 2: Oh, the international community.
Speaker 1: Oh, the international community. What do they mean?
Speaker 2: Do you don't think there's anything like you you don't believe in international
Speaker 1: that means, sir. Who is the international community? You don't you don't Is Iran in the
Speaker 2: international community? Any invasion of a of a sovereign democratic Not at all. Could be legal.
Speaker 1: I don't know even know what you mean by legal. I I it's wrong. Lawful. What law? Are there international policemen?
Who are they? What are you even talking about?
Speaker 2: Well, you don't you don't you you don't think they're international laws.
Speaker 1: So I think they're moral laws, and that's what I care about. Certain things are wrong regardless of what the leaders are making.
Speaker 2: You don't believe that. You believe there are actual laws.
Speaker 1: It's not international laws. There's no international laws. Really? Are there national police? You don't believe in international courts?
Speaker 2: You don't believe in that yes. There are international courts.
Speaker 1: Really? So so who who's punished the action?
Speaker 2: By the way?
Speaker 1: Other than Milosevic,
Speaker 2: Do you believe in Who's punished? Do you believe in the Geneva Convention or not?
Speaker 1: I believe in the idea behind the Geneva Convention. Absolutely. But it's universally disregarded, including by your country, which I think is bioweapons, by the way. You should get on that and find out. Those are prohibited, but I think you guys have them.
You're in violation
Speaker 2: If that turns out to be true, I would be violently opposed to that.
Speaker 1: But you know that it is true.
Speaker 2: I don't, actually.
Speaker 1: I think you should find out.
Speaker 2: I'll look into it.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are bio labs in Ukraine. What are bio labs doing in Ukraine, do you think? Are you comfortable with that?
Speaker 2: No. It wouldn't be if they're there.
Speaker 1: But you said Zelensky was a a fabulous leader. Why would he have bio labs?
Speaker 2: I like him personally.
Speaker 1: The dictator with bio weapons. I'm I'm not into it. I'm sorry. I'm just, I guess that it would be it's against international law, so I'm opposed. No.
Look. I'm just saying international law is a theoretical concept, and it's literally theoretical because it's not enforceable, and we know that because it's not enforced. So what matters is what's the interest of your country and what's right and wrong. And I'm a Christian, so that's, like, pretty clear for me. All this shit is wrong.
It's completely wrong. It's wrong to send cluster bombs to Ukraine, which you supported. I'm totally opposed to that. Cluster bombs to kill more kids? Like, why?
That's wrong. I don't care if international law says it's wrong. That's Was it wrong
Speaker 2: was it wrong for America to use atomic bombs in order
Speaker 1: to Absolutely. Really? And I don't to use nuclear weapons? Yes.
Speaker 2: To end the war? Of course. To save many hundreds of thousands more people dying?
Speaker 1: I I That's
Speaker 2: what happened.
Speaker 1: I don't you know, this is, the to refer to in the business as a theoretical,
Speaker 2: correction. Not really. Everyone is Well,
Speaker 1: it's literally theoretical.
Speaker 2: Whether you agree or don't agree with the use of nuclear weapons, nobody disputes the fact that it brought an end to a war, which hadn't been allowed to carry on for another six months to a year, would have carried
Speaker 1: Why Augustaki? Kill many more people. Why drop it on Japan's Christian population? Is there some reason Hiroshima wasn't enough? No.
Because they wanted to test a different variety of atomic weapon. So, like, I'm against that. I'm against killing civilians. I'm against firebombing cities. I'm against bioweapons.
I'm against chemical weapons. What
Speaker 2: weapons do you support?
Speaker 1: I guess conventional weapons. You know, I'm
Speaker 2: Well, how big a bomb do you support?
Speaker 1: Look. If you're intentionally killing civilians Isn't
Speaker 2: it a question of just of scale? I mean To some extent, it is. Yeah. If you believe
Speaker 1: in a
Speaker 2: big bomb and it kills 500 people, but you don't agree with 1 that kills a thousand what's the difference ideologically? It
Speaker 1: depends who they are I mean I think you can say I mean there are
Speaker 2: So after Pearl Harbor after Pearl Harbor you think it was wrong with the Japanese refusing to surrender vowing to kill as many people as they possibly could that America decided to use its 2 most powerful weapons to bring an end to the war. I think there's a That's 1 way to put it. I would say it's more morally justified what America did than what the British did, for example, in carpet bombing Dresden.
Speaker 1: Dresden. Actually,
Speaker 2: I think there was more justification because they were trying to bring an end to the war as quickly as they could to avoid potentially millions more people dying. I
Speaker 1: you know, it's no defense of Imperial Japan or Pearl Harbor or Franklin Roosevelt for allowing Pearl Harbor, which he did. It's not a defense of any of that to say if you're intentionally killing civilians, you probably shouldn't beat your chest and brag about it. You know? Maybe you can make the
Speaker 2: case I agree with that.
Speaker 1: Maybe you make the case that we had to do it or whatever, but you should
Speaker 2: I agree.
Speaker 1: You should weep. And that's evil, and you should just say it's evil. And I know it's really really threatening to
Speaker 2: Is it evil then?
Speaker 1: Ben Shapiro to say that or whatever.
Speaker 2: Is it evil?
Speaker 1: To kill civilians on purpose? Yeah. It is.
Speaker 2: I think it is. Really?
Speaker 1: Kids and children? Well, how is it not, actually? In a war? We can call it whatever you want. How is it right to kill women and children?
Speaker 2: I didn't say well, because I think there's a moral right behind you if you are literally
Speaker 1: To kill women and children?
Speaker 2: If there's
Speaker 1: a if
Speaker 2: there's a world war that threatens the entire what? It it threatens the entire world.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Some people killed your kids like your 8 year old?
Speaker 2: Like, how is this morally justifiable? Well, because actually, you have to well, by your criteria That's disgusting. Okay. So nothing's so no war is morally justified? I mean, I think
Speaker 1: it's pretty hard to justify. I mean, yeah. I'm just Any war? You know, a pure defensive action, sure. But all I'm saying look.
It's all ugly. It's all hard to stomach. I've actually seen some of it up close, super ugly.
Speaker 2: You can say that you can say you hate it. Me may may I The fact you you can't put me with it being morally justified.
Speaker 1: To intentionally kill noncombatants, women, and children, I think we can say that's wrong. In fact, I thought that was the thing we were fighting against. And censorship and dictatorship, people ruling without being elected, people using force to get their will. Like, I thought that was the whole thing we were fighting against. So how about we don't become that?
And I'm just saying all kinds of decisions are made under duress. I have made decisions under duress, foolishly, that I'm ashamed of, including supporting the Iraq war. But why are we defending it? I just don't understand that. And we're defending it, of course, because we're still doing it.
And a lot of people are getting rich, and a lot of people find meaning in their otherwise barren lives rather than, like, raising decent children and having a productive life making something. Mhmm. They exist to destroy. I just think that's evil.
Speaker 2: You think no military action is morally justifiable, though?
Speaker 1: I didn't say that.
Speaker 2: Are you implying that?
Speaker 1: I'm not implying it. I never implied anything. I just say things.
Speaker 2: It's the death of any innocent people. For girls.
Speaker 1: I was just telling you what
Speaker 2: I think. Yeah. But if you kill any innocent people, civilians in a war, you think it's all morally lacking in justification. Because I would argue against that.
Speaker 1: Right. You you're arguing against the construct that you created in order to argue against.
Speaker 2: Not really.
Speaker 1: I'm being well, I'm being super straightforward. If you're interested Is there
Speaker 2: any form of of warfare that's morally justified? Go on. Let me finish.
Speaker 1: I'm saying when you intentionally kill women and children, when you wage war through fear by murdering the civilian population, I don't think that's a good thing. And I don't think you should be defending it. And I don't know why it's such a threat to say that out loud. If you're firebombing someone's city as we did Tokyo, as you guys did Dresden, and a lot of other cities, by the way, in both of those countries, if you're dropping atomic weapons in the middle of town on a Catholic church, I don't know why you have to look back eighty years later and be like, that was a great thing. It wasn't a great thing.
It was a shameful thing. And we should be better than that because we're not savages.
Speaker 2: I don't agree. I don't agree with you. I don't agree with you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Apparently, you don't.
Speaker 2: I don't.
Speaker 1: You said, right, Cameron, it's okay to kill
Speaker 2: an 8 year old because it's war.
Speaker 1: No. It's not okay to kill 8. I didn't.
Speaker 2: I didn't say anything is okay. What I said is morally justified because when you have an enemy that is prepared to put 6000000 Jews into gas chambers and murder 6000000 more people, they are prepared to do anything, and you have to stop them. And then any response you give to me is morally justified.
Speaker 1: Any response?
Speaker 2: Well, pretty much. If you're if you're taking the war to them to try and end the war But you don't and trying to defeat a nihilistic group like the Nazis. Yes. It's morally
Speaker 1: nihilistic group. Says the guy who's defending the murder of 8 year olds. They're nihilistic. Thing is expressing a species of nihilism. The whole point is we are better than you because we have limits.
There's some things we're I'm not gonna rape your wife. I'm just not.
Speaker 2: How do you stop?
Speaker 1: Let me let me finish. Okay. I am not going to behave like an animal. You are. That's why we're at war.
You bombed preemptively my Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor. We weren't even at war. Why did you do that? That's outrageous. We're gonna punish you for doing it.
I get it. But we're not liking Not punish. Defend. Of course, we're not defending. There was no threat of invasion.
If you're The United States, I mean, you live in a tiny island nation. I think there was a a The
Speaker 2: company's attack Pearl Harbor. That is a form of invasion, isn't it?
Speaker 1: It was not an invasion. It was an attack.
Speaker 2: It's a mass attack on
Speaker 1: I'm not defending Pearl Harbor. I don't think Roosevelt should've let it happen, which he did.
Speaker 2: But once it happened, what do you do?
Speaker 1: You you attack them back.
Speaker 2: I I I'm not you you agree.
Speaker 1: Okay. But hold on. There are finer distinctions here.
Speaker 2: I just Not really. We'd attack them back. Let me finish my fucking Was it was it morally defensible to attack them back? Stop. Okay.
Speaker 1: Yes. It was morally defensible to attack them back.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. You agree with me? It depends what attack You agree with me?
Speaker 1: You didn't qualify. You didn't qualify. You didn't qualify. You did like crazy. You're like
Speaker 2: You didn't qualify. Why did
Speaker 1: you say it's okay to molest children? Why do you say that? You're like, I didn't say that. No. Get No.
You just said it's okay to molest children. And why would you be in favor of child malt victims?
Speaker 2: Nobody's talked about molesting children. That's what You just said it was morally justified for America. Dialogue. It's like hilarious. America.
You said America attacking after all. People on.
Speaker 1: They're like they end the interview, and they're like, what just happened?
Speaker 2: Actually, you'll be saying that. He just told me
Speaker 1: what I believed, and then he attacked me for believing it. So hilarious. I love that. It's like a species of masturbation. Like, you don't need another person present.
Speaker 2: Listen. Don't mock masturbation. It's I'm not trying to making love to someone it's making love to someone you love.
Speaker 1: Okay. Let me just say, you don't ever wanna wind up in a place where you're defending the killing of children. You just don't. Now you go into any
Speaker 2: kind of That wasn't what I was doing. I was saying there's moral justice
Speaker 1: very much what you were
Speaker 2: doing. No. No. You
Speaker 1: said it was morally justified to kill children.
Speaker 2: I said morally just not. No. No. Morally justified to drop bombs which end a war. Yes.
I do believe Can
Speaker 1: I ask you just since we're still on Hiroshima Nagasaki, hard to say make the case for Nagasaki, but whatever? Why not if you have this fantastic new weapon Mhmm. And you wanna prevent somehow you're required to invade Japan. Like, I don't know why we'd be required to invade Japan, by the way. Like, no one ever answers that question.
Speaker 2: They just attacked you?
Speaker 1: No. They attacked us four years earlier, and we've now beaten them and driven them out of The Philippines and Malaysia and all this stuff. We're we've won. Mhmm. Why do we have to invade Mainland Japan?
No one ever answers that question. We just kind of have to because we have to. Okay. I'm not second guessing the military leadership of the second world war. But I am second guessing this.
Why wouldn't you bomb just military installations? Why drop these bombs in the middle of a city when you know that overwhelmingly the incinerated people will be civilians? Like, why would you do that? I would not do that.
Speaker 2: I would say
Speaker 1: I have the bomb. Okay. We're gonna drop it on, you know, critical military infrastructure, arms manufacturing plants on, you know, a fleet. Why would you drop it on Because
Speaker 2: when the enemy is not making that calculation, you have to stop them.
Speaker 1: Stop them from what?
Speaker 2: Not being invaded? Stop them from killing your civilians, killing your people.
Speaker 1: Japan at in in the was in no position to kill any American civilians, period. So I think they've pulled a couple fire bombs over Oregon three years before. But the point is, look, I don't wanna I understand, you know, people do their best under pressure. They make mistakes. I've made a million of them.
I'm not judging even Harry Truman, who I do think was kind of a pig. But whatever. I'm not even judging. I I maybe would've done the same thing. I'm just saying eighty years later, why we why defend that?
Like, what's the point? I think
Speaker 2: it was morally justified.
Speaker 1: To kill 200000 civilians? Yeah. So then we wouldn't have to invade, which we didn't have to anyway?
Speaker 2: To save potentially millions of lives being killed. Yes.
Speaker 1: Of our invaders of their country?
Speaker 2: Of both sides. To bring an end
Speaker 1: to the war. How about just not invade them?
Speaker 2: They wouldn't surrender. You gotta bring the war to an end.
Speaker 1: But they had lost. Why do you but why do you have to invade them?
Speaker 2: They they refused to surrender.
Speaker 1: Okay. But we've kicked them out of all of their colonies. We've driven them back to their island.
Speaker 2: You don't dispute dropping those bombs into the war, do you?
Speaker 1: Well, I I am disputing it. That's what I'm doing right now.
Speaker 2: You did end the
Speaker 1: war. Oh, disputing that it ended the war. Sure.
Speaker 2: Of course. So it the means and effect. Are correct.
Speaker 1: I'm also not disputing that bringing down the Twin Towers changed The United States. Like, if you commit enough killing, you will change people's behavior, including getting them to surrender. I'm just mildly questioning is, is it worth it? And what are you becoming when you participate in it? Yeah.
Speaker 2: But I think I
Speaker 1: think that's a meaningful question that nobody addresses. Yeah.
Speaker 2: But you'll Who am I?
Speaker 1: I? Are you I'm a decent person. I am I I'm an imperfect person. This is how Americans, I think, should think of themselves and mostly do. But I'm also a representative of an enlightened country, product of an enlightened civilization called Western civilization, and there are certain things I will not do even if they benefit me.
I'm not doing that because I'm not that guy. I don't kill children. I don't rape women. I don't send women into battle to defend me, which I guess we now do. That's wrong.
Speaker 2: So you you would condemn what Israel's done in Gaza, for example?
Speaker 1: I don't I don't wanna be involved in that.
Speaker 2: I mean, nearly twenty two thousand children are said to have died.
Speaker 1: I I don't
Speaker 2: You condemn it?
Speaker 1: Think that that is a
Speaker 2: by your criteria, you condemn? Is it morally justified?
Speaker 1: That is a calculation that Israel has to make. I don't wanna be have anything to do with that.
Speaker 2: You have no Is
Speaker 1: the No
Speaker 2: no view? No view?
Speaker 1: It's hard to take a lecture from someone who just admitted that he hates Israel in every fiber of his body. I never said that. You said that. You said that Now you're distracting. No.
No.
Speaker 2: I'm not Oh, yes. You are.
Speaker 1: You're the 1 who said that. You're not distracting. You said I hate Benjamin Netanyahu.
Speaker 2: No. I didn't. That's another I don't think you should be leader anymore.
Speaker 1: You hate him. You You Should be leader. Irrational hatred that, you know, I don't know where it comes from. I can't account for what's in your soul. I don't have an x-ray into what's deep inside you, but all you said was I hate
Speaker 2: I have no problem saying that I think Israel's response has gone way too far. Way too many civilians have been killed. What I'm surprised about is that you having lectured me Correct. About the deaths of 8 year
Speaker 1: old You said you
Speaker 2: don't wanna morally condemn what Israel's done in Gaza. I'm curious as to why I wanna are your criteria?
Speaker 1: Yep. My criteria apply solely, and this is a threat of consistency throughout my arguments here and everywhere for the last twenty years. They have to do with the behavior of The United States, which is my country. Mhmm. And it's been my family's country for hundreds of years.
I pay my full taxes. I feel very vested. I'm a shareholder in my country. So its behavior matters greatly to me. I'm implicated in its behavior.
And I don't want The United States to participate in things that are counter to its interests or counter to the values of Western civilization. That's really simple. So other countries do all kinds of abominable things, including cannibalism Mhmm. A lot, actually, and human sacrifice, a lot, actually. And, you know, okay.
They're not my country. So I don't want The United States involved in anything that's morally indefensible or counter to its own interests, period.
Speaker 2: So Israel's dropping American bombs on Gaza, killing lots of children.
Speaker 1: You think In order to
Speaker 2: drop the deaths of
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what I think.
Speaker 2: Hang on. You think that you think the killing of civilians is morally indefensible? Let me tell you what I think. So American bombs are being used to kill a lot of children and women in Gaza.
Speaker 1: I hate that.
Speaker 2: Is it morally
Speaker 1: Let me tell you
Speaker 2: what Is it morally indefensible? Now you don't wanna say?
Speaker 1: I'm in the process of telling you.
Speaker 2: Go on then.
Speaker 1: Stand back. Let the flower bloom. Okay? Stop tending the garden, Pierce. Yeah.
I hate the fact that civilians are killed with American weapons. I hate it. I hate it in Ukraine. I hate it in Gaza. I hate it in the occupied territories.
Speaker 2: I do well.
Speaker 1: Whatever we're calling them Yeah.
Speaker 2: These
Speaker 1: days. I think in the specific case of Israel, we have been closely allied with the Israeli government, you know, since we're actually instrumental in the creation of Israel, so since the And I think that there are times when our interests have aligned and there are times, the transfer of military technology to China being 1 of them, where those interests diverge. I would very much appreciate an environment in The United States where Americans could speak openly about what their money is doing in a bunch of different foreign countries including that 1. And I think that we should reassess all our relationships, all our alliances with our allies on the basis of whether or not it's good for The United States on a bunch of different levels, economically, whether it's good for our internal politics, whether it's good for, you know, our power abroad, etcetera, etcetera. And, yes, more than you know, I I really think that we need a much more honest conversation about our relationship with Israel.
And I feel, if I can just say 1 thing and brag, I feel like I'm 1 of the only people in The United States who's not emotional on the topic. Everyone's so emotional about it. They hate Israel. They love Israel. It's like, I'm American.
Okay? I I like Israel. I don't love any country other than my own, and I think we should have a rational conversation about this. And at this point, as you well know, we don't. Right.
So that's my actual position.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, look, for what it's worth, my position is Israel had a fundamental duty on just a right, but a duty to defend its people after October, given the horrendous scale of that attack. And my only question I kept asking repeatedly from about the first couple of weeks onwards was what is a proportionate response? What is Look. What what is morally justified?
Speaker 1: In general, your relationships with neigh with your neighbors are your problem. In my home, my neighbors, I own my house. I can't leave
Speaker 2: easily. But it's also an American problem because American military is being used.
Speaker 1: No. But you make calculations about your behavior based on what you can achieve, based on what you think your interests are, and that's true at the homeowner level and it's true at the nation level.
Speaker 2: So you
Speaker 1: deal with your neighbors, and that's your problem. And if you're in a fight with your neighbors, it's up to you to resolve it. It's not my problem. It I I do not have to resolve your disputes with your neighbors. And that is true of Ukraine, and it's true of Israel.
I'm sorry. I wish you well. I may have you know, obviously, I like Israel because I like going there. I I know Israelis, and I really like them.
Speaker 2: I like Israel.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's the best. I mean, to visit, it's the best. No.
Speaker 2: I like Israeli people. They're very
Speaker 1: I do too.
Speaker 2: I I like Palestinian people too that I like.
Speaker 1: I do too, and there are a lot of Christians. The 1 thing I'll just be honest since you're pushing me on this that makes me a little bit emotional is there are a lot of Christians, Christian Arabs. And having traveled a lot, I can say just as a matter of personal preference, I really like them. I've never met a Christian Arab that I didn't like actually. I think they're really amazing people.
And a lot of them have been killed or mistreated with American money and weapons, and I think it's disgusting. And I think it's especially disgusting that Christian leaders in The United States have said nothing because they're bullied and bought off. And I think they, they should feel shame. And because they've dodged their duty, which is to speak up on behalf of their brothers in Christ. And they haven't.
And there there are Christians in Gaza who are killed. There are a ton in the West Bank. You're the pope And by the way, that's the cradle of Christianity. The pope apparently called church of the nativity. Part of the papa house.
Speaker 2: You know, that's what the pope calls, a church in
Speaker 1: He's absurd. I can't.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But he call he actually calls a church a Catholic church in Gaza every night to see how they're doing. Every night, apparently, he calls.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's the whole hope the pope thing. I'm not getting involved. I'm not a Catholic. Sorry.
You're gonna have to deal with him. It's your pope, not mine. So we're already meeting here at TCN the other day, and I looked around the room. And every other person had a kind of ruddy vitality, her 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 Eat Sleep. 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. An 8 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 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 4 ultra. You can try with 0 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. But, no. But in general, I I'm just speaking about The United States, Protestants in United States. That's the world that I'm from that I understand. They have an obligation to stand up for for their brother Christians around the world, and they don't in this specific case because they're intimidated.
And I think that's really shameful, and I think they should feel shame for it. It's not a political question. It's not do you hate Israel? It's like, I I I don't hate
Speaker 2: Israel.
Speaker 1: Anybody who murders Christians, defenseless Christians, the religion of peace, the actual religion of peace, I'm opposed to that, and we should just say that. It's not controversial. It should not be controversial. And it just shows how totally afraid and lacking self confidence Christians are to just say, like, I'm sorry. I'm not, like, attacking me, but I'm opposed to that.
You can't use my money to kill Christians. Blow up a church. No. Or to storm the church of the nativity. That's my religion.
No. You don't get a dollar if you do that. And by the way, we're not giving you any money until you promise to treat Christians as equals as you know what I mean? That's that's how I personally feel, and I think all Christians should feel that way. It's not attacking anybody.
It's just a baseline demand of, like, dignity and respect, and they don't get it.
Speaker 2: I mean, fundamentally That
Speaker 1: makes me emotional. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Look. Fundamentally, I'd we're not a million miles apart, and we both neither of us like war. Nobody who likes war should ever
Speaker 1: 1 of us likes dictators.
Speaker 2: No. You did. Yeah. You did.
Speaker 1: I didn't tweet out, I love you Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 2: You didn't need to. You look great. You said it in your eyes.
Speaker 1: Wait. But I didn't say it on Twitter.
Speaker 2: You should've you know what? You should've been on Twitter. You just say everyone thought you did.
Speaker 1: Oh, I didn't. I don't give a shit what people think, but I didn't tweet. Vladimir Putin, you're fabulous.
Speaker 2: You didn't need to. I didn't need to. Need to. Body language said it
Speaker 1: for you. No. You you start humping his leg in the, in the interview? No. Anyway, no.
I just I'm against dictatorship, and I I don't wanna send money to dictators. Does it bother you that your tax dollars go to a dictator?
Speaker 2: No. Because I don't I don't see Zelensky as a dictator in the way that you do.
Speaker 1: If your prime minister decided not to have another election Let's
Speaker 2: keep it will be leading for what two years? Two years, I think he'd be in charge. Putin, what is it was he into? Nearly thirty years now?
Speaker 1: I think Putin has been in, '24. 04/00? I'm not defending Putin. I'm just saying, like, all dictatorship is bad. Like, a little dollop of dictatorship is is bad as a mouthful of dictatorship.
I'm just against dictatorship. I'm for democracy. Inspiring, passionate, determined, and resolute. That's what you called Zelensky.
Speaker 2: Oh, I thought it was on to me.
Speaker 1: No. You were all upset. I thought
Speaker 2: that was your I thought that was your out for me.
Speaker 1: It's inspiring.
Speaker 2: I thought you had to say thank you, Pierce.
Speaker 1: Determined and resolute and very handsome, though. That's implied. I
Speaker 2: would agree with all of those things, isn't it? You would. Would. Yes. I think the courage, the moral courage he showed on the night that the Russians invaded when people thought they would sweep through Kyiv and almost certainly kill him, the fact he immediately went on social media and with it people around him and said I'm not leaving, I'm staying here for you.
That's moral courage. On the kind that we saw with Trump when he stood there and got back up and went fight fight fight fight. When he assassinated you don't
Speaker 1: admire it. Opponents or when he steals USAID or he allows his generals to sell half the missiles they get from The United States to the Mexican drug cartels and Iran and everyone else on the black market. Is that inspiring Well,
Speaker 2: you're making a lot of allegations against them. Facts. Okay. You say they're facts, but other people dispute them.
Speaker 1: Who disputes that they're selling weapons in Ukraine on the black market? I don't think anyone disputes. I'm sure that's happening. Oh, it's happening?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Who disputes that Zelensky's murdered his political opponents?
Speaker 2: No one. Has he? You think he personally has ordered the murders?
Speaker 1: Well, he's in charge of the country. He's the dictator.
Speaker 2: You think he has?
Speaker 1: He's the dictator.
Speaker 2: You said he did?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, in the same sense that we would say
Speaker 2: You wouldn't dispute that Vladimir Putin does that relentlessly, that he imprisons and tortures and kills Oh, he's gonna die.
Speaker 1: I think there's there's a long there's a long history of that in the region, poisoning your enemies. Putin's done that. I it seems clear to me. I'm not sending him money. I'm not calling him passionate, determined, resolute, and handsome.
Speaker 2: But you haven't I hate this.
Speaker 1: I love this. This is
Speaker 2: I don't hate it. I know. Because I keep asking you the same question. And for some reason, you don't wanna answer it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No.
Speaker 2: I mean, I What would you let
Speaker 1: I've answered all questions. Let me ask you a really easy question. Now that you have been, like me, fired from your, like, cushy mainstream media gig, how much happy are are you and why? And looking back at the television networks and newspaper how many newspapers do you work for?
Speaker 2: I ran 2 of the big ones in The UK.
Speaker 1: Right. But over your whole career, how many do you work for?
Speaker 2: I worked for 3. 4 4, actually.
Speaker 1: Okay. Right. So you've been at every stage of British media. Looking back, how do you feel about them?
Speaker 2: I think I had the the best of it really. I certainly think in newspaper terms, it was before the Internet had really taken hold. And so you were the the receptacle for news for people. You know, there weren't many television networks. You didn't really have cable television when I was running the papers.
So papers are much more influenced and much more power because they were bringing the news to people. Yeah. People woke up in the morning and they would read their paper to find out what happened. That doesn't happen anymore. People already know what's happened.
There are millions of news networks all over cable news and millions of, internet sites you can get the news. Everyone knows what's going on. So, the sort of the the point and relevance and power and influence of newspapers has dissipated. They can still break big stories and have big influence and if I was running 1 again, a, I'd be completely digital by now. I just abandoned print papers altogether but the economic model is very difficult if you do that.
You don't make as much from the digital side as you do from print. So they've got to weigh that up and somehow get through it. But I would invest heavily in investigative longer term journalism because that's how you can now bring news to people they don't already know.
Speaker 1: Well, sure, but I meant all true, totally true.
Speaker 2: But but also I just explained that.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm really asking about the honesty level. Yeah. Yeah. So now you have a gig where you can say whatever you want. You're your own boss.
You can make a a real living. Mhmm. I have no idea how you're doing, but given your numbers are huge. So I I bet you you're probably making more than you made before. We're in that range anyway.
So it's all great but the greatest part is you can say exactly what you want. How would you compare that to your previous
Speaker 2: I would say the difference is you you you we can't get canceled. Right? Right. Who's gonna cancel? It ourselves.
So we have a complete freedom and as a sort of liberation from the restrictions that inevitably come with working for big companies. Big companies in the media have really struggled I think to move with the way young people now get their information. They don't really understand the big legacy media companies that young people do not watch linear television. They don't read print newspapers.
Speaker 1: They've what they really struggle with is just to stop lying. They can't stop lying. They're like they're abusive liars.
Speaker 2: And they and they have controlled the way news is dominated. The thing about you and me and other people that do this whether you're on the left or the right, there's no control. Right? We we don't get controlled by anybody. We're only answerable to ourselves and what we want to do I think I'm like you in the sense of we're not politically aligned in many ways but we'd love talking to each other love debating love arguing love asking questions love learning like
Speaker 1: I think we are politically aligned
Speaker 2: I think We are in many ways.
Speaker 1: You do own guns. I know that you do. I know that you do. And I know that you think this whole you're crazy because it's insane.
Speaker 2: Let me tell you. Well, I don't. But let me tell you
Speaker 1: I know that you do. I can see it in your eyes. Yeah. Like, how do I get out
Speaker 2: of this? There's a lot of lot of military in my family who know how to use guns better than me.
Speaker 1: I know, but not all use of guns is equal. Right? Some is counterproductive.
Speaker 2: You know the thing about guns? I'll just say this for your audience who will all be looking at me thinking I'm the 2 a gun grabber. The reality is this complete cultural difference in my country everybody used to have a gun everybody used to in the old days now very few people have guns there are incredibly tight restrictions and the consequence of that is we have almost 0 gun crime the
Speaker 1: Was your country is London safe now?
Speaker 2: I know. I'm about to come to that. The the problem we have is with knights. Right? So I'm not saying for a moment you get rid of all the guns nobody gets killed.
Of course they do. We have a knife crime problem epidemic in our country. No.
Speaker 1: You have a people problem. You have the kind of people who stab each other.
Speaker 2: Well And
Speaker 1: you didn't used to have that.
Speaker 2: Well, we did. We did.
Speaker 1: No. You didn't. We did. I mean, it's miserable. How many people got stabbed in London in 1970 or shot compared to now?
Speaker 2: Sure. But there are
Speaker 1: massive increase because the people the attitudes of the people, the actions of the people are totally different. You've got different people and different behaviors. And, like, you can't admit that because I'm not sure why.
Speaker 2: No. No. Because actually, there are lots of white English people who's savvy who's savvy.
Speaker 1: Oh, I know. Right. Oh, I know.
Speaker 2: So it's not just about None of it. Influx of migrants, if that's what you're saying.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I I do think immigration has changed your country for the much, much worse.
Speaker 2: Well, it certainly changed the country.
Speaker 1: Much worse. That's my opinion. But it's not just immigrants who are behaving badly at all. There are a lot of native born indigenous Brits who are behaving badly. That is totally true.
And there are a lot of immigrants in your country who are kind of superior, actually, for being totally honest, who are impress really impressive.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I'm not
Speaker 1: making blanket statement. I'm just saying that the behavior has changed of the people who live there. Right? You can't be trusted with guns now because you're out of control. I
Speaker 2: don't know about that. I just know we have very tight gun laws and no gun violence. The interest well, very little. My question for you But do
Speaker 1: you own a gun secretly?
Speaker 2: I do not. No.
Speaker 1: No. Do you want to?
Speaker 2: You know why I'd get five years in prison if I got caught with it?
Speaker 1: So you're afraid you're you're afraid of your government which doesn't trust you because it's a dictatorship on it.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you a question about guns since you raised it. Because I'm curious. Generally curious. You have it said there are over 400000000 guns in circulation in America.
Speaker 1: Hope so.
Speaker 2: And it's apparently a million new guns get sold every month so that number exponentially rises the number of mass shootings in America is also rising do you think anything should be done about that if I might my time again talking about this with Americans I would never have been so sincerest, I would never have been talking about gun control and the word control alienates Americans, but what I would have said was how do you make it safer? How do you stop so many people getting shot? What do you do about it?
Speaker 1: Well, you ban SSRIs immediately. Immediately you ban? SSRIs. You ban whole categories The medication. Psychoactive Yeah.
Absolutely. Yeah. Like, immediately. Yeah. Yeah.
I mean, the truth is that, you know, drugs and alcohol drive a lot of our social ills, a lot of them. And when people are sober, and I would say, you know, if you're on Xanax or Prozac, whatever, you're not sober.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: I agree.
Speaker 1: But certainly alcohol and meth and not you know, most of our social problems are either caused or exacerbated by the drugs that people take. That's just a fact. And mass shootings are definitely in that category. So, look, as you found out, your your knife crime has just exponentially jumped recently.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And that's not because there are more knives. People use them at dinner every night and have for hundreds of years and not since the Roman times, they've used knives and not stabbed each other. It's because people are behaving differently. That's true. Why is that?
Speaker 2: That's true.
Speaker 1: I must say all the gun control people who wanna send all the guns to Ukraine so they can go kill other Eastern Europeans, it's like it's sort of weird.
Speaker 2: Do you
Speaker 1: think it's weird?
Speaker 2: No. What I think is weird about the question I asked you is simply that if I was an American There's a
Speaker 1: lot of gun crime in Ukraine. Are you adding to that?
Speaker 2: Well, there's a war. It's a different thing. Why is
Speaker 1: it gun crime? I call it gun crime. You you think People getting killed with guns.
Speaker 2: Defending itself is a crime?
Speaker 1: I think there are a lot of people getting killed with guns, and I think it's really sad, and we should disarm Ukraine. Really? Well, sure. People are getting killed with guns. They shouldn't have.
There should be strict controls on guns in Ukraine. They're automatic weapons. You guys are sending automatic weapons to Ukraine to kill other human beings. I just think that I'm just not comfortable with that morally.
Speaker 2: Let's see. See what you're doing, Tucker.
Speaker 1: The British Cheshire cat thing with me.
Speaker 2: No. Because I think it's a fatuous argument, but it's fine.
Speaker 1: It You're avoiding meaning brilliant?
Speaker 2: You're avoiding asking my answering my question.
Speaker 1: Which is why do we have so many guns? No. No. No. We're free.
Speaker 2: No. No. Didn't ask us.
Speaker 1: Because no one can tell us we can't defend ourselves.
Speaker 2: We all used to have guns too. Now we're done.
Speaker 1: Guys after the second World War, which was like a liberation war, and you won, you lost all your freedom. And now you can't even express your political opinions so they put you in jail. So, like, how did you win? How did you win? Is that what victory looks like?
You lose all your rights, your economy gets destroyed, you're probably 1 of the bankers, all of a sudden.
Speaker 0: Oh, I won.
Speaker 2: We won because I'm not conducting this interview in German, which I wouldn't be.
Speaker 1: So linguistic.
Speaker 2: I'd rather not speak German. I'd be I'd be goosestepping around my yard in England. Yeah. Goosestepping. Yeah.
Speaker 1: But you are goosestepping. People are arrested for praying.
Speaker 2: We literally won our freedom from
Speaker 1: people Where's your freedom? You can get arrested.
Speaker 2: I'm as free as you could possibly want a human being. You can't
Speaker 1: defend yourself. You can't control who comes into your country, and you can't criticize government policies or you get arrested. So how are you free? You're a slave, aren't
Speaker 2: you? No. We have
Speaker 0: How free are you?
Speaker 2: We have cultural problems in our country. Could you buy
Speaker 1: Facebook right now and say, I don't want any more immigrants in my country. They're making it
Speaker 2: worse. You could say that. What you couldn't say because a lot of these stories, I have to say, in America have been spun completely disingenuously. There's 1 case, for example, I see everyone trying to send me as an example of Britain's gone mad. Elon Musk has done it.
It's a guy who got seven years in prison. Actually, what he was doing, this guy, was he was orchestrating and directing, rioting on hotels containing asylum seekers because he had a incorrect belief that someone who had stabbed 3 young girls to death and stabbed loads of others in a horrific attack was an illegal asylum seeker. Maybe he has 1 asylum
Speaker 1: seekers in his country. I mean
Speaker 2: is that okay? Fine. It's not okay to have no asylum seekers. It is not okay to allow too many people to come in.
Speaker 1: Why is it not okay to have It's
Speaker 2: not okay to have a broken asylum system as we have.
Speaker 1: Why have any asylum seekers?
Speaker 2: Because I believe you should as a as a good country because we're a caring compassionate country. And by the way, Britain, for all your
Speaker 1: knocking caring, compassionate? Your native population is in massive decline. How is that compassionate Britain. To your people?
Speaker 2: Britain actually is 1 of the most tolerant multicultural countries in the world
Speaker 1: to this day. Then why do you have so many stabbings?
Speaker 2: We have a problem with stabbings. But you know what? How many people get killed by stabbings a year in Britain compared to
Speaker 1: evidence to Hang on. You have a problem. We're very compassionate. We do a lot of stabbings. Fine.
Speaker 2: But by your criteria, they're just defending themselves. Haven't they got a right to bear arms? Okay.
Speaker 1: Hang on. Have they like Hang on. Really any stabbings. Hang on. Years ago, now you got a ton of stabbing Dude but everything's totally fine.
And if you complain about
Speaker 0: it, you're going to jail.
Speaker 2: Do the British people have a right to bear arms, Tucker?
Speaker 1: All free people have a right to defend themselves. Bear arms?
Speaker 2: Of course. Yeah. How do you very nice. So why are you annoyed about the knife crime?
Speaker 1: I'm against all crime. Oh, look. Here's saying. Here's my only point.
Speaker 2: I'm sure if they use a Tucker Carlson argument, well, the other guy's got a knife. I better carry 1.
Speaker 1: United States, which is governed by a system we inherited with great gratitude from you, from the English, a person has a right which is, we believe, god given. It's inherent. We're born with it because we're not slaves. We're free people to say what he thinks is true. Period.
Period. And government has to not only not infringe on that right but protect it. It exists to protect that right. Your system is a little different. We took it a little farther and enshrined that in our Bill of Rights, which, unfortunately, you don't have.
I bet you wish you did. But from an American perspective, the idea that you would ever punish someone for talking And
Speaker 2: that wasn't why they that guy was punished. But
Speaker 1: they may be right. I I would not I would not contest that.
Speaker 2: It is right. But you you would not contest
Speaker 1: that there are hundreds of people
Speaker 2: who've gone
Speaker 1: to jail in the last five years in The UK for expressing opinions. That is a fact.
Speaker 2: It depends what you think that opinion is. Most of them have been directing violence or inciting violence. That's different. Expressing
Speaker 1: an opinion That's right, Peter.
Speaker 2: It is. I
Speaker 1: don't think they were
Speaker 2: charged with that. That is right. Okay. And also, look, look at the case of Tommy Robinson. Tommy Robinson, most Americans I speak to think he's in jail as some kind of political prisoner like Nelson Mandela for having views about about
Speaker 1: Or Julian Assange.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But that's not why Tommy Robinson's in jail because he defamed a young Syrian refugee. He defamed? Yeah. He lied about him.
Okay. Well, he did. But he was then no. The guy
Speaker 1: eventually of your leaders are going to jail for lying?
Speaker 2: No. What?
Speaker 1: How many of your leaders have gone to jail for lying? They lie constantly.
Speaker 2: Every time they speak to lie enough.
Speaker 1: It's not enough. It's right around 0, actually. Yeah. That doesn't get Throw powerless people in jail for saying things they don't like.
Speaker 2: But you also have a defamation law in The United States. People have gone to jail for breaking that law. That's happened. So you're not so pure yourself. Criminal Yes.
Yes. You do. Criminal defamation, you do.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna Go and check it.
Speaker 2: Don't check it.
Speaker 1: Okay. There's a lawyer sitting right there, but he's occupied
Speaker 2: And you've had you've had people go to prison in America for defamation. For labeling people for saying things that you don't like. It's happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm I'm just pausing because I don't know if that's true. It's true. I think I would be opposed to that.
Speaker 2: It is true.
Speaker 1: Do people go to jail in The United States for defamation?
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker 1: They face civil judgment. They face civil judgment.
Speaker 2: People have gone to jail.
Speaker 1: Taking this up out of nothing. No.
Speaker 2: No. Go and check it.
Speaker 1: Let me check with an actual American. People American. Right? This is my college roommate. I was born of
Speaker 0: The UK. Right.
Speaker 2: Oh, he
Speaker 1: was born of The UK. But this is my college roommate. He's an attorney. I had all this debate.
Speaker 2: I had all this debate on Twitter recently. It people are There's
Speaker 1: a criminal defamation.
Speaker 2: There is.
Speaker 1: Crime.
Speaker 2: Where? Go and check it.
Speaker 1: In certain states. Thank you. Has anyone gone to jail
Speaker 2: for that? Thank you.
Speaker 1: I've never heard of that.
Speaker 2: So the British guy is now telling Americans about their own law. I'm I'm pleased, obviously, but
Speaker 1: I I think I'm gonna, I'm gonna dismiss that as a
Speaker 2: They
Speaker 1: just I've never no.
Speaker 2: No. No.
Speaker 1: No. I'll take the fifth. But the point is, you should never allow anybody in your country to go to jail for having unpopular opinions.
Speaker 2: It depends if they're inciting violence. That's the criteria. What does
Speaker 1: that even mean?
Speaker 2: I do think by the way for what it's worth that some people have been put in jail for saying stuff on Facebook because that they shouldn't have been in jail. I agree with that.
Speaker 1: The criminal prosecution service CPS shared a video in x warning people about using social media. And it stated this, and I'm quoting. I can't do the English accent, but this is what they say. Try. Think before you post exclamation point.
Content that incites violence or hatred
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Isn't just harmful, it can be illegal. Paging George Orwell. The CPS takes online violence seriously and will prosecute when the legal test is met. Remind those close to you to share responsibility or face the consequences. So that's just like North Korea at that point.
You're inciting hatred?
Speaker 2: If you're inciting violence against people.
Speaker 1: No. No. Or hatred.
Speaker 2: Right. But the violence you'd agree with.
Speaker 1: Inciting violence? I don't know what that means.
Speaker 2: It means you literally direct people to go and attack an asylum so they go, dawg.
Speaker 1: No. That's directing violence. Inciting violence
Speaker 2: Well, that's the same thing.
Speaker 1: No. It's not the same. It's not the same. So if I say, Piers, I want you to Don't
Speaker 2: beat up Alex. Right. That's inciting and directing violence. It's the same thing.
Speaker 1: I could you could say
Speaker 2: Labor Day.
Speaker 1: And your whole it's not the same. Your government is deliverance. Hold on.
Speaker 2: I'll tell
Speaker 1: you what the difference is. Your government is saying that some opinions are so inflammatory that they inspire people to commit acts of violence. Yes. Okay. That is a definition that justifies censorship.
Speaker 2: If you want my honest opinion, some of the ones who've gone to prison should not be in prison.
Speaker 1: How about insating hatred?
Speaker 2: Well, it depends what you're trying to
Speaker 1: do with the How do you measure hatred?
Speaker 2: It I Do you
Speaker 1: have a hatred meter? Me? No. Did does UK government? I mean, you're defending it.
So No.
Speaker 2: No. I'm not defending it. I'm I'm I'm literally telling you I'm not defending that. I'm saying there are people who've been put in prison.
Speaker 1: Why don't you overthrow your government? It's a tear tyrannical government.
Speaker 2: I will always support people's right to have hateful views. That's fine. I don't agree with the government.
Speaker 1: But it's a crime.
Speaker 2: I don't agree with that. Right? But it depends what they're saying. What are you
Speaker 1: doing to override tyranny of the police?
Speaker 2: If the incitement of hatred makes people go and act commit acts of violence and you intend it to, that should be a crime. You shouldn't incite people to go and commit acts of violence.
Speaker 1: But if I say something that the government doesn't like, and this is of course, it's all self preservation here. They're not no one is ever penalized for attacking. If the if you get up and you say, I hate Vladimir Putin and all Russians, you're not gonna go to jail on The UK for that because that's the official policy of your government.
Speaker 2: You wouldn't go to in prison in The UK. No. No. But you wouldn't
Speaker 1: They lynch Russians and you they were like, you're right to say that.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But you asked me earlier, if you said you hate immigrants, you wouldn't go to prison for that. That. If you said that they're all over there in that hotel, go and throw fire bombs at it, that should be a crime, shouldn't it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. If you're telling people if you're telling people to But that's what most of these cases involve. No. It's not. That's not what it said.
Actually That's not true.
Speaker 2: No. The cases you're talking about are people who've been in prison.
Speaker 1: That incites hatred isn't just harmful, it can be illegal.
Speaker 2: So my criteria Okay. But I'm
Speaker 1: talking about your government, and I'm asking why
Speaker 2: I'm told you I don't agree with it.
Speaker 1: You well, that's dictatorship from what I can tell.
Speaker 2: I don't yes.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that dictatorship. The government is saying things that we hate are illegal. We're gonna put
Speaker 2: you in prison. Half agreeing with you.
Speaker 1: Good. Right? So what are you doing to change it? So you've got a prime minister now.
Speaker 2: On my show regularly saying I think it's wrong.
Speaker 1: But at a certain point, don't people have a right to do what the American colonists did, and that's to throw off tyranny because their rights are inherent. They're given by God because they're human beings.
Speaker 2: So you want them to be violent?
Speaker 1: Of course not. I'm totally opposed to violence. You're the 1 who was justifying firebombing stuff.
Speaker 2: The example you just gave, wasn't it conducted with violence? Of course not.
Speaker 1: But you should be single-minded in getting a government that permits people to live like human beings, not like slaves. Right?
Speaker 2: I don't think anyone should be able to use on social media, they shouldn't be using rhetoric which is inciting violence, period. Hate, I think this idea of what is hate is a much more complex thing. I don't feel comfortable somebody who believes in free speech in people saying hateful things and being put in prison. It's wrong. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, inciting violence is an absurd standard because and this they tried to take me out many times with this. Some wacko will go shoot innocents and be like, he watched this show or Right. He had the same opinions as you. It's like, I couldn't be more against violence. I'm mad at my government because it funds violence around the world.
Yeah. Yeah. So inciting violence is just a way to get your critics to shut up. If you If you continue to loot their country, you crack it.
Speaker 2: If I if I say to people here, can you come and stab Tucker? Okay.
Speaker 1: But that's Right? That's not inciting. That's like directing. It's like being a criminal matter.
Speaker 2: I think you'll find I look, I may be wrong but
Speaker 1: I'm rarely I think you are.
Speaker 2: I'm rarely wrong in in, linguistic matters. I think you'll find the definition of inciting and directing is not dissimilar.
Speaker 1: You know as well as I, and I don't know why you would defend it, that your government is stifling criticism of itself, of its own illegitimate leadership using law enforcement.
Speaker 2: I think in relation to hate crime, yes. They've overreached on that. In in relation to using social media They
Speaker 1: flooded your country.
Speaker 2: We had riots last summer in Kentucky.
Speaker 1: And that's very unpopular with the native population. Always has been. Always has been. And the government for forty years has told them in increasing volume to shut up and stop complaining, and now it's putting them in jail for complaining about it. That's that's the truth.
Speaker 2: That is not as simplistic as that.
Speaker 1: Of course, it's not as simplistic as that.
Speaker 2: Of course not.
Speaker 1: I agree. I'm overgeneralizing.
Speaker 2: By the way, you wouldn't have a country without a flood of literally. Without a flood of immigrants, America wouldn't exist.
Speaker 1: But you're not America. You have a native population. No.
Speaker 2: But why would You've been there
Speaker 1: since the beginning.
Speaker 2: Why would you object to the concept of a flood of immigrants? You literally got built on it.
Speaker 1: Well, look what happened to your country. Everybody in your country. Well, but my country is by its nature different.
Speaker 2: On the premise of immigrants.
Speaker 1: You're a monarchy run by the head of your church. There's a monarchy here. Right. And they're living as they should, which is consistent with their values, and your country isn't. So that's all I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Big guy monarchy. Well, I think the king's a fine man. Really? My king. Yes.
Speaker 1: What has he done to preserve England?
Speaker 2: Preserve England? Yeah. What do you mean?
Speaker 1: Oh, I don't know. I mean, it
Speaker 2: Well, he's a Christian. He's He's
Speaker 1: the head of the What is
Speaker 2: head of the church of England.
Speaker 1: Yeah. He does. Yeah. How's how's church attendance?
Speaker 2: He goes quite regularly. Come on, tell Chuck dude.
Speaker 1: You had a Christian country, now you don't. So Well, we have a far that's not a win. That's a failure.
Speaker 2: We have a far less Christian country. I agree. Yeah. Upside about that. Is it because Can
Speaker 1: I ask you, Keir Starmer seems like the most now that Trudeau's gone, the most unpopular leader in the West?
Speaker 2: He's certainly gone from a winning with a big majority last summer to being incredibly unpopular very quickly.
Speaker 1: Can he hang on? You got four more years of this ish. Is that right?
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, yeah. I would say that there's a reasonable chance he will contest at the next election in four years time. It depends really then how the next year goes. I mean, I've never seen anyone lose such political, capital so quickly.
Yes. And he did it because he came in and decided that the strategy he would do is to say the Tories were so awful that the country's now in a terrible state, so bad that we're gonna have to do all these punitive taxes and we're gonna have to whack the pensioners and we're gonna have to whack the farmers and punish all these groups of people. And everyone was like, wow. You've waited fourteen years in opposition and this is what
Speaker 1: you do.
Speaker 2: What do
Speaker 1: farmers do wrong? I never understood that.
Speaker 2: They make our food. I mean it's ridiculous. Most of them live literally
Speaker 1: Because British food's not good? Is that what's up
Speaker 2: Most of them lose money farmers and the idea he created the impression that a lot of pensioners can afford it, a lot of farmers can afford it. Actually, most of them can't.
Speaker 1: Most of them can't. But why would you target farm I mean, it's just, inexplicable. But it's happened throughout Europe and The United States Yeah. Attacking farmers. And it seems
Speaker 2: like part of a Should reward farmers. Farmers are the lifeblood of any civilized country.
Speaker 1: Right. But if you're looking big picture, if you're opposed to famine and you're for human flourishing and people, then you'd wanna do whatever you could to have enough food.
Speaker 2: I agree.
Speaker 1: And if country by country by country, Germany, Great Britain, Denmark, Holland, they're all attacking farmers, United States, maybe there's a bigger anti human agenda at work. Does that do you do you see that?
Speaker 2: I just think there's a it's a pretty dumb political agenda that's being pursued so far. It's not
Speaker 1: just dumb. It's, like, weird. Yeah. Of all the groups you'd attack, white farmers.
Speaker 2: Makes no sense.
Speaker 1: It does make sense, though, doesn't it? Why? Well, clearly, there's an effort to reduce the human population. If you're if all these countries Do you think
Speaker 2: he he wants to starve the Brits and kill us?
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know. I I don't you know, you can't assess the motives of individuals. They're unknowable.
Speaker 2: He was trying to starve the British people.
Speaker 1: Okay. I I I don't know him. I don't know what he's trying to do.
Speaker 2: That's all I'm talking.
Speaker 1: No. No. No. No. No.
No. You no. You come on. On. Look around the world.
Government after government after government around the world is endorsing policies that they know will reduce birth rates, is attacking agriculture, and is allowing, I don't know, drugs and food that kill people and make them less healthy. So if you add that all up, you don't have to know their motives. You just look at the effects and you're like, the effect is to kill people. What is going
Speaker 2: on here?
Speaker 1: Do you ever wonder that?
Speaker 2: Crap governance by a serious assistant
Speaker 1: around it's like Yeah. Every country is like, you know, we should have people kill themselves. Mhmm. How would you ever come up with that?
Speaker 2: At a time when we need more people, not less.
Speaker 1: Yeah. What do you think that is?
Speaker 2: Bad governing. I mean, the the
Speaker 1: But why is it the same in every country?
Speaker 2: Why does it the food thing in particular? Look how fat everyone's getting. Right. Right? I mean, fat, lazy, sedentary, and you're like, that can't be good for anyone.
Speaker 1: No. But why is it happening? Bad bad politicians. But why is every politician in every western country coming to the same set of policies whose effect is fewer children, more unhealthy dead people. Like, what I mean, you don't have to be a conspiracy nut to just say I'm looking at just the numbers.
Speaker 2: Yeah. That is
Speaker 1: How many kids per family dropping?
Speaker 2: That is the consequence of all the political actions that have been taken. I agree. I don't think it's a mad global conspiracy in the way you might be inferring.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't
Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying.
Speaker 2: Yeah. But I don't listen. I know where you're coming from on this. I don't believe they're actually smart enough to do that than the politicians. And why
Speaker 1: are they all doing it?
Speaker 2: All of them. I think because they're not very competent and then and they're not very good and they're lazy. So it would And they're going along large
Speaker 1: averages would suggest that like, I don't know, the governments of Spain, Belgium, New Zealand, pick another, Mexico would adopt the opposite policies. Like, we're gonna pay you to have more kids. Not 1 of them.
Speaker 2: Here's what I agree with you about. It's wrong and it's got to change. We need more people, not less. We need better food, not crap food. We need to reduce the size of our human beings whilst increasing populations.
Otherwise, the planet's gonna kill itself, gonna basically self implode and die out as Elon Musk is warning. He's right.
Speaker 1: I agree with that.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna
Speaker 1: end on this.
Speaker 2: Have we have we ended on agreement?
Speaker 1: Well, I just wanna know your since you're, I think, good at predictions, how do you think the war in Ukraine will end?
Speaker 2: I think it will end I do think Donald Trump will get a deal. I do think in the end that Russia will probably keep most of the land they've taken. I personally wish that wasn't the case, but I think that's how this gets ended. And I hope that Ukraine get enough guarantees that the rest of their country won't get taken down the line. We saw Crimea go.
We've seen the East go pretty much, and I suspect Vladimir Putin, I believe, will try and take the rest of it. I may be wrong. I hope I'm wrong. I hope it gets a deal gets done soon because too many people are dying. I heard the other day that a hundred thousand people on that battlefield died in six weeks on both sides collectively.
I mean, this is a horrendous this has been the stuff you saw at the Somme. I I mean, it's like
Speaker 1: I totally agree, but do you think it's kind of I I strongly agree with you, and I have for two and a half years, but why is it only now that we're getting just sort of more realistic casualty figures? How could a government fund a war without knowing how many people died in that war?
Speaker 2: You think the Ukrainians have not been telling the truth about it?
Speaker 1: I think The US and British governments have both lied about it and kept those numbers from the public, and I feel like that's a crime.
Speaker 2: They should tell the truth. They should be transparent. If that's the case, it's wrong. I hope you'll go back
Speaker 1: to Great Britain and grab them by the throat and make them tell the truth.
Speaker 2: You know what may you've made me think, go back to Britain and make us jolt us into action. You know what I like about the Trump thing in the last week? Just the sense of hope, optimism, and dynamism. Agree. Even the bit before the election, when he went down to watch 1 of Elon Musk's rockets launch, And just the fact that America's back in the business of going into space, aiming to go to the moon, aiming to go to Mars.
Yes. Where's that in my country? Where is that kind of dynamism? Where is someone hitting the ground with 200 things they want to do?
Speaker 1: Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang. I agree.
Speaker 2: You may not agree with all them but my god the energy
Speaker 1: that
Speaker 2: Trump is expending the dynamism, the aspiration, the the the thing of making America great again. I've I got a feeling this time around Trump's gonna have a very good four years. I'm not so convinced about my country and I wanna get that kind of oomph and energy and dynamism I
Speaker 1: think that's
Speaker 2: in Britain because I don't disagree with a lot of the characterization you've had if we are a country in the doldrums right now. We are.
Speaker 1: And it solves a lot of problems. I think that's really smart. Yeah. You know, the energy, the attitude All of it. Why are people doing heroin in the first place?
Yeah. Why would you want to do
Speaker 2: fentanyl? Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Because you're hopeless.
Speaker 2: We have a terrible drugs problem
Speaker 1: No. I agree.
Speaker 2: In our country. Terrible. You have a bad drug problem in America.
Speaker 1: And you solve it with attitude. Yeah. You do. Pierce Morgan, thank you for taking all this time.
Speaker 2: I enjoyed it. It was
Speaker 1: great to see you in Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 2: It was still the game sometime.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thanks very much. Enjoyed it.
@MyLordBebo - Lord Bebo
🇺🇸🇺🇦 Tucker interviews the human rights lawyer Bob Amsterdam has worked in Ukraine for the past couple of years and confirms that zelensky is a dictator! https://t.co/HGdPbpoh55
Video Transcript AI Summary
The situation in Ukraine is dire: Zelensky is unpopular, people are being press-ganged into service, and corruption is rampant. The Western press is dishonest, ignoring the destruction of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the persecution of its members.
I'm an American attorney defending the Ukrainian Orthodox Church against Zelensky's attempts to destroy it. Despite being arrested in Moscow for defending Putin's political opponents, I'm now labeled a Russian stooge for defending the Church. The US government is involved in establishing a new church in Ukraine, violating religious freedom in the name of anti-Putin activities.
The Ukrainians have developed a sophisticated propaganda campaign and are exercising control over the media. Zelensky has destroyed civil society and is jailing and torturing priests, and the international community is silent.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So thank thank you for doing this. You're one of the the few people who, at the end of our last conversation, I I thought I I wanna talk to that man again because you're one of the few people I know who has a real sense of what it's like in Ukraine and has been for the last three years since the war began. How would you summarize the situation in Ukraine right now?
Speaker 1: Dire. The situation is dire. Zelensky is wildly unpopular. There are press gangs to take people to the front. People are without hope, and the casualties are enormous and the corruption is enormous.
And imagine sending your child to the front knowing all of this. As you know, I represent the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. So our parishioners go to the front while their churches are being stolen back home, while parishioners, elderly parishioners and priests are being beaten. And you know what I've always said to people who defend Zelensky is, you know, all his numbers are complete fabrications. If he was popular, if he was trusted, he wouldn't have destroyed the press.
He wouldn't be jailing and labeling with treason charges political opponents, and there would have been some control on the corruption. I mean, the courts are impossible. It's a police state. The the SBU, the secret police, run and intimidate everyone and everything, and yet the Western press has blockaded this story. The dishonesty of some of the people that are reporting from Ukraine is astounding.
I've never seen anything like it. I've been involved with cases involving wars and disputes, but the absolute lying and the games that our our papers are playing The Wall Street Journal, for instance, barely barely has an op ed that doesn't laud Zelensky. You you never get reality about what's actually going on in the presidential administration. You get no coverage. You know, there's a law, 3894, to destroy the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
No law has been passed like this in Europe since World War two against the Jews. There's no coverage. The the argument when I say to the press, how can you do this? How can you not cover people talking about religious cleansing who are members of the Ukrainian parliament? How can you not cover it?
They say, well, this church is somehow a Russian thing. We as I've told you, we have reached a point where this narrative, the Zelensky narrative, has been accepted, and our people simply don't challenge it. They fall to it. And it's it's really been down to the new administration to put a pin in that balloon.
Speaker 0: It's kinda hard to skip over you and your role in all this. You're the only American attorney who's worked in Ukraine who I have seen who's telling the truth about what's actually happening there, and for doing that, you've been called a Russian stooge, a Putin worshipper. Your character has been impugned. Can you just take a couple minutes, tell us who you are, why are you representing the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, are you a Putin puppet? Look, for forty five years, I've done political
Speaker 1: cases all over the world. We've taken on some big enemies. We took on the United Nations pro bono on behalf of an individual worker for the UN that they had destroyed. We got two assistant secretaries general disciplined in that that case that that made history inside the UN, and we were awarded the the global pro bono award from American lawyer for doing that case. I represented political opponents of Putin in Moscow.
I was arrested in Moscow at 2AM, and they tried to load me into a vehicle, get me out of there. I wouldn't go.
Speaker 0: Which you you were I just wanna be clear on this. You were arrested by the Putin government at 2AM in Moscow.
Speaker 1: That's right. In 02/2005, defending a political opponent to Vladimir Putin. And in fact, have been banned from Russia ever since. I hold no water for Putin. I represent opponents of of the Russian government in various countries, continue to represent political opponents of Putin.
It hasn't stopped the Ukrainians from launching a massive disinformation campaign against me because of my defense of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is the majority church of Ukraine, which Zelensky and his gang have been trying to destroy. I am on the legal team of some of the priests that they have illegally jailed. We have an individual in London who fled the country because Zelensky had literally set people to basically I don't want to use the word liquidate him, but he had to virtually run across a border. This is a member of the RADA who Yermak took away his security. He had to run across the border to save his life, and his crime was speaking out against a law to destroy his church.
Speaker 0: Can we just back up for one second? So you're a I think it's fair to say, in broadest terms, a Jewish liberal from the Bronx who was arrested by Putin. How did you wind up how did you wind up representing the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine? Why was that important? Of all the cases you could take, why that one?
Speaker 1: Well, let's be clear. It's the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. We we are not part of the ROC. We are we share only a canonical link. Our church denounced the invasion.
Our church separated itself administratively thirty years ago. And every Ukrainian that's Orthodox has been baptized in our church. Five years ago, a new church was established in Ukraine by the Poroshenko administration with the active connivance of the United States government. The State Department of the United States was involved in the establishment of the church. I believe either USAID or some other organizations have funded this state church called the OCU.
This is a basically kind of a CIA operation, if you will, to set up a church that would be completely free of what they viewed as the dangerous Putin influence. So you have our State Department violating our constitution openly, engaging in the destruction of religious freedom in a foreign country, doing things absolutely illegal under our constitution,
Speaker 0: all in the name Like establishing religion.
Speaker 1: Yes. All in the name of anti Putin activities. And because I am so very strongly against the present Russian administration, I insisted on traveling to Kyiv with a bunch of my lawyers to interview. We were we were privileged to meet with the Holy Synod, to to meet with senior members of the church, interview priests, interview lawyers, so I could fully accept the mandate to fight for a church that was being driven out of existence. This is something that's not supposed to happen in the twenty first century.
And and as a Jew, who feels strongly about freedoms from my Christian brothers and sisters, as somebody who feels that religious freedom is the foundation of all our freedoms. Yes. And and I believe that to the to the center of my being. I could not believe that the American government, a government for which I signed up for the draft on my birthday when I was 18 when we were still in Vietnam, this government could be funding the destruction of this church. So we've studied it.
We've met with people who were at high levels of the US government who confirmed for me that this was a US government operation. And we have done everything we can, and we have we have walked into a wall of Ukrainian propaganda inside Washington. I wanna be very clear. I just finished speaking at a religious freedom conference. It was a religious freedom conference that in many ways was managed by the Ukrainian government.
There it was Ukraine In Washington. In Washington, DC. My team was barely afforded an allowance to go in. We were we were not allowed in a year ago. This time, we were allowed in.
They wouldn't take our money.
Speaker 0: Well, you're defending a church against a dictator, but you're not allowed to appear at a religious freedom conference? That's
Speaker 1: correct. Okay. And this time, when I went to the Religious Freedom Conference, I was only allowed they stacked the panel I was on with a priest from the other church, and they gave me basically five minutes to present my views, which were that, in fact, this other church, which by the way has stolen 1,500 of our churches, engaged in mobilized
Speaker 0: Stolen the buildings? The buildings. Yes. Stolen them?
Speaker 1: Stolen them. Outright stolen them. And and and worse, beaten our priests, beaten our parishioners. And I have this all on video. If you go to savetheu0c.com, you will see the videos of our parishioners being beaten.
These are the elderly parents of people at the front fighting for the liberation and protection of Ukraine being beaten very often by by SBU, that's their secret police, wearing death masks with Nazi insignias on their arm. And let me be very clear to you that you will never hear elsewhere. There is a massive right wing movement in Ukraine that has tremendous influence. Our newspapers were warning this warning of us this in the late teens, and once the war started, we never heard anything else. It's as if all these neo Nazis disappeared.
They haven't disappeared. They're part of the Ukrainian government, but you're never allowed to say that because if you say anything like that, you are told that you are a Putinist. And and Kasparov has summed it up. He's basically said, if you criticize Zelensky in any way, you're a Putinist. So the fact that he's destroyed civil society, he's destroyed a free media, he jails or sanctions or charges with treason his opponents, we're supposed to ignore all of that.
Because if we mention it or if I stand on a soapbox to scream that he's jailing and torturing priests, we are somehow disentitled to speak. We have this crazy adopted authoritarianism now where we we, as a country of institutions have made a king out of Zelensky. We have we have allowed him to destroy every Ukrainian institution out there that's independent, and we've turned him into a king or demigod. And I will tell you that one of the instruments that was being used to attack me, for instance, was Farah. Know?
The Foreign Agent Registration Act. That's right. A journalist in the Washington Post who we offered to interview all sorts of beaten priests instead focused on me, tried to make it sound like I was in Putin's pay and somehow violated Farah when I knew very well I had an exemption because I represent the church. It's it's been it's been crazy. I've gone into meetings.
Firstly, most Democrats, almost all Democrats, but a few, including Dick Durbin who gave us a very respectful hearing, Almost all Democrats wouldn't meet with us, which really shocks me because I you know, I've been a lawyer for forty five years. I generally get meetings when I need them. None. Republicans, on the other hand, often their staff at least were willing to meet with us. One senator had the courage to stand up and speak out, and that man, god bless him, is now the vice president of The United States.
He was the only one.
Speaker 0: J. D. Vance was the only one?
Speaker 1: The only one. Absolutely. And he will I will forever be in his debt because he took the destruction of Christ's children seriously enough to raise it, and he was outraged that our government was allowing it. He didn't even go so far. I don't think he understood that we were, in fact, funding and supporting it.
And there is a guy in the Ukrainian government, a mister Yelensky, not Zelensky, Yelensky, who's been in charge of the destruction of this church for years. His lifeblood is to destroy this church. He helps I'm sure he directs the SBU to jail these priests I work with. Guess who would Yelensky is. Yelensky with a with a y, and he's written some very interesting books.
I don't wanna get into that.
Speaker 0: What what about what?
Speaker 1: Just just nothing everything you can think of against religious freedom, he he has written about when it was the Soviet Union. Really? Well, he he wrote a book about Zionism and clericalism. This is the guy that is heading up their department of religion, essentially, and freedom. This guy was honored and given an honored position at the Religious Freedom Conference in Washington.
Speaker 0: Wait. The persecutor of the Orthodox Church was given a position of prominence at a religious freedom conference.
Speaker 1: You have that right.
Speaker 0: What conference was I mean, the sound
Speaker 1: This is the one that that was in Washington, a huge conference that went right before the prayer breakfast in Washington.
Speaker 0: Did anyone say anything other than you?
Speaker 1: No. No. Because nobody the only thing they were worried about I got a call.
Speaker 0: What about all the Christians?
Speaker 1: What? They're silent. I I got a call. Why is it left to you?
Speaker 0: I mean, this is this this is the point where I feel like pulling my hair out.
Speaker 1: Well, I tell you
Speaker 0: Why is this your job?
Speaker 1: Well
Speaker 0: and let me tell Mike Johnson and all these other Christians in the congress are always talking about how Christian they are.
Speaker 1: Well, I I I can tell you that because of the smear, and and we understand that the Ukrainians gave a $3,600,000 contract to a PR firm in Washington to go after my church and me. So I've had vicious letters written about me all over the place talking about me as a Russian agent. We have had You who were arrested by Putin. Yeah. We have the Hudson Institute, reputable institute, hosting an event, taking the Ukrainian line.
We wanted to get a voice. It was about religion in Ukraine. We weren't allowed to
Speaker 0: join The Hudson Institute.
Speaker 1: We weren't allowed to join the Hudson Institute because I think the Ukrainian propaganda machine are indirectly sponsoring these things. And and what they're doing is they're running shows and movies about Russian activities, anti evangelical activities in the Donbas, which I believe are happening and which I completely support. You know, there is no there is no one more than me who will support evangelicals or anyone else who are being oppressed. But to sponsor this type of activity and not mention our church is a scandal. To avoid mentioning the majority church of Ukrainians and never say a word about law three eight nine four that destroys our church, we will not have a church in six months.
Speaker 0: Lent is here, the period before Easter, the forty days, and it's a unique chance to get closer to God. That's the point of it. Hallo, the world's number one prayer app, can help you do that. Joining their prayer forty challenge, it's a great way to connect with Christians all over the world and unite in preparation for Easter, is the payoff of this season. It's called the way.
It helps participants focus on how Jesus is the way to heaven. If you join the challenge, you'll embark on spiritual journey with some of America's most convicted Jesus followers. Powerful stories, prayer, you grow in your ability to sacrifice, that's what Lent is, it's a sacrifice, and taking thought provoking sermons and true stories of faith in action, are amazing. This year is gonna be the best Lent ever. Thousands of people praying together all over the world, and you can be part of it through Hallow, which by the way is in use in my house in a nightly topic of conversation.
So you can sign up at Hallow.com/Tucker. When you join, check out thousands of guided prayers, meditations, music, and everything. There's a ton on hallow, all designed to help you find peace and closeness to God. Download the hallow app and jump onto the Lent pray forty challenge right now. Do you know who at the State Department worked on this op to create a fake church?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. It dates back to 2014. We believe it began with Victoria Newland, who I mean, this was a big operation because she worked with the ambassador of The United States to Ukraine, amazingly becomes the ambassador of The United States to Greece. And it is in fact the patriarch of the Constantinople Church that becomes the one who engineers the basically the destruction of our church by taking canonical control away from Moscow and taking it to himself, violating a treaty from the seventeenth century.
So we have The United States, and by the way, this was engineered by Secretary of State Pompeo. So this isn't just a Democrat thing. Secretary of State Pompeo was
Speaker 0: directly
Speaker 1: Well,
Speaker 0: difference between Torian Newland and Mike Pompeo is negligible. There's no difference at all that I'm aware of. He may be slightly smarter. He's smarter than she is, and therefore more sinister, but they have the same views on everything.
Speaker 1: Well, in any event, Pompeo was involved in basically having this, what's called a, in religious terms, a Tomos granted so that Ukraine could establish an autocephalous church. This is in 2019. So the church that that is allegedly now a clean church away from Russia is five years old. And that church, which we believe is partially US funded, has engaged in a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, coordination with secret police to steal churches, to disrupt events, to break priests. I mean, you have to understand, I have met tortured priests.
I have met priests. One priest I met the day after his meeting with me had a heart attack during an interrogation by the SBU. I mean, just try to imagine.
Speaker 0: Well, US tax dollars are paying for the torture of priests. I mean, that's Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I mean, you know, for those who say this is not true, please, please call mister Dimitriuk, who is now, thank god, in safety in London and who is a former member of the RADA, who will be saying in open court because he's now fighting bogus extradition charges. He will be outlining all of this in open court about what's happened to him, and he is just a microcosm of what's happened in Ukraine. And and, you know, it it is the the ongoing treason charges. As you know, as I've said, I'm now exposed to a criminal investigation in Ukraine, something that even Putin didn't do to me, Zelensky is doing to me because I'm defending a church. In Putin's case, I'm defending opponents of Putin, but in Zelensky's case, I'm defending a church, and they've opened up a criminal investigation.
Speaker 0: Would you be able to go to Ukraine right now?
Speaker 1: No. I think the whole reason is to ensure that I don't spend time with my clients.
Speaker 0: They they There's also the question of violence, which everyone ignores. They've committed violence against the church we represent. They've also they've committed a lot of violence. A lot of people have been killed. Noncombatants have been killed by the Zelensky government, and people I know have been targeted for assassination, including a head of state in Europe, and so I don't know why that doesn't get any coverage.
Like, you would be afraid to go to you. You're an American citizen, you're an attorney, you have clients in Ukraine, it's our client state, and yet you would be afraid to go there.
Speaker 1: Let take it a step further. With all of the Farrah stuff that went on and with the Washington Post publishing all this stuff, and with Mr. Zelenskyy almost literally demanding compliance from The United States under the Democrats, I was hesitating to come home. I mean, the Ukrainians had such a lock on Washington. It is unbelievable.
And the Ukrainian RADA demanded that US authorities investigate me because I wrote a letter to the RADA, an open and public letter, saying to every member of the RADA, if you pass a bill that destroys a church, you could be individually subject to sanctions. That is completely within my rights as an American citizen to inform a foreign legislator who is engaged in essentially criminal activities that they need to return to religious freedom. Should not be controversial. And it is on this basis that the Ukrainians were begging our own authorities to get involved.
Speaker 0: How did the Ukrainians I mean, fifteen years ago, my whole life, Ukraine it's the largest country and the most corrupt country in Europe. It was an afterthought. Lots of wheat has grown there, very pretty women, but it's Ukraine. It's not central to anybody's geo strategy. And all of a sudden, you wake up, and Ukrainians seem to be in charge of the US government.
How did that happen? Look.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be speaking about this on Friday. I think that you have to go back to the Mueller investigation. I think you have to go back to the Russia scare. And I think that a tremendous amount of partisan politics was played out involving Russia, and it instilled a tremendous amount of fear in The United States. And the Ukrainians have developed the most sophisticated propaganda and information campaign I've ever seen.
I have never seen any country engage in this level of competent, highly sophisticated disinformation that, by the way, they accuse the Russians of. There is no day of the week the Russians have been 10% as effective as the Ukrainians.
Speaker 0: I will say, knowing the Russians, very smart, lead the world in chess and engineering, but they're just embarrassing on on the propaganda question. They're bad. They're bad. Embarrassing They are. They're bad.
I mean, I'm not you know, like Russian, but I'm not it's just a fact. They're not good at that stuff at all.
Speaker 1: No. And and, you know, I fought them, and and we were quite successful at exposing the false charges against some leading Russian businessmen. So I've seen them in action, but I've never seen anything as effective at developing the American narrative as the Ukrainian narrative in The United States, exerting huge levels of control over media. I mean, we had an interview with The Guardian three days or four days after I got back. Very, very competent reporter took down notes, was in shock at what happened.
The Guardian never published the story. This is the Guardian who will publish anything about anybody involving human rights. They wouldn't publish the story because it went against there's two obstacles. One, it goes against the Russian narrative. And two, all of the guys on the ground for the Western press sell books on Ukraine.
And I do wonder if there's a commercial motive in the reporting because if you look and some of these guys are my friends, but I got to wonder, if you look at it, no wonder they're notoriously blind to what's going on.
Speaker 0: Well, there's some kind of unspoken motive here because none of this makes any sense. I mean, Ukraine is so far outside of our orbit. Ukraine, it's not one of those countries I thought had any influence over American foreign policy or public discourse at all, and all of a sudden, it, you know, you can't even say an obvious truth about the country, or you get in trouble, or in my case, get fired, or whatever. What what is that actually about? What are the deeper interests here?
I do you have any clue? Look. As I said No no other country could do that no matter how sophisticated their propaganda is or almost no other
Speaker 1: I look. I I I have said to myself, because I've I've I've I've done many many controversial cases in my career. Yeah. Nothing's ever approached this in terms of the blowback. When you're you know, you say to somebody like all of these people today that are speaking out about the president's statement above 4%, and they're saying, Oh, that's crap.
It's
Speaker 0: 60 Right. The president said that Zelensky had an approval rating of 4%.
Speaker 1: Right. I'm sorry. So I say to myself, mister Zelensky can't argue the numbers because he is in a police state. He has no media. He has no opponents.
He just he he just cited for treason two or three of the most important people in Ukraine, including his predecessor Poroshenko. He's done everything he can to mobilize forces to destroy any hope of freedom or opposition. He hasn't held an election. He is in fact, under their constitution, out of time. He should be out of office.
He has no constitutional mandate.
Speaker 0: Well, he's the definition of a dictator. He's an unelected strong man who's eliminated his opposition. Mean
Speaker 1: And he's trying to argue about how popular he is. Well, I'm sorry. You know, there's this old expression, res ipsa laquiter. It speaks for itself. Yeah.
I mean, if you're popular, you don't ban the press and jail your opponents.
Speaker 0: He it seems to me, having, you know, used the drug myself many years ago, he seems like he's on cocaine to me. I don't know that. I have no evidence of it. I hear a lot of people say that. Have you heard that?
Speaker 1: I've heard it.
Speaker 0: A lot or just impassive?
Speaker 1: Oh, no. I've heard a lot, but I have no I can't say it.
Speaker 0: I have no evidence, and I don't either. I hear it a lot, including from people in Europe who know him, again, no. But is that is that widely believed in Ukraine? Do you know? I
Speaker 1: I believe it is, but, you know, I hesitate. I don't like ad hominem comments.
Speaker 0: No. No. But you look at the guy, and you're like, there's something wrong.
Speaker 1: Well, except what's wrong is the residency seems to have with everybody in Europe. I mean, if you look at Germany, for instance, and this is another subject that as a a lawyer who cares about freedom drives me crazy, which is sanctions. The the Ukrainians not only have engaged in this massive propaganda campaign to dehumanize Russia. Now that's different than saying Russia engaged in aggressive war, which I agree with. That's different.
They they have gone to the next level and tried to make it appear as if peace is somehow a crime, that you cannot make peace with these people.
Speaker 0: Because the Russians are subhuman. Exactly. But hold on. It gets worse. That's full Nazi propaganda.
No one's subhuman. We're all human.
Speaker 1: Right? But it gets it gets worse because our government under Biden has led the world in an insane sanctioning campaign, insane because it is contrary to American interests. What have we done? Exactly. Number one, we have consolidated Putin's power.
The people who were opposed to Putin in London and other places have had to go back to Moscow because their currency is not working, their kids can't go to school. Again, we have the subhuman thing. Number two, we have consolidated the relationship between Russia and China. The very thing that Richard Nixon worked very hard never to do, we have done. We've absolutely built up the economies of all sorts of transit countries that does that don't help us at all Yes.
By having these phony phony economies come up. We've
Speaker 0: So you're you're you're referring to Russian energy shipments. So Russia has a ton of energy, the world needs a ton of energy, but these sanctions make it impossible to conduct straightforward business, so they're going through what you call transit companies and countries, and they're doing all kinds of subterfuge to cloak this, but everyone knows what's happening. Is this what you're referring to?
Speaker 1: Exactly. And, you know, we are making we're making India very great today by their engaging in this arbitrage. We're consolidating Xi Jinping's power. We are working. We are working to empower him against Taiwan.
We are doing everything not in America's interest.
Speaker 0: So who's the we here? Who's doing this? Like, honestly honestly, like, what is this? Because it was obvious to me the day Russia invaded, which I didn't think would happen, and I was supposed to, of course, but the first day this happened, I thought they're gonna get rid of the US dollars, the world's reserve currency. That's exactly what this is.
This is all of this seems like an attack on the West to me. Well, who is behind this? Do have any idea? Look,
Speaker 1: you know, I can only tell you that if study sanctions, there are very few people ever who have said they work. What sanctions are, it's a very cheap way for governments who are not very effective to tell their populaces we're doing something. But what it does is
Speaker 0: I think Fidel Castro died in his bed.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. What it does is it empowers the most corrupt all over the world. We are empowering Ukrainian corruption. We are empowering the corruption of our business interests.
We are doing everything to disestablish America's position. We are giving Putin the armament to get away from the dollar. We're doing everything for them to establish alternative payment systems. We are building our opponents with a sanction system that violates the rule of law, that denies people their human rights, very often some of the most industrious people going. It is the most counterproductive system we've put in place, and yet everybody's going crazy that Elon Musk is trying to engage in, I'll admit, pretty unique efforts to reduce the budget deficit, but nobody's talking about how our government is propagating.
In my view, these these absolutely violative sanctions all over the world that are totally destroying our rule of law and and America as a safe haven for those opposed to people like Putin. Sanctioning people's children
Speaker 0: who didn't do anything wrong. Why would, you know, why would US Policymakers be why why would Tori and Nuland want that? I mean, that just seems cruel and awful.
Speaker 1: Look. Let me tell you. I'm dealing with a case in Switzerland. The Swiss are worse than the Americans. Oh, know.
Because they're so scared of The United States enforcement that we we literally are defending children who are being attacked by the Swiss. So the whole the whole sanction situation, this whole dehumanizing of people with Russian names that no one is speaking out against because we're all afraid. We're all in this, you know, I call it the the authoritarianism of the left that we are all subject to. This, you know, wokeism, authoritarianism, this this unwillingness to give the opponent a voice.
Speaker 0: But I thought that, I mean, I thought this was the key indelible lesson of the nineteen forties, that when governments decide that some people don't have human rights because of their genetic makeup, it winds up with mass murder, and it's bad for everybody, and so we're never doing that again. We're never going to allow any demagogue or group of demagogues to say that group right there is not entitled to human rights, and we're going to hurt them. I I thought that was the last I'm 55. I grew up in a country that remember that?
Speaker 1: Let me tell you something. This law in Ukraine, law thirty eight ninety four, is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation I've ever seen, and it's not alone. In Estonia, they're attempting to destroy the Russian Orthodox Church. These Baltic countries that are bulwarks of freedom and democracy are going after those churches too. And even though those churches are not separate from Russian, I recognize that, and yes, the Russian Orthodox Church has been instrumentalized.
I agree. I still say under a rule of law state, you go after those people who commit offenses. You do not ban a church.
Speaker 0: It is If you start banning people's religions, then how are you better than what you oppose? Exactly. And and and yet,
Speaker 1: the Religious Freedom Conference honors the very author of this insane legislation.
Speaker 0: Who sponsored this conference?
Speaker 1: It's you know, all I know is I think the the there's a chairman who's a a former Republican senator. I think it's made up of charitable donations. I haven't I haven't studied who the sponsor is. I'm sure there's US government involvement. Mister Vance vice president Vance spoke spoke very well.
I mean, he's as I as I said before, I mean, he's he's set off a revolution in Europe with his speech Yeah. Which I welcome because I I believe he's identified a a tremendous problem in Europe in terms of freedom of speech and and the the basic freedoms. Although, I, you know, I have to say, working in Georgia, working and and knowing what's happening in Transdynistra, you you cannot minimize the threat of Vladimir Putin. It exists.
Speaker 0: So in September, we went across the country coast to coast 17 different cities on a nationwide live tour, and it was amazing. We brought the entire staff with us like we always do because we all work together for so long and enjoy traveling together. And one of our producers is a documentary filmmaker, and so he decided to make a documentary film about our trip, full month across America with some the most interesting people around. Different people join us every single night. Gone, Gino, and Russell Brand, and Bobby Kennedy, and J.
D. Vance, and Donald Trump, etcetera, etcetera. We had the best time, and the fruit of that is a documentary called On the Road, The Tucker Carlson Live Tour, which is available right now on TCN. On the Road, Tucker Carlson live tour is hilarious. You will like it.
So you said that you you went up to the US Congress and you tried to get the attention of members. J. D. Bantz was the only one who would listen to you out of a hundred senators. What about in the house?
Speaker 1: Oh, I attended a few meetings, as I said, where I were where I was generally insulted by people. We had very few
Speaker 0: Insulted?
Speaker 1: Yeah. We had very few congressmen who would meet us. We had some very courageous lobbyists who we worked with and still work with, including a Democrat, a former Democrat, Congressman Ron Klink, who because he's I think a devout Christian, has I think really suffered a lot reputationally by working with me. And God bless him for having the strength and courage to to do that. Because as he knew knows, I mean, we're completely nonpartisan.
We're not actually lobbying The United States at all. We want people to talk to the Ukrainians and simply explain to the Ukrainians that this law to ban our church is unacceptable.
Speaker 0: Especially since we're paying for it. Have you ever voted for a Republican in your life? Never. You guys are here now. Just wanted to be clear about that.
So you were arrested by Putin, and you've never voted Republican. So just want people to understand where you're coming from here.
Speaker 1: No. No. I mean, that's very much where I'm coming from. Though I will say, you know, quite frankly, that I think what's been dangerous about the past few administrations is that their breaks with rule of law have been wildly pronounced but hidden. Whatever you wanna say about president Trump, I think that it's far healthier where he does he does a number of things I disagree with.
It's out in the open, and we can address it, attack it if we think it's wrong, but it's out in the open. With the prior administrations, it was all hidden from view, and it was almost impossible to attack, like sanctions. You know, almost impossible to attack, very difficult to deal with. And the this authoritarianism, this denial of the civic space is hugely important.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And and it's it's what we in The United States have done to ourselves. I I really can barely watch CNN. I understand they have serious problems with president Trump. I get it. But there is a whole world out there, and president Trump has made a tremendous amount of waves in that world.
Surely, beyond bashing the guy, we can deal with some of the real problems, like my church, which has never been covered by CNN. Ever? Ever. That to my knowledge
Speaker 0: They cover Ukraine All Day long, but they've never mentioned that the government banned a Christian denomination.
Speaker 1: Never. Not only. The majority church of the country. Let's be clear. And when I went to church, one of my first times in church, but the patriarch of our church insisted that I attend church.
Speaker 0: I love you call it our church.
Speaker 1: He insisted I attend the churches because he wanted me to see the difference between our church and the other church. So I went. I went to church after church. Our churches were full. Our priests were like rush hour traffic on a Sunday.
I mean, we're having multiple services because there are now so few churches because the other church is stealing them. So when you go to the other church, they're virtually empty. In fact, many of the churches they've stolen, they've turned into museums. I mean,
Speaker 0: which This is like Soviet what's going on. No.
Speaker 1: No. And I was in They're
Speaker 0: creating they're banning religion and creating a state church in
Speaker 1: this Let me tell you something. I was in the Soviet Union. So I'm, you know, I'm older than you. I was in the Soviet Union.
Speaker 0: Trying to get the Jewish refuseniks out. Correct?
Speaker 1: Beginning. Yeah. Just at the beginning. I I wasn't a lawyer then or doing much of anything, but I went because I I knew this problem existed. I I was a very, very young boy, but my father wanted me to go.
I think I was one of the only guys I think I was the first sole traveler to a place called Kishinev Moldova. Is way back in the seventies. Was interrogated my first interrogation by the KGB was when I was, like, 17. So I've had a long history in this region. I went to the Lavra when I was I studied under Ukraine's greatest historian, Bodan Btsyrkyu.
His son is now a noted speaker and expert on Ukraine and very pro Ukrainian and a very, very serious person. But I went there at the, express, direction of his father, and I went to the Lavra to just experience this incredible I mean, the Lavra was incredible, and this has become the scene of these clashes where Zelensky's government has taken the Lavra control of the Lavra away from our church and handed it to the nationalist church. So there's this huge nationalism in Ukraine that is the motive behind Zelenskyy's destruction of my church, and it's political. Our church and the Donbas, the more Russian speaking part of Ukraine, had supported Zelenskyy. But with the unfortunate aggression against Ukraine, that voter bloc is denied to him.
So he has had to move much further to the xenophobic side of the Ukrainian spectrum to keep his base. And we think that's primarily some of the politics behind him agreeing to the destruction of our church.
Speaker 0: Can I ask you what may be an unanswerable question? So you were describing the effects of the Ukraine war on the West and on The United States, and it's basically knocking The US from its perch, and that's causing all kinds of problems, the loss of the US dollar, the alignment, the permanent now alignment between Russia and China. If you were China, and you were trying to, you know, assert yourself as a global power, which you have every right to do in my opinion, but you're trying to subvert The United States, like, you would do everything you could. Like, whose interest is being served in this? And it seems like the Chinese interest is being served.
So if you have our entire media, our entire political establishment, is all in on this thing that hurts The United States, is it possible that China has a role in that?
Speaker 1: Look, I'm somebody who, as a young man, studied China and then the Soviet Union. I I I do not have an animus towards China in terms of seeing them in the negative light. I think there was hope for our relationship that's been kind of destroyed. I think it's still possible, by the way, to be resurrected. But certainly it is to some extent in China's interest.
But we never understand something that's fundamental to ZZping's survival, which is he is on an economic fault line. He needs GDP growth at plus 5% to survive. A flourishing relationship with The United States could be in his interests under a different type of relationship. And I think what we've done is we've almost forced the Russians into becoming an unequal partner Yeah. To the Chinese.
Well,
Speaker 0: is exactly right.
Speaker 1: The Chinese, of course, have this history of a century of humiliation, suffering under unequal treaties. Now, they are the ones offering unequal treaties to countries like Russia.
Speaker 0: They are, and there's massive Chinese investment in Russia right now. Yes. Massive, and it's very noticeable when you go there. Why is this country so prosperous? There's a war going on, a real war too.
And the answer in part is because there's huge Chinese investment in Russia, and that's solidifying a relationship based on mutual benefit, would say, to the point where it can't be it's not gonna be broken.
Speaker 1: Know? Well, never underestimate the root antagonisms of the Chinese Russian relationship.
Speaker 0: Well, that's a solid point.
Speaker 1: And so a different administration than the Democrats could possibly engage in some of the behavior that Nixon first developed. It is absolutely contrary to American interests for China and Russia to be one. So we we have, from a geopolitical standpoint, a lot of work to do. Yes. Working with the Indians, working with others in terms of trying to figure out how to divide these countries.
And this is why a focus solely on Ukraine to the tremendous cost of our own geopolitical position is so insane.
Speaker 0: Like, completely agree, and I travel a lot, so I see the effects, you know, everywhere. So you've you've mentioned that Europe, for whatever reason, still think it's baffling, but is is all in on this. Completely all in on it. Kirstjermer, just prime minister of Great Britain, just said that they're signing some hundred year defense deal with Ukraine. It's insane.
Germany, same thing ish. China, we know, is benefiting to some extent. India, you said, is a massive beneficiary of all this stuff. What about the Middle Eastern countries? What about the Arab world and Israel?
What what interest do they have here? What connection do they have to the Ukraine war? Any
Speaker 1: Look. I I I think there it's Africa that suffered the most Yes. Simply because their their food supply is terribly impaired. Riyadh benefits always from this type of geopolitical issue because they benefit from great relationships with everybody. You know, it's like old Turkish foreign policy of, you know, making friends at every border.
That's what they're doing. As you may be aware, I also represent The Congo, which is now being horribly invaded by Rwanda. And I've always wondered why The United States didn't take a stronger position there. You know, we can't we we have destabilized Africa, the entirety of Africa with this war, and we have not addressed the fact that so much of our future is tied up in Africa, yet the entire continent is is being completely destroyed. Talk to people in Zambia or some of these other countries who can't get food because the costs are now so high.
We need to look at this struggle a far broader sense.
Speaker 0: Because Ukraine is a huge producer of fertilizer.
Speaker 1: And basic exports. Yes. Absolutely. So geopolitically, the Europeans have only one thing in their mind, which is, you know, they don't want to see another Munich. And and, you know, my argument is this isn't Munich, it's Potsdam.
We are we we've there's been a a three year war, hasn't gone all that well, and we need to have a geopolitical understanding of of where we are and what is in not only America's interest, but the world's interest. And Ukraine has to have a generation to survive and grow.
Speaker 0: Well, exactly.
Speaker 1: So, you know, but all of that is beyond my mandate, which is to try to save the Orthodox, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, so that it can survive for another thousand years.
Speaker 0: Well, it's just interesting though. I'm just asking these questions because I know that you represent clients in a bunch of different countries and have for almost fifty years and you travel a lot, but it does seem like this is part of the cost of a world to West, and this is not true in the East by the way, but in the West, the only history people know is kind of a half baked, you know, kind of a Twitter version of World War two, and everything is through the same lens, and it's like, this isn't Munich, actually, as you point out, and maybe ignorance is part people are very inflexible in their minds. Like
Speaker 1: You know, it's funny. As a young boy, I went to Moscow. At that point, sort of pseudo communist sympathizer as a very young man. And I remember being taken I could not attend any city without first being taken to the war cemetery. We never talk about 27,000,000 Russian dead.
My family would never have survived without Russian troops. And yes, they visited horrible times on Eastern Europe. Totally true. But that sacrifice saved us. And when we dehumanize them, we are in a way dehumanizing ourselves.
And it should never be the policy of our government to allow any other foreign state to so contaminate our narrative and our discussions. And, you know, quite frankly Oh, too late. Yes. But but, you know, even in terms of using the International Criminal Court the way the way they have, where the court has gone to such incredible lengths with respect to this case. Again, I'm not in any way denying Russian war crimes.
I'm simply saying that there's a difference between punishing wrongdoers and dehumanizing a nation and a people, and we have allowed this to get into horrific attack on the people with the sanctions and all of that that isn't American, and it's not who we are, and we need to stop.
Speaker 0: Have there been any media outlets at all globally, let's just stick to The United States and Great Britain English speaking media, who've been willing to give you a fair hearing?
Speaker 1: I would say, general, no. We managed to get one op ed from one of our priests in The Times of London, which I'm deeply grateful. We managed to get a couple of stories in The Telegraph, Nothing in the Guardian. The Wall Street Journal is completely cut off from us, and I would say reality.
Speaker 0: Wall Street Journal is completely cut off from reality. Wall Street Journal is actually every bit as dishonest as the New York Times in my read, but much stealthier about it, and it has this kind of unbreakable relationship with late middle age right wingers that, you know, it uses to spew lies and stupidity and propaganda.
Speaker 1: Well, there's one editorial writer who interviewed me about the church when I was in Kyiv and I had some hope, but then wrote a crazy story denouncing me and the church, which we
Speaker 0: managed Denouncing you?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Which we managed to we managed, I think, at the end of many rewrites to get her editorial only we we moved it from terrible to very bad. Who was this? I can't even remember her name.
Speaker 0: Some lady writer at the Yeah.
Speaker 1: But but who's written consistently pro Ukraine pieces. And one of the things
Speaker 0: So, like, how dare you defend a church's right to exist?
Speaker 1: Exactly. No. But one of the things about the Ukraine beat is it's very often the same people saying the same things in just with different background music again and again in a very propagandistic way, avoiding the hard truths. I mean, these these these press gangs that are grabbing young men and taking them to the front get so little coverage. The the fighting inside the presidential administration that we know exists gets so little coverage.
Speaker 0: Oh, some have reached out to me. So it's pretty clear that Zelensky is in charge, but is he really you referred a couple times to Andrei Urmack. Yes. Who is that?
Speaker 1: He is the capo de capo. I mean, he is he is the guy that arranges the theft of assets. He is the guy who organizes a lot of the activities of the SBU to go after opponents and go after assets. It's my privilege to represent a gentleman named Vadim Novinsky. They took his assets, which involved gas, because his crime is supporting the church.
He's he's a very high level archdeacon in the church and and has financially supported the church. And, by the way, was sanctioned by Russia, yet he's charged with treason. Why? Because he supports Ukraine's historic church. Mother church.
The majority
Speaker 0: church of the country.
Speaker 1: But what's amazing about them illegally taking his assets is they didn't deploy them for the benefit of Ukraine. They were gas wells, and they shut them. And when his own people said to these these gangsters, you know, run the wells. You're destroying the wealth of the country. They didn't.
And so, you know, they briefly gave the licenses back, then they took it back again for political reasons because they charged him with treason. But they don't care. It reminds me of my my first day as part privileged to be part of a major legal team in Moscow in 02/2003. And my my the lead counsel, the Russian lawyer, was a very famous Russian lawyer, brilliant, brilliant man named Padva. And I said to him, because the the Russian stock market had gone down 50% after they attacked my client at that time, I said to him, well, surely surely Mr.
Putin will understand that this can't go on. He took a newspaper, he hit me over the head, and he said, don't ever say anything that stupid again. They will this is Moscow. They will steal the very desk in this court, and they'll keep stealing. The corruption in Ukraine is as ingrained as it is in Moscow.
The secret police in Ukraine are using old KGB texts to jail my priests. They are charging them with psycholinguistic crimes. What's that? This is out of 1984. Psycholinguistics.
This is basically alleging that what they're saying has meanings similar to what Putin says and therefore it's a crime. People are being jailed away from their families for psycholinguistics under Article 161 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code for essentially division causing religious division. Now, the OCU members or those working for them with swastikas on their arms don't get charged. But our church, our folks get charged routinely. Novinsky is charged with psycholinguistic crimes.
His entire life has been disrupted, his assets stripped from him. Horrific things said about him. Because when he was a member of the RADA, so therefore privileged communications occurred, he had some disagreements with the government of the day. They are using Soviet texts to go after their own political opponents. And Zelensky, this man that has been virtually treated as a saint by the Europeans, is using the SBU in a manner no different than how Russian leaders have used the FSB or the KGB.
No different. Including the arrest and beating of priests, and our papers say nothing. It is it is just you you, by the way, sir, are the only one, especially heroically, that first interview, that first interview changed and saved and delayed the passage of this law till now, and I will be forever in your debt for doing it.
Speaker 0: You've told us something that I didn't realize, which is that the US government established a fake state church in a foreign country, which is obviously unconstitutional, but also Soviet. I've also noticed this other trend, which I don't really understand, but it seems equally bad, which is to try and change the culture of the Slavic countries. Slavic countries are traditional, they believe in gender roles, for example, and there does seem to have been and continue to be this effort from the US State Department and maybe others in The US Government to kind of change the way Ukrainian society is ordered. Have you noticed this?
Speaker 1: Yes. I mean, I you know, as I've said, I had the privilege of listening to Robert Destro, a former, I think, Deputy Secretary in charge of human rights, talk about some of what he saw going on, funding for atheist groups, funding for
Speaker 0: Funding for atheist groups? Funding for atheist groups. Oh, that's the whole story right there.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Funding for all sorts of groups that certainly you could wonder if this is in the interest of The United States. I mean, I have nothing against atheists. I don't know why we would necessarily feel it was incumbent upon us to fund them. But there there is there's there's an excellent book written.
Speaker 0: Like, that's actually, if you think about it outrageous, the whole pretext for this is Russia stages illegal unprovoked invasion three years ago, so we have to defend Ukraine from Russia. Okay. At least that makes a kind of sense, true or not. But why would you wanna change the religious belief of Ukrainians or the family structure of Ukrainians? Like, what is that?
Speaker 1: Their argument in terms of my church has been, well, your church has some relationship to Russia. So they continue to make the argument, even though we believe we've disproven it, that there is no link. Our link is canonical. Through, if you will, the book. Our government cannot control canon law.
That is surely outside the purview of sort So,
Speaker 0: the same argument that a lot of Arab countries made during the Suez Crisis in '56. They had huge Jewish populations in a lot of these, you know, Morocco and Algeria, you know, thousand year old, multi thousand year old Jewish populations. And they're like, let's see, you're Jewish. The Jews in this other country, Israel, did something we don't like, therefore we're blaming you or kicking you out. It's like not that because you've got the same book.
That's that's You've a canonical connection.
Speaker 1: That's that's the logic, and and this is being done very scientifically in very I would have to say, it's almost a crazed psychosis going on because you have these ultra right folks in Ukraine. Basically, now some of the churches have taken Maidan, the locus of the twenty fourteen events, and set up shrines in the OCU churches to Maidan. So they've even changed the religion itself to conform to Ukrainian nationalism.
Speaker 0: So they're basically worshiping a CIA coup.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, it's an icon. They're they're exchanging icons. So you're talking
Speaker 0: So this is a state religion you're describing.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, no, it is. What I wanna I wanna be clear that there was a desire for this within Ukraine for a hundred years because there's this view, and I think it's a true view, that Russia had engaged in Russification, sort of depriving Ukraine of its culture. Right. Which we agree with.
But our church certainly does not make any demands about stopping anybody from praying in any way they want. We are simply saying, don't steal our churches, don't jail our priests, and don't destroy the religion. And, you know, we have experts. Doctor Bremer from, I think, one of the German Catholic universities has spoken out. His Holiness the Pope has spoken out.
The UN has spoken out. The US mission to the OSCE has spoken out. Human Rights Watch did a special report about our church and what's going on. This isn't just me now. When you first had me on, it was just me.
Now it's the Church of England. So we have an entire world condemning the Ukrainian government, and the only people defending it are their friends in Washington.
Speaker 0: So shameful and disgusting. So but we're clearly at an inflection point because, as you have said, the vice president of The United States just gave the speech at the Munich Security Conference, biggest speech given in Europe in a while, I think it was fair to say, in which he, J. D. Vance, kind of reset the terms of the relationship. And so if you're Zelensky, the bottom line is you're no longer in control of Washington.
So where does that leave Zelensky?
Speaker 1: You know? Listen, I, you know, the information I got this morning is it's left him very angry, very addled, and and working to sort of form a coalition of European leaders around him.
Speaker 0: Why does he think he gets he has, like, a moral right to run the US government? It's pretty cheeky, I'd say.
Speaker 1: Well, he seems to think he has a moral right to run the European government.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And and and I will tell you from trying to interact with the EU, he's right. He's he's running it. I mean, these people in the EU won't talk to me. And if they talk to me, they won't listen. I mean, it's incredible.
He has them completely wrapped. I mean, I've he doesn't have Orban wrapped, but he has
Speaker 0: Well, the Ukrainian government took US tax dollars to try to overthrow Orban, maybe to kill him, you know. So that's a fact. So that itself, you know, Hungary is in NATO, so you can't one NATO power cannot attack another NATO power. Like, what is this whole thing has just scrambled the eggs of the world.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I I have no knowledge of that. All I can say is that that the information we've gotten is that the the meeting that took place and the the reestablishment of more normalized relations between The United States and and Russia leading to some discussion has been there's been a horrible reaction within the presidential administration, and we fear that this will cause further repression of the church.
Speaker 0: Can Zelenskyy with, you know, we can debate what his actual approval rating is, but I mean, I would bet my house it's not over 50. Can he hang on?
Speaker 1: Look. I'd bet my house it's not over 20. I have no idea because when you have the secret police, you've got power. So I don't you know, I can't answer that question. I can just say that if you're an opponent of Zelensky, this is a moment of fear because he is clearly doubling down on the repression.
And and anyone as opposed to Zelensky should be in fear because he is he is a man that that is a dictator. I mean, however you wanna phrase it, that's who he is. He he he is running a police state. Our friends don't wanna say that, but that's the that's the reality of Ukraine today.
Speaker 0: What's other word for it? I can't think of one.
Speaker 1: I I can't either, but you never you never see that in any newspaper in the West.
Speaker 0: So that really bothers me. Look, there are tons of dictatorships around the world, but the West is supposed to be this beacon of freedom and enlightenment, respecter of human rights, etcetera, etcetera. What does it tell you as an American, as a product of the West, that all of our big institutions seem to like the Zelensky dictatorship? They like it. I've confronted a bunch of people.
You think it's okay to ban a church? Well, that church is pro Russia. Okay. Well, you say it's not pro Russia, I don't care if it is. You you can't ban other ban other people's religions, period.
I don't care how much you dislike them. I don't care if it's Scientology or Kabbalah. I don't I don't it doesn't matter. Hinduism doesn't matter. You can't ban other people's religions, and yet, I don't know anyone who's bothered by it in in high position in the West.
So what does that tell you about the people in high positions in the West?
Speaker 1: Well, it it means that we have become disconnected from, in reality, who we are and who we're supposed to be.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, that's a diplomatic way of putting it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And it does not bode well for our future as
Speaker 0: a That's exactly it.
Speaker 1: And that's what's frightening to me. You feel that? Yes, I feel that. I feel it's shocking to me how alienated I am representing this church because I'm not accepting the narrative that's been accepted by others. And so my firm, myself, we are paying a terrible price, not nearly as bad as our client who faces physical violence and the destruction of their religion, but there is no quarter being given to disputing what's going on.
This guy has he has seemed to have a complete lock on our institutions on Washington. Now, we just spoke at the conference. We weren't able to speak a year ago. Maybe that's a good sign. We're going to try to go back on the hill.
I was there a few weeks ago. No member would meet us, but that could have just been the transition. We're going to go back and try again. But really is the Zelensky effect is something that needs to be studied because it's incredibly unhealthy for us, number one, as a democracy number two, in terms of our geopolitical reckoning.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: Who we are in the world has to be reassessed. And I listen, I'm actually a Canadian and British lawyer. Although I have a master's in American law, I don't practice here. And of course, now that I'm a Canadian, we could be at war, even though I'm an American as well.
Speaker 0: Well, you'll just be a state, apparently.
Speaker 1: Exactly. That'll be okay. But I will say that what this presidency is doing is, with God's help, opening up our eyes to what's been going on.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: And I have to say that, as a lawyer, I am deeply in awe. Firstly, you have to hand it to President Trump, stamina like I've never seen in 10 human beings.
Speaker 0: It's unbelievable.
Speaker 1: Secondly, you have to accept that the Justice Department was weaponized. Whoever you are as a lawyer in this country, there is no doubt that the weaponization that took place under the Democrats was severe. I have a lot of issues with what happened regarding January 6. I'm going to have a lot of issues with what's going on at the Justice Department and the FBI. But I will say, do not say it is this president who has politicized the DOJ.
This is a systemic problem that has been horrifically exploded during the last Democratic presidency.
Speaker 0: So so last question. I'm not gonna ask you what year you graduated law school, but
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: But it was a while ago. You said you've been practicing for over forty years. When you graduated law school, I bet there were a ton of people with your attitudes in your class. Similar attitudes about human rights, rule of law, politics, America's place in the world. Now you're literally the only one left that I've met from your generation.
What's it been like for you with, like, your friends, your your peers, people you know, have known your whole life? You you come back, and all of sudden, you know, you're being denounced as a Russian stooge. Like, what effect has that had?
Speaker 1: Well, it it's interesting. I said twenty years ago that there was terrible danger in The United States to the corporatism of criminal law. Yes. We have turned criminal law into the activity of big corporate law firms. In New York, even today, there are a bunch of small firms that take on difficult cases, Braffman, Agnifolo, some of these guys in small firms taking on tough, tough, tough cases that I think of as real defenders.
But the corporate titans that are doing the big cases have become entirely focused on compliance. You're somebody I'm sure with far more resources than a poor guy like myself. But if you engage in transnational business, you know the hassles of even moving $10 across borders. These corporate law firms are making tens of millions off of managing compliance because of and this is a separate story, in my view, this this overregulation money laundering allegations. Money laundering is the most dangerous crime governments have ever invented because because it basically criminalizes activity that very many people never knew was criminal.
And you could be charged with money laundering if you've engaged in asset or money transfers when you had no idea at the time that it was criminal?
Speaker 0: They don't care about rape on a subway platform, and if they did, we wouldn't have it. You know, lot of countries don't have rape on subway platforms because that's horrifying. It's a violation, the most basic violation of someone's civil rights. They what they care about is money laundering. I noticed.
I just read today DOJ was, you know, issuing some statement on money laundering. Every day, it's money laundering. It's because people using their money that they earned in ways that they choose to use it, that's a massive threat to the people in power.
Speaker 1: Yes, it is. And again, another day, I'll tell you about my use of human rights law to stop the freezing of assets and freezing of monies. That, this compliance psychology, is a tremendous danger that we foster in our big firms. And that is, you know, so if you ask me after forty five years, how do you feel? It is a sense of tragedy that our basic rights have been withered away in in so many events of emergency.
Whenever I hear emergency or crisis, whether it's COVID, the war on terror, the war on crime, these are all events that chip away at our freedoms, and they're cumulative. They go on and on and they further narrow the scope for our activity. And we need a dramatic rethink of all of that in order for us to be free.
Speaker 0: So when you were a kid, when you were a young lawyer, when you were in law school, Brandenburg versus Ohio, the big speech cases, those were all very well known, right, to everybody in your class. Do you think someone graduating Yale Law now has any real sense
Speaker 1: of that? You know, I'm giving a speech Friday to 60 top law students. I'll know better after that. I think that unfortunately we're raising lawyers to fit into these corporate firms, this whole sort of compliance culture. And you know, I'm probably, God help me, probably one of the only lawyers that will applaud the Trump administration for stopping FCPA enforcement.
It's not that I'm in support of corruption, and it's not that I think we shouldn't come up with a system to stop it. It's that the FCPA has represented a massive commercial barrier for American business to enter Latin America and Africa. We need to be in those places. And now maybe we'll have a shot because the compliance barrier simply made it only possible for some of our largest businesses. Right.
Well, that's the whole point.
Speaker 0: Yes. That was all when it Dodd Frank. Yes. It's like, you know, all the small guys die when the big guys can pay enough lawyers to stay within the law or the regs.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 0: Bobby Amsterdam, I'm grateful for what you're doing, and I'm grateful that you exist, and when liberals like you went extinct, everyone made fun of people like you because they're annoying. They're always jumping up and yelling about rights, but I was one of the only people who felt sad when your whole way of thinking died because I felt like we really needed that, and turns out I was right.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you again. Thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
Tucker Carlson and Bob Amsterdam discuss the oppressive actions of the Zelensky government in Ukraine. They highlight that Zelensky has jailed or sanctioned his opponents and dismantled free media. Reports indicate that his secret police have targeted churches, resulting in violence and deaths, including against priests and parishioners. Carlson claims to have video evidence of these actions, describing the secret police's disturbing attire featuring Nazi insignias. Overall, they assert that the Zelensky government has severely undermined civil society and committed acts of violence against non-combatants.
@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes
Tucker Carlson and Bob Amsterdam reveal the truth about The Zelensky Government in Ukraine - Zelensky jails or sanctions or charges with treason his opponents - He's destroyed a free media - He sends his secret police to churches, “A lot of people have been killed” - He’s “beaten our priests, beaten our parishioners, and I have this all on video” - Zelensky’s Secret Police wear death masks with Nazi insignias on their arm - He's destroyed civil society “They've committed a lot of violence. A lot of people have been killed. Non-combatants have been killed by the Zelensky government”
Video Transcript AI Summary
I have committed violence, and many people have been killed, including noncombatants, by the Zelensky government. Our priests and parishioners are being beaten, and videos of these incidents are available on savetheu0c.com. Elderly parents of those fighting for Ukraine's liberation are being attacked, often by the SBU secret police wearing death masks with Nazi insignias. Zelensky has destroyed civil society and free media, jailing, sanctioning, or charging his opponents with treason. Highlighting these issues is met with accusations of being disentitled to speak, as if mentioning the jailing and torturing of priests is forbidden.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've committed a lot of violence. A lot of people have been killed. Noncombatants have been killed by the Zelensky government.
Speaker 1: Beating our priests, beating our parishioners, and I have this all on video. If you go to savetheu0c.com, you will see the videos of our parishioners being beaten. These are the elderly parents of people at the front fighting for the liberation and protection of Ukraine being beaten very often by SBU, that's their secret police, wearing death masks with Nazi insignias on their arm. So the fact that he's destroyed civil society, he's destroyed a free media, he jails or sanctions or charges with treason his opponents, We're supposed to ignore all of that because if we mention it, or if I stand on a soapbox to scream that he's jailing and torturing priests, we are somehow disentitled to speak.
reSee.it AI Summary
I've observed that many American journalists have embedded with Zelensky’s military, while only one, Patrick Lancaster, represents the Russian side. The discussion covers the war's early beginnings, Ukrainian attacks on Lancaster's wife's hometown, and the impact of kamikaze drones. It questions who is winning and the death toll, highlights Russia's efforts to aid war victims, and addresses Ukraine's actions against Christianity. Reports of North Korean soldiers and the narrative of corporate media are examined, along with concerns about American weapons on the black market and public support for the war.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Over the past years, countless American journalists have embedded with Zelensky’s military. On the Russian side, there’s only one: Patrick Lancaster. (0:00) Introduction (1:15) The War Started Much Earlier Than You Think (5:07) Ukrainian Attacks on the Hometown of Lancaster’s Wife (11:52) It All Changed 3 Years Ago (16:47) Kamikaze Attack Drones (23:03) Who’s Winning? (24:52) How Many People Have Died in this War? (33:59) Russia’s Attempt to House Victims of War (37:26) Ukraine’s War on Christianity (38:59) Reports of North Korean Soldiers on the Ground (39:25) How Many American Journalists Are Covering Russia’s Perspective? (45:45) The Lies of Corporate Media (48:02) Ukraine’s Targeting of Lancaster (52:10) How Many Americans Have Been Killed in the War? (56:33) When Will the War End? (1:01:01) American Weapons Being Sold on the Black Market (1:02:32) Why Are Americans Supporting the War? Includes paid partnerships.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Patrick Lancaster, an American journalist embedded with Russian troops, discusses his coverage of the Ukraine-Russia conflict since 2014, including reporting from Crimea after its referendum to rejoin Russia. He claims that the Western media misrepresented the events, and he documented the Ukrainian shelling of residential areas in Donetsk and Lugansk, including his wife's childhood home.
Lancaster says that Russia recognized the Lugansk and Donetsk republics as separate from Ukraine, leading to celebrations and later military intervention. He reports active fighting in eight regions, including areas within Russia that Ukraine invaded. He describes the drone warfare and a near-death experience with a kamikaze drone.
Lancaster believes Ukraine cannot win the war and Western support prolongs the conflict, causing deaths. He recounts witnessing numerous war crimes by Ukrainian forces, including using civilians as human shields and torturing civilians. He says that Russian soldiers view the conflict as a fight against Satan due to the religious differences between Ukraine and Russia. He denies seeing North Korean soldiers.
Lancaster says that Western media falsely reported a Ukrainian attack on Donetsk as a Russian attack. He is not monetized on YouTube and relies on viewer donations. He says that if Americans had factual news coverage, they would not support the war.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Over the past three years, hundreds, maybe thousands of Western journalists have covered the war in Ukraine from Ukraine and effectively been attached to the Ukrainian government and its military and its many propaganda outlets, taking their talking points from Ukrainian government officials, interviewing president Zelensky, always in the most fawning possible way, and effectively carrying water for both the Ukrainian government and NATO and above all for the Biden administration. On the other side in this war that The United States has effectively paid for, there is one Western journalist, one American embedded with Russian troops. His name is Patrick Lancaster. He's from Saint Louis, Missouri. He's a US Navy veteran, and for the past eleven years, he's been reporting from the region.
For the past three years, he's been reporting from the front lines. He's been interviewed by precisely no other mainstream Western media organizations. And so it raises the question, how can you understand a war you're expected to take sides in and then pay for if you're not hearing the other side. So with that in mind, here's Patrick Lancaster. Patrick Lancaster, thank you so much for joining us.
So you're one of the only maybe the only American reporter embedded with Russian troops in this war. How long have you been there?
Speaker 1: Hi, Tucker. I've it's it's really an honor to be on here with you to show a little bit to the world about what the mainstream media doesn't want a lot of the people around the world to see. So it's really great, and I appreciate the invitation. I have been covering this conflict, this war for a lot longer than many people understand that it's going on. As you know, this didn't start three years ago.
It started in 02/2014. Some say even before, but for all intents and purposes, we could say 02/2014 when the war started following the events in Crimea where Crimea joins or rejoins Russia because there was a referendum. I was that's where I first started reporting on the situation between Russia and Ukraine. I went to Crimea for the referendum where the Crimean people voted to break away from Ukraine and join Russia or rejoin Russia. Because before 1956, Crimea was part of Russia.
So, Amy, if you think about this, the people that were born before that year were born in Russia. So there's people living that were born in Russia that were literally so happy to be joining Russia again, going home as the people on the streets told me when I was there. And I've been there almost every year reporting since then as well. But the that's what really triggered my interest and intensity in reporting on the situation between Ukraine and Russia. Because when I came from went from Europe to Crimea and saw the huge difference of what was being reported in the western mainstream media about the real situation, in Crimea, we're we're hearing in the West how Russia forces were gonna be making people vote to break away from Ukraine and join Russia.
And I saw just the total opposite. People just crying out of happiness to have the chance to rejoin Russia. And those are the real fast, and anyone that has been to Crimea knows that. And anyone that says something besides that is just not, telling the truth and trying to hide, the truth. And, unfortunately, after the events in Crimea where they joined, the northern regions of Donetsk and Lugansk ended up becoming part of what you could say a civil war where they as well had a referendum to break away from Ukraine, and that preceded the eight year war eight year civil war where after the vote, the republics that they called themselves Donetsk people Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics started to make their own governments, make their own militaries, and they were attacked after this referendum by Ukraine.
And I spent eight years covering the situation in the Donetsk and Lugansk areas just documenting my part of the puzzle or the pie that wasn't being shown in the western mainstream media. Because what I was showing then and now, what western mainstream media doesn't, it's not convenient for them to show. It doesn't fit their narrative. So I documented what they weren't, the indiscriminate shelling of residential areas by Ukraine, the targeting of civilian areas by Ukraine. I mean, wife is from Donetsk, and her childhood home was destroyed by Ukrainian shelling as well as the majority of her childhood neighborhood.
So, I mean, the these are the facts of the things that happened in the Donetsk and Lugansk territories long before 2,022 when Russia came into this war. From 02/2014 till 02/2022 is when this civil war took place. And, of course, Ukraine and the West claimed Russia had invaded all the way back in 02/2014. That was the the the narrative then. But, eventually, that kind of slowly, went away when they realized that this eight year war wasn't really, there was no regular Russian troops taking a part in that.
This was a, a civil war that was lightly supported by the West, Ukraine supported by the West.
Speaker 0: Wait. May may I ask you a question to clarify something? So you said that your Mhmm. Your wife's childhood home was destroyed by shelling from the Ukrainian government. Why were they shelling your wife's house?
Like, what did was she was her family part of the fighting? I why would they do that?
Speaker 1: Well, they pretty much leveled most of her childhood home or childhood neighborhood where her mother's home was. This neighborhood is just one of the many around Donetsk, in the suburbs of Donetsk, specifically around the Donetsk Airport. The Donetsk Airport was like a a symbol of the war back in 02/2014, '2 thousand and '15 where there was literally so much fighting. One there were two terminals. One terminal had the Ukrainian forces in it.
One had the anti Ukraine government forces or rebels or pro Russian forces, whatever you would have called them, the locals that took up arms to fight, to try to break away from Ukraine. And they were fighting. And, basically, Ukraine leveled, not completely leveled, but damaged, if not destroyed, the majority of the homes all around this area, around the airport, just with indiscriminate shelling and of the, the areas, the the neighborhoods, just destroying or seriously damaging almost every home. And it just so happened my wife's childhood home was one of those. Thank god her family and her made it out.
Okay? They were living there when the war started. And they they made it out okay, but the house was destroyed. This is just one example of many homes and families that lost everything in the war.
Speaker 0: I do you know, I don't remember hearing in The United States at the time that there was a war in Ukraine. I mean, my sense is this was basically ignored completely and that Ukraine at that time was effectively under the control of of the Obama administration. That was my that was my sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah. A lot of people don't really didn't really understand what was really happening on the ground. But, basically, I mean, it goes back to the, Maidan revolution or, whatever you wanna call it. It's all in the eye of the beholder. The locals in the Eastern part of Ukraine at that point looked at the Maidan revolution as an illegal coup supported by the West, where ended up with their democratically elected president Yadakovich removed from office without them having anything to say about it and which effectively made their Ukraine dead and not in existence anymore after a puppet government was put in by The United States in the West.
So the people of the Donetsk and Lugansk areas just they said, okay. Well, that's not our Ukraine. Ukraine's gone. Some of them were patriots for Ukraine before. They they just said, okay.
We don't have anything to do with that. We're gonna have a vote. We're we're gonna vote ourselves what to do with the right of self determination, and Ukraine and the West did not wanna respect the right of determination. And Ukraine basically, in the words of the locals, punished them for them trying to break away from Ukraine. And every local family knew someone or had a member of their family injured or killed in the attacks by Ukrainian forces on the civilian areas of these regions, specifically the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Speaker 0: Amazing. Data hawks are collecting your information anytime you visit a website, every time you go online, every time you create an account, you make an online purchase, your data is out there and you have no control over who sees it or what they do with it. So it's only a matter of time until somebody tries to exploit these facts. You have no privacy at all. Use your information to steal your identity and maybe bankrupt you.
It happens all the time. It's happened to friends of ours, kids, and that's why we use Identity Guard. Identity Guard helps by giving you control. It monitors your most sensitive information for any signs of suspicious activity. Someone's trying to steal your identity you know right away, often before real damage can be done, before you're on the hook for the money.
So if in fact your identity is stolen, the expert team will do work directly with banks, credit card bureaus, other institutions to fix the problem for you so it's not the disaster you fear it is. While they handle the cleanup, you're backed by up to $5,000,000 in identity theft insurance, which is a huge relief. Imagine waking up and finding out that someone in a foreign country is using your name and Social Security number to steal money from you. It happens all the time. So the team there is available 20 four seven if you ever need help.
There are no bots. There are no call centers offshore. It's based in The United States. They know exactly what you need. Somebody becomes a victim of identity theft about every six seconds constantly.
So don't let the next one be you. Visit IdentityGuard.com/Tucker for thirty days free, plus a special discount if you want more. Sign up before this happens to you. Identity Guard dot com slash Tucker. So you've been there rotating in and out or be or living there ever since all these years.
How did things change three years ago when the when the war began?
Speaker 1: Well, it was quite an interesting time as you can imagine. Just days a couple of days before the it all started with Russia. Russia officially came in. Russia officially recognized the Lugansk and Donetsk, republics as separate, from Ukraine. And the people had celebrations on the streets out of just celebrating the fact that Russia recognized them, and they knew that that meant that Russia was going to be helping these, republics.
And then days later, Russia came across the border, and the war between Ukraine and Russia started. You know? One way or another, the war between Russia and the West has started, western weapons at least. And as many people around the world thought it was gonna go a lot quicker than it has, I myself did a report in the center of Donetsk where I assumed and thought that Russia was gonna be pushing, Ukraine back within days from the city of, Donetsk. Because you have to imagine the front line of Donetsk was just on the outskirts of the city.
We're talking from the center of the city to the edge, just about, to the front line, just about five miles, with, often just straight shelling hitting the center of the city. And as we know, it didn't end in three days like, general Miley has said it would. And there were there's been a lot of intense battles around these areas. And in fact, right now, I believe there is eight regions between what is internationally recognized as Ukraine or Russia recognizes as Russia. But overall, there's eight regions that have active fighting.
Some are Russian, some are prewar Russian, afterwar Russia, whatever you wanna call it. We've got the Zaporozhzhia region, Kherson region, Donetsk region, and Lugansk region, which all four of those had referendums in February where they the Russian backed referendums unrecognized by the West where they voted to join Russia. And then shortly after, Russia took them in officially. And then in addition to those four regions, you've got two regions of Russia, the Belgorod region of Russia and the Kursk region of Russia where Ukraine came across the terror the border and invaded, incurred on pre 02/2022 Russia. And in actually, in the area of Kursk, they controlled last August about 1,500 square kilometers.
Since then, it's been really reduced by Russian forces. But in addition to those six territories, we've also got the Sumy region of Ukraine, which there's some villages and some territory that Russia controls. And there's active, very intense fighting going on there. Now that's borders the Kursk region. So, basically, Russia went past the territory that was controlled by Ukraine and the Kursk region of Russia and took territory in the Sumy region.
Now, also, in the Kharkov region of Ukraine, Russia controls some territory as well. And, again, intense fighting going on there. So we've got eight regions with intense fighting, and the war keeps changing. So much has changed, of course, in the last eleven years as far as how the fighting has changed and how it's going on now. And even since 02/2022 when Russia First came in and now now the situation is the air war, the drone war.
I mean, it's it's like the the war of the future, now compared to what it used to be eleven years ago. I I mean, the most dangerous part of my job is actually getting to the frontline to film what's happening on the front line because in the vehicles, getting there is just there's always drones around, and these are kamikaze drones, that are the main threat. Of course, there's reconnaissance drones as well. But these kamikazes, they will just, hitch they they're hunting vehicles around and going back and forth on the front line, and, they will just hit the vehicle and explode. And now they've even gone a step forward where jamming or electronic warfare doesn't affect them because they use fiber optic cables to control these drone where this little bitty, cable goes from behind the drone to the remote control.
They're they're cabled drones, and they can go up to 30 kilometers. And, actually, this this right here is some of the fiber optic cable that is used to control these drones, and those are the most deadly on the front line because you can't do anything about it. You can't even detect them with a drone detector.
Speaker 0: So what is that what is that like? Have you have you seen the kamikaze drones hit and explode?
Speaker 1: Well, just, I guess, just over three weeks ago, I was in the the Kursk region of Russia trying to, actually get back from the frontline. I was with a a team from the Russian forces, Akhmat, brigade, and they were evacuating civilians from the front line. We had actually got to the point of, as they called it, the point of zero, which the at the edge of the village where we were was of the Ukrainian forces. And as we got there, there were several overhead, and they engaged one on the ground, and it came down. Wasn't that intense, you could say.
So they loaded the civilians in this truck. So in the cab of the truck were these four elderly civilians and the soldier that was driving. And then myself and another journalist, a colleague of mine, were in the back of the truck with two soldiers, and we were trying to evacuate this village. And as we got out of the just just outside the village, I happened to be filming one of the soldiers as they were scanning this the skies, and the other soldier actually pointed up and said a drone and a few other curse words. And I looked up, and there was a drone, a kamikaze drone.
Right away, I knew what it was, and I knew the danger we were in. And they the soldiers started firing on it, engaging it, trying to knock it down as it was trying to attack us and kill us. And they signaled to the driver. The driver just floored it. It was just driving as fast as possible.
And I'm filming them shooting at the drone. The drone's trying to hit us. I I thought that we were gonna be, you know, worse a best case scenario, injured because it I mean, it got so close to us as we were just driving. It just got right up on us. And then after about five minutes of it chasing us well, what felt like five minutes might have been a few minutes less, It was knocked down.
And
Speaker 0: How how do you how do you knock down a drone? How do you knock down a suicide drone over you?
Speaker 1: They they were engaging it with shotgun and machine guns. And and that's it it was coming at us, and it was in the video, it's a little bit unclear if their bullets actually hit it or it hit a wire that was going over the road. But for about five minutes, three minutes, something like that, they were firing at it with a shotgun and a machine gun. Now the shotgun is the most the new weapon of choice on the front line because it's got the buckshot, and it spreads. And these, the idea is there's more room to hit, just like you're shooting at a bird.
That's actually what they call these drones, birds. So they're they go hunting with this shotgun for these, drones. And luckily, thank God, God was with us with us that day, and it did not hit its target. So we we may made it to report another day.
Speaker 0: Mother's Day is almost here, and you're under a lot of pressure to find something great for the mothers in your life. So instead of getting something you hope will check the box and waiting to see if the mom you're giving it to actually likes it, give her something she will genuinely love, Cozy Earth. Cozy Earth makes the softest, most breathable bedding and pajamas the women you know have ever experienced. Crafted from temperature regulating bamboo fabric. Bamboo fabric.
It sounds weird, but it's awesome. Try it. When you give it, people will be a little bit confused, and then they will fall in love. This is something she will use every single day. Unlike other presents, you don't have to worry about this being thrown into the closet, an embarrassing silence when you hand it over.
Everybody loves Cozy Earth. It's got a hundred night sleep trial, a ten year warranty, so it's risk free. Get it today. So skip the flowers. Give comfort that lasts.
Cozy Earth. Go to CozyEarth.com/Tucker. Use the code Tucker to get up to 40% off sheets, pajamas, towels, everything they make. And if you get a post purchase survey, make sure to say that you heard about Cozy Earth from us on this show. So one of the the the most confusing questions in in the West is the most obvious question, which is who's winning?
And even now, we're told that Ukraine, you know, has a shot to win. Lindsey Graham has been saying this even recently. If only US taxpayers would send Zelensky's government more money. What's what's your perspective as someone who's covering the war from the front lines?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the idea of Ukraine winning the war is just this dream and narrative that's been put out by the West to make it acceptable for so much money to be putting put in to Ukraine to extend this war to bring Russian forces down in the country of Russia just to make them use their resource resources more, including losing more people. I mean, if The United States and the the West would not have been supplying the weapons and the funding to Ukraine for the last three years, the war would have ended three years ago, if not two and a half years ago. And hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved. It it is the the funding and the support of the West For Ukraine is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of these deaths of soldiers on both sides civilians for that matter.
Speaker 0: You It's
Speaker 1: just it's
Speaker 0: Well, how how many have die the other question that we can never get a straight answer to or any answer to is how many have died on both sides. Do you have any guess?
Speaker 1: You know, it's it's hard for me to say. You know, my kind of thing in my reports is reporting of what I see, keeping my opinions out of it. So what I can tell you is of what I've seen. One of the hottest areas that I would've been before Kursk and Belgrade, where I am now, was the Mariupol frontline where I followed the Russian frontline day by day in the heats of the battle of Mariupol. And just that month, I personally saw, you know, between a 2,000 bodies, and it was soldiers, civilians.
I mean, the the whole city was just covered in bodies. I in a matter of a thirty minute period, one time I counted 87 bodies just lying in the street. And, I mean, it's really a horrible situation and, you know, just seeing so many war crimes involved, so many testimonies from low locals about Ukrainian forces. Basically, literally, these are not my words. These are the the words of the locals that all everything I say can be seen on my YouTube channel.
These locals say that Ukrainian forces literally use them as human shields, which set up their tanks in between the apartment buildings and fire at Russian forces. And in other cases, the they would directly fire on the civilian buildings. Ukraine forces directly firing on civilian buildings. This is what the locals told me on camera, and it can be seen. Not just one off, a constant daily event.
And, unfortunately, there was many instances of Ukrainian forces using schools as a base as I my one of my first days in Mariupol found a school, school number twenty five of Mariupol. I'll never forget it. Went to into the basement and found that Ukrainian forces were using this basement as a position, military position, and many burned out rooms and weapons, uniforms, flags, Ukrainian flags. And, unfortunately, we found a a dead civilian woman who's she would she was naked, and she had a a bag over her head and was clearly raped and tortured. And it was clearly a civilian from the area that Ukrainian forces had kidnapped and tortured and raped, and they carved.
It's actually a little unclear whether it was burned or carved a swastika on her stomach. And it it really in the this is the first time that it's it stood out to me this the psychological effect of some of these instances when you see in my mind, I still remember seeing a bandage over her head kind of like something like she was injured, and it was it was bandaged. But if you look at the video, you see it was a a plastic bag that was used to execute her. Now that's just one of the many examples of executions that I've seen by Ukrainian forces. The most recent were were in the Kursk region just this last January where I was with Russian regular army forces, and they just days before gotten to this village and basically kicked Ukrainian forces out, and the village was destroyed.
And there was a a shelter, a basement, basically, that we went down into and found a group of civilians. There was, two elderly woman and one elderly man that had been, killed by clearly by Ukrainian forces because as we walked down the steps, the smell was so bad we had to put gas masks on. At the bottom of the steps, we're couldn't really say how many people, because it was clear that some sort of explosive, I assume a grenade, was thrown down in the, the shelter where these people were hiding. And, the people near the door actually with a dog that were there were just turned into, you know, soup, basically. So it wouldn't wasn't really clear how many were there.
But then as we went farther back into the shelter, found, as I said, a two elderly women that were killed by the explosion and an elderly man. And then back in August, as I said, when Ukraine First came in to, Kursk, I was also there and met a man who explained how he was trying to evacuate his family from the Suzhou region, which is was basically the the stronghold of Ukrainian forces once they when they came into the Kursk region of Russia. And he explained how his, he was evacuating his wife pregnant wife, their one year old son and his wife's mother. And they had two vehicles, and this is basically, they were surprised that war broke out in their village because they weren't part of the war zone before August. And so he's decided he was gonna drive in the front car and have his family in the back with his wife driving behind just in case something's happened, it would hit him first, and they might make it away.
And they were he said they were driving, came around a turn, and came face to face with a Ukraine or pro Ukraine Soldier. He said just two meters away from him. He said there was no way that the soldier did not see that they were civilians. There was no question they were civilians, and the soldier opened fire. The bullet went through the bill of his cap and a few into his vehicle, and they kept on driving as they were being fired at and got some distance between and went around another corner.
And these these are his words, not mine. And he saw that his wife's vehicle was slowing down, and he waved for her to to speed up. And then when her car hit the back of his car, he knew something was wrong. And, he went back to check on his family in the other car, and his wife pregnant wife was huddled over their one year old son with bullet holes in her the side of her stomach. Mhmm.
And he picked her up, took her to the nearest hospital they could find, and they weren't able to save her. He tried to do CPR, in his words, massage her heart back to life. And their their one year old son was injured, but thank god he lived. And then, unfortunately, he wasn't able to recover her body for many months afterwards. But now things have changed quite considerably in the Kursk region.
As I said, it started in August with Ukraine just surprising many coming across taking 1,500 square kilometers. And then right when they did that, Russia started taking some back. And I was with them. I went with the assault groups to the Ukrainian lines as the assault groups took territory back. And
Speaker 0: they
Speaker 1: Russia started going and going and going and taking these villages back and almost slowed down as far as the recovery of the territory by Russian forces until last month when an operation of Russian forces literally went into these gas pipes, and they've tunneled underneath Ukrainian lines and reported 600, Russian, forces soldiers came up behind Ukrainian lines. And, that operation with a an assault from the other side basically collapsed Ukrainian lines, and now there's just a very small amount of Ukrainian forces left in the Kursk region. And just yesterday, there were a report from the Russian Ministry of Defense that some territory had been taken back by Russian forces. Now, unfortunately, this is leaving tens of thousands of people homeless, that homes were destroyed in this incursion or invasion by Russian force or Ukrainian forces into this region of Russia. And the basically, the standard thing for the Russian government to do is give certificates for new homes to the victims.
They've actually gotten pretty good at it because there's so many regions of people that have been, had their homes, lost by Ukrainian shelling. But, one thing that I noticed, it's pretty interesting about what they're doing in the Kursk region. And on top of the certificate, it's gonna be compared to what the does when someone loses their house, say, to a national disaster. The governor of Kursk, Alexander Kinshting, started an initiative to request from Moscow a special stipend or payment of a monthly payment of 65,000 rubles for every member of a a family whose home was lost monthly. So the I mean, that's 65,000.
That's about $750. So if it's a family of four, that's about $3,000 a month. You know, of course, that's not gonna, you know, replace everything in their lives that they've lost, but it's a lot more than I think what was The United States giving to some of the natural disaster? I think 700 lump sum payments, something like that. So it's interesting to see the comparison.
Speaker 0: So think about how you'll feel when you achieve your biggest goals of all, whether it's starting a business, paying off your mortgage, sending your kids to college, having the money to pay for it. You'll be pretty proud when you've met these essential life goals, and you should be proud. All of us are when we do that. But what do you do next? So getting to the goals is one thing, but protecting them is an entirely different thing and maybe a bigger thing.
And this is where life insurance from Policygenius comes in. Now, Policygenius makes finding and buying life insurance really easy. You probably want life insurance, but it's expensive. And how do you even get it? Policygenius makes it simple, and it means that your family has the safety net it needs to cover expenses and to face the future.
Nearly half of Americans look back and wish they'd gotten life insurance earlier. It can change everything if you have it because you don't know what the future holds, honestly. So with Policygenius, you can find policies starting at just $292 per year for a million dollars of coverage, and some options are a hundred percent online. And that means no unnecessary medical exams for you, which is a win. You compare quotes from top insurers side by side.
You talk to licensed agents. You secure your families tomorrow with peace of mind today, and it makes it super easy on Policygenius. And it's all transparent. You know exactly what you're getting. So you head to Policygenius.com/Tucker, and click the link in the description to get your free quote.
That's Policygenius.com/Tucker. So let me ask let me ask you. From our perspective over here, the Ukrainian government is not just at war with Russia, but also with Christianity. The Ukrainian government has banned the largest Christian denomination in Ukraine and has embraced transgenderism and and other explicitly anti Christian forms of expression. Are you aware of that?
Are the Russians aware of that? Is there a religious component? Just because their hostility to Christianity is so obvious, I wonder if you notice it.
Speaker 1: Well, in I always ask the soldiers on the front line who are document fighting, you know, what what they're doing there. Why are they fighting? What what are they fighting for? And often, an answer that's they're they they give is is they're fighting Satan because they they view the the religious atmosphere so different, as you point out, in Ukraine than the traditional Russian society. You know?
So it's it's quite a religion is very important to the Russian soldier. And, of course, I think it's quite a bit more than, you know, the traditional you say, there's no atheists on the front line, but this goes a lot deeper into their cultural heritage.
Speaker 0: Are have you seen any North Korean soldiers?
Speaker 1: No. I have not. Not a lack of trying. I tried to investigate the reports of these North Korean soldiers, and I was not able to locate any of them. Of course, there's rumors all of the world of this, but I was not able to locate any of them.
Speaker 0: How many American correspondents are embedded with Russian units that you're that you know of?
Speaker 1: One. Me.
Speaker 0: No no one from NBC or CNN or Fox or PBS or New York Times, Washington Post, you're not aware of any American correspondents covering the other side in this war?
Speaker 1: No. No. So
Speaker 0: so does it feel to you that American reporters have basically taken the side of the Biden administration, which told us that Russia is our enemy and are uncritically repeating US government talking points?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, of course, the Western media has their narrative. And, you know, unfortunately, they try to hide the facts, that most of what I report, they tried to hide and not report on it. And, you know, I tell all my, viewers, don't just watch my reports because I don't have all the but I'm showing you what the mainstream media doesn't want you to see. I'm just giving you my piece of the the puzzle, something that you're not gonna see anywhere else, unfortunately.
But, you know, people need to get as many perspectives as possible and educate themselves, not just be led like sheep by the the mainstream media. And I'm very glad there's people like you out there as well that, you know, could give someone a little bit something to think about other than just the narrative that is trying to be forced down their throat.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, it if you're the only American correspondent embedded with Russian units, then I would think you would be in high demand. I'm embarrassed it's taken me over three years to talk to you. That's my fault. But I I mean, I assume you're getting calls every week from American news organizations trying to understand what's happening?
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, no. They don't seem too interested in discussing, things with me or seeing the information that I'm, putting out. And in fact, in, 02/2014, '15, and '16, I was, what I, I would say is a, a freelance journalist, videographer as well until, you know, I I I felt like my work was being betrayed and because I was giving this material. And then once I saw that the material was being lied about I mean, one instance, I was in the Lugansk region in Parabomayisk when Ukraine forces launched a rocket attack on, this soup kitchen. And, we happened to, be there, and I filmed in the aftermath and the women saying how Pereshchenko was killing them and their families.
Just really horrible. Just just targeting civilians by Ukrainian forces with huge rockets. And I sold that material as a freelance journalist to western outlets, and they turned it around and said that it was Lugans rebels that fired on the soup kitchen. Just totally lying about the situation. So after that, I decided I'm not gonna do that that anymore.
You know, regardless if I get paid for it or not, I'm gonna be showing exactly what I see. And that's what I've been doing since then is just on my YouTube channel, showing my reports. I'm only supported by my viewers. Of course, I'll do collaborations with other channels and things if, you know, they're interested, but I make it a point not to get paid by anyone but the donations from my viewers. So the only people that I report to that I need to show what's really happening is my viewers.
I don't have any editor or boss that says, oh, we need to show this or show this. No. I show in my reports on YouTube and my Substack blog exactly what's happening, exactly what I see with no narrative, just the facts that the western mainstream media isn't showing.
Speaker 0: There's so much darkness in the world that can feel overwhelming. Wars, political fighting, violence, hatred, the love between people growing cold. And you have to ask yourself, where does this all come from? Well, one place it comes from is the refusal of a society to care about people, including babies. As you've been listening to this, untold numbers of unborn babies need help.
There are thousands of pregnant women who are trying to decide, should I keep this child or not? Choosing between life and abortion. A child's future hangs in the balance. Preborn is ready to help. Preborn has a clinic network on standby to help women make that choice, to make the right choice, to choose life, to affirm the value of people, which in the end are all that matters.
It helps these mothers choose, not just for the babies, but for themselves. Once introduced to the child growing inside them, women are twice as likely to choose life. Once they know this is not just some massive tissue, but a person, they choose life voluntarily. Last year alone, preborn rescued over sixty seven thousand babies, and they're aiming to save another eighty thousand this year in 2025. You can support them.
$28 a month can make the difference between life and death, and $140 sponsors five ultrasounds. You can donate securely. Please dial 250, say the keyword baby, that's pound two fifty baby, or visit Preborn.com/Tucker. Preborn Com / Tucker. We're honored to partner with Preborn.
So since you've been there all these years and and have a, you know, a tactile sense of what's happening, give us a couple examples of stories Americans may have seen or read in in our media here that you know firsthand or wrong.
Speaker 1: Well, we can off the top of my head, the missile attack, Tochka U attack by Ukrainian forces on the center of Donetsk in 02/2022 when a Ukraine launched a cluster bomb attack on the center of Donetsk, and cluster bombs, came down. They actually hit just about 200 yards from my apartment where my family and, kids and wife were, and my dad was actually in, the city, with us, as well. And, we had to throw the we thought we were getting hit. We threw the bulletproof vests on the kids and, threw one of the others under the bed. And, I mean, it was it was, not good.
And, in the western mainstream media, they said that it was a Russian attack, which is just idiotic. Why would Russia attack Donetsk that hasn't been under Ukrainian control for the last eight years before that? I mean, just total grabbing of false information to try to portray a narrative that just is not true. And act and, actually, that was my the last day that my family was in done Donetsk with me. I had to evacuate them as I stayed to show what was happening on the front line.
My wife didn't wanna leave because my as I said, my wife's from Donets, but I said after that, just so close to us, I had to evacuate them. And after that, I just, you know, kind of went solo and saw went back to my family when I could, and that's what I do even today.
Speaker 0: Where where are you from in The United States?
Speaker 1: I'm from Saint Louis, Missouri.
Speaker 0: Have you been back to The US during the last over the last three years?
Speaker 1: In the last three years, no. I have not.
Speaker 0: How is YouTube treating you?
Speaker 1: Well, I haven't been monetized on YouTube basically at all. I started my YouTube channel in 02/2014, and there's no monetization whatsoever.
Speaker 0: Why? On what grounds were you demonetized?
Speaker 1: You know, it's been it literally over a decade ago, but I believe just the fact of war and, you know, they're just not interested on putting commercials on my material. I guess because it doesn't fit the western mainstream narrative, but, you know, it's great that I'm still able to use the platform to show the world some of the things that's happening. But, unfortunately, it's not monetized, so I'm only supported by, as I said, my my viewers through donations. But, you know, what I do, it's not really because of the money. Yeah.
Of course, I've gotta support my family, but, you know, after as I said, after I saw the how different what was being shown in the West, what was happening, I just had to do something about it. And, you know, if you would ask me before twelve years ago, would I be a war correspondents, you know, going to the front lines with, you know, showing the reality of what's happening, and I'd be the only one doing it. It just would be amazing to
Speaker 0: me. What I mean, given the atrocities that you you've you've seen some incredibly ugly things. You described a few of them, but it's been so long. I wonder what effect that has on you as a person to see things like that.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I would say before this war, I wasn't I had mixed thoughts about what post traumatic stress really was and how serious it was, but I can tell you now, there's no doubt that it's definitely a thing. You know, I I would say quite different this is of course, everything I've seen here is quite different than when I was in the US military. I used to be in the the US Navy from 02/2001 till 02/2006, and I was on a the USS Kitty Hawk that was involved with operation Iraqi Freedom and, you know, never saw anything like that. Like, they're like I I see here of course. But, you know you know you know, I always find it interesting how The US calls calls all of their operations operations.
But when Russia says that it's not a war, it's a special military operation. The western media makes this big thing about it, how, oh, it's legal to call it a war in Russia and all that, which is total bull. And and the war is a war. Operation Iraqi Freedom was a war, and Russia's special military operation was a war. And then eight years before, it was a civil war.
A war is a war regardless which one call it. And I'm in Russia now calling it a war. Nothing's gonna happen for because of it. So that's just another false narrative that the Western, media pushed of, you know, trying to say no freedom of speech in Russian, all that just total falsehood.
Speaker 0: So did you know Gonzalo Lira, who was maybe the only other American who was looking critically at what the Ukrainian government is doing? He was murdered by the Ukrainian government, as you know. Did you ever run across him, and are you worried that if you fell into Ukrainian hands, they would murder you too?
Speaker 1: Well, we we talked over online a couple of times. You know, he was definitely ballsy. Yeah. I mean, to for him to go against the Ukrainian government while he was there, and unfortunately, it didn't work so well for for him. And, of course, if if I was able ever if I ever ended up in Ukrainian forces, it would not be in Ukrainian forces' hands, it would not be a very nice time.
You know, I've been on the the Ukrainian kill list or whatever you wanna enemies of the state list, which I believe you are as well. I believe we're both on there. I've been on that list since 02/2016. The the list that's nongovernmental list that they put names of people that are an enemy of Ukraine, and they write because of my work that I'm an assistance to terrorism. And they've posted photos of my children, my wife.
They in the past, they've even posted her personal telephone number. She had to change her number because of it. Yeah, it would not be a good thing if I ended up in the hands of Russian or Ukrainian forces.
Speaker 0: The the Ukrainian war effort has been led by The United States. Do you have any which is a fact most Americans, I think, even now don't understand. Do you have any idea how many Americans have been killed fighting for Ukraine?
Speaker 1: Well, we know it happens. I would say there's probably a lot more that have been killed for Ukraine than is public knowledge. Yes. I mean, there's you could imagine that that there is probably some internal operations on the front line that involved Western Special Forces, and not all of them made it out. I've talked to soldiers on the Russian soldiers on the front line about foreign mercenaries or foreign soldiers, and they said they encountered them all the time from European countries, from US, and more.
And it also as I've actually made a a video last month about it it seems Russia's not really playing around anymore when it comes to foreign fighters or what they consider all the foreign fighters, they consider foreign mercenaries. And Vladimir Putin says that these foreign mercenaries do not get the projection of the Jeeva Convention and are the there's a possibility of execution. So it really seems like now that there's only two outcomes for these foreigners that come over here to fight if they come into Russian hands. It's jail or death. And I say jail because in the March, there was a British soldier, who was taken prisoner by Russian forces who was, he believed he was taken prisoner in November of last year in the Kursk region.
And he went through his trial and was convicted and received a nineteen year sentence. So it seems Russia's going pretty strong on the foreigners here.
Speaker 0: How long do you think this war will go on?
Speaker 1: It's a very difficult question. I've back in 02/2022, I tried to make, as I said, the predictions like, many people around the world did, and everyone was wrong. I mean, the I of course, the most important thing is people stop dying. And it would be great if today there was a a ceasefire declared and everyone stopped dying and everything went back to peace and all that. But I don't think it's gonna be happening anytime soon, unfortunately, because Russia has made it clear that Russian law considers the four regions, Zaporozhzhia, her son, Danetsk Lugansk, part of Russia.
Western law and, of course, Crimea. But even now Trump says he's gonna say Crimea is Russia, so that's not even worth discussing anymore. But Ukraine law and Western law says that these four regions are part of Ukraine. Russia cannot stop until they control what is legally, by Russian law, considered part of Russia. Regardless what side of this conflict you favor, looking at Russian law, Russian law cannot stop the war until they control part of all of what Russian law considers part of Russia.
And I've been saying this for for years. It was one thing before February when Russia could have stopped and had a quick peace deal. But after February, these four regions were legally, as far as Russian law considers, part of Russia. And Russia cannot stop until it controls this. And Zelensky, Ukraine, and the West has has made it clear that Ukrainian forces are not just gonna stand up and leave these regions.
Now if we look at Lugans, there's 99% of the area of Lugans that's controlled by Russia. But if you go south to the Donetsk region, it's there's less controlled by Russia with several important key places like Kramatorsk and Slaviansk, which actually hold the water supply to Donetsk. And then, of course, in Kherson, you've got the city of Kherson in Zaporozhye, the city of Zaporozhye, which are cut geographically by a river is basically the front line now. And I mentioned the water supply for Donetsk. Basically, Russia took control of Mariupol in 02/2022, the first thing Ukraine did was cut the water from the Kromatorsk area going into Donetsk and down to Mary Mariupol.
The reason they didn't cut the water to don't in the previous eight years like they did with Crimea because that was the first thing they did with Crimea when Russia took Crimea and they cut the water supply from Ukraine literally damned the canal that was feeding water to the people of Ukraine of Crimea. And the water supply was going underneath Donetsk and into Mariupol, and Mariupol had to be fed by water when they controlled Mariupol. But once Russia fully took control, Ukraine shut off the water to Donetsk and Mariupol. And for a long time, in Donetsk, you were only getting two hours every three days of water. I mean, just horrible living conditions because Ukraine made the decision to shut off the water to these people.
The people that they said they wanted they were trying to stop from leaving the country for eight years. And Russia made a huge project to bring water from the Rostov region into the Donetsk region, and it's still ongoing. And now there's a couple hours a day of water in Donetsk.
Speaker 0: That's horrifying. Have you seen any reports of the Ukrainian military selling NATO arms outside of Ukraine?
Speaker 1: You know, there there has been some reports of Western supplied weapons showing up in the cartel hands in Mexico and other places. But what I can tell you, I have seen with my own eyes, is Russian forces using these weapons back against Ukraine. Weapons that Ukraine got from NATO countries, and Russia captured them and turned them back against, Ukraine and reverse in is in the process of reverse engineering. I just did a report where I went with a, the soldier group to a undisclosed location where they had about 20 military vehicles, NATO military vehicles that were on their way to be getting reverse engineered and basically any type of secret information they could get out of them. And that report will be coming out, soon, but, I would say Russia's getting a lot out of these, NATO weapons.
Speaker 0: Last question. Thank you, Patrick, for taking all this time. Do you think The US population, Americans, would have supported this war, which they've paid for for over three years as long as they did if they'd had factual unbiased news coverage of what was actually happening there?
Speaker 1: No. Definitely not. And one reason is to go back to one one of your previous questions about what's not being reported in the West that I could bring to light. Well, let's talk about the people of these areas, specifically the Donetsk and Lugansk areas for the last eleven years just wanting to break away from Ukraine and the right of self determination. And they didn't say this in in the media that these people were not being held down by these rebels or whatever you wanna call them.
These people were doing their best to leave Ukraine, and Ukraine was punishing them for that. This is they voted to break away from Ukraine. So it's I mean, definitely, if the western people would really understand what's really been happening here over the last eleven years, not just the last three years, but the overall situation, there's no way they would have wanted their tax money to be supporting this and killing hundreds of thousands of people.
Speaker 0: I believe that. Patrick Lancaster, thank you for doing this interview. I I hope you're safe. I appreciate it. I hope you'll come back.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, mister Carlson. I appreciate you having me, and I definitely am looking forward to the next time, and hopefully, one day we meet in person.
Speaker 0: Godspeed. Thanks.
reSee.it AI Summary
I question whether Americans are aware of Zelensky's actions against Christianity in Ukraine. Vadym Novynskyi, a former parliament member, now faces prison for defending his church. I discuss Zelensky's attempts to ban Christianity, the global indifference to Christian persecution, and the legitimacy of his authority. I wonder about the implications of U.S. funding for this persecution and the potential for peace under Zelensky's leadership. I also explore the impact of the war on Ukrainian lives and the possibility of mass immigration.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Do Americans have any idea that Zelensky has declared war on Christianity in Ukraine? Vadym Novynskyi knows. He spent three terms in the Ukrainian parliament but now risks prison for defending his church. (0:00) Zelensky’s Attempt to Ban Christianity in Ukraine (4:31) Why Is the Rest of the World Ignoring the Christian Persecution in Ukraine? (6:09) Zelensky’s Illegitimate Authority (8:20) Is Novynskyi Worried He’ll Be Killed for Speaking Out? (11:59) Why Is Speaker Mike Johnson and Congress Still Funding the Persecution of Christians? (14:11) How Much Has Zelensky Profited From This War? (16:05) Is the Ukrainian Government Selling NATO Weapons? (16:35) How Zelensky Went From Ukraine’s Peace Candidate to the President of War (18:26) Why Did Zelensky Push to Join NATO Knowing Putin Would Invade? (21:42) Was Zelensky Prepared for the Russian Invasion? (23:55) How Many Ukrainians Have Died? (24:43) Will Ukraine See Mass Immigration Because of the War? (26:14) Is Peace Possible With Zelensky in Power? (27:57) What Can Christians Around the World Do to Help? Includes paid partnerships.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims the Ukrainian government under Zelenskyy is persecuting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the largest Christian denomination in Ukraine, despite 95-97% of its members voting for Zelenskyy as a "president of peace." A law has allegedly been passed banning the church, with archbishops persecuted, false criminal cases opened, parishioners beaten, and churches seized. Satanism is allegedly flourishing.
The speaker alleges Zelenskyy incites hatred based on lies and deceit. He claims it was impossible to speak the truth about the church in the Western press until recently. Zelenskyy is accused of usurping authority by exceeding his term limit after destroying the constitutional court. The speaker says he is under sanctions and faces criminal investigations for supporting the church. He describes a dictatorship with restricted rights, forced mobilization, and a society living in fear.
The speaker asks that aid to Ukraine be used for the people, not stolen by the elite, and not used to support those seizing churches. He cannot confirm or deny reports that Zelenskyy and his family have become rich during the war, or that NATO weapons have been sold. He says Zelenskyy ran as a peace candidate but has become a dictator. He believes Zelenskyy knew Russia would invade if Ukraine joined NATO. He accuses Zelenskyy of denying the possibility of a Russian invasion until the very end. He says Zelenskyy is the biggest obstacle to peace. He asks Christians worldwide for prayers and support.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you for joining us. I think very few Americans understand the degree to which the Ukrainian government under Zelenskyy has persecuted the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Can you give us an overview of what your government has done to your church?
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, our government led by Zelensky has opened up a campaign persecution and depression against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the largest church in Ukraine, the largest denomination of Christians in Ukraine. Before the war, there were 12,000 parishes and 7,000,000 believers in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. And despite the fact that it's the largest denomination and that 95 to 97% voted for Zelenskyy as the president of peace, he is doing this to our church. He's persecuting and oppressing our church. Over the past ten years, persecution has intensified.
And currently, right now, it is leading to terrible consequences. As you know, in parliament, a law has been passed which actually, in fact, bans the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. So our archbishops are subjected to persecution. There are completely false criminal cases opened up against them. Our parishioners beaten.
Our church is taken away. So satanism is flourishing in Ukraine. So some Metropolitans are in prison. Some are under house arrest. Some examples are Metropolitan Arseny, who's currently in prison, who's the head of the Sverigors Collaborative.
He's in prison under completely false accusations. Metropolitan Firosi, Metropolitan Luca, Metropolitan Anthony, they're all under house arrest. Another big example is Metropolitan Longinus, who actually has an orphanage in his church, which has more than 600 disabled children. He's a man of love, and he's still being persecuted, all for being faithful to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Every day, churches and temples are seized by soldiers with machine guns who come in, who throw out priests, beat believers, children, old people, women, countless priests, countless attempts of Chernivitsky, which is a temple that's been attempted to be taken over.
So every day, it is happening all over Ukraine. One cannot help but feel deeply dissatisfied with these events, and one cannot help but fear that our churches may continue to experience this persecution from the government. Why
Speaker 0: do you suppose Zelenskyy is doing this? What is his motive?
Speaker 1: It is important to understand the atmosphere that currently prevails in the country. It is basically inciting hatred is the basis of politics. The hatred that is based on lies, deceit. Our church tells the truth. Our church exposes sin, and our church basically is right now, it's a favorable time for our church.
Everyone can show their loyalty and faith despite all the persecution, despite all of the oppression. We pray for the authorities. We pray for Zelenskyy that at one point, they may come to their senses and stop. We truly hope that Zelensky may fulfill his promise and restore religious peace because 95 to 97% voted for Zelensky, voted for him as a peace president and for him to stop the religious hatred going on in our country.
Speaker 0: Why do you think the world has ignored this attack on Christianity in Ukraine?
Speaker 1: I can tell you that a year ago, it was impossible to say a word of truth in the Western press, even the American press, about what is happening to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. There was a whole block on the truth of what is happening in religious life in Ukraine. And the first person to break this wall of silence was you who invited Robert Amsterdam, who is the official representative of Ukrainian Orthodox Church, who began speaking the truth, and you broadcast this truth. Very proud. Proud.
For this, thank you. And a big thank you to JD Vance, who, while he was still a congressman, raised his voice in support of our church. He was the only politician in the West who defended our church. At that time, it was extremely important for us. But apart from you, no other serious publication would publish and would show what kind of attacks are taking place on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine.
Because Zelenskyy was given a vote of confidence, and in the eyes of the western public, he became a leader of the nation. And anything that he was doing was accepted without question.
Speaker 0: But Zelenskyy is not an elected president at this point. He's gone past his term, and there has been no election. So he has, from what I can tell, no authority to do this. By what authority is he doing this?
Speaker 1: Well, it's the authority that he usurped for himself. Basically, in accordance with the constitution, there's an elected term of five years, and the president cannot be elected for more than that. This decision was made in May 2014, but everyone forgot about it. Now the constitutional court is not working. It was destroyed by Zelenskyy.
So there's no way to confirm or affirm. There's no way to basically legitimize his role.
Speaker 0: Picture the house of your dreams. Maybe it's got an outdoor pool, a huge front porch, an inviting fireplace for a cold winter's night. No matter what you prefer, there's little doubt that an American flag waving out front enhances the whole thing. What better way to welcome your guests than with a flag outside your home? But wait, there's a problem.
The American flags you're likely to buy at some big stores were made in China. An American flag made in China? Come on. PureTalk, America's wireless company, believes every American deserves an American flag that was made in America, and that's why they're determined to give an allegiance flag, the highest quality American flag, to a thousand veterans in time for summer. Pure Talk is using a portion of this month's sales to honor flag day and provide these American flags to American veterans.
With plans from just $25 a month for limited talk, text, plenty of data, you can enjoy America's most dependable five g network while cutting your cell phone bill in half for real. Go to puretalk.com/talker to support veterans and to switch to America's company, wireless from PureTalk. So you're describing a dictatorship. Are you worried about your safety after saying something like this?
Speaker 1: Just appearing on your show, I already have an understanding that I will be further persecuted by the Zelensky government authorities. As you know, I'm under sanctions. I was personally sanctioned by Zelenskyy. He signed three decrees imposing sanctions on me under various pretexts. I have various criminal investigations going on against me for false and groundless accusations.
And after this interview and after I say what I think is happening in our country, I am sure that there will be more persecution against me, but I'm not afraid. It's actually illegal to impose sanctions against the Ukrainian citizen. There's only one instance where you can, which is when it's been proven that he was financing terrorist activities. So right now, sanctions are our president's favorite weapon. He likes to hit whoever he can with them, any opponents, critics, businessmen, religious leaders.
So based on religious principles, I've been sanctioned based on religious principles for my support of the church for the last twenty years. I've been put in a list with other religious individuals as the senior deacon of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. I'm number one on that list. The judicial branch is not functioning and is currently paralyzed. There are no laws at present.
As the president said, the constitution has been put on pause. So these are indicators that currently there is a dictatorship. A citizen's rights and freedoms are restricted. There is no freedom of speech. It is understandable that during wartime, a person can't fully have freedom of speech, but the president and his administration have fully monopolized the right to freedom of speech.
Rights are restricted. Courts are not working. All of these are indications of dictatorship. People are subjected to forced mobilization where men are taken off the street, put in buses, and then sent to the front lines. In the Ukrainian society, Ukrainian people are living in an atmosphere of fear.
So because if you express criticism of Zelenskyy, then you have the secret police come in the next day, and you will be subjected to persecution. Of course, in wartime, it is essential for society to be united. Instead, he divides them based on various criteria. So religion, history, culture, heroes, language. Society is divided.
It's a very unfair policy of division when it should be unification.
Speaker 0: The United States is is paying for all of this to happen. The speaker of the house of the United States Congress is a man who describes himself as a Christian and he's been paying for this. His name is Speaker Johnson. I'm wondering if there's something that you'd like to say to him and other Christians in the US Congress about the fact the money they send is being used to extinguish the largest Christian denomination. What would you say to them?
Speaker 1: I would like to wish that the assistance and the funds that are provided keep being provided to the Ukrainian people. Because right now, the Ukrainians are struggling for survival. They're struggling for the survival of their families. You have to understand that the Ukrainian authorities, they live in parallel realities. The Ukrainian people are thinking of how to survive, how to feed their families, how to be happy, and it's a completely different reality to the Ukrainian authorities.
The authorities live a different life, so they profit from war. And the national idea of the Ukrainian elite is to steal money and to spend it abroad. It would be great if the money that was sent was spent optimally and to help the people. And for this, ultimately, we need to keep an eye on the way that the money is being spent and the way it is used so that it's actually used for the benefit of the people rather than for the Ukrainian elite. Also, it would be good if the money that comes in if we don't spend it to support those who are seizing our churches.
The only canonical church in Ukraine, the largest denomination, the thousand year old church that is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Speaker 0: We have seen reports that Zelensky and his family have become rich during the war. Do you believe those reports are true?
Speaker 1: No. So we have a saying. There is no smoke without fire. And if some information comes out, then it means there's a possibility of it happening. However, I can't say yes or I can't say no.
I can't confirm or deny. There has to be irrefutable evidence for us to be able to confirm it. If
Speaker 0: there's one thing we've learned over the past couple of years, it's that when things go south unexpectedly, and they do, you are in charge of your family's health and safety, not the authorities, you. And so prepare, think it through ahead of time. You remember that during the dark days of COVID, for example, you kept hearing about a medication, a medicine called ivermectin. Doctors have used ivermectin for decades, treating parasites, viruses, even studying it as a potential cancer treatment. But you were not allowed to use it.
In fact, were a bad person if you even used the word. But at JACE, they've thought this through and they've looked at the evidence. The doctors at Jace have created a powerful anti parasite formula made with a blend that includes ivermectin. It's the fastest, most affordable option on the market and getting it actually is simple. Getting that and other life saving medications is just a matter of going to jace.com.
Jace is j a s e. You fill out a brief online consultation, and a Jace doctor quickly reviews your information. Within minutes, your medication could be on its way to you, delivered right to your door. That and a lot of other life saving medications. So don't wait till there's a disaster.
Take back control of your family's health and safety. You can get emergency antibiotics as well. Go to Jace.com. Use the discount code Tucker. Jace.com.
Discount code Tucker. We have also received reports that the Ukrainian government has sold some number of NATO weapons. Have you heard that, and do you believe it's true?
Speaker 1: I have no information on this. I can't confirm or refute this. Which You have to be very immersed in this issue and to be in Ukraine to understand whether that is true or false.
Speaker 0: Yes. How how long have you known Zelenskyy?
Speaker 1: Well, I think a lot of people have known Zelenskyy well before he became president when he was one of the best or one of the most important people in the entertainment industry. He played serious roles in TV shows, and he was a very important entertainer in Ukraine. I never personally encountered him, but we became known to each other after he became president.
Speaker 0: He ran as the peace candidate, you said. What happened? How did that change?
Speaker 1: So in the elections, he received 73% of the votes. 73% of people who voted for him wanted peace. He actually said in his inauguration speech, for the sake of peace, I'm ready to sacrifice my fame, my popularity, my rating, and my position of my post if I have to, if it will help bring peace. He also said the following, that I've been making Ukrainians smile, and for the next five years, I want to make sure that they don't cry. So instead, right now, what do you see?
Instead of smiles on their faces, there are tears on their faces. And instead of giving up his position, he's turning into a dictator. And there's no peace in the country. There's war under him. War came to Ukraine during his presidency.
And did he do everything to avoid it? That's a question that many people have begun asking. Obviously, not voicing it, but in secret because they could face persecution. Many are publicly asking it. Unfortunately, that is the case.
Speaker 0: When Zelensky said in the winter of twenty twenty two that he wanted Ukraine to join NATO, he knew that Russia would come across the border if Ukraine joined NATO, but he said it anyway. Why do you think he did that?
Speaker 1: So what is the base for Ukrainian sovereignty? It's actually the declaration of sovereignty where it says that Ukraine will have a nonaligned status, so it will not be part of a bloc. But in 2018, during the election campaign, Poroshenko, the former president, he made changes to the constitution regarding Ukraine's desire to join NATO. This contradicted the basic declaration when in the beginning, Ukraine made the declaration to be sovereign and independent. That we wanted to be members of NATO would annoy our northern neighbor.
And he knew that eventually there could be an invasion and war. When I was deputy in the parliament, I said, if anything were to happen like this, then Russia would go all the way. But, nevertheless, he kept mentioning it and made it an option. And it would have been possible to avoid war had Ukraine implemented the obligations that it took on by the Minsk agreements. In accordance with which Donetsk and Lugansk received a certain autonomous status within Ukraine.
But despite the adoption of the Minsk agreement in 2015, we kept stretching out its actual implementation for seven years and actively build an anti Russia in Ukraine. I'm in no way justifying Russia and the Russian authorities that they did this act of aggression upon Ukraine. The issue is different. The Ukrainian people entrusted their power to Zelenskyy that he will not allow a war into the country and that he will provide peace. The task of authorities is to ensure safe conditions in the country and good conditions for development and growth and to ensure security of its borders.
And to try to live in peace or at least be neutral with all of its neighbors. Unfortunately, it was part of Shankar who began this, and then Zelensky continued because he's his worst copy. But they got into arguments with all of their neighbors. So Russia, Belarus, Hungary, Slovenia had a whole lot of arguments with Poland.
Speaker 0: Was Zelenskyy prepared for the Russian invasion? Did he know it was coming?
Speaker 1: So as you know, I'm here for the following reason, that a week ago, Zelenskyy accused me of serious charges that during the beginning of the invasion, by phone, I tried to force him to surrender, to give up territory, to basically betray his homeland in accordance with Ukrainian law. And I could say that until the very end, Zelenskyy denied that aggression from Russia was possible despite the fact that he had irrefutable evidence from Western counterparts from intelligence within Ukraine. However, he didn't do anything to prevent it because, obviously, it's impossible to prepare for a war in such a short time, but it's also difficult to fight against such a stronger enemy, so some preventative measures should have been taken. On the February 23, a day before the full scale invasions, Zelensky gathered together at his oval table in the Office Of The President, all of the representatives of the business. And there, he tried to persuade everyone that there's going to be no invasion, no war, and that them as government authorities are going to do everything possible for this war not to happen.
And when I was given a chance to speak, I said that we had listened to reports from the security block, the security forces, and that if there's at least one chance in a thousand for us to do something to prevent this war, then we should definitely do it. Because the information we heard was alarming. And we must do everything possible to prevent this from happening because Ukraine needs peace. People need peace. And the next day at 5AM, the invasion began.
The war started. I was in Kyiv. My whole family was in Kyiv. By then, it all started.
Speaker 0: How many Ukrainians have been killed in this war do you believe?
Speaker 1: No one knows the exact figure. The only one that knows the exact figure is God. He knows exactly how many. Unfortunately, no one knows the exact figure. There are official numbers that have been voiced personally by Zelensky.
There are numbers that have been calculated in the western press by western war analysts. There are numbers that are going around to the Ukrainian people, but no one knows the exact number. I've heard it could be tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, but no one knows the exact number. But the number, whatever it is, is going on too much. Are
Speaker 0: you concerned that given how many Ukrainians have died and have left that foreigners will move into your country, that you will get huge migration into Ukraine?
Speaker 1: To be honest right now, I'm more concerned about peace in Ukraine and an end to this awful war and to the end of the loss of life. We honestly pray for this, for peace to reach our country. And I'd like to just thank president Trump for having the political will and the strong desire to end this war because five months ago, it was impossible to say that there would be negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. And right now, they're going on, and new plans for negotiations are emerging. And all of this is thanks to Trump's strong will.
Basically, with Trump, the US has begun to export peace to Ukraine. And as for migrants, I would just like for all Ukrainians to return home. And after we've reached peace through joint efforts to rebuild Ukraine together and make it back into the peaceful, hardworking, flourishing country that it was ten years ago.
Speaker 0: Can can you reach a peace settlement with Zelenskyy running your government? Is that possible?
Speaker 1: It will be very difficult to achieve even with the strong will and influence of president Trump because on the path to peace, unfortunately, the biggest obstacle right now is Zelensky himself as well as his close circle. Well, because when peace comes, there's a high probability that Zelensky will lose his power. Many will start asking questions when peace comes, like why was the war allowed to happen? Why wasn't the Istanbul agreement signed? Because we all know the essence of what was agreed to in Istanbul.
And had it been agreed to and had it been signed, there would not have been hundreds of thousands of lives lost. There wouldn't have been a threat to the sovereignty of Ukraine. There would not have been such destruction, and there would not have been a loss of territory, which might happen now. If we trace the history of the signings of various agreements starting from the Minsk agreement and then to the Istanbul agreement. And fortunately, with every agreement, the terms and conditions of the agreements deteriorated for Ukraine.
They were worse and worse. They became more unfavorable. And unfortunately, if there is another agreement, which I hope there is, but unfortunately, the conditions will be even more unfavorable. But a lot of lives have been lost in the process and a lot of blood has spilled. My
Speaker 0: my last question, thank you for taking the time to do this interview, is what can Christians around the world do to help you, churches around the world, believers around the world do to help you as you try to prevent Zelenskyy from extinguishing Christianity in Ukraine?
Speaker 1: In this process of persecution against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, unfortunately, a large part has been taken by the ecumenical patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. Unfortunately, they're doing this together. And the fact that not once has he raised his voice in support of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church despite all of its persecution proves that he is actually involved in all of this. But we do receive a lot of support. We receive a lot of support from the Jerusalem church, the Georgia church, the Serbian church, and their patriarchs.
And we receive a lot of brotherly love and support and a lot of prayer because that is our main strength, prayer. And the church will not be defeated. A true canonical church will not be defeated. The communists cannot defeat us in the twentieth century because Christ is the church. The head of the church is Christ, and consequences will be bad for those who oppose him.
And we will pass these trials, and we will be purified. And we are very grateful to you and for everyone doing anything for our church.
Speaker 0: Amen. Nicely put, and many are praying for you. Thank you for telling us about the darkness in Ukraine. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. You.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Paid partnerships with: PureTalk: Go to https://PureTalk.com/Tucker to make the switch Jase Medical: Go to https://Jase.com and use code TUCKER at checkout for a discount.
PureTalk | Premium Cell Phone Service | 50% Off 1st Mo.
Choose PureTalk for affordable unlimited talk, text, and data cell phone plans. Major 5G network. No hidden fees. Sign up today to get 50% off.
puretalk.com
JASE Medical Emergency Antibiotic Medication Kits
JASE Medical is the Leading Authority For Emergency Antibiotics & Preparedness Medications. Get Your Life Saving Medications and Emergency RX Supplies Today.
jasemedical.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared concerns about Trump sending $500 million in arms to Ukraine, highlighting the persecution of pro-Russian women and forced conscription of Ukrainian Christians. I also mentioned a disturbing incident in a Kiev metro where a woman was beaten, and I pointed out the Jewish leadership in Ukraine under Zelensky.
@Truthtellerftm - Truth_teller 🇷🇺
Trump recently sent $500 million worth of arms to Ukraine, while they continue to persecute pro Russian women and they forcefully conscript Ukrainian Christians. A young woman is beaten below in a Kiev metro and the crowd cheers and says she’s for Russia so it’s allowed. Ukraine is led by Zionist Jew Zelensky and 2/3rds of his cabinet is Jewish. Trump supports Jewish supremacy in Ukraine.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Спікер 0 описує хаотичний монолог із повтореннями. У тексті звучать фрагменти: "Зпіймав анубадетика, наливий гарбуз!" та "Викинь її находь з вагона просто!" Також звучить: "Хлопець! Росія. Шобой, а нормально, все!" Далі: "Барина худоба, нормально, росія. Викинь із поїзда просто. Накурово!" Описуються дії щодо того, щоб щось викинули з вагона, з акцентом на Росію та абстрактні образи. Текст створює відчуття непослідовного, експресивного обговорення з персонажем, який видає репліки.
Speaker 0 describes a chaotic monologue with repetitions. The text features fragments: "Зпіймав анубадетика, наливий гарбуз!" and "Викинь її находь з вагона просто!" It also includes: "Хлопець! Росія. Шобой, а нормально, все!" Later: "Барина худоба, нормально, росія. Викинь із поїзда просто. Накурово!" The actions described involve ejecting something from a wagon, with a focus on Russia and abstract imagery. The text conveys a sense of inconsistent, expressive discussion with a character issuing lines and quotes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Зпіймав анубадетика, наливий гарбуз! Викинь її находь з вагона просто! Хлопець! Росія. Шобой, а нормально, все!
Барина худоба, нормально, росія. Викинь із поїзда просто. Накурово!
reSee.it AI Summary
I discuss the current situation in Gaza, labeling it as genocide and asserting that the U.S. should remain uninvolved. I provide an update on the Ukraine/Russia war and critique the West's Russophobia. I question NATO's relevance and highlight the threats posed by China, which I argue the U.S. has inadvertently empowered. I examine the U.S. foreign policy establishment's hawkish stance on Middle Eastern conflicts, the prioritization of Israel's interests, and the growing opposition to Israel among younger generations. I also touch on the authoritarianism in Israel and speculate on future global dynamics.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
John Mearsheimer: What’s happening in Gaza is genocide. The United States should have nothing to do with it. (0:00) An Update on the Ukraine/Russia War (5:13) The West’s Ridiculous Russophobia (15:47) Why Do We Still Have NATO? (25:29) The Growing Threat of China and How the US Empowered Them (39:30) The US Puppet Called Zelensky (41:48) Donald Trump’s Biggest Challenges With Ending the War (48:14) Why the US Foreign Policy Establishment Is So Hawkish on Middle Eastern Wars (51:10) Why the US Puts Israel’s Interests First (56:13) The Palestinian Genocide (1:05:32) The Zionist Mission for Greater Israel (1:11:24) The Power of the Israel Lobby (1:20:53) The Attempts to Shut Down Criticism of Israel (1:32:58) Why Are Christians in the West Supporting Israel’s Killing of Christians in the Middle East? (1:38:10) The Growing Opposition Towards Israel Among Young People (1:42:45) Why Don’t We Know the Death Toll of Any of These Wars? (1:53:27) The Authoritarianism That Has Infected Israel (1:55:25) Will Israel Rebuild the Third Temple? (1:58:22) What Is Being Hidden in the 9/11, Epstein, and JFK Files? (2:01:07) The Future of the Global Stage (2:08:26) Will There Be a US/China War Over Taiwan? Includes paid partnerships.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker argues the Russia-Ukraine war is a defeat for the West, with Russia poised to win. He claims Ukraine cannot win due to imbalances in weaponry and manpower, and the West is unwilling to negotiate acceptable terms with Russia. Russia's demands include Ukraine's neutrality, demilitarization, and acceptance of Russia's annexation of Crimea and four oblasts, which are unacceptable to Ukraine and the West.
He asserts that Russophobia in the West prevents acknowledging Russia's legitimate security concerns, analogous to the US Monroe Doctrine. He dismisses the idea that Russia intends to dominate Europe, citing their struggles in conquering eastern Ukraine.
He believes NATO expansion eastward, particularly into Ukraine, provoked the conflict. He says the US foreign policy establishment is incompetent and driven by emotion rather than strategic interests, leading to a closer relationship between Russia and China.
He contends the US has a special relationship with Israel that overrides American interests, evidenced by unconditional support despite conflicting interests, and accuses Israel of executing a genocide in Gaza with US complicity, aiming to ethnically cleanse Palestinians. He anticipates a dangerous frozen conflict in Ukraine and potential escalation due to Western desperation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Professor, thank you for doing this. The arc of and it's not the topic of today's conversation, but the arc of your career as someone who's just watched it pretty carefully all of these years. You've wound up where I think all of us wanna be, which is universally respected regardless an oracle. It must be sort of nice to look back and be vindicated. So anyway, so I'm honored to have you.
Where are we in Ukraine right now? Well, we're in deep trouble
Speaker 1: if you mean The United States Yes.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: You talk about we. The fact is that the Russians are winning the war, and there's no way that Ukraine can rescue the situation. If you look at the balance of power, in terms of weaponry and in terms of manpower, the number of soldiers that each side has, the Ukrainians are in a hopeless situation. And furthermore, they're heavily dependent on the West for support, and president Trump has made it clear that he's not going to refill the Biden pipeline, once all the weaponry in that pipeline runs out. So the Ukrainians are doomed, and if you look at what's happening on the battlefield, it's quite clear that the Ukrainians understand that.
Their defenses are slowly but steadily collapsing. Now one might say, well, can't we get a negotiated settlement? Can't we bring this war to an end? And the fact is that neither the Ukrainians nor the West, and here we're talking mainly about the Europeans, is willing to cut a deal that's acceptable to the Russians. So there's no way you're gonna have a diplomatic settlement to this war.
It's gonna be settled on the battlefield, and the Russians are gonna win an ugly victory, and you're gonna have a frozen conflict.
Speaker 0: Why can't you have a negotiated settlement?
Speaker 1: Because Russia has a set of demands. There are three main demands and I'll spell them out in a second, but they are unacceptable to the Ukrainians. They're unacceptable to the West. Donald Trump may find them acceptable, but he's surrounded by people in his administration and certainly true in the American foreign policy establishment who wouldn't accept those demands. And the big three demands are number one, that Ukraine has to be a neutral state.
It cannot be a NATO, and it cannot have a security guarantee from The United States or from the West more generally. So it has to be neutral. Second is that Ukraine cannot have a significant offensive military capability. Ukraine has to be demilitarized to the point where it doesn't present the threat to Russia. And then third, and maybe most important of all, the Ukrainians and the West have to accept the fact that Russia has annexed Crimea and those four oblasts in Eastern one fifth of Ukraine that they now almost occupy.
So in other words, you're asking Ukraine to give up about 20% of its territory, and the Ukrainians won't do that. And they won't agree not to be in NATO, and they will not agree to disarm in some meaningful way. So there's no way you get a settlement.
Speaker 0: So but there will be a settlement by your description because there will be a victory. So there will just be it's not an official settlement, but there will be a new status quo in which Russia controls a fifth of what was Ukraine, and that's just gonna happen. So why wouldn't you wanna get out of that with
Speaker 1: as little destruction as possible? Well, you're gonna get an armistice in all likelihood, and this is why we say you'll have a a frozen conflict that will present all sorts of problems moving down the road. I have long argued that the Ukrainians should cut a deal now because what's gonna happen is the Russians are gonna end up taking more territory, and the Russians have made it clear that any territory they take, they'll keep. And furthermore, more Ukrainians are gonna die the longer the war goes on. So if you believe like I do and many people do that Ukraine is losing, the smart thing to do is cut a deal now and minimize your losses both in terms of territory and people killed on the battlefield.
But you just can't sell that argument. And Why why can't you sell that argument? I think it's probably nationalism in the case of the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians view the Russians as existential threat, and they're willing to fight and die in huge numbers. They're willing to make incredible sacrifices to do everything they can to win this war, and they just won't quit.
And in terms of the West, it's easy for the So
Speaker 0: I I just wanna say I understand that and respect that. First, I think they're wrong, but I I think it's self defeating. But I certainly think it's honorable, those impulses, but I don't understand the West's stake
Speaker 1: in this exactly. Well, I don't believe the West has a strategic stake in this for one second, but the Russophobia in the West is so powerful at this point in time that especially among the elites in Europe and in The United States that getting them to concede that the Russians have won this war or going to win this war is just unacceptable.
Speaker 0: And have legitimate con security concerns on their border. I mean, that
Speaker 1: They're not allowed. The Russians are not allowed to have legitimate security concerns in the minds of most western elites. Why? I don't know. It it befuddles me.
If you look at the Russian reaction to NATO expansion into Ukraine, which I believe is the taproot of this war, it's analogous to America's Monroe Doctrine. The United States under those circumstances would allow the Soviet Union to put missiles in Cuba or to locate a naval base at Cienfuegos in Cuba. That was just unacceptable. This is what the Monroe Doctrine is all about. Yes.
We'd never allow China to station military forces in Mexico or in Canada, but yet we think we have the right to move NATO far enough eastward to include Ukraine and then put NATO assets, including American military assets in Ukraine, and this is not of concern to the Russians. They shouldn't care. They should recognize that Ukraine has the right to do whatever it wants. NATO has the right to expand wherever it wants, and Russia has no say in the matter. The Russians, of course, don't accept this because they have a Monroe doctrine of their own, But we can't get it through our thick skulls that this is foolish thinking on our part and is destined to lead to trouble as it has.
Speaker 0: It's it's interesting that the standard that US foreign policymakers apply to Russia is different from a standard they'd apply to any other country, including China and even North Korea. They just they don't have the same level of emotion about any other place. It's Russia, Ukraine. And I I find it baffling because on on some level, this is as you said at the outset, this is not about America's strategic interests. We don't really have many there.
This is about an almost overwhelming emotional response from our leadership class to this conflict, to this region. I think it's weird.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think also at this point in time, we have convinced ourselves, both the Europeans and the Americans, that Russia is a mortal threat to dominate all of Europe. This is a ridiculous argument. Course.
Think it is ridiculous? It's a ridiculous argument. As you have seen, the war started in 2022. We're well over five years into this war, and the Russians have had a very difficult time conquering the Eastern 1 Fifth of Ukraine. Just think about that.
Over three plus years, they have been unable to conquer all of the territory in those four oblast that they've annexed. Please tell me how this army is gonna overrun all of Ukraine, then overrun Eastern Europe, and then overrun Western Europe. This is a laughable argument. Furthermore, if the Russians are foolish enough to try to occupy Western Ukraine, they're gonna find themselves in a quagmire. They're gonna find themselves dealing with a huge amount of resistance from all of those ethnic Ukrainians in the Western part of Ukraine who hate Russians.
This is why I don't think Putin is gonna even try to conquer the western half. Much less Poland and Romania and the rest. Exactly. Their view on that, by the way, in terms of occupying Eastern Europe is we've been there, done that, and it did not work out very well. Remember, they occupied Eastern Europe roughly from 1945 to the early nineteen nineties when they pulled out after the cold war ended.
They had to invade Hungary in '56. They had to invade Czechoslovakia in '68. They had to put down a major insurrection in in East Germany in 1953. They almost went into Poland three times. They had their hands full dealing with the Romanians and the Albanians Oh, yeah.
And the Yugoslavs. I mean, the idea that a country like Russia is gonna, you know, invade and occupy and run the politics of countries in Eastern Europe is a remarkably foolish idea. And again, they don't even have the military capability to do that.
Speaker 0: But that is the idea. And when you talk to Europeans about it, as I often do, they say that Putin's aim is to restore the Soviet empire. And he said that, and, you know, just listen to what he says. He wants
Speaker 1: he pines for the Soviet era, and he wants to restore it. He's never said that. In fact, he said that, you know, he can understand why someone in his or her heart pines for the Soviet Union, but in his or her head, it makes absolutely no sense. He said that. The idea that you can recreate the Soviet Union, number one, and then two, recreate the Soviet Empire is a pipe dream.
And you might not like Vladimir Putin, but he is a very smart man. He is a first class strategist and he surely understands that, you know, the idea of recreating the Soviet Union or the Soviet empire makes no sense at all.
Speaker 0: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. A cliche for a reason because it's pretty good advice, but sometimes it's not true. Cell phones are a glaring exception. You've got your cell phone, you've had it for years, You don't change. Sometimes your cell phone battery life fades or maybe your processor can't keep up, but your phone is bound to run into trouble eventually no matter what the problem is.
And replacing it early is much better and often far cheaper than replacing it too late. Enter PureTalk. This month, if you switch to a qualifying $35 plan, $35, PureTalk will give you a Samsung Galaxy a 36 completely free, literally free. Just $35 a month for talk, text, and data, and you get to restart your phone life cycle without paying for a brand new device. So it's a scam free deal.
All on America's most dependable five g network. It's like a cell phone that works as well as any other. It's just way cheaper, and they're not scamming you. So switching is a win for everybody. You save money on your cell phone bill.
PureTalk grows to hire more Americans to support more veterans, which it does. So go to puretalk.com/talker to get your free phone today. That's puretalk.com/talker to switch to our wireless company. It's America's wireless company. It's PureTalk.
You spent ten years in the US military, graduated West Point during the Cold War. Yes. So your life for ten years was focused on the Soviets, of course. No question. No question.
So that's ten years. That's a long time in your young life. How were you able to transition mentally from viewing Russia as an enemy to viewing them as another country? It's an interesting question. Why weren't others able to do that?
Speaker 1: Well, a lot were, but a lot weren't. I think that what happened was that during the Cold War, when I started to think about The US Soviet Competition, the subject that I got interested in was the conventional balance of forces in Europe. It was the NATO Warsaw Pact balance. And I wrote my dissertation on the subject of conventional deterrence, and it focused on the NATO Warsaw Pact balance. And my argument was, which was very controversial at the time, was that the Soviets were not ten feet tall and actually if a war did break out in Central Europe, the west or NATO would do very well, that we would hold off the Soviets, that they would not win a quick and decisive victory, which is the conventional was the conventional wisdom at the time.
So in a very important way, I was engaged in threat deflation. I always thought when you looked at the Soviet Union, this is during the latter part of the cold war when I was coming of age, that we greatly overestimated the threat and that the Soviet Union was not ten feet tall. So once the cold war ends and then we segue into the unipolar moment, I'm already moving in that direction. And then during the nineteen nineties, the Soviet Union, which has become Russia, is a total basket case. I mean, it's the only threat that it represents is to itself.
Yes. Does it represent a threat to the West? And in fact, Tucker, NATO expansion, which really gets going in 1994, that's when Bill Clinton decides to expand NATO, It's not designed to contain Russia because there is no Russian threat. So then Putin comes to power, and what happens from about 2000 up until the present is that the West, and here we're talking about The United States as well, of course, becomes increasingly Russophobic and hostile to Putin. And I think it's in large part because Putin stands up to us.
I think that we get used to the idea, certainly in the nineteen nineties, that we call the shots. It's the unipolar moment. And when we tell countries to jump, their only question is how high. And we get away with that to some extent with Putin to begin with, but then he begins to play hardball with us. And he gives a very famous speech in Munich in 2007 where he throws down the gauntlet.
And from 2007 forward, relations really deteriorate. And as they deteriorate, the Russophobia comes racing to the fore and remains firmly in place today. What what is the point of NATO now? Like, why do
Speaker 0: we still have NATO? What's its objective?
Speaker 1: Well, I think if you asked most Europeans and even many Americans in the American foreign policy establishment, the argument would be that NATO serves as a pacifier. In other words, it keeps the peace in Europe. The United States is the most powerful state in NATO, and The United States sits on top of all the European countries. It provides security for them. It provides a nuclear umbrella for them, and that prevents the European countries from engaging in security competition with each other.
So we are a pacifying force, and this is the reason that the Europeans today
Speaker 0: To prevent intra European conflict?
Speaker 1: European conflict. Interesting. Well, if you think about it, up until 1945 when World War two ends, he would had two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century. And then if you go back in time, European countries had been fighting against each other almost since the beginning of time.
Speaker 0: Well, that's why there are so many European countries and so many languages and different distinct cultures. I mean, you might also make the argument that's why Europe was
Speaker 1: so successful because they were You can certainly make that argument, and you can make the argument that that's why they were able to conquer huge chunks of the planet and create these empires because they were very good at projecting military
Speaker 0: societies before they became
Speaker 1: tourist destinations. Yes. But but anyway, what happens during the Cold War is the Soviets dominate one side of Europe, and we dominate the other side of Europe. And as long as those two great powers are dominating those two halves of Europe, the countries located below them cannot fight among themselves. Okay?
So what happens when the Cold War ends in 1989 and then into the nineteen nineties is that we decide that we're gonna expand NATO eastward. And as I said to you, it's very important to understand that when we expand NATO eastward in the nineties and then the early two thousands, we're not aiming at containing Russia. What we're interested in do is doing is taking the pacifier, the American pacifier that sits over Western Europe and putting it over Eastern Europe and making Europe one giant zone of peace. And the Europeans liked that idea. You wanna remember after 1989, lots of Europeans were very worried about Germany, which reunified when the cold war ended.
Yes. And you can understand why Europeans were very nervous. Yes. But as long as the Americans stay in Europe, as long as NATO remains intact, the pacifier is there. You know, most people don't realize this, but the Soviets and then the Russians were perfectly content to see The United States remain in Europe and for NATO to remain intact after the cold war because the Soviets slash Russians understood that we served as a pacifier.
What they didn't want, and they made this very clear, was NATO expansion. And, of course, what we did starting in 1994 was to expand NATO eastward, again, to move the pacifier from over just Western Europe to over all of Europe. And that is what that is what has produced the catastrophe in Ukraine.
Speaker 0: By the time NATO gets to the Baltics and then we start talking openly as the Biden administration did just openly, like at press conferences about moving NATO into Ukraine, it's very obvious that that's gonna trigger a conflict with Russia at some point. You know, how could it not? Why didn't anyone pause and say, okay. NATO's great. Obviously, there's a massive budget.
We're all getting richer from NATO also. But is it well, let's balance that against, like, a a war with Russia. We don't want that. Did anyone raise that point? Couple points.
Just to get
Speaker 1: the dates right, the second big tranche of NATO expansion, which brings the Baltic States in, is 02/2004. Yep. The first big tranche is 1999. That's Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, '99. Then 2004 is when the Baltic states come in.
2008 is when the critical decision is made, April 2008, to bring Ukraine into NATO. Okay? To get to the heart of your question, what's very interesting is if you go back and look at many of the planning documents from the nineties about NATO expansion, people recognize at the time that Ukraine is a special case, and it will be a huge source of trouble if we move NATO into Ukraine. So you can get away with Poland. You can even get away with the Baltic States, but Ukraine is a different matter.
And it's very important to understand that we understood that from the get go. So the question then becomes what you're asking is why did we do it? Right? What's going on here? Why didn't we just back off?
And I think the answer is we thought we could shove it down their throat. You wanna understand, they opposed the 99 expansion, the first tranche. We just shoved it down their throat.
Speaker 0: Yeah. What's Boris Yeltsin gonna do about it?
Speaker 1: That's right. That's exactly right. What's he gonna do about it? And then 02/2004, Putin's in control now. We shove it down their face, down their throat again.
So in 02/2008, immediately after NATO says at the Bucharest April 2008, NATO Bucharest summit. Immediately after he says that NATO says that, Ukraine will be brought into NATO, Putin makes it manifestly clear that this is unacceptable, that this is an existential threat, and that Russia will not let it happen. And by the way, at that April 2008 NATO summit, they said they were not only gonna bring Ukraine into NATO, they're gonna bring Georgia into NATO. That's April 2008. A war breaks out in Georgia in August 2008 over this very issue.
So you would expect us to back off at that point, but we don't back off. In fact, we double down. And then when the crisis first starts, this is in 02/2014, 02/22/2014, that's when the crisis starts. That's when the Russians take Crimea. This is what you understand or should understand.
The Russians mean business. Do we back off? Do we try to accommodate the Russians in any way? Absolutely not. We plow forward.
And then, of course, we get the war in 2022. And you ask yourself, why did we do this? And by the way, if you look at the process, the decision making process after Joe Biden moves into the White House in January 2021 January 2021, and then thirteen months later, the war breaks out. Biden makes no effort whatsoever to accommodate the Russians. So, again, the question is why?
What's going on here? Yes. We're just gonna shove it down their throat. We think we're Godzilla. We think it's still the unipolar moment.
Speaker 0: We're sorry to say it, but this is not a very safe country. Walk through Oakland or Philadelphia. Yeah. Good luck. So most people, when they think about this, wanna carry a firearm, and a lot of us do.
The problem is there can be massive consequences for that. Ask Kyle Rittenhouse. Kyle Rittenhouse got off in the end, but he was innocent from the first moment. It was obvious once on video, and he was facing life in prison anyway. That's what the anti gun movement will do.
They'll throw you in prison for defending yourself with a firearm, and that's why a lot of Americans are turning to Berna. It's a proudly American company. Berna makes self defense launchers that hundreds of law enforcement departments trust. They've sold over 600,000 pistols, mostly to private citizens who refuse to be empty handed. These pistols, and I have one, fire rock hard kinetic rounds or tear gas rounds and pepper projectiles, and they stop a threat from up to 60 feet away.
There are no background checks. There are no waiting periods. Berna can ship it directly to your door. You can't be arrested for defending yourself with a Berna pistol. Visit Berna, byrna,.com or your local sportsman's warehouse to get your stay.
Berna.com. But why would you want to even if you have absolute power, which, of course, doesn't exist, but let's
Speaker 1: say you believed you had it. Why would you wanna do that? I believe that once the decision is made in 2008 that you're gonna bring NATO to Ukraine. You're gonna bring Ukraine into the alliance that the idea of backing off is unacceptable to The United States and to the West. You just don't do that.
That would be a sign of weakness, and we cannot show weakness. And I think a lot of this thinking has to do with why we won't quit now. One should say to him or herself at this point, it's time to put an end to this war and accept the fact that the Russians have won an ugly victory, but we can't bring ourselves to do that. That would be showing weakness. So instead, we continue to plow on.
Speaker 0: But in, you know, attempting to show strength, we reveal weakness. I mean, that's my concern is, you know, once you project force and it doesn't work, then you're revealed to the world as weak. The limits of your power are obvious to everybody. It's better to threaten than have your true power concealed. People can guess at what you can do.
But now there's no guessing. We couldn't be Russia.
Speaker 1: That's correct. Right. So we
Speaker 0: lost a war to Russia. It's proxy war, but it was a war. And so what does that mean?
Speaker 1: Well, it is a devastating defeat for NATO Yeah. Because we have invested so much in this war. Right? The other problem that we face is that The United States, and this is true of both the Biden and Trump administration, consider China to be the principal threat to The United States. China is a pure competitor.
Russia is not a pure competitor. Russia is not a threat to dominate Europe. Russia is not the Soviet Union. China is a pure competitor. It's a threat to dominate Asia.
And what we've been trying to do since 2011 when Hillary Clinton announced it when she was secretary of state is we've been trying to pivot to Asia. What's happened here is we've got bogged down in Ukraine, and now we're bogged down in The Middle East, and this makes it difficult to fully pivot to Asia. And this is not in the American national interest. But to make matters even worse, what we have done is we have driven the Russians into the arms of the Chinese. Yes.
If you think about it, we live in a world where there are three great powers, United States, China, and Russia. If The United States views China as its principal competitor and The United States is interested in containing China in East Asia, it would make eminently good sense to have Russia on its side of the equation. Instead, what we've done with the Ukraine war is we've driven the Russians and the army, the Russians and the Chinese closer together.
Speaker 0: So that's so obvious even to me, a nonspecialist, just like it's obvious. Look at a map. That it had to have been obvious to the previous administration, but they did it anyway. So you have to kind of wonder, did they want that?
Speaker 1: I think you're underestimating how much strategic sense the American foreign policy establishment has.
Speaker 0: So they're just so incompetent they didn't see that coming?
Speaker 1: Yes. I mean, I'll take it a step further. I mean,
Speaker 0: come on.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about China. This is an even bigger issue. The Cold War ends, and as you well remember, at the end of the Cold War, China and The United States were basically allied together against the Soviet Union. Of course, that was the whole point. Yeah.
Right. So the Soviet Union cold war ends, Soviet Union disappears, and there's no longer any need for us to have a close relationship with China. We don't need them to help contain the Soviet Union. So the question is, what do we do with the Chinese moving forward? And economically, China is a backwards country in the early nineteen nineties.
What we do is we adopt a policy of engagement with China. Engagement is explicitly designed to turn China into a very wealthy country. This is a country that has over four times the population of The United States, and you're talking about making it very rich. For a realist like me, this is lunacy. You are in effect creating a peer competitor.
In fact, you may be creating a country that is more powerful than The United States. But the foreign policy establishment in The United States almost to a person, including hawks like big new Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger, said that China can grow economically. We can integrate it into institutions like the World Trade Organization and so forth and so on, and it will become a democracy, and we will all live happily ever after. Right? So what we did is that we helped fuel China's phenomenal growth between 1990 and 2017 when it became a great power.
You wanna remember that when the Cold War ends and then the Soviet Union collapses in December 1991, we enter the unipolar moment, which by definition means there's one great power on the planet. Yeah. That's The United States Of America. By 02/2017, there are three great powers on the planet, and one of those three great powers is a peer competitor. And we helped create that peer competitor on the foolish belief that if we turn China into a rich country, it would become a liberal democracy, and it would become a friend of The United States, and it would allow us to run international politics the way we did during unipolarity.
This is a remarkably catastrophic decision. It must be strange for
Speaker 0: you having spent your life in this one field, both in the military effectively and then in academia, and you've had tenure at Chicago since '82. Is that right?
Speaker 1: I went to Chicago in '82. I got tenure in 1987.
Speaker 0: So you've been there over forty years working on this suite of topics, this group of topics. When you look around and everybody, even the most famous people in your field, are buying into something that stupid, how does that make you feel? Brzezinski and Kissinger are saying things that are just, like, obviously dumb. That must be weird.
Speaker 1: It's very weird. I remember I debated Zbig in the early two thousands at Carnegie in Washington DC on whether China could rise peacefully. And there's actually a big story in foreign policy, the magazine, that has an abbreviated transcript of our debate. And I remember Zbig was arguing that China can rise peacefully, and I was arguing that China could not rise peacefully and that our policy of engagement was foolish. And as he was speaking and I was sitting on the dais, I was saying to myself, I don't get what's going on here.
Svigniew Brzezinski, who's about 10 notches to the right of me on almost all foreign policy issues, shouldn't be making this argument, but he's making this argument.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And I'm the one who looks like a super hawk. When at the end of the cold war, I was more on the dovish side arguing the Soviets were not 10. And, of course, Big was always arguing the Soviets were ten feet tall. So it was really perplexing. And throughout the nineties and throughout the early two thousands when I argued China could not rise peacefully, I could not get a hearing in The United States.
People just didn't take me seriously. They'd say John's a very smart guy. He's very entertaining. He's amusing, but he's basically crazy when it comes to China. That was the view.
Now, of course, I think everybody understands that I was basically right and they were wrong.
Speaker 0: Your identity is constantly under attack. In just the last year, Americans lost over $16,000,000,000 to scammers online. Anyone can fall victim to this. Your Social Security number, your bank account, your credit profile can be exposed, and you won't even know it. And the second they are exposed, thieves can take out loans in your name, open credit cards, wreck your life financially.
Identity Guard can save you. Identity Guard monitors everything from your credit card to your bank accounts, your Social Security number, looking for early signs of fraud before damage is done. If something weird happens, you get an instant alert. Someone does steal your identity. Identity Guard's expert team works directly with banks, credit card companies, and lenders to shut it down quickly.
End the scam. Having your identity stolen is a nightmare. Someone in this country becomes a victim of identity theft every six seconds. Identity Guard protects you. Thirty day free trial and exclusive discount at identityguard.com/tucker.
Protect yourself before it's too late. Identityguard.com/tucker. It's just but there hasn't I mean, if you had a field, just pick some other field, structural engineering. And if you had America's corpus of structural engineers, and they also know each other, the eminent ones are friends, and all the bridges they built started to fall down, there would be an immediate reorganization of the field. You would say, this just put you know, you don't know what you're doing.
Look. Look at the results. I don't understand how you could have this many decades of back to back foreign policy disasters and not have a wholesale reorganization of, like, the brain trust.
Speaker 1: I agree. Let me just let me I I mean, I let me just tell you one other story. Let's go back to the nineteen nineties, talk about NATO expansion. As I said to you, the Clinton administration made the decision in '94. One might think that there was overwhelming support for NATO expansion in the foreign policy establishment.
There actually was not. Bill Perry, who was Clinton's secretary of defense, was adamantly opposed to any NATO expansion and thought about resigning as secretary of defense over the issue. The chairman of the joint chiefs was opposed. Jean Kirkpatrick, Paul Nitza, George Kennan. There's a laundry list of prominent people who were opposed to NATO expansion.
Anyway, the decision is made in '94, the first tranche is in 1999, and then the opposition disappears. There's no more opposition. Disappears. Disappears. And as this situation regarding NATO expansion deteriorates over time, especially once the decision is made to bring Ukraine into NATO, you would think that we would begin to do an about face that more and more people would begin to appear who make the argument that NATO expansion into Ukraine is a bad idea.
Again, in the nineteen nineties, people were making that argument, but that doesn't happen at all. And I become in many ways the principal person who argues that we're responsible for the February. I wrote a piece in foreign affairs after the crisis broke out in February 2014, but there are remarkably few people who are questioning whether further, pushing down the road to bring Ukraine into NATO makes sense. Right?
Speaker 0: No. They're doubling down.
Speaker 1: They're doubling
Speaker 0: you're getting people at the Atlantic Council say, you know what? Well, I guess we have to use nukes now. I mean, you see people get not just refused to reflect or repent, but become, like, actively crazy. Just crazy. Like, no.
Tactical nukes. I mean, you know, we're not gonna win without them. People are saying
Speaker 1: that, as you know. What is that? Well, it will be a devastating blow for us to lose the war in Ukraine. And when foreign policy elites get desperate, they do reckless things or they talk in reckless ways. Right.
Right. This is why, by the way, the Ukraine war, even once it's settled and becomes a frozen conflict, will be so dangerous. Right? Because it the fact that it is a defeat for the West and that we have been humiliated and that we lost this major war that we were so deeply committed to will give people incentives to try to reverse the tide, to rescue the situation. And when people are desperate, they sometimes pursue very risky strategies.
So once this war becomes a frozen conflict, we're gonna have to worry about it reescalating.
Speaker 0: It seems very easy for, you know, a reckless government in Kyiv to provoke Moscow, basically. I mean, you've seen it, you know, sending drone swarms onto air bases or in you know, setting the Kremlin on fire, which they did and got no publicity, but they have done that. It's just it's it's this weird asymmetrical arrangement where they Ukraine actually has quite a bit of power to stoke a global conflict and incentive to do it, don't they?
Speaker 1: Mhmm. That's exactly right. What they wanna do is they wanna see the war escalate because they wanna bring us in. If if the Ukrainians have any hope of rescuing the situation, it's to bring NATO into the fight. Exactly.
Actually doing the fighting. And We've
Speaker 0: seen this in other regions. It's it's a bad idea to get allow other countries an incentive to suck in The United States because they will.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I mean, you see this with the Israelis and Iran. Right? In 2024, the Israelis tried to bait us into the war, into a war against Iran on two separate occasions. And the Biden administration, much to its credit, did not take debate, but Donald Trump did take debate.
Right? The Israelis have long had a deep seated interest in getting us involved against Iran because they understand they can't defeat Iran by themselves and they can do it, they think, with us. So this is analogous to the situation with regard to Ukraine. The Ukrainians, as you said, have a deep seated interest in getting us into the fight.
Speaker 0: So as long as we're tied to Ukraine, if there's an implicit security guarantee, so kind of is at this point, I mean, there has been, why don't we have an interest in, like, controlling the government of Ukraine? You can't well, in other words, why do we have Zelenskyy running Ukraine, this unelected lunatic running Ukraine, when we have skin in the game? Like, why why do we allow that?
Speaker 1: Well, we've been content with Zelenskyy up to now, and the Europeans love Zelenskyy. Why? He's committed to continuing the war, and he is very good at public relations in the West. He has excellent advisers. He's a former actor.
He knows how to play the game. So he's good at dealing with the West, and and he does what we want. I mean, it's not like he's doing things that we don't want him to do. No. That's right.
He he he is our man. And once he ceases to be our man, we'll go to great lengths to put somebody else in his place.
Speaker 0: But both Europe and The United States have become poorer and weaker during the course of the Ukraine war, probably as a result of the Ukraine war. So I don't really see how we're winning. How is The US benefiting from this? How is how is Western Europe benefiting from this?
Speaker 1: Well, I think that it's Europe, Western Europe in particular, that's been hurt economically Yes. By this war, not so much us. And one could argue that we've we've benefited on the margins at the expense of the European.
Speaker 0: Well, the US dollar kind of is I mean, it's no it's obviously not a safe haven anymore. So, I mean, it's just a matter of time, I would say.
Speaker 1: Well, the question is how much of that is due to the Ukraine war versus other American policies?
Speaker 0: I'm sure that there are a million factors, but kicking Russia at a swift, just stealing the personal property of the so called oligarchs behavior, lawless crazy behavior like that sends a message to the world that, like, don't keep your wealth in dollars because it can become an instrument of war. I mean, that's my view on it anyway.
Speaker 1: Yeah. There's no question about that. Yeah. There's no question about that that but we the problem is that we're now so deeply committed Yeah. That we we just can't turn the ship around.
Speaker 0: Do we have any leverage at all left? Notice administration is threatening today that in twelve days we're going to do something with sanctions, then secondary sanctions against China and India if they buy Russian oil. I mean, that any of that meaningful?
Speaker 1: I don't think secondary the threat of secondary sanctions is meaningful. I mean, the economic consequences for the world and for The United States would be disastrous if they actually were put into effect and worked. I think the Chinese and Indians would just blow them off at this point. Yeah. So I don't think that they'll work.
We have no cards to play. If we had cards to play, Biden would have played those cards. I mean, one fundamental difference between Biden and Trump is that Biden was fully committed to the war and wanted to do everything he could to make sure The United States stayed in the game and continued to support Ukraine no matter what. Trump definitely wanted to end the war. He's been unsuccessful.
He really doesn't know what he's doing. He doesn't know how to end the war, but he does wanna end it. And the question you really have to ask yourself is what is he gonna put into the pipeline, the Biden pipeline once the weaponry dries up? And I don't think that Trump is gonna end up giving the Ukrainians a lot more weaponry. So I think he's gonna basically allow the Ukrainians to be defeated on the battlefield.
This is gonna be a huge problem for Trump because he's gonna be blamed for losing Ukraine. The problem that Trump runs into is the same problem that Biden ran into with Afghanistan. Remember, Trump was the one who wisely decided we're getting out of Afghanistan. Yes. He was smart to do that, but it was Biden who actually took us out of Afghanistan, and that was a disaster.
And he got all sorts of mud spilled on him, for taking us out of Afghanistan. Well, what's gonna happen in Ukraine at some point is the Russians are gonna win, and Trump is gonna get blamed for that. Yeah. And I think one of the reasons that Trump is so hesitant on Ukraine is not simply because he's surrounded by advisers who are super hawks Ukraine and wanna hang on to the bitter end. It's also because Trump understands that when Ukraine loses, it will be seen as having happened on his watch.
No question. Yeah. No question. He he doesn't want that to happen. This is why Trump was deeply committed to negotiating a settlement.
Why couldn't why didn't that work? It didn't work because Trump would have to accept Russia's three key demands that I spelled out to you at the start of the show. And those three key demands are unacceptable to almost every person in the American foreign policy establishment and almost every, foreign policy elite in Europe. Trump is an outlier on the whole issue of Ukraine. He, JD Vance, and a handful of other people, and they're not in a position to bite the bullet and say, we will accept the main Russian demands and go from there.
And by the way, even if they do accept the main Russian demands, the fact is that there will be huge resistance from the foreign policy establishments on both sides of the Atlantic.
Speaker 0: So sometimes when people sell products on TV, I love this product. I use this product. There's the question in the mind of the viewer, does this guy really use the product? Does he really love the product? Would he keep the product at home?
Ask my dogs. Yes. Now, we are in a garage. I'm not gonna tell you where it is because again, this is prepping, but this is my garage. There's a gun safe, and this is a part of my stock pile of Ready Hour.
Completely real. The second I put it here, the second Ready Hour sent it to me, I felt peace of mind. Because no matter what happens, we're not going hungry in my house. I moved a lot of fishing gear out of the way to keep it in my garage, and ever since it's been here, I have felt the peace of mind that comes from knowing my family's not going hungry no matter what. Lastcountrysupply.com.
Lastcountrysupply.com, it can be in your garage along with the peace of mind that comes with having it. Well, I can't think of a group I'm less interested in listening to than the foreign policy establishment. I mean, again, that just seems so totally discredited. It's like dating tips from Jeffrey Epstein. It's like, who cares what they say?
Speaker 1: But I guess Well, they still wield enormous power.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Apparently. This is
Speaker 1: the problem that Trump faces. Right? I mean, Trump had this problem in spades the first time he was elected. Trump comes into the White House, and he has to pick advisers. But it's not like he has a large number or even a small number of foreign policy experts who share his foreign policy views.
Right? Because he has to draw from the establishment. Right. So you wanna remember that Trump was very interested in improving relations with Russia and with Putin in particular the first time around, and he failed completely. Where Trump succeeded was on China.
Trump abandoned engagement. We talked about engagement being a disastrous policy. Trump abandoned engagement and moved to containment in 02/2017. He ran as a candidate in 2016 explicitly against engagement, got rid of it immediately. I believe that was a smart thing to do and to pursue containment.
He also, Trump, wanted to improve relations with Putin, which I think made eminently good sense. He couldn't do that in part because of Russiagate, but also because the foreign policy establishment was so committed to NATO expansion. So he failed on that count. But the problem is he was surrounded by advisers in that first administration who were all very hawkish on Ukraine and very hawkish about American foreign policy in general, very hawkish about the forever wars. Right?
So So what's I
Speaker 0: don't understand, since you raised it, what is the connection? The same people who are telling me we need to fight a regime change war against Iran are the same ones who are hysterical about supporting Ukraine in its and continuing our war against Russia, the Mark Levin's and and and then the smarter people, but same orientation. What do they have in common? I don't really understand.
Speaker 1: Well, you have a foreign policy establishment, whether you're talking about the Republican side or you're talking about the Democratic side Mhmm. That is deeply committed to pursuing hawkish foreign policy.
Speaker 0: Just for its own sake?
Speaker 1: No. No. They believe that that's what's good for The United States. They believe we should spend exceedingly large amounts of money on defense, that we should be willing to use military force in a rather liberal fashion. They believe that military force can solve all sorts of problems.
They believe that The United States, and this was certainly true during the unipolar moment, can use that military force to spread liberal democracy around the world. We can spread democracy at the end of a rifle barrel. This is what the Bush doctrine was all about in the Middle East. Iraq was just the first stop on the train line. Right?
We were gonna do Iran, Syria, and eventually, everybody would just throw up their hands. We're gonna democratize the entire Middle East, and we were gonna use military force to do that. So we are, in a very important way, addicted to war. Now it's important to emphasize that a lot of this has to do with Israel. Right?
Because Israel's supporters have a deep seated interest in making sure that The United States has a remarkably powerful military and is willing to use that military in a rather liberal fashion because they believe that if Israel ever gets into trouble and it needs help from The United States, the ideal situation is to have a US military that's like a cocked gun. And if you think about the recent war between Israel and Iran, it really wasn't just between Israel and Iran. No. It was Israel and The United States against Iran. Right?
Clear clearly. Clearly. Right? And The United States had a huge number of military assets in the Middle East, right, that were there in large part to help the Israelis in their war against Iran. Well, if you think about it, it makes perfectly sense if you're a supporter of Israel to wanna make sure that The United States has a large military and that it is willing to use that military, and that if need be, it can help Israel if it gets into trouble.
Speaker 0: I didn't hear any reference to American interests in that
Speaker 1: description. Well, when it comes to Israel, right, and what Israel needs, right, that has little to do with American interests. Right? The truth is any two countries in the world are gonna have similar interests plus different interests. Yes.
Right? So there's no question that Israel and The United States have sometimes have similar interests Yes. And sometimes have different interests. Let me give you an example of this. The United States has a vested interest in making sure Iran does not have nuclear weapons.
Yes. We're against proliferation. It's in the American national interest. It's obviously in Israel's national interest for Iran not to have nuclear weapons. Right?
So two states can have similar interests. In the case of Israel and The United States, they also happen to have different interests. And what we have in The United States is a situation where we have this thing called the Israel lobby, which I, of course, have written about with Steve Wald, which goes to great lengths to push The United States to support Israel unconditionally. In other words, no matter what Israel does, we are supposed to support Israel. And the lobby is so effective.
It is so powerful. It is so effective that we basically end up supporting Israel unconditionally. What that means, Tucker, is in those cases where Israel's interests are not the same as America's interests, we support Israel. We support Israel's interests, not America's interests because
Speaker 0: Over and against America's interests. Of course.
Speaker 1: Because the interests clash in those specific instances.
Speaker 0: Right. Which is, as you noted at the outset, just the nature of sovereign countries doing business with each other. You're going agree on some things and disagree on others. Absolutely. But can you think of any moment in the last, say, forty years where there was that clash between non converging interests where The United States chose its own interests over Israel's interests?
Speaker 1: No. No. I can't think of anything that fits that description. I mean, one could argue that Israel wanted us to fight against Iran in 2024, that they tried to to bait us into attacking Iran in April and then in July. And as I said before, the Biden administration did not take the bait.
Speaker 0: Can you think conversely of instances where the US government chose the interests of a foreign power over and against its own interests and its people's interests?
Speaker 1: Besides the Israeli case? No. No.
Speaker 0: In the case of Israel. You know, we're allied with Israel informally, and, you know, they want us to do something that is hurtful to us, does not help our interest at all, but we do it anyway. Can you think of examples of that?
Speaker 1: Two state solution is the best example. Every American president since at least Jimmy Carter has pushed forcefully for creating a Palestinian state. We have long believed that the best solution to the Palestinian problem, which is the taproot of so many other problems that we face in The Middle East, is to create two states. So every president has pushed hard except for maybe Donald Trump for a two state solution in The Middle East. The Israelis have rebuffed us at every turn, and the the end result is we now have a greater Israel, and there's no possibility of a two state solution.
Speaker 0: How does it hurt The United States not having a Palestinian state? Why is it in our our interest? Why is every president push for that?
Speaker 1: Because The United States has a vested interest in having peace in The Middle East. It's not in our interest to have wars in that region. First of all, it forces us to commit military forces. It forces us to fight wars, and that's not in our interest. And we have long felt from a strategic point of view that what you wanna do is make sure you have peace in that region.
You wanna remember right before October 7, Jake Sullivan, was then the national security adviser, was crowing about the fact that we had not seen the Middle East so peaceful in a long period of time. Yeah. He understood full well that this is in our interest. Well, if you compare the world, you know, on 10/06/2023 with the world, that exists in The Middle East today, we are much worse off today. This is not in our interest, and this is in large part because of Israel.
And this is just a strategic dimension. We're not even talking about the moral dimension. I mean, the Israelis are executing a genocide in Gaza, and we are complicitous in that genocide.
Speaker 0: When you say it's a genocide, what what do you mean?
Speaker 1: Well, if you look at what the definition of a genocide is, right, it's where one country tries to destroy either all or a substantial portion of another group, another ethnic or religious or national group for the purposes of basically destroying that group identity. That's what you're talking about here. I think that that's the definition of of genocide. It's laid out in the 1948 convention. I think that what the Israelis are doing fits that description, and lots of people and organizations agree with me on that point.
It's very important to understand here that just killing large numbers of Palestinians is not necessarily genocide. I mean, The United States, it firebombed Japan in World War two, killed many more Japanese than the Israelis have killed Palestinians in Gaza. There's no question about that. But no one would ever accuse The United States of executing a genocide against Japan. The United States was killing large numbers of Japanese civilians, and by the way, we killed large numbers of German civilians as well.
Millions. Yeah. For purposes of ending the war. We wanted to end the war. And if you look at how we treated the Japanese and how we treated the Germans once the war ended, it was very clear that we were not bent on genocide.
This is not to excuse what we did against Japan and Germany, and I do believe we murdered. I would use the word murdered large numbers or millions of Japanese and Germans together. But in the case of what's going on in Gaza, right, what's happening here is that the Israelis are systematically trying to destroy the Palestinians as a national group. Right? They're they're targeting them as Palestinians and they're trying to destroy Palestinian national identity in addition to murdering huge numbers of Palestinians.
Speaker 0: And I mean, it's not just a rage reflex. This is a strategy, of course, two and a half years later, almost three years later. What is the strategy? What's what's the the goal of this?
Speaker 1: My view on this is that the Israelis have long been interested in expelling the Palestinian population from Greater Israel. If you look at Greater Israel, this include includes the Israel that was created in 1948 and the occupied plus the occupied territories. This is the West Bank.
Speaker 0: Post sixty seven.
Speaker 1: Post sixty seven. West Bank and Gaza. So West Bank West Bank, Gaza, and what we call Green Line Israel. That's Greater Israel. Inside Greater Israel, there are about 7,300,000 Jews and about 7,300,000 Palestinians.
And from the get go, going back to the early days of Zionism and the views of people like David Ben Gurion, they believed that you needed a Jewish state that was about 80% Jewish and 20% Palestinian. In an ideal world, you would get rid of all the Palestinians, but the least bad alternative is eighty twenty. But you actually have a situation in Greater Israel where you have fifty fifty. So October 7 happens, and what the Israelis see is an excellent opportunity for ethnic cleansing, and they make this clear. In other words, it's an excellent opportunity to go to war in Gaza and drive the Palestinians out of Gaza and solve that demographic problem that they face.
Speaker 0: That's such a a dark thing, and therefore, that's a very strong allegation. On what basis are you making it?
Speaker 1: Oh, there's just a huge amount of data that supports this in the Israeli press. They have they have been perfectly willing to make this argument loudly and clearly. The issue of genocide, which I'll get to in a second, is a different issue. I'm separating ethnic cleansing from genocide. So what happens after October 7 is that the Israelis see an opportunity to drive Palestinians out of Gaza.
And you wanna remember that you had massive ethnic cleansing in 1948 when the state is created. Virtually all of those people in Gaza are descendants of the ethnic cleansing of nineteen forty eight.
Speaker 0: Kicked out of another place.
Speaker 1: And sent to Gaza. Yeah. And by the way, there was another massive ethnic cleansing after the sixty seven war in the West Bank. So this is the third attempt at a massive ethnic cleansing in Gaza. So this is hardly surprising at all.
And in fact, if you go back and read the literature, on the creation of Israel, this is all thoroughly documented. Ethnic cleansing was a subject that the Zionists talked about from the get go, and they talked about extensively because there was no way they could create a greater Israel without doing massive ethnic cleansing. You wanna remember that when the Zionists come to Israel starting late eighteen hundreds, early nineteen hundreds, there are remarkably few Jews in Palestine, and those Jews are not Zionists. The Zionists are the Jews who come from Europe. Right.
And they understand that they're moving into a territory that's filled with Palestinian villages and Palestinian people. And the question you have to ask yourself is, how can you create a Jewish state on a piece of territory that's filled with Palestinians without doing ethnic cleansing, massive ethnic cleansing? And the answer is you can't. So they're talking about and thinking about ethnic cleansing from the get go. So the idea that they wouldn't think of what the situation looks like after October 7 is an opportunity to do ethnic cleansing.
You know, it belies
Speaker 0: So it wasn't really a land without people for a people without land.
Speaker 1: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. And and David Ben Gurion, Vladimir Jabotinsky, all these key Zionist leaders understood that full well, and they understood that they were going to have to do horrible things to the Palestinians. They understood that, and they were explicit in saying that they did not blame the Palestinians one second for resisting what the Jews from Europe were going to do to them. They fully understood that they were stealing their land, and they fully understood that it made perfect sense for the Palestinians to resist, which of course they did.
But anyway, just to fast forward to October 7. What happens after October 7 is that the Israelis see an excellent opportunity to ethically cleanse the Palestinians in Gaza. You have about 2,300,000 Palestinians in Gaza. Just to be clear, you have about 2,300,000 Palestinians in Gaza, about 3,200,000 in West Bank. West Bank, and about 1.8 in grade in Green Line Israel.
Okay? So this is an opportunity to get rid of those Palestinians. And the way to do it is to turn the IDF, the Israeli military loose, and let them tear the place apart. And the idea is that that will just drive the Palestinians out. But the problem that the Israelis face is the Palestinians don't leave.
Both the Egyptians and the Jordanians, which are the two countries that the Israelis would like to drive the Palestinians into, make it, you know, unequivocally clear that that's not gonna happen. Jordan is just a giant refugee camp already It already is.
Speaker 0: From all these other wars that have been inspired for the same reason. So I mean, I think Jordan is what percentage Jordanian is Jordan? I mean, tiny percentage Jordanian.
Speaker 1: It's definitely less than 50%.
Speaker 0: Way less. Way less. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And Egypt has a 100,000,000 people already. So But here's what happens, Tucker. And I think it makes sense if you listen to the logic. They start with the goal of ethnic cleansing.
They I don't believe they wanna murder all of the Palestinians in Gaza. They just simply want to drive them out. But the problem is they don't leave. And then the question is, what do you do? And what they do is they continue to up the attacks, increase the attacks, kill more and more people in the hope that they will drive them out.
And I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: I should have asked this. Why do they want Gaza in the first place? It seems a lot of trouble killing all these people committing, you know, atrocities on camera. I mean, the press are barred, but we're still getting a lot of video out of the area. That's a big hit.
Why do you why would you be willing to go through all of that to get Gaza? Why do they want it?
Speaker 1: Well, the Zionists from the beginning have wanted a greater Israel. And David Ben Gurion wrote a piece in 1918, and David Ben Gurion, of course, is the founding father of Israel. Yes. Wrote a piece in 1918. I don't think it's ever been published in English.
It's just in Yiddish where he describes what his goals are for a greater Israel. Right? And it obviously includes Green Line Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, it includes parts of the East Bank, it includes parts of Southern Syria, It includes parts of Southern Lebanon, and it includes the Sinai Peninsula. Just think about that. That was Ben Gurion's vision.
And this was a vision that was shared by almost all the early Zionist leaders, and there are still many people in Israel who are in favor of a greater Israel. They don't want a tiny Israel. The Israel that was created in 1948 is a tiny state. Yes. Even with Gaza and the West Bank, it's quite small.
It's a postage stamp like state. Right? They want more territory, and they believe they have a historical right to that territory. Israel has never said these are our final borders. What are Israel's final borders?
They've never been articulated. And the reason is the Israelis don't wanna say out loud. The early Zionists did not say out loud what their intentions were. David Ben Gurion didn't get up on a soapbox and say, we are going to create a greater Israel and it's going to include Southern Lebanon, Southern Syria, the occupied territories, Green Line Israel, the Sinai, and so forth and so on.
Speaker 0: It's just a little I mean, irony doesn't isn't powerful enough a word. I can't think of one. It's odd that the very same people who are saying we need to consider tactical nukes in order to preserve the territorial integrity of the sovereign nation Ukraine because national borders are sacrosanct, you know, that's our our sacred norms are violated when those borders are violated, are saying it's totally okay for this one country to, like, take over other countries.
Speaker 1: But this gets back to my point to you. Right? We yes. We I agree completely. We support Israel unconditionally.
Right? In other words, whatever Israel does, especially vis a vis the Palestinians, The United States backs them to the hilt. And the fact that they're changing borders I mean, I look at what they're doing in Lebanon and Syria, and you would think that The United States would have a vested interest in trying to put pressure on the Israelis to stop causing murder and mayhem in Lebanon and in Syria, but we do hardly anything at
Speaker 0: all. And those are real countries. Those are ancient countries and beautiful beautiful countries with sophisticated, intelligent people and, like, that the roots of Christianity are there. And, like, it's not in other words, I mean, there's a sense if you're fighting over Sinai or something, it's one thing. But, like, Lebanon?
I mean, that's like one of the great countries in the world. Syria, same thing. And they're being destroyed. I don't understand why people allow that to happen.
Speaker 1: Well, let me explain to you what Israel's goal is here. First of all, Israel's goal is to create Laban's realm. That's what I was describing to you when I said what Ben Gurion's vision was regarding borders.
Speaker 0: So Could you define the word?
Speaker 1: Lebensraum means living room. You you want you want a big country. You want lots of space Yes. For your people. Yes.
Strategic depth. Strategic depth. Yeah. And so that's one goal. The second goal that the Israelis have is they wanna make sure that their neighbors are weak, and that means breaking them apart if you can, right, and keeping them broken.
So the Israelis were thrilled that mainly The United States and the Turks broke apart Syria. One could argue that Syria was even broken before Assad fell, but the Israelis want Syria to be a fractured state. They want Lebanon to be a fractured state. What they want in Iran, you know, we talk about the nuclear program, the nuclear enrichment program, and the argument is sometimes made that the principal goal, the only goal is to go in and and eliminate their nuclear capability. That's a lie.
Well, it's just part of the story. You could call it a lie. What what the Israelis wanna do is they wanna break Iran apart. They wanna make it look like Syria. Right?
You want neighbors that are not powerful. You want them to be fractured. Jordan and Egypt, they have a different solution there. And what's happened is because those countries are economically backwards, The United States gives them huge amounts of economic aid. I've noticed.
Yep. And and that's done for a purpose. And anytime the Egyptians And what's the purpose? Because anytime the Egyptians or the Jordanians get uppity about Israel, The United States reminds them, you better behave yourself because we have huge economic leverage over you. You have to be friendly to Israel.
So Jordan and Egypt never caused the Israelis any problem.
Speaker 0: It sounds like our entire foreign policy, at least in
Speaker 1: the Western Hemisphere, is based on this one country. Well, I would say in The Middle East Well, yeah. In The Middle East, there is no question People now call it West Asia, I believe. I call it The Middle East. In The Middle East, our policy is profoundly influenced by Israel.
We give as I said to you before, we have a special relationship with Israel that has no parallel in recorded history. It's very important to understand it. There is no single case in recorded history that comes even close to looking like the relationship that we have with Israel. Because, again, as I said, states sometimes have similar interests, and this includes The United States and Israel
Speaker 0: For sure.
Speaker 1: But they also have conflicting interests. And when a great power like The United States has conflicting interests with another country, it almost always, except in the case of Israel, acts in terms of its own interests. America first. But when it comes to Israel, it's Israel first. And if you go to the Middle East and look at our policy there, there's just abundant evidence to support that.
So then the question
Speaker 0: I mean, there's so many questions, but the question is why? Like, what is that? And it's I think it's really causing serious problems in the current ruling coalition because it's the contradiction is too obvious. It's not America first, and people can see that because it's so so evident. But what are the causes of it?
Like, why would, for the first time, as you said in recorded history, a nation spend, you know, whatever it is, a trillion dollars a year in effect to serve the interest of another country.
Speaker 1: Like, why? Well, I believe there's one simple answer, the Israel Lobby. Think the lobby is an incredibly powerful interest group, and I'm choosing my words carefully. It has awesome power and it basically is in a position where it can profoundly influence US foreign policy in The Middle East, and indeed it affects foreign policy outside of the Middle East. But when it comes to the Middle East, and again, the Palestinian issue in particular, it it has awesome power, and there's no president who is willing to buck the lobby.
Speaker 0: What sort of power is it? Because it's not it's not rhetorical. It's not, You know, the most powerful movements in history are fueled by an idea that's usually The most powerful are fueled by an idea that it's like true. Right? But I never hear anybody make a detailed case for why The United States benefits from the current arrangement.
Never. No one. Ever. Nikki Haley came as close as anyone by saying The United States gets a lot more out of the relationship than Israel does, but they never explained how exactly that works. So it's not a matter of, like, convincing people clearly.
So what is it a matter of? Where does that power come from?
Speaker 1: Well, let me put this in a broader context. I think that in the past, when I was younger, the lobby operated on two levels. One was the policy level, and two was the popular discourse. Yes. And I think in terms of the popular discourse for a long long time.
Right? And and this would be well into the two thousands. The Israel lobby the Israel lobby basically influenced the discourse in ways that made the Israelis look like the good guys, and it make it look like every time The United States supported Israel, it was because it was in our national interest. Right? So the discourse was not at odds with what was happening at the policy level.
Right. Now the situation you described, which I think is perfect description of the situation that we face today, is that the lobby has lost control of the discourse, and people now understand that The United States is doing things for Israel that are not in the American national interest. Furthermore, they see the lobby out in the open engaging in smash mouth politics. People are now fully aware that there is a lobby out there, that it's trying to control the discourse, and in fact, it basically does control maybe that's a bit too strong a word, but it's close. It basically does control the policymakers.
So now you have this real disconnect.
Speaker 0: Controls the policymakers. I mean, we just that's demonstrable. You know? Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think. It's measurable. Yeah. So Yes. But you so you have what you were describing is the disconnect between the discourse and the policy world that now exists.
But what I'm saying to you is you wanna remember that the lobby was immensely successful for a long period of time because the disc the discourse and the policy process looked like they were in sync.
Speaker 0: So successful that just basic historical facts about the creation of this nation state in 1948 are, like unknown to people, and it's shocking to hear them. And you think, well, that can't be right. That's like so far from what I heard as a child that that's obvious. What? All the Christians were kicked out?
All these Christians were kicked out of their historic homelands there, and of course, many more Muslims. And did that really happen? I mean, people just have no idea what the facts are. It's kind of interesting.
Speaker 1: Yes. Well, the lobby went to great lengths to make sure that you didn't know the facts.
Speaker 0: And anyone who said the facts out loud was a lunatic or a jihadist or or a, you know, hater of some kind.
Speaker 1: An anti Semite. Yeah. Self hating Jews. You know, it's very interesting. I often think about my own evolution in this regard.
When I grew up as a kid, I was heavily influenced by Leon Urus's book, Exodus and the subsequent movie with I think Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint. And that, of course, that exodus story portrayed the Israelis in the most favorable light and the Arabs or Palestinians in the most negative light. So for much of my life, you know, up until the late eighties, early nineties, I thought the Israelis were without a doubt the good guys up against the bad guys, and it was really David versus Goliath as well. And the Israelis were David up against an Arab Goliath. That was the picture I had in my head.
But then in the late eighties, early nineties, a group of historians in Israel called the New Historians came on the scene.
Speaker 0: Benny Morris.
Speaker 1: Benny Morris, Avi Schleim Yeah. Ilan Povet.
Speaker 0: Some of
Speaker 1: them were amazing. Amazing.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I agree.
Speaker 1: And and what they did was they had access to the archives. Yes. And they told the real story.
Speaker 0: And that was a moment where I think the country felt Israel felt confident enough to allow that conversation internally and that honesty.
Speaker 1: I think that's exactly right. The lobby had been so successful. Israel had been so successful.
Speaker 0: Yes. I went there. I was amazed. What a beautiful place. Great people.
It was great.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. They thought they controlled they had things under control. They did? That's right.
And that they could allow these historians to tell the truth. Now I believe they could have gotten away with it if they had stopped expanding or if they had agreed to a two state solution. The problem is that after the early nineteen nineties when this literature came out, the Israelis continued to act in barbaric ways towards the Palestinians. And Well,
Speaker 0: they had a prime minister who tried to reverse the trend and then because he was shot to death.
Speaker 1: He was moving in that direction. I think there were a number of Israeli leaders who understood that the course that Israel was on was unsustainable.
Speaker 0: Oh, you often heard them say that. Yeah. When a robust debate within the country about this.
Speaker 1: Well, whether they would have agreed to a Palestinian state ultimately is an open question, but the fact is Rabin was killed. Ehud Barak who made moves towards a two state solution ultimately couldn't pull it off, and we are where we are today. And the problem is that something else occurred in the late nineties, early two thousands, which fundamentally affected Israel's position and that's the Internet. Because once you get the Internet and once you get social media and the mainstream media is not the sole source of information on these issues, The story about the real creation of Israel and what Israel is doing today is available to the vast majority. It's shocking
Speaker 0: to people. So you have to shut down the Internet. You can't allow that.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You can try to shut down the Internet, but, you know, there are limits to what you can do.
Speaker 0: But it does seem like so you you were describing the two separate tiers, the policy and the discourse about the policy, and that one remains basically the same, but the other has changed just so radically, so radically and so fast that it's going off in some dark directions that I just want to say on the record I totally disapprove of. I don't think you should hate anybody, period, especially groups of people. It's immoral, and I mean it. But that's happened because there's been just like an avalanche of new information, a lot of which is totally real. People haven't seen it before, and their minds are exploding.
And so public opinion is moving so radically in the other direction. I feel it all around me. Do you feel this? Of course. Yeah.
And your life, I mean, I should say, for people who aren't familiar with your background, you wrote a book with Stephen Walt of Harvard. You're at the University of Chicago, so both of you are have tenure or famous in your world. You're not crazy. And you write this book in 02/2007, and both of you are immediately attacked in, like, pretty shocking ways. Also defended by some of your colleagues, but but really maligned for it.
And now eighteen years later, people are saying, that Mearsheimer guy, actually, he was kind of right about everything. So that's a reflection, I think, of the change in public opinion. But that's not sustainable. You can't have, in a democracy, policy that's a 180 degrees from public opinion over time. That just doesn't work.
So you have to either change the policy or change public opinion. And no one's even making any attempt at all to change public opinion through good faith argument, through like, hey, I know you think this, but you're wrong, and here's why. There's zero. None. It's shut up, Nazi.
Okay? And that's not working. So I really think the only option is to stop the conversation. Or maybe I'm missing something. Like censorship is the only option if you wanna maintain status quo.
Speaker 1: Well, there's no question that they're trying to stop the conversation.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: No question. I mean, they went to great lengths to shut down TikTok, and the evidence is that the lobby played a key role.
Speaker 0: Just banning one of the world's biggest social media apps because it says things you don't like?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, this is the way they've always behaved. The lobby's always behaved this way.
And, I mean, this is what happened to me and Steve. You know, we originally wrote an article, and we at one point thought the article would never be published. After we wrote the article and we went through all sorts of interactions with the Atlantic Monthly that had commissioned the article, we put the article in the back closet and just
Speaker 0: So you were to write a piece about the influence of a foreign lobby, the Israeli lobby Israel lobby. In Washington, which is one of many foreign lobbies in Washington, but is by far the most effective and the biggest. And you write the piece, and they didn't run it?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Why? Because they got cold feet. I mean, what invariably happens in these cases is that down at the lower levels of a journal or or a newspaper, people will be interested in somebody writing something on Israel lobby or writing a piece that's critical of Israel, but then as it filters up the chain of command and people at the top see it, they kill it. Right?
And And that happened to you? Oh, that's definitely what happened at the lobby at the Atlantic Monthly. They killed it. And then Steve and I went to Princeton University Press and a handful of other journals and asked if they would be interested in either the article or turning the article into a book. And in all those cases, everybody at first exudes enthusiasm.
They think it's a it's a great topic. Something needs to be written on it, which, of course, is true. But then they think about it for a month and you get a callback, and they've lost interest. So Steve and I actually put the the articles I said in that closet and just said What's wild
Speaker 0: is you're both at this point very well known your can you explain who Steve is to your coauthor?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Steve is a chaired professor at Harvard University. And at the time that we wrote the lobby article, he was the academic dean at the Kennedy School. Okay. So I just I'm
Speaker 0: sure a lot people already know that, but I just wanna make it totally clear. You're not two random guys on the Internet who are like antisemites or something at all. You're like the some of the most famous people in your field, and you're totally moderate. I don't even know what your politics are, but you're not a political activist at all.
Speaker 1: No. As I and I as I used to like to say, if Adolf Hitler were alive, he would have thrown Steve's wife and his two children in a gas chamber.
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: Mean, the idea that we're antisemites, I mean, is a laughable argument. We're both first order filo Semites. I mean, I can't prove that, but it's true in my humble opinion. But, anyway, we we were certainly, you know, at the top of our academic disciplines and highly respected, which is not to say people didn't disagree with what we wrote.
Speaker 0: But you weren't crackpots at all.
Speaker 1: And and the other thing is I wanna make it clear that we worked very carefully with the Atlantic to get our final draft draft up to their standards. Right? We did what they wanted. And, and you also wanna remember that Steve and I are both excellent writers. Many academics cannot write clearly.
Whatever you think of the substance of our views, there's no doubt there were two of the best writers in the business. And it's the two of us working with the editors, at the lower rungs of the Atlantic Monthly that produced what I thought was an excellent article. But, anyway, it was killed there, and we couldn't get it published. Kinda proven your point. Yes.
Exactly. Exactly. And, by the way, I probably shouldn't tell this story, but I'll tell you. We told the editor at the Atlantic as we were going through the process that we thought he was getting cold feet, and he was quite offended by that. And he said to us, just to prove that that wasn't true, he would give us a $10,000 kill fee.
That means if they didn't take the article, they'd give us $10,000. So I said to Steve, I remember it very well, that's the fastest $10,000 we ever made. He said, oh, John, you're being too cynical. Anyway, we collected the 10,000 paid you? Yes.
Yes. I mean but what what he did How ashamed was he when he because I'm not gonna name him.
Speaker 0: I know the editor. This is a pretty well known editor who's just been in magazine journalism for decades and, you know, has a high regard for himself and good reputation and all this stuff. And he's told from somebody else who's more powerful than he is, you can't do this. How embarrassed was he in that conversation?
Speaker 1: I had no evidence that he was embarrassed.
Speaker 0: Oh, so he has no soul.
Speaker 1: Okay. No. I I mean, who knows, you know, what kind of face he had to put on things. I I don't know what happened inside the Atlantic. I've never been told.
But but, again, he said he'd give us a $10,000 kill fee because he thought the peace was gonna go forward. And somebody sat on him and told him that that was not gonna happen. I I don't know what happened, but I don't wanna be too harsh on him because this is the norm. Yeah. That this was the norm.
Speaker 0: And he didn't own the magazine.
Speaker 1: And so what we did was we put it in the back closet. And and I remember Steve and I had a a conversation, and I think Steve said to me, this is why we have tenure so that you can spend two years of your life Exactly. Writing something that never gets published, and you're not punished in terms of promotion to tenure. Right? But anyway, what then happened is that somebody inside the Atlantic who was actually involved in the original commissioning of the article gave a copy to a very prominent academic who had who had contacts close contacts at the London Review of Books.
And that academic who I knew very well sent me a note and said that Mary Kay Wilmers he said, I got a hold of your manuscript, and I sent it to Mary Kay Wilmers at the London Review of Books, and she'd be very interested in publishing it. And so I then I remember I was in Heidelberg, Germany. I called it Mary Kay, and she published it thankfully.
Speaker 0: It was like a bomb went off. I'll I'll remember that. I remember that so rapidly. So the piece the Atlantic killed comes out in the London Review of Books. What's the thesis of the piece if you could just sum it up for people who didn't read it?
Speaker 1: Well, the argument basically has four parts to it. The first says that The United States has this special relationship with Israel. It's unparalleled in history. We give Israel unconditional support, huge amounts of military and economic aid. That's the first part.
Then the second part says it's not for strategic reasons that we do this. Then the third part is
Speaker 0: Not It's can you explain what
Speaker 1: that means?
Speaker 0: Not for
Speaker 1: It's not in the American national interest. In in other words, from a geopolitical point of view. Right? Because Israel and The United States sometime have different interests, it makes no sense for us to support Israel unconditionally. We should support Israel when its interests reflect our interests, but otherwise not.
But that's not the case. So that's another way of saying what we're doing is not in our strategic interest. Okay? Third part is it's not in our moral interest because when you look at what the Israelis are doing to Palestinians, this violates basic American precepts, liberal precepts. Right?
So from a moral point of view, what's happening in Israel doesn't make sense. So then the fourth part deals with the question of why we do this. Right. Fair. Fair question.
Right. If we don't do it for strategic reasons, we don't do it for moral reasons, why do we do it? And the answer is the lobby. So that's the story, the lobby.
Speaker 0: Does and the the lobby is a is a very large complex informal organization of which APAC is a part, but not the total. Absolutely. And then you describe how that works.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's very important to emphasize. It's a loose coalition of individuals and organizations like APAC, the Anti Defamation League, and so forth and so on that, work overtime to support Israel. Loosely coordinated. I think your description was right on the money.
Very important to understand, it is not a Jewish lobby, and it is not a Jewish lobby because many Jews don't care much about Israel, and many Jews are opposed to what Israel or the Israel lobby is doing.
Speaker 0: Including many religious Jews, Torah Jews, sincere sincerely Jewish Jews disagree. I know some, so I know.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. There there are a large number of Jews who are anti Zionists. I'm aware. Right? So so you're exactly right.
So it's not a Jewish lobby for that reason, but also there are the Christian Zionists
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Who are a core element of that lobby. I've noticed. You know, Christians United for Israel, for example. So that's why we call it the Israel lobby.
Speaker 0: And what explains the enthusiasm of Christian groups for policies that kill Christians in the Middle East?
Speaker 1: Well, they have this belief that until Israel controls, all of greater Israel. Right? It gets back all the territory, that is rightfully theirs, you won't have the second coming. So they are deeply committed, these Christian Zionists, to supporting Israel's conquest and supporting Israeli expansion for religious reasons.
Speaker 0: And are there defined borders that when reached will trigger the second coming?
Speaker 1: No. No. Do when we
Speaker 0: say Greater Israel, do we have a clear map in mind of what that will mean? No. Could mean? No.
Speaker 1: No. Whenever you talk about Greater Israel, there's hardly ever a real map in mind. I talk about it in terms of the occupied territories plus green line Israel. But obviously, the Israelis themselves, most Israelis, I think, have a bigger map in mind. Do we
Speaker 0: know where that ends? I mean, doesn't go to Cairo, I assume.
Speaker 1: No. No. I think the Sinai what they take of Egypt, I think, will if they can, will be the Sinai. And I don't think they would take all of Syria or all of Lebanon, but they would take big chunks of the South of those two countries. But but but the idea behind the Christian Zion is is that to facilitate the second coming, you know, for religious reasons, we should support Israel.
But this does, as you say, cut against the fact that the Israelis oftentimes treat Christians as badly as they do Muslims. There was recently a case where they bombed Catholic church in Northern Gaza, and Trump was infuriated when he heard this and he called up Netanyahu and told him this is recently, like within the past two weeks, told Netanyahu that he had to apologize. And the pope even spoke out on this. But even there, the criticism is quite muted because, again, hardly anybody in the West really criticizes Israel in a meaningful way.
Speaker 0: It is just a little bit odd that you could on Christian ground support the bombing of a Christian church. I mean, there are lots of theological differences between sex and Christianity, but if you're getting to the point like where Mike Johnson, the speaker of the house is, where you think Jesus is commanding you to support the murder of Christians, you don't need to be like a theologian to think maybe I've gone off course.
Speaker 1: No? Yeah. You're not gonna get any argument from me on that. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So where does it go from here now that things that you know, everyone was afraid to talk about any of this to the extent that people understood it because they don't want be called names, and because those names are It's horrible to be called that, and it's almost Sometimes it's true, but for most people it's not true at all. They're not hateful. That's not why they have these views. So once those slurs lose their power, as I think they quickly are, in the same way the word racist lost its power from overuse, like, where are we? What where do we what happens next?
Speaker 1: It's hard to tell a happy story, but here's how I think about it. The first question you wanna ask yourself is what are the Israelis likely to do moving forward? In other words, if the Israelis all of a sudden got reasonable, a lot of these problems would go away. But there is no sign the Israelis are gonna get more reasonable. If anything, the political center of gravity is moving further and further to the right in Israel as the years go by.
So Israeli behavior in The Middle East, if anything, is likely to be even more aggressive and more offensive to people around the world. So what does that mean here in The United States? It means that the lobby is gonna have to work even harder than it's now working. And again, you wanna remember the lobby is now out in the open and it's engaging in smash mouth politics, but it's gonna have to work harder. Now you say to
Speaker 0: yourself Most vicious people I've ever dealt with ever.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Anybody who's dealt with them, and I've dealt with them for longer than you have, understands full well what you're talking about. But see, here's the problem, Tucker. The problem is that support among younger people for Israel is much weaker than it is among older people.
People including Jews. Including Jews. Yes. Yes. Very important to emphasize that.
Very important. So the problem is that inside of American society, you're moving towards a situation where increasing numbers of people in the body politic are critical of Israel, extremely critical of Israel because older people are dying off, and those younger people are turning into older people. So the body populace in The United States is going to be more critical of Israel over time, not less critical. At the same time, Israel continues to behave that way. And the question is, how long can we go on with the lobby operating out in the open and engaging in smash mouth politics?
I
Speaker 0: Attacking Americans in the most vicious way who have no animus toward anyone, but just wanna help their own country, they're somehow criminals? Like that can't go on long. That's too stupid to work over time. No?
Speaker 1: I agree. Look at what's happening on campuses. Right? Here you have these students out there protesting, protesting a genocide. Right?
Many of the students who are out there protesting are Jewish. This cannot be emphasized enough. Many of them are Jewish. And all of a sudden, they're turned into raving antisemites. This is all about antisemitism.
It has nothing to do with the genocide that's taking place in Palestine. This is crazy. Right? And and I talked to people on campuses. Everybody understands this.
Everybody understands that this has nothing to do with antisemitism. I've been in academia for decades. I've been at the University of Chicago for forty four years. Before October 7, nobody at Chicago or Harvard talked about an antisemitism problem. It was just unheard of.
Huge numbers of administrators, including provosts and presidents, were Jewish. Huge numbers of deans and faculty members were Jewish. Huge numbers of students, graduate and undergraduate, were Jewish. This is a wonderful thing. Nobody was ever critical of it.
Was there an antisemitism problem? I never heard about it, and I don't know anybody who was talking about it. But all of a sudden, after October 7, what we discover is that these college campuses are hotbeds of antisemitism. This makes no sense at all because, of course, they were not hotbeds of antisemitism. What they were were hotbeds of criticism of Israel and what it was doing to the Palestinians, But you can't say that Why?
Because you are in effect bringing attention to the genocide that's taking place in Gaza, and that is unacceptable. I mean, newspapers like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, they never even use the word genocide or anything approximating that. It's just verboten. And the idea is to make Israel look like if anything, it's the victim. That's the Wall Street Journal's principal mission.
Right? To make Israel look like it's the victim. Wall Street
Speaker 0: Journal is so discredited as a newspaper. It's like, I'd I'd I'd rather read The Guardian. I mean, I'd rather read anything other than The Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 1: Well, I like to argue that The Wall Street Journal is two newspapers in one. The news and then the opinions It's
Speaker 0: all been corrupted. It changed leadership, and it's just the whole thing is total. I I know some great people who work there still, and they're honest people. But the paper is the most dishonest, I would say, of all papers. That's just my view, and I used to write for them.
Speaker 1: Well, you'll get no argument from me. As bad as the New York Times and Washington Post are, they pale in comparison to the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 0: I totally agree. And at least the New York Times and especially the Washington Post are just like liberal papers. Okay? There's Democratic Party papers. I know exactly what you are.
I'm not like The Guardian, just a left wing paper, socialist paper. I'm not shocked by anything. They're pretty upfront about it. The Wall Street Journal is uniquely offensive to me because of the deception involved. They pretend to be one thing, but they're very much not that thing.
They're something entirely different, and they're stealthy and incredibly dishonest. And I look forward to their demise with with unchristian enthusiasm. Excuse me. But anyway, can I just ask you, like, a question I should have asked before? You have this population of over 2,000,000 people.
How many remain in Gaza now? Do we know? Or no there's no news coverage allowed, so we don't I guess maybe we don't know.
Speaker 1: But Well, there are 2,300,000 to start. Yes. To start. That's that's the approximate number who are there. It appears that some have gotten out.
It's hard to gauge how many. There was one person who told me he thought that about a 100,000 had gotten out. Another person told me 50,000. I'm not sure.
Speaker 0: But not a million?
Speaker 1: Oh, no. No. No. No. The question is how many have been killed.
Right. Do we have any idea? Not really. They're you know, the estimates are around sixty million. I'd be sixty million.
Excuse me. Sixty thousand.
Speaker 0: Do you think it's weird that in 2025, we can measure everything from your heart rate to sunspots that we don't know how many people were killed in Russia, Ukraine, or Palestine. We can't even I've never met anyone who can give me a hard number on Russian casualties, Ukrainian casualties are dead, Palestinians in Gaza.
Speaker 1: That's weird. It's weird. They're they're two different cases. I mean, the Ukrainians have a deep seated interest, for example, in not revealing how many people have been killed.
Speaker 0: Of course. And so do the Russians, by the way. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And with regard to the case of Israel Palestine, the real problem here is that so many people are buried. They're missing. There's a study that somebody did recently as a legitimate study that said that they believe or the study concludes that there are about 400,000 missing people in 400,400. Yeah. Now I'm not saying that's true.
I'm just saying that there are obviously lots of missing people. Right? Well, if you look at what the Israelis have done in Israel, excuse me, what the Israelis have done in Gaza, I wouldn't be surprised if the number is, you know, 400,000 dead. But who knows? But I I think, you know, 60,000 roughly 60,000 is the number that lots of people use on debt.
Speaker 0: So of the remaining, you know, probably less than 2,000,000, but close to 2,000,000 people, it's a lot of people, where do they go?
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a great question. Can there
Speaker 0: actually be in 2025 a transfer of people like that? I mean, the Second World War wasn't that long ago. Like, people have memories or impressions of what it looks like to move that many people. It's just not that's not good.
Speaker 1: Well, the news reports say that the Israelis and the Americans are talking to the Libyans and the Ethiopians and the Indonesians about accepting the Palestinians or at least a substantial portion of that. Let's say 2,000,000 that are left.
Speaker 0: But if they actually tried that, I mean, that's so grotesque that you'd think I mean, wouldn't the world just blow up if they tried to do that? Move hundreds of thousands of people against their will from one from their land, which they've been on for thousands of years into some foreign country and just like, that's cool. We're doing this. It's for their safety. Could you actually do that?
Speaker 1: Well, I didn't actually think that the Israelis could execute a genocide in Gaza. I didn't think they'd be able to do what they have done since October 7 of
Speaker 0: Palestinian. Rules. You just do what you can do.
Speaker 1: And Yeah. We're we're at a point where you wanna say that that is a possibility. I'm like you. I find it hard to imagine. I'm sickened by this the whole process, the whole thing.
I just I
Speaker 0: They all get on boats or something and, like, people have iPhones. They can I mean
Speaker 1: Well, also, I think there'll be resistance? Right? I mean, Hamas is still there. The Israelis have not defeated Hamas. Right?
Yeah. Mean So but your question is a great one. The question is where do we end up here? What the hell? Where do we end up?
You know, just to to go back a bit, when the war starts on October 7 and then the fighting goes on into 2024, the Israeli military is asking Netanyahu to tell them what the, final political plan is. In other words, once the war ends, what's the plan for dealing with the Palestinians? And Netanyahu refuses to give the military a plan. And the military says we can't His own military. His own military, the idea.
He the the military says that we can't wage the campaign without knowing what the end game is. Right? Okay. But Netanyahu won't tell them what the end game is because the end game is to drive all the Palestinians out. The reason that Netanyahu has no plan, right, for dealing with the Palestinians at the end of the fighting is because he expect them to he expects them to all be gone.
Okay? Now what we're saying here is that hasn't happened. It's hard to imagine that happening. Right? And although the Israelis have been murdering huge numbers of Palestinian, at some point, a substantial number are gonna be left.
So the question is, what does that look like?
Speaker 0: They probably won't be more moderate by that point.
Speaker 1: No. But what they're gonna end up in is a giant ghetto, right, or concentration camp. That's what they're building now. And, again, this gets back to our earlier discussion of what this means Israel's reputation in The United States and in the West more generally. You're gonna build a ghetto.
You're gonna put, you know, 2,000,000 people in a ghetto and continue to starve them. Is this sustainable?
Speaker 0: What It does tend to affect your moral authority when you do that.
Speaker 1: I also think it has a terribly corrupting influence on your society at large. Yeah. I I think once this war comes to a conclusion, hopefully that will be sooner rather than later, and the Israelis take stock of what they have done, this is gonna have a deeply corrosive effect.
Speaker 0: Well, yeah. Because I mean I mean, the things that are going on to Jewish Israelis at the hands of their own government right now are I'm not an expert on Israel, but I've been multiple times, and I've always really loved it. I mean, it's such an amazing place. But it was liberal in a fundamental way. That's why I always liked it.
I mean, not liberal like Democratic Party liberal, but just like civil liberties liberal. If you were Jewish. Of course. That's a totally fair point that kind of went over my head on my trips there, but you're absolutely right.
Speaker 1: And it was designed to go over your head.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And it did. You're absolutely right. But my point is the things that are happening now to Israeli citizens are so shocking to me that total elimination of free speech. You say certain things, you go right to jail.
Question like, what the hell happened on October 7? Which is a completely fair question. In any free society, that should be allowed. Not allowed. Banning people from leaving the country?
Your right to travel, especially to leave, is a foundational right. They're telling Israeli citizens you're not allowed to leave? I don't know. Why is that not a big story? I don't really get it.
And then the treatment of Christians, which is disgusting. Those are all signs that the society is becoming illiberal, really, becoming authoritarian. I mean, that's authoritarian. You're not allowed to leave the country? You can't say what you think?
That's not a free country. And those are all downstream of the military response post October 7. So I think it makes your point. This is corrupting to their society as the stuff always is. Nine eleven is totally corrupting to our society.
Speaker 1: I agree. Just to add a couple points to that, the Israeli military has a huge PTSD problem. Oh, I bet. Really? Yeah.
And the Jerusalem Post had a piece I think it was the Jerusalem Post had a piece the other day that said there have been five suicides after the during the past two weeks. So they're having a significant problem with suicide, significant problem with PTSD, and they're having huge problems getting reservists to report for duty. I bet. Because the Israeli military is heavily dependent on reservists. Yes.
And the reservists have basically had it. And so this war is having a corrosive effect. And the thing you wanna understand is there's no end in sight. There really isn't. Yeah.
And now they're in Southern Lebanon. Now they're in Southern Syria.
Speaker 0: Wouldn't The United States shut this down tomorrow? Like, not 1 more dollar for this stuff. You blew up a church? No. No more money for you.
Speaker 1: The the fact that the Israelis are so dependent on us as we were talking about before, and we were just, you know, hitting on the tip of the iceberg. They are so dependent on us. Means we have tremendous coercive leverage over them. This is why the this is why the lobby has to work so hard. Right?
We have tremendous coercive leverage on them so we could shut this down. We could fundamentally also afternoon. I don't wanna go that far, but we'd need a couple days. But Yeah. No more money for
Speaker 0: you if you do one more. Well, we
Speaker 1: could also punish them in significant ways. We could easily bring Israel to its knees. And by the way, I have long argued that that would be in Israel's interest. It is not in Israel's interest.
Speaker 0: Of course, it would.
Speaker 1: It is not interest in in the interest of Jews around the world for this craziness to continue. This craziness should end right away for the good of Israel, for the good of Jews, for the good of The United States. It makes no sense at all.
Speaker 0: To what extent is this Netanyahu? Like you often see him singled out as the guy who's pushing this, whose vision this is. If Netanyahu retired tomorrow, would this continue?
Speaker 1: Yes. The fact is that he is not unrepresentative of the largest society. There are surely people on, let's use the word left for lack of a better term. There are certainly people on the left who oppose what he's doing and would be more amenable to a political solution, but their numbers are small and dwindling. And I think the overwhelming majority of Israeli support Netanyahu.
That's why he's still in office despite the fact he was responsible for what happened on October 7. Of course. He was in charge. The buck is supposed to stop at his desk, but he's not been held accountable because the Israelis want him in charge. So it's not like, you know, he's the odd man out here.
Furthermore, if you look at the political spectrum in Israel, there are many people who are to the right of him Yes. Who are growing in political importance. When you and I were young, people like Smotrich, right, and Ben Gavir, right, who are far to the right of Netanyahu, you know.
Speaker 0: Well, there weren't that many of or at least that I was I mean, again, I'm not an expert. Don't speak Hebrew. But, I mean, I've, you know, been around it a lot, and I felt like, again, it was a pretty liberal European type society. That was my impression of it. Those days are gone.
Yes. No. I know.
Speaker 1: Those days are gone. And my point to you is it's only gonna get worse. So the argument that Netanyahu is the problem, it's an argument that many liberal Jews here in The United States like to make the wet like to make. If only we can get rid of Netanyahu, our troubles will go away, and we'll get some sort of moderate leadership and work out a modus vivendi with The United States, but I don't think that's gonna happen. What happens on the Temple Mount, do you think?
Speaker 0: So there's the second temple was obviously built on the mountain Jerusalem. It was knocked down by the Romans in AD seventy, and a few hundred years later, the Muslims built the third holiest site in Islam, the Al Aqsa Mosque there, and beneath it is the foundation of the temple. That's the Western Wall. So that's the geography. But there is this push to rebuild the third temple, but there's a mosque on the site.
My sense is that's coming to a head. Do you have any feeling about that?
Speaker 1: I think you're right. I think the further right Israel moves or the more hawkish it becomes, the more likely it is that will come to a head. There's no question that certainly the religious right in Israel is deeply committed to building a third temple. But you'd have to blow up
Speaker 0: the mosque to do it. Yes. And what would happen if someone blew up the third holiest site in Islam in the middle of Jerusalem?
Speaker 1: Well, the Israelis are very powerful vis a vis the Palestinian population, and they would, I guess, go to great lengths to suppress any insurrection. If they had to kill lots of people, they'd kill lots of people. Look at what they're doing in Gaza. Yeah. The Israelis are incredibly ruthless.
There's just no question about that. And they believe that Palestinians are subhumans, two legged animals, grasshoppers. They use those kind of words. And take what they've been doing in Gaza. It's easy to imagine them doing horrible things to the Palestinians if they were to rise up over what's happening with regard to the Temple Mount.
And in terms of the Jordanians or the Egyptians or the Saudis, are they gonna do anything? I doubt it. I mean, they'll make a lot of noise verbally, but in terms of actually doing anything to Israel. The Israelis basically calculate in all these instances that what they can do is horrible things, and then with the passage of time, people will forget. And not only will they forget, but we'll go to great lengths to help them forget.
You know, we'll rewrite the history. That's the idea. So I think that your assessment of what we should expect with the Temple Mount is probably correct.
Speaker 0: Feels like that's a I mean, that's a you know, there are billion Muslims. So
Speaker 1: But they have a huge collective action problem. What are those billion Muslims gonna do? I mean, they they can't organize themselves into armored divisions and strike into Israel.
Speaker 0: No. But they could I mean, I think we learned from nine eleven, a small group of determined people can have a big effect on events.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Well, that's all coming too. Right? I mean, this is one of the problems that many Western Jews worry about You know, payback is gonna come not in the form of attacks on Israel, but on in the form of attacks on Western Jews in places like The United States or Europe. And I think that is a real possibility.
Let's hope it doesn't happen. But the number of people who are in the in in the Arab and Islamic world who are absolutely enraged by what is going on in Gaza is not to be underestimated. And they have a second strike capability as you point out. You know, I was talking about building armored divisions. That's foolish.
They're not gonna build armored divisions, but there are other ways to deal with this. Again, you wanna go back to nine eleven. This gets back to the whole question whether Israel is a strategic liability or a strategic asset. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is the principal planner of nine eleven, now in Guantanamo, and Osama Bin Laden both explicitly said that their principal reason for attacking The United States on nine eleven was The United States' support of Israel's policies against the Palestinians. You just wanna think about that.
The conventional wisdom in The United States is that Israel had nothing to do with nine eleven, and these Muslims attacked us because they hate who we are. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama Obama Osama Bin Laden and KSM, again, have both explicitly said that it was US policy toward Israel that caused nine eleven.
Speaker 0: Why do you suppose that so many nine eleven documents are still classified almost twenty five years after the fact?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, why are so many Jeffrey Epstein documents effectively classified? Why are so many Kennedy assassination documents still not released? Still not released. That's correct.
You know, you really do wonder. They obviously have something to hide. In most cases, it's very hard to divine what it is that they're trying to hide, and that's certainly true with regard to nine eleven. But but we just don't know. We don't know.
And it
Speaker 0: and it does make everybody into a into a wacko thinking about it. I mean, if you want to end so called conspiracy theories, tell the truth, and then, you know, no one has to theorize would be my view. So you just you have a piece out. It's my last question to you. Thank you for spending all this time.
You have a piece out that describes what you believe the world will look like in fifty years, and I should say, just to toot your horn since you're not gonna do it, that you've been right on some of the big big big questions, and you've stood essentially alone in your field in your predictions that have been vindicated on them, not just about the power of foreign lobbies, but about China, about NATO. And so I do think your opinion on this matters. Can you just give us a sense of ten years hence, what's America's place in the world?
Speaker 1: Well, I think if you look out ten years, even if you were to look out twenty or thirty years, I think in all likelihood, the system, the international system will continue to be dominated by three countries, The United States, China, and Russia. And I think The United States and China will remain the two most powerful countries on the planet, And The US China competition over the next ten years and even beyond that will influence international politics more than any other relationship. I think that once you begin to project out past ten, twenty years, The United States' position vis a vis China, I think will improve for demographic reasons. I think the Chinese population is gonna drop off at a much more rapid rate than the American population. And moreover, the Americans can rely on immigration to rectify the problem.
So if you look at population, which is one of the two building blocks population size, one of the two building blocks of military power. The other is wealth. The United States looking out twenty, thirty, forty years looks like it's in quite good shape. Right? Now what's happened since 2017 and really even before that is that with the rise of China, The United States lost its position as the UNIPOL, as the clearly dominant power in the international system, and we now have a peer competitor.
So when people talk about American decline, they're correct that we have had decline, let's say, since 2017 when China became a great power, although it
Speaker 0: started before That's the second time you made reference to 2017 as the threshold for China. What is the definition? How does a country go from being a big power to a great power?
Speaker 1: It develops enough military capability to put up a serious fight against the most powerful state in the system. Thank you. Right. So you wanna remember the two main building blocks of military power are wealth and population size. You take that wealth, you take that population size, and that's what allows you to build the powerful military.
That affects your position in the balance of power. And remember when I talked about engagement, we made China rich. We made China wealthy. So China always had that huge population. And as a result of engagement during the unipolar moment from roughly, let's say, nineteen ninety two to two thousand seventeen, we helped China get rich.
And that rich, that wealth, coupled with that population side, China becomes a great power. Okay? So we are losing relative power over that entire time period, and that's when China then becomes a great power. And we now have a competition where The United States is still more powerful than China overall, but the Chinese are closing the gap. So we're still losing relative power to the Chinese, and I would bet over the next ten years, we will lose relative power.
Not a substantial amount, but some. But still, The United States will probably remain, ten years from now, the most powerful state in the system, and the Chinese will be right behind us. The Russians will remain the weakest of those three great powers. But if you project out, you know, thirty, forty years, that's when I think The United States will widen the gap with China because population wise, the Chinese population, as a result of the one child policy, will decline significantly. And our population size without immigration will not decline as significantly as the Chinese population will, but we also have immigration as our ace in the hole.
So we can bring in immigrants as we have done in the past, and we will remain in quite good shape. So I think the long term future for The United States in terms of raw power looks quite good. That's not to say our policies will be wise because as you and I know, The United States has used that massive power that it's had in the past in oftentimes foolish ways.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And is is that power worth having? I mean, I don't know. It's more complicated than it sounds. I mean, do people's lives improve, which seems like an important measure?
Not the only measure, but certainly one. Well, this
Speaker 1: is the realist in me, Tucker. In the international system, in international politics, because there's no higher authority that can protect you if you get into trouble, it's very important to be powerful. Right? The the you can't dial 911 in the international system and have someone come and rescue you. And in a world where another state might be powerful and might attack you, it's very important to be the most powerful state in the system, and the last thing you wanna do is be weak.
You wanna remember the Chinese refer to the period from the late eighteen forties to the late nineteen forties as the century of national humiliation. Yes. It was too. Yes. And why did they suffer a century of national humiliation?
Because they were weak.
Speaker 0: Because they were divided.
Speaker 1: Right. And remember we talked earlier in the show about NATO expansion. We talked about why we continued to push and push and push even though the Russians said it was unacceptable. And I said to you, we were gonna shove it down their throat. And why we were gonna shove it down their throat?
Because we thought they were weak. You'd never wanna be weak. You wanna be powerful. The problem with making that argument today, for me to make that argument to you and to many people I know, is that we all understand that The United States has been incredibly powerful and it's used that power in foolish ways, in ways that don't make us happy. And therefore, the idea of having all this power leads us to think or leads many people to think that we'll use that power foolishly, and I fully understand that.
But my argument is you still wanna be powerful just because it's the best way to survive in the international system. It's the way to maximize your security. But, hopefully, you'll use that power smartly. Although given America's performance in recent decades, there's not a lot of cause for hope. Do we wind up
Speaker 0: in a war with China over Taiwan?
Speaker 1: I think it's possible. I don't think it's likely in the foreseeable future. The problem is it's an incredibly difficult military operation for the Chinese because it involves an amphibious assault. They have to go across the Taiwan Strait, which is a large body of water, and amphibious assaults are very difficult. And in all likelihood, the Americans will come to the aid of the Taiwanese.
The other thing is the Taiwan I mean, the Chinese, unlike the Americans, don't fight wars all the time. The last time China fought a war was in 1979. Just think about that. 1979. In Vietnam.
Yeah. Where they they were foolish enough to follow in our footsteps. Yep. And we were fool enough enough to follow in the French footsteps and go in there. So they went in in '79 and got whacked, but they've not fought a war since then.
So they don't have a highly trained military that has lots of combat experience that would be capable of launching one of the most difficult military operations imaginable, which is an amphibious assault across the Taiwan Strait into the face of resistance from not only the Taiwanese, but the Americans. So I think that, will keep a lid on things for the foreseeable future. I don't think the Chinese will attack. I think that what they'll wait for is the right moment to hope that the world changes in ways that makes it feasible for them to do it. They're good at waiting.
They're good at waiting. That is I I think that's true. So I I don't think and I wanna underline I'm using the word think. The other point, very quickly, we do live in a nuclear world, and we have nuclear weapons and they have nuclear weapons, and the incentive for them to avoid a war with The United States and for us to avoid a war with them because of nuclear weapons is very great. So that may really put a damper on things if we ever get into a serious crisis.
Professor, thank you for spending all this time. That was wonderful. It's my pleasure, Tucker. Thanks very much for having me on the Thank
Speaker 0: And thank you for doing this, and congratulations on being vindicated after all these years. That must be nice. Whether you admit it or not, you have been. So thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna plead the Fifth Amendment. Thank you again.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
Gaza Is Being Ethnically Cleansed https://t.co/X5Er3TdabD
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims that Israel views the October 7th attacks as an opportunity for ethnic cleansing in Gaza to solve a demographic problem. This allegation is based on data in the Israeli press, where, according to the speaker, Israelis have openly discussed this idea.
The speaker states that the population of Gaza is largely composed of descendants from the 1948 ethnic cleansing, and that there was another massive ethnic cleansing after the 1967 war in the West Bank. The speaker suggests that a third attempt at ethnic cleansing in Gaza is not surprising.
According to the speaker, literature on the creation of Israel thoroughly documents that ethnic cleansing was discussed by Zionists from the beginning, as it was seen as necessary to create a greater Israel. The speaker rejects the idea that Palestine was a land without people for a people without land.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So October 7 happens, and what the Israelis see is an excellent opportunity for ethnic cleansing, and they make this clear. In other words, it's an excellent opportunity to go to war in Gaza and drive the Palestinians out of Gaza and solve that demographic problem that they face. That's such a a dark thing, and therefore, that's a very strong allegation. On what basis are you making it? Oh, there's just a huge amount of data that supports this in the Israeli press.
They have been perfectly willing to make this argument loudly and clearly. And you wanna remember that you had massive ethnic cleansing in 1948 when the state is created. Virtually all of those people in Gaza are descendants of the ethnic cleansing of nineteen forty kicked out of another place. And sent to Gaza. Yeah.
By the way, there was another massive ethnic cleansing after the sixty seven war in the West Bank. So this is the third attempt at a massive ethnic cleansing in Gaza. So this is hardly surprising at all. And in fact, if you go back and read the literature, on the creation of Israel, this is all thoroughly documented. Ethnic cleansing was a subject that the Zionists talked about from the get go because there was no way they could create a greater Israel without doing massive ethnic cleansing.
Elijah So it wasn't really a land without people for a people without land. Absolutely not.
reSee.it AI Summary
Professor John Mearsheimer discusses the Israeli government's strategy in Gaza, suggesting that Benjamin Netanyahu is using the events of October 7th as a pretext for the long-desired expulsion of Palestinians from "greater Israel." He raises concerns about the implications of this approach and questions why more people are not recognizing the reality of the situation. In his appearance on The Tucker Carlson Show, Mearsheimer characterizes the actions as genocide and addresses the influence of the Israel lobby, along with topics related to hidden information in historical files.
@TCNetwork - Tucker Carlson Network
What is the Israeli government’s strategy in Gaza? Professor John Mearsheimer has an idea. He says Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies are using October 7th as an excuse to carry out what they’ve long envisioned: the expulsion of the Palestinian population from “greater Israel.” The evidence suggests he’s onto something. Where will this lead? And why don’t more people open their eyes to what’s really happening? Mearsheimer joined The Tucker Carlson Show to describe what he says is a genocide, expose the power of the Israel lobby, discuss what’s being hidden in the 9/11, Epstein, and JFK files, and more. Full conversation below.
@ggreenwald - Glenn Greenwald
Bernie Sanders today yet again refused to apply "genocide" to Gaza, even as Israeli genocide scholars, human rights groups, and courts use that term. Meanwhile, listen to John Mearsheimer with Tucker today, explaining why it's classic genocide and the US should stop funding it:
@DissidentSoaps - Dissident Soaps
Hmm, yeah, what do guys like Mark Levin who want war with Iran and hate Russia have in common? What could it be? https://t.co/3Ic2o5hzG5
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker questions the connection between those advocating for regime change war against Iran and those supporting continued war against Russia in Ukraine. They cite figures like Mark Levin as examples, asking what these groups with similar orientations have in common.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So So what's I don't understand since you raised it. What is the connection? The same people who are telling me we need to fight a regime change war against Iran are the same ones who are hysterical about supporting Ukraine in its and continuing our war against Russia, the Mark Levens and and and then the smarter people, but same orientation. What do they have in common?
reSee.it AI Summary
I cover: updates on the Russia/Ukraine war; why the US backs Zelensky; smear campaigns against anti-war voices; a possible push to undermine the dollar; fighting BlackRock, the Great Reset, and WEF; civil-war questions; Hollywood preprogramming; stopping an oncoming war; the Charlie Kirk/Jamie White reports; globalists vs Christianity; doubts about WWI/WWII; Kanye; Trump vaccines; immunity lawsuits; spiritual warfare; church infiltration; hope vs despair; Peter Thiel; steps to repair America; female leaders’ perceived virulence; the mission to destroy free speech; Trump DOJ help. Paid partnerships: Masa Chips 25% off code TUCKER; MeriwetherFarms TUCKER10; Cowboy Colostrum 25% off code TUCKER.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Alex Jones on what happens next. (0:00) An Update on the Russia/Ukraine War (7:40) Why Is the US Government Still Supporting Zelensky? (12:13) The Smear Campaigns Meant to Destroy Anti-War Voices (20:03) Is There a Coordinated Effort to Destroy the US Dollar? (24:16) How to Fight Back Against BlackRock, the Great Reset, and WEF (30:00) Are We on the Verge of Civil War? (41:55) How Hollywood Is Preprogramming You (43:35) How Do We Stop the Oncoming War Before It’s Too Late? (46:43) The Murder of Charlie Kirk and Infowars Reporter Jamie White (52:52) The Globalists’ Mission to Eliminate Christianity (1:02:21) Have We Been Lied to About WWI and WWII? (1:10:05) What Happened to Kanye West? (1:19:20) Donald Trump Taking the New Flu Shot and Covid Booster (1:25:50) Why Can’t We Strip Vaccine Developers of Their Lawsuit Immunity? (1:27:22) Are People Becoming More Conscious of Spiritual Warfare? (1:37:00) The Infiltration of American Churches (1:38:29) Does Jones Ever Feel Hopeless? (1:41:46) Peter Thiel and the Antichrist (1:48:26) The First Step to Repairing Our Country (1:52:36) Why Are Female Leaders Far More Bloodthirsty Than Men? (2:58:03) The Mission to Destroy Alex Jones and Free Speech (2:09:09) Will the Trump Justice Department Save Alex Jones and Mike Lindell? Includes paid partnerships.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson outline a global crisis: the Russia–Ukraine war is in an “extreme escalatory phase,” with NATO accused of false flags as Trump weighs long‑range missiles and calls to “get out of NATO.” They warn of a new world war with China, and blame EU policy and the so‑called Podesta Plan for secessionist moves and a proposed “forceful uprising” by Schumer, arguing Europe could be dragged into conflict to destroy Western civilization. They discuss Ukraine, Zelensky, and Netanyahu amid broader fears of an ongoing “Great Reset,” ESG, depopulation, and centralized AI. Domestically, Infowars and Mike Lindell face court action seen as weaponization of government; they reference a “new nine eleven commission” amid claims of foreknowledge and a bought‑and‑paid‑for cover‑up. Spiritual themes emerge, including anti‑globalist resistance and discussions of the Antichrist and a personal relationship with God.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alex Jones, ladies and gentlemen. Really glad to have you back.
Speaker 1: It's always great to be with you and your wonderful crew in Florida, but Maine is my favorite. This is truly a little slice of Mayberry.
Speaker 0: Mildly demented Mayberry. Thank you. So what everyone's been focused on Israel, Gaza, the huge debate about Israel and The United States, which is great, fine, but we sort of are ignoring other things that are happening here and abroad as we have that debate. And one of the things that seems to be happening that fewer Americans are aware of is the situation in Russia seems to be getting between Russia and Ukraine and The United States and Europe. NATO seems to be degrading quickly.
Where is that going, do you think?
Speaker 1: It's an extreme escalatory phase, three and a half plus years in. As you know, Trump says he's strongly considering giving them long range Tomahawk cruise missiles, and Russia has said that that escalates into direct war, and they're basically calling it World War four. The CIA called the Cold War World War three. So we are really in with all the ingredients we have with China, the North Korean troops being in Ukraine, all the different proxy countries involved. This is really is a new world war.
The only question is, will it continue to escalate, which it is now in in the the next phase? We know that NATO has already been caught with Zelenskyy with Ukraine two years ago shooting missiles into Poland. They tried to blame on Russia. There's been those drones that that that they claim came out of Russia, but Russia says it's basically a setup a few months ago. You have operation spider web three months ago with smuggled drones as far as 4,000 miles away from Ukraine in Russia on its coast with Japan with their bear bombers being blown up, part of their nuclear triad.
So imagine if that happened in America and imagine if Russia had given, you know, Mexico the drones to do it. So so all of this is NATO trying to suck The United States directly into full conflict. They've got a quarter million person army conscription starting up in parts of Europe, a descendant of, quote, peacekeeping force to Ukraine, really calling an invasion force a peacekeeping force. And then now, as I predicted, it was the next move. NATO claims that Russia is going into the zero phase or zero hour, and that NATO is now putting out propaganda in the last forty eight hours, that Russia has prepositioned undercover Spetsnaz special forces all over Europe preparing terror attacks and mass casualty events, and that Russia is preparing to attack Europe proper, which, of course, is completely insane to to do that offensively.
And and and so that fits the pattern of the preparation for false flags that will then be blamed on Russia as the pretext to invoke the articles in NATO that brings NATO directly into war. That if The United States is still part of NATO, that will drag us directly into war with Russia that will quickly escalate the thermonuclear war and every major war in there is. So I agree with Elon Musk and senator Lee that it's time for us to get out of NATO.
Speaker 0: Immediately. If you take three steps back so Europe has no reason to fight Russia at all. Europe has every reason to cooperate with Russia, at least on energy, but on a lot of things probably. It refuses. Russia's now formed an alliance probably permanent with China.
And so and Ukraine, of course, can't win. They don't have the manpower. They never could. So if you're escalating the war at this point, if you're promoting the war at this point, it seems to me your goal is to destroy Europe. And I think that's kinda always been the goal, to destroy Europe and The United States.
Speaker 1: Well, as you stated, it was been the policy in The United States since the fifties, right through Nixon, right through Reagan, right through Herbert Walker Bush, right until just the last five years or so to split China from Russia. Of course. And that is a very good policy, and you have China that is actually expanding all over the South China Sea, just cut off 95% of rare earth minerals to the world, including The US. Serious act of war, absolutely vital in everything we do for folks who don't know. Nothing works.
Cell phones, computers, avionics, aircraft, everything. Satellites is based on those. That's all their question. How is China allowed to position itself for 95% plus control of rare earth minerals? That's a serious act of war.
So their expansion is taking islands of Philippines, taking drilling rigs, you know, off the coast of Vietnam. All that's happened. They just put a communist government or trying to fully in South Korea. So China is on the move, and everything should be focused on them. It is a strategic blunder of biblical proportions to be roped into the Soros NATO war, but NATO and the EU unelected commission has said for years that Europe's demographics and finances are the worst of any first world nation or sector.
And so they say their business model is a twenty to thirty year war conventional with Russia that they believe will allow them to stay on a war economy and will finally break Russia, and then they will break Russia into five parts. That's official EU Commission policy. It's totally delusional. Russia's outproducing weapons three to one, has three times the troops in the field, and only gearing up. And so in the face of that delusional plan, to Napoleon's or Hitler's, with Operation Barbarossa in '42, Europe is trying to double down again and sucking us in.
But when all the real strategists and and and even all their think tanks say this this wouldn't work, then the question is why is the unelected commission and The US neocons and left fully supporting this commitment to
Speaker 0: Because they want to destroy Christian civilization. That's why. Yes. True. They got behind the first and second world wars, and it's why the lesson that they taught us in school was that it's dangerous to have a big white Christian country, which is not, actually.
And they've systematically tried to destroy those countries, and they've succeeded.
Speaker 1: And Russia is is a very Christian nation, very pro Western, and the left hates that. And so now they they exactly. How do they turn over the chessboard when the Hollywood satanic globalist black rocket leader failing is you kamikaze the Russians in America and Europe into a giant climactic war while the globalists sit back and watch us all kill each other?
Speaker 0: That's totally right. I think that's totally right. Why are we participating in it? Why would the US government ever send long range missiles? Why would it basically, if we send those munitions to Ukraine, we're at open war.
We've been at war with Russia for three and a half years, as you know, but that would be open war. Why would why would we go along with that? What is going on?
Speaker 1: It's sleepwalking at Armageddon. Well, Europe's demographics and financial system means the unelected EU will collapse in the next few years. It's politically unpopular, so the political reason is they believe a war will keep them in power and it's delusional. That's the last refuge of tyrants when they're falling is to is to take the country to war to try to maintain domestic control. But again, at a spiritual level, it's it's it's absolute satanism.
It's it's absolute death cult, death wish that if the globalist can't maintain control, they'll just drag us into the grave of history with themselves. And like so many tyrannies, they are going like the elephant graveyard or boneyard to Russia to die.
Speaker 0: Why would the US government continue to recognize Zelensky, who's an unelected dictator who's worked for years to destroy Christianity in Ukraine, which is a Christian country and has always been, why would he be invited to the White House this week? I don't understand. He's he does not have a democratic mandate. He's not an elected leader. He's a murderer.
They've sold our weapons to some of the worst terror groups in the world, and we're treating him like he's a head of state. Like, why are we doing that?
Speaker 1: And just what? A few weeks ago, three weeks ago, he was back at the White House, and Trump then posted through social. And I love Trump overall, but Trump started doing a one eighty from saying we need get out of this and saying, well, we're out of it, but we'll sell whatever weapons of Europe you want. And I feel like Ukraine's gonna win and maybe not just get back its territory, but get more territory, meaning Russia, which is extremely provocative and escalatory statement to Russia. And we know that Putin agreed actually to the framework of what Trump wanted, but Zelensky and NATO have refused.
And so we have to ask the calculus of why the president who's, you know, mister Peace Prize, has done a great job helping in seven other conflicts, which I totally support. Why is he suddenly changing course, Tucker? You know a lot better than I do.
Speaker 0: So did you know that before the current generation, chips and fries were cooked in natural fats like beef tallow. That's how things used to be done, and that's why people looked a little slimmer at the time and ate better than they do now. Well, masa chips is bringing that all back. They've created tortilla chip that's not only delicious, it's made with just three simple ingredients. A, organic corn, b, sea salt, c, a 100% grass fed beef tallow.
That's all that's in it. These are not your average chips. Moss chips are crunchier, more flavorful, even sturdier. They don't break in your guacamole. And because of the quality ingredients, they are way more filling and nourishing, so you don't have to eat four bags of them.
You can eat just a single bag as I do. It's a totally different experience. It's light. It's clean. It's genuinely satisfying.
I have a garage full, and I can tell you they're great. The lime flavor is particularly good. We have a hard time putting those down. So if you wanna give it a try, go to Masa Chips, masachips.com/tucker. Use the code Tucker for 25% off your first order.
That's masachips.com/tucker. Use the code Tucker for 25% off your first order. For the shop in person in October, Masa is gonna be available at your local Sprouts supermarket. So stop by and pick up a bag before we eat them all, and we eat a lot. Why the attraction to Zelensky?
Why does our foreign policy class or donor class have this fixation on Zelensky? He's a hero. By the way, I've tried to interview him, like, 20 times. He he refused to interview with me, but he he's, you know, everywhere in The United States, basically American at this point. Why the what's the appeal there?
Speaker 1: I think it's the money laundering appeal and the fact that that's where most of the money laundering's still able to go on since Trump and and Doge and Elon shut down a lot of the graft in USA and in the EPA and Department of Energy, that clearly that is a place where they can launder money and where they can, you know, go over there and be like rock stars in Kiev and be have all the prostitutes. The rest of it reportedly, it's Sodom and Gomorrah over there. The women, you know, were just partying. All the men, boys, and old men go off to die. It's a very very sick situation and just the heights of decadence.
You know, we we've heard the quote of Marie Antoinette, which they never proved she said it. They're about to storm the Bastille, the start of first revolution, and they said the peasants are all starving. You know, they're begging for grain. They're begging for wheat, and she says, let them eat cake. And then you saw what happened.
Well, is literally let them eat cake while our country's infrastructure falls apart while millions die from fentanyl, while crimes ramp at the streets. We have all this money being sent over to Ukraine, and look, I don't like sending money to Israel. I'm not anti Israel in general. I don't I'm not against the existence of Israel, but that sucks all the oxygen out of the room. All people talk about is the 50,000 dead Gazans in in October 7 where clearly Netanyahu stood down, that should be investigated.
But what about the million plus conservatively dead in and around Ukraine, and and what about its potential and now probability on the current trajectory of escalation to lead into full world war and nuclear war? That to me is why it's absolutely the front and center issue. And, you know, the TV cameras are all turned on Gaza, which is fine, but the scale of Ukraine and its potential danger is in a whole another league.
Speaker 0: It is, isn't it? That's my sense.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 0: Why is no one saying that?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I noticed you get called an anti Semite, which is absolutely preposterous and ridiculous. That's why the Israel lobby, both APAC and the ADL, are such jokes now and being
Speaker 0: Well, that's just that's a campaign run out of Israel, which is a foreign country, to slander me and others. I just don't wanna go to war with Iran. It's that simple.
Speaker 1: But see, you're consistent. You you you you you apologize. You bought into the propaganda decades ago. I remember about fifteen years ago, you came to see me in Austin. You were kinda doing your tour of your own, you know, your apology tour that you came up with, which I admire.
I've made mistakes too and done that. You said, I'm done. I was lied to about WMDs. You said, hey, Building 7. When we first talked about that, I've really woken up that that that that I was drinking the Kool Aid, and I'm done.
And you've consistently, for what, fifteen years now or longer, have have have basically the same policies I'm for. And when I'm against Israel pulling us into a war with Iran, it's not because I hate Jews, it's because we understand how dangerous it is and how out of control it is, and how Netanyahu's wanted this for twenty five years and helped found Hamas or fund Hamas and and, you know, all of this. And they just put Al Qaeda in charge of Syria. So so you're so again, and you're also not being anti Ukrainian or or or
Speaker 0: anti, you know I feel so sorry for the Ukrainians. They got completely screwed by the West as usual.
Speaker 1: So so you exactly. So you're consistent that you don't want offensive wars with The US involved and that China is literally saying prepare for total war and expanding into The Caribbean and trying to take the Panama Canal. We don't war with China either. But if we're tied up in all these wars, we don't have peace through strength. All hands should be on deck for China.
Everything should be mobilized for China. Every real analyst knows that. And and so you're here with with serious policy, serious research, serious background saying we can't be in Netanyahu sandbox and then blowing up more countries and
Speaker 0: shipping over relevant countries. It's relevant 9,000,000 people with no resources. Everyone loves Jerusalem and Bethlehem. That's great, but the country itself means absolutely nothing.
Speaker 1: Well, I tell
Speaker 0: them It's like Malawi. Why are we spending all of our time talking about this irrelevant country? It's, like, bizarre.
Speaker 1: And and that's why I brought it up is is because we do talk about it in my view in the real context that that the the ultra right wing, you know, that thinks everything's Israel, all roads lead to Israel. I saw you talk about this a few weeks ago. It's sick. It's it's it's crazy. It's not a defense of Israel.
No.
Speaker 0: Of course not.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's defensive reality. We have to somehow only spend 10% of our time on Israel. I mean I mean, right now, and here I am doing it, spending a bit, but you have to do it. Instead of literally I think in talk radio and and liberal blogosphere and everywhere, I think it's, like, 90% is on Israel right now, and it's it's sick. I know.
And I think Netanyahu likes it. He loves being the center of attention.
Speaker 0: Of course. And loves feeling hated and, you know, we're I'm so persecuted and all this stuff. It's like, I totally agree with you. And it's also unhealthy, and then, you know, it does get to a place where people become hateful and that, you know, that's not good for anybody. Well, if
Speaker 1: you look at it, the Lavaughan affair in The US with liberty and some other things, Israel is very capable with different leadership. It's had to stage false flags at Dragonson. And and if you really study nine eleven, and at the end of the day, it was an alliance of Israeli neocons and US neocons that bare minimum used an attack to build a larger attack around it for the project for the American Century to take us into the Pax Americana War in The Middle East. And Of course. And that's where we you know, $10,000,000,000,000 later or whatever it is, I think it's 11,000,000,000,000 or more are are are in this.
Speaker 0: That's not a theory. I was there. I I mean, I shared office space for the project for New American Century. I worked at the Weekly Standard. So, yes, that is just a fact.
That happened. I don't think I mean, if we're reaching the point where people's memories are so bad that counts as a conspiracy theory, then I just give up. Does Wikipedia call that a conspiracy theory?
Speaker 1: No. But, you know, they call it neocons are if you talk about neocons, that's antisemitic. Well, yeah, about half the neocons were Jewish, but the fact is they're crazy warmongers that believe the end justifies the mean. And and when you get further back, Trotsky got kicked out by Stalin, and he ran to Mexico. And Stalin had him hunted down and killed by an assassin with an ice axe, and then all of his chopped people came to The US, became the neocons, and said we're gonna take over the Republican Party, and we're gonna go to war with Russia to get back control of what's ours.
Because Trotsky was supposed to replace Lenin when he died, but instead, he got kicked out. And so it is a fact, historical fact, even the Wall Street Journal twenty years ago wrote about it, that when you look at the weekly standard and you look at the neocons, they are they are literal Trotskyite communist from the Russian derivation that set up a neoconism, and then you had Cheney and Rumsfeld and and others that weren't Jewish, but were large parts of the neocon system. And so that's why Netanyahu plugged into that so nicely because he came out of the neocons in the nineteen seventies and eighties.
Speaker 0: No. That's that's all just a fact. That's not I mean, there's nothing hidden or creepy about it but saying it. Yeah. And the British
Speaker 1: had come over here a group of communists taking over the Republican Party. I'd be against it. Mean, my last name's Jones. It's just it is what it is, and it's out of control. No.
I know. And now people are awake to it, that's a good thing. And we need to dismantle, undo any foreign influence. I'm just simply saying that's a big problem, but nothing compared to communist China. But it becomes the biggest problem when the Israel lobby doesn't want the pivot to Asia that that's taken us sixteen years to do and still hasn't happened.
And instead, the same lobbies are involved with Soros and the left allied, the neocons, wanting a war with Russia that empowers China. It is strategically a total disaster. No one even debates that at all the top 10 things, as you know. This is this is one zero one, folks. This is absolute total
Speaker 0: disaster Literally.
Speaker 1: Why the dollar's getting weak. It's why BRICS is getting stronger. This is what you do if you wanna destroy America. And I agree with Tucker. At the end of the day, it's because the evil forces above this wanna destroy the West.
Speaker 0: Here's something you may not have known. Back in 02/2015, the Congress of the United States repealed something called the Country of Origin Labeling Act. Now why is this relevant to you? Well, it means, among other things, that when you buy beef at the supermarket that says made in The USA, it may not actually be. In fact, it could be, likely is, from a foreign country.
It means that repackaging foreign meat can be enough to get the made in USA designation. It's a lie. It's an absolute lie. Most people don't even know what's happening. So how can you be sure that the meat you're eating is from The United States and has been raised with the highest quality standards and is the tastiest?
It's truly made here. Well, it's simple. You can go to our friends at Merriweather Farms. Merriweather Farms is an American small business. It's based in Riverton, Wyoming.
We know the people who run it, and they're great people, and they have great meat. They ship the highest quality meat raised free from growth hormones and antibiotics directly to your doorstep. It's delicious. We eat it a lot, including at this table. These are Americans.
These are American made products. They are the real deal. Again, we eat that meat at this table from Riverton, Wyoming. They're the best. Meriwetherfarms.com.
Use the discount code Tucker 10, and you get an extra 10% off. Again, that's Meriwether Farms, meriwether,farms.com, it's worth it. Christian civilization, of course. The first, second world wars were that that was it. That's not pro Hitler.
I'm anti Hitler, just for the record. Very anti Hitler. But the effect was to destroy, like, the most beautiful civilization ever created by far in history, all history, and this is the final blow. It seems very, very obvious, very obvious to me, and we should be aware of that as we proceed. When gold crosses 4,000, I don't understand why that's not like front page because to me, that may you're better at this than I, but that means that the cumulative effect of everything we're discussing has been to destroy the US dollar.
Speaker 1: When you read what even all Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, the IMF, the World Bank, the Ex I'm Bank, it's not even debated, they've decided in the last, really, three, four years that they're gonna deal with monetary debt worldwide, both corporate, governmental, individual with inflation. And Trump recognizes that and has said, fine, we'll have inflation with expansion and expansion of goods, and all the economists agree that that will have some pain, but overall will be something that could actually be successful. If you have the leftist UN, WEF, great reset, post industrial carbon tax plan, you will have stagflation, which is high inflation, but a ongoing recession depression, which is the perfect storm of hell on earth. And that is what the UN and the globalist directly want to create a worldwide surf system of more manageable slaves in their official policies, break down the borders with first world and third world, not to rise up the third world economically, but to lower everybody down to a level. Then the globalists said they'll have small compact city states and rural city states like the Hunger Games, where they have medicine, technology, and everything, and then just basically fly above us, and we're gonna be put into a agrarian situation with a much reduced world population.
So that's the official great reset post industrial, June '21, June 2030 policy, and there's nothing more frustrating than than reading all their policy books and the legislation and the treaties, and and then and then seeing it carried out, which is the purposeful planned depopulation of the earth through slow starvation and and and resources being restricted, and and the conflict that comes with when when resources are constricted. And then I see Trump massively increasing energy production, and then going to Saudi Arabia and having them increase energy production, which hurts US oil production, but helps the world in general lower inflation and get real money in the hands of people. That's the biggest benefit, and then no tax on tips, no tax on overtime. All the things he's doing, 10,000,000,000,000 committed in in investment, several trillion already here. All of that is exactly what you do if you wanna help the people and build a middle class and a sustainable thriving country and world, building back our morale and and and nationalism and the family and God.
Trump gets an a plus on all of that, but he needs to get more on message and not say, oh, the left are idiots. They don't know how to manage things. No. The globalists admit that they want a post industrial world. That's John Kerry said last year, we gotta cut off half the farming or people will starve.
That's what causes starvation, obviously. And they wanna cut their resources off so they can manage and control people. That's why in The Netherlands, and in Ireland, and in and in Sri Lanka, all over, they're cutting off massive amounts of the farming, taking some of the best farming land ever and saying, sorry, your cows pass gas, it's bad for the earth. That is deliberate sabotage of the of the world economy to cause a collapse, then the banksters can loan us more money, bring in a new cashless society, social credit score. That is the endgame plan.
And they talk about carbon lockdowns for the earth where you'll be told when you can leave your house. During carbon lockdowns, you'll be told when you can leave your fifteen minute city. This is a very totalitarian hellscape, dystopia, sci fi vision they have, and Trump is 95%, I would say, in opposition to it even with his limited understanding. He by limited, I mean, he's smart about the economy, doesn't understand it's deliberate. And he goes, oh, they're really dumb.
These are the worst ideas I ever heard. Is that why they're all unified, decades getting them in place? Is that why the big banks and corporations are exempt? No. It's feudalism.
We don't have resources. We don't have rights. They all have the rights. That is the purest form of economic control. It's the oldest form of government.
It's been the most common form of government in world history, and the UN and globalists say, we're bringing back feudalism. Neo feudalistic capitalism is what they call it. But really, it's just slavery. And that's what we're opposing, and that's what the relaunch of the West is about. That's what Elon Musk understands.
That's why this is a do or die existential threat to everybody. People should just get on board and get hardcore or be absolute feudal slaves if you're lucky.
Speaker 0: How do you get on board?
Speaker 1: You understand and you research the great reset, and you reset research Larry Fink, now the head of the World Economic Forum. You realize three years ago, the UN made the World Economic Forum co equal to its governing body and its councils, and you understand if you actually read their writings, the future isn't human, people are bad, families are bad, we're gonna have these AI gods that take over. I mean, is just the wildest thing that Lex Luthor in a in a comic book couldn't come up with. This is beyond supervillain stuff. This is real super demon stuff, and you have to identify the attack you're under and that it's deliberate.
Then you have to mobilize and get good legislatures and governors and others elected. Populists are getting elected all over the world. People are really waking up to this, and we have now these attorney generals winning court cases in Texas and other places where BlackRock tried to come in and say, we're not gonna have any investment in your state if you don't get rid of fossil fuels. And we and and then Texas sued Campaction, so this is racketeering. This is illegal.
They'd won the court cases it is. Because Larry says this is about control, and we're gonna control you. And and they control us by managing our money. Well, now a bunch of states are pulling their pension funds from BlackRock. And now Larry Fink is seeing a different tune at least publicly, and they pulled some of their DEI and some of the ESG stuff, which is the corporate governance.
When you wonder why, whether you're in Australia, Germany, or The US, or Canada, it's the same policies, the same programs, the same drag queen story times, the same take a knee during the national anthem. All of this comes out of them literally trying to demoralize us because if we have a free open society, people around the world are gonna want that, and you can't have a control group where there's some free prosperous western nations. Everybody else slaves under BlackRock and the globalist. That's why you gotta take down the West so there's nowhere to run.
Speaker 0: I think that's I think that's exactly right. You you can't have different systems, radically different systems in a globalized world, Can you?
Speaker 1: No. And and so exactly. So there's a fight between do you want the 1984 civilization, or do you want the 1776 civilization? 1776 isn't going back. It's back to the future.
It was the flower of the Renaissance and the greatest expression of hundreds and hundreds of years of the Great Awakening and of the of the enlightenment. And so it's a continuation of that. We have to get back to the future, back to the avant garde, back to what produces the most freedom, the most wealth, classical liberalism of Thomas Jefferson. Now modern liberalism is totalitarian, anti family, anti speech, anti self defense, anti private property. Modern liberalism is a totalitarian death cult transhumanist poison to sabotage human civilization.
It's a depopulation program. 1776 is the is the ultimate most successful push of humans to produce the very best atmosphere of liberty and freedom and competition and empowerment. The problem is in the cycle, as you know, hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men, weak men make bad times. The problem is is that are we good enough? It was Benjamin Franklin, right, if they finally, you know, years later after the Declaration of Independence and the bill of constitution, you know, finally got the bill of rights done, and he was walking out.
The newspaper reporter said, mister Franklin, you know, do we now finally have our nation? And he said, yes. You have your republic if you can keep it. And he said, and so did Jefferson, he said, you gotta have informed, involved, educated people. And and Jefferson wrote about this constantly.
He said, not just informed about math or Latin, but you gotta have people that are farmers. You gotta have, you know, people that that that actually know how to skin a buck and run a trot line. He said, if you get ever get people where they're not physically out there able to run and control their whole lives, the the so called education doesn't matter because they're just educated idiots. So you've gotta have that multifacetedness where, you know, people have to really people think of that as work. No.
It it's it's empowering to really try to be what Thomas Jefferson talked about. And then when you go through what Jefferson went through, some of us have gone through similar things now, not to that extent, but close. Then you read Jefferson, you realize we're back in that same time of change and revolution again. It's our revolution. We have the ball.
We're selling the best system. We have the proven track record. We're the good guys, and we've gotta stand up and make the choices clear, plant our flag, and say, this is the hill to die on, and we will win.
Speaker 0: We've got a new partner. It's a company called Cowboy Colostrum. It's a brand that is serious about actual health, and the product is designed to work with your body, not against your body. It is a pure and simple product, all natural. Unlike other brands, cowboy colostrum is never diluted.
It always comes directly from American grass fed cows. There's no filler. There's no junk. It's all good. It tastes good, believe it or not.
So before you reach for more pills for every problem that pills can't solve, we recommend you give this product, cowboy colostrum, a try. It's got everything your body needs to heal and thrive. It's like the original superfood loaded with nutrients, antibodies, proteins, help build a strong immune system, stronger hair, skin, and nails. I threw my wig away and right back to my natural hair after using this product. You just take a scoop of it every morning in your beverage, coffee, or a smoothie, and you will feel the difference every time.
For a limited time, people listen to our show get 25% off the entire order. So go to cowboycolostrum.com. Use the code Tucker at checkout. 25% off when you use that code, Tucker@cowboycolostrum.com. Remember, you mentioned you heard it here first.
The way to derail that kind of response, that kind of consciousness is by creating, like, total chaos in your country. And the second that happens, the second is dangerous to drive on I-ninety 5 or I-five, then people can't think clearly at all, and they just become purely reactive.
Speaker 1: Or have COVID lockdowns. Or COVID lockdowns. They put masks on little kids.
Speaker 0: Exactly. And I think you've described the Trump Trump record right. Like, you know, moving in the right direction, flaws, but moving in the right direction. The way to derail all of that is not the midterm elections. It's some kind of civil strife.
Do you do you think that's coming?
Speaker 1: Well, Russia was right to to lead off with. I didn't know we were gonna lead off with, but I think that was the most important thing. We didn't really talk much before this. And the next place I wanted to go was the Podesta Plan.
Speaker 0: What is the Podesta Plan?
Speaker 1: Well, when I talk about this, I get chills because in August 2020, Breitbart wrote about it, Daily Caller wrote about it, but The New York Times wrote about it first. And Podesta does this big Democrat party war game. Which Podesta? John? John Podesta.
Former White House chief of staff. Yep. Absolutely. And and then and then later, the climate czar for, you know, for Biden or giving up the climate money, stealing it. He he comes out of this huge report.
They published the whole thing. And I'm I'm reading like this, it was like 70 pages or something. And they say, if Trump wins in 2020, this is in August, months before, which they were able to steal it, so he didn't. He said, we're gonna have Western states secede. We're gonna have blue cities secede, but we'll start with the Western states, California, Oregon, and Washington, and we'll call it over migrants and sanctuary cities and health care at first, which they're now doing.
I'm getting chills because it's all happening. Like like, you you go to a play and you're reading, oh, the next act is this, and Romeo and Juliet, mean, it's all right there. And they say, if he wins, we will say it's illegitimate. We will have blue states first secede and that they're gonna be sanctuary cities for the illegals. Then when there's civil unrest, which they'll furnish, Trump will send the National Guard, and then there'll be a massacre of the migrants, and then we will kick off a civil war.
Then all the blue cities across the country will secede. Then New York, Massachusetts, and others will secede, and we'll form what we call the Western Alliance, and we will then the the US military will be with us because they they control the generals, people that think that don't think otherwise you're that was Trump's mistake he found out. Most of them are globalist at the top, not your enlisted. They're great people. And that they would then form a military alliance if Trump didn't stand down, and they would march on DC.
And then they made a movie produced two years ago. They released last year called Civil War that is the last act of the Podesta Plan. That's that's in a two plus year civil war race based. At the end, they go and, you know, the black female sergeant kills the Trumpian figure in the White House, and that's because evil white people are not massacring brown people across the country. So the US military reconvenes under Gavin Newsom's command type.
And then then then they come in and then they take over the country, and then they reeducate all the evil right wingers and evil white people. And then I saw Gavin Newsom on Colbert about three weeks ago, and he said, oh, we're forming, and they hold a map up, the Western Alliance, and it's for migrants and health care, and we're getting ready to go on offense, and Colbert goes, he does that demon face. Goes, and and and and the whole crowd goes, because they're all read in on this. We have countless videos at rallies in Austin, in Denver, in New York where the left goes, soon Trump and Homan will kill a bunch of us. And when they do, that's when the uprising begins.
So they're all read in on this. They all know it is the Podesta plan. They all know it's the Western alliance. They all know it's the Western offense. And so you have the Soros NGO funded no kings events like they had on the June 14 when the guy that worked for Tampon Tim went around reportedly, you know, killing senators and state reps there at the state level.
Later told the FBI in a letter saying, no, I I did this for the Democrats. It's a false flag so so so that Tim Walz could, you know, play victim. He supposedly had a bunch of accomplices, but they didn't help him. They caught his wife with a bunch of people with passports, guns, and money, you know, fleeing the area. But within two hours of the attack, they had his roommate on TV saying, oh, I he loved Trump and Alex Jones.
Isn't that interesting? It's all very scripted. But but but my point is now you have the no kings this weekend, and and and we now have Schumer on Monday, went on MSNBC and said, we need to have a forceful uprising. We need to have a forceful uprising. What's the exact quote?
My my my producer's over there. So so this is this is chilling, and he said he wants to keep the the shutdown going at least until next Saturday, the eighteenth, to get the maximum amount of anger that they can get. You have Hakim Jeffrey saying similar things. So they're not even hiding any of this anymore.
Speaker 0: So the idea is to whip their supporters into a frenzy, basically do BLM five years later?
Speaker 1: Yes. But on a on a much wider scale. And so when you have here, I'll put the actual quote. When you actually have because I it posted on my actual law of shows. When you have these guys openly saying this, I mean, this is a big a deal as it gets.
I mean, this is just I'm I'm
Speaker 0: When Chuck Schumer senator Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: Forceful uprising. I wanna get it exactly right. Forceful uprising.
Speaker 0: Chuck Schumer called for a forceful uprising?
Speaker 1: Forceful uprising because of the of the indictment of Leticia James on mortgage fraud. But, I
Speaker 0: mean, it sounds like Leticia James committed mortgage fraud.
Speaker 1: Well, they're only gone after in Virginia so far. New York, as you as you know, is even worse. And what's crazy is we have all the public documents. Total fraud. Like, four residences as primary residence, residences that she says are single family homes, and there's five people, five apartments in it.
I mean, this is serious fraud. So everything she accused Trump of doing baselessly, she's now doing. And she's
Speaker 0: Well, that's always the way, Alex, isn't it?
Speaker 1: Exactly. Total inversion. So everything they've accused Trump of is what they're actually doing. And and then she's been caught, and now they're whining. CNN the other day said, well, everybody engages in mortgage fraud.
Well, I don't.
Speaker 0: No. I I don't engage in mortgages and and much less fraud. No. But it is always just when Bill Crystal accused me of backing an ethnostate. I was like, no.
I'm not the one who backs the ethnostate. So Chuck Schumer saying a forceful uprising is called he wants
Speaker 1: a forceful uprising. He called this weekend for a forceful uprising, close quote, on MSNBC. He he goes, we need have a forceful uprising to this similar to his, you know, you've reaped a whirlwind thing, you're gonna get it. So they they're obviously agitating for more violence. You see the governor candidate in Virginia after the AG candidate who's been in the lead, you know, said, I wanna kill these state reps.
I wanna kill their children. I I wanna kill cops. And then they the other gubernatorial candidate asked the lady, will you decry him calling for killing members of the legislature and their children by name? And she said, nope.
Speaker 0: Abigail Spanberger. Yeah. And I think it was a CIA officer
Speaker 1: at one point. It's totally insane. And and she sits there with this bizarre look on her face. I mean, these people are doing this on purpose, and it's called the Podesta Plan. And so I'm sure the Pentagon knows about this.
The problem is most of those top generals are globalists. People don't know. They've been put through all the schools. They don't get promoted unless they're globalists. Most of our generals have been bad since the nineties.
They teach them at the Army War College. I've I've read these reports that literally America needs to end. We need be part of a world government. That communism is good.
Speaker 0: So let's just narrow it down. If you really believe that widespread civil unrest preparatory to civil war is coming, if Chuck Schumer, you know, one of the senior senators, is calling for it, then you really need to make sure the military is under control, that it's not politicized, that it's not you know, that it reports to the president as it's constitutionally mandated to do. Like, the military is the key. Correct?
Speaker 1: Yes. And I loved Hagstad's speech, and that's the right direction, but we need more of that. And a lot of the generals were rolling their eyes, giggling, putting their heads in their hands. And I guarantee you, you just go, okay. Who's that guy?
Look at his record. He's gonna be a commie, a leftist.
Speaker 0: But wouldn't you I mean, it would be almost an emergency situation. You would then make certain that the general officers in your military were loyal to the constitution.
Speaker 1: Exactly. And and and the left and the corporate media act like, if Trump wants prosecutions, he's not supposed to do that. No. He's a chief law enforcement officer. We elected him for that.
We elect one man in the in the general election. You know, all of us vote have an ability to vote for, you know, for only one position. And so it's not Trump's right. It's his duty. It's only the president that makes a special oath, not to just protect, preserve, and defend, you know, but protect and defend like the rest of military do, but to protect and preserve and defend.
He's supposed to preserve the republic. So 400 troops to Chicago, 200 to Portland, this is nothing. They're openly waiting to gear up the violence, then they're gonna false flag, I believe. Of the illegal aliens or traditional black college, which I predicted this before. They evacuated the traditional black colleges a month ago.
And and said
Speaker 0: I didn't even know that.
Speaker 1: Why? And said, Charlie Kirk's supporters are coming to kill you. Then it turned out it was a false flag. They admitted fake calls. That's the left because they Carville and Podesta and all of them, John Podesta, have said on TV, now that they've gone live with the Podesta plan when he when Trump was president-elect and then once, you know, he got in, there's hundreds of videos of them all on there saying, Carville.
Now listen. It's seventeen seventy six part two. I can't really do his voice. Can't do a Louisiana voice. Sorry.
He said, black people gotta be ready. Trump's coming to kill you with Tom Homan. You gotta have your guns and be ready. The View, we gotta be ready to fight and die. They're coming to kill us.
On CNN, you know, they'll be, you know, sitting there debating. Yeah. Trump's coming with the military to kill black people and Hispanics. Then I think, well, where could there be a group of Hispanics, an illegal alien demonstration or something, then somebody from a parking garage mows a bunch of them down, blames it on some Trump supporter, or where's the where is a bunch of black folks by themselves? Traditional black college.
So I've been saying that for eight, nine months, just seeing their programming. How they're saying Trump's gonna kill masses of Hispanics and blacks. Well, we're gonna do a false flag, those two places, and a few others. Then a month ago, they evacuated most of black colleges for a week saying Charlie Kirk supporters are coming to kill you, Trying to piggyback on that and create this illusion that Trump supporters blamed black people for this. No.
We we blames, if you believe the official story, some, you know, trans trans supporter cult members. So so absolutely going back to your point, There needs to be Pentagon mobilization. Trump needs to address the nation on this, talk about the Modesto plan. Any of his crew, I can send it to him, can put a reel together like he did when they said no South African farmers are being killed. He just showed a five minute video devastated him.
I can send them a ten minute clip, clip, clip of hundreds of clips of top Democrats saying, Trump's coming to kill the migrants. He's coming to kill the blacks. We gotta rise up. We gotta have a civil war. And then I can show the quotes from the Podesta plan laying this out.
This is the official Democrat party battle plan with production movies, $350,000,000 budgets, civil war, promoting it. Now the new movie, battle after battle with DiCaprio where it it's it's set in a fictional fantasy land in The US where they have this hot sex and it's so awesome, and they go around with plastic explosives and dynamite machine guns killing ice officers all over The US and freeing Hispanics from concentration camps. So Hollywood's not, you know, making its constant holocaust movies about World War two. They've moved on to the new holocaust that isn't happening. The first one did of, you know, just Tom Homan just machine gunning Hispanic women and then raping them in dungeons.
I mean, you know, it's it's like machete kills where there's Don Johnson shooting pregnant Hispanic women with the stomach with deer rifles. Didn't happen, folks. But Hollywood is providing this background right on time for these uprisings. There's planning because the globalists are losing. This is their last big move, and I'll say it again.
The Podesta plan, the the Podesta plan. We've got to get the Podesta plan that we're now living in the launch of in front. So Trump's declared ANTIVA, domestic terrorists, international terrorists. He said they're going after Soros, which I know the DOJ is. That's great.
But this this is the Democratic Party running it. That's why they say ANTIVA doesn't exist because we got documents ten years ago through Friends of Democracy and Alexander Soros where they command them in each city, give them orders where to attack, what to do. It is all 100 specifically roadmapped out, open and shut, racketeering, domestic terrorism, send them to prison with the documents we have.
Speaker 0: I mean, since it's all happening out in the open, how do you so so once that starts, it's pretty hard to pull back from it. You know, violence has its own logic, and and it makes people totally unreasonable, it does so generationally, and it's just like the worst thing ever. How do you stop that?
Speaker 1: You have all these entitled illegal aliens. You see the videos every day where ICE has to wait outside the state courthouses or jails when they're releasing some guy with, you know, huge rap sheet, been deported before, and his wife and baby will be in the car. And then the ICE comes over, like, or three of them and says, hey, get out of the car. We know who you are. They go, no.
No. No. Then a mob comes over and starts attacking ICE. We've seen these countless videos. The underdog is ICE.
They've got less than 10,000 agents with 20 plus million illegals just under Biden here. And and to answer your question, the left is so entitled that these illegal aliens aren't illegal alien MS 13 people from El Salvador. No. They're Maryland man. And so Trump has to address it and explain to people that these illegal aliens, the Islamicists, the left, the Black Lives Matter, the Trantifa, the tranny antifa, they are all in one big coalition.
They all communicate with their rhetoric and their attack plans, and they're all saying that as soon as they have the catalyzing event where a bunch of their people get massacred. It's in movies. It's in the Podesta plan. I've got countless videos. You see them all the time.
We're out at the rally. They go, you just wait till Trump kills a bunch of us. And then once we have that pretext, even MSNBC said, our constituents want blood. They want a triggering event. I mean, they're just like, once the triggering event comes, you're all dead.
We're burning everything down, and we're coming to your houses. And Antifa and these other groups have targeted lists that have come out of whose houses they're going to. Governors, talk show host, everybody. Tucker is on the list. I'm on the list.
We've caught them outside my house, folks. Okay? I'm just gonna leave it at that. I haven't stayed at my house in months. It's it's gotten that bad.
I mean, I stay there Have
Speaker 0: you stayed at your house?
Speaker 1: I don't stay at my house anymore. My my my I stay there as much as my children know. Because, I mean, they're there. It's targeted. And as soon as they kick this off, there are people that are first on the list that they're planning to come get.
Because I'm not trying you know this, Tucker. You're smart. When they really launch this, it is not gonna be them knocking your door down in DC. It it's gonna be a, you know, a group of meth heads rolling up with Moloff cocktails. And and and they've got these undercover videos in Austin and Portland and everywhere, hours of them, and and it shows inside these warehouse where they give them drugs and money and food and the NGOs, and they're just all in there ramped up and ready with guns and weapons.
And then just as soon as they give them the green light, they are gonna just pile in their vans and come to kill. Well, think of Helter Skelter times 10,000. Think of the the the Manson Family times 10,000. They've got Manson Family groups in every major city and and most small towns, literally, that would make the cast of Chainsaw Massacre look like choir boys ready to go. Right.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Of course. I mean, these these are the shock troops of whatever the the nihilists, the atheists, of course. That's always the way it works. I just I don't see that anything's been
Speaker 1: done about any of this. Well, I think Trump is smart, but he's so insulated his whole life, you know, in golf courses and the presidency and all that. He's gone through a lot of hell, but he he's insulated seeing law and order around him and has no idea what it's like for, you know, for me personally. I mean, Austin, where I've lived since high school, used to be a beautiful safe city. It's everybody's houses get invaded.
Everybody's cars get broken into. Our reporter in March just got executed in the parking lot of his apartments. And I've said 98% chance it'll be a Hispanic gangbanger or black gangbanger, not because I'm being mean to Hispanics or blacks. Well, it turned out I was right on both. Masonry media said or legacy media, Jones puts out racist announcement, predicts Jamie White would would has been killed by some race based gang of Hispanic
Speaker 0: So this guy got murdered, but the real problem is that you're a racist?
Speaker 1: Yes. And then they And
Speaker 0: the problem is he got murdered.
Speaker 1: And and a mile from my office. And who was it? Well, it turned out it was right on both counts. So two of them were charged with murder. One, because they participated.
One is Hispanic and literally on his Facebook had Mexican flags and La Rica and Quista and take over America, down with America. The other guy cut a rap song, black guy, about how he killed that Jamie White, that white guy. F him. So they were able to find them off their cell phone data, and they were driving a stolen car when they killed him in the parking lot. And but the point was, my reporter was killed, and both individuals charged with murder won.
The police said it's also racially motivated because they both talked about how they love killing that white guy. So so, you know, we're told there's not these crime waves. We're told this isn't going on.
Speaker 0: There's a lot of that.
Speaker 1: There's a
Speaker 0: lot of, like, I love to kill white people going on, and it's tolerated and celebrated.
Speaker 1: What happened when with Charlie Kirk. I mean, tens of thousands of leftists just saying, kill his family, kill his wife, kill all the Republicans. And then and then, you know, take this attorney general candidate that's been in the lead, Jones, in Virginia. He said the same thing they keep saying. The same thing people said about Charlie Kirk's wife.
Kill her and her kids and her parents because they're all racist because they
Speaker 0: they So so he's in the kill the whites, is he saying?
Speaker 1: And then what he said, he said, kill these legislators, and he said by their names, and kill their kids.
Speaker 0: All white legislators.
Speaker 1: Yeah. All white. Said, yeah, kill these white people and kill their kids and then to teach their wife a lesson. So he says, we're literally gonna leave your
Speaker 0: white women. This guy's running for attorney general. Yes. And I think he's still getting, you know, 45% of Democrats supporting him.
Speaker 1: And they won't decry him. And the reason I go back to that, folks, is we've been so taught, it's totally a lie, that only whites can be tribal, all humans are tribal. And because whites don't seem tribal at all. I was about to say, since whites have had it bred out of us to not be tribal, we're like a dodo bird. You you true story dodo birds.
You know, they pull up at Galapagos Island. There's this giant bird twice the size of a turkey, amounts of meat on it, never had a natural predator. It just walks right up the cellars. They can just whack on the head with an oar. And within a few years, there were no more dodo birds.
Anybody's ever been around a sanctuary that has big fences around deer that have ever been hunted, they just walk right up
Speaker 0: to Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1: It's the same thing. So that's how white westerners are, is literally like deer being dumped out in Northern Canada with wolf packs.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'm not I'm white. I don't feel tribal really at all. I never have thought that way. I mean, in fact, I've sort of tried not to think that way because I think it's, I don't know, bad.
It it leads to division and war. But, yeah, no, they're the only ones who are that way. Everyone else is totally tribal, openly tribal. They're encouraged to be tribal.
Speaker 1: Well, that's because in the West, the Renaissance, it was about Christianity and technical skills and what you brought at the table and a meritocracy. Yeah. And so we were and so Christians were like, hey. We can bring in other groups if it's a meritocracy, which you can do. Yeah.
Charlie Kirk, the the the fake quotes are black women can't fly planes. They're dumb. Said nothing even close to that. No. He said, we don't have a big enough pool of black women trying to be pilots.
If we had a big enough pool and enough training, they're they're great, but you can't lower standards. That's not black women are dumb and can't fly planes. But that's what they do is they they they they misrepresent us and then they create this existential envy, the the globalist trillionaire class, so that while we're all fighting with each other, divide and conquer, they can rule over us. It's that simple. Their big fear is the classic American system of meritocracy.
But if you get rid of the meritocracy and just say, you know, we're gonna put this guy in who's an illegal alien in, you know, Iowa over a huge school district. And, yeah, he he doesn't have a degree of any type. And then when he got busted with guns running from the police, the left came out and rioted and protested and said, we don't care if he doesn't have a degree. We don't care if he's a liar. We don't care if he's an illegal alien.
We want an illegal alien with a criminal record who doesn't have a high school degree being our superintendent of schools, one of the biggest school districts in the country. I mean, that they're at war with meritocracy. They're at war with but, oh, there's not a merit there's meritocracy in the NFL and the NBA and in golf because in sports is the final frontier they wanna get rid of because people could see it's about the whole world really is a meritocracy. And so there are people of every color and group that can excel, but you've got to actually excel. You get rid of meritocracy, civilization collapses.
The modern West has been about meritocracy, and and that that is the unifier. You can have anything you want. You can be anybody you want, but you've gotta be able to execute and perform it.
Speaker 0: Once you get rid of that, then you just revert to tribalism.
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 0: Then it's just, I'm promoting my cousin. Yes. Or, let's have all my friends from, you know, Delhi come here.
Speaker 1: And I exactly. And I've got a bigger gang than you, and so we're gonna be in charge. And then and then and then the gangs squat in the ruins of the once great civilization, just like when the Visigoths and Ostrogoths sacked Rome in 04/10. And then it all just collapsed and grew in the wilderness in a few years, and it was everybody left it because it was just a big empty tomb.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's the Bombay Train Station with trees growing out of the windows. Yeah. No. I've I've seen it a lot around the world, and that can't happen here, but it it feels like we're moving toward that very, very quickly.
So how do you stop that?
Speaker 1: You have to recognize that the Larry Finks and others think they're above the law. They think they're invincible. They've got their big
Speaker 0: It's more than that. I'm sorry. They hate they hate us, actually. There is hatred. It's not just neglect.
It's not just I'm in it for the money. Larry Fink could probably have made more money without ESG, actually.
Speaker 1: Oh, I agree. Oh, I no. I was
Speaker 0: gonna So say it's not it but the point of ESG is to destroy the civilization. And what's the point there? It's not just so they can, like, leave in their escape pod. It's because they hate the civilization.
Speaker 1: Exactly. In fact, they're suicide bombers. They're they're economic, cultural suicide bombers. Was about to say, Larry Fink. One time I was flying in a private jet somebody was flying with over Connecticut.
They go, look. There's Larry Fink's giant compound. You can see the big fences, the thousands of acres, and, you know, security guard stations. The point is he thinks he can wage war against us and that he should be insulated. He's gotta be exposed.
He's gotta be spotlighted. Of course. And we gotta let him know that we're gonna blame you. So you think you can replace Klaus Schwab because he's so unpopular? Well, you're gonna be more unpopular than him.
So I totally agree. We have to admit that they're waging war on us.
Speaker 0: We have to double our doing it for a it's not just to make money. I mean, I think the Sacklers are smart. They probably could have made money doing a lot of things, but instead it was selling poison to Appalachia. And at some point, you gotta think, well, they knew that. Of course.
They knew what they were doing, and they're they had to have taken a certain joy in in killing all those people.
Speaker 1: At the end of the day, in 1917, British intelligence working with a lot of Russian immigrants to New York, put a 100,000 men into Russia and sent Stalin's train of gold in. And they took them years to control the whole country, but they got control of the capital city. And then they just sent out the commissars to the peasants who thought they were being liberated from from the czars and feudalism, and instead they said it was, you know, 20 times worse, and they just raped and killed and murdered tens of millions of them. And so at the end of the day, whatever the deal is with the left, they want to kill Christian farmers, they and wanna kill Christian white farmers. But you saw you saw the UN and
Speaker 0: That that is you know, I spent a long time not wanting to admit to myself that that's true, but then you just look globally. What is this? Like, what connects everything? It's a hostility to that group. I don't know where that hostility comes from.
Pretty it's a flawed group. All people are flawed. Every group is flawed. But that's a, you know, on par, pretty peaceable group, actually, kind of nice people. Like, why the hatred?
And I think it's Christianity. I really believe that.
Speaker 1: And and it's not just kill white Christians. That's the main target. Look at the Rwandan massacre, which the UN actually ran if you study it in the Clintons, you know, were there, and it was a tiny man it was a minority of blacks who were Christian because they were Christian. They had all the prosperity and were successful, and they all got exterminated and wiped out, a couple million of them. And and and and and now all over the world, they're they're pressuring.
Speaker 0: Is that true? I didn't know that, that there was a religious component to the
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Oh, it the Christians got killed.
Speaker 0: I didn't know that.
Speaker 1: And the animus did it. Yeah. And the UN oversaw it. They they put them in the refugee centers. What?
Oh, yeah. The UN helped murder them all.
Speaker 0: So the Tutsis were disproportionately Christian?
Speaker 1: Yes. The, yes, the minority group that was killed was disproportionately Christian.
Speaker 0: Yeah. By the Hutus.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And and the Hutus were animist. Why have I never heard that before? That that was that was what I had guessed on at the time it was going down and and covered it. Yeah.
Speaker 0: That was thirty one years ago. I didn't know that.
Speaker 1: And and then they acted like the Clintons were helping. Now the UN this actually came out reports even from the UN. They'd stick them in the refugee emergency center. They'd pull back at night and send in the animus to kill them, and and and then if if some got out, the UN would machine gun them.
Speaker 0: So I knew that there were a lot of Tutsis killed in churches, but I didn't realize that they were killed by non Christians.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. And and the larger thing was Wow. Wow. The larger thing was these big global corporations
Speaker 0: Blew my mind, Alex Jones. They wanted
Speaker 1: they I wish it wasn't true. They they wanted the rare earth minerals. So they just use obviously, the animus never got any of that stuff they stole. Of course. And then the infrastructure all fell apart just like, you know, getting rid of the white rule of apartheid.
Not saying apartheid's good, but now it's 10 times worse. Or Rhodesia, super wealthy, you know, and then they get rid of all the white farmers. Where is it now? You know, Zimbabwe inflation. Yeah.
Poorest country in the world. Wow.
Speaker 0: That is absolutely wild. Why does no one ever I first understood this during the or began to understand during the Iraq war where, you know, it's had this massive Christian population, including in the Ba'athist government, in Saddam's government. There are tons of Christians there. And then, you know, after twenty years of war, our war, all the Christians are gone. They're dead or they've moved or whatever.
Same thing now in Syria. It's absolutely right. So when I figured that out, I started to think, you know, Assad I've never met Assad. I don't know him, but I know he's better than Al Qaeda, and I know that he's protecting the Christians. And, boy, if you say that, they go completely bonkers.
I said that at Fox, and they worked like I mean, I've never been so attacked. I don't know why it would be offensive to people to say, hey. I think we should watch out for the Christians. It's only offensive because their whole goal is to kill the Christians. That's why it's offensive.
Speaker 1: Here's the bottom line, you know this better than I am. For viewers, you don't understand this. This isn't rhetoric. The Western model promotes freedom and justice and property and diversity of ideas and mobility. Yes.
The globalists want a technocracy, scientific world dictatorship in their own words. Ivaldo Harari, all of them go read their writings, Raker as well. And so having this model, as I said earlier, having something that's successful and free, no one's gonna want what they're selling. So they have to get rid of it, and that's why we have to understand that. And we have to understand that just like South Africa, no, we're not for apartheid, but it was predicted back when they got rid of it when you have the communists and the Soros left literally coming in.
Soros was evolved, as you know, setting up communism and haves and have nots and, you know, and nationalizing, you know, everything and doing this that it's now little literal road warrior hell on earth, everything collapsing. There's only like 40,000 farming families left. They're they're about to make them hand over the land in the middle of nowhere where they where their great great grandfathers hand dug wells four hundred years ago, great great great great great great great great great great great And then the population exploded because the whites came in and literally built infrastructure. Then Africans from all over Africa and Asia, Indians all flooded there because the evil white people were there. And then South Africa becomes this huge thing booing all of Africa, and then now you blow that up, it collapses, and now the globalist get the rare earth minerals and stuff, the population gets no infrastructure, they get nothing.
Speaker 0: It's just a colony of China at this point. It's a Chinese colony at this point.
Speaker 1: Exactly. And then the West and Hillary blows up Gaddafi. As you know, invested everything with the West, came and apologized.
Speaker 0: Yeah. NATO, the defensive alliance called NATO, defensive alliance, one just murdered Gaddafi for no reason.
Speaker 1: And and for those who don't know, I mean, Gaddafi is more a research team. A statesman, he literally lived in a tent. 98% of the state money coming in and oil went to not just his people, Africa. And he was building real infrastructure and had a whole plan to link up with and they then they came and killed him. And and now all of Africa's collapsing because they blew up the South Point and the North Point.
One's Gaddafi, you know, the crazy colonel. The point was he was for the people, and down here was this. And now the globalist deliberately blow that up for destabilization.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And the population will be moved here into Europe as it already is being in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, of course. I know I I see it so, so clearly. And the funny thing is, you know, they've been preemptively preparing us for this by doing this whole white you're a white supremacist, and, you know, you're a racist. And when I first heard that, I was I never met a white supremacist in my life.
I still don't know any, actually. And I don't there are so few racists in this country, at least in my time, fifty
Speaker 1: years ago. Labeling you.
Speaker 0: What they're doing is they're taking your defenses down. Mhmm. Exactly. So you can't fight back. And I didn't I didn't get that.
At my first thought, why do you see everything in racial terms? I didn't grow up thinking of things in racial terms at all, like, at all. And they do, and they do because they're targeting a group. I mean, of course, and even now.
Speaker 1: And when you're targeting a group, the first thing you do is teach the group they can't defend themselves. I
Speaker 0: mean, it's so
Speaker 1: I mean, look at Europe. The cardinal sin are here defending yourself if you're white.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I know. Yeah. I know. I wonder what that is.
Speaker 1: Nick Sordor gets beat up by Antifa, and and then he gets arrested in Portland. Yeah. So but but but I was interrupting you. That's a really important point that they label you and demonize you to their constituents so you can be attacked and everything taken away from you. First, you're dehumanized.
And then if and then anything they wanna do, teach your kids transgenderism, open the borders up, you're automatically, if you stand up for yourself, a white supremacist, but then it causes what you talked about six months ago when we were in Florida and spoke right after your dad had passed, God bless him, And that was you're really worried about a false flag against Jewish groups or something that'll then be used or a real attack to really pass draconian speech restrictions. Yeah. And and now, because everybody's been called white supremacist, because everybody, you know, who stands up for traditional values have been called bad, a lot of them go, well, you know what? I do like Hitler then. And they don't have enough history or context.
Speaker 0: That's that's right.
Speaker 1: So they don't understand, like, look.
Speaker 0: Well, that can you just pause on that? That is such a smart point. I just wanna say Hitler was a total piece of shit, actually, and destroyed Europe. And why why would you ever be for Hitler? I don't really get it, but that by the way, we should not have armed Stalin.
We were not. That was totally evil.
Speaker 1: If you had to say Stalin for total kills of people was worse than Hitler.
Speaker 0: Of course. Obviously. But bottom line, let's just start here. You don't arm Stalin. Okay?
Period. I mean, I don't care what the calculation is. I'm not sending money or weapons to Joseph Stalin, who's in genociding position.
Speaker 1: And that's what Patton said. He wasn't pro Hitler. He just said Exactly. You should never have armed Stalin.
Speaker 0: But just because you shouldn't have ever sent a single dollar to Stalin doesn't mean that Hitler's good. Hitler was a total piece of shit, actually, in my opinion. And whatever, you know, whatever he did, he he destroyed Europe. He had a lot of help, but he did that. So I don't know why you can't there's no, like, space in between.
Why do you have to do you have to go right from we shouldn't have armed Stalin, which we should not have done, and it's shameful that we did that. Anyone who calls it the good war, a war where you're arming Stalin is not a good war. It's a shameful war that you should repent of. But you don't have to go right to I love Hitler. Right?
Well, that's
Speaker 1: the thing is you have competing totalitarian systems. You have the fascists. You have the communists.
Speaker 0: Yeah. How about neither one? Like, why do I what the fuck? Well, that's the thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you really read what Hitler himself wrote, it was all about a struggle. And he said, if all the Germans died doing this and fail, they deserve to die. And and So I just hate
Speaker 0: that right there. I hate sacrificing your own people, sending boys to go die in the defense of Berlin. You're losing. Why are you sending boys to go die? Fuck you.
That's sorry. Sorry.
Speaker 1: No. No. It's no. But you actually learn it, though. So and I don't mean the pop anti Hitler stuff, but the real things.
And and so that's my issue is people are all black or white. Either all very monochrome. And here's an example. Do you want a black widow or a brown recluse to be put in your bed at night?
Speaker 0: Neither. Yes. But we don't have to. So that's the part that freaks me out. Why would we ever put ourselves in a position where it's armed Stalin, be close allies with Joseph Stalin who murdered tens of millions of
Speaker 1: Christians? Uncle Joe?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Or b for Hitler. No. How about no and no? Like, what what that's the that's the worst and fakest choice in world history.
Like, you don't have to participate in that.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. So that's the issue is
Speaker 0: And so who's telling me I have to participate in that? Eighty years later, oh, I'll pick a rock. Okay. And then
Speaker 1: it gets worse. You got the ADL that keeps World War two going in our minds and now says white America is Hitler.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Well, I mean, that's basically who liberated the camp in in our little town, really little town where we're sitting right now, there's a war memorial. A bunch of guys from this little town died
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 0: Fighting Hitler, which, you know, I'm against Hitler. Okay. But, like, to then call that country responsible for what Hitler did, I mean, it's too much. I can't deal with it.
Speaker 1: Oh, I mean, I've had, like, the ADL and stuff calling me an Nazi years ago, and I I just sit there and I look at it. They know exactly what they're doing, and it's so cheap. And now they see what it's done. It's blown back on them, where now you've lied so much and demonized so many good people. Now, lot of people think, well, then Hitler must be great.
Because if you're calling me Hitler and and and I'm not, well, then Hitler must be good because they're not educated. And I I mean, I could tell you it's a long story, but my dad's dad was in North Africa and flew his 22 missions. And then once they took Italy, he volunteered for another 22 missions, b 17. And then they attacked their base. They got strafed and stuff, and he got a Purple Heart.
So luckily, couldn't captain, and then his group went up the next week and all got killed. And then finally, he stopped volunteering. So he's the only only made you do 22 missions. But he then, as an officer, got put in charge of food food trains and, know, food supply. And he described to my dad, he really told me stories about all the starving Italians he saw and the death and how it really freaked him out.
And then later going into Germany and and just just dead bodies just from disease and starvation. Dead bodies as far as you could see, blackbirds eating people's eyes out, just stuff out of total hell. And that was the reality he saw about World War two. Then my other grandfather was also the Army Air Corps and but he long story short, he didn't see a lot of action because he had a technical thing. The plane crashed.
He almost died. So he luckily lived because he, you know, had problems early on and didn't see a lot
Speaker 0: of action. How was World War I a win for anybody?
Speaker 1: Well, British did start that one. Oh, of course. Of course.
Speaker 0: The one group that doesn't get the credit they deserve for making the world worse are the Brits.
Speaker 1: Oh, they well, even even I'd like to
Speaker 0: see more anti British conspiracy theories on Twitter, personally.
Speaker 1: I I can listen. They're really their system of manipulation is really the but the reason I was going on that long story was my just real fast. I told Kanye this a few years ago. He's who cares about your grandfather? But my my mom's dad was on one side of his family German, you know, still spoke German.
The the other side, his mom was like old Texas family up in Dallas. They were wealthy. So they lived next to the inventor of refrigeration, and he worked for him as an apprentice when he was like a teenager. And later, he went on to play UT football and then, you know, went and joined the army air corps for World War two. But he knew about the Germans.
He wasn't in the Bund in in the thirties, but went to some Bund meetings, you know, the German American Bund.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Hitler was on the radio. Time magazine, a good guy. They were German. They went and, you know, saw some of it. But towards the end of the war, the the the inventor of refrigeration, who's like a trillionaire there, a $100,000,000,000 today, committed suicide, and he was German.
And they had his family in Germany, and it sucked all the money out of him during the war and still killed his family at the end of it. So that was the kind of stories I got about Hitler for my my grandfather was inside baseball about how the German community in Dallas, the really rich ones that had German family in Germany, Hitler was literally holding him hostage and sucking all the money out of German Americans and and then still killing him. You know, like so so those are firsthand, you know, from family experiences what Hitler did, and these people that love Hitler have no idea what a monster he was.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I feel like we really missed our our chance to exercise genuine American exceptionalism. You can say, you know, in 1941, and say, we're just not for totalitarian systems. We're not gonna support Well, it would have been in 1939. We're not gonna do lend lease.
We're not gonna support your totalitarian system, Joseph Stalin. Sorry. We're not for Hitler. We're not for Stalin. We're America.
We're for us. Like, that didn't seem to occur to anybody other than Charles Lindbergh and the majority of the American population that supported that plan, and they've been slandered ever since they they you know, ever since.
Speaker 1: And they kidnapped Lindbergh's baby and all of it to teach him. And and and so imagine the Russians and the Germans would have just spit each other out. They would have exhausted each other. The Soviet Union probably would have fallen. The Nazis would have fallen, I would imagine.
The the we could have gone in there with just an expeditionary force at the end of it, cleaned it all up as liberators, but instead we got right in the middle of it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Or how about you tell, like, the family, you know, the moms in this town with their son their son died fighting alongside Stalin's forces? I mean, really so hateful. What happened to Kanye? Do you still talk to him?
Speaker 1: No. He I don't think he's a bad person. I think he's disturbed. Yep. And I think he he got screwed over in business.
I think a lot of what he said was true. But he'd be like, I'm flying to Austin to come on the show. And then halfway through, he'd call up and say, I think they're gonna kill me. I'm turning back. And then next time a couple times he said that, I didn't believe he'd be there.
So he flies in one night, I take him to a nice hotel. He doesn't like it, leaves middle of the night. I didn't babysit him, I dropped him off, left, and he went to some downtown hotel. Next day, my show started 11AM central, and I'm like, okay, see you in Vaughn, that's fine. Start my show.
He pulls up wearing a, you know, gimp mask, and I said, look, you can wear it for a while, but you take it off.
Speaker 0: Do you have a lot of guests with gimp masks on?
Speaker 1: No, I don't. And so he just goes on and says he loves Hitler over and over again, which I guess, it like presses on the nerve of edge lording.
Speaker 0: Yeah. No.
Speaker 1: So it's like, I'm being bad. I'm being bad. That only goes so far. And then I think I understood why he was wearing the mask.
Speaker 0: Why?
Speaker 1: Well, after the show, he goes back there and pulls the mask off to eat salad, and the pupils were just pure black. Oh.
Speaker 0: What's that from? Just being high as someone comes.
Speaker 1: I mean, six, seven heads of ecstasy, I think, might do it. I don't know. I didn't I mean, I was like he was I mean, I've never seen anybody with pure black pupils. Really? He was yeah.
He he pulled it off. Was, glowing. It was just and I was like and he's sitting there eating a salad. And I went, oh, now I now I understand what's going on. I mean, I I don't know.
Maybe I'm maybe a bunch of methamphetamine mixed with acid they say could do it. I know. I looked it up, and it's hardcore drugs can do that. Wow. I'm trying to be mean to it.
I felt like I was actually No. No. You're you're not being mean to I felt like I was being abusive even letting him on air, you know, when it was because he was obviously out of his mind.
Speaker 0: And that was kind of the la that was the last anyone really, really heard from him. That was it, kind of. That was the end of Kanye, I think.
Speaker 1: He's like, I'm gonna take the mask off now. And he just pulls it off, and I was just like because it's like a boardroom thing, table, harsh light. And I'm standing right there, and he's sitting there. And I'm watching him just like it going, and I was like, wow.
Speaker 0: So there was no one around him who cared enough to keep him off the air in that state, it sounds like.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I he comes in wearing the mask. I'm like, hey. I don't think I'm gonna do this. I'm fine.
I'll take it off in a minute. And then he go he goes in there, and I go, take it off. No. I'm not taking it off. And it was just Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, like, the button.
Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. You know, it's like you can can rig up, I guess, cocaine for, a pigeon or or a rooster or whatever. They'll just hit the button, you know.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Eating it forever. I I was just like and, like, that's the problem with getting those guys on the air. Because I'll have them on for a debate, but it literally, they just go any of them now, just go, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, it's like it's like it's like they just think it's like doing something. You're just sitting there all this is really boring.
Speaker 0: Yeah. There's it's not that. I totally agree with you and dumb. And, also, you wanna be on the side of, like, decency and kindness and life and, you know, babies. Like, you don't wanna be on Hitler's side.
You wanna be on a good side.
Speaker 1: I mean, Hitler people studied him. I mean, he was a war hero in World War one. Got cast a bunch. Won the Iron Cross for his class. Iron Cross second class.
That's a congressional medal of honor. He was a war hero. That's, you know and then he has a hallucination that he's gonna rule Germany and have the Guderdamerong battle of the gods the next time he gets cast and has this vision. And and then and then he decides it's total war and all the rest of the stuff, and, you know, the if the Germans don't succeed, all all of them deserve to die. I mean, he wrote all this stuff.
I mean, this is lunatic stuff. So I'm sorry. I don't think black tanks and black uniforms and skull caps and total war is cool. It's like 14 year old kids listen to Slayer. It's okay when you're 14, but this is not, like, something we really wanna do.
Speaker 0: But it's also a a kind of a cult tinged also.
Speaker 1: It's beyond. It's very satanic.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I'm against that. Yeah. He do. We should be against that.
Speaker 1: Plus all these people that are attracted to that, I mean, okay, the Germans were, like, following orders and were ready for it, and they got their asses killed. Like, the the people trying to act like that today couldn't hold a candle to the farmer Germans.
Speaker 0: To the sixth army. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Yeah. I mean, like, you you like, which were, like, the best. So, I mean, you guys are literally I like it if you go to British Roman Museum and they got William the Conqueror's helmet. Yeah.
And you put the helmet on. You're not William the Conqueror. It's just you put the helmet on. No. So I'm just saying, I see all these wimps attracted to the power and the evil of it.
They're like, yeah. The Germans really wore it, and they really did it. They really stepped into the office of the of it, and they got destroyed. So I'm just saying, you guys all flirting with it have no idea. I'm just, it's not good.
Speaker 0: No. It's not good. So what so Kanye never called you after that?
Speaker 1: Oh, I think he called me some. I I bet I just you know, Kanye's a great guy, but I can't have hour long conversations.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: I mean, we talk sometimes, like, two minutes. Yeah. What's it about? You know? Okay.
Great. I mean, you know, just long. Well, what Alex, what do you think about them Jews? And I'm just like, yeah. Okay.
It's like jacking off talking about Jews. It's the fetish of Hitler and the Jews all day. If Jews are doing something bad, I'll oppose it and try to block it, but I I I oppose who the Chinese are. I I don't, like, obsess over Chinese people because Yeezy Ping's evil. Right.
No. I don't obsess over Jews just because Netanyahu's evil. I I don't give it that power. I just oppose the policy.
Speaker 0: I think that's you don't give it that power. That's exactly right. And I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to be mean. You're asking the questions about Kanye.
Speaker 0: No. No. No. I I because I think there is a a smart guy underneath a lot of that, and I think, you know, drugs are really bad.
Speaker 1: He's on drugs. Yeah. I mean, I'm on nicotine right now, so I'm you know?
Speaker 0: Yeah. But that's not I mean, that's a life that's a life enhancing drug. I've used it before. So but do you know what happened to him? Like, he just kinda disappeared.
Speaker 1: I just know he trots trots around that super hot wife of his and half naked.
Speaker 0: Yeah. That's not good.
Speaker 1: No. It's debasing of her.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Exactly. Well, and of him, it's his wife. Yeah. So I know you hate talking about this, but I'm just I wanna I want you to explain what's happening with what I think is
Speaker 1: Let me do this first because I got the great Tucker Carlson here.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm always a little starstruck because I love you so much. How much time do we got? Because I wanna hit the real Building seven. I also wanna hit some transhumanism AI stuff.
How much time we got? I know you're busy. I'm not that busy. You got super huge important meetings tonight.
Speaker 0: We got, like, an hour.
Speaker 1: Okay. Good. So can I take a five minute break? Gots to. And then I'm gonna answer every question you got.
Oh, I I wanna answer them all.
Speaker 0: Perfect. Thank you. We've got a new website we hope you will visit. It's called newcommissionnow.com, and it refers to a new nine eleven commission. So we spent months putting together our nine eleven documentary series, and if there's one thing we learned, it's that in fact, there was foreknowledge of the attacks.
People knew. The American public deserves to know. We're shocked actually to learn that, to have that confirmed, but it's true. The evidence is overwhelming. The CIA, for example, knew the hijackers were here in The United States.
They knew they were planning an act of terror.
Speaker 1: In his passport is a visa to go to United States Of America.
Speaker 0: A foreign national was caught celebrating as the World Trade Center fell and later said he was in New York, quote, to document the event. How did he know there would be an event to document in the first place? Because he had foreknowledge. And maybe most amazingly, somebody, an unknown investor, shorted American Airlines and United Airlines, the companies whose planes the attackers used on nine eleven, as well as the banks that were inside the Twin Towers just before the attacks. They made money on the nine eleven attacks because they knew they were coming.
Who did that?
Speaker 1: You have to look at the evidence.
Speaker 0: The US government learned the name of that investor, but never released it. Maybe there's an instant explanation for all this, but there isn't actually. And by the way, doesn't matter whether there is or not, the public deserve to know what the hell that was. How did people know ahead of time, and why was no one ever punished for it? Nine eleven commission, the original one, was a fraud.
It was fake. Its conclusions were written before the investigation. That's true, and it's outrageous. This country needs a new nine eleven commission, one that actually tells the truth that tries to get to the bottom of the story. We can't just move on like nothing happened.
Speaker 1: Nine eleven commission is a cover.
Speaker 0: Something did happen. We need to force a new investigation into nine eleven almost twenty five years later. Sorry, justice demands it. And if you want that, go to newcommissionnow.com to add your name to our petition. We're not getting paid for this, we're doing this because we really mean it.
Newcommissionnow.com. So Trump got the vaxx, the COVID vaxx?
Speaker 1: That's right. Last week, he bragged when he got his medical exam that he got the new experimental flu shot and the Pfizer booster, which his own HHS had basically said don't give to pregnant women and women and and and adults, and that they've proven it erases your immune system as absolutely horrible. But after he had Albert Borla a few weeks ago at the White House praising Pfizer, he's now gone on and gotten it as a PR stunt. So that really pissed off Trump's constituents, and we, you know, we hope he didn't really take it because we need the big guy. Well,
Speaker 0: yeah. And I think there's unless I'm misreading it, there seems like a legitimate and very large study out of South Korea that shows a connection between the COVID vaccine cancer because of the effects on the human immune system and
Speaker 1: Turns it off.
Speaker 0: Well, some cancers are opportunistic, and a low immune system invites cancer. I mean, that's why AIDS patients used to get Kaposi sarcoma. So I I don't I don't understand that. Do you think it was real?
Speaker 1: If I had to speculate on a conspiracy theory, pure speculation, Borla was there a few weeks ago. He did that $75,000,000 deal to lower drug cost, which is a good thing Trump got. And they said, hey. We're we got some bad PR. Why don't you say you took the shot?
But I'd I'd have to purely speculate. You talked to Trump a lot more than anybody else pretty much. So maybe you can ask him why the hell he did that.
Speaker 0: Do you know anyone who has taken I mean, who would take that? I mean, it's poison. I think there's Obviously, poison.
Speaker 1: I think there's 2% uptake on the boosters now, and it's no longer recommended by HHS, which means it has no longer has liability protection. So, again, that is Trump who would say at the rallies, oh, take your shot. They would boo him, so he quit doing it. And so it's things he does like that. And then some Trump supporters think we're in a cult.
They go, you don't criticize anything Trump does. No. All the time we do. Like, when Bondi said, let's pass hate speech laws. That's what the ADL wants, Southern Private Law Center.
People got pissed. She reversed herself that day. So, no, it's good for the constituents. When we see something wrong, we put Trump in there to carry out our operations to restore the public, not to take experimental gene therapy.
Speaker 0: Attack. I mean, I'm sure you've had times in your life where you've been off on some lunatic tangent, and people you love, members of your family, are like, hey. We love you. Don't well, it certainly happened to me a million times. People I love are like, I don't think it's a good idea, whatever you're doing, and you're grateful for that.
Right?
Speaker 1: Well, that's absolutely so. But but if I smoke a cigar, a few, you know, here and there isn't bad for you. If you smoke a lot of them, you'll you know, you might get lip cancer or something. Really?
Speaker 0: I'm not up there. I don't believe that.
Speaker 1: I'm not here saying, kids, you should smoke cigars. You know, the difference is Trump is up there doing it. So it it's just another one of those things he does. Like, I think I'll give cruise missiles to Ukraine. It's makes you wonder what's going on sometimes.
I'm glad we don't have Kamala Harris. Let's get that straight, but I am a little concerned. What what is going on? Well, everybody knows Trump's really weird. In a in a good way, in in a lovable way, but he does so much good, and then he does so many just really bizarre zigs and zags that sometimes you just have to ask what's happening.
But, you know, that video over a year ago of him and Kennedy Ralfour Kennedy endorsed him a year and a half ago that somebody shot of him on speakerphone, Kennedy with Trump. And Trump's like, well, maybe it is too big a shot, and maybe the kids shouldn't take it. Maybe you're right, Bill Bobby. That's the Trump we need. Not the Trump, oh, look.
I took my shot. It's so great. Plus the flu shot, they admit. Look this up. They've never, in fifty years of the flu shot, predicted the right mutation for that year's flu, and it lowers your immune system to the next year's flu.
Speaker 0: So The flu shot paralyzed a relative of mine, a close relative of mine briefly. Paralyzed. Waist down. Paralyzed. Period.
That a flu shot did that. Fact. Paralyzed Kennedy's larynx? Yeah. So I don't know what and is there any evidence the flu shot, know, reduces overall mortality?
Speaker 1: You can look this up. It has never worked. It is an absolute total fraud. They've never picked the right mutation for it. And so if it's not the exact mutation, it doesn't work.
Speaker 0: So over but over the population, there's no evidence that the flu shot, which you could get at your grocery store, the nurse's office, or wherever at work, that it has reduced the number overall of dead people in The United States in a given year.
Speaker 1: No. And to show what's fraud statistics are, so who knows, remember the first year and a half of COVID, zero flu deaths basically, which is normally about thirty thousand. They took that number and said that wasn't there was no flu death, but it all became COVID death.
Speaker 0: So given how obviously discredited science has been in the last five years where normal people are like, I don't know what this is, but I'm against it, wouldn't now be the time to mandate a total halt to any Franken science underway where we're trying to create life or clone people or change the human genome?
Speaker 1: Gain of function.
Speaker 0: Gain of function, which is now, like, universal. Gain of function didn't go away. Gain of function became much more popular after the creation of the COVID virus.
Speaker 1: That's right. Instead of being illegal, they're just en masse doing it even though it's still illegal. And now they've got self replicating DNA vaccines. They've got stuff far worse according to all the experts. And and Kennedy did ban all thimerosal mercury in shots.
He did point out that that that Tylenol lowers blood brain barrier that when you take a vaccine with it, it's it's even more dangerous, especially in boys who have weaker blood brain barriers. He he did recommend fluoride be taken out of the water. Pam Bondi at DOJ blocked that. Not trying to even ask Pam Bondi. She just keeps popping up.
And he is doing a lot of really, really great things, not making the COVID shot recommended so that that they'll stop pushing it. And and then you've just got Trump working kind of at loggerheads against Kennedy, who who I would say has gotten more done than I thought he could. I think Kennedy is a shining light, so is Tulsi Gabbard. With the resources they had, Tom Homan and the border patrol and ICE, they've they've really done a great job because their system had been dismantled, as you know. But I would say, ending a lot of conflicts, a plus on that.
But expanding the Russia operation, terrible. Getting jobs back to America, I'd say a great job. But Trump needs to know that the American people have rejected big pharma, and they're tired of it, they hate Albert Bourla, they hate Anthony Fauci. We don't need to be seeing Albert Bourla, who's just as hated as Fauci at the White House. We need to see Fauci and Albert Borla indicted for the things they've done.
Speaker 0: Why not just strip immunity from the vaccine makers? Wouldn't that we have a system in place. It's been in place for my whole life where if you're making a consumer product that hurts people, you can be sued. And so people who make consumer products try to make them safe because there are consequences to selling poison.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what should be done, and that's the '86.
Speaker 0: But that's, like, simple. That's super simple. Like, why not it's only been 90 I mean, I remember 1986. Was thirty nine years ago. It's not that hard.
This is not, like, in the constitution that vaccine makers have, you know, blanket shield immunity.
Speaker 1: And now they're calling gene therapies vaccines. You know, they've changed the definition. So now any anything they wanna inject into you, they claims a vaccine with liability protection. Well, that's why Kennedy removing the recommended status by HHS and and and and FDA, when you do that, it technically removes the protection of of of of the liability protection. But then that's why suddenly, now the Pfizer mRNA shots warns you that it can kill you.
Remember at first, it was a blank piece of paper for the first time ever? Yeah. The first year of the of the rollout that they just said the name of the shot, the company wouldn't tell you piece of paper that comes with the shot container, you know, the ampule, blank. But now it says a bunch of stuff can kill you. Watch out.
It's up to you. So instead of them pulling it from the market when liability protection actually was taken, if you read the fine print Yes. They just put in the fine print, it can kill you now, which also protects them.
Speaker 0: I knew that. I know someone who was killed by it, and his family couldn't sue. Do you feel a rise in do you feel like people are talking about God and spiritual matters more than they did ten years ago? I mean, clearly, are. Where's that going?
Speaker 1: I saw you with a guest a few weeks ago talk about this is well known. I talked to everybody that's done it. I haven't done it. Almost everyone that takes DMT, either from the toad or the Ayahuasca plant, these creatures show up that look like court gestures or, you know, space aliens, different things and say, there are too many humans. You need to wipe out the population, then you'll become gods.
It's just the same message. And they've had groups of people.
Speaker 0: They've had they've done studies. You need to wipe out you need to kill people so you can become god? Yes.
Speaker 1: You need to depopulate and you need to transcend. Do you know people who've heard that message? Oh, absolutely. They've they've had whole groups of studies that have had group hallucinations of this.
Speaker 0: Can I I mean, I don't know? I'm not the most spiritually sensitive person. I'm hardly a theologian. But if some demon is telling you to kill people so you can become god, like, we can say that's bad. Right?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. And the people that then you're talking about tech heads who, you know, microdose and are big in hallucinations and big into hallucinogenics. When they get more advanced and deep into it, and then most of them have talked about this, then the things start giving them more ideas and and explaining the system they're gonna build, the AI, the takeover, and this new species, and how, again, you're gonna transcend death. And so we we we've all gotta have a larger question there. So they say the devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he didn't exist.
I think that's the second biggest trick. I think convincing the world that good doesn't exist is the devil's biggest trick. Yes.
Speaker 0: Yes. Can you can you find I think that I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but I know that you're telling the truth right now. Can you can you
Speaker 1: Well, convincing us that there isn't anybody good and that you don't have power and that it's all over and we are the Borg, you will be assimilated. The biggest trick is hopelessness when we're promoting truth and justice and honor, and we can't just dial into demons and fallen angels. We can also dial into God and get that message, but you first have to recognize that good and evil exist. Yes. And once you recognize that we are ethereal beings, that we are just, you know, manifesting ourselves in the third dimension, that that all these people that are even atheists have these near death experiences that come back with the same message.
I mean, I personally, in my life, you know, have had so many times where I'm literally told something and it comes true, and it just comes from God. And so I know this I know this is real. We are a lot more complex than just what our eyes and ears, you know, taste and and touch pick up. And when you really actually study the globalist, none of them are atheists. They're into the occult.
Exactly. And they believe they're interfacing even at skull and bones. At Yale, they get in these coffins for days. They try to get the spirits to come into them. They try to channel these spirits.
You've got the heads of skull and bones there in the last few days seeing who's able to interface with this. These are real rituals that are part of activating parts of the mind so that people can see past the veil. And again, they've now been able with robots and computers and wires in the brain, as Elon has talked about decades ago, this was already done. Your eyes narrow the light spectrum because there's so much going on that if you saw the infrared and everything else would be too too confusing. But but now with hallucinogens and other things, they've been able to prove that people can actually see past the veil into basically other dimensions.
And so that's really what this is. We have to admit to ourselves that that that that we see and taste and, you know, touch and everything is a very small piece of actually what's going on. And that's that wider world. People have to once they understand that that there is this wider battle going on, then you realize, oh my god, god's real. I better choose god or I better choose the devil.
And but if people are kind of embedded into this, just grow up in it, and just for the corporate media and life, they get trained into the evil side never knowing they really had a choice. But almost everybody, if they're given a choice early enough, will choose God that right way. The problem is the the system on earth knows that, so the priest class in Christianity or Islam or Judaism, any of it, most of it's bad priests, bad churches who know the powers there. No people are looking for God. No.
They're seeking. So they're there basically to get the power from you instead of you basically transcending spiritually. And so that's why Christ talked about the relationship with God is personal
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And and and the kingdom of God is within us. The New Agers go, oh, you are God. No. Kingdom of God is within us. We're made in God's image.
We have the potential to know God, to interface with God. That's worship God. And then through that, begin to transcend to a higher consciousness interfacing with God, not God, but with God, and then part of God.
Speaker 0: So the the gift is to see good. Like, in that I do think that's the trick. Because he I mean, no one needs a tutorial on evil. It's all around us. It's super obvious.
It no longer disguises itself. Abortion for the sake of abortion? Like, what is that? What's it's human sacrifice.
Speaker 1: It's just Canaanite. The DNC doing abortions inside
Speaker 0: of Completely. For the sake of abortion, not to improve the life of the girl or she's a 14 o rape victim. It's just like, no. Abortion is inherently good because it's killing a person. That is all out in the open now.
Nobody is confused about its existence. What you don't get a lot of is the recognition that good is an is a more than equal. It's a larger and opposing force. God is bigger than Satan, and you don't get that sense. Like, nobody talks about that.
You don't see it. How how do you find that?
Speaker 1: So many people purposely get turned off of the system by going to a church, whether it's Catholic, Protestant, any of it. And I'm a very empathic person, so growing up, I would feel at churches and get invited here or there, really creeped out. Not by the parishioners, but by the people in the system that are trained because Ugh. If you
Speaker 0: That is for sure. Gosh.
Speaker 1: Where I feel the strongest demonic energy is is is is in a lot of these big churches and all these big things because that's where the devil's sending his forces, and it's energetic. And and and so but Christ criticized the Pharisees, Sadducees constantly said, you go pray up on the hill in front of everybody, you talk about how perfect you are all day, but really you're of your father, the devil, and the synagogue of Satan, or you call a blacks, you know, Sabbath or whatever. And it it happens to Christian churches, haps Judaism, it happens everywhere. And if you look at later Judaism, it's not just the Old Testament, the Torah others, over 30 other books that they say, you know, the rabbinical teachings are just as important, and it runs the gamut from some sects that you can call very pious and close to God to others that are outright satanism. And you see that the Christian denominations, all the things that call themselves Christian, you know, that really aren't.
Christ said beware things, you know, you know, that you know, that you you know, call themselves of God but are not or the synagogue of Satan. Well, weren't Christian churches then. The churches were synagogues, it goes for synagogues, churches, anything that you gotta be really close to God and the Holy Spirit, lest you be deceived. And so that's really where it all is, and it comes down to your spiritual inclination. But I just recommend the people personal relationship with God, praying to God saying, wanna be good, I wanna recognize truth, I wanna know what truth is, I wanna open myself up to you.
I'm an imperfect, I repent for what I've done, I want you to cleanse me, and then show me the truth, and then show me how to be a better person, and then show me after that what what the mission is you have for me. And literally, if you do that through a process, it may take days, may take months, may take years, then the adventure begins. And then all of a sudden, you're being given like intel and stuff, like and like literally just you you have to learn to go with it. It's never wrong, and it's it's God, and and it's there, and it's your personal relationship. And then, obviously, people get this relationship.
They all wanna teach other people, and and God says get together in groups. That's great. But Christ didn't try to go get the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the priest class to join him. He said their minds were closed. He went to the prostitutes, and the tax collectors, and the robbers, and the thieves because they were already outcast, but that's where he found people that it were already under evil's control, weren't arrogant about it, who were looking for a way out.
And and so, I mean, I think that's really what it comes down to is a spiritual relationship with God. And there are some real churches and things. But don't
Speaker 0: you find that? I know I have found that. You see sparks of this in the most unlikely people. If you put a list on paper of the people in your life, I won't ask you to say it out loud, but who you really trust, or you talk to and you groove with them and they, like, know exactly what you're saying, You know, they they are on the same wavelength in some deep way. It's not the people you would expect.
Do you have you ever noticed that?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I mean, most people most people get into media because they wanna be movie stars. Most people become a preacher because they wanna, you know, because they wanna be famous and have power. And then you'll find, like, just the most just normal, unassuming person that has all this great knowledge.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And because they already have all the power, they don't need power. And so it it's just
Speaker 0: every connected to god's power? Is that what you mean?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. And and, I mean, it's it's it's quite the quite the quest because so many people are lost, and, really it's an inside job. They've got to somehow open up the channel to God, and then and then they'll see everything that's happening. And then God will give them a message and a and a mission of what they should do. And I I don't I don't don't wanna say all churches are bad because a lot of good people in the churches regardless.
It's just that the last hundred and twenty years, the Rockefeller Foundation, the ecumenical movement, and and all of that has really moved into the churches. We see that with all the rainbow flags and all, you know, the famous cathedrals in England now, festooned with all the leftists, you know, graffiti and garbage. I mean, it it's been captured is my point. But people can't get turned off by that and say, well, God's dead. No.
No. Satan has occupied the so called temples, but but but God isn't in the temple. God is inside us.
Speaker 0: Do the temples get torn down? Like, do the last vestiges of the old civilization get erased and and Christians start anew? Like, what is this
Speaker 1: how does this unfold? I think I mean, I think that's up to how God influences everybody. I think we could, over time, retake those things, but the Satanist and the leftist and the power hungry, they think if they can take over the skin of something and occupy it
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: That that that they can fool people that are looking for God, but that's actually triggering the great awakening. So I think some of the buildings get torn down, some of the buildings get retaken. But at the end the day, king you know, God's temple is what is with us. It doesn't matter. Doesn't matter.
Speaker 0: Right. So Westminster Abbey is not where God lives?
Speaker 1: No. No. That's so important to remember. Do you
Speaker 0: get discouraged? Do you ever think it's hopeless?
Speaker 1: No. Because it's all in God's plan, but I do get discouraged for individuals who kind of fall to evil. You see good people that fight evil for a while, but they get put under pressure. They get attacked. Yeah.
They turn to the dark side.
Speaker 0: Boy, have I seen that.
Speaker 1: Because it gets them ahead for a little while, then you later see them destroyed.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Always. And their family's destroyed too.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So and I get tempted by evil. You know, sometimes like a devil jumps into me. And I mean, by that, I'm just busy, I'm tired, I'm whatever, and I catch myself. And I'm like, woah, woah.
I you know, for a minute, was like, you know, turning into everything I'm trying to fight. So I'm not up here on some high horse like, you know, like, I've got all the answers and I'm perfect Because anybody empathic can, you know, tune in to different frequencies and Yes. Things that are happening. But the end of day, your heart's what matters. You know, King David did a lot of bad things and sent his best buddy off to get killed.
He's lusted after his wife, but he really repented. And God said, you're a man from my own heart. So at the end the day, it's where you point your soul. And so many Christians and some people that love God have guilt. You know, the devil's the accuser.
And so, oh, I made a mistake. I wasn't perfect. I'm not really a Christian. I'm not really good. No.
As long as you mean well or doing the best you can, you're gonna stumble, you're going to have problems, and you're going to have issues, but it doesn't matter because that's why God's there to help you. And you just gotta reach out to God and and and say, I can't do this alone. I need you. And I think people just need to say, I need God. I give it to God.
Not, oh, I'm gonna lay down and just trust in God. Some of the churches, thank God they're coming out with microchips and mark of the beast. That means Jesus coming back soon. Well, you know, I was talking to police officer today we saw out here, and he's like, well, just thank God Jesus is coming back soon. Well, if you actually read Revelation, it didn't actually read like that.
We have to go through this whole project, and then this happens. And so
Speaker 0: And it's also, like, explicit throughout the New Testament, you're not gonna know. You're not God. You don't get to predict when this happens. It comes like a thief in the night.
Speaker 1: And so I Well, exactly. And I'm not putting him down for me and, like, praise God.
Speaker 0: No. No.
Speaker 1: Jesus is coming back to him. My point is is that it says, say, the antichrist will wage war against the saints and overcome them. Right. So there's a big and then we lose in the third quarter. We win in the fourth quarter because god's gonna test us.
Yep. So everybody's like, oh, thank god. We won't be here. That's only been around Schofield bible and all that, like, hundred fifty years. Nobody ever taught that, not in Catholicism, Protestantism.
Speaker 0: It's absurd.
Speaker 1: Nobody ever taught I mean, the the Antichrist, you got guillotines cutting Christians' heads off. Right. So how are they all raptured if they're getting their heads cut off? So see and and so
Speaker 0: Well, the whole thing, I mean, it's obviously a heresy, but more than that, it's just it's such a clear usurpation of God's power. It's like, I've figured out exactly when this is gonna happen and how it's gonna go. It's like, no.
Speaker 1: You're Well, what happened to all the the disciples? Almost all of them got killed. Yeah. Why not? Did they get raptured out?
Speaker 0: No. I know. The whole thing is it's sad. And, by the way, really good people fall for it. Really good.
Some of my favorite and most decent people fall for it. It's not I'm not attacking anyone at all, but it's clearly not true. And it it leads them in direct it leads them to defend, like, murder and stuff. It
Speaker 1: leads While we're on theology, theology. Exactly. While we're on theology, what do think of Peter Thiel's whole Antichrist lecture?
Speaker 0: You know, I'm not I haven't seen it. I have talked to him about it at great length. I didn't I think it's really interesting. I'm not I didn't really get to the punchline on that. I don't so the question everyone, you know, has is, okay, who's the antichrist?
I think it's maybe there's more than one. I don't know. It's a system. Right. So I so I would just say I'm not taking a pass on the question.
I I would but I don't this is so far out of my depth. I mean, I'm just sort of at the I'm for Jesus stage of things, but I'm glad that there's a conversation about it. You know, I welcome all conversations about the transcendent because I think it's what matters.
Speaker 1: Well, exactly. Because, I mean, I love the a comedian, Tim Dellen, but he's like, this guy's got all this cashless control grid or this and then he wants to know about the Antichrist. Well, he grew up really Christian. People don't know. It'd be a peer to.
And then and then now he's wanting to have a debate about it. I don't think the Antichrist wants you to have a debate about the Antichrist.
Speaker 0: I think that's probably right. And just in general, it's worth talking about and reminding ourselves and others that this is just like a small piece of what's real. We're just seeing a tiny fraction of reality, like the spiritual world, that realm is as real as, you know, the table we're sitting at, and people lose sight of that. I lose sight of that. We you know?
Speaker 1: Exactly. So we should be having not just Peter Till, everybody, Donald Trump, you and I, we should be discussing revelation, what's described as really happening now. Yeah. So we we should be having oh, god. He's the Peter Till's the Antichrist.
He's talking about the Antichrist. What? Because some people are like, well, what's he doing talking about the Antichrist? Well, I think we should all be talking about it.
Speaker 0: Well, because I think I think the temptation is to just ignore the whole topic. I mean, that's the world that I grew up in where it was just never discussed.
Speaker 1: Well, it doesn't exist. Was just one A
Speaker 0: 100 People's sex lives were a frequent topic of conversation. Everyone was super liberal about that. Like, no one was embarrassed of anything except any question that transcended the material was just considered, like, death was considered totally off limits because it pointed to these obvious questions like, what happens then? And so I really welcome that. I think all healthy societies face death.
Exactly.
Speaker 1: People go, oh, you're a Peter Thiel Dick writer. No. You should be having a discussion about Antichrist. Why aren't you? And and so what I got, I haven't seen the the presentation.
Oh, so people I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: I miss a lot because I I do think the Internet's demonic. Sorry. I know I work on the Internet, but the whole thing makes me uncomfortable. So I haven't seen any of this, but people are attacking Thiel for this?
Speaker 1: Oh, I mean, it's it's like, oh, yeah. It well, it's like they haven't even found out what he's saying. I've read some of the articles. Haven't I tried to get tickets, but it was already sold out. But I wanted to see his view on it.
But all I know is is that we should be having a discussion about the antichrist. Mean, I we're we're having one already here. And and so what is the antichrist? I think you need to know the enemy.
Speaker 0: I think you need to know Well, one obvious hallmark from my, you know, frequent but very untutored reading of of those books in the New Testament is that the antichrist reserves the powers of God for himself. He pretends to be God. You know, I'm all powerful. I can, you know, worship me. Any And by the way, that's most leaders in the world through all time, but those are signs of evil.
You are not God. One can worship No one can worship you. And the shitty things you do on earth do not make you powerful. They destroy you, actually. And so that it's all described in in Jesus' forty days in the wilderness where Satan Jimson.
Offers him these deals, and he declines all of them. But that's like the whether you're a Christian or not, that is the template for life. Oh, if I just do this, I'll win this election. You know, I break some eggs to make the omelet. No.
Dude, you're gonna be destroyed for that in probably in this life, certainly in the next, and that's just real. That's just a fact.
Speaker 1: Oh, I agree. And it's nothing but healthy to have a discussion about that.
Speaker 0: A 100%. So I guess the one thing I don't like about the Antichrist conversation is it makes it sound like, you know, Anton LaVey is gonna show up and, like, start murdering people, and I think it's much more present than that. I mean, I think, literally, antichrist means against Christ. Well, who would that include? Most leaders in the world?
They hate Jesus.
Speaker 1: They do. Well, look what Elon is starting to come around.
Speaker 0: You wanna make people upset? Start talking about Jesus. I just did this at Charlie Kirk's memorial. I did, like, some six minute talk about Jesus. Only Jesus.
That's it. I was like I said to my wife in the shower the morning, that morning, I was like, I'm not getting political at all. I'm not gonna attack anybody. I just wanna be as, like, unifying as I can and consistent with what Charlie really cared about as I can and what he really cared about. They called it antisemitic.
It was insane. It it which was, of course, absurd, but leaving aside the absurdity, like, the emotion was real. It was totally real. Like, oh my gosh. That's outrageous that you said that.
It's like
Speaker 1: Great speech. I watched it. Oh, I
Speaker 0: don't know. It was just short, but it all I did was recount the gospel, but that's that's the most controversial thing you could do. And everyone's happy to talk about God all the time. God, spiritualist. Jesus?
Man, that's a no go zone. Why is
Speaker 1: that? Absolutely.
Speaker 0: Because it's real. That's why. And it just triggers the fuck out of people.
Speaker 1: I I shouldn't even talk I mean, no. No. But I agree with you that that we need to have an open discussion about this because it's it's it's here. And and notice the left, they're all about total control of language where there's almost nothing discussed. And so that's why they get so upset when these discussions start to happen.
As look at civilization and society, we should be having a major front and center discussion about AI. And that's what Elon Musk talks about, who's gone from not believing in God, saying we need God, he's starting to come around to saying, listen, we're gonna have AI. Obviously, the genie's out of the bottle, but we don't wanna centralize them. We want a whole bunch of them. We want a diversity of them.
And I and I and I think, wait, what is the answer to AI? If because it's people say, oh, why are you for AI? I'm not. It's not going away. What is the answer to AI if it's being rolled out?
And I know the globalist one, basically have one AI. Elon's answers have distributed AI, non centralized AI, but no matter what it is, it just turns bad.
Speaker 0: I don't I mean, I have no idea. I know that a lot of the people developing AI are really, really bad. Really, really bad. Like, the worst. And what do I mean by bad specifically?
They think they're God. And that that's the core lie. It's not like how many people have you killed. If you think you're God, you will kill people. And the more power you have, the more you will kill.
It's just, by its nature, bad. And there's So it means no restraint, no perspective, no humility. Man, that's a recipe for genocide always. Right?
Speaker 1: I know we wanna hit my own personal issues and a few other things, and I appreciate the time, Tucker. But big picture, let's just be completely honest about Trump. It's a blessing to have him in office. We're nine months in. The Democrats are destroying themselves, lowest approval rating ever, lowest fundraising ever.
It's really up to us to lose this, but we are starting to see some indictments of Comey and Lisa James with a lot more coming. The Democrats are now pledging, you know, resistance and and and and violence and what's the quote? Energetic uprisings or forceful uprisings. Sorry. Forceful uprisings.
Chuck Schumer, How do you see this unfolding? And what can the general public do to try to save the country in a nonviolent way? Because, I mean, I just think Trump rhetorically needs to be out front explaining people how dangerous things are and the crossroads. Instead of just saying, oh, liberals are dumb. They don't know what they're doing.
No. The the the leftist globalists have a plan all over the world. They know what
Speaker 0: they're deliberately doing. I think I mean, a lot of things are important. Prayer is the most important, keeping the people you love close, keeping your personal relationship strong, keeping your personal life virtuous. I do think that's really important. I think you become having led a very non virtuous life myself, I'm not judging anybody.
I just know from experience that the less virtuous your personal life, the weaker you are, it makes you weak. That's the part why I quit drinking. It made me weak, etcetera. So, you know, those are all super important. But from a governance perspective, the government, the people who are elected to run the government, need to make sure that the instruments of government are loyal to the constitution and under control.
And that's the concern that I have is that, older conservatives, whatever that is, Republicans, whatever that is, but, you know, non leftists are living without dated understandings of, like, the military and the police. And, you know, there are lot of great people in the military. I know a lot of them, and there are a lot of great cops. We were just with one of them a second ago. But there are also a lot of people with guns in official capacities who are really, really dangerous, and you need to make sure those people are under control.
And by under control, mean loyal to Donald Trump, the man. I mean loyal to the constitution.
Speaker 1: Absolute well, there was a whole bunch of people, including sheriff's tabby's bill earlier today. And you're like, well, of course, the leadership of the Pentagon are the worst globalist. And they're they're like, what? Really? Our military is not the best?
Like, Trump admitted eight years ago. He was lied to. The leadership's been groomed, put to these globalist schools, brainwashed, awful. They're They're the worst. And Trump finally knows that.
So going into this attempted civil war, we're the enlisted are great people, on average, the best, but people really have this vision of military that's delusional.
Speaker 0: A lot of them are sociology professors with nuclear weapons. I mean, they're they're scary, and I know that just from living in DC. I wouldn't know that if I hadn't spent my life in Washington. The Pentagon's right there. The neighborhood I grew up in in Georgetown was, you know, the chairman of the joint chiefs lived, like, one house over from me.
They're just always circulating through because they all circulate through DC. So I would have you know, go to dinners or duck hunts or whatever. You're with these people, and you're like, wait. You're, like, stupid, totally incapable of, like, creative or independent thought, and you're a lefty big time and, like, self hating white guys and, like, crypto gay and, like, all like, they're sociology professors. A lot of them.
I've met a lot of them. A lot. Why do you think DEI swept through the military? Because the flag officers wanted it. And why did they want it?
Because they hate themselves. Because they all got, you know, master's degrees at Fletcher or whatever. It's some you know, they all got indoctrinated by higher education as as you explained at the outset. So, like, man, you have to make sure those people are loyal to the constitution, and you need to go through systematically.
Speaker 1: By the way, you think Trump finally knows that he thought the brass for these badass John Wayne guys are literally the enemy? Well, apparently, everyone says that the the chairman of the
Speaker 0: joint chiefs is, like, a really good a good solid-
Speaker 1: Raising Kane.
Speaker 0: American. That's correct. Dan Kane is a is a great guy. So, I mean, I think there are a lot of great people. Caveat.
Speaker 1: There's still a few left that
Speaker 0: Yeah. There may be many left. There are many bad himself forever. Many bad. Many bad.
And the left used the COVID vaccine to weed out the men, guys with testosterone and self respect who were like, I'm not doing that. I'm not gonna poison myself. And so they left. And that was the point of the COVID vax was to get To purge. Decent To purge the men so it's all, like, betas and women who can be controlled and are sort of eager to worship false gods, and you have those people with guns.
I don't know. It's really scary what just happened under Biden. And has it been corrected? I, you know, I don't I
Speaker 1: noticed the alpha males back when Obama wanted to attack Syria and the Russians, the chairman of the joint chiefs then, he goes, that's World War three, full war. They had to back off. So even that was the tail end. Now you have, like, weird guys that said they're women with bald heads stealing women's gowns at the airport Totally. Over the nuclear stockpile, and and and they're all and, like, Sean Penn's on TV saying, why not have a nuclear war?
What's wrong with that? It's like they had the real warriors know, no. You can't do that. But now you've got a collection, like you said, of sociology and anthropology professors that are completely bonkers and, like, aren't making the connection. Like, this is real.
Like, the Russians aren't playing around.
Speaker 0: Oh, and it's self hating men and bloodthirsty women. And
Speaker 1: Oh, I love the liberal thing. Once women are in charge, there'll be no more wars.
Speaker 0: That's bullshit.
Speaker 1: That's not what the studies show.
Speaker 0: Well, it's not what reality shows us. Female leadership leads to violence.
Speaker 1: Why is that? It's true.
Speaker 0: I I don't know. And I as a great lover of women and the father of a number of women, and and I I'm not anti women. I I like I
Speaker 1: I mean, my legs
Speaker 0: all I like them more than men. And anyone
Speaker 1: I love women, but it's true. But I remember reading
Speaker 0: studies Female leadership leads to violence, and you see it. And you who's it was governor Wallace's wife who opened the windows to
Speaker 1: Smell the burning tires.
Speaker 0: Drinking. Yeah. The the Redland odor of riot. Yeah. It's it's Winnie Mandela, man.
It's really, really the Bolshevik's wives were more bloodthirsty than they were. I don't know exactly what that is. I think weak male leadership incites something in women that's really dark. That's not their fault. That's men's fault.
Men's job is to lead. You can't shirk that duty because it's not created by man. It's preexistent.
Speaker 1: Well, found in studies in in total war, like, women commit way more war crimes than men. You
Speaker 0: know, you were turned over to the squash to be tortured to death over the period of three weeks. You know, they slow roast you. So, yeah, all of that, it's it's all true. And I also think it's, you know, having lost two fist fights in my life badly, I would I'm hesitant to get into a fist fight into a fist fight. I mean, there's something about, you know, being forced to box as a kid as I was or and learning that, like, I'm not as tough as I thought I was or whatever.
But the experience of physical violence is much more a male thing, and, nope, you know, people who haven't been in a fist fight shouldn't be commanding an army or a country for that matter or a country.
Speaker 1: Should Well, the tougher you know, the more you learn. There's always somebody tougher.
Speaker 0: A 100%. And it hurts to get hit in the face. It hurts a lot. Actually, it hurts so much. That's why I was never good at boxing.
My brother was good, but I was not because I hit in the face, and I'd be like, oh, I think we should negotiate this. Like, there's gotta be a smarter way to do this. That was my and then I was like, I'm not suited for that. And but it was only through that experience that I learned. Anyway, you know all this because you're a man.
But, yes, there's something about female leadership that gets you very quickly to violence, and you see it in the support for the Ukraine war, which is like the the murder of an entire country's male population.
Speaker 1: And now though, a bunch of European countries are doing female conscription. I wonder if combat is gonna get the women to not be for war.
Speaker 0: I wonder why you would even bother with a civilization if you're sending your women to fight wars. I don't I don't just give up
Speaker 1: at that point. Whole Well, it's like Ursula Vanderlaid.
Speaker 0: You only have a military to protect your women. That's the point. There's the only one reason, and that's to protect my wife and my daughters. And if it weren't for that, why would we need a military? And so if I'm sending my wife and my daughters to go fight a war on my behalf, I mean, that is the most grotesque thing I could imagine.
That is so shameful. That is so disgusting. Don't know how we can Well, it is. You got
Speaker 1: Ursula Vanderlaiden, unelected unelected EU head, literally talking about, there's too many humans. We need depopulation. You pull it up, and we're gonna beat Russia. No problem. And I I'm sorry.
Like, I have no respect for her because I guarantee she's never been in a fist fight, much less she's not been in the military. I mean, it's like it's it's crazy. But there's
Speaker 0: a cruelty there, and I don't understand it. And the women in my life are the kindest people. They bring me back to decency under their influence. I am more decent. But you see in modern female leadership, not all, but a lot of it, Tulsi Gabbard is an incredible exception to this rule.
It's like a truly humane, decent person. But, man, you see a lot of counterexamples where these women just they can't wait to kill. And I don't what
Speaker 1: that is. Because the system is selecting twisted women.
Speaker 0: It's probably right. And it has something to do with men vacating their role.
Speaker 1: I agree. Could you believe that Leticia James bitched and complained and said Trump has weaponized things against me?
Speaker 0: It's kind of yeah.
Speaker 1: But that's the system
Speaker 0: entitlement level in this country has gotten very high. I will
Speaker 1: hiding behind a woman, behind a black woman. That's all they're doing. It's it's totally, you know, transparent.
Speaker 0: Well, the most powerful people in our society consider themselves its greatest victims. You always notice that. Like, I'm a victim. I need security at my house. It's like, okay.
No. You're not a victim. You're the perpetrator. So let me speaking of victims and perpetrators, you are the victim of the greatest crime against free speech in the last ten years. You were accused of saying things.
You you say your remarks are misconstrued or misrepresented intentionally. From my perspective, it doesn't matter what you said. You didn't hurt anybody. You didn't cheat anybody. You didn't issue a fake stablecoin.
You didn't carjack. You gave an opinion, and for that opinion, the US government, through an FBI agent, has basically tried to destroy your life and are on the cusp of, like, taking your entire life away. And so here's my question. One, you know, how close are you to having everything taken from you? And two, where's the Trump Justice Department in this?
I don't understand.
Speaker 1: This is such a huge subject.
Speaker 0: It is a huge subject.
Speaker 1: And and I I wanna answer this because this affects everybody, not just me. And what just happened to Mike Lindell two days ago ties directly into this. So I'm gonna do my best, but I want viewers to understand this isn't about me. This is about you and the end of judicial process in this country and the final phase of the weaponized judiciary because the Democrats haven't given up.
Speaker 0: First question, how close are they, and by they, I mean this constellation of law firms, NGOs, and federal law enforcement employees, to taking everything from you and shutting you down, taking off the air? I know that's been in progress for a while. You've outrun them, but I feel like you're getting toward the end. And two, or b, where's the Trump Justice Department, and why is this being allowed?
Speaker 1: Well, to quote the song, I got one more silver dollar. So they they sued me seven years ago. They spent $300,000,000. They had made court filings doing it. Paul Wise, Democrat law firms, all of it.
To add the judges find me guilty, here's a microcosm or a current example. Two days ago, Mike Lindell, smartmatic. The judge finds him guilty, claims he didn't give the discovery. That's just the new thing they do. So I was found guilty in Texas and in Connecticut by Democrat judges, literal anti visceral judges of not giving discovery, which wasn't true, so that I'm found guilty that they have a show trial.
So then they have the show trial, they get a billion and a half dollar judgment. They do all this, and then then they don't wanna settle. I said, here, have all the money I'll make in the next ten years, which was more than I ever made in ten years, $75,000,000. They said, we don't want that. We want you off the air in press conferences, on national TV, in court filings.
We're not supposed to just take somebody off the air. You're supposed to able to get your judgment, plus it's all an appeal. So last Tuesday, they had the state receiver in my offices looking at everything, saying we'll probably shut you down about a month. They're waiting for the state court that we have it on appeal to lift the stake.
Speaker 0: And this is because all because you gave an opinion. I just wanna be clear. You didn't do anything. You had an opinion, which you say they mischaracterized. But, I would say even if they didn't mischaracterize it, you're entitled by birth as an American to have any freaking opinion you want.
Speaker 1: Well, to be clear, the Internet, years after Sandy Hook, had viral videos of professors saying they didn't think it happened. They put them at his twenty two minutes in the show, Charles, of me questioning and having debates with people.
Speaker 0: You're allowed to question anything you want. You're allowed to have any opinion you want. This is The United States Of America.
Speaker 1: Well, it's like the Charlie Kirk thing. I believe Charlie Kirk's dead. I I think the official story is probably true. There's questions, but people are saying he didn't die. There's people saying this and that.
I don't think it's true, but the point is is they have a right to do that as Americans.
Speaker 0: You have a right to any opinion you want, period.
Speaker 1: So so they have the show trials. They do it. They want me off the air. Then I go into bankruptcy because I don't have any money three years ago. They use the bankruptcy.
They assign the judge department, which they can do. They have a special office to my bankruptcy. They use Infowars money in the account to do four investigations to find fraud. They find no fraud. They sue my parents.
They do it all.
Speaker 0: They use your money to sue your parents?
Speaker 1: Yes. Then the judge Lopez in in in Houston, you know, federal judge, he says, I want this to be sold at auction a year and a half ago. Cash auction upfront. Here's the rules. They do an auction, say it's a cash auction, cancel it, and then sell it to The Onion, basically, for no money funded by Michael Bloomberg.
The judge last November says it's a fraud, has hearings, shuts it down. They also sent armed security without court orders, tried to shut us down in May. So all this goes on, all this happens. We learn the justice department from documents was, under Biden was funding the lawsuits, running all of it. We get those documents.
The the new justice department learns about it, Ed Martin, and says our job is weaponization. We know we have the documents. The judge department previously did this, that the FBI admitted in court that they ran this, created the lawsuits, William Aldenberg, the chief counsel of Connecticut at time, and we're gonna send a letter and ask them to preserve their documents. We're talk to them. That was about a month ago, and I'll you the letter and other letters that are out there.
Speaker 0: So Ed Martin is a great guy. He's been in this in this room. Ed Martin is in charge of undoing the weaponization of government, which is to say the agency's being used as for for political ends to destroy people who get in the way of the Democratic Party, and his job is to undo some of the
Speaker 1: And I'm one of the more famous cases. The White House, right when they got in eight months ago, gave me classified documents that Obama targeted me for national security 2013 with Comey. We had other documents come out. They didn't find anything in a ten year investigation, so they moved on to the Sandy Hook thing as a big production with the FBI. The judge's department legally funded it.
We have all those documents. And so just like Mike Lindell two days ago, the Smartmatic suit, the judge finds him guilty and is now gonna seize his company and shut him down without a jury trial. So it's the same thing. Again, this is their model.
Speaker 0: And what did Mike Lindell do wrong?
Speaker 1: He questioned the twenty twenty election, he's been vindicated.
Speaker 0: So they get to take his company away for that?
Speaker 1: Including the including firing all his employees because they
Speaker 0: don't want money. So so Then and this is happening right now?
Speaker 1: It's happening right to yeah. Right now. And so the bigger question is so here's what happened. So so Martin says, no. This is weaponization.
You have all the documents. We have more documents. We wanna investigate this. So I go a month and a half ago, meet in DC, do all this. They get the letter and and other communiques.
It's this Koskoff Koskoff Democrat Senator Blumenthal law firm, basically, a bloom Bloomberg law firm in Connecticut. They flip out and say, oh, the Jones is harassing a hero FBI agent. Never said his name, never criticized him. He won a $130,000,000 defamation suit against me in the Sandy Hook defamation that he created, though no one ever said his name. He'd he'd been on the stand.
No no one in your office, you never said I didn't know who he was till he sued me. So he goes and creates the suit, organizes the families with the NGOs, does all this, and then I and then I talked to the DOJ. They sent a letter saying, prefer preserve your records. I showed you the ABC News headline. And then Todd Blanche, the deputy AG, calls up in the news, chews out Ed Martin, says in this investigation and pull this.
And so Wait. Wait. Why? I mean, will Todd Blanche let them shut down My Pella? Will Todd Blanche let them do all this?
Because they go, oh, Alex Jones was mean to dead kids' families. There was never any evidence of that.
Speaker 0: Well, but even again, just to restate the constitution of The United States, the country we live in, you're allowed to have any opinion you want. Okay? I agree. You were making a political point, and the job of the government is to defend that right. That's the point of the Department of Justice, defend that right.
So I I'm just totally confused here. So you're saying that one of the top guys at DOJ, Todd Blanche, whom I've talked to before, I don't know much about Todd Blanche, but you're saying that he stopped Ed Martin?
Speaker 1: He bragged about it all over the news of three weeks ago.
Speaker 0: Why would he do that?
Speaker 1: Here's what they do. They say people peed on kids' graves. People harassed their houses. And then in court, when did it happen? I don't know.
Somebody told me. Who? I don't know.
Speaker 0: Did you pee on someone's grave?
Speaker 1: No one I'd never been to Connecticut until they brought me there for trial. No. None of that happened. But the point is I'm this guy. People don't know that Adam Lanza killed the kids.
His mom bought a Bushmaster.
Speaker 0: I know. And and and But just to get it doesn't even it doesn't even matter. Like, it's such a sad, horrible story.
Speaker 1: Well, they just put me in the place
Speaker 0: of But you've got nothing to do with it. You shared an opinion about a tragedy. People can disagree with your opinion. They can dislike your opinion. They can't destroy you for your opinion because it's America, and the Department of Justice exists to protect that right.
So I don't really get this. So Todd Blanche I'm taking your word on this. I haven't heard this before. You're saying, is is he a career guy, Todd Blanche?
Speaker 1: Well, he was a Democrat until Trump won the election.
Speaker 0: Is he an appointee?
Speaker 1: Yeah. He's he's the he's the deputy AG.
Speaker 0: And so you're confident that he shut down any attempts?
Speaker 1: Oh, he he he bragged. Just type in Todd Blanche, Alex Jones, Ed Martin. He went on the news and said, this is terrible. I'm killing this investigation. Why was it terrible?
He he just it's a hero FBI agent.
Speaker 0: Because you're bad. You offended some FBI agent. Therefore, you should be destroyed.
Speaker 1: Even knew he was till he sued me.
Speaker 0: I never said allowed to not like FBI agents. You're allowed to have any opinion you want. This is, like, the craziest thing
Speaker 1: Well, William Aldenburg said on the stand, he went and created the lawsuits, which which violates a whole bunch of laws. That's what Ed Martin put in his letter was that it that that you can, as a sitting agent, go and create a case for yourself. It's an emolument issue. So so so so here's where we are. They say the new model is sue you for defamation, have a Democrat judge find you guilty by default, then do this, then they don't accept a settlement, then they shut you down.
So so the answer is how long will we be there? They want the name Infowars, The Onion, and this former MSNBC censorship czar. He had the same job as as Brian Seltzer at CNN. He has said recently in an interview with Wired Magazine, if I was God, I want Info Wars. And so they think now they're gonna seize the assets of the state.
They're gonna hand it to them. He says they're gonna use our logos. Says he's gonna pose as Charlie Kirk as well, put out fake quotes of Charlie. Look this up. And their new thing is to have my website and use it to attack Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 0: Can I okay? So this is just totally grotesque, and this is not the free market at work. This is NGOs plus law firms plus the US government destroying a private citizen for opposing the political agenda of the people in charge. So this is, like, exactly what you can't have in your country.
Speaker 1: And they brag they're doing it because of that.
Speaker 0: Of course. Well, there's no other
Speaker 1: there's no And they say, we want you off the air.
Speaker 0: Could simple question to you. Could the current Department of Justice shut this down?
Speaker 1: Yes. The DOJ's Office of Bankruptcy already had one US trustee fired, the next caught in a fake auction. My lawyers have filed lawsuits. It's cut and dry illegal. Bankruptcy fraud.
So the and and and those that information went on as well. So they know that, and Todd Blanche is protecting the FBI and DOJ under orders from Obama, then Biden to get me off the air, and we have all the documents where they funded illegally. We have all the proof. We sued them. We deposed them.
I spent millions deposing them all, getting all their emails, top law firms. And then we and then and the judge department gets the information, and Ed Martin goes after him and says, preserve your records. I wanna talk to you. And then Todd Blanche comes in and says, I'll fire you Ed Martin. Shut the son of a bitch down right now.
Ed Martin needs to be the deputy attorney general. And he didn't say that. Okay. I have other DOJ sources that tell me what goes on, but this is the reality. And could they do that?
Speaker 0: I mean, because, like, in the end, I don't think you should use government to make your friends rich or give them special favors. But if you can't deliver justice to people who are on your side, you know, you're not doing it right, and that's really dispiriting and a little weird to be honest.
Speaker 1: Well, here's what's gonna happen. They just defaulted Lindell two days ago, and they're gonna shut down his factory and his thousands of employees.
Speaker 0: Are you serious?
Speaker 1: Yeah. He doesn't get a trial. The judge in Minnesota found him guilty, and they said it's the Alex Jones model. So now the new thing bringing you in this because it happened. When they defaulted me four years ago before the shut trial, they said next is Tucker Carlson.
So what they do is they pick a judge, they pick a fake story, they run headlines you said something you didn't do, like Trump. I love the KKK. They're very fine people. He said they're not fine people. And then and then they suit and then a judge finds you guilty, then the judge controls limited information, has a jury trial for the press, but only on the issues they allow of you're already guilty.
They instruct the jury that imagine, I'm in Connecticut and Texas, two trials, and it's both the same, produced by HBO's, their cameras. The judge goes, mister Jones is already guilty of everything they say he did. He cannot put on defense. You'll decide how much money he stole from these people, and you will give it to them. And they instruct them he is guilty.
And you're sitting there, the opposite of the American system watching it, and now they just said Mike Lindell. And so will will Trump sit there because Todd Blanche kisses his ass, this little democrat snake, and crucify Mike Lindell, and crucify his thousands of employees in Minnesota? Probably. I'm not mad at Trump. I know you're busy, Trump.
It's okay. But if you think, oh, this law firm, Paul Weiss, that's been running the bankruptcy attacks on us, agreed to pay 40,000,000 in restitution, agreed to illegal lawfare against Trump and his family and his supporters. And they promised when Boris Epstein got the deal for him six months ago to never target any of his supporters again. They wrote off part of their $40,000,000 community service bill and suing me. And so they're still attacking all his supporters, everybody else.
Speaker 0: You know, you really have to clean up the justice system or else you you can't have a country. I mean, this is just, like, absolutely crazy. That I would think that is why people voted for Trump. It's why I campaigned for him. You you have to have justice in your country.
Speaker 1: Tucker, agree. More than an economy, more than stopping war. I agree. My listeners won indictments. And finally, Comey, Leticia James.
Indictments of
Speaker 0: the guilty, not indictments of people you don't like, not indictments of people who pissed you off or
Speaker 1: who opposed cut and dry. They did everything.
Speaker 0: Who committed crimes and who have escaped justice because of their political connections. That can't continue.
Speaker 1: Well, they started it, Tucker. Oh, I know. And and and and and and so all I'm saying is is that I'm a tough guy. I can handle all this. We'll continue on.
People can follow me on next RealHog shows. We've got the AGN network set up with sponsors. The point is is that they said this is a model for everybody else. Then two days ago, Mike Lindell. Oh, sorry, Mike.
You don't get a jury trial. You're guilty. Now we're gonna instruct a jury how you're guilty. So this is their model. Defaults are only like if you're sued and then you run and leave the country.
They still gotta have a trial. But they are literally declaring me guilty, and then you've got Todd Blanche, who from all of my sources I mean, he's a hardcore democrat, Southern District Of New York operative. He was Trump's criminal lawyer, lost those cases for Trump. And this is that weird Trump blind spot. So, hey, Trump, I get it.
If you think cutting me loose and Mike Lindell, that's fine. I'm a big boy. I've defended you like nothing else. That's fine. If you think Todd Blanche, you know, you got meeting with Ghislain Maxwell and all this other weirdness.
If you think that snake is the answer for you, then you you bet everything on that on that. But as for me, I just know the truth and the Democrats literally are caught red handed their persecution, I mean, Infowars and Mike Lindell. And so it's up to you to make the right move here.
Speaker 0: I mean, Mike Lindell blew his life up on Trump's behalf. I mean, that's why we're here is because Mike Lindell loved Trump. And whatever you think of Mike Lindell, he's a very nice man, I think. But even if you hate Mike Lindell, just objectively, Mike Lindell was a pretty successful pillow salesman and got his life together, got off drugs, you know, became a Christian. And then he decided he really loved Trump, and he thought Trump was being wronged, and they stole the election from Trump.
He really believed that. And now they're destroying him, and I just feel like, what if there's ever someone you need to defend, it's Mike Lindell. Are you kidding?
Speaker 1: Yeah. Because they've got the fake story about me, like, oh, the guy that peed on kids' graves didn't do it. You know, Trump loves
Speaker 0: And they can arrest you for public urination. That is not relevant. But it's just the justice. It doesn't matter. You didn't do it.
You you're not accused of doing it. Someone else did it, and we can't allow that. We can't we can't allow if someone does something crazy and invokes your name, you don't get arrested for the No.
Speaker 1: I agree. Stood up for Jay Sixers and others. I agree. So why okay. So you're gonna let them shut down my pillow.
You're gonna let them shut down Infant Wars. It's not me. I understand Trump's got bigger fish and fry, but my listeners are enraged by this. They are like, why are you still supporting Trump? Because it's not Kamala Harris.
We're getting more done. But if Trump doesn't understand, if he can't support his supporters, don't know what he can do. And I'll go back to to Todd Blanche. Todd Blanche put a die in the wool top Democrat. He lost all the cases for Trump criminally.
And from what I've heard, Bondi's not bad. She's just lazy. Bongino's emotional and a big baby. You know, Patel is compromised and it's just so sad. He should have Kim Paxton in there.
They brought in the Missouri AG as the new deputy FBI head here, you know, as soon as Bongino leaves. And Bongino should stop worrying about his PR and his how he looks and worry more about the future of the country here and put it all in the line actually instead of being a hothead. Bongino thinks he's a good guy, But Patel and, you know, know, you know, Bonnie, these are just TV heads. These are just people that are here to be celebrities in my view, and I'm just saying and Todd Blanche is a Democrat party operative who I think I think he's Bill Barr two point o. You know, they got another Veritas investigation, where they have Bill Barr's former CIA deputy AG twice literally with Fanny Willis setting up the indictments in Virginia.
I mean, in Georgia. I mean, like so is is Todd Blanche Bill Barr two point o? That's the question Trump should be asking. It's bigger than me. Bigger than me.
Well, judge report reached out and said, hey. This is cut dry with you. I said, don't you have bigger fish fry? They said, no. This they they were sloppy with you.
We know, we've got them, and they do. We have all of it. Total proof of record
Speaker 0: Can I disagree with you on one point? I don't think it's bigger than you. I I don't think anything is bigger than the individual. I think that is the Christian message. What matters is the individual, the human soul, the person, each one made in God's image.
And whenever your people say, well, it's bigger than just one person, that's bullshit, actually. Nothing is bigger than just one person.
Speaker 1: No, Tucker. I agree with you. I'm saying that.
Speaker 0: Justice done to you is a total outrage to the entire world. And by the way, you're not the only victim. If that's what you're saying, I'm hardly the only victim. I'm just
Speaker 1: That's what I meant, though.
Speaker 0: That's for sure. But I think it's so important to make sure, to the extent you can, with the power that you have in this life, to make sure that justice is done for the individual. Like, I really think that's that is Western civilization. By the way, the Eastern view, which is now very common in our country, deals only with groups and populations and the herd or the tribe. That's why they believe in collective punishment.
But the Christian view is, no. It's the individual, and each person matters. The hair on your head is numbered by God. So I just feel like we can't we can't allow a single injustice to pass by if we can fix it.
Speaker 1: No. I totally to be clear, I totally agree with you. My point was I know Trump has bigger fish
Speaker 0: to fry. No. I get it. Well, that's true.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't because everything they're doing is about, oh, this this media paid a thing that said they're wrong. They're laughing at him. They still have their power structure in place. Oh, ABC paid a fine. They paid a fine.
Paul Weiss paid a fine, and they're still attacking your most ardent supporters to to to to shut you down. And and so that's all I'm trying to say is is that is that will Trump let Mike Lindell get shut down? Will he allow this all because the deputy AG that really runs everything is really a big leftist and thinks and thinks he's smarter than all of us. And it's just so disgusting because we have them cut and dry. They're like, well, sir, he peed on Graves.
No one peed on Graves. No one did any of this stuff they say. Trump never said the KKK are fine people. That was all a lie. And and so if you give it to their propaganda, they they win.
Support your supporters. Stand up for them. You know, I saw Barron put out a whole list of vaccine bad reactions to the COVID shot after his dad took a shot. That's gonna be the real rebellion here as people around Trump because he's 79 years old. He's not a bad guy, a great guy.
Tell him the truth. We all of us can't be in a cult. When Trump is wrong, we gotta call it out. But but yeah. I mean, I'm here and, you know, I've seen this injustice.
And I I was literally gonna say when I came here we're set up a week ago. I couldn't come a week ago because they were they had a receiver there at the office that day. Was supposed to come literally looking at everything about to shut down. And I just had to say to people that if they do this to me, they'll do it to you, and then Mike Lindell defaulted. No jury trial found guilty by a judge.
All of you are in danger, folks. This is so real. And if Trump doesn't defend Lindell or me, whatever. I mean, I just hope Trump, when he's out in three years, remembers that Todd Blanche is Bill Barr two point o. And if you think that little sneaky lawyer is your friend, you're a fool.
So I think Todd Blanche should be removed, not because of me, but because everybody I talked to, he is literally there working against the president. He's the one telling the US attorneys don't do these prosecutions. And then Trump gets pissed and says, do it. They do it. So Trump, you did it with Sessions.
You did it with Bill Barr. Why are you doing it with Blanche right now? It's please. I don't understand this blind spot of Trump.
Speaker 0: I've never heard any of this before, but that's why I'm a fan of yours because I always learn a lot. Godspeed, Alex Jones. Truly, thank you.
Speaker 1: Tucker, love you, brother.
Speaker 0: Great to see you, man. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Paid partnerships: Masa Chips: Get 25% off with code TUCKER at https://masachips.com/tucker MeriwetherFarms: Visit https://MeriwetherFarms.com/Tucker and use code TUCKER10 for an extra 10% off Cowboy Colostrum: Get 25% off your entire order with code TUCKER at https://cowboycolostrum.com
MASA - Recommended by Tucker Carlson - 25% Off
Wondering why we keep selling out? Find out for yourself! First-time customers can get 25% off 5oz boxes when you spend $50+.
masachips.com
Tucker Carlson x Meriwether Farms
Experience the authentic flavor of Wyoming with Meriwether Farms. We offer a range of locally-sourced, high-quality beef products, all from family ranches right here in Wyoming. Shop with us and support local agriculture while enjoying the finest cuts of beef available. Discover the difference today.
meriwetherfarms.com
Cowboy Colostrum: First milking grass-fed bovine colostrum
Cowboy Colostrum: pure, grass-fed, first-milking bovine colostrum for peak potency. Packed with bioactives to support gut health, immunity, and performance.
cowboycolostrum.com
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m told the story that Zelensky was an apolitical comedian turned president, helped by a TV show’s surging success funded by oligarch Kolomyskyi. A secret 2018 Servant of the People party, 2019 Instagram candidacy, no real campaign, endless airtime, and favorable polls backed by Kolomoyskyi’s media. CIA/NSA-backed democracy funding, USAID advisors, a 73% win, then martial law and stalled elections—an American-backed construct.
@WallStreetApes - Wall Street Apes
Joe Rogan show goes over the unfiltered truth about who the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy really is 🚨 US Taxpayers paid $5 billion dollars from the CIA and NSA, funneled through NGOs to get Zelensky elected. But it goes so much deeper “Here's the truth, and people know parts of this story, but they don't know it in its cleanest narrative So he was a totally apolitical, he was an outsider to politics, zero experience or interest in government or politics. He was a comedian and with no manifesto, no party ties - He does a TV show, a planned TV show called Servant of the People. And the main character in the show does a YouTube video that calls out oligarchs and corruption, and eventually becomes popular and is drafted as a protest candidate and eventually becomes president. - So Zelenskyy played on a TV show, a person who becomes president by popular demand. In real life, the TV show is supported by an oligarch named Kolomoyskyi, who owned the TV channel. - And Kolomoyskyi did a huge non-stop promo on that TV show to make it the number one show, prime time slots and ads everywhere and crossovers with the news and what have you - 2018, a year before the show goes off the air, Zelenskyy forms a political party called Servant of the People, the same title as the, as the show. - No press release, secretly done, and then he does another season of the show, and in April of 2019, he announces his actual candidacy on Instagram. - He has no campaign, no rallies, no real platform. He skips the presidential debates, others attended. - He avoids press conferences and the few that he did were, in the beginning, were really bad. And Kolomoyskyi's TV channel gave Zelenskyy's campaign endless airtime and, favorable polls and went after his enemies. - The US intelligence agency, CIA and NSA helped. U.S. spending $5 billion, by the way, on democracy campaigns in Ukraine funneled through NGOs. - USAID embeds advisors in his organization to help with the campaign - On election day, Zelenskyy wins with 73% of the vote - Then the war happens with Russia, and he declares martial law and he ends elections. There's supposed to be an election in 2024, that's what we get for our democracy money. And quite literally, he is an actor in a carefully designed television show. He is a construct, like Epstein is a construct, meaning he's a created entity and it worked. That is Zelenskyy, American hero”
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 describes Zelensky as an American hero and contrasts his public image with the underlying narrative. He explains Zelensky was totally apolitical, an outsider with no government experience, a comedian, and the star of a planned TV show called Servant of the People. In the show, the main character creates a YouTube video that calls out oligarchs and corruption, becomes popular, and is drafted as a protest candidate who eventually becomes president. In real life, the TV show is supported by oligarch Kolomoisky, who owned the channel and did a large, nonstop promotional push to make it the number one show, including primetime slots, ads, and crossovers with the news. In 2018, a year before the show ended, Zelensky formed a political party named Servant of the People, the same title as the show, and secretly produced another season of the show. In April 2019, he announced his candidacy on Instagram, with no campaign, no rallies, no real platform, and he skipped presidential debates; his few early press conferences were poor. Kolomoisky’s channel provided Zelensky with endless airtime and favorable polls while attacking his enemies.
Speaker 0 continues that US intelligence agencies, CIA and NSA, helped by funding democracy campaigns in Ukraine—reportedly around $5 billion—funneled through NGOs, with USAID embedding advisers in Zelensky’s organization to assist the campaign. On election day, Zelensky wins with 73% of the vote. Afterward, the war with Russia occurs, he declares martial law, and elections are ended. An election in 2024 is anticipated as the result of democracy money. He asserts Zelensky is an actor in a carefully designed television show—“a construct,” akin to Epstein—an created entity that works, and asks what Americans think about his popularity.
Speaker 1 responds that Americans are disappointed by the ongoing war and deaths, noting that the war’s human cost is a major failure of promises from the Trump administration, who claimed he would resolve it in 24 hours. He adds that conscripting 60-year-old men and Americans and others going to fight are part of the situation. He states that the Ukraine narrative, and wars in general, are not organic: wars like this are driven by demands for primacy, control, and wealth, rather than being spontaneous. He reflects that Putin didn’t suddenly decide to invade; similarly, the broader pattern of power is not organic. He notes the Russian soldiers were told they would be welcomed and that they had dress uniforms, and compares to expectations in Iraq, where it was promised that Iraqis would welcome forces. He asks what the Ukraine situation is really about, and comments that human war reduces to a few centers of power like NATO, China, the Soviet bloc, and oil-producing countries, ultimately converging to two leaders in a room who must kill each other, as part of the decay of empire, with the U.S. maintaining about 760 overseas military bases.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I keep asking if I have time. Do I have time to tell the Zelensky story? Sure. Because it's another one. It's just, you know, what is Zelensky?
In America, he's a hero. He's a real warrior. He's got that nice green, you know, warrior suit on. And here's the truth. And people know parts of this story, but they don't know it in its in its cleanest narrative.
So he was a totally apolitical. He was an outsider to politics, zero experience or interest in government or politics. He was a comedian and with no manifesto, no party ties, and he does a TV show, a planned TV show called Servant of the People. And the main character in the show does a YouTube video that calls out oligarchs and corruption and eventually becomes popular and is drafted as a protest candidate and eventually becomes president. So Zelensky played on a TV show a person who becomes president by popular demand.
In real life, the TV show is supported by an oligarch named Kolomoisky who owned the TV channel. And Kolomoisky did a huge nonstop promo on that TV show to make it the number one show. Primetime slots and ads everywhere and crossovers with the news and what have you. 2018, a year before the show goes off the air, Zelenskyy forms a political party called Servant of the People, the same title as the as the show. And in no press release, secretly done, and then he does another season of the show.
And in April 2019, he announces his actual candidacy on Instagram. He has no campaign, no rallies, no real platform. He skips the presidential debates others attended. He avoids press conferences, and the few that he did were in the beginning were really bad. And Kolomoisky's TV channel gave Zelensky's campaign endless airtime and favorable polls and went after his enemies.
The US intelligence agencies, CIA and NSA helped US spending $5,000,000,000, by the way, on democracy campaigns in in Ukraine funneled through NGOs. And USAID embeds advisers in his organization to help with the campaign. I'm almost done. And on election day, Zelensky wins with 73% of the vote. And then the war happens with Russia, and he declares martial law, and he ends elections.
There's supposed to be an election in two thousand twenty four. That's what we get for our democracy money. And quite literally, he is an actor in a carefully designed television show. He is a construct, like Epstein is a construct. Meaning, he's a created entity, and and and it worked.
That is Zelensky, the American hero. I guess his his star is maybe fading a little bit now. I don't know. What do you think? Is he still wildly popular in America?
Speaker 1: Well, I think people are very disappointed by the fact that the wars continue to go on and the deaths, the amount of deaths. I mean, people were horrified by it. It's it's a and that's a big failure of the promises of the Trump administration too because Trump famously said that he would get it done in twenty four hours.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: He can't get it done at all.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's tough.
Speaker 1: And they're they're conscripting 60 year old men. Yeah. Setting them to the front line. I mean, it's
Speaker 0: And and and Americans and people from all over the world to go and fight. And but the narrative, I think, you know, your very first question was, do people do this on purpose? Things things like this, like wars that are multibillion dollar events, they are not organic. They do not just happen. You know, he does Putin does not just decide one day, hey.
I got an idea, you know, and to go into a part of of Ukraine where they're Russian speakers, they're culturally Russian, and it is not they are not organic events. It's not how people get into power in many countries around the world.
Speaker 1: Well, the crazy thing is the narrative that the soldiers in Russia were being told that this was gonna be over very quickly. They're gonna be welcomed, and then, you know, they had dress uniforms in their packs. Yeah. They thought it was gonna be a couple of days. Storm in, storm out.
You're a hero.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We were told we were told that in Iraq that we will be, you know, welcomed in in Iraq as soon as we get to Baghdad. So what do you
Speaker 1: think the Ukraine thing is really all about?
Speaker 0: Well, all why why limit it to Ukraine? Just talk about human war. I mean, what is human war always about? It's about primacy and control and and and wealth. And you know, a thousand years ago, there's about a thousand what you would call government systems.
Right? There's warlords and there's shoguns in Japan, and and there's all these little entities. In our lifetime, it's down to a 190. But is it really a 190? It's more like five.
Right? NATO and China and the Soviet bloc when it existed and the oil producing countries. In other words, it's getting to be whatever number you wanna make it, but eventually, it'll be two fuckers sitting in a room and then they gotta kill each other.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: And then, you know, that is the decay of empire, and we are you know, we have 760 military bases overseas.