TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

America is facing serious challenges, including threats from enemies and the risk of nuclear annihilation. The speaker believes that America's weakness has allowed global elitists to corrupt the government and harm its citizens. They mention issues like violent crime, inflation, and a declining economy, blaming Joe Biden for these problems. However, the speaker also believes that one man and one movement can turn things around. They advocate for putting the middle class first, standing up to globalists and corrupt individuals, and restoring American pride and the American dream. The goal is to make America great again.

We are collaborating with various countries to address global crises like massive debt, potential financial collapse, a looming world war, and mass immigration. The rise of nationalist movements is seen as a solution to the failures of the current political class. The Chinese Communist Party's influence is also a concern. Working together is crucial to preserving the Westphalian system and constitutional republics for future generations.

We need courageous leaders who prioritize principles and patriotism in senior ranks. A president must shake things up to remove dangerous individuals. Americans must realize the importance of establishing a just world through dialogue with other nations. Unfortunately, significant turmoil may be necessary to drive this change. The media's bias has hindered public perception. Major countries like China, Brazil, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and India support Russia in the ongoing conflict.

The speakers discuss the importance of avoiding World War III and the need to prioritize peace. They highlight the risks of escalating conflicts and the potential for a global conflict that could have devastating consequences. They emphasize the need to understand the changing dynamics of power, particularly the strength of an alliance between Russia, China, and Iran. The speakers suggest that restoring normal relations with Russia and seeking a ceasefire in Ukraine could be crucial steps in avoiding a catastrophic war. They also stress the importance of realism and a focus on national self-interest in foreign policy decisions.

Nikolay Petro and Gwen were discussing the Munich Security Conference and the broader shift in global order. The core theme is the destruction or breakdown of the post–Cold War order as the world moves toward multipolarity, with the United States and Europe following diverging paths. - The transition to multipolarity is described as chaos and a vacuum of strategic thinking. From a European perspective, this is an unwanted transition into something unfamiliar, while the US debates a more pragmatic approach that may bypass traditional institutions to position itself favorably. The multipolar world would be more democratic, with more voices in actual discussion of each nation’s needs and contributions, in contrast to the hegemonic, rules-based order. - The concept of multipolarity presumes multiple poles of interest. Nations at the top of the old order feel uncomfortable; they had a lead dog (the United States) and knew where they were going. Now the lead dog may be wandering, and the rest are lost. There’s a push to engage voices from the global South, or the global majority, though the term “global South” is viewed as imprecise. - At Munich, Kaia Kallas and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (Mertz) urged order to avoid chaos. Kallas favored restoring or preserving the structures of the past, arguing the European Union should reconnect with the US and dominate collectively as the political West. Mertz used aggressive language, saying Germany’s army must be the most powerful in Europe and that the war in Ukraine will end only when Russia is exhausted economically and militarily; he argued Europe imposed unheard-of losses on Russia. - In response, the US role in Munich was anticipated to feature Marco Rubio as the delegation head, signaling a security-focused agenda rather than deep internal European discourse. The discussion suggested the US may push a strategy of returning to or reshaping a hegemonic order, pressuring Europe to align with American priorities, and highlighting that the old order is over. - There is a perception of internal German political dynamics: the rise of the anti-establishment party (IFD) could challenge the current SPD/CSU coalition, potentially altering the German stance on Russia and Europe’s strategy toward Moscow. The possibility exists that internal German shifts could counter aggressive German policy toward Russia. - In Europe, there is a tension between those who want to sacrifice more national autonomy to please the US and those who advocate diversifying ties to avoid total dependence on Washington. In practice, EU policy has often mirrored US priorities, thereby delaying a truly autonomous European strategy. - The EU’s foreign policy structure remains weak due to political diversity among member states, the need for cooperation with national governments, and resistance to surrendering power to Brussels. There is no cohesive grand strategy within the EU, making it hard to present a unified vision in a multipolar world. The EU’s reliance on crisis-driven centralization contrasts with those internal contradictions. - Ukraine’s war exposed tensions in Europe’s cohesion. Initially, there was a rallying effect and unified front against Russia, aided by US support, aiming for a rapid Russian defeat. Now the EU’s rhetoric shifts toward seeking a ceasefire and preserving what remains of Ukraine, labeling victory in terms of saving Ukraine rather than expelling Russia. EU funding for Ukraine—about €90 billion over two years—may be insufficient, with Ukraine claiming higher needs. - The discussion suggested that European leadership’s view of Russia and Putin is unstable: some European circles believe Russia could collapse economically, while others see Russia’s leadership as capable of countermeasures. Reports of France reestablishing high-level political contacts with Russia were noted as part of this flux. - The conversation contrasted backward-looking US/EU visions with a forward-looking multipolar vision promoted by BRICS, especially Russia, which could be more promising due to its forward outlook. The EU, dominated by internal divisions, struggles to articulate an autonomous multipolar path, while the United States appears intent on reviving its dominant position and reshaping the international order, sometimes in ways that delay the shift to multipolarity. - Overall, the speakers highlighted a shared but backward-looking orientation between the EU and the US, versus a forward-looking, multipolar alternative; they also underscored the strategic vacuum, internal European divisions, and the continuing tug-of-war between attempting to restore past structures and embracing a new global arrangement.

In this conversation, Brian Berletic discusses the current collision between the United States’ global strategy and a rising multipolar world, arguing that U.S. policy is driven by corporate-financier interests and a desire to preserve unipolar primacy, regardless of the costs to others. - Structural dynamics and multipolar resistance - The host notes a shift from optimism about Trump’s “America First” rhetoric toward an assessment that U.S. strategy aims to restore hegemony and broad, repeated wars, even as a multipolar world emerges. - Berletic agrees that the crisis is structural: the U.S. system is driven by large corporate-financier interests prioritizing expansion of profit and power. He cites Brookings Institution’s 2009 policy papers, particularly The Path to Persia, as documenting a long-running plan to manage Iran via a sequence of options designed to be used in synergy to topple Iran, with Syria serving as a staging ground for broader conflict. - He argues the policy framework has guided decisions across administrations, turning policy papers into bills and war plans, with corporate media selling these as American interests. This, he says, leaves little room for genuine opposition because political power is financed by corporate interests. - Iran, Syria, and the Middle East as a springboard to a global confrontation - Berletic traces the current Iran crisis to the 2009 Brookings paper’s emphasis on air corridors and using Israel to provoke a war, placing blame on Israel as a proxy mechanism while the U.S. cleanses the region of access points for striking Iran directly. - He asserts the Arab Spring (2011) was designed to encircle Iran and move toward Moscow and Beijing, with Iran as the final target. The U.S. and its allies allegedly used policy papers to push tactical steps—weakening Russia via Ukraine, exploiting Syria, and leveraging Iran as a fulcrum for broader restraint against Eurasian powers. - The aim, he argues, is to prevent a rising China by destabilizing Iran and, simultaneously, strangling energy exports that feed China’s growth. He claims the United States has imposed a global maritime oil blockade on China through coordinated strikes and pressure on oil-rich states, while China pursues energy independence via Belt and Road, coal-to-liquids, and growing imports from Russia. - The role of diplomacy, escalation, and Netanyahu’s proxy - On diplomacy, Berletic says the U.S. has no genuine interest in peace; diplomacy is used to pretext war, creating appearances of reasonable engagement while advancing the continuity of a warlike agenda. He references the Witch Path to Persia as describing diplomacy as a pretext for regime change. - He emphasizes that Russia and China are not credibly negotiating with the U.S., viewing Western diplomacy as theater designed to degrade multipolar powers. Iran, he adds, may be buying time but also reacting to U.S. pressure, while Arab states and Israel are portrayed as proxies with limited autonomy. - The discussion also covers how Israel serves as a disposable proxy to advance U.S. goals, including potential use of nuclear weapons, with Trump allegedly signaling a post-facto defense of Israel in any such scenario. - The Iran conflict, its dynamics, and potential trajectory - The war in Iran is described as a phased aggression, beginning with the consulate attack and escalating into economic and missile-strike campaigns. Berletic notes Iran’s resilient command-and-control and ongoing missile launches, suggesting the U.S. and its allies are attempting to bankrupt Iran while degrading its military capabilities. - He highlights the strain on U.S. munitions inventories, particularly anti-missile interceptors and long-range weapons, due to simultaneous operations in Ukraine, the Middle East, and potential confrontations with China. He warns that the war’s logistics are being stretched to the breaking point, risking a broader blowback. - The discussion points to potential escalation vectors: shutting Hormuz, targeting civilian infrastructure, and possibly using proxies (including within the Gulf states and Yemen) to choke off energy flows. Berletic cautions that the U.S. could resort to more drastic steps, including leveraging Israel for off-world actions, while maintaining that multipolar actors (Russia, China, Iran) would resist. - Capabilities, resources, and the potential duration - The host notes China’s energy-mobility strategies and the Western dependency on rare earth minerals (e.g., gallium) mostly produced in China, emphasizing how U.S. war aims rely on leveraging allies and global supply chains that are not easily sustained. - Berletic argues the U.S. does not plan for permanent victory but for control, and that multipolar powers are growing faster than the United States can destroy them. He suggests an inflection point will come when multipolarism outruns U.S. capacity, though the outcome remains precarious due to nuclear risk and global economic shocks. - Outlook and final reflections - The interlocutors reiterate that the war is part of a broader structural battle between unipolar U.S. dominance and a rising multipolar order anchored by Eurasian powers. They stress the need to awaken broader publics to the reality of multipolarism and to pursue a more balanced world order, warning that the current trajectory risks global economic harm and dangerous escalation.

We are at an inflection point in the world economy and globally. This occurs every few generations. In a recent secure meeting, a top military official mentioned that between 1900 and 1946, 60 million people died. However, since then, we have established a more stable liberal world order. Now, things are shifting again, and a new world order is emerging. It is crucial for us to take the lead and unite the free world in this endeavor.

The speaker asserts that Americans are loving, god-fearing, fair, and least discriminatory, and emphasizes that harming American citizens, taking hostages, or sending fentanyl to poison the population will lead to consequences for those involved. They note that Americans spend a trillion dollars on defense and argue that the priority is to prevent hostage-taking, torture, and attacks on allies, and to condemn what is described as a discriminatory United Nations. The conference is framed as crucial because the United States has the best products in the world and cannot accept parity with adversaries. The speaker contends that adversaries lack America’s moral compunction and will exploit American niceness and desire for peaceful home life. They claim those enemies must wake up scared and go to bed scared, and that making the American people feel that way will prompt the public to push back, including the implication that the Democrats were likely to lose the election because Americans want to live in peace and feel safe. The speaker says Americans do not want to hear “your woke pagan ideology” and want to know they are safe, with safety meaning that the other side is scared. There is a critique of intellectually captured institutions, specifically those “funneled and intellectually owned by the Berkeley faculty,” which the speaker claims do not share this fear-based approach. The speaker asserts that Palantir and others in the room are there to serve the American people, describing service as making soldiers happier, enemies scared, and Americans able to enjoy leading the country’s unique tech scene and to win in every field. The overall message emphasizes deterrence and moral clarity: provoke fear in enemies, ensure safety for Americans, and maintain American leadership in technology and defense. The speaker connects these ideas to domestic politics by suggesting public preference for security over ideological narratives and frames victory as a combination of a stronger defense posture, harsher stance toward adversaries, and a robust domestic tech ecosystem.

Under Joe Biden, the risk of World War III is high due to the proxy war in Ukraine. The objective should be a total cessation of hostilities and dismantling the "globalist neocon establishment." The State Department, Defense Bureaucracy, and Intelligence Services need an overhaul to prioritize America First. The greatest threat to Western civilization is internal, including open borders, lawlessness, and the decline of the nuclear family. The speaker claims to be the only one who can end the Ukraine conflict and clean house of warmongers in the deep state. Some believe Biden's policies are escalating the conflict, potentially leading to nuclear war. Russia has allegedly changed its law to allow a nuclear response. Ending the war would be easy with the right leadership. The speaker promises to replace current officials with those who defend American interests.

China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are working together to disrupt the world. China funds Russia's war against Ukraine, while Russia obtains weapons from China, North Korea, and Iran. Iran sponsors terrorism globally, including Hamas and Hezbollah. The speaker supports helping Ukraine for two reasons. Firstly, the US promised to defend Ukraine when they returned Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia. Keeping this promise is crucial for maintaining credibility. Secondly, the speaker believes that Russia's aggression will not stop at Ukraine. By providing Ukraine with a small portion of the Pentagon budget, they have significantly degraded Russian military hardware, making it a worthwhile investment.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the Ukraine conflict as part of a broader geopolitical strategy attributed to a globalist elite. Speaker 1 contends that globalists in the White House, in Congress, and in European capitals want BlackRock to take over Ukraine to strip its resources and subjugate it to a globalist agenda, and they also aim to destroy Russia. The claim is that the war has never been about Ukraine itself, but about destroying Russia. According to Speaker 1, the people in charge failed to perform strategic analysis, underestimating Russia by treating it as if it were the post-Soviet state of 1992—weak and prostrate. The reference to John McCain’s description of Russia as “Spain with a gas station” is invoked to illustrate this hubris. The argument continues that Russians warned against NATO on their border and about the dangers of Western actions in Eastern Ukraine, but these concerns were ignored. Speaker 1 asserts that the outcome is a dangerous, ongoing war that could become regional or global, with a consequence that the White House is not fully grasping. He predicts a massive Russian offensive when ground conditions permit, foreseeing that much of what is currently identified as Ukraine—especially the Kyiv government—will be swept away. He claims the Kyiv government represents the interests of the globalist elite seeking resources to exploit, not the Ukrainian people. The discussion shifts to broader economic implications, including the potential loss of the petrodollar as Putin engages with Saudi Arabia and China. Speaker 1 frames the war as both military and financial, suggesting that BRICS could expand dramatically and move to a gold-backed currency, whether a single currency or a basket. He asserts that this shift threatens the current global financial system and that the globalists are desperate as a result. The speaker fears that once Ukraine’s fate becomes clear, there will be pressure to deploy US forces into Western Ukraine, with Polish and possibly Romanian troops, which would escalate into a full-scale war with Russia. According to Speaker 1, Putin has shown restraint and does not want a war with the West, but intervention in Western Ukraine could end in open conflict. Speaker 1 also argues that Putin has repeatedly warned against advancing the border toward Russia and transforming Ukraine into a hostile actor, framing what happens in Ukraine as an existential strategic interest to the United States. He contrasts this with a claim that Biden’s stance has prioritized regime change in Russia and the division of Russia to exploit it, while alleging that oligarchs like Kolomovsky, Soros, and others are part of this globalist project. The discussion concludes with criticisms of U.S. military recruitment practices, suggesting the Army and Marines are not prepared for such a conflict, including comments about recruitment of illegals encouraged by the administration.

The speaker emphasizes the importance of maintaining the liberal international world order with the United States and Europe at its core, especially during a time of shifting global dynamics. They assert the necessity of leading the new world order and uniting the free world. The speaker claims many desire two world orders, but that even the US and China need a single global order. A clip featuring President Macron of France is referenced, with the claim that Macron stated the need for only one global superpower. The speaker suggests the Obama Biden administration and the Davos Euro administration are collectively working towards this goal.

Apparently, the strategy is to weaken Russia, which is essentially a state of war. The aim is to remove Putin, replace his administration, and potentially divide Russia. This stems from the neoconservative movement, which has always been anti-Soviet and anti-Russian, pushing for a strong, challenging America. However, America can't challenge Russia, especially since the U.S. military isn't ready for war. The U.S. is using the Ukrainian military as cannon fodder, fighting over pride and fear of a Russian/Chinese economic takeover. America shouldn't go to war for trade, even if it means becoming number two or three economically. The world is multipolar, but the U.S. hasn't accepted this. People don't realize how destructive even a limited war would be. The situation is much more dangerous than people realize because America is too prideful and arrogant and will be nasty when it doesn't get its way in Ukraine.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify core claims, end-state, and strategic stakes across the dialogue. - Preserve unique or surprising assertions, including direct phrases where pivotal. - Exclude repetition, filler, and off-topic asides; focus on moving arguments. - Translate nothing (content is already in English); present claims as stated, with minimal interpretation. - Do not insert opinions or adjudicate truth; report claims exactly as presented. - Target a concise, coherent 388–486 word summary. Speaker 1 asserts that the globalists—described as a "globalist neocon elite" on both the Hill and in the White House, plus elites in Europe—want to see BlackRock "take over Ukraine" to strip its resources and turn it into a subjugated state for the broader agenda. They also want to see Russia destroyed, arguing the war has never been about Ukraine but about what can be done to destroy Russia. Russia is depicted as weak, with references to earlier contemptuous assessments like "Russia is Spain with a gas station." The speakers contend Moscow had legitimate concerns about Western actions in Eastern Ukraine and NATO on its border; they claim Washington ignored those concerns and installed a hostile government in Kyiv in 2014. They say President Trump attempted to listen but was surrounded by loyalists who "took an oath of obedience" but who ignored his orders. The outcome foreseen is a serious war that could become regional or global, with the claim that the globalists are losing. When the ground dries in June, a "massive Russian offensive" is anticipated, and much of what is called Ukraine would be swept away, especially the Kyiv government, which the speaker claims serves elite interests rather than the Ukrainian people. Speaker 0 pivots to the petrodollar, noting Putin’s outreach to Saudis and Xi, suggesting that moving away from the petrodollar would undermine U.S. borrowing and living beyond means. Speaker 1 reframes the war as now financial as well as military. The BRICS alliance is described as expanding—"81 additional members"—and moving to a currency backed by gold, whether a single currency or a basket. This, they argue, would undermine the dollar and signal grave trouble for global finance, driving the globalists to desperate measures. They warn that once Western Ukraine falls, there would be pressure to deploy U.S. forces into Poland and Romania, with possible Romanian participation, leading to a full-fledged war if intervention occurs. Putin is described as having exercised tremendous restraint and patience, avoiding a war with the West; he supposedly does not want conflict with the West, but if Western forces involved themselves near the Polish border or beyond, “the gloves will come off.” The dialogue also asserts Russia’s strategic calculus: Putin warned against advancing the border to Russia, sought equal rights for Russians in Eastern Ukraine, and refused to surrender Crimea, which was seen as a bulwark against a U.S. naval base. Biden’s goal is framed as regime change and dividing Russia, with oligarchs such as Koloboyski and Soros alleged to be part of this globalist project. The plan is described as a strategic defense with an economy-of-force approach pushing toward the Polish border, setting up the threat of a protracted, multi-year conflict. The United States’ military recruitment is depicted as underprepared, including Marines being encouraged to recruit illegals.

Forces behind governments, such as the World Economic Forum, the UN, the WHO, the IMF, and the World Bank, are pushing an agenda of control over land, money, speech, and lives, framed as saving the planet and helping the poor. The WEF creates ideas, the UN uses language like equity and sustainability, the WHO creates emergencies, the IMF and World Bank trap countries with loans, and the media controls the narrative. The speaker claims the goal is to break the West by crushing energy independence, destroying the value of money, opening borders, silencing dissent, and instilling fear to make people easily controlled. Digital money, digital IDs, and permanent emergency powers are part of this plan. The speaker suggests that leaders like Donald Trump, Viktor Orban, and Vladimir Putin are fighting back against this agenda by prioritizing national interests and independence from globalist groups. The speaker concludes that this is about survival and urges people to resist being scared, silent, and obedient.

Speaker 1: We have not gone to war with Russia. Russia is isolated, more than five years ago, a regional power threatening neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness. Ukraine had influence for decades since the Soviet breakup. We have considerable influence on our neighbors and generally don't need to invade to have cooperation. Russia's military action violates international law and signals less influence. They don't pose the number one national security threat to United States; I am concerned about a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan. Speaker 2: It is up to the Ukrainian people to decide how they organize themselves. The Ukrainian government is prepared to negotiate with Russia, and the international community supports a diplomatic process to de-escalate tensions, move Russian troops back from Ukraine's borders, and organize elections; the Ukrainian people will choose leadership. They will want a relationship with Europe and with Russia; this is not a zero-sum game.

World War 3 is looming, and we need to remove warmongers and globalists from positions of power. I was the only president who rejected the advice of Washington's generals and bureaucrats, preventing us from starting a war. For years, people like Victoria Nuland have pushed for conflict, as seen in Ukraine and Iraq. We must replace the corrupt establishment with individuals who prioritize American interests. During my administration, we made progress in bringing peace to the world, and we will continue this mission. We will also stop lobbyists and defense contractors from influencing our military and national security officials. With strong leadership, we could end the Ukraine conflict quickly. In my next four years, we will replace the failures in our government with competent officials who prioritize America's interests.

The speaker asserts that the world is closer to World War III under Joe Biden than ever before, emphasizing the need to avoid nuclear Armageddon through new leadership and an immediate cessation of hostilities in Ukraine. They advocate for dismantling the "globalist neocon establishment" and overhauling the State Department, Defense Bureaucracy, and Intelligence Services to prioritize America First. The speaker claims the greatest threat to Western civilization is internal, citing open borders, crime, the decline of the nuclear family, Marxism, and dependence on China. They criticize the foreign policy establishment for pushing conflict with Russia and highlight figures like Victoria Nuland. The speaker states they can end the Ukraine conflict in 24 hours with the right leadership, and that they were the only president in generations who didn't start a war because they rejected warmongering advice. They claim Biden's policies are escalating the risk of nuclear war, and that some desire war with Russia over Ukraine. They cite a study predicting 5.8 billion deaths in a 73-minute World War III.

- The speaker found their photo name on the World Economic Forum website under the category “Young Global Leaders,” noting that the list includes people from different political parties worldwide and is described as pushing a super globalist agenda with corporate power among the wealthiest. - It is claimed that even president Putin and others were once “young global leaders,” suggesting the WEF and related networks infiltrate cabinets and governance structures. - The idea is presented that the world oligarchic system holds power in Europe, controlling leaders such as the Bundescanseller (German chancellor) or prime ministers, leading to a perception of a global oligarchy. - The speaker states the Global Shapers community was created as a means to shape the common future, implying an organized effort to influence global policy. - There is a claim that attempts are being made to establish a new world order with rules that supersede and undermine national sovereignty and democracy. - It is argued that UN officials and WEF Davos leaders are in effect the same actors, suggesting the UN is indistinguishable from the World Economic Forum in practice. - The claim is made that these elites claim to know what is best for the people, and that billionaires are driving the agenda, with the danger being that they set the world’s rules and pursue a utopian future while silencing the voices and sovereignty of nations. - A sentiment is expressed that the situation is controlled by the same oligarchic ideas and actors, with the response labeled as “Total. 100%.” - Some participants concede debates about a deglobalizing world, but others argue for reglobalization of the world. - It is asserted that the World Economic Forum creates leaders who are then elected by the public, suggesting a pipeline from WEF to political office. - In the United Nations, there is a description of scrutiny for political correctness; those who are not 100% politically correct cannot participate, and influence can be exerted through salary and offers to control individuals. - There is mention of a global rules-based order aimed at combating dangerous extremist views online and minimizing misinformation, framed within shaping a great reset. - The claim is made that nobody will be safe unless everybody is vaccinated, and that there is a need to confront a deep, systemic, and structural restructuring of the world. - The discussion concludes with the expectation that the world will look different after this transition process.

World War III is looming, and we must remove warmongers and globalists from power. I was the only president to reject the advice of Washington's generals and bureaucrats, preventing war. People like Victoria Nuland have long sought confrontation, as seen in Ukraine and Iraq. We need to replace the corrupt establishment with those who prioritize American interests. During my presidency, we made great progress in putting America first and achieving peace. We will transform the state department, Pentagon, and national security establishment. Lobbyists and defense contractors won't push us into conflict for personal gain. I rebuilt our military, earning respect from other countries. With the right leadership, we could end the Ukraine conflict swiftly. In my next term, we'll replace the failures with competent officials who prioritize America's interests. Thank you.

We've found that the World Economic Forum is pushing a super globalist agenda, attempting to create a new world order that undermines the sovereignty of countries and our democracy. This organization, along with the UN, is controlled by the same ideas and oligarchs. They're creating leaders who will be elected by us, but these individuals are not employees of their people. They try to control people by salary and offers, ensuring they are politically correct. They aim to maintain a global rules-based order and compact dangerous extremist views on the internet to minimize the spread of misinformation and shape a great reset, believing nobody will be safe if not everybody is vaccinated. This involves a deep, systemic, and structural restructuring of our world.

With Donald Trump leading the United States, we will never see another Afghanistan. We need border, energy, economic, food, defense, and national security, because if you are not secure, you are not free. That's why conservatives are growing and becoming more influential in European politics, making the left nervous. Unlike when Bill Clinton and Tony Blair created a global leftist network, conservatives are now collaborating globally, which some see as a threat. Despite the attacks against us, people vote for us because they are not naive. We defend freedom, love our nations, want secure borders, protect businesses, and defend family and life. We fight against wokeism, protect our faith and free speech, and stand for common sense.

The speaker believes the U.S. is closer to World War III than ever due to the Biden-Harris administration's policies. In 2019, the speaker predicted that Joe Biden's presidency would lead to war with Russia, based on his anti-Russia stance in the 1990s. The speaker claims the U.S. aimed to prevent Russia from regaining superpower status, but Vladimir Putin revitalized the country. According to the speaker, Russia's economy and middle class are thriving despite sanctions, while the U.S. vilifies Russia and its president. The speaker asserts that the U.S. and NATO have lost a proxy war against Russia via Ukraine, and the U.S. is now escalating the conflict by supporting attacks on Russian civilians, which the speaker believes are war crimes. The speaker concludes that this will lead to World War III, which Putin has stated no one would win due to nuclear weapons. The speaker urges Americans to end the Biden-Harris regime to avoid this outcome.

World War 3 is looming due to warmongers and globalists in the deep state, Pentagon, State Department, and national security complex. Previous presidents' catastrophic advice led to conflicts, like Iraq, and now we're on the brink of World War 3. We must remove the corrupt globalist establishment, including President Biden, and replace them with people who prioritize American interests. During my presidency, we made progress in bringing peace to the world, and we will continue this mission. We'll also stop lobbyists and defense contractors from pushing conflicts for personal gain. Our military strength and respect deterred conflicts in the past, but now other countries laugh at us. With the right leadership, we could end the Ukraine conflict in 24 hours. In my next 4 years, we'll replace the failures in our government with competent officials who prioritize America's interests.