TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @satch_omega
@satch_omega - Ωmega News
@RnaudBertrand Israel holds 2 hostages. 2 million people, starving them, bombing them, killing them slowly while Israel destroyed their own soldiers with tanks and Apache helicopters.
@satch_omega - Ωmega News
Leaked footage from Israeli Airforce proves it was the IDF that took out its own citizens with Apache Helicopters on October 7 at the Nova music festival…. Israel has now admitted 28 Apache helicopters
@haaretzcom - Haaretz.com
HAARETZ EXPOSÉ: About an hour before the Hamas attack on the Nova music festival on the morning of October 7, the IDF commander in charge arrived at the site after receiving prior intelligence warnings, but took no preemptive action https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-09-02/ty-article/.premium/top-idf-commander-ignored-risks-after-visiting-nova-mere-hour-before-oct-7-hamas-massacre/00000199-09f0-d21e-a9db-1bfbe01b0000
Top IDF commander ignored risks after visiting Nova mere hour before Oct. 7 Hamas massacre
A Haaretz Investigation Reveals That Col. Haim Cohen Arrived at the Nova Site About an Hour Before the Hamas Attack, Saw Thousands of Party-goers With Minimal Police Presence, but Did Not Consider Dispersing the Festival. Most IDF Forces Were Unaware It Was Even Taking Place
haaretz.com
@satch_omega - Ωmega News
🔯1933, an exceptional event was held in Chicago to celebrate 3,000 years of Jewish history. A statue of Moloch took center stage. 🇵🇸Imagine the blood of #Gaza innocents flowing at all hours of the day and night. https://t.co/rKqq0v99lO
@satch_omega - Ωmega News
👹❌ Scott Horton: #Netanyahu openly mocks the US, calling Americans “grasshoppers” he can manipulate into fighting his wars. #Trump #Israel
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker accuses the Prime Minister of Israel of showing disrespect toward the president of my country, asserting he never had any respect at all. Netanyahu is pictured here as mocking Bill Clinton and the American people as "a bunch of grasshoppers that he can do whatever he wants with us, including lie our fathers into sending their sons to die in his wars." In this video, he is no longer the prime minister at a settler's house in the living room. He tells the boy, turn off the video camera, and the boy either fails to turn it off or turns it back on; the video keeps rolling as Netanyahu blabs. He adds, "America is a thing that is easily moved. 80% of them support us." "I'm not afraid of Bill Clinton." He says, "I made it where Area C is this huge military area, two thirds of the West Bank."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Prime minister of Israel shows so much disrespect towards the president of my country. No. He never had any respect at all. Netanyahu here is mocking Bill Clinton, and he's mocking the American people for being essentially a bunch of grasshoppers that he can do whatever he wants with us, including lie our fathers into sending their sons to die in his wars. In this video, he is no longer the prime minister at a settler's house in the living room.
He tells the boy, turn off the video camera. And the boy either fails to turn it off or he deliberately turns it right back on again. It's a bit unclear. But the video keeps rolling and Netanyahu keeps blabbing. And Netanyahu then ridicules us and says, let me tell you something about America.
Okay? America is a thing that is easily moved. 80% of them support us. It's absurd. I'm not afraid of Bill Clinton.
Let me tell you what I did to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton said yada yada Area C. I said no problem, Bill. But then you know what I did? I made it where Area C is this huge military area, two thirds of the West Bank.
@satch_omega - Ωmega News
🇺🇸🇮🇱Washington Institute for Near East Policy: AIPAC's "image problem" If access equals influence, and influence equals power, then the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is among Washington's most powerful think tanks. 🇺🇸🇮🇱Institut de Washington pour la politique du Proche-Orient : Un "problème d'image" de l'AIPAC Si l'accès équivaut à l'influence et que l'influence équivaut au pouvoir, alors le Washington Institute for Near East Policy compte parmi les groupes de réflexion les plus puissants de Washington. À la tête de l'institut, deux activistes juifs originaires de différentes parties du monde, qui nourrissaient depuis longtemps des désirs similaires et qui se sont rencontrés à Washington. L'installation de l'institut Créé en février 1985, le Washington Institute est rapidement passé d'une équipe de trois personnes à un total de 28 chercheurs, administrateurs et boursiers à temps plein et à temps partiel. L'AIPAC fonctionne d'une puissance jamais égalé dans l'histoire contemporaine occidentale Indyk a un jour décrit un coup monté dans les années 1970 par Zbigniew Brzezinski et William Quandt, membres de la Brookings Institution, comme le modèle sur lequel lui et Weinberg ont basé les débuts de l'Institut de Washington. https://wrmea.org/1991-july/washington-institute-for-near-east-policy-an-aipac-image-problem.html
Video Transcript AI Summary
"The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. This is an American think tank out of Washington DC. It was established in 1985, and it says the mission statement of the institute, quote, is to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in The Middle East and to promote the policies that secure them. Not about what's right and wrong over there. It's just whatever secures the American interests over in The Middle East, and we all know what those interests are. You've got Henry Kissinger, Richard Pearl, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, James Woolsey. It's a fun crowd. And it doesn't matter which president you think you're voting for. It's gonna change everything. People that have been part of this particular think tank have served senior positions in the administrations of every president this country has had since George h w Bush. Some of you may have seen this video, but again, considering the things that are going on right now, it's very it's more relevant now than it's ever been. So we're gonna go ahead and watch this, and I just wanna say upfront, you're gonna wanna have to make yourself resist the urge to punch your screen because you're gonna wanna punch this guy." "crisis initiation is really tough, and it's very hard for me to see how The United States, president can get us to war with Iran." "He just said that. You aren't hearing things he literally said. Crisis initiation's tough, and how's The United States president gonna get to war with Iran? Because wars don't just happen. They make the war." "The traditional way that America goes to war is what's best for the interests." "Some people might think that mister Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War two, as David mentioned. You may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. False flag." "Some people might think that mister Wilson wanted to get us into World War one. You may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode. False flag." "Some people might think that mister Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam. You may recall he had to wait for the Gulf Of Tonkin episode. Total false flag." "We didn't go to war with Spain until the USS until the Maine exploded. Probably also a false flag." "May I point out that mister Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander of Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack. Also a false flag." "Do you see a pattern here?" "So if in fact the Iranians aren't gonna compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war." "Period." "If the Iranians don't compromise, it would be best if someone started this war because that is how America goes to war." "One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17. We could step up the pressure." "We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We we could get nastier with that." "This is how America goes to war. You don't know when World War three is gonna break out, but when it does, you'll know why."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here's something you're never taught in school. Here in the good old US Of A, all of your wars have been fake. I don't mean the actual part where they blow up and kill people. I'm talking about the part where we go to war in the first place. And the sad part about it is the people up at the top and their minions, the people that hang out in these think tanks and stuff, they sit around talking about this blatantly, openly, just in your face, strategizing about how they can get us into the next war.
And this is actually an old video, but I think it it bears being shown again. In fact, it should be shown once every six months or so. You should just watch it again just to remind yourself the level that we're at in this country. So the guy the douchebag you're about to see is from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. This is an American think tank out of Washington DC.
It was established in 1985, and it says the mission statement of the institute, quote, is to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in The Middle East and to promote the policies that secure them. Not about what's right and wrong over there. It's just whatever secures the American interests over in The Middle East, and we all know what those interests are. It has nothing to do with spreading democracy or freedom or liberty. For more on that, all you have to do is look at the board of advisers and look at some of the names on here.
You've got Henry Kissinger, Richard Pearl, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, James Woolsey. It's a fun crowd. And it doesn't matter which president you think you're voting for. It's gonna change everything. People that have been part of this particular think tank have served senior positions in the administrations of every president this country has had since George h w Bush.
Some of you may have seen this video, but again, considering the things that are going on right now, it's very it's more relevant now than it's ever been. So we're gonna go ahead and watch this, and I just wanna say upfront, you're gonna wanna have to make yourself resist the urge to punch your screen because you're gonna wanna punch this guy. And you don't wanna do that because you could cut your knuckles and break your monitor and stuff like that. Because you're you're gonna wanna punch him, Listen to what he says here.
Speaker 1: I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, and it's very hard for me to see how The United States, president can get us to war with Iran.
Speaker 0: He just said that. You aren't hearing things he literally just said. Crisis initiation's tough, and how's The United States president gonna get to war with Iran? Because wars don't just happen. They make the war.
Speaker 1: Which leads me to conclude that if, in fact, compromise is not coming, that the traditional way of America gets to war is what would be best for US interests.
Speaker 0: The traditional way that America gets to war is what's best for the interests. Now listen to what the traditional way is that America goes to war.
Speaker 1: Some people might think that mister Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War two, as David mentioned. You may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. False flag. Some people might think mister Wilson wanted to get us into World War one. You may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode.
Also a false flag. Some people might think that mister Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam. You may recall he had to wait for the Gulf Of Tonkin episode. Total false flag. We didn't go to war with Spain until the USS until the Maine exploded.
Probably also a false flag. May I point out that mister Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander of Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack. Also a false flag.
Speaker 0: Do you see a pattern here?
Speaker 1: So if in fact the Iranians aren't gonna compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.
Speaker 0: Period. If the Iranians don't compromise, it would be best if someone started this war because that is how America goes to war. You literally have the douchebags who stand up there in these think tanks and say stuff like this. It's not even thinly veiled. There's not even a semantic argument that could be made here that he actually meant something else.
He straight up said someone needs to start this war, the way that all of America's other wars have been started, with a false flag.
Speaker 1: One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17. We could step up the pressure. I mean, look, people. Iranian submarines periodically go down.
Someday, one of them might not come up. Who would know why? Somebody
Speaker 0: actually laughed in the audience when he said that.
Speaker 1: We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I'm not advocating that, but I'm just suggesting that it it it's this is not a a either or proposition. You know, it's just sanctions has to has to succeed or other things.
Speaker 0: He's not advocating that. He's just suggesting that you can do some things, which is basically the same as advocating it.
Speaker 1: We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We we could get nastier with that.
Speaker 0: They're in the game of doing that to everybody. This is how America goes to war. You don't know when World War three is gonna break out, but when it does, you'll know why.
Washington Institute for Near East Policy: An AIPAC
If access equals influence and influence equals power, then the Washington Institute for Near East Policy ranks among the most powerful think tanks in Washington.
wrmea.org
reSee.it AI Summary
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy highlights AIPAC's "image problem." I note that if access equals influence and influence equals power, then this institute stands as one of Washington's most powerful think tanks. Founded in February 1985, it grew from three to 28 staff members, driven by the shared vision of two Jewish activists from different backgrounds. I reflect on how the institute's early model was inspired by a 1970s scheme involving notable figures from the Brookings Institution.
@satch_omega - Ωmega News
🇺🇸🇮🇱Washington Institute for Near East Policy: AIPAC's "image problem" If access equals influence, and influence equals power, then the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is among Washington's most powerful think tanks. 🇺🇸🇮🇱Institut de Washington pour la politique du Proche-Orient : Un "problème d'image" de l'AIPAC Si l'accès équivaut à l'influence et que l'influence équivaut au pouvoir, alors le Washington Institute for Near East Policy compte parmi les groupes de réflexion les plus puissants de Washington. À la tête de l'institut, deux activistes juifs originaires de différentes parties du monde, qui nourrissaient depuis longtemps des désirs similaires et qui se sont rencontrés à Washington. L'installation de l'institut Créé en février 1985, le Washington Institute est rapidement passé d'une équipe de trois personnes à un total de 28 chercheurs, administrateurs et boursiers à temps plein et à temps partiel. L'AIPAC fonctionne d'une puissance jamais égalé dans l'histoire contemporaine occidentale Indyk a un jour décrit un coup monté dans les années 1970 par Zbigniew Brzezinski et William Quandt, membres de la Brookings Institution, comme le modèle sur lequel lui et Weinberg ont basé les débuts de l'Institut de Washington. https://wrmea.org/1991-july/washington-institute-for-near-east-policy-an-aipac-image-problem.html
Video Transcript AI Summary
"Here's something you're never taught in school. Here in the good old US Of A, all of your wars have been fake." The video centers on the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, an American think tank established in 1985, whose mission is "to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in The Middle East and to promote the policies that secure them." Its board includes Henry Kissinger, Richard Pearl, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, James Woolsey. The speaker notes: "crisis initiation is really tough, and it's very hard for me to see how The United States, president can get us to war with Iran." He adds: "The traditional way that America gets to war is what's best for US interests." He cites alleged false flags: "False flag." Pearl Harbor, Lusitania, Gulf Of Tonkin, Maine, Fort Sumter. "If the Iranians aren't gonna compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war." "This is how America goes to war." "One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions." "We could step up the pressure." "They're in the game of doing that to everybody." "We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians." "We could get nastier with that." "you don't know when World War three is gonna break out, but when it does, you'll know why."
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here's something you're never taught in school. Here in the good old US Of A, all of your wars have been fake. I don't mean the actual part where they blow up and kill people. I'm talking about the part where we go to war in the first place. And the sad part about it is the people up at the top and their minions, the people that hang out in these think tanks and stuff, they sit around talking about this blatantly, openly, just in your face, strategizing about how they can get us into the next war.
And this is actually an old video, but I think it it bears being shown again. In fact, it should be shown once every six months or so. You should just watch it again just to remind yourself the level that we're at in this country. So the guy the douchebag you're about to see is from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. This is an American think tank out of Washington DC.
It was established in 1985, and it says the mission statement of the institute, quote, is to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in The Middle East and to promote the policies that secure them. Not about what's right and wrong over there. It's just whatever secures the American interests over in The Middle East, and we all know what those interests are. It has nothing to do with spreading democracy or freedom or liberty. For more on that, all you have to do is look at the board of advisers and look at some of the names on here.
You've got Henry Kissinger, Richard Pearl, Condoleezza Rice, George Shultz, James Woolsey. It's a fun crowd. And it doesn't matter which president you think you're voting for. It's gonna change everything. People that have been part of this particular think tank have served senior positions in the administrations of every president this country has had since George h w Bush.
Some of you may have seen this video, but again, considering the things that are going on right now, it's very it's more relevant now than it's ever been. So we're gonna go ahead and watch this, and I just wanna say upfront, you're gonna wanna have to make yourself resist the urge to punch your screen because you're gonna wanna punch this guy. And you don't wanna do that because you could cut your knuckles and break your monitor and stuff like that. Because you're you're gonna wanna punch him, Listen to what he says here.
Speaker 1: I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, and it's very hard for me to see how The United States, president can get us to war with Iran.
Speaker 0: He just said that. You aren't hearing things he literally just said. Crisis initiation's tough, and how's The United States president gonna get to war with Iran? Because wars don't just happen. They make the war.
Speaker 1: Which leads me to conclude that if, in fact, compromise is not coming, that the traditional way of America gets to war is what would be best for US interests.
Speaker 0: The traditional way that America gets to war is what's best for the interests. Now listen to what the traditional way is that America goes to war.
Speaker 1: Some people might think that mister Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War two, as David mentioned. You may recall we had to wait for Pearl Harbor. False flag. Some people might think mister Wilson wanted to get us into World War one. You may recall he had to wait for the Lusitania episode.
Also a false flag. Some people might think that mister Johnson wanted to send troops to Vietnam. You may recall he had to wait for the Gulf Of Tonkin episode. Total false flag. We didn't go to war with Spain until the USS until the Maine exploded.
Probably also a false flag. May I point out that mister Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander of Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack. Also a false flag.
Speaker 0: Do you see a pattern here?
Speaker 1: So if in fact the Iranians aren't gonna compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.
Speaker 0: Period. If the Iranians don't compromise, it would be best if someone started this war because that is how America goes to war. You literally have the douchebags who stand up there in these think tanks and say stuff like this. It's not even thinly veiled. There's not even a semantic argument that could be made here that he actually meant something else.
He straight up said someone needs to start this war, the way that all of America's other wars have been started, with a false flag.
Speaker 1: One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17. We could step up the pressure. I mean, look, people. Iranian submarines periodically go down.
Someday, one of them might not come up. Who would know why? Somebody
Speaker 0: actually laughed in the audience when he said that.
Speaker 1: We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I'm not advocating that, but I'm just suggesting that it it it's this is not a a either or proposition. You know, it's just sanctions has to has to succeed or other things.
Speaker 0: He's not advocating that. He's just suggesting that you can do some things, which is basically the same as advocating it.
Speaker 1: We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We we could get nastier with that.
Speaker 0: They're in the game of doing that to everybody. This is how America goes to war. You don't know when World War three is gonna break out, but when it does, you'll know why.
Washington Institute for Near East Policy: An AIPAC
If access equals influence and influence equals power, then the Washington Institute for Near East Policy ranks among the most powerful think tanks in Washington.
wrmea.org
@satch_omega - Ωmega News
@xIsraelExposedx @OwenShroyer1776 @Breezy_Politics The real semite are the Palestinians https://t.co/O022spDmQe
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Palestinian genome is a combination of three Stone Age populations that shaped the Levant. 33% is Natufian-related, a proto-agriculturalist culture. 35% is from Anatolian Neolithic farmers who migrated into the Levant and mixed with Natufians, forming Levant Neolithic farmer DNA, which makes up 50-60% of the Palestinian genome.
During the Copper Age, Iranian Chalcolithic people migrated into the Levant. Palestinians derive 50-80% of their ancestry from groups genetically similar to Bronze Age Canaanites. Samaritans have the highest genetic similarity to the Canaanites, up to 80%. Modern Palestinians are not genetically related to the ancient Philistines; Greeks and Italians are more closely related to them.
The region was conquered by various empires, including the Islamic Rashidun Caliphate in the 7th century AD. Arabic DNA peaks at around 20% among Palestinian Muslims. Later, there was foreign admixture from Egyptians, North Africans, Circassians, Kurds, and Bosnians. Despite diversity, Palestinians share a connection to one of the world's oldest historic regions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Palestinian people are incredibly diverse. For example, when you go to the northern regions, people typically have higher levels of ancient Anatolian DNA. And when you go to the South towards Egypt, people typically have higher levels of ancient Natufian related ancestry. What's interesting about the Palestinian genome is that they are a combination of the three stone age populations that shaped the leavened. We are going to look at the Palestinian genome through a variety of different time periods to understand who these people are from a genetic perspective.
Over here, I've got a stone age DNA breakdown of the average Palestinian genome. And interestingly, what we see is that 33% of their DNA is Natufian related. The Natufians were a proto agriculturalist culture from The Levant who lived between 15,000 to 11,500 ago. Today, this genomic component is found highest in populations found in Yemen. But if you look closely at this breakdown over here, what you see is that around 35% of the average Palestinian genome is Anatolian Neolithic farmer derived.
The Anatolian Neolithic farmers lived just north of the Natufians. Around nine thousand years ago, they begin to migrate into both Europe and The Levant, and by entering into the latter, they mix with the Natufians, forming a new genomic component known as Levant Neolithic Pharma. Levant Neolithic Pharma DNA makes up around 50 to 60% of the Palestinian genome, and it is a characteristic genetic signal found in West Asia as well as parts of Europe. The stone age in The Levant ended approximately seven thousand years ago and was soon followed by the copper age. The copper age was characterized by mass movements of copper age Iranian people known as the Iranian Chalcolithics.
Before they migrated, the people in the Levant were almost as genetically divergent to the Iranian people as East Asians are to Europeans today. But over the course of thousands of years, there were waves of diverse populations that migrated into the Levant, bringing a distinct Iranian Calc colithic component into the region and setting the foundation for groups such as the Canaanites. The Canaanites were a distinctive northwestern Semitic speaking culture that lived in the heart of the Bronze Age world. They were expert seafarers who, three thousand five hundred years ago, colonized territories throughout the Mediterranean reaching as far as the Iberian Peninsula. Using techniques similar to what I offer in my deep ancestry analysis, I have performed a Bronze Age statistical DNA comparison of the Palestinian genome against all the Bronze Age DNA samples available in the G25 database.
The Palestinians derive a significant portion of their ancestry between 50 to 80% from groups genetically similar to the Bronze Age Canaanites. Across the board, the Samaritans have the highest genetic similarities to these Bronze Age populations being up to 80% genetically similar. For a full breakdown of these calculations, be sure to watch my video on how to calculate archaic admixture. Now, a question I get asked all the time is, are the modern Palestinians related to the ancient Philistines? The Philistines were a group of people who likely originated in Anatolia and the Aegean.
They were a sea people who alongside many others were a catalyst behind the late bronze age collapse. Pharaoh Ramses the third conquered the Philistines, who the Egyptians called the Peleset and is said to have relocated them somewhere in the Southern Levant. Whilst genetic and archaeological evidence can verify the existence of the Philistines, the modern Palestinians are not genetically related to them. Over here, I've got a Bronze Age genetic distance chart, and what we can see is that the modern populations most closely related to the ancient Philistines are in fact the Greeks and Italians. Greek DNA, when detected, does not exceed levels greater than 15% in the modern Palestinians and may also be attributed to more recent migrations.
After this, the region was then conquered by the Assyrians, then the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, and finally the Romans, who renamed the region to Palestine after the Jewish revolts. With the Byzantine Empire being weakened, the Levant was soon conquered by the Islamic Rashidun Caliphate in the seventh century AD. Amongst Palestinian Muslims, this Arabic DNA component peaks at around 20%, but it is important to note that Arabs have always existed in the Southern Levant dating as far back as the iron age. After this, the Crusaders invaded but left minimal genetic impact. The area was then ruled by various caliphs until the Ottomans conquered the region.
It is at this point where we start to see major foreign admixture amongst the Palestinians from groups such as the Egyptians, North Africans, Circassians, Kurds, even the Bosnians. And there we go. These migrations for the most part encapsulate the Palestinian genetic origin. The Palestinian people exhibit great diversity, but one thing which unites them all is the shared connection they have to one of the world's oldest historic regions. If you've done an existing DNA test and you're interested in learning more about your own genetic origin, be sure to check out my deep ancestry services to unlock the secrets of your heritage.
The video that you are watching was also made using AI technology. If you're interested in learning how to use AI to make content just like this video, be sure to also check out my AI tutorial video too. This is Ancestral Brews AI generated voice signing out. Peace.
