Kills me to say this, but I believe he’s right— we have been played by china & sold out by our own country! Our country is guilty of murdering hundreds if not, thousands of people in Hawaii and no one says anything—-
Putin thinks China is now more powerful than the United States and more relevant.
He believes our government is controlled by an entrenched bureaucracy that cannot be changed through elections … so freaking sad…
Pls keep mentioning Hawaii .. we cannot forget ,, they went in and literally killed thousands .. these people didn’t even have a choice like the jabbed did .. not that it’s much better , what they did to the jabbed was bad too … and all those thousands in the hospital that they killed and wouldn’t even let there family say good bye .. why in the fk aren’t these people executed ! My God, my God !
The Maui fires is a really bizarre thing. My stepbrother lives right there, his house was right in the path. He got out fast. He's on the ground and he is very based, he has told me the whole thing about missing people is bullshit. He thinks it is a psyop to push out locals. On the island people moved to other areas because their homes were destroyed.
Careful... don't awaken the shills. Anyone with half a "brian" knows there's many things that went down in HI that stink to high heaven. Shills keep trying to push bs narratives just like they've done for 2+ decades when it comes to nine eleven.
Putin thinks China is now more powerful than the United States and more relevant.
And I would respectfully disagree. Putin is probably saying that being an ally to China, but looking at all of the available information paints a very different picture.
Military is in shambles and corrupt. Economy is falling apart at the seems. Foreign nations are viewing China negatively. And Putin thinks we should hook ourselves to China again.
Sorry, but I like Trump's policy of decoupling ourselves from China.
How many mugs from the 70s, from China have lead paint in them, how many cheap planks for laminate flooring from China are covered with cancer-causing coating… our toddlers learn to crawl on, how many servicemen are currently on maneuvers right across the Montana border, in Alberta, Canada, how many food manufacturing plants in the US get their ingredients from China, but say made in America.
How much more don’t we know! Or aren’t made aware of bc of the secret dealings with our corrupt politicians who just murdered thousands in Hawaii- no one mentions…
And finally how many Chinese have crossed that border.
Russia remains haunted by a past that they have since moved past, but for some reason while we forgive Germany for the Nazis, we won't let our former allies move past their --fairly brief, all things considered -- communist history in much the same way that America is not allowed to move past slavery.
Where Russia moved forward mostly of their own accord -- with outside pressure, of course -- despite figures like Putin rightfully criticizing the decision that would weaken them, America willingly resolved our own internal struggles and essentially served as the figurehead of a movement that ended slavery in most civilized portions of the world, again of our own accord.
Yet only Germany gets to be forgiven, and now you can't even really reference Nazis without being censored (a trend we saw starting in Germany where they essentially 1984ed it) nor can you reference Hitler in many circumstances that you used to be able to.
I find it personally offensive everyone else but Russia and America are able to move beyond bad pasts, and I have to question why that is.
That's because Germany is a vassal at best, strap at worst. Russia is not, thus it is a potential rival to the US elites who want it broken up, looted and subjugated. They want the same for the citizenry of the US, so similar rhetoric.
Sorry it was a typo. I meant to say a satrapy, but it got autocorrected. A vassal is subordinate but there is some give and take between liege and vassal, a satrapy is just a colony to be exploited without recourse.
These rules do not allow for any sort of change, either within itself or not. If you can't adapt in warfare you have lost, you just have to keep on doubling down.
Russia was a US ally in Civil War. That was a time that the czars were in control.
The czars refused to allow the Rothschild run central bank to be established in Russia and they made the Romanov's pay with the Zionist planned and financed Russian Revolution that overthrew them.
I thought for sure that Putin was going to tell the American Public that he had no choice but to neutralize the biolabs when it was confirmed that the United States and NIH/Fauci were creating chemical weapons on the border of Russia. And that the confirmation came when the Covid warfare was spread around the world.
Yes, it came off largely as a Russia-good, US bad diatribe. Putin is definitely a skilled politician. Combine that skill with his murderous soul, and that is a dangerous combination.
Or to prove that Biden is not a real President because there is no way he could have rambled off that History lesson. Shit, Biden would have issues with staying awake for 2 hours
Putin played everything close to the vest....but didn't want to rant and rave about pedofile nazi's and dozens of biolabs out of the gate. He said just enough to get the conversation going...then (maybe along with Trump) will start getting into the heavier stuff.
Putin is ready, willing and able to end the war in the Ukraine but that the West is so far unwilling to do that as demonstrated by their ongoing funding (of said war) and the supply of weapons that enable the war to continue.
I belong to a business networking group that posts ads for jobs, looking for X advisors in Y city. There is also a small catch-all. One I saw was for M&A investment requests for a sniper drone project that they couched the advertising in Ukraine/American support but the point of "$10 a shot" is what really grossed me out. Yes, please angel fund my project so we can get down to the business of killing people we don't like on the cheap!
There's a fair bit of essential context he left out of the story. For example:
He speaks of the original Russia as being a "Princedom" (or whatever word he used). What Kingdom was it a Principality of? The answer is the Scythian Empire.
He spoke about Ghengis Khan and its subduing Russia, but he doesn't mention that Russia was already under the thumb of the Scythians, where Ghengis Khan was just the latest (at that time) Scythian "Khan of Khans" (King of Kings).
He talks about Ukraine as being a part of the Russian Principality, but he doesn't mention that it was the Khazarian Khanate (Principality) before that.
He doesn't talk about the Khazarian Jewish state, nor how all the Ukrainian Jews are just the former Khazarian Jews; the same people living in the same place doing the same thing.
He doesn't talk about how these Ukrainian Jews were the primary source of the leadership of the Bolshevik Revolution and the subsequent Soviet Union.
He doesn't talk about how these same people were the primary source of the Zionist revolution as well.
He doesn't talk about how the Rothschilds funded both revolutions (and both world wars).
There's a fair bit more, but it takes a lot to go through. When you are forced, by "The Greatest Secret Never Told" to leave out both the Scythian Empire and the Khazarian Jewish state (and all their associated tyranny), as well as the hiding of the origins of the Ashkenazi Jews, and their association to the original Jews and Babylon, you leave out quite a bit of important history.
You have quiet a few inaccuracies in your post. I'll address them one by one.
Russia as we know it was formed under Tsar Peter I. Before that it was a combination of different Pricedoms that fought amongst themselves(kind of like the Germans were before Bismarck). The main players were Muscovy and Novgorod.
The Mongols didn't conquer all of them, but just a handful of principalities to the south, which weren't even Russian, but Khazarian(more on that in a second). Muscovy was a vassal of the Mongol Empire, and paid tribute. Novgorod avoided such a fate.
When the Mongols showed up, Russia or Kievan Rus as it is now known was a confederation of independent pricendoms with different forms of government. For example: Muscovy was a Tsardom(Monarchy) while Novgorod was an Oligarchic Republic. The notion that the Slavs were always under someone's occupation is false. They spent most of their history as free people because they were exceptionally good warriors.
The Scythians were a dying force by the time the Slavs made it onto their current homelands. They might have exerted some initial influence, but as far as I know they disappeared around the 9th century. The notion that they dominated the Slavs is false.
Same thing wit the Khazars. They were quickly assimilated by the Slavic princendoms. They disappeared around the time the Slavic pricendoms were being formed, which led to the formation of the Kievan Rus. They would eventually fall due to the Mongol invasion, but would rise from the ashes 2 centuries later.
Fun fact of the day: Have you ever wondered why the collective west hates the Eastern Slavs so much?
Cyrill and Methodius were the brothers who invented the current cyrilic alphabet used by modern day Russians. They were also monks and devout Christians. They comited the unspeakable sin of converting Khazarian jews to Christianity. And the Russians continued doing that for centuries. If you have been following the satanists, then you know that death is preferable to being converted to Christianity.
Since then, the Jesuits that have infiltrated the Anglo-Saxon society and waged war against the Eastern Slavs(Russians, Ukranians, Bielorussians) etc for comiting this "war crime" against them. That's why the Jesuits are so hell bent on opposing Russia at every turn. It's been a thing since at least the 14th century.
To my knowledge, the Russians are so far the only civilization that managed to mass convert Khazarians/Satanists to Christianity.
Russia as we know it was formed under Tsar Peter I.
This is only partially true. It was both formed under Tsar Peter I as a formal state of Kieven Rus (it actually existed as the same people doing the same thing in the same way in the same region for a long time before that), but it was ALSO a principality of the Scythian Empire. Proving that takes a fair bit of time, but you can start here. (Please appreciate the response in that link is short (relative to the topic), and a response to something else, so the context may be a bit wonky, but there is plenty there to get you started).
The Mongols didn't conquer all of them
Well, I agree, but I disagree with the implication. They were a Principality already of the Scythian Empire, both before the Scythian Genghis Khan came calling AND before they became the larger state of Kievan Rus. They paid the new Scythian Emperor Genghis Khan tribute instead of whatever Khan of the Scythian Empire they were paying tribute to before. No conquering needed. What do you think a Principality is?
When the Mongols showed up, Russia or Kievan Rus as it is now known was a confederation of independent pricendoms with different forms of government.
Not exactly. It's form of government was the same as the rest of the Empire of Scythia, which is "you keep what you kill" (as I call it). It was similar to the Game of Thrones style of government mixed with the Dothraki mixed with Necromunda. The weak paid Tribute to the strong. They gave slaves, they gave conscripts, they gave whatever was demanded of them. They were a subject State to whoever held dominance over them. As far as I can find, the Principality of Russia (Kievan Rus) was never the dominant Khanate until it was, starting around 1500 and ending in the early 20th century when they finally wiped out all traces of the scope of the Scythian Empire from history.
Again, proving that takes a lot of work, since it has been hidden from history. I've written up a few hundred pages on the Empire of Scythia (called "Tartary" by Genghis Khan) to prove exactly that. I will publish it at some point.
but as far as I know [the Scythians] disappeared around the 9th century.
Which is exactly why you are missing so much context from your "fact checking". Genghis Khan was a Scythian. Once he became Emperor (Khan of Khans) he renamed the Scythians (they actually called themselves the Aria, or Aryans) into the Tartarians (which I think means "Hell" or "the underworld," though I'm not sure about that one). By wiping out the Empire of Tartary, and the true origins of the Aryan Race (AKA the Royal Scythians, the ruling Aristocracy of the Scythian/Tartarian Empire) from history, the Cabal and the present day Ruling Aristocracy has hidden their connection to the Empire of Scythia. They hid that this Empire was the largest and longest lasting empire of all history (at least the antediluvian history), covering most of Asia and Europe, and lasting for between 2500 and 5000 years. They hid their form of government, their multi-ethnicity, their origins of pretty much everything we think of as our culture, religion, philosophy, etc.
My research suggests all of history has been rewritten. Understanding the Empire of Scythia/Tartary plays a huge part in understanding the level of fuckery there.
Same thing wit the Khazars. They were quickly assimilated by the Slavic princendoms.
I'm not sure what "quickly" means to you. They lasted as a formal state (Khanate) for a few hundred years. Longer than the US.
I'm not sure what the rest of (5) is for, you didn't say anything against what I said, and I mostly agree.
My research suggests all of history has been rewritten. Understanding the Empire of Scythia/Tartary plays a huge part in understanding the level of fuckery there.
Can you share this research about Scythian to Tartarians and how they may have lasted for between 2500 and 5000 years?
I would like to. Unfortunately what I have is a book length effort that is not presently complete. I am really bad about publishing anything until I feel the argument for that section is complete. I will get to it at some point.
I was told by someone I sound like Asha Logos and they assumed I had seen his stuff. I had not (at that time). I have since watched a couple of his videos from his series "Conspiracy? Our Subverted History". I disagree with some of his assessment. He doesn't seem to understand the Cabal at all (or pretends that he doesn't) so a lot of his conclusions are wrong imo, but overall, his information and statement of relevant facts is really good. I haven't seen all of that body of work, but I've seen enough that I recommend it.
Of note, the key element to understanding the Scythian Empire is, I believe, in understanding its ruling Aristocracy (i.e. the Aryan Race). It is through this ruling family that the Empire of Scythia is best understood. They are noted by specific phenotypes (blond/red hair, blue/green eyes). These phenotypes occur in the noted leadership of all of the "disparate tribes" of the region throughout history. The evidence for this comes from the burial mounds of what is obviously the Ruling Class (buried with lots of gold e.g.),. It also comes from the same pattern of mounds (same burial rights), the phenotypes of the occupants, and the explicitly stated historical records by all pre 20th century historians going all the way back to the 3rd millennia BC.
In today's history they are all labeled as "strictly nomads," even though they also have cities, trade routes, roads, etc.. They are labeled as "different groups" because the different groups are predominantly of different ethnicity (depending on region and time) even though all the various tribes are provably all multi-ethnic and have the same phenotypes in the Ruling Class.
As important as the information about them is (and relevant to today), I think it is more important to see how history has been hidden/rewritten regarding them. By doing this research on Tartary, it opened my eyes on these methods. I recommend looking out for that in your research (though you probably already do, I just thought I would note it because it was so fruitful for me in this particular research).
Slyver, LatetotheShow: I'm upvoting both of you FWIW. Yes, there's a great deal of history we now have to clean up. Discussion (hopefully in good faith) should help with some of that cleanup. But I have to toss a curve ball, only for discussion:
What if you're both right?
I been brushing up against QED in following the Q thread (Quantum Electrodynamics). There's discussions that we're bouncing across changing history in deriving a better future with some of the unknown tech that's used against us (think Mandala effect; not everyone remembers an old movie happening the same way as it currently is when they saw it 30 years ago, yet the older folk specifically remember it all happening the same different way). Given a long enough timeline of these events happening, could history simply be different on this timeline??
My head hurts, I think I need some chocolate milk (reference Men In Black 3)...
My research suggests all of history has been rewritten.
Slyver is at it again with his hyper, self defeating skepticism about all of history
The philosophical assumption behind the statement "All of history has been rewritten" suggests a form of skepticism or epistemic uncertainty about the reliability of historical narratives. This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us, as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way.
However, the statement also presents a paradox or self-defeating quality because if all of history has truly been rewritten, then the claim itself could be subject to the same skepticism. If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.
for someone to confidently claim that all of history has been rewritten would require access to some sort of privileged perspective or objective truth about history, which seems contradictory given the assumption of widespread historical manipulation.
This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way
This is not the assumption. Indeed, I think most of what we have is true and I have stated that many times. Most lies, most propaganda, most of The Matrix are based on the truth. But history (as we understand the term) is not "the facts" in isolation. It is the facts and the connections between those facts that make up the story, the conclusions. "History" is the story we tell each other about those conclusions.
I think that most fuckery in our history is in what's left out, purposefully destroyed or otherwise silenced by shoving things down the memory hole, or through derisive ad hominem designed to keep certain facts quiet and not looked at, immediately dismissed because they are in "the bad box." Over the top of the box of facts that is allowed (''the good box"), with it's missing but essential context, is the overarching narrative that fills in the gaps and makes the connections in the incomplete and carefully crafted fact list. That is how history has been rewritten. That can be shown by showing facts that have been left out, and that there is sufficient evidence that it has been done intentionally.
If you click the link in my previous post you will see exactly such evidence, even though it is a tiny fraction of my research for that particular case of revision.
If you read my report, you will see an exhaustive case made for how such an historical revision develops (in a different context), and that it is intentionally done.
If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.
This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, that their removal is intentional, and that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions indicates that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is false.
I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.
This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, and show that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions shows that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is decidedly false. I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.
While uncovering omitted or suppressed historical facts can certainly challenge prevailing narratives, it does not necessarily mean that all of history has been rewritten. It may indicate selective interpretations or biases within historical accounts, but it does not automatically validate the assertion that all historical narratives are suspect or fundamentally false.
In essence, while your argument correctly underscores the significance of critically analyzing historical narratives and considering omitted evidence, it does not fully resolve the logical paradox of claiming that "all of history has been rewritten" without appealing to a privileged perspective or objective truth.
Not to get into the wordplay, but you are touching on a point I try to make repeatedly: radical skepticism is the rejection of epistemology. If all history (or a huge part) is a lie, then any other account of history can also be a lie. Another way of putting it might be " 'Question everything' is fine so far as it goes, but if you cannot accept answers, it is a denial of everything."
It may indicate selective interpretations or biases within historical accounts, but it does not automatically validate the assertion that all historical narratives are suspect or fundamentally false.
You are sticking on the word "all." Fine, I will concede that it was a poor choice of words. It is impractical and probably impossible to prove "all". As stated, "history" is a story. Showing that the conclusions of any particular story in a box of stories is false requires looking at each story in turn.
However, if it can be shown that numerous examples of "official history" are false by the methods I have described, and it can be shown that picking a story at random out of that "box of all" follows the same patterns, it naturally casts doubt on the conclusions (historical narrative) of the entire box.
If it can further be shown that all of what we today call "history" (the entire box of currently accepted stories) has the same source (same group doing all of the publishing of the allowed books of conclusions), that brings sufficient doubt to the entire box that making the statement of "all history" is not so far fetched, even if it can't necessarily be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Having said all that, none of my conclusions or statements of fact rely on this off-hand statement of "all," so I am not sure why you are so fixated on it. It is not an axiom for anything I've said, and no conclusion relies on it.
Nice analysis, and I was noticing the obvious omissions as well. There must be a strategic advantage to leaving the Khazarians out of the conversation for now.
Would have required a double slot of time to discuss that subject by itself! He was already trolling by saying "give me 1 minute" and then went Pootie Mode on Tucker lol.
I thought it was good. Very strategic. Intentionally left out talking about Trump to cut off democrat/DS talking points. Skipped over sensitive topics by omission. It would have been fun for him to drop the hammer on the DS, but this was better for the whole effort.
Dude, when the not human question came up and P passed I was bummed, the T brings up AI and P started talking about hybrids and engineered genetic mutation.
Guess this wasn't the time to talk about tunnels and labs.
T did get way loud last few times he spoke. I found that odd.
I was thinking the same thing. He focused on how Russia tried to be peaceful and the U.S. wouldn't go along with that, and that Ukraine was not really a separate country. Also, how the west kept violating agreements. Plenty enough there.
Had Russia joined NATO, then the fat-cat MIC assholes (who own the politicians) would have had a hard time fleecing the American public out of a few extra trillion tax dollars to "protect against bad Russia."
I never understood why they would turn Russia down. Now, obviously it's to continue having an enemy to bash us over the head, but then my thoughts were why not? Rather an ally than an enemy any day. I understood why Putin was pissed.
I think this was partially intentional. I noticed, also, that he rarely mentioned the names of any of the Leaders, especially when they had screwed Russia around. He seemed to refer to the decisions of the Nations, not the Leaders, as a possible way to hide that he couldn’t stand the leaders, like “The President”. He simply said Canadian parliament (or similar) when mentioning the shit-show with Turdy and Zelly, not even “Prime Minister”. He mentioned that he liked Bush Jr., Xi, and Trump as people, though.
Seems as though to me, I could be wrong, that Putin insinuated Tucker was CIA…about 45 minutes in. Was this correct?
Putin struck me as very intelligent, and had a good memory of historical dates and times. He is a very capable representative of his country.
The senate bill today passed makes me sick. The only thing it will do is prolong death and destruction on many more people. A negotiated settlement could be reached with a few weeks if the deep state would pursue it. But sadly…..
I believe he said something to the effect that Tucker tried to get a job with the C👀A but they didn't hire him, and it's probably good that he didn't work for them.
is it me or did this miss the mark big time in terms of the expectation the interview will change the world (or whatever the hyperbolic claim/s were). do get me wrong. think interview was great and history will look very kindly upon Putin, but nothing earth shattering.
maybe it's because anons already know all of which he speaks. either way I'm still looking to be wowed
This isn't about the MSM changing their tune. All it takes is a few popular podcasts to cover this interview in a positive light to awaken more normies via word of mouth resulting in extreme public opinion shift.
Like a ripple forming a tidal wave. Just another ripple to form a multitude of waves for the great awakening this year.
Watch it. Further comments on just point one above. Putin in his first answer triggers Tucker since Tucker is educated in history. Yale? Then P goes onto school him on his regions history. Listen to how loud Tucker get in later parts of the interview. P playing chess from the start.
I haven’t gotten to it yet myself, but I saw a post on X that said Putin suggested conditions changed between 2014 and 2022 that allowed him to make the moves he did in the Donbas. Is he talking about the white hats working to take down the deep state?
Putin was talking more about how the Ukr. govt. stepped up hostilities towards the Russian peoples in east Ukraine by basically declaring them as second class citizens, and subject to laws uniquely applied to second class citizens. Pure nazi style bullshit.
How do we know he didnt? What if he got in but just pretended he didnt and now is either a DS spy or a double agent White Hat working from within CIA having infiltrated it years ago?
I think when it comes to the labs etc there is no way putin would expose a key goal that they might be still actively destroying. never let your enemies know what you are up to.
The State needs a boogie man to keep us busy so we don't ask questions.
Question everything. The entity you're told to hate or distrust is often your best friend.
Putin is basically right on every account from what we can see -- and have been talking about for years. The color revolution has been pointed to well before Ukraine vs Russia.
With our country being brought to its knees, he's probably right about that too. Even if we ignore all the foreign invaders penetrating our borders, if we just stick to critical manufacturing (medicine, steel, silicon) China has pulled all of our manufacturing over there and our government has, at every turn, helped them.
Further, China forcibly holding their cheap slave labor hostage on grounds of requiring access to and partial ownership of in some fashion intellectual properties, American companies -- again, encouraged by the government -- have likely accelerated China a hundred years forward from where they were just decades ago.
He is likely right that the problem can't simply be changed through elections, but without intervention -- Q -- it puts this country into a very uncomfortable predicament that even the accelerationists won't like if that's how things shook out.
One thing I know for sure: our problems are ours to sort out and any foreign government trying to stick their boots on our soil to "help" us do it should be considered an enemy.
I'm pretty disappointed with the interview. All the stuff is fairly surface level stuff. I was hoping there would be more discussion of good vs evil. How does Putin and Russia view the trans\gay\anti-family\anti-Christian agenda western countries are pushing? How is US and Europe importing the third world affect Russia. Does Putin believe in God and Satan and how does he plan to prevent Russia from importing western satanism?
I supposed the Ukraine stuff is more relevant in the short term, but the battle of good vs evil is real. There's no possibility that Satan plans to leave Russia out of it. I don't know that much about Russian culture and how far down the slope they are or aren't, but it's only going to become exponentially tougher for Russia, and the entire world for that matter, if Satanism becomes the dominant western religion. Ukraine is small potatoes compared to that.
What better way to teach Russia/Ukrainian history than by Putin, where millions will watch him? That history is key to understanding why Russia “began” the war.
Kills me to say this, but I believe he’s right— we have been played by china & sold out by our own country! Our country is guilty of murdering hundreds if not, thousands of people in Hawaii and no one says anything—-
Pls keep mentioning Hawaii .. we cannot forget ,, they went in and literally killed thousands .. these people didn’t even have a choice like the jabbed did .. not that it’s much better , what they did to the jabbed was bad too … and all those thousands in the hospital that they killed and wouldn’t even let there family say good bye .. why in the fk aren’t these people executed ! My God, my God !
What happened in Hawaii? You mean the dethroning of the Queen or the Maui fires?
Sounds like Maui fires.
Maui fires .. I was commenting on tragic101, above !
The Maui fires is a really bizarre thing. My stepbrother lives right there, his house was right in the path. He got out fast. He's on the ground and he is very based, he has told me the whole thing about missing people is bullshit. He thinks it is a psyop to push out locals. On the island people moved to other areas because their homes were destroyed.
Careful... don't awaken the shills. Anyone with half a "brian" knows there's many things that went down in HI that stink to high heaven. Shills keep trying to push bs narratives just like they've done for 2+ decades when it comes to nine eleven.
Seriously? Of course he meant the Maui fires! You have to be joking?
LandGrab Fires
We have been sold out to China by our own politicians. Schumer, McConnell
And I would respectfully disagree. Putin is probably saying that being an ally to China, but looking at all of the available information paints a very different picture.
Military is in shambles and corrupt. Economy is falling apart at the seems. Foreign nations are viewing China negatively. And Putin thinks we should hook ourselves to China again.
Sorry, but I like Trump's policy of decoupling ourselves from China.
ya this. putin has the same enemy as us, but you dont have to believe everything he says. China is a paper dragon with little to no natural resources
How many mugs from the 70s, from China have lead paint in them, how many cheap planks for laminate flooring from China are covered with cancer-causing coating… our toddlers learn to crawl on, how many servicemen are currently on maneuvers right across the Montana border, in Alberta, Canada, how many food manufacturing plants in the US get their ingredients from China, but say made in America.
How much more don’t we know! Or aren’t made aware of bc of the secret dealings with our corrupt politicians who just murdered thousands in Hawaii- no one mentions…
And finally how many Chinese have crossed that border.
Have you been to California lately?
*Israel
Russia supported the Americans in the Revolutionary War. Russia and America need to be great allies again and destroy the NWO.
Russia remains haunted by a past that they have since moved past, but for some reason while we forgive Germany for the Nazis, we won't let our former allies move past their --fairly brief, all things considered -- communist history in much the same way that America is not allowed to move past slavery.
Where Russia moved forward mostly of their own accord -- with outside pressure, of course -- despite figures like Putin rightfully criticizing the decision that would weaken them, America willingly resolved our own internal struggles and essentially served as the figurehead of a movement that ended slavery in most civilized portions of the world, again of our own accord.
Yet only Germany gets to be forgiven, and now you can't even really reference Nazis without being censored (a trend we saw starting in Germany where they essentially 1984ed it) nor can you reference Hitler in many circumstances that you used to be able to.
I find it personally offensive everyone else but Russia and America are able to move beyond bad pasts, and I have to question why that is.
"Forgive" the russians? For what? For what the cabal caused them?
Remember where Trotsky and his bolsheviks came from.
Hint: New York.
The cabal was here first, then tried to take over Russia, succeeded for a while, then failed.
This partly explains the khazarian hysterics against Russia.
Indeed ! Here Here !
That's because Germany is a vassal at best, strap at worst. Russia is not, thus it is a potential rival to the US elites who want it broken up, looted and subjugated. They want the same for the citizenry of the US, so similar rhetoric.
I have not hear the "strap" term used before like this. Always looking to expand my vocabulary & analogy ideas.
What is meant by "a strap" at worst?
Sorry it was a typo. I meant to say a satrapy, but it got autocorrected. A vassal is subordinate but there is some give and take between liege and vassal, a satrapy is just a colony to be exploited without recourse.
Satrap. Puppet governor of a region under the Persian (?) Empire.
Strap makes more sense & I learned a new word/history today. Thank you.
Auto correct is a killer sometimes.
Their double standards are a chronic condition at this point.
they actually do play by their own rules. its called rules for radicals by saul alinsky
These rules do not allow for any sort of change, either within itself or not. If you can't adapt in warfare you have lost, you just have to keep on doubling down.
its because the people that owned the Bolsheviks also own America. they are pissed they dont own Putin
Russia was a US ally in Civil War. That was a time that the czars were in control.
The czars refused to allow the Rothschild run central bank to be established in Russia and they made the Romanov's pay with the Zionist planned and financed Russian Revolution that overthrew them.
They didn’t talk more about the corruption and money laundering and most importantly:
CHILD TRAFFICKING
Unless I missed it, I didn’t hear anything on the biolabs.
I thought for sure that Putin was going to tell the American Public that he had no choice but to neutralize the biolabs when it was confirmed that the United States and NIH/Fauci were creating chemical weapons on the border of Russia. And that the confirmation came when the Covid warfare was spread around the world.
I think he did, when he was talking about the AI labs, and genetically modified soldiers. Scary stuff to think about when trying to go to sleep.
He didn't mention biolabs at all. Check the full transcript here: https://www.happyscribe.com/public/the-tucker-carlson-podcast/vladimir-putin-ad58097b-f616-47d8-8bb8-1cbfe9aba16c
Yes, I thought he would say something too. That was disappointing. I have to admit, I thought the interview would have more revelations than it did.
Yes, it came off largely as a Russia-good, US bad diatribe. Putin is definitely a skilled politician. Combine that skill with his murderous soul, and that is a dangerous combination.
It's still incredibly retarded to accuse a Russian nationalist of being a Nazi when Russia stood against Nazi Germany.
Then again, the same people say that the soldiers who actually fought Nazis were themselves racist Nazis.
Oh no, Reddit loves calling Putin a Nazi.
Don't worry, you were 100% correct.
Ukraine was part of Russia until 1991, so by your argument there are no nazis in Ukraine either. Bad take.
Russia wasn't socialist, and Russia fought the Nazis.
Notice how Ukraine is not part of Russia?
And that Ukraine has been influenced for several decades by other countries, whereas Russia has remained its own entity?
Russia hasn't changed much. Putin hasn't changed much -- that's literally their argument, because he's former KGB.
Putin is who he has always been, a part of the Russian system that fought the Nazis.
Well, go back to any country and it was run by different people.
Hilarious take though.
Or to prove that Biden is not a real President because there is no way he could have rambled off that History lesson. Shit, Biden would have issues with staying awake for 2 hours
No, Russia has spoken of the biolabs in Ukraine.
Could be babysteps leading to that
Putin played everything close to the vest....but didn't want to rant and rave about pedofile nazi's and dozens of biolabs out of the gate. He said just enough to get the conversation going...then (maybe along with Trump) will start getting into the heavier stuff.
yep - babysteps
Drip, drip, flood
Yes, because Tucker was not speaking in an impartial way. He was asking Putin to prove he was not evil.
Tucker seemed totally out of his depth and has been propagandized like most other journalists. I am sorely disappointed in him.
He is definitely not VP material. You can read his face like a book and it was showing his unpreparedness for this interview.
I belong to a business networking group that posts ads for jobs, looking for X advisors in Y city. There is also a small catch-all. One I saw was for M&A investment requests for a sniper drone project that they couched the advertising in Ukraine/American support but the point of "$10 a shot" is what really grossed me out. Yes, please angel fund my project so we can get down to the business of killing people we don't like on the cheap!
Interview Video
Copied from a post on pdw
00:00:00 Introduction
00:02:00 Putin gives a history of Russia & Ukraine
00:25:04 NATO Expansion
00:30:40 NATO & Bill Clinton
00:41:10 Ukraine
00:48:30 What triggered this conflict?
01:02:37 A peaceful solution?
01:11:33 Who blew up the Nord Stream pipelines?
01:24:13 Re-establishing communication with the US
01:36:33 How powerful is Zelensky?
01:48:36 Elon Musk & AI
01:51:07 Imprisoned American journalist Evan Gershkovich
There's a fair bit of essential context he left out of the story. For example:
There's a fair bit more, but it takes a lot to go through. When you are forced, by "The Greatest Secret Never Told" to leave out both the Scythian Empire and the Khazarian Jewish state (and all their associated tyranny), as well as the hiding of the origins of the Ashkenazi Jews, and their association to the original Jews and Babylon, you leave out quite a bit of important history.
You have quiet a few inaccuracies in your post. I'll address them one by one.
Russia as we know it was formed under Tsar Peter I. Before that it was a combination of different Pricedoms that fought amongst themselves(kind of like the Germans were before Bismarck). The main players were Muscovy and Novgorod.
The Mongols didn't conquer all of them, but just a handful of principalities to the south, which weren't even Russian, but Khazarian(more on that in a second). Muscovy was a vassal of the Mongol Empire, and paid tribute. Novgorod avoided such a fate.
When the Mongols showed up, Russia or Kievan Rus as it is now known was a confederation of independent pricendoms with different forms of government. For example: Muscovy was a Tsardom(Monarchy) while Novgorod was an Oligarchic Republic. The notion that the Slavs were always under someone's occupation is false. They spent most of their history as free people because they were exceptionally good warriors.
The Scythians were a dying force by the time the Slavs made it onto their current homelands. They might have exerted some initial influence, but as far as I know they disappeared around the 9th century. The notion that they dominated the Slavs is false.
Same thing wit the Khazars. They were quickly assimilated by the Slavic princendoms. They disappeared around the time the Slavic pricendoms were being formed, which led to the formation of the Kievan Rus. They would eventually fall due to the Mongol invasion, but would rise from the ashes 2 centuries later.
Fun fact of the day: Have you ever wondered why the collective west hates the Eastern Slavs so much?
The answer is in this link: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-cyril-and-methodius-convert-the-khazars-to-christianity.118536/
Cyrill and Methodius were the brothers who invented the current cyrilic alphabet used by modern day Russians. They were also monks and devout Christians. They comited the unspeakable sin of converting Khazarian jews to Christianity. And the Russians continued doing that for centuries. If you have been following the satanists, then you know that death is preferable to being converted to Christianity.
Since then, the Jesuits that have infiltrated the Anglo-Saxon society and waged war against the Eastern Slavs(Russians, Ukranians, Bielorussians) etc for comiting this "war crime" against them. That's why the Jesuits are so hell bent on opposing Russia at every turn. It's been a thing since at least the 14th century.
To my knowledge, the Russians are so far the only civilization that managed to mass convert Khazarians/Satanists to Christianity.
This is only partially true. It was both formed under Tsar Peter I as a formal state of Kieven Rus (it actually existed as the same people doing the same thing in the same way in the same region for a long time before that), but it was ALSO a principality of the Scythian Empire. Proving that takes a fair bit of time, but you can start here. (Please appreciate the response in that link is short (relative to the topic), and a response to something else, so the context may be a bit wonky, but there is plenty there to get you started).
Well, I agree, but I disagree with the implication. They were a Principality already of the Scythian Empire, both before the Scythian Genghis Khan came calling AND before they became the larger state of Kievan Rus. They paid the new Scythian Emperor Genghis Khan tribute instead of whatever Khan of the Scythian Empire they were paying tribute to before. No conquering needed. What do you think a Principality is?
Not exactly. It's form of government was the same as the rest of the Empire of Scythia, which is "you keep what you kill" (as I call it). It was similar to the Game of Thrones style of government mixed with the Dothraki mixed with Necromunda. The weak paid Tribute to the strong. They gave slaves, they gave conscripts, they gave whatever was demanded of them. They were a subject State to whoever held dominance over them. As far as I can find, the Principality of Russia (Kievan Rus) was never the dominant Khanate until it was, starting around 1500 and ending in the early 20th century when they finally wiped out all traces of the scope of the Scythian Empire from history.
Again, proving that takes a lot of work, since it has been hidden from history. I've written up a few hundred pages on the Empire of Scythia (called "Tartary" by Genghis Khan) to prove exactly that. I will publish it at some point.
Which is exactly why you are missing so much context from your "fact checking". Genghis Khan was a Scythian. Once he became Emperor (Khan of Khans) he renamed the Scythians (they actually called themselves the Aria, or Aryans) into the Tartarians (which I think means "Hell" or "the underworld," though I'm not sure about that one). By wiping out the Empire of Tartary, and the true origins of the Aryan Race (AKA the Royal Scythians, the ruling Aristocracy of the Scythian/Tartarian Empire) from history, the Cabal and the present day Ruling Aristocracy has hidden their connection to the Empire of Scythia. They hid that this Empire was the largest and longest lasting empire of all history (at least the antediluvian history), covering most of Asia and Europe, and lasting for between 2500 and 5000 years. They hid their form of government, their multi-ethnicity, their origins of pretty much everything we think of as our culture, religion, philosophy, etc.
My research suggests all of history has been rewritten. Understanding the Empire of Scythia/Tartary plays a huge part in understanding the level of fuckery there.
I'm not sure what "quickly" means to you. They lasted as a formal state (Khanate) for a few hundred years. Longer than the US.
I'm not sure what the rest of (5) is for, you didn't say anything against what I said, and I mostly agree.
Can you share this research about Scythian to Tartarians and how they may have lasted for between 2500 and 5000 years?
I would like to. Unfortunately what I have is a book length effort that is not presently complete. I am really bad about publishing anything until I feel the argument for that section is complete. I will get to it at some point.
I was told by someone I sound like Asha Logos and they assumed I had seen his stuff. I had not (at that time). I have since watched a couple of his videos from his series "Conspiracy? Our Subverted History". I disagree with some of his assessment. He doesn't seem to understand the Cabal at all (or pretends that he doesn't) so a lot of his conclusions are wrong imo, but overall, his information and statement of relevant facts is really good. I haven't seen all of that body of work, but I've seen enough that I recommend it.
Of note, the key element to understanding the Scythian Empire is, I believe, in understanding its ruling Aristocracy (i.e. the Aryan Race). It is through this ruling family that the Empire of Scythia is best understood. They are noted by specific phenotypes (blond/red hair, blue/green eyes). These phenotypes occur in the noted leadership of all of the "disparate tribes" of the region throughout history. The evidence for this comes from the burial mounds of what is obviously the Ruling Class (buried with lots of gold e.g.),. It also comes from the same pattern of mounds (same burial rights), the phenotypes of the occupants, and the explicitly stated historical records by all pre 20th century historians going all the way back to the 3rd millennia BC.
In today's history they are all labeled as "strictly nomads," even though they also have cities, trade routes, roads, etc.. They are labeled as "different groups" because the different groups are predominantly of different ethnicity (depending on region and time) even though all the various tribes are provably all multi-ethnic and have the same phenotypes in the Ruling Class.
As important as the information about them is (and relevant to today), I think it is more important to see how history has been hidden/rewritten regarding them. By doing this research on Tartary, it opened my eyes on these methods. I recommend looking out for that in your research (though you probably already do, I just thought I would note it because it was so fruitful for me in this particular research).
Slyver, LatetotheShow: I'm upvoting both of you FWIW. Yes, there's a great deal of history we now have to clean up. Discussion (hopefully in good faith) should help with some of that cleanup. But I have to toss a curve ball, only for discussion:
What if you're both right?
I been brushing up against QED in following the Q thread (Quantum Electrodynamics). There's discussions that we're bouncing across changing history in deriving a better future with some of the unknown tech that's used against us (think Mandala effect; not everyone remembers an old movie happening the same way as it currently is when they saw it 30 years ago, yet the older folk specifically remember it all happening the same different way). Given a long enough timeline of these events happening, could history simply be different on this timeline??
My head hurts, I think I need some chocolate milk (reference Men In Black 3)...
Slyver is at it again with his hyper, self defeating skepticism about all of history
The philosophical assumption behind the statement "All of history has been rewritten" suggests a form of skepticism or epistemic uncertainty about the reliability of historical narratives. This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us, as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way.
However, the statement also presents a paradox or self-defeating quality because if all of history has truly been rewritten, then the claim itself could be subject to the same skepticism. If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.
for someone to confidently claim that all of history has been rewritten would require access to some sort of privileged perspective or objective truth about history, which seems contradictory given the assumption of widespread historical manipulation.
This is not the assumption. Indeed, I think most of what we have is true and I have stated that many times. Most lies, most propaganda, most of The Matrix are based on the truth. But history (as we understand the term) is not "the facts" in isolation. It is the facts and the connections between those facts that make up the story, the conclusions. "History" is the story we tell each other about those conclusions.
I think that most fuckery in our history is in what's left out, purposefully destroyed or otherwise silenced by shoving things down the memory hole, or through derisive ad hominem designed to keep certain facts quiet and not looked at, immediately dismissed because they are in "the bad box." Over the top of the box of facts that is allowed (''the good box"), with it's missing but essential context, is the overarching narrative that fills in the gaps and makes the connections in the incomplete and carefully crafted fact list. That is how history has been rewritten. That can be shown by showing facts that have been left out, and that there is sufficient evidence that it has been done intentionally.
If you click the link in my previous post you will see exactly such evidence, even though it is a tiny fraction of my research for that particular case of revision.
If you read my report, you will see an exhaustive case made for how such an historical revision develops (in a different context), and that it is intentionally done.
This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, that their removal is intentional, and that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions indicates that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is false.
I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.
While uncovering omitted or suppressed historical facts can certainly challenge prevailing narratives, it does not necessarily mean that all of history has been rewritten. It may indicate selective interpretations or biases within historical accounts, but it does not automatically validate the assertion that all historical narratives are suspect or fundamentally false.
In essence, while your argument correctly underscores the significance of critically analyzing historical narratives and considering omitted evidence, it does not fully resolve the logical paradox of claiming that "all of history has been rewritten" without appealing to a privileged perspective or objective truth.
Not to get into the wordplay, but you are touching on a point I try to make repeatedly: radical skepticism is the rejection of epistemology. If all history (or a huge part) is a lie, then any other account of history can also be a lie. Another way of putting it might be " 'Question everything' is fine so far as it goes, but if you cannot accept answers, it is a denial of everything."
But have fun with this. Interesting to watch.
You are sticking on the word "all." Fine, I will concede that it was a poor choice of words. It is impractical and probably impossible to prove "all". As stated, "history" is a story. Showing that the conclusions of any particular story in a box of stories is false requires looking at each story in turn.
However, if it can be shown that numerous examples of "official history" are false by the methods I have described, and it can be shown that picking a story at random out of that "box of all" follows the same patterns, it naturally casts doubt on the conclusions (historical narrative) of the entire box.
If it can further be shown that all of what we today call "history" (the entire box of currently accepted stories) has the same source (same group doing all of the publishing of the allowed books of conclusions), that brings sufficient doubt to the entire box that making the statement of "all history" is not so far fetched, even if it can't necessarily be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Having said all that, none of my conclusions or statements of fact rely on this off-hand statement of "all," so I am not sure why you are so fixated on it. It is not an axiom for anything I've said, and no conclusion relies on it.
Nice analysis, and I was noticing the obvious omissions as well. There must be a strategic advantage to leaving the Khazarians out of the conversation for now.
I thought similarly.
Whoa THANK YOU.
Would have required a double slot of time to discuss that subject by itself! He was already trolling by saying "give me 1 minute" and then went Pootie Mode on Tucker lol.
--then went Pootie Mode on Tucker lol.-- top kek. love it
Putin Interview Summarized - He's right.
YOU RUSSIAN COMMIE
Just kidding bro.... I agree with Putin too.
kek
He is.
When did they stop being the bad guys?
"you mean, I'm the bad guy? I'm the bad guy." - falling down
I thought it was good. Very strategic. Intentionally left out talking about Trump to cut off democrat/DS talking points. Skipped over sensitive topics by omission. It would have been fun for him to drop the hammer on the DS, but this was better for the whole effort.
Dude, when the not human question came up and P passed I was bummed, the T brings up AI and P started talking about hybrids and engineered genetic mutation.
Guess this wasn't the time to talk about tunnels and labs.
T did get way loud last few times he spoke. I found that odd.
I was thinking the same thing. He focused on how Russia tried to be peaceful and the U.S. wouldn't go along with that, and that Ukraine was not really a separate country. Also, how the west kept violating agreements. Plenty enough there.
The NATO request was very interesting. Imagine if Russia had joined NATO. Interesting thought experiment.
Had Russia joined NATO, then the fat-cat MIC assholes (who own the politicians) would have had a hard time fleecing the American public out of a few extra trillion tax dollars to "protect against bad Russia."
I never understood why they would turn Russia down. Now, obviously it's to continue having an enemy to bash us over the head, but then my thoughts were why not? Rather an ally than an enemy any day. I understood why Putin was pissed.
👍🏼
What would they have been united against? I guess there would have been no terrorists.
👍🏼
I thought, this, too.
The only thing that stuck out was that Trump was not mentioned hardly at all.
I think this was partially intentional. I noticed, also, that he rarely mentioned the names of any of the Leaders, especially when they had screwed Russia around. He seemed to refer to the decisions of the Nations, not the Leaders, as a possible way to hide that he couldn’t stand the leaders, like “The President”. He simply said Canadian parliament (or similar) when mentioning the shit-show with Turdy and Zelly, not even “Prime Minister”. He mentioned that he liked Bush Jr., Xi, and Trump as people, though.
Seems as though to me, I could be wrong, that Putin insinuated Tucker was CIA…about 45 minutes in. Was this correct?
Putin struck me as very intelligent, and had a good memory of historical dates and times. He is a very capable representative of his country.
The senate bill today passed makes me sick. The only thing it will do is prolong death and destruction on many more people. A negotiated settlement could be reached with a few weeks if the deep state would pursue it. But sadly…..
I believe he said something to the effect that Tucker tried to get a job with the C👀A but they didn't hire him, and it's probably good that he didn't work for them.
He really did some extensive backround check against Tucker lol
Yeah I caught that too
is it me or did this miss the mark big time in terms of the expectation the interview will change the world (or whatever the hyperbolic claim/s were). do get me wrong. think interview was great and history will look very kindly upon Putin, but nothing earth shattering.
maybe it's because anons already know all of which he speaks. either way I'm still looking to be wowed
This isn't about the MSM changing their tune. All it takes is a few popular podcasts to cover this interview in a positive light to awaken more normies via word of mouth resulting in extreme public opinion shift.
Like a ripple forming a tidal wave. Just another ripple to form a multitude of waves for the great awakening this year.
You're right. Normies tuned it out and don't care, and we all knew what he already said.
Great summary cringe!!! And 100% agree with all your points.
#7 troubles me most
....you are going to get down dooted for this comment....but you are right.
Watch it. Further comments on just point one above. Putin in his first answer triggers Tucker since Tucker is educated in history. Yale? Then P goes onto school him on his regions history. Listen to how loud Tucker get in later parts of the interview. P playing chess from the start.
He's spot on about everything but number 6. The Chinese are just as bankrupt and incompetent as we are, they're just better at hiding it.
Their ponzi scheme is bigger is all
I haven’t gotten to it yet myself, but I saw a post on X that said Putin suggested conditions changed between 2014 and 2022 that allowed him to make the moves he did in the Donbas. Is he talking about the white hats working to take down the deep state?
Putin was talking more about how the Ukr. govt. stepped up hostilities towards the Russian peoples in east Ukraine by basically declaring them as second class citizens, and subject to laws uniquely applied to second class citizens. Pure nazi style bullshit.
Yeah I see the context now.
35M views within 3 hours...
Thanks for the highlights. I was driving home from work when it aired and after a 12 hour day I'm too tired to watch it.
HIGHLY recommend making the time at some point, though. There's so much nuance.
I always suspected Tucker Carlson blew up the Nordstream Pipeline. I knew it.
Tucker says it wasn't him... he was busy that day. 😂
😂😂
😂
You are so right. I was fascinated the whole time.
I was sick and misses two days, so as soon as I have a day off,I will definitely make time.
Any Anons know Tucker WANTED to join the CIA? Why would Putin say that right up front? Was he telling Tucker he knew all about him? Jus sayin!
How do we know he didnt? What if he got in but just pretended he didnt and now is either a DS spy or a double agent White Hat working from within CIA having infiltrated it years ago?
What if he's Q???
lOl I need my evening whiskey...
The "what ifs" are everywhere! I'll just have a Yingling! Kek
CIA means Obama and Soros.
Thanks Anon for this summary!
7. He believes our government is controlled by an entrenched bureaucracy that cannot be changed through elections.
What's the time stamp on that part? I watched the whole video but apparently missed that part.
Great summary, cringe! While watching, I could not help comparing Putin's intelligence with Amoeba Brain Biden's sub zero IQ.
I think when it comes to the labs etc there is no way putin would expose a key goal that they might be still actively destroying. never let your enemies know what you are up to.
Perfect summarization!
This is insane.
Now imagine if Tucker drops the Assange interview?
The State needs a boogie man to keep us busy so we don't ask questions. Question everything. The entity you're told to hate or distrust is often your best friend.
Putin is basically right on every account from what we can see -- and have been talking about for years. The color revolution has been pointed to well before Ukraine vs Russia.
With our country being brought to its knees, he's probably right about that too. Even if we ignore all the foreign invaders penetrating our borders, if we just stick to critical manufacturing (medicine, steel, silicon) China has pulled all of our manufacturing over there and our government has, at every turn, helped them.
Further, China forcibly holding their cheap slave labor hostage on grounds of requiring access to and partial ownership of in some fashion intellectual properties, American companies -- again, encouraged by the government -- have likely accelerated China a hundred years forward from where they were just decades ago.
He is likely right that the problem can't simply be changed through elections, but without intervention -- Q -- it puts this country into a very uncomfortable predicament that even the accelerationists won't like if that's how things shook out.
One thing I know for sure: our problems are ours to sort out and any foreign government trying to stick their boots on our soil to "help" us do it should be considered an enemy.
Haven't seen or heard this yet, primarily because the amount of hype it got made me think it is scripted, and possibly bait.
I prefer peace and truth that is from God.
ALWAYS the best choice.....
I'm pretty disappointed with the interview. All the stuff is fairly surface level stuff. I was hoping there would be more discussion of good vs evil. How does Putin and Russia view the trans\gay\anti-family\anti-Christian agenda western countries are pushing? How is US and Europe importing the third world affect Russia. Does Putin believe in God and Satan and how does he plan to prevent Russia from importing western satanism?
I supposed the Ukraine stuff is more relevant in the short term, but the battle of good vs evil is real. There's no possibility that Satan plans to leave Russia out of it. I don't know that much about Russian culture and how far down the slope they are or aren't, but it's only going to become exponentially tougher for Russia, and the entire world for that matter, if Satanism becomes the dominant western religion. Ukraine is small potatoes compared to that.
What better way to teach Russia/Ukrainian history than by Putin, where millions will watch him? That history is key to understanding why Russia “began” the war.
Thanks
So basically nothing new to us.
Agreed on all of the above.
He also said Biden probably has zero idea on what the sanctions on Russia even are and wants to know who actually wrote them.
Excellent summary. Accurate and succinct.