Any chance that guy is wrong? 8 min long
Hard to tell if this is building up to any expected direct contact with Ru forces or if it's just part of the primary motivation for war: money, with Poland as the 'useful idiot' filling the coffers of US defense companies and their US political friends.
Already in 2014-2015 it was shown that Poland had been heavily involved with supporting the Maidan coup, but how many predicted then that we would end up in a situation where so much war would take place, or that NATO would be involved to such a degree, and that hundreds of thousands of lives, would be lost
Since 2014, we have had sanction hurting the EU more than Russia or the US, we have had the EU going along with the COVID curfews, mask and injection campaign, green deal, swallowing Nord Stream sabotage, self identification with LBGTQ+, Ukrainian aid efforts. For some the motivation is money, for others it is power, for others ideology, together they help along the chaos, suffering, and weakening, that a different level is interested in.
In 2017 there was from the Cs:
A: US wishes to destabilize EU similar to Syria so that they can come in and "fix" things. i.e. rule and control resources and trade the "American way". Everyone will speak English!
The context was
Session 13 May 2017
(Pierre) What were the results of the first round of the French election? They want to know about Asselineau on the forum.
(Joe) How much did Asselineau get in the first round? He got less than 1% officially, but unofficially?
A: 29
Q: (Pierre) And Le Pen in the first round?
A: 61
Q: [Exclamations of disbelief all around] (Niall) She would have been president automatically!
(Pierre) But together combined it's 90 percent!
(Niall) The two real anti-establishment candidates almost took everything.
(Chu) And she should have been president...
(Pierre) After only the first round! So they moved the figures not by 20% like with Segolene in 2007, but by 40%! They dropped Le Pen from 61% to 21%...
(Niall) They have a situation now in the country where 90% of the people didn't vote for the guy who just became president.
(Pierre) That's a powder keg.
(Joe) Well, they didn't...
(Chu) How can you have 48% voting Macron when in the beginning she had 61%?
(L) Because they reduced the choices.
(Chu) But she had 61% before...
(Pierre) First round they vote Le Pen, but then in the second round they often vote differently. But just to confirm, Macron got 48% in the second round?
A: Yes
Q: (Pierre) Well, so it's that. People got scared. That's a documented thing. The first leaks from Macron's servers was those documents from a NATO/CIA-sponsored foundation in France that was pushing for a lot of migration and a lot of mosques and stuff. I was wondering if his main mission is to bring in migrants and stir things up to lead towards a civil war?
A: US wishes to destabilize EU similar to Syria so that they can come in and "fix" things. i.e. rule and control resources and trade the "American way". Everyone will speak English!
Q: [laughter] (Pierre) They sure have a sense of humor, but I'm not sure that will be the only consequence...
(L) So basically, some kind of cabal in the deep state of the US is at the bottom of some kind of One World Order plan to really basically bit by bit take the entire planet under its control. Is that it either overtly or covertly?
A: Covertly at present, but overtly eventually.
Q: (Joe) That's been the goal for a long time.
(L) That means that Trump is a real thorn in their flesh because he's kind of an isolationist and a nationalist. He wants to go the opposite way, and that's why they wanted to get rid of Le Pen. And anybody else who's a nationalist is basically a "bad guy". The only good guys are the ones who do what the US says. Do they really realize how weak they are? I mean, their own country is falling apart. Their own infrastructure is going to the dogs. The education of their people is deplorable. The health of their people is deplorable. The death rate... They're not paying attention to ANY of those things, and yet they're trying to rule the world? That's not a very good example to set.
A: Psychopaths are "reality blind".
Q: (Joe) The funny thing is that one of the major ways that they attempt to achieve this is through rigging elections. That's basically a really bad idea because eventually they'll push it too far. Even the people who have no clue are gonna go, "Really?!" It happened already in Scotland. The vast majority of Scottish people are highly suspicious about that last referendum. Everyone was saying "Yes independence, yes independence!" and then the result was "NO"?! And then they go around and ask each other, and it's like, "I can't find anybody who voted no..." Eventually, the cat's gonna come out of the bag. You can't keep rigging elections in a way that puts someone in power that NOBODY voted for. You can't do that forever and not expect people to eventually go...
(Niall) They're gonna try the UK next. That's coming up. It'll be interesting. Nobody wants to vote for the Tories.
(Pierre) After the French elections, there was a French journalist who went around to interview who voted for Macron - to understand why. He didn't find anybody!
(L) He couldn't find anybody who voted for him?
(Pierre) How much did Macron get in the first round?
A: 12 percent.
Q: (Joe) Well, it couldn't have been 12 percent...
(Chu) Uh, that's impossible. We already had 90%.
(Pierre) Asselineau 29%, Le Pen 61%, so there's only 10% left...
(PoB) Maybe there were more votes than voting people. It happens.
(Chu) Did they mean 1.2%?
(Pierre) So, let's recapitulate: Asselineau, 29% in the first round?
A: Close
Q: (Pierre) Okay, so these are approximations. So, roughly.
(L) Well, Le Pen could have just got 50%.
A: Yes
Q: (L) So it's an approximation.
(Pierre) Okay.
Gradually, NATO countries are dragging themselves into the moment of greater clarity about their own role. In the beginning, it was just Ukraine fighting Russia, at the end of last year it became clear to the citizens of NATO countries, that NATO was on board. If one follows the trend, then the decisions and statements from the EU have increasingly become implementations of NATO policies, and now one finds headlines like this from
Financial Review:
View attachment 77804
The spirit is to keep up the warmongering:
first no heavy weapons, then heavy weapons,
first no long reaching artillery, then long reaching artillery
first no tanks, then tanks
first no planes, then former Soviet planes,
first no NATO planes, now NATO planes expected
first no depleted uranium, then depleted uranium,
first no cluster ammunition, now cluster ammunition
first no longer distance missiles, then longer distance missiles
I probably missed out a few steps, but where exactly is the limit for this development? There almost does not seem to be any, even if the nuclear total might be avoidable for other reason, it does not prevent some false flag dirty bombs as has already been prevented more than one time, nor does it preclude NATO pushing a country of their own into conflict, but ruling out article 5 on technicalities thus leaving the country in a situation no better than Ukraine.
If one takes a financial angle, if a change comes, they will say sorry, it is not our fault, it is because of ... and we will fix it if you pay us generously for the favour, just as they do now. Many countries pay higher defence bills and have to accept, less health service, reduced support for families with children, later retirement etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ions-defence-firms-investors-taxpayer-weapons
The same happens in Poland, but they are much closer to the action, than the UK, from where Andrew Neil writing in the Daily Mail like a soccer fan commentator reporting to the audience from the stadium:
The conclusion is: although we are a few steps from the final steps in what Shahid King Bolsen from
Middle Nation said on April 6 in the above video, Poland is Honduras, posted on Twitter, we have come a long way. The Syriafication of Europe has begun with Ukraine, where there is no oil to take out, but there is grain, there is land to be bought, there are soldiers to be freely spent. In Germany, there is capital and know-how. Each country, I suspect, will give, according to what the pathocrats of the US Government, the power cliques and their handlers would like to plunder anyway.
German version available. Quite mind boggling, the deeper the details start to sink in. I wonder if this could be a question for the C's, if a thermonuclear weapon actually has been used in Southern Scandinavia / Southern Baltic Sea.
Schweiz, physicist, mathematician & geologist, PhD in theoretical physics at ETH Zurich
