So everybody, welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
And today's meeting discussion, this community was ignited four years ago by Dr. Stephen
Frost, a British trained medical doctor with a passion for truth.
By the way, we have plenty of PhDs here, so people can be doctors without being medical
doctors.
So hence, we make that distinction between medical doctor.
As the season whistleblower and activist Stephen founded this group to champion truth, ethics,
justice, freedom and health in the face of global challenges.
At this time, we remember Rainer Fulmick in jail, unlawfully incarcerated by a corrupt
German government process and a corrupt German court system.
He's a true fighter for freedom.
Whatever you can do to shine a light on his plight is much appreciated.
Keep the dialogue going because clearly talking about Rainer and not ignoring him is and other
people wrongly incarcerated, including our Dutch lawyer.
What's his name?
Alex, can you remember the Dutch guy who's taken on the system?
He's also been arrested for fighting for his client.
I'll think of his name.
Someone put that in the chat.
I'm Charles Kovash, your moderator.
I'm Australasia's passion provocateur.
I wear a red jacket because red is the color of passion to remind you to be passionate,
just like Marv is very passionate.
After 20 years as a lawyer, I shifted gears 32 years ago to become a professional speaker,
amongst other things.
And for the past 14 years, I've guided parents and lawyers in addressing vaccine injuries
and medical failures.
Medical failures are the number one cause of death in America today.
I'm also chief executive of an industrial hemp company.
And I say again, hemp is going to be a play a massive part in the future success of humanity.
A group is a dynamic blend of voices from all sorts of professions and from all around
the world united in pursuit of truth.
Many of us once viewed vaccines as benign, as safe, as effective.
And indeed, people are fighting with me still saying anyone who questions vaccines is an
idiot.
Well, we now know what the true situation is.
And now many of us are passionate anti-vaxxers, including me.
I'm proud of it.
And if anyone accuses you of being an anti-vaxxer, please thank them because they've realized
you're genius.
First timers, you're warmly embraced.
Introduce yourself in the chat, share where you're from, and let's connect on a podcast
book newsletter.
Drop your links in the chat so we can follow you.
We're in the thick of a global struggle, World War III, with medical and scientific battles
among 12 fronts.
The propaganda battle is another battle front, as is the spiritual battle front.
We're five and a half years into this fight with more to come, so there's no time for
you to be tired, no time for you to say, I've had enough of this, bad luck.
I remind you of William Wilberforce, how long he took to get slavery abolished in the UK.
30 plus years.
So stay strong, stay healthy, stay passionate.
Science is never done.
It thrives on challenge and inquiry.
Some here believe in viruses, others see them as fiction, and many are still exploring.
All views fuel our dialogue.
And I just heard last week, remember everybody, get worried about the Chikazanga virus.
How about that, eh?
Is that sound good?
Some chicky babies come along.
We have to make fun of this.
Laugh at the Chikazanga virus found in China.
So there you are.
Our two and a half hour sessions spawn all sorts of initiatives and collaborations.
After our meeting, Tom Rodman hosts an optional Telegram video chat if you have the time.
We'll hear from our guest presenter, Alex Craner followed, and Alex is speaking to us
for the third or fourth time.
Alex, what is it, third or fourth or fifth?
I think it's fourth.
Fourth, beautiful.
That's great to have you again, followed by Q&A.
Per tradition, Stephen Frost opens the questioning for the first 15 minutes.
This is a free speech haven, appropriately moderated, to keep ideas flowing.
Free speech is our weapon to safeguard our human liberties.
If something offends you, own it.
We lovingly sidestep the outraged culture and its demands to silence truth.
Similarly, we sidestep the trigger culture.
Don't say anything that might trigger somebody.
We choose love over fear.
Fear binds and sickens.
Love liberates, heals and inspires.
These twice weekly gatherings are far from mere talk.
They have birthed real world actions and alliances.
And Alex, we haven't seen you for a while, but we're waiting for someone to announce
that they got married as a consequence of this, or become lovers as a consequence of
this meeting.
So please keep us posted.
We want to become a dating agency, one of our resources.
A key tactic in our fight is exposing medical crimes on social media, rallying behind John
Rappaport's suggested slogan of medical truth now.
That's what we want, medical truth now.
This call can unite humanity in a search for accountability.
And it also, when someone talks about a chikazanga virus, prove it.
Prove it.
The shit that they talk, we have to laugh in the face of this nonsense.
Share solutions, products or resources in the chat.
Our meetings are recorded and posted on the Rumble channel and the link is in the chat.
And we're thrilled to again welcome Alex Kraner, our guest presenter for the fourth time and
for the purposes of the recording.
I'll do a quick overview of Alex's background.
Although it is covered in the notes, because if anyone's watching the recording, but some
people are here who haven't read the invitation and Alex, his Twitter handle is at Naked Hedgy.
Alex, you might put that in the chat for everybody to follow you.
He's an author and former hedge fund manager based in Monaco, born and raised in the socialist
regime of former Yugoslavia under one party communist rule.
At 17, he joined a student exchange program in the US where he took up his university
studies.
From there, he's part of the Switzerland on scholarship where he completed a degree in
business and economics.
From Switzerland, he moved to Venezuela where he lived for a year and experienced his first
banking crisis in 94 when nine of Venezuela's 16 largest banks failed.
It brought the country's economy to a grinding halt.
That year, he returned to his native Croatia and joined the military where he served through
1995 during the last phases of Croatia's war of independence.
In 96, he took employment at an oil trading company in Monaco.
One thing led to another and 29 years later, he's still in Monaco.
In 2020, Alex wound up his hedge funds career and set up a Kraner analytics to provide turnkey
portfolio solutions and trading decisions support to third party investment managers.
He's published three books in 2015, Mastering Uncertainty in Commodities Trading.
It's a free download.
In 21 and 22, in 2017, he published Grand Deception, the truth about Bill Brown, Magnitsky Act
and the anti-Russian sanctions, which was properly banned by Amazon.
So it must have had a lot of truth in it.
Republished nine months later by Red Pill Press, but properly banned again.
And in 2020, when he published Alex Kraner's trend following Bible.
So Alex, well done for being here.
Well done on your career.
Well done on all that writing and Stephen Frost, thank you for creating this group over four years ago.
So let's dive in with open minds and Alex, we're in your proverbial hands, as they say in the classics.
Alex.
Okay.
Can I share my...
I can't, can't.
You can.
Oh, wonderful.
So...
Share.
Beautiful.
We can see that well.
Interesting.
So greetings from Croatia, because that's where I am at the moment.
And in fact, this is the photograph from where I am.
I will, you know, given that the war in Ukraine is winding up,
I thought I'd go through a very, very condensed timeline about how it started.
Many of you must have heard that it didn't start on 24th February, 2022.
It started in February of 2014.
The groundwork had been laid basically since 1991.
So without further ado, I'll just dive into the timeline.
So the title of today's presentation, the unprovoked war in Ukraine, a condensed timeline.
We'll start with war preparations.
We're now, so we are in about three and a half years into the Russia special military operation in Ukraine.
And many Westerners continue to refer to it as an unprovoked, illegal and brutal Russian aggression,
where I find the qualifier brutal, particularly indicative of the Western mindset.
I suppose it must be used to contrast it with the gentle and kindly wars that Western powers do
approve of, like the one presently being waged in Gaza, for example, or Lebanon or Sudan or Somalia
or Syria. But the greater lie about Ukraine is the characterization of the war as unprovoked.
So today I'll walk you through a very condensed timeline of how the war was orchestrated entirely
by the Western powers led by Britain and the United States.
So in 1991, the USSR collapsed and as soon as it did, NATO entered Ukraine to establish
cooperation. Already in 1995, NATO and armed forces of Ukraine started jointly conducting
military exercises. By 1997, they signed the Charter of Distinctive Partnership in Madrid
and set up the Yavorov base as the de facto NATO command center in Ukraine. So that was 1997.
In 2008, NATO adopted the Bucharest Memorandum affirming that Georgia and Ukraine would become
NATO members. By 2022, a special military operation, NATO had quadrupled its forces at or near
Russian borders, the highest concentration of Western forces since Germany's 1941 invasion.
These forces had been running about 40 military exercises per year in Russia's backyard,
conducting daily mock attacks against targets inside Russia, often from a distance of less than
10 miles. The clarion call and lawfare attack which launched the 2014 war. So the clarion
call for Project Ukraine was launched on 26 September 2013 when Carl Gershman of the National
Endowment for Democracy published an op-ed in Washington Post calling for Ukraine's accession
to EU and NATO and declaring that for the United States, quote, Ukraine is the biggest prize,
unquote. So this is the title of the article I'm referring to. One month later,
on 30 October 2013, the Obama administration set off the opening salvo by filing an arrest
warrant in Vienna against one Dmitry Firtash, one of the most powerful Ukrainian oligarchs and
chief political patron of President Viktor Yanukovych. This may seem a little bit obscure.
Dmitry Firtash is not a household name, but let's say that if you rewind the clock to US,
to the early days of the Trump administration, it would be like if a hostile power demanded arrest
and extradition of Elon Musk, for example. All right. So one month after this,
no, sorry. So the people who signed this extradition request, who drafted it, were
Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and Victoria Nuland, all from Obama administration.
Three days later, on 3 November, Nuland flew to Kiev for a meeting with Yanukovych.
After their meeting, she declared triumphantly that the quote, the president made it clear that
Ukraine has made its choice and its choice is for Europe. The very next day, the extradition
request for Firtash was dropped. So that was the whole point of seeking that extradition. It wasn't
law, it wasn't order, it wasn't anything else. It was just putting the squeeze on Viktor Yanukovych.
So that triggers the EU accession struggle and the Euromaidan.
So the question is, why was it necessary to blackmail president Yanukovych into signing
onto the EU accession agreement? Because up until that point, everybody thought that this was such a
desired thing to join this very prestigious club that there was no force needed to be applied.
You know, there was no force needed to be applied. But as it turns out, the Ukrainians weren't
unanimously on board. Only a small majority was against it. And the EU accession agreement would
turn Ukraine into an EU colony. It came at a cost of $160 billion and it included 1,000 pages of EU
directives that Ukraine would have to comply with plus any future directives. It was also
including dismantling almost completely trade and commerce agreements with Russia.
So Ukrainians would have no say in what the EU might demand. So the accession agreement amounted
to basically a comprehensive surrender of the nation's sovereignty. The EU offered no help
in coming up with the $160 billion in funding. And the IMF only offered a small amount of about
$4 billion with extremely extortionate strings attached. So on 21 November 2013,
Prime Minister Nikolai Azarov suspended the preparations for the signing of the association
agreement, stating that the IMF conditions were far too harsh. One week later on 28 November
in Vilnius at the European Union Eastern Partnership Summit, Yanukovych asked for further
discussion. So he didn't decline to sign the accession agreement. He said that Ukraine couldn't
fund it, that they couldn't pay for it, that they needed help and that as it was drafted,
it was impossible for Ukraine to sign it. As a reminder, this was the event that Western press
almost unanimously interpreted as Yanukovych being on Vladimir Putin's remote control and that
Ukraine wanted to join the European Union and that the Russians were preventing them from doing so
and that it was essentially a proxy fight between the EU and Russia where Ukraine was going to join
this highly developed prestigious group where human rights, democracy, law and order ruled
and this dark authoritative dictatorship Russia kept the Ukrainians from moving in that direction.
All right, so moving on. Once Yanukovych declined to sign the deal in Vilnius,
as it was, Euromaidan protests took off exactly the next day, almost as if somebody had prepared
them. But the way they began wasn't the way exactly how we heard it in the media. So
the protest started with about 300 students who came to camp out at the Euromaidan Square
in central Kiev and then on the very next day, during the night, these students were
encouraged to spend the night. They were told to stay there and a compromised leader of
Viktor Yanukovych's administration sent armed thugs to attack them,
obviously with the media, with cameras rolling and everything. So this was recorded and it was
on all the media in Ukraine and abroad the very next day and so then the protests swelled to 10,000
and more. And they lasted for weeks and weeks until February 2014.
On the 4th of February is when we had that conversation between Victoria Nuland and
US ambassador in Kiev, Piatt, when Victoria Nuland said that Yats, Arsen Yatsenyuk was their guy
and when she said fuck the EU. On the 7th February 2014 we had the Sochi Olympics,
which is when the distractions begin for Russian government and so the violence started to escalate.
On the 20th February negotiations between Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition were orchestrated,
with the participation of representatives from France, Germany, Poland and Russia.
But as the talks were ongoing, rooftop snipers
from some 20 locations shot into the crowds and assassinated about 80 protesters and police.
The killings were widely and immediately attributed to Yanukovych's security forces,
but subsequent investigations showed conclusively that they were organized by the neo-Nazi elements
of the opposition. On the same day of those negotiations, President Obama called Putin,
asking him for help to calm the situation down and to support the U.S. military.
The U.S. was in the process of supporting negotiations and the constitutional process of
government. At the same time that Obama was calling Putin, Biden was calling Yanukovych.
What Biden was doing at that moment was he tried to pressure Yanukovych to disband his security
services, which Yanukovych did because he basically, during those negotiations, he was
under intense pressure over these rooftop sniper killings and basically he yielded on all points.
He just simply gave the opposition everything that they asked for. So given that this agreement with
the opposition was signed off and backed by the high representative of European countries like
Poland, France and Germany, Yanukovych felt okay, the crisis is over, I lost, but
I don't need the security forces anymore, everything is settled.
Keep going.
All right, so someone had, keep going.
So he actually did dismiss his security apparatus and as soon as he did, armed opposition stormed
key government buildings, the parliament presidential palace and Yanukovych's own residence.
So five days later, Ukraine's Rump Parliament under duress approved of the new government,
which was handpicked by Victoria Nuland and Jeffrey Pyatt.
Just a second, Alex, your date there is a year wrong. You've got 27 February 2013 on the screen.
Oh yes, that was 2014. Forgive me. Thank you for catching that. It's a typo, but
yeah, sorry about that. So yeah, that was 27 February 2014.
Ukrainian parliament approved the new government under duress and at that point, the United States,
the EU and the United Nations immediately recognized the new government as legitimate.
So the same day, Russia secured Crimea on 16th March of 2014. Again, that was a mistake as well.
So the population of Crimea holds referendum. They overwhelmingly vote in favor of joining Russia
and on 18th March, Russia recognizes Crimea as part of the Russian Federation.
So now the next phase of the conflict takes off, which I would call
Nazifying and weaponizing Ukraine. So, Nazification, the Junta's very first degree
decree was banning Russian language from schools, government and media.
Also, they declared World War II era Nazi collaborators as heroes of Ukraine
and denying their heroism was made a criminal offense.
The representatives of the neo-Nazi parties like Oleg Tjaniubok of Svoboda Party,
Dmitry Yarosh of the Right Sector, Andrei Shkilov of the UNA-UNSO and Andrei Bilecki of the Azov
Battalion were given disproportionate power with key government posts, including ministries of
internal security, military, agriculture and education. CIA's John Brennan deployed dozens
of special units of the CIA and the FBI to set up security structures to defend and stabilize
the new regime. Policing of areas under Kiev's control was turned over to some 30 neo-Nazi
battalions who kicked off a reign of terror against the ethnic Russians. By 13th March 2014,
the Junta started dispatching military convoys to the south and east of Ukraine where the people
were protesting against the Junta. Under pressure from the IMF and with Brennan's go-ahead,
the Junta launched a very brutal anti-terror operation,
which escalated to a full civil war after the Odessa massacre which took place on 2 May 2014.
On that occasion, at least 116 people were killed, 46 of whom were burnt alive. Unofficial count was
as high as 200 casualties. In the massacres aftermath, there was not a word of condemnation
from any Western official. To the contrary, Kiev was being excused and Obama's UN Ambassador
Samantha Power even lauded Kiev's remarkable, almost unimaginable restraint. And so all over
southern and eastern Ukraine, massacres continued and by mid-July 2014, well over 2,000 ethnic
Russians were killed. On 11th May 2014, Donetsk and Lugansk held independence referendums
and people overwhelmingly voted for independence from Ukraine.
As soon as the results were announced, the breakaway republics declared independence,
kicking off the following 8 years of frozen conflict during which the armed forces of Ukraine
continued to launch artillery shells and missiles into the towns and cities of Donbass,
killing as many as 14,000 people, most of them civilians.
During this time, NATO was busy training up 10,000 troops a year for 8 consecutive years,
deploying them immediately to Donbass in preparation for the future conflict.
In 2014, the armed forces of Ukraine counted 121,500 troops. By 2020, the number reached 311,000.
Along with reserve forces, Ukraine's military swelled to some 800,000 troops, or if you ask
Volodymyr Zelensky to 1.1 million. Meanwhile, the US Department of Defense set up 48 biolabs
along the borders with Russia and Ukraine, which is pretty much what Victoria Nuland owned up to
at her August 2022 testimony in the Senate. The CIA also set up a dozen listening stations
along Russia's borders. In addition to this, there was an open nuclear threat made against Russia.
In February 2022, the armed forces of Ukraine escalated artillery
and military strikes
against Donbass, and the armed forces of Ukraine prepared the operation to take Crimea by force.
Zelensky announced that Ukraine would deploy nuclear missiles against Russia, which was a threat.
The Biden administration corroborated in direct talks with Vladimir Putin and
Sergey Lavrov, affirming that the United States reserved the rights to install
anti-ballistic missile launch facilities in Ukraine near Russia's borders. That fact alone
would deprive Russia of her nuclear deterrence and represent a strategic defeat and potentially
an existential threat to the nation. Alex, you've muted yourself, I think.
Alex, you've muted still.
Sorry, I don't know how I did that. Anyway, the thing that's kind of interesting to point out is
that the escalation towards war in Ukraine started almost as soon as Biden took office in the United
States. Then by February 2022, Ukraine's artillery and missile attack against Donbass increased
30-fold. This is the graph of those attacks by OSCE observers. As you can see, they go from
fewer than 50 on 14 February to more than 1,400 by the 18th and 21st and 22nd of February.
Basically, that is that. The point I would like to underscore is that for anyone who still thinks
that Russia's special military operation in 2022 was unprovoked, all they have to do is a simple
mental exercise. Suppose that the roles were reversed and all this took place along the U.S.
border with Mexico, with Russians training up Mexican troops and deploying them along Texas,
Arizona or California borders, setting up biolabs, spy stations and missile launch facilities
aimed at targets within the United States. Can the picture get any more straightforward than that?
We should count ourselves lucky that this conflict wasn't escalated into a nuclear war,
largely thanks to Vladimir Putin for his restraint and the American people for ridding humanity of
the pathological monstrous autopen administration. Thank you for your attention to this matter,
as Trump would say. With that, I would, I think, open the Q&A session and commentary from the
participants. Alex, wonderful, wonderful analysis. It's great to have you go through that because I
keep reading material about this and I thought, gosh, I just want to spend some time, you saved me
time researching that, so I put that back into my head. What was the name of that
before Yanukovych? Yulia Timoshenko, wasn't it? Timoshenko. That's a,
what's ever happened to her, number one. We'll go to Stephen in a moment. And number two,
the question I want to put in everybody's head is this reporting. When I look at journalists' ethics
theoretically, you know, journalists talk about their ethics to report two sides of an argument
and they clearly don't. And the question I want to put and we'll talk about later is what do we do
about mainstream media that reports one side of anything? But come back to Yulia Timoshenko,
who was, I think, the PM before Yanukovych, is that correct? Yeah, at some point she was. I don't
know exactly when, but yeah, she was the prime minister maybe exactly before he took office,
but I'm not 100% sure. She's still there. She's very marginal and she's still vying for power.
She'd like to become the next president or prime minister, but that doesn't look very likely.
And the other observation I make is that there's a new, that hemp, industrial hemp is going
gangbusters in the west of Ukraine. There's a new $30 million hemp processing facility set up in the
west. So it's very interesting. I've got some colleagues doing some work there in the southwest
corner, for those of you who know my Hungarian roots. We used to be part of Hungary for
many centuries, so it's a matter close to Hungary's heart as well. So thank you for that
masterful overview so that to anyone who says that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked
is again ignorant and now we are all more, now we are all less ignorant. So Stephen, the next 15
minutes are yours, buddy. Yeah, thanks so much Alex for that great talk. I think I heard you
saying about, so I was amazed when you said that the day that Russia took the Crimea was also the
day or very near the day of the Kiev coup. Is that right? How did they get Russia to move so quickly
on Crimea? And why would Russia move so quickly? And how would they be ready? I don't understand that.
Oh, they were paying close attention. They knew exactly what was going on.
Ah, okay. Yeah, they knew exactly what was going on. So they didn't waste time. They knew that
NATO's objective, well, you know, this is something that's been going on for 200 years.
Western powers want to evict Russia from access to all warm water ports. And, you know, there was
open talk about kicking Russia out of Sevastopol and taking over Crimea and turning the Black Sea
into a NATO lake in the middle of Western Eurasia. So the Russians knew and, you know, they had a
lease deal with Ukraine where they accepted that Ukraine had belonged to, sorry, that Crimea
belonged to Ukraine, but they had something like a 99-year lease so that they could continue using
the naval bases there and have access to warm water ports. They knew that once the United States
installed the coup regime, that they were going to kick them out of Crimea. So, you know, they
didn't take any chances. They immediately secured all the key points on the peninsula, you know,
the government buildings, the police stations, military bases, and so forth, so that they
couldn't overrun them. And then they ran a referendum, which was not the first referendum,
by the way, you know. They also had a referendum in 1991. And even then, you know, it was very
clear that the greater than 90% of all people living in Crimea wanted to join Russia. When
the Soviet Union fell apart, they didn't want to remain part of Ukraine.
So, Alex, they had, you're saying that they had obviously contingency plans because Crimea was
absolutely vital to Russia for the warm water ports, is that right?
Yes, yes, correct.
The Black Sea, and the only other warm water port that they've got in the west of Russia is, of
course, Mermansk, is that right?
Mermansk.
In northern Russia.
Yeah, that's the north, yeah.
Yeah, but it's still warm water. It's ice-free, isn't it?
I don't know. I don't know.
I think it's ice-free, yeah.
I don't know if it's, what, the whole year, the whole year round?
I think so, because North Cape is pretty near to Mermansk, and North Cape is definitely ice-free.
Okay, okay.
I think Mermansk is as well, or at least it's very thin ice, you know, they can just
smash their way through.
Right.
But anyway, so, yeah, so Crimea was absolutely vital to Russia, so they probably had contingency
plans. That's why they were able to move so quickly. That's what I meant. How would they
get themselves organised?
Yeah.
I'm sorry?
What?
So what I meant was, how did they manage to get themselves organised so quickly, you know,
and move so quickly?
Yeah, I think that they had their contingency plans already in place.
Yeah, exactly.
And that they, you know, they expected these developments, because, you know, there was
already, there was a lot of these issues were bobbing around and floating for many years,
you know, there was already NATO in Ukraine since 1991, basically. They already had a
colour revolution in 2003. That succeeded, but the government that they installed failed.
That was, oh gosh, I forget the guy's name, the one, the one that had the,
the deformed face because of a poisoning with
dioxins.
Victor, also Victor, but I forget his last name now. Anyway, they took over and then
he ran a government that was so extremely unpopular that eventually it fell and it
lost power to Yanukovych.
But anyway, you know, the Russians knew that the West was playing this game and then
this game has been going on in various forms and reincarnations for more than 200 years.
It's always been the same thing, trying to push Russia back from the Mediterranean
and from the Persian Gulf and from the Far East in the past.
So right in the middle of the COVID pandemic in inverted commas, along, you know, to those who
hadn't been following what had been happening in Ukraine and Russia, this was a big surprise and,
and all of a sudden there's a full blown war between Ukraine and Russia, which I didn't
think at the time was full blown. But anyway, people convinced me it was a terrible war,
you know, well, they didn't convince me, but they were saying, here's a terrible war.
I've got pictures to prove it, you know, and I hadn't seen any battle pictures myself.
I hadn't been looking for them admittedly, but I just thought it would be on the mainstream
news, but I didn't see that much. And so I just, I just wonder, Alex, so they were asking us to
believe that, you know, Ukraine could defeat Russia, which is still, you know, even after
the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had 8 million square miles, I think they still had
6 million square miles, like 6.5 million, I think in, as Russia, they lost some states, of course.
I think the biggest was the one in the south. I can't even remember the name of the state.
Kazakhstan.
Kazakhstan is absolutely huge. I think almost a million square miles, but I don't think it is
a million, but it's nearly there. And I just wonder, did they need the cover? So did they,
so NATO, they were fixed on Ukraine. So did they need the cover of a worldwide,
worldwide confusion, if you like, with the COVID-19 pandemic, because it was bad enough with the COVID
pandemic and all of a sudden there was the Ukraine war and there were within a week of the declaration
of that war, or the beginning of it, there were Ukrainian flags in North Wales gardens.
I have never seen any flags in gardens in the UK previously, not even the British, but they were
Ukrainian flags. It was that bad. So that was the propaganda. And of course the censorship. So did
they need the cover of COVID-19 to actually essentially goad Russia to attack?
I don't know, Stephen, that's a very good question. And I assume that the answer is
no, but I think that, you know, these people think themselves so clever. They might have
taken that into their formula because their timeline for launching this war was very, very
specific. I think that they were talking about end of 2021 and early 2022. And we know that because
Volodymyr Zelensky's chief advisor, Oleg Sierestovich gave an interview
to Ukrainian media, but in that interview, he pretty much laid it out that, hey, you know,
this was before the war. He was, we're going to go to war against Russia. And our job is to
help the West destroy Russia and, you know, NATO is going to become involved. And then, you know,
if we win that war, we get accepted into NATO. So he laid out all those plans. Of course, you know,
those plans were not necessarily plans. That was the narrative which was meant to induce the junta
to start the war, which is, you know, pretty much a suicidal mission. But there was this
elite group of people in Ukraine who thought that by getting the shitshow on the road,
would somehow put them into the driver's seat, you know, that they would all
put them into the driver's seat, you know, that they would all have houses in London and New York
and take their wives shopping to Paris and, you know, things like this. So it is entirely
possible that the pandemic was supposed to prepare the groundwork in some way, you know, maybe by
having people already kind of under the spell of mass formation psychosis. Absolutely. So that they,
you know, reacted extra emotionally to things. And then, you know, when the stories about Russian
attack came out, it was very highly emotional. And then if you remember, four days after the Russians
launched the special military operations, they immediately started the negotiations with the
Ukrainians. And then to derail the negotiations, they sent Boris, didn't they? Well, yeah, but
before Boris went there, the Butcha massacre was staged. And then, you know, they made maximum
emotional impact from that massacre. And then Boris Johnson was able to say, well, you know,
these are war criminals, we do not negotiate with war criminals, fight it out, we got your back,
don't sign any kind of a peace agreement. And so the war continued for the next three,
three and a half years. So I felt at the time, Alex, they, you know, we're already destabilized,
even I was destabilized by, by, or especially me, but maybe by what was happening in the COVID
pandemic, which wasn't a pandemic. And then all of a sudden, we got this Russia Ukraine war.
And then the next thing we've got in Britain, they were panicking people by talking about
energy prices rising because of Russia's involvement in that war. And a simple Google
check showed that Russia only supplied 2% of the energy to the UK. So it was always ridiculous,
what the BBC was saying, that that's why people had to accept these huge energy rises in the UK,
they doubled overnight. Right. Yes. But you know, the general public usually doesn't know
all that nuance, you know, so and the media don't bother explaining the context, you know,
all they, all they do is they try to shape public opinion. Yeah, but it was a lie.
As you could see by the appearance of Ukraine flags in people's backyards, front yards,
absolutely. And you mentioned a detail, well, an important detail for the people who lost their
lives, the people at the Odessa massacre, who were burned alive, as you said, so I think 48 was it or
4046, and why were they burned alive? And how, how was that achieved? Okay, so this was a, this was
prepared in advance. Basically, there was a football game between Odessa and I think Levov,
or one of the clubs from Western Ukraine. And so Western Ukraine is where you have a particularly
strong neo Nazi tendencies. And so busloads of these football fans came to Odessa for this game.
And some of these paramilitary thugs under, under
Kolomoisky, one of the, you know, the oligarch that was, that was,
who was the political patron to Vladimir Zelensky, but this was before Zelensky's time.
So Kolomoisky sent them to stage a provocation by shooting at the, they shot at the football fans
of this Western Europe, Western Ukrainian club. And then they told them, oh, you know, the people
who shot at you, they ran over there and they send them towards the trade union building in the center
of Odessa. But what was happening in front of the trade union building in Odessa is that people who
were protesting the junta in Kiev had a, not a protest, they had, they had tables laid out
and they were, you know, they were giving away pamphlets to, to, you know, explaining why the
coup was unconstitutional, you know, kind of trying to share factual information with the people
passing by. And as the football fans were coming at them, other agent provocateurs pretending that
they wanted to help, warned the people who were there that these thugs were coming out for them
and that they should run into the trade union building to take cover. And so a lot of those
people did, and then they bought, they threw Molotov cocktails in there because they trapped
them in there. There was no, you know, they went into the building and they had no other way out.
And so people who tried to run out through the front door, they got shot.
And people who didn't, they burnt alive. And so this was staged by, on purpose, and this is done,
let's say, when you want to cause, when you want to cause a war, you stage massacres
because it elicits a very emotional reaction from people. And this is done, you know, this is done
routinely, you know, this happens again and again and again. And basically what they will do is they
will orchestrate groups of basically thugs and pay them to perpetrate an atrocity. And they will
usually do it, well, almost invariably, they will do it in front of cameras. They will bring
journalists with cameras and then it'll go everywhere in the news. And then, you know,
you polarize the situation in the country. And then, you know, people are ready to fight.
People get very, very scared and then they're ready to fight. And so I think that the whole point of
this was to trigger a civil war, to trigger violent reactions on the part of, you know,
the ethnic Russians resisting the junta, to be able to justify a violent crackdown on the part
of the Kiev regime. Yeah. So did, yes. So who was in the building? Were they the Western Ukrainian
Nazis? No, no, no. The people who went to hide in the building were ethnic Russians from Odessa.
The people who pursued them were right wing neo-Nazi thugs who were tasked with this.
The football hooligans were just used as a scare prop. So essentially they were trying to goad the
people in eastern Ukraine to fight a civil war against Western Ukraine. Is that right?
That's right. That's right. They wanted to provoke them to react violently so that the Kiev junta
could justify a violent crackdown against them. Understood. That's very important.
The detail that is not widely appreciated, in fact, it's practically not known at all,
is that the anti-terror operation was practically ordered by the IMF. Yeah. So Newland and her cronies
were essentially planning a war, they were planning to goad Russia into a war with Ukraine
and then to keep things going in Ukraine, they actually caused a civil war. Is that right? Or
they were trying to? They wanted to take Donbas under their control. Yes. And the reason for that
is that Donbas is 80% of Ukraine's GDP. Yes, but it's also dominated by- Energy, resources, and
steel and a lot of military industries. And so in terms of preparations for war, Donbas was very
important, but also in terms of funding the war because Donbas was what paid the bills for Ukraine.
So if you wanted to prepare for war, you also needed a lot of money. And if you had
all those natural resources and all those industries, that was good collateral against
which to issue loans to Ukraine. So the IMF said, we're going to back you, we're going to issue you
loans, but you have to take control of the whole entire country. And then you had a lot of Western
officials who were flying in and out of Kiev at that time, in particular, John Brennan,
Joe Biden, the former Swedish Prime Minister, Carl Bildt,
What was he doing there?
Poland, sorry? What was he doing there?
I don't know. He visited Kiev seven times in the run-up, in the immediate run-up to the
anti-terror operations. Carl Bildt is a card-carrying fascist. Well, he's hiding the card,
but by his conduct over decades, over decades, he was very active in the Balkans as well,
30 years ago. He's an absolute fascist.
He's what? Pro-fascist. So he's anti-Russian then?
Well, he's anti-Russian, but he's definitely a fascist in his mindset, in his activity,
and always against, well, he's basically a colonialist, imperialist.
I don't know what to call that. The Romans called these people the equestrian class.
They were not necessarily part of the oligarchy, but they were part of the managerial class that
takes care of business.
Yeah, and Carl Bildt shared an office with Lars Johansson.
David, there's 20 minutes now.
Yes, I nearly finished, Charles. So,
Carl Bildt shared an office with whom?
With Lars Johansson, who's on our calls quite a lot. So Lars offered Carl Bildt space,
and I think he was there for three years when Carl Bildt lost the premiership.
One last question. The 48 biolabs you mentioned, have you got any news on those?
Because the Russians were doing an investigation into them, last I heard.
Is that true?
The what?
The 48 biolabs.
The Russians have done a lot of investigations. They've published a whole bunch of reports about
that. Victoria Newland was asked by Marco Rubio about this, and she owned up that there were 48
biolabs that came out of her mouth. The Russians probably know a whole lot more than we know.
Remember the general who was in charge of all those investigations, he got assassinated by
the Ukrainians. He was on their Miro Tvorets' kill list, and they did take him out. But they
took him out. There's other people. We're going to know more. We're going to know more with time,
but they definitely were working those biolabs there. I think that those biolabs were involved
with the pandemic, with the corona pandemic. A very interesting thing that happened is the Russians
produced the Sputnik V vaccine. The oligarch who owned some pharmacy in Ukraine,
who got the license from the Russians to produce and distribute this vaccine for
Ukraine, was Viktor Medvedchuk. Viktor Medvedchuk was going to offer the Russian vaccine to Ukraine.
As soon as Joe Biden came to power, I think on the 12th or 13th day of his first term,
only term, he called Zelensky. One of the things that happened almost immediately is they cracked
down on Viktor Medvedchuk and his party and his media companies. Then ultimately they cracked down
on him personally. They arrested him and they confiscated all of his assets, including this
pharmaceutical company. They tore up their license agreement with the Russians and they turned
Ukraine into a monopoly market for the Western vaccine manufacturers.
That's in spite of the fact that the effectiveness of the Russian vaccine wasn't in dispute at all.
This was just plain mafia style dealing with the adversaries.
Thank you Alex. Go ahead Charles. Great series of questions. I know Stephen you could go for
another hour asking questions, but anyway we've got to move on. Good job Alex. I'm really quite
encouraged why the World Economic Forum has not been in the press. We might talk about that later.
We've got lots of hands up so we go to them first. Mark.
Hey Alex, I want to ask you about MH17. I spent three years looking at everything written and
spoken about that crash. I'll just give you one factoid. Several months before MH17,
came down, the Dutch suspended billions in financing of West Bank settlements.
There's so many factoids connecting the Mossad, the CIA, the NATO intelligence agencies to that
crash. Did you look at MH17 in the lead up to the Maidan catastrophe and the war?
I did Marv. Thank you for the question. Well, I looked into that at the time and after looking at
it for a little while, I came to the conclusion that 100% it was a false flag operation by
Western intelligence agencies. Whether it was Mossad or MI6 or the CIA, I can't really say.
They often cooperate. They often work together. But it was intended to frame the Russians.
It was intended to unite the world behind Ukraine against the Russians,
to demonize Russia and particularly Vladimir Putin as harshly as possible.
Russians had nothing to do with it. At that point, I kind of let the story go because I knew that
justice wouldn't be done. The Western investigation wouldn't arrive at anything
other than what they wanted to arrive at. That's the conclusion that Russians were behind
it and that we all need to come together and kill Russia and the world will be a better place.
Another interesting factoid is the Burt exhaust trail for that missile.
The exhaust trail can be seen for about 20 miles and the roar from that engine can be
heard for about five miles. Nobody, not a witness of the Burke missile exhaust trail or the sound of
a Burke missile going up. Not one single witness. There was also a strange controversy with some
Spanish guy who worked for a flight control in Kiev. There was also the fact that
Ukrainian airspace should have been avoided by all the airlines because there was a risk
of an accidental shooting down of a plane. This plane was pretty much tricked into flying across
Ukraine but we never learned how and by whom. This guy who was the flight control
operative, I think he just kind of vanished at some point.
Anyway, there were kind of like with 9-11, there were too many unanswered questions
and a lot of them are very obvious. Then rather than answering those questions,
they just say like, oh, you're a Russian propagandist.
All right. Thanks, Marv. Good reminder of stuff that happens, isn't it? Very interesting. Jerry.
Yeah. Hi Alex. I think it's important to point out that in effect, this was not a war. This is
special military operation and that's why Putin went in. Nobody really knows but he told him about
70,000 troops or something like that. He had no intentions of taking Ukraine. His intentions were
the ones that he specified, which were the de-Nazification, I could never say that word,
the de-militarization, the protection of the Donbass and Lugansk and the fact that
Ukraine would not enter into NATO. I think that should be kept in mind that it was a special
military operation and it was limited. People who don't understand the difference between that and
the war will say that it makes no difference. But to the mind of somebody like Putin, who is
in effect a solicitor and a very, very legal, legally minded person, the difference between
a war and a special military operation is of paramount importance. I think that must be kept
in mind. The other point I'd make would that phone call from Victoria Newland where she specified that
the coup d'etat had cost $5 billion to date and she didn't give a fuck about what the Europeans
thought. They were her words. That again should be kept in mind. My question to you would be,
I would love to hear your potted history, given that you're listed in the Croatian Army. I'd love
to hear your potted history on the Yugoslavia and the breakup, Croatia, Serbia, Herzegovina. I would
love to hear your perspective on that because it's relatively easy to understand what went on
in Ukraine for those of us who bother our hearts to read up on it. But the whole thing of
Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, all that is much more difficult. Of course, it's 30 years old.
It's 30 years old, pretty much. It's harder to understand. I would love you to come back and
give a potted history from a Croatian's point of view on that. Thank you, Jerry. I would love to
do that at some point. At the moment, I'm in the process of reading a book by Carol Hodge. She's a
British journalist and author. The title of the book is Britain and the Balkans, 1991 until the
present. That's the title of the book. That book is hugely revealing. I have to confess that I
participated in the war in the 1990s in Croatian Army. But when you're in the war, you don't
necessarily understand the broader context of the fight that you're in. It's always that metaphor
about somebody putting 100 red ants and 100 black ants into the jar and then shaking it up.
When you're inside of the jar, something shook it up and then the black ants and the red ants
start killing each other. They know everything about the killing of the other side and the war
and everything that happens. But they're not necessarily aware of who shook up the jar. They're
not even aware that they're in a jar. I started realizing this much, much later when the war was
already over. There are still many aspects of it because back then we didn't have social media.
We knew what we knew from the press, from the TV and from the radio, and then other things
how do you call it? From the rumor mill. But the problem with the rumor mill is that
there's no link to source. Somebody tells you, well, this is what happened and you think like,
wow, that's interesting, but I have no idea whether it's true or not.
I'm still piecing that one together. But yeah, for sure it was,
as always, it was the British foreign policy establishment who was shaking the jar.
The Americans usually are dragging their feet behind that and they're only invited into the
process when there's a need to apply blunt force, when you need to bring the carrier strike groups
and start bombing the crap out of somebody. That's when the Americans come in. But all the
intricate secret diplomacy, spy work, intelligence agencies, non-government organizations,
private contractors, hundreds upon hundreds of private contractors that have a role in the
process, that usually happens years in advance and it's practically all directed from London.
It's usually the British council, the foreign office and the MI6 in coordination. Then they
work with the CIA, with the National Endowment for Democracy, similar think tanks, NGOs and so forth.
But that's all happening outside of the jar. For us who got shook up,
it's a project to work out exactly what happened, how and why.
Yeah. My understanding of it, which is flimsy, was that again, it was an effort to destabilize
Russia. In effect, Ukraine is almost a follow on from the efforts in Central Europe to destabilize,
driven on by the same people, the neocons and that.
Yes, exactly. You see now, you have the British agents, British foreign office, British council,
a whole bunch of NGOs. They're extremely active in Bosnia to the point that they're very visible
by now. Everybody realized that Sarajevo is chock full of Brits. If you read reports by Rusi,
Royal United Services Institute, they're saying that Balkans will be the second front in West's
war against Russia. They say that this is inevitable. Getting that war going is
the kind of work that we don't understand exactly, but they do. They have playbooks written about it.
And I think one of the ways that they do it is that they do orchestrate these massacres,
like in Buccia, like in Odessa, like on the Euromaidan. Back in 1993, I think,
we had something similar like Buccia happen in the, it's called Ahmichi in Bosnia. Why? Because
there was an alliance between Croats and Muslims against the Serbs.
And this alliance was starting to become very effective on the military battlefields.
And the Brits were very vexed about this and they wanted to break up that alliance.
So there was this massacre. First, there was a smaller one where some Muslims killed a bunch of
Croats. And then there was a bigger one where a bunch of Croats killed some Muslims in this village
of Ahmichi. And as it turned out, it was all orchestrated by the British Special Services and
MI6. And they had the BBC crews on the spot at the right place at the right time to record
the massacre. I mean, not the massacre actually taking place, but the very immediate aftermath.
And so these things do happen and they're being done on purpose. And I think that
if we're not very careful, we might sleepwalk into another war in the Balkans.
Sorry, can I just ask one last question? What's your advice on wealth preservation?
On what?
Wealth preservation, yeah. A lighter thing of less relevance.
I would say-
Gold miners or-
Jerry, I would say physical gold and silver.
A farmland network with your local community, your people living in your local community,
that's extremely important. And well, basically, whatever purchasing power you can preserve
through the process of this crisis unraveling, you will have a buyer's market for assets
in the aftermath when the crisis is over.
Jerry, I've told you the answer to that question.
I know. I know. You're trying to sell me a machine for-
When we had dinner, Jerry.
Yeah. Anyway, there's no way we could let a manager like Alex Craner away
without asking him some financial questions. That would be remiss. That would be positively
negligent to let him away with that. I follow you, Alex. And I totally agree with you, I think,
on 90% of things, perhaps not on COVID. Well, maybe we agree on COVID. I'm a medical doctor
who was suspended from a refusal.
I know. I know that.
I know that, yes.
So that we have different perspectives, but we end up in the same place, I think, 90% of the time.
Thank you.
Sorry. That's a very good suggestion from Jerry. I think that we would really like,
I would really like you to speak about the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.
But are you saying that you're not ready to do it at the moment?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I think it'll be, you know, my investigation has to come
full circle, which will take me probably a few months.
Okay, let me know when you're ready to do that. Very important.
Sure. Okay.
Because I've never heard anyone talking about that.
Yeah, read Carol's book, maybe. Stephen, do some reading. Me too. Looks good.
Siobhan's put the link into the chat, everybody. Alex, just while Jack is asking me…
But Alex may not agree with it, though, that's the point.
Alex, if you can put your second book, which you've shared with us…
Oh, yeah, Grand Deception.
If you can put the link into that while Jack asks his question, if that's convenient so
that people can download it, then that would be useful for people who haven't yet downloaded it.
Okay, well, let me find it.
Yeah, Jack, thank you, Jerry. Jack, over to you. Here's your question for Alex.
You're muted, Jack.
I don't think he's that…
Okay, we'll go to Anders.
Anders, hello, Alex. Great presentation. I think I would say it looks truthful, all of it.
I know Ukraine from about 40 visits and almost 30 years in Poland, so I know
a lot about what you presented. What I would say and ask you is that it appears to me to be
omitting a lot of details which are less rosy for the Russian side. So,
so you know about Polodymyr, you know about the history of the Tsars who were forbidding the use
of the Ukraine language. So there's a lot of history. There's a story about Novorussia,
which Putin always continued to want to take back, which is basically the eastern part of Russia,
the Ukraine. So I think there is more to the story to it. And I wonder, do you consider
that you have a bias in this or are you omitting it? Or let's say there are also
another side to the story which you don't tell. Well, the title of my presentation was a condensed
timeline. So, you know, going back to the Tsarist period and talking about the Ukrainian language
and whether Vladimir Putin intended to take back eastern parts of Russia and Novorossiya and so
forth. You know, if I was going to make my presentation a 10-hour long one, maybe I could
have included all that, but a lot of that is very, very disputable. What I gave you are
indisputable facts. Ukrainian language is something that isn't really a language. That is,
you know, it's a dialect from a certain region of western Poland that has been raised to the status
of a language during the Soviet Union. Ukraine as a state never really existed before it had
been designated so by Austria-Hungary for their own geopolitical pretensions. British
government archives do not even have a single mention of Ukraine as a state until the late 1800s.
Kiev is never mentioned as a capital of anything. It's only mentioned as a Russian city. We're
talking up until late 1800s. Not a single mention of Ukraine as a state, not a single mention of
Kiev as anything other than a Russian city. So a lot of these questions that you bring up have been
invented and contrived by western interests that has been biased with the desire
to subjugate Russia, to partition it, to balkanize it and to take control of its resources.
That struggle is going on since
1600s at least. It's been Poland, it's been Sweden, it's been Germany, it's been France,
Ukraine, but it's always basically western bankers that are funding these military misadventures.
It's never the Russians who are pushing west to conquer Germany, to conquer France, to conquer
Britain. It's always the westerners who are pushing to destroy Russia. Even the language,
the Russians aren't talking about destroying France and partitioning it or Germany or Sweden
or Britain or the United States or anybody. They want to be left alone, but the west has been
continuously sending armies on Russia since the 1600s at the very least and they never stopped
and they never will stop. If it isn't armies then it's NGOs, it's open society institutes,
it's color revolution schemes and plans. Sometimes they're successful, other times they're not
successful. Then I don't feel that I have to balance my views because the other side you get
in your mainstream media every day 24-7 ad nauseam. You see you need to balance it because you need to
understand the history. He chooses not to understand this, he's just saying. He's extremely biased.
Really?
Really.
Anders, one question. Is anything I said factually wrong? That's what I'm interested in.
If it's factually wrong, I'm happy to be enlightened. I'll check and I'll correct my bias.
But if you're just telling me to balance my views for the sake of having a balanced view,
no thank you.
You omit so many facts that you don't get the story.
You did.
I understand in the presentation titled a condensed timeline of the conflict. Of course I omit many
facts. If I included all the facts about everything this conversation could go on for two years.
But you omit so much.
Anders, you're destroying this group. You're having a good go at destroying this group.
So I'm only interested in the truth.
Nonsense, Anders.
Present your truth. I'm happy to hear it.
He hasn't got any. He's also selective truth. Alex, one question before we go to Dave.
The issue of territory is very interesting. I just pointed out to people that Hungary lost
two thirds of its territory at the Treaty of Versailles after World War I. Totally unlawful,
unjustified. So if people want to hear about complaints about territory, just look at Hungary.
Still 105 years later, there's massive Hungarian minorities all around Hungary.
That's the shit that happens. Then the Czech Republic, or was it Slovakia? I think the Czech
Republic bans the speaking of Hungarian by Hungarian nationals. So all of the stuff that
Alex is talking about are the machinations that happen by various forces for various purposes.
Dave? Charles, I think you should say to Anders that we respect our guests because they've given
their time and energy to this group for no fee whatsoever. So we don't like criticism of the
guests, Anders. You can ask questions, certainly, and people can make up their minds whether the
questions are truthful themselves or whether they're not or whether they're disingenuous.
Look, Stephen, I'll moderate the group. It's appropriate.
Look, I take no offense if I'm... Yeah, but I'm making a point, Charles,
that Mr. Anders is making a point of destabilizing our guests or trying to.
No, no, Stephen, Stephen, that's okay. I can take dispute. I don't mind dispute, but
it has to be factual. If you can point to a fact that I got wrong, I'm grateful for that.
But if you just label me biased, then you need to present the other side, and I'm happy to hear that.
But we haven't got time for that. That's a different conversation.
It's happening all the time, Alex. There's a pattern here. So I'm just calling it out.
I'm sick of it. Questions which are not questions, which are statements most of the time.
So anyway, it's not you, obviously. Okay, Stephen, enough. Dave?
In defense of both, they're talking in different time frames. So Anders is talking about the past,
and Alex is talking about relatively the present. And if I wanted to, I could say I'm pissed off at
the angles for getting into it with the Saxons, and long memories are very destructive. I don't
think the United States has any claim of interest in this war, which is really the source of all
the problems. So I think that you have to blame the United States for this. When I dug into it,
I first noticed that Putin was not very aggressive. People like to call him the aggressor,
but he was not trying to destroy Ukraine. He was not trying to kill Ukrainians. It was a police
action. It was not a war. And that was noticeable. A factual point, I think Newland admitted to being
36 bioweapons labs, 48, which is just a trivial point. And it's 36 too many. So it doesn't matter.
But I thought I'd just, and that could be wrong, but that's the number I have in my head.
And then a military friend of mine, an analyst, not an intel, but an analyst said that he goes
these meetings all the time. He says this war is going to go on for years. And I was shocked. And
he made it seem like they're not going to let this war end. Alex, opinion on that?
Hi, Dave. Look, I think that as far as the British and the French are concerned,
and Germans, so long as they're under merits, and I think some others like the Baltic State,
Poland, and so forth, there are important interests in those countries that are desperate
for the war to go on because they cannot afford to lose it. They've bet the ranch on Project Ukraine.
And if they lose, you know, we have many statements from people like Boris Johnson,
Tadeusz Morawiecki, Mark Milley, a whole bunch of them who are basically saying,
if we lose in Ukraine, it's over for the West. The Golden Age of the West will be over. We will
lose hegemony for generations to come and so forth. And that's really true. And so they-
Well, wait a minute. Is it true that they say that or is it true that it is? I don't see where
it's the- They say it.
It is true that they say it. And what they're saying is true as well.
Oh, really? Okay.
Yes. And, you know, you had a document that was drafted by a group of British, well, you know,
former intelligence and military officials who basically drafted a document at the beginning,
at the very beginning of the Ukraine War. Now it slips my mind what the title of the document was.
But basically what they're saying throughout the documents is that keeping the war going is
absolutely essential. And they explain why, because so long as the Ukrainians keep the Russians busy
fighting in Ukraine, the Western intelligence agencies through their assets can continue to
destabilize Russia, to run terror action, sabotage operations inside Russia. And so long as the war
is going, they have a chance at destabilizing the regime of Vladimir Putin and overthrowing him.
If Russia wins, then that's it. You know, they're not going to be able to do that anymore,
especially if Russia basically turns Ukraine from a Western aligned country to
Russian aligned country back. Because, you know, they need access to Ukrainian ports
because you need to bring stuff into Ukraine because you need to have access to the Ukrainian
government and security forces, their intelligence apparatus, their whatever is left of their
military and their special forces, and the liaisons with Ukrainians who are in Russia.
You know, Ukrainians speak perfect Russian. They're almost indistinguishable from Russians.
There's a million of them inside Russia. If you retain Kiev under your control, you're going to
be able to network with those people and you're going to be able to run assassination operations,
sabotage, terror attacks, drone attacks, bioterror attacks. You're going to be able to run
a version of opium war into Russia, but you need to keep Ukraine within your orbit and you need
access to its ports or at least airports. Without that, it's going to be very, very difficult.
Well, so I would make the argument that their most foundational premise is wrong and that is
that the idea that they need to destabilize Russia and they need to destabilize Putin is wrong. I
think Putin looks like about as good as you're ever going to get as a leader for Russia.
For Russia? But, you know, Boris Yeltsin was a lot better for Western financial interests and
that's the whole point of the game. No, I get that part. They don't want Russians to be well
off and Russia to be stable. They want Russia to be in their hands. They want Russian people to be
their labor force for cheap and they want Russian resources to be accessible to Western corporations
and to form collateral of Western banks. When I say cheap labor force, keep in mind that
when Vladimir Putin came to power in 1999, the average salary in Russia was $56 a month.
That's what the Western financial interests want, which is why...
Yeah, I'm so unsympathetic to that mercantilism that I have trouble with that. I, by the way,
got up to my ass in the scree-ball-poising story years back when the Brits were lying their asses
off about what happened in that story and I ended up getting calls from Al Jazeera and
George Galloway and these guys because they were just lying their asses off.
I'm aware of the story, yes.
And then if you look at pre-February 2022 on any news source, pre-February 2022,
and you look up Azov battalion, they're nothing but evil. So we somehow went from treating these
guys as the Nazis, which by the way, you can make an argument that the Ukrainian Nazis run the right
team in World War II. You can make that argument. And then the second Putin brings in his forces,
all of a sudden the Azov battalion are heroic freedom fighters. But you go to BBC, you go to
CNN, you go pre-February 2022, the Azov's are just nothing but evil guys. And it's just really
fascinating to watch that. You've seen the footage of Graham and McCain trying to rally the Ukrainians
to fight the Russians back in 2015. We look so bad, in my opinion. We look so bad in this story.
I guess I'm expressing frustration because there's too many people rooting for the wrong team here,
in my opinion. Yeah, I think that's true. But I think it's also true that that's
changing now. I think that this was Clinton's, this was Obama, this was Joe Biden, pretty much
a leadership that has been hijacked away from the American people. And I think that
the American people voted Trump into office three times for a reason.
And even if you do- So why is it slow? Why are Trump and Putin slow to get together?
Trump should say, look, here's the deal, I wanted this over now. Putin should say,
okay, here's what you have to do. And Trump should say, fine.
Yeah, there's a lot of entrenched interests and there's a lot of entrenched mindsets
and thinking. And I think that if you move things too quickly in the new direction,
it's kind of like, if you're living in a house of blind, don't rearrange the furniture from
one day to the next. Right. Or it's like pouring hot water in ice cubes, they break.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Something like that. Yeah.
Now, do you sense a thaw in the Gaza debate? This is a tangential, but do you sense a thaw
where now all of a sudden Israel's starting to take a serious beating? Because it seems like
within the last month, Israel's lost the narrative in a big way. Yes.
Do you sense that? Yes, I do. I do. But I think that
Israel is now all about one man and his- I know.
Him staying in power. And I think that Trump has maneuvered the situation where he actually
needs Netanyahu to stay in power because everything he's tried- Trump wants to make a deal with the
Iranians. He's very keen on that. And I think that the fact that he got Netanyahu kind of cornered
makes this possible because Netanyahu now has also bought into, oh, look, my great friend,
Donald Trump and I, we have done this amazing feat of destroying Iran's nuclear, how do you call it,
program. Well, everybody knows that that's not true, but Netanyahu is so desperate that he needs
to present it as a success. So he's swallowed that one hook, line and sinker. And so now,
if somebody new comes in power in Israel, then the whole house of cards crumbles again because
they'll say like, no, no, we didn't destroy the program. We need to go back to war with Iran.
And they're going to drag the United States along with them. I think it's hard to imagine
that Trump or anybody else could say, oh, we're just going to let Israel destroy itself and we'll
not come to their aid when Iran starts to beat them into a bloody pulp. Yeah. Well, I think they're
at risk. Let's move on. Thank you, Dave. Love your views. Jeremy.
Oh, yeah. So I think that's one of the best conversations I've heard in a long time, Alex.
Well, since you asked. Thank you, Jeremy. Thank you. That's very kind. Especially on the recent
history in Austria-Hungary and the ethnic populations and that Ukraine didn't even really
exist as country. What I was interested in is that, you know, it's very difficult for us,
I think, in the West because I think we're living through climactic changes, you know, and
financial, you know, it's like the death of Rome really, what's going on. I'm just wondering whether
a are you seeing large on the financial side? Are you starting to see large financial movements
of capital out of Europe now? Because Europe's got nothing that Russia wants. All it's got is a lot
elderly population with pension, pension arrangements. It can't really meet. It's
got no natural resources. Yes, it's got some scientific abilities and things, but
Europe's in a terrible state now and it's been led there by the EU. It can't live much longer.
I was just wondering what your views are on the survival of the EU and the present structures and
are you seeing capital start to move seriously now out of the EU?
So far as the capital markets go, I don't really see anything much happening. If anything,
you know, since Donald Trump came into office, the dollar has depreciated by
ballpark around 10% against the euro and against the pound. And to my mind, both the euro and the
pound should be collapsing because they have no collateral. They lost the war. They have no
maneuvering space. They completely depend on the United States, not only for their economies,
but also for their defense and for their security. And it's very clear that Trump is
treating the Europeans and the British to a lesser extent, but also the British, with some
kind of a cruel contempt. And a lot of what he does is actually aimed at Europe. It's like at
every turn, he's making their position weaker and weaker and weaker. And why the
European bonds, why the gilts, why the euro and the pound haven't already collapsed is one of
those mysteries. But I think that the movements in capital markets depend not on what you or I
uncover from the day we uncover it, but what the critical mass of market participants
think of the situation. And I think that the critical mass of market participants still manage
pension funds and endowments and large banks, and they read Financial Times and The Economist and
mainstream media. And they probably buy what the mainstream media is telling them. And so
they will not be pulling the trigger until they really get a punch in the face from the
actual events in the markets.
When do you think reality might bite them? Because I see it exactly as you see it. I
don't understand it. But I don't know. Yeah, I'm going to go look at it. I just think the
emperor's got no clothes. It's so, so obvious now. It's just a matter of not if it's just a matter
of when. And that's what I'm getting to is, is there any insight as to when?
Well, you know, the euro and the pound peaked kind of during the summits in Scotland where Trump
summoned Keir Starmer and Ursula von der Leyen and gave them a punch in the face to the both of them.
And that's when the dollar started gaining strength and the guild started going south
a little bit, but nothing much. Well, basically, you know, markets,
markets move very slowly before they gather momentum.
Well, you're the momentum I'm interested in. It's trying to get.
Yeah, it's, you know, basically large scale price events, which is what we're, you know, expecting.
They never happened from one day to the next, almost ever. They usually
span months or even years and they unfold as trends. And so I think it's going to happen
that way in this. You know, for example, you can find online the price chart of the German
Imperial 3% Bund between, let's say, 1880s and 1923 maybe, or 22, whichever. And you see that,
you know, everything that was known at the time about Germany, about the war, about losing World
War I, about the financial disaster and the economic disaster that happened. And this
German Imperial bond just kind of fluctuates. And it only begins to collapse in the early 1920s,
two years after Germany lost the war. You know, even during the war, it kind of
was still there. And then 1922, it just falls off a cliff. And so, you know, that's just the
mystery of the, you know, collective mind of the market that, you know, it doesn't matter what you
know. What matters is what the average participant thinks. And I think that the average participant
is usually very, very deeply
affected by the groupthink. In a cult? Well, exactly. Yeah.
Do you see capital controls coming in at any point?
Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. I think it's only a matter of time. But, you know, let's say the later,
the better for, yeah, I think it's coming. How do you circumvent that? Is that a case
of running before it happens? Or do you think places like Monte Carlo and some of the offshore
jurisdictions or? I think that one way that you'll be able to circumvent this is by
already having accounts in the United States or, you know, before the capital controls happened.
I think that one of the ways that you might be able to circumvent it is by using Bitcoin.
And then I don't know what other ways there are, but, you know, at any rate,
these things are going to be temporary. They're going to be allowing exemptions because capital
will have to move. At this stage, at this point in time, I'd even be interested in having
some money in Russian bank accounts somewhere, if possible.
Very good. I like that. Thanks, Jeremy. That's a good comment. It's about time we had another
conversation. Oh, it was a terrific question from Jeremy. Even I'm talking. Yeah. Jeremy,
having a conversation that people ask the question, should I sell my house? I can get
$3 million for it in Australia. The question that you raise is what do I do with my $3 million?
You know, what do you do with it? And Stephen, we haven't had a conversation
on that for quite some time in this geopolitical regime. So let's put it just right on the agenda.
We'll find somebody to discuss that. All right, let's keep moving because we've got hands up.
Tessa, at last, we've got another Russian joining us in a moment. Well, Charles, maybe we should get
a conversation between Jeremy, who's very interested in markets, and Alex, who is his
potential master in the future, it sounds like. Well, we get Jerry Brady or Alex, or we'll have
a debate because I'm plotting a debate. Oh, yeah, we can get Jerry as well. Yeah. We could plot a
debate, Stephen, on another occasion on can you have a pandemic? But we've got to organize that.
Anyway, Glenn, then Tessa. Glenn is muted. Yeah, he's a broadcaster. There he is.
Thanks. Hi, Alex. Hi, Glenn.
You do a very nice job of taking it from kind of the simple, what somebody might say is a simple
battle between Ukraine and Russia, and that it's much more complex and needs to be viewed as a
Europe, US, NATO versus Russia, and then a variety of complexities, including that this
didn't all start in the last five years. It goes back quite a bit longer. I'm going to put forward,
since you are open to this kind of thinking process, perhaps this is in fact, far, far bigger
and broader based than the expansion you've already done. And for that, I would state that the
prospect of this actually being a war that goes back to pre-World War II, and that it's an alliance
of eugenics, Nazi, Islamic globalists with strong connection to the global bankers and the US deep
state. And that opposing that is a Judeo-Christian peace patriot alliance that has the backing of the
US Constitution, and this oddball, Donald Trump, that has thrown a wrench into the attack mode of
the alliance that I described, the eugenics, Nazi, Islamic globalist alliance. And that
because of a variety of cross currents, it failed in World War II, but it didn't disappear. In fact,
Hitler lived through that and moved to Argentina, and they just went into another round of long-range
planning that has now come to this concentrated effort of which a centerpiece of it was a takedown
of the United States. And that the Ukraine war was just a one step in that direction because
it allowed a mountain of money to flow out of the coffers of the US public and to empty out our
arsenal. I mean, the rate of depletion of the US arsenal of lots of smart armaments was five to
ten times faster than we're able to replenish it. So, how do you think of, you know, what's your
thoughts on whether it is potentially that much bigger and broader? No, it is certainly very big
and very broad. And I think that actually, you know, the central battlefield in this war is
ultimately spiritual, well, first psychological and then spiritual. So, it's, and maybe the most
important battlefield geographically is the United States because this Western banking oligarchy
that is not only relate, you mentioned, closely connected to this war, they are the origin of
this wars. It's coming from them. They're the instigators. With the United States on board,
they are a force to reckon with. Without the United States, they're nothing but four eyes
without a head. You know, you have Britain with the flimsy hold on Canada, Australia, and New
Zealand, and then some bilateral cooperation agreements with, you know, countries that could
be easy to turn away like Qatar, Turkey, Poland, Sweden, Denmark. You know, all these countries have
military cooperation agreements with Britain. There's more than a dozen of them. I found 15.
You know, like if you go into a search engine and you put military cooperation agreement between
Britain and, and then you'll get a whole bunch of countries. But this is all, you know, British
initiated self-serving. Nobody gets any benefit from having a military cooperation agreement with
Britain. It's never been the case. It usually means that that country has been designated for their,
you know, let's you and him fight kind of outcome. And people are realizing that they have military
cooperation agreement with Bosnia and Herzegovina. And that's, you know, that's the, what we were
talking about starting the second front in the Balkans. And so, you know, if the United States
is on board with them, then maybe theoretically they are able to create their one world order.
Without the United States, they don't have a, they don't stand a chance. And so right now, you know,
whether you're like Trump or not, he's not on board with this and they are, they're in a
frenzied panic. And I think that the, this summit that's being organized in Alaska on 15th of August
is, could be a very, very important turning point. And you see that already the Europeans are throwing
a tantrum. They want to participate. The Brits want to be invited to the summit. They think
Ukrainians have to be present in the summit. They want to do whatever they can to make sure that the
peace doesn't break out. If the peace is concluded, it's that war that they lost and that they cannot
recover from. And everything else is, you know, the Middle East, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Iran,
Cambodia, Thailand, India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea, all of these flash points that they
have in store to continue to destabilize the Eurasian continent are small, too small for them
to reverse the defeat in Ukraine. And so the battle is for the United States. The United States is
with multipolar integrations with the rest of the world. If it makes nice with Russia, China, India,
South Africa, Brazil, and so forth, then we might see 500 years of peace. If they continue controlling
the United States as they have done since at least World War II, since they killed FDR, then we might
be looking at another 500 years of war as we, you know, already had 500 years of war. And so I think
that's the, you know, it's, that's the ultimate,
how do you call it, juncture that we're at.
From a spiritual viewpoint, the turn of the head of Trump with a bullet missed him made then the
biggest turn of the earth. It was very interesting, wasn't it? History until now. Yes.
Thank you.
Okay, thanks, Glenn. Okay, Tessa, our favorite Russian.
Tessa, I haven't seen Tessa so long that I, she has a new hairdo and I haven't seen it.
Thank you.
This is the first time I see it.
Yeah, I mean, I saw your name, I had to join and I love everybody here, but I just had to join.
Yeah, well, first of all, thank you for all the love for, you know, my birth homeland. And of course,
I'm a contrarian and I think with each individual, I would find some things I strongly agree with,
some things I strongly disagree with. And I remember, Alex, remember when I interviewed you
and we will push back the entire interview with so much love. It was so much fun. So I think there's
no need. I mean, that's just my feedback for the entire, for the entire situation. There's no need
to go to each other's throats, even if we completely disagree. As a Russian now,
I think that two things can be simultaneously true. The West is being a bit of an asshole towards
Russia. And Russia is not great towards Ukraine either. I mean, like, poor Ukraine, to be honest,
coming from a Russian, just poor people of Ukraine, because politicians tend to be in their own camp.
And all of us peasants on the ground at the end of the day tend to be in our own camp. And there's
all this geopolitics and it's all true. And I think it's true that Putin is fighting for his
individual life and power and whatnot. As a Russian now, I cannot say his domestic policies are awesome.
And Alex and I, I mean, we were arguing about that lovingly during our interview, and I'm not pushing
back or whatever. I love your work, you know that. So I think taking it back to the spiritual battle,
which I solemnly agree that this is the center of everything, because at the end of the day,
we don't really influence what Trump does or what Putin does or what any of those guys, and we can
dream and pray and talk, but they do what they want to do. But we can, and this is how I see my
own spiritual battle. We can see brothers and sisters in other people across the board, whether
they're Christian, Muslim, sorry to say, Buddhist, Hinduist, whatever they are, regular people usually
want to be happy and mind their business and get married and have kids and work. So I think that
is the central spiritual battle as far as I see it. Of course, that's my subjective opinion. We'll
choose ours, but it's not for my religion, for this religion, for this flag, for that flag,
for that flag, because usually people at the very top have ways to mess with our heads
and make us think that they and us are in the same camp and we just aren't. Never, never. And for
centuries, you know, they fight for land, for territory, for spiritual influence, for whatever,
and then regular people's heads keep falling. And I think that the moment when we see brothers and
sisters in the people who are sincere, who have completely different ideas, maybe different
religion, different politics, different whatever, different skin color, but they also want to be
happy and be left alone just like us. I think it's time to admit that nobody wants to fight.
Those people upstairs are the ones who want to use us to fight for them. That's my, that's my
throne speech. Thank you. I'll have my plane here and thank you again. Thank you. Thank you, Tessa.
I really appreciate that. But I think that, you know, I think that people are already hardwired
to like each other, you know, and you're only, you only, you only react with in an aggressive way if
you feel threatened. And so the, you know, part of the spiritual battle is to overcome fear or to not
allow fear to guide our decisions. And then a different aspect to the spiritual battle is that
you can't really serve God and serve money at the same time. And I think that, you know, maybe it
will be complicated now to bring this to the discussion between Russia and Ukraine and the,
the, the future order of the world, but it's easy to see in the, in the COVID pandemic, you know,
suppose you're a doctor and you can make a lot of money by going along and, and vaccinating as many
people as you can, but you have to understand that you're doing the wrong thing. And then,
you know, the, your, your spiritual battle is, are you going to serve truth or are you going to serve
money? And so that, that choice is clear when it's between an experimental poison and doing the right
thing in, in global geopolitics, it's less clear, but it's nevertheless there. And I think we're
still, it's still incumbent on us to try to understand what's going on and to follow the
truth wherever it leads. You know, and, and, you know, as, as what's his name, Reverend Thomas R
said, even if a thousand old, old beliefs were ruined in our march to truth, we must still march
on. And so, you know, whatever, whatever we start off with, we have to kind of be prepared
to accept truth for what it is, not for what it, what we wish it to be. And then to also understand
our role in this, in this whole drama. And, and again, you know, either you serve the truth,
you serve God, or you serve money and your own self-interest. I think that's the, at the,
at the micro level, that's the spiritual battle. I am in agreement. Thank you for saying that. I
think, well, each of us has our own perspective. And honestly, I believe that we are God's eyes. So
God needs multiple perspectives and he sees the world from through each of our eyes. And
it's a, you know, for another time conversation, but, well, first of all, I'll reach out to you.
I want to interview you again now after this. It's been absolutely with pleasure. Tessa always.
And thank you everybody. I'm really enjoying this conversation, despite the fact that there's
a bit of a difference in opinions. I think it's important to hear everybody. And I am delighted
personally. I don't know. How about anybody else? I'm grateful and delighted. So thank you.
Thank you, Tessa. Thanks. Thank you, Tessa. Good to see you. Okay. So we're going to be tight for
time now because we've only got 25 minutes to a Tom, then Jeremy, then Lou, and then we'll go back
to Stephen for closing questions, Tom, or maybe even me before that. Okay. Yeah. Thanks so much,
Alex. I, I tried to come up with lists of names of experts that, uh, for, you know, the Ukraine and
so forth. And so I, I in the chat, I'll put the link in here and, uh, oh yeah, of course,
now I'm having trouble. Okay. I've almost got it. Basically, um, this link that I'm putting in here,
you can go in there and change things. Uh, I put a big yard sign in front of my house with these
names and I got a little bit of attention. Um, but then, so if you could click on that while I ask a
couple more questions, um, what, what about the Russian assets? Um, what is it? 300 billion held
by Europe. Um, also what about, isn't BlackRock heavily invested in the Ukraine? Um, and so what's
going to happen and as, as Russia keeps, uh, they're gaining ground, I follow the Duran and it's very
clear they're gaining ground, uh, very consistently. And what about the idea that maybe they'll have to
retreat and move the capital, uh, from, uh, Kiev to somewhere else? I mean, that would be a way of
extending the conflict. So a few things there. Thank you. Uh, it's very hard to say. I think that,
that, uh, BlackRock has a good, it has a good chance of collapsing altogether because they're,
you know, they're not a bank, they're an asset manager. They cannot create credit. Uh, they,
they just invest funds of their, of their, uh, how do you call them, of their investors. Uh,
they're part of what's called a shadow banking group, uh, shadow banking industry. Um,
the majority shareholder of, um, of BlackRock through various fronts, but you know, like if you,
if you drill, if you drill down behind all of them, uh, the controlling shareholder is Bank
of America. So I think that Bank of America is in, in real trouble. Uh, moving capital is sometimes
possible if you think it's just money. You know, you, um, you transfer money from Ukraine to
somewhere else and, uh, you're done, you're out of there. But you know, if you own Ukrainian bonds
and, uh, I don't know what they're trading at now, but you know, if you're, if you're,
if your Ukrainian bonds went from, I don't know, a hundred cents on the dollars to, to 50 cents on
the dollar, that, that, you know, you can transfer them wherever you like, you still have 50 cents on
the dollar. What happens then is that usually these big investors turn to the central banks
and they try to use these bonds as collateral in repo, uh, operations. And then the central
banks will generally tell them, okay, we'll accept your Ukraine bonds, uh, dollar for dollar in our
repo operations and, uh, you'll get all the liquid, all the liquidity that you need. And so the,
the bad part of the debt will just be swallowed by the central bank. This is what the bank of
England has done, uh, last summer about almost exactly a year ago and 20, I think it was 22
July, they, they announced a repo operation. Well, repo operation existed repo market, but
the fact that bank of England became a participant and that they announced that they will basically
accept any kind of toxic sludge. And why would they do that? I guess that's what we did with our
quantity of, uh, easing, right? But so they just swallow it up. They have bad bonds.
Well, they, they have to provide liquidity because otherwise the whole system of, of,
of payments could grind to a halt. If, you know, if let's say if, if, if bank of America has
a large amount of Ukraine debt, which is, which is also collateral, and now it's,
they took a 50% haircut on that. Uh, they might not be able to, uh, to get out of that. It's,
it's, it's, it's on their books. It's, it's, it's a non-performing loan
and the bank could ultimately collapse. So, you know, to,
normally banks, even in ordinary, uh, circumstances, they, they take recourse to repo markets to
balance their books because at the end of every day, they have to balance their books.
If they're short on cash, they can borrow the amount of cash they're short in the repo market.
And then they, they renew that every night. They, they continually renew.
I just realized we were on the medical professionals, uh,
forum. So repo market is repurchase agreements market. So basically repurchase agreement means
that, uh, I sell you, um, I sell you my assets, uh, for cash. Uh, those assets are collateral.
And then I, I, I agreed to buy them back the next day at a slightly higher price,
which reflects the interest on, on, on what's effectively alone. So that market functions
for decades. And that's how Mark, that's how banks keep themselves liquid. Now, if you,
if your collateral is viewed as, as, as toxic sludge, if other banks think that
you might not have the money to pay to buy back this, this, this collateral from me the next day,
they might decline. They might completely decline to, uh, to do a repurchase agreement with,
with you. Okay. And then you can no longer balance your books and then you could hear,
you could get a bank run, you know, then people are going to say like, oh my God,
this bank is on the verge of collapse. Get your money out while you're in time.
And, uh, the bank collapses and usually the way banks are all interlinked in the West, uh,
almost every large bank has exposure to other large banks. So if one collapses,
usually it drags a whole bunch of them along with them, which is what we had with
Lehman Brothers, uh, in, in 2008. And so at that point, the only way you can, you can,
even when one of the banks is, is actually bust, the only way you can keep getting liquidities from
the, it's from the central bank, which will say, okay, whatever you have, doesn't matter how
worthless it is, we'll give you dollar for dollar and you're going to be able to balance your book.
And the system continues in operation, even though its foundations are completely rotten and hollow
and there's just going more and more rotten and hollow. And so as long as the central bank stays
on board, they're going to continue injecting more and more and more liquidity into the system.
The system will, uh, roll along without anything going wrong, but because they're printing the
liquidity out of thin air, eventually is going to cause inflation and eventually you're going to
destroy, you're going to preserve the banking industry, but you're going to destroy the currency.
Right. Which means that effectively, rather than letting your institutions fail,
you will through inflation, rob everybody in this economic system to preserve your system and your
institutions. Right. So rather than letting bank of America fail, you're just going to rob everybody,
uh, you know, of their, of their savings, of their, of their pensions. And you're by, by,
by taking the root of inflation, you're going to give yourself maneuvering space.
I, yeah, I don't even know if I answered your, your, your question, but that's it.
That's great. And, uh, I think you can move on. I would, the other one was about moving the capital.
We've got to go. We got to thank you so much.
Thank you for those who want to continue the discussion. Join, join Tom's video telegram
meeting after this meeting, Jeremy quickly then Lou, then Steven. Yeah, just a quick one. God,
you touched on so many Alex, just a quick one. I was, I was wondering Europe seems to be sort of
dead set on committing suicide. It seems to me, especially with the mass immigration we've come
on. I was wondering who is it that benefits from this district, you know, mass immigration and
the, what seems to be the destruction of Europe? Who, who, who is it who's interested in it is if
Europe goes down the pan because I can't, I can only see conflict in the future. I can only,
there's nothing, there's nothing good going on in Europe. Now Germany's contracting when Germany's
25% of the EU, when that starts to really go down the plug, it's probably why they want war.
Who benefits from Europe falling apart? It's the owner class. It's the owner class. It's the,
it's the money lending oligarchy that's actually in charge of our systems and they benefit in many
ways. You know, you know, they have a social contract with their population where you're
supposed to provide, you know, a certain degree of security, certain standard of living,
a healthcare pension, education, things like that. And, you know, all of these are costs,
right? They have to be paid from the public purse and they want to, to direct
as much from the public purse to their own, to their own financial institutions that they don't
want to honor the social contract any longer. And so by, by allowing these, these tens of millions
of illegal immigrants, they have a spare labor force and they can say like, Hey, you don't want
to, you won't work at these conditions where there's, there's all these, these people who are
willing to take your job. So good luck. And then, you know, you also get a benefit because at a
certain point you want to, you want to bring an authoritarian system of government, which people
are going to reject unless they're scared out of their, out of their minds. So what you do is you
use these illegal immigrants and, you know, the thuggish, thuggish segment among them to orchestrate
some terror attacks. And you say like, Oh, look, these evil Muslims are killing people. And so we
have to tighten controls. We have to, we have to, we have to bring a digital ID because, you know,
we need to control all these people. And so, you know, you use them as a, as a scarecrow to,
you know, kind of corral all the people to, you know, to seek protection, defense from the
government and to go along with every kind of, every kind of a measure that they, that they force
upon you, you know, 15 minute cities, digital ID, CBDCs, whatever they say is the solution.
If people are scared and disoriented and they don't know where, what, what the real source of
danger is, then they'll say like, yes, yes, please do, do whatever you need to do. Just, I want to
feel safe when I go out on the street. I don't want to think that my daughter might get raped on
her way from school and things like that. So, you know, there's, this has been going on for many,
many centuries. You know, the Roman Empire already perfected this to a T practically because they
would go rampage some country, plunder and pillage it, kill everybody. And then they would
recolonize it with people from the, the Italian, from the peninsula. And then they would bring
whoever is left alive from the place where they, which they sacked. And they brought them back
as slaves to work on these very large agricultural farms that were owned by the, by the oligarchs.
They didn't want to deal with the, with the local indigenous population. So they,
you know, they sent them off into, into the colonies and brought back slaves.
This is- All right, Jeremy, we're going to move on.
Lou and then Steven.
By the way, Jeremy, that was a quick question. It had a, again, a 10 hour answer.
It needed a 10 hour answer.
Thank you for calling on me. Two things. Theologically, God is love. Period. That's
one John for a John was the last apostle. He was, he was banished to the Island of Patmos.
And he did the Johanna in a gospels, which using gnosis knowledge says that God is,
God is not a being. God is love. And so that takes the, it's metaphorical. It's not literal.
People need to get over the literalism. They see the surface and they take it for reality. Like
that old metaphor of the guys, scientists touching the elephant in various places,
saying it's this or that when they don't see the big picture. Secondly, cognitively, behaviorally,
I give you Abraham Maslow's giving us bequeathing us the hierarchy of needs.
When our physiological needs for food, clothing, and shelter are met, then we are ready to address
our psychological need to feel safe and secure. And I think our females over the, over the eons
have had to emphasize psychological security more so than the, we risk takers, we males,
the hunter gatherers, only when those lower order needs are met, can we address
our higher order needs. The first is belonging with social. Last thing, last thing, self actualizing.
Thank you. I'm done. No, I thought it was a question. Self-actualized. No, well, it's not
a question because I'm just, that's a comment. So self-actualize on bro. Yeah, that's, that is,
there's a helpful comment on those seven layers of Maslow's hierarchy. I teach them. They're four,
they're not seven. That's confusing. It gets too confusing. Keep it simple, Simon. Keep it simple,
Simon. Well, there's, there's, I would, human beings are not simple. But thank you, Lou. And
that's a great conversation in itself. So before we go to Stephen, Alex, the one comment I'd love
from you is why such stunning silence from the world economic forum at the present?
Well, I think that they've been seen through, you know, I think that they've
burnt their credibility with the COVID pandemic. Once, once a critical mass of people realize,
realized that they're being lied to, then everything else is taken as a lie. You know,
the climate change thing, the, you know, them pushing artificial meat and, and crickets and,
you know, the insect fodder and the need for population control and dimming the sun and all
of these cockamamie projects that these people are pushing, I think it's gotten extremely,
extremely unpopular. And I think that by this time, even participating in world economic forum is
becoming a source of embarrassment. So I think that many of the people who were very pleased to
be part of the cool club and to pretend that they're very important by being there, I think are now
embarrassed and they wish to remain silent and not call attention to themselves.
Thank you. Thank you. That's helpful. All right, Stephen, last set of questions and then we'll let
you go, Alex. So that was a great answer in a series of great answers, Alex. Thank you. Thank
you for coming to speak to us. And you mentioned the British Council, the Foreign Office and MI6
in the UK. How is it that everything seems to emanate from them? Who gives them that kind of
influence, shall we say, or power? Or do they give it themselves? But how do people agree to it,
including the United States of America? So they're hanging on the coat tails. I don't understand how
the British Council, the Foreign Office and MI6 essentially determine the agenda for the whole
world. Still, it's very difficult to understand, in fact, but I think that London still has
very, very significant influence in financial markets. I think that up until
just a few years ago, London was determining the interest rate on US dollars. It was LIBOR.
Everybody was using LIBOR, London Interbank Offer Rate, as their benchmark, which in ways that I
only vaguely understand is extremely, extremely important. You can destabilize governments by
raising interest rates or lowering them by destabilizing their economies and making certain
candidates then unpopular versus others. And then I think under Jerome Powell at the Fed,
the United States wrested back that function from London through SOFRs, secured overnight funding
rates. That's very obscure, but that's a very real thing. Then Britain has perfected for well
over 200 years, working secret diplomacy, working intelligence agencies and networks,
non-governmental institutions. Again, they'll deploy hundreds of them in areas of their interest
and also private contractors. They will come to a country, they'll start
learning the pressure nodes in the society, who is important, who's not important.
They'll bribe people that they need to bribe. They come in with very, very friendly overtures.
They use promises to good effect. They will just promise you whatever they think will
animate you to do their bidding, even if they have no intention of fulfilling their promises
whatsoever. They get into the media. They take charge of forming public opinion,
and they'll get into education. I don't know why and how, but they're very, very keen to get into
education. They always talk about helping education. Six months ago at Davos, no, more than six months
ago, this was in January, Tony Blair, who is now probably the most important person in the British
equestrian class, the managerial class, not oligarchy, but people who coordinate policy,
he interviewed Assad al-Sharah, who used to be one of the founders of the al-Qaeda in Syria,
but is now Syria's foreign minister. He interviewed him in Davos. If you have a strong stomach,
I would recommend viewing that interview. Al-Sharah used to be an al-Qaeda terrorist. He came to Davos
in a nice suit, speaking decent English, answering all the questions that Tony Blair asked him in
exactly the right way. You thought he was a guy fighting for democracy and human rights and
women's rights and all of these really, really wonderful things. Then they turn around and then
go slaughter Alawites and Christians by the thousands in Syria, these same people.
And as it turns out, Tony Blair's former chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, was actually in charge of
rebranding these al-Qaeda people, putting them in elegant suits, briefing them on,
coaching them on how to answer questions, how to present themselves. This wasn't done as part of
the British government. Jonathan Powell went off and set up his own private consulting company.
That consulting company did the work. If things got discovered, the government would say,
well, we have nothing to do with this. This is a private business. This has nothing to do with us.
But now we know that they work closely with the Foreign Office, with the British Council,
and with the MI6. Same story, exactly the same story, Christopher Steele and his orbit consulting
group, which cooked up the whole Russiagate. What we learn, we learn by catching the sight of the
tip of the iceberg. What we don't know is what's below the surface. But we do know
that it's extremely extensive. This work through non-government organizations
and private contractors is particularly effective because you might find some law firm
disentangled it with respect to Obama Foundation. There were something like 46 contractors involved.
The scheme of them is just like the most insane page that's practically black with all the lines
connecting one node to the other. Even if you catch somebody, you caught one entity.
Proving how they connect to everybody is extremely difficult. Sometimes when you go to Bosnia or
Syria or Yemen or Myanmar, you'll find literally hundreds of these contractors and NGOs working
together towards a certain goal. Now the question is how is this funded? Well, I don't know. But
the British Foreign Office and MI6 obviously have enough funding. I think that the private
interests behind British government must have huge funds available to them in the offshore centers.
So somehow it is funded because obviously it works and they obviously have influence.
Their ability to sign very recently a military cooperation agreement with Kazakhstan in the
freaking middle of the Eurasian continent, with Bosnia in the middle of the Balkans,
with Lebanon, with Greece, with Turkey, with all these countries. Obviously they have means and
ways to induce public officials to sign off on these different agreements. How they pull it off,
I don't know, but they are pulling it off. Alex, so why is it that the US even now
is seemingly so slow to learn from these techniques? Because it seems to me that
they don't use diplomacy that much in America. And actually you could say the same about
Russia. You mentioned that Russia has very few NGOs that you know about anyway. And so why is it that
these techniques which keep UK important in the world despite its loss of power, you know, naked
power, why don't other like US, which is very ambitious for itself, and Russia they don't seem
to learn anything from it. But China does, for example, they take over Africa as I understand it.
Well, I don't know exactly. The United States does use them. United States funds hundreds of NGOs
around the world. But this is all connected to the neocons general. It'll be funded by the USAID,
National Endowment for Democracy and so forth, Open Society Institute by George Soros.
I hesitate to say this, but this is my impression, you know, that there is a cultural dimension to
all this. Because all these organizations ultimately serve the purpose of deceiving,
misguiding, manipulating the target countries, target governments, seducing them into doing your
own bidding. And so you're spreading a network of influencers with a nefarious goal, with a goal
that you couldn't come out in the open and say, hey, well, this is what we want to do. You know,
we want to establish our hegemony in a resource, this or that resource rich area because we want to
exploit those resources. So you're trying to do this. And so you're trying to do this. And so
there's a network of influencers that are trying to come out in the open and say, hey,
well, this is what we want to do. We want to establish this or that resource rich area because
we want to exploit those resources. So you bring these NGOs to talk about rights, education,
gay rights, freedom and democracy. We're going to help you with education. We're going to ensure
you know, this works to the extent that this is credible because you know, the officials who sign
on to this and who take the bribes, they have to be able to defend it. They have to be able to say,
well, well, look, it's all these progressive, sophisticated people from London who are,
you know, you can't blame us for signing on. You know, it'd be like buying IBM. You know,
you can buy a complete turd and pay a million dollars for it, but nobody will sack you because
you bought a turd from IBM because you would say like, well, it's IBM, who, you know, who could
have thought? And so I think that there's this cultural element to it that it's actually,
the whole setup served deceptive purposes. And you know, neither Russia nor China have ever gone
around the world colonizing other parts of the world. So I think that there, maybe there isn't
an interest in trying to do that. That's my impression. I don't know if I'm right in what
I just said, but that's what I gather from, you know, just basically observing.
So they haven't got a history of doing it and being successful.
Well, they don't have a history of trying it.
Exactly. So that's a very interesting, isn't it? Yeah. So I don't understand if they're so clever,
these people in London, I don't see, by the way, you mentioned sophisticated people from UK or
London. I don't see much sophistication in the UK at the moment. Well, yes, because it's becoming,
you know, the game is becoming unmasked. But I do remember the war in 1990s in the Balkans.
And we had, you know, Lord Carrington prancing around here and Lord David Owen and Cyrus Vance.
Nobody like that now, though. Sorry?
There's nobody like that now that I see anyway. Not that I admire them, but...
No, but they, you know, they came across as these, you know, very sophisticated people who treated us
like, basically like savages, you know, who couldn't get along, who were
violent and superstitious and primitive. And they were telling us how to, you know,
how to negotiate, how to draft peace treaties, how to resolve our differences peacefully at the
very exact same time as they were secretly dealing with each side, inciting them against the others.
You know, so there was like a public perception which they projected deliberately. And then there
was the secret side of their diplomacy, which, you know, we know about it today,
but we didn't know about it back then. So Alex, if they're so clever also,
why did they take such a beating? Starmer took it for them. Why did they take such a beating
from Trump in Scotland? Well, yeah, that's the thing, you know, the whole game is very hollow,
you know, if you, you know, it's like those shepherd dogs and the flocks of sheep,
you know, everything works magnificently if the sheep just obey the shepherd dogs.
But, you know, if you get sheep who say like, hey, you know, there's a lot of them and there's just
this one dog, if we start running everybody in their own direction, the dog's going to get lost,
they're not going to be able to control us. And so thankfully, we're not really sheep. And
I think that people have started understanding the playbook. So I think the final point, so Jeremy
brought up a very good point, in my opinion. So he was asking how the dollar is still losing to the
UK and to the EU. And I think you said that the markets take some time to adjust to things which
are obvious to most people. So I began to think, well, are the markets honest then? Are they
manipulated? And if they are manipulated, by whom? They're definitely manipulated. There's no doubt
about that. But I think that with markets is the same as with the sheep and the shepherd dogs.
I think that when the, you know, they can manipulate markets in a variety of ways.
But you know, the people who manipulate the markets are a very, very small segment of the
marketplace. If a stampede goes in the opposite direction, they can no longer control it.
So how is it that...
I want to watch your last question.
I just want this last question. This is very important. So it seems to me that Trump is beating
these people, sophisticated people in London, and they don't know how to handle him. But still,
the dollar is losing against the UK, sorry, the pound and the euro. And it's just incomprehensible
to me. I agree with you.
You answered your own question, Steve.
I want to ask Alex. So, Charles, now...
Well, in the last month, you know, the dollar has been regaining strength, but
it'll take time for us to know these things. There's no even point trying to explain it
because it might not play out, you know, in the markets the way we think.
Yeah, so maybe the markets are heavily manipulated.
Heavily, correct. All right.
Until the stampede goes the other way.
The people will win.
Until the cult ends.
All right. Thank you, Alex.
But then it's replaced by another cult.
It's quarter to midnight for you. Good job. Go to Tom Rodman. Thanks, everyone. Thanks, Stephen.
And we'll see you on Tuesday night, Wednesday morning, wherever you are on the planet.
Keep learning, everybody. And as the Chinese said eons ago, to be uncertain can be uncomfortable.
However, to be certain is ridiculous. So let go of your feelings of certainty.
Thanks, everyone. Bye.
Thank you.
Thank you, all.
Fantastic answers, Alex. Wonderful answers from you.
Thank you. Thank you, Stephen. I appreciate that. That's kind.
Thanks, everyone. Bye.
Thanks, Charles.
Thanks, Stephen.