War Pigs. Alex Kriel talks to James about the rich and powerful organisations - the think tanks, their mouthpieces and their billionaire funders - who are pushing inexorably to war with Russia whether we like it or not.https://thinkingcoalition.org
↓ ↓ ↓Monetary Metals is providing a true alternative to saving and earning in dollars by making it possible to save AND EARN in gold and silver.Monetary Metals has been paying interest on gold and silver for over 8 years.Right now, accredited investors can earn 12% annual interest on silver, paid in silver in their latest silver bond offering. For example, if you have 1,000 ounces of silver in the deal, you receive 120 ounces of silver interest paid to your account in the first year.Go to the link in the description or head to https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/ to learn more about how to participate and start earning a return on honest money again with Monetary Metals.↓ ↓ How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children’s future.
In Watermelons, an updated edition of his ground-breaking 2011 book, JD tells the shocking true story of how a handful of political activists, green campaigners, voodoo scientists and psychopathic billionaires teamed up to invent a fake crisis called ‘global warming’.This updated edition includes two new chapters which, like a geo-engineered flood, pour cold water on some of the original’s sunny optimism and provide new insights into the diabolical nature of the climate alarmists’ sinister master plan.Purchase Watermelons by James Delingpole here: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/↓ ↓ ↓
Buy James a Coffee at:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole
The official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk
x
I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest.
But before we meet him, let's have a word from one of our sponsors.
Gold and silver, they've been going like rockets recently, especially gold.
I think silver will follow.
But I'm no expert.
What do I know?
I just know that I've got some gold and I've got some silver and I'm very happy to have some.
There are two ways of owning it.
Either you can buy physical gold in the form of gold and silver bullion or in the form of coins, or you can take the monetary metals option.
Monetary metals is a company.
I've had the CEO Keith Weiner on the podcast twice to explain how it all works.
It's a way of owning physical gold and silver, but you get paid interest on your holding.
Now, this is different.
When you hold gold in a vault, you have to pay a fee, a management fee.
But if you buy gold and silver through monetary metals, you get paid interest.
So you don't have to pay storage charges.
You're actually earning income on your gold, which is paid in the form of more gold and silver.
It sounds like it doesn't make any sense, but actually it works because the jewelry industry pays money to monetary metals, which enables it to pay you interest on your gold.
It does work.
So if you want to buy gold and silver through monetary metals, you go to monetary metals, monetary-metals.com forward slash dellingpole.
You can find out more about it.
Monetary-metals.com forward slash delingpole.
You can earn up to 4% in their leasing program immediately after funding your account.
You can even earn higher yields if you are an accredited investor via their bond offerings.
They let you earn income on their ounces paid in more ounces of physical gold.
The interest you earn is paid in ounces of physical gold or silver, which you get in addition to any prices at appreciation from gold and silver during the year.
Join thousands of investors earning interest in physical gold and silver every month with monetary metals.
Visit monetary-metals.com forward slash dellingpole to earn more.
Alex Creel of Thinking Slow, welcome back to the Dellingpod.
We're going to talk mainly about, well, after I've told you about what I'm going to do after this podcast, I'll tell you that in a moment.
But I think we're going to talk mainly about something which has been troubling me for quite some time, which is the war pigs.
Do we call them war pigs?
All those media pundits who you see in the Telegraph virtually every day, for example.
And all these talking heads and all these very people on social media who are relentlessly pushing war, the current war.
But before we do that, can I tell you what I'm doing this afternoon after this podcast?
I'm going to pluck a duck.
Don't say shot.
I shot a duck at the weekend, and he was very, very beautiful.
He was a mallard, a Mallard Drake, and he had beautiful.
I mean, nicer than you see on your local lit.
This was the nicest mallard I've ever seen or shot, certainly.
I had a bluey, bluey green head, and he looked great.
And I thought you can't just do the cheat and just cut the breast out and eat the breast.
You've got to honor the duck and pluck him.
But it's going to be quite a job.
So I'm just stealing myself.
Yeah, I thought you were going to say I'm going to buy sort of 10 years' worth of underground supplies or something.
No, I keep thinking about that.
I do.
I keep thinking about like getting a generator.
Yeah, getting more tinned food.
Oils, I think, would be quite useful.
Things like coconut oil, olive oil, all these things that county people are doing.
But I haven't done it yet.
I mean, look, really, I should be moving to Panama.
We all should, but we're not.
Yeah, no, we're not.
I think you have to stand your ground where you are, basically, and make the best of it.
I don't want to say that one that one absolutely must, because that's a hostage to fortune, because I may yet change my mind and back her off to Panama.
But yeah, I think I'm tempted by that general principle that we're all nowhere is safe.
The people who are in charge of these plans, they want to conquer the whole world, not just England or America or Europe or whatever.
They don't want anywhere to be an escape route.
Yep, no, for sure.
So should we talk about these guys then?
I think we should.
You've been doing some great work on this subject.
What is your entry point?
Well, the entry point is, and we've seen it all in COVID.
It's almost a carbon copyright with everybody you see, literally everybody on the media is completely co-opted and they just push the agenda and that's it.
And if anyone starts saying anything wrong, the mic's cut.
You know, that's the stage we're at.
You mean like the German, the German woman?
Yeah, exactly.
You know, suddenly the microphone switched off and that's it.
So what was the German TV show that that happened on?
Oh, I just said.
No, I saw an interview recently with an AFD lady who started talking about vaccines and it just went in the middle of the news.
I think they just shut it off.
Or she was talking about maybe it was to do with Russia or whatever it was.
Was it Russia?
It was to do with Russia.
She was a foreign reporter and she was talking about the negotiations with Russia.
And she made the mistake of representing the Russian position fairly.
And the people back in the studio cancelled.
They turned her sound off.
And then they editorialized and said, of course, what she's saying is complete nonsense.
The Russians are baby eaters.
They're just itching for war.
I mean, my problem is I read Russian, so I watch the Russian news and I read the Russian documents that they're talking about.
So, you know, I'm just sitting there blowing a fuse as these guys lie about everything.
And there's nothing much you can do about it, but um, so yeah, it's a huge psyop, and it's only one narrative that's allowed, obviously.
And as you said, if you go off it, then it's uh, you get your mic plugged.
Um, and I think there's basically two groups uh involved in this.
So, there's the sort of usual suspects, which is all the think tank guys, and um, just for example, like all of the following think tanks are partially funded by the arms manufacturers: Hudson,
Atlantic Council, SEPA, which is the center of European policy analysis, um, ISS is funded, RUSI is funded, European Council for Foreign Relations is funded.
Every one of those bodies takes money from the defense industry, and only talking heads from those organizations are allowed anywhere near any media.
And on top of all that, they give all everything they do as theatre, so they call themselves institutes and they call themselves fellows.
And you know, the Pershing chair of strategy, and the senior fellow, and the non-resident fellow.
It's all absolute theater, there's no academic qualifications, no process, no nothing behind any of that stuff.
So, they're just dudes basically that cause they cause hatred, wars, they lie about stuff just to increase the probability of war.
It's absolutely unbelievable.
So, Russi stands for Royal United Services Institute.
Yeah, when was when was that founded?
Oh, I can't remember the dates off the top of my head.
Um, but yeah, it's a long-standing, it's a long-standing think tank.
So, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm gonna look it up while we because I shouldn't have asked you a question.
That Royal United Services Institute.
If you want, I can open the thing where I've got all these links in there, but um, uh, you'll find something in there from either Northrop or Lockheed Martin or one of the big ones, Raytheon.
Somebody will be in there funding it.
History of RUSI.
Let's have a look.
It could take you a while to find the funders.
It's an awful white tall building.
Oh, I say, goes back a long way.
The Royal United Services Institute has been at the heart of defense and security thinking for over 190 years.
So, 1831 founded by the Duke of Wellington.
So, it could take you a while to find because they don't disclose very openly that you have to dig around and you sometimes have to back calculate.
You have to sort of find you have to find the information from the other side, if you see what I mean, from the side that's actually providing the funding.
Well, we didn't know you there.
They told us because I mean, we know, do we not, that everything that's happening now in the world is not new.
They've been doing this since forever, since certainly before the Crimean War.
What was happening in the 1830s?
So, it was sort of post-15 years after Waterloo.
But this has been going on for a very long time.
And somebody like the Duke of Wellington would have been massively in well, he'd have been a key part of the military-industrial complex, wouldn't he?
Yeah, yeah.
So, they would have foreseen that being quite astute, they'd have seen that the media was key to the future of wars.
Yeah.
Which is why by the time of the Crimean War they had they had that chap Russell going out to the Crimean sort of the world's first war war correspondent.
I mean that was that was another completely unjustifiable war, wasn't it?
The Crimean completely I don't know much about that.
I'm very close with this one because what I'm trying to do is almost in a live basis is actually record what's going on.
And I already have now a sort of timeline of things that have happened in the last you know year.
And I can basically prove that these guys have done literally everything they possibly can in the West to trigger this war, including the actions of this guy Stoltenberg that I'm sure we'll talk about.
We're going to talk about Jens Doltenberg.
I just want to make an observation, which I wonder whether you've noticed this too.
Quite often, the spokesmen at these think tanks are spokeswomen.
They're quite attractive, often blonde girls, obviously educated at Oxbridge or similar.
It seems that these institutions recruit quite early.
They recruit attractive-looking people, females to put a bit of spin on it.
Like, well, this is a woman talking about war and somehow, and she's pretty, so like, war must be a good thing.
And she must be the halo effect, isn't it?
That's what that's called.
If someone's good-looking, you get a halo effect and you assume that they're a good person.
It's one of these psychological tricks.
Yes, yes.
And also, you think, well, war is not a natural domain for a woman.
Yeah, but I'm wondering about that.
It's hot for war.
I think they are, though, hot for war.
That's my feeling, because the main warmongers are the ladies now.
So it seems strange.
I'm thinking, obviously, of Keralas, and there's some very interesting information about her.
The Finnish.
Is that the Estonian woman or the Finnish lady, Sarin, I think her name was, or something like that, the Finnish PM, who sort of went from, you know, went from WEF basically to just head up Finland, get them into NATO, and then moved on to the Tony Blair Institute.
That's like another classic rotation of these globalists.
They just go from one thing, perform whatever duty it is, and then they're back in the sort of holding pen until they're sent to do some other damage somewhere else.
And the German lady, of course, as well, complete head case, the foreign affairs lady now heading up the UN and so on.
Yeah.
Yeah, I don't.
So there's all those guys.
And what I hadn't realized until recently is they literally lie.
I mean, it's like completely blatant.
So I've seen them on there today saying, oh, Putin rejects all peace proposals.
You know, it's like, no, he doesn't.
I mean, I'm literally watching the news in Russian, and that's just a complete fabrication.
So these guys lie.
I mean, just like flat-out lie about what's going on.
So they're very aggressive in terms of scuffering any peace agreement or doing anything else.
And that's been a bit of an eye-opener for me that they're prepared to go to such lengths to just lie about this stuff.
This makes me wonder.
I've been writing about my time as the journalist in the mainstream media.
And how did I not know what was going on?
And I look back on my time and try and remember the things that I sort of half-puzzled me at the time, but I didn't sort of really investigate.
Because why would you?
And It's all coming back to me that the sphere of defense and foreign affairs, the commentary, was very, very carefully controlled and was always conducted by a number of figures, either on the staff, defense editor, defense correspondent, diplomatic editor, diplomatic correspondent,
or with designated pundits normally attached to Russi or Chatham House or similar.
And I wondered at the time, oh, that sounds quite fun.
I'd quite like to be a pundit on international affairs.
But of course, you never get to be unless you are in on the scam, unless you are essentially a stenographer for the military industrial complex and the deep state.
That's what they do.
Yeah, that's what they do.
And you were saying about, you know, when you first wrote about that sort of culling thing, I thought it was like, it's hard to buy into that.
But I don't know if you saw, but I found a quote from Thomas Jefferson in, I don't remember when it was, I might get this wrong.
Would it be 18 sort of 20 or something?
A long time ago.
And he essentially said, it was in a letter, and I've got this in my last substack, I think.
He was saying, Europe is set up on the basis of not enough land, and therefore the European leaders occasionally decide to have a cull.
I think he called it a cull in the form of a war.
He said, however, we in America have plenty of, the way he said it was all of that style, but he was saying we have plenty of land and therefore we have no interest in these regular wars to cut down the population.
And in fact, we need more people here.
So America is built on a different system.
But he was very explicitly referring to occasional culling of excess population in Europe through war.
So your suggestion didn't seem that far out anymore.
It's not far out.
These are ultimately blood sacrifices, all these wars.
But there are different layers of reasoning behind these things.
So at the very top, or if you like the bottom, is this is a satanic blood sacrifice.
But there are also more normie-like geopolitical explanations.
So in the case of Russia, obviously, this is we're in stage three, aren't we, of a sort of three-war plan that you're familiar with the history of the First and the Second World Wars, which were orchestrated by, well, the Milner Group initially, as it was called.
The two world wars were planned for two main purposes.
One, to crush Germany, two, to crush Russia.
And the reason being that the Anglo-American hegemony felt threatened by the two great land powers.
And Russia was, of course, the Russian landmass is the gateway to the East and enables you to control the world.
And Germany was the preeminent power in Western Europe.
So they orchestrated the wars to crush Germany and Russia successfully.
And now they're doing this, this is part three, again, to try and destroy Russia.
Yeah, it certainly feels like that.
And remember, there was, I didn't think it was true, but it is true.
Truman said basically in World War I, World War II, he said if the Russians are winning, we should help the Germans, and if the Germans are winning, we should help the Russians.
It's just like, as long as there's a massive sacrifice on both sides.
He said, but I, you know, and it's more like an excuse, he said, but I don't want Hitler to win.
That was his only caveat.
Apart from that, he was quite happy to, you know, back the side that's sort of going to get the most number of casualties and the most deaths.
It's pretty cynical.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So so we've got another group of talking heads, though.
We need we need one more group of talking heads.
Oh, you're sorry.
Yes, yes, yes.
Yeah.
The other group are what I call the jilted liberals.
They're the guys that used to be in Russia that wanted their version of how Russia should develop.
And you can argue the toss.
I mean, I think they were well-intentioned on having this kind of democracy.
Although, as we get older, our democracy looks a bit more less good behind the curtain than we thought it was.
But anyway, they wanted this democracy and it didn't really happen for them.
So they are now so angry.
I'm talking about Kasparov, who's always on there.
His name is Weinstein anyway.
But he's always there.
This guy, Bill Browder, of course.
Is Kasparov called?
Weinstein.
Yeah.
So he took on a Russian name.
He took on a Russian name and sort of reinvented himself a bit.
But he's got to the stage now of celebrating the bombing of Moscow.
He sort of did a tweet saying, hurrah, kind of thing.
It's like, that's where you grew up.
What level of hatred do you have to have to kind of celebrate a bomb falling on the place you kind of grew up in?
Because I can't do that.
Is that the chess player?
Yeah, yeah, the chess player.
Yeah, yeah.
He's also Bilderberg, by the way.
He's a Bilderberg attendee.
He's crazy anti-Russian.
So, you know, you get all these people in these societies because they will push the war agenda forever, basically.
And Bill Browder's another one.
He's crazy anti-Russian.
And they keep wheeling.
Bill Browder.
So Bill Brown was an American investor who spent time in Russia and then writes books about...
Well, Red Notice, yeah.
It's a good book.
I'm not sure if it's all 100%.
But he basically bought the shares in this thing called Gazprom.
And he found a loophole where you could own it.
It's a long story, but it was only meant to be owned by Russians.
But there was a loophole where you could set up some Russian companies that made you look Russian.
And he exploited that loophole.
But then he got, you know, all kinds of things started going on with these tax investigations and what have you.
But so he's furious with Russia.
I think he, I mean, he really hates Russia.
And again, it feels to me like the system is giving him a nice place to sit in London.
So he's got his knighthood.
I don't know what he's actually doing now, apart from Russia hatred.
He's got a knighthood.
He's in 24-7.
Yeah.
He's, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So again, it's like, what exactly?
I mean, that's the face I made.
He's got a media.
He's certainly got a media presence.
I mean, I suppose it helps.
He's got an alliterative name.
But everyone sort of thinks of him as a kind of genial voice of like a sort of neutral authority on Russia.
He's been inside, and he's seen it for what it is.
And he's going to tell us the truth about it.
No, I hates.
I mean, I think everyone has to understand he hates certainly Putin and everything to do with Putin.
And I would say the country as well.
And my own personal view is that's because he's lost his, you know, his business, essentially.
I mean, he was making a lot of money doing that and got sort of chased out of town, essentially.
And I think he's very, very angry about that.
But, you know, for our establishment, he's a good guy to have in your back pocket because he can be relied upon to push for more sanctions and punish Russia forever.
I think that he's going to do that the rest of his life.
He's already been doing it 10 years, non-stop now.
It's like, is that your real purpose in life is just to create more sanctions for Russia?
I mean, seriously?
Apparently so.
Apparently so.
Yeah.
Who else is there?
Well, there's another guy called Anders Osland, who he is also completely, completely Russophobic, demented.
And I kind of know the story there.
I can't say all of it.
But the main issue, again, is he was an advisor in Russia.
He pushed the sort of liberal agenda.
And of course, it's gone not liberal.
And therefore, he's very, very angry.
And he's also quite closely tied in.
One guy we should mention is a guy called Viktor Pinchuk.
Viktor Pinchuk is a Ukrainian billionaire whose father-in-law just happened to be the president of Ukraine, Mr. Kuchma.
That's just a coincidence, right?
So there's no relationship between this guy becoming a billionaire and his father-in-law being the president.
That's just a coincidence.
But he's heavily invested.
You know, as we talk about all this Russian money and what have you, we do have Russian money in Western politics, but it's opposition to Putin money.
It's not Putin money.
It's opponents of Putin money.
So Pinchuk has invested in the Atlantic Council and he's invested in SEPA, this Central European Policy Advice, which is the most pro-war NGO in the world, probably to do with Russia and Ukraine.
And he's putting money into both of those things.
And Hadakovsky also has invested into the Atlantic Council, and Hadakovsky is Putin's sort of number one political enemy.
So those guys' money, they're dragging us into their score settling with Putin, basically.
Did Hadakovsky and Putin ever get on?
I don't know, really.
I mean, I don't know if they ever get on the stage.
He was one of the oligarchs, wasn't he?
He was being sort of ex-Rocketer.
But you know, the big, and I've written about this as something not many people get, and it's kind of amazed me.
In 2002, Hadakovsky set up a foundation along with Henry Kissinger and Lord Jacob Rothschild called the Future of Russia Foundation in 2002.
And it's one of the only bits of paper in the world I've ever found where, you know, let alone Kissinger and Rothschild in a public document, but Hadakovsky as well.
They set this foundation up and he was arrested a few months after that.
So I've written it.
My theory is that Hadakovsky was going to hand Russia over to the globalists.
You know, they'd already done that deal because he was very, very deep into Washington at that point.
And with all his wealth, I think it was the writing was on the wall for him to win the 2003 presidential election.
He was a presidential candidate.
And so I can't say this directly, but he was arrested, let's say, and went to jail.
And I think that had quite a big, big influence on the fact that he was arrested.
You're right.
It's very unusual to, I mean, Rothschild and Kissinger.
Kissinger, yeah.
And the weird thing is, you can look it up on Company's House.
When I first saw it, I literally fell off my chair.
But if you look up the Future of Russia Foundation, the Future of Russia Foundation, I think it's changed its name now, but back in 2002 and three, that's what it was called.
And you can look up the list of trustees and you'll find those names on the list of trustees in companies' house.
This is not like a secret document you have to break out of a safe.
It's public record.
I'm amazed that they haven't covered that one up.
It's amazing.
And what's the, you know, as we write these things, it's like you wonder immediately, why on earth has no one ever mentioned this, ever?
Because, as I said, it's public record, so it's not been stolen or eavesdropped.
It's like this sitting out there.
Nobody touches it.
May I venture a suggestion that it's because this is indicative of just how dismal the coverage of Russia is in the Western media.
They don't even bother to hide their tracks because no one's going to report on it because the entirety of the Western media is en song with the anti-Russian message.
Yeah, but the Russian side also has done very little about that.
A couple of blog posts about it, and that's about it, really.
And I've been banging on about it for a couple of years saying, look, I think this is significant.
I think this is when they fell out of bed with the globalists.
And I think it's been an ongoing conflict ever since because the globalists, what do they do?
They do regime change, color revolutions, wars, whatever they can to get hold of the country and manage it.
And I think they were close in 2002.
And I just think everything we're seeing since then has just been different iterations to get Russia back under control or get it under control.
And it hasn't worked so far, I don't think.
Why do you think, why do the Rothschilds hate Russia?
I don't know if they do, but I do know that they hooked up with Hadekovsky.
And presumably they would have had their guy in Inverted Commerce in the Kremlin then, and it would have just been part of the whole global system.
That was the point.
And you had, for example, you had at that point production sharing agreements, which is an oil production arrangement where it's completely open to foreigners then.
And you get all sorts of tax breaks from it and what have you.
And it's just about then that I think inside Russia, people were starting to say, well, do we really want to do this?
Do we really want to put these production sharing agreements together and basically have our oil industry go off to the West and be owned by the West?
And I'm figuring if Hadukovsky was there, that process would have continued and these Western financial interests would have ended up owning a lot more than they did, basically.
I think that was the play.
So you're a Russian speaker.
Why is it pronounced Hedokovsky and not Hodokovsky?
Kovsky.
I was thinking Hodokovsky.
Yeah.
Dadkovsky.
I don't know.
There is some rules about one O goes to an A under certain circumstances, but I couldn't tell you what the rules are.
Ah.
Okay.
Yeah, that is interesting.
So Russia would have become part of the global capital system.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, to their credit, they've successfully eluded that so far.
I mean, I don't think it was a choice really at the end.
I mean, you know, and this is why I kind of, I know this is a difficult debate.
People think they're all on side and it's all one big club.
I think at some level it is a big club and there's certain areas they work together on even now.
But big picture, they've completely parted company.
And Russia's had to do just stunning amount of things to survive the last three or four years.
It's been mind-boggling how they've managed to remove all of their oil exports from the West to the East.
It's more than an army operation.
It's sort of once-in-a-lifetime operation to start moving millions of barrels of oil exports going 180-degree flip.
And also the money system being cut off from Swift is like, that's a death blow, essentially.
So they've really had to struggle to stay in the game.
Yes, indeed.
I mean, whenever I read the economics section of the newspapers, which is not that often if I can help it, but occasionally I look and endless articles about how Putin's the economy is in ruins.
He just can't cope.
He's just useless because of his adventurism.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I didn't get that impression when I was in Moscow.
I then got ticked off by certain Russian bloggers or ex-Russian bloggers for saying this just because I'd seen some restaurants in Bosch.
That's a good sign.
But the restaurants, for all you're looking at a pretty decent economy, and they are...
I would have thought so, but I was told that this was just my naivety.
And of course, again, it's like, as we're talking about reporting and the information side of this, the figures for Russia are all available essentially on the internet.
So you can look at monthly imports and exports on the Bank of Russia website, and they've been basically rock solid.
I wrote a whole thing about them and there's nothing wrong with them.
They're in good shape.
So everyone that's told you for three years that the Russian economy is collapsing has just fabricated that because there's really been never any data that there was some slight weakness in house building for a few months because of the interest rates.
But that's it.
Other than that, it's been doing fine.
And then Niall Ferguson, for some unknown reason, just came out recently and said, oh, yeah, Russian economy is like going gangbusters.
I was like, well, hang on a minute.
You're one of these deep state guys that a couple of years ago, Slav Ukraine and let's go.
Russia is going to be flattened.
And now, three years down the road, you're telling us the Russian economy is doing fine and sanctions have been a catastrophic failure.
So it's like the guys just flip.
You can kind of get sense that some areas of this operation are winding up when the players just flip to the other side.
Niall Ferguson also, by the way, is the author of the authorized biography of the Rothschild family.
Yeah, someone told me that.
I haven't read it.
I wonder how much he got paid for that.
And I wonder how what Frea Rainy had.
I suspect that there may have been things he couldn't mention.
I think there may have been an edit at the end here.
Yeah, there may have been a final edit.
Yes.
So what was the meeting where he said that?
Well, it was something called the Yalta something strategy, which is this guy Pinchuk, he basically organizes this thing and all these bigwigs show up and talk at it.
So he's very, by the way, he's a big investor in both Tony Blair and in Bill Clinton.
So as well as the Atlantic Council and SEPA, he's put a lot of money into Tony Blair and a lot of money into Clinton.
So that's what I'm saying.
Long Satan, basically.
Yeah, so these Ukrainian kind of roots politicians, billionaires have their fingers very far into this sort of Anglo-American Western politics.
And I do think they're influencing us to get into stuff that we wouldn't get into on our own kind of thing, especially this sort of anti-Putin position.
But that was where this guy, Niall Ferguson, spoke.
And it was weird because that's a festival of like Russia's collapsing, Ukraine's winning.
And then all of a sudden, this guy, they give this guy the microphone and he goes, no, no, Russian economy is going great.
And all the faces around them were like, that's off message.
You know, how on earth are you saying that?
So I assume you'd been told you can say this.
I'd say it's true that from my experience that most journalists can't be bought directly.
But what they can very easily and comfortably accept is promotion to a position on a think tank where they can do their journalism and get a lavish, a very decent annual salary, which gives them the platform.
Because journalists aren't very well paid.
But if they sit on a think tank, they get a nice office and they can write think pieces and features and stuff.
And they don't feel that they're being bribed.
They feel that they're still independent.
Because the think tanks, as you suggested, create that illusion by talking about the so-and-so chair of whatever studies.
Make it look like it's a kind of an academic posting rather than a chilling statement.
Right, it's sort of like sitting there one day going, this is all just theatre.
This is like, you guys have just made this shit up.
There's no substance to any of these titles.
I mean, if their logo had a picture of somebody with their mouth around Satan's knob, people would get it.
But they don't, do they?
They have pictures of crests.
Or sort of Armed Salesman of the Year or, you know, East Europe Gun Sales or something as his job title.
But no, he's the Pershing chair of strategy.
I was like, whoa, this guy's just selling guns, basically.
But those guys are on about $200,000 to about $500,000 is the going rate for those think tank guys pushing war and arms sales.
And I think the highest paid one...
That's how much they get paid?
Yeah, the top one, if I'm not wrong, is 1.9 million.
That's the guy who's head of Atlantic Council, which is kind of one of the biggest.
But the regular warmonger is on about two, between about 200 and 500,000.
Global warming is a massive con.
There was no evidence whatsoever that man-made climate change is a problem, that it's going to kill us, that we need to amend our lifestyle in order to deal with it.
It's a non-existent problem.
But how do you explain this stuff to your normie friends?
Well, I've just brought out the revised edition of my 2012 classic book, Watermelons, which captures the story of how some really nasty people decided to invent the global warming scare in order to fleece you, to take away your freedoms, to take away your land.
It's a shocking story.
I wrote it, as I say, in 2011, actually, the first edition came out.
And it's a snapshot of a particular era.
The era when the people behind the climate change scam got caught red-handed, tinkering with the data, torturing till it screamed in a scandal that I helped christen Climategate.
So I give you the background to the skull juggery that went on in these seats of learning where these supposed experts were informing us.
We've got to act now.
I rumbled their scam.
I then asked the question, okay, if it is a scam, who's doing this and why?
It's a good story.
I've kept the original book pretty much as is, but I've written two new chapters, one at the beginning and one at the end, explaining how it's even worse than we thought.
I think it still stands out.
I think it's a good read.
Obviously, I'm biased, but I'd recommend it.
You can buy it from jamesdellingpole.co.uk forward slash shop.
You'll probably find it won't.
Just go to my website and look for it, jamesdellingpole.co.uk.
And I hope it helps keep you informed and gives you the material you need to bring around all those people who are still persuaded that, oh, it's a disaster.
We must amend our ways and appease the gods, appease Mother Diet.
No, we don't.
It's a scam.
Which for an oligarch, a Ukrainian oligarch, is just chump change, isn't it?
I don't know with him because he, like, Pintuk now is funding about $12 million a year of these things.
I think it's because of the war and everything, he's had to rein it in a bit because prior years, he's done more than that.
So, yeah, I think both of them now have got obviously less than they had.
So, I mean, so that's still quite small money compared to a Soros with 1.2 billion a year.
You know, that's that's funding these tanks, these think tanks as well.
Yeah, they're all in it together, basically.
So, I've drawn this chart a few times.
You see, it's the whole thing is just a mishmash.
Like, you know, Gates, Soros, Hon, Pintuk, and then a whole different name of all these different institutes.
So it's basically those 10 guys behind 15 institutes.
You know, so it's, you know what I'm saying?
They sort of cross-fund each one.
But behind the 15 institutes are about 10 guys, basically.
And how much is the arms industry contributing?
Yeah, I mean, roughly speaking, very roughly speaking, it's like a third, a third, a third, maybe, maybe slightly less for the oligarchs.
So maybe a half, 30% for the government, 20%, because they recycle our tax money into those things as well.
So a lot of these think tanks actually take in money from, you know, from the American thing, whatever it's called, the National Foundation for Democracy or Department of State, or they can take Department of Defense money.
So the government's also funneling in money into those things as well.
Those are the three main funders, the governments, various governments, the oligarchs, and the defense contractors.
And also now some big tech is getting in.
So Facebook funds some of these things.
Google fund a few of them.
But essentially, it's the three, the government, the oligarchs, and the defense contractors.
Yeah.
And it's extraordinary to think, but I know it's true because I used to be one of these people.
But Most normies, they look at this, they look at Con Coughlin in the Telegraph or whatever, or Richard Kemp in the Telegraph.
I mean, I'm sure all people have similar that you're talking about.
Sorry?
These are people that block me when you say names like Richard Kemp, because you like, you know, you sort of write, like, how many times is Russia going to collapse?
You know, you've been saying this for three straight years.
The other day, I did actually look at Con Coughlin's back catalogue of articles on Russia going back in sort of four or five years.
And the number of times he said that Russia is on the verge of collapse.
And you're thinking, come on, Russia doesn't seem to have collapsed in the way that you said it would expertly and all your expert pontifications.
What happened, Con?
Yeah, they changed it.
Cheating up to your name, eh?
No, so it is.
But again, you know, the actual data is available on the internet.
You could look up the central bank monthly imports and exports.
There's really no excuse other than you're a proper lying propagandist.
It's the only excuse to keep pushing that.
What I was going to say is, it's amazing how many people believe these pundits because they're there.
If you repeat that lie often enough, and if you appear in the papers often enough, people think that, well, the guy wouldn't be there.
It's the Daily Telegraph, for goodness sake.
The Telegraph is a distinguished newspaper.
It wouldn't have a lying shill of the military industrial complex spouting bollocks every day.
I mean, that wouldn't happen because it wouldn't.
It's the Telegraph.
Look at the masthead.
No, but it's after COVID that's depressing.
After we've been through Safe and Effective, where we were jumping up and down like idiots saying it's neither of those things.
And then it turns out we were right all along.
And they're still listening to the same institutions, same liars.
Have you noticed any embarrassment or contrition by anyone over it's as if COVID never happened.
It's as if nobody ever wore a mask.
Nobody ever followed the lines around the supermarkets.
Nobody ever ticked somebody else off for getting too close.
It's been memory hold, the whole thing.
Yeah.
But then we're repeating the exact methodology all over again.
Exactly the same.
There's almost no difference.
Like instead of the mask, it's the Ukrainian flag on every building and in your bio.
It's the same effect.
It's the nudge.
You know, it's something doing the same thing as the mask was doing.
It's virtue signaling and it's a constant reminder 24-7 to everybody that you have to support this.
And, you know, and that's what they said in COVID as well.
The mask is even not even about medicine.
It's about signaling that we're all collectivized now and we've all got a one-for-all and all-for-one kind of stuff.
So I'm going to put you on the spot here.
And I don't mean to, but I'm going to have to because of the point I'm about to make.
But one of the reasons quite early on that I was able to see that the COVID thing had been planned in advance on a mind-boggling scale was how early one saw at petrol stations the stuff that they put on railings,
the sort of the banners, and the signs they put on sort of public service vehicles like dustbin lauras and stuff.
And they had these warnings and these pro-NHS propaganda and all sorts of things.
Somebody had gone to industrial printing companies and put in large orders for this stuff.
This stuff came out so early.
In the same way, The Ukraine flag thing was everywhere very suddenly.
Now, you can't, if I wanted to buy it, if I had to nip into my local hardware store and buy a Burkina Faso flag, I'd be hard-pushed to find or an Estonian flag or a Cuban flag.
You wouldn't get them.
But the Ukraine flags.
So there's a in the village near me, there's somebody who has a Ukraine flag still on the wall of their Northamptonshire Ironstone house where I go riding.
There was a, or there was until recently, a Ukrainian flag fluttering above this.
I don't know, he's a kind of stables or something.
I don't know what he does.
Something stupid, obviously, because he's got a Ukraine flag.
And they had them flying, fluttering from church spires.
Now, did you ever look into how that was funded, where the flags came from?
I didn't look at that, but I did the timeline of the SIOP basically.
And I mean, I think we can all get what it was.
The news was completely manufactured.
So any bad news was just deleted.
Russia's collapsing.
That's it.
And there's someone wrote, I'm not going to go through the details, but in Responsible Statecraft, a guy wrote a very, very good explanation of the subtle ways that they would propagandize the news.
Because there's this thing called the, I think it's called ISW.
I think it's the Institute of War Studies.
And they're the definitive, they're the go-to source.
Every single newspaper in the world goes to their maps.
And what they basically do is one thing he showed is that if the Russians take something, they sit on that information for about three days.
So they'll put out the next news thing will be the 22nd of May, nothing happened.
But on the 19th of May, the Russians took something, something.
And the newspapers don't publish the 19th of May thing, because that's already gone.
So by doing that, every single time they make sure the Russia took something, just drops out because it's stale.
They keep it back for three or four days.
So things like that, they do all the time.
And that's why the whole news thing was completely distorted.
And I think that's why so many people bought into the propaganda.
We bought our own propaganda big time because every one of these experts doing all the Russia collapses thing, they can't.
I mean, there's like literally, there's no data.
Certainly on the economy side, I didn't look at any of the military thing, but there's literally not a single piece of data in a hundred data points that I'm looking at that's telling me this is collapsing.
It's telling me it's pretty strong.
So, you know, you guys are just drinking your own propaganda here.
That's why they're all amazed.
Oh, you know, how did that happen?
It's been like that all along, but you've been living this fantasy propaganda story all these, you know, three years now.
Yes.
And one's not going to get any accurate reporting from the supposed war correspondents because they're not generally anywhere near the front line because it's so dangerous now with the drones that you wouldn't want to be there.
I mean, that they was 28,000, 28,000 artillery rounds a day from the Russian side.
Do you want to go and sit on the wrong end of 28,000 artillery rounds?
You wouldn't.
Insane.
When you could stay comfortably in Kiev or Kyiv and transcribe press releases from the Ukrainian government and other people.
They'll come from sort of cabal propaganda operations in wherever they are.
Yeah.
And occasionally you'll get photographers taking pictures of photogenic blonde women in Ukrainian uniform in the trenches, probably trenches that have been built miles from the front line.
Well, I saw someone, they showed a picture of Yermak saying, look at the guy, he's gone off to the front.
And I'd like, look at it, go, no, there's a camera on that side of that trench.
He's in a studio.
It was like obvious that he was in a studio.
And I didn't know if the person posted it as a joke.
It's like, you look at, he's in a studio.
There's a black curtain the other side of that sandbag.
So what do you make of Trump, Trump's involvement?
So Trump is, it seems that Trump is trying to bring the war to a close.
I think he is.
I really think.
I just suddenly started to think maybe he is.
But I just one more thing before that, because I had a Eureka moment with a psyop, which was I realized all the parliaments doing all of those simultaneous clapping sessions.
That was part of the psyop.
And I didn't, I mean, I knew it was there to influence the people, but I hadn't realized that was the moment where they reinvent this.
They invent a new person.
They take Zelensky, who everyone knows is basically a puppet of this guy, Ihor Kolomoyski, who was, I mean, he's in all kinds.
He's now, he is now under arrest, suspected of contract killing and laundering about $500 million in relationship to Privat Bank.
But that was always known.
But all $500 million.
Yeah, if you add it all up, that's basically where you get to.
So we all knew that he was that guy.
He was, you know, he was basically very closely associated, let's say, that.
So you've got to take this guy that plays the piano with his penis and came from this oligarch, and you've got to make him Saint Churchill Zelensky.
And I realized that was what those standing ovations were all about in those parliaments.
And they just circulate from one to the other, you know, completely coordinated response.
And I realized, okay, this is all like theatre stuff.
And you look at it and the lighting and the staging and it's all complete theater, basically.
And they styled him.
Somebody obviously made the decision.
You're going to wear a Zelensky green t-shirt, khaki t-shirt, everywhere you go.
Yeah.
Because it's going to make you like a kind of rugged.
I haven't got time for suits.
I'm a warrior.
Yeah, yeah.
No, it was all completely a persona that they invented.
And once you've invented it, then all of that old news about where he actually came from and what he actually did just gets down the memory hole and you're not allowed to bring it up anymore.
Alex, how did that happen?
Because I've tried on occasion to penetrate the defenses of people who've been brainwashed by blue and yellow flags.
I said to them, look, do you realize the story about Zelensky?
He was on the New York gay scene first of all.
And then he's a massive degenerate, massively into coke and stuff.
And then he was brought over to play in a TV show by Kolomoyski, who owned the studios.
He was a comedian who appeared on a TV show about a comic who becomes the president of the Ukraine, right?
And everyone thought he was funny, and everyone thought this was this, this concept was a, this conceit was an absolute joke, because it was yeah.
And then lo, a few months later he, he becomes president for real, and nobody i've i've mentioned this is go.
Yeah well, of course, this is all.
This has all been coincidence.
That's not yeah, just so it's, it's happened.
Just a lucky, you know lucky, lucky roller dice.
Don't you think it's slightly worrying that a a a, a penis, piano player cokehead um degenerate yeah, do you know?
Actor fake.
You don't think it's worrying?
This guy's now in charge of the war machine and or supposedly, we'll send him 400 billion dollars propaganda.
Yeah no, it's.
But you realize also, with all of these appointments, they want those people, that's.
That's another big, you know.
Another light bulb moment, for for me was like they.
They hired Neil Ferguson because they wanted a bad model.
That's why they hired him, because he's a bad modeller.
So they knew they would get a bad model, because they wanted a bad model.
It's like all of those things.
It's like why would you put like, why would you put this lady Kaya Callus the least diplomatic person in the world?
Probably, why would you make her the chief diplomat of Europe and you realize well, because you want to cause more war and more tension.
So you put the most offensive person who hates the biggest country on their border, you make her the chief diplomat.
It's, it's all inversion stuff.
And uh, you're right Alex, I need a p.
Hang on.
Yeah sorry, but anyway, you were saying I was, I can't remember.
I was thinking about what to say next.
Uh, where do we get to um?
Yeah well, you put in the most incompetent person you possibly can uh into the role, and that's why Zelensky would be the perfect guy if you wanted to launder like a couple of hundred billion through there.
You know you don't want a.
You don't want a guy with a rock solid uh reputation, high ethics, who's going to get his uh into the details of the numbers.
That's the last person you want there.
Basically, did you notice?
Something very similar happened with um Greta Thunberg, where again she was fated by by parliament.
I remember, I remember her being invited into some room where Michael Gove was.
I never quite.
Yeah exactly, it was like they were all looking at conservative that's, it's completely crazy.
I looked at a.
It was.
It was also a psyop photo, wasn't it like four grown people looking at a child, telling them what policies they should implement.
It's like this is.
This is too much for me, this is, you know, I couldn't handle it, they were all.
So I, I mean I I, I I shouldn't diss it because I write for it, but I can't help it I.
I seem to remember that at the part at the Spectator, Parliamentarium of the year awards, possibly under Fraser Nelson actually not go but, but Zelensky was wasn't, was got some special award.
And you're thinking, how can you be a discerning magazine for thinking people and yet pump out such blatant propaganda?
Yeah.
Well, everybody knows their bread is buttered on the height of Zelensky's pomp.
How much has he made, by the way?
Oh, I wish I knew.
Well, I don't wish I know.
I don't know.
I mean, you can just say 10% of 400 billion is the commitments is 400 billion.
It's been less that been actually allocated.
So, you know, still we're talking as a slush fund, there's got to be like, there's got to be tens of billions, a couple of tens of billions as a slush fund somewhere out there.
I mean, that one guy, they courts on 100 million, right?
So you need another, you need another sort of 10 of those to get a billion.
So you need 300 guys all taking their 100 million and that's it.
So suddenly the 1 million that Boris Johnson was paid quite coincidentally at the same time as he went out to sabotage the mission.
That was a coincidence.
Yeah.
And the share price went through the roof and the guy that owns the shares then gave him a million pounds a few months later.
That was all just a coincidence, nothing to see.
That was completely above board.
Did you read the story about the MP, or not ME, was he MEP or something, who got recently a fairly hefty 10 years, I think, for 30 bribery from the Russians?
Yeah.
Classic misdirect.
Do we believe that story?
Is that a story?
But again, it's the way it's handled that's the psyop.
And the psyop of that is, firstly, that it's like, I just, you know, I just said to you, Soros is spending $1.2 billion a year lobbying.
So instead of that, we're looking at some guy who's got literally zero power over anything that no one's ever heard of who took like 5k from some dude.
And that's like, now everyone's got to look at that.
So don't look at the 1.2 billion a year every year or the 5 billion from Gates coming into the political system.
Forget that.
Let's look at this poor guy with his couple of K for asking a question, which was like nothing.
The question was like, should we be provoking Russia?
It was like, that was all it was.
Anyway, so I think it's a distraction and it's also a message.
If you support Russia, you're going to jail, basically.
You have every chance of going to jail.
I think they're really clamping down on anyone that's thinking about going maybe pro-Russian or even asking questions.
And then with Galloway getting arrested as well, or at least detained, I think then building up this thing, people are going to start figuring out, oh, I better not say anything, you know, vaguely not anti-Russian at least.
Yes.
Yes.
It is quite disturbing.
And also redolent of what happened in the run-up to the First and Second World Wars as well.
Because in both cases, the populace was not at all interested in war with Germany.
That famous Oxford Union motion, this country will not go to war with, which has been presented to us as a badge of shame for those appeasing Oxford undergraduates.
But for once, Oxford undergraduates obviously knew what they were talking about.
And we got sort of conned into it by the complicit media, among other things.
Yeah, I don't know what will happen this time.
I mean, presumably the same as always happens, that there'll be enough people propagandized, but there is a very serious minority that are just absolutely having none of it.
So it'll be interesting to see what happens eventually.
Yes.
So you think Trump is genuinely interested in winding things down.
But there are a lot of people in America, the deep state, Victoria Newland, people like Victoria Newland, who want another forever war, don't they?
Yeah, and I've only started thinking about this just a few days ago, to be honest, because I was one of these guys.
Look, Trump is bankrolled by Theale.
Theo's invested in Angeril, and Palantir has a big defense element to it.
So just for money-wise, he's going to keep this show going.
And I've just the last few days started to think, well, actually, no, it really sounds like he wants this stopped.
And then you've got this coordinated release of information.
So you've got the whole corruption thing came out.
And that Niall Ferguson thing I clipped, the bit where he said the economy is doing fine in Russia, that got a third of a million views.
So all of a sudden, you're allowed to say that.
That goes viral in the system, in the algorithm system.
And I think there were a couple of other things that were acknowledged as being true that we always knew were true.
I think things like there was something like a shoe dropped on desertion.
Yeah, I think the desert, oh, no, I'll tell you two things.
One was that the Europeans can't organize any money.
And I think there was also a thing about desertion.
You think, oh, all of a sudden, like a couple of things have come out that's telling you this is going completely south.
And it felt coordinated for Trump to say, okay, that's enough, basically.
Yes, the desertion figures were enormous, weren't they?
Was it about 661?
Well, there's apparently 300,000.
There's apparently 300,000 cases outstanding to do with desertion.
But I don't know that.
I know the number of year-to-date desertion is 161,500.
That's the estimate.
And that is, this is again a news thing, right?
Because a few months ago, the US Inspector General, which is like the government of the US, came out and said there's 100,000 deserters and whole units are just abandoning their position.
It's like an official government report from the US.
And like not one single peep in any media outlet anywhere in the world about that.
And it's come from the government.
I'm like sitting like an idiot tweeting, have you seen this thing?
And he one like or something.
There's just like nothing dead.
But yeah, so they admitted months ago, maybe sometime in March.
It was in March, they admitted they got a massive desertion problem in a US official government document and nobody said anything about it in the press.
Is part of the problem for the warmongers in the West that despite all the intervention by the sort of the NATO military in the form of missiles and intelligence and we have we have troops.
There's been a security leak.
We have troops, British troops are in Ukraine now.
Again, it's like not reported.
There was a security fighting?
Well, no, well, this is the thing.
It's like because it was a leak, Sunak had to admit in parliamentary questions, yes, we do have boots on the ground, having for years denied it.
He said, but they're only training.
So do you believe them?
No, I don't believe them.
You know, you've had to admit to this lie and you've just limited that lie to, oh, yes, but, you know, that's the natural reaction.
I don't know.
I can't believe anything they say.
We've definitely got special forces operating out there.
And I, you know, when I went to Russia, sort of heard about it.
Second hand, yeah.
I had a briefing with this quite senior Russian minister.
And I asked him about Western involvement.
And he said, look, it's an open secret that Western, American, Canadian, French, German, British military personnel are operating in Ukraine and not just running all the kind of the missile systems and things like that.
But also closer than that, he said, occasionally you'll read in the newspapers an obituary of a general who has died, unfortunately, in a skiing accident.
He did not die in a skiing accident, he says.
So, yeah.
I mean, I find it quite embarrassing this because I wasn't consulted on whether I wanted the armed forces, which I supposedly I do pay for.
I subsidized them anyway.
I wasn't consulted on whether I wanted them used in a child trafficking sarco state hellhole run by the CIA.
I was never asked that.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, no, we just get dragged.
We get dragged into these things, don't we?
But the other thing that's shocked me is how wrong these guys have all been.
Like you said, you can go back and do a search.
If you go on Times Radio and do Russia Collapse, you get literally, I mean, so many interviews with all these top brass banners and Chip Chapman was the one because his name is so funny.
He's a, what, I don't know what he is, Lieutenant General.
But I think that guy who was writing the defense review, it's not Bannon, it's something like that, Brannon, or I've got it here somewhere.
The Defence Review guy.
I can't remember his name.
It's here, but it's not the front cover.
Yeah, Bannon or something.
He's writing all kinds of Russia collapses.
No, it's not Steve Bannon.
He's proved quite realistic on this particular.
He's been great, man.
I mean, like all these big figures, you have reservations, but he's really come out swinging on this.
And I retweeted something where he just demolished this liberal lady who'd bought the whole Saints.
The Sky Newswoman.
Sky News.
Sky News.
There was a blonde woman on Sky News.
Look, QED.
Why is a blonde woman on Sky a pretty girl?
Why is she talking about military affairs, which she clearly knows nothing?
Yeah, I don't know.
But he actually completely.
He really gave her a dose of cold water.
And it was.
fantastic he did it in a kind of but he he didn't because i mean bannon is terrifying when when he's when he's he's the honey badger but But he didn't do it in such a way as to, he could have been brutal and really crushed her.
But he just did it in a, like, here are the facts, young miss.
He's a punk.
He's a punk.
No, no, he's St. Churchill Zelensky.
No, he's a goddamn punk.
We shouldn't be sending him money.
Alex, I must mention apropos of nothing in particular, the story that incensed me in the Sunday Telegraph.
I mean, I want to make clear, the Times is probably 10 times more evil.
The Telegraph is shit, but I'm not letting the other papers off the hook.
Just that it happens to be the paper that my wife still subscribes to.
And in the features section, there was an interview with Anthony Beaver.
And Anthony Beaver wrote the book about Stalingrad.
Stalingrad, didn't he?
That was his big book.
Good book.
And he's written a book about the mass rapes committed by the invading Soviet army when it came into Germany and Berlin, etc., and how horrible they were.
And I was reading this interview, and I think, oh, what's Anthony Beaver up to nowadays?
Because I've been to his book launches and things, and I sort of know him vaguely.
And the interview was conducted by David Blair, which is interesting in itself because David Blair is a foreign correspondent, a sort of war correspondent.
He used to operate out, he used to be their Southern Africa correspondent and often reported out of Zimbabwe during the Mugabe period.
But he now seems to be being used as a kind of defense writer in places like Ukraine.
So already you've got an odd situation where this ought to be a kind of literary reader's, yeah.
I would have put in a generalist reporter, not a feature writer, not a military specialist.
So military specialists.
And it's very, very clear that the purpose of the interview is yet again to tarnish in the features pages, in the soft pages this time, the reputation of the Russians, Russia, and Putin.
And the suggestion of the piece is that, and Antony Beaver backs this up in the course of the interview.
He says, well, of course, all these atrocities that are being committed by the Russians in Ukraine, it's just who they are.
It's what they do.
They are so brutalized by their commanding officers and their NCOs.
They're treated like dirt.
And it's become part of their policy that atrocities are in their nature and it's one of their weapons of war.
And I was reading this and I was thinking, A, this is not an interview with Anthony Beaver.
This is just war propaganda.
And B, if this is the case, which it may be, but if it is the case, what about the Ukrainians who are also Russians, who also, when they weren't fighting for the Nazis, when they weren't fighting for Bandera and part of the SS-Das Reich division responsible for the Oradur-Symer massacre, where French were herded into a church and burned alive by mainly Ukrainian troops.
Okay, when they weren't fighting for the SS and committing war crimes, surely they were probably fighting with the Soviets and doing the same shit that you're accusing the Russians of doing.
So what is your point?
No, but it's even more ridiculous, isn't it?
Because you draw a line and then you say this side of the line is the citadel of European values run by St. Churchill Zelensky and this side of a little line is putler or country.
It's the same thing with a little line in it.
It can't be this way.
But it's the narrative.
But the disinformation has been going on.
When I started getting interested in the, a few years ago, at the beginning, I interviewed a Swiss intelligence officer called Jacques Beaux.
And Jacques gave me a sort of, I mean, maybe he has a dog in the fight, but it seemed to me a fairly neutral briefing on the situation.
And he explained the background of the color revolution funded by the CIA and paid for by George Soros.
in 2014, where the democratically elected president was deposed by in favor of a kind of EU deep state candidate.
And then, and then the persecution began of the, of the Russian speakers in the, in the Donbass, and so on, burning of Russian speakers in in in Odessa, burned alive.
Okay see, using the same tactics as Orodos Yomer, um and um, where am I?
Where am I going with this?
Um so one one one, one realize, oh yeah, that's right, and there was.
The one of the first instances of the disinformation was the butcher massacre.
Yeah, if you remember yeah, which was attributed to to Russians, but it was clear that that all the evidence suggested this had been.
It was, it was a false flag carried out by the Ukrainians.
Oh yeah, I would think so.
I would think so, but I had someone I had a school friend of mine yelling at me about the Russians and I'm like saying Paul look, I just would hang back with these stories, because it was a staturation of stuff.
They're raping babies and all this.
And I'm saying look Paul, you've known me a long time.
I'm like telling you I find this very unlikely and I wouldn't, but he was so angry and he wouldn't take my word for it, although I've known him for like 50 years.
So it's, the power of the propaganda is just incredible really.
Um but um, we should maybe go to the bit where the, where I think we actually triggered this war with Mr. Stoltenberg.
Oh, Stoltenberg is called Jens Jens yeah, is he, is he the is?
Is he Norwegian?
He's Norwegian yeah, but I think the family name is related to Germany, but he's Norwegian yeah he's, and his family goes.
So has he got SS in his background, like all of these people?
Well, I there's sort of that skips that, but his family history goes back to 1590, but it's it's sort of merchants and church people, but then there's sort of a bit of a gap and then yeah, has you know all all his family members as big wig politicians basically, and a couple of artists and what have you?
So, like the red shields yes yeah yeah um, but he this is a thing I found with him which I thought was quite significant was they, the Russians did a quite a decent proposal in december 2021.
It was, it was okay, it was the same thing as normal.
NATO neutrality for Ukraine was the big ask and he said no, essentially.
Well, you know the powers that be said no.
And he did this press conference where He three times said, we will not compromise on this.
And then there's a couple of important things about that.
But when he subsequently described the Russian peace proposal, he said the Russians' proposal was to take all troops, all NATO troops, all NATO infrastructure, and take it out of every country that joined NATO since 1997, which is a completely crazy thing to ask for.
And of course, they never did.
And I'm looking at the Russian proposal.
It's like, you just literally made that up.
It's absolutely a stone-cold lie.
And he did that in July 2022.
And not one person in this room said, well, actually, that's just a blatant lie.
And he also made a big theatrical thing about the Russians said, no, NATO, no new members, sign here, no new members.
Whereas he was talking about the Soviet Union, obviously, only.
So that was an exaggeration.
At least there wasn't a kernel of truth to it.
But the take all troops and infrastructure out of post-97 joiners, absolute lie, like blatant lie.
And I think he was covering his tracks a bit, you know, to make the Russians look completely crazy, unreasonable, and to justify the reason why they told the Russians to stick it in December 2021 on a pretty, I'm not a, it looked pretty reasonable, like, because certainly on things like now, this sacred principle of everyone can get to decide whatever they want to join, you know, right through the 90s, the 2000s, America and Russia had all these discussions about this is neutral,
we're not going here, we're not going there.
It was totally, it wasn't controversial.
And then all of a sudden, it becomes point principle that we're going to go to World War III on.
That also is part of the narrative.
You know, this is something now so important that we have to go to war about.
But, you know, Ukraine, who a lot of Ukrainians don't want in NATO and a lot of Europeans don't want in NATO, that has to be in NATO.
Like, why are you, why is this the thing now to die?
Why is this the hill?
So, anyway, I thought it was significant that he just lied about the terms that the Russians offered.
Yeah, well, it's obviously.
I remember in the early days, not in the early days, the early days of my marriage breakup with Toby Young when we did our London calling podcast together.
And he was, I was, this was in Trump's first term, and I was pro-Trump.
And this might even be before Trump was going to get elected the first time.
And Toby was saying, and he wants to, he's anti-NATO.
He's not even going to support NATO.
And looking back, I was thinking, yeah, NATO is evil.
NATO is really, really evil.
If only I'd known then what I know now.
Yeah.
But also, in that, there's so many provocations right up until that event as well.
Because something that also the press never talks about, the Americans were organizing all kinds of exercises in Ukraine at that point.
And 2021 was the largest ever.
It's called Rapid Trident.
The largest ever military exercises, well, from where it started from in 2021.
And the Brits were also buzzing Sevastopol at that point as well.
And that's another funny story.
They deliberately sent their silly ship right to sail right up close to Sevastopol.
And that was almost a huge incident.
But it was all deliberate because someone, they basically left the plans at a bus stop somewhere.
Someone found the plans.
And the BBC wrote an article.
They validated this, that there were different routes that the MOD was discussing.
And eventually the silly guys said, no, no, take the most provocative one and sail right up to Sevastopol.
And that was in 21 as well.
So, you know, you've got this whole background of provocation up until the reported something that was true.
Yeah, I don't know why they did it.
No, apparently so.
That defies.
Well, it would make sense.
It would make there's no interest in actually reporting and misreporting it.
But yeah, they said we'd looked at two routes to Batumi where this ship was going, and we said, take the one that goes closest to Sevastopol.
And it was almost, you know, there was some stuff was fired and things happened.
But it's clear that.
Isn't that how you pronounce it?
Sevastopol.
Yeah, I would say Sevastopol.
Well, yeah, either one.
Yeah.
Because I've just been reading Tolstoy's account of his time at Sevastopol and his trip to the Fourth Bastion.
The Fourth Bastion is the place where it all happened, where just everyone dies, gets blown up.
Yeah.
And I was thinking, this is a war report by somebody that my people were fighting at the time.
The Russians were supposedly the baddies, according to the narrative that I would have been sold by William Russell in the Times, had I read the Times in those days.
Well, I'm kind of of the view now that if you're thousands of miles away from your home, you're the bad guys.
I don't need to know.
Yeah, that's a good rule of thumb.
Yeah.
Now go on.
I was going to ask you: have I know that the Russians, on occasion, have not performed brilliantly.
One doesn't want to make out like the Russians are this kind of elite force that know how to fight and are brilliant at it.
Because I know that they're so one of the stories I was told when I was in Russia is that the commanders are fiercely partisan.
So, for example, if you're the general in your area commanding your forces is a Chechen and you're not a Chechen, he's going to send you in and spare the lives of his Chechens.
And I also heard another interesting story, which was you remember at Mariupol, where the huge Azov-style, what was the Azov-style, yeah.
Yeah, the Azov-style, the Azov, who are particularly nasty Nazi battalion, made a sort of final stand in this huge complex.
The Russians took it at great cost.
And whenever any Russians got captured by Azov, they were tortured.
Some of them had their bits cut off, things like that.
Awful, awful things were done.
And afterwards, I was told, Putin, one of Putin's old mates was captured, a general, was captured by the Ukrainians.
And as part of the prisoner swap, because Putin was so desperate to get his old mate back, that he allowed lots of Azov to be returned to the Ukrainians to commit more, to butcher more Russian prisoners.
And the Russians were so pissed off about this, the Russian army, the fighting men, that they said, well, right, sod it.
We're not going to take any more prisoners.
That's it.
If you're going to hand Azov back, win.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, I think that rule applies on both sides, but that was the reason that they did they.
Yeah, I'm sure there's a lot of bad stuff goes on on both sides, there's no question.
But you read about this English lad that went out there and volunteered for the International Legion and he was found with his hands behind his back in a reservoir shot.
And it was his own mates in Inverted Commas that did that in the International Legion.
I imagine that the International Legion attracts a few kind of head cases.
It's not the official action that they can't be.
Yeah, no, exactly.
Yeah.
I mean, my heart goes out to the people on both sides, the young men, mainly young men, who are just being fed into the meat grinder at the behest of the usual suspects.
Well, it's even worse than that this time because I think, you know, this goes back to the Trump thing.
I think the liberals in the West they've convinced themselves that whole narrative they've actually bought the narrative.
They do think they're sort of building the new Atlantis with Saint Winston Zelensky at the helm.
They actually buy into this whole good versus evil and they're going to keep pushing it.
It's a fantasy for them.
And they've bought into it.
And I think they don't want to give it up.
I think that's, you know, they're going to, this is completely crazy.
They're living in a fantasy land that they created.
But isn't the problem of the war faction in Europe that the Russians, even though they haven't been brilliant, have, I mean, they've got superiority of numbers and material, presumably, and stuff.
Haven't they now effectively surrounded and rolled up the bulk of the Ukrainian army in the Donbass?
Yeah, I don't know the day-to-day, but they're clearly moving ahead more and more quickly all the time.
And there's more and more deserters.
So the writing's on the wall.
And the recruitment rate of the Russians is 15,000 a month more than the Ukrainians.
So it's like literally everything is telling you, and it's been like that all year.
There's only one way this can go mathematically.
It's like there's no other outcome to this.
You know, it's like flows in and out.
This flow in and that flow out means these guys have won this.
It's a question of when.
And so what's the point of continuing?
So one sees not reported in the papers, but one sees it on social media all the time.
These heart-rending videos of, well, actually, I've seen two kinds of heart-rending videos.
One is of Russian-speaking babushkas being circled by drones and then executed by far-off kids in Kiev as remote, remote killing that goes on by psychopaths.
But the other is Ukrainians being on the way home or whatever, being arrested by and forced to forced to enlist.
Yeah.
Old people who really should be nowhere near that.
Well, none of these people should be anywhere near near the front line.
Yeah, yeah.
But that's one thing also that's hidden is, and I've written so much about this, but I don't know if you've seen it, the RAND document from 2016, 2019.
I'm sure I'm sure you've seen it, but there's a big long RAND report, which is 345 pages of ways to harass Russia.
It's called Overextending Russia.
And it's again, you can find it on the internet.
It's there.
And one of them is use Ukraine.
It says provide lethal aid to Ukraine.
And then it says at the bottom of that, it goes, this may tip into full-scale conflict, which the Russians will win due to comparative advantage.
So, you know, the guys doing this stuff, they know how this can go, and they know that Ukraine will get wiped out in the process because Russia has a comparative advantage.
So it's like, you know, it's literally in black and white from 2019 from RAND, which is the most important think tank out there.
It's like a $430 million turnover think tank that really, I think, writes a lot of stuff for the US military.
And they knew.
And it's like, everyone knows.
And this is the thing that Ukrainians should be more angry than anyone, almost.
I mean, the Russians are mad, but the Ukrainians should be furious about this thing.
So you sent us into something you knew that could go into a hot war that we would lose.
What was the upside for us of this?
It's like crazy.
And I've tweeted a lot now, and it's only now getting a bit of traction.
You know, three years, nobody looks at it, go one like, and it disappears.
But now it's starting to like, people are starting to figure out, oh, this is like in a planned document from RAND from years ago.
And with the consequence that it could blow up and the Ukrainians would lose.
Well, thank you for spotting this stuff, Alex, that nobody else is.
Because it needs somebody dogged to do this stuff.
Because you ain't going to get it from any of the defense correspondents.
Now, I do tweet, I do copy tweet Julia Hartley Brewer, and surprisingly, she hasn't picked up on anything I've ever sent her.
No, funny that.
Funny that.
By the way, I've mentioned this before, but do you know why Russian recruitment is quite healthy?
Well, they pay a lot of money.
It's 800,000 rubles, I think.
Do you know how much?
So the sign-up bonus is $70,000.
$10,000, $10,000.
No, more than that.
Is that right?
Yeah.
About $70,000.
$10,000.
Don't think so.
No.
I've seen 800,000 rubles as the thing that's on the billboards out there.
Oh.
I meant, unless they changed it.
No, no.
Unfortunately, I'm not very good at my currency calculations.
The one 10,000, yeah.
10,000 quid.
$10,000, yeah.
That doesn't sound very much, but I suppose it is.
Actually, it's not that much in Russia now because Russia, that inflation and everything has made a difference.
I travel a lot to Russia, spent a lot of time there, and it used to be dirt cheap.
And it still can be cheap, but it's much more expensive than it was.
Have you been recently?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, I travel a lot.
I mean, I really like Russia.
I think it's great.
And it's horses for courses.
I'm not one of these teary-eyed guys.
There's certain things I like about it, certain things I don't, you know, but I, you know, and this is the choice, and this is what I tried to get through the dissonance.
They always complain about, oh, they're all one thing because they're doing digital something.
I say, look, everybody's going to introduce digital something.
Every ruler has a common interest in oppressing their population.
But beyond that, they have different ideas about, you know, how life should be run.
And I genuinely think this guy is a conservative in the sense, you know, the family, the nation, and the church, they believe in that.
They're building a narrative and a lifestyle around that, which is the antithesis of the West.
So there is definitely a true split in that philosophy of how the society should go.
You've sort of come halfway to answering the question I was going to ask you, sort of by way of more or less a conclusion, which is, now that I'm fully down the rabbit hole, I'm very wary of falling into the trap of look at the Russians, they're going to save us, they're the white hats, they're going to stand up for all the things that we love.
Or look at whoever, look at Trump.
I've come to the conclusion that they are all in it on some level, whether it's Xi or Putin or the South Americans or even, I suspect, Ibrahim Traore of where is he, Burkina Faso?
I'm sure that.
I'm sure that all our great hopes are actually part of the the system.
But so how does that square with?
Well, I think the best you've got for and I i've mentioned this I like the Quigley version of the way Japan was run, that there's one ruling sort of UM elite, but there's there's four clans inside the ruling elite and they're constantly fighting each other over who's got the navy, who's got the army, who controls?
You know, the the UM ripping off the peasants for their rice purchases and all of that.
So there's a constant battle between those four, and it's a pretty serious battle.
There's no quarters given.
And I kind of like that kind of model that, yeah, they're all, like I said, the common theme, and actually Chatham House has acknowledged this, the common theme across the whole liberal order and the authoritarian orders, they jokingly call it, is they both essentially want to oppress their populations through big tech.
And he said, beyond that, there's no common ground.
But that is common ground.
So I think that's the way it is.
You know, you can be oppressed, but not have LGBT stuff rammed down your throat, or you can be oppressed and have LGBT stuff rammed down your throat.
That's your menu, unfortunately.
There's no, we're all going to have our God-given rights and go to sunny green grasslands.
It's not on the menu.
Alex, I'd recommend to all viewers and listeners that they read your longer essays on this subject.
So where can they find you?
It's thinking coalition at Substack.
And I'll just give you a couple of, just a teaser on a couple of things.
One thing I want to do is I've got, and I've had it for ages, I think it's pretty proof positive to me that the West has been genocided.
It's a graph of the sperm count going down over years, but the non-West is kind of flat.
So this is only happening in the West.
I want to pose some questions about that.
And then the other one is I'm doing a network which is kind of new, which involves Peter Thiel.
It involves Kaya Kallas.
And it's very, it's a very, it's not a public, there's one little bit of information in the public domain about it.
And it's obviously very weird.
And I'm just doing something on that as well for next week, probably.
But it's real.
I'm going to come back.
Give me one second.
Okay.
Sorry.
He actually was about to drive off with a package.
If I hadn't gone down then, I would have had to do the thing where it was too much hassle.
Do you know what it was?
He was going to drive off with this.
It's not like it was something that I had to interrupt this podcast for this.
It's kind of useful, though.
I mean, it's nice.
It's okay.
Or is it?
I think it's okay.
It's all right.
It serves a purpose.
Ask the wife.
See what she thinks.
Anyway, so sorry about that.
Was there anything else you had to say?
No, that was it, really, I think.
And you've given you, have you given your where we can find where Substack is and stuff?
Yeah, it's Thinking Coalition.
I always forget which way around it is.
Is it substack.thinkingCoalition.com or is it thinkingcoalition.substack.com?
I'll put the link at the bottom.
Yeah, and it's at think T-H-I-N-K Coalition on Twitter.
And I sometimes have a long break of not being on there.
I'm on it now, but yeah, it comes and goes.
Well, Alex, thank you for the work that you do.
The thankless work, otherwise thankless work.
And yeah, everyone check out Alex's stuff.
And obviously, me, me, James, you love me.
You want to support me.
You want to become a paid subscriber.
Because I do, I love everybody, but I do love my paying subscribers slightly more because they enable me to feed me with food and keep me sheltered and enable me to do this stuff.
Please like and subscribe and recommend whatever it is you have to do.
And yeah, support me on Substack, Patreon, the other places.
Buy me a coffee, support my sponsors, and keep listening and keep fighting the fight.