All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 5, 2024 - The Leo Zagami Show
01:05:52
THE NWO AND THE SECRETS OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
What kind of date is that?
2016, are we going back in time?
Ah!
Welcome to the Yosegami Show!
This is our Christmas setup and we are here because of an emergency broadcast.
We interrupt our programming.
This is a national emergency.
important details will follow the following message is transmitted at the request of the United States
The North American Aerospace Defense Command has detected the launch of 10 Russian missiles, which are headed for the United States.
These missiles are presumed to contain nuclear warheads, and are predicted to make impact within the next 15 to 25 minutes.
But this is the kind of scenario we don't want to really ever see.
No way!
Okay, welcome to the Leo Sagami Show.
Today is the first day, December 5th of the year of the Lord, 2024!
Yes, maybe we need more light.
More light seems a bit dark.
Oh, it's good, Moe.
It's okay.
It has a warm Christmas feeling.
Yeah, not like all the lights.
Okay, no worries, no worries.
But I want to thank our sponsors for today, Andrew Galt.
Thank you very much.
That's why we're here.
Sites include Washington, D.C., New York City, San Francisco, California, Seattle, Washington, New Orleans, Louisiana, Salt Lake City, Utah, Helena, Montana, Kansas City, Missouri.
Rapid City City South Dakota, and Boston, Massachusetts.
All persons within 100 miles of the impacted areas should seek out a fallout shelter.
In the meantime, I've noticed that I do much better when I check the levels of the audio with my headphones.
So what I'm going to do, I took out this, because all these podcasters were headphones, I went in search of my old DJ headphones.
Yes, yes, let me see if it's working here.
Let me see if...
Okay, are we broadcasting?
Are we broadcasting?
Can you hear me loud and clear?
Seems like it's working.
Seems like we have a good audio set up.
Hey everybody, share this because people didn't know we were here and so now we have hardly anybody here.
So share this important broadcast.
Absolutely.
Today the NWO and the secrets of nuclear deterrence.
This is a very important show because very few people know of the nuclear deterrence policies of our governments, especially the United States of America.
So it's about time that we clear up this matter because there is a strategy of tension and a psychological operation connected to the nuclear deterrence.
I, of course, published a book about psychological operations, about cognitive warfare, about mind control, and it's volume 11 of my confessions.
The gentleman which I will be discussing initially in this episode, we are here in early December 2024, and fortunately we have not been nuked yet, so this was an unrealistic nuclear attack scenario that we broadcast.
It wasn't a realistic one, fortunately.
But what I'm about to discuss is still very relevant and very serious.
Why?
Because very few people, like I said, know about the nuclear deterrence policies of our government, of all the new world order after the Second World War.
Now, how many nukes does Russia have?
Russia has 5,580 nukes.
How many nukes does the United States have?
Approximately 5,044.
So, if mathematics is not an opinion, the United States have less nukes than Russia.
This is a fact.
Because, like I said, mathematics is not an opinion.
We claim to be the first nook power in the world, but 5580 against 5044, there is a difference of over 500 nukes.
And this, like I said, is not an opinion, but a clear fact.
Now, regarding the latest news that pushed us to do this show, there is a lot going on worldwide, especially since this out, how can we say, Joe Biden is not president, it's a zombie who is still in charge until January 3rd.
2025 is messing things up and is trying, in some way, seems to trigger Russia.
And the nuclear deterrence is something we've been talking about on and off since the 1950s.
And it has worked out very well.
So we didn't mess up our planet because of this nuclear deterrence.
I have a couple of books here which I will...
They are from, of course, Henry Kissinger.
One is World Order, and the late Henry Kissinger wrote also this other one, The Age of AI, which includes a chapter of great importance, Security and World Order.
So there is a lot to discuss for today's show.
I hope that you will enjoy the ride with us.
It's going to be, I think, a very instructive ride for those who, of course, follow us every week.
We talk about the Illuminati and the occult, and we do this exploring the Illuminati occult series.
But because there is not really anything occult today, Aside from the membership in the Luminati of Eric Giesinger, which is proven by the fact that many of his policies were decided at the Bohemian Grove, which, of course, is the place where a couple of times a year the Bohemian Club meets up.
So...
He was an Illuminati.
He was, for many, also a Sabbatean Frankie.
In fact, like I wrote in my books, citing Rabbi Anterman, he was excommunicated from the Jewish faith and he actually asked for a sandwich with ham when he went to Israel on an official visit.
So that didn't make him very kosher.
For sure.
Let me straighten up here the Vatican because otherwise people say, ah, but you have the...
No, it's just a camera that sometimes acts in this way.
This is Leo and this is my wife Christy and welcome everybody for the Leo Zegami show.
If you want to help us out moving forward with our project, Until the end of the year you can help us with your donations that can be sent of course at the GoFundMe or at the Cash App.
I will put now on the screen For those interested in GoFundMe, in case you want to give us a donation, we are no longer, for a long time actually, we haven't been on PayPal,
we are no longer on Fundly, it seems that even Stripe has problems with us, so at the moment these are the options that we have And I hope that you all enjoy the show, of course.
Welcome, welcome to all of you.
Chrissy, you want to actually...
Put the air conditioner down?
Maybe, maybe a little bit.
It's so humid here today.
Yes, it's not cold, but it's very humid.
It's weird.
It's a little bit weird.
What did you want?
Well, it doesn't matter.
We can do it later.
Okay, you have it here on the screen.
GoFundMe.
And at this point, let's get into the broadcast.
Let's get into the transmission.
Because we have to, first of all, like I said, talk about...
A little over a year since Harry Kissinger died.
We don't really feel we are missing something here, but the New World Order is actually missing one of their big players.
Harry Kissinger died on November 29, 2023. So, like I said, a little over a year ago, and most people know him For a number of reasons.
He was an American diplomat, a political scientist who served as the 56th United States Secretary of State from 1973 to 1977 and the 7th National Security Advisor from 1969 to 1975 to both Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.
Born in Germany, Kissinger immigrated to the United States.
He was a Jewish refugee fleeing Nazi persecution.
He arrived here, he served the U.S. Army during World War II, where he started some intelligence activities, and then he later became a professor of government at the university and earned an international reputation as an expert on nuclear weapons and foreign policy.
And that is why we are discussing now Harry Kissinger in the context of today's show.
Because Harry Kissinger and understanding Harry Kissinger means understanding the secrets of nuclear deterrence and also the strategy of tension which was orchestrated by the Illuminati around nuclear weapons.
Yes, because aside from the fact that nuclear weapons are a reality, they are a reality that has never really been put in full use after Hiroshima and Nagasaki for obvious reasons.
We don't want to destroy the whole planet.
I mean, it's important that people realize that Nixon and other people who relied on Kissinger, relied on Kissinger because Kissinger was also an expert manipulator.
In fact, the career of Harry Kissinger brings him in 1952 to become part of the Psychological Strategy Board.
The Psychological Strategy Board was a committee of the United States formed to coordinate and plan psychological operations.
It was formed in April 1951 during the Truman administration and this important organization didn't last that long.
But it was important because the National Psychological Strategy Board will decide the psychological warfare activities and this though resulted in a conflict with the Department of Defense which called for an inter-department And at the end,
they formed a other organization which was called the Operations Coordinating Board.
Now, why am I talking about all this?
Because the Operations Coordinating Board was very important in the national security of the United States.
The board membership was to include under the Secretary of State The Chair of the Board, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Foreign Operations Administration, the Director of Central Intelligence, so the CA, and the President's Special Assistant for Psychological Warfare.
This organization lasted until JFK eliminated it in February 1961. And some people say this is one of the reasons why He was killed.
There are many reasons why JFK could have been killed.
We all remember his speech against the secret societies, but nobody really focuses on the fact that President Kennedy, on February 19, 1961, thought that secret wars should not be overseen by so many officials,
and so he decided to eliminate The abolition of this organization, which involved, like I said, also Kissinger, led, of course, to the establishment of other bodies that continue in the planning.
In fact, the planning coordination group was one of them.
And, of course, following the presidential directive of covert operations and the special group.
But going back to Eric Kissinger, why is it so important to Eric Kissinger?
Because Eric Kissinger is the guy Who really is fundamental for the policy of nuclear deterrence?
And so, first of all, Christy, you asked me earlier, what is nuclear deterrence?
And what are the values and limits of nuclear deterrence?
Now, nuclear deterrence is today presented in this way by NATO officials.
And it's very important that we all check it out so we understand a little bit better.
This is from November 30, 2023. Nuclear weapons are a core component of NATO's overall capabilities for deterrence and defense.
Alongside conventional and missile defense forces, NATO is committed to arms control, disarmament, and...
Non-proliferation.
But as long as nuclear weapons exist, it will remain a nuclear alliance.
So a nuclear alliance.
But let's go back to the origins.
Let's go back to this very young Harry Kissinger, which established really the basic policies of nuclear deterrence in the 1950s.
Nuclear deterrence refers to a principle in international relations where the retaliatory potential and destructive force of nuclear weapons prevent nations from launching a nuclear attack because everybody will be killed on both sides so everybody stays you know it's like a a game of chess but nobody is gonna strike the actual We're
in complete in aeration, how you say, distraction.
However, there are questions still to this day as to whether nuclear deterrence is sufficient, effective, or even ethical.
Now, in 1986, a book came out called Nuclear Ethics, which was very important, written by Joseph Knight.
And this identified 10 operational criteria for avoiding nuclear conflict.
But the earlier The book which discusses the way we should use nuclear weapons in a strategic context was of course written by Henry Kissinger and this book was called Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy.
Let me show you this book because it's very important because most of the politics surrounding the use of nuclear weapons are based on this book.
Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policies This is a book with a forward by Gordon Dean.
It is the book published by the Council of Foreign Relations so that gives us an idea of how everything was put together and it's of course the United States in world affairs blah blah blah and it gives us this came out in 1957 1957. The Council of Foreign Relations,
as you know, is an important part of the New World Order.
And it's a non-profit institution devoted to study of the international aspects of American political, economic, and strategic problems.
This is how they describe it in a very innocent way.
The authors of books published on the auspices of the cancer are responsible for the statements of facts.
But in reality, this book that was published in 1987 became a game changer.
Okay?
Let's go to a more recent book by Eric Kissinger because this book will explain us where we are now.
nuclear weapons and deterrence page 141 in prior eras when a new weapon emerged military integrated into their arsenal and strategies, devices, doctrines that enabled its use in pursuit of political ends the advent of nuclear weapons Broke this link.
The first and to date only use of nuclear weapons in war, and this, like I repeat, is a book co-written by Eric Kissinger, Harry Schmidt and Daniel Utenlocker, And it's a book published a couple of years ago.
I think it's from either 2021 or 2022. But it's a book which I've cited also in Volume 7 of my Confessions because it's also regarding the use of the AI. Yes, 2021. So, what happens here?
Okay, let me...
Okay, ladies and gentlemen.
Well, I'm sure you can regulate the light.
So, the nuclear weapons, and this is what Kissinger says, broke this link.
The first and to date only use of nuclear weapons, like we said, by the United States, It was against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, compelling a swift end to the Second World War in the Pacific.
And I'm quoting here Kissinger and Franz.
It was recognized immediately as a watershed.
Even as the world major powers redacted their efforts to master the new weapons technology and incorporate into their arsenal, they engaged in unusually open and searching debate about the strategic and more implication of its use.
You can read here the next slide.
Maybe you do a better job than me.
I don't know.
With power on a scale far beyond that of any other form of armament at the time, nuclear weapons posed fundamental questions.
Could this tremendous destructive force be related by way of some guiding principle or doctrine to the traditional elements of strategy?
Could the use of nuclear weapons be reconciled with political objectives short of total war and mutual destruction?
Would the bomb admit of calibrated proportional or tactical use?
Yes.
The answer to date has ranged from ambiguous to negative.
Even during the brief period when the United States held a nuclear monopoly from 1945 to 1949, a somewhat longer period during which it possessed substantially more effective nuclear delivery systems, It never developed a strategic doctrine or identified a moral principle that persuaded it to use nuclear weapons in an actual conflict following the Second World War.
After that, absent clear doctrinal lines that had been mutually agreed upon by the existing nuclear powers and perhaps not even then, no policymaker could follow a limited use and whether it would remain limited.
To date, such an attempt has not been made.
No.
Wow.
Let me show you a couple of articles here that give you an idea of where we are now.
Because we are here in 1947, they started with the countdown, with the famous clock that counts, if we are closer or not, to nuclear Armageddon or destruction.
This is the Moscow Times.
It's an article from 13 hours ago.
Putin's nuclear threat scares Russians too.
It's, of course, the Moscow Times and independent news from Russia, but it's important to understand that there is a lot going on behind the scenes.
The New Year Post has just published today an article that basically revealed that the Famous ballistic, not long-range, because the Russians don't call them round-range, the Ostenik, or whatever you want to call them, missiles.
It was actually a planned event for a while.
Let's show exactly here what the article of the New Year's Post is entitled.
I'm trying to eliminate here, if possible, but it doesn't seem possible.
Trying to see if I can show you the actual article without ending up in some publicity nightmare.
Okay.
Putin's nuclear-capable ballistic missiles launch was long planned, not a response for U.S. allowing Ukraine deeper strikes into Russia.
This, apparently, is a revelation by a Kremlin officer.
It says that this operation was long planned, but at the end of the day, it seems like Vladimir Putin here says the launch of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile in Ukraine two weeks ago was not in response to the recent U.S. decision to allow Kiev to strike deeper into Russia, a top Kremlin military officer told the chief of the Joint Staff in a secret call last week.
Can we trust this information?
Of course not.
There is always propaganda on both sides.
Putin has claimed the blast came as a reaction to the US policy shift last month to allow Ukraine to launch longer-range attempts, which is basically the problem.
...connected to the long-range nuclear missiles, which was approved for the first time by Joe Biden.
Joe Biden, which is described as being increasingly confused, fallen asleep in Africa while he was in this meeting with all the various African leaders.
The guy is apparently even from fellow Democrats.
He's like...
Even worse than it was a year ago, it's deteriorating increasingly.
We couldn't even imagine what a second Joe Biden presidency would have done to the United States of America.
It would have been impossible.
It would have been better than Cuomo.
I don't know about that.
Here, there is World Order.
This is a previous book of Harry Kissinger.
It's a book from 2014, so from 10 years ago, in which Kissinger, and this is a book written on his own, so it's his own words, the advent of nuclear weapons brought this process to a culmination.
Culmination, what it means?
A culmination Of the potential destruction, technology equilibrium, and human consciousness was the title of this chapter.
And World Order in the Nuclear Age is actually the subchapter.
Since history began, in fact, Kissinger says to be recorded, political units, whether described as states or not, had at the disposal of War as the ultimate resource.
War has always been the last resource.
But yet the technology that made war possible also limited its scope.
The most powerful and well-equipped states could only project force over limited distances in certain quantities and against so many targets.
Things, of course, change.
And change, of course, with the arrival of the nuclear age.
And going back to what I was reading a moment ago, the advent of nuclear weapons brought this process to a culmination and in World War II, scientists from the major powers labored to achieve mastery of the atom and with it the ability to release its energy.
The American effort, known as the Manhattan Project and drawing of the best minds from the United States, Britain and the European diaspora, prevailed after the first successful atomic test in July 1945 in the deserts of New Mexico.
J. Robert Oppenheimer, and they made also a movie that came out not so long ago about all this, the theoretical physicist who headed the secret weapons development effort, I would, by his triumph, recall the verse from the Bhagavad Gita, now I am become death, the destroyer of wars.
So, bringing man to become almost a god that can destroy, if he wants, potentially the whole planet.
Before we might cite more from Kissinger who seems to also connect the whole he discusses profusely also the involvement of the use of this strategy of tension of this nuclear deterrence with keeping Taiwan safe from China.
China wasn't at the time a nuclear power but now Apparently China is becoming a nuclear power and by the year 2030 experts say that China will have the same arsenal as Russia and America.
Russia has better hypersonic missiles but China has already very good ones even if of course they don't have the vast nuclear arsenal that the Russian Federation has.
In regards to hypersonic missiles Still, the United States is not doing that great, unfortunately, because when you give more importance to gender equality or some other bullshit instead of Real things.
That's what happens.
When you give importance to nonsense, like it happens here in the United States, unfortunately, these days, because of the Democrats, things tend to go very badly.
Now, there is, of course, more things that I wanted to discuss in regards to All this threat, you know, the threats that Putin is making for now a couple of years in regards to the possible potential use of nuclear weapons at times are taken only as threats.
But should we take them seriously?
The conversation which preys itself on academic, rigor and journalistic fairs And this between Brages, because we know it's always another mainstream publication very close to the left, says Putin's nuclear threat aims to scare the West, but Ukraine's allies are now calling its bluff.
Now, this is the problem here.
It seems like the outgoing Biden administration that recently reversed this ban on Ukraine's use of long-range missiles to strike targets inside Russia It's kind of thinking they can get away with it because they think he's bluffing.
Can you really risk the life of millions of people by your sensation?
You see, that's the problem with Democrats.
They make their policy not based on facts, but on feelings.
Oh, give me a safe space.
Oh, I have a sensation of being awkward.
Oh, you don't make me feel comfortable.
They even went against Trump relentlessly because he was doing mean tweets.
So then what?
We have in the White House an idiot who has made basically millions of people die around the world and who has also broken the world economy and we are in a situation that is still very difficult because regardless of the fact that the inflation might be less and less We are still not seeing any visible results and so
we are still spending a lot of money and when we go to the supermarket, we go to pump in the gasoline pump, we still feel, especially here in California, we have Hey, Trump-proof state!
So this idiot of Newscam who basically paraded in Sacramento the other day with all the various lawmakers and he arrived like this, you know?
Guys, I mean, are the people from California so idiotic?
I mean, should they really realize once and for all that this is really dangerous?
In any case, the Russian President Vladimir Putin has changed his nuclear doctrine recently, and this is also very important.
The nuclear-capable intermediate-range missile that was also used in Dnepro.
Putin announced that Russia has the right to attack the military installation of states allowing Ukraine to use their weapons to attack Russia.
Things have changed since these changes to the nuclear doctrine, and we need to explain this a little bit better.
The Kremlin announced on November 10th, so we're talking about a couple of weeks ago, a little bit more than a couple of weeks ago, that Putin signed this decree, updating the government formal policy on the possible use of nuclear weapons.
What does it mean?
The document outlines a wider range of contingencies that might trigger nuclear weapons use, especially in regards to non-nuclear weapons threats to Russia and its allies, and appears to lower the threshold for nuclear use.
The update to Russia's nuclear doctrine was previewed by Putin in comments delivered on September 25 of this year and it was issued just days after it was reported that US President Joe Biden had decided to To authorize Ukraine's use of US supplies,
long-range missiles, then later on we had also similar autorization by Great Britain that triggered also another launch of similar weapons made in the United Kingdom.
And Russia has warned that such a U.S. move would change the nature of the conflict.
So nuclear deterrence, like we said, was something that brought everybody to a steal.
And so, yes, there was the potential to destroy the world, but nobody really used this potential.
Kissinger in his book also nuclear weapons and foreign policy advocated eventually for a limited use of nuclear weapons within a small environment and of course what we call today a small tactical nuke Kissinger Tactical nuclear shadow.
This was the title of an article in 2016 by Jeffrey Frank on the New Yorker.
It was a guy that in the summer of 1957, as a Harvard faculty member, was featured in a front-page time story that examined the idea that with a new generation of smaller, more transportable atomic weapons, a limited or little nuclear war was not an outlandish idea as it sounded.
Hissinger had just published the book which we have mentioned, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, which he then adapted in the form of an article for the quarterly foreign affairs.
A year later, the young Hissinger, who was only 34 years old, appeared on the Mike Bolles interview, and this is a clip from that Very important interview with Mike Wallace, the father of Wallace.
The younger Wallace.
It's always a Wallace.
The younger Wallace is at CNN. This is Professor Henry Kissinger, a military and political analyst with a revolutionary concept of nuclear war and a constructive concept for peace.
He's a man whose ideas have prompted the highest officials of our government to re-evaluate our defense policies.
We'll get his criticisms of our current strategies in war and peace in just a moment.
The Mike Wallace interview, presented by the American Broadcasting Company in association with the Fund for the Republic Brings you a special television series discussing the problems of survival and freedom in America.
Good evening.
I'm Mike Wallace.
Tonight, we'll tackle the immediate issue that will decide the fate of our freedom, certainly, and possibly even of our survival.
We'll discuss the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union and the chances of war.
Our guest, Professor Henry Kissinger, Associate Director of the Center for International Affairs at Harvard University, And the man whose recent proposals substantially influenced President Eisenhower's plan for military reorganization.
Dr. Kissinger, last year, your attack on our foreign and military policies was apparently found so disturbing that the New York Times carried this front page story.
They said, for the first time since President Eisenhower took office, officials at the highest government levels are displaying interest in the theory of the little or limited war.
The theory of massive retaliation is being re-examined.
That was a year ago.
What has come of the re-examination?
I think the theory has been re-examined, the practice has not been.
The theory has been found wanting then?
The theory has been found wanting, but I don't think we have made the effort, or spent the money, or made the sacrifices necessary to get a capability for limited war.
Well now, in order to better understand your proposal for a limited war, perhaps it would be well for you to define what you understand to be our current United States military policy.
What is our military policy?
Well, our current military policy is based on the doctrine of massive retaliation, that we threaten an all-out attack on the Soviet Union in case the Soviet Union engages in aggression anywhere.
This means that against almost any form of attack, We base our policy on a threat that will involve the destruction of all mankind.
And this is too risky and, I think, too expensive.
You obviously think it's wrong, dangerous to our security.
I wonder if you would expand on that.
Just because of what you say, the risk, and just because of the expense, it is not worthwhile?
No.
What it will mean is that in every crisis, An American president will have to make the choice whether a given objective is worth the destruction of American cities.
The American president will have to decide whether Beirut or whatever the issue may be is worth 30 million American lives.
In practice, I'm afraid the American president will have to decide that it is not worth it and it will therefore encourage the piecemeal taking over of the world.
by Soviet aggression.
Because you believe the Soviets understand our unwillingness or inability, certainly our unwillingness to wage an all-out war?
The Soviets will understand our increasing unwillingness to engage in this kind of war, and therefore their task will be to present us with a challenge which doesn't ever seem worth taking the final jump, but which the accumulation of which is going to lead to the destruction of the free world.
In place of that policy, what do you believe are Military political policy should be.
Well, the first thing I'd like to say is that military policy can't be a substitute for other measures.
It can only be the screen behind which other measures are possible.
Now, with this qualification, I think that we must have a military capability that permits us to react to Soviet threats at the same level of intensity at which they present it.
So that we don't always have to choose between the destruction of the United States and the defense of the countries that may be threatened, but rather that we can defend the areas which are threatened at the place where the threat occurs.
How is that actually translated into, if I may, into more simple language?
Is this...
Are you simply talking now about a policy which includes limited war?
It's a policy that, yes, that we are ready to engage in limited war, that we have troop transports, air transport that enables us to get into position quickly, and that we have the forces to engage in limited war, which we do not now have.
Can you give me an example of how this might actually work out?
Well, at the moment we have 13 divisions.
It is clear that with 13 divisions we are incapable of resisting Soviet attacks when the Soviet Union has 175 divisions.
If we had more divisions and if we had air transport, then in case of a Soviet attack, say, on Iraq, we could airlift a few divisions into the area and together with local forces attempt a defense.
President Eisenhower, you advise limited war, or you suggest the use of limited war, limited nuclear war indeed.
President Eisenhower said about two years ago, he said, war in our time has become an anachronism.
Whatever the case in the past, war in the future, he said, can serve no useful purpose.
A war which became general as any limited action might, he said, could only result in the virtual destruction of mankind.
Now that's the rub.
It would seem that any limited nuclear war might boil over into a total war, and so the question we must put to ourselves is, dare we take the chance?
Well, let me answer this question in two parts.
You say I advise a policy of limited nuclear war.
I do not advise that we initiate war.
The question of war will arise only if the Soviet Union attacks.
Then, if the Soviet Union attacks, and in fact we are very much more afraid of total war than they are, They will gradually blackmail the free world into surrender.
Everything that I say is based on the assumption that we are as willing to run risks as the Soviet Union.
If this is not the case, we are lost.
And I think we ought to face that fact.
Let's look at some of the measures.
Let's look at some of the measures which you propose for keeping a limited war limited.
You say, for instance, that in the midst of a limited war, Each side could be required to list its strategic air bases, which would then be immune from attack.
Now, this was an interview from 1958. The subject is pretty much very present with us today.
And I was watching earlier the show by Pierce.
Yeah.
And in that show, he actually guested Wesley Kark, the famous general who seems to be very much still a neocon in his mindset or somebody who is still wanting war.
War is the ultimate solution.
In fact, he went against one of the guests, you know, by stating that it was...
It's stupid to bow down to Putin because Putin, he thinks, you know, General Clark thinks that Putin wants the West to implode.
It's very sad that we have people that think the only solution is to continue on this path, in this war path of sorts against Putin, when Putin has over 5,000 nuclear weapons.
I mean, it's impossible.
It's just impossible.
It's suicidal.
And those people in Ukraine, because Ukraine, people don't know that, it's a young nation.
It's full of young people.
There's not many old people, especially in the intellectual discourse.
The older ones were the ones that were actually educated during the Soviet Union.
They were kind of cast aside.
And 10 years ago, they think that the revolution It was against Yanukovych, against somebody who was corrupted by Russia.
They have this idea that everything in Europe and in the West is wonderful, and that they are fighting the evil czar, the evil Russians.
I mean, it's completely ridiculous.
Like I explained in Volume 9 of my Confessions, and this is a book that everybody should get, Ukraine has literally done a deal with the devil and in this book I explain how the Ukrainian identity was actually artificially created by those nations and the Illuminati from Germany and Poland together also with the help that still today characterizes This conflict,
the help of Great Britain, because if there is an order that is connected to the Illuminati, it's the order of San Stanislaw, which connects the Ukrainian armed forces with the Polish ones and with, of course, the United Grand Lodge of England.
And this is a war that the English feel very close.
I mean, it seems like they want this war more than us.
So, is Trump gonna...
Americans don't want war at all.
I'm sure the English people don't.
It's the government's.
Yes, in fact, today I was reading that Donald J. Trump is more popular in Great Britain than their own Prime Minister from the Labour Party, who is an idiot.
There is no notion of a small nuclear war like Kissinger was trying to push forward, because even a small nuclear war will create an enormous damage.
Especially in the heart of Europe.
Kissinger was way too clever, though, to be trapped by any thesis, even his own.
So he kind of, in the last few years, went towards a more peaceful approach.
And so the tactics for limited war kind of...
Faded a little bit, I think, in his mindset, though he was the one who definitely advanced this possibility of the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
But going back to the new document, the fundamentals of the state policies of the Russian Federation in the field of nuclear deterrence, because this is the new document Vladimir Putin has made public after Joe Biden's idiotic stand.
In this document, Russia considers, quote, nuclear weapons as means of deterrence.
The use of which is an extreme and necessary measure and is making all necessary efforts to reduce the nuclear threat and prevent the aggravation of interstate relations that could provoke military conflicts, including nuclear conflicts.
So there is still this deterrence.
There is still this deterrence that we saw really manifesting more and more The fact that they were abandoning their previous positions and coming together a lot more at the end of the Soviet Union.
We saw the meetings between Gorbachev and Reagan, we talked about in the past, the fact that they agreed that there would be no positive outcome from a war between the two parts.
Unfortunately, things moved in a different direction.
A lot of people, like General Clark, seem to say, okay, but we promised to defend Ukraine, and Russia also co-signed Russia, meaning the Soviet Union, because that's what it was, and then it folded, disintegrated, imploded, and they promised what?
They promised that If Ukraine will take away their nuclear weapons, they will never invade Ukraine.
However, what people tend to forget is that this intervention was forced by what happened on the ground.
The Russian population within Ukraine started to be persecuted more and more until...
Until we got to a point in which, especially in the Donbass region, in Crimea, the Russian Federation felt the need to intervene to protect their fellow Russians.
So, the lies that I saw today on Piers Morgan's show was very evident when Clark said, I speak Russian and when I wanted to speak Ukrainian, Ukrainian is a different language and they have their own language and all that.
Yes, that's true, but for certain areas of Ukraine, not for the Donbass region, not for Crimea.
So, Wesley K. Clark, this known general, is a criminal like most of them.
He's a guy with a past that we know as the supreme, alive commander of NATO until the year 2000, right at the time in which actually there was maybe the possibility of bringing Russia into NATO. Because Silvio Berlusconi also had Very much made friends with Putin and it was kind of convincing.
Just go on YouTube.
I mean, it's very easy.
You can see very friendly relations between George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin.
Very friendly.
And I used to go in Russia all the time during that period.
So there was no more the sense of...
You know, the enemy, the Russian enemy.
The Democrats, they always do it.
It's been fundamentally Barack Hussein Obama and then Joe Biden, who has two years ago...
I mean, this is, of course, people would say...
He went downhill from that point on, worse than ever.
I don't know if I can find here very quickly an image of Putin and Bush hanging around together like best friends, but it was a completely different kind of scenario back in those days.
Just so you can have an idea, I can show you some images briefly, so you can see what I'm talking about.
For those who are maybe a little bit younger and don't understand, this present situation that we have today, back then, is completely unimaginable.
The Cold War was triggered by the Antichrist, Barack Hussein Obama, one of the Antichrists.
I'm not saying he's the ultimate Antichrist, because I think the ultimate Antichrist is Prince William.
But in any case, regardless of who is the ultimate Antichrist, there was a completely different kind of relation.
There was a friendship, there was smiles, there was a genuine...
I mean, even in...
The way they hang out together and this is not even the most friendly of the images.
I saw other archival footage that you can find all over Let's go in even the more pittoresque, let's say, folkloristic moments of when, for example, Putin was dancing with Bush.
I mean, these are things that today seem unimaginable because we have once again artificially created an enemy.
I was there, guys.
I was in Russia.
I was working with the Russian Ministry of Culture.
This is different, you see.
This is in 2008. It's not a million years ago.
No, actually, this is prior to that.
In 2008, we had already Barack Obama.
This is actually a lot earlier.
After I left, though.
No, no, no.
This was before.
This was before.
This was back in the days, around 2001, probably, and after 2002. It was definitely a great relationship.
Now, I don't exactly know when was this video of them dancing around, but You can find not only this, but many, many videos of Putin and Bush together in this friendly kind of situation, where instead today you only have hate, and this hate was built by the Democrats, and in particular Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
And with the arrival of Donald J. Trump in the White House, we will go back, hopefully, to dancing around and peace.
Because the alternative, when you have two nuclear powers that have over 5,000 nuclear warheads each, is destruction of the whole planet.
So there is no...
Do you think that they're up to some sneaky tricks?
Like people say that they're going to make martial law and then Trump can't be president.
Do you think that's going to happen?
The thing is this.
Like trigger something really bad?
Putin is fortunately in direct contact with Donald J. Trump.
And this is the solution.
The solution is diplomacy.
You can't expect...
Of course, if you listen to those idiots in Ukraine who keep wanting money and weapons, that's why today we're very happy that the Speaker of the House Announce that is not going to support another 700 and more whatever millions for Ukraine.
I mean, the House is now in the hands of the Republicans.
The Senate is in the hands of the Republicans.
We need to stop this insanity because there is no solution.
There is no solution than the diplomatic solution.
That's the only possible solution.
There is no military solution.
Volodymyr Zelensky needs to go back to be a comedian.
The people of Ukraine need to understand that they can keep their little nation without the Donbass and Crimea because those are filled with the Russian population, that they have been persecuting, that they don't want to absorb their artificially created Ukrainian culture.
Okay, you want your Ukrainian culture?
Keep your Ukrainian culture, and that's what's going to happen, probably.
Because that's the only solution possible.
I mean, Trump has been very clear, regardless of who the defense secretary might be.
We hope it's Peter Herzog, but it could be anybody.
It could be even the scientists.
Now, I think that Peter Herzog also is the victim of a smear campaign.
I think that what they are doing against him is completely criminal.
And it's sad to see somebody being the victim of such a smear campaign.
Really.
Because the guy and all his colleagues say, even this morning I was listening to Dan Bongino, we never saw him drinking.
Even when we were going to drink at the rock cafe, where they're having a party, he was not drinking because he had to take a plane in the morning and afternoon. - They say, I mean, if it, they say the opposite.
So, I mean, whatever you want, they will just say the opposite.
Now, I erroneously called Wesley Clark earlier a neocon.
He is a democrat, but in the mentality, he's just like the neocons.
And in fact, what is happening now, apparently the White House wants to give preemptive pardons To Dr. Fauci and Liz Cheney.
Oh my God!
Because these people are criminals and they should be actually treated as such, but if they want to pardon them and if they want to really show to the world what they are, because pardoning somebody was not yet been investigated and condemned.
That's genius!
It means that they are guilty.
Guilty as something.
Guilty as something.
Thank you so much for calling us today.
Continue supporting us.
Sorry if the lighting today was a little bit of a mess.
We're not going to have these lights next time.
We're going to have to work it out.
Because, you see, when it's very dark, you know, in the day, the lighting changes.
So it becomes difficult.
Now with these Christmas lights, we tend to have...
Too many maybe shadows and stuff, huh?
It's alright.
Is that okay, Christy?
It's fine.
I actually don't like all this light on my face.
Why don't you...
See, that's like better...
It's still over there on my face.
It's better, though.
It's better, it's...
Why don't you just go like this?
What happens if I go like...
Wait, wait, wait.
Wait, where's the thingy?
Wait, what if I go like that?
Oh my god, it looks so much better!
Yeah?
We have found the solution.
How's that?
It's a little better.
okay guys if you want to have fun at home cooking some great food if like us you don't like these days to go up because the food is overpriced everywhere and it's not really that great quality wise purchase the Zagami family cookbook authentic Italian cooking by Christy Zagami is a book with great photos inside color photos but especially the recipes Explaining how to make fresh
pasta, how to make incredible recipes.
I mean, luxurious recipes that will impress everybody in your family, your friends.
And I tell you, you can learn how to make, of course, the more simple recipes.
You can also make fresh pasta.
If you want to adventure yourself in fresh pasta, there is a whole tutorial here on how to make fresh pasta, which is great.
This is the book, Zagami Family Cookbook, as well as, of course, my latest book, Volume 11, and also Volume 10, because we are still talking about The present chaos in the Middle East,
because, you see, like we said in our, I think it was my last show, we said, I mean, Joe Biden is setting the house on fire, not only shooting, you know, getting the Ukrainians to shoot long-range missiles and so breaking with all the treaties that were done in the age in which, you know, they respected nuclear deterrence means you can't Go forward.
Otherwise, it will be the end of this world.
But in the Middle East, in the meantime, of course, America, the CIA, backed by Barack Hussein Obama, because he's still lurking behind the scene, It's trying to trigger a new conflict in Syria with Assad, with all these Al-Qaeda mercenary operatives working under Turkey and the CIA. You want to know more about the Middle East and the 10th conflict in the Middle East?
Volume 10 of my Confessions, Islamic Freemissionary.
You want to know...
The connection between Freemasonry and Syria, Volume 10 of my Confessions.
It's the only book that talks about Islamic Freemasonry these days.
So, check it out.
And at this point, of course, the music of Vincenzo Viseversa, the visuals of our great friend, which, you know, is, of course, telepandemia, Albert.
And here we go.
Bye-bye!
In that time, our world has taken so many steps in the wrong direction.
Let's not forget, guys, let's not forget one thing.
That Eric Kissinger was the mentor of Klaus Schwab, as I explained in volume 7 of my confession to you.
The great research, unfortunately.
Yes, the great research around technology.
You're great!
Science, technology, social organization, dehumanization.
▲
Export Selection