HOLY SH*T! This Is Why WW3 Could Happen In 2024… - Stay Free #337
Visit https://taxnetworkusa.com/brand to get tax help Thought WW3 was going to happen in 2022 & 2023…well looking like 2024 could be the year if we don’t change the US foreign policy! It the 2024 election the only hope of restoring peace? --💙Support our channel and become an awakened wonder through Locals:https://bit.ly/RussellBrand-Support WATCH me LIVE weekdays on Rumble:https://bit.ly/russellbrand-rumble Visit the new merch store:https://bit.ly/Stay-Free-Store Follow on social media:X: @rustyrocketsINSTAGRAM: @russellbrandFACEBOOK: @russellbrand
Hello you Awakening Wonders there on Spotify, Apple, Stink Whistle, Gurgle Dot or wherever you download your podcasts these days to remain at least peripherally connected to some tendril of truth in a bewildering miasma of lies and propaganda.
We appreciate you, and we love you.
You're part of our community.
So that's why we're very happy to give you an audio version of our live Rumble Show five days a week.
It's on Monday to Friday.
We decipher the latest news stories, we break down current topics that the mainstream media should be covering, and if they aren't, Then we critique why they're not and what they are covering.
Every week as well, right?
We do brilliant conversations with people like Jordan Peterson, RFK, Tucker Carlson, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate.
These things are already up and you can listen to them now.
So remember, this is an audio version of our daily live show.
To tune in live, go to rumble.com forward slash Russell Brand.
You'll find it easily and I hope that you will love it.
Now please enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Thanks.
Hello there, you awakening wonders.
What a special episode of Stay Free we've got for you today.
You love these specials, don't you?
When we show you a particular subject and we delve deeply into it.
We thought possibly World War Three could happen in 2022 or 2023, but now it looks increasingly like World War Three will be 2024's main story.
In election year, What an extraordinary coincidence.
In this fantastic episode exclusively available on Rumble, so if you're watching this anywhere else remember after 15 minutes you're going to have to click that link in the description and remember you can get one month free as an Awakened Wonder as well as additional content and glorious objects such as these by clicking the link, becoming an Awakened Wonder and joining our incredible movement.
Over the course of the show we're talking about The possibility of all-out war in the Middle East, and who benefits from it.
The fact that already there are NATO troops in Ukraine, and across the world, conscription is being discussed and normalised, as well as nuclear war being spoken about as a genuine possibility.
Now, you can watch that first 15 or so across the whole expanse of the internet, but with its regulatory potential, eventually we will have to slink off into that sweet stream of freedom that we call rumble.
Download that app.
Click the red button if you want to become an awakened wonder.
Now, if you thought Ukraine was bad in provoking WW3 in 2022 and 23, and I'm not saying the nation of Ukraine, of course, because Ukraine are clearly being used as a vassal for NATO interests, let's have a look at this story that shows how billions are being derived, contrived, and corruptly acquired using extraordinary techniques deployed by the globalist establishment.
Here's the news.
No, baby.
Here's the effing news.
Thank you for choosing Fox News.
Here's the news.
No.
Here's the fucking news.
Jake Sullivan, who advises Joe Biden on national security, refuses to rule out strikes directly on Iran.
And while all the talk in the world is about raising billions for forever wars, are we on the precipice of all-out war in the Middle East?
Oh, I do hope so.
Jake Sullivan, who you might have seen at Davos, is now on MSNBC doing one of those half-interviews that political figures sometimes do where they sort of go on the television and then don't even tell you anything.
Are you refusing to rule out strikes inside Iran?
Well, I can't say that on the television.
What are you doing on the television then?
So here is Jake Sullivan, National Security Advisor to your President, Joe Biden, refusing to rule out strikes inside Iran.
What will happen to the Middle East, and indeed the world, if America starts bombing Iran?
Is it going to be great for everyone, do you think?
Great for your children?
Great for your taxis?
I do hope so.
Let's get into it.
Is the United States already in a wider war in the Middle East, Jake?
What the United States is doing is responding to threats as we see them.
That's amazing.
It's not in a wider war.
It's responding to threats as we see them.
Does your response to those threats as you see them, sometimes to the casual observer or someone who might have studied military history, look a bit like a war?
Lovely phrase, significant but proportionate.
That's one of those things that would have been workshopped.
Yes, it was significant, but it was proportionate.
People have talked a lot about proportionality when discussing the dynamics between terrorists and national armies.
Well, what would be a proportionate response?
And actually, it is a ridiculous word when talking about war, isn't it?
Because if you talked about proportionality and reason, you'd surely get to the point where you agreed that diplomacy and peace was the best proportion to offer everybody.
This rationalisation of military escalation is a curiously modern phenomena.
In the days of barbarians and Mongols and Saracen swords swinging about, I think people at least knew, look, We want to be powerful.
We're stronger than you.
You're going to do what we tell you or we'll force you.
Now people just try to present war to you as if it's, well, that's all we could do.
It's the only way to bring about peace.
Sadly, I hate war more than anyone.
But has the war expanded?
Has the war expanded in the region, Jake?
Well, first, we don't accept that what's happening in the Red Sea, for example, Kristen, is entirely tied to the war in Gaza.
Entirely tied?
Somewhat connected?
Tangentially connected?
A little bit tied?
It's very curious.
When you watch old media experts engaged in discourse, you'll notice that what you're watching is a ballet of syntax Non-commitment, vague ideas, generalities, rather than sort of like casual discourse.
Because of course Jake Sullivan can't go on Joe Rogan for three hours.
This is the kind of metered language you'll get from the legacy media.
This is why we need independent media.
That's why it's important, significant, epochal even, that Tucker has spoken to Vladimir Putin.
Because what's happened now is everything is shifted.
Now we're confronted with information that's not gone through this type of filter.
Because the Houthis are attacking shipping that has absolutely nothing to do with Israel.
Oh, those hoothies.
So there are connections among these things, to be sure, but... It's weird, because then he keeps telling you that there is a connection.
One thinks for certain, bombing Iran can't make this situation any better.
You can't just bomb Iran and then just go, well, let's just hope that people respond to that rationally.
Whether or not the Houthis are engaged in this activity in the Red Sea as a response
to events in Gaza or not, the bombing of Yemen in a kind of tit-for-tat violent exchange
between the American military and the Houthis is hardly likely to make the situation any
better and is yet more of this fuel-to-the-flames mentality that seems very good for the military
industrial complex, very good for generating a state of anxiety around the world, extra
taxation, more money for the Pentagon who can't pass an audit.
Do any of us believe at this point that it's going to reach a resolution, that the Hoofies are going to stop doing that?
This idea that you can kind of kill everyone that you don't agree with, whether it's in Canada for euthanasia, We're in the Red Sea through this kind of military activity.
It's so ridiculous.
And now we have the benefit of the kind of hindsight we do, whether it's the invasions and wars in Iraq and what that subsequently led to, or even the Suez Canal, like, nearly a century ago, 70 years ago.
You kind of learn, first of all, of these events through a patriotic lens.
That's our canal!
We should use it when we will!
Then you find out, yeah, what Egypt were doing is just saying, well, that canal's in our country.
Go on, off you go.
I mean, the fact is, Yemen is a lot nearer to the Red Sea than Milwaukee.
These are distinct threats as well that we need to deal with on their own basis.
So in the Red Sea, we need to deal with the threat to commercial shipping.
And we are doing so with the Coalition of Countries.
But they're making actually imperialism and colonialism just sound like, that's business as usual.
There are commercial ships in the Red Sea.
And of course, all of us, in one way, tangentially, or otherwise, are benefiting from commerce and America's role in the world.
And I sometimes wonder, wish almost, that someone would say, look, do you realize what this is?
If China and Russia gain global preeminence, your little way of life and your cute little shirts are over, baby.
But I don't see that.
I don't recognise in my own, such as it is, analysis of global events, an agenda by Russia
to start sort of getting into Madrid or New York or for China to start running around
in Frankfurt.
It seems like they're doing stuff in their regions that are mostly connected to trade
and geographical disputes that are a significant part of their history.
Whereas America are bombing Yemen, where they used to bomb Vietnam and Afghanistan, all
these places.
What the hell's that got to do with us all of a sudden?
What is this role?
And is this possibly a time to revise it, even if it's being done with the best intentions?
We have to do that.
These people are savages.
When we were doing it, the British, that was our idea.
These people are savages.
They need us to do it.
And what version of that's playing out now?
Maybe it's time to review it.
In Iraq and Syria, we need to deal with threats to our troops, and we are doing so, including
with the strikes the president ordered Friday night.
Why are there American troops in Iraq and Syria?
Because Iraq and Syria aren't in America, are they?
Well, you mentioned Iraq and Syria.
Let me ask you, how do you respond to Iran's foreign minister calling this a strategic mistake that will destabilize the region?
Is the United States bracing for a counterattack?
It's weird how they manage to call things not wars but proportionate and significant responses when we've now established in the last three days America's bombed Yemen, Syria and Iraq and are sort of pondering whether or not to bomb Iran.
This isn't a war though.
Well I'm not a bit surprised that Iran didn't like the strikes that we took on Friday night so that So the general posture is that America have the right to have troops in that region, protect commercial interests that possibly are at odds with other regional interests.
and it has been clear that we will continue to respond to threats that American forces
face as we go forward.
So the general posture is that America have the right to have troops in that region, protect
commercial interests that possibly are at odds with other regional interests.
And it's interesting when we discuss migration and border security that America are all over
Why the hell are these people from all over the world arriving in America?
Is there anything to do with globalism that your country is engaged in at the moment?
Yeah, we go around the world bombing loads of people and asserting our right to practice certain globalist principles.
And when I say you, I don't mean people in America.
I don't even mean your American military.
I mean the forces that are behind even your government.
The deep state, the military-industrial complex, who appear to benefit from the I've clearly calculated this will be a good, evil way.
Like, whatever happens, Iran get involved in a war, that'll be alright, Iran don't get involved in a war, we'll just carry on.
They've not thought about the impact on you, economically, spiritually, psychologically, or even the mortal impact of more dead service personnel.
Have you ruled out strikes inside Iran?
Well, sitting here today on a national news program, I'm not going to get into what we've ruled in and ruled out from the point of view of military action.
It's funny how meta the news has become.
Like, everyone knows what this is and this does.
Well, sitting here on a national news program, I'm not going to get in and out of what we will and won't do.
What's your bloody job then, mate?
What are you doing here?
If you're just going to say what you won't say, what you will and won't do.
Like, what you'd want to see is, no, we're not getting into bombing Iran.
That's going to escalate war in the region.
I suppose is what you want to hear, isn't it?
But he's not saying that.
And I suppose the best guess has to be because they probably aren't going to bomb targets inside Iran.
What I will say is that the president is determined to respond forcefully to attacks on our people.
So much rhetoric involved and grandstanding and the idea of Biden responding forcefully.
If you've seen Joe Biden in public, he can't respond forcefully to his own heartbeat.
The president also is not looking for a wider war in the Middle East.
Well, Yemen, Iraq, Syria won't rule out Iran.
That's a wider war in the Middle East.
Linguistics, packaging, semantics, all the while saying, you can't let Tucker interview Putin.
He'll propaganda us.
What?
That's propaganda.
People are getting bombed all over the Middle East.
Meanwhile, let's not call it war.
What do you imagine it would be if in three days targets were hit in Florida, New York, and California?
This is a war.
This is the worst thing.
Let's go.
That's not, oh, it's a skirmish.
It's a significant but proportionate response.
That's a mentality that has to be shed in order to achieve peace.
Is it off the table?
Are strikes inside Iran off the table?
Even the way the discourse is conducted, like strikes, you know, these little people are dying and stuff.
If you went to any of these regions, you'd be meeting people with, like, limbs blown off, and, yeah, that's where Michael died.
You can't even watch these kind of documentaries.
You try and watch them sometimes, like, maybe Michael Winterbottom will make a documentary, and it's like, yeah, this five-year-old kid died, and then you sort of think, oh, shit, oh, no, they're the same as us.
Oh, my God, they're the same as us.
I've allowed myself to think that because they've got different sounding names and they've got different outfits on, that it's all right to do this.
Oh, my God, I've been lied to!
Uh, again, Kristen, sitting here on television, it would not be wise for me Uh, to talk about what we're ruling in and ruling out.
So you're not ruling it out?
Get a room, you two.
I'll just say the same thing one more time, which is I'm not gonna get into... It's theatre, innit?
It's just entertainment.
That's not news, is it?
That's like, she's playing the role of someone, I'm giving you a pretty hard time here.
And I'm playing the role of someone.
Like, you know the Matrix, when different people are occupied by agents or whatever, you sort of think that these are, in a sense, just wax and motif.
of a hidden ideology and of an agenda of powers that are way beyond them.
If she just went one day, I'm sick of this crap, she'd be out of a job.
If he went, yeah, probably we're gonna bomb Iran.
You're out of a job. They're irrelevant, aren't they?
They've got probably less power than us.
What's on the table and off the table when it comes to the American response.
So there you go.
Let's get an alternative perspective on this conflict because Christine, who has many qualities, and Jake, who's adorable in his way, are not really able to give us much in the way of insight.
So let's see what we can do together.
On Friday, the United States carried out airstrikes on seven locations throughout Iraq and Syria in what U.S.
officials said was the beginning of weeks or even months of attacks across the region.
That we will not be calling a war.
War sounds mean, nasty.
I like strikes.
Love them.
It's like baseball.
Over the next two days, Saturday and Sunday, the US and UK launch further airstrikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Yemen.
Good.
The attacks mark the beginning of our response, and there will be more steps to come, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said Sunday on CNN's State of the Union.
In other words, the United States' endless war in the Middle East, which has killed millions of people.
Millions of people have died.
Like, the way they're discussing it, it's like, sort of, what brand of cake mix you like most.
And, like, millions of people have died of this not war.
...and destroyed entire societies over the course of the past three decades is entering a new and more deadly stage.
Now, this has been going on for ages and ages, three decades.
We've kind of got used to it, tuned it out, can't really be bothered with it, getting on with life.
And now it's escalating into, actually, we're going to need you to pay a bit more attention to this and maybe even take a little short holiday to the Middle East.
It's a one-way ticket, so it's not too pricey.
U.S.
officials have made it clear that central target of the U.S.
military offensive is Iran.
Appearing on Meet the Press Sunday, Sullivan was asked directly if the United States would rule out strikes inside Iran.
Sullivan declared he would not do so, stating, But I will freely discuss actual things that are on the table.
For example, that's a pen.
when it comes to the American response.
But I will freely discuss actual things that are on the table.
For example, that's a pen.
I got that at a hotel I was staying at recently.
When Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson followed Sullivan on the same program,
he made an even more explicit threat to attack Iran.
When asked, do you want to see strikes inside Iran, Johnson replied, it should not be off the table.
Everyone's obsessed with the table, aren't they?
It's the table.
One thing we can be clear about, it's the table.
Wars and what they are and what they aren't and millions of dead people and how they happen to get deaded, that I won't discuss.
But tables, all day long.
I love the grain in this pine table, for example.
How did you varnish that?
How many coats?
The only thing that's being varnished is the truth.
The back-to-back appearances by officials of both the Democratic-controlled White House and the Republican-led House of Representatives were meant to convey the unanimity within the US political establishment for the escalation of the war in the Middle East.
Alright, so even the sort of curating and staging of like, here's this guy, what do you think?
War's not off the table.
And you, sir?
Nothing's off the table.
The whole point of it is just go, look, see, whoever you vote for, War.
The Biden administration is proceeding with staggering recklessness in flaming a regional war that threatens to draw in the entire world.
People act as if, like, world wars aren't a thing.
You can't have world wars, you know.
There have been them before.
They're going into regions that are full of disputes.
They're provoking Russia over here.
They're provoking China over there.
They might bomb Iran.
They've done these three countries in the last few days.
They're pretending that it's proportionate.
Can someone tell us What's the plan?
the actual plan? What's the ideal endpoint? Look, we're just going to do that in Yemen,
then we're going to do that in Syria, then that, then that, then that, and then... Oh
no, yeah, you're right actually, we're all going to die as a result of this. A full-scale
US war with Iran would have catastrophic human, political, and economic consequences, eclipsing
even the bloodbath caused by the 2003 invasion of Iraq. One thing that's worth pointing out
is that Iran do have a nuclear arsenal, which means that even though Iran sounds a bit like
Iraq, remember...
Well, no, actually, Iraq also had weapons of mass destruction.
That's why we went there, to get our hands on those weapons of mass destruction.
But when we got there, wait a minute, there were no weapons of mass destruction.
That means the same people in charge now are telling us that we should go to war.
45,000 troops stationed there, millions of people there.
This whole thing's our fault!
Every statement made by the White House to justify this war is a lie.
Every one.
Every statement to justify The White House declares it's not seeking war with Iran and every airstrike is justified with the assertion it was not an escalation.
We've reached the era where people just lie straight to your face and expect you to not only accept it but fund it.
Each new illegal airstrike is presented as a defensive action to protect US troops but the very presence of these troops in the region is the continuation of decades of bloody US wars throughout the Middle East which have killed more than 1 million people and have been accompanied by the systematic and deliberate use of torture In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, we did some things that were wrong.
We tortured some folks.
In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, we did some things that were wrong.
We tortured some folks.
In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, we did some things that were wrong.
We tortured some folks.
In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, we did some things that were wrong.
We tortured some folks.
In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, we did some things that were wrong.
We tortured some folks.
In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, we did some things that were wrong.
We tortured some folks.
In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, we did some things that were wrong.
We tortured some folks.
In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, we did some things that were wrong.
We tortured some folks.
In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, we did some things that were wrong.
We tortured some folks.
In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, we did some things that were wrong.
We tortured some folks.
In the immediate aftermath This really forecloses on the possibility of a different vision of our future, where we're not at war, and the best shot for kids from what they would call flyover states is to go and die on some far-flung, irrelevant campaign at the behest of globalists.
Possibly a better version of reality for the people of Iran, the people of Ukraine, the people of Russia, the people of Delaware, for all of us.
This can't be the best version of global events.
And when you watch them discussing it on television, it becomes clear that it isn't the best version, that they've just not thought enough about it, or they have thought about it, and the conclusions they've reached are at odds with our interests.
The latest offensive in the Middle East is a crucial element of an unfolding global war centrally targeting Russia and China.
The subjugation of Iran, lying at the heart of Eurasia, is a critical component of the United States' drive for global military domination.
In its effort to militarily encircle and economically strangle China, Washington is seeking to drive a wedge between Beijing and Iran, which is a large oil supplier to China.
Why don't they just tell us that?
Go on then.
Do your war.
A major factor in instigating the escalation against Iran is the massive setback suffered by the United States and the European imperialist powers in Ukraine.
Even as US imperialism doubles down on its fight against Russia to the last Ukrainian, it has opened up another front in the global war.
This is why recent events are so significant, because now we're gaining access to an entirely different perspective and one that might be more conducive to our shared survival than the one that we're metaphorically bombarded with continually.
That we are told, oh, Russia is an unprovoked aggressor.
We heard Hillary Clinton say that.
And what's clear is there is a route to peace, but it involves the withdrawal of a kind of a long established American ideology of kind of commercial imperialism, would you call it that?
In his appearance on Sunday, Sullivan was keen to point out that the U.S.
strikes against Yemen and conflict with Iran have absolutely nothing to do with Israel.
This too is a lie.
Less than 10 days after the events of October 7th, we warned, the U.S.
is using the present crisis to put into effect long-standing plans for a war with Iran, as the Middle East in front of the U.S.
war with Russia and war plans against China.
Certainly, whatever the truth of that is, I've heard, and you've heard, loads and loads of times people going, we want a war with Iran.
How are we going to get a war with Iran?
American New Century, those boxes that Trump was meant to have had, war with Iran.
It's a thing that's been going on long before I heard the word Houthi, for example.
The massive armada the United States immediately sent to the Middle East was not just a show of force, it was meant to be used.
Ah.
Since then, the United States has mobilized its armada to repeatedly bomb Iraq and Syria while strikes on Yemen have become virtually a daily occurrence.
American imperialism confronts a staggering domestic crisis in which democratic forms of government are breaking apart under the pressure of enormous and ever-expanding social inequality.
Even as they are enmeshed in a bitter factional struggle that is rapidly intensifying into a full-scale constitutional crisis, both US political parties are committed to a massive escalation of war throughout the Middle East and across the globe.
Both.
Both.
So that means, as Noam Chomsky once said, in all instances where both parties agree, you have no choice at all.
That's not democracy.
That's the opposite of democracy, I think.
The domestic political crisis in the United States is a major factor in the global eruption of US imperialism.
The deeper the crisis, the more aggressive the American government becomes abroad, hoping to project its internal tensions outward.
Well, you saw for yourself the way that Jake Sullivan conducted that conversation.
You saw the way that the media framed it broadly as theatre.
And the perspective offered to us here from a, you know, pretty far-left organisation,
left in the old sense of the word, where what they're really interested in is attacking imperialism,
attacking corporatism, attacking crony zombie capitalism, is that this is an exploitative, deceptive attempt to
engage in wars against both Russia and China.
Maybe some of you will argue that the historical affiliation between those nations
and sort of old-school communism means you can't rely on this analysis.
But I think there are plans to engage in what looks like a global conflict.
I mean, that sort of makes sense, doesn't it?
It sounds more true when you hear this is an attempt to encircle Chinese interests and get a stranglehold over their relationship with Iran.
You don't go, well, that's propaganda!
You think, oh, yeah, no, God, of course.
Knowing what we know about the most recent conflicts in that region, that makes perfect sense.
We can't bring you this content without the loving support of our sponsors.
Here's their message now.
Stay with them because they support us.
Are you struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns?
The IRS is escalating collections, adding, get this, 20,000 new agents and sending over 5 million collection letters to kick off 2024 to spend on things that you probably don't agree with, like wars and measures and a total lack of infrastructure.
In these challenging times, your best defence is Tax Network USA.
Don't let the IRS take advantage of you.
With over 14 years of experience, Tax Network USA have saved their clients over $1 billion in back taxes.
No matter the size of your tax issue, their expertise is your advantage.
They specialize in negotiating with the IRS, aiming to significantly reduce your debt.
Tax Network USA doesn't just negotiate, they also protect your assets from IRS seizures and manage your yearly returns for ongoing compliance.
Importantly, they are licensed to help you with all state tax issues, regardless of where you live in the United States.
The clock is ticking.
Don't wait as the IRS steps up its game.
Seize control of your financial future now.
Contact Tax Network USA for immediate relief and expert guidance.
Call 1-800-245-6000 or visit taxnetworkusa.com forward slash brand.
Don't let tax issues overpower you.
Turn to Tax Network USA and find your path to financial peace of mind.
Right.
Let's get back to this content.
Okay, we're going to have to leave all other platforms now and exclusively stream on Rumble as we talk about NATO troops being in Ukraine and global conscription in our World War 3 special.
We ain't preppers.
We're just rational and getting ready.
Click the link in the description.
Click the link in the description now.
Okay.
So, new leaks have revealed that British troops are on the ground in Ukraine, as well as plans for an attack on Crimea.
NATO current trees and the legacy media play down Putin's warning of Russian retaliations.
So why are the US and its Western allies ratcheting up a reckless game of nuclear Russian roulette?
Here's the news.
No, here's the effing news.
Thank you for choosing Fox News.
Here's the news.
No, here's the fucking news.
Leaked intelligence reveals that there are already British troops in Ukraine fighting against Russia.
With Putin saying that he's willing to retaliate even up to the point of using nuclear weapons, why are the West continuing to provoke Russia in an outrageous game of nuclear Russian roulette?
I mean, Russian roulette's bad if it's just one person and a gun, isn't it?
Like, not everyone and missiles.
We've heard again and again that Russia's attack on Ukraine was unprovoked.
Russia's unprovoked.
Unprovoked.
Unprovoked attack.
Unprovoked.
Unprovoked aggression.
But we've recently heard that there are CIA bases in Ukraine and have been for the last 10 years and they've been engaging in espionage and sabotage over there.
Now we know, because of leaked intelligence, that Britain have got troops That means our army, that we're paying for if you're a British person like me, are in Ukraine engaging in military activity against Russia.
That is sort of a war, isn't it?
Isn't it?
At what point does this not become, you know, support Ukraine in terms of morale and taking in refugees and supporting them against that tyrant that is Putin?
What is this game of Russian roulette about?
With Macron saying that it's possible that France will commit troops, with the USA saying they would never commit troops, but billions of dollars of aid sort of seemingly every month being committed to this when it's a very unpopular war, as most of the current wars are with the American public, and now Brits actually having troops, as they say, booties on the ground in Ukraine.
What is with all these boots on the ground?
Are we not being mindful enough about what this could actually lead to?
And are you, as a member of the public, a citizen of Earth, committed to the idea that you want to get involved in a nuclear conflict with Vladimir Putin's Russia?
Let's have a look at the legacy media reporting on it, Putin's clear indications that he would engage in it, and study these important facts But for a while, about two years ago, when this conflict was starting, Joe Biden explicitly and expressly said, we would not involve NATO in direct conflict with Russia.
Why?
That would be World War Three, for Christ's sake.
I think that's a literal verbatim quote.
It's certainly close to it.
We will not fight a war against Russia in Ukraine.
Direct confrontation between NATO And Russia is World War III.
So what's changed?
Why are they now saying that Putin's bluffing?
Let's get into it.
Vladimir Putin has warned NATO countries they risk nuclear war if they send troops to Ukraine.
Yeah, but what if he doesn't mean it?
God, then we'd look really stupid if we retreated and he didn't mean nuclear war.
Yeah, but what if he does mean it?
And we don't retreat, and then there is a nuclear war.
This is not a low-consequence, low-stakes gamble.
This is not a low-risk situation.
This is we're gambling with the future of our planet.
Seems like literally the highest consequence risk that there could be.
Putin told Russians in his speech that he would be stationing more soldiers in Russia's west, close to new NATO members Finland and Sweden.
Now, Putin's nuclear warning comes after France's president refused to rule out the possibility of Western nations sending troops to Ukraine.
That's a definite change in position, isn't it?
Because at the beginning of this conflict, well, there's no way NATO countries would send troops.
That would mean World War III, for Christ's sake.
Now, Macron, the mad globalist haircut, is refusing to... Well, we may do.
We may do.
Don't provoke bloody Vladimir Putin, who has a nuclear arsenal, who's explicitly warned
you that he will engage in nuclear war, just on the vague hope that, oh, well, what if
he doesn't mean it?
That doesn't seem reassuring, does it?
Does it?
There is no consensus right now about sending in ground troops.
Perhaps you should seek a consensus.
Perhaps you should ask the French public, who are continually ignored when they protest on the streets, or the farmers that are continually protesting.
How dare they even purport to speak for their nations anymore when there's this evident detachment from the leadership and managerial classes and the populations of those countries.
And for good reason, because they're saying rather glib, cavalier things like, hey, yeah, maybe we will have a nuclear war with Russia, when most people don't want a nuclear war with Russia.
The words, there is no plan to have boots on the ground in an endorsed and official capacity is a tacit acknowledgement that there could be boots on the ground in an unendorsed capacity like our nation.
No one's asked the British people, do you want to get in a war with Russia?
Because if you did, guess what they'd say?
No, thanks.
I'd rather, actually, that all that money that's been spent was used to sort out our health service and our infrastructure and our way of life, rather than annihilate in Ukraine and Russia, making food prices shoot up and energy prices shoot up.
That's what happened.
No one's asking.
No one cares.
The current engagement in this ongoing act of provocation is without the sanctioning or consent of the nations involved in it.
That's the truth.
The New York Times revealed, as part of obviously some sort of sanctioned deal with the government. We've got our bases there for the
last 10 years in order to continue to facilitate funding. It's been revealed
or it seems obvious but you and me don't want a war with Russia. They seem to
not care.
Nothing's ruled out, the exact words of Macron. So who's this war for?
But in reality nothing should be ruled out.
In reality, some things should be ruled out.
I'd like to rule out nuclear war.
That statement from Donald Trump would be like, what the hell?
Wouldn't it?
That's how that would be reported by the rationalist, materialist, global legacy media.
But from Macron, it's like, well, of course, nothing is ruled out.
Oh, what a lovely accent.
We will do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia cannot win this war.
Here's some of what Putin said.
Nobody is allowed to interfere in our domestic affairs.
I don't think you can undermine Vladimir Putin and this nuclear threat by using a comedically poor translator.
You're really getting on my nerves now with these booties on the ground.
You're going to be in a lot of trouble, I'll tell you that.
If NATO keep mucking me about, there's going to be a lot of bother.
There's no need to be sarcastic.
They should eventually understand that we also have weapons, and they know it.
I just said it now myself.
Weapons that can hit targets on their territory.
Everything that the West is coming up with now, what they threaten the world with, it can result in a conflict with the use of nuclear weapons.
And therefore the destruction of civilization.
Small price to pay for acting hard in an international conflict.
Annihilation of the planet.
Ooh, you were hard, showing off.
German Air Force officers have been caught spruiking on, or speaking I should say.
Okay, I don't feel as confident listening to you anymore because you've just said spruiking instead of speaking.
This is of course the information that there are indeed British troops inside Ukraine has been leaked because of the interception of some German intelligence that's revealed the Brits are already have troops inside Ukraine.
So add that to the 2014 coup, the CIA bases and agents in Ukraine for the last 10 years.
You can now add that the Brits have got soldiers, military inside Ukraine right now.
So the word unprovoked is becoming less and less useful and less and less accurate.
And the words nuclear Armageddon are becoming more and more relevant.
On an encrypted call about UK military activities in Ukraine.
Officials in Moscow are demanding an explanation.
I say don't give them one.
Fuck them.
Listen, mate, it's nuclear Armageddon.
I don't know if we're spreaking the same language.
In Ukraine, there are a few constants.
The war dragging on... Weird, isn't it?
Like, the war dragging on like it's an independent thing, like it's a weather condition.
We are funding that war.
Vladimir Putin's telling you what the conditions are for a ceasefire.
In that interview with Tucker, everyone tried to turn it into, like, the world's worst bloody thing.
And we're continually claiming that this is sort of a one-sided battle in so much as it's an unprovoked aggressor engaging in unwarranted military activity.
What we know now is, is there was a peace deal on the table, and due to Boris Johnson's intervention, that was all scuppered.
We knew that prior to the Putin interview.
President Putin sent a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement.
That was a precondition for not invade Ukraine.
Of course, we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened.
Now we really, really know it.
So it's not like it's just going, oh, there's nothing you can do.
It's like the seasons.
It's one of those things, death and taxes and an inevitable ongoing war that keeps being funded by you.
So don't pretend that it's like a natural phenomena.
It's a constructed event.
And Western nations debating just how deeply they should get involved.
As well, even the idea that it's intervention that we're discussing.
We've already intervened.
It wouldn't be happening if we weren't funding it, hadn't scuppered the peace deal, didn't have bases inside of Ukraine, hadn't engaged in delegitimising the elected government in 2014 and replacing them in a CIA-sponsored coup.
How deeply should we get involved?
Stop being involved!
That's why senior figures from the German military were talking last month.
A conversation recorded, now broadcast, by Russia.
Among the claims made, that Britain has troops deployed in Ukraine to help set up missiles with so-called reach-back intelligence.
In terms of mission planning, I know how the British do it.
They do it with reach-back.
They also have a few people on the ground.
And also claims of fresh plans for an attack on this, the Kerch Bridge, that links Russia with Crimea.
It's been targeted twice already, but has survived each time.
We've looked at the bridge extensively.
Unfortunately, because of its size, it's like an airfield.
It's possible that you'd need 10 or 20 missiles for it.
And now for some deeper analysis from those capitalist right-wing pigs at the World Socialist Organization.
Confronted with the deterioration of Ukraine's military position and significant advances by Russian forces, the NATO powers are publicly threatening a massive escalation of the war involving the direct deployment of NATO combat troops on Ukrainian territory and attacks on Russian infrastructure and cities, which seems to be already happening, actually.
Last week, members of the governments of four NATO member countries, France, Canada, the Netherlands and Lithuania, stated that they were considering sending combat troops to fight Russia in Ukraine.
Then, on Friday, Russian media outlets published a leaked discussion among German military leaders discussing the use of German long-range weapons to strike Crimea.
In the midst of these developments, the UK government admitted to having deployed a small number of troops to Ukraine.
There was barely any.
The reckless escalation of the war is being carried out without any public explanation of what NATO is planning, let alone a frank acknowledgement of the potentially catastrophic consequences of their deployment of forces in Ukraine and attacks on Russia.
Notice how consistent the theme of concealed or withheld information is, or the ability to adjudge as misinformation or malinformation true data that is inconvenient.
Note the assumption that you aren't consulted on how your country is run, even when it comes to events that could lead to a nuclear apocalypse.
It's seen as something that's, you wouldn't understand this, you'd make terrible decisions.
What about your decisions to escalate a conflict which just a couple of years ago you said you would not escalate because that would be World War 3?
What has significantly changed?
Why are we not being informed?
Why are we funding this?
Does this seem to you like the kind of relationship you want with the powerful?
And meaningfully, how different is it from the kind of various other forms of regulation and rule that we are said to have left behind?
Feudalism, ruled by monarchy, ruled by colonialism.
If when it comes to matters that could lead to a nuclear apocalypse, you're not consulted, you don't get to vote.
But notice, in your country, are either of the sides saying, we're not going to have a war with Russia, we're going to insist there's a diplomatic solution.
Because there's a lot of elections in 2024, you'd think one of the subjects worth discussing might be whether or not we want a nuclear war.
I don't know.
I recognise there are a lot of cultural issues, a lot of economic issues, a lot of energy issues, a lot of things to discuss.
But ranking them, I would say nuclear Armageddon was more important than that.
Universal Armageddon.
Dismissing the explicit warning made by Putin during the past week that direct intervention by NATO forces into Ukraine could lead to the use of nuclear weapons, NATO leaders and the media are laughing off the danger with claims that the Russian president is merely bluffing.
Fingers crossed, eh?
And to prove I'm not bluffing, Watch this.
Maybe it just collapsed on its own.
We can't take that chance.
You always say that.
I want to take a chance.
There is no justification for such complacency.
The Biden administration and its European allies are engaged in a staggeringly reckless game of nuclear Russian roulette.
Yes, I can't imagine a rational, circumspect and reasonable game of nuclear Russian roulette.
Apparently forgetting their own earlier statements made at the start of the war in February 2022 that direct intervention by NATO would mean World War 3, the imperialist leaders now assert that Russia will not retaliate even if its territory is directly attacked.
On what basis?
And I base that on absolutely nothing.
Moreover, even if there exists the possibility of a massive counterattack, the agency says that NATO must not be deterred by that danger.
Well, I would say do be deterred by that danger.
And I'd like to see the evidence that, oh, look, we know for a fact that they're just not going to see.
Because the evidence seems to suggest, and exhibit A, Vladimir Putin saying, if you attack us, if this continues, if you get involved, we are willing to use long range weapons that will be in your yard.
We're bringing this to your hood.
What have you got that counters that?
I've got a little thing called a hunch.
A little thing called a hunch has been rather forgotten in international diplomacy when dealing with a nuclear power.
You may have Vladimir Putin himself saying, I will engage in a nuclear war, but what about the old hunch, eh?
Are you dismissing the hunch?
Yeah, I'm dismissing the hunch.
Hunch.
There's your murderer.
How do you know?
Eh, something about his hair.
I don't know.
How did we miss that?
Get him!
An argument that is being made by the media and by think tanks is that it's been a mistake for NATO to indicate any concern about the Ukraine war escalating toward a nuclear exchange with Russia.
You're kind of a bit like acting like you don't fancy someone in order to attract them or pretending to be tougher than you are in a schoolyard screen.
Crap, isn't the degree of sophistication I expect from these organizations like NATO and the CIA and the government of the United States of America and the government of the UK, who when they're sort of deciding what information we get access to is, we're actually extremely intelligent people, we cannot allow you to decide for yourself whether or not this medication is good for you or whether or not this war is good for you, because we're...
Pretty clueless.
Oh no!
You got cooties!
They're operating like children!
Bowing to Putin's nuclear blackmail will make nuclear war more likely.
What?
Ah, you see, that's exactly what he wants, is for you to bow to his nuclear blackmail.
That's what I reckon anyway.
Based on your hunch.
I don't want to base my children's future and the future of the planet and all of potential future humanity on your hunch.
That's where you're wrong.
It's the hunch, you see.
That's the hunch that's got Putin on the back foot.
Bowing to Putin's nuclear blackmail will make nuclear war more likely.
Peter Dickinson of the Atlantic Council, a US-based think tank, wrote, The Atlantic Council is funded by the weapons industry.
They're not all in it thinking, hmm, what should we think now?
You'll think what we fucking will pay you to think!
That's what they think in there, look at its funding!
Ukraine has repeatedly called Putin's bluff, exposing the emptiness of the Russian dictator's nuclear bluster.
Ha, well that's just because he's not done a nuclear war yet.
He won't ever do one.
So I've been in this position before, this is an escalating conflict.
What, do you think there's nothing?
I think there's nothing that would make Vladimir Putin go, do you know what, I've had enough of this now.
Well, I hope you're right.
Ukraine has repeatedly called Putin's bluff, exposing the emptiness of the Russian dictator's nuclear bluster,
he declared, adding, While Ukraine has refused to be intimidated by Putin's
nuclear blackmail, the same cannot be said for the West.
Western fear of escalation is the single biggest obstacle.
There are different types of fear, I was taught.
There is neurotic fear, that can never be satiated, and wisdom fear, which is a gift that helps us to discern the boundaries of the physical world, like we live in a physical world where there are physical threats.
It's somewhat neurotic to be terrified of sharks if you live, you know, in a busy metropolis, but if you swim about in the sea with chum and meat dangling from your bikini, fear of sharks is considered wisdom fear.
Although, hanging chum off a bikini, in anybody's language, I think is Odd.
But in diplomacy terms, sort of what we're actually doing.
Fingers are crossed though.
My fingers were crossed.
Yeah, that doesn't stop nuclear attack.
Oh no!
In Germany, the Frankfurter Allemagne Zeitung wrote that Russia's threat to use nuclear weapons will not be realised, it continued, not even if, as happens regularly, American and British missiles and cruise missiles are used to attack military targets in the Ukrainian territories annexed by Russia, including Crimea.
Oh, well, let's just hope you're right about that, because Vladimir Putin's saying the opposite.
The Lowy Institute, a pro-NATO think-tank in Australia.
Already, they're a pro-NATO think-tank.
NATO probably give them money, or similar agencies or subdivisions or affiliated organisations give money.
So, like, you don't even need to know, but, you know, just let's indulge them.
Let's see what this pro-NATO think-tank think-tank.
We think tanks in our think tank.
We think missiles in our think tank.
They all just think things that are beneficial to the weapons industry.
I wonder who funds them?
The Lowy Institute, a pro-NATO think tank in Australia, declared,
The key question is whether the West will call Putin's bluff or yield to his high-stakes nuclear
posturing, a decision that will shape the outcome of the conflict. How about this shape?
That's the shape of us all dying in a nuclear war for those of you just listening to the audio.
By publicly claiming that Putin is only bluffing, NATO is all but inciting him to react aggressively and expose his miscalculation.
There's a football hooligan song that was popular in the 80s, not so much now, come and have a go if you think you're hard enough.
I mean, if that leads fans to West Ham or Chelsea fans, it's considered to be working-class culture out of control and in need of radical regulation.
But when its entire government and the NATO organisation send it to Vladimir Putin, it's called geopolitical strategy.
Come and have a go if you think you're not hard enough!
Even as they loudly assert that Russia will not respond, US and European strategists have gamed out the possibility of an escalation to nuclear war.
That's not game.
Nuclear war's not a game.
The New York Times began publishing a series of extraordinary opinion pieces Sunday under the overall headline, At the Brink, focused on the threat of nuclear weapons in an unstable world.
Hello, welcome to At the Brink.
This week on At the Brink, we're all going to be living in a nuclear apocalypse.
How like the New York Times, who plainly operate on behest of the deep state, given the access they were given to those CIA bases, given the way they were willing to put that story out there in order to generate compliance from the Republican Party, in order to receive further funding for the perpetuation of this ongoing war, to consider, like, at the brink, there's a sort of think piece.
Let's get Malcolm Gladwell in to write about the brink.
Well, the thing is, the brink's not where you think it is.
You can get a lot closer to that brink than you think.
We got a think tank about brinks, and I think that the brink don't stink.
It's not Dr. Seuss, it's Vladimir Putin!
One thing to say for the New York Times is they are catering for both audiences.
On one hand, we should definitely call Vladimir Putin's bluff.
But what if... Oh, no, that's a good point.
How to survive a nuclear winter?
Nuclear sweaters?
Nuclear bobble hats?
Also, like, Trump is, like, continually, like, my God, if Trump gets in, he'll make himself president for life.
Meanwhile, fuck you, Putin.
Yeah, come on, come on, Putin.
Come and have a go if you think you've heard enough!
The Project's lead writer, W.J.
Hennigan, initiated the series with a column, The Brink, which begins by stating, If it seems alarmist to anticipate the horrifying aftermath of a nuclear attack, consider this.
United States and Ukraine governments have been planning for this scenario for at least two years.
That doesn't make it better.
That makes it worse.
Don't worry about the nuclear aftermath.
We've been planning for it.
And tell us the plan.
All rich people have already got bunkers.
Zuckerberg's got a great one.
Jeff Bezos's is fantastic.
Good luck in the nuclear dust, motherfuckers!
Wait, wait, what?
That's the plan?
Yeah.
Don't vote Trump.
He's crazy.
See ya!
In the fall of 2022, Hennigan writes, a US intelligence assessment put the odds at 50-50 that Russia 50-50?
Like, when that comes up in a game show for, like, to get a caravan or an RV, I'm like, ooh, careful, you might lose out on the 500 bucks you've already got.
It's a nuclear war!
Ah, come on, go for it, you goddamn pussy!
50-50.
50-50.
They might, or they might not, that Russia would launch a nuclear strike to haunt Ukrainian forces if they breached its defence of Crimea.
Hennigan adds that earlier, the Biden administration had directed a small group of experts and strategists, a Tiger Team.
That's gonna be helpful.
A tiger team?
As a nuclear missile explodes?
They're great!
To devise a new nuclear playbook of contingency plans and responses.
Now, in the event that there is a nuclear war, I propose... Sorry, but we've...
You've not understood the dynamic.
The NATO powers have repeatedly stated that they will not be deterred from pursuing the war by the threat of a nuclear exchange.
We'd be playing right into their heads!
The deliberate use of tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.
Fucking hell.
I mean, it's just like, that is not tactical, is it?
That's...
That's not a tactic!
Nuclear weapons, which was rejected for decades as synonymous with madness, is now being normalised as a legitimate component of imperialist geopolitical strategy.
You know that feeling that you have that the elites live in a different world from you?
It might be that they were able to have parties during the pandemic or just the obvious wealth inequality and the bunkers or whatever.
Now that's reached the point where a nuclear war evidently affects them differently than it affects everyone else.
And some of those loopy theories about population control or people saying they want a hot war with Russia don't seem so conspiratorial when there's been two years of planning and brinkmanship is considered a strategy, does it?
The war is being driven through a much larger and bloodier scale.
All of this is being done behind the backs of the population.
Always a good sign.
Relying on a lack of information and disinformation.
On Monday, the German state blatantly lied, stating that an emergency summons of the German ambassador to the Russian foreign ministry had nothing to do with the leaked discussions about German missiles targeting Crimea.
That meeting with the Russian ambassador was to organize a party for your birthday!
And you ruined it!
You're just like your Fuhrer!
Cheers.
The ruling class is lying to the public because it wants to be free to carry out its military conspiracies unimpeded.
Yes, there is already broad opposition to the escalation of the war.
After Macron raised the possibility of sending European troops to fight Russia and Ukraine, polls found that 68% of the French people and 80% of the German people oppose it.
Yeah, because people don't want to die.
That's the main aim in the game of life.
To the extent that masses of people in the US and all of the NATO countries are aware of what is happening, this opposition will grow.
That's why the control of information becomes so significant.
Because when the strategy is Vladimir Putin might not launch nuclear weapons, you have to keep control on the information.
That's why everyone went hysterical about Tucker talking to Vladimir Putin.
How dare you!
How dare you!
That is disloyal!
It's borderline treason!
No, what's treason is having hunches up against explicit threats of nuclear war and claiming that that's a strategy simply because in reality there's an elite set of institutions that are somehow immune from nuclear war in ways that I can't really begin to understand because I thought that was one area where we were kind of actually were all in it together.
Evidently not.
You know what I'm in the mood for?
Could it be turkey?
But how did you?
So, it seems to me that we should demand freedom of information, we should demand the ability to determine for ourselves the activities of our nations on the international stage, and we should demand a diplomatic solution between Ukraine and Russia simply to be sure that it's not an exercise like Afghanistan was No.
and Iraq was to perpetuate war in order to generate profits and dominion or to drain
an international energy of their resources in order to create a unipolar globalist state
because I don't know that we're going to benefit from the same things that they benefit from
when we suffer as a result of their decisions. Things to them that are beneficial are not
beneficial to us.
No, here's the fucking news.
Okay, so the head of the British army has said the government must prepare to mobilise
the nation and 100,000 Swedish people are getting ready to be called up for military
duty next year and Australia are publicly contemplating conscription.
Do you think we're being prepared for nuclear war?
And what if we oppose?
How will it be enforced?
Here's the news.
No, here's the effing news.
Thank you for choosing Fox News.
Here's the news.
No, here's the fucking news.
War is terrible, but at least they're always fought far away
by drones and robots.
Not anymore!
Wars are going to be fought right here, right now, by you and me!
Today we are talking about, well it's quite serious actually, numerous nations including the one I live in, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Australia are talking potentially about conscription.
Conscription's a word that's almost slipped out of our vernacular to be replaced by words like Subscription.
Subscribe here, by the way.
Conscribed here.
That means you bloody well will subscribe, whether you like it or not.
That means that they are anticipating war being so extensive, so punishing, and so fatal that people from the population, the civilian population, will be called into active armed service.
This is something we thought we'd left behind, along with fascism.
Now, even though it's often the progressive left that are nominating nationalist or populist figures, charismatic orators as potential returns to the dark times of Hitler, Mussolini, Attal.
Apparently now tyranny and dictatorship may take on a slightly more bureaucratic hue and may yet deliver great vast wars, continental conflicts, as well as an idea that we thought we'd left behind in the 20th century, conscription.
It's being spoken about Are we being prepped for it?
Are we being primed for it?
Anyone that's been following the Ukraine-Russia conflict will know that it started with a professional army, moved towards a civilian army.
Indeed, that's one of the catchphrases of the UK army.
Wars are started by professional armies, ended by civilian armies.
You'll have seen in the Ukraine that initially they started with a fresh young fighting force
But due to the fact that the members of the army kept, you know, dying,
they ended up with increasingly older guys in the army leading to videos like this
Where the fight was only dads and middle-aged men. So could conscription be a
reality in countries like yours and mine?
And are we being primed and groomed to accept the idea of forever wars?
These recruits didn't choose the Swedish army. The army has started choosing them.
And given current global tensions, a defence expert reckons Australia should seriously
consider bringing back a form of national service.
I have in the past thought that some form of conscription or national service could indeed be of a benefit for connecting people to the idea of service, even to the idea of tribe or nation.
But now that the idea of nation seems to have been entirely corrupted by globalist ideas, Now that democracy more and more seems like a sham, now that more and more the agenda of our nation seems to be so at odds with the agenda of the populations, now that nations seem so divided, it seems so bloody extraordinary that an idea like conscription would be discussed.
And also, more worrying is there's a real likelihood that it will be for a war.
The idea of conscription so we could participate in community projects, protect one another, feel integrated and connected in true communities of service and love, togetherness and unity, that seems like a fantastic idea.
But marching into Moscow carrying a heavy backpack in the crosshairs of Vladimir Putin seems less attractive.
And amid NATO fears of an all-out war with Russia, he says Australia should be training new troops while we still have time.
So that's Australia.
Again, remember, Australia we were regarded as a pretty laissez-faire, relaxed country until the pandemic when we discovered that Australia can be pretty bloody strict over in the UK.
Similarly, the idea of conscription is being discussed.
Somebody who you'll know well, General Sir Patrick Saunders, I'm not sure if you served with him, but certainly you have served... I did.
You did.
So he's suggesting, reading between the lines in The Telegraph today, that if we go to war with Russia, we could find that our youth may have to be conscripted.
That's a bit alarming.
Yes.
Head of the British Army, one of the most cerebral thinkers that we've got, a strategist.
We need to listen, and listen carefully.
He said, we will not be immune, and as the pre-war generation, we must similarly prepare.
And what's startling about this of course is that we're talking about the idea of conscription.
The idea of war with Russia has been spoken of as inevitable.
Of course, Ukraine already in a war with Russia and many people have been cynical, doubtful,
concerned about Western countries, your country, my country, funding that war, perpetuating
that war, potentially at the expense of a diplomatic solution, which many of us know
was on the table right at the dawn of this conflict and was somehow neglected, perhaps
as a result of an agenda not derived from the interests of Ukrainian people or Russian
people.
How could a civilian population from the UK or from Australia would be participating in
this conflict without understanding what it's about, what the agenda is?
Of course, what we're told in the legacy media again and again is that Vladimir Putin is a madman, that Russia has an expansionist agenda, that they're hell-bent on invading other, even though Ukraine isn't yet a NATO country, and that we all have to be concerned about Russia as an aggressor.
But elsewhere, Jens Stoltenberg, the head of NATO, has admitted that they provoked Russia into this conflict.
President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021 and he actually sent a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement.
That was a precondition for not invade Ukraine.
Of course we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened.
So do you want to actually personally fight in a war against Russia that could be avoided?
There are reasons why such a senior figure within the military would be saying this, and one of them is to reach the British public and remind them about the state of readiness in this country should the worst happen.
If you ask the people over 60, they would be up for it.
If it was an army, they would love that idea.
The younger generation, I don't think, would be up for it.
Bobby Kennedy recently commented that baby boomers were at a disadvantage due to the nature of the media they consume.
They consume state or corporate legacy media.
young people, far from being disinterested or uninterested or slothful or negligent of
duty, simply consume media that makes them less inclined to give over their life, their
attention, their will and their freedom to a state complex that they no longer trust,
if they've ever trusted. And indeed, I think if you exposed people of 50, 60, 70, 80 years
of age to the truth about the origins of this war, the nature of who benefits from it, they
would perhaps become a little more cynical. Again, the idea of having cohesive, community-oriented
projects. The idea of unity, togetherness and purpose I think are attractive to people of all ages.
I simply don't trust the agenda or the direction of our governments when it comes to this conflict, when it comes to the pandemic, when it comes to globalism, basically on any subject.
But Jade, aged 25, disagrees.
Do you think your generation would kind of be ready to step up like that?
I think so, yeah.
I think so.
Although everybody would be scared, I think so.
I think there's a lot of people that want to help now.
The questions that are asked are interesting, but what about the questions that are not asked?
Why are we not discussing why would we have a war with Russia?
What is the point of it?
What are we trying to achieve?
What is the transgression that Russia have enacted?
Many people say, and legitimately perhaps, that it is a criminal war, that the ICC would judge Russia's invasion of Ukraine as criminal.
And that may be and likely is true, but it's legislation that cannot be explored due to
the numerous many criminal wars that the United States have enacted in the past 10, 20, 30
years.
The legislation itself has almost become defunct because all of the wars that America engages
are to some degree criminal.
And the fundamental question here is whose war is it?
What is your relationship with the nation?
Do you feel connected to the nation?
Do you feel that you want to serve your nation?
As you see your public utilities stripped, as you see infrastructure in decline, as you see your health services, schools, all municipalities broken down, your water services, your electricity services sold overseas, overpriced, fuel prices going up, grocery prices going up.
Who are you fighting for?
The UK is already involved in supporting multiple war efforts.
This war on Sesame Street's getting out of hand.
In Ukraine and elsewhere.
And while the future of warfare may be unpredictable, the armed forces need people.
Finding them is part of the mission.
There's one!
Quick, grab him!
Conscript him right now!
We've been too complacent.
I think I've said this many times with you.
What's coming over the horizon should shock us.
It should worry us.
And we are not prepared.
We've had a couple of decades, three decades or so, since the Cold War.
Life has gone well.
Life has gone well.
9-11, financial crash, Covid.
Time for a bit of conscription, I say.
I have nothing but respect for people that operate within the services, whether that's the fire service, the police service, the military, health services, people that are willing to give their time and indeed their lives for a higher purpose, I believe are the finest kind of people, the very people around whom you have to build a society without whom you don't have a society.
But the idea that we sort of deserve a war now to celebrate, you know, that we've all got satellite TV and PlayStation is pretty risible when there's a crisis of meaning, total lack of trust in all of our institutions and a sense of a total breakdown of the cohesion in society.
It's now going to get more difficult as authoritarian states exploit our timidity.
Come on!
Foreigners are looking at us and thinking that we're weak.
Now get on a uniform and get out there and fight.
What for?
Who for?
Oh God, I've looked at it and it's basically for corruption and hypocrisy.
Perhaps reluctance to really put fires out.
The best example of that is a democracy on the corner of Eastern Europe.
Oh no, I've got some terrible news for you about Ukrainian democracy.
One, they're shutting down all opposition media within the country.
They're jailing journalists and even their own citizens don't think it's democratic.
They've done a deal with BlackRock to build the country after the war where they will crush unions and that they'll create the first fully digital society.
You've even seen Zelensky saying, you know, we've done a deal with BlackRock.
We have already managed to attract attention and have cooperation with such giants as BlackRock, J.P.
Morgan and Golden Sox.
These kind of things are not speculative.
They're not conspiracy theories.
Ukrainian democracy is in trouble.
They're right now doing investigations into corruption.
Many of the weapons intended for Ukraine don't make it to Ukraine.
So they're continually having to conduct internal investigations to ensure it can even really be called a democracy.
I mean, I think they've scrapped all of their elections.
How democratic can it be?
So you can't just glibly say, we have to support Ukraine.
That, in its third year, is now in conflict and we've not resolved that.
So, Patrick Saunders is saying, prepare for what's coming over the horizon.
aware that what you're saying is not true and therefore propaganda and propaganda with the
most nefarious event asking people to fight in someone else's war. That in its third year is now
in conflict and we've not resolved that so Patrick Saunders is saying prepare for what's coming over
the horizon. There is a 1939 feel to the world right now.
No 1939!
1939!
We're at it again!
Instead of Hitler, it's Putin!
This is not that.
We don't have a genocide to oppose.
We don't have an expansionist Nazi army.
What we likely have are geopolitical rifts between the United States, Russia, and China, a set of crumbling alliances throughout Europe, debt crises and crises of meaning abound, and an appetite to hold that whole thing together, while domestic populations become increasingly despairing and distrusting of their governments.
These authoritarian states are rearming.
There's a risk-averseness about the West in wanting to deal with that.
Stop being so risk-averse.
Here, here's a gun.
Ah!
Maybe turn it against our own governments?
There's a mindset now of this era of insecurity that we're heading towards, but we're still on a peacetime defence budget of just 2%.
That does need to change.
Oh, I get it.
You just want some more money for defence contracts.
Check out this guy's thighs.
And the Red Sea is a great example that if you don't step forward,
if you don't, if you're not robust in dealing with those that are testing the envelope,
it will be, our weakness will be exploited and it will affect our economy.
Ah, the old economy.
It's extraordinary what's presented to us as reality, isn't it, these days, and what's presented to us as the kind of decisions that we have to make.
To protect our economy, we should be conscripted.
We've had it so good for the last 20 or 30 years.
How many myths a man has to eat before breakfast to comply in this society?
So are you suggesting the defence budget should be up at 5% as it was during the Cold War?
It takes time to procure the ships, the planes, the tanks and so forth.
What we do need to do is quickly move to 2.5% and then eventually 3%.
In the Cold War it was about 4%.
The equipment is good, it's just not enough to deal with all the threats that we're dealing with.
This is lobbying.
How's that news?
Hello, here's the news.
Give some more money to the government.
Do you want to pay more taxes?
When you look at a conflict like Afghanistan or Iraq or the impending one in Iran, do you think, do you know what we need?
More wars.
When you look at the $2 trillion spent in Afghanistan, do you think we should do more of that?
That was a good use of public expenditure.
When you hear about those free service personnel dying tragically in Jordan, do you think we need more of this?
Why is there no someone on the news right now saying, do you know what we need to do?
We need to get over to Moscow right now and resolve this.
Our world is no longer at peace.
We're moving to a world at war.
now isn't even functioning as a democracy anymore, so the thing that we're protecting
doesn't exist, it's bloody ridiculous, there's this giddy escalation in the Middle East,
and we're paying for it. Either it is some of our business and we should get out there
and resolve it peacefully, or it's none of our business and we should get involved. What's
this weird third option where we should spend a bunch of money making it worse?
Our world is no longer at peace, we're moving to a world at war, Britain absolutely has
a role to play, but we need to upgrade our defence posture.
Essentially, that was a brightly lit, shiny flawed way of telling you, give us your money
and your children.
I mean, that's a pretty heavy plea, isn't it?
Can we just get to the weather?
Here's the weather, climate change, and that's your fucking fault and all.
Just to get you over the line, here's former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who literally personally went to Ukraine to scupper that was going to bring about peace between Russia and Ukraine, according to a Ukrainian diplomat, telling you that we should join the army.
Oh, my God.
Lance Corporal Johnson reporting for duty and responding to the appeal from General Sanders for a citizen army and encouraging young people across the country to think of the attractions, advantages of some kind of military training or service.
Because at the moment they think it's either Uncool or unethical?
I think, actually, that people that join the army are fantastic and bold and brave.
I spent time once with the marines in the United States.
Yeah, Camp Pendleton, baby.
I've spent time around the military in this country.
I've got friends from school that joined the services.
I've got nothing but respect for them.
But the idea that young people should give their lives ultimately for a corporate, elitist, globalist agenda is risible.
Use those values.
Use that desire for service to literally oppose these people.
Or perhaps, They're not following General Sanders, they're following Colonel Sanders.
Especially that they've just admitted that they think you're bloody idiots that eat fast food all the time.
So there you go, an old Etonian Oxford graduate, former Prime Minister who belonged to the Bullingdon club that smashed up restaurants for a laugh, named their club after a jail where working class people spend time incarcerated, often for the crime of being poor or addicted to drugs, which are, it could be argued, social and economic conditions in themselves, arguing that you should go Straight out of the prisons or straight from the streets and into the war and you should be paying more taxes to fund your own death.
It's a pretty good system that they've got here.
Don't go voting for anyone except those two centralised parties.
Wouldn't want to tinker with this system now.
Or could we have something a lot more beautiful, a lot more robust, a lot more powerful if we united against that very system and used this will, this verve and these principles of individual sovereignty and community action to oppose them?
I think yes.
Thank you for choosing Fox News.
Do the do.
No.
Here's the fucking news.
Thank you for joining me for our World War 3 special.
Let us pray together that we make it through this extraordinary year.
Next Wednesday we are doing one of our favourite subjects, it's Conspiracy Theory to Conspiracy Fact.
How many times have we made this transition over the last few years?
Then on Friday we've got a Culture War special looking at key cultural figures Shane Gillis, Dave Chappelle, and how the culture war seeks to reposition people according to its agenda.
Remember, you get additional content every single week if you become a member of our Awakened Wonder community over on Locals.
Also, if you become an Awakened Wonder, you get to be a member of our book club.
We're looking at C.S.
Lewis.
You get to do a meditation with us every single week.
We discuss the solutions together as a community, as well as providing exclusive video content, whether it's on chemtrails, a variety of subjects.
I want to welcome our new members like Hot Mama, Jay Wolfstead, Covenu, TheYankees02, and so many more of you.
Thanks for your support.
Join us next Wednesday, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
