正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

“We may soon be able to split the United States and take it back.” — British Foreign Minister to Queen Victoria, January 1861 Harley Schlanger traces the unbroken thread: “The American Revolution showed there was a way to build an economy other than imperialism. This was picked up in...

apocalypseos's profile picture

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

85,445 subscribers

23,301 次观看 • 8 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治教育科学技术
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

🇬🇧 Perfidious Albion: They Created Zionism & Wahhabism. Their 1904 Rule Explains Ukraine. This is the Hidden Empire. To understand the war in Ukraine, you must first understand the 500-year project of the British Empire. It is not a story of kings and colonies, but of finance, ideology, and a single, ruthless geopolitical rule. Harley Schlanger, president of LaRoucheOrg, connects the dots in a way you’ve never heard before. According to his research, the empire’s modern form began not with a battle, but with a bank. “1688 was the so-called ‘Glorious Revolution’ where the Dutch moved in and pretty much taught the British a lot of what the Dutch learned from the Venetians, namely how to set up a central bank, a private bank. The Bank of England was modeled on the Bank of the Netherlands.” This was the birth of the Empire as a financial machine. The drive for resources and land was forever fused with the power of private central banking. But this system faced a fatal challenge. “In the midst of this 500-year period, there was an extremely important break, namely the American Revolution. And we should never forget that the American colonies fought the first successful anti-imperial revolution.” This was the original sin in London’s eyes. Schlanger states plainly: “The British never accepted it and have continued in one way or another to try to figure out how to undermine the United States and the American Republican tradition.” The war for independence never ended. How do you maintain an empire in the modern age? Through psychological warfare. The British, Schlanger reveals, built the tools for this at Oxford. “The British have an enormous storehouse of history that they rely on at Oxford… the Ashmolean Museum. This is where Zionism was created. This is where Wahhabiism, the perversion of Islam, was created. This is where they use studies of ideology, national ideologies and a kind of identity politics for nations.” This research was formalized into a strategic doctrine. We misuse the word today, but Schlanger corrects the record: “Geopolitics was a specific doctrine developed by the British at the end of the 19th century and put into a form in 1904 by a man named Halford Mackinder… It was a strategy of how the British could use their power of the deep sea navy to control international trade, currency, terms of trade and so on.” And here is the single rule at its heart—the rule that explains our world right now: “At the heart of it was the idea that the British could never allow an alliance between central European countries and Eurasian countries. And that is what we’re seeing today fought out over Ukraine over the whole question of China and so on.” The war in Ukraine is not a random conflict. It is the latest, most violent application of a 120-year-old British imperial rule. It is a war to prevent the rise of an independent, powerful Eurasia—the greatest existential threat to the financial-ideological empire born in the Bank of England. This is the hidden history of the world order.
2:58

🇬🇧 Perfidious Albion: They Created Zionism & Wahhabism. Their 1904 Rule Explains Ukraine. This is the Hidden Empire. To understand the war in Ukraine, you must first understand the 500-year project of the British Empire. It is not a story of kings and colonies, but of finance, ideology, and a single, ruthless geopolitical rule. Harley Schlanger, president of LaRoucheOrg, connects the dots in a way you’ve never heard before. According to his research, the empire’s modern form began not with a battle, but with a bank. “1688 was the so-called ‘Glorious Revolution’ where the Dutch moved in and pretty much taught the British a lot of what the Dutch learned from the Venetians, namely how to set up a central bank, a private bank. The Bank of England was modeled on the Bank of the Netherlands.” This was the birth of the Empire as a financial machine. The drive for resources and land was forever fused with the power of private central banking. But this system faced a fatal challenge. “In the midst of this 500-year period, there was an extremely important break, namely the American Revolution. And we should never forget that the American colonies fought the first successful anti-imperial revolution.” This was the original sin in London’s eyes. Schlanger states plainly: “The British never accepted it and have continued in one way or another to try to figure out how to undermine the United States and the American Republican tradition.” The war for independence never ended. How do you maintain an empire in the modern age? Through psychological warfare. The British, Schlanger reveals, built the tools for this at Oxford. “The British have an enormous storehouse of history that they rely on at Oxford… the Ashmolean Museum. This is where Zionism was created. This is where Wahhabiism, the perversion of Islam, was created. This is where they use studies of ideology, national ideologies and a kind of identity politics for nations.” This research was formalized into a strategic doctrine. We misuse the word today, but Schlanger corrects the record: “Geopolitics was a specific doctrine developed by the British at the end of the 19th century and put into a form in 1904 by a man named Halford Mackinder… It was a strategy of how the British could use their power of the deep sea navy to control international trade, currency, terms of trade and so on.” And here is the single rule at its heart—the rule that explains our world right now: “At the heart of it was the idea that the British could never allow an alliance between central European countries and Eurasian countries. And that is what we’re seeing today fought out over Ukraine over the whole question of China and so on.” The war in Ukraine is not a random conflict. It is the latest, most violent application of a 120-year-old British imperial rule. It is a war to prevent the rise of an independent, powerful Eurasia—the greatest existential threat to the financial-ideological empire born in the Bank of England. This is the hidden history of the world order.

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

185,656 次观看 • 8 个月前

Some say that the war with Iran is a war of choice. In fact, it was the Islamic Republic that chose war back in 1979 - and they've been at it ever since. We need to use every tool at our disposal to neutralize this threat to keep the American people - and the world - safe.
1:02

Some say that the war with Iran is a war of choice. In fact, it was the Islamic Republic that chose war back in 1979 - and they've been at it ever since. We need to use every tool at our disposal to neutralize this threat to keep the American people - and the world - safe.

Mike Pompeo

69,196 次观看 • 1 个月前

We are thrilled to bring you Pepperbox’s first ever feature documentary! This is the story of the Battle of Najaf, a fight that was swallowed by the news cycle of the period. It became the biggest battle of the Global War on Terrorism that the general public has never heard of. Najaf wasn't just a battle. It was the epitome of the words spoken by Admiral Chester Nimitz in 1945: "Uncommon valor was a common virtue." Battle in Najaf: Whatever It Takes. A documentary by Jack Mandaville available to watch NOW - exclusively on Pepperbox!
1:22

We are thrilled to bring you Pepperbox’s first ever feature documentary! This is the story of the Battle of Najaf, a fight that was swallowed by the news cycle of the period. It became the biggest battle of the Global War on Terrorism that the general public has never heard of. Najaf wasn't just a battle. It was the epitome of the words spoken by Admiral Chester Nimitz in 1945: "Uncommon valor was a common virtue." Battle in Najaf: Whatever It Takes. A documentary by Jack Mandaville available to watch NOW - exclusively on Pepperbox!

Pepperbox TV

10,975 次观看 • 1 个月前

#Freedom250 The Battle of Brooklyn was the first major conflict to take place after the Second Continental Congress declared independence from Great Britain and, in terms of troop deployment, it was the largest battle to take place during the entire Revolutionary War. On August 27, 1776, twenty thousand British soldiers fought 12,000 American colonists for control of the Port of New York, which the British secured, and ultimately maintained, throughout the war. After George Washington’s momentous victory in the siege of Boston earlier that year, his defeat at Brooklyn was a blow to his confidence and that of his regulars. The British took New York City and Long Island from the Continental Army through a successfully executed sneak attack, forcing Washington and his men to escape in the dead of night on August 29, when a thick fog descended on the area surrounding the East River. Many counted this fortuitous weather event as an act of divine assistance, upon which the Continental Army relied for the remainder of the war.
4:14

#Freedom250 The Battle of Brooklyn was the first major conflict to take place after the Second Continental Congress declared independence from Great Britain and, in terms of troop deployment, it was the largest battle to take place during the entire Revolutionary War. On August 27, 1776, twenty thousand British soldiers fought 12,000 American colonists for control of the Port of New York, which the British secured, and ultimately maintained, throughout the war. After George Washington’s momentous victory in the siege of Boston earlier that year, his defeat at Brooklyn was a blow to his confidence and that of his regulars. The British took New York City and Long Island from the Continental Army through a successfully executed sneak attack, forcing Washington and his men to escape in the dead of night on August 29, when a thick fog descended on the area surrounding the East River. Many counted this fortuitous weather event as an act of divine assistance, upon which the Continental Army relied for the remainder of the war.

美国驻华使领馆 U.S. Mission to China

53,188 次观看 • 17 天前

Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi: We entered the negotiations to prove to the whole world that their intention was to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran; their intention was hostile. And they could not claim that we requested negotiations and the Islamic Republic did not accept. We also negotiated so that it would be clear that the truth was with us, so that ultimate proof would be established for the whole world. Our own people would also understand that it wasn't the Islamic Republic that caused the war by refraining from negotiations. Because there was a question: if we hadn't negotiated and a war had broken out, everyone might have thought to themselves that if we had negotiated, the war wouldn't have happened.
1:02

Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi: We entered the negotiations to prove to the whole world that their intention was to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran; their intention was hostile. And they could not claim that we requested negotiations and the Islamic Republic did not accept. We also negotiated so that it would be clear that the truth was with us, so that ultimate proof would be established for the whole world. Our own people would also understand that it wasn't the Islamic Republic that caused the war by refraining from negotiations. Because there was a question: if we hadn't negotiated and a war had broken out, everyone might have thought to themselves that if we had negotiated, the war wouldn't have happened.

Clash Report

28,540 次观看 • 6 个月前

I have to admit, I thought I was in the know until this woman OPENED UP A WHOLE LAYER OF WHAT THE HELL IS REALLY GOING ON🫨! I didn’t know the British Empire was still RUNNING EVERYTHING🤬! We’ve been fighting this War since 1776😡! No wonder they want DJT☠️😤
3:13

I have to admit, I thought I was in the know until this woman OPENED UP A WHOLE LAYER OF WHAT THE HELL IS REALLY GOING ON🫨! I didn’t know the British Empire was still RUNNING EVERYTHING🤬! We’ve been fighting this War since 1776😡! No wonder they want DJT☠️😤

Bobby D🎙

315,631 次观看 • 4 个月前

🇬🇧🇺🇸 Britain went into World War I as the world's financial center. It came out owing money to Wall Street. Prof. Richard Werner argues that while Germany largely financed the war internally, Britain borrowed heavily from J.P. Morgan, which became both a lender and a key procurement agent for the war effort. The war drained the British Empire and accelerated the transfer of global power to the United States. Professor Richard A. Werner
11:42

🇬🇧🇺🇸 Britain went into World War I as the world's financial center. It came out owing money to Wall Street. Prof. Richard Werner argues that while Germany largely financed the war internally, Britain borrowed heavily from J.P. Morgan, which became both a lender and a key procurement agent for the war effort. The war drained the British Empire and accelerated the transfer of global power to the United States. Professor Richard A. Werner

Mario Nawfal

36,188 次观看 • 3 个月前

Here Is The Famous World War 2 “We Shall Fight On The Beaches” Speech by WINSTON CHURCHILL “We shall fight on the beaches" was a speech delivered by the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom on 4 June 1940. It was the second of three iconic speeches Churchill gave during this period shortly following his appointment as UK Prime Minister (replacing Neville Chamberlain): chronologically, it falls between his ‘Blood, toil, tears and sweat’ speech (13 May 1940) and his ‘This was their finest hour’ speech (18 June 1940). The context was what became known as the Battle of France. In early June 1940, British forces had completed the evacuation of Dunkirk, the rescue of more than 338,000 British and French soldiers from the French port of Dunkirk between 26 May and 4 June.
2:15

Here Is The Famous World War 2 “We Shall Fight On The Beaches” Speech by WINSTON CHURCHILL “We shall fight on the beaches" was a speech delivered by the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom on 4 June 1940. It was the second of three iconic speeches Churchill gave during this period shortly following his appointment as UK Prime Minister (replacing Neville Chamberlain): chronologically, it falls between his ‘Blood, toil, tears and sweat’ speech (13 May 1940) and his ‘This was their finest hour’ speech (18 June 1940). The context was what became known as the Battle of France. In early June 1940, British forces had completed the evacuation of Dunkirk, the rescue of more than 338,000 British and French soldiers from the French port of Dunkirk between 26 May and 4 June.

J Stewart

37,382 次观看 • 2 年前

Did you know: back in the 1930s, it was actually the Jews who declared war on Germany, not the other way around? “Judea Declares War On Germany” (1933). Right there for everyone with eyes to see The entire WW2 narrative we were given in school was a lie
0:56

Did you know: back in the 1930s, it was actually the Jews who declared war on Germany, not the other way around? “Judea Declares War On Germany” (1933). Right there for everyone with eyes to see The entire WW2 narrative we were given in school was a lie

Ben Wehrman

351,504 次观看 • 6 个月前

Civil War Historian Explains Why the Confederacy Came Closer to Winning Than Most People Realize FRIDMAN: "What are the different advantages of each side from a military perspective?" GALLAGHER: "Here's one of the great misconceptions about the Civil War. Among the people who know anything about it, which in the U.S. is a very small percentage, but if they know anything, they know United States victory was inevitable because the United States had 22 million people. The Confederacy had five and a half million white people and three and a half million enslaved people. The United States economy was infinitely more powerful than the Confederate economy. The United States had the United States Army. The United States had the United States Navy. Really? Who's going to win this war? The U.S. It's inevitable. Next question. It's not true at all." "The U.S. did have those advantages, but the Confederacy had compensating advantages. And one of those advantages was it had a much lower bar to cross for success. It didn't have to invade the United States, didn't have to capture Washington. It didn't have to project its military power into New England. All it had to do was convince a majority of the civilian population of the loyal states that it wasn't worth the cost to make these rebel states come back into the union. These are two democratic republics at war. And in the end, the civilian sector decides." "Somebody my age can, we have the perfect example, Vietnam. The United States was not defeated militarily in Vietnam and it didn't matter because when the people said, we're not going to support this war anymore, the war is going to come to an end. The smart people in the Confederacy understood this. They understood it at the time. Lee understood it. Jefferson Davis understood it. You had key people at the time saying there is no way that a nation as large as ours and a population as large as ours has ever been subjected in a war like this. A tie is as good as a win for the Confederacy. And they came very close to that in the summer of 1864." "The other thing is the sheer size of the Confederacy is a huge advantage to them. It's huge with a very poor transportation and communication infrastructure in many ways, and to move a large army deep into the Confederacy is a huge logistical problem. The same thing had happened to the British, both during the American Revolution and the War of 1812. They confront this; the Confederacy is as big as all of Western Europe. That's a problem. It's also a problem that the Confederates are fighting, literally fighting to defend their homes. That's almost always a stronger factor than trying to impose your will on somebody else. All of these factors helped the Confederacy." "The U.S. did have an army. The army had 15,000 men in it in 1860, 15,000. The Navy had fewer than 50 vessels. Most of them on overseas stations, there were exactly three vessels available to blockade the Confederacy at the beginning of the war. Confederate coastline is 3,600 miles long. Probably not going to be able to shut down a lot there. So the point is that there are factors that help both sides. To me, the conditions for victory are the most important factor that favors the Confederacy. We just have to make it painful enough to the United States that they're going to say, let them go. We never liked South Carolina anyway. Just let them go. We're not, it's not worth it. It's killing too many of our boys. It's costing too much money. And we don't have to worry about slavery in the territories if they're gone, because they'll be gone and our territories will be free of slavery."
3:38

Civil War Historian Explains Why the Confederacy Came Closer to Winning Than Most People Realize FRIDMAN: "What are the different advantages of each side from a military perspective?" GALLAGHER: "Here's one of the great misconceptions about the Civil War. Among the people who know anything about it, which in the U.S. is a very small percentage, but if they know anything, they know United States victory was inevitable because the United States had 22 million people. The Confederacy had five and a half million white people and three and a half million enslaved people. The United States economy was infinitely more powerful than the Confederate economy. The United States had the United States Army. The United States had the United States Navy. Really? Who's going to win this war? The U.S. It's inevitable. Next question. It's not true at all." "The U.S. did have those advantages, but the Confederacy had compensating advantages. And one of those advantages was it had a much lower bar to cross for success. It didn't have to invade the United States, didn't have to capture Washington. It didn't have to project its military power into New England. All it had to do was convince a majority of the civilian population of the loyal states that it wasn't worth the cost to make these rebel states come back into the union. These are two democratic republics at war. And in the end, the civilian sector decides." "Somebody my age can, we have the perfect example, Vietnam. The United States was not defeated militarily in Vietnam and it didn't matter because when the people said, we're not going to support this war anymore, the war is going to come to an end. The smart people in the Confederacy understood this. They understood it at the time. Lee understood it. Jefferson Davis understood it. You had key people at the time saying there is no way that a nation as large as ours and a population as large as ours has ever been subjected in a war like this. A tie is as good as a win for the Confederacy. And they came very close to that in the summer of 1864." "The other thing is the sheer size of the Confederacy is a huge advantage to them. It's huge with a very poor transportation and communication infrastructure in many ways, and to move a large army deep into the Confederacy is a huge logistical problem. The same thing had happened to the British, both during the American Revolution and the War of 1812. They confront this; the Confederacy is as big as all of Western Europe. That's a problem. It's also a problem that the Confederates are fighting, literally fighting to defend their homes. That's almost always a stronger factor than trying to impose your will on somebody else. All of these factors helped the Confederacy." "The U.S. did have an army. The army had 15,000 men in it in 1860, 15,000. The Navy had fewer than 50 vessels. Most of them on overseas stations, there were exactly three vessels available to blockade the Confederacy at the beginning of the war. Confederate coastline is 3,600 miles long. Probably not going to be able to shut down a lot there. So the point is that there are factors that help both sides. To me, the conditions for victory are the most important factor that favors the Confederacy. We just have to make it painful enough to the United States that they're going to say, let them go. We never liked South Carolina anyway. Just let them go. We're not, it's not worth it. It's killing too many of our boys. It's costing too much money. And we don't have to worry about slavery in the territories if they're gone, because they'll be gone and our territories will be free of slavery."

Tony Jacob | FindaClip.com

67,653 次观看 • 1 个月前

🚨Do You Think Russia Doesn't Know Any of this History? 🚨Former British Diplomat Alastair Crooke: What is the AIM of this war for America? 🚨It's the same aim that's been there for NEARLY 200 years: to BREAK UP Russia, to PARTITION it into its SEPARATE PARTS and to STEAL its RESOURCES. We've seen it happens three times now that this war has been waged on Russia. You have to think what Russians feel about this because even during the Second World War, when Russia was an ally fighting the Germans, at some point Britain was supposed to support Russia, provide assistance to Russia who was stuck in Leningrad at that time. And what happened? Well, Churchill whispered to Roosevelt and he said, look, you know, maybe the reserves should be delayed in going there because isn't it better that they just kill more of each other during this time? Isn't that better? Does it really think that this whole war started suddenly on the date that Russia invaded Ukraine after Kiev increased the attacks on Donbas by a factor of 17, the artillery shelling of the civilian areas of Donbas? It was obviously intended to provoke Russia into this attack in order to try and turn it into a NATO-wide conflict against Russia. But the Russians, I mean, you know, they know their history. I mean, unlike us, they do study history. They know their history.
3:09

🚨Do You Think Russia Doesn't Know Any of this History? 🚨Former British Diplomat Alastair Crooke: What is the AIM of this war for America? 🚨It's the same aim that's been there for NEARLY 200 years: to BREAK UP Russia, to PARTITION it into its SEPARATE PARTS and to STEAL its RESOURCES. We've seen it happens three times now that this war has been waged on Russia. You have to think what Russians feel about this because even during the Second World War, when Russia was an ally fighting the Germans, at some point Britain was supposed to support Russia, provide assistance to Russia who was stuck in Leningrad at that time. And what happened? Well, Churchill whispered to Roosevelt and he said, look, you know, maybe the reserves should be delayed in going there because isn't it better that they just kill more of each other during this time? Isn't that better? Does it really think that this whole war started suddenly on the date that Russia invaded Ukraine after Kiev increased the attacks on Donbas by a factor of 17, the artillery shelling of the civilian areas of Donbas? It was obviously intended to provoke Russia into this attack in order to try and turn it into a NATO-wide conflict against Russia. But the Russians, I mean, you know, they know their history. I mean, unlike us, they do study history. They know their history.

Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil

15,338 次观看 • 1 个月前

This mother got a call to school because the HISTORY teacher kicked out her son for having a Gadsden flag patch on his backpack because it represented slavery 🤨.. The mom had to inform the teacher that was not true.. it is a symbol of fighting oppression, fighting for freedom, and was the battle cry for the Revolutionary war . Can you imagine a History teacher not knowing this ? I knew there was a systemic problem with some modern day teachers but I had no idea it was this bad. Funny thing is the little boy has a look of confidence on his face as he sits down next to his mother because he knows what it means and he knows his mom will stick it up the teachers behind .. 😁
1:09

This mother got a call to school because the HISTORY teacher kicked out her son for having a Gadsden flag patch on his backpack because it represented slavery 🤨.. The mom had to inform the teacher that was not true.. it is a symbol of fighting oppression, fighting for freedom, and was the battle cry for the Revolutionary war . Can you imagine a History teacher not knowing this ? I knew there was a systemic problem with some modern day teachers but I had no idea it was this bad. Funny thing is the little boy has a look of confidence on his face as he sits down next to his mother because he knows what it means and he knows his mom will stick it up the teachers behind .. 😁

Leah Rain ✝️🇺🇸🎸🏝️

100,521 次观看 • 2 个月前

Read this carefully. In the Oval Office on Thursday, the President of the United States was asked how much longer the war with Iran would last. This is what he said. "During the war we have the highest stock market. During, you know, a war. It's not a big war for us, but it's a war." It is not a big war for us. For the families of the American sailors deployed to the Strait of Hormuz, including those injured, and those who lost their lives, it is a big war. For American truckers, retirees, and families paying $4 and 17 cents a gallon at the pump, it is a big war.
0:37

Read this carefully. In the Oval Office on Thursday, the President of the United States was asked how much longer the war with Iran would last. This is what he said. "During the war we have the highest stock market. During, you know, a war. It's not a big war for us, but it's a war." It is not a big war for us. For the families of the American sailors deployed to the Strait of Hormuz, including those injured, and those who lost their lives, it is a big war. For American truckers, retirees, and families paying $4 and 17 cents a gallon at the pump, it is a big war.

Brian Allen

94,992 次观看 • 4 个月前

Jake Sullivan on Iran: The United States is at war with Iran in the middle of an active shooting war that, in my view, was a war of choice. It did not stem from an imminent threat to the United States. We have yet to hear a clear and distinctive answer to the question: Why? What is this all about and what are we trying to achieve?
1:25

Jake Sullivan on Iran: The United States is at war with Iran in the middle of an active shooting war that, in my view, was a war of choice. It did not stem from an imminent threat to the United States. We have yet to hear a clear and distinctive answer to the question: Why? What is this all about and what are we trying to achieve?

Clash Report

17,487 次观看 • 4 个月前

BREAKING: US Senator Jeff Merkley, moments ago: "If this was a legal action of war, then it would be a war crime. If it was not, it was a murder. In either case, again, the right way to find out if there are drugs onboard a boat, is you stop the boat, you board it, you investigate it and in the process you learn about the strategies involved which gives you information to dismantle a broad operation."
0:48

BREAKING: US Senator Jeff Merkley, moments ago: "If this was a legal action of war, then it would be a war crime. If it was not, it was a murder. In either case, again, the right way to find out if there are drugs onboard a boat, is you stop the boat, you board it, you investigate it and in the process you learn about the strategies involved which gives you information to dismantle a broad operation."

Ed Krassenstein

314,750 次观看 • 9 个月前

Bill O’Reilly defends dropping nukes on Japan and killing “a million” civilians during WWII. He says “crazy people” call it a war crime, but insists it was the “only way” to “defeat these fascist countries.” “The only reason Japan surrendered to the United States in 1945 was because we dropped the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” “We… killed, what, a million civilians?” “That was the only way to defeat these fascist countries that launched the war.” “So a few nuts will accuse Truman and Winston Churchill of war crimes. But these are crazy people. You had to end it.” “All I can give you are the facts.”
1:29

Bill O’Reilly defends dropping nukes on Japan and killing “a million” civilians during WWII. He says “crazy people” call it a war crime, but insists it was the “only way” to “defeat these fascist countries.” “The only reason Japan surrendered to the United States in 1945 was because we dropped the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” “We… killed, what, a million civilians?” “That was the only way to defeat these fascist countries that launched the war.” “So a few nuts will accuse Truman and Winston Churchill of war crimes. But these are crazy people. You had to end it.” “All I can give you are the facts.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

72,218 次观看 • 5 个月前

I break down a pivotal moment in the lead-up to the American Revolution—when General Gage was given sweeping authority by the British to use force against the colonies. This wasn’t just policy—it was a turning point that pushed America closer to war. I also take on how our founding is often misunderstood or oversimplified, and why knowing the full history matters—especially when it comes to identity, education, and what it means to be an American. To watch the entire episode: Rumble: YouTube:
1:00

I break down a pivotal moment in the lead-up to the American Revolution—when General Gage was given sweeping authority by the British to use force against the colonies. This wasn’t just policy—it was a turning point that pushed America closer to war. I also take on how our founding is often misunderstood or oversimplified, and why knowing the full history matters—especially when it comes to identity, education, and what it means to be an American. To watch the entire episode: Rumble: YouTube:

Mark R. Levin

23,612 次观看 • 5 个月前

'Iran proved it through action: until the last minute, before the start of hostilities, until the moment of the first strike on the country, Tehran remained open to the continuation of mediations.’ -Kremlin🇷🇺 Spokseperson Dmitri Peskov Oman’s Foreign Minister put it on the record before the war started; that there had been a breakthrough in negotiations and Iran was willing to give unprecedented concessions. This was always a war of choice unleashed by Donald Trump, which has led to unprecedented destruction in the region. It was also a choice to allow the Israelis to dictate the choice between war and peace. One phone call from an American President to Israel with the threat of cutting off support could have stopped this disaster from taking place.
0:39

'Iran proved it through action: until the last minute, before the start of hostilities, until the moment of the first strike on the country, Tehran remained open to the continuation of mediations.’ -Kremlin🇷🇺 Spokseperson Dmitri Peskov Oman’s Foreign Minister put it on the record before the war started; that there had been a breakthrough in negotiations and Iran was willing to give unprecedented concessions. This was always a war of choice unleashed by Donald Trump, which has led to unprecedented destruction in the region. It was also a choice to allow the Israelis to dictate the choice between war and peace. One phone call from an American President to Israel with the threat of cutting off support could have stopped this disaster from taking place.

Afshin Rattansi

23,339 次观看 • 5 个月前