Yeltsin also handpicked Vladimir Putin, who, it may be noted, is still in power. Fast-forward and the Russia that had been stomped into the dirt after the collapse of the USSR and the looting by the West:
- escaped basically the Third World and now has Europe's biggest economy, fourth-largest in the world
- leads BRICS, representing half the world's GDP and more than half the population
- has the world's most advanced military
- has the world's most battle hardened military
- is taking a firm stand against all the destructive neo-liberal bullshit
So there's that, if people think that kind of stuff is an important legacy.
I would agree the reasoning is solid, but perhaps the thought I would offer is that you give some reconsideration to the paradigm that might be called the "Biblical worldview".
It crystallized for me some years ago when I heard the late researcher Tom Horn use that phrase, that his analysis was with the "Biblical worldview". I thought, "Isn't there only one worldview, what me might call 'The Truth of the Universe' or something? Does the Bible not simply describe and help us understand some part of that Truth?"
I figured out that for the great many adhering to the "Biblical worldview", truth sprang from the Bible. Well, I think most will admit the Bible contains many conundrums, contradictions, and various counterintuitive events and puzzling statements. The problem, as I came to see clearly, was that to resolve these problems, people would read into the Bible, creating "truths" that were not there in the text.
I came to see that to correctly understand and interpret what was there in a sensible way, you had to look at the history and circumstances surrounding it. Well, to be clear, to look if necessary anywhere in the whole of the Universe.
That was the paradigm shift. As with Copernicus, everyone has a choice to make and few are ready to confront that choice, let alone accept change. Maybe I wasn't built that way so all I can say is that it wasn't difficult for me.
Once I had this clearly in mind, pieces began to fall into place and much in the Bible and the world began to make more sense. As to the present topic, just what the hell is going on with "the Jews", there are a couple of examples from the study of history that (IMHO) greatly clarify points you touched on.
One is that "the Jews" as the concept we now have simply did not exist until a couple of hundred years ago. Even leaving the Khazarian Hypothesis out, the present group has little to do with the Old Testament group. The concept was entirely dreamed up as the tool we've all seen being used for malevolent purposes for a century. I wrote some of this up in a comment here:
Why did Hitler think it was acceptable to try to try to export Germany's Jews to everyone else, who didn't want them either? (conspiracies.win 9/29/2024)
People professing the Jewish faith lived peacefully, assimilated into their various communities and nations all across the Mediterranean Basin, for many centuries following the expulsion. Really, they were just the same as the vast majority of Jews in Germany until external forces decided to use that subgroup as a tool also.
Looking back further, even something taken as well understood, the "Babylonian Captivity", is entirely misunderstood when history is consulted. I was stunned to find out that when the 70 years was over, only 4% (an estimated 40k out of 1m) went back to Jerusalem. Does that sound like slavery? Not to me.
Even the beginning of the period is upside-down. They try to suggest there was a "Siege of Jerusalem", but there was no battle at all. It looks to me like they all went with Cyrus back to Babylon as something other than captives. What those circumstances were is a much longer story, but my point here would be that no one else ever addresses themselves to it head-on as we are doing here.
Just as a final thought, the Biblical worldview holds that Israel is going to be destroyed in the big Battle of Armageddon, however one wishes to define that. Since the fateful October 7th, it struck me that the "Jewish State of Israel"--which had been teetering on the edge for a couple of years--would not survive what had been unleashed, however it might ultimately play out.
I very much consciously thought of it as the "Armageddon" we would live to see the end of and organized my notes along those lines, tracking the course of the implosion. No one with the Biblical worldview--those looking for the end of Israel--seems to have interpreted events this way, which I find quite ironic.
The problem is American Christian Zionists. Who knows how many--I've heard 70 million--and many of them MAGA. Tons of Republican politicians are CZists.
Well, the real problem is that they have no conception of themselves as American Christian Zionists, they just consider themselves Christians. In their intentionally perverted and heretical ideology, good Christians support Israel. They know not what they do, nor does Tucker Carlson.
The game Trump seems to be playing is to get these people of their own free will to decide they are more American than they are Zionist, and Christianity has little to do with it. As Americans, they would want no part of another insane Israeli war of aggression.
Trump can do this or that or whatever other thing everyone with an opinion is certain he should do, but the present form of the JQ will not be settled--ever--until these Christian Zionists wake themselves the fuck up.
Something very odd is going on, along the lines of "the dog that didn't bark". If anyone thinks they already know what's going on, nothing to see here. For all others, read on....
There is a screaming silence on details of this attack. It's been more than 14 hours and there's almost nothing in this RT live updates article. All we get is "explosions" and a number of people killed including certain crucial Iranian military figures.
Everything that is normally reported about attacks like this is entirely missing: the number and type of weapons, flight paths, air raid alerts in Iran, the work of Iranian air defense, targeting of Israeli weapon carriers, complaints from Iraq and Jordan about the use of their airspace for offensive operations, Ring doorbell video of incoming projectiles, the list goes on and on and on.
The high-profile martyrs is also suspect. There don't seem to be that many explosions--a dozen? hard to get a number--and Israel scores three bullseyes out of that? You'd basically have to know what bed they were sleeping in and that they would get no alert whatsoever. Personally, I had concluded that Soleimani faked his death way back when, so there's that reference.
I suppose I'm just a natural contrarian, but it shapes up to me that Israel broke into a house where the door was intentionally left ajar. I do not consider this to have been some big setup to crush Iran's nuclear bomb program, which is non-existent.
The real threat to Israel is Iran's missile program. That isn't even mentioned and was left entirely untouched, although the head of the program was supposedly killed. Maybe a dead man will be running it from one of their underground missile cities, eh?
What's the secret plan? IDK--yet--but no one's talking about it, or even talking about how there must be a secret plan, which I would say is how actual secret plans are kept secret.
There is something very strange and disturbing about the whole situation of American history since, say, the year 1800.
On the one hand, the landscape is littered with Tartarian buildings, from the Palace of Fine Arts to the first Mormon temples to the Capitol. Most seem to have been mudflooded, and there are also "underground cities" all over the map.
On the other hand, Native Americans claim to have been here for thousands of years, yet they have no reports of when these Tartarian structures were built and by whom, nor have they any reports of the time and circumstances of the mudflood. How TF could they missed all that, or considered it literally unremarkable?
This circle has yet to be squared in any rational way, or even to be addressed.
For those not aware of the details, it's one of the oddest situations going in psychological warfare, fascinating on it's own.
Many years ago, when Gordon Duff ran VT, he admitted that he had to publish 40% disinfo to be allowed to publish what he wanted. That appears to have continued on to The Intel Drop, with anti-Trump headlines ridiculously over the top, looking like they came from (NYT + WaPo) x MSNBC. Absolutely absurd.
It's undeniable, though, that VT/TID are where you're going to get some of the hardest-hitting material out there. These outlets are the only place I have ever seen the work of Dimitri Khalezov and Heinz Pommer on the nuclear destruction of the WTC, the Israel nuking of Beirut Port, and various tactical nukes dropped in various other places.
Even Duff has his limits, apparently. I once dropped a hint in the comment section about exactly where that Beirut Port nuke came from and he acted like he never saw it even though I know he did. Interesting world in which we live.
It should be big news, and the fact that it isn't is surreal. In a way, I interpret that surreality as a sign that things are "getting close to the end" in some sense.
Suppose Tom Selleck checked into a hotel suite and has been living it up for a week. You're walking down the hall past his door as the manager and the head of security are confronting him because none of "Mr. Selleck's" credit cards are working. You notice that his fake mustache is falling halfway off as he insists he's a rich Hollywood star and is totally good for the bill. It's all very surreal.
You don't know for sure what's going to happen next, but you know it's going to happen soon.
Looks like this was indeed the nuking of another DUMB. In fact, there appears to have been two.
The first thing to check is the depth of the quake. Most earthquakes are deep, like 10 miles. These DUMB blasts are in the facilities themselves, so they're shallow, under 3 miles. When reporting quakes, in addition to the distance from the nearest landmark, they always list the magnitude and depth so it's easy to check.
Except for this one. Depth is not in the very short linked Fox 5 Vegas notice. Nor is it anywhere in the very long:
Multiple earthquakes hit Nevada military base known for testing nuclear weapons (Daily Mail 6/5/2025)
Very strange, right? Anyway, we can take a look at the USGS data and the waveforms from the nearest seismic station, along with what I believe the events actually were. Note that they were altering the locations and depths as I wrote this:
6:52:57am PDT Demolition of the first DUMB:
3.2 km depth
M 3.3 - 24 km ENE of Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada
7:00:50am PDT Cave in of the first DUMB:
4.1 km depth, but originally listed at 2.0 km. Location now listed slightly southeast of the first event, but originally directly on top of it.
M 1.7 - 22 km ENE of Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada
ml1.5 California-Nevada Border Region
7:10:11am PDT Demolition of the second DUMB:
2.1 km depth, and about 2 km north of the first event
M 1.3 - 26 km ENE of Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada
A couple of bonus notes. In the waveform links, they have a feature where you can play it as audio. Try that out for the first event. Hear that thump at the beginning? Wonder what that is.
Also note that the first and third events--which I believe to be nuclear detonations--are almost precisely 17 minutes apart. 17? Where have I heard that before? You can't make this shit up.
I'm glad Hawaii has their priorities straight:
DHS Reports 1 of 6 Lahaina Wildfire Survivors Were Forced Into Prostitution to Gain Basic Necessities Such as Food and Shelter (Gateway Pundit 5/30/2025)
Hopefully, this reign of beneficence will put it's boot on all our faces.
I installed a DirecTV dish way back in the 90's and getting it aligned was an enormous pain in the ass. You couldn't be off by the tiniest amount.
And that was just to geosynchronous orbit at 22,300 miles. The Moon is ten times farther.
To clarify on the Edmonds things, she was supposed to take out Beeley and Bartlett. You can read their Syria reporting yourself and it's dynamite.
But such things were not Edmonds normal assignment and maybe her handler was out of town and couldn't write it up for her, who could possibly know. The job was an utter botch and everyone who was paying attention to her noticed. Totally and completely off-base and unprovoked. The "nervous breakdown" line seem to be the cover story they went with, which I find about as convincing as "holding it for a friend".
Corbett definitely says explicitly "there's no one at the top" now. It was probably within the last year that I heard it because it really caught my attention. It would have been in the free audio he publishes, but I never saved the specific link and timecode.
And I never saved the specific link and timecode because after a while it's like trying to keep track of exactly which neighborhood raccoons are getting into the dog food. In addition to the tedium of it, virtually no one will ever be interested in that particular data.
So what would I say happened with that point of view? Well, it's not like Corbett is in the CIA's HR system and gets mailed a weekly paycheck. Everything is influence from the top to the bottom: do the "right thing" and "good luck" will flow your way. No, these things are not right and it's it not luck but orchestration.
If Corbett previously held a different view, well, now those upwards of him no longer consider that the "right thing". A "good friend" mentions it to him, has a discussion, wonders if James has really thought it through because this friend leans towards a different view. And this friend has never steered him wrong before. Good things kept happening, didn't they?
I'm not claiming this is precisely what happened. I'm saying it's just that easy.
Why do you even ask when you already know all about it? Just serving your ego?
Those are rhetorical questions. I could not possibly care less about your answers. But go ahead and post them if you need to serve your ego even further.
The Sibel Edmonds story has long been forgotten, since that's how the Memory Hole works. The case is a bit complex, has a bit of context, and is not written up anywhere, so to explain it I'll have to do what I always resist doing, which is to "give the answer".
This all goes back 7 years. The situation in Syria was and is as dirty as dirt can be with head chopping freedom fighters, White Helmets, barrel bombs, the whole 9. There were two independent journalists who were doing a hell of a lot to expose the truth, including on-the-ground reporting: Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley. If Pulitzer Prizes were actually worth anything, they should get them.
So this is a big problem for The Big Machine. It looks like They decided to use a solid asset that they had built up over many years, Sibel Edmonds, to put some torpedoes into these inconvenient truthers. Her rep against these little known wenches, right?
Except it all goes wrong and the blowback is intense. That's where this post comes in:
Sibel edmonds appears to be having a nervous breakdown. James Corbett breaks it all down and disavows her. (r/conspiracy 3/30/2018)
One guy even says:
IS IT POSSIBLE SHE'S VICTIM OF SOME NERVOUS SYSTEM COVERT ATTACK THAT'S MADE HER LOOP OUT LIKE THIS?
I can't even tell if that's a shill trying to cover for Edmonds or an honest reaction to how far off base her attack was. In any case, the link is to Corbett's video where he tries to dance away from the flaming wreckage. You can judge the post and the video for yourself, but there are two things I would add at this point.
First is a bit of context that the Redditors don't bring up. Newsbud didn't just republish Corbett's work, and he wasn't just a staff writer or something. Newsbud was Edmonds and Corbett, and they had collaborated for a number of years. So to come off like, "How was I to know? We've all been fooled, frens," well, I'm not buying that.
Which brings up the second point: the gun that didn't smoke. You see, in all the years since then, I've paid close attention and I've never heard him mention Edmonds once. I suppose I uphold a certain standard for any truth teller, which would be that he learned a lesson, and from time to time would have reason to say, "We gotta be careful who we put our faith in. We can all be fooled. Everybody remember the Sibel Edmonds thing?"
I had a somewhat similar experience, from which I learned and about which I speak freely. I read 330 papers by Miles Mathis and never had any doubts about his legitimacy. In those years, I even came across two exposes on him as a disinfo agent. One I read and dismissed out of hand, the other I ignored completely. I had to open myself up to the idea then figure it out on my own. At least I'm not on record defending him as not a disinfo agent... lol
So Edmonds, Corbett, Mathis... you just have to be very, very careful, always aware disinfo agents are around every corner. When They really need to, They will call out an enemy a disinfo agent, but that's a last ditch effort because They simply do not want that concept in your mind.
Anyway, now you know why you didn't already know all about Sibel Edmonds... lol
EDIT: I keep forgetting to mention that Corbett has lately tipped his hand (as I interpret it) on what his final game is, asserting that there's "no one at the top". I firmly disagree, but you'll have to decide for yourself. In any case, if I was the alpha wolf of alpha wolves, I would want every wolf hunter to think that there was no such thing as an alpha wolf.
Such alterations to the nucleus of an atom are the subject of everyday "nuclear chemistry". In "regular" chemistry, the nuclei are never changed.
Nature produces atoms only up to uranium, Element 92. All of the "transuranics" are the product of nuclear chemistry. For example, Bob Lazar's "unumpentium" is simply moscovium, the element between flerovium and livermorium, which makes it seem much less like something to ooh and ahh about.
Lead and gold are very close, nuclear chemistry-wise. Lead is defined by having 82 protons while gold has 79 protons. If you somehow knock three protons off a lead nucleus, you've got gold. The only reason they don't just "manufacture" gold is because it takes a tremendous amount of energy to knock those protons off, far more than the resulting gold could ever be worth.
The incident I forgot to mention about Corbett was the scandal involving Sibel Edmonds. If you've never heard of it, that would be my point. It got swept right down the Memory Hole.
It was years ago and I let it slide at the time because Sibel Edmonds had never broken cover up til then either. I never paid much attention to her work so I never questioned it, but in hindsight I see it as another disinfo op of the "whistleblower" type, along the lines of, "Boy, those FBI people sure were incompetent!"
Everything she said may be true, but do you think that's one of the important truths about 911, incompetence? Again it's an echo of the Corbett "stenographer" model. Everything is true yet nothing is important, at least not as I would define importance. It's free juicy worms all day but I look at people chomping down and getting dragged away from those parts of the lake They would rather you not swim to.
Finally, I would say your instincts are right about Whitney Webb, yet another echo in the guise of "investigative journalist". Everything true and nothing important. Well, the important thing is anti-Trump, everything he does, all the time, for all different reasons than you hear elsewhere, just as long as you arrive at the same destination.
I have found that these disinfo agents work in little cells where each supports the other. "Oh, what great work So-and-so is doing!" Of course they would structure like that since these are ultimately Intel ops. The big giveaway came for me a couple of years ago:
Should You Trust Elon Musk? Roundtable Discussion with Whitney Webb, James Corbett, Ryan Cristián & Jason Bermas: Here's why you should be extremely skeptical of Elon Musk. (Derrick Broze 1/13/2023)
So they have to convene this whole summit just to tell you not to trust someone? I had been following Elon's "turn" up to that point quite closely and saw what a threat he was becoming, saying all kinds of things you would never want someone to say publicly as part of any controlled op you could ever dream up. It would be like staging a fake argument with a coworker starting with calling him a wife-beater and pedophile.
And what kind of analysis is, "Don't trust someone"? That's pure psyop, manipulation based on fear, and there they were saying it plainly. Really, you may want to listen to it with what I've said in mind. I remember it as transparent and cringeworthy.
But then again, I'm not here to tell you how to feel about it.
A little more of my thoughts on Corbett, submitted for your consideration:
I listened to all the audio he published for free staring from the beginning and never saw anything wrong with it. What finally caught my attention, though, was not that long ago.
It was during that big Texas snowpocalypse and he was talking about the war in Ukraine. The comments he made were like he was getting them by reading the front page of the New York Times. I couldn't believe anyone who had actually studied the situation would say such things.
The highlight, the fundamental theme, was that he was totally anti-Putin. Later on and still, he's totally anti-Trump. Guy cannot do a single thing right and you're a shithead for even thinking otherwise, you know?
Well in my analysis of--I guess you would say--everything else, Trump and Putin are far and away the biggest threats to "Them". Looks like they're going to turn the whole thing and its head and stomp it into the ground if they accomplish what they've set out to do.
So then I went back to carefully considering what Corbett had actually done. As I think of it, his front is as a "stenographer", rather than a researcher digging for what's really going on. That's vague so let me give you an example.
He had a whole show about the Ludlow Massacre. Okay, the Rockefellers turn out to be assholes, right? Well, any conspiracy theorist who passed 101 already knows about the Ludlow Massacre. Everything Corbett said about it could be found in any number of articles and videos. It was only a summary. He gave nothing away, you see?
I have long been familiar with it, too, of course. But also somewhere along the line, I had learned just how many historical events were faked. When I went back to examine it more closely in that light, yep, it was fake too.
If you're wondering why they would fake it, it was because the father was deeply hated. Junior, however, came out smelling like a rose, the big hero. I recall a Truthstream Media video about it and they were baffled by this result. Well, now you see why it all happened, right?
So Corbett never makes any such revelations. He's a true gatekeeper. He just runs a different pen than Rachel Maddow.
Let me suggest a further clarification, a structure, and a reason behind what you describe. I realized it only recently and now I don't know why it took so long to crystallize for me.
At the normie level, they get their (version of) the truth from the mainstream "authorities" by far the most important being the default mainstream media you get when you turn on your TV.
At the conspiracy theorist level, they get their (version of) the truth from the alternative "authorities". The difference here is that they may choose freely from these alternative media sources: Alex Jones, James Corbett, Whitney Webb, Steve Bannon, Ian Carroll, etc.
The key is the word "media", meaning "middle" as in between the viewer and reality itself. "They" know that if they take control of this middle, they control reality in a practical sense. It's impossible to think of a reason They wouldn't do with the alternative what They've done with the mainstream.
At the highest level, which you rarely see, people break with the concept of "authority" entirely. Not that expert opinion doesn't matter, but it doesn't define the truth. The truth is where you find it: mainstream, alternative, scripture, the ravings of lunatics, wherever. Again, very few operate at this level.
Sometimes I turn around and reflect in hindsight on what Alex Jones has not said in his long career. How could he have missed all the things I stumbled across in a few short years? There's just no way, no way he could be legitimate. But find a fan of his and they'll defend him to the death.
The idea that how it's "supposed to work" is how it "actually works" is the very first assumption anyone trying to figure out what's going on in the world needs to heave overboard.
Just in my own career, doing nothing that had any importance outside the walls of the office building, I never spoke candidly in a meeting, nor did I expect anyone else to do so.
Anything where at any point I needed someone's agreement and cooperation, I discussed with them personally. If I could not get agreement privately, why would it come in a group? One-on-one, at least there was the possibility that they might say, "Listen, I wouldn't tell everyone this, but...." If any mutual agreements got publicly displayed and formalized in a meeting later on, well, who cares actually?
Also, I never assumed that "They" were any stupider than me.
If the parallel holds true, it would mean something like, "Vote Vance 2050". Seems pretty surreal. Then again, Putin has been a body double for 15 years, so that's surreal too.
Strange world we live in.