Video and Audio
See other Video and Audio Articles
Title: Ukraine to become 'Big Israel'?
Source:
The Grayzone
URL Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmICm4qO3i4
Published: Sep 20, 2023
Author: Max Blumenthal
Post Date: 2023-09-20 00:18:04 by Charles_Byrd
Keywords: None
Views: 3925
Comments: 87
The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal addresses the Ron Paul Institute's 2023 Washington DC conference on the disturbing plans in Kiev and Washington to convert Ukraine into a "Big Israel," and what this means for the region and the future of US politics.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 74.
#1. To: Charles_Byrd (#0)
Defeating Russia in the Ukraine is the key to the future. With Russia gone, we can focus on bringing China to a more rational stance, and avoid a war with them too. Russia delenda est.
FWIW...Russia ain't going anywhere. At some point, we need to find a way to peacefully coexist. The less human blood sacrificed in that righteous quest, the better...MUD
Want to bet? The peace starts when Russia stays in its lane.
Otherwise the war continues. Russia is in a demographic, and therefore economic, death spiral. They will, in fact, cease to exist as a state if they engage in a forever war. They can't win, and they can't keep going forever. They can be stubborn cunts and keep it going until they screw themselves into the ground, and nobody will regret their passing. OR they could pull out, make peace, change governments and start to repair themselves. My bet is that they will remain stubborn, stupid cunts, and screw themselves into the ground proclaiming what a great nation they are, until they utterly collapse and cease to exist as an organized power. Ok. They're just not that important. The ONLY THING they have is nuclear weapons. And their system is so corrupt and falling backwards, there's no knowing how many of those even work. The rest of the world is not going to stand still in awe at Russia's nuclear arsenal. Nobody is going to invade them, but that's it. Nobody is going to let them invade their neighbors because they have nukes. Yeah? So do we. And we have more accurate, newer ones, and a Western world of about 2.5 billion people. If we DID have a nuclear exchange, we would lose a lot of people, that is true. Russia only has 140 million people. The race would be exterminated forever. The world would go and repair itself, WITHOUT Russia or Russians. There will not always be a Russia. The Russians have to start acting rationally if they want to survive. Aging nuclear weapons are the only line they have against being overrun by the Chinese, who claim Siberia. Russia doesn't have anywhere near the army to keep out the Chinese, only nukes could do it. OR Russia could knock off the oppression, join the West, and have the whole might of the West protecting them against China. But, like I said, the Russians are cunts, stupid cunts, so they're going to choose to fight the whole West in Ukraine, for as long as they can, and then collapse and cease to matter as a nation. Ok.
While I agree nobody is making a bee-line to emigrate TO Russia, and with teir low, low birthrate, they--and the Chinese, btw--are facing a demographic downturn that will possibly be catastrophic. However, the U.S. is presently $33 TRILLION in debt with no will to curtail spending on domestic niceties, so engaging in a "forever war" via proxy will result in a financial collapse like we havben't seen in almost 100 years...MUD
So give Ukraine what it needs NOW, win the war, and be able to slash military expenses during the peace.
or take them out and become arrogant and have more wars.
With ATACMs and F16, Ukraine will break the Russian defenses in the South and cut off Crimea and half the Russian army, and that will lead to taking back Crimea. Donbass is much harder, because it abuts Russia. Once Russia is driven back to just the Donbass, maybe a peace deal can be struck giving them the wrecked and depopulated Donbass.
Rev19.11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords. 17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh. The Khazars can genocide and take the land for "big Israel" but they will only hold it for a few short agony filled years. At which time God will come and literally cut their guts out and feed their flesh to the birds of the air.
You think Revelation is about the war in Ukraine, eh?
Did a light just come on in your head? Try to keep up, Vic...
A sort of light. The light is "He really believes that the Ukraine war has to do with John's dream in the Apocalypse." It's not "Wow, this is the end of times." When the world doesn't end, and no riders show up with seals, or sheep covered with eyes and the lot, it will be a disappointment for you, just as the world not ending a few years ago when those guys were certain it would. And yet they go on, convinced that the world is ending soon, and that they just miscalculated a little. Obviously I think a story told from the perspective of an ancient fever dream is not actual future history, and it has no predictive quality whatever. And just as obviously, you think it does. And we'll both go to our graves thinking that, but it won't be in the world ending.
I have explained ad nauseum to this forum the evidence of the white horse rider (the 1st seal) in 2020. Followed very clearly by the red horse rider in Feb. 2022, and now the unmistakable appearance of the Black horse rider of inflation for the working-class people. Amazingly, in 2020, we witnessed a peace treaty (the Abraham Accords) that fulfills Daniel9.27 But this alone is not sufficient. The real timekeeper of prophecy is Israel, being restored in the land, currently preparing to build a temple, obtaining red heifers for the cleansing, and the revealing of the man of lawlessness (who tells you in no uncertain terms who he is) who will become the long awaited Mashiach. Furthermore, we see the condition of humanity (delusional to believe the lies), and the churches (having fallen away, not restraining evil). What have I over looked? I'm sure there is more but what I have presented will suffice for a while. More than that, I will cease my ministry as "watchman". There is a time constraint. If the prophesy does not keep unfolding, time will run out. Everything is very unique in its fulfillment. Israel, the opening of the seals, the strong delusion, the falling away...for all these things to reappear at some later date, there would need to be a whole resetting of the world, just to swing around again and arrive at the circumstances we see now...probably take hundreds of years. Vic, prophesy WILL be fulfilled. Now is the time. The evidences are laid out for us to see. If all this adds up to nothing, then I resign. I am reminded of the verse where believers whose faith is based on a myth are most pathetic of all humanity... So go ahead, throw your best objections at it. See if what I say will stand up to examination.
There's just no point. We come from different poles of existence. Anything I could say might be insulting, and I don't want to do that. So, go in peace.
Wow...I am impressed. Very enlightened response, V13...MUD
13 is the number of rebellion in the Bible.
I happen to be the 13th Vicomte of a place in France. If I were the 11th, I would have “Vicomte11” as my name. But I’m the 13th, so that is my name. Does genealogy render me a rebel? Doubt.
Well, I shouldn't be associating with someone of such low degree as yourself because your commonness always rubs off on those of us who are of true nobility. I am, after all, a child of the King, the Most High God. Unfortunately, in a matter of speaking, yes. Your rebellious nature was passed down to you from your father.
We're all children of God.
No jesus didnt say that about the warmongers who would supply foreigners with weapons to kill people that they politically hate. Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God". Youre not a peacemakers but someone who supports war to kill as many russians as possible so we will be dominant in the world.
Tell me, does your church allow divorce and remarriage? What do you think of that?
What do you think of that? I don't believe there is such thing as divorce. You are still married and commit adultry if you have sex with anyone other than your wife who you originally married.
You sound like Jesus. But, what does your Church teach? See? You are responsible for what YOU believe, not for what your “leaders” tell you to believe. I’m not a fan of pedophilia, or coverups, or burning heretics and witches, or saints, or torturing political opponents, or enforced priestly celibacy. The sins of the Church over the centuries are that: sins - I don’t agree with any of it, and I don’t defend any of it. In truth, I use the fact of all of it to attack the absurd notion of general infallibility. Barrow, specific infallibility is essentially limited to Mary. And I pay attention to Jesus, not Mary. I don’t have a problem with Mary - I think that maternal devotion and placing a woman very high is not a bad thing, but Mary is not the focus of my faith, Jesus is. But as far as being a “rebel”, because I happen to be the 13th Vicomte de Voreiz, and some guy is superstitious about the number 13? I’m the opposite of a rebel. I feel no need to “take a stand” in any meaningful way other than stating my disagreement. I feel no need to rebel against the Church and leave it. Jesus did not rebel against Temple Judaism or tell his people to leave it. He told them, instead, to listen to the good, not follow the bad, but follow him, his teachings instead. He did not require that individuals force the institutions to align with their beliefs - an impossible task. He merely demanded that they follow him, and if you followed him, he did care if you were a Jew or not. So, even though the Jews as an institution taught and did things Jesus said were unnecessary and even negative traditions, he didn’t command abandonment of the religion. Rather, he said - effectively - that if you follow him, the cracked traditions of the institutions don’t matter. I’m no rebel. I remain in the Catholic Church because I was born and raised that way and like the people. But I am forthright in telling you - and the priest for that matter (I am in our men’s group and we talk about Jesus every Saturday, and the priest is with us) - what I think is cracked, wrong and irrelevant. So, to call me a rebel is really off the mark. But to ascribe to me beliefs I don’t have because I’m a Catholic? Jesus was a Jew - who obviously ignored all sorts of Jewish traditions, and criticized them, but made no grand political statement of “leaving Judaism” either. Rather, he simply ignored the things that were not true, demonstrating to me what to do. This was to the great consternation of many priests, scribes and faithful Pharisees of his time. He mocked them, he didn’t leave the faith. I don’t mock people who adore the Eucharist or devote oceans of time to Mary. I just don’t do either, staying focused on what Jesus said. This doesn’t annoy most Catholics (some in the men’s group really don’t like me, but the priest loves me because of my pure and faithful citation of Jesus.). Protestants go after me citing traditions of the Church I ignore. But what I actually believe - well - that I express by citing Jesus, 100%. If someone wants to get pissed at me for THAT…we’ll…go right ahead, Pharisee!
But you'll kill the hell out of the Slavs who are sitting on some real estate you want.
The Russians are invading the Ukraine. We aren’t. We are helping the Ukrainians kill the people invading their country.
Did god help or destroy sodom and gomorrah? They are a pro fag country just like us
So, I have completed my review of everything that Jesus said, and I am prepared to begin to remind you of it. It is always good to spend time with Jesus, to be reminded of his word, and to remind others of what he said. This started merely as an effort to demonstrate a point - the Jesus looks to acts, deeds, works, and that he judges us based on what we do. It is not simply a matter of believing he is the Son of God. Obviously he is the Son of God. The miracle of the resurrection, which we can ourselves see (if we will), and be reminded of that, that tells us to look to him and follow his word. For that is what he asks, that we understand, and hear his word, and do it. But when you read him, there is so much more to see in it, and be reminded to be glad. Some say that there is a certain way that one must come to Jesus, and none else. Jesus did not say that. He DID say that if you hear his words and don’t do them, it is unavailing. So, let’s hear him then, and do what he said, and it be availing. Tomorrow I shall begin to write it down, to quote him. I will start with what he said in the Revelation and move backwards from that. Tomorrow.
Ok Vic.
It is tomorrow, and I begin. First question: do I engage in a bunch of preparatory work, explaining the "proper approach" to Jesus, lining up what I write to prove some point? I could. It is tempting. Everybody else seems to do it. But no. The Son of God's words have moved people for two thousand years. Nothing that I can say or do is going to make any difference. So I'm just going to let him speak. All I will say is that my intention is to quote him extensively. I know that those who don't like what they are reading will start to shout "Context! Context!" as they come to those things they do not like. I'm not going to argue with them myself. I'm just going to give them more and more and MORE Jesus - let HIM give the context, and let the ones opposed to him start playing the game of picking and choosing a line here, a line there. I like Jesus exactly as he was, and have shaped my own thinking to fit his, what HE taught. So from my perspective, the antidote to any argument against what Jesus said is MORE JESUS. It is not I who has a narrow and crabbed vision of Jesus. I take in the totality. Of course that ends up being very long and time consuming. I don't really apologize for that, because he's just great, and the more Jesus you read, the better. If you don't believe he was the Son of God, perhaps you will be moved by the excellence of what he has to say. If you do believe he was, then you should revel in every word. And indeed if you do believe he is the Son of God, and you don't like what he is saying, you need to reconsider your own positions and align them with his. Enough of me. Let's begin with Him. Revelation 22: 12-19 "Lo! I am coming swiftly, and my wage is with me, to pay each according to his works. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Happy are those who are rinsing their robes, that it will be their license to the tree of life, and they may enter the gates of the city. Outside are curs, and drug dealers*, and the sexually immoral, and murderers, and idolators, and everyone making and fondling lies. I, Jesus, send my messenger** to testify these things to you in the assembly***. I am the root and the race of David, the resplendent morning star.****" *The word is "pharmakeia". A "pharmakon" sold drugs to people to produce the highs and hallucinations that drugs produce. The ancients, and the medievals, ascribed these effects to "magic", so old translations in English will say "sorcerers" or "enchanters" here, but that gives rise to the idea of what we would call a wizard. Jesus was talking about the people who sold drugs to people to blow their minds. The ancients considered that "magic". We don't. The word he used referred specifically to drug peddlers: pharmakeia. It wasn't illegal in the ancient world to be a drug dealer. There were regular shops that sold this stuff. We could, if we translated it literally, say "pharmacists". But that would give the wrong idea too. Todays "pharmakeia" - pharmacists - are not selling potions to blow people's minds with magic. They are a regulated industry selling medicines to heal people. Ancient pharmacists were selling mind-altering drugs - legally at the time. The proper modern equivalent of "pharmakeia", to understand what Jesus was talking about, is "drug dealer". He was NOT talking about old women in the woods who think they are witches. They are simply deluded and have no power. He was talking about people who sell drugs to other people who blow their minds. And he is saying explicitly that they have no place in the city of God. **"Messenger" is the meaning of the world "angelos". "Angel" means "messenger" in English. We have preferred to not translate the word and leave it as "angel", which gives rise to a specific thought of a winged being. But an "angel" in Greek CAN BE a winged supernatural being. But it is also the word used for human messengers, from the army, for example, carrying a dispatch. Jesus does not specify here, so I have chosen to use the word in its generic meeting. Whether the "messenger" here comes from on high, or refers to the disciples carrying the messages to the various churches, doesn't really matter. And in any case you cannot tell from what Jesus said: he sent his messengers - winged angels or sandal-clad men. It's the message that mattered to Jesus, not the particular physical description of the messenger. ***"Assembly" is what the word "ecclesia" means. It literally means "those called out" - of a regular meeting to a special assembly. What Jesus is referring to here can be called "the churches", which is the usual translation of "ecclesia". That's not wrong, in the sense that he is talking about assemblies of those who follow him, "the faithful", but "church" is a Medieval English word that carries very specific connotations - of specifically the Catholic or Anglican rites, of buldings, which we call "churches". And Jesus is not talking about buildings or political organizations, he is talking about assemblies of people, who follow him. Yes, that is the "church" of the period. But given that the word "church" would not exist for another 1100 years, until the invention of English, and given that when the word "church" developed, it was completely synonymous with the Catholic Church, to use the word "church" here is a loaded anachronism that Catholics use to say "See! See! The Church ALWAYS was." No, it wasn't. Yes, there were always followers of Jesus. No, they were not following the rites of the Catholic Church in the first century. "Assemblies of people devoted to Jesus" is what the "ecclesia" is. A "church", yes, but only in the sense of people gathered for Jesus. In the stronger sense of the Orthodox Church, or the Catholic Church, or the Anglican or Baptist Church - capital "C"? Absolutely not! Therefore, I use the word "assembly" here, because that is precisely what it was. Were the assemblies "churches"? Yes. Were they THE Church, capital C? Not really, no. "Assembly" is the exact word. "Church" is a 1000 year later invention of English referring to the Catholic Church (the only game in England for the next 550 years. ****In Latin, the morning star is "Lucifer", and "Lucifer" is the morning star. In Latin, there is no connotation of evil, at all, in Lucifer. In fact, Jesus' reference to himself AS the bright morning star, in Latin, is him calling himself "Lucifer". Men such as Saint Lucifer of Cagliari were holy men whose parents named them to honor God, not the Devil. "Lucifer" didn't get the connotation of being a name of Satan until the Middle Ages. In the Latin Vulgate, in St. Peter's first letter, there is a line in English that concludes "if we pray fervently, the morning star will rise in our hearts". In the Latin Bible, this flatly says "if we pray fervently, Lucifer will rise in our hearts." At the time of Christ, "Lucifer" had a GOOD connotation. It does not today, obviously. So, while I insist on translating "pharmakeia" as the much more accurate "drug dealer", I'm not going to insist on translating "morning star" as "Lucifer". Thanks to medieval superstition, that name carries WAY too much baggage, and superstitious men, such as those afraid of the number 13, will see the Devil. And anyway, "Lucifer" to the Romans WAS the morning star, same thing, so "morning star" is an accurate translation for meaning.
#75. To: Vicomte13 (#74)
Vic perhaps this deserves its own thread. Your call.
Everybody get ready for Vic to lead us into his very own clown world order...
"pharmakon" "ecclesia". Just look at the Greek words you are using. Very impressive! It's almost as if a Strong's Concordance fell off the shelf and hit you in the head!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
(Edited)
"With Russia gone..."
#6. To: Mudboy Slim (#4)
#7. To: All (#6)
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
"Russia is in a demographic, and therefore economic, death spiral. They will, in fact, cease to exist as a state if they engage in a forever war."
#9. To: Mudboy Slim (#8)
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
#11. To: A K A Stone (#10)
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
Rev16.16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
#15. To: watchman (#12)
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
#18. To: watchman (#17)
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
no riders show up with seals
it will be a disappointment for you
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
#20. To: watchman (#19)
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
"There's just no point. We come from different poles of existence. Anything I could say might be insulting, and I don't want to do that. So, go in peace."
#49. To: Mudboy Slim (#45)
V13
"Biblically, the number 13 is also believed to be associated with lawlessness and rebellion. This symbolism associated with this number dates as far back as the Book of Genesis, where it’s implied in Genesis 10:9 that Nimrod, a mighty hunter, was before God. This is interpreted as Nimrod trying to take up the place of God, even though he belonged to the 13th generation in the line of Ham".
"...Judas Iscariot, the 13th guest to make an appearance during Jesus Christ’s Last Supper. Judas is also the one who betrayed Jesus Christ..."
https://christianfaithguide.com/biblical-spiritual-meaning-of-number- 13/
#50. To: watchman (#49)
(Edited)
#52. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
I happen to be the 13th Vicomte of a place in France.
Does genealogy render me a rebel?
#53. To: watchman (#52)
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
We're all children of God.
#60. To: A K A Stone (#55)
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#60)
Tell me, does your church allow divorce and remarriage?
#65. To: A K A Stone (#63)
#67. To: Vicomte13 (#65)
I’m not a fan of pedophilia, or coverups, or burning heretics and witches, or saints, or torturing political opponents, or enforced priestly celibacy.
#68. To: watchman (#67)
#69. To: Vicomte13 (#68)
#72. To: A K A Stone (#69)
#73. To: Vicomte13 (#72)
#74. To: A K A Stone (#73)
Replies to Comment # 74.
#76. To: Vicomte13 (#74)
(Edited)
It is tomorrow, and I begin.
#80. To: Vicomte13 (#74)
"pharmakeia"
End Trace Mode for Comment # 74.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]