make sure you suck your cheeks in and purse your botox lips….
so we'll know what a talented musical artist you are
Tucker Carlson in Moscow
American journalist Tucker Carlson has spent several days in Russia, where he attended a ballet performance at the Bolshoi Theatre, Telegram channel Mash reported on Saturday, sharing several photos of the conservative commentator.
Carlson allegedly touched down at Vnukovo airport on a Turkish Airlines flight from Istanbul on Thursday after several hours’ delay, according to the channel. He was later spotted taking in the ballet Spartacus at the Bolshoi Theatre in Moscow.
The conservative commentator has yet to confirm the trip and it remains unclear what business he had in Russia. However, rumors of his intention to interview President Vladimir Putin have been circulating since last year.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov did not rule out the possibility of Carlson interviewing Putin when asked about it in September, though he explained that the Russian leader would wait to sit down with any American journalist until the US population was no longer so “seriously stupefied by Russia-hating propaganda.”
Carlson himself told Swiss outlet Die Weltwoche that he had been prevented from setting up an interview with Putin by the White House. While he expressed dismay that he did not receive more support from his fellow journalists regarding his intention to sit down with the Russian president and questioned why Americans are “not allowed to hear” Putin’s voice, he declined to provide any further details regarding when the interview was supposed take place or how the presidential administration of Joe Biden intervened to stop it.
The former Fox News host claimed previous attempts to secure an interview with Putin had led to aggressive surveillance by the National Security Agency, alleging he was “unmasked” by the spooks and the contents of his emails were leaked to the media in 2021 in order to “paint [him] as a disloyal American” and force him off the cable news network. The NSA denied Carlson was an intelligence target and claimed it never sought to take him off the air.
Despite dominating prime-time ratings for years, Carlson was fired from Fox News in April for reasons that have never been made public. He subsequently launched his own talk show streaming on X (formerly Twitter).
While Carlson has been repeatedly demonized by the US media establishment as a “useful idiot” for Moscow – if not a Russian agent entirely – due to his skepticism regarding Washington’s foreign policy and particularly the conflict in Ukraine, the journalist has never previously visited Russia or worked with Russian media organizations.
https://www.rt.com/russia/591798-tucker-carlson-spotted-moscow/
ROPER DEFENDS "FAKE" RAND REPORT ON PLANS TO DESTABILIZE GERMANY
Thomas Roper
In early September, I published a document that purports to show how the U.S. is planning to destroy the German economy with the help of the Greens. It is still unclear whether it is genuine or a forgery.
On September 1, I translated a document that I received for review. The document, which according to it is a summary of a study by the very powerful RAND Corporation [1] dated January 25, 2022, states that it would be advantageous for the U.S. economy and for the preservation of U.S. supremacy to weaken the German economy because that would strengthen the U.S.. The Greens are specifically mentioned as helpful because they are a very dogmatic party whose “leaders” Habeck and Baerbock would not be able to “admit their own mistakes in time because of their “personal characteristics and lack of professionalism.””
My translation of the document can be found here [2], the original can be found here [3].
I pointed out in my article with the translation that I cannot verify the authenticity of the document, but tend to believe it is genuine. Since the document was apparently leaked to others a few days later, it is currently causing a furor on the net and is being hotly debated.
The most important question is whether the document is genuine. In this article I will explain why I still think the document is genuine, but also show the counter-arguments.
The reaction of the RAND Corporation
The first thing I want to point out is that the RAND Corporation commented on September 14 [4], saying that the document was a forgery. This, however, is not a convincing argument because the document – if genuine – is classified. RAND cannot confirm its authenticity as long as it is classified.
There is also another point: according to the distribution key, the document went to U.S. government agencies, intelligence agencies, and U.S. Democrats, but not to Republicans. Since we have been able to observe in recent years how institutions that are actually neutral (for example, the FBI [5] and other U.S. agencies) become involved in the domestic political power struggle in the U.S. in a one-sided way, this is not very surprising on the one hand, but on the other hand it would be a scandal, because it would mean that the RAND Corporation used taxpayers’ money to write a study in favor of the Democrats and against the Republicans.
RAND is actually a non-partisan think tank that has also worked for Republican presidents and U.S. governments, which is why it would be a scandal in the U.S. if RAND were now to work openly against the Republicans. Even more so on behalf of the Democrats and paid for with taxpayer money.
This is another reason why the RAND Corporation’s denial is anything but surprising and not at all convincing.
How I assessed the authenticity
I had little opportunity to assess the authenticity of the document. The source I got it from is trustworthy, but even they could not say anything about the origin of the document. So all that was left for me to do was to analyze the text and draw my conclusions from it.
In my eyes, the text is an absolutely accurate description of the situation, and it is remarkable that it is supposed to have been written before January 25. From the point of view of a think tank, such as the RAND Corporation, from which I have read many studies, the text describes exactly the situation that prevailed in January. It was known in Washington that Russia had been pushed to the wall so much that Russia had to intervene militarily in Ukraine in February.
This was also known because in December 2021, Russia had ultimatively demanded mutual security guarantees [6] from the U.S. and NATO, which included explicit demands regarding Ukraine. In case of U.S. rejection, Russia openly announced a “military-technical response.” So it was clear to every observer what was coming, and even I said in a Tacheles broadcast [7] as early as December 2021 that Russia would intervene militarily in Ukraine in February or March 2022 because the U.S. and NATO left Russia no other choice [8].
1/4
Since Washington did not even think of responding to the Russian proposals and rejected them at the turn of the month January/February 2022, Washington knew months before that Russia would intervene in Ukraine. That is why the Lend-Lease bill to arm Ukraine “against Russian invasion” was also introduced in Congress on January 19, 2022 [9], more than a month before the Russian intervention began.
Knowing all this, the text of the RAND document fits the picture exactly, because in January 2022, preparations were made in the United States. It was known that Russia could not respond to the rejection of mutual security guarantees in any other way than to intervene in Ukraine, so the experts in Washington were making their preparations for the response. In doing so, it was important to immediately portray Russia as an evil aggressor, and even more important to get the EU to go along with tough Russia sanctions and arms deliveries. To do this, it was important to analyze the people acting in European – and also German – politics, which is why Habeck and Baerbock were explicitly mentioned as key political figures, which is by no means unusual for
RAND.
The consequences of all this also had to be considered, because as in chess, in geopolitics one always tries to think several moves ahead. This, too, can be found in the document, assuming exactly the level of knowledge that could be had when the forecasts were made in January, but which have not (yet) all come to pass.
There is nothing in the document to indicate that it was written at a later date. Also, the competence of the situation description, analysis and forecasts show that the document was written by professionals. If it were a forgery, it would be a very good forgery indeed, because it simply does not contain a single logical or factual error.
As I said, none of this is a guarantee that the document is genuine, but in my eyes there is still far more to suggest that it is genuine than that it could be a forgery.
The Layout
Some readers have remarked in comments or mails that the document’s layout could not be from the RAND Corporation because they use a different layout. I see this completely different, because at RAND there is no uniform layout, as any screenshots of these two studies show, about which I reported earlier, see here [10] and here [11].
Therefore, in my opinion, no conclusions about the authenticity of the current paper can be drawn from the layout.
Self-appointed fact checkers
It is particularly funny that the fact checkers of the dpa have already dealt with my article. What to think of the self-proclaimed fact checkers, I have explained often enough [12].
The “fact checker” of the dpa is funny because it does not refute my statements at all. It is published under the title “Document not verified – No evidence for alleged US plans in Europe” and explains on the basis of some assumptions why the dpa considers the document questionable. The dpa even points out that I wrote the following:
“Despite the serious allegation, the author himself writes further down in the text that he “could not verify the authenticity of the document.””
True, I never claimed that the document was definitely genuine. But I thought (and still think) it was so convincing that I felt it was important to report on it, and I have therefore been completely transparent in explaining how the document came into my hands and that there is no guarantee that it is genuine.
By the way, all the media refer to unverified documents, because almost every day the “quality media” report some papers that they have, but they don’t publish them, they don’t tell where they got them from and so on. Especially when the media refer to papers “from intelligence circles”, they cannot know whether they are genuine. But they report on them anyway, but far less transparently than I do. The “quality media” rarely dwell on such detailed descriptions of the origin of their information (or the indication that it is unverifiable) when they report on alleged or genuine secret papers.
Therefore, the “fact check” of the dpa is a bad joke, because nothing of what I wrote is refuted with facts there, on the contrary. The only difference is in the assessment, because I think the document is probably genuine, while the dpa writes in its “assessment”:
“The authenticity of the alleged secret document is highly questionable.”
Are these facts? No, they are just different assessments about the authenticity of the document, but not even the dpa rules out for sure that it could be genuine.
2/4
My little trick
I deliberately did not publish the English text of the document in my first article about it, but only the cover page and the translation. The reason was that I wanted to wait and see if and how other portals and channels report about the document. I wanted to check whether only I got the document, which could indicate that I was meant to be deceived, or whether others got it as well, which would indicate that it was indeed leaked and circulating in journalistic circles.
I therefore deliberately did not publish the document in English, because any “back translation” into English would have resulted in different wording. Since I didn’t show the original document to anyone for ten days, I can say for sure which of the publications that existed about it in early September were not based on my article. So you got the document from other sources.
Again, that’s not hard evidence of the document’s authenticity, but it at least shows that while I was the first to report on it worldwide, the paper was leaked to others as well.
Errors in the English original?
There are also comments claiming that the document is a forgery because there are errors in it that would not happen to a native English speaker. I can’t confirm that either, because I have given the document to some native English speakers to read, and they dispute that. For linguists, therefore, this should certainly be an interesting field for analysis, but there are no such gross errors in the text that would catch the eye of a native speaker. It is probably more a question of wording than of real errors.
In addition, many American channels have now addressed and analyzed the document without pointing out errors in the English text, here is an example [13] from a fairly large YouTube channel.
However, there are indeed pages [14] where the document contains spelling errors. But the errors have arisen because the operators of the pages have typed it themselves, whereby spelling errors got into the text, which do not exist in the original.
The ultimate proof
So we still don’t know whether the document is actually genuine, which is why everyone is still allowed to have their opinion on it. This provides plenty of material for discussion.
Apparently, there are only two ways to find out if the document is genuine. First, if the U.S. government should start looking for the leak. That would be a clear indication that the document is genuine.
The other possibility is that the U.S. Republicans in the U.S. Parliament make official inquiries to the U.S. government about it. Either the U.S. government can explain that it is a forgery, or it dodges the inquiries. Or it declares that the document is genuine, which would be a real scandal in Washington. The US government
3/4
If the document is genuine, it would be a real problem for the U.S. government for at least two reasons. First, it would be a domestic scandal for the U.S. government to pay think tanks with taxpayer money to devise strategies against political opponents. After all, one of the goals stated in the document is to prevent a Republican election victory in November, because that would threaten impeachment proceedings against President Biden, which “must be avoided at all costs,” as it says at the very beginning of the text.
Moreover, it would be embarrassing for the U.S. government in terms of foreign policy if it came out that it deliberately wants to weaken the German (and thus the European) economy, i.e. deliberately wants to harm Germany and the EU in order to prop up its own economy and maintain political dominance over Europe. Of course, the European media loyal to the U.S. would not report this, but it would become known at least in informed circles of international governments. This, in turn, would devalue the U.S. as a reliable “friend and partner” if the U.S. were to cold-bloodedly sacrifice its supposed best friends and closest allies – the Europeans – for its own ends.
In practice, this is exactly what is happening at the moment, but if it turns out that this was planned in Washington from the beginning, it would be more than embarrassing and would cause considerable foreign policy damage to the US.
So we will have to continue to wait to find out for sure at some point whether the document is genuine. I still tend to think it is genuine for the reasons I mentioned, but everyone can have their own opinion on that.
https://www.theinteldrop.org/2022/09/15/is-the-document-on-the-destruction-of-the-german-economy-a-fake/
4/4
CALL FOR DIGGS ON TECHCAMP
https://techcamp.america.gov/
For exposing the American State Department coup project designed to topple governments deceptively named “TechCamp”, Ukraine Parliament Member Oleg Tsarov was targeted for death and fled to Russia—last October, it saw Ukrainian Nazi Regime assassins gravely wounding Tsarov with gunshots—upon recovering, Tsarov has kept the world informed about what the “TechCamp” project is doing to Ukraine, and yesterday revealed about what they are now doing: “The Synod of the schismatic Orthodox Church of Ukraine decided to exclude the day of memory of St. Prince Alexander Nevsky from the church calendar…Let me remind you that at one time Alexander Yaroslavich was the Grand Duke of Kyiv and defended the Orthodox faith throughout Russia…But schismatics have their own view of history…Such people can even exclude Jesus Christ himself”.
Not being told to the American peoples, is that at the exact same time in 2013 the Obama-Biden regime unleashed its “TechCamp” project to ignite a civil war in Ukraine, they also unleashed it all across the United States in major cities like Philadelphia, whose intended effects of now sees America on the brink of civil war—and aiding the “TechCamp” project specialists in America preparing for “information warfare… the discrediting of state institutions using modern media potential… and accumulating revolutionaries for organizing protests and the toppling of the State Order”, today it was warningly remembered: “Sunday is the 20th anniversary of Facebook’s launch… In twenty years, the company has grown into a major tool for manipulation, social engineering and control by the deep state, big business and Western intel agencies”.
https://oleg-tsarev.livejournal.com/
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240204/how-facebook-became-tool-for-state-censorship-and-goldmine-for-us-intelligence-services-1116575342.html
>s it wrong that I was attracted to Gozer when I was a teenager?
depends….
are you a boy, or a girl?
>>>20358344 Explosive Investigation Uncovers a Global Shadow Government’s Secret Control Over “Elected” Governments & Public Health Bodies, Forging a Global Vaccine Regime
so expose-news is sauce now?
an you have a ban on RRN?
>That’s Faye Dunaway
nah…. that's anna may wong
(now watch the millennials crash wikipedia)
he's talking about english common law
which some people believe supercedes the constitution
>SHOW IT in the constitution. otherwise it ain't no law
also…
that is FALSE
the STATES have final say as to what is law, unless specifically forbidden by the constitution
that's why "prohibition" (of alcohol) was a constitutional amendment
they knew that a statute banning alcohol would be declared unconstitutional
(we still had a SCOTUS that wasn't comped back then)
you're changing the subject
your statement about the law and the US constitution is false
now you wanna whine about corruption at the state level
learn to admit when you're wrong
or you'll remain a dumbass forever
>you don't get to tell me what the fuck I am talking about
RIGHT BACK ATCHA, FAGGOT
i'll call you a lying sack of shit any time i feel like it and you will do SHIT about it
so FUCK OFF
now post the link for french toast