Post

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

@apocalypseos

Aug 22, 2020 • 40 tweets • 12 min read • Read on X

Scrolly

American people are still not allowed to know that Russia saved their nation from the British Empire during 1861-1865 US Civil War. British mainstream “fake news” propaganda media shown below slams alliance of President Abraham Lincoln and Tsar Nicolas II. #TrumpPutinSummit

In 1901, Tsar Nicolas II & President McKinley agreed to destroy the British Empire forever by building the largest rail system that would cross the Bering Strait joining Russia with North America, and continue down through Mexico, Central America to the very tip of South America

By 2011, knowing the days of British control over the US would soon be ending, Putin signed a $65 billion measure to begin construction of the Interamerican Railroad Line to connect Siberia with Alaska via a tunnel to bridge system under the Bering Strait. inhabitat.com/russia-green-l…

Presidents Lincoln and McKinley, along with Tsar Alexander II and Tsar Nicolas II, signed their own death warrants for daring to join the US and Russia together to break the "forever wars" British and European stranglehold on the world. All were assassinated.

The Alaska Purchase was one of the most important things in World History for diplomacy because the Bering Strait was to link the world. Alaska was never developed and linked up as it should be. Full history lecture by Rising Tide Foundation

The Record of News, History and Literature, Volume 1 (July 16, 1863) states, "A Russian fleet, consisting of the Osliaba, the Alexander Nevske of 51 guns, and the Peresviet of 46 guns, has made its appearance in the harbor of New York."

"These vessels are to be reinforced by four or five others in a few days. Great festivities have taken place between the officers and the leader of New York society." Shown below: cover of Harper's Weekly, New York, November 21, 1863.

"Mrs. Lincoln has been received on board the flag ship with a national salute, and the fleet was the talk of the town. What political significance this unusual visit of Russian men of war to a Yankee port may have, has not been given out."

https://twitter.com/apocalypseos/status/1279954596912263168

https://twitter.com/apocalypseos/status/1279954596912263168

https://twitter.com/apocalypseos/status/1279958751991050241

https://twitter.com/apocalypseos/status/1279958751991050241

https://twitter.com/apocalypseos/status/1279949668558835713

https://twitter.com/apocalypseos/status/1279949668558835713

https://twitter.com/apocalypseos/status/1282483839038713857

https://twitter.com/apocalypseos/status/1282483839038713857

https://twitter.com/apocalypseos/status/1272113922460401664

https://twitter.com/apocalypseos/status/1272113922460401664

The international strategic dimension of the 1861-1865 American Civil War was an aspect that repeatedly threatened to thrust itself into the center of the war, transforming the entire nature of the conflict and indeed threatening to overturn the entire existing world system.

In 1865, the United States was friendly to Russia and Prussia, and resentful and suspicious in regard to Britain and France, whose governments had sympathized with and supported the Confederacy.

Historian Allan Nevins dramatically evoked the immense worldwide significance of Civil War diplomacy in “War for the Union” (1960). Nevins, horrified by the idea of US war with Britain, wrote: "The future of the world as we know it was at stake."

"Anglo-French intervention in the American conflict would probably have confirmed the splitting & consequent weakening of US; might have given French power in Mexico a long lease, with the ruin of the Monroe Doctrine; & would perhaps have led to the Northern conquest of Canada."

Between 1848-1863, the British Empire was at the aggressive height of its world power, had launched attacks on China, India, and Russia, and in the 1860s was backing Napoleon III’s adventure in Mexico and Spain’s in Santo Domingo, both direct challenges to the US Monroe Doctrine.

In contrast to Lincoln, Confederate President Jefferson Davis took almost no interest in diplomatic affairs. The Confederacy sent envoys to London & Paris, but never bothered to send a representative to St. Petersburg, which turned out to be the most important capital of all.

The Russian-British rivalry was of course the central antagonism of European history after the Napoleonic era, and the Russian attitude towards London coincided with the traditional American resentment against the former colonial power.

The US-Russian convergence became decisive during the Crimean War; while Britain, France and the Ottoman Empire attacked Russia, the United States was ostentatiously friendly to the court of St. Petersburg.

US press and public were all on the side of Russia, and hostile to the Anglo-French, to the chagrin of the erratic US President Pierce and the doughface politician James Buchanan. The latter, at that time US envoy to London, embraced the British view of the Tsar as the Despot.

The Crimean War undoubtedly proved the wisdom of Russia’s policy of cultivating American friendship, & in fact, drew the two nations closer together. The attitude of Russia was a potent factor in preventing Great Britain & France from adopting a policy of aggressive intervention.

As early as 1861, Russia alerted the Lincoln government to the machinations of Napoleon III, who was already scheming to promote a joint UK-France-Russia intervention in favor of the Confederacy.

In 1862, Lincoln issued a warning that slavery would be abolished in areas still engaged in rebellion against the US. Russian Tsar Alexander II had liberated the 23 million serfs in 1861. This underlined the nature of the US-Russian convergence as a force for human freedom.

In 1862 there occurred in St. Petersburg an extremely cordial meeting of Russian Foreign Minister Gorchakov with US chargé d’affaires Bayard Taylor, which was marked by a formal Russian pledge never to move against the US, and to oppose any attempt by other powers to do so.

Taylor reported these comments by Gorchakov to the State Department: “Proposals will be made to Russia to join some plan of interference. She will refuse. I cannot express to you how profound an anxiety we feel — how serious are our fears.”

The Journal de St. Petersbourg, the official gazette of the Tsarist government, denounced the Anglo-French intervention plan against the US. Seward thought that if the Anglo-French were to assail the Union, they would soon find themselves at war with Russia as well.

The most dramatic gestures of cooperation between Russian and the US came in 1863, as the Laird rams crisis hung in the balance. In September, the Russian Baltic fleet began to arrive in New York harbor. In October, the Russian Far East fleet began to arrive in San Francisco.

The Russian admirals had also been told that, if the US and Russia were to find themselves at war with Britain and France, the Russian ships should place themselves under Lincoln’s command and operate in synergy with the US Navy against the common enemies.

The news of the Russian fleet unleashed an immense wave of euphoria in the North. It was this moment that inspired the later verses of Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the most popular writers in America, for the 1871 friendship visit of the Russian Grand Duke Alexis:

"Bleak are our shores with the blasts of December, Fettered and chill is the rivulet’s flow; Thrilling and warm are the hearts that remember Who was our friend when the world was our foe."

"Fires of the North in eternal communion, Blend your broad flashes with evening’s bright star; God bless the Empire that loves the Great Union Strength to her people! Long life to the Czar!"

Soon after the war, Russia sold Alaska to the United States, in part because they felt that an influx of Americans searching for gold was inevitable, and in part to keep the British from seizing control of this vast region.

Lincoln’s Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles wrote in his diary, “The Russian fleet has come out of the Baltic and is now in New York. In sending them to this country at this time there is something significant. God bless the Russians!”
musingwithclio.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/god…

In 1915 Professor Frank A. Golder said that the Russians were only following their own national interests. Great nations defend their national interests. However, when the interests converge, alliance de jure or de facto may result, and these can have far-reaching significance.

How Holy Russia Saved the American Republic: On September 24, 1863, anchored in NYC harbor was a fleet of Imperial Russian war ships. America was at war. Not with Russia, but with itself. Lincoln and his young nation were alone, surrounded by enemies. America had one friend...

There is evidence that British Secret Service were involved in the assassination of President Lincoln. Napoleon III of France wanted to organize intervention in the Civil War with England and Russia. Russia was afraid of England and France and viewed as a true friend of America.

Russians and Americans were both deeply suspicious of the British and the French. They became the best of allies during much of the 19th century. In fact, they were the only allies each other had. America was the only country that supported Russia during the Crimean War.

Alexander II "czar liberator" wanted to liberate the world as much as possible. Russia told the British and French to stay out of the American Civil War and do not militarily intervene or they will face Russia joining the United States in fighting them to defend America.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

More from @apocalypseos

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

@apocalypseos

Mar 24

The Bank for International Fascism
by John Hoefle, EIR (2013)

In the aftermath of World War I, fascist movements sprang up all over Europe, and also in the United States. Considerable effort has been spent to portray these fascist movements as outgrowths of rampant nationalism, but that is a deliberate lie. The truth is that fascism is a political movement created and financed by the rentier/financier oligarchs of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal Empire, for the purpose of replacing the nation-state system with a global technocratic dictatorship.

Adam LeBor’s Tower of Basel sheds a useful light on how this process works, by telling the story of the Bank for International Settlements, known more commonly by its acronym, BIS. His book presents a detailed picture of the relationships between the Nazis and top international financiers, and the intelligence agencies. Along the way, we meet the leaders of the Bank of England, the titans of Wall Street, British and American spooks, and other financiers and industrialists, all of whom collectively made Hitler and Mussolini possible, and unleashed horror upon the world.

Some readers may be puzzled why such seemingly respectable institutions and individuals would work so closely with the Hitler regime, and wonder if they were somehow secret Nazis or Nazi sympathizers. But it is actually the inverse that is true. The Nazis were agents of the Empire!

A Bank Above Nations

The BIS was founded in 1930, nominally for the purpose of handling the reparations payments imposed upon Germany after World War I. The founding members of the bank were the central banks of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium, with Japan and the United States each represented by a consortium of domestic banks. In the U.S., the consortium consisted of three banks: J.P. Morgan & Co., the First National Bank of New York, and the First National Bank of Chicago.

The driving forces behind the founding were Montagu Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England, and Hjalmar Schacht, the head of the German central bank, the Reichsbank. While Schacht liked to refer to the BIS as “my bank,” the Dutch banker Johan Willem Beyen—himself a president of the BIS—put it more clearly: “Norman’s prestige was overwhelming. As the apostle of central bank cooperation, he made the central banker into a kind of archpriest of monetary religion. The BIS was, in fact, his creation.”

Beyen’s quote goes to the deeper motive behind the founding of the BIS, the creation of the bank as a base from which to create a new form of what was euphemistically called “transnational finance.” The archpriests of the Empire were laying the foundation for what became the globalized financial system of today, a system of financier-run corporate cartels and markets which is essentially a rerun of the methods of the British East India Company, combined with modern technology.

Under the treaty which founded the BIS, the bank was granted virtual sovereignty—although under the circumstances, it might be more accurate to say that it was granted immunity from the sovereignty of others. No nation was to have any say over how the bank conducted its affairs, nor would their laws apply. Although the BIS is located in Switzerland, it is exempt from Swiss laws, and Swiss authorities cannot enter its premises without permission.

According to LeBor, “[T]he BIS enjoys similar protections to those granted to the headquarters of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and diplomatic embassies. . . . The BIS has the right to communicate in code and send and receive correspondence in bags covered by the same protection as embassies, meaning they cannot be opened.”

“The bank’s extraordinary legal privileges also extend to its staff and directors,” LeBor writes. “Senior managers enjoy a special status, similar to that of diplomats, while carrying out their duties in Switzerland, which means that their bags (unless there is evidence of a criminal act), and their papers are inviolable. The central bank governors traveling to Basel for the bimonthly meetings enjoy the same status while in Switzerland. All bank officials are immune under Swiss law, for life, for all the acts carried out during the discharge of their duties.”

This protected position was carefully crafted. If your goal were to take control of nations and incorporate them into a new corporatist dictatorship, you would take steps to protect against counterattack by the targets.

An Oligarchic Cabal

As a conduit for war reparations payments, the BIS was explicitly set up to work with Germany, as the Nazis were coming to power. But the Nazis were themselves a tool of the people behind the bank, led by Montagu Norman and the Bank of England, the mother lodge of fascism. The Brits and the Dutch provided financial and political aid to the Nazi Party, as did their allies on Wall Street. The Wall Street crowd, led, as always, by J.P. Morgan, had organized its own fascist movement in the U.S., under the banner of the American Liberty League. The Morgan networks pumped money into Germany and Italy, aided by the Rockefeller interests, the Warburgs’ Kuhn Loeb, the Brown Brothers Harriman crowd, and Prescott Bush, whose son and grandson each became President of the United States.

Having launched this fascist movement, it was to be expected that the bankers would support it—and they did. The BIS served as a conduit to the banking and corporate interests on both sides of the war, The giant German industrial cartel, IG Farben—notorious for providing the Zyklon B gas used in the concentration camps—had a seat on the BIS board. IG Farben’s U.S. subsidiary, General Aniline and Film (GAF), was a major business partner with the Rockefellers’ Standard Oil. Standard Oil President Walter Teagle, Ford Motor Co. President Edsel Ford, National City Bank of New York Chairman Charles Mitchell, and Paul Warburg all sat on GAF’s founding board of directors. Sosthenes Behn, the head of ITT—which had substantial holdings in Germany—also sat on the National City Bank board, National City being a successor to the First National Bank of New York, one of the original BIS shareholders. New York banks led the way in raising money for Germany in the 1920s, as did the City of London. Time put the Morgan-sponsored Il Duce on its cover eight times between 1923 and 1943, presenting Mussolini and his corporatist policies as worthy of emulation in the U.S.

This is just a sample of the interlocking financial and business arrangements. Right in the middle of this nest were the Dulles brothers of the Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, which represented a Who’s Who of Wall Street, including J.P. Morgan, Kuhn Loeb, Brown Brothers, the Harriman interests, Goldman Sachs, and GAF. John Foster Dulles was a fixture at the international conferences which established the post-World War I order. His brother Allen Dulles was the OSS station chief in Switzerland during the war, and later became head of the CIA, while John Foster became Secretary of State under President Eisenhower. Their sister, Eleanor Dulles, was also part of the family treason, involved in international diplomacy, and writing a book promoting the BIS.

Foremost among the British banks aiding the Nazis in the City of London was J. Henry Schröder & Co., which set up a trust to invest in German firms, including IG Farben, Siemens, and Deutsche Bank. Schröder partner Frank Tiarks—a director of the Bank of England—set up a subsidiary in New York, Schrobanco, in 1923. Schrobanco was run by a friend of John Foster Dulles, and its board would include not only Allen Dulles, but Gates McGarrah, a director of the New York Fed, a Rockefeller banker, and the first president of the BIS. Another American (and Rockefeller banker), Thomas McKittrick, was president of the BIS when the U.S. entered World War II.

J. Henry Schröder & Co., in turn, was the British arm of the Schröder banking dynasty in Germany, where Kurt Freiherr von Schröder was one of the most powerful and influential bankers, and a staunch Hitler supporter. Von Schröder hosted the infamous meeting between Chancellor Fritz von Papen and Adolf Hitler, which led to Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor of Germany in 1932. Kurt von Schröder was a partner in J.H. Stein in Cologne, which held the slush funds for Heinrich Himmler, the head of the Nazi SS. Schacht personally appointed Schröder to the board of the BIS.

One could go on almost endlessly, but this is sufficient to show how the international bankers see themselves as part of an elite. As LeBor put it: “Nationalities were irrelevant. The overriding loyalty was to international finance.”

Read 6 tweets

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

@apocalypseos

Mar 22

Sergey Glazyev: The world has changed. Irreversibly. What we wrote about a decade and a half ago has come to pass. This publication is a continuation of the article “What is happening?” previously published on this channel. 1/84

Pax Americana is crumbling before our eyes, three decades after the collapse of the USSR. The transition to a new global economic order has been completed. 2/84

The center of the world economy has shifted to East and South Asia, where a bipolar core of the integral global economic order has formed, as expected, with two poles: communist China and democratic India. 3/84

Read 84 tweets

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

@apocalypseos

Feb 28

“How British Financial Elites Fueled the Rise of Hitler: The Hidden Geopolitical Agenda Behind Nazi Germany’s Ascent” by Mike Billington (EIR)

Let’s look back to where the original Nazis came from. In the 1920s and 1930s, there was the mobilization of various forces in Germany responding to the hideous impositions placed on Germany after World War I, where they were essentially burdened with massive reparations that destroyed any chance of their economic recovery from the war. This fostered the rise of radical institutions. The head of the Bank of England, Montague Norman, openly sponsored the rise to power of Adolf Hitler. He was a close personal friend of Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler’s economic minister, who became the Reichsminister under Hitler and implemented the Nazi policy of giving all economic power to the banks themselves. This policy diverted credit from anything other than the buildup of military forces to prepare for the onslaught, for Operation Barbarossa, and for what became the Second World War.

They were so close—Montague Norman and Hjalmar Schacht—that Schacht’s children had Montague Norman, the head of the Bank of England, as their godfather. Norman was even passing gold to the Nazis after the war began. So, why did they give rise to the Nazis? Well, you could say a lot of things. You could say they basically agreed with the Malthusian idea that certain lesser races should be exterminated. Maybe they didn’t say it was the Jews; maybe they said it was the Blacks or the Indians. Keep in mind, the British believed emphatically, publicly, and openly in eugenics and race science—that there were lesser races and superior races—and guess who the superior race was. So, maybe that was why. But in geopolitical terms, they were anxious to see Germany and Russia destroy each other. This was the geopolitics of Mackinder and Haushofer and the people who knew that you did not want to allow any force in the East or West to control the heartland, so that the British Empire—which was based on the financial institutions controlling world trade and finances—could continue their looting and genocidal policies against the colonies around the world. So, they supported Hitler and put him in power.

Read 10 tweets

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

@apocalypseos

Feb 24

🇩🇪 Friedrich Merz, BlackRock’s candidate for German Chancellor, has won. Merz was the long-time lawyer for American locust investors in Germany, and is fully committed to neoliberal financial policy to destroy nation-states and sovereign credit systems.

“BlackRock’s Candidate for German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz” by Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Dr. Werner Rügemer

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, good evening. I wholeheartedly welcome you to the Civil Rights Movement Solidarity weekly webcast. And I am particularly pleased to have a very special guest today, namely Dr. Werner Rügemer, who is a very renowned author and has written many books, all of which are extremely interesting.

He is currently in the process of publishing a new book, which deals with a very current topic. And I am particularly pleased that we are speaking today, because as of a few hours ago, or yes, much more recently, there was a vote in the Bundestag on a proposed law by Friedrich Merz, which he introduced on behalf of the CDU-CSU [Christian Democratic Union–Christian Social Union], to change the asylum law.

It went through with a very narrow majority, with the support of the AfD [Alternative for Germany]. There was a lot of commotion beforehand that this was a breach of the dyke and that the firewall between the establishment parties and the AfD had now been torn down.

In any case, there is a possibility that Friedrich Merz, leader of the Christian Democratic Union, will become the next Federal Chancellor. Against this backdrop it is perhaps very important to consider what implications this has.

We have an incredibly dramatic world situation. United States President Donald Trump has only been in office for nine days and has already caused a lot of commotion: Panama, Canada, Greenland—I could go on and on. The situation in the Middle East: At first there was hope that the ceasefire might bring about an improvement. But now he wants to resettle all the Palestinians to Egypt, Jordan and even Indonesia. So, we have a lot of topics to discuss, and that’s why my very first question is: we are four weeks or a little more than three weeks away from the Bundestag election on February 23. What should voters know about what they will face if they give their vote to Mr. Merz?

Dr. Werner Rügemer: With his even more direct turn to the right toward the AfD, Merz has done what his former boss at BlackRock, Lawrence Fink, did before the election in the U.S.A. He also supported the Democratic Party for a long time. BlackRock grew up with the Democratic Party. But even before the election, BlackRock CEO Fink said, we don’t care who wins the election; we are in talks with both candidates. And then it turned out that BlackRock advised Trump on his choice of Treasury Secretary….

Zepp-LaRouche: Before we look at the different regions of the world, it would perhaps be good for our viewers if you explained what BlackRock is. People think that it’s just one of many multinationals, but that’s not exactly the case. Since you’re probably the best expert on the subject in Germany, can you give a brief outline of why BlackRock is such a problem?

The Rise of BlackRock in Germany

Dr. Rügemer: BlackRock has been the largest of these multinationals since the 1990s due to the deregulation that began under U.S. President William Clinton. These new up-and-comers, with today’s BlackRock as the largest, became bigger and initially spread out across the U.S.A. After the turn of the millennium, and particularly after the financial crisis, they gradually established themselves in Europe: in France, Switzerland, England, and also in Germany.

In Germany, these multinationals are the majority shareholders in the most important, let’s say 100 German stock corporations, each with a three, four, five, six, seven, eight percent share in these corporations. So, as a group, BlackRock, along with Vanguard and State Street and Fidelity and Wellington, in different compositions, have a majority stake in about all 40 DAX [German blue-chip index on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange—ed.] companies in Germany. In this capacity, they have contributed to the deindustrialization in Germany that has been going on for years, with large German corporations relocating jobs to China, the U.S.A., or even partly to Eastern Europe, because this outsourcing, naturally, increases the profits for BlackRock and company [i.e., the other multinationals].

Zepp-LaRouche: What would you say to a normal, medium-sized business owner in Germany who says, “but it’s good to have someone like Merz, who at least knows what he’s talking about, who is well connected, so that’s good for medium-sized businesses”? What would you say in response to that?

Dr. Rügemer: Merz in particular was bad for owners of medium-sized companies in Germany, extremely so, because he had resigned from his position as parliamentary group leader of the CDU in the German Bundestag in 2004, and then became the co-owner of an American business law firm, Mayer Brown, in their branch in Düsseldorf. And that was important because at the turn of the millennium … came the so-called, later so-called locust investors, private equity investors from the U.S.A. They bought up the non-stock listed companies, i.e. the good German medium-sized companies, restructured them, as you called it, i.e., closed down the unused parts, resold them and so on.

This law firm, in which Merz not only worked as a lawyer but also as a co-owner, advised these locust investors on how they could best buy and exploit German medium-sized companies. And, of course, Merz was a very suitable choice because, as a CDU politician, he knew best the medium-sized companies that constituted the backbone of the CDU for decades.

Zepp-LaRouche: Can you describe that? BlackRock, for example, has also acquired a large share in the large housing companies. What effect has this restructuring or takeover had on the housing sector?

Dr. Rügemer: It was the case that, as I said, from the turn of the millennium onwards, it was initially not BlackRock and company who came along, but rather the second league, so to speak, the private equity investors, i.e., Blackstone and KKR and Carlyle and so on. They started by buying up the medium-sized companies, including tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of apartments, public apartments in individual cities, and also from companies, from large corporations in the Ruhr area, that also had their own housing companies.

Read 11 tweets

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

@apocalypseos

Feb 17

Lyndon LaRouche (2002): There is a faction that has existed for a long time. It was started by H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell back in the 1920s and 1930s. It’s a very powerful, very influential faction in international circles, especially English-speaking circles.

This faction, which we call the utopians, believed from the beginning that the existence of thermonuclear weapons—or nuclear weapons alone—would create weapons so terrible that nations would give up their sovereignty and submit to a world government rather than face the prospect of having to fight wars with such weapons.

This faction, which took over control of U.S. military policy once Eisenhower ended his term as president, caused a great crisis around the world between 1961 and 1965—assassinations, high-level coups, and other terrible events.

Read 20 tweets

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

@apocalypseos

Feb 4

Elena Panina: Trump’s “Mighty Dollar” and “Great Economy” Need Crutches and Protection 🧵

In another emotional post, the US President voiced his complaints about BRICS, concerns about the fate of the dollar, and threats to those who try to abandon it.

Since Trump managed to include Spain in BRICS earlier, the number of addressees of his threats remains uncertain. As for the rest, the “mighty” dollar, it turns out, is not so mighty, since it has to be strengthened by blackmail and banal racketeering. As is the US economy.

▪️ However, as far as we know, BRICS did not particularly plan to create its own currency, so in this part, Trump is fighting with thin air. However, if the opportunity arises, the White House can now declare that BRICS does not have a single currency precisely because it is afraid of Trump.

Read 27 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @apocalypseos

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!