Post

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

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

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

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

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

More from @apocalypseos

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

@apocalypseos

Dec 30, 2025

🇮🇹🇬🇧 How The Venetian Virus Infected and Took Over England by H. Graham Lowry 🧵

The “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 was not a revolution. It was the final, overt political and financial coup in Venice’s 200-year project to capture England. The Dutch Prince William of Orange—a Venetian proxy—invaded and seized the throne. His philosopher, John Locke, provided the ideological cover, while the Bank of England (1694) installed the permanent financial machinery of oligarchy. This moment locked England into its role as the new Venetian Empire.

Transcript 1/5: The “Glorious Revolution” Coup (1688-1701)

In December 1688, the armies of the Dutch Prince William of Orange invaded England, interrupting the Hobbesian nightmare the country had experienced under the deranged King Charles II and his brother James II. A worse nightmare was to follow when William seized the throne of James II, for he embodied a more highly distilled form of poison which Venice had perfected during its sway over the remains of the Dutch Republic. This outright usurpation is blithely referred to in British-Venetian parlance as the “Glorious Revolution”--which should give you some idea of how little regard for truth prevails in these circles.

The notion of “English rights and liberties” was quickly transformed from fiction to fraud under William’s dictatorial regime. When King James II fled to France, the rightful successor to the English throne was his eldest daughter Mary, who had married William of Orange reluctantly (he was a notorious homosexual). William’s demand to be declared king was never submitted to Parliament for a “constitutional” veneer. Instead, he summoned a special “convention,” which granted him full power, rather than simply the rank of the Queen’s Consort.

King William’s Venetian baggage included the evil John Locke, who became the chief propagandist for foisting the Bank of England on that hapless country in 1694. This was not the sort of bank you turned to for financial assistance. It was a gargantuan Venetian swindle, which promptly created England’s first national debt to finance ongoing wars of attrition in Europe, imposed a credit crunch by cutting the amount of circulating English coinage nearly in half, and loaded new taxes on an already-collapsing economy. The bank’s chief architect was Venetian Party leader Charles Montagu, William’s new chancellor of the exchequer, who later attained the loftier position of British ambassador to Venice. Montagu appointed the pathetic Sir Isaac Newton to oversee the “recoinage” swindle, and Newton repaid that debt by prostituting his own niece to serve as Montagu’s mistress.

The bank’s promotional hireling John Locke is better known as the peddler of the obscene notion that the human mind is nothing more than a tabula rasa--a passive register of animal sensations. He clearly had a higher regard for the cash register, however, and openly defended usury as a necessary service for those whose “estates” lie “in money.” Locke’s theories of government approximate those of a casino operator who lays down rules rigged for the house, under which the bestialized players compete for sums of money, which then define their worth as individuals. This is Locke’s “liberty” to pursue property. His notion of the “social contract,” which guarantees the players’ club members the right to enter the casino, was in fact advanced in order to justify William of Orange’s usurpation of the British throne. James II, in effect, was charged with having denied those rights to his more speculative subjects, thus breaking the contract. Locke argued that the Venetian mob was therefore entitled to move in under a new contract.

By 1697, the Venetian Party’s coup inside England was nearly total, and its members filled William’s “ship of state” from stem to stern. They looked forward to reducing a most troubling matter in the English colonies of America: the impulse toward building an independent nation, which had been driving the Venetians berserk since the 1630s founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1701, John Locke, as a member of England’s Board of Trade, advocated revoking all the independent charters of the American colonies, placing their economic activity under royal dictatorship, and banning their manufacture of any finished goods.

🇮🇹🇬🇧 How The Venetian Virus Infected and Took Over England by H. Graham Lowry 🧵

As Venice consolidated its 1688 coup, a powerful intellectual counter-movement arose. Led by Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz and his ally Jonathan Swift, it defended the Renaissance concept of Imago Dei against the Venetian empiricism of Locke and Newton. Leibniz’s “science of happiness” and universal benevolence became the philosophical foundation for the American “pursuit of happiness,” directly influencing Franklin and the colonial republicans. This was the philosophical war for the American soul. This was the resistance the Venetian system could not tolerate.

Transcript 2/5: Leibniz builds anti-Venice movement

Yet, even as the Venetians were swaggering over their apparent triumph, a powerful republican opposition was building around a higher conception of the nature and purpose of man, which both inspired and opened the way for the later founding of the United States. Its leader was the great German scientist and statesman Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, who led what might well be called a movement for the pursuit of happiness--the ultimate goal of the liberty which America embraced in its Declaration of Independence.

In the face of the new Venetian onslaught in England, Leibniz set forth his view of human happiness, from the standpoint of man’s creation in Imago Dei. Writing “On the Notions of Right and Justice” in 1693, Leibniz defines charity as “universal benevolence,” which he calls the habit of loving, i.e., “to regard another’s happiness as one’s own.” That joy is first approximated, he says, in the contemplation of a beautiful painting by Raphael, for example, “by one who understands it, even if it brings no riches, in such a way that it is kept before his eyes and regarded with delight, as a symbol of love.”

When the object of delight “is at the same time also capable of happiness, his affection passes over into true love,” Leibniz says. “But the divine love surpasses other loves, because God can be loved with the greatest result, since nothing is at once happier than God, and nothing more beautiful and more worthy of happiness can be known than He.” And, since God possesses the ultimate wisdom, Leibniz says, “the notions of men are best satisfied if we say that wisdom is nothing else than the very science of happiness.”

As the leading scientist and philosopher of his day, Leibniz was widely known throughout Europe, and among such republican leaders of New England as the Winthrops and Mathers, later extending to include, most significantly, Benjamin Franklin. From the 1690s onward, Leibniz’s leading ally within England, Scotland, and Ireland, was the brilliant anti-Venetian polemicist Jonathan Swift, who directed a cultural onslaught against the bestial notions of Bacon, Hobbes, René Descartes, Newton, and Locke, for more than 40 years.

From the standpoint of reason, the Aristotelian empiricism of the likes of Descartes and Locke reduces the notion of man to the level of a mere beast, which, of course, is the prerequisite for imposing an empire of the sort the Venetians sought, then and now. When Jonathan Swift took up his cudgels on behalf of Leibniz’s refutation of empiricism, he ridiculed their enemies’ ideas for what they were: insane. Swift’s “A Digression on Madness,” in his 1696 work A Tale of a Tub, examines “the great introducers of new schemes in philosophy,” both ancient and modern. They were usually mistaken by all but their own followers, Swift says, “to have been persons crazed, or out of their wits;... agreeing for the most part in their several models, with their present undoubted successors in the academy of modern Bedlam.”

🇮🇹🇬🇧 How The Venetian Virus Infected and Took Over England by H. Graham Lowry 🧵

With the new Venetian regime entrenched, a network of oligarchical families—the Spencers, Godolphins, and Churchills—took control. To secure their power and enrich the state, they launched England into a decade-long war to destroy France, Europe’s leading economic power. This created a fatal vulnerability: the succession. With Anne becoming queen in 1702, the stage was set for the next confrontation between Venice and Leibniz’s anti-oligarchical forces. The Venetian coup now confronted its greatest internal threat.

Transcript 3/5: Oligarchical Families Move In

By 1701, the lunatics of the late-model incarnation of the Venetian Party had typically inbred a set of oligarchical families, mixing and matching Spencers, and Godolphins, and Churchills--the last headed by John Churchill, soon to become duke of Marlborough.

Churchill had begun as a page boy to Charles II in 1665, behind the skirts of his sister Arabella, the mistress of the king’s brother James. Then, for similar services rendered, Churchill received £10,000 from Charles II’s favorite mistress.

With things apparently moving so swimmingly, the Venetians set their course for their next major objective: the destruction of France, the most productive economic power in Europe. Under the ministry of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the patron of the scientific academy at Paris where Leibniz himself was engaged in the early 1670s, France had led the way in infrastructural and industrial development. So in 1701, England launched war on France. More than a decade of bloodshed and destruction followed--for the populations of both countries, and their European allies. It was yet another rigged game, in which Venice expected to be the only winner.

There are inevitably loose ends in any foul scheme. Queen Mary had died in 1694, leaving William without a direct heir. Her sister Anne was next in line to the throne, but the death of Anne’s only surviving child in 1700 presented a new succession crisis. An Act of Settlement was imposed in 1701. James I’s 71-year-old granddaughter Sophie, the head of the German House of Hanover, was designated as Anne’s successor. King William died in 1702, and Anne became queen of England.

As the Venetian Party expected, she quickly bestowed preeminence at court upon the duke and duchess of Marlborough, who had spun their webs of influence over her for many years. The problem for the Venetians, was that Sophie’s chief adviser and privy counsellor, was Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz.

Read 6 tweets

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

@apocalypseos

Dec 30, 2025

🇮🇹 The Venetian Takeover of England: A 200-Year Project 🧵

Gerald Rose delivered this presentation at a Schiller Institute conference in 1994. It is the origin story they never taught you. Before the “British” Empire, there was an older, subtler cancer: the Venetian Republic. After nearly being destroyed in 1509, it spent 200 years executing a silent coup of the English mind. It weaponized philosophy, corrupted religion, and recruited elites to create its greatest geopolitical shell.

PART 1: VENICE’S NEAR-DEATH & ARISTOTLE’S WEAPON

The year is 1509. The League of Cambrai, representing the total combined power of Western Europe, is called upon by the papacy to crush Venice. At the Battle of Agnadello, the Venetian forces are completely destroyed. France is poised to invade the very islands that comprise Venice to deliver the coup de grâce. The papacy relents. They fear a war that will be fought on Italian soils by foreign troops. Several times before, such troops had seized part of Italy. In a series of diplomatic maneuvers, the alliance falls apart, and miraculously Venice is saved. Venice—which worked with the Turks to create a republic of usury and slavery. Venice—whose banking houses of Bardi and Peruzzi brought the Black Death, which depopulated two-thirds of Europe. Venice—the slave traders of Europe—so close to being destroyed, survived. Its survival would now wreak havoc on Western civilization.

Modern history commences with Nicholas of Cusa and the Italian Renaissance that Cusa and his collaborators inspired. It was Cusa, with the help of Pius II, that created the basis for war on the pagan idea of man as a beast and to defend the concept of man as Imago Dei and Capax Dei. It was the power of these ideas which caused the greatest increase in human population in the history of man. This idea of the power of hypothesis and its relationship to transforming nature proved conclusively that man was fundamentally different from the beast and, as such, could not be used as a slave. Venice reacted wildly against the ascendancy of this idea. With the papacy under the firm grip of Pius II and Cusa, Venice launched a war to destroy Christianity.

The figure of Gasparo Contarini is the key one for Venice in their war. Contarini was trained at Padua University. He was the son of one of the oldest families in Venice. It was said of him that he was so versed in Aristotle that if all of Aristotle were lost, he could reproduce it in its entirety. He learned his Aristotle in Padua under the direction of Pietro Pomponazzi. Every Venetian oligarchical family sent their children to Padua University to become trained as Aristotelians.

To understand Venice, you must understand Aristotle. He is pure evil and has been so since the time he wrote his diatribe against the method of Plato approximately 2,300 years ago. Since Aristotle is almost unreadable, you must ask the question: what is it about Aristotle that has made his writing so influential in Western civilization? Aristotle is a thoroughgoing defense of oligarchical society. In his Politics, Aristotle is most explicit. His theory of the purpose of politics is to maintain inequality. The state must carry on this “natural” idea and maintain it.

The very basis for Aristotle’s politics is the maintenance of the master–slave relationship, because it is, as he asserts, most natural:

“That one should command and another obey is both necessary and expedient. Indeed, some things are so divided right from birth, some to rule, some to be ruled. It is clear then that by nature some are free and others are slaves, and that for these it is both just and expedient that they should serve as slaves.”

🇮🇹 The Venetian Takeover of England: A 200-Year Project (2/5)

PART 2: PLATO VS. ARISTOTLE & THE VENETIAN AGENT

One could accuse me of taking quotes out of context, but this would be false. It is true even Plato makes a case for slavery. But unlike Aristotle, Plato bases his state on the idea of justice. Just compare Aristotle’s Politics with Plato’s Republic, where Plato, from the very beginning, launches a diatribe against arbitrary power. In the Thrasymachus section of the dialogue, he proves that the very basis for the republic is a universal idea—that only universal ideas are fundamentally causal. The idea for Plato’s Republic, as he shows, must be based on a concept of the Good.

Since Aristotle is functioning within a philosophical environment created by Plato, he cannot throw out the concept of universals altogether. What he does instead is assign them to the realm of vita contemplativa. Since they are not known by the senses, we can only have faith in their existence. Contrast that to Plato, in which the idea of the Good and justice are causal, not contemplative and unknowable. These innate ideas—which in another dialogue Plato proves by showing a slave already possessing them—are the very basis for his republic.

It is clear that the reason Aristotle was so widely influential in Venice is that Venice was a slave society based on a principle of oligarchism. Renaissance Christianity is the antithesis of this bestial conception. For Venice and Contarini, this Christian idea of man, and the rejection of slavery and usury, called their very existence into question, and they reacted with cold, hard evil in defense of their way of life.

This is Gasparo Contarini. Contarini’s Aristotelianism was highlighted by his early writings when he asserts:

“And in truth, I understand that even if I did all the penance I could and more, it would not suffice in the least to merit happiness or even render satisfaction for past sins. Truly, I have arrived at the firm conclusion that nobody can become justified through his own works or cleansed from the desires of his own heart.”

He also, in another letter, calls man a worm. Radical Protestantism and Contarini’s Catholicism are the Aristotelian split between vita contemplativa (faith) and vita activa (works). Aristotelianism is both the hatred of God and man. It is unbelievable that there is no difference between him, Contarini, and Luther. Yet Contarini and several other Venetian noblemen later dominate the reform commission, which nominally prosecutes a war on the Reformation. This statement by Contarini was the essence of the spirituality movement that was to dominate a section of the most powerful Venetian oligarchy.

Let us now look briefly at Contarini’s career to understand how critical he is to Venice. Contarini was Venice’s ambassador to the papacy. At another time, he was the ambassador to the court of Charles V. He profiles both Charles V and the papacy. He is next appointed to the Council of Ten, which is the leading body of the Venetian state, and later to the Council of Three, which is the supreme ruling body of Venice. This council is justice in Venice. It ruled on all cases and could order assassinations from which there was no reprieve. This is how Venice kept control of its oligarchical families.

What is striking is that from the Council of Three, Contarini was appointed a cardinal. As a cardinal, he was first asked to create the reform commission for the Council of Trent. He and four other spiritualities dominated the commission. He was next appointed to negotiate with the Lutherans at Regensburg at the behest of the Habsburg Emperor Charles V in 1541. At Regensburg, he gives away the Venetian game. Contarini and what was to be called Article 5 reiterates his Lutheran beliefs. It is a bit of an embarrassment that Calvin praises Article 5 at Regensburg. This is Calvin now:

“You will marvel when you read Article 5 that our adversaries have conceded so much. Nothing is to be found in it that does not stand in our own writings.”

Then, in typical Venetian fashion, Contarini creates an Aristotelian fidious faction inside the church, which insists that the only thing that separates Protestants from Catholics would be now reduced fundamentally to the question of the magisterium. He is later reprimanded by the pope.

It can now be stated what happened to the Renaissance. Venice manipulates both the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, leading to a series of wars which drowns the Renaissance legacy of Cusa and Pius in a sea of blood that culminates in the Thirty Years’ War. This war depopulates most of Europe. It sets up the basis for an onslaught against Christianity, much as the cultural pessimism that dominated Europe after World War I.

🇮🇹 The Venetian Takeover of England: A 200-Year Project (3/5)

PART 3: THE BOLEYN BREAK & ENGLAND’S “LITTLE PADUA”

This Venetian evil was now to descend on England. What was Venice’s strategic objective? It is now 1520. According to their profile of the Spanish Habsburgs, the major vulnerability of the Habsburgs has been the strategic shipping lanes through the English Channel. Spain needs the Netherlands for massive tax revenue that these holdings brought in to maintain the Spanish army. The problem was the Spanish were also very much aware of the strategic need to have good relations with England, and the Habsburg monarchy married Catherine to Henry VIII to ensure such an alliance.

For Venice to succeed, Henry had to be broken from Spain. How was this accomplished, and through whom? The Venetian faction in England got the upper hand when Henry VIII fell for the sexual bait of that faction put before him—Anne Boleyn. Anne was the granddaughter of the leader of the Venetian faction in England, Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, of the powerful Howard family. The Howards continued to be agents of Venetian influence for a very long time and may still be so to this day, even though they were occasionally the victims of it. Other families, such as the Russells, Herberts, and the Cavendishes, also could become consistent carriers of the Venetian virus.

Henry’s insistence upon the divorce from Catherine of Aragon and the remarriage to Anne entailed the fall of his chief minister, Cardinal Wolsey. Wolsey knew very well what evil Venice represented, and at least on one occasion told the Venetian ambassador to his face. In Wolsey’s place emerged a technocrat of the Venetian faction, Thomas Cromwell, who had learned the Venetian system while working in Venice as an accountant to a Venetian well known to the leading spirituality Reginald Pole. Cromwell effectively ran the English government in the 1530s until his own fall and execution in the 1540s.

Cromwell had cultivated those humanists who were favorable to the break with Rome, and a “little Padua” came to be developed around one of these figures at Cambridge University by the name of Thomas Smith. Smith returned from Padua to become the head of Cambridge in 1544. He is best known for a book on English government, which asserts that kings were too powerful. Other leading figures of this “little Padua” were Roger Ascham, John Cheke, and William Cecil. This was a tightly knit group. They were the tutors of the Protestant children of Henry VIII, Edward and Elizabeth.

At this point, we must add the infamous Francesco Zorzi. Zorzi is a Venetian sex counselor for Henry VIII. It was Zorzi that rendered Venice’s official pronouncement that, through his reading of the ancient Hebrew text, the pope did not have the right to grant the dispensation for Henry to marry Catherine. Therefore, according to Venice, Henry never truly married Catherine. For Henry, this sealed the alliance with Venice against Spain and unleashed his own ambitions.

How explicit this faction was on the question of Venice is identified by Thomas Starky, who was a spirituality who traveled through Venice with Reginald Pole. To identify the importance of Pole, he is a Plantagenet who is possibly one of the claimants to the English throne. Pole later becomes the chief adviser to Mary Tudor, who reigns in England after Henry VIII. Previously, Pole had also almost been elected pope. Starky becomes one of Thomas Cromwell’s chief spies.

In a fictional dialogue between Thomas Lupset and Reginald Pole, Starky states:

“For this cause, the most wise men, considering the nature of princes and the nature of man as it is indeed, affirm a mixed state to be of all others the best and most convenient to conserve the whole out of tyranny. For as in Venice there is no great ambitious desire to be their duke, because he is restrained to order and politic, so with us also should be our king if his power were tempered after the manner before described.”

This tightly knit group of Venetian Aristotelians organized Henry’s break with Rome. It was this break which opened England for the Venetian operations.

Read 5 tweets

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

@apocalypseos

Dec 29, 2025

🇬🇧 Perfidious Albion: They Created Zionism & Wahhabism. Their 1904 Rule Explains Ukraine. This is the Hidden Empire.

To understand the war in Ukraine, you must first understand the 500-year project of the British Empire. It is not a story of kings and colonies, but of finance, ideology, and a single, ruthless geopolitical rule.

@HarleySchlanger, president of @LaRoucheOrg, connects the dots in a way you’ve never heard before. According to his research, the empire’s modern form began not with a battle, but with a bank.

“1688 was the so-called ‘Glorious Revolution’ where the Dutch moved in and pretty much taught the British a lot of what the Dutch learned from the Venetians, namely how to set up a central bank, a private bank. The Bank of England was modeled on the Bank of the Netherlands.”

This was the birth of the Empire as a financial machine. The drive for resources and land was forever fused with the power of private central banking.

But this system faced a fatal challenge. “In the midst of this 500-year period, there was an extremely important break, namely the American Revolution. And we should never forget that the American colonies fought the first successful anti-imperial revolution.”

This was the original sin in London’s eyes. Schlanger states plainly: “The British never accepted it and have continued in one way or another to try to figure out how to undermine the United States and the American Republican tradition.” The war for independence never ended.

How do you maintain an empire in the modern age? Through psychological warfare. The British, Schlanger reveals, built the tools for this at Oxford. “The British have an enormous storehouse of history that they rely on at Oxford… the Ashmolean Museum. This is where Zionism was created. This is where Wahhabiism, the perversion of Islam, was created. This is where they use studies of ideology, national ideologies and a kind of identity politics for nations.”

This research was formalized into a strategic doctrine. We misuse the word today, but Schlanger corrects the record: “Geopolitics was a specific doctrine developed by the British at the end of the 19th century and put into a form in 1904 by a man named Halford Mackinder… It was a strategy of how the British could use their power of the deep sea navy to control international trade, currency, terms of trade and so on.”

And here is the single rule at its heart—the rule that explains our world right now: “At the heart of it was the idea that the British could never allow an alliance between central European countries and Eurasian countries. And that is what we’re seeing today fought out over Ukraine over the whole question of China and so on.”

The war in Ukraine is not a random conflict. It is the latest, most violent application of a 120-year-old British imperial rule. It is a war to prevent the rise of an independent, powerful Eurasia—the greatest existential threat to the financial-ideological empire born in the Bank of England.

This is the hidden history of the world order.

🇬🇧 NATO: A British Cage To Keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans Down

The British Empire’s 1904 rule was to prevent a Eurasian alliance at all costs. But after World War II, Britain was bankrupt. To enforce this rule, it needed to control the only remaining superpower: the United States. Its solution was an institution designed to make America its permanent enforcer.

Harley Schlanger, president of the LaRouche Organization, reveals the stunning truth about the foundation of the modern world order.

“The key to the development of the United States as a subordinate power to British imperial interests was the creation of NATO.”

This was by design. The man chosen as NATO’s first Secretary General was Lord Ismay—the same man who, for Churchill, drafted Operation Unthinkable, the plan to invade the Soviet Union immediately after WWII.

When asked the purpose of this new “defensive alliance,” Ismay was brutally honest: “He said to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down. That’s been the NATO policy from 1948, 1949.”

Permanently tether U.S. military power to Europe, i.e., to British strategic interests. Enforce the core Mackinder rule—isolate and contain Eurasian Russia. Ensure the central European industrial heartland could never rise independently and align with the East.

Schlanger demolishes the official fairy tale: “Now, supposedly NATO was to protect Europe from the Warsaw Pact, but the Warsaw Pact wasn’t consolidated until the mid-1950s.” NATO was created seven years before its stated adversary even existed.

It was never about defense. It was an imperial management system. A cage built in London to lock the United States into the role of guarantor for a British geopolitical project that began 500 years ago.

The war in Ukraine is NATO functioning exactly as its British architects intended—provoking the confrontation with Russia that the 1904 doctrine demanded. This is the “rules-based international order.” These were their rules all along.

🇬🇧 The Management of Ruin: Creating Monsters To Destroy Societies Resisting Its Order

NATO was the cage Britain built to control American power, but in 1956, that system cracked in the Suez Crisis. President Eisenhower told Britain and France: “Get the hell out... or we’ll dump your currency.” Within days, the invasion collapsed. For the first time, London could not command its American “subordinate."

Harley Schlanger, president of the LaRouche Organization, explains the pivotal adaptation: “How do you create a gang-counter-gang situation so that you don’t have to use your forces?” Realizing it could no longer count on the US as a blank check, Britain doubled down on a more aggressive approach: manipulating America into fighting its colonial wars.

The Vietnam War was the prototype — a French/British colonial struggle that, after JFK’s assassination, became an American tragedy. From that point on, the United States was drawn into one imperial intervention after another.

But beneath these wars was a more sinister operational doctrine — the British “gang-counter-gang” method. Instead of sending its own army, the empire learned to create the monsters that would destroy societies resisting its order.

🇰🇪 In Kenya, British intelligence created a fake, violent “counter-Mau Mau” to discredit the real independence movement.

🇦🇫 In Afghanistan, the CIA, following this British script, funded the mujahideen — the future Taliban and Al-Qaeda — to bleed the Soviet Union.

“So this is what the creation of ISIS and al-Qaeda had — a similar effect of breaking down and destroying the society.” — Harley Schlanger

The same logic birthed ISIS. The targets were always leaders and nations asserting true sovereignty:

🇱🇾 Gaddafi (planning a gold-backed African currency)
🇮🇶 Saddam Hussein (asserting economic independence)
🇦🇫 Secular Afghanistan before 1980
🇸🇾 Syria under Assad

The goal is not to win. It is to break down and destroy a society, then offer endless intervention as the only solution to the chaos it engineered.

From Suez to Syria, this is the unbroken thread: an empire that, when it can no longer rule directly, specializes in the management of ruin.

Read 7 tweets

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

@apocalypseos

Jul 19, 2025

🇨🇳 China’s Tianzhou-9 cargo spacecraft will deliver supplies to the Tiangong space station. The “end of history” was never about liberalism winning—it was about the West running out of stories to tell. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is already writing the next chapter.

The West’s playbook hasn’t changed—only the branding. “Oriental despotism” becomes “authoritarian capitalism,” the “civilizing mission” becomes “democracy promotion.” Same imperial logic, new liberal jargon—turning Western decline into virtue and China’s rise into treachery.

The Empire hastily declared the “end of history” after the Soviet collapse, convinced that China’s WTO membership would turn it into a British-style liberal democracy—and that the rest of the world would follow through regime change, color revolutions, or war.

Read 18 tweets

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

@apocalypseos

Jul 5, 2025

🇺🇸🇮🇱 Millions of Americans back Israel not for politics—but out of fear God will curse them if they don’t. Christian Zionism, fueled by a 1909 Bible, reshaped U.S. foreign policy through fear, prophecy, and power. Almost no one understands it. That’s by design.

“Are American Christians supporting Israel because of politics, or because they think God will curse them if they don’t? Because that’s what millions of people believe—literally.

Today we’re going to dig into one of the most powerful forces in American politics that barely anybody understands: Christian Zionism.

So, how did a few Bible footnotes change the way that millions of Americans vote, pray, and even push for war?

All right, this is going to be a deep dive. You’re about to learn how a mysterious Bible from 1909 rewired modern Christianity and may have changed U.S. foreign policy forever.

So, let’s get right into it.”

— Brandon Aceto

🇺🇸 Millions bought a preacher’s poisoned footnotes disguised as scripture. Scofield’s 1909 Bible twisted prophecy into a political weapon, turning faith into a mandate to bless Israel—or face divine wrath. This ideology infected millions and reshaped America’s power play.

“It all starts with a man named Cyrus I. Scofield, a failed lawyer, shady preacher, and former drunk who somehow became one of the most influential theologians in American history.

In 1909, he published something called the Scofield Reference Bible. On the surface, it looked like any other King James Bible, but it came with a twist. It came with footnotes—so, interpretations. And there were thousands of them.

Scofield added his own commentary right there on the same page as the scripture. And these weren’t just helpful tips or definitions. These footnotes completely changed how people read the Bible.

Scofield introduced a system called dispensationalism. Basically, he divided history into seven eras or dispensations and argued that God had two separate plans: one plan for the church and one for Israel.

Now, to most readers at this time, this was a new idea. But in Scofield’s world, Israel wasn’t just a thing of the past. It was the centerpiece of the future. Prophecies in the Old Testament weren’t metaphors. They were literal predictions according to Scofield. And they were coming true in real time.

And that’s when things got political.

One verse Scofield highlighted, Genesis 12:3, became the cornerstone of Christian Zionism. It says, quote, “I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you.”

So that sounds nice, right? And that became interpreted as where the “you” was Israel—as in, if you bless Israel, I’ll bless you. If you curse Israel, I’ll curse you.

And that’s because this verse was being spoken to Abraham in the Bible.

So Scofield interpreted this as a modern-day command: if you want God to bless America, you better bless Israel. And if you don’t, well, good luck.

So this idea took off like wildfire. And not because Scofield forced it, but because it embedded itself inside the faith and infrastructure of millions of people.

His Bible became widely popular, especially in Bible colleges, seminars, and churches across the South and Midwest America.

For many Christians, the Bible wasn’t just a spiritual book anymore. It was a political road map.

Now, here’s where it gets really intense.”

— Brandon Aceto

🇺🇸🇮🇱 Scofield’s Bible didn’t just twist theology—it primed Christians to support a state that didn’t yet exist. Eight years later, Britain endorsed Zionism. Was it divine prophecy—or imperial design? The lines between Bible, empire, and agenda were never so blurred.

“Now, here’s where it gets really intense.

So, Scofield’s Bible didn’t actually change the scripture. It changed how people read it. And in doing so, it made support for the state of Israel feel like a religious obligation.

That’s why you see people like @tedcruz on @TuckerCarlson the other day saying, like, ‘I went to the Senate with the idea of wanting to be the main proponent for Israel.’

Ted Cruz: ‘We are commanded to support Israel.’

Tucker Carlson: ‘What does that mean?’

So it didn’t matter what policies Israel had. It didn’t matter if they were right or wrong. If they were Israel, they were God’s chosen.

Now here’s another thing. There are a bunch of online rumors that say Scofield was secretly funded by Zionist bankers. Yes, the Rothschilds. But there’s not a lot of evidence to show that. I mean, believe me, that’s juicy—I want it to be the case—but there’s not a lot of evidence to show that.

It gets even weirder when you look at who inspired Scofield: this guy named John Nelson Darby. Darby was the original architect of dispensationalism, and his background is downright chilling.

Darby’s family owned something called Leap Castle in Ireland, and it was considered the most haunted castle in the world. There were an estimated 150 dead bodies found in its cellar, and witnesses claimed that satanic rituals were performed right there. Séances were conducted by his relative Mildred Darby, a Gothic novelist who wrote about a demonic force that she called ‘the Elemental.’

So while Scofield was promoting this future-centered Israel obsession of his, it wasn’t just theology. There might have been a deep, dark spiritual influence behind all this. But that’s speculative.

Now think about this. When Scofield released his Bible in 1909, Israel didn’t even exist. But just eight years later, something remarkable happens.

The British government issued the Balfour Declaration—a formal statement supporting the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.

Now, this wasn’t just a political move. It was deeply influenced by Christian Zionists inside the British elite, including Lord Arthur Balfour himself, who held dispensationalist beliefs similar to Scofield.

Even more curious: the letter was addressed to Lord Walter Rothschild. Literally, on the figurehead of the letter, it says, ‘Dear Lord Rothschild.’ So obviously, he’s a key figure in the Zionist movement. And this fuels all kinds of conspiracy theories about elite coordination between Zionists, financiers, and Western governments.

But this also came during World War I, as Britain was trying to secure influence in the Middle East while the Ottoman Empire was collapsing.

Some argue that this declaration was part of a spiritual crusade—part of an imperial chess move—because in the early 1900s, Great Britain was actively looking at the Ottoman Empire’s collapse and trying to speculate and divvy up its land proactively. And that’s what they ended up doing with the Sykes-Picot Agreement after.

So Palestine was seen as a strategic prize—militarily, economically, and religiously. Therefore, promoting Christian support for Jewish resettlement aligned with British imperial interests in creating a Western-aligned buffer right there in the Middle East.

Many British political and academic elites were sympathetic to the Zionist cause—obviously including Lord Arthur Balfour, the Rothschilds, and members of the Roundtable group.

But here’s the thing: the support was not always religious. It was often strategic. They saw Jews as a potentially loyal population in a vital, unstable region that had just witnessed the collapse of a multi-hundred-year empire.

They hoped to appeal to American Protestant support for Zionism as leverage in geopolitics, and they widely published Scofield’s Bible—probably seeing this as a soft power move, influencing American opinion through theological channels.

So the Scofield Reference Bible came out in 1909. The Balfour Declaration in 1917. A little bit of weird timing.

During this gap, Zionism was gaining traction among British policymakers and intellectuals, promoting pro-Zionist theological views among Americans. And they thought this would help generate grassroots Christian support for Britain’s coming actions in Palestine.

So here’s the question: could Oxford University Press have had political or ideological motivations—not just commercial motivations?

I mean, think about it. There’s no direct evidence of collusion. But consider this: a British publisher printing a Bible that promotes unconditional support for Jews returning to Palestine—at a time when Britain is preparing to take control of Palestine itself, and eight years before it publicly endorses Zionism through the Balfour Declaration.

So that’s either one of the most profitable coincidences in publishing history—or part of a larger pattern of ideological and imperial alignment.

It’s almost like prophecy was getting policy backup.”

— Brandon Aceto

Read 11 tweets

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

@apocalypseos

Jun 23, 2025

🇷🇺🇮🇷 The Enemies of Russia and Iran Are One and the Same Forces

By Elena Panina

“Those who say we should have done more—what exactly do they mean by ‘more’? Start some military operations—is that it? We are already engaged in military operations against those we consider to be adversaries of the ideas we stand for, and against those who pose a threat to the Russian Federation. And these, essentially, are the same forces—whether in Iran’s case or in Russia’s—they’re somewhere in the rear, behind the front lines. But they’re not even those on the line of contact,” said Vladimir Putin during the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) on June 20, commenting on the claim that “Russia is an unreliable ally because it didn’t stand up for Iran.” Notably, the Russian president chose his words very carefully and spoke with great precision.
[Source: kremlin.ru/events/preside…]

▪️ In simple terms: everyone has their own front in the global battlefield. For Russia, it’s Ukraine; for Iran, it’s its own territory. But the enemy is the same. You can call it “the West” or, more specifically, the global “Finintern”—a financial international elite dreaming of flipping the chessboard of world politics to preserve its so-called “rules-based order.”

Interestingly, Putin began his response by quoting a book on military strategy by the President of Indonesia, published in Russia: “Each country bears its own responsibility for what happens on its territory.”

▪️ In Iran’s case, the voluntary retreat from its zones of influence in Lebanon and Syria, and the failure to respond strongly to Israel’s strikes on Iranian diplomatic missions and Iranian territory, eventually led to direct Israeli aggression with U.S. support.

The law ratifying the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran was signed by Vladimir Putin on April 21. But the Speaker of Iran’s Majlis, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, only sent the ratified treaty to Iran’s new President, Masoud Pezeshkian, on June 16—almost two months later. That delay is a highly significant nuance for understanding the current internal situation in Iran.

🇺🇸🔥🇮🇷
Trump apparently thinks he has chosen an intermediate, somewhat personal course of action in the Middle East: a strike on only three Iranian nuclear sites and a new call for peace, which seems to weaken the arguments of both the pro-Israel hawks and the MAGA isolationists. But in reality, he took another step under pressure from lobbyists and circumstances, and further fueled the appetites of influential groups.

The reaction of Congress is noteworthy. Most lawmakers generally support a strike on Iran but simultaneously question the constitutionality of Trump’s actions.

Here is the statement from Democratic Senator Chris Murphy: “Only Congress can declare a preemptive war, and we must vote as soon as possible for a bill to completely strip President Trump of the authority to drag us into conflict in the Middle East.”

Many in Washington like the conflict in the Middle East. But they like even more the idea of taking away Trump’s powers on key foreign policy issues. And who said this concerns only Israel and Iran?

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President James David Vance went on Sunday talk shows to defend the half-measures and “moderate” (as Trump apparently sees it) decision of the Oval Office occupant. Well, this very position is the most vulnerable and unstable. At the same time, it strengthens the hawks (and Trump’s enemies) and disorganizes the MAGA movement.

And this is only the domestic American aspect. When, in a few years, they ask what Donald Trump achieved, what he did, the answer will be: he started another war. He did not make America great. Quite the opposite…

The US Has Stepped Into the Abyss — Will Iran Become the New Afghanistan?

By Elena Panina

It must be stated as a fact: America has found itself in a vortex of armed escalation that will increasingly burden it with a load impossible to bear in its current decrepit state.

▪️ Objective analysis should not be deceived by the attractive image painted by morning news: stealth bombers entering foreign airspace and unhindered attacking underground Iranian facilities with advanced penetrating bombs. Even a superficial review of specialized American military publications shows that their Air Force operates on a “bit by bit” principle.

This “powerful” strike was carried out amid shortages of everything: airworthy aircraft counted on paper, enormous maintenance backlogs, catastrophic shortages of flight personnel—not to mention their qualifications—and many other nuances of a declining empire. When this is taken into account, the picture gains more depth and scale. This applies across all branches of the military that might be engaged if the war escalates.

Most likely, Iran will receive significant support both regionally and globally. As previously noted, China will do everything possible to prevent Iran’s collapse. Primarily because Iran is a vital link in the new global axis opposing the West, and losing it would be unacceptable. “Conveniently and naturally,” a direct railway line between Iran and China has just opened. Military and other cargo are already moving, and this flow will only grow.

Regarding Russia, there is still hope to play the role of peacekeeper. Our assistance, including military aid, will remain covert and flow through China and North Korea. North Korea is another country playing and will continue to play a significant role in this confrontation. Few know that most of Iran’s underground facilities beneath the mountains were built by North Korean specialists. In the event of further escalation, Iran may well receive ready-made devices from Pyongyang for its own enriched material. As for delivery systems, including hypersonic missiles, Tehran has plenty.

▪️ Contrary to Washington’s current declarations about the complete destruction of Iranian nuclear sites, our military experts hold a firm view that no existing means can destroy Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facilities. The US simply does not possess the required arsenal of destructive weapons. Iran designed everything from the start anticipating American bombings, so it will undoubtedly complete its nuclear program.

Even if the US does not plunge into a full-scale ground operation—which it lacks the forces and resources for—coffins will start coming back to America from the Middle East anyway. Major US bases are openly vulnerable to missile attacks and other actions, and beneath the water Iran also has purchased “Varshavyankas”—some of the world’s most modern and silent submarines—as well as other submarines.

And who said sabotage through local recruited networks can only go one way? Just look at how carefully any mention of critical damage to one of the largest American oil refineries in recent days is being swept under the rug. According to one version by American intelligence, it was a terrorist act—an explosive device planted at the refinery went off.

▪️ Ahead lies a lot of pain for America in very vulnerable and sensitive areas, which will increase political and civil chaos. The main source of their troubles will be losses in personnel and equipment.

This conflict, it seems, will last a long time. It is yet another existential regional battle reaching far beyond its borders. Just as the West supports the Banderite formations with its military backing, countries opposing Western dictates will supply Iran by all possible means. This is already happening and will continue—both openly and covertly.

Read 5 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!