Post

More from @apocalypseos

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

@apocalypseos

Jan 11

The Dollar’s Bloody Birth: From Bretton Woods Blackmail to Petrodollar Enforcement

Former central banker and global financial architect @Kathleen_Tyson_ details the violent, coercive origins of dollar dominance—from postwar blackmail at Bretton Woods to the military and political threats that created the petrodollar in an interview with @HusseinAskary. This is the system’s foundation. This is why it’s collapsing.

Here is her explanation in her own words:

Kathleen Tyson: Bretton Woods was born in wartime when the United States took the initiative to more or less force by blackmail on the allies a new monetary system with the United States and the US dollar at the core.

The allies were completely dependent on the United States for many supplies, for munitions, for equipment, for food. And 44 states in the Bretton Woods conference center signed off on a treaty that bound them after the war to use the US dollar as the principal currency for settlement in the world.

And then the dollar was fixed in gold terms at $35 per ounce. That created the security for the world to use it because it was redeemable for gold. So that they would have confidence that every dollar was worth $35 an ounce of gold.

And that worked pretty well, except that the United States was addicted to wars. It found them very profitable, frankly. And so, in the 70s, the United States was running hot. It was at war in Vietnam. It was creating a lot more debt. And it was also creating social reforms—welfare, Medicare, social reforms that were very expensive domestically. Building out the US highway system, building all kinds of infrastructure. And that ran the economy very hot.

And because of the amount of debt that was being created that nobody was very certain would be productive, especially the social welfare spending was very uncertain whether that would be productive. Countries became uncomfortable with the accumulation of debt, and France, Italy, Germany and Britain started to want gold in exchange for their surplus dollars.

With some of these countries, the United States was just able to say no. It had the governor of the German Bundesbank sign a commitment that he would never ask for gold again. But with other countries, and particularly France, they were not able to impose that they would never ask for gold again. And the system became slightly unstable.

So in 1971, Richard Nixon unilaterally, without consulting the allies, after a weekend discussing it with his advisers, revoked the exchange of dollars for gold temporarily. It turned out to be permanent. From that point overnight, we had fiat currencies that were not fixed to any secure value. They were not fixed in dollars, and they were not fixed in gold, and we had a chaotic period where things were very volatile. We didn’t even have mechanisms, really, for foreign exchange trading that were highly developed. So the whole thing became rather unsettling for the world.

Henry Kissinger and the Treasury came up with the idea that we need to stabilize things by fixing the dollar to something that has global demand. And they settled on oil because everybody uses and burns oil. So it would create sustained demand if they could fix dollars in oil.

And so they went around the Middle East and essentially made countries offers they couldn’t refuse: that they would only sell their oil for dollars. And if they did not only sell their oil for dollars, then the ruler would be killed, his family would be killed, and if necessary, they would occupy the oil fields with the military.

Most leaders signed, and that held pretty well for a couple of decades until you had leaders like Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi wanting to sell their oil in other currencies. Well, they both ended up dead. Their families ended up dead, and America occupied the oil fields just as they said they would.

But it brought more criticism of the system and of the aggression and violence that were required to maintain the system. And so it destabilized things, and more countries began looking at ways to move away from the dollar, move away from being subject to coercion.

From Production to Parasitism: How the West Hollowed Out Its Economy

After Bretton Woods, the US was the last man standing: industrial power, gold reserves, and global dominance. Instead of building the future, it chose speculation, share buybacks, and financialization—creating a hollow, parasitic system sustained by bailouts and printed money. Meanwhile, China used credit to build high-speed rail, space programs, massive industries, and the Belt and Road Initiative. Real investment vs. parasitic speculation. The contrast is stark.

Here is Kathleen Tyson and Hussein Askary in their own words:

Kathleen Tyson: At the end of World War II, Asia was destroyed, Europe was destroyed, and the United States was the last man standing, having profited hugely from the war. They ended up, because of their isolation, the strongest economy in the world with more than half the world’s gold, half the world’s GDP, and standing industries that were still productive after the war. So they could shift from making tanks to making cars, to making trucks, and they did extraordinarily well for a few decades.

And then, as you say, they started to financialize, and it became more profitable to speculate in investments than to actually invest. We’ve seen that particularly in recent years, as companies, if they get money, they do share buybacks. They don’t bother expanding research and development or expanding industrial capacity. They just do a share buyback, and that boosts the share.

So we’re in this stage now where the underlying basis for markets is becoming questionable. What are they for? Are they accurate at price discovery? Are they accurate at predicting productive investment, predicting returns on capital? And we’re in a sort of transition phase where we’re not really sure anymore. But at the same time, we have this huge bubble.

Hussein Askary: These corporations that create these bubbles and the banks that loan them money, they rely on the state because they are too big to fail. We saw the bailout: it’s 17 to 20 trillion dollars since 2008. The US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan pumped trillions and trillions of dollars, and they even got help from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries to bail out banks in Britain and the United States and also in Europe. So they can rely on the state pumping in—printing money, basically, to do that.

It’s fascinating because I was looking at China: since the financial crisis, they have also created about 17 to 18 trillion dollars.

Kathleen Tyson: I was going to say, China has actually been leading in the creation of money.

Hussein Askary: But they were investing that money in building 50,000 kilometers of high-speed rail, a space program, massive industries, and also the Belt and Road Initiative. Real investment. So it’s an enormous difference between the two. But how far can states—the United States, Britain, the EU, and Japan—borrow and pump money into the market to keep this bubble going?

Kathleen Tyson: We don’t know. This is the thing about bubbles: it’s very difficult to know when they’re expanding, at what point, and what breaks them. This is why they’re allowed to sustain for so long, because the bursting of the bubble is so painful that no policymaker or politician wants to be responsible.

I think China is very interesting, and it’s the only case in history of a property bubble being deflated while not collapsing the real economy. China deflated its property bubble over a period of five, six years while the economy continued to grow—not at 8%, but at 5%—and continued to expand. And that’s a unique achievement. It’s really something we’re studying because other countries tend to let the property bubbles run until they burst, causing wider harm and deflation.

That’s Japan. Obviously, Japan’s had 30 years of zero growth since it started quantitative easing three decades ago. It’s been a growth killer because they protected the existing companies, the existing banks, the existing properties and never really recovered.

Europe has had zero growth for 15 years, since about 2007, so a bit longer.

The United States manages to sustain growth, but that’s largely by buying it from the rest of the world. So, acquiring profitable companies or getting them to list on NASDAQ and then getting the rents from profitable companies wherever they are, while the US economy has been largely hollowed out.

So it’s an interesting time to watch monetary dynamics because you do get the sense that this doesn’t go on forever.

The End of Bretton Woods II: How Multicurrency Trade is Rewriting Global Power

On 9th December 2022, two events signaled a seismic shift in the global financial system. Kathleen Tyson, former central banker, explains why Bretton Woods II is over, how Russia and China are building alternatives, and why hegemonic currencies may no longer dictate global trade.

Here is Kathleen Tyson and Hussein Askary in their own words, lightly edited:

Kathleen Tyson: On 9th December 2022, I watched two huge events that were not covered in Western media. In the morning, Xi Jinping, while on a state visit to Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, made a speech to the camera saying that Palestine needs to be addressed. It needs to be a state, 1967 borders, capital at Jerusalem. Not covered in any Western media, but only covered in the Middle East press.

In the afternoon, he stood with the six heads of the Gulf Cooperation Council states and invited them to trade oil and gas in Shanghai for yuan. I went, “Oh my gosh, that’s the end of Bretton Woods. The Bretton Woods II system we’ve had since 1971, when Nixon repudiated gold redemptions, is over, because now we’re going to have trading of oil and gas in renminbi, in yuan.” I wrote a commentary published on our website about Bretton Woods ending today, but guess what — it wasn’t covered in Reuters, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, or The Economist. Zero coverage!

After two weeks of watching them ignore it, I thought they were going to make huge policy mistakes because they don’t understand what’s happening. If we’re too timid to even discuss what’s happening in the media, we’re going to make big mistakes. I started writing Multicurrency Mercantilism so that at least there’d be a handbook when they started to figure out what’s going on.

The alternative to the dollar is the dollar and all other currencies and commodities. So the alternative to the dollar is the ruble, the yuan, the rand, the UAE dinar, Malaysian ringgit — it doesn’t matter. They’ll turn to the dollar as any other currency that two parties to a transaction are willing to accept, and also gold, oil, lately silver and other commodities that can be a store of value or are required as an economic input.

Stable transition: At the time I wrote it in 2022-23, I said the transition can be stable unless there’s a wider war. Normally, when there’s a transition from a hegemonic currency to a rival currency, there are world wars — we’ve had 500 years of that. The dollar took over from sterling after World War I and then settled into its status as the dominant hegemonic currency after World War II. And the real question was: are we going to have a World War?

The United States clearly would go to World War. They want to. They would love to crush all rivals. They would love to destroy China, but it’s no longer clear they can because they’ve been losing power, and they are so dependent on China, even for their military. They are attacking weak players — in the last week they bombed Venezuela and Nigeria, and Nigeria is their ally, the most pro-American state in Africa, "but let's just bomb you anyway." Last year, they bombed eight countries.

They are trying to preserve hegemony with violence, but it’s not clear anywhere, anymore, whether that will hold. They are economically vulnerable, and other states could curb their tendency to lash out. That’s a big question mark on stable transition.

No new hegemon: There, I'm pretty convinced I got it right. China doesn’t want to be a hegemon. They invite people to use yuan, but if they don’t want to, they don’t have to. That was a good call back then.

Globalization accelerates: Over the last three years, Western G7 economists have said fragmentation erodes the economy, fragmentation hurts the economy, but what if 40% of the global economy frozen by US sanctions now has the optionality to use any other currency? You're taking that 40% of the economy in Russia and Iran that's been frozen out, and you're reintegrating them back with the global economy, and they're trading at speed. Russia is doing huge business with India and China, selling oil and gas. Iran does huge business with China, their number one oil buyer. Venezuela, also under sanctions, sold most of its oil to China before it was invaded yesterday. Globalization has accelerated because frozen-out countries got reintegrated.

The Angell Paradox: Named for Norman Angell, who won the 1932 Nobel Peace Prize for the insight into the great illusion that when two developed, interdependent economies go to war and they economically sanction one another, the sanctioner sustains as much harm as the sanctioned. Russia changed this dynamic by becoming sovereign and not dependent.

Since 2014, Russia foresaw sanctions and the threat of economic collapse. They responded by becoming independent of other economies. Over 19 rounds of European sanctions, and Russia emerged stronger. They are now the fourth-largest economy, and the ruble was the best-performing currency of 2025. Russia is not dependent on Europe for anything anymore, not for capital, technology, management, or anything. Europe has hurt itself again and again and again 19 times. Europe is much weaker, has lost growth, and has lost industrial capacity because energy is 35% more expensive. The Angell Paradox is very clear in Europe.

Hussein Askary: You worked with SWIFT. Russia made itself independent of SWIFT, which enables cross-border transactions controlled by the US and Western forces. Russia created its own cross-border trade currency exchange. China created CIPS, the China Interbank Payment System. How does that play into this new dynamic?

Kathleen Tyson: Russia did not expect to be cut out of SWIFT. They were surprised and had to react dynamically, very, very quickly. The first step: if you want our oil and gas, you have to pay in rubles. That stabilized ruble demand and gave them time in the first year to bring MIR — the Russian payment system, equivalent of CIPS — up to a global standard. MIR was globalized in that first year to many banks. They never disclosed how many, stopping publication of members to avoid secondary sanctions. It took a year, but they transitioned effectively. Governor Nabiullina at the Russian central bank was amazing and stabilized a very difficult situation.

The Angell Paradox holds true.

Next chapter: resiliency, stability, and inflation: Trading in your own currency and partners’ currencies gives predictability on flows — you know what you buy and sell each year and can roughly balance trade. Moving away from hegemonic currencies like the dollar and euro reduces exchange rate volatility, stabilizes the economy, lowers inflation, and allows a more stable growth path. This is playing out as more countries adopt local currency trade since 2022.

Read 4 tweets

🅰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

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!