MK ULTRA - About French sale of FIGHTER JETS TO RUSSIA and or how British royals wanted to see American crime for the sake of Donald Trump as

THE ONE WHO MADE SU-57 SALE TO RUSSIANS WERE NONE OTHER THAN BRITISH ROYALS IN 2005 AT REQUEST OF DONALD TRUMP PERSONALLY AFTER AMERICAN SIDE ALREADY SOLD ONE TO RUSSIANS IN 2004. 

IT WAS TIME TO RID EMANUEL MACRON WHO HAD NOTHING LEFT OTHER THAN TO COMPLY WITH FRENCH STATE. SU-75 COULD BE DANGEROUS DUE TO UNKNOWN ELEMENT TO WEST IN ONE - ADVANCED NEW CHINESE TECHNOLOGY.

IF I DON'T GET THIS SCUM PUBLICLY HANGED/EXECUTED, MY LIFE HAD NO PURPOSE. 80 YEARS AGO, 80 MILLION PEOPLE PERISHED BECAUSE OF SCUM AS WE WATCH DAILY. EUROPE WAS BURNED TO THE GROUND, AND SO WERE RUSSIA AND CHINA.

BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY HEAVILY ADVOCATED NEONAZISM PRIOR TO 1983, BUT WENT UNDERGROUND AFTER THEY BUSTED ONE IN CANADA. MI5/MI6 GAVE THEM ANOTHER CHANCE, AND THAT CHANCE APPEARS IS WHAT I BECAME THROUGH GREATER AND GREATER TORTURE WHICH FINANCED BEHIND ME AS STATED - NEW NAZI AGENDA FOR THE SAKE OF COLONIALISM.

Video can be also seen at https://youtu.be/dQanTbVU0b8 OR https://rumble.com/v50oil8-about-french-sale-of-fighter-jets-to-russia-and-or-how-british-demanded-ame.html  OR https://archive.org/details/about-french-sale-of-fighter-jets-to-russia-and-or-how-british-royals-wanted-to-    OR   OR   

Related to original post at https://ausertimes.blogspot.com/2024/06/i-support-macrons-idea-about-french.html 

They are not people - they are not even animals

THE ROYAL BRITISH D DAY DEMENTIA NEEDS TO STOP: British royals in agreement with nazism clearly since 1933 - British should have been taken with reserve when it comes to ROYAL D DAY PARADE in France its international not UK domestic   https://ausertimes.blogspot.com/2024/06/the-royal-british-d-day-dementia-needs.html 

As for SU75 is what I was told by Chinese side, it will be Russia that will unveil one as first and within two years maximum(perhaps even one year) - China will present identical jet to public

was designed by Chinese to serve as a super reliable and super cheap to make fighter jet is what I was told. A new MIG 21 for which you should expect will enter service to cover Asian aerospace in huge numbers. Chinese designed one make no mistake and probably entirely - close to entirely https://ausertimes.blogspot.com/2024/06/mk-ultra-about-french-sale-of-fighter.html 

Putin insisted on one engine, but Chinese version mentioned to me will have also two engines option - I should say will likely somehow use also two engines next to single engine option. Just remember will enter service in LARGE NUMBERS opposed to SU57. Issue of new SU57 and specially SU75 cooperation with China angered India who wanted to manufacture jets together with Russia.

SU75 is all about reliability, cheap to maintain, and cheap to manufacture jet efficiency.

Amerrrikkans sold Russian as super computer designed for fighter jets in 2006

With Joe Biden and entire American administrator on board. This special work of art super computer came to life probably in 2013(its when India learned about one) which NOT EVEN is a bit strange since Putin always signaled me his fingers over the mouths prior to meetings

RUSSIA GOT SUPER COMPUTER FROM AMERRRIKKANS FASTER THAN MANY NATO COUNTRIES LIKE POLLACKS FOR INSTANCE WHO ALSO GOT THEIR FINGERS ON ONE IN 2008 - TWO YEARS LATTER.

AMMMERIKKKAAAA - A PLACE TO LOVE LUNACY TO EMBRACE. NO WONDER JAPANESE BEGUN OWN PRODUCTION AND SO DID OTHERS. WHOLE THING STARTED TO STINK FAR TOO MUCH TO FAR TO MANY PARTNERS. IT COULD WELL BE UKRAINE WILL ENDUP AS A CASUALTY OF LONDON PORN.

FRENCH DIDN'T SOLD FIGHTER JET TO RUSSIANS NOR DID AMERICANS SOLD ONLY A FIGHTER JET - IT WAS MORE THAT WAS SOLD DURING ALMOST SAME TIME - AMERICAN DESIGN FOR SU57 IN 2005 AND A SUPER COMPUTER IN 2006.

THIS WILL ALSO SERVE AS A PROOF THEY ALL LIED AND ALMOST NOTHING ELSE BUT LIED. NOT A TRACE ABOUT MY SUFFERING FROM DEMENTIA OF ANY KIND AS THEY EVEN INSULTED, BUT QUITE CONTRARY. IT WAS A MISTAKE TO TRUST AND SEE MYSELF IN ANYONE OF THEM IN ABSOLUTELY ANY WAY.

American super jet computer transfer to Russia negotiations, took place beginning 2001 - 2004 - OTHER FORMS OF AMERICAN COMPUTER SOFTWARE CAME IN THE HANDS OF MEDVEDEV/PUTIN IN AS EARLY AS IN EXACTLY 1996

 Its questionable if Russians didn't get one already in 2004 - I mean own one. Far far ahead of Pollacks would even know about existence of one. I think Pollacks learned about its existence in 2004 or 2003

and this was the prime reason to not manufacture Chinese fighter jets in Poland which China tried to promote. RUSSIA WAS A MUCH MORE POWERFUL NATO PARTNERS THAN MANY NATO COUNTRIES AND ONCE POLAND LEARNED ABOUT IT SO IT APPEARED AS THE TWO WORKED TOGETHER AT TIMES INFRONT OF AMERICANS, THEY DIDN'T HAVE PROBLEM WITH IT AND WHAT MADE WHOLE THING EVEN MORE KACZYNSKI AWKWARD - ITS A QUESTION IF POLLACKS DIDN'T ASSIST RUSSIANS WITH ITS INQUIRY ABOUT ONE JUST AS THEY DID VIA POLISH POPE FOR ME - POLLACKS ASSISTED BEST TO THEIR ABILITIES RUSSIAN KGB WITH HIJACKING/TORTURE AND WHAT BECAME TRANSATLANTIC CRIME AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FALL OF USSR WHEN RUSSIANS BECAME DESPERATE TO KEEP UP WITH GENOCIDE AGAINST ME ONCE I IMMIGRATED TO USA IN 1995.

WHAT WAS THE SITUATION WITH THIS VERY SUPER COMPUTER IN 2001 SINCE AMERICAN SIDE DID BEST TO ASSURE ME ONE DIDN'T EVEN EXIST IN 2001, BUT CAME ON SURFACE IN 2003 !!???? I AM CERTAIN VERY MUCH IT DID EXISTED. THEY MELTED ABOUT SOFTWARE THAT WAS COMPLETED IN 2005, BUT I KNOW THAT WAS BULLSHIT. HORSE  INDEED - LIES WHICH PUTIN KNEW JUST AS GOOD AS AMERICAN GENERALS WITH WHOM ONE DEALT WITH FACE TO FACE BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

PUTIN'S PERSONAL RELATIONS 1 ON ONE WITH AMERICAN SIDE/BRITISH IN 2001 REACHED CLIMAX - WHOLE THING WAS BASED ON 100% PARTNERSHIP/TRUST WHICH EXCEEDED STATUS OF WHAT APPEARED WAS OF MANY NATO COUNTRIES BALTIC STATES ALONE NOTICED AND BEGUN TO COMPLAIN ABOUT

IT MIGHT HAVE NOT BEEN A SUPER COMPUTER BY 2004(I AM 100% IT WAS), BUT RUSSIANS KEEP UP WITH AMERICAN SUPER TECHNOLOGY IN A SAME WAY AS OTHER NATO MEMBER STATES DID THANK TO FOREMOST AMERICAN SIDE. WHATEVER IT WAS IN AMERICAN HANDS, AMERICAN GENERAL PERSONALLY DELIVERED IN THE HANDS OF RUSSIANS. FIRST SOFTWARE WISE BEGINNING 1996 AND THEN ALSO MORE.

MEDVEDEV CELEBRATED IN 1996 FOR THE FIRST TIME WHAT WAS AMERICAN SOFTWARE USED FOR FIGHTER JETS DESIGNS AND GOT ONE ONE YEAR AFTER I ESCAPED TO USA FROM SLOVENIA - WAS HANDED TO ONE WITH PUTIN/LAVROV TEAM INSIDE OF MY ROOM. I WENT INSANE AFTER OBSERVED ABOUT WHAT WENT ON, BUT JUST TO BE KILLED SOME MORE. IT WAS A TRANSFER VIA BRITISH MANY SLOVENES WITNESSED TO SUCH AS DMITRI RUPEL ETC WHO WASN'T BOTHERED AT ALL NEXT TO KUČAN. IT BECAME CLEAR JANEZ JANŠA KNEW ALL ABOUT IT AND SO DID LOJZE PETERLE. CORRUPT/CRIMINAL AND MURDEROUS AS ANYTHING THAT EVER WALKED EARTH.

1996

ALSO RELATED TO

MK ULTRA - About French sale of FIGHTER JETS TO RUSSIA and or how British royals wanted to see American crime for the sake of Donald Trump as   https://ausertimes.blogspot.com/2024/06/mk-ultra-about-french-sale-of-fighter.html

As for SU75 is what I was told by Chinese side, it will be Russia that will unveil one as first and within two years maximum(perhaps even one year) - China will present identical jet to public   https://ausertimes.blogspot.com/2024/06/as-for-su75-is-what-i-was-told-by.html

Amerrrikkans sold Russian as super computer designed for fighter jets in 2006  https://ausertimes.blogspot.com/2024/06/amerrrikkans-sold-russian-as-super.html

American super jet computer transfer to Russia negotiations, took place beginning 2001 - 2004 - OTHER FORMS OF AMERICAN COMPUTER SOFTWARE CAME IN THE HANDS OF MEDVEDEV/PUTIN IN AS EARLY AS IN EXACTLY 1996   https://ausertimes.blogspot.com/2024/06/american-super-jet-computer-transfer-to.html

MK ULTRA - And there is such plane just as I described in Chinese arsenal - its called J-31 - EVERYTHING I HAVE STATED WAS FACTUAL ALL THE WAY TO YEAR 1996   http://ausertimes.blogspot.com/2024/06/and-there-is-such-plane-just-as-i.html

Emmanuel Macron calls snap election after France turns on him in crushing defeat

Marine Le Pen's National Rally party gained a 10 point increase on the 2019 EU elections, winning 32 percent of the vote.

By HANNAH KANE, Deputy News Editor

20:20, Sun, Jun 9, 2024 | UPDATED: 21:45, Sun, Jun 9, 2024

Emanuel Macron has suffered a humiliating defeat in the European elections.

The President, who has been in France's top post since 2017, has been forced to dissolve the National Assembly, calling a new legislative election after the crushing vote.

He has called for parliamentary elections to be held on June 30 and July 7.

Marine Le Pen's National Rally party won about 32 percent of the vote - a 10 point increase on the last EU election in 2019.

It is also more than double the 15 percent taken by Macron's Renaissance party, according to exit polls.

The French president said he could not "pretend nothing had happened" and admitted the EU election was "no good" for his government.

Marine Le Pen said her National Rally party was "ready to take power" (Image: Getty)

The "rise of nationalists" is a danger to France and to Europe, he said.

"I've decided to give you back the choice of our parliamentary future through the vote," he said outside Elysee Palace. "I am therefore dissolving the National Assembly."

Rival Le Pen has welcomed the decision to call the snap elections, adding that the National Rally is "ready to take over power".

RUSSIAN SOCIETY

Russian society at the end of the late 19th century was strongly hierarchical. Tsarist political structures, religious and social values, rules governing land ownership and Russia’s legal code all reinforced the nation’s social hierarchy, defining position and status and restricting social mobility (movement between the classes). Russia’s social structure was often depicted and lampooned in visual propaganda, such as several versions of the ‘Russian wedding cake’ (see picture, left). In these depictions, Russian society is shown as a feudal pyramid, the upper classes propped up by the labour of the working masses – who are usually kept in check with work, religion and the threat of violence. In reality, the ‘cake’s’ base was broader than these images suggest. The poor peasantry and the industrial working-class made up more than four-fifths of the population; while Russia’s educated and professional middle classes were tiny when compared to societies in Britain or France.

According to historian Michael Lynch, the 1897 census categorised the population of Russia in these broad class groups:

Upper classes: Royalty, nobility, higher clergy: 12.5 per cent.
Middle classes: Merchants, bureaucrats, professionals: 1.5 per cent.
Working classes: Factory workers, artisans, soldiers, sailors: 4 per cent.
Peasants: Landed and landless farmers: 82 per cent.

Nestled atop this metaphorical pyramid was Russia’s royalty and aristocracy, who for the most part lived lives of comfort, isolated from the dissatisfactions of the lower classes. Noble titles and land ownership were the main determinants of privilege in tsarist Russia. The tsar himself was a significant landowner, holding the title of as much as ten per cent of arable land in western Russia. The Russian Orthodox church and its higher clergy also owned large tracts of land. The abolition of serfdom in 1861 allowed many land-owners to increase their holdings, largely at the expense of the state and emancipated serfs. Protective of their wealth and privilege, Russia’s landed aristocracy was arguably the most conservative force in the empire. Many of the tsar’s ministerial advisors were drawn directly from their ranks and worked to block or shout down suggested reforms. Sergei Witte – himself an aristocrat, though one without large land holdings – claimed that “many of the aristocracy are unbelievably avaricious [greedy] hypocrites, scoundrels and good-for-nothings”.

“The attitude of the [tsarist] regime to the nobility depended on the circumstances of each individual reign. All tsars, however, considered the nobility to be the key class in terms of wealth and social leadership. They underpinned the social hierarchy that was an integral part of the whole concept of political autocracy. Without this, the political system would be unable to operate effectively. Some of the nobility were involved in the governing process – but this was not their key importance. As in Prussia, the tacit understanding was that the nobility’s social powers were enhanced in return for an acceptance of autocracy that did not essentially involve a contribution towards its exercise.”
Stephen J. Lee, historian

Russia’s middle-classes worked both for the state (usually in the higher ranks of the bureaucracy) or the private sector, either as small business owners or trained professionals (such as doctors, lawyers and managers). Industrial growth in the 1890s helped to expand the middle-classes by increasing the ranks of factory owners, businessmen and entrepreneurs. The middle-classes tended to be educated, worldly and receptive to liberal, democratic and reformist ideas. Members of the middle-class were prominent in political groups like the Kadets (Constitutional Democrats) and, later, in the Duma.

By far the largest social class in Russia was the peasantry. Most Russian peasants worked small plots of land using antiquated farming methods. Farming in Russia was a difficult business, dictated by the soil, the weather and sometimes pure luck. It tended to be easier in Russia’s ‘breadbasket’ southern regions, where the soil was dark and rich and the climate more temperate. Grain crops like barley, rye and oats flourished in these areas.

Further north and east, across the Urals and toward Siberia, the soil was harder and less fertile, so grain production was more difficult. Peasants here relied more on tuber crops like potatoes, turnips and beets. In much of Siberia, the soil was hard, frozen and unsuitable for farming. Russian farming was further hindered by its reliance on methods and techniques that were not far removed from the Middle Ages. Most peasants cleared, ploughed and sowed the land by hand, without the benefit of machinery or chemical fertilisers. A few of the more prosperous peasants had beasts of burden.

Before 1861 most peasants had been serfs, with no legal status or rights as free men. Alexander II’s emancipation edict gave them legal freedom – but the land redistribution that followed often thousands of peasants worse off than before. The best tracts of farmland were usually allocated to land-owning nobles, who kept it for themselves or leased it for high rents. The former serfs were left with whatever remained – but they were obliged to make 49 annual redemption payments to the government – in effect, a 49-year state mortgage. These redemption payments were often higher than the rent or land taxes they paid before emancipation. Some common land was also controlled and allocated by the obshchina or mir (or village commune). The mir was also responsible for other administrative duties, such as the collection of taxes and the supply of conscript quotas to the Imperial Army.

The small size of these peasant communes (most villages contained between 200-500 people), as well as their scattered distribution, affected the worldview of Russian peasants. There was little or no formal education so the majority of peasants were illiterate; few peasants travelled and returned, so not much was known about the world beyond their village. Peasant communities were insular and defensive: they relied on each other for information and became suspicious, even paranoid about outsiders and strangers. Few peasants had any understanding of government, politics or economics. Many were intensely religious and superstition to the point of medievalism; they believed in magic, witchcraft and devilry and carried symbols and icons to ward off bad luck. A sizeable proportion of the peasantry was loyal to the tsar; a similar number knew little of him and cared even less. They hated the bureaucracy for its taxes, regulations and impositions; they feared the army for taking away their sons; they trusted few other than their own.

But for all their political apathy, the peasantry was occasionally roused to action – particularly by changes that affected them directly, such as food shortages or new taxes. There were significant peasant protests in 1894 when the government introduced a state monopoly on vodka production (previously the peasants could distil their own, provided they paid a small excise to the state). Peasants were also receptive to anti-Semitic hatred and ready to blame Russia’s Jews for everything from harvest failures to missing children. Whipped up by rumours and agitators, Russia’s peasants carried out dozens of pogroms in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Peasant unrest and violence would later erupt during the 1905 Revolution, though it was directed at land-owners more than the government. Though peasant uprisings were never widespread or coordinated, they were nevertheless a worrying sign for the tsarist regime.

Regardless of class or status, Russian society was deeply patriarchal. Men were dominant in the community, the workplace and the government. This was not just a product of social values, it was codified in law. The Russian legal code gave husbands almost unlimited power to make decisions within the family. Wives were expected to concede to and obey their husbands. Married women needed their husband’s express permission to take a job, apply for most government permits, obtain a passport or commence higher education. Russian women could not initiate divorce proceedings (though a husband’s legal authority over his family could be removed in cases of incompetence, such as alcoholism or mental illness). If a man died then his male children inherited most of his property; his wife and daughters received only a small share.

The average age of marriage for Russia’s peasant women was 20; for the aristocracy and middle-classes, it was a few years older. Russia had one of the highest child mortality rates of the Western world. By the late 1800s, around 47 per cent of children in rural areas did not survive to their fifth birthday.

1. Russia was a population of more than 130 million people with great diversity of ethnicity, language and culture.

2. The dominant classes were royalty, aristocracy and land-owners, who wielded significant political influence.

3. Russia’s middle class was small in comparison to other nations but was growing by the early 1900s.

4. The peasantry made up by far the largest section, most living in small communities scattered across the empire.

5. Russian society was intensely patriarchal, with men dominant in most spheres of decision-making and women denied many legal and civil rights.

Were the Romanov daughters bayoneted?

However, they were speared with bayonets as well. Olga sustained a gunshot wound to the head. Maria and Anastasia were said to have crouched up against a wall covering their heads with pillows in terror until they were shot in the head. Yurovsky killed Tatiana and Alexei.