by James Corbett
January 15, 2021
I'm sure I don't need to tell you that there are many ways that the current global crisis could play out in 2022 and, sadly, none of them involve everyone joining hands and singing "Kumbaya" until the Gateses and the Schwabs of the world have a change of heart about this whole Great Reset thing.
If you saw New World Next Year 2022, you'll know that I think a cyber 9/11 (and the ensuing passage of an iPatriot Act) is a distinct possibility for the coming year. But that is not the only Ace card in the would-be world controllers' hands.
The passage of a global pandemic treaty to hardwire the biosecurity state into place?
Check. Check. Check. All of these cards, too, are in the deck and ready to be dealt. But there is another card in that deck that has been largely neglected for the past two years and I have a feeling we're going to see it laid on the table this year.
So what am I talking about? Luckily, I don't need to look further than the latest headlines to illustrate my point:
Right on the heels of the Kazakhstan fiasco, we have this headline dominating the newswires: "White House: Russia prepping pretext for Ukraine invasion." As the loyal government stenographers over at the Associated Press helpfully explain:
"US intelligence officials have determined a Russian effort is underway to create a pretext for its troops to further invade Ukraine, and Moscow has already prepositioned operatives to conduct 'a false-flag operation' in eastern Ukraine, according to the White House."
Wait, what? The White House is now openly warning about the potential for a false flag operation to be used as a pretext for war? What's happening here?
The invocation of the concept of false flag terror in a mainstream media report (let alone such an assertion coming from the lips of "intelligence officials") might raise an eyebrow among us old hands of the 9/11 Truth movement. I'm sure we all remember the days when the very concept of false flag terror had to be painstakingly explained to the average normie . . . so it could then be summarily dismissed as a "conspiracy theory."
But upon closer examination, this acknowledgment of the reality that false flag attacks can be used as a casus belli is not so surprising. In fact, the most vocal conspiracy deniers are only too happy to become conspiracy theorists themselves when discussing their political enemies (like Putin or Assad or Putin or Xi or "anti-vaxxers" or Putin).
In this case, the theory posits that Putin and the Russkies have engaged in a social media campaign to plant a narrative that the Ukranian government is preparing to target Russian-backed forces in eastern Ukraine. The plan would then unfold when Russian "operatives trained in urban warfare" (who, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki assures us, have already been deployed) "use explosives to carry out acts of sabotage against Russia’s own proxy forces." Putin could then use the attacks as a pretext to invade Ukraine.
That's one hell of a conspiracy theory, isn't it? So what evidence is there to back it up? As you might have guessed, absolutely no evidence of any kind was presented during the briefing announcing this startling accusation. Don't take my word for it, read Psaki's remarks for yourself and you'll see that the entire story rests on her bald assertion that "we have information" that Russia is preparing to do this. Or, translated from the Globalese: "Take our word for it."
But wait, it gets worse! Just weeks ago The New York Times was reporting that the US and Britain are helping the Ukrainian government to secure their cyber infrastructure against dastardly Russian hackers and, just days ago, the Ukrainian ambassador to the US told CBS News that Ukraine was expecting cyberattacks to precede a full invasion. And now—wouldn't you know it?—just as the EU is prepping large-scale exercises simulating Russian cyberattacks on Europe's supply lines, someone has gone ahead and launched a cyberattack on the Ukrainian government!
So who is that "someone"? Oh, come on, there's no time to collect evidence! We all know who it is! After all, cyberattacks against their enemies are a "tried and true part of the Russian playbook" according to good ol' Victoria "F**k the EU" Nuland (aka Mrs. Robert Kagan), and who wouldn't trust her?
So is it possible that things are playing out exactly as Psaki and Nuland assert? Could this really be a carefully staged Russian operation to prepare the way for an invasion of Ukraine? Of course it is possible. Let's not be naive here. Putin is an authoritarian who is putting Russia in lockstep with the Great Reset and he is willing to stage terror attacks and assassinate his enemies in order to further his own political ambitions.
The same can be said for Xi and Assad and all of the other authoritarians who are held up in certain parts of the "alternative" media as the "resistance" to the NATO agenda. As I've articulated many times, the BRICS are a phony opposition, the "alternative" financial infrastructure that the anti-NATO crowd is setting up is not alternative at all, the economic and military rise of the Chinese has been deliberately engineered by the same financial interests that built up the American empire, the technocrats openly lust after the authoritarian powers of communist China and the Belt and Road promise is just debt diplomacy by another name.
But here's something that seems to confuse those who are clued in to the 3D reality behind the 2D chess game: geopolitical and even military conflict can still take place, even in a scenario where both enemies are just puppets of the same string-puller.
As I've laid out before, there is a very real sense in which we are already embroiled in World War III, and that is the War on You. The Powers That Shouldn't Be are, as we know by now, willing and capable of doing anything it takes to maintain their power and increase the centralization of power in the technocratic hands of the oligarchy. If that means an economic crash, don't doubt for a moment that they'll do it. If that means bringing down the world wide web (in order to replace it with a more controlled system), they'll do that, too. And thermonuclear war? If it helps their agenda, it's on the table.
This is the element of the global calculation that has been excluded from the equation the past two years and is likely to come back with a vengeance this year: geopolitical strife. Remember in 2019 when dueling drills and a world on fire with protest were portents of some major changes that were due to take place on the global chessboard? Well, those tectonic forces didn't go away during the scamdemic, they were merely pushed under the surface for a while. But, like a beach ball pushed under water and then let go, they're surfacing once again.
Think of what we've seen just in the past month.
There's the latest round of war talk over Ukraine and the unprecedented deployment of CSTO forces to Kazakhstan.
There's the new hypersonic missile arms race, with China gloating about their latest version of the "wonder weapon," North Korea testing their own batch and the US' own AGM-183A failing its third test . . . which is just an excuse for the Navy to increase its weapons development and procurement budget, of course.
Australia and Japan are signing security pacts as tensions grow between US and China in East Asia. Meanwhile, geopolitical experts are warning US policy planners against waging a two-front cold war (just pick an enemy and stick with them, please!).
Yes, the world is a tinderbox looking for a spark at the moment, and the scamdemic with its convenient narratives of "the Chinese virus" and "our forces are ravaged by COVID!" (or is that "our forces are ravaged by COVID mandates"?) is just more fuel for the fire.
The coming conflict(s) will be directed, financed, managed and engineered by 3D chess players, of course, but that doesn't mean that such conflict won't happen. The WWI Conspiracy led to WWI, after all, so what do you think the the WWIII Conspiracy will lead to? I hope we don't find out this year, but I have a feeling we're going to be hearing more about geopolitics in 2022 than we have in a long time.
This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter.
To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter, please sign up to become a member of the website.