https://www.minds.com/CorbettReport/blog/2022-the-year-ahead-1329620978296164354
2022: The Year Ahead
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.
A "pandemic of the injected" and/or a 5G-generated global health crisis?
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!).
Oh, and does https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/4598095214928566760/4707746922874000727anybody remember Afghanistan? Or Iraq? Or Syria? It seems there's still stuff happening in those places, too.
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.
....
https://www.globalresearch.ca/international-finance-leaders-hold-war-game-exercise-simulating-global-financial-collapse-should-worried/5766920
International Finance Leaders Hold ‘War Game’ Exercise Simulating Global Financial Collapse. Should We be Worried?
High-level international banking officials and organizations gathered last month for a global “war game” exercise simulating the collapse of the global financial system. The tabletop exercise was reminiscent of “Event 201,” the pandemic simulation exercise that took place just before COVID-19 entered the global scene.
High-level international banking officials and organizations last month gathered in Israel for a global “war game” exercise simulating the collapse of the global financial system.
The tabletop exercise was reminiscent of “Event 201” — the pandemic simulation exercise that took place in October 2019, shortly before COVID-19 entered the global scene.
The “Collective Strength” initiative was held for 10 days, beginning Dec. 9, 2021, at the Israeli Finance Ministry in Jerusalem. It was relocated to Jerusalem from the Dubai World Expo over concerns about the Omicron variant.
Israel led a 10-country contingent that also included treasury officials from the U.S., Austria, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates.
Representatives from supranational organizations, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and Bank of International Settlements (BIS), also participated.
Described as a simulated “war game,” the exercise sought to model the response to various hypothetical large-scale cyberattacks on the global financial system, including the leaking of sensitive financial data on the “Dark Web,” hacks targeting the global foreign exchange system, and subsequent bank runs and market chaos fueled by “fake news.”
However, the main theme of “Collective Strength” appears not so much the simulation of such cyberattacks but, as the name of the initiative implies, the strengthening of global cooperation in cybersecurity and the financial sector.
As reported by Reuters, participants in the simulation discussed multilateral responses to a hypothetical global financial crisis.
Proposed policy solutions included debt repayment grace periods, SWAP/REPO agreements, coordinated bank holidays and coordinated delinking from major currencies.
The idea of simulated delinking from major currencies raised some eyebrows because of its timing — on the same day participants gathered to launch “Collective Strength,” reports circulated that the Biden administration was considering removing Russia from the global electronic-payment-messaging system known as SWIFT, short for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication.
This measure would be part of a package of economic sanctions the U.S. would levy against Russia should it attack Ukraine.
However, what may raise even more eyebrows is the list of participants in the “Collective Strength” simulation, which includes: the IMF and World Bank, and indirectly, the World Economic Forum (WEF).
It was the WEF, along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which ran the simulated “Event 201” in October 2019.
As previously reported by The Defender, the WEF also supported the development of financial instruments, such as credit and debit cards, that would track “personal carbon allowances” on an individualized basis.
An executive summary issued in November 2020 by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in collaboration with the WEF, provided a rundown of just the type of scenario that was simulated as part of “Collective Strength.”
The report’s authors, Tim Maurer and Arthur Nelson, described a world whose financial system is undergoing “an unprecedented digital transformation … accelerated by the coronavirus pandemic.”
In such a world, the authors argued, “cybersecurity is more important than ever.”
Describing protection of the global financial system as an “organizational challenge,” the report pointed out there is no clear global actor in charge of protecting the global financial system or its digital infrastructure.
The executive summary went so far as to describe a “disconnect between the finance, the national security and the diplomatic communities.”
The solutions identified by Maurer and Nelson included:
- The need for “greater clarity” regarding roles and responsibilities
- Bolstering international cooperation
- Reducing fragmentation and increasing “internationalization” among “siloed” financial institutions
- Developing a model that can then be used in unspecified “other” sectors.
But which “other” sectors?
This set of recommendations was classified by the authors in their report under “Digital Transformation: Safeguard Financial Inclusion.”
One such recommendation reads as follows:
“The G20 should highlight that cybersecurity must be designed into technologies used to advance financial inclusion from the start rather than included as an afterthought.”
Technology that is “used to advance financial inclusion from the start” would appear to include digital “health passports” and accompanying “digital wallets.”
It also seems to be aligned with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals — in particular, Goal 16.9, which calls for the provision of a digital legal identity for all, including newborns, by 2030.
Goal 16.9 also brings to mind the European Union’s insistence that its vaccine passport, the so-called “Green Pass,” which is used in numerous European countries to bar the unvaccinated and those with natural immunity from all sorts of public and private spaces, protects individuals’ privacy.
In a further connection between two distinct issues — security of the global financial system and public health — the GAVI Vaccine Alliance called for “innovations that leverage new technologies to modernize the process of identifying and registering the children who are most in need of life-saving vaccines.”
However, the use of these technologies would not stop with registering childhood vaccinations. GAVI described potential uses of these “new technologies” as encompassing “access to other services,” including the broadly defined “financial services.”
The authors of the Carnegie Endowment executive summary mirrored their proposals in a spring 2021 article that appears on the IMF’s website, although issues of “financial inclusion” are left out.
While the two authors of the Carnegie report, and the participants in the “Collective Strength” initiative, emphasize the need for the financial system and its digital data to be better protected, it remains unclear how a continued transformation toward a fully digital, cloud-based environment can indeed be considered “secure.”
Consider, for instance, the following remark by Micha Weis, financial cyber manager at the Israeli finance ministry, in reference to “Collective Strength”: “[a]ttackers are 10 steps ahead of the defender.”
Such words don’t offer much comfort to those who are already wary of “FinTech,” or the increasing proximity between “Big Tech” and “Big Finance.”
Similarly, yet another “simulation” of a large-scale and destructive global catastrophe will, for some, bring back recollections of “Event 201” and what followed thereafter — infamously described on March 20, 2020, by then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as a “live exercise.”
No comments:
Post a Comment