In the most recent edition of New World Next Week, James Corbett cites my recent article on the Nordstream sabotage, but politely disagrees about the irrelevance of attribution.
He argues that this kind of event will have definite geopolitical ramifications, and as such the identity of the culprit becomes important information.
I respect James’ work immensely and in the alternate media world there’s probably no one I am more likely to agree with as a general rule, but here I must return that polite disagreement in kind.
Now, I do not doubt there will be “geopolitical ramifications”, but in a post-Covid world we need to ask what that means in real terms.
Yes, this will likely mean “tougher sanctions”, or Russia being declared a “terrorist state”. Maybe the war will “intensify”. Maybe Russia’s allies in China or India or Iran will face sanctions too.
But have we not already established that the sanctions are not really designed to hurt Russia, but the West’s own economies?
That the war is being used to excuse and exacerbate the economic downturn already deliberately created by the “pandemic”?
And does that not, in turn, mean that any geopolitical ramifications will be translated ultimately into further excuses to wear down the economic foundations of our society?
I would argue any such reaction could be more accurately described as a shadowplay of conflict, a puppet show for our consumption.
This is not a nihilistic or sweeping dismissal, borne of childish contrarianism.
I’m not saying “both sides of the conflict are the same so what does it matter who wins or which crimes are committed by which side”.
I’m saying, aside from whatever personal or petty gripes, ambitions, power plays may run through the hierarchy, and no matter how much blood is spilled, ultimately there is no conflict between them, and through cooperative complicity, both “sides” are equally responsible for every act within the Great Reset narrative.
To paraphrase Iain Davis in a recent comment, global governance has a management structure akin to any major corporation, and though individual managers or vice-presidents may seek personal advancement or pursue private rivalries, they are all ultimately answerable to the owner of the company, and all working toward the same overarching goal.