Index
The information channels I usually follow for knowing about the war in Donbass and its political implications agree on one idea, which I personally find not plausible: the astonishing stupidity or nearsightedness of the governments in the collective West. Apparently, this idea stems from the disastrous failure of the economical sanctions imposed on Russia, that not only have barely hurt this country but rather contribute to strengthen its currency and -literally- overflow its revenue with the money coming from the ridiculous prices gas and oil have reached thanks to, precisely, those very sanctions; which, besides, turn out to be ruinous -in social and economical terms- for the same countries that have decreed them. In effect, we have already begun to undergo energy and supply shortages (including food), as well as a worsening of our industry and agriculture, with skyrocketing inflation the like of which we have not seen in decades and that threatens to cause a general standstill of our economy (the so-called stagflation). Upheavals have begun to take place in several European countries, with harsh social demonstrations and a weakening and downfall of their governments.
To those consequences we must add the increase in defense budgets Euro-NATO countries will have to undertake, the need to accommodate and feed millions of Ukrainian immigrants, plus a worsening of public safety, the cold we are going to endure next winter and, most dangerously, the risk of provoking a world war of unpredictable (or predictable?) consequences. All for what? For siding with, and support, one particular side in a warlike conflict that does not belong to us and that takes place in a country which is no business of ours. And, worst of all, to no avail, because Ukraine is going to lose all the same.
Undoubtedly -to go back to my starting point- all this self-inflicted damage may, at a first glance, hint at some sort of astonishing imbecility on the part of our ruling class; and I am not saying this is not the case: at the very least, from the dumbest to the smartest of our politicians, they are proving to be a bunch of lackeys at the service of supranational interests held by people who completely bypass democracy and evade the alleged peoples' sovereignties. But that is precisely why I wonder whether the sanctions -and accompanying measures- have been decided solely by our politicians' presumed foolishness, or have rather been adopted by them under orders of "supreme powers"; and if this is the case -as I propose- then we need to disregard the "stupidity hypothesis", same on the part of our subordinate leaders, who would be simply taking instructions, as on the part of those who give them, who -presumedly- know quite well what they do and pursue. Global powers can be called any names: evil, greedy, overambituous, unscrupulous or -not seldom- messianic clairvoyants with an extravagant and very peculiar notion of an ideal world; but we ought not deem them idiots. I refuse to accept this thought; among other reasons, because no idiot is able to amass the fortunes and acquire the power those folks have.
So, upon the assumption that these privileged people are a stock of intelligent, refined and Machiavellian scoundrels, I cannot but think that most -or a good deal- of what is now going on around the conflict in Donbass has been deliberately planned and provided for. But there is something in all this that does not quite fit. I hope this notes help me arrange my own ideas, express my view of the big picture and formulate the question that is hindering my proper understanding of the whole matter.
1. The global agenda (or long live conspiranoids)
The term "conspiranoid" (or conspiracy theorist) was coined to tease those persons who "saw" conspiracies where there were not - or did they?, because, presently, it is used to discredit anyone who dares to point or suggest the existence of non evident designs whose understanding eludes the teaser or, simply, whose acceptance is for whatever reason -including sheer intelectual lazyness- inconvenient for the naysayer. I am often called a conspiracy theorist, but those who do it never provide enough evidence of the non-existence of whichever plot I have pointed out; and though I may fail, in turn, to irrefutably prove my claim, such failure is by itself insufficient to conclude that I am wrong. The argumentum ad silentium is a fallacy. Only by providing at least one single fact negating the proposed theory could my censor rightly assert that the conspiracy cannot exist. Thus, conspiranoids are often as helpless to prove what they propose as are their counterparts to prove the opposite. And, by the way, belittling someone does, likewise, not mean he is wrong. The argumentum ad hominem is another fallacy. Therefore, long live conspiracy theorists!
In any case, the fact is that the global powers onto whom I blame the present conflict (and its consequences) are not, in this particular case, acting behind the scenes, but quite in sight; so that we cannot even properly talk about conspiracy, since one of its key elements is here missing: concealment or secrecy. Now, globalism is not conspiring, but simply working to carry out their plans (projects, goals, designs...), which are openly published, black on white, on a program - or rather on several, each with its own name; though, for the sake of economy, all in all they are usually known as the "Global Agenda".
But what is this agenda? The global project is not compiled in one single document - among other reasons (one of which might well be to make it less conspicuous) because its promoters work through (or behind) countless bodies: the World Economic Forum (Davos), the Bilderberg Club, the Council on Foreign Relations or the Trilateral Commission - to cite the best known ones; but there are also the UN (with all its terminals, including the WHO) and corporations of all kinds, like food (Monsanto), big oil (Exxon, Shell), big pharma, arms (the MIC), financial (Black Rock, Vanguard, IMF), films (Netflix, Disney), computing (Microsoft), digital platforms (Youtube, Meta, Instagram), universities, and so on. In fact, if you take the trouble of looking up who owns or runs those corporations you will realize that they are mutually participated and, ultimately, belong to a hundred of individuals or sagas (Rockefeller, Du Pont, Bush, Rothschild...) that make up for the eminently Anglo-Saxon sphere who decide the fates of half the planet, so to say.
Thus, surfing those entities' websites one can easily notice the same recurrent topics: "climate change" with all its green palette (this is Global Agenda's ubiquitous and central element), identity politics, gender ideology (LGBT), immigration, animalisn (and its close cousin veganism), "cybersecurity", colective health (pandemics) plus other half a dozen subjects. At the end of such programme, humankind will reach the extolled New World Order we so much hear about (remember the promised post-Covid "New Normal"?). But the agenda is so vast that I cannot present it here; and anyway such task has already been accomplished by quite a few other writers out there. Suffice to cite now, as maybe its most characteristic example, the 8 predictions for 2030 published by the WEF in this video and elaborated on here (anti-conspiranoids please mark, by the way, how clearly you can read in that link: "Global Agenda").
In this article I'll stick to those of its aspects relevant to my argument:
- Climate change. Hydrocarbons become history. Global tax on CO2.
- End of private property: "You'll have nothing. Whatever you need you'll rent".
- End of US's global dominance. New power poles arise: the Russia-China alliance.
- Displacement of one billion "refugees" to Western countries.
But allow me a couple of notes before going on. First: not all of Global Agenda's goals are made public. Namely, one of its historical objectives (sufficiently documented on various papers by worthy investigators and analysts) is to weaken Europe (in fact, to weaken any power that might oppose the Anglo-American sphere); whereas another -more recent- one is to reduce the world's population. Second: albeit some of those goals being presented to the public as "predictions" (or even as "dangers"), I believe they should be interpreted as items in the same agenda, most of all considering those folks' ability to create self-fulfilled prophecies.
And one last remark: the globalists stating that they strive for such and such objectives does not necessarily mean that those are the real ones they aim for. The declared goals are (or seem to be) all altruistic and, in general, more than desirable for most people. Who does not wish for the end of poverty, the realm of peace and freedom, a green and healthy planet or no more animal mistreatment? But even if we admitted that those who hold the real power really believe in some -or maybe all- of these objectives, most likely their main concern is to keep or increase that power.
2. The war in Donbass.
I have begun this article mentioning the current triumphalism present on the alternative communication channels I am presently following. And, indeed, listening to them, any person opposing the NATO and the US hegemonic power may find at least two good reasons to feel victorious beforehand: on one hand, the Russia-backed Donbass Republics are undeniably winning this war; on the other, the economic sanctions imposed on Russia (and Belarus) are proving to be much more detrimental for the punishing than for the punished. Hence, if the fight continues on its present course and the Western Alliance does not set its boots on the ground, quite predictably the pro-Donbass coalition will come out as the undisputable victor; whereas, with the total defeat of Ukraine (and its likely extinction as a state), the Western countries will also be defeated and utterly weakened, both politically and economically. Therefore, such a failure might in principle be blamed directly on our leaders' oceanic ineptitude and inconceivable inability for both assuming that their policies are backfiring and accepting the fact that, for the sake of common good (beginning with that of the very Ukraine they supposedly support), what they should do is backing out and trying to as soon as possible reach a peace agreement with the adversary. But is such utter incompetence plausible?
The amount of reliable information on the origins and causes of the present conflict allows to sustain that it has been pursued by the Anglosphere (particularly US and UK) for many years now. The records talk by themselves: NATO's unjustified expansion eastwards, the West-fostered Ukrainian Orange Revolution in 2004 and Euromaidan coup in 2014, NATO's arming and training the Ukrainian military, destabilizing Russia's borders and rejecting -or, rather, disdaining- its security demands and warnings, sponsoring of russophobia in Ukraine, etc. And since last february 24th the signs keep piling up, seeing that the Anglosphere's resolve to extending the war for as long as possible is evident, and even undenied: despite being clear from the beginning that Ukraine did not stand a chance of defeating the combined forces of Donbass and Russia, NATO's leaders instructed puppet Zelenski to call off the early negotiation attempts, and hence keep inciting him to fight to the last Ukrainian conscript. Worse yet: those leaders spare no efforts to increase hostilities and stretch the string to its breaking limit, a good sign of which is Lithuania's blockade of Russian freight trains to Kaliningrad, an obvious Anglo-American initiative that lays a de facto siege to that oblast and constitures a de iure, undeniable casus belli that might lead to a world war.
But wait: what does this conflict have to do with the Global Agenda?
3. Revving up goals fulfillment.
Since I sustain that everything of relevance taking place this side of the northern hemisphere for the past decades is being directed by the aforementioned supranational powers (who, I insist, are capable of imposing their guidelines -and carry out their agenda- on the governments they directly control), hence follows that both the war in Donbass and at least its main consequences for the West have also been foreseen and probably planned beforehand. In support for this thesis I find a few meaningful signs, for whose examining I refer to the globalist items I mentioned above:
a) Climate change, "sustainable" development and end of hydrocarbons as main energy source.The most direct and traumatic outcome of the sanctions imposed on Russia by the collective West is that its countries -mostly Europe- are forced to drastically decrease their dependance on oil and gas as energy sources, and therefore to make extraordinary sacrifices to hike and develop alternative, supposedly "clean" ones. Climate change is globalism's main mantra, and this war, besides boosting it even further, comes in handy to accelerate West's environmentalist politics. Albeit some European countries, in order to tackle the urgent energy needs for the upcoming winter, are going back to coal (infinitely more polluting than hydrocarbons), I dare to predict that this relapse (which may actually be used by WEF & Co. for louder buzzing the "global warming" alarms) will be reverted in the mid term, and that the final result will be a revving up of the "sustainable and resilient" policies allegedly pursued by the Agenda 2030. This is, in my opinion, the fundamental core, the vital kernel of all this business.
b) "You'll own nothing and be happy about it". Hire replaces ownership.The unprecedented crisis brought about by the said sanctions is causing, via galloping inflation and other economic disasters, a fast and considerable impoverishment of our population (specially Europe's), bringing us one step closer to the globalist aim of "not owning anything". Citizens will increasingly be forced to depend, for their subsistence, on their governments' aids and grants, thus notably losing their independence, individual rights and freedoms.
c) End of US hegemony and the unipolar world: emergence of the Russia-China alliance.I don't think anybody could disagree on this. The ruble has strengthen (we can talk now of a petroruble), Russia and China strive to foster and expand the BRICS, establish new financial channels and design money transfer systems alternative to SWIFT. These systems, in fact, albeit yet at a small scale, are already working and some countries have begun to trade among themselves in their respective local currencies, to the detriment of the petrodollar, which is no longer the only global currency and, foreseeably, will keep losing its prevalence. To this decline has contributed in no small degree the deranged and irresponsible banknote printing during the past years on the part of the FED (the same with ECB and euro), resulting in a noticeable decrease of money's the real value and account holders' impoverishment - ripp off, in fact. Besides, the seizing (actually the theft) of the Russian assets deposited in the West (a true and very Brit-style feat of piracy) decreases world's confidence on Western institutions, to their utmost discredit and the mistrust on the part of other nations, who become increasingly interested in dealing and trading preferably with Russia or China. Another bullseye for the Global Agenda.
d) Welcome refugees.The Davos Forum heralds, for 2030, the displacement of no less than one billion emigrants (towards the West, understood) supposedly fleeing from conflicts. Well, the present situation has already caused, in just a couple of months, the move of some five million Ukrainian refugees. True, that figure is still very far from the augured billion, but means another grain for the barn. The Grand Avalanche of immigrants will come perhaps in the upcoming months -or, at most, years-, when the famines caused in Africa and Asia by the economic sanctions on Russia will push those continents' inhabitants to move en masse towards Europe, thus accelerating yet more the weakening of the latter.
4. The question
These four "coincidences" -or concordances- between some of Global Agenda's designs and the consequences of the present conflict support my thesis that both the latter and its contrived, apparently useless prolongation are aimed for or deliberate events; although I cannot rule out the possibility that whomever folks pull the strings, perhaps not having directly provoked the war themselves, have simply seized the opportunity (same as they did with covid-19) to step in with their measures and influence so as to bring forward their goals' achievement. But it's hard for me to believe in the non-authorship, even if only partial, of the globalist powers, because I find the evidences to be quite convincing of the Anglosphere seeking and stirring this situation for years already.
But it is here where I come up against a kind of contradiction I have not yet been capable of sorting out: given the huge damage caused by this conflict not only onto Europe, but onto the economies of those very two countries where most of the global elites belong (and from where they exert their power and influence), and given the foreseeable -and predicted- end of US as the only world hegemony, how am I to understand that those elites are willing to harm themselves? It seems reasonable, I think, to assume that whatever is bad for Anglo-America is bad for its oligarchs; as I say at the beginning: though I may accept that the Western leaders are a bunch of fools at the service of the elites, I cannot say the same of latter, because, after all, their think-tanks are made up of the crême de la crême, the very choice in knowledge and intelligence produced by the most prestigious universities in the West. It is true that such stock of aristocrats only seek their own plans and interests, do not profess any loyalty towards any nation and, no matter how low the economy and quality of life fall for the rest of the planet, they will not be much concerned, as they live in wealthy mansions and luxury bubbles, enjoying all imaginable privileges and far from the world's misfortunes; but this objection has two issues.
First: even if they will not have to undergo any of the losses and deprivals that, from their messianic designs, will stem for the rest of humans, I still do not see the need for them to cause their own countries' downfalls, because that would only result in more inconveniences for themselves.
Second: radioactivity does not respect any living being, no matter how Du Pont, Rothschild or Rockefeller it be. If they keep throwing fuel to the Donbass fire, there is no guarantee that it does not eventually escalate to a world war, and this in turn lead to a thermonuclear disaster. And there are no winners in this game: we all lose.
Certainly, I can always take my conspiracy theory as fas as postulating that this last result is, perhaps, precisely what they aim for: billions of people might perish and the globalist goal of drastically dwindling the world's population -and thus "saving the planet"- would have been fulfilled, whereas they -the privileged- may possibly shelter from the radioactive cloud in their countriside estates and manors, perhaps provided with gamma-ray proof bunkers and located on remote and paradisiacal islands or on irrelevant countries not targeted by the nuclear heads. But this seems to be excessively conspiranoid even for me.
Or is it not?
I'm aware that all this exposition may be seriously flawed: perhaps I am taking for granted things that are not necessarily true, making unplausible generalizations, incurring in conceptual gaffes or -this for sure- overlooking factors that would be essential for properly grasping reality. But even in the simplest and less conspiranoid of all hypothesis, that of a war provoked and stirred from the White House and Downing Street, my question still holds: why are they damaging themselves? This is what I fail to understand; and I ask any reader with better ideas than mine to help me solve this enigma. But I insist in this warning: whomever are making the decisions in those two buildings, they surely are not that stupid to cause their own disgrace by mistake.
Or are they?
