Globalists Go For Broke: Plan To Trigger World War III Moves Forward
Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,
There are considerable and insidious forces at play when it comes to the development of the war in Ukraine; a swirling mass of think tanks, globalists and bureaucrats are doing everything in their power to instigate an international conflict between the US, the EU and Russia. They’ve specifically been looking for a way to leverage the western populace into supporting direct and open warfare.
At the beginning of the event the propaganda was very effective in herding the political left into cheering for NATO involvement, with leftists calling for the “cancellation” of Russia and demanding boots on the ground to “wipe them off the face of the Earth.” One of those rabid activists (Ryan Routh) even tried to assassinate Donald Trump, ostensibly because Trump promised immediate peace negotiations with Russia should he become president again.
The Democratic Party, once considered the “anti-war party”, is now the warhawk party. Add to that a gaggle of frothing Neo-Cons (leftists and globalists posing as conservatives) like Lindsay Graham and Mitt Romney, and it’s difficult to see how we will be able to avoid an escalation. There are people on both sides trying to trigger greater bloodshed and anyone who calls for peace comes under threat of assassination.
Russia and Vladimir Putin have culpability of their own and one could argue that the east vs west paradigm is itself a brand of theater. However, the evidence for now leans heavily towards globalist think-tank instigation, leading to the Maidan coup in Ukraine in 2014, the flood of NATO weapons and “advisers” into the country under the Obama Administration and the deep involvement of Lindsay Graham, John McCain and The Atlantic Council in attempts to secure EU and NATO membership for the country; a red line which Russia consistently warned would lead to confrontation.
Keep in mind, the promise made by NATO to Russia in the 1990s was that they would not attempt to move east once Russia tore down the Berlin Wall and unified Germany. NATO activities in Ukraine violate that promise in numerous ways.
In January of 2022 I predicted that open war in the region was highly likely given the ultimate failure of the covid lockdowns and mandates (The Great Reset plan). The establishment needed a new global crisis to instill public fear, and they also needed a scapegoat for the ongoing stagflationary decline in the west. It’s only natural that they would turn to the classic fallback of world war after their previous agenda failed to get the results they wanted.
In September of 2022 after NATO flooded Ukraine with weapons and foreign “mercenaries” I predicted that Russia would adopt an attrition warfare strategy with increased attacks on Ukraine’s power infrastructure. This has been their strategy ever since and now Ukraine faces a winter with an 85% loss in their power grid as Russian forces roll forward mile by mile on the Eastern and southern fronts.
Russian forces are taking long standing Ukrainian strongholds with complex defensive works and Ukrainian troop strength is dwindling. Ukraine is losing the war by every metric and I now predict they have a year or less before complete defensive collapse.
The corporate media will not talk about these developments. They will diminish them until Russia is on the verge of gaining a vast amount of ground and then they will act indignant, saying “How could this have happened?” Then they will call for western troops to enter the fray (it’s already starting).
The only thing that might stop this outcome is Donald Trump’s promise to force negotiations between the Kremlin and Kyiv on day one of his administration. The problem is, that’s another two months away and the globalists are using that window of time to sabotage any future peace efforts. Their goal is to turn the proxy war into an open international conflagration.
In August in my article ‘Globalists Are Trying To Escalate The Ukraine War Into WWIII Before The US Election’ I outlined a theory on what was likely to happen if the establishment saw a possible shift in US and EU sentiment towards continuing support for Ukraine:
“But how do they turn the proxy war into a world war without looking like the bad guys? That’s the trick, isn’t it?
The proxy (in this case, Ukraine) would have to take actions that provoke Russia into an explosive outburst. Russia would have to utilize tactics or weaponry that puts a vast number of civilians at risk, requiring greater NATO involvement and perhaps even UN intervention…”
I noted that the greenlight for use of long range missile systems provided by the US and Europe could be the trigger the globalists were looking for:
“Long range strikes into Russia, I believe, will set in motion more Russian strikes on major cities in the west of Ukraine where the majority of the population lives. These areas have gone largely untouched during the duration of the war. Putin, despite what the media claims, has been careful to limit the targeting of larger civilian centers. That will end if NATO missiles hit Russian cities…”
“The idea that ballistic volleys into Russia using NATO supplied missiles won’t result in Putin using MOABs or nukes is truly insane. Keep in mind, long range strikes into Russia will do nothing to change the conditions on the ground in the Donbas…”
I outlined why this strategy was beneficial for globalist think tanks in light of an impending Trump presidency.
“Donald Trump is looking increasingly likely to be the winner of the presidential race. I have long held that the globalists will wrap up an economic collapse or a world war and throw it in Trump’s lap. They already tried to do the same thing with the covid pandemic and the inflationary crisis.
“The timing of the Kursk offensive and the call for missile strikes on Russia is not a coincidence. Trump claims that his intention is to end the Ukraine war as quickly as possible once he enters office.”
“They need to escalate the war into something bigger, something that can’t be undone. Right now, the war can be ended – All it takes is some diplomacy and forcing Ukraine to understand that they’re not going to get the Donbas or Crimea back no matter how many lives they sacrifice. But if there are massive civilian casualties on either side, the situation becomes irreversible.”
I want to point out that you don’t need a crystal ball to predict the path of this conflict; the stages and outcomes are relatively clear if you understand the hidden motivations behind the war. Most of the events I outlined in August have now happened, but only because these are the events that MUST happen in order to get to the end game of WWIII.
After Trump’s landslide election win this month the Biden Administration responded by giving the greenlight for Ukraine to use long range ATACMS deeper inside Russian territory. The decision was reportedly made to “Trump-proof” the Ukraine war and prevent a quick resolution before he entered office.
The ATACMS would do nothing to change the immediate conditions on the battlefield. ATACMS are precision guided munitions designed for surgical strikes on high value targets, they are not very useful in winning a war of attrition. The reason these weapons are so controversial is because they CANNOT be fired without help from NATO technicians and satellites. Meaning, Biden’s decision represents an open declaration of war on Russia.
In response, the Kremlin reportedly fired a nuclear capable IRBM (an RS-26 Rubezh missile) on the city of Dniprio. The weapon had multiple warheads and video evidence shows all of them apparently striking the target. Luckily, none of those warheads were carrying a nuclear payload.
The strike occurred right after Putin changed Russia’s nuclear defense policy and this appears to be a final warning. Globalist think tanks like The Atlantic Council continue to claim that Putin’s red lines are a “farce” and that he will never use nukes. I think that they know Putin is not bluffing and that they intend to poke the bear until they get a limited nuclear attack. I believe the chances are very high for at least one nuke strike within Ukraine if conditions continue to deteriorate with NATO.
Some will argue that there’s no way this will happen because Russia would be obliterated by nuclear retaliation. I suspect that in the face of a nuke strike in Ukraine, NATO will do nothing. They certainly won’t escalate to a global exchange of ICBMs.
The globalists have little to gain by incinerating decades of work building the mass surveillance systems and digital economic infrastructure they need for their “New World Order.” Ukraine just isn’t worth it. What such an incident would do, though, is open the door to wider war on multiple fronts between the east and the west.
If the war is escalated beyond the zero point before Trump gets into office, then Trump may have no other choice than to commit the US to the conflict despite vast public disapproval. It would be disastrous for his administration, disastrous for conservatives and disastrous for the western world at large. The majority of the public will NOT volunteer to fight for Ukraine and conscription would be an invitation to civil unrest.
Leftists hate Russia because the media tells them to, but they aren’t going to risk their lives for Ukraine. Conservatives definitely aren’t going to submit to a draft and most of us would rather go to war against the globalists instead.
Putin is savvy enough to wait for Trump to enter office and start negotiations, but my greatest concern is that something is about to happen which will sabotage any eventual peace plan. A long range attack by Ukraine on a major civilian center, a nuclear power plant, or the assassination of a political figure using NATO weaponry would be the only spark needed to light the powder keg. Putin will be required to show Russia is not weak and follow through on his red line threats.
There’s a good chance that we will see a mushroom cloud over Ukraine (or adjacent region) in the near future unless there is serious intervention to defuse the conflict. The next two months will be key.
President-elect Donald J. Trump is gearing up to go nuclear on the FBI and Justice Department, and who can blame him? After years of relentless targeting, capped off with a federal raid on his home in a blatant attempt to torpedo his 2024 campaign, Trump emerged victorious. Now it’s his turn to strike back.
The gloves are off, and the days of tolerating the FBI’s overreach are over. Trump reportedly plans to bypass the FBI’s compromised background checks altogether, issuing security clearances to his appointees on his own authority. This scorched-earth approach sends a clear message: the Biden DOJ’s partisan games are finished. With his team in place, Trump is ready to dismantle the Democratic Party's stronghold on the FBI, beginning the long-overdue process of restoring integrity to the nation’s top law enforcement agencies.
"Donald Trump’s transition team is planning for all political appointees to receive sweeping security clearances on the first day and only face FBI background checks after the incoming administration takes over the bureau and its own officials are installed in key positions, according to people familiar with the matter," reports The Guardian.
According to the report, this approach reflects the ongoing distrust of the FBI, which, of course, began with its handling of transition records during the Russia investigation in Trump’s first term. Trump’s team may not get classified briefings until he is sworn in on January 20, opting to unilaterally issue clearances across the administration.
Quote
The putative process for obtaining a clearance in the first Trump administration involved the White House’s personnel security office relying on an FBI background check to decide whether to grant one. The background check initially looked for untrustworthiness or red flags that could be exploited by adversaries.
If the initial checks against law enforcement databases uncovered no issues, applicants were granted an interim clearance while deeper investigations continued until it was advanced to a permanent clearance. The current Trump plan appears set to bypass that initial stage.
“The Trump-Vance transition lawyers continue to constructively engage with the Biden-Harris administration lawyers regarding all agreements contemplated by the Presidential Transition Act. We will update you once a decision is made,” Trump spokesperson Brian Hughes said in a statement.
Let's be honest here. Trump has little reason to trust the FBI and has every reason to proceed with caution. Trump was undermined from within throughout his first term, and he knows he cannot allow the same mistake to happen again. As you read this, there are probably enemies inside thinking of ways to undermine his presidency.
The story notes that during Trump's first term, "multiple advisers faced delays and hurdles in obtaining top-level clearances, including Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn, and the controversial former Trump White House national security aide Sebastian Gorka." Democrats are already accusing Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian asset, and you can bet the same shenanigans we saw last time will happen again if Trump and his team aren't proactive to stop the politicization from becoming a roadblock for him and his administration.
Like most people, I thought this was a joke at first. But now the idea is catching on, and now even the betting markets are catching on (Polymarket now has the odds at 17%). He's certainly got the money, and it would be a giant middle finger to the mainstream media.
And hey, if he gives a morning show to Joe Rogan, he can even keep the Morning Joe name!
Quote
It's not an idle question anymore.
It all began as a joke, but It now appears that Elon Musk is seriously thinking about buying MSNBC, partly to make liberal heads explode and partly for the serious reason that a cable news network more aligned with Musk's free speech and expanded Overton window has an appeal.
This idea is pure Elon Musk, mixing his quixotic sense of humor with a serious musing about something he could do to solve a problem he sees. Throw in a boatload of F-you money, and you get a pure Elon Musk idea.
One like buying Twitter...
Lots of people in Elon's circle keep bringing this idea up in a half-but-not-quite joking manner, and he may be warming to the idea. For instance, Joe Rogan has promised to take over Rachel Maddow's slot and dress like her to troll her.
The Trump transition team on Wednesday announced that he is nominating South Dakota governor Kristi Noem as the next head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In the coming weeks, we’ll hear a lot about Noem’s personal politics and origins. We’ll also hear about how the DHS is, as the AP puts it, “one of the biggest government agencies that will be integral to his vow to secure the border and carry out a massive deportation operation.”
Unfortunately, all this misses the most important point about the DHS which is that the DHS was invented in 2002 to justify more government spending, to reward political allies, and to influence local governments with federal grants.
For voters who supported Trump because they thought a Trump presidency might actually reduce government waste, they should now be asking why Trump is appointing any new DHS head at all. The only thing Trump should do with the DHS is abolish it.
For younger readers, or people with terrible memories, this might sound radical or extreme. But, I can assure you, dear reader, that the United States somehow managed to get along for more than 225 years before this department was created twenty-two years ago by Congress and the Bush Administration.
Much of what the Department does today was not new in 2002, of course. The federal government already had a border patrol, and it already collected tariffs on imports. The Coast Guard was alive and well. The Secret Service already existed, as did various agencies related to nuclear energy and the inspection of agricultural projects.
But, the DHS has always been more than just a reorganization of existing agencies. The DHS has overseen new slush funds for domestic police departments. It is the DHS that has largely facilitated the militarization of local police forces. As Wired put it in 2020, “the Homeland Security Grant Program has funneled billions of dollars to law enforcement agencies to acquire military-grade equipment.”
Nonetheless, the creation of the DHS has done nothing to make the border more secure, or to facilitate the enforcement of tariffs. The DHS has never been necessary to patrol US coastal waters. Rather, federal bureaucrats and elected officials pursued the creation of this new enormous government department for political reasons.
The DHS was created to be a cabinet-level agency, and the thing about cabinet-level status is that the move makes it easier for the bureaucrats in charge of the agencies to politically agitate for more government spending in their favor, and to push bigger government in general. It’s no coincidence that as the US government has grown ever larger and more intrusive, so has the number of cabinet-level agencies. So, now we have the EPA, the SBA, and the departments of HUD, Energy, and Education all provided with more direct access to the president and the media. Everything they do is deemed “essential.” Everything they do, we’re told, is a matter of national importance.
DHS is no different. When the 9/11 attacks occurred, they exposed the sheer incompetence, laziness, and inefficiency of government security and defense organizations. Year after year, hundreds of billions of dollars were poured into these organizations — in addition to the countless billions spent on the Pentagon. But when they were shown to be asleep at the switch, what happened? Rather than have their budgets cut, and senior officials fired in droves — as should have happened — George W. Bush and his cronies decided that what the federal government really needed was a new department into which billions more in taxpayer money could be poured.
The was politically important in the sense that making DHS a department made it easier to call for every more funding for its constituent agencies.
It has certainly worked.
Prior to the creation of the DHS, “homeland security” functions were rarely funded at levels exceeding $20 billion per year. Since 2002, though, federal spending on these functions—now consolidated into the DHS—has soared. Since 2001, the total budget for these activities has nearly tripled, rising from $28 billion in 2001 to $112 billion in 2024. (That’s in inflation-adjusted 2023 dollars.) Since the Cold War ended, by the way, spending on so-called homeland security has increased by more than six-fold.
Since 2001, has it really become almost three times more expensive—in inflation adjusted terms, mind you—to patrol the border, to collect tariffs, and to check luggage for guns at the airport? It is difficult to see how.
What we do know is that the DHS has become an important pass-through for government largesse. Some of this goes to local governments, and these dollars give the federal government more power by providing yet another carrot the feds can hold out to local politicians. Billions more goes into the FEMA black hole which spends prodigiously on federal agents who use DHS dollars as a means of punishing their political opponents.
While the Department was created in response to the 9/11 attacks, the Department does nothing to address anything like a 9/11-style attack. All the agencies that were supposed to provide intelligence on such attacks — the FBI for instance, which failed miserably on 9/11 — already exist in other departments and continue to enjoy huge budgets. Meanwhile, the Transportation Security Administration — an agency that has never caught a single terrorist—has managed to smuggle at least $100 million worth of cocaine.
Once upon a time, “homeland security” was supposed to be the job of the Department of Defense. but, it seems the Pentagon has been too busy in Ukraine or Iraq to trouble itself with the defense of the borders and airspace of the United States. In spite of having been freed of its responsibility for “the homeland,” however, the Pentagon’s budget just keeps getting bigger. In 2024, it was at a thirteen-year high and remains—in inflation adjusted terms—above the levels of Reagan’s Cold War spending spree. Pentagon spending is up by 57 percent, inflation-adjusted, since 2001.
There is no doubt, however, that heading the Department in Washington will be great for the career of Kristy Noem. She’ll get invited to cabinet meetings, go on national TV, and generally enjoy the pampered life of a high-ranking bureaucrat. Meanwhile, American taxpayers will pay more and more, in depreciating dollars, for yet another federal department.
It's not alarmist to say there are some bad actors out there who are, at this very moment, planning on disrupting next week's elections. The radical left would like nothing more than to prevent you from voting, and, failing that, will actually take the steps necessary to see that your vote goes up in flames.
For proof of that, we need not look any further than the exploding drop-off ballot boxes in Oregon and Washington. RedState reported this past Monday that three ballot boxes, and the votes held within them, had been deliberately set afire within the past few weeks. There were some early clues as to what might be behind the incidents:
Quote
On Monday morning, a drop-off ballot box located in Vancouver, Washington, home to the state's 3rd Congressional District, went up in flames after an incendiary device attached to it exploded, destroying an unknown number of ballots. This is an important district for Democrats in their quest to retake control of the House of Representatives; incumbent Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez is once again facing Republican Joe Kent, whom she beat two years ago by a narrow margin. The Cook Political Report has classified the race as a toss-up.
Being that it's the Pacific Northwest (PNW) we're talking about here, it was likely that it was an unhinged leftist (or leftists) responsible for the arsons. Law enforcement officials almost immediately connected the three incidences – one in Portland, Oregon, and two in Vancouver, Washington – and had some information on the suspect:
Quote
Police said Monday that a “suspect vehicle” has been identified in connection with incendiary devices that set fires to ballot drop boxes in Oregon and Washington state.
Surveillance images captured a Volvo stopping at a drop box in Portland, Oregon, just before security personnel nearby discovered a fire inside the box on Monday, Portland Police Bureau spokesman Mike Benner told a news conference.
Well, some additional information has been released by local officials that sheds further light on who's responsible and what axe they are feloniously grinding:
Quote
Investigators found incendiary devices adorned with the message, “Free Gaza,” at the sites of two ballot boxes that were set on fire in Oregon and Washington on Monday, suggesting the arsons may have been committed by an anti-Israel protester.
Not surprising in the least. While a suspect hasn't been named or apprehended, his or her intention is quite clear: to cause as much chaos around the election as possible. All of this was anticipated by the Department of Homeland Security, who back in July "warned Americans about “incendiary and explosive materials” being dropped into ballot boxes leading up to the November election. The intelligence report said an unidentified informant received multiple messages online about how to attack ballot boxes. Cherry bombs, lighting gel, gasoline, and other tools were suggested as possible incendiaries.
Ah, yes, the toolkit of the radical American left.
The mistake we must not make here is thinking that these are just some isolated incidences perpetrated by some leftist wackadoodle, or that the chaos will only be seen at drop-off ballot boxes in the PNW. We have more than a full year's worth of proof that the pro-Hamas crowd is rage-filled, violent and intent on silencing and punishing those they see as their enemies.
And there some is pretty solid evidence that they count Kamala Harris as one of their own. Although she pays lip service to Israel and Jewish Americans, her supporters apparently didn't get the memo.
If they're behaving this way after a so-called "unifying" speech, imagine what they'll do if Kamala Harris doesn't win. For that matter, imagine what they'll do if she does win. Let's face it, we have to be prepared for violence or chaos no matter who wins the election.
This crowd, and the paid agitators within, will use any reason to set American cities alight, and it would be dangerously misguided of us to believe otherwise. They've shown us many times who they are, so let's believe them.
Chaos is brewing, friends, so be sure you're prepared for any and all eventualities.
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/H3mjUYS.png)