Trump says the military knows where the drones are coming from! (My predictions: Trump, loose nukes so nuclear 9/11, or a financial hack so cyber pandemic. Cowboys/Neocons or Yankees/Globalists.)

First, I want to mention that I am writing this as a prediction. This is an outlandish theory, but in my opinion, it’s possible. If it does happen, I want to have proof that I suspected it. For anyone thinking this is crazy, we need to remember that the CIA was behind 9/11. First, I want to point to something from the Aaron Good video I posted earlier:

34:05

“Brzezinski warned in 2007 in front of the Senate that there was going to be a terror attack, and it would be blamed on Iran. During that time period, they were really worried. I think Cheney and others were actually considering attacking Iran while they had the chance. There was some pushback in that area, but at this point, I don’t see how they could stage an attack that would be useful or plausible. Who would you blame? Would anyone believe that Iran would strike inside the U.S. in a spectacular way?”

Now, connect what Aaron just said to a fragment from the main video:

28:49

“so Shellenberger says there is zero evidence of loose nukes the behavior of the government is not what it would be if there were and what they’re searching for them in military bases the theory not only lacks evidence all the evidence is against it that’s according to Shellenberger he’s saying so this guy said that he he’s on the know he’s on the inside he’s the CEO of a drone Manufacturing Company he has government contracts and his and and he thought is that the drones are looking for loose nukes but Shellenberger points out you’d be looking for loose nukes over military bases that doesn’t make any sense”

This doesn’t make sense, that’s true. However, the fact that they say things like that and allow it to spread is suspicious. Of course, they’re not looking for a lost nuke, because if there is a nuke, it’s not lost—it’s in the hands of the CIA or organized crime, which essentially consists of CIA operatives.

Anyway, people are now talking about Ukrainian nukes in the U.S.

First, to understand the situation, we need to understand Trump. For those who haven’t read my previous posts, here is a great explanation of Trump:

THIS Is Why The Deep State Turned Against Trump (akin to a toddler with a hammer going through the living room hitting stuff.-Christian Parenti best analysis of Trump+my views)

Trump is like a “toddler with a hammer going through the living room, hitting stuff,” and I agree with this. He doesn’t understand the world.

I wrote earlier that I suspected COVID was a response to what Trump was doing. I believed Trump didn’t understand the world and thought the global war on terrorism was real—that we were genuinely fighting terrorism. In reality, we were behind terrorism.

Trump didn’t understand that we created groups like ISIS and used them. Instead, he believed the narrative fed to the general public. This was basically confirmed by Trump during his Joe Rogan interview:

1:31:22

“I defeated ISIS with the greatest generals. I had a guy who was so great that I flew to Iraq and met the real generals, not the idiots we usually deal with. We knocked out 100% of the ISIS caliphate. They said it would take five years; I did it in literally a few weeks.”

The Pentagon told Trump that defeating ISIS would take about five years. In response, he took Air Force One to Iraq without informing anyone and spoke directly with the generals on the ground. These generals had been forbidden from fighting ISIS because we had created ISIS to steal oil from Iraq by trading our soldiers’ lives in an imaginary fight against terrorism. This arrangement allowed us to later purchase cheaper oil from those terrorists, which was the ultimate goal.

However, if you think the generals on the ground wanted to trade their soldiers’ lives for cheaper oil, you’re mistaken. So, when Trump ordered them to start fighting the ISIS terrorists—who were, in reality, CIA tools—they followed through and quickly destroyed ISIS.

Even people who support Trump now agree with me on this. I saw it discussed in a debate between Max Blumenthal and a Trump supporter:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

1:13:43

“Incidentally, does anyone wonder why it was only when Trump became president that we seemingly quickly, easily, and decisively destroyed ISIS? Does anyone wonder why that was? Maybe it was because, before that, we were actually supporting ISIS—if not directly, then certainly indirectly.”

The war on terror was created to establish an enemy image after the end of the Cold War. The oligarchs wanted to create this image to maintain societal cohesion.

"The entire U.S. ruling class, ruling elite, comes to see terrorism as the preferred means, indeed the only means, to provide social cohesion, to provide an enemy image for the society, to keep it together. According to neocon theory from Carl Schmitt, you have to have an enemy image in order to have a society… This is a very dangerous thing because now it means that the entire social order—political parties, intellectual life, politics in general—are all based on a monstrous myth."

—Webster Tarpley (Historian), Zeitgeist movie

Chomsky explains it well in one of the videos I posted:

Noam Chomsky – Why They Hate the West (Old Chomsky and why do I admire him and people like Snowden, Assange and Huxley)

Noam Chomsky - Clash of Civilizations:

“Now, to get back to this Clash of Civilizations thing. Huntington's idea was that everyone is flailing around for some paradigm, some big concept you can use to control people. Huntington's idea was the Clash of Civilizations—there's Islam, "us," and all these other groups. The idea is that the reason why the world is so disorderly is because, with the Cold War gone, you've got all these ethnic groups killing each other and so on.

As usual, it's always a good idea to start by asking about the facts. Whenever you hear something said very confidently, the first thing that should come to mind is: "Wait a minute, is that true?... Now, what about the principle of the Clash of Civilizations, like the idea that the big bad guy is Islam? Well, there are a few problems with that. The most fundamentalist Islamic state in the world is our big ally, Saudi Arabia. How does that fit? Saudi Arabia is a real fundamentalist state—not fundamentalist enough for some of the people in it, but it's pretty extreme. Are we trying to undermine Saudi Arabia? Of course not. They're sitting on the oil. In fact, they are our clients—a family dictatorship that we keep in power because they make sure the money from oil doesn't go to the people of the region but instead to London and New York. So, there's no Clash of Civilizations there.

What about individual, non-state actors? By far, the worst ones are the groups tearing Afghanistan to pieces. Can you find more extreme Islamic fundamentalists than them? I don't know about that. Where do they get their power from? Well, your pocket. They reportedly got about $6 billion from the United States and Saudi Arabia throughout the 1980s. Now they're tearing Afghanistan apart, but that's not "our" doing—we're only wonderful people, right?

So, where is this Clash of Civilizations between Islam and the West? I don’t see it. Indonesia is an Islamic state. Do you see us trying to undermine Indonesia? There are a lot of rotten things happening in Indonesia—for example, wages are about half the level of China, which isn’t exactly generous. Do you see us doing anything about that?

I think this is all a farce. I don't mean to say it's a total farce, but there must be a new paradigm—something people can build their careers on, write books about, and so forth, which can then be turned into a device for controlling people. That part is true. Maybe this will work, or if it doesn’t, they’ll just try something else.”

I explained earlier how Western soldiers were ordered to terrorize the population in Iraq to foster terrorism. This allowed us to steal oil by purchasing it illegally from terrorists at a fraction of the price, effectively enabling theft.

Trump didn’t understand this and began fighting ISIS for real, effectively stopping it. Without ISIS, the global war on terrorism narrative lost its power. Trump dismantled the enemy image they had created to control the population. COVID became an attempt to replace the war on terrorism narrative, creating a new enemy image for society.

This is crucial: they couldn’t control Trump. He disrupted their enemy image and their plot because he didn’t understand it. So, they created COVID to manipulate him into doing what they wanted. This is alarming. People forget that COVID started during Trump’s presidency, and he went along with it. He’s naive enough to believe any narrative presented to him and it can justify the actions they want him to take. This is exactly what they did during COVID.

For example, Trump claimed Iran was behind attempts on his life because someone told him so. This shows he doesn’t grasp global realities. Iran wouldn’t want Trump dead; he was the best thing that could have happened to them, given his reluctance to start wars. The deep state tried to convince Trump that Iran was behind these attempts, despite this being implausible. Anyone who understands geopolitics knows Iran had no incentive to target Trump, as he posed the lowest risk of initiating conflict with them.

Now, there are rumors about a loose nuke being spread. Perhaps they are trying to revive an idea warned about by Brzezinski in 2007. They can’t directly control Trump, so they need a narrative to steer him into doing their bidding. A nuke, dirty bomb, or similar event blamed on Russia or Iran could compel Trump to act in their interest. This would also serve to resurrect the global war on terrorism by creating a new enemy image. A major event like this could terrify society into compliance, much like after 9/11.

Previously, I wrote about Cowboys and Yankees, or today’s Neocons and Globalists. Neocons were behind 9/11 and may now aim to orchestrate another similar event. Meanwhile, Globalists, who were behind COVID, likely have a new plan. Neocons prefer wars on terrorism or against specific nations, while Globalists, responsible for COVID, are reportedly planning a global financial hack. Those familiar with COVID may also know about Event 201:

Event 201 | Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY.

This is what Whitney Webb is talking about:

“STAY ALERT: They Are Planning Complete FINANCIAL LOCKDOWN” – Whitney Webb FINAL 2024 Prediction (re-upload and update)

10:31

“During the COVID crisis, there was noticeable overlap between the World Economic Forum (WEF) and events like Event 201. People paid significant attention when the WEF launched its Cyber Polygon simulations, which were focused on cyberattacks. At the same time, Klaus Schwab, the well-known face of the WEF, predicted a “cyber pandemic” that he said would have consequences far more significant than COVID’s impact on society.

The idea of a cyberattack seems contradictory, considering that during the COVID era, society was pushed increasingly from the physical world into the digital world. Now, the digital world is under threat from these cyberattacks. The ultimate goal may be to use cyberattacks as a means of centralizing control over the digital world.

With these simulations, one might wonder: will this come in the form of a false flag hacker attack? Who will be the villain in this scenario? A key aspect often overlooked with Cyber Polygon and similar simulations is the involvement of big banks, and in some cases, even central banks. There’s a major banking theme here, suggesting that the ‘cyber pandemic’ could potentially target the financial system to a significant degree.”

Today, the Cowboys—our Neocons—want another 9/11-style event to restart the war on terrorism or to initiate a war against someone. Meanwhile, the Yankees—our Globalists—are pushing for another global event like COVID, but this time they’re planning a cyber epidemic, a global hack.

Knowing this, I’m just watching and waiting to see who will get their way: the Neocons or the Globalists. When I hear talk of a loose nuke, I suspect the Neocons. For now, we can only wait and see whether we first experience a global hack on the financial system or a terrorist attack designed to rekindle the war on terrorism or start a new war.

The worst part is that I think they both need such an event, especially with Trump. Because he doesn’t understand global dynamics, the only way to control him is through narratives. Normally, they orchestrate such events to control the population, but with Trump, they also need these events to control him. Don’t forget, COVID started during Trump’s presidency, and he went along with that narrative. I fear that if the Neocons or Globalists create a compelling enough story, Trump will follow it.

Now, I’m sitting here, waiting to see which scenario unfolds first. I’m writing this post partly to have proof that I suspected it if a nuke or dirty bomb goes off.

What’s your bet? Do you think the Neocons will prevail, with terrorism like a nuke, dirty bomb, or another attack to restart the global war on terrorism or launch a war against someone? Or do you think the Globalists will succeed, with a financial crisis masked as a cyber hack leading to a “cyber pandemic”?

No matter which scenario plays out, both serve the same ultimate goal: digital ID and digital money. Digital money and digital IDs can be justified as protections against hacking or terrorism. Whether it’s about stopping financial hacks or preventing the organization of terrorists, it doesn’t matter to them as long as they achieve their goal.

The same goes for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs)—trackable, programmable money. They can frame it as necessary to prevent financial hacks or to stop the financing of terrorism. Either way, their endgame remains the same.

I don’t know which event will happen first, but I know what it will serve: eliminating physical cash and freedom of the internet and anonymous internet access, the last things they can’t fully control about us. The internet allows us to access information and organize freely, which they want to suppress. Cash enables anonymous transactions, which they also want to eliminate.

Once they achieve their goals—digital ID and CBDCs—we are essentially doomed. How can anyone organize or resist when they control what we see and do online and restrict how we use our money?

So, who are you betting on: the Cowboys (Neocons) or the Yankees (Globalists)?

Mr. Robot:

Elliot Alderson : [voiceover]  It's one thing to question your mind. It's another to question your eyes and ears. But then again: Isn't it all the same, our senses just mediocre inputs for our brain? Sure, we rely on them, trust they accurately portray the real world around us, but what if the haunting truth is, they can't? That what we perceive isn't the real world at all but just our mind's best guess?

What’s your mind’s best guess?