THE CASSANDRA HYPOTHESIS EXPANDED (PART I)

This series of blog posts is a response to Christian Köhlert's Cassandra Hypothesis. If you aren't already familiar with that, I'd recommend reading it first.

In the original paper, the author presents a fairly detailed hypothesis regarding the ongoing global transformation in the context of an upcoming pole shift. They assert that their interpretation of current events transcends popular suspicions surrounding the so-called ‘Great Reset’ and ‘Q’ narratives - both of which the author suggests are “limited hangouts or psyops to lead people off the tracks.” Indeed, Köhlert puts the Cassandra Hypothesis forward for the attention of  “individuals who understand that something more profound is happening behind the curtain of reality, but can’t quite put their finger on it.”

Köhlert explains that he wrote the Cassandra Hypothesis after years of “strolling through the deeper tunnels - the conceptual constructs which you can’t ignore once you leave the artificial surface of the mainstream fairy tale and go down into the rabbit hole of alternative media.” I absolutely relate to this - I have been interested in science, space, and history since I was a young child. I have read countless books and papers and watched hundreds of documentaries and videos. Like Köhlert, over the years, I began to see recurring patterns and realize that many seemingly unrelated strands were actually leading to the same incredible, and very unsettling, conclusion.

On the fundamentals, over two decades of in-depth research have led me to absolutely agree with Köhlert. However, I feel that he missed several important points and the argument needs a more thorough explanation and more supporting evidence. In this series of posts, I will attempt to address these shortcomings.

So, before you read on, I would urge you to keep an open mind and not let fear or normalcy bias cloud your judgment and reasoning.

Cataclysmic cycles

In the Cassandra Hypothesis, Köhlert asserts that the System (aka the Powers that Be) is aware that the Earth goes through cataclysmic cycles on a regular, clockwork-like, basis. He suggests that “most analysts” familiar with these cycles believe the cataclysm to be a recurring pole shift, and that the System discovered conclusive evidence of this and the fact we are due for another imminently, sometime in the 1980's.

However, although I strongly believe there is a recurring global catastrophe, and a pole shift is a part of that - it is just a component of a much bigger disaster. I also have reason to believe that the System discovered conclusive evidence of this earlier than the 1980s. Indeed, I believe the United States government, and possibly those of the other Five Eyes countries (United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), and maybe the Soviet Union strongly suspected an approaching cataclysm as early as the 1950s - and that by the 1970s, the System knew the general score.

In the Cassandra Hypothesis, the author suggests that conclusive evidence for the cyclical pole shift came from ice cores, records from ancient civilizations, and data from IRAS (Infrared Astronomical Satellite - the first space telescope to perform a survey of the entire night sky at infrared wavelengths, launched in 1983). I absolutely concur that these did indeed provide evidence of the cyclical catastrophe, but I believe that the United States military had already collected strong evidence of a cyclical pole shift by the early 1950s, thanks to Project Nanook.

Project Nanook

Project Nanook was the first operational mission assigned to the newly formed Strategic Air Command (created on March 21, 1946). It employed RB-29 long-range reconnaissance aircraft (converted B-29 bombers) of the 46th/72nd Reconnaissance Squadron to map the Arctic - something necessary to enable SAC bombers to safely operate in those remote skies. However, the mission also found three magnetic north poles and made discoveries that led Pentagon scientists to predict a global cataclysm.

The detailed history of the 46th/72nd Reconnaissance Squadron’s participation in Project Nanook, and the unsettling discoveries made regarding the Earth’s history and future, are detailed in World in Peril; The Story Behind the Discovery of Imminent Global Change, by Ken White. The book was written based on first-hand accounts and documents left by the author’s father, Major Maynard E. White - the unit commander of the operation.

Charles Hapgood

Another indication that the US government knew about the upcoming pole shift as early as the 1950s lies in the work of Charles Hutchins Hapgood - best known as the author of The Earth’s Shifting Crust (1958), which contained a foreword penned by Albert Einstein. In this book, Hapgood introduced the idea of Earth crust displacement - positing that the planet’s axis had dramatically shifted numerous times. Unsurprisingly, the ideas in the book were shunned by most mainstream scientists at the time, and are still dismissed by many to this day. The same applies to theories put forth in Hapgood’s subsequent books including Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings (1966) and The Path of the Pole (1970). Indeed, many of Hapgood’s detractors labeled his work ‘pseudoarchaeology’ (Wikipedia still does).

However, there is a growing consensus among researchers, that Hapgood’s work was a deliberate attempt to discredit the entire pole shift idea. This emanates from the fact that many of his assertions are seemingly physically impossible, or at least not backed by hard evidence. This, coupled with the possibility that he was either directly or indirectly on the payroll of the CIA, suggests his books were indeed a deliberate attempt to discredit the entire field.

This makes sense when you consider that, until the very early 20th century, Catastrophism - i.e., the belief that although slow forces, like erosion, do fine-tune the Earth’s surface, many of the major features we see, like mountain ranges and canyons, were actually formed much more rapidly during periods of intense cataclysmic changes - was mainstream. Well-known proponents of this idea were Georges Cuvier, Abraham Werner, and the British catastrophists. Needless to say, this line of thinking, though supported by much physical evidence, was far too close to Biblical and other religious lore than scientists of the day found comfortable. Hence, by World War 1 catastrophism had largely been supplanted in the educational institutions of the west by a complete focus on uniformitarianism. This fully embraced the slow, gradual crawl of anything and everything in nature, from Darwinian evolution to the infinitely slow sculpting of landscapes by eons of water and wind erosion. To question any of it became akin to heresy.

So, considering that, in the 1950s, catastrophism had only relatively recently been suppressed, it is logical that the System would fear its revival - something that would risk the great secret being blown wide open. But, even if Hapgood’s deliberately disprovable assertions caused most of the serious scientific community to shun the subject of pole shift for a few decades, it did at least plant the seed of the idea into the minds of many who would later take a more in-depth and rational look. Indeed, over the last decade or so, scientists around the world have been taking a fresh look at catastrophism and starting to integrate elements of it back into the big picture. However, as I will explain, I suspect the subterfuge worked for long enough.

The Apollo missions, glass beads & JFK

Have you ever wondered why the United States was willing to expend such resources on getting to the Moon in the 1960s but hasn’t sent a manned mission back there since 1972? Have you ever considered why the Apollo missions, which were to the Moon, were named after an ancient Greek and Roman god of the Sun? Also consider it was President John F. Kennedy who, on 25 May, 1961, announced the goal of sending US astronauts to the Moon before the end of the 1960s - the same president who was assassinated on 22 November 1963, in what has become one of the most controversial deaths ever.

Could it be that the Apollo project was launched, as a matter of extreme urgency, to find conclusive confirmation of a cyclical cataclysm linked to the Sun? There is compelling evidence that the primary mission of the Apollo landings was to collect tiny glass spheres (microspherules) from the surface of the Moon and bring them back to Earth for study - something that would have been impossible with robotic technology at the time.

Why tiny glass spheres you ask? Because, around 12,000 years ago, the Sun blasted both the Earth and the Moon, leaving behind a layer of microspherules - remains of a dust shell that had coalesced around the fiery orb, turning it into something akin to a pressure cooker, before it went micronova (more on that later). Of course, these tiny glass beads also cover the Earth itself, on one side at least, but the forces of wind, rain and life have washed them away, buried them, and mixed them, so they are hard to find. They can also be confused with similar spheres made by other natural forces. However, on the lifeless, still, surface of the Moon, the glass beads from the Sun’s last micronova are still there, on the surface, in vast quantities. This is what the astronauts were scooping up and bringing home. In fact, there are even recordings of NASA astronauts talking about the glass beads as they collected them.

Although, as we’ve already seen, the System probably had a fair idea about the rough nature of the cyclical disaster in the early 1950s, there would, of course, have been an urgent requirement to gather conclusive proof. Because, as we’ll see later, the machine that swung into action upon confirmation of the cyclical cataclysm was vast, and would override every other consideration for the remainder of the age.

So, now we know why the Apollo missions were so-named, what they were for, and why there was such urgency. It’s also fairly easy to deduce why the interest in going back to the Moon disappeared. Because, despite the vast mineral deposits on Earth’s satellite, and despite the potential of Moon bases serving as more efficient launchpads for deeper space missions, there was simply no point. The System realized that any facility built on the Moon would be even more vulnerable to the solar and cosmic elements of the upcoming cataclysm, and even if such facilities could survive the immediate disaster, they would end up cut off from Earth, and thus unsustainable. I believe they also reasoned that it was better to direct money and resources to other preparations.

And, as for President Kennedy, he knew too much. His secret relationship with Marilyn Monroe, and the Hollywood circles that entailed him mixing in, meant he was too much of a liability. The dangers were severalfold. First, he might have confided in her, second, he made himself vulnerable to blackmail, and third, his illicit love life was, quite naturally, like a magnet for journalists and sleuths. There was every chance that JFK’s personal life would have led to the compromising of the big secret. So, he had to go.

The Adam & Eve Story

In 1965, a mysterious author by the name of Chan Thomas published a book entitled The Adam and Eve Story: The History of Cataclysms. It tells the dramatic story of a global catastrophe that erases our civilization from the face of the Earth, leaving just a handful of survivors. While the book was largely forgotten for decades, it has recently been the source of much discussion after being found in the CIA’s online reference library. While the style of the book is much more dramatic than Hapgood’s The Earth’s Shifting Crust, it most definitely includes a major crust and pole shift as significant components.

Interestingly, in a later edition of the book, Thomas details a precise mechanism that could ‘unlock’ the Earth’s crust at the low-velocity zone, allowing for a rapid and substantial slippage of the entire crust. This possibly solves the problem that both Hapgood and Einstein had been battling with - that there wasn’t normally enough of an imbalance, in terms of mass, to drive a major global slippage. More importantly, the mechanism proposed by Thomas ties in perfectly to another aspect of the cyclical cataclysm - something we will explain later.

Preparations

So, again, I posit that the Powers that Be (TPTB) attained confirmation that Earth suffered cyclical cataclysms as early as 1969 when the first Apollo lander mission brought back glass beads from the Moon. From that point on, a vast effort to prepare for the coming disaster was initiated. And, I absolutely agree with the Cassandra Hypothesis, in that the System decided to keep it all secret because of the implications if the public found out.

For more than five decades now, vast resources have been channeled into building DUMBs (Deep Underground Military Bunkers), researching and developing new technologies, planning various smokescreens and false narratives, and finally, stockpiling equipment and supplies.

I agree with the assertion in the Cassandra Hypothesis that the “System’s pragmatic procedure does not care for individual suffering when humanity as a whole is at risk,” and that it “focuses on the ‘best’ outcome to secure the advancements of modern society and the survival of the human species in general.”

It is extremely important to realize that, as pointed out in the Cassandra Hypothesis, only a tiny cadre of an elite caste have ever been aware of the big picture and overall plans - and that “most individuals and groups involved in the grand design had other motivations” - primarily wealth and power.

Going underground

I suggest listening to The Jam - Going Underground while you read the following.

As the System engaged in the Cold War nuclear arms race, vast sums were poured into the construction of increasingly labyrinthine underground shelters. While some of these, like NORAD’s Cheyenne Mountain Complex in Colorado, or the vast bunker underneath The Greenbrier resort in West Virginia have become part of popular culture, the majority of such facilities undoubtedly remain top secret. Indeed, over the past twenty years or so, many maps have appeared on the internet showing suspected locations of dozens of underground cities, and even a transcontinental underground high-speed railway connecting them, dotting the United States.

Of course, considering the top-secret nature of any such projects, there’s no way of verifying such maps. But, it is interesting to note that, along with maps and rumors, there have also been thousands of reports of strange rumbles and shaking from across the US and other countries over recent years - cases where both natural seismic activity and conventional military activity have been ruled out. Could these be down to large-scale blasting at underground construction sites? I suspect that some reports can indeed be attributed to subterranean construction (although some of the reports are more likely due to the behavior of our magnetosphere - more on that later).

Supporting the idea that the System is heavily engaged in underground goings on, was DARPA’s Subterranean Challenge.  Yep, between September 2018 and September 2021, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency - a research agency of the United States Department of Defense, based in Arlington County, Virginia - ran a very interesting competition. The stated goal was to seek “novel approaches to rapidly map, navigate, and search underground environments during time-sensitive combat operations or disaster response scenarios.” Specifically, the challenge covered tunnel systems, urban underground, and cave networks. It was open to teams from around the world and offered millions of dollars in prize money.

War as a smokescreen

As previously mentioned, the public rationale for spending incredible amounts of public money on DUMBs was the Cold War nuclear threat. And, to most people at the time, this seemed perfectly plausible. However, the construction didn’t end with the thawing of the Cold War in 1991. In fact, despite many countries massively slashing defense spending - at least on the surface - construction of underground facilities continued. Illustrating this, around 2010, reports started surfacing of the Russians building hundreds of new nuclear bunkers in Moscow and other cities. At the same time, the bunker-obsessed Swiss were also continuing to invest in deep underground shelters. No doubt, the same was going on in other developed countries too

Saddam - a bogeyman on a retainer

But, as usual, the biggest red flags come from the United States and the United Kingdom. Yes, the Cold War officially ended in 1991, but the trans-Atlantic duo had already assured continuity of war. Does anyone remember the 1991 Gulf War? Yep, in an altogether odd turn of events, the US and the UK headed a military coalition of 39 countries (though the vast majority of forces were American, British, French, and Saudi - the rest were merely token) to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein’s occupation.

I say odd not because I’m a fan of Saddam, who was undoubtedly a brutal dictator, but because just a few years previously, Iraq had been a friend of the west. Furthermore, when it comes to brutality and human rights, the Kuwaiti regime was as bad, if not worse, than the Iraqi. And, let’s not forget, Saudi Arabia, a key member of the coalition and jumping-off point for Operation Desert Storm, was undoubtedly worse than both (and still is).

Of course, at the time, the popular western assumption was that the war against Iraq was about oil. But, that argument really doesn’t add up. The reason Iraq invaded Kuwait was likely about the Iraqis not paying debts they owed to the Kuwaitis, and the Kuwaitis themselves drilling diagonally under the border into Iraqi oil fields. But, there was no reason for the Iraqi takeover of Kuwait to significantly affect the global oil markets or supply. Kuwait simply wasn’t a big enough player, and keeping friendly with Iraq would have made far more sense, in the big picture, for the west - if the war was really about oil that is.

I suspect that the sudden hostility towards Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was a component of a deliberate plan to ensure continuous war, and hence a continued justification for vast military and intelligence spending. Although the principal clue to this is the initial timing of the sudden change in stance towards Iraq - coming just as the Cold War was ending (notably driven largely by popular European public pressure, not political initiative) - there are also other giveaways. One of these is the nature of the military campaign itself.

Operation Desert Shield, the military build-up in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf began in August 1990 and ran until January 1991. It was very impressive and made for great television. I remember being in San Diego, for Christmas 1990, and the patriotism and pride in the military were evident everywhere. On 17 January 1991, Operation Desert Storm began, and by 28 February Kuwait had been liberated. The Coalition forces absolutely massacred Iraq’s military. In all, according to Wikipedia, the Coalition lost under 300 troops to enemy action, while Iraq lost up to 50,000 killed, up to 75,000 wounded, and up to 175,000 captured. Material losses were similarly one-sided; with the Coalition losing a few dozen tanks and armored vehicles, and around 75 aircraft, but the Iraqis losing over 5,000 tanks and armored vehicles, over 2,000 artillery pieces, and around 110 aircraft destroyed - while 137 aircraft fled to arch-enemy Iran to escape destruction. The small Iraqi navy was also annihilated.

Operation Desert Storm saw Coalition forces enter and capture large swathes of Iraqi territory, but, suspiciously, after 100 hours, ground forces halted. After that, combat over Iraq itself was confined to the air. At the time, this was portrayed as a result of the Coalition’s mission goal of merely liberating Kuwait. But, considering how much the west had vilified Saddam, how ferocious the combat had already been, and how decimated Iraq’s forces were, it seems obvious Coalition forces could easily have driven straight to Baghdad and removed the regime. But, they didn’t. More accurately, the US backed down, leaving Saddam severely weakened, but in power.

Then, over the next decade, a shrinking coalition, still predominantly consisting of US and UK forces, maintained ‘no-fly’ zones over both southern and northern Iraq. Over the years, several Iraqi Air Force aircraft that strayed into these zones were shot down, while thousands of airstrikes and cruise missile attacks were conducted against military targets on the ground. Ostensibly, these were often to protect persecuted minorities like the Kurds, but, stepping back and looking at the big picture, they maintained a decade-long low-intensity war. It was as if Saddam was allowed to stay in power, just to give the US and certain allies, an excuse to keep up military spending and keep a ‘rogue nation’ on retainer.

By the turn of the century, the public in both the US and the UK was starting to get fed up with the Iraq situation. Other countries that had been contributing minor forces had all but pulled out, and it was becoming increasingly difficult to justify the spending and risk - especially since Saddam’s regime, honed by a decade of war, was getting smarter and stronger again. The System needed another war to act as a smokescreen for their vast preparations. And, right on cue, they launched it.

Cue the War on Terror

On September 11, 2001, two hijacked airliners slammed into World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 in New York City, while another hit the Pentagon in Washington DC, and a fourth crashed in rural Pennsylvania after passengers, made aware of their potential fate, fought to regain control of the plane. In all, over 3,000 innocent civilians were killed, and many more were injured and traumatized. It was undoubtedly one of the most horrific and barbaric terrorist acts in history and was made all the more gut-wrenching by the fact that it was broadcast live on television. In fact, I clearly remember watching a news broadcast live as the second airliner hit the World Trade Center. The images of people jumping and the towers collapsing will remain etched into my mind until I die.

Now, I have absolutely no doubt that airliners were hijacked by terrorists and that it was an immense tragedy. I also believe that the vast majority of politicians and those in the military who participated in subsequent events were doing so in good faith, believing that the United States had been attacked by nefarious foreign forces. But, from the day of the attacks, there were suspicions that something more nefarious was going on. In the years since the 911 attacks, there have been volumes written by researchers alleging various conspiracies - often offering very compelling evidence to back them up. But, that is a rabbit hole I’m going to avoid here for the sake of length. I’ll merely point out some overarching observations of the events.

Firstly, it was always very unlikely that individuals who had only very basic experience in flying very light aircraft could have successfully piloted large commercial jets into their targets as accurately as they did. Secondly, the fact that all four groups of hijackers managed to get through airport security undetected was ‘convenient.’ Thirdly, the fact that, on the same day as the attack, the US military was conducting exercises involving hijacked planes being crashed into buildings, thus causing understandable confusion and delays in its response, is extremely suspicious. Fourthly, the way both WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed in what has widely been described as a ‘controlled demolition’ manner, reeks of nefarious goings on. But, the biggest red flag of all is how the attacks were immediately used to justify new military campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Again, I won’t go into the details of these campaigns, as most readers will be old enough to remember them vividly. But, it is highly suspicious that, after a decade of keeping Saddam Hussein simmering on the stove, the System came up with a convenient excuse to finally finish the job, invade Iraq, and get rid of Saddam, while simultaneously opening up a new open-ended war in Afghanistan. And, let’s not forget, all of this would be against a background of media-fanned fear and paranoia, a constant erosion of fundamental civil rights - and just enough ongoing terrorist attacks to keep the public compliant.

Of course, there was a seemingly plausible reason for invading Afghanistan - to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and remove the Taliban regime that was sheltering him and his Al Qaeda terror group. But, when it comes to Iraq, things weren’t as easy to explain. So, the US and UK cooked up the whole ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ psyop. We now know that this was a fabrication and that even if Saddam had, at one point, had some chemical weapons, by 2001 they posed no significant threat. The fact is that, before the dust had even settled in New York, the US and UK had decided to invade Iraq.

Furthermore, although the Afghan campaign and occupation did seem at least conceivably justifiable to begin with, even attracting participants from countries as non-warlike as Iceland (sent special response units as part of the stabilization force), the way the country was abandoned after two decades of massive investment - with desperate civilians literally clinging to the undercarriage of departing C-17s, and troops abandoning billions of dollars worth of relatively new equipment - gave the game away.

While most observers understandably assume both Iraq, from 1991 to 2011 and Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021, were conflicts that ‘trapped’ the US and its allies in quagmires, I strongly believe they were, at the highest level, engineered to be convenient open-ended smokescreens. The fact that they were inherently messy due to the complex historical, religious, ethnic, and political factors, suited the System’s needs perfectly. They provided the chance to create any narratives desired, and their inherent complexities sowed valuable confusion - the perfect smokescreens.

Winter on Fire and War in Europe

From an American and European point-of-view, far away wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan are one thing. But, a war in Europe, is quite another. Despite Europe being the most miliarized continent on Earth since 1945, there has been no major conventional conflict on its land since the end of World War 2. Yes, there have been messy civil wars, like in Greece and later the former Yugoslavia, and even minor conflicts between countries like Greece and Turkey over Cyprus, but large-scale conventional conflict, with main battle tanks, jet fighters, artillery, and trenches, has been absent. The reason? Western Europe had been so devastated by the Second World War, and its population so traumatized, that the concept of fighting with neighbors became unthinkable. Yes, you had the ongoing Cold War, but as I’ve already hinted, that was likely deliberate theater - a vast distraction that would never have been allowed to go ‘hot.’ 

And, as the Cold War faded into memory, the Western European assumption of the impossibility of real war at home spread east, across Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Baltic states. Indeed, with the expansion of the European Union and the rise of the globalized internet age, by the early 2010s, the idea of war in Europe seemed absurd to most Europeans. Then, in November 2013, something happened in the east, just beyond the border of the EU, in Ukraine. Pro-European protests, popularly known as Euromaiden, or the Maiden Uprising, erupted in Kyiv, centered on Maiden Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in the capital, Kyiv.

After a tense few months, which saw dramatic scenes of fearless civilians battling armed riot police and internal troops in freezing conditions, the Russian-leaning government of President Viktor Yanukovych had been toppled and replaced by a pro-Western administration. It was all very inspiring, from a western perspective. Indeed, Netflix aired a very moving documentary about it, Winter on Fire. And, there is no doubt, the Ukrainian people involved showed immense courage, and were fighting for what they believed - I do not doubt this for a moment. I do, however, suspect that Ukraine was being manipulated by the System, to provide a mechanism to ratchet up the fear and smokescreen at a later date.

You see, immediately following Euromaiden, ‘unidentified’ green-clad troops with Russian accents seized Crimea - part of Ukraine. As anyone with a brain knew at the time, these forces without identifiable insignia, were regular Russian armed forces. Despite some brave acts of non-violent defiance, there was no armed resistance from Ukrainian forces at the time. This made sense since they had suffered from years of neglect and under-funding, and at the time, they didn’t expect support from the west. This Russian move was perfectly predictable given events in Kyiv - considering the vital strategic importance of the Russian naval base at Sevastopol and the Kremlin’s paranoia about Ukraine falling under western influence. Also predictable was the way it acted as a touch paper for the ensuing conflict in Donbas - the majority Russian-speaking region in Ukraine’s east.

Again, just like Iraq and Afghanistan, the complicated patchwork of political, ethnic, and religious identities in eastern Ukraine, underpinned by shockingly brutal history, ensured it was fertile ground for an ongoing, unreconcilable conflict - a conflict that could easily be kept simmering, and dialed up or down on demand by the System. Of course, this isn’t to say that those involved on the ground were in any way privy to this manipulation - in fact, quite the opposite. It is the deep-seated emotion and raw nerves involved that make it the kind of conflict so suitable to the System’s ultimate aims.

As we all know, Russian President Vladimir Putin shifted the Ukraine conflict up a gear when he launched his ‘Special Military Operation’ on 24 February 2022. Although it was sold to the Russian public as a minor policing operation that would ‘rid the Ukraine of Nazis’ and stabilize the region in a matter of days, it actually ignited the first major conventional war in Europe since 1945. The previously pacifist European countries, unsurprisingly led by the United States and the United Kingdom, rallied to the aid of Ukraine - supplying weapons, ammunition, funding, and other aid, including military intelligence, in steadily increasing quantities. This enabled the Ukrainians to foil the initial Russian attempt to capture Kyiv and force them back, until a relatively stable front formed in the east of the country. Suspiciously, the western mainstream media, unanimously came out ‘all guns blazing’ to support Ukraine and demand governments provide even more assistance.

Now, I will again stress, I am not commenting on the rights or wrongs of the war here. There is no doubt that Russia has been the aggressor, and committed abhorrent atrocities against civilians during the course of the war. There is no doubt that innocent Ukrainian civilians and soldiers alike are victims. What I am saying is that, as the author of the Cassandra Hypothesis puts it “Everything we see on the international stage concerning a geostrategic altercation is mere theatre for the masses…”

Perhaps most ominously, as always, is the timing. Why exactly did the Biden administration decide to cut and run from Afghanistan in August 2021? In the narrow sense of that campaign and US politics, it appeared to do nothing but hurt everyone involved (except the Taliban, of course). Why after so long and so much expense with the 1991 Gulf War and the subsequent decade of enforcing no-fly zones, did the US and UK decide to invade Iraq fully in 2003, creating a war that would give Vietnam a run for its money? And, why just as those operations were abandoned, was the simmering Ukraine conflict dialed up to 11?

I think there is a very logical reason for the timing of all of this. But, more on that shortly. First, let's take a look at something else that happened recently.

Part II here