Nordstream Sabotage – Deeper Dive

Kit Knightly

In the most recent edition of New World Next Week, James Corbett cites my recent article on the Nordstream sabotage, but politely disagrees about the irrelevance of attribution.

He argues that this kind of event will have definite geopolitical ramifications, and as such the identity of the culprit becomes important information. (I will embed the full video, below as the two Jameses are always worth watching.)

I respect James’ work immensely and in the alternate media world there’s probably no one I am more likely to agree with as a general rule, but here I must return that polite disagreement in kind.

Now, I do not doubt there will be “geopolitical ramifications”, but in a post-Covid world we need to ask what that means in real terms.

Yes, this will likely mean “tougher sanctions”, or Russia being declared a “terrorist state”. Maybe the war will “intensify”. Maybe Russia’s allies in China or India or Iran will face sanctions too.

But have we not already established that the sanctions are not really designed to hurt Russia, but the West’s own economies?

That the war is being used to excuse and exacerbate the economic downturn already deliberately created by the “pandemic”?

And does that not, in turn, mean that any geopolitical ramifications will be translated ultimately into further excuses to wear down the economic foundations of our society?

I would argue any such reaction could be more accurately described as a shadowplay of conflict, a puppet show for our consumption.

This is not a nihilistic or sweeping dismissal, borne of childish contrarianism.

I’m not saying “both sides of the conflict are the same so what does it matter who wins or which crimes are committed by which side”.

I’m saying, aside from whatever personal or petty gripes, ambitions, power plays may run through the hierarchy, and no matter how much blood is spilled, ultimately there is no conflict between them, and through cooperative complicity, both “sides” are equally responsible for every act within the Great Reset narrative.

To paraphrase Iain Davis in a recent comment, global governance has a management structure akin to any major corporation, and though individual managers or vice-presidents may seek personal advancement or pursue private rivalries, they are all ultimately answerable to the owner of the company, and all working toward the same overarching goal.

We can debate about the extent or complexity of the rivalries but we can’t afford to lose sight of the fact they only go so far, and beyond that point there is unity of purpose. They tell the same lies, they promote the same covert tyrannies. None of them are our friends.

Elsewhere, there have been a lot of comments comparing my sentiments to Noam Chomsky claiming the assassination of JFK or 9/11 truth movements don’t matter, but I suggest that’s a false comparison.

Chomsky was pretending it didn’t matter in order to avoid taking a position, and in his calculated passivity he was de facto supporting the official narrative.

I’m not taking a position supporting the mainstream, or endorsing any official narrative. As it happens, in this case, there are two official narratives, and I’m simply challenging them both.

Chomsky was avoiding looking deeper. I’m saying we need to look deeper, and not get distracted by surface-level questions that ultimately have unknowable answers.

We know the CIA had JFK killed, the evidence is clear. The fact we’ll never know exactly who pulled the trigger does not change that.

We know that 9/11 was an inside job, any other explanation is a physical impossibility. That we’ll likely never know exactly who planted what explosives where does not signify.

In both cases those questions are not only impossible to answer, but actually draw focus away from the important points: The identity of those ultimately responsible, and the political agenda the events served.

In both cases, we already have the most important information, and I suggest we already have the most important information on the Nordstream sabotage, too:

• We know that the global elite is committed to breaking and remaking the world.
• We know that almost every global government is cooperating with that plan.
• We know that they have been working together all across the globe, for at least the last two years, to sabotage the economy and in particular the cost of energy.
• And we know that (allegedly) blowing up Nordstream plays right into that agenda.

Would knowing the specific names and nationalities of the people directly responsible for the sabotage change any of that?

If a Russian planted the bomb, does that mean NATO are the good guys? If an American did it, are the Russians heroes again?

Sure they will promote various versions and use them to hook us into various fear or loathing scenarios – in hopes of distracting us from the real question –

The how and the who is just scenery for the public. Oswald, Ruby, Cuba, The Mafia, keeps ’em guessing like some kind of parlor game, prevents ’em from asking the most important question: why?
JFK (1991)

It all comes back to the fake binary, the illusion of difference and delusion of choice.

The “official story” will never prove who bombed the pipeline one way or the other and is not intended to. Resolution is not desired. Instead, Team A will encourage us to blame Team B, and vice versa. The MSM will report evidence implicating Russia, while other evidence suggesting NATO were responsible will be “leaked”. Both narratives will be fed just enough to keep the argument going for as long as required and in any direction chosen.

That’s the nature of the false binary, its very purpose, to divide and distract and create controlled dissent alongside managed controversy.

Maybe Russia “did it”, maybe the US “did it”, but since it can be reasoned that they’re working together towards the same ends I say again, what difference does that ultimately  make?

Arguing about it could easily become the equivalent of debating whether OJ Simpson (allegedly) stabbed his wife with his left hand or his right.

In my view. we have to look at the war in Ukraine in this context – not simply as a real war on its own terms, but as a new front in the wider war against all of us that started with Covid.

In that context Ukraine becomes another horrible, callous piece of theatre. A cynical sacrifice that creates and then “justifies” – as Covid “justified” – shortages and price gouges and, let’s be honest, anything else in their anti-human agenda.

As the months go by the distraction will spike up talking points, they will progressively up the ante to trick people into remaining engaged.

They may even play the World War III card, scaring people with the shadow of a mushroom cloud, so that months down the line when we’re still here, people will be relieved to have survived the scare intact.

They’ll be poor and cold and hungry, but so happy to be alive they won’t even notice.