Pretext is something that we routinely hunt for at Moonshine and it can be incredibly valuable if properly identified and understood. Pretext is a deliberate and often times cunning maneuver that can situate any administration – good or bad – to take action – good or bad – and then be retrospectively positioned to circle-back to it in “We told you so” fashion; especially for the “bad.”
How many times have you seen a snarky Psaki-like spokesperson or politician deliver the “We told you this was coming” line? Of course you did because you subsequently made it happen. That is the buried gold in pretext: This is what will happen; this happens; we told you this would happen; look at how smart we are.
Rinse/repeat for feeble minded Americans incapable of independent and critical thinking. Rinse/repeat to control the narrative ergo control the people. The power of pretext.
Let us not forget that as a tactic, pretext can be delivered for more than one purpose meaning it serves its original intent – to establish as the sown narrative the literal message found in the pretext, whatever that may be – but it may also and simultaneously serve another objective, like establishing a deflection point away from something to obfuscate it and make it more difficult to identify and understand.
The Flynn-Russia story and the timeline for its release is a perfect example of using a single bit of pretext to deflect away from and obfuscate something else valued as more critical and relevant. It does this while simultaneously delivering the intended sown narrative talking point.
Examining this images below, you’ll note that the Flynn story was leaked to legacy media at a very precise time as coordinated by the Obama White House and that timeline was within the rough 24-hours preceding the legally compulsory presidential transition meetings in 2017. I’ve branded it the most important timeline in contemporary U.S. history because it is and no else seems to regard it as so. They’ve entirely missed the boat here.
The Flynn-Russia leak did three things: 1) it created a cloud of controversy during the transition meetings in which Flynn was participating because Trump’s transition team was aware of the fraudulent nature and timing of the allegations later irrefutably proved to be false and fabricated, 2) it deflected away from the content of the pretext being sown and specifically that was the insertion of a viral pandemic construct into Trump’s administration by means of it being included as a transition meeting topic and 3) it laid the foundation for the sown “Russian collusion” narrative that would later be specifically leveraged to open a vector to undermine and attack Trump’s administration [akin to setting a trap.]
The Russian collusion narrative was established to drive a fraudulent Mueller probe and further the hollow call for the fraudulent impeachment 1.0 that began immediately after Trump’s 2016 victory. The fraudulent impeachment then required a shift in tactics because there was no evidence to support the Russian collusion narrative save the obviously fabricated variety.
Therefore, the fraudulent impeachment 1.0 morphed into the Ukrainian diplomatic call with President Trump, which was then eviscerated when Trump trumped them and released the call transcript.
Just like the alleged Flynn meetings were entirely normal compared against historical, conventional and accepted diplomatic standards, so was Trump’s call to Ukraine’s president. Everything they do is rooted in fraud and fraud is the Moonshine specialty.
The net effect had the outgoing Obama administration advising and properly situating the incoming Trump administration such that it would be prepared for any such “outbreak.” As it came to be, the would be “outbreak” was the very same one they researched, developed and formulated for years and then conspired with China to deliver. That’s not open for debate, either, unless someone has evidence to contradict what I’ve outlined in hundreds of sourced and cited articles, videos and graphics.
Comprehensively, it’s imperative to understand this following single data point which drives it all home for us.
Presidential transition law is rooted in Kennedy era legislation so as to facilitate an exact process ensuring a smooth and effective transition from the outgoing administration to the incoming one. In order to be positioned to specifically discuss pandemic preparedness in presidential transition meetings, then President Barack Obama had to issue executive order Public Law 114-136 to augment and change the existing transition law to specifically include pandemic preparedness, which he did on 18 Mar 16. I reviewed this extensively in Inconveniently Changing Dangerous Rules, an article latched onto and re-posted by Lin Wood and federal U.S. whistleblower Dr. Jonathan McGreevey.
In these ways, the exclusive timeline overlay work done at Moonshine provides a linear and robustly explanatory depiction of what happened and sequentially so.
With a firm understanding of pretext and how it works, we have these two additional examples that bear down with full might relative to everything else I’ve outlined: 1) in 2017 and just before Trump was set to take office, Dr. Anthony Fauci predicted publicly that a viral pandemic outbreak would plague [pun intended] Trump’s administration and 2) on October 25, 2019, some two months and two days before the 27 Dec 19 [later revised backwards to 17 Nov 19] first public report of the outbreak in China, Joe Biden announced that the U.S. was not prepared to handle a pandemic. Both instances are evidenced in the timeline extracts above.
For anyone thinking these were by accident, I have some beautiful ocean front property in Kentucky I’d like to sell them and at a bargain price, too. I’m sure we’ll have a line of mask-wearing buyers a mile long.
This is how pretext works. It’s sinister, cunning and highly effective against the feeble American mind and its half-a-second attention span.
One final point before bringing this home and it’s this. I’ve outlined and evidenced copiously that since October 2019, the U.S. has been mired in an asymmetrical, irregular and undeclared third world war as commenced with an act of war by China – the release [figuratively or literally depending on ones position respective to what Dr. David E. Martin outlined relative to U.S. patent filings] of a bio-WMD [SARS-CoV-2] against the U.S. Therein is the notion that this war stands a chance of going hot and here, Syria, the South China Sea, Taiwan and other avenues bear down.
Relative to all this are two more things to understand. One is my December 2020 article written shortly after the stolen election in which I explained how and why the U.S. would pivot back to Russia as it’s “boogeyman” de jour. In recent decades, the U.S. has deployed many boogeymen to permit its justification to go and do as illegal by international standards and in violation of countless international laws: Osama bin Laden, ISIS, Al Queda, “terrorism,” Iran, Russia, etc. You know the list.
The other thing comes from the proxy president himself, Joe Biden. We take his words against the backdrop that in all likelihood, a significant number of the attacks he references were executed by rogue elements of the CIA and simply attributed to Russia for the reasons we’re outlining here.
It’s found in a recent story featured at Zero Hedge and authored by Dave DeCamp at AntiWar.com that is worthy of reading and tucking away in your back pocket. In it, Biden said this [emphasis mine],
You know, we’ve seen how cyber threats, including ransomware attacks, increasingly are able to cause damage and disruption to the real world. I think it’s more likely we’re going to end up — well, if we end up in a war, a real shooting war with a major power, it’s going to be as a consequence of a cyber breach of great consequence.Joe Biden
Now ask yourself why it is that Biden is establishing this pretext?
Through logical deduction, we regard Biden’s statement as one issued at the behest of China and for reasons outlined in a bedrock of existing Moonshine work.
Through logical deduction, my contention is that if the war were to go hot, it would be a short and destructive one manifesting as kabuki theater or just for show. Therein, Biden would deliberately take a predetermined dive resulting in a U.S. loss and then, within the treaty process itself, a Chinese controlled UN and China herself would take the U.S. for good.
I have supported all of this with a thorough examination of Chinese doctrine including One Belt, One Road and war doctrine vis-a-vis Sun Tzu.
To put to rest any dismissive thoughts or stances attributing these notions to being less than reliable or otherwise unfounded conjecture, one should ask why it is that recently, the U.S. went out of its way to establish pretext advising that in all scenarios relative to a hot war with China over Taiwan, the U.S. loses. In every single war game simulated, the U.S. loses. In every single one.
Consider these older findings.
So then, when Joe Biden rears his head and makes good on previous pretext by offering new pretext to the same Russian end – and that Russian end situates the U.S. in a hot war over cyber crimes that it’s likely executing against itself and attributing to Russia – Moonshine will advise you to take it and tuck it in your back pocket for safe keeping because it will in all likelihood serve as a beneficial explanation of something likely to happen in the future.
Let’s hope and pray not.
The power of pretext to accomplish nefarious objectives is something to be understood, highly regarded and identified with an acquired skill set.
All eyes on Biden, cyber crimes, China and Russia and for good cause – because they gave us the pretext to focus our eyes precisely there.
The power of pretext.
Hello, I’ve appreciated your posts since recently finding your shingle here, which is grad school level stuff relative to most other information and open intelligence communities. That in turn is helping me to up my game in the acquired skill set that you speak of.
With that in mind, a suggestion: for your embedded images could you provide ones with higher resolution/file size? They include a lot of text meant to be guideposts, whether serving as introductory or reminder content on key issues. But they tend to get fuzzy quick when increasing their size for readability. In most cases I get the gist, but just a thought to help the more visually challenged among us.
[…] The Power of Pretext: Russia, China and Proxy Joe Make for a Potentially Ominous Futurehttps://politicalmoonshine.com/2021/07/29/the-power-of-pretext-russia-china-and-proxy-joe-make-for-a… […]
Great work as usual. Some type of military conflict has been used in the past to set the stage for something, or to shift the focus off something that is about to go down. Could the pretext of a hot war with whomever be for an attempt to cover up, lets say massive vote fraud,a stolen election, or a fake pandemic. We cannot put it past these people’s willingness to sacrifice a few American cities to try and cover up their crimes. A hot war with Russia and burning US cities would do the trick. As an added bonus you finally collapse this country and usher in your NWO Great reset.
[…] I first formally delineated the war with China on 06 May 20. More recently in the linked article and in several others, I outlined the position thoroughly in consideration for such an outbreak of war with China and respective to Russian considerations. […]
[…] the end of July, I wrote a piece discussing the power of pretext respective to the U.S. and potential military conflicts with Russia over Ukraine and China over […]
[…] Jul 21: https://politicalmoonshine.com/2021/07/29/the-power-of-pretext-russia-china-and-proxy-joe-make-for-a… – THE CRITICAL MOONSHINE PIECE THAT FULLY EXPLAINS THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THIS ARTICLE […]
[…] long before the first missile was fired and well in advance of the first tank rolling in. The pretext for it was everywhere going back to at least summer 2021 and the history behind it goes back to […]
[…] The Power of Pretext: Russia, China and Proxy Joe Make for a Potentially Ominous Future/July 29, 2021 […]
[…] pretext for the multiple-front war scenario has been everywhere for some time and I wrote extensively about […]
[…] Ask yourself why it is that we routinely see an incremental approach to our own military messaging about war with China over Taiwan unless that’s exactly what we’re being positioned for? It’s called pretext and I unloaded a bunch of it in this article back in July of 2021: The Power of Pretext: Russia, China and Proxy Joe Make for a Potentially Ominous Future. […]
[…] Later in a July 2021 article, I said this: […]
[…] The power of pretext was the subject of an article in this series written some time ago and I revisited that concept with Red Voice Media co-founder Ray Dietrich in an interview recorded yesterday and slated for release shortly. In highly prescient fashion relative to our status quo and perhaps indicative of a disconcerting future that does not bode well for posterity’s sake, the article was entitled: The Power of Pretext: Russia, China and Proxy Joe Make for a Potentially Ominous Future. […]