August 29, 2017 By Joseph P. Farrell

I know, I know: this is the longest multi-part blog I've written on this website, and I promise, sooner or later it will end and we'll move on to other topics (of which there are plenty). But I think the story of the ramming of the US Navy's Arleigh Burke class Aegis missile frigates is important, both for what they're telling us, and what they're not telling us. This fourth part is necessary because there's one final question to be considered, one that leads to a rather different area of high octane speculation. That question is simply: "Who's behind it?" In this respect, my high octane speculation today, compared to that of the first three parts of this blog, has even less twig underneath it than yesterday's. We are standing at the tip of the twig with our full weight with nothing but air beneath us. Nonetheless, I think it's essential to speculate here.

Who's behind it?

Readers who have been following these blogs will recall that I believe that it is necessary to view the USS Donald Cook incidents, the Fitzgerald and the McCain incidents, "whole," for the simple reason that to my mind all four incidents (remember, there were two with the Donald Cook) show signs of some sort of technologically induced deliberate external influence in the operations of the ships. It was not mere "crew" or "officer" incompetence. As I've pointed out in the previous parts of this multi-staged blog, in the case of the Donald Cook incidents, the Russians were clearly responsible, and have recently claimed responsibility for it in their media.

In consideration of the question "Who's behind it?" let's look at the two main contenders, Russia, and China.

Was it Russia?

Russia, as indicated, is a contender simply for the reason that the Donald Cook incidents were clearly initiated by that country. It is important to this question, however, to consider the conditions under which Russia sent its messages in the Donald Cook incidents. In both cases the Donald Cook was operating, so to speak, in Russia's back yard and during a period of high tension, during which rhetoric in the United States' leadership was approaching the "complete hysteria" zone of the Anti-Russia meter. During these times there were also "ratcheted up" signals of possible dramatic expansion of the American campaign against Syria and even one against Iran. Faced with the potential of war in the region, I suspect that the Donald Cook incidents, and particularly the first one, were designed not as hostile actions but as warnings to carefully consider the consequences of a military confrontation between the two nations.

In the case of the last two incidents, however, we have a case of actual ramming, with human costs in injuries and lost lives involved. I doubt highly that Russia would, in the geopolitical tensions in North Korea, Japan, and that part of the world, have risked the actions against the Fitzgerald, and similarly with the McCain with tensions so high between the USA and China in the South China Sea and the Malacca Straits.  It simply is ratcheting up tensions needlessly and risking too much to do so. The message was sent and "received" in the Donald Cook incidents, and there was no need to reinforce it. These considerations apply regardless of what the actual mechanisms causing these incidents was: electromagnetic systems interference, remote mind manipulation, or faulty computer chips or some combination of them all. Russia would have everything to lose, and little to gain, by sponsoring such attacks.

Which brings us to the next main contender:

Was it China? As we noted in the previous parts of this blog, there was a peculiar progression evident in the Fitzgerald and McCain incidents. The Fitzgerald incident did not provoke much more than tight-lips, but the McCain incident, following so closely upon it, forced the Navy to state a position, which, you'll recall, was initially the "incompetence hypothesis," which moved, quietly in the past few days, to an admission that the naval staff has "suspended all operations", and was undertaking a review of "everything," including crew training, management, and so on. During these admissions, various military officers of flag or general rank have floated the "cyber-hacking-faulty computer chips from China" meme.

From one point of view, this is certainly possible, given that the USA has shipped much of its crucial industry overseas under the various "free trade" agreements forced on the government by Mr. Globaloney, beginning with GATT(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade).  The USA and China are certainly also at loggerheads over Chinese claims in the South China Sea and over China's "One Belt One Road" project. China, for its part, has been making slow and steady progress on the latter, and this past year we've seen the first freight trains run all the way from China to the United Kingdom, and back again. However, there are strains in the Chinese economy, and the biggest problem for the Chinese leadership remains the management of its enormous population in a land mass that cannot sustain the food needs of the population. Geopolitically, China has much to lose by risking such actions in my opinion.

There's another consideration to entertain here: assume, for a moment, that the claims of corrupted Chinese computer chips in the US military's systems are true. This would constitute a "hole card", so to speak, which would be a crucial force multiplier in situations of actual military confrontation and hostilities. Under such conditions, in my opinion it would be doubtful that the Chinese government would reveal the fact during such comparatively "low level" incidents. It would be much more likely to do so under conditions in which - God forbid - American military assets and Chinese military assets began actually shooting at each other. Showing the hand at this stage of the game only alerts the USA that its electronics and computer systems "have a problem." Russia, as noted, has only revealed a limited aspect of its capability, leaving one to guess what the full measure of their capabilities actually are.

Which brings us to a third possibility, the most "high octane" speculation of them all: some other party, possibility an extra-territorial actor, is in play, and is attempting to create tensions between these three powers. Regular readers here and of my books will know that I have posited such an "extra-territorial actor" in my various books on post-war Nazi survival, and did so again in my book on 9/11, Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery. In the latter, I posited not two operational levels to 9/11 - the public one and the covert one of rogue networks within the American security and intelligence apparatus, the "typical" scenario of most "911 truth" researchers - but that that second deeper level was itself penetrated by an even deeper level, an extra-territorial one of international extent. Indeed, I pointed out the pre-911 statements of Russian economist Dr. Tatyana Koryagina which warned of an attack on US soil by precisely such a network.

It stands to reason such an entity would not simply cease to operate. However, it might be objected at this juncture that in the case of the Fitzgerald and McCain incidents that we see no corresponding "operations" or attacks against Russian or Chinese interests. Granted, this is a problem, but not one that is entirely fatal to the speculative hypothesis, provided one is willing to widen the context and dataset a bit, for there have been such incidents. Recall only those strange explosions at Chinese chemical plants just a few years ago. At that time there was speculation that the USA had used its alleged "rod of God" technology, i.e., space-based kinetic weapons, to take out the Chinese plants. Again, I doubted at the time that the USA would (1) risk such an action when the consequences would be dire and (2) reveal the existence of such a capability. Another, extra-territorial entity, bent on creating tension between the three powers, might be willing to do so. Similarly, there were Russian incidents where their own sophisticated systems did not perform "up to specification," so to speak. Recall only the incident at Sevastopol, during an exercise and "show" for the civilian population when a missile firing was conducted, and the missile misfired. Recall also the incident at the Russian powerplant near Murmansk, when the power plant exploded. At the time, Russian state-controlled media was speculating that this may have been the result of deliberate action and sabotage.

Of course, all of this is speculation, and your guess is as good as mine.

See you on the flip side...