Why Does Washington Kill the Puppet-Rulers That They Put Into Power in the First Place?

We lack the "power knowledge" to explain this phenomenon.

A few days ago I explained the largest conceptual hurdle that I faced in trying to get my core thesis about the Kremlin across to a skeptical audience. Here:

Luckily a lot of the conceptual heavy-lifting has been done for me by others.

In particular, the Wikileaks cables explained the MO of the Washington rather well. Let us examine what he had to say on the topic in The Wikileaks FIles: The World According to US Empire.

On second thought, before we jump right in, let me remind you of the premise that we are examining together. I allege that Putin was put into power by Washington and that this was part of a kind of Versailles-style occupation government project that was set up in the Kremlin to make sure that Russia never rose from her knees. We explored the key policy points that Washington wanted to impose on Russia last time:

But now it is clear that Washington wants Putin gone. The war against Russia is real — at least from the side of NATO.

How are we to explain this then?

My detractors believe that the fact that Washington wants Putin gone now is proof that Putin is actually a shadow-patriot Antifa warrior for Christ. But I insist that just because Washington wants him gone isn’t proof of the fact that Putin is anti-Washington or that they didn’t tap him to become the president in the first place.

My task is to explain this: why does Washington set up puppet regimes and then turn against them/topple them?

So, with that problem understood, we turn to what Wikileaks had to say on the topic.

The Three Phases of Empire

Assange believed that the Globalists (or whatever you want to call them) used three distinct policy strategies on victim nations slated for subjugation.

Initially, they would (I) put “strongmen” in power who would ruthlessly simply kill anyone opposed to Washington’s foreign policy objectives in the region. This is perhaps best exemplified by US foreign policy in Latin America.

But, after the initial objectives were met, the strategy of Washington would change. They weren’t wedded to the strongmen (the CIA usually supported Communist thugs) that they had put into power. Nor were they wedded to the system of government that these strongmen imposed. In fact, the second stage (II) saw a transition to Liberal Democratic government i.e., oligarchy which necessitated doing away with the strongman model.

Many countries are going through this process right now.

An example that I am very familiar with is the case of Kazakhstan, which was ruled by a strongman, Nazarbayev, for decades completely undemocratically, but which is now being transitioned into a full-blown Liberal Democratic oligarchy in which international finance calls all the shots thanks to the efforts of the globalist creature Tokayev, who is the new leader. Tokayev’s efforts are built around totally changing the entire political system to create a stronger parliamentary system and to make sure that foreign capital gets to call the shots. Kazakhstan is going through its own “Perestroika” period right now as the government is selling off national assets to big international financial interests in the name of Economics™. Worse, these reforms are also intimately tied up with the Agenda 2030 digitization efforts and the expansion of a sprawling surveillance panopticon being implemented at break-neck speed throughout the whole country.

Perhaps this is worth an article in its own right.

Kazakhstan truly is an interesting (basket)case study proving the Wikileaks thesis.

But so was the entire post-WWII period.

Washington wasn’t propping up “Fascists” or “nationalists” as many self-styled “anti-Imperialist” Communists have claimed over the decades. Quite the opposite. Washington was helping to brutally murder nationalism and populism all over the world for the last century (at least).

And they didn’t do this in the name of “Capitalism” per se (whatever that even means) because the spook community in the US was actually and literally Trotskyist Communists. This has been explained through many leaks and insider tell-all accounts over the decades. Perhaps I ought to write about this as well. It is difficult to write articles like this one in general because of the sheer amount of background information that one needs to know to even begin to make sense of anything. Most people aren’t even ready to hear about the concept of the “Deep State” which we talk about a lot on the blog. Before the Trump phenomenon, it was literally considered a conspiracy theory to suggest that the real rulers of Washington’s global empire weren’t dully elected senators and congressmen. People are really behind. So, yes, I will probably do a write-up about the nature of the American deep spook state eventually, but for now, you’re going to have to take my word that these people, who are referred to as “neocons” or “neolibs” or “existentialists” or “globalists” or whatever euphemist you prefer are literal Ethnic Trotskyists.

Point being: everywhere the Western spook state was active, it was fighting against nationalism in whatever native form it manifested. Even WWII from Washington’s perspective was about the United States intervening to destroy nationalism and sovereignty in Europe. The only kind of Communism that DC had a problem with was with the Stalinist kind. Or any kind of anti-Zionist nationalism, like, say, pan-Arab nationalism.

The US spook state, under Eisenhower, first promoted Judeo-Christianity as a bulwark ideology to use against nationalism, which was rising in popularity because of Germany’s successes and opposition to globalism and the power of international finance.

After they were done resuscitating the corpse of Christianity to undermine White nationalism, they set about promoted a similarly almost-dead Islam in the Middle East to destroy Arab nationalism when its time came as well. The Muslim Brotherhood was an MI5 project, built on the Spartan model, actually. As was the concept for the Islamic Republic of Iran. Even Hamas was created to destroy any real nationalist opposition movements to Israel as well.

All of the thugs that Washington helped assumed power in their countries were anti-nationalists initially. But there is a sliding scale to this. Even if they are anti-nationalist, the simple necessities of holding a country together require at least some nationalism to be applied. As such, even US puppets who came in to force IMF debt slavery on the population ended up being too “nationalistic” for Washington’s tastes in time.

In fact, “Capitalism” and nationalism are almost totally incompatible concepts. Mind you, by Capitalism I don’t mean a system in which people can buy and sell freely or have the ability to set up their businesses without being stolen from by either the state or by criminal elements that the state refuses to police. No, the relevant definition of Capitalism that I am working with is a system in which Capital calls the shots. As such, even a local dictator is seen as an obstacle because the ideal form of government is by a “Soviet” or “Sanhedrin” of oligarchs that aren’t bound to the country in question and see it as nothing more than a debt farm with debt cattle on it to exploit or an open air mining pit from which precious resources like timber, lithium, oil, labor, whores and so on can be extracted.

Is it really the “Hidden Hand” of the international free market that calls the shots or the “Long Nose”?

Now, once the death squads had done the dirty work, Washington began insisting on the imposition of Liberal Democratic government i.e., a society that could be controlled by international finance, through “NGOs” based in DC, and the media (which they also owned).

And:

Finally, the third phase is (III) the transition to what has come to be referred to as Neoliberalism or, as I like to call it, the Permanent Austerity Regime. Here, using debt and membership in international organizations, most meaningful sovereignty in the targeted countries is ceded by the newly-empowered oligarch ruling class.

Where open war failed or was not possible because of a strong military in the target country, the globalists simply bribed the leadership of the country into ceding sovereignty, essentially, by joining international structures and getting linked up to the global network of trade as a perk.

And:

In the case of Russia, we are in Phase III already and have been for a decade at least, but the plan hit a snag because Washington decided to insist that Putin and his team wouldn’t be allowed to participate in the bright future of global government, causing the Kremlin to dig its heels in and play hardball. This does NOT mean that Putin is a populist or a rebel against the NWO. He is there to make sure that no such rebel can rise up and assume a leadership position in the country.

The Russia Cables

Here is what Wikileaks discovered about Russia based on cables shared between the US State Dept and the ethnic Liberals in Russia:

Does this characterization sound familiar? It sounds a lot like my “Spooks + Crooks” explanation, doesn’t it? They even use the word “krysha” i.e., roof to explain the mafia rules under which Russia (and Ukraine) is governed. I’ve written about that in detail many times as well. There has been a certain theme to the last series of posts I’ve made on the blog hasn’t there? It has all been just me seeking independent collaboration of my theses from alternative sources.

And no, I hadn’t read this Wikileaks material before.

Even the head ethnic vampire of the Permanent Opposition who ran the notorious Echo Moscow for decades in Russia admitted in cables to his sponsors in the US State Department that Putin was very worried about his reputation in the West. He says that this concern affects Putin’s policies. Even though Venediktov is a horrible hobgoblin of a man, he was 100% on the money about Putin. And Putin’s government funded Venediktov for decades, by the way, and Putin defended Echo Moscow as an essential counter-voice against the forces of nationalism, and even as a fair critic of his own government on occasion.

The reality of the matter is that Venediktov’s ethnic ties kept him protected, of course.

As for Litvinenko and his allegations against Putin and his circle, well, we’re going to have to re-examine them in detail on this blog in the future as well. If you don’t know, the spook defector claimed that Putin was involved in an elite pedophile ring that held blackmail kompromat over him.

If Litvinenko was telling the truth, why did an all-good, all-powerful, all-seeing Yahweh let him die? Clearly, he was lying about Putin. Checkmate, atheist.

I never put much stock in these allegations before because they seemed so outlandish when I first heard them. But I think that they are worth re-examining now that we have acquired more “power knowledge” about the perennial nature of elite pedo rings and their power. And wherever you see a state built on Judeo-Platonic principles, you see this behavior among the elite. Thus, from a theoretical point of view, it would make perfect sense for the “new” RF Deep State elite to be engaging in this behavior as a form of elite-formation behavior. Theory is never proof in and of itself, of course, but it would be in keeping with a clear historical precedent and pattern, wouldn’t it?

The non-exhaustive list: Sparta was build on state-mandated pederasty enforced by a brutal secret police. Prussia as a modern government was built by an open sado-pederast named Freddy who based the Prussian model on Sparta. And the American Deep State’s intelligence structures are built on the Spartan model as well. So was the USSR and the spook services that served it.

…

Despite the shocking nature of the allegations, they weren’t actually reported on in the West. Yes, the murder of Litvinenko was pinned on Putin and his spooks, and the pictures of the poisoning were seen by everyone. Chances are that you saw the photos and instantly recognized them again when I showed them to you a few paragraphs above. But, equally likely, you probably heard about the elite pedo ring allegations about Putin from me for the first time here, no?

This is not by mistake or happenstance.

The only people who were talking about this story were Russian ethnic liberals with names that all seemed to end on -mann and so they made sure to portray Putin as a nationalist and a Fascist to justify the campaign aimed at his overthrow that was set to come. From what we can tell, Putin was supposed to hand over power to Medvedev, who is circumsized, and to retire gracefully as Medvedev ushered in the next stage of reforms.

Instead, Putin insisted on staying in the picture.

This put him in the same killbox as all the other dictators that Washington had propped up and then eliminated afterwards. Again, perhaps the explanation for why Washington first props up strongmen and then kills them doesn’t fully make sense yet to you. I fully admit that WIkileaks’ explanation for it is somewhat lacking.

But the observable reality is that this IS the MO that DC has pursued for a century now.

This reality cannot be denied, even if it hasn’t been explained satisfactorily yet; it even has explanatory power about why America never faced any significant resistance from the countries that they picked a fight with. This even though, supposedly, they were fighting against an American-hating Satan incarnate madman every time.

Putin = Saddam?

Saddam Hussein, in particular, made absolutely baffling decisions that created a situation for the Iraqi army in which resistance to the American invasion was simply impossible. The truth is that Iraq could have held off America long enough to win and anyone telling you otherwise fell for the 4th gen demoralization info-warfare waged by the spooks. All the neat gadgets and high-tech toys that the Americans had were impressive (and deadly) sure, but the simply arithmetic of the war was entirely in Iraq’s favor. Sending hundreds of thousands of men thousands of miles overseas put America at a severe disadvantage against a very large Iraqi army that they had themselves armed at some point and which had been reinforced by Russian missile defenses since then.

Defenders advantage, a numbers advantage, and an enemy that was extremely casualty-averse — these factors should have led to an Iraqi victory if it weren’t for sabotage from within.

Up to the day that he was caught and then executed, Saddam seemed genuinely baffled that his once-allies really did want him dead for some reason. The record shows that these “strong”men never truly go rogue for some reason. We can only speculate as to why that is. But again, speculation aside, the Saddam story is a perfect example of a dictator that Washington put into power who brutalized his own country and who then was slated for destruction himself.

If Iraq had occurred in 2022, I’m sure we’d have SaddamAnon telling us that he was a secret shadow-patriot fighting to defeat Globalism or something.

Why? Simple really: people think that the enemy of their enemy must be their friend. They assume that there are good guys and bad guys and that the enemies of the bad guys have to be good guys.

But there are no good guys and there are no friends in politics.

Only bad guys and worse guys and all of them are enemies.

No exceptions.

**

— thank you to

Neoliberal Feudalism

for providing the pictures from the book that I included in the article.

I will continue looking for alternative sources of corroboration for the key theses of this blog because it strikes me as a worthy use of our time.

But let me know what you think as well in the comments below.

Is the corroboration working?

Because I have more proofs you know …