Who's Running The World?

I’ve been feeling a bit mentally exhausted lately, trying to think things through. Things like, who’s actually running things in the Anglo-Zionist world, what’s Trump’s role, and so forth. Bear with me while I try to sort through some of this, and I’ll leave it to readers to decide if there are any connections in what I present.

Of course, we’re still living in the aftermath of WW2 in multiple ways. One of the very important ways has to do with the rise of the US Deep State and its pervasive control over the Anglo-Zionist Empire—in partnership with the UK Deep State. However, perhaps most importantly, were also living with the financial settlement that followed WW2, which features an international economy dominated by private banks, government institutions, and NGOs that float in between and, in many ways, guide the financial domination exercised by the Anglo-Zionist Empire. None of this is exactly a new thing in the past several centuries of Western history, but the post-WW2 arrangements put it all on a firm basis beyond what had previously been seen, thanks to the status of the United States in the world order.

The 1990s featured two major events: The end of the Cold War—which led to the collapse of the USSR—and the rise of the Clintons. The collapse of the USSR encouraged an aggressive expansion of NATO eastward toward the new Russian borders as well as the financial looting of Russia—all of which was strongly supported by the Clintons. Now, part of the looting of Russia involved bringing Russia’s vast resources—and especially its oil—under the control of the Anglo-Zionist financier class, fronted by Russian “oligarchs” who were backed by the Western financiers. Control of Russia’s vast resources could be leveraged as collateral for all sorts of purposes, none of which would actually benefit Russia or the Russian people.

Russia finally turned a corner with the rise of Vladimir Putin, who was determined to return Russia to its rightful place among the nations and to ensure Russia’s security against a rapacious Anglo-Zionist West. Putin’s forceful leadership accomplished just that, and one of his early moves was to rein in the Western supported oligarchs—which earned him the undying enmity of the Anglo-Zionist backers of the oligarchs. In Money Matters we described that situation—quoting extensively from an article by Alex Krainer:

Here’s the short version. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was one in what’s known as a cabal of seven bankers who controlled 60% of Russia’s GDP after “democracy” came to Russia. Funny how democracy works. These people were also known as oligarchs, from which we get the word “oligarchy” as a system of government, except that you’re not supposed to know that you live in an oligarchy. You’re supposed to “know” that you live in a “democracy.” In the interview, Khodorkovsky explains that—just in case something untoward happened —the seven bankers put everything in a trust with a secret “Protector”, who Khodorkovsky identifies as “Lord” Jack Rothschild. I suppose you could think of Jack as the Lord Protector, in a way. Him being both a “lord” and a “protector”.

"We made the decision to have a [company] "Protector" in the Trust, this is a person that watches everything that is happening [with the company]. In the Trust, this is a person that watches everything that is happening. He must be completely independent and absolutely trusted, because he only has one function. In the moment he sees that the person holding a controlling stake in the company acts not, acts err.. under pressure let's say - acts under pressure, then he should open an envelope and hand over this control package to another person who will be written in that package. Our second person was [Leonid] Nevzlin but we never discussed it because no one should know who is second, who is third, who is fourth, who is fifth."

…

... This is just a figure of great character whose role in the company everyone discussed differently, but no one knew the reality. [It was] the recently deceased Lord Jack Rothschild. He had the function of Protector.

What that meant in practical terms is that Rothschild owned Yukos—way far away from Russia, in the City of London. So, a nice arrangement that was satisfactory to one and all—if by “one and all” you mean seven bankers. Or oligarchs. Your choice of words. Makes you wonder where the seven bankers got the money to become oligarchs and buy up Russia, and who they were fronting for.

Then came Putin. Putin had some funny ideas:

Returning to Mr. Khodorkovsky's revelations today, they also suggest the ultimate reasons why today we find ourselves at the precipice of nuclear war: Lord Rothschild stole Yukos fair and square and then came the evil Mr. Putin and took back Yukos, which accounted for 20% of Russian oil production. So of course, now we must bring freedom, democracy, human rights, transparency, rule of law and property rights back to Russia even at the cost of setting the whole world on fire in the process.

In other words, the Anglo-Zionist war on Russia looks rather like The Revenge of the Rothschilds—if we assume that the international financier class of the Anglo-Zionist Empire have the clout to be able to instruct politicians to go to war for their (the financier class’) interests.

However, I’ve got a bit ahead of things, chronologically. Putin dropped the hammer on the oligarchs—and especially on the Russian oil giant Yukos—in October, 2003. Putin’s move had been several years in preparation, so it didn’t actually come as a surprise.

I’m going to suggest that the Iraq war—which began earlier in 2003, in March—may be connected. Iraq was a former Soviet ally in the Middle East, and the war itself was based on outright lies. At the time, my assumption was that the war was the brainchild of Jewish Nationalists who had multiple objectives: to eliminate Saddam Hussein as a threat for regional influence that was seen as a threat to Israeli hegemony; to place US bases on the western border of Iran, to match the US bases in Afghanistan on Iran’s eastern border; to facilitate power projection into energy rich ex-Soviet Central Asia and cause gas pipelines to skirt Russia to the south, on the way to Europe. The US would maintain a military chokehold over the projected pipelines and provide non-Russian energy to Europe, potentially putting Russia over a barrel.

Commenter Mark Hazard has drawn my attention to a very recent article by Alex Krainer who propounds (based on Canadian research) an alternative—or perhaps just an additional—theory, which fits in with my original idea. It sheds light on the power of the financier class over war and peace:

Gods of finance & dogs of war

… the wars never end, and the propaganda only conceals the true incentives for war that must be systemic. Somehow, it's become hardwired in the Western systems of governance. These questions have been the motivating drive behind my research for decades now. In last year's article, I wrote as follows:

"In untangling the causal factors behind the many crises we face today, the trail of breadcrumbs always leads to the international banking cartel which appears to have the determining influence shaping the system of governance under which our societies operate. ... In particular, the banking interests appear to be the key movers behind the perpetual warfare we are witnessing today. The better we understand the way the systems work, the more the saying, "all wars are bankers' wars" rings true. ... it has never been about democracy nor about freedom. It is strictly about banking and about the collateral. ... Truly, the only group in society to whom the control of collateral makes any difference are the bankers, making them the main group with the incentive to foment forever wars for control of resources."

I recently came across an important and concrete corroboration of all this. In an article titled “How stolen Alberta oil keeps creating $9 trillion in fraudulent collateral,” political economist Regan Boychuk revealed important insights into the way incentives for war become policy. He made the case that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was about keeping Iraqi oil off the world market in order to maximize the value of 175 billion barrels of newly 'proven' Alberta oil resource.

…

… “The same day Marines pulled down Saddam Hussein’s statue, completing the occupation, the US officially recognized 175 billion barrels of bitumen reserves as proven and thus legal collateral for private money creation.” That very day, then-US Energy Secretary Edward Abraham said that, "From now on, when the Americans talked oil, they would be counting the reserves sitting beneath the forests of northern Alberta."

If that was indeed the plan, it was successful …

…

… “The bulk of the new credit was used to inflate the giant housing bubble…” ... The Alberta oil collateral was what made those financial crimes possible.

The $5 trillion mountain of mortgage debt inflated the epic 2000s housing bubble, whose inevitable bursting precipitated the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. As it usually goes with criminal conspiracies, profits accrued to the conspirators while the inevitable crash devastated the ordinary people: no large bank went bankrupt, no high-level banker faced criminal prosecution, but eight million American families ended up losing their homes. In the aftermath of the crisis, the bankers were rewarded for doing “God’s work” with at least $16 trillion in bailouts as detailed in the 2011 Government Accountability Office audit.

Are you seeing any connections, especially to the controlling and directing influence of the financier class over international affairs? Well, if all this was supposed to intimidate Putin, it didn’t work. He continued on course with his plans to revive Russia as a nation. Which further enfuriated the Anglo-Zionist West. Today Alexander Mercouris recounted an important episode that has a bearing on much of what is going on. Here’s the transcript:

US-Iran talks, Russia positioned to be guarantor

I can tell you exactly what happened back in 2011. Putin was at that time prime minister. Medvedev was president. Medvedev and Putin had agreed that they would switch places again and that Putin would run for president in the election in 2012. The Obama White House—Obama himself, McFaul his ambassador, and Biden, who was was his vice president—were determined to stop Putin becoming president again. So they sent Biden off to Moscow to tell Putin: ‘Under no circumstances are you going to become president again. If you do, that will not be looked upon favorably by the United States.’ Putin was furious and he said to Biden, ‘We make our own decisions here in Russia; we don't have you decide for us who our president should be!’ And then Biden came back and said, ‘Look, you've got to understand that you're not a superpower any longer. You can't dominate the world, as apparently you want to do.’ And Putin apparently shot back and said, ‘Look, we're not interested in dominating the world!' Of course we are not a superpower like the United States, but we do have the power to decide who will dominate in the future. It won't be us, but who we align with.’ That was what happened, apparently. This very fierce argument that took place between Putin and Biden all those years ago, and which neither of them ever forgot, explains to a great extent Biden's animus against Putin ever since. … Putin is many things but he's certainly no megalomaniac as some people in the West like to suppose

I’m going to suggest—and YMMV applies—that Obama would not have had the nerve to do this if not instructed to do so by the financier class. For one thing, I don’t believe the leftist Obama would have been ideologically motivated for this. Nor do I believe that his advisers could have persuaded him to confront Putin—unless powerful backers were brought in. I would argue that those powerful backers were the same financier class that Putin had dispossessed back in 2003.

In any event, the rest is history. Within three years, in 2014, the US had staged a coup in Ukraine to oust a government that had been elected on the platform of maintaining good relations with Russia, and Ukraine was on its way to becoming the Anglo-Zionist proxy against Putin and Russia. Which brings us to Trump.

I won’t repeat what has already been said about Trump’s role in preparing Ukraine for the US war on Russia—except to note that, despite his preference for deal making, Trump felt constrained to go along with the war preparation. His foot dragging is what led to his removal, ultimately. Has Trump learned from that episode, his removal? Or, maybe the financier class that put Trump back in the White House learned something about the limits of US power projection capabilities when it comes to a land war in Eurasia. Perhaps a deal was struck in which Trump was returned to the White House—that much seems clear—and was given the freedom to attempt a deal with Putin—within limits. It’s becoming clear that Putin isn’t going to be moved, because Trump is not being allowed the freedom to offer terms that Putin can accept. My belief is that in the end the Anglo-Zionist war on Russia will continue, but at a lower level of intensity. Ukraine may be crushed, even this year, but the war on Russia by other means will continue.

I would argue that similar considerations apply to the Anglo-Zionist war on Iran—as well as China. Trump the would be deal maker is being given a length of leash in the hopes that some sort of acceptable deal can be reached. I’m of the view that this will prove difficult, if only because the Iranians know that the West can’t afford to allow a shutdown of the Persian Gulf. As for China, don’t forget that China is an existential threat to the Western financier class. Yes, they’ve gotten rich off China, but China’s ambitions are not compatible with remaining subservient to the Anglo-Zionist bankers. Trump’s China offensive doesn’t look like fundamentally changing much.

So I reach my final consideration—the Trumpian style. Trump is a believer in the idea that all publicity is good publicity. There must be something in that, since Trump was elected POTUS—what was it? Two and half, three times? The tumultuous years since 2020, in which the Anglo-Zionist West appears to be staggering from multiple defeats, seem suited to the Trumpian style of daily brash—and not infrequently contradictory—pronouncements and threats. It’s all publicity, so it must be good. It keeps Trump front and center and sucks the oxygen out of the lungs of would be competing voices.

At the same time, it seems clear that Trump is operating under Anglo-Zionist constraints. He got a few significant appointments in place, but in general is hedged around with watchdogs like Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz. His own stated negotiating positions consist for the most part of transparently unacceptable offers to opposite numbers who have strong positions of their own. Further proof of this dynamic can be seen in the twists and turns that Trump’s personal all purpose non-Rubio envoy, Steve Witkoff, has been forced to perform. The hope has to be that Trump can play his various negotiations out, walking along the cliff edge of war with his daily rhetorical routine, in such a way that when what should be the inevitable unsatisfactory (to the Anglo-Zionist financier class) compromises with Russia, China, and Iran result those compromises will seem inevitable for the time being to the financier class—and a relief to the general public. International tensions and hostilities will continue, but Trump will look like he has delivered us from worse. We say nothing here about the Trumpian amoralism at the tactical level, which is, of course, a disgrace. I can see no other outcome, short of WW3, based on the alignment of forces on the world scene.