What is the “Hoax War Hypothesis” Exactly? Allow me to explain the concept of Permanent Revolution

 Wed 2:55 pm +00:00, 23 Jul 2025  

posted by pete fairhurst 2

Source: https://slavlandchronicles.substack.com/p/what-is-the-hoax-war-hypothesis-exactly

I believe that most modern wars and revolutions and crises have been hoaxes. That is not to say that people haven’t died or that battles weren’t fought and armies didn’t march from place to place and so on. No, my claim is just the following:

1. The real reasons for these wars remain obscure and verboten
2. These wars are not fought over differing ideological, moral or even geopolitical reasons
3. The leaders of the loser countries are assets of the larger, more powerful nation that is waging war on them either directly or by proxy
4. This is a template that has been used to fight most of the wars in the world since the latter half of the Cold War, at least

Since I write so much about the Slavlands, I usually focus on proving just how fake this current war in Donbass is. Here are my arguments about why the current war in the Donbass is fake:

• The real reasons for the Donbass war remain obscure and verboten
• This war is not being fought over differing ideological, moral or even geopolitical reasons
• The Kremlin are assets of Washington put into power in the late 80s and 90s and finally the 00s with Putin as the capstone of their occupation government in Moscow
• The war in Donbass follows a similar template to previous wars that occurred recently like the ouster of Saddam in Iraq or Milosevic’s disastrous handling of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia

I’ve written about all of these points extensively, but for the purposes of highlighting my arguments, I will repeat them, briefly, again.

I believe that the real reason for the initial intervention into Ukraine was to pressure Kiev into releasing Putin’s recently arrested oligarch friends, and to pressure Kiev into granting them more political autonomy so that they would feel safe in their bases of operation — the factories and raw extraction industries of Donbass.

I talk about this here:

Putin had no interest in reuniting Ukraine with Russia. There were no COVID race-specific bio-bomb laboratories in Ukraine. Atrocities were indeed being committed against the people living in Ukraine, but that isn’t why Putin launched the SMO. The “Culture War” language stuff was largely a hoax anyway. It was never a conflict about language and the thugs who were killing Donbassians were almost all Russian-speakers themselves. This was more or less a gangland turf war similar to the kinds waged in failed states like Mexico or Somalia where armed gangs of criminals serving intelligence agencies and oligarchs prey on defenseless ordinary people with abandon.

Putin is and always was pro-West, ideologically and not only.

His government is not in any meaningful way different from the system set up in the West. They did the forced lockdowns and vaccinations with the death shot too. They are pushing ahead at full pace with the 5G realtime digitized surveillance state. They are anti-indigenous Russian and have thrown open the borders. No recourse is available to the citizenry to engage with the system and have their concerns addressed. Living standards fall each year. The birth rate falls too. The media is controlled. Speech is policed. Political nationalism (among Whites) is held up as the foundational great evil that the state exists to guard against. And yes, the elites are predominately dual-citizens with Israeli passports.

Nor is the Kremlin much different from the criminal and illegitimate regime in Kiev.

Copy the above list of grievances, multiply it by 1.5x and paste it onto Kiev.

I cannot find even one real ideological point of disagreement between the two warring parties. Putin has always stated that he supports Ukrainian independence and his government recognized the post-Maidan government immediately. The Kremlin even helped fund and support Zelensky’s rise to power in the first place. Zelensky did not speak Ukrainian before assuming the presidency and ran on a peace and pro-Russian (language) platform.

So why is NATO trying to get rid of Putin then?

That’s the conceptual hurdle that most people simply cannot overcome. Even if they cannot disprove the facts that I have listed above, they cannot wrap their heads around the idea that Government A could have created Government B, put their assets into Government B, and then started a war (proxy or otherwise) against Government B.

Here we can zoom out and discuss core concepts again, instead of wading back into into the weeds of the Donbass conflict. I have a primer text on that pinned to the home page anyway. Check that out for more details on the Donbass conflict if I have piqued your interest with that introduction.

The “Blowback” Psyop Narrative

On a more general level, I contend that the true purpose of most modern wars is several-fold:

• To cull the target populations
• To loot the populations
• To strip the populations of whatever safeties and rights they might have still enjoyed
• To resolve gangland style turf disputes among rival intelligence agency gangs
• …
• And to maintain a state of permanent chaos, upheaval and instability

Most of my thesis is not unique or new. To my knowledge, the last high-profile person to assert this and provide documented proof of his claims was Julian Assange. He explained that Washington toppled governments that they had themselves put into power as a matter of deliberate policy and routine course.

The alternative explanation for why Washington takes out the puppet-rulers that they installed in the first place is the Tucker Carlson one: that these puppets all went rogue at one point or another. So, after Putin was appointed president by the troika of Yeltsin (Clinton puppet), KGB/FSB boss Primakov (Finkelstein) and Kissinger, he at some point decided to “go rogue” and buck his Deep State Globalist patrons, who had put him into power in the first place. Similarly, Saddam was put into power via CIA coup and armed with American arms to kill Persians and Kurds. But then he “goes rogue”, supposedly, and Washington has to put their rabid dog down.

Which explanation are we to believe though?

Once we accept the fact that Saddam and Putin and Khomenei and Jolani and Castro and all the rest of them were put into power or helped into power by Washington, well, next we have to account for why they then were labeled enemies and turned on.

But we are skipping ahead a bit here.

The vast majority of people are simply unaware of these fundamental, baseline facts about the situation at all. Like, they don’t know how these puppets came into power and never thought to ask. What is worse, I can share this primer information in the form of Tucker Carlson interviews or memoirs from primary sources or even simple Wikipedia page entries on the topic and most will simply scoff at the information and reject it. Luckily, these people are not my target audience at all because they are simply too far behind the rest of the class to participate in the lessons going forward. Where I pick up the redpilling process is where people like Tucker and other conspiracy theorists drop the torch and refuse to venture down into the rabbit hole further.

So, I simply assert that these rogue puppets never actually “went rogue”.

That they never turned on their masters and slipped the leash.

Thus, there is no such thing as “blowback” from unintentional mistakes allowing hardcore supposed anti-Americans to somehow, miraculously, end up in power after being helped in by Washington.

There is, however, a template that is followed by Washington and it goes something like this:

• Support a coup and get an asset into power
• Purge the country of resistance to the coup and the new agenda
• Make the country dependent on Washington
• Get it involved in pointless, costly, indecisive wars
• Fund and support the other side in the conflict as well
• Hollow it out from within with bad governance
• Foment discontent against the government you yourself put into power until …
• Support a new coup and put a new asset into power
• …
• Profit!

And, on a deeper level still, this is what the concept of Permanent Revolution is all about.

The Permanent Cull Policy

Here is where I dig further than Assange was able to go in his analysis because of my knowledge of Soviet conspiracy lore, essentially. So, imagine a great wheel turning with each spoke in it signifying a periodic war, crisis, coup and cull. And imagine that the people who effect these revolutions are a special caste of ethnic revolutionaries, who infiltrate the society, refuse to assimilate, maintain fundamentalist ideological purity and who periodically use their skills and know-how to set off a revolution. This is just a discussion of hypotheticals mind you — pure academic theorizing, all of it. The real world bears no resemblance to Trotsky’s ramblings and ravings, of course, thankfully.

Anyway.

Trotsky explained in his writing that even a new government that has pulled off a revolution can’t just kick back and call it a day. To keep those “fundamentalist” revolutionary principles alive, it has to keep the revolutionary fires burning through recurring upheavals. This constant churn is meant to fend off the stabilizing, non-revolutionary tendencies that he believes simply creep in like weeds. However, I would liken the process to preventing a wound from scabbing over and healing by keeping it intentionally open, inflamed and infected by refusing to remove the splinter or stinger or parasite that has broken the skin.

So, in a state of nature, even if you wound a society by inflicting one version or another of Trotskyism on it, it will always stabilize and heal over time if measures are not taken to prevent it from doing so. This healing process is made possible by the fact that the revolutionaries are always a tiny, hated minority that cannot rule on its own and ends up having to rely on the locals in some capacity. Eventually, a process of cultural osmosis and assimilation occurs and the revolutionary government mellows out and starts resembling a normal, national government with only the thinnest of ideological veneers still in place tying it to the original revolutionary vision for society.

Here are some concrete examples of what I mean.

Take the original Trotskyite revolutionaries that captured Rome and instituted their reign of terror on the peoples living within the Empire. This was Trotskyism in its purest theological form.

However, over time, with Roman Catholicism, we saw the gradual “paganization” of the Hebrew fundamentalism. Slowly, we got the cults of the saints (hero-worship), the concept of the Trinity (pagan polytheism) and the incorporation of local European myths, legends and rites into the growing corpus of Catholic belief.

To combat this, the Trotskyists of their time hired Martin Luther to theologically reform Catholicism and return it to its original Noahidist mission. This led to the largest and deadliest bloodletting in Europe’s history, perhaps even eclipsing the subsequent two Great European Civil Wars that we had in the beginning of the 20th century.

Then, if we skip forward to the Bolshevik coup and the terrors that they inflicted on Russia, we still see a gradual assimilation process start to occur almost as soon as the fires of civil war begin to die down as well. Incredibly, Trotsky is already complaining about these assimilation processes being in full swing as early as under Stalin in his writing!Hell, the USSR even begins to resemble a downright normal state toward its end years, with even a gradual but noticeable creep of Russians upward into the institutions of higher government that had hitherto banned them outright. As the situation in the USSR began to stabilize and normalize and Russify, the permanent revolutionaries knew that they had to swing into action.

Trotsky explicitly wrote that would need to be yet another revolution in the USSR. Perhaps several. Because there needs to be another turn of the wheel and a return to radical fundamentalist values. That even though the Bolsheviks won and took power, that another revolution was necessary, in time, to restore fundamentalist purity. And, eventually, a student of Trotsky and his ideas assumes control of the KGB and then the Gen. Secretariat and sets into motion the plan to begin another revolution in the USSR.

Yes, I am referring to Comrade Andropov (Fleckenstein) or rather, Trotsky 2.0 who detonated the USSR.

And who runs the so-called Deep State in Washington?

Related to that: did you know that the neocons were all Trotskyite exiles from Germany, Spain, and the USSR?

Related to that x2: are you aware of how Trotsky and his followers embraced Zionism and anti-USSRism following their exile from the USSR?

With those historical facts in mind, what then are the odds that the geopolitical policies that we see Washington pursuing around the world bear such a striking resemblance to Trotsky’s concept of Permanent Revolution? Why indeed does Washington put puppets into power and then topple them and then put new puppets into power and then topple them and then put new puppets into power and then … folks, can we not see for ourselves a deliberate policy of pursuing permanent chaos, upheaval and instability abroad at this point?

You would see a pattern here too, if you only allowed yourself to look!

In conclusion, the Deep State Globalist Trotskyists from their bases in London, Washington and Tel-Aviv do the following:

• Effect a coup or a revolution to get their assets into power
• Terrorize the target country using seized state power
• Start pointless and bloody and indecisive wars in the region
• Foment discontent from within against abusive tyranny
• Effect another coup or revolution to get their assets into power
• …
• Permanent Revolution

Said another way, the Architect tells Neo in the mainframe that the machines have crushed the human resistance movement many times already. With each iteration of the cull, they get better at effecting it. They prefer a program of fake revolutions followed by recurring culls to stay in power.

Which brings us to the now and the here.

Did you know that the government of the mullahs in Iran came to power with the help of a CIA coup? Did you know that Bashar Assad was a cooperating American asset in the so-called Wars on Terror in the Middle-East? Did you know that the CIA armed the mujahadeen in Afghanistan? Did you know that Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset? Did you know that Washington and Israel created ISIS? Did you know that Jolani was helped to come to power in Syria by Israel and NATO (and Russia)?

Well, Iran is getting bombed now. Assad is missing. America invaded Afghanistan. Osama is dead. The IS caliphate in Iraq and Syria was destroyed. Jolani’s new government is getting bombed by Israel too.

Is this not at least some manner of proof for my outlandish conspiracy claims?

Won’t you at least consider them?

I can’t help but start to see a pattern here, folks.

The true ideological nature of the so-called “Globalists” or “Deep State” or “Space Lizards” is Trotskyism, clearly. And the strategic concept of Permanent Revolution is, to my mind, the most coherent template in use by Washington. The concept explains the seemingly senseless wars and revolutions and culls that we are seeing take place all over the world, but especially in places around Israel or against countries that the Trotskyites harbor a historic grievance against.

But believe what you want, man.

I’ve done what I can.