…by Jonas E. Alexis
If the New World Order and Satan worshipers love you, then you are not doing your job. If they give you great accolades and awards, if they continue to put you in certain positions and expand your political horizon so that they can marshal their diabolical plan, then you can consider yourself a failure in the culture war.
We have enough of those people around: Thomas Sowell, Ann Coulter, John McCain, John Bolton, Francis Fukuyama, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Bill O’Reilly, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Lindsey Graham, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, you name it.
On the other hand, if NWO agents say that you are a “very, very significant threat,” as Defense Secretary Ash Carter has recently said of Putin, if they say that you are against the New World Order and the Neo-Bolshevik ideology in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, if you are not going to bow before Satan worshipers for money, power and fame, then give yourself a pat on the back because you are doing something good.
This is why NWO agents and Satan worshipers like Paul Wolfowitz can never like Vladimir Putin. This is why they have published dozens of anti-Putin books and articles over the past eight years or so. This is why the American Enterprise Institute, a Neoconservative think tank, can write no less than 700 articles on Putin. This is why they can say risible things like “Putin is a major threat to the West.”
Wolfowitz for example has lamented that Europe has failed “to reign in Putin.” Wolfowitz, according to the Guardian, propounded the perverse argument that Putin failed to “uphold the principle that big countries just can’t invade small ones on a flimsy pretext.”
Wolfowitz is not that old, so he does have a clear memory of how he himself propounded the dumb argument that the U.S. needed to invade Iraq. People like Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and William Kristol “helped to persuade President Bush to pursue the war on terrorism by invading Iraq in March of 2003.” It was again Wolfowitz who said before we invaded Iraq:
“The truth is that for reasons that have to do with a lot of U.S. bureaucracy, we settled on one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason.”
Scholars Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke write that instead of telling the truth, Neoconservatives like Wolfowitz “spun a web of deception with a reason ‘du jour’ being offered other than the truth.”
Wolfowitz was so aggressive about invading Iraq that one Republican lawmaker declared Wolfowitz “was like a parrot bringing [Iraq] up all the time. It was getting on the President’s nerves.” After one such meeting in Washington, we are told that Colin Powell rolled his eyes, declaring, “Jeez, what a fixation about Iraq.” (By the way, Wolfowitz and other Jewish Neocons such as Stephen Bryen, Douglas Feith, and Michael Ledeen, Perle, have all been charged of spying for Israel.)
So, Wolfowitz shouldn’t be complaining about Putin at all. But when it was pointed out to him that he should have considered what he said about Iraq before he jumped on Putin, Wolfowitz, who have replaced reasoned analysis with crude emotional appeals and mumbo jumbo, responded,
“That’s nonsense. I guess you were against our going into Afghanistan to get rid of al-Qaida as well. We should be looking forward, not in the rear view mirror.”
So, the Neocon logic is pretty clear here: when history is not in your favor, just dismiss it or say it is nonsense. But when history actually supports your Satanic weltanschauung, just repeat it ad nauseam.
If Wolfowitz is right, that we should be looking forward and not in the rear view mirror, why have the Neocons published dozens upon dozens of books saying that Putin was a former KGB and is therefore building a Stalinist state? Why can’t they see that Putin is attacking the very position that he once held dear?
If they cannot accept this as even a reasonable or provisional hypothesis, then can they explain to us why Putin has said that the Soviet government was “80-85 percent Jewish”? Why would he add that those Jewish revolutionaries “were guided by false ideological considerations” which ended up suppressing and persecuting innocent Jews? Wouldn’t a statement like this be detrimental to his cause if he were in the business of building a Soviet empire? When will Satan worshipers like Wolfowitz make a coherent and logical point?
As it turns out, New World Order agents and Satan worshipers have absolutely no moral grounds to stand on. They have to rely on lies and fabrications to make a point. Without colossal deceptions and deliberate falsifications, they are powerless.
For example, the Australian newspaper published an article last year entitled, “Putin calls for a new world order.” In a similar vein, Politico asked last September, “What will Putin’s new world order be”? Both articles (purposely, I dare say) ignored the fact that Putin is against the New World Order and their allies. Why would he say that NWO agents worship Satan?
As we have seen in previous articles, members of the Dreadful Few such as Walter Laqueur, Masha Gessen, and Vladimir Tismaneanu relentlessly and hopelessly used their ideological advantage to shoot political arrows at Putin. Yet Putin was and still is unmoved and intrepid. In fact, he has recently been enjoying himself in a submarine:
Putin, of course, is having fun, while Satan worshipers and NWO agents are writing angry books and articles, making money off his back. Moreover, while those Satan worshipers are mad about his position, Putin is looking at their silly arguments and is therefore laughing. Get this:
NWO agents, of course, will never stop trying to invert or pervert or subvert what Putin is trying to say or do. NWO agents have come and gone, but their arguments remain the same: Putin is a former KGB and therefore cannot be trusted; Putin is the new Hitler; Putin is trying to build an empire; Putin is a threat to the West; Putin is linked to organized crimes; blah, blah, blah.
Karen Dawisha is the new Satan worshiper on the block who has recently propounded those arguments. Dawisha is “Walter E. Havighurst Professor of Political Science in the Department of Political Science at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, and the Director of the University’s Havighurst Center for Russian and Post-Soviet Studies.” Her academic background is impeccable. But how does she use her historical caliber?
Well, Dawisha argued that Putin, from the very beginning, “planned to establish an authoritarian regime.” So, according to this logic, Russia is authoritarian. But Dawisha has a hard time defending this position on a rational ground. For example, why has the vast majority of Russians voted for an “authoritarian regime”? Are they all stupid?
Dawisha’s argument here is certainly suspect. After all, she was a visiting scholar at the Brookings Institution, a Neoconservative think tank that still seeks to destabilize countries in the Middle East and elsewhere. This is the Brookings Institution at its best:
The Brookings Institution published a book entitled Mr. Putin in 2013, in which its authors, Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy, argued that Putin is “the greatest challenge to European security and the global world order.” I and Kevin Barrett are largely in agreement with that statement, for Putin is certainly putting the fear of God in the New World Order. Putin does not challenge the European security; he challenges political Satan worshipers.
Hill and Gaddy argued elsewhere that
“When mistakes are whitewashed, learning from history becomes more difficult. A leader can no longer stand back and draw dispassionate conclusions.”
Isn’t that what Putin has been doing? Again, can he whitewash history by even ignoring the fact that the Bolshevik Revolution was largely Jewish?
In any event, Dawisha is an ally of the New World Order. She is currently teachings courses such as “Putin’s Russia: Authoritarian Politics in Comparative Perspective.” Dawisha briefly mentions the Pussy Riot in her book, leaving the impression that Russia was wrong in arresting them. But she provides no analysis on what the Trotskyite group actually did.
When she was asked to provide evidence for the claim that “Putin has amassed a fortune of about 40 billion dollars,” Dawisha responded,
“I don’t honestly have the access to say with confidence that he has this number of shares. But, what we have are statements by—let’s call them Russian whistleblowers, about how he has amassed wealth himself….And the New York Times reported this last summer that the intelligence services in the United States had done a study in around 2008 and 2009.”
Dawisha knows pretty well that the New York Times and indeed the United States have been involved in destabilizing Russia from time immemorial. The US embassy cables said that Russia “is a virtual ‘mafia state.’” When Putin’s Putin’s Kleptocracy was released, the New York Times quickly reviewed it and declared that
“Dawisha won’t disappoint readers seeking examples of industrial-size sleaze. She reckons Putin’s private wealth at $40 billion and lists among his prized possessions yachts, planes and palaces — along with a $700,000 wristwatch collection for good measure… Putin’s Kleptocracy is the most persuasive account we have of corruption in contemporary Russia.”
The Times did not tell readers that Dawisha herself could not seriously prove those points and had to rely on, well, the New York Times and the U.S.—a circular argument which requires no mental exercise to dismiss.
So, why would she summon an unreliable source at this point to marshal such a shaky argument? Why would she argue that the KGB, Russian criminal activity, and of course Putin are all connected? And if Dawisha wants to talk about whistleblowers, why does the United States want Edward Snowden’s head on a silver platter? Why did Dawisha fail to address this issue as well?
Perhaps Cambridge University had enough reasons to reject Dawisha’s manuscript. Cambridge seemed to have realized that Dawisha’s thesis that “Putin’s power is founded on his links to organized crime” was unsound and politically motivated. “We are not convinced,” the academic publisher said, “that there is a way to rewrite the book that would give us the necessary comfort.”
John Haslam, Cambridge Executive Publisher, put the issue to Dawisha this way:
“After discussion with legal colleagues who have reviewed the typescript from both a US and UK legal perspective, I’m afraid that our view is that we are not in a position to proceed with your book….
“A defamatory statement—in this case, a potential libel—is a false statement that undermines the reputation of the person about whom the statement is made. In a court of law, the fact-finder cannot just accept the writer or publisher’s assertion that a statement is true. In England in particular, a libel claimant can require the writer and publisher to prove truth, which in the case of your book, would be extremely difficult to do for many of the claims you make.
“We have no reason to doubt the veracity of what you say, but we believe the risk is high that those implicated in the premise of the book—that Putin has a close circle of criminal oligarchs at his disposal and has spent his career cultivating this circle—would be motivated to sue and could afford to do so. Even if the Press was ultimately successful in defending such a lawsuit, the disruption and expense would be more than we could afford, given our charitable and academic mission.
“President Putin has never been convicted for the crimes or activities which are outlined in the book, and we cannot be sure that any of the other named individuals or organisations have either. That the allegations may have been published elsewhere is no defence; re-publication of a libellous statement is still libel if it cannot be proven to be true.
“Given the nature of some of the allegations in the book, including allegations made about named individuals associated with Putin who could more easily show damage to reputation (some examples are attached), publication would, in our view, be a significant risk.”
The Washington Post, of course, quickly picked up Haslam’s letter to Dawisha and seemed to have said that Cambridge had other motives in not publishing Dawisha’s book. The Post never mentioned that Cambridge feared that Dawisha made extraordinary claims in the book which needed extraordinary evidence. Appealing to the New York Times or the U.S. to prove those extraordinary claims won’t do at this time.
Dawisha even hurts her caue by summoning Wikileaks, which said that “Russian government ‘using mafia for its dirty work.’” It has been reported that Wikileaks cannot be fully trusted. But Wikileaks sometimes shows that Israel cannot be trusted when it comes to Iran’s nuclear programs. The million-dollar question is simple this: would Dawisha trust Wikileaks then? If not, why is she cherry-picking her sources?
In short, Dawisha, whether she likes it or not, is working for the Dreadful Few. She said of Masha Gessen:
“I’m a great admirer of her book. Her book is much broader, covering [Putin’s] entire life. Mine focuses on his political rise from Dresden to the Kremlin and the construction of a network of loyalists (the White House now officially calls them cronies) from this early period. It also provides very detailed information, all sourced from public documents and newspapers.”
What Dawisha and others indirectly end up proving is that Putin was right all along: the New World Order is anti-reason, which is to say that NWO agents promote the worship of Satan in the name of “democracy” and “freedom.” NWO agents hopelessly try to hide their true identity behind ideological façade, but their wicked actions always end up proving that they are anti-logos, anti-Western, and anti-reason. In that sense, they worship Satan, who is the father of all lies (John 8:44). As one commentator put it a few weeks ago, those people are “Satan’s kids.”
 Quoted in Kristina Wong, “Pentagon chief: Russia is a ‘very significant threat,’” The Hill, August 20, 2015.
 Desmond Lachman, “How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?,” American Enterprise Institute, March 6, 2015.
 “Diary: The Wolf has a howler on Today,” Guardian, March 24, 2014.
 Murray Friedman, Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 121
 Vincint Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (New York: Vanguard Press, 2008), 19.
 Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 202.
 Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby, 246.
 Ibid., 247.
 Stephen Green, “Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration,” Counter Punch, February 28, 2004.
 “Diary: The Wolf has a howler on Today,” Guardian, March 24, 2014.
 “Putin: First Soviet government was mostly Jewish,” Jerusalem Post, June 20, 2013; see also “Putin: First Soviet government was mostly Jewish,” Times of Israel, June 19, 2013.
 “Putin calls for a new world order,” Australian, July 14, 2014.
 Chrystia Freeland, “What Will Putin’s New World Order Be?,” Politico, September 17, 2014.
 Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy, Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin (WA: Brookings Institution Press, 2013), back cover.
 Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy, “Vladimir Putin’s Risky Ploy to Manufacture History,” Atlantic, January 12, 2012.
 This point has been documented by a wide range of Jewish scholars. See for example Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004); Jerry Z. Muller, Capitalism and the Jews (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).
 Karen Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2014), 318.
 “US embassy cables: Russia is virtual ‘mafia state’, says Spanish investigator,” Guardian, December 2, 2010.
 Rajan Menon, “‘Putin’s Kleptocracy,’ by Karen Dawisha,” NY Times, November 25, 2014.
 “How ‘Putin’s Kleptocracy’ Made His Friends Rich,” National Public Radio, December 13, 2014.
 “Edward Snowden says U.S. officials want to assassinate him for leaking NSA documents,” NY Daily News, January 26, 2014; “’They will put a bullet in my head or poison me when I come out of the supermarket’: Edward Snowden says U.S. secret service wants to kill him,” Daily Mail, January 26, 2014.
 “A book too far,” Economist, April 3, 2014.
 Adam Taylor, “The frustrating reason a book detailing Putin’s murky past was blocked from publication,” Washington Post, April 7, 2014.
 Luke Harding, “WikiLeaks cables: Russian government ‘using mafia for its dirty work,’” Guardian, December 1, 2010.
 See for example Kathleen Christison, “Wikileaks Cables on Israel’s Gaza Onslaught,” Counter Punch, January 19, 2011.
 Justin Elliott, “WikiLeaks cables: Don’t trust Israel on Iran,” Salon, December 2, 2010.
 Taylor, “The frustrating reason a book detailing Putin’s murky past was blocked from publication,” Washington Post, April 7, 2014.
Posted by Jonas E. Alexis on August 22, 2015, With 7561 Reads Filed under Government & Politics, Life. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.