…by Jonas E. Alexis
Putin must have been very proud of himself by now because New World Order agents have already published countless anti-Putin books over the past three years or so. There seems to be an anti-Putin industry where NWO gangsters can publish basically telepathic things about Putin.
NWO agents simply cannot understand how this man continues to rise above the ashes when they have done everything in their power to slander him and subvert or invert or pervert what he has said.
Listen to some of those book titles: Putinism: Russia and Its Future with the West, by Walter Laqueur (2015); Putinism: The Ideology (2013), by Anne Applebaum; Putinism: The Slow Rise of a Radical Right Regime in Russia (2013), by Marcel H. Van Herpen; The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin (2015), by Steven Lee Myers; Winter Is Coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped (2015), by Garry Kasparov; The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin (2013), by Masha Gessen; Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia? (2015), Karen Dawisha; Putin’s Wars: The Rise of Russia’s New Imperialism (2014), Marcel H. Van Herpen; The New Cold War: Putin’s Russia and the Threat to the West (2014), Edward Lucas; The Russia-China Axis: The New Cold War and America’s Crisis of Leadership (2014), Douglas E. Schoen and Melik Kaylan; The Evolution Of Putinism: Russia in Transition 1985-2015 (2015), by Glenn-Iain Steinback; Putin and Putinism (2015), edited by Ronald J. Hill and Ottorino Cappelli; Putin’s Propaganda Machine: Soft Power and Russian Foreign Policy, by Marcel H. Van Herpen. The list is almost endless.
We have certainly lost something in the intellectual culture. It used to be that whenever a person purports to write a scholarly or rigorous work, he has to present serious evidence. If he is writing a philosophical treatise, he has no choice but to pledge allegiance to deductive arguments and practical reason.
You simply cannot read Plato’s Republic or Aristotle’s Metaphysics without realizing that those men are dealing with heavy stuff. Those works are so heavy that they have stood the test of time. (For example, Aristotle posited the claim that money is sterile intercourse. The New World Order ignored that warning and we ended up with a crash market in 2008.)
You cannot read R. M. Douglas’s Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War or Giles MacDonogh’s After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation or Alfred-Maurice de Zayas’ A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans without coming to terms with the fact that those people went to the archives and searched for primary sources to back up their claims.
You cannot read David Irving’s Hitler’s War or Churchill’s War without giving the man credit for digging into forbidden territories, namely, archival documents. You may disagree with some of his conclusions, but a serious person should appreciate the work of people who are challenging what Irving calls “the traditional enemy of the truth.” “The conformist historian,” says Irving, “don’t like me because they just rely on second-hand sources or third hand sources, which you can get away with…It has an incestuous quality.”
For example, when asked the question, “What did Adolf Hitler know about the Holocaust?,” conformist historians, says Irving, have never been able to produce serious evidence. “They have been quoting each other like dogs running around in a circle,” declares Irving, but no one has ever been able to come up with reliable evidence for the so-called Holocaust. These people, Irving concludes, “are not going back to primary sources.”
Contrast that to what is happening to our culture. Now just about any mush-head can write a silly book, get published, and become a New York Times bestseller. It doesn’t matter whether the book will look ridiculous within five or ten years. Truth is not the intended goal. Money and popularity are the criteria for many.
Remember Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code? Remember how he literally forged his theories? Remember how he began his book by saying that “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate”?
Well, Dan Brown goofed. And this time goofing means screwing people who really thought that “All descriptions and documents” were accurate. People plunked down the money to buy The Da Vinci Code but later realized that Brown tricked them in order to make millions of dollars. It is estimated that Brown made $250 million from The Da Vinci Code alone.
Over the years, people have realized that one of the quickest ways to make big bucks is to produce lies and fabrications in books that purport to be historical. And this is what is happening with what I call the anti-Putin industry. If you cannot meet your opponent on rational and logical ground, then produce deception and lies so that readers will never understand the real issue. Listen to this big lie by Jewish writer Garry Kasparov:
“Putin fomented a war in Eastern Ukraine and became the first person to annex sovereign foreign territory by force since Saddam Hussein in Kuwait.”
If a third grader writes this on an exam or a paper, you should quickly take him by the side and lovingly correct him. But statements like this have become received wisdom. And it is all the more disturbing when you realize that major publishers allow these things to flow in the culture.
In order for Kasparov’s ideological equation to work, he has to exclude the invasion of Iraq by the United States, which is still fresh on everyone’s mind. Throughout his book, he insinuates that Hussein and Gaddafi were dictators, but Kasparov struggles mightily to defend this essentially Zionist position.
In fact, the United States invaded or had covert operations in countries like Mexico, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Panama, Yugoslavia, Guatemala, Turkey, China, El Salvador, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Korea, Iran, Vietnam, Egypt, Germany, Laos, Indonesia, Cambodia, Chile, Angola, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, Grenada, Honduras, Bolivia, Virgin Islands, Liberia, etc. Kasparov never discusses this at all because his ideology only works inside his primitive mind. His statement here is not something that can be objectively defended.
Kasparov shot himself in the toes when he said:
“Anyone who says they are still uncertain about Putin’s true nature at this point must be joking, a fool, or tricking us. There is no reason to waste time on jokers or fools, however useful they may be in Putin’s marked deck of cards, but tricksters must be watched carefully. For at least a decade now, those who defend Putin either have something to gain from it or they are dangerously ignorant.”
First of all, we are not defending Putin as a person by any stretch of imagination. We are defending morality and practical reason and those who aspire to pursue the truth wherever it may lead. Putin obviously is challenging the New World Order.
In contrast, the New World Order, as we have argued elsewhere, has no interest in the truth. In fact, it is one of the main reasons Putin has literally exposed it and even suggested that its agents like Kasparov worship Satan and are on “the path to degradation.”
Kasparov admits that Putin reached out to George W. Bush numerous times. Right after 9/11, Putin picked up the phone and called Bush and said: “Good will triumph over evil. I want you to know that in this struggle, we will stand together.” Putin, Kasparov writes, was “the first foreign leader to call Bush on 9/11.” But how does Kasparov respond to Putin’s generosity?
“With two phone calls probably totaling sixty seconds of his time and costing him absolutely nothing, Putin has cemented himself with the Bush 43 administration as a friend and ally….
“Those 9/11 phone calls to Bush were preemptive strikes, a targeted maneuver by Putin to undermine potential American influence against his crackdowns at home.”
Is this supposed to be a serious book? When Putin speaks and tells much of the world about his new plan, no one believes him. When he lowers his standards and reaches out to New World Order agents, members of the Dreadful Few like Kasparov come up and say that Putin is bluffing.
What do these people really want? What will actually satisfy their essentially diabolical appetite? What will it take them to make a rational and cogent point? Don’t they know that crazy or incoherent statements make thinking people angry?
Kasparov continues to burry himself in the sand by mentioning Alexander Solzhenitsyn positively. But Kasparov ought to know that Solzhenitsyn highly praised Putin for his strong leadership. Kasparov writes that he gave a lecture in Washington
“urging Congress and the Obama administration not to reward Putin for destroying Russian civil society and for persecuting those who exposed his crimes.”
Kasparov moves on to add that Putin “was returning Russia to totalitarian darkness…Putin’s war was against Russian democracy and anyone who might stand in the way of his mission to destroy it.” Solzhenitsyn would have taken a different point of view.
“Putin inherited a ransacked and bewildered country, with a poor and demoralized people,” said Solzhenitsyn, “And he started to do what was possible, a slow and gradual restoration. These efforts were not noticed, nor appreciated, immediately. In any case, one is hard-pressed to find examples in history when steps by one country to restore its strength were met favorably by other governments.”
I am really confused here. How can New World Order agents condemn Vladimir Putin and then praise Solzhenitsyn who praised Vladimir Putin? New World Order agents say that Putin wants to destroy Russia and challenge the West, but Solzhenitsyn says that Putin wants to rebuild Russia and bring the West back to its roots, which obviously is Logos. Who is telling the truth here?
Well, one way to find out is to look at consistency, logical arguments, and practical reason. Kasparov has already given enough indication that he is not interested in the truth. For example, he said that he was “protesting the sentencing of Pussy Riot, three members of the all-girl punk group that had been convicted for filming an anti-Putin protest inside a Moscow church.”
Kasparov and other anti-Putin writers such as Masha Gessen need to answer Putin’s challenge here. “If the band had defiled a sacred place in Israel,” says Putin, wouldn’t the religious people there go up in flame and rightly demand that the band be prosecuted and charged accordingly? Don’t the Dreadful Few complain ad nauseam that Nazis used to defile or desecrate their synagogues?
Don’t people like Pamela Geller go berserk whenever they see a swastika spray-painted at a synagogue? Doesn’t Robert Spencer inveigh against “Muslims” who want to desecrate Jewish holy places? Doesn’t the swastika seem to represent the angel of death for those people?
Moreover, how can Kasparov and the whole Zionist media—including CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, etc.—did not mention the fact that that members of the Pussy Riot “staged a real orgy in the Moscow Zoological Museum to mock the meaninglessness of Russian elections”?
Why did CNN only show a video in which “Pussy Riot members were beaten by Cossacks”? Is that good journalism? Why did Kasparov fail to point out that another member by the name of Yelena Kostyleva “unwrapped a frozen chicken in a supermarket, put it into her vagina and shoplifted it”?
Is performing a sex act with a frozen chicken at a public place art? Is that the feminism that Clark University professor Valerie Sperling is defending in her book Sex, Politics, and Putin: Political Legitimacy in Russia? Sperling is well aware of these covert activities, but she still maintains throughout her book that Putin is the bad guy.
Members of the Pussy Riot were admirers of Anatolii Osmolovskii and Aleksandr Brener, “artists” of the 1990s. What were some of their greatest art work?
“In 1991, Osmolovskii’s group, ETI had arranged their bodies on Red Square to spell out the obscenity ‘khui’ (dick), violating the (then-Soviet) law against using obscene language in public spaces.
“Oleg Kulik, another performance artist, surprised the Russian public in the mid-1990s by removing all of his clothes and pretending in public to be a dog (leashed in some instances by Brener).
“The profanity and references to bodily functions that pervade the lyrics to ‘Putin Pissed Himself’ thus joined a tradition of Russian performance art…The Russian Orthodox religion is described as a ‘hard penis’ (zhestokogo penisa)…”
The same group had a song in which they declared, “Rebellion in Russia—riot, riot!”
“The song’s conclusion refers to the ‘sexist regime’ as a ‘flock of bitches’ (staia suk) and imagines them begging forgiveness from the ‘feminist wedge,’ implying a relationship of domination reversed…
The male-dominated regime was characterized and derogated in a misogynist fashion as female (‘bitches), and Putin, despite his reputed masculine strength, was demasculinized and diminished to the status of a child.”
Nadia Plungian, a member of the Moscow Feminist Group, defended the chicken thing by saying that “despite its incredible formal novelty,” the act was a “decision by a group of men to use a woman’s body as a container.”
Some ideas are so crazy that only a moron will believe them.
If actress Maggie Gyllenhaal is right, that Batman “is like the Pussy Riot,” then E. Michael Jones was right all along, that “the Jewish superhero is also the Antichrist.” By being the Antichrist, Batman and Superman and Spiderman and Iron Man and other Golem, according to this premise, are fundamentally anti-Logos but are superficially saviors or heroes who aspire to do good.
Moreover, in order to be effective, those superheroes have to be assimilated. “Superman’s Moses-like origin and his Midwestern WASP-ish persona are widely regarded as a symbol of Jewish assimilation.”
Another important point is that the Pussy Riot and the characters in the superhero genre were both forged by people whose subversive ideologies were to attack the fundamental principles of morality and practical reason. So, we should give Gyllenhaal, who is Jewish, some credit for saying that if you remove Batman’s mask, you will inexorably see the ideology of the Pussy Riot, whose members were Trotskyites.
In essence, superhero characters and the Pussy Riot are part of the New World Order, which means that Logos will be directly or indirectly attacked, dismissed, ignored, or made fun of. Put simply, Kasparov and the Pussy Riot have a kindred spirit because they are both essentially at odds with the social and moral order.
Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, a lead member of the Pussy Riot, defended her revolutionary act by saying that the band “committed no crime.”
In other words, having an orgy in the Timiryazev State Biology Museum in Moscow, going to the altar of Cathedral of Christ and pronouncing blasphemous lines such as “Shit, shit, holy shit…Mother of God, Virgin, become a feminist,” and placing a chicken in your vagina at a public supermarket are all compatible with the social and moral order.
When asked the question, “What does Pussy Riot hope for?,” Tolokonnikova responded, “A revolution in Russia.”
We know that the Pussy Riot is a Trotskyite band. So, does that mean that those who support the band are by definition supporting Trotskyism? Does that mean that Kasparov, Masha Gessen, Ben Shapiro, Madonna, Paul McCartney, Sting, Bjork, and Hollywood celebrities and entertainers who support them are also closet Trotskyites?
Madonna, Bjork and other puppets may not officially pledge allegiance to Trotsky or may not even know that there was a revolutionary called Trotsky, but they are certainly following the New World Order agenda, which is essentially Talmudic, diabolical, and contrary to all mankind. If you doubt this statement, then let us hear from Masha Gessen. She declared back in 2012:
“I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . .
“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.”
We are being buried beneath an avalanche of contradictions here. If the institution of marriage should not exist, does the statement that people “should have the right to marry” make any sense at all? Why can’t Gessen come to her senses and realize that she needs to think twice about making crazy statements like that?
Now let us take this to the next logical conclusion. If the institution of marriage shouldn’t exist, then what should exist? Why did Gessen fail to flesh out the standards for us? Would it be all right for a grown man to consensually have sex little boys and girls? Was it all right for David Epstein of the University of Columbia to consensually have sex with his 24-year old daughter?
And if it is immoral, why haven’t Woody Allen and Roman Polanski been arrested for molesting little girls? Why the double standard?
You see, New World Order agents are doing Putin a big favor by upholding patently incoherent ideas. This was one reason why Putin asked BBC journalist John Simpson, “Have you any common sense at all?”
Well done, Mr. Putin. Please, continue to put the fear of God in the New World Order. Show NWO agents that we are not for sale.
 See Melissa Katsoulis, Literary Hoaxes: An Eye-Opening History of Famous Frauds (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2009); J. S. Weiner, The Piltdown Forgery (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
 See for example Bart D. Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004); Laura Miller, “The Da Vinci crock,” Salon, December 30, 2004.
 I was teaching in the U.S. when The Da Vinci Code came out. I remember one student came up to me and asked, “Have you read The Da Vinci Code?” I was never a fan of popular novels because most of the writers are there for the money and basically, in my “unbiased” opinion, there is no critical thinking in books written by Stephen King, Dean Koontz, James Patterson, Danielle Steel, Clive Cussler, David Baldacci, etc. So, I responded, “No, I have not read the book. What’s up?” “Brown makes a number of assertions that really bother me. If they are true, then it will change a lot of things you believe in.” “Does he present evidence for the assertions?,” I asked. “No, because it is a novel.” “OK. Then you have your answer. Why should you worry about something that is by definition fiction? If I say that your grandfather was a terrorist, am I not under the obligation to provide evidence for this bold assertion?” “But he said the descriptions are accurate. Why don’t you read it and tell me what you think?” I reluctantly accepted the challenge, and it confirmed my suspicion about popular novels.
 Garry Kasparov, Winter Is coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must be Stopped (New York: Public Affairs, 2015), x.
 Ibid., 95.
 Ibid., 88.
 Ibid., 98, 105.
 Ibid., 103.
 Ibid., 103, 105.
 Quoted in Peter Finn, “Toward end, Solzhenitsyn embraced Putin’s Russia,” Boston Globe, August 5, 2008.
 Ibid., 119.
 Martin Gilbert, The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War (New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1985), 30, 123; Svetlana Boym, The Future of Nostalgia (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 199; Jane S. Gerber, The Jews of Spain: A History of the Sephardic Experience (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1992), 252.
 Robert Spencer, The Incomplete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2009), 216.
 Sewell Chan, “Swastikas Painted on 2 Brooklyn Synagogues,” NY Times, September 25, 2007.
 Nick Sturdee, “Don’t raise the bridge: Voina, Russia’s art terrorists,” Guardian, April 12, 2011.
 Ivan Watson, “Video shows Pussy Riot members beaten by Cossacks,” CNN, February 20, 2014.
 Vladimir Kozlov, “Pussy Riot Mocked by Chicken-Costumed Putin Supporters in Moscow,” Hollywood Reporter, February 21, 2014.
 Valerie Sperling, Sex, Politics, and Putin: Political Legitimacy in Russia (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 228.
 Ibid., 232.
 Ibid., 229.
 Ryan Buxton, “Maggie Gyllenhaal Explains How Batman Is Like Pussy Riot,” Huffington Post, July 29, 2014.
 E. Michael Jones, “Wall Street Rises,” Culture Wars, October 2012.
 Quoted in ibid.
 “Interview with Pussy Riot Leader: ‘I Love Russia, But I Hate Putin,’” Spiegel International, September 3, 2012.
 Quoted in Ian Tuttle, “State Dept LGBT Speaker: We Don’t Want Gay Marriage; We Want No Marriage,” National Review, June 20, 2014.
 For a good article on this, see E. Michael Jones, “Woody Allen and the Double Standard,” Culture Wars, March 2014.
Posted by Jonas E. Alexis on January 18, 2016, With 12793 Reads Filed under World. 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.