…by Jonas E. Alexis
Vladmir Putin has called a spade a spade in the political realm again. The “deep state” in the United States, Putin has recently announced, has largely been ruled by two political currents: the Neoconservative Mafia on the one hand and the Neoliberal ideology on the other. For Putin, George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton are classic manifestations of those ideologies.
We all know by now that Bush was a complete disaster for the United States and the Middle East, and even “Prince of Darkness” Richard Perle himself declared that Bush did not make decisions, which means that he was a dancing puppet internalizing the commands of America’s oppressors. Hillary, Putin seems to be saying, is treading on the same path.
This observation is not without evidence. Hillary said last year that she was “in the category of people who wanted to do more in reaction to the annexation of Crimea.” She compared Putin to Hitler numerous times in the past. It seems reasonable that Putin would take the political ball and swing back to her and the Neoconservative Mafia. According to analyst Beau Grosscup of California State University,
“What President Putin is referring to is the neo-conservative/liberal within the National Security State (NSS) that has set the strategic goals of US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.”
In other words, if you want to understand the deep forces that post beneath political categories in the United States, you will have to look at the Neoconservative and Neoliberal agendas. If you doubt this assessment, then pay close attention to the New York Times here: “When it comes to nominating presidential candidates, it turns out the world’s foremost democracy [US] is not so purely democratic.”
The U.S. “is not so purely democratic” because the Dreadful Few, who are less than five percent of the population, are able to tell presidential candidates what to do, what to say, and how to say it. They have been able to buy presidential candidates like Ted Cruz with no problem. And one needn’t be a politician to realize that people like Cruz are just puppets, always ready to do whatever their bosses enunciate or initiate.
So, Putin is right in line with rational thought again. He has implicitly been stirring up the Neoconservative pot for quite a long time, but the real confrontation came to a full bloom when he stood up against the New World Order in Syria. This was obviously death to the Neoconservatives, who always pursue their diabolical appetite behind their unbridled and lustful passion in places like Ukraine.
The Neocons and so-called Neoliberals, who also have been pursuing the Israeli agenda in Syria, have never forgiven Putin for his past sins. In 2014, liberal Zionist Peter Beinart implicitly and incoherently declared that Putin and the Neocons are basically two sides of the same coin, but that sophomoric judgment was based on flimsy presuppositions.
For example, Beinart clung to the now debunked view that Putin invaded Crimea and compared that act to “America’s behavior in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
In his entire analysis, Beinart ignored the fact that 97% of Crimeans backed Vladimir Putin. We can reasonably deduce that the 3% who did not vote for Putin were part of the oligarchs, namely, largely Jewish revolutionaries like Victoria Nuland and others, who told the EU to “fu$k” off.
Beinart obviously knew about this fact, but his liberal Zionist position does not allow him to think in ways that are compatible with the moral and political order. But how did the oligarchs in Washington react to the 97% figure?
Well, they completely dismissed that fact and moved on to pursue their own Neoconservative agenda in the region. In a completely perverse way, the Obama administration responded by saying that the conflict could still be resolved diplomatically “in a way that addresses the interests of both Russia and the people of Ukraine.’”
How stupid can it get? The administration forgot to mention that there is a large Russian population living in Crimea. Let us hypothetically play that scenario in the United States. Suppose Al Gore had won the presidential election in 2000 by 95% or 97%. After the dismal lost, suppose the five or three percent came up and declared,
“We have to think about this democratically. Gore’s position is undemocratic and is therefore wrong. We are right. If our ideas are not part of his project, then it must be wrong.”
What would you say to those people? Wouldn’t you graciously and politely tell them to pick up a copy of philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt’s book On Bullshit? Does democracy mean fulfilling the lustful desires of the oligarchs, almost to the exclusion of everyone else?
The New World Order would have to say yes because the only way its agents have survived over the years is through deceptive means. How else would New World Order agents go about destroying one country after another without any respect for the rule of law and without any apology to the Muslim people?
Once again, the vast majority of Americans did not vote for the war in Iraq (we have been bombing Iraq for more than 25 years), did not ask for a six-trillion dollar bill, did not want thousands upon thousands of dead Americans in the region, did not want to destroy an entire country, but they got all this mess anyway precisely because the oligarchs, namely the Neo-Bolsheviks, started to dominate U.S. foreign policy by the middle of the twentieth century.
The Neo-Bolsheviks call this freedom because they get to satisfy their essentially Talmudic appetite. They also call it democracy because they can tell bumbling Goyim like Rick Santorum and John McCain and John Bolton and Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman to dance like real puppets and chants things like, “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.”
Neo-Bolsheviks like Daniel Pipes began to tell the Goyim how to dance in the twentieth century, which we all know by now is “The Jewish Century.” In that century, moral reasoning and political order and consistency became relics of the past and essentially Talmudic discourse progressively became the norm in politics, academe, and even in Hollywood.19]
But it must be emphasized that long before the Neo-Bolsheviks took over the American culture, oligarchs like the Rockefellers had already laid the groundwork for them. We should also say in passing that the Rockefellers have always been part of the ruling class, which means that they have been cheating the system as well. In fact, David Rockefeller, the only survival grandchild of John D. Rockefeller, admits quite frankly in his Memoirs:
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it.”
This is indeed a bold statement, but it means nothing if it is not actualized. If we ought to judge a tree by its fruit, then the simple question becomes: what are some of the fruits that the Rockefellers have produced over the years? Were they involved in covert operations? Did their psychological warfare inevitably play a central part in the demographic decline in America?
The answers to those questions are stunning: the Rockefellers were sleeping with the New World Order. They sought to destroy Catholic communities all over the United States, and by the late 1960s, Catholic institutions like the University of Notre Dame, with the help of Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, began to internalize the commands of their oppressors by selling their academic souls to the powers that be. Institutions like Notre Dame progressively got defeated in the culture wars and began to produce subversive plays like the Vagina Monologue, written by Jewish ideologue Eve Ensler.
These movement had a devastating effect on Catholic families and institutions, which over the years became what E. Michael Jones calls “a defeated nation.” When the Catholic Poles came to America, they were against corporate America, capitalism, socialism, and mass culture—and the WASP ruling class and Jewish revolutionaries were largely pushing those movements in one way or another.
As sociologist Leonard Chrobot put it in 1971, Polish immigrants, because they were essentially Catholic, were against
“Mass Culture and its atomization of the individual, and the Corporate State, with its assumption that the Gross National Product is more important than the quality of human life.”
That obviously posed a huge threat to the largely materialist worldview that came to dominate the WASP ruling class and indeed many Jewish revolutionaries whose god is Mammon. Those Catholics had to be defeated.
John D. Rockefeller III counter-attacked by creating an institution called the Population Council, which sought to “bring about a reduction in the number of births that occur in the world,” most specifically Catholics, who were producing children by the numbers. Other people like Paul Blanchard were right in line with the Rockefellers. Blanchard himself declared:
“My interest in eugenics was closely bound up with my interest in Catholicism and my increasing doubts about the validity of my earlier and rather naïve socialism.”
Catholics, according to Blanchard, were un-American because they refused to embrace mass culture in which the rich get to do whatever they want and the poor get to be exploited. This certainly was a conflict of vision, and the WASP ruling class and other oligarchs wasted no time in subverting the morals of those Catholics. How did they go about accomplishing that goal?
They promoted contraception and abortion, funded sex perverts and Crowleyites like Alfred Kinsey, and subsidized people like Margaret Sanger and her Birth Control League. The Rockefellers, according to their biographers, got many of their ideas from Thomas Malthus, whom we will meet in an upcoming article. Their subversive movement got spread across the political and religious spectrum.
“While in Taiwan visiting a small provincial town where the Population Council was experimenting with the IUD, the Rockefeller looked at the mass of people there and said, ‘Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it?’ then he turned and headed off for the next meeting.”
Today’s racialists keep whining about the decline of the WASP in America, but they have never been able to talk about the root causes of the problem honestly and historically because that would literally weaken their racialist hermeneutics.
“By 1958, the Anglicans were claiming that contraception was ‘a right and an important fact in Christian family life,’ provided of course that ‘such ways are mutually acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience and secure from the corruptions of sensuality and selfishness.”
Of course, those people were so drunk on the ideology of the time that they could not see that they were literally undermining their own mines. As E. Michael Jones points out,
“Now, there’s one thing that happens when a group of people starts using contraceptives. They stop having children. And then something else happens. They start wondering about the people who do not use contraceptives. And they start realizing that those people continue to have children, and if they are smart they will realize what the demographers know, and that is that the larger population, the growing population, will take over a country from a decreasing population, and there is nothing you can do about it.
“If you think of England, for example, a country which conquered the world in many ways because it had a growing population. There were other reasons, but they had a growing population. The whole expansion of Europe throughout the world was the result of a growing population. At one point there were Englishmen in Jamaica and Nigeria and Pakistan and India. If you’ve been to England lately, you will realize that now Jamaicans and Nigerians and Pakistanis and Indians are in England!
“By the 1960s, the mainline Protestant churches had reached the conclusion that not using contraception was immoral.”
Now newspapers like the Wall Street Journal can literally brag about the disappearance of “the late, great American WASP.” Perhaps the racialists need to quit whining and to start looking at themselves in the mirror and admit that they largely contributed to the problem because some of them still support contraception and abortion in the name of “eugenics.”
 David Rose, “Neo Culpa,” Vanity Fair, November 3, 2006.
 Goldman Sachs gave Hillary $675,000 for just three lectures in 2013. Simon Head, “Clinton and Goldman: Why It Matters,” NY Review of Books, September 24, 2014.
 Quoted in Nick Gass, “Clinton: Putin’s ability to grab presidency has a certain appeal,” Politico, September 9, 2015.
 Philip Rucker, “Hillary Clinton says Putin’s actions are like ‘what Hitler did back in the ’30s,’” Washington Post, March 5, 2014.
 “Putin Identifies Grip of Neocon-Liberal Militarists Running US Policy,” Sputnik News, April 16, 2016.
 Jeremy W. Peters, “As Campaigns Seek Delegates, Ordinary Voters Feel Sidelined,” NY Times, April 9, 2016.
 See for example William Pfaff, “Putin and the neoconservatives,” Chicago Tribune, March 31, 2015.
 For an excellent article on how the West engineered the Ukraine coup, see for example John J. Mearsheimer, “The Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault,” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2014.
 Herb Keinon, “’Israel wanted Assad gone since start of Syria civil war,’” Jerusalem Post, September 17, 2913.
 Peter Beinart, “Vladimir Putin, Russian Neocon,” Atlantic, March 24, 2014.
 Charles McPhedran and Anna Arutunyan, “Crimea votes to join Russia; Ukrainians prepare for war,” USA Today, March 17, 2014; “Crimea referendum: Voters ‘back Russia union,’” BBC, March 16, 2014.
 See for example Obama, Putin argue over Crimea vote,” Politico, March 16, 2014.
 Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).
 Trevor Timm, “After invading Iraq 13 years ago the US is still making the same mistakes,” Guardian, March 21, 2016.
John R. Bolton, “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran,” NY Times, March 26, 2015; “Rick Santorum: I Would Bomb Iran Nuclear Sites,”Huffington Post, January 1, 2012; “McCain Joins Bolton, Invites Israel to Bomb Iran,”Huffington Post, March 3, 2015; “At Christmas party, Bachmann tells Obama to bomb Iran,” CNN, December 22, 2014;“Michele Bachmann Wants An Attack On Iran For Christmas,” Huffington Post, December 12, 2014; Peter Beinart, “The Reckless Man’s Case for Bombing Iran,” Atlantic, March 27, 2015; Daniel Pipes, “Sarah Palin Endorses ‘Bomb Iran,’”DanielPipes.org, February 8, 2010.
 Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).
 See E. Michael Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 989-1016.
 David Rockefeller, Memoirs (New York: Random House, 2002), 405.
 See E. Michael Jones, Is Notre Dame Still Catholic? (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2009).
John J. Bukowczyk, ed., Polish Americansand their History, Community, Culture, and Politics (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996), 28.
 Quoted in E. Michael Jones, The Catholic Church and the Cultural Revolution (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2016), kindle edition.
Quoted in E. Michael Jones, The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2004), 17-18.
 For relationship between Kinsey and Aleister Crowley, see for example Judith A. Reisman, Kinsey—Crimes and Consequences: The Red Queen and the Grand Scheme (Crestwood, KY: Institute of Media Education, 1998).
 Cited in E. Michael Jones, The Catholic Church and the Cultural Revolution (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2016), kindle edition.
 Joseph Epstein, “The Late, Great American WASP,” Wall Street Journal, December 13, 2013.