…by Jonas E. Alexis
Yes, Brandon Martinez got it right: he and I agree on many points, but we will have to agree to disagree on Russia and the situation in Syria. He declares that I view Putin as “a Christ-like global messiah” and cites some of the titles of my articles to buttress this point. The contexts of the articles and the arguments presented?
They were nowhere to be found. Why? Well, obviously Putin to me, according to this view, is a “Christ-like global messiah” and nothing will convince me otherwise. A text without a context, as the saying goes, becomes a pretext. Yet without any context whatsoever, Martinez moves on to state:
“Now, these are not headlines or articles that honest journalists would be caught dead writing. These are cartoon depictions fit for a comic book, not honest journalism.”
I truly respect his opinion, and he has every right to say whatever he wants to say. But this is why I spend countless hours dissecting extraordinary claims and exhaustively quoting their chief exponents. Unfortunately, Martinez never bothers to discuss the contents of these articles because, in his mind, they are “cartoon depictions fit for a comic book, not honest journalism.” He writes,
“In his attempted rebuttal of my article criticizing the obvious pro-Putin partisanship of ‘alternative’ media, he fails to acknowledge the basic truth of my observations: that a significant segment of ‘alternative’ media, himself included, has become little more than a troll army of loyalist stenographers of Russian propaganda and Putin hero worship.”
I fail to “acknowledge the basic truth” that I am part of “a troll army of loyalist stenographers of Russian propaganda and Putin hero worship”? And I am “the clearest example of it!” He supports this statement by referring to the titles of my articles again with no context whatsoever.
This is just ridiculous. I thought we were dealing with substantive issues, but it is now getting to a point that responding to frivolous statements like this is a bit frustrating. I just cannot spend enough time to refute all the spurious statements and the fallacious arguments presented. Martinez and I have busy schedules and we both have serious fish to fry. I will answer only just a few points.
Martinez moves on to a completely risible issue which completely stuns me: “It is extremely ironic that Alexis wants to argue the credibility of sources, when he himself is writing for Veterans Today, whose founder and chief editor Gordon Duff openly admitted that 40% of what he publishes there is deliberate misinformation and disinformation. This doesn’t seem to bother Mr. Alexis who continues to associate with and write for a publication whose chief editor is an admitted spreader of falsehoods.”
If that is not a red herring, then nothing is. Martinez has to go to a different realm to prove his point. He again cites me and then says, “He is claiming that because Western governments lied about something else in the Syria war, then therefore the claims about Russia’s civilian casualties are de facto also a lie.” No, that was not my point, and I don’t know how Martinez missed that at all.
My basic point was that the moment Russia presented serious evidence showing that Assad was not involved in using chemical weapons on his own people, the Neoconservatives and the Zionist Mafia began to tight the ideological rope on Russia and Vladimir Putin himself. In fact, dozens upon dozens of fraudulent books have been written about Russia and Putin in the past four years alone. I have discussed many of these books in the past.
Despite what I have said in the previous article, despite the fact that I explicitly said that “If there is serious evidence showing that Russia has been involved in literally and deliberately bombing the Syrian population, we will be more than happy to report it and condemn Russia for this egregious act,” Martinez declared that I denied that Russian forces “have killed civilians in Syria.”
Again, when I said that I will be more than happy to report that Russia has been involved in deliberately bombing the Syrian population if serious sources are presented, Martinez declared,
“No, you will not be happy to report it, because you’ve already dedicated way too much time and effort to promoting Putin as the saint and savior of humanity. You cannot turn back now and you will not do so, short of a gun being put to your temple. You will do everything in your power and engage in whatever ridiculous level of mental gymnastics is necessary to avoid the ugly truths about Putin and Russia, of which this Syria thing is just a tiny sample.”
I also made it very clear that “Of course, in wars, it is inevitable that some civilians will die. And it would be irrational to say that the Russian forces hadn’t hit a single civilian.”
How does Martinez respond? Here it is: “So, he admits, Russia has obviously killed some civilians. Wow, was that so hard?”
I just couldn’t hold my laughter at this point. When did I even remotely suggest that Russia never killed a single civilian? Didn’t I make it clear that I want to see rigorous and independent sources?
He then puts words in my mouth to buttress his points. When I used the words “the civilians,” he asserts that I meant to say “all civilians.” By establishing this inexorable “truth” and then deconstructing this giant straw man with great relish, he moves on to say that all civilians obviously “do not support Assad and Russia.”
Ah! We can no longer say that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor because it would imply that “all Japanese” did bomb Pearl Harbor! In the same vein, when people say that the Americans invaded Iraq in 2003, that obviously means that Jonas E. Alexis was in Iraq destroying the country as well. It is a bit frustrating at this point. But it gets worse:
“A ton of ‘alt-media’ repeaters have thrown around the figure that Stalin’s Bolshevik regime killed 66 million people in Russia, a ludicrously unverifiable figure Alexis has probably bandied around himself.”
Obviously Martinez has not been paying the slightest attention to what I have written about the Bolshevik Revolution since the past four years or so, otherwise he would not have built such an obvious straw man. Obviously he has to resort to these kinds of arguments because he seems to think that I am writing about these issues to get “likes” on Facebook and “retweets” on Twitter. This is getting a little childish.
I challenge him or anyone to tell me where in my 400-plus articles I even remotely argue that Stalin alone killed 66 million people in Russia. Yes, the Bolshevik Revolution moved to places like China, Vietnam, Cambodia and other places, and the death toll can historically and independently be argued to be around 100 million.
But I never said that Stalin slaughtered 66 million people in Russia. It is just plain silly to lump me with this promiscuous idea, and I have no intention to respond to Martinez any longer. I am pretty sure we are in the same boat fighting what Preston James calls the Khazarian Mafia. We agree on many issues. Our commonalities outweigh our disagreements, but there are sharp disagreements between us here.
In any event, I would certainly recommend his books Grand Deceptions: Zionist Intrigue in the 20th and 21st Centuries and The ISIS Conspiracy: How Israel and the West Manipulate Our Minds Through Fear.
One final note. In his book Hidden History II Topical and Historical Essays on Zionism and Geopolitics, one anti-Zionist writer cites Vladimir Putin saying that “80-85 per cent of the original Bolshevik leadership that ousted the Czar in 1917 was comprised of Jews. These Jewish communists were ‘guided by false ideological considerations,’ Putin stressed.”
Who is that anti-Zionist writer? Brandon Martinez. Are statements like that compatible with what the Khazarian Mafia and their marionettes have been perpetuating? Does that really help the Zionist cause?
I don’t think so.
But because Putin has banned “revisionist viewpoints concerning the ‘Holocaust’ in Russia,” says Martinez, that ipso facto shows that Putin is connected to his “authoritarian communist roots.” Putin is certainly wrong about Holocaust revisionism—probably because he doesn’t know any better.
But is it really a sound argument to say that because he has banned Holocaust revisionism, then he is by deduction connected to his “authoritarian communist roots”?
I don’t think so.