If the Pentagon can admit that “a war with Putin” is unfeasible and indefensible, then Putin is winning.
“Rather than engage with Putin’s issues, the Western media has mostly played the man and not the ball.” Bryan MacDonald
…by Jonas E. Alexis
Patrick L. Smith of Salon made some intriguing statements last November. One can easily articulate them in the form of a series of deep questions. If Vladimir Putin is “Beelzebub by our reckoning,” Smith wondered, why did this man get “an approval rating of nearly 90 percent” in Russia? Does this devil have super powers? Has Russia been housing the Anti-Christ, as the Christian Zionist puppets believe?
If Putin is not the devil reincarnate, then how did he end up stabilizing the Russian economy? How is it that Russian intellectuals and politicians cannot see that this man is mad or sad or bad? Did Putin cast a spell on them? Furthermore, how did Putin end up challenging some of the deep forces that post beneath political categories in the West, most specifically, “Republicans” and “Democrats” in America?
And why, Smith asked, do writers in the New York Times and other news outlets quickly dismiss Putin without sober thought? Why did the Wall Street Journal declare that Putin lives in “a fantasy world of international rule”?
I can answer Smith’s last question pretty easily. The political process in America—and here I am talking about the ideological forces behind Zionism and Neoconservatism (Neo-Bolshevism is preferable) in America—does not believe in democracy and Freedom at all. For the Neoconservative regime, freedom can exist outside the moral law and political order. In other words, freedom means allowing the Dreadful Few to do whatever they want. If Putin got elected by a landslide, why would Jewish Neocon Victoria Nuland admit that the U.S. spent at least 5 billion dollars creating conflict in the Ukraine and then Russia? Why couldn’t she see that the Ukraine crisis, as John J. Mearsheimer put it last year, “is the West’s fault”? Why did the same woman end up saying things like “fuck the E.U.”? Is that really democracy?
Well, perhaps Putin had Neocons like Nuland in mind when he declared that
“The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place.”
As an alternative to the Zionist and Neoconservative machination, Putin proposed something different. Serious politicians, he said last October, need to “carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.”
Destabilizing countries for the Israeli regime and the Neocons is certainly not rational. Again, Putin probably had the Neocons in mind when he mentioned the United States, which he said “saw no need” for “rational reconstructions.” “International law,” Putin continued,
“has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.”
Putin almost certainly had the New World Order in mind when he said:
“In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group’s ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.”
Obviously Putin has a keen mind and is certainly a genuine intellectual in politics. As author M. S. King rightly says, Putin “is a man of culture with a grasp of history. As such, he understood the importance of moral underpinnings for a healthy and strong society. Without imposing Russia’s Orthodox Christian heritage on anyone, Putin has nonetheless worked side-by-side with the Church’s Patriarch to bring about a revival of the institution that had been suppressed for so long. Literally 1000’s of the churches have been rebuilt across Russia.”
“Orthodox Christianity has always played a special role in shaping our statehood, our culture, our morals. The Church may be separate from the State. But in the soul and history of our people, it is all together. It always has been and always will be.”
In his speech last October, Putin suggested that some of those ideas can be discussed on a rational ground. He said:
“We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out…”
Presenting arguments and counter-arguments is how things work in the intellectual world. Neither the Zionist regime nor its puppets can hold up to serious argumentation precisely because the system is not based on reason but on manipulation and deceptive operation. I tend to believe that Putin knows this, since he implicitly attacked this very system in his speech. He said:
“The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes.
“Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.
“Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become?”
I am willing to speculate that Putin had the Israeli regime in mind when he mentioned “big brothers.” After all, we know too well that Israel used the NSA to spy on its so-called allies, most specifically the United States.
Putin moved on to take the next step. The New World Order is supporting questionable groups
“because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil…
“First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists…
“In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state’s institutions, including the army, were left in ruins.”
With respect to nuclear weapons, Putin obviously terrorized the Israeli regime by saying:
“We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favour of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.”
Putin, during the question-and-answer session, argued that “We are not demanding a place under the sun.” What Russia is asking, argued Putin, is that all parties ought to abide by international law and practical reason. Double standard, as we all know, is not part of practical reason and therefore must be abandoned.
It seems that New World Order agents knew that Putin’s logical rebuke was coming. In fact, Satan worshipers had previously started to light the revolutionary fire against Putin months before he delivered his speech. For example, in March of 2014, the Economist declared that in the New World Order, Vladimir Putin “is a force for instability and strife.”
In the same month, John O’Sullivan of The Spectator declared that “Europe’s ‘new world order’ is letting Vladimir Putin run riot.” The Economist went on to say that Putin’s move “poses a broader threat to countries everywhere because Mr Putin has driven a tank over the existing world order.”
Is this true? Does Putin pose “a broader threat to countries everywhere,” or is he really cutting Satan worshipers and New World Order agents to pieces? Well, let us see.
Author M. S. King argues that “Between 2000 and 2004, the cunning Putin sucked the Oligarchs into his orbit by reaching a ‘grand-bargain’ with them. The deal allowed the Oligarchs to maintain most of their power, in exchange for their support and alignment with the new government…Putin continued to ‘play ball’ with the mighty Oligarchs, patiently counting the days until he would be strong enough to crush them.”
Once Putin got stronger, he confronted the Oligarchs who were strangling the economy and who were involved in covert activity.
”[Mikhail] Khodorkovsky was arrested in October 2003 and charged with fraud and tax evasion. Khodorkovsky was also suspected of having ordered several murders, but there was not enough direct evidence to try him for those cases. Khodorkovsky’s partner in crime, Leonid Nevzlin, later fled to Israel.
“Berezovsky and Gusinsky went into exile, facing prosecution if they ever return to Russia. Putin regained control of stolen enterprises, natural resources, Oligarch media, and the associated tax revenues. Many of the criminal Oligarchs ended up in jail. Those who escaped Sheriff Putin’s justice fled to America, Britain, or Israel. A few other big shots were allowed to hold onto most of their assets; provided that they behave themselves.”
When Putin was reelected in March of 2004 “with a whopping 71% of the vote,” he “cleaned out most of the hated Oligarchs, but his pro-market economic reforms were yielding very positive results. Slowly but surely, Mother Russia was crawling out of the much and mire which the Western Globalists had skillfully pushed her into.”
Once the Oligarchs have been stripped from their decadent lives, “Russian Domestic Product (GDP) increased 6 times, climbing up from the 22nd to the 10th largest in the world. Average wages had increased almost tenfold. The percentage of people living below the poverty line was cut in half. Once totaling 150% of GDP, nearly all foreign debt was paid off. Moscow became home to the fastest growing group of millionaires. Industry grew substantially, as did production, construction, real incomes, credit, and the middle class.”
In the process, “After regaining control from the criminal Oligarchs, a fund for oil revenue allowed Russia to pay off all of its old debts. Putin’s government remains almost debt free. Under Putin, Russia has strengthened its position as the key oil and gas supplier to Europe.”
King writes that by 2012,
“Putin’s Russia had reversed its suicidal 25 year depopulation trend and can today boast of what no Western nation can…Abortions after the 3rd month of pregnancy have been outlawed; a restriction that even many ‘pro-choicers’ in America would probably agree with. In the West, most nations actually allow babies to be aborted anytime during the 9th month of pregnancy.”
In short, Putin indeed deconstructed the New World Order. In fact, it was pretty obvious to him that the New World Order presents “no moral foundations for modern civilization.” Putin continued, “Any person who receives money from abroad for his or her political activity and by doing so serves alien national interests, cannot be a politician in Russia.”
King writes that “one would think that the ‘free market’ Republican Party would love Vladimir Putin. Instead, they deride him as ‘ex KGB,’ or ‘a commie,’ or a ‘thug.’”
The New World Order hates Putin even more because he has made “Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s classic Gulag Archipelago mandatory reading for Russian High School students. How ironic that most students in ‘anti-Communist’ America will never hear of Stalin’s atrocities while Russian kids will!”
The fact that Putin has made Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago a mandatory reading in high school seems to suggest that Putin is familiar with Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together, in which he meticulously documents that Jewish revolutionaries were largely responsible for the Bolshevik Revolution. This point has been meticulously documented by E. Michael Jones in his magnum opus The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History. So, when Putin said that the first Soviet government was largely Jewish, he must have gotten that idea from Solzhenitsyn, who said unapologetically:
“There are many Jewish authors who to this very day either deny the support of Jews for Bolshevism, or even reject it angrily, or else—the most common case—only speak defensively about it. The matter is well-attested, however: these Jewish renegades were for several years leaders at the center of the Bolshevik Party, at the head of the Red Army (Trotsky), of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (Sverdlov), of the two capitals (Zinoviev and Kamenev), of the Comintern (Zinoviev), of the Profintern (Dridzo-Lozovsky), and of the Komsomol (Oskar Ryvkin, then Lazar Shatskin).
“In 1918 Trotsky, with the aid of Sklianski and Yakov Sverdlov, created the Red Army. Jewish soldiers were numerous in its ranks. Several units of the Red Army were composed entirely of Jews, as, e.g., the brigade commanded by Joseph Forman. Among the officers of the Red Army, the share of Jews grew in number and importance for many years after the Civil War.”
To return to our earlier point: why did the Economist and the Spectator attack Putin? Why do the Neoconservative caste system and their Republican puppets continue to call Putin “the new Hitler”? Why does the New York Times to this very day continue to slander Putin with dumb phrases like “Stalin’s current heir”? Why has Gen. Joseph Votel, who knows pretty well that the US has slaughtered “numerous civilians in a wedding party” in December of 2013, recently said that “Russia could pose an existential threat to the United States”?
Why do people like Russian-American Masha Gessen keep saying that Putin was a member of “subversive groups” which had ties to the NKVD but never addressed the fact that Putin is no longer a KGB? Why doesn’t she address the fact that Putin is implicitly challenging Stalinism and Leninism, the actual ideologies of the old regime?
More importantly, why doesn’t Gessen do the same thing for people like the late Irving Kristol, who bragged about being a Trotskyite in college and whose son, Bill Kristol, continues to pursue Trotsky’s ideology all over the Middle East? Why does Gessen propound the silly idea that Putin “wins by lying”? Is that fair? Who is this woman working for anyway?
Well, it turns out that Gessen is a Jewish lesbian who helped founded the Pink Triangle Campaign and who has been described as “Russia’s leading LGB rights activist.” Gessen, who “holds both Russian and US citizenship,” has been covertly supporting subversive groups such as the Pussy Riot, which happened to follow Leon Trotsky in its ideology. In her book Words Will Break Cement: The Passion of Pussy Riot, Gessen admits that “five couples had sex in the Biology of Museum and videotaped it. The action was called Fuck for the Heir Puppy Bear, a play on Dmitry Medvedev’s last name…” The actual scene was literal pornography.
But how does the West respond to Gessen’s book, which highly praises the Pussy Riot?
Wall Street Journal: “In a country where journalists critical of the government have a way of meeting untimely deaths, Ms. Gessen has shown remarkable courage in researching and writing this unflinching indictment of the most powerful man in Russia.”
San Francisco Chronicle: “Powerful and gracefully written.”
Foreign Affairs: “[Gessen] shines a piercing light into every dark corner of Putin’s story…Fascinating, hard-hitting reading.”
The New York Review of Books: “Although Gessen is enough of an outsider to write beautifully clear and eloquent English, she is enough of an insider to convey, accurately, the wild swings of emotions, the atmosphere of mad speculation, the paranoia, and, yes, the hysteria that pervade all political discussion and debate in Moscow today.”
The Washington Post: “What Gessen sees in Putin is a troubled childhood brawler who became a paper-pushing KGB man and, by improbable twists and turns, rose to the top in Russia…[She] does not attempt to weigh up Putin’s record but rather examines his biography, mind-set, and methods…as a thug loyal to the KGB and the empire it served who never had a clue about the earth-shattering events that blew the Soviet Union apart.”
The Daily Beast: “Masha Gessen steps into the fray with a perspective account of the new czar.”
Bloomberg: “Engrossing and insightful.”
The list is almost endless. Yet even John O’Sullivan admits that Gessen has been promoting “sexual liberation (with illustrations) rather than ‘political’ aspects of human rights.”
Gessen left Russia and settled in America, where she continues to propound her subversive ideology in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the New Republic, New Statesman, Slate, Vanity Fair, and U.S. News & World Report. In the introduction to Gessen’s article “The Wrath of Putin,” Vanity Fair vainly said that
“Mikhail Khodorkovsky was the richest man in Russia when he dared confront then president Vladimir Putin, criticizing state corruption at a meeting with Putin in February 2003. Arrested that fall, then convicted in two Kafka-esque trials, Khodorkovsky has been imprisoned ever since, the once powerful oligarch now an invisible hero for the growing opposition to Putin’s tyranny.”
As we have already seen, this is complete claptrap. Khodorkovsky, who “launched the Open Russia Foundation in Somerset House in London, owned by the Rothschild’s Family Trust,” was arrested because he was involved in covert activities.
So, people like Gessen have to stand for their brethren. It gets worse. Jewish scholar Vladimir Tismaneanu—whose father was an activist of the Romanian Communist Party and who later became “chair of the Marxism-Leninism department of the University of Bucharest,” and whose mother was “a physician and one-time Communist Party activist”—deliberately writes that
“Putinism is an ideological conglomerate bringing together Great Russian nationalism, imperial authoritarianism, and a drive to restore the lost grandeur of the Stalin era”?
Tismaneanu, with no respect for history and truth, writes in the same paragraph that Putin “has abandoned the Yeltsin era’s adamant anti-Leninism and has become, especially in 2006, the proponent of an increasingly aggressive version of neo-Stalinist and neo-imperialist restoration.”
Neo-Stalinist and neo-imperialist restoration? Did Putin invade Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan? Did he supply weapons to terrorist cells such as the Syrian rebels, who later signed a sort of pact with other terrorists such as ISIS? Did terrorist cells such as Nusra Front receive treatment in Russian hospitals? The Wall Street Journal itself wrote last March:
“Nusra Front hasn’t bothered Israel since seizing the border area last summer—and some of its severely wounded fighters are regularly taken across the frontier fence to receive treatment in Israeli hospitals.”
Is Putin responsible for the current strikes in northern Syria, which killed eight civilians, “including two women and five children”?
Why, then, did people like Tismaneanu have to summon lies and complete fabrications? Why does Jewish historian Walter Laqueur write books saying that Putin is a former KGB but does not write a single line saying that Irving Kristol and his disciples, including his son Bill, are the political grandchildren of Stalinism and Leninism?
Tismaneanu in particular has been influenced by people and movements like Leon Trotsky, Herbert Marcuse, Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, the Frankfurt School, etc. Now Tismaneanu is at the University of Michigan, corrupting young and impressionable students with his subversive (or shall we say Talmudic) ideology.
The conclusion of the whole matter? Tismaneanu and his brethren obviously realize that Putin was on the brink of attacking the “existing world order,” which Putin said is essentially Satanic in its ideology.
This existing world order, as Putin would have put it, elevates the worship of Satan above the moral order and above God. It has no respect for the moral law and political order and has always been interested in establishing what Friedrich Nietzsche would have called the transvaluation of all values and replacing it with essentially Talmudic mores.
Last October, Putin probably had this in mind when he said that “this system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed.” The Pentagon has recently confirmed that opinion. The Daily Beast tells us that
“The U.S. military has run the numbers on a sustained fight with Moscow, and they do not look good for the American side.”
The statement came from an article entitled, “Pentagon Fears It’s Not Ready for a War With Putin.”
If the Pentagon can say that, then Putin is actually winning—and Satan worshipers and New World Order agents are losing their strengths. Two cheers for Putin. Keep fighting the good fight, brother.
 Bryan MacDonald, “Time for a ‘new world order?’ No, it’s already here,” Russia Today, November 2, 2014.
 Patrick L. Smith, “The New York Times doesn’t want you to understand this Vladimir Putin speech,” Salon, November 7, 2014.
 Matthew Avery Sutton, “Could Vladimir Putin battle the Antichrist? How some evangelicals debate the end times,” Washington Post, April 22, 2015. See also Gary Demar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Atlanta: American Vision, 1999).
 This is even acknowledged by Zionist magazines such as Foreign Affairs. Anton Barbashin and Hannah Thoburn, “Putin’s Brain: Alexander Dugin and the Philosophy Behind Putin’s Invasion of Crimea,” Foreign Affairs, March 31, 2014.
 Keep in mind that both parties ended up saying that Putin is “the new Hitler.”
 Josef Joffe, “Welcome Back to the 19th Century,” Wall Street Journal, August 12, 2008.
 John J. Mearsheimer, “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault,” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2014.
 “Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call,” BBC, February 7, 2014; Josh Rogin, “State Dept Official Caught on Tape: ‘Fuck the EU,’” Daily Beast, February 6, 2014; ‘Fuck the EU’: US diplomat Victoria Nuland’s phonecall leaked – video,” Guardian, February 7, 2014; “F*** the EU: Senior US diplomat Victoria Nuland makes her position clear in bugged conversation with Ukraine envoy,” The Independent, February 6, 2014.
 Vladimir Putin, “New Rules or a Game Without Rules?,” Counter Punch, October 27, 2014.
 M. S. King, The War Against Putin: What the Government-Media Complex Isn’t Telling You About Russia (Create Space, 2014), 53.
 Quoted in ibid.
 Putin, “New Rules or a Game Without Rules?,” Counter Punch, October 27, 2014.
 See for example Glenn Greenwald, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2014). We have written extensively on this issue in the past as well.
 Vladimir Putin, “New Rules or a Game Without Rules?,” Counter Punch, October 27, 2014.
 “The New World Order,” Economist, March 22, 2014.
 John O’Sullivan, “Europe’s ‘new world order’ is letting Vladimir Putin run riot,” Spectator, March 8, 2014.
 “The New World Order,” Economist, March 22, 2014.
 King, War Against Putin, 46.
 Ibid., 49.
 Ibid., 54.
 Quoted in ibid., 53.
 Ibid., 54.
 No praise can be too high for that book.
 “Putin: First Soviet government was mostly Jewish,” Jerusalem Post, June 20, 2013.
 “What the West Gets Wrong About Russia,” NY Times, August 12, 2015.
 Dan Lamothe, “The swift, quiet rise of Lt. Gen. Joseph Votel, Special Operations commander,” Washington Post, June 25, 2014; Christine Hauser, “The Aftermath of Drone Strikes on a Wedding Convoy in Yemen,” NY Times, December 19, 2013; Robert F. Worth, “Drone Strike in Yemen Hits Wedding Convoy, Killing 11,” NY Times, December 12, 2013.
 “General: Russia Is ‘Existential Threat,’” Daily Beast, July 24, 2015.
 Masha Gessen, The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin (New York: Riverhead Books, 2012), 53-54.
 See for example Stephen Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: the Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 43.
 Trotsky could not send a six-trillion dollar bill to the American people, but the Iraq War, which the Neoconservatives spearheaded, did exactly that.
 Masha Gessen, “The Putin Military Doctrine,” Slate, August 15, 2014.
 Masha Gessen, Words Will Break Cement: The Passion of Pussy Riot (New York: Riverhead Books, 2014), 40.
 John O’Sullivan, “Turmoil Over America’s Radio Voice in Russia,” Wall Street Journal, December 30, 2012.
 See for example Masha Gessen, “Russia is remaking itself as the leader of the anti-Western world,” Washington Post, March 30, 2014; “The Wrath of Putin,” Vanity Fair, April 2012.
 Masha Gessen, “The Wrath of Putin,” Vanity Fair, April 2012.
 Vladimir Tismaneanu, The Devil in History: Communism, Fascism, and Some Lessons of the Twentieth Century (Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2012), 218.
 Yaroslav Trofimov, “Al Qaeda a Lesser Evil? Syria War Pulls U.S., Israel Apart,” Wall Street Journal, March 12, 2015.
 Ben Hubbard and Karam Shoumali, “U.S.-Led Air Campaign Is Linked to Civilian Deaths in Syria,” NY Times, August 14, 2015.
 Walter Laqueur, Putinism: Russia and Its Future in the West (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2015).
 See for example Francis Fukuyama, “After Neoconservatism,” NY Times, February 19, 2006.
 Vladimir Putin, “New Rules or a Game Without Rules?,” Counter Punch, October 27, 2014.
 Nancy A. Yousef, “Pentagon Fears It’s Not Ready for a War With Putin,” Daily Beast, August 14, 2015.