“We are facing an epic struggle between those who espouse sacred values such as justice and decency versus those who wish to destroy all values.”
“The continuing attacks on Vladimir Putin and Russia by members of the western political, military and journalistic elite tell us one thing – the Russian President is doing a good job both for the people of his country and in the international arena.”—Neil Clark
…by Jonas E. Alexis
Last November, journalist Neil Clark of Russia Today put forth a principle that really should be considered as a knocked-down argument against the Zionist establishment. He said:
“It is a rule which invariably holds true – if the Western elites praise the leader of a foreign country it means he is doing something which is good for those elites and bad for his country. If he’s demonized, as Putin is, it’s the other way round.”
As evidence, Clark cited chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin E. Dempsey saying that the international community needs to “deter Russian aggression against our NATO allies.” Russia, said Dempsey, was “pushing on the limits of international order” and had “kind of lit a fire of nationalism. Once you light that fire, it’s not controllable. I am worried about Europe.”
In response, Clark forcefully and persuasively wrote:
“‘Pushing on the limits of international order’? Was it Russia which launched an illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 – claiming the country possessed WMDs which threatened the world? Was it Russia which led the illegal bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999? The US hasn’t just pushed the ‘limits of international order’ it has been the number one international law breaker over the past twenty years.
“Russian aggression against our NATO allies’? Not one NATO country has been attacked by Russia – or threatened with attack. The aggression has been from the US against Russian allies. Over the last twenty or so years we have seen the US target a series of countries which had friendly links to Russia, including Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Syria. It’s the US and its NATO allies who clearly need to be deterred, not Russia.
“Russia has ‘kind of lit a fire of nationalism’? Well, it was the US and their EU allies who did this in Yugoslavia in the 1990s – sponsoring separatists in order to break up the country – and it was the US and its EU allies who have been sponsoring and supporting extreme nationalists (some would say fascists and neo-Nazis) in Ukraine…
“When figures from the Western elite talk of ‘Russian aggression’ what they really mean is that Russia is checking Western aggression. When Putin is compared to Hitler – it is because he is standing in the way of the real heirs of Adolf Hitler, the war lobby in the West, who like the mustachioed one, have an insatiable appetite for attacking and threatening to attack independent sovereign states.
“By any objective assessment, it’s the Western elites – and in particular the neocon faction within that elite – who are the biggest dangers to world peace, not Putin. Look at the havoc their policy of endless war, whether waged directly or through terrorist proxies, has caused in Iraq, Libya and Syria.”
We completely agree with Clark here. In fact, we have argued earlier that Putin really cut the Zionist establishment to pieces by saying that they always end up worshiping Satan when they pervert or invert or subvert the moral and political order.
As you can recall, Putin said that those who pervert the moral order are already on “a path to degradation.” As an alternative, Putin elsewhere appealed to the Orthodox Church, which he said “cemented the moral foundation of our society and national statehood.” Putin stunned the West by adding that
“At the basis of all Russia’s victories and achievements [are]: patriotism, faith, and a strong spirit. These inherent characteristics of the Russian people helped us to get through the Times of Troubles in 1612, with the Great Patriotic War in 1812…”
Putin moved on to implicitly attack Stalin and Lenin by saying that “other events” in Russia’s history, “including learning the lessons of the turbulent events of the beginning of the twentieth century,” completely undermined Russia’s “spiritual and national values” and ended up persecuting “the Russian Orthodox Church and other traditional religions in Russia.” Once that was done, Russia “started to lose” its unity “and slipped into revolutions, fratricidal bloodshed, conflicts and war.”
So, the establishment can now stop summoning the silly argument that Putin aspires to revive the Bolshevik ideology or even the KGB in Russia. The establishment certainly cannot deny that they indeed promote political disorder and moral chaos, so they had to find a way to attack Putin. In 2013, Shmuley Boteach, “the most famous Rabbi in America,” wrote in the Jerusalem Post:
“Vladimir Putin has established his credentials over the past decade as an international bully, a KGB apparatchik who suppresses political dissent with oppression and murder, a gangster who subjected Pussy Riot’s members, in prison, to ‘endless humiliations,’ including forced gynecological examinations almost every day for three weeks. A man who would treat women this way just because they oppose him politically deserves the condemnation of the world as a violent brute.”
Jewish Neocon Richard Perle, commonly known as “The Prince of Darkness” and one of the most dishonest men in American history, summoned a number of lies last year to slander Putin. He said that Putin was trying to resurrect the Soviet Union. He said: “He’s been trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again and re-create something that looks like the old Soviet empire.”
Virtually no serious person bought Perle’s colossal lie. But the regime has recently invented a new strategy: Russia probably hacked their unclassified network.
“Russian hackers,” the regime has recently announced, “infiltrated an unclassified Pentagon e-mail system used by employees of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the latest in a series of state-sponsored attacks on sensitive U.S. government computer networks.”
Is that really news? Hasn’t the establishment been summoning those lies for decades? The pathetic thing is that the so-called Republican Party has bought those lies and swallowed them with great enthusiasm. Listen to this:
“The Russian cyber-attack on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff unclassified email system may be tied to a top Iranian military official’s visit to Moscow, Sen. Ted Cruz alleged during Thursday’s first Republican presidential debate.
“In the only cyber-security mention of the night, the Texas Republican was asked about recent reports that Russian hackers infiltrated the Pentagon’s Joint Staff unclassified email system around July 25.
“Cruz questioned whether the cyber-attack was timed to coincide with secretive meetings between Qassem Soleimani, a major general in the Iranian army, and Russian leaders in Moscow.
“The meeting comes as Congress is debating whether to accept a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear weapons program in exchange for lifting sanctions on Tehran. ‘The day Soleimani flew back,’ Cruz said, ‘was the day we believe Russia used cyber warfare against the Joint Chiefs.’”
What is the evidence for all this? Nothing. Not an iota of serious information has been provided so far. In fact, it seems that the regime has just made this stuff up in order to create conflict. “This attack was fairly sophisticated and has the indications . . . of having come from a state actor such as Russia,” said one unnamed U.S. official.
The Washington Post itself reported that officials admitted that “it is difficult to pinpoint the origin or perpetrator of such hacks.” It is difficult to pinpoint the origin of such hacks, but we know that Russia was behind it!
Complete nonsense. However, this is not the first time that the regime invents evil things to pursue their essentially Satanic ideology.
Remember how the establishment lied saying that North Korea hacked Sony Pictures? You remember how Neocons such as Jonathan S. Tobin declared that the so-called cyber-attack was an “act of terrorism”? Remember how the same guy went berserk saying that “no American should feel safe” about the “attack”? Remember how silly he looked when all the evidence showed that North Korea had nothing to do with the so-called hack?
Remember how the system was blaming Assad for using chemical weapons on his own people? You remember how U.S. officials got that lie from the Israeli regime? You remember how the same regime said that it had incontrovertible proof that Assad did use chemical weapons but never presented the proof?
You remember how Seymour M. Hersh rightly declared that this was a “deliberate manipulation of intelligence”? You remember how virtually every Neocon (from the Weekly Standard to the American Enterprise Institute) and much of the Republican Party were saying that the U.S. must attack Assad as a result?
You remember how Russian officials defused that nonsense by presenting logical and solid evidence pointing to the fact that Assad had nothing to do with the chemical weapons? Russian officials stunned much of the entire world they stated explicitly then:
“If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus. We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons.”
Rick Ungar of Forbes wrote then: “Nicely played, Mr. Putin. My hat goes off to you.”
War party was over. Putin crashed it. Putin obviously messed the Neocons up. As Neil Clark put it:
“These serial warmongers are particularly angry that Russian foreign policy has thwarted their plans for ‘regime change’ in Syria, a key strategic objective. They’re also angry that Putin clamped down on oligarchs whose role was to help Western plutocrats get control of Russia’s natural resources.”
Neocon Satanists, who always lust after the blood of the Goyim in the Middle East and elsewhere, went mad precisely because Putin did not allow them to drink blood this time. Remember the words of Neocon Satanist Michael Ledeen:
“Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace … We must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”
Hence, it is no accident that those Satanists, the usual suspects, are all after Putin in one way or another. As Clark nicely put it last month:
“As events in Syria have proved, Russia is the biggest block on the endless war lobby’s plans for world domination, which is why the removal of Putin and his replacement with a marionette who will do exactly what the neocons want is their overriding objective.
“However, the chances of them achieving their ambitious goal are as slender as was the prospect of Saddam Hussein’s WMDs turning up in Iraq. The new neocon instigated ‘Cold War’ on Russia, which was supposed to weaken the Russian economy and lead to Maidan-style anti-government protests in the country, has actually boosted President Vladimir Putin’s popularity, as new polls show. The approval ratings of the man who Western neocons have demonized for the last twelve years is at record levels – with almost 90 percent of Russians saying they had a positive view of the president.
“Support for President Putin’s foreign policies is also strong – with 70 percent supporting him on Ukraine. As British antiwar politician George Galloway tweeted: ‘Popularity of Putin reaches record highs with almost 90% of the people approving his handling of events. Another NATO success story!’
“It’s not only Putin’s popularity that is the stumbling block to neocon plans for ‘regime change’. The main opposition to Putin and his United Russia party, are not pro-NATO, pro-Israel ‘liberals’, but the Communist Party, which is the second most popular party in the country.
“Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov polled over 17 percent in the last presidential election, while the Communists won 92 seats in the 450 State Duma elections in December 2011.
“The Communists have urged Putin to be even more assertive against those they regard as Russia’s enemies. In May 2013, they called for Russia to convene a meeting of the UN Security Council after Israel had illegally bombed Syria.
“The serial regime changers in the West are faced with a situation that the most credible opposition to the person they want to see toppled would actually follow policies that they would hate even more.
“So what do they do? With breathtaking disdain for the views of the Russian people, they completely ignore the fact that the Communists are the second largest party in Russia – and instead portray so-called ‘liberals’ – who have minimal levels of popular support (currently around 1 percent), as the ‘democratic opposition.’
“The neocon line is: ‘in the name of democracy, the parties whose views are the most unpopular with the electorate, should be running Russia.’ Their interpretation of the word ‘democracy’ is beyond Orwellian.
“Although ‘regime change’ has become a dirty phrase, the best thing that could happen to Russia, its neighbors and the world would be a change from Vladimir Putin’s brand of strongman authoritarianism to some form of democracy,” opined Alexander Motyl in Newsweek in January. The article first appeared on the Atlantic Council’s blog.
“So, in other words, the man with sky-high approval ratings needs to be toppled, so someone much less popular can rule Russia. And all in the name of spreading ‘democracy’!”
Putin, Clark said elsewhere, is quite different from his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, who was always willing to prostrate before the powers that be:
“Back in 2000, when he was first elected President, Western elites hoped that Putin would continue the path set by his predecessor Boris Yeltsin, a man whose rule was disastrous for ordinary Russians, who saw their living standards plummet and the value of their life savings destroyed, but very good for the Western elites.
“Yeltsin privatized vast swathes of the economy and acquiesced while NATO destroyed Yugoslavia. Yeltsin was bad news for Russia – but he was hailed as a great ‘democrat’ by the West – and eulogized on his death – which tells us everything we need to know about who benefited most from his rule.
“Putin himself had no great desire to fall out with the West when he became President – quite the contrary. He was the first international leader to offer his condolences to President George W. Bush after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York. ‘In the name of Russia, I want to say to the American people – we are with you,’ he said…”
Clark said that the “the aggressive neocon faction within the Western elite” sabotaged that fruitful dialogue. Putin stood up against Russian Jewish oligarchs such as Boris Berezovksy and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and obviously the Neocons never forgave him for this unpardonable sin. “Rebuilding the economy and improving living standards for ordinary Russians inevitably meant action being taken against certain oligarchs who had made vast fortunes in the Yeltsin years.”
It is no accident, then, that the Neocon faction in America is mad, since some of their brethren in Russia were not allowed to suppress and oppress the ordinary man any longer. “Influential neocons in Washington who had links to Russian oligarchs, used the arrest of Khodorkovsky for fraud and tax evasion to push for a hardening of US policy towards Moscow.” Bruce P. Jackson, a useful idiot, declared then:
“The arrest of one man has sent us a signal that our well-intentioned Russian policy has failed. We must now recognize that there has been a massive suppression of human rights and the imposition of a de facto Cold War-type administration in Moscow.”
Putin, of course, seemed to have said enough is enough. In fact, he forthrightly opposed the Iraq invasion in 2003. So, the Neocons obviously vowed to destroy him.
“The neocon propaganda stepped up again with the mysterious death of M16 agent Alexander Litvinenko, in London in late 2006. Inevitably the death was blamed on Moscow – despite the absence of proof…
“The newly-elected US President Barack Obama promised a ‘reset’ of relations with Russia, but with the neocons still in town and peddling their anti-Putin and anti-Russian propaganda there was never any hope of that succeeding.
“The current wave of Russophobia can be linked to events in the Middle East- and Russia’s refusal to back ‘regime change’ in Syria. They desperately wanted Bashar al-Assad removed- so as to break the alliance between Syria, Hezbollah and Iran, but Russia has got in the way.
“Ukraine was where the neocons thought they would get their revenge. The US sponsored regime change in Kiev, an enterprise in which the State Department’s Victoria Nuland the wife of the Project for a New American Century co-founder Robert Kagan played a prominent role, finally enabled the hawks to get what they been dreaming of for over ten years – the sanctioning of Russia.”
Despite his shortcomings, Putin is a man who deserves our respect. His appeal to the moral law and order is a threat to the establishment. This is why they continue to panic and leave in fear. One man is trying to mess them up. Let us hope and pray that he continues to cut agents of the New World Order to pieces. To cite again our friend and ally Kevin Barrett:
“We are facing an epic struggle between those who espouse sacred values such as justice and decency versus those who wish to destroy all values. God bless President Putin, who is putting the fear of God into the New World Order.”
 Neil Clark, “Putin demonized for thwarting neocon plan for global domination,” Russia Today, November 8, 2014.
 For those who are new to this topic, see for example John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2007); Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (New York: Vanguard Books, 2000); Paul R. Pillar, Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); Bob Drogin, Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War (New York: Random House, 2007); Michael Isikoff, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (New York: Crown Forum, 2008); Bob Woodward, Point of Attack: The Definitive Account of the Decision to Invade Iraq (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004).
 Clark, “Putin demonized for thwarting neocon plan for global domination,” Russia Today, November 8, 2014.
 For those who would like to pursue this study further, see for example Edward Roslof, Red Priests: Renovationism, Russian Orthodoxy, and Revolution, 1905-1946 (Bloomington, Indiana, 2002); Steven Rosefielde, Red Holocaust (New York: Routledge, 2010); Norman M. Naimark, Stalin’s Genocide (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010); Robert Conquest, The Great Terror: A Reassessment (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); Stalin: Breaker of Nation (New York: Penguin, 1991); John Shelton Curtis, The Russian Church and the Soviet State (Boston: Little Brown, 1953); Jane Ellis, The Russian Orthodox Church: A Contemporary History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986); Dimitry V. Pospielovsky, A History of Marxist-Leninist Atheism and Soviet Anti-Religious Policies (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987); Daniel Peris, Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998).
 Perhaps E. Michael Jones should send Putin a copy of his magnum opus, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History.
 Shmuley Boteach, “No holds barred: Is Putin a friend to the Jews who deserves support?,” Jerusalem Post, March 17, 2013.
 See Dana Milbank, Prince of Darkness Denies Own Existence,” Washington Post, February 20, 2009; Alan Weisman, Prince of Darkness: Richard Perle—The Kingdom, the Power, & the End of the World (New York: Union Square Press, 2007).
 “AEI’s Perle: Putin Trying to Put ‘Humpty Dumpty Back Together,’” NewsMax.com, April 23, 2014.
 Craig Whitlock and Missy Ryan, “U.S. suspects Russia in hack of Pentagon computer network,” Washington Post, August 6, 2015.
 Cory Bennett, “Cruz: Russian Pentagon hack tied to Iranian meetings,” The Hill, August 6, 2015.
 Whitlock and Ryan, “U.S. suspects Russia in hack of Pentagon computer network,” Washington Post, August 6, 2015.
 Jonathan S. Tobin, “Vandalism or Terror, North Korea is Obama’s Responsibility,” Commentary, December 22, 2014.
 See for example Michael Hiltzik, “These experts still don’t buy the FBI claim that North Korea hacked Sony,” LA Times, December 21, 2014; Marc Rogers, “No North Korea Didn’t Hack Sony,” Daily Beast, December 24, 2014; Jeyup S. Kwaak, “North Korea Proposes Joint Probe on Sony Hacking Attack,” Wall Street Journal, December 20, 2014; Bruce Schneier, “Did North Korea Really Attack Sony?,” Atlantic, December 22, 2014; Michael Malice, “The Magical World of North Korea,” New York Observer, December 18, 2014.
 For an interesting article on this, see Seymour M. Hersh, “The Red Line and the Rate Line,” London Review of Books, Vol. 36, No. 8, April 17, 2014.
 Ariel David, “Israel: Syria’s Assad Used Chemical Weapons,” Huffington Post, April 23, 2013; Stuart Winer, “Assad using chemical weapons again, Israeli official says,” Times of Israel, April 7, 2014.
 David E. Sanger and Jodi Rudoren, “Israel Says It Has Proof That Syria Has Used Chemical Weapons,” NY Times, April 23, 2013.
 Seymour M. Hersh, “Whose Sarin?,” London Review of Books, Vol. 35, No. 24, December 19, 2013.
 Bob Dreyfuss, “Crisis in Syria: Obama vs. the Neocons: Republican war hawks are pressing for military engagement in Syria. Here’s hoping the president ignores them,” The Nation, December 13, 012.
 See for example Simon Tisdall and Josie le Blond, “Assad did not order Syria chemical weapons attack, says German press,” Guardian, September 9, 2013; Miriam Elder and Richard Norton-Taylor, “Russia dismisses US claims of Syrian chemical weapons use,” Guardian, June 14, 2013; “Putin On Syria: It Would Be ‘Utter Nonsense’ For Assad To Use Chemical Weapons,” Huffington Post, August 31, 2013.
 Rick Ungar, “Putin Offers Surprise Plan For International Control Of Syrian Chemical Weapons-Moves To Steal Obama’s Thunder?,” Forbes, September 9, 2013.
 Clark, “Putin demonized for thwarting neocon plan for global domination,” Russia Today, November 8, 2014.
 Neil Clark, “Regime change in Russia? Think again, neocons,” Russia Today, July 25, 2015.
 Clark, “Putin demonized for thwarting neocon plan for global domination,” Russia Today, November 8, 2014.