![\"\"](\"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/vladimir-putin1-1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\u2026by\u00a0Jonas E. Alexis, VT Editor<\/a> Can you think of any Western politician who can entertain questions even from virulent opponents for four hours? Has any Western leader been able to do that in recent memory? How about George W. Bush? Obama? Perhaps Angela Merkel?<\/strong><\/p>\n Well, Vladimir Putin has been able to do just that. In fact, he did exactly that at the end of last month. Throughout his speech and discussion, Putin again brought the moral issue back on the political table, which inexorably is at the root of nearly all the current political conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere. Putin certainly did not fail to deliver:<\/p>\n \u201cMany Western states have taken the way where they deny or reject their own roots, including their Christian roots which form the basis of Western civilization. I<\/strong>n these countries, the moral basis and any traditional identity are being denied \u2013 national, religious, cultural and even gender identities are being denied or relativized.\u201d<\/strong>[1]<\/a><\/p>\n The fact that he raised the gender identity issues, which he said \u201care being denied or relativized,\u201d is a pointed rebuke to Satanism, which basically articulates the promiscuous idea that morality should not play any role in identifying gender and that pedophilia is simply a relic of the past.<\/p>\n This is also a pointed rebuke to leading Satanists like Sigmund Freud and Wilhelm Reich, who postulated that sexual liberation should be pursued at any cost. Reich meant it when he postulated in his\u00a0Sexual Revolution<\/em>:<\/p>\n \u201cThe first precondition for the improvement of human and sexual relationships is the absolute break with those moral views which base their commandments either on allegedly supernatural arrangements or on arbitrary law or simply tradition. The laws of morality should also be founded on the insights gained by progressive science.\u201d<\/strong>[2]<\/a><\/p>\n Like the French encyclopedists, Reich deliberately fell into the trap that true science can really contradict morality, when in fact morality is essentially the cornerstone or the pillar upon which true scientific enterprise is based. He was not the only one to have deliberately fallen into that trap. Charles Darwin actually beat him to the punch.<\/p>\n Darwin excluded morality from his intellectual project, and, as expected, quickly ended up living in blatant contradiction. \u201cEverything in nature,\u201d says Darwin, \u201cis the results of fixed laws.\u201d[3]<\/a>\u00a0Darwin came to this conclusion because he began to embrace what biographers Adrian Desmond and James Moore call \u201ca terrifying materialism,\u201d according to which \u201cthe human mind, morality, and even belief in God were artifacts of the brain\u2026\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n In that sense, Darwin believed that morality was created, not discovered, by evolution.[5]<\/a>\u00a0According to historian of biology Peter J. Bowler, Darwin<\/p>\n \u201cwas trying to turn morality into a branch of biology through the proposal that our instinctive behavior can only be understood as a product of natural processes that have adapted us to a particular way of life based on the family unit as a means of raising children.\u201d<\/strong>[6]<\/a><\/p>\n If everything, including morality, is the artifact of the brain, if our behavior is \u201cinstinctive, programmed by evolution into the very structure of our brains,\u201d and if \u201cmorality is merely the rationalization of these social instincts,\u201d[7]<\/a>\u00a0then there is no moral responsibility. We simply cannot condemn immoral acts and immoral people like Benjamin Netanyahu and oligarchic empires like Goldman Sachs.<\/p>\n There is more, Darwin believed that \u201cman\u2019s mind had emerged from the worm\u2019s in the first place. This was the crux.\u201d[8]<\/a><\/p>\n If morality is out of the equation, then what is left is basically strife, force, and might. In short,\u00a0survival of the fittest<\/em>. Darwin meant it when he said:<\/p>\n \u201cThere is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cIt is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.\u201d<\/strong>[9]<\/a><\/p>\n It is no accident that Darwinism and Capitalism have a kindred spirit.[10]<\/a>\u00a0As historian of biology Peter J. Bowler points out, Darwin<\/p>\n \u201cprojected the competitive ethos of capitalism onto nature and then bent all his observations to fit into the pattern imposed by his own mind. Darwin did not discover natural selection: he invented it and then sold it to a world that was only too willing to see its own values provided with a \u2018natural\u2019 justification.<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe scientists\u2019 efforts to portray Darwin as a purely objective researcher are merely a device used to conceal the ideological foundations of science itself.\u201d<\/strong>[11]<\/a><\/p>\n Darwin complicated things when he declared that he \u201cwould rather be descended from a heroic little monkey that sacrificed her life than from a savage \u2018who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and his haunted by the grossest superstitions.\u2019\u201d[12]<\/a><\/p>\n So, which is it, Darwin?<\/p>\n Philosophically and ideologically, Darwin wants to be cruel to the \u201cimbeciles.\u201d In fact, he said quite explicitly that the \u201cimbeciles\u201d ought to be eliminated. Yet practically the same Darwin was complaining that the \u201csavages\u201d shouldn\u2019t delight in torturing each other. Darwin did not even accept the idea that morality could be \u201cobjective and universal\u201d![13]<\/a>\u00a0In fact, he believed that \u201cThe natural world has no moral validity or purpose.\u201d[14]<\/a><\/p>\n To this very day, Darwin\u2019s intellectual children like\u00a0Bradley A. Thayer<\/a>\u00a0still haven\u2019t solved the internal contradiction that exists in their own\u00a0weltanschauung<\/em>\u00a0which they desperately want to be true.<\/p>\n When all is said and done, Darwin preferred to live in contradiction rather than allowing moral duty to guide his thinking. He posited the claim that the \u201cimbeciles\u201d do not deserve to live, but he repudiated people who put that idea to practice.<\/p>\n Objective morality does not exist and even infanticide has a Darwinian mechanism,[15]<\/a>\u00a0but it is bad for savages to commit infanticide and to practice human sacrifices. What\u2019s more interesting is that Darwin thought that it was wise to impose that \u201cobjective\u201d law upon the savages!<\/p>\n Darwin was basically peddling falsehoods and then shouting \u201cscience!\u201d to advance a metaphysically incoherent and worthless system. He was advocating genocide and then turning around condemning those who practiced genocide. His intellectual children still use the \u201cscience!\u201d mantra even to this very day to silence thinkers and skeptics.[16]<\/a><\/p>\n As philosopher of science and atheist Michael Ruse as recently argued, Darwinism is now a full-fledged religion, with its own priests and doctrine.[17]<\/a>\u00a0Other philosophers such as James Rachels have argued that Darwin\u2019s followers are sometimes reluctant to follow the moral implications of his system to their logical conclusions because they are existentially unlivable or \u201cmorally pernicious.\u201d[18]<\/a><\/p>\n Darwin\u2019s intellectual children still overlook his rejection of objective morality but see with amazing clarity that objective morality needs to be upheld when confronting Zionism and other Jewish revolutionary movements. G. K. Chesterton would have blown those people\u2019s head off and asked them to start thinking straight. As he put it:<\/p>\n \u201cIn his book on politics [the modern revolutionist] attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt.\u201d<\/strong>[19]<\/a><\/p>\n In other words, Darwin is practically useless when it comes to thinking about morality and answering metaphysical questions in a logical way. And whether he liked it or not, Darwin was essentially articulating the views of the rich and powerful in books such as\u00a0The Descent of Man<\/em>.<\/p>\n Whether he liked it or not, Darwin was essentially legitimizing Zionism, which came on the political scene when Social Darwinism began to flourish both in Europe and America at the dawn of the twentieth century.<\/p>\n In that sense, Darwinists who criticize Zionism do so not on the basis of Darwinism but on the basis of morality, which Darwin himself rejected. In short, Darwinism is a house full of smoke; it is metaphysically incoherent and therefore practically worthless.<\/p>\n Putin is obviously smart enough to realize that if the West is to survive, politicians and thinkers need to bring back morality on the table and act on that basis. There is no other way to make sense. This is again an indirect attack on people like Wilhelm Reich.<\/p>\n Reich understood that in order for his sexual revolution to take place, morality has to be dismissed. He put it quite bluntly that<\/p>\n \u201cWe do not want to see natural sexual attraction stamped as \u2018sin,\u2019 \u2018sensuality\u2019 fought as something low and beastly, and the \u2018conquering of the flesh\u2019 made the guiding principle of morality!\u201d<\/strong>[<\/strong>20]<\/a><\/p>\n What Reich meant by \u201cnatural sexual attraction\u201d is that if a fifty-year-old man wants to sleep with a 10-year-old child, then this \u201cnatural sexual attraction\u201d ought not to be forbidden. In other words, Reich was advocating pedophilia and other sexual deviancies.<\/p>\n \u201cSexual inhibition,\u201d says Reich, \u201cprevents the average adolescent from thinking and feeling in a rational way.\u201d He moved on to say that \u201cIf one succeeds in getting rid of the childhood fear of masturbation and as a result thereof genitality demands gratification, then intellectual insight and sexual gratification are wont and prevail.\u201d[21]<\/a><\/p>\n Reich was obviously dumb on purpose. Since he was following an essentially Talmudic ideology, he had to postulate that corrupting children through sexual perversion would lead to \u201cintellectual insight.\u201d But then he also had to couch his perversion in the language of \u201cmorality.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cTo us,\u201d he wrote in his\u00a0Sexual Revolution<\/em>, \u201cmorality serves, under given circumstances and according to our best insights, the development of the individual personality, the guidance of all people toward higher and more perfect forms of living.\u201d[22]<\/a><\/p>\n Sure, morality should be \u201cthe guidance of all people toward higher and more perfect forms of living,\u201d but how does that line up with Reich\u2019s own idea that corrupting children with sexual perversion will again lead to \u201cintellectual insight\u201d? And did he seriously believe that this lifestyle would lead to a \u201chigher and more perfect forms of living\u201d? Haven\u2019t we seen the result of this nonsense for the past sixty years or so?[23]<\/a><\/p>\n Well, Reich was not really that stupid. Again, he was just dumb on purpose. He wrote: \u201cSexual intercourse itself is neither moral nor immoral. Born from a strong, natural drive, it becomes one or the other only through opinions and accompanying circumstances.\u201d[24]<\/a><\/p>\n We are confronted with a fundamental problem here. If \u201csexual intercourse is neither more nor immoral,\u201d then the women who have accused Bill Cosby of committing lewd sexual acts have made a grave mistake.<\/p>\n If Reich is right, then there is no such thing as rape, and if rape is just an amoral activity, then Hollywood actors and actresses can\u2019t complain about being raped, either. Here again we find that Darwinism and the Jewish revolutionary spirit are concentric circles because Darwinism tell us that rape has a biological basis,[25]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0an incoherent thesis which obviously removes the moral dimension.<\/p>\n The interesting thing is that the deracinated culture has never come out and condemned Reich for his perversion! And Darwin is still revered in academic circles around the world.<\/p>\n Reich, who was projecting his own sexual liberation onto the world,[26]<\/a>\u00a0attempted to ground his perversion in biology. But as James E. Strick himself has recently pointed out,<\/p>\n \u201cthere is no point in looking more closely at Reich\u2019s science because there was no legitimate science from Reich\u2014even if one credits him with talent as a therapist and political or social analyst.\u201d[27]<\/a><\/p>\n What\u2019s interesting about Putin is that he has indirectly attacked Satanists like Reich. He has articulated the view that \u201cthe moral basis and any traditional identity are being denied\u201d in the West. \u201cThere,\u201d he continued, \u201cpolitics treats a family with many children as equal to a homosexual partnership (juridically).\u201d Then Putin dropped the political bomb, which obviously makes him a villain in the eyes of Satanists and NWO agents:<\/p>\n \u201cThe excesses and exaggerations of political correctness in these countries indeed leads to serious consideration for the legitimization of parties that promote the propaganda of pedophilia. The people in many European states are actually ashamed of their religious affiliations and are indeed frightened to speak about them.\u201d<\/p>\n Putin again said that if there is no morality, then \u201cthe degradation and primitivization of culture\u201d is a logical step.[28]<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cWhat can be better evidence for the moral crisis of human society in the West than the loss of its reproductive function? And today nearly all \u2018developed\u2019 Western countries cannot survive reproductively, not even with the help of migrants\u2026 without rules and moral values which have formed, and been developed, over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity and become brutes.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Putin continued to deconstruct the New World Order ideology this way: \u201cOne has to respect the right of every minority to self-determination, but at the same time there cannot and must not be any doubt about the rights of the majority.\u201d<\/p>\n So much for the claim that Putin is against democracy and that he was seeking to persecute minority groups in Russia. Putin obviously knows that minority groups have to be protected, but at the same time they cannot impose their ideology upon the majority. Moreover, they cannot seek to subvert the moral order. Plain and simple.<\/p>\n Obviously pedophiles, Neocons, and other New World Order agents will never forgive Putin because he is making those people look really bad. If those people are pursuing a satanic ideology, says Putin, then they are on \u201cthe path to degradation.\u201d[29]<\/a><\/p>\n We agree. What\u2019s the solution? These people need to turn around and make practical reason or Logos their daily meal. As C. S. Lewis put it, \u201cIf you\u2019re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nVETERANS TODAY<\/p>\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.veteranstoday.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/charless.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.veteranstoday.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/wilhelm-reich.jpg\")