Vladimir Putin morally and intellectually humiliates Satanist Masha Gessen again

By Jonas E. Alexis on December 17, 2016

New World Order agents and Satanists are doing Putin a big favor by upholding patently incoherent ideas. This was one reason why Putin told BBC journalist John Simpson, “Have you any common sense at all?”

…by Jonas E. Alexis

Jewish writer Masha Gessen wants to be a Tasmanian devil when it comes to attacking Vladimir Putin. She thinks she has all the facts that will outsmart Putin in a fair political fight. Taking the C.I.A. as her cue, she has recently reproduced the claim that Russia—and Vladimir Putin in particular—was involved in hacking into the DNC.

When Trump responded by saying that “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” Gessen declared, “But simple explanations, especially ones that assign blame to conspiracies and foreigners, threaten clear thinking.”[1]

Oh, boy. I simply could not hold my laughter here because we have been accused of obfuscating “truth” by positing “conspiratorial theories” about foreign policy and the Neoconservative ideology for years! Now Gessen is saying that invoking claims such as “conspiracy theories” is not a substitute for clear thinking.

If that is what Gessen truly believes, then we will show that Gessen is desperately attempting to attack Putin because she is following an essentially wicked ideology. She cannot evade the evidence by invoking “conspiracy theories” either.

Gessen repeatedly said that Putin was a member of “subversive groups” which had ties to the NKVD, but she never addressed the fact that Putin is no longer a KGB.[2] She could never address the fact that Putin is implicitly challenging Stalinism and Leninism, the actual ideologies of the old regime.

In fact, Putin made it very clear that the Soviet government was “80-85 percent Jewish” and was “guided by false ideological considerations,”[3] which ended up slaughtering innocent Jews and multiplied millions of peasants and other people.

Gessen can never address this issue rationally because that will destroy her ideological hermeneutics. And if we take her position seriously and follow it to its logical conclusion, then her entire critique of Vladimir Putin falls apart. For example, Irving Kristol bragged about being a Trotskyite in college.[4]

Kristol’s son, Bill, is on Fox News almost every week and continues to pursue Trotsky’s ideology all over the Middle East. Has Gressen come out and declared that Kristol ought not to be on Fox News because she is pursuing an essentially Trotskyite ideology?

But the central question is this: Is Gessen really concerned about the truth and following it all the way? No.

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…”[5] The actual scene was literal pornography.

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.[6]

If you don’t think that Gessen is morally and intellectually corrupt, think again. She once posited the claim that “It’s a no brainer that gays have the right to marry.” In the very next sentence, she magically asserted: “I also think equally that the institution of marriage should not exist.”

So, which is it, Gessen?

We are being buried beneath an avalanche of contradictions here. If the institution of marriage should not exist, does the statement that people “should have the right to marry” make any sense at all? Why can’t Gessen come to her senses and realize that she needs to think twice about postulating one crazy statement after another?

Now let us take this to the next logical conclusion. If the institution of marriage shouldn’t exist, then what should exist? Why did Gessen fail to flesh out the standards for us? Would it be all right for a grown man to consensually have sex little boys and girls? Was it all right for David Epstein of the University of Columbia to consensually have sex with his 24-year old daughter?

And if it is immoral, why haven’t Woody Allen and Roman Polanski been arrested for molesting little girls? Why the double standards?

You see, New World Order agents and Satanists are doing Putin a big favor by upholding patently incoherent ideas. This was one reason why Putin told BBC journalist John Simpson, “Have you any common sense at all?”

Gessen has recently declared in the New York Times that “Democrats, pundits and reporters put forth the evidence that Russia was behind the hack.”[7]

Really? Positing an assertion over and over has now become a fact? Gessen summons the C.I.A. to buttress her point, but she will never tell her readers that the C.I.A. for example have been supporting terrorist cells such as the so-called Syrian rebels. The C.I.A., as scholar Peter Dale Scott of the University of California has meticulously and methodically argued, has been responsible for spreading drugs virtually all over the world.[8] Gessen must know that the C.I.A. was also responsible for a coup in Iran in 1953.

Will she ever challenge the C.I.A. and write some constructive criticism on this very issue? If not, then why the picking and choosing?

Here is Gessen at her best again:

“Let us imagine the conversation we would be having if we were not preoccupied with Mr. Trump’s denial of the C.I.A.’s conclusions. We would now be discussing the appropriate response to the hacking. We would be talking about consequences for the American electoral process in general and for the results of this election in particular.”[9]

She’s got to be kidding. She again cannot address the fact that the United States has been involved in hacking for decades, and no one, not even Masha Gessen, has ever said no.

If Russia did hack into the DNC, says Gessen, it is “wrong.” “Implying that American public opinion can be ‘tainted’ by exposure to foreign influence contains disturbing — and distinctly archaic — undertones of a call to national purity.”[10]

Sure. But when will Gessen be morally and intellectually brave enough to ask for “national purity” when America continues to meddle with other countries? Gessen knows that the U.S. has done exactly that. She writes,

“The United States has frequently and unapologetically intervened in elections in other countries’ elections. In Latin America, the Middle East or Eastern Europe, this intervention has been open or covert, ranging from funding pro-democracy organizations and providing training to political leaders to handpicking candidates to install in power.

“In these interventions, the United States certainly uses products of its intelligence agencies. Russia, which has repeatedly (and often without basis) accused the United States of meddling, never tires of pointing out American double standards.”[11]

So far, so good. But how does she respond to the double standards? Well, fasten your seatbelt:

“Double standards in politics are not uncommon. They are not even necessarily wrong. But they are also not obvious, or obviously correct: They need to be understood and articulated. The conversation we should be having right now is a complicated one. We should be talking about how public opinion is formed in an interconnected world. We should be asking whether there is information that ought to be excluded from the public sphere because it is obtained through espionage or other illegal means.

“We should be discussing how journalists should treat such information when they encounter it. We should be questioning whether, or when, or how, the United States has the right to intervene in other countries’ elections — and what that means for our right to insist that American elections must be free of influence. We should be engaging in the complex discussions that form the rich public sphere essential to a democracy.”[12]

READ MORE >>>>>