Vladimir Putin: Pedophilia Is Essentially Satanic

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 in “the path to degradation.”

putin1

…by Jonas E. Alexis

 

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?

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:

“Many 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. In these countries, the moral basis and any traditional identity are being denied – national, religious, cultural and even gender identities are being denied or relativized.”[1]

The fact that he raised the gender identity issues, which he said “are being denied or relativized,” 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.

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 Sexual Revolution:

“The 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.”[2]

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.

Darwin excluded morality from his intellectual project, and, as expected, quickly ended up living in blatant contradiction. “Everything in nature,” says Darwin, “is the results of fixed laws.”[3] Darwin came to this conclusion because he began to embrace what biographers Adrian Desmond and James Moore call “a terrifying materialism,” according to which “the human mind, morality, and even belief in God were artifacts of the brain…”[4]

In that sense, Darwin believed that morality was created, not discovered, by evolution.[5] According to historian of biology Peter J. Bowler, Darwin

“was 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.”[6]

If everything, including morality, is the artifact of the brain, if our behavior is “instinctive, programmed by evolution into the very structure of our brains,” and if “morality is merely the rationalization of these social instincts,”[7] then there is no moral responsibility. We simply cannot condemn immoral acts and immoral people like Benjamin Netanyahu and oligarchic empires like Goldman Sachs.

There is more, Darwin believed that “man’s mind had emerged from the worm’s in the first place. This was the crux.”[8]

Charles Darwin

If morality is out of the equation, then what is left is basically strife, force, and might. In short, survival of the fittest. Darwin meant it when he said:

“There 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.

“It 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.”[9]

It is no accident that Darwinism and Capitalism have a kindred spirit.[10] As historian of biology Peter J. Bowler points out, Darwin

“projected 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 ‘natural’ justification.

“The scientists’ efforts to portray Darwin as a purely objective researcher are merely a device used to conceal the ideological foundations of science itself.”[11]

Darwin complicated things when he declared that he “would rather be descended from a heroic little monkey that sacrificed her life than from a savage ‘who 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.’”[12]

So, which is it, Darwin?

Philosophically and ideologically, Darwin wants to be cruel to the “imbeciles.” In fact, he said quite explicitly that the “imbeciles” ought to be eliminated. Yet practically the same Darwin was complaining that the “savages” shouldn’t delight in torturing each other. Darwin did not even accept the idea that morality could be “objective and universal”![13] In fact, he believed that “The natural world has no moral validity or purpose.”[14]

To this very day, Darwin’s intellectual children like Bradley A. Thayer still haven’t solved the internal contradiction that exists in their own weltanschauung which they desperately want to be true.

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 “imbeciles” do not deserve to live, but he repudiated people who put that idea to practice.

Objective morality does not exist and even infanticide has a Darwinian mechanism,[15] but it is bad for savages to commit infanticide and to practice human sacrifices. What’s more interesting is that Darwin thought that it was wise to impose that “objective” law upon the savages!

Darwin was basically peddling falsehoods and then shouting “science!” 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 “science!” mantra even to this very day to silence thinkers and skeptics.[16]

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] Other philosophers such as James Rachels have argued that Darwin’s followers are sometimes reluctant to follow the moral implications of his system to their logical conclusions because they are existentially unlivable or “morally pernicious.”[18]

Darwin’s 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’s head off and asked them to start thinking straight. As he put it:

“In 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.”[19]

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 The Descent of Man.

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.

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.

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.

Wilhelm Reich

Reich understood that in order for his sexual revolution to take place, morality has to be dismissed. He put it quite bluntly that

“We do not want to see natural sexual attraction stamped as ‘sin,’ ‘sensuality’ fought as something low and beastly, and the ‘conquering of the flesh’ made the guiding principle of morality!”[20]

What Reich meant by “natural sexual attraction” is that if a fifty-year-old man wants to sleep with a 10-year-old child, then this “natural sexual attraction” ought not to be forbidden. In other words, Reich was advocating pedophilia and other sexual deviancies.

“Sexual inhibition,” says Reich, “prevents the average adolescent from thinking and feeling in a rational way.” He moved on to say that “If 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.”[21]

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 “intellectual insight.” But then he also had to couch his perversion in the language of “morality.”

“To us,” he wrote in his Sexual Revolution, “morality 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.”[22]

Sure, morality should be “the guidance of all people toward higher and more perfect forms of living,” but how does that line up with Reich’s own idea that corrupting children with sexual perversion will again lead to “intellectual insight”? And did he seriously believe that this lifestyle would lead to a “higher and more perfect forms of living”? Haven’t we seen the result of this nonsense for the past sixty years or so?[23]

Well, Reich was not really that stupid. Again, he was just dumb on purpose. He wrote: “Sexual 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.”[24]

We are confronted with a fundamental problem here. If “sexual intercourse is neither more nor immoral,” then the women who have accused Bill Cosby of committing lewd sexual acts have made a grave mistake.

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’t 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] an incoherent thesis which obviously removes the moral dimension.

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.

Reich, who was projecting his own sexual liberation onto the world,[26] attempted to ground his perversion in biology. But as James E. Strick himself has recently pointed out,

“there is no point in looking more closely at Reich’s science because there was no legitimate science from Reich—even if one credits him with talent as a therapist and political or social analyst.”[27]

What’s interesting about Putin is that he has indirectly attacked Satanists like Reich. He has articulated the view that “the moral basis and any traditional identity are being denied” in the West. “There,” he continued, “politics treats a family with many children as equal to a homosexual partnership (juridically).” Then Putin dropped the political bomb, which obviously makes him a villain in the eyes of Satanists and NWO agents:

“The 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.”

Putin again said that if there is no morality, then “the degradation and primitivization of culture” is a logical step.[28]

“What 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 ‘developed’ Western countries cannot survive reproductively, not even with the help of migrants… without rules and moral values which have formed, and been developed, over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity and become brutes.”

Putin continued to deconstruct the New World Order ideology this way: “One 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.”

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.

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 in “the path to degradation.”[29]

We agree. What’s the solution? These people need to turn around and make practical reason or Logos their daily meal. As C. S. Lewis put it, “If you’re 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.”

 

Source: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/01/07/vladimir-putin-pedophilia-is-essentially-satanic/

12 thoughts on “Vladimir Putin: Pedophilia Is Essentially Satanic

  1. Unbelievably ignorant twisted history written by a religious patriarchal zealot no doubt. I cannot believe what I am reading. Is this really a Goddess site? So much misinformation. Did you know Reich was advocating in the 30s our need to return to a matriarchal society and abandon the very immoral oppressive (nazi) patriarchy? Did you know he inspired his daughter to create the gentle childhood procedures that have become so popular today? What is wrong with you people? There were some evil men and evil sexologists, but Reich, though very eccentric, was NOT one of them. You occult people have apparently combined too much Bircher and Blavatsky crap to your paradigm. You are also confusing Social Darwinism with Darwin himself. Two different animals. You really should not be spreading this type of ignorance. Rewriting history in this way is a disservice to our youth.

  2. you are demonizing the wrong guy, you need to do you homework better. the premise of you piece was good idea, but content is ludicrous.

  3. Reich never advocated pedophilia, though he was accused of it as part of a massive effort to destroy him and his good work. During his lifetime a litany of propaganda against his character was promoted, to the effect that he was encouraging bizarre forms of promiscuity, which could not have been further from the case. In fact, to this day, I have never seen his critics accurately critique him based on any in-depth look at his work – and I should know, having read several of his books, ALL of which promote mature, loving sex between consenting adults as essential for human health. His stance against “morality” had to do with the anti-sex doctrines of the church and various political groups that, for political power, taught that sex was “dirty”, “shameful”, and/or “sinful”, etc. – but to take his quotes out of context and twist them as if they were somehow promoting pedophilia is not only a deeply malicious mischaracterization, it’s lack of foundation suggests an intent to deceive. Nonetheless, I will give Prepare for Change the benefit of the doubt, and, rather than assume this was an intentional and malicious act of defamation, I will instead assume that this was a mistake of a naive sensationalism due to the author himself falling prey to propaganda.

    Please reconsider the position of this article, for this effectively contributes to the persecution of the innocent, as well as the continued suppression of science and medicine – for Reich’s work was indeed a verifiable medical breakthrough. The accusation of promoting pedophilia cannot possibly be sustained by someone who has actually read and comprehended the Function of the Orgasm, the Murder of Christ, or a great number of his books.

  4. Masturbation is “sexual perversion”? Really ? Making up stories that are based on your personal ego is perversion of reality.
    Typical “christian” propaganda this article is. The writer needs to “man up” and stop making up stories about people “what Reich meant by” {what a perverse distortion of Reichs words} natural sexual attraction is …. “in other words” [which means THE WRITER IS MAKING UP STUFF] Reich was advocating.

    Vladimir may have issues with this article ! Rather then reporting and commenting on Putins discussion, this article springboards into a rabbit hole of obscurity, knowing most ppl are disgusted by pre pubescent sex.

    PS Darwin, on his death bed wanted ppl to NOT ENGAGE in his evolution theory and that the theory was not a true indication.

  5. Unfortunately the article by Mr. Alexis is well written but as the previous thoughtful commenter points out, he makes some overreaching conclusions regarding the energy research that Reich was responsible for.

    The content of this article is a classic case of a very truthful expose of Satanism and the comments of Putin but on the other hand it includes many assumptions and extrapolations based not on quotes but on interpretation and extrapolation by the author. In this way we must all use discernment and accept what we feel is truth but not accept blindly all the conclusions made.

    I am not in a position of debating Mr. Alexis regarding the true intent of Reich the psychologist regarding sexual mores, but I do have firsthand experience with human sexuality in a context of loving and open relationships. In this regard I have fallen back to what is probably the overriding truism regarding our journey to enlightenment. It is known as the golden rule. Where Mr. Alexis freely interprets Reich’s scholarly comments on morality and how we view sexuality in a manner that I believe puts words that Reich did not say and then describes them as part of his belief structure.

    While I do not have any problem with Mr. Alexis’s basic description of pedophilia as being evil, it is the imposition of force or power over a less power individual who is not allowed to freely make choices that is at the heart of the morality issue. It is not a black and white issue regarding the examination of sexual feelings and evaluating in what situations they are acceptable. In summary, I would say that in my opinion the article exposes some prurient attitudes of the author regarding sexuality.

  6. from what I have found just beginning to research this/their belief system, the satanist ‘cross’ the genders quiet a bit. Not sure if all of them fall into this category. Still researching this criss crossing of gender thing.

  7. Yes, a leader , a president ,a chief minister when speaks about the morals that should been there in any level off course a great step forward in disclosing the pain that caused by all the dark satanists, thugs , impostors , pedophiles like Darwin and many others established firmly in all countries( we have all his pedophilic morals still in the syllabus of the educational systems, which should be and must be eliminated immediately), and is need to happen more and more from each and every condition of each and every being on Mother Earth in relation to law of the universe. Victory of the light , love and peace forever more. Namastey

  8. Reich NEVER advocated “rape” or “satanism” of any kind! All he wished is that people should be free to lead the sexual lives they choose, as fully informed, consenting individuals. A passionate advocate of individual freedom like him would NEVER had advocated child sexual abuse or forced sex on sovereign, free persons. Frankly, I think that the kind of sexual repression forcibly imposed by “religion” has had far more nefarious consequences on human societies than the(somewhat excessive!)sexual freedom of today.

  9. Dear Mr. Jonathan Jonas,
    I agree that Putin is definitely operating on the side of the Light, that pedophilia is evil and that Israel’s stifling and continued inhumane treatment of the Palestinians is reproachable. Moreover, I’m not an expert on Zionism but from reading many articles and watching many videos, including one that demonstrates that virtually every key American traitor of the 9/11 False Flag event was deeply involved with Zionism. I can see that it may be the source of much of our world’s terrorism – one, our hi-jacked corporation government subsidizes with 3+ billion dollars of aid per year. Finally, I’m also not deeply read on much of Darwin’s work, though I agree with you that his “survival of the fittest” doctrine does not grasp much of this world’s underlying spiritual basis; so, yes, I intensely dislike any application of this doctrine to our human society – after all, each physical person represents only a tip of the underlying soul’s divine spark of energy. We each do have God inside of us, so we are all Fittest!
    My real impetus for writing this reply is in regard to your research of Wilhelm Reich. I am not an expert on his societal/sexual ideas but spent much time reading his scientific research. I don’t know how much effort and time you put into investigating his scientific quest to identify what he eventually came to call “orgone” energy but I can avow that it wasn’t enough. For whatever reason you deferred to the views of one James E. Strick who you quoted:
    “there is no point in looking more closely at Reich’s science because there was no legitimate science from Reich—even if one credits him with talent as a therapist and political or social analyst.”[27]
    Why are you accepting Strick’s opinion? How can you so easily accept one’s person’s dismissive opinion regarding another’s lifelong work. Don’t you and each of us deserve an appropriate in depth humane hearing. Shouldn’t lack of convincing knowledge about someone/something encourage a careful and limited comment? And if Reich was such a perfect dissembling agent of our materialistic immoral new world order rising powers, why were Reich’s books ordered burned and Reich imprisoned on a trumped up charge of fraudulent inter-state commerce? Did you know that he was found dead just days before his likely parole after completing the first year of a 2 year sentence? If it turned out he was killed (poisoned? Haven’t we heart of poisons that stimulate a heart attack?) by the powers that be, wouldn’t this contradict his being a wonderful agent of these immoral promoting powers?
    In summary, please be very careful in accepting the dismissal of a person’s life work. Please spend as much time as necessary to review and then study (yes study, for most of us, some issues of science require more than a cursory view) the many Scientific Monographs and articles of Paulo and Alexandra Correa (beautifully displayed at their site: aetherometry.com) covering Reich’s neglected and misunderstood experiments in Biology, Physics and Cosmology. They have reviewed and repeated all that Wilhelm Reich wrote regarding orgone energy. I can affirm first hand from my own studies that each of their Experimental Monographs takes up and conclusively proves that Reich’s scientific discoveries and ideas though not always perfectly disentangled were always based on veritable repeatable phenomena. Shouldn’t a discoverer of a new energy phenomena be celebrated and not persecuted for broadening the human scientific knowledge? Graced with today’s modern experimental and more importantly their own remarkable intellectual and experimental abilities, the Correas perfect teamwork reviewed what Reich had identified and then integrating much of Nicola Tesla’s work extended each by creating their own theory of the Aether. …Sorry Einstein worshippers, but there is an aether, and its proper enunciation fits Reich’s and Tesla’s findings. One final note: We all know how neutral and unbiased Wikipedia is, look up its article on Reich and then skip to their paragraph dedicated to his science: Assuming you’ve reviewed and studied the Correa’s site, ask yourself, why does Wikipedia include no mention of the Correa’s maga opus on Reich’s (and Tesla’s) work? Answer: They don’t want you to learn what he learned.

    Love and Light! – a most clear and perceptive Light that though we may never fully attain, forever harkens our striving.
    Ray Monteiro,
    ardent student of the inspirational Correas.

  10. This thinly veiled attack on the LGBT community turns my stomach. Morality shmorality. We all have an obligation to welcome and celebrate our differences, provided only consenting adults are involved.

Leave a Reply

Top
%d bloggers like this: