Vladimir Putin: Pedophilia is Essentially Satanic
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.”
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.”
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.” 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…”
In that sense, Darwin believed that morality was created, not discovered, by evolution. 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.”
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,” 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.”
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.”
It is no accident that Darwinism and Capitalism have a kindred spirit. 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.”
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.’”
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”! In fact, he believed that “The natural world has no moral validity or purpose.”
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, 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.
As philosopher of science and atheist Michael Ruse as recently argued, Darwinism is now a full-fledged religion, with its own priests and doctrine. 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.”
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.”
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.
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!”
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.”
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.”
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?
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.”
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, 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, 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.”
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.
“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.”
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.”
 “Putin Criticizes Western Countries for Abandoning Christian Roots,” Free Republic, December 28, 2016.
 Wilhelm Reich, The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Regulating Character Structure (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1945 and 1974), 54.
 Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin: 1809-1882 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1958), 87.
 Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist (New York: W. W. Norton, 1991), xvii.
 For further studies on this, see Peter J. Bowler and David Knight, Charles Darwin: The Man and His Influence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 183-184.
 Ibid., 183.
 Ibid., 85.
 Desmond and Moore, Darwin, 239.
 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1896), 1: 168.
 See E. Michael Jones, Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2014).
 Peter J. Bowler, Charles Darwin: The Man and His Influence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 8.
 Quoted in Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: A Biography, vol. 2 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), 342-343.
 Ibid., 392.
 Ibid., 54.
 See Glenn Hausfater and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, eds., Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives (New York: Aldine Publishing, 1984).
 For recent critiques of Darwinism, see Thomas Nagel, Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011); Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (New York: Picador, 2010).
 Michael Ruse, Darwinism as Religion: What Literature Tells Us about Evolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016).
 James Rachels, Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 4.
 G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1996), 52-53.
 Reich, The Sexual Revolution, 54.
 Quoted in E. Michael Jones, The Catholic Church and the Cultural Revolution (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2016), kindle edition.
 Reich, The Sexual Revolution, 55.
 For a cultural history on this, see E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000); Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2012).
 Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000).
 See for example Myron Sharaf, Fury on Earth: A Biography of Wilhelm Reich (New York: Da Capo Press, 1994); Christopher Turner, Adventures in the Orgasmatron (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011).
 James E. Strick, Wilhelm Reich, Biologist (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2015), 3.
 “Putin Criticizes Western Countries for Abandoning Christian Roots,” Free Republic, December 29, 2016.
 Quoted in Marc Bennetts, “Who’s ‘godless’ now? Russia says it’s U.S.,” Washington Times, January 28, 2014.
By Jonas E. Alexis
Source: Veterans Today