Usury in Christendom

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
June 23, 2019 Anno Domini
Book Review

Michael Hoffman’s Usury in Christendom is a thought-provoking and challenging elucidation on the gradual acceptance of the mortal sin of usury in the Catholic Church contrasted with the supposed stern stand against usury by early Puritans—the supposed inheritors of medieval Catholicism.

The first couple hundred pages are fairly straight forward and illustrate the Biblical and Early Church teaching on usury, which appears uncompromising (no amount of interest is permitted under the sin of usury, according to traditional Church teaching). Hoffman starts with Medici Pope Leo X as the beginning of the Church leadership’s slide into apostasy (the love of money being the root of all evil). It was Leo X who, as Hoffman contends, created the loophole for moderate rates of interest with the institution of the monte di pieta, a Florentine bank supposedly designed to offer relief to the poor from the excessive interest rates of Jewish and gentile loansharks thriving in the region. Hoffman argues that the loophole of Leo X and those of Popes thereafter has absolutely no moral justification and is a contravention of Biblical teaching. A fair point by Hoffman that’s difficult to counter, especially considering that Leo X threatened excommunication to anyone publicly expressing doubts over his 1515 Bull. However, on page 226, Hoffman seems to inadvertently provide his own loophole when he writes, “Few churches today exhort against interest on loans beyond the rate of inflation….” How is Hoffman’s exception of inflation any more permissible than the monte di pieta’s exception of circumventing Jewish loansharking by way of low-rate fees required to keep the bank in operation? Hoffman then shows that the loopholes eventually led to mass acceptance of differing forms of usury, persecution of anti-usury dissidents (within the Church and outside of it), and the Catholic Church’s lending of its own money at interest. He claims encyclicals of post-Renaissance popes, like Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum of 1891, were merely rhetoric to placate the masses while Church-sanctioned usury continued unabated.

The latter half of Usury in Christendom ramps up the book’s overall polemical tone and uplifts the early Puritans—unlike the supposedly wayward later Puritans—as the harbingers of anti-usury, anti-capitalist Biblical economic practices. And even when he does discuss those wayward Protestants, like crypto-Jew John Calvin, he can’t help but blame their permittance of usury on the influence of “Roman Catholic nominalists”. Catholics are somehow solely responsible for all usury in the modern world, it seems. Hoffman clearly suggests that the apostate Roman Catholic leadership is primarily responsible for modern usurious capitalism, not Jews or Protestants. The latter have been unfairly scapegoated, although they are involved, Hoffman insists. The Catholics must also be responsible for the early Puritan’s usurist loophole, with which Hoffman seems to have no problem, of permitting usury on commercial investment.

“The early Puritans were capitalism’s worst nightmare; how they came to be made synonymous with its ‘spirit’ is an act of legerdemain by way of a malignant prejudice.”

John Cotton is one such early Puritan to whom Hoffman frequently refers.

Hoffman seems to feel that he must—in the name of historical truth, I suppose—correct Catholic “ignoramuses” in their prejudicial views on the early Puritans and, to a lesser degree, anti-usurist Calvinists. After all, it seems according to Hoffman, Catholics ought to look to Protestant reformers (heretics) to correct Catholic apostasy. A rather absurd conclusion, if in fact, it is his. Hoffman’s championing of the early Puritans is set up early on in his book as he leaves them out of his list of the guilty parties involved in usury. “Modern Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and Mennonites are all guilty of this grotesque disobedience to God.” He seems to suggest, as he does with the early Puritans, that early Protestants were obedient to Biblical teaching on usury. It was only modern Protestants that got it wrong. While Hoffman be be correct that many Catholics throughout the ages have levelled unfair and/or exaggerated charges against early Protestants of usury and Shylockian economic practices, he comes across as quite angry and reactionary—the same way he does with his critics in public discussions (online comments, etc.).

Hoffman’s yearning for an Amish-like economic system may be ideal for the Church, but it is completely impractical in a time when Satanic communism co-opts any legitimate anti-capitalist movements. It may be even more impractical now because of the no-return-like state of the world economy (it seems the banksters have created a system by which only further usury and quantitative easing can keep it going). At times, Hoffman seems to embrace Soviet critiques of Western “colonialism”, particularly in the following mocking tone:

“Was it Puritan Conquistadors who, in an orgy of greed unprecedented in the annals of the western hemisphere, contracted a gold fever that burned so hot it plundered and enslaved the helpless indigenous nations at their mercy?”

Regardless, Hoffman does correctly point out that capitalism and communism are two dialectical forces that both serve the purpose of the money power. They are both based in materialism.

He also equates the “social justice” in Fr. Charles E. Coughlin’s The National Union for Social Justice with the same kind of modern “social justice” against which pundits like Glen Beck rail. Hoffman may be correct that Beck is a hopeless predatory capitalist, but I doubt very much that Coughlin’s social justice is the same as that expressed by the radical Left today.

Critics of Hoffman have pointed out his inconsistent reasoning when accepting mainstream media narratives in one instance and rejecting them as “cryptocracy” propaganda in the next instance. The following Hoffman polemic illustrates this:

“Are these fables about the first Puritans seeded by the Cryptocracy to keep us from studying the radical Protestant roots of resistance to the authority of money? With the virtual collapse of the credibility of popery in the 21st century—with its melange of institutionalized child molestation and ‘infallible’ canonization of ‘Blessed’ John Paul II, patron saint of Voodoo in Benin and Koran-kissing in Rome—an alternative to papalolatry is intensely to be desired.”

Hoffman’s refusal to publicly acknowledge to which Church authority he subscribes only further provides ammunition for his critics. But perhaps we can glean something from a small footnote on page 259. Is he Protestant? Catholic? Schismatic?

“In our protest of the idolization of mere human beings (Romans 3:10; Matt. 20:25-28), we meant to take nothing away from the esteem due to faithful and saintly pre-Renaissance pontiffs who upheld the integrity and authority of the Word of God.”

Completely left out of Usury in Christendom’s equation, oddly, is the history of usury and capitalism—for or against—in Eastern Orthodoxy, particularly as it pertains to the great and prosperous Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Orthodox position is the same anti-usury teaching of the traditional Roman Catholic Church). Was this an historiographical blunder or does Hoffman think it irrelevant? Apparently he feels that the relatively short Puritan period warrants more attention than 1,000 years of Byzantium—through which to learn lessons on usury.

On a minor note, the book has no index, which is unusual and inconvenient.

Putting aside Hoffman’s frequent Puritan apologetics, his book makes solid points about the apostasy of Catholic leadership since the Middle Ages when it comes to usury. His logic and standards are sometimes inconsistent, but his points on usury in the Catholic Church are valid and important. His theory on loopholes is plausible and should not be ignored, despite his biases.

“Contraception, abortion, and homosexuality are, in part, derived from the corruption of a society that has legalized the crime of usury.”

The ‘August coup’ hoax that legitimized the fake collapse of communism

Moscow. The 19th of August 1991. Boris Yeltsin addresses people from the top of a tank. Photo TASS / Valentin Kuzmin; Alexander Chumichev (Photo by TASS via Getty Images)

By Anatoliy Golitsyn
June 22, 2019 Anno Domini
Excerpt: The Perestroika Deception, pgs. 137-144 (1998)

THE FAKE ‘AUGUST COUP’ AND ITS CALCULATED FAILURE

A deliberately engineered ‘Break with the Past’

Who called the shots in the USSR before the ‘coup’ and who introduced the ‘reforms’? Gorbachev and his ‘liberals’? NO, the Party and its strategists.

Who is calling the shots now and who proposed the coup to replace Gorbachev? The ‘hardliners’, the Minister of Defence and the Chief of the KGB? NO, the Party and its strategists.

The ‘coup’ was proposed in accordance with the requirements of the Soviet strategy of convergence leading to eventual World Government. This strategy and its moves, like the present Soviet ‘coup’, can only be understood in the light of the theories of one of the principal Soviet agents of influence, namely Sakharov, and his timetable for convergence. According to Sakharov, during the first phase the Leninist realists (i.e. Gorbachev and other ‘liberals’) will expand and strengthen ‘democracy’ and economic reform in the USSR and other socialist countries.

As we know, this has already happened.

According to Sakharov, in the second phase the pressure exerted by the Soviet example and by the internal progressive forces would lead to the victory of the Leftist Reformist Wing (the Soviet term for American liberals) which would begin to implement a programme of collaboration and convergence with the USSR on a worldwide scale, entailing changes in the structure of ownership. According to Sakharov, this phase would include an expanded role for the intelligentsia and an attack on the forces of racism and militarism.

We had reached this phase before the war with Iraq. In the assessment of the Soviet strategists, the US victory over Iraq adversely affected the political balance in the United States. In their view, the victory weakened and demoralised the liberals (or Leftist Reformists) and strengthened the centrist and conservative forces and the US military. This disturbed Soviet plans to carry out their strategy of convergence.

They saw that their main political allies in achieving convergence with the United States had been weakened. Accordingly they engineered this strategic ‘coup’ to reverse and improve the political fortunes of their American allies. Seen in strategic terms, the main purpose of Gorbachev’s ‘dismissal’ is further to confuse American opinion and to alter the political landscape in the United States so as to accelerate the progress of the Soviet strategy and to put it back on the rails.

This strategy is a deliberate and coordinated walk towards ultimate victory by advancing first the left leg of action by ‘liberals’, then the right leg of action by ‘hardliners’ and then once more the left leg of action by ‘liberals’. The ‘dismissal’ of Gorbachev is temporary. In earlier Memoranda I predicted a calculated ‘resignation’ by Gorbachev and his eventual return to power.

The ‘coup’ confirms this prediction. According to my analysis, the ‘coup’ is aimed at intensifying American anxieties over the fate of Gorbachev and the other ‘liberals’ and ‘reformists’ in the USSR like Shevardnadze. When these concerns reach their peak, the Soviet strategists’ next move can be expected. They will return Gor- bachev and other ‘liberals’ to power through a campaign of strikes and demonstra- tions organised by the Party.

As the Soviet strategists see it, Gorbachev’s return and the strengthening of the ‘reformists’ in the USSR will also strengthen the American liberals, revive their fortunes and help them win future elections – leading eventually to the convergence of the United States and the USSR. In short, Gorbachev’s return will be a repetition of the device of the suppression of Solidarity in Poland, followed by its victory.

The main purpose of the ‘coup’ is to reverse an unfavourable situation for potential Soviet allies in the United States and to create favourable conditions for the implementation of the convergence strategy. The second objective is to secure the non-violent creation of the new Soviet Federation of Republics. The third objective is to provide any potential adventurers there may be in the Soviet military with a lesson and thereby to eliminate any possibility of a genuine coup in the future.

Moscow, August 20, 1991. Russian President Boris Yeltsin makes communist first salute and speaks at a rally held in support of “democracy”. (Photo by: Sovfoto/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

A FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SOVIET ‘COUP’

The point has already been made that Gorbachev will be returned to power at the moment when it best serves the Soviet strategy of convergence. Depending on the circumstances prevailing at the appropriate time, he could be returned to power through an election, after a period of other activities .

His alleged removal from power and house arrest are deliberate devices to build up his popularity before such an election. Meanwhile one can expect that the Soviet strategists intend to replace him or to add to his team another ace card, the ‘anti-Communist’ (but, like Gorbachev, protege of Andropov) Boris Yeltsin, leader of the Russian Republic. As the Soviet strategists see it, Gorbachev has exhausted the influence he exerted on their behalf in the West. He was unable to extract more econ- omic aid at the London Summit Meeting and his advice concerning a diplomatic solution to the conflict with Iraq was ignored by President Bush. It is the strategists’ belief that Boris Yeltsin will give greater credibility in the West to Soviet economic and political ‘reform’. He will be in a better position to exploit his influence to extract additional economic aid from the West and, in particular, to obtain from the West a commitment to a new Marshall Plan for Russia.

A Marshall Plan for Russia is one of the primary interim objectives of the Soviet strategists and one that Gorbachev failed to achieve. The strategists expect that Yeltsin will be able to exert greater influence in diplomatic, economic and political relationships and will receive more cooperation in the international arena particularly in the Middle East and at the United Nations. One can expect that the Soviet strategists will come forward with fresh initiatives combined with deliberate provo- cations and crises in order to enhance the role of the United Nations.

They will do this because they regard the United Nations as a stepping stone to a future World Government The Soviet political game and the Soviets’ trickery in ‘manipulating’ politicians like Gorbachev and Y eltsin for W estern public consumption demand more imagination and a better grasp of these machinations from the Bush Administration. For example, to proceed with the appointment of Mr Robert Strauss as the new Ambassador in Moscow is a great mistake because the appointment is being made at a time when the Soviet strategists are deliberately undermining the credit and prestige President Bush gained from his dealings with Gorbachev. They are undercutting the President in favour of their political allies – namely, the American liberals. Nowadays the situation is more serious than it was after the Second World War. President Truman woke up to the nature of Stalin’s mentality, his deeds and his intentions. The Bush Administration, by contrast, has no understanding of Soviet strategy and its ultimate, aggressive, strategic designs against the United States.

Given this situation and the Soviet ‘game plan’, the President, instead of appointing a politician/businessman like Robert Strauss as American Ambassador in Moscow, should consider appointing someone like Richard Helms or General Vernon Walters – that is to say, a professional man and an intelligence expert who might see through the Soviet game plan and help the Administration as General Bedell Smith helped President Truman in 1947.

THE AUTHOR’S ANALYSIS OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CALCULATED SOVIET ‘COUP’ AND OF ITS CALCULATED ‘FAILURE’

According to my assessment, the Soviet ‘coup’ and its ‘failure’ constituted a grandiose display of deception – a provocation. The ‘ineptitude’ of the participants in the ‘coup’ and the ‘failure’ of it were skilfully planned and executed. The main argument in support of this assessment is that the Soviet military, the KGB, the Party and leading media figures apparently had neither the skill to launch a successful coup nor the guts to crush resistance to it. This is news indeed!

Oleg Kalugin, former KGB general, giving a speech after the Russian government forces suppressed the fake August Coup – an attempt by supposed hard-line members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) to take control of the country. Moscow, Russia, on August 20, 1991. (Photo by Wojtek Laski/Getty Images)

Facing a real crisis in Hungary in 1956, the same forces displayed exceptional skill, knowhow and determination in crushing a genuine revolt. Knowledge of the Soviet mentality and of Moscow’s record of ruthless action has convinced this analyst that the Soviet military, the Party and the leaders of the media all have the skill, the will and the courage to crush genuine resistance and opposition. They did not display them on this occasion because the abortive ‘coup’ was carried out in accor- dance with Party instructions; and it was the Party and the Komsomol themselves which organised the alleged resistance to it.

The real participants both in the ‘coup’ and in the ‘failure’ were some 20,000 or more chosen Komsomol and Party members in Moscow with two or three tank divisions guided by their political commissars and a handful of dedicated Party offi- cials and generals who sacrificed their prestige in the interests of the Party’s strategy and under the guidance of its strategists. The calculated nature of the ‘coup’ and its timing show that it was staged by the Russian, President Yeltsin, to save the essence of the Union at the time of transition to a new form of federation.

The abortive ‘coup’ and the ‘resistance’ to it were carefully calculated displays intended primarily for the West. This explains why Western media contacts with Moscow were not curtailed. On the contrary, the big guns of the Soviet media like Vitaliy Korotich and representatives of the Arbatov Institute were on hand both in Moscow and in the United States to ‘help’ the Western media with their interpretation of developments in the USSR. The episode shows how well Soviet strategists like Arbatov and his experts on the American media have mastered the art of projecting such displays for consumption by the American media, and throughout the West.

The Soviet strategists sought to underline for the West the dramatic ineptitude of the ‘coup’ and the spectacular courage and resistance displayed by the new ‘Russian democrats’ and their leader Yeltsin in ‘defending’ the Soviet Parliament – their symbolic equivalent of ‘The White House’. The main external objective of the display was to demonstrate to the West that Soviet democratisation is genuine, that it has the support of the people and that it is working. They want to convince the West that Western investment in the USSR will pay dividends.

They expect that the West will now respond with a new Marshall Plan which will bring Western technology flooding in to the Soviet Union, promoting joint ven- tures and stimulating a restructuring of the Soviet economy along the lines of the revival of the German and Japanese economies after the Second World War.

Internally, one objective is to influence the Soviet population towards acceptance of the new Party-controlled ‘democracy’ as a real power and to develop the strength and maturity of the new ‘democratic’ structure and the popularity of its leaders, especially Yeltsin. Another objective is to exploit this staged ‘coup’ in order to reorganise and ‘reform’ the Soviet bureaucracy, the military, the intelligence and counter-intelligence organisations and the diplomatic service, and to give them a new ‘democratic’ image.

The Soviet strategists realise that only with such a new image, implying a ‘Break with the Past’ and severance from Communism, can these organisations be converted into effective weapons for convergence with their counterparts in the United States. A further internal objective is to emphasise the change in the system by means of the spectacular, televised but calculated removal of old Communist symbols like the monuments to Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy, and the red banners.

These changes do not represent a genuine and sincere repudiation of Soviet design and intentions to secure an eventual world victory. Although very spectacular, the changes are cosmetic. They demonstrate only that Arbatov and others know how to manipulate the American and other Western media through the use of powerful symbols such as the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the toppling of Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy statues and Yeltsin’s staged ‘defence’ of the Soviet ‘White House’.

If the Soviets were truly moving towards genuine democracy, and were intent on a true ‘Break with the Past’, these symbolic changes would be accompanied by the introduction and implementation of a de-communisation programme, the irrevocable (not cosmetic) prohibition of the Communist Party and Komsomol organisations at all levels throughout the USSR, and the removal of ‘former’ Party and Komsomol members from all the main seats of power including the KGB, the Soviet army and its political commissar administration, the Ministries, especially those for the Interior and Foreign Affairs, and the trade unions.

Yeltsin has allegedly banned the Communist Party in Russia. But the question should be asked: ‘Why did he forget to ban the Komsomol youth organisation?’ [Note: According to ‘The New York Times’ of 29 September 1991, the Komsomol voted to dissolve itself; its regulations were changed ‘to allow subordinate youth leagues in the Soviet Republics to succeed it’ – Author’s emphasis].

To carry conviction, the necessary purge of former Communists would have to be carried out at all levels, as was the intention with the de-nazification programme in Germany after the war. Without any such programme, present changes, however impressive, will remain cosmetic.

There are at present no means of distinguishing reliably between a genuine democrat and a former Communist in Russia. However one important criterion for judging the sincerity of the abrupt and virtually simultaneous conversion of former Communist leaders into true democrats would be a frank official statement from them that the Soviet Party and Government adopted a long-range strategy in the years 1958 to 1960, that ‘perestroika’ is the advanced phase of this strategy, and that it is to be abandoned forthwith in favour of normal, open, civilised relations. There has been no sign whatsoever of any such admission.

Further criteria for judging the sincerity of the abrupt conversion of ‘former’ Communist leaders into believers in true democracy would need to include:

  • An official admission that the ‘dissident movement’ and its leader, Sakharov, were serving the interests of that strategy under KGB control;
  • Public exposure of the main KGB agents among Soviet scientists, priests, writers and theatre and movie personalities who have been playing an active role in the KGB-controlled political ‘opposition’ – especially those like the ‘conservative’ Kochetov and the ‘liberal’ Tvardovskiy who in the 1960s engaged in a Party- and KGB-controlled debate intended to convey the false impression that Soviet society was evolving towards democracy;
  • And finally: a categorical repudiation of any strategic intention on the part of the Soviets of working towards ‘convergence’ with the United States.

The self-evident absence of any of these criteria indicates that the symbolic changes mean no more than that the strategists had reached the conclusion that the old symbols had outlived their usefulness – at least, in the Soviet Union and East- em Europe – and had to be replaced by new, more attractive, popular symbols.

Moreover these cosmetic changes are logical and were predicted earlier by this ana- lyst. The Soviets realised that convergence with the United States cannot be achieved under the old compromised symbols like Lenin, Dzerzhinskiy and others associated in the Western mind with terror, repression, exile and bloodshed. Convergence requires the introduction of new, attractive, national and ‘democratic’ symbols conveying the impression that Soviet ‘democracy’ is approaching the Western model.

No doubt these cosmetic changes, the reorganisation of the Soviet bureau- cracy and the new, more enigmatic status of its leaders like Yeltsin will be seen by the West as a deepening of the process of Soviet’ reform’, offering new opportunities for Western policy. But the West’s main weakness remains unchanged: it cannot grasp the fact that it is facing an acceleration in the unfolding of Soviet convergence strategy which is intended to procure the subservience of the West to Moscow under an ultimate Communist World Government.

The Machiavellian boldness and imagination displayed by the Soviet strategists through their staged ‘coup’ and its preordained defeat are alarming. No doubt these manoeuvres will be followed not only by faked suicides, but also by staged trials of the alleged leaders of the ‘coup’. These leaders may well be sentenced to apparent prison terms. But in fact they will live in comfortable retirement in resort areas like the Crimea and the Caucasus. Russia is a big country and places can be found for them to hide.

The ‘coup’ and its ‘defeat’ show that the Soviets will go to any lengths in pur- suit of their convergence strategy. This reminds me of remarks by Vladimir Zhenikhov, the former KGB Rezident in Finland, and Aleksey Novikov, another KGB officer, at the time the strategy was adopted in 1961.

Both of them had recently returned from home leave in Moscow. When I asked for the latest news from headquarters, both replied using different words but to the same effect: ‘This time the KGB are going to finish with capitalist America once and for all’. I believed them then, and I believe that what is happening now is a bad omen for Western democracy.

The other alarming aspect of the situation is Western euphoria and the uncritical acceptance of present Soviet developments at their face value. This shows how easily the West can be taken in by staged Soviet spectacles, and how justified the strategists are in believing that their ‘era of provocations’ will produce the intended results. Furthermore, Western euphoria and naivete serve only to encourage the Soviet strategists to stage new spectacles more convinced than ever that their strategic designs are realistic.

Leninist Aesopian speech

By Christopher Story
June 19, 2019 Anno Domini
Excerpt: The European Union Collective: Enemy of Its Member States, pg. XXXIX (1997)

Lenin was most exacting of the language and style of agitation and propaganda. He demanded that the language of articles and books should be impeccable…. Before him, history had not known a politician who made such effective use of the spoken word in the interests of the revolutionary transformation of society’ [from ‘Lenin on Language’, Raduga Publishers, Moscow, 1983]. However, typically, Lenin did not encourage such exactitude in order to clarify matters: on the contrary, he was exacting in his use of language in order to obfuscate – and to create a means of communicating with those whom he called ‘the interested’ (the revolutionaries), while still using ordinary, everyday language, to which the Tsarist censors could hardly object. By the use of this dialectical means of communication, which contained hidden meanings, the ‘enemy’ could be charmed, deluded, misled and lied to, while the interested’ could simultaneously be instructed as required by the strategists.

Among vehicles used for the issuance of Kremlin directives, one of the most widely employed outside the ‘former’ Soviet Bloc has been ‘World Marxist Review’, in which language is used with Leninist care. Another crucial source of information on the continuing Revolution is the Russian Foreign Ministry’s journal ‘International

Affairs’, also written in Lenin’s ‘two-faced’ language, which provides detailed continuing insights into Soviet revolutionary policy, tactics, strategy and intentions: if Western analysts were aware of Lenin’s ‘special way of writing’, and were prepared to spend the necessary time reading and analysing ‘International Affairs’, they would be able to acquire Golitsyn-like expertise in interpreting events and predicting the likely course of Soviet tactics or strategy. One reason for Western blindness is ignorance about Lenin’s ‘Aesopian language’.

So the Leninists’ ‘Aesopian language’, alluded to in this work, requires some brief explanation. In the Preface to the Russian Edition of ‘Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism’ [26th April 1917], Lenin wrote: ‘I was not only forced to confine myself strictly to an exclusively theoretical, mainly economic analysis of facts, but to formulate a few necessary observations on politics with extreme caution, by hints, in that Aesopian language – in that cursed Aesopian language – to which Tsarism compelled all revolutionaries to have recourse whenever they took up their pens to write a “legal” work’ [i.e., a work which would not be censored or banned by the Tsarist authorities as illegal -Ed.]. Following this passage, Lenin appended a Note, which reads as follows: “Aesopian”, after the Greek fable writer, Aesop, was the term applied to the allusive and roundabout style adopted in “legal” publications by revolutionaries in order to evade the censorship’.

That this method of communication has been used by the Leninists ever since is obvious from the language of double-meanings used by Gorbachev, Kozyrev and other contemporary Leninists – ‘perestroika’ being the most conspicuous case in point. The Soviets encouraged the West to believe that ‘perestroika’ meant ‘restructuring’, as in ‘restructuring of the economy’; which it did. But ‘perestroika’ also meant something entirely different to ‘the interested’; and its second meaning was quite legitimate: to Gorbachev’s ‘interested’, ‘perestroika’ meant ‘re-formation’, as in ‘military formation’: so that its hidden meaning was ‘we are ‘re-forming’, in order more effectively to prevail over all who are opposed to Communism. That this was the case was made clear by Carl Bloice, the Kremlin correspondent of the CPUSA’s ‘People’s Weekly World’ [see page 62]. Citing Lenin, he wrote in May 1991 that the Soviet Leninists were engaged in ‘drawing back in order to make better preparations for a new offensive’.

Sanhedrin addresses Putin as Jewish king

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin lighting something as part of Jewish ritual at the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow on February 19, 2013, with Russia’s chief rabbi, Berel Lazar (R), attending. ALEXEY DRUZHININ/AFP/Getty Images

By Child of the Immaculata – Apoc. 12:17
June 14, 2019 Anno Domini

“Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday met with a delegation of rabbis, led by Sephardic Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, former Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, Chief Rabbi of Russia Berel Lazar, and rabbis of the Rabbinical Center of Europe (RCE). Rabbi Yosef began by saying ‘according to the Jewish tradition, your leadership is decided by the kingdom of G-d, King of the world, and therefore we bless you: Blessed is the One who gave of His glory to flesh and blood.”

Putin: ‘I support the struggle of Israel’

The Jewish tradition of royal address

 

Also,
 ‘Putin also spoke out against Holocaust deniers, calling them not only stupid but also shameless.’
Before moving to Russia from the USA, Russian national Iskander Hashim testifies the aforementioned Chief Rabbi of Russia Berel Lazar was in trouble with the police for paedophilia and child pornography (40:04- 41:04.). He also said that Lazar was introduced into Russia by the Head of the KGB in the 1990’s and Putin made him Chief Rabbi in 2000. Also, in an interview Lazar described himself as ‘Putin’s rabbi’, yet Putin is positioning himself as a Christian. (29.35-30:50);
In this context of Lazar’s troubles with the US police, it is worthy of note that Alexander Litvinenko accused Putin of being a paedophile;

Putin and Russian Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar

Chabad leader, Messiah Menachem Mendel Schneerson 1994

“For all these activities paramount for us, we will give monarchy to the Slavic cattle under the guise of ‘democratic transition’. And the more glitter, noise, pump, the better! Monarchy is good in that sense that it directs all the energy of the masses into the whistle. A Monarch will detract attention of the herd from our secret active work on the structuring of the population according to the system, necessary to us. A President is a screen, seemingly elected by a popular vote (and we will forge electoral procedures in such a way that they will seem so that everything would seem legitimate), and we are going to do all our necessary business from behind this screen. The President will be endowed with unlimited powers. Through changes in the top ranks of security agencies, this president will appoint our people to the posts in the security agencies. Army, all the national security agencies, and all sorts of special forces will be directly subordinate to the president. And that means that they will be subordinate to us. We will have in our hands only the strings attached to the hands of the president. And we’ll pull these strings in such a way as it is necessary to the implementation of our grandiose plan of conquering all the tribes and kingdoms, their subordination to our superior nation, chosen by God of Israel.

Soviet dialectics & predictive power

By Anatoliy Golitsyn
Excerpt from The Perestroika Deception, pgs. 26-27 (1998 edition)
June 14, 2019 Anno Domini

Correct understanding of the strategy and the application of that understanding to the analysis of events enables one to predict otherwise surprising Soviet actions. Since the strategy is long-range, it has several phases. The strategists plan their actions in the early phases in preparation for the final phase. They conceive Soviet reforms in the initial phase, they rehearse them in the preparatory phase and they introduce them in the final phase. Because of this planning framework, the strategy has its own dialectic. It has its thesis – the Stalinist regime: its antithesis – criticism and rejection of the Stalinist regime: and its synthesis – a new, reformed model which ‘perestroika’ is designed to create, and which will be the product of ‘convergence’ (the joining of the two opposites). Understanding the dialectic and logic of the strategy is crucial for prediction: it enables one to see how the situation in one phase will develop in the next phase.

For instance, it enables one to predict the change in the role and status of Soviet ‘dissidents’. In the initial phase, they were recruited and trained by the KGB. In the preparatory phase, they were ‘criticised’ and ‘persecuted’ by the KGB. In the final phase, they are accepted and even incorporated into ‘perestroika’. It was through understanding this dialectic that the Author was able to predict the simple fact that Sakharov ‘might be included in some capacity in government’. In the event, he became one of Gorbachev’s chief advisers.

Likewise, the dialectic enables one to understand that Euro-Communist criticism in the 1960s and 1970s of repressive practices and violations of human rights in the USSR was undertaken and tolerated with official foreknowledge of the impending ‘reform’ of the Soviet system. The fact that the Berlin Wall was built at the time when the strategy was adopted was a sufficient basis for the prediction that it would be pulled down again in the strategy’s final phase. The dialectic enables one to see through the calculated publication of anti-Soviet manuscripts abroad, Soviet condem- nation of them at the time and the present lifting of the ban on much of the ‘dissident’ writing of the 1960s and 1970s. Understanding of the dialectic enables one to provide further predictions and warnings about political and social issues which the Soviet strategists will seek to exploit in Western Europe, the United States and elsewhere.

‘Pizzagate’ debunked point by point

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
June 2, 2019 Anno Domini

Dislcaimer: The following is a graphical illustration debunking several of the main claims of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. The purpose in debunking this theory is not to exhonerate any of the accused (they could be guilty of crimes; I don’t know) but to shed light on the many inconsistencies and outright lies in the narrative and to point out the entire inogranic way the theory suddenly appeared and evolved, which is characteristic of a psyop—in this case, it seems, a KGB active measure operation, which tends to take bits of truth and turn them into seemingly plausible narratives for the purpose of anti-Western psyops. Of course, we now know about all the KGB-Chabad-Mossad manoeuvrings to help Trump win the election, so it’s not far fetched to consider that some of the October Surprises and dirty tricks used during the runup to the previous U.S. federal election were KGB ops. The pizzagate psyop not only helped Trump defeat Hillary but it has also diverted the energy and attention of those interested in conspiracies and populists in general. Instead of investigating the Soviet conspiracy against the West to install one of their puppets, everyone is focused on this psyop and other paralell psyops like Flat Earth, Jade Helm, and others. This expose is not meant to be exhaustive, as the psyop runs deep, so I will just deal with the most important inconsistencies that prop up the entire narrative. For example, without the supposed pedophile code, that alone  demolishes the entire narrative.

I will add more graphics as I make them.

 

 

 

 

 

New York—Moscow—Tel Aviv Triangle


By Jack Bernstein
An American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel (1984 Anno Domini)
Pages 21-25

At this point, you may be confused, Israel and the Soviets are ideological allies – both follow the ideas of Karl Marx, so both are communist/socialist. Yet, the Soviets supplied military equipment to the Arabs—Israel’s enemies; and at the same time, the Soviet Union’s enemy, the United States, was arming Israel.

To understand the treachery which Zionist/ Bolshevik Jews are capable and to understand the treachery which took place before and during the 1973 War, I must explain the New York/ Moscow/Tel Aviv Triangle. To do so, it is necessary to go back a few years in history.

A heavy migration of Jews from Russia to America started in 1831. Most of these were communist Jews. So many of these communist/Bolshevik Jews settled in New York City that New York has been referred to as ‘Moscow on the Hudson.’

It has been pointed out, and with good reason, that decisions regarding communist policies come not from Moscow, but from New York City. Whether this is a fact or not is immaterial. What is important is the fact that there is a close tie between the Zionist/Bolshevik Jews in New York City and the Zionist/ Bolshevik Jews in Moscow, and extending to include the Zionist/Bolshevik Jews who dominate Israel’s government.

A brief look at Israel’s Soviet-derived leadership. (Photo illustration by Jon Swinn.)

The Zionist power over the U.S. Government in Washington, D.C. stems from the Zionist/ Bolsheviks centered in New York City. It is from New York that orders go out to the vast Zionist network all over the U.S. – a network that influences the economic and political affairs of not only our federal government, but nearly all, if not all,state governments, and to a great extent the governments of the larger and even medium sized cities. This power of the Zionist/Bolshevik Jews over the U.S. makes the New York leg of the New York/Moscow/ Tel Aviv Triangle a tremendous influence over communist policies.

In viewing the 1973 War, most people—and it seems most Arabs—are of the impression that since Soviet Russia sold equipment to Egypt and other Arab countries, the Soviets were in support of the Arabs in the 1973 War. This is a false impression. To understand that this is the result of more deceit on the part of Israel and the Soviet Union, you must be aware of the Golda Meir – Stalin/Kaganovich Pact.

Meir

Golda Meir had been born in Russia, grew up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and in 1921 migrated to Israel. In 1949, Golda Meir became Israel’s first ambassador to the Soviet Union.

Representing Israel, Ambassador Golda Meir, a Bolshevik Jewess, met with two representatives of the Soviet Union: Kaganovich, a Bolshevik Jew, and Stalin, who had married a Bolshevik Jewess. They made a secret agreement—a pact.

Israel’s part of the pact was:

1. Israel would not allow any Western country, especially the U.S., to build military bases on Israeli territory.

2. Israel would allow an official communist party to function freely in Israel.

3. Israel would not make any agreement to solve the Palestinian problem.

4. Israel would influence world Jewry, especially in the U.S. to have Western powers adopt a policy of favoring Israel over the Arabs.

5. Israel was to continue its Marxist economic policies and prevent any free-enterprise tendencies.

Soviet Union’s part of the pact was:

1. The Soviets would institute a pro-Arab policy solely as a camouflage for its true intentions, which was to furnish aid to the Arabs, but never enough to enable the Arabs to destroy Israel.

2. The Soviets would open the gates of Soviet satellite countries to Jewish immigration to Israel. Should this be insufficient, Soviet Russia then would open its own gates to emigration.

3. The Soviets would absolutely guarantee the security of Israel.
** Both the Soviet Union and Israel would exchange intelligence reports.

From the terms of this pact, you can see it was, and still is, the aim of the Soviet Union and Zionist/Marxist Israel to prevent peace between the Arab countries and Israel until all the Arab countries are forced to adopt socialism under Soviet leadership.

In the conduct of the 1973 War, you can see part of this deceitful agreement being utilized, in particular, the part about the Soviet Union helping the Arabs – but not helping enough to defeat Israel.

In planning the 1967 War, Israel was aware that the Arab countries bordering Israel were buying equipment from the Soviets, an Israeli ally. But, because of the Golda Meir – Stalin/Kaganovlch Pact, Israeli leaders knew the Soviets would not help the Arabs enough to defeat Israel—that the aid the Soviets were giving the Arabs was only ‘bait’ to draw the Arab countries into the Soviet trap. Also, Israeli leaders knew that their American Zionist brethren were making sure the U.S. government was supplying enough arms to stop the Arabs; and would send more equipment, even troops if necessary.

When the 1973 War started, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq surprised Israel with their improved fighting capability.

Moscow General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU Leonid Brezhnev meets President of Egypt Anvar al-Sadat in the airport in 1972. Photo TASS / Valentin Mastyukov; Alexei Stuzhin (Photo by TASS via Getty Images)

The Egyptian Army faced what would seem an impossible task in its attempt to penetrate Israeli territory.

First, there was the water barrier, the Suez Canal, to cross. Then, they would face a high wall of sand and fine dust which was erected by Israel. Behind that wall was a third barrier—a line of Israeli fortifications. These fortifications were stronger than the Maginot Line erected by France before World War II to stop any German invasion of France.

Yet, by ingenuity, the Egyptian Army crossed the Suez Canal, went over the sand and dust barrier and broke through the heavy fortifications in a matter of a few hours.

Israel was in trouble; the Arabs were winning the war.

But, as pre-planned – If necessary, the U.S. airlifted huge amounts of military equipment and supplies to Israel and, as I mentioned before, the U.S. Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, N.C. and U.S. troops stationed in Germany were placed on alert and would have been sent to help the Israeli forces if it became necessary to help Israel win the war. Fortunately for America, American troops weren’t needed to help Israel survive. The additional arms were enough. However, the Arab forces were strong enough to stop Israel from taking over more Arab land. In fact, Egypt was able to take back part of the Sinai.

Egypt’s president Sadat realized that the Soviets had no intention of helping the Arabs win the war; that the Soviets in selling them some equipment were only trying to trap Egypt in the Soviet net. So, Sadat kicked Soviet military advisors and civilian technicians out of Egypt.

Hungary’s ‘nationalist’ PM Viktor Orbán nothing but a commie plant

A fire worker controls the temporary pedestal, as activists and sympathizers of Hungarian ‘Szolidaritas’ Movement pull their ropes to break down their plastic statue of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, representing the former Soviet communist dictator Stalin, in Budapest on September 29, 2013 during their anti-government demonstration to protest against the financial and economic policy of Orban’s government. (ATTILA KISBENEDEK/AFP/Getty Images)

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
April 24, 2019 Anno Domini

The Soviet Trust model of using controlled opposition to trap anti-communists and conservatives is still in use today.

Look no further than Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has successfully fooled Western (and Eastern) conservatives into believing that he and a clique of so called Eastern nationalists, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, are genuine conservatives trying to save the world from the globalists and the evil West. It seems Orban’s anti-immigration policy has been the main driver in affirming this carefully crafted ruse.

Unfortunately, Orban and other East Bloc nations’ anti-immigration policies are not about saving Europe and conservatives but about preserving stability within the Soviet Bloc nations as they reform and about pushing more migrants to Western Europe, which is the primary target of the Soviet Kalergi plan of migration destabilization. When Hungary was officially communist, under János Kádár, immigration was greatly restricted, so Orban’s policy on immigration is essentially the same as it was in Red Hungary.

No one seems to be asking how these Soviet Bloc nations with membership in the European Union are able to maintain membership whilst going against E.U. directives like unfettered immigration. The answer can only be that the Kremlin has cut a deal to keep its satellites free of the migration agenda, thus empowering the satellites while its Western European neighbours disintegrate. That or the European Union has become the victim of nuclear blackmail and has no choice but to let the Kremlin and its satellites do what they like. Of course, the E.U. is full of communist saboteurs, so whatever scenario, it’s not hard to believe.

Soviet analyst Max Moritz writes,

“Orbán’s attacks against Brussels, against George Soros, and certainly against immigration are more than just bombastic spectacle. Hungary, which formed in February 1991 together with Poland and then-Czechoslovakia, the so-called Visegrád Group, is seamlessly pursuing, like its meanwhile three good old socialist brother states (that include Slovakia), an unchanged East Bloc policy, which in the new situation is designed to make sure that these countries only benefit from their membership in the European Union.

Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban and Polish ruling party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski, are depicted as secret communists during anti-government parade that walked through the streets of Krakow, Poland on 14 April, 2019. (Photo by Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

“Their (Hungary, Poland, etc.) behaviour during the 2015 so-called “refugee crisis” gave these four countries completely away, as they outright refused (and still refuse) to take any significant numbers of people in. In other words, they do not regard themselves as part of the E.U. or the West at all! Given the fact that this immense wave of migration (that hasn’t stopped even now) represents a clandestine Russian operation aimed at destabilising Western Europe, and Western Europe only, it becomes clear that these unchanged East-bloc countries, based on their fictitious nationalism, won’t allow these people from Africa and Asia in. After all, the migration crisis is designed to hit solely the West! And: They are, under whatever pretext, silently or not so silently leaving the EU, not formally, but factually, moving back into the same East-European communist sphere they came from!,” says Moritz.

Orban is accused of being a communist informant during the 1980s when Hungary was openly communist. It seems the Kremlin set him up in a Soviet Trust model from the beginning—bringing him to fame as a (fake) anti-Communist, which resulted in ensnaring legitimate anti-communists and conservatives and, thereby, controlling legitimate anti-communistm in the country, thus allowing the continuance of the rebranded communist regime.

“…since coming into office in Hungary’s 2010 general elections, he (Orban) has faced frequent accusations both at home and abroad of emulating the authoritarian practices he once opposed.” (Source)

Orban’s role as a fake anti-communist also appears to have helped facilitate the grand deception of the global collapse of communism in the 1990s, with Hungary being part of a carefully laid out plan to conveniently allow the world’s media to have cameras ready to roll as one regime appeared to fall after another, in successive order. Now he is the Prime Minister of the country, whose anxious populace view him as a stooge of Putin and the Kremlin. This is unsurprising, as Orban is surrounded by “former” communist advisors. Some of Orban’s critics see him as using the exact same playbook used by Kádár. Critics also accuse Poland’s Jarosław Kaczyński (pictured above as a crypto-Communist alongside Orban) of using the playbook from Communist Poland, which is similar to Kádár’s. They are similar because they come from the same source, the COMINTERN at the Kremlin.

MOSCOW, RUSSIA – JANUARY 31: Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) receives Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban (C) in the Kremlin on January 31, 2013 in Moscow, Russia. Orban is on a one-day visit to Russia. (Photo by Sasha Mordovets/Getty Images)

When it became public in 2015 that Orban was part of the Soviet Trust honeypot, he was called to appear before a parliamentary national security committee—to which he refused, calling it “absurd and ridiculous”.

Orban and Hungary are not the only ones running this fake opposition Soviet Trust. The same could be said for Poland and other “former” Soviet bloc nations also blocking E.U. immigration directives. So, while these Soviet Bloc nations continue to fool Western conservatives and anti-communists alike that Russia and its satellites have reformed to capitalism and conservative values, Western Europe and America continue to cripple under the weight of Soviet destabilization measures like the Kalergi plan and cultural Marxism. Meanwhile, said Soviet Bloc nations continue to draw on European Union coffers. What a swindle!

 

The Left has completely hijacked logical fallacy inquiry

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Feb. 21, 2019

Research logical fallacies and you will find a plethora of lists and descriptions that all seem to share a similar narrative.

You will find long and short lists of common and uncommon fallacies (illogical arguments) as well as examples of contemporary and past uses of these fallacies. But whether it’s from academia, its closely allied skeptics movement, or from people calling themselves “rational”, the lists and examples tend to share the same narrative.: Right wingers, the religious, and traditionalists—or anyone who Leftists hate—are all illogical, bigoted idiots who should be ignored.

This problem wouldn’t be so bad if one could find a genuinely ideologically neutral source, but it seems next to impossible. Whether the search engines have been manipulated to produce these results and/or non-Leftists are simply not talking about logical fallacies is anyone’s guess. It seems to be a combination of the two. What one could find through search engines 10-20 years ago was a lot more than one finds today. Non-leftists are typically very logical thinking people, but they don’t seem to be engaged in this kind of debate or they may not be aware that their logical thinking has been systematized and put down on paper (as would be the case with the logically thinking but formally uneducated).

Had the Right been more aware, they would have seen that today’s definitions and examples used for the ancient school of logic has been re-organized by the world scientific dictatorship with its Leftist bias. They would have seen and laughed at the Left presenting itself as the sole arbiter of “logic” and morally justified opponents of logically fallacious idiot right wingers.

In reality, the opposite seems true. Academicians and their bedfellow skeptics movement Marxists are themselves guilty of consistently employing logical fallacies. Their worldview is largely based in anti-logic (anti-Logos); their use for logical fallacy inquiry, then, is really only to keep young rank-and-file Lefties from discovering true logic (through distortion of the definitions), as well as to keep the Right from figuring out their deceptive games (prevent the Right from learning about the trappings of logical fallacies). Therefore, by monopolizing this form of inquiry, they can further gatekeep for the Left, thereby maintaing their academic and societal supremacy. They get to control almost all public discourse. Double agent Jordan Peterson recently cemented this absolute public dominance when he declared that European ethno-nationalists ought to be excluded from any discussions.

Forget about historical inquiry about the alleged happenings during the “Holocaust”, because that would be Holocaust denial (appeal to ridicule, appeal to pity, ad hominem, no discussion, narrative fallacy, non-recognition, playing on emotion, reductio ad Hitlerum). Forget about challenging academia and the media’s eschatological fallacies regarding the doomed environment and climate change, for that would be climate denial (appeal to ridicule, ad hominem, no discussion, reductionism, Big Lie technique). Don’t ever criticize Israel or Jewish behaviour, for that would be a classic case of vicious anti-Semitism (name calling, appeal to ridicule, ad hominem, no discussion). While you’re at it, don’t talk about the freemasons, dangers of vaccines, or world government, because that would just mean that you are one of those conspiracy theorists (name calling, appeal to ridicule, ad hominem, no discussion).

As you can see from these brief examples, nobody is more guilty than the Left is of employing deceptive, fallacious arguments, especially the so called skeptics movement (they are some of the biggest hypocrites in this respect). Yet the media and academia portray the opposite (gaslighting!). With the Left’s “Holocaust denier” fallacy alone, I found at least eight appropriate categories involved in the Left’s dismissal of Holocaust inquiry. Check them out, but just beware of the source and the wording of the carefully crafted descriptions. 

One of the most common fallacies of the Leftist Logical Fallacy Police (LLFPD) is to misrepresent arguments from those on the Right (strawman fallacy). They also frequently use the “fallacy fallacy”, which is when it is assumed that just because someone presents a fallacious argument, their entire position is automatically wrong, when it could simply be that they just haven’t adequately argued their position. This happens with the Right because the Left is typically more formally educated. A Leftist can academically dismiss a fallacious argument presented by a Right winger and resort to a state of cognitive dissonance (thereby re-affirming his Leftist worldview), even though the Right winger’s position is actually true. This is unfortunate.

The LLFPD favours Jews in that they dismiss any and all criticism of Jews as a collective group under the guise of the scapegoating fallacy. While this is a real and legitimate fallacy, it’s most often falsely attributed to critics of Jews. Sure, some people who know nothing about the Jewish question will callously blame Jews for things. But authentic critics will provide solid arguments that demonstrate the cause and effects of collective Jewish behaviour.

Eventually, knowledge of logical fallacies—and logic in general—will become so distorted that it will be meaningless. You can already see this trajectory with the way the Left has reclassified and reworded the definitions and examples. Orwell’s post-truth 1984 seems all the more likely.

Galileo Gambits: Trump, Putin, & Pizzagate

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Feb. 1, 2019

The most common defense of Donald Trump as an anti-globalist, conservative swamp drainer is that he must be authentic because of how much the media and the establishment are perceived as hating and vilifying him.

Not only is this defense false, given the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary, it’s a fallacious argument to start with.

It’s called the “Galileo Gambit” fallacy.

“The Galileo gambit (also Galileo fallacy) is a logical fallacy that asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right. Users of the fallacy are to be understood as being essentially ‘Galileo wannabes’.”

Trump’s Judeo-Masonic-Bolshevist handlers know this fallacy well and have used it in building up the Cult of Trump—enough that it won him the title of President of the United States. It was none other than a globalist who first put out the lie that Trump was an “outsider” who “couldn’t be bought”. One Newt Gingrich, as if you couldn’t find a swampier spokesman to shill for you. After Gingrich’s opener for Chump, the Cult of Trump base simply expanded on and amplified the fallacious meme, turning Trump into one of the most successful psyops ever foisted on the American people. The more the media attacked Trump in the lead up to the U.S. presidential election, the more convinced his base became of his legitimacy, regardless of the facts.

“This logic is obviously flawed. For example, consider a horribly-oppressed ideology: Wahhabism. Western governments seek to persecute and censor Wahhabists at every opportunity. Does this mean that Wahhabism is correct?”

The Trump defense also falls under the associated fallacy known as Argumentum ad martyrdom—the notion that something becomes true if the person asserting it is perceived to be hated for it and/or that perceived martyrdom is proof that the martyr was correct. 

The Trump psyop also entails a bit of the hostile media effect.

Clearly, all the negative publicity helped Trump more than it hindered him during the election, whether the media knew it or not (I am convinced they were in on the charade). The negative publicity still helps Trump today, simultaneously keeping people tuned into the mind-controlling round-the-clock news in both the mainstream and in the alternative spheres.

This Galileo defense is more commonly used when fellow conservatives are challenging Trump supporters as to their blind allegiance to Chump’s cult of personality. The Chump base has other bags of tricks for Leftist critiquing of their supreme leader, namely dirty tricks like “Pizzagate”. Incidentally, the KGB-Team Trump co-ordination of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory was also validated by his base because of belief in the Galileo gambit fallacy. When some online outlets began censoring the obviously defamatory elements of “Pizzagate”, Trump’s base took it as proof that there was truth to it—all of it, no matter how ridiculous it was.

Trump supporters seem to revert to a state of cognitive dissonance when confronted with the irrationality of their Galileo gambitting. They attack their opponents and run and hide to their echo chambers, which are lovingly padded by double-agent “alternative” media charlatans like Infowars and Zerohedge. It’s no wonder they don’t learn. Their delusions are only fed by the gatekeeper alternative media. Alex Jones’ hypnotic and repetitious meme of “When you’re over the target, you take the most flak” is an explicit example of the Galileo gambit at work. He is another beneficiary of this fallacy and is also heavily involved with the promotion of both Putin and Trump.

These same Trumpists use the exact same fallacy when appraising Russian President Vladimir Putin and the actions of the Kremlin. If the Leftist Western media hates him so much, they argue, he must be the real deal. If the media blames Russia for colluding to hack the election, it must mean that Russia didn’t. Furthermore, it must mean that Russia is the good guy, and an anti-globalist to boot, the rhetoric goes (see this article arguing that the Left’s critique of Russia actually helps Russia). In effect, this dupes are leading the media dictate their analysis of world events, albeit a reactionary response. They don’t seem to grasp that there are constant dialectics at work in media narratives. The social engineers know that the media can control people not only by going along with media narratives but also by contrary reactions to media narratives. This is exactly what has happened with Trump and Putin.

The Putin-Chump cucks live in a make-believe world. Anything the two globalist stooges do is insulated against any valid arguments simply because the Galileo gambit has their base completely deceived and hardwired in to a pre-fabricated narrative. We live in a post-truth era where reason and logic are ignored and lies and memes are king.