“Why is morality or practical reason crucial? Because it is our defense against oppressors, the oligarchs, usurers, and other unreasonable people. It is a universal principle that keeps everyone in check, and ignoring it will eventually lead to moral and intellectual death and misery.
“…the mass media is still advancing the ridiculous notion that Vladimir Putin is being aggressive because he is resisting NATO’s military plan on Russia’s border. This prompted journalist John Wight to write, “Are these people actually mad”? Wright was obviously putting it mildly. These people know that they are ignoring practical reason in the political realm.
“If Putin is a dictator, as New World Order agents have promiscuously propounded in the last two years, then 80% of Russians are also following a dictatorship. In other words, if one takes this “logic” to its ultimate conclusions, 80% of Russians are basically stupid—or wicked. Obviously this was a bad move for New World Order agents.
“Obviously NWO agents are leaving in a fantasy world in which logic and reason play little or no role, and it is no wonder that even some Pentagon officials are not convinced by the demonization of Russia. Russia continues to reach out to the U.S. by proposing a coalition to strike ISIS in Syria, and the U.S. continues to refuse the generous offer.”
NATO plans to expand its wings virtually all over Europe in the next two years. But again it is Russia that is the aggressor, say NWO agents, not NATO.
…by Jonas E. Alexis
People who were trained in logic and take practical reason seriously always find implicit or explicit contradictions, double standards, straw man, and other serious fallacies problematic and therefore existentially unlivable because fallacies, by their very nature, are incompatible with rationality and with the way things really are. In other word, when fallacies are present in a serious discussion, then rationality and truth are absent.
Some people propound fallacies out of ignorance, and sometimes you can reason those people out of those fallacies. But if the person is not willing to go by the canons of logical inference, if he is not seeking the truth or if he cannot realize that he has made a fallacious or contradictory statement, then you can forget about talking him out of his cherished belief because it would be a waste of time because you will end up confronting one incoherent statement after another. That person has already prostrated before an ideology, and to some people ideology is more important than facts and truth. As Daniel J. Flinn puts it quite succinctly in Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas:
“When ideology is your guide, you’re bound to get lost. Ideology deludes, inspires dishonesty, and breeds fanaticism. Facts, experience, and logic are much better at leading you to truth. Truth, however, is not everyone’s intended destination…Ph.D.s, high IQs, and intellectual honors are not antidotes to thick-headedness.”
Many other people advance fallacies deliberately. They do so because at some point in their lives or careers they realize that practical reason will get them into trouble. As a result, they end up embracing pernicious principles which always end up killing them morally and intellectually. Aldous Huxley meant it when he said in Ends and Means:
“For myself, as for no doubt most of my contemporaries, the essence of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation…We objected to morality because it interferes with our sexual freedom.”
Who then were Huxley’s contemporaries, the ones who made up the “we” who objected to morality? Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Orson Wells, D. H. Lawrence, among others. (We know for example that Lawrence wrote at least one letter to Huxley.) Almost all of them followed Huxley’s anti-morality principle, embracing meaninglessness and Dionysian madness in one way or another. Nietzsche could also fall into this category. He said:
“To be truthful means using the customary metaphors—in moral terms: the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all.”
Why is morality or practical reason crucial? Because it is our defense against oppressors, the oligarchs, usurers, and other unreasonable people. It is a universal principle that keeps everyone in check, and ignoring it will eventually lead to moral and intellectual death and misery.
People like Michel Foucault deliberately ignore it, and that led them to their literal and pathetic death (Foucault died of AIDS). Nietzsche abandoned it and embrace madness, and that led him to deliberately infect himself with syphilis in a form of demonic pact. Both Foucault and Nietzsche prove that life without practical reason is unlivable. As E. Michael Jones puts it,
“Morality is reason in the practical order. Anything which undermines morality undermines reason, and without reason man is no better than the animals which, Malthus discovered, procreate themselves into extinction unless checked by nature.
“Man without morals is in precisely the same situation as the bacteria in the bucket, which became the paradigm of Malthus’s geometric population growth, a view which he himself rejected solely because it failed to take into account man’s reason and his ability to calculate future consequences.”
In that sense, if a person deliberately rejects practical reason, then he is intentionally or unintentionally siding with the New World Order, which we all know by now operates under a pernicious principle.
This pernicious principle has already produced enough death and destruction in much of the world, most specifically in the Middle East. In short, the diabolical die is cast whenever a movement abandons practical reason.
It must also be emphasized that practical reason can and must be applied to politics and history. In other words, if a political or historical movement purports to be successful and universally relevant, then it must include practical reason in the equation.
Conversely, any political movement which deliberately ignores practical reason will receive serious blowback. This is why people everywhere are repudiating the principles that make up the New World Order. A classic example?
Well, the mass media is still advancing the ridiculous notion that Vladimir Putin is being aggressive because he is resisting NATO’s military plan on Russia’s border. This prompted journalist John Wight to write, “Are these people actually mad”?
Wright was obviously putting it mildly. These people know that they are ignoring practical reason in the political realm. Practical reason, as Kant indirectly or subtly argues, is a manifestation of Logos in the universe, and to deny practical reason inevitably leads to serious consequences.
One of those radical and detrimental consequences was articulated by St. Athanasius in the fourth century, who “established the principle that being against Logos is synonymous with being Satanic.”
As we have argued in the past, New World Order agents and organizations like NATO are Satanists and Satanic organs precisely because they are against practical reason in the political landscape. As a corollary, they are against true democracy and freedom precisely because democracy itself is impossible without practical reason.
For example, the Huffington Post agrees that Vladimir Putin’s popularity or endorsement “remains above 80 percent and he is not about to be displaced.” In the past two hundred years or so, no U.S. presidential candidate has ever reached that figure.
If Putin is a dictator, as New World Order agents have promiscuously propounded in the last two years, then 80% of Russians are also following a dictatorship. In other words, if one takes this “logic” to its ultimate conclusions, 80% of Russians are basically stupid—or wicked. Obviously this was a bad move for New World Order agents.
This leads to a crucial and inescapable question: Is Russia a democracy?
Well, if you ask New World Order agents, they will say no because Putin does not support the expansionist ideology which NWO agents are imposing in places like Syria and Ukraine. If you ask Bill Clinton, he will tell you that Putin is a dictator. As Jim W. Dean usually puts it, you can’t make this stuff up. During the Clinton administration, Dean has recently said,
“Osama bin Laden was at the peak of his second CIA career as Col. Tim Osman during Clinton’s administration.”
What Clinton ends up saying here is that supporting bin Laden was democracy and freedom, but opposing the New World Order doctrine in places like Ukraine is dictatorship. Obviously we need to thank Clinton for publicly announcing his ideological plan here, for he is certainly not helping his wife during this presidential election by making silly claims like that.
In fact, Clinton has just implicitly discredited virtually everything that his wife says she stands for. To put it quite bluntly, the Clintons had a history of living in contradictions. Hillary says that she fights for women, but she defended a child rapist way back in 1975. There is more.
Bill, then 31 years old, literally got caught with his pants down when he raped a 35-year-old nurse by the name of Juanita Broaddrick in a hotel room in 1979. As the Washington Post itself described the incident in 1999:
“She resisted his advances, she said, but soon he pulled her back onto the bed and forcibly had sex with her. She said she did not scream because everything happened so quickly. Her upper lip was bruised and swollen after the encounter because, she said, he had grabbed onto it with his mouth.
“The last thing he said to me was, ‘You better get some ice for that.’ And he put on his sunglasses and walked out the door,’ she recalled….Norma Rogers, an employee and friend who traveled with her to the conference, said that she returned to the hotel room that day to find Broaddrick badly shaken and her lip swollen.”
Bill has a long history of literally getting caught with his bridges down. As Candice E. Jackson puts it, “Clinton’s interactions with women spanning his political career place him outside the category ‘philanderer’ and into much more serious categories like ‘sex addict,’ ‘sex offender,’ and ‘misogynist.’”
As the record shows, Bill is actually the living embodiment of everything people hate about sexual liberation and political control. If we push the envelope even further, one can say that both Bill and Hillary are in bed with the oligarchs, and they are paying them well.
As a result, Bill and Hillary have been saying crazy things about Israel and Iran, such as the United States needs to “build a global coalition to impose the toughest sanctions in history on Iran and so much more.” If you think that Hillary is right in propounding such a ludicrous statement, then pick up a copy of Gareth Porter’s Manufactured Crisis. The answer may surprise you.
Hillary’s biggest contributor during this presidential race is none other than Haim Saban, an Israeli oligarch who always rattles on about his support for Israel. “I’m a one-issue guy,” he declared, “and my issue is Israel.” In 2002, Saban gave $7 million to the Democratic National Committee.
According to the New Yorker, Saban is “the influencer” and his plan for political movements is simple: “make donations to political parties, establish think tanks [such as the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington], and control media outlets.”
Two of Saban’s prime victims were none other than Bill and Hillary. Because he is “the influencer,” Saban immediately began to buy politicians. He donated at least $5 million to Bill Clinton’s Presidential library, “and he has given more than five million dollars to the Clinton Foundation.”
There is more to the Clintons than meets the eye and ear. It has been reported that “Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation….”
If the report is true, then Bill needs to shut his mouth and stop saying that Putin is a dictator. Hillary also needs to stop saying that “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” Hillary asked, “As Democrats, as women, we must ask ourselves: Do we stand with all women who report sexual assault?’”
Hillary’s answer is yes, but that does not include people like Monica Lewinsky and six other women who have accused Bill of raping them. “Overnight,” Lewinsky remembered after the sex scandal,
“I went from being a completely private figure to a publicly humiliated one worldwide… I was branded as a tramp, tart, slut, whore, bimbo, and, of course, ‘that woman’. It was easy to forget that ‘that woman’ was dimensional, had a soul, and was once unbroken.”
Lewinsky continued to lament:
“I think it’s fair to say that whatever mistakes I made, I was hung out to dry by a lot of people – by a lot of the feminists who had loud voices. I wish it had been handled differently. It was very scary and very confusing to be a young woman thrust on to the world stage and not belonging to any group. I didn’t belong to anybody.”
In other words, the feminist movement had dumped her in a political trashcan, never to recover. And Hillary wasn’t going to dig her out because Lewinsky was obviously a sex intruder by now.
Thanks to Hillary’s double talk, many “Democrats” are now staying away from her. No doubt that some have said that Hillary “is sinking faster than the Titanic.” Bill in particular has become the butt of a joke, and even Patricia Ireland, “then president of the National Organization for Women, felt compelled to release a statement assuring the public that NOW had taken a stance against aspects of Clinton’s behavior toward women.”
As it turns out, Hillary’s feminist ideology is part of a subversive movement which seeks to overthrow the social order and replace it with, well, sexual liberation, which is always a form of control and which was part of Bill’s political hermeneutics. And Hillary knew this. Broaddrick recounted that after a Clinton campaign:
“She came directly to me as soon as she hit the door. I had been there only a few minutes, I only wanted to make an appearance and leave. She caught me and took my hand and said: ‘I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill.’
“I started to turn away and she held onto my hand and reiterated her phrase — looking less friendly and repeated her statement — ‘Everything you do for Bill.’ I said nothing. She wasn’t letting me get away until she made her point.
“She talked low, the smile faded on the second thank you. I just released her hand from mine and left the gathering… I could have passed out at that moment. . . . Cold chills went up my spine. That’s the first time I became afraid of that woman.”
It is reported that “Years after that encounter, in 1984, Broaddrick — who in the meantime had accepted a position to a state board (before she knew it was a gubernatorial appointment, she says) — received a letter from Clinton recognizing her nursing home for its work. At the bottom, the governor had handwritten: ‘I admire you very much.’ Broaddrick interpreted that as a thank-you for her silence.”
One can say that Bill Clinton’s sexual liberation largely heralded the death knell of the feminist movement in America. E. Michael Jones again writes:
“Shortly after Monica Lewinsky became a political liability, the same crowd that frothed at the mouth during the Clarence Thomas hearings about women’s rights and sexual harassment were now calling Miss Lewinsky, from behind the veil of anonymity, ‘a little nutty and a little slutty.’…
“The lesson was all too obvious for those with eyes to see: the lusts of the powerful were more important than the lives of the weak. Monica Lewinsky was just a twenty-four-year-old late-term fetus thrown onto the garbage heap of sexual convenience, as the feminists looked the other way once again, because her case did not fit into their agenda.
“The talking-class feminists found that Clinton put them in an especially uncomfortable position. Columnist Ellen Goodman struggled valiantly with the fact that her favorite politician was engaged in behavior that would be grounds for lynching if perpetrated by someone at the other end of the political spectrum, and came up with the notion that Americans had become more ‘morally sophisticated’ since the Clarence Thomas hearings.
“What she meant to say was that they had stopped trying to believe that there should be some congruity between a person’s public and private life…the sexual revolution had created a major problem for the country which had embraced sexual liberation. The moral problem at the heart of sexual revolution had created a major political crisis….
“The lesson here is very clear. The talking class had adopted sexual liberation as its moral code. What they probably didn’t understand at the time is that once they adopted it as their code of behavior, they condemned themselves to promote that behavior in others even more influential than themselves, lest in condemning it, they leave themselves open to blackmail or charges of hypocrisy.”
Going back to Russia, the Huffington Post agrees that “NATO is plainly pushing the envelope as hard as it dares, up and against Russia’s borders.”
NATO also plans to expand its wings virtually all over Europe in the next two years. But again it is Russia that is the aggressor, say NWO agents, not NATO. USA Today has recently published an article by the DailyChatter which basically lambasted Putin for “invading” Crimea (among other things). But USA Today published an article in 2014 which stated that 97% of Crimeans voted for Putin!
So, which is it?
Obviously NWO agents are leaving in a fantasy world in which logic and reason play little or no role, and it is no wonder that even some Pentagon officials are not convinced by the demonization of Russia. Russia continues to reach out to the U.S. by proposing a coalition to strike ISIS in Syria, and the U.S. continues to refuse the generous offer.
We are obviously living in an intolerable world. New World Order agents are destroying one country after another, but they want to tell us all that they do not know why they are being hated around the world. They mean to tell us that much of the world hates them because they are spreading democracy and freedom. They also want to make it clear that allying with terrorist states like Saudi Arabia is idealistic.
Why can’t these people read philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt’s book to the end?
 I was too stupid to realize this simple truth two years ago. That would have saved me countless hours trying to talk to unreasonable people who have no respect for facts and logic. I remember talking to a good friend of mine about the Middle East last year. During our conversation, we focused our attention on the origin of ISIS. I asked, “Do you agree with me that we have been supporting the Syrian rebels for a long time?” “Yes,” he concurred. “Great. Do you agree that the Syrian rebels and ISIS are basically two sides of the same coin?” He concurred again.
Then I moved on to the inexorable conclusion: “Then do you agree that we have been directly or indirectly supporting ISIS?” To my astonishment, he exclaimed, “Conspiracy theory!” At that point, I shook my head and threw in the towel. It was at that point that I decided that I will never talk to him about these issues again. So far, I have been true to my word, and that has saved me a lot of headache.
 Daniel J. Flynn, Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas (New York: Crown Forum, 2004), 1.
 Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for their Realization (London: Chatoo & Windus, 1946), 273.
 D. H. Lawrence, Portable D. H. Lawrence (New York: Random House, 1986), 600-601.
 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Portable Nietzsche (New York: Penguin Books, 1954), 47.
 See E. Michael Jones, Dionysos Rising: The Birth of Cultural Revolution Out of the Spirit of Music (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), chapter 2.
 E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2000), 599.
 John Wright, “NATO exercises on Russian border: Are these people actually mad?,” Russia Today, May 18, 2016.
 He stated: “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more oftener and the more steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.” Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason (New York: Classic Books International, 2010), 163.
 E. Michael Jones, “The Great Satan and Me: Reflections on Iran and Postmodernism’s Faustian Pact,” Culture Wars, July/August 2015.
 Alastair Crooke, “Putin Is Being Pushed to Abandon His Conciliatory Approach to the West and Prepare for War,” Huffington Post, May 17, 2016.
 Jessica Jerreat, “’Hillary Clinton took me through hell’: Child rape victim claims Clinton smeared her in 1975 to get lighter sentence for attacker she knew was guilty,” Daily Mail, June 20, 2014; Glenn Kessler, “Did Clinton laugh about a rapist’s light sentence and attack sexual harassment victims?,” Washington Post, May 19, 2016; Josh Rogin, “Exclusive: ‘Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,’ Rape Victim Says,” Daily Beast, June 20, 2014. Audio recordings of Hillary laughing about the whole trial is available online. Hillary is still not apologizing for laughing about the trial.
 Lois Romano and Peter Baker, “Another Clinton Accuser Goes Public,” Washington Post, February 20, 1999.
 Glenn Kessler, “A guide to the allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing,” Washington Post, December 30, 2015.
 Candice E. Jackson, Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine (Los Angeles: World Ahead Publishing, 2005), 8.
 Philip Rucker, Tom Hamburger and Alexander Becker, “How the Clintons went from ‘dead broke’ to rich: Bill earned $104.9 million for speeches,” Washington Post, June 26, 2014; Kenneth P. Vogel, “Clintons charge big fees to small groups,” Politico, June 15, 2016; Emily Zanotti, “Hillary Clinton Charged $200K For Kids Charity Speech, Wouldn’t Interact With Kids,” American Spectator, June 16, 2016; “Hillary Clinton Charges Homeless Veterans $500K for Speech,” Heartland Chronicle, April 20, 2015; Andy Kroll, “Hillary Clinton’s Speaking Circuit Payday: $5 Million (and Counting),” Mother Jones, May 21, 2014.
 See for example Ryan Teague Beckwith, “Read Hillary Clinton’s Speech to AIPAC,” Time, March 21, 2016.
 Quoted in Andrew Ross Sorkin, “Schlepping to Moguldom,” NY Times, September 5, 2004; see also Tina Daunt, “Haim Saban Raises $34M to Support Israeli Defense Forces,” Hollywood Reporter, November 7, 2007.
 Connie Bruck, “The Influencer: An entertainment mogul sets his sights on foreign policy,” New Yorker, May 10, 2010.
 Bryan Schatz, “Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors,” Mother Jones, May 28, 2015.
 Quoted in Caitlin Flanagan, “Why This Democrat Won’t Vote for Hillary Clinton,” Time, January 21, 2016.
 Quoted in Jon Ronson, “Monica Lewinsky: ‘The shame sticks to you like tar,’” Guardian, April 22, 2016.
 Jackson, Their Lives, 12.
 Ian Tuttle, “Juanita Broaddrick Still Haunts Hillary Clinton,” National Review, January 20, 2016; for a similar story, see Carly Hoilman, “Juanita Broaddrick Says Bill Clinton Called Her At Work Repeatedly After Alleged Rape, And Hillary Helped Cover it Up,” The Blaze, January 18, 2016.
 Jones, Libido Dominandi, 602, 603.
 Crooke, “Putin Is Being Pushed to Abandon His Conciliatory Approach to the West and Prepare for War,” Huffington Post, May 17, 2016.
 See Finian Cunningham, “Peace, Not Russia, Is Real Threat to US Power,” Strategic Culture Foundation, May 16, 2016.
 “DailyChatter: Russia’s white lies,” USA Today, May 18, 2016.
 Charles McPhedran and Anna Arutunyan, “Crimea votes to join Russia; Ukrainians prepare for war,” USA Today, March 17, 2014.
 Mark Perry, “The U.S. Army’s War Over Russia,” Politico, May 12, 2016.
 Andrew Roth, “Russia proposes joint airstrikes with U.S.-led coalition in Syria,” Washington Post, May 20, 2016; “Russia proposes US-led coalition to strike Syrian terrorists with Moscow – def minister,” Russia Today, May 20, 2016.
 See how New World Order agent Todd Rosenblum desperately tries to make a case for Saudi Arabia: “Improving Saudi-Israeli relations offers an opportunity for the U.S.—and a big risk,” Politico, May 18, 2016.
 Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).