Cultural Marxism and its Grave Implications


As the Cultural Marxists push their neoliberal critical theory, postmodern, and post-structural demographic mixing policies and nu-progressive doctrine, the resulting balkanization (division) of the electorate in Western nations and arbitrary dissolution of traditional structures by these methods must be discussed — funded social activism and the dissemination of certain biases is at the forefront of keeping neoliberalism, group dissension, and toxic progressivism prominent in society, as a result keeping the social structures of what would be an organised populace thereafter permanently divided.

Weaponized Cultural Marxism deliberately appeals to and has successfully made a tool out of the rebellious nature of youth, and has made it “cool” and “progressive” to destroy the so-called “anachronistic” structures in society — in reality, these are structures in the way of further centralization of power under an unaccountable elite cabal.

It boils down to suppressing the individual and turning everything towards the collective of the elite’s agenda —  to divide and conquer, introduce postmodernism, pathologize and victimize everything to paralyze independent free thought and discourse, to destroy the family and replace parental figures with the state role model, to eliminate religious and national Western value systems, to intersperse dissension and division among the populace by highlighting irrelevant differences between people. Anything that turns a person towards obedience to the state entity.

“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

— Benito Mussolini, on totalitarianism.

Replace the word “state” with any central collection of substantial power — it doesn’t necessarily have to be in terms of traditional government. This is because governance can take on many forms. For example, today’s collection of power is in the corporate state, the “corporatocracy“.

When every person becomes a microcosm of the state’s image, then the state rules in full-spectrum, absolute totality. The human domain (the body) is the last frontier of attaining true totalitarian power, the capable, free-thinking individual is the enemy of totalitarianism — this is why we see an assault on the individual thinker everywhere. I believe the elites know that they will never truly eradicate individual thought, that’s nearly impossible. So instead they want to replace it with dumbed-down “individual” thought, a form of individuality that appears democratized, but in effect — remains an extension of state power. The wider the awareness gap between the ruler and the ruled, the closer to totalitarianism we will come, a devalued individual is their next big goal. This is why we see them attempt to put incapable individuals in positions of power, to dilute capable individuals’ power.

“The long march through the institutions of power”

The above statement refers to Cultural Marxists slowly taking over key positions in the institutions controlling culture in order to create a new culture; one that aligns with the globalist-Zionist agenda. David Icke coined the term the “totalitarian tiptoe“, a slow and gradual encroachment of an agenda in parts initially too small to recognize — but in the end forming a whole, by which time the public will accept the agenda due to the gradual acclimatization that shifted the Overton window.

Cultural Marxism places great emphasis on analyzing, controlling, and changing the popular culture, the popular discourse, the mass media, and the language itself. Seeing culture as often having more or less subconscious influences on people which create and sustain inequalities, Cultural Marxists themselves often try to remove these inequalities by more or less subtle manipulation and censorship of culture. Because of its secret intelligence organizers, social justice opts to frame and create anachronisms out of natural differences between things, calling them figments of “oppression”, as well as push the “virtues” of unthinking pathological altruism through the “high-ground” of self-proclaimed morality.

Escape the artificially engineered social bubble — take a trip to your average South American, Eastern European or Asian country. Few things can red-pill a man faster than being engulfed in a culture outside of the West — where the fundamental culture has not been manipulated.

Marxist Politics is all about power relations rather than rational bilateral discourse, it’s all about couching one’s positions in the language of morality.

While some inequalities are legitimate, others are perceived inequalities, that below the surface are not the alleged “inequalities” we have been led to believe. To distinguish between innocent social activism and the weaponized Cultural Marxist “SJW”, is to see the difference between perceived inequalities and real inequalities — and from where exactly the activism or movement is coming from.

From the grassroots? More likely to be a legitimate issue. From corporate funding? There’s likely an agenda at play. Just follow the money. Unfortunately, many don’t follow the money, and take on-board the toxic values and ideological groundwork from perceived authoritative sources, woe to them.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” — Sun Tzu

By creating false dichotomies that otherwise would not exist is to draw a “solution” (reform) to the “problem” (thing) you want to change, whether it’s a real social problem is irrelevant — as a result, you can gain a social outcome that benefits a given agenda. By blaring the single talking point and narrative of social activism you also cover up the real cause and effect in the significance of the nature of race, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender, etc as eminent social factors that often have nuance that your agenda needs to overlook to be successful.

The US has a history staging false dichotomies and psyops on a large scale, so why not in subtle ways too? Meddling by secret intelligence is well-documented; as a result, I believe the role of these agencies in shaping and directing social and political discourse is sorely understated.

Examples of major fake social “revolutions”.

A prime example of a fake social revolution is feminism and women’s suffrage which have their roots in the early 20th century, and later on, the Women’s liberation movement of the 1960s. This social cause was funded by Jewish banker-owned organisations to swing the electorate away from male rationality towards female liberality — and liberality is the best way for the elite class to liquidize and reform undesirable social structures. Why? Because the very definition of being liberal is to be “open to new ideas”, even if these new ideas are terrible and damaging — its the best way to slip your corporate social agenda under the social radar and then implement it — by cloaking it in “benevolent social activism” — nobody notices if it appears to come from the grassroots.

The CIA/Rockefeller Foundation funded the roots of feminism to weaken the basic structure of society for more governmental influence.

By funding women’s suffrage and overturning the tradition of the male-only vote, the male voter was devalued; and by extension, so was general rationality in the democratic process — the designed rise of the emotional, low quality voter has made social engineering and its implications more significant than ever. According to the 2009 “Reflections and Warnings” interview with Aaron Russo, the elites allegedly funded social reform on gender to also take women “out of the home to double the amount of taxpayers and cut wages by doubling the supply of workers”, Russo alleged that it also had the effect of putting kids in state school earlier, meaning exposure to state indoctrination would occur at an earlier stage in life.

Ironically, most women believe they benefit from feminism’s values, but do they really when their unhappiness has skyrocketed, and when 1 in 4 American women are on antidepressants. The statistics speak for themselves; the cultural changes imposed by Cultural Marxism are having a negative effect.

Louise Weiss (front) along with other suffragettes demonstrating in Paris in 1935.

“You’ve been lied to about women’s position in society, you are the society, you create and grow the next life, and they tell you ‘oh, that’s a horrible thing’, they say ‘your baby is a parasite’, they don’t ever want you to have a child so you’re empowered through it.” 

— Alex Jones

Gloria Steinem, an American feminist, journalist, and social political activist who once stated that “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle”, told of how the CIA was directly involved in the feminist movement during the late 1960s Women’s liberation movement:

Scientifically speaking, men tend to have the propensity to vote conservatively and women more liberally as it is hardwired in our biology; women’s brains favor more emotional activity in the mid-brain region, while men show more rational activity in the top of the brain.

The significance of gender in the vote is very clear throughout political preferences (vote choice, and ideology), political participation (voting, campaign activity, and contentious actions), and political engagement (interest, discussion, persuasion, knowledge, and efficacy). According to one study, “women are least engaged with the stages of the political process when new issues are introduced to the agenda.”

Manufacturing consent; the next steps.

They’ve conquered the male-centric vote that held irrationality at bay, and implemented various other Marxist-inspired society-breaking strategies — but the Western Caucasian voter is still too smart and too entrenched in the ideas of Western liberty to fully control, the Western family is a safeguard for Western values — they haven’t been successful in breaking up this safeguard enough.

How would you deal with this? One big strategy is replacement — to bring in low-IQ, culturally decadent migrants who have no experience and no regard for said liberties and will happily vote those liberties away, whether by gullibility or irreverence, in part due to IQ, in part environmental causes. Mass population replacement has a “blank slate” effect on the target population and nation, allowing you to rewrite the rules. Because a state is the sum of its inhabitants — controlling the inhabitants means you control the state, before many assumed controlling the government means you control the state, yes, in the short term, but in the long term, the population is the real source of power. Power comes from below.

Today’s “migration crisis” in Europe is redefining that “power from below”, denigrating the capable individual by bringing in people of an average IQ below 90. According to studies, sub-90 IQ populations cannot sustain high-functioning civilization — or even a basic level of civilization, the permanent genetic factors are well documented; meaning that any assimilation to Western ideals will be very limited, this is all planned.

Finnish political scientist Tatu Vanhanen supports this. His comprehensive study of 172 nations in the world demonstrates that the higher the average intelligence in a given society, the higher its degree of democracy and civilization.

The circular reasoning that saturates modern Cultural Marxism.

This comes under the guise of a new Western “enlightenment”, the bandwagon idea of “out with the old in with the new” pervades society, its almost as if they would rather we don’t stop and question why this is happening — and where exactly this new line of thinking will lead us as a civilization.

The opted assumption is that it’s a “given thing”, that the score is settled, that new criticisms are “wild conspiracies” or “anti-scientific”, or anti-whatever.

Perhaps most dangerous of all, the neoliberal Marxist line of the “oppressor” and “oppressed” is applied in so many areas of human society that it’s become hard to keep track — spawning so many unnecessary tribal conflicts between people.

This class agitation is especially important for globalist vested interests — by characterizing the non-globalist upper class as bourgeoisie and pushing socialist policies to crush the middle class, they are slashing capital and property that doesn’t serve their agenda, keeping the lion’s share within their control, their proxies, and forming an underclass at a rapid rate.

It seems as if, despite all the ranting of “oppression”, it is only the international financiers that are not oppressing anybody — funny how that panned-out, Jewish exceptionalism is everywhere — and proves who is really in control, for example ISIS never attacks Israel, no massive social justice attacks on Israel’s racism, and there is no uproar about the high Jewish representation in top positions compared to all other groups.

It seems conspiracy theories are allowed, but only if they have a liberal angle — anything that points out the tremendous influence of the international Jewish financiers, people who have held these financial roles for centuries — well, that’s tin foil hat stuff.

The neoliberal narrative is perpetuated everywhere. The number of the establishment’s “progressive” authors presenting circular reasoning is astonishing. For example, this article by the Huffington Post starts with a precedent without justifying it, this kind of “social justice” content is often seen across the mainstream media landscape.

The mechanisms of manufacturing dissent & the “icebreaker” of Cultural Marxism in the 1960s: the roots of Western cultural decline.

So where did this neoliberal explosion come from? — it all started in the USA with the Rockefeller-backed neoliberal movement in the 1960s from the front-organisation known as The Funders Network on Trade and Globalization (FTNG) — the social movement was intended as a mass-push for liberalism to loosen up the socially and politically conservative traditions that obstructed the further acquisition of power by encouraging the young to challenge social norms. The movement was a social gadfly on established social order; and was from the start a meticulously controlled cultural sabotage.

The areas targeted by the fake neoliberal “revolution”, that masquerades as classical liberalism are areas crucial to the fabric of human interrelations — and sources of tremendous leverage if manipulated correctly by a willing puppeteer. It would be accurate to call them the key pressure-points of society, these methods were likely formulated in the banker-owned think-tanks.

The Frankfurt School.

The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. “Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness”. They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture — the targets of achieving post-structuralism.

Check out: The New Dark Age – The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness

The School developed critical theory in order to analyze and explain how culture creates inequalities. It has been extremely influential and today has branches in numerous fields such as critical race theory, critical whiteness studies, critical gender studies, critical criminology, critical legal studies, etc — here are the main areas that Cultural Marxism influences:

Basically, the task of the Frankfurt School was to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. They called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life to destabilize society and destroy what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order.

“First, that the influence of home is obstructive.

Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten.

Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective.

Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark grey . When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”

— Bertrand Russel, British Philosopher

They hoped their policies would spread like a virus — “continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means”, as one of their members noted. To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution.

Comintern propaganda chief, Willi Münzenberg, summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation, stating that ‘we will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.’

The School recommended (among other things):

1. The creation of racism offences.

2. Continual change to create confusion.

3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.

4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.

5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.

6. The promotion of excessive drinking.

7. Emptying of churches.

8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.

9. Creating dependency on the state or state benefits.

10. Control and dumbing down of media.

11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:

  • Attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
  • Abolish differences in the education of boys and girls.
  • Abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces.
  • Declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’.

The 1960s social revolution is a perfect example of how, seemingly out of nowhere, all these major human sociological factors were instantly and aggressively challenged and undermined, it happened in a choppy way because it was designed.

“This task is rendered easier of the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, so-called liberalism, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power.” — The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (1903)

For example, in 1969, Blue Movie, directed by Andy Warhol, was the first adult erotic film depicting explicit sex to receive wide theatrical release in the United States. New cultural forms and a dynamic subculture which celebrated experimentation, modern incarnations of Bohemianism, and the rise of the hippie and other alternative lifestyles emerged. Lyndon B. Johnson was the first acting president to endorse birth control, a hugely important factor in the change of American sexual attitudes in the 1960s.

Areas of society clamoring for change included the Civil Rights movement, (see SCLC and SNCC) the ‘New Left‘, and women, with various women’s rights organizations appearing in the latter years of the decade in particular.

In the 1963 book The Feminine Mystique, Friedan tackles the issue of the domestic role of women in contemporary America, and the feeling of dissatisfaction with it. Friedan believed that women should not conform to this popularized view of the feminine, (The Housewife) and that they should participate in, if not enjoy the act of sex. It’s evident how this evolved into the toxic form of man-hating feminism we see today.

The rise of popular recreational drugs during the period such as crack cocaine and LSD, was largely introduced by CIA-backed cartels — this brought in a new dependency for a population that was once conservative and cautious.

David McGowan, author on the subject, proposed that the social revolution was a controlled, concerted effort to mitigate the backlash of the anti-war movement and carefully guide the angst of a gullible youth.

“…These are belief systems that are used to manipulate the minds of impressionable followers. In the case of Satanism, it is, to me, a way to covertly sell a fascist mindset, which is the direction the country, and the rest of the world, is moving. Those embracing the teachings think they are rebelling against the system, but they are in reality reinforcing it. Just as the hippies did. And just as so-called Patriots and Anarchists are. I don’t believe there has been a legitimate resistance movement in this country for a very long time.” 

“To the extent that it has a central thesis, I would say that it is that the music and counterculture scene that sprung to life in the 1960s was not the organic, grassroots resistance movement that it is generally perceived to be, but rather a movement that was essentially manufactured and steered. And a corollary to that would be that for a scene that was supposed to be all about peace, love and understanding, there was a very dark, violent underbelly that this book attempts to expose.”

— David McGowan, author of Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon (2014)

Since 2001, a major proponent of social engineering operating under the slogan “Another World is Possible”, is the Jewish banker-funded World Social Forum (WSF) that is responsible for much of the major social activism — and is a major front of the mass social engineering that we see worldwide.

The WSF (among several sources of funding is supported by a consortium of corporate foundations under the advisory umbrella of Engaged Donors for Global Equity (EDGE) – their goal is to create “forms of international solidarity among progressive movements”.

The neoliberal anti-globalization movements in the WSF are supposedly opposed to Wall Street and the Texas oil giants controlled by Rockefeller, et al. Yet the foundations and charities of Ford, Rockefeller et al will generously fund progressive anti-capitalist networks as well as environmentalists (opposed to Wall Street and Big Oil), etc. with a view to ultimately overseeing and shaping their various activities. In other words, they hope to control and mitigate their opposition — as well as create and fund real opposition for their opponents.

The corporations are funding dissent with a view to controlling dissent and also directing it. The corporations are cherry-picking often well-intentioned people that have misguided worldviews and using them as pawns to further their social engineering agendas.

“The hidden agenda was to weaken and divide the protest movement and orient the anti-globalization movement into areas that would not directly threaten the interests of the business establishment.”

Wake Up World

The Rockefeller and Ford Foundations have big stakes in the WSF, most of the participants are completely unaware that the WSF is funded by corporate foundations including Ford, Rockefeller, Tides, et al.  Much of this funding is channeled to the WSF organizers under the helm of the WSF International Council.

  • At the 2016 WSF event in Montreal on Syria refers to a country “in ruins as a result of a multifaceted  war between the dictatorship of Bashar al Assad and a host of opposition organizations,” echoing almost verbatim the narrative of the mainstream media. The central role of US-NATO in destroying Syria as a sovereign country is not mentioned.

With regard to the Montreal WSF, the Consortium of Donors (EDGE) intent is:

“…to develop an intersectional space for funders and various movement partners – organizers thought leaders and practitioners – to build alignment by cultivating a shared understanding of the visions, values, principles and pathways of a “just transition.” (See

“Just Transition” implies that social activism has to conform to a “shared vision” with the corporate foundations, i.e. nothing which in a meaningful way might upset the elite structures of global capitalism.

  • At the 2013 WSF event in Tunis, the final declaration paid lip service to to the US sponsored “Syrian opposition”.  Similarly the Al Qaeda affiliated Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which allegedly led the “Arab Spring” against the government of Muammar Gaddafi was tacitly upheld as a revolutionary force. Several workshops on  Libya applauded Western military intervention. A session entitled “Libya’s transition to democracy” focused on “whether Libya was better off without Muammar Gaddafi.”

The WSF is a funnel trap for real activists that fall under umbrella organisations that claim to be fighting crony capitalism, but have been paid-off — or misdirected.

The mechanisms of “manufacturing dissent” require a manipulative environment, a process of arm-twisting and subtle co-optation of  a small number of key individuals within “progressive organizations”, including anti-war coalitions, environmentalists and the anti-globalization movement. Many leaders of these organizations have in a sense betrayed their grassroots — taking up the standard of controlled-opposition corporate neoliberalism.

Cultural Marxism pathologizes established structures that the Elites want to dismantle and replace.

Cultural Marxism’s ideas are found in universities across the West.

Writing in 1992 in Fidelio Magazine, The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness Michael Minnicino observed how the heirs of Marcuse and Adorno now completely dominate the universities, ‘teaching their own students to replace reason with ‘Politically Correct’ ritual exercises that attempt to redefine “equality” between certain supposedly “unequal” things, and therefore intends to redefine the polar opposites that justify these calls for such equality.

There are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfurt School. The witch-hunt on today’s campuses is merely the implementation of Marcuse’s concept of ‘repressive toleration’, ‘tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right’, enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School’.

Freudian psychoanalysis was an important influence on critical theory in Cultural Marxism. One example is the influential book The Authoritarian Personality where psychoanalytic ideas are used to pathologize Western love and pride of Christianity, the family, gender roles, and the nation.

The tendency to pathologize opponents as being irrationally sick has continued with, for example, labels such as homophobia and Islamophobia. This is the crux of the Cultural Marxist rationale.

Modern examples of this have set a new precedent, and, with little emphasis on evidence, have called for the “solution” to “society’s problems” to be rolled-out before anyone has reached an agreement and what exactly the problems were to begin with. The social engineers rely on hysteria to make their social engineering successful, rolling out an event and quickly offering a solution without time to think, ratcheting the window of acceptance bit by bit. This works, because if people actually objectively and rationally questioned these new social narratives appearing out of nowhere — nobody would be taking them on board.

There can be no conversation between the organizer and his opponents. The latter must be depicted as being evil. This preserves the former and suppresses the latter.

The use of buzzwords and put-downs in social justice groups suggests that their central ideas will likely buckle under rational scrutiny. The very fact that there is unsolicited animosity implies obscurantism of an idea that cannot hold its own in a rational debate.

Strong ideas and their advocates do not require name-calling and derision to deal with their opposition, because their idea is strong enough that smoke and mirrors are not required. If you were confident or knowledgeable enough in your argument you would not resort to ad hominen or any other avoidance tactics — yet that is exactly what we see on the liberal side of many arguments.

Using “subjectivity” and political correctness as a tool to shutdown discourse.

Cultural-Marxists hide in the nihilist‘s relativity argument, the argument from self-referentialityepistemological and moral relativismpluralismsubjectivism, and irreverence; the denial of objective scientific knowledge, and the attachment of negative social connotations to objective knowledge to render and characterize said knowledge as a pathological “threat”.

The various ideologies originating in the Frankfurt school can (like Marxism and psychoanalysis) be considered pseudosciences with theories that cannot be falsified. Often not replying to the factual arguments of critics, the critics are instead often analyzed with the theories and declared to be sick or having hidden motives (ad hominem). They are often similar to sects with adored and charismatic leaders and cleansing of heretics in the own group with less than orthodox views.

“Nihilism is the philosophical viewpoint that suggests the denial or lack of belief towards the reputedly meaningful aspects of life.”


While social reform is often a positive process based on sound discourse between parties to come to an agreed conclusion, the Cultural Marxist type of reform is weaponized through and through — intended to undermine truly meaningful and substantial structures of human life and society, and not be open to bilateral discussion about such reforms.

Because if everything hinges on subjective personal opinion, then nothing can be objectively held or reasonably conceded, this acts a flotation device to keep the Marxist narrative alive — because without relativity, post-structural arguments would be dead and buried the moment they surfaced under the scrutiny of rationality.

“It’s the individual’s choice to do what they want…”

There’s no denying that individual choice is imperative, but that dodges the essence of the argument — what should an individual do to compromise for the collective? Does it align with emotional self-comfort, rational principles, their ego? From what within or without has persuaded that individual’s choice? How justifiable is it relative to empirically documented science? What is generally held as meaningful by the wider society your ability to make that free choice depends on?

I encourage questioning established norms, but not in the context of the dogmatist revolutionary who does so as a virtue-signalling statement. Unfortunately, many “progressives” fall into the latter definition — thinking in terms of proletariat and bourgeoisie, the oppressed and the oppressor — the victim mentality. Their naivety exploited, they ascribe ‘evil-doer’ and ‘victim’ to the wrong groups, in the process becoming ‘useful idiots’. The people most receptive to these ideas include rejected, insecure, often low income and low status individuals who jump at the opportunity to blame men, the rich and successful, etc, for their problems. The ugly feminist is not a coincidence.

It’s convenient that the Cultural Marxist ideology is a catch-all for the lowest denomination — the intellectually lazy with all their negative qualities are validated and protected by the Marxist social agenda, and they love that, because a healthy society has rejected them, to be told they are valid is a rallying call.

The post-structuralist’s refusal or outright inability to argue on a rational level makes their arguments and mindset very resilient to external probing. The establishment know this, and supports this — the engineered safe-zone, “don’t offend anyone” culture serves to protect this faulty reasoning — notice how protected groups / minorities are nearly always retainers of something beneficial to the post-structuralists — and toxic to wider society, preserving and using toxic personality traits mixed with an ideological proponent is deadly, the elites provide the bullets, and broken, small-minded people fire them. By taking in social outcasts and capitalizing on estranged people, the establishment can corrupt and disenfranchise core society.

Political correctness, as an extension of the “safe zone”,  is another factor of ideological protectionism, shut away from the light of open, rational discourse. The PC culture dictates that all views on equality that disagree with the Cultural Marxist view are to be avoided, censored, and punished.

It’s like a life support for a near-dead corpse. The appeal to emotions, the ego, superiority-inferiority complexes, and the socialist Utopian ideas where “all people are equal” are the modes that inhibit rational discourse on real social issues, they are validated for thinking they are right, they are called “perfect” for their imperfections. It’s a catch for the emotionally weak person with poor self-restraint, someone who wants to blame the world for their problems — we’re hardwired to respond to emotion, not reason — some more than others, funded movements target those most susceptible to this emotional exploitation; many women (due to emotional processing), generally low-IQ people, minority groups, and so on. Wherever society can be categorized and divorced from the central social body — the manipulators strike.

The “social change” is exclusively coming from the corporate establishment.

Follow the trail, it will lead back to an establishment-owned entity every time. Now that we are some forty years into their social engineering programme, individuals have taken on the idea of their own volition, but in the beginning — it came from the establishment.

If this is truly was a new “renaissance” of social justice, it’s not one that is occurring at a grassroots level, the new ideas come from above, the established order, and very few realize that or question the motive for powerful people to push this narrative.

A real renaissance usually comes from below and changes above, and by extension, the whole.

Instead, the modern Marxist “renaissance” was and is totally planned, the social prime movers plant the seed of a false idea — and then watch the effects come into play. Because so much of modern human society is centralized under a few corporations, including most politicians and “influential” people, a mass repetition of these false talking points can be deployed quite easily, an organic, decentralized society is long behind us — human communication, something essential for liberties to be upheld, is now in the hands of a few very powerful people who control the major means of discourse; internet forums, newspapers, media, and so on.

The ruling group doesn’t change, yet everything below changes. This “social change” is change to target groups only.

It is the ruling order changing the ruled, it’s partisan in that the elite don’t change their position as a small circle of dictatorial, patriarchal white males (the very thing their so-called renaissance of social justice criticizes). This suggests that they want to target certain groups with social engineering and spur agitation among people.

Instead of changing entire structure of society — unilaterally, they only change the people’s accepted standards and social structures (common sense structures built upon over millennia) to fit their agenda of control — this can’t be a real renaissance because it doesn’t affect the whole, only the part.

Look to Saudi Arabia where women’s rights are nonexistent, the Jewish elites and their lackeys still do business with the Saudis, yet push the feminist agenda on a domestic level, they advocate mass Islamic immigration knowing that mass-introducing anti-feminist groups will work against progressive ideology, yet the migrant plans go ahead.

The hypocrisy is blatant, and shows they have no interest or faith in the values and principles of their own social justice ideology.

If we look to Israel’s refusal to take in Syrian refugees and expulsion of African migrants, these are other examples of the Jewish establishment’s complete personal disinterest in the very social justice they choose to impose on others — because its a tool to control people, nobody invests money in something because of ethics or “social justice”, the people who have power have seized it and while they call themselves philanthropists — they are really a ruthless corporate cabal, investing in liberal ideas is to ease up the structures and populations that get in the way of their agenda.

Look at how racism rights applies to every race except whites, how “social justice” is entirely conditional, and such cognitive dissonance is not acknowledged by its neoliberal proponents.

Let’s look at the double-think further, there is no social justice stance on Ashkenazi Jews dominating high positions in society, more so than white males. There is not stance on women dominating hairdressing over men. The common sense is right in front of us, so why can’t people join the dots and see that different people have different temperaments? Because the lines between the dots has been deliberately blurred since the false 1960s cultural revolution set the false liberalism in motion.

This could be referred to as a top-down, premeditated “renaissance”, a massive act of social engineering that, only now with the decline of the mainstream voice, is beginning to be somewhat questioned.

Older social movements were much more likely to be genuine, the decentralized state of discourse in societies of the past meant a rallying for social change was less likely to be falsified.

Today, in the Information Age, with the rise of the crisis actor, mainstream media, think-tanks, and many avenues for social manipulation mean that objective, critical thought on an individual basis couldn’t be more crucial for everyone to exercise.

With the proliferation of information and the modes of spread, genuine change is certainly more empowered, but equally are the powers of social engineering.

Polarizing the electorate to justify social justice.

By pushing false narratives of oppression, that the whites are keeping the blacks in poverty (disproved), that men are keeping women in lower paid jobs by the “patriarchy” (again, disproved), and that white people are oppressive and all minorities are exempt from scrutiny — the electorate becomes atomized, one group feels estranged from the next, all vote for the social and political answers to these “problems” put before them.

The false problem has been created, the establishment politician is the solution, appealing to each group and claiming they will fight for “justice” for each given group.

It carves up the electorate and makes each categorical group much easier to sway.

If, on the other hand, all groups were concerned with objective pragmatic social and political solutions, it would be impossible to carve up the electorate through the forces of an appeal to tribalism, because objective thought moves past a divided electorate.

Balkanizing democracy.

Generally, there will always be niche voter preferences from group to group in society, this can become a flaw of democracy, just as much as it represents the individual; the possibility that people vote drastically different from group to group — lacking the collective national vision as seen in ideas such as Benjamin Disraeli’s One-nation conservatism.

“Jewish organizations view white nationalism as their greatest potential threat and they have tended to support pro-black integration (i.e., assimilationist, individualist) policies for blacks in America, presumably because such policies dilute white power and lessen the possibility of a cohesive, nationalist anti-Jewish white majority.” 

— Harold Cruse, a black intellectual.

Until then, the norm was largely conservative values, funded “social revolutions”, known as cultural dialectics, and as aforementioned, are employed ways to artificially shift the Overton window to the position that benefits the elites — money from certain influential figures that lurk behind the scenes has pulled the strings of the social landscape, the power of this new, and aggressively imposed Marxist narrative is even undermining established science.

Jordan B. Peterson made a comment on how the long-held conclusions of common sense have been vilified:

“I have made a strong case, which I think is fully documented by the scientific literature that there are intrinsic differences between men and women […] this is the thing that staggered me, that no serious scientists have debated that, for like four decades. That argument was done by the time I went to graduate school, everyone knew that human beings were not a blank slate, that biological forces parameterized the way that we thought and felt and acted and valued. Everyone knew that. The fact that this has become somehow debatable again, especially as this is being done by legislative fiat, they’re forcing it.” 

Jordan B. Peterson on David Fuller’s “A Glitch in the Matrix” (2018)

As aforementioned, the insider whistle-blower Aaron Russo tells of how the Rockefellers funded Women’s liberation movement, a precursor to the feminism that has upended social integrity today, here’s the video:

What one votes for will differ a bit from another given group, but generally Western nations share the core principles of liberty, nationalism, and constitutionality — and people will tend to vote against their own interests to preserve this. For example, nearly half of “Leave” voters in the recent UK EU referendum voted on the principle “that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK.” The focus is nationalist, rather than globalist.

Third world migrants vote differently. People born overseas will likely vote differently, if their background is not rooted in the nation then the likelihood of them voting against the national interests and core identity are higher.

Democracy works best in essential uniformity, with people voting on principle rather than self-interest. Outside of an enlightened democracy, a democracy becomes fragmentary and too multi-polar.

Largest Military Aid in Israel’s History: $705 Million for Missile “Defence” Programmes


Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that (the Zionist lobby) and US Congress had approved the largest defense aid contribution for Israel since it was created in 1948, Quds Press reported yesterday.

On Twitter, he wrote:

“I am pleased to announce that the US Congress has approved a record amount for missile defence. $705 million in 2018. We will continue to develop the multi-tier missile defence system.”

American media reported that Congress approved the $705.8 million for missile defence programmes, noting that this is $105 million more than last year’s funding.

Lieberman went on to thank the US which he described as a “great friend” of Israel, noting that it invested $6.5bn to defend the skies of Israel.

In 2016, the US approved a $38 billion ten-year aid package for Israel, the highest ever agreed. According to the Christian Science Monitor, Israel cost the US $1.6 trillion between 1973 and 2002.

Saudi Crown Prince: Spread of Wahhabism Was Done at Request of West During Cold War

The Saudi-funded spread of Wahhabism began as a result of Western countries asking Riyadh to help counter the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman told the Washington Post.

Speaking to the paper, bin Salman said that Saudi Arabia’s Western allies urged the country to invest in mosques and madrassas overseas during the Cold War, in an effort to prevent encroachment in Muslim countries by the Soviet Union.

He added that successive Saudi governments had lost track of that effort, saying “we have to get it all back.” Bin Salman also said that funding now comes mostly from Saudi-based “foundations,” rather than from the government.

The crown prince’s 75-minute interview with the Washington Post took place on March 22, the final day of his US tour. Another topic of discussion included a previous claim by US media that bin Salman had said that he had White House senior adviser Jared Kushner “in his pocket.”

Bin Salman denied reports that when he and Kushner – who is also Donald Trump’s son-in-law – met in Riyadh in October, he had sought or received a greenlight from Kushner for the massive crackdown on alleged corruption which led to widespread arrests in the kingdom shortly afterwards. According to bin Salman, the arrests were a domestic issue and had been in the works for years.

He said it would be “really insane” for him to trade classified information with Kushner, or to try to use him to advance Saudi interests within the Trump administration. He stated that their relationship was within a normal governmental context, but did acknowledge that he and Kushner “work together as friends, more than partners.” He stated that he also had good relationships with Vice President Mike Pence and others within the White House.

The crown prince also spoke about the war in Yemen, where a Saudi-led coalition continues to launch a bombing campaign against Houthi rebels in an attempt to reinstate ousted Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi as president. The conflict has killed thousands, displaced many more, driven the country to the brink of famine, and led to a major cholera outbreak.

Although the coalition has been accused of a large number of civilian deaths and disregard for civilian lives – an accusation which Riyadh denies – the crown prince said his country has not passed up “any opportunity” to improve the humanitarian situation in the country. “There are not good options and bad options. The options are between bad and worse,” he said.

The interview with the crown prince was initially held off the record. However, the Saudi embassy later agreed to led the Washington Post publish specific portions of the meeting.

Article from RT.

New U.S. National Security Adviser Threatens to Change Iranian Regime by 2019


Naming Bolton suggests Trump is ready to pull out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal by May 12, the deadline for Trump to waive sanctions. The deal trades sanctions relief for a rollback of Iran’s nuclear program. Bolton is a staunch opponent of the deal, as is Mike Pompeo, the CIA chief Trump nominated last week to replace Rex Tillerson as secretary of state.

The now likely doomed 2015 nuclear deal lifted sanctions on Iran but placed strict limits on its nuclear programme.

Bolton has multiple times said striking Iran to stop it from going nuclear may be inevitable; “I don’t make any disguise of the idea that ultimately it may take an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear program to stop it,” he told the conservative Washington Free Beacon last August.

Tillerson and McMaster both didn’t like the deal but counseled not pulling out of it now that it is in place, because Iran is complying with its narrow strictures, and pulling out would remove whatever leverage the United States has with U.S. allies to pressure Iran outside the deal’s confines. That leaves James Mattis, the defense secretary, as the only Cabinet level official who opposes leaving the deal.

Bolton’s Zionist ties.

Bolton has close relations with the pro-Israel community stemming from his success in 1991 in getting the United Nations to rescind its Zionism is racism resolution. Bolton was at the time the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs under President George H. W. Bush.

Bush’s son, George W. Bush, nominated Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations in 2005 and named him acting ambassador. Bolton never cleared the Senate nominating process, in part because of his hawkishness on Middle Eastern issues, but also because subordinates at the State Department emerged to describe him as an abusive boss. Bolton had under the younger Bush been the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs.

Pro-Israel groups, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, at the time broke with protocol and endorsed a nominee, but to no avail.

McMaster got along well with his Israeli counterparts but angered some on the right wing of the pro-Israel community because of reports that he blocked Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Trump ultimately recognized Jerusalem last December.

Bolton’s anti-Iran stance.

Bolton promised members of the Iranian opposition that the Iranian regime will be overthrown by 2019 during a meeting in the French capital of Paris eight months ago, the Intercept reported on March 25.

“Before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!” Bolton told members of the Iranian opposition group, People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), according to the Intercept.

During the meeting, Bolton said that a regime change in Iran is needed because the current regime is not going to change its behavior and vowed to forbid the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini from celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Iranian revolution, that’s on February 11, 2019.

The MEK , which has an armed wing, was a part of the 1979 Iranian revolution with Khomeini and even carried out some attacks against US interests in the country back then. However, after failing to gain the power, the group has become the main opponent of the Iranian regime.

According to Iranian sources, more than 16,000 people have been killed in violent attacks conducted by the MEK inside Iran since 1979. The attacks have included a series of assassinations and bombings, which have targeted Iranian officials and civilians.

Despite all of these crimes, the MEK has been spending millions of dollars during the last few years to present itself as a moderate group that’s ready to replace the current regime of Iran if the West decides to support a regime change war there, according to the Intercept.

Bolton’s endorsement of the MEK and his promise to overthrow the Iranian regime were not a surprise to most observers. Killing the nuclear deal with Iran is the least to expect from the new warmonger national security adviser, according to several observers, who also believe that a US war on Iran is steadily becoming more likely.

“The declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the Mullah’s regime in Tehran. The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and therefore the only solution is to change the regime itself.”

John Bolton, US National Security Advisor.

Putin Says New Russian Military Tech Makes US Missile System “Useless”


On March 1st, Vladimir Putin gave a bold answer to the US’s globally deployed ‘missile defense’ systems, calling the steadily growing network of NATO missile silos around Russian and Chinese territory “useless” as he claims new Russian tech turns the tides.

Fears as NATO aggressively pursues full-spectrum dominance with ‘nuclear primacy’

The concerns of Russia are caused by the dramatic improvement of an entire system of missile defense by Washington, which is taking the form of a global BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) system encircling Russia and China on all sides.

Despite various de-nuclearization treaties, over the past few decades Washington continued to develop a huge global web of military infrastructure.

What the Pentagon is going for is what it has dreamed of since the Soviets developed intercontinental ballistic missiles during the 1950’s. Weapons professionals term it Nuclear Primacy. Translated into layman’s language, Nuclear Primacy means that if one of two evenly-matched nuclear foes is able to deploy even a crude anti-ballistic missile defense system that can seriously damage the nuclear strike capacity of the other, while he launches a full-scale nuclear barrage against that foe, he has won the nuclear war.

The elite’s goal is to encircle, out-research, and push Moscow and its allies up against the wall, with an eventual assumed goal of launching a preemptive strike on the big Eastern powers, with the NATO missile shield in place to block the retaliation.

Washington’s ‘defensive’ missile systems are not defensive at all.

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), had kept the balance since the dawn of the nuclear era, now Washington is pouring billions upon billions into tipping the scale in their favour.

Mutually Assured Destruction was dangerous, yes, but, in a bizarre sense, more stable than what Washington now pursues relentlessly with its Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe, Asia and globally in unilateral pursuit of US nuclear primacy.

MAD was based on the prospect of mutual nuclear annihilation with no decisive advantage for either side; it led to a world in which nuclear war had been ‘unthinkable.’ Now, the US is pursuing the possibility of nuclear war as ‘thinkable.’

“Missile defense is the missing link to a First Strike.” — Lt. Colonel Robert Bowman, former director of the Reagan US Missile Defense Program.

In his latest speech, Putin describes the strategic reality Russian military security planners face:

“The US is permitting constant, uncontrolled growth of the number of anti-ballistic missiles, improving their quality, and creating new missile launching areas. If we do not do something, eventually this will result in the complete devaluation of Russia’s nuclear potential. Meaning that all of our missiles could simply be intercepted.”

This concurs with the darker side of the military-strategic Nuclear Primacy coin, in that the side without adequate offsetting BMD anti-missile defenses loses.

As Russia watches their national security vanish with each new NATO BMD missile and radar installation, it is under growing pressure to launch a pre-emptive nuclear or other devastating strike before the window closes and the game is up. That in simple words means that far from being “defensive” as Washington claims, BMD is offensive, escalatory and destabilizing in the extreme.

Moreover, those nations blissfully deluding themselves that by granting the Pentagon rights to install BMS infrastructure, that they are buying the security umbrella of the mighty United States Armed Forces, find that they have allowed their territory to become a potential nuclear field of battle in an ever more likely confrontation between Washington and Moscow.

Dr. Robert Bowman, a retired Lieutenant Colonel of the US Air Force and former head of President Reagan’s BMD effort of the 1980’s, then dubbed derisively “Star Wars,” noted the true nature of Washington’s current ballistic missile “defense” under what is today called the Department of Defense Missile Defense Agency:

“Under Reagan and Bush I, it was the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO). Under Clinton, it became the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). Now Bush II has made it the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and given it the freedom from oversight and audit previously enjoyed only by the black programs. If Congress doesn’t act soon, this new independent agency may take their essentially unlimited budget and spend it outside of public and Congressional scrutiny on weapons that we won’t know anything about until they’re in space. In theory, then, the space warriors would rule the world, able to destroy any target on earth without warning. Will these new super weapons bring the American people security? Hardly.”

US refuses to deescalate; consistently ignoring mutual guarantees and always betraying treaties.

The fact is that Washington hides behind a NATO facade with its deployment of the European BMD, while keeping absolute US control over it. Russia’s NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin recently called the European portion of the US BMD a fig leaf for “a missile defense umbrella that says ‘Made in USA. European NATO members will have neither a button to push nor a finger to push it with.” 16

That’s clearly why Russia continues to insist on guarantees – from the United States – that the shield is not directed against Russia. Worryingly enough, to date Washington has categorically refused that. Could it be that the dear souls in Washington entrusted with maintaining world peace have gone bonkers? In any case the fact that Washington continues to tear up solemn international arms treaties and illegally proceed to install its global missile shield is basis enough for those in Moscow, Beijing or elsewhere to regard US promises, even treaties as not worth the paper they were written on.

Putin claims NATO ‘nuclear primacy’ not reached.

Putin claimed that Russia’s new generation of “invincible” military technology makes such NATO missile systems “useless”.

Putin said the new weapons include a nuclear-powered cruise missile, a laser weapon, a nuclear-powered underwater drone and a new hypersonic missile as part of a cutting edge, multi-front defensive arsenal. He claimed the US and NATO has no equivalent.

He also claimed a nuclear-powered cruise missile Russia tested several months ago has a “practically unlimited” range and high speed and maneuverability that can pierce any missile defense.

He said a high-speed underwater drone also has “intercontinental” range and can carry a nuclear warhead that could be aimed at both aircraft carriers and coastal facilities. He said its speed is at least 10 times faster than any other vessel, making it immune to enemy intercept.

Putin warned that Russia would respond in kind if it ever came under a nuclear attack, saying that:

“Yes, it will mean a global catastrophe for mankind, for the entire world. But as a citizen of Russia and the head of Russian state I would ask: What is such a world for, if there were no Russia?”

Expanding NATO arsenal encircles China and Russia.

Here are some of the more recent US military infrastructure developments:

  • The Aegis System is declared operational at the Deveselu Base in Southern Romania in 2016.
  • In late 2017 Japan purchased two Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems, planned to be operational by 2023.
  • The Aegis System, which will include SM-3 Block IIA interceptors to be positioned in Redzikowo, northern Poland, from 2018.
  • The US plans to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea this year.
  • The US-controlled BMD deployment now also includes sea-based Aegis systems in the Black Sea near Russia’s Sevastopol Naval Base, as well as possible deployment of intermediate range missiles in Black Sea and Caspian region.

“The US global missile defense system also includes five cruisers and 30 destroyers, which, as far as we know, have been deployed to regions in close proximity to Russia’s borders.” — Vladimir Putin

Putin’s March 1st speech detailed the alleged new Russian military technology (from Russia Insider):

Article: Russian Lt. General claims that “US wants to nuke Russia, China and use missile shield to prevent retaliation”.

According to Russian Lieutenant General Viktor Poznikhir, the US is surrounding Russia and China with missile defense systems in order to launch a “sudden nuclear strike” and prevent any retaliation.

The US has said recently it’s installing anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland and Romania to prevent Iran from attacking Europe and in South Korea to prevent North Korea from attacking South Korea and Japan.

Poznikhir is suggesting the real reason for these systems is to allow the US to launch a nuclear strike on Russia or China and prevent either nation from retaliating, as their own nuclear missiles would be shot down by the US government’s ABM systems — at least in a best case scenario.

“The United States is pursuing global strategic domination through developing anti-ballistic missile systems capable of a sudden disarming strike against Russia and China, according to the deputy head of operations of the Russian General Staff.

There is an obvious link between Washington’s prompt global strike initiative, which seeks capability to engage “any targets anywhere in the world within one hour of the decision,” and the deployment of missile launch systems in Europe and aboard naval vessels across the globe, Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir said at a news briefing on Wednesday.

“The presence of US missile defense bases in Europe, missile defense vessels in seas and oceans close to Russia creates a powerful covert strike component for conducting a sudden nuclear missile strike against the Russian Federation,” Poznikhir explained.

While the US keeps claiming that its missile defenses are seeking to mitigate threats from rogue states, the results of computer simulations confirm that the Pentagon’s installations are directed against Russia and China, according to Poznikhir.”


Putin made several comments on the US’ deployment of military infrastructure including the offensive-capable missile systems that are accompanied by significant NATO mobilization across the Russian border:

“Our Armed Forces remain the most important guarantor of our sovereignty and Russia’s territorial integrity. We will react appropriately and proportionately to the approach of NATO’s military infrastructure toward our borders, and we will not fail to notice the expansion of global missile defense systems and increases in the reserves of strategic non-nuclear precision weaponry.

“We are often told that the ABM system is a defense system. But that’s not the case. This is an offensive system; it is part of the offensive defense system of the United States on the periphery (of Russian territory).”

“Regardless of what our foreign colleagues say, we can clearly see what is actually happening: groups of NATO troops are clearly being reinforced in Eastern European states, including in the Black and Baltic seas. And the scale and intensity of operational and combat training is growing. In this regard, it is imperative to implement all planned measures to strength our nation’s defense capacity fully and on schedule, including, of course, in Crimea and Sevastopol, where essentially we need to fully recreate the military infrastructure.”

It is clear to see that the US is the primary aggressor in this equation: The graphic shows how the US is literally surrounding Russia with offensive military capabilities.

Russia annexed Crimea to help secure Black Sea region.

Trump Nuclear Posture Review.

The decision by the Russian leadership now to unveil a daunting array of its cutting-edge military technologies including nuclear-powered hypersonic cruise missiles and underwater drones was no election ploy. It was a clear and direct reply to the January 2018 State of the Union address to Congress of the US President and publication days later of their 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), and Putin says so.

The Trump 2018 NPR document is a radical shift from previous administrations. It abandons the earlier declarations of “no first use” of nuclear weapons, and boosts nuclear modernization efforts including the intention to bring on “new” nuclear weapons, restoration of submarine-launched cruise missile capability and low-explosive-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile warheads, and to sideline arms control. In one section the new US Nuclear Posture Review declares that,

“The United States would only consider the employment of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and partners. Extreme circumstances could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks…” (emphasis added-w.e.).

No definition of what Washington calls a “significant non-nuclear strategic attack” is made. In brief, as one US nuclear analyst noted, the new US nuclear doctrine is based on competition and confrontation.

After describing repeated Russian efforts with Washington to reinstate the ABM Treaty after the Bush Administration unilaterally abandoned it in 2002, Putin noted,

“At one point, I thought that a compromise was possible, but this was not to be. All our proposals, absolutely all of them, were rejected. And then we said that we would have to improve our modern strike systems to protect our security. In reply, the US said that it is not creating a global BMD system against Russia…”

That of course was a calculated strategic lie. Russia concluded, after repeated efforts at negotiation, that Washington, following the destruction of Russia’s military and economy in the 1990s Yeltsin era post-Soviet economic collapse, was determined to “pursue ultimate unilateral military advantage in order to dictate the terms in every sphere in the future.”

Blocking Nuclear Primacy: The Russian Response in Detail.

Putin unveiled for the first time measures the Russian military R&D has pursued quietly since 2002 to counter the ever-more clear US Nuclear Primacy agenda. He noted that Russia has “developed, and works continuously to perfect highly effective but modestly priced systems to overcome missile defense. They are installed on all of our intercontinental ballistic missile complexes.” However, the real new element Putin revealed is a staggering list of new advanced next generation missiles able to evade US or NATO anti-missile defenses.

First he showed a film of the new Sarmat missile. Weighing over 200 tons with a short boost phase, it is very difficult for US missile defense systems to intercept. Sarmat can be equipped with powerful nuclear warheads, including hypersonic, and the most modern means of evading missile defense. It has virtually unlimited range and capable of attack over both North and South poles.

Sarmat was only the first mentioned response to the growing NATO threat. Putin then described the Russian defense industry development of “a small-scale heavy-duty nuclear energy unit that can be installed in a missile like our latest X-101 air-launched missile or the American Tomahawk missile – a similar type but with a range dozens of times longer, dozens, basically an unlimited range. It is a low-flying stealth missile carrying a nuclear warhead, with almost an unlimited range, unpredictable trajectory and ability to bypass interception boundaries. It is invincible against all existing and prospective missile defense and counter-air defense systems.”

Then in terms of new Russian cutting-edge pilotless weapon systems, he revealed the successful development of Russian “unmanned submersible vehicles that can move at great depths (I would say extreme depths) intercontinentally, at a speed multiple times higher than the speed of submarines, cutting-edge torpedoes and all kinds of surface vessels, including some of the fastest. It is really fantastic. They are quiet, highly maneuverable and have hardly any vulnerabilities for the enemy to exploit. There is simply nothing in the world capable of withstanding them.”

Putin added that the new submersibles “can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads, which enables them to engage various targets, including aircraft groups, coastal fortifications and infrastructure.”

So much for the US doctrine of force projection supremacy via its ten aircraft carrier strike groups, which now become so many sitting ducks.

Putin went on to note that the nuclear power unit for the unmanned submersible has been tested over a period of many years, and that it is “a hundred times smaller than the units that power modern submarines, but is still more powerful and can switch into combat mode, that is to say, reach maximum capacity, 200 times faster.”

Kinzahl and Avangard

Additionally Putin unveiled the Russian hypersonic Kinzhal or Dagger system. This is as Putin describes it, “a high-precision hypersonic aircraft missile system… the only one of its kind in the world. Its tests have been successfully completed, and, moreover, on December 1 of last year, these systems began their trial service at the airfields of the Southern Military District.”

In other words it is not hypothetical, rather it is operational. The definition of hypersonic is an aircraft flying 5 or more times the speed of sound. The Kinzhal goes Mach 10 or ten times. As Putin describes it,

“The missile flying at a hypersonic speed, 10 times faster than the speed of sound, can also maneuver at all phases of its flight trajectory, which also allows it to overcome all existing and, I think, prospective anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense systems, delivering nuclear and conventional warheads in a range of over 2,000 kilometers.”

Finally, the Russian President revealed development of Avangard, a hypersonic missile that flies at speeds in excess of Mach 20:

“In moving to its target, the missile’s gliding cruise bloc engages in intensive maneuvering – both lateral (by several thousand km) and vertical. This is what makes it absolutely invulnerable to any air or missile defense system. The use of new composite materials has made it possible to enable the gliding cruise bloc to make a long-distance guided flight practically in conditions of plasma formation. It flies to its target like a meteorite, like a ball of fire. The temperature on its surface reaches 1,600–2,000 degrees Celsius but the cruise bloc is reliably guided.”

Putin’s remarks conclude with the statement, fully ignored in the West, that,

“We have repeatedly told our American and European partners who are NATO members: we will make the necessary efforts to neutralize the threats posed by the deployment of the US global missile defense system.”

He makes clear what Russia has warned Washington and NATO of since 2004:

“Despite all the problems with the economy, finances and the defense industry, Russia has remained a major nuclear power. No, nobody really wanted to talk to us about the core of the problem, and nobody wanted to listen to us. So listen now.”

One of the most succinct assessments of the Putin military revelations comes from The Saker, one of the most clear and sober commentators on Russian and Western military capabilities. In his blog the day of the Putin speech he remarked,

“It is indeed set, match and game over for the Empire: there is no more military option against Russia.”