Oliver Stone Mocks Megyn Kelly’s Awful Putin Interview

Eric Striker
Daily Stormer
June 9, 2017

Oliver Stone is half-Jewish and basically a Leftist, but a great movie director and even better journalist.

He catches flack for his approach to history and world affairs, which is to hear out “controversial” figures or opinions without the histrionics of people like Megyn Kelly. In 2010 he called out the Jewish-controlled media by name for censoring all debate on World War II and the Holocaust, which got him in a lot of trouble.

His profiles and comments on Castro, Hugo Chavez, Hitler, Saddam, Ukraine and Iran have all managed to piss off Jews and their Goy-bot blatherers on the Left and the Right – always a good sign. Who the hell isn’t sick of Jews treating history and politics like they’re scary campfire stories and we’re suggestible little kids?

Now Stone is back with another inopportune documentary, this time focusing on Vladimir Putin. It’s getting panned by Jews in the media because of its content: it is nuanced and asks you to come to your own conclusion.

Judging from the short trailer, the tapes collected during Stone’s two years next to Putin may portray a complex human being rather than a one-dimensional cartoon who eats babies. Jews like Newsweek’s (((Alexander Nazaryan))) are calling it “fawning” – they can hardly contain their fury about it being allowed to air!


Defending despots isn’t easy, but director Oliver Stone is up to the task. He has fawned over Hugo Chavez and has called Adolf Hitler a “scapegoat.” Now, the once-respected filmmaker is valiantly defending the Russian strongman Vladimir Putin against NBC host Megyn Kelly.

At issue is the interview Kelly conducted with Putin on Sunday, an introduction of sorts of the former Fox News star into the NBC family, which lured her away with an $18 million per year contract.

For the most part, the interview was not well received, perhaps because while Putin was a great get, he was not necessarily a great subject. Los Angeles Times television critic Lorraine Ali, for example, declared that Kelly is “still not a great interviewer.” Like most critics, Ali wanted Kelly to be tougher with Putin while at the same time recognizing that the Russian leader is, in Ali’s words, “one of the most deceptive interview subjects around.” One of the benefits of abrogating freedom of the press, after all, is not having to bother with tough questions or uncomfortable subjects.

Stone’s complaint was of a somewhat different, more mean-spirited nature. “I think she was attractive and she asked hardball questions, but she wasn’t in position to debate or counter him, because she didn’t know a lot of things,” he said, according to an Associated Press report.

It is not clear why the 70-year-old Stone felt the need to opine on Kelly’s attractiveness. Response from NBC was as quick and brutal as a Kremlin crackdown on democracy.

“No one here is interested in Oliver Stone’s unsolicited thoughts on Megyn Kelly’s appearance or his ill-informed opinion of her journalism,” said NBC News chief Noah Oppenheim. “But so long as we’re offering each other professional feedback, please let him know I don’t think he’s made a decent movie since the early ’90s.” One could go further and argue that Stone has not made a film of artistic significance since 1989’s Born on the Fourth of July.

Stone’s own extended interview with Putin is forthcoming next week on Showtime, to be broadcast in four segments. The early reviews have not been good, as has been the norm with Stone’s work for at least the last decade, if not longer.

“Stone is less invested in investigating Putin than he is in re-narrativizing the history of American dominance in the post-Vietnam era,” Variety declared. “Putin is eager to assist him on this journey.”

The Hollywood Reporter called Stone “periodically obsequious,” while The Daily Beast savaged the Showtime affair as a “wildly irresponsible love letter” to the former KGB operative who has presided over Russia’s decline into a graying kleptocracy.

Showtime declined an earlier request I’d made for screeners of the Putin interviews. However, the AP described several examples of Stone playing the fawning fanboy to a man whose obvious role model is Josef Stalin.

I don’t have any hard evidence, but I believe the mediocre Megyn Kelly’s prestigious and handsome contract with (((NBC))) was a reward for going out of her way to sabotage Trump during the primaries.

Related: Megyn [sic] Kelly’s New Career Off to a Rough Start After Being BRUTALLY DOMINATED by Slavic King Putin

One thing that is undeniable is slut unshamed career girl Megyn put all her chips on Trump losing, but ended up the real loser. Her book about her uninteresting life was a huge dud, and her first foray into doing something other than reading a teleprompter and making flirty faces at Fox News baby-boomers just served to highlight her lack of skill and integrity.

“Stop sexually objectifying her, you misogynistic pig!”

Asking “did you hack the Russian election” over and over isn’t an interview, it’s a low-brow interrogation. Putin naturally just laughed at her the whole time, just like you would a stripper dressed up as a cop showing up at your doorstep and saying “you’re under arrest.”

What exciting new turns will Megyn Kelly’s career take next? All the Jews in the MSM are forming a shieldwall around her, but they can’t save her from her ultimate destination: weather girl at a local Buffalo TV affiliate.

Make sure to catch Oliver Stone’s “Putin Tapes,” judging from the flustered media Jews’ reviews of it, it should be awesome.