l

Please, see the ‘Welcome’-page first! 

l

CONTENTS: 1. From ‘Hope & Change’ to ‘Forward!’ – 2. ‘Forward!’: A Hardcore Communist Maxim with a Long History – 3. Obama & Friends Seem to Get Ready for a Revolutionary Breakthrough – 4. The Deeper Reality of Communism: Pitch-Black Satanism! – 5. The Dire Warnings from Communist Defectors 30 Years Ago – 6. Mikhail Gorbachev’s Shocking Blackmail Speech of Dec. 10, 2011 – 7. Skip-back to 1987: Gorbachev’s Propaganda Book, ‘Perestroika’, Had It All Revealed Already! – 8. Some Final Thoughts, prior to and after the 2012 US Presidential Election – Appendix I: Barack Obama: The Soviet Union’s Chosen One: A. Interviews on Jeff Nyquists’s ‘Outside the Box’: Tom Fife: ‘The First Time I Heard of Barack’ (i.e. in 1992); and: Anne Leary: Bill Ayers claims full authorship for Obama’s autobiography, ‘Dreams from My Father’; full audio transcripts by this author; B. Tom Fife Interview by Jeff Rense; full audio transcript by this author – Appendix II: Insightful Quotes by Prominent Proto-Communists  & Communists — Books, Articles, Films 

 

l

l

l

1. FROM ‘HOPE & CHANGE’ TO ‘FORWARD!’

Still remember Obama’s victory speech four years ago on November 4, 2008 (part 1/2; part 2/2)? Remember when he apodictically stated, “Change has come to America”? It didn’t mean some vague new something, because ‘Change’ has a distinct covert meaning in the socialist/communist vocabulary: For them, change isn’t merely change, but what they actually mean, when they speak of ‘Change’, is: REVOLUTION! Thus, when Barack Obama solemnly proclaimed on that crucial evening, “Change has come to America!”, what he told the American people, without most of them realising, was that REVOLUTION HAD COME TO AMERICA! In other words: The United States already underwent a stealth communist takeover four years ago and has been ever since – think about it! – in a post-revolutionary state of affairs; which is why it is so difficult now for ‘non-progressive’ America to take the country back. Obama gave some very ominous hints in that speech about the truly historic (as well as fatal) decision the American electorate had just made: “The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year, or even in one term, but, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there! I PROMISE YOU: WE, AS A PEOPLE, WILL GET THERE!” Get where? Get to communism! The ‘promise’ in reality was a blood-chilling threat! – But, by his ‘coolness’, disarming smile and sonorous baritone voice – apart from great financing and in general the most powerful PR-operation since the days of Adolf Hitler -, Obama had made America widely forget about his not-so-secret communist agenda and, as a result, marched straight into the White House, unquestioned, unhindered, unopposed. A meticulously thought-out strategy for turning an asleep America into a Soviet ‘Amerika’ had been horrifyingly successful. The nation had been caught completely off-guard.

Four years later, one would think people should have woken up from their lethal pipedream of Hope and Change (and certainly many have); after all, it’s been the most disastrous presidency ever in the history of the United States, and a whole number of researchers have meanwhile successfully dug up biographical bomb-shell after biographical bomb-shell about this mystery man, or, to be more precise: this ultimate communist Troyan Horse. Everybody, one would think, should now be able to realise that the U.S. in 2008 – unwittingly – opened the door for a full-fledged communist takeover. Everybody, one would think, should now have come to his or her senses and see that the country is in utmost peril should it continue on that fatal course toward socialism, and ultimately communism, shouldn’t they?

Well, quite obviously, not so! No alarm from the journalistic profession. No tough talk even from the Republican Party (at least until the ‘game-changer’ television debate of October 3, 2012). The emperor has no clothes (and since October 3rd, for the whole world to see), he is as naked and exposed as one can get; yet the whole media- and political establishment keeps silent! Are they now all communists as well? Or what is it that they are afraid of? Ostracism? Financial loss? Well, if this hard-core Communist, this (possible) Frank Marshall Davis jr., this second-generation Stalinist, gets a second term, they will certainly lose it all anyway – unless, of course, they are willing to stay with him and his revolution all the way to the bitter end, which many of them, we can assume, probably aren’t. So, have Soviet-style political correctness and submissiveness already paralysed all of America’s vital reflexes? Has the country already sold out to the realistic possibility of a Russian-Chinese communist diktat, soon to be coldbloodedly facilitated by Comrade Obama, or Scary Torero, or whatever his real name is?

The puzzling paradox we can now see unfold in front of our eyes is that – because of, so far, lack of substantial opposition – Obama sees not the slightest necessity to back down. On the contrary: he calls everybody even more aggressively to his homosexual-egalitarian-atheist-Marxist-internationalist revolutionary cause. No doubt, the 2012 Democratic Convention was a full-scale Soviet Party Congress rather than a convention of an American political party. It would have fitted perfectly into the Soviet context under, say, Brezhnev. Still no uproar in the mainstream media. And finally the boldest of it all: the campaign slogan “Forward!” What a choice! What a message!

l

2. ‘FORWARD!’: A HARDCORE COMMUNIST MAXIM WITH A LONG HISTORY

“Forward” is bolder-than-bold communist speak that goes back all the way to the days of Karl Marx.

Marx had named his Paris-based 1844 revolutionary weekly: “Vorwärts”, i.e. “Forward”. The paper, financed by Meyerbeer and being under the main editorial influence of Marx and Ruge, was directed at German emigres in France and the revolutionary underground in Germany. Engels, Bakunin, Heine, among others, took part in it. Due to its radicalism, the publication was closed by the authorities in early 1845, and Marx was expelled from France; he then set himself up in neighbouring Belgium and carried on his revolutionary agitation anyway. Three years later, just in time for the 1848 Revolution, Marx and Engels published, on behalf of the meanwhile established ‘Communist League’, that dreadful document that has ever since plagued the nations of the world: the Communist Manifesto – that officially gave birth to the international communist movement, a movement utterly conspiratorial, deeply sinister, even demonic, and intent and determined to sooner or later fulfil on a global scale Weishaupt’s as well as Babeuf’s chimera of a ‘better and more just society’ without God, in fact: a veritable hell on earth, as the course of history in the meantime has so horrifyingly demonstrated.

“Vorwärts” (i.e. “Forward”) has also been since 1876 the organ of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, prior to 1890 named Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany and then under the leadership of Bebel, Liebknecht, and Lasalle. Engels, Marx’s comrade-in-arms, wrote for the “Vorwärts”; so did Trotzky, beside Lenin the leading figure in the 1917 Bolshevist takeover of Russia, that threw a formerly exquisite and prosperous nation into an abyss of slaughter and tyranny. (As for the German ‘Social Democrats’, their roots are no doubt plain revolutionary Marxist, a fact somewhat denied today, although the Party’s fundamental philosophy has never really changed. Willy Brandt, for instance, SPD chairman from 1964 till 1987 and German Chancellor from 1969 till 1974, is said to have powerfully delivered the Socialist International, during his presidency from 1976 till 1992, to the direct control of Moscow).

Likewise, the second ‘Titan’ on the evil firmament of communism and ‘founding father’ of the (never-abolished) Soviet Union, Lenin, had his 1904/05 propaganda weekly that he published from Geneva, Switzerland, named: “Vpered”, i.e. “Forward”.

When from 1909 till 1912 Bogdanov, Lunacharsky and others headed a separate group within the Bolshevist movement, that group called itself “Vpered”; thus: “Forward”.

The “Forward” slogan has been and still is literally omnipresent in the socialist world: sports clubs, industrial plants, towns and settlements, publications anyway – it’s indeed everywhere! Two more examples taken from the ‘post-Soviet’, ‘new’ Russia, that is nothing but the old Soviet Union in disguise, with its same old goal of communist world domination:

From 2005 till 2011, there existed within the hilarious kaleidoscope of ‘Russian’ fake party pluralism (that is all firmly controlled from behind the scenes by the same old CPSU, that has merely gone underground) a ‘Socialist League’ by name of “Vpered”; again: “Forward”.

Finally, on September 10, 2009, then President of the ‘Russian Federation’, Dmitri Medvedev, issued a kind of state-of-the-nation address to the still-Soviet people on the Kremlin’s website (www.kremlin.ru/news/5413), in which he theorised, in good old Sovietsky gobbledegook, about accomplished improvements as well as challenges still lying ahead (you see: they’re still on that same old revolutionary march). That presidential article was headed by the imperative, “Rossiya, Vpered!”, i.e. “Russia, Forward!” A thinly veiled call to battle. – And take note of the date: it was the day preceding September 11th. The late political analyst, Christopher Story, who also published in 1995 Anatoliy Golitsyn’s second book, The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution, frequently pointed out the fact that September 11th is the birthday of the founder of the Cheka, the precursor of all Soviet intelligence and secret police, Felix Dzerzhinsky! In addition, Nikita Khrushchev, under whose watch religious persecution is said to have even exceeded that of the Stalin period, and who commissioned his strategy experts with the formulation of a new, Leninist longrange plan for global communist takeover, died on a September 11th!

l

3. OBAMA & FRIENDS SEEM TO GET READY FOR A REVOLUTIONARY BREAKTHROUGH

The question now arises: Has the Obama campaign chosen this chilling communist maxim by chance? After everything we have learned since 2008 about Obama’s background and motivations, we must say: Hardly! Obama and his clique are communists.

Here are some highly revealing (as well as troubling) passages from Obama’s speech given on May 5th, 2012, one time at Columbus, Ohio, and a few hours later in an identical repeat at Richmond, Virginia, which marked the official launch of his 2012 campaign and, along with it, the public introduction of his new slogan, “Forward”. Wait for this: May 5th is the birthday of none other than KARL MARX (so many strange coincidences here …):

“Yes, there were setbacks. Yes, there were disappointments. But we didn’t quit. We don’t quit! Together we’re fighting our way back!” […] “But we are making progress. And now we face a choice!” […] “And now, after a long and spirited primary, Republicans in Congress have found a nominee for President who’s promised to rubberstamp this agenda if he gets a chance. Ohio, I tell you what: We cannot give him that chance! Not now! Not with so much at stake! This is not just another election! This is a make-or-break moment for the middle-class, and we’ve been through too much to turn back now! We have come too far to abandon the change we fought for these past few years! We have to move FORWARD to the future we imagined in 2008, where everyone gets a fair shot [sic!], and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules! That’s the choice in this election! And that’s why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States!” […] “Well, Ohio, I’m here to say: We were there, we remember, and we are not going back! We are moving this country FORWARD!” […] “Cutting prescription drug costs for seniors: that was the right thing to do! I will not go back to the day when insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, or deny your coverage, or charge women differently from men. We’re not going back there! We’re moving FORWARD! We don’t need another political fight about ending a woman’s right to choose, or getting rid of Planned Parenthood, or taking away access to affordable birth control! I want women to control their own health choices, just like I want my daughters to have the same opportunity as your sons! We are not turning back the clock! We are moving FORWARD!” […] “This should be the last election where multi-million dollar donations speak louder than the voices of ordinary citizens!” […] “That’s what we’re fighting for, Ohio: a bold America; a competitive America; a generous America; a FORWARD-looking America.” […] “When we look back four years from now, or ten years from now, or twenty years from now, won’t we be better off if we have the courage to keep moving FORWARD? That’s the question in this election!” […] “But if there’s one thing that we learned in 2008, it’s that nothing is more powerful than millions of voices calling for change. When enough of you knock on doors [sic!], when you pick up phones, when you talk to your friends, when you decide that it’s time for change to happen, guess what: change happens! Change comes to America! [meaning: ‘REVOLUTION comes to America’!!!]  And that’s the spirit we need again!” […] “I still believe in you, and I’m asking you to keep believing in me!” [A phrase reminiscent of Hitler’s frequent appeals to the people of Germany not to let him down and to still believe in him.]   

For those who don’t realise: ideologically, ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ are one and the same! They simply represent, according to Marxist theory, two consecutive stages in the revolutionary process! Other than that, the communist movement has always used the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘communist’ as synonyms. The most obvious example: The ‘Communist Party of the Soviet Union’ was presiding (and still presides covertly today) over the ‘Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’ (relabelled in December 1991 into ‘Commonwealth of Independent States’).

Maybe the time has come to finally wake up to the reality that liberals are progressives are leftists are socialists are communists (no way around it); and no longer to allow them to deceive us about their “common” (that is to say: communist!) agenda!

l

4. THE DEEPER REALITY OF COMMUNISM: PITCH-BLACK SATANISM!

So, clearly, “Forward” is taken right from the bloodstream of communist revolutionary thinking. It symbolises the movement ever ahead also known as “Progress” (another communist catch-phrase). Movement ahead, however, means at the same time departure from and break with the past; which is what revolution is all about: Destruction of the old and marching into new, unknown territory and a trivial Utopia that, naturally, never comes to pass (except for the future nomenklaturists who end up ‘slightly more equal’ than the other ‘equals’ …). The sobering outcome, instead, was, is, and will ever be: Utmost material and, worse: spiritual, deprivation; a big, horrible nothingness, in which everything precious and noble, everything sacred and sublime, is gone.

It’s Satanic! It’s the ‘Old Bastard’s’ age-old programme for destruction that derives from his insatiable envy and jealousy and his thrive for final revenge. Consequently, it is safe to say that essentially, even if unknowingly, every Marxist – he may call himself communist, or socialist, or green – is a Satanist. That’s how serious it is.

The following quotations should remove any remaining doubt as to whether communism is in reality Satanism. It is!

François Noël Babeuf, with his ‘Society of Equals’ a direct forerunner of communism (he was arrested and executed, though, after it was detected he had secretly arranged for a coup against the Directory government to be pulled off on May 11, 1796, known as the Babeuvian Conspiracy resp. the Conspiracy of Equals): “The love of revolution has killed within me all other love and has made me as cruel as the devil.”

Bruno Bauer, beside Ludwig Feuerbach the fallen theologian in the Germany of the 1840s, and teacher i.a. of Karl Marx: “I deliver lectures here at the university before a large audience. I don’t recognise myself when I pronounce my blasphemies from the pulpit. They are so great that these children, whom nobody should offend, have their hair standing on end. While delivering the blasphemies, I remember how I work piously at home writing an apology of the Holy Scritpures and of the Revelation. In any case, it is a very bad demon that possesses me as often as I ascend the pulpit, and I am so weak that I am compelled to yield to him… My spirit of blasphemy will be satisfied only if I am authorized to preach openly as professor of the atheistic system.” 

Karl Marx, as a 19-year-old university student, wrote the following plain Satanic poetry (from ‘Marx and Satan’ by Richard Wurmbrand; see also Marx’s Collected Works): “I shall build my throne high overhead / Cold, tremendous shall its summit be / For its bulwark – superstitious dread / For its marshal – blackest agony. / Who looks on it with a healthy eye / Shall turn back, deathly pale and dumb / Clutched by blind and chill mortality / May his happniness prepare its tomb.” (‘Invocation of One in Despair’) – “Look now, my blood-dark sword shall stab / Unerringly within thy soul / God neither knows nor honours [the] art. / The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain. / Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed. / See this sword – the Prince of Darkness sold it to me. / For me he beats the time and gives the signs. / Ever more boldly I play the dance of death.” (From ‘The Player’) – “To clench and crush you, personified humanity / With tempestuous force / While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness / You will sink down and I shall follow laughing / Whispering in your ears, ‘Descend, come with me, friend!'” (From Marx’s unfinished drama, ‘Oulanem’) – “With disdain I will throw my gauntlet / Full in the face of the world / And see the collapse of this pygmy giant / Whose fall will not stifle my ardour. / Then will I wander godlike and victorious / Through the ruins of the world / And, giving my words an active force / I will feel equal to the Creator.” (‘Human Pride’)

Georg Jung, a friend of Karl Marx, in a letter to Arnold Ruge of October 18, 1841 (Marx is at the time 23 years old): “Dr. Marx, Dr. Bauer, and L. Feuerbach are associating for a theological-philosophical journal. May then all angels gather around the old Lord and may he have mercy with himself, for these three certainly will throw him out of his heaven and sue him on top of it.”

Mikhail Bakunin, the infamous Russian anarchist and for a while co-warrior of Marx: “The Evil One is the satanic revolt against divine authority, revolt in which we see the fecund germ of all human emancipations, the revolution. Socialists recognise each other by the words, ‘In the name of the one to whom a great wrong has been done.'” (He is speaking of Satan!)

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, French anarcho-socialist (‘Property is Theft’): “We reach knowledge in spite of him, we reach society in spite of him. Every step FORWARD is a victory in which we have overcome the Divine.”

All these quotes, too, are taken from Richard Wurmbrand’s thorough study “Marx and Satan – Was Karl Marx a Satanist?” Richard Wurmbrand (1909-2001) was a Romanian Lutheran Pastor (as a youth, still a determined communist himself), who suffered tremendously from 1948 till 1956 and again from 1959 in the torture chambers of communist Romania until he was ‘bailed out’ in 1964 by a Norwegian Christian community for the extraordinary sum of $ 10,000,-. Beside building a rescue & support organisation for persecuted Christians behind the Iron Curtain, he did some comprehensive research about the roots of communism: what he found was the Satanic!

One last quote by Bolshevist devil, Anatoli Lunacharsky, Soviet Commissar for Enlightenment, responsible for culture and education. In an address to the Congress of Primary School Teachers in 1925, Lunacharsky proclaimed: “Down with Christian charity and love of thy neighbor; what we need is hatred. We must understand how to hate; by that only can we hope to conquer the world. Religion and communism are incompatible in theory as well as in practice. We hate Christianity and Christians; even the best among them must be taken as our worst enemies; they preach Christian charity, love of your neighbors and compassion, all of which are contrary to our fundamental principles. Christian charity is an impediment to development of the revolution. We have done with the kings of the earth; let us not concern ourselves with the kings of heaven.” (Source: The Coast Artillery Journal, Vol. 66; February, 1927; article: ‘The Red Army: Condensed translation from the Journal Militaire Suisse (issue October 15, 1926) by Colonel George Ruhlen, U.S.A., Ret.; page 127’)

This, dear reader, is the driving force behind communism – and thus, “make no mistake”, the driving force behind Obama. His and his aides’ goal is indeed the complete economic, socio-cultural, moral, and spiritual destruction of the United States. – Until recently, the U.S. has been the major stumbling-block for the communists on their march towards an all-unified communist world federation. Once the U.S. is gone, they will have their way, everywhere in the world!

One can only wonder whether Mitt Romney and his Republicans are aware, given their (prior to October 3, 2012) weak, defensive, even spineless instead of brave and offensive election campaign, what responsibility – for the United States and the whole world – lies on their shoulders: For, if this Kremlin-obedient Obama Politbureau stays in power, it will complete its work of destruction and deliver the U.S. (as well as the remaining free world) to Soviet/Red-Chinese occupation, red terror, and slaying in the tens and hundreds of millions!

For those who wish to meditate for a moment on the demonic evil of communism: Cover Lenin’s right facial half, and look, if you dare, at his left facial half only, which is the right half on the picture, that is in the shade! – Communism isn’t a political phenomenon, but a spiritual one: it comes right out of hell!

l

Yossif Stalin, as a mass murderer only second to Chinese butcher Mao Zedong,  used to say, “One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.” (And we’re talking meanwhile of well over 200 million deaths under communism.) So, let’s bring things back from abstract statistics to what actually was being done by all communistic revolutionaries since the French Revolution to the ‘old classes’, i.e. the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, the clergy, the intellectuals, the entrepreneurs, the peasants, government-, military- and police personnel loyal to the old order, and in general everybody who held traditional views, believed in God, resp. had a clean and beautiful face. The demon of communism hates them all, and does away with them all. There came out several books in the 1920s with heartbreaking eyewitness reports of what was going on in Soviet Russia at the time. One such book, originally published in 1924 and re-published in 2008 by Edward Harle Ltd., is The Red Terror in Russia by Sergey Petrovich Melgounov. Read, if you can take it, the following excerpts that are overwhelming proof that the horrors of the Bolshevist Revolution, just as of any other communist revolution, were purely Satanic in nature. The objective is, again and again, to terrorise, intimidate, humiliate, crush, and destroy. For what ends? So in order to triumph! Triumph over God the Lord and over the beauty and dignity He endowed onto the summit of His Creation that is man. Communism isn’t a ‘failure’ when it brings about destruction. Destruction is its sole purpose!!!

A local eye witness report from the Kuban region said, “We were led forth from the cells in batches of ten, but were quite calm, for, on the first batch being removed elsewhere, we were told that the reason for their removal was that they might be questioned only. But when the second batch was removed we realised that the purpose of the removal was execution, and sure enough, those who were taken away were butchered like cattle.” (page 39)

A correspondent of the Crimea newspaper Dielo wrote on the purges in Sebastopol, “The city is like a city of the dead, with the population lying in cellars and lofts, and every fence and wall and telegraph post and telephone standard and shop front and signboard plastered over with posters saying ‘Death to the Traitors’.” (page 43)

A refugee from Tiflis reported, “The town was wholly given up to pillage and rapine… One night a friend of mine saw a huge pile of corpses – 300 or so of them – lying in the Cathedral Square. All the house walls around them were bespattered with blood, and evidently a very large number of executions had taken place. In the pile were men and women, were old and young, were military and civilian, were Georgian and Russian, were rich and poor.” (page 48)

And another description of the Bolshevist takeover of the Crimea: “When usurped Bolshevist rule was established in the Crimea, it was established in the most bloodthirsty, cruel, and ruffianly forms possible, as a rule based solely upon crude, tyrannical authority. And whole rivers of blood began to flow in the towns, and Bolshevist sailors to rage everywhere, and robberies to occur, until there had become formed a general, permanent atmosphere of plunder and pillage of the citizens.” (page 64)

Melgounov gives a quote from another book published in 1918, ‘Seventy-four Days of Bolshevist Rule’ by A. Lokerman, dealing with the massacres at Rostov: “After being divested of their clothing at Sivers’ headquarters (save that a few were allowed to retain their trousers and boots, and a few even their shirts as well, since those garments could, of course, be removed after execution), the prisoners, men naked and barefooted, were, in this twentieth century, marched along a snow-covered street to the churchyard, and shot. And though most of them died praying and crossing themselves, it need hardly be said that such concessions to ‘bourgeois prejudice’ as a blind-folding of the prisoners, or a permitting of a priest to be present, were ignored.” (page 65)

From Voronezh Province became known the following: “In Kerensk victims usually were tortured with subjection to sudden changes of temperature. First they were put into a steaming bathhouse, and then led forth, naked, into the snow. And at Alexievskoe and other villages in Voronezh Province the victims would similarly be taken naked into the winter-bound street, and soused with cold water until they became living statues of ice. And at Armavir the ‘death wreath’ was the implement most used. That is to say, the victim would have his head encircled with a leather strap fitted at the ends with an iron nut and a screw, and the nut and the screw be joined together, and the head increasingly compressed. Lastly, the Che-Ka of a Caucasian stanitya used an iron-studded ‘glove’ that was made to be worn on the executioner’s hand.” (page 96)

Quoting from a scene of Steinberg’s ‘The Moral Aspect of Revolution’ depicting events in Tambov Province: “In this district the peasants had a particular veneration for an ikon of the Vishinskaya Madonna; and when influenza broke out in the district, a solemn procession was held in the ikon’s honour, and a celebrating of Mass. And, on the Bolshevists seizing both ikon and clergy, and the peasants learning later that the Che-Ka had insulted the ikon, and ‘dragged it about the floor’, they set forth to ‘rescue Our Lady’, with women and children and the aged and everyone else joining the throng. And then the Che-Ka turned machine-guns upon them, and mowed them down in rows as, ‘with terrible eyes which saw nothing’, they moved forward over the bodies of dying and dead, and mothers, flinging themselves before their children, cried: ‘O Holy Virgin and Defender, bless us gladly we lay down our lives for thee!'” (page 74)

Melgounov explains: “In fact, each Che-Ka seems to have had its speciality in torture. Kharkov, for instance, under Saenko, went in primarily for scalpings and hand flayings; and in Voronezh the person to be tortured was first stripped naked, and then thrust into a nail-studded barrel, and rolled about in it, or else branded on the forehead with a five-pointed star, or, if a member of the clergy, ‘crowned’ with barbed wire. As for the Che-Kas of Tasritisin and Kamishin, it was their custom to saw their victims’ bones apart, whilst Poltava and Kremenchoug made it their special rule to impale clergy (once, in the latter place, where a ruffian named Grishka was in command, eighteen monks were transfixed in a single day). Also, inhabitants have testified that Grishka would burn at the stake any peasant who had been prominent in a rebellion, and sit on a chair to enjoy the spectacle. The Che-Ka of Ekaterinoslav, again, went in for crucifixion and death by stoning, and the Che-Ka of Odessa for putting officers to death by chaining them to planks, and slowly, very slowly, pushing them into furnaces, or else tearing their bodies on a capstan wheel, or else immersing them in a boiler of water heated to simmering point, and then flinging them into the sea, before finally consigning them to the flames again.” (page 95)

Finally, a brutal note of April 1919 published by the Izvestia of Odessa and revealing the calculated evil behind the nightmare: “The carp enjoys being seethed in cream, and the bourgeois being slain by a Power which is stern, and ready to kill him… Even though our souls may revolt from the task, let us use strong measures, and bring the bourgeoisie to their senses, seeing that we need but shoot a few dozen of the fools, of the wastrels, and make the rest clean the streets, and set their womenfolk to scour out Red Guard barracks (though even this is too great an honour for them!), for the bourgeoisie to realise that our Government is a Government come to stay, and that it is useless to look for help from Englishmen or Hottentots.” (page 27)

l

5. THE DIRE WARNINGS FROM COMMUNIST DEFECTORS 30 YEARS AGO

As Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov explained and warned in a 1984 interview,

“[…] Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate, overt, and open; you can see it with your own eyes. All you have to do, all American mass-media has to do is to unplug their bananas from their ears, open their eyes, and they can see it! There’s no mystery, there is nothing to do with espionage. I know that espionage-intelligence-gathering looks more romantic, it sells more deodorants through the advertising, probably; that’s why Hollywood producers are so crazy about James-Bond-type of thrillers, but in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is not the area of its intelligence at all! According to my opinion, and opinion of many defectors of my calibre, only about 15% of time, money, and man-power is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ‘ideological subversion’, or ‘active measures’ (aktivniye meropriyatiya, in the language of the KGB), or ‘psychological warfare’. What it basically means is to change the perception of reality, of every American, to such an extent that, despite their abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country. It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow, and it’s divided in four basic stages. The first one being: demoralisation. It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralise a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which requires to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy; in other words: Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the softheads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism. The result? The result you can see: Most of the people who graduated in the sixties, drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass-media, educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated, they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind, even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logical behaviour. In other words, these people – the process of demoralisation is complete and irreversible. To get rid society of these people, you have, you need another 20 or 15 years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common-sense people who would be acting in favour and in the interests of the United States society.

Interview host, G. Edward Griffin: “And yet, these people who have been programmed and, as you say, in place and who are favourable to an opening with the Soviet concept: these are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country?”

Yuri Bezmenov: “Most of them, yes. Simply because the psychological shock when they will see in future what the ‘beautiful society of equality and social justice’ means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy, frustrated people. And the Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people. Obviously, they will join the links of dissenters, dissidents. Unlike in present United States, there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America. Here you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being ‘dissident’, for criticising your Pentagon. In future, these people will be simply squashed like cock-croaches; nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful, noble ideas of equality! This they don’t understand, and it will be greatest shock for them, of course. The demoralisation process in the United States is basically completed already. For the last 25 years – actually, it’s overfulfilled because demoralisation now reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter any more. A person who was demoralised, is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it – until he is going receive a kick in his fat bottom. When the military-boot crashes his balls, then he will understand, but not before that. That’s the tragic of the situation of demoralisation. So, America is stuck with demoralisation, and unless – even if you start right now, here, this minute you start educating a new generation of Americans: it will still take you 15 to 20 years to turn the tide of ideological perception of reality back to normalcy and patriotism. – The next stage is destabilisation. This time, subverter does not care about your ideas and the patterns of your consumption, whether you eat junk-food and get fat and flabby, doesn’t matter any more. This time, and it takes only from 2 to 5 years to destabilise a nation, what matters is essentials: economy, foreign relations, defence systems. And you can see it quite clearly in some areas, in such sensitive areas as defence and economy, the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas in the United States is absolutely fantastic. I could never believe it 14 years ago when I landed in this part of the world that the process will go that fast. – The next stage, of course, is crisis. It may take only up to six weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis, you can see it in Central America now. – And after crisis, with a violent change of power structure and economy, you have, so-called, the period of ‘normalisation’; it may last indefinitely. ‘Normalisation’ is a cynical expression borrowed from Soviet propaganda: when the Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia in ’68, Comrade Brezhnev said, ‘Now the situation in brotherly Czechoslovakia is normalised.’ This is what will happen in the United States if you allow all these schmucks to bring the country to crisis, to promise people all kind of goodies and the paradise on earth, to destabilise your economy, to eliminate the priniciple of free market competition, and to put a big-brother government in Washington, DC,  with benevolent dictators like Walter Mondale who will promise looots of things, never mind whether the promises are fulfilled or not; he will go to Moscow to kiss the bottoms of new generation of Soviet assassins, never mind, he will create false illusions that the situation is under control. Situation is not under control. Situation is disgustingly out of control! Most of the American politicians, media, and educational system trains another generation of people who think they are living at a peace time. False! United States is in a state of war; undeclared, total war against the basic principles and the foundations of this system! And the initiator of this war is not Comrade Andoropov, of course. It’s the system; however ridiculous it may sound: the World Communist System, or the World Communist Conspiracy! Whether I scare some people or not, I don’t give a hoot; if you are not scared by now, nothing can scare you! – But, you don’t have to be paranoid about it. – What actually happens now that, unlike myself, you have literally several years to live on, unless the United States wake up. The time bomb is ticking. With every second – tick, tick – the disaster is coming closer and closer. Unlike myself, you will have nowhere to defect to – unless you want to live in Antarctica with penguins. This is it; this is the last country of freedom and possibility.

G. Edward Griffin, visibly in unease: “Okay. So, what do we do? What is your recommendation to the American people?”

Yuri Bezmenov: “Well, the immediate thing that comes to my mind, is of course: There must be a very strong national effort to educate people in the spirit of real patriotism, number one. Number two, to explain them the real danger of socialist-communist-whatever welfare state, big-brother government. If people will fail to grasp the impending danger of that development, nothing ever can help United States. You may kiss good-bye to your freedom, including freedoms to homosexuals, to prison-inmates, all these freedoms will vanish, will evaporate in 5 seconds, including your precious lives. – The second thing: at the moment [i.e. in 1984] at least part of the United States population is convinced that the danger is real, they have to force their government – and I’m not talking about sending letters, signing petitions and all these beautiful, noble activities -, I’m talking about forcing United States government to stop aiding communism; because there is no other problem more burning and urgent than to stop the Soviet military-industrial complex from destroying whatever is left of the free world. And this is very easy to do: NO credits; NO technology; NO money; NO political or diplomatic recognition; and of course NO such idiocies as grain deals to USSR. The Soviet people, 270 millions of Soviets, will be eternally thankful to you if you stop aiding a bunch of murderers who sit now in Kremlin and whom President Reagan respectfully calls ‘government’. They do not ‘govern’ anything, least of all such complexity as the Soviet economy. So, basically, two very simple, maybe too simplistic answers or solutions. Nevertheless, they are the only solutions! Educate yourself! Understand what’s going on around you! You are NOT living at a time of peace; you are in the state of war! And you have precious little time to save yourselves. You don’t have much time, especially if we are talking about young generation, there’s not much time left for convulsions and sexual masturbations to the beautiful disco-music. Very soon it will go [snapping] just, just overnight. If we are talking about capitalists, or wealthy businessmen, they, I think, they are selling the rope on which they will hang very soon. If they don’t stop, if they cannot curb their insatiable desire for profit and they will keep on trading with the monster of Soviet Communism, they are going to hang, very soon! And they will pray to be killed, but unfortunately they will be sent to Alaska, probably, to manage industry of slaves. It’s simplistic; I know it sounds unpleasant; I know Americans don’t like to listen to things which are unpleasant, but I have defected not to tell you the stories about such idiocies as microfilm-James-Bond-type espionage, this is garbage, you don’t need any espionage any more. I have come to talk about: SURVIVAL! It’s a question of survival of this system. You may ask me what is it then for me: survival, obviously, because, unlike – as I said: I am now in your boat! If we sink together, we will sink beautifully – together. THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE ON THIS PLANET TO DEFECT TO!”

Now, 25 years after the introduction of deceptive Perestroika and the subsequent deceptive ‘taking down’ of communism in Eastern Europe and the USSR, the unchanged communists are jubilant! Their ridicule of America and the West has indeed reached a new quality of ‘openness’ recently. Still, America and the West, which completely fell for the communist lies of ‘reform’, ‘democratisation’ and ‘ending the Cold War’, refuse to wake up. And better, maybe, they remain asleep now because time has run out anyway! The most thrilling example of such an in-your-face humiliation took place on December 10, 2011 in Munich, Germany. Mikhail Gorbachev payed a visit to Bavaria’s capital as he was awarded by the conservative Hanns Seidel Foundation their Franz-Josef-Strauß Award. He used the opportunity and turned an acceptance speech (that he gave freely, without a manuscript) into a wild Marxist-Leninist furioso (the complete speech is given further below in this article). In that speech, he brutally threatened, “It’s definitely wrong to believe one could hide away, one could sit out anything. No one can hide any more or sit anything out!”  – In other words: We’ve got you. All of you! And there’ll be no escape for anyone.   

So, see to it, Americans, that you free yourselves from this communist junta and return to being “the home of the brave and the land of the free”! The alternative would be, for America and the world: misery, enslavement, and death. Or, as unmatched Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn foresaw in his literally prophetic 1984 reference work on communist longrange strategy, New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation (he foresaw this for the case that the West would fail to open its eyes and change course in time, which, as we now know, hasn’t happened; pp. 345-47, bold emphasis and underlining by this author):

“[…] Before long, the communist strategists might be persuaded that the balance had swung irreversibly in their favor. In that event they might well decide on a Sino-Soviet ‘reconciliation’. The scissors strategy would give way to the strategy of ‘one clenched fist’. At that point the shift in the political and military balance would be plain for all to see. Convergence would not be between two equal parties, but would be on terms dictated by the communist bloc. The argument for accommodation with the overwhelming strength of communism would be virtually unanswerable. Pressures would build up for changes in the American political and economic system on the lines indicated in Sakharov’s treatise. Traditional conservatives would be isolated and driven toward extremism. They might become the victims of a new McCarthyism of the left. The Soviet dissidents who are now extolled as heroes of the resistance to Soviet communism would play an active part in arguing for convergence. Their present supporters would be confronted with a choice of forsaking their idols or acknowledging the legitimacy of the new Soviet regime.

THE WORLDWIDE COMMUNIST FEDERATION: Integration of the communist bloc would follow the lines envisaged by Lenin when the Third Communist International was founded. That is to say, the Soviet Union and China would not absorb one another or other communist states. All the countries of the European and Asiatic communist zones, together with new communist states in Europe and the Third World, would join a supranational economic and political communist federation. Soviet-Albanian, Soviet-Yugoslav, and Soviet-Romanian disputes and differences would be resolved in the wake, or possibly in advance of, Sino-Soviet reconciliation. The political, economic, military, diplomatic, and ideological cooperation between all the communist states, at present partially concealed, would become clearly visible. There might even be public acknowledgement that the splits and disputes were long-term disinformation operations that had successfully deceived the ‘imperialist’ powers. The effect on Western morale can be imagined. In the new worldwide communist federation the present different brands of communism would disappear, to be replaced by a uniform, rigorous brand of Leninism. The process would be painful. Concession made in the name of economic and political reform would be withdrawn. Religious and intellectual dissent would be suppressed. Nationalism and all other forms of genuine opposition would be crushed. Those who had taken advantage of détente to establish friendly Western contacts would be rebuked or persecuted like those Soviet officers who worked with the allies during the Second World War. In new communist states – for example, in France, Italy, and the Third World – the ‘alienated classes’ would be reeducated. Show trials of ‘imperialist agents’ would be staged. Action would be taken against nationalist and social democratic leaders, party activists, former civil servants, officers, and priests. The last vestiges of private enterprise and ownership would be obliterated. Nationalization of industry, finance, and agriculture would be completed. In fact, all the totalitarian features familiar from the early stages of the Soviet revolution and the postwar Stalinist years in Eastern Europe might be expected to reappear, especially in those countries newly won for communism. Unchallenged and unchallengeable, a true communist monolith would dominate the world.

A decade later, Anatoliy Golitsyn was still sending memorandum after memorandum to the CIA, desperately trying to explain the deceptiveness of the ‘changes’ in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, that he had already predicted during the Brezhnev years when nobody expected a ‘collapse’ of communism at all. On April 30, 1993, more than a year into the alleged ‘post-Soviet’ era meanwhile under instant-democrat Boris Yeltsin, Golitsyn gave in yet another memorandum the following analysis and terrifying forecast (see Golitysn’s second book, The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution, published in 1995, pp. 165-66):

“[…] Similarly, current and future Western aid for Russia will fail to deflect the Russian leaders from their long-term objectives of world hegemony which they will continue to pursue in concert with the Communist Chinese. While US policymakers are mobilising massive Western support for Russia and building up optimistic expectations of the future for democracy there, the same Soviet strategists as before are quietly carrying out their strategy. As this analyst has argued in previous Memoranda and publicly in ‘New Lies for Old’, the late Academician Sakharov under the guise of a ‘dissident’ was used as an unofficial mouthpiece of the former Soviet régime before being officially ‘rehabilitated’ and lionised under Gorbachev’s ‘perestroika’. In the late 1960s he went some way towards expressing publicly the essence of Soviet strategy, though without revealing that the developments he foresaw were deliberately planned. He predicted that in the period 1968 to 1980 ‘a growing ideological struggle in the socialist countries between Stalinist and Maoist forces on the one hand and the realistic forces of leftist Leninist Communists [and leftist Westerners; Ed. of NLfO] on the other will lead … in the Soviet Union … first to a multi-Party system and acute ideological struggle and discussions and then to the ideological victory of the (Leninist) realists, affirming the policy of increasing peaceful coexistence, strengthening democracy and expanding economic reforms.’ The period 1972 to 1985 would be characterised by pressure from the progressive forces in the West combining with pressure from the example of the socialist countries to implement a programme of convergence with socialism, ‘i.e. social progress, peaceful coexistence and collaboration with socialism on a world scale and changes in the structure of ownership. This phase includes an expanded role for the intelligentsia and an attack on the forces of racism and militarism’. In 1972 to 1990, ‘the Soviet Union and the United States, having overcome their alienation, solve the problem of saving the poorer half of the world … At the same time disarmament will proceed.’ In 1980 to 2000, ‘socialist convergence will reduce differences in social structure, promote intellectual freedom, science and economic progress, and lead to the creation of a World Government and the smoothing of national contradictions.’ All Sakharov’s main predictions have so far been fulfilled with the exception of Russian-American partnership in solving the problem of the poorer half of the world and the creation of a World Government. What Sakharov, like the present Russian leaders [of 1993], clearly had in mind was East-West convergence on socialist terms leading to World Government dominated by the Russians and the Chinese. But ignoring the long-term strategy behind developments in Russia, US policymakers have plunged into partnership with the so-called ‘Russian reformers’ without realising where this partnership is intended by them to lead. Sakharov foresaw World Government by the year 2000. The question may indeed be on the agenda within the next seven years [seen from 1993]. Within that period, if present trends continue, Russia, with Western help, may well be on the road to a technological revolution surpassing the Chinese Communist ‘economic miracle’ without loss of political control by the present governing élite of ‘realistic Leninists’.  A campaign for a new system of World Government will be launched at Summit level and will be accompanied by pressure from below, the active use of agents of influence and secret assassinations of leaders who are seen as obstacles. The campaign will come as a surprise to the US Administration. In the ensuing negotiations, the US President of the day will find himself facing combined pressure from the Russians and the Chinese. The Chinese will by then have adopted a ‘reformed’, pseudo-democratic system. In the course of the negotiations the Russians and the Chinese will begin to reveal their true colours, their fundamental antagonism to the free world and the threat they represent to it. The US policy of partnership with Russia will be exposed as bankrupt. Internally in the United States this will lead to divisions, recriminations and a search for scapegoats. Externally, the reputation of the United States as the leader of the free world will be irreparably damaged and its alliances, particularly with countries like Japan which have been pressured into helping the Russians out, will be jeopardised. The US President will find himself without the finest armed services in the world. Reformed and cut back by budget reductions based on mistaken assessments of long-term threats, the services will be equipped for handling regional conflicts but will be unprepared for global confrontation. US intelligence and counter-intelligence, if they survive, will have lost any remaining effectiveness from continuing financial pressure and a campaign of revisionist allegations like those that the CIA and the FBI were involved respectively in the assassinations of President Kennedy and Dr Martin Luther King. Too late it will be realised that there have been no equivalent reductions in the power and effectiveness of the Russian and Chinese armed forces or their intelligence and security services. A real swing in the balance of power in favour of a Sino-Soviet alliance vis-à-vis the free world will have taken place giving the Russians and Chinese a preponderant share in setting up the new World Government system and leaving the West with little choice but to compete with them in designing the New World Social Order. If the Russian leaders continue to demonstrate to the Russian people that they can successfully extract Western aid and contribute to signs of economic progress, the Russian people will follow them and, like the Chinese, will end up laughing with their leaders at the folly of the West.”

What follows is, finally, a crystal-clear assessment of the true objective of the EU’s eastward expansion deep into the ‘formerly’ Communist sphere by the late British political analyst and publisher of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s second book, The Perestroika Deception, Christopher Story (1938-2010), given on page 92 of his 2002 reference work, The European Union Collective: Enemy of its Member States: A Study in Russian and German Strategy to Complete Lenin’s World Revolution

“The European Union’s member governments and the political collective’s structures have failed to detect, or else have chosen to ignore, one fundamentally unfriendly hidden strategic purpose of the ‘liberation’ of Central and Eastern Europe, and of the ‘former’ Soviet Union’s apparent fragmentation – which was to create the conditions for the intended adherence, in due course, of the ‘former’ East European satellites and of the ‘former’ Soviet Republics, to the eastwards-expanding European Union collective. By this means, the unified (Communist) political space ‘from the Atlantic to Vladivostok’ will gradually be established. – By encouraging the illusion that the European Union has an ‘historic opportunity’ and a moral duty to entice and welcome all the East European countries and then the Republics and Russia itself into the orbit of the West, the strategists have bamboozled the socialist European Union Collective into active cooperation with them in furthering the creative implementation of the Leninist strategy to establish a single (eventually Communist) European space in accordance with the unchanging objective enunciated by Gorbachev, Shevardnadze and their successors. The trick has been to encourage the Europeans at national and collective levels in the mistaken view that the way to deal with Russia is ‘not to isloate it’, but rather to ‘draw’ it into the West’s structures so that Moscow is not ‘left out in the cold’. This is comparable to the psychological pressure routinely used on the reluctant British, to persuade them to abandon the pound sterling and their residual sovereignty. In reality, it is not the West which is enticing the East into its orbit, but the East which is covertly enticing the West into its enlarging sphere of control through ‘convergence’ on its own terms.

In the same book, on page 52, Christopher Story reports of a truly mind-boggling discovery he made, that illustrates how completely and unreservedly the West had indeed accepted the false changes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union at face value – very much as Anatoliy Golitsyn had criticised:

“[…] Given this tradition [of communist lies and deception], the blindness of Western defence and foreign policy establishments is breathtaking. This author’s three-volume copy of the Oxford University Press edition of the documents of the Communist International, 1919-1943, selected and edited by Jane Degras (1956), contains, inside each cover, a stamp which reads: ‘MINISTRY OF DEFENCE LIBRARY: WITHDRAWN’. To establish definitely whether the British Ministry of Defence owns a set of these indispensable volumes, the Author telephoned the MOD Library, posing as an army officer, and enquired whether the Library possessed a set of these books; the answer was in the negative. Likewise, Mrs Christine Stone, the wife of Professor Norman Stone, has confirmed to the author that her husband bought a number of books on Communism which had been discarded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The message is that these key British Departments of State have shredded their institutional memories and have unreservedly accepted the false Leninist ‘Break with the Past’ as genuine – a reckless abrogation of responsibility which could have been avoided by maintaining at least a skeleton analytical staff devoted to interpreting events in terms of Leninist deception theory (which those departments do not understand: as a consequence, British foreign policy has remained rudderless and confused).[On October 10, 2012, 10 years after The European Union Collective came out, present British Prime Minister David Cameron said in a fairly dramatic speech at the Conservative Party Conference, “Unless we act, unless we take difficult, painful decisions, unless we show determination and imagination, Britain may not be in the future what it has been in the past. The truth is this, we are in a global race today and that means an hour of reckoning for countries like ours. Sink or swim, do or decline.” – It seems the remaining ‘non-progressive’ political leaders in the West have realised at last. It’s now official: Face the challenge, take up the fight, much too late, at the eleventh hour – or perish!]

Sadly, even political journalists and book authors such as Herb Romerstein, Jerome Corsi, Paul Kengor, Cliff Kincaid, Aaron Klein, Stanley Kurtz, the whole crowd writing on americanthinker.com or canadafreepress.com, or the regular ‘Sovietologist’ for the traditional-Catholic website traditioninaction.org by name of Toby Westerman, cannot see through this giant hoax of ‘collapsible communism’. They seriously believe – still! – in the fairytale of Soviet communism having 20 plus years ago just overnight dissolved into thin air and of the United States having thus won the Cold War, despite all overwhelming evidence to the contrary! There were no ‘Nuremberg Trials’ in the Soviet Union resp. in ‘post-Soviet Russia’ that in such case would have dealt with every aspect of Soviet communism and would have arrested for ever, if not executed, every communist starting from the very top down to the district- and local level. All the communists of Eastern Europe and the USSR did was enact a few theatrical spectacles and put on a ‘democratic’ mask. And the West, all too ready to fall victim to its own wishful thinking, hailed the ‘post-Soviet’ instant-democrats as the harbingers of a new era of democracy, freedom, and guaranteed free enterprise – and laid down its guard, as the enemy had allegedly disappeared! If only Western politicians, entrepreneurs, intellectuals, and journalists had studied – i.e. really studied! – Anatoliy Golitsyn’s and Christopher Story’s methodology for properly comprehending Soviet and pan-communist longrange strategy and for adequately analysing and interpreting Soviet and all-communist moves and day-to-day policy!!! Even now as the United States is being actually sovietised by the minute, American conservatives show no signs of waking up to the monstrous reality that the ‘Obama Nation’ isn’t just a home-made American phenomenon but Moscow’s greatest coup ever: Obama, beyond doubt, is their man and was already in his twenties chosen as a future communist Troyan horse in the White House, as computer expert Tom Fife very credibly reported of a Moscow dinner party in February 1992 (when Obama was 30 and still unknown), where he was engaged in a business joint venture in newly ‘democratic Russia’. During that dinner that took place in the private apartment of the leading man of the Russian part of that joint venture, that physicist’s wife, who acted like a high-level Party apparatchika (despite the CPSU having been allegedly dissolved half a year earlier), felt offended by one American’s comparison of Russian facial features with those of the Mongols! In her cold anger, she started attacking, in unchanged Soviet Anti-Americanism, the American way of dealing with their own ‘race problems’ and went on saying that, “by the way”, the United States would soon have a black President, and he would be a communist, a Soviet! She went on giving all the basic data about America’s current ‘President’ including, unbelievable as it may sound, his first name ‘Barack’, underlining he’d indeed be a ‘blessing’ for world communism. (Do listen to certainly the best interview that Tom Fife gave on a talk-radio show, i.e. the one with political analyst Jeff Nyquist, here, and read, if you like, a full transcript thereof on pages 242-256 of the huge ‘Word’-compilation by this author entitled “Red Surprise: Russian-Chinese Military Blackmail: ‘Accept Communism or Face World War III'” and presented also on this blog).

The inevitable (but painful) conclusion from the fact that the Soviet Union was never abolished and the U.S. has now been and continues to be ‘governed’ by a literal Soviet plant couldn’t be more devastating: it would mean having to realise that things are much, much worse still than anybody is willing to see: the United States have already been in a post-revolutionary state of affairs ever since Barack Obama was first inaugurated into office in January 2009! That was already the sea change, albeit widely unnoticed, and now Americans can’t get out of this free fall into full-blown communism, as the fatal outcome of the 2012 elections so mercilessly illustrates. It’s unfortunate, it’s tragic, but that’s where we are: the communists have won and will shortly unleash – this time, in every corner of the world – a hell on earth very much like during their Bolshevist takeover of Russia starting in 1917.             

l

6. MIKHAIL GORBACHEV’S SHOCKING BLACKMAIL SPEECH OF DEC. 10, 2011

What follows is that shocking speech that Mikhail Gorbachev gave on December 10, 2011 at Munich, Germany, where he had been awarded by the conservative Hanns Seidel Foundation the prestigious Franz Josef Strauß Award (first awarded in 1996; Henry Kissinger was given it too at some point). It wasn’t a ceremonial acceptance speech, though, but a thuggish, in-your-face demonstration of unchanged Leninist determination, worse: of most diabolical Leninist triumph and deadly communist “cooperation-blackmail”, perfectly confirming even the worst predictions by Anatoliy Golitsyn, as just given above. The grand Perestroika deception, planned under Khrushchev and implemented by Gorbachev, has not been understood  by the West, even to this day, as what it was: the hoax of the millennium. The Warsaw Pact and COMECON were dissolved not factually, but only formally. Also the Soviet Union, along with its Communist Party, was not ‘dismantled’ and truly buried, but simply relabelled itself and put on a democratic and free-market-economic mask so to lull the West into suicidal cooperation and, ultimately, convergence, all on the erroneous pretext that ‘the West had won the Cold War’ and ‘Communism was dead’. However, there was no collapse of communism; not in Eastern Europe, not in the Soviet Union. It was all theatrical ‘political changes’ for display only! Which is why all the talk about a re-Sovietisation of ‘Russia’ under Putin is pure nonsense, because also during the ‘wild Yeltsin years’ the Soviet Union was just as intact as it had been prior to 1991/92 and as it is now! So, the trick worked wonderfully, and as a consequence the West today is indeed caught in exactly that dilemma that Golitsyn had been so tirelessly warning of for years and decades: namely that of being forced to give in to the military and economic blackmail of an overwhelmingly strengthened communist bloc and having to accept – nolens, volens – communist tyranny. This is where we stand right now: on the very edge of a very bloody communist takeover, both in America and in the remaining free world. And it seems almost as if there is little or nothing left, as societies, that we can still do about it. What we certainly can do, as individuals, is pray and, selfish as it may sound, look after ourselves and our loved ones. It may well be as brutal and elementary as that. Maybe that’s why the event wasn’t broadcast a second time and the content of Gorbachev’s speech was nowhere discussed, whether in the German or international mainstream media: It might have caused panic in the populations of the West. Also, the speech reveals another crucial point: the dangerous role of Germany in all of this: They too – just as if the downfall of the Nazi Party by the end of WWII had never happened, and despite their long-displayed friendship towards America and the West –  have an agenda, partly in line with the Soviets, but finally opposed to the larger all-communist design. See for this the late Christopher Story’s reference work, The European Union Collective: Enemy of its Member States: A Study in Russian and German Strategy to Complete Lenin’s World Revolution; Edward Harle Ltd., London, New York 2002, that bases itself upon Anatoliy Golitsyn’s analytical methodology, but provides priceless additional in-depth information. [First half of the speech from a massively streamlined print version published 3 months after on the Hanns Seidel Foundation’s website; the PDF-file says ‘Manuscript handed out by the author’, and indeed the lousy, KGB-style German indicates that Gorbachev’s staff must have fabricated it; here is the exact link: www.hss.de/fileadmin/media/downloads/Berichte/111210_RM_Gorbatschow.pdf; the English translation of it, from the German, has been thoroughly done by this author. – Second half of the speech translated by this author from the Russian-to-German simultaneous interpretation on Bavarian television; unfortunately there’s only the second half of that broadcast presented on a number of communist-leaning German Youtube channels; the text trailer at the beginning each time deceptively suggests that ‘concerned’, elder statesman Gorbachev warns of the possibility of World War III due to NATO’s aggressiveness and ‘war-mongering’, which is of course pure Kremlin propaganda! Here is one copy with this second half of the original TV-recording (20 minutes long), in case you know Russian or German. Bold print added and indispensable comments & explanations inserted in grey type within square brackets by this author.]

Saturday, Dec. 10, 2011, Imperial Hall of the Munich Residenz, merely hours ahead of a total lunar eclipse, a.k.a. ‘blood-moon’, that was visible over most of Eurasia

l

But, wait a moment: Is THIS really Gorbachev??? – Obviously it’s him! He has put on weight, and he is 20/25 years older. – But, still: isn’t there a cardinal difference to the elegant, even charming Gorbachev most of us may remember? A very disturbing, frightening difference? Don’t we see here rather a brutal communist butcher, very similar to Mao Zedong??? – The explanation isn’t rocket science: Gorbachev and the whole allegedly ‘post-Soviet’, ‘new’ Russia have dropped their peaceful and democratic mask by which they have mesmerised the West so effectively for so long! What we see now, if we are willing to open our eyes, is the old, dreadful monster of Soviet communism, that is now eager to slay us all!

l

[1st part of the speech, translated from the streamlined print version:]

“Most honoured friends from the Government of the Free State of Bavaria, ladies and gentlemen, today is a quite special day for me, a quite special event, after so much good said about me. [He is playing with his nimbus as ‘Gorbachev Superstar’.] And I even could have prided myself, I am already 80 now, but after all I can control myself [in good old ‘communist humility’].

I would like to thank the Hanns Seidel Foundation from the bottom of my heart [Marxists-Leninists have a heart??? This is news indeed!] for this honour, for granting me the Franz Josef Strauß Award. The life’s work of not a few politicians has been honoured with this award. Franz Josef Strauß himself was one of the outstanding political personages in postwar Germany. And like every strong personality, he had many political friends, but at the same time also many political enemies [Very much so, and mainly the Soviet Union, that had him in its deadly crosshairs and obviously had commissioned its allied German terrorist faction RAF with threatening his life. The circumstances of Strauß’s death on October 3, 1988, by the way, were suspicious! And merely a week before, he had been to communist Bulgaria, not to mention a quite adventurous ‘secret’ visit of his to the Soviet Union around Christmas of 1987!]. In the West he was often termed an extreme conservative [There is no such animal as an ‘extreme conservative’. Conservatism and extremism exclude each other!]. You may easily imagine what kind of political grades he got in the Soviet Union: After all, he was the favourite target of our propaganda [not just of propaganda …] in the decades of the Cold War, branded as a reactionary. That’s the way our life works, that’s our history [!!!]. And we keep living it, take lessons and draw conclusions from it [alluding to the Soviet Union’s dialectical way of Marxist-Leninist strategic planning].

In the mid ’80s, serious [rather fictitious, but nevertheless greatly consequential] political restructuring was begun in the Soviet Union, soon known under ‘Perestroika’ and ‘Glasnost’. Already then we had revised much within our own ideas [i.e. within socialism, nothing more]. My first meeting with Ronald Reagan took place in 1985 in Switzerland. We talked for an hour. Afterwards, my delegation asked me about my impression of the dialogue partner. I told them, “Reagan is a conservative to the core, a political dinosaur.” Later I learnt about Reagan having been asked that same question. His answer was, “Gorbachev is a stubborn Bolshevik.” That time was in no way easy for us [meaning: ‘for us communists to overcome Reagan’s anticommunism’!!!]. We had to grow beyond ourselves, so to speak [i.e. ‘we had to opportunistically acquire the style of our hated class enemy – what a pain, uff …’]. At my first conversation with Margaret Thatcher, already after ten minutes the discussion came to a standstill, and we turned away from each other. After a break, I resumed the talk. I said to Mrs. Thatcher: “You know that I have no order whatsoever from the Politbureau to persuade you to enter the Communist Party.” Mrs. Thatcher smiled. The ice was broken, the situation eased, and we could continue the conversation [he boldly paints himself as the grandiose diplomat and Margaret Thatcher, well, as a boot! The fact of the matter is, however, that Gorbachev effectively managed to bewitch Margaret Thatcher, not by ‘supreme’ diplomacy but by his dark sexual charisma, as was analysed by Christopher Story]. That’s how it all began.

And then quickened the pace of events that in 1989 sealed the destiny of Germany [indeed, by embarking on this secretive alliance with the Soviets, the Germans have sealed their fate; however, they are convinced they will be able to tame the Russian Bear: German hubris, again and again!]. In June 1989 I came to visit Bonn, where I met with Helmut Kohl. Following the talks, there was a press conference. We were asked whether we had discussed Germany and its reunification. We confirmed to have talked about this. They key points were expressed by each one of us in a different manner, yet in substance we said the same, namely: The reunification would be a question of a distant historical future – three months later, the Berlin Wall fell. This was a historical development determined by millions of people and by their will for reunification [a monstrous lie: the so-called Fall of the Berlin Wall and all the ‘changes’ in the Eastern European communist satellites during the year 1989 were not spontaneous events at all, but had been long planned and were precisely coordinated by Moscow so to open up the chessboard for their new strategic phase, that was to turn out overnight, and has remained to this day, as a 360-degree political offensive against the West]. Our predictions then proved inaccurate, they were corrected by life [one of these cynical Leninist expressions: when communists speak of ‘life’, they mostly mean the communist substitute for true organic developments, namely synthetic, artificial events brought about by meticulous and multi-layered strategic planning; the real life they hate and are afraid of because it constantly threatens their ‘beautifully planned’ framework of communist tyranny]. The people were helping us [by which he admits that the Communist Parties were in charge of events, not the people out of themselves] to look a bit further into the future and to do a step towards that future [when alleged ex-communists still keep speaking of the ‘future’ as Gorbachev is doing here, we know they are still working overtime for their terrible goal of global communist victory].

François Mitterand, an eminently cautious as well as polite man [first of all, Mitterand was a die-hard socialist and very Moscow-friendly!] expressed to me, “I cannot imagine how you and the Germans will come out of this situation. Also I myself do not know what should be said.” I realised he wasn’t particularly enthusiastic about the perspective of a reunified Germany. With regard to Margaret Thatcher, she openly argued against it. Yet, they all were eminent politicians. History knows no standstill [that’s of course the standpoint of a revolutionary], and at the time its course took a very particular direction [by ‘very particular direction’, if you read between the lines, you can sense that this ‘direction’ was thoroughly premeditated, contrived, and perfectly under control every step of the way!]. We, who were politicians [deception again: Gorbachev and his comrades aren’t ‘politicians’, but communist apparatchiks in the service of the world revolution!], had to recognise and sense this. In the end, all signed the necessary treaties, also those who had initially disagreed [“All’s well that ends well.” – He is constantly taking us for a ride!]. Germany was reunified, and Europe was opening a new chapter in its history [a dangerous new chapter of getting gradually swallowed by communism]. After all, not only the German union was at stake, but the overcoming of the division of Europe, more than that – the division of the whole world [the Soviet Union posing as the harbinger of overall reconciliation and “Worldwide Democratic Peace”: the lie isn’t new. What he doesn’t mention is the strategic rationale in all of this, and what their idea of ‘peace’ really is about: it’s a horrible peace of the grave].

Franz Josef Strauß came to Moscow in December 1987. This was an important meeting. Strauß explained to me his understanding of Germany, of Europe, and the world. There’s many a conversation in which one talks around things without going beyond repeating conventional wisdom. But the talk with Franz Josef Strauß went completely different. I saw in front of me a man who made no secret of his views and knew how to stand up for his positions, but who had also the gift of perceiving the state of the world and of Europe, the role of the Soviet Union and the Federal Republic, in a wider context and with a sense of realism [an indication that Strauß, despite his tough conservatism, was ready to make significant compromises towards the Russians, and he did, which is why already in the year 1983 a fraction of his Christian Social Union broke away and founded a new party that shifted farther to the right]. Strauß had made acquaintance with war at first hand. He was near Stalingrad, and from such experiences man always draws his consequences [smell the sense of triumph?]. We spoke about the danger of war, and about how to forestall it. We asked ourselves whether wars needed to be fought at all [however, Pacifism and naïve disarmament are a Troyan Horse for a global ‘Pax Sovietica’; Franz Josef Strauß knew this!]. At that time, on both sides in Europe many nuclear weapons were being stockpiled. They were also stationed on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. Strauß told me that, after one of his trips to the U.S. and having talked to Secretary of Defense McNamara, he had commissioned the Inspector General of the Bundeswehr to draw up a report on the possible effects for the Federal Republic of Germany of a future war. The report’s main conclusion was: Nobody would survive the use of nuclear weapons [another piece of dangerous disinformation: only the military circles of the West considered nuclear weapons solely as a deterrent, convinced that an actual nuclear war would annihilate both sides. The Soviet military, however, has always held the view that a nuclear (offensive) war is not only leadable, but also winnable! They have for decades been planning for such a scenario, and their civilian population is precisely trained so to know what to do and where to seek shelter in the event of nuclear war].

I already mentioned our first meeting with Ronald Reagan when we commented on each other quite negatively. Nevertheless, after the negotiations, a highly important declaration was made in our joint communiqué: that it was necessary to avoid a nuclear war because in such a war there would be no victors [again: the Western view, not the view of the Soviets!!!]. From this resulted the question for what we’d need an arms race worth billions of dollars in the first place [Gorbachev and his strategists certainly don’t care about the economic situation of the West; they simply want the West to onesidedly disarm; today, Germany no longer has any nuclear deterrent stationed on its territory]. Not to forget the fact that 90% of all nuclear weapons were stationed in the U.S. and in the Soviet Union.

Thus was the contextual frame of our talks with Franz Josef Strauß. As I receive today the award that carries his name, I would like to pay my reverence and respect to this man [not very credible; but the Germans, in their blindness, still keep courting Gorbachev!]. He won great merits for German post-war policy [certainly not so in order to posthumously be ‘lauded’ by an unchanged Soviet Communist Party Secretary: but Gorbachev can say whatever he wants, and Strauß can’t reply from his grave]. I am convinced it would have been so much more difficult for us to achieve the task of German reunification, had the mood among the Germans and Russians at the time been different [there was no ‘mood’ with the Soviet Union’s common man, simply because he has no say in anything; as for the West Germans, they weren’t happy at all about this sudden burden of having to finance the rebuilding of East Germany. By the way, even today, 22 years after the reunification, 20% (!!!) of all West Germans have still never been to former East Germany! Tells a lot!]. We should appropriately acknowledge this fact: Two peoples that had lived through such a dramatic joint history were able to find the way to reconciliation, they were able to comprehend that a confrontation would lead nowhere [according to the late Christopher Story’s The European Union Collective, these two powers form a veritable alliance, with Germany having little problems with the prospect of accepting socialism; in other words: Germany, as well as France, have systematically betrayed their Western allies, right since the days of Adenauer; as a result, the United States and Britain have meanwhile been fooled by Germany and France, since 1945, and by the alleged post-Soviet Russia and its ‘former’ satellites, since 1989/1992!!!]. Obviously, also the passed joint experiences of those centuries were coming to effect when Russians and Germans had been linked through good-neighbourly, friendly relations [what he seems to have in mind, though, is the 24 years of tight German-Soviet cooperation all the way from the Bolshevist Revolution of 1917 till June 1941, when Hitler breached his non-aggression pact with Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union].

[2nd part of the speech, translated from the non-streamlined and very professional Russian-to-German simultaneous interpretation on Bavarian TV:]

And it is good that there are no more walls; but, dividing lines are again emerging. And if one should be worried about something, and what today’s politicians should think about, in Central Europe, also in Eastern Europe etc., what they should think about is: under no circumstances to allow a war, under no circumstances to allow a new confrontation. I know why the politicians in Russia react so sharply to the missile defence in Europe, to its intended stationing.

But now I’m also slowly asking myself: what’s this all about? For, what we can see is that the missile defence is meant as a defence against Russia. Everything else is just talk, or a wall of fog to cover the truth. Yes, and as a result, the Russian government said: We’re going to station means of defence, here and there, and we are ready to use weapons that guarantee our security. What does this mean? WORLD WAR III!

And if Russia and the USA should again be at loggerheads, this IS World War III! This won’t be restricted to a local war! And we need to again clearly remember the lesson, you know: the Cold War was over; our partners were triumphing, and they wouldn’t see the forest for the trees any more [!!!!!], in the West, and especially in the USA. They wanted to build a new empire, with a super-super-super-power [the communists have won, and now they LAUGH at the West, as was predicted by Anatoliy Golitsyn 30 years ago] – to which I say: the Germans are a serious and reflecting nation, and they know well what is being said in the USA; and when they don’t react to it and sometimes nod, it means all this can’t be taken for serious: It’s the attempt to threaten Russia a bit; and there is still in Europe a bit of fear left towards Russia. Yet, we only wish to build and develop: No one has led more wars in the 20th century than us. So much we had to suffer, and, just as a sidenote: We had no plans after WWII to start military action against the USA. I know it. I MUST know it.

And, suddenly, all this starts all over again. This reminds me of those 200 or 300 U.S. bases, spread all over the world, from the Cold War era; and have they been of any use to anybody? I have the impression that the evildoer of the system in which the West lives, and so with the consent of Washington, this radical market philosophy, all this hasn’t turned out positively. [You see: no more respectful words for free market economics like 25 years ago; Gorbachev and the unchanged Soviets now show their true unchanged colours: RED, and nothing but deep red! Now, as they have managed to drive capitalism against the wall, and so by capitalist means, the message couldn’t be any clearer: ‘your capitalist system has failed, and you’d better accept our glorious alternative of communism, OR ELSE …’ If one contemplates about this for a moment, one understands that the communist bloc is now indeed pushing for global communist takeover, no doubt!!!]

London, G-20 protests, April 2, 2009: Take note of the hardcore-communist maxims of the alleged anti-globalists: “Stop WWIII over Iraq!” – “Democracy is an illusion.” – “Capitalism isn’t working.” – “No borders anywhere!” – “One Currency, One Country!”. – This is clearly Moscow’s Fifth Column at work, whether protesting G-20 summits, “fighting Climate Change”, or “occupying Wall Street” … (And so with the ‘blessings’ of the occupant in the White House and the active support of his communist buddy, Bill Ayers) – Note also the scythe to the right: a clear and sinistre threat!!!

l

 l

What have we got? Bubbles! One bubble after the other, and they all burst. And, one should understand at last that the solution can’t be an arms race, the militarisation of the world and the economy, because we’d keep on throwing money out the window. [Again this false ‘concern’ about his hated ‘class enemy’s’ finances that he otherwise has only bothered about insofar as he sought to extract money for his world revolutionary cause!] And former Finance Minister Waigel [Theo Waigel is sitting in the first row] spoke of 10 billion DM or Dollar, of course it was Mark, Deutschmark, that he didn’t give to Gorbachev at that time. How much money are we simply throwing out the window! [Rather odd that he speaks of himself in the third person!]

Eisenhower is again quoted these days, General and President Eisenhower. Yesterday I had again the idea to watch that movie: “FFF” [sic: FFF equals 666!]. — No. — “JFK”. On the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. I like such films [especially if they don’t touch upon the Cuban-Soviet connection …], and one should watch them from time to time just so to remain awake; if possible: wide-awake! [What does he mean by that? Does he try to remind us that everyone who  – like President Kennedy – dares stand up against communism will be killed?] And, Eisenhower, to come back to that, said that the military-industrial complex is a dangerous thing; and one should never lose control over it! [Is he alluding to Soviet infiltration of U.S. structures? Well, the U.S. is now under the control of a Bolshevik, anyway!] He said that in a way as had never been said before. And I want to say: the man was right! [Applause. Yet, we do not know how many Russians sat in the auditorium; there must have been quite a number of them as the video shows lots of Russian-looking faces, none of which with head-phones on, so obviously these people knew Russian.] The military-industrial complex in our grand countries, that’s those who set the tone, who exert pressure on politics. I know how our military-industrial complex is doing this, and it is still very critical of Gorbachev because of Perestroika [he is permanently taking us for a ride!] and the freeing of the country from these military expenditures [well, they did receive vast sums from the West!].

But, these people [and now Gorbachev is again speaking of the United States] have been accustomed to always ‘play the first fiddle’, and I think that if an economy cannot provide for its people, it is an ill economy; AND SUCH AN ECONOMY MUST BE CURED, AND SO BY RADICAL MEANS! [Can a central planning bureaucrat, who has no understanding of free market economics other than through his upside-down Marxist ideology and hearsay, get any bolder than that? This is a key passage in the speech as it clearly shows they have even, combined with the Chinese, achieved economic superiority and are now laughing at us. The ‘radical means’ is of course brutal revolutionary takeover and introduction of central planning communism, complete with abolition of private property as well as of the family unit, no question.] This was my idea, this was my approach. [Read Gorbachev’s 1987 propaganda book “Perestroika”, that has by the way in its German edition the subtitle, translated into English: ‘The Second Russian Revolution: New Thinking for Europe and the World’!!!] And I’m still repeating it today. But, no, what are they telling people? They are telling them things that make them afraid. Well, and now they’re arming up [another lie, because Comrade Obama is greatly engaged in bringing down America’s military capabilities even further].

But when one looks at the situation thoroughly, one can easily see that our government is acting correctly and appropriately, because – I just say: the devil [his boss] take it – there is no system for executing global decisions in a world that is already global [their constant theme anyway, across the board, from East to West]. We simply still lack such mechanisms, and I have heard with great interest that [Gorbachev now starts addressing the Germans], as has been said by your Prime Minister [Bavaria’s Prime Minister, Horst Seehofer, CSU], “we are ready to help, but not to throw money into a bottomless pit.” [alluding to the Euro crisis and Greece as the country with the greatest problems of the lot] [And now, coldly:] After all, IT WAS THE GERMANS who initiated the Euro, the European single currency, and therefore Germany carries also great responsibility, and Germany is big and strong, and thus carries an especially great responsibility, from which it cannot just steal away. [The Soviets are now leaving the Germans in their own mess, as the megalomaniac currency union, driven solely by ideology anyway, is about to fall apart; the Germans, in their unrootable tendency to want it all, have overdone it. And Moscow is awaiting its triumph in the face of the failure of the initially German-thought-out EU project, that was, however, hijacked in the mid 1980s by the Left and is now the vehicle for Eurasian and ultimately global ‘convergence’, on communist terms.]

But, this is also about the processes within the countries. Many have entered the EU in an expectation of having things for free [he is talking about the 5 ‘former’ satellites, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, and Slovenia, that joined the EU, along with the 3 ‘former’ Soviet Republics, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, get this: on MAY 1st (Labour DAY!!!), 2004, and about Romania and Bulgaria, that followed in 2007. – But who paid to bring them up somehow: Western Europe; only to get flooded, in return, by a tidal wave of impoverished immigrants as well as KGB-directed organised crime!], I think you know exactly what I mean [?]. Yes, so quickly did they rush to the West and left the Warsaw Pact and COMECON, all up and away towards the West, and the West immediately welcomed them and quickly incoroporated these new countries [Fairy tale! – And again bolder than bold, as the seeming dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and of COMECON was in reality a controlled deception operation orchestrated by Moscow. Thus, the Soviets have even freed themselves from the economic burden deriving from these countries and instead let the West Europeans pay for their recovery, which, to a great extent, has taken place – however, without loosening their political grip on these ‘former’ satellite states from behind the scenes via the unchanged communist nomenklatura: whether ‘nationalist’, ‘conservative’, ‘social democrat’, or ‘liberal democrat’: in reality, it’s nothing more than a bold spectacle known as ‘democratism’, and with every one of them playing his particular role; same as in the unchanged Soviet Union: Gennadi Zyuganov: the ‘Stalinist’; Vladimir Zhirinovsky: the ‘ultra-nationalist madman’; Boris Nemzov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Garri Kasparov, Grigory Yavlinsky etc.: the ‘democratic opposition’, and so forth. – NO GENUINE OPPOSITION whatsoever in the unchanged Soviet Union, 95 long years after the October Revolution of 1917! – Also, by having their ‘former’ satellites now in the EU and in NATO, they have not only ‘peacefully’ entered, along the lines of ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu’s treatise ‘The Art of War’, the enemy’s camp, but can also use this, and they do, for further anti-Western propaganda: poor betrayed Russia versus evil expansionist West; this extremely hostile pre-WWIII propaganda can be found on English Pravda online, Novosti, or International Affairs], which all entered suit the United Nations [well, as for the 15 republics that ‘once’ formed the USSR, 3 of which are now in the EU and the other 12 are constituting the same old Soviet Union under the new label of ‘Commonwealth of Independent States’, one must recognise that the world is now faced not by 1 Soviet Union, but by 15 ‘Soviet Unions’, which all hold individual seats in the various international organisations, such as the UN, the World Bank etc., take part in international sports events as 15 separate ‘nations’ and so forth. The same trick was applied by doubling former Czechoslovakia into Czechia and Slovakia, and by splitting former socialist Yugoslavia, that had officially been outside the communist bloc but in reality had always been part of it,  into 6: Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina; not to mention the Republika Srpska within Bosnia, and Kosovo within Serbia. In other words, what once was 3 states, the USSR, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, and the Yugoslav Socialist Republic, has now multiplied into 23!!! This is truly Voodoo ‘nation building’, Leninist-style, along the lines of ‘federation precedes unification’]; and you yourselves [the Germans] have greatly furthered this development; thus: look who is talking! [This shows the internal war going on among these two rivals, Germany and the unchanged Soviet Union.] [And now again extremely cynical:] And, shouldn’t one be grateful to the Greeks for having established the fundaments of our civilisation? [Laughter and applause. – Germany is now trapped in its self-inflicted straightjacket of the Euro, but cannot let go of it, because ‘this would send the wrong signal’. Thus, the EU member states are on a gravy train of “Together we stand. Together we fall!” – As for the ‘fundaments of our civilisation’: Never mind that this European civilisation, until the Renaissance and, later, the so-called Age of Enlightenment, was based not so much on the legacy of ancient Greece but, of course, first and foremost: on Christendom! On the other hand, Gorbachev frequently plays with the false impression he might be a concealed Christian, but by attending Interfaith gatherings at Assisi or elsewhere he again is only furthering the Masonic-Communist agenda – massively supported by the false post-Conciliar Catholic Church – of watering down the individual religions and moulding them into one futurist hybrid, as is so comprehensively shown by Mr. Lee Penn in his reference work, False Dawn: The United Religions Initiative, Globalism, and the Quest for a One-World-Religion; Sophia Perennis, 2001.]

But, well [talking still, it seems, to the Germans], I believe we know exactly what we need to think of each other [what an expression of mutual distrust among these two allies and, at the same time, rivals!!!], and we must build a system for executing global decisions in a global world. And for this, NEW systems, NEW models are needed! [i.e. the o-so-successful central-planning ‘model’ of Marxism-Leninism: All-encompassing ‘Friendship’ to the world!] [And now again attacking the Free Market system:] Betting on super-profits, super-consumption, and the like, leads nowhere. That’s of no use! [The following is highly duplicitous and certainly is directed against the United States, both in economic and military respect:] Now, we have a billionaire who owns a submarine. And now he wants to commission a second one. Is this going to give the man happiness? No! One should find a small submarine, torpedo his first one so to prevent the second one from being built [the exact same logic would apply to a surprise preliminary strike, using e.g. high-altitude EMPs, by which all electronic infrastructure and power grid would be knocked out in an instance, disenabling any effective defence]; because no one needs this. Who needs this? [Of course, the Soviets would love to see a Western world that has completely abandoned its ‘unnecessary’ military capabilites, and Comrade Obama will certainly do his ‘best’ to get there – the war behind this faux administration and the U.S.military seems already to be on …]

And I ask you, my dear Germans [!!!]: stand you also by your responsibility! [i.e. we won’t bail you out …] You have initiated the Euro-zone, and as soon as the control mechanisms become effective [i.e. as soon as all remaining national sovereignty of the individual member state is fully done away with, as is happening right now], this system will be precisely what Europe and the world need [i.e. a super-imposed unaccountable communist big-brother world authority]! [Applause]

I think we should all really think about, together, how we can prevent a violent solution of the problems at hand, because when someone chooses force, this is the most dangerous thing that there is; and I repeat: we’re again in an arms race! [This is the ‘cooperation-blackmail’ Anatoliy Golitsyn and Christopher Story had warned of: ‘let’s peacefully come together, on our communist terms – OR ELSE …’ – as for the arms race: it was the Soviets, as well as the Chinese, who have been arming up since 1991 like crazy!!!] It’s obviously about re-militarisation, not only militarisation of the economy [sic!], but also of consciousness [How true, Señor, how true!]. WE ARE ILL; WE ALL NEED TO BE TREATED AND CURED! [In the political psychiatry of the upcoming global Soviet State: thank you very much!]

[Now follows a bold, in-your-face inversion of reality: he blames the very militaristic euphoria of the Russian armed forces on the American forces!] And Generals again become heroes; Generals who believe they had disarmed too much, one missile of many thousands [which is outright ridiculous!], that’s too much. And here I ask myself: How do the Generals think? If one bets on solving problems militarily, then one commits a mistake [a warning!], and I’d like to say this again, I’ve heard this, we just had in France an annual meeting, the annual Conference of the World Political Forum, that I brought into being several years ago, really a serious organisation; there it was said: to bet on force and strength isn’t efficient. [True: Western defence capability, to them, is certainly ‘not efficient’. – As Christopher Story said in a 1995 recorded conversation with American host William Mc Ilhaney: “We should leave them to stew in their own juice. We should withdraw. Now that we’re so deeply involved, we’ve got to do it subtly, but we should withdraw from cooperation. We needn’t announce it; we should just do it. And stop aiding them; stop cooperating; withdraw whenever we see an opportunity; retrench. AND: We should rearm like crazy! Because the only thing these people understand is that we are determined not to let them prevail.” – Sadly, such change of course has never been tried.] The nations, and most politicians, condemn such an attitude [but welcome it when it is held, not defensively but offensively, by the Soviets???]. And at the end we came to the conclusion that wars do not solve problems [the Soviet monster again posing a peace angel: the perfidious advances in the 1960s and ’70s by false ‘dissident’ Andrey Sakharov come to mind; and in general the international Peace Movement as a whole, that goes back to the early 1900s, having been right from the outset a branch of communism as well as of so-called Theosophy], and in earlier days thinkers said that war is necessary, that war brings about a movement ahead etc. [He indeed points to the Hegelian dialectics that are part and parcel of Marxist-Leninist thought!] – No! War means a giant failure of politics. [By ‘failure’, Gorbachev of course means, in that case, the ‘failure’ of Western politics to submit to communism!]

For what should one take up arms, aeroplanes, extremely destructive weapons [another threat]? And why? [For instance, in order to defend oneself against communism?????] Because the politicians got it wrong, because the politicians still lag behind the fast changes in the world. [By speaking of ‘politicians’, Gorbachev of course is speaking of the West, and of the West only: there is no such animal as a ‘politician’ in the still-communist system, they have only apparatchiks; politicians, whether sincere or corrupt, whether capable or inapt, only exist in the democracies or constitutional monarchies of the West. And he already blames on them a World War that, by now, hasn’t even begun! Also note the theme that (Western) politics lags behind the fast changes in the world, which means: lags behind the communist programme of world revolution! – Below: a completely revolutionary Soviet postage stamp of 1988 saying: “Perestroika prodolzenye dela Oktyabrya”, i.e. “Perestroika CONTINUES the October (Revolution)”!!! – and “Uskorenye – Demokratizatsiya – Glasnosti”, i.e. “Acceleration – Democratisation – Openness”. Perestroika was the launching of an overall revolutionary offensive. In Gorbachev’s 1987 propaganda book, Perestroika, one can read bold and clear that Perestroika was meant to give socialism a second breath, essentially by returning to “a Lenin who is alive”. And the West was caught completely off guard!]

And, so to speak, the Russians, the Germans, the French [the Russians of course come first; and with the other two, they form the socialist European troika], the Americans, the Japanese, and now also the Chinese, by the way [we know that], these nations are responsible for providing for the world a peaceful, positive perspective. [And we know well what a ‘peaceful, positive perspective’ means from the mouth of a die-hard Marxist-Leninist: it means brutal communist ‘normality’ and lights out forever! – ‘Positive’ holds also a covert meaning, as it implies ‘positivist’, thus: godless.]

And, also [now read very carefully], it’s definitely wrong to believe one could hide away, one could sit out anything. No one can hide any more or sit anything out! [A clear message also on an individual level: ‘Don’t think we won’t get you, because we will!’ Every new passport in almost every country in the world is now an “E-passport”, with a built-in RFID-chip, by which the holder may well one day be tracked and located any time.] Also small countries need contacts [i.e. ALL states of the world must be part of the overall surveillance grid!].

I believe I have now strayed quite far from the Franz-Josef-Strauß Award [cynical laughter], but I’m convinced that the one is closely connected to the other; connected to the legacy passed on to us by smart brains. [This is all coded, conspiratorial language. He alludes here not only to Lenin, but also – as he speaks to his German fellow-strategists – to Bismarck, Hitler, Adenauer, and all the way up to Helmut Kohl.]

I’d like to once again express my heartfelt thanks. You know, I speak at home, here in Germany, in Europe, in the world; I advocate [enforced] cooperation and of course a deepening in the cooperation between Russia and Germany [France is the third cornerstone in this evil geopolitical triangle]. Because, this means very, very much for the overall situation; it stabilises it, develops it towards a positive outcome, and the people who are demonstrating in Wall Street demand social justice and equality [i.e. they demand communism; so, here we have an official endorsement, so to speak, of OWS by a ‘former’ General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union!!! As a sidenote, the ‘Occupy’ movement has nothing to do with the alleged ‘mass demonstrations’ that accompanied the Russian Duma Elections in December 2011 and Putin’s ‘re-selection’ in March 2012! These are staged provocations – most likely just as the Dec.-29th-2011 submarine accident at Murmansk – so to project the ‘weak look’ as recommended by Sun Tzu, which in that case would mean that they couldn’t be any closer to go for it and start their desired global military adventure: things have never been more on-the-edge than right now! Also keep in mind that in the last week of October 2012 there will be the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis!!! These communists have their own funny way of celebrating anniversaries. (Update: They indeed used the last week of OCTOBER 2012 to test an improved version of their already highly advanced Topol-M Intercontinental missile!!!) Not to mention that the year 2017, only 5 years away, will mark the centennary of the October Revolution – as well as the tricentennary of the foundation of the Grand Lodge of England. In 2018, then, will be the 200th birthday of Karl Marx, and in 2020 the 150th birthday of their other evil icon, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov alias Lenin. So, it appears, they are going to have a tight celebration schedule in the coming years, and might well have decided to reach communist world hegemony before 2017].

And, as you can see, also in the EU, mistakes were made. But this isn’t yet the essential point I want to make. I have the impression that – of course we aren’t out of the old crisis yet, and there are already signs on the horizon for a new crisis [which international communism, directed by Moscow and Beijing, will certainly make use of for the furtherance and victory of the revolution; via economic manipulations, via Western trade unions, via anarchist and terrorist groups, via sabotage, assassinations if necessary, and so forth], but – as LENIN calmed his comrades-in-arms, this was when the Soviet power came into being, when there was a chaotic situation in the country: “Yes, of course we have chaos, BUT FROM CHAOS SPRING UP NEW FORMS OF LIFE“. [That same logic is known from highgrade Freemasonry, and Gorbachev is also a Mason: ‘Ordo ab Chao’, order out of chaos: it’s an utterly blasphemous claim that man by himself should be entitled to create chaos (by destroying the old, God-given order) so to organise on top of the ruins a new hybrid and sterile, man-made order without God. The phrase ‘New Forms of Life’ also describes the Leninist ‘creativity’ that uses, for a while, even the most contradictory and opportunistic methods to reach their final goal, as well as their idea of an overall synthetic counterfeit of true life. Because they HATE life. – It’s all deeply Satanic!]

And therefore, chaos IS a problem, a crisis IS a problem, all this isn’t easy, but there are always included opportunities that definitely should be made use of. [Pro-communist globalist, if not Soviet agent, Henry Kissinger (who allegedly used to go under the KGB code name “Bor”), made an almost identical statement on January 5, 2009 regarding incoming new President Obama in relation to the economic crisis. Kissinger explained, “His task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a New World Order can be created. It’s a great opportunity; it isn’t just a crisis.” ]

[And now Gorbachev turns straight diabolical:] And I wish the Germans a healthy New Year. And this time you will still have enough bratwursts and pork-knuckles for New Year’s Eve [laughter; yet, one can be sure not one single German was laughing]. WELL, AND AS FOR THE NEXT NEW YEAR’S EVE [i.e. the turn from 2012 to 2013], WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THAT, TOGETHER! [One can see on the video, that is bad visual quality, for a brief moment Bavarian Prime Minister Horst Seehofer almost certainly with a face DEEP FROZEN in shock!!! This is why they hid away this speech from the German population and from the world – all the critical passages have indeed been removed in the ‘official’ print version that was published three months after the speech, in March 2012. It’s too late to change course; certainly also for the Germans, who once again in history overstretched their capabilites and have indeed thought they could deal with the Soviet monster on equal terms. It’s even too late to inform or prepare the public. It’ll be a hellish attack out of the blue sky. How many will in a second lose their minds and go crazy? And how many will just decide to hang themselves in their houses or apartments?]

And, I tell you quite frankly: it is for me a special, an emotional day. And regarding the accomplishments that I myself associate with my life [you see: communists are very different from Western careerists: they don’t take too much personal pride in their achievements, but, at the most, in their ‘humble’ contribution to the revolutionary cause!!!] – the German question, the destiny of Germany -, these were for me of determining importance. And I’m proud of what I could do. – Thank you very much! I’m wishing you good success!”

l

7. SKIP-BACK TO 1987: GORBACHEV’S PROPAGANDA BOOK, ‘PERESTROIKA’, HAD IT ALL REVEALED ALREADY!

Whatever inconvenient a reality to the bulk of Western politicians and ‘analysts’, there is little if any reason for surprise over today’s advancements of international communism, all the way to Westminster and Washington D.C. As, in parallel to Gorbachev’s smooth public appearances back in the mid 1980s, the Soviets gave plenty of hints, even to the point of open declarations, what they were really up to. An overwhelming case in point, in this respect, is their propaganda book, ‘Perestroika’, published in 1987 under the authorship of Mikhail Gorbachev. The book was translated into dozens of languages and sold in some 5 million copies worldwide: so, this was certainly no minor propaganda initiative on the part of the Soviet apparat, but an important move to laying out to the ‘interested’ in the West what perestroika was ultimately about. It appears that the Soviets, who have always been thoroughly studying the Western mentality, must have counted on a general laziness and unwillingness to read so widespread nowadays in the societies of the free world. But, left-wing circles in Europe and America will definitely have studied the book; so did a handful of truly dedicated analysts – such as, e.g., the late Christopher Story. It seems, ‘Perestroika’ wasn’t published in exactly identical versions, as the quite differing titles suggest. The English version’s full title went: “Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World”; the French: “Perestroïka: Vues Neuves sur Notre Pays et le Monde” (thus, not ‘New Thinking’, but ‘New Vistas …’); the Spanish, coyly: “Perestroika: Nuevas Ideas para Nuestra País y el Mundo” (i.e. ‘New Ideas …’). But by far the boldest title was that of the German version (and Germany, of course, at the time was in the immediate focus of the Soviet strategists, as they viewed a German reunification not as a loss of their geopolitical influence in Europe but, on the contrary, as an opportunity for them to firmly gain access to once-Western Europe, using a unified Germany, as they did, as a jumping-board; 25 years later, 10 out of 27 member states of the meanwhile greatly enlarged as well as utterly centralised, if not to say: Sovietised, European Union are ‘former’ socialist countries!!!). So, here’s the German title: “Perestroika: Die Zweite Russische Revolution – Eine Neue Politik für Europa und die Welt”, i.e. “Perestroika: The Second Russian Revolution – A New Policy for Europe and the World”. Shouldn’t that odd title alone have raised sufficient suspicion in Western policy circles so to really have a proper look into that book? And mind that it doesn’t say, ‘New Policy for the USSR’, but ‘New Policy for Europe and the World’, thus revealing beyond doubt the true nature of perestroika, namely that of a political offensive, worse: a deadly programme for the fundamental restructuring, transformation, and ultimately communisation of the Western world. Ronald Reagan could have avoided making a fool of himself when begging Gorbachev from the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, “Mr. Gorbachev, open that gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!” (as that’s what the Soviets were intending to do anyway, albeit for their political ends), and Margaret Thatcher would have been perfectly prepared not to fall for “Gorbachev’s style” that she so greatly admired and not to reach at the completely erroneous conclusion that “Gorbachev isn’t a Leninist any more.” However, ‘Perestroika’ (very much like Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’, published as early as 8 years before he came to power) seems not to have been given the necessary attention (and apart from the book, there exist so many other clear statements by Soviet representatives during that time that suggest everything but peaceful intentions). As a consequence, the whole world is now paying dearly as it is now being pressed by a triumphant pan-communist bloc, and even a communist Troyan Horse in the White House, to accept communism as the ‘new’ model for the whole world. Read below a selection of quotes from ‘Perestroika’, that of course do not mention the existence of a pan-communist long-range strategy and that are written in the usual coded Leninist language (bold emphases as well as added explanations in grey colour by this author). The quotes are partly taken from the English version via Christopher Story’s ‘The European Union Collective’ (TEUC), partly from the German version directly and translated by this author into English (GtoE):

“In the West, including the U.S., Perestroika is being interpreted in a variety of ways. There is the view that Perestroika has been recognised as inevitable due to the catastrophic state of the Soviet economy; it would mirror the frustration over socialism and a crisis of its ideals and highest goals. Nothing could be further from the truth than such interpretations, whatever motives may be behind them. Of course, the discontent about how things have developed in our country in recent years has been a major reason for us to launch Perestroika. However, to a far greater extent, it was the realisation that the potential of socialism had been made use of insufficiently. Now, as we are celebrating the 70th birthday of our revolution, we are becoming very much aware of this. We have at our disposal a sound material basis, rich experience [an allusion, definitely, to Lenin’s deceptive ‘New Economic Policy’ of the 1920s, after which the alleged reforms of the 1980s were modelled], and a clear worldview [meaning, that of Marxism-Leninism!!!]. With that foundation, we are able to focussedly and continuously improve our society and work on making ever greater use of all our activities, qualitatively and quantitatively [in other words, Perestroika represents the total mobilisation of all resources, be they economic, political, diplomatic, military, or intelligence].” (GtoE)

The works of Lenin and his ideals of socialism remained for us an inexhaustible source of dialectical creative thought, theoretical wealth and political sagacity… Turning to Lenin has greatly stimulated the Party and society in their search to find explanations and answers to the questions that have arisen… The Leninist period is indeed very important. It is instructive that it proved the strength of Marxist-Leninist dialectics, the conclusions of which are based on an analysis of the actual historical situation. Many of us realised even long before the [1985] Plenary Meeting that everything pertaining to the economy, culture, democracy, foreign policy – all spheres – had to be reappraised.” (TEUC, page 14)

We are not going to change Soviet power, of course, or abandon its fundamental principles, but we acknowledge the need for changes that will strengthen socialism… The essence of ‘perestroika’ is that it … revives the Leninist concept of socialist construction both in theory and in practice.” (TEUC, page 14)

“They tell us that nothing will come of ‘perestroika’ within the framework of our system. They say we should change the system and borrow from the experience of another socio-political system. To this they add that, if the Soviet Union takes this path and gives up its socialist [i.e. communist] choice, close links with the West will supposedly become possible. They go so far as to claim that the October 1917 Revolution was a mistake [it wasn’t just a ‘mistake’, it marked the implementation of hell on earth!!!] which almost certainly cut off our country from world social progress.” – “To put an end to all the rumours and speculations that abound in the West about this, I would like to point out once again that we are conducting all our reforms in accordance with the socialist [i.e. communist] choice. We are looking within socialism [i.e. within communism], rather than outside it, for the answers to all the questions that arise. We assess our successes and errors alike by socialist [i.e. communist] standards. Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist [i.e. communist] path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our programme of ‘perestroika’ – and the programme as a whole, for that matter [HERE we have a clear hint to their longrange strategy in service of the world revolution] – is fully based on the principle of more socialism [i.e. more communism] and more democracy [i.e. more collectivism].” (TEUC, page 37)

“Despite all contradictions in today’s world, despite the variety of societal and political systems, and despite the different paths nations have taken in history, this world remains an undividable whole. We are all passengers on board of Ship Earth, and we must not allow it to be destroyed. There won’t be a second Noah’s Ark.” [This is the exact language of the so-called environmental movement, that is simply being used as a vehicle for the implementation of brutal, merciless communism worldwide. Gorbachev himself was deeply involved in the Earth Summit of 1993 and also set up in the ’90s an alleged environmental organisation by name of Green Cross International.] (GtoE)

“We openly confess that we refuse the hegemonial endeavours and globalist claims of the United States. We are not pleased by some aspects of American policy and of the American Way of Life [!!!]. But we respect the right of the American people, just as the right of all other peoples, to live along its own rules and laws, its own morals and inclinations [!!!!!!!!].” (GtoE)

“We do not hold any evil intent towards the American people [an outright lie!]. We are ready and willing to cooperate with them in all fields [but why this eagerness for cooperation if there is still this unchanged ‘anti-bourgeois’ contempt???]. Yet, we want cooperation on the basis of equality, reciprocity, and mutual understanding. Sometimes we are more than disappointed, and even have serious doubts, when our country is termed by the United States [accurately so] an aggressor and ‘evil empire’. The most unbelievable stories and lies about us are being disseminated, mistrust and enmity are being shown towards our people, limitations are being used against us, and uncivilised behaviour blamed upon us. This proofs of intolerable shortsightedness [a clear threat!].” (GtoE)

“Time doesn’t stand still, and we must not let pass it in vain. We need to act. The world situation doesn’t allow us to wait for the most convenient moment: We need a constructive and comprehensive dialogue, and we need it now. Nothing else it is we are aiming at when we connect, via TV, Soviet and American cities, Soviet and American politicians and personalities of the public domain, as well as ordinary American and Soviet citizens. We let our media present the whole spectrum of Western positions, among them even the most conservative [if it only were true …]. We encourage contacts to people who represent other world views and other political convictions. In this way, we express our view that such practice is a step on the way towards a world acceptable for both sides [!!!!!].” (GtoE)

“The necessity for change was forming not only in the higher political circles but also, and visibly, in the public’s consciousness [there’s no ‘public’ under communist tyranny, there’s only the PARTY!]. People who had practical experience, a sense of justice, and were committed to the ideals of Bolshevism, were criticising the established practice and worriedly sensed indications of moral disintegration and weakening of revolutionary ideals and socialist values. Workers, farmers and intellectuals, party functionaries in the capital and in the various regions were thinking over the situation in the country. One was becoming increasingly aware that things couldn’t go on like this much longer. Consternation and unwillingness were building up as the respected values of the October Revolution and of the heroic fight for socialism were being trampled on. [!!!]” (GtoE)

Perestroika is a word with many meanings. But if we want to pick from these synonyms the most important one that most aptly expresses its nature, we are saying: Perestroika is a revolution. And undoubtedly is the decisive acceleration of the socio-economic and cultural development of Soviet society along with drastic changes, that aim at a qualitatively new state, indeed a revolutionary task.” (GtoE)

We need to endow the historical impulse of the October Revolution with a new dynamic, and push forward what our society has begun through it. That does not mean, of course, that we equate Perestroika to the October Revolution, an event that marked a turning point in the thousand years’ history of our country and that was unique in its influence on the development of mankind.” (GtoE)

“Perestroika is a revolutionary process for it is a leap forward in the development of socialism, in the realisation of its crucial characteristics.” (GtoE)

“What is meant [by the term ‘revolution from above’] is profound and essentially revolutionary changes implemented on the initiative of the authorities themselves but necessitated by objective changes in the situation. It may seem that our current perestroika could be called ‘revolution from above’. True, the perestroika drive started on the Communist Party’s initiative, and the Party leads it. I spoke frankly about it at the meeting with Party activists in Khabarovsk [already] in the summer of 1986. We began at the top of the pyramid and went down to its base, as it were. Yes, the Party leadership started it. The highest Party and state bodies elaborated and adopted the program. True, perestroika is not a spontaneous but a governed process. (TEUC, page 83. – No further explanation needed. Gorbachev, or his ghostwriters, most openly reveal the facts all by themselves: Plannedly and controlledly, the Party and State organs reshaped themselves into a ‘new form’ more suitable to carry out the final bit of the world revolution. That was all.)

l

8. SOME FINAL THOUGHTS, PRIOR TO AND AFTER THE 2012 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

In the first US Presidential television debate of October 3, 2012 (that this author watched live from beginning to end, and with great amazement), Mitt Romney powerfully reminded the whole world that the ‘Emperor’ indeed has no clothes. Obama visibly would have wished to be somewhere else, as he was being literally destroyed by the minute (however, strangely, he didn’t seem to bother). Going by conventional standards (that in these last four years no longer applied), Mitt Romney may very likely win the election. But will in such case a defeated Obama, who is a determined communist revolutionary (and a dangerously narcissistic sociopath), really vacate the White House? And even if he will, does that mean that the overall leftish climate will just go away, that Russia and China will miraculously stop pushing for communist world government? Certainly not! The far Left would consolidate itself and would even more easily be able to trigger anarchy and civil war from outside the Presidency rather than from within it. As some analysts have already noted: Should Romney win (and he isn’t there yet), and his victory not be stolen by a Democratic rigging of the vote, it might turn out – on the long run – as little more than a Pyrrhic victory.

UPDATE as of Nov. 11, 2012: Well, as we now know, Romney didn’t win at all. He lost 206 : 332 by electoral vote, 47.9% : 50.6% by popular vote, and 24 : 26 by states. Although to hope for a landslide victory for Mitt Romney certainly was over the top, nevertheless this defeat came as a harsh surprise for a conservative America that had in part already been celebrating Obama’s leave for January 2013. How this completely inapt ‘President’ and meanwhile notorious communist still managed to stay in office, may well forever remain a mystery. Had the Republican campaign been too weak, too ‘civilised’, too defensive? Too narrow in its approach, anxiously avoiding the key facts about Obama’s ultra-communist background, his youth mentor (and possibly biological father), CPUSA activist Frank Marshall Davis, his strategic spiritual father, Marxist instructor Saul Alinsky, his close friends and allies, unrepentant Weatherman terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, all the helpers and enablers from the far left such as Alice Palmer or Louis Farrakhan, and from aggressive Wahhabi Islam such as Khalid al-Mansour? Had it been the completely frustrating left-wing domination of the mainstream media? A shift in America’s demographics towards a higher percentage of Blacks and Latinos? A youth too superficial to grasp any more the difference between glossy presentation and solid substance? A steady Marxist ideological diet fed to America’s young in schools and universities (as well as by the media and entertainment industries) at least since the 1960s? OR, WAS THE ELECTION SIMPLY RIGGED??? – Communists aren’t especially known for any playing by the rules whatsoever. What they do, instead, is break the rules as effectively as they can until they are in a position to change them entirely. Game over. With all due respect for the incurable optimists who try to keep up their own and everybody else’s morale, let’s face it: America should have never ever voted this man into office back in 2008! Now, in 2012, that he was already in power, it was an all-too-easy fait accompli! – One could even compare the United States of 2008 to 2012 to post-WWII Czechoslovakia from 1945 to 1948. Although like the whole of Eastern Europe cynically delivered by Roosevelt into Stalin’s sphere of influence, the country was still ‘allowed’ its well-established parliamentary system for the moment. However, ONLY UNTIL Stalin finally decided in 1948 enough was enough and swiftly ‘transformed’ Czechoslovakia into a one-party communist dictatorship as rigid as the Soviet Union itself!

So much to analyse! And yet, so little time left, if any, in this continuing and certainly deepening Obama nightmare (that is only part of the wider picture of a globally coordinated communist takeover everywhere on this planet). The revolution is in full gear, and God alone knows what the United States will look like in 2016 and whether there will ever be the chance for conservative America to bring about a restoration of the original Constitutional Republic.

_________________________________

l

APPENDIX I: BARACK OBAMA: THE SOVIET UNION’S CHOSEN ONE

A. JEFF NYQUIST (‘OUTSIDE THE BOX’) INTERVIEWS (a) TOM FIFE: ‘THE FIRST TIME I HEARD OF BARACK’ (I.E. IN 1992); AND (b) ANNE LEARY: BILL AYERS CLAIMS FULL AUTHORSHIP FOR OBAMA’S AUTOBIOGRAPHY, ‘ DREAMS FROM MY FATHER’ (FULL AUDIO TRANSCRIPTS BY THIS AUTHOR)

l

Political Analyst Jeff Nyquist interviews computer expert Tom Fife, who had been witness to a more than ominous slip of the tongue, or outburst, on the part of a committed Russian communist at a private dinner party in Moscow in early 1992 (!!!), where Mr. Fife had been engaged in an American-British-Russian joint venture project. – Transcript done by this author from the original Jeff Nyquist audio. The conversation was released as an mp3-podcast on February 8, 2010, but the actual broadcast on Jeff Nyquist’s radio programme “Outside the Box” seems to have been earlier, presumably somewhere in 2009. Though this live radio talk was fairly casual in tone, it was nevertheless both completely serious and very substantial. It is highly recommended to listen to this amazing historical time document directly, as can be found as an mp3 file on: http://www.jrnyquist.com/rss/jrnpodcast.xml under “Tom Fife and Anne Leary Interviews”: As one listens to the interview, one can’t help very much liking Mr. Fife and sensing him as an absolutely genuine and trustworthy gentleman speaking with great humbleness as well as clarity! There have been other interviews with Mr. Fife on this same topic – the one on Jeff Rense Radio is presented, in full, further below, simply because it wonderfully complements this interview with Jeff Nyquist -, but the one given to Jeff Nyquist is slightly more in-depth and more thoughtful. American Free Press published on March 23, 2009 an article written by Tom Fife himself: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/global_elite_picked_obama_171.html. Also, Tom Fife has a brief report on his own website under the title “The First Time I Heard of Barack”: http://www.americantownmeeting.com/Essays.php (click there on ‘Original Essays: On Barack Obama’). Quite significantly, Tom Fife’s shocking revelations, that add such an important piece to the puzzle of what and who Obama really is, went viral on the alternative media but were completely ignored by the “official” mainstream.

The second conversation within that radio programme was then with conservative blogger Anne Leary, who told her eye-opening story of a brief, incidental encounter with former Weather Underground terrorist and Obama buddy, Bill Ayers, at Ronald Reagan Airport at Washington D.C., during which Bill Ayers three times repeated, despite or maybe because Anne Leary had identified herself as a conservative blogger, that it was actually him who had written Barack Obama’s myth-maker book, “Dreams from My Father”!!! This transcript is included here as well. – Words not picked up from the audio, at times, are given as question-marks within square brackets. Sorry about this shortcoming.

JEFF NYQUIST’S INTRODUCTORY WORDS: Welcome to another edition of ‘Outside the Box’. I am Jeff Nyquist, your host. And tonight I have two special guests: Tom Fife, an American businessman and physicist, and Anne Leary, a conservative blogger  from ‘backyardconservative.blogspot.com’. The thing that’s interesting about these two stories is the way that they dovetail and work together, and perhaps even make us afraid. Perhaps some of you remember Whittaker Chambers, who was a communist back in the 1930s who turned around and ended up coming before American authorities to expose Alger Hiss, former Assistant Secretary of State, as a communist agent. We now know also, because of other Soviet spies that turned against their network, that Harry Dexter White, the Secretary of the Treasury appointed by Harry Truman, was also involved in a spy network, two spy networks actually, that were in Washington at the time. More than a half a century ago, they called it ‘The Red Scare’. You may remember the name Joseph McCarthy, and McCarthyism. Joseph McCarthy was a United States Senator who said that communists were infiltrating the government. He held hearings, but in those hearings, appearing on television, Senator McCarthy looked like a bully, and so it got a bad name looking for communists. But the communists, they were infiltrating the United States, they were subverting it, because the business of communists is revolution. And what we have is a book named “The Web of Subversion [: Underground Networks”] by James Burnham [orig. John Day Co., New York 1954; reprint i.a.: The Americanist Library, 1965], which describes how this process works. James Burnham himself: a former communist. We now know in more recent times that the head of the CIA for watching the former Soviet Union, Aldrich Ames, was actually a Soviet agent himself. We know that Robert Hanssen of the FBI, who was responsible for watching Russia for the FBI, was also a Soviet and then a Russian agent himself. The ability of the Russians to penetrate the most sensitive positions in enemy intelligence services and enemy governments is well-documented in the history of the Cold War. And so I make this my introduction to show people that these things are not fantasy. These spy stories are not just make-belief, they’re real. I will be back with my first guest, Tom Fife, and he’s going to tell you a story about possible communist infiltration of the American political system. I will be back after these messages. [ – commercial break – ]

JEFF NYQUIST: Well, here we are on ‘Outside the Box’, and I’ve got a very special guest, a man, a businessman, a physicist, an American, who has experience working in Moscow, overseas, he had Russian business associates, and he has a very interesting, illuminating story to tell, and I want to welcome Tom Fife to the show. Tom, are you there?

TOM FIFE: Yes, I am.

NYQUIST: Tom, tell us a little bit about your business background. Now, you are trained as a physicist, and you’ve worked with developing some of the technology in handheld devices, I understand.

FIFE: Particularly programming for the early versions of the pen computers.

NYQUIST: And you have one time got involved in a sort of a joint venture project with Russians back in the early 1990s. Maybe you can tell us a little bit about that.

FIFE: Yes. Well, it grew out of an episode where I met an Englishman who was doing relief work for the Russians back when it looked like the society was about really to collapse back in about ’91, and he talked to me whether I could go over with him to help them, and in the process of doing all that work I got to know some of the people who were involved in the Russian Academy of Science, and these guys were all physics types too, and so we had an affinity for, you know, for each other, we had common interests and everything. And they were a lot of programmers themselves, and they told us that they were very keen on trying to get a connection with some Western companies and maybe doing some joint ventures with them. And that indeed was what we ended up doing.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm. And in early ’92 or so – 

FIFE: Well, the British guy had a consultancy doing accounting, and he built up an umbrella corporation that was British, that the Russians and our American group would be under.

NYQUIST: So, you set the stage kind of what you were doing in Moscow in ’92. Maybe you can describe a very interesting experience you had. You were at a dinner party in Moscow?

FIFE: Yes. We had been in Moscow, and we had been working with these people, getting everything organised. And, it turns out that the Russians already had constructed this little company of their own, that was within the Russian Academy of Sciences. And, so we just had a hook into that, so to speak. And the head of that little company was a physicist, and his wife, they were the heads of the company, the people we actually worked with directly.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And we were on our way back home, and – as is pretty common tradition, you know – before you go back you always have a little kind of good-bye party. And that’s what this was. We were called gathered together, some of the Russians and the Americans that were there, the British guy was there, and we had this little party in the physicist’s and his wife’s apartment, the flat there.

NYQUIST: And so you guys were eating and drinking and making toasts, I assume.

FIFE: Yes, it’s a Russian tradition to do these toasts, and the way they usually do it is they’ll work around the table, and everyone will have their turn, and they’ll pour a little bit of Vodka out, you know, they’ll give their toast, everyone tosses it back, and then after a little bit more discussion then the next guy down the line will go ahead and propose a toast, and they’ll go along. And we were doing that, and we were eating our meal at the same time. And just have, you know, just have a general discussion, it was just a light-hearted thing.

NYQUIST: And so, eventually somebody gives a toast that provokes an interesting, more interesting kind of discussion; or a monologue, perhaps.

FIFE: It turned into a monologue, yes. My American friend, who was there with me, he for whatever reason didn’t want to propose the toast, he just wanted to go ahead and say what he thought about things; about observations he had made, about being in Russia. And for some reason he was caught by the different racial types that he saw in Russia, I think he thought that they would be more homogeneous or something. But there is a little bit of variety in the Russian people.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And one of the things that he was noting was high cheek-bones in some of them. And so he was remarking about the influence of the Mongols and stuff like that, and I think it was that point that the wife took a little bit of offence at. And, I know that they’re a little bit sensitive about the whole Mongol thing, you know, they were subjugated for 400 years or something like that; and it’s not something they look at very fondly. But the whole thing they were talking about here really ended up being her response to that remark, that she wanted to correct him on what a true Russian is, racially. And she described what she called a round Russian face, and she was talking about what villages you can go to to actually see, you know, to see the perfect Russian. And one of the funny things was somewhat she was like describing herself.

NYQUIST: Now, this is the wife of the head of the Russian company from the Academy of Science that you were working with.

FIFE: Correct.

NYQUIST: So, she is responding sort of sensitively about this remark about Russians having Mongol features?

FIFE: Yes. And – you know, she didn’t get out of control like: ‘wow!’ But you could tell that she was miffed, and she started to say things like, “You Americans should talk about race or something. Look at your race relationships back home!” And she was particularly talking about, you know, the black problems we have, you know, the riots, and then she said, “Well, you’re going to be quite surprised because you’re going to have a black president very soon.” And, of course, when she said something like that, it was kind of a surprise, because, you know: How would she know!

NYQUIST: Yeah, how would she know, and, you know, it’s interesting, just, I’m remembering, you told me before off-air that this conversation occured in February of ’92, and I’m remembering that the Los Angeles riots, in relation to the Rodney King affair, happened, I think, in January of ’92, if I’m remembering right, or maybe that was earlier in February ’92, but it was about that same time.

FIFE: I think you’re right. It was very close to that.  

[The Rodney King incident happened in fact on March 3, ‘92. The Los Angeles riots lasted from April 29 till May 4, ‘92, following the acquittals of 3 police officers who had been filmed whilst using excessive force against African American traffic law offender Rodney King, which document brought the case nationwide attention.]

NYQUIST: So she’s going on about “You are going to have a black president …

FIFE: Hmhmm.

NYQUIST: … one day.” Now we do have one. Now, this is very curious. So, what did she go on to say? And did any of the Russians there try to stop her from going on in this direction?

FIFE: Well, the other Russians in the room were, I would say, subaltern to her, and they just sat there and were riding it out.

NYQUIST: Now, when you say they were subaltern to her, that there was some kind of power that she had, she was some kind of special person?

FIFE: Well, what they’d told me was that she was an apparatchik of some sort, within the Communist Party …

NYQUIST: Aha.

FIFE: … and that she was doing what they call climbing two ladders.

NYQUIST: I see.

FIFE: I got the impression she was one of these people who would be in a group and she would be the Party contact for them.

NYQUIST: Now, that’s interesting because in February of ’92 the Communist Party Soviet Union had been disbanded! [!!!!!]

FIFE: Yeah.

NYQUIST: So, that is very interesting.

[The CPSU had been formally “dissolved”, i.e. went into hiding, shortly after the staged “August Coup”, as early as August 29, 1991. The remaining “non-Communist” USSR was then formally “abandoned”, i.e. relabelled as the CIS, during December 1991. – Thus, this “little” detail alone CONFIRMS the seamless Soviet-Communist continuity after 1991 to this very day!!! – There has remained, though, a Communist Party of the Russian Federation under Gennady Syuganov, which constitutes one faction in the fake party pluralism of “post-Soviet Russia”. In fact, they all represent branches of one and the same old CPSU! “Russian” democracy is a mere play with labels, nothing else. It’s the same old Soviet Union in a new guise.]

NYQUIST: So they were kind of afraid of her, or they kept their distance from her?

FIFE: Yeah. In general, my observation was that they didn’t trust communists in general. But they really didn’t trust anybody who had been up the ladder at all.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm. Sure.

FIFE: They didn’t like it at all.

NYQUIST: Sure. It’s a power system, it was a dictatorship, and of course those people make you afraid because where there is power there is also people being killed and being pushed around, and power is a terrifying thing.

FIFE: Yeah, I heard all kinds of stories about different things that the Party people would do and get away with, you know.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And, so they just sat there with their heads down and, just like I said, were kind of waiting it out. They didn’t participate at all. And from that point on – you know, they had been talking a little bit before – when she was talking and doing her thing here, they were quiet.

NYQUIST: Now, what about her husband? Did he try to stop her?

FIFE: Ah, yeah. About the time that she was saying this thing, ‘Give us a little revelation’, the way she did, he did step up and say, Well – not exactly how he put it – but he was trying to say: How about dropping this, and we do something else or something, and she brushed him off and said, no no, she wasn’t done yet, she had something else to say.

NYQUIST: Hmm.

FIFE: And so, he just kind of moved to the side, and actually he was the one also who seemed like to be just waiting it out, just let her finish with what she was going to say and forget about it.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm. So, what was her explanation in her predicting that there was going to be a black President in the United States?

FIFE: Well, the next shill that she dropped after that was: not only was he going to be black, but that he was going to be a communist, “a Soviet”, she said.

NYQUIST: She called him a Soviet?

FIFE: Yes, she called him a Soviet, yeah.

NYQUIST: That’s quite remarkable. That means not just that he’s a communist with a small ‘c’, it means he’s a Communist with a big ‘C’! [!!!]

FIFE: That’s what it would imply, I think. Yeah. And then she said, you know, she made a comment about: We had a chance to vote for a woman for Vice President, she said, but we didn’t take it. And she was saying that that was one of the reasons that she knew that we were still backwards and not being enlightened and everything.

NYQUIST: Yeah. And of course she is referring to Geraldine Ferraro, who was a Vice Presidential candidate with Walter Mondale in 1984.

FIFE: That’s immediately what I was taking it to be. Yeah.

NYQUIST: Yeah. Until this last election where Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was on, I think that was the only other female on a Presidential ticket.

FIFE: Yeah, at least a major ticket, yeah, yeah. And then I think I said something like, “Well, you don’t vote for Vice President, you vote for the President.” And she just walked right over that, and she started talking about this guy that was going to be President. And, first, you know, it was just this ‘fact’ that ‘We’re gonna have this black president’. But then she started talking about him and about the fact that “Oh, this isn’t idle talk,” she says. So, he exists, he has been groomed to be President. And, she said, he has been groomed to be irresistable. And he will be President.

NYQUIST: Hmm.

FIFE: And she said that he had a white mother and he had a black African father.

NYQUIST: Hmm. And so she specifically identified the mother as a white American and the father as a black African.

FIFE: Yes. And she seemed to think that there was something magic in having a black African and not a black American as a father, that she thought that this was great because then he wouldn’t have anything slave baggage to go along with it.

NYQUIST: I see. So, in her Russian mind, not really understanding American politics, she thought having ancestors who’d been in slavery would have been a handicap for someone who were running for the Presidency.

FIFE: Correct.

NYQUIST: Interesting.

FIFE: And I thought it was funny all said and done. That was one of the places when he got a lot of study from, I think, American blacks. They felt like he had side-stepped the whole slave issue somehow, and they didn’t, you know, like he wasn’t quite black enough, or something. I remember there were jokes about that going around at the time.

NYQUIST: So, did she give a name for this black politician they were grooming to be President, that she called “a Soviet” person?

FIFE: Yes. And, she named him as being “Barack”.

NYQUIST: Hmm!

FIFE: And, I thought it was a strange name for, you know, to be coming up with an American President, that he had that name. But then, I said, from what I remember it’s an Arabic word, it means ‘blessing’ or something. And it’s [?] Hebrew, similar Hebrew word, I think like ‘baruch’, they are all related words.    

NYQUIST: Right. Right. Yes.

FIFE: And I said that I think it meant something like ‘blessing’, or something, had something to do with ‘blessing’, or something. And she said, “Yes!” She said that “He IS a blessing!” And she said, I remember she [?] dramatically, this is one of the things when she went a little bit dramatic when she said that, and he’ll be a blessing for our world efforts, or “a blessing for world communism,” I think that’s what she said.

NYQUIST: Hmm. So, did you find it strange that it was an Arab word that was the name of a supposed black President?

FIFE: Yeah, at first, you know, later on, you know, you can see the connection: well, okay, a lot of blacks in Africa are Muslim. But when I said “Arab”, she corrected me. She insisted it was “African”.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm.

FIFE: Then I thought, well, okay, I let her go on, you know, she is convinced it’s an African word. But I knew that was Arabic origin.

NYQUIST: So, she has gone so far as to –, did she provide a last name for this future black President?

FIFE: Yeah, she was a bit, a little bit muddled on that. I think she knew it, but then couldn’t remember it quite correctly because she said maybe she was getting that country and his last name confused, that’s what she said, but she said that she thought that it was “Uganda”. And I said, Uganda, yeah, I was thinking: ‘Uganda’, you know, could be named after a country, but she didn’t say “Kenya”, but she said “Uganda”. So, I’m thinking that she got that confused with “Obama”.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm.

FIFE: I think that she just couldn’t remember the name quite correctly, and maybe in her mind, when she heard “Obama”, she thought “Uganda”; and that’s what stuck in her head, maybe.

NYQUIST: Hmm.

FIFE: But, she did say definitely “Barack”. And it was this thing that sounded like “Obama”.

NYQUIST: Interesting, interesting. I am Jeff Nyquist, and with me is Tom Fife, he’s an American businessman and physicist who has worked in the computer field, and he’s been telling us about a dinner party in Moscow in February of 1992, where a Russian woman came up with this extraordinary statement that “You are going to have a black President some day soon.” And we will be back with more after these messages. Stay tuned. [ – commercial break – ] 

NYQUIST: Alright, we’re back. I’m Jeff Nyquist, and with me is my guest, Tom Fife, an American businessman and physicist who has worked in Russia, and we are going to continue with his story, a very unusual story, about a dinner party in Moscow in February of 1992, where a Russian woman, who’s part of the Communist structures in the former Soviet Union that apparently survived the collapse of the Soviet Union [!!!!!], got sort of miffed during a dinner party in description of a Mongol racial influence in the Russian population and came back with this, “Well, you Americans, you have your racial problems”, and then came up with this extraordinary statement that “You are going to have a black President some day soon,” and of course actually describing a man who has a white mother, an African father, whose name is Barack, who is a Communist, she said, and described him as “Soviet,” which implies that he has some kind of relationship with Moscow.

FIFE: Yes.

NYQUIST: And, Tom, when you said that ‘Barack’ means something like ‘blessing’ in Hebrew or Arabic, she came back with, yes, he will be a blessing to the communist global struggle, whatever.

FIFE: That’s exactly her synonym.

NYQUIST: Yeah. And it’s extraordinary because in 1992 Barack Obama was not even in politics yet. He wasn’t introduced as the chosen successor for a State Senate seat until 1995, when Alice Palmer, who was by the way an admirer of the Soviet Union and very close to a lot of communists and attended the 27th Communist Party Congress in the Soviet Union [of February/March 1986, where the Fourth Party Programme of the CPSU was adopted, that reflected the beginning of the new phase of the communist long-term deception strategy known as ‘perestroika’ and directed by Gorbachev], announced Barack Obama as her successor. Interesting fact! And that announcement, by the way, was made in Bill Ayers’ living room, Bill Ayers being a former Weather Underground terrorist who –, one of his statements about his terrorism is, “I am a communist!” So, this is very interesting and kind of scary that this communist lady in Moscow in ‘92 is aware of this guy that is not even going to be chosen yet for three years to stand for a State Senate seat. What else did she say about this future American President? Anything more specific?

FIFE: Yeah, she seemed to me very intense on trying to drive home the idea that this was a real person, and she knew about him. And she didn’t just go with the name and, you know, Mum and Dad. First she came to the home [?] and was about trying to remember, first she thought Northwest, and then she said, no, no, no, “He is from Hawaii,” and then she said that he had been schooled in the schools of the Presidents, she said he’s “Ivy League”, that’s how she referred to it.

NYQUIST: Ivy League. Hmm.

FIFE: And she said that he was in New York and Chicago and had gone to school in California, and she said that he was currently in Chicago, that’s where he was.

NYQUIST: Interesting. Because Barack Obama attended Occidental College in California, then Columbia in New York, and worked in New York, I believe, three years after graduating, and then moved to Chicago after that.

FIFE: She also said that he was –, soon he was to be entering politics, and it sounded like, it actually sounded like she was saying: everything was under control, you know, like he’s gonna check all his boxes and he’ll climb the ladder, and be President.

NYQUIST: Wow! Did she say anything about his ever visiting the Soviet Union? Did you get the impression that he’d been to the Soviet Union?

FIFE: You know, she didn’t, no. She didn’t say about him being –, if she had, I wouldn’t have been surprised by how much she knew. But she did not say that.

NYQUIST: This is very interesting. I think I mentioned it to you before when we were talking off-air, but Barack Obama’s parents, you know, they met in a Russian class! That’s how they met. In 1960, I believe, was the year that they met, and in that class. They were both taking Russian in Hawaii! It is kind of funny: You hear this from a Russian, and Barack Obama exists because his parents were studying Russian. So, Tom, how did it end, how did she end this monologue she gave about this future black President, how did she kind of conclude, how did it end?

FIFE: Let me say, she –, it was a series of, like I said, a series of details that she was giving that would show that she knew this fellow, and –, oh, the other thing that she said was that, the way she put it was: America was at the same time the big stumbling block for communism plus its biggest hope and that America had to be brought over for everything to work worldwide. [!!!!!]

NYQUIST: Hmm.

FIFE: And so, that, she said, that had to take place. And it was going to take place. And, I think, that was one of the most frightening things about it, was because there wasn’t just a woman mounting off. She had this chilling certainty about it, a self-assuredness about everything she said. That had almost more power than, in some respects, than the words she said. She was just so certain! And it was like foregone conclusion.

NYQUIST: And how did you and the British man and the other American, that were there, how did you receive this information?

FIFE: I think the other two guys were seeing it a little bit more encouragedly than I did. I think I was the one who was probably taken the most abacked by it, for some reason. I think I felt chilled about it.                      

NYQUIST: Hmhmm.

FIFE: The British guy, particularly, is the one that I had a little bit of conversation with, and he remarked that, you know, that all your life you’re growing up you hear everyone talking about communists and taking over the world and everything, and he said, you should all be darn if I just sat here and heard a communist say that they were about to take over the world. And that was his biggest remark about it; the fact that she felt, how I should say, she kind of felt [?]. But my American friend, he didn’t, I don’t remember hearing him remarking anything about it. The only conversation I remember afterwards was only just between me and the Brit.

NYQUIST: Hmm. And, it would be really fascinating if he could be gotten to talk about this now. Have you tried to talk to your British contact? Have you been able to get hold of him?

FIFE: I’ve been, you know, it’s been near almost twenty years that this took place, and it’s kind of a cold search, but I have been getting some help there, and I was able to at least a little bit have contact there with the British guy, and he said he absolutely didn’t want to have anything to do with this. He said he didn’t want to talk about it and he didn’t want to be involved.

NYQUIST: And, so, he didn’t feel any responsibility to talk about it at all that this had happened and that it was –, I mean, when you talked to him, did he remember the incident?

FIFE: He, well, actually I didn’t think we had a chance to really get very much in that direction. I was trying to get him to maybe talk about it somehow, but he didn’t want to talk about it really. And he just said he didn’t want to have anything to do,  you know, because I was saying, “Hey, could you just maybe give a little bit of colour of veracity to what I’m saying because, so far, it was like, you know: This is one guy talking.” And –

NYQUIST: So you called him up, and you said, “Hey, I’ve been on the radio, I’ve been talking about what this Russian woman said at this party.”

FIFE: Yeah. Repeatedly, people will always ask and said, “Well, you know, if we can get something else to be lined up here, you know, that says the same thing, it’ll give it a little bit more strong story and everything. But, he definitely left me knowing that he didn’t want to be involved.

NYQUIST: So he was very quick to brush it off and do not want to –

FIFE: Yeah.

NYQUIST: I see. And what about the other American that was there that kind of inspired the whole thing by talking about Mongols?

FIFE: Well, you know, I’m not sure [laughs]. We had this company together, and the whole thing collapsed right afterwards. It was because of the Russians that the whole thing collapsed.

NYQUIST: Now, that’s interesting to me because I’ve interviewed other businessmen who’ve had dealings in Russia, and the one theme that comes out is that the Americans or the British or the Swedes or whoever it is, they have this big investment in Russia, they have Russian partners, and what then invariably happens is that the Americans or the Swedes or the British lose their money, and the Russian partners end up with everything. Is that kind of what happened to you?

FIFE: Yeah, there was a group of Russians that we were with, and then this other group, to me they came out of the blue, I just was not involved in the whole process of the organisational side of things, I was much more on the technical side. And I was involved with doing the technical things, and the other people were involved with the business side. Somehow they brought in this other guy, who was a Russian, he was with the University of Moscow, and it was through him, or it was actually to him and around him, that everything started to aggregate, and he ended up in control. And I’m not sure of all what went on, but that’s what in the end happened.

NYQUIST: Hmm. Interesting. And, so, the party wrapped up, she’d made these statements, and what interested me and what I think our listeners are wondering is: Okay, you heard this very strange story, it kind of spooked you at the time. How long was it before you realised that this Barack person you heard about, this black American politician, was a real person and that you could see him on TV or read about him or notice he was actually there?

FIFE: Yeah, of course when I went home, at the time I had an act of security clearance.

NYQUIST: Oh! Because you were defence contractor of some kind?

FIFE: Yes, I was involved in another company that had an act of security clearance going. And so whenever I went to Russia, when I got back, I had to be debriefed by the Defence Intelligence Agency, the DIA.

NYQUIST: Right.

FIFE: And an agent would come in scheduled time, and we would chat, and basically before I would go over, he had said, that he wanted to make sure that I would make notes of anybody that I might meet, particularly ones that wanted to be friendly with me, things like that, and so I did that. And so I kept a little diary of what went on when I was over there.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And, I did make notes of this conversation because it did strike me so strongly.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And I did go –, I was debriefed with the guy when I got back and ended up giving him the little notes I’d made on an evening when I got home. But, you know, this was a very vivid thing. It was in my head. As a matter of fact, it was actually so vivid that when I got home, one thing I did do is that I told my son, who was, you know, 12, 13, 14 something at the time, I mentioned to him that, I said, you know, if I’m not around in the future at some time and you hear about a guy, this guy who wants to be President, he’s half white and half black, I said, you got to fight this guy! Because, I just told him enough, I said, he is gonna be no good. And one interesting thing of course is that my son remembers that conversation we had. That’s one point of reality that’s very vivid with him, and he says that’s one thing that he remembers very well because I guess it kind of affected him that I pulled him aside and I felt something strong enough to tell him that. And that stuck with him. Now, of course, with me in the meantime it was just a story, for years and years and years. And I didn’t see this guy, you know, sticking his head up anywhere. And so, it just kind of, you know, stuck in the back of my mind, and every once in a while I think about it, I remember it, you know, something would remind me of it, and an interesting thing that did cause it to pop up in my head every a couple of times since then, when she was describing him, back at the dinner, and she said he was half-white and half-black, she stopped and said, “That’s right, he’s a chocolate baby!” And I thought that was such a queer thing to say, you know, I just didn’t think of –, you know, it’s not in my vocabulary, like [?] people refer to a lot of this stuff [?] every once in a while, but it was an eye-turner phrase for me, and I’ve heard it yet a couple of times since, and when I did hear that, I nearly remember this woman saying it, you know.

NYQUIST: Yeah, it’s a kind of unusual thing to say.

FIFE: Yes, so it stuck in my head, and it has been a trigger a couple of times for me to start thinking about it again. But, what really did it was of course when I saw him at the Democratic National Convention when he gave that famous speech of his.

NYQUIST: In 2004.

FIFE: Yeah, I think, it’s that Purple-speech that people keep talking about, We aren’t red or blue any more, or purple, or something, I don’t know.

NYQUIST: Yeah. I think so, yeah. Because in 2000 he didn’t have any, or any previous Democratic Convention, he didn’t have any platform at all.

FIFE: Yeah. But even there it didn’t register exactly with me because the only thing I knew then was, okay, here is a black guy, his name is Barack, and that, that DID get my attention, and it was afterwards that I started hearing people talk about all the –, you know, they were praising him, actually it was kind of surprising how overflowing with lauding they were doing, that they just couldn’t stop to praise him enough, and then they were talking about how he was a Presidential hopeful, perhaps, you know, and all that type of stuff, and then it was later, not long after that, I started seeing little bio kind of clips on him, and the one that did of course, the very second they talked about him having a white mother and a father from Kenya; that just like: Oh oh! It was like, as if something snapping, you know, hit you in the head, that’s what it felt like. It was like: Oh my God! You know – it was a story! All of a sudden it didn’t seem like a story any more. I felt like: God, I’m right in the middle of something real! And, it really struck me, and, you know, after that I started googling things about him, and everything matches, I mean everything she said connects with the reality of this guy!

NYQUIST: Well, you must have had quite a shock then to realise this person was real and that they were considered to be Presidential timber.

FIFE: Yeah. And, at first it was still kind of like, I was kind of like simmering on the back-burner about this thing, and I have to admit I had an anxious feeling about it, and I felt like: How can I say to anybody what’s going on. So I started saying, you know, I would be with some friends, and I’d go and say “Hey, I got to tell you this story I got …” They half believe me, and they half wonder whether I was making this stuff up, or something.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm.

FIFE: I think the problem is it was enough after the fact, that it wasn’t like I was predicting that much, at that point in time, so –

NYQUIST: No. Now you’re talking about when he started to announce for Presidency and run in the primaries?

FIFE: That’s when I said, I just dropped everything and said I got to get something, get this word out. When I could see that he really was moving towards the nomination. That’s when I really started.

NYQUIST: So that was what: April; or March or April of 2008?

FIFE: It was, yeah, spring of ’08. Yeah.

NYQUIST: And, what did you do? Did you write to newspapers? Did you call radio shows? Did you notify TV stations? How did you approach it?

FIFE: I wrote e-mails to everybody you can think of. All the big names, like all the mogul names, I wrote e-mails to them, wrote paper letters to them.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm. And, did you get any responses?

FIFE: Ah — No. [laughs]

NYQUIST: Wow!

FIFE: No –

NYQUIST: No interest at all??? And, well, in these letters or e-mails you’d write to them: Was it a teaser? Did you tell the whole story? What did you do in these letters?

FIFE: Well, when I started off, you see, I don’t know why, but I didn’t want to just start broadcasting it out total clock, I don’t know why I did or didn’t, maybe that’s good or bad, one way or the other, but I didn’t. And I, the –, the first batch of letters were saying, “I got something that I want to tell you, and it’s very important about Barack Obama,” and I’m not sure [?] I said, maybe that was about it, his background, or something. And no one seemed to care, you know. Maybe they were just flooded with letters like that. Maybe there is enough people out there who have their own little versions or something, I don’t know, but I got no response at all. What actually got something going, finally, was a friend of mine has this rather large e-mail list, a political oriented one, conservative political oriented, and I wrote up a little paragraph, and it’s a paragraph I have out on a website right now, not a paragraph, but a –, it’s the little stories that I have, kind of what I just related, and I have it out there on internet, and it was that text then that I was able to get on to her mailing list. And I did get a little bit of response from that, and eventually it got down to Wiley Drake. And he asked me to come on his show, but I couldn’t get on until actually election day; mid election day, when that little thing took place. And then from him there was an interview with a lady at ‘WorldNetDaily’, Janet Folger [now Janet Porter]. She quoted my figurehead I have on the internet, and after that there was a lot of e-mail to me, and people were asking questions and actually a lot of people were starting to reinforce, they said, “Oh, you know, that I was involved in this and that and the other,” and here’s an example, one of the letters I got, I mentioned in the write-up I had that one of the things that she said was that the three important cities in America for them was New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. She was talking like San Francisco was of some particular importance, and I didn’t understand what she was saying – whatever she was saying just didn’t make a lot of sense to me. And I mentioned just that much in the write-up, and I got an e-mail then from someone who said, “I know what she’s talking about, it was the Gorbachev Institute that was started at the Presidio.” And I got an e-mail then from a lady who said that she was hired by them to write some programming for them. And that’s what she thought it was, this Gorbachev thing.

NYQUIST: So, Tom, tell me about your –, you say you have a website. Let’s give out the web address so that people, listeners can go visit it and maybe read what you have on there.

FIFE: Yeah, it’s a website that my son put together for me, and it’s www.americantownmeeting.com, and it’s just all run together as one word, “americantownmeeting”.

NYQUIST: And, well, I want to thank you, Tom. You are very brave for coming forward with this story. And I know those who disbelieve you will say you’re very evil for coming forward with this story, but you’re certainly brave. And, you know, when I first heard this story, heard about this story, I thought it would have to be a hoax, and then I heard your interview tonight, thought twice, and I have a Ukrainian friend who listened with me, and he, to his mind your details were so authentic to him, being someone who lived the first half of his life in the Soviet Union, that he said this has to be true. And that’s his view on it. So I thought I had to have you on the show, and I had to interview you, and I thought it’s important to add this to the public record so that people can think about it, because it’s a testimony of a witness. The listeners can determine the credibility of the witness, that’s their responsibility, but I think that the witness has come forward, and we need to listen to the witness. So I want to thank you for coming on the show.

FIFE: I want to thank you very much for having me. It’s something I think it –, you know, you put yourself in my shoes: I have to come forward. I can’t imagine waking up in some future time not having come forward, or at least tried to get it across, and to see what maybe have happened to the country and everything, and I have been quiet, you know, silent, and the whole thing. I have to come forward. That’s the way, I just have to.

NYQUIST: Yeah. It makes perfect sense. Well, thank you, Tom, Tom Fife, for being with us on the show today, and I’ve got another guest after the break with more on Barack Obama’s background. [ – commercial break – ]

JEFF NYQUIST: I’m Jeff Nyquist. We’re back. It’s ‘Outside the Box’, and with me in this segment is a conservative blogger of “backyardconservative.com”.

ANNE LEARY: “.blogspot.com”.

NYQUIST: Ah. Okay. “backyardconservative”, okay. It’s Anne Leary, and say it again, it’s “backyardconservative ?”

LEARY: “.blogspot.com”.

NYQUIST: “.blogspot.com”! Okay.

LEARY: But you can just search it, and you’ll find it. If you just search for “backyardconservative”, it’ll come up.

NYQUIST: And it’s a very interesting blog, and it’s –, Anne is very politically active at the local level, I take it, and –

LEARY: Not so much now, but I used to be quite a bit more. Now I just BLOG!

NYQUIST: Now you just blog. And, so, anyway, Anne, you’ve made some little bit of news lately among the conservative bloggers, and I was forwarded a piece, an interview done with you by AmericanThinker about an encounter that you had with the infamous Bill Ayers in the Ronald Reagan Airport in Washington some time ago. Could you maybe tell our listeners about that?

LEARY: Sure. Yeah, it was about a week ago, on Monday, and it was in the morning, and I was headed back from Chicago, I’d been there for a meeting, and then I look up while I was having a coffee at Starbucks before I went through the security, and I look up and I see this kind of scruffy-faced guy who, you know, he looks a little older, and he had a backpack, and I thought: Wow! This is not your normal, you know, 60+ year-old. And I looked at him, and he got closer, and then I saw yet that earring in his ear, and I thought: THAT’S BILL AYERS!!! So, I mean, I’ve been tracking him for, I mean, you know, his videos, and things that he said, because he’s from Chicago and he’s a good friend of Barack Obama even though the President denies it essentially. So I thought I’m gonna get a picture of him and find out where he is speaking. So I grabbed my BlackBerry, and I had to delete a picture because I had, you know, tourist pictures on there. So, I thought, okay, and I had one shot, and I followed him, and I thought, okay, I’m gonna go passed him, and I did. I turned around, planted myself, took the picture, and then I said, “What are you doing in D.C., Mr. Ayers?” And, just as I took the picture, he turned. So I was really lucky, I got his face, a pretty good shot so everybody could see it was Bill Ayers, you know, seeing the picture.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm.

LEARY: And he, you know, he gave me kind of an uneasy smile then when he realised that I was taking his picture. But after that he didn’t smile at all, and I just asked him, and he told me he was speaking at an education conference, and so I asked him where, so I was kind of fishing a little bit, okay, I thought, okay, all this kind of play along a little bit, and then I think he was trying to decide if I was a fan or not, something. So he said, “That’s what I do: education,” and speaking at this Renaissance lecture. And then he said, “You shouldn’t believe everything you hear about me! You know nothing about me!” Wow! That got me kind of mad because he is an unrepentant domestic terrorist. So I just said, “Well, I know plenty. I’m from Chicago, I’m a conservative blogger, and I’m going to post this!” Well, then I thought for sure he would just go off, you know –

NYQUIST: laughing

LEARY: and would be aggravated and go. – Well, he didn’t! He stood there, and I could see kind of a wheel turning in his head, and then he looked to me straight in the eye – and, you know, no snark, no sarcasm, no jokie stuff –, he just looked at me and he said, “I wrote ‘Dreams from My Father’!” And I said, “Ha???” I said, “So you admit it?” I mean, just like “What???”

NYQUIST: Now, just to explain to the listeners, ‘Dreams from My Father’ is Barack Obama’s first autobiographical book! [It came out in 1995.]

LEARY: Right. Right. This is like his myth-maker book, that –, you know, people voted for him, some, just on the strength of the miracle, you know, poetry of this autobiography about, you know, his father, and his upbringing. And, so, this is like a core to Barack Obama’s, his mystique as, you know, being this wonderful American-dream-kind-of person.

NYQUIST: Right.

LEARY: So, I was pretty incredulous. I mean, anyway, I said, “Oh, so you admit it, because obviously there have been rumours about this for some time.” But, anyway, then he said to me, “Michelle asked me to.” Then, I just, I’m thinkin’, Wow! That is really a stunner because he is bringing Michelle into this. He’s upping the antes! And, but then I thought, well, this is Bill Ayers, you know, he dances on the Flag, he dances around the truth, so, you know, I just kind of looked at him, and then he went on to say, “Oh, and if you can prove it, we can split the royalties.” So, I said, “Oh, well, fine,” I said, “Oh, stop pulling my leg!” So I thought then he would leave. He had had his little fun. But no! He came again! And this time he’s looking really serious, it’s like almost like he’s pleading with me. And he says, “I really wrote it! The wording was similar!” And so then I said, “What! I believe you probably heavily edited it.” And then he said for the third time, “I WROTE IT!” And then I got mad because I thought, well, he can prove if he wrote it or not, I mean this was written years ago, and he hasn’t said it up until now, and he’s gone along with this whole charade that, you know, Obama, you know, it’s his ‘work of his life’ to write this book. So I said, “Why would I believe you, you’re a liar!”

NYQUIST: [laughing]  And he is a revolutionary communist to boot!                                       

LEARY: Wow! Yes, falsie communist! I mean, he’s a bomber, he is a domestic terrorist! Yeah, but you can’t say, you know, come out and say a lot of this stuff even in the book said he claims he has written because there is no statute of limitations on murder, I mean there are still some cases that are open.

NYQUIST: Yeah.

LEARY: So after I’d called him a liar, then he finally realised that he couldn’t say much more to me. So then he walked off, but he just kind of talked over his shoulder, “Well, if you can prove it, we’ll split the royalties.” So, you know, the way I figure it, I think he wanted to get this out there, but he wants plausible deniability, I mean, it’s my word against his, but –

NYQUIST: Right.

LEARY: – you know: He said it. I reported it, just as he said it.

NYQUIST: He wanted to get it off his chest to somebody, but he wanted it to be deniable.

LEARY: Right. Right. But then it’s kind of interesting because, you know, initially people are like questioning the –, you know, my veracity, that I, so that supposedly that I wouldn’t make this whole thing up. Well, that’s kind of ridiculous. Why would I do that? I mean, I’m not putting my credibility on the line for Bill Ayers!

NYQUIST: laughs.

LEARY: But, but then, you know, I think that National Review found something, or the National Journal, which is the Charlie Cook inside the Buckley [Bradley?] Publication, head to head, they’ve been at some kind of, one of these lectures, and they actually asked Bill Ayers if he wrote the book, a week or two ago. And he kind of jokily said, “Oh yeah, you can quote me. I wrote it. I met with the President three or four times, and then I wrote the book. Ha ha ha.” And they kind of took it, “Ha ha ha.” Well, that never went anywhere. Nobody ever heard that he said that. I mean, they put it on one of their little blogs, and it was kind of a –, you had to pay to read it, so it just never went anywhere. And, of course, everybody thought it’s all “jokie-jokie”. So, I think what he is doing, you know, obviously there was no buzz there, he must want this out. He must want this out. I think he saw this opportunity, and he took it. And even if, you know, not many people have heard of my blog, and, you know, of course, he didn’t know me from Adam, I’m still sure that he thought, you know, the way the internet would go and given his notoriety, that it would make a buzz. And I think further, the reason, when I think he decided to tell me, because I was a conservative blogger, and he figured it would get around, and, you know, actually it didn’t just go around the conservative blogosphere, I think this was in his calculation, the only way the mainstream media would pay attention to it is if it did go around the conservative blogosphere. Because, you know, he would have plausible deniability, and they would want to debunk it. But it would still get out there! It would still get buzz. And –

NYQUIST: So people would be left to wonder whether he wrote it or not.

LEARY: Right. And, you know, I mean it wasn’t just a question of yanking the conservative blogger’s chain. He is yanking President Obama’s chain! You know.

NYQUIST: laughing

LEARY: He is like upping the antes, and he brings Michelle in there! And, you know, in fact, I got like 30,000 some hits on this thing. And it went up on to the top of the memorandum, which is the kind of the buzz, it’s more liberal biased buzz, to the point where the New York Times Caucus Blog called me a “stalker”. They felt like they had to attack me. You know, Bill Ayers is the victim here, of course! You know.

NYQUIST: [Laughing] Oh man! “Anne Leary: Stalker-Blogger!”

LEARY: Yeah, so, anyway, I think people pretty much believe that it went down the way I said because there’s no way I’m a stalker, I only met the guy the first time. And it was clear when I posted that I was very skeptical. And I said I was. So, people can make up their own minds, but it’s clear to me that he wants this out there. And in fact, after all, said and done, I actually do think he wrote it, but I don’t think he’ll admit it any time soon.

NYQUIST: Hmhmm. Interesting. Anne Leary of “backyardconservative.blogspot.com,” right? Am I saying that right?

LEARY: That’s right. Very good. Thank you!

NYQUIST: Alright. Well, thank you for being with us! – I will be back after these messages. [ – commercial break – ]

JEFF NYQUIST’S CLOSING WORDS: Well, ladies and gentlemen, you’ve heard a couple of interesting stories from witnesses, and I would like to conclude by quoting Bill Ayers himself, Bill Ayers, the self-declared communist and communist revolutionary, I should say, and former member of the Weather Underground organisation, a terrorist organisation from the 1960s and ‘70s. This is what Bill Ayers said at an education conference in Venezuela recently. He said,

“This is my fourth visit to Venezuela, each time at the invitation of my comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice. Luis has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle – I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.

Again, that’s Bill Ayers, who in 1969 declared, “We are revolutionary communists!” Bill Ayers, the friend of our President, Barack Obama. – Bill Ayers. – Well, Bill Ayers.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us. I hope you’ll visit my website at “jrnyquist.com”, or you can go to “strategiccrisis.com”, all one word “strategiccrisis.com”. There you’ll find videos and other information, and I hope you will join me, Jeff Nyquist, your host, on another ‘Outside the Box’ next week at the same time. Until then, God bless!

B. JEFF RENSE (rense.com) INTERVIEWS TOM FIFE: ‘THE FIRST TIME I HEARD OF BARACK’ (I.E. in 1992); FULL AUDIO TRANSCRIPT BY THIS AUTHOR

Same interviewee, same topic, probably also broadcast in 2009. Yet, different radio host, and thus an entirely different conversation. This one below greatly confirms and complements the interview conducted by Jeff Nyquist. (Also, make sure you don’t miss the original 41-minute audio! Tom Fife is 100% credible!) 

JEFF RENSE: Okay. Welcome back. We’ll spend this hour talking to Mr. Tom Fife. I remember reading this article when it came out, and it was so impelling and compelling and downright fascinating that people were e-mailing me, asking me if it was real, if it was a hoax, how could this be real! It’s entitled, “The First Time I Heard of Barack”, and the author is my guest, Tom Fife. Welcome to the programme, Tom!

TOM FIFE: Ah – Hello!

RENSE: Hi! Glad you’re here.

FIFE: Yeah, well, thanks for having me.

RENSE: My pleasure! Charlotte Iserbyt set this up, and we have to thank Charlotte as well. Now, this essay, “The First Time I Heard of Barack”, really did go around the world. It got a lot of reading, a lot of exposure, on my site, and as I just mentioned, I got e-mails about it and so forth. You might just kind of walk us through that and explain to us how this article came to be and what’s behind it, because it’s most intriguing.

FIFE: Okay. Well, it’s kind of A Tale of Two Cities, in a certain respect. It occurred of course back in ’92, in a dinner conversation in Moscow.

RENSE: What were you doing in Moscow, Tom?

FIFE: Yes. I was a software developer, and I was over there with a British friend doing some relief work –

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: – for the -, it was at the time of the Soviet Union collapsing, –

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: – and so I went over there with him, he invited me over there to help with some what he called infrastructure work, and that was basically to set up a network of fax-machines so these people could communicate to each other on the telephone lines. And, well, basically we went over to do this relief work –

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: – and I got to know some people with the Russian Academy of Science, and we started chatting, and we decided we had some common ground in developing some software, and so that’s why I was there, or that’s why I ended up there in early ’92.

RENSE: Right.

FIFE: And, I, we were talking to the people there, and –

RENSE: Now, this occurred at a dinner, the primary disclosure.

FIFE: Yeah.

RENSE: Tell us about the dinner, Tom. How many were there? Where was it held? What kind of an atmosphere was it?

FIFE: Yeah. Well, the people who sponsored it were people who were the head of the mirror company that existed in Russia for this little joint venture we had established.

RENSE: Okay.

FIFE: And we were on our way back to America, and they said, ‘Well, come on over, and we’ll have dinner tonight.’

RENSE: Right.

FIFE: And, this was like the night before we came back.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And, so we went over to their flat.

RENSE: How many people were there altogether?

FIFE: Oh – about, about, I’d say about ten.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And –

RENSE: Who were these people?

FIFE: Yeah, they were –

RENSE: I don’t expect names, but I mean: what kind of people were they? Professionals? Scientists?

FIFE: Scientists, for the most part. Almost everyone there had a degree in Physics – like I did, I have a degree in Physics.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And, the one thing in common that we had was that we were all pulled together for this project.

RENSE: Right.

FIFE: And everyone there were Russians, except for the British friend and an American friend.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And we were the Western half of the whole thing.

RENSE: And the Russians spoke English passably well, obviously?

FIFE: Yeah, particularly the two hosts.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: They were very good. The husband was a physicist, and he was very high up in the Russian Academy of Science. And he had pretty well published, and he was the head of this little company that was the Russian anchor of the joint venture. And his wife, I was told, was some sort of, I guess you might call it an apparatchik, or something.

RENSE: Right.

FIFE: She had a degree of her own in some profession, and she’d be in an organisation where she could exercise her skills, but the same time she was climbing a parallel ladder in the Communist Party [However, this was in February 1992, several weeks after the ‘dissolution’ of the USSR and about half a year after the ‘prohibition’ of the CPSU following the fake theatrical ‘August Coup’ of 1991; which shows without a doubt that the Party structure and everything else had NOT left the scene at all!!!]. And so she was like the communication link between the Communist Party and the organisation. That was what I understood.

RENSE: Right.

FIFE: That’s what I understood what her relationship was.

RENSE: Right. Now, this is 1992, folks, I want you to remember that, we’re getting close to 20 years now. [Unlike Jeff Nyquist in his interview with Tom Fife, Jeff Rense misses the crucial point completely: why was there still a Communist Party in place in the recently ‘abolished’ and allegedly no-more-communist ‘post-Soviet’ Russia of early 1992??? As this ‘little’ detail perfectly confirms the seamless continuity of the USSR beyond 1991 to this day!!!]

FIFE: Yes. And, so we were there, and it was a typical Russian dinner, and what they typically do is then have a bottle of chilled Vodka, and they would have toasts around the table, and when it came up to my American friend’s turn to have a toast, he didn’t actually have a toast so much as he stood up and he just wanted to kind of express his observations about Russia. And, in the process, he was saying that he had observed all these different racial differences, and the bottom line to it was basically that he noted that people had high cheek-bones, and he related that to Mongol blood.

RENSE: Asian genetic [?], sure.

FIFE: Yeah. And he made some comments about that, and with some of them you could tell it was a sore point, –

RENSE: Hmm.

FIFE: – you know, and particularly, I think, with the wife; I think she was a little bit irritated, because as soon as he stopped talking, she kind of took over and started saying things like, ‘Well, you have to understand what the true Russian is,’ and so she started to describe what a Russian is truly, as a race, I guess. That’s what she was starting to talk about. And then this decayed – I can say: decayed – into her wanting to let us know that we were not as perfect as we thought we were.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And so –

RENSE: She was hardcore then. That’s what you’re saying; I get it.

FIFE: Well, she – you know, I was surprised, I really was. I was surprised that she came across that way, because her husband was so easy-going and everything.

RENSE: Well, behind every successful man is an apparatchik, remember that!

FIFE: [Laughing] Yeah, I guess so. – But, anyway, she started this thing about, ‘Well, you think you’re so perfect,’ –

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: – and everything, –

RENSE: American arrogance …

FIFE: Yes. Yes. And then she said, ‘Well, you had a chance to vote for a woman as a Vice President, and you didn’t do it!’

RENSE: Oh oh! A feminist, too – ahh?

FIFE: Yes. And then we said, ‘Well, you don’t vote for the Vice President, you vote for a ticket, you know,’ and she said, ‘Well, you had a chance to do this, this great event of voting for a woman for Vice President, and you didn’t take it.’

RENSE: ‘And you’re gonna pay now, folks …’

FIFE: Okay. And then she said, ‘Oh, you know, the tables are gonna be turned for you.’ [!!!!!]

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And this is where she started to lay the bomb. And that was, she said, ‘Very soon you’re gonna have a black President,’ and then we were all saying, ‘You know, that’s not unimaginable, you know, given the right guy at the right time, why not, you know!’ And then she said, ‘What if I told you that you’re gonna have a black President very, very soon, and he’s gonna be a Communist?’ And it was like, you know – you know, what do you say when someone says that to you. And, so, during this whole time, by the way, the Russians didn’t participate at all – except, you know, except for the two hosts. They all kept their heads down, just kind of listened, and they didn’t make a peep, they didn’t say a word.

RENSE: Wow! That’s amazing! I can just about imagine the silence in that room there!

FIFE: It was! No, no. Yeah. It really was! And so the only people that spoke were a little bit from us on the Western side, but mostly it was the wife that was doing the talking.

RENSE: Hmm. A black President who is a Communist!

FIFE: Exactly.                                                           

RENSE: Now, she said: ‘pretty soon’. What did that mean? This is 1992 now.

FIFE: 1992.

RENSE: The Clintons had just taken over, remember, we’re just stepping into 8 years of the Clintons – or about to.

FIFE: Yeah, well, this was in early 1992. [Bill Clinton wasn’t elected until November 1992.]

RENSE: Okay.

FIFE: It was still, it was even before that election.

RENSE: Right.

FIFE: Right? – And so, okay, she continued on, and she obviously wanted to make it more concrete for us.

RENSE: Alright. Hold on, Tom, right there. We have to take a little break, we’ll come right back.

FIFE: Okay. Okay.

RENSE: Mr. Tom Fife. We are going to put up the story in question, the essay, back up. It’s on rense.com, and now I’m going to put it back up under Tom’s name, I guess, and we’ll come back and hear more of this story, which is fascinating, in just a couple of minutes. ~~~

RENSE: Hi! We’re back to Tom Fife attending a most interesting dinner in Moscow –

FIFE: Hmm.

RENSE: – so to speak, in 1992. So, this woman was – it sounds to me like she was getting pretty energised.

FIFE: She was. And, yeah, she was quite hot under the collar at first –

RENSE: Yeah!

FIFE: That, I could tell, was what started it off.

RENSE: Okay. I understand. Now, when she said ‘This black President,’ then threw in the kicker: ‘and he is going to be a communist too,’ what was her demeanour when she said that? Do you remember? Was there anything particular that stuck in your mind about it – and it must have been because you remember it very clearly. But- tell me more about her disposition: what you’re suggesting here is that what she was relaying to you by way of a taunt was knowledge of forehand.

FIFE: Yeah. And everything, make note, everything she said, she said it as though it were foregone conclusion. And, what I’ll tell you in the next little bit, you can see that it was building up to something, and actually I think, you know, bottom line I think she got carried away.

RENSE: In other words, she flapped her gums too much?

FIFE: I think she did. Yeah. And, but – I think it all started from what my friend said, and I think she just took that as, you know, she just used that as a springboard to go into this thing. And, maybe the Vodka got the better part of her, I don’t know.

RENSE: Well, that and feminism.

FIFE: Yeah. Yeah. [laughs] What do you know. – But, what she – she wanted – at about that point, you know –

RENSE: Excuse me, Tom, excuse me –

FIFE: Oh, yeah.

RENSE: When she laid that first one on you, ‘You’re gonna get a black President,’ how long was it after that that she said the communist thing, and what was the reaction in the room, if any?

FIFE: Ahh – okay: like I said, the Russians didn’t bet an eye. They just – for the most part, they had their heads down like they were thinking and listening –

RENSE: laughing

FIFE: – and they didn’t really respond; well, not even, not reveal – they, they didn’t respond.

RENSE: I would suggest the woman may well have been KGB also, in addition to the rest of her dossier.

FIFE: Yeah, you know, I – you see, you know, there’s something to think about that because here was this company formed to be the interface with the Russian Academy of Science –

RENSE: And we think that’s gonna happen without KGB involvement? I don’t think so.

FIFE: Yeah, exactly. And so, I just know that the Russians didn’t like her.

RENSE: Aha. Interesting.

FIFE: I know that.

RENSE: Interesting.

FIFE: They told me they didn’t like her and they personally didn’t want to have anything to do with her.

RENSE: Wow!

FIFE: But, they –

RENSE: And they were also doubly glad they weren’t married to her, right?

FIFE: [laughing] But they had had the husband as their professor.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And he was even – they were doing dissertations, and he would be the, he would be the –

RENSE: I see –

FIFE: – the judge and jury for their dissertations, so –

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: It was an interesting situation, but in most part I only got the idea that everyone respected him, but they didn’t want to have anything to do with her.

RENSE: Wow.

FIFE: That was the general feeling.

RENSE: Hmhmm. Interesting.

FIFE: And, so, she started lighting into things like, well, she obviously wanted to make the point that ‘this wasn’t just idle talk.’ So she started talking about him, you know, and she was saying like, oh – she made the reference that he was already born, I don’t know why she said that particularly, but she said that he’s already born, and he’s educated, and that he was – she referred to him as being ‘Ivy League’. And – and, oh, and then, well, one of us asked, ‘Okay, then, what’s his name?’ or something, and then she said: “Barack.”

RENSE: Now, you are absolutely – the Vodka didn’t cloud anything here? You’re absolutely certain that she said, “Barack”?

FIFE: Yes. And in fact, you see, that’s when I said – you see, I had a career in aerospace,

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: – and I’ve had to pick up a smattering of languages because I was in the military side of it, and I was, I had to do scenarios with different countries, and everything –

RENSE: Ah, very good. Okay. So you didn’t miss a thing; I got it. Sure.

FIFE: And so one of the things – I’ve had to pick up a smattering of different languages in the process.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And so I knew – I don’t know Arabic, but I know a bit of it. And so I remarked, I said: ‘Barack,’ I said, ‘that means like blessing, in Arabic’, and then she said, ‘Yes! It means blessing’, and then she made this thing about how, that he would ‘become a blessing for world communism’, or some such phrase.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And that he would ‘help us to become the No. 1 power in the world’ – not Russia, necessarily, but I think communism would be the No. 1 power in the world.

RENSE: Makes sense. I understand. It was the ethic she believed in rather than the physical country. [This would again have been an excellent opportunity for Jeff Rense, who is a knowledgable man and may well have read at some point the two books by Anatoliy Golitsyn, to point out the obvious contradiction between a recently ‘dissolved’ Soviet Union, that allegedly had abandoned its Marxism-Leninism, and the thrilling fact coming out in this conversation that they were still seamlessly continuing with their programme of World Revolution!!! The explanation, of course, being: the ‘changes’ of 1989/91 were a cruel hoax. Well, Tom Fife made a correction anyway:]

FIFE: Yeah, the Party. I think that’s the thing with communists: they’re always the Party men.

RENSE: This is fascinating! Hold on, Tom, I have to pause again. But I again would encourage all of you to re-read this essay by Tom Fife, “The First Time I Heard of Barack”. I put it back up momentarily on my home-page, under ‘Guests’, under his name, and – pass it around! Tom was there! We’ll be right back. ~~~

RENSE: Okay, we are back, talking with Tom Fife. This is a remarkable story, and – go ahead, Tom! Tell us more, if you would! This woman, I get the distinct impression that she was almost out of central casting, if you will.

FIFE: laughing

RENSE: I’m now getting that larger-than-life kind of persona that only a die-hard, devoted, true believer, I guess, a koolaid-drinking communist, could have.

FIFE: You know, and that’s the funny thing about her because when all the time up to this point, and even afterwards – this is a singular event, this evening when she did this, all the other times she was rather subdued, –

RENSE: She was being a good KGB agent, taking mental notes.

FIFE: [laughing] – she was always subdued. But this evening, something torched her off, and she did this, but – oh, actually, okay, I was starting remembering where I was – yeah, then she was rattling off his credentials, so to speak. But, it was at this time that she made his pedigree known, and this was the key to me recognising who she was talking about these years later. Because she said that his mother was white, and from mid America, she said, you know, from the middle of the country [the Dunhams were from Kansas], and that his father was black, and he was from Africa.

RENSE: Ah, this is amazing! Yeah, I remember the essay, I read it very well. It’s back up on the home-page again. So, continue, please! This woman is just – she’s on a big roll here!

FIFE: She was on a roll, yeah! And, then she made – actually, it was at this point that she made one of the most, what I thought, odd comments of the whole evening, and she said, “That’s right: a chocolate baby!” And when she said that, she said it with such almost like arrogance and contempt, it was a very, very strange feeling; and, like I said, it was probably one of the most remarkable comments of the way she said it that I heard her say all evening. And, so – oh, that’s right, then she said again that – she was emphasising that the father was African, and that she thought that was gonna be a better sell, I’m using my own words there, –

RENSE: Yeah, yeah.

FIFE: – a better sell onto America in being African as opposed to American Black, because she said that they had thought this all out very carefully, she said. And that being African, he won’t have a ‘slave stigma’. [This ‘careful thinking out’ could also imply, however, that they completely manufactured his life story, even to the point of ‘giving’ him a sham African father so to create the public image they desired. The perfect Manchurian Candidate! In any case, Bara(c)k Obama senior from Kenya doesn’t resemble him at all, whereas his Hawaii mentor during all his High School years, communist radical Frank Marshall Davis may well be also his biological father, as was pointed out in Joel Gilbert’s film documentary “Dreams from My Real Father”.]

RENSE: Got it.

FIFE: And that was a particular point she was trying to make, at that point. You know, in this whole thing she was saying about him, that was one of the things that she thought was so clever – it came across to me that she thought it was so clever that they had considered this and that they –

RENSE: Oh, in a way it was! The whole thing was clever. I mean, this guy has been groomed obviously from a long time ago –

FIFE: Groomed. Yes.

RENSE: And, now, in your essay you mentioned that she did also remark that he was from, or would be thought of as being from, Hawaii.

FIFE: Yes. She – that was –

RENSE: That’s totally over the top! There is no odds, this is no coincidence, obviously.

FIFE: You know, there was one other – I will tell you this too – there was one other thing that I didn’t write down here, and that was when she was a little bit, she acted a little bit confused, at first, when she was talking about where he was from, and then she landed back and said: “Hawaii.” But at first she said: “Washington, State.” [The Dunhams had lived for several years at Mercer Island, east of Seattle, before moving to Hawaii in 1960; Ann Dunham was there attending ultra-left-leaning Mercer Island High School, from where she graduated as a determined young Marxist-feminist.]

RENSE: Hmm.

FIFE: And then she landed back on Hawaii. She said, no no no: Hawaii. And in reading up about him and, you know, his background, I didn’t make note of the fact that for a while they lived in Washington, State, before they went to Hawaii; I don’t know, I think I’m reading that correctly. I’m just bringing that up because she did have this momentary confusion about whether it was Washington or Hawaii.

RENSE: Alright, so, we got Hawaii, and then she mentioned his – he was schooled, partly, in California?

FIFE: California. And that he was now in Chicago; and that he was very soon – this was like an eminent thing with her, at this point of time –, that very soon he was going to be in the Legislature in Chicago.

RENSE: Hmm. Yeah. Well, again, there certainly are no coincidences of this magnitude! She was somehow, apparently, on the inner circle, or attribute certainly to the ‘notch’ level, at that kind of a verified atmosphere, and just let it out. How interesting!

FIFE: And like I said, this was a singular event. She – as a matter of fact, after that I probably I only saw her just a handful of times in the next couple, three years.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And – yes, she wasn’t – absolutely no more social events, there was always just in-public, after that. And I saw her never again in a social environment. This was the one time, really. And – let me see – okay, yeah, she made a big point – oh, that’s right: she went back, and – as a background, I think – she started talking about how well they were established here in the United States. And she mentioned three cities that were of particular interest to her, and she said they were: New York, Chicago, and San Francisco.

RENSE: Well, when you think of the communist agenda, certainly one of the key planks is the sexual, moral destruction of a nation, and certainly San Francisco would be the flagship city in that regard. Fits. – Well, this is a fascinating story. Think of it all: the name; the race; Hawaii; California; Washington; Chicago; President; a ‘chocolate baby’ President. Interesting, to put it mildly. – We’ll be right back.

RENSE: Okay. Welcome back! My guest this hour is Tom Fife, and again thanks to our friend of so many years, Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt for arranging to have Tom on the programme. I first published his essay back on November 20th of last year. It is entitled, “The First Time I Heard of Barack”. You’ll find it in the guest-section at ‘rense.com’ under Tom’s name right now. – This is quite a story. And again, these are all physicists, scientists, with the exception of the bigmouth, I mean: the ‘ever humble’ wife of the host of the evening, whatever. Alright, this is wild! Now, this doesn’t prove anything. It is, as Tom says and as I say, definitely anecdotal. But, again, you have to ask yourself: what are the odds? Ridiculous! Don’t even go there!

FIFE: Yes!

RENSE: This woman knew something, and she spilled the beans, perhaps through a series of circumstances, from the Vodka, getting – her feminism, her Party loyalty, this is more than a Party loyalist, this woman was obviously fanatical, from what I’m hearing in your voice and your words.

FIFE: She had a certain level of intensity in her voice, yes [laughing briefly].

RENSE: Yeah. I hear that. Alright. So, when she was finished with her rant, did you have any response to her allegations, or her prognostications?

FIFE: Well, you know, when she was absolutely done with what she was saying, it was one of those moments when everyone looks at each other and realises, ‘It’s – time to go home now, isn’t it?’

RENSE: [laughs] That’s funny!

FIFE: And that’s what it was. When she finally stopped talking and you could tell that she was kind of ‘done’, that’s when everything broke up. She came back around to each of us and gave us little trinket-type partying gifts, but that was –

RENSE: Little KGB-going-away gifts?

FIFE: Well, yeah, you know, I think she gave me a little packet of, like, of post-cards.

RENSE: Aha. I understand.

FIFE: You know, like a packet of 25 DVDs you might give to some stranger.

RENSE: Yeah yeah.

FIFE: Yeah.

RENSE: This is wild. Who have you shared this with, Tom, before writing the essay and releasing it? Have you talked about it much over the years, and especially, I guess, in the last couple of years? When did this all come back to you – not that it ever left, but when did it really start to loom up again?

FIFE: No, you know what, it never did leave me, because of the impact of someone telling you that they’ve engineered to take over your country.

RENSE: Well, obviously!

FIFE: That, that doesn’t leave you! But then when you come back and you get into things again and you just kind of – it goes in the back of your head.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: But I did mention it a few times to some friends, when I first, when it was fresh, when I’d just come back, and the general sentiment was, ‘Oh, you know what blowhards these commies are, you know…’

RENSE: Right.

FIFE: ‘You know…’ – ‘Yeah. Yeah.’ ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah. Of course they would say that.’ And that was it. And I kind of thought, ‘Well, okay, there’s nothing there’, you know, ‘all I have is the words out of her mouth on that evening.’

RENSE: You didn’t know Barack Obama from anything, back then. Nobody did.

FIFE: That’s the whole thing. No, no one did.

RENSE: Yeah.

FIFE: And it wasn’t until, for me it wasn’t even until after ’04. It was some time later when I found out that this Barack-Obama guy had a background, and it included a white mother and a black African father, and all the Hawaii thing, the Chicago thing, and it was like, I don’t know, if you can imagine a rubber-band snapping from 1992 back into your head, –

RENSE: Hmhmm. Hmhmm, hmhmm.

FIFE: – it was a really strange feeling, and it was actually scary, it was as scary as hell!

RENSE: I’m sure. And then, I guess, when you realised, heard, that his teenage mentor was a Black American communist named Frank Marshall Davis, that’s another interesting little part of it.

FIFE: You know, every time I turn around, there’s another layer that – and that’s why I mentioned the thing about Washington, because I didn’t write it down here, but it was just – since I wrote this, I read this thing about how the mother had been in Washington before she went to Hawaii.

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: And so I’m thinkin’: She just got confused. You know, she was just sitting there, she probably knew the whole itinerary of everyone for the last –

RENSE: Sounds like it.

FIFE: – and she just got confused for a second about where it was, or –

RENSE: Sure.

FIFE: – he was born, you know. It –

RENSE: Very understandable. Sure. Absolutely. No, she had the whole story, it sounds like; everything. – And at what point did you realise that – now, we got to stop thinking about physical geography here, we got to put this idea of the Soviet Union and physical Russia out of our minds. That’s not the issue. The issue is world communism!

FIFE: I think – Yeah. Yeah. I think that’s what we are talking about.

[Well, the whole business of the USSR has been world revolution all along, right from the 1917 Revolution. That, however, does NOT mean that the USSR has by some miraculous political turn of the tides ceased to exist back in December 1991. It’s still there, perfectly organised, greatly re-armed, and with meanwhile pretty much all major world powers on its side – which makes the whole picture all the more frightening!!! So, of course, it’s still very much about the unchanged Soviet Union, and along with it, definitely about its unchanged goal of communist world domination.]

RENSE: Yeah. When did you realise that world communism owned this country? A year ago? Six months ago? Two years ago?

FIFE: laughs.

RENSE: When did it all kind of agglutinate into your head into one obvious image: this country ain’t what it seems to be.

FIFE: [sighs] I could be really smug and say the 4th of November [of 2008], but –

RENSE: That works. Hey, listen: That works. That’s fine.

FIFE: Ahh. I don’t know. You know, I really didn’t – when she said it – I thought it was impossible.

RENSE: Well, who wouldn’t? You had nothing to tag it to back then at all, no, nothing.

FIFE: No, there was nothing there, and –

RENSE: And ten years would go by before anything would be on the radar, if then; and maybe twelve years: 2004.

FIFE: If I were really looking, it would have been a while for me to actually – yeah. And of course, like I said, it came into place – Oh! You know, that was – I tell you another thing, it was so darn frustrating with this whole thing, is when I finally got together, I’m sitting there by myself in my room, and I’m thinking about this thing, and I’m sitting there thinking: I know something, and I gotta tell somebody. I can’t let this go by. It’s like: this has been layed in my lap, and I have to get the word out. And I sat there, and I pepped away on my computer, and I wrote e-mails to every talkshow host I could think of, and all the local shows and everything. I never got a peep back.        

RENSE: Oh, I’m sure. No question.

FIFE: And I just kept on writing, praising it differently: “Maybe you didn’t hear me the first time …” And I – over and over and over again – and I never got a word back! And it wasn’t until – literally, literally – election day that someone let me tell my story –

RENSE: Hmhmm.

FIFE: – for the first time publicly, yeah.

RENSE: Yeah. I remember reading the essay, and as I said I was getting e-mails from people saying, “Come on! Who is this guy, Tom Fife,” and, “This is ridiculous! It couldn’t have happened this way!”

FIFE [with energetic voice]: Hey, I’m here, and I’m – I SWEAR: THIS IS ALL TRUE. I WAS THERE –

RENSE: You don’t have to – Tom, I hear your voice! That’s fine. You don’t have to worry about it. I’ve been doing this for a long time. You’re telling something exactly as you experienced it.

FIFE: And it’s just crazy. You know, it sounds crazy, but it’s the absolute truth. And that’s the thing. And that’s what – part of the thing scares me, you know.

RENSE: Well, it should scare a lot of Americans. Everyone listening should be worried because it tells them, it tells all of us, that there are no accidents, there are no coincidences, that everything is planned, and if they planned Barack Obama nearly 20 years ago, what have they got planned for the next 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20 more? They, the controllers; they, the people, clearly, at the very least tied immanently to the City of London banking cartel – if in point of fact that isn’t one of the primary nodes of this beast, which I believe it to be: we have communism – you can call it – can play the label game all you want: what we have here is an insidious, evil world-control monstrosity, that is literally able to create and destroy nations at will, and tens, and twenties, and ultimately hundreds of millions of human lives; and ultimately billions, because if they decide to release H5N1, or some successor virus, in a pandemic format, we’ll lose 80 – however many % of the world population they wish to cull, they will. That’s what it tells us. That’s what this tells me. And I think it tells the same thing to almost anyone else listening. Does that sit well with you?

FIFE: [laughing] It doesn’t sit well with me, but I think you’re telling the absolute truth, yeah. And that’s what I feel from the whole thing.

RENSE: Hmm.

FIFE: There is just a large scheme out there that’s almost like – you know, she used the word “irresistable”.

RENSE: Oh, really?

FIFE: She did say that. She said that this whole thing, that he would be irresistable, and that America would not be able to resist.

RENSE: Well, America couldn’t. He got NLP, he got all kind of obvious coaching, at the best camera angles, he got the [?]. You’re right! She gave you, literally, a 17-year glimpse into the future. What a scene! – Tom, thank you very much for being here and sharing this with us tonight! It’s been fascinating.

FIFE: Thank you!

RENSE: Alright. Take care of yourself!

FIFE: Ah. Okay, thanks.

RENSE: Good night! – Mr. Tom Fife. There is one for you to think about! Okay. Back in 21 hours.

l

APPENDIX II: INSIGHTFUL QUOTES BY PROMINENT PROTO-COMMUNISTS & COMMUNISTS

This quite lengthy appendix should give the reader a more in-depth understanding of communist thought and sentiment, i.e. of the overall communist mentality: their insane degree of hatred and ruthlessness, their methodical deceit and highly complex long-term strategic planning, their diabolical contempt for everything of old, their joyful cynicism and cruelty, and finally their steely determination in pursuit of fundamentally destroying every aspect of a God-given, traditional order whatsoever, wheresoever. The quotes are given in chronological order, divided into several sections all the way from the French Revolution, the establishment of the communist movement, and through the various stages of Soviet history, right to the present – as, behind their current ‘democratic’ and ‘free enterprise’ mask, they have remained the same Soviets as ever. – Taken, unless indicated otherwise, from Christopher Story’s ‘The European Union Collective: Enemy of its Member States – A Study in Russian and German Strategy to Complete Lenin’s World Revolution’ (marked as ‘TEUC’), Edward Harle Ltd., London – New York 2002; and mainly from the book’s first part that deals with the Soviet-Russian geopolitical strategy, “Europe from the Atlantic to Vladivostok’, pages 27-144.

l

SUN TZU (presumably 544 – 496 BC): THE ANCIENT MASTER OF DECEPTION

It is, to a great extent, this famous military theorist who has ‘inspired’ to this day the strategic methodology of the pan-communist bloc, especially since the 1950s after Mao Zedong had won his revolution in China. Sun Tzu’s treatise ‘The Art of War’ – that deals exclusively with questions of the offensive – represents the essence of overall deception and praises the highest form of warfare to be not having to go to battle, in the first place, but defeating the enemy by other means (it can be read online here). Although the treatise, written 5 centuries BC, is also an example of the beauty and elegance of ancient China regarding form, it is nevertheless carried by the cold and cynical logic of the deceiver who ‘knows’ he will succeed in defeating and conquering his target because he is in the possession of a precise and deadly methodology:

Warfare is the Way of deception. / Therefore, if able, appear unable, / If active, appear not active, / If near, appear far, / If far, appear near, / If they have advantage, entice them, / If they are confused, take them, / If they are substantial, prepare for them, / If they are strong, avoid them, / If they are angry, disturb them, / If they are humble, make them haughty, / If they are relaxed, toil them, / If they are united, separate them. / Attack where they are not prepared, go out where they do not expect. / This specialized warfare leads to victory, and may not be transmitted beforehand.” (From Chapter 1: ‘Calculation’)

“Subtle! Subtle! / They become formless. / Mysterious! Mysterious! / They become soundless. / Therefore, they are the masters of the enemy’s fate. (From Chapter 6: ‘Weakness and Strength’)

l

ADAM ‘SPARTACUS’ WEISHAUPT (1748 – 1830): FOUNDER OF THE ‘ILLUMINEES’

Without further comment from the side of this author, here are two passages on this key figure, even initiator, of the overall anti-traditional, as well as anti-societal, conspiracy, taken from the reference work on the topic, the Abbé Augustin Barruel’s (1741-1820) famous “Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism”, published in four consecutive volumes during the late 1790s. One time, a quote from the Preliminary Observations to Volume III, ‘The Antisocial Conspiracy’; the other time a longer passage from pages 1 to 5 of the Preliminary Discourse to the fourth and final volume (entitled ‘Antisocial Conspiracy: Historical Part’) of this unique piece of historical literature. Barruel writes the following (the quote from Vol. IV can also be applied to our present state of affairs, whether in the United States or anywhere else):

• From Vol. III, Preliminary Observations: “The third conspiracy, which I am now about to investigate, is that of the Atheistical Illuminees, which at my outset I denominated the conspiracy of the Sophisters of Impiety and Anarchy against every religion natural or revealed; not only against kings, but against every government, against all civil society, even against all prosperity whatsoever.

The name of Illuminee which this Sect (the most disastrous in its principles, the most extensive in its views, the most atrociously cunning in its means) has chosen, is of ancient standing in the annals of disorganising Sophistry. It was the name which Manes and his disciples first affected, gloriantur Manichaei se de coelo illuminatos. The first Rosicrucians also, who appeared in Germany, called themselves Illuminees. And later, in our time, the Martinists (with many other sects) have pretended to Illuminism. As an outline for history I distinguish them by their plots and tenets, and will reduce them into two classes, the Atheistical and the Theosophical Illuminees. These latter more particularly comprehend the Martinists, whom I have already mentioned in my second volume, and the Swedenbourgians, whom I shall mention in their proper place, where also I shall give what information I have been able to collect relating to them. The Atheistical Illuminees are the objects of the present volume, and it is their conspiracy that I mean to disclose. […]”

• From Vol. IV, Preliminary Discourse: “Conceived but a short time before the French Revolution, by a man whose ambition seemed confined within the narrow compass of the town of Ingolstadt and to the dusty folios of his schools, by what strange means did Illuminism, in less than fifteen years, become that formidable Sect which, under the name of Jacobin, rides triumphant over ruined altars, shivered scepters, and scattered crowns; over the wrecks of nations and their constitutions; over the bodies of potentates fallen beneath their poisons or their poignards, while they drag others in their train, craving a servitude termed peace, or branding themselves with the infamy of what they call an alliance?

Under this name of JACOBIN absorbing all the mysteries, plots, and combinations of every sectary against every religion, government, and society, by what artifice could Illuminism acquire that dominion of terror which forbids any sovereign within the astonished universe to say, Tomorrow I shall continue seated on my throne; which forbids nations and citizens to say, that their laws and religion, their houses and property, will not be torn from them; which forbids the peaceful inhabitant to lie down to rest with any assurance that he will not rise in the morning beneath the shade of that symbol of blood called the Tree of Liberty, and threatened by the axe of the devouring guillotine? How is it possible, that the secret adepts of the modern Spartacus should be the invisible and exclusive movers of that long chain of crimes and calamities, that disastrous torrent of ferocity and rapine, which is called the revolution? How do they continue to direct those machinations which are to consummate the dissolution and misery of human society?

In dedicating this Fourth Volume to the investigation of these questions, I do not flatter myself with the hopes of illustrating them with all that precision and of pointing out those particularities which other men might have done who have had it in their power to follow the Sect of Illuminees into their dark abodes without ever losing sight of the adepts or their teachers. The monster has taken its course through wilderness, and darkness has more than once obscured its progress. Weishaupt had adopted the bird of night for his emblem, because he courted darkness; but the screechings of this ominous bird, rending the air in spite of him, discover his secret retreat. The venomous reptile is often discovered by the stench of its poison; the beaten and blood-stained track leads to the discovery of the cavern inhabited by brigands; and, notwithstanding all the efforts of the wicked, an all-powerful God will sometimes in his mercy permit a ray of light to shine on their tenebrous recesses, which may suffice to develope their plots. Many horrid particulars, no doubt, have been lost under the veil of darkness; but in classing those which have come to my knowledge, I find abundance of proofs to trace the Sect wherever crime has pointed out its fatal influence. In vain does the black cloud hover round the summit of the volcano, the bituminous and sulphureous vapours which it exhales, bear testimony of the interior combustions, till at length the erruption denotes the abyss where so great a convulsion was generated.

Hence, without flattering myself with the hopes of seizing every link of that horrid chain of iniquity which must blacken the page of history when treating of the Sect, or of decyphering the assumed names of all its adepts, I shall proceed to lay before my readers what has already come to light. Asserting nothing but what will bear the strictest scrutiny, I shall still find matter sufficient to trace the progress of the Sect from its origin to that congress to which, at the present moment, it calls the vanquished sovereigns, not so much to quell the horrors of the field of battle, as to enjoy that dominion of terror which it despotically sways without, and to prepare within new resources to extend its triumphs; not so much to restore to nations the tottering remnants of their laws and religion, as to invent means of obliterating the very traces of either that may yet remain. I shall here attempt to lead the historian through these mazy windings lest he should lose himself when in pursuit of the Sect. The reader has already seen (in our remarks on the Code) its oaths and threats against every religion, all society, and property. Now, when reading of what the Sect has done, of the plots and machinations it has successfully undertaken and executed, may nations and their rulers acquire new ardour, and be stimulated to oppose their future projects with all the courage and all the means they are masters of. It is to triumph over Jacobinism, cost what it may, that nations are to study the records of this Sect, and not to sink meanly into despair. I know I am but mortal, and that ere long I shall descend into the grave; and I calmly wait my dissolution which threatens society, after I have awakened my readers to the dangers which threaten them, only to see them sinking once more into that apathy which portends ruin, under pretence that it is too late, that it is useless to resist the fate which the Sect has decreed for all nations? God forbid that I should hold such language! Cannot the good be fired with that zeal which consumes the breast of the miscreant heaving for wickedness. Let the rulers of nations will it, let nations will to save their religion, their laws, their property, as this infernal Sect wills the destruction of them all, and success must infallibly crown their endeavours. It is only in hopes of contributing to their success, that I once more consent to sully my pen with the names of Weishaupt, of Illuminee, and of Jacobin, and to wade through their disgusting annals. […]”  

l

BABEUF (1760 – 1797): THE SOCIETY OF EQUALS

François Noël ‘Gracchus’ Babeuf was indeed the most radical of all revolutionaries of the French Revolution. Two years after the nightmare of the Jacobinian Terreur was put to an end in the summer of 1794, Babeuf had everything prepared for a violent coup against the ruling Directory (revolutionary) government (which conspiracy, however, was detected in time and rooted out; Babeuf and his clique were executed the following year). His plan was the erection of a completely egalitarian and communal society, beyond private property of any sorts and certainly even more hostile to any remnant of traditional society than had been the revolution so far. His “Society of Equals” represents the direct continuation of Weishaupt’s Illuminati programme – most likely Babeuf was an Illuminati member himself –  as well as the blueprint for Marxist Communism, proving them all as part of one and the same ideological stream, more: as part of one and the same anti-force; after all, Babeuf and comrades had the same manner of using code names derived from Greek-Roman antiquity as was the practice among Weishaupt, Knigge & Co. Also, Weishaupt’s code name Spartacus has been prominently used by communists to this day, notwithstanding the fact that International Workers’ Day, May 1st, ‘coincides’ with the founding day of the Illuminati brotherhood, May 1st, 1776: Babeufism and Marxism ARE absolutely identical with Weishaupt’s Illuminism!!!  Here is, in full, Babeuf’s infamous Manifesto of the Equals, written in that ominous year of 1796:

“People of France! For fifteen centuries you lived as a slave and, consequently, unhappy. For the last six years you barely breathe, waiting for independence, freedom and equality. EQUALITY! The first wish of nature, the first need of man, the first knot of all legitimate association! People of France! You were not more blessed than the other nations that vegetate on this unfortunate globe! Everywhere and at all times the poor human race, handed over to more or less deft cannibals, served as an object for all ambitions, as feed for all tyrannies. Everywhere and at all times men were lulled with beautiful words; at no time and in no place was the thing itself ever obtained through the word. From time immemorial they hypocritically repeat; all men are equal; and from time immemorial the most degrading and monstrous inequality insolently weighs upon the human race. As long as there have been human societies the most beautiful of humanity’s rights is recognized without contradiction, but was only able to be put in practice one time: equality was nothing but a beautiful and sterile legal fiction. And now that it is called for with an even stronger voice we are answered: be quiet, you wretches! Real equality is nothing but a chimera; be satisfied with conditional equality; you’re all equal before the law. What more do you want, filthy rabble? Legislators, you who hold power, rich landowners, it is now your turn to listen. Are we not all equal? This principle remains uncontested, because unless touched by insanity, you can’t say it’s night when it’s day. Well then! We claim to live and die equal, the way we were born: we want this real equality or death; that’s what we need. And we’ll have this real equality, at whatever price. Unhappy will be those who stand between it and us! Unhappy will be those who resist a wish so firmly expressed. The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, one that will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last. The people marched over the bodies of kings and priests who were in league against it: it will do the same to the new tyrants, the new political Tartuffes seated in the place of the old. What do we need besides equality of rights? We need not only that equality of rights written into the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen; we want it in our midst, under the roofs of our houses. We consent to everything for it, to make a clean slate so that we hold to it alone. Let all the arts perish, if need be, as long as real equality remains! Legislators and politicians, you have no more genius than you do good faith; gutless and rich landowners, in vain you attempt to neutralize our holy enterprise by saying: They do nothing but reproduce that agrarian law asked for more than once in the past. Slanderers, be silent: and in the silence of your confusion listen to our demands, dictated by nature and based on justice. The Agrarian law, or the partitioning of land, was the spontaneous demand of some unprincipled soldiers, of some towns moved more by their instinct than by reason. We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! No more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all. We declare that we can no longer put up with the fact that the great majority work and sweat for the smallest of minorities. Long enough, and for too long, less than a million individuals have disposed of that which belongs to 20 million of their like, their equals. Let it at last end, this great scandal that our descendants will never believe existed! Disappear at last, revolting distinctions between rich and poor, great and small, masters and servants, rulers and ruled. Let there no longer be any difference between people than that of age and sex. Since all have the same faculties and the same needs, let there then be for them but one education, but one food. They are satisfied with one sun and one air for all: why then would the same portion and the same quality of food not suffice for each of them? Already the enemies of the most natural order of things we can imagine raise a clamor against us. They say to us: You are disorganizers and seditious; you want nothing but massacres and loot. PEOPLE OF FRANCE: We won’t waste our time responding to them; we tell you: the holy enterprise that we are organizing has no other goal than to put an end to civil dissension and public misery. Never before has a vaster plan been conceived of or carried out. Here and there a few men of genius, a few men, have spoken in a low and trembling voice. None have had the courage to tell the whole truth. The moment for great measures has arrived. Evil has reached its height: it covers the face of the earth. Under the name of politics, chaos has reigned for too many centuries. Let everything be set in order and take its proper place once again. Let the supporters of justice and happiness organize in the voice of equality. The moment has come to found the REPUBLIC OF EQUALS, this great home open to all men. The day of general restitution has arrived. Groaning families, come sit at the common table set by nature for all its children. PEOPLE OF FRANCE: The purest of all glories was thus reserved for you! Yes it is you who the first should offer the world this touching spectacle. Ancient habits, antique fears, would again like to block the establishment of the Republic of Equals. The organization of real equality, the only one that responds to all needs, without causing any victims, without costing any sacrifice, will not at first please everyone. The selfish, the ambitious, will tremble with rage. Those who possess unjustly will cry out about injustice. The loss of the enjoyments of the few, solitary pleasures, personal ease will cause lively regret to those heedless of the pain of others. The lovers of absolute power, the henchmen of arbitrary authority, will with difficulty bow their superb heads before the level of real equality. Their shortsightedness will understand with difficulty the imminent future of common happiness; but what can a few thousand malcontents do against a mass of happy men, surprised to have searched so long for a happiness that they had in their hands. The day after this real revolution, they’ll say with astonishment: What? Common happiness was so easy to obtain? All we had to do was want it? Why oh why didn’t we desire it sooner? Did they really have to make us speak of it so many times? Yes, without a doubt, one lone man on earth richer, stronger than his like, than his equals, and the balance is thrown off: crime and unhappiness are on earth. PEOPLE OF FRANCE; By what sign will you now recognize the excellence of a constitution? …That which rests in its entirety on real equality is the only one that can suit you and fulfill all your wishes. The aristocratic charters of 1791 and 1795 tightened your chains instead of breaking them. That of 1793 was a great step towards true equality, and we had never before approached it so closely. But it did not yet touch the goal, nor reach common happiness, which it nevertheless solemnly consecrated as its great principle. PEOPLE OF FRANCE, Open your eyes and your hearts to the fullness of happiness: recognize and proclaim with us the REPUBLIC OF EQUALS.”

l

MARX (1818 – 1883): “PROLETARIANS OF ALL LANDS, UNITE!”

“A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies. Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? Two things result from this fact: I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power. II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself. To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.” (Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: The Communist Manifesto, 1848; Preamble, in full)

“The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas. But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism. We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c. – When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class. In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” (Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: The Communist Manifesto, 1848; excerpt from Chapter II: ‘Proletarians and Communists’. – Points 2 and 5, key for the systematic destruction of an economy, have been a firm reality also in the so-called Free World for a long time: The progressive income tax has served as a tool for slow-motion redistribution of wealth, and our economies are completely at the mercy of privately owned central banks. Point 9 is a reality one can now see everywhere, especially in Europe: the old, traditional village is mostly a thing of the past. Points 7, 8, and 10 are presently being implemented at breakneck speed: whole economic sectors are now in the process of getting nationalised, not only in Obamerica. The remaining points 1, 3, 4, and 6 would then be fulfilled the day communism officially takes over: as soon as that happens, everybody will lie equally in dirt, as the sad history of communism has shown again and again, painfully realising the diabolical cynicism of ‘Liberté! Egalité! Fraternité!’ End of story.)

“Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America. The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France, the Communists ally with the Social-Democrats against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution. In Switzerland, they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois. In Poland, they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846. In Germany, they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie. But they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin. The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution. In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time. Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries. The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. – Working Men of All Countries, Unite!” (Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels: The Communist Manifesto, 1848: Closing chapter, no. IV, in full: ‘Positions of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties’)

l

1917 ff: LENIN (1870 – 1924) AND THE OCTOBER REVOLUTION

“All nations will come to socialism. This is unavoidable. But all will not come in the same way. Each of them will bring its own traits into one or another form of democracy, into one or another variety of dictatorship of the proletariat, into one or another rate of socialist transformation in various aspects of social life. But of course, there is no need to exaggerate the significance of these peculiarities.” (Anatoliy Golitsyn: ‘The Perestroika Deception’, page 104; from: V.I. Lenin: ‘A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism’, Collected Works, Vol. XXIII)

“A Communist must be prepared to make every sacrifice and, if necessary, even resort to all sorts of schemes and stratagems, employ illegitimate methods, conceal the truth, in order… to conduct revolutionary work within…” (TEUC, page XXVII; from: V.I. Lenin: Collected Works, Vol. XVII, pages 142-145)

“I was not only forced to confine myself strictly to an exclusively theoretical, mainly economic analysis of facts, but to formulate a few necessary observations on politics with extreme caution, by hints, in that Aesopian language – in that cursed Aesopian language – to which Tsarism compelled all revolutionaries to have recourse whenever they took up their pens to write a ‘legal’ work.” (TEUC, page XXXIX; from: V.I. Lenin: Preface to ‘Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Captialism’, April 26, 1917)

“In form, such a strong revolutionary organisation… may also be described as a ‘conspiratorial organisation’, because the French word ‘conspiration’ is the equivalent of the Russian word ‘zagovor’, and such an organisation must have the utmost secrecy. Secrecy is such a necessary condition for this kind of organisation that all other conditions (number and selection of members, functions, etc.) must be made to conform to it. It would be extremely naïve indeed, therefore, to fear the charge that we Social-Democrats desire to create a conspiratorial organisation.” (TEUC, pages 50-51; from V.I. Lenin: Collected Works, Vol. V, page 475; International Publishers, New York)

“Morality is that which serves [to create] a new Communist society.” (TEUC, page XIX; from: V.I. Lenin: Collected Works, Vol. XVII, pages 321-323)

“No parliament can in any circumstances be for Communists an arena of struggle for reforms… The only question can be that of utilising bourgeois state institutions for their own destruction.” (TEUC, page XIX; from: V.I. Lenin: Collected Works, Vol. XVII, page 149)

“We set ourselves the ultimate aim of destroying the state.” (TEUC, page 10; from: V.I. Lenin: State and Revolution; [orig. 1917]; International Publishers, New York 1961 Edition, page 68)

“Our only strategy at present is to become stronger and, therefore, wiser, more reasonable, more opportunistic. The more opportunistic, the sooner will you again assemble the masses around you. When we have won over the masses by our reasonable approach, we shall then apply offensive tactics in the strictest sense of the word.” (TEUC, page 50; from: V.I. Lenin: speaking at the Comintern Congress in July 1921, referring to the newly introduced deception operation named ‘New Economic Policy’, the strategic forerunner of Gorbachev’s ‘perestroika’.)

l

1924 – 1953: THE STALIN ERA

“It is only possible to speak of utilising the bourgeois organisations with the object of destroying them.” (TEUC, page XIX; from: ‘Blueprint for World Conquest’, 6th World Congress of the Comintern, 1928)

“Communist society … recognises no form of state.” (TEUC, page XXXI; from: ‘Blueprint for World Conquest’, 6th World Congress of the Comintern, 1928)

“The Soviet United States of Europe is the only correct slogan pointing the way out from European disunity.” (TEUC, page XXXII; from: Leon Trotsky, in: ‘The Bulletin of the Opposition’, Nr. 17-18, November-December 1930; page 53)

“The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The West, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. As soon as their guard is down, we will smash them with our clenched fist.” (TEUC, page 35; from: Dmitri Manuilski, speaking to his students at the Lenin School in 1930)

“The socialist society will be forced to apply the most resolute measures for a long time against people who are harmful and deliberately destructive… i.e., those who seek to undermine the socialist state and to re-establish the capitalist system.” (TEUC, page 20; from: M. Rezunov: ‘Socialism or State Capitalism in the Soviet Union’, Leningrad 1934, pp 12-18)

“The withering away of the state, the precondition for the classless society, could not be entertained as a possibility until the encirclement of socialism by capitalism had been changed to the encirclement of capitalism by socialism [!!!]. That is to say, until those conditions had been established which would assure world-wide Soviet domination.” (TEUC, page 20; from: Yossif Stalin: Report to the 18th Party Congress, CPSU, March 10, 1939; published in: Communist International Magazine, special issue, XIV, 520 ff, 1939; cited by Louis F. Budenz: The Techniques of Communism, 1954, page 12)

“Divide the world into regional groups as a transitional stage of world government. Populations will more readily abandon their national loyalties to a vague regional loyalty than they will for a world authority. Later, the regions can be brought together all the way into a single world dictatorship.” (TEUC, page 23; from: Yossif Stalin: ‘Marxism and the National Question’; 1942)

“Parliaments can be helpful post-revolution vehicles for transforming democratic nations into fully-fledged Communist states.” (TEUC, page 72: from a 1961 analysis by communist Czechoslovakia’s official historian, Jan Kozak, regarding the 1948 overthrow of Czech parliamentarism in favour of rigorous One-Party Stalinism by the use of the Czech parliament itself. Source: Jan Kozak: ‘How Parliament can play a Revolutionary part in the Transition to Socialism, and the Role of the Popular Masses’; American Edition by Long House Publishing Company, CT, 1962. – In the case of Hitler Germany, that phase of ‘post-revolutionary’ latency lasted less than two months until Htiler and comrades, who had risen to power, lest we forget, by the legal means of democratic vote, crushed the parliament and introduced their One-Party dictatorship, based on the provocation of the Reichstag fire. Likewise, also in the case of present-day America it is certainly not far-fetched to speak of a ‘post-revolutionary’ situation ever since January 2009, given the fact that the United States have been governed for the last four years (and continue to be governed furtheron) by a die-hard, albeit cleverly concealed Marxist, who might well soon – now that he is reelected – show a quite different face from what he has shown so far (ugly enough as it has already been). In the case of the European Union, it’s been a fait accompli already for a long time, with no chance for any of the member states even to envision leaving this political monstrosity, that too is on its way to totalitarianism, not the least in the light of an upcoming merger with the unchanged Soviet Union, which is the declared goal of the political forces involved, but will be to the detriment of the peoples of Western Europe who can expect to be fully subjected under the Communist yoke in the not-too-far-away future.)

“Morality is what brings about… a new society of Communists. Communist morality is that which serves this struggle… At the base of Communist morality lies the struggle for the strengthening and completion of Communism.” (TEUC, page 20; Sochineniya, 4th Edition, Vol. 31, Moscow 1950; pp 266, 268, 269, 270.)

“Capitalism’s short-term view can never envisage the lengths across which we can plan.” (TEUC, page 50; from Lavrentii Beria: Lecture to American Communists attending the Lenin School; early 1950s)

l

1953-1964: ALLEGED DE-STALINISATION AND ‘PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE’

“The thing that exists [thesis], the opposite that grows out of it [antithesis], and the higher stage that develops from their interaction or conflict [synthesis], govern all correct thinking and the proper interpretation of life and society… That which retards socialism is ‘reactionary’ and is to be destroyed. That which advances socialism is ‘progressive’ and ‘liberating’ and is to be encouraged and forwarded.” (TEUC, page 20; from: Louis F. Budenz (1891-1972), former prominent US Communist who renounced his communism in 1945, returned to Catholicism and became an ardent writer against the Communist conspiracy: The Techniques of Communism; Henry Regnery Company, Chicago 1954, pages 7-8)

“The Struggle for the future will probably not be so much through engines of war, as through the continued penetration of the thought process of the world’s population.” (TEUC, page 96; from: Louis Budenz: The Bolshevik Invasion of the West: Account of the Great Political War for a Soviet America;   Bookmailer, 1966; in: The West at Bay: How it got that way (On lieu of a Preface), page 6)

“Communism is a movement directed against individualization and towards standardizing of all man’s activities. Steadily and persistently, the Soviet regime is driving towards its ultimate goal: control of human behavior.” (TEUC, page 96; from: Dr. Boris Sokoloff, a Russian medical doctor heavily involved with the Russian Revolution itself, but who escaped from Russia and reached the United States, in his 1956 book ‘The White Nights’, The Devin Adair Company, New York 1956, page 292. – This observation not only illustrates the prominent role of mass mind control, as was contributed to Lenin’s condsiderations and plannings by Ivan Pavlov and was given just as high credit in Nazi Germany, but also the true and quite frightening meaning of Gorbachev’s slogan ‘New Thinking’. Obviously, if it is possible to bring about a ‘new society’ where all individuals are of one mind (for which the introduction of perfidious ‘political correctness’, a Soviet invention anyway, is already a deadly harbinger), chances are considerably greater to accomplish the desired ‘irreversibility’ of things, and so with far less emphasis on overt oppression, just the way Aldous Huxley had foreseen resp. had blown the whistle about already in 1932 as an additional note to his novel Brave New World: “A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.“)

“The victory of Communism on the world scale will provide the necessary material and intellectual preconditions for the merging of [all] nations. A Communist economic integration never known before will gradually be formed throughout the world. There will emerge a common moral code which will absorb all that is best in the character of each nation. Mankind will become one united, fraternal community completely free of antagonism.” (TEUC, page 33; from: Foundations of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy resp. Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism; 1960)

“There is no wall between socialism and Communism. These are not two divergent types of society, but merely two phases of one and the same social formation, distinguished the one from the other by the degree of their maturity. The transition from socialism to Communism consequently constitutes a gradual process. Communism grows up out of socialism as its direct prolongation. In the very bosom of socialist society its germs and roots spring up. These shoots of the future, developing on socialist soil, will lead… to a consolidation of Communism. Naturally, the entry into a higher phase of the new society cannot be pinned down to a specific calendar date, but it will be accomplished without abrupt change.” – “From the fact that the transition from socialism to Communism will take place by degrees, it does not follow that this is a slow process. On the contrary, the transition is distinguished by a particularly high rate of development in all areas of social life… ending with the uplift of the culture and the conscious awareness of people.” (TEUC, page 34; from: Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism; 1960; page 656)

“In deciding other affairs, methods of public influence, the influence of public opinion, will be utilised.” – “Communism means new relations between the peoples. They will arise as a result of the further development of the principles of socialist internationalism, which today constitute the basis of relations between countries.” – “The cultures of different peoples, national in form, will be increasingly imbued with the same Communist content. Their drawing together on this basis will provide a mighty stimulus to the mutual enrichment and development of national cultures and in the long run will lead to the formation of a single, deeply international culture that will be truly the culture of all mankind. Under Communism, public opinion will become a mighty force, capable of bringing to reason those individuals who might not want to follow Communist customs and rules of behaviour in the community. (TEUC, pages 96-97; from: Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism; 1960; pages 735-753)

“Individual choice would eventually be mastered by a central Soviet control of thought process.” (TEUC, page 96; Soviet spy George Blake, as remembered by Kenneth de Courcy and cited by Chapman Pincher in Traitors: The Labyrinths of Treason; Sidgwick & Jackson, London 1987, page 157)

l

1964 – 1982: THE BREZHNEV ERA

The kollektiv represents “the setting for group pressure [whose] task is to instil … habits of collectivism… to foster an acceptance of group control over values, attitudes and behaviour.” (TEUC, page 97; from: Allen Kassof: The Soviet Youth Program , Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1965; page 45. Cited in: Contemporary Soviet Politics: An Introduction; Donald D. Barry and Carol Barner-Barry, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1978-91)

“Lenin’s inestimable service consists in that he furnished answers to the most acute questions raised by Life and indicated the most efficacious forms of struggle… for the victory of the socialist revolution and the triumph of Communism. To apply a consistent class line, firmly adhere to principles, be flexible in tactics, consider the concrete conditions from every angle, to undertake bold and at the same time well-conceived actions… this is what Lenin taught us, and what we learn from Lenin. His contribution to revolutionary theory was a major stage in the development of Marxist thought.” – “Communists will always be true to the creative spirit of Leninism… Study Lenin’s works! There you will find an inexhaustible fund of inspiration for struggle against reaction and oppression, for socialism and peace. Acquaintance with Lenin’s works will help the rising generation to see more clearly the revolutionary prospects of our era. Spread more widely the knowledge of the achievements of Leninism! Let us raise higher the banner of Leninism in the struggle for the revolutionary renewal of the world! Long live Leninism!” (TEUC, page 39; nota bene: NOT Gorbachev, but: Leonid Brezhnev: statement at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties held in Moscow from June 5 to 17, 1969: ‘Record of the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties’, Peace and Socialism Publishers, Prague 1969; page 172)

“The plan for economic and monetary union has revolutionary longterm political implications, both economic and political. It could imply the creation of a European federal state, with a single currency… It will arouse strong feelings about sovereignty.” (TEUC, page 32; from a British Foreign Office document dated November 9, 1970; thus, the British political class was perfectly aware of the consequences of a British membership in the then EEC, but nevertheless embarked on that deadly road to national extinction).

l

1985 – 1991: GORBACHEV’S ‘PERESTROIKA-‘ AND ‘GLASNOST-‘CAMPAIGNS

“Gentlemen, Comrades, do not be concerned about all that you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans, and to let them fall asleep.” (TEUC, page 44; statement by Mikhail Gorbachev before the Politburo early in his tenure, i.e. somewhere around 1985/86; from: Relevance Special Report, September 1994: ‘The New Lies Strategy: The KGB’s Advance through Retreat’, under the section entitled ‘The Grand Illusion’)

“Let us imagine a rejuvenated Central Committee in Moscow decides to free the Soviet Union from its increasingly burdensome confederates. ‘Just understand, Comrades,’ says the barely 31-year-old General Secretary, ‘that these small eastern European states with their chaotic economic situation, with their incomprehensible inner contradictions and their harmful ideologies will simply continue to hinder our Communist structure. In my view, it would be much more correct to leave these societies – while guaranteeing our military interests – to their own dynamism of development.'” – “From the propagandist point of view, this would bring us only benefits… because we could then be hailed once again as liberators of these countries… Let us fantasise further: the First Secretary’s words are unanimously enacted, the Warsaw Pact is terminated, the Soviet troops stationed in the Eastern European region are disbanded amidst military music and flowers, and the former Eastern Bloc countries make a start on controlling their own problems. Through free elections, in which several parties may participate, they create their parliamentary institutions, they open their borders and guarantee freedom rights, including sensible limited private ownership. All other things – McDonalds network, unemployment, peep-shows – will automatically follow.” (TEUC, page 111; article by György Dalos; in: ‘Das Kursbuch’, Kursbuch Verlag/Rotbuch Verlag, Berlin, September 1985: ‘Die Befreiung der Sowjetunion von ihren Satelliten: Entwurf einer Mitteleuropäischen Konföderation’ (i.e. The Soviet Union’s ridding itself of its satellites: Draft of a Central European Confederation). Apart from an inevitable element of disinformation regarding the ‘harmful ideologies’ of the East European satellite states etc. and with typcial Leninist boldness and cynicism, this was a clear and detailed pointer to what the Soviets were up to, 2 years before the pompous proclamation of perestroika and 4 years prior to the ‘demolition’ of the Iron Curtain. Had these signals been properly perceived and analysed by the West, it would have been so much harder for the Communist bloc to surprise the West with their false ‘democratisation’ offensive in 1989; Western politicians would have been warned to stay away from any of the communists’ deceptive overtures. – Note that also here, like in the Soviet context, there’s a reference to limited privatisation only!!! The ‘new’ model would then be not a free market economy but state-controlled ‘capitalism’, in other words: the same old central planning economy ‘enriched’ by superficial capitalistic features so to dupe the West into convergence on the false premises of ‘collapsible communism’.)

“Already today we can say: the Congress has been held in an atmosphere of Party fidelity to principle, in a spirit of unity, exactingness, and Bolshevik truth.” – “It is in this way, in Lenin’s way, that we have acted here at our Congress. And that is the way we shall continue to act! – “Comrades, our Congress has shown that at the present stage, which is a turning point in our country’s social development, the Leninist Party is equal to its historic tasks.” – “Adopting a bold, realistic, mobilising and inspiring strategy, one that is Leninist in spirit, the struggle for the triumph of Communist ideals, of peace and progress, the 27th Congress of the CPSU expresses the Party’s firm determination to honourably follow our great road, and open up new vistas for the creative energy and revolutionary initiative of the… people’s intelligentsia. The Congress calls on all Soviet people to dedicate all their strength, knowledge, ability, and creative enthusiasm to the great goals of Communist construction, and to worthily continue Lenin’s victorious revolutionary cause, the cause of the October Revolution! (TEUC, page 19; Mikhail Gorbachev’s closing address to the 27th CPSU Congress on March 6, 1986; from the Information Bulletin ‘XXVII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union: Documents of the Communist and Workers’ Parties, Articles and Speeches’, 9/1986, Volume 24; Peace and Socialism International Publishers, Prague 1986, pages 125-130)

“At a Party Congress at which frank reports were delivered and sharp discussions held, after which the delegates expressed support for unity, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, in defiance of sceptics, exclaimed enthusiastically: ‘Now this is something I really understand! This is Life!’ Many years have gone by since then. One can note with satisfaction that the atmosphere at our Congress is again marked by that Bolshevik spirit, that Leninist optimism, that call to struggle against the old and outmoded in the name of the new.” (TEUC, page 40; at the same 27th Party Congress of the CPSU, February 1986: Boris Yeltsin; the supposed ‘anti-Communist’, who was in reality, like Gorbachev, a flawless Party and Politburo boss, and who merely enacted this dialectical ploy of displayed ‘rivalry’ with Gorbachev for the furtherance of Communist strategy.)

“The 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union notes that our Leninist party has come to its Congress enriched… At the present turning point, in a qualitatively new situation inside the country and on the world scene, the Party has again shown its loyalty to Marxism-Leninism.” (TEUC, page 19; Final Resolution on the Political Report of the Central Committee; ibid., page 133)

“We are moving towards a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road.” (TEUC, page 19; Mikhail Gorbachev, November 1987)

“The new Soviet initiatives are in large part centred on Europe – which, should a sharp turn toward a policy of peace be achieved, would have a special role to play as the building site of détente.” (TEUC, page 31; Fyodor Burlatsky: From Geneva to Reykjavik, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1987; page 97 – ‘Sharp turn’ is supposed to mean a U-turn for Europe away from an alliance with the United States towards a joint political, economic and military space with the Soviet Union! – And here is Christopher Story’s explanation of the Communist meaning of ‘peace’: “the cessation and absence of all opposition to Lenin’s World Communist Revolution”, in other words: the global implementation of an ‘eternal’ peace of the grave.)

“Our philosophy of peace [which always means a communist peace of the grave with all opposition crushed] is frankly based on the conviction that socialism can win without war, without military competition.” (TEUC, page 42; Burlatsky: From Geneva to Reykjavik, page 155; the strategic theme ‘victory without war’ is mainly based on the theories by ancient Chinese military theorist Sun Tzu, laid out in his treatise The Art of War, that says the highest form of war is not having to go to war by instead gradually undermining and destroying the enemy country’s social and cultural fabric as well as spiritual values from within; that same approach is also well-known from the infamous Prison Notebooks by Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, who indeed inspired several generations of covert revolutionaries to embark on a highly efficient ‘March through the institutions’ – once ‘Daniel le Rouge’, leader of the May 1968 student riots in Paris and a.k.a. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, as well as Joschka Fischer, once far-left street activist, being probably the most prominent examples: the former is today leader of the European Green parties in the European Parliament; the latter made it to the post of head of the German Greens and German Foreign Minister from 1998 to 2005 under socialist Chancellor Gerd Schröder, whose famous expression, ‘Yes, I am a Marxist’ surprisingly hasn’t bothered anyone in Germany, which tells us all about the incredible progress of the revolution in Germany and throughout Europe.)

“Some progress, in fact considerable progress has been made in Europe towards détente and in New Thinking.” (TEUC, page 42; Burlatsky: From Geneva to Reykjavik, page 159)

“The image of the enemy that is being eroded has been… absolutely vital for the foreign and military policy of the United States and its allies. The destruction of this stereotype… is Gorbachev’s weapon… Neither the arms race, nor power politics in the Third World, nor the military blocs, are thinkable without ‘the enemy’, and without the ‘Soviet threat’.” (TEUC, page 23; Georgiy Arbatov, then close strategic advisor to Gorbachev and member of the Politburo; in: Kommunist, 1988. – This is what the alleged ‘end of the Cold War’ really was about: the bringing to an end of anti-Communism by deceptively creating the illusion that the Communist threat was over. This manipulation of the Western mind enabled the Soviet strategists to advance full steam towards a merger of the blinded West with the unchanged Communist East, naturally on Communist terms, and with the West not realising what’s going on until it’ll be too late!!!)

“The ‘image of the enemy’ which we are expending so much effort on debunking today emerged as a counterbalance to the real image of the Soviet people, contrary to its friendliness, valour, wisdom and self-sacrifice.” (TEUC, page 42; July 25, 1988: Eduard Shevardnadze before the 19th All-Union CPSU Conference; that part of his speech was entitled ‘The Party’s Thought and Will geared to Perestroika’)

“We see that confusion has arisen in some people’s minds: aren’t we retreating from the positions of socialism, especially when we introduce new and unaccustomed forms of economic management and public life, and aren’t we subjecting the Marxist-Leninist teaching itself to revision? … No, we are not retreating a single step from socialism, from Marxism-Leninism…” (TEUC, page 14; Mikhail Gorbachev; in: ‘Current Digest of the Soviet Press’, 40, Number 7, 1988, pages 3-4)

“Hungary allowed 60,000 East Germans to leave for the West, and thousands more moved into Prague and Warsaw. Hungarian Foreign Minister Gyula Horn allowed East Germans to leave after talking by phone with Shevardnadze.” (TEUC, page 111; the events in the summer of 1989 at the Hungarian-Austrian border as described in the otherwise completely uncritical book The Wars of Eduard Shevardnadze by Carolyn Ekedahl and Melvin A. Goodman, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997; page 248. – This en-passant-mentioning of an exchange on the telephone between the Hungarian and the Soviet Foreign Minister immediately before go-ahead was given in the night from September 10 to September 11, 1989 for those 60,000 East Germans to leave into the West reveals that events were tightly coordinated with Moscow. There was no spontaneous element in any of this. It was all planned and carried out with military precision. – September 11, by the way, is the birthday of the founder of the Cheka and co-architect of Lenin’s Red Terror, Felix Dzerzhinsky, as well as the death-day of the father of the New Longrange Deception Strategy, Nikita Khrushchev! A fact that seems to have had little effect on 9-11 researchers to consider the possibility, in one way or the other, of a Russian involvement in those terror attacks that led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and gave birth to the new Soviet propaganda line of a ‘common Islamic threat’ that would necessitate close security and intelligence cooperation between ‘Russia’ and the West. – Also, Gyula Horn, an active supporter of the Soviet crushing of the genuine Hungarian uprising back in 1956 and active participant in the brutal ‘cleansing’ operations that accompanied it, was soon to be a ‘post-communist’ Prime Minister of ‘newly democratic’ Hungary during the years 1994 to 1998! He later was co-founder, with Mikhail Gorbachev, in 2003 of the ‘World Political Forum’, a platform that serves like the Gorbachev Foundation to influence and manipulate Western elites in the interests of communist revolutionary strategy.)

We are for a Lenin who is alive! In building our future we are basing ourselves upon the gigantic intellectual and moral potential of the socialist idea linked with the theory of Marxism-Leninism. We see no rational grounds to give up the spiritual [sic!] richness contained in Marxism. Through restructuring [i.e. ‘perestroika’] we want to give socialism a second wind and unveil in all its plenitude [meaning: globally!] the vast humanist [i.e. godless] potential of the socialist system.” – “In order to achieve this, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union returns to the origins and principles of the Bolshevik Revolution, to the Leninist ideas about the construction of a new society… Our Party was and remains the Party of Lenin… In short, we are for a Lenin who is alive.” – “We must seek these answers guided by the spirit of Leninism, the style of Lenin’s thinking, and the method of dialectical cognition.” (TEUC, page 14; Mikhail Gorbachev speaking on November 15, 1989 to a group of Russian students. – Thus, these remarks represent a blatant real-time explanation of the true nature of the supposed ‘changes’ that were all-too-smoothly transforming in those months the Eastern European satellite states into ‘instant-democracies’!)

“In a democratic state, a changeover to a multiparty system is inevitable. Various political parties are gradually being formed [out of the CPSU] in our country. At the same time, a fundamental renewal of the CPSU is inevitableFirst, it is necessary to organisationally codify all the platforms that exist in the CPSU and to give every Communist time for political self-determination… The Party should divest itself of all state functions. A parliamentary-type Party will emerge. Only this kind of Party, provided that there is a mighty renewal [of the CPSU]… will be able to be a leading Party and to win elections for one or another of its factions. With the development of democratic movements in the country and the further radicalisation of restructuring, it will be possible for this alliance to become the vanguard of society in actual fact. This will provide a broad social base for the renewal of society… [and to] erect a barrier against attacks by the conservatives, and guarantee the irreversibility of restructuring.” (TEUC, pages 79-80; Boris Yeltsin speaking at the 28th CPSU Congress on July 6, 1990; from: Current Soviet Policies XI, Current Digest of the Soviet Press, Columbia University Press. – What Bolshevik heavyweight Boris Yeltsin lays out with considerable openness, the language being still slightly Leninistically coded, is precisely what prominent defector Anatoliy Golitsyn had been warning of for 30 years: the Party would free itself of its state functions, set up a tightly controlled, pseudo-democratic regime staffed with Communists posing under whatever political label they may have chosen to seemingly represent, and would be able to engage undividedly and with all its resources in the furtherance of the world revolution and the total collectivisation of everything and everybody around the globe. The longterm aim of a fully revolutionary vanguard Party would establish itself as the dominant factor worldwide: Lenin’s ‘state of the whole people’ and the Communist version of ‘global democratic peace’ would have become the deadly and all-encompassing reality for every human being anywhere in the world, with conservatives reduced to an endangered species and ultimately erased from the face of the earth. As of 2012, these objectives aren’t too far from being finally fulfilled, as one looks around oneself.)

“Now, about the Party itself. Allow me to formulate three conditions necessary for the Party to fully demonstrate its viability and actually attain its vanguard potential. In the first place, to this end it must, resolutely and without delay, restructure all its work and reorganise all its structures on the basis of the new Statutes and the Congress’s Programme Statement, so that under the new conditions, it can effectively perform its role as the vanguard party. We must do everything to firmly establish in the CPSU the power of the Party masses behind an all-encompassing democracy, comradeship, openness, glasnost and criticism. Secondly, when there are various views and even platforms on a number of questions of policy and practical activity, the majority must have respect for the minority. And thirdly, Comrades, we must study, learn, and improve our culture. If we embark on this path, it will be easier to interact and have contacts with other forces. The Central Committee and I will do all we can to help the Republic Communist Parties gain their new independent status as soon as possible, a status that will lead not to a fragmentation of Communists and nations but to a new internationalist unity of the CPSU on a common ideological basis. Let us prove that the CPSU, as it restructures itself, is capable of living up to these expectations… and then it will become a truly vanguard party whose power lies not in giving orders but in influencing people.” (TEUC, page 82; Mikhail Gorbachev speaking on July 13, 1990 to the 28th CPSU Congress. – These remarks leave no room for doubt whatsoever that all the pressing ‘changes’ were about a tactical re-organisation and re-formation of Party and State in the interest of strategy! Ideology wasn’t abandoned, the Communist Party wasn’t abandoned, and neither was the USSR abandoned in its previous borders. It was all, and still is, a giant deception operation that succeeded, by playing with false, seemingly Western labels, to hoodwink the Free World and ultimately achieve worldwide communist victory.)

“The 28th CPSU Congress attaches fundamental importance to defining the principles of the Party’s policy at the present stage, with a view to… renewing those principles and making progress towards a humane, democratic socialism. Distortions of the principles of socialism from the 1930s into the 1950s [meaning, during the Stalin period] engendered complicated problems…” (TEUC, page 42; statement of the July 1990 28th CPSU Congress, as published on July 15, 1990 in Pravda)

“Stalinist socialism, which our country developed for many years, has shown itself to be fully bankrupt, having exhausted its resources for growth.” (TEUC, page 36; Vladimir Shastitko, Director of the Institute of the Economy of the World Socialist System in the August 1990 issue of the Soviet journal ‘Sputnik’. – Meaning solely the Stalinist model of socialism had outlived itself, not socialism – resp. Communism – as such!)

l

1991: THE YEAR THE CPSU WAS ‘ABOLISHED’ AND THE USSR ‘DISSOLVED’

“The New Economic Policy introduces a number of important changes due to the fact that in their entire policy of transition from capitalism to socialism the Communist Party and the Soviet Government are now adopting special [i.e. secretive, deceptive] methods to implement this transition and in many respects are operating differently from the way they operated before; they are capturing a number of positions by a ‘new flanking movement’, so to speak; they are drawing back in order to make better preparations for a new offensive against capitalism. In particular, a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control [!!!], are now being permitted…” (TEUC, page 62; V.I. Lenin: ‘Draft Thesis on the Role and Function of Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy’; prepared on December 28, 1921 and approved two weeks later by the Party’s Political Bureau; Collected Works, Vol. XXXXII, page 375. – This Lenin quote was used by Carl Bloice, a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party USA and Moscow-based correspondent of the CPUSA’s ‘People’s Weekly World’, a man obviously with excellent personal contacts to Mikhail Gorbachev. In: Political Affairs (the theoretical journal of the CPUSA), May 1991, Vol. LXX, Nr. 5, pages 14-16: ‘An Observation on Economic Changes in the Soviet Union’. The parallel drawn by Bloice officially confirms the identical pattern in both Lenin’s NEP and Gorbachev’s ‘Perestroika’: a tactical retreat to prepare for an even stronger offensive.)

“The dangers lie in the fact that someone, analysing at some private moment or other, this or that instance or episode, or even event, including a dramatic event, should not make hasty conclusions and cast doubt on all that has been acquired and what we have created in putting international relations onto new channels, onto new rails, entering, as all of us have said, a period of peaceful development.” (TEUC, page ´7; Mikhail Gorbachev in a joint press conference with French President of the day, socialist Francois Mitterand, in Paris on May 6, 1991; the coded statement reveals the permanent fears of the professional liars, which the Marxists-Leninists are, that their inverted pyramid of lies, that out of necessity grows bigger and bigger, could be exposed. Gorbachev even gave a cryptic pointer by the phrase ‘including a dramatic event’ to the staged ‘August Coup’ three months later. The image of ‘new rails’ of course suggests the intended irreversibility of their revolutionary progress. And what communists mean by ‘peace’ should be sufficiently known after all crime and tragedy committed by communism ever since 1917: it’s a peace of the grave, with all opposition crushed and liquidated once and for all.)

“The challenge for us Europeans is to draw the Soviet Union into our common endeavour, to dispel any temptations to isolate it… From the viewpoint of security policy, our reference system reaches from the shores of the Pacific to Vladivostok.” (TEUC, page 12. What a surprise: former Secretary General of NATO, Manfred Wörner, Germany, addressing the Conference on the Future of European Security organised by the Czechoslovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs and held on April 25/26, 1991 in Prague. – Unless this is a citation mistake by Christopher Story, ‘from the Pacific to Vladivostok’, which itself is situated on the Pacific, can only mean: the whole Northern hemisphere! Otherwise it would be ‘from the Atlantic to Vladivostok’, enclosing the present-day EU and the perfectly intact USSR, that is already overlapping with EU territory through the 3 Baltic Soviet Republics.)

“He [Gorbachev] isn’t a Leninist any more.” – “I don’t think we have been deceived; at least, I hope we haven’t.” (TEUC, page 19; Margaret Thatcher in a July 1991 conversation with Christopher Story, who had done his best to correct Lady Thatcher’s erroneous view, but failed. Gorbachev’s powerful sexual charisma, that was described by several time witnesses as extremely sinistre and demonic, had served its purpose and literally bewitched Margaret Thatcher so that she believed Gorbachev was somebody she could do business with…)

“GORBACHEV OFFERS PARTY A CHARTER THAT DROPS ICONS – HARDLINERS CRITICIZED – Opening a 2-Day Meeting, He Challenges Even Sanctity of Marxism-Leninism” (Headline of The New York Times, July 26, 1991)

“LENIN ABANDONS STATE OWNERSHIP AS SOVIET POLICY – Official Decree Retains Control of Only a Few of the Big National Industries – TO LEASE TO INDIVUDALS – Payments for Postal, Railroads and Other Public Services Are Re-established” (Headline of The New York Times, August 13, 1921)

(TEUC, page 55; Christopher Story even gives photocopies in his book of these two almost identical headlines of The New York Times: proof that Gorbachev’s Perestroika deception was indeed modelled after Lenin’s ‘New Economic Policy’ deception, and it worked out in the Western mind in the very same successful way! Thus, as Christopher Story ironically puts it: “Communism collapses twice.”)

“There was a brilliantly planned and executed, large-scale, unprecedented provocation in which the roles were scripted for the intelligent and the stupid, all of whom consciously or unconsciously played their parts.” (TEUC, page 52; Lt-General Aleksandr Lebed, commenting in retrospect, three years after, on the fake August coup of August 1991, as was published by ITAR-TASS on August 19, 1994. – Now, this is an absolutely outrageous confession as it provides first-hand confirmation, beside all other proof against the official version, that the whole events of August 1991, from the ‘arrestation’ of Gorbachev at his Crimea holiday resort to the supposed coup d’etat by ‘neo-Stalinists’ to the mysterious failure of their ‘coup’ was all nothing but a theatrical play staged for Western consumption and designed to prepare for the fake dissolution of the CPSU and the subsequent fake dissolution of the Soviet Union so to transform, for the furtherance of strategy, overt Communism into covert Communism with a pseudo-democratic and pseudo-‘capitalist’ mask. Interestingly, this 3-day provocation was code-named ‘Golgotha’, which wonderfully illustrates the Satanic dimension of Communism that so much enjoys ridiculing and mocking religion in general and Christianity in particular.)

“I think that the idea of a Common European Home, the building of a united Europe, and I would like to underline today, of Great Europe, the building of Great Europe, great, united Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, from the Atlantic to Vladivostok, including all our territory, most probably a European-American space, a united humanitarian space: this project is inevitable. I am sure that we will come to building a united military space, as well. To say more precisely: we will build a united Europe, whose security will be based on the principles of collective security. Precisely, collective security.” (TEUC, page XXXII: Soviet foreign secretary of the day, Eduard Shevardnadze, on November 19, 1991, interviewed on a Moscow television programme along with NATO Secretary General of the day, Lord Robertson. – Note the bold and terrifying geopolitical vision of a joint political space of the whole of Europe and the whole of the unchanged Soviet Union all the way from the Atlantic shores of Portugal and Ireland to the far East; of course meant as a ‘humanitarian’, i.e. a communist space – for which the EU’s massive enlargement deep into the ‘former’ communist East in 2004/2007 was nothing but a preliminary step; it’s in fact a Soviet Western enlargement, nothing else. Even bolder, Shevardnadze includes in this framework North America as well! That’s why their communist plant in the White House, Barack Obama, spoke at the DNC of 2008 from a floor designed in the manner of an EU flag: yellow stars on blue ground. This is Obama’s mission: to force the United States into a pan-communist supranational structure, as promoted by the UN and the EU and powerfully pressed forward by the communist alliance led by the unchanged Soviets and the Red-Chinese. Note also that all their devilish plannings for the Soviets themselves are always ‘inevitable’. They are so self-assured simply because the West has been in such suicidal deep sleep!)

“If we had not freed our foreign policy from ideologised or, as we used to say at that time, class interests etc., we would have found it difficult to find a common language with our partners, and it would have been difficult to overcome the military confrontation.” (TEUC, page 61; Eduard Shevardnadze in that same television programme, November 19, 1991, 19:40 GMT; interview conducted by Valentin Zorin: ‘Undiplomatic Conversations’, Central Television, First All-Union Programme. – This is a highly revealing statement as it shows that ideology was deceptively ‘abandoned’ for tactical reasons only in order to reach common ground with the West, and not the other way round that common ground would have been naturally made possible because ideology had frankly disappeared! Sometimes they do make mistakes…)

l

1992: YEAR ONE OF THE ‘POST-SOVIET, NEW RUSSIA’ AND, AT THE SAME TIME, THE BEGINNING OF THE ‘NEW DYNAMICS’ IN THE SO-CALLED EUROPEAN INTEGRATION PROCESS (WHICH WAS NO COINCIDENCE!)

“I look forward to the day when Russia is a fully-fledged member of the European Community.” (TEUC, page 13. Believe it or not: British Prime Minister of the day, John Major!!! So uttered on New Year’s Day 1992 – which was precisely a week, and not more, after the fake abolition of the USSR on Christmas Day 1991 – in the Prime Minister’s New Years’ Day broadcast on BBC Radio 4.)

“Our vision of the European space from the Atlantic to the Urals is not that of a closed system. Since it includes the Soviet Union, which reaches to the shores of the Pacific, it goes beyond nominal geographical boundaries.” (TEUC, page XXXIII: Mikhail Gorbachev in his prepared Nobel Peace Prize speech in Oslo in June 1992, when the Soviet Union had already been officially ‘abolished’ by him half a year earlier!!! Yet another bold pointer indicating that the Soviet Union was still in existence in June 1992 (albeit, behind the scenes), and has continued to live on behind the scenes up to this day!)

“I dare say that the European process has already acquired elements of irreversibility. In such a context, in the process of creating a new Europe… self-determination of sovereign nations will be realised in a completely different manner.” (TEUC, page XXXIII: Mikhail Gorbachev, in the same speech in June 1992; nota bene: speaking for the Yeltsin regime to which, allegedly, he was in ‘opposition’!)

“We are talking about… a principled choice for Russia’s course and consquently, to a considerable extent for the course to be pursued by the other states not only of the Commonwealth of Independent States, not only of the former Soviet Union, but also of the whole so-called socialist camp… because of the reality which consists of the fact that the Russian Federation has been at the centre of that configuration and is today economically, culturally and in many other senses certainly the locomotive which by the direction and speed of its movement determines the direction and speed of movement of other states.” (TEUC, page 124; Russian Foreign Minister of the day, Andrei Kozyrev, in the course of an interview on December 4, 1992 on Mayak Radio. – However, one year after the alleged dissolution of the Soviet Union and 3 years after the alleged collapse of communism in the Eastern European satellites, there was, in official terms, no ‘socialist camp’ in existence any more. But, in reality, of course, it still was, and so with the unchanged Soviet Union still in the driving seat. Note also the use of the word ‘locomotive’, by which Kozyrev confirms that the old geopolitcal endeavour of communist world revolution is still their goal!)

ll

1992 – 1999: THE ‘YELTSIN YEARS’

“The point is that the Communist goal is fixed and changeless – it never varies one iota from their objective of world domination, but if we judge them only by the direction in which they seem to be going, we shall be deceived.” (TEUC, page 19; Yelena Bonner, wife of controlled ‘dissident’, Andrei Sakharov)

Answering a naïve question from the audience, in late 1993, whether he would ‘return to politics’, Gorbachev replied, “I’m not hiding in the woodwork. I’m involved in a different political role… I have not abandoned links with the past.” And asked, ‘What are you doing right now?’, Gorbachev gave back, “I’m working on the same problems as before – on New Thinking and international relations.” (TEUC, pages19; 40. Mikhail Gorbachev, November 6, 1993, on CNN’s Larry King Live. – What this meant was and is of course Gorbachev’s vanguard role for the world revolution via his newly founded Moscow/Amsterdam/San Francisco-based Gorbachev Foundation, his supposed environmental organisation Green Cross International, and his very active support of ‘Interfaith’ organisations such as the United Religions Initiative, all designed to bring the once Free and faithful world over to the deadly standards of Marxism-Leninism.)

“The organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe [OSCE] is a net we have thrown over the West.” (TEUC, page 90; Russian Foreign Minister of the day, Andrei Kozyrev, as reported in the German newspaper ‘Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung’ on January 8, 1994.)

“Prague? Let us give it to Germany.” – “The Czech Republic should go to Germany.” (TEUC, page 52. Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, ‘caricature of a Russian nationalist’, as Anatoliy Golitsyn termed him, but of course high-ranking GRU officer, making on two occasions a highly interesting point; one time in the Italian newspaper L’Espresso on January 21, 1994, the other time in the German newspaper Die Welt just ten days later, on January 31, 1994. The statements refer to the secret German-Russian accord reached by Kohl and Gorbachev at their September 1990 meeting in Geneva that foresaw the Czech Republic to be merged with Germany within 15 years; and indeed, right on time, 14 years after that accord, the German-dominated European Union took in not only the Czech Republic but most of ‘formerly communist’ Eastern Europe. It can only be speculated whether even the time difference of 10 days between these two statements by Zhirinovskiy could have secretly indicated the actual time range in years until the EU’s eastwards-enlargement, which came to pass indeed 10 years after Zhirinovskiy’s pointer, and so on May 1st of 2004, i.e. on Labour Day!!!)

Vladimir Zhirinovskiy is “just the probe they use to measure the depth of dissatisfaction in Russia.” (TEUC, page 52; Mikhail Poltoranin, then head of the ‘Federal Information Centre’, January 13, 1994, ITAR-TASS; but Zhirinovskiy also acts as a ‘probe’ to test whether Soviet strategy has possibly been understood by Western observers, which to the satisfaction of the strategists just never happens to be the case: the West continues to be sound asleep.)

Russian Foreign Minister of the day, Andrei Kozyrev, when on a visit to Iran in April 1994, explained his visit as “not a turn away from the West; we shall not turn away from the West anywhere, but a mere consideration of the fact that Russia is a great power and it must, and is, playing on all chessboards of world politics abiding by corresponding rules. We are Christians where it is appropriate, we are Europeans in Europe and Muslims in the orient; adding that this was “not hypocrisy, but Russia’s multi-faced image.” (TEUC, page 127; as was reported via ITAR-TASS. – The ultimate objective of such ‘multi-facedness’ of course being moulding the whole world into one and erecting on top of this global hegemony, then by the use of brute force like in the Revolution of 1917 (perhaps a bit ‘smarter’ due to the whole range of modern surveillance technology and an all-encompassing cashless society soon to come), a final Satanic kingdom on Earth; as Christopher Story reminds us, this statement by Kozyrev shows again the close similarity, if not identity, in the objectives of Freemasons, historical Illuminati, and Communists.)

“The Moscow City Committee of the CPSU [i.e. Communist Party of the Soviet Union!!!] congratulate you on the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party, USA and on the 70th anniversary of the Communist press in the United States.” (TEUC, page 76; September-October 1994 issue of the CPUSA’s journal ‘Political Affairs’; this note of congratulations from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was given 3 years AFTER the alleged dissolution of the CPSU and the Soviet Union!!!)

Interview with an Ukrainian government official by name of Boris Tarasiuk on the BBC programme, ‘Disputed Borderlands’, broadcast on Nov. 5, 1994:

TARASIUK: “We have to design a new approach, a new concept of all-European security, which will be freed from the division of the Continent into military blocs.”

ALLAN LITTLE, reporter of the BBC: “Where would the centre of gravity in such a system be, where would the real decision-making power lie?”

TARASIUK (according to Christopher Story, ‘unable to prevent himself from breaking into a broad smile on-camera’): “Very interesting question. It’s a question for… to be a subject for a special conference. Well, I could tell you that I know the answer to this question, but I would prefer rather not to answer it.”

LITTLE: “What’s your… well, what are your doubts about it?”

TARASIUK: (according to Christopher Story, ‘still looking uncomfortable at having been asked a pertinent question by a Western journalist, probably for the first time in his life’): “Well, I think that the time hasn’t come yet for giving an answer.”

(TEUC, page 119. – One certainly needn’t be a genius to guess what that “already-decided-upon” political centre of gravity is meant to be …)

“Also attending were other components of the Communist movement in Russia. The most prominent was the COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION, which acts as a coordinating structure of the parties of the former USSR. Eventually, its aim is to become a fully-fledged party.” (TEUC, page 76; April 1995: American Communist Sam Webb reporting in the April 1995 issue of the Communist Party USA’s journal ‘Political Affairs’ on his recent visit to Moscow where he had attended in January 1995 the Third Congress of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) led by Gennadiy Zyuganov, one of the many splinters, from far-left to ‘far-right’, that had emerged in 1991/92 from the supposedly defunkt CPSU and that are in fact controlled by the same old CPSU that merely had gone in the hiding so to enable the illusion of a New Democratic Russia. By that phrase, obviously trusting that ‘Political Affairs’ is only read by ‘the interested’ and not by anyone else, Sam Webb revealed the truth about the ‘coordinating structure’ of all those new parties!!! Nothing has changed except for a new modus operandi! – Quite tellingly, no big festivities of any kind took place in late 2011 to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the ‘end of the Soviet Union’ – because there had been no end to the USSR, plain and simple. Certainly, they do not want to encourage any genuine expression of anti-Communism that could get out of hand. – The last sentence of the above-given quote clearly expresses the likelihood of the CPSU to officially re-emerge from its present hiding as soon as the convergence with the West on their communist terms would have so far progressed that wide-spread acceptance of this reality as well as absence of any considerable opposition would be guaranteed.)

“They write that I am the mafia’s godfather. (But) it was Vladimir Lenin who was the real organiser of the mafia and who set up the criminal state.” (TEUC, page 69; Otari Kvantrishvili, a Georgian mafia ‘leader’, who was later murdered; published in April 1994 in Komsomolskaya Pravda.)

“One tries to make Westerners believe that the mafiya is the product of post-Communism, whereas in reality it is organised, controlled and staffed by the KGB. (TEUC, page 69; Algirdas Katkus, then Vice-President of ‘newly independent’ Lithuania in an interview for the French publication Libre Journal: ‘Un pays sacrifie’; number 26, page 29; Paris 1995. – These two statements show with horrifying clarity what Anatoliy Golitsyn, as well as e.g. Joseph D. Douglass (author of ‘Red Cocaine’), had warned of all along that the ‘Eastern Mafiya’ isn’t a criminal operation in the conventional sense but a giant political operation designed to serve world-revolutionary strategy and aimed at exporting Lenin’s ‘criminal state’ model to the whole world! Also, it is quite peculiar that Algirdas Katkus speaks of the ‘KGB’, although that name for the Security Services had been abandoned, along with the ‘dissolution’ of the USSR, in 1991. Yet another detail showing how much all the relabelling was predominantly meant for outward consumption, but didn’t really make much of a difference for the Soviets themselves, including their ‘ex-Soviet’, newly ‘independent’ so-termed Near Abroad, in this case: the Baltic ‘ex-Soviet’ Republic, Lithuania.)

“We should not forget that the representatives of the former political system have all adapted beautifully to the new economic situation. They are in banking. They were the first to understand all the positive sides of a system of government-controlled capitalism. They were very good organisers, and they were pioneers in commercialising the country.” (TEUC, page 63. Oleg Poptsov, Director of the Second National TV Channel, in June 1995. – What a frank admission of who really is the ‘oligarchy’ of the ‘New Russia’: they are trusted secret service personnel posing as ‘private entrepreneurs’ in the interest of the deception strategy and to involve foreign investors in ‘joint ventures’ with Russia’; meanwhile, the Soviet manager-apparatchiks have effectively turned the scales and walk around in the West, buying whatever they can and whatever suits Soviet economic strategy; which is predominantly the energy sector so to guarantee an ever greater energy dependence of Europe on Russian natural gas, to a lesser degree: oil, and other natural resources.)

“It will become possible to create a Euroatlantic security area or, in other words, the comprehensive collective security system which has long been discussed in our country as the highest goal of our foreign and defence policy.” (TEUC, page 9; Sergei Rogov, then Director of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of the United States and Canada; in: ‘International Affairs’, the journal of the Russian Foreign Ministry; Vol. 41, Nr. 7, 1995, page 6)

“The collective security model… should pave the way for a gradual evolutionary synthesis of several processes: integration within the CIS and the EU, strengthening and increasing the role of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, transforming NATO (and) working together to prevent or resolve conflicts.” (TEUC, page 93; Yuriy Ushakov, Director of the Directorate for European Cooperation at the Russian Foreign Ministry; in: ‘International Affairs’, Vol. 4, Nr. 5, 1995: ‘Europe: Towards a New Security Model’)

“Russian membership of the Council of Europe will open up intensified new cooperation between Russia and Europe and will assist us in reaching our objectives of achieving membership of the European Union and of NATO. (TEUC, page 98; then Russian Foreign Minister, Andrei Kozyrev, after Russia’s admission to the Council of Europe by February 8, 1996)

“Vladimir Zhirinovskiy also did his work well. He was in good shape and did his best to show everybody present (at the Council of Europe, in Strasbourg) what a wild and horrible person he is. Russia, he said, is the most democratic state in the world, unlike any member of the Council of Europe – for instance, the Germans, who are harming the Turks, the Turks who are suppressing the Kurds, and so on. Having succeeded in frightening the gentle Europeans (indicating how much the Leninists despise the compliant European ‘useful idiots’; Christopher Story) he concluded by saying that he personally would be happy if Russia were refused admission – as, in that case, he (Zhirinovskiy) would win the Presidential elections by a still larger margin.” (TEUC, page 103; Vladimir Lukin, formerly Russia’s Ambassador to the United States and Chariman of the State Duma Committee of Foreign Affairs; in: ‘International Affairs’, Vol. 42, Nr. 2, 1996: ‘Russia’s Entry to the Council of Europe’. – Official confirmation of how the unchanged Leninists stage dialectical plays to reach their objectives: Zhirinovskiy, posing as the ‘great threat’ of a back-fall of the ‘new, democratic’ Russia into another dark age of tyranny, merely acted out his role so to convince the West that it has no alternative to taking ‘Russia’ into their Western structures!!! The ploy, as also in the case of NATO’s eastwards-expansion, worked out most wonderfully: The ‘Russian Federation’ was finally welcomed as the 39th member of the Council of Europe on February 28, 1996, marking a major stepping stone in the process of peacefully and deceptively ‘entering the enemy’s camp’. The outcome then, of course, is what Christopher Story terms cuckoo’s egg diplomacy: once admitted to Western structures, the new members start dominating the nest…)

“Ukrainian Comrades [should] not be involved in political infighting in their country [but] strengthen their ranks [and] set up primary organisations based on the CPSU platform [!!!].” – “The most powerful branches of the Union of USSR Officers operate in the units of the 43rd Missile Army, in Crimea, Dnepropetrovsk, Odessa, Kharkov, and Kiev.” (TEUC, page 79; from a 1996 secret resolution addressing the work in the Ukrainian Armed Forces, published on March 19, 1996 by the US Foreign Broadcast Information Service, FBIS: FBIS-SOV-96-054; page 44)

“It is very important that Russia is integrated into a new European security architecture.” (TEUC, page 13; Klaus Kinkel, German Foreign Minister of the day, in May 1996)

Russia should join the European Union “in order to end its Cold War-era isolation for good.” Russia needed to be recognised, at last, as a “full European state… We are also prepared to join the European Union.” (TEUC, page 13; Boris Yeltsin on March 22, 1997 in Helsinki during a two-day Summit Meeting with President Clinton; in: The Daily Telegraph, March 23, 1997: ‘Yeltsin wants Russia in EU’)

“During the 1990s, the neo-liberal economic model has been implemented on a global scale. As a result, the IMF and the World Bank have begun to play approximately the same role on a global scale as the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union once played for the Communist Bloc. IMF and World Bank experts decide what to do with the coal industry in Russia, how to reorganise companies in South Korea and how to manage entrepreneurs in Mexico. Despite all that is said about the free market, world practice has never before known such centralisation. Even Western Governments are forced to reckon with this parallel authority.” (TEUC, page XXXVIII; Boris Kagarlitsky, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Comparative Political Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences; in: ‘Socialism and Democracy’, Vol. 12, Nrs. 1-2, 1998, published by ‘The Committees of Correspondence’, an offspring of the Communist Party USA, that has its office at 10th Floor, 122 W.27th Street, New York 100001-6281, which is also the office of the far-left Gramsci operation calling itself ‘The Brecht Forum’, and of the ‘New York Marxist School’. The telling Marxist-Leninist titles of some of Boris Kagarlitsky’s writings: ‘The Dialectic of Change’; ‘Disintegration of the Monolith’; ‘De-revising Marx’; ‘Restoration in Russia’; ‘Why Capitalism Failed’; and ‘The Mirage of Modernisation’; info by Christopher Story – A great pointer to how these international organisations have always played and still play in the hands of world communism!)

“The two pillars of the nation state are the sword and the currency, and we have changed that. (TEUC, page 73; Romano Prodi, shortly after his election for the post of President of the European Commission; Financial Times interview of April 9, 1999. Mind this bold and arrogant admission by this supposed centre-left politician, but in fact key revolutionary, basically saying that they go ahead anyway, whether with or without the European peoples’ consent! If one contemplates for a moment on this self-assured and dictatorial statement, one is inevitably reminded of another overly self-assured revolutionary dictator with pan-European ambitions: Adolf Hitler!)

l

2000 ONWARDS: THE GRADUAL RE-EMERGENCE OF THE STALINIST MODEL UNDER PUTIN — THE EU’S 2004/2007 EASTWARDS-ENLARGEMENT DEEP INTO THE STILL-COMMUNIST SPHERE — THE OVERALL FINALISATION TOWARDS ‘GLOBAL GOVERNANCE’

(As for the EU, at present, 2012/early 2013, 10 of the 27 EU member states are ‘formerly’ communist, notwithstanding the EU’s dominant power, Germany, which through its reunification in 1990 was effectively turned into an all-communist greater Germany rather than the other way round. These 10, if not 11, out of 27 ‘formerly’ communist EU member states are: the 3 Baltic states, that were actually Soviet Republics until 1991; the direct Soviet satellites Poland, Czechia & Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria; as well as Slovenia, as the first of former Yugoslavia, which had been officially out of the communist bloc but in fact part of it; with Croatia due to join on July 1, 2013 as member state Nr. 28. Thus, apart from Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland, a handful principalities such as Liechtenstein, Monaco, or Andorra, and of course the Vatican, all that then remains are the 4 other former Yugoslav states, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia; as well as once ultra-Stalinist Albania. Other than that, the stage is set for the real thing yet to come: the merger with the unchanged Soviet Union, of course and tragically on Soviet-communist terms, and probably starting with Ukraine and Moldova, followed by Belarus, the ‘Russian Federation’, and finally the 3 Caucasus Republics, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia, and probably even the 5 Central Asian Republics, Turkmenistan, Kasakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tachikistan, and Kirgistan. – Regarding the global level, the IMF and World Bank, along with the G-8 and G-20 forums, have already acquired, notably by 2010, the status of an unannounced world government anyway.)

“Over the next decade we will complete our economic integration and, even more importantly, give shape to a new, political Europe. The next five years [meaning 2000 to 2005] will be decisive.” – “We are already pushing forward with political integration by establishing an area of freedom, security and justice, and by developing common foreign, security and defence policies. Our common interests and objectives are best served by a common approach and common means.” – “Political integration will become a reality as political leaders and citizens come to realise that their shared values of liberty, peace and stability, democracy, human rights, tolerance, gender equality, solidarity and non-discrimination can best be promoted through shared policies and institutions. Political integration must be pursued…” – “What we are aiming for, therefore, is a new kind of global governance to manage the global economy and environment.” – “The truth is that ‘Brussels’ is all of us.” – “We must sustain the pace of change to the very fabric of the European Union itself.” – “It will need further integration backed by a systematic policy of reform, transforming both our economy and our social systems. (TEUC, page 11; Romano Prodi, then President of the European Commission, February 9, 2000: Strategic Objectives 2000-2005: ‘Shaping the New Europe’. – Romano Prodi, although officially a left-of-centre Christian Democrat, but having led a number of left- and far-left coalition governments in Italy, was investigated from 2002 to 2006 by an Italian parliamentary commission, named the ‘Mitrokhin Commission’, about the possibility of his being a communist agent, i.e. a man of Moscow. The investigations met severe political obstacles, were themselves accused to serve an intrigue by Prodi’s political rival, then Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and finally were terminated after four years without having been able to verify or falsify the claims made in the archives of KGB Major Vasili Mitrokhin that Romano Prodi was their man. Interestingly, also former FSB-agent Alexander Litvinenko, who was assassinated in 2006, made the same claims, albeit based on hearsay. – Despite the outrageous implications of these claims, but quite tellingly, no investigation of Mr. Prodi was ordered by the EU institutions. His successor, by the way, the Portuguese José Manuel Barroso, was in his time as a university student back in the early 1970s a Maoist student leader; has he remained a communist, despite his conservative party affiliation? We can only know by his policies as Mr. Barroso arrogantly refuses questions regarding this sensible point in his biography and what it means for his present political views. – Photograph below: Romano Prodi (left) and Vladimir Putin at a meeting in 2007: Conspiratorial Comrades fighting hand in glove for the triumph of Lenin’s world revolution?)

    

A planned ‘merger’ between President Putin’s so-called ‘Unity’ Party and two other large ‘factions’ in the Duma represented “a movement, a front, a league – the CPSU, in effect. (TEUC, page 77; an Izvestia quote in The New York Times on November 6, 2001)

The purpose of this intended ‘merger’ was “to unite all healthy [i.e. Communist] political forces and all of society, for the sake of a single purpose.” (TEUC, page 77; Sergei Shoigu, the Kremlin’s Emergencies Minister; the emphasis on ‘all of society’ and ‘a single purpose’ shows their revolutionary optimism to be able to build their long-desired Leninist ‘State of the Whole People’.)

The European currency union isn’t about economics. “This is a purely political process.” (TEUC, page 29; then President of the European Commission and almost certainly Soviet agent, Romano Prodi, on January 2, 2002; as Christopher Story brilliantly puts it: “With previously unremarked honesty, Sig. Prodi thereby destroyed with that single comment all the myriad spurious economic and monetary pretensions that had accompanied the prolonged gestation of the Euro – making retrospective fools of finance and economy ministers, central bank governors, Prime Ministers, Presidents and others who had contended publicly that the introduction of the Euro was ‘necessary’ in order to make it easier for tourists and businessmen to conduct trans-European transactions.”)

“Post-war Germany had never believed in the nation state at all, and has been working for a European federation all along.” (TEUC, page 29; German Finance Minister of the day, Hans Eichel; The Daily Telegraph, January 17, 2002; Christopher Story comments: “Although deception remains the European Union’s familiar modus operandi – nothing will ever change that – it has recently become fashionable for senior Euro-ideologues to throw caution to the winds and to reveal what was previously hidden from the captive populations of the EU Member States by their leaders.” Hans Eichel’s statements were made only days after Sig. Prodi’s outrageous admission! Christopher Story continues: “But for a senior German ideologue to admit this openly in 2002, suggests that Berlin has concluded that the Leninist attack on the nation state, which Herr Eichel confirms that it is pursuing in tandem with Moscow, has progressed so far in Europe that the true purpose of the EU Collective need no longer be withheld. It is now acceptable to speak openly in Europe about the redundancy of the nation state – the revolutionary expectation being that, given the Revolution’s triumph in the cultural war that has been waged since the 1960s to undermine loyalties and respect for all institutions, the nation state means nothing to the younger generation.” – Meanwhile, a decade later, even TV-correspondents unashamedly demand the building of a European federal state; ironically, the deadly crisis of the European Monetary Union is being used, instead of admitting its complete failure, for even further centralisation under the maxim of all-European ‘solidarity’. More than ever, the EU displays the Kafkaesk reality of being literally a ‘revolutionary’ perpetuum mobile!)

From a German 90-minute documentary made from November 2009 till spring 2011 on the Social Democratic Party of Germany, entitled “Sozialdemokraten – 18 Monate unter Genossen” (i.e. ‘Social Democrats – 18 Months among Comrades’): At precisely 30:22 till 33:34 running time, there is a brief segment filmed in April 2010 in Berlin at the fairly left-leaning Hertie School of Governance’s award of their annual Speaker’s Prize, “Best Speaker of the Year” (the chosen winner, conservative Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg, however, refused the award). Within this segment, from 32:09 till 33:34, there are shown some comments towards a mainly Social Democrat audience, including their Chairman, by German Green, Jürgen Trittin, who is generally held as being part of the ‘left wing’ of the Green Party and by some, due to his arrogance, as a ‘Salon Stalinist’ – one could easily term him as well as the Al Gore of Germany; under the Red-Green Schröder/Fischer coalition government from 1998 till 2005, Trittin had ‘served’ as Federal Minister for the Environment and in that function pushed forward Germany’s gradual “Atomausstieg”, i.e. complete exit from nuclear energy, by the year 2022 (his Comrades in ‘Russia’ and Eastern Europe, on the contrary, keep building nuclear power plants, so why can’t Germany???); today he is head of his party. Trittin talks here, quite sportively and sympathetically, about the speech of Social Democratic Party Chairman Sigmar Gabriel, who is present in the audience, at the SPD’s Party Convention at Dresden on November 13, 2009, and makes a more than revealing point that illustrates the all-Marxist cooperation between Social Democrats and Greens, and what their programme really is – and always has been – about. Trittin elaborates,

“The next political speech is headlined, I quote: ‘Speech by the Chairman of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, Sigmar Gabriel, at the SPD’s Federal Party Convention at Dresden’. That speech was a success, but it turns out that these two hours also have their pitfalls. Because there are also some weak passages in them, if I may say that. 164 times the speaker pronounces the word ‘Comrade’ [‘Genosse oder Genossin’], thus on average once every 44 seconds. My teacher would have scored here: ‘Repetitive mistake’. One of the most-cited sentences of this speech goes: ‘The political centre is not defined by income- or professional groups, and by the way also not by certain political views to which one would have to adapt. The political centre of Willy Brandt was something entirely different. It was no distinct place, but it was the prerogative of interpretation [‘Deutungshoheit’] in society.’ Prerogative of interpretation, that’s the key term in this speech, and that means something entirely different than mere majority appeal. Rather, it goes back to Antonio Gramsci’s term of ‘Hegemony’.”  (Sigmar Gabriel nods silenty.) – Trittin’s ‘clarifying remark’ comes indeed as a bomb-shell: Antonio Gramsci was the co-founder in the early 20th century of the Communist Party of Italy and has become famous for his strategic ideas quite contrary to classical Marxism, namely that first the cultural and spiritual base of a society need to be destroyed before the revolution can be successful, an approach similar to that of the infamous Frankfurt School. It is interesting that a so-called “Green” politician, speaking to Reds, makes this conspiratorial reference to communist Gramsci and his idea of ‘hegemony’: it means no less than across-the-board domination of the political debate, more than that: of any political thinking whatsoever, in other words: effective tyranny that’s generally accepted by the population due to the strategistis’ recipe of gradualism! And it means that the widely known joke about Greens being watermelons – green on the outside, red on the onside – is no joke at all! Greens are revolutionary communists who have merely hijacked environmental issues for the furtherance of the revolution. That’s why we have “Global Warming”, or “Climate Change”, or “Climate Disruption”, or whatever. It’s all a bunch of lies, long since proven to be lies by outstanding experts and scientists, but who cares as long as these people are in the positions of power, in the EU, in the UN, and basically everywhere, and control the so-called ‘debate’, that in fact is rather a one-way avalanche of constant brainwashing, 24/7.             

_________________________________

l

BOOKS

Sergey Petrovich Melgounov: The Red Terror in Russia; [orig. 1924]; Edward Harle Ltd., London – New York 2008

Bella Dodd: School of Darkness: The Record of a Life and of a Conflict Between Two Faiths; P. J. Kenedy, 1954 (order here)

Louis F. Budenz: The Techniques of Communism; Henry Regnery Co., Chicago 1954 (order here)

Louis F. Budenz: The Bolshevik Invasion of the West: Account of the Great Political War for a Soviet America; Bookmailer 1966 (order here)

Jan Šejna: We Will Bury You: The Soviet Plan for the Subversion of the West by the Highest Ranking Communist Ever to Defect; Sidgwick & Jackson, London 1982 (order here)

Anatoliy Golitsyn: New Lies for Old: The Communist Strategy of Deception and Disinformation; Dodd, Mead & Co., New York 1984 (order here)

Richard Wurmbrand: Marx and Satan – Was Karl Marx a Satanist? – Living Sacrifice Book Co., 1986 (order here)

Anatoliy Golitsyn: The Perestroika Deception: The World’s Slide Towards the Second October Revolution; Edward Harle Ltd., London – New York 1995 (order here)

Herbert Romerstein & Eric Breindel: The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors; Regnery Publishing, Washington DC 2000 (order here)

Christopher Story: The European Union Collective: Enemy of its Member States – A Study in Russian and German Strategy to Complete Lenin’s World Revolution; Edward Harle Ltd., London – New York 2002 (order here)

Jerome R. Corsi: The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality; Threshold Editions, New York 2008 (order here)

Aaron Klein (with Brenda J. Elliott): The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists; WorldNetDaily Books, New York 2010 (order here)

Stanley Kurtz: Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism; Threshold Editions, New York 2010 (order here)

Dinesh D’Souza: The Roots of Obama’s Rage; Regnery Publishing, Washington DC 2010 (order here)

Dinesh D’Souza: Obama’s America: Unmaking the American Dream; Regnery Publishing, Washington DC 2012 (order here)

Paul Kengor: The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor; Mercury Ink, 2012 (order here)

The Contemplative Observer: Red Surprise: Russian-Chinese Military Blackmail: ‘Cooperate or Face World War III’; non-profit online publication by the author of this blog; at present, 280 pages (read here

l

ARTICLES

Herbert Romerstein: Treason and Ted Kennedy: The Story the Media Won’t Tell; (followed by a 1983 letter from KGB head, Viktor Chebrikov, to then Soviet leader, Yuri Andropov, regarding Ted Kennedy’s collaboration with the KGB); published at usasurvival.org, 2003 (read here)

Herbert Romerstein: What Was the Weather Underground? – 52-page PDF-file, includes several historical documents; published at usasurvival.org (read here)

Herbert Romerstein: From Henry Wallace to William Ayers – the Communist and Progressive Movements; published at usasurvival.org (read here)

l

FILMS

The Truth about Communism; documentary, including extensive historical footage; narrated by Ronald Reagan; USA 1962 (watch here)

Coming Out of the Ice; motion picture on the tragic life of Victor Herman, an American who had accompanied his pro-Soviet father around 1930 over to the Soviet Union where Henry Ford had set up an auto factory, complete with hundreds of skilled workers from the U.S. and their families. Young Victor Herman, who was a fabulous athlete, quickly found himself trapped by the Soviet authorities who sought to make use of his sports talent for propaganda purposes and wanted him to become a citizen of the Soviet Union, which Herman persistently refused. The price he paid for his allegiance to America was many years of forced labour in the Gulag camps of the far North. Not before the early 1970s he was able to return to the United States as a free man. An amazing and very instructive film, particularly for those who still believe socialism is a good idea. The reality is: socialism KILLS. – Directed by John Savage; USA 1982 (watch here: part 1/7)   

No Place to Hide: The Strategy and Tactics of Terrorism; documentary, presented by G. Edward Griffin; American Media, USA 1982 (watch here)

Communist Subversion; lecture given by Yuri Bezmenov in Los Angeles in 1983 (watch here)

Soviet Disinformation and Subversion of the Western Press; interview with Yuri Bezmenov; host: G. Edward Griffin; USA 1984 (watch here)

Martin Luther King, Jr.: A Communist and Moral Degenerate? – An amazing 80-minute talk by American Baptist Pastor James Knox (www.jameswknox.org), that takes a second look at the ‘national hero’, Michael ‘Martin Luther’ King; USA, 1990s (listen here

The Perestroika Deception; interview with Christopher Story, editor and publisher of Anatoliy Golitsyn’s 1995 book, The Perestroika Deception; host: William McIlhaney, USA 1995 (part1/2; part 2/2)

The Perestroika Deception; follow-up interview with Christopher Story; again with host William McIlhaney, USA 2003 (watch here)

Lenin’s Satanic World Revolution; Christopher Story giving a 50-minute public talk at a Catholic conference in 1999, i.e. the “Fatima: 2000” World Peace Bishops’ Conference held in Hamilton, ON, Canada from October 11 – 18, 1999 (watch here).

The Deliberate Dumbing Down of the World; interview with educational whistleblower, Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt; USA 2006 (watch here)

The Great Global Warming Swindle; documentary; directed by Martin Durkin; WagTV/BBC Channel 4; U.K. 2007 (watch here)

Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America; by James Jaeger; USA 2010 (watch here)

Dreams from My REAL Father: A Story of Reds and Deception; documentary by Joel Gilbert; USA 2012 (order here)

The Unvetted; documentary by Agustín Blázquez, Cliff Kincaid (usasurvival.org) et al; USA 2012, 32 min. (watch here)

2016: Obama’s America; documentary by Dinesh D’Souza; USA 2012 (watch here; order here)  

(Also, do see the much more extensive bibliography page on this blog here!)

______________________________________

l

All other articles on this blog you can check out here.

l

l

l

© The Contemplative Observer 2012

l

l

Advertisements