A page answering to questions that I frequently encounter both in real life and virtual conversations. It’s HIGHLY recommended for newcomers to read it thoroughly before demonstrating any friendliness or hostility.
My translation of short article by Alexandr Holz, explaining the essence of pension reform in terroRussia – and its thuggish “democracy” in general.
In this entire pension reform theme, the motive of “innocently affected” people seems a little out of place.
The concept of “people” in the Russian tradition has always been surrounded by some halo of holiness. Those “people” always were the bearer of all kinds of simple verity and yokel’s truth. The idea of “rightness of the majority” is a typically Russian one, the result of communal, “conciliar” mindset. And in Soviet Union, glorification of so-called “Soviet people” was in complete harmony with its megalomania, hanging from all roofs into our daily life. In this myth, “people” are some sacred concept, and not at all the subject of social reality, responsibility and history as a whole.
But just like any human subject, “people” can be immoral or mendacious (during some stage of historical life), aggressive, servile, cowardly and short-sighted in their actions. Not necessarily virtuous at all. And somehow, the Russian people (strangely enough) are always “heroes” and “bearers of truth.” Once (in their own eyes) they were a “God-bearing nation”, now – innocent victims of some “stuck-up elite” that takes the last roubles out of the people’s pockets. Yeah, indeed…
However, there are two participants in those actions. And if you (together with all that “stuck-up elite”) were tearing into foreign territories, applauding international looting for years – then tell me, why the “elite” should stop on neighbor’s pockets and not touch yours?
You approved it – with cheers and applause. So get the result.
When robbery becomes a national policy, based on the will of “people’s majority”, there is no point in resenting and crying over turned-out pockets. That is your own policy, which you gave the green light to. It’s quite surprising to see such change of tune when people who snatched a piece of neighbor’s land, all wrapped in “victorous” ribbons suddenly try to play the victim, a plaintive, sad meek crowd asking “Why?!” with look of an innocent sufferer.
Quite funny shift from triumphant boorishness to tears of offended innocence. Steep turns of Russian national consciousness…
Leonid Gozman said: “There will be no riot, but in my opinion, the line in the relations of government and people has been crossed. The government is cowardly, hypocritical and hostile to the population…”
Yes, it is. But what about the population? Isn’t it “cowardly, hypocritical and hostile” to the interests of the country?
Personally I don’t notice any “line” between russian government and russian people. Therefore (most likely) there will be no riot – they share too many common values and connections. Pushkin, as always, had expressed this troubled historical plot in several lines: “For what to herds are the gifts of freedom? They need to be slaughtered or shorn”.
If you are all happy about shearing and slaughter of other people’s flocks, there is no reason to cry baa baa when shearers finally get their hands on your own fleece.
Each time when it seems absolutely impossible for russian ass-kissers to go any lower anymore they somehow manage to hit a new low.
This time, it’s Burger King trying to launch a russian version of Lebensborn-esque campaign with a purpose to breed a whole new generation of russian football players.
Well, I’ve got to disappoint Burger King idiots (whose burgers suck big time BTW): it’s TRAINING and COMMITMENT that make a good football player first of all, and only then – maybe – genetic background. And ruskies (especially those who are proud of their origin) definitely have a big problem with both, so either way you are screwed – just like anyone foolish enough to invest in lowlife commie thugs.
The story of Clinton-Obama’s Kremlin endless “flexibility” and their sudden subsequent hysteria about Trump being “a Kremlin agent” barely needs any more comments; however, its not-so-known spin-off in EU definitely needs some.
Polish ex-prime minister Donald Tusk has made a “statement” about Law and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość), calling it a Moscow’s “twin” “playing into the hands of Russia”. The reason? Law and Justice are conservatives that refuse to kiss EU’s big fat ass. And what’s much more important, many of them refuse to believe that 2010 Presidential Tu-154 crash was just an “accident” (See the re-investigation committee’s recent REPORT for technical details.)
Just like his libtard comrades from Obommie’s bunch, Euro-leftie Tusk is now very shy about his own relationship with Putin – clearly demonstrated by this photo, made right after the murder of President Lech Kaczynski and his Government by Putin’s thugs.
It’s hard to miss a happy look on both faces of b#tch Tusk and his terroRussian master. That day, murderous KGB pervert realized that he can have such “fun” again anytime – and so he did in 2014…
East or West, leftists are just the same. The lowest b#tches of commie thugs are the loudest outraged seekers of “Kremlin agents”.
anti-Semitism, army, Chechnya, commie, communism, Georgia, gulag, Hellstorm, history, Jew, jewish commissars, national socialism, pogrom, rape, revisionism, russia, soviet, subhuman, tsarism, Ukraine, ussr, war crimes, WW2, WWII
Finally, I’ve been able to get my hands on Hellstorm-inspired Revisionism Revised series again – to deal with the most (in)famous revisionist and mainstream boogeymen.
Since the very beginning of my studies, I’ve been always wondering why should one choose extremes of either ideology. Why it’s so hard to stand for reason instead of popular mainstream or underground agenda?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I see most of revisionists keeping blunt National Socialist position, declaring Hitler completely innocent and parroting the contents of 3rd Reich propaganda books. Which ruins the very concept of revisionism that must be based on independent investigation and analysis first of all. Unfortunately, neither any of victorious countries nor the majority of modern seekers of Justice for scapegoated Germans seem to have those, clinging to either official “evil Nazis – 6 millions murdered – glorious victory of the Allies” or underground “Heil Hitler – evil Jews – glorious National Socialism” stereotypes. 70 years have passed and folks continue jumping on the same rakes again and again. Sometimes it’s hard to believe that someone can stick to moldy stereotypes from old propaganda books so ferociously in the age of Internet and open knowledge. Alas.
Here, I’ve made an attempt to debunk the stereotypes of both groups and represent my own opinion about revisionism which might find its own supporters and of course plenty of haters from both camps. (I remember how ruskies were calling me “Yid” because of my refusal to hit on cheap vodka and behave like imbecile goblin, and I know that libtards are calling me “Nazi”, so little can surprise me. Having your own opinion is definitely not the most popular thing in this f#cked-up world.)
MYTH#1: EVIL JEWISH COMMISSARS
This particular NS myth has so much negating evidence that it’s hard to choose where to begin.
I’ve lost count how many times I heard woeful words of hatred targeting infamous commie lackey Ilya Erenburg (by some arcane reason called “one of the most influential men of USSR” in Hellstorm) whose Jewish ethnicity is of course a red flag.
Let’s agree with them for some time and suppose that all Soviet politicians, commissars, NKVD staff, prison guards etc. were Jewish. And that they successfully incited Red Army to kill, rape and pillage. But would YOU butcher a child or gang rape a teenage girl to death if someone says to you it’s OK? Personally I’d prefer to use my sidearm on fun sack of the very “commander” that gives such “orders”. However, most of ruskies turned out to be bitches that obeyed “evil Jewish commissars” without any regret, if not with perverted satisfaction. That scenario seems especially believable considering that ruskies themselves were perfectly happy with HQ that just loved to abuse them, so I guess mutilation of “enemy” civilians was absolutely “normal” in terms of their russian morality and they were perfectly happy with it.
However, there are some inconvenient facts to consider.
Even the most diehard Nazi propagandists can’t incriminate Erenburg with incitement to exercise “revenge” (so favored by mainstream junkies as justification of soviet war crimes) on “brotherly nations”, especially Slavic ones. However, Red Army has been leaving a trail of mass rapes, murders and looting in every country they “liberated”. Fate of many Polish, Ukrainian, Serbian, Yugoslavian women was not better than German ones suffered. Let alone some Jewish and even their own russian female countrymen from “liberated” labor camps. Rapes of Soviet female army staff were so common (unless they were “field-campaign wives” of some commander) throughout the entire war that it wasn’t denied even by some Soviets. But most of them considered such treatment of their own women, or better to say women in general, absolutely “normal”. Reminds you of something?
Of course Erenburg was a Jew. And he indeed was a pouch full of commie shit. But so was and is an every single commie regardless of ethnicity. Erenburg’s lapdog hysteria, even being multiplied by Soviet government-owned media, has barely changed anything in russian mindset seemingly wired for crooked deeds long before he learned how not to crap himself.
The stupidity of some “revisionists” allows them to find “evil Jews” everywhere to shift the blame for all russian wrongdoings on them. For those who disagree, there is always a “Jew/Zionist/Mossad agent” etc label in stock. That could be ridiculous if not sincerely carried out by adult men who have a genuine eye-popping, fire-farting hysteria, labeling anyone whom they don’t like “evil Jews” according to their crooked logic. Or certain donation from Lubyanka, more likely.
Cause it’s hard to find something more convenient to Kremlin than anti-Semitism. Not only turning people away from the revisionism, it also helps true perpetrators to whitewash themselves. At first useful Nazi idiots begin to blame some mysterious “Jewsih bolsheviks” for all troubles in Russia (just like it was during WW2). Then they quote Solzhenytsin (BTW, a devoted ass-kisser of KGB thug Putin, just like Alexeeva and other russian fake dissident windbags) as an example of “poor kind-hearted Russian”. And finally they crank up their street organ with strangely familiar tune that sings how Russians had nothing to do with Soviet crimes, it was all “evil Jews” who did that, and how “Jew Lenin, Jew Stalin” and their bunch of “Jewish” friends destroyed “noble white Mother Russia” and voila – ruskies, by their logic, are completely innocent! Sometimes they aren’t even embarrassed to openly praise commies and condemn anti-communism (Take a look at this screenshot. I don’t think the website with such content deserves promotion by giving direct links, but I’m sure it deserves becoming an example of modern NS logic)!
Well, NO FRIGGIN’ WAY. The facts speak completely otherwise – and no matter which direction we go into History relatively to WW2, the less favorable and believable anti-Semitism looks like.
Sadistic megalomaniac Zhukov was a genuine 100% ruskie yokel born in village named Strelkovshchina – an authentic example of russian thuggish nature, as well as majority of red comissars, prison guards, NKVD staff, felons and all those who were a backbone and muscle of this most criminal regime and country ever. Maybe its “brain” was partially Jewish, but communism and impunity it gives to criminals was just what most of russians wanted with their inner zeal – and finally got in 1917.
If you look into memoirs of Countess Yevfrosiniya Kersnovskaya, Janusz Bardach, Elena Glinka or any other GULAG survivors, you’ll see genuine russians harassing, robbing, gang raping, mutilating and murdering their own countrymen with such a zeal that leaves any “Nazi atrocities” invented by commie propaganda far behind crying in envy. I especially recommend you to find out what was called “Kolyma tram” (or “Kolyma streetcar”).
In modern days there were wars in Chechnya, Moldova, Georgia and currently Ukraine, where ruskies did absolutely the same things as in Europe of 1945 (or sometimes even worse). And when those subhumans have no “enemy” civilians to rape, pillage and kill, they gladly practice their skills on each other during perverted hazing rituals that no other nation could ever think about. Where are Soviet Jewish commissars now? Russia is being ruled by “white nationalist” Putin and his goons, so admired by faux Right useful idiots!
And before the revolution of 1917, it was hard to find a country with higher degree of anti-Semitism than Russian Tsarist Empire. Regular pogroms (ofter accompanied with gang rapes), Black Hundred terror, made-up criminal cases, officially approved discrimination policies and of course fake “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” were daily reality for russian Jewry, many of which were forced to leave the country and never return. However, such treatment of “evil Jews” barely helped Tsarist Russia to become a better place, even for privileged ruskies. In a nutshell, it was thoroughly corrupt, technologically-retarded fundamentalist war-happy tyranny with absolutely no regard for Dignity and Personality, where illiterate, thuggish lowlife serfs were the majority.
An American: “No one can punch me: we have liberty!”
A Russian: “I can punch anyone: we have liberty!”
And it seems to stay that way.
During my studies, I’ve understood a very important thing: a true anti-communism and revisionism end where anti-Semitism begins. And that’s the end of the myth of “Evil Jewish commissars”.
TO BE CONTINUED
Ruskie “christians” are celebrating their lent with drunk carousing and singing popular criminal “Murka” song.
Well, like nation, like lent.
If you wanna see more from daily life of russian satanic orcs or make some Kremlin trolls meltdown, there is always plenty of evidence.
If you are one of my subscribers or regular visitors, you’ve probably wondered why I was so silent about recent re-elections of KGB pedophile Putin, poisoning of Sergei Skripal, subsequent diplomatic scandal and all other, mostly unfortunate events that happened around and within terroRussia recently.
The answer is because I’ve actually told everything about it before. One does not need to possess a prophetic mind to realize that congenital commie thugs are bound to enjoy thuggery, elect thug-in-chief to lead their world domination escapades, glorify their crimes of the past and dream about new ones. And that only brute force can make those thugs meek and silent, like it happened on Syrian battlefield and Western diplomatic scene.
“What is communism? What is socialism? For me personally, it is worse than Nazism.
Nazism was in plain sight, and communism was covered up. What was done, let’s say, in [Nazi] concentration camps was known to everybody. What was done in NKVD concentration camps and prisons was known to no one, it was locked up. Unknown, covered up, lied about and so on. But I don’t think it was better. And I don’t think that there were fewer victims. I think there were more, much more.
I don’t have no rainbow-colored words to say here, that’s why communism, Nazism, whatever… Germans were following orders they were receiving. And ours [Russians] did it even out of personal desire, cause it was just pleasant for them – to do some torturing, some killing, in addition to their personal wish. And of course, if only Stalin would have threw an official call to “beat the Yids”, they wouldn’t leave a single one alive.”
Everyone in MSM crowd seems to be obsessed with Trump’s Russia collusion those days. Considering Trump’s former overly friendly stance towards Kremlin, those concerns could have been legitimate indeed – if not some inconvenient (for MSM) fact: all their indignant vigilance suddenly evaporates when the subject of discussion is Obama or Clinton, no matter of their russian resets, red lines, uranium deals and just plain, blatant attempts to sovetize their own country.
Contents of the following post are well-known amongst the Old Guard anti-communists, but it’s never too repetitive to spread such a word amongst those who still don’t know. All credit belongs to original authors and The Contemplative Observer (nickname at WordPress) who did the following transcript of the recorded interview.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 occurred 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 …
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 …
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! [!!!!!]
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.
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.
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.
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: 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”.
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”.
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”.
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.
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.
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. [!!!!!]
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.
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 –
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.
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.
FIFE: And, I did make notes of this conversation because it did strike me so strongly.
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.
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]
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 ?”
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.
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 –
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.
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 [?]! 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.
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 –
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!
LEARY: But, but then, you know, I think that National Review found something, or the National Journal, which is the Charlie Cook inside the [?] 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.
LEARY: He is like [?], 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!
Got a kind of nostalgia after watching this video from 1992. Some thugs from russian airborne troops came to Latvia for their traditional subhuman “fun” (drinking, yelling profanities, assaulting people and shitting everywhere) but got their commie asses trounced by local police.
It’s sad that Latvia (and most of Europe) has degraded to rotten Euro-socialism and caste impunity system since those days. Political correctness is not the answer to blatant thuggery and Westerners have to remember that if they don’t want to end up in russian GULAG!