– Russian Diplomat in Ottawa Calls Canada’s Testy Response to Bomber Intrusion “Cold War Mentality,” Washington Silent on Incident
– Obama as Soviet Mole: Tom Fife’s Controversial 1992 Conversation with Anonymous Russian Scientist’s Wife Revisited
– Council on Foreign Relations Website Quotes US National Security Adviser James L. Jones: “I Take My Daily Orders from Dr. Kissinger”
– Male Secondary Students in Russia to Receive “Voluntary” Pre-Military Training under Interior Ministry Directive, Assigned to Regular Troop Units
– People’s Bank of China Governor Joins Neo-Soviet Leadership in Urging Establishment of Global Currency to Replace US Dollar, Praises Economist John Maynard Keynes
The tiff between Russia and Canada over the former’s revived Arctic military activities continues. As previously blogged, Dmitry Trofimov, head of the political section of Russia’s embassy in Ottawa, has been summoned to appear before the Canadian parliament’s defense committee to explain the presence of two strategic bombers near the Yukon coast several hours before the arrival of US President Barack Hussein Obama in the Canadian capital last month.
“It was nothing but a coincidence,” Trofimov protested, “From the point of international law, nothing happened. Absolutely nothing. Military training flights will continue so long as other countries conduct them on the boundaries of Russia’s airspace.” Canada’s conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, and his defense minister, Peter MacKay, “raised a stink” about the bomber intrusion. Trofimov, in turn, responded to the Canadian government’s testy reaction by saying: “The Cold War mentality is still there, which is deplorable.”
By contrast, the US government, which is determined to “press the reset button” on bilateral relations with Moscow, has been silent about the February 18 bomber incident near Canadian airspace. It is evident from the statements of the neo-Soviet leadership that the Kremlin views Obama as a pliable friend, if not an outright covert asset, as discussed below. It is expected that Obama will meet his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev for the first time at next month’s London Group of 20 summit.
The US government has also been silent with respect to two important, apparently related incidents that took place on March 20. The MSM revealed yesterday that Obama and Vice President Joe Biden met former Soviet tyrant Mikhail (“I’ll Always Be a Communist”) Gorbachev at the White House last Friday, in what can only be described as a “secret meeting” since the encounter was not previously published on the US president’s official daily schedule. Reuters news agency acquired the revelation via Gorby’s spokesman Konstantin Petrenko, who refused to divulge details of the discussion.
When White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was grilled at a news conference about why the meeting between Obama, Biden, and Gorbachev was not previously disclosed, Gibbs offered an incredible explanation: “The president tends to roam around the larger (White) House and sometimes walks into meetings that weren’t previously on his schedule.” We can only speculate about the subject matter that President Obama discussed with the Soviet strategists’ top PR man. However, a clue may be afforded from Gorbachev’s praise for Obama last November.
Following the president’s election Gorbachev, in an interview with Italy’s La Stampa, urged Obama to implement “perestroika” (restructuring) in the USA to “overcome the financial crisis and restore balance in the world.” He complained that “The Republicans have failed to realize that the Soviet Union no longer exists, that Europe has changed, and that new powers like China, Brazil and Mexico have emerged as important players on the world stage. The world is waiting for Obama to act. The White House needs to restore trust in cooperation with the United States among the Russians.” Gorbachev then referred to Obama as a “man of our times”:
This is a man of our times, he is capable of restarting dialogue, all the more since the circumstances will allow him to get out of a dead-end situation. Barack Obama has not had a very long career, but it is hard to find faults, and he has led an election campaign winning over the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton herself. We can judge from this that this person is capable of engaging in dialogue and understanding current realities.
Novosti picked up Gorbachev’s La Stampa interview, as well as Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s opinion of the US president, expressed in the Russian business daily Vedomosti. Khodorkovsky founded the now defunct Yukos oil giant but is presently serving a prison term on fraud and tax evasion charges. Like Gorbachev, he used the word perestroika in describing the future direction of the Obama administration. “Being a liberal myself,” Khodorkovsky pontificated, “I think that the world will take a left turn and that a global perestroika would be a logical response to the global crisis.” Sounding like a communist rather than a capitalist, he added: “The paradigm of global development is about to change. The era inaugurated by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher 30 years ago is over. Decisions in neoliberal economies have been made mainly by supranational institutions and transnational corporations.” Khodorkovsky predicted:
Globalization will slow to a crawl, but will not stop. The ‘golden billion’ of the world’s richest people will have to abandon hopes of increasing their wealth, but high consumer standards which developed at the end of the 20th century will be unaffected by the change. The striving for political freedom and open competition of personalities and ideas will not disappear.
To what sort of “restructuring” is master communist deceiver Gorbachev and Komsomol capitalist Khodorkovsky alluding? Why, socialism, of course. In the 1980s Gorbachev outlined his vision of a “mature socialist society” in Russia and a world conquered for communism. In Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World (Harper & Row, 1987), the not-so-retired Soviet dictator writes:
Perestroika is closely connected with socialism as a system. That side of the matter is being widely discussed, especially abroad, and our talk about perestroika won’t be entirely clear if we don’t touch upon that aspect.
Does perestroika mean that we are giving up socialism or at least some of its foundations? Some ask this question with hope, others with misgiving.
. . .To put an end to all the rumors and speculations that abound in the West about this, I would like to point out once again that we are conducting our reforms in accordance with the socialist choice. We are looking within socialism, rather than outside it, for the answers to all the questions that arise. We assess our successes and errors alike by socialist standards. Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika–and the program as a whole, for that matter–is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy.
More socialism means a more dynamic pace and creative endeavor, more organization, law and order, more scientific methods and initiative in economic management, efficiency in administration, and a better and materially richer life for the people.
More socialism means more democracy, openness and collectivism in everyday life, more culture and humanism in production, social and personal relations among people, more dignity and self-respect for the individual.
More socialism means more patriotism and aspiration to noble ideals, more active civic concern about the country’s internal affairs and about their positive influence on international affairs.
In other words, more of all those things which are inherent in socialism and in the theoretical precepts which characterize it as a distinct socio-economic formation.
We will proceed toward better socialism rather than away from it.
. . .We want more socialism and, therefore, more democracy.[pages 36-37]
If the socialist nature of perestroika is still unclear, in spite of the above quote, then consider the following excerpt from a report that Gorbachev delivered to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union’s Central Committee and the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on November 2, 1987:
The idea of perestroika rests upon our seventy-year history, on the sound foundation of the basically new social edifice erected in the Soviet Union; it combines continuity and innovation, the historical experience of Bolshevism and what socialism is today. It is up to us to continue and carry forward the cause of the pioneers of the Revolution and of socialism. And we are certain to achieve this by our work, by making creative use of the experience of the generations that blazed the October trail before us [October and Perestroika: The Revolution Continues. Ottawa: Soviet Embassy, 1987].
Last Friday, at the secret White House meeting, did Gorbachev personally urge President Obama to implement socialist restructuring in the USA? Since Obama is in fact an under-the-radar socialist this scenario is very possible, which means America has most certainly entered its last days as a free country. A startling essay by Tom Fife, “The First Time I Heard of Barack,” exposes the US president as a veritable “Manchurian Candidate.” Fife is a software developer who visited Russia between 1992 and 1994 in order to launch a business in collaboration with “some people from the Russian scientific community.” We cannot vouch for the authenticity of Fife’s sources, but simply reproduce below, for the reader’s consideration, the statements of “T.M.,” a Russian woman devoted to the “communist cause,” uttered in 1992.
Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon. What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?
Well, you will; and he will be a Communist. Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call “Ivy League”. You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your President.
It’s all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won’t have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He’s gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America.
“She was full of little details about him,” Fife continues, “that she was eager to relate. I thought that maybe she was trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air. She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature.”
“Have no doubt,” T.M. gushed, “he is one of us, a Soviet. . . . he will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world.”
“So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove? Well, it’s definitely anecdotal,” Fife admits, adding:
It doesn’t prove that Obama has had Soviet Communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it does show one thing that I think is very important. It shows that Soviet Russian Communists knew of Barack from a very early date. It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed Communist to pave the way for their future. This report on Barack came personally to me from one of them long before America knew he existed. Although I had never before heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30+ years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star.
Secretive, high-level discussions between Moscow and Washington have in fact taken place since former US secretary of state and alleged Soviet agent “Bor” Henry Kissinger established a “strategic working group” with former KGB chief Yevgeny Primakov at then Russian President Vladimir Putin’s private residence in 2007. On the very same day that Obama and Biden accidentally “bumped” into Gorby at the White House, “Dr. K” was leading a delegation of retired US statesmen, including former secretaries of state George Shultz and James Baker, to Moscow where they conferred with Soviet Komsomol graduate Medvedev.
The US contingent on this committee, it should be pointed out, is stacked with Council on Foreign Relations alumni, which should come as no surprise to astute observers of elite politics. The CFR, like the Soviet strategists, is committed in its own fashion to the demise of US sovereignty, East-West convergence, and the establishment of world government. The current global financial crisis provides these elite manipulators with an ideal crisis to advance the much-touted “New (Red) World Order,” articulated last November by Britain’s Labour prime minister Gordon Brown.
How much behind-the-scenes authority does Dr. K, the subject of numerous conspiracy theories, wield today? The comments of National Security Adviser James L. Jones at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy, held at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof on February 8, 2009, are instructive:
Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.
If these remarks were not posted at the CFR website, we would consider them apocryphal, like Fife’s otherwise dramatic, Hollywoodesque assertions above. Incidentally, Scowcroft was National Security Adviser to President Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush, while Berger held the same capacity in the administration of President (and alleged KGB asset) Bill Clinton.
Bilateral ties between Moscow and Washington nose-dived last year, with Russia complaining about NATO “expansionism” and US plans for a missile shield in Central Europe, and the USA chastising Russia for re-invading and re-occupying Georgia. In light of President Obama’s determination to reduce the US military stockpile of nuclear weapons and achieve a new détente with the Russians, as well as the furtive manipulations of the Kissinger-Primakov cabal, Fife’s supposed revelations assume new significance.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin continues to prepare Russia’s citizen-slaves for war with the West by activating air raid sirens, silent since the old Soviet era, and brainwashing male students with military discipline and patriotism lessons under the auspices of Interior Ministry police troops. Not content to harness the street-fighting muscle of United Russia’s Young Guard, Nashi, Young Russia, and other Putinist youth groups, earlier this month Interior Minister Rashid Nurgaliev signed an order to create educational squadrons. These will be attached to 85 Interior Ministry units and comprised of 14- to 16-year-old students, called “sons of regiments.” The latter term hearkens back to the Second World War when Soviet troops took (kidnapped?) orphan boys to the front lines, fed and dressed them, and taught them how to play martial music. A famous Russian children’s book by Valentin Kataev, published in 1944 and titled Son of the Regiment, narrates the story of such a boy.
Modern “sons of regiments” will follow the same tradition. The educational squadrons will form the regular field bands of Interior Ministry units, be supplied with food and uniforms, attend compulsory secondary school classes, and receive a salary equivalent to that of involuntary service soldiers. All “volunteers” will require parental consent to enlist in the Kremlin’s new educational squadrons. Like Prime Minister Putin, his boss, Interior Minister Nurgaliev is a career Chekist.
Finally, the ruling Communist Party of China has joined the neo-Soviet leadership of Russia and Kazakhstan in demanding the institution of a global currency to replace the dying US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. In an essay posted on the People’s Bank of China’s website, Zhou Xiaochuan, the central bank’s governor, stated: “The goal is to create a reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies.” Remarked Qu Hongbin, chief China economist for HSBC, in response to the proposal: “This is a clear sign that China, as the largest holder of US dollar financial assets, is concerned about the potential inflationary risk of the US Federal Reserve printing money.”
Although Zhou did not mention the US dollar, his essay expressly rejected the current dollar-dominated (capitalist) monetary system: “The outbreak of the crisis and its spillover to the entire world reflected the inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system.” Instead, Zhou proposed expanding the role of special drawing rights (SDRs), a function of the International Monetary Fund founded in 1969 to support the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate regime. The value of SDRs is currently based on a basket of four currencies, the US dollar, Japanese yen, European Union euro, and British pound sterling. The IMF primarily uses SDRs as a unit of account.
Under the Chinese proposal, the valuation of SDRs would be based on all major economies. Zhou’s “economic prescription” would also organize a settlement system between SDRs and other currencies for the purpose of international trade and financial transactions. Comrade Zhou acknowledged the role of socialist economist John Maynard Keynes in making a similar suggestion in the 1940s. ‘Nuff said.