Gabriel Kolko's History: "Inspired by an obsessive hatred of America"





Anders G. Lewis, in Frontpagemag.com (July 8 2004):

Among the A-list of self-declared enemies of the American state, Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn are the gold standard. But the historian Gabriel Kolko, though less popular than either, has been almost as influential. In the 1960s, Kolko introduced a strident and ideological form of history into the academic world. Writing from a Marxist perspective, he helped construct the intellectual edifice of modern academic anti-Americanism, reflexively exculpating America’s adversaries while portraying America’s past and present in such dark tones as to make the nation repellent and - absent a socialist revolution - beyond redeeming. In Kolko’s nuanced prose, America is a nation “intellectually and culturally undeveloped,” “blind to itself - its past, its present, and its future” - an “evil society.”[1]

A graduate of Harvard University, Kolko spent most of his career on the faculty of York University in Toronto, where he has authored over ten books on American history, including two books on the origins of the Cold War, a synthesis of American history after 1865, and an overview of the Vietnam War.[2] These books have influenced a school of radical historians, including Thomas McCormick, Lloyd Gardner, Walter LaFeber, Robert Buzzanco, and Bruce Cumings. In keeping with the leftward shift of university culture, Kolko’s fellow academics have lavished his radical texts with intemperate praise. In the New York Review of Books, Hans Morgenthau wrote that The Politics of War “is a book of major importance” because it represents “the first revisionist book concerned with the origins of the Cold War which is also a work of first-rate scholarship.” The idea that a book blaming the United States for the Cold War using an analytic framework almost identical to that employed by the Kremlin’s propagandists – and by a distinguished Harvard political scientist -- would have been inconceivable in the pre-Sixties university culture. Writing in The New York Times Book Review, Professor Gaddis Smith called the same book “the most important and stimulating discussion of American policy during World War II to appear in more than a decade.” Fellow radical and anti-American extremist Noam Chomsky is also thrilled with Kolko’s work. According to Chomsky, The Limits of Power is “the most important analytic study of evolving U.S. policy in this period….” Kolko reciprocates the adulation. In a blurb for Chomsky’s extended diatribe, The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, Kolko called The Limits of Power a “brilliant, shattering, and convincing account of United States-backed suppression of political and human rights in the Third World.” According to Kolko, Chomsky should be “obligatory reading for any American seeking to comprehend the role of the United States in the world since 1946.”[3]

Like other radical academics, Kolko prides himself on being a political activist, not to say revolutionary. Throughout the Vietnam War, he traveled numerous times to France and to North and South Vietnam, meeting with Communist officials and advising them on how best they could defeat the United States.[4] He also organized aid shipments to the Communists, called upon fellow leftists to wage war against American imperialism, and backed the Communist cause around the world. In May, 1971, he pleaded with Americans to send money to a group called “Canadian Aid for Vietnam Civilians.” Kolko noted that the organization “allocates 45 percent of its income each to the NLF and North Vietnam” and will help alleviate “the suffering the war has inflicted on all the people of Vietnam.”[5] How it would help to alleviate the suffering of all the people of Vietnam with 90% of its money earmarked for the Communist aggressors and oppressors, Kolko failed to explain.

The starting point for Kolko’s work is the preposterous idea that America is a totalitarian nation, where the rich rule and the poor obey. The “ruling class,” according to Kolko “defines the essential preconditions and functions of the larger American social order, with its security and continuity as an institution being the political order’s central goal in the post-Civil War historical experience.” The ruling class dominates both the Republican and Democratic parties, which have no significant differences between them that Kolko is able to detect. Obviously, this theoretical framework lacks any originality and is merely a crib of Marx’s discredited attack on “bourgeois democracy,” in which the state is just “the executive committee of the ruling class.” Republicans and Democrats, Kolko explains (as though this is in fact an explanation) are “inalterably wedded to the desirability of capitalism as a general economic framework.” (And why not if one compares capitalism to the totalitarian states that Kolko appears to endorse?) In Kolko’s presentation reform movements like Progressivism and New Deal liberalism for example amount to nothing more than efforts to promote “efficiency” in preserving America’s totalitarian system.[6] Stalinist apparatchiks would not disagree.

America’s unjust political order produces vast riches for a few and poverty and inequality for the majority, while ensuring that the ruling class controls foreign policy. The ruling class, Kolko summarizes, is “the final arbiter and beneficiary of the existing structure of American society and politics at home and of United States power in the world”[7]

From this untenable ideological premise, Kolko concludes that the Cold War was not about Soviet expansionism but an American attempt to promote free trade and corporate profits.[8] In Kolko’s writing’s the Kremlin’s actions play no role in determining American policy. In fact the opposite is the case. The Truman Doctrine and other American policies were not about defending relatively free societies from the fate of the Kremlin’s East European satellites but were the expression of America’s own bid for world economic hegemony. Or, as Kolko puts it – following in a long line of Soviet apologists -- the United States set out (during and after World War II) to “restructure the world so that American business could trade, operate, and profit without restrictions everywhere.” Fears that American leaders expressed over Communist expansion in Eastern Europe were merely a cover for this agenda. Concern over the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia and other Kremlin aggressions were so much Western fantasy and Cold War paranoia. For America’s ruling class, the central foreign policy concern “was not the containment of Communism, but rather more directly the extension and expansion of American capitalism according to its new economic power and needs.”[9] Not surprisingly, Cold War Soviet leaders said exactly the same thing....



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Arnold Shcherban - 7/13/2004

The following looks like specifically written for Mr. Lewis:

National Security Archive Update, July 13, 2004

U.S. Nuclear War Plans A "Hazard to Ourselves as Well as Our Enemy"

Overkill Problem Led Top Commanders to Complain About the SIOP's Destructiveness

THE CREATION OF SIOP-62

http://www.nsarchive.org

For more information
Contact: William Burr
202/994-7032

Washington D.C., 13 July 2004 - The U.S. included so many nuclear weapons in its first missile-age plan for nuclear war that top military commanders called it a "hazard to ourselves as well as our enemy," according to newly declassified documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.

Under the first Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP), prepared during 1960, a Russian city the size of Nagasaki--devastated in 1945 with a twenty kiloton bomb--would receive three 80 kiloton weapons. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, then leaving office, along with Navy leaders and White House Science Adviser George Kistiakowsky, was deeply critical of the SIOP's overkill. Eisenhower was later reported to have said that the plan "frighten[ed] the devil out of me." Incoming Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara soon decried the "fantastic" levels of fallout that attacks on a multitude of Soviet targets would produce.

Ever since its creation, the SIOP has been one of the U.S. government's deepest secrets. Even historical information about U.S. nuclear war plans has been hard to come by and documents once available become reclassified again. Today's posting includes never before published as well as previously declassified key documents from 1959-1961 on the history of SIOP-62 (for fiscal year 1962). Among the disclosures in the documents:

* the SIOP included preemptive and retaliatory options; preemption could occur if U.S. authorities had strategic warning of a Soviet nuclear attack;

* a full SIOP strike launched on a preemptive basis would have delivered over 3200 nuclear weapons to 1060 targets in the Soviet Union, China, and their allies in Asia and Europe;

* a full nuclear strike by SIOP forces on high alert, launched in retaliation to a Soviet strike, would have delivered 1706 nuclear weapons against a total of 725 targets in the Soviet Union, China, and allied states;

* targets would have included nuclear weapons, government and military control centers, and at least 130 cities in the Soviet Union, China, and their allies;

* the Marine Corp commandant complained that the SIOP provided for the "attack of a single list of Sino-Soviet countries" and made no "distinction" between those that were at war with the United States and those that were not;

< my comment on the above entry: very telling about how carefully the US try/ied to avoid "unneccesary" civilian casualties>

* the Defense Department continues its long-standing pattern of overclassification and inconsistencies over the release of information on the SIOP.

Some evidence exists that after the Cold War ended, Strategic Air Command commander-in-chief General Lee Butler tried to curb what he saw as the SIOP's "grotesque excesses" by paring down the huge target lists. Security classification, however, hides whether General Butler's reforms took hold or whether the SIOP remains an instrument of overkill.

Please follow the link below:

http://www.nsarchive.org


Arnold Shcherban - 7/13/2004

The US public opinion is flooded with many popular political, ideological,
and social postulates or "self-evident" truths that essentially form the
basis of the American public attitude towards the mass of the events in
the areas of international affairs, govermental internal policy, economics,
etc. These ideas initially designed by the paid ideological "scholars"
and adapted by the official propagandistic machine have been
upgraded and polished over many years by the so-called 'free media' and perpertually poured in massive doses onto the general public through the
multitude of means including educational textbooks, cinematography and
other art forms. No surprise, those ideas have eventually become
omnipresent and attributive part of American social and ideological
culture as a whole, whose fundamentals are questioned by only a narrow
category of intellectuals: either political science professionals, or
just liberal and left political activists, or independent(especially,
financially independent) political observers.
It scarsely would win the originality contest if announced that
the main such idea being that of the superiority of the ideology
of pure capitalism over the ideology of the socialism, which automatically
interpreted as communism. The adjective 'pure' at the front of "socialism"
has been ommitted by no accident. As it will be soon shown, this seemingly
inadvertent neglection actually plays a crucial role in favoring one
particular side of the argument.
If during Cold War times the issue(but not its causes) was
dwelled largely on more or less ideological and national grounds,
nowadays the apologets of capitalism turned to mostly pragmatic arguments
eventually declaring the closure of the whole issue in question and by
that establishing it as the unequivocal truth, therefore placing it beyond
any potential critique, and even mere analysis.
Let's see whether there are some legitimate causes out there that
may really prove their point.
No doubts, there have been some dramatic changes in the world in the
past decade or two.
The most relevant to our discussion is the collapse of the
so-called "socialism camp", i.e, the socio-economical phenomenon
of the Soviet block, decay of the USSR as the multi-republican
state and, consequently, of its military and ideological power
and sweeping, mostly tragic by its results(so far), social and economic
changes in Russia and in the most of previously friendly to it countries.
It is these undeniable facts that mostly contributed to the
declared by conservatives 'victory'. The primary reasons of the
abovementioned collapse of the communist block stated by them are
allegedly of moral, ideological nature on one hand and caused by the
US aggressive "defense" policy(almost exclusively attributed to
Reigan administration) on the other.
The virtually infinite number of facts and more or less
systematic analysis of those, however, immediately shows all
superficity, if not the absurdity of such conclusions.
To begin with, what exactly those jentlemen refer to when making
the comparison between the two economo-social systems? It does
not take much of the penetration into their argumentative
archive to realize that the designed by them opposition is
the following: pure capitalism or as they call it 'free market
economy and free society' versus, what is known by all more or less
educated folks, as 'command economy and iron-curtain society'.
But is it really the equivalent of the "deployment of forces"
of the type 'capitalism versus socialism'?
Pure capitalism as a 'free market economy' ceased to exist
about 50-60 years ago. Even the most loyal to this idea
conservatives tell us(in nostalgic tone) this is so.
What we have in this country and in all other 'industrialized'
countries of the world now and have been having for many
decades is 'state capitalism' or 'state-regulated market
economy', which is far cry(for better or worse) from what is
commonly implied by the term 'free market economy', not
mentioning the recent phenomenon of the pervasive effect
of the regional and world economic events on the national
markets, at the degree unprecendented even 3-4 decades ago.
On the opposite side, command economy is not a socialism,
and even less so it is a communism.
It is suffice to mention here that 'communism' is by its
definition the society without state governing structures,
i.e. the socio-economic formation completely devoid of the
state power.
Under the pure capitalism, before the Great depression, the US
citizens had almost no social benefits at all and common folks
had no social or financial protection from the convolutions of
the "free economy and market".
Almost all economical protection and social benefits presently
enjoyed by the working people in the countries of so-called
"advanced" capitalism can be historically attributed to the
growth of the societal structures and features normally called
'socialist' ones by both sides of the argument within otherwise
"pure" capitalist formations.

It is enough to recall the fierce accusations the proponents
of the establishment of the minimum wage have been subjected to
by the zealots of the free of govermental regulations pure
capitalism and the predictions of its grim consequences on the
'free" market economy, if being implemented. As it turned out
the measure had no effect on anything else except making lifes
of many hard-working folks just a small bit easier.
(It unavoidably leads to realizion that much more decisive
redistribution of wealth being implemented in any wealthy
capitalist country can make the life of the majority(is it not
what the 'democracy' is all about?) significantly better
without seriously touching the wealth of the minority, depriving
them, at the maximum, of the frivoluos excesses.)
Later it has changed to the majority benefit, why? Because,
the rich, or corporations became more sympathetic or more
altruistic towards the needs of the ones working for them?
Of course not. There are several main reasons:
The continuous struggle of the needy majority for their
economic and essentially human rights, which greatly intensified
in 20s-30s and later on in all leading capitalist countries,
the rise of the unions' influence on the minds of the workers
and the effective propagandistic examples coming from the
Bolsheviks' Russia and after WWII from the other countries
of the Eastern block, the great accumulation of wealth by the
rich, which additionally and especially after the social
unrest of the 60s, recognized the dangers of the 'demos'
unification and gradually descended to the certain concessions
in many areas of economic and social life and, finally,
the general cultural and ideological uplift of the world's
civilization.

It looks like the truth, as it commonly happens in real life,
lies somewhere in between the two sides of the argument:
neither the pure, or the capitalism in its present form,
nor the pure socialism(not mentioning the command society)
is able to give the majority a life the modern men has a right
to expect from the truly democratic and humane society of the
21st century.

But doesn't the fact of the failure and collapse of the
Eastern block countries' economy and regimes speak louder
than words?
The name of reasons of the negative answer to the last
question is 'multitude'.
First of all, it wouldn't be excessive to emphasize one more
time the fact that the socio-economic formation that failed
was even farther away from the pure socialism(and even more
so from the 'communism') than today's capitalism from its
pure form. Economically and financially it was the
command-ruled, stiff structure, the course of development
of which was mostly dictated not by economical necessity
or vision, or theories, but by the ideological, superficial
ambitions of the Communist bosses and the desire of their
economical advisers to stay in favor and keep their
relatively well-paid jobs.
As one example of the absurdity of the situation there in
this regard I recall made very fashionable in USSR
propagandistic motto of 70s, that by design of its partisan
authors should have been recognized by USSR citizens as
the revelation and the action guide simultaneously:
"Economy has to be Economical!"

Many of the same characteristics can be applied to the social and
ideological life in the the Soviet Union. The human rights of
freedom of speech and gatherings, intellectual freedom, etc. had
been just written up in the Constitution of the country, but, at
the best, rarely employed in real life, at the worst - have been
massively violated, in earlier years - with horrendous
repressions.

Too much has been said and written about the failures of the
"communist" economy and the horrors of Stalin's regime to go
through this again, and besides, this is not the issue here.

This is just the extremely abbreviated and approximate
description of the primary causes of the collapse of the
command economy and iron-curtain society commonly presented
by the overwhelming majority of the Western political and
ideological conservative schools of study.
The major emphasis is traditionally placed on the lack of
individual economic and intellectual freedom in the former
"communist" countries.

However, not only these causes are pictured with the willful
magnification of the ideological slope, not only the entire
body of the outstanding achievements of some communist regimes
in the fields of medical health care, education, social care,
universal employment, etc. is being completely discarded,
but several other very important and very real causes of
the sad finale, being either completely ignored or given
just a timid and quick passing-by remark.

Reflecting on the certain economic and ideological advantages
of the life in USA over the corresponding ones in the former
USSR one cannot help wondering about the actual validity of
such comparisons.
In general sense almost everything can be compared with
anything else. But, as it well known, there are scientific
comparisons and there are willful comparisons; the latter
being mostly frivoluos and highly questionable.
Why nobody, for example, compares the quality of life in India,
also capitalist country, with the one in the USA in order to
prove that the Indian socio-economic formation and political
leadership has to be dramatically changed to eliminate
the poverty hundreds of millions of Indians live in?
Dozens of other capitalist countries can be summoned with
the same issue in mind.

But starting the discussion about those other countries'
conditions one is immediately rebuffed with plenty of
historical references and reasons just to prove that the
capitalist socio-economic structure has nothing to do with
the hundreds of thousands dying every year of hunger and deadly
deseases, nothing to do with the tragic unemployment rates, and
the general dreadful poverty of the 80%-90% of the population,
while 1-1.5% live in lugsury, that their colonial past and
even very fresh events(if "Reds" had not been directly or
indirectly involved) has to be forgotten and they have
to start 'making money'.
Only how - noone is able to teach.

US economy and business, not mentioning the businesses that are
completely gone, currently experience a severe recession, being
dramatically affected by the 9/11 and consequent events, like
Afgan and Iraq wars.
The preceeding economic and financial boom raised this
already world's wealthiest nation to the highest level of
wellbeing in its history.
So, the fall started from the peak of success was pretty painful.
Now imagine those two wars, though being very short and easy ones,
occurred on the US territory. What effect they might have had on
the economy, psych, social and govermental institutions, and the
rest of the features of American life?
Now imagine, further, these two wars, being thousands of times
more devastating and cruel and each 4 years longer, happening
with the gap of 20 years in between, where this country would
lose 30-35 millions of lives, 90% of its infrastructure and
80% of its industrial and agricultural powers. In addition to
that, those wars fell on the historic period when this country
had been dozen of times poorer than it is nowadays. What effect
the tragedy and destruction of such monstrous proportions could
have had on the life of its citizens?

There is much doubt this kind of "development" can be imagined
by Americans in the worst of nightmares.
On the same token there is little doubt that provided this
happened here, the US citizens would not be enjoying even one-fifth
of the quality of life and freedoms they have now, and this
country would not come close to the superpower status it carries
now with arrogance and contempt for the international community.

But it apparently legitimate to disregard the devastating
consequences of these terrible wars that did happen on the
former USSR territory(Civil War of 1918-1922 and Great
Patriotic War of 1941-1945) when studying the comparative
failures of the Soviet economy and democracy.

It apparently legitimate to disregard the comparative levels
and stages of the economy, finances and overall social and
cultural climate Soviet Russia started off.

It apparently legitimate to disregard the fact that the majority
of the other Soviet Republics and national minorities have
started off virtually medieval levels.

Essentually what Russia and the other joined Republics and
nationalities have orchestrated and done was the unprecendented
social and economic EXPERIMENT of enormous scale conducted on
their own, without any guidance and help from outside, in the
atmosphere of animosity and open hatred on the part of the
international capitalist community, in atmosphere of its regime's
subversion and later Cold War, being perpetrated by the West
(read: US and Great Britain) at the request of expansionist
international corporations and the pressure of military-industrial
complex, the interests of which those governments traditionally
represent.
Considering the tremendous importance of international trade
for the health of economy and "wealth of nations" in modern
world it would be an atrocious oversight to forget the economic
and trade isolation and sanctions the USSR was conducting its
experiment under(though, for the sake of the truth, it has to be
mentioned that partially the fault in this particular matter lies
in the domain of the Soviet leadership.)
Many of those who objectively analyzed Soviet economy of 70s and
early 80s second the economists that list the latter conditions
as one of the major factors which caused the stagnation and final colapse of
the Soviet economy and financial system.

One of the leading postulates - the main topic of this
article - imposed on American public and perpertually
circulated in the US foreign policy as allegedly the leading
indicator of this country attidude towards other sovereign
states is those states' handling of its internal affairs,
especially the issues of human rights, democracy and
intellectual freedoms.

This indicator is used now(last time against Iraq) and then
in the attempts to prove it has been and remains a basic reason
for the brutal(wars inclusive) treatment of those "evil" states
(whose cohorts the USSR used to be leading) on the part of the
US and the West.

The Big Lie behind the shameless exploitation of those
publicly sensitive issues has been exposed in multiple
publications, statements and speeches of people from all
walks of life all over the world.
Since the streams of that Lie show no signs of exhaustion at
the expense of this country’s taxpayers, I'll try to clean
"Ague’s stables" one more time, in respect to the former
treatment of the USSR as the "rogue state".

Over the Cold War period this country has been living for
roughly four decades(!) facing the "rogue" superpower whose
WMD arsenal was matched only by its alleged aggressiveness,
hatred against the US and sponsorship of world terrorism.
A lot can be said about the outrageous contradictions and
outright lies contained in the official versions of the
argumentation in favor of that "aggressiveness" and alleged
Soviet leadership's plans to launch the first strike against
this country.
It's enough to mention that the information drawn from
official historical archives of both countries involved
and the pertaining information acquired by the American
intelligence in the late 70s - early 80s overwhelmingly prove
that those were just spooks for fooling and scaring the
general public. During exactly that period of time Reagan’s
administration discarding the stunning peaceful proposals
coming from the Soviets that could have led to the full
elimination and ban of the WMD, instead, proposed its
infamous "Star Wars" initiative, with two goals, perpetually
enticing all world's aggressors and imperialists, in mind: to
achieve the decisive military superiority over its adversaries
(that as been mentioned above have been known of lacking any
intention, unless being directly and most severely provoked,
to use WMDs against it) and - on the other token - to make
this country impenetrable to the potential punishing strike coming
from the victims of its aggression.
It became obvious to every thinking person already then
who is inciting the arms race and profiting from it, motivated
by the burning desire for the world's dominance and conquering
"free markets"... for its international corporations.

There is also very interesting issue, one might call it the
moral, or incidental or technical, which in my opinion is
highly indicative of the difference of the ideological grounds
of Western imperialism and Soviet-type imperial behavior
patterns, both being amoral, wrong and criminal.
The Soviet Communist party leaders, official propaganda and
Marxism-Leninism theorists time by time, over the Cold War
period, would become extremely critical and condemning of
their own political and social past, e.g. exposing and
condemning the crimes of Stalinism(though not all of them
and not at once, but gradually), the secret part of the
Russian-German pact of 1939, about many public figures of
Communism, etc., prosecuting and even executing some of the
highly positioned figures of Stalin’s repressive apparatus.
Throughout the 90s, and still now we heard and read a flood of
outrageous accusations made by Russians against virtually every
aspect of their own ex-system, many of which would exceed the most
of Western propaganda or serious research patterns in their severity
and scale.
On the same token, US political leaders, propagandistic machine,
mainstream mass-media and "serious" political analysts and historians,
with the exception of just a few(left-oriented), have been,
and remain incapable(weak-spirited?) of the comparably
genuine and serious condemnation of the indisputable crimes of
massive killings of millions natives in South-East Asia, Latin
and Central America, Middle East, Africa, etc. committed by
the US military itself, or by their murderous 'client states'
with the US goverments' full cooperation under the infamous
disguise of US "national interests and the fight against
communism".
Only a negligible percentage of American public is aware of the
fact that some US military and political leaders, including
former State Secretary Henry Kissinger and Bush I have been
called on to testify on "war crimes" and the "crimes against humanity"
by the International Court supported by the great majority of the
world's nations, but never showed up, on obvious to any more or less
knowledgeable observer reasons.
The only thing protecting them from the actual prosecution was and
still is the US military and financial might.

As recent, as half a year ago, president G.W.Bush recalling
the events of Vietnam war, expressed the sincere disappointment
of the Vietnam era US foreign policy, that by his remark
dealt more with the politics, than with the prosecution of war,
the intensifying(or expanding?) of which may have led to the
final 'victory' over Vietkong. No one, I stress it, no one
among liberal(not mentioning conservative) journalists,
reporters, TV personalities. etc. raised the question: what
the extra amount of Vietnamese and Cambodians should have been
killed to achieve that possible victory: the rest of them,
or just a couple of millions more?
And who in the world would celebrate that victory along with
the US troops on the demographically and environmentally
devastated land that formerly been called South-East Asia?
It wasn't Adolf Hitler's of Nazi Germany reasoning in the 30s,
but the political and ideological rambling of President of the
'most civilised and democratic nation in the world' at the rise
of the 21st century!

The other issue being simultaneously one of the 'postulates'
discussed that illustrates the dirty methods and outrageous
lies the US goverments and official propaganda would use to
smear the Soviets' ideological image and international practice
and to obtain the reason for inflicting different sorts of
punishing measures on them, is the issue of international
terrorism.

Up to now, more than a decade after the decay and fall the
Soviets, the conservative/right propaganda desperately tries to
maintain the validity of labeling the Soviet Union as "major
sponsor of the world terrorism", which, especially in the view
of the events of the last decade, have become questioned and
skepticized about more and more even by some of its former
staunch supporters.

It is very enticing and effective (see many other publications
to this effect) to use the swapping logic here, i.e. to present
many examples of the US goverment and its intelligence agancies
sponsoring and supporting any terrorist organization, government,
or groups, any sort of criminals, regardless of the gravity of
their crimes, as long as they were and are anti-Soviet,
anti-communist or just pro-American. It is also easy
(since the supporting facts and arguments are abound) to come
to the conclusion that the US itself is the biggest and the most
dangerous for the world's stability terrorist state(not just
the "sponsor of terrorism"), responsible for the murder of
millions of folks all over the world.
But I would like just to show the ugliness and obvious nature of
the lies perpetrated by the US govermental officials, intelligence
services, conservative propaganda and "scholars" and right wing
activists in order to instill the referred image into the hearts
and minds of the average American citizen.

First of all, what cold (or hot) facts have been presented to the
American public in this regard in the course of almost three
decades since that accusation surfaced on the lips of US
governmental officials and been relayed to the media?
Speculations, sometimes wild ones – yes (and more than enough
of those), outright falsifications later proven to be just
that - yes, serious evidence - none. Unless one consider serious
the evidence of the type presented by the same bunch in regard
to Iraq’s WMD and Iraq-Al-Qeida connections.
Meanwhile, judging by the scale of the sponsoring accused of and
perpetrated in the course of all those years, it seems
absolutely insane to suggest that the 'Russians' together with
their "students" were so 'conniving" or "smart", as to be able to
somehow avoid to get implicated, at the very least, a couple
of times. And, of course, one can be absolutely sure of the
desperate and continuous attempts of the US and other Western
intelligence and all heavily invested in that matter folks to
uncover the pertaining evidence.
Alas, they would finish, as they started - empty-handed.
Also, the fact that no Western country in the long (stretched for
20 years) course of all that Soviet terrorist "witch hunt" never
officially accused Soviet authorities in any specific acts of
terrorism or sponsorship of the latter ones would look anecdotal,
if it has not had such serious consequences.
This alone speaks volumes to any unbiased observer.

Let's briefly recall the curcumstances surrounding the US search
for the "hand of Moscow" in just three incidents: the assasination
of President J.F.Kennedy, the assasination attempt on Pope's
John Paul II life, and the case of infamous "Red Brigades".

It didn't take long for the investigation into President Kennedy's
assasination to discover the original nationality of Oswald's
wife and his travels to Russia and Cuba. The America could hardly
hold its breath... This is it, right? What else could better confirm
the perpertual accusations against Soviets(and Cubans) as terrorists
and murderers?
The media went nuts smelling "Red" blood and huge sensation and...
Damn! Missed again! On the other token, numerous attempts made
by the terrorists trained and paid by CIA to assasinate President
Castro and other foreign leaders are well known, proved and documented.

Even more outrageous and telling was the investigative attempt
to write off the "work" of Turkish terrorist Mehmet Ali Agca
eventually convicted for the attempt on Pope's life on the
countries' of Eastern block accounts.
Agca, a member of the militant right-wing 'Grey Wolves' group,
shot the pope after escaping from jail while being held on charges
of murdering of left newspaper editor Abdi Ipekci and was later
sentenced to death in absentia by his native country.

So, Pope survived, Agca stood trial, was convicted and put to jail.
End of story? Too easy! There were powerful forces within and
outside Italy that did not want to miss on such seemingly excellent
opportunity to score with their own goverment and public opinion,
by finally catching that devilish and scandalously always slipping
through their fingers "hand of Moscow". Soon after the FBI and CIA
officers, who offered their "help", entered the picture(had several
meetings with Agca) the events took absolutely unpredictable turn.
The new investigation was launched, since Agca(who suddenly had
become extra-cooperative with the prosecuters) started to reveal
his sensational links to Bulgarian(!?) intelligence, that
allegedly, through one of its operatives(Bulgarian diplomat)
hired him to assassinate the Pope.
During the first investigation and the previous trial Agca would
give several conflicting reasons for his attack on the Pope, was
changing his account of the pertaining events now and then,
so the Italian prosecutors should have had no doubts that besides
being already a proven murderer, that man was a perpetual liar.
They also knew he hated left in general, and communists,
in particular, after all - that's why he killed Abdi Ipeksi,
had he not?
On top of that, on numerous occations grilled by the judges and
prosecutors he was changing his account of the meetings with
the Bulgarian diplomat and of surrounding those meetings
circumstances, simultaneously providing the surprising
familiarity with the details of the Bulgarian diplomat's
behavior and activity having no direct bearings on the case
in question.
Nevertheless, that diplomat(Michailov) was arrested in an
outright violation of the international law that protects
diplomats from the prosecution and the second(!) trial was
held. At that trial the prosecutors tried to link the
attack to the growing democracy movement - very much alive
in Pope John Paul's native Poland at the time. The pontiff
was a staunch supporter of Poland's Solidarity union
(which, by the way, as it is admitted now, but fiercely
denied at the time, was sponsored by CIA and other
Western intelligence agencies) and is believed to have been
instrumental in the chain of events that led to the Eastern
Bloc's first freely elected government.
The theory speculated that Bulgarian secret service agents
had hired Agca on behalf of the Soviet Union to "punish" the
Pope for that. Of course, we all know, that neither then,
nor twenty years later no proof of such conspiracy has been
found, though all the means to this purpose, provided
it existed(not just within mutual design of CIA and Agca)
was out there. That by the way was finally conceeded by the
Italian prosecutors too, by releasing Michailov, on the
"lack of evidence". (They, of course, could't formulate it
differently without exposing their American friends,
and explicitly admitting the violation of the international
treaties and laws.)

But the "noise and fury" raised by the officials and media that
time and the non-stop back references to the story under the
popular title "How Reds tried to murder the Pope" has ultimately
made their way into the minds of the Western populus and still
stays there. The old, good method of all falsifiers - "throw
enough s* against the wall, some - sticks" worked again...

The same pattern and with the same results was demonstrated by
the Western official propaganda in respect to the so-called
"Red Brigades" - the group of about 50 Italian left extremists
that terrorized Italian social and political arena in 70s.
In this case it took no effort or ingenuity to create the case
against the Soviets, since those who called themselves
"Red Brigades" belonged to the split branch of the
Italian Communist Party that decided to use terrorism as
the means of the 'class struggle'.
There was and still is seemingly strong argument in favor of
the Western public opinion on the Soviets' involvement in
terrorist activity: Stalin's times. No unbiased observer or
reseacher can deny the factual and logical validity
of this argument being applied to those times. But, notice, even
in those terrible times for the Soviet citizens, Stalin's secret
police, intelligence services, and their agents abroad,
assassinated only their OWN citizens or former agents, whom they
consider traitors or terrorists, whether the latter really been
those or not, never - foreign political, public or business
figures of any kind, as the means of socio-political blackmail
or seeding terror in the West.
It was and is absolutely clear to the more or less involved in
antiterrorist and intelligence affairs on the West, that
provided Soviets really wanted to terrorize population of the
Western countries, they could have done it in immeasurably
more effective and devastating way, especially - in the USA;
the conclusion led to by the wide-spread propaganda and intelligence
data on the large-scaled "Red" penetration in Western life,
in general, and the US governmental institutions and intelligence
services, in particular.
As in all other scenarios of this kind the West was unable
to come up with any verifiable links between the infamous
"Red Brigades" and actual "Reds" - Soviet communists.
By the way, uncaught members of the Brigades still time by time,
claim their responsibility for the assassinations of
politicians and prominent businessmen, long after their alleged
sponsors and ideological supporters have been gone - the fact
exposing one of the many Big Lies of the US and its allies'
propaganda, one more time. Moreover, there were some indications,
unfortunately remaining not pursued(on easily understandable
reasons) and therefore unproven, of the Red Brigades-CIA links.
The complete resume on this issue cannot be written, since in
the radical contrast with the former Russian intelligence
archives, the US and UK ones pertaining to Red Brigades "affair"
have never been disclosed. One can only wonder why...
It goes without saying that practically all of the above
mentioned facts and considerations related to the contradictions
and outright fraudulency of the terrorism-sponsored-by-"Evil Empire"-
concept have been completely ignored by the US conservative and
liberal "free" media alike.

Why would this country want to go to all those extremes “inspiring”
disgust and hatred to itself on the part of many other world nations?
Because, that is what imperialism of a superpower country is all
about: it is about the expansion of the old and capture of the
new international markets for its Big Business whose govermental
representives form and dictate its foreign and internal policies.
(Surely, the details of the latter connections are much more complex
and nuanced that can be elaborated in the article on
the quite different topic, but the mentioned essence of these relations
remains intact.)
It is about the fierce, but hidden from the general public(that essentially pays for it) battle for profits increase -
the main goal of a large capitalist enterprise.
K.Marks once said something in a sense that for the sake of huge
profits there is no crime in the world a capitalist enterprise
would not commit.
The infinite number of stories from the history of the Big
Corporations leave no doubt of the validity of this statement.
This is the primary reason of the indifference towards the
feelings of the other nations; after all, the Big Business is
not going to pay the price(at least - in the way it would
negatively and considerably affect it) of the possible military
collision with the infuriated foreign nation; the average
Americans are to pay for that and not only with their money,
but with their lifes, as well. Moreover, the profits extracted
by the instigators commonly exceed the expenses in a multiple
ratio. Even the most horrendous war in the history of mankind
- WWII that devastated the economies and finances (not mentioning the
human resources and other its multiple terrible consequences)
of the most of its active participants was tremendously profitable
"business" for the big American corporations(thank God it did not
happen in their own yard!).
Also note, that US didn't enter the war against Nazi Germany up to
1941, and did it only after the Germany's ally Japan attacked the
US Fleet in Pacific, despite the fact that Great Britain and France,
its proclaimed allies, announced their state of war with Hitler two
years(!) earlier, after he attacked Poland.
When a foreign state doesn't play ball with the superpower's Big
Business, no matter what political regime and the human rights
record it has, it will be "punished" one way or another, the 'way'
largely dependent on its military might and WMD arsenal.
In the case of the USSR and China, which could respond with a
devastating counterstrike, the punishment would be delivered in
the package of the regimes' political, ideological and economic
subversion, different sanctions and anti-treaties, every sort of
provocations and intimidations, military operations and wide scale
wars against its allies and ideological supporters, those that
were known would not trigger the direct military assault on the
US territory itself.
In the case of the states not having the WMD arsenal and much more
inferior in respect of their military capabilities and, again,
no matter what political regime and the human rights record they
have, the US(and its loyal allies) has never had so much restraint
and diplomatic patience (read: fear) and therefore quickly resort
to more direct means of punishment: first, full-scale economic
sanctions (which never worked, except of killing thousands and
hundreds of thousands of civilians and inciting the new wave of hatred
against Americans in general), then outrageous in their contents and
possible consequences ultimatums and, as neither never led to peaceful
and mutuallly beneficial solution of the problems, finally - to the
military intervention, of the type defined by the international law as 'aggression'.
In the ancient times, the aggressor would go to the last stage
without much of the prelude, but in modern times the "advanced and
truly democratic" countries need a wide and sustained ideological
campaign to hide their pure imperialistic designs behind such
sensitive and important issues as "self-defense", "national
security", "national interests", "struggle for freedom
and democracy", protection of other nations' "human rights",
etc. So, there they would go unfolding the fierce propagandist
bashing of all aspects of those countries' governmental activity
and ideology, creating the deliberately confusing mixture of
small and big lies, semi-truths and truths. In case the potential
"enemy" does really represent repressive regime, earlier Western
active and deliberate involvement in installing and supporting
the latter by all means, with the eyes closed to all crimes it
was committing, "misses" the pages of major newspapers and TV
channels.


Several considerations about tragic events of 9/11.

Even these shocking US public and its psychological foundations
themselves events have been high-jacked by the Bush administration
and the corporate wealth it represents for streamlining the
"noise and fury" of the American public opinion into the desired
direction: Mid-Eastern nations, occupying the region where the New
Order, a-la-US-corporate-style, had been planned to be established
years before 9/11/2001, by any means available.
The direction has really surprised and puzzled the most of the US
and Great Britain's public that was reasonably asking: if we decided
to decisively deal with the terrorism, existed for decades, just now,
why don't we deal first and formost, with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen -
the countries the 17-18 terrorists out of twenty were nationals of and
came to this country from? Everyone knows we would not bomb and
occupy Guatemala or Nicaragua, if, for argument sake, they were
from Cuba, but temporarily lived in those countries;
with 100% certainty we would bomb Cuba!
No verifiable (except totally circumstantial) evidence was presented to
anyone in more or less open manner, which would indicate the Taliban’s
government involvement, not to mention the completely unfounded Iraqis’
links. The official picture could hardly accomodate several other
well-known features of the 9/11 terrorists attacks:
how probable is the mere assumption, evidence aside, that such an
elaborated, meticulously calculated, requiring at the very least
year and a half or two of commitment of pretty large (20, and certainly
much more, if the support folks are counted) group of people, and extremely
questionable in its successful execution plan went not only practically
undetected by the intelligence and counter-intelligence agencies, but has
also been converted with almost total success, provided the entire design
was created in the caves of Afghanistan, according to the official version?
Any intelligence specialist, speaking anonymously, would tell you
the chance of this happening is extremely slight.
Some might argue, that nevertheless it could happen, the opinion I won't
oppose. But does the adherence of the whole body of the governmental
institutions to this single version, the conclusion on which was
delivered with an amazing(and, should we mention, uncharacteristic
to the FBI and CIA) speed, looked, at the very least, questionable?

Subscribe to our mailing list