Published on April 22nd, 2014 | by Admin0
The KGB’s Duping of America
June 27, 2012
If there is one obvious thing, it is that the predominant narrative in the media, show business, and intellectual circles, when it is not already determining the course of political events, will eventually determine it, sooner or later.
In the United States, the prevailing narrative has been echoing, point by point, for at least three decades—without mentioning the source or, of course, copying its style—the speech of the anti-American propaganda that has been circulated by the government of the USSR since the end of World War II.
There is no charge, no disparaging myth, no defamatory stereotype that has not been both absorbed by the major opinion-forming agencies in America and passed on to the population as a genuine made-in-USA product, as a common sense datum, or as a spontaneous belief of good people. From the cases of McCarthy, Alger Hiss, and Rosenberg on, there has been no Soviet lie that was not joyfully endorsed by the establishment and that has not ended up being contradicted by irrefutable documentary evidence thirty or forty years later, too late for its political effects to be reversed (see Ronald Radosh, The Rosenberg File, 1997; E. Stanton Evans Blacklisted by History, 2007; Christina Shelton, Alger Hiss: Why He Chose Treason, 2012).
As the raw material of these shams always appear refashioned in a local language adapted to the usual feelings of the American public, nobody, or almost nobody, remembers to track down its origin. However, anybody who did it would have to end up agreeing with what Malachi Martin once said: that over the last century there has been only one acting force on the international scene—the USSR. All the other characters have had no initiative of their own: they confined themselves to adapting, hastily and clumsily, to situations created by the Soviet scene directors, whose calculations both anticipated and took advantage of the other characters’ reactions.
Everything that has been sold, praised, and criticized as “anti-Communism” in the West has never gone beyond a belated and weak response from stunned victims to a comprehensive, long-term strategy, whose scope they barely came to catch a glimpse of.
Few things illustrate the notion of “passive response” so clearly as the American policy of “containment,” which sought to set boundaries to the expansion of the Soviet empire, a policy which, at the time, Western narrow-mindedness praised as a masterpiece of strategic genius and Communist hypocrisy, barely suppressing its laughter, condemned as the epitome of Yankee imperial intrusion. All this policy managed to do was tie the hands of the West itself, while the USSR freely spread its tentacles throughout Asia, Africa, Latin America, and, of course, the highest spheres of the American intellectuality and media.
But perhaps the masterpiece of pathetic helplessness was the Western governments’ insistence on the false cleverness which sought to play “left-wing anti-Communists” against the USSR. They did this in the hope of dividing the Communist hosts, when in fact all those things that democratic leftists proposed had been already integrated into the Soviet plans for the grand farce of the “fall of the USSR,” which in less than a decade would transfigure the seemingly death of the Communist movement into a triumphant resurrection and a succession of spectacular victories (see Jean-Francois Revel, Last Exit to Utopia: the Survival of Socialism in a Post-Soviet Era, 2009), included among them, not long afterwards, the election of one of its most faithful servants for the presidency of the United States.
Even the most legitimate conservatives insist on seeing the left-oriented transformations of American society and politics as a result of indigenous processes, a consequence of the agency of their execrated liberals, and they will not admit that the latter have never, ever taken the intellectual initiative in any of these processes, but have merely echoed and passed on to others, in the traditional language of democracy, the slogans and clichés of the international Communist propaganda.
Mesmerized by a kind of cognitive patriotism, the cream of American conservatism imagines that in its homeland resides the creative source of everything good and bad that happens in the world, and in so doing, it ends up casting upon the genuine authors of those transformations a protective cloak of invisibility. Obsessively committed to escaping the accusation of being “conspiracy theorists,” those devoted guardians of Americanism cling to those explanations that seem more credible to the general public, that is, credible precisely to those people who are the least qualified to give an opinion on matters so complex and labyrinthine. For fear of becoming an object of laughter to the ignorant, conservatives purposely lower themselves to the level of average stupidity, sacrificing their intelligence in a ritual of self-castration at the altar of respectable appearances.
Do you want another example of this? Testimony after testimony, document after document, prove that Muslim radicalism has not sprung spontaneously from the Islamic society, Islamic culture, but was created by the Soviet intelligence services and is still fed and monitored by Russian agents (read Ion Mihai Pacepa at http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/218533/russian-footprints/ion-mihai-pacepa and Claire Berlinski in http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/103576/the-cold-wars -arab-spring ). Nevertheless, the U.S. government continues to treat Vladimir Putin as a most trustworthy partner, while conservative intellectuals produce tons of piously Christian rhetoric to cast the blame for terrorism on thirteen-centuries-old Koranic traditions, helping the action of the KGB-FSB get under Islamic camouflage, which, precisely, was in that agency’s plans from the outset.
*Olavo de Carvalho, 65, is a Brazilian philosopher, writer and media columnist presently living in the United States. http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/index.html
IMPORTANT FOLLOW-UP READING:
Goal: Recovering, to communism, in Latin America, all that was lost in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. It is a congregation of parties, organizations and leftist movements, predominantly Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries in Latin America, created in 1990 with sponsorship of the Cuban Communist Party and the Workers Party (in Portuguese Partido dos Trabalhadores; PT).
Lula Is A Lulu
Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid — January 29, 2003
Iraq, North Korea, and now Brazil is the latest hot spot for U.S. foreign policy, but you wouldn’t know it from reading the press. The new president of Latin America’s largest country was backed by the Communist Party of Brazil, and he has publicly acknowledged its support. But the word “communist” didn’t come up in stories in the New York Times and Washington Post about the inauguration of Luis Inacio da Silva, known as “Lula.” The Post and Times said he was a “leftist.” Associated Press said he was “a former radical who had espoused socialism.”
Da Silva may not be a card-carrying Communist, but he comes close. His supporter, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, was at his inauguration, along with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who has made common cause with Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Moammar Gadhafi of Libya. Andres Oppenheimer in the Miami Herald commented that, “Whatever his friendship with the two leaders, da Silva has seen the disaster they have brought on their countries. Cuba is one of the poorest countries in Latin America, with an average wage of about $17 a month. Venezuela is one of the richest but mired in political and economic upheaval.”
For the time being, it appears that da Silva will agitate for “debt relief” from international institutions, foreign aid, and favorable trading terms from the U.S. On the other hand, in October a dozen U.S. congressmen sent a letter to President Bush noting that da Silva has been a critic of Brazil’s adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The letter also said that he cooperated with the Castro regime to establish a leftist group called the Forum of Sao Paulo. It has become a vehicle for leftist and communist parties throughout the hemisphere.
The Militant, the newspaper of the Socialist Workers Party, said a meeting of the Forum in 1996 featured Jos? Ram?n Balaguer of the Communist Party of Cuba, who attacked “North American imperialism.” The Forum passed resolutions expressing solidarity with Libya and North Korea. Lula attended this event, and Ch?vez of Venezuela came for the first time. U.S. representatives came from the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), the Committees of Correspondence, Democratic Socialists of America, Freedom Road Socialist, and Socialist Workers Party.
The Militant reported that, “The Forum took note of the growing immigration from Latin American to the United States and a recent rise in the struggles for immigrant rights in that country. Angela Sambrano, representing CISPES, gave a special presentation at the Forum on the subject.” CISPES favored the cause of the communist guerrillas in El Salvador.
The Militant quoted her as saying, “In the United States, they accuse immigrants of being the cause of the economic crisis and other evils.” But the number of Latinos in the United States is growing and could have decisive weight. Sambrano said, “We have the capacity to be a political force.” So Lula is not only in our own back yard, his followers are on American soil. Socialists and Communists are working together in North and South America.
March 28, 2014
BRICS refers to Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. BRICS had rejected sanctions against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. One source was the Iranian Press TV, which highlighted how the foreign ministers of the BRICS countries had issued a statement defending Russia.
A Russian Pravda report went further, noting that Dilma Rousseff, the former communist terrorist who is now president of Brazil, is the liaison with the “left South American bloc ALBA,” consisting of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. Brazil has “initiated removing the US dollar from internal trade within BRICS.” The report added that “Brazil is also the largest trading partner of Russia in Latin America, and the trade between the two countries is expected to increase from the current $6 billion a year to $10 billion by the end of the decade.