OMNI
US SOVIET/RUSSOPHOBIA ANTHOLOGY
#3
JUNE 24, 2024
Compiled by Dick Bennett
for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology
https://omnicenter.org/donate
CONTENTS
Cold
War II
John Bellamy Foster, et al. Washington’s
New Cold War: A Socialist Perspective.
Engler. US, NATO, Canada:
Bigotry v. Russia
Norton. Unity Above Truth
Western Censorship
Hall. Radio New Zealand v. “Russian
Propaganda”
Johnstone. DOJ v. “Weaponized Speech.”
Other Effects of Western Cold War
Borenstein. Russian Paranoia.
Resistance to Bigotry
Red Books Day
Peacemaking, Peacemakers
Douglass. JFK and the Unspeakable
Kennedy and Kruschev --Dick
Chris Hedges and
Jeffrey Sachs on Sachs’ To Move the World
Scott Ritter. Waging Peace and Daniel Ellsberg
Researching Soviet/Russophobia in
Mullins Library
Contents of SovietRussophobia
Anthology #2
(Comment: In the past I have compiled larger anthologies in order to reflect
the amplitude and complexity of the publications. But because truthful reality had become too large
to manage in a single anthology, I have shortened #3 to 13 books and articles. But this smaller design might result in false
impressions, if the three (and future) anthologies are not combined. Also, I have material for ready to edit and
organize for three more anthologies on SovietRussophobia and am always behind. Will you tackle them? –D)
SOURCES (13 Books and Articles, 12 Sources)
(One conclusion for me
is that minority views—especially those sympathetic to official enemies--can be
published in the US, but seldom in the mainstream; another is that you and I
should support these alternative media: their writers have families to feed too. –D)
Caitlin Johnstone Blog
Chris Hedges Report Podcast (subscription +CHReport)
Consortium News (subscription)
Cornell UP
Geopolitical Economy Report
The Monthly Review (pub. co.)
Peoples Dispatch
Penguin Random House
The Real News Network
Scott Ritter Extra and Substack (subscription)
Simon and Schuster
Yves Engler Blog
TEXTS
COLD WAR CONTINUES
John
Bellamy Foster, et al. Washington’s
New Cold War: A Socialist Perspective.
John Bellamy Foster, John
Ross, Deborah Veneziale and Vijay Prashad.
As the American people
delude themselves once more into thinking of the United States as a liberating
force for peace in the world, Washington’s New Cold War invites
us, instead, to think for ourselves. Behind the scenes the plans to wage war
have been laid—either by proxy, as in Ukraine, or directly, against the U.S.’s
old twentieth-century foes. Washington’s New Cold War: A
Socialist Perspective makes a strong case
that, as the official story is laid out by government propagandists, and as the
mainstream media provides cover, the aim of this latest set of American
military escapades remains the same as ever: Maintenance of U.S hegemony in the
global financial system.
Foregrounded with an
introduction by Washington Bullets author Vijay Prashad, this cogent
collaboration puts forth three essays that illustrate clearly that, while the
Cold War against the Soviet Union ended, the “cold war” against the “enemies”
of the United States did not. Furthermore, its authors lay out evidence that
the U.S. establishment has been willing to risk nuclear winter—in other words,
mutual annihilation—to hold onto economic primacy. And they show that, while
Russia and China can each be criticized, justifiably, for their violations of human
life and dignity, neither, on its own, threatens the eruption of a Third World
War and the end of the human race as we know it. Just in time, we have in our
hands an intelligent text that strengthens our struggle against the cynical
machinations of the American military behemoth and its propaganda machine.
John Bellamy Foster is editor of Monthly Review and
professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Oregon. He has written
many books including Capitalism in the Anthropocene and The Return of Nature, which won the Deutscher Memorial
Prize. John Ross (Luo Siyi) is a senior fellow at
Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He was
formerly director of economic policy for the mayor of London. Deborah Veneziale is a journalist and editor who
has worked in the global supply chain sector for 35 years. She also
collaborates as a researcher with Tricontinental: Institute for Social
Research. She is currently living in Venice, Italy. Vijay Prashad is the Executive Director of
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is the author or editor of
several books, including Washington Bullets, The Darker
Nations: A Biography of the Short-Lived Third World, and The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South.
He is Chief Editor at LeftWord Books.
NEW
COLD WAR: US AND NATO’S BIGOTRY v. RUSSIA
Canadian
Ambassador to the UN Bob Rae Defends Killing Pro-Russian Journalists and
advocates Regime Change in Russia
Yves Engler. “Canadian Ambassador Okays Terrorist Bombing
of Blogger.” Yves Engler Blog . Posted Apr 08, 2023. Originally published: Yves Engler Blog on April 6, 2023 (more by Yves Engler Blog)
Human Rights, State Repression, Strategy, TerrorismAmericas, Canada, Europe, RussiaNewswireAssassination, Dasha Dugina, St. Petersburg, Vladlen Tatarsky
What do you call it when a Canadian
ambassador justifies the placing of a bomb in a café to kill a prominent member
of the media and which injures dozens of others? Diplomacy?
Earlier this week Canada’s
ambassador to the UN excused blowing up a Russian cafe to kill a pro-war
commentator. Bob Rae’s statement highlights Ottawa’s escalation of tensions. On April 2 prominent blogger Vladlen
Tatarsky was killed in St. Petersburg. The bomb injured 31 others in the café
where he was speaking. . . .
Tatarsky was born and worked in the
Donbass region of eastern Ukraine. In 2014 he was released from jail and fought
in the civil war unleashed by the Canadian-backed ouster of elected president
Viktor Yanukovich. Whatever one thinks of his extreme militarist views, was it
right to assassinate the high-profile commentator? And even if one considers
Tatarsky a legitimate target, how about the 19 people hospitalized by the bomb?
“Bob Rae supports bombing civilians in cafes”, opined one commentator.
While Rae considers all journalists
in Russia “propagandists”, the vast majority of Canadian and U.S. journalists
also promoted the Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan wars. According to Davide
Mastracci’s recent investigation, “editorial boards have
supported Canada’s war and regime change efforts since the First World War 98
per cent of the time.” Is it ok to bomb cafes where Terry Glavin or Andrew
Coyne are speaking? As one commentator tweeted,
by this logic the mere presence of
Thomas Friedman at a cafe fully justifies a bombing with collateral casualties.
. . .
Rae is following and shaping the
Canadian government position. Recently foreign affairs minister Mélanie
Joly called for regime change in Moscow while dismissing China’s
attempt to broker a truce and negotiate a peace accord. At this week’s NATO
summit Joly repeated her childish position that, “Russia needs to get out of
Ukraine and China needs to say to Russia to get out of Ukraine.” In Brussels
Joly also led the push for Ukrainian accession to the alliance. With over
100,000 Russian troops amassed on the border, Joly travelled to Kyiv in January 2022 to promote Ukraine joining
NATO, knowing this increased the likelihood of war. Fourteen months later Joly
continues to escalate tensions.
Where does this end? What’s the offramp?
AssassinationDasha DuginaSt. Pe tersburgVladlen Tatarsky
“West tells Global South
‘you can’t be neutral’ in Ukraine war: You are either with us, or against us” Editor.
Mronline.org (2-24-23). The foreign ministers of the US, Germany, and
Ukraine told the world at the Munich Security Conference, “Neutrality is not an
option” in the West’s proxy war against Russia, implicitly criticizing the vast
majority of Global South countries, which are independent.
By Ben Norton (Posted Feb 23, 2023)
Originally published: Geopolitical Economy Report on February 20, 2023 (more by Geopolitical
Economy Report) |
Strategy, WarAmericas, Europe, Germany, Global, Russia, Ukraine, United StatesNewswireAnnalena Baerbock, Antony Blinken, Dmytro Kuleba, Global South, neutrality, Non-Aligned Movement, North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Russia-Ukraine War
The foreign ministers
of the United States, Germany, and Ukraine have told the world “you can’t be
neutral” in NATO’s
proxy war with Russia, recalling President George W. Bush’s infamous declaration,
You are either with
us, or against us.
In doing so, these Western officials are
implicitly criticizing the vast majority of the countries on Earth, which are
in the Global South, and which have maintained strict neutrality over the war.
. . .
WESTERN CENSORSHIP
OF PRO-RUSSIAN VIEWS AND SPEECH
Mick
Hall. “New Zealand’s ‘Russian Edits
Scandal’ — How a National Broadcaster Demonized the Truth.” Consortium News (10-7-23).
Mick Hall tells the wrenching tale of Radio New Zealand accusing him of
spreading Russian propaganda while he
documented facts on the Ukraine crisis in his work for the broadcaster. Read here...
Caitlin
A. Johnstone. “Biden
DOJ Indicts Four Americans for “Weaponizing” Free Speech.” Mronline.org (4-21-23).
Originally published: Caitlin A Johnstone Blog on April
19, 2023 (more by Caitlin
A Johnstone Blog). Empire, Human Rights, Inequality, MediaAmericas, United StatesNewswireAfrican
People’s Socialist Party (APSP), Biden administration, Biden
administration’s Department of Justice, Department
of Justice (DOJ), First Amendment rights, free speech, President Joe Biden, Russia, U.S. Propaganda
The Biden
administration’s Department of Justice has just charged four members of the
African People’s Socialist Party (APSP) for conspiring to act as agents of
Russia by using speech and political action in ways the DOJ says “weaponized”
the First Amendment rights of Americans.
The Washington Post reports: Federal authorities charged four Americans on
Tuesday with roles in a malign campaign pushing pro-Kremlin propaganda in
Florida and Missouri — expanding a previous case that charged a Russian
operative with running illegal influence agents within the United States.
The FBI signaled its
interest in the alleged activities in a series of raids last summer, at which
point authorities charged a Moscow man, Aleksandr Viktorovich Ionov, with
working for years on behalf of Russian government officials to fund and direct
fringe political groups in the United States. Among other things, Ionov
allegedly advised the political campaigns of two unidentified candidates for
public office in Florida. Ionov’s
influence efforts were allegedly directed and supervised by officers of the FSB,
a Russian government intelligence service.
Now, authorities have added charges against four Americans who allegedly
did Ionov’s bidding through groups including the African People’s Socialist
Party and the Uhuru Movement in Florida, Black Hammer in Georgia, and an
unidentified political group in California — part of an effort to influence
American politics.
AFP reports that the conspiracy charges carry a
sentence of up to ten years, with three of the four APSP members additionally
charged with acting as unregistered agents of Russia which carries another
five years.
“Russia’s foreign
intelligence service allegedly weaponized our First Amendment rights – freedoms
Russia denies its own citizens – to divide Americans and interfere in elections
in the United States,” said Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen in the
DOJ’s press release regarding
the indictments, adding, “The department will not hesitate to expose and
prosecute those who sow discord and corrupt U.S. elections in service of
hostile foreign interests, regardless of whether the culprits are U.S. citizens
or foreign individuals abroad.”
Looks like the United
States has decided to dispense with those freedoms as well.
The superseding
indictment containing
these charges consists of a lot of verbal gymnastics to obfuscate the fact that
the DOJ is prosecuting US citizens for speech and political activities in the
United States which happen not to align with the wishes of the US government. The grand jury alleges that the
aforementioned Ionov “directed” these Americans to “publish pro-Russian
propaganda” and “information designed to cause dissention in the United
States,” which is about as vague and amorphous an allegation as you could possibly
come up with.
For the record Omali
Yeshitela, the founder and chairman of the African People’s Socialist
Party and one of the four Americans named in the indictment, has adamantly
denied ever having worked for Russia. Earlier this month before charges were
brought against him, the Tampa Bay Times quoted
him as saying,
I ain’t ever worked
for a Russian. Never ever ever ever. They know I have never worked for Russia.
Their problem is, I’ve never worked for them.
But it’s important to
note that this should not matter. Under the First Amendment the
government is forbidden to abridge anyone’s freedom to speak however they want
and associate with whomever they please, which necessarily includes being as
vocally pro-Russia as they like and promoting whatever political agendas they
see fit, whether that happens to advance the interests of the Russian
government or not. The indictment alleges that the four Americans engaged in
“agitprop” by “writing articles that contained Russian propaganda and
disinformation,” but even if we pretend that’s both (A) a quantifiable claim
and (B) a proven fact, propaganda and disinformation are both speech that the
government is constitutionally forbidden from repressing.
It’s not reasonable
for the government to just dismiss the First Amendment on the grounds that it
is being “weaponized”. You can’t have your government dictating what speech is
valid and what counts as “agitprop” and “disinformation”, because they’ll always
define those terms in ways which benefit the government, thus giving more power
to the powerful and taking power away from the people. You can’t have your
government dictating what political groups are legitimate and which ones are
tools of a foreign government, because you can always count on the powerful set
such designations in ways which benefit themselves.
DANGER: NUCLEAR ARMED PARANOID NATIONS IN CONFLICT
Eliot Borenstein. Plots against Russia: Conspiracy and Fantasy after
Socialism. Cornell UP, 2019.
National characteristics, Russian,
Post-communism -- Social aspects --
Russia (Federation)Paranoia -- Social aspects -- Russia
(Federation)Conspiracy theories -- Russia
(Federation)Political culture -- Russia (Federation)Popular culture -- Russia (Federation)==konspirologiia--modern Russia--paranoia--pop culture--pro-Putin elites
Description
In this original and timely assessment of
cultural expressions of paranoia in contemporary Russia, Eliot
Borenstein samples popular fiction, movies, television shows, public political
pronouncements, internet discussions, blogs, and religious tracts to build a
sense of the deep historical and cultural roots of konspirologiia that run
through Russian life.
Contents
Frontmatter -- Contents -- Preface --
Acknowledgments -- Introduction: Russia as an Imaginary Country -- 1.
Conspiracy and Paranoia: The Psychopathology of Everyday Speech -- 2. Ruining
Russia: Conspiracy, Apocalypse, and Melodrama -- 3. Lost Horizons: Russophobia,
Sovereignty, and the Politics of Identity -- 4. One Hundred Years of Sodom:
Dystopian Liberalism and the Fear of a Queer Planet -- 5. The Talking Dead:
Articulating the Zombified Subject under Putin -- 6. Words of Warcraft:
Manufacturing Dissent in Russia and Ukraine -- Conclusion: Making Russia Great
Again -- Notes -- Works Cited – Index
RESISTANCE TO HATRED OF RUSSIA and SOCIALISM
(though no longer the same)
“Red Books Day 2023:
Fight the rise of the right, read a red book.” Peoples Dispatch.
Mronlinr.org (2-24-23).
The
day is celebrated in dozens of countries to mark the anniversary of the
publication of the Communist Manifesto and to collectively stand up against the
rise of the right and hatred of Russia.
PEACEMAKING
AND PEACEMAKERS
1963, KENNEDY
AND KRUSCHEV CONSIDER PEACE
James Douglass. JFK
and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. Simon and Schuster, 2008. Comment by Dick Bennett.
On the level of
plot, this magnificent book investigates who assassinated John Fitzgerald
Kennedy. It’s a Whodunnit. Less easily defined is the equal importance
the author assigns to exploring JFK and peacemaking in the USA. The book is structured by these two intertwining
features. Start reading at any page and
in a few pages backwards or forwards you will encounter their juncture.
For example, the
opening of Chapter Six, “Washington and Dallas” (1963). (pp. 220-222).
Following the
Cuban missile crisis, when President Kennedy and Premier Kruschev “had almost
incinerated millions,” in “a year-long secret correspondence” both had turned
from their fear in genocidal “spiritual darkness… to trust.”
Then “Nikita Kruschev sent John Kennedy a private letter articulating a
vision of peace they could realize together.”
They “‘could create good conditions for peaceful coexistence on earth.’”
Pope John XXIII
had just written his encyclical ”Peace on Earth” on “deepening trust across
ideologies.” And the Pope and Norman
Cousins, who were counseling Kennedy, held a conversation at the Vatican. The Pope, dying of cancer, “kept repeating a
single phrase that seemed to sum up his hopeful message of peace on earth:
‘Nothing is impossible.’”
Kennedy and
Kruschev were beginning to believe that.
They had passed through the inferno of life-extinguishing brinkmanship
“into a sense of interdependence” and the possibility of peace. In an address at the American University
Kennedy appealed to the US people to share with the Soviet people the common
link of humanity.
Quickly after
that fervent peace speech, the two leaders signed the nuclear test ban treaty
“and a peaceful resolution of the Cold War was in sight.” The Pope and Kruschev and Kennedy had “caught
on” to the hope and process of peace, that nothing was impossible, and the
people of both nations were catching on by the end of summer 1963. In this spirit, the Senate ratified the
nuclear test ban treaty.
[Here we turn to Douglass’s murder plot.]
But the turn
toward peace created “consternation [in] the president’s military, CIA, and
business peers. The powers that be were
heavily invested in the [Sovietphobic] Cold War and had an unyielding theology
of war. They believed that an atheistic,
Communist enemy had to be defeated.
Theirs was the opposite of Pope John’s vision. . . .”
To the “Cold War
elite” [i.e., warmongers--D] the turn toward peace “was a profound threat,”
exacerbated by Kennedy’s intentions to withdraw from the Vietnam War and
possibly to make peace with Cuba. Also, the advocates of Cold War with the USSR
and Cuba and hot war with Vietnam who were planning to assassinate JFK were
thinking “that nothing was impossible.”
The Chris Hedges Report Podcast
with Professor Jeffrey Sachs on his book To Move the World: JFK's Quest for
Peace and the Disastrous Consequences of the Permanent War Machine.
CHRIS HEDGES
John F. Kennedy’s last battle, cut short by
his assassination, was the effort to build a sustainable peace with the Soviet
Union. Jeffrey Sachs, professor of economics at Columbia
University, in his new book To Move the World chronicles the campaign by Kennedy from
October 1962 to September 1963 to curb the arms race and build ties with his
Soviet counterpart, Nikita Khrushchev.
Sachs looks at the series of speeches Kennedy gave to end the Cold War and
persuade the world to make peace with the Soviets. Kennedy implemented the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963.
But Kennedy’s vision was not shared by many Cold warriors in the establishment,
including some within his administration. Joining me to discuss To Move the
World: JFK’s Quest for Peace is Professor Jeffrey Sachs.
JFK’S PEACE OVERTURES
TO THE SOVIET UNION
Before His Assassination, JFK Sought
Peace With The Soviet Union
By Chris Hedges, The Real News Network. Popular Resistance.org (10-1-23). We will never know the
world that could have been had President John F. Kennedy’s assassination never
taken place, but an inkling of how things could have been different can be
found in the final months of his life. In his new book, To Move the World: JFK’s
Quest for Peace, Jeffrey Sachs unearths JFK’s final
political campaign—to establish a secure and lasting peace with the Soviet
Union. How far did JFK’s efforts go? What sort of progress was made on ending
the Cold War, not
Scott Ritter. “Waging Peace.”
Scott Ritter. “What Would Daniel Ellsberg Do?”
“Waging Peace: In Search of the Russian
Soul.”
Scott Ritter Extra Jul
22, 2023
https://www.scottritterextra.com/p/waging-peace-in-search-of-the-russian-2b2
(Note: This is the third installment in what
will be more than a dozen articles about my 26-day visit to Russia, and the
lessons I learned as a result. If you enjoy this series and would like to see
more content such as this, please sign up for a paid subscription or provide a
donation, so that the author will be able to dedicate the time and energy
necessary to continue producing quality content that embodies his motto,
“Knowledge is Power,” and help overcome the ignorance of Russophobia that
infects the West today.) . . . .[And infected USA since 1917 when the US sent
troops to assist the Tsarist “White” army in quashing the Bolshevik revolution.
Most of the following deleted section
recounted his graduation from college with a degree in Russian history and a
Marine Corps officer commission, and his marriage to a Russian national. --Dick]
Continued:
https://www.scottritterextra.com/p/waging-peace-in-search-of-the-russian-2b2
Scott
Ritter’s book and book tour to transform the ignorance and fear of Russia
friendship and cooperation. Scott Ritter Extra <scottritter@substack.com>
SCOTT RITTER. “What Would Daniel Ellsberg Do?” APRIL 28, 2023.
SHARE
Daniel Ellsberg — the Pentagon Papers whistleblower who has been
an inspiring activist for peace since the early 1970s — recently wrote a public
letter disclosing that he has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, with a
prognosis that he has only three to six months to live.
Join us for “Daniel Ellsberg Week” to celebrate the life’s work
of Daniel Ellsberg, to take action in support of whistleblowers and
peacemakers, and to call on state and local governments around the country to
honor the spirit of difficult truth-telling with a commemorative week, April
24-30.
The Ellsberg Initiative for Peace and Democracy & The
RootsAction Education Fund
I first “met” Dan Ellsberg through the pages
of history, an 11-year-old boy caught up in the political scandal that was
known as Watergate. He emerged as a footnote to the larger drama surrounding
President Richard Nixon’s involvement with the so-called “White House
plumbers,” a secret investigative unit working directly for Nixon. The
“plumbers” had broken into the Watergate Hotel to steal information from the
Democratic National Committee that could be of use in support of Richard
Nixon’s reelection bid, only to get caught.
In the investigation that followed, it became
known that the “plumbers” had carried out numerous other “jobs” for the
President, including their first—the September 3, 1971 burglary of the office
of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis Fielding, to discover information
that could undermine Ellsberg’s credibility during his espionage trial.
Ellsberg had earlier leaked tens of thousands of pages of what became known as
“the Pentagon Papers” to The Washington Post and The
New York Times. For this “crime” Ellsberg was arrested, charged and put on
trial.
When the information about the break-in became
public, US District Judge W. Matthew Byrne halted the trial and dismissed
charges against Ellsberg and his codefendant, accusing the government of
misconduct.
Many years would pass before I once again had
Dan Ellsberg enter my life. I had resigned from my position as a United Nations
Chief Inspector in Iraq in August 1998, and in the years that followed had
become a vocal critic of US policy in the Middle East. In 2002, as the US began
to prepare for a war with Iraq, both Daniel and I began speaking out against
this prospect, and soon fate conspired to put us on the same stage in Oakland,
California, where we had a conversation before a packed house of fellow activists
about the dangers of war.
Scott Ritter will discuss this article and
answer audience questions in Episode 65 of Ask the Inspector, his last podcast before traveling to for
Russia for a month-long book tour.
Dan invited me and my fellow traveler, Jeff
Norman, back to his home, where we spent a remarkable evening with him and his
lovely wife, Pat. Even though we had just met, the Ellsbergs made us feel as if
we had known them for a lifetime, regaling us with stories from their
considerable life experiences that were insightful, emotional, and in some
cases, downright hysterical. This began a friendship that lasted for more than
two decades, built on a foundation of mutual respect and a shared passion for
eliminating the scourge of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.
As I reflect back on the time I was blessed to
spend with Dan, I find myself in awe of the intelligence and courage of a
Harvard-educated Marine who served his country as one of Secretary of Defense
Robert McNamara’s “whiz kids,” as an aide to the legendary CIA covert operator,
Edward Lansdale, and later as a senior analyst with the RAND corporation, a
defense think tank. As someone who had helped conceive US nuclear doctrine, Dan
felt it was his life’s mission to try and put the nuclear genie back into its
bottle. I was proud to say that, in his later years in life, I was able to
actively collaborate with him on this mission.
I often think about Daniel Ellsberg as he
strode up the steps to the US District Court in San Francisco, on trial for
espionage charges that could have put him away for life. Aren’t you afraid to
go to prison, a reporter asked him. His response sticks with me to this day:
“Wouldn’t you go to prison to end this war?” he said, without hesitation.
The courage and conviction of that response
still brings tears to my eyes.
“What would Daniel Ellsberg do” has become a
mantra in my life, as I confront the various challenges life puts in front of
me.
It helped me make the decision to go to
Baghdad in September 2002 to petition the Iraqi government to allow weapons
inspectors to return in an effort to prevent a war, even though I knew the
price I would pay at the hands of a vengeful US government would be high.
And it guides me today as I prepare to embark
on a new mission, one built around the desire to make arms control and nuclear
disarmament between the US and Russia a priority for the US government, again
in hopes of forestalling the possibility of a nuclear war. This mission is derived from my book about
the implementation of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, and
my role as a weapons inspector tasked with carrying out compliance verification
inspections in support of this task. This book, Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, was recently published in Russia, and I have been invited to
Russia to help promote the Russian language edition.
But this journey is far more than a simple
book tour. It is an act of citizen diplomacy which, once again, will put me in
opposition to the policies of my government and the Russophobia of many of my
fellow Americans.
“My book,” I explain in a statement I made to the Russian media
on the eve of my departure for Russia, “is about a time when our two nations
took seriously the important task of nuclear disarmament. Today this mission
has been halted in large part by the irrational fear of Russia on the part of
the American people. My goal in bringing this book to Russia is to rekindle the
spirit of friendship and cooperation that existed three decades ago and, in
doing so, help break down the wall of misunderstanding and ignorance my fellow
citizens have constructed that keeps our two nations apart.”
This book tour starts in Novosibirsk and will
span several thousand kilometers and eleven Russian cities. This is a journey
in the tradition of Van Cliburn, seeking to restore friendship between the US
and Russia one handshake at a time.
Our goal is to capture this experience so that
it can be brought back to my country as a documentary film which will be shown
to the American people so that they, too, will have a chance to share the
message that I am certain this tour will produce—of a shared humanity among our
two nations that transcends prejudice and fear, and which can return us to the
path of peaceful coexistence we once walked together, side by side, as friends.
“What would Daniel Ellsberg do?,” I ask myself
when thinking about the journey ahead of me, and I’m comforted by the certainty
that, if he were able, Dan would be right beside me, as an ally and a friend,
as we ventured forth together to once again confront the evil of
ignorance-based fear and the policies of death and destruction that it
produces.
Daniel Ellsberg is with me, now and forever—in
my heart, in my body, and in my spirit. I am not alone on this journey, nor
will I ever be, thanks to the example Dan set by his actions, his words—his
life.
Thank you, Dan. You will live on in the deeds
of those whom you graced with your presence. You live on inside me. Courage
such as yours is immortal.
USING UAF’S MULLINS LIBRARY TO RESEARCH
SOVIET/RUSSOPHOBIA
Hi Dick,
Here is how I would search, as I
understand it.
Go to the Libraries’
main website: https://libraries.uark.edu/
Click your mouse/cursor in the “Search everything” box
Type what you’re searching for (in this case, I typed in
“Russophobia”)
Click the “Search” button on the right
The items we for which we have access for that particular term
will come up
You can run more complex searches by
clicking on the “Advanced OneSearch” link on the left of the page, or you could
run additional simple searches with other terms. 205 items came up for that simple search I ran on Russophobia: https://onesearch.uark.edu/discovery/search?query=any,contains,russophobia&vid=01UARK_INST:01UARK&tab=COMBINED&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI
All the best, Rachel
Related
Books at Mullins Library
https://onesearch.uark.edu/discovery/search?query=any,contains,russophobia&vid=01UARK_INST:01UARK&tab=COMBINED&search_scope=MyInstand_CI
CONTENTS SOVIET/RUSSOPHOBIA #2
Eliot
Borenstein. Plots
against Russia : Conspiracy and Fantasy after Socialism. Cornell UP,
2019.
Nord Stream Sabotage
Seymour Hersh. “How America Took Out The Nord
Stream Pipeline.”
Prabir
Purkayastha. “Mapping
Faultlines: The Planning, Execution, and
Aftermath of Nord Stream sabotage.”
Steve Brown.
“Why Is Assange in Jail and Not Seymour Hersh?”
Clare Daly. “… there must be consequences for the vandals
who did it.”
Blame the Russians
Matt Taibbi. The Campaign to Smear Critics of the Democratic Party by
Associating Them with Russia. The
Chris Hedges Report.
B, Moon Of Alabama. “On the Media of
Russiagate.”
Caitlin Johnstone. Johnstone as Agent of
Russian Propaganda, Western
Propaganda, Public and Media
Hysteria.
War on Russia
Chay
Bowes. “Ukraine—The Inevitable
War.” Minsk Accords Abused by
Ukraine, Destabilizing Russia,
Russian Warnings.
Gleason,
J. H. The
Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain; a Study of the Interaction
of Policy and Opinion.” 1950.
Russophobia
Anthology #1
https://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/2023/02/omni-sovietrussophobia-anthology-1.html
Russophobia Anthology #2
https://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/2023/03/omni-sovietrussophobia-anthology-2.html
