https://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/2024/06/omni-us-sovietrussophobia-anthology-3.html
Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology
CONTENTS US SOVIET/RUSSOPHOBIA ANTHOLOGY #3
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.”
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.
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