Who is to Blame?

IT IS COMMONLY BELIEVED that Winston Churchill (an Anglo-Saxon but not an American at all) started the cold period of world rivalry in Fulton. His speech, however, did not mean that what had begun as a "cold period" would develop into 40-year-long confrontation between two nuclear powers.

On 5 March 1946, in Fulton (Missouri) Winston Churchill no longer the prime minister spoke not only about "the safety and welfare, the freedom and progress, of all the homes and families" but also about "collaboration and mutual assistance with Soviet Russia." While complaining that "nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organization intends to do in the immediate future, or what are the limits, if any, to their expansive and proselytizing tendencies," he deemed it necessary to state the following 1:

"I have a strong admiration and regard for the valiant Russian people and for my wartime comrade, Marshal Stalin. There is deep sympathy and goodwill in Britain - and I doubt not here also - towards the peoples of all the Russias and a resolve to persevere through many differences and rebuffs in establishing lasting friendships... We welcome Russia to her rightful place among the leading nations of the world. We welcome her flag upon the seas. Above all, we welcome constant, frequent, and growing contacts between the Russian people and our own people on both sides of the Atlantic... I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But what we have to consider here today while time remains, is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions

Aleksandr Fomenko, Deputy of the State Duma of the RF Federal Assembly of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries."

The Fulton dreamer was quite open about the fact that the aims he had identified for the Anglo-Saxon world "can only be achieved by reaching now, in 1946, a good understanding on all points with Russia under the general authority of the United Nations Organization and by the maintenance of that good understanding through many peaceful years." He went as far as saying: "We British have our twenty years Treaty of Collaboration and Mutual Assistance with Soviet Russia... that it might well be a fifty years Treaty so far as we are concerned" and added: "The United Nations Organization must immediately begin to be` equipped with an international armed force."

The former British prime minister obviously expected that Moscow, with its right of veto in the UN, would play an important role on the world scene. Indeed, London having achieved Pyrrhic victory over Germany and having moved closer to the death of the British Empire (India`s independence was merely three years away) Could expect nothing more than a place in the Big Three (transformed into the UN Security Council.)

The famous "from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent" should be assessed with the context of this widely discussed yet little known speech.

The British politician did not exclude the possibility of restoring, at least partially, German`s former geopolitical role "if now the Soviet Government tries, by separate action, to build up a pro-Communist Germany in their areas, this will cause new serious difficulties in the British and American zones, and will give the defeated Germans the power of putting themselves up to auction between the Soviets and the Western Democracies."

Only Winston Churchill, the brilliant writer and orator, could pronounce this elegant and balanced speech while two other leaders (Truman and Stalin) were free to interpret it in their own ways. Compared by the eloquence of World War Il times this was the fairly balanced speech that did not invite to freeze the relations immediately.

Progressists on Both Sides

IN FACT, the glaring gap between the Soviet Union and the United States appeared when the leaders of both superpowers betrayed (much later than the I Fulton speech) their more than serious intention to go on with revolutionary messianism.

It was at the early stages of their history that the Americans imagined themselves to be a "pole of freedom" with a special worldwide mission and a wide following of "freedom-loving nations." Their attitude to the rest of the world was thus shaped once and for all. While "the chosen people" remained within the limits of Protestant ideology rooted in the Old Testament and inherited from not very much liked Brits the world remained indifferent to the American whim. 2

When extremely conservative Truman replaced Franklin Theodore Roosevelt, a cynical pragmatic realist, as the president of the United States the world awoke to the fact that the White House was determined to live up to its "predestination." Nuclear bombs came handy - it was not the hawks from among the generals but the hawkish president who decided to drop two atomic bombs on the civilian population of the enemy country. (Nobody knows whether President Truman ever regretted the destruction of Nagasaki, Japan`s Catholic center (the bomb exploded directly above the Urakami Cathedral) where 40 percent of the dead were Japanese Catholics. 3

It was at that time that the American VIPs suddenly became aware of the Soviet mythologeme of "world communism" even though the U.S.S.R. All-Slavic Committee (set up in 1942 with the aim of establishing domination over the Habsburgs` geopolitical heritage) was obviously intended to restore the Moscow-Petersburg "pan-Slavic trends" but not to plunge into a "world revolution" à la Lenin and Trotsky. The newly introduced golden shoulder-straps of the Soviet military and the Kremlin`s intention to go on with imperial geopolitics (that included the Eastern Question) told the world that the Soviet leaders were resolved to bring the world communist project to a successful end.

Even though endless spy scandals in the United States added oil to the fire lit American messianism Soviet intelligence never hesitated to exploit, with it great deal of cynicism, the Americans Who sympathized with the idea of world communism. ( his could riot, however, be taken to mean that Stalin was nurturing the plans of realizing the "world communism" project.

The nightmares of the common American could have come true when, several years after Hiroshima and Fulton cynical pragmatist Stalin withdrew from the historical scene and Khrushchev, communist and atheist zealot, came in his stead.

His haphazard activities in the vast areas stretching from Indonesia to Cuba convinced the gullible that the project of Sovietization was very much alive. In actual fact, however, neither Khrushchev nor Brezhnev deliberately transcended the limits especially those drawn by international agreements. Indeed, the Soviet Union did not think twice before sending troops to Hungary and Czechoslovakia, its sphere or influence, yet demonstratively remained neutral during the civil war in Greece in 1944-1945 and 1946-1949.

The anti-communist rhetoric of the 1950s and 1960s camouflaged rather than reflected realities. The communist experiment had its supporters and investors (Jacob Schiff and John Reed) as well as ideological opponents in America. There was no shortage of conservatives among the American bureaucrats and the military who, back in 1939 had not allowed the Soviet Union to buy in America navy and aviation technologies even though President Roosevelt believed it was his duty to push the deal through. 4

During the war Stalin admitted to American Ambassador and entrepreneur Averell Harriman that two-thirds of Soviet industry had been built with American technological and financial assistance. 5 Indeed, even during the civil war in Russia when the U.S. Department of State rigidly opposed the communist regime in Moscow there was no shortage of those among the American financial and industrial circles who were ready to make money no matter what.

Had the Soviet Union failed to score considerable successes in the military-industrial sphere, had Moscow in the 1950s remained technologically dependent on the United States (as it had been depended in the 1930s) there would have been no Cold War. The American claimants to the role of the "beacon" for "progressive mankind" were hardly bothered by the similar claims of the Soviet communists. Combined with the Soviet Union`s military-technological independence gained by the early 1950s these claims could have become, and became, serious geopolitical irritant for the American progressists.

(We should not ignore, however, the fact that today the White House does not lecture on the Chinese communists who never repented and never regretted the past: the Cold War was waged neither against communism nor for freedom and democracy.)

Churchill was right: in the 20th century, Moscow and Washington had many reasons to close ranks not only against Germany and Japan but also against the UK.

Few people are aware that after World War II the Soviet Union and the United States sometimes obviously and sometimes secretly acted as tactical allies when fighting against old European colonialism for ideological and economic reasons. During the war and after it President Roosevelt and the United States were working hard to destroy the British Empire. (We should always bear this in mind when listening to Tony Blair`s suspiciously luscious statements that his country was ready to either follow in Washington`s footsteps or to pave the road.)

During the Fulton years when the Brits were gradually pushed out from Palestine where the state of Israel appeared the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. competed for control over the Zionist regime. They agreed that the Arab monarchies set up by the British were too archaic and therefore hostile to socialist-capitalist "progress." The revolutionary-progressist forces could count on indirect and even direct support of both rivals. In 1956, during the Suez crisis Egyptian dictator Nasser who had nationalized the canal escaped the British-French-Israeli intervention thanks to American and Soviet interference.

Having lost the diplomatic "battle of Israel" to the Americans and having discovered the potentials of all sorts of Arabian progressists and nationalists the Soviet Union had to choose between ideology and Realpolitik. As a result the Arab communists were sacrificed to geopolitically important cooperation with the BAAS pan-Arabic nationalist party.

The tactical allies (and strategic rivals) that pursued different aims yet tried to outdo each other when it came to the volumes of aid contributed to the victories of local revolutionaries in the war of independence stretching from Algeria to South Africa. The Algerian National Liberation Front, for example, received varied assistance against de Gaulle from the Americans, the Soviet Union, and the anti-communist minded Europeans. In South Africa Soviet military and other aid to the African National Congress (a militant organization with known communists and communist sympathizers among its members headed by tribal chief Nelson Mandela) was combined with American financial and diplomatic support of the enemies of apartheid and political activities of the local and transnational corporations.

Mutation of America

IN THE 20TH CENTURY, the United States moved away from the principles of the Founding Fathers who had spared no efforts to convince the nation to keep away from political and especially military confrontations on other continents.

While ethnic nationalism born by the French Revolution was spreading far and wide capturing the increasingly unbridled minds of the European liberals and revolutionaries American isolationism was pushed aside. America, a classical country of immigrants, and its foreign policy fell victim to the most powerful (to borrow the description from Konstantin Leontiev) weapon of world revolution, viz. ethnic (tribal) nationalism. 6 Inspired by America`s growing economic and military might the European immigrant lobbies tried to use it to deal with the problems they left behind in their European homelands.

By the turn of` the 20th century, the American "melting pot" was no longer coping with the flow of immigrants from Western, Central, and Southern Europe: ethnic lobbies were mushrooming across in the country. The largest and tile most united diasporas could even channel Washington`s foreign policy.

Isolationism retreated to give space to interventionism. It was a long process: President Wilson needed three years to join World War I. Throughout the 20th century, ethnic and religious lobbies of all sorts were increasing their impact. Today, it has become very strong indeed. During World War II, for example, President Roosevelt was forced to ask Stalin and Churchill to keep the allies` plans about Poland`s postwar status secret to retain the Polish votes at the 1944 presidential elections.

Impact of the Jewish organizations on America`s Middle Eastern policy is a well-known fact; in the past they also channeled Washington`s Soviet policy. The Irish are directly involved in the Administration`s attitude to the Northern Ireland issue. (The special relations between the Irish Republic and Hitler Germany that survived till May 1945 caused no squabbles with the United States thanks to the large and influential Irish diaspora.) Albanians, Croats, Poles, and Ukrainians have their own lobbies in the United States.

This explains how notorious joint Resolution No. 86-90 of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives of 17 July 1959 (the so-called Captive Nations Public Law) appeared at the height of the Cold War. It equated communist ideology and Russia; America set forth the aim of detaching the non-Russian nations from the Soviet Union. It should be said that from the very be-ginning of the civil war in Russia American diplomacy distinguished between Bolshevism and pre-revolutionary Russia and never doubted its territorial integrity. In 1959, none of the American historians and diplomats could describe such exotic units as The Far Eastern Republic, Cossackia and Idel-Ural as enslaved nations. The idea belonged to all sorts of nationalist-minded lobbies.

Everything changed when in the mid-1970s Zbigniew Brzezinski was appointed National Security Advisor to President Carter. It was his idea to bring members of all sorts of diasporas to key foreign policy posts earlier filled with Americans of various ethnic origins. Today Paula Dobriansky, daughter of Lev Dobriansky, prominent member of the Ukrainian Congress of America, and herself a member of the same organization, is undersecretary of state responsible for "democracy and global affairs".*

The numerous Brzezinskis at high posts care much more about their "small homelands" (real or imagined) than about America and its interests. While George Tenet, a Christian Albanian, recently CIA director, knew how to be an American (and survived both the democratic and republican administrations) one cannot exclude the possibility that in future different people will climb high.

In America, ethnic lobbyism, a natural feature of any country of immigrants, has got out of hand while the American "silent majority" lost its previously clear features. In post-war America consumer society is more concerned with what it wants rather than what it should. Those who can say "We built up America!" are few and far between even though the world of big business is still ruled by descendants of the first colonists and the immigrants of the 19th century; little was left of the severe ethics and morals of American Protestants. 7 All of a sudden WASP has become a denigrating political term.

The situation goes far beyond the efforts of all sorts of lobbies to influence decision-making in favor of their homelands, diasporas or even the lobbies themselves. The tail wags the dog; what is more, since the Americans are little interested in what is going on outside their borders ethnic lobbyists might be tempted to dominate the only superpower`s foreign policies.

In 2004, the AIPAC was accused of espionage; in his book about the crisis of America`s Israel lobby Stephen Schwartz insisted that the scandal revealed that this lobby was incompetent rather than cowardly under the burden of its political obligations8 and thus demonstrated that it had become unnecessary in tile world changed by the neocons.

The new policies better described as "export of democracy" (the second edition of "export of revolution") contradicts all American traditions. Gore Vidal called it "perpetual war for perpetual peace." Political mutations irritate not only the politically autarchic foreigners but also those of the Americans who still cherish the American political ideals and the cultural traditions of their great nation. Having exchanged the boring yet realistic lectures of George Bush Sr for the dangerously exciting myths of the neocons George W. Bush has not consolidated his country`s position in the world.

______________

* For a long time notorious Ekaterina Chumachenko, the first lady (and second wife) of Viktor Yushchenko worked side by side with Paula Dobriansky.

Illusions and Reality

FIFTY YEARS OF BRAINWASHING in the West and the East, fifty years of propaganda of democracy as the best and benevolent order as well as fifteen years of building up democracy in what replaced the Eastern bloc revealed to the world a simple truth: democracy is nothing more than a method of functioning of human society; it should not be regarded as an aim in itself or as a social panacea.

Back in 1992 when the radical Islamists won the elections in Algeria the local nationalists used force to keep them away from power by unleashing a bloody civil war. No wonder the democratic West with the United States at its head pushed away their proclaimed love of freedom, rule and law and democracy to hail the coup.

The confirmed promoters of democracy throughout the world refuse to learn from this lesson. In 2006, they insisted on free elections in the Palestinian autonomy. Dissatisfied with the victory of the radical Islamists the United State and the West condemned the results. The local Palestinian nationalists lost the battle to Islamists (at least in Gaza).

The romantically minded Anglo-Saxons unleashed the war "for the freedom of Iraq." They are fighting against their own ally and client, the mightiest secular regime in the Middle East. They have already destroyed the joint achievement of the British Crown and Saddam Hussein - the Iraqi nation - and plunged the Arabs and the Kurds of Mesopotamia into the past of the chaos of tribal and confessional enmity that developed into the war of all against all. The war cast doubt on America`s world hegemony that back in the 1990s had looked unshakeable. A hardly desirable development in view of the Chinese factor.

In the 1960s-1990s, all sorts of forums, clubs and commissions of intellectuals did not expect the reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping to create another global heavyweight. In 1997, however, during the so-called Asian crisis China clearly demonstrated to the West that it could play by the rules written by others for others.

Early in the 21st century, China, rather than Russia presents the greatest threat to America and the West. It is so far economic - not military, in the form of industrial export from China that has developed into a huge economic and geopolitical factor. The countries unwilling or unable to reduce the standard of living of their workforce will lose global competition to the "Chinese cost" of skilled labor and state protectionism.

Mass production in China makes continued existence of industrial economies impossible: Giulio Tremonti (finance minister and vice-premier in the Berlusconi Cabinet) is convinced that the economic and political effects of global outsourcing are much more dangerous than the armored spearheads of World War II.

There is the other side of the Chinese economic medal yet we should hardly rejoice at China`s domestic troubles - they may echo around the world. In his book The Coming China Wars: Where They Will Be Fought and How They Can Be Won American author Peter Navarro offers an impressive, and frightening, list of threats and dangers rising behind the facade of the "Chinese economic miracle."

China that consumes the unbelievably huge amounts of oil, gas, and metals is responsible not only for spiraling energy fuel prices but also for exacerbated worldwide rivalry over access to raw materials. (Chinese companies have already elbowed European and American companies out of the African countries rich in mineral and energy resources.)

In an effort to meet the ever-growing demand in power China is building huge and ecologically doubtful dams and hydropower stations; it has already left the Soviet megalomaniac hydropower projects far behind.

Environmental pollution threatens China`s neighbors, Vietnam, its old rival and its partners across the ocean. Between the 1950s and 1970s, the country lost 1,500,00 sq km of forests and agricultural lands; today it loses 4,000 sq km every year.

The Chinese consume polluted foodstuffs and suffer of shortage of drinking water; the state health services are dead; the danger of epidemics is high.

The population is ageing fast - in an absence of an efficient pension system. In several years the "one child policy" will echo with shortage of workforce. So far, central power in Beijing is in control yet much says that it is no longer omnipotent.

Counterfeiting and intellectual property piracy have reached out-rageous dimensions in China; central power is working hard to defeat the evil while local power cannot afford the victory at the expense of those who live on counterfeiting (the local authorities have their share in illegal businesses).

Fears are mounting on both sides of the Atlantic while Beijing does not betray an intention to remove contradictions with those it calls Western partners: late in 2006, six members of the American Cabinet and the Chairman of Federal Reserve System tried, without effect, to convince Beijing not to artificially devalue the Yuan.

This is novel experience for the White House and the Wall Street.

This makes ideological, economic or military confrontation between Russia and America in the presence of China and in the face of dangerous realities distressing and a little bit ridiculous. This is what political antiquities are about.

It is no less distressing and ridiculous to watch the attempts of the former satellites and outlaying regions of great empires abetted by all sorts of Euroliberals and neocons to play the old games and win the wars nobody cares about any longer.

A crowd of queer individuals is still fighting for first-class seats in the train that departed long ago.

This brings to mind the British-Prussian-French persistent rivalry in the l8th century while the revolutionary monster of the Enlightenment had already moved too close to the gates of the Christian European monarchies.

Likewise, early in the 20th century European politicians of all hues insisted on winning the already outdated geopolitical games and wars while Marxism, another revolutionary monster, had knocked at the doors of liberal Europe. America`s economic might promised a lot and fulfilled its promise by the mid-20th century.

Realpolitik

THE UNITED STATES that claims "democratic control" over the world - a sort of the revived Manifest Destiny - has inevitably clashed with China`s claims of the status of the main economic power, the new "workshop of the world." Some 50 years ago this role belonged to the United States, which had inherited it from Britain. Today, de-industrialization of Europe and the United States has become obvious.

Very soon Russia, and America for that matter, will have to coordi-nate their economic (and foreign) policies with the Pacific developments. This suggests that Russia and the United States might reach a sort of an understanding (if not cordial then intellectual) in the face (but not against) China`s growing might. Moscow that finally freed itself from the burden of the world`s "capital of communism" and that does not claim the equally heavy burden of the second superpower has no bone to pick with Beijing and Washington.

Moscow and Beijing, two members of the SCO, have many common topics: oil and gas issue alone allows Russia to busy itself with all sorts of cultural events, like the Year of Russia in China and the Year of China in Russia. Having let the American military into Central Asia Moscow created a common foreign policy agenda for Eurasia.

The Americans seem to be bogged down in the slowly going and fairly unproductive talks on the entire range of violations of the WTO rules and procedures; the U.S. is doing its best to ensure continued existence of the Chinese Republic (Taiwan). America is saddled with the role of global policeman and global irritant.

No wonder certain influential American circles bother to keep the door of cooperation with Russia ajar: in fact despite the official contradictions both countries need cooperation. This was amply confirmed late in May 2007 by Chairman of the Council on Foreign Affairs in New York Ambassador Richard N. Haass who held forth in Moscow about the importance and potentials of pragmatic Russian-American partnership in all spheres. He described it as an alternative to the Cold War dialogue.

One feels, however, that the reckoning point cannot be accepted without specification: forty years of the Cold War and NATO-WTO confrontation are but a very short period of time in the over than 200-year-long history of Russian-American relations.

For over a century, from the American War of Independence to the end of the Russian Civil war, which is from the last quarter of the l 8th century to the first quarter of the 20th century, there was not merely "peaceful coexistence" between the two countries - they were strategic partners which cooperated on all key political issues.

In the 19th century, for example, few doubted the obvious similarity between the imperial and polyethnic nature of the two states (Russia and America) created by Orthodox Russians and Protestant Anglo-Saxons and Germans.*

America`s cautious treatment of the prospects of legalizing business activities of those (there was no shortage of them in the U.S. business and financial elite) who sympathized with the U.S.S.R. where the Bolsheviks who had come to power demonstrated disdain of all rules (they even invented a legal novelty, which they called "administrative executions").

On 19 July 1923, U.S. Secretary of State Charles Hughes explained that it was only the tyrannical nature of the Soviet regime that did not allow his country to recognize the Soviet Union, which refused to observe the rules normally used in international relations. The U.S. State Secretary stated that no political cooperation with possible with that regime as long as it rejected the very foundations of international relations and was determined, as its final aim, to destroy all free institutions that had been painstakingly built and which contained the necessary guarantees of the freedom of labor on which our own well-being was built. 9

Today, the preliminary conditions "for the discussion of trade relations" ire all present in Russia yet there is no visible progress in this respect.

The Khodorkovsky Affair may serve the ground of dissent yet the

overall situation in Russia is much better than it was in 1921 or in 1931 when

Democratic President Roosevelt established diplomatic relations with the Soviet

__________________

* The 1776 Declaration of Independence was published in English and German; at the Second Continental Constitutional Congress the English was voted to become the state tongue by one vote majority Union and strengthened trade ties with it.

Despite the police overreaction to the "Marches of` the Dissenters" the human rights situation in Russia is much better than in "red" China, the respected WTO member. The United States, the "world ombudsman," however, it much less concerned with the Chinese realities than with what is going on in Russia. Prominent American political analyst of Russian extraction Nicholas (Nikolai) Zlobin is convinced that this happens because Russia claims to be a democratic country while China demonstrated much more good sense by building up socialism Chinese style.

In fact, the conservative (in the traditional meaning of the word) American politicians and political analysts treat Russia with much more good reason than the so-called neo-conservatives. In his article in the Conservative Voice, Pat Buchanan, for example, rebuffed Dick Cheney`s Vilnius speech, with exact and strong words: "Russia today threatens no vital interests of the United States. Is it too much to ask that we treat Russia and her `space` the way we want Russia and Russians to treat ours?"

Common sense suggests that we should answer the question: Where did the right go wrong? How can we avoid political and physical death of the West and America as its part? It should be said that the fact that Patrick Buchanan has asked these questions in his latest books gives hope that America might go back to its political traditions.

Good reason, in fact, formed the core of America`s political tradition: in 1776, Thomas Paine, one of the Founding Fathers, issued a half a million copies of his pamphlet under the title The Age of Reason.

Today, good sense is in short supply in the American liberal fundamentalist political and intellectual community still waging the old wars.

Intellectuals have imagined that Russia, too, is willing to dominate the world yet during the exhausting arms race the Soviet leaders wanted nothing more than the military-technical parity that would guarantee sovereignty. Today, the Russian leaders are concerned with the country`s sovereignty more than any-thing else.

This is only natural: in the past, too, Moscow the Third Rome claimed nothing but the role of the guardian of Christian Orthodoxy but never claimed domination (or co-domination) in the world. At no time Moscow planned spiritual (religious-ideological) or political expansion.

Since the time when Peter the Great became Europe`s diligent pupil (by that time Europe had been already losing its Christian faith) it became senseless to hold forth about Russia`s ideological expansion. The Russian monarchs never invaded Europe without special invitation while the Europeans never hesitated to invade Russia (the Crimean War is one of the best examples).

Even Marshal Stalin was quite satisfied with a place in the "Big Three" and did not look overseas for further expansion.

President Putin is quite satisfied with the place in G-8.

What Is to Be Done?

MEANWHILE, the short period of counterterrorist partnership of Moscow and Washington that started on 9/11 on President Putin`s initiative and supported, for a while, by President George W. Bush, has receded into the past. The famous Vilnius speech of the American vice-president who threatened to interfere into Russia`s domestic affairs and the no less famous paper submitted by the U.S. State Department that contained official information that interference had become a reality followed one another.

In fact, in the rapidly changing world (not all changes are favorable for Russia and the United States) their opposition has no reasons - only pretexts.

The West and America have to gather their forces for defense not expansion. The crisis of nativity in the West makes it not merely stupid but also criminal (or even suicidal) to squander human and economic resources to achieve the non-achievable: transformation of mankind to the Western pattern.

It would be wiser to look after their own interests rather than to test patience of traditionalist societies with liberalization of the markets and mores. The liberal romantics should admit that the world is varied and that there are numerous (not equally valuable but absolutely equal) and varied cultural, political and economic practices.

No matter what the American neocons (some of them former Trotskyites) are thinking about themselves, no matter of` what the inveterate democrats of the Eastern Coast are reproaching Russia and the rest of the world today they should better busy themselves with preserving (or reviving`?) Western civilization.

The post-war scientific and technical and technological progress it) Europe and America did not bring happiness. The godless civilization of technical progress learned from its own experience that, while remaining the prisoner of liberal dogmatism it is moving into a dead end. The West is dying out. The Consumer society cannot even reproduce itself: in America it is the conservatively minded Hispanics who ensure population growth; in Europe this role belongs to the Muslim immigrants.

Much time has elapsed since the time when Oswald Spengler warned I Europe about the coming twilight. His warnings remained unheeded yet we have approached midnight.

________________

NOTES

http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/1946/s460305a_e.htm

2 See: Clifford Longley, Chosen People. The Big Idea that Shapes England and America, London, 2003.

3 Time, May 18, 1962.

4 The Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1939, p. 884.

5 P. F. De Villemarest, Les Sources financières du communisme (Quand l`URSS était l`allièe des Nazis), Cierrey, 1984.

6 K.N. Leontiev, "Natsional`naia politika kak orudie vsemirnoy revolutsii", in Vostok, Rossia i Slavianstvo: Filosofskaia i politicheskaia publitsistika. Dukhovnaia proza (1872-1891), Moscow, 1996.

7 Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority, Cape Canaveral, 1981.

8 Stephen Schwartz, Is It Good for the Jews? The Crisis of America`s Israel Lobby, N.-Y., 2006.

9 The Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1923, Vol. II, pp.763-764.

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Geopolitical Antiquities

Пресс-служба

05.12.2008

Док. 529850
Опублик.: 05.12.08
Число обращений: 3