Перезагрузка перестройки

[tijd]

1867 год. Россия продает Аляску Америке. В печати выходит первый вариант "Войны и мира" Льва Толстого, а на сцене театра - первая постановка "Смерти Иоанна Грозного" А.К. Толстого. Как это обычно бывает, процесс либерализации общества (как и обратный ему процесс) сопровождается попытками переосмыслить историю.



В том же году выходит "Капитал" Маркса. Но слово "коммунизм" в то время ассоциировалось не только с Коммунистическим Манифестом, но и с сектантскими коммунами. Одна из других влиятельных книжек, вышедших в тот же год - "New America" британского исследователя Уильяма Хепворта Диксона. Диксон поражает воображение своих чопорных викторианских соотечественников описанием сексуальных нравов в американских сектах и коммунах. Он описывает многоженство у мормонов, целибат и равноправие полов у шейкеров, свободные половые отношении в коммуне Онайда и т.д.

Живущий в Лондоне Герцен раннее относился к США скептически. В "Былом и думах" он описывает, как выпивал кентуккийское виски на приеме с американским консулом.

Американец радовался, иронически улыбаясь слабости европейцев. Подражатель Митридата с молодых лет - я один подал пустую чашку и попросил еще. Это химическое сродство с алкоголем ужасно подняло меня в глазах консула. "Да, да, - говорил он, - только в Америке и в России люди и умеют пить".
"Да есть и еще больше лестное схоство, - подумал я, - только в Америке и в России умеют крепостных засекать до смерти".
http://libclub.com/G/GercenAI/GercenAI-93-28.htm

Но почти синхронное освобождение рабов и крепостных, экономический рост в США после гражданской войны и рассказы об экспериментах с коммунами внушали новые надежды. Герцен, которые имел опыт освобождения от семейных пут собственной жены и жены своего друга Огарева, стал в это время задумываться о поездке с последней в Америку.



Он был не одинок.

«В это время эмиграция в Америку влекла многих русских […] мечтавших о коммунистических опытах», - рассказывал Короленко. «В конце шестидесятых годов замечалось вообще увлечение Америкой, американской жизнью, американскими свободными учреждениями; некоторые ездили туда, наблюдали тамошние порядки, писали о них в русских журналах», - вспоминал участник событий. Главным, после Чернышевского, пропагандистом американского пути стал бывший офицер русской армии Иван Дебогорий-Мокриевич. В 1869 году он провел в Америке около года, побывал в Онайде и увидел там групповой брак, взаимную критику и другие необычные явления. Он вернулся в Россию, в 1871 году был в Петербурге и вновь планировал ехать в Америку, чтобы основать свою собственную коммуну. По-видимому, именно он научил чайковцев групповой критике, и очень вероятно, что он стал прототипом вернувшихся из Америки несчастных героев Бесов Достоевского. Главную пропаганду своей идеи Иван Дебогорий-Мокриевич развернул в Киеве, где к нему примкнули два его двоюродных брата и еще несколько студентов, подготовленных романом Чернышевского. Один из этих кузенов, Владимир Дебогорий-Мокриевич, так анализировал впоследствии свои противоречивые чувства: «к нашему мужикофильству - этому глубоко национальному чувству - подмешался космополитизм, устройство коммуны в Америке, и получилась в результате страшная путаница». В Киеве 1860-х кузены составили целый кружок «американцев», агитировавших за переселение в Новый Свет. Когда он разросся до двадцати человек, можно было ехать и начинать коммуну.
https://litresp.com/chitat/ru/%D0%AD/etkind-aleksandr-markovich/tolkovanie-puteshestvij/4

Дочери Владимира Дебогорий-Мокриевича предстояло сыграть важную роль в истории 20 века, приняв участие в переводе на английский "Протоколов сионских мудрецов".



Что касается отношений между руководителями двух стран, то потепление после продажи Аляски длилось недолго. В 1871 великий князь Алексей Александрович стал первым представителем европейской монаршей семьи, посетившим США. Его развлекали туземными обычаями вроде охоты на бизонов в западных прериях и фестиваля Mardi Gras в Новом Орлеане. Но прием императорского сына у президента Гранта был коротким и холодным. Накануне был выслан из страны российский посланник Константин Катакази, который чрезмерно увлекся интригами, пытаясь влиять на американских политиков и вбивать клин между США и Великобританией.

Улисс Грант докладывал об этом Конгрессу в State of the Union:

"The intimate friendly relations which have so long existed between the United States and Russia continue undisturbed. The visit of the third son of the Emperor is a proof that there is no desire on the part of his Government to diminish the cordiality of those relations. The hospitable reception which has been given to the Grand Duke is a proof that on our side we share the wishes of that Government. The inexcusable course of the Russian minister at Washington rendered it necessary to ask his recall and to decline to longer receive that functionary as a diplomatic representative. It was impossible, with self-respect or with a just regard to the dignity of the country, to permit Mr. Catacazy to continue to hold intercourse with this Government after his personal abuse of Government officials, and during his persistent interferences, through various means, with the relations between the United States and other powers."
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant%27s_Third_State_of_the_Union_Address



Следующая ключевая перезагрузка случилась через 50 лет после Аляски. США стали первой страной, признавшей Временное правительство после Февральской революции 2017. Были разные причины, по которым Америка вступила в Первую мировую войну. Но революция в России стала одной из главных. Вместо битвы диктатур война превращалась в сражение братского союза демократий против диктатур.

Энтузиазм о победе демократии в бывшей империи захлестнул американцев.

Robert Lansing, the secretary of state, had been the hawk in Wilson’s cabinet for some time, trying to push the president toward entry into the war. That Wilson didn’t care for Lansing, and didn’t value his advice, was a problem, but the nation’s top diplomat tried to shake it off and persevere regardless. On March 19 he tried again to argue for war.
“It would encourage and strengthen the new democratic government of Russia, which we ought to encourage and with which we ought to sympathize. If we delay, conditions may change and the opportune moment when our friendship would be useful may be lost. I believe that the Russian Government founded on its hatred of absolutism and therefore of the German Government would be materially benefitted by feeling that this Republic was arrayed against the same enemy of liberalism.”
On March 25, a “mass meeting to celebrate the success of the Russian revolution,” drew 1,500 people to the Manhattan Opera House on West 34th Street. A telegram from Prince Georgy Lvov, the head of the new Provisional Government, was read out: “We ask our American friends to rejoice with us in a free and happy Russia.”
Roosevelt wasn’t there, but he sent a message: “I rejoice from my soul that Russia, the hereditary friend of this country, has ranged herself on the side of orderly liberty, of enlightened freedom, and for the full performance of duty by free nations throughout the world … This wonderful change in Russia marches with and is part of the mighty and, I believe, irresistible movement of the whole world to substitute democracy for autocracy in human government and to build up the structure of justice and liberty, of right and duty and service from the bottom instead of accepting them from human superiors. No earthly power can reverse or stop that movement … Russia must go on. She will go on, and the hopes and prayers of all liberty-loving people of America will go with her.”
Headlines reflected the excitement that Americans felt. On March 19, the Evening Ledger in Philadelphia proclaimed:
Russia Frees Jews; Ancient Pale Smashed
Great Rejoicing Reigns as Age-Long Persecution Ends
“Petrograd is astir with enthusiasm,” the front-page article began. Newspapers and other publications found experts to explain what it all meant; most of them discerned a natural democratic tendency in Russian culture, which may have come as a surprise to many.
“I should like to say very emphatically that I was deeply impressed by the character of the Russian people and by the tremendous growth of democracy among them,” a missionary named Fred Haggard, just returned from Russia, told a New York Times reporter. “It is a stupendous spectacle to see 160,000,000 people, most of whom are thoroughgoing democrats, under the domination of a Government that is not in the least disposed that way.
“It is impossible to think of Russia, with her vast millions of people, with common language, ideas and ideals, and her unlimited resources and awakening democracy, and imagine for a moment that she is not going to become a great power in the world. And not an evil power either. The future of Russia is bright.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-the-us-embraced-the-wrong-russians

Одним из первых указов, через неделю после отставки царя Временное правительство провозглашает равенство прав всех граждан перед законом и официально отменяет Черту оседлости.

Исходя из незыблемого убеждения, что в свободной стране все граждане должны быть равны перед законом и что совесть народа не может мириться с ограничениями прав отдельных граждан в зависимости от их веры и происхождения, Временное правительство постановило:
Все установленные действующими узаконениями ограничения в правах Российских граждан, обусловленные принадлежностью к тому или иному вероисповеданию, вероучению или национальности отменяются.
http://constitution.garant.ru/history/act1600-1918/5413/



Обращение президента Вудро Вильсона к Конгрессу 2 апреля 2017 о вступление в войну обосновывает это решение благородной целью поддержки демократии, в том числе внезапно обретенной российским народом. В ретроспективе речь Вильсона примечательна как своей наивностью, так и принципиальностью.

"Our object now, as then, is to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish and autocratic power and to set up amongst the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concert of purpose and of action as will henceforth ensure the observance of those principles. Neutrality is no longer feasible or desirable where the peace of the world is involved and the freedom of its peoples, and the menace to that peace and freedom lies in the existence of autocratic governments backed by organized force which is controlled wholly by their will, not by the will of their people. We have seen the last of neutrality in such circumstances. We are at the beginning of an age in which it will be insisted that the same standards of conduct and of responsibility for wrong done shall be observed among nations and their governments that are observed among the individual citizens of civilized states.
We have no quarrel with the German people. We have no feeling towards them but one of sympathy and friendship. It was not upon their impulse that their Government acted in entering this war. It was not with their previous knowledge or approval. It was a war determined upon as wars used to be determined upon in the old, unhappy days when peoples were nowhere consulted by their rulers and wars were provoked and waged in the interest of dynasties or of little groups of ambitious men who were accustomed to use their fellow men as pawns and tools. Self-governed nations do not fill their neighbour states with spies or set the course of intrigue to bring about some critical posture of affairs which will give them an opportunity to strike and make conquest. Such designs can be successfully worked out only under cover and where no one has the right to ask questions. Cunningly contrived plans of deception or aggression, carried, it may be, from generation to generation, can be worked out and kept from the light only within the privacy of courts or behind the carefully guarded confidences of a narrow and privileged class. They are happily impossible where public opinion commands and insists upon full information concerning all the nation's affairs.
A steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations. No autocratic government could be trusted to keep faith within it or observe its covenants. It must be a league of honour, a partnership of opinion. Intrigue would eat its vitals away; the plottings of inner circles who could plan what they would and render account to no one would be a corruption seated at its very heart. Only free peoples can hold their purpose and their honour steady to a common end and prefer the interests of mankind to any narrow interest of their own.
Does not every American feel that assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and heartening things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia? Russia was known by those who knew it best to have been always in fact democratic at heart, in all the vital habits of her thought, in all the intimate relationships of her people that spoke their natural instinct, their habitual attitude towards life. The autocracy that crowned the summit of her political structure, long as it had stood and terrible as was the reality of its power, was not in fact Russian in origin, character, or purpose; and now it has been shaken off and the great, generous Russian people have been added in all their naive majesty and might to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace. Here is a fit partner for a league of honour. <...>
We are glad, now that we see the facts with no veil of false pretence about them, to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included: for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience. The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them.
Just because we fight without rancour and without selfish object, seeking nothing for ourselves but what we shall wish to share with all free peoples, we shall, I feel confident, conduct our operations as belligerents without passion and ourselves observe with proud punctilio the principles of right and of fair play we profess to be fighting for."
https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Wilson%27s_War_Message_to_Congress



Реакционный разворот консервативной идеологии в 21 веке, который вынес на поверхность Трампа, включал в себя пересмотр американской истории после провала неоконов в Ираке. Когда в 2009-2011 бесноватый Гленн Бек, человек без высшего образования, корчил из себя профессора у доски в Fox News, либеральные интеллигенты не воспринимали его всерьез. А напрасно.

В июне 2010 жульническая контора Trump University была вынуждена сменить название после того, как получила уведомление от властей Нью-Йорка "Use of the word 'university' by your corporation is misleading and violates New York Education Law and the Rules of the Board of Regents." А в июле 2010 открылся проект Beck University.

Mr. GLENN BECK: Hi, I want to tell you a little bit about Beck University. This is something that I've been working on for a while. I don't know when we started devaluing people who are self-educated.
I know people that are going to college, getting their doctorate in history, who - they don't even really know history. They know what history professors want to be taught, but that is so unbelievably incomplete.
I was just with a - somebody who is getting their doctorate in - at Columbia, and I asked him about - do you know about Black Tom, the Black Tom explosion? It was the largest explosion, the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil, continental U.S. soil, prior to 9/11. It happened almost where 9/11 happened. In fact, it registered a five on the Richter Scale.
I read about it. This history professor didn't know anything about it. Most people don't know about this man, Colonel House. This is the intimate papers of Colonel House. If you want to understand Woodrow Wilson, FDR or Obama, you have to know about Colonel House. <...>
GROSS: If you're just joining us, my guest is Sean Wilentz. He's a professor of history at Princeton University. In the current edition of The New Yorker, he has an article called "Confounding Fathers: The Tea Party's Cold War Roots." And he writes about how the Tea Party and Glenn Beck's version of history are rooted in what he describes as extremist ideology that came out of the Cold War in the 1950s.
One of the things I find really fascinating about Glenn Beck is that he has a kind of anti-intellectual stance.
Mr. WILENTZ: Yeah.
GROSS: At the same time he's always standing professorially in front of a blackboard.
(Soundbite of laughter)
Mr. WILENTZ: Right.
GROSS: And he's telling you that, you know, the historians have lied to you but he's appointed himself, you know, America's truthful historian who is going to teach you the real story, so the whole thing seems to be rooted in such paradox, like intellectualism is bad but I'm here to be the professor.
Mr. WILENTZ: Exactly.
GROSS: Historians don't know what they're talking about but I'm here to be a historian.
Mr. WILENTZ: Right. Well, it's a paradox that goes way back in American political culture, Terry. There have always been these characters who come forth. I call them the village explainers, right? They are the cracker barrel philosophers who will come along and say look, these experts from Harvard and Yale and Princeton and the Council of Foreign Relations and you name it, the Eastern elite, they are not really interested in educating you. They're interested in themselves. They're interested in deluding you. So I'm going to come along and explain the truth. That is the pose he's taking. He's just in his comic way - semi-comic way he plays the role of professor at once, as you say, absolutely mocking them, you know, with his pipe and his, you know, trying to talk like a professor talks, all of that, but at the same time he's going to, you know, raise the curtain and say here's the truth.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/130534982



Идеология Бека и его единомышленников была последовательной и включала в себя основополагающие мифы:

1. США - богоизбранная христианская страна. Ее основатели руководствовались не идеями Просвещения, а Библией.
2. Америка свернула с пути из-за проклятого Вудро Вильсона. Именно при нем женщины получили право голоса, возникла Федеральная резервная система и прогрессивные федеральные налоги, страна неизвестно зачем ввязалась в мировую войну, появились подозрительные организации вроде Council for Foreign Relations и т.д.
3. Если не остановить прогрессивное сползание и не "make America great agan", то дело непременно закончится всемирным правительством (NWO), Антихристом, Гулагами и т.п.

Когда Бек умудрялся объединить в одну цепочку Вильсона и Сороса, это вызывало у либералов недоумение.

As Glenn Beck has explained to us numerous times, he really doesn't like Woodrow Wilson. How much? In the middle of his heavily promoted attack on George Soros, Beck shoehorned in an attack on Wilson, by way of Edward Bernays.
How did Beck get there? He claimed Soros was orchestrating a puppet show (and literally played with puppets to get the point across), which he then compared to Bernays' book Propaganda. Beck cited a passage that references “invisible government,” and idea Beck said was “like shadow government,” which of course led him back to his conspiracy about the organizations Soros donates to.
The magic connection here, of course, was Woodrow Wilson, who appointed Bernays to create public sentiment in favor of World War I. Beck sees the invisible hand of Wilson behind all of the machinations that he perceives progressives to be involved in.
https://www.mediamatters.org/glenn-beck/woodrow-wilson-gets-roped-becks-anti-soros-crusade

Но с точки зрения идеологии связь прозрачна. Озабоченность либералов вроде Вильсона и Сороса защитой мира и демократии во всем мире выглядит загадочно и непонятно. Намного логичней объяснять ее тайным заговором о мировом господстве. И необязательно прямым текстом говорить о том, чей именно был этот заговор.

This is a post about Beck's recent naming of nine people -- eight of them Jews -- as enemies of America and humanity. He calls these people prime contributors to the -- wait for it -- "era of the big lie." The eight Jews are Sigmund Freud; Edward Bernays, the founder of public relations, and a nephew of Freud's (which Beck discloses as if this had previously been a secret); Soros, of course; Cass Sunstein, now of the White House; the former labor leader Andy Stern; Walter Lippman, who is no longer here to defend himself; Frances Fox Piven, who Beck believes is "sowing the seeds" of revolution; and, of all people, Edward Rendell.
It is fair to ask if Beck knows that these people are Jewish (It is not widely-known that Rendell is Jewish, I think). But Beck is a smart person, and has researchers at hand with access to Wikipedia. Further, most of these people on Beck's "big lie" list are already the targets of straightforward attacks in the dark, anti-Semitic corners of the Web, so an extended Google search, in some cases, would show that much of the opposition to some of these people is motivated by anti-Semitism. That said, Beck has not crossed a certain line, by identifying his targets openly as Jewish. Nevertheless, this, to me, is a classic case of anti-Semitic dog-whistling. Beck is speaking to a certain constituency, and the thought has now crossed my mind that this constituency understands the clear implications of what Beck is saying.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/glenn-becks-jewish-problem/69682/



В реальной истории идея Вудро Вильсона про Лигу Чести (league of honour) преобразовалась в Лигу Наций и умерла после того, как республиканский Конгресс отказался ратифицировать присоединение США к договору. Перехват правления республиканцами и приход президента Уоррена Хардинга был победой религиозно-реакционных сил. Фундаменталистов не смущало то, что лично Хардинг не был примером христианской морали (особенно по части прелюбодеяния), а его администрация погрязла в невиданной коррупции (до Никсона и Трампа).

The fundamentalist movement emerged during World War I. Convinced that the death and destruction of the war indicated that Armageddon was near, Christians from many denominations organized a new movement to herald the end of time and the necessity of salvation. With what they considered to be God’s judgment coming upon all nations, they redoubled their political activism. They needed policies and policymakers who would heed their influence and support their favored policies, because nothing less than salvation was at stake.
To the leaders of the fundamentalist movement, then, the issues at stake in the 1920 presidential campaign were clear. They backed Harding, a Republican. Supporting Harding symbolized their frustration with the administration of Democrat (and devout Christian) Woodrow Wilson. They were especially leery of Wilson’s refusal to support congressional efforts to restrict immigration and his efforts to build the League of Nations.
Fundamentalists believed that non-Protestant immigrants undermined the “Christian” culture and that international organizations like the league threatened U.S. sovereignty. They advocated for “America first.”
For example, Arkansas minister Ben Bogard claimed that the league was foretold in biblical prophecy. It was going to serve as a vehicle through which the United States would cede power to a global tyrant, the long-awaited Antichrist. The minister hoped to persuade his fellow Southern white Democrats to support the GOP, at least in the national election.
“If you favor the League of Nations,” he preached, you should vote Democratic. “If you oppose the league,” and he thought they should, “you should vote for Harding.”
Once in office, Harding remained popular among fundamentalists. They appreciated his repeated invocations of God and the “old-time religion.” As journalists, academics and intellectuals increasingly scoffed at fundamentalists, they believed that the president had their interests at heart and that he was willing to stand with them against secularizing forces.
The need to curb immigration remained at the forefront of fundamentalist thinking and helped bind religious voters to Harding. Baseball-player-turned-preacher Billy Sunday was perhaps the most famous minister of the era. “They call us the ‘melting pot,’” he harangued. “Then it’s up to us to skim off the slag that won’t melt into Americanism and throw it into hell or somewhere else.”
Praise for Harding from fundamentalists went beyond immigration, however - and often overlooked his flaws. The editors of the leading fundamentalist periodical Moody Monthly routinely praised Harding for his leadership. “We are thankful just now for a Federal administration,” they acknowledged, “which seems honestly disposed to do its best for the nation.” They insisted that “it is generally admitted that the President has gathered around him an efficient cabinet with a genius for team work.”
But in reality, while Harding recruited some excellent people, he also appointed a number of his old Ohio cronies to prominent positions. While they kept his poker table competitive, his backrooms full of cigar smoke and his shelves well-stocked with bootleg whiskey, their presence in the administration was disastrous - at least for the American people.
Harding’s cronies sought to fatten their wallets with taxpayers’ cash. They made the administration one of the most corrupt in American history.
The administration’s most famous debacle - one of many - was the Teapot Dome scandal. Interior Secretary Albert Fall leased oil-rich federal lands in Wyoming to private companies in exchange for large bribes. He was the first Cabinet officer in U.S. history to be imprisoned for a crime committed while in office.
Nor did Harding’s private life measure up to fundamentalist standards. He had many extramarital affairs, with regular trysts taking place in the White House.
Yet, although his administration failed to embody Christian virtues, fundamentalists were distraught when Harding died in 1923. Seattle fundamentalist Mark Matthews preached a moving sermon about the “Christian statesman, the Christian gentleman, the Christian husband, and the Christian brother.”
Popular Los Angeles evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson preached a funeral oration on “Harding, the Christian President.”
Fundamentalist businessman and oil magnate Lyman Stewart praised the president as “an earnest Christian man” who “in all his speeches … advocated a return to the Bible and to Bible righteousness.”
None of which squared with Harding the carouser who presided over a corrupt administration. But this reality simply didn’t matter; he was an ally of Christian fundamentalists on the issues about which they cared, which meant overlooking his flaws.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/11/21/explaining-unbreakable-bond-between-donald-trump-white-evangelicals/



Во время Первой мировой Америка оказалась главной экономической супердержавой в мире, но не была готова стать мировым гегемоном - из-за либерализма одних лидеров и провинциальной закукленности других. Она, однако, будоражила воображение диктаторов с мечтами про «догнать и перегнать» и с проекцией собственных комплексов.

From the start, the United States was Hitler’s ultimate target. “In seeking to explain the urgency of Hitler’s aggression, historians have underestimated his acute awareness of the threat posed to Germany, along with the rest of the European powers, by the emergence of the United States as the dominant global superpower,” Tooze writes. “The originality of National Socialism was that, rather than meekly accepting a place for Germany within a global economic order dominated by the affluent English-speaking countries, Hitler sought to mobilize the pent-up frustrations of his population to mount an epic challenge to this order.” Of course, Hitler was not engaged in rational calculation. He could not accept subordination to the United States because, according to his lurid paranoia, “this would result in enslavement to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death.” He dreamed of conquering Poland, Ukraine, and Russia as a means of gaining the resources to match those of the United States. The vast landscape in between Berlin and Moscow would become Germany’s equivalent of the American west, filled with German homesteaders living comfortably on land and labor appropriated from conquered peoples-a nightmare parody of the American experience with which to challenge American power.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/12/the-real-story-of-how-america-became-an-economic-superpower/384034/

Click to view

Среди длинного списка претензий, которые пропагандисты вроде Бека предъявляют Вильсону, было преследование за агитацию и пропаганду во время войны - вроде посаженного социалиста Дебса, который был позже освобождён из тюрьмы Хардингом. По настоянию Вильсона Конгресс впервые ввёл уголовную статью за шпионаж для борьбы с представителями «пятой колонны».

“There are citizens of the United States, I blush to admit, born under other flags but welcomed under our generous naturalization laws to the full freedom and opportunity of America, who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; who have sought to bring the authority and good name of our Government into contempt, to destroy our industries wherever they thought it effective for their vindictive purposes to strike at them, and to debase our politics to the uses of foreign intrigue. Their number is not great as compared with the whole number of those sturdy hosts by which our nation has been enriched in recent generations out of virile foreign stock; but it is great enough to have brought deep disgrace upon us and to have made it necessary that we should promptly make use of processes of law by which we may be purged of their corrupt distempers. America never witnessed anything like this before. It never dreamed it possible that men sworn into its own citizenship, men drawn out of great free stocks such as supplied some of the best and strongest elements of that little, but how heroic, nation that in a high day of old staked its very life to free itself from every entanglement that had darkened the fortunes of the older nations and set up a new standard here,that men of such origins and such free choices of allegiance would ever turn in malign reaction against the Government and people who bad welcomed and nurtured them and seek to make this proud country once more a hotbed of European passion. A little while ago such a thing would have seemed incredible. Because it was incredible we made no preparation for it. We would have been almost ashamed to prepare for it, as if we were suspicious of ourselves, our own comrades and neighbors! But the ugly and incredible thing has actually come about and we are without adequate federal laws to deal with it. I urge you to enact such laws at the earliest possible moment and feel that in doing so I am urging you to do nothing less than save the honor and self-respect of the nation. Such creatures of passion, disloyalty, and anarchy must be crushed out. They are not many, but they are infinitely malignant, and the hand of our power should close over them at once. <...> There are some men among us, and many resident abroad who, though born and bred in the United States and calling themselves Americans, have so forgotten themselves and their honor as citizens as to put their passionate sympathy with one or the other side in the great European conflict above their regard for the peace and dignity of the United States. They also preach and practice disloyalty. No laws, I suppose, can reach corruptions of the mind and heart; but I should not speak of others without also speaking of these and expressing the even deeper humiliation and scorn which every self-possessed and thoughtfully patriotic American must feel when he thinks of them and of the discredit they are daily bringing upon us.“
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/december-7-1915-third-annual-message

В этой критике заключается сильная ирония, потому что именно борьба с советскими шпионами и агентами влияния в своё время сплотила консервативное движение и вызвала к жизни конспирологию John Birch Society, из которой выполз Бек. Палеоконсерватор-путинолюб (нечто вроде монархиста-сталиниста) Пэт Бьюкенен два года назад без чувства иронии ностальгически вспоминал:

“There was a time such as today before in America.
After World War II, as it became clear our long-ruling liberal elites had blundered horribly in trusting Stalin, patriots arose to cleanse our institutions of treason and its fellow travelers.
The Hollywood Ten were exposed and went to jail. Nixon nailed Alger Hiss. Truman used the Smith Act to shut down Stalin’s subsidiary, the Communist Party USA. Spies in the atom bomb program were run down. The Rosenbergs went to the electric chair.
Liberals call it the “Red Scare.” And they are right to do so.
For when the patriots of the Greatest Generation like Jack Kennedy and Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy came home from the war and went after them, the nation’s Reds had never been so scared in their entire lives.”
https://buchanan.org/blog/trump-middle-american-radical-128704



С энергией, достойной разоблачителя советских агентов, Бьюкенен в своё время вступался за другого бывшего советского гражданина - Ивана Демьянюка, предположительно нацистского карателя по прозвищу «Иван Грозный».

Most Americans do not consider Demjanjuk to be a praiseworthy or sympathetic figure. Except, of course, for Patrick Buchanan. The MSNBC political commentator and erstwhile reactionary candidate for the Republican presidential nomination likens Demjanjuk to none other than Jesus Christ.
I’m not kidding. In his syndicated column of April 17, Buchanan not only called Demjanjuk an “American Dreyfus” and “the sacrificial lamb whose blood washes away the stain of Germany’s sins,” but he wrote that the “spirit” behind the U.S. Justice Department’s efforts to bring Demjanjuk to justice is “the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago.”
Some innocent man. Among the findings of facts set forth by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in February 2002 are that “The primary purpose of Trawniki Training Camp was to train men to assist the Nazi government of Germany in implementing its racially motivated policies, including and in particular ‘Operation Reinhard’ ”; that “ ‘Operation Reinhard’ was the Nazi program to dispossess, exploit, and murder Jews in Poland”; that “Upon his arrival at Trawniki Training Camp, Defendant [Demjanjuk] entered service in the Guard Forces of the SS and Police Leader in Lublin District”; that “by January 18, 1943, while a member of the Guard Forces of the SS and Police Leader in Lublin District, Defendant was serving as an armed guard at the concentration camp located near Lublin, commonly known as the Majdanek Concentration Camp”; that “Defendant began serving at the Sobibor extermination camp no later than March 27, 1943”; that “In serving at Sobibor, Defendant contributed to the process by which thousands of Jews were murdered by asphyxiation with carbon monoxide”; that “On or about October 1, 1943, Defendant was transferred from Trawniki to Flossenburg Concentration Camp, where he became a member of the SS Death’s Head Battalion Flossenbürg”; and that “Defendant misrepresented and concealed his wartime residences and activities, which constituted misrepresentations and concealments of his wartime employment and residences for the purpose of gaining admission into the United States.”
https://www.jta.org/2009/04/28/opinion/op-ed-comparing-demjanjuk-to-jesus-is-obscene

Подлинная история Демьянюка остаётся покрыта мраком «проклятой неизвестности».

Click to view