The title of this article is not ironic. I myself belong to those who have truly loved America, and I know how it feels.


The worldwide Soviet conspiracy against American foreign policy and family life has in the long run borne fruit, people are influenced by public opinion. The communist claim that the United States is so far the only country that has used atomic bombs on another country's civilian population, or on people at all, is a typical example of a form of propaganda that is apt to distort young people's minds and minds. But that is not the only example, one can mention them in abundance, not least when it comes to US policy in the so-called developing countries. The well-known communist and cannibal, former President Eisenhower, for example, wrote in his memoirs: "I have never encountered anyone with insight into Indochinese affairs who did not share the view that if the elections had been held at the time the fighting was going on, possibly 80 percent of the population voted for Ho Chi Minh. "

Likewise, the infamous Communist Moscow lackey Winston Churchill, who introduced his cynical Bolshevik slogan that "it is better to talk and talk than to wage war", not to mention a Beijing-controlled warlord like Bertrand Russell who has said that US warfare in Vietnam "is horrific"… Naples in liquid form are used against entire villages without notice. Chemical warfare is used… etc.

The far-left radical and revolutionary de Gaulle has said that the only lasting solution for Vietnam would be to free the country from foreign influence and ensure reunification under a neutral government. The Communist Toronto Telegram has written about the US war in Vietnam that it "is a dirty and horrible war – as dirty and horrible as the war waged by French forces. Algeria and which shocked the American conscience ». A Moscow-paid Bolshevik like Toynbee has written that the United States everywhere "consistently supported the rich against the poor in all foreign lands under their influence"

"Tell me who you associate with, and I'll tell you who you are."

The Moscow-infiltrated propaganda has also gement enough persisted in that private business interests have dominated US foreign policy; p. a. that Adlai Stevenson was chairman of a diamond group in Congo, that Foster Dulles was a shareholder and board member of United Fruit Company which penetrated all of Central America when the United States overthrew the Social Democratic government in Guatemala and helped the military dictatorship under Castle Arms to power (whereupon United Fruit was exempt from tax), – and further that Foreign Minister Dulles and his brother, CIA chief Allen Dulles, in the Middle East were strongly implicated in the powerful Henry Schroeders Bank group which through the Industrial Bank of Iran financed Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, when the United States through the CIA stopped the nationalization of Iran's oil wealth by overthrowing Mossadegh in a coup and donating $ 500 million to the army to keep the people in place. (Latest information comes from Communist US Senator Hubert Humphrey.)
Over the course of twelve or fourteen years, the US-led liberal regime in Greece received almost $ XNUMX billion in support, almost half of which in purely military aid, and the well-known Communist newspaper New Leader writes that the money "has only benefited the privileged classes that have been exclusively set on enriching themselves further ».

America had become dangerous, frightening and eerie.

Other emphatically Moscow-controlled communist magazines, such as the London Times, Economist, New York Times, etc., have supported Bolshevik propaganda by slandering America's only loyal friends, Diem and General Ky, as well as virtually all other protectors of the free world. One of the most malicious examples of slanderous and false propaganda about the democratic Vietnam War, however, comes from the Beijing Bolshevik, the conspirator and the revolutionary Dwight Eisenhower, which is hereby quoted for the second time and which already in 1953, during the French war against Vietnam, stated that US aid to the French occupation forces was due to the following: "If Indo-China (Vietnam) falls, the peninsula, the last strip of land there, will hardly leave defend themselves. There would be an end to the deliveries of tin and tungsten that we appreciate so much from this area. In the cheapest way, we try to prevent something that would have the most serious consequences for US security, for our power and our ability to get certain things we want from the riches of the Indochinese region and Southeast Asia. "

More vicious can hardly be said! And it is understandable that this incessant lying propaganda against the United States in the long run has borne fruit, the United States' struggle for the freedom of the oppressed peoples is today almost worldwide regarded as bloody violence in favor of American business interests.

But from the joke to the worse: Everywhere the United States has intervened with money or weapons after the war, the country has allied itself with the likes of Ky, Diem, Trujillo, Batista, Chiang Kai Chek, Nuri es-Said, Castillo Armas and what they are now all called, the United States has supported Franco and Salazar as well as an endless series of completely and semi-fascist military juntats and dictatorships, with weapons and with money. There is something called "Tell me who you are with, and I will tell you who you are." The fact that this also applies to US foreign relations is beginning to dawn on large parts of our poor planet, of course, especially for those who have had a taste of American weapons and warfare on their bodies. The Vietnamese colonial war has now reached such a scandalous climax that the world is rubbing its eyes. Does it lead to us starting to see more clearly, to losing some of our illusions about American plans, and to waking up from the post-war sleep at all, – then even this shameless and disgusting great power rape and terror war against the civilian population in a poor farmland at least had one good effect. Only people who themselves have significant economic interests in the acts of war can avoid becoming aware of what is happening.

As a maritime nation, we in this country have great advantages from the ongoing war. Freight on the international shipping market always follows the curves of the international consumption of munitions. Like all NATO countries, we benefit from the Vietnam War, but because of our enormously developed shipping to a greater extent than the other member countries. In addition to this, Norway's has a long history of strong relations with the United States. Together, these two things may explain some of our almost incredible blindness and servility to the American terrorist business. Large parts of the Norwegian population are more American »than the Americans themselves, and compared to the Swedish, English, Canadian, French or even American press, the Norwegian is predominantly uncritical to the absolute devotee: everything the US government has done, does, or going to do, – is raised above discussion. It is a small, insecure and profit-seeking nation's attitude towards world politics' sacred criminal asylum.


The title of this article is not ironic. I myself belong to those who have truly loved America, and I know how it feels. Like most other Norwegians, I have relatives there. Because of my father's job, I had to deal with Americans from a young age. America was the land of dreams, freedom, possibilities and adventure. I was in New York before I had been to Copenhagen or Stockholm, and it was a matter of course. To me, America was simply the world. I read American literature to the point of fainting, wore an American tie and spoke: English through my nose and down my throat, respectively. When the madness began in earnest in Europe, with the fascism of Italy and Spain, with Hitler's insanity in Germany, and while Stalin's processes raged in Moscow, then again the United States was the bright spot in the world, apparently the land of the normal, corrupt and criminalized, albeit large and open and far-sighted, the land of freedom and the future. (Still for us who loved America!)

During the last phase of the war also came America's war effort, which should not be forgotten like England and Russia. After the war, Stalin's iron and blood justice continued, which with a very mild expression was very frightening, the United States still stood for me as a kind of symbol of everything that guaranteed the human freedoms that make life worth living, but to a lesser degree. A love can begin abruptly and violently, but it dies slowly, little by little. I can not say with certainty when it was, but one day I realized that I no longer loved the United States.

That was probably in the early 50's. America had become dangerous, frightening and eerie. It represented conformism, corrupt justice, violence, the world's strongest military power – and above all: the United States aspired to world domination. For a while, the United States was truly the lord of the world, until the Russian water-bomb was over.

The war was followed by a great power tyranny without parallels in world history, a mentality of violence and a contempt – for morality and humanity that was unparalleled. Megaton thinking was the only political idea of ​​the time.

EISENHOWER: – In the cheapest way we try
to prevent something that would have the most serious consequences
for US security – for our power and our ability to
to get certain things we want from the riches of the indo-
Chinese territory and Southeast Asia.

The whole original image of America was gone, and the shadowy sides that had always been known about American society, brutality, hypocrisy, senseless lust for money and the worship of "strong men", suddenly turned into public foreign policy and came to characterize it. nuanced. I no longer believe that one or the other person, group or government acts on the basis of only bad, or only good motives. Consistently it is a bit good and much evil in the real causes of people's actions. Still, one has to look long and hard in an otherwise unencouraging world history, before one finds more one-sidedly brutally selfish motives, than in the last twenty years of American foreign policy.

Large parts of the Norwegian press have considered it sacrilege to bring facts – what is the press' most important task about US actions around the world, Partly for sentimental, partly for opportunistic reasons, they have avoided the facts and contented themselves with reproducing the American statesmen's own statements about themselves. The result is that Norwegian newspaper readers are almost unimaginably poorly informed on topics such as Vietnam, Guatemala, the Middle East, etc.
The embarrassing submitter debate »that followed in some newspapers after Sara Lidman's appearance on Norwegian television was a boring illustration of that: It was almost completely without references to facts, and completely without argumentation. The probable background for it all was probably that Sara Lidman had no idea how plain and how one-sided Norwegian viewers were informed, because she herself has been used to Swedish newspapers and information sources, which already because Sweden is outside NATO, is far more independent than the Norwegians.

"Tell me who you associate with, and I'll tell you who you are."

For this and many other reasons, David Horowitz is the latest book The United States and the Third World, a real event in Norway, a country that for twenty years has shown such a creepy servile attitude towards the dollar power. Along with two previous PAX books, David Horowitz: The Cold War and the white paper Facts about Vietnam, it provides in concentrated form an enormous amount of necessary information about current problems. The United States and the Third World is a necessary reference book for anyone who wants to take a stand on something that concerns everyone. It is masterfully concise and concise in form, and in its 130 pages it manages to gather the most important data on the United States, Central America, the Middle East and the East, ie an excellent complement to "the Cold War, which dealt with US European policy during the same period."

A big advantage of the book is that you do not get lost in a million references and source assignments while reading. It is readable precisely for those who need it most: people who are not professional foreign policy specialists in advance. For any awake person, the book is indispensable.

One is tempted to quote old Lichtenberg's book review: Anyone who has two trousers should sell one and buy this book instead! It is not scientific, but readable – and all important things are solidly documented. Johan Ludwig Mowinckel's translation is excellent, clear, easy to read and accurate. So, sell the pants: David Horowitz is a unique phenomenon in contemporary political literature, immensely knowledgeable, – intelligent, brave and truth-loving.

Subscription NOK 195 quarter