The question is not *whether* the US intervened. We know it did. The question is: *when* did the US intervene?

The author writes, “In one of the most entertaining examples of the Suslov Maneuver, immediately upon invading Afghanistan in 1979, the Soviets issued a statement condemning Western intervention in the internal affairs of Afghanistan.”

The implication here seems to be that the superlative “entertainment” value of this piece of Soviet propaganda lies in its wildly deceptive accusation, when it is really a mere change of subject on par with the US official story in terms of mendacity. The author seems to suggest (again *implicitly*) that the Soviets were doing *more* than just changing the subject when they stated that the US had already been meddling in Afghanistan. And in the absence of any qualification or footnote briefly stating the facts of the matter, this anecdote comes across (however unwittingly) as a de facto endorsement of US propaganda over the Soviet brand.

If the Suslov Maneuver need not be false accusation, then what exactly makes the Soviet change of subject in this instance “one of the most entertaining?” What accounts for its superlative status? The fact that the Soviet Union was intervening while condemning the enemy’s intervention? Is that really the epitome of Soviet propaganda efforts that puts Western governments and intelligence agencies to shame? Does it really beat the utterly fraudulent Warren Commission or the myths justifying America’s entry into WWII and the use of atomic bombs against Japan or the totally debunked myth that Progressive era legislation was the outcome of a populist movement against big business monopoly, a myth that to this day alligns Lefties and other activists with the very corporate interests they think they are fighting (see Gabriel Kolko’s The Triumph of Conservatism)? All of these are vast, highly successful propaganda campaigns that have collectively plunged Americans into a Matrix-like environment, where up is down, left is right, and virtually all of the big policies that so many Americans have taken for granted are based on lies and disinformation.

If you want superlatives in propaganda, look to a society dominated by a government that has chosen less conspicuous means of incrementally bringing in a totalitarian police state, where the serfs actually believe (falsely) that they are free and so mount little, if any, resistance to the totalitarian advances. At least in the Soviet Union, people knew they were not free and virtually no one was fooled by Soviet propaganda — hence the jokes.

In the light of these monstrous, historical deceptions, one would be hard pressed to accept the author’s claim that Soviet deception regarding the Afghanistan civil war was an exceptional instance of propaganda that shames the US shadow government — unless, of course, the author was *implying* that something more than a mere change of subject was involved here, especially if the Soviet deception is to be regarded as “one of the most” (fill in the blank) anything. If not, the example he cites is, at best, smile-provoking.

But what could this “something more” be? Why, besides the obvious change of subject, perhaps the Soviet claim itself — that the US had already been meddling in Afghanistan — is so at odds with the truth as to be utterly laughable and hence “entertaining.” Given the context of the discussion, what else could the author possibly be pointing to, implicitly or otherwise?

Perhaps I should have been more precise in my critique and called the author’s error a sin of omission, which can be just as misleading as a Suslov Maneuver or false accusation to anyone unfamilar with the true history of this conflict, which the author makes no attempt to acknowledge, proceeding as if there were no controversy regarding the facts, whistling past the graveyard, so to speak, however unwittingly. (The author himself may not be acquainted with the historical truth.)

Finally, recasting “changing the subject” as the “Suslov Maneuver” strikes me as giving too much credit to Suslov for using this ancient, rather mindless artifice. But that’s another argument.

Post-scriptive reflections:
You know what I find entertaining? The fact that a person who should have been one of the main suspects in the president’s assasination was actually appointed to the commission to investigate the assasination! And that, even after E. Howard Hunt confessed on his death bed that he did, in fact, play a role in the president’s assasination in his capacity as a clandestine CIA operative, we in this country still have not had that critical national discussion dealing with a national security state that flagrantly violates its own laws and murders elected representatives of the American people — with impunity! Now that’s entertainment!

I bet the elites deliberatly running this country into the ground so they can draw their “New World Order” out of the planned chaos actually believe that We the People are only getting what we deserve for being so distracted and stupid and for not waking up to the obvious, for giving in to wishful thinking even when the facts are staring at us in the face; and this is how they rationalize all the evil things they do.

It would be too simple to call nine-eleven an inside job. It was an inside-outside job. Investigate WTC 7, the third skyscraper in Manhattan to suffer total collapse on the day of nine-eleven; research Sibel Edmonds, the Phoenix memo, Coleen Rowley, Able Danger, Robert Wright, William Rodriguez, etc. Go to NYC CAN’s webiste. Support the family members’ and first responders’ push for a truly independent, REAL investigation into the attacks, one that isn’t “set up to fail.” Watch the documentary “Press for Truth.” Read Paul Thompson’s “The Terror Timeline.” Go to the Corbett Report.com, along with Mises.org, of course, to get the real news. Go to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.com and visit David Chandler’s personal youtube page. The evidence of this government’s foreknowledge of and complicity in the nine-eleven attacks and subsequent cover up is all there, waiting to be discovered by the American people, until “they” shut down or totally regulate the Internet after the next big, engineered crisis or major cyber attack. Will the people wake up in time? I’m doing my best to wake up others.)

End post-scriptive rant.