Low Point

Letter to Stephen Kinzer on Ali Reza Pahlavi's suicide

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Low Point
by Kambiz Atabai
08-Feb-2011
 

Dear Mr. Kinzer,

I was sorry to read your article --  “Prince Ali Reza Pahlavi Suicide: Tragic End to Iran's Dynasty” -- regarding the suicide of Prince Ali Reza Pahlavi. Despite what the political discourse on every side would have us believe about the nefarious influence of the media in our everyday life, there are responsible journalists who take their work of informing the public seriously, who review facts carefully, and finally express opinions reasonably. Then, there are the others.

Unfortunately, the hunger of some of the public for quick facts and spectacular conclusions as well as that of writers who, Barnum-like, don’t care what people say about them as long as they say something, often produce a parody of what information and informed opinion should be. This was the case with your book “All the Shah’s Men,” which read more as fiction—not very good, at that—than history, and it is the case, again, with this article.

Your book took on the Shah, an easy target, with little regard for facts. (For example—a small matter perhaps—you state that the Shah was hurriedly crowned when the Allies got rid of his father, Reza Shah. The Shah’s coronation actually took place 25 years later). The late Daniel Moynihan once wrote that every man is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts. You turn that statement on its head when you circumvent facts or reinvent them as fits your purpose.

Regarding Mossadeq, an important figure of contemporary Iranian history, much has been written but little has been told right. Unfortunately, your own book adds to the legend without delving into the history. Dr. Mossadeq was no doubt an astute politician, a great nationalist who profoundly disliked the meddling of Britain and the United States in the internal affairs of Iran. He also rightfully resented Britain’s extraordinarily unfair share of Iran’s wealth—its oil. Determined to establish Iranian sovereignty over the exploitation of its own resources and, it must be said, with the full support of the Shah in this one endeavor (the two men butted heads on almost every other question), he achieved the nationalization of our oil, a victory for which Iranians will always owe him a debt of gratitude. However, calling him a democrat or even say, as carried-away supporters will, that he was democratically elected, is a stretch. He was a demagogue and a populist, who was twice appointed Prime Minister by the Shah, the first time after a nomination by the Persian Majlis or Parliament, in a period of great turmoil, and the second time with full military powers which he used to establish martial law and dissolve Parliament. So much for democracy. Despite calls for his resignation by his own former allies in Parliament, he instigated a referendum on extending his powers, winning of course with 99.9 percent of the vote!

That the United States had a hand in his overthrow is not in doubt, but many other elements, mainly what was at the time the population’s sincere attachment to the Shah, played a role. The full story is far more complex and textured than usually made out to be, and a more in-depth reading, which should debunk some myths, is gradually being undertaken by contemporary scholars.

Blind admiration of Mossadeq is common enough among those who write about Iran. So is an unreasonable hatred of the Shah, who is frequently portrayed as one of the most blood-thirsty leaders in a century that saw more than its fair share of those. He is indiscriminately compared to Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Idi Amin Dada, Bokassa, and other monstrous dictators. No one will claim that all was rosy during his 37-year reign, but there can be no doubt of his love for Iran and his unceasing efforts, against great odds, to make the country take enormous strides toward progress, to help the population overcome poverty, disease, and illiteracy, to give power to women, to continue the work started by his father, Reza Shah (who, by the way, was hardly an “illiterate soldier” but a Cossack colonel of formidable intelligence, with the level of education someone with his background would have at the time).

If today Iran’s large middle class and youth remain vibrant, active, and highly educated—an island of progress and secularism despite its benighted and autocratic government—it is no doubt thanks to the Shah.

Did his single-minded dream of turning Iran into a major player make him oblivious to the importance of allowing the population to develop politically as well as materially? Possibly. But the fact is (and “fact” is the operative word here) that during his entire reign, there were about 370 executions in Iran, an average of 10 a year. (Not to be compared to the tens of thousands killed by the Islamic Republic in 32 years, hundreds of thousands if one takes the Iran-Iraq war into account.) According to Paul Balta, the well-known journalist of Le Monde (a left-leaning paper and no friend of the Shah’s), who provided this figure, a number of those executed were drug-dealers and common criminals. That may well be 370 deaths too many, but hardly turns the Shah into the blood-drenched tyrant you call him, along with his father, in your recent article about the suicide of his youngest son.

I cannot help but see that article as a low point in your career. It is not so much the baffling judgments you pass on the Pahlavis that give me pause (though what can possibly be the cause-and-effect reasoning behind sentences such as this once: “The main reason [Reza Shah]... refused to lead his country toward democracy was that he wished his son to be shah after he was gone”? I would in fact posit that the major Western countries that are still hereditary monarchies are models of democracy.) Nor, for that matter, is it your purple prose and willful choice of the most violent words to drive your points home (“self-slaughter” for “suicide?” Really?) No, what deeply saddens and troubles me is that you would use the death of a charismatic and much beloved young Iranian, mourned not only by his family but also by many of his compatriots, to further establish your credentials as an informed and unbiased journalist. I am sorry to say that you are quite simply neither.

Kambiz Atabai

AUTHOR
Kambiz Atabai is a Farah Pahlavi's private secretary.

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
vildemose

""In conclusion,  I

by vildemose on Wed Feb 09, 2011 08:29 AM PST

""In conclusion,  I strongly urge all liberals/jih adist to read about the history of Iran, specially 18th and 19th century Iran (e.g. Partial occupation of Iran by the Soviets during World War II, mass illiteracy, starvation) in order to get a complete picture of just how backward imbued with superstitions and medieval mentality we were as a nation (thanks to the akhunds (mullahs) and the Qajars) and how far the two Pahlavi kings (albeit not perfect) brought us in a mere 53 years. Our societal and political problems were not caused in these short 53 years. Their roots were long and deep. But the young people of the 1970's were tragically short on memory and long on idealism and unwarranted expectations. And today's generation of young Iranians pay a heavy price for it. ""  Even if Mossadegh was not Overthrown, I doubt he would have been able to defeat  the reactionary clergies fundamentlist's aspirations of  Islamization of a secular society.

Were Iranians stupid or retarded to have a monarchy system of government for over 2500 Years??

I suggest, Mr. Kinse,r you consult with Abbas Milani and other Iranians who read and write Persian to give you a global picture of Iran. Obssessing with Pahlavi regime is getting to be a bit simplistic in analyzing the current events in Iran.


  •  
default

HG

by Doctor mohandes on Wed Feb 09, 2011 08:18 AM PST

LOL.

Why don't you take over as the editor then? You make that criticism about everyone... I have noticed you saying the same about NIAC. everytime they come out with something.

You seem to be qualified enough.


  •  
hamsade ghadimi

mr. atabai, thank you for

by hamsade ghadimi on Wed Feb 09, 2011 07:34 AM PST

mr. atabai, thank you for your heartfelt letter.  i see that you already got your rebuttal from a few commenters; therefore, i won't waste my time asking about the imperfections of pahlavis or how the iranian people got into this mess.  i have one advice for you though: if you really love your queen, you should either quit your job, delegate issuing public notices to someone with better writing skills, or for the very least get a qualified editor.

needless to say, "i was sorry to read your article."


  •  
Stephen Kinzer

Reply to Kambiz Atabai, private secretary to Farah Pahlavi

by Stephen Kinzer on Wed Feb 09, 2011 07:24 AM PST

 

Sir, I appreciate the time you took to comment on some of my work. Please allow me to respond.

First, you take issue with my portrayal of Mohammad Mossadegh, who you describe as a “populist and a demagogue” and definitely no democrat. I disagree with that, and find it curious that a spokesman for the Pahlavi family can, given the dynasty's history, seek to judge the democratic credentials of politicians active during the family's reign. There may well be positive things to say about Mohammad Reza Shah, but that he promoted or encouraged democracy is not one of them.

You also suggest that “blind admiration” of Mossadegh has led some people to romanticize him and blindly hate the Shah. This may well be true. Anyone is entitled to his or her own view of each man's legacy.

As for Reza Shah, I find much to admire in him. Despite his brutality and corruption, he rescued Iran at a moment when it seemed about to crumble. You assert that he was not an “illiterate soldier,” as I have described him, but “a Cossack colonel of formidable intelligence.” I would suggest that he was both.

The tragedy that has enveloped Iran in recent years may have made it possible to view the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah more positively. No doubt his excesses pale before those of the mullahs' regime. The crimes of this current regime, however, have the opposite effect on some people; they detest the Shah more than ever because they blame him for creating the conditions in which such a regime could come to power. Weighing the reputations of historical figures is a complex and subtle challenge.

I was sorry to read of your disappointment with my recent column about the tragic death of Prince Ali Reza Pahlavi. His background made him a figure of public interest, and he symbolizes the sad fate that has followed his family and his great country.

In my column, I made clear that the prince was entirely blameless for any of his family's misdeeds. As for those misdeeds, I do think it is fair to say that Mohammad Reza Shah was a dictator, though admittedly in a neighborhood that included far more murderous ones. The fact that the Pahlavi family was so deeply intertwined with the United States for so long makes it especially fascinating to Americans. In many ways, the Shah's sins were also America's sins; we Americans share much responsibility for Iran's sad fate.

My heart goes out in true anguish to the Pahlavi family, and especially to the prince's mother. This family's role in history does not insulate it from grief or the other natural shocks that flesh is heir to. Its tragedy mirrors the tragedy of modern Iran. Inshallah they will both find better times ahead.

 

Regards,

Stephen Kinzer


  •  
Raoul1955

jasonrobardas

by Raoul1955 on Wed Feb 09, 2011 04:49 AM PST

If the previous regime, a US-backed and totally Westernized regime, was a disgrace, then Iranians have proven how low their collective intelligence was [and is] by opting for an islamic successor...
Iranians just approved the continuation of enforcing islamic penal codes that allow them to 'enjoy' stoning women, ...
//www.rferl.org/content/iran_penal_code/2301055.html
Now shout allah-akbar while throwing a stone at a partially buried woman    :-)


  •  
Darius Kadivar

To be called a historical disgrace by an American is an honor;0)

by Darius Kadivar on Wed Feb 09, 2011 06:29 AM PST


  •  
jasonrobardas

The Pahalavis are a historical disgrace .

by jasonrobardas on Wed Feb 09, 2011 03:25 AM PST

And they showed this through their brutal , suppressive ,unpopular reign . Mr.Atabais' defense of the Pahlavis , reminds you of the Persian expression "The fox using his tail as a witness " .

"Shahede roobah domash bood"!


  •  
Darius Kadivar

Egyptian activist arrested admits was never tortured physically

by Darius Kadivar on Wed Feb 09, 2011 02:50 AM PST

recent interview by an Egyptian blogger recently released from prison: 

Egypt activist Wael Ghonim tells TV station: 'I am no hero' - video

He belongs to the upper middle class, returned from the Emirates where he was a student and blogger and arrested shortly before returning to Egypt over his blogging activities. Was held in Solitary confinement during the protests and blindfolded. But was never physically tortured. 

This is a touching interview and certainly the poor fellow did not deserve being treated the way he was but clearly to his own admission there was no deliberate intention on behalf of the authorities to harm him physically. And he was released after a few days. 

Oh the Bloody Mubarak ! ...

 


  •  
Darius Kadivar

Shahrnush Parsipur interviewed by Luna Shad (SAVAK vs SAVAMA)

by Darius Kadivar on Wed Feb 09, 2011 02:46 AM PST


  •  
AlexInFlorida

Regarding Masoud Kazemzadeh and Kinzers Propaganda

by AlexInFlorida on Wed Feb 09, 2011 01:50 AM PST

Even Mehdi Karoubi and others like him that were imprisoned by the Shah for opposing Irans Constitution and Government, an act of treason, deny the tortures and rapes you speak of during the time of the Shah.  Amesty international visited political prisoners, something the current regime does not allow and found no evidence of mass tortures and rapes you speak about. 

Joeseph Goebbels quote.

“The most brilliant
propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental
principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few
points and repeat them over and over”

Dictatorship, Repression, Corruption. Is repeated again and again.  Well done Masoud and Steven, you make Joseph Goebbels Proud.

 

 

 


  •  
Shemirani

Old Revolutionaries

by Shemirani on Wed Feb 09, 2011 01:01 AM PST

By making an "aggrandissement" of the problems in 1979 you try to justify the bloody revolution.

In 1979 there was no need for a revolution at all just a reform could answer your little political issue. You took all our liberties to gain NOTHING. Iranians jails were not as bad as Turkey 's one at that time (cf midnight express movie) but did turkish people ruined they own life because of this ?? by following an illuminated old liar ? no they choosed the reform road ! You can blame the Shah and insult him (as you did for 32 years) still the end of the time but its in vain ! you can't erase this big mistake based on lies not democratic at all but theocratic from day one ! Millions of iranians were living happily and had all the basic freedoms and had economic wealth NOBODY ASKED YOU TO RUIN IT JUST BECAUSE OF YOUR SILLYNESS !

In 1979 needed a refom and you did a revolution.

Nowadays Iran needs a revolution (because a constitution based on Koran can't bring democracy) but you promotes Reforms.

C'est toujours le monde à l'envers avec vous !


  •  
deev

Masoud Kazemzadeh, well said

by deev on Tue Feb 08, 2011 09:54 PM PST

"The fact that Khomeini and Khamanei are zillion times worse, does not mean that the former puppet dictatorship should be praised."

سلطنتپرستان گرامی به دل نگیرید ولی حقیقت تلخ و ناگوار است


  •  
pas-e-pardeh

RE: Mr. Kinzer

by pas-e-pardeh on Tue Feb 08, 2011 07:58 PM PST

 
Mr. Kinzer has become so caught-up in his Mossadegh epic that he's starting to talk like Iranian revolutionaries- from 32 years ago.

 These days the tide seems to be turning.  Recent works present a more balanced view of the two men's differences. Iranian supporters of Mossadeg and the Shah, i.e., liberals and conservatives, are making good headway in reconciling their differences and forming a united front these days. they are both deeply concerned about what is happening to Iran. Prince Reza Pahlavi is wisely helping bridge the gap.  Meanwhile, Mr. Kinzer & Co. are still carrying on yesterday's fight. If Shah and Mossadegh both could witness what is happening in Iran today, they would unite like yin and yang to rescue Iran without saying a word.  That's what they would focus on.   

I too was offended by the timing, if not by the content, of Mr. Kinzer's unkind remarks about the demise of an inncocent young  Persian prince.  How inhuman, even if he were right.  

 

 


  •  
ziaian

Thank you, Kambiz Atabai

by ziaian on Tue Feb 08, 2011 07:53 PM PST

Thank you, Kambiz Atabai, to try to set the truth and give respect to the Shah's memory.

Deeply sorry to see there are still some Iranians who refuse to see the very good in him and who repeat and perpetuate the same delusional negative ugly and wrong ideas about Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi, a truly gentle and loving person who loved his country, and dreamed of a return to its times of glory.

Blessed be his memory and the memory of so many other great Iranians.

Dr Shodja Eddin Ziaian


  •  
Kaveh V

The vicious cycle of Persian cultural tyranny

by Kaveh V on Tue Feb 08, 2011 07:49 PM PST

 

If you think that there would have been no rape, torture, or tyrannical behavior by security forces, or a portion of the population, in a democratically elected government in 1953, 1979, or now, you'd be badly mistaken.

Tyranny is a cultural issue in Iran, in part because of Islamic influence, and the Iranian style patriarchy of post Safavids. Pahlavis, despite their limitations, were the exception to this norm and are credited for this.


  •  
shamsi

Atabi

by shamsi on Tue Feb 08, 2011 06:33 PM PST

  Amen, there you go man. Truth, honesty are valuable, hardly understood ! 

  •  
deev

جناب کامبیز آتابای

deev
Tue Feb 08, 2011 06:07 PM PST

جناب کامبیز آتابای خوب بود به جای پاسخ دادن به اجنبیان به گلایه های هممیهنانتان رسیدگی میکردید

گلایه یک ایرانی از بازماندگان خاندان پهلوی

//iranian.com/main/2011/jan-27

با سپاس بیکران


  •  
Masoud Kazemzadeh

We Should NOT Whitewash Pahlavi Crimes Against the Iranian Peopl

by Masoud Kazemzadeh on Tue Feb 08, 2011 04:38 PM PST

Dear Mr. Atabai,

There are a large number of errors of fact or/and interpretation in your article.

I. Pahlavi Brutalization of the Iranian People

1. There is little doubt that Mohammad Reza Pahalavi was a brutal tyrant. There was no freedom of speech, no freedom of political parties, no free elections under Pahlavi tyranny. Any Iranian democrat who tried to organize was arrested, imprisoned, and TORTURED. The Shah even abolished his fake 2 parties and established the Rastakhiz Party. And then ordered the Iranian people to become member of his party, or go to prison, or into exile. I personally witnessed in my high school when the SAVAK official beat up one of my classmates who refused to sign the membership sheet.

2. Under the Shah’s brutal tyranny, young high school children were imprisoned and tortured for writing composition critical of the Shah’s policies.

3. Under the Shah’s tyranny, male political prisoners were sodomized in prison.

4. Under the Shah’s tyranny, female political prisoners were raped in prison.

5. Under the brutal tyranny of the Shah, some of the most extreme forms of torture were done. They included BURNING political prisoners on a contraption made of heated metal frame. The Shah’s regime literally burned and cooked Iranian political prisoners. Also hot iron (that in civilized societies is used for ironing clothing) was used to burn political prisoners.

6. The Shah was truly an anti-Iranian tyrant. Instead of accepting the will of the Iranian people (in a civilized society via holding free and democratic elections), Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi mass murdered the unarmed Iranian people. Between June 1977 and the overthrow of the despised tyranny, about 2,900 people were murdered by the Pahlavi tyrannical regime. In other words, to prolong his tyranny, the Shah mass murdered the Iranian people.

7. It was around 1975 (or 1974?) that Amnesty International called the Pahlavi dictatorship, the worst violator of human rights on the planet.

II. Pahlavis Did NOT Love Iran (if by love one means fighting for the national interests of Iran). They Were Puppets of Foreign Powers and Served Their Interests

see next post　

III. Pahlavis Stole Properties of Other People, from the Treasury, and Other Corruption

//iranian.com/main/blog/masoud-kazemzadeh/sources-pahlavi-family-loot

IV. On the Insult "demagogue" for Dr. Mossadegh

This insult was used by the Americans during the propaganda preparing the atmosphere for the CIA coup. A demagogue is a person who fools people in order to advance his own interests.

Contrary to a demagogue, Dr. Mossadegh sacrificed his own life and liberty in order to defend and promote the interests of the Iranian people. Dr. Mossadegh was a STATESMAN. By standing up to the Pahlavi tyrants he was imprisoned for looooooong time. He was under attack by Pahlavi THUGS such as Shaban Bi-Mokh.

Dr. Mossadegh, and his friends such as Dr. Hussein Fatemi, as a matter of PRINCIPLE, stood up against foreign colonial control of Iran and their puppet, the Shah.

V. Dr. Mossadegh was in FACT Democratically Elected

To state that Dr. Mossadegh was not democratically elected is like saying that Tony Blair was not the democratically elected Prime Minister of Britain. Dr. Mossadegh was elected to Majles. Majles deputies voted for him to be Prime Minister. Iran’s constitution was intended to be emulating the British system (the prolonged violations of which by the Pahlavi tyrants undermined the constitution). In a parliamentary system, the people vote for their members of parliament, who in turn vote for prime minister. That is why the prime minister in a parliamentary system is called a democratically elected prime minister.

Since the 1906 Constitution, Iran was supposed to be a constitutional monarchy and not an absolute monarchy. Reza Shah Pahlavi and Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, like Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar, were absolutist monarchs; thus the constant struggles against them. According to the 1906 Constitution, which they VIOLATED consistently, they were not legitimate, if legitimacy derives from adherence to that constitution.

The second time Dr. Mossadegh became Prime Minster was after the British-Shah-Qavam conspiracy in July 1952 failed due to the mass uprising of the Iranian people.

Unfortunately, the Pahlavis had consistently violated the Constitution. If Iran’s 1906 constitution was real and not window dressing for absolute monarchy, then the interpretation of the signature of the monarch is symbolic. In Britain, the monarch does not appoint and dismiss the prime minister at will. The monarch’s signature is symbolic and the ACTUAL appointment and dismissal of the prime ministers are the real powers of the parliament.

For an excellent discussion on this see:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjQ_0ebaN4M

Dr. Mossadegh used the referendum to dissolve the parliament in order to counter the Shah and the CIA in their plan for the coup.

VI. Human Rights and Freedom Under Mossadegh

Unlike the brutal tyranny of the Pahlavi, under Dr. Mossadegh not one single person was executed, tortured, assassinated…. This could not be said about the brutal tyrannies of the Pahlavis and the Islamic Republic.

VII. The Shah and Oil Nationalization

After the CIA coup, the Shah gave back OUR oil to a consortium of oil companies comprised of British (40%), American (40%) and others (20%).

VIII. There is no doubt that the British helped bring Reza Pahlavi to power. And when during WWII, Reza Shah moved away from the British and became close to Nazi Germany, the British (along with USSR) invaded Iran and removed him and placed his son on the throne.

Kinzer probably used the word crowned to mean "put in power" or "placed on the throne." And indeed the British did put Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in power immediately after the invasion of Iran.

In conclusion, the Pahlavis were a brutal tyranny that collaborated with foreign colonial powers to subjugate Iran who also enriched themselves by stealing money of the Iranian people.

The fact that Khomeini and Khamanei are zillion times worse, does not mean that the former puppet dictatorship should be praised. The Iranian people deserve independence, freedom, democracy, and human rights. The solution to the problems of Iran is not going back to the bad old days of the Pahlavis. The solution to the nightmarish hell of the Islamic Republic, is to overthrow these reactionaries and establish an independent, democratic, secular republic.

The Pahlavis owe an apology to the loved ones of those who they executed, assassinated, tortured, and imprisoned. The crimes against the Iranian people committed by the Pahlavis are extensive.

Masoud

P.S. What Kinzer wrote was insensitive at a time when a family was grieving the sad suicide of Mr. Alireza Pahlavi.

Sorry for the typos 　


  •  
SOS-FREE-IRAN

Ba Sepas Mr. Atabai. Can you please file a class action lawsuit?

by SOS-FREE-IRAN on Tue Feb 08, 2011 08:26 PM PST

Dear Mr. Atabai,

Thank you for responding fully to the false allegations and fiction that is paraded as "truth" by Mr. Kinzer. 

Now, can you please file a class action lawsuit against Mr. Kinzer and his publisher, Daily Beast, and Guardian for publishing this BLOOD LIBEL against our benevolent and kind House of Pahlavi who helped everyone, including forgiving his assassin.  

Ba sepas,

SOS-FREE-IRAN


  •  
lida sheybani

THANK YOU MR ATABAI

by lida sheybani on Tue Feb 08, 2011 02:34 PM PST

THANK YOU FOR TAKING WORDS OUT OF OUR MOUTHS SO ELOQUENTLY......... NO ONE COULD HAVE SAID IT MORE ELOQUENTLY...... TIME THE WORLD WAKES UP TO THE FACTS....... WITH ALL OUR BEST WISHES.....


  •  
Kaveh V

 Much to my

by Kaveh V on Tue Feb 08, 2011 02:37 PM PST

 

Much to my disappointment, and since '79, I have found similar negative views of the monarchy among most Americans who claim some knowledge of Iran. Unlike most Iranians, after their intimate experience with IRI, many "Iran-experts" in US still can not (or do not wish to) separate facts from fiction.


  •  
Ari Siletz

Kinzer had this coming to him!

by Ari Siletz on Tue Feb 08, 2011 02:17 PM PST

Kinzer's article is a tabloid approach to a very complicated story. Basically Disney in reverse. So Atabi's rebuke--minus the Disney-in-the-forward sentiment--is well deserved. 

  •  
B-Naam

Mr, Atabai, you bring up some points. However...

by B-Naam on Tue Feb 08, 2011 01:36 PM PST

...you are not exactly an unbiased observer yourself.  I admire your dedication, but someone that has dedicated his entire adult life to the Pahlavi family could not possibly be unbiased in his opinions.  


  •  
afshinazad

Thank you Kambiz Atabai

by afshinazad on Tue Feb 08, 2011 01:35 PM PST

Very powerful article and thank you for this.

 


  •  
AlexInFlorida

Great Article, points are well made.

by AlexInFlorida on Tue Feb 08, 2011 01:11 PM PST

Kinzer is biased and disingenuous in his work.

He has plenty of money and organization behind him, but his works of fiction are intended to serve one master only and he is not for democracy, freedom or justice.


  •  
« first‹ previous12345