the contention that Goulart [president at the time ofthe coup] was a communist is a demagogic nonsense. The fact is that U.S.officials were involved in talks with military conspirators about the threatsposed by Goularts predecessors, Quadros and Kubitschek, who were alreadyasserting some small degree of independence from local elites and U.S.businesses and its support elements, and who therefore would have been foundafter the fact of a coup to have been communists. The examples where communism was used as afabricated excuse for the brutal military and dictatorial intervention in manycountries are endless. These were mostly indirect interventions, through theuse of death squads[7],for example, but in the case of Indochina and others through direct ones. Onewould have to look for the works of Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman to get anidea of world history that is not taught in schools. In all the examples that history affords us,the term communism is used for strategic gathering of public support. In primarily Christian countries, such as theU.S., the equation of the communist, the reds, with evil and terrorism,was a simple and effective one for Washington to make. The slogan of the Evil Empire, used in the1980s Reagan administration, was effective in making a simple statement passfor reality, when in fact the only Empire that was really thriving anddisseminating terror throughout the world was the United States. As Chomsky (1980) states, referring to theterm communism as used by Washington: This is much more convenient than the truth: that the U.S. is resortingto force to prevent moves toward national independence outside of itscontrol. The U.S.S.R., of course,worked with the same scheme, though reversed. As Chomsky continues: Similarly,when the U.S.S.R. invades Hungary or Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan, it pretendsthat it is defending socialism from the threat of Western imperialism, thoughin fact it is defending or extending the power of the Russian state. The U.S. considers as friends states thatopen their markets for U.S. corporations to thrive in, by the safeguarding of afavorable investment climate[8]. In plain words, this means low wages forworkers, no support for their unions, low taxes for multinational firms, and asilenced and numbed atmosphere in democratic processes. It also means that environmental damages,when and if they are addressed, will be paid by impoverished local taxpayersand not by the corporations that caused them. Today, under GATT[9]agreements on globalization, a corporation can counter-sue a country if thatcountry sues a corporation for environmental damages. And so today countries will pay forcorporations to destroy and exploit their natural resources. This is the modern form of dictatorshipcalled globalization[10]. Going back to the U.S.and its friends, the tactics used for the control of entire populationsincluded the assertion that legitimate workers movements were in fact foreignimports, coming from reds, when in fact they where local. The tendency of the U.S. government and mediato point to indigenous, local, movements and link these to the red menace ofthe Soviets was flagrant and even fabricated proofs were offered on thatregard[11]. A book entitled Red Scare, A Study in National Hysteria, 1919-1920 and quoted byHerman (1982) reads:Thegeneral public was finally brought to believe that almost every union man