Western Blindness: Nazi Germany

to China Today
In the Western post-World War II mythology, Winston Churchill is a sage who saw the German
rearmament from 1933 to 1938 and spoke publicly of a new war Germany was preparing, while the
British prime ministers of that time were nincompoops who would not listen, and the last of them,
Neville Chamberlain, crowned the nincompoopery with the Munich Agreement of 1938, ceding to
Hitler the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia and thus making the rest of the country indefensible.

But the German rearmament could not be and was not concealed: the Versailles
restrictions were officially repudiated by Hitler as early as May 16, 1935,
whereupon Goering’s bombers flew in a festive air display over Germany. As for
the goal, any foreign journalist, diplomat or tourist could hear a German
marching song: "Today we own Germany, tomorrow the whole world.”

Why did not the prime ministers of Britain from 1933 to 1938 see the obvious,
while Churchill did? For reasons having nothing to do with Germany, Churchill
was excluded from all cabinets between 1931 and 1939. He was a "non-
government person” with a small personal following, to which he could say
whatever he thought or liked. But what if Prime Minister Chamberlain or his
predecessors had said publicly between 1933 and 1938 what Churchill was
saying to his small personal following? They would have had to put their country
on a war footing. How would the majority have liked it? Who was to foot the bill?

Surely the opposition would have claimed that the prime minister was a
warmonger, provoking Germany to arm and even attack first, out of fear of being
attacked. On the other hand, the Munich Agreement was hailed by the
democratic West (except for Czechoslovakia) with such exultation that an
outsider could well decide that England and France had routed Hitler’s Germany
and its allies so that political freedom, peace and prosperity ensued all over
Western Europe from Lisbon to Warsaw.

Let us see what Churchill said publicly when he was prime minister and not a
"non-government person.” As prime minister during the war, Churchill
negotiated not the destiny of Czechoslovakia with Hitler, but the destiny of all of
Eastern Europe with Stalin. According to Churchill, Stalin confided to him that
10 million well-to-do Russian farmers had been done away with in the early
1930s. Now, Goebbels screened Soviet newsreels about that heroic liquidation,
which helped Hitler’s party to receive up to 37 percent of the votes in the
Reichstag elections in 1932. Would Hitler have come to power if there had been
no Stalin?

In 1945, there was evidence that Stalin was virtually annexing Eastern Europe
and was shutting it behind an iron curtain, as Churchill put it later, when he was
no longer prime minister. But speaking as prime minister in the House of
Commons on February 17, 1945, Churchill presented such a glowing portrait of
Stalin to defend their negotiations regarding Eastern Europe that Chamberlain’s
benign attitude toward Hitler looks sober and sensible in comparison.

Marshal Stalin and the Soviet leaders wish to live in honorable friendship and
equality with the Western democracies. I feel also that their word is their bond. I
know of no government that stands in its obligations, even in its own despite,
more solidly than the Russian Soviet government. I decline absolutely to embark
here on a discussion about Russian good faith.

In the post-WWII myth Chamberlain figures as an incredible nincompoop

because he did exactly what the democratic West did with respect to Soviet
Russia, or has been doing with respect to China — sought common ground,
negotiated, signed agreements, resolved conflicts, build bridges, normalized
relations — but in his case the object of his enthusiastically praised ministrations
launched next year a war for world domination and thus made a fool of
Chamberlain with great tragicomic force. On the other hand, the Soviet empire
died a sudden death from internal causes, and China ...

***

Between the 15th and the 20th centuries Europe had a decisive military
advantage: firearms. I call it superweapon No. 1 of the second millennium.
Owing to superweapon No. 1, Europe conquered both Americas, nearly all of
Africa, most of Asia, all of Australia and New Zealand. In 1938, England and
France faced, for the first time, a foe that could conquer them, obliterate them as
a civilization, perhaps even exterminate their population, and create its own
civilization on the site.
Yet history was perceived by the democratic West in 1938 and is perceived today
as universal one-way development or evolution or progress. Indeed, Spencer and
Darwin regarded human progress as the highest stage of organic evolution. At
this stage the post-Roman West drew on Greco-Roman antiquity ("democracy,”
"republic,” "senate”) and on Judeo-Christian culture. Before the 20th century
England was engaged in wars of conquest, and Spencer perceived progress as
development or evolution of conquered primitive countries from savagery to
civilization, while in the 20th century England began to perceive peace as a
hallmark of progress of the civilized world.

In 1938, Churchill believed that Germany would behave as it did a quarter of a

century earlier, while Chamberlain acted on the willful assumption that like
every civilized Western country Germany wanted peace, and WWI broke out
because the conflicts of that time had not been resolved in a civilized manner.

Actually, as of 1938, Germany, a Western country, was mentally or

psychologically a different civilization, separated from the democratic West by
millennia. A prolific political writer who was foreboding the Jewish domination
of the Aryan world, Richard Wagner, wrote operas that Hitler knew by heart as a
devout churchgoer knows the church liturgies, and that glorified the barbarians,
that is, the Aryans, who had vanquished the civilized, that is, racially impure and
decadent, Rome.

Having written a hymn to Wagner at the beginning of his "transvaluation of all

values,” Nietzsche put Judeo-Christian culture upside down: What it regarded as
good he proclaimed to be evil, and what it regarded as evil he proclaimed to be
good. He envisaged a master race dominating the world "to mold the future man
by breeding, and, at the same time, by destroying millions of bungled humans —
we must not be deterred by the suffering we create, the equal of which has never
been seen.” Already during WWI, hundreds of thousands of German soldiers
bought a special field edition of Nietzsche to carry in their knapsacks like the
Bible.

***

In 1938, the German scientist Otto Hahn split the uranium atom, the point of
departure for development of "the atomic bomb.” In his publications, Hahn
regretted the fact that his discovery could be used for military purposes.
Here it can be supposed that the information was brought to the attention of
Hitler, who initiated the relevant project in 1938, obtained nuclear weapons
ahead of the United States and established world domination. Yet Hahn’s
discovery was ignored by Hitler and his advisors but agitated those European
physicists who had left Europe because they were Jews. They dreaded Hitler’s
war domination. Two of them, Szilard and Eugene Wigner, asked a third,
Einstein, whom they had known in Berlin, to write to FDR and explain that
Germany could develop the bomb if the United States had not forestalled it. A
world war was on, the project started, and in 1945 superweapon No. 2 forced
Japan to surrender. But that was its only use in the four years of the U.S.
monopoly on it, whereupon superweapon No. 2 became just a weapon of
deterrence.

However, the Soviet and Chinese rulers now knew that wars of territorial
expansion, as they had been waged by Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan, were
outdated. Superweapon No. 2 decided the outcome of the war with Japan and it
would have decided the outcome of the war with Germany had the war lasted
longer. Now, science and technology did not stop in 1945 at superweapon No. 2.
Predictably, a search began in Soviet Russia and later in China for superweapon
No. 3.

No one had known before 1938 that superweapon No. 2 would come from
nuclear physics. There had been no systematic search for superweapon No. 2.
Otto Hahn in Nazi Germany had nothing to do with any such search. The Soviet
quest for superweapon No. 3 was not a program of development of an
anticipated definite weapon; it was the world’s first search for a new
superweapon in general, for it is possible that even today no one knows from
which field superweapon No. 3 will come. In 1992 Yeltsin closed the program of
development of offensive biological weapons that had occupied an archipelago of
laboratories and employed 72,000 specialists. Thus, its existence in the post-
WWII era became, retroactively, an official and public fact.

JFK was one of those who used the phrase "the Soviet quest for world
domination.” From 1945 to 1949 Soviet Russia had no nuclear weapons, and
until the early 1960s no means of their delivery across the Atlantic. In 1963 it
had both, and it was searching for superweapon No. 3, and here JFK declared on
June 10 that the Soviet quest for world domination is only "suspicion,” while
actually "the Soviet Union and its allies” have "a deep interest in a just and
genuine peace and in halting the arms race.” The Munich-like ministrations
followed, such as the agreement of 1972 prohibiting the development of
biological weapons, which agreement the Soviet rulers treated exactly as Hitler
treated Chamberlain’s masterpiece of 1938.

But in the late 1980s President Bush and Prime Minister Thatcher managed to
out-Munich Chamberlain’s Munich. A participant of the Soviet offensive
bioweapons program was sent to the West in connection with some unique
equipment to be purchased, but defected.

Compare with 1938. After all, the German arsenal contained no superweapon.
But here Bush and Thatcher were told about the Soviet search (contrary to all
agreements, of course!) for a superweapon as decisive as the U.S. atomic bomb
was in 1945. Now, the launching of the first Soviet space satellite in 1957, ahead
of the United States, took the West by surprise, showing that science and
technology in Soviet Russia could sprint in certain strategically vital directions
ahead of the West. What if the new Soviet superweapon were ready to strike the
West within hours?

Surely Bush and Thatcher were immediately on all Western TV screens,

explaining that the West had been living in a fool’s paradise since June 10, 1963,
while it could be destroyed any day by the new Soviet superweapon. Instead,
Bush and Thatcher concealed the life-or-death information in order not to spoil
their relations with Gorbachev and began to negotiate with him secretly. Imagine
Chamberlain concealing Hitler’s atomic bomb project in order not to spoil his
relations with Hitler and negotiating with him secretly. To the negotiators,
Gorbachev coolly lied that the offensive biowarefare program had never existed.

***

In 1993, I found a U.S. government paper of 1993 according to which China was
the only big country that had an "offensive biological warfare program.” But just
as Prime Minister Chamberlain did not notice publicly what he and Churchill
could not help seeing, and President Bush with Prime Minister Thatcher did not
notice publicly what a Soviet defector had revealed, so, too, President Clinton
has not noticed publicly a document of 1993, prepared by his own
administration. However, while Bush and Thatcher at least tried confidentially
to have it out with Gorbachev, Clinton has simply ignored the document of his
own administration.

The document also mentioned Iraq as having an offensive biological warfare

program. Of course, it was puny, obsolete and altogether laughable compared
with that of China, whose gross domestic product is expected to surpass that of
the U.S. within the next decade. But the Iraqi program was just a brilliant
opportunity for Clinton to display his statesmanship by bombing Iraq to force it
to accept the inspection.

Now, what would have happened if Clinton had noticed publicly China’s
program? He cannot bomb China, which is not Iraq — or Yugoslavia. The
Chinese rulers would have denied the existence of their program as Gorbachev
denied the existence of his. The infinitely profitable trade and business with
China would have gone to Europe. A new JFK would have called Clinton’s public
accusation "suspicion,” ruining normal Sino-American relations and leading to a
arms race and hence to war.

The U.S. government document has been publicly available for seven years, to
say nothing of the relevant congressional hearings going back to 1989. But
except for myself in the internet NewsMax.com, its magazine Vortex, and on a
dozen or so radio programs, I do not know of a single publicly visible, audible or
widely read American who would refer to this document or reason out that if the
Soviet quest for superweapon No. 3 was found in 1992 to have been a fact of the
Soviet absolutism, it is not clear why the Chinese absolutism should not
encourage science and technology to go on in quest of it rather than stop at
firearms or nuclear weapons.

The Chinese absolutism was highly rational or "scientific” even more than two
millennia ago. Today this is evident in a measure like forced abortions. No
prejudices, taboos or scruples. Pure science. The rulers do not want a high
population growth rate because in contrast to Stalin or Hitler, they do not
believe in numerical military superiority as a means of world domination. Hence
forced abortions. It is inconceivable that in an absolutism so "scientific” and
uninhibited morally the rulers would consider the expected superweapon No. 3
immoral, as compared with the good old firearms or straight honest nukes.

For China an immediate source of subversion is Taiwan, with which the United
States has been unable to deal as Chamberlain dealt with Czechoslovakia, since
the population of Taiwan are former U.S. allies — enemies of the rulers of China,
and would be destroyed accordingly. But the United States contrived a Munich,
according to which there is "one China” and Taiwan is not independent. ...
However, the vast hotbed of infectious democracy is not Taiwan, but the
democratic West itself, and the fall of the Soviet absolutism in 1991 showed the
rulers of China that if the democratic West is allowed to exist as democratic, then
no matter what its intentions are or will be, its pathogenic microbes of
democracy, which it spreads because of the very fact of its existence, will destroy
the Chinese absolutism as it destroyed the Soviet absolutism in 1991.

In 1938 England and France did not understand Germany, a Western country.
Does the United States understand today’s China, the oldest civilization extant,
with its absolutism as old as its civilization? When democracy flourished in
Athens, Confucius in China saw nothing but absolutism in the past and in the
future. In the United States, power has been reduced to the profession of an
official, of a public servant, of an administrator, and is often practiced by
lawyers. It is hardly surprising if an American doubts that the Chinese rulers
value their power so much that to preserve it they are searching for weapon No.
3 to make the West surrender or, if this is impossible, to destroy it. For the sake
of what? Power! Not even wealth for the sake of which such heinous crimes are
committed in the United States!

However, under absolutism, the power possesses the country, including its
wealth — trillions of dollars in China already today and dozens of trillions ere
long.

The striking difference between post-Mao China and Russia or Germany in the
1930s is due to the difference between the geostrategy as conceived by Stalin or
Hitler in the 1930s and as understood by the Chinese rulers today. In the 1930s
the great leader, a man of genius, a superman, was to lead his army into battle,
while his militarized country was to produce for him the biggest army possible.
Every soldier or civilian was to be indoctrinated in a single faith, and dissenters
were traitors.

Today China has no need for the great leader to lead his army into battle. During
the next world war, which may be over in minutes, the Chinese rulers are to
watch it as a scientific experiment is watched today from an observation center.
The rulers will be as impersonal as the scientists.
Similarly, China is not a military-industrial camp producing the biggest army
possible, but a society most conducive to the development of science and
technology as the key to superweapon No. 3. Accordingly, except for political
freedom, all freedoms should be granted, so that those American, European,
Japanese or any other scientists who are not particularly sensitive to the
presence or absence of political freedom feel themselves in China as in a free
society, open, tolerant, diverse, dynamic, intensely alive, vibrant, comfortable,
financially rewarding, enjoyable, scientifically and culturally stimulating. ...

***

Way back in the 13th century China delighted Marco Polo, one of the first
Europeans who visited it. Europe was torn by religious wars and religious
persecution, while Christian churches and synagogues were tax-exempt in
China! In Europe power and religion combined, while in China power had no
religion, and hence no religion was persecuted as long as it was thought to be
safely apolitical. Printed typographically since the 11th century had been books
dealing with political economy, philosophy, religion and all arts and sciences.

Marco Polo admires law and order in China as against rampant crime and
violence in Europe. He remarks that "many persons, and especially those who
harbor bad designs, always carry poison about them.” The key is the phrase
"those who harbor bad designs.” If you do not harbor any, you will live in China
in the greatest safety on earth, even if you are a Christian or a Jew. Pray, think,
create, read books, enjoy the many splendors of China, the center of the world.
There is no such cuisine, silks, porcelain, or ivories anywhere else.

But if you harbor designs that the powers that be will consider to be against their
law and order, swallow the poison, to avoid torture. Oddly enough, over seven
centuries later, not a word is said in my Britannica about Chinese torture. Yet
"many” 13th century Chinese knew something about it and poisoned themselves
to avoid it. "But their rulers, who are aware of this practice, are always provided
with the dung of dogs, which they oblige the accused to swallow, causing a
vomiting of the poison.”

Well, George Orwell in his "1984," drawing on Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s
Russia, was unaware of this national triumph of torture in power over the
national readiness of "those who harbors bad designs” to commit suicide.
West Blind to Soviet, Chinese
Biological Superweapons
This short essay is a tiny glimpse into the docu-memoir I am now finishing under the tentative title "Out
of Moscow and Into New York: A Life in the Geostrategically Lobotomized West in the Age of Post-
Nuclear Superweapons."
In 1992 President Boris Yeltsin of Russia opened for international inspection an honest-to-goodness
archipelago that had been developing biological superweapons up to 1991. What is a superweapon? A
weapon against which an opponent has neither defense, nor retaliatory deterrent. Firearms were
Europe’s superweapon with respect to the nations that had none. In 1945 there appeared superweapon
No. 2 (nuclear arms), and Japan surrendered for all of her suicidal militarism. Up to 1991 Soviet Russia
had been searching on a stupendous scale for a biological superweapon as superweapon No. 3.
What stark historic truth follows from Yeltsin’s exposure of the Soviet rulers’ development on such a
mind-boggling countrywide scale of a biological superweapon?
Before 1992, a normal mentally average person could infer the Soviet rulers’ development of
superweapons on the basis of the following reasoning:
An American common criminal may commit murder (and thus risk the apprehension and possible
death sentence) in order to acquire several thousand, or even only several hundred dollars. The United
States has never had absolutism, and hence many Americans cannot perceive the value of absolute
power for its holder. But a holder of absolute power also controls the country’s wealth, running into
trillions of dollars if the country is large enough.
If a common criminal is sufficiently motivated by several thousand or even hundred dollars to commit a
risky murder, what about an absolute power-holder’s trillions of dollars? The West subverts absolute
power-holders by its very existence — by what has come to be called "democracy.”

Gorbachev hoped to obtain superweapon No. 3 to dominate the West and thus stop the subversion. He
had failed to obtain superweapon No. 3 (but not for want of trying!) and had his absolute power
subverted, from which Deng in China and his successors drew a lesson if they needed any, with Chinese
absolutism flourishing for four if not five millennia. The Soviet rulers understood (what normal,
mentally average person would not?) that in 1949 nuclear weapons ceased to be a global superweapon
and became a deterrent—a means of mutual assured destruction. But surely science and technology did
not stop in 1949! Hence the Soviet quest for superweapon No. 3.
Yet in the twenty years — from 1972, when I came to the United States, up to 1992, when Yeltsin showed
the bioweapons archipelago — I never read or saw or heard in the mainstream media even a conjecture
that the Soviet rulers may develop biological or any other post-nuclear superweapons. I subscribed, in
particular, to the Pentagon’s annual publications The Soviet Military Power. No surmise of the Soviet
stupendous development of biological or any other post-nuclear superweapons!
After the defection of a participant in the Soviet mammoth project late in the 1980s, at least some
Western leaders learned about it, but they kept secret the horrendous discovery from the public in order
to preserve what they perceived as their "getting on well with” the Nobel Peace Prize-winner Gorbachev.
The Chinese rulers’ rationale for the development of superweapon No. 3 has been the same as was that
of the Soviet rulers except that Chinese rulers rest on the millennia of Chinese absolutism. If not the fall
of Gorbachev’s absolutism, then the Tiananmen turmoil within China itself have shown them again that
even the Chinese millennial absolutism is bound to be subverted by what came to be called "democracy”
in the 20th century. They have to obtain superweapon No. 3, against which the West will have neither
defense, nor way of retaliation, that is, will be in the position of Japan versus U.S. nuclear weapons in
1945.
However, in terms of secrecy, the development of biological weapons in China differs from what it was
in Soviet Russia. Why were the Soviet rulers so secretive about it? In the 1980s the Soviet nuclear
missile power was at a par with NATO if not in excess of it. Moscow was already under a missile defense
umbrella, while armed with cruise missiles, the Soviet submarines off the U.S. Pacific and Atlantic
coastline would have been able to destroy the United States with cruise missiles even if President
Reagan had realized his SDI against Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
Obviously, the Soviet mammoth program of development of biological superweapons was the best proof
of what Senator and then President Kennedy had called "the Soviet quest for world domination.” Hence
the Soviet rulers’ development of biological superweapons was their secret of secrets, though they
overreacted in this respect: they assumed that the West had a geostrategic brain, but even after it
became clear that Gorbachev had been developing bacteriological superweapons on a stupendous scale,
his Western image has remained as benign as before —the Nobel Peace Prize winner dedicated to peace
and democracy.

China has no need to fear that from her development of bacteriological superweapons the West will
infer her quest for world domination: the West is sure to perceive the development of these weapons as
China’s compensation for her lack of nuclear missile parity with NATO. Therefore, while not a word
alluding to the Soviet biological warfare research could ever be found in the Soviet media,
"biological/bacteriological warfare” has been a household phrase in China, just as are the words
"bombing” or "tanks” in the West and in Russia.
In the chivalry of Judeo-Christian civilization, steel and then firearms were noble: "bombing,” and even
nuclear bombing, is an extension of artillery, and "tanks” are mechanized armored knights. On the
other hand, the use of biological weapons is a monstrous crime against humanity. As we discussed this
essay at lunch, Chris Ruddy, editor of NewsMax, drew a remarkable contrast: even Hitler, who
annihilated over 12 million innocent irrelevant civilians, disdained biological warfare, while Tojo’s
Japan, not guilty of such mass annihilations, conducted biological warfare experiments on prisoners of
war, in particular in China. The radio talk show host Barry Farber, present at the discussion, cited a case
when the Germans during the Second World War observed international conventions in the treatment
of prisoners of war even when they were Jews!
As the Chinese rulers falsely accused the United States half a century ago of waging biological war in
Korea, the Soviet media presented this never-was "war” as a "monstrous crime against humanity,” while
the Chinese media presented it as biological warfare, mortally dangerous, but not morally worse or
better than, for example, bombing—in particular, nuclear bombing — and requiring war preparedness
just as any other modern warfare.

That was what China has since been doing openly and officially: preparing for biological warfare. Here
is a generally available Chinese study of "military medicine,” depicting and describing a mobile
biological weapons detection lab as it was introduced in 1974. Apart from its instrumentation, quite
sophisticated even by today’s standards a quarter of a century later, it is supplied with about 200
bacteria and 50 virus samples for reference and identification.
So, to keep the detection of germs up-to-date for defense against them, it is necessary to produce all
possible latest germs as well. Defensive biological warfare research thus becomes also its offensive
biological warfare counterpart.
When the Chinese rulers signed in 1984 the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, they officially
submitted the following list of "facilities of the national defensive biological warfare R & D program”:
(1) Dual Use/Biological Warfare Defense Research Facilities Institute of Microbiology and
Epidemiology.
(2) Vaccine Production Facilities
a. National Vaccine and Serum Institute
b. Shanghai Institute of Biological Products
c. Lanzhou Institute of Biological Products
d. Changchun Institute of Biological Products
e. Wuhann Institute of Biological Products
f. Chengdu Institute of Biological Products
g. Institute of Medical Biology of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.
Officially, all these biological warfare research institutions are defensive, and officially, no offensive
biological superweapons are produced or developed. But unofficially? The impression is that the
Chinese rulers do not, for the time being, mind the West knowing unoffically about their development
of offensive biological superweapons to counter a possible Western nuclear missile shield, going back to
Ronald Reagan’s SDI, never realized. Here is in front of me — no, not an official document, either
published or secret, but a four-page article (from the Wuhan TV station magazine) I have received from
China. The article is about Guojia 863 jidua, National 863 Project. Translated from the Chinese:
In early 1986 two famous Chinese scientists, Wang Da Ian and Chen Fong Uan, came up with a proposal
for the development of new advanced technologies for defensive and offensive [!] warfare [the emphasis
is mine — L.N.] After these two scientists recommendations had been approved, they and two other
scientists, Wong Chi Chong and Yang Cha Chi, took their proposal on March 2, 1986, to the highest
leader of China.

Much to their plesant surprise, Deng Xiao Ping approved it promptly, on March 5, 1986, with this
comment: "Execute it as quickly as possible! No delay!” After that there had been seven meetings, and
on Nov. 18, 1986, the government put forward an outline of the high-tech development project, named
"863.” It was called "863” because Deng approved it in March 1986.
The Project 863 has been doing research in seven broad areas of possible superweaponry, with genetic
engineering, basic to biological warfare, at the top of the list. Since 1986 the double helix, symbolizing
genetic engineering, has replaced in China the atom as the symbol of the leading national science and
technology.
Given the enormous possibilities of concentration of human and other resources on the growth of such a
project in the peacetime, its geostrategic impact can readily be grasped. But I have not seen or heard it
mentioned in the past 14 years in any testimony by the CIA or the Department of Defense or any other
entity to the Congress. Nor has it been mentioned in such studies as "Case Study 6: People’s Republic of
China," published in 1998 by the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute in Alexandria, Va., or
"China and Weapons of Mass Destruction," published in April 2000 by the National Intelligence
Council and the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress. It was only on Oct. 7, 2000, that I
found the first mention in the West of the 863 Project — in a New York Times report from China (p. 3)
about her dizzying progress in farming due to "genetically modified crops,” in which China is leading
the world. The quest for post-nuclear superweaponry at the 863 Project — in genetic engineering, for
example —inevitably has a civilian spillover. Hence the dizzying Chinese progress in farming.
One may think that the New York Times immediately commissioned a report from China on the 863
Project. Front-page epoch-making news! Fourteen years later, but better late than never. Deeply
agitated, I phoned the correspondent, Craig Smith, in China. He turned out to be an extremely fine and
intelligent person, and we exchanged a couple of e-mails.
I seem to have been the only person interested in his three-paragraph description (inside his half-a-
page agricultural article) of the 863 Project. Obviously, the New York Times has not been interested.
The dizzying progress of Chinese farming due to genetic engineering as a spillover of the 863 biological
weaponry research? Yes, this is interesting! But the biological weaponry research itself? The Western
opinion-makers have not been interested in this life-or-death issue for the West, which does not have
the geostrategic brain to worry about its geostrategic survival.

Recent Terrorism: A Historical

Note
In 1978 the magazine Commentary printed, and about 500 Western periodicals reprinted or retold, my
article about the virtual non-existence of the CIA as an espionage or intelligence service. The
presidential candidate Ronald Reagan read my article, quoted it in his election campaign, said he would
reform/reconstruct/replace the CIA, and we met to discuss the issue.
After Watergate, the mainstream media seemed omnipotent, and the newly elected president needed
their support in his ambitious project to reform the CIA. The stars were lucky. William Safire (a
conservative Republican!) spoke at an East Side Conservative Club dinner, and its chairman, Tom
Bolan, introduced me to Safire in glowing terms (I was a member of the Club's Advisory Board). As a
cynical opportunist, I pulled out a copy of my Commentary article and handed it over to Safire.
I noticed that when Safire spoke he hadn't left my article on the dinner table, but instead took it along
and put it on the lectern. I thought it was a breakthrough. The spark of Safire's column in the New York
Times would set the mainstream (read: liberal/Democratic) media aflame, and this was what President
Reagan needed.

CIA Still Virtually Non-existent

Sept. 11 confirmed that the CIA virtually does not exist in 2001, as it did not in 1978.
Forget about the penetration of even a single terrorist cell or network in even one of the 68 countries
where numberless Islamic terrorist cells and networks operate. But certainly an intelligence service
must have common sense at the average mental level.
Having testified in the U.S. Congress many times in the past 10 years, the CIA, having no intelligence
data on the forthcoming terrorist act of Sept. 11 but having a modicum of common sense at the average
mental level, should have told the Congress that in view of previous Islamic terrorist attacks against
U.S. citizens and property, a major terrorist attack on America inside the United States could well be
expected any day.
A bright school pupil might also have conjectured that a hijacked airliner could be used by a suicide as a
"ram." Ever since WWII, films in many countries (and not only in Japan!) have showed pilots
"ramming" their planes against enemy aircraft and all kinds of vulnerable ground structures. Playing a
war pilot, a Russian boy would shout "Ram attack!" and plunge into a park bench or his playmate.
Gorbachev's Bioterrorism Program
Regarding Soviet Russia and anthrax, if the scientists in the mammoth Soviet project to develop
biological superweapons had been told under Gorbachev, when the project flourished with special vigor,
that anthrax would be spread in the United States through letters, they would have died of laughter.
First of all, anthrax was obsolete. Second, when it had been experimented with, the idea was to
pulverize it into the atmosphere over the entire territory of the United States.

Gorbachev's Russia was not Iraq. His nuclear weapons could kill the population of the United States
many times over. I won't waste paper describing Gorbachev's nuclear weapons. I was a subscriber to the
Pentagon's annual "The Soviet Military Power." The volumes are still in my library. New York could be
destroyed by cruise missiles from Soviet submarines within one minute.
So what did Gorbachev expect from biological superweapons? Yes, his nuclear weapons could kill the
U.S. population, but they could not kill, for example, the U.S. pilots in bombers in the air, with nuclear
weapons aboard as means of retaliation. Biological superweapons were created to destroy all human
means of retaliation and computer "viruses" all means of automatic retaliation.
Today China continues the research. One goal is genetic weaponry, that is, weapons that would kill, for
example, all whites (in contrast to the Chinese) all over the world – on the surface of the earth,
underground, in the air, in space, in submarines under water, and so on.

Gorbachev was overthrown, without having achieved his goal pf the creation of superweapons that
would rule out enemy retaliation (or defense). If Putin becomes the dictator, he will certainly continue
where Gorbachev had to end "for reasons beyond his control."
However, one episode from the final stage of Gorbachev's dictatorship has to be recalled. One of those
in charge of Gorbachev's project of developing biological superweapons was sent abroad, allegedly for a
scientific conference but actually to buy in the West some equipment for the project that Soviet Russia
did not have. He suffered from mid-life depression and defected.
At the request of a British magazine editor, a friend of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, I had written
a letter to her about the Soviet development of superweapons. She ignored it. But here was one of those
in charge of the project in the flesh, and she could not ignore him.
His testimony was concealed from the public – so as to not "spoil the friendly relations" with
Gorbachev. In a confidential, friendly way, he was confronted with the evidence, and he coolly lied that
the project in question had never existed. Nor has he ever mentioned it since Yeltsin opened it for
international inspection in 1992.
Gorbachev Today
But the final vignette of that history of survival of the West in the age of terrorism and post-nuclear
superweapons appeared on Oct. 15, 2001, at 9:45 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on CNN Live: Larry King
invited Gorbachev to speak on letters containing anthrax powder, and the former owner of the world's
largest, most expensive and advanced project of development of biological superweapons in the 1980s
expressed his indignation. To be sure!

In the 1980s, his goal was to be able to destroy the West while being himself reliably protected. He was a
global-scale bioterrorist who might have killed a billion people or two. Now he was a private person,
making money on a lecture circuit, but some unknown, wretched amateur, mailing two anthrax letters a
day, could infect him and undermine his health, if not worse. He was all against terrorism.
Larry King recalled that this anti-terrorist was a Nobel Peace Prize winner, but forgot to clarify that the
Nobel Prize committee had no inkling of the development in Gorbachev's Russia of biological
superweapons aimed at annihilating the West without the possibility of Western retaliation.
Fingering one of his suspenders, Larry King parted very warmly from the former preparer of
annihilation on a scale that makes bin Laden a medieval village tinkerer, with these words: "Always glad
to meet you!"

Is the Constitutional and Democratic West Fit for Survival?

At its peak, the overall territory of British colonies exceeded 90 times that of England itself. Britain did
not intend to make China her colony. But the Chinese government forbade English merchants to sell
opium in China.
What insolence! So Britain waged two "opium wars" in China and forced its government to permit the
sale of English opium in the country.
Before 1945, Japan had been successfully conquering China, but after the United States obtained "atom
bombs" and dropped two of them on Japan, the latter "surrendered conditionally."
And the moral is that what ensured a country's military victory was the superiority of its weapons.
Created in the 60-odd years between 1880 and 1945 were weapons that only the authors of sci fi novels
could imagine. The word "machine gun" appeared in the English language in 1906. Kipling wrote that
"we" (the British) would win because "we" have machine-guns, and "they" ("our enemies") have not.
Machine-guns? Good heavens! What about military aviation, tanks, submarines, and last but not least,
nuclear weapons in 1945?

If this was the case in the 60-odd years between 1880 and 1945, what about the 60-odd years between
1946 and 2007? Surely the very rate of development of science and technology increases exponentially!
China, which Britain once forced, by two "opium wars," to permit its population to buy opium, is now a
dictatorship with unlimited opportunities to channel its world's biggest human resources into the
militarily promising fields of science and technology, and to invite to live and work in China all
foreigners who promise to be scientists or technologists of genius in those new fields of science and
technology.
In 1938 to 1945, those European men of genius in nuclear physics came to the United States because it
had become clear to them that their careers and their lives in Nazi and Fascist countries were over.
The United States had these men of genius owing to the German and Italian persecution of Jews, while
the China dictators' way is to create the world's best living and working conditions in China for all
outstanding foreign scientists and technologists in all militarily promising fields.
The geostrategic goal? To make the United States surrender unconditionally as did Japan in 1945 when
it had become clear to Japan that the United States had (to intone Kipling's machine-guns) nuclear
weapons and Japan had not.
The instant victory over Japan would have been exactly the same if the United States had been a
benighted dictatorship like Hitler's Germany, or Soviet Russia, or China today, while Japan had been
the world's most democratic and constitutional country.
On June 3, 2007, CNN presented to its audiences the debate in New Hampshire of eight Democratic
presidential contenders for 2008, and on June 5, the debate of 10 Republican presidential contenders,
so that altogether we saw and heard 18 presidential candidates for the 2008 elections.

The official definition of the political system of the United States is "a constitutional republic" and that
of Great Britain "a constitutional monarchy." The word "democratic" is also officially applicable to the
United States, since every American (psychiatrically healthy) adult has the right to vote (universal
suffrage).
In England, universal suffrage had not existed before the 20th century, but even today CNN's debate of
18 presidential candidates would be impossible, since the prime minister is elected by his or her party,
whose members are elected in general elections to Parliament.
That is, a democratic and constitutional form of government is not only a new young form, but it differs
even in Britain and in the United States of America.
According to an official reference book, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
the prime minister is only the head of government who can be made to resign, while the head of state is
the king or queen. True, his or her rule was constitutionally restricted by Magna Carta way back in 1215.
Yet he or she is identified even in an official reference book with his or her country that he or she cannot
betray or deceive, for that would mean to betray or deceive himself or herself.

On the other hand, the president of the United States is only a temporary federal official. Every year
about 400 U.S. federal officials are convicted by courts for abusing of their office for their own interests.
Yet Clinton was impeached, but could not be convicted because two-thirds of the Senate votes are
required for the conviction, and the Democrats refused to vote for the conviction of a Democratic
president.
The young democratic and constitutional form of government survived from 1980 to 1945 since it
developed simultaneously with the Industrial Revolution in the West. Ironically, China rejected it since
it led to machine standardization, while China strove to preserve individual creativity in crafts, artistry,
skillful artisanship.
What about the past 60-odd years?
What protects the West?
Let us listen to the 18 presidential candidates. Each group spoke for two hours, that is, four hours, or
240 minutes in all. How much time did they speak about China, about geostrategy, about weapons?
Democrats spoke for two minutes or so about the need to seek China's help for softening the harsh rule
of the "president" (dictator) of Darfur in western Sudan, since China exports 80 percent of Darfur's oil,
and if China refused, the United States should boycott the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

Image the fear of the dictator Hu Jintao! He must have had a sleepless night! Hitler had perfect
Olympics in 1936. And here the USA would boycott the Beijing Olympics!
A Republican spent about 30 seconds for calling to stop China's cheating on currency in trade.
Altogether two minutes 30 seconds were spent on China, or about 1% of the time of the debate. The rest
of the time?
All those platitudes about Iraq, Iran, illegal "immigrants," English as a single official language, abortion,
global warming, God vs. evolution, etc., etc., etc.
How can the United States survive if none of its 18 presidential candidates recalled in the debate that
China is the biggest dictatorship in recorded history, helped by Putin's Russia scientifically and
technologically, and that the West is aware of only those military developments in China that it is
impossible for China to conceal (such as China's destruction by a missile of one of China's old weather
satellites). But what about the research going on in the Chinese laboratories, cut deep into rock
mountains?
Are not the dictators of China developing today's equivalent of nuclear weapons of 1945, which will
force the West to surrender unconditionally as Japan did in 1945?

Nanotechnology: The Weapon of the Future

Let us suppose that in 1933, when Hitler came to power, the United
States didn't have a single soldier or a single weapon.
In 1933, Einstein and his family were living outside Germany and he came to the United States, biding
time, when there was an anti-Semitic looting in Germany, but The New York Times printed the
statements of members of the newly formed Nazi government who condemned the looting and
promised law and order.
Einstein was inclined to return to Germany, but their home was also looted. So he stayed in the United
States.
In an Aug. 2, 1939 letter to President Roosevelt about the possibility of development of nuclear
weapons, Einstein mentioned "Joliot in France." Joliot was married to a daughter of Marie Curie, who
had received for her "work on radioactivity" two Nobel prizes — in 1903 and 1911! With the help of
Einstein and other émigré scientists, nuclear weapons could perhaps have been developed in the United
States not between 1939 and 1945, but between 1934 and 1940, and Germany would have accepted
unconditional surrender as did Japan in 1945.

It should be recalled that in Japan any official who showed cowardice was to commit suicide by cutting
open his stomach, and suicidal soldiers were part of the armed forces. So the surrender of Japan was
not easy.
In 1945, the United States made a crucial geostrategic discovery: it is possible to defeat a country such
as Japan just with a singular weapon. That weapon soon became obsolete in this role, since it could not
find an attacked country's secret repository of nuclear weapons able to destroy the attacking country.
That is, nuclear weapons could not circumvent Mutual Assured Destruction.
So the geostrategic goal of today is to find a weapon that would be as unexpected as were U.S. nuclear
bombs for Japan in 1945, but that would be able to circumvent Mutual Assured Destruction.
Having forced Japan to surrender unconditionally, the United States had not converted it into its colony
or part of its territory. But the annihilation of the West as an independent entity is China's goal. Why?
Millennia or even centuries ago, the population of China knew nothing about the outside world except
that its inhabitants were savages, unable to make even porcelain (which they still call "china") or silk.
These savages outside China discovered the gas for warming the food and for lighting 21 centuries after
it was used in China.
Today? In our age of radio and the Internet, it is impossible to insulate the Chinese from the West.
Hence many Chinese believe that in the West there is freedom (recall the Tiananmen Square
movement). Now, freedom has magic overtones: a Chinese can think: "If we had freedom in China, I
would . . ."

Another vulnerability of a dictatorship is its lack of legitimacy. An emperor or a monarch was legitimate
if he/she was the oldest son/daughter of a previous emperor or a monarch. In the United States,
statesmen are elected by a majority.
Dictators have no legitimacy, and to preserve their dictatorial power, they have to annihilate the free
West or to force its surrender unconditionally.
"I know what has happened," a day-dreamer may say. "Eric Drexler, the Einstein of nanotechnology,
sent a letter to President Bush to warn him of the possibility of the development of nano weapons in
China, just as Einstein warned President Roosevelt of the possibility (no, not of certainty) of the
development of nuclear weapons in Germany. Accordingly, Roosevelt launched the Manhattan Project.
The fatal nano danger of China was thus averted, just as was the fatal nuclear danger of Germany and
Japan."

The reality? Drexler published his major study in 1986, and recently, 20 years later, I received by the
Internet its edited version. The book is entitled optimistically "Engines of Creation," but contains one
chapter, entitled "Engines of Destruction," about nano weapons. That chapter ruined Drexler's scientific
career — in the West. Said Drexler about nano weapons that the U.S. "refusal to develop them" is "the
equivalent of unilateral disarmament," and the outcome could be nothing less than "the destruction of
the United States."
On the other hand, the photographs of Drexler could be seen at research centers of China, and all of his
books and articles are on the Chinese Internet in English with Chinese explications. Another scientist of
genius instead of Drexler could go to China to live and work there for a fabulous pay that only a pop
dancer or a TV host may get in the United States. But Drexler loves freedom and is a political thinker. So
let's see how low he has been socially falling in the United States.
First take the year of 1992. Drexler had published his 556-page volume, as a mathematical basis of
"Nanosystems." He presented his theories in Congress before the Senate Subcommittee on Science,
Technology, and Space. Al Gore, the chairman of the Subcommittee, expressed his enthusiasm and
vowed to fund the "Nanhattan Project," based on Drexler's Foresight Institute.

Now take the year 2007. In an e-mail I received on June 12, 2007 as a member of the Foresight
Institute, it is said that the Institute was founded in 1986, but Drexler is not even mentioned as though
he, the founder of nanotechnology, let alone the Foresight Institute, had never existed.
Yes, Congress began to allocate billions of dollars every year on nanotechnology — yet not a penny on
molecular nano weapons research, but on the production of commercial "nanotech" goods such as
suntan lotion, ski wax, or paint.
The producers of such "nanotech" goods fear that Congress might allocate part of those annual billions
of dollars for military nano research, and hence some of them smear Drexler as much as their
imagination can go. Thus the "nanotech venture capitalist" E. Mark Modzelewski said that Drexler's
theories are "a wino's claims on skid row [flophouses frequented by bums and drunks] that bugs are
crawling under his skin."
In his e-mail to me, Modzelewski wrote something similar when I wrote in my column that he is one of
those Western money-makers who are ready, for the sake of their bad temper, to annihilate the West
and themselves, along with all of their money.

The Pentagon's 2007 Report on

China
The Pentagon (the U.S. Department of Defense) began to produce its "annual reports to Congress on the
military power of the People's Republic of China" in 2002, and so its report of 2007 is its sixth.
First, take note that the dictatorship in China is ingratiatingly referred to by the U.S. Department of
Defense as "the People's Republic of China."
Marx, Lenin, and Mao defined this "form of government" as the "dictatorship of the proletariat," and
Lenin stated that one person (such as Lenin) could impersonate the proletariat. But today, after Hitler,
"dictatorship" and "dictator" are bad words, while the U.S. Department of Defense uses only those
words which the dictators of China would like and which would help the people of the United States and
other non-dictatorships to believe that no dictatorship in China exists.
Quite on the contrary, China is "the People's [Democratic?] Republic" [!].
The British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's "Munich Agreement" (Sept. 30, 1938) conceded to
Hitler virtually all his demands and left Czechoslovakia defenseless. But when Chamberlain came back
home, it was only with great difficulty that his limousine could maneuver through the streets of London,
flooded with the triumphant people, wishing to personally participate in the great victory of peace.
The yearning of the British people for peace was so strong that even Hitler seemed to many of them a
champion of peace, revealed as such to the world by Neville Chamberlain.
In reality, and not in the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist propaganda, the People's Republic of China has never
existed.
What has existed in China since 1949 is a dictatorship. Similarly, the People's Liberation Army has been
named so because Marx, Lenin, and Mao postulated that "the capitalists had enslaved the poor in the
capitalist countries, and a liberation army is to liberate them."
Neither Lenin, nor Stalin, nor any of their Soviet Russian successors, nor Mao, was called by the
American title "president." But the U.S. Department of Defense speaks (see Page 1) of "PRC President
Hu Jintao. " Quite like "U.S. President George Bush." That is, to misname the reality such as the
dictatorship in China, the Pentagon uses either the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist jargon or the language of
the constitutional and democratic countries, or both, as in its phrase: "PRC President Hu Jintao . . ."
The U.S. Department of Defense seems to believe that if it speaks in the propaganda clichés of the
dictatorship in China, the majority of the Western peoples will treat the Pentagon as the majority of the
British people treated Neville Chamberlain until Hitler launched an honest-to-goodness (but, thank
God, conventional) war.
The dictatorship in China is mortally dangerous precisely because it is a dictatorship — indeed, the
biggest dictatorship in recorded history and existing in the epoch when post-nuclear super weapons (of
which the Report says not a word) may annihilate the United States with total impunity.

The U.S. Department of Defense seems to have forgotten all non-propaganda words, such as
"dictatorship." The first two sentences of the Executive Summary of the Pentagon's Report describe the
magnificent present day of China:
China's rapid rise as a regional political and economic power with global aspirations is an important
element of today's strategic environment—one that has significant implications for the region and the
world. The United States welcomes the rise of a peaceful and prosperous China, and it encourages China
to participate as a responsible international stakeholder by taking on a greater share of responsibility
for the health and success of the global system.
In front of me is a four-page article about slavery and organ harvesting in China from The Epoch Times,
a magazine published and transmitted via the Internet by Chinese freethinkers. With my limited Soviet-
Russian experience, I could not understand how slaves can "work 16 to 20 hours a day" (Page 1). But of
course, the Pentagon is loath to spoil the magnificent present day of "the People's Republic of China" by
such horrors.

True, the magnificence of China refers to the present. But, of course, the Pentagon cannot vouch for the
future: "However, much uncertainty surrounds the future course of China's leaders will set for their
country, including in the area of China's expanding military power and how that power might be used."
"Much uncertainty"? Well, for the present day, the picture following from the Report is reassuring. The
United States and other constitutional and democratic countries were once "developing" (as the word
was used in the West) economically and hence militarily. So does "the People's Republic of China,"
according to the Report.
So far, so good. But let me note that the population of China is four times larger than that of the United
States. So there will be a time in this "development" when China's output will exceed that of the United
States four times. Moreover, slave labor in China may produce an even greater discrepancy. Note also
the Chinese emphasis on the military output. What then?
Well, for the time being, China is developing economically and hence militarily. Much of its
development the dictatorship in China does not conceal (why cannot China develop?) and some
concealment is impossible, and so the 42 pages of the Report are full of such cases, though the Report
does not say what the United States will do when the output of China's development exceeds that of the
United States "x" times, and China's intention to liberate the mankind, enslaved in the United States
and Western Europe, will become as strong as it was in the writings and speeches of Marx, Lenin, and
Mao.

How about what the dictatorship in China wishes to conceal and can conceal from the Pentagon and all
other watchers?
On Page 1 of the Report we read: "Evidence in 2006 suggests that China revised the 1993 Military
Strategic Guidelines for the New Period, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) guidance documents for
military strategy and forces development. The specific contents of the guidelines are not known."
So the Chinese "Military Strategic Guidelines" as a guidance for the entire army is still a secret for the
U.S. Department of Defense! There has been not a single person who would copy the guidelines for the
Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency either before or after 1993. It is not even clear when the
guidelines of 1993 were revised in the past 14 years.
The U.S. Manhattan Project, undertaken by Roosevelt after Einstein had informed him that Germany
could be developing nuclear weapons, was a total surprise for Japan (a military empire) in 1945.
What if the dictatorship in China has or will soon have "x" projects each of the size of the Manhattan
Project, developing different post-nuclear global super weapons such as molecular nano weapons about
which the Report does not say a word, but which can, according to Eric Drexler, the founder of nano
technology, annihilate a country without the ability of the attacked country to retaliate, that is, without
Mutual Assured Destruction, which has preserved peace between atomic powers for many decades.

An Open Letter to Mayor

Bloomberg
As a resident of New York, I sent you this message via the fficial New York City Web site. However, since
my message concerns not only New York, but the United States as a whole and the West in general, I
have developed this message in my weekly column as "an open letter."
Many, including myself, were disappointed that you had not yet expressed your intention to be a
presidential contender in 2008.
The purpose of my message is to convince you to be one. In 1938, Britain was mortally endangered by
the dictatorship in Germany, but Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was worse than zero: He
theatricalized the dictatorship of Germany as a British peace partnership, to the delight of the duped
majority of the British people, including members of parliament.
The U.S. President George Bush and those 18 presidential contenders, whose debates CNN telecast in
June, have proved to be 19 zeros who have not shed a word about the mortal danger of the dictatorship
of China.
Fortunately, Hitler was a strategic illiterate. He could hum whole Wagner operas, but this did not
alleviate his strategic illiteracy.

Instead of keeping the peace of 1938 to continue to develop nuclear weapons and put all the resources
into their development, he launched conventional war and hence showed the British (and their allies)
the true scary face of his dictatorship.
Chamberlain was immediately discarded by Britain and her allies as a sentimental daydreamer, and in
May of 1940 Churchill became the leader of defense against the dictatorship of Germany.
Recall a crucial difference between Chamberlain and Churchill. Chamberlain was one of those
numerous dwellers of a democracy who do not conceive of an aggressive foreign power and believe that
wars are conflicts or quarrels, like those between good neighbors in England.
On the other hand, Churchill understood that there might be an aggressive foreign power just as there
may be a criminal gang which attacks not because its victims are not as good-neighborly as was
Chamberlain to Hitler, but for purposes of its own.
An aggressive dictatorship wants to establish its power in the free countries or in the world to enhance
its security against the freedom of the free countries, subversive for a dictatorship. As the Tiananmen
movement in China and the fall of the Soviet dictatorship in Russia in 1991 demonstrated, a
dictatorship, so dangerous outside, is vulnerable within.
We cannot expect from the Chinese dictators Hitler's strategic illiteracy (which is ridiculed by historians
in China). But their role of awakening the electorate of the endangered countries can be performed by
the TV programs and documentary films to show the true face of the dictatorship in China.
Whereupon the presidential elections will be won in 2008 by the candidate showing the Churchillian
determination to defend the free world, while the U.S. president and those 18 presidential contenders in
June 2007 will be written off as would have been 19 Chamberlains in 1939.

However, before convincing the electorate via television and documentary films that China's
dictatorship presents a mortal danger for the West, you may wish to convince yourself that this is the
case.
If a sufficiently effective intelligence/espionage had existed in the West today, top government officials
could expect its top secret testimony concerning top secret preparations by the dictatorship of China for
an attack with post-nuclear super weapons being developed in China.
However, in the "Commentary" magazine of November 1978, I published my study of the CIA on the
basis of the CIA's testimonies to Congress. In that article, reprinted or outlined by about 500 periodicals
all over the West, I contend that Western intelligence/espionage existed in the 19th century, but not in
the age of those 20th-century dictatorships, which are too secretive and ruthless for Western
intelligence/espionage. Incidentally, one of the most naïve admirers of post-1949 China presented in
the CIA's "testimonies" on China was George H.W. Bush.
The war in Iraq on the basis of U.S.–British intelligence/espionage data ended in a tragicomic fiasco.
How can the attack of the dictatorship of China be expected to end on the basis of these data?

So what should we do?

Should we listen to the CIA, DIA, British Intelligence Service, etc., and be duly annihilated (or surrender
unconditionally)?
All my adult life, first in Soviet Russia and then in the United States, I have been studying the mortal
danger the dictatorships of Russia, and later of China, cooperating with Putin's Russia, pose to the
democratic West and to the United States in particular. In the course of my studies I became an Einstein
Prize winner "for outstanding intellectual achievements."
Originally, on my arrival to the United States in the 1970s, I published my articles in prestigious
intellectual magazines like "Commentary." In the 1980s, I was a three-times-a-week columnist of "The
New York City Tribune," alert to the danger of dictatorship in Russia and in China.
In the 1990s, due to the relative freedom of the press under Boris Yeltsin, I published in the major
periodicals of Russia such as "Izvestia." In the 2000s, my weekly columns are posted in
www.newsmax.com and www.worldtribune.com. These Web sites have archives with lists of my
columns that can be downloaded. I or your assistants can thus obtain my columns relevant to our
subject of life-or-death of the West.
A TV station wanted me to speak on the "the China threat," provided I could show their viewers my
photographs of those post-nuclear super weapons that are being developed in China. They assume that
a student of China's geostrategy can steal into one of those Chinese labs, cut into the rocky mountains,
and bring to a TV station in New York his photographs of China's post-nuclear super weapons. The TV
station was disappointed when I said I can do this no more than can the CIA or the British Intelligence
Service, and that there are other means of persuasion.

For example, no one denies that the population of China exceeds that of the United States four times,
and given the most secretive and ruthless dictatorship in China, this tremendous excess of humanity
can be used to achieve that kind of a military superiority which the United States achieved over Japan
(an aggressor) in 1945 when Japan "surrendered unconditionally."
In this context, I have to recall Eric Drexler, whom I have known since 1986 when he published a book
in which he introduced the term "nanotechnology" and which contained a chapter describing nano
weapons, able to circumvent Mutual Assured Destruction.
In China, Drexler's photographs appeared at research centers, and all of his books and articles were on
the Chinese Internet. In the United States? Said Drexler about nano weapons: The U.S. "refusal to
develop them" is "the equivalent of unilateral disarmament," and the outcome could be nothing less
than "the destruction of the United States."
I could request Drexler to help us to show to the electorate the true nano geostrategic situation in
today's world and hence the need to elect a U.S. president who would be a Churchill, not just another
Chamberlain.
Respectfully,
Lev Navrozov

West Faces Looming China Threat

After her defeat in World War I, Germany was accused by the victorious countries of having had started
the war. Under the Treaty of Versailles, they deprived Germany of armed forces, capable of defending
the country against Soviet Russia, and thus impelled many Germans to vote for Hitler as a fiery
opponent of the Treaty of Versailles and a champion of German rearmament contrary to the Treaty.
Oddly enough, outside Germany, Hitler was in rather favorable political fantasies before 1939. Even
Churchill, not only Chamberlain, praised him! Lloyd George said that he would like to see Hitler at the
head of the British government!
If, instead of his stupid invasions of the independent part of Czechoslovakia, of Poland, and of France,
Hitler would have remained in a favorable fantasy outside Germany, while investing all of his available
resources into his successful-up-to-1942 development of nuclear weapons, he would have achieved
"world domination."

He would have remained in favorable political fantasies outside Germany as a world champion of peace
up to the day he would demand the unconditional surrender of all foreign countries under the threat of
his nuclear blows.
After World War I and before Hitler came to power, it was believed by many in the West that the
Western proletariat would join the world dictatorship of the proletariat, and thus would merge with
Soviet Russia. However, the propaganda poet Mayakovsky, whom Stalin called (after the poet's suicide
in 1930) "the most gifted poet of our Soviet epoch," had been living mostly in the United States and
Western Europe, and he announced that an American and even West European wants to be not a
member of the world proletariat, but on the contrary, a bourgeois.
As for himself, he bought a fashionable car in France.
That came as a shock. But Marxism has wilted by 2007 even in China. The strategic luminary of the
dictatorship of China is not Marx, but Sun Tzu, believing in a ruthless victory at one stroke, and not in
"class struggle" for centuries.
At the end of World War II, Stalin's troops entered Eastern Europe, and some members of the British
parliament argued that Stalin was annexing the Eastern Europe which his troops had occupied.
But in the British parliament rose a gentleman who said that he would not permit anyone in his
presence to speak disrespectfully of "Marshal" Stalin. He made a speech praising Stalin and "Stalin's
government."

The gentleman was the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Roosevelt had died. But Roosevelt's
wife, Eleanor, had written a book about Stalin and his Russia as laudatory as was Churchill's speech.
What was going on?
As Democrats, Roosevelt and his wife had respected Stalin even before World War II for not being right-
wing and reactionary. But the war against Hitler made Stalin a hero in their eyes.
Admiration of Stalin and Stalin's Russia was a fashionable political fantasy in the United States during
World War II.
When Shostakovich came, in 1949, to a conference in the United States, no lover of music would shake
hands with him. But when he had written the 7th Symphony, allegedly in Leningrad under the Nazi
siege in 1941, all of America's world-famous conductors performed it.
In 1945 in the British parliament, Churchill continued the adoration of Stalin, while the fashion was
quickly changing into its opposite, the Cold War.

The most conspicuous anti-Soviet American in the last three years of Stalin's life (1950-1953) was Sen.
McCarthy. The fear was that former or secret members of the American Communist Party could
infiltrate all the strategically important institutions of the U.S.; that is, take over the country. So Sen.
McCarthy tracked down all Communist connections and sympathies.
But this is just what Stalin had been doing in Russia in the 1930s — far more thoroughly and ruthlessly.
His subordinates on the eve of his death were not, ideologically, communists. Stalin's ideology in and
after World War II was Russian nationalism; and he even attacked — no, not yet Marx himself, but his
alter ego — Engels. Happy were Marx and Engels that they had not been living when Stalin's agent had
murdered Trotsky in Mexico in 1940 by stealing up behind him and splitting his skull with an alpine
axe.
Stalin's plan on the eve of his death in 1953 is known to me because Stalin had appointed as his top
subordinate a former priest, Panteleymon Ponomarenko, who lived in his country house not far from
ours after Stalin's death.
As Sen. McCarthy tracked down communist connections and sympathies, Stalin was preparing to
introduce Byzantine Christianity in Russia. Stalin had studied it at his seminary as a future Orthodox
priest. The Byzantine Emperor was God, and when he spoke, next to him stood an empty chair in which
sat an invisible Christ.

Also, what Sen. McCarthy did not notice either, was the advent of Mao to power in China in 1949.
The population of China now exceeds that of Russia more than eight times. But in the past 17 years the
political focus of the U.S. has been not China, but — Iraq!
In 1990, George H.W. Bush appointed April Glaspie U.S. ambassador to Iraq to assure Saddam Hussein
that the U.S. was not against Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. But when he did, George H.W. Bush
launched a war against Iraq, which has preoccupied the U.S. public attention for the next 17 years, while
China has existed for Sino-Western trade and friendship.
Never before had the U.S. political fantasy so dangerously distorted the mortally dangerous reality. In
2003, when Iraq was invaded (for which a majority of the Senate, including Hillary Clinton, had voted),
I wrote that the U.S. could be compared to a madman who is chasing a gnat, while a tiger nearby is
getting ready to bite off his head

China Developing the Ultimate

Super Weapon
In 1945, the ultimate super weapon was the atom bomb. I am interested in the ultimate super-weapon
of today, since if there is any chance that the development of it will succeed, this is the weapon the
dictatorship of China has been developing to annihilate the free West at a blow (or make it surrender
unconditionally).
The goal of eliminating the source of subversion is too important for the dictatorship of China to be
deterred by financial losses or a possibility of a failure. Recall that 100,000 riots or protests occur every
year in China, and the dictatorship may be overthrown (recall Tiananmen with its replica of the Statue
of Liberty) unless it annihilates or subjugates the free West.
In an e-mail to me, dated Aug. 20, Richard Mross wrote, "Your articles about China and recent history
are interesting, and very informative and chilling. I am convinced that China is vigorously pursuing
post-nuclear superweapons, and I’m sure they are successfully hiding this from the West. But why then
are they also spending so much money on conventional weapons like aircraft carriers, missiles,
submarines?"

First of all, my reader may notice that while developing atom bombs, which made Japan surrender
unconditionally, the United States continued to produce conventional weapons.
This is human nature: the fear of having all eggs in one basket. But there is probably something else in
the case of China. My reader has no doubt seen the Pentagon’s annual reports on the growth of China’s
military power. The reports are reassuring. China, a backward country, is trying to modernize itself and
thus become more like the most technologically advanced country the Pentagon can imagine: the U.S.
But imagine that the Pentagon discovers that China spends nothing on visible weapons. Surely even the
Pentagon may become suspicious.
Speaking of the United States, let me take molecular nano super weapons as an example of a scientific
vision. Eric Drexler wrote his volume on nanotechnology in 1986, and in 2007 I received on the Internet
its “20th anniversary edition updated and expanded” (630 pages). If successfully developed, this
scientific vision could be the ultimate super weapon of today.
The molecular nano weapon — a growing cloud advancing to its target and consisting of molecules
acting as artificial microbes or viruses, capable of multiplying and destroying everything in their path,
including their targets. On Page 355 of the 2007 edition of his study, Drexler states, "A [nuclear] bomb
can only blast things, but nanomachines and AI [artificial intelligence], can be used to infiltrate, seize,
change, and govern a territory of a world."
Quite apart from my reading of Drexler, I wrote a column about Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden (U.S. Army,
retired) describing super weapons. By way of gratitude, his Chenier Press has sent me his latest study of
super weapons, entitled “Oblivion: America at the Brink.” Bearden concludes his study as follows: "If we
are to survive, we shall need the most strenuous and rapid effort in our history, now. In time of grave
peril, Americans have always rallied to rational liberty and survival. We must do so again. God bless and
keep America! We pray for its survival."

But Beardon does not even mention Drexler or the word nano!
A new highly complex product, such as the ultimate super weapon, does not jump out of the heads of
scientists. Their scientific visions have to pass through technological development, like “the Manhattan
Project” of 1941-1945 as a result of which their scientific atomic visions became a finished product —
“the atom bomb,” duly tested and then forcing Japan to surrender unconditionally (Hitler had been
routed earlier and committed suicide, to avoid being taken prisoner by Soviet troops).
It is not clear to me how a project of development of Drexler’s and Bearden’s scientific visions can turn
into the ultimate super weapon, or how its development can even start similarly to the Manhattan
Project, if the two scientists seem to have never even heard of each other.
The fact that the atom bomb, the ultimate super weapon of 1945, was developed not by Hitler’s
Germany, but by the USA, Britain, and Canada, resulted from several historical accidents, fortunate for
the free West.

Germany had all the advantages of being the first country to develop the atom bomb, whereby Hitler
would have established his “world domination.”
The first advantage lost was the emigration (due to anti-Semitism in Europe) to the United States,
Britain, and Canada of some European scientists, including those of genius.
The second advantage was lost when Hitler declared war on the United States in 1941 because he
wanted to stop the U.S. military supplies to Britain for its defense — Hitler hoped that the German
seamen would hunt and destroy the U.S. ships more vigorously if the Germans knew that these were
enemy ships at war with Germany, while the U.S. military would think twice before sending their ships
across the Atlantic if the Americans knew that now their ships would confront enemy vessels at war with
the United States.
It was this “state of war” that helped the Manhattan Project, the development of the atom bomb, to
achieve its zenith in 1942, despite the initial sloth of the U.S. bureaucracy, including Roosevelt himself,
who did not notice for a month Einstein’s letter to him of August 2, 1939, possibly because he had never
heard of Einstein.
The cost of the Manhattan Project was enormous. Eventually, it had over 130,000 employees and cost
$23 billion in 2007 dollars. The map of the Manhattan Project in the United States looks like a map of
the United States. Add Britain and Canada.

Now, Hitler’s “atom project” flourished up to 1942. But Hitler had military setbacks, in particular, two
of them in Russia. In the second Russian setback, 80,000 German prisoners of war, captured along with
those in command, were marched through Moscow. Hitler’s Germany was on the brink of debacle. What
was the use of investing more money in the development of the atom bomb (and where could Hitler
obtain that money?) if the Soviet troops would enter Berlin before the bomb was ready?
Let’s compare the situation with that of today. China declaring war on the United States! Are you crazy?
In China, U.S. corporations reside as comfortably as in their own country, and the “government” of
China is friendly to them as they make fabulous profits (as also does the “government” of China) due to
the chasm between the pay at the level of slavery in China and the prices in the West of the goods thus
produced.
The dictatorship of China aims at “world domination”? You are crazy! Why on earth? Hitler did so
because he was anti-Semitic and in general the greatest villain in recorded history, who always shrieked
hysterically and waved his hands frantically — at least in the movies. Recall also Chaplin’s Hitler! On the
other hand, look at President Hu conversing with President Bush!
Finally, the dictators of China do understand Sun Tzu’s principle that war should be won, not fought.
Hitler fought for six years in the vast expanses, stretching from the Atlantic, France, and Britain to the
Volga, so that the atom bomb to win the war was beyond his resources.

The Mediocre Results of Voting

Rights
Let us imagine the hypothetical elections in 1950 of the world’s best physicist. That would be Einstein!
But my assistant tells me that a friend of his in Texas has sent him two quotations from Einstein: “It is
amazing that curiosity survives formal education,” and, “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger,
more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the
opposite direction.”
A Russian admirer of Einstein told me that Einstein (who died in 1955) used to say that he was
understood by seven people in the world. So the electorate, electing him, should consist of seven voters,
for in order to even vote against Einstein, a voter should be able to understand him.
I would presume that the rescue of the free West today from the Sino-Russian danger takes a mind no
less exceptional (in geostrategy) than Einstein’s (in 20th-century physics).
Officially, the form of government in England is called a “constitutional monarchy” (and that in the
United States a “constitutional republic”). As for “democracy,” it came from Athens and was opposed to
“aristocracy.” If democracy means the right of “demos,” that is any psychiatrically normal adult, to vote,
democracy did not exist in England until the 20th century, while its constitutionalism goes back to the
Magna Carta of 1215.

Democracy grants the right to vote to every psychiatrically healthy adult. But the greater the number of
voters, the lower their average mental level.
In the 19th century, British constitutionalism tried to maneuver between democracy, demanding
“universal suffrage”; that is, the right of every psychiatrically normal adult to vote, and the fact that the
percentage of mental ability, talent, and genius is in inverse ratio to the size of the electorate.
The Reform Act of 1832 was new for the constitutional monarchy of Britain (the United Kingdom). The
Act extended the voting rights of adult males, thereby allowing 1 in 7 adult males (about 14 percent) to
vote. Women had no voting rights since they were supposed to be smart about “domesticity,” not the
political affairs of the state and of the world. Of course, in the next century, Marie Curie became world-
known in 20th-century physics (she was 12 years older than Einstein). But such women could be
expected to be too few to justify the voting rights of 14 percent of adult women.
You may recall that in those days the Western countries were militarily more powerful than the rest of
the world, owing to the technology of the Industrial Revolution. Compare the geostrategic situation of
those days with what it is today, owing to the dictatorship of China and its 1.3 billion inhabitants, in
cooperation with Russia, whose post-nuclear super weapons go back to the 1950s.

All TV stations have been showing for years the current U.S. president; and last June and July, CNN
presented to us 18 presidential candidates for 2008. What can be said about them?
The elections in the West descended from the elections by a primitive tribe of its chief. That worked.
Every tribesman could see that the candidate is the tallest, heaviest, and hence probably strongest man
in the tribe. He was also the bravest, since he was the first to attack an enemy tribe. And look how well
he uses sticks, stones, and other weapons!
But how can American voters today evaluate their prospective chieftain?
Their current chieftain, a former failed oilman from Texas, is illiterate geostrategically. He has never
even mentioned the fact that the dictatorship of China is preparing, in cooperation with Putin’s Russia,
the demise of the free West. Who elected the current U.S. president and will elect his successor? Those
who themselves are illiterate geostrategically; and, like Hillary Clinton, were ready to play with the oil-
seeking Bushes at oil-rich Iraq until Iraq became too costly in terms of American lives and American
money, and perhaps will be more hostile (in the oil business as well!) to the United States than it was
under Saddam Hussein.

The present U.S. chieftain and his dear father do not seem to have read, before the war in Iraq, even a
five-line paragraph from “The World Almanac,” “THE AUTHORITY SINCE 1868,” on sale at any
stationery store in the U.S. If either had read just this tiny bit, it would have been obvious that the
overthrow and murder of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, by Shi’a, backed by foreign troops, would result in
a Sunni guerrilla war which the failed Texas oilman may call “terror,” for any war can be called “terror,”
except his own.
While finding China in cooperation with Putin’s Russia, ideally peaceful, the current and future U.S.
presidents (or U.S. nincompoops) may also provoke an Islamic revolt against the U.S., which may help
the Sino-Russian bloc. True, there are fewer Muslims (about 1 billion) than there are Chinese; but the
U.S. nincompoops may find that fighting the “terror” of 1 billion Muslims is more difficult than fighting
the “terror” of Iraqi Sunni, even when their guerrilla attack involved a dozen or two dozen of them.

The U.S. movement to universal mediocrity (or nincompoopery) could be relieved by political thinkers,
but where are they? Will “the mass communication media” let them appear before the microphones and
TV cameras unless they are as mediocre as any consumer of their “mass communications”? The winners
are those who can attract the greatest number of radio listeners or TV viewers and thus ensure the
greatest profit from whatever they advertise for sale — without paying attention to the fact that their
audience has the lowest common denominator as the electorate of the U.S. president and members of
the U.S. Congress.
As an alternative, the “mass communications media” interview nincompoops “with a string of academic
degrees.” Every radio listener or TV watcher is just bored but “science” requires the same respect that
“church” once did. What were the “academic degrees” of Einstein, Marie Curie — or Eric Drexler?
Nobody knows. A thinker was surrounded by an admiring elite that bought his or her books and the
magazines in which he or she published. This was devoid of that awe that “academia” instills with its
rituals, but saved the country from smug ubiquitous (and geostrategically suicidal) mediocrity.

Epoch Times for Chinese Dissident

Newspaper
I apply the word “dissident” to China as it was applied in post-Stalin Russia to a Russian who publicly
contradicted the Soviet propaganda and hence could be imprisoned, while under Stalin he could be
killed or tortured to death.
Publications in Russian, forbidden in Russia, go back to the times of absolutism and serfdom in Russia.
The Epoch Times began to be published (outside China) in 2000; its English edition appeared in 2004
and has been distributed free of charge, but I have never seen or heard it quoted by the U.S. media, and
I learned about its existence because its translator asked me for the permission to translate my columns
into Chinese for the edition of the newspaper in Chinese.
My Yahoo! offers 7,970,000 items for “The Epoch Times.” The first page of this list of items cites “Nine
Commentaries on the Communist Party,” which the newspaper published in 2004.

How many Chinese in China do share the views expressed in the “Commentaries”? That cannot be
known, but what is significant is that these views have appeared in a native Chinese mind (Zheng
Peichun, a Chinese dissident who was sentenced for his dissidence to seven years of imprisonment).
The first of the nine commentaries says: “The demise of the Chinese Communist Party is only a matter
of time.”
Such statements encourage the dissidence. But they also frighten the dictatorship and make it more
anxious to achieve “world domination.”
The second Commentary explains that the “Chinese Communist Party” has no legitimacy. It “has set
itself above all, conquering all in its path, thereby bringing an endless catastrophe in China.”
According to the third Commentary, the essence of the CCP is “struggle against both China and other
nations.”
According to the fourth Commentary, “the Communist Party is an anti-universe force.”
Commentary five is about “the collusion of Jiang Zemin [the predecessor of Hu Jintao] with the CCP to
persecute Falun Gong.”
Commentary six is devoted to how the CCP has destroyed “a rich traditional Chinese culture.”

The CCP’s “history of killing” is the subject of the seventh Commentary — up to 80 million innocent
Chinese have been killed under the rule of the CCP.
Commentary eight explains that what is called Marxism is “an evil cult that harms mankind.”
The ninth (final) Commentary states that “it is especially important for us to understand why the CCP
acts criminally and to expose its criminal nature.”
We may recall in this connection the Tiananmen uprising and the fact that about 100,000 “riots”
annually occur in China today. As “The Nine Commentaries” indicate, such events have profound
mental roots in the free West, known in China owing to the world media, such as the Internet.
Type the words “Epoch Times” on a computer in New York, and you will have the publication on the
screen, and the printing of “The Nine Commentaries” will take seconds. We have heard much on the
Chinese dictators’ electronic search for the “wrong” Internet images, but it is difficult to imagine that
the search is 100 percent effective even though American corporations have been said to help the
dictatorship of China in this respect in exchange for their trade privileges.
And here The Epoch Times publishes in England, in the United States, and other English-speaking
countries and in many other countries in many other languages. The only way out for the dictatorship of
China is to give up their dictatorship or to annihilate the free West as an involuntary source of pro-
Western sedition in China of which “The Nine Commentaries” are a fair example.
The dictators of China cannot annihilate The Epoch Times published in New York. Nor has it been able
to expurgate “The Nine Commentaries” in this newspaper. Just as the replica of the Statue of Liberty in
Tiananmen Square during the uprising, “The Nine Commentaries” show how the Chinese mind is linked
mentally with the free West.
The fact is that it is impossible in the 21st century to isolate China and the free West as it was possible
before the advent of the Internet. The Soviet dictators began after World War II to jam the Western
broadcasts in Russian. That diminished the Russian knowledge of the outside world. But it should be
born in mind that a curtailed knowledge of the outside world may produce a mythological perception of
it: thus, owing to the Soviet radio jamming many Russians mythologized the free West into a paradise,
which was one of the causes of the fall of the Soviet dictatorship in 1991.

Historically speaking, there have never coexisted two worlds — free and un-free — which could
communicate as by today’s means of global communication. The un-free world cannot exist without
annihilating or subjugating the free world, the source of subversion by the fact of its very existence and
without any intention to subvert. The very existence of the free world produces a powerful flow of
subversion, which cannot be sealed off hermetically, given the global communication of today.

Creating a Russian Beethoven

John Franse, a generous reader and friend of mine (and a lover of classical music), asked me in an e-
mail to write a column about the “Soviet composer” Dmitri Shostakovich.
On the shelves of my library is a 917-page volume, published in 2000 in Russia and in Russian, entitled
“Shostakovich Between a Moment and Eternity.” I cannot discuss its 917-page pages in my three-page
column, but one point may be of interest.
Just as those who have never been hungry cannot imagine how it feels to be starving or dying of hunger,
so the Russian and Western contributors to this volume cannot imagine how it felt living in Stalin’s
Russia.
In contrast to Rachmaninoff, who was 44 when Lenin and his associates came to the absolute autocratic
possession of the country in 1917 and who managed to emigrate in 1918, Shostakovich was 11, and had
to stay in the new owners’ Russia.

In the 1920s, it was impossible to turn into propaganda the Russian culture, inherited from old Russia,
since the new owners of the country themselves had different tastes in culture, and what seemed great
art to the cultural sophisticate Bukharin could have seemed trash to the cultural illiterate Stalin.
But in the 1930s, the new owners of Russia came to constitute a single uniform bunch, led by Stalin, and
all that was not Stalin’s propaganda became suspicious or just harmful, counter-revolutionary, anti-
Soviet, or at least unseemly and vulgar.
Shostakovich’s opera “Lady Macbeth of Mzensk” was staged in 1934 in Moscow, and in the following
year at the Metropolitan Opera House as well as in Cleveland and Philadelphia. In the opera, the
heroine kills both her husband and her father-in-law for the sake of her lover. The story was written by
Nikolai Leskov, a Russian 19th-century classic, who took the name of the heroine from Shakespeare, of
course. Then, in January 1936, “Pravda” launched an annihilating attack upon the opera, and its music.
The Russian culture of the 1920s was over.
But how to use Shostakovich for propaganda?
In 1960 he had joined the Communist Party of the Soviet Union — to general laughter, for an artist or
intellectual did not “join the party” any more to save his life — its heyday after Stalin’s death in 1953 was
over. Why on earth did he “join the party”?
At an evening tea party, a cheerful jolly man came up to him and began to joke about his joining the
Communist Party: “So, they have hooked you in, after all!” Shostakovich dropped a cup of tea he was
holding and scalded his feet.
The “new Soviet culture,” that is, totalitarian propaganda, wanted a Soviet Beethoven. In his last
(Ninth) Symphony, Beethoven greeted a new era of mankind. And here this era came — originally into
Soviet Russia. So the new live Beethoven was to hail it!
But Shostakovich’s Fourth Symphony, already in rehearsal, in 1936, was found by his owners just
gloomy. Where is the Beethovenian joy of the new era of mankind?
Shostakovich withdrew his Fourth Symphony from the rehearsal and wrote his Fifth Symphony, which
delighted Pravda, which saw in it Beethoven’s “grandiose vistas”! No, it was not gloomy, but “tragically
tense”!
So far, so good. Shostakovich was a slave, and a slave has to do and be what his owners ask of him.

But he overdid his fear by writing across the score of his Fifth Symphony: “Creative reply of a Soviet
artist to just criticism.”
The head of a family we knew in Moscow was a friend of Shostakovich, and a foreign correspondent
interviewed the man about the composer. The interviewee explained (he assumed that his name would
be confidential) that the favorite book of Shostakovich had been written by Ehrenburg when the latter
had been living in the West and was a kind of Orwell before Orwell. Dostoyevsky wrote about the Great
Inquisitor. Ehrenburg’s hero was looking for the Great Provocateur, whom he finally found in Lenin.
But the essence of Shostakovich was fear, according to the interviewee, and he pretended to be Soviet as
much as he could.
The name of the interviewee slipped out — and he was shot.
On his 50th birthday, Shostakovich was awarded the highest Soviet award, the Order of Lenin, and
when Stalin was alive, he received Stalin’s prize of 100,000 rubles, a sum that an “average Soviet
citizen” could not even imagine.
But I believe that his major motive was infinite fear — to him the value of the Order of Lenin or of
Stalin’s Prize was a sign that he would not be shot as was that interviewee, a friend of his, for disclosing
his anti-Soviet stand.

In 1942 the Nazis began the extermination of Jews as of an inferior race. If Jews were an inferior race,
the Russians for the Nazis were an even more inferior race, and following their victory in Russia, the
Nazis could well begin the extermination of Russians. No matter how a Russian hated Stalinism,
Hiterism was for him or her even worse. The Symphony of Shostakovich, dedicated to the Nazi siege of
Leningrad was sincere, but this sincerity coincided with Stalin’s will.
Generally remembered by listeners to the Symphony is a highly unpleasant Nazi mach. In this
connection, the image of the real Beethoven inevitably comes up. When the German lands were fighting
against the France of Napoleon, Beethoven put French marches into his music, for it seemed to him that
France may lead mankind to the new era of his Ninth Symphony. That is, he was on the side of a
military enemy! But when Napoleon made himself an emperor, Beethoven tore up his dedication to him
and said: “He is as much of a nonentity as any other nonentity!”

Andrew Jackson Champion of

Liberty Award
On Sep. 17, Constitution Day, I came to the Holiday Inn Rosslyn in Arlington, Va., to be presented with
this year’s Andrew Jackson “Champion of Liberty” Award.
My wife, Muza, accompanied me — she is my editor (she was a senior editor at McGraw-Hill for years),
and my helpmate, since she has a strong everyday practical sense, of which I have none.
Below is the gist of my acceptance speech.
When I was a child in Russia, we sang the “German Communist Song”: “The two worlds are in the final
clash: Our motto is a world Soviet land!”
Well, the world did not become a world Soviet land. The result? The collapse of the Soviet dictatorship
in 1991 despite all of its world’s largest armed forces and its diabolical secret police. There is no doubt
that in their choice of the political order the Russian rebels emulated the free West.
That is, without any subversive actions on its part, the free West subverts dictatorships by the very
existence of its Western liberty, which, owing to the development of global communications, can be
concealed less and less from, let me put it bluntly, “the state slaves” of a dictatorship.
In this respect, the plight of the China dictatorship is much worse than was that of the Soviet
dictatorship in 1991. There has appeared the Internet, through which a Chinese dissident émigré
magazine like “The Epoch Times” can have its 8 million itemized articles on every Chinese computer
within China and outside it. Just choose an article of interest to you and read it. No censorship can
detect every Chinese reading every Internet article. Tiananmen might have pulled down the dictatorship
of the “Chicom land” just as the Soviet rebellion pulled down the dictatorship of Soviet Russia two years
later. Tiananmen? But about 100,000 Tiananmens, of every size and form possible, occur annually in
China today.

The world domination may be infinitely pleasant per se to the totalitarian owners of a country.
Totalitarian ownership may have all that money can buy — and more. When Beria, an ugly old
Georgian, was in charge of Stalin’s secret police, he would point to a woman he found attractive, and she
would be delivered to him. The entire world could have become his harem — free of charge.
But in today’s world, the world domination is not only infinitely pleasant, for the dictators of China, but
it is the only way to survive Tiananmens: Our motto is a world Chicom land!
Last year I read in the Howard Phillips Bulletin that according to the former U.S. secretary of the Navy,
“China is building their 600-ship navy, while we are on the way to a 150-ship navy.”
Unlike the United States, China does not lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Except for its one
eastern edge, it is tucked away deep into Asia. And yet its Navy is expected to have four times more
ships than does the Navy of the United States!
Yet these are only visible weapons. Post-nuclear weapons may be invisible. Here is for example a nano
weapon, described by Eric Drexler, the founder of nano technology, way back in 1986. But there is a
good saying: “A prophet is without honor in his own country” (St. John 4:44). The photographs of
Drexler were displayed in research institutes in China, and all of his books and articles were posted on
the Chinese Internet in English, with Chinese explications.
In the United States? In 1938, nuclear weapons were only scientific dreams. It took the Manhattan
Project to develop this dream into a product — an actual weapon, which was a total surprise in 1945 for
Japan, and Japan, a country of samurai, obligated to kill themselves in case of cowardice in an
especially horrible manner, and of suicidal kamikaze, surrendered unconditionally.

Had Hitler allowed to be regarded after 1938 as a cofounder of that Munich “peace in our time,” while
continuing secretly to develop nuclear weapons and had developed them ahead of the United States, the
world would be his! But instead, he ran out of resources to continue his development of nuclear
weapons because he had launched conventional war (“in the rump” of Czechoslovakia, in Poland, in
France, against Britain in the air and on high seas, and finally, in Soviet Russia). He even declared war
on the United States, thereby facilitating the Manhattan Project. Thus, he perished owing to his own
geostrategic stupidity.
Nuclear weapons became obsolete due to Mutual Assured Destruction. A nuclear country — be it the
United States, China, or Russia — conceals a certain nuclear arsenal in, for example, submarines
submerged deep under water. Suppose an attacking nuclear country has “nuked” another nuclear
country. The hidden submarines of the attacked nuclear country surface and destroy the attacking
country.
Nuclear weapons can only blast large areas — cities, for example. They cannot seek out secret enemy
nuclear arsenals. This is what nano weapons can do, according to Drexler.

Drexler’s scientific vision of nano weapons (a growing hurricane cloud of self-replicating, virus-like,
nano sized computers — one-billionth of a meter) needs a Manhattan Project even more than did the
scientific visions of nuclear weapons. But Congress did not give a cent to Drexler’s Foresight Institute,
since nano businessmen, wishing to get all the nanotechnological allocations of Congress for the
production of their peaceful, profitable, and otherwise admirable nano goods, assured Congress that
Drexler’s nano weapons are not worth a penny — not one cent of the cost of a Manhattan Project.
Nay, Drexler has been thrown out of the Foresight Institute he founded in 1986. He was born in 1955.
Too young to be discarded under the pretext of old age. Yes, a prophet is without honor in his own
country and even without his own research institute he founded 20 years ago, at the age of 31.
The biography of this man of genius shows how eager is a dictatorship (as in China) to acquire a weapon
capable, as the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu put it, to win a war without fighting it, and how nonchalant is
the constitutional and democratic West in matters of its survival. Note that neither the current U.S.
president, nor the 18 presidential contenders for 2008 whom CNN showed this summer as much as
mentioned any danger the China dictatorship presents (in cooperation with Putin’s Russia?) to the
countries of Liberty.
Is the free West doomed? Today I have spent several hours with one of the presidential candidates in
the 2000 election. This man struck me with his absolutely retentive memory, political acumen, and
powerful intelligence in general. You must have guessed that I am referring to the Hon. Howard
Phillips, who organized this meeting today, and as soon as I told him that Robert Morton, editor and
publisher of WorldTribune.com, was among those present, he immediately recalled that Robert had
been the editor-in-chief of “The New York City Tribune” (in the 1980s) and said that it was the best
newspaper in the United States.

Yet in 2000 Howard Phillips did not win the presidency which was gained — hold to your chairs! — by
George W. Bush! Why and how on earth?
I will not say a word about Bush since I ran out of my sarcasm on the subject in 2000, 2003, and 2004.
As for Howard Phillips, he has been engaged in academic subjects that most voters do not understand
or are not interested in.
But if Howard Phillips makes the dictatorship of China and the Western defense against this mortal
danger the subject of prime-time television . . . I hear the cry: “Where is the money? Bush and his father
and his vice-president are oil men!”
Nowadays presidential candidates collect for their campaigns dozens of millions of dollars not as lump
sum contributions, but by collecting millions of donations of several dollars each.
Television also has a commercial advertising potential if it attracts sufficiently large audiences.
Let me quote two short paragraphs from the “Final urgent commentary” of Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden
(U.S. Army, retired), concluding his study of post-nuclear super weapons: “Oblivion: America at the
Brink”:
“The darkest days in the history of our republic lie immediately ahead of us.”
“If we are to survive, we shall need the most strenuous and rapid effort in our history, now.”
I am sure that the majority of the Western electorate will follow the advice of Lt. Col. Bearden and will
elect the Honorable Howard Phillips as the U.S. president rather than will submit to a general holocaust
of the West to perpetuate the dictatorship of China.

E-mail: U.S. Is Omnipotent

On Aug. 26, I received an e-mail from Mark Wilkins, a reader of mine, and presumably an American
voter. He believes in the military omnipotence of the United States.
Well, I am sure that some Chinese are not less self-congratulatory about the military omnipotence of
China, and some Russians had believed before Hitler came to power that the West was about to
establish socialism similar to Soviet socialism, and thus they would become one global country now and
anon. But such self-congratulatory “patriots” were and are not voters — they were and are just cogs of a
totalitarian machine run by its owners.
On the other hand, in the last analysis, the American electorate determines the geostrategic behavior of
the United States, and hence of the free West in general. Yet this is what voter Wilkins writes to me, the
subject line of his e-mail being “The China Threat”: “Do you think that China can compete with America
militarily?”

Well, war is not a business-like competition. Four years ago Mr. Wilkins could ask no less triumphantly:
“Do you think that Iraq (that is, its Sunni) can compete with America (population 300 million)
militarily?” In 1945, the U.S. did not defeat Japan in a competition: in 1945, the U.S. had a super
weapon (the atom bomb) while Japan had not even started its development. If Hitler had concentrated
(instead of having been engaged in conventional war) on the development of nuclear weapons and were
ahead of the United States, the latter would have surrendered unconditionally as did Japan.
What if China is developing a post-nuclear super weapon, such as a nano super weapon? The U.S.
electorate believes like Wilkins that nuclear weapons are the first and the last weapons which can
“obliterate” a country “in less than an hour,” as he puts it (see below).
Wilkins continues his march of victory on the assumption that only the U.S. and its allies have in 2007
nuclear weapons as the U.S. did in 1945, while Russia or China trembles at the mere mention of them in
2007: “I’m not trying to seem angry or anything like that, but do you think that it’s possible for a nation
such as China or Russia, to militarily invade the United States? What would keep us from obliterating
them with nuclear weapons, in less than an hour?”

Obviously, the voter Wilkins visualizes China’s or Russia’s invasion of the United States as Hitler’s
invasions of World War II. But what if it is an invasion with nano weapons, which will reduce all U.S.
nuclear weapons to cosmic dust in less than half an hour?
But apart from the innocence of the voter Wilkins concerning post-nuclear weapons, even with respect
to nuclear weapons, he seems never to have heard of Mutual Assured Destruction, though several years
ago the phrase was repeated daily. A nuclear power, be it the U.S., Russia, or China, hides (in a
submerged submarine, for example) a nuclear arsenal, and when the cities of the attacked country have
been annihilated, its hidden submarine arsenal annihilates the attacking country.

The voter Wilkins assumes that just as in 1945, in 2007 there exist and can exist only nuclear weapons,
and they can be possessed only by the United States and its allies.
The end of the Wilkins statement is also triumphant: “Keep in mind that Bush gave India nuke fuel and
technology that allows them to produce 50 to 75 modern nuclear weapons a year, and the European
Union has between 800 and 1,000 warheads, if you believe the news stories following the Bush/Singh
accords, and the estimates of EU nukes in the news.”
Alas, just as a drop of water reflects the world around it, the voter Wilkins reflects what a considerable
part of the electorate voted and will vote for in 2008.
The voter Wilkins sounds like the current U.S. president or the presidential candidates. The problem
has been to defeat the Sunni of Iraq or withdraw from Iraq. On the other hand, China is perceived as a
safe haven, without even nuclear weapons of 1945, which the U.S. and its allies have and India will soon
have, while China or Russia will not — never ever!

As for post-nuclear super weapons, such have never existed or can exist, for they would introduce a false
note into the triumphant march of the voter Wilkins.
Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden (U.S. Army, retired) called his 367-page book about post-nuclear weapons
“Oblivion: America at the Brink.”
No, according to the voter Wilkins, post-nuclear weapons do not even exist. Nothing has appeared in
the world of weapons after nuclear weapons.
Lt. Col. Bearden ought to have entitled his book “No Oblivion: America and Its Allies at the Permanent
Highest Peak of Military Power.” Or “Oblivion: China at the Brink.”
But not even once have I seen Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden on television. His book was sent to me as a
present by his publishers. So what do you expect to hear from the voter Wilkins? He repeats what he has
seen and heard on television — a march of victory at the level of a 6-year-old, and this is how he will
vote!

Unrestricted War Planned by China

When I mention, say, the development in China of nano super weapons, capable of winning war without
waging it (as Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese strategist would have put it), some of my readers ask me in
their e-mails — respectfully and good-naturedly — whether I can adduce the proofs of that apocalypse of
the West I envisage.
I have been told by a Chinese that the Chinese “Manhattan Projects,” developing post-nuclear super
weapons, are located deep in the rocky mountains so that nobody could drill a hole in the walls, in the
floor and/or the ceiling to get a glimpse into what is being done within.
So a special mobile drill should be constructed for me (at the cost of $100 billion?) to move into those
rocky mountains, drill a hole in them, sufficient to get out a half-ready nano super weapon and bring it
before Western TV cameras as proof of development of nano super weapons in China.

Let me note, however, that despite the fact that the U.S. Manhattan Project, which developed nuclear
weapons, had about 200,000 employees and spread all over the U.S., it proved to be a total secret in
1945 to Japan, a highly militarized country with a powerful military intelligence, until two U.S. nuclear
bombs were dropped on Japanese cities. Why then should Westerners have to see a Chinese nano
weapon to believe that the dictatorship of China has Manhattan Projects developing post-nuclear super
weapons?
Incidentally, when I pulled up on my computer The Epoch Times (a Chinese dissident newspaper), I
saw that Point 19 referred to a “secret nano project, analogous to the Manhattan Project, which
produced in 1945 nuclear weapons.”
According to the BBC News, as of March 2004, 71 percent of the English people had never heard of
nano technology. In China, the magazine “National Defense” carried on June 15, 1996, the article
“Nanotech Weapons in Future Warfare” by Maj. Gen. Sun Bailin, while in 2000 the mass newspaper
“Beijing Evening” of Nov. 13 carried an entertaining article “for the masses”: “The Little Nano Devil
Catches the Huge Evil Spirit.” However, the text of the article was quite serious and scientific.

A book, written by two officers of the "Chinese Liberation Army" and published by its publishing house
in February 1999, suggested by its very title, “Unrestricted War,” that no weapons, such as “chemical”
and “biological” weapons, which were excluded from World War II (even Hitler forbade their
development), should be excluded from the “unrestricted war.” The two Chinese officers wrote (Page
224): “Regardless of whether we are talking about Hitler, Mussolini, Truman, Johnson, or Saddam,
none of them have mastered war.”
From its section “About us” we learn that “Nano China” is “supported and endorsed” by the Institute of
Nanotechnology in Britain. As is clear from its title, the ultimate goal of “Co-Lab International” is to
convert all laboratories (including those of China, of course!) into a single “world lab.”
The article “China” of “Co-Lab International” occupies in Yahoo! 28 pages and begins as follows: “On
the 23rd of March 1987, a Scientific Co-operation agreement was signed between the Government of
New Zealand and the Government of the People’s Republic of China. The agreement encouraged the
exchange of research ideas, equipment and people between our two countries.”

The reference to “people” is significant. Suppose in New Zealand there has appeared a nano scientist or
technologist of genius.
In China, the dictatorship establishes arbitrarily high salaries for those important for the development
of new promising super weapons, such as nano super weapons. So the dictatorship of China receives a
nano scientist-technologist of genius by way of the exchange of people “between our two countries.”
Thus, the dictatorship of China can gather the Western creative genius in the field apart from its own
native genius.
The section of “Co-Lab International,” entitled “Nanotechnology,” numbers in Yahoo! 44 pages! The
first one-quarter of a page of these 44 pages, describing “international cooperation in nano research”
reads as follows:

Action envisaged:
Nanotechnologies and nanosciences:
(a) long-term interdisciplinary research into understanding phenomena, mastering
processes and developing research tools;
(b) supramolecular architectures and macromolecules;
(c) nano-biotechnologies;
(d) nanometer-scale engineering techniques to create materials and components;
(e) development of handling and control devices and instruments;
(f) applications in areas such as health, chemistry, energy, and environment.
Politically, the authors of this “international co-lab” activity are at the level of preschool children. They
do not seem to realize that dictatorship does exist, and in particular it exists in China, with its
population of 1.3 billion people. Nor do these politically preschool children seem to realize that
“unrestricted war” is planned by the Chinese military, to include post-nuclear weapons, such as nano
super weapons, able to destroy the West at a blow (shashou jian, as Sun Tzu would have put it in
Chinese).

No Security in U.S. Hubris

The phrase “Industrial Revolution” originated in England in 1848. This was a time when machines
made out of steel were employed to make many standard goods and, most notably, machine-like
conveyors or assembly lines were used. These were collectiviely called a plant or a factory, and they
worked as a single huge machine, consisting of a line of mindless manual workers.
The cultural elite of China was horrified. The concept of “mass production” was unknown, and
unwelcome in China, which considered itself the center of the world!
Every Chinese lady’s gown or frock should differ by the choice of silks (for many centuries unknown
outside China) and every cup, plate, or vase by its shape and design (porcelain was also unknown
outside China). The Industrial Revolution was kept out of China as an invention of savages.
But a country’s military power depended in those times on the production of machines and machine
weapons. At one time, the territory of British colonies exceeded that of England itself more than 90
times. When the Chinese government forbade the English merchants to sell opium to the population of
China, England forced China by means of two wars to accept the sale of its opium.

England established a colony or a series of colonies (called America from 1507 on), and lost them due to
a local rebellion. But conquests are undertaken for certain purposes.
In the conquest of “India” (America) Columbus had two purposes: gold and slaves (to be sold in Europe
for gold). China had paper money and needed no slaves. The world outside China seemed, if viewed
from China by the Chinese cultural elite, a gathering of savages that had nothing China would covet. So
the gigantic navy of China was on the defensive, coursing along the coast of China.
Predictably, England considered itself the most modern, advanced, and developed country; and China
the most backward, obsolete, and underdeveloped territory, which was later being conquered by Japan
until the latter surrendered unconditionally to U.S. nuclear weapons.
What about the post-Industrial Revolution times?
In an August 2, 1939 letter to Roosevelt, about the possibility of nuclear weapons, Einstein mentioned
Fermi, Szillard, and Joliot. Neither Einstein nor those whom he mentioned had been native Americans.
They had emigrated from Europe to America as anti-Semitism began to spread. Nuclear research had
nothing to do with the Industrial Revolution and its machines or machine weapons.
A post-Industrial "Cerebral Revolution" was on. Anti-Semitism in Europe was good luck for the U.S., for
otherwise Germany would have defeated the United States by nuclear weapons.

Nor does the war in Iraq have anything to do with the Industrial Revolution or with its post-
revolutionary nuclear weapons.
The United States and Britain perceived themselves as the most modern, advanced, and developed
countries.
Their soldiers in Iraq wore camouflage uniforms, and on the generals’ uniforms there was not enough
space for all decorations for all old dazzling victories. For every Sunni fighter there were several U.S.
tanks and nuclear bombs, to say nothing of old trifles like machine-guns, which ensure victory,
according to Kipling, who glorified the British military power. But what has been happening for four
years in Iraq?
Sunni guerrillas would hit and vanish.
The record of U.S. losses has been not only of human casualties, but also that of financial costs, with all
those armored vehicles and other industrial splendors. This has been the most idiotic defeat of an
invader in the history of wars.
The dictatorship of China came in the post-Industrial Revolution era. Before 1945, a country’s military
might was still estimated by its output of steel. But nuclear weapons were not industrial machines of
steel, but clots or clusters of human thought. The U.S. victory in the Iraq war has required no steel at all,
but smartness, intelligence, and to begin with, the good sense not to start that war for those who were
after the Iraqi oil, but too stupid to satisfy their greed.

A country’s military success depends today not on its output of steel, but on its output of thought, for
even weapons themselves are not steel, but thoughts, such as the thought that impelled Einstein to write
that Aug. 2, 1939 letter to Roosevelt or which was put into nuclear weapons, decisive for the outcome of
World War II.
In contrast to steel, thought cannot be weighed and tabled in thousands of tons. Do constitutional and
democratic societies have an advantage in thought? Einstein developed and reached the peak of
recognition in the Kaiser’s Germany, and he left Germany only when he learned in 1933 (he was in the
United States) that Hitler’s power meant for him anti-Semitic banditry: Their home in Germany was
attacked and pillaged.
Had Germany remained the “Kaiser’s Germany,” he and other Jewish scientists of genius would not
have emigrated and possibly would have developed nuclear weapons in the Kaiser’s Germany ahead of
any other country.

The Chinese are not the primitive Asiatics that many Westerners imagine them to be. Book printing
originated in China; Newtonian mathematics had appeared in China before Newton; and the Chinese
used gas for heating and lighting more than 20 centuries before the Western Europeans did.
What if the dictatorship of China creates conditions as favorable for thoughts in science as they were in
the Kaiser’s Germany?
On the other hand, the war in Iraq was conceived in the United States by idiots; most of whom were for
the war in 2003 and are against it in 2007. With the death of Sidney Hook in 1989, the last
internationally known American thinker was gone.
His name was already dropped by the Britannica of 1971, and I told him, much to his amusement, that
in Soviet Russia he was in every reference book as an “apologist of American imperialism.”
Thinkers have been replaced by television hosts and their “guests,” such as “academics” who are invited
by television as “experts” under the assumption that thinking can be divided into “academic fields” with
an “expert” paid by his university for the “teaching” of new “experts” — an unprecedented mammoth
bureaucracy, which did nothing to prevent the insane oil war in Iraq.

China’s Olympic Moment Same as

Hitler’s

The 1936 Olympics took place in Germany. In 1938, Hitler was generally regarded in the West as a
cofounder of the Munich “peace in our time” agreement.
So in 1936, the peaceful Munich he envisioned still lay ahead. The 1936 Olympics were to bring about
warmer social ties between him and the victims of his forthcoming attacks. No wonder President
Roosevelt attended the Games.
Three years later Hitler was waging a world war for world domination. To prevent his subordinates’
betrayal of him to the English-speaking countries, after his debacle near Moscow, he secretly ordered
them to begin the extermination of Jews. This way, in the eyes of the U.S. and the British, his
subordinates were seen as the heinous criminals, while he was to be seen as having known nothing
about the “final solution.”
Fortunately for his enemies, he ran out of resources to continue his development of nuclear weapons,
the key to global domination.
Such was the post-history of the 1936 Olympics.
As for the 2008 Olympics in China (Aug. 8-24), Human Rights Watch began its section of Aug. 2, 2007,
in Yahoo! (see http://china.hrw.org) with the following utopia in big type: “The 2008 Beijing Olympic
Games are a historic opportunity for the Chinese Government to show the world that it has the
confidence to make tangible and sustainable progress in ensuring basic human rights for its 1.3 billion
citizens.”

I feel that this utopia is so utopian that any sarcastic remarks of mine in the past decades concerning the
march of China’s dictatorship toward “basic human rights” would be anticlimactic.
The dictatorship of China holds Olympics for the same purposes Hitler held them in 1936.
On Oct. 11, 2007, at a special conference of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, Bob Dietz,
the Asia program coordinator of the Committee to Protect Journalists, spoke about the persecution of
China’s journalists in China.
He gave no statistics concerning the journalists tortured by the dictatorship of China. But he said that
China had been leading the world since 1999 “in the number of jailed journalists.” Yet despite this
“world record” (by no means Olympic), “in 2001, the International Olympic Committee awarded the
Games to China.”
The public communications in China are not created by journalists themselves. Certainly, Zhao Yan did
not create either The New York Times or its Beijing bureau, or his job as a researcher in that bureau. Yet
he was imprisoned in 2004 for a New York Times (correct) prediction that Jiang Zemin would retire as
the head of the military commission.
Chen Kai, a former Chinese national basketball player, now in Washington, D.C., published on Sept. 28,
2007, in Chinaview and The Epoch Times (both “dissident publications”) a letter to President Bush,
calling him to “join our Olympic Freedom Run,” to “clarify your moral standing and solidarity with
freedom-loving people in China”:

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Bush:
As the 2008 Beijing Olympics fast approach, we as freedom-loving people realize as
that time comes, we are standing at the threshold between human freedom in our
future and human despotism from our past. Having learned that you had accepted an
invitation from Mr. Hu Jintao to attend the opening ceremony for the 2008 Beijing
Olympics, I like to extend my invitation to you to join our “Olympic Freedom Run” in
Washington DC on September 30, 2007 from the Memorial of Communism Victims
to the Lincoln Memorial.
As a former Chinese National basketball-Team player, I feel compelled by my
conscience to speak out — not just to speak out against oppression, slavery and
human degradation, but to speak out for human freedom, for hope, for a better
tomorrow. I am speaking out not just for those innocent lives perished under the
communist regime, not just for those who still suffer under the same oppressive
regime of the Chinese communist government, but also for those who are suffering
under all kinds of despotism, old and new, in the world.

Chen Kai recalls the 1936 Berlin Olympics:

History should not repeat itself, and we as free people will make sure that Olympic
spirit is nothing but the spirit of human freedom, but not opium to induce illusions
for despotism and tyranny. Any government that wants to use the Olympics for its
own oppressive and reactionary policies against human freedom should be put into
the spotlight and have evil exposed. The 2008 Beijing Olympics should be an
example of how the cause of human freedom is pushed forward by the Olympic
movement, not pushed backward.
As an athlete with a conscience, I call upon all athletes, all coaches, all people in the
athletic establishment in the world, all sports fans and all tourists who will
participate in the 2008 Beijing Olympics to awaken your conscience, pluck up your
courage and listen to the call from the deepest recess of your soul to join our
“Olympic Freedom T Shirt” global movement.
Chen Kai correctly assumes that President Bush will not be tortured or even just imprisoned for “x”
years, for wearing an “Olympic Freedom” T-shirt. Certainly not now — not yet.

When you stroll on the Tiananmen Square, under the stare of the giant portrait of
Mao — the biggest mass murderer in human history, when you remember those who
died in the 1989 Tiananmen massacre, wear our “Olympic Freedom T-shirt.”
Mr. President, we do not advocate boycotting the Beijing Summer Olympics. We
hope that you use your presence in the 2008 Beijing Olympics to spread the message
of Truth, Justice, Liberty and Dignity to all human beings on the planet earth. We
want to see you use your moral conviction, your appreciation of the human yearning
for the eternal values of mankind to spread the message of hope and human freedom.
I, as a Chinese athlete with a conscience, call upon the voice in your conscience; call
upon your moral courage, your action and your prayer for freedom for the Chinese
people, for freedom for all the people in the world. In wearing our “Olympic Freedom
T-shirt” and joining our “Olympic Freedom Run,” you are expressing your solidarity
and your support for the freedom-loving people in China. You are indeed building a
better tomorrow for the world.
Hereby I cordially extend my invitation to you to join our Washington DC “Olympic
Freedom Run.”
Sincerely,
 Chen Kai

The Crushing Force of Dictatorship

A friend of mine sent me an article from an international periodical in Russian, Lenta.ru, about a rising
wave of censorship of the Internet in China by its dictatorship.
Absolutism always believed that if its “state slaves” knew only what Absolutism allowed them to know,
they would be loyal; for their minds would be packed only with information on how they should be loyal
to Absolutism and why.
A human mind was assumed to be a vessel containing only what was poured into it by Absolutist
propaganda and behaving accordingly. The dictatorships of the past century have added nothing new to
this Absolutist approach, except for a larger scale of persecution of any deviation or dissent from their
conformity assuring their “state slaves” that no social order can be better for them than “state slavery,”
called communism, national socialism, fascism, and other new names.

At the age of 42 I was still living in Soviet Russia, with my wife and a son, in a three-story suburban
stone mansion, which in the United States would cost millions of dollars. The money to buy it in Soviet
Russia? I was the first and probably the last translator of Russian classical literature into English
without having ever lived in any English-speaking country. But for all our prosperity, our dream was
freedom.
I wanted to publish what I wanted, not what Russian classics did. And suddenly there was a wild rumor.
He or she with at least one parent who was Jewish could apply for permission to emigrate to Israel!
Which practically meant to anywhere as soon as you crossed the Soviet border.
Stalin was the first to recognize the independence of Israel. He did it to contribute to the disintegration
of the British Empire, but Israelis like Golda Meir concluded that Stalin did it out of his love for Jews.
To enable prosperous Soviet Jews (my mother, a medical doctor, was Jewish) to emigrate to Israel was
the best way to sustain the Israeli-Soviet amity, initiated first by Stalin and then sustained by Golda
Meir, who became prime minister of Israel in 1969.
My wife and I had grown up amid Soviet propaganda since childhood.
How purely Soviet the dictatorship expected us to be! At the same time, we were prosperous. We would
tell the Israeli how prosperous we were in Soviet Russia! The illusion of the Soviet dictatorship lasted till
my first article appeared in the New York “Commentary” magazine (October 1972).

Now the Soviet dictatorship came to consider me its worst enemy since 1918, and 20 years earlier
(under Stalin), an attempt would be made on my life. Actually, in another 20 years (in 1991) the Soviet
dictatorship collapsed. It may yet be restored with a vengeance, but as of 1991 it did tumble down “like a
house of cards,” to use the Russian phrase.
All the efforts since 1918 to 1990 (72 years) to fill Russian minds with pure loyalty to their slave owners
went to rack and ruin.
Before the age of book-printing, dissent was spread orally by dissenters whom Absolutism caught and
killed or imprisoned for life.
In the 19th century two Russian dissenters lived in London and published a magazine called The Bell (to
wake up Russia), which the tsarist police tried to intercept at the border.
After World War II, Western radio stations began broadcasting into Soviet Russia, and Stalin built
jamming radio stations to jam the Western broadcasts from which Stalin’s “state slaves” could learn
how much better the Westerners lived in freedom, than did Stalin’s slaves.
But what was the psychological effect of the jamming? It showed every Soviet radio owner that the West
and its Liberty existed.
Liberty is a concept with vast possibilities for imagination. The Soviet owner of a jammed radio could
well imagine that the life in the lands of liberty was so better, more meaningful, and beautiful than the
Western radio stations could convey, had it not been jammed.
Human imagination could always surpass any report.
Today the Chinese dissidents have the Internet, a far more powerful means of global communication
than radio was. The Epoch Times of Chinese dissidents is like The Bell, but transmitted not only as a
printed text, but also electronically.
Let us suppose, by way of argument, that the Chinese dictatorship will achieve the total jamming of the
Internet dissidence as Stalin’s jamming radio stations achieved the total jamming of the radio
dissidence.
The West with its liberty will not disappear thereby from the minds of the Chinese. Nor will their
dissidence.

The Tiananmen dissidence of 1989 is remembered in the West. But few Westerners know that today, 18
years later, 100,000 Tiananmens, of various sizes and forms, occur in China annually. No censorship
has been of radical help to the dictatorship of China. The Chinese dissidents know that liberty exists.
Hence the need for the dictatorship to annihilate the West or to make it surrender unconditionally. This
is realistic given Chinese “Manhattan Projects” developing post-nuclear superweapons. On the other
hand, the suppression of the notion or image of Liberty in every Chinese mind, is only an old Absolutist
hope.
The Soviet dictatorship tried it from 1918 to 1991 — and failed. The Chinese resistance keeps growing
with the growth of the dictators’ censorship. The post-nuclear super weapons work as did superior
weapons a century or a millennium ago — they destroy and kill. On the other hand, attempts to make
“state slaves” think what their owners want them to, do not work, for the individual human mind has its
own individual will and can pretend in order to deceive its captors.

Does Western Espionage Exist?

In Soviet Russia, every resident had to have an internal passport, stamped by the local police station,
certifying the holder’s residence at the address indicated in the passport.
Children were included in their parents’ passports. To have an American spy residing in Soviet Russia
outside the U.S. embassy or consulate, the CIA would have to have another spy in the local police
station of Soviet Russia, to stamp the resident spy’s passport.
As far as I know, no Western intelligence/espionage agency ever had a spy residing in Soviet Russia
outside a Western embassy or consulate. In China, the situation for Western intelligence/espionage is
even worse. To begin with, Chinese culture is more esoteric than Russian culture.
Many Russian words have roots recognizable in Western languages. Surely the Russian word “shpión”
(“spy”) is recognizable even in English, to say nothing of French (“espion”). In Chinese, the word “spy”
is, if written in Latin letters, “yige jiandie,” “yige mitan,” and “yige tewn.”

So what is the way out for officials in charge of Western intelligence/espionage in countries like Soviet
Russia or post-1949 China?
When we came to New York in 1972, our neighbors asked us cheerfully whether I'd visited a Soviet
consulate, which we saw with horror not far from our apartment house.
To show our neighbors the difference between Soviet Russia and the West, I told them a Russian joke
about Western espionage. A Western spy rings the bell of an apartment, and when the door opens, he
intones the passphrase, “The sky is clear over Spain.”
The tenant responds merrily: “Sorry, Mr. Spy lives one floor up!”
Well, I was a spy. But I was a Western spy who was born and had been living in Soviet Russia, and I was
a Western spy by accident.
An international periodical, Nuclear Physics, was published in many countries in English. My wife was
the editor of its edition in Russia, and their mailing address in Russia was the Lebedev Physics Institute,
staffed by Soviet nuclear physicists, some of whom were world-known in nuclear physics, and headed by
one of the most esteemed of them, Dmitry Skobeltsyn.
One day he announced at a meeting of his staffers that the studies in nuclear physics were over. The
Institute’s research was going into other fields. Their salaries would be preserved, if they switched over
into those new fields.
Why was nuclear physics over in Soviet Russia?

Nuclear weapons were over as attack weapons because they involved Mutual Assured Destruction.
Should a nuclear country destroy another nuclear country, the latter had a secret nuclear arsenal (in
submarines, for example), which would destroy the attacker.
When I emigrated with my wife, my son, and my mother (an unexpected miracle), and we came to New
York, I told The New York Times (whose Moscow correspondent had called them and recommended
that they receive me) that the epoch of nuclear weapons was being superseded by that of post-nuclear
super weapons, able to find and destroy the concealed nuclear arsenal of the attacked country.
You can imagine the reaction of The New York Times in 1972, if even 30 and more years later, the mass
communication media have been accepting the explanation that Iraq and Iran could develop nuclear
weapons in several years, and hence the cause of the U.S. invasion of Iraq was, and that of Iran will be,
not their oil to benefit George W. Bush, his vice president, and all of his oil cronies and next of kin, but
the danger of Iraq’s or Iran’s nuclear attack on the West with honest-to-goodness “atom bombs.”

What about Soviet Russia and China, whose nuclear arsenals go to 1949 and 1964 respectively?
William C. West, a senior CIA analyst who came to our home in New York, agreed with me, but his CIA
bosses said that we were insane.
Why do I mention him? He invited us (my wife and me) to his home near Washington, D.C., and we saw
that he had converted his apartment into a library that contained the complete Voltaire in French. Later
he became a member of the advisory board of our Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc.
But in the CIA he was a zero.
President Reagan met with me and made the relevant public statement. Recently my son sent me
“Reagan in His Own Hand,” a publication in which Reagan devoted to me several paragraphs (Sept. 11,
1979, Pages 62-63).
The CIA did not call Reagan insane, but spoke mockingly about his “evil-empirism.”
Still, my day came. In the mid-1970s, the CIA began to testify regularly in Congress about Soviet Russia
and Maoist China.
That is, the CIA presented its papers on the subject and answered the questions of members of
Congress. The resulting texts were made accessible to the public, and on the basis of them I wrote an
article for Commentary Magazine (September 1978), whence it was reprinted or retold by about 500
periodicals all over the West.

I made it clear to the readers that the CIA presented as intelligence/espionage data what the CIA
collected from open Soviet and Chinese texts, i.e., the propaganda data from the totalitarian press of the
two countries.
But without Western intelligence/espionage in dictatorships like those of Soviet Russia and post-1949
China, the West is doomed. Surely a dictatorship will not issue true military information about itself,
which will weaken its first strike (“by the assassin’s mace”) that is to ensure their victory.
Only the Western intelligence/espionage could obtain such data, but here it turns out that the Western
intelligence/espionage does not exist. Instead, there are a number of well-paid officials who sit in
comfortable offices and are paid good salaries for passing the propaganda of a closed militarized
dictatorship for the data, obtained by intelligence/espionage.
Bill West told me that if he had been writing an article or a book about the CIA, my writings on the
subject would have seemed mild by comparison. “But they would deprive me of my pension,” he
explained his public silence.

Hillary Spins China in a Fairy-Tale

World

Ram Narayanan, the renowned promoter of the U.S.–India alliance against the threat of China, has e-
mailed me an article by Hillary Clinton; the article is from the November/December 2007 issue of
Foreign Affairs magazine.
In her article, she views the world as it is today and as it will be when and if she becomes the president
of the United States.
Her article is pleasant if you can imagine that you are age 5 and listening with other children of the
same age, to Hillary Clinton’s fairy tales about how nice the world is today and how still nicer it is going
to be when and if she becomes the Fairy (still called the president by grown-ups?) of the United States.
As for the world at large, “an America that rebuilds its strength and recovers its principles will be an
America that can spread the blessings of security and opportunity around the world,” we read in the
final three-paragraph section of her fairy tale, which is entitled “Security and Opportunity for the
Twenty-first Century.”
So, her fairy tale has a happy fairy-tale end.

True, those of her listeners who are older than 5 may raise issues. “Mrs. Clinton,” one of them may say,
“My dad has told me that not only did you vote for the invasion of Iraq, you also made a Senate speech
to explain how necessary this pre-emptive victorious war was. Today you are saying in the ‘Summary’ of
the first section of your Foreign Affairs article: ‘To build a world that is safe [!], prosperous [!], and just
[!], we must get out of Iraq . . .’”
In the fifth section of her fairy tale, Hillary reveals her fairy magic: “As president, I will do everything in
my power to ensure that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and the materials needed to make
them are kept out of terrorists’ hands.”
Note that her use of the word “terrorists” she borrowed from Bush, today despised even by many of
those who twice voted for him. Predictably, when he invaded Iraq, Sunni Muslims began a guerrilla war
against the invaders, as did guerrillas on the territories occupied by Napoleon even in Russia, though
Napoleon could bring about the emancipation of the Russian serfs. But the word “guerrilla” is positive
or neutral. Hence Napoleon, Hitler, and later Bush called the guerrillas “terrorists.” However, it is not
clear why “nuclear biological and chemical weapons” would be less dangerous in the possession of the
dictatorship of China (population 1.3 billion) than in the possession of a handful of Sunni Muslims.
Hillary admits that the United States and China “disagree profoundly on issues” such as “human rights.”
Indeed, the United States is a constitutional and democratic society of the beginning of the 21st century,
while China is, socio-politically, thousands of years old. Sadly, this ancient absolutism, now called
dictatorship, helps China, scientifically and technologically, to develop post-nuclear super weapons,
able to annihilate the West unless it surrenders unconditionally.
Yet Hillary continues to spin her fairy tale. Though China and the U.S. “disagree profoundly on issues”
like “human rights,” “there is much that the United States and China can and must accomplish together.
China’s support was important in reaching a deal to disable North Korea’s nuclear facilities.”
But what about China’s nuclear- and super-nuclear facilities? Weapons such as nano super weapons are
being developed that could convert Westerners into fertilizer, which will be necessary to provide life-
space (Lebensraum) to the 1.3 billion Chinese when the United States, Canada, and Australia are
depopulated.
Hillary does not seem to imagine that there can exist societies like Stalin’s Russia, or Hitler’s Germany,
or Hu’s China.
In Section 7 of her tale, we read, “We must persuade China to join global institutions and support
international rules by building on areas where our interests converge and working to narrow our
differences. Although the United States must stand ready to challenge China when its conduct is at odds
with U.S. vital interests, we should work for a cooperative future.”

So in this fairy tale, the United States is a friendly but strict mentor — “ready to challenge China when
its conduct is at odds with U.S. vital interests,” while China is an obedient pupil, ready “to work for a
cooperative future.”
Just as those who voted for her or for her husband, Hillary and Bill Clinton do not wish to think that
China is developing post-nuclear super weapons. They do not wish to think that these weapons are
superior to the nuclear weapons, which the United States had developed by 1945 on the advice in 1939
of the German-Jewish scientist Einstein, and which were superior to all weapons that Japan had.
In the last paragraph of the last section (eighth) of Hillary’s rhapsody we learn that “we can regain our
authority with the world,” “the authority . . . of the American idea.”
China has existed for 4,000 or 5,000 years. If China and the U.S. “disagree profoundly” on “human
rights,” why should China look up from the millennia of its history to the United States, with its history
of about two centuries, as to “the authority . . . of the American idea”?
This last section of Hillary’s dream is entitled “Reviving American Idea.” That idea flourished, according
to Hillary, in 1825, when “the great secretary of state Daniel Webster . . . gloried not in American power
but rather in the power of the American idea.” What is that idea? “With wisdom and knowledge men
may govern themselves.” And Webster “urged his audience, and all Americans, to maintain this example
and take care that nothing may weaken its authority with the world.”

In reality, Daniel Webster, who died in 1852 at the age of 70, supported not “anti-slavery,” as did those
who fought later in the Civil War against the enslavement of the blacks, but a “compromise” between
“slavery” and “anti-slavery.” Outside the United States few would side with such an “American idea.” As
for the “American idea” that Hillary ascribes to Daniel Webster, surely it came to a large degree from
England, along with the English language.
Many members of every nation are inclined to regard their nation as the source of everything great. Do
Hillary and Bill want to sell on the world market that cheapest commodity — self-adulating
nationalism?
The “American idea”? What about the New Testament? The English Magna Carta of 1215? The Italian
Renaissance? Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony?
The last words of Hillary’s article are, “We can make America great again.” As in 1825? And then all
nations will revere the “American idea” of 1825. Under Hillary’s presidency, nothing is impossible!
Especially with Bill Clinton, a world-famous Oval Office sex hero, at her side.

Hu's China, as Stalin's Russia,

Enshrouded in Oppression
Ethnic settlements of Uyghurs (who are of Turkish origin) exist in many countries, including the United
States. But in China, such peaceful coexistence is not to be. The dictatorship of China wants its
population to be homogeneous ethnically as well as culturally.
Rebiya Kadeer, a successful Uyghur business woman, suffered imprisonment in China from 1999 to
2005, for being too outspoken, but because of the pressure of the international community, she was
released and now lives in the West as an “exiled activist.” The China dictatorship had evidently decided
that she would be controllable.
She is 59, and her children are in China, in the Xinjiang region, where the Uyghurs live. Yet here is the
first paragraph of her interview to The Epoch Times, a Chinese dissident weekly, published in New York
(Nov. 8-14, 2007):
Epoch Times: Mrs. Kadeer, how are your children who are still living in the Xinjiang
region?
Rebiya Kadeer: Two sons are imprisoned and are not allowed to contact their wives.
So far, there has been no opportunity to visit them. Three others are under house
arrest. My relatives and friends are being spied on and fear that they will be in
trouble. The passports of my relatives have been confiscated so they can’t leave the
country. Someone who supported me was hit by a car. I don’t believe this happened
by chance.

The Chinese government tries to bring an end to my activities in the West, and is
even writing letters to foreign governments. The Chinese Embassy wrote a letter to
all members of the European Parliament not to associate with me because I am a
terrorist and separatist. Ignoring their request would “disturb relations.”
Another paragraph is also worth quoting: “For 48 years Uyghurs tried to solve the conflict using
peaceful means. We didn’t break the law. In 1954 they took away our rich and intelligent people after
accusing them of being separatists, fanatic religious followers, etc. In 1957 they put all our intellectuals
in prisons with the excuse that they were against the communist regime.”
As I began reading the interview I assumed that I would find nothing new compared with Soviet Russia,
which had a similar problem: The new Soviet course of “Russian nationalism” oppressed all non-
Russians living in Russia.
But here is what Kadeer says: “The CCP [the Chinese Communist Party] also covets our women.
Females between 14 and 25 are sent to inner China against their will. That is very upsetting for us, as
these young people have to work in bars and are put on display in windows. The CCP wants to increase
the number of such girls to 1.2 million. Taking our females is gradual genocide.”
Kadeer is brilliant (she was, incidentally, the richest businesswoman in China). But has anyone ever
seen her interviewed on American television? No — Americans do not know Hu’s China. But did they
know Stalin’s Russia?
Those Westerners who were considered thinkers of genius, but who praised Stalin’s Russia, made up an
impressive list of world-famous names. Take, for example, Bernard Shaw, who was on this list.
Long before he died (in 1950, three years before Stalin) he had become the greatest living man of letters
in the English-speaking world. But where was his Nobel Prize-winning satirical genius when Stain’s
Russia was concerned?

After visiting Stalin’s Russia (in the dreadful 1930s) and meeting Stalin, Shaw was their ardent admirer.
In his preface to his play “On the Rocks” (1933), he justifies Stalin’s secret police deportation of millions
of people. What about a Soviet famine? Shaw: “Slander!”
Why didn’t he live in the Soviet “paradise on earth”? His answer: He was a devil, fit to live only in a hell
called England.
On the other hand, some actors in Stalin’s farce were no less blind. Stalin said that “the best, most
talented poet of our Soviet epoch” was “Mayakovskiy [Mayak means ‘beacon’ in Russian, ‘ovskiy,’ is a
common family-name ending].”
In 1918, the Beacon was 25 years old, and he had been a figure familiar in all European countries: a
“Futurist.”
Between 1918 and his suicide in 1930, he found “the Future”: Lenin’s and Stalin’s Russia.
His Russian contemporary was Osip Mandelshtam, possibly the world’s greatest poet of the 20th
century, who was born in 1891 and perished in Stalin’s concentration camps in 1938. Now, the Beacon
was engaged in the replacement of poetry by rhymed slogan propaganda, posters and commercial ads
that existed in Soviet Russia before the 1930s. Authors of these ads were well paid.
He called the contemporary Russian poets a “gang of greedy hacks,” and said that when “I come into the
future”:

I will raise above the gang of greedy hacks

All of my hundred volumes
As a hundred Communist Party cards
Though Soviet Russia was a paradise on earth, the Beacon was fond of living in the West. He was
especially fond of France, and he brought a French automobile to Moscow, which was an unimaginable
luxury in Moscow for cars were not sold but “issued” together with apartments and then only to top-
level officials of the dictatorship.
He versified Moscow commercial ads because his life in the West cost a lot of money, and in his “poetry”
he said to the future generations that he was a sewage-disposal and water-supply worker (allusions to
his posters, propounding cleanliness and the boiling of drinking water), “mobilized by the Revolution”:
And hence compelled to leave the gardens
Of Poetry, a capricious mamzel.
So, he was the only true poet in the world because he was a sewage-disposal and water-supply worker in
the service of the Revolution.
Understandably, he was the only “Soviet citizen,” allowed by Stalin’s dictatorship to travel wherever he
wanted and live wherever he wanted. Of course the “poems” he sent from those countries fit the Soviet
propaganda — France was hell on earth compared with Stalin’s Russia. Thus, greedy capitalists were
building in Paris an apartment house in great haste, and it collapsed on the builders.
The rhymed picture of blood and grief followed, with this conclusion:
I am a guest, and I don’t meddle in politics.
But I think as I chew on my cigarette:
“Monsieur Paris, on how many bones your luxury rests?”
Here is another sordid scene in Paris:
Having drunk much burgundy,
a restaurant guest

may wish to make a promenade.

The business of the mademoiselle
Is to give him a towel after he has washed his hands —
She is in this business an artist, no less.
What else did the Beacon expect? But he wrote:
I beg your pardon for such sordid scenes,
But the life is hard for a woman in Paris,
If she works, and not sells her body.
What is the restaurant arrangement in the Soviet paradise? Customers take towels on their own, while
the mademoiselle sings in “Eugène Onegin” at the Bolshoi Theatre? What about those Soviet women
who died of hunger in the countryside or did the hardiest work in cities?
Why did the Beacon commit suicide?
Stalin defined him as the best poet of our Soviet epoch, that is, of the world of all time, for no epoch was
better than our Soviet epoch. Shortly before his death, Stalin decided to be known not as “vozhd” (a
word that is in Russian more sublime than the German Führer), but as God!
If Stalin was to be God etatistically, the Beacon was God culturally. But Stalin extolled the
Beacon after the Beacon’s suicide, so the Beacon had been mortally wounded by all kinds of slights (a
smaller type of the announcement of his public appearance, etc.).
The god of culture could not stand such mortal wounds and revenged with his physical death. Yet he
was worshiped for 60 years after his physical death, while God Stalin was represented by Khrushchev
“as our Hitler, only worse,” in a report, never published, but read to the “meetings of Soviet working
people” three years after the death of the god.

Voters, Candidates Ignore China's

Real Issues

On Nov. 15, CNN showed yet another debate of presidential candidates. This
time seven Democrats were on the stage, answering questions from the
audience.

My impression: The United States is one of the world’s small parochial

countries. It is immersed in its own culture. But what about news regarding the
outside world? The subject of the debate about the outside world was confined to
“general daily news” — the war in Iraq (all the participants of the debate being
against the war as is now fashionable) or current “general daily news” —
Pakistan and the “toys from China.”

The population of the dictatorship of China is 1.3 billion, more than four times
bigger than the population of the United States and 150 times bigger than Iraq’s
Sunni population against whom the United States has been fighting since 2003.
But the growth of post-nuclear military power of China has been of no interest in
the CNN debates of presidential candidates in 2007, be they Democrats or
Republicans (in the previous debates).

So, what was of interest on Nov. 15 concerning China?

The “general daily news”: the toys imported from China posing a threat
American children.

Well, to begin with, many of these imports have been produced by $2-a-day
slavery, including child labor and sweatshops. No wonder some of the imported
toys are defective. But owing to its slavery, the dictatorship of China makes
trillions of dollars on U.S. consumers, in cooperation with American and Chinese
businessmen.

All of the dictatorship’s profit, or any arbitrary part of it, goes into the
development of post-nuclear super weapons, able to annihilate the United States
or make it surrender unconditionally. But this is beyond the “daily general
news.” Western culture has been developing into a “police pad.” To be successful,
even a work of serious literature or high art must contain at least one murder or
a fatal accident.

China’s development of post-nuclear weapons able to annihilate the entire

population of the United States is not entertaining. But here are fatal accidents:
Some children played with lead-paint toys imported from China. General daily
news! Presidential candidates and voters are interested!

On Nov. 15, I received an e-mail from a reader, Lars Gilbertson, that said in part:
“It seems to have become “uncool” in America to even discuss the potential
threat of China and superweapons. The new standard is for everyone to be so
‘laid back’ and politically correct and nonjudgmental.”

Gilbertson was reacting to my Nov. 15 column about Hillary Clinton’s article in

the November/December 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. But what he
said applies to all seven Democratic presidential candidates participating in the
Nov 15 debate. A goal of the debates was to see whether Obama had pushed off
Hillary as the leader of the race. Actually, he was no worse (if no better) than the
six other presidential candidates, discussing the “general daily news” of the
“mass communication media.”

Does it matter which one of them will be elected as president?

While George W. Bush was twice elected as president, last summer 45 percent of
Americans favored impeachment hearings for him. Bill Clinton, who was also
elected twice as president was not indicted after impeachment hearings only
because the Democrats in the Senate did not vote for his indictment for fear that
it would harm the Democratic Party as a whole. How can anyone believe that
Hillary Clinton is superior mentally to her “nearly impeached” husband or to
George W. Bush for whom 45 percent Americans favored impeachment
hearings?

Until the 20th century, the West had a technological and hence military
superiority over countries like China (recall the two Opium Wars!). In the 20th
century, Hitler’s Germany would have defeated the free West if Hitler had not
been a geostrategic idiot, and had he continued his development of nuclear
weapons under his mask of peace, instead of launching conventional wars
against Poland, France, Britain, the United States, and his ally — Stalin’s Russia.
These botched campaigns ultimately led to his suicide in Berlin to avoid being
captured by Soviet troops.
Today, the West faces a non-Western enemy, China, whose dictatorship is by no
means as geostrategically inane as Hitler’s was, and who cooperates militarily
with Russia, which Hitler attacked. On the other hand, as previously stated, the
current U.S. commander-in-chief has been twice elected as president, but last
summer 45 percent of Americans favored impeachment hearings for him.

Having seen and heard the presidential candidates shown by CNN in 2007, we
have to ask, Does the presidential election procedure that was a matter of pride
in the United States in the 19th and 20th century fit the 21st century? Genius (in
today’s geostrategy, for example) is a rare gift, not the general ability like
Hillary’s ability to speak her mother tongue. How can a voter discern a
geostrategist of genius if this voter does not know the ABCs of today’s
geostrategy and is no more intelligent than Hillary?

So far, there has been one way out of this dilemma: Let both presidential
candidates and voters keep mum about subjects like the annihilation of the West
by the dictatorship of China. This is pleasant for both voters and presidential
candidates who are thus convinced that they are omniscient even if they are
stupid and/or ignorant. In the debates, Hillary referred to her head as Einstein
might have referred to his. The method is not new. An early 19th century
Russian novel related how a flippant chatterbox knew “how to keep silent with
the air of a sage on an important issue.”

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush knew how to keep silent about China for almost
16 years with the air of sages. And the voters also kept silent on the subject for
those 16 years and will keep silent until the time comes to be annihilated by the
Chinese post-nuclear super weapons.

As for problems like poisonous or otherwise defective toys imported from China,
such problems will no doubt be resolved, since the dictatorship of China needs
peace to have access to Western military know-how as well as Western money to
become omnipotent vis-à-vis the free West. For liberty is the main enemy of the
dictatorship of China, and either it establishes its world domination or it will lose
all in its native country as well, as Tiananmen demonstrated in 1989 and the fall
of the Soviet dictatorship did in 1991.

China Recruits Intellectuals for

Military Superiority

Even as children in Stalin’s Russia, we knew as much about Thomas Edison as anyone in the United
States.
At 12, he became a railroad newsboy, and at 15, a telegraph operator. As of 1928, that is three years
before his death (in 1931, at the age of 84), he had taken out 1,033 patents for his inventions, creating
today’s environment in a “modern country.”
During World War I he worked on naval technology for the government. Yet his genius did not make the
U.S. military might as superior to that of the Imperial Germany as his incandescent electric lamp was
superior to its kerosene or oil predecessor.
While Edison was accepted in Soviet Russia, Albert Einstein was not even mentioned in our school
physics textbooks. In 1914, at the age of 35, Einstein, a Jew who did not conceal his pro-Jewish
sentiments, left Switzerland for Germany, adopted German citizenship, and became—the director (!) of
the Kaiser Wilhelm Physics Institute in Berlin.

The German word “kaiser” means “emperor,” and Germany was an empire. Emperor Wilhelm II waged
a war for four years against Britain, France, the United States, and Russia — and lost it.
Whereupon his former opponents began to accuse him of the aggression in 1914 and made Germany
defenseless against Soviet Russia. Yet Einstein never thought of emigrating from Germany, until 1933;
that is, 20 years later, after he had learned, while in the United States as a visitor, that Nazis had
pillaged the home of the Einsteins in Germany.
Why this devotion to the German empire of Wilhelm II?
Emperors patronized elitist culture, whether in art or in science, accessible only to the few. Even today,
in its “Biography of Albert Einstein,” Yahoo! says: “At the time of the publication on the theory of
relativity, the people that read the papers [by Einstein] met them with skepticism and ridicule. As the
other papers were published, they were viewed the same way.”
Let us recall that Einstein received a Ph.D. in 1905 in order to get a “university position” and thus make
a living but was unable to do so and had to work as a clerk in a patent office in Berne, Switzerland.

Universities are “collectives” (the noun originated in English in 1655). Every member depends on his
colleagues for recognition, appreciation, promotion. Now, members of imperial institutions of culture
did not depend on their colleagues. Today’s composers, performers, arrangers, etc., in the West must
please as many listeners as possible. Hence “mass culture” and in particular, “pop music.”
Great composers of the past wrote “classical music,” in which only the musical elite was (and is)
interested. But those composers did not depend financially on mass audiences.
Wilhelm II decided (correctly) that Einstein was not understood by many physicists because he was too
great and hence sounded ridiculous if not insane to learned mediocrities.
The other day I saw a television program on the origin of the earth. Flushed all over the screen was the
photograph of Einstein. But what is amazing about Einstein is what the program did not mention.

He postulated that there is no single time for the universe, but each point of it has its own space-time.
The producers of the U.S. television program I saw did not say (in 2007!) a word about such important
thoughts of Einstein from 1905 or 1912. Possibly they found those thoughts insane or did not want their
audience to suppose that they (the producers) were insane.
Einstein would not have been able to exist in a U.S. university in 1914. He would have been ousted by
learned mediocrities who fill any university collective as its majority. But as the director of an Imperial
institution, Einstein thrived, and in 1921, he received a Nobel Prize. Not for his “insane discoveries,” but
the prize helped him to thrive and publish his insane thoughts in Germany before Hitler came to power
and the Aryan physicists declared his physics to be a Jewish degeneracy.
The irony is that Germany had been nurturing Einstein since 1914, and in 1933 chased him out as a Jew,
along with other Jewish physicists, into the United States. It was there that, in 1939, he wrote (at the
request of Jewish émigrés) his famous Aug. 2 letter to President Roosevelt about the possibility of
developing nuclear weapons ahead of Nazi Germany, that is, ensuring its defeat.
In 1986, the Chinese dictatorship created (like the emperor!) Project 863 to consider what a “normal”
research institution would find ridiculous or insane. In this way, the dictatorship of China has been
trying to net an Einstein or other minds of genius, in the post-nuclear fields. In the last analysis,
superior military might depends on minds of genius, and not on 10,000 “normal” universities, which
considering these minds of genius ridiculous or insane.
In 1986, a born and bred American named Eric Drexler published a book, subtitled “Coming Era of
Nanotechnology,” and founded “The Foresight Institute.” No one can deny that it was Drexler who
coined the very word “nanotechnology” and that the era of nanotechnology has come. But Drexler’s
theory has been proclaimed (by American savants, not by Project 863 in China!) ridiculous or insane.

Republican Debaters Ignore China

Threat

After seven Democratic presidential candidates debated on Nov. 15, CNN treated us to a debate of eight
Republican hopefuls on Nov. 28.
The transcript of the debate numbers 25 pages. Its first major subject is “illegal immigration,” which
runs to Page 10, or about a third of the debate.
Illegal immigration?
The word “state” in the political sense (as in “the United States of America”) implies that foreigners
cannot come to and live in a “state” as they could on land owned by no one. Otherwise, the “USA”
should have been called “NOLA,” “No One’s Lands of America.”
Nineteen foreigners (mostly from Saudi Arabia by origin) came into the United States in 2001 to
commit the terrorist attack of 9/11. Millions of such suicidal terrorists could have come into “No One’s
Lands of America” if more such foreigners would have been willing to die in the same suicidal way.
In the debate, the New York ex-Mayor Giuliani explained that the 70,000 “children of illegal
immigrants” in New York had to be sent to school or they would have added to the crime statistics. Nor
could “emergency care in the hospital” be denied to “illegal immigrants” and their children.

Sen. McCain, who hasn’t been exactly known as an exceptionally soft-hearted person, said that “we need
to sit down as Americans and recognize that these [“illegal immigrants”] are God’s children as well.
[Applause.] And they need some protection under the law. And they need some of our love and
compassion.”
The solution seems obvious: The border wall, which should have been built in the past 10 or 20 years.
But you know how expenses can spiral out of control; for example, the war in Iraq has been extremely
costly, and its expenses may continue for many years.
That same McCain declared that the intention to withdraw troops from Iraq is isolationism, and
isolationism caused World War II.
The audience was booing. So Saddam Hussein, who was suspected (falsely) of having had “weapons of
mass destruction” (such as the mustard gas of World War 1) is the equivalent of Hitler, who conquered
France, together with the British Expeditionary Force, in about a month.
McCain explains that the U.S. troops told him: “Let us win.” That is, give us a chance to win the war
instead of withdrawing us.
Well, the war was won in 2003, and the event was duly celebrated by George W. Bush. Had Bush or
McCain looked up a reference book on sale in any stationery store, they would have learned that the
Shia account for 60 percent-65 percent of Iraq’s population and the Sunni for 32 percent-37 percent.
Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, and the Sunni, better educated than the Shia, ruled the country. The U.S.
established the Shia dictatorship. The Sunni began a guerrilla war.
What will this victory, to which McCain alludes, mean? No Sunni war against the dictatorship of the
Shia who are more anti-Western and anti-American than the Sunni?
Several months ago it was assumed that the U.S. victory in Afghanistan was complete. So it was. Then it
was reported that a Bible was found at the home of an Afghani who was to be executed according to the
laws of the country. You would not assert, would you, that a person who kept a Bible at his home can
continue to live?
Just as in the Democratic debate, China was mentioned in the Republican debate only in connection
with toxic toys imported from China. It was said by Rep. Hunter that China makes, by unfair trade, a lot
of money, which China needs. Said Hunter: “They are clearly [!] arming.”

I nearly fainted: to recognize that China is “clearly[!] arming”! No other presidential candidate reached
aloud such a horrible, cynical, dangerous conclusion!
The word “clearly” is worth comment. The fact is that the dictatorship of China can conceal the
development of nano weapons able to annihilate the United States (or the West as a whole), just as the
United States concealed the Manhattan Project’s “atom bombs” until two of them were dropped on
Japan. But much weaponization of space or oceans cannot be concealed and hence the word “clearly” —
China is “clearly arming.”
For example, last year, a former U.S. top naval official said that China’s navy is to consist of 600
battleships, while the U.S. navy is to consist of 150 battleships. Of course, battleships on high seas
cannot be concealed.
McCain defined as “isolationists” those “who were for bringing our troops home from Iraq.” But what
about those who do not even mention the “China threat”? Surely China is more dangerous than was
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq with his (mythical) “weapons of mass destruction.”
It is forgotten that China began to test its nuclear weapons in 1964. And today “nuclear weapons” are
obsolete as offensive weapons (due to Mutual Assured Destruction), and China is developing post-
nuclear (such as nano) super-weapons.

Unwilling to notice the military development of China, McCain and all the other Republican
presidential candidates at the Nov. 28 debate, except Rep. Hunter, are not just isolationists, but suicidal
fugitives from the geostrategic reality of today’s world.
Well, in the Democratic debate, even that four-word sentence that Hunter uttered was not heard.
Indeed, of all presidential candidates in the CNN debates, Duncan Hunter is the only one who can be
taken seriously. To my inquiry “Duncan Hunter on the China threat,” Yahoo! yielded 2,760,000 items,
and the second item was: “Duncan Hunter Speaks to Nevada about Chinese Threat.”
Not to understand or not to admit that a dictatorship whose population exceeds that of the United
States more than four times poses a mortal threat is more irresponsible than it was to fail to understand
in 1938 that the dictatorship of Germany was a threat.
It was Hitler himself who cured the free West of that blindness by seizing the “rump” of Czechoslovakia,
swallowing Poland and France, fighting Britain furiously, grabbing Russia up to the Volga, and
declaring war on the United States.

The China Threat Goes Unchecked

Churchill said in the British parliament that “democracy is the worst form of government,” and when
the parliament gasped, he finished to its relief . . . “except all others” (that is, all other forms of
government).
Churchill spoke after the victory over Nazi Germany (totalitarian dictatorship) to which victory he
contributed as prime minister of Britain. But as of today the post-nuclear attack of China (totalitarian
dictatorship) on the West (democracy) is within the realm of a future possibility, and so far the West has
been barely aware of the existence of China, except recently, as a producer of toys, wonderfully cheap
(slave labor), but sometimes toxic (absence of inspection).
Aristocracy (“the power of the best individuals”) as a form of government competed in ancient Athens
with democracy (“the power of the people”). When John Stuart Mill published his “On Liberty” (in
1859), the form of government in the constitutional monarchy of Britain was still to some extent
aristocracy. Even today, the prime minister, corresponding to the U.S. president, is elected by the
parliament, which, in turn, was elected, at the beginning of the 19th century, by “the best,” accounting
for a small percentage of the male population.

The problem was: Who are “the best”? John Stuart Mill said that his wife was more intelligent than he
was. Why were women deprived of suffrage (the right to vote)?
John Stuart Mill was no doubt one of “the best.” As a child he never attended school, and as an adult he
was not affiliated with any university. He was a thinker (like Aristotle), and he was known throughout
the world (meaning the West) because he wrote books. Newspapers horrified him, and it is hard to
imagine his horror if radio and television appeared in his time.
In U.S. presidential democracy, “the U.S. president is elected by the people.” Well, members of the
British parliament at least know politically one of their own whom they elect. What did an American
voter know in 1989 about a 65-year-old Texan oilman George H.W. Bush, and then in 2000 about a
failed Texan oilman George W. Bush, except that George W. was a son of George H.W.?
Yes, in the last 17 years, we have seen that bad as democracy is, it better than all other forms of
government, as Churchill said.
Mao in China, Stalin in Soviet Russia, or Hitler in Germany would not have focused on the oil of Iraq (or
Iran) because all the wealth in their countries belonged to them. Besides, their absolute power could
acquire in their countries all that wealth could acquire — and more. They focused on world domination,
not on the conquest of small backward oil-rich countries like Iraq.
Mao’s and Stalin’s goal was to establish a world communist state, and that of Hitler to establish a world
ruled by the supreme (Aryan) race.
How modest and limited was the goal of George H. W. Bush (a Texas oilman) and of his son (a failed
Texan oilman), and of their oil cronies like Vice President Cheney!
Their war to conquer Iraq actually began in 1990. President George H.W. Bush appointed April Glaspie
ambassador to Iraq, and on July 25, 1990, she met with Saddam Hussein. She was one of possibly blind
tools of George H.W. Bush to assure Saddam that the U.S. would be indifferent to Saddam’s invasion of
Kuwait (an autocracy) to solve their territorial disputes. Actually, Saddam’s invasion was a pretext for
George H.W. Bush to launch war on Iraq.

Yet Saddam was not overthrown.

The “sanctions” to bring him down also failed, and in 2003 the new president, George W. Bush,
launched a conventional war on Iraq.
When I described the war of the Bushes and their cronies for the Iraqi oil, Edward D. Kutz from
Arlington, Texas, sent an e-mail to me on Oct. 24, 2007, declaring that my description was ridiculous
(at least to those of us who have an iota of intelligence). If our motive was to grab Iraq’s oil, then why
didn’t we make any discernable effort to do so?
Well, according to a “Yahoo!” entry of October 25, 2007: "Reports in the Wall Street Journal suggested
the [oil] contracts [in Iraq] could be worth as much as $900 m."
Halliburton “has a history of governments contracts” and will be a “leading beneficiary” of the war on
Iraq. Mr. Cheney should receive huge financial rewards for the war on Iraq through substantial
investments in the corporation he once headed.
Iraq is currently the world’s second largest source of oil, but the majority of subterranean oil reserves
have never been tapped. After the war, when U.S. oil corporations have fully developed the industry’s
potential, Iraq is expected to become the largest single supply of oil on Earth.
Vice President Cheney will not find it too difficult to share part of the money with oil shareholders in his
government.
Such is the situation in the case of U.S. defeat in the war. What would it have been in the case of U.S.
victory?
On May 22, 2003, George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13303, which was duly transmitted by the
Internet and published by The Los Angeles Times on Aug. 7, 2003.
The Order granted immunity to U.S. oil corporations in Iraq from both criminal prosecution and civil
litigation. Suppose Halliburton decides that $x billion in oil money should belong to a certain member
of the U.S. government. Neither criminal prosecution nor civil litigation is possible.
To enliven the subject, let us imagine schoolchildren who already know that there are many countries in
the world besides Iraq and Iran.
Surely some of them, such as China in cooperation with Russia, threaten the West more than would
Iraq, even if Iraq did have several (!) atom bombs, or even more than would Iran if Iran did have them.
So why this war with Iraq, which actually started in 1990 and which may start with Iran, as a war that
President Bush compared to World War III?
As for North Korea, President Bush refused even to make comment. No oil! Exclusive attention to the
oil-rich Iraq and Iran! Those schoolchildren who know about the existence of many other countries,
besides Iraq and Iran, will define the cause of President Bush’s partially for them: oil.

So what’s the moral? Yes, democracy is the worst form of government — except all other forms. Human
beings have resulted from millennia of creative evolution.
Since the 13th century, constitutionalism has evolved in the West to a certain livable stage of freedom,
while in China, “the form of government” is a slave state, as it was millennia ago.
What is tragic on the world scale is that as far as I know there is only one presidential candidate — Rep.
Duncan Hunter, R.-Calif., who speaks publicly about the China threat and is ready to defend the United
States against it. If he becomes the U.S. president, the United States will be able to develop post-nuclear
weapons, able to oppose the aggressive weapons, created by the dictatorship of China in cooperation
with Putin’s Russia.
Then we will be able to recall Churchill’s words that democracy is the worst form of government (look at
George W. Bush’s Iraqi escapade!) except all other forms of government.
On the other hand, if Duncan Hunter is not elected, but the U.S. president would be no better than
George W. Bush, or any mute-on-China participant in the CNN debates of presidential candidates, then
we can well expect a successful Chinese attack on the West by post-nuclear super weapons, which may
include the annihilation of the population of the West (to create out of the United States, Canada, and
Australia a “life-space for chicoms”).

Darwin vs. Christ

Marx and Engels assumed that science had explained — scientifically — the astronomical universe — it
discovered its scientific laws. Thus Newton had discovered the Universal Law of Gravitation: the Sun,
the Earth, and other planets as well as stars or any other objects exert a gravitational force of attraction
on one another.
This is why the astronomical universe holds together and works as a single mechanism. You see, it was
all scientific, and Newton was a great scientist. Though it has not been clear why objects exert a
gravitational force of attraction on one another. Are they in love?
Yet this question never occurred to Marx and Engels as well as to our teachers of physics in our Soviet
school, and one of them would say in such cases: “Comrade Navrozov, please stop clowning!”
But while the astronomical universe had been explained scientifically in the opinion of Marx and
Engels, the origin of living beings had been not. Until there appeared Darwin.

The word “evolution” was known in the English language in 1622, while Darwin was born in 1809. Well,
how do living beings “evolve”?
In 1828, the 19-year-old Charles Darwin went to Christ’s College, Cambridge, to become a clergyman.
He took his degree in 1831, and sailed on the government ship Beagle. Every such ship needed a
clergyman for general religious services such as funeral rites, and to make use of his spare time, such a
clergyman “observed nature” — was “a naturalist.”
In 1838, the naturalist Darwin read the essay “The Principles of Population” by professor Malthus, who
belonged to a prosperous English family and asserted that a country became healthier if its poor, sick,
and others unfit for survival die off, while the rich, strong, healthy survive, prosper, and multiply,
making the nation as a whole fitter for survival.
The idea of Malthus, borrowed by Darwin, was as old as cattle breeding. If wool is the rancher’s purpose
then sheep with not enough wool are slaughtered for meat, while the woolly sheep go for breeding.
Thus, the species improves from that farmer’s point of view.
Accordingly, Darwin’s book was entitled: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or
the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.”
But can this farm selection be the basis for evolution in nature? The development of the eye in
mammals could be understood better after a photocamera had been invented (by creative human
brains!), reproducing the live eye (complete with lenses). Obviously, the evolution of the eye in nature
was creative just as was the construction of the photocamera.

The wool of sheep can accumulate gradually in a succession of generations of sheep with more and more
wool. But the eye (of a sheep!) cannot “evolve” the way the growth of wool does in successive
generations of sheep. The eye originates as a whole instrument. There can be no half an eye or a quarter
of an eye unless it is a birth defect.
This is why Henri Bergson, a Nobel Prize laureate, entitled his book “Creative Evolution.”
“Evolution vs. Creationism Home Page” of “Yahoo!” with reference to Syracuse University, placed on
one side of the heading of its article a tall rectangle (Darwin in black with a big beard against a black
background), and on the other side a Renaissance painting (God extending his hand across heavenly
space to Adam). The inscription between the two illustrations says: “Evolution vs. Creationism.”
You see? On one side, it is evolution, Darwin, science, and on the other side it is a painting —
creationism!

Henri Bergson did not publicly announce that he had converted to Christianity. The Nobel Prize–
winning author of “Creative Evolution” did not announce it because the worst era of annihilation of
Jews was about to begin in Germany, and he had been born of Irish-Jewish parents.
He wanted no religious flight from the destiny of Jews. But his personal destiny made a salto mortale of
his Jewishness. The Nazis believed that among the Jews there are exceptions: honorary Aryans, exempt
from persecution. Bergson was valued in Germany. So, when Paris had been occupied by the Nazis in
1940, they did not touch the author of “Creative Evolution.”
Marx and Engels were delighted that finally Darwin explained the origin of species as scientifically as
Newton did the astronomical universe. Indeed, while Newton was part of our Soviet textbook of physics,
there was a special class, “Darwinism.” As for Malthus, who started Darwin on his pseudo-science, his
name was the worst curse of Engels and of Soviet science.
Yet Malthus-Darwin had a predecessor as their opposite. To Malthus-Darwin, the more human beings
perished as “unfit for survival,” the more splendid would be the future of their country or mankind as a
whole. Christ’s most important acts ascribed to him in the New Testament are:
 Curing a sick child who was near death.
Curing a lame man, a man with a virulent skin disease, and a paralyzed man.
Giving sight to a man born blind.
In 2002, Alvin J. Schmidt, professor of sociology, read my articles about Christ and sent me his 423-
page book, entitled “Under the Unfluence” and subtitled “How Christianity Transformed Civilization.”
The headlines of the following chapters are worth quoting: “The Sanctification of Human Life.” “Charity
and Compassion: Their Christian Connection.” “Hospitals and Health Care: Their Christian Roots.”
Another chapter headline is worth quoting here: “Women Receive Freedom and Dignity,” since in the
recent news from the Islamic world, a woman was gang-raped, and the court sentenced her to 17 lashes,
which were augmented to 200 lashes, that is, to death from lashes for having been gang-raped. A
heinous crime punished by torturing its victim to death.
Only the horror of the West led to the repeal of the monstrous “sentence.” The number of Muslims is
believed to exceed 1 billion: this is not a tiny island lost on a world map — this is a continent.

Will the West Survive the Threat of

China in 2008?

Year 2007 ended in the West just as did the previous years: without public awareness of the “mortal
China threat,” except for presidential candidate Duncan Hunter’s warning.
As I have written repeatedly before, the dictators of China face a dilemma. Either lose their slave-state
power (which can yield its owners more than any wealth can), as they nearly lost it to the Tiananmen
peaceful uprising and as the Soviet dictatorship did lose its power in 1991, or establish world
domination via post-nuclear (such as nano) super weapons.
Few Westerners know that today, about 100,000 Tiananmens of all forms and sizes occur annually in
China. The Chinese people are not dainty figurines as one might find on old Chinese vases, and to keep
them enslaved is not as easy as it may seem to the Western owners of such vases.
Nazi Germany’s global aggression (with pre-nuclear weapons) occurred not because the Germans are
savages, born criminals, or compulsive conquerors, but because Nazi Germany had been turned in the
1930s into a cage, a prison, a war machine. Hitler was not as he was represented in the West after 1939
(by Charlie Chaplin, for example) or in Stalin’s Russia after June 1941 — a raving lunatic who had
escaped from a psychiatric clinic, but someone who understood that he had to establish his world
domination or perish as an upstart.

That same Charlie Chaplin, in 1942, called for a second front in the war against Hitler, who was barely
surviving in Russia. Hitler’s behavior during his suicide, to avoid becoming a Soviet prisoner, makes
nonsense of his raving lunatic stereotype.
The dictatorship of China has unlimited possibilities for channeling all their resources into the
development of post-nuclear super weapons, which do not entail Mutual Assured Destruction, as did
nuclear weapons developed in the United States, Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, and some other
countries.
China is a camouflaged military machine — an army in civilian clothes. The West is a festival, engaged
in making money for personal benefit. As the debates of presidential candidates in the U.S.
demonstrate, only a tiny minority of Americans is interested in, let alone understands, the geopolitical
situation in the world today and is inclined to vote for a presidential candidate aware of this geopolitical
situation.
Here is an example from my personal observations. When in 1986 Eric Drexler published his book
about nanotechnology, I was fascinated by its Chapter 11 about molecular nano weapons. Let me explain
why. “Atomic bombs” required over four years of development — and were developed ahead of Nazi
Germany partly because European scientists, including Einstein, fled from Europe into the United
States to escape anti-Semitism. Now the U.S. was saved — not by those European scientists, but by
Drexler!
Drexler’s weapons (never developed in the United States, but still existing only on paper) are based on
molecules. A molecule can be converted into a tiny computer (“nano” means one-billionth of a meter),
an artificial virus, etc.
Imagine billions of such molecules flying as a vast and growing cloud (since molecules multiply) capable
of, for example, finding atomic weapons and destroying them.
Drexler’s word “nanotechnology” has become global (his photographs were posted at the scientific
centers of China, and all of his books and articles became available on the Chinese Internet in English,
with explanations in Chinese).

What about the United States? The Congress had an annual sum of allocation for nanotechnology, and
the commercial producers of nano goods and services managed to assure the Congress that Drexler’s
books and articles are nonsense. The Foresight Institute he founded in 1986 got rid of him, and now he
works in someone’s tiny laboratory.
How to enlighten the majority of the Western electorate?
I believe there is only one way. We, who are aware of the geopolitical situation in the world today, must
create a film, based on documentary evidence, but showing the annihilation of the West by post-nuclear
super weapons, now developed by the dictatorship of China.
A “Chinese patriot” described the annihilation of the West, and his description has been published
outside China. He believes that China needs the United States, Canada, and Australia as the lebensraum
(life-space) for the Chinese, and hence the present population of those three countries should be
“eliminated” — the greatest mass murder in recorded history. But what about the Chinese living in the
United States? They should also be eliminated since their Western existence has made them unfit for
the native Chinese life of absolute devotion to the CCP (the Chinese Communist Party).

But is it possible to create, with minimal resources, a film that will wake up the majority of the West to
the annihilation of the West by the dictatorship of China? Yes, if the film is created by exceptionally
talented masters of the craft who are devoted to the survival and freedom of the West, threatened by a
ghastly death.
I am enlisting volunteers. As for myself, I am recalling that reviewers of my book “The Education of Lev
Navrozov” (Harper & Row) compared me to Orwell and Dostoyevsky, that I am an Einstein Prize
laureate as well as the winner of the Andrew Jackson “Champion of Liberty” award. I hope to contribute
to the script of the film in order to save the Western civilization and its liberty. But, of course, we need a
full spectrum of cinematographers to create a film in which most Americans will see the abyss of being
annihilated by the dictatorship of China and will vote for a presidential candidate who understands how
dangerous the biggest dictatorship in recorded history can be, and is not only able to charm “President
Hu” at the top U.S. government level.

Americans Waking Up to Mortal Danger of China

At the close of 2007, after the Dec. 18 Republican presidential debate, some American
voters have realized that the Bush administration, as well as all presidential candidates
except Duncan Hunter, have been exposing the West to China’s “surprise attack,” either
outwardly or by simply ignoring that the threat exists.
Left unchecked, this threat will establish the China dictators’ world domination.
Michael Skok writes in a Dec. 22 e-mail:
Dear Lev:
 Is there some kind of censorship on candidates who are against Red China? I’m
running as a lesser known Democrat candidate in New Hampshire. I am against Red
China. I have a Web site, michaelskok.com but nobody writes to me. Please let me
know what I can do to warn my fellow Americans of the China threat.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Skok
I explained the solution in my previous column (Jan. 4). Michael sees the present geostrategic situation
probably no worse than I do. But U.S. presidents are elected not by individuals like him and me, but by
a majority. Hence the need for a film depicting the world situation and its consequences, and motivating
the voters to elect a president capable and willing to face the ghastly world predicament.

A day earlier, another Michael sent me a short straight-to-the-point e-mail:

Mr. Navrozov:
I very much enjoyed your eye-opening article “The China Threat Goes Unchecked”!
Keep up the good work sir. Duncan Hunter is exactly whom America needs as
president in ’08!
Michael
Here is yet another Dec. 21 e-mail, signed by Daryl and responding to my column “The China Threat
Goes Unheeded: The Prospect of a China-Dominated World Is Real.” His response is no less affirmative,
even if more elaborate:
Dear Mr. Navrozov:
Thank you for writing on this topic. Not enough people do, unfortunately.
There is an adage from the Cold War: Russians play chess, Americans play poker.
Well, the Chinese play wen-chi, a game of deep strategy which makes chess like tic-
tac-toe.
Daryl concludes that the dictatorship of China “will do whatever it takes . . . to bring the entire World to
its knees before Beijing.”
In his e-mail on the same day Sherman Sable asks:
[W]hy does the United States continue to allow China to ruin our economy[?] Almost
everything I buy has the tag “Made in China” on it, yet they are supplying weapons to
the countries we are at war with that are used to kill and maim our military. How
stupid are the people running our country! I would ban all trade with China in a
heart beat, the heck with political correctness and all that other garbage. It is high
time this country does the thing that is right for the people instead of the government
cronies.
Some authors of e-mails agree that “China is a threat,” but stuck in their heads are splinters of what
American professors of sinology and other “specialists” talking on the subject of China in the mass
information media have been knocking into their heads for years. Here is an e-mail (Dec. 21) from Eric
LaGrange of Orlando:
Lev, while I certainly [!] agree that China is a threat and shouldn’t be trusted by our
government, I still believe that mutually assured destruction is a deterrent. Although
they may, in fact, develop post nuclear weapons, the nuclear weapons on our subs in
the Pacific are sufficient to destroy China without warning.

They can’t take those out without taking themselves out. Also, I wouldn’t assume that
China could be developing any technology that we’re not developing ourselves. After
all, they had to get technology from Clinton in order to build their own weapons just
10 years ago or so.
Eric
Orlando
Post-nuclear weapons (such as nanoweapons) do not assure the destruction of the attacker, because
during his attack, his post-nuclear weapons find and destroy the attacked country’s weapons, whether
in the Pacific or in Washington, D.C.
Eric does not “assume that China could be developing any technology that we are not developing
ourselves.” In his e-mail, Daryl explains that the Chinese play wen-chi, a game of deep strategy that
makes chess like tic-tac-toe. But chess is not a Western invention either. It came to the West only in the
14th century. Gunpowder and compass appeared in China before they did in Europe, while gas for
warming and lighting had existed in China 2,000 years before it appeared in Europe.
Of course, not all e-mail authors are motivated by their intention to reveal the truth, which is so scarce,
and thus to save the West. Eric Hands is writing in the first of the two paragraphs of his e-mail:

You might try reading Thomas Aquinas [that is, I never tried reading Aquinas, but I
might try] and then completing some course and lab work in conceptual analysis and
the testing of empirical hypotheses . . . [ellipsis belong to Eric Hands] as empiricism
can be a definition of folly.
I “might try” reading Thomas Aquinas, a 13th-century Italian Catholic scholastic. He studied Aristotle,
who had lived about 17 centuries earlier. But what has this to do with the Chinese annihilation of the
West?
You see, Eric Hands read Aquinas, went through all the other “academic” exercises, and received the
rank of a professor, with the corresponding salary, to teach students to read Aquinas; that is, to become
omniscient supermen, rising mentally above all who have not read Aquinas.
Not a single word in his e-mail is related to the coming catastrophe. As Western humanity is being
turned into fertilizer, he will advise to “try” to read Aquinas unless he becomes fertilizer ahead of any
other Westerner.
In another Dec. 21 e-mail, Ray from Florence, Ala., is as scornful about non-academics as is Eric Hands.
Yet at least he says: “But your concept about China is realistic . . .”
Gregory Sullivan’s Dec. 21 e-mail contains an important request:
Lev,
I try to read your weekly articles in Newsmax.com and most recently I read your
article titled, “The China Threat Goes Unchecked: The Prospect of a China-
Dominated World Is Real” dated Thursday, December 20, 2007. Great article, as
they all are. I too understand the China threat (go Duncan Hunter for President! — I
wish). What are these “post-nuclear super weapons” you continually mention in your
articles? Could you describe them to me? Are they of the nano-assembler type, the
Tesla Howitzer type (as mentioned on Lt. Col. Tom Bearden’s Web site) or these are
several other types? I look forward to your answer.

Thanks,
Greg
I recommend Lt. Col. Tom Bearden’s study to all who ask me about post-nuclear super weapons.
Note the title of his book, “Oblivion: America at the Brink,” and its “Final Urgent Commentary.” “The
Darkest Days in the history of our republic lie immediately ahead of us.”
This is written by a U.S. officer! The only shortcoming of his book, in my opinion, is that he ignores
everything K. Eric Drexler has been writing from 1986 to 2008, and the words “nano” and
“nanotechnology” do not even occur in his book.
Fortunately, Drexler’s 1986 book “Engines of Creation” (with the chapter “Engines of Destruction”
devoted to molecular nano weapons) has been republished as an ebook, and I received it free of charge
from WOWIO.com — right into my computer.
I advise Gregory Sullivan or whoever else is interested to read the chapter “Engines of Destruction,” or
to try to receive this ebook in the same way I did by ordering it from WOWIO.com. Please use my name
if necessary. My copy is preceded by the inscription: “WOWIO ® is proud to sponsor this ebook for Lev
Navrozov.”

China Warfare Shuns Convention

The two World Wars of the 20th century involved Germany; that is, a Western country, developed
scientifically and technologically, as were her opponents.
On the other hand, China missed out on the “industrial revolution” of the West, and even on the Soviet
“industrialization.” However, just as Stalin was an ally of Germany, Putin is an ally of China.
Hitler was so brave as a soldier in World War I that he received decorations that were intended for
officers only. As an outstanding soldier in World War I, he assumed that to defeat the outside world in a
war was more pleasant and easier than to preserve for an infinitely long time his domination of
Germany.
Stalin, on the other hand, feared war as he feared any physical danger — pathologically. His dream was
to establish the world domination in alliance with Hitler.
Thus Hitler personified to him not the extreme danger of world war, but the safety of their joint world
domination. He proposed to Hitler to let his army pass through the territory of Stalin’s Russia to India
and conquer it. He regarded all espionage data about Hitler’s preparations of war against him, Stalin, as
Churchill’s attempts to provoke a war between Hitler and Stalin and thus compel Hitler to alleviate his
military pressure on Britain.

When Hitler’s troops began military operations against Stalin’s Russia, Stalin’s order was to not
respond to these diabolical provocations of Churchill’s agents within Hitler’s troops.
At Stalin’s secret conference in Moscow, when Hitler’s troops reached the city and could take it without
trouble, Stalin told his top subordinates to leave Moscow (himself, he could leave it at any time by secret
subway) and said that he was waiting for the Soviet Far Eastern and Siberian troops.
Hitler missed his chance to take Moscow and hence finally lost the war. After his Moscow defeat, Hitler
secretly ordered that his subordinates should begin the extermination of Jews on their own without
mentioning his knowledge of it. In this way (known by criminal gangs as “loyalty sealed by blood”) he
intended to prevent the betrayal of him to the English-speaking countries, since his subordinates
themselves would be perceived by the English-speaking as the guilty perpetrators of the heinous
massacre.
Now the 20th century is strategically over. The strategy of the China dictatorship proceeds not from that
of Hitler or Stalin, but from Sun Tzu, the Chinese author of “The Art of War,” who lived more than two
millennia before them.
Hitler declared war on Stalin’s Russia and then on the United States, for a war was understood in
Europe as a duel between noblemen — knights leading their soldiers. Nothing was more absurd to Sun
Tzu, who viewed a war as a surprise killing by an assassin of his victim before the latter could
understand what was going on.

A study, published by The Literature and Arts Publishing House of the People’s Liberation Army in
Beijing in 1999, is entitled by its two authors, Chinese military men, “Unrestricted Warfare.” Their list
of Westerners, none of whom “have successfully mastered war,” starts with Hitler: He forbade the
development of chemical and biological weapons, and his attitude to the development of nuclear
weapons was anything but ardent.
What about the annihilation of Jews?
Well, that was not an act of war, but “an improvement of the race,” about which Hitler allegedly knew
nothing.
The art of war, according to Sun Tzu, is not bravery in which Hitler distinguished himself in World War
I as a soldier and in World War II as commander in chief when he came to the Moscow area to stop
personally under Soviet bullets the panicky retreat of his troops being routed by the Soviet Far Eastern
and Siberian armies.
The art of war, according to Sun Tzu, is cunning, deception, misinformation, surprise. In Europe, the
military commanders were aristocrats who brought the art of duel into the art of war.
In China, what was, and is, all-important is the result of war, not the nobility of the duel. Sun Tzu’s war
does not differ from thievery, which is based on concealment, not challenges and other aristocratic
rules.
The 21st century opens new avenues of concealment and deception, since new weapons are not linked
with the general technological basis as they were in the 20th century, when the tanks emerged from an
armed car and a tractor, or bombers and fighter planes emerged from civilian aircraft.
True, U.S. nuclear bombs of 1945 came from a special military Manhattan Project, based on nuclear
research in laboratories, but those in charge of them had never meant them as research in new
weapons. The use of nuclear power as fuel was not thought of either. Also, contributing factors to the
creation of the Manhattan Project were Hitler’s declaration of war on the United States, his actual wars
of aggression, and the rumor (supported by Einstein in his Aug. 2, 1939, letter to Roosevelt) that Hitler
was developing the nuclear bomb.
In other words, the development of weapons moved away from the general scientific-technological
basis. In the United States, that happened as a result of Hitler’s aggressions, but in Stalin’s Russia, the
breakaway was a matter of Stalin’s and his successors’ will.
In Russia, the output of steel rose from 3.1 million tons in 1917 to 161 million tons in 1986, as against 75
million tons in the United States and 38 million in the Federal Republic of Germany. On the other hand,
“shortages” of consumer goods made of steel were observed in civilian trade, especially outside Moscow.

In a dictatorship, the development of new weapons (as were nuclear weapons in the United States in
1940–45) may account for any percentage of the country’s production. China may have many
Manhattan Projects developing — no, not nuclear — but post-nuclear super weapons.
Incidentally, the U.S. Manhattan Project and its bombs showed what Sun Tzu preached as the ideal war.
Let us forget that Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor as well as everything that had happened before the
two U.S. nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan. The latter (by no means a pacific country) surrendered
unconditionally (despite all of its suicidal kamikazes).
Well, China can enact a similar Sun Tzu play in the United States, but with post-nuclear super weapons.
The nuclear blow of the United States entailed many nuclear deaths, but politically benefited Japan,
which became democratic as a result of its unconditional surrender.
But China is a dictatorship, not a democracy, and its victory over the West may lead to the total
annihilation of the population of the West to stop the West’s involuntary seduction of the Chinese into a
rebellion against their dictatorship, which may collapse as it nearly did during the Tiananmen rebellion
with its replica in the Square of the U.S. Statue of Liberty, or as the Soviet dictatorship did collapse in
1991 with whatever result for Russia in the 21st century.

Marxism–Leninism Alive and Well

in Today's China

In the last 34 years of his life, in London, Dr. Karl Marx kept scribbling his huge three-volume “Das
Kapital” (he had a doctor’s degree in the humanities), and only Friedrich Engels, a businessman
working in his father’s textile firm, kept saving Dr. Marx and his family from starvation.
“Das Kapital” is huge, but its three volumes can be summed up in two paragraphs:
(1) The poor (like Dr. Marx) are poor because the rich (like Engels and his father) rob them of part of
their earnings. In the case of Engels and Marx, this was not so, but Dr. Marx wrote not of individuals,
but of “classes”— the class of the poor (the proletariat) was robbed by the class of the rich (the
capitalists).
(2) The proletariat must exterminate the capitalists and take back their proletarian earnings (“the
surplus value,” or the profit).
Then the money was to be abolished: Everyone would work just for the pleasure of it “according to his
ability” and would take free of charge any goods and services “according to his needs.”
But first of all, “the robbers (the capitalists) should be robbed,” as Lenin put it. Alas, the “robbery of the
robbers” led to a national disaster. The followers of Dr. Marx, led by Lenin (a lawyer by education) could
not reinstate and run all those numberless shops and workshops the population needed to live. So
“capitalism” was permitted, but was called not capitalism (or private enterprise, as in China today), but
NEP (New Economic Policy) and the capitalists were called “nepmen.”
Yet the problem was more difficult. It was not clear from “Das Kapital” who would be the ruler or the
head of the government.
First it was Lenin because many Russian Marxists considered him as wise as was Dr. Marx, who had
died in 1883. But Lenin was soon ill, partly because a Social Revolutionary tried to assassinate him since
Lenin and his followers had seized autocratic power at the expense of Social Revolutionaries, of
Marxists who disagreed with Lenin, etc.
Stalin and other Leninists, displeased with the scope of Lenin’s power, stopped, under the pretext of his
illness, Lenin’s communication with the world outside the hospital. He died without naming his
successor.
For Stalin, to oust Trotsky from the succession was quite a job, which first led to the exile of Trotsky,
and in Mexico, in 1940, Stalin’s agent stole from behind the seated Trotsky and crushed his skull with
an alpine axe.

There was yet another lacuna in “Das Kapital”: the absence of protection of the masses, and not only
individuals, from autocratic power. At the end of his life, Stalin was preparing the annihilation of Jews
as part of his transition from Marxism–Leninism to Byzantine Russian nationalism. Marx was a Jew. As
was Trotsky. Who would have protected them as Jews from being annihilated? How would this have
been accomplished? Why would they have been protected?
There is a difference between Marxism–Leninism in Stalin’s Russia and in today’s China. In Russia,
Marxism–Leninism continued to be touted for all the world to hear because even when Stalin was in his
full autocratic power in Russia, one-fourth of voters in France and one-third of them in Italy “voted
Communist.” The “Communist world revolution” was still expectable. Not today! And hence Marxism–
Leninism is used in China as propaganda for its “inner consumption” only.
Here is the second paragraph of Hu Jintao’s speech as printed in the Jan. 2, 2008, China Daily:
Marxism–Leninism reveals the universal laws governing the development of history of human society.
It analyzes the contradictions inherent in the capitalist system that it is incapable of resolving internally
and shows that socialist society will inevitably replace capitalist society and ultimately develop into
communist society.

The belief that China is not just after war, but is after a new world, a global China, may inspire some
Chinese. According to Marxism–Leninism, China’s world war will not be fought to enslave or
exterminate enemies, but to liberate them (hence “the People’s Liberation Army”), to make them part of
a new world — a global Chinese paradise.
The only important organizational activity Marx ever undertook was his leadership of the “International
Workingmen’s Association,” known as the “First International.” Its hymn later became the Soviet
anthem. Different Communist Parties translated the hymn known as “The International” into their
respective languages. The translation into Russian sounded as follows:
Arise, ye cursed and branded,
The world of those enslaved and starved!
Our minds are aboil,
And are ready to fight to death!
We shall destroy the world of evil to its foundation,

And we shall create our new world,

In which those who were dirt and rubbish
Will rise to the highest skies.
Yes, this is our fight, final and decisive,
 The International will help humankind to gain its real life!
After World War II, “The International” was replaced, as the hymn in Stalin’s Russia, with an anthem
that said, “we were raised by Stalin who inspired our labor and heroism.” The hymn began with the
assertion (which would make Marx or Lenin or Mao faint) that the “unbreakable union of free republics
has been forever welded together by the great Rus.” “Rus” is the old poetic name of Russia. Stalin’s
Russian nationalism was full steam ahead, and the fact that Lenin mispronounced the Russian letter “r”
made new Russian nationalists speak of his Jewishness.
But from China, I have recently heard “The International.” Marxism-Leninism is fully alive for domestic
consumption in China together with its “International” so full of military globalism, ruthless bigotry,
and self-righteous fanaticism.
Yes, the dictatorship of China does need all those post-nuclear super weapons to make the wildest
ravings of “The International” “our new world.”

China Threat Resonates With American Public

On Jan. 18, I received an e-mail from Larry (all family names are intentionally omitted) which
concludes: “I agree with the making of a movie that will show what can happen when [the dictatorship
of] China decides it’s time.”
The day earlier I had received the following e-mail from Ralph in California:
Having a Chinese wife, tutoring a Chinese scholar, and having visited China last year,
I agree with you that America is in mortal danger.
Maybe we cannot elect a president who sees this, but we can try to awaken more
people to speak up to the politicians.
Your proposed film is a wonderful idea. I would offer to help in writing, but you are
already skilled in that field. I’d be glad to help with publicizing all of this, or be
generally helpful. I am a retired teacher of world history, a military veteran of Army
Air Force, and in reasonable health. THANK YOU FOR WRITING.
A Jan. 18 e-mail from Gordon, a U.S. lawyer:
Sir: You confirm everything I concluded (based upon my research) about China and
her current aims while attending the U.S. Army War College a couple of years ago
before my deployment to Iraq with the 116 Calvary Brigade, headquartered in Boise,
Idaho. Nevertheless, you are akin to a “prophet in the wilderness.” Realistically, what
can we do?

John Stuart Mill (the author of “On Liberty,” published in 1859) treated newspapers and magazines
with scornful horror. He was never connected with any university either. He wrote books — and is still
world-known as a sage. Now, we live in a society in which the president is elected by a majority, and the
prophets for a majority are television “hosts” and their “guests” for whom China does not exist as a
threat as it does not for President Bush.
But the enlightenment of the electorate is not hopeless: We can make a film that will be seen by as many
voters as PBS has viewers and Random House has readers.
On Jan. 7, I received an e-mail from Donald, containing four lines of approval of my China columns —
and 15 pages of his text showing “the China threat.” What is wrong?
It is a 15-page message of a “prophet in the wilderness” to another such prophet (myself). Yet we do not
live in England in 1859, but in the West in 2008, and in particular in the United States, where the
destiny of the civilization is determined by the majority of the electorate, not by prophets.
Donald has demonstrated an outstanding knowledge in the field and fierce intellectual courage. So? His
15 pages must be translated into a cinematographic language to become known to the electorate.
In his Jan. 17 e-mail, Gregory writes that he has been reading my columns and is “really disturbed by
the whole China threat.” But the Subject line of his e-mail is: “Question.”
What is the question? “I am curious as to how you have come across this information and how serious it
actually is.” Well, when a civilian object or process is studied, it is possible to check how accurate the
data are. But Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese author of “The Art of War,” said that basic to the art of war
are (1) concealment and (2) deception.
The war with the United States, which Japan began by attacking Pearl Harbor, ended brilliantly for the
United States: Japan surrendered unconditionally. Why? Because the United States had managed to
keep secret its giant Manhattan Project — development of nuclear weapons.

Does Gregory expect the dictatorship of China to divulge to me (or someone else anxious to protect the
West) all the secret data on their war preparations? Does Gregory believe in the efficacy of the CIA or
the British Intelligence Service in China though they failed in Saddam Hussein’s tiny (compared with
China) Third-World Iraq, where a coalition of Western countries, led by the U.S., got stuck for five
years!
Roy’s e-mail on Jan. 15 begins as follows: “Lev: You are a genius. I was taught that China would be a
threat to the world when I was 14 yrs old — I’m now 47.”
Again, Americans who are 47 years old, if not those who are14, should understand that China is a threat
to the West, which no presidential candidate, except Duncan Hunter, has stated whether young or old.
For months, I was explaining to those working for Hunter that if a majority of the electorate saw our
film showing that China is a mortal threat to the United States, he would be the U.S. president. My
message bogged down among those who worked for him. As of Jan. 18, CNN reported that he had
received so few votes that he decided to drop out of the presidential race.
In an e-mail dated Jan. 10, Russel writes: “What positively amazes me is that few people are scared and
I find that even my closest friends seem to be in denial and are poorly informed. I remember a
Holocaust survivor commenting on how quickly his comfortable German middle class life evaporated.
He commented that “Americans are living in a fool’s paradise.”

Timothy ends his Jan. 11 e-mail with the question, “What do you think can be done at this point?” My
answer is the same: “A film that can deliver the U.S. electorate from a fool’s paradise.”
In his e-mail on Jan. 17, Keith notes that one-sixth of the population of China were Internet users by the
end of 2007.
But what about Hu Jintao’s call last year to “purify” the Internet?
On the other hand, it is the Western (“subversive”) information that the dictatorship of China cannot
completely stop, which makes it imperative for the dictatorship of China to establish world domination,
not to be overthrown by another Tiananmen movement with a replica of the Statue of Liberty on the
Tiananmen Square.
Roy’s e-mail on Jan. 10 is almost two pages long, and I hope it will be used in the film. Here I will quote
his last paragraph.
Do we need a film as you suggest? Yes we do. But we need a few good men and
women to put together a solid group and not be afraid to warn our nation as to what
is coming if significant changes are not made immediately regarding our morals, our
return to constitutional law instead of the farce our justice system has become, and
unite as a nation to return to the principles our Founding Fathers fought and died to
author. Such a group will be ridiculed and called wackos, but who in history did not
experience that for standing on truth and principle. I for one am willing to face that.
Says Scott in his e-mail on Jan. 9: “I read your articles almost every week. You think that the U.S. is not
doing Nanotechnology research. Then what of this website [the e-mail address follows]? There seems to
be such research going on.”

Eric Drexler coined the word “nanotechnology” as he published his book about it in 1986. Since then
“nanotechnology” has grown into a huge field, none of which may have anything to do with “molecular
nano weapons.”
Indeed, though only one chapter of his book was devoted to nano weapons, Drexler could not receive a
cent from the Congress for his Foresight Institute, because the commercial producers of consumer nano
goods and services managed to assure the Congress that Drexler’s nano weapons (just one of the
chapters of his book) are sheer fantasies.
Charles begins his e-mail of Jan. 3: “I cannot help but read every article you write. It’s scary and
intriguing.”
Then Charles plunges into a hopeless gloom. “May God help us in these ominous times!”
By contrast, in his mail of Jan. 10, Carl proposes two actors for our film: “Kiefer Sutherland of ‘24’ and
Dennis Haysbert of ‘The Unit.’”
Isn’t it too early to choose the actors for our film? Fortunately, created 30 years ago was our not-for-
profit Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., of which I am the president, and the
Advisory Board of which has contained a dozen or so world-known figures (such as the Nobel Prize
winning novelist Saul Bellow). We need those who would collect (tax-deductible) donations for the
production of our films, whose mission is to save the United States (and Western Europe).
Michael’s Jan. 20 e-mail contains two pages in fine print. No doubt they will be useful for the film, but
here I have no space to quote them.

Chinese Protester Should Be

Honored

The Soviet dictatorship fell in 1991 like a house of cards. A breath of fresh air was needed in China, and
there “physical and mental exercises,” named Falun Gong were created, winning the author several
awards from the Chinese government.
An inhabitant of a country of Marxism-Leninism must be in the best of health physically and spiritually.
“Physculture” (“physical culture”) was introduced in Stalin’s Russia in the 1930s. In 1994, Falun Gong
was being taught at the Chinese consulate in New York as part of the Chinese Communist Party’s
“cultural propaganda” in the West “along with Chinese silk and cooking,” as was reported by “Late
Night Live National Australia.”
A 1999 figure “from the Chinese government” suggested that there were 70 million Falun Gong
practitioners in China. Hip-hip hooray! Glory to the Chinese Communist Party! But on July 20, 1999, as
the epoch of Yeltsin in Russia was over and the epoch of Putin began, the China dictatorship did what
neither Stalin nor his successors did: It banned the Chinese “physculture.” What followed, neither
Stalin, nor Hitler, nor any other dictator of the 20th century ever imagined: the persecution of
“physculture”—or call it private gymnastics, personal sport exercises, all calisthenics (which comes from
the word “beautiful”), practiced privately.

Before this persecution in China of “physculture,” I was sure that nothing worse happened in
“Communist China” than did in Stalin’s Russia. But when I heard that those practicing a forbidden kind
of “physculture” in China are punished by being tortured to death, I have realized that the dictatorship
of China in the 2000s is more inhuman than Stalin ever was.
In Stalin’s Russia, torture was used by investigators in political cases, to make suspects confess that, for
example, they had said that Stalin was too credulous when he did not expect Hitler’s invasion of Russia
contrary to the Soviet-German peace treaty.
All Soviet propaganda references to Hitler’s attack called it “perfidious” (literally, in Russian, “faith-
breaking”). Yet it was a crime to accuse Stalin of credulity. So the suspect was tortured until he
confessed that yes, he did say that Stalin was too credulous with respect to Hitler.

That is, the use of torture was inquisitional, not punitive. Now, in China, the torture is punitive — it is a
punishment for a forbidden kind of private “physculture”!
Medicine has been engaged in organ transplantations, and the holocaust of Falun Gong practitioners
was a lucrative “government business” with prices ranging from $30,000 to $180,000 for a human
organ.
When Hu Jintao, the chief dictator of China, came to the United States and met with President Bush
(April 20, 2006), it was reported that a certain mischievous girl (a citizen of the United States) shouted
at Hu, demanding to stop the torture to death for physical exercises and stop the “harvesting” of the
victims’ organs.
In Hitler’s Germany, Jews were gassed. The dictatorship of China has moved to a new degree of cruelty
— torturing to death as a means of extermination. What if Hitler had followed suit? Imagine that Hitler
came to the White House to shake hands with Roosevelt, but a certain mischievous girl shouted to
Hitler to stop torturing Jews to death.

The mischievous girl would have become a heroine in the United States. But in the United States on
April 20, 2006, Wenyi Wang was arrested and charged as a criminal. Of course! Hu, the chief dictator of
China, and President Bush talked peace and friendship between the United States and China, and here
some mischievous girl demands that the torture to death in China for no crime be stopped!
Incidentally, Dr. Wenyi Wang is not quite a mischievous girl; she is a 47-year-old mother of two. In
China she was a physician, and in the United States she holds a Ph.D. in pharmacology from the
University of Chicago, and recently completed her residency as a pathologist at Mount Sinai Hospital.
She also worked in 2006 as a medical reporter for the Chinese dissident newspaper “The Epoch Times,”
(published in the United States, and it is as a reporter that she managed to gain access to the White
House lawn press confabulation of Hu Jintao and George W. Bush, to preserve Sino-American peace,
friendship, and trade [for example, in the “harvested” organs of those tortured to death for physical
exercises?]).

Of course, there are Americans who believe that they should be concerned with Americans only.
As for the Chinese, let them torture one another to death! Yet there are wars, and before 1939 some
Westerners outside Germany believed that they should not be concerned with the destiny of those who
resided in Hitler’s Germany. But Hitler’s Germany came to these Westerners — in France, for example.
On June 21, 2006, the U.S. court in Washington, D.C., dropped all charges against Dr. Wang. I hope
that her one-person public protest in the White House on April 20, 2006, will be recalled in marble and
bronze. But at any rate, let us recall it in 2008 in this column, for neither President Bush, nor any
presidential candidate as of today, has said a word about the torturing to death in China as punishment
for no crime.

China Thrives on Western Acquiescence

In 2001, Random House published a 345-page book entitled “The Coming Collapse of China,” and
recently, since the collapse has not yet occurred in the past seven years, PBS interviewed the author of
the book, Gordon Chang, a son of a Chinese immigrant to the United States.
On the page before the last page of his book, we learn that Chang has been living in China for “almost
two decades, most recently in Shanghai” as counsel to an American law firm.
He also published articles about the “coming collapse of China” in The New York Times and other major
Western periodicals.
His book is banned in China. Yet we read, “He lives with his wife, Lydia, in Shanghai”!
The dictatorship of China does not want the Chinese to even read the phrase the “coming collapse of
China.” But the West is welcome to believe it, since it may allay Western concerns about the “China
threat,” weak or nonexistent as those concerns have been under President Bush and President Clinton
as well as among the presidential candidates for 2008, except for Duncan Hunter, who received so few
votes that he withdrew from the presidential race.
Neither Chang nor his Western promoters seem to remember what Sun Tzu said in “Art of War”: An
attacker should seem the opposite of what he actually is. The dictators of China are satisfied that Chang
represents in the West their dictatorship as the opposite of what it is.

According to Chang, it is so weak that its collapse was coming already in 2001, when he published his
book.
Needless to say, Chang never even as much as hints at the “China threat,” since the dictatorship of
China, as he represents it, pathetically struggles against its own “coming collapse.”
The book is a bold antidote against a dozen or so Americans, mostly without any administrative rank,
who assert (no, not in The New York Times!) that the dictatorship of China may, indeed, collapse due to
the Western involuntary subversion (recall a replica of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square
during the Tiananmen movement against the absolutism of the dictatorship of China). But Chang never
as much as hints that to survive, the dictatorship of China may try to establish world domination, owing
to (1) its development of post-nuclear super weapons (as per “Unrestricted War,” published in 1999 by
and for the military of China) and owing to (2) the Western super-pacifist mood as exemplified by
Chang.
The question is, Why does the dictatorship of China cling so stubbornly to its absolute power?
This is a more redundant question than would be the question, Why do the wealthy in the West value
their wealth?
Now, absolute power is infinitely more valuable for its owners than is any wealth, and, indeed, includes
wealth.
In the 1930s, beloved Stalin appeared to his beloved people in his soldier’s tunic he had worn in 1918.
But he secretly lived in the palaces, expropriated from the Russian royalty all over the country, and was
finally to become the Byzantine emperor-God, infinitely above all Russian tsars or emperors.

Chang’s vision of the “coming collapse of China” resembles the visions of Marxists-Leninists in the West
and Russia in the 19th century, except that to them, signs of the “coming collapse” stemmed from
“capitalism” (to be replaced by “socialism”), while to Chang, such signs stem, on the contrary, from the
insufficient development of capitalism in China as compared with the West. Chang is a 19th-century
Marxist-Leninist upside down.
On Page XVI of his book, we read a sentence that seems to come from a 19th-century Marxist-Leninist
criticism of “the bourgeois society”: “The symptoms of decay are to be seen everywhere.” Chang’s first
example is the Falun Gong. “The Party banned that group [for the exercises the “Party” popularized
before 1999] and drove it underground. But the Falun Gong is fighting back; its members lost their
fear.” No mention of the torture of them to death after 1999.
On Page 21, Chang estimates Mao’s victims at 30 million, though 80 million is usually cited, “but the
population for all its suffering, stood by the Party and its leaders. Today, when the Chinese people are
enjoying relative prosperity, the nation is plagued by social disorder.”

Chang does not say that the love for Mao (or Stalin) was the infinite fear of them. The disappearance of
such infinite fear Chang views as a decay, decadence, “social disorder.” Thus, Falun Gong (Page 25)
“highlights yet again the weakening grip of the apparently mighty Community Party. . . . If the Party
cannot effectively [!] deal with the Falun Gong, what hope does it have with other foes?”
Chapter 2 is entitled “Lake of Gasoline,” and its last sentence (Page 44) is: “China is a lake of gasoline,
and that individual [that is, a person who is “angry, shrewd or just desperate”], in some small town or
large city, will have only to throw a match.”
Each chapter of the book describes a fatal weakness of the Chinese dictatorship. Thus, Chapter 8 (Pages
166-186) deals with prostitution as yet another sign of the “coming collapse of China.” Chapter 12 (Page
256) is entitled “Road to Ruin: How the State Will Fall.” The Epilogue is entitled “The State Begins [in
2001] to Disintegrate.”
Perhaps Chang should be introduced to the nature of post-World War II wars to understand that the
dictatorship of China may not just tremble in the expectation of its coming collapse, but instead it may
annihilate the West, establish world domination, and convert into fertilizer the no-longer-needed U.S.
firm that Chang consulted as well as Chang himself.
World War II ended with Japan’s unconditional surrender to the United States. Why?
Previously, the weapons were reflections of the country’s “industrial development.” But nuclear
weapons were not just products of industrial development, as were, for example, tanks, but were the
results of nuclear studies, with many European nuclear scientists immigrating to the United States to
escape anti-Semitism.

Japan’s general industrial development proved to be useless when confronted with results of nuclear
studies that became known as nuclear, or atomic, weapons.
I refer my readers to books like Eric Drexler’s “Engines of Creation,” published in 1986 and reprinted
last year, and “Oblivion: America at the Brink” by Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden (a former Pentagon
analyst).
We know how these results of scientific studies have prospered in China. The photographs of Drexler
were posted at research centers in China, and all of his books and articles were put on the Internet —
despite Falun Gong, prostitution, and other such signs of the “coming collapse of China.” In the United
States, Drexler did not receive a cent from congress for his “Foresight Institute,” which he had founded
in 1986 — and has been ousted from it!
As for Bearden, he explains at the end of his book why he entitled it “Oblivion — America at the Brink.”:
“The darkest days in the history of our republic lie immediately ahead of us. If we are to survive, we
shall need the most strenuous and rapid effort in our history, now.”
According to Bearden, the West will not collapse owing to Falun Gong or prostitution, but it may be
annihilated by post-nuclear super weapons to which his book is devoted and which China has been
developing with the help of Putin’s Russia.

'Manhattan Project' Needed for Nano Weapons

Many of my readers have been asking me to describe nano weapons (as one might describe a
machinegun or an “atomic bomb”). It is often forgotten that before the Manhattan Project (1939-1945)
the atomic bomb was not a working product, but intellectual or scientific discourses.
Thus, about 24 centuries ago, Democritus discoursed upon atoms (a Greek word). But “atomic bombs”
began to take shape in people’s minds only after the Manhattan Project, which finally employed
130,000 people and cost $23 billion in 2007 dollars.
Its map with its 14 major sites looks like a map of the United States, and Britain as well as Canada
participated in the Project. It is only after five years of its development of the “atomic bomb” that the
latter became a product that could be described.
An e-mail on Feb. 3, 2008, signed “Andreas,” asked me: “Sorry to bother you, but how were nano-
weapons brought to your attention?”
I grew up and lived in Soviet Russia as an absolutely implacable and hence absolutely secretive enemy
of its dictatorship. That secrecy paid off. Stalin supported the independence of Israel because that was
part of the disintegration of the British empire. Accordingly, Golda Meir praised Stalin and the “Soviet”
regime.

So in 1969 when Golda Meir became the prime minister of Israel, the Soviet dictatorship decided to let
some impeccably Soviet Jews emigrate to Israel. No one could deny my Jewishness since, while one of
my Russian father’s next of kin was a nationally famous ballet dancer, on my mother’s side there were
24 generations of rabbis.
I was impeccably Soviet, since I had never been noticed by the Soviet secret police as saying anything
anti-Soviet.
I was the first (and last?) citizen of Soviet Russia to translate Russian classical literature into English,
and hence I, my wife and our son, resided in a three-storied country house, which we bought for
150,000 rubles, and which could cost millions of dollars in the United States today. Let the Israeli learn
how “ordinary Soviet people” live without any official rank or party membership!
But as soon as we were outside “Soviet” Russia, we made for the United States, since the destiny of the
free world, including Israel, was decided in the United States, not in Israel.
Indeed, I had an important message for the United States.
An international book-sized journal named “Nuclear Physics” was published in the 1960s in English,
and my wife was the editor of its Soviet branch at the Nuclear Physics Institute of the Academy of
Sciences. The director of the Institute was Dmitriy Skobeltsyn, one of the founders of the Soviet nuclear
physics, and the Institute’s research associates included world-known nuclear physicists.
One fine day in the 1960s Skobeltsyn announced at a meeting of the staff that the Institute would no
longer be engaged in nuclear physics, though the staff members would retain their salaries to qualify in
post-nuclear fields.
When we found ourselves in New York in 1972, I went to The New York Times since Ray Anderson, its
Moscow correspondent, had called the editors and advised them to receive me. I told them that nuclear
weapons were over in Soviet Russia. In 1959, Richard P. Feynman, an American physicist of genius, had
made a report entitled “There Is Plenty of Room at the Bottom” (of a molecule) and opening new ways
to the development of new weapons, more advanced than nuclear weapons. The New York Times
editors had probably never heard of Feynman or of Skobeltsyn. The results of my visit were nil.

However, I had a call from William C. West, a senior CIA analyst. He had asked a Russian-language
émigré periodical who of the new émigrés was likely to have brought some information valuable for the
defense of the West, and they gave him my name. So he called me and asked me if he could come over
with his assistant to our New York apartment.
I told him what I had told The New York Times — but he was overwhelmed. We became friends, and
later my wife and I visited him in Washington, D.C. But his CIA superiors were totally negative to the
information he brought them from me.
Finally, I met a presidential candidate Ronald Reagan at the East Side Conservative Club. He recalls me
in his “Reagan in His Own Hand” (Pages 62-63), and, indeed, he made a public statement on the basis
of our conversation when he had become the president. But the CIA publicly rejected it and declared
that he was suffering from “evil-empirism.”
He called Soviet Russia “an evil empire” and hence the CIA’s sarcasm. Today the CIA says what the
president wants. At that time, the CIA ridiculed what the president said publicly as though he were its
minor subordinate.

But what about post-nuclear weapons such as nano weapons? In 1986, that is, over a quarter of a
century after Feynman’s speech, Eric Drexler published a book entitled “Engines of Creation.” I leafed
through it and discovered that the book contained one chapter entitled “Engines of Destruction.” Nano
weapons!
“Nano” means one billionth of a meter. Before the invention of the microscope, no one knew about the
world of microbes. Nanotechnology invites us into the world of molecules, compared with which
microbes are giants. According to Drexler, a molecule can be converted into a supermicroscopic
computer that will find and destroy nuclear bombs, will multiply, and, of course, fly in a given direction.
Imagine a growing cloud-hurricane of such nano engines of destruction.
No Manhattan Project for their development has been created (at least in the West) just as nuclear
weapons had not been developed before 1939-1945 either in Germany or the countries opposing it in
World War II, and their descriptions and even the possibility of their development had been denied by
some scientists.
In 1992, that is, six years after the publication of his “Engines of Creation,” Drexler published a 556-
page volume entitled “Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing and Competition.”
Finally, last year my computer received — absolutely free of charge — the second edition of Drexler’s
“Engines of Creation,” the first page of which said that the world-based publishers of ebooks, named
WOWIO, “are proud to sponsor this ebook for LEV NAVROZOV.”
Just as nuclear weapons needed the Manhattan Project of 1939-1945 to develop scientific discourses
and experiments into a product, nano weapons have needed since 1986, if not 1959, a project for the
same purpose.

But in 1939, Einstein told Roosevelt that Hitler was developing nuclear weapons, Hitler seized France in
1940, and launched in 1941 the invasion of Russia, with its enormous natural resources.
Today it is easier for the U.S. government and presidential candidates of 2008 to ignore the mortal
military danger of the dictatorship of China and its alliance with Putin’s Russia, advanced in post-
molecular super weapons.
In the same year, 1986, when Drexler published his seminal book, he founded the Foresight Institute,
which could have become the embryo of the Manhattan Project for the development of nano weapons.
But the Congress did not give him a cent.
You see, since 1986, when no one except Drexler used or knew the word, nanotechnology has become a
giant in peaceful fields. But the allocations in the Congress constituted one lump sum “for
nanotechnology.” Predictably, some businessmen, producing commercial nanogoods, accused Drexler
of writing frightful nonsense about “engines of destruction” to scare little children.
There are rich businessmen in China as well under what Lenin called the New Economic Policy. But
they know that if they say a word about the development of post-nuclear weapons in China, the
“system” will swat them like flies. On the other hand, a rich Westerner can sell his country for a bag of
money without recalling that he and his ill-gotten bag of money will be annihilated by billions of those
nano weapons to develop which for defense the U.S. Congress has had no money, and anyway Drexler
“is not with” the Foresight Institute he founded in 1986!

China Threat Grows Beyond U.S.

Imagination

In February of 2008 there were two cases of China’s espionage reported simultaneously: one in
Alexandria, Va., and the other in Los Angeles. Is the FBI in its right mind?
How on earth can China (that is, its Marxist-Leninist dictatorship) be engaged in espionage? China —
the country of friendship and trade? Shortly before, The New York Times radio, by way of a sweet
enticing female voice, invited listeners to enjoy a tour in China. And suddenly — would you believe it?
Espionage!
The Western trade with China has been especially successful. Hundreds of millions of Chinese families
have subsisted on $2 a day. What they produce, therefore, fills the pockets of Western and Chinese
traders when sold in the West at greatly increased prices.
Did the FBI mistake China for an ordinary country — like, say, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq? When Iraq was
at war with Iran, the United States was on the side of Iraq against Iran.
No protests were made against Saddam’s bombings of the Kurds who sided with Iran. But after the war
was over, Saddam was properly demonized for more than 10 years—and hanged in front of a TV camera,
after President Bush had pre-emptively invaded Iraq, since it was said that Iraq was going to have an
atomic bomb!
The dictatorship of China tested its first atomic bomb in 1963 and went on building its nuclear arsenal
until it needed no more of it. It would need no more since the West is to be annihilated by post-nuclear
super weapons, not by those pathetic “atomic bombs.” Yet Saddam allegedly dreamed of having only
one such bomb and Iraq was pre-emptively invaded and he was hanged.
To gauge the mental capacity of U.S. officials, it may also be added that Bush (a failed Texas oilman who
was elected twice to be the U.S. president) has been saying that in Iraq the U.S. troops have been
fighting “terror.”
He had learned to use the word “terror” in the sense of “terrorism.” But U.S. troops had been fighting in
Iraq not terror, but a guerrilla war waged by Sunnis. The most likely result of Bush’s invasion will be the
dictatorship of the Shi’as, who are more anti-Western and anti-American than the Sunnis. But when
Bush launched his invasion of Iraq, he did not know that some Iraqis are Sunnis and others are Shi’as.
Anyway, in 2008, Chinese espionage was discovered — in the United States! But in 1979, Jimmy Carter,
yet another brilliant U.S. president, signed the U.S.–China Agreement on Cooperation in Science and
Technology, and in 2000, Anthony Rock of the State Department surveyed the great “benefits” of this
scientific and technological “cooperation” for over a quarter of a century.
By the FBI and media standards of February 2008, one of the elements of this “cooperation” was
China’s espionage. But according to Rock, the United States (and other countries of the West) have been
helping China become as scientifically and technologically developed as the West, so that they could
move together to their glorious future.

“Although,” said Rock, “there are areas where we must protect both information vital to our national
security and the intellectual property of our citizens, the benefits of our scientific and technological
cooperation with China far [!] outweigh the costs of this relationship [Chinese espionage].”
The “benefits” is the key word. Rock continues, “Although it is impossible to rule out unintended
benefits to the military sphere [‘unintended espionage’], such side effects are almost [!] impossible to
document or substantiate [except by the FBI] and any benefits to China’s military would have been
small [tiny?] compared to the overall benefits of cooperation.”
So what are the benefits? Bush himself helped to elucidate the problem in 2002: “[As noted in the
President’s 2002 National Security Strategy] the United States’ relationship with China is an important
part of our strategy to promote a stable, peaceful, and prosperous Asia-Pacific region.
“We welcome the emergence of a strong, peaceful, and prosperous China.”

The U.S. State Department survey, submitted to Congress on April 15, 2005, and published by Yahoo!
on April 27, 2005, contains 10 pages. It is impossible and unnecessary to quote all of them. The
meaning is already perfectly clear: Westerners, such as George W. Bush, view foreign countries as
similar to their own or as they view their neighbors in the countryside where they reside when they are
free from the administrative chores in Washington, D.C.
Of course, your neighbor in the countryside or the head of a foreign government may turn out to be a
scoundrel (like Saddam Hussein, who did not give away the Iraqi oil peacefully to George Bush and his
subordinates). But your ordinary neighbor behind the fence will not quarrel with you if you treat him
nicely.
As a sensible person, a former businessman, the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain persuaded
his “German counterpart” Adolph Hitler to sign a peace treaty. Whereupon Chamberlain’s car could not
ride through London because the streets of London turned into a sea of Londoners expressing their joy,
relief, and gratitude.
Had Hitler continued to behave as he did in 1938 and launched world war only after his nuclear project
had developed “atomic bombs,” he would have become the owner of the world. But instead, he seized
“the rump of Czechoslovakia,” which was to be independent under the Hitler-Chamberlain treaty, then
Poland, then France, and finally invaded Russia with its vast natural and human resources, both
convertible into part of the Wehrmacht.
Hitler had been routed even before the U.S. Manhattan Project, and before Canada and Britain
developed nuclear weapons.
Many Western officials like Rock and both Bushes evidently believe that if they arm the dictatorship of
China sufficiently to annihilate the West, the dictatorship will behave like Hitler in the imagination of
the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and those Londoners who filled the streets of London to
hail his peace.
Not just the United States, but the West in general, has been “cooperating” scientifically and
technologically with China (that is, the dictatorship of China) in the belief that the dictatorship of China
will become, as President Bush put it, “strong [true!], peaceful [like Hitler], and prosperous [was
Germany more prosperous under Hitler, that is, during its preparation for, and participation in, World
War II, than before and after him?].”
It is curious that one paragraph of the U.S. State Department survey is devoted to nanotechnology.
Imagine United States-German scientific and technological cooperation in nuclear power in 1939-1945.
Especially since most of the best nuclear physicists of Germany and of her vassals and allies emigrated
to the United States.
Yes, history would have been rewritten as a result of this cooperation. Not in favor of the Western
democracies, but, on the contrary, recording their unconditional surrender or annihilation.

The Danger China Poses as a Modern Slave State

Before the 20th century, the military might of a country had corresponded to its degree
of socio-political development.
In the 20th century that interconnection was gone. A country could have military might and yet be a
slave state, which made it even more dangerous. But the perception of such dangerous societies by the
democratic West has been bizarre.
Walter Duranty, a British newspaper correspondent at the Western front of World War I, became, in
1920, the Moscow correspondent of The New York Times, and in 1935 he published a 348-page book
boldly entitled “I Write As I Please.”
Let me quote just one sentence from this book (Page 340): “Looking backward over the fourteen years I
have spent in Russia, I cannot escape the conclusion that this period has been a heroic chapter in the
life of Humanity.”
The paragraph, eulogizing Stalin’s Russia, is more than one page long, and at the end of it we learn that
“Stalin and his associates have carried with them the strongest and most intelligent elements of the
Russian people, and have created a national unity and enthusiasm which the Trarist Empire never
knew.”

Duranty’s reports from Moscow were a string of such eulogies. But in 1939, when Stalin signed a treaty
with Hitler in the hope to divide the world between them, Duranty had to retire into obscurity and
poverty.
However, Hitler attacked Stalin’s Russia in 1941. The Yalta Conference (February 1945) was held by
Russia, Britain and the United States as their war against Hitler’s Germany was nearing its end.
In my “Commentary” article of August 1974, I quoted Churchill’s speech in the British parliament after
some members of it said that Stalin was occupying Eastern Europe instead of liberating it.
Churchill’s speech was much like Duranty’s reports except that he was more aggressive (Page 39):
“Marshal Stalin and the Soviet leaders wish to live in honorable friendship and equity with the Western
democracies. . . . I feel also that their word is their bond. I know of no government which stands to its
obligations, even in its own despite, more solidly than the Russian Soviet government. I decline
absolutely to embark here on a discussion about Russian good faith.”
Fairly soon, it became undeniable that Stalin was turning the countries of Eastern Europe into his
satrapies, and Churchill made a speech on the subject in the United States, whereupon he acquired the
reputation of being the first to expose Stalin’s Eastern Europe villainy.
In the same issue of “Commentary,” I described how Golda Meir, when she was the Israeli ambassador
in Stalin’s Russia in 1948-49, drew up lists of those Soviet Jews who wished to volunteer to participate
in the Israeli War of Independence, but Stalin’s secret police arrested the volunteers and sent them to
Stalin’s concentration camps.
For my exposure of her naïveté, Mrs. Meir sued me for $3 million and “Commentary” for as much, and
threatened to sue Harper & Row, which had just published my book. Fortunately, courts in New York
permit litigants to litigate pro se — without a lawyer. I litigated pro se, and ere long Mrs. Meir was
compelled to flee with her lawyers since what she called my “slander” was spread by the media as the
count hearing proceeded.
A typical hybrid of modern science and technology with a slave state was Germany of 1933 to 1945. Had
Hitler launched a world war after his nuclear project had developed nuclear bombs, the world would
have been enslaved by him.

Some fantasies of the democratic countries concerning slave states were negative, not positive.
According to Sen. Joseph McCarthy in 1950, Stalin could conquer the United States via Americans; that
is, through those connected in some ways with communism and hence acting or prone to act as his
agents.
A powerful theory — except that neither McCarthy nor any other Westerner seemed to realize that
already in the late 1930s Stalin began to move the ideology away from communism to Russian
nationalism. Moreover, in 1950 and up to his death in 1953, some people in Russia knew that he was
preparing to convert the country to Byzantine Christianity (he had studied in the seminary to become a
Christian Orthodox priest) with himself as the emperor-god. Hence, he was preparing the deportation
of Jews.
Now, McCarthy persecuted those Americans who had some connections with communism, the teaching
of the Jew Marx, an atheist and a utopian who imagined himself to be a rational scientist, able to create
a paradise on earth for the poor.
But up to his death, Stalin instilled in the United States the fear as conqueror, who will use American
communists as his agents. Stalin’s death in 1953 meant the fall of McCarthy, who died at the age of 49,
four years after Stalin’s death at the age of 74, when Khrushchev’s condemnation of Stalin was read to
all Soviet employees.

Nowadays, the most dangerous slave state with modern science and technology for the production of
weapons is the dictatorship of China.
Its population of 1.3 billion people makes it possible to train several times more scientists and
technologists for the production of the latest super weapons than does the United States.
Such a large population also enables China to make billions of dollars from the slave labor of hundreds
of millions of state slaves, which money can be used for the acquisition of science and technology for the
development of post-nuclear super weapons as well as the employment for the same purpose of
individuals of genius from all over the world.
What is the perception of the free world?
In the 1960s it was still fear and hostility. But though in 2000, the dictatorship of China began to
torture to death those “guilty” of private gymnastic exercises; that is, surpassed in cruelty all the
previous slave states, the free world’s attitude to the dictatorship of China assumed today’s degree of
friendship, trade, and “scientific and technological cooperation,” in which Chinese scientific and
technological espionage is inevitable and legitimate.

China Seeks World Domination

The will of the dictatorship of China to world power is understandable. Their world domination will
resolve all of their domestic problems, except their own personal sickness and death that no physician
can prevent.
On the other hand, none of their state slaves will think that he or she would be better off in a different
society as in another country, for there will be no different societies or other countries: The world will be
a single slave state owned by the owners of the world.
The greatest treasure within the solar system, the earth, with its populace and everything that was
considered in the West valuable or priceless — male and female beauty, jewelry, unique buildings,
science, technology, the arts — will be owned by the owners of the world.
Now, what about the defense of the free West?
President Bush and his subordinates have not said a word in almost eight years about a possibility that
the dictatorship of China may wish to own the world just as the dictator Hitler wished it, but when
Hitler invaded Russia, the dictator Stalin drove him out of Russia, and on the crest of his victory over
Hitler, grabbed Eastern Europe, including Eastern Germany itself.

Had Hitler occupied all of Russia without excessive strain, and had he not started the extermination of
Jews in 1942, he would have been able to convert Russia’s natural and human resources into a world
naval and air force, attacking Britain and the United States with nuclear bombs developed by Hitler’s
nuclear project, generously financed and complete with Jewish scientists of genius. Actually, the
dictator Hitler was brought to suicide by the dictator Stalin, who had no weaker will to power.
But President Bush and his subordinates had applied not even once in almost eight years the term
“dictatorship” to the owners of China. Have they assumed that China is not a dictatorship? What is it,
then? A friend and a trade partner of the free West?
We have been also privileged to see since last summer the debates of the presidential candidates, one of
whom will succeed President Bush. Only one of them, Duncan Hunter, spoke publicly of the mortal
threat of China. But he received so few votes that he withdrew from the presidential race.
So that notorious year of 1938 in Britain, when no one publicly spoke of the mortal danger from
Germany, in the United States has lasted with respect to the dictatorship of China for at least eight years
and promises no change.
But just to mention this subject is not enough for the defense. Nano weapons were first described by an
American named Eric Drexler in his book of 1986. But the U.S. Congress did not allocate a cent to his
Foresight Institute he founded in that same year, 1986, and we learn that he is now “no longer with the
Institute” he founded! At the same time, there are Americans who explain to me that I do not know
about the post-nuclear projects in the USA because such projects are “black projects,” that is, the money
for them has been allocated secretly.

By the U.S. Congress? Or by the U.S. president? President Roosevelt allocated secretly — without the
Congress! — tremendous funds for the giant Manhattan Project: this was constitutional, since Hitler
had declared war on the United States in 1941. But the dictatorship of China will never “declare war” on
the United States: see Sun Tze’s “Art of War” of more than two millennia ago and “The Unrestricted
War,” published in 1999 by China’s military publishers.
According to these two publications, “the declaration of war” is a European aristocratic custom like “the
challenge to a duel.” The dictatorship of China will not declare war on the United States, as it will not
challenge the U.S. president to a duel.
It will annihilate the United States or the entire free West as an assassin approaching his victim from
behind and murdering him with his mace (a heavy club). Hence the phrase shashou jian, “assassin’s
mace,” coming from Chinese history.
On Feb. 27, I received the following e-mail from Brad Burnette:

I have been reading your articles for the past couple of years with great interest. I
have also been researching the benefits and destruction that this “new” [nano]
 technology could unleash. I truly believe that the coming nano-revolution will do for
society in the 21st century what the industrial and internet revolutions did for the
20th century, except on a larger scale. While it’s true that we (the U.S.) will need to
be the leader in this very infant technology, how would you know that there is no
secret “Manhattan-like” project with thousands of engineers and scientists working
on super-nano weapons as I write this e-mail?
So, according to Burnette, since the U.S. Congress has not allocated a cent to Drexler’s Institute, we
must believe that President Bush himself allocated the money secretly for the development of nano
weapons, as did Roosevelt for the Manhattan Project, except that President Bush’s allocations have been
unconstitutional, but we should believe that to President Bush even the Constitution is nothing if the
very survival of the free West is involved.
Some simpletons like myself have imagined that President Bush launched his pre-emptive war against
Iraq in 2003 because he and his cronies were after the oil of Iraq, but the war got stuck for five years
since the Sunnis began a guerrilla war. McCain has pledged to continue the U.S. war even if the U.S.
final victory takes a hundred years.
What a simpleton I am! The real goal is to deceive the dictators of China by making them think that he,
McCain, is mentally even more unfit to be the U.S. president than the current U.S. President Bush!

What a simpleton I have been! President Bush launched the war in Iraq to mislead the Chinese
dictatorship by making them believe that the United States is so pathetically weak — it cannot defeat in
five years a small Third-World country!
Also, as a simpleton, I could not understand that the presidential candidates do not refer to the mortal
danger from China, to make those stupid dictators of China believe that all presidential candidates are
as inept as President Bush.
The United States is a country of freedom. This is why I am in the United States.
The Americans in Russia who heard me speaking English asked me when I had come from the United
States to Russia. My joke was that I had never left the United States! But freedom per se does not ensure
the country’s defense.
The dictatorship of China can use any financial stimulants (a $100 million a year as a salary to a foreign
scientist of genius) and any penalties, including the most inhuman Chinese torture to death.
Under its dictatorship, China is a military machine of 1.3 billion human parts. Such a machine may be
infinitely more powerful than the United States if the latter uses freedom only for money-making (with
China and in China) and for entertainments such as the current presidential debates (in which
dictatorship of China does not exist).

U.S. Mired in Iraq — China

Developing Super Weapons

The title of Oswald Spengler’s book, which he intended to publish in 1913, but published only after
World War I, has been translated into English as "The Decline of the West." The German title is "Der
Untergang des Abendlandes," and the word Untergang means in English “sinking,” “self-destruction,”
“ruin,” “fall” of the Abendlandes, the West.
According to Spengler, a civilization such as the post-Roman West, or its one country, Germany, is
viable as long as genius comes forth and thrives therein. Otherwise its overall mediocrity, and hence der
Untergang, ensues.
The post-1913 Germany confirmed Spengler’s prophecy of 1913. The German music of genius of the 18th
and 19th centuries is still the music of genius in the West today. But in the 20th century Germany no
such great music came forth, which Spengler predicted in 1913. Der Untergang was coming. First, the
absurd war, World War I, then the absurd Nazism, with its even more absurd World War II, which
Germany lost disastrously — Stalin occupied the Eastern Germany and even East Berlin.

The United States was much freer than the Kaiser Germany. But genius still came forth in the Kaiser
Germany. Fortunately for the United States, Hitler launched anti-Semitism, and many Germans
geniuses, such as Einstein, emigrated to the United States. That was one reason why the United States
— not in Germany! — developed nuclear weapons.
According to Spengler, genius in different fields thrives for the same reason: a profound elitist culture.
Elitist admirers of a genius enable him or her to live in sufficiency, create and become nationally or
internationally known — without academic degrees or titles and without any publicity in mass culture.
I recalled Spengler when Leopold Tyrmand (an immigrant from Poland), the editor of the magazine
“Chronicles of Culture,” began sending me for reviewing those works of American literature that had
received glowing reviews in “The New York Times” and other such guardians of great literature.
For example, John Updike’s “Rabbit Is Rich” was published by Alfred A. Knopf in 1981, and an opening
page listed his 26 (!) books, showing, judging by their reviews, that as of 1981 he (a summa cum laude
graduate of Harvard) was regarded as a living classic, a writer of genius, an American genius like (I take
three Russian names well known in the West) Tolstoy, or Dostoyevsky or Chekhov (none of whom had
an academic degree), in combination with Edgar Poe or Baudelaire, since four of Updike’s 26 books as
of 1981 were books of poetry.

Baudelaire’s summa cum laude? Very early in life, Baudelaire contracted a venereal disease from which
he died.
Tyrmand and other such rebels also sent me for reviewing the best sellers of other “New York Times”
greats of the time: William Styron, Roth Zuckerman, Irwin Shaw, Jersy Kosinski, Philip Roth, etc., but
there was one difference.
Shortly before, Updike had made a trip to Russia, and when his guide-interpreter saw him off, she gave
him what she called the best present from Russia: Mikhail Prishvin’s “Nature’s Diary.”
In Russia before 1917, Prishvin was paid by the publishers at a par with Chekhov. But what could he
write about in Stalin’s Rusia? Nature!
I translated Prishvin’s book into English for the same reason Prishin had written it: nature was
apolitical. Updike brought the book to a New York publishing house, and they published it with his
preface in which he praised my translation so that they paid me for it though there was no American-
Soviet copyright agreement, and they did not have to pay me a cent.
The result?
It may be supposed that in my review I praised Updike’s book to the skies and thus he became a highly
influential friend of mine. Right?

No!
I contended that all those literary celebrities whose books were sent to me by Tyrmand and listed above
was not literature, but der Untergang. Ironically, Irwin Shaw had written a good play in the 1930s, “The
Gentle People,” when the Untergang had not yet been on. Recall Hemingway, Faulkner, and Steinbeck.
But his book “The Top of the Hill,” published in 1979 and sent to me by Tyrmand for reviewing was der
Untergang as much as the rest of the above pile.
Irwin Shaw phoned Tyrmand and screamed at him so that possibly this was the cause of death of the
sick Leopold. As for me, I would stop a hurt author’s screaming at me by saying: “Look, I resisted Stalin.
Do you think your screaming will scare me?”
Der Untergang is full on.
Today in the United States there is not a single internationally or even nationally recognized thinker of
genius. Hence the human intelligence of a group of people is in inverse ratio to the number of people in
the group. In the United States, debates of 2008 presidential candidates, every candidate (with
exceptions like Duncan Hunter) has been trying to appeal to the largest group of voters possible; that is,
to the lowest level of intelligence.

Suffice it was for him to say publicly that China is a dictatorship, and the destiny of Duncan Hunter
awaited him. So the result of the voting of the least intelligent voters is the least intelligent (or the most
stupid) person as the U.S. president. Is any example needed?
An official cause of the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq in 2003 was Hussein’s alleged intention to create
an honest-to-goodness atom bomb. Now, China tested its first atom bomb in the early 1960s. The
testing of a nuclear bomb cannot be concealed. Since then China has been testing all the nuclear
weapons the dictatorship wanted. To say nothing of post-nuclear super weapons.
But a successful presidential candidate McCain has said that it is necessary for the United States to wage
“the pre-emptive war” in Iraq even if it takes yet another hundred years to win it. And thus, in
particular, to prevent the creation in Iraq of that honest-to-goodness atom bomb which Hussein
allegedly intended to create?
Is McCain’s statement intended, in the absence in the United States of a single recognized thinker of
genius, for the most numerous and hence most stupid American voters? In der Untergang, to use
Spengler’s word, the presidential elections become the stupidity Olympics, which make the annihilation
of the free West by the unmentionable dictatorship of China the surest possible.

Has The New York Times Lost Its

Glory?

We came from Russia to New York in 1972, and in the September 1978 issue of Commentary magazine,
I published my article “What the CIA Knows About Russia,” which was reprinted or retold by about 500
periodicals all over the West.
But not by The New York Times. I felt sorry because the U.S. government would have paid attention to
Times report and would have acted accordingly. But there was an incident that could have helped me.
I had given a lecture at the East Side Conservative Club, and its president, Tom Bolan, invited me to
become a member of its advisory board. I explained to him that I was not a conservative. In the West,
different denominations, like Republicans and Democrats in the United States, fight, sometimes
venomously and forgetting that unless they defend their countries against totalitarianism, the latter will
kill them regardless of their political affiliation.
The leading Russian communists—Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinovyev, and Bukharin — were killed in
“communist” Russia as offhandedly as was the tsar Nicholas II. “So I understood it from your lecture,”
Tom said. “Still, I invite you to get on our advisory board.” And so I did.

William Safire, a Republican, yet the most important columnist of the most important American
(Democratic?) newspaper, was a member of Tom’s Conservative Club and was to give there a lecture.
Tom introduced us, and spoke with Safire about the crucial importance of my CIA article.
Safire was very respectful and carried my article with him all that evening. Whereupon the article
disappeared as far as he and The New York Times were concerned — he never mentioned it in his
columns and The New York Times ignored it as before.
Let us now see why over 500 Western periodicals of the West reprinted or retold the article.
What happened was that for the first time an intelligence-espionage service (in this case, the CIA) had
made its reports public — they were publicly discussed by Congress and copies could be given to anyone
who requested them. I rushed to Washington, D.C. to obtain copies. Tragically, no one else outside the
Congress did and as a result, no one else wrote about them.
What did I discover? That the Western intelligence-espionage agencies, such as the CIA, do not exist in
our era of totalitarian societies. They are fit only for the 19th and earlier centuries.
A potential Western spy crossed the border of a Western foreign country. Thus millions of spies could
have easily and safely appeared in the United States. In Soviet Russia, they would have been shot as
they tried to cross the border. Those few who had crossed it would have been apprehended and shot in
the country, since every “Soviet citizen” was to have a passport, that is, an “internal passport,” in which
his birth and his parents, all places of residence and those of study or work were registered, with copies
kept in the police (“militia”).

As the CIA stated publicly, the Western intelligence espionage was unable to forge Soviet “internal
passports” so well that they would have been taken for genuine. Besides, the forged data would have
been absent in files of the Soviet police.
But if the Western intelligence-espionage agencies were unable to carry out intelligence-espionage in
countries like Soviet Russia, what was the content of those CIA reports that the CIA submitted to the
U.S. president, discussed with the Congress, and given away as copies to whoever requested them?
Their content was the Soviet propaganda, which the CIA copied from the Soviet press, and which
corresponded to the “good U.S.–Soviet relations” at the time. I recognized the Soviet propaganda at a
glance, since I had grown up in that environment, and part of my early spiritual development was to
find how mendacious it was.
Without Western intelligence-espionage within a state-slave country like today’s China, the West
remains blind and doomed. But The New York Times did not even mention my article of 1978, and
neither William Safire’s membership in the East Side Conservative Club, nor my membership on its
advisory board, nor Tom Bolan’s drawing attention to the crucial importance of my article had any
effect.

But the understanding of the life-or-death importance of Western intelligence-espionage in the age of
state-slave societies and of post-nuclear super weapons is probably more significant than all that The
New York Times has ever published in the past half a century, Safire’s Op-Ed page columns including.
I have noticed over the past few years a kind of nervousness on the part of the newspaper. The paper
offers to deliver its Friday, Saturday, and Sunday issues for a little more than the old newsstand price of
the Sunday issue alone.
In 1993, The New York Times had 757,000 readers, and by 2006, the number fell to 529,000. In
February of 2004 The New York Times stock price was $49, and in February of 2008, it was $14 — a
drop to less than one-third its previous price! There has been an offer to buy The New York Times. It
was speculated that since The New York Times cannot regain its erstwhile glory, its owners may be
willing to sell it.
The New York Times attained its highest prestige when there was no Internet, and it was assumed that
every serious communication must be sold in print on paper and must be long and boring. Weekly or
monthly small-format daily magazines entertained those riding to or from work in subways or buses.
But even daily issues of The New York Times were too cumbersome to read on the way to work or back
home.

As for its Sunday issue, it was certainly intended for professors or those who imagined themselves
professors and read the Sunday issue of The New York Times as seriously as they would read Kant.
The advance of radio, television, and the Internet has been irresistible, however. As I mentioned
William Safire in this column, I looked him up in my 1,004-page “New York Times Almanac,” published
in 2007 and presented on the cover as “The World’s Most Comprehensive and Authoritative Almanac.” I
found that the Almanac devoted to The New York Times one paragraph in small print (Page 133) about
the publication of the “Pentagon Papers” and Nixon’s failed attempt to punish legally The New York
Times for this publication.
No New York Times columnist, editor, or reporter, is even mentioned. The Almanac is a one-volume
non-alphabetical hodge-podge, totally useless. On the other hand, the name “William Safire,” which I
pulled up in the Yahoo! of my computer, brought many pages about Safire. Who then needs “The New
York Times [?] Almanac”?
I was not surprised that according to Nielsen Net Ratings, Newsmax.com has advanced above the
Chicago Sun-Times and The Washington Times. The 19th-century tabloids are going out, and the future
belongs to the Internet.

China Is Greatest Threat in History

What Christopher Columbus regarded as India up to his death was a sparsely populated land, virtually
unarmed to fight the Europeans. The continent came to be a British colony.
Then there appeared the independent United States, quite safe geostrategically speaking. Look at the
map. The Atlantic Ocean to the east of the United States and the Pacific to the west, the vast, free,
friendly, and sparsely populated Canada to the north, and a fairly short border with Mexico to the south.
Europeans brought to America the Industrial Revolution; that is, the age of machines, which could be
reconstructed into weapons. A country’s military might corresponded to its “industrial development.”
In the 20th century, new societies originated, such as Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany, who were
socially at the stage of state slavery, and developed their military might per se. However, Stalin’s Russia
was as yet too weak for global domination, and it was invaded in 1941 by Hitler’s Germany. The United
States helped Britain and Stalin’s Russia to defeat Hitler, who declared war on the United States, but his
bombs never fell on the United States.

Note, however, that Hitler’s development of nuclear weapons, which are not transformed machines of
the Industrial Revolution, was at one time ahead of the U.S. Manhattan Project. New slave countries,
combining the state slavery of the antiquity and the development of new weapons, which are not
transformed machines of the Western Industrial Revolution, have not disappeared.
The population of Germany is projected to be just over 82 million in 2010. So the free West will
potentially face at least 16 Nazi Germanys worth of population in China.
China develops weapons that will act in outer space all round the globe. The United States is to be as
accessible to them, and hence as endangered as any other territory of the earth.
In the 19th century, it did not matter for the survival of the United States who was the U.S. president.
But today!
About eight years after his election, it is clear that George Bush has been, geostrategically, worse than
zero. Nothing happened in his time in office except wasting a trillion dollars on the absurd “war in Iraq,”
four thousand American lives, and uncounted Iraqi lives, as a result of which the dictatorship in Iraq
will likely be Shi’a, that is, more hostile to the United States than was the Sunni Saddam Hussein’s
Sunni rule.
Well, this is minor damage compared with the annihilation of the West by the post-nuclear super
weapons created by the Chinese dictatorship in cooperation with Russia.

Even if all U.S. presidents so far had been as harmful as George Bush (or his dear father, who sent April
Glaspie, on July 25, 1990, to Iraq to assure Hussein that the United States would not mind Iraq’s
occupation of Kuwait), the United States would have survived owing to its geostrategic situation and the
absence on the military world scene of global post-nuclear super weapons, developed by the
dictatorship of China.
But the critical time is drawing nigh, when a U.S. president, as geostrategically blind as George Bush or
as any one of the three presidential candidates, may fail to prevent the annihilation of the free West.
In 1832 there was great news in Britain: One out of every seven adult males had now the right to vote in
order to elect — no, not the prime minister, but members of parliament, so that the party that enjoyed a
majority in parliament could make its leader the prime minister, with the blessing of the monarch. In
2008, all American adults except those found mentally unfit, have the right to vote.
There is one other detail. In 1859 John Stuart Mill published his book “On Liberty.” As a child, Mill
never went to school, and as an adult, he was not connected with any university.

How did he manage to be remembered even today as a genius? He spoke of magazines with horror. But
his books were bought, and this was how he became a world-famous thinker. The profits of a modern
TV station come from advertisements, and their price depends on the number of TV viewers the TV
station has, even if they view this particular TV station only because it is more sexually explicit or
because it seems funnier to more viewers than any other TV station.
This is how it happened that a majority of the U.S. electorate voted twice for George W. Bush, while in
2008, 45 percent of voters — no, not just said that their vote for him was a mistake, but demanded
impeachment for him — not for an affair with a White House intern and then an impudent denial of it,
but for being mired (five years!) in Iraq, while China has been developing post-nuclear super weapons.
So, the British politicians of 1832 assumed that it is insane to grant to 100 percent of the psychiatrically
healthy adult population, and not to its most intelligent 7 percent — to elect even a member of
parliament, not the prime minister!
Those British politicians in 1832 were right in the sense that only the most intelligent 7 percent of voters
can be expected to elect intelligent statesmen. But British and American politicians of 2008 will say: “If
only 7 percent of the psychiatrically healthy adults have the right to vote, then the other 93 percent will
declare that they did not elect the powers that be and hence the decisions of these powers that be do not
apply to them.”

Besides, who and how can determine these most intelligent 7 percent? If, say, special commissions will
determine those intelligent enough to have the right to vote, who will determine the intelligence of the
members of such commissions?”
So, what is the solution to saving the West from being annihilated by the slave state of China? The
British selection, in 1832, of 7 percent of the population as voters and the dismissal of the rest as
mentally unfit for the task is impossible. On the other hand, the universal right to “elect and be elected”
leads to the election of U.S. presidents who are mentally below what is needed to defend the free West
against the slave state of China whose population is equal to that of 16 Germanys.
The advantage of the free West is freedom, which can be turned into a tool of geostrategic
enlightenment. Let us have John Stuart Mills, who will be paid not by advertisers for the size of the
entertained audience, but by consumers of thoughts, in particular, in geostrategy. Freedom and hence
the free thinking of thinkers of genius is the advantage of the free West over the dictatorship of China.

McCain, Obama, Hillary Ignore the

China Threat

On March 26, 2008, Yahoo! News carried “Remarks by John McCain to The Los Angeles World Affairs
Council.” In the the first paragraph, he describes how, when he was 5 years old, his father was informed
that Japan had “bombed Pearl Harbor,” and as a result he rarely saw his father, a military man, for the
next four years.
An intelligent or at least a sane assessment of the event should have included conceptions like “the
aggression” (of Japan) and “the tyranny” (in Japan), which made possible that insane aggression,
ending in Japan’s unconditional surrender to the U.S. and the following replacement of the tyranny in
Japan with a parliamentary democracy.
Instead, McCain explains how much he detests war, which deprived him of the opportunity to see his
father regularly for four years. “I detest war. It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but
it is wretched beyond all description.” And so on — for 12 lines. “Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes
the merciless reality of war.”
Prior to this speech, McCain declared that the war in Iraq should be won at any cost, even if it takes 100
years. That pronouncement created the impression, unfavorable for him as a presidential candidate,
that he was a crazy militarist. So the purpose of his speech of March 26 was to prove that he is not a
crazy militarist but, on the contrary, a passionate pacifist, who suffered from war already at the age of 5.

Why then is he for the war in Iraq? Bush attacked Iraq five years ago on the basis of false U.S.-British
intelligence-espionage data. Predictably, Sunni launched a guerrilla war, owing to which Bush has been
mired in Iraq for five years. Bush crossed out the phrase “guerrilla war” from the English language, and
called it “terror.”
Developing Bush’s misnomer, McCain postulates that the U.S. enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida. “If we
withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory, and continue to
provoke sectarian [Shi’a-Sunni] tensions . . . Civil war in Iraq could easily descend into genocide . . .”
The result? “. . . a wider and more difficult war that would entail far greater dangers and sacrifices than
we have suffered to date . . . I hold my position because I hate war.”
Now you see how McCain has been misunderstood. He said he was for the war in Iraq even if it takes
100 years to win it. But he is against war in Iraq and knows how to rout al-Qaida in Iraq, the only
possible way to end the war in Iraq.
Now, what about China, a tyranny whose population exceeds that of Iraq today more than 50 times?
Says McCain: “China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries.” Pay attention to the
word “destined.”
There is no Western intelligence-espionage agencies able to penetrate the dictatorship of China. But
McCain can even predict its destiny. Also, according to McCain, China may move to “political
liberalization,” and then “our relationship will be based” not only on “periodically shared interests” but
also “on the bedrock of shared values.”

In the second paragraph of his speech, McCain declares: “We have enemies for whom no attack is too
cruel, and no innocent life safe, and who would, if they could, strike us with the world’s most terrible
weapons.” Does McCain mean the dictatorship of China with their 1.3 billion slaves? Oh, no!
The dictators of China are destined not to be an adversary of the United States! McCain means al-Qaida
with whom he has replaced Sunni in Iraq in his imagination. These monsters require the U.S. war in
Iraq until they are totally annihilated.
When McCain was 3 or 4 years old, he could have declared (oh, a child’s innocence!) that Japan would
never attack the United States. But Japan did, when he was 5. In 1938, the English were sure that
Hitler’s Germany would never go to war with England. But in the next two years Germany invaded
Poland, then France, and thus was at war with Britain.]
Stalin, a paranoid and suspicious man, did not believe, even on the night of the German attack, that
Germany would attack Russia; but Germany did invade Russia first up to the area of Moscow and then
up to the Volga.
In 2008, McCain announced: “China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries”! The
announcement is useful for the Chinese dictators’ strategy. When the last American is annihilated by
Chinese post-nuclear super weapons, let him still believe in McCain’s announcement.

Barack Obama says little about the U.S. foreign politics under his presidency. When I see him on
television I recall the tragic history of “African Americans”:
In Senegal, it was a good deal,
Their teeth are flint, and muscles steel.
I gave for them gin and knives,
There, money is unknown, and I did not give a cent.
 Even if half of them in my custody dies,
My profit will be 600 percent.
The venom of Rev. Wright, Obama’s pastor, is understandable, though he could be asked why he does
not curse with the same fury those Africans who sold their fellow Africans into slavery for gin and/or
knives. A more relevant question is why Obama tolerated for 20 years such a pastor, selectively hating
America, but not Senegal.
The only plausible answer is that Obama had intended to be the leader of the “African Americans,” but
when there appeared the opportunity to be a presidential candidate, he seized it, and had been doing
well until Rev. Wright was disclosed.
But what about Obama’s in foreign politics? As senator, he was against the invasion of Iraq. Why?
Because his middle name, “Hussein,” was the same as Saddam’s name, and the invasion would not help
the cause of the “African Americans”? Indeed, the invasion soon became a disgrace for all causes except
the cause of Iraqi oil for the chosen American few.

Because of the invasion of Iraq, Obama came to dislike President George W. Bush, but he respects his
father, President George H.W. Bush. But the fact is that President George H.W. Bush sent his newly
appointed U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to Iraq to assure Saddam Hussein, on July 25, 1990, that
should he invade Kuwait, the United States would regard it as Iraq’s internal affair. And this is how the
Iraqi farce-tragedy began and dragged on for 18 years!
As for Hillary Clinton’s foreign politics, let us recall not only her vote, but also her speech in the Senate
— an unqualified approval of the invasion of Iraq.
It was like an essay of a school girl who was given “all the facts” about Saddam Hussein from the reports
of the CIA and the British Intelligence Service, neither of which existed then or exists now in any serious
sense.
The school girl duly wrote the assigned essay, using “all the facts.” She is no doubt capable of writing
such an essay on any subject on the basis of what is being considered as “all the facts” this day, this
week, this month, or this year.
When the U.S. troops entered Iraq, they found out that the U.S.–British intelligence-espionage facts
were fictions.
So what? If Hillary becomes president, she herself will be able to write her speeches on the basis of
inventions provided by the CIA. Her speech-writers could then be dismissed and their salaries donated
to charities. As for the U.S. foreign policy, why should it be better after 2008 than between 1990 and
2008?

Chinese Dissident: China Eyes

World Domination

His name was Zhang Hongbao, and in 2000, he managed to flee from China to the United States.
This happened after Chi Haotian, former “minister of national defense” of China, and Xiong Guangkai,
deputy-general-in-chief of the People’s Liberation Army, stated that while the United States has been
working on weapons like aircraft carriers and bombers, China concentrates on post-nuclear super
weapons, and its geostrategic goal is a “world Chinese net.”
Yes, Zhang Hongbao, a businessman, managed to flee from China to the United States, where he wrote
an address (20 typewritten pages) to the leaders of all countries, except China and those countries that
would not mind being caught in the “world Chinese net.”
On July 31, 2006, Hongbao was riding in his car (in the United States), driven by his female secretary.
The car collided with a truck, and Hongbao was killed. I wrote an obituary, but it was not clear then, as
it is not clear now, whether it was an accident or an assassination.
Now I have read Hongbao’s message, and it is worth discussing, since he was Chinese and had lived in
China for 46 years of his life.
Hongbao says that according to the Chinese military on the Xinhua Internet site and the Military Affairs
Internet site, Chinese super weapons are based on major military technologies: laser, missile
interception, intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, and stealth technology for
submarines.
The Chinese top dictators are quoted by Hongbao as repeating that “the Chinese post-nuclear super
weapons render the enemy [the U.S.] defenseless.”
According to the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese weapons have the following features:
• One hit destroys the enemy, not merely damages the enemy.
• One hit can wipe out the total population of the United States along with its friendly and allied
countries.
• If the U.S. can destroy the enemy within 70 days, then the CCP will destroy the enemy within 60
days.
• Before the enemies know it, they are dead, which dispenses with a costly resistance.

• The killing of the population of the United States and of its 53 friendly and allied countries but
preserving their wealth means acquiring the biggest trophy in human history.
The Chinese military dictators think in terms of the now well-known book “Unrestricted Warfare,”
published by a Chinese military publishing house in 1999. If you can do any harm to the enemy, do
it! The United States and its allies cannot live without electricity? Produce power outages, and the
more the better!
Says Hongbao, “Thus inadvertently, Zhang Wannian, deputy chairman of the Central Military
Commission, reveals a vital secret: China has mastered the technology of causing large-scale power
outages!”
Yet outages, no matter how extensive and lasting, are only one way of disrupting civilian life by
“unrestricted warfare.” Post-nuclear super weapons are capable of producing earthquakes and
tsunamis.
As I have said, Zhang Hongbao intended to send his message to the leaders of all countries except
China and those countries whose leaders would not mind enslavement by the Chinese. But it is
necessary to add to Hongbao’s letter several words about how “unrestricted warfare” and state
slavery help each other. A soldier of a free country may die as a result of war. But a state slave is
supposed to do or die at the will of his collective owner.

The collective owner of the slaves in a slave state can force them to be engaged in any activity
conducive to the victory. It is obvious that China can have more people contributing to the victory
than any other country.
But while the dictators can use any coercion, they can also use any remuneration. They can offer
any remuneration to a foreigner even if his country is a military enemy.
The ultimate results of any collective human undertaking like war stem from human beings — from
their minds and hands. In a slave state, all slaves, and a certain number of foreigners, are the sources
of work, including mental work. A slave state possesses these sources, and thus makes itself as
powerful as possible.
It is also noteworthy that before the war in Iraq, many Chinese military scientific and technical
specialists spoke respectfully about the U.S. armed forces. Today, with rare exceptions, they have
nothing for the subject but scorn. Constitutionalism and democracy do not work well for military
goals in the United States.
World domination is a necessity for the Chinese dictators, or otherwise they will be threatened by
Tiananmens (recall the replica of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square!) or pulled down as the
Soviet dictatorship was about two years later despite the Soviet armed forces and the political
police, both of which had been developed since 1918, that is, for more than 70 years.
Oddly enough, the Chinese dictators can frighten their population into submission even less than the
Soviet dictators ever could. About 100,000 revolts occur in China annually. Zhang Hongbao is a
good example of an individual rebel, trying to stir the resistance of the world to the aggressive
dictatorship of China.

A Simple President in a Complex World

In September 2004, Kitty Kelley published a 704-page volume entitled “The Family: The Real Story of
the Bush Dynasty." It is worth reading because it is a collection of facts based on historical records told
with utter simplicity and without any prejudice on the author’s part.
On Page 101, it says that when the Bushes were asked why they had moved to Texas, their answer was
that in oil-rich Texas they “just wanted to make a lot of money quick.”
They did not say what they needed a “lot of money” for (quick!). One presumes that a “lot of money
quick” was assumed by them to be instant paradise.
Education at Ivy League universities (such as Yale) required money and was also a way to obtain a “lot
of money.”
When George W. Bush was being prepared for Yale at the prep school in Andover, one of his
assignments was to write an essay about a sad experience in his life, and he chose to write about his
sister’s death. He used the word “tears” and wanted another word for “tears.” According to Kelley's
book, in a dictionary, he found the verb “to tear,” meaning “to lacerate.” So he wrote: “And the lacerates
ran down my cheeks.”

For a child of 5, learning to read, this could be just funny. But it was 1962, George W. Bush was 16, and
preparing for Yale.
When compulsory school education was introduced in "civilized countries,” a physically healthy child, in
order to be excused from it, had to be certified as “mentally defective.” But private educational
institutions were disinclined to part with their paid-for pupils.
Therefore, the Andover prep school evaluated George’s act of feeblemindedness as a scandalous
violation of school discipline: The essay was returned to him with a big red "0." On Page 253 of Kelley's
book, she says these words were scrawled across the top of his paper: “Disgraceful. See me
immediately.” George was so scared, he asked friends, “How am I going to last a week?”
George W. Bush graduated from Yale at the bottom of his class (“C” student). It takes some skill to be
one of the worst graduates, for the quality of education at Yale leaves much to be desired, as I found
when I gave a lecture there. So why was this elitist sojourn of George W. Bush “in the best universities”
important for his advance to paradise on earth?

Bush met students ready to exchange their money (or the money of their “dynasty”) for power, yielding
a “lot of money.” The money George W. Bush collected in both of his presidential elections was quite
impressive.
The Bushes said that they had come to the oil-rich Texas “to make a lot of money quick.” Well, Iraq is
far richer than Texas in oil. His presidency was a moderately paid job, but owing to it, Iraq could be
occupied and become a super-Texas where George W. Bush and his cronies could make far more money
than in Texas.
But since Bush has had something wrong with his brain, as became clear in the prep school in Andover,
and since he was one of the worst students at Yale, he did not know that if a certain section of the
population does not like an invasion, that section begins a guerrilla war (as did the Boers when Great
Britian had invaded their country). Bush was not even aware that there are Sunni Iraqi and Shia Iraqi.

Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, and Sunni (a minority) were privileged. The percentage of educated
professionals like doctors or lawyers was far higher among them than among Shia. Therefore, while
some Shia hailed the invasion of Iraq as the end of the Sunni supremacy, Sunni even today are ready for
guerrilla war unless their political representation matches that of Shia, whose number exceeds that of
Sunni twice or so.
Meanwhile Iraq has been devastated. Where is the money for its restoration? The war cost about $1
trillion, and has also intensified the hatred of Muslims (whose number in the world is close to 1 billion)
for the United States.
The death of about 3,000 employees and visitors of the two World Trade Center towers on 9/11 is
rightly recalled in the United States with grief. But it is often forgotten in the West that these 3,000 or
so deaths occurred not before the Iraqi war, but in the middle of it.
The Iraqi war began in 1990 by the 41st U.S. president, George H.W. Bush. George H.W. Bush had sent
his newly appointed ambassador, April Glaspie, to Iraq to assure Hussein on July 25, 1990, that his
dealing with Kuwait was none of the U.S.' business.

But when Hussein, assured by Glaspie that the U.S. would stay neutral, invaded Kuwait, George H.W.
Bush declared him an aggressor, and attacked Iraq. The “April Glaspie transcript” of her conversation
with Hussein is available through Yahoo!.
Besides, "sanctions” were imposed on Iraq, as a result of which half a million children died in Iraq.
About 3,000 Western deaths in 2001 on 9/11 were an Islamic revenge. I agree that any revenge is evil.
But it is even more evil not to mention those children who died as a result of the “sanctions.”
Is the war in Iraq over? Well, from different quarters, we recently heard that President Bush was going
to attend the Beijing Olympics. We have never heard from George W. Bush a single word of disapproval
of the dictators of China no matter how ruthlessly they trample on human rights.
Perhaps China will defeat the United States. And perhaps those Westerners who were nice to the
dictatorship of China will be spared. Those Westerners who trade with China do not just "make a lot of
money quick." Perhaps they also earn their own personal survival.

Culture Under Imperial Absolutism

Nicholas I of the Russian Empire is described as an especially ruthless “Russian tsar” in my

Encyclopedia Britannica. He became the emperor in 1825 after the crushing of the Decembrist uprising
against absolutism, and he died (still the reigning emperor) 30 years later, in 1855.
Let me take poetry as a sample of culture. When Nicholas I asked Pushkin, the best-known poet in
Russia, what he would have done had he been in St. Petersburg during the Decembrist uprising,
Pushkin answered that he would have joined the insurgents, in agreement with his poems written after
the suppression of the uprising:
In the depths of the Siberian ores
Preserve your proud patience,
Your deed will not be lost,
Nor will be your aspirations.
During the uprising, Nicholas I “exiled” Pushkin to his mother’s estate where the “exile” could read,
write, hunt, and do whatever he pleased. In his poem, he addresses the nanny of his childhood, who was
now taking care of the household:

Let’s have a drink, my dear friend

 Of my miserable youth,
And the grief will go away!
Wherever’s the mug?
The heart will feel young and light!
Pushkin was killed in 1837 by the husband of his wife’s sister. Pushkin had challenged the man to a duel
“to defend his wife’s honor.” When Pushkin was killed, the young poet Lermontov became famous due
to his poem, in which he accused “the crowd at the throne” of Pushkin’s death.
But again, nothing graver followed for Lermontov except “an exile.” Incidentally, Lermontov died (in
1841) in a duel.
Absolutism regarded culture as a great endowment of its aristocracy, while those slave states which
originated or resurged in the 20th century divided culture into (1) the development of the world’s best
weapons; and (2) “propaganda,” that is, brainwashing. Ideally, to achieve the first purpose, the natural
brains of slaves should be replaced by artificial brains able to develop the world’s best weapons and
everything needed for their development.
As for the second purpose, the slaves are to receive brains whereby they would think that they are living
in the best possible country, having the best possible social system and the best possible operators of
that system.
However, such artificial brains have not been created, and it is not clear that they ever will be, and so
slave state owners have to use their slaves’ natural brains.
Imperial states had at least one rule of inheritance of power: The emperor must be the previous
emperor’s son, and the empress his daughter. In Russia after 1917, it was not clear why Stalin (and not
Trotsky or Bukharin or Kamenev or Zinoviev) was to be the supreme leader up to his death. So Stalin
killed them, and the brainwashing was that they were traitors, spies, and what not.

Hitler came to power because his party received a majority of votes in the Reichstag, since the Treaty of
Versailles had left Germany defenseless, and Hitler was the most prominent opponent of the Treaty. But
Hitler was in power for only about 12 years. When he had setbacks in World War II, an attempt was
made on his life.
Mao stayed in power for so long because he was so ruthless to his possible replacements.
However, it is from Stalin’s life-and-death-in-power that I would like to recall two characteristic cases.
It is not all at once that art in Russia was replaced under Stalin by brainwashing.
In 1908, that is, about 10 years before the Soviet coup, there appeared in the Russian press the poetry of
a poet named Osip Mandelstam, whom I consider one of the world’s greatest poets of the first half of the
20th century. Alas, while Russian music is familiar to every American lover of classical music, the
translation of poetry has not been flourishing in the West.

When my son Andrei published in Britain a book of Pasternak’s poetry that he had translated into
English, a British poet wrote in his review that for the first time he had understood what Pasternak was.
In 1933, Mandelstam wrote a page-long poem about Stalin. Never had Stalin been attacked with such
courage, to say nothing of such genius. Stalin annihilated millions of slaves for their disrespectful
whispers about him. But here was Mandelstam, a fearless witness to history, exposing a monstrous
subhuman super-criminal.
It seemed that having read any four lines of the poem, Stalin would say through his teeth to his secret
police: “Burn him alive!” or “Drown him in sulfuric acid!”
Instead, Stalin phoned Pasternak and asked him whether it was true that Mandelstam was a poet of
genius. “Yes,” said Pasternak, “it’s true. But there is something else I would like to speak with you
about.” “What is it?” asked Stalin. “About life and death,” answered Pasternak. Stalin hung up.
If Mandelstam is a poet of genius, he should not be killed — remember Nicholas I and Pushkin. Stalin
was suddenly under the last wave of Imperial absolutism and its aristocracy. In 1937, Mandelstam was
swept into a concentration camp, since this was a general human stream to death. But between 1933
and 1937 he was “in exile” (like Pushkin), living with his wife in Voronezh and writing there his
immortal poetry.
My other reminiscence is also about Stalin — but dead. Beria, the chief of Stalin’s secret police,
approached the corpse and proclaimed: “The tyrant is finally dead!”
Suddenly, it seemed to Beria that Stalin had moved. So he was only pretending to have died, to see the
reactions of his subordinates when they believed he was dead and they did not need to pretend
worshiping him any longer.
Sobbing, Beria fell on the deathbed next to Stalin, begging Stalin to forgive him, Beria, and sobbing
more and more desperately.
The incident was told to several writers by Khrushchev under this title: “How the mice were burying the
cat.” No! How slaves were burying their ruthless owner! In any case, as far as I know, this is the first
time that the above fragment of the funeral of the ruthless slave-owner goes to print.

China Plans Unrestricted Warfare

Chris Ruddy, president and CEO of Newsmax, has kindly drawn my attention to the essay “Stealing
Weather” by William Langewiesche in the May issue of Vanity Fair. The essay is highlighted in red in
the top left corner of several pages of the article as a “letter from China.”
However, the author is not a Chinese resident living in China, and this shows. He is too much of a
Western gentleman — gentle man — to be taken for a Chinese, struggling desperately either for his
dictatorial power or for his defenseless life.
The author begins his essay with several sentences by way of introduction: “In 1946, three G.E.
scientists found that seeding clouds with dry ice or silver iodide could affect precipitation. The Pentagon
soon had hopes of weaponizing the sky. Now it’s the Chinese whose artillery is aimed at controlling the
weather.”

This is very good for an “American in China.” But the harsh Chinese reality is the global survival-or-
death war that imposes on the enemy an outage of water and hence of food, for food cannot be produced
without water. Animals eat vegetables, and their life without water is also impossible.
The fact is that so far wars were largely ceremonial: military men used firearms (or bombs, despite the
enemy anti-aircraft fire) as an aristocrat used arms to kill his opponent in a duel. But an opponent may
die from myriad causes.
A now-famous book, published by the Chinese military in 1999, is justifiably entitled “Unrestricted
Warfare.” Exactly! Death is unrestricted — from the absence of food and/or water to numberless
chemicals and bacteria.
Incidentally, while using chemicals in his genocide, Hitler forbade chemical and bacteriological
weapons research. The “Unrestricted Warfare” is ahead of him, and, indeed, mentions him as one of the
Western military men who had not “successfully mastered war.”
Of course, it is possible to begin from the end, that is, by annihilation of the enemy with the latest nano
dust, which destroys everything it is assigned to find and destroy. It is to the development of this super-
equivalent of the nuclear weapons of 1945 that a major Chinese military effort is applied.

But to be on the safe side of overall destruction, it is necessary to be able to destroy life at its primary
source of water and food. Important in the outage of water supply on the enemy territory are those
cloud-controlling techniques.
Like many other Western observers of China, the author of the “letter from China” sees China as an
eternal province and the West as an eternal locomotive of history.
Let us recall, however, the European barbarians, destroying Rome. In Western Europe, including Rome,
there were no firearms: The fighters were cutting one another with blades of various shapes, while
China had behind itself millennia of sophisticated science and regarded West-Europeans as savages,
close to the cavemen of the Stone Age. Yes, later to Western Europe came the “industrial revolution,”
which the Emperors of China had intentionally kept out as ugly and dirty. What now?

China has enough population to skip the products of the West-European “industrial revolution” and go
over to the post-machine age — to sciences beyond machine-guns, which the “British imperialist”
Kipling considered synonymous with world colonial domination or beyond tanks, which the Nazi Gen.
Heinz Guderian considered unstoppable.
Science can ensure the instant death of millions of enemies for China despite the enemy machine-guns
and tanks. Neither Kipling nor Guderian saw such nightmares in their worst dreams.
We are living in a new “post-Industrial age.” The dictatorship of China has enough population to work
out the new warfare. It can stimulate that population by rewards and prevent by penalties any refusal to
work out the new warfare.
Also, given China’s population of 1.3 billion, its human losses may not be too critical.

China is not a giant machine — it is a giant human arrangement based on absolute power for some and
on slavery for all others.
For comparison, let us cast a look at the West today. It is a totally egocentric society. The two U.S.
Democrats, the most visible as presidential candidates, aim at making the life of every voter as free from
poverty and altogether pleasant as possible.
China doesn’t seem to exist.
It certainly cannot intrude into an American voter’s preoccupation with well-being.
The third highly visible presidential candidate, John McCain, a Republican, said on March 26, 2008:
“China and the United States are not destined to be adversaries.” See? Sun Tze, the founder of China
military strategy more than 2000 years ago, used to say that wars should not be waged — they should be
won.
That is, the war should be such a surprise for the enemy that the enemy would be defeated before
understanding what is going on. Well, China’s war with the United States will be won before McCain has
understood what is going on.

Fantasies Passed as Universal

Truths

When George W. Bush and his allies invaded Iraq in 2003, I published a column critical of Bush, since
his mire in Iraq absorbed not only money and lives, but also public attention — the real threat from the
dictatorship of China is still hushed up in 2008.
I would have published that column even if I were in the minority of one versus the entire U.S.
electorate.
Actually, the public support of George W. Bush has dropped to a lower level than in case of any other
U.S. president in the history of the United States.
Great was my amazement when my column, published on April 25, 2008, and critical of Bush (“A
Simple President in a Complex World”) drew on April 26 an e-mail from Richard E. Sinclair (Bullhead
City, Ariz.), who called my column “propaganda” in the same sense the Soviet powers that be called a
“fascist, imperialist, or enemy propaganda” anything that ran counter to their own propaganda,
obligatory for “all Soviet people” as universal truths.
Obviously, Robert Sinclair is absolutely sure that his fantasies, such as his belief in George W. Bush’s
perennial wisdom, are obligatory for all American-born Americans.
According to Sinclair, my “propaganda” is especially monstrous, hateful, and treacherous.
“You have received fame, fortune and elite status in America. What else do you want?” he has implored.
Sinclair’s final question: “If you dislike our country [that is, George W. Bush] so much, why did you
come to America?”
Let me explain. In Moscow, when I was not married, I shared one room with my mother. Moscovites
lived not in apartments, but mostly in such shared rooms. But I could make a lot of money as Russia’s
first translator of classical Russian literature who had never lived in any English-speaking country.
My translations sold well by a Soviet publishing house in the English-speaking countries. After I
married a Russian editor of translations into English, who is still my dear wife, we could buy an
apartment in a newly built Soviet apartment house. But we both hated everything Soviet, and bought a
three-storied mansion of stone in the countryside. Our villa was surrounded by a garden and a birch
forest.
Yet as soon as there was a crazy chance to emigrate to freedom, including the freedom of the press, we
did not hesitate for a split second. Well, my wife and I live in New York in a three-room apartment, not
in a three-storied mansion, but who cares? Freedom, including the freedom of the press! This is what
we yearned for, and this is what we have.

We also believed that freedom (human rights) is a cause of not only those who live in a free country, but
of every human being. We learned that Russia (and hence China) were engaged in the development of
post-nuclear super weapons, and we wanted to pass this information to the United States.
Oddly enough, recently I sensed Richard Sinclair’s inclination to fantasize in one of Rev. Wright’s recent
televised appearances, linked to Obama, of course, but also devoted to the African Americans as a
whole.
For example, Rev. Wright recalled “classical music” and mentioned Beethoven and several other
German composers of genius.
While according to Richard Sinclair every American-born American (not a legal immigrant!) admires
George W. Bush even in 2008, the African Americans create, according to Rev. Wright, a cultural
equivalent of “classical music,” such as Beethoven’s, but their music is “different.” Thus, their scale
consists of 5, and not 7 notes.

Let us look at the reality. To begin with, most inhabitants of the United States and other Western
countries listen not to “classical music,” but to “pop.” The last 27 years of his life Beethoven lived in the
19th century, and in the 20th century there was a decline in the composition of “classical music.” What
American composer is equal in genius to Beethoven? Yet even in Germany Beethoven survived in his
time owing to a fund his admirers privately created for him and contributed to it.
Many African Americans became free only as a result of the Civil War, which occurred long after
Beethoven died. Yet to become free does not yet mean to be a genius and to be recognized as such.
Incidentally, the efflorescence of music of genius in Germany was historically unexpected, since the
country of such music was Italy, and it was not clear why Germany would have composers of genius.
It is not impossible that a new Beethoven will be an African American or that African Americans will
evolve their musical elite — and other elites. Recall the history of Jews in the post-Roman West. They
were originally regarded as exotic savages with black curly hair. In 1972, an American lady tried to
persuade me that Christ was crucified by Jews, and when I told her that Christ was at least half Jewish,
she nearly fainted.

The composer Mendelssohn was born Jewish in Germany in the 19th century. As my Britannica (1971)
puts it: “Though the Mendelssohn family were proud of their ancestry they considered it desirable, in
accordance with 19th-century liberal ideas, to mark their emancipation from the ghetto by adopting the
Christian faith.”
The Nazi persecution of Jews in the 20th century, in particular of Einstein, the greatest physicist in the
history of physics, is notorious enough. Ironically, the Nazis paid dearly for their persecution of Jews —
as the Jewish physicists, including Einstein, emigrated to the United States, where they contributed to
the U..S development of the “atom bomb” ahead of Nazi Germany and of Japan.
We do not know what creativity of genius history will bestow on African Americans. But to postulate
that their music is to be “different” may prove to be as counterproductive as it would have been in the
case of Jews, while to postulate that their “different” music will match that of Beethoven is to fantasize
just as Robert Sinclair does, assuming that all American-born Americans adore or should adore the
American-born George W. Bush, and only immigrants may publish “propaganda” to belittle him.

The Media Blackout on the China

Threat

Accuracy in Media, a conservative watchdog group for fairness, balance, and accuracy in news reporting
(for which I once wrote) recently featured an article devoted to the media’s blackout on the catastrophic
military threat China poses to the free world.
On March 4, 2008, Accuracy in Media printed the article “The Threat from China and the Threat from
Inaction: Which Is Worse?”
The author? Not a government or university spokesman. That much can be gleaned from the premise:
George W. Bush and the three presidential candidates have been maintaining total silence about the
threat from China as well as the U.S. inaction concerning the threat.
In fact, the article is authored by a collective: the editors of Family Security Matters.org. The
organization fosters the security of the family and could well be expected to be sensitive to the conquest
of the free world by the dictatorship of China, which has been torturing people to death for such
grievous crimes as “wrong” physical exercises.
The authors’ reference to “the threat from inaction” is appropriate: China’s military strategy (see the
Chinese military book “Unrestricted Warfare”) is based on deception and hence on surprise.

The situation is catastrophic: It resembles the situation in Chamberlain’s Britain in 1938. Chamberlain’s
glorious achievement was his gift of part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in exchange for a piece of paper
signed by Hitler as a peace agreement.
If Hitler had been riding through London with Chamberlain in 1938, after their “peace agreement,”
there is no doubt that the Londoners would have greeted Hitler as they did Chamberlain. But Hitler was
a fool (he became the “leader” of the country since his Reichstag party received a majority vote because
it was against the Treaty of Versailles).
So Hitler invaded the remainder of Czechoslovakia, then Poland and then France and thus made
himself the worst enemy of the civilized world.
Compare today’s behavior of the dictatorship of China with respect to Taiwan, which even some Chinese
dissidents consider necessary to make part of China by force.
A catastrophic threat to the free world today is the threat from inaction, as in Britain in 1938. Why this
inaction?
Constitutionalism (the protection of human rights) and democracy (the universal right to vote)
originated in the American Revolution under the influence of the French political essayism preceding
the French Revolution. Of course, every psychiatrically normal adult must have the right to vote!
Universal suffrage! Égalité! Equality!
Perfect for a society that needed no defense against conquest (as the U.S. had no need of it after
Britain’s defeat and before the advent of the dictatorship of China). But such a defense requires the
leaders’ intelligence, and it turns out that the larger the group to which a person belongs by his or her
intelligence, the lower the intelligence of the group.

Such large groups with a low level of intelligence elected (twice!) George W. Bush as U.S. president, and
now many members of these groups are sorry that they did vote for him even once.
In the preparations for war, and in the war itself, a free society has many disadvantages as compared
with a militarized slave state. Members of a free society are free and many of them prefer to use their
freedom for something more useful for them personally and/or pleasant than thoughts about how
dangerous China is or the activities devoted to defense.
Well, if President George W. Bush and the three current presidential candidates have been behaving as
though the China threat does not exist, why should voting citizens care? Inversely, if the voters do not
care, why should the candidates or the president care?
If the owners of the media discover that they will lose their advertisers’ money if they insist on the China
threat in their programs, why should they insist on it? Now, the scarcity of programs about the China
threat convinces the audience that there is no serious China threat, for if there was such, certainly the
media would make it a hot item.

Thus the inaction is reciprocal, and there is a general catastrophic inaction, in which the Beijing
Olympics play the role of the joyous London welcome of the peace negotiator with Hitler, who,
fortunately, proved to be a fool.
In its September 1978 issue, Commentary magazine published my article (reprinted or retold by over
500 periodicals in the West) about the virtual nonexistence of Western intelligence/espionage, since
new slave states with their police system make the crossing of their borders and the existence of spies on
their territory impossible.
Inversely, millions of spies can cross the U.S. border and live happily in the U.S. Non-human
intelligence/espionage? It is far more easily detected! As for today’s China, Western
intelligence/espionage is more difficult in it than it was in Soviet Russia, since the Chinese language and
culture are more different from their Western counterparts than were the Russian language and culture
even in Stalin’s Russia.
The result? All-seeing Chinese intelligence/espionage versus the blind Western intelligence/espionage
with respect to China. To quote one paragraph from “The Threat from China and the Threat from
Inaction: Which Is Worse?”

The Chinese spies have already stolen EVERY U.S. nuclear weapons design, and have
acquired U.S. MIR Ving and other launching and targeting technologies. Further, as
if this isn’t enough, they also have acquired the supercomputers needed to design and
test the next generation of weapons, as well as to enable low-cost modeling of nuclear
weapons, thus saving the PRC many years of effort, billions of dollars and ensuring
that they are a greater threat sooner than they otherwise would have been.
On the other hand, even when it is impossible to conceal a military weapons development, such as the
testing of a nuclear bomb, how many Americans heard about it when the first Chinese nuclear bomb
was tested Oct. 16, 1964?
The (false) CIA report that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was building its first nuclear bomb made it necessary
to invade Iraq pre-emptively, while China’s unconcealable testing of its nuclear bomb in 1964 was
barely noticed in the West. From 1964 to 1978, China had 25 unconcealable tests of nuclear bombs,
including that of the 4-megaton thermonuclear giant.
True, China was behind the U.S. with its first nuclear bomb, since it was only in the 1950s that China
had emerged from its early Maoist chaos. But with post-nuclear (such as nano) superweapons there was
no such lag: See the article “Nanotech Weapons in Future Warfare” by Maj. Gen. Sun Bailin of the
Academy of Military Science of China in the magazine “National Defense” of June 15, 1996.

Myths Surrounding Russian Revolution and U.S. Revolutionary War

According to Karl Marx, mankind consists of “working people” and “capitalists,” who become rich by
robbing the “working people” of part of their earnings and thus make them poor. As a result of a “world
revolution,” mankind would become a single global society without capitalists and even without money,
since everyone would creatively work without pay according to his or her ability and take free of charge
whatever he or she needs.
Marx died in 1883. Not long after, in Russia around 1917, Lenin’s mantra was, “Rob the robbers!” In a
country of more developed social relations, his call to action would not be successful, for too many
people had some property, and if they robbed someone with impunity, they also would be robbed in the
same fashion. But in Russia, a poet described how a Russian peasant woman viewed the robbery of the
lady of the manor:
My Nina is as good as she at feeling the musical tone!
Drag their grand piano into our hut,
Along with their clock and gramophone!

Alas, Lenin had more important supporters. According to his book, which regarded “imperialism as the
highest stage of capitalism,” the world war that was just over had been created by capitalism, which had
developed into imperialism. Hence the deserters were heroes — fighting the imperialist war. But
according to the pre-Lenin Russian government, the deserters were criminals. Obviously, they
supported Lenin.
The “revolutionary Marxist” Lenin became the worst Absolutist tyrant in recorded history, including the
Russian Middle Ages. His worst enemies were revolutionaries, such as those Marxists who were not the
strictest followers of his orders/laws. No wonder there was a Socialist-Revolutionary attempt on his life.
Lenin survived, but his health deteriorated, and finally he was hospitalized.
Since the staunchest Leninists also feared Lenin, a certain almost unknown “Marxist-Leninist” named
Stalin convinced them to stop — on the pretext of care for Lenin’s health — Lenin’s communication
between the hospital in which he was in and the outside world. The “Marxist-Leninist” Stalin succeeded
Lenin and killed off all the “Marxist-Leninist” claimants to Lenin’s throne. Now he became the worst
despot in recorded history. The autocracy in Russia lasted till 1991, but money was never abolished.
No less ruthless autocracy was created under Marxist camouflage in China. In Germany, the mother
country of Marx, the growth of the Nazi autocracy was stimulated by the growth of the Marxist
autocracy in Russia.
In the United States, culture never reduced to autocratic propaganda, as it did in Soviet Russia and
China. But freedom in the U.S. does not preclude the freedom to spin the most absurd tales about
history, including those surrounding the American Revolution, for no such tales are legally liable.

First of all, the play with the words “revolution” or “revolutionary war” is used in American sources,
such as a 240-page book published in 2000 by Lt. Col. Michael Lee Lanning, who calls the American
War of Independence the “Revolutionary War.” What is “revolutionary” about the United States as
compared with Britain? Canada has had no “revolutionary” war with Britain. Is Canada less
“revolutionary” than the United States?
Why should Americans have wanted a “revolutionary” war with Britain? The Declaration of
Independence of the United States accused the king of England: “He has called together [American]
legislative bodies in places [in America] unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of
their public Records, for the sole [!] purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.”
Well, in every country there were soldiers supposed to do or die, and the chiefs watching the war. For
the chiefs the measures taken by the king of England seemed monstrous and called for war (to watch it
from afar as comfortably as they could imagine). But for the ordinary population, the charge that the
American legislative bodies are “uncomfortable” (no leather chairs?) was laughable — and bitterly
laughable, too, considering the fact it was the ordinary population that was to do or die for the
legislators’ comfortable seating.
It was said that George Washington was appointed the commander in chief because he was ruthless
enough to make the soldiers do or die in that war for comfortable legislative bodies.
To encourage enlistments, Congress authorized a financial bounty for each soldier and land allotments
of 100 to 500 acres, depending on the soldier’s rank. But even with such incentives, fewer than one-half
of the sought numbers could be recruited for the Revolutionary War.
If such was the attitude of white Americans, what about African-American slaves, whom Lanning
glorifies as “defenders of liberty”? Lanning’s book is entitled “Defense of Liberty: African Americans in
the Revolutionary War.”
The trouble for Lanning is that there was no slavery in Great Britain. James Somerset, an African-
American slave, was brought by his Boston owner to London, but a London court decided, on June 22,
1772, that an American slave became free on the soil of Great Britain.

Inversely, American slavery existed in America until the Civil War (1861-1865), that is, it ended 84 years
after the end of the “Revolutionary War.” A slave who was 6 years old at the end of it was 90 at the end
of the Civil War.
Measures were taken by white Americans during the “Revolutionary War” to prevent any contact
between the English troops and African Americans.
Had the British announced that all American slaves on American territory were as free as in Great
Britain, the outcome of the “Revolutionary War” could be different. In particular, no one would have
known the name of Washington or that of Jefferson (incidentally, both of them had slaves). But the
irony is that some of those Americans who fought on the British side also had slaves, and the British
were afraid to antagonize them. So they lost the war, and the slaves had to wait for 84 years to become
free.
The American Civil War flared up because the Southern states (with their plantations and hence slave
labor) demanded independence from the Northern states.
If the United States of America gained independence from Britain, why could not the Southern states
gain independence from the Northern states of America? Instead of “USA,” there would have been
“NSA” and “SSA.” Well, the name the “South” chose was “Confederate States of America.” The South or
Confederate States lost the Civil War and all Americans became free.

Russia Cooperates With China but

at What Price?

In the 1990s, and even more so in the 2000s, it was clear that China and Russia were parties to a
military agreement, though the reports on the subject in the free West were rather scanty and light.
Late last May, the Western reports became more alarming. BBC News: “Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev has arrived in Beijing . . . in his first official foreign tour.” The BBC News report says that
“Russia and China have built close ties over recent years . . .” “Mr. Medvedev, 42, who took office this
month, will meet President Hu Jintao and other leaders . . .”
Not that the Western journalists met the election of Medvedev with a mute reverence. “In Moscow,
police arrested dozens of people ahead of an opposition rally. More than 100 officers swooped on
opposition activists as they were gathering for the unauthorized demonstration in the Russian capital.
Some of the protesters lit flares and chanted, ‘Your election is a farce!’”

But while the presidential election in Russia had such faults, China seemed to be the ideal of
constitutionalism and democracy. Even before his arrival, President Medvedev told Chinese journalists
that “we absolutely include China among our most important foreign policy partners.”
The benefits of this Sino-Russian friendship to the dictatorship of China and the danger of it to the free
West are obvious. Russia has a vast territory and vast national resources. The technological
development started in Russia much earlier than it did in China, so China will be able to use Russian
weapons already being developed as well as their Russian developers.
Another question is more puzzling: Whatever the rulers of Russia are, dictatorial or democratic, what
are they expecting? If the dictatorship of China becomes powerful enough to establish their world
domination, surely Russia will be one of its victims!
The question echoes what happened in 1939. What was Stalin expecting when he signed with Hitler in
1939 an agreement, according to which trains full of Russian raw materials kept rolling into Germany
for the production of weapons? Finally, Hitler would invade Russia, as he invaded that part of
Czechoslovakia, which was to remain independent under the Munich agreement, then Poland and then
France! Yet Stalin’s faith in Hitler is clear from this fact: Stalin suggested that the Nazi troops would
pass through Soviet territory to invade India:

Hitler and Stalin were heinous villains. Hence it has been often concluded in the West that they were
not two humans, that is, two psychologically different beings, but two caricatures, different only in the
shape of their mustachios and in their uniforms. Actually, Hitler was more cultured than Stalin (and
could whistle by heart Wagner’s operas), loved war (recall Wagner’s war operas), and was a fool.
For example, having had created for himself in 1938 (owing to Chamberlain) the reputation of a lover of
peace, he could develop (between 1938 and 1943) the atom bomb, with the aid of European Jewish
scientists and those Russians who were world-class nuclear physicists like Pyotr Kapitsa.
That would have meant his domination of the world. Instead, he grabbed three countries (his love of
war), which gave him nothing geostrategically, but presented him to the free world as a maniacal
aggressor.

Just as Hitler loved war — “fire and danger” (recall Wagner), Stalin pathologically feared any shadow or
whisper suggesting a possible physical danger to himself. At the end of World War II, he entered
Eastern Europe with Allied agreement, but stayed there as a “peaceful conqueror.”
So his dream was to ally with Hitler and to share the world with him (as the present rulers of Russia
hope to share the world with the dictatorship of China).
When Hitler attacked Russia (Wagnerian fire and danger) on June 22, 1941, Stalin refused believe it. He
believed it was an attempt of Churchill’s agents to provoke a Soviet-Nazi war and thus relieve the Nazi
pressure on Britain.
The Soviet armed forces began retreating to Moscow, and in Moscow, Stalin told his subordinates that
there were no troops to defend it — the Siberian and Far Eastern troops were being expected for its
defense.
A panic (the “big skedaddle”) erupted in Moscow. Even the managers of food stores dropped them and
ran away.
Hitler hated intelligence-espionage. There was not a single German spy in Moscow, and Hitler did not
know that the city “skedaddled.”

The troops to defend Moscow meantime arrived, routed the German troops loitering near Moscow, and
Hitler ordered his subordinates to begin the extermination of Jews, but to pretend that he had nothing
to do with it.
In this way, he hoped to prevent their extradition of him to the “Anglo-Saxons.” He also transformed the
flight of his troops into a planned retreat. However, ere long, 80,000 German prisoners of war were
marched across Moscow.
The rulers of Russia expect the Chinese dictatorship to make them co-owners of the world. They are
more unrealistic than Stalin, who expected the same from Hitler.
Instead, Hitler lost the war in Russia and committed suicide. Some numbers are relevant. The
population of China exceeds six times that of Russia. With the help of its Western allies, Stalin’s Russia
was able to rout the hitherto invincible Hitler’s Germany.
On the other hand, Russia cannot be a military partner of China and hope that at worst she would rout
China as she did Nazi Germany. The geostrategic data exclude that hope. According to them, having
begun as a military partner of China, Russia can only end as part of the territory of China in the world
dominated by the Chinese dictatorship.

China Ahead in the War Game

When we emigrated from Russia, U.S. President Nixon went to Russia to stop the Cold War. Possibly,
we were permitted to emigrate as a Soviet present to him. You see? Owing to him, Russia was moving to
the freedom of emigration after the decades when the expressed wish to emigrate was a crime.
The American attitude toward Russia (and China) was in disarray, and I was invited by universities
(such as Columbia in New York) to give a lecture on the subject to academic “Sovietologists” (at
Columbia, for example). Some professors of Sovietology at Columbia were indignant that I, who had
never been a professor of Sovietology or of anything else was invited to lecture to them!
True, in Nixon’s life, the only cultural interest was his “interest in music” when he was a child. But when
he was the U.S. president, that compensated for the fact that he was not a university professor.
I explained to the professors of Columbia my understanding of the cause of world wars. Americans can
settle their quarrels by finding the causes of the quarrels and trying to eliminate them.

In the age of mass communication, it is impossible to conceal from Russians or Chinese that Americans
and West Europeans live better than they do. That enhances the possibility of displacement of the
present ruler of Russia or China by another imposter, that is, the possibility of the present ruler’s loss of
his absolute power, more valuable to him than all treasures in the country.
Indeed, in 1991, that is 20 years after we emigrated, the Soviet dictatorship collapsed, and the Chinese
dictatorship nearly collapsed a couple of years earlier. There is no reliable remedy against such a
collapse except the dictator’s ownership of the world, though even in this case a smart subordinate of
his may usurp his absolute world power.
The words “university” and “professor” originated in Europe in the 14th century. Earlier, there had been
sages, individual lovers of wisdom, every one of whom might have had a disciple. But as the
Renaissance demanded more temporal sages and creators, there originated institutions authorized to
grant temporal degrees of professors on the scale of a big institution called “university.”
Many new sages of Sovietology were outraged by my lecture, and oddly enough, their arguments were
“ad hominem,” as in the 16th century in Europe or in Soviet Russia. In Soviet Russia in the 1930s, any
argument of any person became wrong if he was (called) a Trotskyite.
As for Trotsky himself, we, children, sat one day at our breakfast in summer camp for children of
writers, members of the Union of Writers, when our “leader” (incidentally, a Jew named “Solomon”
whom we called “Solya”) rushed into the dining room and yelled, breathless from joy: “Children,
Trotsky has been killed!” The applause knew no bounds, though few of us had ever seen anything
written by Trotsky or any pictorial image of him.

For Ann Coulter, it is enough to say that her opponent is a “leftist” in order to delete everything her
opponent had ever said or ever written.
One incident opened my eyes to the university education perhaps more than any library of books. A
group of university students was studying Hegel under the guidance of a professor. He wanted them to
write an essay on “Hegel as the promoter of liberty.”
I found that at several universities Hegel (1770-1831) was regarded in this sublime role. However,
Hegel’s text indicates that he regarded the ordinary beating of serfs to be inadequate. The beating
should be such as to fill the serf’s mind — his entire universe.
Year in and year out, every group of students of Hegel received a similar assignment, and a copy of one
of the previous year’s essays that said “what had to be said” about Hegel’s promotion of liberty.
The purpose for the student was to receive a degree and hence a well-paid job. So who cared about
Hegel?

Not that individual lovers of wisdom disappeared with the rise of universities. In 1859, John Stuart Mill
published (in Britain) his book “On Liberty,” which is published and read in all culturally refined
countries.
What is necessary to achieve this except just a pen and paper? Mill devotes to the explanation several
pages of his book, but one word (Page 129) may suffice: “genius.”
Today the human intellectual potential is often regarded as clay or wire, fit to be turned by technology
and/or bureaucracy into bricks and nails. Now, what is important, according to Mill, is the human
mental potential that may be genius — not potential bricks and nails.
Since I would never risk a trip to the “new China,” I collect books on China, available in the English-
speaking countries. But these books are but bricks and nails.
The very silence about the development of the military potential of China should cause great
consternation in the West. But there is hardly any reaction. China is a ghost, almost invisible, except on
maps. What is the purpose of the U.S. presidential election if no presidential candidate deems China a
threat, though the book, “The China Threat,” was published in 2000, the year when George W. Bush
became the president for his first term. For almost eight years, he said nothing concerning the threat,
but fought for five years in Iraq either for oil or for unknown reasons.

The West seems to have been hypnotized into forgetting the very possibility of war launched by a
totalitarian military monster of China whose population surpasses that of Germany 16 times.
Nor is it realized in the West that the current year is no longer 1945, when Japan surrendered
unconditionally to two U.S. nuclear bombs. This year is 2008 — 63 years later, and the post-1945 is a
new era of development of post-nuclear superweapons, which will make nuclear weapons as outdated as
nuclear weapons made outdated in 1945 the conventional bombs and shells, developed 63 years earlier.
The military power of destruction grows exponentially, and one day of research in 2008 may be
equivalent to “n” days of it in 1945.
There used to be an expression: “to sit on a barrel of gun powder.” Yes, the West sits on a barrel. But the
nuclear power of 1945 has been replaced by ever newer explosives.
Which makes us recall John Stuart Mill’s tribute to genius. While developing nuclear weapons, the
United States collected the highest concentration of genius in nuclear physics from English-speaking
countries as well as from Germany and other countries hit by Nazi anti-Semitism.
Genius is to win the next war even more surely than it won in Japan in 1945. This is why the
dictatorship of China is ready to pay to an inventor of genius sums of money that no American or West
European inventor ever imagined possible.

China Waits for World Domination

In his e-mail, a reader of mine asked me why I had emigrated to America since I am so critical of George
W. Bush, who is, in my reader’s perception, an equivalent of America.
My answer is that I am so much concerned with the survival of the West that I came to America to help
the survival of the West and prevent its annihilation by post-nuclear superweapons developed by the
dictatorship of China (with the help of Russia).
It took millennia to create a civilization that produced, in the past six centuries, French painting,
German symphonic music, calculus, etc. Possibly such a civilization will never originate again. No
human beings will appear again. There will be left nothing except dead relics of the past.
In France (to take her as an example), roi (the king) once ruled his peuple (the people). Why? Because
he had inherited his right to rule them. Now we see how the people of the United States elect their
president. Of course! They have to be governed by someone whom they trust and value enough to be
elected.
Here comes the first “but.” Did those who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 or in 2004 know that he
deserved their trust and had the value they ascribed to him?

To put this as a statistical problem: What is the percentage of the electorate whose trust cannot be relied
upon and whose value they place on the presidential candidate they are electing does not correspond to
reality?
The U.S. president is also the commander in chief. George W. Bush has been fighting for five years
Sunnis of Iraq, a small Third-World country. I am not discussing the criminality of his “pre-emptive
war.” I am referring only to its geostrategic absurdity.
The United States (population: 291 million as of 2003), aided by countries like Great Britain, has been
unable to defeat Iraq, whose population, as of the beginning of the century, was 21.4 million, with only a
percentage of Sunnis fighting.
Imagine the dictatorship of China (population: 1.3 billion) instead of Iraq’s Sunnis. But neither George
W. Bush, nor the presidential candidates (with one exception: Duncan Hunter) have ever mentioned the
threat from the dictatorship of China, relying on Russian military scientific and technological
cooperation.
I have always been an opponent of militarization. But the impression the United States creates in 2008
is that apart from that Iraqi farce, wars have never existed and will never exist.
Owing to the United States and Western European failures in Iraq, we saw on television several combat
uniforms. But otherwise they do not seem to exist. War seems to have been abolished forever except in
Iraq (and in Iran?). Military science and technology? Only in “Oblivion: America at the Brink,”
published in 2005 by Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden (U.S. Army, retired) and sent to me as to someone
concerned with the defense of the West.

This is how the author is introduced in the book:

Lieutenant Colonel Thomas E. Bearden (U.S. Army, Retired) was previously a senior
scientist and department manager with the Alabama division of a major aerospace
company where he directed the company’s design and production of expert systems
(artificial intelligence) applications for the U.S. Army command systems. He has
more than 29 years of experience in air defense systems, tactics, and operations;
technical intelligence; nuclear weapons deployment; computerized war games; anti-
radiation missile countermeasures; and military systems requirements.
Bearden obtained a Master of Science degree in Nuclear Engineering from Georgia
Institute of Technology and a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from
Northeast Louisiana University. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and
General Staff College.
Bearden was a member of Mensa, Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained,
International Tesla Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Association of American Physics Teachers, the Air Force Association, the Association
of the U.S. Army, the American Nuclear Society, and the American Defense
Preparedness Association. He is currently the Director of the Association of
Distinguished American Scientists (ADAS).
This is what the author says, as he ends his book, in his “Final urgent commentary”:
The darkest days in the history of our republic lie immediately ahead of us.
If we are to survive, we shall need the most strenuous and rapid effort in our history,
now.
In times of grave peril, Americans have always rallied to national liberty, and
survival. We must do so again.
God bless and keep America! We pray for its survival.
Militarism versus pacifism. Recall France in World War I and in 1940. In World War I, France fought
throughout the war — for about four years — and contributed its bit to the victory. In 1940, the French
were running along with the British, and the outcome of the war was obvious within days.
Militarism is oppressive, but pacifism may lead to what happened to France in 1940 — war as a French-
British flight.
More important, pacifism weakens the will of genius to create weapons superior to those of the enemy.
Financial rewards are important, but the combat mood also helps, while all-pervading pacifism helps
self-disarmament.

Pacifism now reigns supreme in the United States. Imagine such a mood in France in 1940, before its
war with Germany. But the size of the military threat grows with every year as there appears the military
technology of this year, and that of the previous year became outdated.
The dictatorship of China is waiting for the year when the Chinese technology becomes able to destroy
the Western technology or someone destroys the Chinese technology. Who will first destroy the enemy’s
lethal technology? The victor will dominate the world.
The geostrategic tension has never been greater in the history of mankind. But what do we hear from
the US president and the presidential candidates? They seem to be living on a different planet where a
war means not, for example, universal death, but one of those cheerful scenes on TV screens or on boxes
of whatever is advertised for sale.
It is not impossible that destroyed will be both opponents—the West and China, or all life on the planet
Earth. The history of mankind will be over. The origin and development of every being may be unique.
We can imagine a planet that has no human beings the planet Earth has.
Certain living beings, able to communicate on a rudimentary level, will say: “Yes, there were living
beings, looking very much like on those paintings and in pieces of sculpture we find sometimes. But
those living beings made horrible toys with which they killed themselves.”

Stalin's Push for Immortality

The anthem of Marx (“Internationale”) began: “Arise, ye prisoners of starvation . . . .” Since Lenin died,
committed to a hospital, and all the leaders of Marxism-Leninism who could claim Stalin’s post were
later annihilated by Stalin, he became the leader of the prisoners of starvation.
My only comment is that the Russian word “leader” applies to personalities like Moses in the Bible (or
The Book of Exodus).
However, in the 1930s, a new prophet (in Germany) named Hitler asserted that the Germans were
suffering not because they were prisoners of starvation, but because they were as strong, capable, and
handsome as Hitler was, yet there were miscreants among them who interfered with them and their
lives. In short, Hitler became “the leader of Germany” in 1933.

So Stalin was not divinely alone now. In 1944, he replaced the Soviet national anthem. It no longer
began, “Arise, ye prisoners of starvation,” but instead began, “The unbreakable union of free republics
had been linked forever by the great Rus.” At the word “Rus,” Marx would have fainted, had he been
alive. “Rus” means here the sacred ancient country from which the Russians originated. So, the
international brotherhood of prisoners of starvation of all nations had been linked forever by the great
sacred Rus!
After Rome destroyed Judea, the persecution of Jews became easy. Accordingly, Marxists (Marx was a
baptized Jew), Leninists (Lenin was mistaken for a Jew because he mispronounced the Russian “r”) and
other leftists regarded Jew-baiting as the ugliest form of criminality.
And here Pravda announced (on Jan. 13, 1953) that some Soviet physicians (Jews) were “spies and
killers under the mask of academic physicians.”
The universe Stalin had been living in had an obvious defect. Suppose he would die. There were some
who said that this was impossible. But just suppose he died. What then? His portraits may be removed
along with other relics of his immortality. This is what happened after he died, and in Khrushchev’s
report, read to “meetings of working people,” Stalin was represented not as Moses, but as a ruthless
tyrant and murderer.

Stalin was ruthless to anyone who had any ambition, mental independence, a view of his own. On the
other hand, he protected Molotov as his No. 1 man (second only to Stalin himself) and piled on him top
posts and rewards since 1917 to 1949, that is for 32 years. But in 1949, when Molotov was 59, he “gave
up his post as foreign minister.” That was how a foreign correspondent of The New York Times put it.
Other such mysterious shifts of exemplary subordinates followed.

The name “Molotov” no longer suited Stalin because it was a “revolutionary pseudonym,” of course.
“Molot” means “sledge hammer” in Russian. As the “Internationale” of Marx put it, “Raise higher your
sledge hammer and strikes the iron while it’s hot!”
Shortly before Stalin’s death, his subordinates like Sledge Hammer had been replaced by those creating
Stalin’s new universe. After Stalin died, they were retired and received homes in a countryside
settlement. They worshipped the dead Stalin as God.
One of them (invited by his neighbors out of curiosity) began to praise Stalin, which was impossible in a
gentle society after Stalin’s death. Then the poet Evgeniy Vinokurov said in a conciliatory tone: “Well, if
the whole truth is to be told, he drank a lot of blood.”
Some of the guests giggled. The worshiper of Stalin turned deadly pale. “How can you speak in such a
tone about him?” he hissed.
The host could barely put out the fire.

So what had been going on in the last years of Stalin’s life? Let us first recall the first 11 years of his life,
when his father died and his mother, bearing the Russian (not Georgian!) name Ekaterina, had been
pouring all her love on her only son, Joseph, and chose for him an ecclesiastical career in the Georgian
Orthodox Church. In those days, definitive was not “nationality,” but “faith” or “creed.” Joseph was not
just a Russian, but an Orthodox priest who matriculated at the theological seminary of the capital of
Georgia.
Joseph (whether at the age of 11 or 74) wanted his mother back; he wanted the world Orthodox Church;
he wanted to be God for all Orthodox believers. This is why he replaced sledge hammer: the name was
too Marxist-Leninist. But Stalin died four years too early.
Ironically, Marxism-Leninism is flourishing in China — and claims a universal appeal. As
“Internationale” puts it: “We will destroy the entire old world of coercion!”

China's Veil of Olympic Freedom

Belies a Rigid Regime

In 1986, the “supreme leader” of China founded Project 863 to develop super weapons in seven fields.
Project 863 was an advanced scientific-technological development not only by Chinese standards, but
by world standards as well. In scientific-technological research, it is important to determine the value of
a development, including its genius, if any.
It is common knowledge that many inventions and discoveries failed to be understood in due time.
Project 863 was created to determine the genius of a new discovery/invention, or reject it as not worth
any further attention.
It is useful to compare Project 863 with the construction done currently for the Beijing Olympic Games
and reported by a “dissident magazine,” known as The Epoch Times.
The magazine is polite to the dictatorship of China. As well it should be: The dictatorship will
concentrate on its total annihilation even though it is published outside China.

Nevertheless the magazine is useful. Last May it published a report on the construction work for the
Beijing Olympic Games. The ironic title given by the Epoch to its report was, “Is China Building the
Next-Generation Police States?”
The Beijing Olympic Games are games, plays, entertainments, not nano super weapons, endorsed by
Project 863. The authorities reported that they had uncovered a terror plot to kidnap Beijing Olympic
athletes. Terrible! But is it true?
The absence of publicity, free speech, and legal justice converts the Beijing Olympic Games into a
cluster of conspiracies. As The Epoch Times put it, “35 people were arrested for plotting to kidnap
athletes, journalists, other visitors.”
The magazine speaks of new and potent combinations of the most powerful political tools of
“authoritarian communism” — central planning, merciless repression, constant surveillance —
harnessed to advance “market Stalinism.”
The goal of Beijing Olympic Games is to demonstrate that China is as peaceful as the free West. Give
China a little more of that freedom of the free West and you will see. But the irony is that this is
impossible.
Different aspects of freedom begin to clash, requiring the reduction of the “unusual level of freedom in
China” in order to keep those aspects from clashing and to create the “next-generation police state.”

The key danger to the dictators of China is that aspect of general physical freedom that enables the
ordinary population to get a glimpse of life of ordinary population in the West and conclude that it is
better (and the dictatorship should be overthrown). Even if it is not better, a convict (especially a
“lifer”!) is inclined to conclude that life outside the prison is incomparably better.
Part of this yearning for freedom is instinctive. Recall all living beings trying to obtain or regain their
freedom. It is necessary for the dictatorship of China to create for the Beijing Olympic Games a
semblance of physical freedom or partial physical freedom. But with human beings this does not work.
A bird released from a cage, flies for its natural environment, and a released wild animal runs for it as
well. A human being understands freedom not as the possibility to fly or run away into the wilderness,
but as the possibility of personal independence of behavior. But the personal independence of behavior
of the Chinese may seem dangerous to the dictatorship of China. Or there may be no consensus among
rank-and-file Chinese. What Citizen “A” does may seem heroic to Citizen “B,” useless to Citizen “C,” or
harmful to Citizen “D.”

The instructions for the Chinese at the Beijing Olympic Games: “Behave as though you are free and thus
let the entire world see that we are free” turn out to be infinitely complicated, since the notion of
behavior “as though one is free” differs from person to person, and different participants of this
pretense may interfere with one another.
It is not for nothing that the Olympic Games themselves have rules. But there are no such rules in the
construction work for the Beijing Olympic Games.
Thirty years ago, a Beijing Olympics Games city known as Shenzhen did not exist. Over the past two
years, some 200,000 surveillance cameras have been installed throughout the city. Many of these
cameras are disguised. Chinese “security executives” predict they will make the city the most watched
city in the world.
So the city will be like a giant prison camera. Separate prisons are surely unnecessary. China will be a
single prison. But while a century ago, West-European and American prisons could lack even electricity,
the countrywide Chinese prison will be a miracle of the latest engineering, and here even Project 863
can play its part.

We have been used to evaluate our lives by technological progress.

There have been obvious exceptions. Thus, after his defeat at Moscow, Hitler was afraid that his
subordinates would betray him to “the Anglo-Saxons” in order to save themselves. So he ordered his
subordinates to begin the “final solution” for Jews, without mentioning the fact that it was his order.
With that scientific and technological equipment, Hitler’s subordinates could carry out the “final
solution,” that is, the annihilation, of mankind.
Similarly, the dictatorship of China can annihilate all mankind except the population of China or except
the dictatorship of China.
Is this why the Western statesmen should attend the Beijing Olympic Games and rejoice that the
Chinese city of Shenzhen will soon be “the most watched city in the world”?
The annihilation of mankind, its “final solution,” does not require the symbols of war, whether new or
old. Nor do the U.S. (or any other) presidential debates prevent the annihilation of mankind by their
good intentions, with which the road to hell is said to be paved.

China Poses a Threat?

Yahoo! provided 55.9 million results in response to my search for China’s dangerous growth of its global
military might.
One hit, dated Feb. 12, 2008, was written by Dr. Henry Rosemont Jr., a contributor to “Foreign Policy
in Focus.” He is a “distinguished professor emeritus at St. Mary’s College of Maryland,” according to the
site.
Professor Rosemont entitled the first sentence of his article just as he did his entire article “China
threat, what threat?” He says, “Several recent books on the Chinese military perpetuate this myth” [of
the threat]. They cite numbers. But “when it comes to the putative Chinese military threat, the numbers
simply don’t add up.”
The second section of his article is headlined: “Crunching the Numbers.” “In terms of ground forces, the
People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has an active duty component of 2.3 million personnel.” “That’s a lot of
soldiers, but the U.S. has 1.4 million, with less than one-fourth of the population.”

The next section is entitled “At Sea” and begins: “China’s weakest link is naval.” I skipped this section,
since if other “links” are as weak in numbers as the professor describes them, what can be said about
“China’s weakest link”?
The section “Who Fears Whom?” explains: “It should be thus clear that the Chinese have much better
grounds for fearing the United States than the other way around . . .”
So the last section “Head to Head” explains how China’s fear can be allayed by the U.S., and this “would
not only increase the security of China and the U.S., but of the whole world as well.”
Let us now take as an example a West-European country, which once enriched the world with its music,
philosophy, and science, but which was, since 1939, pronounced to have been the worst aggressor of the
20th century, if not of the whole millennium.
Professor Rosemont considers countries like China and the U.S. as mechanical devices with his
numbers showing their striking capacity. His numbers show that China should fear the U.S. What about
such numbers for Germany between 1939 and 1945? They show that Germany should have feared its
future adversaries. For example, it was understood in Germany that the U.S. would develop nuclear
bombs ahead of Germany, and indeed the German nuclear project came to nothing. According to
professor Rosemont, the scared Hitler should have rushed to the U.S., which would increase not only
the security of Germany and the US, but of the whole world (and in particular that of Japan!).

Professor Rosemont does not as much as hint at the fact that freedom exists in some countries (like the
U.S.) but not in countries like Nazi Germany or like China today, and the more a country is devoid of
freedom, the more aggressive it tends to be.
Once upon a time, the supreme ruling power was transmitted by heredity. The descendant was the
emperor (or empress) because he (she) was the son (daughter) of the emperor (or empress).
After Hitler was defeated in Russia, an assassin’s bomb was detonated at the table at which he sat, to kill
him. He survived, but developed a depression that finally ended in his suicide. Anyone who would kill
Stalin, could claim that he, the killer, would be now “the leader” for the same reasons Stalin was, having
killed all his rivals.

Hence the phony “emperors” like Hitler or whoever else ready to show their greatness and power by
wars like Hitler’s seizure of France or his invasion of Stalin’s Russia (that ended in Hitler’s defeat, which
enhanced Stalin’s, not Hitler’s, glory as the greatest “leader”).
However, a war of aggression is not the only source of glory or infamy for the “leader.”
It is still remembered that a replica of the Statue of Liberty was installed in the Tiananmen Square
during the uprising, and in a couple of years, such an uprising in Russia swept away the Soviet
dictatorship of Gorbachev.
I was told that 200 million Chinese are not poor. But more than 1.1 billion (1.3 billion minus 200
million) are. In our age of communications, it is impossible to shut the USA and Western Europe from
China. What these Chinese (1.1 billion) see makes them displeased with their life, and hence about
100,000 Tiananmen Square uprisings of various sizes occur every year in China today.

The best way out for the supreme Chinese dictator to survive is to become the Emperor of the world.
Then he will be able to suppress any part of the population of the planet.
What is needed to achieve the world conquest?
China or any other country that had in 1945 several hundred or thousand nuclear bombs of the kind of
the two bombs the US dropped on Japan, could become the sovereign of the world. Professor Rosemont
did not say a word about the nano or other post-nuclear weapon being developed in China since the
1980s. Yet post-nuclear global war requires post-nuclear global weapons.
As soon as China acquires such weapons, its rulers will be likely to launch a world war to expand their
rule globally in order to preserve it in China.
The Internationale is still the Marxist-Leninist anthem of China, and the sentence of the anthem worth
recalling says: “The entire world in which we are nothing we shall smash to smithereens, and in our new
world, which we will build, we will be everything.”

'World Domination' Losing Its True

Meaning

If you go to Yahoo! and type a combination of words including “world

domination,” you will get more than 11 million search results.
The trouble is, that to many of those who question or answer this search, it is not
clear what the phrase “world domination” means.

Those who lived in the 1930s may recall that the phrase “world domination” was
applied to the goals of Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia. It meant their “hell-
on-earth.” The conquest of the world by Hitler or Stalin; that is, Hitler’s or
Stalin’s “world domination,” would mean a “world hell,” “world prison,” or
“world concentration camp” from which there would be no escape.

But today many Westerners trace the meaning of the phrase “world domination”
to the “dominion” in a “colonial system.” Indeed, Dominion Day is observed in
Canada (July1) to commemorate the dominion status Canada received in 1867.
Many Westerners mean by “China’s world domination,” nothing worse than
China’s world colonialism like that of Great Britain, once upon a time.

The word “totalitarian,” which originated in the 1920s, seems to have been
forgotten, and “world domination” does not mean the totalitarian world
conquest Hitler, Stalin, or Mao were after, but, for example, Great Britain’s
erstwhile colonial rule.

Thus, Mike Baker of BBC News entitled his Yahoo! analysis “China’s Bid for
World Domination.” He writes, “University enrolments in China have reportedly
risen from under 10% of young people in 1999 to over 21% in 2006, a
phenomenally fast expansion.”

Actually, comparison of countries and civilizations should begin with the

estimation of personal immunity in them. If a country (for example, Hitler’s
Germany or Stalin’s Russia) had no personal immunity, that is, a human life was
no more valuable than that of an insect or a microbe — then the world
conqueror’s “world domination” could well be expected to be the greatest
disaster or most frightening nightmare that no victim can escape.

But to count the number of university enrolments in a country and call this its
“bid for world domination”?

Suppose we knew the number of university enrolments in Germany from 1933 to

1945. Had Germany conquered the rest of the world, then the total absence of
personal immunity in Germany and in the rest of the world would be the worst
evil inflicted by human beings on other human beings.

Another Yahoo! comment — by John Savage (April 14, 2008): “How Will
America Respond to Chinese World Domination?” Again, by “world domination”
he means not China’s conquest of the world, but China’s position of pride among
“developed industrial countries.”

The analysis of how and why the population of a country has no personal
immunity is often worth the trouble. Germany created a more “soulful” music
than any other country (Bach, Beethoven, Handel). Nevertheless Germany then
became the most cruel country in the post- Roman history of Europe. Imagine its
world conquest and its domination of the conquered world.

The Chinese were once victims of Japanese invasions. They deserved pity,
compassion, help.

I skip Mao’s deeds, quite worthy of Hitler’s and Stalin’s. In his article published
recently abroad, a Chinese author proposed the annihilation of all Americans.
But what to do with the Chinese residing in the United States? They should also
be annihilated, since they have become too American and have forgotten their
glorious Chinese past.

When the Falun Gong executions were at their insane height, I was riding
through New York in a car with several Chinese, and a Chinese lady noted
angelically that the Falun Gong practitioners should be summarily shot or they
would never stop proselytizing.

Lev Tolstoy, the world-famous Russian novelist, died in 1910 with this behest:
“Do not resist evil by violence.” Yet the next half- century in Russia was full of
violence, which only Stalin’s death in 1953 slowed down.

The moral is that we cannot predict the absence of violence, and the only way is
the defense against a country that may be expected to conquer the world and
dominate it without granting personal immunity to the people they will have
conquered.

How Stalin Conquered His Fears

In the history of medieval Russia, those ready to fight for a common cause were called “soratniks,” that
is, combatants. Were the revolutionaries in Russia combatants? No!
Their causes were different! Thus, Lenin and Trotsky were Bolsheviks, who wanted all the power
resulting from the revolution for the Bolsheviks. But other revolutionaries, such as Social
Revolutionaries, regarded the Bolsheviks as a variety of tsarist officials, talking Marxism and
establishing a new countrywide Marxist prison.
Besides, the Bolsheviks fought one another for power, and the Bolshevik Stalin exiled the Bolshevik
Trotsky from Russia in 1929 and finally had him killed in Mexico in 1940.
Neither I nor anyone of my age knew what the Bolshevik Trotsky even looked like. His very photographs
were seditious — like the pictures of the devil in the early Middle Ages. On the other hand, the images of
Stalin were ubiquitous.
Since the Bolshevik Stalin feared that some other famous Bolshevik might replace him, who could not
even speak Russian well, these flamboyant Bolsheviks were sporadically shot as heinous traitors,
sometimes associated with Trotsky, and Stalin’s combatants finally became prosaic boring officials. A
special giant apartment house was built for them in Moscow, and called, properly, “The House of the
Government.”

In the 1930s, a family in Moscow occupied one room of a former five- or six- room apartment, and
shared the kitchen and other facilities. You can imagine the luxury of The House of the Government.
Each apartment had the study for the head of the family, a room for his wife, complete with closets of
foreign dresses, a room for each child, and a room for a house maid, not to mention a sophisticated
kitchen and other facilities.
In summertime, the family lived in their summer house, complete with their private car (though having
a private car could well be compared to having in New York a 30-meter ocean-going vessel).
And suddenly . . .

All private telephones were old in Moscow. But in The House of the Government they were all new, and
the tenants used them with zeal and pleasure. They did not guess that for the Secret Police, the new
telephone was a new way to have all private conversations recorded.
Speaking of the Jewish family in the House of the Government I knew: He (an important scientist, a
Jew) and his wife were arrested. He was shot; she was sent to a concentration camp; and their children
were distributed among relatives and orphanages.
Up to the death of Stalin in1953, Stalin’s combatants continued to disappear, and here Stalin began to
discover a new threat for himself and his power: the absence of religion. How stupid of him it was to
suppose that “the fear of being caught” would be enough to prevent a “hostile terrorist act.”

Stalin hatched up a plan to exile Jews into a “remote locality.” According to rumors after Stalin’s death,
when the trains carrying exiled Jews would move over a bridge across a lake, they all would be thrown
off the trains into the water where they drowned.
Jews such as Trotsky were accused in pre-1917 Russia of causing unrest, trouble, mutiny, and attacking
Orthodox Christianity. Now, 36 years later, Stalin accused them of the same.
Nevertheless, the daughter of those Jewish parents who were arrested in The House of the Government
said, “Well, I have lived a beautiful life.”

Ted Koppel Documentary

Whitewashes China

My frequent complaint is that the (overwhelming) majority of the U.S. electorate knows practically
nothing about the “People’s Republic” of China.
There are films about China produced by Chinese dissidents, but such films are not shown in the United
States for fear they might spoil those amicable Sino-U.S. relations, established by Bill Clinton, George
Bush, and their helpmates and supporters.
However, I had heard that on Aug. 26, starting at 7 p.m., Ted Koppel would be showing his four-part
series documentary on China on the Investigation Discovery Channel.
Koppel is not a youngster from a parochial village. He is 68 years old. But it is not clear what he and his
documentary meant to communicate. It takes only five seconds to tell the valuable fact that women in
China make from $1 to $2 a day. This fact had been mentioned by the U.S. media before.
Koppel’s German-Jewish family came to the United States in 1953, when he was 13, and he was likely to
know something about totalitarian societies like Hitler’s or at least about living on $1 to $2 a day!

According to The Washington Post (Dec. 26, 2002), in 1993, Koppel and his wife paid $2.7 million for
16 acres overlooking the Potomac River in Potomac, Md. Then he and his wife filed a law suit, the
purpose of which was to hold the neighbors to an agreement to limit the size of the houses in the
neighborhood, i.e., to “cut the neighbors down to size.”
As I watched his “documentary,” I wondered if Koppel had come from the moon, where the difference
between $2 a day, to stay alive, and $2.7 million, to “cut the neighbors down to size,” is just playful. Any
68-year-old American could appear instead of Koppel in the film without any detriment to the
information of the “documentary.”
The documentary is entitled the “People’s Republic of Capitalism.” But surely capitalism flourished in
Nazi Germany. Indeed, Nazism had originated due to the financial contributions from German
capitalists. Surely this is connected with the mass extermination of Jews and the flight of Koppel’s
German-Jewish family from Germany “due to the rise of Nazism,” or more factually, due to the
beginning of the secret systematic “industrial” mass extermination of Jews in Germany in 1941.
At the beginning of the film, the screen shows Mao with a wonderfully kind smile on his face. I have a
collection of film documentaries about Mao. Nowhere does he have such a wonderful smile as in
Koppel’s film. Independent historians present Mao as “the Chinese Hitler,” and their factual evidence is
staggering.
Nor does Koppel’s play on the word “capitalism” help. Lenin permitted private enterprise in 1922. Why?
Because that seemed to him to be useful for his totalitarian power. Stalin forbade private enterprise in
the late 1920s and the early 1930s. Why? To intensify the development of his military power. Hitler
never forbade private enterprise. Does this mean that his regime was more “progressive” or humane
than Stalin’s?

Koppel mentions “tens of thousands of protest demonstrations a year” in China. The fact had been
mentioned before, and even the figure of “about 100,000 uprisings a year” had been cited. But how do
the dictators of China handle the participants in those protest demonstrations? Not a hint in Koppel’s
giant documentary!
Koppel presents “a street” in Chongqing, a city in China, as cheerful as he might have presented a street
of an American city. Many (cheerful) girls, many (colorful) flowers. But what is going on inside those
buildings all around?
The photograph in a washingtonpost.com review (July 8, 2008) presents Koppel and a coal miner in
China wearing similar hard caps. How touching! Two buddies under capitalism! Only the pay is
somewhat different. Of course! Americans like Koppel sell the United States to China under the
camouflage of intellectual freedom, while the Chinese coal miners sell Chinese coal.

Stalin’s, Hitler’s, or Mao’s persecutions had a bit or at least an attempt at, rationality. Those persecuted
were proclaimed to be hostile to the regime (“the greatest and most promising in the history of
mankind”). Thus, a Russian German emigrated to Germany after 1917 and persuaded Hitler that Jews
hate all gentiles organically, nationally, psychologically. (See “Race and Race History and Other Essays”
by Alfred Rosenberg. English translation copyright circa 1970.)
In the 21st century, the dictatorship of China put forward a new cause for persecution: the heinous
crime of “Falun Gong practitioners,” punishable by torture to death. It has been a fact that those
engaged in the Falun Gong physical exercises were persecuted ruthlessly by the dictatorship of China
after 2000, while before these exercises had been promoted by the dictatorship!
The dictatorship of China is a single ruthless machine of 1.3 billion human organisms. Of course, there
are protesters among them. They are tracked down and treated as the worst criminals. Ted Koppel does
not show this in his documentary because he may thus lose his television earnings or perhaps his life as
well during his creative sojourn in China. His modus vivendi is to be not servile but generally optimistic
and friendly, without revealing any “secrets” about China divulged by Chinese dissident periodicals like
The Epoch Times. Of course, ahead is the great Sino-American friendship — the United States and the
People’s Republic of Capitalism both have capitalism, the rest being a matter of detail.

Koppel’s discretion and general friendliness to Chinese (no, not Nazi!) capitalism are well rewarded.
Apart from the documentary’s texts as such, the Investigation Discovery Channel shows its usual
commercials, which have nothing to do with China, but which may sell well to American consumers.
What might have happened to him if he were critical of Chinese dictatorship? He might have been killed
by the Chinese (capitalist!) secret service.
That’s it! The human machine of China acts as a single mechanism, with exceptions destroyed as soon
as possible. The West acts as so many separate human beings, some of whom derive profit from the
conformity.
The presidential candidates for 2008 have been silent about China, and President Bush is said to
embrace the Olympic Games in Beijing. The U.S. media are evidently satisfied with television
presentations about nothing — in the spirit of Ted Koppel.
Who, then, is there to defend the West — its personal freedom, acquired with such difficulty over the
corpses of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Mao?

U.S. Leaders Know Nothing About Global Strategy

Athens, where the word “demo-kratia” originated (“demos,” “the common people” electing “kratia",”
“the power”), flourished in the 5th century B.C., while in the modern West, the word was revived in
1576, that is, about 20 centuries later.
Yet the West, including the United States, has not been standing still mentally. Take one field for
example, dentistry — everyone living in the United States for at least 20 years has visited a dentist.
A 45-year-old friend of mine had his teeth examined by a first-class New York dentist who said that the
man needed new dental implants, which would cost $55,000 including insurance. Well, the dentist had
not been elected by the majority of the people. He had been pronounced to be a unique specialist by
other dental specialists.
This applies to many fields of human endeavor in the U.S. in 2008.
Now, Athens flourished at a time (about 25 centuries ago) when many people could cope with many
kinds of simple work, and those people elected their chiefs or organizers to supervise tasks such as
ditch-digging or grass-cutting or any other such manual work.

However, a thinker (no, not in the West, but in the East, 551-479 B.C.) said that for the “majority of the
people” (“demos”) to elect statesmen for “kratia” (as in Athens) is the same as for “the majority of
people” to elect physicians or astronomers.
The Westernized name of this great thinker is Confucius. He was Chinese! “Just read what Navrozov
writes!” some readers would say. “Yesterday he represented China as a giant Nazi Germany, and today
he eulogizes a Chinese thinker!” Well, Nazism in 20th century Germany does not eliminate the great
German culture of the 18th and 19th centuries. China had a brilliant culture in the 6th and 5th centuries
B.C.
Recall also that China was ahead of Newton in calculus, was the first to invent the compass — or book
printing, and was about 2,000 years ahead of Western Europe in the use of gas for lighting and heating.
Let me say that no modern Westerner has recalled with admiration that skeptical remarks of Confucius
— in the light of U.S. presidential elections in the 20th and 21st centuries; that is, about 25 centuries
after that remark was made.

What did the U.S. electorate know about the ability of statesmen of today like George H.W. Bush, Bill
Clinton, George W. Bush, and the presidential claimants of 2008 to understand the geostrategy and
cope with it? Nothing! Those statesmen have been like a dentist who has never seen a sick tooth or like
an astronomer who has not seen the difference between the moon and the sun.
Well, the United States has survived as of today. Because so far it has had no sufficiently powerful global
enemy.
The history of the United States “kratia,” since George H.W. Bush assured Saddam Hussein as to the
safety of his conquest of Kuwait, has been comprised of absurd self-inflicted American injuries. As I am
writing this, “The Way of the World: A Story of truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism” by Ron Suskind
is becoming a best seller. But perhaps a more thorough study was made by two nonprofit journalism
organizations and posted on Jan. 23, 2008, on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity.

According to the study, 935 false statements were made by the Bush White House in the two years
preceding his invasion of Iraq. In their speeches, briefings, interviews, and other venues, George Bush
and his officials stand unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had “weapons of mass
destruction” (as opposed to “weapons of individual destruction” like old one-bullet pistols?) or was
trying to produce or obtain them and had links to al-Qaida, which McCain was trying to develop in the
debates of 2008 presidential candidates into an inane tale about al-Qaida’s domination of Iraq, which
McCain intended to eliminate, or the war in Iraq could indeed last for a hundred years.
And what was the purpose of piling up all those fantasies?
The population of Iraq is about 22 million, and a third of them are Sunnis, who were hostile to George
W. Bush’s invasion. The population of the Islamic world is about 1 billion, and the Chinese totalitarian
machine has 1.3 billion human parts.
For the sake of argument, suppose that Bush conquered Iraq within five days, not five years, and
appropriated Iraqi oil for himself and his cronies. What would this have meant geostrategically?
Nothing!

Another billionaire in this world as against the hostile Sunnis in Iraq, about 1 billion hostile Muslims,
and the Chinese war machine exceeding that of Nazi Germany many times over in size and having in
Russia not a deadly enemy but an ally, helping China scientifically and technologically.
So a president whose presidential rating is below any other president in the U.S. history could inflict so
many injuries and damages on his own country for the sake of Iraqi oil, which he failed to get, and
instead went to the Olympic Games in Beijing. Well, in the eight years of his “kratia,” George W. Bush
has done nothing to decelerate the march of the dictatorship of China toward the ownership of the
globe, possibly in the temporary alliance with Russia, and/or the Muslim world.
A dentist helps his patient who asks questions about his teeth. No questions were asked of Bush and his
successors as to the safety and survival of the West. The “demos” does not know why and for what
purpose they twice elected Bush — except for scolding, on his way the Beijing Olympic Games, the
dictatorship of China for the first time in eight years and shortly before his second term is over.

War Is Unwinnable Without Intelligence/Espionage

Before the 20th century, all countries were divided into two categories: “advanced” and “backward.” The
former were expected to defeat the latter as a matter of course. Thus, in the British Empire, the territory
of England itself accounted for less than 10 percent, the rest being the territories conquered by England.
China was never a British colony, but England waged two wars against China, both victorious. The cause
of these two wars is worth mentioning.
Narcotics were widely spread in the 19th century, and the emperor of China forbade the nonmedical sale
of opium, as it is today forbidden in the United States (see “USP Dictionary,” 1996, Page 506). As a
result, the British opium merchants sustained financial losses, and there occurred two “opium wars” (in
1840 and 1858), both of which were won by Great Britain, and the Chinese emperor had to permit the
English opium merchants to drug the Chinese with opium.

However, in the 20th century there appeared countries like Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, and
Maoist China, which combined pre-medieval slavery and modern weapons.
On June 22, 1941, Hitler’s Germany invaded Stalin’s Russia. In 1940, Hitler’s Germany had routed
France within about a month, and the British troops fled from France with special alacrity. From June
to September 1941, Hitler’s troops were advancing no less successfully to Moscow.
Moscow was the brain of the country and the hub of railroads and highways of the European part of
Russia. In September, Hitler’s troops approached Moscow. So Hitler won the war?
At his secret meeting in Moscow, Stalin told his subordinates that Moscow could be defended only by
the Siberian and Far-Eastern troops, which were already on their way to Moscow. Since the Soviet
European troops had been routed, Stalin suggested that meanwhile everyone who could should leave
Moscow (as for Stalin himself he could leave Moscow any second by his personal underground train,
safer than aircraft).
The result of Stalin’s suggestion was “the big skedaddle.” Moscow was fleeing. Those in charge of food
stores grabbed what they could and skedaddled as though the food was their own.
In the summer, I had been evacuated to Kazan, and was living with a family we knew. What about my
winter clothes? My mother in Moscow collected the winter clothes for me. But how to skedaddle out of
Moscow? She caught the last train, evacuating writers and their families. My father was a writer who
had volunteered for the defense of Moscow and was killed. When I entered the room in Kazan, I saw my
mother safely back from Moscow, with my winter clothes.

Hitler could enter the skedaddling Moscow without difficulty. So, he won the war in October 1941?
Hitler did not have a single intelligence/espionage agent in Moscow — he regarded
intelligence/espionage as treachery, and surely he had routed France in 1940 in about a month without
it.
So in 1941, in October and November, his troops loitered at Moscow without invading it. Meanwhile, the
Russian Siberian and Far-Eastern troops arrived — fresh, excellently armed, exceeding, numerically, the
German troops at Moscow — and turned them to disorderly flight. Hitler arrived in person, fearless as
always under enemy bullets, and turned the disorderly flight of his troops into an orderly retreat.

But he had lost the war despite more than three years still ahead, for had he occupied the entire Volga,
the Volga could not substitute for Moscow. Besides, 80,000 German troops were surrounded, captured
with their commanders, and marched through Moscow. Hitler finally committed suicide.
Now, the attitude of Hitler to intelligence/espionage has been characteristic of the “advanced
countries,” expecting to defeat the “backward countries” due to the latter’s militarily-industrial
inferiority.
In the 1970s, when we emigrated to New York from Soviet Russia, the CIA arranged for a public review
of its intelligence/espionage data, submitted to the Congress and the government. Everyone could
receive copies of those once top secret materials. In September 1978, I published in Commentary
magazine an article that demonstrated that the U.S. intelligence/espionage did not exist, for the texts
the CIA passed for intelligence/espionage data had been the Soviet propaganda, copied by the CIA from
Soviet periodicals, as every Russian could see.
My article was reprinted or retold by over 500 periodicals in the West. But I wanted it reprinted or
retold by The New York Times, to draw the attention of the U.S. government and Congress.
I wondered what The New York Times was thinking. That I was insane? But my book “The Education of
Lev Navrozov” was published in 1975, and the review of it in The New York Times, by its favorite
journalist Harrison Salisbury, was quite favorable.
Besides, if I was insane, what about more than 500 Western periodicals that reprinted or retold my
article? Were they also insane?
In short, the United States did not have intelligence/espionage. But this was of no concern to the Times.
In the 1920s and the 1930s, the key Moscow correspondent of the Times was Walter Duranty, an
inspired Stalinist, who had to withdraw into his private life when Stalin became a curse after World War
II.
Iraq is a tiny Third-World country, and compared to it, the United States is a giant military superpower.
George W. Bush began planning the invasion of Iraq since the beginning of his presidency.
With its allies like Britain, the U.S. invaded Iraq. But five years have not been enough to win the war!
For the goal of the CIA and the British Intelligence Service was not to conduct intelligence/espionage,
but to convince the public that Iraq posed a mortal danger to the West unless Iraq was attacked first.

Escaping Russia for New Life in

U.S.

After World War II, and up to Stalin’s death in 1953 and his posthumous “dethronement,” communists
accounted for almost one-quarter of voters in France and one-third of voters in Italy.
For the English-speaking countries, such percentages were fantastically high. Still, there were English
and U.S. admirers of Soviet Russia perceived as a soon-to-be paradise on earth with its wealth
(everything free of charge), freedom (everyone will choose his or her work) and universal cultural
efflorescence (everyone will be what was once called a “genius”).
Those who immigrated to Russia became Soviet subjects, complete with Soviet passports. They quickly
realized that 1930s Russia was a country of incredible poverty, prehistoric cruelty from the power
holders, and devastation, from the destruction of what Russia had valued in the first third of the 20th
century, such as poetry (still unknown outside Russia). But for them there was no going back!

An Englishman or an American who had a literary bent, and was trapped in Russia, could hardly find a
better employment than at the Moscow Publishing House of Literature in Foreign Languages. Any
employee in the Soviet paradise on earth was a pauper. But at the Moscow Publishing House, a
translator was at least paid for the number of words he translated. It was an Anglo-Saxon island: We
knew each other, and an editor became my wife, though neither of us was born Anglo-Saxon.
A translator, an American named Jack, who emigrated to Soviet Russia in the 1930s, became a friend of
mine in the 1960s.
When Jack had lived in the United States (where he was born) he despised American official education
and read on his own great philosophers in German and Latin, and he was a self-taught pianist who
enjoyed playing classical music. He admired Russian literature and was its English translator.

Soon after he arrived in Russia and became a “Soviet citizen,” he had a setback. He was a friend of a
British correspondent in Moscow who bought at a Moscow newsstand a large (almost royal) photograph
of Lavrentiy Beria, published on the occasion of his becoming the minister of state security. The British
correspondent sent this photograph to his London newspaper, to be published as a joke, which the
newspaper did. Beria ordered the British correspondent to leave the country within 24 hours — or else.
But since Jack knew about the joke, and was a “Soviet citizen,” he was sent to a concentration camp
from which he had come out after Stalin’s death in 1953.
This was when I met Jack, and now we saw eye to eye politically. I spoke English with him, and he was
pleasantly impressed that our “Moscow Anglo-Saxons” took me for an American who came with him
from the United States to Russia.
The dream of many of us, “Moscow Anglo-Saxons,” was as unrealizable as a journey to Mars: We
wanted to live in the English-speaking world, the land of personal freedom.
But what doesn’t happen in history? If the English Magna Carta and American Constitution could be
realized, why couldn’t my wife, our son, my mother, and I emigrate to these countries?
Historical miracles do happen!
In 1968, Richard Nixon was elected president. He launched what was called the U.S.-Soviet “détente”
instead of the “Cold War.” The Soviet dictators wanted to reciprocate with something pleasant or useful
to him. Nixon’s protection of Israel was well known. So those who considered themselves Jews (though
my wife’s passport and my passport said that we were Russians), could apply to the relevant officials for
exit visas.

In the Austrian center for Soviet émigrés, the Israeli lady in charge of the operation asked me in English
why we wanted to go to the United States, and not to Israel.
“Israel is part of the geostrategy today,” I answered also in English. “But who will hear me from Israel?
In the United States I have a chance.”
She agreed and arranged for our trip across the Atlantic. We landed on Mars. It was New York. A new
life — “in the other world.”
Say that miracles do not happen in history!

Future Wars Will Be Waged With Nano-Weapons

In 1986, Eric Drexler published his book about nanotechnology, “Engines of Creation.” He also
introduced the very words "nano” and “molecular nanotechnology” in their new sense.
I defended Drexler in my articles because Congress made no allocation to his “Foresight Institute,” since
he was represented by his ill-wishers up to the early 2000s as a charlatan who had invented fantasies
like nano and molecular nanotechnology.
Today, just several years later, to ridicule molecular nanotechnology would be like ridiculing higher
mathematics.
In its apparent wish not to seem militaristic and receive allocations from Congress, the Foresight
Institute held a conference not near its site in California but in Washington, D.C., and invited several
congressmen. I was present as a member of the Institute.
Now, the general title of Drexler’s book is “Engines of Creation,” and only one chapter (Chapter 11) was
entitled “The Engines of Destruction.” I was interested in this particular chapter, since the very survival
of the United States and the rest of the free world depends on superior “engines of destruction,” that is,
nano-weaponry.

When Drexler finished his presentation (about the "Engines of Creation"), I raised my hand to speak,
and I heard the editor of a nano-magazine whispering, in a theatrical manner, say, “Now, run for cover!”
I asked Drexler why in his speech he did not mention the “Engines of Destruction”; that is, nano-
weapons for the defense of the United States and the free West in general. Drexler’s answer was that
when the engines of creation had been realized universally, the problem of world peace would have also
been solved, and so there would be no need for the nano-engines of destruction.
On a more historical note, let us recall that England became in the 17th century a strong military power
due to its Industrial Revolution (spinning and weaving machines, Watt’s steam engine, the railway
locomotive, and the factory system with its assembly lines). Arms that used explosives were called
“firearms.” That was what war was like for about four centuries, including the past century: steel
contraptions blasted out — by means of explosives — bullets, shells, bombs, etc., to kill enemy soldiers
and destroy enemy installations.

Nano-weaponry makes it all as obsolete as firearms made bows obsolete in the 17th century.
Originally, Drexler included “Engines of Destruction” in his book but then took it out, possibly for fear
of being viewed as a militarist. However, on his Web site, KurzweilAI.net, Ray Kurzweil, an admirer of
Drexler and a scientist of genius in his own right, publishes Chapter 11.
In Chapter 11, Eric Drexler writes that nano-weapons “can be more potent than nuclear weapons: to
devastate Earth with [nuclear] bombs would require masses of exotic hardware and rare isotopes, but to
destroy all life with [nano] replicators would require only a single speck made of ordinary elements.”
We also read, “A [nuclear] bomb can only blast things, but nanomachines . . . could be used to infiltrate,
seize, change, and govern a territory or a world.”

The epigraph to “Engines of Destruction,” taken from Sir William Perry and dated by 1640, says, "Nor
do I doubt if the most formidable armies ever heere [sic] upon earth is a sort of soldiers who for their
smallness are not visible."
To compare the size of Drexler’s “nano-soldiers” with that of microbes? The unit of molecular
nanotechnology is a molecule. Drexler proceeded from the fact that a molecule contains space, which
can be filled, thus converting the molecule into a mobile computer and God knows what else. Yet
compared with a molecule, a microbe is a giant: Even before Drexler’s studies, one nanocentimeter
meant one billionth of a centimeter.
All this may seem miraculous in 2008 just as firearms seemed miraculous in 1646. Yet the new epoch
has come: The future world war will be a war of nano-weapons, not of firearms.
The advent of the epoch of firearms was fostered by the Industrial Revolution. There is no such nano-
machinery revolution that would foster the production of nano-weaponry. My readers ask me where
they can see nano-weapons as they can see firearms. Devoted to new weapons in all countries is the
book “Oblivion: America at the Brink” by Lt. Col. Thomas Bearden (U.S. Army, retired). Bearden
believes that the United States is “at the brink” in this respect. “If we are to survive, we shall need the
most strenuous and rapid effort in our history, now.”

What about nano-weapons? Bearden’s book, published in 2005, does not yet say a word about them.
In a totalitarian country, its owners can allocate as much funds into a military project as is necessary in
their opinion to win the crucial war. In a free country today, the decision depends on the electoral
majority, on the media, explaining to the majority what should be done, and on the top-level
bureaucracy, some of whose members take into consideration their own interests first and foremost.
From what I have seen in the United States in the last decade, the chances of the free world surviving in
a modern world war (that is, the war of nano-weapons, not of firearms) requires strong minds, not the
attempts to assure men of genius like Drexler that the engines of destruction are just figments of their
imagination because they sound militaristic to Congress.

Marxism: A Belated Postmortem

Up to his death in 1883, Karl Marx, as well as many Marxists up to Stalin’s death and the subsequent
exposure of Stalin in Russia, had believed that Marxism was a global science, determining the future of
all nations.
Today, even within the dictatorship of China, Marxism-Leninism is maintained only domestically. A
postmortem of Marxism has been long overdue.
The best and shortest way to do this is to read “the Internationale” (the Marxist anthem). I obtained it
from Yandex.com, the Russian version of Yahoo! or Google.
Some key Marxist phrases I found were “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” (whom the Internationale calls
“parasites”), and the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” In the times of Marx, the proletariat consisted
only of “toilers” who created wealth for the “parasites,” though the latter do not deserve even the land
on which they live. Say the proletarians in the "Internationale":

Only we, toilers of the global work-army,

Have the right to possess the land for ever,
While the parasites — never ever!
The key work of Marx, "Das Kapital," fills three volumes, though his discovery can be expressed in two
sentences. A “toiler” creates a commodity, for which a “parasite” pays the “toiler.” But the “parasite”
appropriates part of the pay, and thus becomes rich, or richer than he was, while the “toiler” remains as
poor as he was.
But let us look at a concrete example. Marx was able to create "Das Kapital" owing to Engels, who
worked in his father’s capitalist textile firm and supplied Marx with money for food and other
necessities.
But what if Engels and/or his father did not exist, or what if Engels considered "Das Kapital" a
multivolume graphomania which did not contain a single valuable or interesting sentence?
Suppose the dictatorship of “parasites” like the Engelses has been replaced by the dictatorship of
“proletariats.” Would the production of goods and services go on as smoothly as did "Das Kapital"? Who
would organize the production of all goods and services? Who would run the dictatorship of the
proletariat as a society — with its police, courts, hospitals? Who would ensure the personal freedom
(such as the freedom to devote his or her life to the writing of "Das Kapital"), social security, medical
help to lonely gravely ill unfortunates?

What was to become of Marx in the dictatorship of the proletariat? Was he, a Jew, to be exterminated as
were Jews in the dictatorship of Nazi Germany? Or as Jews would have been exterminated in the Soviet
“dictatorship of the proletariat,” had not Stalin died in the nick of time?
When Marx wrote "Das Kapital," he was not registered at any place of work or education/research.
Hence in Stalin’s “proletarian dictatorship,” he would have been a “parasite” to be exiled even if he was
not a Jew and his writing had copied a current day’s Pravda.
According to Marx, all disasters come because vampires underpay and mistreat toilers. This is what the
toilers declare in the "Internationale:"
Enough of sucking our blood, vampires,

With prisons, taxation, and a low pay!

You have all the power and wealth,
And we have nothing, except death!
We will create a different world order —
And here is our battle cry:
The entire power belongs to toilers.
While all the spongers — fall through the Earth!
Despite the “revolutionary atmosphere” in continental Europe, Marx had to move to London in 1849
and to spend more than half of his life (the last 34 years) in England. Surely what the "Internatonale"
says about the dictatorship of the rich applied to England. The "Internationale" proclaimed:
We despise you, rich drones,
The kings of coal and of steel.
All plants, all factories and palaces
You have built on our backs!
Everything you possess
Has been created by our toil.
It’s time! We demand the return
Of what you acquired by sheer robbery of us!
And here was Marx living in England for 34 years preaching without any trouble the “robbery of the
robbers,” as Lenin put it.
Marx confused lack of personal freedom, which everyone should have, with lack, which may be infinite,
of wealth, and he regarded the unequal distribution of wealth as a crime, calling for an immediate
ruthless lynching of the wealthy (no jury trial).

Personal freedom in England began to arise with the jury trial even before the Magna Carta of 1215,
whose jury had, first of all, to agree us to the defendant’s guilt.
Its common sense was obvious. One accuser can accuse a defendant of whatever comes to that accuser’s
head. But at a jury trial an identical invention, voiced by several jurors, is impossible.
In the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, even wars are instigated and waged only by the rich at the
expense of the proletariat:
Stop suffocating us,
To please the tyrants,
In the smoke of the war!
War on the tyrants! Peace for the people!
Go on strike, the armies at war!
If the tyrants make us
Die in battle for their sake,
Then, murderers, we will aim at you,
All cannon roaring in the battlefields.

China: World Domination or Bust

The dictators of China want to conquer the world — not because they are evil or cruel — but because this
is the only way for them to stay in power, and power in a totalitarian society is more valuable than any
money.
Any weakening of power may lead to the extermination of the dictators themselves — possibly in a way
no less horrible than the way in which they had been exterminating their “internal enemies.”
The Epoch Times is a dissident Chinese newspaper published outside China, but in an age of global
communications it is impossible to keep it secret from those inside China.
On Sept. 9, 2008, the newspaper wrote, "To date, over 14 million Chinese citizens have publicly
renounced their membership in the Chinese Communist Party, with the number growing by up to
40,000 more people each day."
These figures are for the past three years. What about the figures since Dec. 9, 2004?

Grand Total: 28,953,825

This Month: 1,119,526
This Week: 159,071
Yesterday: 35,754
Today (so far): 5,416
The newspaper published six pages of statements of those who had left the Chinese Communist Party.
The first statement postdated 2006-07-13 12:36:
“I declare that I solemnly denounce the communist party and its affiliated organizations.”
Stalin would have the “villain” tortured to death. But the letter is even signed: Andrian T, Montreal,
Canada.
It was impossible in Stalin’s Russia to cross the “border” in either direction. For a Chinese, it was
possible to hide in Canada. So what is the moral?
The Chinese Communist Party and its departments and posts abroad are its arsenal from which officials
for important appointments are recruited. Those who fled cut off their careers in communist China for
ever.
Every year about 100,000 revolts occur in China, and any of them may develop into a Tiananmen-like
disaster, this time fatal for the dictators of China. Yet though the rebels cannot conceal themselves as do
the deserters from the Chinese Communist Party, the dictators prove to be as unable to stop these
revolts as they are unable to stop the desertions from the party.
On the other hand, there are areas where infinite cruelty is possible, and its victims can be duly
apprehended.

From 1992 to 1999, the dictators of China advanced the movement that became known as Falun Gong.
The East, including China, had movements like Buddhism or Taoism, and it was a matter of national
Chinese pride that such a non-Western movement flourished in China.
For example, we could hear on “Late Night Live, Radio National Australia” or read in Yahoo! (“Falun
Gong,” from Wikipedia): "In 1994 Falun Gong was taught at the Chinese consulate in New York as part
of the [Communist] Party’s 'cultural propaganda to the West,' alongside silk craft and cooking."
Falun Gong is based on traditional exercises and energy-building movements borrowed from both
Buddhism and Taoism. The goal is to promote better health and individual energy.
In 1999, “Falun Gong practitioners” began to be tortured to death, and their organs sold. This is an
unprecedented atrocity. But it was possible no “Falun Gong practitioner” was armed or tried to run
away.

The dictators cannot cope with its population except in cases like Falun Gong. But they can or may
conquer the world, and then their own population will be unable to put up any more resistance than did
the Falun Gong practitioners.
A couple of weeks ago, I wanted to get the latest on the development of nano-weapons in the
dictatorship of China. The “Yahoo!” response mentioned the last work written by the famous Chinese
dissident Zhang Hongbao, who died two years ago.
In his last paper he wrote that “CCP” (“Chinese Communist Party”) had laid emphasis on “post-nuclear
weapons” and first of all “nano technology” (remember — two years ago!).
By comparison, the West seems to be asleep militarily as far as the presidential electorate and national
publicity are concerned. Who spoke publicly about the primary role of nano-weapons two years ago?
It is so much easier for the dictators of China to prepare the nano-conquest of the world than to catch
those who leave the Chinese Communist Party with insulting public explanations of its evil oppressive
nature. In other words, it is easier to conquer the world with post-nuclear weapons like nano-weapons
than to rule a country like China today.

Indeed, to lead the West in nano-weapons, it is only necessary to attract for the research and production
the world’s best scientists and technologists in the fields, with the proviso that money is no problem:
The dictators of China can pay millions or dozens of millions of dollars a year.
In the West, all remuneration (wages, salaries, profit) is established by the market. Suppose it became
possible to produce a substance one ounce of which will prolong the life of any consumer of it by “n”
years. Money will flow to the potential producer of that substance.
In the dictatorship of China, an even greater concentration of resources will happen if and when the
production of the world-conquering weapons becomes a clear-cut route. As for the prolongation of life
of those who have the absolute power in China, surely the new Western elixir prolonging life will
become theirs according to an ancient adage:
Said the gold: “I will buy everything.”
 Said the sword: “Everything I will take.”

Russians Cannot Be Blamed for Stalin's Crimes

Mankind consists of nations, and many members of every nation often see nations through their own
“national glass,” usually unfavorable to those other nations. At least three nations in the 20th century
lived in countries (Russia, Germany, and China) whose totalitarian rulers committed horrible mass
crimes, and members of other nations see these nations themselves as guilty.
Freedom from national prejudices is so rare and refreshing that below I publish a note by an American
— a reader of mine named Andrew Rady — who understands that Russians in general cannot be blamed
for what Stalin (incidentally, a Georgian) did in Russia.
Here is his e-mail:
Lev,
This letter [below] is written by a business associate of mine [David E. Baskett] that
has worked in Russia and has been involved in Russian-American ventures. Please
read it, and I am sending it for your references. I am forwarding it here below.

Thoughts on Russia
27 Aug 08
Full Disclosure: I am a former military and civilian cold warrior who spent more than
20 years in uniformed fulltime active, enmity against the “Evil Empire.” During that
time I was shot at with and my fellow soldiers were killed by Soviet weapons. For
about the same amount of time I have been actively engaged in business with the
Russian geographical center and some of the “liberal” countries that spun off during
the breakup of the USSR.
I was in Siberia when much of the Russian empire crumbled.
I hold the view that Russia is the second most important country in the world, and in
the words of my then Kazakh country manager in which was then Alma-Ata: “unless
the US and Russia cooperate, we will both be devoured by the Chinese.”
Let me intervene here. This does not mean that the “national character” of Chinese is inferior to that of
Russians or Americans. Those who were to be called Americans came into a vast sparsely populated
continent, and their freedom could develop unabridged. Hence the “national character” of David
Baskett, so gentle and generous to Russia. On the other hand, the Chinese have been living in a huge
cage, as did the Russians under Stalin, who died in 1953. Baskett continues:

When Russia broke up the Warsaw Pact, which was aimed at NATO, and asked to
join the West, we expanded (a no longer needed) NATO to the edges of a country that
had lost more than 20 million citizens owing to countries which are now in NATO.
In showing good faith, Russian scientists eagerly shared some very advanced space
nuclear technology where they were five years ahead of us. We seized the model after
it arrived in the US and refused to return it under our US export rules.
When Russian pilots gave our military pilots rides in their fully equal and in some
cases better jet fighters, our pilots were ordered not to return the favor.
Our SALT inspections in Russia were given broad liberty well beyond the agreement.
Russian SALT inspectors are held to the smallest comma.
We bombed their Orthodox and cultural friends, the Serbs, during their holiest week,
while supporting Muslims.

The Space Station is not a tomb for our astronauts because Russia kept them alive
when our Space Shuttle burned up.
Russia publicly begged us to not install AA-ABM missiles on their border and offered
to jointly develop an ABM defense against the Iranian threat. They were rejected.
 When Kosovo declared independence this year, the Russians begged us not to
encourage it. The US was the first country to declare recognition of the new Muslim
country.
Today, Russian rocket engineers here in the US to help launch US spacecraft
equipped with Russian engines, are treated in ways that are demeaning.
Dual standards cause both individual and national grief. We honor President
Lincoln, partly because he treated the defeated Confederate officers with honor and
respect.
Thirty years ago a professor of political history told some young US Army officers
that if Russia were a free democratic and capitalist country (which it is becoming)
there would still be competition and points of friction due to history and geography.
It was two native Georgians, Stalin and Beria, who slaughtered many, many millions
of Russians. The areas in the Georgian conflict, culturally Russian, are trying to
exercise self-determination and prefer to be part of Russia.
Russia has never sent its armies to kill Americans and went to greater lengths than us
to avoid an accidental nuclear war.
Militant Muslims, a shared enemy, have declared war on both the US and Russia and
we have both lost blood to their terrorists.
I think Russia is choosing renewed self-respect over being liked.
David E. Baskett
US Army (ret)
Again let me intervene. “Militant Muslims” are what they are because they have been living in political
cages as the Iraqis have been.
Americans George H. Bush and George Bush were after the Iraqi oil. They failed, and they
demonstrated that Americans can be as greedy yet stupid as representatives of any other nation, and
Mr. Baskett’s Kazakh manager is absolutely right when saying that unless the U.S. and Russia cooperate
they will both be devoured by the Chinese; that is, they will both become insiders of the Chinese world
cage.

China Absent From McCain-Obama

Debate Topics

After Japan’s unconditional surrender in 1945 as a result of the U.S. destruction of two Japanese cities
by atom bombs, produced by the U.S. “Manhattan Project,” it became clear that the outcome of a war
would now decided not by the number and quality of soldiers, but by the number and quality of
scientists and engineers able to develop the most advanced new weapons.
As an example of a possible war enemy today, let me take not Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran, but China, left
outside McCain-Obama chatter. Here is an article in front of me produced, on the basis of China’s
Statistical Yearbook of 2005, by AFAR (Association for Asian Research). Nothing secret or military! The
“Yearbook” is available in the New York Public Library, and the article is amicably entitled “China’s
Revolution in Higher Education.”
Of course! Education is growing in the United States as well. According to The New York Times
Almanac of Research of 2007, Page 366, the number of Americans who completed at least four years of
college increased from 17 percent in 1980 to 27.7 percent in 2005. More than by 10 percent in 25 years!
In the AFAR article we read (Page 2 of 4) that the “number of post-graduate students in China’s higher
education institutions increased from 10,934 in 1978 to 819,896 in 2004,” that is 75 times, or by 7,400
percent, in about 25 years.

According to the AFAR study (Page 2 of 4): “In 2004, more than one million Chinese students
successfully completed their undergraduate study in engineering (over 812,000) and science (over
207,000).”
AFAR shyly admits that “China is still considerably weaker in humanities and especially in social
sciences and law”: "As a matter of fact, the China Statistical Yearbook does not provide any data on
sociology, anthropology, political science, international relations, demography, statistics or religion.
History attracts 0.5 percent of all students and Philosophy 0.1 percent."
Of course! One “historian” and one “philosopher” are sufficient for radio and TV programs, arguing that
China is the world’s freest society, and ere long all its members will be the world’s richest (and happiest)
people.
China’s goal is to collect the largest number of scientists and engineers in a kind of multiple Manhattan
Projects developing all possible post-nuclear superweapons capable of destroying not just two cities (as
did U.S. atom bombs in Japan), but the whole of the United States, including McCain, Obama, or their
ilk, arguing about whether the United States should withdraw from Iraq or strike Iran and Afghanistan.

From 1933-1945, the United States was lucky: As a result of anti-Semitism in Germany and later in
Italy, these countries lost several scientists of genius, who emigrated to the United States and took part
in the development of the nuclear bomb ahead of Germany.
Nowadays, the attitude of the free West to China is so benign that China can employ at sufficiently high
salaries those foreign scientists of genius who may be useful for the development of post-nuclear
superweapons.
Besides, the Chinese students study abroad, learning what is important for the development of post-
nuclear superweapons. According to the AFAR article (Page 3 of 4), the “annual average” of Chinese
students going to study abroad in 2000-2004 “was 18,923, compared to 2,631 for 1978-1999.”
The money? According to the AFAR article (same page), “government allocations for science and
research . . . jumped over 22 times, from the equivalent of US $660 million in 1978 to US $14.6 billion
in 2004.”

The free West will live as long as it is necessary for China to become militarily superior to the free West
as the United States became superior to Japan in 1945 just owing to one superior weapon.
Meanwhile, the U.S. presidential nominees and President George W. Bush can chatter away about how
Saddam Hussein was going to produce in 2002 an honest-to-goodness atom bomb, no worse than the
U.S. atom bomb of 1945, and about how Iran is contemplating its production of such a bomb.
After eight years of his presidency, the rating of George W. Bush is lower than that of any former U.S.
president. How can McCain or Obama be expected to be better than George W. Bush, fighting Iraq
(population 26 million, with only one third of them being Sunnis) and expressing his benevolence to
China (population 1.3 billion, becoming a post-nuclear military machine, more superior to the United
States qualitatively, not only quantitatively, than the United States was superior to Japan in 1945)?
The key to survival of a country in the 21st century is the human mind. But Philistine twaddle,
conformity, and lack of interest in anything except money have become characteristic of the public life
and culture in the free West. Is a single thinker heard in the West today?

A mediocrity assumes that he or she is revealing the truth by repeating what millions of other
mediocrities repeat. Mass communications media have become the cultivators of Philistine twaddle.
In my first articles published in the West (in Commentary magazine), I quoted Winston Churchill’s
speech in British parliament when some delegates had remarked that Stalin was grabbing Eastern
Europe under the pretext of liberating it from Hitler.
Prime Minister Churchill immediately declared that he would not allow anyone to speak so
disrespectfully about “Marshal Stalin” in Churchill's presence. And so on. A panegyric to Stalin. Why?
This was fashionable, Churchill conformed, and that was expected. But the fashion was soon gone. And
he became quickly a ruthless critic of Stalin. His Stalinist speech (and my Commentary quotation of it)
were immediately forgotten.
If a conformist panegyric to Stalin was all right for Churchill, an almost monumental figure, what can be
expected of much less impressive political figures in the free West today?
I express my gratitude to Alan Freed for his appreciation and processing of this text at short notice.

Emigration for Freedom

To my eternally young wife (and editor), Muza, on her birthday.

The verb “emigrate” originated in English in 1778 and the noun “immigrant” in 1789, but emigration
has accompanied mankind throughout history. At the end of the first millennium, there was not yet a
single German in Berlin, nor a single Russian in Moscow, nor a single Hungarian in Budapest (in fact,
there was no city under this name until 1873). Madrid was not a Spanish settlement; it was a Moorish
settlement, and no Turks lived in Ankara.
Christopher Columbus was a Genoese navigator for Spain; his Spanish name was Cristóbal Colón, and
when he died in 1506, he still thought that the country he had landed in was India. Immigrants were a
major factor of transformation of this “India” into today’s America, speaking “American English,” which
differs slightly from “British English” or the English of other modern English-speaking countries.
America also adheres to constitutionalism; that is, personal freedom.
In the 20th century, three major slave states came into being: Russia, Germany, and China, and the
chief aim of emigration or flight from these slave states was personal freedom.

Just as in many other countries, private slavery in Russia was called “serfdom.” It was abolished in 1861
by Tsar Alexander II.
The serfs were the property (just like dogs or cattle) of their owners for whom they worked, mostly as
peasants, were taken care of, and could be sold to other owners.
The Soviet state slaves were described by the Soviet slave-state media as the freest citizens on earth.
This included the entire population, which actually belonged to the same slave-owner, glorified by the
slave-state media as the greatest founder and leader of the “first free country in world history.”
It was assumed by the Soviet slave-state media that the United States and other “bourgeois” countries
feared the new free Soviet society and sent their agents in to subvert it. Anyone who was heard to
contradict the slave-state media was arrested as such an agent to be sent to a “labor camp” to do “honest
work” — or was shot.
It is not psychiatrically surprising that my wife and I, both born Russians, studied English to transform
ourselves, at least in our imagination, into dwellers of English-speaking countries. On the other hand,
the dictatorship of Soviet Russia needed English-speaking Russians.
For example, it was said in the West that Soviet Russia did not publish the greatest Russian writer
Dostoyevsky because he was not “politically correct.” So the Publishing House of Literature in Foreign
Languages in Moscow began to publish my translations of Dostoyevsky. My wife became later, in the
United States, a senior editor at McGraw-Hill, and if her English was good enough to be a senior editor
in New York, it was certainly good enough for Moscow.
Then, in an attempt to flirt with President Nixon’s détente, several hundred “Soviet citizens,” born and
bred in Russia, including my wife, our son, my mother and me, were “allowed to emigrate”! It was an
incredible dream . . . yet we were more awake than ever.

However, even such a miracle did not eliminate the question of how I would make a living in that
dream. Surely Western publishers had no need for new translations of Dostoyevsky.
True, I intended to smuggle out a manuscript, and it was published after we arrived in the United States
by Harper & Row as a 628-page volume entitled “The Education of Lev Navrozov.” It received glowing
reviews in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other such beacons. But who could foresee
it?
There was another possible path for me. Shortly before this miracle of being born again in the other
world, one of the biggest Moscow drama theatres had asked me for an American play worth staging, but
likely to be permitted to be staged by the Soviet censorship. I proposed my translation of “The Gentle
People,” which Irwin Shaw had published in 1939. The Soviet censorship accepted the play, since all
Americans in it were miserable: The worker owning a good house was miserable, since he wanted to
spend his life fishing off his raft. His wife was miserable too — when asked about her health, she always
replied, “I’m dying.”
Their daughter wanted to dance on the deck of a fashionable cruiser that passed by. Her father’s fishing
friend was miserable because she ignored him and paid more attention to the local hoodlum, who had
extorted money from her father to spend it on a bit of glamorous life for her.

Finally, her father and his friend invited the hoodlum for a trip on their raft, killed him in a comically
inept way, and threw his body off the raft.
Why had I chosen this play? I believed that a new stretch of great American prose appeared with
Hemingway after World War I. It was based on the rhythm of the English language. In Irwin Shaw’s
play, the hoodlum, who bought orchids, but didn’t know that orchids do not smell, kept repeating in
Hemingway’s rhythm: “Three dollars apiece, and they don’t smell!”
In the United States, I bought Irwin Shaw’s 346-page novel published in 1979 “The Top of the Hill.” I
spoke with the publisher of Chronicles of Culture. He was from Poland, and he believed that the great
American literature between the two world wars was going away. So he began to publish my reviews in
his magazine.
Thus I wrote in the January/February, 1980, issue of his magazine that, while Irwin Shaw’s “The Gentle
People” of 1939 showed traces of great American prose, his “The Top of the Hill” 40 years later showed
zero. In such cases it would be better to show movies.
Irwin Shaw presented himself at the Chronicles of Culture and screamed at the editor as though the
editor were obliged to publish only reviews of books that the authors of those books heartily approved.
But I continued to assert in my reviews that in its sterility the American prose was now not unlike the
Soviet literature, except that the Soviet slave-state censorship had destroyed the great Russian
literature, while similar array of pseudo-literature appeared in the United States possibly because it was
equally profitable to publish a book of genius and “The Top of the Hill.”

Well, every free country consists of cultural contradictions, yet freedom makes it possible to choose.
There was a time when even many Americans were sure that there should be no performances of
classical music in the United States because the American music was jazz.
But surely in freedom this would not be obligatory for everyone, and classical music could be
performed.
Freedom opens up beauty and wisdom for you personally even if no one else appreciates it.
As a writer, I write in my articles what I think — even if I were the only specimen of mankind willing to
think so.
After the last Soviet dictatorship (of Gorbachev) collapsed in 1991 and Boris Yeltsin became the
president, it was possible for me to “write politics” for former Soviet media giants such as “Izvestia.” My
joke was that I had emigrated from Russia to Russia with my press center in New York. Unfortunately,
Yeltsin was replaced, with his own blessing, by Vladimir Putin.
From Stalin’s Russia, I have brought out my experience of slave states. I have been trying to convey my
experience to the West, and in the 1990s, also to Russia. I hope more can be done in this respect.
We — my wife, my son, and I — hope we can get from the West a bit of what we need and give the West
a bit of what it needs. This is what the emigration for freedom is all about, is it not?

Will There Be Less Bloodshed in 21st Century?

Today, it is often assumed that the reason there was so much bloodshed in the 20th century is that there
were so many ruthless bigots (such as Hitler, Stalin, or Mao), who became, due to their ruthless bigotry,
the de facto owners of their countries. They would, out of their ruthless bigotry, exterminate human
beings like so many insects or microbes.
But let us look at the history of the 20th century, not as a volume published because its author has a
high academic rank, but based on its bits of undeniable evidence.
After World War I, Germany was declared by the Treaty of Versailles to have caused that war, and the
treaty made Germany virtually defenseless, ignoring, as the treaty did, the possibility of Soviet Russia’s
aggression.
There was one German World War I solder named Adolph Hitler, who began to speak out and write in
Munich after World War I against the Treaty of Versailles and thus rose to power in 1933 because his
Reichstag anti-Versailles-Treaty party received 44 votes, more than twice that of any other Reichstag
party.

Alfred Rosenberg, a son of a Russian shoemaker of German extraction, appeared at the age of 26 in
Munich after Lenin and other Russian Marxists had come to power in Russia in 1917 and 1918. On the
advice of a Munich magazine editor, for which both Hitler and Rosenberg wrote, they met.
Since many Soviet Marxists were Jews, just as was Marx himself, Alfred Rosenberg argued that what
had happened in 1917 and 1918 in Russia had been a conspiracy of Jews as a “race” for the benefit of
Jews.
Yes, many of Lenin’s, and then Stalin’s, top subordinates were Jews! Well, there had been, under the
Russian monarchy, a fairly vicious anti-Semitism in Russia (recall the pogroms, massacres of helpless
civilian inhabitants of a Jewish town or settlement).
Now some Jews had reacted by becoming anti-monarchist, Marxist, and “revolutionary.” The father of
Alfred Rosenberg was a shoemaker, and Marxism had been against private enterprise. That was yet
another cause for some members of the Russian middle class to hate Jewish Marxists.
Hitler digested Rosenberg’s speeches, articles, and books. Why not add anti-Semites to his potential
voters? Hitler included Rosenberg’s anti-Semitism into “National Socialism.”
He assigned to Rosenberg the top position on the radio, which later he transferred to Joseph Goebbels.
Alas, Rosenberg had a Russian accent, and so his career became confined to the press.
In contrast to Rosenberg, Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not “a cry of the heart,” but a move in a political
game. The Hitlers’ family doctor in Austria was a Jew. Even later, when Germany occupied Austria in
1938 (Anschluss), Hitler ordered an official to help the physician and his family sell their house and
emigrate safely from the now anti-Semitic Austria. The Jewish doctor described Hitler’s care for him
and his family in the U.S. press.

When Hitler sustained a defeat at Moscow in late 1941 from the newly arrived Soviet Far Eastern and
Siberian troops, he feared that now his subordinates would betray him to the English-speaking
countries to earn mercy for themselves.
So he ordered them to begin the extermination of Jews (“The Final Solution”), but it was not to be
known that he had ordered it.
Well, some Western historians refuse to acknowledge this even today, though the trick had been used
way back in the 19th century — the chief of a criminal gang made his subordinates commit crimes. If
they betrayed him to the police, the latter would know about their crimes.
Hitler was a foot soldier of World War I — mentally, no more. Germany could have produced the atom
bomb ahead of the United States, and Hitler could have begun World War II after he had acquired it.
But he was so inept (yes, he was at the mental military level of a World War I foot soldier) that he
attacked Russia and starved his atom bomb project, financially. He lost the war as an ordinary foot
soldier in the role of the supreme commander-in-chief.
Even before the war was over, Stalin began to imitate Hitler’s anti-Semitic “national socialism.” Mass
dismissals of Jews began after the war. Phony trials were to demonstrate that the Jewish doctors were
killing their patients. All Jews were to be sent to an uninhabited area, and it was said that on the way
there, they would be thrown into a lake off the bridge across the lake.
Only Stalin’s death in 1953 prevented the Soviet “final solution.”
When World War II was still on, there was emerging yet another (huge) state slavery cage country —
Mao’s China, resembling Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany. The Islamic world remains a huge
mosaic of countries, but they may yet be united into a China-like giant.
In the 21st century the free world is more endangered than it was in the 20th. The post-nuclear weapons
are being developed in China in the 21st century on an unprecedented scale, while the geostrategic
mentality in the free countries is hardly better than it was in the 20th century. (I recall the first two
presidential debates I saw.)

It is still insufficiently understood in the free West that the totalitarian owners are motivated not by
their evil pathology, but by the fear of losing their absolute power (along with their lives!).
When Hitler began to sustain defeats in World War II, an attempt on his life was made by his
subordinates, one of whom brought a bomb in his briefcase to their meeting at a table. The bomb
exploded, but Hitler survived; however, he was traumatized to the end of his life when he committed
suicide. Either you gain the world or lose your own life.
By the Falun Gong tortures, the pseudo-emperors of China of the 21st century surpassed Hitler, Stalin,
and possibly Mao in cruelty, not because they are more evil, but because it is harder for them to
preserve their absolute power.
They could not hate Falun Gong practitioners as anti-Semites hated Jews. In the 20th century, that is,
before the 2000s, they had encouraged Falun Gong practitioners to show Falun Gong to the West as an
aspect of Chinese culture, along with silks and Chinese cuisine. But in the 2000s, that is, in the 21st
century, Falun Gong practitioners began to be tortured to death.
Lately, we hear of another possible Great Depression, similar to the one in the 1930s. The Western
attention to the outside mortally militarily dangerous world is then likely to decrease even though it is
already infinitesimal today.

U.S. Oblivious to Global Affairs

The word “consciousness” appeared in English in 1632 its definition being, “a living being’s awareness
of the outside world, without which awareness, the survival of the living being is impossible.”
An exceptionally profound human consciousness is known as “genius,” a word that originated in
English in 1513 during the Renaissance, with its roots in 14th century Italy.
In the 17th century, “genius” led to the West becoming safer and more powerful (militarily) than the rest
of the world.
This inherited Renaissance advantage was over in the 20th century, when Soviet Russia, which returned
in 1917 to the pre-Renaissance universal imperial slavery, defeated in World War II Germany. Germany
had introduced universal slavery in 1933.
If not for the Western countries outside Germany, the latter would have become part of Stalin’s Russia,
as did its eastern territory, including the eastern section of Berlin.
A good example of genius in the West, still inheriting the Renaissance, is John Stuart Mill in England
(1806-1873).
The territory of England itself accounted for less than 10 percent of the territory of the British Empire,
and England had no need for genius in geostrategy in order to survive.
India became an independent country, and Canada a “dominion,” a “self-governing nation of the
Commonwealth.” But Mill’s book (“essay”) “On Liberty” was an unsurpassed analysis of civic liberty by
a genius in the 19th century.
It is worth recalling that Mill never went even to school, which did not prevent him, at the age of 8, to
have read the original works of Herodotus and to have started Latin, Euclid, and algebra. At the age of
10, he read Demosthenes with ease.
Mill spoke to his readers through publications like “On Liberty,” republished about a century after his
death in five English-speaking countries (England, the United States, Austria, Canada, and New
Zealand).
In the United States, those responsible for its survival and hence to be people of genius in the
understanding of the outside world are taught at universities, which issue to them academic degrees.
I lectured at some universities in the United States, as well as in some other English-speaking countries,
since, as I emigrated from Russia in the 1970s, there were differences in the perception of Soviet Russia
among scholars or Sovietologists, as they were called.
I was a live specimen of Soviet Russia, which some university professors of sociology regarded as
moving to peace and progress, while others continued to regard it as a threat.
Indeed, the fall of the Russian dictatorship in 1991 opened a way to freedom under President Yeltsin,
while today “President Medvedev” has sent out a memo to all Russia schools stating that Stalin was a
great progressive statesman, mistaken after his death in 1953 for God knows whom.

In my lecture to the Sovietologists at Columbia University, I said that at the time (in the 1970s), Soviet
Russia was still a slave empire whose emperor, owning the entire population as his slaves, was elected
not hereditarily, as tsars had been, but in a conspiracy involving secrecy and violence.
The Sovietologists who argued with me had been shocked by what I had said. I had merely proved to
them that I was such an extremist of the (fascist?) right that it was impossible to find my match among
Americans.
They were wrong: Some American universities made me an honorary citizen of the cities where the
universities were located.
A professor’s home assignment to his students was particularly eye-opening for me. The assignment
was an essay about Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s advance of freedom in his book “The
Phenomenology of Mind.”
Well, what advance to freedom could there be if the relevant chapter in Hegel’s book was entitled
“Master-Slave Relationship,” while he meant serfdom in Germany, not slavery? (Hegel was a son of a
German “revenue officer.”

One of Hegel’s phrases cut into my mind. Hegel declared that the “masters” beat their “slaves”
insufficiently: The beating should be such as to “fill in the slave’s mind the entire universe.”
This is what happened. All the students, except one crank, copied other students’ essays from previous
years — essays that did not mention Hegel’s instructions as to how “the slaves” should be beaten. As for
the essay that the crank himself wrote, the enraged professor said, “I have not accepted it. It does not
exist.”
The other students were pleased: they didn’t have to read Hegel — they simply copied the old students’
essays. The goal of university education is to receive a degree, which would help them to get a higher
paid job, and the less they have to read to achieve that goal, the better.
George W. Bush received his degrees, with lowest grades, at two universities (Yale and Harvard, for
which his parents paid). Enough to be elected the U.S. president for two terms.
He could have achieved the same results internationally (five years of war in Iraq) and domestically (the
beginning of a Depression?) if he and all of his helpmates, consultants, advisers, generals, intelligence
officers, and other subordinates were illiterates, along with all radio and television “hosts” and “guests,”
supposed to enlighten the electorate at John Stuart Mill’s level.

The country has been more than ignorant about the outside world — most of its elected officials have
been smug, blind — certain that phrases from Hegel or Plato, torn out of the context and contradicting
the rest of the text, constituted a higher wisdom. And they are ignorant about more powerful post-
nuclear weapons developed by military scientists and technicians, educated in China and abroad, and
invited from all over the world to China if they show signs of genius in geostrategically crucial fields.
Predictably, the dictatorship of China publishes no data about its present and future post-nuclear
superweapons. But it publishes the “China Statistical Yearbook,” which says how many scientists and
technicians China obtains every year.
The Yearbook is — or at least recently was — available in the New York Public Library! But I have never
heard it being quoted by the U.S. media.
Of course, Hegel’s nonsense about the necessity of the “masters” to beat their “slaves” as ruthlessly as
possible is more important than the development of post-nuclear weapons in China today by the best
scientists and engineers China can educate and attract from all over the world.

What Can We Do About China?

I wrote (after the first McCain-Obama debate) about the growth of China’s military might and the
candidates’ ignorance on the matter. China’s military growth is even outlined in China’s “Statistical
Yearbook,” available at the New York Public Library.
In response, Michael Skok wrote in an Oct. 3 e-mail: “Your article is frightening. What can we do about
this? Even Fox News, which claims to be the most fair and balanced news organization, won’t say
anything adverse about China.”
Chris Russel wrote in a Sept. 29 e-mail that I am “most adept, adroit and intelligent. A real thinker that
I must recognize and admire. Also, I thank you for your candor and advice to America.”
He posed the same set of questions: What can we do? What do I think of the “candidates for President
and Vice President,” of “their qualifications for the job”?

Well, in their three debates, the candidates have not even mentioned China as a military threat. The
impression was that only Iraq or Iran is a military threat because allegedly Iraq was, and Iran is, going
to produce an atom bomb — about half a century after China tested its first atom bomb.
Says Benjamin Ward in an Oct. 10 e-mail, there is no “great literature written by Americans of my
generation. I am a 28-year-old American.” “Television programming” is “destructive (to the mind).” “Is
there any hope something grows out of this muck?”
Donald Rignal says in a Sept. 29 e-mail about my column: “Great article.” But what can we do?
In an Oct. 10 e-mail, John Donoghue says about the same article, that he “thoroughly enjoyed it.” But
again, what can we do?
My list is becoming monotonous: my readers agree with my articles, no matter how frightening, but
what can we do? Before answering, let me add three more names.
Howard Phillips publishes “Issues & Strategic Bulletin,” and on Sept. 22 (Constitution Day), 2007, his
organization presented me with that year’s “Champion of Liberty” award. The results, apart from my
pleasure? (Not that there is pleasure from pointing out China’s potential for military superiority.)
John M. Franse, a communication engineer, a man of tremendous energy and dedication, sent me a
collection of copies of all my articles in the past 10 years. “What else can I do?” he asked me over the
telephone.
On Sept. 18, I received an e-mail from Michael Pillsbury. Yahoo! has 1,480,000 entries about him. He is
the most competent Western sinologist, and he has been “well-connected” with the Pentagon and other
sectors of the U.S. government.
But have you seen Pillsbury on that same Fox News? No! He is unknown to the majority of the
electorate who is supposed to elect the most enlightened president and members of the Congress. This
is what he wrote in an e-mail dated Sept.18:
I have enjoyed reading several of your excellent recent articles on China including
today’s. My book “Chinese Views of Future Warfare” contains a long article about a
future of nanoweapons by a Chinese major general published in 1996. If you are
interested, I will send you a copy and some other materials, including a long article
that the Wall St Journal did about my views of China’s future.

Michael Pillsbury
That remarkable 421-page book “Chinese Views of Future Warfare” has been on my shelves since it was
printed about 10 years ago. As for “some other materials,” I would appreciate them for their content and
would consider them a gift from you. (Please send to 3419 Irwin Ave., Riverdale, NY, 10463.) For the
time being, let me quote the last page of this remarkable book, which I have had since it was published
about 10 years ago:
About the Author
Michael Pillsbury is currently an Associate Fellow at the Institute for National
Strategic Studies, National Defense University, and a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic
Council of the United States, where he is sponsored by the Office of Net Assessment,
Department of Defense. During the Reagan administration Dr. Pillsbury was the
Assistant Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning; under President Bush he
was Special Assistant for Asian Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense,
reporting to Andrew W. Marshall, Director of Net Assessment. Previously he served
as a defense analyst for the Rand . . .

Now, on to what we should and can do. We should use freedom to defend freedom. In 1978, I organized
the nonprofit Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., with a bank account, accepting tax-
deductible donations. The Center has an advisory board including a dozen or so world-known members.
What the board needs is a fundraiser, since I have had neither time nor skill to be such.
Our enlightenment of the free West should take two directions: In the United States, “all people” elect
the president, the vice president, and members of the Congress. The best way to enlighten “all people” is
a film, combining a documentary and a movie and showing what would happen if the defense of the free
West remains a non sequitur as it has been in the last decade.
The best way to enlighten sophisticates is sophisticated television on this life-or-death subject.
We are looking forward to capable and dedicated participants of this campaign of vital enlightenment,
and first of all, fundraisers.
This is my answer to what we should and can do. About 10 years have passed since the publication of
“Chinese Views of Future Warfare.” Time to do what we can.

U.S. Oblivious to China's

Nanotechnology
On Oct. 28, 2008, I received this e-mail from a Dr. Christian Chan in “Asia”: “While you are foolishly
obsessed with the memory of Hitler and the Soviet Union, your USA is being taken over by a Black
Nationalist Marxist!
"The USA’s most serious threat is internal and your nation has millions of leftist traitors and Americans
who are consumed by greed and place money before God & country!”
Well, as an example of my “obsession,” let me recall that had Hitler begun his war with Stalin a couple
of years later and continued to finance the German atomic project as generously as before, he would
have possessed nuclear weapons before the United States and hence would have possibly possessed the
world.
Also, President Roosevelt (a Democrat) could have been similarly called by Chan “a Dutch Nationalist
Marxist” at the head of “millions of leftist traitors and Americans who are consumed by greed.”
But actually, even before Roosevelt took office in 1933, he had endorsed the Hoover administration’s
refusal to recognize Japanese conquests in Manchuria. Roosevelt’s firmness led to the Japanese attack
on Pearl Harbor — and to the unconditional surrender of Japan after the United States dropped two
atom bombs on its cities.

Nor should Roosevelt’s role in the liquidation of the Great Depression be forgotten. Roosevelt was
inaugurated to his first term in 1933, that is, in the year when Hitler’s Reichstag Party received a heavy
majority of votes, and he became der Führer. Roosevelt and Hitler died in the same year, 1945 (18 days
apart!).
How on earth could Hitler conquer the United States without first having atom bombs? He could not
land his ground troops even in Great Britain because the latter had a large navy, created for the defense
of the British Empire.
Hitler’s Germany did not produce a single new weapon (while Stalin’s Russia, considered by the West
hopelessly backward, terrified the German troops very early in the war with Katyusha rocket launchers).
Roosevelt supplied England with whatever she needed to fight the war against Germany, which
therefore declared war on the United States and thus unwittingly boosted the U.S. Manhattan Project,
whose “atom bombs” would have finished off Germany had she not collapsed and had Hitler not
committed suicide before the U.S. atomic bombs were ready.
Yes, Roosevelt also supplied Stalin’s Russia with what she needed for the war against Hitler’s Germany.
If Stalin had attacked Germany, Roosevelt would have possibly helped Germany. It was vital to prevent
the merging of the two countries into a single totalitarian giant. Hitler had told Mussolini that he did
not trust Stalin, feared his surprise attack, and hence decided to attack him first.
Let us now turn from the Germany of 1933 to 1945 to the China of 2001 to 2010. The “five-year plan”
was a Soviet phrase. The Soviet industry was planned and built as a single military machine.

Now, since 1999, the number of undergraduate and graduate students in China has been growing at
approximately 30 percent per year, and the number of graduates at all levels of higher education in
China has approximately quadrupled in the last six years.
In 2010 (the last year of the current “five-year plan”), there will be substantially more Ph.D. engineers
and scientists in China than in the United States.
Let us recall that the population of China (1.3 billion) exceeds more than four times that of the United
States, and is expected to be 300 million in 2010. Hence the above figures for China can be multiplied
by four.
Also, the number of scientists and engineers in the United States largely depends on the customers’
demand for goods and services. In China, the number depends on the maximum growth of the war
machine projected by the dictators for the current five years.
Besides, scientists and engineers in non-military fields constitute in China a tiny percentage, compared
with those engaged in military fields.
In other words, not only will the Chinese war machine vastly surpass the relevant United States fields
quantitatively, the United States may be tragically behind in the development of new weapons. But in
contrast to the times of Roosevelt, the presidents, vice presidents, and most members of the Congress in
the past decade could not care less.

Hitler never said (no more than did Napoleon) that the world should and would belong to him. Hitler
called his teaching, “national socialism,” where the word “national” stresses its anti-Semitic orientation
rather than its global scale.
Marxism-Leninism, socialism, and communism were spread by Soviet Russia as a global teaching. But
today a quarter of French voters and a third of Italian voters do not vote communist — as they did
between the end of World War II and the death of Stalin, followed by the debunking of him.
Therefore, Marxism-Leninism is being preached in China only domestically. But surely it sounds more
global than national socialism. Neither Marx nor Lenin was Chinese, nor did they quote any Chinese as
being the founder of their teaching or their leader.
The word “liberation” in the name “People’s Liberation Army” stresses the goal of Marxism-Leninism to
“liberate” the world. Indeed, Russia was “liberated” by Lenin; that is, conquered as a whole, though it
consisted of many different nations, conquered in different wars at different historical times, by
different tsars.
New weapons? In 1986, Eric Drexler published his book about nanotechnology, introduced the word
itself, and founded The Foresight Institute for the research.
In China, the book appeared on the Internet in English with Chinese extrapolations of especially
difficult places. Let the young Chinese read become interested, and finally be Ph.D. scientists and
engineers in the new field of weapons, superior according to Drexler, to nuclear weapons. My readers
ask me how I know that the United States is not ahead of China in the development of nanoweapons.

No, I was not in China to watch their development. But I was in the United States. For the first 14 years
since the publication of Drexler’s book, many regarded it as just an eccentricity.
Then the Congress was to give Drexler’s Foresight Institute allocations for research. By that time,
Drexler’s word “nanotechnology” was generally known because nanotechnology had become useful in
the production and use of many peaceful goods and services.
Some of their commercial producers succeeded in assuring the Congress that nanotechnology is worth
congressional allocations only for civilian needs. Eric Drexler is no longer with the Foresight Institute,
which he and his wife created in 1986.
As for the old-fashioned war in Iraq, started by President George W. Bush, a 100 percent pure
American, and a staunch Republican at the head of millions of unselfish right-wing Americans, the war
creates the impression that Iraq is not a “Third-World country” of 26 million people, only 32 percent to
37 percent of whom are Sunni, hostile to the invaders, but a giant, fighting the United States and its
allies for five years, with the U.S. troops still there, waiting to be withdrawn.

Obama Faces Biggest Threat to Democracy: China

As Election Day (Nov. 4, 2008) was approaching, arguments seemed to focus on which of the two
candidates would enrich a greater number of Americans.
However, any wealth can be destroyed by war, including expropriations of the wealth by the war enemy,
and the 20th century already demonstrated how a war may become a world war. Nothing had been said
about this possibility for the days, months, and years preceding Election Day.
In the 20th century, the danger of a world war was demonstrated by Germany, which was assumed to be
highly civilized and unique in regards to music, philosophy, and science.
Germany failed to make its domination global only because, first, Hitler attacked Stalin’s Russia too
early and hence could not finance adequately his ongoing atomic project in order to be the first to have
atomic bombs, and, second, because his anti-Semitism led to the emigration from Germany of some
unique scientists of genius such as Einstein.

Presumably most of the world outside the United States is also wishing as many Americans as possible
to be as wealthy as possible, and hence as happy as possible, for happiness is a direct consequence of
wealth.
As it is sung in Gounod’s “Faust”: “On the earth, the entire human race worships only one sacred
idol . . . And that idol is the Calf of Gold.”
Certainly the totalitarian rulers are not averse to the worship of wealth for themselves, even though they
keep it secret.
On every anniversary of the “Great October Socialist Revolution” Stalin appeared at the top of the
stepped pyramid of Lenin’s tomb, called the Lenin Mausoleum, so that Muscovites could see him as
they passed by in a festival procession.
Our neighbor, a physician, carried his elementary-school-age daughter on his shoulders so that both of
them could see Stalin as well as possible.
During one period of his life, 1918 to 1923, Stalin was a military officer, and so in 1938 or 1948 he would
appear at the top of the Mausoleum wearing that same military dress of 20 or 30 years ago to save on
his dress and thus to show his beloved people how thrifty he was for their sake. But the best palaces of
the Russian pre-1917 counts and princes were preserved for him in case he would like to drop in.
In 2000, a new “five-year plan” began in China, and in 2010, China is expected to have more Ph.D.
scientists and technicians than the United States, except that an overwhelming majority of them will be
concentrated on the development of post-nuclear super weapons. How can we know this?

China produces statistical yearbooks, and although they do not state as much in a direct manner,
conclusions can be drawn from their numbers.
Yet, perhaps no CIA consultant to President George W. Bush did such school math for him, or perhaps
he forgot such trifles and rushed to grace with his personal attendance the Chinese Olympic Games.
Indeed, in the eight years of his presidency, Bush never spoke about China as a viable threat.
It is ironic that Germany with its national socialism seemed to be incomparably more dangerous in the
United States than does China with its Marxism-Leninism (and its 1.3 billion people as against 80
million people of Germany today).
A lethal abyss opens before the 44th U.S. president: the world of post-nuclear superweapons, being
developed in a country whose population exceeds that of the United States more than four times and
which is using “capitalism” as effectively all over the world as was the “state slavery” of Stalin or Hitler,
in which a human being could always be converted into a detail of a military machine, employing the
latest in sciences and technologies.

Since I acquire all books published by Western sinologists, analyzing the military advance of China, I
bought Steven W. Mosher’s “Hegemon: China’s Plan to Dominate Asia and the World.” Copyrighted in
2000, that is, the year when China’s military development boost started, and George W. Bush became
the U.S. president for two terms.
Dr. Mosher knows both Mandarin and Cantonese. He conducted anthropological research in rural
China and was predictably banished from China as a spy.
For good measure, a Yahoo! search reveals that he was expelled from Stanford University because his
book “Broken Earth” caused so much controversy between China’s government and the rest of the
nations.
But why did he use the word “Hegemon” in the title of his book? This is a Greek, not Chinese, word.
In Soviet elementary school, we read “The Wolf and the Lamb,” the fable by the famous Russian fabulist
“Grandfather Krylov.” The lesson was, “Strength always finds weakness guilty.” In the fable, before
eating the lamb, the wolf tried to find him guilty, but each time his accusation was blatantly absurd.
Finally, the wolf said, “Part of your guilt is my hunger!” and “dragged the lamb into the dark woods.”

Some inhabitants of constitutionalist or democratic countries would disagree with Krylov. An American
biography of Hitler “The Pathological God Adolph Hitler,” by Robert G. L. White, was published in 1977.
Hitler was no more pathological than is any American murderer, killing his victims for money without
endangering himself too much. Hitler was strength, and his victims were weakness.
Should Hitler have tried to find any other cause? No! He was pathological, you see! This is what White
tried to prove. A normal person will never — never ever — attack other countries without any reason
except his strength versus their weakness.
Incidentally, when his strength was over, Hitler killed himself, which shows that he was normal — he
wanted to avoid his hanging in public and other public humiliations, to say nothing of secret Soviet
torture.
It is totally superfluous to attach to “strength versus weakness” words like “hegemon” or “pathological”
to explain the behavior of “strength,” explained in a Russian 19th-century fable.
“Strength versus weakness” will be a sufficient cause for China to seize the world, including the United
States, and thus make its own ownership of human beings unshakable.

Hitler Passed on Trial Weaponry; China Won't

The U.S. political journalist Jon Bodenet, prominent during the last presidential election campaign,
sent me the following informative e-mail dated Nov. 8:
Lev, your perspective on China is indeed insightful and daunting. But the president
elect has vowed to take down our missile defense system, cancel new military
projects and cut defense spending while increasing spending on a huge somewhat
nebulous domestic civilian security force. I do not understand how this will protect
Americans from Chinese aggression.
While China has an antimissile program and is embarking on a space based weapons
program, our president elect seems to have his party’s backing for deep defense cuts.
If the Obama administration believes that security can be achieved by negotiation as
Obama has intimated, will that be an effective deterrent to Chinese aggression and
will the Chinese, therefore, be inclined to de-escalate the arms race?
The question deserves my elaborate answer. The conquest of the democratic West, including the United
States, has been and may be the only way for the totalitarian rulers of China to stop the local (Chinese)
opposition from the Chinese people when the totalitarian owners cannot cut off their human property
from the rest of the world due to world trade and traffic, the Internet, and all the other world
communications.

About 100,000 mini-Tiananmen-Square-like incidents are said to occur annually in China, invisibly for
Westerners.
On the other hand, the totalitarian rulers of China have all the possibilities to become militarily stronger
than the United States:
• The population of China is more than four times larger than that of the United States.
• The population of China can be channeled by the rulers of China into any military area of
science, technology, production, and actual war.
• The United States has freedom, making it possible for everyone to live freely, with the exception
of those convicted with a due legal procedure, for their crimes.
The last point requires comment. Since freedom is the greatest treasure of a free country, it is often
assumed that a country’s greatest treasure makes it only stronger, never weaker.
Yet history does not confirm such a pleasant conclusion. In the 20th century, France was a free
country. In World War I, France defeated Germany. In 1940, Hitler’s Germany occupied France in
little over a month.
The British troops escaped encirclement by beginning to retreat earlier than did the French troops.
What was a major factor in the war? In 1940, Hitler’s Germany was a totalitarian war machine,
while France remained a free France.
Freedom may be power, as was nuclear physics in those countries before World War II where it had
been developed by certain gifted individuals on their own initiatives and then used in the United
States — and in Germany, where its development slowed down because Hitler had started the war
with Stalin’s Russia and did not have enough resources for both the war with Russia late in 1941
and his atomic project.
In today’s democracy, such as in the United States, a thinker or a scholar is no longer described as
being mediocre, talented, or as a genius. What is important for many free Americans is to receive a
title like “director,” or “professor,” or “doctor” of a certain scientific field, and a salary to
comfortably live on.
The nuclear Manhattan Project got under way partly because Einstein, a genius who had emigrated
to the United States because of Hitler’s anti-Semitism, supported the project through Roosevelt.
Thus, in his Aug. 2, 1939, letter to President Roosevelt, Einstein said he believed it was his duty to
bring to the president’s attention certain facts and recommendations in this field.
The new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is
conceivable — though much less certain — that extremely powerful bombs of a
new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and
exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of
the surrounding territory.
Such is my answer to Jon Bodenet’s informative response to my column.
A no-less friendly e-mail response to the same column of mine came from the Rev. Al Miles in
Florida, who begins, “First of all, I wish to compliment on your most informative articles” and
ends, “Thanks again for your articles.”
Al Miles discusses the American buying of Chinese goods because they are, understandably, cheap,
since the pay to those who make them in China is so low. “To me it doesn’t make sense to feed
someone who will end up attacking us some day,” Al Miles concludes.
The only negative response to my column came from Dean DeGennaro, who signed his uniquely
violent outburst as “Dean.” Is he a Dean; that is, “a secondary school administrator in charge of
disciplining school”? This is how he begins his e-mail fit of wrath, signed “Dean.”
I have long suspected you to be a complete fraud with a totally distorted view of
history. Normally, I read your columns for a good laugh. I mean come on, they
never really say anything! But your latest installment of revisionist history has
forced me to consider mounting an email campaign to ask Newsmax to sever all
ties with you for the sake of their credibility.
Here is just one example:
You wrote, “Hitler’s Germany did not produce a single new weapon (while
Stalin’s Russia, considered by the West hopelessly backward, terrified the
German troops very early in the war with Katyusha rocket launchers).
Have you ever heard of the V2 rocket! The list of German weapon innovations
during this time period is staggering.
 I know you relish the role of the ‘shadowy spy master in the know’ but it’s time
for you to blog in kookville with the rest of the nuts and leave Newsmax to the
professionals.
Do us all (and yourself) a favor and forward this email to your editor. You’re
beginning to embarrass yourself and a great news site.
Dean
The German V2 rocket appeared only in September 1943. Hitler had actually
already lost the war, and he thought he needed this propaganda hoax as a “wonder
weapon” to keep up the sinking German morale (see Roy Irons, “Hitler’s Terror
Weapons”). It was a hoax: over 3,000 V2s were launched, resulting in 7,250
deaths. That is, a V2 caused about two deaths, mostly of civilians, since, as far as
I know, they were used not against the Soviet troops, but against British and other
Western civilian sites, to start Hitler’s “wonder weapon” panic.
One V2 cost about 100,000 Reichsmarks; that is, as much as the production of a high-performance
fighter, but killed about two civilians on the average. It has also been calculated that for the cost of
the V2 program, Hitler could have produced as many as 48,000 tanks.
What’s the moral? As I have already argued repeatedly, Hitler was a fool — a German foot soldier,
who imagined himself the greatest military commander in history.
Had he not been a fool, he could have become the owner of the world, given the weaknesses of the
democracies I have mentioned above. Today, the “opus” of the national-socialist Germany is being
repeated by the Marxist-Leninist China, except that the China “top leader” may prove to be by no
means a fool as Hitler was, while mediocrities will not dominate the culture of the free West, owing
to their aggressive insolence, taking advantage of freedom.
“Dean” is an example of this aggressive insolence. I have been writing in high-quality U.S.
periodicals since our arrival from Russia to the United States in 1972 (see, for example,
Commentary magazine from October 1972 onward).
My article, “What the CIA Knows about Russia,” in the September 1978 issue of Commentary, was
reprinted or retold in about 500 periodicals all over the West.
In the 1980s, I became a staff columnist of a New York daily whose editor-in-chief, Robert Morton,
publishes today World Tribune. In the 2000s, I have been writing a weekly column for Newsmax
and World Tribune.
Today I have received an e-mail from the head of a show in Las Vegas, Nev., informing me that he
has been reading my columns and reporting my “warnings” on his show for over a year. He invites
me to appear on his show.
But Dean declares that I am “one of the nuts” and “do us all [who are “us all”?] a favor and forward
this email to your editor.”
Dean is too important to inform anyone that I am “one of the nuts” and belong to “kookville with
the rest of the nuts.” I have to do so on my own, not to waste the time and energy of “Dean.” Now,
imagine millions of such “Deans” abusing freedom in a democracy and creating its fatal ignorance.

China's Totalitarianism Is Absolute

Aleksandr Herzen was a typical “Russian in the West” in the 19th century; a nobleman who, in 1846,
inherited a substantial fortune and lived in Western Europe.
He published The Bell magazine to “wake up Russia.” His special target was serfdom, and in 1861, the
Russian tsar Alexander II abolished serfdom.
The Soviet rulers, who in 1917 reversed the history of Russia back to its pre-1861 serfdom, nevertheless
feigned cultural sophistication, and above all, the admiration for the classic Russian culture.
In Soviet Russia, Herzen was published in English for the English-speaking countries (and I translated a
629-page volume of his “Selected Philosophical Works”).
In contrast to Herzen’s The Bell, the Chinese dissident publication The Epoch Times is said to have the
world’s largest magazine circulation, since millions of literate Chinese live outside China (in the
English-speaking countries, for example) and can read both Chinese and English.
The rulers of China cannot watch every Chinese person living outside China. What a deep penetration of
China into the outside world — in peacetime!
I met a young Chinese girl, a physician’s assistant, in New York about a year ago. We talked when she
was taking the tests, and she said, “You should live in China.”

When the Venetian Marco Polo (1254-1324) visited China, the Chinese regarded China, though it was
ruled at that time by a Mongol, Khan, as the world of splendor where a woman wore a dress of silk,
designed individually as a work of art, while the outside world was a world of savagery, where no one
knew what silk was.
Not dissimilarly, the doctor’s assistant in New York regarded China as the world’s brilliant metropolitan
country, no matter who ruled China, and New York as a backward province that was paying her well for
her efficiency around a doctor’s office. But she thought that I was created for China!
How many Chinese people living in New York think as she does? Nobody knows. It is impossible to
study public opinion in China, where those who are against its “political system” will never admit it
publicly.
The Chinese who worship the historical China as a country that had invented book printing or
developed “higher mathematics” (calculus) before Europe, may hate the present political system of
China precisely for having failed to recreate its erstwhile splendor and seeking its own survival in the
military conversion of the entire world into one big slave state.
At the last Chinese New Year celebration (February 2008), the “Chinese New Year Splendor” played in
New York’s Radio City Music Hall. It had a series of 15 shows, recreating the history of Chinese culture
through dance. So far, so good. Many Westerners know that silks or porcelains had appeared in China
centuries before they did in Europe.
But there was one scene depicting Chinese history that enraged the rulers of China. Before 2000, Falun
Gong exercises had been shown, with the China rulers’ blessing, to foreigners (in New York, for
example) as part of Chinese culture, just as silks or porcelains — or Chinese cuisine. But after 2000,
Falun Gong practitioners in China began to be tortured to death, whereupon their organs were cut out
and sold for surgical operations.

But this is also part of Chinese history, is it not?

Amerigo Fabbri, dean of Pierson College and professor of modern literature at Yale University,
described as follows “The Risen Lotus Flower,” one of the two dances in which three Chinese ladies
depicted the Falun Gong persecution:
You have three women in prison, and one of them gives her life for the other two.
These are great elements of the culture that are certainly conveyed by the show.
The show is spectacular. I mean amazing. They’re doing a great job bringing together
the history of Chinese culture. The sound effects, the visual effects, the special effects,
the singing — and the dancing are just amazing. (The Epoch Times, “Between
Heaven and Earth”)
Needless to say, the rulers of China no doubt regarded the creators of the 15-show serial as also worth
the torture to death, for while they did not practice Falun Gong, they presented it in New York as a
heroic bit of self-sacrifice in Chinese history.
The 15-show serial had a tremendous triumph in all Western cities where it was shown, including New
York. By attacking the 15-show series, the rulers of China only added more fuel to the flames of delight.
Well, the rescue of the China rulers’ prestige came in the form of a New York Times negative review of
the 15-show series.
To understand The New York Times in 2008, let’s compare it with what happened in 1978.
The CIA, and U.S. Sovietology in general, had been created by, and with, the Americans who learned
Russian and Russia at American universities. In the 1970s, the CIA decided to hold public discussions of
their once-secret intelligence reports about Soviet Russia.
I went to Washington, D.C., received a pack of such reports, and published a review of them in
Commentary magazine on September 1978 under the title “What the CIA Knows About Russia.” The
article was reprinted or retold in about 500 periodicals all over the West. But The New York Times did
not notice it.
The newspaper had been repeating the “news from Russia,” at which about 500 Western periodicals
were now laughing.
The position of The New York Times with respect to the Chinese natives who created the 15-show series
was similar. Besides, Western correspondents in China depend on its rulers, with their secret police and
with their population having no more rights than did slaves.
So the Western media should not antagonize the rulers of China on whom their correspondents in
China depend.

The New York Times wrote that the 15 shows of the Chinese New Year Splendor are “political
propaganda.” Plus boring Chinese mishmash — as The New York Times proclaimed in a Feb. 6
headline: “A Glimpse of Chinese Culture That Some Find Hard to Watch.”
The article in the Feb. 16 Epoch Times of was entitled “The New York Times Parrots Communist Party
Line.”
As for the totalitarian rulers of China, their survival is more precarious than that of the Russian tsars of
Herzen’s time.
Similarly educated aristocrats, they found a common language. When Alexander II had ascended to the
throne in 1858, Herzen wrote a letter to the new tsar: “Your reign begins under an auspicious star. The
Russian aristocracy can be revolutionary. It is omnipotent for good or evil.”
In 1861, the law abolishing serfdom was signed and published. Well, in Britain, monarchy began to
evolve in 1215 (“Magna Carta”) to what is today called constitutionalism and democracy.
The position of the totalitarian rulers of China is much more difficult, and they are inclined to safeguard
themselves not by constitutional evolution of their country, but by the conquest of the rest of the world,
to convert its population into their serfs/slaves or annihilate it.
The chasm between the totalitarian rulers of China and many, probably most, of 1.1 billion Chinese who
have not become rich, was brought into salient relief by the demonstration in New York of the 15-show
series, depicting the history of Chinese culture, including the 2000s.

China Spies on U.S. Via Cyber

Attacks

On Nov. 17, I received an e-mail from Elizabeth Clark who wrote, “You seem to be the only one
interested in the growing power of China.”
While in China, she was told that China’s strategy is to send “little fishes” into and around the United
States:
China is well on its way to success. They are flooding into Canada and Mexico. They
control both ends of the Panama Canal and are drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba.
They have a big base near Long Beach, COSCO (China Ocean Shipping Company).
Are not “China cyber attacks,” for which Yahoo! had 6,040,000 entries (as of Nov. 15), yet another kind
of China’s “little fishes” in the United States?
On Sept. 10, 2007, Scientific American published an article entitled “China’s Cyber Attacks Signal New
Battlefield Is Online.”
What is a cyber attack?
Animals have no language, but only a set of several signals, expressing danger, intimidating, or calling
for help. Initially, a human language had words, but written language did not exist, and all
communication was oral. Then came writing, printing, and communication by post, which carried
written or printed messages to the addresses indicated.

Telephones were a revolution in communication, since they carried oral messages instantly from
telephone to telephone. Finally, within our generation, came the Internet computer, as well as fax,
which can copy a message and transmit it to another computer or fax anywhere. As my assistant Alan
Freed points out to me, “fax,” called “Deskfax,” that is “desk facsimile,” was in wide use in private offices
in the 1940s, though the invention of “fax transmission” is a separate story.
To intercept a telephone conversation from telephone to telephone within the same country, an
intelligence/espionage agent had to penetrate the area within that country where the telephone lines
are. He could have been caught, and the chances are the country where the telephone information was
intercepted would learn which country had sent the interceptor and would treat the interception as a
violation of its sovereignty, or espionage, an act of war.
In contrast to telephones, computers need no wire. On Nov. 6, 2008, The Raw Story published “Report:
Chinese Hackers Download White House E-mails”:
The White House computer was penetrated on several occasions earlier this year by
Chinese hackers who downloaded e-mails between government officials, a new
report reveals.

A senior US official tells the Financial Times that cyber-security experts believe the
attacks were coordinated by the Chinese government, although there is no proof they
were the result of an organized assault.
No cyber hacker downloading U.S. government e-mails has ever been identified in any way.
The United States is, owing to its freedom, a Disneyland resort as compared with the ruthless military
state slave machine of China, in which an inhabitant is or may be ordered to be a military machine cog.
It is said that Chinese cyber attacks on the Pentagon numbered 1 million a day. But this does not mean
that the United States has launched a single cyber attack on China.
The end, as I see it, may only be the end, in the United States and the rest of the free world, of the
Internet for important communications, for they can be hacked by China.
The possibility of cyber hacking has never been mentioned by the outgoing President George W. Bush or
by any presidential candidate, including the president-elect. It seems not to be the knowledge, or
suspicion, or concern of the U.S. government, Congress, or armed forces.

Putin and Medvedev’s Russia was loudly condemned by the United States for defending South and
North Ossetia, wishing to be independent of Georgia. Why this thunderous condemnation?
Because compared with China, Russia is no threat to the United States. The population of Russia is
about one-ninth of that of China, and the ultimate number of strategically vital scientists and engineers
depends on the size of the population. In the East, Russia, with its vast Siberia, sparsely populated by
Russians but favored by Chinese “illegal emigrants,” is threatened by China, and in the West, Russia
confronts NATO.
On the other hand, China is the first country in history that poses a mortal threat to the United States
and the rest of the free world. And hence the respect for China. Let her play with those little cyber
fishes, infiltrating the U.S. government.
The American majority will not visualize the Chinese threat in total until and unless it sees an adequate
film on the subject. As for the presidents, there is no American president whom we know better than we
do the outgoing president George W. Bush after his eight years in office.

In 2006, while Bush was honoring Hu Jintao, China’s ruler, on the south lawn of the White House, Dr.
Wenyi Wang, a correspondent for the dissident Chinese newspaper The Epoch Times, loudly
condemned the historically unprecedented atrocities against Falun Gong. But neither then, nor later,
did Bush say a word against the persecution of Falun Gong.
To Hu Jintao, he “apologized for the mishap,” and in 2008, he respectfully graced with his presence the
Olympic Games in Beijing.

China's Ongoing Nanotechnology

Threat

In their e-mail responses to my columns, my readers ask me what they can and must do to save freedom
in the West from China, which is becoming a military colossus.
On Nov. 11, I received an e-mail from Steven Saul, who said that he had been reading my columns and
reported my conclusions on his show, “The Voice of the Silent Majority.” At his invitation, I spoke (for
45 minutes) on his show on Nov. 25.
Let me summarize my thoughts for the “silent majority.”
So far freedom has survived because constitutionalism, protecting the individual against the tyranny of
autocratic rulers (the kind even the monarchs of England once were), and the Industrial Revolution,
owing to which pre-nuclear weapons could be produced, coexisted in the same countries.
In World War II, both Germany and Russia produced pre-nuclear weapons, while their sociopolitical
systems were national (and not just private) slavery.
In old China, the gas for heating, cooking, and lighting appeared 22 centuries before it did in Europe.
Everything — you name it! — Newtonian calculus, book-printing, silk — preceded Europe. To the
Chinese, the Europeans seemed savages, and they could not care less whether those savages were free or
not. But in the modern times, China became “a backward country” — in the 19th century China was
defeated in two wars by England.

The Chinese began to ascribe backwardness to lack of freedom. In other words, their autocratic rulers
have to be overthrown to have freedom as in the United States and other free countries.
Owing to modern communications, the owners of China cannot isolate their human property from the
free countries. It is obvious to them that either they will annihilate the free countries or they will be
overthrown by their Chinese slaves. Recall the Tiananmen Square incident, with its replica of the Statue
of Liberty! The Square was a kind of open-air headquarters for a growing national uprising. What is less
known is that over 100,000 mini-uprisings occur in China every year.
Three years after the Tiananmen Square uprising the Soviet dictatorship was overthrown in Russia
— also in search of freedom. True, after Boris Yeltsin’s presidency, autocracy was restored. But those
who had tried to preserve the Soviet dictatorship had been killed, while Gorbachev stayed alive as a
result of his peaceful surrender of his top power. But he never had any post in Boris Yeltsin’s
government, to say nothing of its undemocratic successors.
It is easier for the owners of China to annihilate the free countries than to keep their own population
from the destruction of their autocratic power and perhaps their lives, too, for good measure. Their
torture and killing of Falun Gong practitioners will not be forgotten, as Mao’s murder of 80 million
Chinese will not be forgotten.

Since the population of China is 1.3 billion compared to the United States’ 300 million, it is obvious that
even as a result of this difference alone, the number of scientists and engineers in China can be more
than four times greater than in the United States.
Besides, a greater proportion of the Chinese population can be channeled by the owners of China into
the production of scientists and engineers.
At the same time, it is clear from the China Statistical Yearbook of 2005 (available in the Public Library
of New York!) that, as of 2004 in China, there was no education in sociology, anthropology, political
science, international relations, or statistics.
As of 2004, the students in philosophy constituted a fraction of a percent — .10 percent. In other words,
already in 2004, education in “science” meant “sciences of military importance.”
This militarization of education has been growing and will continue to grow. Hence the number of
scientists and engineers in military fields in China may finally exceed their number in the United States
not just four times, as per the difference in the population of the two countries, but 10 or 20 times.

Let me now take a specific post-nuclear science or technology as an example. In 1986, Eric Drexler
published his book, subtitled “The Coming Era of Nanotechnology,” and founded, with his wife, The
Foresight Institute for nano research. I learned that the U.S. Congress refused, even in the 2000s, to
allocate a dollar for this research. In the United States, Drexler, the American scientist of genius, was
represented, due to the influence of producers of commercial nano goods, as a charlatan or an idiot.
In China, Drexler’s book was published on the Internet in English, with Chinese explanations of what
some Chinese may find difficult to understand in English.
Today, more than 20 years after the publication of Drexler’s book, the Foresight Institute has ousted
him: The Institute is without its founder and president. Some Americans tell me that there are other
nanotechnological institutes in the United States, but I simply do not know about them because they are
secret.
Yes, but who in the United States knows how far the development of nano weapons has advanced in
China?
In 1945, Japan was a militarized country, complete with powerful intelligence/espionage. Yet the U.S.
atomic bomb was such a surprise for Japan that it surrendered immediately and unconditionally.
The development of the atom bombs had been going on at many points in the United States and rumors
about government secrets circulated freely in this free country.

Compare it to China, with its super-secret laboratories in craggy mountains, so that no one could drill a
hole through the basement and install an instrument that would show what the lab is researching.
President Bush has never uttered a word about this secrecy. In the United States and the free West in
general, the wages and salaries cannot be reduced by the government, while in China they can be
reduced to the maintenance of a slave level. Hence, as a depression develops in the free West, many
Westerners become financially linked with China and prefer to keep silent about China’s preparations to
annihilate the free West.
Should an enlightening book on the subject be published, a tiny minority will read it. The major media
believe that more money can be made by entertainment rather than by discussing China’s preparations
to annihilate the free countries.
The way out is to produce a film worth its subject: the abyss ahead, facing the free world.
The Iraq War Provides an Ominous
Warning

When George H. W. Bush moved with his family to Texas, he explained that they “just wanted to make a
lot of money quick.”
However, his son did not turn out to be a quick Texas oilman billionaire. But he did receive two
university degrees (at the bottom of the class, according to Kitty Kelley), was elected U.S. president
twice, and on May 22, 2003, he signed Executive Order 13303, which granted to U.S. oil corporations in
Iraq immunity from both criminal persecution and civil litigation regarding anything they can do in
their dealings with Iraqi oil.
Now, how to create an undeniable justification for invading Iraq to use its oil as per Executive Order
13303?
When his father, George H. W. Bush, was president, he appointed April Glaspie as U.S. ambassador to
Iraq, and on July 25, 1990, she met with Saddam Hussein in the presidential palace in Baghdad. Kuwait
was siphoning Iraqi oil underground across their border. Iraq could not stop that theft without invading
Kuwait (which once was part of Iraq). “What is the United States’ opinion on this?” Saddam asked.

Glaspie said, “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.
Secretary[(of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given in Iraq in the
1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.”
So, on Aug.t 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and there started an argument in the United States as to the
Glaspie-Hussein dialogue. She appeared on TV and suggested a series of her programs on the subject,
but after that she did not appear and she has disappeared forever, according to the media today, 18
years later.
Anyway, Saddam was an aggressor, apart from other crimes of his, such as the production, reported by
the CIA, of WMD (chemical and biological weapons, used in World War I) and even the intention to
produce a nuclear bomb!
Iraq’s production of WMD was demonstrated by CIA Director George Tenet at the meeting of the
National Security Council on Jan. 30, 2001, attended by the newly inaugurated President George W.
Bush.
Tenet had brought along the photograph, taken by a U.S. surveillance plane, of an Iraqi plant, and
assured those present that the plant was producing either chemical or biological materials for WMD.
But how did the CIA know that the Iraqi plant was producing chemical or biological charges for WMD,
and not cement or sugar? Tenet pointed out “the round-the-clock rhythm of shipments in and out of the
plant.” See?

What the director of the CIA did not know was that societies like Iraq try to use a plant’s equipment
around the clock, and not just eight hours a day.
But what about the nuclear bomb Iraq was planning to produce?
From 1964 to 1978, China had 25 tests of its new nuclear bombs, which were instrumentally detectable
abroad. The largest bomb, tested on Nov. 17, 1976, was equivalent to 4 million tons of trinitrotoluene
(TNT).
But while it was OK for China to test its nuclear bomb in 1976, it was criminal for Iraq even to “plan”
any nuclear bomb in 2002!
The war of the United States, Britain, and other countries with Iraq has been a war with a midget, nay, a
speck of dust, compared with China, but it has lasted longer than World War II (I disregard the 13 years
since George H. W. Bush provoked Saddam into the conquest of Kuwait), and demonstrated that given
such “political establishment” the United States cannot survive in the world of today.

President George H. W. Bush, two-term President Clinton, and two-term President George W. Bush
were zeros at best. When I wrote this about President George W. Bush four years ago, the indignant
answer was: “He has been elected by the majority of the American people!” What about today when
fewer Americans approve of him than of any former president? Something is wrong with the
presidential elections!
What about the Congress? The Congress approved the invasion of Iraq, which entailed five years of
human and material losses. (The children who starved to death in Iraq as a result of the “sanctions”
before the invasion are rarely mentioned, as are 100,000 Americans rumored to have been wounded in
Iraq.)
The military? It could not — for five years — defeat a speck of dust as compared with China. Nor did
they explain what was happening.
By 1945, the United States and Britain have achieved a high level of military development. But China
makes this level insufficient, as the tragicomic “Iraq war” has demonstrated.

I haven’t heard or read the word “mediocrity” applied to any American academic or official. Every
scientist or official is as intelligent and/or creative as per his or her rank. President George W. Bush?
Sh-sh-sh! “President” is the highest official rank! So President George W. Bush is a man of genius. All
U.S. presidents are men of genius. Unless they happen to begin the Iraq war.
On Dec. 6, 2008, Yahoo! news reprinted an essay under the title, “Is Einstein the Last Great Genius?”
The essay begins: “Major breakthroughs in science have historically been the provinces of individuals,
not institutes. Galileo and Copernicus, Edison and Einstein, toiling away in lonely labs or pondering the
cosmos in private studies.”
My question is, If it was possible to elect (twice!) George W. Bush, whom is it not possible to elect as
U.S. president? And what will the free West do when the war will not be an attempt to filch some oil
from a small “Third World” country, but a desperate defense against a military colossus with its global
post-nuclear superweapons?

China Wages Stealth War

I have been buying all books like “War and the World” by Jeremy Black, professor of history at the
University of Exeter, and “War and Anti-War” by Alvin and Heidi Toffler.
None of these authors seems to realize that they describe old-fashioned wars, which were attempts of
armed people to occupy or to hold a certain territory. But already in the period 1939 to 1945, the real
war was the development of atom or atomic bombs by the United States and Germany.
The war was won by the United States because Hitler (1) let scientists, including Einstein, flee to the
United States; and (2) he had been wasting the nuclear development money on his irrelevant attempt to
occupy Russia.
Now, a new world war is on: The owners of China have been trying to have “n” times more scientists and
engineers in the post-nuclear military fields than the United States. And this will ultimately decide who
wins in the future.

This is clear from the statistical yearbooks of China, available at the New York Public Library. But what
American professor or congressman will read books from the library?
The war between the owners of China and the free West is not noticed in the free West. It may only be
noticed just before the total annihilation of the free West — at which time, any defense will be
meaningless.
In the modern wars, the development of superweapons (like early nuclear weapons in the United States)
is the essence of a war, while the U.S. use of atom bombs in Japan took just a couple of days till its
unconditional surrender.
The modern wars in countries like China begin with the education of scientists and engineers able to
construct the equipment producing superweapons.
The scientists and engineers include those foreigners to whom the word “genius” is applicable. The
Chinese recruiters promised one Western weapons designer $150,000,000 if he worked in China: half
of the sum being delivered to him on his arrival, and the other half used for his salary.

I have been writing about the motivation of the owners of China for quite some time. The free West
evokes, by its very existence, the hatred of those in China; the owners of 1.1 billion Chinese slaves (that
is, the population of China minus 0.2 billion Chinese whom the owners of China consider prosperous).
Yes, the owners of China believe that it is safer for them to annihilate the free West than to keep 1.1
billion Chinese slaves in slavery and leave the free West for these slaves to admire.
The owners of Russia promised paradise on earth to its population instead of the hell of the capitalist
West. But in 1991, that is, more than 70 years after Lenin’s “revolution,” the Soviet dictatorship was
overthrown. True, another dictatorship came in, several years later. But these were new owners of
Russia, not those of 1991.

The owners of China want to preserve their ownership, and this is why they have to remove by super-
weapons the present stimulant of hatred for them — the free West.
This war that China wages is invisible. The more trusting, good-natured, and friendly the West is to the
owners of China, the better this is for their secret war. Their war may last decades. But when it reaches
fruition, in the form of new superweapons, the ensuing open war will take days, hours, minutes, or even
seconds.
Since the Industrial Revolution, Western Europe regarded science and engineering as its hereditary
attributes. But they are not. China produced Newton’s calculus, book-printing, compass, and more
before the Industrial Revolution.

In the Western old-fashioned war, much came from an aristocratic duel when an aristocrat challenged
his opponent and faced his pistol while shooting at him. Even Hitler, a bandit and a scoundrel, declared
war on the United States and on Stalin’s Russia.
In China, historically, a war would begin as unexpectedly for the enemy as possible, and then victory
would come all the more quickly. In the epoch of post-nuclear superweapons, such a “least expected”
attack may be the beginning and the end of a war — an instant war that leaves nothing of the enemy.
There may be no worsening of diplomatic relation — on the contrary, these it may coming during
diplomatic trade and friendship. The greater the surprise the better chance for victory.
The search in China for new superweapons will never stop. Possibly, it is the latest Chinese
superweapon that will prove for the enemy totally unexpected, absolutely unknown, ruling out any
possibility for defense.

As 2009 Dawns, Can Democracy

Survive?
For millennia, mankind lived in imperial and private slavery. In our millennium, England preserved its
independence and freedom because she underwent the Industrial Revolution, making it possible to
mass-produce identical — “standard” goods, and hence firearms, in contrast to societies like China.
China bypassed the Industrial Revolution as yet another manifestation of European savagery, vulgarity,
and wild ugliness. Imagine two women wearing a “mass-produced” standard dress — made not as
unique combinations of silk but out of one fabric.
Chinese historians speak about 5,000 years of Chinese history. The Chinese system of government did
not include just private slavery as did that of ancient Athens (from which the word “democracy” came),
but was all general, or universal, slavery.
China was (and is today) a giant slave plantation.
Strictly speaking, before the 20th century, England had not been a “democracy” in the modern sense,
since not all psychiatrically normal adults had the right to vote.

The British political arrangement was constitutionalism, but in 20th-century England, the right to vote
was extended to all psychiatrically normal adults.
In the United States, the president is elected by all psychiatrically normal adults, while in England there
is no “president,” the electorate elects members of parliament, and the chairman of the party having a
majority in parliament becomes the prime minister of the king or the queen.
Democracy in the democratic West has been rightly considered the best, highest, greatest form of
government. But can it survive today?
On the one hand, freedom contributes to its survival. A letter to President Roosevelt dated Aug. 2, 1939,
about the need to be able to produce nuclear bombs ahead of Germany came not from a White House
official, nor from the Pentagon and its Defense Intelligence Agency, nor from The Washington Post — it
came from Albert Einstein, an émigré, who was not even an American citizen. Einstein’s letter
mentioned Enrico Fermi, L. Szilard, and “Joliot in France,” that is, inhabitants of the democracies, who
used freedom to work on new science and technology, leading to the production of “atom bombs” — a
new super weapon.
Had Hitler’s Germany begun to produce atom bombs ahead of any other country, Hitler would have
owned the world. But fortunately, he was a fool and underfinanced his atom project to finance his
invasion of Russia.

So in freedom, an individual of genius informed President Roosevelt in 1939 of the possibility of

producing atom bombs, and the project to produce them was soon in full swing. But suppose another
person, Mr. X, and not Roosevelt, happened to have been elected U.S. president.
Of course, to be elected, X would have to assure the electorate that America for him is more valuable
than, or at least as valuable as, say, his own self; but who could tell whether that was true?
About half of the electorate who voted against George W. Bush for his first and second terms did not
believe what he and his supporters said about his fitness to be a U.S. president.
In 1939, the esteem of a foreigner named Einstein was as low (among certain German scientists, for
example), as was in 1986 that of Eric Drexler, the founder of nanotechnology, who was ridiculed in the
United States, but who was published in China on the Internet.
President X may have ridiculed Einstein as well and have thrown his letter into the wastebasket without
reading it.

Was America more or at least as much valuable for President George Bush as his own self?
For what purpose did he invade Iraq? To become a rich oilman. Well, he could do so in today’s China as
well.
He spent his two-term presidency on the war in Iraq, and according to Yahoo! on Dec. 3, “Iraqi deaths
due to his invasion number 1,288,426.”
The result? In December, President Bush made his last presidential visit to Iraq, and as he stood at the
podium and TV cameras were filming him, shoes were thrown at him, which corresponds to what was
known to the Western aristocracy as a “slap in the face,” whereupon the insulted man challenged the
insulter to a duel, to kill him or be killed.
Did Bush understand that the shoes were thrown at him to insult him just as would a “slap in the face”
in the West?
Bush has not defeated Iraq: It has become more hostile to him than it was at the beginning of his
presidency or 10 years earlier, after George H. W. Bush drew Iraq into the seizure of Kuwait.
Recall, as an example of the value of freedom in a country for its survival, Einstein’s suggestion to
President Roosevelt to produce nuclear weapons. On the other hand, France, a free country, was
occupied in 1940 within a little more than a month by a German Nazi war machine.

The Germans had become its cogs, while the French had enjoyed life. Hence Hitler’s Blitzkrieg.
Many Americans, including the presidents and members of the Congress, have not wished to becloud
their enjoyment of life by even recalling China in the past 20 years as a growing war machine.
The West has achieved today’s democracy owing to thinkers of genius like John Stuart Mill (England) or
Sidney Hook (United States).
Its next stage also requires thinkers of genius, not media entertainers entertaining the free West into the
abyss ahead, or academically ranked mediocrities. And it is precisely owing to freedom that the media
entertainers can doom genius to total obscurity.
In 1982, Sidney Hook invited me to his 80th birthday dinner, and I told him that neither my Britannica,
nor any other such reference book, as much as mentioned him.
The only exceptions are Soviet reference books. I told Hook that they never forget to define him as the
“most pernicious apologist of American imperialism.” Hook laughed. “What if Stalin, and not Roosevelt,
with Einstein’s advice, had been the first to produce atom bombs?” I said. “No, it’s not for nothing that
you, Sidney, are remembered for so long and so acutely by Soviet propaganda.”

NPR Explains 'Complicated China'

to Obama

Now that the election is over, President-elect Barack Obama faces the recession problem. But
there are other problems as well.
On Jan. 2, 2009, Yahoo! News carried an article entitled, “Obama Moves to Counter China in Space
With Pentagon-NASA Link.” But on Dec. 24, 2008, NPR (National Public Radio) News released a kind
of memo, quoting “experts” and printed in Yahoo! on Dec. 25 under the title, “U.S.-China Ties Pose
Tricky Proposition for Obama.”
Says NPR News: “On the campaign trail, Obama said that the U.S. needed to bring fresh thinking to
relations with China. But many experts say that relationship with China was actually a bright spot in the
Bush administration’s foreign policy.”
Indeed, during his last official presidential visit to Iraq, more than five years after his invasion, shoes
were thrown at the outgoing U.S. president.
Compare that to how nice his relations have been with the dictatorship of China. Partly owing to U.S.
financial and technological investments in China, even the non-secret, that is, the generally visible
development of nanotechnology in China, seems to be taking place on a much larger scale than it does
in the United States.
Eric Drexler, who had founded nanotechnology by 1986, wrote that nanoweapons are superior to
nuclear weapons. For example, they can destroy enemy nuclear weapons and thus prevent Mutual
Assured Destruction, on which peace between nuclear power rested.
When Einstein convinced President Roosevelt in 1939 to begin the construction of a project producing
atom bombs, the dictatorship of Germany was just embarking on such a project. But in China, the
development of nanotechnology possibly exceeds its development in the United States.
That is, it is possible that the dictatorship of China can annihilate the United States, say, tomorrow or
next week, but they believe that time has been working for them, and in two weeks they can do it even
more reliably and safely for themselves.
According to the NPR News release, Lampton is the “head of the China studies program at the Johns
Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.”
What does this expert say about Bush’s connivance at China’s development of nanotechnology, which
possibly now has a larger scale than it does in the United States?

Lampton says that “one of the first issues an Obama administration will have to address is how it will
organize itself to deal effectively with such a complicated, multifaceted relationship.”
So, the expert refers to a “complicated, multifaceted relationship.”
It is, indeed, multifaceted: The dictators of China can, perhaps even today, annihilate the free West, and
the free West is (another facet?) may prevent this by being still nicer to the dictatorship of China.
Many inhabitants of every country understand only their own ambience and hence imagine any other
country as a socio-psychological replica of their environment.
Thus, they may believe that wars occur for the same reasons quarrels do between their neighbors. What
is needed to eliminate a quarrel is to explain to your neighbor that his anger is groundless and thus
restore or establish good-neighborly relations.
But how is this applicable to history?
Alexander the Great of Macedonia (356-323 B.C.), or Napoleon, or Hitler regarded wars of conquest as
enjoyable adventures. Hitler at least said that he was attacking Russia because he feared its attack. But
Napoleon did not give even that excuse.

At a less subtle level, a conquest is the acquisition of wealth. Even if a conquered territory is nothing but
a bare land, land is also a property, and the acquisition of a territory by war is the acquisition of wealth.
Tsarist Russia’s conquest of a vast, sparsely populated Siberia was the acquisition of land as wealth.
But God forbid that anyone should offend the dictatorship of China, and hence Lampton, by saying that
the dictators of China want to annihilate the free West in order to remove the temptation of their 1.3
billion slaves to rebel in order to be free as Westerners are. More than 46 million Chinese have left the
communist party — and the figure is already dated!
Nothing like that ever happened in Soviet Russia, and yet the Soviet dictatorship was overthrown in
1991!
Propaganda myths in China are bolder than they ever were in Soviet Russia.
Thus, the name of China’s army includes the word “liberation” (which the Red, or Soviet, army never
did). You see, a Chinese invasion (with nanoweapons, for example) does not conquer, but on the
contrary, liberates the “working people” of the invaded country. What is “communism”? It is a society
where there is no money, since everyone works without pay, according to his or her ability, and takes,
free of charge, any goods, according to his or her need.

According to NPR News, “In 1974, China’s late paramount leader Deng Xiaoping made a pledge at the
United Nations that . . . if China ever becomes a superpower, bullying, invading, and exploiting other
countries . . . you should expose it, oppose it, and together with the Chinese people, overthrow it.”
See? The top dictator himself is a liberator — a revolutionary, a rebel, a communist, liberating again the
previously liberated China.
What do he and his successors need to liberate the entire world? The greatest quantity and quality of
weapons and of those creating and serving them!
Hitler failed to establish global national socialism, since he had invaded Russia before he obtained atom
bombs, which the United States obtained owing to Einstein and Roosevelt.
But as of today, when I am reading the NPR release of Dec. 24, 2008, the global liberation by the
“People’s Liberation Army” seems realistic.

China Views Itself Superior to

Other Nations

I receive e-mails from my Chinese readers approving my view that the love for freedom among the
Chinese is not weaker than that among the Americans, and a replica of the Statue of Liberty in
Tiananmen Square in 1989, erected during the uprising, is a great symbol.
I am a reader of the Epoch Times, a dissident Chinese newspaper (in English), having the world’s
largest circulation among newspapers, and I feel no political chasm between my mind and the minds of
its writers and editors.
But recently I have received an e-mail from a Chinese man who explained to me that what I write is
useless nonsense, since the “average age at death” in China is 70 years and in the United States it is only
60, which confirms that the Chinese are a pure race winning in the global struggle for survival, while the
Americans are an ethnic mishmash, doomed to extinction.
I recalled an article from the Wall Street Journal that appeared in Yahoo! on July 19, 2008, subtitled,
“Beijing today is more fascist than communist.”

The dictatorship in Stalin’s Russia up to the early 1930s was ideologically communist, its slogan being,
“The proletarians of all countries, unite!”
But in the late 1930s, after Hitler came to power in 1933, Stalin (a Georgian who spoke Russian poorly
and with a heavy accent) discovered that while all nations are equal, the Russians are superior to all of
them.
After World War II, Stalin’s “Russian nationalism” included anti-Semitism, and by the time of his death
in 1953, Jews were being fired because they were Jews and were to be sent away to an “uninhabited
locality” or even drowned while crossing a river on the way there.
How was this national socialism or fascism combined with Marxism?
Well, Marx was a Jew (which terrified some Russians, as the assertion that Christ was a Jew, since he
was born by a Jewish woman, terrifies some Christians in many countries). But in any case, a Jew could
not be a proletarian because he always managed to make money in some dishonest way instead of
honest labor by the sweat of his brow.
So the combination of communism and fascism or national socialism was perfectly possible in Russia,
and it is worth recalling it to understand their combination in China. “Soviet Russia” was an earlier
“Communist China,” and by analyzing “Soviet Russia” we can foresee much in “Communist China.”
In Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, the superior race consisted of Germans and Italians respectively.
Surely the greatest works of music were created by Germans, the greatest paintings by Italians, and the
greatest advances in philosophy and science by both.
Hence the Germans and Italians considered themselves “biologically different” from all other nations —
they were supermen.
Before 1933, the Russian culture in Soviet Russia consisted of “Soviet modernists” versus survivals of
genius of the old Russian culture.
The Soviet modernist poet Vladimir Mayakovsky wrote,
I want the poet’s pen to be equated with the bayonet.
I want Stalin to report to the Politburo.
On the poetry of a Soviet Byron
Along with a record output of steel and pig iron.
Stalin called Mayakovsky (before 1933!) “the best, the most gifted poet of our Soviet epoch.”
One of the poets of genius of the old Russian culture was Osip Mandelshtam (incidentally, a Jew!).
Possibly he was the world’s greatest poet of the first third of the 20th century.
Unfortunately for him, he wrote a poem about Stalin as a monster, which was not printed, of course, but
was distributed as a handwritten leaflet. This is how the poem began:

We are living without feeling the country under our feet,

What we are saying is only our scared hearts’ beat,
And those who will think they can hear at least a blip
Will recall the Caucasian monster’s deadly grip.
The secret police tracked down Mandelshtam as the author, and he was exiled to a city named Voronezh
for three years. Only in 1938 was he sent to a concentration camp, where he soon died of hunger.
Why this amazing lenience? Instead of torturing him to death after he was arrested, he was allowed for
three years to live, accompanied by his wife, and write poetry, in Voronezh!
After 1933, Stalin played Russian nationalism. The Russian autocracy of the 19th century treated
Russian poets of genius with royal magnificence. So he emulated.
The “Soviet propaganda modernism” was of no interest in the West. On the other hand, the good old
Russian culture of genius was in great demand. So, after 1933, it was expedient not to bury it and forget
it, but to propound it in the world as the creations of Russians, superior to all other nations.
Similarly, the treasures of the 5,000 years of the Imperial China can be exploited by the dictators of
China to prove that the Chinese of today are supermen, and all the other nations should be annihilated
to give the Lebensraum to the Chinese.

Such articles do not appear in the media inside China.

The dictatorship of China values the financial and scientific-technological contributions to its military
might from the inferior races. But such articles are printed by Chinese living outside China.
One such author contended that the Chinese living in the United States should also be annihilated, since
their life outside China had destroyed their inborn superiority and made them as inferior as any other
inhabitants of the United States.
“China is quickly becoming a leading force in nanotechnology,” we read in PRLEAP.com (Nanowerk
News), printed in “Yahoo!” on Dec. 27, 2008. The founder of nanotechnology, Eric Drexler, considered
nanoweapons in 1986, and considers them now, incomparably superior to nuclear weapons.
Well, it is quite proper for such a military achievement of the dictators of China to go hand in hand with
the overall superiority of the superior race, inheriting the globe.
'New Year Spectacular'
Enlightening View of Chinese

A friend who works for the New Tang Dynasty TV (NTD TV), whose job it is to collect, create, and show
Chinese video materials, invited me to its “Chinese New Year Spectacular,” which was presented on
Sunday, Jan. 4, at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in downtown Brooklyn. NTD TV is an independent
Chinese organization located in New York.
After the show, I was interviewed on my thoughts.
The audience was tremendous — the large auditorium was booked to capacity; some people came with
children. The “Spectacular” seemed to be intended for all ages.
The space above the floor of the stage could well accommodate a three-story building, and the video
images of every scene created the impression that the actors on stage were in the Rocky Mountains, or
in a splendid art gallery, or in whatever environment the scene required.

The “Spectacular” consisted of a series of short danced parables, novellas with anecdotes, introduced,
within a circle of light, by a gentleman speaking English and a woman speaking Chinese. The
introductions were humorous stories in themselves, and at the end of each, the gentleman graciously
showed the woman the way to exit ahead of him, and then followed her. The curtain went up, and a
danced parable followed amid video decorations.
Every nation tends to perceive another nation through its own stereotypes. When Marco Polo (1254-
1324) traveled in China he believed that his Italy was a “civilized country” in contrast to China.
The Chinese believed that the West Europeans were savages. They learned of the gas for lighting,
cooking, and heating more than 20 centuries after the Chinese. The West knew neither silk nor
porcelain when Marco Polo was traveling in China. Book printing appeared in China earlier than in
Western Europe. Newton’s calculus had been developed in China before Newton.
Marco Polo forgot that as he was traveling in China, the Inquisition was developing in Europe, and then
existed for centuries. A West European was not free even to think on his or her own.

Certainly, Marco Polo could not imagine that after centuries of civilization in Italy, the Italian word
“fascism” would become global, denoting the aggressive militarized slave state that had originated in
Italy.
According to the dissident newspaper the Epoch Times, 47 million Chinese have refused to think as the
dictators wanted them to, and left the Communist Party from January 2005 to December 2008, that is,
in four years!
An unprecedented case! Heretics in Italy did not leave the Roman Catholic Church when it was
omnipotent — they only tried to pretend that they did not think on their own.
If any member of the Soviet Communist Party dared to declare the desire to leave it because that person
wanted to be a free thinker, that person would be sent to a concentration camp for life — as the most
lenient punishment.

“The Chinese New Year Spectacular” makes it possible to view the Chinese not as foreign stereotypes
representing Chinese as obedient slaves used to slavery and thinking only about how to save themselves
from their ruthless owners’ ire, but as people of tremendous vitality. Amazingly, 47 million even left the
Communist Party; this required as much love of freedom as it would for West European heretics to
challenge and leave the Roman Catholic Church when it was omnipotent.
Are Westerners as bold as these defiant Chinese? The dictators of China understand that it is easier to
annihilate the free West with post-nuclear (such as nano) weapons than keep their slaves from looking
at the free West and hoping to be as free (recall the replica of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square
in 1989).
The “Spectacular” shows the tremendous vitality of the Chinese — their love of freedom, contrary to
foreign stereotypes of them. What is more important for mankind? Scene after scene of dance, speaking
to Westerners and Chinese alike, as well as three powerful solo singers, represent the life of the Chinese
as they really are, unexpectedly to many Westerners.

However, the audience was obviously on the same spiritual wavelength, and each scene was also
accompanied by its applause and whistles. Since to me, as a former Russian, a whistle still connotes
disapproval, I alone shouted “Bravo!”
This is what I want to apply to the whole “Spectacular”—“Bravo!” It is full of sparkling colorful life,
beauty, joy, and wit.
It is invaluable for the West, which has been cut off from the living China by its rulers, whose agents, in
one of the novellas, were dressed in black tunics with red hammer-and-sickle symbols all over them.
Well, dark tunics conjure up fascism or national socialism, and the red hammer-and-sickle symbols
(Soviet) communism. As The Wall Street Journal subtitled a July 19, 2008, article that appeared in
Yahoo!: “Beijing today is more Fascist than Communist.”

China Provides Rope for U.S. to

Hang Itself

Owing to its tragicomical strategy, the United States dragged on its war in Iraq (whose population is less
than one-fiftieth of that of China) for five years. This despite that only the Sunni, who account for a
third of Iraq’s population, fought actively against the invasion.
But what if the dictators of China attack the United States with superior post-nuclear weapons and
enslave or annihilate its population?
An American reader of mine, and no doubt a voter, whom I will call just Felix, sent me an e-mail on Jan.
6.
He begins with quoting my column: “In the e-mail responses to my column, my readers ask me what
they can and must do to save freedom in the West from China, which is becoming a military colossus.”
Well, my answer to them is that our not-for-profit Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc.
and Producers Ink, LLC, intend to create a film about the post-nuclear (such as nano) weapons of China
and its nano world conquest, and if a large number of American and Western European voters see the
film, then perhaps the leaders of the democratic West will make it clear to the tyrants of China that the
free West will be able to defend itself and counterattack with superior post-nuclear weapons.

In 1922, Lenin “permitted capitalism.” When asked why, he said: “The capitalists will sell us the rope
with which we will hang them.”
The capitalism of China’s dictatorship is taking various sectors of the globe economically — which
means also militarily — for China’s dictatorship, and the free West is helping China to make that rope
with which to hang capitalism and the free West.
The free West should stop China’s global economic-military expansion instead of, in effect, helping with
its own demise.
Felix is absolutely sure about what I should, instead, have said to my readers: “Don’t you know what to
answer to your readers? Simple: destroy China now. Attack it immediately while [it] is possible. Don’t
waste time. Use nuclear weapons. It’s now or never.”
Felix tells me what I should say to my readers. Of course! He has been electing U.S. presidents! But he
doesn’t even know that it is impossible to conceal a test of a nuclear weapon and its power. Thus, in
1976 China tested a thermonuclear bomb of 4 megatons, carried by a Hong 6 bomber.
One megaton is equal to 1 million tons of a kind of dynamite (TNT). In their 329-page book, published
in 1988, John Wilson Lewis and Xue Litai describe (on Pages 244-245) 25 Chinese tests of their kiloton
and megaton nuclear weapons. While a nuclear bomb was tested and hence destroyed, how many such
Chinese bombs are concealed for retaliation?

But no major U.S. TV or radio station has ever had a program (to the best of my knowledge) about the
Chinese tests of Chinese nuclear weapons.
Besides, even the title of Lewis and Litai’s book is misleading. They describe China’s nuclear weapons
with many photographs in their “Illustrated Edition,” but the title of their book is “China Builds the
Bomb”! No wonder most American voters, including Felix, do not know even of Chinese nuclear bombs,
to say nothing of Chinese post-nuclear weapons.
Not so long ago, the phrase “Mutual Assured Destruction” was common. That is, if China attacks the
United States with nuclear weapons or vice versa, they would mutually destroy each other.
This is why China has been developing nanoweapons so intensely, weapons that can find and destroy
enemy hidden nuclear weapons and thus win the (nano) war. But here emerge American voters like
Felix and suggest in 2009 a nuclear attack on China as on Japan in 1945, when Japan had no nuclear
weapons to retaliate.

No wonder that the U.S. electorate elected (twice!) a president like George W. Bush, whose mental level
was a zero, since many of those who voted for him were at the mental level of Felix, a zero.
While China, whose population is 52 times larger than that of Iraq, began to intensely grow as an
ominous threat since 2000, Bush invaded Iraq. The five years of his war achieved nothing, however,
except having shoes thrown at him by an Iraqi journalist (which corresponds to a “slap in the face”)
during President Bush’s final visit to Iraq.
How can the United States expect anything but annihilation if its leadership remains at the mental level
of voter Felix or former U.S. President George W. Bush?
In contrast to the former U.S. president, tyrants like Stalin, Hitler, or Mao were not elected by a
majority of psychologically normal adults like voter Felix, but kept themselves at the top command in a
kind of gang war for their dictatorship. In other words, such tyrants made themselves, in their gang war
for their dictatorship, military commanders.

George Bush could not defeat Iraq in five years, while Hitler conquered France in five weeks, Stalin
defeated Hitler, and Mao defeated the Kuomintang.
A tyranny like one of those established by Stalin, Hitler, or Mao is a war machine in which every
inhabitant may be forced to become its part.
What are democracies in comparison? Health resorts, with emphasis on money and trade.
Freedom means one’s pursuit of happiness, and the happiness that a health resort can provide is the
happiness that many, if not most, dwellers of democracies seek and forget dictatorships like that of
China as George W. Bush forgot it even in his farewell speech.
To many in the West, an economic depression is the only threat. As for the tyranny of China, taking over
the once-free West, the former U.S. president never alluded to the danger of it in the eight years of his
presidency. Nor has it been a national TV or radio subject.
No wonder voter Felix is surprised that I believe 2009 is not 1945. The United States cannot drop atom
bombs on China as it did on Japan in 1945, since Mutual Assured Destruction is alive and well in 2009,
owing to Chinese nuclear weapons for retaliation that are stored by the Chinese dictatorship.

My Postscript to Bush's Presidency

Some of my readers say in their e-mails to me that they are reading my book, “The Education of Lev
Navrozov,” which I wrote in Russia and published in the West in 1975.
Thus, on Dec. 29, 2008, that is, 33 years later, I received an e-mail from “Useless Dissident”: “I am
reading your book. It is very good. Since it is out of print, I wonder if you might allow me to scan and
publish excerpts from it on my blog.”
When President Nixon was trying to end the Soviet-American Cold War, the Soviet rulers decided to
show him how democratic the USSR was and allowed several hundred Soviet citizens to emigrate!
My wife, our son, my mother and I found ourselves, as by some miracle, in New York. It was 1972.
One of us unprecedented showcase emigrants had volunteered to smuggle out the manuscript of my
book — he knew how, and he did it! — which was published in 1975 by Harper & Row, and
simultaneously in Canada by Fitzhenry & Whiteside.
Compared with the truth about Stalin in Stalin’s Russia, it was easy in the United States to know the
truth about President George W. Bush.
On May 22, 2003, he signed Executive Order 13303 (his executive orders can be downloaded on the
Internet).

On Aug. 7, 2003, the Los Angeles Times carried a report titled, “Immunity for Iraqi Oil Dealers Raises
Alarm.” Executive Order 13303 granted immunity to U.S. oil companies from both criminal prosecution
and civil lawsuits regarding anything they can perpetrate in their dealings with Iraqi oil, such as bribery,
damage to the environment, and violation of human rights, established labor practices, international
treaties, and business contracts.
In other words, the U.S. oil corporations were to be a mafia; and George W. Bush, its godfather, was to
receive a lion’s share of Iraq’s black gold, for the mafia was to depend on his benevolence, as did the
fundamentalist Shia theocracy for its defense against the Sunni guerrilla war.
To conceal the truth, George W. Bush would have to destroy all copies of Executive Order 13303, all
those who transmitted it by the Internet, all copies of the Aug. 7, 2003 Los Angeles Times and all its
readers, Lisa Girion, me, who quoted the above in his columns, and my columns in the archives of the
web sites where they appeared.
Stalin could have such a purge by just giving a curt order to his secret police. After his death, I learned
that in the “Russian Orthodox Church,” which Stalin had been expanding, he would be God.
Now, George W. Bush was not God, but a U.S. official, trying to embezzle Iraqi oil money, without
making a great secret out of it.
Yet even if he could and would take all the measures I mentioned above, on Jan. 2, 2004, Laurence M.
Vance, teaching economics in Pensacola, Fla., published in LewRockwell.com his “Eight Facts About
Iraq.” I will mention five of them:
(1) The USA regarded Saddam Hussein as its ally until George H. W. Bush provoked him into the
invasion of Kuwait, to have a pretext for the invasion of Iraq.
(2) Compared with many other Islamic countries, Iraq was a liberal Muslim state. The Shia, who are in a
majority, are more “fundamentalist” than the Sunni. Hussein was a Sunni and his Baath Party was more
closely associated with the more pro-Western Sunni.
Unlike Saudi Arabia, Iran, and most other Muslim states, Iraq was not controlled by a fundamentalist
Muslim government, something that is now (January 2004) a possibility. The Baath government
tolerated both Jews and Christians, something not to be seen in Muslim countries like Indonesia,
Turkey, and Iran.
(3) Hussein’s Iraq had no connection with 9/11, al-Qaida, or Osama bin Laden.
(4) Iraq was not a threat to the USA.
(5) The USA has never intervened in Sudan, where millions of Christians were killed. Or Indonesia!
Fidel Castro has been untouched (for 40 years!) as has been Idi Amin in Uganda. The reason is that
these countries, as well as Rwanda or Zimbabwe, have no significant oil deposits.
On Jan. 16, 2006, I could read the following in Yahoo!:
By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching
President Bush . . . a new poll, commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, supports a
congressional investigation of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. . . .
So I was not an endangered lonely truth-seeker as I had been in Russia. Yet on Jan. 9, 2009, I received
an e-mail from John Peterson:

Mr. Navrozov,
I have recently read your book. I liked it very much. Consider my surprise, then, in
reading your recent articles where you claim that George W. Bush invaded Iraq “to
become a rich oil man.” Was Iraq any less of a “serf-slave state” than the USSR; or
today’s China? Were his [Saddam Hussein’s?] atrocities any less atrocious than those
of his idol [?], Josef Djugashvili?
George W. Bush invaded Iraq because of its oil for himself? Of course!
John Peterson’s attempt to prove that George W. Bush invaded Iraq for the safety of the United States,
and my columns have broken his [Peterson’s] heart makes the geostrategic position of the United States
even more tragic. What if most American voters are mentally at the level of Peterson?
According to Peterson, Iraq before Bush’s invasion was like Stalin’s Russia. And now? Peterson says to
me:
Does the irony escape you — a man throws his shoes at President Bush because he
can throw his shoes at President Bush? The Bolshevik “megacriminals” organized in
the streets and splashed acid in people’s faces because they could. Is the shoe-
throwing incident anything more noble or beautiful?
That is, Iraq is now so free that an Iraqi can throw his shoes at President Bush! But just as Bolsheviks
abused freedom in Russia in the autumn of 1917 in order to come to power, so, too, some scoundrel in
Iraq today abused its freedom and threw his shoes at President Bush!
Well, George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq did more harm to Iraq than to the United States. Iraq was
destroyed by a five-year war on its territory.
The number of “Iraqi deaths due to the U.S. invasion is 1,307,349,” according to studies like a study
published by the British prestigious medical journal Lancet. The number of American deaths in the
invasion is 4,227 as of Jan. 16, 2008. Many Iraqi children had died of hunger due to the “sanctions”
before the invasion.

A shift of power from Sunni to Shia made it less, and not more, liberal.
But the Iraqi could not vote for the impeachment of President Bush. Hence the Iraqi journalist al-Zeidi
threw his shoes at Bush and shouted in Arabic: “This is from the widows, the orphans, and those who
were killed in Iraq!”
In Iraq, throwing one’s shoes at an opponent corresponds to a slap in the face by a pair of leather gloves
in aristocratic Europe. Since the country was still occupied by U.S. troops, al-Zeida was arrested and
asked for political asylum abroad. But apart from demonstrations in his support in Iraq and other Arab
countries, on Jan. 29, 2009 a 6-feet-high one-and-one-half-ton monument was unveiled, depicting a
bronze shoe, in Saddam Hussein’s home town of Tikrit.
What’s the moral?
A twice-elected U.S. president paid no attention for eight years to the development of post-nuclear
(such as nano) weapons in China and its global economic-military expansion.
This means that while chasing Iraqi oil money for himself and his cronies, Bush sentenced his country
to the annihilation by the dictatorship of China unless the eight years of his presidency can and will be
crossed out and replaced by an adequate effort to survive.

China Dictators No Better Than Hitler

The Brzezinskis fled from their native Poland in 1938 — before Hitler invaded it in 1939.
In the Yahoo! article “Zbigniew Brzezinski,” we read (Page 6 of 16) that in 1977 “President Carter chose
Zbigniew Brzezinski for the position of National Security Adviser (NSA) because he wanted an assertive
intellectual at his side to provide him with day-to-day advice and guidance [!] on foreign policy
decisions.”
That is, Brzezinski was the de facto U.S. president as far as the “national security” was concerned, while
Carter his public representative.
If Carter was no better than George W. Bush as president, how good has Brzezinski been for national
security?
A friend of mine sent me an issue of GRANI.ru, a Russian-language monthly, published in Moscow and
in the West. The issue I received carried an article by Andrey Piontkovskiy. While the names of
Brzezinski and Kissinger are peppered with academic titles and other signs of rank, Piontkovskiy is a
thinker. Period. Predictably, in Russia he is persecuted and now seems to be on the verge of being
arrested.

I apologize for calling Andrey Piontkovskiy just “Andrey,” since his last name is too long and difficult
even for a Russian.
Brzezinski’s 1997 book about geostrategy is entitled, “The Grand Chessboard.” Hence, the title of
Andrey’s article can be translated as “Zbig Checkmates the World.”
This is how Andrey begins it: “Last June, as I watched in Washington, D.C., Chinese ‘academics,’
exploring the possibility of the US-Chinese military cooperation in Afghanistan, I wrote: ‘Zbigniew
Brzezinski had proposed ten years ago in his book “The Grand Chessboard” a condominium of two
super-powers — U.S.A. and ‘Big China” — as an exemplary world order of the 21st century.’”
Just as presidents like Carter or Bush, security advisers such as “Zbig” are digging the grave for the free
West. Andrey writes:
“The Big Twain That Can Change the World” was the title of Zbig’s report last week
in Beijing on the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the U.S.A. and
China.
At the beginning of the report, Zbig modestly recalled how in 1978 President Carter
dispatched Zbig to China for secret negotiations that resulted in the “establishment
of diplomatic relations between the U.S.A. and the People’s Republic of China.”
(Zbig’s polite nod to Carter in the Presidium). “And the alignment of forces on the
global chessboard of the Cold War changed immediately — and not in favor of the
USSR,” Zbig continued. “And how much that is useful can be done today by raising
the level of our relations to the informal association — without neckties, so to speak
— of the Big Twain, ruling—no, excuse me! — harmonizing the world, including Iran
and the Middle East, and the Indo-Pakistan conflict, or what have you.”

The readers of “The Grand Chessboard” remember its author’s recommendations not
to prevent China from expanding its natural zone of influence, including Taiwan,
Central Asia and the potential Far Eastern and Siberian republics.”
In his article about Brzezinski I discussed above, Andrey also quoted the other great expert on national
security, Henry Kissinger, as having said on Jan. 20, 2009: “The role of China in the new world order is
the key role . . . The Sino-American relations must be raised to an even higher level.”
While Brzezinski is a Democrat, Kissinger is a Republican. But is there any difference between a
Republican and Democratic enslavement-annihilation by China of the free West?
Kissinger was born in Fürth, Germany, in 1923, and was named Heinz. Hitler came to power in 1933.
Heinz’s father’s grocery would have benefited from Hitler’s power, for Hitler proclaimed he meant
“order” and no strikes.

Unfortunately, to come to power, and to keep it, Hitler needed mass sympathy, and he found it in his
declaration that pure Germans were a superior race, the opposite of the German Jews, whom he began
to persecute, and early in 1942, after his defeat at Moscow, he gave a secret order to his subordinates to
begin the extermination of Jews.
His goal was to prevent his subordinates from betraying him to the “Anglo-Saxons.”
So the Kissingers fled to New York in 1938 and changed the name of the 15-year-old Heinz to Henry,
who became an American citizen in 1943, at the age of 20.
There was no grocery to inherit, and Kissinger began to climb up the American ladder of academic
degrees and political posts. In 1971 he made a secret trip to China (in July) and an open trip (in
October). The result was the “groundbreaking summer 1972 summit” between President Nixon and
Mao. The result was a “secret strategic anti-Soviet alliance.”
In other words, Kissinger “sold Russia” (population 143 million as of 2006) to China (population 1.3
billion as of 2006) to make China and the United States allies.
It has to be noted that under President Yeltsin in the 1900s Russia was a democracy (thus, my columns
were reprinted in the Russian press, no longer “Soviet”), while quite recently we still heard and read
quite often that the Chinese state slave owners tortured to death “Falun Gong practitioners” (then sold
their organs) and thus surpassed even Stalin in cynical cruelty.

Hitler wanted to conquer Russia to use its resources in the war against the free West. It is easier for the
dictators of China to conquer Russia through its sparsely populated Siberia and Russian-Chinese
border.
In other words, Brzezinski and Kissinger have been voluntary tools of China’s annihilation and/or
enslavement of the free West, to destroy forever the hope of the Chinese state slaves that some day they
may be as free as the people of the free West.
The Brzezinskis and the Kissingers fled from the dictatorship of Germany, but is the dictatorship of
China better?
Banished from Israel by Rome, the Jews fled to the West, not to China. But is torturing to death Falun
Gong practitioners in China better than killing (by way of gas poisoning) Jews in Germany? And if the
dictators of China come to own the United States and Western Europe, who can be sure that they will
not resume Hitler’s extermination of Jews?
Only Stalin’s death prevented him from leading the extermination to its monstrous denouement, though
Marx and many communists were Jews.

China Military Power Remains a

Secret to U.S.
Every year, the Office of the Secretary of Defense compiles a report on China. The latest is entitled,
“Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, 2008.” The 56-page report is directed to Congress.
In 1945, when the United States dropped its first two atom bombs on Japan, the latter surrendered
unconditionally. Such weapons came to be called “superweapons.”
Through the Web site of Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden (U.S. Army, retired) I was sent a 368-page book,
published in 2005, describing post-nuclear superweapons. The book is entitled, “Oblivion: America at
the Brink,” since the author believes that America does not pay due attention to such weapons, even
though it is owing to them that the country gained its instant victory over Japan in 1945.
In its annual report to Congress, the Office of the Secretary of Defense does not mention any
development in China of any superweapons (such as molecular nanoweapons), since any such
development is a secret for the CIA or DIA or anyone except the dictators of China themselves.

The annual report is based on the open Chinese sources only. Still, not all of its 56 pages are of no
interest.
First of all, the scale and intensity of China’s military development are astonishing. As though an attack
on China is expected, the population (1.3 billion) must spare no effort for the daily all-out growth of its
military might.
But who is the enemy that is going to attack China? The Chinese people. Recall the Tiananmen uprising
or the fact that 47 million Chinese have left the Communist Party of China in the past four years. If 47
million Chinese communists do not want to be members of the ruling party, who wants to side with the
top rulers of the country?
Foreign countries are harmful when they help the internal enemy, as they have been helping Taiwan,
which is “part of China,” and if it is not, then any part of China may consider itself independent of the
dictatorship of China on the basis of political discourses of “enemies” about freedom and what not.
Hence China must be ready to annihilate any country that will support rebels in China, and the only way
to prevent the rebellions is to annihilate the free West, which serves as an enticement for rebellions in
China (the replica in Tiananmen Square in 1989 of the Statue of Liberty should never be forgotten).
Hence, we read in the annual report to Congress (Page 2), “China has the most active ballistic missile
program in the world.” Of course! The PLA means “People’s Liberation Army.” China has been
liberated. The rest of the world should also be liberated.

The People’s Liberation Army does not capture, conquer, or enslave any country — by occupying it. The
People’s Liberation Army liberates it.
Said Deng Xiaoping (Page 8), “Hide our capacities and bide our time.”
The outside world should help the military development of China. On Page 36 we read:
Since 2003 China has been pressuring EU states to lift the embargo on lethal military
sales to China that the EU imposed in response to China’s 1989 crackdown on
Tiananmen Square demonstrators. In the Joint Statement following the 2004 EU-
China Summit, European and PRC leaders committed to work towards lifting the
embargo. Although the issue officially remains in the EU agenda, there is no
consensus among the EU Member States on lifting the embargo any time in the near
future.
Between 2000 and 2006, more than 400 investigations were initiated in the United States, involving
the illicit export of U.S. arms and technologies to China, which led to several convictions of U.S.–based
violators of the Export Administration and the Arms Export Control Act.

If we recall that China’s education for its military development can be elevated to the world’s highest
level, the fact that the population of China exceeds that of any other country, makes China the most
powerful military entity in the world, if China seizes every opportunity for creating post-nuclear
superweapons — with the help of foreign scientists of genius, if necessary.
On one occasion, it was reported that China offered to a foreign inventor $150 million, half of which to
be paid to him as soon as he settles with his family in China and begins his work.
Well, Hitler became an incarnation of evil in the free West only in the late 30s and early 40s when his
aggressions occurred.
The behavior of the owners of China is totally deceptive, for according to Sun Tse, the Chinese strategist
of antiquity, deception is the key to the art of war.
Hitler could feign Stalin’s attack on Germany and represent his offense as defense (the way the
dictatorship of China teaches its People’s Liberation Army: see Page 17 of the annual report). But he
didn’t do it. He entered Stalin’s Russia as in a parade. The result? He was routed, and to avoid being
taken prisoner, he committed suicide.

China today is far more dangerous than Hitler’s Germany was, owing to China’s deeper strategic roots,
such as the primacy of deception, dating back to early China.
It has been announced that the Chinese state media go global — for the first time in history, and their
propaganda will include the inevitability of the advent of the Chinese “system” to the entire world.
They hope to replace the recurrent economic depressions in the West, which have occurred since the
latter part of the 18th century and up to now.
Capitalism? Well, Lenin permitted it; and under Stalin it existed as a farmer’s ownership of a plot of
land and the sale of whatever was grown on it on a “collective-farm market” — in Moscow, for example.
Orderly capitalism, not the losses of hundreds of billions of dollars, which is to be reimbursed to the
capitalists by the state at the national expense.
China’s global propaganda invasion is to be finally combined with the global superweapons offensive.
But the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s annual report is silent about the mental global “liberation” of
mankind by the global Chinese propaganda, to be followed by superweapons, developed in China
(probably secretly enough to be secret for the Western intelligence/espionage).

Nanoweapons Research Necessary

for Survival

When I consider universities, I do not consider either universities in general or American universities in
particular. I view them collectively.
What is relevant is that Albert Einstein — without whom the United States would not have been the first
country to produce the atomic bomb — had not benefited from any university lectures of any country.
True, as a young man, Einstein entered the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (not in Germany,
where he had rejected high school at the age of 15!). But even at the Federal Institute of Technology he
used only its laboratory (for his own experimentation) and skipped all lectures.
Still, he needed a degree to make a living, and after two years of doing odd jobs, he finally became (what
luck!) a clerk (at a patent office).
But how did he become known as the greatest genius of the 20th century? Simple. Just as thinkers (or
poets!) did before him! He wrote (and published) his writings. Well, when he was a clerk, it was hard to
tell whether he was writing his clerical papers or his thoughts, which Newton would possibly have found
insane.

In 1939 an immigrant named Einstein became the key figure of the initiation of nuclear/atom bomb
production by the United States and its allies ahead of Germany, Russia, or Japan.
What ensures the survival of a country and its allies in the 21st century? World War II already answered
this question in the 20th century. The only ensured (not accidental) victory in World War II was that of
the United States and its allies, since the only reliable tool to win a world war then and now is the
monopolistic possession of the latest superweapon (which was then the nuclear/atom/ bomb).
If Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia had developed that superweapon ahead of the United States and
its allies, the world would have been Hitler’s or Stalin’s, respectively. But instead of channeling all
resources into that ongoing atomic project at the time, and its defense against guerrilla attacks and
airstrikes, Hitler began in 1941 a war to conquer Russia, and lost it shortly before the United States
produced its first atom bombs, two of which it dropped on Japan, and the latter surrendered
unconditionally, since its atomic project was also behind its U.S. counterpart.
When pitying the Japanese children who died under the U.S. atom bombs, please remember that the
aggressor had been the autocracy of Japan (at Pearl Harbor).

That is, World War II became, in essence, nuclear World War I, the outcome of which was decided by
superweapons while all the other weapons and all the other military forces became outdated.
On Aug. 2, 1939, Einstein sent a letter to President Roosevelt, in which he mentioned three physicists
(“Joliot in France,” E. Fermi, and L. Szilard), whose work suggested a possibility of production of bombs
of unheard-of destructive power.
Einstein closed his letter by warning that Germany seemed to be starting its atomic project.
So, the United States and its allies were mortally endangered, and at the same time had a chance to
defeat Hitler without a single American soldier lost, had Stalin’s Russia failed to defeat him at the cost
of millions of Russian lives.
One could well expect that a delegation of American university experts, their names bestrewn with
academic titles, would write such a letter to the U.S. president. But nothing of the kind happened, while
an immigrant named Einstein was not yet even an American citizen!

Yahoo! shows “The Story of the Atomic Bomb” by “Air Force Historical Studies Office.” I do not think
that the office would downplay the importance of American universities in its “Story of the Atomic
Bomb.” Here is how its “Story” begins:
The story of the atomic bomb started around the turn of the century when a small
number of physicists began to think about, discuss, and publish papers about the
phenomenon of radioactivity, the behavior of alpha particles, and the properties of
various materials when irradiated.
Initially, these persons included well-known scientists such as Ernest Rutherford of
New Zealand and Great Britain, Niels Bohr of Denmark, Pierre and Marie Curie of
France, and Albert Einstein of Germany.
Later, the “nuclear group” was joined by Leo Szilard of Hungary, Otto Hahn of
Germany, Michael Polanyi of Hungary, Walther Böthe of Germany, Lise Meitner of
Austria, Hantaro Nagaoka of Japan, and others of similarly diverse backgrounds.
Not a single American educated at an American university is mentioned!
German scientists who were Jews realized that the Nazis posed a deadly threat, and
they began to emigrate, mostly to the United States. The émigrés over the 1930s
included Einstein, Theodore von Karman, John von Neumann, Eugene Wigner, Leo
Szilard, Hans Bethe, Edward Teller, Lise Meitner, Enrico Fermi [an Italian whose
wife was Jewish—L. N.], and many others.

What are the superweapons of today? I came to believe in 1986 that one of them was described by Eric
Drexler as the molecular nanoweapon in his 1986 book.
In 2006, he published its “updated and expanded” edition, which he sent me via the Internet. But his
position has been far more difficult than was Einstein’s in 1939.
In 1939, Hitler was already becoming a sinister figure in the United States. Besides, he knew nothing
about strategy beyond Wagner’s operas about the operatic ancient German warriors.
The Chinese military authors of the book, “Unrestricted Warfare: China's Master Plan to Destroy
America,” say: “Regardless of whether we are talking about Hitler, Mussolini, Truman, Johnson, or
Saddam, none of them have successfully mastered war.” The book was published in 1999.
The superweapons require a special research and a special production, and insofar as these are
concerned, the Chinese may surpass Westerners similar to those American university experts who did
not surmise in 1939 the possibility of nuclear superweapons.

Obama Plans Prosperity; China

Plans World Domination

While only a minority of adults had the right to vote in 19th-century Britain, all adults in the United
States, with exceptions such as those who are psychiatrically sick, have the right to vote in presidential
and congressional elections. Truly democratic!
Unfortunately, the greater the mental ability (the greatest came to be called “geniuses” in the 14th-
century Europe), the fewer people possess it, and it is not clear how a majority of voters can recognize
and elect a man of genius, as Einstein was, for example.
In the past two centuries, the free West has been suffering from an economic disease. Private or free
enterprise (capitalism), beginning in the late 18th century, suffered from what came to be called
“crises,” “depressions,” or “recessions” (milder terms).
No science knows how to prevent or cure these diseases, and it is ridiculous to assume that a majority of
voters will identify a “doctor” who can prevent or cure them and will elect that person as the U.S.
president.
On Feb. 24, 2009, President Obama delivered an hour-long speech (approximately) to the Congress.
The self-confident tone of his address and “dozens of rounds of applause,” as The Associated Press puts
it, suggest that a doctor to cure recessions has at last been found by a majority of voters led by the
Democrats!

Since the late 18th century, the perception of private or free enterprise can be summarized as follows.
Marx, “the most important figure in the history of socialist thinking,” contended that “the capitalists”
are criminals who acquire their millions or billions by robbing “the working class” and must be
“expropriated” and “liquidated” by “the world revolution.”
Non-Marxists have been for a free contest in free enterprise: Let the most capable entrepreneurs obtain
the greatest wealth, and let the least capable of them lose what they have.
Now the U.S. Democrats, led by President Obama, have turned out to be different from both Marxists
and non-Marxists: Let those who lost their money be indemnified for their losses (by the government at
public expense).
In his address to the Congress, President Obama did not find a minute to speak on the external danger
to the United States. However, while recessions are illnesses that come and go, an enemy superweapon
may spell death.
What if Hitler’s Germany had not started a war with Russia, and instead used that money to develop
atom bombs sufficiently earlier than did the United States (and Russia as well)?
Hitler’s advent to power in 1933 was accompanied by anti-Semitic brigandage, and hence, Einstein
decided not to return to Germany and stayed in the United States. In 1939 he warned President
Roosevelt of the danger of Hitler’s atom bomb development.
Surely, more than 99 percent of American voters had known nothing about atom bombs when they
voted for the 50-year-old Roosevelt in 1932. Yes, the United States, which is, socially, by millennia,
ahead of the state slavery of Germany of 1933 to 1945, of Russia from 1918 onward (with the exception
of the time of the presidency of Boris Yeltsin) and of “China today,” may be annihilated by a society like
“China today” — socially at the level of state slavery of millennia ago, but technologically able to develop
the key superweapon ahead of the United States.
To take advantage of its freedom of mass public communication, the United States should make its
media accessible to intercommunications similar to that between Einstein and Roosevelt in 1939.
Not surprisingly, the defense of the United States and its allies against Hitler was proposed in 1939 to
President Roosevelt by Einstein, who was not as yet an American citizen. Roosevelt lived up to his
presidential duty by having accepted Einstein’s proposal, and not by being a thinker of genius
foreseeing nuclear weapons as Einstein was.

The odds against the survival of the United States and the free West in general are greater now than in
1939. Then Charlie Chaplin was working on his film The Great Dictator, a horrifying image of Hitler that
became known all over the world. Today the dictators of China are represented to the population of the
United States and the free West in general as benign officials in charge of progress of the once backward
China to the modern level of today’s advanced countries.
The dictators of China are lending money to the United States to help President Obama cope with the
depression!
What do the Chinese dictators expect in return? We could read it in the dissident Chinese “Wei Jing
Sheng Foundation” news in Yahoo! on Feb. 26, 2009: “Press Conference in the US Congress. Alarm Sets
in Over Secretary Clinton’s Abandonment of China Human Rights.”
The dictators of China are also geostrategically wise. Hitler stupidly invaded Russia in 1941, before he
could get the nuclear bomb. The Chinese dictators have been working secretly to produce post-nuclear
superweapons (such as the nanosuperweapon) to attack when they have them, not before.
The discussions U.S, mass media and the free West in general could publicly expose the Chinese
“strategic deception” if sufficiently strong-minded debaters had been invited by the media. Actually, no
chance to appear in any mass media to present their arguments has been given either to Eric Drexler,
whose 1986 book introduced the very word “nanotechnology,” nor to retired Lt. Col. Thomas Bearden
(U.S. Army), whose 2004 book, “Oblivion: America at the Brink” is about the U.S. lagging behind in the
development of post-nuclear superweapons.

President Roosevelt did not ignore Einstein’s one-and-a-half page letter about the possibility of nuclear
weapons. The result was a stupendous Manhattan Project. Drexler’s book was ridiculed publicly as an
idiotic fantasy “to scare little children,” and was ignored by George W. Bush for 23 years of his public
life.
In China, Drexler’s book appeared on the Internet in English, with translations into Chinese of whatever
a native Chinese reader might find difficult to understand.
The United States and the free West in general have freedom, an advantage in the global struggle of free
countries against a global aggressor. But they also have many self-imposed disadvantages as well, such
as the inclination of free Westerners to think only about their own safety, wealth, and happiness.
They tend to forget unpleasantness such as the annihilation of all free countries and themselves by a
new military slave-state machine, with its superweapons — superweapons as decisive as the nuclear
weapons were in 1945.

Will U.S. Intel Take an Interest in China?

On Feb. 13, 2009, Leon E. Panetta became the director of the CIA. President Obama had asked Panetta
whether he would accept this post and said, “I want someone I could trust.” Panetta responded,
“Throughout my 40-year career in government I have made it a point to speak honestly to my
colleagues, my coworkers, my constituents, and my president.”
So Panetta has had a “40-year career in government.” Well, in 1978, that is, 30 years ago, I, who had
“emigrated” from Russia and came to New York in 1972, published my article “What the CIA knows
about Russia?” in Commentary magazine, quite prestigious at that time.
I am taking the word “emigrated” in quotes because it was a “show” emigration of several hundred
Soviet citizens to show President Nixon and the West in general how free “Soviet Russia” was.
Actually, those who were selected lived much better than the average.
For example, I translated Russian classical literature into English (the first and last case when a Russian
who had never lived in an English-speaking country translated Russian literature into English). Hence I
earned enough money to buy what probably was the best country house in Soviet Russia, in which I
lived with my wife and our son.

Surely (the sponsors of the “show” emigration reasoned) abroad we would boast of our life in Soviet
Russia! Instead, the sponsors of the “show” emigration read my articles, in which I described Soviet
Russia as a slave state, millennia behind the free West socially.
As I was working on my article about the CIA, I found out that, coincidentally, the CIA held in Congress
a public exhibition of its declassified intelligence reports. I rushed to Washington, D.C. Here was the
Congress!
The security officer quipped that I had a “beaver” (that is, a fur hat) on my head, a joke possibly a
century or two old.
I selected the CIA reports, to base my article on, and received the copies of them. The conclusion of my
article was that the CIA does not exist as an intelligence/espionage agency with respect to the new slave
states like Russia or China.
The intelligence/espionage agencies of the democracies are behind the secrecy of the new slave states
like Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, or “China today.”
As we moved into our 22-story apartment building (which was owned by an American who was, as a
tourist, our dinner guest in our country house in Russia), our neighbors asked us whether we had
remained citizens of Russia and worked in the “Soviet compound” in our neighborhood. Indeed, a
“Soviet citizen” could live anywhere in the United States if he could pay the rent.
In Soviet Russia, citizens had to be “inscribed” into the premises in which he they lived, and they had to
produce an “internal passport,” a copy of which was kept on file by the ordinary (not secret) police, and
so it would be useless for the CIA to counterfeit the internal passport, since the authenticity of it could
be verified by a telephone call.

Americans in Soviet Russia could live only within the confines of the U.S. Embassy, and whenever they
ventured outside, they would be followed.
A slave state was a cage for its slaves. But it was even more of a cage for the outsiders, such as American
spies, since they did not have the “internal passport,” whose authenticity could be verifiable by a
telephone call to the ordinary police.
The number of employees and the cost of the CIA are secret, but the estimated number in Yahoo! is
20,000 employees and the estimated cost for 2009 is $40 billion.
But no money and no technology of the CIA can break out of the cage of a modern slave state, be it Nazi
Germany or Soviet Russia or “China today.” The greatest strategic secret of 1939 was contained in
Einstein’s letter to Roosevelt of Aug. 2 about the possible development of atom bombs in Germany. But
how could the technology of a third country read such a letter?

After my article appeared in Commentary magazine, nine of its readers, including one from the News
World, had their letters of total approval of my article printed in Commentary.
In his “Citizens for the Republic Newsletter” of Sept. 18, 1978, Ronald Reagan devoted a full page to his
discussion of the importance of my Commentary article; the New York Post published William F.
Buckley’s rave review of my article; Human Events devoted a page to it; — in over 500 periodicals in the
West.
I was invited to the “Face-to-Face Dinner Discussion” of Dec. 13, 1978, at which Adm. Stansford Turner,
director of the CIA, and 40 other VPs were present. Let me quote my Dec. 18 affidavit, sworn before
Benjamin Denker, notary public, state of New York:
During the discussion Admiral Turner counter-attacked vigorously the critics of the
CIA among those present, such as Mr. Marc Jay Epstein. In particular, Admiral
Turner said that the writings of Mr. Epstein are harmful to the United States.
As I took the floor, I stated that my evaluation of the CIA had been presented briefly
in my articles for the UPI in 1975, and more specifically, in last September’s issue of
Commentary. Here Admiral Turner interrupted me to say that he had read the
Commentary article. I said that Western intelligence had not even approached the
problem of intelligence vis-à-vis totalitarian societies.

As I finished, there were several moments of silence whereupon one of those present
asked Admiral Turner whether he could say something in rebuttal. Admiral Turner
said: “No.” There were several moments of silence again, but he said nothing else.
The tone of his answer struck me as grave and candid. Those with whom I spoke
afterward had the same impression.
Nor did Admiral Turner attempt to rebut any statement of mine at any other time
during the discussion. His only reference to my article of my presentation occurred
when, in reply to Charles Snodgrass, House Appropriations Committee, who sat next
to me (on my left), he spoke about U.S. technological (nonhuman) intelligence and
remarked that “your neighbor on your right” (meaning myself) was no doubt highly
skeptical of what he was saying. To which I rejoined: “Yes.”
That was in 1978, and now it is 2009. But what has changed in the field so necessary for the survival of
the United States and the rest of the free world? China with its population of 1.3 billion is dangerous,
not Russia with its population of 147 million, and Nazi Germany was gone.
What does Leon E. Panetta know that Turner did not about how to penetrate China’s development of
molecular nano weapons? Panetta said he had a “40-year career in government,” not in intelligence, but
“in government,” and President Obama decided that Panetta was “someone he could trust.”

Documentary Shows Stark Reality in China

Some of my readers perhaps remember my column this past January, praising “The
Chinese New Year Spectacular,” produced by the NTD/TV, an independent organization
in New York, collecting, creating, and showing independently produced TV materials
connected with China.
Recently I received their DVD concerned with the “Nine Commentaries on the Chinese Communist
Party,” which had been written by “a Chinese for the Chinese” and had been some of the triggers of the
Tiananmen Square uprising in 1989.
I have read the “Nine Commentaries” in the dissident Chinese magazine The Epoch Times. Since I lived
in Stalin’s Russia, nothing in the DVD was new to me in principle. Yet, having watched it for a couple of
hours, I was stunned, catapulted out of my New York life . . .
I was back in Stalin’s Russia, but it was actually China, brought to life by television to show the most
abysmal horrors, perpetrated by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Those who are natives of the free West often perceive and describe Stalin’s Russia or “China today” as a
Western state, deviating from its true or normal attributes such as freedom. Hence these Westerners
use Western state terms like “government” or “party” universally.
It rarely occurs to them that possibly the word “democracy” would have been forgotten if it had not
existed anywhere after Athens’ classical period.
The CCP is Chinese; that is, it has enslaved China, but it is neither communist nor a “party” —it is a
hierarchy, owning the population of China as slaves, differing from Western slaves of the past by being
owned not by individuals (slave owners) but by a slave-owning hierarchy, every slave-owner of which
being also a slave of the top hierarch(s).
The hierarchy tends to have one supreme hierarch, like Stalin or Mao, who is also the “generalissimus,”
as Stalin was officially called, for the slave society is also a war machine, and since the year 2000, the
war machine of China has been concentrating on the development of post-nuclear superweapons (like
molecular nanoweapons) to win any war, as the United States won the war with Japan (an impudent
Pearl Harbor aggressor) in two days.

Discussing the “Nine Commentaries,” the DVD aptly notes that the very name “Communist Party” has
been a temporary misnomer. Cursed by Marx as the primary evil, “capitalism” was an integral part of
the “national socialism” of the Germany from 1933 to 1945 and, indeed, one of the causes of Hitler’s
advent to power. But any difference between the “Soviet communism” or the “socialism in Soviet
Russia” and the “national socialism” in Germany had been “propagandistic.”
Yes, the “propaganda” in slave societies is to replace the thinking of the slaves, but since reality changes,
the propaganda also, however illogically, enslaves the minds of the slaves.
The DVD perceives about 5,000 years under the Chinese emperors as we in Stalin’s Russia perceived
the rule of the tsars in the 19th century.
Russian novels, Russian poetry, and Russian music blossomed under the 19th-century tsars, while many
Russian writers, poets, and composers fled from Soviet Russia, or were used for propaganda or
physically destroyed. Similarly, the DVD recalls great Chinese culture — not just in one century, but in
about 5,000 years.

The CCP is the denial of everything spiritual or human (as in a free or partly free human being). Slave
reflexes must replace human thoughts and feelings.
That the CCP acts as the cruelest tyrant has been confirmed in the past decade by the ruthless
persecution of Falun Gong. The latter has been preaching truth, kindness, and patience.
Its ingredient, Buddhism, is Chinese culture. Yet apart from its more than 100 million followers in
China, Falun Gong has been practiced in 70 countries, including Japan, Indonesia, Israel, Spain,
Belgium, and Canada.
The heinous persecution of Falun Gong began in 1999 and was supported by 300,000 articles and
programs in the slave-state media. Why? Falun Gong filled minds with something different from the
infinite devotion of slaves to the slave-owing hierarchy.
This essay provides a written account, while the DVD adds the devastating sensation of the reality of it
all, embracing the life of China’s 1.3 billion dwellers, about one-fifth of mankind.

The yearning of these dwellers in China for freedom is amazing. Thus, 50 million have left the Chinese
Communist Party in the past four years.
A replica of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square in 1989 indicates that the freedom in the free
countries outside China stimulates freedom in China. Hence the belief of the slave-owning hierarchy
that either they become the owners of the world, or the freedom-seeking Chinese, inspired by freedom
outside will finish what Tiananmen began.
The DVD should be condensed to two or two-and-a-half hours and shown via TV stations to the
population of the United States and the other free countries to let them have a human feel of reality in
“China today” before this war machine acquires the decisive superweapons as the United States had
developed them by 1945 and used them against Japan, the aggressor.
The difference will be that the “aggression” of the free countries will consist of their free existence,
complete in the United States with the Statue of Liberty, reproduced by whoever values freedom.
No Freedom if China Develops
Nanoweapons

On March 8, 2009 I received an e-mail from J. Ladd Yost, who wrote as the subject, “China,
nanoweapons and freedom.”
It read, “Your arguments are cogent.” He presented his 10 propositions, reading like theses for a
doctorate. He summarized the situation as follows: “So, all I can say is keep sounding the alarm. And
say more about what you’d like us to DO about it. Some are listening.”
The molecular nanoweapons seem to be the next superweapons. They are molecules converted by their
own atoms and by atoms inserted into them into atomic systems, transforming molecules into tiny
computers, racing through space like submicroscopic viruses, able to find enemy submarines and
bombers carrying nuclear weapons and destroy them, preventing thereby Mutual Assured Destruction.
I implored those who wanted to know more about these weapons to read Eric Drexler’s “Engines of
Creation” particularly a chapter entitled “Engines of Destruction.”

To evaluate the importance of nanoweapons in today’s warfare, let us turn to Abdul Kalam, the 11th
president of India (2002 to 2007).
In his July 2004 speech to scientists at the Weapons and Electronic Systems Engineering
Establishment, Kalam said that nanoweapons would “revolutionize warfare.”
Before his term as India’s president, Kalam had been known as the “missile man of India” for his work
on development of ballistic missiles and space rocket technology.
Let us now see how nanoweapons have been treated in China.
On November 3, 2000, Beijing Evening carried an article entitled humorously (an evening newspaper!)
“Tiny Devils of Nano Weapons Catch a Huge Evil Spirit.” The article said:
Against the background of rapid development of nano-technology, the Chinese
Academy of Sciences has recently set up a scientific and technological nano centre.
Opened is a scientific and technological nano network . . . The nano technology also
involves nano weapons and a material base for scientific military research.
And so on — the article in its English translation takes up two pages in small type.
What about the free West?
On March 15, 2004, that is, more than four years and four months later, the BBC News reported that 71
percent of British adults had never heard of nanoweapons.
In the United States you will hear that Congress allocated money for nanotechnology in 2003. However,
nanotechnology may include only the commercial production of peaceful nano commodities, and no
nanoweapons.

The New York Times Almanac of 2007 is introduced on the front cover as “the world’s most
comprehensive and authoritative Almanac,” and on the back cover it is added that the Almanac comes
“from the unmatched resources of ‘The New York Times’.” But its 30-page Index does not contain the
word “nano” in 2007!
The impression is that the 19th and 21st centuries exchanged places. Now China is a technologically
advanced country, while Britain and the United States are Third-World outskirts.
In the 19th century, Britain won two wars with China to force China to buy opium. What would the war
be like between the English-speaking and the dictatorship of China in the 21st century?
The classical Greek had these two words: demos, meaning “common (people)” and aristos, meaning
“exclusive (wisdom).” Let us take music as an example of the spiritual field.

In Stalin’s Russia, all attempts in the early 1930s to make “the common people” listen, via the national
monopoly radio station, to classical music failed (common radio listeners called it funereal) and “the
pops” of “the common people” returned in the mid-1930s.
In the United States, as I found out, there is a similar precipice between aristos and demos in music.
What about geostrategy? The U.S. president is elected by the “majority of the people,” the demos — this
is a democracy!
Actually, in the 21st century it is a matter of life and death to have in geostrategy aristos, and not a “pop”
like an attempt for six years to conquer Iraq (a small “Third-world country of no global geostrategic
importance) by replacing a Sunni ruler by a Shi’a one, while neglecting the mortal danger of China with
its population of 1.3 billion.
Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden (U.S. Army) correctly entitled his book about post-nuclear superweapons:
“Oblivion: America at the Brink.”
Not that I suggest to ignore “the demos.” We are going to make a film about a nano attack on the United
States. Any American should realize how dangerous the world is in the 21st century and how important
it is to pay attention to it instead of the current “oblivion” according to which only the United States
exists, while the rest of the world hardly exists at all for weeks, months, or years.

Just as there are aristos media in music, there must be aristos media in geostrategy, and aristos must
direct the geostrategy of the free West and supply advisers and subordinates to its leaders, elected by a
majority of voters, especially if the leader is a U.S. president, elected directly by all adults, and not a
British prime minister, elected through parliament. When the U.S. and other free countries were
created and up to the emergence of superweapons (the first newcomers were nuclear weapons) they
were defended by the Industrial Revolution, for the countries outside it, such as China, were behind
technologically and hence militarily weak.
Besides, in the absence of superweapons, the U.S. was protected by its two oceans and the friendly
democracy of Canada in the north, while in the south there was no great danger either.
Hence the “pop” in geostrategy was as safe as “pop” in music. Today it is suicidal.

Can Societies Avert a Depression?

Between 1807 and 1941 there were five economic depression periods in the United States: 1807-1814,
1837-1844, 1873-1879, 1893-1898, and 1929-1941
When the fifth depression (1929-1941) began, President Hoover and his Secretary of the Treasury
Andrew Mellon announced that the end of the depression was “just round the corner” (just as cocksure
as was George Bush and now Obama).
Actually, the fifth depression lasted 12 years, and possibly it was World War II and not fighting it for 12
years, that stopped it.
Whenever an economic depression in the United States occurred, that was the best proof for the
communists all over the world (Marx was 26 years old in 1844) that capitalism was impossible without
crises, while they exclaimed, Look at Soviet Russia (Marx was no more in 1918!) or at “Soviet China,” as
Mao called it!
I pulled up “economic depressions in U.S.” in Yahoo!. The first six hits were old stuff. But the seventh
answer, “The Current Economic Depression,” was “current”!
It was authored by the “Commonwealth Movement” and had 17 pages, of which I will quote the first two
sentences: “Out-of-control predatory capitalists have perpetrated a worldwide economic depression.
Capitalism’s degenerate character is now extraordinarily visible during this time of multiple crises.”

On each side of the page there was a picture of a miserable emaciated proletarian who carried on his
back a huge pack of money, with a bourgeois seated atop of the pack and smoking a cigar.
The 17-page manifesto seems to have been written either by Marx or Lenin or some of their disciples.
Well, they are right in the sense that a necessary condition for a crisis, depression, or even recession is
freedom, namely economic freedom. But if the “director of a Soviet state enterprise” is told “from
above” how much he should produce this year, how many employees he should employ, and how much
they should be paid, certainly there can be no crisis.
If they produce more than they were told to, let them produce as much less in the next year. If they
produce less, what product may be needed now and not the next year? A certain drug? Let’s have extra
stocks of it in a special drugstore, to which a customer will be dispatched with his prescription. If that
drugstore cannot fill his prescription either, and the customer starts making a fuss beyond asking for
the “Book of Complaints,” call the police.
After all, Mao and Stalin shot or tortured to death 80 million human beings. What is the death or a
concentration camp for one drugstore customer?
Now, free enterprise means freedom of when to produce what, how much, by how many employees, and
at what price to sell. Yet, this set of variables is economically interconnected with other sets of variables,
which should vary accordingly.

Imagine millions of such sets of variables. When discrepancies between them are too many or too large
to adjust locally, an economic depression sets in.
An economically free society must have a mathematical model of its economy to accomplish three
objectives: (1) ascertain whether a depression is expected; (2) plan on how to prevent it, and (3) stop it if
it has not been prevented.
When we came to New York in 1972, a philanthropic organization presented me with the 23-volume
Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1970. But it did not address any of the three questions I have mentioned
above.
This is what it said (volume 22, Page 673) about the Depression that started in 1929: “The wonderfully
[!] prosperous world of the 1920s [the economically developed countries of free enterprise] came to an
abrupt [!] end in September 1929.”
The Britannica did not mention a single person or institution that predicted this calamity, however
vaguely. As I have said, President Hoover and his Secretary of the Treasury Andrew W. Mellon assumed
at the beginning of the depression that the end of it was “just round the corner.” Of course!

They had tackled the depression so bravely! As did George W. Bush and then Barack Obama.
Indeed, President Obama initially tried this method of depression-fighting: he gave, well, about three-
quarters of $1 trillion to bail out bankrupt banks so that they could pay their customers and resume
their banking activity.
The presidential news conference was held on March 24; that is, more than two months after the
beginning of Obama’s presidency, but neither the questions Obama was asked, nor his answers threw
any light on his bailout of bankrupt banks.
It had been said publicly earlier that the banks were insured by AIG (American International Group)
and the money had been given by the Congress to AIG, which found no better way of spending it than to
distribute the money among its top officials, whom AIG believed to be so valuable that no money was
excessive to keep them at their posts.
Ironically, many of them left the AIG after they had received the “bonuses.” That was the money that
President Obama had initially announced to be intended for bailing out bankrupt banks.
Yes, in the fifth depression, Hoover and Mellon said that prosperity was “just round the corner.” But
eight years after 1929, “between August 1937 and May 1938, the index of production fell from 117 to 76
and unemployment increased by 4,000,000” (according to my Britannica).

Hoover lost and Roosevelt won the presidential election in 1932 (Roosevelt received more than 22
million popular votes to fewer than Hoover’s 16 million). Roosevelt died in 1945.
His struggle against the depression was part of his New Deal, and a European was reading about it with
a pleasant surprise. Outside the United States, politicians were either left-wing, that is, defended the
poor against the rich, or right-wing, that is, defended the rich against the poor.
A class war! Roosevelt was neither left- nor right-wing or he was both. His method was the
establishment of independent organizations that helped the poor and the rich to help themselves. No
class war, please!
By 1939, the menace of World War II began to overshadow and oust the New Deal. Well, owing to
President Roosevelt, the United States was the first country to develop the atom bomb, that is, to win
World War II in the modern sense of the word.
Between 1814 and today no adequate study has been made of the “economic depression.” Let us hope
that such a study will be made early in the 21st century, and perhaps a method will be found to prevent
it once and for all. Impossible? Well, once a clock seemed impossible or even conceptually absurd. How
can one measure and count time?

Defense Department Ignores

China's Military Agenda

On March 17, 2009, ABC News came out with a program entitled, “U.S. Hopes for Transparency with
China’s Military.”
The key complaint of the U.S. Department of Defense is an “insufficient transparency” of China’s
military. The most quoted Chinese strategist of ancient times, Sun Tzu (Sun Zi), said that war is based
on the deception of the enemy and not just on concealment. But the Defense Department, on the
contrary, believes in “transparency with China’s military.”
Do you know that “some question whether China is a friend or foe of the USA”? A foe of the U.S.! So
China may be developing military might on such a scale and at such a pace in order to attack the U.S.!
You see to what absurdities the “lack of transparency” may lead! China attacking the United States?!

To the Defense Department it is clear how and why wars occur. They occur for the same reason quarrels
occur between good neighbors in an American neighborhood. A good neighbor lacks transparency and
so another good neighbor takes him for a foe, and so this is how there starts a quarrel — a war!
Hence the Defense Department cultivates impeccable good-neighbor relations with China. According to
the “American Forces Press Service” of the Defense Department, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates
met last year with Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan and said what he summed up as follows:
The United States has a relationship with China that is candid, constructive, and
cooperative. Minister Cao and I discussed ways to build on positive momentum in
our defense relations, and how to use these interactions to improve communications
and reduce the risk of misunderstanding.
Curiously, the same issue of the “American Forces Press Service” of the Defense Department is entitled,
“China Military Expansion Could Have Global Implications.”
China (the Defense Department does not use such insulting expressions as the “dictators of China” or
the “dictatorship of China”) should have explained to the U.S.A. that the “global implications” of “China
military expansion” exclude the United States—owing to the mutual love between the U.S. military and
the military of “China” (that is, of the dictatorship of China). But that accursed “lack of transparency”
prevents “China” from a declaration of love for the United States as ardent as the Defense Secretary’s is
for “China.”

ABC News notes that “some analysts” said about the military growth in China that “it’s the quickest
military buildup in history.”
On Dec. 2, 2005, Newsmax.com published my article entitled, “The Latest News From China on Nano
Weapons.” I was told by Chinese dissidents in New York that the book on nanotechnology published in
1986 by Eric Drexler, to whom the U.S. Congress had not allocated one cent for his Foresight Institute,
was transmitted by the Chinese Internet in English with translations of difficult places into Chinese.

On June 15, 1996, the Chinese magazine National Defense carried an article entitled “Nanotech
Weapons in Future Warfare” by Maj. Gen. Sun Bailin of the Chinese Academy of Military Science.
In 1914, a bomb could destroy a building. In 1945, a U.S. nuclear bomb could destroy a city. In 2010,
2015, or 2020, nano molecules will be able to destroy a country.
Suppose in 2010, 2015, or 2020 everything is ready in China to destroy the United States by nano
molecules.
This is where the problem of transparency comes in! According to the Defense Department, the Chinese
military must make transparent their plan for the nano annihilation of the United States and other free
countries, and for the transformation of the top dictator of China into the owner of the world, the first
owner of the world in history.
Let us recall that Marx and his followers in Russia, China, and other countries saw the future as a single
world, “led” by those like Lenin or Mao.

On March 25, 2009, the Defense Department published its “Annual Report to Congress: Military Power
of the People’s Republic of China, 2009.” The Report includes six chapters, 66 pages in all.
Right at the beginning, the report announces that “much uncertainty surrounds China’s future course,
particularly regarding how its expanding military power might be used.” Indeed!
The familiar complaint of the “limited transparency in China’s military and security affairs” comes up
right on Page 1.
On Page 6 we read that “the United States welcomes the rising of a peaceful and prosperous China.” As
a ruthless dictatorship?
In other words, “The Annual Report to Congress” adds nothing to those previous articles except stiff
formalities.
Like propagandistic quotations from “PRC President Hu Jintau” they use as epigraphs to the chapters of
the Report — it is from him that the ultimate truth about “China” and its military intentions can be
expected to be found!

Is China Really Striving for World

Domination?
On Feb. 18, 2009, I received an e-mail from a Mr. Jianhui He, criticizing my geostrategic view of the
world today as biased and outdated.
I considered, and still consider, Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, and the China of the past half a
century as a return to the “state slavery” of millennia ago except that a “new slave state” strives to
convert the entire world into a single global slave state.
Yet, by no means does everyone share my vision. Thus, Walter Duranty, an Englishman, a Moscow
correspondent of The New York Times from 1922 to 1936, glorified Stalin and his slave state like a
fervent Stalinist. But Stalin became such an odious figure for so many Americans that Duranty’s
Stalinism was no longer possible in The New York Times, which had to dismiss him.

No other newspaper wanted to hire him, and he spent the rest of his life (he died in 1957) as a kind of
exile, helped financially by The New York Times, and still glorifying Stalin.
Jianhui He says that what I wrote in my latest column “is a very biased view of what is going on in the
world, you are stuck in a World War II and Cold War mentality and are looking at the world with
tainted spectacles.”
Yes, in my column I recall the fact that during World War II the United States was the first country to
produce atom bombs.
Suppose Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia or “Soviet China” — as Mao originally called his China — was
the first country to produce atom bombs.
The world would have belonged to the slave state that produced it.
Today’s equivalent of the atom bomb of 1945 is the nano superweapon.
Three years ago, on March 23, 2006, a “PR Leap” of Michael Berger came out with an article (which
came up in a Yahoo! or Google search on Feb. 19, 2009), entitled “China Is Quickly Becoming a Leading
Force in Nano Technology.”
But according to Jianhui He, we should believe that China, where 800 million inhabits are paupers, has
to be a leading force — in nanotechnology! — for peaceful purposes only, and never — never ever! — for
the production of nano weapons.

I am “stuck” in the U.S. development of nuclear weapons during World War II, in the opinion of Jianhui
He, without seeing how much safer the world is today.
Indeed, in the eight years of his presidency, President George W. Bush did not express publicly any
anxiety about the development in China of nanoweapons, no matter how powerful, or any post-nuclear
superweapons.
To listen to him, the mortal threat to the United States was — Iraq!
True, its population accounted for 2 percent of that of China. But Iraq was allegedly going to develop an
atom bomb!
Bush never recalled the 25 detectable and detected tests in China of kilo- and megaton nuclear bombs,
but spent six years on the conquest of Iraq, with American troops still there, while an Iraqi journalist
threw his shoes at Bush during the latter’s last visit to Iraq.
Since in my Feb. 19, 2009, column I mentioned Michael Berger’s PR Leap article, let me recall some of
its text. It begins: “China’s performance in nanoscience and nanotechnology is remarkable.”

We learn that in 2001 the “Chinese government” had declared nanotechnology a critical research and
development priority.
The article cites a recent relevant study by Ping Zhou of the Institute of Scientific and Technological
Information of China and Loet Leydesdorff of the University of Amsterdam. To me, this association of a
Chinese at a West-European evaluation of the phenomenal progress of nanoweapons in China is
significant in itself.
In 1997, Michael Pillsbury, a well-known American Sinologist, published a 419-page collection of
articles, written by Chinese military men: “Chinese Views of Future Warfare.” The last article had been
written by Maj. Gen. Sun Bailin of the Academy of Military Science, in the Chinese magazine
NationalDefense of June 15, 1996.
The article ended thus: “Nano-technology will certainly [!] become a crucial [!] military technology in
the 21t century.”
In 1939 Einstein expressed to President Roosevelt his conjecture that Germany was about to begin its
development of the nuclear weapons. Einstein’s conjecture led to the nuclear Manhattan Project of the
United States and its allies.

Yes, today the molecular nano superweapons are the strategic equivalent of the nuclear superweapons
in 1945.
For the inquiry “China’s takeover of the world,” Google printed “about 1,850,000 results.” But what
does the “takeover of the world” mean, or what does the dictatorship of China want it to mean?
The dictatorship of China originated as Marxism-Leninism, and though the latter is now out of fashion,
it is still an ideological tenet of the dictatorship.
Now, Marxism-Leninism was to establish a global ideal for the happy life of all mankind, except its
enslavers, such as the Western capitalists.
Hence it is proper for the Chinese dictators to speak not of “China’s takeover of the world,” but of
China’s liberation of the world to create the global ideal of life for all, except the enemies of this global
ideal.

China Poses Greatest Threat to the Free World

I have always believed that the greatest tragedy for the United States and the other free countries would
be if they are attacked with new, unexpected weapons by one of the new slave states such as (in order of
appearance) Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Communist China.
However, with the latter’s military growth, I came to realize that it is China (with its population of 1.3
billion), not Russia (with its population of 147 million as of 2006), that poses such a threat.
True, Russia helps China with some post-nuclear weapons. But Vladimir Putin, who succeeded Boris
Yeltsin, may be doing this for the same reason Stalin supplied Nazi Germany with strategic raw
materials and proposed that Hitler send his army across Russia to India to conquer it.
Stalin hoped to be Germany’s partner in her world domination. Possibly, Putin hopes to be China’s
partner in hers.
For Russia to fight China? Ultimately, the fact that the population of China is more than seven times
larger than that of Russia may mean seven times more scientists and technologists in China’s
development and use of post-nuclear superweapons, such as molecular nanoweapons.

Russia and China are neighbors. The Chinese military thrust will cut Russia into her sparsely populated
(and hence virtually indefensible) Siberia in the east and the European part of Russia in the west.
The unarmed Tiananmen Square rebels in China were destroyed by the dictators’ army. Boris Yeltsin’s
advance to presidency in June and July 1991 can also be regarded as a rebellion, and in August an
attempt was made by the supporters of the old regime to crush the rebellion by the military force. But
Yeltsin repulsed the attempt successfully.
The photograph of Yeltsin on a tank, with his fist raised to show the determination to fight the attackers,
became world-known. Boris Yeltsin was the first genuinely elected president of Russia (of the Russian
Federation) after about 70 years of the state slavery.
Yeltsin meant to convert Russia into a modern free country, complete with economic freedom. But if the
United States has been suffering from depressions since the beginning of the 18th century, how could
he, who was not even an economist, create a modern free society, complete with a free market?
During his presidency, Russia’s gross domestic product fell by 50 percent, and vast sections of the
economy were wiped out. State spending on welfare decreased.
The fact is that with the same material basis of the same country, its population as slaves may be fed
and given better care than if they become free people in a free country.
Nor was Yeltsin consistent outside the economy.

In his initial drive for freedom, Yeltsin did what no Western statesman had done: He publicly addressed
all non-Russian populations of Russia, “Take as much independence as you can cope with!”
The Ukraine and Byelorussia responded and became independent. But in December 1994 Yeltsin
ordered the military invasion of Chechnya to restore Moscow’s control over this small separatist nation.
But let us not forget that a new society requires not only a new, enlightened leader, but also a new,
enlightened majority.
I recall that the biggest, or one of the two biggest, parties in the Russian parliament believed that Hitler
was wrong: He secretly ordered his subordinates to begin the “industrial extermination” of Jews only
after his defeat at Moscow and in order to prevent his subordinates from betraying him to the “Anglo-
Saxons.”
Actually, it was necessary (that Russian party proclaimed) to exterminate the Jews in Russia
immediately. When it was discovered that the father of the leader of this super-Nazi party was a Jewish
lawyer, the joke was, He is PURE Russian — his mother is a Russian, and his father a lawyer.

In 1991, after living and publishing in New York for about 20 years, I also began publishing columns in
Russian in Russian periodicals, such as Izvestia, which was as well known as Pravda, but even before
1991 it had not been so purely propagandistic and boring as Pravda.
I could conclude that the freedom of the press in Russia under Yeltsin was as total as it is in the United
States. Of course, Pravda did not publish me. ( Nor did The New York Times!)
Vladimir Putin succeeded Yeltsin in 2000. In his interview, Putin (a former minor KGB official)
explained that the KGB is necessary for every civilized country, since it is a link between society and the
government.
At that time I wrote a weekly column for Moscow Pravda (which had nothing to do with Pravda). In my
column I described Putin’s opinion of the KGB in his interview.
The newspaper was so scared (a new epoch of fear had begun or the old epoch of fear was back) that it
did not print my column, but in New York I did not know that and continued to send my weekly column
to the newspaper, which was afraid to publish them and was afraid to tell me that.
They knew I published in the U.S. press, and imagine the hullabaloo I could raise!
Putin was dangerous to them, but so was I, due to the U.S. press.
There is too little in today’s Russia a foreigner can read about with interest.
Russia is known abroad for its literature and music, created under the tsars or by those who grew up
under the tsars. The post-1917 owners of Russia began to develop a culture that created a false social
reality and the new slaves.

Yet the owners of Russia did not have to destroy the classical Russian culture, valued so highly abroad.
Hence some of those who lived after 1917 could contribute to the pre-1917 Russian culture. Today that
generation is gone.
It is difficult to translate poetry, and hence in contrast to prose and music, Russian poetry has been
unknown in the West. Yet Osip Mandelstam, who perished in a concentration camp in the 1930s, wrote
in Russian probably the world’s greatest poetry.
Imagine him celebrating a New Year and recalling the splendors of old. No, I do not attempt to translate
him, but just retell him in English:
I drink to the asters of officers’ epaulettes,
To everything I have been reproached for,
To an aristocrat’s fur coat, to his asthma,
To the jaundice of his Petersburg.
To the music of pinetrees in Savoy, and yes,
To the gasoline of Champs-Elysées,
To the red-haired arrogance of the British
And to their colonies’ distant quinine.
In conclusion, I am choosing the wine,
But I have not yet decided which: The youngest Asti Spumante
Or from the Pope’s cellars the oldest Rhine.

American Tragedy: Academia

Scoffs at Nanotechnology

On April 14, 2009, I received an e-mail from Thaddeus (Ted) Paul Kochanski, Ph.D., chief scientist and
executive director, IEEE-GEMS Repositor . . . and so on. His scientific and technological degrees and
posts occupy almost a full page at the end of his e-mail.
He begins, “I don’t know about your technical background and so I can’t know at what level to discuss
this issue.”
My “technical background”? When I finished secondary school in Soviet Russia, I had to matriculate at
an “institute of higher learning,” since otherwise I would be called up for military service. I regarded the
Soviet humanities as unbearable propaganda.
My goal in life was to help the free countries defend themselves against slavery states like Stalin’s Russia
or Hitler’s Germany. Hence my interests in science and technology, which was why I matriculated at the
giant MEI (Moscow Energy Institute).
Attending the lectures was obligatory, but I skipped them, studied on my own, and got away with this,
since I got top examination grades.
In the math exams at the end of the second year, I drew a ticket to demonstrate one of the theorems of
Newton’s Infinitesimal Calculus. I wrote down my demonstration but as I began to present it to the
professor (Professor Ryzhkov), he took it for sheer abracadabra: Was I insane?

The thing was that the demonstrations of Newton’s theorems were presented at our lectures, which I
had skipped. I started my demonstration again from the beginning, stressing the logic of it. He was
stunned: Was I another Newton?
There was a huge special department at the Moscow Energy Institute focusing on the development of a
nuclear bomb. For that project, they wanted mathematicians trained in their own department.
Professor Ryzhkov said he would recommend me to that special department. For me to turn down the
offer? Insane! Or perhaps even dangerous! I could not tell them, “Look, my mission in life is to save the
free countries. Not to develop the latest weapons against them.”
I left the Moscow Energy Institute — after first having enrolled (to avoid being drafted into the Soviet
army) at the Moscow Institute of Foreign Languages.
I would thus continue my studies of English — so I reasoned — because the language the free world
spoke was English, not German or French.
Now, let’s get back to see how Kochanski, professor, Ph.D., director, etc., “discusses the issue.” In my
writings on nanoweapons, I have been quoting Eric Drexler, whom I knew personally.
Kochanski says: “Suffice it to say — nano is not magic — the fundamental laws of physics apply to things
nano . . . and they don’t permit most of what Drexler is pushing as science.”
Nanotechnology started off in 1959, and in 1986, that is, 27 years later, Drexler published his book,
which made the words “nano” and “nanotechnology” well known.
In China, his book was published on the Internet in English, with some places translated into Chinese.
Today, in 2009, that is 23 years later, Kochanski explains that “nano is not magic, the fundamental laws
of physics apply to nano, and they don’t permit most of what Drexler is pushing as science”!
Drexler, you see, is not worth Kochanski’s criticism as a scientist — he is only pushing for science
something that is not science!

Kochanski’s next sentence goes back to Drexler, “As for Drexler — I think it is sufficient to note that
[the] Ted Williams head was deep frozen in a vat of liquid nitrogen in New Mexico by the same crowd
that is talking about nano-super weapons.”
Well, go see Yahoo!: “Ted” Williams, an American left fielder in baseball, died at the age of 83 in 2002.
As a famous man, he wanted his body preserved after his death.
“So, according to his will, his son John-Henry had, after his father’s death, his father’s body flown to
Scottsdale, Ariz., where his head and his body were duly separated and placed separately into cryonic
suspension (neuropreservation).”
So, contrary to Yahoo! as of today, Kochanski claims that Ted’s son John-Henry belonged to “the same
crowd that is talking about nano superweapons,” though, to begin with, in 2002 John-Henry had
probably never heard of nanoweapons. Nor is it clear what the neuropreservation of his dead father,
according to his father’s will, had to do with “nano superweapons.”
Then follows the longest paragraph of Kochanski’s e-mail — he enumerates the U.S. institutions doing
nano research, including research universities “which are a bit more reliable places of real science than
Drexler’s shop.”

Before this paragraph, professor Kochanski had been putting down nanotechnology and its founder
Drexler. Now he is showing how it is being developed in the United States (owing to such scientists as
Kochanski, with his countless degrees and posts).
Yes, it is possible that these institutions and their professors such as Dr. Kochanski, receive every year
thousands of times more money than “Drexler’s shop” has received since 1986. But what are the results,
except clusters of self-contradictions and slander like Kochanski’s piece I am quoting?
Also, what about China’s nanoweapons? “So could the Chinese sneak some nano super weapons from
us? Well, you can never say never in science.”
Earlier, Kochanski ridiculed Drexler (whose book was published in China on the Internet), to say
nothing about “the same crowd that is talking about nano superweapons.” Now it turns out that the
Chinese can only “sneak [!] some [!] nano superweapons from us”!
But who cares about “some” nano superweapons, “sneaked” by China? Kochanski is “much more
worried about . . . Electromagnetic Pulse”, which can devastate “our electric power grid and a lot of our
command and control infrastructure.” Besides, “the current generation of Iranian missiles has sufficient
capabilities if fired from a freighter off our coast.” Why, “the Sun might even do it to us with a massive
Coronal Mass Ejection.”
You see? Why should we worry about the post-nuclear weapons of China, such as molecular
nanoweapons, if the sun might have destroyed mankind in the previous 100 centuries or may destroy it
in the coming 10,000 years?
The last two sentences of Kochanski’s piece are devoted to me personally. He thinks I do a “disservice by
promoting fear without providing the necessary references and background.”
Well, I do provide both. But Kochanski is sure that he annihilates both by representing Drexler as an
impudent charlatan and “those talking about nano super weapons” as “the same crowd” one of whom
had his father’s head frozen in a vat of liquid nitrogen in New Mexico.
Putting aside the question of Iran or of the sun destroying the United States, the illiteracy and narrow-
mindedness of Kochanski’s essay with all his degrees and posts point to the inevitable
defeat/annihilation of the United States in China’s attack.
Kochanski is one of those with the minds of nursery children whom the U.S. institutions of scientific
and technical learning produce, along with all their degrees, posts, and money. These “academics”
convert all military realities into childish fantasies, adorned with scientific and technological words.
Kochanski’s last paragraph, addressed to me, begins, “Nevertheless, I enjoy reading your pieces. . . .”
How can he enjoy reading them if he understands nothing except that those like me are a threat to his
career, and he must discredit Drexler in order to discredit me?
No, I am not writing in any specific field of science or technology. We have named our nonprofit,
“Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc.”
This is my only field, which should incorporate, if necessary, any other field from Newton’s Infinitesimal
Calculus to Drexler’s nanotechnology (much as Kochanski strives to destroy Drexler by publicly uttering
inane inventions about the founder of nanoscience and nanotechnology).

Democracy Faces Ultimate Danger:

China

On April 23, 2009, I received an e-mail from Ram Narayanan, whose columns usually are about India.
In his e-mail to me, he says about my April 23, 2009 column: "I couldn’t agree more! China is the
biggest threat to the free world. One country that can stop the Chinese hegemony in South Asia is
democratic (although chaotic at times) India."
I want to bring the public attention to the problem.
I am not good at organizing supporters of specific causes. Instead, I have created a general nonprofit
“Center for the Survival of Democracies, Inc.”
Some world-renowned intellectuals joined its Advisory Board. But recently the center has failed to
receive any donations, since the collection of them, especially during a recession, requires time, which I
do not have.
So my way out is to explain in my column the importance of what is proclaimed in its title.
Yes, India (officially, the “Republic of India) is the world’s most populous democracy, with her
population close to China’s 1.3 billion, as against the 300 million of the United States.
The size of the population is important, since the larger it is, the greater may be the number of the
country’s scientists and technologists, developing, producing, and handling in combat post-nuclear
weapons, such as molecular nanoweapons.

Territorially, India looks like two triangles on the map, the upper triangle raising its apex into the
continent and having a common border with China, and the other (inverted) triangle descending its
apex into the Arabian Sea on the west and the Bay of Bengal on the east.
In other words, India cannot be surrounded: its lower (inverted) triangle cuts into the Indian Ocean.
India’s "Golden Age” began in the third century C.E. Science, engineering, art, astronomy, and
philosophy flourished.
“Aryan,” meaning “Indo-European,” was a word used in Europe and Russia to imply that a profound
culture and its creators abided in India (as it did in ancient Greece) and then migrated to Europe.
At any rate, this vision shows how the “Indo-European” culture was revered in Europe and Russia.
In 1947, India gained independence from Britain, owing to Mahatma Gandhi’s national movement of
nonviolent civil disobedience, and in 1950 India became a republic with a new constitution, ensuring an
elaborate parliamentary democracy.
India became the sixth nuclear power in the world, and in 2008 the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear
agreement was signed.
In the past two decades, India’s economy has been the fastest growing in the world. The population of
Mumbai (formerly, Bombay) is near 14 million, that of Delhi near 13 million, etc.
Previously, I have mentioned some common facts. The task now is India’s defense, in cooperation with
all democracies, against the dictatorship of China. How to achieve this miracle?
I hope that we will be able to enlighten the democracies. The result may be useful for India and all other
democracies.
The task may seem to be simple. In the last two decades China has made a breathtaking leap forward in
its military might.

Why can’t India do the same, given almost the same size of her population?
Tragically, a dictatorship possesses obvious advantages over a democracy in the military mobilization of
human and material resources in peacetime. A dictatorship is the harshest war organization even in the
most tranquil peacetime.
It is human beings' nature to live for themselves and to refuse to believe in the possibility of the
requirement of sacrifice of any part of their lives.
The dictatorship does not know this difficulty. It does whatever it wants to do with every inhabitant of
its country. Though I have never been an inhabitant of China, Ben Yap ([email protected]) sends
me his e-mails, in the last of which he demands that I “stop using [the term] ‘dictators’ and other
derogatory and extreme terms on China and the Chinese.”
Thus speaks Ben Yap, though the ideological root of the post-1949 China is Marxism-Leninism, which
does not consider the word “dictatorship” either derogatory or extreme, but on the contrary, considers it
part of the blissful future of all mankind.
True, Lenin spoke of the dictatorship of the “proletariat,” the word that Marx had created in 1853. But
surely Lenin was also a dictator until he was ousted by his illness, death, and the dictator Stalin.

It is not clear to me why the notion of dictatorship is less derogatory if applied to all “proletarians” of
the world, and not to one individual like Lenin who considered himself their “leader.”
As for the “Chinese,” I have always stressed that events like the peaceful Tiananmen movement of
unarmed Chinese for democracy or the mass withdrawal from the Communist Party of China shows that
the Chinese love freedom no less than any other nation.
A dictatorship can pay as little to any inhabitant of its country and as much to any geostrategically
valuable foreigner as it wants to.
By creating an infinitely worse alternative, a dictatorship can force any inhabitant to die “heroically” if
this is regarded by the dictatorship as being useful for the military victory.
For a democracy, it is first necessary to convince itself as to a possible mortal danger to the country.
This should not be taken for granted.
The more the military danger of the dictatorship of China grew, the less President George W. Bush
noticed it, and the more persistently he fought Iraq, a small backward country, while President Obama
borrowed from China the dollars he needed to fight the recession.
But after the leaders of a democracy have convinced themselves as to the reality of a military danger,
they have yet to convince of it the citizens of the democracy, who can, however, argue publicly against
all attempts to persuade them that the danger exists. On the other hand, a dictatorship does not have to
convince anyone of anything: It orders.

Let us recall that Hitler (the dictator) ordered the invasion of France (a democracy) on June 10, 1940,
and within a month and two weeks France capitulated, though troops of Britain (a democracy) were in
France to help her to stop Hitler’s blitz. Compare: When Germany was a constitutional parliamentary
monarchy (like the United Kingdom) its conquest of France took over four years (1914-1918).
So a defense of a democracy against a dictatorship is not a new problem. It faced France 69 years ago,
and France failed to solve it.
The democracies should solve the problem — or perish. The population of France could have been
annihilated by Hitler, but fortunately for France, in 1941 he sustained his first defeat in Stalin’s Russia
(a dictatorship), was finally routed, and committed suicide.
In the past 20-odd years, warfare has become deadlier than it was in World War II. Forbes gave four
pages to an article reported on Feb. 1, 2007 and entitled “Nanotech Gets Big in China.”
Nanoweapons are superior to atom bombs. Well, 64 years have passed since the latter appeared.
Democracies! Wake up and unite to create a reliable defense! Or you will perish one by one!
France would have if Hitler had not been an ignorant fool to have invaded Stalin’s Russia instead of
spending the money on his atomic project! Today’s war is so much more dangerous than it was in 1940
in Hitler’s Blitz of France! Democracies! Remember that if you perish, freedom will perish — perhaps
forever!

China: Sociopolitical Ideology of a

Slave State

A nation’s political consciousness depends to a considerable degree on the key sociopolitical notions
that the nation has fostered throughout history.
For example, in Russian, the words “government” and “state” come from the word gosudar, that is,
“supreme master-owner”; while the word “power” (vlast) means not “might” or “force,” as it does in
English, but “ownership,” “possession” — of serfs or slaves, for example.
The word “monarch”? In Russia, the only monarch called “great” was Peter I (1672-1725). Independent
Russian historians have told us (before Stalin launched Russian nationalism!) that Peter the Great
would go to an “assembly of nobility,” imitating Western customs, would pick among the guests the
female he liked and rape her on the floor in the presence of the entire assembly.
On the other hand, everything great in Russian literature and music, still valued in the West as well, was
created under the 19th-20th century tsars or by those who grew up under them.
Yet even in Stalin’s Russia, many Russians associated the tsars with tyranny, bigotry, and obscurantism,
while Stalin, in their perception, killed only enemies and rewarded only heroes. He was as just, as wise,
and as omniscient as God, and toward the end of his life he decided to become the God of the Eastern
(Orthodox) Christian Church, but he died before his literal religious deification.

In England, the political development began anew after the fall of the Roman Empire. In the 13th
century, the monarchs in England gave their subjects the Magna Carta, also known as the Great Charter
of Liberties. The Great Charter of 1215 contains 63 clauses. Said Clause 63 (in the translation from Latin
into English):
 No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned, or disseized [dispossessed — L.N.], or
outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed, nor will we go upon him, nor will we send
upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers [“jury trial,” which already
existed — L.N.] or by the law of the land.
That is, the monarch of England, according to Magna Carta, is a protector of liberties.
Well, today, in England, the king or queen has preserved the image of the monarch of the Great Charter.
The fact that English is the main language of the United States (Canada and Australia) has influenced
the political culture of these countries.
In the United States, the role of the parliament is partially played by the Congress, and the role of the
English monarch and his or her prime minister by the U.S. president elected by a majority.
Any American adult, unless medically certified as psychiatrically sick, has the right to elect, and be
elected as, the U.S. president.
One of the demands of the French Revolution — equality — was thus fulfilled in the United States
shortly before the French Revolution.
Unfortunately, the word “equality” is ambiguous. Yes, everyone should be equal before the law.
A U.S. president can be impeached, that is, removed from office for misconduct, and put on trial before
a legislative body. But the word “equal” may also mean that anyone, psychiatrically normal, is equal to
anyone else in his mental ability. This view was a widespread belief not so long ago.

It was assumed (by many socialists, for example) that if everyone had unlimited educational
opportunities, everyone would be equal in mental ability even to someone called genius.
Today, we know that people inherit the seeds of mental abilities, which they may nourish.
If we have a group of randomly picked people, the greater the abilities we seek in them, the fewer people
we will find who possess these abilities, while individuals of genius are great rarities.
France has not faired well with its equality, which was known in France since 1794 as égalité, a word
coined from the Latin word aequalitas.
The French Revolution, with its égalité, ended with Napoleon, a predecessor of Hitler. As emperor,
Napoleon also tried to conquer Russia and also failed.
My "New York Times Almanac" introduces the first U.S. war (1775-1783) as the Revolutionary War.
Period. So it was not just a war against Britain of a British colony for its independence: It was a
revolution against the British monarchy and for the (French) revolutionary égalité, since the U.S.
Revolutionary War was one of the causes of the French Revolution, just as the French culture on the eve
of the French Revolution was one of the causes of the U.S. Revolutionary War against Britain.
In 1940, Hitler routed France with its égalité almost in a month, while the United States was protected
by two oceans reliably enough until the 21st century.

Now, who was Hitler?

In 1934, 90 percent of the population of Germany approved of Hitler in a plebiscite. Why? Because he
was an ignorant fool, and they were “equal” to him, and not to Germans of genius. Equality! Egalité!
After routing France, Hitler did not wait for the production of atom bombs by his atom project, which in
1942 seemed to be ahead of the U.S. atom project, and that would have made him the owner of the
world.
Instead, he spent his resources to conquer Russia in 1941 and was routed because he was even more of
an ignorant fool than Stalin. He shot himself in the mouth.
Incidentally, in 1934, when 90 percent of Germans approved of him in a plebiscite, a number of Hitler’s
(Nazi) rivals like Gregor Strasser were executed without trial, which resembled Stalin’s killing of his
(Marxist, communist, Bolshevik) rivals.
Stalin was a vozhd, the word applied in the Russian text of the Bible to Moses. Hitler named himself
führer, a word that has many meanings in German, including “pilot.”
While Stalin was the "Moses" of Russia, Hitler was the pilot of Germany. But flying where?
In 1934, 90 percent of Germans approved of him in a plebiscite because he, an ignorant fool, promised
to reverse World War I, and they approved of him in 1934 because they believed him, ignorant fools as
they were. Instead of the reversal of World War I, he gave them World War II, with all its deaths and
devastations, and a Soviet colony in eastern Germany and in Berlin.
New Napoleons — Stalin, Hitler, and Mao — were brought to power (that is, to slave ownership) by
millions of ignorant fools due to égalité. And today the danger is that the United States and hence all
the other free countries will become defenseless against the new slave state of China.

So far, England has been avoiding égalité. Yes, finally, in the 20th century, all psychiatrically healthy
inhabitants of the country became voters (universal suffrage). But they elect not the “British president,”
but members of parliament, and then voters within parliament present to the monarch one of its
members, and His or Her Majesty makes this member of Parliament His or Her Prime Minister or
whatever.
The procedure did not keep Tony Blair, who thus became the prime minister in 2001, from participating
in an idiotic venture, a six-year war in Iraq, while neglecting the danger of the dictatorship of China,
with its population of 1.3 billion.
It would be unfair to call George W. Bush just an ignorant fool. He is feeble-minded in the psychiatric
sense, as some data of his biography suggest.
The difference between him and Tony Blair is that while George W. Bush (a Republican) had an
abnormally slow speech (unless he read a prepared note), Blair (of the Labour Party) was an abnormal
chatterbox.
As for the "big Communist Parties," they grew in the 20th century in Russia, France, Italy (after World
War II), China. A "Communist Party" is a nostalgic recall of absolutism, its only content — the rest is
changeable and was a repeatedly changed infantile prattle.
In Germany, the infantile prattle of Marx and Engels, both Germans, was ousted by the infantile
"national-socialist" prattle, another nostalgic recall of absolutism.

China Eyes Globalization to

Achieve Domination

"Hu Jintao Explains 'Why China Loves Globalization'” — this was the title of a summary, in the
Washington magazine Globalist, of Hu Jintao’s speech at the Fortune Global Forum on May 16, 2005.
Well, the word “globalization” has been commonly used in connection with China since 2000. What is
the “globalization” that “China loves”?
Many Americans who never lived in a slave state do not understand it. Jack Guralsky, an American who
later became a friend of mine in Russia, had emigrated to Stalin’s Russia from the United States. He was
intelligent, well-read in classical German philosophy (he spoke and read German), and he taught
himself to play his favorite masterpieces like a professional pianist. But all his perceptions, in the
United States, of Stalin’s Russia proved to be wrong.
An English correspondent in Moscow bought a postcard with a photograph of the chief of the KGB,
published on the chief’s birthday, and as a joke he sent it to his London newspaper, which printed it as
part of English humor.
The correspondent was ordered to leave Russia within 24 hours, while Jack, who once met the
correspondent, spent many years in a “Soviet corrective labor camp.” He was released after Stalin’s
death (in 1953).
“What were you accused of?” I asked him.
“Of having failed to inform the KGB of the English correspondent’s forthcoming joke.”
“Did you know of it in advance?”
“No! And I would not inform them, even if I wanted to, of what I didn’t know.”
“George Orwell described such escapades of the secret thought-police in his '1984,'” I said.
Orwell was a man of genius, and his book was a great success in the West as it was published in 1949.
But not in 2000 to 2009, when Orwell is too much above the U.S. “top academic level.”
The Globalist piece I mentioned, and all such articles about the globalization since 2000, ignore the fact
that the United States is a democracy, while the post-1949 China is a slave state as Orwell described.
You see, Hu Jintao, the chief of the slave state of China, made a speech about why China loves the
globalization, and hence the United States must love it too.
In 2003, The Atlantic Council of the United States published a paper entitled “Globalization of Defense
Industries: China” (this text you can readily find in Yahoo!). This article was originally commissioned by
the Atlantic Council in December 2001 to “consider the process of globalization of the defense
industries of China and other major powers.”

In the 1920s, Russia was not as industrially advanced as the United States and Western Europe.
Therefore, Stalin proclaimed the “industrialization,” which cost many human lives and industrial
resources. Inversely, if the best Western companies take up the development and production of
weapons for China in “The Chinese Defense Industrial Complex (CDIC),” this will make it possible for
the Chinese scientists and technologists to concentrate on secret post-nuclear weapons like molecular
nanoweapons.
The “globalization of the defense industries of China” by the free West is the suicide of the free West for
the sake of enrichment of those of its companies which are or will be involved in the “globalization” of
China.
Nevertheless, for the entry “China globalization,” Yahoo! has received over 30 million responses, but
less than a fraction of 1 percent of them are not pure raptures. One such response (by Chuck Kelly of
OpEdNews) is entitled “China: An object lesson of where globalization is leading us.”

The statement that “millions of Chinese” are quite prosperous would be impressive had it not been
known that the population of China is 1.3 billion, and at least 800 million of them live in poverty that a
Westerner cannot even imagine. Thus Chuck Kelly cites as an example a provincial town Shajing. The
town’s minimum wage is $56 a month; that is, less that $2 a day. However, manager David Liu of the
Ching Hai Electric Works Co. cut his labor force in half, to 1,500 workers, and established a starting
salary of $32 a month — or about $1 a day. Many workers put in 18-hour days due to constant pressure
to boost output.
Due to globalization, Western companies use Chinese workers who cost them no more than slaves in
classical slavery when compared to the United States.
You see, the dictatorship of China is no longer officially believed to be a current or potential military
threat or danger to the free West and is no dictatorship either! Even the Chinese spies sent to the free
West are allies of the free West — globalists. They represent the globe — not the dictatorship of China!
There will also be a greater possibility for Chinese to have scientific and technological “defense” studies
and work in the United States and other developed foreign countries and a greater possibility to invite
to China foreign specialists of genius who have been developing the latest military weapons.
All this will make it possible for China to step up its military growth. Hu Jintao is correct, explaining
that “China” (that is, he himself, first and foremost) “loves globalization.”
Yes, owing to “globalization,” the Western companies are making tremendous profits. Except that when
the democracies have been defeated, those companies will be expropriated, under the chief slave-
owners of the globe, of everything they pocketed due to globalization, and perhaps they will lose their
lives as well.
If the owners of China could in 1989 exterminate by modern weapons the unarmed participants in
peaceful meetings on the Tiananmen Square, who asked for democracy, why cannot the chief world
slave-owner of the globe exterminate all Americans who lived in a democracy?
If the Chinese dictators have been, or recently were, putting to death Chinese for Buddhist exercises
called Falun Gong, why should not the chief slave-owner of the globe put to death all former inhabitants
of the defeated democracies?

Media Pick up on China

Nanotechnology Threat

On May 12, 2009, I received an e-mail from Dr. William Mcintosh, the assistant producer for WELE, a
radio station and Web site in Florida: “Mr. Navrozov — can we interview you regarding the China threat
and nanotechnology?”
I accept all interviews on my key subject: The defense of the democracies against the “new slave
societies” (such as “Soviet” Russia, “National-Socialist” Germany, and “Communist” China) provided I
am interviewed over the telephone or the TV equipment is brought into one of my two studios.
The interview took place on May 14, and its host was Doug Kosarek, who has a strong mind and a very
pleasant voice. Mr. Mcintosh had sent me their written permission to outline the interview for
Newsmax.com and WorldTribune.com.
I wanted first of all to establish for our audience certain undeniable facts that former President George
W. Bush, the CIA, the U.S. Defense Department, and even the major media have been avoiding.

Has the dictatorship of China been developing (molecular) nanoweapons, as Eric Drexler, who
introduced the words “nano” and “nanotechnology,”
described them in his book of 1986? Yes or no?
Here are the articles, written by Chinese military officers and collected by the American sinologist
Michael Pillsbury during his stay in China. The collection is entitled “Chinese Views of Future Warfare.”
The last article in the collection was written by Major Gen. Sun Bailin of China’s Academy of Military
Science and published in the Chinese magazine “National Defense” on June 15, 1996.
The article is entitled “Nano Weapons on Future Battlefields.” I will quote the last sentence of this
article: “‘Nanotechnology’ will certainly become a crucial military technology of the 21st century!”
The host of the program, Doug Kosarek, asked me to describe nanoweapons. I said that molecular
nanoweapons are molecules converted into microscopic flying battle vehicles, complete with computers
and everything necessary to annihilate nuclear bombs, for example. Billions of such virus-like vehicles
make a cloud, moving where ordered and destroying whatever ordered.
This is like bacteriological war, except that bacteria can only infect and thus spread a disease, while the
microscopic "nanobattle" vehicles destroy anything they are programmed to destroy.
Here Doug Kosarek expressed his reassuring confidence that in the United States there is a similar
development of nanoweapons. Yes! But what are the comparative levels of this development in the
United States and China?
Thus we arrived at one of the possible key causes of the possible defeat of the democracies. Their
intelligence/espionage is a century behind the times. They could penetrate the old traditional societies,
and they can penetrate each other. But they cannot penetrate the new "slave states."
One example. In the United States, there are millions of illegals, that is, millions of possible spies. Now,
suppose a U.S. aircraft dropped a spy on the territory of the pre-1991 Russia. He had to live (and sleep!)
in some dwelling, right? But that would require him to get registered in that dwelling, and that would
require his “internal passport,” which could not be forged, since a copy was always kept by the
ubiquitous ordinary police (not the KGB), and a telephone call to the police would reveal that there had
been no police copy of the “internal passport” in question, that is, the “internal passport” was a forgery.

A Chinese dissident living in the U.S. told me how a Chinese nanolab or a workshop is built inside a
mountain rock so that neither its wall nor its floor or ceiling could be drilled to penetrate it.
The CIA does not mention Chinese nanoweapons, since it knows nothing of their development in China
and hence wants everyone to forget about them.
Yet the phenomenal growth of China’s nanotechnology in general is a fact not to be ignored. The British
Guardian carried on March 3 an article entitled “China’s Giant Step Into Nanotech.” It would be absurd
to suppose that an even more giant step has not been taken in China’s development of molecular
nanoweapons.
Well, the new slave states have other military advantages over the democracies, which follow from the
sociopolitical differences between the two.
A new slave state, in peace or at war, is an army at war. Its dictator(s) can (secretly) allocate all human
and physical resources (except the maintenance of the minimum for the rank-and-file majority and
surpluses for the chiefs) to prepare for an attack with post-nuclear weapons and to make all inhabitants
express joy with respect to whatever is done by the dictator(s), that is, their owner(s).
In a democracy, human beings can live for themselves. Their perception of the need for the defense
against a new slave state may be vague, utopian, or nonexistent. They are free to oppose any war or to
extol any new slave state, no matter how dangerous, as well as to help it (under “globalization” for
example) to develop the best nanoweapons, to say nothing of its science and technology in general.

Any strategic advantages of the democracies? Just one — freedom!

Freedom creates genius, and genius created what was fundamentally new, such as the atom bomb,
which grew out of the atomic research that won the Curies the Nobel Prize in 1892.
The democracies are able to use the creativity of genius in freedom to defend themselves. Actually,
though the idea of molecular nano weapons originated between 1959 and 1986, when it was described
by Drexler in his book he published that year, he was ridiculed by producers of commercial
nanoproducts until just a few years ago.
Some of those businessmen feared that the Congress would direct its nano allocations to Drexler’s
research institute and not to them.
In conclusion of the interview, I said, “Well, as you see, it is impossible to cover all the ground in one
interview, and I am not against its sequel. Meanwhile, let’s thank our listeners for their attention.”

China Is Taking Over Africa

When will molecular nanoweapons in China be ready for war? To answer this question, it is useful to
recall the interval between the hypothesis of the atomic bomb at the beginning of the nuclear research
and its realization in 1945 as weapons ready for war.
Marie Curie and her husband, Joliot, received the Nobel Prize in 1903, when Marie was 36. A Russian
poet, her contemporary, wrote: “By an atomic bomb was exploded the world in Curie’s lab.”
But the atomic bomb would not have appeared even in 1945 had not Albert Einstein decided to emigrate
from Germany after he had understood (when listening to the news from Germany while on a visit to
the United States), that anti-Semitism in Germany would not be stopped with Adolf Hitler in power (as
the New York Times assured its readers), but on the contrary might become catastrophic for Jews.
Besides, when Hitler tried to defeat Britain, the United States helped Britain, and Hitler declared war on
the United States, which enabled Roosevelt to make his own presidential decision to launch an atomic
project. Since Hitler was bogged down in Stalin’s Russia, the United States became the first country to
develop atomic bombs. Two of them were dropped in 1945 on Japan, which had attacked the United
States at Pearl Harbor, whereupon Japan surrendered unconditionally, since its nuclear bombs were
not ready for war.

This atomic war was the only modern war of the 20th century. The next modern war may be China’s
attack on the United States with post-nuclear weapons, such as molecular nanoweapons, which Eric
Drexler described in his 1986 book.
If 42 years were to pass between Marie Curie’s Nobel Prize and the real atom bombs, how many years
will have to pass between Drexler’s book and China’s attack on the United States with molecular
nanoweapons?
Meanwhile, China is taking over Africa, which occupies more than one-fifth of the total land of the
globe, and with its billion people accounts for 14.8 percent of the world’s population.
What would have happened if the People’s Liberation Army of China had simply occupied Africa? Then
most Africans would have joined a guerrilla war against China, and some Western countries would have
helped them with weapons. More important, the dictatorship of China would have lost its mask of a
country developing its military might for the sake of progress.

So China is “taking over” Africa without an open all-out war. Before World War II, Africa consisted
mostly of colonies, but the colonial rule began to disappear. For the democracies, the colonial rule
became disgraceful and difficult. And this is how China came in. Her 750,000 state slaves, who have
come to Africa in the past decade as private persons, can well enslave Africans without an open general
war.
On May 1, thisisLondon.co.uk reprinted from the Evening Standard an article entitled “How China Is
Taking Over Africa, And Why the West Should Be VERY Worried.” The article (page 3 of 6 on Yahoo!
May 1) says:
Chinese-made war planes roar through the African sky, bombing opponents, Chinese-made assault
weapons and grenades are being used to fuel countless murderous civil wars, often over the materials
the Chinese are desperate to buy.
Who is waging this war? Oh, no, not any official Chinese military or civilian forces! It is simply that, in
the past 10 years, 750,000 “private” Chinese have come privately to Africa. Can’t a Chinese travel where
he or she chooses? Are you against the freedom of traveling or what?

Robert Mugabe, 84, is an African who says that “the only good white man [that is, neither an African,
nor a Chinese] is a dead white man.”
In contrast to Hitler, who secretly ordered the industrial extermination of Jews after his defeat near
Moscow at the end of 1941 to prevent himself from being betrayed by his subordinates to the Anglo-
Saxons, Mugabe is for a slow bit-by-bit annihilation of whites.
He calls himself the president of Zimbabwe because he plays at democracy in Zimbabwe and hence he,
who owns Zimbabwe as his slave state, must be called the president of this (democratic!) African
country, whose whites are good whites if they are dead.
In June 2008, Human Rights Watch, a New York-based monitoring group, released a 69-page report
that documented the efforts to suppress all resistance to the election of President Mugabe the preceding
March.
Documented results are 36 deaths, 2,000 victims of abuse and torture, and 3,000 displaced
Zimbabweans.
Author Christopher Booker writes: “It may not be surprising that, as befits any mad dictator, President
Mugabe is now the proud owner of a palatial $4.5 million mansion in Harare and a similarly lavish
country hide-away, each fitted with the latest electronic security systems, including anti-aircraft
missiles.”

Mugabe resembles Stalin in his use of the word democracy to describe his slave ownership and his
passion to achieve a 100 percent vote for himself. Of course, Stalin was more effective: All of us had to
vote, for those in charge of the voting had the lists of all voters in their area and their addresses, and
would visit him or her if he or she had not yet come to vote, to remind him or her that the voting was a
noble duty.
Well, Mugabe is still far from Stalin’s electoral perfection. But does he act even today on his own? No!
On Dec. 25, 2008, a Telegraph.co.uk report was entitled “Why Has China Bought Mugabe a Mansion?”
Well, if no one could forbid 750,000 Chinese to come to Africa as private individuals in the past decade,
surely no one can forbid them to build mansions for Africans like Mugabe or give money to them. You
wouldn’t want to abolish human rights, would you?
That is, the dictatorship of China is taking over Africa without any open general war — but just via
“private people” who have come to Africa for their private purposes and happened to be Chinese (that
is, not whites, in Mugabe’s worldview).

Google Power Can Help Freedom

Survive China Threat

Ed Timperlake, a veteran analyst of the China threat and of the defense against it, and Jed Babbin,
former deputy Defense undersecretary, have published a book entitled “Showdown: Why China Wants
War With the United States.” But how many English-speaking men and women have heard of this
book?
In 1999, Timperlake published (with William C. Triplett II) “Red Dragon Rising.” Triplett had more
than 30 years of experience in the field, working on China and national security. I bought this book as
well as “Big Dragon,” which Daniel Burstein and Arne de Keijzer had published during the previous
year. Long before, I had decided that the "China Threat" has replaced the “Russian threat,” and Russia
could become a victim, as it became a victim of Nazi Germany in 1941.
However, for many Americans those books and their authors do not exist because the China threat does
not exist for these Americans.
But Goofigure insists that the authors of “Showdown: Why China Wants War With the United States”
offer “indispensable strategies and tactics for how the U.S. can and must respond to the Chinese
military threat.”

Goofigure’s review of the book is about one page long and is followed by “21 comments,” occupying
more than 30 pages.
One of the “21 Comments” is entitled “Can China Coexist With the U.S.?” An anonymous professor
posted it on 8/19/2007. When reading it, I recognized my column, and at the end, it said this was Lev
Navrozov’s column printed two days before it was posted.
In that column, I explained why the dictatorship of China believes it has to destroy liberty, that is, the
free countries. In the United States, many assume that the dictatorship of China intends to annihilate
the United States only because the dictatorship consists of malicious people or only because the U.S. has
offended them, and all that is necessary for the United States to do is to make up for that offense with
something pleasant to these people.
This is like relations between two neighbors in the United States. Actually, the annihilation of the free
countries is a life-or-death need for the dictatorship of China to avoid being overthrown by a new
Tiananmen. On the Tiananmen Square, the rebels installed a replica of the Statue of Liberty. The recent
anniversary (20 years since the annihilation by modern weapons of an unarmed pro-democracy
demonstration) showed how strong the memories are on both sides. The fact that more than 40 million
Chinese Communists have quit the Chinese Communist Party also points to a possible new Tiananmen.
Let us recall that, in 1991, the Soviet absolutism fell, along with its dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev.

According to the U.S. Secretary of the Navy (as of 2006), “China is building their 600-ship navy,” while
“we’re on the way to a 150-ship Navy.”
Yet, the key danger in China’s attack seems to be nanoweapons.
The next comment on the site is entitled “[Presidential] Candidates Ignore China at Our Peril.” An
anonymous professor also posted this column of mine on the same day, 8/19/2007. This comment also
is acknowledged as my column (of a week earlier than the column above). It is devoted to one of my key
subjects: the mental inadequacy of U.S. presidents and even most presidential candidates. The larger a
group of people is, the lower is the average intelligence of the group. Inversely, genius is unique. How
can about half of American adults elect a president able to save the United States?
The way out is to create a stream of all collectible valuable information on the subject of China threat
and of the defense against it, as Goofigure, powered by Google, did.
I receive e-mails from my readers, one of whom, for example, serves in the U.S. Navy Reserves and “has
experience with the special operations community.” His name is followed by “ACG, CL, CS.” I do not
disclose his name in his e-mail to me of May 31, 2009, since I cannot predict the reaction of his seniors.

Not only does he agree with what I write about nano warfare but also he is “inclined to put
electromagnetic pulse weapons at the top of the list for disabling or destroying the free nations’
infrastructure.” This is how he ends his e-mail:
I came across many materials about how economic and political warfare are being ignored as much if
not more than nano warfare. I enjoy my relative peace and freedom and would like to ensure the same
for my children. Hope you might be able to give me some insight on how to achieve that for them.
In the countries of “new state slavery,” the owners of the state slaves are supposed to take care of them.
The result is obvious. They try to protect their slaves as would the owner of cattle protect his cattle.
However, in a free country like France in 1940, it was believed that the elected top officials must take
care of the defense against a country of new state slavery such as Nazi Germany, while the rank-and-file
citizens of the country were free to devote their freedom entirely to their private lives.
The result? While the war of Germany against France in 1914-1918 lasted for about four years and ended
in the defeat of Germany, the war of Nazi Germany against France in 1940 lasted for a month and a half
(despite the British ground troops in France) and ended in the capitulation of France.

The defense of a free country must not be the exclusive domain of the elected officials but must be a
common concern of free citizens.
Let me stop here fishing my columns in the comments (the last comment also is acknowledged to be my
column). Instead, let me point out how important Goofigure, powered by Google, can be in the rescue of
the free countries from the China dictatorship’s attack with nano weapons (and/or electromagnetic
pulse weapons).
The birth of Google: the year of 1995. In 2001, Google became available in 26 languages, some search
launches offered access to 250 million images, and its index size had grown to 3 billion Web documents.
And so on, up to 2009.
Google can find and juxtapose streams of valuable information pertaining to the survival of the free
countries, endangered by the military slave state of China. Thus, the free countries can ignore this
information less and less. That includes not only their governments and legislative bodies but also their
mass media. The result of this self-enlightenment of the free countries will be their life in freedom.
Google can save the United States and the other free countries through this enlightenment via a
compendium of all streams of relevant information concerning every aspect of the “China threat.”

Understanding True Meaning of Democracy

Even those who misuse the word “democracy” to mean all aspects of “freedom” know that the word
came from ancient Athens, where it meant the political victory of “demos” (common people) over
aristocracy.
Today this suggests the United States, where even the public use of aristocratic titles was dropped, is a
democracy, but not England, where aristocracy exists politically. As England’s official text reads, “The
House of Lords makes laws, holds the Government to account, provides a form of independent expertise
and is the highest court of the land.”
A common belief in the United States that an elected head of government or a member of Congress is
more intelligent than a random normal adult who has voted for them is absurd.
On the contrary, the larger the number of random psychiatrically normal adults who have voted for a
certain individual as the most intelligent person imaginable, the lower is their average intelligence (and
the person they voted for). Albert Einstein was for many years understood by seven people, according to
his count.

Inevitably, when the United States has been mortally endangered for the first time in its history within
the continent between oceans, and between Canada and Mexico, the behavior of its presidents (Bill
Clinton, George W. Bush, and perhaps Barack Obama) and of Congress as a whole has been absurd.
Going from the presidents and Congress to legal justice, I personally experienced how absurd its legal
basics are as being practiced in New York courts.
A New York Russian-language newspaper wrote that from my columns it was clear that I was a Soviet
spy. I sued the newspaper. The judge would not make the newspaper pay a cent for its idiotic libel. What
spy would write in his weekly column that he is a spy? Why was the judge so absurd? Judges are elected,
and the judge would not offend a newspaper that could influence the voters.
In a more audible lawsuit, Golda Meir, prime minister of Israel (1969-1974) sued me for my having
recalled in my columns that she had praised Stalin in the press. The judge made a speech in which he
said that “we,” that is, Jews (assuming that all those present in the courtroom were Jews) must do
everything to help Israel to survive. While my recollection of Golda Meir’s praise of Stalin could once be
useful, it was now harmful to Israel. I wondered what the judge’s decision would be, but the case began
to attract media attention, and Golda Meir ordered her two lawyers to withdraw the lawsuit, which they
did.

The lawyers were another discovery of mine. At that time, I could not afford them. No more than can
most Americans. But are lawyers always better than self-defense? When Golda Meir’s lawyers spoke,
and I answered them, the judge said to me: “I have not seen you before. How long have you been
practicing in New York?”
To my dismay, I learned that unlike New York, many American states did not allow litigants to defend
themselves — they were to be represented by “professional lawyers.”
Were “professional lawyers” so superior to self-defense? Golda Meir was said to have hired the most
expensive law firm in the United States. I will mention one detail. Both sides were to meet a judge on
duty to establish the details of our meeting with our judge.
I came strictly on time to meet the judge on duty, but Golda Meir’s lawyers did not appear, and I
established with the judge on duty all the details of the meeting with “our judge” to my best advantage.

The staircase from the floor where I met the judge on duty went down to the lobby, leading to exit, and
when I was down, I saw Golda Meir’s two lawyers of that most expensive law firm in the United States,
arriving late, as two schoolboys late for school. They began demanding that I go up with them and even
threatened me with legal penalties if I didn’t. I just laughed and proceeded to the exit.
The free countries have survived owing to two factors.
The European free or private enterprise wanted to manufacture as many metal and stone goods as
possible, and that required steel machine tools. Thus, the private enterprise industrialized their
countries, and so they could produce mechanical weapons as well, such as machine guns, which Kipling
regarded as tokens of military victory.
Now, in the Imperial China, the emperors regarded Western industrialization as a vulgarity of inferior
people. Hence Britain routed China in the two 19th-century Opium Wars to make the Chinese abolish
the ban on buying opium, sold in China by British merchants.
The other factor in the survival of the free countries was the location of the most powerful of them, the
United States (see above).
But the 21st-century geostrategy is altogether different. The warfare is becoming global, going across the
oceans and into the space, and molecular nanoweapons are the 21st-century equivalents of the 19th-
century machine-guns and of the 20th-century atom bombs.

In past centuries, the now free countries made a tremendous sociopolitical advance. Millennia of history
lie between them and the “new slave states” like “Soviet” Russia, “Nationalist-Socialist” Germany, and
“Communist” China.
Yet the post-nuclear weapons mean World War III, compared to World War II, which was limited in
weapons of killing and destruction. Besides, Hitler made several stupid suicidal mistakes, and the new
owners of China may avoid them.
The United States and other free countries have little time to develop their societies to an even more
advanced freedom and better able to defend themselves and their freedom owing to greater freedom.
This requires a widespread understanding of the China threat. Let us preach — let us create the biggest
possible audience.
I am looking for the means to create the film about the China dictatorship’s attack on the free countries,
so that a considerable segment of the population of the free countries feel the horror of what will
happen if the present lies, indifference, and betrayal of the free countries by many of their own citizens
continue.

Don't Underestimate China's Goal

of World Domination
More and more Americans have been asserting more and more confidently that “China’s drive for world
domination” is a sheer invention. Some of them use England as an example.
It is true that from 1901-1939, the territory of England accounted for a small percentage of that of the
British Empire into which England had expanded. But then the British Empire disappeared, as did the
word “colony” itself. Why, China has not yet even expanded into the colonial Chinese Empire.
What is crucial in this case is the sociopolitical chasm between the post-1949 China and England. The
territorial expansion of England was not a life-or-death matter for its government. Hence the British
Empire disappeared.
The trouble is that many Americans who were never inhabitants of a country like post-1949 China do
not perceive the width and depth of a sociopolitical chasm between societies as is China today and those
like England.

Part of this fundamental difference is that those who govern England – the Parliament, the King or
Queen, the Prime Minister – are not threatened by Tiananmen-like or other uprisings, and in a global
British Empire they would be no safer than they are now in England.
Those who govern England are safe because the population that they govern is protected against any
victimization by those who govern. In China, those who are in power can kill or torture to death anyone
who is not in power. Practitioners of Falun Gong, a gesture language of good will, were initially shown
to foreigners as Chinese exotica and later were tortured to death.
Owing to the contemporary means of transmission of information, many inhabitants of China are aware
that outside China there are countries whose inhabitants are not slaves owned by those in power and
destroyed by them like flies.
Or consider the fact that there are no general elections in China. Today few inhabitants of any country
believe in Marxism-Leninism, which is the only justification of the advent to power of those in power in
China today or their predecessors. Besides, why do they, and not some others, personify Marxism-
Leninism? Even from this point of view, they are pure impostors.
Many Chinese conclude, because of today’s mass communications of information, that some foreign
countries, condemned by the official propaganda of China, are good, while China is illegal, criminal,
thrown back into slavery.

Unprecedented is the fact that in the past few years, over 54 million Chinese Communists quit the
Chinese Communist Party. In “Soviet” Russia, not a single Communist ever dared challenge the
dictator(s) so fearlessly, which warrants a side note about the strength of the Chinese love of freedom,
contrary to stereotypes outside China.
When the present owners of China came to power, they could have offered a program of self-restraint
(like the English Great Charter of 1215) and be elected. But now their cruelty has lasted for so long and
has been so ruthless that the population will never believe them.
Many Chinese “state slaves” realize that they are living in a “slave state,” while outside China there are
magnificent free societies. The only way for those in power in China to be safe is to annihilate those
enviable societies. Hence the “phenomenal growth of China’s military might” to make the owner(s) of
China the owner(s) of the world.
As China’s military power grows, those Americans who regard China’s drive for world domination as an
invention spread by China-haters receive, in the United States, more and more sympathetic attention.
For what is more reassuring to the free countries than China as a second United States, complete with
the “President of China” (no, not its top slave owner.)?

As for the owners of China, Marxism-Leninism teaches that all countries will be liberated and will
constitute a single Communist Republic of the World. As of 2009, the slave soldiers of the Communist
Republic of China are called “The People’s Liberation Army.” Their sacred goal is to liberate the world.
The Marxist-Leninist basis of the present ideology of China has not been abolished, but it has not been
conspicuous enough to be noticed in the free countries.
The word “appeasement” was applied to the appeasement of National-Socialist Germany, but it has
never been applied to the appeasement of the “People’s Republic of China.” The population of Germany
was too small compared with that of China to hope that any further industrial development would make
it a military giant. In his “Mein Kampf,” Hitler wrote that Germany’s westward thrust during the past
war (WWI) was wrong and should be replaced by the eastward thrust. Indeed, he invaded (instead of
developing his atom bombs) Stalin’s Russia, was routed, and committed suicide.

The owners of China, with its population of 1.3 billion, used as an army in both peace and war, have an
enormous potential to develop China into the world’s most militarily powerful country, complete with
post-nuclear superweapons. The owners of China enjoy excellent relations with the governments of
many free countries, which bless, even if silently, their capitalists who are selling free countries for
Chinese money.
While the free countries enjoy peace or are at war, the post-1949 China is always mobilized as at war,
developing its military potential for the establishment of the Communist Republic of the World.
China’s motivation to own the world is not a matter of their ideology, but their psychology, created by
their justified fear that they might be overthrown by their slaves. For today, no country can be isolated
from the outside world as it could be 1,000 or 5,000 years ago. Let us do everything in our power for the
world not to become the world slave state of China. Let China become part of a world, in which
countries are either free or semi-free and fighting for a fair general election or other components of
freedom.

West Oblivious to China Threat

Why is the West asleep? This is what I was asked by Jonathan Smithson, an Australian of English and
Chinese descent, who sent me a piece from a speech delivered by Chi Haotian, the minister of national
defense of China up to 2004 and a top military analyst today, and published by the dissident Chinese
newspaper The Epoch Times, sold in English in English-speaking countries. The space allocated by The
Epoch Times to Chi consists of 571 entries, and the first entry is summarized as follows: “A leading
Chinese Communist Party official argues for exterminating the population of the United States.”
In Chi’s 12-page speech, which The Epoch Times published on June 6 under the title “WWIII: War Is
Not Far from Us and Is the Midwife of the Chinese Century,” Chi devoted on what is page 2 of The
Epoch Times publication to his demonstration that the Chinese are the superior race to win in WWIII
its right to the “Chinese century.” Says Chi:

“Hitler’s Germany had once bragged that the German race was the most superior race on Earth, but the
fact is, our nation is far superior to the Germans.”
Smithson sent me two e-mails. One contains a piece of Chi’s speech from The Epoch Times. In the
other, Smithson (who has degrees in law and medicine) asks me “Lev — Why is the West asleep?”
The piece of Chi’s speech from The Epoch Times reads:
“We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios,” Chi begins. What are they? (1) China succeeds in the
surprise attack on the United States. (2) China’s attack fails and triggers a retaliation from the U.S. The
result? “More than half of the population of China would perish.”
The conclusion? “Whatever the case may be,” Chi goes on to say, “we can only move forward fearlessly
for the sake of our Party and state and our nation’s future, regardless of the hardships we have to face
and the sacrifices we have to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But
if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone!”
But Chi looks into the future without fear or hesitation. “In any event,” Chi goes on, “we, the Chinese
Communist Party, will never step down from the stage of history!”
So? “In my view, there is another kind of bondage, that is, the fate of our Party is tied up with that of the
whole world. If we, the Chinese Communist Party, are finished, China will be finished, and the world
will be finished.”
Chi is actually kind: “It is indeed brutal to kill one or two [or maybe three?] hundred million
Americans.” You see? “But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which
the Chinese Communist Party leads the world.”
Chi wouldn’t want to kill one, two (or three?) hundred million Americans just for nothing! “We, as
revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths.” There is one “but” though.
“But if history confronts us with a choice between death of Chinese and that of Americans, we’d have to
pick the latter, as for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of
our Party.” Why? “That is because, after all, we are Chinese and members of the Chinese Communist
Party. Since the day we joined the Chinese Communist Party, the Party’s life has always been above all
else!”

It is curious that the “Party,” possessing China and aiming at possessing the world, no matter what
victims, is represented by Chi as an infinitely priceless living being whose “life has always been above all
else.”
We can now answer that question Smithson raises in his e-mail to me: “Lev — Why is the West asleep?”
The Western democracies have survived owing to industrialization, including science and technology
producing ever more effective weapons, up to the nuclear bombs in 1945 by the United States and its
allies. But in the 20th century it also turned out that Stalin’s slave society can also produce no less
effective weapons. And in the first decade of the 21st century here is Chi arguing that China should be
the first to annihilate the U.S., to be on the safe side.
In China, all humans, except the owners of the country, are slaves used as producers or users of
weapons. Now, in the free countries, defense is a matter of will of most citizens. Defense requires money
as well as the people with outstanding military abilities. The Iraq War demonstrated that there were no
such people to lead that war from the beginning, and the initiator of the war, supposedly an adequate
military commander, was an ignorant fool who dragged a war against Sunni, and for Shia, in a small
backward country for six years.

No, Bush was not asleep. As the president and commander in chief, he could not help hearing what Chi
said as the minister of national defense of China about the need to attack the U.S. and exterminate its
population as that of an inferior race. But Bush was not interested. He was absorbed with his own Iraq
war for his own reason(s).
Is the West asleep? On the contrary, the West is wide awake, in its daily hunts for money and the best
bargains, as well as enjoying life in every other way possible. But even purely financial preparations for
war will impose higher taxes, and who wants them of their free will?
In short, the free people of the free countries must do of their own free will what slaves in state slavery
countries do out of fear of ruthless vindication, including torture. Is this possible? Or are we living at the
end of sociopolitical freedom, and mankind will soon be in global slavery forever and ever and anon?

China's Grip on Taiwan Quagmire for U.S.

A friend of mine sent me an article from a Russian newspaper called Independent. The article is entitled
“China Is Preparing for a Big War.”
So far so true. But why a big war and what for?
You see, the United States “enlarges the possibilities of armed forces in this area” (that is, the area of
Taiwan). So, the United States is to blame for China “preparing a big war.” To defend Taiwan. But let us
fetch a bit of history.
In 1949, the government of China (the “Kuomintang”) lost the Chinese Civil War to the Chinese
Communist Party (relying on numberless millions of politically illiterate “proletarians”) and escaped to
Taiwan, which became a multiparty democratic state.
The United States sided with the Kuomintang against the Chinese Communist Party, but all that the
United States could do was to help the Kuomintang flee to Taiwan and then defend Taiwan against the
Chinese “communist” slave owners of China.

As conquerors of old used to say, the military might is the political right. The military victory of the
Chinese Communist Party still proves its “political right” to own Taiwan as well — just as the military
victory of the Russian Communists proved Stalin’s “political right” to rule all of Russia up to his death in
1953.
In his "Capital," Marx taught that the poor are poor because private owners of productive property
(capitalists) pocket the profits, except for a pittance thrown to their workers to survive by.
To check this theory, it was necessary to sum up the capitalists’ profits as against the salaries of
government “directors,” and then calculate how private enterprise is more productive per worker and
per unit of investment than government bureaucracy.
In Russia in 1917 and in China in 1949, there were enough illiterates to support the “economic theory” of
Marx, which was economically illiterate but “philosophically” blown up into several volumes in the
spirit of “classical German philosophy” (in particular, Hegel), to prove that Marx was not an illiterate,
but the greatest thinker that had ever lived.
The “liquidation of capitalism” all over the world will, according to Marx, turn the world into a paradise
on earth, where there will be no money, but everyone will work without pay, “according to his/her
abilities,” and obtain all goods and services for free, “according to his/her needs.”

Marxism has vanished in all countries as a mass theory, since the large reserves of suitable illiterates
have been exhausted. Lenin restored private enterprise under the name “new economic policy,” or
“NEP.” Stalin allowed every “collective farmer” (agricultural slave) to have a family plot of land to grow
vegetables and sell them on a city market. Capitalists in today’s China are useful to the dictatorship, also
because they make it easier to attract foreign capitalists for the growth of the Chinese military power.
Marx took pride in his atheism, and illiterates in Russia and even more so in China were atheists. Today
in backward countries they are inclined to be bigots rather than atheists, and the proud atheism of Marx
will repulse, not attract them.
Why do both China and the United States attach such importance to Taiwan?

A search of “Taiwan” in Yahoo!, yields a Wikipedia article entitled, “Republic of China.” The motivation
to overthrow the Chinese Communist Party in a new Tiananmen uprising is all the stronger, since the
“Republic of China” exists on the scale of Taiwan and may spread throughout China. Keep in mind that
over 54 million Chinese communists have quitted the Chinese Communist Party.
The United States has supported the Republic of China against the Chinese Communist Party, or the
“People’s Republic of China.” If it now betrays the Republic of China, which has become a success on
Taiwan by all standards, who will trust the United States as an ally in the struggle against the Chinese
Communist Party, which is “preparing for a big war” — to crush with post-nuclear weapons not only
Taiwan, but the United States, as Chi Haotian publicly declared when he was the minister of national
defense of the “People’s Republic of China”?
So Taiwan is not just an island which had to belong to the dictatorship of China because before 1949 the
island used to be part of the territory of the Chinese Kuomintang government and hence it had to
belong to the Chinese Communist Party.

The free countries consider Taiwan as the territory of a multiparty democratic state, and sometimes
they call Taiwan “Republic of China,” that is, the future multiparty state all over China. How can the
dictatorship of China tolerate this when the Tiananmen call for freedom was echoed on its recent
anniversary (20 years), but the dictatorship and/or troops did not dare to use weapons, as they had
done 20 years ago?
Yes, the multiparty democratic state of the “Republic of China” (Taiwan) could also be voted for by a
majority in China. The present owners of China understand this, and hence the “big war” they are
preparing.
It may seem that the sociopolitical order of China is based on the “revolutionary ideology of 1949.”
Actually, this sociopolitical order has been based on one rule: to preserve the ownership of China for the
owners of the “People’s Republic of China,” these owners are planning to capture the rest of the world as
well.
Their ownership of the world is the only reliable way to own, in particular, Taiwan and the rest of the
“People’s Republic of China” as the “People’s Republic of the World.”

China's Plans for World

Domination Evolving

Marx and Lenin were writers of thick books about the “proletarian ideology,” and in the spirit of
German philosophy. Though Stalin was a Georgian who barely spoke Russian, he also wanted to be a
Western intellectual. Mao Zedong was born in a peasant family and his “peasant bias” remained after
he, at age 73, staged a determined attempt to reimbue the entire communist party with pristine
militancy by pitting youthful “Red Guards” as well as army units against “the party hierarchy.”
In Russia, just as in the West, there was a chasm between “serious” (classical) culture and “pop.”
According to the Russian communists, who came to power in 1917 as a result of an armed uprising, the
pop culture originated because the poor had been deprived of serious culture.
The first national radio station in Soviet Russia was constructed as an electrical network, supplying
every Soviet family with small loudspeakers installed in every household. The radio station transmitted
only classical music and other elements of “serious” culture. The trouble was that possibly only a
fraction of 1 percent of the population would listen to such programs, and the station had to finally
introduce some pop in the expectation that the audience would some day become 100 percent serious.

The Soviet communist connection with classical Russian culture ensured an audience in the West for
such “Soviet composers,” inherited from old Russia like Shostakovich and Prokofiev. At the same time,
the Soviet forcible indoctrination distorted creative minds into dead stereotypes, paralyzed by the fear
of being annihilated.
The Russian communists expected that the world would become communist the same way Russia did.
After WWII one quarter of the French voters and one third of the Italian voters voted communist, to say
nothing of the countries of eastern Europe, which became “people’s democracies” after Stalin’s march
into Europe following his victory over Hitler’s invasion.
Before the mid-1930s, every inhabitant of Soviet Russia had to be a Marxist-Leninist. He or she had to
know as the ultimate truth that the essence of life could only be cognized scientifically, the way it was by
Marx and Lenin (neither of whom was a scientist). Later Stalin began to introduce Russian nationalism,
which ousted more and more “dialectical materialism.” Finally, the Soviet state hymn “The
Internationale” was replaced by a hymn that glorified the ancient “great Rus” for “putting together to
last forever our union of free republics.”

After Stalin died, his dismissed subordinates told me that Stalin had planned to exterminate Jews and
to introduce the Orthodox Christianity with himself as God.
Now, the owners of China realize that, to begin with, no country in the last 10 or 20 years has had a
communist movement large enough to stage a coup as in Russia in 1917 or in China in 1949. Hence, in
contrast to Soviet communists before the mid-1930s, their Chinese counterparts expect to attain their
world power not through the communist uprisings but through world wars of “liberation.”
The population of Russia today is 150 million. It took Stalin about four years to defeat the invasion of
Hitler’s Germany. The population of Russia had been too small for the owners of the country to think in
terms of a victorious world war.
On the other hand, China’s population of 1.3 billion opens a way to a victorious world war, with post-
nuclear super weapons — especially if the free countries behave as did France in 1940. Despite the
British defending it, France was conquered by Germany within 1½ months, while in 1914-1918
Germany’s war against France lasted for about four years, and Germany was defeated.

The owners of China need not “serious communists.” As for the respect for “serious communism” in
China, it is no doubt relevant that over 54 million Chinese communists have quit the Chinese
Communist Party.
Rather, the owners of China need armed forces able to win “world wars” against the free countries.
Stalin needed “serious communists” as long as he hoped that communist parties would take over many
countries, unite them, and create a communist world (with Stalin at its head no doubt).
But this hope was going away with every passing decade. So the owners of China no longer need
“serious communists” as much as they need world warriors able to develop, produce, and use post-
nuclear weapons to win a world war against the free countries.
Forcible indoctrination of the Chinese world warriors? They don’t need it to the same degree Stalin
needed the forcible indoctrination of his communists. These Chinese warriors are under the severest
military discipline. They know that any deviation from an order would mean a ruthless death. Not a
single case has been known of the Chinese warriors’ resistance. In the Tiananmen Square case, the
warriors annihilated with modern weapons unarmed spokesmen for freedom and against slavery.

Lenin’s slaves were able to repeat “Marxist-Leninist conclusions from the facts” and to persuade their
equals that the conclusions were correct. The Chinese world warriors are to obey orders for the
extermination of the enemy and make their subordinates obey them. The Chinese war theorists see
wars, and in particular a world war, as machines made out of many machines, some of which still have
to be made out of humans.
In other words, the final ideology of the owners of China has arrived in a magnificent period in which
humans will be slaves — to do what machines cannot yet do.
Also, there has been a trend in Western aristocratic culture to regard a war as a kind of duel, in which
certain actions are forbidden as insufficiently fair or noble. The title of the book, “Unrestricted
Warfare,” written by two Chinese officers and published in 1999 by PLA Literature and Arts Publishing
House in Beijing suggests an end to this trend in China.
General Chi Haotian (between 1993 and 2003 the Minister of National Defense) spoke publicly about
the extermination of the civilian population of the United States by biological weapons though they
were stopped to be used even at the front and were not used either by Hitler or Stalin in any war.

China's Math, Science Advances an

Ominous Sign

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States projected to
June 16 of this year is 306,683,932. What are they doing? If there is a source of money able to pay for a
certain employment, a relevant number of resident Americans are employed, regardless of whether the
money comes from a private source or the U.S. government.
Socio-politically, post-1949 China can be compared to the nomadic tribe of the Huns under Attila (who
“had the power of life and death over his human beings and some of them regarded him as [a] God,”
especially “after he had murdered his brother Bleda c. 445”).
It was estimated in July 2008 that the population of China was 1.33 billion. How is it employed? In war
or in peace, this population is an army (1) producing what is necessary for itself to remain alive and be
physically fit, (2) developing the world’s newest and most destructive weapons, and (3) fighting,
whenever ordered, with such weapons. Any other employment is paid for by foreign employers, finding
it much cheaper to employ Chinese rather than natives in their own countries.

Such is geostrategic quantity of China’s human reservoir. Let us take a look at its geostrategic quality.
I have received an e-mail from David Schaub, whose colleague, Daniel Rose, at his office had sent him
current news about a “US National Security Agency, supporting international competition in a wide
range, from writing algorithms to destroying components.” These are the data on the contest. About
4,200 people participated: “20 of the 70 finalists were from China, 10 from Russia, and 2 from the U.S.”
So, in a contest supported by a U.S. agency, the Chinese accounted for about one-third of finalists, and
the Americans for one-thirty-fifth.
Rose speaks of the importance China puts on mathematics and science education. “We do the same
thing with athletics here that they do with mathematics and science there.” Well, athletics do not play in
war in the 21st century the same role as do mathematics and science.

Let us borrow the word “diversionist” from WWI and WWII. Sent across the border into the enemy
hinterland was a diversionist, who organized some catastrophe in an enemy rear, “diverting” an enemy.
Today technology has removed many difficulties connected with diversionism. When people talk about
“botnets,” they are talking about a group of computers infected with the malicious kind of robot
software — the bots that “divert” the operation of computers.
The second “news link,” which Rose sent to Schaub, says:
The Chinese government is mandating that all computers sold in China come with Internet blocking
software. . . . This new software may create an opportunity for the Chinese Government to appropriate
these computers and use them to create the world’s largest botnet army.
Well, technological diversions are possible not only in armor, but also in aircraft, rocketry, space war,
and whatever else.

Let us now switch back to the 20 Chinese finalists as against the two finalists from the U.S. in Rose’s
“news link.”
The proportion of the population of China to that of the U.S. is about 4 to1, and that of their finalists in
mathematics and science is 10 to1. The owners of China may possibly raise the proportion to 20 to 1 or
50 to 1 or 100 to 1 by squeezing all money out of the professions of close-to-zero importance for warfare
today (such as athletics) and channeling all the resources into professions of maximum importance for
warfare today.
The unexpectedness of emergence of China as a world superpower is understandable. Before this
geostrategic growth of China in the 21st century, the countries of the world were divided into
“advanced” and “backward,” the key to the division being their industrial-scientific development versus
the absence of it. An “advanced” country defeated a “backward” one.
Britain won two wars against China to make it stop preventing the British sale of opium to the Chinese.
China would have been thought to remain a backward country for another 5,000 years, when something
unprecedented happened. Owing to its huge population, China was becoming a developed country
whose minister of national defense between 1993 and 2003 (Chi Haotian) began to declare that China
should strike the U.S. first and exterminate one-third or two-thirds of its population in order to prevent
the U.S. from being the first to attack the Chinese, a race, according to Haotian, superior to the
Germans, whom Hitler once considered the superior race.

I was horrified as I read all these official top Chinese declarations, certainly accessible to many
Americans in the U.S. government and Congress as well as in the media. Have these Americans gone
deaf or are they already scared to antagonize such a powerful enemy and have thus surrendered their
country and its allies with the least danger to themselves?
Can’t they imagine a battle space in which the Chinese specialists in mathematics and other fields of
science will outnumber at least 10 times their American counterparts of the same level, while American
athletics will be irrelevant?

Political Gangs Now Taking Hold in

China

Those who seized absolute power in Russia in the autumn of 1917 called it “Soviet” Russia, though the
Russian word “Soviet” means “council,” a word that had been used in every country.
More specific to the event was the ban, at the behest of Karl Marx, of private enterprise, to stop the
“enrichment of private entrepreneurs at the expense of their employees.”
Marx or Vladimir Lenin ought to have calculated how efficient private enterprise is compared with
bureaucracy. But they didn’t. So, when Lenin “abolished capitalism,” the ensuing poverty was such that
he “returned to capitalism?” Oh, no. Instead, he called his return to capitalism a “New Economic
Policy.” Everything Lenin did was new. Capitalism was also new — it was his new economic policy! The
color red, which had symbolized a fiery and bloody uprising of employees of private enterprise against
private entrepreneurs, remained under Lenin’s “new economic policy” and thereafter.
Meanwhile, Germany, a geostrategic neighbor of Russia, could not cope with the consequences of WWI,
including the reparations and disarmament of Germany by her victorious war enemies. Hitler came to
power in 1933, proclaiming the Germans to be the superior race of mankind. They were “exploited by
inferior races,” and “national socialism” was to protect them.

In the 1930s, Josef Stalin began his industrialization, that is, his creation of the armament industry,
which did not need Lenin’s capitalism, since a survival minimum of food and of some consumer goods
was being produced by Stalin’s super-capitalist monopoly.
Since the mid-1930s, Marxism-Leninism in “Soviet” Russia was being replaced by Russian nationalism,
and on the first day of Hitler’s attack the war came to be called the War for Fatherland, and at the end of
the war the “Internationale” was replaced by a hymn that said that the great Rus put the country
together forever.
Hitler’s defeat in his war with Stalin had nothing to do with capitalism, national socialism, communism,
or any other such fantasies.
Hitler rejected espionage as unworthy of a noble warrior of the superior race. As a result, he did not
know that Moscow was undefended late in 1941 and was waiting for the Far-Eastern and Siberian
troops. So Hitler’s army swarmed outside Moscow until those troops came and routed the German
troops.
Some English-speaking biographers of Hitler represent his extermination of Jews as psychopathology
and hence Hitler as a psychopath. Actually, after his defeat at Moscow, Hitler was scared his
subordinates would betray him to the “Anglo-Saxons,” and he gave a secret order to his subordinates to
begin the extermination of Jews without mentioning him. His name was so successfully concealed that
recently a British biographer of Hitler announced that Hitler knew nothing about the extermination of
Jews.

Those biographers of Hitler who continue to believe in Hitler’s extermination of Jews as his
psychopathology should answer why Hitler ordered extermination of Jews so late, and not earlier, and
why the testimonies of Jews, such as Hitler’s Jewish doctor and his family (who with Hitler’s help
emigrated to the United States), described in the American press how nice Hitler was to the doctor and
his family.
To safeguard himself in case his subordinates decided to betray him to the “Anglo-Saxons,” Hitler put to
death about 6 million people who were Jews. Having invaded Russia, he also ruthlessly doomed to
death dozens of millions of Russians and Germans. The cause of the horrible slaughter of Jews was not
Hitler’s “psychopathology,” but the total absence of legal protection of the individual, which allowed an
absolute upstart dictator like Hitler to commit any mass crimes of extermination of innocent people in
peace or by global war.

In Stalin’s time, Moscow was not just the capital, but it ruled the country as the human brain rules the
body. Hitler’s retreat from Moscow meant his defeat in the war and his suicide in 1945 by shooting
himself in the mouth.
The advent of Mao to the slave-ownership of China was similar to that of Lenin in Russia. But it was
1949, not 1917. It was clear in 1949 that the advent of Mao to absolute power was not a world revolution,
but a coup in a country in which “proletarians” vastly predominated. Besides, while for Lenin, Marx
meant the depth of German “love of wisdom,” the profoundest “love of wisdom” for China came from its
own 5,000 years of history. Chi Haotian, who was the minister of national defense of China from 1995
to 2003, began to proclaim that the Chinese, not the Germans, are the superior race that would lead the
world after China’s annihilation of the United States by China’s new weapons.
So, Marxism has been replaced by Nazism in “communist” China.
Above, I concentrated on the fickle differences between the fickle “ideologies” of the three samples of
return in the 20th century to slavery, in which slaves belonged not to “private” serf-owners, but to a
single countrywide system of slave-ownership.
Nothing is simpler than the origin of such a system. Criminal and political gangs originate because a
gang is stronger than a single independent person. A political gang thus becomes the most powerful
force in the country as its “government” or “state,” with its “police” (including “secret police”),
protecting it.

The rest are temporary fantasies of the gang allegedly defending the poor against the rich, or the
superior race (such as the Germans or the Chinese) against its inferior enemies.
However, the enslaved population threatens the political gang with uprisings, and hence the gang’s
supreme dream is to achieve world domination, which demands the maximum use of all resources for
the utmost militarization. On the other hand, a gang may attack any country, as Hitler attacked Stalin’s
Russia, and “declared war” after the attack and in violation of the Hitler-Stalin peace treaty. A political
gang may plunge mankind into a (world) gang war.
For a while, in the 20th century, it seemed that gangs and gangsters (in the criminal sense) were to
vanish. Law and order seemed to be taking over the free world. But the political gangs, as
“governments,” in Russia, Germany, and China showed that the political gangs are far worse than
criminal gangs, since one political gang may hold in its absolute power an entire big country with its
global military possibilities. So the future may be more fatal, or at least more dangerous today, given the
post-nuclear weapons, than it was a century ago.
Obama Joins Bush in Ignoring
China Threat

What made President George W. Bush dangerous to the United States was not only that he spent,
according to Yahoo! (7/21/2009), “twelve years” [sic] (including his eight-year presidency) “on an
undeclared war against Iraq” — “to gain control of Iraq’s huge oil reserves.”
The danger of Bush to the U.S. was not just his idiotic lost war for oil, but his mind capable only of such
idiocies.
As Bush was preparing his undeclared war for Iraq’s oil, Chi Haotian, China’s minister of national
defense from 1995 to 2003, delivered long speeches to prove that China should be the first to attack the
U.S. with biological weapons to reduce its civilian population by one-third or two-thirds in order to
prevent an attack on China by the U.S. Certainly such speeches were, or could have been, brought to
Bush’s attention. But Bush was too busy with his undeclared war for Iraq’s oil to pay attention to
China’s military threats.

Bush later received, with whatever pomp he could, top Chinese officials when a Chinese lady sneaked in
and shouted that the rulers of China should stop torturing to death the participants of Falun Gong
mimic games (which originally had been introduced by the owners of China to foreigners as Chinese
exotica).
While Bush was fighting with Iraq for its oil, the owners of China were developing their global post-
nuclear military might. In comparison, Iraq was a bedbug.
John Stuart Mill was born in London in 1806. He did not attend even school, let alone college. Why?
Because he was a man of genius, as was recognized in the 19th and 20th centuries in England and other
domains of culture. As Mill argues in his book “On Liberty,” “persons of genius” cannot exist without
unlimited liberty he describes. The opposite of genius is “a mass, that is to say, collective mediocrity.”
But what if a member of collective mediocrity wants to be a thinker or a scholar? Nowadays the recipe is
“university or college education.” Bush graduated from Yale, “near the bottom of his class,” as Kitty
Kelley puts it in “The Family” (Doubleday, 2004, page 253).

In England, there has been no “president elected by majority of voters.” Voters elect a Parliament,
which presents a candidate for the prime minister to the King or Queen for endorsement. In the U.S.,
Bush was elected by a majority of voters, not a single one of whom had possibly even heard of Chi
Haotian.
So, taking advantage of this “collective mediocrity” — or “collective illiteracy” — the president was busy,
as Yahoo! puts it, “to gain control of Iraq’s huge oil resources.” Bush gained no control of them, and
during his last visit to Iraq, a pair of shoes was thrown at him by an Iraqi journalist as an expression of
scorn.

Published on Jan. 20 was the inaugural address of Barack Obama, the next (44th) U.S. president.
In the very first paragraph of his inaugural address, Obama says: “I thank President Bush for his service
to our nation. . .”
Mill’s book inevitably comes to mind again. What is the U.S. president? Is he a genius, revealing truths,
or is he a “collective mediocrity”? When this became fashionable, Obama began to blame Bush for Iraq.
Now, after “the generosity and cooperation he [Bush] has shown throughout this transition” [from
Bush’s to Obama’s presidency], Obama, in the first paragraph of his Inaugural Address, thanked Bush
“for his service to our nation.”
Obama could have obtained copies of Haotian’s speech and other such official Chinese presentations,
but in his inaugural address he never mentioned China.
Instead, Obama begins the defense part of his inaugural address as follows: “As for our common
defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.”

On July 27, more than half-a-year after Obama’s address, Yahoo! published a report on Obama’s two-
day meeting in Washington with Chinese top officials. The title of the report quotes Obama: “Obama:
U.S.-China Relations to Shape 21st Century.”
“I believe that we are poised to make steady progress in some of the most important issues of our
times,” Obama told diplomats from both countries assembled in a vast hall.
So, this is not the “choice between our safety and our ideals.” This is both safety and ideals.
Coincidentally, Yahoo! published on the same date an article, carried by “Indian Defense Review” and
entitled “Is Nazi China Emerging?”
But why not ally with Nazi China, as some Western statesmen tried to ally with Nazi Germany?
Everything Obama said about China at his two-day meeting with top Chinese officials could be said
about Nazi Germany before or during the Munich agreement.

Obama's Hope for China

Partnership Shows Naivety

In my column of Aug. 6, I described a two-day meeting in Washington that President Barack Obama
hosted for Chinese top officials, at which he addressed diplomats and correspondents from both
countries. Obama announced that “U.S.-China relations will shape the 21st century.” Or: “I believe that
[the U.S. and the People’s Republic of China] are poised to make steady progress in some of the most
important issues of our times.”
Was the meeting a happy accident? The Jamestown Foundation sends me its interesting periodical
reports (in particular, from China), and the report of Feb. 20 (only a month after Obama was sworn into
office) starts as follows:
“Beijing has unleashed an unprecedented diplomatic blitz. . . . For the first time, both Chinese State
President Hu Jintao and Vice President Xi Jinping were on trips abroad earlier this month. . . .”

So the U.S. and the People’s Republic of China will be helping each other and the rest of the world to
“make steady progress in some of the most important issues of our time.”
Coincidentally, on July 29, I saw Obama on CNN explaining the innovations he proposes in American
healthcare.
The principle of healthcare in ancient Athens or in the U.S. today is basically the same. An Athenian is
ill and sees a doctor of her or his choice. In countries such as post-1949 China, those who actually own
the country determine who will be treated medically by whom.
Since Obama expects the “partnership” between the U.S. and China to help each other and the rest of
the world to “make steady progress in some of the most important issues of our time” (such as
healthcare), it is appropriate to ask whether Obama understands how different post-1949 China is from
the U.S.
The goal of the owners of China is to cure sick people at a cost lower than their scientific, technological,
and hence military value to the owners of China. Such people, highly valuable to the owners of China,
are few. Most people are replaceable. Mao used to say that if 400 million Chinese die in the fight for
communism, the survivors will be able to build communism.
The goal of the owners of China is to become the owners of the world. If they do, they will be at the peak
of their power, glory, and wealth, and their children will follow suit. If they fail, they may be killed, as
they killed. . . . About a decade ago, the owners of China showed the Falun Gong practitioners as
Chinese exotica. But then the owners of China decided that they should be put to death.

The only way for the owners of China to own the world is to put to death the U.S. before the latter does
this to the People’s Republic of China (see the declarations to this effect by General Chi Haotian, the
minister of national defense of China from 1995 to 2003).
The owners of China will gain a lot from China and the U.S. being “partners.”
This is why the owners of China are so eager for “partnership” between the U.S. and China, which that
same Chi Haotian extolled as a country populated by a race superior to the German Nazis.
While the “partnership” with the U.S. (which is, after all, a democracy, not a slave state) will add
enormous prestige to China, will this “partnership” gain the U.S. any prestige of the outside world?

Read what Obama has been saying. He may have a sharp sense of how a medical service is and should
be paid for. On the other hand, he possibly has never ever heard that Mao and Stalin killed (counting
them together) one hundred million people without any legal formalities. But to the sociopolitically
mature section of mankind, it is of paramount importance whether everyone in a country under
discussion has legal defense or whether any number of its inhabitants can be killed by the owners of the
country like so many flies.
In front of me is the prepared statement of C. Richard D’Amato, chairman of the U.S.-China Economic
and Security Review Commission, before the Canada Institute, at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars on June 10, 2005.
In the first paragraph of this 12-page speech, we learn that “China rise accelerates from a backward
third-world nation — which was its status only half a century ago — to a world economic and political
super-power.”
This reflects a common attitude, according to which all countries are divided into “backward third-
world nations” and “economic and political superpowers.” Even after the appearance of Stalin’s Russia
and Hitler’s Germany, it was not generally understood that a country may be a military (and hence
economic, scientific, and technological) superpower, but its inhabitants may have human rights no
more than did the slaves owned by some governments thousands of years ago.

As of 1933, Germany was no less developed than England economically, scientifically, and
technologically. Yet its human rights were gone. Politically, it was a slave state of antiquity, and Jews
disappeared in it as could “aliens” in an ancient autocracy, while the German science and technology
merely helped to accelerate the mass murder.
In other words, China’s rulers’ perception of Obama and the U.S. is realistic: The “partnership” between
Obama and China is necessary for China’s rulers to demolish the U.S., the need for which Haotian so
ruthlessly proclaimed years ago. Now, Obama’s view of this “partnership” is an infantile utopia, based
on his childish ignorance of what the People’s Republic of China is.

Is the West Smart Enough to

Survive This Century?
By way of propaganda, in the early 1970s, the “Soviet Union” permitted several thousand of its
inhabitants to emigrate (“You see how free our country is? Here is the emigration!”).
I emigrated (with my family) to the United States because this is the most powerful of the free countries,
and hence most capable of survival, defending freedom anywhere in the world.
As far as freedom in the U.S. is concerned, I am not disappointed. Since the day of my arrival, I have
been writing and publishing what I have wanted. But will the U.S. be able to survive and defend
freedom anywhere in the world?
America achieved independence as a result of the war with England. The latter stopped the war, since in
the 18th century it was impossible to deliver enough timely supplies to the British army across the
Atlantic. Ironically, the Atlantic and the Pacific have defended the U.S. in the 19th and 20th centuries as
well.

Canada is not independent — it is part of the Commonwealth of Nations. But it is as free as the United
States.
I still remember my surprise when I saw engravings and cartoons of America at the time of its struggle
for independence, with this inscription in the middle of them: “The American Revolution. So it was a
revolution! Against a British autocracy? So Britain remains a pre-revolutionary autocracy!”
Here is a text from the Britannica article (volume 5, 750) about a British official who recommended
Winston Churchill, who described Nazi Germany as a mortal danger without any compromise or
reservation.
“On May 10, 1940, with the news of the German invasion of the Low Countries, [Neville] Chamberlain
[the Prime Minister], resigned . . . Chamberlain advised the king to call Churchill to be prime minister.”
Possibly, this appointment of Churchill influenced Hitler in his decision to switch his war from Western
Europe to the invasion of Stalin’s Russia (Hitler was routed and committed suicide).
In the U.S., the president is elected by a majority of all psychiatrically normal adults who want to vote
for him. Thus, President Barack Obama was elected possibly because those who favored his healthcare
program constituted sufficiently many extra voters for him (while my neighbor called it scornfully
“socialism”).
In any case, possibly none of those who voted for Obama, least of all Obama himself, have spoken about
the “People’s Republic of China” the way Churchill spoke about “National-Socialist Germany.”

So instead of the American Churchill of today to oversee the survival of the U.S., elected was a young
man who called the U.S. a “partner” of the “People’s Republic of China,” which killed several times more
people without any legal process than did Hitler’s “National-Socialist Germany.”
The expected Obama“revolution,” evidently to change the constitution, possibly aims ultimately at
absolutism inside the U.S. with him as the permanent dictator, subservient to the “People’s Republic of
China.”
Here is another important fact in the survival of a country versus its non-survival or death:
I do not know of a single American who has heard of Chi Haotian, the minister of national defense of
China up to 2003 (he is now 80 years old), who has read his explanations as to why China should
annihilate the U.S. and lead the world before the U.S. tries (of which Chi was convinced) to annihilate
China.
What about the U.S. universities, which produce more professors and other degreed graduates per one
million inhabitants than the universities of any other country?

In 1987, Allan Bloom, a “professor of social thought” of the University of Chicago, published a 392-page
book entitled “The Closing of the American Mind” and subtitled “How Higher Education Has Failed
Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students”.
My question is: If this is what higher education in the U.S. has been doing, how is Bloom or his books or
his University of Chicago different and why?
Social thought or any other thought may be a thought of a person of genius or a cliché.
My uncle Yakov Mints used to publish in Russian and in French a magazine entitled “Genius and
Insanity”. According to the studies in the magazine, no one except another genius can tell the difference
between genius and insanity, since both may be equally beyond the understanding of anyone except
another genius. Let us recall Einstein (1879-1955). Who understood his thought, when he expressed it,
that there is no time in general, since every point of space has its own time?
It might also be relevant to note that it was Einstein who drew the attention of President Franklin
Roosevelt in 1939 to the probability of the production of nuclear bombs by Nazi Germany.

What if Hitler was smart enough first to produce (secretly) atom bombs and then attack England, the
U.S., and Russia. They would have surrendered, as did Japan to the U.S. after the latter’s nuclear strike.
But how has Bloom contributed to the “opening of the American mind” and has otherwise been the
opposite of today’s American “higher education” he criticizes in his book? Displayed on the first
(unnumbered) front matter page are the titles of his own four books. The first book is Plato’s “Republic”
(translation and editing), the second book is the translation and editing of “Politics and the Arts:
Rousseau’s Letter to d’Alembert”, the third book is the translation and editing of Rousseau’s “Emile”,
and the fourth, “Shakespeare’s Politics”. Is this not “academic education” at its most conventional, trite,
and belated?
Predictably, I have on my shelves “The Republic of Plato”, translated by Francis Cornford (Trinity
College, Cambridge), and published by the Oxford Universitiy Press in 1941, 1945, and 1973. So what
should a reader like me do? To read Bloom’s translation, as superior to Cornford’s? What if I found
Plato’s book of little interest despite all the worship of him in Western “academic education” for many
centuries?

Beware of Outer Space as 21st Century Battlefiield

History shows that many nations existed autonomously. And since many were island
nations, they were further cut off from mainland nations.
Later water became a new war environment. Hitler could not invade England, since the English navy
was too powerful. So he invaded Russia (and was routed on its vast land expanses).
About half a century ago the outer space opened, beyond the atmosphere and stratosphere. Aircraft can
fly and fight only where is “air.” Space rocketry and satellites can move in outer space.
Hitler could not send Germany’s air force to bomb the United States the way he bombed England. No
aircraft could carry enough fuel to cross the Atlantic, fight over the U.S., and fly back. But in space,
everything is possible. Satellites can fly around the globe for the same reason the Earth revolves around
the sun.

In short, the space war is possible, since the owners of China believe that this is the best war to
annihilate the U.S.and thus become the owners of the world, as was predicted several years ago by Chi
Haotian, who is now 80 years old, but who was the minister of national defense of China up to 2003.
America has to defend itself against China’s space war, since the outer space spreads above every
country, including the U.S. The division of the outer space into areas will not prevent a country such as
China from violating the borders of these areas.
A lot of legal and government paper has been used in the past decades to conclude outer space
agreements.
In the democratic countries, it has often been assumed (even with respect to Hitler’s invasions) that
wars originate from misunderstanding, and present or potential totalitarian aggressors can be
persuaded to keep peace. Hence many savants in the democratic West wouldn’t hear what Haotian said.
The Chinese newspaper The China Post, published in English, carried an article entitled “Chinese
Officer Predicts Weapons in Space” ( seeYahoo!). The senior officer named Yao, “who directs the Asia-
Pacific Office at the Academy of Military Science in Beijing,” proves to be a woman. Of course! Let
people elsewhere know about the scrupulous equality between men and women in the new China. Says
Yao: “My wish is we really want to keep space as a peaceful place for human beings.” Of course! Let the
English-speaking all over the world see how advanced she is, thinking above all about “human beings.”

Shouldn’t she appeal to the like-minded people and complain to the government? Oh, no. “The
government and the party” cannot be wrong, and to complain in this case would be treasonable.
Said Yao: “But personally, I am pessimistic about it [the consensus]. My prediction: Outer space is going
to be weaponized in our lifetime.”
So it looks like a predicted fate. There has been no one in China to speak publicly for the weaponization
of outer space. But this is what will happen “in our lifetime.”

For the owners of China, the advantage of the space war is that it is new to all countries. The “advanced
countries” had many years to develop tanks and aviation for World War I, then two decades to develop
them between WWI and WWII, and six decades to continue to develop them between 1945 and today.
As for the space war, China and the U.S. “began from the beginning.” The owners of China fight for their
world domination as per Haotian, and the U.S. is against it.
But in the 21st century, China and the U.S. began even some space war exchanges. The space war is on.
Who will win it? What is clear is that President Barack Obama has been siding with the enemy when he
proclaimed that “the U.S.-China relations” will “shape the 21st century,” and the U.S. and China “are
poised to make steady progress in some of the most important issues of our time.”
On Aug. 8 I requested Yahoo! to search “China’s space and global weaponry,” and I received 271,000
descriptions of such weapons.
Ram Narayanan, a journalist and the head of the “U.S.-India Friendship,” has sent me an article
published by John Lee in “Foreign Policy Magazine” of July 28. “When it comes to U.S.-China policy,”
writes Lee, “Washington is broadly separated into the ‘functionalists’ and the ‘strategists.’ ” The wisdom
of the article can be presented in straight terms as follows. It is wrong to identify the interests of every
citizen with those of his country. The “functionalists” are often motivated by wealth. Some are ready to
sell the U. S. to China. Nothing new. Obama is ready to serve them as a “partner” of the “People’s
Republic of China.” Well, many who voted for him were motivated by their desire to avoid poverty. Why
not help those who are motivated by wealth?

The “strategists” are worried that China will defeat the U.S. in the space war, to begin with.
An ocean borders with a country only at its shore. The outer space spreads all over, and space weapons
can be positioned over any country.
As China plots to control the world, it is worth remembering its annual output of steel exceeds that of
the U.S. many times over.

U.S. Voters Show Little Intelligence

in Electing Obama
Are all people born mentally equal?
Yes, said the French revolutionaries, introducing the French word égalité — “being no worse than
anyone else.” Children are born mentally equal (égalité), but if they are born to aristocrats, they receive
education and seem mentally superior, while if their parents are commoners, they may be unable to give
their child any education, and he or she does physical work.
Some Americans regarded independence from England not as Canada (which is not independent) does,
but as a revolution against the English monarchy, similar to the French revolution against the French
king, who was executed.
On May 10, 1940, England was endangered more than at any time in its modern history. (Just six
months later came the first all-Nazi blitzkrieg of Coventry.) Before, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain
believed that Hitler had been appeased. But he was not. It had been generally believed that wars are
never conquests, but only quarrels, and it is possible to appease the quarrelsome litigant. Yet suddenly,
contrary to all appeasement, Hitler invaded the Low Countries. Chamberlain resigned and advised the
king to “call Churchill to be prime minister.”

Winston Churchill was a Nobel Prize-winning historian and social thinker. After Hitler came to power
in 1933, Churchill began to explain him and his wars as we see them today. Churchill was mentally
superior to all British politicians, and was far more aware of the danger of Nazi Germany that
Chamberlain was.
Some of us in Russia heard Churchill’s radio address, while Stalin had concluded a peace agreement
with Hitler and proposed to him to let the German troops go through Russia to India and thus conquer
it. After Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin was confined to bed for several days. As a friend of mine gloomily
joked: “Stalin did not trust anyone except Hitler.”
Nevertheless, when Hitler attacked Russia, Churchill promised aid to the country. Churchill’s radio
appearances showed how personally he was involved in the defense against Nazi Germany:
“. . . we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. . . . But if we fail, then the
whole world, including the United States, including all we have known and cared for,
will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more
protracted by the lights of perverted science.”
Well, according to General Chi Haotian of China, one-third or two-thirds (or perhaps three thirds?) of
Americans should be killed by China’s first blow at the United States.

Today, for the first time, the United States is endangered as much as England was in 1940. But the
danger is different in its distribution in time. Hitler’s invasion of the Low Countries was a death knell
for England. But the appointment of Churchill as prime minister turned Hitler to the invasion of Russia,
where he perished.
Today, “Communist” China is a worse threat to the U.S. than was the “National-Socialist” Germany to
Britain in 1940. But what is the reaction in the United States? Nonentity Barack Obama, elected by a
majority of voters, that is, psychiatrically healthy nonentities, declared post-1949 China a partner of the
United States!
As a response to my column of Aug. 13, an American voter sent me an e-mail on Aug. 14 -- a kind of
mental self-portrait of an American voter. His e-mail is signed: “Chris Surmeier, 1stSgt USMC (Ret.).”
In the first paragraph of his page-long e-mail, Surmeier declares that “President Obama is smart
enough to realize that China is home to nearly 1/5 of the world’s consumers.” And Surmeier says that I
“don’t understand why the U.S. might want to forge a partnership” with China.

Yes, why? Surmeier decided to study Japanese to improve his commercial performance. But his
Japanese friend advised him instead to study Chinese because the Chinese “would be the key to
business in Asia.”
In other words, wars do not exist. When you hear some people speaking of war (as in Peter Navarro’s
bestseller “Coming China Wars”), whisper to yourself, “money,” and rush to make it.
That is, concludes Surmeier, “your arguments certainly suggest your [you are] NOT qualified.”
His second long paragraph attacks my remark about the fundamental difference between medicine in
places like ancient Athens, which gave the word “democracy” to our times, or the United States, where a
patient has the freedom to choose his or her doctor, and medicine in countries of “state” slavery —
countries like post-1949 China, where medicine is “collective” for everyone, except “communist”
millionaires or top members of “the government and the party.”
One point of Surmeier’s criticism is his conviction that there was no medicine in ancient Athens — why,
there was no penicillin there, for example. “What the hell are you talking about?” exclaims Surmeier.

In conclusion, he asks me to give him “the name and contact information for the person who allows [!]
you to post on this site.”
One word follows in the next line: “Ridiculous.” Presumably, he will try to convince those in charge of
all Web sites that they should not post my columns (which, let it be known, I have been publishing since
1972).
The day earlier I received the following response to the same column of mine of Aug. 13:
Hello Lev Navrozov!
You keep telling the truth about the Chinese Communist Party aka “Owners of China”
and I thank you for that. I hope that soon many other writers will join you, certainly
Writers Without Borders should be speaking out more effectively.
All the best,
Kathy Gillis
Now, suppose voters like Surmeier instead of Gillis are in the majority in the United States. They will
elect a president at their respective mental levels. What does this mean for the United States? A murder
inflicted by the “People’s Republic of China” and generals like Haotian, who, as the minister of national
defense of China, demanded publicly that China be the first to attack the United States.

China's Steel Production an

Ominous Military Sign

Today countries are still divided into “developed” and “backward,” and the output of steel may be used
as an indicator of “military-industrial development” of the country.
In 1917, Russia produced annually three million tons of steel. Stalin (who died in 1953) and his
successors drove the output of steel in Russia to 161 million tons in 1986, compared to 75 million
produced by the United States.
Where had Stalin and his successors obtained the money for such military-industrial development of
Russia?
In the 1930s, all peasants were obliged to join “collective farms,” for which they worked , just as serfs
had worked for their owners until serfdom was abolished by Czar Alexander II in 1861. Every “collective
farmer” who worked well for the “collective farm,” had a small plot of land, on which he and his family
grew vegetables, etc. that they could sell on a market in a city. Thus “collective farms” produced — by
serf labor — bread, meat, etc., which were sold to the urban population through the state stores, while
the collective farmers’ plots produced vegetables, chickens, etc., sold in markets.

The wages of the urban employees were barely enough to survive on, and a six-room apartment in
Moscow was divided into six rooms for six families, with the kitchen and bathroom shared by those six
families, each of which paid a tiny rent out of his or her tiny earnings. Let me enumerate the professions
of all the tenants of our six “apartments” in the times of Stalin: a lawyer in a huge ministry, his wife, a
clerk in this ministry; a doctor and his wife, a cashier; my father, a writer, struggling with censorship,
and my mother, a professor of medicine; a chauffeur of a highly placed official and his wife, taking care
of their children; and a bookkeeper and his wife, who had married him because he seemed to her very
important.
The money thus saved by Stalin on those six families went into the production of steel and other
components of the “industrialization,” including weapons, which proved to be good enough to rout
Hitler.
Is this possible in a free society? Just try to compel a New York family to live in one room of a former
six-room apartment, with five other families! There is a shortage of money in the U.S. because there is
not enough for a house or a separate apartment for every American family. There is an excess of money
in the hands of the owners of China to lend a couple of trillion dollars to the destitute United States.

After Stalin’s death in 1953, his successors “de-Stalinized” Russia, that is, they represented Stalin as an
evil and ruthless tyrant. What about Mao? Said President Hu Jintao on the 110th anniversary of Mao’s
birth, in 2003: “Comrade Mao Zedong was a great Marxist; a great proletarian revolutionary, strategist
and theorist; a great patriot and national hero.”
According to an 814-page biography of Mao, published outside China in 2005 by Jung Chang and her
husband Tom Halliday and entitled “Mao: The Unknown Story”, Mao “turned China into a cultural
desert of misery and violence, while maintaining dozens of luxury villas and a troupe of female sexual
partners.” He was not a fanatical idealist, killing for the sake of the happy global future of mankind, but
“the bloodiest mass murderer in history,” ready to sacrifice mankind, and not only China, for his
philistine pleasures of a common gangster.

Mao came to power in 1949. In 1954 he started China’s nuclear weapons program, and in 1964 China
tested a 20-kiloton nuclear bomb. Curiously, each test could be detected abroad, but was not reported —
in the U.S. media, for example — and even after 25 Chinese nuclear tests, the U.S. “experts” were silent
about China’s nuclear weapons. The book “China Builds the Bomb” was not published until 1988.
In 1986, China already produced 52 million tons of steel, compared to 15 million by Great Britain.
The population of the U.S is about 300 million. China is 1.3 billion, more than four times over. Let us
imagine the diagrams of distribution of human resources in the two countries. The number of students
in sciences and technologies will be more than four times greater in China, based on its larger
population. But in the statistical Chinese surveys of education, we find that many sciences and
technologies simply do not exist because they have no military use. Thus, the actual number of scientists
and technologists useful in warfare will finally be in China not about four times, but eight, 12, or 16
times greater than in the United States.

The same applies to weapons and all militarily applicable products. China likely will become militarily
superior to the U.S. many times over.
President Barack Obama said that China is home to nearly one-fifth of the world’s consumers. Hence
Americans like Obama, who think of life primarily in terms of business, and not in terms of military
defense, are looking forward to doing business with one-fifth of the world’s consumers. But China can
transform this percentage into armed forces far more powerful than those of the U.S or any other
country.
What is China’s most likely output of steel in 2009? According to Reuters, it projects to 584.88 million
tons. In May, the U.S. produced 4.3 million. Using May’s numbers, the U.S. probable steel output for
the year is 51.6 million tons, a drop from 1986, when it produced 75 million.
More telling, it is less than one-tenth of China’s likely 2009 output.

Ex-Chinese Official Details Plan for

World Domination
No ancient empire became physically global — the outside world was too distant and vague owing to the
lack of later-day communications. Nor were slave empires rare. Even in the first half of the 19th century,
Russia was an empire, while “serfdom” — slavery — dominated agriculture. Most inhabitants of cities
were also slaves, except they did not have private owners, for whom they would be obliged to work
without pay.
Today China observes the entire world, a world that might become part of the Chinese slave empire.
Such an empire would be global for the first time.
Such a scenario hasn’t transpired because over time free (or freer) countries developed science and
engineering — and the most advanced weapons. On the other hand, in the first half of the 20th century,
China was “backward,” and hence could well be grateful it was not conquered by Japan before the
United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan during World War II.

During the June 4, 1989, massacre of unarmed Tiananmen seekers of freedom, Chi Haotian was the
chief of staff of the People’s Liberation Army and supervised the massacre. Yet President Bill Clinton
received him in Washington with a 19-gun salute in his honor.
Until 2003, Chi, 80, was the minister of Chinese national defense. In 2005 he was vice chairman of
China’s Military Commission.
On June 24, Chi’s speech of December 2005 was posted on Yahoo! under the heading “Speech by
Comrade Chi Haotian, Vice-Chairman of China’s Military Commission.” The speech was delivered to the
audience of top officers and generals of the People’s Republic of China.
Chi said that he was “very excited today” because in answering, “in the large-scale survey,” the “question
‘Will you shoot at women, children, and prisoners of war’ [in the U.S. and other enemy countries], more
than 80 percent of the respondents answered in the affirmative.”
Why was Chi “very excited” about it?
“If China’s global development will necessitate massive deaths in enemy countries,
will our people endorse that scenario? Will they be for or against it? The fact is, our
‘development’ refers to the great revitalization of the Chinese nation, which of course,
is not limited to the land we have now, but also includes the whole world.”

Chi does not consider German Nazism evil. He considers the Germans insufficiently superior as a race
and hence a failure. “Our Chinese people are wiser than the Germans because, fundamentally, our race
is superior to theirs.”
Yet Chi advises to avoid the use of the German word Lebensraum “too openly” in order to “avoid the
West’s association of us with Nazi Germany, which could in turn reinforce the view that China is a
threat.” Chi prefers to use Britain and the U.S. as negative examples (and not to praise Nazi Germany):
“. . . if we refer to the 19th century as the British Century and to the 20th century as
the American Century, then the 21st Century will be the Chinese Century! (Wild
applause fills the auditorium.)”

How to deal with America?

”America was first discovered by the ancestors of the yellow race, but Columbus gave
credit to the white race. We the descendants of the Chinese nation are ENTITLED to
the possession of that land!”
However: “Only by using special means to ‘clean up’ America will we be able to lead the Chinese people
there.”
Fortunately for the owners of China, these “special means” are known as biological weapons, and Chi
devotes a long paragraph to describe for how long biological weapons have been developed in the
People’s Republic of China.
In conclusion, Chi presents his usual excuse. “It is indeed brutal to kill one hundred or two hundred
million Americans. But this is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the
CCP [Chinese Communist Party] leads the world.”
What is the purpose of making this official top-level speech known to the West? Traditionally, attackers
make their war intentions as unexpected as possible. Here Chi explains to Chinese generals and officers
(and to the world, including the U.S.) how China will kill by biological weapons one-third or two-thirds
(or three-thirds?) of the U.S. population in order for the Chinese to settle in “clean America.” Mass
robbery via mass murder.

It seems to the rulers of China that its strategy should not be concealed but, on the contrary, should
scare a potential victim. The United States has freedom, not slavery. The result of slavery in China is the
conversion of population into slave soldiers ready to die if necessary. The result of freedom, according
to Chinese like Chi, is the people’s search for private happiness and, especially, safety. Therefore, free
countries should be terrorized to make them surrender, which Chi has been doing for years.
At the same time, Chi declares the Chinese to be the superior race, and promises them American
property, the murder of Americans and other inferior races by Chinese biological weapons, and the
People’s Republic of China a truly global empire in history.

Obama Ignoring Biological Weapon

Threat

In my previous column I described how Gen. Chi Haotian of China predicted, in his address to the top
Chinese generals and officers, China’s annihilation of one-third or two-thirds of Americans by biological
weapons and the transfer of their homes and property to the new (Chinese) inhabitants of America.
Evidently, President Barack Obama has never read Chi’s speeches. Therefore he has come out with the
old idea: What if the countries having nuclear weapons agree to disarm? This has never happened. But
now that Obama has been elected president by voters who had never heard of Chi Haotian. . . . those
voters and he must believe that it is possible to do today what was not done 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years
ago.

But why is Obama fixated on nuclear weapons? Chi wants to kill Americans with biological weapons,
which is cheaper than to destroy buildings with nuclear bombs. Besides, the homes and other property
of the killed Americans are to be passed over to the new settlers in America — the superior race: the
Chinese.
Also, today everyone (except Obama?) knows that nano weapons surpass in many ways nuclear
weapons.
Obama’s first report on his nuclear-free world was April 6. In the more than five months since the
project has not budged. The first response — on Facebook — was this:
“Just more lies—12:52 a.m., April 6, 2009. There’s no way this clown is getting rid of
nuclear weapons. Are you kidding? N-Korea just tossed off a small long-range missile
from their island capable of reaching N-America and you are going to get rid of N-
weapons. Not to mention some rogue middle-eastern states that are preparing to arm
themselves. Nuclearly. Come on, Obama, just stop lying to us all!!! My sides are
hurting!!!”
Russia (2,800) and the United States (2,200) have the most strategic nuclear warheads. Next come
France (300), China (180), and the U.K. (160). Then there’s Israel (60), Pakistan (60), India (60), and
North Korea (less than10).
Would Russia be willing to give up its nuclear weapons? Suppose Russia had them in 1940. Then the
nonaggression treaty and general Russia-German friendship would not have been violated by Hitler on
June 22, 1941.
Today those in power in Russia liken the China threat to Nazi Germany in the 1940s. But Russia, given
its population against the 1.331 billion Chinese, can survive due to its vast superiority in nuclear
weapons.
What about the United States? The same reason: The only way to survive is a nuclear counterblow
against China’s biological weapons.
Incidentally, except for the beginning of World War I, no biological and other such weapons were used
— for ethical reasons. Even Hitler (a notorious mass murderer) prohibited their production! Yet they
can cause more human deaths per cost than can nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons will be destroyed in
all nuclear countries? Albert Einstein drew Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attention to them in 1939, that is, 70
years ago. What if biological weapons outstrip nuclear weapons in the number of human deaths per
cost?

Can a U.S. president cope with such problems? The American “revolutionary” war against Britain in the
18th century led to the election of a president by a majority of voters, which rules out the necessary
ability of the person thus elected. Consider, the last three presidents — Obama, George W. Bush, and
Bill Clinton — were at the mental level of most of their voters, that is, mostly mediocrities. Dozens of
millions of voters are mostly mediocrities by definition, and they elect a mediocrity.

The United States has survived against weapons of the 20th century because it has been protected by
two oceans and Canada, and because the United States was the first, thanks to Einstein, to develop
nuclear weapons. It is justly said that no modern war took place in the United States after England
decided that it was impossible to carry supplies to their troops across the Atlantic Ocean. But today’s
(Nazi) China threatens the United States with biological weapons, as Chi explains in detail in his
speeches.
Well, imagine that a majority of the American population is still illiterate, and hence the president they
elected could be too. He cannot read Chi in English. He won’t understand what is going on until
infected, as would be millions of other Americans, by Chinese biological weapons and dying, to “clean”
America for the Chinese superior race.

World Conquest Plans of

'Diplomatic' China Clear

Chinese Gen. Chi Haotian’s first speech threatening the United States with biological annihilation was
reprinted by a Chinese dissident magazine published in the West, The Epoch Times, on Aug. 4, 2005.
We Russian dissidents greatly respected dissident Russian magazines, and I greatly respect The Epoch
Times. A reader from Australia sent me Chi’s speech that The Epoch Times published on June 6. The
reader asks me: “Lev, why is the West asleep?”
I have been stunned by Chi’s speeches. He was the minister of national defense of China up to 2004. He
is 80, but is still a top government official. He explains in his speeches that China will use its biological
weapons. China began working on them long ago, and they could annihilate from one-third to two-
thirds of Americans more cheaply and easily than can nuclear bombs. As a result of bacteriological
epidemics, many Americans will die without any additional Chinese expenses or difficulties. Their
homes and other property will be passed to the new settlers — the Chinese. According to Chi, they
discovered America and are to rule the world in the 21st century.

One-third of Americans must be left alive to serve the superior Chinese race that will live in the former
America. After this transformation of the former U.S., it will be easier to transform all other countries in
the same way, and thus make China truly global.
Predictably, Chi’s “speeches” have been dismissed by most American “experts on China” as, for
example, forgeries the real Chi has nothing to do with.
Is such a forgery possible? Have the “speeches” been written and/or delivered by someone
impersonating Chi, the impostor would have been immediately grabbed by the Chinese police. Even if
the “speeches” had been genuine, but the rulers didn’t want them, Chi would have publicly said, to the
joy of many American “experts on China,” that he has had nothing to do with those criminal forgeries
using his name.
After my column about Chi’s “speech” was published July 2, the Web site received only one comment
(from a certain Charles Andelfinger): “It is so obvious that Mr. Navrozov is discounting the most
important player, GOD.”

The same could be said about Winston Churchill when he warned about the danger of a Nazi attack on
France, but France, despite British troops in its country, was conquered in six weeks. Was God the most
important player in the Nazi conquest of France? What if Hitler had first finished the German
development of the atom bomb and then attacked Russia? Would God have wanted him to own the
world?
In the National Review Online of Sept. 29, 2006, John Derbyshire’s discussion is entitled “Sino-
Fascism,” and the author gives almost two pages of examples from Chi’s speeches, the first example
being: “Hitler was ‘too soft.’ ”
What does Derbyshire intend to prove? That in China there is no Sino-Fascism? But then what —
communism? Or that he, Derbyshire, knew without Chi, that there is Sino-Fascism in China?

Derbyshire ends his survey by saying “personally, I am not losing any sleep over the opium dreams of an
old revolutionary.”
So, the danger of China, if any, is one of the opium dreams of Chi, an old revolutionary? Was the danger
from Nazi Germany also just one of such dreams?
Chi’s discourse is obviously supported by the rulers of China but has the appearance of being
independent to dispense with diplomatic inconveniences. For if Chi’s “speeches” had been official, all
threatened governments, especially those of free countries, would have officially demanded that China
officially explain its planned monstrous aggressions.
There are two truths: the official diplomatic position of China and its actual global plans as revealed by
Chi.
What is undeniable in Chi’s discourse is the number of people in China, exceeding more than four times
the population of the U.S. This means that according to this proportion alone, the military power of
China can exceed that of the U.S. four times, other factors being equal.

Yet they are not equal: the population of China is mobilized, and China educates as many as they can for
the production and military use of the best latest weapons, including biological weapons. According to
Chi, China has been producing and will use biological weapons, avoided in the West even by Hitler.
The Chinese government is publicly diplomatic, while Chi expresses its dangerous intentions as though
he were a private person in a free country expressing his private views.
In the 1930s, Stalin began to realize that the Russians needed as propaganda not Marxism-Leninism,
but extreme Russian nationalism, which would have included the extermination of Jews had not Stalin
died in 1953. Well, China’s propaganda is, yes, Chi’s military globalism.
Sp what is President Barack Obama doing while the population of China is mobilized for its most
ruthless war? He recently met for two days in Washington with Chinese representatives to create the
American-Chinese “partnership” of the 21st century.

Obama's 'Revolution' in Healthcare

On Sept. 9, 2009, Obama presented to Congress his revolutionary project for U.S. healthcare.
Incidentally, it is these revolutionary dreams that gave him the majority votes to win the U.S.
presidency. In Britain, he would not be the prime minister of Her Majesty the Queen, but owing to the
U.S. direct majority vote, anyone can turn out to be the U.S. president!
Many Democrats believe that nothing is more important than their triumph over the Republicans. So
they behaved during Obama’s recital like those listening to their leader, prophet, and political thinker of
genius, while the Republicans looked angry, grumbled, and one of them shouted that Obama was lying,
but then apologized to Obama by telephone, and Obama graciously accepted the apology. But the
Democrats were not satisfied: they demanded his apology to Congress.
In the past three decades, quite a few good books and articles have been written on the subject of U.S.
healthcare reform, but none of them was mentioned in Congress on Sept. 19.

You see, America so far has been living in darkness, and Obama, the great luminary, explained to
Congress what was wrong with America’s healthcare — apart from America’s lack of Obama’s
“partnership” with the People’s Republic of China, and apart from the nuclear weapons in the United
States and other countries that possess them, all of which weapons Obama will eliminate.
No one in Congress recalled that the previous U.S. president (George W. Bush) prepared a printed plan
and an oral report to reform healthcare, particularly for those who have insufficient medical insurance
or none at all.
The goal was to discourage them from using hospital emergency rooms when they got sick and instead
enabled them “to get the best care from the doctor of his or her choice” (page 8).
To recall this in Congress would have been an insult to great Obama, who was enlightening via Congress
the ignorant United States. Everything that had preceded the sunrise of great Obama was forgotten by
apparently all Democrats in Congress, for they wanted a revolution in U.S. healthcare, and they
condemned the Republicans as reactionaries.
George W. Bush is a Republican, and though I attacked him in the press for his absurd undeclared war
in Iraq, it is important to note that he presented healthcare reform in his speech to the Medical College
of Wisconsin.
Indeed, Congress should be worried more about Obama’s prospective “partner,” whose Gen. Chi
Haotian has threatened to infect and kill “one-third or two-thirds” of the Americans.

Governments like the “Soviet government,” between 1923 and 1953, that is, Stalin between 1923 and
1953 (when he died), ensured minimal standard medical education to whomever wanted to become a
doctor.
Their tuition was deducted from their forthcoming salaries, which were roughly equal to the notoriously
low wages of Stalin’s workers.
Of course, Stalin and his helpmates were treated by the few selected doctors, and in Moscow there were
two special hospitals called Kremlevkas, created for that purpose. Below those highest medical
institutions, a patient could not choose his or her doctor.
My wife and I have never been rich in the United States. Still, in the United States I have been writing
(in English) what I wanted, and this has been published, while my wife worked as a senior medical
editor for McGraw-Hill (English was her passion in Russia, just as it was mine).
However, a friend of ours, a Russian poet who emigrated with his family to the United States without
one dollar in his pockets and without his poetry published in English, received all healthcare benefits in
New York.
The most important aspect of healthcare — a patient’s freedom to choose his or her doctor — exists in
the United States for those who can buy medical insurance which does not restrict their choice of
doctors.

Obamacare may turn out to be not unlike Stalincare, praised by foreigners, like the Moscow
correspondent of the New York Times of the 1930s, as yet another “miracle of socialism.”
Stalincare was equal for all, except those who were Stalin’s top officials and had the best doctors
exclusively for themselves.
It is noteworthy that Obama’s glorious recital before Congress is less trustworthy than was Bush’s report
to the Medical College of Wisconsin.
According to Obama and his supporters, more than 46 million Americans are deprived of medical care.
Bush explains that every American can go to an emergency room, and no hospital will turn him or her
away.
What such Americans are deprived of is a visit to a doctor of his or her choice, who was, indeed,
accessible everywhere a century ago only to a tiny minority, “the rich,” for whom to have a personal
physician was a privilege, like having a musical virtuoso playing in their mansions, the Renaissance
paintings on their walls, or the world’s greatest poetry recited by its authors to their guests.
Stalincare was based on his and his top officials’ conviction that anything and anyone can be mass
produced for the population at large, which led to the disappearance of the best doctors for anyone
except Stalin and his top officials, as it led to the emigration of composers such as Rachmaninoff and
Prokofiev, or to the annihilation of Osip Mandelstam, probably the world’s greatest poet of his time.

Incidentally, Clinton also had a plan for a healthcare reform. Outside Congress on Sept. 19, Obama
mentions his predecessors as predestined to have failed, and himself as predestined to win.
The value of every doctor also depends on the development of new medicines and new medical
equipment. Anton Chekhov was born in 1860 and received his medical degree at the age of 25.
Simultaneously, he began to publish his Short Stories, was welcomed as a genius, and became the
greatest Russian writer, at a par with Tolstoy.
His works can be defined as “medical realism,” describing people as objectively as though they were his
patients. He gave free medical treatment to the poor.
Yet he himself had tuberculosis, which he discovered when he was 23 years of age, and he died in 1904,
at the age of 44, since medicine had no cure for TB, and he, a genius of “medical realism,” could not cure
himself.
That is, even the best physician depends on the progress of medical science, development of new
medicines, new medical equipment, etc.

Are Americans Awakening to the China Threat?

I began publishing columns about the “China Danger” after unarmed Chinese in the Tiananmen Square
in 1989 called for a peaceful limitation of the unlimited power in their country, to which the dictators of
China responded with what has been described in the West a “massacre.”
What was a discovery to me? The Chinese will to freedom, which later manifested itself again in dozens
of millions of withdrawals from the Chinese Communist Party.
I drew the following conclusion: We can well assume that the only way for the dictators of China to
preserve their dictatorship is to conquer the world and thus eliminate those countries whose freedom
seduces so many Chinese.
That became a theme of my columns, and I was especially interested in the public speeches of General
Chi Haotian, China’s minister of national defense from 1993 to 2003.
He now is 80 years of age, but he still is a top official. In his public speeches, he described China’s global
strategy. Between one-third and two-thirds of the population of the United States is to be annihilated
(biologically) and their homes and other property are to be transferred to the new Chinese settlers.

One-third of Americans will be left alive to serve this “superior” race. Due to such conquests, China will
become a global empire.
Initially, General Chi’s predictions were ignored by many “American experts” and passed off for
forgeries and what not. Those experts did not seem to understand that if the rulers of China had
regarded Chi’s speeches harmful, not useful, to them, they would have made Chi lie to the West that
those speeches of his are criminal forgeries and that he, General Chi Haotian, has nothing to do with
them.
Even if we accept the totally improbable version that he refused to obey the rulers of China (and had
been properly tortured to death, using the Chinese experience in torture of thousands or millions of
years), the rulers of China would have found another way of lying to the West that so-called “Chi’s
speeches” were forgeries.
Anyway, recently I have noticed that General Chi’s predictions, which I have quoted in my columns, are
being taken seriously by American readers of my weekly columns (while President Obama had declared
the dictatorship of China and the United States, as represented by himself, to be “partners” in the 21st
century).
Chris Reynolds of Dallas, Texas, begins his almost page-long e-mail to me on Sept. 4, 2009: “Please
continue writing your outstanding columns about China and other threats facing the United States. You
have a rare talent for writing about complex issues in very clear terms, without hyperbole, so that even
the most ignorant or stubborn people should be able to comprehend your writing without
misunderstanding.”

The day earlier, Sept. 3, an e-mal to me said: “Keep up the good work,” and the next day, in his page-
long e-mail of Sept. 4, David Fellows had this to say: “First of all, let me say that every chance I get I
read and enjoy your articles. I thank you for what you do to inform my fellow Americans, many of whom
are living in an intellectual fog.
“Unfortunately, the ones who are most in need of your insight are too busy ‘drinking the Kool-aid’ as we
sometimes say in our country.”
My column of Sept. 17, 2009, produced a string of e-mails. On Sept.18, Bret Simms wrote: Hello, great
article! My only question is why are so many Americans asleep into thinking one day we will not be
attacked.

“My opinion is that the U.S government is in some ways provoking an attack which will neutralize the
U.S.A. An attack that could take place in mere yrs . . . . I am born and raised U.S. citizen and love my
country. The people of THE UNITED STATES I fear are in for a rude awakening. Again great article . . .
keep speaking truth!”
The following day, Gregory Camp begins his e-mail, “Dear Mr. Navrozov, I just ‘discovered’ your work
and am forwarding your articles to my friends and colleagues. Thank you for bringing this information
to the public.”
On Sept. 17, the day the column appeared, I received an e-mail from Darryl Hicks, executive
administrator of mybestyears.com: “Chilling! You’ve just put together the most striking column we’ve
read.” And then he ends, “We would certainly enjoy putting the spotlight on you and this invaluable
column about the Chinese official [General Chi Haotian].”
What’s the conclusion? It seems to me that mentally alert Americans who value the United States for its
freedom and all that freedom brings with it, including personal safety from political persecution, and
not only for advertised goods and services at the lowest possible prices, are ready to understand that the
United States is a country that is being threatened by a war of annihilation, to be accompanied or
followed by similar wars of China on all the other free countries less capable of defending themselves.

What is necessary is to make the danger signal reach millions and dozens of millions of Americans as it
has reached those whose e-mails I just quoted above.
Several months ago I suggested production of a film on the subject. The donations to our not-for-profit
Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., are tax-deductible.
Alas, I am too busy, writing, to go into the money jungle, so that the center has no money to create a
highly professional and successful film explaining the geostrategic situation of today.
France, together with 10 British divisions in France, was overrun by Nazi troops within six weeks. The
French culture, with its intellectual sophistication, education, and Napoleon in its military history, did
not help to defend the country from the Nazi invasion. Nor had the 10 British divisions foreseen their
destiny.
Will the United States in its defense against the dictatorship of China, with its population exceeding that
of the United States more than four times, go the way France did in its defense against the dictatorship
of Germany?

How to Ensure Adequate Defense

of a Free Country

An adequate defense of a free country requires an adequate government.

In the United States, the British system of electing a prime minister was replaced by the direct election
of a U.S. president by a majority of voters, which opens the possibility of electing a mentally average
mind, for the more minds think about complex problems in the same way and with a stereotypical
simplicity, the lower is their mental level, while Einstein, who in 1939 explained to Roosevelt the
immediate need to begin to develop the “atom bomb,” used to say that he was understood by seven
people in the world. Fortunately, Roosevelt’s mind happened to be far above the average.
At a two-day meeting in Washington, including top officials from China, President Obama has
proclaimed himself and the United States a “partner of China,” while in the past decade China’s Gen.
Chi Haotian, the minister of national defense up to 2004, proclaimed in his speeches that China should
poison or infect with a mortal disease one-third or two-thirds of the Americans and then transfer their
homes and other property to the new (Chinese) settlers as to the really superior race, whom one-third of
the Americans left alive are to serve manually.

This information became available in the West via the Western press and television, but the last three
U.S. presidents have been deaf to it, not to spoil their “good relations” with the owners of China.
Before the 21st century, the absence of a U.S. president as a unique mind and a unique soul in the
defense of the United States was not so tragic for the United States, since North America was protected
by the two oceans and Canada against the armed forces of the time in the possession of Hitler.
Canada is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, formerly known as the British Commonwealth.
In the American Revolution against Britain, the United States destroyed or ousted those sprouts of the
British political wisdom, which had been developing within the English history since the 13th century
(Magna Carta).
The Canadians do not elect a Canadian president by a majority of voters.
On the other hand, as William Safire wrote in the New York Times on May 18, 1998, U.S. President
Clinton, “hungry for money to finance his re-election overruled the Pentagon; he sold to a Chinese
military intelligence front the technology that [U.S.] defense experts argued would give Beijing the
capacity to blind our spy satellites and launch a sneak attack.”
George W. Bush saw the threat to the United States coming not from China (population: 1,331 billion)
but from the oil-rich Iraq (population: 26 million, 35 percent of whom were Sunni, favoring the free
West), and he invaded Iraq in an absurd five-year campaign.

As for Obama, he is a “partner of China” but is vigilant to whatever is going on in Afghanistan

(population: 30 million).
The people of England do not elect a U.K. president. They elect members of parliament. The largest
party in parliament sends its candidate to the king or queen for the approval as his/her prime minister.
Let us also recall that the word democracy was launched by ancient Athens. The word democracy came
from the word demos (“common people”), and the word aristocracy from the word aristos (“best”).
The “revolutionary America” and the “revolutionary Russia” abolished their aristocracy. Yet classical
music has been performed in both countries by aristos and for aristos.
All uniquely valuable creativity in arts or sciences, philosophy, or geostrategy, involves aristos.
The U.S. election of a U.S. president by a majority of voters contradicts the organic law of cerebral
creativity, according to which the mental ability of members of a similarly thinking group is likely to be
the lower, the more numerous the group is, and genius is not a member of a group of millions of
similarly thinking members.

If President Roosevelt was a genius, then his election as a U.S. president by millions of Obamas was
accidental, and if he had been an Obama, just as were those who voted for him, he could have been fatal
for his country.
Today the danger has grown immensely.
If the president is a genius, he must be at the peak of a human pyramid, corresponding to “an
intelligence statistical curve,” and transmitting his ideas to the people at large.
This is accepted in cultural or in intellectual endeavors in the West. How can a government do without
such a pyramid? Or is the defense against the PRC something so simple that any Obama elected by a
majority of Obamas can create it?
Why should President Obama be expected to be smarter than the evil dictators of China?
An Obama who would begin today to engage in a globally developing and vitally important field like war
— without any proficiency in it and without any evidence of his proficiency — can be called an idiot and
what he has been doing an idiocy.
The U.S. president has been elected by a majority of psychiatrically healthy adult Americans who
wished to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Suppose he is a genius in establishing the single-payer healthcare system. And, his all-American
healthcare will be the world’s best. But why should a genius in single-payer healthcare be automatically
expected to be a genius of today’s geostrategy?

Surely it is safer for him to become a traitor with respect to the United States and a slave of the owners
of China, helping them enslave that one-third of Americans who are to remain alive as servants to the
superior race from China.
There is a sweet delusion in the free West that a free country is by definition more powerful than a slave
country like the “People’s Republic of China.”
This is a delusion.
Freedom has one military advantage: It produces people of genius like Einstein, who flourished in
Germany before Nazism, but who emigrated after Hitler’s advent to power — and it was his letter to
Roosevelt that was to destroy Hitler, for Hitler stopped the active development of the nuclear bomb in
Germany, while the United States had developed it by 1945.
Without the atom bomb, Hitler lost the war in Russia and committed suicide, not to face the public trial
and be executed by his war enemies.
But a slave country like post-1949 China has many advantages in war. For example, its every inhabitant
(except little children and invalids) is psychologically “mobilized” in war or in peace as in the severest
war.
The war losses never deter the owners of a slave country, for they do not sustain any personal losses
unless they lose the war as Hitler did.

China's Steel Production Cause for

Alarm

Why does China produce almost as much steel as half of all other countries (including the United
States) put together?
Most American “top experts on China” seem to fail to notice China’s output of steel, though the owners
of China do not conceal it, for while they try to seem peaceful to the United States and to their own
population, they cannot seem weak to them either.
As for the annual reports to U.S. Congress on the military power of the People’s Republic of China, these
are top official U.S. documents, and the owners of China attack such reports — they say the reports
slander China and thus endanger the U.S.-China peace.
This could be one reason why these reports to Congress became less critical of China and more useless
to the free countries.
Therefore, when I saw a 22-page study entitled “China’s Military Potential,” produced by a top
American expert on China and first published on Oct. 2, 1998, I hoped that this American expert on
China would answer the steel production question.

The author of the article, Col. Larry M. Wortzel, became the director of the Strategic Studies Institute of
the U.S. Army in June 1998. His bio says “He served as Assistant Army Attaché in China from 1988 to
1990 and Army Attaché in China from 1995 to 1997.”
On page 8 of the study he explains: “The main goal of China, according to the report by Jiang Zemin at
the 15th Communist Party Congress [of China], is to build a ‘socialist economy’.” No critical comment
from Col. Wortzel follows.
Many American “experts” on China fail to understand that any information from China may be pure
propaganda inventions.
As an American, Wortzel, this top expert on China, evidently believes that except for some special
subjects (like homosexual relations), a human being says what he/she thinks, and thinks what he/she
says.
Can you imagine that the “main goal of China” has been not “socialism,” but a military power capable of
defeating any foreign country, beginning with the United States as the most powerful of all free
countries?
The new paragraph on page 16 begins with Wortzel’s own statement: “Beijing’s goals are regional
domination and hegemony, not world conquest.” When China becomes powerful enough to begin
openly its advance to world domination and global hegemony, surely Wortzel will declare that Beijing’s
goal is world conquest, not regional domination or hegemony. But will not this conclusion of his be too
late?

To sum up Wortzel’s 22 pages, the United States (democracy) and China (which I call a slave state) are
essentially good neighbors, but each of them should avoid doing what is unpleasant to the other side.
Now, rather than go on reading this American top expert’s Chinese propaganda, let us ask ourselves,
What is China’s military potential?
It is expressed in its output of steel first and foremost, for steel is used more than any other material for
the production of weapons, tools, and instruments for armed forces.
China’s 2.3-million-strong army was, as of 1998, when Wortzel’s article was published, the world’s
biggest, followed by the United States, with its 1.38-million-strong army; India, with its 1.3-million-
strong army; and Russia, with its 1.24-million-strong army.
This is what a Westerner can learn in 2009 from reports by Western correspondents from Beijing. But
what about the output of steel?

Here the information becomes scarce because in the United States it does not fit that sweet fairy tale,
according to which China is just a backward country trying (in vain!) to overtake the United States.
Yet here is what a Westerner may learn now from Agence France-Presse: “China accounted [when the
steel outputs of all countries in August were put together] for almost half of the total [world output],
producing [as China did] 52.3 million tons of steel in August [that is, per month].”
As of the week ending March 21, 2009, the U.S. steel output was slightly above 2 million tons a week;
that is, 8 million tons a month. Compare with China’s 52.3 million tons a month.
The recent parade in honor of the 60-year anniversary of the PRC showed that China can already
produce weapons the West does (plus weapons China has developed on its own and did not show
publicly, of course).
Since the population of China exceeds 1.33 billion people, the owners of China can add 230 million
young males fit for military service to the 2.3 million men in their People’s Liberation Army right now.
Then this army will be not 2.3 million strong, but 232.3 million strong. As for its weapons, the steel
output at the level of 52.3 million tons of steel a month, as of August 2009, may be sufficient to produce
the weapons for this gigantic army.

What has been the reaction of the West to China’s output of steel equal to almost half of the output of
steel produced by all the other countries, including the United States, put together?
This has been ignored by most American top “experts on China,” including Wortzel in 1998, when he
became the director of the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army, and in 2009, as this article was
reprinted and he was the director of the Strategic Studies Institute.
In conclusion, it should be noted that Wortzel’s article was carried on Sept. 29, 2009 by Yahoo! with
Google’s ads. On the last page of the article, it is noted that now Wortzel is the director of the Strategic
Studies Institute.
Yet, despite that scholarly appointment from 1998 to 2009, no one seems to have noticed that the 22-
page article does not answer the question, Why does China produce almost as much steel as half of all
other countries (including the United States) put together?

Which Is Stronger Militarily: A Free Country or a Slave State?

Before the origin of Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany, all countries were divided into “developed,”
that is, developed industrially (read: scientifically and technologically), and “backward,” that is, not
developed industrially, but engaged in farming, ranching, and forestry, often not essentially different
from what they were thousands of years ago.
Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany were changing this view. Germany was a Western country, once
greatly respected for its music and philosophy. Yet it turned into an aggressive slave state, partly due to
the Versailles Treaty, blaming exclusively Germany for World War I and making it virtually defenseless
against Stalin’s Russia.
In 1917, Russia was considered a backward country: its annual output of steel was three million tons.
But Stalin “put it through industrialization,” as a result of which its steel output surpassed that of the
United States, and in World War II Stalin routed Hitler, who committed suicide.

A large population, as in China, was regarded in the West as a sign of backwardness: Britain routed
China twice in the 19th century and forced it to abolish the prohibition to buy opium, while in the 20th
century Japan was carrying out its successful conquest of China until Japan was defeated in World War
II and surrendered after the United States “dropped atom bombs” on two industrial cities of Japan.
Today it can be said that the size of a country’s population is a measure of its possible military might. If
this country is a slave state, its owners can transform (as Stalin had done by 1941, when Hitler invaded
Stalin’s Russia) its hitherto non-industrial population into producers and users of modern weapons
more quickly than a free country.
(1) Hence the first military advantage of China as a slave state. Its population of 1.331 billion, converted,
at a low cost, into low-paid producers and users of modern weapons, will make it the world’s most
powerful country.
General Chi Haotian’s projections of how his China will conquer first the United States and then all the
other countries are not only propaganda to inspire Chinese for World War III, but also are realistic
predictions. Unrealistic is the United States, whose presidents have been refusing to see a sinister
present and an entirely possible future which General Chi Haotian has been describing at least from the
year 2000 to 2009.

Such is an advantage of China as a slave state, which once was dismissed, owing to its huge agricultural
population, as a “backward country.”
(2) The top owner of the slave state and his subordinates are interested in war of aggression, since all
the property acquired thereby, which they will desire, will be THEIR property, and the war will be
THEIR war. The defeat in war may result in their being executed by the victors. Recall the trial of the
top Nazi officials after they were defeated in World War II, and Hitler had escaped the trial because he
had committed suicide.
(3) As for the rank-and-file population, in a free country a certain part of it makes use of the privilege of
freedom to live for himself/herself and, in particular, to avoid noticing the danger of a war to the
country as a whole, as long as possible and then do for the victory as little as possible. In a slave state
such a “living for himself/herself” is a heinous crime.
(4) The population of the free countries cannot expect any addition to their private property from
defeating the slave state of China. Now, General Chi Haotian has explained in his speeches that up to
two-thirds of the population of the United States (and other defeated countries) will be poisoned or
infected by mortal diseases, and their homes and other property will be taken over by the new (Chinese)
settlers as by the superior race.

(5) William Saffire seems to have been the first to reveal (in the New York Times) the news that a U.S.
president can be a traitor with total immunity even if the country in question (China) was a growing
danger to the United States.
(6) Now is the time to mention an advantage of the free countries.
The principle of freedom is that a human being is free to do anything except what harms other human
beings, according to a legal judgment.
The principle of a slave state is that it evaluates every human being on its territory from the point of
view of the interests of the slave state and arranges his/her existence accordingly. If he/she has,
according to this evaluation, a value only as a menial worker, he/she must continue to do his/her
menial job. If he/she would not, he/she was, in Stalin’s Russia, branded as a “parasite” and sent to a
labor camp.
In Stalin’s Russia, Einstein would have found himself in such a camp because no one, except an equally
great genius, could originally recognize him until he received, at the age of 43, a Nobel Prize (with an
understated lame definition). But before Hitler turned Germany into a slave state, it was free enough to
value Einstein (a Jew!).

Then he left Nazi Germany for the United States, where in his letter of 1939 he convinced President
Roosevelt to start the development of the “atom bombs,” to be ahead of Nazi Germany and Japan. On
the other hand, Hitler halted the development of “atom bombs” in Germany, and Japan proved to be far
behind.
Thus Einstein, who initially was thought to be just crazy, saved the free world from a German or
Japanese atomic conquest.
How will the United States be able to hold out against the slave state of China when the latter
transforms its 1.331 billion people (plus those who will grow up during that transformation and minus
children and invalids) into producers and users of its latest weapons?
I will try to answer this in my next column.
What is tragic is that I, an American since 1972, have never heard any top official or an officer
explaining how to defend the United States against a “developed” China, and I have never heard that
someone (a U.S. president?) has even tried to imagine how this can be done.

5-Point Strategy for Defense

Against China

China can train her population (at present 1.3 billion people), with the exception of little children and
invalids, into developers and users of the latest weapons. Thus China will have the global military power
for the global aggressions, one of which Gen. Chi exemplified as follows: from one-third to two-thirds of
Americans will be put to death, their houses and other property transferred to the new Chinese settlers
as to the superior race, while one-third of former Americans will be left alive to be their servants.
So the global aggressions of the owners of the slave state of China will be at the same time giant
robberies for their slaves to make them loyal to their owners.
What should the free countries do?
1. They must create an allied global army (AGA), led by a single allied command with its staff. In this
way, the U.S. president will be confined to domestic concerns, just as will be the leaders of other AGA
nations, but they will be subordinate at the global military level to the AGA command.

2. The staff of the AGA must have its research department and information department (including
broadcasting in Chinese and cooperating with Chinese dissident publications).
3. Only in the e-mails of my readers do I find the adequate horror of the “China danger.” Otherwise I
could spend in the United States months, with a TV set always turned on the news and never learn that
China does exist, except in connection with U.S. President Obama’s visit to China. Surely the
information media of the AGA will be more concerned with China than with Iraq or Afghanistan or
terrorists.
4. A friend of mine who lived in Paris on the eve of the Nazi invasion told me that the French perceived
Hitler as a clown. How could he challenge the nation of Napoleon? In World War I France had defeated
Germany in four years. But in World War II, France was routed by Hitler in six weeks, despite 10 British
divisions in France. The free countries should abandon this mood of self-congratulatory military
superiority.
5. The Westerners selling or giving to the slave state of China whatever helps her to grow its global
military might must be stopped in their so-far undeterred treason.
A possible question is, Why am I, an immigrant from Russia, a greater worrier about the survival of the
United States than many native-born Americans?

It is not in search of wealth that I and my family immigrated in 1972 (the first such Soviet permission
since the early 1920s). In Russia, my wife, and our son (who was educated at home) and I studied
English as the major language of freedom.
One consequence was that I became the first (and the last?) Russian able to translate classical Russian
literature into English, and the Moscow Publishing House of Literature in Foreign Languages sold my
translations abroad and paid me handsomely by Soviet standards.
My wife was helping me, and near Moscow we bought a three-storied stone villa, with 10 balconies and
terraces, so that we could receive foreigners as their social equals.
Fantastically, in the late 1960s, the owners of Soviet Russia decided to astonish the West with freedom
in their slave state and permitted several hundred of their subjects to emigrate for the first time since
the early 1920s (and possibly for the last time!).
Thus we came to America. Why America?

My life in Russia contained an overdose of fear that freedom would be annihilated in the West as it had
been in Russia. But America was one of the biggest and militarily the strongest of the free countries.
And it was her that I should help to survive first and foremost with my knowledge of the slave state
countries like Stalin’s Russia and of the free countries like the United States.
I foresaw what General Chi Haotian of China proclaimed since he became the minister of national
defense in 1993, except that he foresaw the annihilation of the United States as the most joyous event
(in the creation of the world slave state of China), while I as the most horrible disaster in human history.
At first my columns and General Chi’s speeches were perceived by American “top experts on China”
with equal scorn, but since Gen. Chi remains a top general of China despite his age (he is 80 years old)
and since I relied only on statistics like China’s output of steel, almost equal to half of that of all other
countries (including the United States) put together, the number and intensity of e-mails in support of
my columns have been growing in 2009.
The goal, of course, is to make this comprehension of the gravity of the geostrategic situation of today
most urgent, and I even suggested to turn to cinematography to make a film to create a mass audience
of those concerned about the gruesome geostrategic reality of today, for which purpose I have created a
not-for-profit organization Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., with a New York bank
account for tax-exempt donations to create such a film.

In conclusion, let me note that since our arrival to the United States, I have been indifferent to wealth —
mine and my wife’s reward and happiness are to save America and hence other free countries from what
Chi has so colorfully described.
To defend the United States and other free countries against the People’s Republic of China is a no easy
task.
For example, the U.S. presidents are elected by direct vote of all psychiatrically normal adults. Even in
the United States, George Washington was not elected by such “direct vote.”
As a result of this vote, President Obama, right after his election, declared the United States, himself,
and China to be “partners.”
Now he had been visiting his “partner.”
For George W. Bush, his predecessor, this mortally dangerous China hardly existed.

How Germany Was Routed in

World War II by Russia
According to the post-18th-century West, human society “develops,” that is, becomes more
“advanced”— more “civilized” — living more in cities (a word coming from Latin) rather than in towns
or villages.
However, as of 1940 (the year before Hitler invaded Russia) only 33 percent of the population of Russia
lived in cities or towns, while 67 percent lived in wooden villages (the Russian word for “village” comes
from the Russian word “wood”) and wore homemade straw sandals in summer and felt boots in winter.
Hitler’s spiritual peak was his listening to Wagner’s operas, especially those devoted to the old
Germanic wars. Hitler was a socialist and a nationalist, and Wagner was also at one time a socialist and
in 1850 he published an article, attacking his Jewish contemporaries like Mendelssohn.
Hitler’s army crossed the border of Stalin’s Russia on June 22, 1941, and was near Moscow by autumn.
Moscow in Stalin’s Russia was not just the capital of the country. Stalin’s Russia was a country-size
military-industrial corporation, and Moscow was its city-size office, with the walled-in Kremlin, where
“Comrade Stalin lived and worked.

Now, any intelligent person would suppose that Hitler’s troops would invade Moscow and the war
would thus be over — in the same year, 1941.
Had Hitler obtained Moscow, he would have obtained the military-industrial brain of the country.
But according to Western books of history I have seen, Hitler was routed by Russia, yet no Western
professor of history has said whether Hitler tried to seize Moscow, and if not, why not.
I was told by other Muskovites that at a conference with his subordinates in the Kremlin, Stalin said
that there were no troops in Moscow and that the Soviet Siberian and Far-Eastern troops were on their
way to Moscow to defend it.
Until then, he said, the Muskovites should start leaving Moscow on their own as soon as they could.
The result was what came to be called the “big skedaddle.” Anyone who could, skedaddled. My mother
and I skedaddled on the evacuation train reserved for Moscow writers, since my father was a writer,
who had volunteered for the front.
My God! Is it possible that Hitler knew nothing about what was going on in Moscow?
Well, since Hitler was a villain, most of his biographers present him as a pure villain. Yet every villain
has crumbs of innocence in himself. Hitler believed that espionage is below “the warrior’s nobility”:
Every native of a country who becomes a foreign-country’s spy is a traitor to his country.

Hence Hitler did not know what every Moscow teenager knew. Hitler’s soldiers could walk into Moscow,
but they loitered outside the city until the Soviet Siberian and Far-Eastern troops did come — and
routed them.
Thus Hitler had lost the war, the fact he was trying to conceal up to his suicide.
After his “near-Moscow” debacle, Hitler moved further eastward to Stalingrad. What for? To show how
battle-worthy he still was. But at Stalingrad, the Soviet troops captured an enemy army of 80,000
soldiers, along with all of their commanders, and the captured army was marched through Moscow, for
all foreign journalists to see and photograph.
Hitler was retreating. But who could see it? So, every city recaptured by Soviet troops was an event to
celebrate — a salute was fired, with a number of salvos, broadcast by radio for the entire world to hear,
along with the announcer’s triumphant words.
When in the West, I got interested in how Westerners describe Hitler and Russia.

Hitler was in command of the German army because he had been an admirer of Wagner and a lance
corporal in World War I and became the owner of his country like Stalin before or Mao later.
To keep his corporal’s fantasies and Wagner’s music in his head in order, Hitler had a professional
military helpmate who, therefore, was given the highest military rank. His name was Wilhelm Keitel,
and he was made field-marshal and chief of the German High Command. His memoirs were first
published in 1961 in Germany and in 1965 in New York.
In his memoirs, Keitel mentions Moscow 10 times, but he never explains the fact that Hitler’s failure to
invade Moscow led to his defeat in the war in Russia. We read in Keitel’s memoirs that he “took his
mission . . . to provide an unimpeded scope for Hitler’s genius.”
While Hitler committed suicide after he lost his war in Russia, Keitel was found guilty by the
International Tribunal and was sentenced to death on Sept. 29, 1946.
Let me move on to another sample of a Western view of Hitler’s war in Russia. On Aug. 27, 2009, I saw
in Yahoo! a 15-page article entitled “Russia in World War 2.” The first 12 pages of this article describe
and explain how the “Russian people” were “generally unwilling to fight for their terrible terror regime
once fear of it was lost, since the regime itself was being attacked and in danger.” Then on page 13, the
15-page article entitles its new, two-page section: “The Russian people start fighting seriously.”

That is, when the Russians understood how evil the Nazis were, the Russian heroism became general,
not exceptional. Hence began “what the Russians still call ‘The Great Patriotic War’.”
The name “The Great Patriotic War” was introduced by Stalin’s propaganda in a song performed at the
start of the war by “The Red Army Ensemble of the Song and Dance.”
Already in the 1930s, the Soviet propaganda began to change all “Soviet-Socialist-Marxist-Communist”
jargon into the language of Russian nationalism. Thus the war against Hitler was not a war for
“communism all over the world,” but the “people’s sacred war for their fatherland.”
However, according to the article, that was not a switch of Stalin’s propaganda, but “the emergence of
deep-seated Russian fanaticism, which turned the tide of the initial defeat of the Russian troops into the
rout of Nazi Germany.” Incidentally, Stalin was a Georgian who spoke Russian with a heavy accent. But
the article deals only with “the Russian people” and their “deep-seated Russian fanaticism.”

Obama 'Partners' With Slave State

of China

My Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a “slave state” as a “nation, subjected to a totalitarian rule.”
But I never have read or heard the expression “slave state” used in the sense my 1993 dictionary
suggests. Even the word “totalitarian,” which originated in 1926, has been vanishing.
Common in the free West is the belief in social progress, following the timeline of first, in antiquity,
there existed slavery, then, in the Middle Ages, more progressive feudalism, then, in our time. . .
Here the communists, whose founder was Marx (1818-1883), have been saying that feudalism was
followed by capitalism, to be followed by socialism, and then by communism (a paradise on earth all
over the world). Anyway, non-communists also will be likely to say that slavery does not exist today.
Oh, yes, it does! In WW2, the slave state of Germany defeated the free and modern France within six
weeks, while the slave state of Stalin’s Russia defeated the conqueror of France, and he committed
suicide.

It also is imagined often in the West that a country begins a war because it is insulted, mistreated,
offended. Hence to establish or keep peace, such a country must be treated politely, nicely, kindly.
But please note that the growth of China’s military power became phenomenal after the Tiananmen
movement of unarmed Chinese, calling for constitutionalism. What if dozens of millions of Chinese had
joined the Tiananmen Constitutionalists as dozens of millions of Chinese withdrew from the
“Communist Party of China”? What if the constitutional countries had helped them all to establish
Constitutionalism?
The dilemma of the owners of China is simple: Either they will occupy the entire world (that is, establish
their world empire), or their power will be taken away from them. They own all the wealth in the
country, including all inhabitants, and whatever the precious metals and stones stored in China can buy
in other countries.
The U.S.-China partnership is not just President Obama’s personal obsession. Many American “top
experts on China” have been expressing such views long ago, and probably the best known of them,
Michael D. Swaine, printed an article on the subject in The Washington Post of May 18, 1997. At the
time, Swaine was director of the RAND Center for Asia-Pacific Policy. In 2009, Yahoo! Reprinted his
1997 article under the title “Don’t Demonize China.”

Swaine does not even say whether China is, socially, a slave state or a free country. Any criticism of
China makes it appear demonic — like Hitler’s Germany after its invasions.
Thus, according to Swaine, “purveyors of the China threat employ distortions, half-truths and in some
cases, complete falsehood.” Swaine considers five clusters of such demonic lies as five myths.
• Myth No. 1 was created out of China’s “attempt to intimidate Taiwan.”
• Myth No.2: China is pursuing a crash program of military modernization.
• Myth No.3: China has already acquired advanced military systems
• Myth No.4: Perhaps “China does not have patient offensive capabilities as yet,” but will have
them “within a decade.”
• And Myth No.5: “China’s modernization effort is primarily intended to challenge U.S.
capabilities across Asia.”
Nowhere in the article there is even a hint that the social nature of the United States and that of the
post-1949 China is as different as were those of the democracy of France and of the slave state of
Germany when Germany routed France within six weeks. Any suspicion that the post-1949 China
differs fundamentally from the United States or any other democracy demonizes China.

When it became known publicly in the United States that the 44th president would make a three-day
visit to China, it often was forgotten that this would be a response of China to Obama’s two-day
reception in Washington of top Chinese officials and his declaration of the importance of the U.S.-
China “partnership.”
The sensational event of Obama’s visit was his talk with Shanghai students, namely, his “gentle
critique of their country’s approach to human rights,” as the Los Angeles Times put it.
What? He demonized China?
Well, Obama’s half-brother lives and wishes to live in China, though he has not a drop of Chinese
blood. How many inhabitants of China are like he is? To them, human rights are of no interest or are
just a disorder, and the absence of those rights is the order.
Then President Obama met with Hu, one of the owners of the slave state of China. Nothing became
known about their meeting. No need to explain how dangerous for the United States is such an
association of the U.S. presidents, visiting China on their own and meeting there on their own with
whomever they want — for example, (a? the?) chief of the gang ruling a slave state like a herd of
domestic animals without any restrictions.
The post-1949 slave state of China cannot be demonized, but the free countries can be turned to
dust by the slave state of China.
The social development from slavery, as in post-1949 China, to personal freedom, as in the United
States and several other countries, has been neither simple nor easy. Thinkers of genius have been
working on the subject of personal freedom or liberty.
But here comes Obama, and those who have never read a sentence of those books of genius elect
him as a genius in all fields of human endeavor, and he announces that the country of slavery and
that of liberty are partners! The owners of a country of slavery (slave state) and the leaders (like
Obama) elected in a country of personal freedom or liberty are partners!
Partners in what? In slavery or in freedom? Or in slavery and freedom? Those who are slave-
owners, and those who are slaves and those who have elected in freedom their leaders or have been
elected as such in freedom . . . they are all partners! In slavery-freedom?

China's Gen Chi: U.S. Easily

Defeated

From 1993 to 2003, Chi Haotian was the Minister of National Defense (read: “of world aggression”) of
the People’s Republic of China (read: “of the Post-1949 slave-state of China”). He is now 80 years old,
and since 2004 he has been vice chairman of the Central Military Commission of China.
In 2005, his speech was reprinted by The Epoch Times, an independent Chinese newspaper, published
abroad. His speech details the annihilation of the West and talks about world domination.
In my columns, I wrote about how Chi depicts China’s future war for its world empire as gleaned from
his speech.
The first target will be the United States as the most powerful of the free (and hence enemy) countries,
whereupon all the other enemy countries will be easier targets.
As for the United States, up to two-thirds of its population will be poisoned (chemical war) or infected
with mortal diseases (biological war), and all of their property will be transmitted to the new settlers
(the Chinese) as to the superior race. One-third of Americans will be left alive to be servants of the new
superior race.

None of this is new. The owners of the slave states of old wanted their slaves to get a share of the enemy
wealth to be loyal to them, their owners, and interested in their victory.
It would be wrong for the owners of China to spread such information as official: even a slave state is
supposed to behave internationally in peacetime as an advanced democracy. Thus, China has prepared
for world domination secretly.
Hence the spreading of savage slave-state information was entrusted to Chi, for which purpose he had
even been demoted in 2004, before he made his scandalous slave-state speech in 2005.
Besides, consciously, mankind should believe in the official propaganda of China and, subconsciously,
in its subhuman superpower, able to create a Chinese world empire.
This is why in 2004 Chi ceased to be the minister of National Defense of China and in 2005 was the vice
president of the Central Military Commission, and made his speech about annihilating chemically and
biologically two thirds of Americans. Well, one-third should be spared to prepare the former United
States for the new settlers (and later act as their servants).
In the parade marking the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China, the owners of China
demonstrated some of the latest weapons, instead of concealing them until the war Chi had described in
his speech of 2005.

Let the world know that China can develop, produce, and use all the weapons that the United States can,
but since the population of China is 1.3 billion and that of the United States is slightly more than 300
million, all those who studied math at elementary school can figure out the final outcome.
But since every American is free to think and speak, many Americans would rather think and speak
about their ability to afford to buy a pair of cashmere socks they have seen on sale this morning than
about the United Stated being annihilated by China.
As for American “top experts on China,” they found Chi’s description of China’s conversion of the
United States into part of China’s world empire to be a laughable forgery of someone (like myself)
describing Gen. Chi Haotian.
Here it is necessary to understand the role of American higher school education, granting degrees to a
graduate, which announces one as an expert on China.
Now, do these degrees ensure an expert’s ability to think? Well, this would be redundant, of course. Just
as elementary-school math enables anyone to be an expert in everything that can be counted, so too the
knowledge of a high school graduate certified by degrees enables people to discuss whatever this
knowledge certifies to be known.

Before 2005, hardly anyone of the American experts on China had heard of Chi Haotian, minister of
National Defense of China.
True, that happened in slave states of old. But few experts knew this term “slave state,” or have heard a
lecture on slavery, which can flourish today, as it did thousands of years ago.
But well-known events disproved the experts’ conclusion that Chi’s speech is a forgery. Chi has been as
grandly visible after 2005 as he had been before. The Epoch Times reprinted his speech in 2009, with
its introduction.
To my search “Chi Haotian Today,” Yahoo! responded with 18,300 results.
There is one of Chi’s predictions that is undeniable: a Sino-American war, and the later it occurs, the
greater will be the military superiority of China owing to its incomparably larger population, which can
be converted into the developers and users of the latest modern weapons.
Any advantages of the United States? Let us take, for example, the latest major war of the United States:
the war of the United States and its allies against Iraq, a technologically backward country, whose
population then was 26 million.

Today’s surveys of the war, like “George W. Bush and the Iraq War” in Yahoo!, leave no doubt that the
war was an insane rigmarole, complete with “a movement to impeach George W. Bush,” though his
stunts were more like insanity than just stupidity, and the pertinent topic is, what to do if the elected
U.S. president is clinically insane.
It is obvious that the American culture in spheres like warfare creates not intelligence but titles, and
among those the title of “U.S. president” is especially troubling, since the American revolutionary
method of conferring this title by the will of a majority of direct voters is on the verge of insanity, since
the more people think alike, the lower the level of their mental normality, sinking into insanity, like
Obama’s “thinking” at the beginning of his presidency that the United States and the slave state of
China are “partners.”
It is tragicomical that by electing the U.S. president, a majority of voters who elected him are also sure
that thereby they also elected the country’s top military man of genius, while his actual mental level may
be insanity.

China Won't Rely on Nuclear Weapons for World Conquest

Obama has planned an agreement under which the countries possessing nuclear weapons would get rid
of them.

But it is not for nothing that he has regarded as “partners” the slave state of China and the United
States, whose freedom of the press I tested when I attacked in my columns U.S. President Bush, while
the majority of the American people still supported him.

Anyway, on Sept. 23, 2009, Asia Pacific News came out with the headline, “China Calls for World
Without Nuclear Weapons.”

The nuclear disarmament session of the U.N. Security Council was “to be presided over by Obama,”
while “China’s President Hu Jintao addressed the U.N. General Assembly, and reiterated Beijing’s call
for a complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons.”

Very advanced! But what about torture to death applied for all the world to know to those Chinese who
dared to play their pantomimes, ascending to Zen Buddhism, that is, “Chinese Buddhism,” and
becoming known in contemporary China as Falun Gong?

“Turning to critics of China’s record on ethnic and human rights and religion issues, Hu called for
tolerance in society.”

“We should acknowledge differences in cultural tradition, social system and values and respect the right
of all countries to independently choose their development paths.”

Of course! Nuclear bombs destroy property, buildings, etc. But Gen. Chi Haotian (China's former
Minister of Defense) explained that from one-third to two-thirds of the American population would be
destroyed chemically and biologically.

Hence the American cities will be able to receive their new Chinese dwellers, who are racially superior to
the Americans, one-third to two-thirds of whom are to be killed chemically or biologically.

Besides, slavery instead of human rights for the Chinese in the post-1949 China is not only “their
development path,” but the path of all slave states in history. Historically, there is nothing
fundamentally new or different about the post-1949 China as compared with Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s
Germany.

Hu is against nuclear weapons? Not impossible!

The stock of nuclear weapons in China is smaller than that in Russia or the United States.

If China uses its small stock on the United States or Russia, either country will use their vast stock of
nuclear weapons on China and wipe it off the earth.

On the other hand, it has been found that it takes 20 grams of super thermotoxic generic weapons to
bring death to the 6.7 billion people, that is, the population of the globe.
Imagine what it will cost if nuclear weapons are used instead. Besides, nuclear weapons would destroy
all that city property with which the China slave soldiers are to be rewarded.

The Western Europe, including even Hitler’s Germany, evaded chemical and biological weapons! For
China, they (and not nuclear weapons!) are the basis of the future war.

No doubt we witness a new era in the history of Europe and Eurasia for thousands of years. Listen how
arrogant is Hu, China’s owner or one of the owners. The rules of life in the slave state of China are
determined strictly within the slave state and regardless of any rules of life outside it.

This slave state, whose population exceeds that of the United States more than four times, is developing
a global armed force which can be at least four times more numerous and powerful than that of the
United States.

China also will have an especially powerful outer-space force with which it will be able to attack the
United States and Europe.

In the 19th century, Britain defeated China in two wars and thus forced China to abolish its prohibition
on buying opium. China used to be considered a militarily backward country due to its vast rural
population.

Now China, with its 1.33 billion people, threatens Europe, including Britain — and the United States! —
precisely due to its more than four times larger population than that of the United States, and hence
ultimately able to produce at least four times more developers and users of the latest weapons.

Chi Haotian showed in his speeches that China prefers chemical and biological weapons, whose
production has been universally forbidden in the West for moral reasons.

The owners of China want to attack the enemy human power rather than the enemy buildings. The
latter can be used to accommodate the victorious Chinese slaves.

On the other hand, Russia and the U.S. have more nuclear weapons than China. Their nuclear attack on
China may lead to the devastation of the attacked country. The possibility of the exchange of such
devastations may lead to world peace, but the owners of China are not after world peace — they are after
the world Chinese empire.

World War III may be as dynamic as were World War I and World War II, but in terms of science and
technology, World War I and even World war II would seem antediluvian.

What about the outcome? For the free countries, the defeat of the free world would mean death or
slavery after martyrdom. History would have to begin anew.

The ultimate result? Perhaps, there will be no return to anything humane, creative, great. The Chinese
world empire will bring death or slave afterlife to a free civilization, the only one known on our globe.

Much has been said and written in the West about the vanity of that part of a wealth which is beyond
the use to its owner and/or his or her progeny.

The vanity of power such as one owner’s ownership of millions or billions of slaves is infinitely more
vain, to say nothing about its subhuman cruelty.

China’s world slavery must be resisted by the free countries not only for the sake of their own future, but
also for the future of Homo sapiens, as human beings have been known in the West since the 14th
century.

To expect that the potential owners of the world will give up their drive for the globe for the sake of
general wealth of mankind is more naïve than to expect that those whose income in a Western country
is above 10 percent of the statistical average will distribute the 10-percent excess so that everyone’s
income would be strictly equal to everyone else’s.

What Would Darwin Say About the Evolution of China?

In Stalin’s Russia, we had at school a special class called “Darwinism,” since Charles Darwin has
explained “the origin of species scientifically,” in contrast to "Christian and other religious fairy tales,"
according to Soviet propaganda.

The universe, as we can see it through telescopes, is a vast machine of many machines, and our solar
system is one of them. And on our Earth, which is a tiny speck in the solar system, there are even tinier
bits of life, some of which grow from the Earth, while others move about, and both produce life, similar
to their own, unless they die too soon.

According to Darwin, those fit for survival stay alive longer and produce progeny, and those who are not
fit for survival die out without progeny. In short, the survival of the fittest is at the basis of evolution.

But our Earth exists without its struggle for survival, while a microbe on its surface is to struggle for
survival and perhaps perish without progeny.

The more complex an organism becomes in evolution, the less (not more!) survivable it often becomes,
since it is more complicated. While microbes multiply, monkeys may be dying out, since they have all
the vulnerabilities of complex organisms, and no survivability of microbes.

Here we run into an implausible tenet of Darwin’s theory: his assertion that “being fittest” is the driving
force in the struggle for survival.

Many animals and plants become more complex as they become fit for survival. Certainly this organic
complexity can make them perishable. Fingernails or bones are more perishable than stones or other
inorganic substances.

However, organisms do not consist of fingernails and bones only, and further evolution of an animal or
plant may lead to its extinction.

It is not impossible that the world human power will transcend again to the most ruthless chieftains of
slave states, who will annihilate all enemies of their global power.

When Darwin published his “On the Origin of Species” 150 years ago, he failed to predict the
appearance in the next century of Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, or Mao’s China. But no one today
can deny their appearance.

Considering the history of the past millennia, we have to conclude that unlike the evolution of animals
or plants, the human progress follows not from the survival of the fittest, but from humanized culture,
which may have run counter to the evolution due to the survival of the fittest.

Indeed, the epochs which advanced human beings were the epochs remembered for their men and
women of genius. It is impossible to identify those epochs with the evolution of animals or of the
murderous savages of slave states, that is, humanoid animals.

About 150 years ago, accepted for the science studying human beings was the science that took a human
being for an animal, with its evolution due to the survival of the fittest. But people of genius did appear,
contrary to the survival of the fittest, as long as there was social freedom for them, and the murderous
humanoid savages were kept at bay.

Darwin lived in England at a time when few foresaw Hitler in Germany, a country distinguished by its
music, literature, and philosophy.

Human beings, domestic animals, and flowers in gardens and fields seemed to belong to the same realm
of the evolution, with its survival of the fittest.
I wonder what would be Darwin’s reaction in the 21st century if the globe had been reduced to a
disorderly graveyard, except for its best buildings preserved for the “superior race” — the Chinese.

But even if Darwin applied his survival of the fittest theory to all organisms except humans, it is
impossible to believe that the primates, such as monkeys, would become so advanced, compared with
their extinct ancestors, just because so many monkeys died in the struggle for survival.

Nor would Darwin’s selection of the fittest be more convincing for the students of Darwin if they knew
that the progress of human beings, which Darwin observed (in England), would be followed in the 20th
century by a horrible regress of humankind in Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, and Mao’s China, and
this regress may yet become global.

Darwin’s book essentially refers to the England of his time. But what about the universe as far as it can
be hypothesized from what is known in our cubicle of its vastness (infinity?)?

On our Earth, the physical, mineral, inorganic processes preceded the origin of the organic processes. Is
this a ubiquitous universal law?

If it is not, there may be different origins of organic processes of life. It should always be remembered
that our universe may be infinitely small, compared with certain infinite spaces unknown to us and
hence replete with a kind of life that we cannot imagine.

In our universe everything is finite, and infinity is an abstraction, which cannot be experienced, since no
one can travel from A to B for an infinitely long time exceeding the duration of his or her life.

However, it is also useful to take a human view of the “history of life” — with its spiritual and material
progress and then its nightmarish regions of state slavery in some countries in the 20th century.

Let us recall the genius in the spiritual life in the centuries preceding the 20th century while today’s
sinister possibility threatens that all humankind will be seized by the slave state — in China!

Darwin ignored the influence of human history on evolution. Actually, human history changes the
evolution of human beings themselves.

The final evolution may be the end of human life or a universal slave state.

Certainly the evolution that Darwin described is subordinate to these global changes. He lived in the
19th century, good old times for England, when his evolution could be directed by him clearly and
prominently. But human history is not always so good for his kind of science, and far greater and
infinitely more sinister changes may be in stock for the evolution than those that Darwin studied and
made known.

Obama's Partnership With China Endangers Freedom

Soon after Obama had been elected president, he held a two-day conference in Washington, D.C., and
he had invited some top officials of the People’s Republic of China, and declared in his address that the
United States and China (created by one of the most vicious dictators of the 20th century along with the
Bolshevik Stalin and the National Socialist Hitler), are — can you imagine it? — partners.

In my column on Newsmax thereafter, I described the conference as the most important evil event of
the century after Hitler’s decision to develop the atom bomb.

Fortunately, Hitler failed, since in 1941 he invaded Russia, was routed by Stalin, and committed suicide,
while the atom bomb was successfully produced in the United States (owing to Einstein’s letter to
Roosevelt in 1939).

Recently we had a new triumph of President Obama and his American-Chinese partnership: the White
House Christmas tree ornaments included Mao Zedong, the vicious creator and dictator of the People’s
Republic of China, who had far surpassed Stalin or Hitler in the number of civilians tortured to death or
killed without any legal investigation (forget about a trial). Mao now has his place in the White House.

On Dec. 24, 2009, FoxNews.com reported on the incident, “White House Christmas Décor Featuring
Mao Zedong Comes Under Fire.” On Jan. 5, 2010, I checked The New York Times for any mention.

There was nothing in the newspaper about the Mao and Obama ornaments decorating the White House
Christmas tree or “the fire” this caused.

Imagine Hitler’s ornament on a Christmas tree in the British parliament before Hitler began trying to
conquer England.

Well, if Churchill’s predecessor, Prime Minister Chamberlain, had played, with respect to the “new”
Germany, established by Hitler, the same role Obama has been playing with respect to the “new” China,
established by Mao, Chamberlain would have been sentenced to death as a traitor, and Churchill would
have been approved.

But how did Churchill himself become the prime minister? Churchill had been arguing that the “new”
Germany presented the mortal danger to England and other free countries.

He had a small audience. But when Hitler resumed his invasions, it became clear to more people that he
was right, while his numberless opponents, including Chamberlain, were wrong.

At this point, let me quote my Britannica, volume 5, page 750: "On May 10, 1940 . . . Chamberlain
resigned [because Hitler had shown his true colors] . . . and advised the king to call Churchill to be
prime minister . . . On May 13 [that is, within three days!] Churchill faced the House of Commons for
the first time as prime minister. The Commons gave him a unanimous vote of confidence."

In the United States, the U.S. president is elected by a majority of psychiatrically healthy adults. This
means that Churchill would have never been elected because a majority of the English people did not
know what he was writing and talking about.

He contended (and now, 70 years later, we see that he was correct!) that Hitler meant the return of all
mankind, including Europe and the United States, to what I call “slavery.”

Obama believes, as well as did Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, that slavery (with them as global slave
owners) is the beautiful future of mankind, except that it will be called by some new beautiful word, like
the word “communism” in 1917, which actually denoted a utopia, meaning that there will be no money,
and everyone will have free whatever he or she wants.

To elect Obama was the same as to elect any other American understandable to most Americans — a
majority of voters.

Since a majority in every country consists mainly of mediocrities, why elect incomprehensible Churchill
if it is possible to elect Obama, whom any other Obama understands?

If the prime minister in England had been “elected by a majority of voters,” Chamberlain, not Churchill,
would have become prime minister in 1940 and the world would have become enslaved, with Hitler as
the global slave-owner-in-chief.
Today the situation is more dangerous than ever.

For the first time, science and technology belong not to small nations (even Stalin’s Russia was a small
nation, compared to China) but to a nation whose population accounts for about one-fifth of mankind
and which is four times larger than that of the United States.

At last, the project of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Zedong seems feasible, and the fact that the
U.S. president has become a voluntary warrior among the warriors for beautiful world slavery is
perhaps significant.

This brings us again to the question whether freedom helps itself to survive or becomes a source of its
own self-annihilation.

Freedom saved freedom in the 1940s, since it is owing to freedom that a German named Einstein could
travel to the United States and persuade Roosevelt to begin developing “the atom bomb,” which thus
appeared in the United States before Hitler’s “atom bomb,” which would be able to make the world a
world of slavery and him, Hitler, the world slave-owner-in-chief.

But freedom also enables millions of people to become with impunity voluntary traitors to their own
country, that is, to freedom.

Marx and Lenin used freedom to teach how to destroy freedom and thus become happy.

Hitler enjoyed Wagner, but he never cared that in his utopian slavery there would be no composers as
remarkable as Wagner.

Well, Hitler never thought that he would have to commit suicide to escape the Russians, who entered
Berlin, along with their secret police.

China's Path to World Domination

The post-1949 China does not differ from slave states from the past thousands years, slave states such
as Stalin’s Russia.

I understand the post-1949 China because I lived in Stalin’s Russia. But foreigners like Walter Duranty,
who was The New York Times correspondent in Moscow in the 1920s and 1930s, accepted what they
took for reality in their own free country.

For example, they saw (and seeing was believing for them) that Stalin was elected in Russia in a
smoother way than was any statesman in the best of democracies.

If voters did not show up early enough at a polling station, members of the electoral commission would
come (they had the addresses of all their voters, since every Soviet inhabitant of 16 or older had to be
registered with the local police station to receive the right to reside) and would, very politely, remind
them that they were expected at the polling station.

Should a voter have said that he or she would not come to vote, he or she would risk more than any
criminal in a democracy.

I was 18 years old when Stalin was elected, and it was the first election I voted in.

I went to the polling station to vote early in the day. I picked not one, but — unobtrusively — two ballot
papers. Then, with an innocent smile, I asked the young girl in charge whether it would be all right to go
into the polling booth.
“Of course!” she beamed. Why wouldn’t a young man like myself have some privacy to write on his
ballot how great Stalin was, and that was why he was voting for him?

Inside the polling booth, my hands in gloves, I wrote on one ballot paper that Stalin was the world’s
greatest criminal, etc., put the clean ballot paper over this real ballot, left the booth, and dropped (both
ballots) into the ballot collection box.

Near midnight, after the polling stations had been closed and the ballots counted and my real ballot
read with horror, the police raided every building in our electoral district, checking the “internal
passports,” which every Soviet citizen was obliged to have after the age of 16.

Did the police hope to identify by his or her internal passport the criminal who had written what I had
written and what no policeman would dare read out loud even in top official secrecy?

Did they believe that a voter who had voted against Stalin would not have his passport in order?

But when Stalin became unable (on account of his death!) to do any harm to any subject, Khrushchev,
his closest associate, wrote a “secret” letter, which was not published but was read to the personnel of all
enterprises.

Any part of this letter would have been sufficient, when Stalin was alive, to have its author tortured to
death.

Since I did not belong to any Soviet bureaucracy and therefore did not hear the letter being read, I asked
our neighbor (a singer on the Soviet national radio station) what was said in his letter.

Cheerfully, our neighbor explained that “Stalin was just like Hitler, only worse.”

If Stalin believed that at least a tiny particle of love which his slaves expressed for him was true, the time
after his death proved even that to have been an illusion.

The owners of China can have no such illusion after the world-known Tiananmen Square movement for
a representative government instead of a slave state.

About 100 smaller uprisings every year are known only locally. And quite well known is the fact that
dozens of millions of party members withdrew from the Communist Party of China. The only way for
the owners of China to preserve their ownership is to make it global, as a result of which external aid to
local movements against the slave state will be impossible, as will be the inspiration of local slaves in
China by the very existence of free countries outside.

My Google search “China’s future world empire” produced about 1,440,000 results. Possibly, most
Americans have never seen a single one of these results.

The first listed a “two-day symposium held at the University of Chicago.” Who would care to read it? But
Google collects whatever has appeared in the media on the subject searched by a Google user in the free
countries. What about China?

Few Americans knew that in 2006 Google agreed to comply with Chinese totalitarian rulers’ demand
that Google censor search-results for China, and it launched a new version of its search engine Web site
in China. The site censors material about Tibet, human rights, and the Tiananmen Square massacre,
which followed an attempt of the unarmed Chinese (in 1989) to propose a peaceful transition from state
slavery to political freedom as in the United States, Britain, and other free countries.

It is noteworthy that China’s most vulnerable spot proved, for the owners of China, to be the people’s
search for a peaceful way to move from state slavery to political freedom.
Given this attitude of the owners of China, the only way for them to preserve their lives in inevitable
revolts (about 100 of them occur every year, but they are successfully concealed) is to make the world
their slave state.

To establish its world empire, China must have new superweapons. Google notes 8,950,000 results for
China’s new superweapons.

Was Google obliged to conceal this particular figure from the Chinese users? Not at all! The more
Chinese believe in China’s global victory, the better! They will drop their hopes for political freedom in
China!

In other words, an American may conclude that a world war for China’s global empire is already full
blast on. But possibly most Americans are interested in Chinese toys for adults and children, and not in
Chinese weapons able to “kill” an American military ship in mid-ocean.

Possibly most Americans do not notice China’s new superweapons. And as for CNN or The New York
Times, possibly there will never be a China-U.S. war even when CNN and The New York Times will be
used to settle the Chinese (the superior race!) in their buildings, as Gen. Chin predicted years ago.

A vast population of China (1,33 billion) can produce four times as many creators and military users of
new superweapons as can the United States.

No American academic expert I have read mentions this advantage of China. But this does not mean
that the owners of China will not use it.

The American refusal to pay attention to China’s global war is not to China’s disadvantage. Rather it is
to the military disadvantage of the United States, which was protected (against, for example, Hitler’s
invasion) by the two oceans and Canada.

Well, now it is not 1941, but 2010 — a Happy New Year!

China Preparing for World War III

Since the future of our world is likely to be decided by World War III, it may be of interest to predict its
outcome.

Owing to my obsession with freedom, I emigrated from Russia with my wife, our son, my mother, and
several hundred strangers (the purpose of the owners of Russia was to create the fantastic impression
that Soviet Russia was a democracy!).

My eagerness to emigrate was reinforced by my egomania, according to which I fancied that in the West
I would be writing in English whatever I thought and be paid for it, since enough Americans and other
Westerners would find what I wrote worth reading.

In 2005, Gen. Chi Haotian of China, its “minister of national defense” since 1993 to 2003, revealed in
his speeches that in China’s war on the United States, from one-third to two-thirds of Americans would
be poisoned or infected biologically by the Chinese, and their homes and property would be transferred
over to Chinese settlers, since the Chinese (and not the Germans, as Chi stipulated in his speech) are the
superior race and must have everything best in the world.
Anyway, a slave state (China) has this advantage over a free country (the United States): it can reward
(enrich!) 100 million or 200 million of its troops and its civilians with what those killed (poisoned and
infected) Americans and their ancestors had been acquiring for the past two-and-a-half centuries.

In the United States, an American’s betrayal of his country to China may well be seen to be his use of his
freedom.

This certainly applies to the U.S. presidents, whose elections (which have little to do with the
appointment of the prime minister in Britain) contradict the knowledge of mental ability, according to
which the value of a thought may include its exclusivity: Einstein said that he was understood by seven
people in the world.

It was only owing to Einstein’s letter to President Roosevelt in 1939 that the Americans got the nuclear
bombs before Hitler’s Germany completed its nuclear project.

Einstein emigrated to the United States because he was a Jew. Suppose he was not a Jew and did not
emigrate? Hitler would have “the bomb,” which his Germany began to develop earlier than the United
States. But what about the 100 percent American professors?

None of them wrote a letter to Roosevelt about both possibility and necessity of developing the nuclear
bomb. Einstein did, though officially he was not yet even an immigrant.

Have you ever heard the word “professor” used before the name “Einstein”? To begin with, he was not a
professor.

Mental worker and mental work have been evaluated in the free countries in the past centuries as
“genius,” “highly important,” or as “mediocre twaddle,” “a pack of insults, to humiliate his opponents.”

Today such comments are conspicuously rare in the United States. If a holder of an opinion is a
professor (something one can buy online!) or has another degree, rank, or title, that opinion is accepted
at least politely, and if he/she is just an Einstein, his/her opinion is ignored or met with a pack of
insults.

The result? My article “What the CIA Knows about Russia” (worse than nothing!) in the September 1978
issue of the Commentary magazine was reprinted or outlined in about 500 periodicals all over the free
world.

The most powerful free country has no intelligence service! A catastrophy? Yes! But the case was buried
by professors and other titled officials in total silence as beneath attention.

In the United States, it is still understood sometimes that scientific, technological, philosophical,
political or artistic endeavors have different levels of achievement, and not just one level. Yet the
academic and government bureaucracy in the United States tends to reduce all of its endeavors to one
level of mediocrity.

In the post-1949 China, we have been facing a geostrategic paradox.

By the standards which had prevailed before the “advanced” Hitler’s Germany was routed by the
“backward Russia,” China was classified as “backward,” since it had a vast agricultural population living
outside cities.

In 1917, the “backward” Russia produced 3.1 million tons of steel, as against 45.8 million of the United
States. But in 1989, the figures were 160 million for Russia versus 96 million for the United States.

In 2007, China produced 489.2 million tons of steel, while the U.S. output stayed near its 1989 figure.
Which one is a backward country?
Just a decade ago, China was still considered backward because of its huge population.

Today it is obvious (though not to most academic and government officials in the United States) that the
population of China, which is 1.3 billion, that is, more than four times larger than that of the United
States, can be converted by the slave state of China into at least four times more creators and users of
the latest weapons than can the United States.

A “slave state” is a mobilized military country, in which every slave is a mobilized military man or
woman.

The slave state of China has been at war, though that war is internal until it becomes an assuredly
victorious limited operation, like conversion of the United States (described by General Chi Haotian)
into a Chinese country as part of the Chinese world empire.

On the other hand, a free country enables everyone to be a great thinker as Einstein was. But many
Americans would not like to be Einsteins even if they had the ability.

I have not met anyone in the East or West more dedicated to freedom than those in charge of Newsmax
and WorldTribune. But the tremendous mission of rescue of the free world from the slave state of China
requires a far greater attention.

Hence life in the United States is presented by the rest of the media as an ongoing festival, in which
money as well as new goods and services, crimes, and sex are the most prominent, while for weeks or
months China seems to have never existed.

Few people in the free countries believed that Hitler would launch aggressive wars to become the world
dictator until he launched them just as soon as he was able to do so. But to the owners of China, wars
should not be started unless there is a certainty that having started them, they will win them.

The masters and slaves of China are preparing for victorious wars while free Americans enjoy their
festivals.

Why I Emigrated to the U.S.

In Soviet Russia, I could not publish anything I wrote. Writers were to publish only variations on Soviet
propaganda, which they would have to sign.

This was as impossible for me as it would be for a young girl expecting the love as described in great
Russian poetry to become a prostitute.

Since my wife and I knew English as well as our native Russian, because of our love for the English-
speaking (free) countries, I began translating Russian classical literature into English, and the Soviet
Publishing House of Literature in Foreign Languages sold my translations abroad and paid me well: The
House valued me as a source of foreign currency.

Thus, I became so rich, as the first and last Russian who had never lived in an English-speaking country
but was able to translate Russian classical literature into English, that we bought a three-storied villa in
the Russian countryside.

Even tourists from the English-speaking countries we invited for dinner were impressed. As for Soviet
Russians, the wife of Gromyko, at one time the president of Soviet Russia, complained that our villa
(they could see from their abode) was better than theirs, with which the Soviet government provided
them.

A certain Navrozov (what was he, a translator?) with his family had a better villa than theirs. She
bitterly concluded that even the Soviet society was still far from being fair.
In the midst of our happiness, as great as happiness can be in an unfree country, there was an
apparently insane rumor, which turned out to be true.

During the détente, to show how free Soviet Russia was, contrary to Westerners, who called it a “police
state,” etc., the Soviet rulers (read: “owners”) of Russia selected several hundred prosperous Soviet
Russians wishing to emigrate and permitted them to emigrate!

This was the first such case since the early 1920s.

But God thought our life in Russia was insufficiently perfect and ascended my wife, our son (now a
poet), my mother (my father was killed in World War II), and me into paradise — New York City.

My wife and I loved all English-speaking countries because they were free. But what would happen to
these countries in our world where Russia and China have become totalitarian?

The United States was the most militarily powerful of the free countries, and we associated this country
with the protection and defense of the free world.

One of our dinner guests in our villa in Russia had been an American tourist, Daniel Rose a real estate
developer who owned a 22-storied building in New York, in which he reserved for us an apartment.

Recently we have received a New Year postcard from him and his wife. Once you ascend to paradise,
God knows how to arrange it all.

The crucial detail of my life in New York was that I was free to write what I wanted, and my first essay,
entitled “Getting Out of Russia,” which I wrote during our Moscow-New York ascension, was printed by
the respected Commentary magazine (October 1972).

In 1975, Harper’s Magazine Press published, with all the rave reviews expected, my 628-page volume
entitled “The Education of Lev Navrozov” I had smuggled out of Russia. Volume 2 was ready, but I have
not published it. Now it seemed to me that the epoch of lifelong works of many volumes was over.
Instead, I began to write weekly (three-to-four pages) columns.

I had been living in Russia, a country, which lost its freedoms in October 1917, though some “experts”
on Russia believed that Russia under tsars would be the last country to listen to a Westerner like Marx.

The free world of today may lose its freedoms as well, contrary to predictions, as did Russia in October
1917.

As a totally improbable miracle, I was now living in freedom.

I had to help the free countries to preserve their freedom and possibly share their freedom with the now
unfree countries.

But was my intention realistic? I wanted Americans to understand that the way they elect the U.S.
president had nothing to do with how the British nominate their prime minister in Britain. In the last
20 years, critical to the survival of the free countries, the U.S. “general elections” have been electing
nincompoops as U.S. presidents.

Decades ago it was not fatal, since the United States was defended by the two oceans and Canada
against, for example, Hitler’s invasion. But now the owners of China are preparing for outer space war.

Today the U.S. nincompoops elected as the U.S., presidents mean the death of the United States and
hence of all free countries, to the triumph of the People’s Republic of China, created by Mao, possibly
the most murderous slave owner in world history.
It is so easy to ignore me for the benefit of numberless American professors and top officials. “What is
he? A translator of Russian classical literature who ran away from Russia?”

In the past 20 years, America has been running helter-skelter to its doom. Take, for example, the three
U.S. presidents in the past 20 years.

Let me just say about President Clinton that his photograph appears on the book cover (in the company
of General Chi, who declared that from 100 million to 200 million Americans will be poisoned or
infected in a Chinese attack) and within the book “Red Dragon Rising,” published in 1999. He never
expressed any suspicion of China’s phenomenal military growth.

President George W. Bush, without noticing China, except for exchanges of pleasantries with its owners,
tried for six years to conquer Iraq (population 26 million, as against about 300 million of the United
States).

The goal was to get Iraq’s oil. Instead, he got shoes thrown at him by an Iraqi journalist.

Obama has pronounced himself a “partner” of China, which is preparing for World War III to make its
power global, and adorning the White House Christmas tree last Christmas was the ornament of Mao,
the most ruthless tyrant in the history of tyranny who founded the “People’s Republic of China” and was
its first dictator, who 60 years ago initiated China’s military growth able to make it a global empire.

U.S. Appeases China at Risk of Domination

The word “Communist” became generally known owing to Karl Marx. Vladimir Lenin picked it up, and
Mao Zedong also stuck it onto himself and onto his whole gang he came to call the “Communist Party.”

By “communism,” Marx (and then Lenin) meant a world utopia, in which there would be no money, and
everyone would work without any remuneration to the best of his or her ability and get free of charge
whatever goods and services he or she needed.

Or take the People’s Liberation Army, established in 1927. A stranger may think that this Chinese army
conquers and massacres. On the contrary, it “liberates”! According to Mao, the entire world must be
liberated to become communist.

What was the political system of Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, or Hitler’s Germany? How do such
societies originate?

Many people like to own property. The ownership of slaves reappears in history, though the word itself
may change. By 1917 in Russia and by 1949 in China, the Russian and Chinese “proletarians” were to
understand that they were poor because they were being robbed by their rapacious employers
(capitalists or bourgeois), who were “overthrown” and replaced by the communists, ready to live in
poverty for the sake of their beloved “working class.”

A weakness of this theory is that, in 1989, that is 40 years after the rapacious capitalists in China were
replaced by the proletariat-loving communists, the “working class” was even poorer than it was 40 years
earlier.

The Tiananmen Square movement included many university students, who came to the Tiananmen
Square, Beijing. The professed goal of the movement was democracy in China.

But after 40 years of their ownership of the country, could the owners of China become part of “the
people”? They knew that apart from the Tiananmen Square gatherings, about 100 public protests
occurred every year, but the owners of China successfully concealed them from the outside world.
On June 4, 1989, at 2:00 a.m., 300,000 soldiers of the People’s Liberation [!] Army entered the
Tiananmen Square (with tanks) and started what came to be called the Tiananmen Square massacre.
The massacre became known throughout the world.

The owners of China concluded that the suppression of their slaves in China (one-fifth of the population
of the globe) was more scandalous than the wars to conquer (“liberate”) foreign countries.

The People’s Liberation Army had been ordered to liberate (to shoot) all those democracy-seekers in
Tiananmen Square. In charge of this liberation (shooting) was Gen. Chi, who in 2005 said that in
China’s forthcoming war on the United States, from 100 million to 200 million Americans would be
poisoned and infected with mortal diseases.

A book published in 1999 entitled “Red Dragon Rising” and subtitled “Communist China’s military
threat to America” carried on its cover a photograph of two gentlemen: one was Gen. Chi and the other
U.S. President Bill Clinton.

Another photograph explained: “President Bill Clinton holds a White House meeting with People’s
Liberation Army General Zhang Wannian, whose 15 Airborne paratroopers mowed Chinese civilians
during the Fourth of June, 1989, Tiananmen Square massacre.”

In the book, witnesses recall that the People’s Liberation Army killed on sight children of all ages,
including a girl of 5 or so who was holding her mother’s hand.

Let us see the Tiananmen Square massacre as a global event, since the population of China accounts for
one-fifth of that of the globe.

On the eve of June 1989, the owners of China probably thought: “For quite a while we did nothing. If the
Tiananmen Square movement spreads, it will come to power. That is, we will be deposed and killed. In
the past 40 years, we did enough harm to be sentenced to death.” In other words: “Full speed ahead!
China should be more powerful than the United States. We should liberate the United States. We should
liberate the world — for communism.”

Compare the pre- and post-1989 figures for China’s military growth. You will see that a steep all-out
military growth began in 1989 and has continued for 20 years.

It is not easy to defeat the free countries and establish the Chinese world empire. But it is more difficult
to defeat the 1,331 billion Chinese slaves. Hence, since 1989, the do or die slogan of the People’s
Republic of China has been the Chinese World Empire.

I receive many letters expressing my readers’ appreciation of sounding an alarm in connection with the
People’s Republic of China, as this slave state calls itself. But a few letters express their authors’
indignation that I upset them for no reason at all.

Let me recall George W. Bush’s five years of war with Iraq (its population 26 million, against about 300
million of that of the United States). The only prize the United States won was a pair of shoes thrown by
an Iraqi journalist at the U.S. president during his farewell visit to Iraq.

Freedom is great. But some of those living in freedom use it to keep their eyes closed to the mortal
danger for the sake of not ruining their good mood.

Remember those British prime ministers before Churchill? They were responsible for keeping their own
good mood as well as the good mood of many English people, who had been assured that Hitler would
not attack France and Britain.

Actually, Hitler occupied France “with a lightning speed,” and if it were not for Churchill as the prime
minister and Hitler’s war (finally lost) with Russia, the same fate could have befallen Britain.
The unwillingness to see the danger is not a source of safety, but rather is that of a fatal danger. Tireless
efforts are necessary to anticipate that danger, while living comfortably with eyes shut to that danger
ensures most pleasant life until the danger strikes to kill.

What is important to understand is that we are living in a strategically new epoch, which requires new
geostrategic knowledge and new geostrategic thinking.

Saving the Free World From China

In the first three paragraphs of his e-mail to me, Robert O’Brien says that he follows my columns and he
agrees with what I write about the mortal danger to the free countries of the “People’s Republic of
China” (with its population of 1,331 billion people and phenomenal rate of military growth in the past
decade).

Then he asks what Americans like him could do to save the United States and other free countries. In
conclusion, he writes that “you need to keep on beating the drum, sounding the alarm and reaching out
by using your God-given gift of writing about it. Perhaps you will reach more people like me and help to
educate the masses here about the true danger we as a free country face.”

Let me first mention two socio-political problems in the United States, which are disastrous for the free
countries endangered by the giant slave state of China.

Problem 1. Far too small and otherwise inadequate is the audio-video broadcasting in the United States
and other free countries to expose China, with its massive population (slaves), as a growing mortal
danger to them.

Problem 2. The “election of the U.S. president” is a fundamentally wrong

procedure in our 21st century, as compared with the selection of the British
prime minister.

Let me first comment on Problem 2 before proceeding to Problem 1.

British prime ministers have never been elected directly by the public, for if 51 percent of the U.S.
“public” voted for Obama, anyone of those 51 percent may be mentally lower than anyone of the other
49 percent.

Let me recall how tragic the election of Obama is (though it is perhaps no more tragic than the election
of his two predecessors). Right after Obama had been elected, he held a two-day conference in
Washington, D.C., to which he had invited top Chinese officials and at which he declared that China (a
slave state!) and the United States are “partners” — and so on, in the spirit of “partnership.”

In his almost two-hour State of the Union address on Jan. 27, 2010, Obama did not even mention his
“partner” China, though The Washington Post reported (on Feb. 28, 2009) that “China and the Obama
administration concluded [!] their first [!] military consultations.”

The British people elect members of parliament. The political party which has a parliamentary majority
sends its candidate for the next prime minister to the king or queen of England for approval to be his or
her prime minister.

A procedure of electing a genuine U.S. president, preferably like Churchill, and certainly not like
Obama, must be developed as soon as possible.

Now let us assume that Problem 2 has been solved. Let me now comment on Problem 1.
It is amazing how poorly the Americans have been informed about China’s military growth. For
example, the military output of a country can be gauged from its steel output.

UPI.com, a U.S. century-old professional journal, reported on Jan 2, 2009, that at the end of 2008 the
output of the U.S. steel industry had fallen to 1.02 million tons a week, that is, 49 million tons a year.
Now, Yahoo! reported that China’s “steel output to be at 600 million tons.” Compare: 600 million tons
of steel to 49 million tons.

Our audience must grow, and everything must be used to make us convincing and useful in the eyes of
as many inhabitants of the free countries as possible.

To be sufficiently audible and visible, we need to be able to employ a sufficient number of sufficiently
capable helpmates who understand how important it is what we are doing.

Hence I opened a bank account (Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc.) for
contributions, which are tax-deductible. The trouble is that the search for contributors is also a job,
while all my time is consumed by my weekly columns.

In conclusion, it might be worthwhile to delineate the motivational pattern of the owners of China and
of us, anxious to save the United States and other free countries from China’s world conquest.

Stalin successfully defended his ownership of Russia till his death in 1953. The population of his Russia
was reliably defended physically against any information except Soviet propaganda.

All news except whatever was transmitted by Soviet propaganda via radio waves was jammed. Printing
was a top secret job protected by the State Security. Foreign journalists were prevented from
“poisoning” the sterile country.

Hence there was no Tiananmen Square event calling for democracy in Stalin’s Russia.

The only way for the owners of China to retain their power is to own the world and establish Stalin’s
censorship all over it.

Some residents of the United States and other free countries understand that China’s world power will
certainly encompass their free countries, and understandably they are horrified.

But every day the citizens of free countries read, see, and hear that nothing in the People’s Republic of
China suggests this horror.

Life is short, and instead of trying to understand that this horror will happen unless it is prevented by
the free countries, and that for 25 years this horror has been getting more and more real, and in the next
25 years or sooner China’s world power is expected to become invincible, citizens of free countries
spend all their free time on pleasures of which the free world is perhaps more chock-full than ever
before.

My wife, my son and I left our villa in Russia for the sake of freedom. We found this freedom here in the
United States, and we will not exchange it for all the palaces of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao put together.

Our mission is to help the United States of America and other free countries to preserve this priceless
gift — freedom.

We cannot be complacent. No government pantomimes please, like the “war in Iraq.” No academic
twaddle. No entertainment instead of news.

This is a stiff struggle, of course. Our message must reach as many people as possible, and everything
must be used to make us as convincing and useful as possible in the eyes of the free people of the free
countries — and of the slaves of China!

China Must Conquer to Preserve Slave State

Just a quarter of a century ago, a country as populous as China was assumed in the West to be destined
to stay “backward,” that is, militarily weak.

Much earlier, in 1839 to 1844 (that is, almost a century before Mao seized it), China forbade British
merchants to sell opium in China. The advanced Britain responded with two Opium Wars, which made
China comply with the British sale of opium in China. I love Britain. But I had to conclude that China
was right!

But it seemed that China would learn bitter lessons from such wars.

It came to the attention of all nations, 25 years ago, that China was “developing,” as Britain once was,
followed by Russia, ending with Stalin’s industrialization and defeat of Nazi Germany.

About a decade ago, it became clear to the West that the world had changed.

It was realized that the size of a country’s population may be an indication not of its backwardness but,
on the contrary, of its military superiority via “industrialization.”

Sociopolitically, China was a slave state like Stalin’s Russia. China’s industrialization was now
dangerous to the free countries.

The military development of China has not worried many Americans enough even in the past 10 years.
An American who asked me not to publish his e-mail writes that my column, referring to the growing
danger of China, “splendidly spoiled” his “good mood.”

Those Americans who believe that in Stalin’s Russia or in Hitler’s Germany or in the China of Mao and
of those after him, there was or is freedom, and so everyone can choose the columnist according to his
or her taste, are ignorant or innocent like a child of two or three, who has never been allowed to see on
television an X-rated movie, a “movie for adults.”

Google, which originated later than Yahoo!, has refused to enter a deal with the owners of China to let
itself be censored, and hence must leave China, if it does not want to be censored.

In answer to my search “China’s military plans,” Google produced 48,700,000 results. But how many
Americans have read even one of them?

The logic of China’s plans for its world domination is as simple as was the logic of Stalin or Hitler. It is
safer to conquer the world than to try to keep the population of China in slavery, with the free world
tempting the population of China with its freedom.

About 100 revolts happen every year in China, but in contrast to the uprising in Tiananmen Square,
they are successfully concealed from the outside world.

One of Google’s results in answer to my search was that in China (in 2007) 50 million males from 9 to
18 years of age were drafted for military training, including self-defense and handling advanced
weaponry.

Just think of it: 50 million! Not all “developed countries” have 50 million as their total population. Even
today, 2 or 3 million people make up a large army in the United States — or the “official army” in China.
Now, the total population of China is 1.331 billion people, and 50 million of new recruits (in 2007) could
only be just a beginning!

We can foresee China’s world war to establish its world domination. Hitler dreamed of it after he routed
France within six weeks and before he was routed in Stalin’s Russia.

In his speeches going back to 2004 and 2005, Gen. Chi, minister of National Defense of China between
1993 and 2003 and then a top military official (he is 80 years old), described how China would attack
the United States first, for the victory over the United States would, in his opinion, mean the victory
over the rest of the world as well.

There is one noteworthy detail. About two-thirds of Americans will be gassed or infected with a terminal
disease, and their property, including their homes, passed over to the Chinese, who (the superior race!)
will be new settlers in the former (inferior race!) United States.

The American experts found this part of Chi’s projection of the war especially fantastic (possibly
invented by Lev Navrozov in his column).

Actually, such a scenario was a standard method of a slave state to stimulate its slave soldiers. What
could be more attractive for Chinese slave soldiers than to get, as payment for their work, property in
the United States for their seizure of the United States!

The most advanced industrialization must combine with the oldest ways of using humans. Let the slaves
rob the country they had seized.

There is nothing historically new about Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, or Mao’s China, now owned
by his successors. Freedom is much newer, and it disappears much easier than state slavery, which is
now called by the West “totalitarianism” — quite respectfully, for the free West has been having
commercial, cultural, technological, and other relations with slave states.

Is the U.S. Ready to Battle China?

What do a majority of Americans know about China’s “phenomenal military growth” after China’s
Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989?

In the Pentagon’s “Annual Report to Congress on Military Power of the People’s Republic of China,” the
Pentagon complains that some of the Chinese military data are not transparent; they lack transparency.

The Moscow Energy Institute, from which I graduated, demanded that each of us study what was
necessary to be an officer (of the Reserve) and an examination was given for this purpose.

Let me acquaint the Pentagon with what I was taught.

A combatant prepares a battle plan, in which there should be as little information as possible
transparent to strangers — and especially to a possible enemy.

Yet the Pentagon grumbles that not everything from the other side’s military data is transparent!

So, this is the war, according to the Pentagon. Its forthcoming opponent should make all military data
transparent to the other side. No secret data — and no secret intelligence.

Well, the Pentagon should have signed an agreement with China about military transparency years ago
and not grumble now that China’s military data are not transparent.

After the Pentagon’s annual complaints about the need of military data to be transparent, let us take a
glimpse into the real war.
In 2003, President George W. Bush led his American troops into Iraq. Published in the same year was a
book entitled, “Bush’s Brain” and subtitled, “How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential.” So a
U.S. president, apart from having been elected by a majority, also had to be “made presidential” by a
Karl Rove of Texas.

The photograph on the cover of the book shows a smiling Karl Rove, obviously pleased with everyone,
including himself and George W. Bush. On the other hand, the expression on Bush’s face reminds of a
caustic philosopher of genius, remembered by mankind for five centuries after his death.

With his right hand, Bush makes a truly presidential (Karl Rove!) gesture, begging the audience not to
worry, for everything will be presidential about him, owing to Karl Rove.

It is no doubt the presidential gesture of George W. Bush that doomed the Iraqi people to seven years of
needless invasion. .

Let us leave out the number of deaths in the invasion. It is less disturbing to recall its financial costs:
$720 million a day.

Now let us recall what has come to be regarded as the primary geostrategic factor — the number of
population, since all other factors are derived from this primary factor. The population of Iraq before
Bush tried to conquer it was 26 million. If Bush’s invasion of Iraq ended in nothing, imagine the end of
the U.S. war with China, whose population is 1.133 billion.

Not only is the population of a country the source of combatants, but it also is the source of its present
and future scientists and engineers, developing and producing the latest weapons.

Since the population of China is more than four times larger than that of the United States, the number
of China’s combatants as well as its developers and producers of latest weapons will exceed the
corresponding U.S. number more than four times, to say nothing of the fact that China has more
ruthless and hence effective means of mobilization.

This looming mortal danger is extremely unpleasant to many human beings, and, in freedom, some of
them are trying to convince themselves and whomever they speak with that the ultimate disaster has
been invented by those who panic far too easily.

Those who ridicule any catastrophe that can befall their country as an inane invention may do well to
recall that France laughed at Hitler — but he occupied France, along with 10 British divisions in France,
within six weeks.

In the second millennium A.D., the world’s geostrategic landscape changed. In the last millennium B.C.,
Athens and Rome were symbols of advance, while in the second millennium A.D., Britain, France, the
United States, and Germany were such symbols.

Now, in the 21st century, China takes up its geostrategic role. But are the United States and its allies
ready to defend themselves?

Let us trace George W. Bush’s war in Iraq beyond its stupendous costs of $720 million a day and its
ridiculous length, since 2003 to . . . is the Iraq war over?

Before his and his allies’ invasion of Iraq, Bush had prepared a one-page explanation of how the oil
industry of Iraq would be reconstructed. I received Bush’s explanation, but as far as I know not a single
brick has been laid to realize Bush’s plan.

A young American lady tried to convince me that impeccable freedom had been achieved in Iraq. That
reminded me of Stalin’s propaganda’s assertion that “in contrast to Western countries, freedom in our
country also ensures what is necessary for freedom, such as paper.” Anyway, Obama promised that the
American troops would leave Iraq by August of this year.

In general, let’s face it: the war in Iraq was Bush’s absurd and failed aggression. I do not mean that the
United States cannot carry out a successful invasion of a country like Iraq. But what is necessary — not
only on the battlefield but throughout the strategic cycle of war — is intelligence (has Karl Rove heard
the word?), known at its highest level as genius.

To sum up, those who watched Bush’s war on Iraq, with its population of 26 million, cannot imagine
that Bush could wage a victorious war with China, with its population of 1.331 billion people and its
technology striving to match that of the United States, not that of Iraq.

Judge Cuts $300M Smoker Lawsuit Award to $39M

Concluding a jury was moved by emotion rather than hard evidence, a judge on Wednesday reduced
$300 million in damages awarded to a Florida smoker against Philip Morris USA to nearly $39 million.
Broward Circuit Judge Jeffrey Streitfeld ruled jurors in November granted 61-year-old Cindy Naugle a
"grossly excessive" amount of punitive and non-economic damages. Naugle, a longtime Benson &
Hedges smoker, has advanced emphysema, cannot breath without an oxygen bottle and needs a lung
transplant, according to trial testimony.

The $300 million had been the highest damage award so far among thousands of lawsuits filed by
Florida smokers against tobacco companies. Streitfeld said he is convinced jurors were unduly swayed
by Naugle's poor health and what he called Philip Morris' trial strategy of attacking the smoker while
refusing to admit past wrongdoing.
"I must conclude the jury was moved by passions — sympathy for Cindy's suffering and anger towards
(Philip Morris') conduct and strategy," Streitfeld said in his order lowering the total to $38.9 million.
Under Florida law, Naugle — the sister of former Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle — can accept the
reduced award or opt for a new trial on the damages award issue. But her attorney, Robert Kelley, said
he will try to get a state appeals court to reverse Streitfeld's decision.

"I don't understand why he would set aside the hard work and effort this jury put in," Kelley said. "Why
should we accept it?"
Richmond, Va.-based Philip Morris also intends to appeal the lower damage award, said Murray
Garnick, associate general counsel and senior vice president at Philip Morris parent Altria Group Inc.

"We will seek further review of today's ruling and any monetary award because we believe that no
damages are warranted in this case," Garnick said in a statement.
Trials are taking place across Florida in the roughly 8,000 pending lawsuits filed by smokers or their
survivors blaming tobacco companies for serious health problems and deaths. So far, smokers have won
eight cases and tobacco companies two.
The lawsuits were filed after the Florida Supreme Court in 2006 threw out a $145 billion class-action
jury award for all Florida smokers, by far the highest punitive damage award in U.S. history. The court
said each smoker's case had to be decided individually, but smoker's don't have to individually prove
key findings of the original jury: that tobacco companies knowingly sold dangerous products and hid
smoking risks from the public.

Garnick said tobacco firms continue to challenge that ruling as "fundamentally unfair and
unconstitutional," arguing each case should stand or fall on its own merits. A federal appeals court is
considering whether Florida smoker cases pending in federal courts should allow the original jury's
findings about tobacco companies or make each trial start from scratch.

Stalin, Mao Gave History Horrible Footnotes

Joseph Stalin wanted to see himself as the incarnation of all virtues — and of all genius ever appreciated
on earth. Said a poem about Stalin:
“When the Sun in the East begins to rise,
“All stars pale and melt like ice.
“What all the greatest in the world have done
“Is like the stars at dawn, compared with the rising Sun!”

Stalin’s industrial-military development (industrialization) of Russia was based on his spending as little
as possible on the population, to be able to invest as much as possible in the industrialization. Thus,
Stalin’s workers and low-level clerks were living in “barracks,” the cheapest to build per inhabitant, and
Stalin’s peasants were living in the same huts in which they and their ancestors had been living. Of
course, now they were not called peasants, but rather, “collective farmers,” since they worked for
“collective farms,” and in exchange they were permitted to grow food for themselves on their little plots
of land close to their huts.

What kind of tenants lived in an ordinary Moscow apartment? Before 1917, one small family occupied
our six-room Moscow apartment. But in the 1930s, six families occupied it: a lawyer and his wife; a
physician with his wife and their child; a writer (my father) and his wife, a physician (my mother); a
bookkeeper and his family; and a car driver of an important official, the car driver’s wife, their many
children, and her mother.

Built for top Soviet officials was a huge apartment building, in which every family had an apartment of
its own, a unique luxury. My aunt, her high-placed husband, their 9-year-old daughter (my cousin, two
years younger than myself), and their housekeeper had their own rooms, until one day my cousin’s
father was arrested and shot. What for? Stalin was destroying the Communist Party, since he was the
Communist Party, the “Soviet government,” and all organizations that did what he ordered them to do.
My cousin’s father praised some communist to another communist, who got scared and “informed” on
him.

The next morning, after her father’s arrest, my cousin and an adult who accompanied her appeared in
our room. “My father had been arrested,” she told me. “But he is innocent. He has committed no
crime.”

Known all over the world is an independent periodical The Epoch Times, published outside China by
the freedom-loving Chinese. It devoted a recent article to the Chinese economy, and it is amazing to
what extent the picture coincides with what I had observed in Stalin’s Russia. Amazing but not
surprising.

Stalin discovered that a modern army able to rout Adolf Hitler’s German army could be created in
Russia by robbing that same population stratum the Soviet propaganda contended that Hitler robbed in
Germany.

Mao Zedong, who came to power in 1949, followed Stalin’s recipe, except that now, with China’s
population at nearly 1.35 billion, its rulers are expected to create, by Stalin’s recipe, an army able to rout
not only a German army but also the U.S. army as well, to be followed by routing whoever still remains
to resist their world power.

Mao was different. He was a son of a fairly rich peasant. From 1949 to 1975, he is believed to have killed
close to 70 million people. Why not? On his photograph at the end of his stay in power, that is, his stay
in life, his face is fat, his forehead small, and his smile without parting his lips expresses his general
satisfaction with life.

Google supplies the references to Mao’s ritual, according to which it was stated whether the death
sentence meant death only or torture as well. Different kinds of torture had different names, and so the
kind of torture could be specified: “sitting in a sedan chair,” “airplane ride,” “toad drinking water,” and
“monkey pulling reins.”

Mao seemed to have failed to understand what was wrong in his murders, with or without torture. His
face in old age is as innocent as that of a docile domestic animal.

In the final period of Stalin’s rule, when his glory was still unblemished, he was preparing to enter a
new, splendid phase of his life, as I learned from his close subordinate, who had a villa not far from
ours, in the countryside. In his youth, Stalin was studying to become an Orthodox priest (Orthodox
Christianity was practiced in his native Georgia, as it was in Russian Russia).

Now, Stalin was planning to be God, according to Stalin, in Orthodox Christianity, and his sculptured
holy image was to be ensconced in the important Orthodox churches, to be then spread all over the
country.

“Of course!” ironically said our neighbor Alisa Poret, an artist and the widow of a writer, “Remember
the song: ‘Stalin is our glory in all battles, Stalin is our youth and our flight’? Obviously, such words do
not express divinity or eternity, but this is what they called for.”

To Stalin, all that occurred in Russia since 1917 had been Stalin, and to Mao, all that occurred in China
since 1949 had been Mao. All that was needed was to stretch their greatness to eternity. But that did not
happen. Stalin died before he became God. Mao died without sanctification, because religion in China
occupied a lesser emotional space than Christianity in Russia.

Both Stalin and Mao went through “the criticism” after their infinite power (and life) were gone.
Possibly, they will be remembered no more and no less than Ivan the Stern in Russia. Outside Russia,
he is not Ivan the Stern but Ivan the Terrible, and terrible is terrible. Perhaps Stalin and Mao should be
recalled everywhere not as the terrible, but as the horrible. Stalin the Horrible and Mao the Horrible,
who dragged the history of the 20th century to the prehistoric horror, into which the entire mankind
may yet sink as to its eternal live grave, with or without total extinction.

Soviet Russia Enslaved Spiritually As Well As Physically

It may seem that with all public means of information at the disposal of the successors of Stalin, who
died in 1953, they would have no difficulty in making their spiritual slaves believe in their beautiful fairy
tale instead of the real yet ugly history. But the task was impossible!

Before the “October Revolution” of 1917, Russia was, politically, not much different from France or the
United States. That was something that Marxists like Lenin could not stand!

According to Marx, private employers, whom he called “capitalists,” received a profit, that is, robbed
their employees, who were starving as a result. “Arise ye prisoners of starvation” starts the hymn called
“The Internationale.”

In October of 1917 (by the Russian calendar), the power in Russia was taken over by Lenin and his
disciples, who forbade private employment. But the result was so disastrous that Lenin reintroduced
private employment as the New (old) Economic Policy. The political power that was established was
called “Soviet,” since the Russian word “sovet” means “advice” or a “group of people seeking the best
advice for institutions and enterprises.”
That is, in October 1917 and thereafter, the political power in Russia persecuted whomever and however
it wanted, to make its power absolute. Yet it was called advisory (Soviet) power, and Russia was named
“Soviet.”

However, Lenin became ill and was confined to a hospital, while one of his little-known subordinates
named Stalin (from the Russian word “steel,” not “sovet”) suggested that Lenin stop writing letters from
the hospital “not to aggravate his condition,” but ill tongues were saying that Stalin actually wanted to
keep his beloved leader from being seen by new, outside physicians.

Well, Lenin died in 1924 at the age of 54, and Stalin became the “democratic dictator,” as Mao was
called in a recent TV program in New York.

Stalin soon “discovered” that all the once venerated disciples and rivals of Lenin and Stalin (Trotsky,
Kamenev, Zinoviev, Bukharin, and others) were “subhuman monstrous traitors.” So, having gotten rid
of them, Stalin alone remained the “democratic dictator” up to 1953, when he died at the age of 74, and
shortly after his death he was attacked by his dearest helpmate in a letter, read at all enterprises and
describing Stalin as “our Hitler, only worse,” as I was told by our neighbor, a singer for the Soviet
countrywide radio station.

In Athens and in Rome, when they were centers of culture, slaves were called slaves. But the Soviet
creators of slavery had to turn Russia into a concentration camp and keep their slaves as its spiritual,
and not only physical, prisoners.

It was actually a new slavery. Why was the old slavery no good?

In the old slavery, no one tried to convince slaves that they were not slaves: they were called “slaves.”
But in the 20th century, there were large and rich countries, and soon they had radio to broadcast their
radio programs to Russia, regardless of what Soviet creators and supporters of the Soviet slavery said.

So in order to preserve Stalin’s vast concentration camp once called Russia, the slaves were to play
happy dwellers of paradise-on-earth, in contrast to evil capitalism all over the world. To make those
slaves within the vast concentration camp seem happy paradise dwellers, a new Soviet culture had to be
created by suitable Soviet slaves (for money and other privileges) and imposed on all slaves, and first of
all on their children, via new Soviet nurseries, kindergartens, schools, and other new Soviet educational
institutions.

The new Soviet media, movies, radio, and later television were to convert all slaves to the Soviet culture,
making all slaves believe that the new slavery was freedom, happiness, and the divine truth, for Stalin
finally wanted to be God.

The task of the Soviet workers of the Soviet culture was not as easy and simple as it may have seemed to
some of them. True, those being converted could not argue, for those who argued were enemies to be
arrested if they were of age or to be taken to correctional institutions if they were not. But on the other
hand, a silent slave is also a problem.

I went to kindergarten when I was 6 years old, and, miraculously, in a Soviet propaganda move
intended for the West, I emigrated (!) to the West with my family when I was 44 years old. So the Soviet
culture had 38 years to convert me. Yet the result was my understanding of the new (spiritual, and not
only physical) slavery, which appeared in Russia in October of 1917, to be followed by Germany in 1933
and by China in 1949.

There were difficulties for the Soviet “conversion slaves,” that is, slaves converting Soviet slaves to
spiritual slavery.

Russian prose (such as Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky) had been embraced with love and devotion in the free
countries. But something began to grow at the beginning of the century: the unique Russian poetry,
which was missed in the West because it required unique translation. So it was ignored globally, but we,
in secret loved it, knew it by heart and kept whatever remained of it materially.

Hence while the spiritual slaves missed it, we recognized it, as did the Russian poets themselves, in
contrast to the producers of Soviet rhymed and blank-verse platitudes as “poetry” for the new slaves.

But the publicly secret poetry of genius was not the only obstacle to everyone’s spiritual slavery. Life
itself, as crude as reported in Soviet political news, undermined the belief into the Soviet truthfulness
even among the most credulous. The Soviet leaders?

So, after Lenin’s death at the age of 54, the Soviet spiritual slaves were being forced to believe that the
“Soviet power” consisted of heinous traitors, except for Stalin, a Georgian who spoke Russian with a
heavy accent, and who lived and ruled up to 1953, when he had died at the age of 74, before he had
installed a statue of himself as of God in the major Russian Orthodox Church, as his former subordinate
told me after Stalin’s death.

‘When China Rules the World’ Pays

Homage to China
My search for Martin Jacques’ book about China yielded some 507,000 Google hits.

I called Barnes and Noble’s reading room to inquire about the book. “We have 12 copies of the book,” I
was told, “and they all are being read.”

I ordered a copy of the book, and about a week later, I received it.

The title on the front jacket of Jacque’s book reads, in bold black font and capital letters, “When China
Rules the World.” The title seems to be timeless: It can mean the present as well as the future. Nor is it
clear that China’s rule of the world is something good and inevitable or bad and also inevitable.

So why is this book so sensational?

The tests of new weapons on the ground, at sea, in the air, and above the air cannot be concealed, and
hence the United States and other democracies have an objective picture of growth of China’s military
might after 1989, when the owners of China possibly decided that they should crush the United States
once and for all (see General Chi’s speeches of 2005) rather than fuss with about 100 “Tiananmens” a
year in China, one of which, on Tiananmen Square in Beijing, became known all over the world after the
owners of China murdered its participants for their “illegal request” to have democracy in China.

Thus, the population of the United States and other democracies has known for many years about the
“phenomenal growth” of China’s military might. What was the purpose of this phenomenal growth?

China’s Gen. Chi described how China would rout the United States, kill from one-third to two-thirds of
its population, and pass their property to new (Chinese) dwellers in the former USA.

And suddenly Americans read, “When China Rules the World.”

Without a war against the United States and its allies!

Under the book’s title there is a subtitle in red letters: “The End of the Western World and the Birth of a
New Global Order.” Then comes the picture of a terrestrial globe, with the earth cut out and visible in
red, since the hard cover of the book is red and shows through the cutout as a “red earth.” Finally, at the
bottom of the front jacket is the author’s name in black.

According to Google, Martin Jacques was born in England in 1945, making him 65 now.

In 1977, Jacques became editor of Marxism Today, a brainchild of the Communist Party of Great
Britain, and in 1991, that is, 14 years later, the publication was closed down. Had Marxism become so
unfashionable? Well, Marxism helped Jacques to present his program without mentioning the
unfashionable Marxism.

Marx postulated that it is the regress of capitalism and the progress of socialism — and not wars! — that
lead to the end of capitalism and to the “birth of a new global order.”

Such is Jacques’ global view on the front jacket of his book.

However, no one would buy his book consisting of one page (the front cover of the jacket) even in China,
to say nothing of the “ending Western World.” So he added 550 pages — which add nothing new to the
front jacket, but create the commercial impression that “When China Rules the World” is a scholarly
volume, not just one sloganistic page.

On page 3, the reader will see Figure 1, with two tables. The bottom one is “The World in 2050,” in
which China is the only country rising economically twice as high as the United States and India. The
other 20 countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, France, and Italy, are,
economically, so small in 2050 that most of them are barely visible above the zero line. But who have
supplied these data for 2050? The owners of China? Jacques lectured in China (on Marxism?).

It seems that the ambiguous front jacket was designed to attract as many people as possible to buy the
book, while the innards of the book (550 pages) extol China as fantastically as possible to the
satisfaction of the owners of China.

Characteristic in this respect is Figure 13 (on page 162): “The decline of poverty in China.” According to
the graph curve on the figure, more than 50 percent of the population of China in 1980 lived below the
poverty level, while in 1998 the figure was less than 10 percent.

But is a “decline of poverty” all that the population of China wants? The Tiananmen massacre occurred
in 1989, that is, in the middle of the “decline of poverty,” which Jacques tabled in triumph.

The Tiananmen people did not mention the decline of poverty — they laid the emphasis on political
freedoms and were massacred for their peaceful request. Jacques does a great service to the owners of
China: He is persuading the population of the United States and other democracies that it is so absurd
to think that China has been growing militarily in order to strike the United States (as Gen. Chi
describes it in his confidential speeches) that Jacques never even mentions it.

What he explains is that China, owing to its intrinsic superiority, is becoming so wise, advanced, and
powerful that the world will do well to ask China to rule the world.

“The End of the Western World,” as we read on the front jacket of the book. Who, except China, can
rule the world, including the Western world?

Jacques’ English ancestors acquired colonies by wars. In this case, the world outside China must see the
tremendous advantages of becoming — no, not China’s colonies — but part of China’s communist
territory itself!

Then Jacque’s book or its front cover jacket will become a historic document that showed the world (130
years after the death of Marx) its real route to peace and happiness for all countries and the advent of a
paradise on earth “When China rules the World.”
Stalin, Mao Were Nothing More Than Criminals

I received an e-mail from a reader (Ovais S., in Los Angeles) regarding my March 4, 2010 column,
“Stalin, Mao Gave History Horrible Footnotes.”

Ovais disagrees with my description of both men as heinous criminals. He says: “These two leaders who
ruled their nations with an iron fist, made their countries great super powers.”

Well, before its October 1917 Revolution, Russia was noticed by the Western countries owing to its
“classical literature” and “classical music,” including its performance. But what followed under Stalin’s
tyranny was the disappearance of great literature and music in Russia, including the emigration or flight
or silence of world-known writers and musicians.

The process of barbarization under Stalin continued, so that every decade was more sterile than the one
before, and the decay reached its highest peak at the time of Stalin’s death in 1953.

As for China, culturally developed countries, including pre-1917 Russia, were interested in the Chinese
pre-20th-century culture (standing on our tables in our apartment — no, our room, in which I grew up
in Moscow, were beautiful samples of classical China).

Says Ovais: “These two leaders [Stalin and Mao], who ruled their nations with an iron fist, made their
countries great super powers.”

Now, what does that mean, “great super powers”? When Stalin died, even his subordinates publicly
denounced him as a megacriminal who treated the population of the country as disgusting insects and
who inter alia had annihilated the Russian culture, having replaced it with art-like propaganda, dumped
after his death in 1953.

When Mao died there was a similar time of his eclipse. But then the worship of him was restored.

The fact that Marx and his self-appointed followers have been saying scornfully “bourgeois” to mean
“democratic” does not deprive democracy of its crucial sociopolitical value. Once upon a time the power
was transferred by royal birth. Then came democracy: Those in power are elected by vote.

How did Stalin and Mao get their absolute possession of Russia and China, respectively?

A criminal who wants to seize a property may find it difficult or impossible to do so alone. So he collects
a gang, big enough to do so, and becomes the owner of the property such as a country, with members of
his gang as his subordinates.

After Stalin’ death, a letter exposing him as a sinister criminal on the scale of Russia was written — by
his subordinate! And the letter was read at enterprises and other institutions of the country.

As I have said, there was a cooling-off period toward Mao after his death, but then the owners of China
decided to continue to glorify him as before — evidently because he was dead and hence no longer
dangerous. In my column, I mentioned that Mao killed 70 million Chinese. When dead, he could not kill
even a fly.

Ovais continued, “Stalin made a weak Russia strong through its military, while Mao changed a drug
addicted, morally corrupt and a weak nation to what it is today.”

Originally, Russia was a small principality, but by the end of the 20th century it had conquered a larger
territory than any one country had ever done, and its many nations still speak their national languages,
not Russian. Surely Russia then was stronger than in 1953, when Stalin died.
In 1949, when Mao came to power, China had been “drug addicted, morally corrupt and weak.”

Yes, having killed 70 million Chinese, Mao possibly decreased the drug addiction by killing many drug
addicts, real and suspected, and all those “morally corrupt.” As for the military power of China, it began
to grow after the 1989 massacre of the Tiananmen pleaders for democracy in China, instead of the
absolutism, established by Mao in 1949.

Thus, 1989 became the year in which the owners of China started intense military growth. Mao died in
1976, 13 years before this trend began.

For centuries before Stalin, Russia was sufficiently powerful to wage wars, despite its many non-Russian
areas. It was after Stalin that the non-Russian areas began to fight for their independence, and
ironically, Georgia, Stalin’s motherland, is now independent from Russia.

As for China, one element should be mentioned in its future wars. Those wars will be fought with
weapons, but there possibly will be Tiananmen-like rebellions, whose number and scale cannot be
predicted.

“These leaders [Ovais goes on] have proved that nations can achieve great heights without any
democratic values.”

When Russia was a comparatively free country before the October 1917 Revolution, its high culture was
world-known. Now, Stalin’s culture was a pathetic caricature. Like the culture of Hitler’s Germany, with
Hitler as a live cartoon.

“Both of these leaders [Ovais declares] knew that it was better for their nations to die on their feet than
to live on their knees.”

Under Stalin, the Russian population lived and died on their knees up to Stalin’s death, when the
population stood up to say and hear that Stalin was one of the worst criminals on this earth.

“Stalin and Mao [we read Ovais penultimate sentence] made their countries so strong that no nation on
the planet can ever dream to invade them.” Well, Georgia, for example (incidentally, Stalin’s
motherland), has separated itself from Russia, and such struggle for national freedom weakens a
multinational Russia.

What about Russia and China at war? In his e-mail, another reader of mine asks: “In case of war
between China and the U.S.A., which of the two Russia will support?” The U.S.A., I am sure. In his
hymn to China’s strength due to Mao and to Russia’s strength
due to Stalin, Ovais forgets about the possibility of a war between them.

Ovais’ last sentence is also worth quoting: “These two men have disappeared [Mao has not disappeared
in China], while their achievements [invented by Ovais] have been recorded in the annals of world
history” [that is, in Ovais’ e-mail].

Stalin and Mao are not alone. Gangsters and their gangs who capture countries are engaged in global
criminal activity, more dangerous than common-scale gangsters.

Nations should be on the alert infinitely more than should any banks, for the expropriation of a country
constitutes millions of times more crimes than a bank robbery and entails infinite suffering.

FALTARAM OS DE ABRILS DE 2010

China Threat Goes Unheeded
After Lenin and Stalin established their Russia-wide prison, everything in it became revolutionary: It
was officially called the “Union [!] of Soviet [!] Socialist [!] Republics [!]”. No wonder Mao’s
countrywide prison has been called the “People’s Republic of China.”

You see? “Republic” is not enough — it has to be the “People’s Republic”!

As for national socialism in Germany and fascism in Italy, the national-socialist Germany began to be
called “Nazi” Germany, with the implication that nothing is as anti-socialist as “Nazi.” Or as “fascist.”

The word “fascist” comes from “fasces,” the rods, held before magistrates in ancient Rome, and Roman
law is still regarded as the basis or origin of legal justice. But the word “fascist” began to denote right-
wing brutality: In Stalin’s Russia, to call Stalin a fascist (loudly enough) would have meant to run the
risk of being (secretly) tortured to death.

Today it is obvious that the new society like the “People’s Republic” is made of absolutism, as it existed
for millennia, and private enterprise, as it has been developing in the Western “bourgeois countries.”
Absolutism in Stalin’s Russia or in the People’s Republic of China has preserved its military advantages
in warfare.

On the other hand, private enterprise is efficient, especially if foreign capitalists are invited, in the
production of whatever is needed for daily warfare. Unique projects are handled by institutions of
Absolutism.

Hence the People’s Republic of China combines absolutism and private enterprise with attention to the
working force such as the requirement to have one child per family, since this is better for absolutism
than even two children to grow up in poverty, one of whom may become a criminal, as depicted in a
Soviet underground song.

One child per family becomes a developer of the latest weapons or their user in the army, commanded
by the absolutist owner of the country.

So: Absolutism plus private enterprise, inviting foreign capitalists. What is mortally dangerous to, and
possibly fatal for, the free countries is that the population of China is 1.3 billion. That is, for the United
States, with its 300 million people, this is like being confronted with four countries of its own
population size.

In World War I and World War II, the United States was out of reach of German aviation. The owners of
China have been developing space warfare, whereby each point of the United States is expected to be as
accessible to space weapons as Britain was accessible to German aviation.

So far no authoritative group that I am aware of has addressed the American population with a message
warning about the threat of annihilation of the United States by China’s global attack with space warfare
weapons and in alliance with Japan and whoever else would join China’s space warfare crusade.

At the beginning of his presidency, President Obama had a two-day meeting with top China officials,
whereby Obama proclaimed friendship between the two countries.

Nowadays he has declared that the United States is more powerful than the People’s Republic of China,
and hence all fears are unfounded.
Totalitarianism has its military advantages, while democracy has its own. The military strength of a
totalitarian society comes from the conversion of its entire population, beneath the level of the country’s
totalitarian owner, into slaves or better yet into tools performing what their owner wants them to
perform in time of peace or war.

Democratic society has its own strength obvious from the statistical fact that many thoughts
indispensable for wining a war come from the minds of “people,” not “specialists.” Thus Einstein did not
even have the status of an immigrant in the United States. He fled Germany as a fugitive from “justice.”

His guilt was being a Jew, and to face German “justice” would mean to face death.

Yet owing to his letter to President Roosevelt in 1939, the United States obtained nuclear bombs earlier
than did Hitler, who lost the war and committed suicide, since he failed to have nuclear bombs earlier
than the United States.

Thus, the thinking of a foreigner in flight named Einstein was more important than entire thinking of all
democratic governments and their military men put together. But for this to occur, the people without
any posts or salaries and in flight, like a fugitive such as Einstein, had to know what Winston Churchill
said in his famous speech about the life-or-death determination to fight Hitler’s Germany.

One essential note would be in place. Suppose a British or an American spy in Hitler’s Germany had an
opportunity to go through all German government records to find out Einstein’s involvement in the
development of the nuclear bomb in Germany.

The spy would find nothing, because Einstein was never connected with it. He wrote to Roosevelt about
nuclear research going on in Germany because he thought about it, but bureaucratically speaking, he
had nothing to do with it.

Similarly, his nuclear bomb message to Roosevelt in 1939 was not a result of any connection with any
development of such a bomb in Germany, but a result of the thinking of a man of genius.

Thus democracy enabled the brilliant mind of a scientific visionary, a fugitive from German “justice,”
never connected with nuclear research in Germany, to come to the logical conclusion about the need to
start the development of the nuclear bomb in the United States and obtain it ahead of Germany to save
the United States and other free countries from being destroyed by Nazi Germany.

The threat from the People’s Republic of China to the United States is no less serious than was the
threat from Hitler’s Germany.

Citizens of the democracies must know China’s intentions, as in 1939 they knew about the threat
coming from “national-socialist Germany” owing to Einstein.

Otherwise the advantages of the democracies (freedom of thought) will be lost — just imagine what
would have happened if Hitler’s Germany had obtained nuclear weapons ahead of the United States.

Russia, US Should Join Against China

A smart Russian friend of mine, an outstanding technologist living and working in the United States,
sent me a 17-page transcript of one of Yulia Latynina’s Saturday television talk shows called “Code of
Access.”

Google introduces Yulia as a “Russian journalist, writer and radio host” and devotes to her nine
headlined paragraphs plus “video results.”
To me, a Russian who emigrated from Russia 40 years ago, Yulia is a Russian woman in a new role in a
new Russia. Forty years ago her program would have been impossible and, indeed, inconceivable: a
charming young woman discussing life in Russia on her TV program, criticizing its social and political
aspects, thinking out loud . . .

Indeed, I find in Latynina’s program the thoughts which I have not heard in the United States, but
which are politically infinitely valuable.

Here is my favorite, on page 10 of the transcript: “As for elections . . . Dear ladies and gentlemen, a
remarkable public opinion poll was taken in 2007: Does the Sun revolve around the Earth or does the
Earth revolve around the Sun? Of those polled, 27% answered that the Sun revolves around the Earth.”

In the elementary school of Russia, it has been explained that the Earth rotates around the sun, but to
the people on the Earth it seems that the sun rotates around the Earth. Yet 27 percent of potential
voters forgot the school explanation.

I also have developed a similar point when I asked how U.S. President Roosevelt could be presumed to
have known that it was a life-or-death matter for the United States to build a nuclear bomb if perhaps
none of his voters had ever heard of such a bomb.

It was only Einstein, at the time not yet officially an American immigrant, who in his 1939 letter to
Roosevelt explained the nuclear bomb and the dire need for the United States to have it and thus save
the free countries from being atom-bombed by Hitler, for Hitler’s Germany had started developing
nuclear bombs already in 1939.

President Roosevelt was quick to respond to Einstein’s letter, and the United States outpaced Hitler’s
Germany by having obtained the nuclear bomb ahead of it.

Having President Roosevelt, however, was just good luck for the United States and other free countries.
But the destiny of the world should not depend on just good luck. The United States should work out a
foolproof, reliable electoral system as to leave no opportunity for error, misuse, or failure in choosing a
president.

In her television talk show, Yulia is quick, colorful, and witty. At the same time, at the beginning of her
talk, some will find that she is too brief and light, considering the gravity of the subject.

This is how the transcript begins: “There are many questions concerning Putin’s negotiations with
China and especially concerning the article in the newspaper Vedomosti which mentioned a
forthcoming Russian-Chinese treaty, in which sold to China is Russia in total and a little more.”

Latynina goes on to explain: “As far as I know, the Kremlin is afraid of China to a state of horror, to a
stomach ache.”

In my weekly columns published in the United States, I keep saying that the People’s Republic of China,
with its population of 1.3 billion, is or will be against the United States, with its 300 million people, like
four Chinese armies confronted by the U.S. Army. In the case of Russia, with its population half of that
of the United States, it will be like eight Chinese armies confronted by one Russian defense army.

But that’s not all. Hitler’s Germany could not bomb the United States: It was impossible to fly bombers
across the Atlantic Ocean and back.

Now, the ground army of the People’s Republic of China is capable of invading Russia, since China
adjoins the eastern edge of Russia.

It is true that Imperial China never invaded other nations. But it is worth asking why not. Because
Imperial China regarded all nations so beneath itself that to invade them would be as aimless as to
make havoc of useless and disgusting beasts.

At the same time it is worthwhile to recall the “Tatar-Mongol Yoke” in Russia, which began in 1240 and
was overthrown only in 1480, that is, went on for 240 years!

Yet the danger to Russia is far greater than to be invaded by China’s ground army.

I already described in my columns how Col. Larry M. Wortzel (United States, retired) had confirmed in
his online memo that the People’s Republic of China had been working on “space warfare.” Google
search “Larry M. Wortzel” provides “about 49,100 results.”

There is plenty of such information today, and Yulia describes how much the Kremlin fears China.

The fear is justified (but is not sufficient!). What is China’s “space warfare”? So far wars have been
waged at the Earth. But we know that the Earth is only a tiny speck in the vast Universe. And the Earth
with its atmosphere and stratosphere is surrounded by the space of the Universe.

It is there that the People’s Republic of China has been creating a new warfare, as Wortzel describes it,
with the help of Google. Let us recall that the People’s Republic of China has expelled Google from its
territory. The space warfare should be kept secret until it’s ready to go into action.

So what should the Kremlin do, apart from experiencing fear, as described by Yulia Latynina? In the
United States, I have been asked by my readers on which side Russia is: on the side of the United States
and other Western countries or on the side of the People’s Republic of China?

Yulia, you should say to the Kremlin: Your fear is justified. But surely it is no good to fear just for the
sake of fear itself!

The Kremlin should side with the United States and join, together with the other Western countries, in
the development of defense against the People’s Republic of China, including its space warfare.

Yulia, do you see any other way out? I don’t. Please use your outstanding intelligence and knowledge to
help save Russia and other endangered countries.

Who Will Be the Next Einstein to Save the U.S. From Nuclear Destruction?

Forty years ago, incredibly enough, my wife, our son, and I emigrated from Soviet Russia to the United
States. It’s time to evaluate our experience.

Osip Mandelstam, possibly the world’s greatest poet of the 20th century, died in a concentration camp
in 1938, presumably for his 1933 poem. That was the death of Russian talent/genius, which had been
agonizing since 1917.

So my wife, whom I called a swan, our son and I realized that Russia was over as a spiritual
phenomenon and that we must emigrate at least in our imagination into a spiritually alive country. I
chose England, known for her initiation of freedom in the past millennium.

Looking back, I recall that the English natives living in Russia would not believe that I had once been a
Russian. At the Moscow Publishing House of Books in Foreign Languages, I found a job intended for an
Englishman who had emigrated to Russia (there were such mad men and women): translating Russian
classical literature into English.

My likeminded editor happened to be of the same thought: She also had been disillusioned with Russia
and wished she lived in England. Every day after hours I would see her home, and we talked, and surely
it was all impeccably decent: a translator seeing his editor up to a short walk to her home. Her husband,
an artist, resented that. He decided they should escape to a summer resort for a while to patch up his
sour mood.

A note would be in place. My editor’s husband was a wealthy man. They lived in an imposing Moscow
apartment (not a room!), which by Moscow standards in those days corresponded to a New Yorker’s
privately owned brownstone in Manhattan.

He also was one of the few who had a car (which at that time corresponded to a New Yorker having a
yacht in the Mediterranean). As for myself, I lived in a room (not an apartment!) with my mother, a
medical doctor.

My swan spent two days in the Caucasus, then left her husband there, and flew back to Moscow. She
called me the minute she got off the plane.

I grabbed a taxi (that is, a Muskovite could hire this Mediterranean yacht), picked her up at the airport,
and brought her to our room. Mother (a neurologist) treated the occurrence as a pleasant social event.
“My child,” my mother said, “have you given it a serious thought? If you have, I know how much you
must love my son.” My swan moved in, and this was how we started off on our lifetime journey.

Now, after I had been so mercilessly ironic about my swan’s husband’s wealth, it was awkward to
continue not to be rich. After all, my translation of Russian classical literature turned to bring a constant
flow of money.

We bought a three-storied stone mansion, and the wife of our neighbor, at one time a kind of appointed
president of Russia, was indignant that a certain Navrozov, an outsider, could buy a bigger and better
mansion than theirs. We spent there, in complete isolation from the outside Soviet world, a few happy
years, giving parties and entertaining foreign journalists and English members of parliament on their
sojourn in Russia.

The news that it was possible to emigrate from Russia was so unreal that prospective emigrants checked
the veracity of it by calling those who were already abroad (and not in a Soviet concentration camp for
their monstrous desire to leave their “socialist motherland”).

Well, those first lucky few emigrants were already in London. So within a similar fairy-tale reality we
went on to New York.

I began to publish my “defense articles” in the Commentary magazine, and one of them (about the
nonexistence of the CIA) was outlined or reprinted by over 500 periodicals in the West. Most of them
were read into the U.S. Congressional Record.

Now is the time to ask us those key questions about freedom.

Yes, freedom is necessary for genius or even talent. But not so long ago, West European countries such
as France were free enough to have some of the biggest “Communist Parties” in the world, while it was
precisely freedom that made it possible for the party of Lenin or Mao to come to power.

Stalin or Mao was free to annihilate any party or anyone each considered dangerous and threatening to
absolute power.

My Google search gives 4,790,000 results for the “number of degrees issued by American universities.”
A country is happy if one genius — Kant, Newton, Goethe, da Vinci — appears in some field.

Now, what is a university degree compared with genius? Yet it is university degree holders that fill
chock-full the CIA and all government military institutions. But none of them protected the United
States and other free countries from nuclear bombs, which Germany was intensely developing up to
1942, when Hitler decreased the pace, since he needed more money for his war of invasion of Stalin’s
Russia, which he lost and committed suicide.

The savior of the United States and other free countries was a man of genius named Einstein and known
outside any university or their degrees.

It is true that once he attended a university only because he needed a degree to teach physics. He did
not, however, attend a single lecture.

In his letter of 1939, a copy of which is on the wall of my study, he drew President Roosevelt’s attention
to nuclear weapons and said that the United States and its allies must proceed immediately to the
development of nuclear weapons before Germany develops them first and uses them against its enemy
countries.

Freedom enabled Einstein, a Jew, to live safely outside Germany and to send a letter to the president of
the United States, and the United States, the incarnation of freedom in the age of national socialism
(“Nazism”), was able, with its allies, to develop nuclear bombs ahead of Hitler, who thus became not the
owner of the world, but a suicide mission.

The world was saved by one man of genius, not by 4,790,000 American university-degree holders. Not a
single university-degree holder wrote to Roosevelt what Einstein did.

Free Countries Won't Take Notice of China's Space Warfare

The free countries drew attention to the People’s Republic of China only after 1989 (the Tiananmen
uprising for democracy) when the owners of China decided to arm on a far broader scale.

Several other uprisings, unknown to the outside world, occurred every year. But what about uprisings
on the Tiananmen scale? What if they fuse into one gigantic revolt?

I have noticed that in the Western press, China’s militancy and armaments have hardly ever been
predicted. But recently I have found a prognosis in a google search: "China's space warfare in 2010."

Page 5 of about 279 results: University of Hawaii Library, early identification and evaluation: “By 2016
[the narrative is a glance back from imaginary 2016 into the past], China had replaced the United States
as the world’s largest economic power.”

It is easy to see how realistic this horrible prediction is. It is well known that the population of China is
1.3 billion, exceeding the U.S. population (300 million) more than four times.

WWI and WWII opened the atmosphere of the Earth to air war, and aviation became a major branch of
warfare.

Today (as a prelude to WWIII?) the space above the atmosphere and away into the universe is the space
of space warfare.

In front of me is a collection of photos of the universe, whose “light from the Eagle nebula takes 7,000
years to reach us.” We are used to a nocturnal sky as glittering stars against a dark background. The
“skies” of the universe look like metallurgical experiments. This is the universe beyond our solar system.
The age of the solar system is 13.7 billion years.

However, even the space of our solar system has not been militarized as yet. Here is a chance for China’s
space warfare to militarize the space of the solar system and thus dominate the armed forces of the
Earth.
The force which moves space weapons is not created by aircraft propellers in the atmosphere but by the
force that moves shells in artillery or that moves the rockets and satellites.

The battlefield for space warfare is vast, if not infinite, and the owners of China feel that the
development of space weapons and space appliances must go full speed ahead.

The space warfare will reveal the same strength and weakness of the two sides that the conventional
warfare has demonstrated.

To begin with, the United States is headless.

Different from the selection of the prime minister in Britain, U.S. presidential elections have been
unable to select in the last decade a competent president.

It would be even more naïve to expect that U.S. voters (and not Einstein, a fugitive from Germany)
would suggest to the U.S. president in 1939 the development of nuclear weapons. And with nuclear
weapons in Hitler’s hands, he would have become the owner of the world.

Freedom in the United States and other free countries helped those most capable to take the most
important jobs and do them better than would anyone else.

On the other hand, the absence of freedom in the People’s Republic of China leads to a situation in
which every inhabitant tries to “get a job,” any job, for having no job is an impossible freedom, death
from starvation, or a crime.

With freedom, there develops a stratum passionately interested in “our victory” in the vast and
monstrous space warfare. In the absence of freedom, the majority of the population is indifferent to the
results of space warfare, which a majority of the unfree population watch like storms of nature.

However, the solar system is not free from hard materials: look at our Earth. Space warfare vehicles
may anchor at such hard inclusions and build there space fortresses, military space stations, and
whatever else is necessary for space warfare.

Today, such aspects of space warfare may seem impossible. But did it seem possible at the beginning of
the 20th century to make the airspace above cities the battlefield for military aviation which would, also
from above, choose the bombing targets on the ground as on a big map?

WWII prepared mankind for the 21st century space warfare. But in the United States, there has hardly
been a single program in the media on the subject.

Sex dominates the Western television of the 21st century as the pop novels dominated the reading of the
20th century. Freedom is being used to switch away from today’s reality and live as always.

In the democratic countries, an inhabitant was free to ignore the coming German blitzkrieg. Recall the
free inhabitants of France before Hitler’s invasion began. How can Hitler, that German clown who never
rose to the rank above a soldier, dare to invade the country of Napoleon?

However, Hitler occupied free France, with ten British military divisions inside France, in a matter of
six weeks.

I am afraid that the attitude of most inhabitants of all free countries today resemble that of the free
inhabitants of France before Hitler’s war.

I watch Americans. Most of them do not even know what the phrase “China’s space warfare” means.
Women are preoccupied with their families. Or with their search for the “best men.” Men are
preoccupied with making more money. It’s all Paris before Hitler’s blitzkrieg.
Ask them who is Col. Larry M.Wortzel. None of those free New Yorkers have ever heard of him. He is an
American military man, retired and writing about China’s space warfare. His writings appear on the
Internet. But will they pay attention to an American colonel writing about China’s space warfare? What,
for heaven’s sake, is “space warfare”?

There is a feeling in New York that “The People’s Republic of China” is just another foreign country,
with which friendly relations yield many commercial advantages.

The World Faces Imminent Danger From China

Many Westerners assume that China is or was a big village. Hence the surprise that China has been
capable of producing some cutting-edge weaponry earlier than the United States.

But according to my Britannica (1970, “China,” p. 580): “In studying the heavens the astronomers of the
Tsin made a list of 28 solar halos between the years 249 and 420; not until the 17th century did anyone
in Europe record such phenomena.” That is, the “big village” outpaced Europe by almost 13 centuries.

In Tim Lambert’s “A Brief History of China” (18 pages), we read: “By 2000 B.C. . . . the Chinese learned
to make bronze. Writing was invented in China about 1500 B.C. By about 400 B.C., Chinese farmers
used iron ploughs drawn by oxen. The compass was invented in China in the 3rd century B.C. . . . About
500 B.C.: the world’s first military manual was created . . . in 132 A.D. . . . Cheng Hang invented the
seismometer [a device for measuring the strength of earthquakes] . . . in 577 the Chinese invented
matches . . . from 618 to 907 . . . China was probably the most advanced civilization in the world . . .
after 979 . . . China was probably the richest country in the world . . . the arts flourished. Chinese
poetry . . . blossomed, perhaps the greatest poet was Li-Bo (701-762).”

So those Westerners who believe that the People’s Republic of China has come from a “big village”
should look up authentic historical sources. Inversely, those who believe that a kind of Renaissance is
flourishing in the People’s Republic of China would do well to recall how Soviet propaganda and its
Western counterpart distorted the reality, pretending to witness in Soviet Russia the flourishing of the
greatest culture created by human beings.

Let us now consider the importance of two powerful motivations outside the U.S. and other democratic
countries: the desire to own human beings and the desire of human beings to be free.

One of the latest examples of the struggle between these two motivations is a 1989 uprising known to
the world by the geographic place where the uprising took place: Tiananmen. The rebels demanded the
freedom for the people of China owned by the owners of China.

But the freedom of the people of China could spell the death to the owners of China if enough people
rebelled. This is not new in the history of China.

What is the way out? It is called democracy.

The founder of today’s “People’s Republic of China” (1949) was Mao, and according to him and his
teachers, to achieve democracy, it is sufficient to take away all the productive property from its owners
(capitalists). On the other hand, the ownership of the country by Mao and his followers will not decrease
the freedom of those whom they own.

Also, if the present owners of China, the world’s largest country (in terms of population), also own the
rest of the world, they will be too powerful for any local forces to try to take away their power.

What’s the conclusion? It is necessary to face the fact that the People’s Republic of China will soon be
the world’s most powerful country given its technology, going as far back as European technology, and
given its 1.3 billion people as against 300 million of the United States.

What’s to be done? I believe that all countries ready to resist the People’s Republic of China must form a
defense alliance to save the world from the looming unprecedented disaster. Meanwhile international
public discussion of this idea would be useful.

I was encouraged by a response to my column about Yulia Latynina, posted on May 20.

Yulia Latynina would be inconceivable in Russia when my family and I left the country about 40 years
ago. She is a writer, a journalist, and has her own television Saturday talk show.

She speaks quite freely and critically. She shows how today’s Russia is different from the “Soviet” Russia
of the time I left it. Certainly the People’s Republic of China poses a death threat to this new Russia.

Yes, for its own sake, Russia should side with the free countries in defense against China.

I will mention three responses to my column, calling for cooperation of free countries in the defense
against the People’s Republic of China.

The response from S. Bainton (Mr. Marketing, Inc.) occupies about three-fourths of a page and begins
with two words: “Excellent article.” After his detailed analysis of my column, Mr. Bainton says: “Please
tell me where I am off, or if I’ve missed anything?” No, I say, there is no reason for worry. “Once again,
thank you.”

The response from J. Roberts can be quoted in full: “Thank you so much for coming to this ‘country
under siege.’ If, somehow, the majority of the American people could think like you and articulate their
thoughts into actions, most of this country’s problems would disappear. I enjoy everything you write
and appreciate your righteous internal character. May God bless you.”

The first sentence of the response from M. Tompkins is as follows: “For years, I myself have been
reading your articles regularly on Newsmax since 2002.” And here is the last one: “Thanks for all you do
and G-d bless Lev Navrozov.”

I am under the impression that the People’s Republic of China has been worrying these readers of mine
since the year 2000.

Alas, I have no recipe for how to draw public attention to alert people to the imminent danger coming
from the dictatorship of the People’s Republic of China.

The media, the officials in charge of military preparations, global military planners are all responsible
for the life or death of the democratic countries, threatened by the People’s Republic of China (and
Japan, its ally).

Obama Oblivious to China Threat

The People’s Republic of China was proclaimed by Mao in 1949 after he had crushed his non-
communist rivals. According to the communist orthodoxy, the entire world was to become communist.

Anti-communist revolts happened, but they were crushed before being noticed by the outside world
until the world-famous Tiananmen uprising in 1989, after which the pace of the country’s armament
race quickened for the government to be ready to suppress the likely Tiananmens before they fused into
a general uprising.

The United States and other free countries wonder if the People’s Republic of China (technologically
strong enough and having a population of 1.3 billion compared to 300 million of that of the United
States) is planning to crush the United States, as the military minister of the People’s Republic of China
predicted in 2005.

As for Obama, I believe only one question to be pertinent here: How is it that he received enough
American votes to win the U.S. presidency?

In the 20th century, every country had age limits for those running for office. Traditionally, age was
wise, while youth inexperienced.

In Russia, the age revaluation of 1917 was shown in the poem “The Twelve,” by Alexander Blok,
recognized as a poet of genius. Those we see in his poem are “young people,” ill-mannered, disorderly,
criminal: one of them murders his mistress because she had an affair with an older man. But the young
people are marching, led by — as the last line of the poem reveals — Jesus Christ.

Obama staged a silent revolution of youth — by drawing younger people into the election process on a
much higher scale than ever before. Similarly, the People’s Republic of China was created as a
revolution of youth.

Now open “Yahoo! Search Results” for “President Obama and the People’s Republic of China.”

These Search Results, several lines each, would occupy a volume. The false impression is that Obama is
a top official of the People’s Republic of China. The fact that there is no freedom in the People’s
Republic of China, created by Mao, or that the People’s Republic of China has plans to conquer the
world are ignored by Obama.

In this particular search, the first Search Result: President Obama’s Nominee for the United States
Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China.

The second Search Result: President Obama greets People’s Republic of China President Hu Jintao.

It should be noticed that Obama was born in 1961. So for a while he looked like a youngster making the
world look younger.

After about a year of cooperation between Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao, Obama and Hu met
the press after their official talks. China and the U.S. have agreed to enhance cooperation.

President Hu and U.S. President Obama held “productive and candid discussions on the U.S.-China
relations and other issues of mutual interest.” Again, China’s military buildup is ignored by Obama.

So what has been going on? It is strongly believed in the United States that the People’s Republic of
China’s military is building up armaments to surpass the arsenal of the United States and its allies. But
this unprecedented military growth is not noticed by the U.S. president, who is received in China as its
own admired top official.

It is obvious that Obama expects to win the second term of his U.S. presidency by carrying on his
rejuvenation of the United States.

Here the People’s Republic of China and the United States may turn out to be highly useful for Obama.
Suppose it becomes clear at a certain point of time to both the People’s Republic of China and the
United States that China is ready to strike at the United States, as the military minister of China
predicted in 2005.

The United States underestimates the military power of the People’s Republic of China partly due to the
Western scorn for China as being a “big village” and partly due to China’s successful concealment of its
latest military development.
And here, at some crucial time for the United States, Obama would assure the majority of American
voters that he could persuade his “friends” at the top of the People’s Republic of China to negotiate with
the United States before they take any military action against the U.S.

You see? Everything depends on Obama!

Now, he would assure his “friends” in the People’s Republic of China that there is no need to suddenly
attack the United States because the country was ready to accept the sensible terms of the PRC. (As they
say, a friend in need is a friend indeed.)

Let me stop here. Everything will depend on Obama’s power to pacify both sides. But if he managed to
convince a majority of the U.S. voters to have him elected as the U.S. President, why, possibly he will be
able to assure both his American voters and his top-level Chinese “friends” (first of all, for the benefit of
Barack Obama himself first and foremost) what they should do to achieve their aims peacefully and
accurately via negotiations through Barack Obama.

At a certain point of history the People’s Republic of China may become able to crush the United States.
Well, to protect the latter will be beyond Obama’s power.

With every passing day, the China-U.S. relations become more and more ambiguous and hence
dangerous (for the United States). Obama is playing a slippery fish in this process. Which side will
suffer as a result?

Let me repeat what I have been saying all along: in contrast to the British selection of the Prime
Minister, the U.S. election of the U.S. president is misconstrued, obsolete, and dangerous. Shortly after
he was elected the U.S. president, Obama held a two-day U.S.-Chinese meeting devoted to the
“friendship and cooperation” between the two countries.

Obama spoke about strengthening the friendly ties between the two countries, somewhat similar [!] and
hence bound to be friendly (in fact, making it easier for China to steal American sensitive technology,
under the cover of “friendly” Chinese smiles and giving American businessmen a “friendly” access to
Chinese cheap slave labor).

Leadership Roles Defined by Country

The British government, including the monarchy (which endorses or rejects its prime minister, equal to
the U.S. president) has been accepted by the most critical defenders of democracy, liberty, and freedom.

Though the Russian absolutist monarchy was overthrown by shrill egomaniacs like Lenin about 10 years
before I was born, I know it better than I do any other absolutist monarchy. So let me give you a couple
of examples from its public life.

The Soviet propaganda implied more and more insistently that the Soviet Russians were the world’s
superior race. But if they were, why didn’t they come to power centuries earlier, and not in 1917?

That was where the Soviet propaganda began to represent Russians who had lived in the pre-1917
regime as idiots because that was what the tsarist regime had allegedly made out of them to prevent the
revolutionary overthrow of the “tsarist regime.”

The secret opposition to the “tsarist regime” was on throughout the second half of the 18th century.

After tsarevich (tsar’s son) Constantine, who lived in Poland, had secretly renounced any claim to the
imperial succession, his brother tsarevich Nicholas was crowned emperor of Russia.

Nicholas was disliked, while Constantine had a big following in Russia (“Constantine and
Constitution”). In December of 1825, Russian troops in St. Petersburg refused to take the oath of
allegiance to Nicholas, who for hours tried his best to bring to reason the mutinous soldiers.

When that did not work, he consented to use force, and a few rounds of grapeshot quelled the mutiny.
The Decembrists (as they came to be called) demanded the abolition of serfdom and the attainment of
some degree of representative government. The chief conspirators were arrested and interrogated by
the emperor in person.

Let me draw a comparison with events closer to us. The Tiananmen rebels (alive by the end of the
suppression of rebellion) numbered 11 people, and all 11 were shot on the spot. The Decembrists and the
Tiananmen rebels both pursued a similar goal: constitutional government. But while all Tiananmen
rebels caught alive were shot, some of the Decembrists were sent to a city named Chita. They
reconstructed and repaired it to live in to their pleasure. Others began to work in mines in Siberia to
have some food to stay alive.

Alexander Pushkin, regarded as the greatest Russian poet of the time, began his poem addressed to the
rebels as follows:

In the depths of the Siberian ores,

Preserve your proud noble patience.

Your sorrowful toil will not be lost,
Nor will be your lofty aspirations.

As it happened, Nicholas I received Pushkin in his palace in St. Petersburg. “Tell me,” he asked, “If you
were in St. Petersburg on the day of the uprising, would you have taken part in it?”

“Of course!” Pushkin said calmly, and no persecution followed his answer.

In contrast to Pushkin, Nekrasov (1821-1878) was a national poet who described the sufferings of the
Russian people.

Since the age of 26, he published two nationally known literary magazines, apart from his poetry. His
famous epic poem was entitled “Who Lives Well in Russia?” The supposed answer was “Nobody.” Here
is one of his poems:

How boring — only misery, no freedom!

Let a storm strike thick and thin,
The cup of misery is overflowing,
The cup of misery is full to the brim!

Nekrasov lived to the age of 57, and he continued spreading his misery nationwide in his poetry and his
magazines. He was never stopped and was never asked to make his literary mood less miserable.

He died in 1878 while serfdom (slave ownership) had been abolished in 1861, but his mood of misery
hardly changed.

On the other hand, no monarch was so showered with flattery as Stalin — he was glorified as the source
of everything valuable on earth:

In the broadest spaces of our wonder-country,

While to victories in war and in peace there is no end,
We composed a song so joyous
About our leader and great friend.

Stalin is our military glory,

Stalin is our youth and our highest flight.
 Fighting with songs and with them winning,
Our people follow Stalin in peace as they do in fight!

Let us now take a glance again at the British monarchy. The queen is to talk with and approve the
person presented to her to be Her Majesty’s prime minister (a rough equivalent of the U.S. president) if
she accepts him. He is presented to the queen by his party, which had a majority in general elections.

Usually information about a person’s ability is obtained via written sources. But at a certain point, a live
person has to be evaluated by his peers through his performance, especially when one is considered to
be Her Majesty’s prime minister. It is up to the queen to accept or reject the prospective candidate.

I suppose it would have taken the queen a minute or two to reject Obama.

Many voters may be incapable of understanding the mind of a person running for president they are
going to vote for.

On the other hand, the queen engages in human dialogue, showing her an abyss between refreshing
intelligence, extraordinary intelligence, and genius in understanding the civic and military realities.
Thus, Winston Churchill was endorsed as the prime minister, and possibly his official appearance made
Hitler leave Western Europe alone and attack Russia, which led to his defeat in Russia.

The Soviet propaganda pictured the Russian absolutist monarchy as the lowest degradation of human
society. Yet Stalin’s Russia was an abysmal jump downward, compared with the Russia of the time of
Pushkin and Nekrasov.

A society is not the latest machine, in which everything valuable is preserved as much as possible. The
Russian absolutist monarchy or the queen in Britain may be more useful than the futuristic dreams, of
which Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, or post-1949 China were to consist.

China Combines Ancient Barbarity With Latest Weapons

A free society may have enormous advantages over its totalitarian counterpart, since great mental
discoveries, including decisive military inventions, such as nuclear weapons, were made in a free
country (the U.S.A., prompted by Einstein, a fugitive from Hitler’s Germany).

If the war between Stalin and Hitler were not over in 1945, the United States would have used nuclear
weapons against Germany, as it used them against Japan, which surrendered unconditionally after two
U.S. bombs had hit Japan.

Newton (1642-1727) is often cited as an English genius of mathematics and physics. His family at one
time meant for him to become a farmer. But there was enough freedom for him to become a scientist
instead. Yet the university he was sent to was closed for 18 months because of the spread of the Great
Plague.

It was during that “interlude of nature” that the 23-year-old Newton developed the basics of his
mathematics and physics of genius, remembered so well in 2010, that is, over four centuries later.

Recall the geographic history of great inventions: Athens, Rome, Italy, Britain, the United States . . .

After all, a free society is a garden to raise fruit of human genius — in particular, in science and
technology, that is, in defense against totalitarian societies, with their propaganda, obligatory for every
human mind on their territory.

In our (thank God) democratic countries, everyone, including a child who has just began to speak,
expresses his or her perceptions and understandings of reality as they perceive and understand it.
In a totalitarian society, created to make everyone think alike (to be faithful to Hitler or Stalin) even
little children were pulled up if they say something contradicting the propaganda. The result is that even
Hitler and Stalin, each of whom created the propaganda in their respective countries, lost some of their
own intelligence having been exposed to their propaganda throughout their own lives.

Hitler, for example, lost more than Stalin, or perhaps Hitler was less intelligent than Stalin by nature.

Hitler started the war by invading Russia. The advantages?

In Stalin’s centralized Russia, the country was ruled from Moscow, and the war was being handled from
the Kremlin, in Moscow. Hitler did not take Moscow, to say nothing of the Kremlin.

Who was the aggressor and who the victim was decided in the West by answering the question who of
the two — Hitler or Stalin — was the first to attack the other side. So Hitler was the enemy and Stalin
was the victim, that is, an ally.

As for who had planned the attack earlier was a minor detail: in similar situations, many war plans are
hatched by both sides, but the decisive question is not who planned what, but who attacked first without
any warning.

Hitler was routed by Stalin in Russia, was thrown out of the country, and committed suicide. He could
have accelerated, not decelerated, the development of nuclear weapons in Germany, which could have
made Hitler the owner of the world rather than a defeated warrior routed and thrown out of Russia.

Actually, Hitler had slowed down the development of nuclear weapons in Germany, since he needed the
money for his war in Russia.

Now, let us compare the intelligence of Hitler and Stalin as regards their propaganda.

Owing to the propaganda in Germany and propaganda in Russia, a human mind in those countries was
exposed to safe cliches only. Any other associations were dangerous. To tell Hitler that his invasion of
Russia would fail without him having waited for nuclear weapons would have been a high treason.

Of course, our survey of WWII would not be complete without mentioning today’s People’s Republic of
China. It was created by Mao in 1949; the size of China’s population is now 1.3 billion people. How will
this affect a possible future war, unless today’s U.S. President Obama stops treating China as an eternal
peaceful and helpful friend and the People’s Republic of China as having been created with the aim to
help the United States financially.

You see, the U.S.A. is poor, and the People’s Republic of China is tremendously rich and wants its yuan,
not the dollar, to become the international currency.

In conclusion, let us take a look at a broader picture of the history of mankind.

When the 23-year-old Newton used 18 months of the Great Plague to develop the basics of his
mathematics and physics of genius, it was assumed that only “advanced countries” were able to wage
wars. But Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao demonstrated that any country, propagandized against its will
into a totalitarian military monster, can wage wars.

This is why the People’s Republic of China can wage wars as once only countries like Britain could.
Britain could bring its opponent a quirk of freedom, while these new warriors bring only death,
destruction, and annihilation. They combine ancient barbarity, including the conversion of the entire
population to slavery, and the latest military technology, capable of inflicting infinite harm to human
beings, with their unlimited killings.

In other words, the primitive cave wars of millennia ago are coming back with the latest weapons of
today and thus combine the ancient cruelty and today’s technology of annihilation.
That is, we are facing the horrors combining those of antiquity and those of the latest laboratories of
death.

Countries such as Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, and Mao’s China had not existed before the
twentieth century. We are confronting a new epoch, possibly more inhuman than any epoch before.

No Place for Freedom of Speech in China

In Hitler’s biography published in the United States, we read that in World War I “Hitler proved an able
courageous soldier.” The book then lists his awards, including the one that was not usually presented to
his rank. Hitler (a German-Austrian) loved war as some individuals love other dramatic deviations from
their peaceful lives.

Let us now recall Arthur Neville Chamberlain, who became prime minister of Britain in 1937. In the two
years that followed, Chamberlain’s government became associated with what later was called
“appeasement.” Chamberlain believed (quite correctly, in my opinion) that Germany was mistreated
after World War I: It was virtually disarmed, despite a powerful, aggressive totalitarian eastern
neighbor, led (or owned?) by the infinitely ruthless Stalin.

Chamberlain was supported by Lord Halifax, who became Chamberlain’s Foreign Secretary in 1938. At
that time, only the communists in Stalin’s Russia, following Marx, spoke about the “communist world”
and about Hitler’s ban on the German Communist Party, having confined its leaders to the German
concentration camps.

To suppose that Hitler, a National Socialist and a German-Austrian, could be as ruthless as Stalin, a
Russian-Georgian, was too much for Chamberlain, who died in 1940. It was only after Hitler lost his war
in Stalin’s Russia and committed suicide that those who worried about the policy of appeasement could
stop worrying. But what if Hitler had successfully continued his conquest of Western Europe (including
Britain) instead of rushing into Russia?

What about appeasement of the country whose original owner, Mao, created The People’s Republic of
China? Surely before that the “republic” had belonged to the “parasites”—capitalists (bourgeoisie), but
now the ownership of the country was spelled out in its name!

On June 10, 2010, I received an e-mail from Nelson L. It is enough to quote just the first paragraph
from it:

Dear Sir,
I now realize why you are so afraid of China. It’s not for the United States sake, but for your
Motherland . . . Russia! You want America to defeat the Chinese for the sake of Russia.

About 40 years ago, my wife, our son, my mother and I had an accidental lucky opportunity to emigrate
from Soviet Russia, which had no freedom and could be defined as a country-size prison.

To break the stereotype of Russian paupers rushing to the United States to become rich, let me tell
Nelson L. that in Russia I made enough money, translating Russian literary classics into English, to buy
a three-storied villa, while since our arrival in New York, we have been living for 40 years in a “modest
apartment” and never even thought of changing it for anything more impressive.

I rejected all business ventures (like the one proposed to me to acquire a translation company in New
York City). Instead I was lecturing all over the world and have been writing a weekly column with a
message to save the free world from being annihilated by totalitarian countries.
In his e-mail, Nelson L. claims that I use China to scare the Americans so that the United States would
defeat the Chinese for the sake of “my” Russia! Actually, hundreds of political and military analysts like
me living in the democratic West have been criticizing China, since they believe that the post-1989
China has been preparing for World War III.

No global political or military analyst can be totally silent about the post-1989 China. Since I am a
political analyst and my study appears every week, I am attacking Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany,
though they existed only in the past.

Post-1949 China attracted the world attention in 1989 by a project connected with the Tiananmen
Square in 1989.

Citizens of the democratic West are free to declare that the government in their country is not quite
democratically elected. But in the People’s Republic of China, such an opinion is not within the freedom
of speech.

Recently it was announced in the United States that the last still alive eleven participants in the
Tiananmen Square protests were shot.

In the democratic West, freedom of speech is a citizen’s legal right.

In the People’s Republic of China, freedom of speech is a bureaucratic permission given by the ruling
bureaucracy. Such a bureaucracy ruled thousands of years ago (in China, for example).

The history of mankind has been largely centered around gang wars. Naturally, quite a few people are
alike or think they are alike; hence, they need power for themselves, not freedom for all. If they have
collected a majority of sameness versus numberless minorities or unique individuals whom they may
think to be useless to them, they become the absolutist rulers, or owners, of countries.

The historic task of development of freedom is to make it necessary or desirable and available for
individuals, which may not even constitute a majority.

The more powerful is the gang in absolute power, the more it is determined to defend its absolute power
by fighting whatever and whoever in the world seems to resist its absolute power.

The safest, surest way for the power gang to preserve its power is to own not only its domain of absolute
power, but the entire world, and this is becoming more and more possible technologically.

What has so far been the reaction of the free world?

The free world has not yet been united to resist any power gang with an obvious global view. The
picturesque economic and financial dependence of the United States on the People’s Republic of China
undermines the world status of the United States as the leading country in the advance of global
freedom.

China Learns From Past Totalitarian Mistakes

What is human life in terms of human life? Association of human beings. Children and parents
associate. They also associate with neighbors and their children. Later they associate with literature,
paintings, and classical music, outside school, and some of these are said to be works of genius.

Hence they associate with genius, and who knows whether some of them are destined to be men and
women of genius.
The first totalitarian society after World War I was Lenin and Stalin’s “Soviet Russia.” All schoolchildren
were to wear red ties to demonstrate their allegiance to “our Soviet system.” Two or three children
wouldn’t. That was the beginning of their defiance of the Soviet system, which would later lead them to
a concentration camp and finally to death at a young age.

The red tie made it possible for the bosses of the country to get much work done for free, for the love of
the red tie.

It is no longer a secret how Stalin became the totalitarian owner of this system, its God on earth and in
heaven. Stalin had been killing all those who seemed to claim any power of their own, who would not be
absolutely subordinate to his power as to the power of God on earth and in heaven.

Finally, anyone who refused to consider Stalin God on earth and in heaven would be just a suicide “tired
of his or her life,” as Soviet criminals would say about someone they were planning to kill.

Yes, Stalin was a supercriminal, to whom no life was worth anything if it in any way threatened his own
life.

Communism implies (see Marxism) the abolition of money and the ability of anyone to have any goods
for free. But never during its almost century-long existence did the Soviet utopia move one inch toward
“communism.”

Hitler’s Blunder

Not to be taken by my readers for someone trying to ridicule Hitler, let me quote Britannica (1970),
volume 10, page 341c, stating that Hitler’s invasion of Russia “was a task which he confidently expected
to accomplish within six or eight weeks.”

But Hitler’s most amazing declaration (which my Britannica also quotes) was that Hitler’s army would
not march on Moscow!

This requires a historical footnote. The absolute ruler such as Stalin loved to live and work in the
privacy of his Kremlin palace. But that would not be safe, since his rivals-enemies could intercept the
communications between his palace and the outside world. But Stalin’s technology had reached such a
level that, yes, Stalin’s Kremlin palace became his private home, and no signals between his home and
the outside world could be intercepted by an outsider.

On the other hand, the Kremlin palace under his absolute control, Stalin could safely communicate at
will with the entire world.

As a child witness to history, I can testify that never were Hitler’s troops in Moscow, let alone near
Stalin’s Kremlin palace, which controlled all strategic information.

The section “Invasion of the Soviet Union” occupies less than one page in my Britannica, which is
followed by “The Beginning of Defeat” (about half of one column) followed by “The End of the Third
Reich” (again, about half a column). But here let me use my own recollection.

Hitler’s army still occupied a string of Russian cities stretching from the country’s European center to
the west when the Soviet troops started recapturing city after city.

Created was a special Soviet international radio broadcast for the occasion to announce how many
salvos Stalin had ordered to celebrate the recapture of every city, and the victorious salvos duly
followed.

Now that the Soviet procedure was set up, it was duly observed. The Soviet international radio
announced which city had been retaken and which one would be next.
Stalin’s plan worked well: the Soviet army kept recapturing city after city, driving out Hitler’s army, and
the Soviet radio hymns, salvos, and general jubilation were heard all over the world.

When the carnival reached the West, Hitler put his pistol into his mouth and shot himself to death.

China Strives for Control

As I was about to write this column, I discovered that the Western authors writing about the global
danger of China had sent me their articles about China, stacks of which piled several inches high,
expecting that I would help them promote their views. In their e-mails, some of them said that they had
been reading every article of mine, for what I write on the subject is highly important for the survival of
the West.

Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany originated in the countries in which some people knew about
Western freedoms and about how those countries defended their freedoms.

Mao destroyed 64 million Chinese. How many Chinese who remained alive were willing to risk their
lives to defend the Western concepts of freedom?

For thousands of years China had been preserving its own way of life. What about weapons to defend
their way of life? Newton’s laws of mathematics and physics had been discovered in China long before
they were formulated by Newton in the West, since those emperors, gods on earth and in heaven who
owned China, needed weapons to defend it.

For thousands of years, it had been presented in China as 2x2=4 that the emperors of China (gods on
earth and in heaven) could kill or imprison those whom they considered criminals, that is, harmful to
their imperial power.

The human resources? As of today, China has 1.3 billion people as against 300 million of those of the
United States.

In other words, for the first time during the last four centuries, the West is confronted with a country
which lived for millennia far from Western customs or laws protecting freedom. Will it continue to build
up its military, without Western exceptions and limitations?

Will the U.S. Be Conquered by China?

At the beginning of the “Sovietia,” Stalin was concerned that by destroying the treasures of Russian art,
valued all over the refined world, he would get branded by the West as a vandal.

Osip Mandelstam, a Russian poet considered a genius, wrote a stinging poem about Stalin. These are
the opening lines of the poem (which was not published at the time, but it was copied, read, and passed
on):

We live without feeling the earth under our feet.

What we say is never heard ten steps away.

Now, was Mandelstam a poet of genius? If he was, he would not be killed publicly right away. There
would be problems abroad: “Stalin has killed a poet whom the Russians call the greatest, not only in
Russia but in the world at large.”

Stalin contacted the poet Boris Pasternak: “Is Mandelstam a poet of genius?” he asked. “Yes,” Pasternak
answered, “but I would like to speak with you about something else.” “What about?” Stalin asked. “Life
and death,” was the response.
Stalin hung up.

Mandelstam was committed to a temporary exile, where he lived with his wife, Nadezhda, and where he
created his great poetry. Months later he was sent to a concentration camp, where he perished.

There were no changes in the Sovietia except those for the worse, until 1970 brought incredible,
impossible news: Several hundred “Soviet citizens” were allowed to emigrate to the countries of their
choice!

Where should we emigrate? For quite a few of us the choice was made by history.
The English-speaking countries have the most elaborate freedom rights! And that was where we went —
America! — the most powerful free country which would be able to defend us best.

Before going over to the current flow of time, let me devote a couple of paragraphs to the life of myself
and my near and dear here in New York City. During our life in Moscow, Russia, we eyed our beloved
English-speaking countries, where the freedom of speech (such as writing poetry by Mandelstam) was
no crime, one that could end in a poet’s death in a concentration camp.

We had a nervous worry about the survival of the free countries in the age of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao,
and in New York I began writing a weekly column about the world at large. My wife was my secretary,
since both of us went through the same world drama.

Now, after having lived in America for 40 years, I cannot help comparing the electoral systems of the
United States and Great Britain.

The majority party in the British parliament, which receives more votes than any other party, nominates
a candidate to speak with Her Majesty, after which the Queen either approves or rejects the nominee to
be her prime minister.

The British briefcase “Prime Minister” contains about 50 pages. Why did I choose to write the above
paragraph? Well, some information is more important the greater the number of those who voted for it.
But with other information, it may be the other way around: the fewer the voters know about it, the
more valuable it may be.

Had not the U.S. president received the information about nuclear bombs through a letter he received
from a great German scientist (who was not even a voter in the United States!), Hitler with nuclear
bombs would have become the owner of the world.

The American government power is said to have originated in the American Revolution.
I saw it being abused by Obama after he became president of the United States. Shortly after Obama
moved into the White House, he declared a new era of “cooperation, not confrontation” with China and
arranged for the two days of high-level talks with Chinese officials. Said Obama: “The relationship
between the United States and China will shape the 21st century, which makes it as important as any
bilateral relationship in the world.”

Has Obama read numberless conclusions of experts about the coming destructive war between the
United States and the “People’s Republic of China”?

But what about those Americans who believe that the China founded in 1949 by Mao, the Stalinist who
killed 64 million Chinese, will save America because Obama declared it to be its friend?

What about us who emigrated to the United States, and not to Britain, because we believed that as a
larger country than Britain, America will be able to defend its citizens better?

Actually, all Americans who want to remain Americans, can, on the contrary, find themselves in a trap,
created by Mao and his “communist China.”
It is generally recognized today that the harm to Russia done by the “Russian Revolution,” which took
place in a country by no means as free as Britain, was tremendous, and its inheritor Stalin died only in
l953, but his unprecedented-scale atrocities continued after his death.

It may be appropriate to mention here that Canada is not part of the United States.

Surely had America remained part of the English-speaking territory, the queen of England would have
spoken with Obama after he had been elected and would have rejected him after their conversation.

The opposite result? It seems possible for those who make up Obama’s noisy army of those who have
been and will be displeased with any America except if it becomes the “People’s Republic of America.”

Obama discovered the “People’s Republic of China” not by reading scientific accounts, but by “their
flesh and spirit” being “mine now and for centuries ahead.”

China Eyes Free Societies

Western Europe, the likely answer would be that those Western countries were so boring that no visit
was worth it.

In 1949, China appeared in the West under its new name, which had been invented by Mao and
presented in English as the “People’s Republic of China.”

The French word “republic” means “wealth (res) of publica,” that is, of “people,” and so Mao’s new
name of China meant “People’s Wealth of People of China.”

In the People’s Republic of China, the Tiananmen Square’s participants publicly dared to call for the
free election of the government — and were shot.

In the United States, Obama repeatedly expressed his sympathy for the slave society of the post-1949
China — and remains the freely elected U.S. president.

At one time China was regarded in the West as a “big village,” while many crucial strategic achievements
(like the Newtonian mathematics and physics) were made in China before they appeared in the West.

So what’s the way out for the West from the looming disaster threatening it by Mao’s China?

While the population of a country such as post-1949 China may be acting reflexively, the population of
the West must act as one human being, aware of the overall goal to preserve freedom. This is a route of
suffering, ensuring the superiority of the general awareness of the goal of the survival of a free society
over a slave country.

The pacifist mood of France, attacked by the totalitarian Germany, ensured the French collapse. Even
the totalitarian Germany lost its war with Russia owing to Hitler’s nonchalant mood, good for a play at
war, not the war of Hitler’s Germany against Stalin’s Russia.

Thus we arrive at the most tragic dilemma: Freedom is the possibility to do what he or she wants to do,
is it not? But then a free country such as France may be routed, as it was by Hitler, precisely because of
her freedom.

Freedom just for the sake of freedom leads to death. The death of that same free person. Or the death of
a free country. Freedom has to be meaningful, just as the human life has to be meaningful.
Otherwise even Hitler, having invaded Russia, could expect nothing but a bullet through his brain.

When speaking of the meaning of freedom, we speak of a national freedom or of the freedom of all free
nations in the world.

When a free nation ignores the danger to its existence because it finds better ways to enjoy its freedom,
contrary to the interests of self-preservation of national and world freedom, the latter gets destroyed, as
the freedom of France was destroyed when Hitler invaded it.

Let us not forget that the preservation of freedom depends on us. It is our personal responsibility as
well.

In a country in which a friend of today’s China is in the White House, a lot of sensitive information gets
released and becomes easily available and harmful to our country. If you happen to be in possession of
such secret information, do not divulge it; do not give it away just because you happen to have access to
this secret information.

Do not destroy your country while it is still yours.

I wonder whether a healthy change will come to the United States before long. Let us remember that
each of us is responsible either for a process of its innovation or for its hopeless decay, which may end
up as it did in France with Hitler’s conquest.

I call upon all those who want to preserve freedom in the world. Let each of us act like dramatic
personae in a possible, real-life final tragedy of mankind, brought on by slave societies.

Yes, one person can do a lot if he or she acts intelligently and does his or her best for the benefit of
freedom in our world, where the population of the People’s Republic of China exceeds 1.3 billion.

At the same time, let us not forget that the scale of death and destruction in war increases automatically
with the growth of technology. There may come a time when war will become the suicide of mankind.

The problem now will be to keep the world scale of war deaths and destruction within the crucial limits.
Still, let us see and hear more of the best world strategists. Let no one be surprised if everyone in a free
country will be a literate, well-informed world strategist saving from death at least the free part of
mankind.

This may lead to more time spent on the saving of the free world than on watching the television
programs, whose aim is to sell fashionable trinkets or “movies about war.” We should remember that
without countries dedicated to freedom the universe will become a corpse.

It is possible that before long we will have the final judgment as to whether the world will embrace
freedom as it still does, or whether it will sink into slavery.

Human life, whether free or slave, may disappear forever due to ever-new military technology.

Economic Crisis, Healthcare Disaster, Define Obama Legacy

Karl Marx was born in 1818. After having graduated from school, he was sent by his father to a
university to become a lawyer. Later he made a discovery owing to which the word “Marxism” became
one of the most common words of his century and the next.

In his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844), the 26-year-old Marx drew the following
conclusion: “The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces — the more his
production increases in power and range.”

In Vol.1 of his Capital (published in 1867), Marx explained that the “deficient money” was paid by
capitalists, who thus profited more and more from the whole process of production and sale at the
expense of their victim: the worker.

Today most citizens of Western Europe recall Karl Marx as an idiot, fortunately long forgotten by many
West Europeans. When Karl Marx was fashionable in Western Europe, some West Europeans
considered him the greatest thinker on earth.

His utopian socialist theory was tried (e.g., in Soviet Russia) and proved to be destructive and deadly to
the country: It led to the destruction of the country’s economic structure, loss of free enterprise, loss of
personal freedoms, impoverishment of the people, political repressions, and eventually ended up in
usurpation of power by dictatorship.

What about the United States?

Obama, we gather, espouses Marxist ideology. He was elected the U.S. president on the basis of his
seemingly bold, new ideas, actually rooted in those old-fashioned, hackneyed, long discredited Marxist
socialist platitudes.

I believe that Karl Marx could have enjoyed a similar triumph in the United States. A majority of those
who voted for Obama might have known nothing about the future actual repercussions from the choice
they were making.

Two views are possible on the successful production of goods and the sales of goods and services: These
are due either to the owners’ managerial skills and entrepreneurship or to their ability to rob the
workers!

During his presidential campaign, Obama passionately appealed to the Americans to remind them of
how bitterly unfair their lives were. Obama promised to bring about universal opulence, change.

He excited the crowds by asking them if they could bring about change, and the resounding answer was,
“Yes, we can!” I honestly hope that the voters will be better equipped intellectually in choosing their
next president.

On Nov. 9, 2008, The Daily News came out with this announcement: “Obama says he’ll tax the rich, roll
back Bush’s cuts for the rich, and will aid the middle class.”

Every country has citizens who are preoccupied with their private lives. There are those who are
disillusioned with the way things are in general.

Some are lonely or unhappy in their personal lives. That stratum of the population was traditionally
overlooked. Obama, however, demonstrated that this stratum is significantly large, cannot be ignored,
and can vote for him, together with those who for one reason or another hoped he would put an end to
the U.S. military involvement in Iraq, and there would be no wars.

What is the attitude of a sufficiently intelligent American? Such as my reader, a security account
manager in Seattle City Hall & Justice Center. The first paragraph of his e-mail to me of May3, 2010,
reads as follows:

Dear Sir,
I have been reading your columns for some time now and agree

with you on many issues, not the least of which is the intelligence
of the American electorate. I believe it was a Fox News
 commentator that sent a crew to Harlem, N.Y., to ask people on
the street, what they thought of Obama’s policies. The catch to this
scenario is that they attributed John McCain’s policies to Obama,
and what do you suppose was the result? More than a few citizens
had high praise for Mr. Obama’s policies even though they were
Mr. McCain’s policies. Facts and the truth matter little to a large
portion of the American electorate.

Any conclusions? Obama was supported by a majority of voters because those voters had been hoping to
obtain a better life instead of the oft cited “exploitation,” “oppression,” “racial discrimination,” and
other evils of capitalism.

However, time has come for Americans to realize that Obama’s eloquent rhetoric and empty promises
during his presidential campaign had only one aim: to win the election. His utopian socialist beliefs
have not worked in this country of free enterprise.

He failed to create jobs; he did not stop the inflation; and his national healthcare reform turned out to
be disastrous.

In short, his philosophy, according to which he would bring about the “new America,” disastrously
failed and is hurting the country.

Short of his cheap, passionate rhetoric and unfulfilled promises, after having been elected and now
residing in the White House, Obama certainly managed to show how frivolous the world is, how easy it
is to excite and manipulate the voters by making empty promises, with the only purpose to achieve his,
Obama’s, personal goal.

Obama’s love for China and the creation of the “U.S. friendship with China” are also personal.

He enjoyed his trip to China, where he rushed to see his junior brother, who had come to live there.
Under Obama’s “leadership,” the United States keeps borrowing more and more money from China
while dastardly ignoring the mortal danger coming from China, his dear “friend.”

Obama's Immigration Scheme: To Get More Voters

Obama is the first U.S. president of a new type. Former U.S. presidents viewed or expected to view their
presidency as their chance to make their contribution to the prosperity of the people of the United
States and further strengthen the country’s defenses during four or eight years they were in office.

In this overall prosperous and generous country, there are always groups of people who may be
disgruntled for different reasons: dissatisfaction with local administrative officials, loss of jobs, poor
housing conditions, etc. And those are exactly the groups Obama is after. He promises to fix their
problems. And they reward him by giving him their votes.

Now, yet a bigger reward (close to 11 million votes) may come from those undocumented immigrants
residing illegally in the United States if Obama manages to keep them in this country by arranging some
kind of amnesty.

What of the defense of the U.S. borders? Isn’t it the first priority of the U.S. president to keep his
country’s borders “under lock and key,” as the Soviet saying went in Stalin’s times?

True, the reasons were different: the Soviet task was to keep their citizens within the country, to prevent
them from fleeing to the West. But actually it worked both ways: “foreign spies” were kept from entering
it.
I remember the time when not a single person could emigrate. And that was when our family devised an
escape plan. True, we were young and innocent and did not think about the difficulties we might face or
consequences that might follow our aborted escape.

We were very wealthy, by official Soviet standards, which would work in our favor, because we thought
of buying a bullet-proof, armored vehicle, and planned to go “on vacation” somewhere in the Georgian
mountains, sort of close to the border with Turkey.

We knew that Turkey was a NATO member and would never betray us by sending us back to the
Soviets. We worked out a detailed plan and were almost finished with it when we had a visitor, a friend
of ours, to whom we trusted our secret. “Are you out of your minds?” he said. “The borders are
impenetrable. First of all, there are two lines of fortification . . . a barbed wire wall, then there is a wide
space of land packed with dogs, searchlights day and night, checkpoints strategically placed at every
possible crossing, radio communication, and then another barbed wire wall.”

We could not believe we were so ignorant. But our friend saved us, because we stopped scheming ways
to escape.

But then something happened. Stalin died. The Soviet system began to be less rigid and some Soviet
citizens were allowed to emigrate. We applied, got our visas, and came to the United States.

I am telling all this because I still keep wondering how is it this strong, technically well-developed
country cannot protect its relatively short border to keep the undocumented aliens away from entering
it.

Stalin could do it, despite the fact that Soviet borders were infinitely longer.

I personally believe that all this is a matter of sheer politics. Someone or some interest groups prefer to
keep the border open. It’s not that the United States cannot or has no means to secure its borders to
protect its citizens: It just does not want to do it.

Eleven million undocumented aliens already living in this country, if allowed to stay, will provide a good
chunk of votes for Obama, which is why he still keeps the border open.

What will happen if the United States is attacked by China? Every day brings more and more evidence
of China’s arrogance and its aggressive moves toward the United States. Just recall last week’s
announcement in the Christian Science Monitor: “Are China and America on a Collision Course?” Is
anyone worried at the prospect of America becoming a Chinese colony?

Is there any way to stop Obama’s activity (inactivity?), which will possibly officially be defined as
criminal?

I want to believe that if the majority in the U.S. Congress changes hands after the November elections,
Obama will be impeached. After all, presidents were impeached for less egregious misdemeanors than
Obama’s treacherous selling of this country to China.

Now let’s see how the People’s Republic of China is perceived from Britain. The Telegraph reports: “Hot
Political Summer as China Throttles Rare Metal Supply and Claims South China Sea.” “One by One, US-
Based Processing Plants Owned by German and Japanese Firms Switched Operations to China.” “China
Is Taking Advantage of WTO Access to Western Markets Without Fully Opening Its Own.”

The rest of its survey Telegraph fills with its readers’ comments on the subject.

Does it occur to Obama that the population of China is over 1 billion people, while that of the United
States is less than a quarter of that number?
As for its weaponry, it will not be amiss to remember that China is not a “backward country” as it is
sometimes described by the West.

UN Fails in Its Duty to Protect

About 40 years ago I managed to change, with my near and dear, our habitat in Russia for life in the
United States, one of the countries we considered free.

What has happened in this century to improve the relations among the countries of our globe? I am
sorry to say that the answer is essentially nothing.

Germany, world-known for its music, started and lost the First World War. Between 1940 and 1944,
Germany occupied France; it invaded Russia, but was routed, and the commander in chief of Germany
committed suicide.

It has been sufficient for modern China, which Mao, its creator, named the People’s Republic of China,
to acquire some military might in order to become a demander of territories and producer of new,
unique weapons.

The world situation has been getting worse and will become still worse with the growth of production of
weapons and everything else necessary for war.

What should we do? I may be asked. Don’t we have the United Nations, the purpose of which is to
maintain international peace and security?

Chapter 1 of the charter of this high body proclaims, in part: “The purposes of the United Nations are to
take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the
suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means,
and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of
international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of peace.”

Does this high body, a bureaucracy so expensive and flamboyant, live up to the principles of its charter?

In the past several decades, the People’s Republic of China has emitted numerous aggressive threats.
According to The Associated Press, “China is developing a game-changing weapon: unprecedented
carrier-killing missile called the Dong Feng 21D, which could be launched from land with enough
accuracy to penetrate the defenses of even the most advanced moving aircraft carrier at a distance of
more than 1,500 kilometers (900 miles).”

The weapon could revolutionize China’s role in the Pacific balance of power, seriously weakening the
U.S. ability to intervene in any potential conflict over Taiwan or North Korea.

More than that: China claims the South China Sea. It lays claims to its “indisputable sovereignty” over
waterways that carry half of the world's freight shipping.

However, much of the sea is a long way from China, close to Vietnam and the Philippines. China could
deny U.S. ships safe access to international waters near China’s coastline. What is new is that China has
chosen to press the issue by calling these waters a “core interest,” like Taiwan, and is conducting live-
fire naval and air exercises.

The United States and Europe have been extremely nonchalant about supplies of rare minerals crucial
to developing technologies, from hybrid engines to mobile phones, superconductors, and radio and
smart bombs.
Lack of strategic planning by the West has allowed China to acquire a world monopoly on rare metals
(such as terbium, dysprosium, thulium, and lutetium) so crucial to these industries. Countries that
cannot obtain those rare minerals at any price will not play much part in the technology revolution.

The situation is clearly intolerable. The People’s Republic of China plays the globalization game. It is
taking full advantage of World Trade Organization access to Western markets without opening its own
to the same degree, and all the while holding down its currency for its mercantilist gain.

Has the United Nations done anything about that?

Nothing is being done to prevent the looming danger to the world peace. What we need to keep our
world safe is deeds not words: a global assembly of those countries and groups that are determined to
keep an eye on any signs of potential threat to any country, to move the world away from its crimes
called aggressive wars, expressed or implied. And this is exactly what the United Nations has failed to
do so far.

While mentioning defects of the earth, it is impossible to overlook its unprecedented achievements in
healthcare, in education, technological achievements, and in many aspects of life today. Is that all
destined to be destroyed by nuclear bombs and other advanced weapons?

Today’s inhabitant of the earth is often quite anxious to preserve his or her private values first and
foremost. But without cooperation of mankind, all those values as well as their possessors may be
turned to dust and ashes.

I believe that as soon as the intention to save the human beings and treasures of the Earth becomes a
priority, this process will take on and develop, for after all it is a matter of pride for those who will
survive.

China Is a Slave State Without Free Minds

The atlas of our world, which opens up my Britannica, has 156 pages. Today it is estimated that the
global population is 7 billion.

Physiologically speaking, the brain of a normal adult who had a secondary school education is very
much like the brain of another such adult anywhere in the world.

So why is it that Britain used to be so different from Russia? In Russia, in the middle of the 19th
century, to say that serfdom was not good before the tsar abolished it in 1861 was as criminal as to say in
the middle of the 20th century, before Stalin died in 1953, that Stalin was not the greatest genius
mankind had ever produced.

There is an obvious explanation: Britain’s freedom of speech. Hence the possibility to think and say
what others think and say.

Let me say that I am not a historian of the Universe going back millennia ago. I grew up in Stalin’s
Russia and tried to understand the contemporary world.

Of course, apart from the English-speaking countries, there are countries valuable for their cerebral
achievements. Take France, for example, with its achievements in painting, or Italy with its sculpture, or
Germany (before Hitler) with its music.

Russia? Well, in the first third of the 20th century, Russia had possibly created poetry second to none,
but a very limited number of non-Russians know enough Russian to appreciate it.
Yes, the world is full of miracles produced in the last few centuries by human brains and by human
hands obedient to these brains.

Religions? Yes, a religion may exist to deepen and widen brains. But, alas, often “our religion” is
perceived as a wall to separate “our,” “great,” “immortal” beliefs from what is “religiously” perceived as
something contemptible.

As a child, I spoke only Russian. German was taught at secondary school. But I studied English on my
own so fanatically that native English speakers took me for an Englishman.

Yet we decided to go to America rather than to England. In our three-storied villa not far from Moscow,
we entertained a guest named Daniel Rose, a New York developer who built, among many others, a 22-
storied apartment building in Riverdale, N.Y. He was evidently moved and impressed that we chose to
go to America not for its wealth, but for its freedom. He secured for us an apartment that his company
owned at that time.

But the problem for us was still there: how to get out of Russia and into America.

In 1970, a Soviet miracle, or madness, occurred: Several hundred Russians, including our family, were
allowed to emigrate, and there we were in New York, in an apartment Daniel Rose secured for us and in
which we still live now, about 40 years later.

I have been writing weekly columns. What about?

My leitmotiv has been freedom.

At the time when once omniscient newspapers have been losing their readership and flat-out fold and
die out, it is almost impossible to start a new paper or a magazine. Against this background, the
appearance of a new publication that can survive a couple of decades is actually a miracle.

I have in mind two remarkable publications that are going strong; they are prosperous, with ever
increasing readership, and have become the leading sources of information, intellectual life, finances,
politics, medical information, etc.

One of them also concentrates on reporting global events, providing objective political analysis of what
happens in the world. Both publications draw on new talents and leading authorities in their respective
fields. I am talking here about Newsmax (as well as www.newsmax.com) and World Tribune (as well as
www.worldtribune.com). Their readership and popularity are constantly growing, and so is their
influence on American life and politics.

Let us now tackle the atlas from the other mental pole.

Outside Europe, there was Italy, with its classical opera, sculpture, and paintings; Russia, with its
literature; “Oh, France, the dream country in the world!” as the Russians would say; and then, of course,
Germany, which created the best classical music and the most profound philosophy before falling into
Nazism.

But for a piece of land which was China, known for its unique porcelain, the outside world had no
interest. And why was that? Was that because there was no outside world known to a China slave, as
there was no Chinese world known to a European?

The social system in China is slavery, and its old slavery did not become any better with the tyranny of
Mao, who can well be compared to Stalin.

China Quietly Prepares for World Domination

Four facts pertaining to the People’s Republic of China, as Mao named his China in 1949, suggest
China’s conquest of the world:
1.The population of China is 1.3 billion, that is, 1 billion people more than the population of the United
States.
2.The rulers of the post-1949 China have the unlimited possibilities to convert their over 1 billion
people, minus little children and sick adults, into top-level military officers and creators of advanced
weapons.
3.China has sympathizers such as President Obama in the United States and some Muslims in other
countries. The fight against the so-called racist policies and attempts to anticipate terrorist attacks with
which the governments of France, Britain, the United States, and some other Western countries are
preoccupied only serve to divert the countries’ attention and resources from China’s aggressive
behavior.
4.The Western view that the China is or recently was a “big village” overlooks the facts. (Some of these
facts I listed in my earlier columns.) For example, China anticipated Newton’s mathematics and
physics. China’s global conquest will probably begin with its neighbor Russia, whose rulers are terrified
by the China. If Russia is conquered by the China, China will obtain Russia's enormous natural
resources and will thereby strengthen its military potential even further in its unstoppable advance to
grab the entire world.

At this point it is perhaps worthwhile to ask why so many people who come to this country (and others)
attach such great importance to their “national origins.”
The sad fact is that many people have nothing to be interested in: they are spiritually naked, so to speak.
Great artists, poets, and musicians have their living interests in their vocations. But many people have
nothing to preoccupy themselves with spiritually.

My advice to them is to learn the official language of the country to which you came to live, like English
in the United States, and enjoy your native language at home.

The development of post-nuclear superweapons in China including molecular superweapons is steady,

relentless, and growing in scale in accordance with Chinese dictators’ will and money. It is anything but
suicidal. On the contrary, it is to safeguard, via world domination, the dictators’ absolute power, along
with their wealth and longevity.

The behavior of the Western political establishment is suicidal. But this will be a quiet suicide. As the
Chinese military authors of “Unrestricted Warfare” (Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui) conjectured, the
United States will perish “not with a rumble, but a snicker.”

Is it possible to anticipate a terrorist attack? And how would you know if someone is plotting an attack?
This has always been a problem. I cannot help recalling one Russian satirical piece of the 19th century:
The police chief says that his subordinates should pay special attention to apprehending “terrorists,” in
contrast to hate murderers in general. “But how would we know who is who?” he was asked. “Easy!”
explained the police chief, “The terrorists wear Greek hats.”

Nowadays the problem does not seem to be as simple as it was for the Russian police chief of old.
Unlimited resources and time are being spent in search for terrorists. And as is well known, the suicidal
terrorist strikes according to his/her own design.

To quote Dostoyevsky, “Suicidally inclined person is the freest individual on earth. He craves no wealth
and fears no legal retribution, for he has sentenced himself to death.”
One of my readers noted in his e-mail to me: “So I just want to say that I enjoy reading your articles, for
they are very thought-provoking, and at least I am not now the only person that sees China for what it is
and the danger it poses to the West as we feed the dragon.”

The countries that do not wish to be converted by China into graveyards or into its perfect slave-state
appendages must form a World Union of Global Defense against China. The free countries must stop
China in its tracks while still there is time.

All that the “war on terrorism” demonstrates is that the mental level of the Western political
establishment, including the mainstream media, is so low that the West as it is today is not fit to survive
the annihilation by post-nuclear superweapons being developed in China since 1986.

The destiny of the world is being decided NOW. The past of global civilization and its future are at stake.
The Nazi wars would pale in comparison with what China would inflict upon the world.

China Prepares for World War

One of the origins of human society can be traced to slavery. Yes, it is the physical ability of one part of
society to order another part of it to “do what the rulers want to be done.”

Only a language can explain well to another human being what he or she is expected to do. Slavery thus
originated at a certain level of mental development: that of conversation in a mutually understood
human tongue.

This level of human development made it possible for humans to wage wars instead of pursuing and
killing animals. Gradually, there originated fortresses and fortifications as well as combat vehicles,
including ships and aircraft. But slavery could perfectly combine with technological or strategic
achievements.

Hitler’s Germany, which attacked Russia, was a slave state, as was Stalin’s Russia, though the word
“slave” had ceased to be used officially whether applied to “our heroic troops” or to “our despised
enemy.”

The existence of a slave state such as Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia, and Hitler’s defeat in Russia,
could account for the fact that Stalin’s Russia had more military slaves than Hitler’s Germany.

We are now approaching the period when the People’s Republic of China will possess more military
slaves than any other country or any alliance of countries acting as a single force.

Indeed, the People’s Republic of China will be able to induct the military slaves of the countries it will
conquer into their invasion army.

Let us recall that Stalin’s Russia and thus the Russian army, consisted of different nations, some of
which had nothing to do with the Russians. Yet Stalin’s army routed Hitler’s invaders.

So too the foreign military slaves in the People’s Republic of China will fight even better than those
Soviet troops whose nationalities had nothing to do with the Russians (or with Stalin, who was a
Georgian, not a Russian).

In other words, in the war of the People’s Republic of China for its world domination, we may see
military slaves of conquered nations which will have nothing to do with the People’s Republic of China,
yet who would be forced to fight on China’s side as its loyal military slaves.
We are possibly on the verge of a real world war, that is global war; and fighting on the side of the world
conqueror, China, will be nations as different as were Soviet nations under the Georgian Stalin.

It has to be admitted that though the People’s Republic of China officially originated in 1949, practically
nothing alarming was heard about it in the West till the end of the 20th century. It simply was one of
the countries becoming known in the world. All the more reason for the world to wake up to the globally
dangerous reality now.

But was the globalism of the People’s Republic of China an unexpected paradox? Mao was a disciple of
Marx and Lenin. Certainly both of them were globalists! Said the Internationale, the Communist Party
hymn:

The two worlds are in the final fight!

Our slogan: One Soviet World is right!

It has to be admitted that the rulers of the former Soviet Union were more philosophically minded
rather than war minded, while the rulers of the People Republic of China behave more like world
warriors rather than philosophers like Marx or Lenin or Stalin.

They are busy preparing the world takeover, not a glamorous picture of the paradise on earth for
Western observers.

The Soviet rulers were philosophically convinced that the observance of the new Soviet Union, like the
Moscow subway made out of marble, would lead to similar revolutions in all other countries.

The rulers of the People’s Republic of China are more experienced in the Western life to realize that the
world war, not the tourist displays, will decide the destiny of the world.

This begs the question, Will the West understand what is going on in the world before it is too late?

The Western press and radio materials are concentrating on injustices inside the People’s Republic of
China, as though the country has sworn on “socialism” and it is necessary to watch its performance.

On the other hand, no crucial documents of top world policy of the People’s Republic of China and its
allies are known outside their top secret Cabinets.

The People’s Republic of China is not a democracy, where the crucial elements of its domestic policy
become publicly known.

It is the murder of participants of the Tiananmen Square movement, who dared to suggest elections of
some elements of the government, that attracted the public attention to the political nature of the
People’s Republic of China.

Before those events, late in the 1989, the People’s Republic of China had been an unknown territory,
though it was its dictator Mao who had given it this name in 1949, that is, 60 years ago.

China's Power Depends on Modern Weaponry

I have received several responses from my readers to my latest two columns about China's efforts to
make its power global. Below is one of those responses:
Do you honestly believe that China could defeat NATO, Australia,
Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, to name a few, in an armed conflict?
China would have to face off against all of the aforementioned
countries in their quest for world domination. The US would come
 to Russia’s aid and if China were to invade the Russian homefront,
assuming that Russia would not be able to defend itself.

In the first of my two previous column, I wrote about the need for the relevant countries to draw
another NATO for the defense against China. But in the 60 years of existence of the People's Republic of
China, this has never happened, at least in the public domain.

Let us now look at the other countries named as too powerful for China to cope with. The United States
is mentioned twice: for the first time as part of NATO, and for the second time as capable of defeating
China and thus saving Russia from China’s attack.

It is true that the United States did produce nuclear weapons so that it may be concluded that militarily
it was for that snippet of time the most powerful country.

How did that come about? The German scientist of genius Albert Einstein was a Jew and hence was
running the risk of being killed by the Nazi regime. When he and his family were safely away from
Germany, Einstein sent a letter (on Aug. 2, 1939) to President Roosevelt (two pages of that letter I have
displayed on the wall in my study). Roosevelt acted upon it immediately.

So “the American military superiority” comes down to the USA plus a runaway German scientist.

Germany had no nuclear weapons when Hitler invaded Russia. Later, after he had sustained defeat in
Russia, he committed suicide.

If that runaway scientist had not been in the picture, the nuclear weapons would have been Hitler’s
property, and hence the world would have been his.

Let us suppose that Obama will not be re-elected for the next presidential term. Those, however, who
voted for his first term are still alive to vote. Hypothetically, in slave societies like the People’s Republic
of China, voters who had voted for the “wrong candidate” would have been killed as so many flies.

In the United States, the president has been elected despite — or perhaps due to — the sympathy he
expressed for the People’s Republic of China!

When I went out the other day, I saw a line of trucks by my entrance, carrying window guards, to
prevent a possible accident, to be installed in our 22-story building.

Watching the unloading of the trucks was an American young man, who told me that the window guards
had been manufactured in the People’s Republic of China. He seemed to expect to hear from me a
scream of delight, as though he had told me that those window guards were personally sculpted by
Leonardo da Vinci, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China.

Young people are so different and so opinionated that they consider themselves a totally different
nation of youth, superior to the rest of Americans and now led by the youthful U.S. President Obama.

So not only does the population of the People’s Republic of China exceed that of the United States by 1
billion, but the 300 million American citizens include any number of those who had voted for the
youthful China-loving Obama.

No less invented is the next assertion of my reader: “The US [!] would come to Russia’s aid if China were
to invade the Russian homefront, assuming that Russia would not be able to defend itself.”

Today it is again believed that the world is being rejuvenated: that the People’s Republic of China is a
country of new development, of youth, of the future, and hence American youths gravitate to China (or
Islamism!) like youths had once gravitated to Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany or Mao’s China.
President Obama Oblivious to the Threat From China

We have been hearing consolations that many other (elected) American presidents were almost as
dangerous to America as has been Barack Obama, as many of those who voted for him now believe.

If Winston Churchill had not been appointed (not “elected”!) prime minister of Britain at the time,
Hitler’s Germany would have swallowed up Britain as it did France, despite the British divisions
stationed in France to reinforce its defense. But after having heard Churchill’s radio addresses, Hitler
changed his mind and chose to invade Russia rather than Britain, was routed, and committed suicide.

Churchill was chosen according to the British law. Could he have possibly been elected the American
way, as are the U.S. presidents in the United States? No.

He was a profound political thinker, unlike George W. Bush or Obama or many other American
presidents, who could be understood by every American only as “pop speakers.”

How did the American belief that a Winston Churchill can be “elected by the people” originate?

The “revolutionary America” assured the world that in the United States the “power” belongs to the
people, who elect all their top leaders, while in Britain the power belongs mostly to old bureaucrats, and
this is why America had to wage a war for its independence.

In November of last year, when Obama visited the People’s Republic of China, two of China’s “dark
sides” were well known to the democratic West: general slavery (no previous freedom) and the growth
of the People’s Republic of China into a global empire based on general slavery.

And here President Obama comes to the People’s Republic of China. Of course, no one expected him to
speak against the global growth of China. But it would be proper for a high-ranking guest from the
United States to express his private regrets that still absent are the freedom of speech and other such
personal freedoms.

Obama, however, never said a word on the subject — he kept his reputation with the owners of the
People’s Republic of China impeccable.

Who knows? Obama cannot preserve his U.S. presidency for the rest of his life, while the People’s
Republic of China might consider inviting him to serve as a Chinese high-ranking official for the
duration of his life.

Obama had to have known what a country of slavery such as The People's Republic of China, founded by
Mao (the Chinese Stalin) is like.

I was born into Stalin’s country of slavery. A great deal of art was produced, but it became pseudo-art,
as life itself became pseudo-life: a prison pretending to be free life.

Surely Obama's loyal behavior during his visit to China was impeccable: He seemed not even have heard
about the existence of the People's Republic of China as a slave state.

The fundamental question is whether the United States will survive. The United States has never been
invaded by other countries.

Before the age of aviation, the only way to reach the United States was by sea, and the aggressor would
be effectively repulsed. But the age of aviation and space technology opened the atmospheric and
stratospheric oceans above the earth.

In other words, there has originated conditional probability for the United States to be involved, on its
soil or above it, in world war as deeply as any other country on the earth. And then who will care if the
U.S. presidents are elected by voters, who understand as little of what is going on as did the English
people before Winston Churchill.

It is curious that one’s voluntary association with Germany of 1935-1945 would have horrified any
democratic country.

Now, does the People’s Republic of China differ from Nazi Germany, except that it was founded by Mao,
who was no better than Hitler or Stalin and who killed dozens of millions of civilians? China intends to
go global, just as Hitler did before his defeat in Russia.

Yet there is President Obama, obviously pleasing the leaders of China by his polite silence perchance he
becomes one of them if his top career in the U.S.A. is terminated.

So far he is the servant to two masters, one of whom being the United States and the other a country no
different from Germany between 1935 and 1945.

Was Tony Blair More Aware of the

China Threat Than Obama?

I have been reading all things Tony Blair to understand if he was any better than Obama regarding the
threat China poses to the world.

To that end, I have perused a seven-page transcript of MSNBC “Morning Joe” show with Tony Blair,
after former U.S. President Bill Clinton had presented him with the prestigious Liberty Medal “for his
global human rights work.”

I have read those seven pages of fine print, which do not contain even two words worth reading.
Predictably, the “People’s Republic of China” is not even as much as mentioned. Are seven pages of
small print not enough to even mention the danger of China, with its population already surpassing that
of the United States by 1 billion?

Surely China is by far the biggest threat to the global human rights!

Tony Blair’s grandest text for general reading is his recently published book “A Journey: My Political
Life,” which he has been promoting in the United States and which is being so publicized that our local
public library does not have a single copy available and has a long wait list of those wishing to read it.

In his book, Blair does mention the “People’s Republic of China,” which, he claims, should be helped by
advanced countries to establish a just society.

Blair does not seem to understand that those who have not so long ago been called “the working people”
had been called “slaves” for hundreds and thousands of years.

The slaves were more profitable than freely hired “working people.”

Solid, all-out slavery also may be a good preventer of the appearance of “secret scoundrels” who want to
undermine and annihilate slavery.

Finally, will slaves understand Tony Blair?

In Stalin’s Russia, the number “37” stood most for the year of his most intense terror against civilians
whom other civilians reported to the secret police and accused of “anti-Soviet activity,” that is, saying
something anti-Soviet.

In 1937, I was 9 years old, but already I understood that we were living in the worst possible society, at a
par with “fascist Germany.”

We need democracy! But can democracy exist if people are so different mentally? Some of our
classmates sat at the back of the class, and once one of them suddenly whistled. The teacher interrupted
the class and said she was going to complain to the school principal, to which the hoods shouted: “Go
ahead and complain!”

Well, those hoods were too young to be imprisoned.

In later years I decided that the problem had been solved in England. I mastered the English language
as to the language born. Also, I courted a Russian girl whose English was no worse than mine. Well,
here I am in a free, English-speaking county, studying what has been pronounced or written for 10 years
in office by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who resigned in 2007.

If a cascade of Blair’s statements be summarized, he believes that democracy can exist and indeed
become global, including the “People’s Republic of China’s” game at ultimate democracy, since Blair
honestly believes that every human being in the world also believes in it, for their minds match that of
Tony Blair’s.

Blair may seem to be similar to Obama. Actually, Obama worked hard for his personal interests as, for
example, placating the “People’s Republic of China” to be on good terms with it, while Blair simply
created a lot of meaningless noise, at the same time showing his respect for the “People’s Republic of
China” as part of inevitable democracy all over the world.

China’s conquest of the world would be the single most terrible disaster for mankind in the past
centuries, including Hitler’s beginning of his global invasion by his attempt to conquer Russia, which
failed and ended in his own defeat and eventually suicide.

The demonstration of how much harm Obama and Tony Blair have inflicted upon the safety of the free
world shows how mortally endangered the world is by the global threat from the “People’s Republic of
China.”

The appearance of a country which in 1949 came to be called the “People’s Republic of China” is
extremely rare, if not unique, in human history and is highly dangerous to the rest of the world.

China Readies for World War

Recently China’s intentions to unleash a new world war to conquer the world have grabbed the attention
of the Western media.

An unfounded Western invention? No, not this time!

The population of the People’s Republic of China exceeds that of the United States by 1 billion. With
such advantage and having adequate weapons, China can bury the United States, to say nothing of
smaller countries. This is a fact nobody can deny.

The United States and practically all advanced countries participated in World War I and World War II,
not to mention smaller wars. What about the “People’s Republic of China”? Here from my collection is
the photograph of the smiling Mao, raising his fist to salute the coming of the next "new Russian
revolution."

Well, the “new Russian revolution” never came. But what was important for Mao was to stop using the
word “war” in a positive sense. All wars are mass murders. Mao was interested in revolutions. Hence
Mao’s China had no need for the latest weapons, since surely the “new Russian revolution” would be
armed by Russians themselves.

For about 10 years the Western media have been suspecting that China is making war preparations to
conquer the world. On Aug. 5, 2003, few noticed the headline in the blog ParaPundit: “Students from
China Caught Stealing Military Technology.”

Well, for years, some 50,000 students from China studying in the United States have been stealing the
knowhow and military secrets and whatever else necessary to make the army of the People’s Republic of
China the world’s supreme leader.

But many or most leaders of the democratic countries were worried more about their careers than about
the safety of their countries, and in particular, about the scandals involving Chinese students in America
pilfering American military secrets and sensitive military data. For example, President George W. Bush
had a meeting with China’s leader and the scandals were waived aside.

Why do these 50,000 Chinese study in the United States? Well, the United States has been trying to
help the People’s Republic of China to educate its people. Hence 50,000 Chinese “study” in the United
States — actually helping to equip China’s army with whatever it needs to achieve its ultimate goal:
global victory, requiring the world’s best weapons.

In June of 2010, The Washington Post published an article headlined “China Becoming a Scientific
Superpower.”

At this point let us recall the millennial social differences between freedom in the United States and
other democracies and the absence of it in the People’s Republic of China, converting its inhabitants
into slaves, living by sacred rules of slavery.

There is nothing that a free American cannot say or do unless a court finds that those actions do harm to
other human beings. On the other hand, there is nothing a Chinese inhabitant can dare to do or say if
that contradicts the sacred rules of slavery, established as they were established millennia ago.

That chasm was understood in the United States and other free countries after China’s inhabitants were
shot about 20 years ago for saying that it would be good if some government institutions in their
country were elected by the people.

On Sept. 23, 2010, the China's Premier Wen Jiabao spoke in New York. He said, “There are thousands
of reasons for U.S.-China relations to move forward.” He went on to say that he “is an optimist about
the relations between the two nations.”

Chi Mak had began sending “sensitive materials” to China in 1983, two years before he became a U.S.
citizen. Today he is on trial. That is, for 24 years he was sending American sensitive military (naval)
technology to China. He is now 66 years old — well, it’s time for him to get some rest.

But surely there will be others like him until China surpasses the United States in the effectiveness of its
military weapons to successfully wage its global war to grab and enslave the world.

In this column, I tried to show the “U.S.-China relations” as the U.S. mass media have presented them,
and hence most Americans have perceived them, especially in view of the fact that in his New York
speech last month Wen Jiabao expressed his optimistic belief that mutual relations between the United
States and China should “move forward.”
However, apart from what top Chinese officials may be openly saying for Moscow and the entire world
to hear, something infinitely more important and sinister may be secretly discussed in their offices. And
this will be the subject of my next-week column.

C-SPAN Airs China's Theft of Military Technology

In my previous columns, I mentioned how inadequately the U.S. mass media was at reporting the
“People’s Republic of China” theft of top military technology from the United States.

An assumption that a country that steals enemy military technology to make war is weak seems to have
been quite common.

However, C-SPAN (Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network, that is, an American cable television
network) has presented a different picture of the U.S.-China collision.

"C-SPAN: Report on Chinese Espionage," a collection of unclassified information, which recently came
to my attention, consists of eight consecutively numbered section openers.

Each section runs from four to seven pages and carries the same title “PRC Acquisition of U.S.
Technology.”

I am not presenting the entire content of the C-SPAN Report within the space of this column. Nor is
there any need for it. The text of this report in its entirety can be found on the Internet.

My goal is to show how different is the report from so much of what we hear and read in the rest of
American mass media. What is crucially important is that the C-SPAN report presents a sinister picture
of how the “People’s Republic of China” has been stealing classified information of all the United States’
most advanced military secrets since as early as 1970.

The following is the quotation from the report: “These thefts are the result of an intelligence collection
program, spanning two decades and continuing to the present. The PRC intelligence collection program
included espionage, review of unclassified publications, and intensive interactions with scientists from
the Department of Energy’s national weapons laboratories.”

The report goes on to say: “The stolen U.S. secrets have helped the PRC fabricate and successfully test
modern strategic thermonuclear weapons . . . The stolen information includes classified design
information for an enhanced information weapon (commonly known as the “neutron bomb”), which
neither the United States, nor any other nation, has ever deployed . . . The PRC subsequently tested the
neutron bomb. The U.S. has never deployed a neutron weapon.”

And further: “The Select Committee judges that the U.S. national weapons laboratories have been and
are targeted by PRC espionage, and almost certainly remain penetrated by the PRC today.”

Section 4 of the report notes, in particular, that “The PRC also tries to identify ethnic Chinese in the
United States who have access to sensitive information, and sometimes is able to enlist their
cooperation in illegal technology or information transfers.”

However, it is only from the C-SPAN report that we have learned this information so crucial for the
survival of the free countries. Obviously, it is vital to give the report wider publicity and follow its
serious analysis of this tragic world situation.

The only ruler in the 20th century who did not deny his intention to establish his world domination was
Hitler. But he lost his war in Russia, because the population of Germany was about 100 million less than
that of Russia. Compare this population advantage with the population advantage of the “People’s
Republic of China” (1 billion people!) over the United States and note that some of decisive weapons did
not advance in Mao’s China owing to his preference for “revolutions” over wars (in vain was he waiting
for the “New Russian Revolution” to come).

The essence of the C-SPAN report drastically differs from what is being said in other mass media, whose
purpose has been to entertain their audiences. For C-SPAN, this information is about as “entertaining”
as would be the U.S. war against Nazi Germany for those Americans who participated in it and were
killed in that war.

The seizure of enemy weapons to fight the enemy has existed for millennia.

Ironically, the United States has not been a military enemy of the “People’s Republic of China.” To the
contrary, the United States has been helping it raise the living standards of the Chinese people.

The world situation is tragic due to the nature of the PRC. But fortunately, the relevant reports, as well
as those on Newsmax.com and WorldTribune.com, represent the American understanding of the
coming world tragedy.

The outcome depends on how soon the rest of the thinking America and other free countries will
embrace intellectually the C-SPAN report and other such serious institutions, not the sheer bearers of
academic titles.

The advantage of the free countries lies in their fostering geniuses to rise to the highest peaks possible.

What Have We Learned From Stalin, Mao, Hitler?

Support of freedom comes foremost from those who need freedom in order to create or to work
independently.

For 40 years, neither I nor my wife had even dreamed about something as crazy as the “first emigration
of Soviet people” arranged by “our Soviet state” about 40 years ago.

In the United States, which welcomed us, immigrants from Soviet Russia, my mission was to reveal to
mankind (and first of all the English-speaking people) something crucial for their survival, and
especially the need to preserve their freedom. Thank God, my wife and I were lucky to have had such
profound knowledge of English, something to which both of us had devoted our lives back in Russia.

Freedom of speech as practiced by the English-speaking people allows freedom of expression, except
what the court of justice may find slanderous to others. I embarked on my lecture tours of the English-
speaking countries, and in particular these United States, delivering my views on the sociology of
freedom versus that of slavery.

Now, a lifelong admirer of the freedom of speech in the English-speaking countries, I still find the need
to expound on my views.

There still is a belief among people of all nations that there is a “need for a government” in their
countries to govern them and tell them what and what not to do. Some of them would like to serve such
a government and be part of it.

As for the sociology of this belief in the importance of the government, it was the same thousands of
years ago as it is today. In 20th century Russia, the head of the government to be voted for was Stalin.
And in China, Mao. Both even gave the official names to their countries: USSR — Union of “Soviet
Socialist Republics” and PRC — “People’s Republic of China.”

Now, on any territory during any epoch, the sociology of creation of the “government” and of its chores
has never changed from what it was perceived to be 500 years ago or 500 years later.
But while the sociology of creation of the “government” still stays the same, there have developed new
trends over the years. One of them was the conversion of the entire population into the slaves of a Stalin
or a Mao kind, whereupon the use of the word “slave” became inappropriate.

In Stalin’s propaganda, the free citizens of the free countries came to be called “slaves” (“of the capital”),
while in Stalin’s Russia they had been “liberated” from slavery, in which they had been pining in the
United States, England, and other such “bourgeois countries.”

The reasons for enslavement are obvious. The upkeep of a slave in countries of partial slavery was
expensive — just as that of a good horse or the maintenance of a machine producing valuable goods or
services.

Imagine the cost of 1 billion slaves of the “People’s Republic of China,” the name given it by Mao, the
slave-owner of the empire, whose propaganda still keeps assuring their slaves that they are the freest
(and happiest) people who have ever been living on our planet.

I have received a neatly typed letter from a PRC slave. At last, he says, he understands why I chose to
live in the United States and now keep criticizing the PRC in my columns. Russia, he goes on to say,
wants to destroy PRC, and therefore Russia had sent me to the United States so that Americans would
read my columns and get disgusted with the PRC enough to destroy it!

Note that it never occurs to the author of that letter that 40 years ago my family and I escaped from
Russia in search of freedom, which we found in this country, and that we have not visited Russia ever
since.

To a slave, no slave such as a PRC inhabitant should ever leave the country he was born in! So to his
mind, I live outside Russia only as a Russian agent who was sent to the United States to turn Americans
against the PRC.

The trouble is that outside the free societies, this mindless mind of a slave is the only mind at work
whenever it works at all. It has not changed in the past millennia. Will it ever change?

As for “founders of governments” like Stalin or Mao and those “governments” themselves, slavery with
its brainless brains was the best guarantee of their own quiet death in their own bed, in contrast to close
to 100 million random people Stalin and Mao randomly killed.

It is now that the final destiny of mankind is being decided, and the world led by the ghosts of Stalin,
Mao, and Hitler may sink into the eternal night or the final annihilation of those who will survive.

China’s Plan for Global Domination

I would like to recall four facts which make it possible for the “People’s Republic of China” to seize
control of the world.

Fact 1. My readers must be tired of being reminded of this important and undeniable fact, namely, that
the population of PRC exceeds that of the United States by 1 billion.

Fact 2. The PRC is waging a global campaign to undermine the U.S. dollar and turn its yuan into a
global reserve currency. It is not likely that the PRC expansion of its global power will be obstructed
financially.

Fact 3. In the West, there was a long misperception of China as being an exotic Asian land, capable of
producing only its exotic “Chinese goods.” Actually, China was developing scientifically and
technologically as a “Western country” for about 1,000 years.
Fact 4. How is Obama’s friendship with the PRC? Out of his six half-brothers, Obama chose to bestow
his brotherly love on the one who went to live in the PRC. On his four-day first state visit to China, after
he landed in Beijing, Obama’s first order of business was family business.

Before he headed to a formal dinner with China’s President Hu Jintao, Obama set aside time to see his
half-brother, Mark Obama Ndesandjo. Is he hoping to establish roots on PRC soil? Obama’s first official
trip to the PRC resulted in no firm agreements and has been criticized as being tightly scripted by
Beijing.

Before the 1989 Tiananmen massacre of those PRC inhabitants who dared to suggest publicly the
elections in some government institutions, the PRC had not been as much as noticed by the West.

As for PRC slavery, the visible public behavior of a slave may not show that he or she is a slave. Human
public behavior is a spectacle, in which a slave is programmed to perform as a free person.

However, even after the gruesome events of 1989, the association of Americans with PRC often
resembled the meetings of citizens of two friendly countries facing their common great future.

Questioning the aggressive actions of the PRC and disclosing its real intentions, and in particular the
outright pronouncements by its growing military leaders to rule the world, were met with criticism and
disbelief in countries of freedom and democracy.

How can such a backward piece of land have such ambitious plans to possess the world if such a
military giant like Hitler’s Germany was defeated in Russia?

My answer to this is supported by those who studied Hitler. Mentally, people are classified by their
ability as a genius, average, and so on. Hitler was an idiot. Hence the only attempt in the 20th century to
conquer the world disastrously failed in Russia, with Hitler committing suicide.

Hitler made full use of the fact that Germany was denied the right to possess adequate armaments, as
was specified by the Treaty of Versailles.

As I mentioned earlier in my columns, the West should create a union of defense against the global PRC
threat.

Of late, some Western columnists have become more apprehensive of this threat; they express their
awareness as to the aggressive behavior of the PRC and are sounding an alarm. I am getting requests for
permission to reprint my columns on the subject. But governments do not budge, while Obama, a friend
of PRC, might win a second term.

It looks like in this case the world power of PRC is preordained, since the United States may finally
begin to fight it too late, especially if Obama is elected for a second term.

The West seems wide open to the PRC becoming a world power, so that the PRC could then annihilate
all free countries one by one and make Russia its powerful ally, willing to obey the master like a slave.

In contrast to Hitler, who failed to conquer Russia and was thrown out of the country, the PRC will
make Russia its obedient slave.

It also seems that the PRC march to dominate the world is a matter of technique of surrendering all free
governments to its infinitely deceptive manipulations, tricks, and outright threats on its way to achieve
its ultimate goal.

Time to Heed the China Threat

Few expected the military might of the world to change so drastically in 1910 to 2010. The change in
2011 to 2111 will no doubt be far greater.

In 1910 to 2010, no country was powerful enough to take over the entire world. I leave out Hitler’s
unrealized dreams since Hitler falls into the idiot category on the scale of human intelligence.

The word “development” as it applies to a person or a country became common in the 19th century.
Darwin (died in 1882) noted that human beings, once considered one of the weakest species, compared
with beasts like lions or tigers, were later armed with weapons that could kill at a distance and humans
were then the most powerful and rapacious creatures.

What changes were brought about in the period between the years 1910 to 2010?

With the development of science and technology, weapons were becoming more and more sophisticated
as more effective killers and destroyers.

Sensational was the appearance of nuclear weapons. Those weapons were to appear in Germany, and if
they did, Hitler would have used them and would have defeated Russia as well as the United States and
perhaps the rest of the world.

In his now famous letter of 1939 to President Roosevelt, Albert Einstein, the greatest German physicist
of genius, alerted the U.S. president to the fact that Germany was working on developing deadly nuclear
weapons and that the United States should expedite nuclear research and development to get those
weapons first.

Roosevelt heeded Einstein’s warning, initiated the Manhattan Project, and the nuclear bomb was
obtained by the United States ahead of Hitler’s Germany.

In my columns, I keep trying to bring to the attention of the free countries the fact that they cannot go
on ignoring the glaring threat to their existence coming from the “People’s Republic of China,” which
disregards public opinion, manages to get away with violating basic human rights of its own citizens,
keeps amassing its military might by stealing the U.S. secret military technology, and attracting the best
scientists from other countries.

China already is powerful enough to challenge international laws to its own advantage: all that in view
of the entire world!

I dread to think that the process may become irreversible, that there won’t be a free country left which
would be able to resist the China military giant. Judging by the ineptitude of U.S. President Barack
Obama, who keeps pandering to China to advance his own Marxist agenda so that he could borrow from
it more money thereby getting our country deeper and deeper in debt, makes the picture gloomy.

There’s still time for the people of these United States to stop Obama in his tracks and elect another
President Roosevelt, who will put an end to Obama’s policy of defeatism and self-destruction.

I recall that a while ago I reviewed the book “When China Rules the World: The End of the Western
World and the Birth of a New Global Order” by Martin Jacques (The Penguin Press, New York, 2009).

The only useful information about the author is that he is the “former editor of the highly influential [in
Britain or in China?] journal Marxism Today until its closure in 1991.”

Lenin and other “founders of Soviet Russia” claimed that “Soviet Russia” was what Marx had meant it to
be. But later (under Stalin, who died in 1953) the Soviet propaganda claimed that the “Soviet Russia”
had sprung from the Russian mentality, superior to other nationalism. It was forgotten that the
“German Nazism” was said to have come from the (German) “National socialism” seated in the German
brain.

China should be reminded that it originated as a Marxist country, despite the efforts of its official
propaganda to claim that it originated from the Chinese mind, as being the most profound in the
universe.

How did Martin Jacques arrive at his conclusion that the Western world has ended and that culturally
“the West will yield” to China? The West has created music of genius, which is being performed in all
culturally European countries (and, incidentally, performances of Western classical music are becoming
more and more popular in China itself!). Exhibits of great Western paintings, on loan from museums or
private collectors, travel from country to country and are being viewed and admired by millions of
people. Western literature never gets tired of creating new masterpieces.

The birth of a genius is a sporadic phenomenon. Nor can a society be expected to be graced with its
future eternal global power. Before the Tiananmen massacre, China remained unnoticed for more than
a thousand years. Now is the time to get a closer look at China’s aggressive behavior and save the U.S.
and other free countries.

To Appreciate Life in the US, Examine China, Russia

Jack (not a Russian name) explained to me in Moscow that he had emigrated from the United States to
Soviet Russia because he was sure that America had it all wrong and Soviet Russia had it all right.

Shortly after his arrival in Soviet paradise Jack was arrested, falsely charged with being an American
spy, and spent seven years in a concentration camp. Soviet secret police would not believe that anyone
living in the United States would emigrate to “Soviet Russia.”

“Why did you think that America has it all wrong, while Soviet Russia has it right?” I asked him.

Jack was quick to answer by recalling Marx’s “Das Kapital.” In the United States, the owner of a
business is a private person, a capitalist, who makes profit from the sale of his product. In Soviet Russia,
there is no private enterprise. A state official works for a set salary.

“Yes,” I said, “but the value of a certain output produced by the state may be so small as to be
insufficient even to pay the state officials’ salaries.”

We both laughed. Now for both of us Marx was a ridiculously smug hack, whose “wisdom” was part of
“Soviet Russia” and will perhaps be, before long, part of other countries as well.

Jack became a frequent guest in our house and enjoyed our family dinners, prepared and served by our
kitchen maid.

I remember that once over a dinner I presented my general theory of societies. At times, most societies
were based on slavery. Today the words “slavery” and “slaves” have been politically dropped out of use.
Yet with these terms, some social explanations would be so simple! All people in Soviet Russia, except
for the God-like ruler himself, were his slaves. It was that simple.

After a while, our ironies became too gruesome for us, and Jack and our family decided to try our luck
emigrating to the United States!

To Soviet emigration authorities, Jack gave a good reason for his going back: He was born and raised in
the United States, was an American citizen, and wished to go back to his country. His ailing mother,
who stayed behind in the United States, was waiting for him and needed his support. Soon Jack went
back to the United States.
Now, how about me and my family? What good reason could we give Soviet officials for wishing to leave
the “Soviet paradise”?

Perhaps one of the Soviet bureaucrats had decided to illustrate how free Soviet citizens were and
granted us permission to leave “Soviet Russia.” As luck would have it, that was what happened. My
family and I received exit visas, with hundreds of other “Soviet citizens.” That was 40 years ago.

Jack and I met again in the United States, and now we saw eye to eye on both the United States and
Soviet Russia.

But I had a mission. In Soviet Russia, I had Jack to rely on for a normal vision of the world, from free
countries like the United States, of state concentration camps or of slave states like Stalin’s Russia or
Mao’s China. But, of course, free countries had free political thinkers and political institutions,
including the free press.

Shortly after we arrived in the United State, I was approached by the editors of the Commentary
magazine. They had published four of my articles, after which they stopped publishing me because of
my criticism of one of their authors I should not, in their opinion, have criticized.

Jack read my articles and said: “Excellent! As for their latest row, don’t let this upset you! You’ve done
it! You said what you had to say! This country needs you to enlighten them about Russia and other such
countries. As for me, I am going to Ohio, to stay with my mother.”

When we parted, I saw in his sad eyes that same light I noticed when he had played the piano.

Jack was older than I, and those seven years he had spent in the Soviet concentration camp had
undermined his health. Soon we learned of his death. To me, Jack will be alive forever. He proved to me
that private association with private people is always more useful, more creative and stimulating than
the “cooperation” of Soviet officials I had witnessed.

Also, I understood through his friendship how precarious it is to create the image of two countries on
the basis of one person’s impressions tending in the direction of good or of evil.

Yes, people who live in the concentration-camp-like countries are irrevocably horrified. On the other
hand, some foreigners believe that their sojourn in such countries will enrich their experience. Their
problem is to find out how to get out before they get destroyed.

China Prepares for Modern War

To their owners, slave states may seem more powerful in principle than free countries and destined to
defeat them.

I repeatedly mention in my columns that in late 1930s Germany, only a genius such as Albert Einstein
understood that a country that would be the first to possess nuclear weapons would win the war.

Einstein’s letter to Roosevelt saved the world from being conquered by Hitler had Hitler been armed
with nuclear weapons. Actually, Japan, which did not have nuclear weapons and which attacked the
United States, surrendered unconditionally after the United States dropped two nuclear bombs on
Japanese islands Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Einstein was born in Germany in 1879. If freedom is measured by the depth of personal philosophies,
Germany before 1914 was the world’s freest country. By the late 1930s, however, it had regressed to
totalitarian militarism with global ambitions.
Einstein saved mankind by having discreetly left Germany with his family and sending a letter to
President Roosevelt warning him about the crucial military importance of nuclear weapons. The United
States built them promptly enough and had them by the end of Hitler’s debacle in Russia and his
consequent suicide.

The inside of flap of “Cyber War,” written by two former U.S. government officials, says that the senior
of the two authors, Richard A. Clarke, served “in the White House, and Bill Clinton appointed him as
National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism.”

What is “cyber war”? Clarke is over 60 years old, but this is his first study on the subject.

I pulled up “cyber war” on my computer and received thousands of results mentioning Clarke, as though
the United States is consumed by a “cyber war” and is fighting it back under the expert leadership of
Clarke.

Norbert Wiener (1894-1964), a mathematician, engineer, and social philosopher, coined the word
“cybernetics” from the Greek word meaning “steersman.” He defined it as the science of control and
communication in the animal and the machine.

Cybernetics treats not things but ways of behaving: It attempts to understand how systems behave
themselves, control themselves, and organize themselves. Cybernetics cuts across many traditional
disciplinary boundaries, like engineering, systems control, computer science, biology, philosophy, and
the organization of society.

If the United States stays at the mental level of Bill Clinton and his appointee Richard A. Clarke, the
annihilation of this country is almost certain.

Today a global military analysis should begin with the statement that China has about 1 billion more
inhabitants than the United States. This 1 billion Chinese are a huge reservoir from which to draw those
capable to be involved in science and technology.

Of course, since a born inhabitant of China is a slave, this gives the slave state of China its advantages in
war. But its disadvantage is that a genius like Albert Einstein cannot be identified in a slave state
because there is no other known genius in the field, and hence the field does not exist.

On the other hand, in a free society, Einstein would be discovered by another Einstein if such exists, or
by someone aspiring to be a genius.

Much of what is mentioned by the authors of the “Cyber War” as the “new war” threatening the United
States has been used hundreds or thousands of years before: espionage, terrorism, sexual seduction,
stealing of military plans and what have you. Of course, new science and technology came up the means
to destroy them.

Both free countries and slave states have their own advantages and disadvantages in war in general and
modern war in particular.

Many inhabitants of free countries take freedom for granted, as existing for them only to enjoy their
private lives. Recall the documentary films showing the carefree French on the eve of Hitler’s
occupation of France, which happened at a lightning speed.

And what about the current U.S. president’s friendship with China, his desire to see China grow strong,
a country which may yet conquer the United States with such ruthless cruelty that will surpass that of
Hitler’s occupation of France?

Incidentally, Norbert Wiener became an opponent of war in general. Why not? Freedom in America!
One can study cyber war and be openly against war, any war, war in general, and without as much as
paying attention to how China has been using 1 billion of its “surplus” population for preparing its war
to win the ownership of the world.

China's Goal: 'People’s Republic of the World'

After the Tiananmen massacre in China in 1989, there resurged in the United States some interest in
China, and recently we have heard or read several times that the “Chinese believe in Chinese racial
supremacy.”

This is one reason why the world must be part of China for the world’s own benefit. China wishes to
become “The People’s Republic of the World.”

The belief of Hitler and some Germans in their racial supremacy led Hitler to attempt to conquer Soviet
Russia (before the latter would conquer Germany). But at the end of Hitler’s retreat from Russia, he fled
from the country and committed suicide.

A Chinese official was once asked by a West European why Chinese did not visit Western Europe.

Reportedly, the Chinese official’s answer was: “You won’t believe it, but Chinese are not interested! Just
as West Europeans don’t visit China because they are not interested!”

Actually, only a tiny section of Europeans and Russians are interested in the culture of geniuses in their
own countries. The only amusement of the rest is provided by pop culture, which has nothing to do with
the culture of genius.

China is a country of ancient culture: The 16th century B.C. begins China’s recorded history. But when
Mao, the Chinese murderer of dozens of millions of people, appears on posters in 1949 in the image of a
superman, this was pop culture at its worst.

In his “Tiananmen Diary,” Harrison Salisbury, who witnessed 13 days of the Tiananmen tragedy,
believes (p. 171 of his book) that the incredibly low figure of those killed (three or four thousand) reflects
the fact that “these casualties were not inflicted in the center of town but in the outskirts where the
conduct of the PLA had touched off a genuine people’s war. Tens and hundreds of thousands of ordinary
citizens sprang from houses and flats to oppose armor with bare hands.”

The German supermen, led by Hitler, failed to conquer the world, or indeed, even Soviet Russia. Will
this be accomplished by the “People’s Republic of China,” so named by the superman Mao?

Well, compared to Hitler’s Germany, China has unprecedented global military advantages, as I describe
them below.

Hitler was an idiot (and a clown), and if China is not under the command of such an idiot, this is a
military advantage (perhaps decisive).

Before actively embarking on the global conquest, China may still have several years to conduct global
reconnaissance, including espionage and other “cybers” of modern global hot war. Hitler had no global
plan and no “preliminaries.” He invaded France and won the war; then he invaded Soviet Russia and
fled from it.

China has 1 billion more people than the United States and can create an overwhelming mobile global
army.

It should be kept in mind that China’s history goes back to the 16th century B.C.: scientifically and
technologically, China can be at the level of or ahead of any Western country.
It is more difficult to imagine a U.S. president more dangerous to the United States than Obama, a
staunch friend of China, who is advocating for a strong China, “from which all countries will benefit.”

Many of those clamoring for Chinese racial supremacy will consider the “People’s Republic of the
World” the best place in which to live, and many others will declare themselves willing to have the
privilege of living therein.

Mao launched his “new social system” in the spirit of the true Marxism, and there are a couple of billion
(or more) people in the world who would like to live in a Marxist country created at long last.

Yes, this will be a new world, and those who would not like to live in it “can die, for no one forces you to
live,” as in an anti-Soviet ditty in Soviet Russia (this time it will be a Chinese Russia, in a Chinese
world).

How pathetic Marx or Hitler or Stalin was trying to create a “new world!" To accomplish this now, it will
take far more better and far more sophisticated weapons and troops than they had in those days.

The “People’s Republic of the World” knows all this and will make sure it is adequately prepared to
achieve its final goal.

A slave state is an army: In China, and in the future “People’s Republic of the World,” a slave and a
soldier are mostly synonymous.

Freedom has created culture, which is genius in many creative fields, including military fields, while
pop culture for millions or billions of Philistines is good only to perish in modern war like so many
insects caught in a storm or fire.

Glory to Freedom of Speech in the US

When I was a child in Soviet Russia, the Soviets published a propaganda poem for children about a spy
attempting to cross a Soviet border, which surrounded the country like a concentration camp half the
size of a global hemisphere.

That spy in the poem did not take a straight road across the forest that bordered on the railroad station.
Instead, he crawled in the tall grass not to be detected. Also, he avoided the bushes, which were loved by
Soviet guards, who could hide in them and see anyone walking through the forest.

So the spy safely crossed the forest and saw a youngster, whom he asked the way to the bungalow he
was seeking (the spy’s first destination).

“No problem!” shouted the youngster. “I’ll take you there.”

And he did. The Soviet youth took him to the Soviet secret police station. Thus the poem ended as
follows:

In our border zone, there is an unwritten law:

We know every home, we know every biz,
We know who I am, who you are, and who he is!

Chinese and others working in counter-espionage in the United States fail to understand, or even feel,
as did I, when my family and I “emigrated” (the spectacle the Soviet propaganda needed!) from Soviet
Russia to the free West, that the difference between the free countries such as the United States and the
“slave states” like Stalin’s Russia or China today is like the difference between heaven and hell for
anyone of any age and any temperament.
How lucky I was! Life gave me a chance to escape the society I was living in, Stalin’s Russia, which
announced daily that it was the best society in human history, and no one in socialist Russia dared deny
that — even in a whispered private conversation — for fear of being arrested for such a “heinous crime”
and possibly be tortured to death.

Glory to freedom of speech in the free countries! But how many say publicly something worth listening
to or reading?

“China Is Right” is the title of an article that recently attracted my attention on Yahoo!. The article was
written and published in 2001 by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., president of the Ludwig von Mises
Institute in Alabama.

About 10 years ago, an American and a Chinese aircraft collided in the air. The U.S. government
informed the “People’s Republic of China” of its poor air traffic control, and the author of the article
warns the U.S. government that “at some point [of American insolence] the Chinese [may] decide
they’re not going to take it anymore.”

The author is ignoring the fact that China is a “slave state,” while the United States is one of the free
countries. Thus the author is free to attack his government in any way he can fancy. His photograph,
placed at the end of the text, depicts him as a smiling American academic.

The author goes on to say that “the U.S. has fulminated for years about supposed spying by China
against the U.S.” Well, the author does not recall that in the free countries, China was suspected by
many authors to aim for world domination as its ultimate global military target.

Oh, no! “Despite all the mistreatment, Beijing doesn’t want war,” concludes the author.

The final, one-sentence paragraph in his article-long praise of the “People’s Republic of China” and his
condemnation of the U.S. government is this: “There is only one evil empire alive in the world today,
and it is not China.”

The above is a conclusion to nonsensical twaddle, representing the most dangerous slave state as a dove
of peace pursued by the United States, which is seeking a world war. Can such nonsense do any harm to
mankind?

Much depends on how psychologically precarious the position of the country is. In 1917, Russia was in a
desperate situation. The twaddle of an idiot named Marx, repeated by millions of idiots who could read
and write any nonsense with an important air, led to a “revolution,” including the coming to power of
one of the worst criminals in human history, named Stalin.

Above, I mentioned Russia in 1917. Recall all the countries that were made Stalin’s satrapies owing to
the Soviet propaganda, resembling so much “China Is Right” twaddle written in the United States.

China Sees Itself as the Center of the Universe

Before the 20th century, the history of the world was taught in the West as a single global story.

The key concepts in Western studies of history were “developed” and “underdeveloped” countries. The
West was mostly developed, and the world outside the West mostly underdeveloped. The developed
countries, where slavery was only a historic memory, relied on paid makers and operators of machines
such as weapons.
True, Stalin and Hitler created societies based on both slavery and technology. But Hitler was defeated
in Stalin’s Russia after he had invaded it, while Russia dropped its slogan of attaining world
communism and finally even retreated and gave independence to some Western countries it had
conquered.

And here, noticed by the West about 10 years ago, is a new China, combining state slavery with the
development of the latest modern global weapons. In contrast to Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany,
China’s population exceeds that of the U.S. by 1 billion people. Has the “People’s Republic of China”
been seeking to become the “People’s Republic of the World”?

The Western history of the modern world needs to be revised. The free West has been oblivious to the
existence of new China, in which state slavery is rampant and 1 billion people are being exploited and
which does not conceal its military goal to achieve global domination and therefore should no longer be
ignored by the civilized world.

The existence of state slavery in today’s China has to be admitted and made part of modern history
books.

Even before Obama became President, he had shown his sympathies for what Mao named “People’s
Republic of China,” the worst enemy of the free West.

The American electoral majority, ignorant of Obama’s left-wing, Marxist-Maoist ideology, and his
sympathies for PRC, voted for him to be its leader. Would Obama have been elected if American voters
were better educated and better informed about the aggressive nature of the PRC?

As for the election of the British prime minister, Yahoo! search results yield only one hit: “British Prime
Ministers have never been elected directly by the public.”

Britain believes that the British prime minister must be that unique mind that understands the
contemporary world politics. Some Americans believe that if a majority of the Americans want Obama
to be the U.S. president, so be it!

About 10 years ago the West genuinely believed that the world is moving to general peace. Today no one
can tell where the world is or whether it is moving to become the “People’s Republic of the World.”

A new global history is necessary, which will provide thorough analysis of political regimes in countries
like China, in which state slavery and modern technology go hand in hand, making them far more
effective than was Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany.

Slavery was discarded by developed countries. Before the beginning of the 20th century, China did not
exist strategically in the “developed” West. Few had heard even its new name, “PRC,” which had
officially been introduced by Mao in 1949.

By now, the rulers of Russia have been scared to death by China’s growing military might and are
flirting with their terrifying neighbor out of fear. The fact that China has 1 billion more people than the
United States should not be overlooked. How can Russia and the United States resist PRC and its
“Liberation Army” when the latter includes this extra 1 billion people?

After the year 2000, China became a source of alarming news.

A certain stratum of the Western population, not indifferent to what is going on in the world, has been
duly alarmed by this situation, unprecedented since the time of the rise of “National Socialist Germany”
before its collapse in Stalin’s Russia. But the rest of the population goes on watching the stock market
and entertainment news as before.

It is for the first time that the contemporary democratic West has had a chance to see how precarious
the life of free countries is.
For years, Stalin and Hitler had been amassing their power quite visibly before they showed its military
possibilities. And here, quite suddenly, China, whose new name given it by Mao in 1949 was hardly
known, came to the fore as a deadly threat to the very existence of the free world.

Obama has proved to be a good ambassador for the PRC by advocating mutual friendship and closer
cooperation between the two countries, while ignoring China’s brazen violation of basic human rights of
its own people and its military aggressiveness and disregard for international laws.

China Seeks to Enslave the World

There is an opinion that the cause of slavery is the historic backwardness of a country. Actually, the
cause of slavery is the same as that of other crimes: impunity. Slavery is one of the gravest crimes, for
the criminal robs his victim of everything except what is needed for a slave to carry out his or her
owner’s wishes.

Stalin, Hitler, and Mao were equally uneducated (except for the Georgian Stalin, who could barely speak
his working tongue — Russian). But their slaves were to take them for gods, not idiots that they were.

In Russia, I was living in Moscow, when one fine day it was announced that Stalin would be the
candidate to vote for in our district. I described how I voted in my earlier columns. But the episode is
highly relevant, and so I recall it again.

I was to go to our local voting station to “vote.” At a table, several officials held a list of the “voters” with
their addresses. I was to take my voting bulletin and drop it into one of the voting boxes down the hall.

Now, what would have happened if I had not turned up to vote? An official would have come to remind
me that it was Election Day and that I was expected to vote before midnight.

So I duly went to our voting place and duly dropped my voter’s bulletin into one of the boxes.

Secretly, I had also picked up (with my hand in glove!) another bulletin, wrote on it (in block letters)
why I was voting against Stalin, and, with my hand in glove, dropped that bulletin into one of the boxes.

Soon after midnight there was a ring at the door of our “communal apartment,” shared by five or six
families. The police were searching the entire electoral district. At their demand, I showed them my
passport. They had found nothing suspicious.

Of course, like any slave-owner, Stalin was assuring his slaves via his powerful propaganda that they
were free, in contrast to those whom Marx called the “slaves of capital.”

About 15 years after Stalin’s death, several hundred “Soviet people,” including myself and my family,
were granted permission to emigrate. By doing so, the new Soviet rulers were trying to offset the
scandalous fact that at that time some Soviet spies were apprehended in the United Nations. The
diversion worked: Western newspapers front-paged the unprecedented emigration news from Soviet
Russia!

So there we were: from the slavery of Moscow to the freedom of New York, where I started publishing in
the then fashionable monthly magazine Commentary.

Of course, on the issues like freedom, many are influenced, at the beginning of or throughout one’s life,
by one’s native country.

In Britain, the prime minister (equivalent of the U.S. president) is not elected by the people, most or
many of whom are not qualified to do so, but is nominated as the chairman of the largest political party
in parliament and then referred to the queen to be confirmed as Her Majesty’s prime minister, provided
he or she satisfies Her Majesty’s requirements.

Someone like Obama, therefore, could not have possibly met any of those requirements and could have
never qualified for such high office.

By contrast, elected in the United States was a certain Obama, who had Marxist-Maoist leanings and
particular sympathies for China. Nevertheless, those who voted for Obama did not pay much attention
to that fact or maybe they just didn’t care to find out anything about him and awarded him (through
their ignorance) the greatest political honor of being the U.S. president.

On the other hand, unlike Obama, Russia fears, and not loves China, its neighbor. And it is partly out of
this fear, which is quite real, that Russia has withdrawn from the territories of what formerly
constituted its “national republics.” Officially, Russia is now called the “Russian Federation,” or RF. At
the same time, possibly also out of fear, Russia has been helping China to accomplish its military
projects.

On Dec. 6, 2010, NEWSru.com carried on its front page an article entitled “An Epoch-Making Shift”:
China Has Mastered The Russian Aviatechnology, Which May Change The Military Balance.

According to NEWSru.com, the above is a paraphrase of an article which appeared in The Wall Street
Journal.

What’s the gist of it?

After China has copied all the best Russian weapons as well as the best Western weapons and has put
that knowledge into its armed forces (which could be based on its “extra” 1 billion people), the RF will
practically cease to exist, except maybe for some former Soviet slaves, important for the military
industry, who will be relocated to China to slave there for their new master’s world ownership.

China Nationalism Based on World Rule

Centuries ago, Western nations called outstanding works in art and philosophy works of genius.

Ironically, Russia had been producing creators and thinkers of genius until genius in art and philosophy
had been killed by Stalin before he died (1953), according to which there was one source of genius:
Russian nationality.

In Russia, human beings at the age of 16 were issued “Soviet passports,” certifying Russians as against
Georgians, Ukranians, Belorussians, and whoever else was born and living in Russia. To be a Russian
became more important than being a communist.

The name Stalin (which connotes in Russian “man of steel”) was not his real name. He was a Georgian,
and his real name was “Djugashvili,” and he spoke Russian with difficulty and a Georgian accent. But he
started and led Russian nationalism as a sign of new noble Russian superiority to all other nations (such
as Georgians) in Russia and in all other countries.

Next after Russia, my example is German nationalism in its initial 45 years of the 20th century.

There is a predominant opinion in all free countries that Germany contributed more strongly to the
beginning of World War I than did her opponents. Few deny the role of German nationalism in the
National Socialism (Nazism) of Hitler’s Germany.

To be just to Hitler, let me recall that before he became the “leader of Germany,” he was not an anti-
Semite, and he became such only after a “ruling group,” on which his power depended, told him that he
should persecute Jews if he wished to stay in power.

Hitler lost the war with Russia, and that was the end of him. On the other hand, in the Versailles Treaty,
the Allies disarmed Germany to such an extent that more Germans supported Hitler as the only hope of
defense after World War I.

As for Stalin’s post-World War II elevation of all Russians whose passports said they were Russians to
the stature of supermen (and superwomen), that relied on the fable that only Russians are true patriots,
while other nations are prone to wave, betray, spy, and so on.

Shortly before his death, Stalin decided to decorate his fairy-tale of Russian nationalism with a bit of
reality.

First, Jews were fired, and then they were to be shipped to a huge concentration camp in Soviet Asia to
be put to death there. As for Stalin, preparations were afoot to turn him into God, statues and all.
Stalin’s death, however, prevented the ultimate triumph of both projects.

On the other hand, nationalism developed vigorously in China, named by Mao in 1949 the “People’s
Republic of China,” or PRC.

To begin with, many Chinese had believed in the inborn superiority of Chinese, just as many Germans
and Russians believed this with respect to themselves.

This belief of many Chinese in their inborn superiority will be useful to the future Chinese owners of the
globe, just as Germans and Russians were expected by Hitler and Stalin, respectively, to help them to
conquer and rule the world.

A global Chinese aggression, in which most participants will fight for their egos, is to become an
unheard-of slaughter, and peace will be impossible to achieve by those attacked.

Once upon a time it was assumed that a slave should fulfill the slave-owners’ order as efficiently as a
machine. But after Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, it began to be assumed that a perfect slave fulfills the order
not like a machine but like a musical instrument, giving an expected accord. The slaves must relive the
order, and hence scream in their delight to kill and be killed.

Add mentally more weapons than the battles so far have seen and hence more casualties in polyglot
massacres of nations to prove that “I am here to represent the world’s best nation, next to our God in
flesh.”

Free Democracies Can Stop China's Domination

Everyone in a democracy has the right to publicly express his or her thoughts. But what percentage of
the adult population in a democracy think thoughts valuable for other humans?

Centuries ago, those who expressed thoughts valuable for mankind have been called thinkers of genius.

From the mid-30s, the Nazi dictator of Germany was Hitler, a former German soldier in World War I,
who decided to conquer France in 1940.

France was an oasis of Western refinements, with its writers and artists of genius, and its military
genius Napoleon, still well remembered in the West, though he died in 1821.
Many contemporaries outside Germany concluded that Hitler’s decision to conquer France showed that
he was a clown: a former World War I soldier had challenged France, with British troops in France to
help its defense. The world-famous comical actor Charlie Chaplin joked that what annoyed him was that
Hitler evoked more laughter than did Chaplin!

But when the German troops, led by a German World War I soldier, stepped into France, the French
and British troops never stopped retreating.

Today, about 70 years after Hitler entered France (1940), I went on Yahoo! to check what information
they have on Hitler’s victory and the defeat of France (after all the laughter at his expense). My search
request “Hitler’s conquest of France” yielded a book, published in 2000, by Ernest R. May: “Strange
Victory: Hitler’s Conquest of France.”

Why? I also noticed that the words “strange victory” appeared in front of almost all entries.

Professor Ernest R. May explained that he had not found any causes of Hitler’s victory and the defeat of
France, hence the title of his book. But he hoped to continue his research to find the cause of Hitler’s
(strange?) victory. However, in 2009, May died at the age of 80. He had taught at Harvard for 55 years.

So, what is the cause of Hitler’s victory?

Hitler became the dictator of Germany in the mid 1930s. He did not recognize any civic freedoms. He
had been turning Germany into a single military machine. All Germans were to behave like automatons,
following his orders, as to whether to stay alive or to die.

And France with its Paris remained the world’s most beautiful country.

Now, imagine that the attempt of the People’s Republic of China to establish the People’s Republic of
the World (PRW) ended with PRW’s victory and the defeat of the countries which resisted it.

What is the cause?

Were he alive, May would have answered that since the cause is unknown to him, he has to put words
“Strange Victory” before the title. That is — “Strange Victory: The People’s Republic of China Has
Become the People’s Republic of the World.”

Actually, the victory of China (exceeding the population of the United States by 1 billion) would not be
strange except to minds like professor May’s.

Professorship is based on the assumption that if a certain Ernest May taught at Harvard for 55 years, he
is a “distinguished Harvard historian of world wars [like the war of Hitler’s Germany with France?],
intelligence [!] and international relations.”

However, in the United States, ranked in authority far above a professor like Ernest May are those
elected in general election, and their absurdity far exceeds that of May.

The larger the number of people voting for a U.S. president, for example, the less talented, intelligent,
and knowledgeable they are (and hence a mentally lower will be the U.S. president they will elect). The
British know it, and hence their entirely different system of choosing their prime minister.

My readers write to me that there is only one way to save Western democracies from the “strange
victory” of the dictatorship of China. Since we enjoy democratic freedoms, we should encourage and
support news sites such as Newsmax.com.

We should rely on the Western democratic governments to collect the primary new data and process
them into columns for the general public and into memos for governing institutions.
In dictatorships, the dictators are motivated by the fear of being overthrown or killed by a rival. Let our
efforts be motivated by our admiration for freedom.

China Seeks World Conquest to Protect Its Tyranny

Before the 20th century, China had existed for the West only as a historical memory.

In the 20th century, however, China’s conquest of the world, to protect the tyranny in China, seemed
realistic in the West: It was recalled that the population of China exceeds that of the United States by 1
billion, and an army so gigantic and well armed it could conquer the world if it is not defensive enough.

Mao attracted Western attention after he had become the chief military man of China and later its
ruler.

The official name of Stalin’s Russia was the USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Well, China
is just one republic, and hence it is one in Mao’s acronym: the PRC, or “The People’s Republic of
China.”

The name of Mao’s army is the exact replica of that of the Soviet army: “workers’ and peasants’ red
army.” All of Mao’s ranks in China are fashioned after Soviet military ranks.

Soviet Marxism was Mao’s original to copy and admire.

What is Soviet Marxism? Marx was not involved in production. So, according to Marx, “leaders of
production” are parasites by definition. The results were the enrichment of the parasites and the
progressive poverty of the working class. What’s the way out? Eliminate the parasites!

To project his infinite power, Mao introduced or reintroduced mass torture even for a vague and often
impersonal offense.

Mao’s status has been elevated during his rule. Outside China there has been a strong fear that China is
preparing for war to dominate the world, in particular to deliver itself from the danger of being
conquered (by Japan, for example).

Just as some other silent skeptics in Russia, I wondered even as a child why social systems which
advertised themselves as the most collective had one person — like Stalin or later Mao — as the overall
leader or absolutist owner of the country.

There are discrepancies in all Marxist theories, as there are in life. A human being must be loved and
medically treated like Mao, who lived beyond the age of 80. And here we learn that Mao treated human
beings like insects, of whom he destroyed from 40 to 70 million between 1949, when he became the
“leader” of the PRC, and 1976, when he died.

It is small wonder that after Mao’s death the “leaders” of China have been processing its extra 1 billion
people into global human troops and producers of global military weapons.

Let’s face it. The country with the largest and most technologically advanced army on land, in water,
and in space will be the owner of the world. The survival contest has started; its advantages in the
Western democracies being freedoms used by genius and talent, the defense of individuals and
corporations against crime, competitive results, and their protection.

A lawyer in a democratic country would say that nothing above contradicts its legal rationale. Yes, all
that is required is to understand that the primary importance of this rationale is not the satisfaction of
individuals defended by law, but the eternal renaissance of creativity. The new renaissance needs a
permanent renaissance for its own permanent survival.
It is to be hoped, but should not be expected as a law of social spiritual development, that finally the
renaissance becomes universal, and the war, kept vigorously alive as a method of criminals (like Stalin,
Hitler, or Mao) will be discarded as was cannibalism.

In other words, Mao, who was born in 1893, expected as he was dying (and leaving behind his
numerous former wives) that his sermons had convinced mankind to go centuries or millennia back,
that is, to live as happily as in the “People’s Republic of China,” to use Mao’s name for the slave state of
China.

Mao established his PRC by killing, torture, and maiming, and he evidently expected that his PRC bliss
may thus be established everywhere, except those countries where the entire population can be wiped
out, as Hitler was forced by a “powerful group” to wipe out Jews.

Mao aimed not at the destruction of Jews, but of all people refusing to become slaves. To become slaves
or be dead: that was the only general choice.

Yes, mass murder, mass torture, and slavery for all those who survive in China had the “leader” whose
Chinese name was Mao Zedong, or Mao Tse-tung. Well, he had a shortcoming: His forehead was both
low and retreating, which made him look like a slave of 3,000 years ago.

China Relies on US' Self-Centrism

In a democratic country, everyone may have his or her own vision of the country’s political course after
the election.

Under Lenin, who died in 1924 and was buried grandly, there had been no election, since elections are
“tricks of bourgeois propaganda.” It was assumed that the “people” had considered Lenin’s power their
power.

However, Stalin could not resist the entire adult population of Russia voting for him.

Before World War II, Russian nationalism had been regarded by the Soviet propaganda as something
backward even if it was not poisoned by anti-Semitism, later a heinous Nazi crime.

In Soviet propaganda, every nation, except the nations of Soviet Russia, still consisted of the rich, who
oppressed, robbed, and jeered at the poor. All that necessitated a “socialist revolution”! The Nazi anti-
Semitism was a special target of Soviet propaganda.

There was a poem that read: “His dark brown uniform is stained with an old Jew’s blood; and the
swastika of a venomous snake nests cosily on his chest.”

But after World War II, Stalin’s propaganda became anti-Semitic. Of course, who could put to death all
Jews living in Russia? Only the god Stalin!

The statues of Stalin as God were already displayed in some museums in Moscow. Jews were silently
dismissed from their jobs and were to be carried by transport ships over rivers to death camps.

But Stalin died! The joke in Moscow was that the old God of Jews was still more powerful and killed the
new god, Stalin.

Lenin and Stalin had seized Russia first militarily before the “elections” of Stalin. Hitler had been made
the “leader” of Germany in the 1930s. Mao had conquered China by 1949.

That is, in such countries, the world is returning to a state when a huge country would be ruled by a
single person. Except that today he will not be an emperor, ruling as a son of his father (the previous
emperor), but as someone whom propaganda had represented as the greatest or the second greatest
man who had ever lived, though after Stalin’s death the attitude of his former propaganda was changed
by the new rulers.

There is no doubt that the elections are one of the greatest gains of freedom. Nor is it in doubt that the
playing at freedom of the three countries I mentioned is a caricature. Stalin’s rule is one of the worst in
the history of Russia and perhaps of mankind. And the “elections” of Stalin fit all the other horrors of
his rule.

It has to be noted that Russia had never been a fully democratic country. Stalin abused that
backwardness by having his “elections.” He was a political ignoramus, preserving a politically ignorant
country, while developing everything necessary for the world’s most powerful armed forces.

The general question is, Which way has mankind been moving since 1914? The way of the democratic
countries or the way of sliding back toward political antiquity of millennia ago?

It is the latter path that is being pursued by the new emperors of political antiquity — and that part of
the population of the globe which has never witnessed anything more modern politically than political
antiquity. Some 20 years ago, no one in the democratic West heard anything about China, renamed the
“People’s Republic of China” in 1949.

Now China is of interest to the democratic West because of its military drive based on its population of
over 1 billion people. Politically, China lives in antiquity, as now every observer can see.

What about the rest of the globe outside the democratic West? A reader of mine writes to me worrying
that I pay no attention to the Muslim world, with its dangers to the democratic West. He is right. The
map of the world is complex and is mostly ignored.

We often behave as though our globe is a new house, and we are its first tenants. Actually, China existed
for millennia without anyone outside it knowing that spread among the Chinese was the belief that they
are the “chosen few,” the conviction known by the West as a peculiarity of some Germans.

Think about what surprises await the study of the human population of our earth and how those
surprises will coincide with military technology, so highly developed in many politically backward
countries.

In the 20th century, we had two world wars using 20th century science and technology. In one of his
abysses, Hitler invaded “Soviet Russia,” was routed, and committed suicide. Think of all the abysses
that might come.

Stalin, Hitler, Eclipsed the Arts of the Times

In 1914, the year when World War I began, many inhabitants of Russia, well-educated in
the humanities, had ceased to believe that the government of Russia would ensure a
sufficient prosperity for the population of Russia. As a “revolutionary song” of those
times proclaimed:
No, not to heaven,
But to earth, throw your dice,
It is on earth that we shall build a paradise!

Let me tell you how I became blessed with paradise in hell — in Stalin’s Russia.

Before 1945, Stalin persecuted and eliminated those who endangered his power, however conjecturally
or fantastically.

After 1945, Stalin started the persecution of Jews. He planned to exterminate them, but did not finish
the task simply because he died. During that hell, against the background of the overall scarcity of goods
and empty stores, sold at ordinary shops in Moscow were gramophone records of classical music.

Here I should make several reservations about myself. My mother played the piano only when she had
lived in Vitebsk as a young girl. Neither my father nor I nor anyone I knew played any musical
instrument.

Yet in my possession, as a teenager, was a gramophone as well as records of German classical music!

Let me recall the German composers, whose music of genius was immortalized on those records.

The time limits I take were the youth of Bach (he was 15 years of age in 1700) and Wagner’s death
(1883). Within the span between those two remarkable events creating their music of genius were
Beethoven, Brahms, Handel, Hayden, Mahler, Mendelssohn, Mozart, Schubert, C. Schumann, and R.
Schumann.

Yes, all those composers were Germans. The two-century feast of musical genius was discontinued when
Gavrilo Princip, a “19-year-old Serbian patriot” used his pistol to kill the Austro-Hungarian Arch-duke
and his wife in June of 1914.

Through mutual exchanges of retaliations, World War I (1914 to 1918) was on. And World War I led to
World War II, since the Versailles Treaty, which Germany signed after World War I, declared Germany
as being the aggressor, though Gavrilo Princip was not even a German, but a “Serbian patriot.” As a
result, many Germans were offended, frightened, and turned to support Hitler, a soldier in World War
I, who they thought might bring Germany back to its prewar power, and proclaimed him the “leader.”
Since then history aimed at World War II.

What about the two-century feast of German music of genius? It has never reappeared. There was a turn
of history. Since then, Germany has become a hostile province for the rest of the West.

As a teenager, I escaped into that German music as into paradise on earth. Were those Germans human
or superhuman?

Apart from music, there are paintings and literature in art and culture. But no matter how hard artists
and writers tried to go from earth to heaven, their “abstractions” were “human.”

The awe-inducing music created by those Germans does not resemble any reality. If that music of
genius is human, it is to the human soul that it belongs. But what is a “human soul”? It is meaningless in
this case except as music of genius which one can associate with the word “soul.” But the word “soul” is
different in different languages, and none of the words connotes what those Germans heard in their
heads as they wrote their music.

Yes, their music of genius first appeared in their brains.

But stupidity also originates in the brain.

The attitude to Germany had changed: It became both despicable as a criminal den and ridiculous (after
Stalin’s Russia threw Hitler’s Germany out of the country and its “leader,” a comical hoodlum, killed
himself).

The entire period of German history — music of genius for about two centuries — came to an end with
the final military farce, in which only the corpses were genuine, including that of the suicidal leader
himself.
This phenomenon of the German spirit suggests that history should be divided not into Roman decimals
such as centuries, but into spiritual states like genius in music.

In a sense, the studies of human spiritual life and hence of human history have not yet begun in earnest.
Was there a spiritual connection between composers of genius in Germany? Why did that flood of
genius in Germany occur in those times? Will it ever recur somewhere or never anywhere?

Why Germany? Indeed, what do we know about Germany, pushed into two wars within half a century?

Should Germany be judged not by its greatest composers who ever lived, but by the illiterate clown,
declared to be the leader of Germany?

Obama's Friendship to China Betrays the US

In a certain field of knowledge, such as a country’s military defense, those people who are supposed to
understand the field may range from genius to idiocy, while even a man of genius in other fields may
admit, “Oh, I am an idiot in this field.”

Speaking of most voters in the U.S. presidential elections and of idiots they nowadays elect, one
exception should be made: U.S. President Obama. Yahoo! showed Obama’s first presidential trip to the
PRC as indicative of his efforts to ensure himself a post in the PRC if he is not elected for the second
term. Certainly you cannot consider him an idiot.
A traitor maybe, but not an idiot!

On Jan. 19, Obama opened his cards. A dictator of the PRC dropped in on Washington, D.C., as the
honorary partner, friend, guest, and “counterpart”(!) of the U.S. President Obama, who treated him to
the full pageantry of a state dinner at the White House.

Now Obama expects to be voted for the second presidential term as an ally of PRC, not as a defender
against its global military ambitions.

Let me remind the readers once again that in Britain the prime minister, who corresponds to the U.S.
president, has never been “elected by the general elections.” When Hitler threatened to invade Britain,
Winston Churchill became the prime minister. Why, and how? For today’s view on this, I turned to
Yahoo! and got the following information: “King George asked Churchill to become the prime minister
and he agreed.”

Does Yahoo! oversimplify the event? But at least it is clear to Americans that the appointment of the
British prime minister is not the result of the “general election of the people.”

Why was Churchill chosen? He was 66 years of age in 1940 and hence, to sufficiently erudite English
people, he was known, owing to his lifelong writings, as a man of genius in the field of international
relations.

I remember Hitler’s and Churchill’s exchanges of radio speeches. Churchill said that whatever Hitler
would do, he would not scare the British people into surrender.

Hitler was so frightened by the appointment of Churchill as prime minister that he changed his strategy:
from invading Britain to invading Stalin’s Russia, in which he was routed and committed suicide as a
result.

No war has been ever waged on the territory of the United States. At present, the population of China
exceeds that of the United States by more than 1 billion people.
Yes, I may be told, but this is China! That is, one of those countries which is still far behind and below
the science and technology of the West.

In front of me is a 14-page copy from the Wikipedia’s text, entitled “History of Science and Technology
in China.” The text lists dozens of cases, showing how far advanced the Chinese science and technology
were compared with the West.

Half a page of the 14-page text is devoted to papermaking, printing, gunpowder, and compass, all
invented in China, and their “far-ranging impact.” Gunpowder, for example, spread to the Arabia in the
13th century and thence to Europe.

According to English philosopher Francis Bacon, writing in “Novum Organum”: “printing, gunpowder,
and compass: These three have changed the whole face and state of things throughout the world; the
first in literature, the second in warfare, and the third in navigation; whence have followed innumerable
changes, in so much that no empire, no sect, no star seems to have exerted greater power and influence
in human affairs than these mechanical discoveries.”

Translated into today’s situation, this means that the Chinese armed forces could be far bigger than
those of the United States in both human and scientific-technological terms.

Here is my first proposal. China is acting as a single country, while the free countries act separately. It’s
high time for the free countries to have a “World Council of Democratic Countries and Their Allies”
(WCDC&TA).

For example, today the democracies have quite a few excellent journalists: WCDC&TA may enlarge and
expedite their exchange of data with other democracies and enhance their impact.

Let us hope the democracies will soon conclude a mutual defense treaty. Meanwhile the WCDC&TA will
unite what different languages and national backgrounds divide.

The danger from China is unique, for China combines a gigantic population with advanced science and
technology, which were advanced even when science and technology hardly existed in Western Europe,
while America was not yet “discovered.”

On the other hand, mental freedom in Western countries created brains some of which constituted
minds of genius, seeing far ahead.

Today’s mental elite must be in power instead of idiots, elected by the entire adult population, though it
is not clear how people of genius can be elected if 99.99 percent of voters are idiots in the fields in
question.

Yes, to be saved, genius is necessary for the democracies and their allies, as it was necessary for Britain
when Hitler intended to invade it.

China Is a Ruthless Enemy of the US

The West took notice of the people’s Republic of China only after the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy
movement was drowned in blood by the dictatorship.

Everything confirmed the opinion that Mao’s brainchild had been working to convert its population,
exceeding that of the United States by 1 billion people, into a power appropriating the world, given the
scientific and technological means.

On Jan. 25, that is, about a week after the White House’s flamboyant reception of PRC dictator Hu
Jintao, Obama delivered his televised State of the Union address, which lasted over an hour.

But what had been going on during the week of Jan. 19, Hu’s arrival to the United States? Had Hu
received all the accolades on the newest page of history: PRC and the White House fighting together to
achieve common goals?

In his State of the Union address, Obama did not say a word about the events of that week.

His speech was meant to be read by overzealous university students. Well, here a reader might ask me,
But, look, who elected Obama?

The answer is, He was elected by other Obamas, who account for a majority of the population of the
United States. They did it once, and Obama is doing everything to ensure they pull it off again. He is
already up and running, strategically calculating every move.

During his recent trip to Wisconsin, he talked about winning the future: “Let’s get serious. We’ve got to
up our game. No room for second place; we need to win the future.
This is the place where the race for the 21st century will be won.”

The British have understood that the British prime minister should be appointed and not “elected by the
masses,” because “genius” is just one person, while a majority is mentally mediocre.

But since the separation from Britain received the fashionable revolutionary color, the separatists
decided to prove that in contrast to Britain, every “leader” should be “elected by the people” even if
those “people” could not read and write.

As a result of such “revolutionary election” of “leaders” by millions or dozens of millions of Obamas

(“the people”), the United States will perish in wars with the PRC (or on the side of the PRC, as Obama
would have preferred).

In our epoch of superweapons and superwars, it is especially dangerous to trust all leaders elected by
unknown voters, “the people.”

On Jan. 17, two days before Hu’s arrival to the United States, CNN.com carried an article originally
published by the Financial Times “Hu Questions Future Role of U.S. Dollar.” The article, in part, says
that Hu Jintao has raised questions on the role of the U.S. dollar in the global monetary system on the
eve of his state visit to Washington, saying that “the current international currency system is the
product of the past.”

There has been a long argument between the PRC and the United States as to whether the global unit of
financial exchange should remain the dollar or be replaced by the Chinese yuan.

In his State of the Union address, Obama did not say a word about obvious advantages of the dollar.

So what’s the conclusion? The PRC is not a “country” but a “continent,” whose population surpasses
that of the United States by over 1 billion people.

Yet the friendship with the PRC as played out by dictator Hu and U.S. President Obama may deprive the
United States of allies it would otherwise have. The PRC will abandon the United States at the moment
chosen as the most fatal for the United States.

Unknown are the motivations of those who have been emigrating to the United States. Freedom? The
definition of “civic freedoms” in contrast to just “physical freedom” can only be perceived by sufficiently
sophisticated minds.

In other words, with his adoration of the PRC, Obama is not an exception — he is an example of those
Americans who may like the United States. But they like the PRC more or at least as much, and nothing
seems to them more welcome than the unity of the two countries.

In my previous columns, I wrote about the tremendous military potential of the PRC over that of the
United States: 1 billion more people, who can be trained for the armed forces as well as in the field of
science and technology for the production of superweapons.

But here yet another strategic advantage can be added: In the PRC, any deviation from what has been
ordered by the dictator is a crime punishable by being tortured to death, while in the United States, the
population is free to sympathize with the PRC, a ruthless enemy of the United States and other free
countries.

Imagine half of the population of the United States during World War II sympathizing with Nazi
Germany and voting for Hitler’s supporter and friend to be the U.S. president. No less egocentric was
the state dinner to honor Hu, Obama’s friend and the head of the PRC.

Egypt's Troubles Starkly Contrast Russia's

About a week ago, I saw Russians in the United States watching a CNN live report from Egypt, showing
chaos and scenes of unrest and uncontrolled violence between protesters (demanding immediate
transition from autocracy to democratic freedoms) and pro-government supporters.

In his speech to the troubled nation, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak showed no inclination that he
would immediately step down. All he promised was that he would appoint a new Cabinet, would not
seek re-election set for September, and would personally steer the nation to political change.

In Cairo, Mubarak’s half-concession speech was angrily rejected by the government protesters, who
demanded that he step down immediately.

Let me remind you of what happened to the “October Revolution” of 1917 in Russia, after Stalin had
eliminated all those who surrounded him and could challenge his dictatorial powers.

What did Russia achieve under the tsars?

•Russian literature, which was valued by literati all over the world, minus poetry, which demanded the
impossible effort of translation
•Russian classical music
•Russian painting
•Scientific and technological discoveries of genius
What has Russia lost? Everything it had achieved under the tsars.

Stalin was interested only in the latest weapons. Afraid of losing power, he converted Russia into a
closed space for the maintenance of all those born in Russia and treated citizens like psychiatric
patients, taught to believe that Stalin was God, whose way was the only way to keep Russia as a divine
land.

Stalin died in 1953. Yet the preservation of Russia as a “land of divine miracles” continued.

Yes, Mao is said to have killed more human beings (80 million?) than did Stalin, but the population of
China surpassed that of the United States by 1 billion people, while the population of Russia was never
more than a quarter of it, and so Stalin’s killings were “thicker” than Mao’s.
The history of mankind is no mystery. A human being wants to live, which means to eat and not to
perish from cold. In a slavery state, he or she achieves this by becoming a slave, though the word “slave”
has now fallen out of use. There are slaves, as they were 1,000, 10,000 (or 100,000) years ago, but to
use the word is improper.

Under dictatorship, apart from slaves, not called slaves, there are male and female workers and
“specialists,” some of whom are indispensable and paid accordingly.

Originally, the owner of a country owned at least part of its population as slaves, whatever word or
silence was used to denote their status of being slaves. It had been assumed that certain
pronouncements reflect the thoughts or even intentions of those from whom those pronouncements
come, and if such pronouncements are penalized, they will disappear from the minds of slaves.

And here comes the paradox. In Great Britain, with its widest freedoms, the monarchy is reliably stable.
The British know that no system of justice, no church, no monarch can accuse them of anything until
and unless the accusation has been corroborated in court of law by witnesses under oath to say the
truth, all the truth, and nothing but the truth.

This paradox of history is no less paradoxical than any other paradox. When slavery was a widespread
national practice, the word “slavery” was used just like any other ordinary word. Now “slavery’ is a
forbidden practice and is a forbidden word globally, and hence a forbidden practice may flourish
without any derogatory meaning.

The forthcoming global battle for the ownership of the world will be between slavery led by the “People’s
Republic of China” and the democratic countries.

If the world continues to be a mixture of democracies and tyrannies, wars will no doubt continue, for
tyrannies will consider themselves more powerful until their power has been taken away from them by
the democratic forces inside their respective countries. This final battle for the world will occur, the only
question is when.

The future must be freeing of the world from evil dictatorial regimes, not its enslavement by the existing
dictatorships.

Obama Ignores the Threat From

China

I met my wife at a Moscow publishing house where I worked as a translator of Russian classical
literature (into English). She spoke English no worse than I did. We got married and dreamed of leaving
Russia.

I wanted to go to Great Britain first and then to New York. In Great Britain, the prime minister
(corresponding to the U.S. president) is not elected: the candidate is evaluated by knowledgeable people
and then appointed. Since the United States was a country of freedom, we believed that our sacred duty
was to help her survive.

The British appointment of their prime minister was wisdom coming from history, while the American
“general election” of the U.S. president was dangerous, and before long it could become fatal in the
thickening military world.
“You must be crazy to have such wild fantasies!” our Moscow friends were saying. “Who will let you out
of the country, to begin with?”

You see, after Stalin’s death, an important Soviet co-owner of Russia was asked by a Westerner whether
the Soviet government had ever permitted any Soviet citizen to emigrate.

Well, if there were no such precedent since 1920, it had to be set right away! Order: collect clandestinely
a couple of hundred Soviet citizens wishing to emigrate!

Originally we wanted to go first to Great Britain, which had created freedom! But an American guest
with his Russian friend we invited over to dinner in our three-storied villa near Moscow (which we had
bought from the pop singer Leonid Utyosov) suggested we go to New York, where a friend of his, a New
York developer, would reserve for us an apartment in the new building he had just completed.

So we told our Soviet emigration “leaders” that we were heading to New York (where we were able to
take advantage of the apartment offer).

Back in Moscow, I had thought that the free world was to perish because I (or others like me) had no
chance to explain to the Americans the growing danger to the free world.

As I had studied Britain and British English, I knew that the British regarded the American election of
their president as childish ignorance, since the more people elect the U.S. president, that is the larger
the electorate, the lower is the mental level of an electoral majority and hence of the U.S. president.
Inversely, during World War II, Winston Churchill was appointed to be the British prime minister. The
appointment of Churchill seemed to have made Hitler abandon his plans to invade Britain.

I understood that the assertion that the British way of appointing, rather than electing, their prime
minister is correct, while the American way of electing the U.S. president by “general election” is
disastrous. Nevertheless, I keep returning to the subject again and again, for Barack Obama
demonstrates the disastrous results of having being elected through “general election” perhaps better
than anything else would.

The “People’s Republic of China” was created and named by Mao, the list of whose victims exceeds that
of Stalin’s. But for Obama, just as for many admirers of Mao’s creation, there are no concepts like “state
slavery,” glorified by totalitarian propaganda as “freedom.” Quite suddenly for anyone, except Obama,
the dictatorial ruler of the “People’s Republic of China,” “President” Hu, appeared in the White House
as a guest in a general celebration (of what?).

We free scholars (my family and I escaped from Soviet Russia to be free) have been studying the PRC
and publishing our results in the West, making it possible to conclude that Mao’s PRC is not socially
different from Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany.

With Obama as a kind of world “spiritual leader,” we are to believe that PRC is so close socially to the
United States that our studies of PRC do not exist, while Hu can suddenly descend on the White House
and enlighten it as to the nature of PRC and its unity with the United States.

In my columns, I mention many times that the population of the PRC exceeds that of the United States
by 1 billion people, all of which can be instantly converted into the producers and users of
superweapons for the PRC, unknown anywhere else as yet.

Of course, Obama has never mentioned the fact that the PRC is said by its foreign students to be on its
way toward world domination. But surely, according to Marx, whom Mao considered his great teacher,
the advanced mankind should be united as a single entity to own the world and remake it accordingly.
China Plotting Communist Takeover

“China’s Master Plan to Destroy America”: This is the subtitle of a book written by two colonels of the
People’s Liberation Army and copyrighted in 2002.

The United States is the most powerful country among the Western free countries, and even just by
pestering it, PRC becomes globally significant.

Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition) says on page 709: “Maoism in China was
developed chiefly by Mao.” (Surely — but with some help from books by Karl Marx.)

According to Marx, the first step of the victorious communists will be to dismiss all non-proletarians;
that is, creators of all inventions, all machinery, and other aspects of all production, as well as all
advertising of what is being produced. After that, the production would be in a hole and “the working
class” would also die of hunger.

Owing to Marx, Mao gave the Chinese a vision of one-country world of the future, following the world
“communist revolution.” Mao called himself (and was called) a communist, and the society he named
“PRC” in 1949 also called itself and was called “communist.”

But today it is difficult to find the word “communist” even in the PRC materials. The reason is that the
PRC was to fight for its communist world in alliance with the most powerful countries. However, the
very word “communist” became unacceptable in too many countries to parade it.

Each time the PRC is testing anything new in weaponry, it attacks the United States (though never
overtly enough to raise justified suspicion) since the reaction of the United States is useful for the PRC
to know.

Also, an honest-to-goodness world war may indeed start in “x” months or “y” years, to make the PRC
the owner of a single communist world. The PRC will be all ready to participate in that “communist
(shhhhh) war.”

I get the impression that the names of Chinese communists are never revealed in public. They are secret
agents, expected to be highly motivated, interested, and active.

Is China’s hope to possess the world on the basis of nothing except Mao’s words? No! The United States
is the most powerful country among the free Western countries. But the population of the PRC is bigger
than that of the United States by 1 billion people. Imagine a billion people converted into creators,
producers, and users of the latest weapons on the world battlefields.

China is said to have existed for 6,000 years. Its science and technology go as far back into history as
those of Rome and Greece. So science and technology are not its weaknesses.

I am getting a lot of materials about China from my readers, which they send me in the hope that I will
use those materials and make them known. One book, entitled “Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master
Plan to Destroy America,” was written by two colonels of the People’s Liberation Army.

Originally, the book was published in 1999 by China’s People’s Liberation Army, Beijing, and then by
Pan American Publishing Company, Panama City, in 2002.

The Soviet communists used inventions about the fabulous growth of welfare in their country. The
Chinese communists avoid calling themselves communists, and their inventions are about warfare, not
welfare. Indeed, in totalitarian societies of the last century, there have been propaganda fictions of
either fabulous welfare in their own countries or fabulous warfare in other countries to conquer them
and create sources of “welfare for their people.”
Naturally, a country devoted to warfare evokes greater hostility in the outside world than the one
devoted to welfare, though warfare and welfare can mix or merge. Warfare destroys the prosperity of
the defeated (if not totally destroyed) country, while welfare leaves it open for robbery without warfare.

If the PRC creates a line of allies engaged in warfare, the position of the United States may, indeed,
become desperate. Its rescue may depend on its ability to defend itself, not only on its ability to conduct
unrestricted warfare.

It is not impossible that what Stalin’s Russia failed to do — create world communism — will be done by
a global entity, dominating the world by the PRC, which the communist Mao created and so named in
1949.

Not so long ago, there was a strong general belief in mental development due to education, progress,
philosophy, and enlightenment. Surely, Hitler was an illiterate, a soldier in a country left defenseless in
a blind alley of a military rout.

Looking at the festive cover and title of the book authored by the two colonels, I am thinking about a
world-sized lunatic asylum, into which mankind will confine itself, as made hopelessly insane by
“unrestricted warfare” and “China’s master plan to destroy America.”

Russia Has a Mind of Its Own

In Russia, the 20th century promised to be the century of Russian literature, talked about by literati all
over the world, except for its poetry, which could be translated only by a bilingual genius.

But Stalin, who died in 1953, had replaced all genius outside military fields with propaganda, assuring
his slaves that they were living in the best of all possible worlds.

To me and my wife, Russia had been, not was. With several hundred other Russians, we were permitted,
for the first time since the early 1920s, to emigrate (with our son and my mother). And since our arrival
in 1972 to the countries free and alive, I have never made — for about 40 years! — a single telephone call
to Russia.

But the other day my wife surprised me with a printout from the Russian online magazine “Snob.”

When we had come to the United States, a conventional American university invited me to deliver a
lecture on how much the West knew about Russia. They were shocked, offended, and frightened when I
had explained that one’s knowledge of a foreign country is likely to have one’s accent of his or her own
country, and that was a dangerous trap the Western democracies had fallen into.

“Snob” is the only way out so far, and my son, Andrei, has been enthusiastic about the venture. It is a
kind of university, with branches in Moscow, London, and New York, in which all scholars and
commentators are natives of the country under study.

Below is the response (translated from Russian) of a “Snob” reader by the name of Yelena Pyltsova to
one of my son’s columns:

"If you still accept opinions concerning your key thesis, here is mine. I thoroughly studied your article as
well as the essay by your father,
Lev Navrozov ["Mediocrity and the Rescue of the West”], whom I now
deeply respect.
"His article provided me with such vital information,
in particular about Solzhenitsyn. I had always suspected that not
everything about the man was so simple, and now I have received proof

to this effect.

"Lev Navrozov’s essay was published in your magazine a while ago.

In my view, this period of 'silence,' strange for a contemporary country,
was definitive for the society of Russia.

"Why? Because matured and consolidated was the “genie” that came out of the Russian post-
reconstruction society.

"The Russian soul has always been fragmentary — half of it cunning

mixed up with Oriental treachery, lifelessly weak soulfulness, capable
of responding to any request of a quietly dying human being. Because
life up to the middle of the 1990s was passing at half-speed, at the edge
of a God-forgotten platform of unrealized hopes.

"As a result of trials, always advancing and giving no time for breath;
trials of life on the brink of starvation, with a constant want of any
vestments capable of covering the shame, with daily humiliations
practically in any field of endeavor, there has appeared the unique

Russian ability to survive, first fixated in phenotype and gradually transformed into the genotype.

"For the new generation of the Russians, fattened on the 'reconstruction'

German frankfurters and warmed on Egyptian resorts, there is now no
obstacle they cannot overcome.

"Given the will and the readiness to invest in the development of the
world’s only humane nation on the isles of Great Britain, London and
its suburbs are being filled with Russians. They don’t care that they are
not accepted by British peers. So what?

"The Muskovites are used to the insolence of [wife of former Mayor Luzhkov] Baturina. Well, now
Baturina lives in a castle in England, though she is quite nervous, of course.

"Another convenient country, called the United States of America,

has also been flooded by citizens of the former USSR, and the
newcomers have been contributing to the life of their new country a
vast number of little things from the repository of their old survival
experience. They too will achieve their goals.

"Russians now live in Europe, Turkey, Bahrain, Venezuela, the Arab

Emirates, Switzerland, Australia, and Peru. The “Russian plague” is
spreading all over the world. They succeed in practically every field,
and going back to their motherland are only those who have been
tormented by the 'second half of their Russian soul' yearning
nostalgically for old Arbat, destroyed by Mayor Luzhkov’s satraps."

Such is Yelena Pyltsova’s commentary on “Snob.”

First of all, it is obvious to us that she belongs to the Russia of 2011, and not the Russia of 1972, which
we left in horror. This is Russia today, with a mind of its own. Let the readers read it at least in English.

Yelena sounds like a professor of a free Russian university in which the number of a “Snob” auditors or
students is boundless.

Russia: are you listening? The democratic West: what about you?

China Follows History's Worst Totalitarian Examples

Among infinitely many kinds of living organisms, from microbes to elephants, humans are unique. Thus
the outside world is reflected through their eyes and their brains, and humans can describe what they
see in the languages of their tribes or nations.

No wonder humans have been creating more and more increasingly amazing “miracles,” tremendously
useful or absolutely necessary in their lives, including their work, and this advance had been growing
exponentially.

However, the societies that originated in this process differ, as Britain with its freedom of whatever a
Briton wants to do unless it harms others, according to the court of law, versus the “People’s Republic of
China,” founded by Mao, making slaves out of anyone living on its territory, except Mao himself.

The word “slave” has disappeared as not beautiful enough to be applied by Stalin or Mao to their slaves.
Yet slavery originated and went on not only as a result of a modest private transaction to buy a couple of
slaves, but also as Stalin’s a priori up to 200 million inhabitants of Russia or by Mao’s enslavement of
about 1 billion inhabitants of China.

The slavery of the entire population of a country may be established with the help of what is delicately
called “Absolutism,” though surely the ownership of two slaves is also absolute. Under Absolutism two
slaves may suffer as much and be killed as cruelly as they were when owned by Stalin or Mao.

The life of humankind has not been unsuccessful. But what about its death?

Nuclear weapons were expected to appear in Nazi Germany, but in the late 1930s Albert Einstein, a
physics genius who had been living in Germany, escaped with his family and sent a letter to President
Roosevelt to warn him of the need to develop the nuclear bomb to be able to protect the population
from surprise aggression.

The United States was the first country to have developed the nuclear bomb. By that time Nazi Germany
had already collapsed. When Japan attacked the United States, the country defended itself by dropping
a couple of atom bombs on Japan, which surrendered unconditionally as a result.

Have the nuclear weapons been sufficiently developed to put the humankind to death? Actually, the
world was divided into Nazi Germany and the rest of the world, considering Germany beyond humanity.

The Third World’s pattern may not be a country like Nazi Germany versus the rest of the world, but
divisions like the United States versus the “People’s Republic of China,” in which taken into account
should be the crucial fact that the population of PRC exceeds that of the United States by more than 1
billion people, who can be harnessed and trained as producers and users of the latest modern weapons.

The final and decisive question is, Are societies like Stalin’s Russia human? Are they human or are they
part of the animal world? We know that a group of animals may be “led” by their “animal leader.” Was
not Stalin’s Russia such a group of animals “led” by Stalin?

Stalin’s “Russian” was as primitive as an animal leader’s commands to its animals. His primitive
dominant instinct was fear for his own life, which necessitated the existence of his hideout and his
animals to defend him.
The fact that Stalin possessed of the human speech at the lowest, elementary level is not surprising,
since animals have their own language to express themselves even better than did Stalin in his broken
and heavily accented Russian.

Stalin’s Russian does not testify to his human mind. The defeat of Hitler in Russia is illustrative, since
Hitler had an animal mind that some humans have. He was appointed “the leader,” since few Germans
would accept the post, while Hitler was known for his “patriotic rants.”

The moral is that humankind may descend to the level of animals, and the entire history of humankind
may be forgotten or made meaningless by Stalin-like and Hitler-like animals.

Curiously, Hitler was not an anti-Semite, as is clear from any detailed biography of him, and when the
persecution of Germans who could be identified as Jewish was in full blown, those who had appointed
him demanded that he become a piped piper of hatred for Jews or be dismissed.

A 'Global Union' Necessary to Preserve Peace

How did I learn British English in Russia? When I was a child, German was taught in Soviet schools.
But I asked my parents to invite a private teacher — an English lady who made her living by teaching
English.

As I grew up, I continued to be an “Englishman in Russia.” I began to work in a publishing house, where
I translated Russian classical literature into English and sometimes edited English texts. As I remember
now, there were four of us at the office table, including a young girl I took for a young English lady. Just
as I did, she also played a “Briton in Moscow.” After hours, I would walk her home.

Well, we became an English couple in Moscow. We got married, and in 1972 we “emigrated,” that is, the
Soviet authorities played at emigration, and we had no objection against being delivered to the New
York 22-storied apartment building in which my wife and I are still living. At that time, also living with
us was our son, now a unique translator of Russian poetry into English, and last but not least, my
mother, a professor of medicine.

Much of its political wisdom the United Stated took from Britain. But here is a disastrous exception. In
Britain, the queen/king is the head of state. The prime minister is the head of government. The British
appoint their prime minister; they do not elect their prime minister by a “majority of the people.”

American revolutionaries thought that would be old-fashioned and established the general election,
according to which the president of the United States is the head of state and head of government of the
United States. The president leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the
commander in chief of the United States armed forces.

The U.S. president is frequently described as the most powerful person in the world. All this means that
the U.S. president is elected by an electoral majority, whose minds cannot be at the level of genius (as
was the mind of the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who saved Britain from Hitler’s
invasion).

But fortunately, the American revolutionaries were not as powerful as the Russian revolutionaries, who
even destroyed themselves, except for Stalin, a ruthless fighter against all freedoms, except his own
freedom to kill anyone any way he fancied.

Let us now see how armed some world countries are. A country’s military power is measured by the
number of its “military people” in active service, the reserves, and paramilitary force.

As for the “latest weapons,” those may be hidden reliably enough. On the other hand, they may require
specialized active service, and this may be more expensive than just maintaining active service.

Wikipedia’s “List of countries by number of troops” consists of 6 1/2 pages (about 160 countries), but it
is enough for me to mention just two of them. “People’s Republic of China”: 3,455,000 military service
people and the United States of America: 2,455,837, that is, less by almost 1 million military service
people.

I hope the readers will realize that unless the world reforms itself, humankind can expect nothing but
death.

There are free countries. Outside them the world is socially at the level of thousands of years ago. There
are billions of people who have been sold or sold themselves into slavery, but the word “slave” has
become obsolete as not being elegant enough for our times. The slaves are a mind-boggling wealth,
which belongs to powerful slave-owners, dictators, and whoever else has money or power or both.

The immediate problem is to explain to the 7 billion people on the planet earth how dangerous the
present state of the world is and how an expanding output of more and more powerful weapons in the
hands of dictators makes it more and more difficult for mankind to escape death.

It is only the British-like freedom for all without the “general elections” of the head of the state and the
head of government that can prevent slave enterprises, arising, developing, and producing ever newer
and increasingly dangerous weapons.

As I wrote in my previous columns, the free countries should institute a global union, whose members
value freedom and will be tireless advocates for mutual peace. Only such a union will be able to induce
an aggressive country to reduce the production of its weapons to a mutually safe (nonaggressive) level.

It is only such a union of free and peaceful countries that will have the international influence with
respect to the countries which are “slave countries,” determined to defend themselves against any
attempt to limit their slavery, which is more profitable to their owners than the same number of free
hands.

I understand that the members of the global union will have to be sophisticated in international affairs.
But what is the alternative? The death of mankind?

Of course the global union’s policy must include the statement that “those who bring war die in war.”
The experience of Germany in World War I and World War II is persuasive.

Free people and believers in freedom! You should be talking with the rest of the world.

China Plots New World Order

For over two weeks the world news has been revolving around the massive earthquake and tsunami that
struck Japan and left behind tremendous devastation and loss of human lives.

It was one of the worst disasters in Japan’s history.

Some calamities of nature are impossible to predict or cope with. Human calamities are far more
predictable because they originate first inside human minds of the rulers of slave states like the
“People’s Republic of China” (PRC), so named and created by Mao in 1949.

Few Americans suspected how urgent it was for America to develop nuclear weapon ahead of Germany.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had never heard of the German nuclear project, which was already
under way, until the late 1930s, when the news came to him in a letter from a German scientist of
genius, Albert Einstein, in which he alerted the president as to how crucial it was for the United States
to be ahead of Germany in developing the nuclear bomb. President Roosevelt was quick to act: the
United States developed and obtained the nuclear bomb ahead of Germany.

Roosevelt received Einstein’s warning in the late 1930s, and the nuclear bomb was ready in the 1940s.
Today it is March of 2011, and I tried to find out if any superweapons as advanced as superweapons in
the 1940s have been constructed since then in the United States or in Germany or in any other country.
No!

Has any country produced a new, advanced, modern nuclear superweapon in the last 70 years? No one
knows. But what is known is that no advanced free country has produced it! It is peace, you know, not
the 1940s — which experienced a war between countries like Nazi Germany, the United States, Great
Britain, Soviet Russia, etc.

But what has been going on in the deepest recesses of countries like the PRC we don’t know.

I have in my possession the “World’s Most Comprehensive and Authoritative Almanac,” “The New York
Times Almanac of Record,” edited by John W. Wright, with editors and reporters of the Times.

It contains more than 1,000 pages, but there is not a single reference to nuclear weapons
(I have the Almanac of 2007).

It is little surprise that the news about powerful war preparations in PRC and other such alarming
events does not reach most U.S. populations, who spend public time on searching for wonderful clothes
and other pleasurable items.

Let us now recall how Germany surprised the world. Surely it was a country of philosophers, poets, and
such others. But it turned out to be the world’s most dangerous military machine, which occupied
France as though France and Britain (with British troops in France), were not modern industrial
countries but a French-British health resort.

World War III will bring many such surprises, and finally the call will be, “Kill all the people of the so-
called free countries, or they will kill us.”

Today it is not the 1940s, but 2011. Slave countries have massive populations and their rulers
understand that World War III may end up unfavorably for them, and therefore they should be as
ruthless as their weapons.

War is a calamity, which “slave” countries are preparing to win, and the United States has, owing to its
“general election,” a U.S. president who is a friend of the PRC, who had invited the PRC ruler to the
White House festivities to honor him as the leader of the PRC.

Slave societies do not change essentially in peace and in war, since they are always at war and their
inhabitants are always slaves. Hence their output of evermore deadly weapons is not affected.

Slavery is a permanent war against slaves, whom propaganda convinces from the cradle to the grave
that they are the happiest inhabitants of the earth and will be angels after what heretics describe as the
end of earthly happiness.

Once upon a time, all people were being persuaded that they were immortal and, after what heretics and
savages described as their mortal end, they would wake up to a happy, beautiful, eternal experience
beyond any description in any human tongue.

That persuasion worked in the European Medieval times. Surely it can work in a slave society today,
while all the vital forces of a slave state are being aimed at achieving military superiority over the
countries calling themselves free to attract the credulous.
Free-Thinking West Must Vigorously Defend Against Slave States

The free countries will not survive if there is only dedication to prosperity and not to freedom, as there
is no free thinking but only recitals of university or government texts.

Unique, high-level free-thinking in the West came to be known as genius, and this is what the U.S.
president and his British counterpart, the prime minister, should be.

But before analyzing intelligence as uniquely valuable free-thinking, it is worthwhile to repeat what I
wrote before in previous columns, such as the fact that the prime minister in Britain gets appointed, not
elected by the majority of people.

A majority of 100 million American voters (that is, all who cared to vote) voted for Obama, an open
friend of the “People’s Republic of China,” the main enemy of the United States. The PRC was created in
1949 by the communist Mao, said to have killed many more people than did the communist Stalin,
without any court hearing or with “propaganda courts,” obeying Stalin and Mao, respectively, as their
slave owners.

The U.S. president, elected by a majority of 100 million electors, may turn out to be not a thinker of
genius but an idiot. Well, a majority of 100 million American voters may be smart in other fields, but
idiots in international relations.

This is why in Britain the prime minister (the equivalent of the U.S. president) is not directly elected “by
general vote.” He is chosen by the political party with the greatest number of seats in Congress. After his
discussions with the most intelligent people of the land, including the queen and king, he becomes the
prime minister.

Are the American admirers of Obama sure that the American people are incomparably more intelligent
than the British people?

This brings us to a general question, What is intelligence, that is, free thinking, in contrast to repeating
what is trite or absurd or both, and what idiots say?

In classical antiquity and in the West-European Medieval classical culture, thinkers of genius had
disciples, and that was how education in intelligence had existed until came those universities which
were indeed universal, for they taught above all whatever ensures a prestigious job with a good salary.

But this is not the intelligence or free-thinking that distinguishes an original human mind from a
machine.

Intelligence is an inner human ability which endows one human mind decades or centuries before it
does other minds, though sometimes the interval of hours or even minutes may spell life or death for
the free countries as well as for the owners of the slave countries trying to enslave the free countries,
since slaves for slave-owners are their wealth.

Before the 20th century, countries were divided into advanced, industrial countries, in particular where
machines and weapons were produced, and those which were mainly agricultural, with their bucolic
nature, the main attraction for the travelers.

Russia was the first country which upset this division. The owners of Russia established an industry that
was sufficiently powerful in the production of weapons, which later proved to be a decisive factor during
World War II in defeating Germany and routing Hitler’s army from the territory of “Soviet Russia.”

It has to be noted that Germany had already been a developed industrial country, while Russia started
its speedy yet powerful industrialization by the communist Stalin (who died in 1953).

According to Wikipedia, the number of trained military personnel in the “People’s Republic of China” as
of 2010 exceeded that of the United States by 1 million (about one-third), and there is no doubt that the
PRC relies or will rely on its surplus of 1 billion (!) people.

The “People’s Republic of China,” often called in the West just China, is a slave country, and yet it is not
clear how the United States will defend itself against China if the United States is attacked now or in 20
or 30 years.

Yes, to survive in the next half a century, the world requires intelligence and free-thinking on the part of
the free countries, not a “general election” of a U.S. president, friend of the PRC, to defend them from
an aggressive slave country.

Slavery is also an economic advantage. The slaves can work for a tiny fraction of what free people get in
free countries for the same work. To stay alive, the slaves must obey orders from their owners.

In short, in our age of militarized industrial slavery (as in PRC), the free countries must take all
advantages of freedom — above all in the intelligence that results from free thinking.

China's Former Defense Minister Predicted World Domination

It is a dual reality that had been awaiting those born in Russia, after it had become Soviet Russia.

Why did the word “Russia” figure into the name of post-1917 Russia — “Soviet Russia”?

The Soviet culture-propaganda had a dual vision of Russia. On the one hand, Russia was so bad that its
replacement with the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” was the greatest achievement of world
history.

This “Union” was to occupy the entire world. On the other hand, that horrible old Russia, overthrown by
Soviet arms, had produced amazing operas (performed in the opera houses left by that old Russia),
unique plays, and music and literature worthy to be called classical.

I quickly found that the only way to make a living for me, away from hated Soviet propaganda, was in
translating Russian classical literature into English, and a Moscow publishing house sold the books
abroad and paid me handsomely.

From the best-known Soviet pop singer Leonid Utyosov, my wife and I bought a three-storied stone
villa, with a birch tree coppice, opposite the back of the building, and an apple orchard — opposite its
front.

In 1972, 19 years after Stalin died, the Soviet rulers decided to permit several hundred “Soviet people” to
emigrate from the “Soviet country”! The news, however, was too sacrilegious to have ever been reported
in the Soviet media.

Now in New York, my wildest dreams have come true. I smuggled out the manuscript of my book (on
microfilm), which I clandestinely had written in Russia, and had it published by Harper & Row. I
lectured to the university audiences on the future of the world all over the country and abroad. Now I
have been writing a weekly column for my appreciative editors — to save freedom, freedom which
created genius in old Russia and, having lost it, became a slave society.

On March 24, 2011, I received many e-mails from my readers. One of them, Gesa L., wrote that “I just
finished reading some of your columns at Newsmax.” He goes on to say that in 1978, his “Group of 70”
faced “a huge communist demonstration in Bonn, Germany, where some of us ended up in hospital.”
“Thank you for opening the eyes of many and keep warning the public,” he concludes.

In another email on March 24, 2011, Ken K. says that he enjoyed my article “China Plots a New World
Order.” He also sent me a link to Chi Haotian’s speeches of 2005, “in case you might have overlooked
them.”

In fact, I did read them and wrote about them in 2005. Chi Haotian was the Minister of Defense of the
PRC and delivered his pronouncements in his speeches in 2005.

First of all, in his first of the three speeches, he announced that “Hitler’s Germany had once bragged
that the German race was the most superior race on Earth, but the fact is, our nation is far [!] superior
to the Germans.” That is, to the German Nazis.

Now, thanks to Ken, I am again looking at the text of the speech delivered by the PRC Minister of
Defense in 2005.

Says Chi Haotian: “Many citizens say in private, ‘We never voted for you, the Communist Party, to
represent us. How can you claim to be our representatives?”

Well, Stalin staged a general election, except that the only candidate was Stalin. I decided to go to our
“voting station” to vote against him. It was not difficult to slip my anonymous voting paper, with my
note against Stalin, into one of the numerous boxes that voting papers were dropped in.

So what did the Chinese government do? Says Chi Haotian: “whether we can forever represent the
Chinese people depends on whether we can succeed in leading the Chinese people out of China.” That is,
invading the world and giving it to “the Chinese people.”

Further, Chi notes: “Only countries like the United States, Canada, and Australia have the vast land to
serve our need for mass colonization.”

It is necessary, he goes on to say, to “focus” on “developing lethal weapons that can eliminate the mass
populations of the enemy countries.”

Well, what does this article tell us? When we, watchers of societies deprived of freedom, were speaking
about the global ambitions of the country which Mao named “People’s Republic of China” in 1949, we
were accused of childish fantasies.

In vain did I try to attract the attention of the free countries to Chi’s speech when it first appeared.
Perhaps now in the free countries, there are more sensitive watchers of China?

Time is running out. PRC is working at full speed — in particular, to train its billion people, by which its
population exceeds that of the United States, into new builders and users of new superweapons.

A Good Defense Against China Is a Solid Offense of Knowledge

France was the country of Napoleon, and in alliance with England, it defeated Germany in World War I.
But during World War II, Hitler’s occupation of France, with the British troops that were in France to
help France defend itself, was a short pleasure trip for Hitler’s army. Many came to believe that he
would conquer the world!

In the late 1930s, a German sent a letter to President Roosevelt. I keep a copy of the letter. The
German’s name was Albert Einstein. My Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Einstein was born in 1870,
and by the late 1930s he had all scientific titles and awards that can be bestowed on a physician of
genius.

In 1913, Einstein became a professor at the University of Berlin, director of the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute, and a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. In 1922, he received the 1921 Nobel Prize
in physics. And so on.

There was only one biographical detail which was not disclosed because Nazi Germany began the
extermination of Jews, but even my Britannica (the latest edition, which I bought when we came to the
West in 1972) does not say in its three-page article about Einstein (vol. 8, pp. 95-97) that this super-
genius was a Jew. The Nazi rulers of Nazi Germany forced Hitler to join the extermination of Jews (look
up any detailed biography of Hitler published in the United States to see that earlier Hitler had not been
an anti-Semite).

In the late 1930s, Einstein and his family decided to leave Germany (while the going was still good, at
least for them). As they were leaving, Einstein dropped into the mailbox his letter to President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt. Its moral was simple: Those who would have nuclear weapons would win World War
II, and those who would not would lose it.

And those who conducted the anti-Semitic campaign in Nazi Germany could well say, Come on, the
destiny of mankind depends on what a German Jew said or did?

Yes, that’s it! Owing to Roosevelt, the United States had nuclear weapons, while Nazi Germany had
already collapsed, and the United States dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, whereupon Japan
surrendered immediately and unconditionally.

Einstein died in 1955 at the age of 85, and I wonder if anyone asked him to write a column “How I, a
lonely Jew, won World War II because Nazi Germany had started the extermination of Jews and I with
my family decided to leave it and hence mailed my letter to President Roosevelt.”

Owing to developing science and technology, we can imagine the growth of global-scale military
operations. But just as before, much will depend on the performance of human beings, not only
machines per se.

A free country makes it possible to see human beings as they are. The slave societies convert human
beings into mechanisms behind uniform masks.

Hence any slave may be infinitely dangerous because a slave’s personality is hidden behind his or her
mask. Take myself, as an example. The owners of Russia let me and my family leave the country, and I
emigrated to become a free man able to freely express myself in my books, my lectures, my speeches on
radio in English (for the West) and in Russian (for Russia) what I had not dared publish or say in
Russia, where behind my mask I was totally unknown to the totalitarian powers that be until I was
safely out of their reach. Yes, in such a society, slaves like myself are totally unknown to their owners as
their worst enemies.

Knowledge of the enemy has always been considered a decisive prerequisite of the military victory. But
here the totalitarian owners of the countries are thus faced with millions of totally unknown enemies
like Albert Einstein or me or anyone such that you know.

The “People’s Republic of China,” which will move to conquer the world (read the speeches of the
minister of defense Chi in 2005), will have two armies to defeat: the foreign army and its own native
army, whose soldiers may be secretly against their rulers, as was Albert Einstein against Nazi Germany
at the end of the 1930s or as was I against the Soviet rulers.

Here the pattern may be more unpredictable than it was during the Western wars among nations whose
troops were not made up of slaves. With slaves as soldiers, the picture will be more unpredictable and
chaotic, since slaves are unpredictable by definition. No, it wasn’t Hitler who in the late 1930s was told
by the German physicist Albert Einstein how to defeat all enemy countries by nuclear weapons!
Time to Rethink the US Voting Process

The United States should rethink its “general election” of the U.S. president, otherwise it will perish and
drag down all other free countries.

I have been writing about it occasionally as a reminder, but it was only recently, on March 3, that I
received from Donald K. an email on this subject. His letter opened my eyes to how serious the problem
actually is, and I understood now that I should devote a full column to the subject.

I submit that the United States will be annihilated if the system of electing the U.S. president by general
election is not replaced by a modern workable system.

The United States was born as a result of having seceded from Britain. The American English differs
from the British English by minute details, which do not prevent a Briton and an American from
understanding each other.

But just as in old times, America still calls itself the “revolutionary America.” In the British “non-
revolutionary” parliamentary system, the British voters do not choose their prime minister. The
chairman of the political party in parliament that received the largest number of votes gets nominated
to be prime minister. Having proved himself or herself intellectually acceptable to the participants of
discussions by all parties in parliament and approved by the queen, he or she becomes the prime
minister of Her Majesty (the queen), who is then asked by the head of state (the queen) to form a
government that will manage the country.

What about the American arrangement?

Let me repeat what I was saying in my previous columns: In the late 1930s, a German physicist of
genius Albert Einstein sent a letter to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, introducing him to the
nuclear weapons and saying that if the United States would not be the first to build them, Nazi Germany
would win World War II.

The U.S. electorate numbers about 100 million voters. How many of them know the name of a physicist
of today who matches the caliber of Albert Einstein in the 1930s? Let me be very generous: 100 voters.
But this is only one-millionth of the electorate, not the majority who have elected President Obama.

And what about Obama honoring the ruthless ruler of the “People’s Republic of China” Hu Jintao by
inviting him to the White House and giving him red-carpet treatment. Why? To celebrate his visit? Is
the PRC a free country, not a dictatorship, most dangerous to the United States, to promote friendship
with? The PRC is an open foe of the free world, determined to destroy it. So why create confusion
among our friends, the free countries, by pandering to the dictator? Shouldn’t the U.S. president be the
first to uphold the principles of freedom and democracy in word and in deed?

Evidently not, as long as Obama holds the reins to this country, having received the mandate from a
majority of the U.S. voters to be both the head of the U.S. government and the head of the state. Who
can stop him in his tracks? The U.S. Congress can impeach him for betraying the high moral principles
of this country, but is the Congress going to do this?

Had Obama been living in the PRC and expressed his sympathy for the United States, PRC would have
put him to death. But in the United States, his play with a country which possibly some day will swallow
the United States provokes no anger in those millions of Americans who voted for him.

In every country, there are those who value freedom above anything else. On the other hand, in a free
country like the United States, many do not appreciate freedom. They don’t need it. Therefore, they
voted for Obama, who promised them material benefits. They are in the United States by accident of
birth or their failure to go to another country promising them more wealth. They voted for Obama. And
why not? Freedom and everything it propagates are absolutely of no value to those Americans who
voted for him.

Freedom is recent. Greece and Rome are within historical memory. Millennia later, following Britain
and the United States. And now it is politically correct to assume that freedom is everywhere.

Actually, countries without freedom are slave societies, in which all power belongs to their owners, as it
did thousands of years ago.

Will these slave societies eliminate the free countries, and will the world return to what it was millennia
ago?

Meanwhile, in the free countries, it’s life as usual: women are buying luxuries to adorn themselves, and
men are making money, while the slave societies are preparing for new wars with new weapons, but
with goals as old as the Stone Age.

Let us not forget that the population of China exceeds that of the United States by 1 billion people, to be
trained as producers and users of the latest modern weapons.

The World Faces Tough Choice: Slavery or Western Democracy

Slavery was once global, though Greece and Rome are remembered as partial exceptions. In our time,
only Western Europe has become mostly free, but Nazi Germany intended to push it back into slavery.
Today, the words “slavery” and “slave” are not applied to wholesale slavery of a country.
In Stalin’s Russia, slaves and slavery were used in statements about free countries such as “the slaves of
capital,” from which slavery Stalin had allegedly liberated Russia, with the intention to liberate all
mankind.
The slavery of classical antiquity is associated with marble buildings for free people built by naked
slaves.
Not in Stalin’s Russia. Stalin provided his slaves with what was necessary to keep them from freezing to
death, and his subordinates determined all “wages and salaries” as well as the rent they had to pay for
one room in what used to be a six-room apartment occupied by one family in old, pre-1917 Russia, now
turned communal, shared by six families.

Stalin’s slaves were maintained at a minimum expense, while the bulk of the country’s wealth went into
the production of weapons to turn the rest of the free world into Stalin’s global slave country.
Those who were not in Stalin’s concentration (or death) camps or were not shot or tortured to death
were paid a bare minimum so they could keep themselves alive and be able to work.
According to Stalin’s culture-propaganda, Stalin’s slaves were the only happy people on earth, the
opposite of the “slaves of capital” that they were before 1917 in Russia or that they are in today’s
“capitalist countries” of the West.
Freedom in a country implies the freedom of every citizen to get access to independent courts. In New
York, I wrote a column criticizing Golda Meir, then the prime minister of Israel, for changing her
political views on Stalin, depending on the “political correctness” in approaching a political situation “as
of today.”

My sympathies were always with Israel. In one of my articles I wrote for Commentary magazine, I
wanted some of Israel’s brightest citizens to take a good look at that monster, Stalin, particularly at how
Golda Meir trusted Stalin during her visit to Stalin’s Russia.
Golda Meir sued me for defamation. The New York court concluded that she was wrong. End of the
case. I walked home. That was all. I was free.
To ask why slavery exists is the same as would be to ask why theft, murder, and torture exist. Indeed, it
is slavery, not freedom, which has existed for millennia and will perhaps exist for millennia, while
freedom, a recent social phenomenon even in Western Europe, may disappear everywhere.

What will ultimately win the world over — freedom or slavery?

Freedom is leading in science and technology, since in freedom men or women of genius can work in
any field they choose or create, thus jumping ahead of slave countries by many years or decades or
centuries.
On the other hand, it is easier for a free person to pass secret military data to a slave country than the
other way around, which makes a free country more vulnerable.
The population of the “People’s Republic of China” exceeds that of the United States, the most powerful
of the free countries, by 1 billion people. In a slave society, it is possible to turn many of this extra billion
of slaves into producers and users of the latest military weapons.
Can the free countries respond? Can the population of India, a free democratic country, be armed and
trained by all the other free countries to defend freedom if freedom is attacked by slave countries?
A defender of a free country knows what the free countries are fighting for. A slave fights only because
he is forced to fight: If there is no “fight or die” compulsion coming from the slave owner, a slave flees.
Where to? To where he will not be a slave.

In the slave countries, slaves keep silent about a possible future collision between their slave states and
the free countries, while the citizens of the free countries are free to talk about it.
A free American is free to get the latest news of the possibility of a biggest war in the world history, with
the most destructive weapons ever used. The concern of New Yorkers, however, is minimal, as though
what is going to happen to them is much further away than the planet Mars.
Yes, the free countries do not take seriously the global danger looming ahead, and the re-election of the
current U.S. president will possibly be the most dangerous example of it.

Studies Needed to Probe China's Growing Military Superiority

As early as 2003, “Guardino Manufacturers’ Group” declared that more than 60 percent of college
students in China study engineering, so important for a country’s military power, while the figure at
U.S. colleges is only 6 percent.

Such figures have been pouring into the United States in growing numbers throughout the past decade.
But on May 10, in its annual book for 2010, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
published a table that showed every country’s percentage of “world military expenditure,” that is, the
international value of “everything military” produced in the world.

Let me take five examples from that table: United States, 46.5 percent of global military expenditure;
next 10 world countries, combined, 20.7 percent; Russia, 3.5 percent; U.K., 3.8 percent; China (PRC),
6.6 percent.

Taking advantage of the fact that such reliable studies are not readily available to the general public, the
“People’s Republic of China” uses the easily available absurd mess of media misinformation outside the
purview of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute to pose as a military power equal of
the United States.
It is an undeniable fact that the population of the “People’s Republic of China” exceeds that of the
United States by about 1 billion people. If PRC uses this advantage by secretly training those people into
producers and users of the latest weapons, the West will perish, since an army of that size never existed
in the world.

The accuracy of the studies of the global military performance of the world countries must be as
scientifically reliable as that provided by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Only
then will it be possible to predict relatively safe periods versus dangerous political upheavals on the
global map and place them on the global calendar.

Armed with such scientifically reliable authentic information, as opposed to the distorted
misinformation provided daily by the media, the free countries can continue to engage in their creative
and educational life during the relatively safe periods, never at the same time losing their vigilance as to
the eventuality of a danger event and taking necessary measures to defend themselves. And this
knowledge of the world authentic military situation is absolutely indispensable for the free countries to
win the global struggle for survival.

The unfree countries are based on permanent and ubiquitous vigilance, and their main enemies are
their slaves, whom the PRC propaganda describes as the happiest people on earth and as heroes,
infinitely devoted to their owners.

In contrast to the slave countries, which have compulsory military service and are permanently vigilant,
the free countries need to know which danger threatens them as of this day in order to act accordingly.

Yes, the “People’s Republic of China” threatens the existence of the free countries, but it may take China
a certain number of years to draft their “extra” billion people for war, initiated by PRC against some or
many or all free countries.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s study is a good example of scientifically reliable
assessment of the global military situation.

For its owners, an unfree country is more profitable than is a free country, with its free enterprise,
employing free people, who have to be paid according to the value of their work. The slaves, on the other
hand, cost only as much as to keep them alive and working.

The absolutism of today’s slave societies surpasses in its ruthlessness the historical absolutism as we
know it.

Like any absolutism in Western Europe, the Russian absolutism kept on softening, developing toward
constitutional monarchy, in the middle of which process it was overthrown and replaced with Stalin’s
absolutism, more absolutist than the worst kind of any absolutism that had ever existed.

What’s the moral? The slaves of today’s slave countries also need to be studied, for slavery is not just a
mechanism, but a life of many lives. Slavery is dangerous to the free countries. But it is also dangerous
to the owners of the slave countries.

The slave army is unreliable, and if there arises a physical opportunity to do so, any part of it may
decide to join its enemy: a free country.

The scientific method of research in assessing the global military capabilities of all countries as
undertaken by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute must lie at the basis
of all studies of offensive and defensive forces in the world.

Globalization Does Not Make an Enslaved Country Free

Globalization has become a fashionable trend. Many industrial goods which originated in Britain, the
mother of industrialization, began to be used by both free and slave countries throughout the world.

Another sphere of globally used goods is the military. The unfree countries try to acquire the most
advanced weapons of the free countries through espionage. We are led to believe that eventually all
countries will thus make up one world; that is, they all will be “globalized.” Karl Marx espoused a
similar idea of a single world, but his was to be realized through a global revolution, not through similar
goods spreading all over the world.

Slavery goes back to antiquity. On the other hand, in the free countries of today, all inhabitants are free,
except those who are convicted of crimes.

The main role of the military in a free country is to protect the country and its people from being
annihilated or enslaved. The origination and existence of slavery are inevitable in those countries in
which there are no social safeguards of freedom, as there were none in Russia after November 1917.

Ironically, war globalization in World War I played its full role in the conversion of Russia, a country
which had produced people of genius in culture, including sociology, into a full-fledged slave state. By
1917, Russia had been too exhausted, demoralized, and desperate to resist Lenin, with his “dictatorship
of the proletariat,” and a semi-literate Georgian gangster Stalin, who spoke Russian with a heavy accent
and grabbed the absolute power in the country.

The name “USSR,” as Russia came to be called under the pseudo-emperor Stalin, has perished after the
dictator’s death, as have other “Soviet” names. Why do the owners of slave countries love and encourage
“real globalization”?

Stalin’s slaves glorified him — they had to pretend that they adored “our teacher and friend Stalin,” who
owned them. Powerless, with no means to defend themselves, slaves work for their owner on his terms
(such as “If you don’t work hard enough, I’ll order to torture you to death”).

Also, slaves, who work for their owners practically without pay — barely enough to sustain life and be
able to work — are the ideal slaves.

To a slave owner with a leaning toward Marxism, such social arrangement nurses high hopes of slave
countries eventually achieving communism, the conclusive phase of socialism, when everyone will be
satisfied according to their needs, not according to their ability to work.

In unfree countries, all inhabitants, except their owners, as was, for example, Stalin, who died in 1953,
are slaves, who are watched, arrested, tortured or killed by the secret police. The chasm between the
free countries and the slave countries is not getting less pronounced because their slaves can buy the
same “global” umbrellas.

Public radio, television, and other controlled media in slave countries exist in order to glorify the life of
their slaves and to malign the free countries for their “exploitation” of the “working class” by the
“bourgeoisie.”

The owners of the slave countries are trying hard to stifle any display of freedom in their countries, for
they know that secretly many of their slaves are yearning for freedom.

In a desperate attempt to prevent the “emancipation” of their slaves and to preserve the status quo of
their power, the owners of slave societies are encouraging globalization by providing access to the free
Western countries to use cheap labor of their slaves, thereby creating a false impression of the
benevolence of their regime, meanwhile acquiring Western know-how and the latest military technology
for their future wars to destroy the free countries by conquering them and thus acquiring more slaves.

The fact that, say, the population of the “People’s Republic of China” exceeds that of the United States
by 1 billion people should be counterbalanced by the fact that the people of the free countries are more
creative (for creativity needs freedom), motivated to defend their freedom, and in case of war with a
slave country, they will liberate its slaves and thus win them over to their side.
Yes, the weapons of all countries are being globalized. None of today’s countries can even think of
starting a war without having the latest modern weapons based on the latest research in science and
technology.

On the other hand, socially, there has never been less globalization: The free countries and slave states
have never differed more than they do today. And herein lies the strength of the free world.

Apathy Toward China Emboldens China

Each time I submit a column to my editor, I ask myself if it is fair to my readers that I keep weaving into
every text some basic facts over and over again. Don’t those born in freedom already know that freedom
is precious, that it should not be taken for granted and that people don’t have to spend half their lives in
slavery to appreciate it?

Having miraculously gotten out of the closed world once called Russia, my family (my wife, our son, and
my mother) and I spent a few blissful months in Italy, waiting for our American visas to be processed.

We arrived in the West with four suitcases and never looked back. Now, after having lived in New York
for 40 years, we seem to be the only Russian family that, despite rather recent superficial political
changes, has never been tempted to risk visiting the country of our birth for fear of being detained by
some overzealous KGB bureaucrats and losing our newly acquired freedom. We left behind all our
possessions, but we also left behind that omnipresent fear of the omnipotent police-state that haunted
all of us since childhood.

Having found myself in the free West, all I needed was a pen and paper. The book, which I had been
secretly writing in Soviet Russia for many years, never dreaming of having it published, was all in my
head. Besides, the manuscript of the book on microfilm was smuggled out of the country in a jar of
facial cream. All I had to do was to put it together in the hope of finding a publisher. Would the Western
reader be interested in what a former Soviet slave had to say about slavery and freedom?

While still in Italy, I received a letter from a New York publisher Harper & Row with a contract and a
check for $3,000 advance money. Soon we arrived in the United States, settled in New York, and shortly
after that the book came out. It received national attention and was favorably reviewed by all major
newspapers and magazines in the country, including The New York Times.

I am saying all this to show that those who live in a slave country secretly cherish the hope that one fine
day they too may get out and be free. Once freedom is lost, the hope is lost. And the danger that the free
West may lose its freedom is very real. This is why in my columns I cannot get off the subject of the need
to preserve and defend the freedom, threatened by the owners of the slave countries.

This convinces me that I am not overdoing it. On the contrary, Americans seem to be giving it a thought
that more should be done. On May 8, I received an email from one of my readers, Douglas H. He claims
that in my columns I ignore the dangers from PRC to the free countries. He, however, fails to mention
the fact that already years ago

China was known to have 1 billion people more than does the United States. In conclusion, he says: “I
could go on and on, but I think you get the point: WAKE UP.”

And here is another email. Let me give the floor to an American who voted as a member of an intelligent
minority when a mentally lowest majority elected Obama. Christopher C., a minority voter, sent me an
email on May 8, 2011.
Here is what he says: “Dear Lev: Do you think it is possible that President Obama could be the puppet of
a foreign power? It often seems that his policies are deliberately designed to mess up the United States
and cause as much havoc as possible. Perhaps he is on a payroll of a foreign power intent on using the
weakness and emerging chaos of the United States to attack us.”

It would not be amiss to remind a majority who voted for Obama that their votes endowed him with
unlimited power: to be head of state, head of the U.S. government, and commander in chief of the
armed forces of the United States.

In Britain (no novice in political wisdom), the head of state (the king or queen) is not elected by the
people, thereby ensuring the stability of the state. The prime minister is the leader of a major political
party in parliament, which won a majority of votes in the general election.

The “People’s Republic of China” appeared in 1949 under Mao. No Western politician had noticed its
harmful existence for about half a century, though the PRC is the most likely candidate to initiate the
annihilation of the free countries, including the United States.

Is there a chance of President Obama being re-elected? I am tempted to say no, if all the voters wake up
to the danger of losing their freedom and becoming part of the slave world if it is taken over by the
dictators of PRC.

Mind-Reading Technology Could Benefit Slave Nations

Recently I read in Yahoo! the following note (dated Jan. 4, 2009) by Matt Dillon, a philanthropist: “'6o
Minutes' ran a story tonight about new brain scanning and mind reading technology. According to them
— in the future, it may be possible for others (i.e., the government) to read your mind without your
knowledge/consent.”

A technology called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has led to significant advances in the
ability to determine what someone is thinking by monitoring brain activity. And it’s already happening!

This new technology, which is quite a scary thing, is apparently evolving with some 80 percent of
success, according to some commentaries, and that is something which calls for an ethical dilemma in
itself.

Technology always gives humans more power. But in a democracy, the use of such technology is an
unacceptable violation of personal, mental privacy. The right to mental privacy is recognized and is
protected by law.

That’s why ethical issues as to the violation of moral principles and values are growing in the 21st
century. In a democracy, public opposition to any violation of a person’s privacy is not tolerated. And
this new technology escalates this violation to unacceptable levels.

But what about the countries in which the people are slaves of one dictator, like Stalin in Russia, or like
a group of dictators, Mao and PRC in China?
China's Army (AP)
Mind reading technology, if fully realized, will provide a new tool in the hands of slave owners to
exercise control over their slaves, as I call them. It will be easy enough for totalitarian governments to
introduce this technology whenever they want, because the state can do whatever it wants within its
unlimited totalitarian power.

This also means that in the hands of new Stalins or Maos this mind-reading technology is a new
weapon, as is every method of enslavement, to make their slaves an absolutely obedient instrument of
their absolute power.

In other words, the words “slave” and “slavery” will acquire a new meaning: “brain slaves” and “brain
slavery.” The brains of the slaves will be open to manipulation by their owner: the slave state.

Slavery already has or will soon have mind reading instruments that will create a new kind of slavery, in
which slaves think or will think the way their owners want them to think.

China has 1 billion more people than does the United States, and they can be used to create the biggest
army in world history.

Mind reading instruments will make it possible for the slave owners to make sure there are no
undesirable thoughts coming from the minds of the slaves in their gigantic army. The result will be one
gigantic global weapon of steel, humanly smart, but thoughtless, devoid of any critical ability or fear for
the future.

That thoughtless programmed global giant of an army will not stop until it overcomes the resistance of
the free-thinking countries.

The thoughtless giant might also use nuclear weapons if their effective salvos are programmed to
anticipate and intercept enemy nukes.

The irony is that most new achievements of the free countries that can be used in the armed forces have
and are being picked up by the owners of the slave countries. Achievements such as the mind-reading
technology are especially difficult for the slave states to pioneer, and therefore stealing this technology
is of special value for the slave states.

Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany were not regarded as “slave states.” Yet that was what they were.
In the 21st century, the existence of slave states is as possible, as it was possible millennia ago.

Yet today the military might is created by the modern technology developed by the geniuses in free
countries, while the slave states are merely taking advantage of it through stealing this technology and
absorbing it.

The reaction of the free countries to the existing slave states has been egocentric. I seem to be the only
person in the United States to have been tirelessly evoking the ghost of that one billion extra people in
the “People’s Republic of China” who can be transformed into the biggest army in the world history.

The consequences of ignoring this threat could be fatal.

Obama's Deference to China Makes Him Unfit to Be President

The annihilation of the free countries by a slave country such as China will mean the end of what free
countries hold dear — creative genius in art, philosophy, science and technology.

Even art reached its heights of genius only in relatively free countries.

The fact is that there are degrees of freedom and of the absence of freedom. In the 19th century, Russia
was still justly considered to be behind in its advance to being a free country.

Yet the Russian poet Nikolai Nekrasov (1821-1878) wrote what would certainly be impossible in a more
unfree country:
It is so lifeless without happiness and freedom.
Should the people’s moan and roar be heard?
The chalice of grief is filled to the brim!
Should the storm strike the Earth?
Yes, thunder over fields and meadows,
 Whistle in forests and over vast plains,
Overturn the chalice of the world grief!

In Stalin’s Russia or in any other as unfree country, Nekrasov would be put to death for such an
inflammatory poem, while in the 19th-century “tsarist” Russia, he remained alive and famous and went
on describing Russia in the same tragic key.

Now, let’s get back to the PRC. According to “The World Factbook,” the population of the PRC is
1,328,612,968, and that of the United States is 307,212,123. That is, the population of the PRC is larger
than that of the United States by over 1 billion.

It is likely that the PRC has started or will start training that extra 1 billion people to produce and
handle the latest military weapons and become soldiers in the biggest army in the world history, intent
on defeating the freedom-loving countries.

If the slave countries like the PRC win, that will be the end of history as we know it for everyone except
the owners of such slave states. As of today, the United States is the most militarily powerful of the free
countries. The situation will only be better if more free countries become as powerful as the United
States.

In his speech at the National Defense University, Gen. Chen Bingde, chief of the general staff of the
People’s Liberation Army, who was leading a delegation of eight Chinese generals during his seven-day
visit to the United States in his attempt to allay the fear of PLA military intentions, said: “Although
China’s defense and military development has come a long way in recent years, a gaping gap between
you and us remains . . . China does not have the capability to challenge the U.S.”

It won’t take long for the PRC to catch up with the United States if the United States and other free
countries continue their policy of placating the PRC and helping it bridge that “gaping gap.”

A few words, as a reminder to American voters, would not be amiss here. In the 20th century, the
danger to the free countries came from Hitler, who was pronounced in Germany to be the “leader.”

The German people failed to recognize Hitler’s national-socialist leanings and the extent of his
ambitions (even if it meant the destruction of the German Jews, who were born in Germany, spoke
perfect German, and made valuable contributions to German science and culture, including the arts).

Were it not for German physicists, especially Albert Einstein, a Jew, a prominent scientist and a Nobel
Prize-winner, who fled the Germany of anti-Semitism and came to live in the United States, Nazi
Germany would have been the first to have the atom bomb, and the world would have been at its feet.

Thank God it didn’t happen, because President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s common sense and
reverence for Einstein, a man of genius, who warned him of the coming danger, altered the course of
history and saved the free countries.

What may be more crucial than the general election of the U.S. president?

While the 19th-century Germany was considered the wisest country, Hitler, a clown and an idiot, had
been propelled to power by the German people in the 20th century.

When going to the polls, American voters must not be carried away and fooled by the inflammatory
speeches of the one who makes empty promises in order to get elected.

Heed the example of the German people, who fell pray to fiery speeches and lost their country.

It is not for nothing that the PLA is trying to change its image and to cover its intentions by declaring
how weak it is. It’s unbelievable that having been in office for almost three years, President Obama, a
friend of the PLA, is so gullible as to let the PLA’s generals come to this country to visit the sensitive
military sites: the U.S. Army Fort Stewart, Ga., the Navy’s base at Norfolk, Va., and Nellis Air Force
Base, Nev.

Did Obama also treat his “lagging behind friends” by revealing to them the U.S. latest military
technology?

Does this mortally dangerous clown of a president deserve to be elected for a second term?

Obama Giving the US to China

The contrast between slave states and free countries is stark today, compared to the 19th century, when
freedom was developing in many countries, and political systems were more fluid. Let me take the 19th-
century Russia as an example.

To the Russian poet Alexander Pushkin, my Britannica, the 1970 edition, devotes three pages and
concludes that he is a world-renowned poet.

Pushkin was advancing freedom in Russia, but the powers that be decided it was “too much and too
fast” and he was exiled from Moscow to his estate. However, the next tsar, Nicholas I, ended Pushkin’s
exile, permitted him to return to Moscow, and they had a long talk about the future of Russia.

Pushkin believed in what is today accepted in Britain: Monarchy does not rule out freedom. Quite the
contrary, it may help to preserve and extend it.

In contrast to Pushkin’s beliefs, which the Soviet propaganda censored out, the Russian revolutionaries
shot Nicholas II and then “liquidated” dozens of millions of those who, like Pushkin, believed in
freedom.

In the 20th century and at the beginning of the 21st century, almost all countries are either free
countries or slave countries. Unlike the pre-1917 Russia, which was struggling to become free, the
modern-day slave-state “People’s Republic of China” may and can become global, since its population
exceeds that of the United States by more than 1 billion people.

The United States is a free country, while the PRC, created by communist Mao, the Chinese Stalin, is a
slave country.

A silent war has been going on between the United States, the most militarily powerful free country, and
the PRC. The army of the PRC, absorbing whatever is possible from that 1 billion people, will be the
biggest army in the history of the world.

In this global reality, a man of genius like Winston Churchill as the U.S. president ,could save the
United States, as he saved Britain from Hitler’s invasion.

But Obama is not Churchill. The suspicion that Obama is selling out the United States to China had
rarely occurred to anyone before May 26, 2011.

Making every effort to project himself as being charming and open, especially to the trusting American
voters, Obama reveals his egocentric views of his own grandeur, which shows that to him freedom
means nothing more than the freedom to realize all of his ambitions.

On May 26, 2011, Yahoo! News reported that with Obama away visiting Britain and other European
countries, the PRC’s Gen. Chen Bingde, accompanied by seven military men came to the United States,
with 24 top military men of the PRC soon to follow him, visiting various U.S. military installations. Had
Yahoo! News gone mad?

Was Obama aware of the 2000 Defense Authorization Law passed by the U.S. Congress, which prohibits
the foreign military, and especially the PRC military, from visiting U.S. major military bases involving
sensitive advanced military technology?

Had Obama rescheduled his EU trip and showed up to meet the PRC generals, that would suggest that
he had committed an act of treachery against the country he had been elected to defend. But he was
smart enough to have arranged to be out of the country at the time to create the impression that he had
nothing to do with the PRC military generals visiting the U.S. major military bases in violation of the
American law.

Obama would not like to appear as a plotter of the United States’ renewed friendship with the PRC,
which might contribute to PRC’s warring capabilities that might harm U.S. security interests.

The U.S. government report “National Security and the People’s Republic of China” reads: “It is thus
necessary to understand the full range of the PRC’s technology acquisition effort to discern its
threatening aspects … The Select Committee has discovered evidence of a number of their successes.”

Long before Obama was elected the U.S. president, I had written in my columns that the British head of
government, unlike the U.S. president (head of state and head of government and chief of the U.S.
armed forces), is not elected in general election. The British voters elect the party to represent them in
parliament. The party that receives a majority of votes in the general election becomes the majority
party in parliament, and it is the head of that majority party who automatically becomes the prime
minister, i.e., head of government.

The head of state (the queen) is not elected, thus ensuring the stability of the state. And herein lies the
difference. If the United States continues to ignore the British system of not electing its prime minister
by a voting majority in the “general election,” the United States would perish.

Well, we are yet to see the final outcome: victory or death.

Will We Survive a Second Obama Term?

Let me start by quoting one of my readers’ emails from June 11, 2011. Janice W. is an American citizen.
She immigrated into the United States in 1993 and refers to herself as an “ardent citizen” of this
country.

This is what she says: “I am astounded at the blindness of most people in this country and the apathy at
the apparently treacherous actions of the current occupant of the White House. Do you have any
thoughts on why no one seems to think that [the] man . . . should be investigated, if not actually brought
to trial? Thank you for your continued work towards the salvation of our nation!”

To this, I can only remind the readers that the population of a country is at different mental levels, from
genius (one-millionth of the entire adult psychiatrically healthy population) to 60 percent of the
population who think, and 40 percent of those who do not.

I have to disagree with Janice when she says that “no one seems to think.” Actually, judging by other
emails I am getting from my readers, possibly 60 percent of the psychiatrically healthy adult population
of the United States do think.

The U.S. president is endowed with immense power: he is head of state, head of government, and head
of the U.S. armed forces. He is said to be the most powerful man in the world. And President Obama
heavily exploits all of those powers in an effort to pursue his own left-wing Marxist-socialist agenda.

Obama’s ardent followers are wealthy communistic progressives such as George Soros, who, in a recent
article, recommends that President Obama govern from executive order to push through a progressive
agenda.

The U.S. Congress, on the other hand, which, according to the U.S. Constitution, has the ultimate say —
in military matters, for example — seems to be indecisive and ineffective and supports Obama in all his
undertakings. Who wouldn’t agree that after all, the Congress should have used its powers to stop
Obama’s policy to constantly placate the People’s Republic of China?

A case in point is Obama’s recent ploy to allow the People's Liberation Army (PLA) military generals to
visit U.S. sensitive military bases of extreme importance to U.S. defense capabilities — while he was
away! Well, Obama can claim that all that happened when he was away, and he had nothing to do with
it. And his strategy has worked! Look at the email I got from Keith M.: “Where were Mitch McDonnell,
John Boehner, and the State Department on all this? I’m sure that Boehner knew about the Defense
Authorization Law.”

And this is just the beginning. Wait and see what will happen if this ego-maniac in chief gets re-elected
and achieves his objective to obliterate America and turn it into a communist nation. As he proudly
boasted at an April, 2011, fundraising event, “I have had the most successful legislative initiative of any
president over the last 50 years.”

One term in office seems to not be enough to find out what Obama stands for and to see that all his
promises to those who had elected him have been a failure. He is seeking another. Another for what?
Failed economic policies, high unemployment, poor record on human rights, and his unwavering loyalty
to China — all betray his deep-seated Marxist-socialist convictions and beliefs.

Obama’s economic policies are destroying the American dream of living in a free country, with free
enterprise, by his turning the United States into a welfare state, soon to be completely dependent on the
good graces of the People’s Republic of China, which provides him new trillion-dollar loans for his new
campaign promises, further bankrupting the country.

Obama does not seem to mind the growing displeasure with his policies. As long as he collects more and
more money for his re-election, making it possible for him to campaign all over the country hoping for a
second time to fool voters into believing his empty promises and disarming smile.

Can the United States survive Obama’s second term? Will it turn out to be yet another attempt to
destroy this country? Will the American people give Obama another four years in office to complete his
destructive experiment by throwing this country’s economy and defense at the mercy of the People’s
Republic of China?

While clamoring for closer cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, Obama actually does
everything in his power to set them apart.

My hope is that the American people are too smart to be fooled again by Obama’s treacherous promises.
They will finally understand and reject Obama’s policies so fatal to this country. They will vote him out
of office by making another presidential choice.

Dana Rohrabacher Right to

Question Technology Giveaway to
China
My Encyclopaedia Britannica, the 1970 edition, says “The People’s Republic of China . . . was founded
on the principles of Marx, Lenin and Stalin, and of Mao Tse-tung’s ‘New Democracy.’”

On page 595, we read: “Communist party leader Mao Tse-tung.”

Marx died in 1883. But the third volume of his three-volume “Das Kapital” appeared in 1894, 11 years
after his death.

Who paid Marx to keep him alive while he wrote those three volumes? A capitalist, the father of
Friedrich Engels, a worshiper of Marx.

Actually, it was a stupid 3-volume twaddle to prove that capitalists parasitize on the workers, who
should get rid of the “parasites.”

There are general national levels of the understanding of social problems. German men of genius could
be outstanding philosophers. But to many Englishmen, for example, “National Socialism” in Germany,
with Hitler and all, would have been impossible without the sociological illiteracy of most Germans.
Marx was such an average German illiterate.

While browsing the Internet the other day, the following grabbed my attention: Lee Teng-hui’s visit to
the United States in January of 2006, as reported by The Epoch Times and Taipei Times.

During his two-week tour of the United States, Lee Teng-hui, former president of the Republic of China
(commonly known as Taiwan), “accused China of running a ‘slave state’ that uses the false promise of its
booming economy to dupe the free world into appeasing its tyranny” (Taipei Times, Oct 23, 2005). And
further: “Lee called for capitalist nations to shun investment in China, which he likened to the 1930
appeasement policy towards German dictator Adolf Hitler and later Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.”

“Lee stated emphatically that ‘the battle between Slavery and Democracy has shifted to Asia . . . China
uses slave labor to attract, like a powerful magnet, business investments from countries from all over
the world . . . we are witnessing the abrupt rise of China, the last major bastion of communist
dictatorship and so this region (Asia) takes center stage in the final confrontation between freedom and
tyranny . . . If China continues to exploit and suppress its people at home and expand its military threats
against the democratic neighbors . . . we will continue to witness the rise of a militarist hegemony.”

Lee called for “a quick rise of cooperation among free democracies against the communist military
hegemony of China” according to the Epoch Times, on Jan. 30, 2006.

Lee’s speech at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in downtown Los Angeles received a standing ovation
from academics, business leaders, and the Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, a longtime
critic of China’s human rights record. (Referring to Hu Jintao’s recent visit to the United States, he
called Hu an “oppressor” and a “murderer,” and questioned why Obama was giving a respectful
welcome to a “monstrous regime.”)

Rohrabacher said that “it was time for Washington to stop pussy-footing around Beijing, adding that
human rights were more important than business dollars,” according to the Epoch Times on Jan. 30,
2006.

Quite recently (May 2011), Rohrabacher introduced a bill to prevent the U.S. technology from getting its
way “into the hands of the Communist Chinese military that is buying, building, and stealing the
necessary military technology to challenge the United States.”

To go with the general world trend of devaluation of communism, China made communism a kind of its
secret faith, at the time when the world at large had already given up communism. What is real is that
China has 1 billion people more than does the United States, and another 1 billion people can well be
expected ere long, judging by the time within which the first extra billion of people appeared in China.
What lies ahead is the struggle of the United States against being converted into a slave society as an
ally or part of China if Obama, a loyal friend of China, is elected for a second term.

The goal of China is to convert all free countries into its slave states, which, at the very least, will be
allied with China or become part of it in its struggle for world domination, possibly as a Marxist
(communist) society it was to be when Mao created it in 1949.

The United States, to say nothing of smaller and less powerful countries, will not be able to preserve its
freedom and independence with President Obama as actually, if not formally or officially, a friend of
China.

Such are the possibilities of the future — not a wishful thinking, but a possible outcome of the
contemporary realities.

The question is, in case China succeeds, will legally protected freedom preserve itself or will it evolve
again as it has in some countries of today or will it disappear forever, never to come back?

Let us remember that the outcome of history largely depends on us, that part of humanity which created
freedom in quite a few countries, with greater protections than ever before.

No, the freedom is not dead, and the question is whether it will survive or perish — possibly forever.

Kissinger Ducks Serious China Topic

I apply the word “genius” to those who display the highest levels of intelligence, defined as the ability to
solve problems or resolve difficulties within a particular field and to be creative.

These abilities are of utmost importance in someone (e.g., president of the United States) who is
responsible for preserving a country’s democratic values as proclaimed by the American Constitution
and for the safety of the people who elect him for such a high post.

And first and foremost, this person is also expected to be responsible for the defense of the country in
case it is attacked, i.e., in case of defensive war. All this is especially important when it comes to
defending a democratic country.

The knowledge and the acute awareness of the geopolitical reality, the ability to recognize the military
danger coming from a country, such as the “People’s Republic of China,” and the ability to take
measures to prevent the looming disaster — all are the necessary prerequisites when choosing a U.S.
president.

Surely a country, which, in contrast to China, does not have an extra 1 billion people that it can use for
military purposes, needs to have one person of genius for the high post of the president of the United
States to make up for that extra 1 billion people that the country does not have.

As I am writing this, I watch a June 20 Henry Kissinger interview with Tavis Smiley. Kissinger admits
the fact that China’s population is by 1 billion people larger than that of the United States.

China can have the largest army in world history, certainly several times larger than the U.S. Army. So
what do we hear from Kissinger, who has spent so much time in China? Does he draw any conclusions
from this ominous fact? No.

Kissinger said he prefers not to express his position publicly. Not much of an enlightening value to the
American voters from someone who spent most of his life in American politics!
Kissinger was born in 1923; he was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977, but today, as of June 21, 2011,
he did not say a single word of how the United States could cope with that extra 1 billion people that
China has. Has this question ever crossed his mind? If it has, Kissinger would not share it with the
American voters.

What if another 1 billion people are added to China by the time war occurs?

Kissinger and his family came from Germany to the United States in 1938, when he was 15 years old.
Had they not left Germany, they would have been exterminated for being Jewish.

Someone, who until the age of 15 experienced what it means to live under the dictatorship (which
Kissinger admits) could be presumed to understand the value of freedom and to know how dangerous
Nazi Germany was, with its assumption that anyone whom they wanted to kill was as dangerous as
would be the worst criminal if left alive.

The communists, on the contrary, used to say that evil people are not born criminals. They become
criminals because in the capitalist environment those people who are deprived of normal life have no
other recourse except to become criminals in order to survive.

Similarly, those like Kissinger believe that it is necessary above all to try to understand those evil
countries, to negotiate with them, trade with them, and try to pacify them by providing them with all
they need (our latest technology?) to change them for the better.

Kissinger has been living in a world of his own, where any evil can be reformed through his policies of
benevolence and appeasement.

We read on Yahoo!: “Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, ‘The illegal we
do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer’ . . . Kissinger is especially detested . . . for his
policy decisions and secretive negotiations that have betrayed America’s allies and harmed America’s
national interests.

"Kissinger’s power has not diminished since his glory days of ‘ping-pong diplomacy’ and ‘shuttle
diplomacy.’ If anything, his prestige, influence, and personal net worth — have skyrocketed.” (The New
American, Nov. 8, 2010).

And further: “Kissinger Hauled out of Retirement”: “U.S. President Obama chose Dr. Kissinger for his
consummate diplomatic skills and his popularity in Moscow, an affection earned by his open
acknowledgment of Russia’s resurgence” (The Sydney Morning Herald, Feb. 7, 2009).

Freedom has many advantages. Free citizens are more interested in the preservation of their freedom
than are slaves in the preservation of their slavery. Only the fear of immediate retribution drives slaves
to defend their slavery.

This is not just a conjecture. This is the experience of centuries and the persuasions of common sense.

China Wants 'Economic Zones' in the US

I wrote in past columns that an American who deals with foreign policy must be a man or a woman of
genius, or else the United States will perish along with the other free countries.

To show how dangerous the “People’s Republic of China” is, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of
California, a Republican, compared China to Nazi Germany. He thus shocked many Americans who saw
the PRC as a peaceful country.
Early this year, Chinese president and Communist Party leader Hu Jintao, on his eighth visit to the
United States, was treated by President Barack Obama to a lavish White House state dinner, the first for
a Chinese leader in more than 13 years.

Some U.S. congressional leaders, however, abstained from the event, making it clear that the Chinese
president was no friend, highlighting tension between Congress and the world’s second largest
economic power when President Obama was trying to strengthen ties.

Rohrabacher called Hu an “oppressor” and a “murderer,” questioning why Obama was giving respectful
treatment to a “monstrous regime.”

The U.S. president must be a man or a woman of genius. With his lifelong experience in politics, his
devotion to freedom, his wisdom, his common-sense approach and his deep understanding of the
aggressive nature of the Chinese regime and its global intentions, Rohrabacher would make a worthy
American president.

Actually, China is more of a threat to the existence of the democratic countries than Nazi Germany had
ever been, because it was too weak to pose a deadly threat to democratic countries on a global scale.

Scared by Winston Churchill, as he heard Churchill’s patriotic radio address to his countrymen, Hitler
gave up his intention to invade Great Britain and invaded Russia instead. The words “disgusting,”
“cruel,” and “inhuman” fail to describe the full measure of criminal atrocities in Europe perpetrated by
Hitler’s Germany.

After having sustained heavy casualties on the Russian front, Hitler beat a hasty retreat from Russia,
lost the war, and committed suicide.

Japan was successfully beaten back by the United States, which had the atom bomb and utilized its
superiority over the enemy.

Today, China is the first country in world history endangering the entire globe.

Indeed, with its population of over 1.3 billion people, and its development of military science and
technology, it is not clear if other countries have enough human and technological resources to defend
themselves, while time works in China’s favor.

China is not just a country. China is a civilization, existing in isolation for thousands of years.

A decade or so ago, it was reasonable to view China and the United States as opposites. Not any more.
Now they are capable of cooperation as two equals.

However, it is China’s commercial relations with the United States today that are of significance. The
Chinese have a great deal of money to spend, and they would like to spend it on investing in American
real estate: They want to buy a piece of America.

Chinese (communist government) corporations want to buy land within the United States and open
their businesses on the land that will become their property. They want to create “special economic
zones” inside the United States, from which they can continue to extend their economic domination.

But don’t expect them to hire the local labor! They will dump their large population into this country.
The Chinese owners will bring their own Chinese from China to slave for them within the United States.

They will build homes for their workers, with all social services included, and they will open their own
schools. The local U.S. workers will lose their businesses and their jobs, thus contributing even more to
the already high unemployment in this country.
Will the gullible American government let the Chinese (communists) colonize us in the name of job
creation? If we let the Chinese have their way, we will soon be seeing those “special economic zones”
popping up all over, the peaceful form of colonizing the country, which will usher in the beginning of the
end of these United States.

Congress should make it illegal for the local governments, which are in need of funds to improve their
infrastructure, to sell out American land to Chinese dictators.

How Is Obama Preparing for China's Dominance?

Marx was quoted in Soviet Russia, and Mao was quoted in communist China, as having said that a
socialist country is bound to become a global country. Well, China can ease this process of socialist
globalization by conquering the world with its giant armies that it will create out of its 1.3 billion people.

China’s global war will encompass two plans: 1. conversion of China into an impenetrable fortress, since
China’s world conquest will lead to enemy attacks on China, and 2. takeover of Canada and the United
States, which will be tantamount to having conquered the world.

Had the United States ever fought giant foreign armies on its territory? No!

Before Obama was elected as U.S. president, there had been an opinion that the U.S. population, with
few exceptions, was patriotic and ready to sustain material sacrifices for the sake of saving their country.
I asked several patriotic Americans why they voted for Obama. The answer? Because of the material
benefits he promised them!

The freedoms of speech as well as other freedoms so dear to those who enjoy them and/or use them
professionally may be considered useless to those who do not need these freedoms and who do not
believe they are needed.

If the giant armies of China take over the United States, China may convince the Americans that their
living standards will be rising (as Stalin convinced the Russian population up to his death in 1953).

In other words, China’s takeover of the United States will mean the conquest of the world, for which
country will fight China if the United States fails todefend itself?

To maintain the global order, China will station troops all over the world to keep an eye on all the
conquered countries to ensure its domination.

Today, some Americans doing business with China seem to be convinced that their engagement with
China strengthens international friendship and hence peace.

Yet, after China conquers the United States, it will try easier cases, until theworld will be safely in its
powerful hands.

My question is, What is being done in the United States to prevent China from taking over the entire
globe? Nothing has been done with President Obama at the helm of the country. After Obama was
elected, my column was headlined “Obama’s Deference to China Makes Him Unfit to Be President.”

But nothing has changed since then, while Obama may be re-elected for the second term.

Soon after I came to the United States, I knew that the danger to the existence of this country was
coming from the communist China, and I wrote about it in newspapers and magazines, and I lectured
on the subject to the eager university audiences all over this country as well as abroad.
Most of the psychiatrically healthy American adults should not participate in the “general election” of
the U.S. president because not all of them are born sufficiently intelligent to make the choice. The
British understood this, and this is why they do not elect by general election their prime minister (who
at least partially corresponds to the U.S. president); instead, they vote for the party to represent them in
parliament.

In Britain, the head of a majority party, which receives most of the votes in the general election,
becomes the prime minister, a person whose ideas are already known to his peers in parliament and
who has already earned his reputation in parliamentary debates and proved himself to be one of the
most intelligent and knowledgeable persons to be worthy to become the head of the British
government.

The American revolutionaries would have been shocked by the “bourgeois” slander of my contention
that the psychiatrically healthy people differ in intelligence. This would have beenperceived as an
impudent bourgeois lie to condemn any attempt to proclaim mental equality of all “workers and
peasants.”

But I still argue that not all psychiatrically normal people deserve equal privilege and the right to make
a crucial choice in electing the president of the United States.

The books which were not accessible to me in Russia opened my eyes to all the beauty of living in New
York, as seen through the open windows of our 21st-floor apartment—a huge edifice, with lights rising
to half of the sky, along with other buildings and trees, street lights — and, of course, roads, with cars
and trains running.

Well, I am getting lyrical. But I am still worried about the fate of this unique, trustworthy country,
oblivious to the danger coming from the communist China.

Life After China's Takeover

Once the global victory of the “People’s Republic of China” is complete, but before it is able to unleash
its enslavement of conquered territories, mortal boredom becomes constant and universal, with people
wondering what comes next.

Human life is forgotten. Before the global downfall, even prisons in free countries were part of human
life, just as any other institution. Now there is nothing reminding of human life. There is only death-like
pallor of life.

The following is my imaginary scenario of life in the week after communist China’s takeover of the
United States, when enslavement and mass extermination have not yet begun.

A and B are two young New Yorkers who know each other and accidentally run into each other on the
street.

A: “Hi, any good news?”

B: “None, except that we all will be exterminated.”
A.: “Why?”
B: “And why not? We are but extra dirt, extra food, extra space, extra everything.”
A: “Which means death of everything!”
B: “Well, the goal of … Their goal is to make the outside world sufficiently safe and obedient. Just as
once Germans believed, many Chinese believe that they are a superior race. Hitler’s dream is now being
realized, except that a different nation is superior, and Jews have not been, or threatened to be,
exterminated as yet.”
A: “The Chinese are the superior race, while the rest of mankind is reduced to the position of Jews in
Nazi Germany. But why is that?”
B: “Because communist China has won the global war owing to its giant armies, based on its own 1.3
billion people.”

Let me now turn the clock back, to the time when in my columns I started drawing the attention of the
American people to those 1.3 billion inhabitants of China, the country which Mao named the “People’s
Republic of China” in 1949.

A country can make as many weapons out of steel as is afforded by the amount of steel it has or can
make or buy. On the other hand, the number of human beings fit to be drafted into giant armies, unlike
that of the amount of steel weapons produced, is not infinite.

Who is to blame for the U.S. president being a friend and a sympathizer of the “People’s Republic of
China”? Those who believe, as did those in the American Revolution, that the United States needs to
have a system of electing its president through the general election, which resulted in electing Barack
Obama as the U.S. president. He collected the votes of those who were not intelligent enough to
understand Obama’s flamboyant rhetoric, which resonated all over the world, to conclude that he is a
friend and sympathizer of communist China. Or was it possibly Obama’s well-calculated ploy to use the
American audiences for the purpose of his own — to make sure his declaration of love and friendship
policies reaches the communist China’s “leaders” in the event he gets elected?

Nor was it difficult to understand that communist China’s giant armies will be a strength able to defeat
any country, given the fact that those giant armies will be equipped with the latest military technology.

Under this quite realistic scenario, what could we expect from the United States except to be defeated by
the cunning policies of communist China’s “leaders,” Obama’s friends he invites to the White House,
inspecting, with his blessing, and stealing the U.S. secret military technology, playing at peace and
friendship while at the same time using the United States’ latest sensitive military technology to equip
their giant armies with and then turn those armies against the United States and other free countries?

But after my previous columns received an avalanche of supportive letters, I see how determined the
American people are to defend their and my freedom.

Militarily, every country has its own strengths and weaknesses. In this column I have concentrated on
the weaknesses, since the mood in the United States, for example, seemed to me to be too smug and
superficial. But it is equally wrong to ignore the strength of the United States, which may yet become
invincible.

Americans Are Taking Note of the China Threat

My July 14 column, based on the imaginary scenario of what the world would look like after China’s
conquest, drew many interesting responses.

For many years, I have drawn attention to the fact that China’s population is increasing past 1.3 billion.
What if from this human reservoir China creates giant armies, equipped with the latest technological
weapons? Now, if the United States, the strongest democracy on this planet, turns out to be incapable of
resisting these armies, what country would be able to withstand the onslaught?

There had been no response to my desperate appeal, as though the people of the free countries were not
concerned about such trifles. Then came an avalanche of emails came in response to my July 14, 2011,
column — which showed me that the American people are indeed worried.

In his July 16 email Riley F. says: “I share many of your concerns. But there are some things to
consider . . . First of all, Americans are too proud a people to surrender to China for some material
benefits . . . [What about getting the material benefit of slave life instead of death under torture?]
Second, we have an armed populace, by and large. A Chinese army invading this country would have to
contend with the American unorganized militia, a 50M+ force self-armed with hunting rifles.”

Imagine unmanned Chinese airplanes dropping more than half-a-century-old nuclear bombs on
American soil. Now imagine Americans, “self-armed with hunting rifles,” taking out those Chinese
drones.

If theses Americans constitute a voting majority in the “general presidential election,” they will elect a
U.S. president even more absurd than Obama. It is ridiculous to kick Obama for his incompetence and
betrayal of the country to China if he is the product of a majority of voters in the “general election.”

I have argued that unless the United States amends its system of electing the U.S. president, it will be
doomed.

Brian J. writes: “I just want to thank you for your articles regarding the very real and extremely
dangerous threat China poses for the U.S. and the world. Whenever I bring this up to people, they look
at me like I have three heads.” And further: “The worst thing the American people have ever done is put
Obama in the White House. If he gets a second term, it may be all she wrote for this nation . . . I agree
than there are far too many ignorant voters in this country.”

Well, there are as many ignorant voters in the United States as in any other country, and this is why
electing the U.S. president in the “general election” is absurdly dangerous but is not yet fatal.

Cynthia G. writes: “I certainly enjoy your writings . . . I am also thankful for people like you who
emigrated to this wonderful country and appreciate it! Of course, I wonder how long it will remain
wonderful with the traitor we have in the White House! . . . What amazed and still amazes me is how
people in this country could be so stupid as to have elected this man . . . I can only pray that many more
will awake before it is too late! I also take every opportunity to explain to others the deceit of this
man. . . . I only pray that many more want better than what they are seeing.”

On July 17, Jackie L. wrote: “I enjoyed your article about the threat from China very much . . . I do think
that there should at least be a test about our knowledge of the candidates to get to vote.”

Viet T. writes: “You have written great articles about the dangers coming from China. I am just curious
if you have succeeded in swaying the American public’s minds.”

In her email on July 16, Karen L. wrote: “Thank you for continuing to write your columns about the
state of US/China relations and the fact that China is our major threat in the world and has been for a
while now . . . it was already evident that China was infiltrating our nation with its espionage activities . .
. we see an American president selling secrets to the Chinese hoping to gain campaign donations bowing
to the head of this adversarial government [with] an army far larger than our own being trained, and
more . . . What you are doing is important, but I still fear for this country, perhaps the last bastion of
hope for free societies in the world. I hope your columns are read far and wide, and that you have as full
a speaking schedule as you can manage. Good work, sir.”

I am happy that this issue now evokes such interest. This is the only guarantee and my only hope that
this problem will be solved.

I wish to thank all those who sent me their emails, encouraging me to continue my efforts to stand up
for this country.

House Report Ignores China's True Ambitions

For quite a while, the strategic power of a country (or a union of countries) has
been measured by the total power of its weapons as against that of their
opponents.

But today a correction is clearly needed to this formula. Gradually, the Western
countries have realized that the population of China (PRC) is near 1.4 billion,
and that this factor is of tremendous strategic importance.

So, China can increase its army to the size unheard of in world history, while
other countries do not have such population reservoir to draw upon.

Weapons can be produced quickly enough. Not the people. The number of years
that takes a newborn to become a qualified warrior is 18 to 23.

I have a 44-page U.S. House Report to Congress entitled, “U.S. National Security
and the People’s Republic of China.” There is no mention in the report of the
shortage of people in the United States and other Western countries as
compared with China.

The report is mostly about the methods by which China attempts to acquire U.S.
technology for military purposes. It does not mention that strategically
important fact that China has more than a billion people who could be used for
the new kind of war.

It is worthwhile to recall how Mao defined the role of the “People’s Republic of
China” at the time he created and ruled it. Mao explained that, as Marx correctly
concluded, communism and capitalism cannot survive on the same planet. The
planet was to become communist. And this is the role of the PRC, to make
communism global at the behest of Mao, who died in 1976.

It is of note that not so long ago the state of the world was relatively peaceful
(with the exclusion of two world wars, both of which initiated by Germany). Yet
this otherwise peaceful mood may give way to the sense of a whole world
wreckage — the apocalypse.

In this respect, Mao’s putsch in China, which triumphed in 1949, may have been
just the beginning of a world chaos as Mao expected it to be.

Communist China’s strategy and tactics to take over the world have drastically
changed since Mao’s time. No longer do they openly proclaim their actual goal.
Instead, they are “peacefully” transforming their society to catch up with the new
technology of the Western world.

The House report exposes the ways that China employs to achieve its actual goal.

China's Communist Party says, as its official policy on military modernization,

that it is devoting its resources to economic development, and that military
development is subordinate to and serves that goal. But in fact this is a big lie.
In 1992, the PRC stated that economic modernization was dependant not only
on “advanced science and technology, but also on people armed with it.”
Anything else was “empty talk.”

We further find out in the report that of interest is the so-called “16 Character
Policy” implemented by the Chinese Communist Party in 1997, which exposes its
overall direction and underlies the blurring of the lines between commercial
entities and military and commercial interests: 1. combine the military and civil,
2. combine peace and war, 3. give priority to military products, 4. let the civil
support the military, 5. fund military R&D efforts, 6. provide civilian cover for
military industrial companies to acquire dual-use technology through purchase
or joint-venture business dealings, and 7 modernize an industrial base that can,
in time of hostility, be turned toward military production.

This policy holds that military development is the object of general economic
modernization and that the party’s aim is to support the building of modern
military weapons and to support the goals of the People’s Liberation Army. The
16-Character Policy could be interpreted to mean a short-term strategy to use
defense proceeds for immediate military modernization.

In addition to providing funds for the purchase of U.S. and other foreign
weapons systems, the PRC maintains a growing non-professional technology-
collection effort and espionage. Many of the most egregious losses of U.S.
technology have resulted from commercial, scientific, and academic interactions
between the United States and communist China, including PRC students,
scientists, researchers, and other visitors to the West.

The PRC uses a variety of approaches to acquire military technology such as, e.g.,
illegally transferring U.S. technology from third countries; using front
companies to illegally acquire technology; using commercial enterprises and
other organizations as cover for technology acquisition; covertly conducting
espionage by personnel from government ministries, commissions, institutes,
and military industries independently of the PRC intelligence services.

The last one is thought to be the major method of PRC intelligence activity in the
United States.

The PRC also tries to identify ethnic Chinese in the United States who have
access to sensitive information and sometimes is able to enlist their cooperation
in illegal technology or information transfers.

The report concludes, “The PRC’s blending of intelligence and non-intelligence

assets and reliance on different collection methods presents challenges to U.S.
agencies in meeting the threat.”

China’s War Machine Churning Out Aircraft Carriers

China, which the communist Mao created as the “People’s Republic of China” (PRC) to turn the entire
world communist, may defeat the United States as unexpectedly as Hitler defeated France.

France was the world’s most culturally sophisticated and creative country. Yet it succumbed quickly to
an attack by Hitler, a World War I soldier who later said that not only was he the greatest man living but
that he was the greatest man who ever lived.

British troops maintained in France could not repel the Nazi surprise attack, which caught the country
unaware and was hard to believe.

As a totalitarian society, the PRC is a military camp, in which everyone is a soldier. It is easier in such a
society to conceal the building of new weapons or pursuing a secret military agenda.

A 2004 Hong Kong news story, which said that the PRC was reported to be building, with the assistance
from Russia, three aircraft carriers (called Project 9935), floated around Chinese forums. According to a
Feb. 18, 2004 posting on Key Publishing LTD Aviation Forums, all three ships could be operational by
2008-2010.

The Chinese article said that maintenance facilities had been built in Shanghai, Dalian, and Zhejiang.
The author of the article was not sure “how reliable” the source was: “so there you go . . . 3 [aircraft
carriers], setting up the scene to become superpower by 2020.”

According to “Polmar’s Perspective” on the DefenseTech website, other articles cite Chinese plans to
build up to six aircraft carriers in the near term.

Reuters, on July 27, 2011, carried a story that said in part: “China is building 2 aircraft carriers as part of
a military modernization program that is causing concern among other Asian countries . . . President
Hu Jintao has made the navy a keystone of China’s defense upgrade, and the carriers will be among the
most visible signs of its rising military prowess.”

Add to that, “China is ramping up its military spending as the United States considers cutting its
defense budget.” The article goes on to say: “Two aircraft carriers are being built at the Jiangnan
shipyard in Shanghai.”

As reported by Manufacturing.Net on Aug. 1, 2011: “Chinese authorities have secretly recruited 10,000
workers . . . to build China’s first domestic aircraft carrier . . . Workers are obliged to strictly keep secret
(about their employment). They would not be allowed to use mobile phones and to make contact with
their families.”

To carry out the construction of its first domestic carrier, China is seeking help from Ukrainian
engineers, whom they will provide with high-class accommodations and a soccer field, specially built for
them.

According to Tehran Times, Iran’s leading international daily, “China regards aircraft carriers as key
symbols of global power projection and is unlikely to build just two.”

And further: “The Chinese military is engaged in a large-scale buildup that includes new strategic and
conventional missiles, aircraft, anti-satellite weaponry and a new ballistic missile for targeting ships at
sea.”

It is also well known in the region and around the globe that China is building up its military
capabilities across the board. The Obama administration, on the other hand, is looking at close to a
trillion dollars of defense cuts in the next decade.

A free country has its military advantages: New weapons are being built, since they are created mostly
by people of genius.
Now, take a look at the history of the PRC. Before the 20th century, China had no association with
foreign countries. In the 20th century, China’s attitudes have changed, owing to the communist Mao.
This jump from total isolation to total world power — is it possible or likely?

Free countries should not ignore this possibility. France ignored the possibility of a German victory over
France — and was overrun by Nazi Germany.

The United States should keep in mind that the communist China is a totalitarian society, the number of
its population is close to 1.4 billion, and the possibilities to conceal secret military projects are infinite.

China has a “People’s Liberation Army.” It means that communist China is out to “liberate” the entire
world. You see, every country except the PRC is “oppressed” by capitalists and other exploiters.
Therefore, every war by the PRC is, by definition, a “war of liberation” until the entire world becomes
“liberated.”

China has enough people to carry out this task of global liberation. What else does the communist China
need to accomplish this? It needs the weapons to arm its army sufficiently well to “liberate” every
country, as was predicted by Marx and then by his pupil Mao with respect to the entire “world
proletariat.”

When Germany began its totalitarian transformation, no one predicted it would have global ambitions.
Ironically, Hitler was defeated by its “copy”: Stalin, who outwitted and defeated that “super-Napoleon,”
who lost the war and committed suicide as a result.

The free people of the world, their governments, and those who want to be free must learn how to
recognize the warning signs of the danger coming from the evil, totalitarian societies by doing their
utmost effort to defend themselves.

China's Military Growth Threatens World Security

China’s Military Growth as Dangerous

We express our indignation on finding out that “China is building three aircraft carriers.” But we keep
silent or express our appreciation of U.S. aircraft carriers!

Exactly! Because China is a totalitarian country, in which an autocrat or an autocracy rules the country
and may try to seize the world.

Recall how free are the U.S. radio, television, social media, and the press. But here is one criticism from
someone who prefers not to reveal his identity and who poses as a great expert in world politics. This
person argues that China is a pathetic weakling, absolutely unfit to play any serious role in world
politics.

The author submits that for China to maintain a “massive army” is impossible for two reasons: “Reason
1: It cannot feed a military this large. Reason 2: Said army would have to be marched out to die or, being
armed, would overthrow the Peking regime.”

As for Reason 1, if China feeds its almost 1.4 billion people now, it is not clear why it cannot feed 1
billion soldiers who, apart from their military training, are also engaged in civilian work.

As for Reason 2, the anonymous critic explains that “said army would have to be marched out to die
[why not kill and capture enemies?] or being armed would overthrow the Peking regime.” Well, even
one division can physically overthrow the government. But what government was overthrown during
World War II? Even Hitler was not as much as touched after he had been routed in Russia and driven
out of the country.

The anonymous critic goes on to say that his/her “own war game scenarios prove that China would not
survive past a 30-day war due to population requirements.”

Russia survived the four years of war against Germany and won it. The Russian food was rationed rye
bread. Hitler fled and committed suicide.

The critic’s war game scenarios are figments of imagination, and since the aim is to prove that China is a
country unfit for war, the critic invents an imaginary 30-day war, after which the population of China is
to die out of hunger, while Russia sustained and survived four years of war!

I was shocked by the last paragraph of the critic’s letter: “The Chinese make misjudgments due to
uninformed Western intelligence, making incorrect judgments.”

So, one may ask, how has China managed to survive on its own in the millennia of its history?

Curiously, in 2009, I had a similar experience, but in reverse. Published in 2009 by the Penguin Press in
New York, the title of Martin Jacques’ 550-page book is When China Rules The World, with the subtitle,
highlighted in red and set in smaller type: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global
Order.

That is, as compared with China, Western Europe and the United States become the least militarily
powerful countries. Now, the book claims, it is China’s turn to rule the world.

The conclusions suggested by both preachers are the same: no war against China. One proclaims China
is too weak. The other argues that China is too powerful.

I wrote a column criticizing Jacques’ book and was told that I was believed to have ruined his reputation
as a career historian and journalist.

But one has to make a choice when choosing a career. The choice should be motivated by one’s will to
preserve the free countries, to one of which I and my family have emigrated to help this country to save
its freedom.

The last sentence of the anonymous critic’s effort to say all the ugly words about a nation is perhaps the
most denigrating: “It all works out best for the Chicom if someone else does the thinking for them as
their entire history [demonstrates] they have never proven capable of sound thought.”

Not capable of sound thought? And what about four great inventions of ancient China:
papermaking, printing, gunpowder (and hence firearms), and the compass, among others? Nonetheless,
said critic tries to assure us that the Chinese “have never proven capable of sound thought.”

Says the critic in the middle of the sentence “destroying” China: “China is its own worst enemy. It has
no food, no water.” Americans are shocked when they hear that the United States owes China 14 trillion
dollars, while the critic amazes the world by declaring that China “has no food, no water.” Perhaps the
critic has confused China with the Sahara?

So, what’s the moral? Beware of the critics like those two I have brought to your attention.

China-Russia Alliance Would Create New World Order

When Stalin died in 1953, I was 25 years of age. The creators of the society in which I, and later my wife
and our son, was living, considered themselves sages. On the other hand, I and other free spirits viewed
Marx as a stupid, fat German hack, Lenin as a Russian idiot, and Stalin as a Georgian mass murderer.

It would be ridiculous to expect that intelligent people in Russia, a country of great literature and other
arts and of sophisticated science and technology, would not see through childish make-believes that the
crude slavery throughout the country was the greatest attainment of mankind.

I remember the spring of 1941, when Hitler’s army crossed the Russian border. I also remember the day
when quite a few writers in Russia, including my father, volunteered to stop a column of Nazi
motorcyclists, equipped with machine guns, approaching Moscow. The Russian volunteers did not
survive the attack, but Hitler’s onslaught on Moscow was cut short, and the enemy did not enter the
city.

The names of my father and other writers who were killed while stopping the advance of Nazi’s armed
motorcyclists have been set in gold on a marble memorial plaque in the entrance hall to the Moscow
Writers’ Club.

Russia was the world’s only country that followed (in the autumn of 1917) the idiotism of the brain of
Karl Marx. How did that happen?

The First World War was over, the Russian army was exhausted, and the prospect of being drawn into
another war conflict was psychologically destructive. The soldiers wanted to go home.

The last Russian tsar was “overthrown,” since too few Russians understood how it was possible for
Great Britain to develop its democracy while preserving their king and queen.

In the aftermath of World War II, Stalin refused to give up the territories of the East-European
countries as well as the Eastern part of Germany he had occupied during the war. Stalin turned them
into slave countries having established his “Soviet” dominance, which surpassed Hitler’s Germany in
being the most vicious and anti-Democratic regime of the time.

It took decades for those European countries and the disintegration of the so-called “Soviet Union” to
free themselves and get back their independence.

The most important political background of today’s Russia is its rulers’ fear of China. The Chinese just
walk into Siberia and settle there, building their homes and opening businesses, and local authorities do
not have the willingness or financial resources to prevent them.

The old Russian fear of the medieval “Tatar-Mongol” invasion of Russia (the use of the word “Chinese”
was avoided by the Soviet propaganda) was joyfully forgotten.

This fear of the Chinese invasion is well justified. Post-Soviet era Russian “leaders” are trying to
maintain good neighborly relations with China — it is out of this fear that they are trying to placate
communist China by helping it to develop recent technologies, selling to China military equipment, and
overlooking Chinese illegal settlers in Russian Siberia: all this to keep at bay the much-dreaded threat
from the totalitarian communist dictators.

The China subject is being widely discussed in the independent Russian press, and the present Russian
leaders must realize that by selling military technologies to China they contribute to China’s military
potential and just delay the much-dreaded confrontation.

The present rulers, or owners, of Russia may not believe in the successful defense against the “People’s
Republic of China.” But what about Russia as a junior ally of the PRC?

Russian “leaders” realize that no European country will be able to resist the China-Russia alliance.
Whereupon the remaining countries of the Eastern hemisphere will be crushed by China, Russia, and
whatever other countries will join the alliance.

That’s quite a feasible threat from the China-Russia alliance to the Western hemisphere: the United
States, Canada, and South America.

Hypothetically, or rather quite realistically, it is this China-Russia alliance that will make communist
China the owner of the world.

Yes, against the general background of history of the world, the free countries are miracles — the
societies to live in and listen to music written by composers of genius and performed by musicians of
genius, to read what has been written by thinkers and writers of genius, and so on. And just think of it —
all this can be lost.

And the vital need of freedom can be lost: Many countries live without freedom.

The “Soviet government” promised to create such an abundance of all goods and services that they
would be given free of charge to whoever wanted to have them.

But the harsh reality has proved to be so much harder than the dreams of a fat German called Karl Marx
and that the owners of other slave countries are as far from reality as it turned out to be in Soviet
Russia.

Soviet History a Lesson for Mideast Rebels

In Stalin’s Russia, a minister (a “bourgeois” word) was called the “people’s commissar,” or “peopcom”
for short. So a commissar of the food industry would be “peopcom of foodindu.”

A special building built in Moscow, “The House of the Government,” had luxury apartments for each
peopcom, which could impress any admirer of luxury in the most ostentatious “capitalist” country.
Apart from regular supply of food, samples of choice food were sent to the peopcom of foodindu to
provide the best gourmet food items in the world.

The peopcom who occupied such an apartment was married to a beautiful Russian lady.

One fine day, otherwise as fine as any other day, the “head of the family” and his beautiful young wife
did not come home: they had been arrested by the home intelligence service.

From the words of a former friend of the peopcom in question, it was concluded that the master of the
family secretly hated Stalin. Stalin assumed that the human love for him must grow proportionately to
Stalin’s benefits for a given peopcom; those to whom Stalin did something good must reciprocate
accordingly.

Stalin could have subjected the peopcom to some special, superinhumane torture, but his rage was so
unbridled that he had him shot immediately.

The “criminal’s” wife was also shot as a matter of routine. Their daughter was brought to our apartment.
She knew nothing about the destiny of her parents. She came into our room and woke me up. “My
parents have been arrested,” she said. “But they are innocent,” she added firmly.

Such is my personal memory of my life in Stalin’s Russia, which seems to have been improving in the
past more than half a century after he died in 1953.

My God! In 1972, our family as well as a few other families, were allowed to emigrate to the West. Soviet
authorities gave no explanation of why they were allowing people like myself to leave the country, which
even after Stalin’s death was described much like a paradise on earth.
Neither I nor my wife nor our son, now a sensitive writer and an audacious journalist, know anyone who
emigrated at the same time and who in the West would have been asked to describe their personal
experiences of what it was like living in the Stalinist country.

Every week I write my column in English, and this is the first one devoted entirely to our personal
experiences of living in Russia, since the experience of Russia is the experience of those living in
countries destructive to their freedom or preventing its appearance.

There is nothing typically Russian about Russia between the autumn of 1917 and today.

My experience is of a country in which some absolute egocentric like Stalin pretended that he was a
totalaltruist who had selfless love for his country and promised to convert it into a symbol of mutual
selfless love for its inhabitants — and no, not for an emperor or a king or a tsar or a fuhrer (“leader” in
German), but for Comrade Stalin.

Everybody knows how hard it is to make even a modest living. It probably is easier for an ignorant
savage like Stalin to assure the world, not without the help of all available media, of how fertile even if
altruistic is his love for the people of the country.

Well, in Russia some might not have liked some of Stalin’s most despicable undertakings he was
hatching like, for example, the extermination of Jews. But luckily, he died before his plan had been
realized. But had he not died and carried it out, the country would have become another Nazi Germany,
doomed to perish.

As it was, he became the “savior of mankind,” including Jews. Our communal apartment neighbor, a
doctor, a Jew, would carry his daughter Lyudochka on his shoulders to give her a chance to get a better
view of great Stalin during a festive demonstration in the Red Square, with Stalin ensconced on the
Leninmarble mausoleum. And the little girl would stretch out her little hands toward the great Stalin,
her “best friend.”

Unfortunately, early in the spring of 1941, the wife of that Jewish doctor decided to have their
littledaughter spend some time in the Western part of Russia, unaware of the factthat shortly after their
arrival the German troops would step in and conquer that part of Russia, whereupon the wife of the
Jewish doctor and their little daughter disappeared, never to be heard from again.

Stalin clearly demonstrated that his regime had no need for religious obscurantism or for the darkness
of ancient monarchy. It is quite possible that the unrest and the “revolutionary fervor” in the Middle
East of today will not settle down but will grow into Stalinism.

Europe Finds Ways to Skirt Arms Ban to China

The People’s Republic of China, as China was named in 1949 by its communist “leader” Mao, was
blessed by him to take over the world as per Marx, who believed that the world could only be all
“capitalist” or all “socialist.”

U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, whom I consider a wise American politician, finds a semblance
between the social structure of China and that of national-socialist Germany. And this is what came to
my attention, and this is what troubles me.

While Rohrabacher compares China to Nazi Germany, the relations between communist slave China
and the free countries of the European Union couldn’t be any better.

Both the United States and the European Union have bans on arms sales to China. Those bans were put
in place in 1989, as part of the international reaction to the massacre by the Chinese military of pro-
democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square.
Since then, China has been spending a great deal on modernizing its armed forces, buying advanced
military equipment from Russia and from the EU countries (despite the existing bans on arms sales to
China).

The Chinese communist dictators call this accelerated activity to increase their military potential
China’s “peaceful rise.”

On Sept. 4, 2011, the WorldNetDaily carried the article it originally posted in October of 1998:
“Anatomy of Clinton’s relaxation of security controls.”

Some of the text is worth quoting. “From 1993 through 1998, President Clinton oversaw what was . . .
one of the most sweeping relaxations of export restrictions in American history — a move that greatly
benefited China . . . As a result, grateful high-technology companies showered the Democratic Party
with campaign contributions . . . the high-technology exports had a serious side effect, strengthening
countries like China, which some view as a potential adversary . . . Clinton . . . was blinded by his
enthusiasm for . . . attracting campaign contributions and insufficiently attentive to his policies’ effect
on America’s long-term national security . . . the looser regulations enabled Chinese companies to
obtain a wide range of sophisticated technology, some of which has already been diverted to military
uses.”

As communist China is becoming a very important and largest trading partner for countries of the EU
and as China’s rapid military growth continues, it is lobbying hard for the EU arms ban to be lifted.

And Europe has been considering the lifting of its arms export ban to China.

According to the China.org website, Zhai Dequan, vice-secretary-general of the China Arms Control and
Disarmament Association, said that the “arms embargo has become a major impediment to China-
European trust and cooperation.” And “arms embargoes have failed to undermine China’s military
modernization. On the contrary, they have promoted self-sufficiency in military technology.” He also
observed that “one major reason why the EU has softened its stance [on lifting the embargo] is that it is
economically stretched, and arms sales are beneficial in boosting related industries and, in doing so,
creating jobs.”

I am one of those who fear that the world will belong to communist China, as Mao prophesied. In that
future “world country,” countries like Israel and those countries that now are part of the EU may
disappear as independent territories or disappear altogether, including their populations.

My particular concern is this EU-China “partnership.” Is this concern justified?

Western democracies seem to be trying to outpace each other in their attempt to help China develop its
technological know-how and strengthen its military capabilities.

What distinguishes our epoch is the existence of countries determined to make use of superweapons
and countries that regard superweapons as being unpredictably and dangerously risky.

Today’s social scene, in which China, Israel, Britain, the United States, and some other countries come
out as good old friends is one of those masquerades which foretell World War III.

China intends to become a global country the way its communist leader Mao foretold it to be.

The previous Marxist world transformation failed: Marx is no longer glorified even in Russia or in China
as the proclaimer of the new global world.

But the new version of the old Marxist utopia can be seen in tiny details like the appearance of
unexpected suppliers of American sensitive technology so much needed by the Chinese military to equip
their future world warriors.
And at whom is China’s weapons buildup directed? Said the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm.
Michael Mullen: “Many of these capabilities seem to be focused very specifically on the United States. It
is inconceivable that the EU would directly assist in the development of forces in the Pacific intended to
undermine America’s historical mission to safeguard peace, prosperity, and security.”

In conclusion, let me quote from China.org.cn: “U.S. President Barack Obama in October called on the
House and the Senate to lift the ban on C-130 cargo aircraft sales to China, in an attempt to ease
restrictions on sale of cargo aircraft to Beijing.”

Lifting China Arms Embargo Would Endanger Free World

At present, there are two kinds of countries: the free countries, in which many of us live; and those
dominated by a dictator. The latter has existed as long as our knowledge of history extends.

A country owned and ruled by one chief relies on his aides helping him to rule. Such societies exist
today as well, and Stalin’s Russia, in which I lived until 1971, is a good example. Stalin made overtures
to show that Stalin’s country had elected him; that is, to show the world that Russia was “freer” and
more “democratic” than say Great Britain. All the while Stalin embarked on grand schemes.

There was one handicap for Stalin’s conquest of the world. While Britain had developed science and
technology owing to free enterprise, Russia was a “backward country” even in 1953, the year Stalin died.
According to Marx, the world was to belong to someone like Stalin, but the Russian technological
backwardness was an obstacle.

Communist China will not repeat Stalin’s mistake. “The People’s Republic of China” (PRC), the
brainchild of the Marxist Mao, with its 1.34 billion people, has been industrializing the country and
modernizing its multimillion man army. And for the last 40 years, those scientifically and
technologically advanced countries have been keeping their technology from getting into the hands of
absolutist China. Up until now.

According to a Jan.18, 2011 Heritage Foundation WebMemo on China, the “EU High Representative for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton is pushing for the lifting of the EU’s 1989-imposed
arms embargo on China . . . Lady Ashton is reported to be working closely with France and Spain to take
the issue forward this year, describing the embargo as 'a major impediment' to intensifying relations
between Brussels and Beijing.”

And further: “During his visit to Europe, Vice-Premier Li announced that he would purchase $7.78
billion of Spanish debt amidst Madrid’s worsening financial crisis. China has also purchased over $1
billion in Portuguese debt . . . Beijing sees these purchases as political and diplomatic investments.
Beijing certainly has further financial reserves to draw on, as well as more false promises regarding
greater access to Chinese markets . . . If EU member states are being bought [by communist China], it is
because they want to be bought [by communist China].”

Unanimous support is required to lift the arms ban. Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron and
Foreign Secretary William Hague said that they had no plans to lift the arms embargo to China.

Britain must make clear that it will use Britain’s veto power to block a Franco-Spanish-backed initiative
to lift the embargo led by Baroness Ashton, who is fully committed to destroying democracy.

Her hubris in steering EU foreign policy to support totalitarian regimes is utterly treacherous to
democracies. She wants (and has all the power and means) to develop a market for EU military
technology and hardware in China.
According to Daniel Hannan of The Telegraph, if Europe gives China access to military technology, it
may well drive a wedge between European and non-European NATO members, which could lead to
NATO dissolution, the modern world’s most successful defensive alliance, something Lady Ashton is
desperately trying to destroy.

Says Hannan, a conservative member of parliament who started Britain’s first tea party: “Obama
verbalizes his ideology using the same vocabulary that Eurocrats do . . . what these phrases amount to
are higher taxes, less patriotism, a bigger role for state bureaucracies, and a transfer of sovereignty to
global institutions . . . European health care, European welfare, European carbon taxes, European day
care, European college education, even a European foreign policy, based on engagement with
supranational technocracies, nuclear disarmament and a reluctance to deploy forces overseas . . . No
previous president has offered such uncritical support for European integration.”

According to Common American Journal, “Only now, as the U.S. applies a European-style economic
strategy based on fiscal stimulus, nationalization, bailouts . . . and the regulation of private-sector
remuneration, has the rate of unemployment in the U.S. leaped to European levels.”

In his book “A European’s Warning to America,” Hannan says: “You cannot spend your way out of
recession or borrow your way out of debt. And when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way,
that our situation is better than others, that we are well placed to weather the storm, I have to tell you,
you sound like a Brezhnev-era apparatchik giving the party line. You know, and we know, and you know
that we know that it’s nonsense.”

China Marches Ever Closer to the US

In 1970, I was 42 years of age and living in Russia. I made my living by translating into English many
unique works of Russian literature. Stalin had destroyed Russian art by annihilating the freedoms of old
Russia as enjoyed in literature by Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Chekhov.

I knew English “as to the language born,” because I worshiped it as the language of freedom.

A Moscow publishing house sold my translations in English-speaking countries. At the publishing

house, I met a girl who for the same reasons was obsessed with the English language as much as I was
and who later became my wife.

In 1970, an unofficial rumor was going around that those who wished to emigrate could submit their
applications to the Soviet emigration authorities.

At first, we didn’t buy it — “yeah, you apply and then they will send you to a concentration camp
somewhere in Siberia!” many said. But then a friend of ours braved it and telephoned to tell us that it
was all for real and he was already abroad!

Well, we went for it. We submitted our applications, and shortly after that, we were free to leave the
Soviet paradise.

Why were they doing that? The Soviet regime, we reasoned, needed to do something spectacular to
impress the West — to show how free Russia had become and how liberal its policies became after
Stalin’s death (in 1953).

At that time, a New York real-estate developer, whom our American friends asked to see us to convey
their regards, was visiting in Moscow. We invited him over to stay with us at our lavish, three-storied
stone villa near Moscow, which we had bought from Leonid Utyosov, a famous and fabulously rich pop
singer.

We entertained our guest and treated him to a Russian dinner, complete with wild quail, caviar,
sturgeon aspic, buckwheat blini, and whatever else our Russian cook’s imagination could come up with
to welcome our dear guest.

We shared the good news with him — we would be leaving shortly for the United States! “Great,” he
said. “Why won’t you come to live in New York, and I will save you an apartment in one of my buildings
in Riverdale!”

And so we did. We came to New York and moved into a spacious apartment on the 21st floor in
Riverdale, and we loved it, and we still live there.

I began to write a weekly column about how the free countries survived in the world of Stalin’s Russia,
Hitler’s Germany, which invaded Russia in 1941 and was routed, and Mao’s “People’s Republic of
China.”

Lately I have been preoccupied with warning the free Western countries against the almost imminent
onslaught coming from authoritarian communist China, part of which is their policy of ever-growing
“love” and “friendly” ties with U.S. President Barack Obama. Not surprisingly, Obama is an easy prey
for Chinese communists — he seems to some extent to share their ideology, and with his blessing they
already have scored many a victory in the United States.

Early this year the PRC generals inspected sensitive American military bases, something that for
decades stayed beyond the reach of any outsider. Also, Obama drags the country deeper and deeper into
debt to China. What’s next? Shall we wait until China comes to the rescue of this country and buys all of
America’s debt, the same way it is buying debts of the EU countries (Spain and Belgium, for example)?
China’s political figures rightly consider this policy to be their great diplomatic and political victory,
which they do not even try to conceal.

How could that have happened? How could China, a slave country ruled by ruthless communist
dictators, having dismal human rights record, be so successful in bringing the free European countries
over to its side? Have you gone mad, Europe?

This is what we read on Britain's Telegraph blogs: “If Europe gives China access to military technology it
may well drive a wedge between European and non-European NATO members. This could, and Ashton
[EU foreign policy chief] believes it will, lead toward NATO dissolution.” And “the most powerful person
in Europe, Ashton’s boss, Barossa was and still is a Marxist. We forget just how ruthless Marxists
are: . . . individual freedom, accountability, democracy and justice can all be sacrificed, regardless of the
cost of human suffering, to meet the goal of ‘ever closer union.’”

Obama is the result of the American presidential “general election” system, which runs contrary to the
modern “analysis of the brain,” which postulates that people differ in their mental abilities so that no
majority of voters are able to solve the problem of choosing the best candidate to be the U.S. president.

The tragic irony is that the political situation of the free countries is much worse off today than it was
when we came to the West in the 1970s. The free countries overlooked the coming to the fore of the
“People’s Republic of China” until those who own the PRC murdered its citizens for expressing their
wish to have more political freedoms.

A remark made by a member of the U.S. Congress that the PRC is at the political level of Nazi Germany
was dismissed as being irresponsibly frivolous.

Hitler's Tyranny Must Never Be Forgotten

In 1972, when we emigrated from Russia to the United States, my wife and I started buying Western
books about Nazi Germany, since the Soviet sources were, as usual, crude propaganda.
In New York, I bought Konrad Heiden’s “Der Fuehrer: Hitler’s Rise to Power,” translated from German
into English by Ralph Manheim (Beacon Press, Boston,1969).

The other day, as I was looking through the above book on our shelves, Hitler again caught my
attention. I have to admit that some of the things escaped my eye when I first read Heiden’s book years
ago. Today we have quite a few books on Hitler, but Heiden’s book deserves special attention.

The author was an eyewitness to Hitler’s rise to power. The book is based partly on his own observations
and personal experiences of living in Germany in the early 1920s and then later.

The author claims that even the most intimate episodes and the reports of private conversations are
grounded on documentary evidence or on statements of individuals who seemed to him thoroughly
reliable, which is supported by the exhaustive references in the indexed materials.

Early in the 1920s, Heiden attended a National-Socialist meeting at which he first saw Hitler at close
range and listened to the “flood of nonsense” he was spouting.

This is what he writes: “It was only gradually that the effect of these speeches made me realize that
behind all the nonsense there was unrivaled political cunning.”

As the leader of a small democratic organization in the University of Munich, Heiden “tried, with all the
eagerness of youth, and with complete lack of success, to counter the influence of Hitler by means of
protest parades, mass meetings, and giant posters. And so I am entitled to call myself the oldest — or
one of the oldest anti-Nazis now in the United States, for there cannot be many in this country who
came into conflict with Adolf Hitler and his handful of followers at so early a date.”

Many of us try to forget Hitler’s name or try to block from our memory that darkest, frightful piece of
our history. But we shouldn’t.

We should know how to recognize and respond to those seemingly innocuous everyday events that have
the potential to backfire and adversely affect our lives and the lives of our friends.

Power politics is a tempting thing, especially to those who cannot find a meaningful purpose to live for.
Life is not generous in equally distributing beauty, kindness, wisdom, intelligence, or talent. And
sometimes those who are not so lucky as to have been blessed with those qualities go into politics.

“Hitler’s Rise to Power” is a narrative that takes us through Hitler’s childhood and his adolescent years
and is an account of the origins of the Nazi movement and its leadership during the years 1918-1934. It
also provides a major commentary on the politics of Weimar Germany.

An idler, a loner, with no friends, a complete failure as an artist (he was rejected by the Academy of Fine
Arts in Vienna), Hitler spent his early life in the company of his Jewish friends, spending nights in the
lodging-house or in the Home for Men.

Lack of success and resultant poverty made him into an overpowering human nonentity. But as a
nonentity he was by no means modest. “In his lonely hours he has been filled with an exuberant
megalomania since childhood,” the book reports.

In the “analysis of the brain,” the lowest mental level of a person analyzed is “idiot.” And this is what
Hitler was: an idiot. A brainless, dangerous idiot.

We read: “Karl Marx, the prototype of the supposed Jewish party leader, came of a baptized Christian
family, and his own relations with Judaism can only be characterized as anti-Semitism.” And “it was
Karl Marx, the Socialist, who kindled Adolf Hitler’s anti-Semitism.”
Ironically, Hitler, we are told, was not originally an anti-Semite. It was in 1933 that he was warned by
those who conferred on him the title of “the leader” (“der fuhrer”) that he would be stripped of this title
unless he adopted the anti-Semitic policies. And that was the price that Hitler, that unprincipled human
nothing, paid to stay in power.

The book’s narrative actually gets us through the events up to 1939, the year Hitler started World War
II. In 1941 Hitler invaded Russia, a vast country that Stalin had put through the first stage of military
industrialization.

Those who saw Hitler as the greatest war general, destined to conquer Russia and liberate it from Stalin,
miscalculated. Now they blamed him for having lost the war and bringing an ocean of misery onto
Germany.

Hitler committed suicide by putting a pistol into his mouth and shooting into his brain.

Never Give Up the Fight Against Slavery

Hitler’s Germany wasn’t just another West-European, or “Western,” country. Hitler’s Germany was a
slave country, no different socially from slave countries of many thousands of years ago.

Hitler capitalized on talent and genius, which had developed in Germany long before the Nazis took
control of the country. The scientific developments, particularly in nuclear physics, had been started by
German physicists when Germany was a free country.

Many of those physicists were Jewish, and the most famous was Albert Einstein, who became a
lightning conductor for the hates and fears of right-wing Germans long before Hitler.

In 1933, 25 percent of Germany’s leading physicists were dismissed, and most left the country on their
own or were expelled by Hitler. Most scientists today believe that the world scientific community is an
ethical force. But when the Jewish scientists were dismissed in 1933, protests from German scientists
were almost nonexistent.

Jewish physicists in exile knew that Germany had a lead in atomic research (although it had lost many
of its best physicists), and they also knew the true nature of Nazism. That Hitler could develop an
atomic bomb was their worst nightmare.

Einstein understood the danger and used his authority to alert President Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
who immediately went into action by creating the Manhattan Project and was the first to obtain the
atom bomb.

In December of 1941, after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Nazi Germany declared war on the
United States. To retaliate against Japan, the United States dropped two atom bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, whereupon Japan unconditionally surrendered.

Soviet propaganda never applied the word “emperor” to Stalin as it never applied the word “slaves” to
us, his slaves. When Stalin was alive (he died in 1953), Stalin’s propaganda assured us that he was
incomparably wiser than anyone alive or dead, just as Hitler was saying that he was more intelligent
than anyone else, whether dead or alive.

Of course, “policeman” was renamed in Stalin’s paradise for “militiaman,” and a Soviet spy became “our
scout,” etc. That is, in Stalin’s paradise, everything was made to sound as the most humane and the least
evil or criminal, etc., just as according to Stalin’s propaganda, everything in the “capitalist world” was
beastly, unjust, harmful, and doomed.
The Soviet propaganda told us that the new Soviet Russia differed from the old Russia as paradise from
hell.

Actually, behind those newfangled names, the Soviet propaganda tried to hide the most politically
backward absolutism as it existed thousands of years ago in politically backward countries.

How do politically backward countries like Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s “People’s Republic of China”
function? As countries functioned many millennia ago. They exploit their slaves. It is from the sales of
their slaves’ free labor at home and abroad that the owners of those countries get their wealth and
money, upon which they build their military power.

Yet their progress is their growth until, as Marx prophesied, according to Mao, such a “socialist” society
becomes global. Yes, “global socialism,” as it was declared by Mao.

Those “new,” unfree, countries will have some advantages in their global expansion. On the other hand,
a considerable portion of the population of a free country is indifferent to its future or to their own
destiny.

In the U.S. “general election,” a majority elected Obama, since he promised them he would improve
their material conditions. The danger of becoming citizens of a country like
post-1917 Russia or like the “People’s Republic of China” does not scare those who voted for Obama
because they do not know what it is like to live under those conditions.

We remember the panic of those “Soviet sympathizers” who immigrated to Soviet Russia and gave up
their American citizenship. To go back? No, that was not allowed. To hear that was to them like getting
a prison sentence for life.

But here in the United States we have found freedom, and freedom is infinity. My wife and I can live in
the free West the way we love to live. And what is more important? I am writing my weekly columns,
and my wife types them up and sends them to the publisher. What have we done to deserve this
blessing?

We love and enjoy our real life in a free country. By writing about my experiences of living in Stalin’s
closed society, I am trying to help the world to avoid disasters such as those that destroyed Russian
nascent semi-democracy.

The Long Odds for Freedom in

China

In front of me, on my desk is “Hegemon: China’s Plan to Dominate Asia and the World,” the book by
Steven W. Mosher, one of America’s premier China-watchers (Encounter Books, San Francisco, 2000).

How did the book come my way? I searched Yahoo! to find out if they had some new information on the
PRC, and they produced a list of suggestions, the above title being among them. I ordered a used copy of
the book for $4 (the new one was priced at $40) from the Encounter Book distributor, and they
delivered the book to me the same day by Express mail. And that used copy of the book is as clean and
good as new!

Steven Mosher, an American social scientist, went to China in March of 1979 to do research on post-
revolutionary rural China. Fluent in Mandarin and Cantonese Chinese, he started writing his book.
If enough Chinese had read this book, a free country like other free countries would have emerged in
place of the PRC, invented by Mao, who was as closed to freedom in China as Stalin was in Russia.

No movement for freedom had occurred in a country like Russia before 1953, when Stalin was its owner.
By the same token, freedom in China cannot occur overnight, because the enlightenment is a slow and
twisted process in changing the mindset of those countries that are not free today.

One fine day 20-odd years ago, as Mosher recalls in the “Afterword” to his book (p. 159), he was
declared an “international spy” after he had written a series of articles on human rights violations in the
PRC.

“The silence of U.S China-watching community was deafening,” Mosher writes. “Instead of expressing
outrage over this absurd charge leveled at one of their own, my colleagues distanced themselves, each
afraid that by voicing support he or she would be singled out for punishment by the Beijing regime —
punishment in this case being denial of access. Your case threatens to make it more difficult for the rest
of us to go to China and do research.”

This attitude reminds me of the behavior of those in Soviet Russia who would turn away from someone
(even their closest friends) whose parents were randomly arrested by Stalin’s secret police, for fear of
getting themselves in trouble by association.

At the same time, Mosher acknowledges those fearless few, and among them U.S. Rep. Dana
Rohrabacher, who helped him with the book by making useful comments and suggestions.

Events and attitudes such as those mentioned above do not accelerate the advent offreedom in a
country. The advance of most minds to freedom had taken decades or even centuries to develop in what
now constitutes free countries.

If there is a chaos of ideas in a country, no group can establish freedom based on its own ideas only.
There must develop, in the course of many years, a certain consensus among ideas, making it possible
for their holders to move in a single direction of social thinking.

In one of my columns, I noted that we, those who are engaged in the “propaganda and agitation” to
contribute to the establishment of more free countries, should be able to function in international
societies, bringing together all free countries to make a kind of “internationals” of old, which perished
not because their members had different views but because they all repeated each other and finally
failed, not as a result of their differences but as a result of no one being able to give birth and express
new thoughts.

It is theoretically possible that if a sufficient number of sufficiently influential inhabitants of the PRC
read “Hegemon,” there might be a possibility for it to be converted into a freer and hence safer country.

The author shows the evolution of the PRC tyrannical order into total control of the population of the
country and its resources, concentrated in the hands of a “hegemon-king,” who uses it to establish his
hegemon power over all countries in the known world.

The “Tiananmen temptation,” as the author calls it, the belief that forces for democracy were unleashed
in China that not even a bloody massacre could repress, is based, he argues, on wishful thinking. He
shows that the attempts of Western countries to fashion a policy of “strategic cooperation” with China
come close to an appeasement that puts all the world in jeopardy.

The importance of Steven Mosher’s brilliant book cannot be overestimated. Although it was written
many years ago, very little has changed since then in China’s political order based on naked power. The
book raises fundamental questionsabout the nature of Chinese society under its present communist
masters. It is a very impressive and compelling piece of the author’s personal experiences of living in
modern China.
Germany's Anti-Semitism Forged Hitler's Horrors

My column of Sept. 30, 2011 (“Hitler’s Tyranny Must Never Be Forgotten”) evoked an interest which
prompts me to write a more analytic study of Hitler and his totalitarian rule of Germany from 1933 to
1945, when after his debacle in Russia, he committed suicide.

Before its totalitarian period, Germany had probably been the world’s most culturally creative country,
be it music or philosophy or science or technology. And during the critical period for mankind, nuclear
research in Germany was under way. At that time, however, Albert Einstein, a German physicist of
genius, fled the country with his family.

Einstein sent four letters to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, informing him about the power of nuclear
weapons developed in Hitler’s Germany and the necessity to speed up the American nuclear program.

Hitler was appointed chancellor in 1933 and transformed his government into a de facto dictatorship. In
August of 1934, Hitler became head of state. Thus, having merged the presidency with the
chancellorship, Hitler consolidated and concentrated his political powers, which gave him absolute
control over the state and the armed forces.

The invasion of Poland in 1939 led to the outbreak of World War II in Europe. Hitler’s racially
motivated policies resulted in the deaths of many millions of people, including an estimated 6 million
Jews targeted in the Holocaust.

In 1900, at the age of 11, Hitler attended the Realschule in Linz. Hitler managed to complete only three
years of the secondary school, having repeated two of the years twice. In 1904, at age 15, he attended the
Realschule in Steyr, from which he was expelled in 1904 for disruptive behavior, and he never returned
to school again. Hitler did badly in school, as is shown by his school records. “It is clear from early
written work that he left school semi-literate.” His life gradually headed downhill to destitution. Hitler’s
descent was eventually halted by entering the German army as a volunteer in 1914.

Hitler is an example of the unprincipled “professional politician” — not primarily an ideas man, but an
opportunist who will “read the polls” and say whatever it takes to gain and stay in power.

From 1905, Hitler lived a bohemian life in the melting pot of Vienna. He was rejected twice by the
Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna because of his “unfitness for painting,” and then again because he
lacked the academic credentials required for architecture school.

In 1924, while at Landsberg Prison, where Hitler served a five-year sentence after having been tried for
high treason for leading the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler dictated most of the first volume of Mein Kampf to
his deputy Rudolf Hess. Mein Kampf was published in two volumes in 1925 and 1926.

The book was anti-Semitic. But few noticed the book. However, Hitler continued its politically
fashionable message: anti-Semitism, though the girl he had been in love with for four years, from the
beginning of his 16th year, was Jewish, as were most of his friends and nearly all buyers of his postcards
he made and painted.

But anti-Semitism was the most important message of the time, and Hitler would have presented it even
if in his personal life he had a special love for Jews. His anti-Semitic efforts in “Mein Kampf” yielded the
desired results in 1933 and 1934, when he was propelled to the highest offices in Germany.

There is no good evidence to support that Hitler showed any particular inclination to anti-Semitism
until he became politically active. His claims to the contrary in "Mein Kampf" are probably false. Hitler
writes: “There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries their outward appearance had
become Europeanised . . . I even took them for Germans. The absurdity of this idea did not dawn on me
because I saw no distinguishing feature but strange religion. The fact that they had, as I believed, been
persecuted on this account sometimes turned my distaste at unfavorable remarks about them into
horror. Thus far I did not so much as suspect the existence of an organized opposition to the Jews. Then
I came to Vienna."

Hitler stated that he first became an anti-Semite in Vienna, with a large Jewish community, including
Orthodox Jews who had fled the pogroms in Russia.

What was the cause of Hitler’s anti-Semitism? He discovered that anti-Semitism was for him the only
workable tool to achieve his “political career,” that is, a way to a high social position and big money.

Hitler tried to exploit anti-Semitism in his “Mein Kampf.” He kept broadening its scale, and in 1933 he
was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany, while in 1934 he became Germany’s president and promptly
transformed his government into a de facto dictatorship.

In 1941, Hitler’s army invaded Russia. For many Germans, Russians were no better than Jews. Yet they
defeated the German army, and Hitler committed suicide. Possibly he intended to destroy his brain, for
surely that brain was destroying those miracles that Germans of genius had created.

World Struggles Between Slave

States and Democracy

In 1949, Mao named his country the “People’s Republic of China.” Before the
1980s (Tiananmen Square massacre), China was almost unnoticed in the West.

Historically, China had practically no foreign visitors, just as practically no

Chinese had visited the outside world.

While Lenin and many other future “Soviet leaders” had been living a great deal
in free Western countries, Mao was a pure product of China, more distant from
Western culture than was pre-1917 Russia with its books of genius, read in the
West as they were read in Russia, while many Russians were as close to the
freedom in the West as they were close to whatever freedom there was in Russia,
moving to Western freedom.

For the founder of the PRC, just as for many other Chinese, the West was no
source of freedom as was his, Mao’s, brain, and that was assumed to be more
than enough to create the most free society.

Now, while each of thousands of Western historians studies just one of the
allegedly different civilizations, we can speak about two kinds of civilization.

Absolutism dominated all countries before the rise of Greece and Rome. While
the structure of absolutism was based on one person called, for example, the
emperor, in Greece and Rome decisions were taken by the demos, that is, the
entire population.
Most absolutist civilizations were prototypes of a criminal gang: there is one
“leader” of a country (as there is one leader in a criminal gang, members of
which are actually his slaves, helping him to rule all members of his gang by
killing or torturing to death those who disobeyed him).

Not so long ago, there appeared in Western Europe and in North America a
civilization in which there was no owner, and the order was maintained by
courts, in which the legal decisions were made by the vote of the demos, that is,
“ordinary members of society,” chosen also by “ordinary members of society,”
not by orders of the emperor.

Earlier, in Greece, such arrangement was called “democracy,” from the Greek
word “demos,” that is, “ordinary members of society,” not the emperor.

Today it is being questioned which of the two kinds of civilization will win the
world and which will perish.

The strategic advantages of the imperial slave civilization are as follows:

•the possibility to mobilize by order of the owner of the country all adults in
the country (except its owner and his helpmates)
•thepossibility to kill or torture to death anyone in the country who does not
obey its owner
•the possibility to steal (from the countries of the demos) weapons, latest
technology, and whatever else necessary for the victory
The strategic advantages of the rule by the demos are as follows:
•theconviction of a majority that the victory in a war against an absolutist
country is as necessary as life, and not death
•the genius responsible for the creation of new weapons, owing to the freedom
of creativity
•the demand of a majority that the war be conducted by “our country” in the
best way possible
The slave countries are not omnipotent and invincible. For free countries,
however, it is necessary to correct such defects as the possibility of an Obama to
be elected the U.S. president through “general election.”

How does the general election differ from other systems? In the British “non-
revolutionary” parliamentary system, the British voters do not choose their
prime minister. The chairman of the political party in parliament that received
the largest number of votes gets nominated to be prime minister. Having proved
himself or herself intellectually acceptable to the participants of discussions by
all parties in parliament and approved by the queen, he or she becomes the
prime minister of Her Majesty (the queen), who is then asked by the head of
state (the queen) to form a government that will manage the country.

The winning or losing of a decisive war between slave countries and countries
ruled by the demos depends, on the one hand, on the desire of the demos to
survive and, on the other hand, on the cunning of the owners of slave countries
and the quality of their brains and the brains of his advisers.

It also depends on the quality of the brains of the demos and hence on the brains
of those whom the demos has chosen to ensure the survival of the countries
ruled by the demos, that is, free and not enslaved.

The societies of the demos were the first human societies that resulted from the
free development of the human brain. Will this make them stronger than the
slave societies, in which the human brain is developed only for the benefit of
their rulers’ military might, achieved by the labor of their slaves, copying and
stealing bits of the military power from the demos and hence from the
achievements of the free human genius?

The global drama or tragedy is unfolding before our eyes — and our brains!

Obama Does not Have the Will to

Stand Up to China

For years, I have been warning my readers that it is not accidental that the special “general election” of
the head of government and head of state does not exist in the “old” and historically wise Britain, but it
does exist in the “young” United States.

That reminds me of a Soviet song of Stalin’s time in which a young Soviet girl explains to a foreigner
how the Moscow Central Park can combine the innocent flowers growing there with sophisticated
“heroes of labor,” walking in the park:
"Because everyone is young
In our young and beautiful land!"

For many years, the message of my columns has been that human beings are mentally different — they
are not equally and uniformly young and intelligent.

Indeed, the development of the brain, which has become known as genius, may be one case out of
millions of human. Now, it is obvious how dangerous it is for a free country to have its presidential
candidate be elected by millions of voters the quality of whose brains is unknown but who vote for that
candidate and urge everyone to do so because he/she promises to give them everything they need.

Never mind that having been elected, Obama turns out to be a friend of China, the ruthless slave
country whose population is 1.3 billion slaves who will be expurgated as Mao expurgated the population
of China or as much as it will take to render the rest of them safe for their new Chinese owners.
Privately, while explaining the above contention to one of my readers, I asked him, “But what about
Britain? Do you think the British can be tricked in a similar way?” And he said, “No.”

Before Obama was elected, it had been tacitly assumed that in this country it is impossible for
communists to stage their comeback. Recently, however, communism came to the United States.
Occupy Wall Street! Spread the wealth! Dismantle the biggest U.S. nuclear bomb!

This is what a neighbor, busy to provide the necessities for daily living, said about Obama, “I hate him. I
realize that he is a lifelong friend of China, that is, a traitor to my country. Yes, he loves China and robs
our country, but at the same time he gives us, common people, those little things we need to survive.

"I understand that someday he will appear as a man of China. All of us will be destroyed. This, perhaps,
is inevitable if China will rule the world.”

Well, I retire to my bedroom and lie down. While I think about what will happen next, the population of
our globe keeps growing; the countries multiply and get more populous.

But what will the globe and the universe around it be like?

Suppose that a while ago we would have told the Americans that Obama, a friend of China, would
defend the United States if it is attacked by the PRC. “You must be out of your mind!” we will be told.
“It’s your crazy imagination!”

But no, this is life, as it appears on American TV screens, and it runs ahead of our wildest imagination!

Until the 1980s, Mao’s monster child he created via millions of deaths was meant to take over the world,
but that event went unnoticed by the free countries. Now, with a delay of three decades or so, it is being
realized that this would be the major catastrophe for the free countries.

Indeed, so far the West-European countries plus America have been enjoying freedom, Hitler’s
Germany having been deprived as it was of nuclear bombs by a German scientist of genius, who
informed President Franklin Delano Roosevelt about the need for the United States to produce such
bombs or perish.

Now a new era has been ushered in. But are the free countries wide awake to the looming danger
coming from the communist China?

Evidently not. The free European countries have given up their unique, individual sovereignty in favor
of being united into one, faceless, European Union, with a new headquarters in Brussels.

It has been revealed that EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton is pushing for
the lifting of the EU’s arms embargo on China imposed in 1989 following the Tiananmen Square
massacre.

Ashton “openly advocates ignoring democratic principles . . . She is fully committed to destroying
democracy.” And, “There is now a very serious crisis facing European civilization . . . Europe is leading
the way toward tyranny and totalitarianism . . . We forget just how ruthless Marxists are: Issues such as
individual freedom, accountability, democracy, and justice can all be sacrificed, regardless of the cost in
terms of human suffering, to meet the goal of “ever closer [European] union.”

Without a united, global alliance of the free independent countries, having a common goal to preserve
their freedom, even the United States does not seem any longer a country to which the future belongs.

Free Countries Must Be Vigilant Against Dangers of China

Slaves in a slave country live and die for their owners, otherwise they will get killed or tortured to death.
In a free country, any adult can go anywhere, including any foreign country (unless he or she has been
found guilty of crime and sentenced by the court of justice to serve a prison term, or found by certified
psychiatrists to have to be confined to a psychiatric hospital, or has to serve in the army).

This is what I thought as a young man in Stalin’s Russia. Stalin died in 1953. Was there any hope for me
to escape from that country after his death? Not a chance. But suddenly, in 1972, the Soviets decided,
for reasons of their own, to let some several hundred families leave the country. Our family was one of
them. Thus I “emigrated” from Russia, with my wife, our son, and my mother as well as other “émigrés,”
the exact number of whom I don’t know.

I and my wife as well as our son knew English well, so the natural choice for us was to go to an English-
speaking country.

I had valued Britain as a country of freedom more than I did the United States, with its flawed system of
choosing the U.S. president byway of general election.

But we chose to emigrate to the United States because it was militarily the strongest country in the
world, the country which was in the forefront of the struggle for survival between freedom and slavery,
the country to which we would contribute our experience and knowledge of the merciless, inhuman, and
criminal nature of the “Soviet” social life even after Stalin’s death.

It has been 40 years since we settled in New York. Allthese years I have been writing and lecturing all
over the country as well as abroad, exposing the horrors of totalitarian regimes and their potential
threat to free countries and emphasizing the need to cherish and defend freedom.

The United States, this beacon of freedom, and good old England, its reliable friend and ally, saved the
European countries from the tyranny and atrocities of Hitler’s Nazi Germany and restored the freedom
and independence of the countries already captured.

In 1991, the world witnessed the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the triumph of freedom and
independence in the East-European countries came after decades of Soviet communist tyranny. They
knew only too well what it meant to be a slave in acommunist country. They got back their freedom the
hard way: they fought and died for it.

Is there a threat to their bliss now?

My answer is yes. And the threat to their freedom is coming, for example, from the not so recently
established European Union.

Catherine Margaret Ashton, the high representative for foreign affairs and security policy of the
European Union, is committed to EU military integration, but she is vehemently anti-NATO. Ashton
cares little for human rights abuses if they are carried out by the EU or communist China.

If Europe gives China access to military technology by lifting the arms embargo on selling arms to the
PRC, it may drive a wedge between European and non-European NATO members. If this happens,
which Lady Ashton is openly advocating, it would lead to NATO dissolution, the modern world’s most
successful defensive alliance. Ashton is openly using her powers in ignoring democratic principles; she
seems to be fully committed to destroying democracy.

Has President Obama given his warning to Brussels that lifting of the embargo would seriously damage
the transatlantic alliance? Did he say that America and Great Britain, its closest ally in Europe, will
continue to expose the absence of human rights in China and will veto any attempt to lift the embargo
on selling arms to China?
According to The Wall Street Journal of March 11, 2011: “Is a European future truly so terrible? Yes….
As a Briton, I see the American republic as a repository of our traditional freedoms. The doctrines,
rooted in the common law, in the Magna Carta, and in the Bill of Rights, found their fullest and most
sublime expression in the old courthouse of Philadelphia. Britain, as a result of its unhappy
membership in the European Union, has now surrendered a large part of its birthright…”

And further: “How aptly the British people might today apply the ringing phrases of the Declaration of
Independence against their own rulers, who have ‘combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction
foreign to our constitution, and acknowledged by our laws. … So you can imagine how I feel when I see
the U.S. making the same mistakes that Britain has made … abandoning its sovereignty. … You deserve
better, cousins. And we expect better’.” (Daniel Hannan, “A European’s Warning to America”)

Obama Fails on Education Promises

As I began writing this column, in the morning of Nov. 6, I happened to be watching a television
interview with Arne Duncan, U.S. secretary of education, who appeared on Fareed Zakaria “GPS”
segment “Fixing America’s Education Crisis.”

Duncan admitted that America is failing and losing its world dominance in education. International
testing has shown that American students fall behind foreign counterparts in math and science, and a
2009 study showed that U.S. students ranked 25th among 34 countries in those areas behind nations
like China, Singapore, South Korea, and Finland.

According to USA Today, “To put the results into perspective, if the United States doubles its efforts, it
would still take us decades to catch up to Hong Kong students.”

Today the United States is at greater risk than ever before. “The government education monopoly
continues to imperil our economy by failing miserably at preparing the workforce. Business increasingly
looks for talent overseas. The world’s greatest concentration of Ph.D.s is in Seoul, Korea, and half of
Americans can’t even find Seoul on a map,” according to a government report.

In his January 2011 State of the Union Address, President Obama linked the need to improve U.S.
competitiveness in research and technology with fixing deficiencies in the U.S. education system, saying
the country’s math and science education lags behind that of many nations. “If we want to win the
future — if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas — then we also have to win
the race to educate our kids.”

Shouldn’t that have been done, or at least started, during Obama’s first term?

And shouldn’t you, Mr. President, have already done just that during your first term in office, and not
with a delay of four years, to have reached your belated intention “to win the race to educate our kids”
you have so eloquently expressed this year in your State of the Union address?

Did you first have to deepen the education crisis (which you certainly did) during your first four years in
office in order to have the reason to so passionately address it in your ongoing 2011 election campaign
as something you would take care of if elected to the second term?

And was Obama made aware of the dismal performance of American students on the 2009
international test scores? American schools were already failing under his watch!

Why didn’t he urgently initiate some drastic reforms (as he promises now) on finding out that American
education was no longer world class? Or was he busy shopping for the best private school for his own
daughters?
You failed us American voters, Mr. President! You’ve had four years in which you could have fixed
American education system, for you must know that our strength lies in our top students.

You failed to improve the U.S. public schools for children of all those who voted for you and fell prey to
your fiery promises and your disarming smile and entrusted to you their children’s future?

Four years ago, when Obama was running his first election campaign, didn’t he promise that if elected,
education and jobs would be his first and foremost priority? Or did he after moving into the White
House conveniently forget about his pledge to make things better only to sell now to the American
voters the same old promises, using the same eloquent technique that worked so well the first time?

In Russian, there is a saying “old song to a new tune.” And that’s what Obama’s new campaign is, under
the new (old?) slogan: “change.” (Change what? Change the United States?)

Obama started his second-term national election campaign already a year ago, the fact he vehemently
denies, much earlier than it had been customarily done in the past — under the pretense of fixing the
failed U.S. economy, but actually feeling the waters for his much-desired victory.

The global aggressiveness of China, a brainchild of Mao, who openly hailed it as being Marxist and
communist and who ruled it in a globally aggressive spirit, is being politely overlooked by the free
countries, which means that Obama is completely out of touch with the troubling realities of today’s
world, with China spreading its tentacles all over the globe and having just one target in mind — to
eventually bring the United States (and the free world in general) to the position of the colonies of
global China.

During Obama’s four years in office nothing he had promised to the voters in his first election campaign
has been delivered! Do you, Mr. President, deserve another four years in office in order to irreversibly
ruin American education and economy, put us deeper in debt, disarm America and turn us into a Third-
World country to the glee of Chinese dictators?

A Warning From History: Ruthless Leaders Fight to Control Slave States

We know very little about the beginnings of mankind. But we know a great deal about the life of
mankind in the past three millennia from writings, paintings (recall the Italy of the Renaissance), and
printed sources. We know about its recent history from its radio broadcasting and now from the
Internet.

In the 19th century, Marx began to propagate his theory, according to which those running private
enterprises were criminals: They paid their workers less than they profitted from the sales of goods their
workers produced, and pocketed the difference, as a result of which some “capitalists” lived as the kings
of old, while their workers were near death from hunger and other aspects of poverty.

As a result, when the World War I was over, a new society was created in Russia in the autumn of 1917
with the help of those soldiers who were tired of fighting the unpopular war and turned their guns
against the Russian pre-October 1917 government.

The soldiers adopted that fairy tale of the “world’s greatest thinker” Karl Marx. After that German
genius, came others: the Russian genius Lenin, and then the Georgian genius Stalin, who became the
ruler of Russia not unlike the old Russian emperors such as Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible.

Who were all those “geniuses”?

According to the analysis of the brain, which began to be developed in the 19th century, Marx, Lenin,
and Stalin would be classified as “idiots.” Stalin combined their idiocy with the cruelty of Peter the Great
and Ivan the Terrible and tortured to death those who threatened to take his power.
The first American book describing the analysis of the brain was published in 1922, and the long list of
books on the subject goes on and on.

If anyone in Russia had dared to write a book arguing that not only were Karl Marx, Lenin, and Stalin
not men of genius, but, according to the brain analysis, they were “idiots,” the author of the book, just as
the authors of hundreds of similar books, would have been tortured to death, in which process the
infamous Union of Soviet Writers had outstanding “specialists,” a good match to those of the time of the
Empires of Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great, both of whom would mentally be classified as “idiots.”

But how did Stalin manage to sustain the economy?

The six-storied building in Moscow in which I lived with my parents had been built before 1917 and was
owned by a Danish “capitalist,” who fled to his native Denmark as soon as the ruthless idiot Lenin came
to power.

Six families were settled in what used to be (on each floor) a four-room, one-family apartment, to share
one kitchen and one bathroom. My father was a member of the Union of Writers, and my mother a
professor of medicine.

The emperors of “Soviet” Russia had to make sure that the people they needed such as my parents were
provided with “excellent living conditions.” Our family had moved into what used to be the former
owner’s library.

Our guests admired our abode: “My God, what a room — what a beautiful room!” We had a live-in maid,
Polina, living with us in the same room, who took care of me and often wept as she recalled how lives of
the people in their village had been destroyed for having criticized Stalin.

To industrialize the historically agrarian country, Stalin was on the cusp of having more urban than
rural dwellers for the first time. He needed manpower to carry out his military projects. For this reason,
he moved the people from villages and rural areas to big cities and other industrialcenters.

The trouble is that with the exception of a few countries which have overcome the war disease against
all and everyone, the humankind suffers from that horrible disease — slavery — which appears in
different disguises, including calling slavery freedom.

Just read the Marxist-Leninist embraced hymn the Internationale, so named to show that it is
international — that it is the hymn of all countries and nations.

This hymn, said to have been written by Marx himself, is especially frightening if we recall that
Germany, the motherland of Marx (and Engels and his father, a “capitalist,” who maintained Marx
financially), was no more “military” than any other country and was the creator of unique and immortal
music.

Says the Internationale: “We are waging a deadly battle against ruthless enemies. And our destiny is still
unknown!”

GOP Debates Ignore the Most Important Foreign Policy Issue

On Nov. 22 I watched a televised Republican presidential primary debate on U.S. national security and
foreign policy. Symbolically, it took place at the historic Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C.

The debate was hosted by CNN in partnership with The Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise
Institute, and was moderated by Wolf Blitzer. It has been reported that the debate was watched by 3.6
million American viewers. Well, I was one of them.
What is the mortal danger to the free countries today? It is the attack by the slave countries, and the
People’s Republic of China (PRC) in particular.

What should the free countries do to save themselves? These questions were neither asked, nor were
they answered: They were not even posed by the moderator of the debate.

Those living in the young free countries, such as the United States, are naturally busy enjoying their
freedom in pursuit of happiness.

The happiness of our family — myself, my wife, and our son, who had miraculously escaped from
Stalin’s paradise — has contributed to our experience and knowledge of the Soviet hell to help save free
countries from being exterminated by countries like Stalin’s Russia or today’s People’s Republic of
China.

We may be asked: Why do those old unfree societies so frantically desire to own the world, as stipulated
by Chairman Mao and based on idiotic theories of that infamous German, Karl Marx?

Let me now mention one event. Just like Russia before Stalin, Germany before Hitler had created the
music and science of genius.

Under Hitler, the German physicists continued to work on a nuclear program. They were engaged in
secret nuclear research to create nuclear weapons. One of the German scientists of genius, Albert
Einstein, understood the potential danger of nuclear research going on in Hitler’s Germany for the free
world.

Einstein and his family managed to flee from Hitler’s Germany to the United States. Einstein sent
several messages to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the ongoing nuclear research in Hitler’s
Germany, and advised him how urgent it was for America to get the nuclear weapons ahead of Hitler’s
Germany.

So, if it were not for Einstein’s courageous warning, the United States would have been blissfully
unaware of how close Hitler was to getting the nuclear bomb.

Had Hitler had nuclear weapons in his possession early enough, he would have defeated Russia and
Western Europe and would finally conquer the entire world. Without nuclear weapons, Hitler lost his
war in Russia and committed suicide by shooting a pistol through his mouth and blowing his brains out,
which is regarded by “Analysis of the Brain” as the organ of human intelligence.

Do the free countries, and the United States in particular, have secret, top-intelligence informants to
keep the country abreast of what secret military weapons are being developed in the PRC? Or do the
bureaucratic institutions count on another miracle to save them from destruction?

As I was writing this, my wife rushed into my study with the words: “If you don’t want to miss the
Republican debate on national security and foreign policy, go watch it right now!” And so I did, anxious
to hear from the aspirants to the highest post in the land what they think about the political situation in
today’s world and what they would do if confronted with another world war.

The eight Republican presidential hopefuls lined up and moved to their rostrums, ready to unveil their
wisdom as to how they will handle national security and American foreign policy.

Strange as it may sound, nothing of the sort happened, that is, nothing that I hadn’t heard before,
except for the meaningless, trite questions from the mediator and equally trite answers from the
respondents.

From time to time there would be some bickering among the participants as to how to end (or not to
end) gracefully the American presence in Iraq or Afghanistan or whether it makes sense to continue
financial aid to Pakistan.

The only notable exception was Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who stood in the debate very much alone.
Paul’s positions on various aspects of national security are unique.

The libertarian-leaning Paul’s main concern has always been adherence to and the preservation of
American values and the liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the great American document
that has served the country so well for over 200 years.

Paul was critical of any attempt to reinterpret any part of the Constitution at the expense of
undermining American liberties and any attempt to reinterpret the Constitution to justify, for example,
some military actions abroad to suit the political agenda of the day.

The other candidates, however, were presenting their own views on how they would pursue American
foreign policy their own way.

Paul More Republican than Other Candidates

On Sunday, Dec. 4 (original air date: Dec. 2), I watched the rerun of the Republican presidential
candidate forum on Fox News’ “Huckabee.” The event took place at a town hall meeting in New York
and was sponsored by tea party supporters.

Participating candidates were Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney,
and Rick Santorum. The event was moderated by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and the
candidates were interviewed by Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Oklahoma Attorney General E.
Scott Pruitt, and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

“This forum is an excellent opportunity to engage each of the candidates in a candid conversation about
issues that are important to voters in our state and across the nation,” said Bondi in her press release,
which was sent out by the Republican Party of Florida.

She goes on to say, “This will be a historic election, and I am excited to play a part in helping voters gain
a better understanding of candidates’ beliefs on fundamental issues such as constitutionalism and the
role of government.”

I am sure all the details of the candidates’ responses have already been discussed and highlighted in the
media all over the country. A Des Moines Register poll released late Saturday, Dec. 3, found Gingrich
leading the GOP field with 25 percent support among likely Iowa caucus goers on Jan. 3; Texas Rep.
Paul received 18 percent support; and Romney received 16 percent. It was clear, however, that Gingrich
and Romney appeared to be the front-runners.

I was impressed by how well the forum was organized and by how objectively all participants were
treated. Understandably, everyone criticized Obama’s economic record, and everybody had a good
chance to express his/her views and the ways they would scale back government programs, reduce the
deficit, etc.

I have to admit that now I know a great deal more about the candidates as human beings and more
importantly about their potential ineptitude to become the leaders of this unique country at the time
when it needs ingenuity and talent to survive as a free and independent nation.

Why are they so anxious to take upon themselves such awesome responsibilities to be the leaders of this
great country? If Obama braved the field, why not they? They may even be incomparably better, more
honest, and more patriotic.
But is this all we expect from the leader of this great nation? What are their unique, outstanding
qualities that will make them better than Obama? So far most of them presented their positions on the
same down-to earth problems — economy, education, taxes, and so on.

And what about preserving individual freedoms, guaranteed by the American Constitution? Most of
them — but not all.

The one and only exception was Paul. What is the country looking for? Knowledge, wisdom, talent,
family values, military service to the country, political experience — he’s got all that. He is the only
candidate who defends constitutional fundamentals. If elected president, it is the American
Constitution the country will live by. Simple and clear. No shrill promises that never get fulfilled, no
deviations and excuses to suit politics of the day.

In an 11-minute presentation, Paul forcefully articulated his foreign-policy matters and his pro-freedom
views without any hesitation or equivocation, thus presenting a philosophical alternative to the other
contenders. He presented his views on so many different subjects. In an interview with the Des Moines
Register, Paul said: “I want the government out. If you’re going to have government under the
Constitution, the states have a lot more authority than the federal government has to define it. I’d rather
see it be outside of government and then we would not be arguing about this.”

Paul considers himself a Republican and calls for less government, lower taxes, a free market economy,
and greater protection of individual freedom — which all are traditional Republican values.
Conclusion?

Paul is more Republican than the other candidates.

Paul’s campaign themes: freedom, prosperity, and peace are already resonating throughout the country.

Paul thinks philosophically, which is what the debates need, rather than “unending restatements of neo-
conservative positions.” “You cannot conduct a strong, assertive, and costly foreign policy with a weak
economy . . . we must restore confidence in our country’s ability to achieve even greater heights of
prosperity than in the past.”

However, it is necessary to formulate one possible misunderstanding harmful to the United States and
freedom in the world in general. Many countries are too weak to defend themselves, but it is considered
diplomatically undesirable to accuse any country of its intention to start a war. The American presence
is in itself a deterrent against aggression.

In other words, the presence of such a powerful country as the United States in the area of potential
aggression is strategically necessary.

Putin’s Soldiers and Special Police Are Big Voting Bloc

By the autumn of 1917 Russia had become a culturally free society. The Russian 19th-century prose was
intensely read in all culturally advanced countries; Chekhov’s plays were staged; several composers
were considered classical; Chaliapin’s voice was admired . . .

Lenin, who held power only for a short time, and Stalin, who died in 1953, staged a pogrom of
the Russian culture of genius, since they both feared the cultural efflorescence of genius, endangering
their cultural nonentity.

The other day someone placed a copy of The New York Times at our door. I am not in the habit of
reading this paper. But once in my hands, I thought I’d give it a glance.
“Tens of Thousands Protest in Moscow, Russia, in Defiance of Putin” by Ellen Barry, an article in the
section “Europe,” caught my attention.

The legend to the illustration reads: “In the largest anti-Kremlin protest since the early 1990s, tens of
thousands of Russians rallied in central Moscow on Saturday [Dec. 10, 2011].”

Then came a detailed account of the recent events in Moscow.

“United Russia is a party of crooks and thieves!” and “Russia without Putin!” were resounding cries
from the protesters. The author goes on to say: “The demonstration marked what opposition leaders
hope will be a watershed moment, ending years of quiet acceptance of the political consolidation Mr.
Putin introduced . . . ”

Thousands of people held the largest anti-government protests that post-Soviet Russia has seen to
criticize electoral fraud and demand an end to Vladimir Putin’s rule.

The government calculated that it had no choice but to allow the events to unfold and therefore granted
a license. There was a large police presence, including helicopters, troop carriers, dump trucks and
bulldozers. Police, however, showed surprising patience, and state-controlled TV gave the nationwide
demonstrations unexpected airtime.

Despite the fact that international observers reported widespread voting irregularities and that Putin’s
party, United Russia, lost a substantial share of its seats, it still retains a majority in the Russian
parliament.

The Saturday protests were sanctioned by the authorities: Moscow gave permission to people to rally,
and police took no action even when the crowd, estimated at over 25,000, far exceeded the projected
numbers.

The Russians were protesting against recent parliamentary elections, which domestic and international
observers said were tainted by fraud on behalf of Putin’s United Russia as well as Putin’s announcement
in September that he would run for president in March of next year.

Similar demonstrations took place in St. Petersburg (7,000 protesters) as well as elsewhere in the
country in more than 60 cities.

What surprised me most in this account of the Russian events is the fact that there has been no attempt
made on the part of the Western reporters to critically analyze the structure of the present Russian
regime.

What they fail to understand is that Putin is successfully playing a game at democracy, making Russia
look like any other Western country, complete with elections and the freedom to leave the country, the
only difference being that, say, their elections are show-casing democracy, concealing behind them
Putin’s regime of the firmly entrenched dictatorship, protected by the army and special police squads.

Putin’s regime is a seemingly democratic society. While anyone can leave the country and come back,
enjoy one’s vacation anywhere in the world — that is, if one can afford it — and start one’s private
business, the Russian people are unarmed, because the Russian constitution does not guarantee them
the right to bear arms in order to defend themselves.

Putin was president of Russia from 2000 to 2008, when he had to step aside because of term limits. He
is currently prime minister. Six months before the election, Putin revealed his decision to return to the
presidency in March of next year, which he is almost certain to win.

But consider this. The Russian army is two-odd million strong, while the OMON (special militia) is
twice the size of the army: four million members plus members of their families loyal to them. That
makes up an almost seven-million-strong voting bloc, all of whom are in Putin’s service and will vote for
Putin’s party, either out of loyalty to their boss or just following his orders, to ensure Putin’s victory in
the elections.

Mikhail Prokhorov Is Putin's

Mystery Rival

Who is Mikhail Prokhorov? His is not an unfamiliar name to American sports fans.

A Russian billionaire entrepreneur, he became the owner of the American basketball team, the New
Jersey Nets, in 2010: “A Russian tycoon with a longstanding passion for basketball agreed to a $200
million deal . . . that will make him the principal owner of the New Jersey Nets and a key investor in the
team’s proposed new home in Brooklyn” (Bagli, Charles V, New York Times, Sept. 23, 2009).

Mikhail Dmitrievich Prokhorov was born in Moscow in 1965. A Russian citizen, he lives permanently in
Moscow.

After graduating from the Moscow Finance Institute, Prokhorov made his name in the financial sector
and went on to become one of Russia’s leading industrialists in the precious metals sector.

According to the Forbes 2011 listing, “Prokhorov is the third richest man from Russia and the 32nd
richest man in the world with a fortune estimated at $18 billion.”

Prokhorov is the former president of ONEXIM Group, a $17 billion private investment fund which he
said could almost double in value by developing energy, nanotechnology, and mining projects. The fund
would also develop energy projects, including hydrogen fuel cells as well as high-technology projects
and nonferrous and precious metals mining.

“We are a big player and we are going to deal with projects costing $1 billion and more,” said
Prokhorov. “We have a very ambitious task to build one of the largest private investment funds in the
world specializing mainly in innovation projects.”

Prokhorov went on to say that “ONEXIM would focus on nanotechnology, producing materials with
ultra-tiny structures used in energy generation and medicine.”

In June, 2011, when he entered Russian politics, Prokhorov gave up his top position at the ONEXIM
Group.

Amongst his numerous business, financial, and charitable undertakings, one of the most popular is the
Cultural Initiatives Foundation, founded in 2004 as part of the Mikhail Prokhorov Foundation. It has
worked to modernize and stimulate the cultural and intellectual environment in the Krasnoyarsk region
of Siberia.

The Foundation is headed by Prokhorov’s elder sister, Irina, the editor in chief of the prominent
Russian publishing house “Novoye Literaturnoye Obozreniye.”

Mikhail Prokhorov strongly believes in giving back to the community. His philanthropic endeavors
focus on culture and sports — two of his great passions.

On Dec. 12, there came a report from Moscow that at the hastily arranged news conference, Mikhail
Prokhorov announced that he would challenge Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in next March
presidential elections.

Radio Ekho Moskvy positively responded to the news: “Prokhorov will not try to build some parody of
the Soviet Union. Prokhorov will not tell us antediluvian ghost stories about NATO and America and
spend half the budget on the production of obsolete tanks.”

“I have made the most serious decision of my life. I am running for president,”
Mr. Prokhorov said at a news conference. He went on to say that he would not build his presidential
campaign on criticism of Mr. Putin. “Criticism must make up no more than 10 percent . . . I would like
to focus on the things I would do,” he said.

At his Dec.12 news conference, Prokhorov offered no political platform, saying he would publish it
later.

Earlier this year, Prokhorov made a short-lived effort to challenge Putin’s United Russia party in
December of this year parliamentary elections. Later, however, he resigned from his own party, the
Right Cause party, following an internal power split, which he blamed on the Kremlin and for which he
accused Kremlin strategist Vladislav Surkov, who through his influence had undermined the party
unity.

Rumors have been circulating in Moscow media reports that Russian businessman Alisher Usmanov
has been holding talks with Russian tycoon Mikhail Prokhorov on the possible sale of his Kommersant
publishing house to Prokhorov.

Meanwhile, Prokhorov’s representative said on Wednesday [Dec. 14] that Prokhorov is definitely
interested in the purchase of the publishing house, and that this move is not linked with his decision to
run in Russia’s upcoming presidential election, scheduled for March 2012.

Prokhorov also could consider an idea of Usmanov to merge their media assets — Kommersant and
media holding RBC — Prokhorov’s representative said. He declined to disclose any price details of the
yet-to-be-made offer to buy Kommersant. However, the offer could concern the estimation of both
media assets, he added.

New Year Dawns as Rogue Nations Threaten Freedom

I call countries that are not free “slave countries,” though Soviet propaganda proclaimed that “Soviet
Russia” was the only first “free” country in the world even after it conquered some countries to the west
of it — after which those countries became “free” countries in the Soviet propaganda in contrast to “the
rest of the world of hungry slaves,” as the Internationale, the state hymn of Soviet Russia put it.

The question arises as to whether the free countries will be able to survive if they remain so credulous
and superficial even today in their approach to totalitarian countries.

Some of those totalitarian countries such as the country which in 1949 was named the “People’s
Republic of China” (PRC) by a communist Mao was reported to have killed 70 million Chinese to reach
the absolute totalitarian unity in the country.

Fortunately, countries like the United States have been technologically and scientifically ahead of the
authoritarian countries like the PRC in the invention and construction of new weapons.

However, the time in which the PRC, for example, will be able to jump ahead and catch up with the free
countries is becoming shorter, especially when a totalitarian country throws all its human and natural
resources into the development and growth of its military potential, as did Stalin’s Russia until his death
in 1953.
And not only that. Espionage and stealing America's latest technology and military secrets have always
been employed by the unfree countries, the latest example being Iran’s capture of the American pilotless
airplane, a closely guarded, unique American technological achievement.

The theories as to how it could have happened are numerous and varied. But one thing is clear. While
American talent and ingenuity created this unique sophisticated technology, as much talent and
ingenuity should have gone into predicting and preventing such disastrous mishaps.

Nowadays, when hackers can inflict damage virtually to any computer and steal U.S. secret intelligence
computer data, it shouldn’t have been impossible for those responsible for the creation of this unique
project to predict and outsmart those hypothetical and now ubiquitous hackers who make it their
business to spy and steal America's latest and innovative technology.

In the hands of totalitarian rulers, if they indeed managed to acquire the data from the allegedly intact
drone, which landed on their soil, as was openly reported and shown on TV by Iranian propaganda, the
stolen technology may be aggressively used against the free countries, which consider themselves
responsible for the preservation of freedom in our world.

There is a grave danger in that if a dictatorial country such as Iran or a slave country such as the
“People’s Republic of China” actually does get hold of this unique American technology or if, say,
Iranian hackers presumably already have the means to manipulate and reprogram the GPS on any
existing computer, then American best minds should be one step ahead of the hackers — they should
immediately start working on something that will render that “catch” useless.

Remember Hitler’s Germany, in which the German scientists were secretly developing the atom bomb.
If that were accomplished, Hitler would have been the owner of the world, which would not exist now as
we know it.

Albert Einstein, who managed to escape from Hitler’s Germany and moved with his family to the United
States, prevented that disaster by communicating the news to U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt,
who initiated the Manhattan Project and got the atom bomb ahead of Germany. The rest is well known.

The recent mishap with the American drone should be taken seriously. It doesn’t matter what had
actually happened: whether the Iranians have gotten hold of American technology that went into the
creation of the drone or whether their propaganda presented it as their own achievement of being able
to manipulate and reprogram the GPS of the drone.

Yes, freedom has a tremendous advantage. It is in freedom that a born genius, a man or a woman, in
particular in the field of science and technology, has unlimited possibilities to express itself, and such an
advantage may be decisive, as, for example, getting the atom bomb ahead of Germany was decisive for
the United States and its allies in winning WWII.

The free world may be endangered suddenly and irretrievably. The danger of slavery is still real. It never
went away in millennia of its existence. Freedom is a new phenomenon in the history of mankind, and it
may disappear and never come back.

Freedom is a sophisticated product of social development, while slavery is raw, primitive, and was
nearly universal not so long ago.

The best minds in the free West should attend to the problem of saving freedom, for “freedom versus
slavery” may become not just the American problem but their problem as well.

FALTARAM ARTIGOS DE JANEIRO DE 2012

Obama’s Re-election Would Be Welcome Gift to PRC

In my columns, I have been writing a lot about PRC’s aggressive policies, its growing military might,
and its global ambitions.

Today’s PRC’s dictators are not as stupid and naive as was Stalin, who kept his country isolated from the
entire world. Nobody, except Soviet spies and high-post ambassadors he sent abroad to spread lies
about the “prosperous life” in his “Soviet Union,” could go outside the country.

The Russian people were turned into Stalin’s slaves, whom he used to industrialize and militarize the
country.

Stalin needed a large reservoir of cheap labor to draw upon to be able to carry out his ambitious
projects. For that purpose, he destroyed old Russian agriculture; he liquidated wealthy peasant
households and confiscated their property.

Villages were destroyed, and peasants were forced to move to cities to work in Stalin’s industries. Many
were arrested and sent to work in hard-labor concentration camps — to build canals, bridges, railroads,
and whatever else Stalin needed to carry out his industrialization and modernization of the Soviet
army.

While keeping Russia isolated from the rest of the world, Stalin’s propaganda was spreading the myth of
the happy and prosperous life in the country, not without the help of some foreign correspondents (e.g.,
Walter Duranty of the New York Times), who in his “dispatches from Moscow” failed to report on what
was actually going on in the country (massive arrests of innocent people, food shortages, long bread
lines of hungry people outside the food stores, etc.) thereby perpetuating the lies of Soviet communist
propaganda myth of the happiness and prosperity reigning in the country.

At the same time, foreign tourists were shown the luxuries of the Moscow Bolshoi Theatre, Moscow
subway stations built of marble and decorated with golden frescoes (built by nameless Soviet slaves),
and the Moscow exhibition of the “Soviet Agricultural and Industrial Achievements.”

All of which was duly reported by the foreign press.

Much has changed since then. Stalin died. The “Soviet Union” has disintegrated — a fact that didn’t pass
unnoticed by China, Russia’s close neighbor and Stalin’s closest ally.

The new Chinese communist dictators are not stupid. They realized that to stay in power, they have to
change the rules of the game: their new goal is to put foreign capitalism to work to realize their own
ambitions.

Chinese communist dictators do not have Stalin’s problem of an inadequate work force. China’s
population is 1.339 billion. Suddenly they realized that this is far from being a burden to them: This is
their golden asset and a source of cheap labor. Something Russia did not have.

Money-hungry foreign businessmen, they reasoned, will move their industries to China in search for
this cheap Chinese labor. So the Chinese communist dictators will not have to take care of their slaves.
Free Western capitalists will do this: they will use cheap slave labor for miserable pay, just enough to
keep the slaves alive.

And this is exactly what has happened. Their strategy has worked. Western businessmen moved their
businesses over to China. Workers in their countries lost jobs.

To pay the unemployment benefits, Western governments — the Obama administration in particular —
borrow money from China, i.e., getting loans, which China happily extends to its friend in the White
House. China became the biggest lender to the United States holding more than $1.1 trillion of U.S.
Treasury debt.
China has modernized its military with the latest technology. Its spies have penetrated the most
sensitive American military bases.

And, as I wrote in November 2005: “Perhaps there is a Chinese scientist of the caliber of Einstein . . .
But nationally famous Chinese scientists are totally unknown in the West and work in their laboratories
hidden deep in the mountains, while Chinese spies keep them up to date by providing them with all the
latest technological information, which they steal from the United States.”

And this is where the friendly U.S. President Obama comes in. He loves communist China: Last year, he
allowed 24 Chinese military generals to visit sensitive U.S. military bases, which for decades have been
closed to any outsider! Isn’t this just a friendly gesture or an outright act of treason?

The new leaders of China are not blinded by Communist doctrine. They have set their sights on global
domination — and one of their biggest allies is Obama.

In his brilliant article “Keep China Happy: Vote Obama,” John Myers, of Personal Liberty Digest, says:
“In an open letter to the President, Donald Trump, one prominent Republican, took issue with Obama
regarding the advantages in trade that China is being given . . . They’re having a field day with the
United States and our leadership . . . How little respect the Chinese government has for you.”

And further: “The new leaders in China are not peasants like Mao, nor are they blinded by Communist
doctrine. They have set their sights on global domination and one of their biggest allies is Obama.”

Gray Cardinal' Is Russia’s Real No.

‘

The Russian press reported early in January of 2012 that Vladislav Surkov, a deputy prime minister in
the Russian government, will be responsible for the modernization of education, science, and healthcare
as well as for the development of the global navigation system (GLONASS).

Surkov responded that he was honored by the decision.

“Mr. President, thank you very much. First, I must say
Vladislav Surkov is rumored to be that for me it is a great honor, because everyone knows
Russia's second in command. that economic modernization and the creation of
(Getty Images) innovation infrastructure are your strategic priority . . . I
look forward to new experiences and I hope that I will
not fail you and the Prime Minister, and most importantly, the people involved in economic
development: scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs — all talented people . . . ”

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin summarized the new area of responsibility for the former first
deputy head of the presidential administration during a meeting: “You were in charge of not only
domestic policies but also modernization, so we are going to continue in this direction . . . I also ask you
to take up some high-tech issues as GLONASS, and to give priority to the modernization of education,
science and healthcare,” he said.

The move came after the first mass protests since the 1990s following the country’s disputed Dec. 4
parliamentary elections. The elections rattled authorities as Putin prepares to return to the presidency
in 2012 after a four-year stint as premier.
Of interest is the Moscow report of Feb. 2, 2012 from the Associated Press which quoted former Soviet
leader Mikhail Gorbachev as saying that “Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has exhausted himself
as Russia’s leader and his inability to change the Kremlin political system might prompt more massive
protests.”

The report goes on to say that “Putin is almost certain to win the upcoming election in March [of 2012]
despite recent opposition street rallies, Russia’s largest since the Soviet collapse.”

“Gorbachev said Thursday that if Putin does not change the system he built, ‘everything will end up on
city squares.’”

Moreover: “Gorbachev recently called on the Kremlin to annul the results of the December
parliamentary election that triggered the rallies.”

An ominous figure, Surkov, 47, is often ranked as Russia’s third-most-powerful politician, after
President Dmitri Medvedev, and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. However, insiders say that his
influence over the whole apparatus of Kremlin power is far greater than that of the “figurehead
president” Medvedev. According to them, he is the “real number two,” and his influence is set to grow,
rather than diminish, with Putin’s inevitable re-election.

Surkov is known as the Kremlin’s main propagandist and ideologist as well as the mastermind behind
the concept of “managed democracy” and an organizer of Putin’s pro-Kremlin youth squads — Nashi
(meaning ours, as opposed to “vashi,” theirs). It is sometimes said that, with the cynicism of a young
Stalin, Surkov plays on both teams — “ours” as well as “theirs.”

In Moscow, Surkov is referred to as the “gray cardinal,” a behind-the-scenes manipulator who inspires
fascination and fear. For more than a decade, he has helped shape the ideological message of Russia’s
leaders, its governing party, United Russia, of parties in opposition to United Russia, its youth
movements, and virtually anything widely published or broadcast in the country.

The Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov called for Surkov’s ouster, condemning him as a “puppet
master” who prevented the growth of real democracy. It is not surprising that Prokhorov’s attack was
edited out of the Moscow evening news and seemed to vanish. Now, with two electoral campaigns under
way, Surkov is as essential to the Kremlin as he has ever been.

Surkov’s job is to oversee the relationship of the executive branch with Russia’s Parliament, its regional
leaders, and its political parties and mass media.

A cunning man, a schemer, a manipulator, a survivor, with his own far-reaching goals and his not yet
revealed and not yet realized dictatorial ambitions, he is out to destroy whatever democratic
achievements have so far been made in this post-Soviet Russia.

Russia Must Choose Freedom

These days we are living in a world in which political developments in Russia are of great importance to
the entire world. Why?

Before the revolution of October 1917 Russia had been viewed as a country of great hope by those most
enlightened in the world.

A portrait of the great novelist

Dostoevsky hangs in a Russian cafe.
(Getty Images)
It is beyond argument in any enlightened environment that Russian culture — from Dostoyevsky to
Chekhov — has a valuable contribution to make regarding the political future of the world.

But let us first see which of the Russian contributions were valuable to the world. First, we all believe in
the importance of freedom.

This is connected to the word “democracy.” However, even that word is not sufficiently specific and
broad enough for all societies.

Yes, all countries should be freed, and this freedom should rely on each country’s conceptualization of a
best future.

Our ancestors in Russia have done a great deal to create the worst society possible for human life.

In other words, it is necessary to add that which makes life meaningful for every human being to what is
most essential in all of human life — for everyone to live their lives as freely as possible.

There are many people who are ready to describe their vision for that which is absolutely necessary for
life.

But in their attempt to speak for an entire population, they may by necessity leave some people out.
Every individual should have a choice as to how they wish to live their lives.

The task is by no means easy. Mankind has devoted its best minds and souls to try to strike the proper
balance of freedoms for at least a millennium.

Russia has been endowed with a rich and gifted people. But its political existence has been marked by a
dark side.

Autocracy is not the best form of government. The entire population of Russia must have a voice and
decision in social and political discussions.

Unfortunately, there was a tragic, disastrous turn for the worst in Russian history with the Stalin era
and the ruthless denial of anything human.

Oddly, Stalin’s saturnalia came as a scientific delusion through the vision of a “German scientist” named
Marx, who fled Germany which was insufficiently free — that is, not sufficiently “scientific” for him.

Hitler did not live longer than Stalin. After Hitler lost his war to Stalin, he committed suicide, while
Stalin continued on until his death in 1953.

Today there is considerable discussion in Russia over the right person — ostensibly the most intelligent
person — to lead the government.

A 1922 book in the United States proclaimed one’s intelligence to be dependent upon the intelligence of
one’s brain.

So the human brain has been studied since the end of the 19th century — the search for the most
intelligent person has been going on for over a century.

Such an approach to picking a leader may lead to a no less dangerous absurdity than to pick another
Stalin —a ruthless dictator.
Therefore, to avoid any ambiguities, the choice of the most intelligent person to lead a country should
be based on whether or not that person would — above all else — preserve the democratic rights of
citizens and obey the rule of law, i.e., the country’s constitution.

It should not be based on anyone’s guess as to whether a certain candidate qualifies as the most
intelligent person in the country.

Today, Russia is again confronted with a most important decision — to choose a leader who will defend
the basic freedoms of its citizens, someone who will follow the rule of law and abide by the country’s
constitution.

Protests Reveal Dissatisfaction

Moscow’s intelligentsia is again making waves in the aftermath of nationwide demonstrations on Dec.
10, 2011 to protest alleged fraud in Russia’s parliamentary elections and demanding an end to Vladimir
Putin’s 12-year domination of the country.

On Feb. 7, the Russian high-brow Internet pay site, Snob, which is owned by Mikhail Prokhorov, carried
the lengthy article, “I Accuse” by Mikhail Arkadiev, an Honored Artist of Russia, a prominent and
internationally acclaimed classical pianist, composer, and conductor.

He has served as the music director of the Russische Abende

Chamber Music Festival (Schleswig-Holstein, Germany) and "I have no vote," reads the message
regularly gives master classes in Moscow, St. Petersburg, on a Russian protester in December.
Vienna, Budapest, Brussels, and elsewhere (Getty Images)
(www.classicalarchives.com).

Widely discussed on radio station Ekho Moskvy, Arkadiev’s article is a response to the so-called “Putin’s
Boosters,” i.e., those who expressed their intention to support Putin in his upcoming re-election
campaign (March 4, 2012). So far, 499 signatures appear on the list of supporters.

Figuring amongst Putin’s “boosters” who put down their signatures are men and women from social
media, prominent dramatists, actors, artists, film directors, world-renowned musicians, composers, and
people in the arts and sciences.

Those familiar to Western audiences are filmmakers Oleg Tabakov, Nikita Mikhalkov, and Fyodor
Bondarchuk, among others. As in art, so in music.

Even respected classical musician Yuri Bashmet did not step out of line, lending his support to the
inevitable dictator.

On Tuesday, Feb. 14, it became known that Ekho Moskvy, Russia’s only independent radio station, will
cease to exist as we know it.

The old administration was forcibly replaced by a new one, and the entire editorial staff submitted
letters of resignation. Could this have been a protest to the controlled, Soviet-style media that is likely
coming?

Similar policy changes have also recently affected the editorial staff of Snob, possibly in retaliation for
the site’s uncensored, and unbiased reporting.

The former editor in chief was let go while others resigned on their own.
With some of the outstanding contributors gone, and others probably going to follow, it became clear
that the publication will change its unique character, no longer sustaining its intellectual independence.
In the end, it will go the way of the politically inert glamor press.

In his article, Arkadiev writes:

“I am aware of the fact that what I am going to say will reach only but very few people. But say I must.
And what I want to say must be said at this time crucial for the country and only by a classical musician
who lives in Russia . . .

“I hereby accuse Putin’s regime, which has corrupted our country and which I hold morally responsible
for the unconscionable, criminal schism of Russia.This schism was clearly manifest during the two Feb.
4, 2012, Moscow events — the pro-democracy, anti-Putin Bolotnaya Street demonstration and the
other, staged by the Putin regime in support of Putin and organized by Putin’s loyalists, on Poklonnaya
Street . . .”

Putin has got all it takes to win the March 4 election: power, apparatus, money, and armed special
police to squash any possible display of unrest.

One thing Putin’s well-organized re-election campaign desperately needed was the loyal support of the
media and the Russian elite intellectuals.

He now seems to have fixed that too with the signatures of many of the country’s cultural elite in the
creative arts, music, literature, film, and social media.

Destruction of the free, independent press and the rush of the Russian elite to support the inevitable
victory of a stealthily totalitarian regime should be taken as a sign that something irreversible is
happening in Russia.

For a short time, there was hope that more freedom would be won. And indeed, for a while this seemed
possible. I am no longer optimistic that freedom is on the horizon.

The last few decades have seen ever-increasing numbers of Russian businessmen and intellectuals in
the West who are free to travel, take part in joint business ventures and freely exchange ideas.

Signs of revolt have emerged in recent months. The Russian people are up in arms. The events reveal
deep-rooted dissatisfaction with the Putin regime.

They’ve show us just how unhappy the people are with the political system in Russia.

Obama’s Pandering to China May Backfire

“China Builds the Bomb” is the title of a 327-page book written by two American nuclear scientists and
published in 1988. I bought this book as soon as it hit the bookstores.

Indeed, the book invited the readers to pay special attention to the chapter, “China’s Nuclear Weapons
Tests, 1964-1978.”

Quite a few books have been published in the West on the

Obama meets with Chinese Vice
President Xi Jinping in February.
(Getty Images)
progress of research and the current state of work on nuclear weapons in the “People’s Republic of
China” (PRC), its population numbering 1.339 billion.

Even a casual error on the part of those responsible for nuclear weapons may lead to mutual destruction
of the countries possessing such weapons. We ignore the possibility that death to Western countries
may also come from a nuclear attack by the PRC.

In 2009, I bought a 550-page book, “When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and
the Birth of a New Global Order” by Martin Jacques (The Penguin Press, New York, 2009).

From the text on the dust cover of the book, we find out that the author, Martin Jacques, an
Englishman, “is a visiting professor at the Renmin University, Beijing, The International Centre for
Chinese Studies, a Centre for the Study of International Affairs, Diplomacy and Grand Strategy, a
visiting research fellow at the London School of Economics Asia Research Centre,” etc., etc., etc.

Jacques’s book could not have appeared in former Soviet Russia because it undermines the very
foundation of Stalin’s rule. According to Soviet propaganda, the Soviet working people had ruled their
country since 1917, in contrast to Britain or the United States, ruled by their bourgeoisie!

Following WWI, the marching song of Russian workers as they were taking power, sounded, according
to the Soviet propaganda, as follows:

Rise up you in factories and prisons,

March with us as a single army!

For battle, for battle, for battle!

Our comrades in prisons

In cold and wet dungeons,
You are with us, though not in our columns!

The two worlds are fighting each other at last.

Our slogan is a World Soviet Union!

In Soviet Russia, Jacques would have been shot by Lenin or Stalin for writing such a book, on charges of
being a British secret intelligence agent. The final ambition of the ruling Soviet communist gangsters
was to bring about the “communist revolution” all over the world — to remake the world in their own
image.

It hasn’t exactly worked out that way outside Russia. After Stalin’s death, the “invincible Soviet Union”
as we know it ceased to exist, and for a little while, a couple of decades, there appeared an illusion of
freedom in the country: people could travel all over the world and open their businesses.

That illusion has been short-lived: the recent unrests in Russia have shown that the danger of returning
dictatorship is quite real: Putin’s March 4, 2012, presidential victory seems to be a done deal.

In his book, Martin Jacques argues that we in the West have barely begun to understand what life will
be like when communist China rules the world.

This is what The Independent (UK) wrote about Jacques’s book: “A tour de force . . . What Martin
Jacques set out to do — and has done in meticulous detail — was to challenge what he regards as a
dangerously false premise: that the rise of China will be benign.”

The widespread belief that China is becoming more like the West, that the world will be relatively little
changed by China’s economic rise is deeply mistaken — in fact, an increasingly powerful communist
China will seek to change the world in its own image. We ignore the fact that the rise of China’s military
will change the world in the most profound ways.

President Obama’s pandering to China has underpinned American willingness to cooperate with China,
open its markets to Chinese exports, and give access to the most sensitive American military technology
previously out of limits to any outsider. And why should we assume that communist China will not use
this new-found economic and military strength for its wider political, cultural, and military ends?

The effects of China’s economic and military rise are being felt around the world, mainly in the falling
price of many consumer products and the rise in commodity prices.

On page 12 of the book, we read: “With a population four times the size of that of the United States and
a double-digit growth rate, Goldman Sachs has projected that in 2027 China will overtake the United
States as the world’s largest economy.”

Can a United States president regain the erstwhile American economic strength and save the unique
American democratic values and its preeminent, strong military position in the world? My answer is
yes, he/she can — but only if President Obama, with his failed economic policies and his treacherous
ways toward American military, loses his bid for the second term and thus will not have a chance to
finish off what he left undone — the conversion of the United States into a Chinese colony.

Putin’s Victory Is Reminiscent of 1917

What’s this? Don’t I know what is going on in Russia? The entire world is watching! And here I am
recalling oh, God, those horrible events of 1917!

The trouble is that as a result of chasing after what is happening this month, this day, this hour, this
minute in a certain country sensationalized at the moment, the news hunters fail to understand (as all
news watchers had failed to understand at the time what was going on in the autumn of 1917 in Russia)
the tragic nature and gruesome consequences of an event they are witnessing.

History is a living philosophy, and those who “just watch it

A Moscow uprising during the 1917 as it happens” will never understand it.
Russian Revolution.
(Getty Images)
In 1971, D. S. Anin published in Russian (his mother tongue) a 528-page book, entitled “The Revolution
of 1917 in Russia Through the Eyes of Its Leaders” (Edizioni Aurora Roma, 1971. Originally published by
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1961). I bought this book in Italy shortly after I and my family
emigrated from Russia and were en route to the United States.

Recently I found this book on my bookshelves, re-read it, and am now writing about it, since the book is
still relevant. It’s worth writing about now to better understand what is presently going on in Russia.

Lenin was — just as was Marx — an idiot. Medical research of the human brain began in the West in the
19th century and is still going on. According to the medical studies, still little known or unknown is the
fact that some people are classified as idiots (though the use of the word in medical literature is avoided
nowadays as being politically incorrect).

Understandably, some “top political leaders” in the United States are idiots, since inevitably there
happen to be many idiots among those who elect them.

The author of the book recalls (page 35): “Typically, at the conference of the Central Committee of the
[Bolshevik] Party, only two votes were cast for Lenin’s theses; 13 members voted against them, and only
one abstained [from the voting].”

“As for non-Bolsheviks, nearly all of them considered Lenin’s recipes ‘ravings of a madman.’”

Before 1917, Russia was not a democracy, but a monarchy, and its future would have been a matter of
the public discussion and vote.

In Lenin’s Marxist view, the relevance of public opinion to his own theory of what Russia’s future should
be like was as absurd and irrelevant (and indeed dangerous!) as would be the opinions of a laymen over
how best to treat a certain disease.

In their writings, Marx, and later Lenin, professed their own views on how mankind, and Russia in
particular, should get rid of all “social diseases.”

What happened to the great Russian literature after 1917? Where are today’s Russian contemporaries of
Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Chekhov, and Blok?

It would be hard to imagine what Russia would have been like a century after the 1917 takeover if not for
its new owners’ destruction of the great Russian art and invention of the new, Soviet-style pseudo arts
and sciences.

With Lenin’s death, Russia had a good riddance. He was born in 1870, and in 1924 he was reported to
have died of “old age.” He was 53 years old!

After Lenin’s death, the intrusion of those who had grabbed the power in Russia continued in all fields
of human endeavor. To emigrate from “Soviet Russia” became impossible. Erelong, no one could
publish anything on his own: Soviet “government” publishers kept censoring out any personal creative
thought.

The same happened to all arts. Ironically, there appeared the new Soviet mediocrity in all spheres of life
— arts and literature were taken over by newly created Soviet hackers. This government-produced
mediocrity was sanctioned by those in power and was glorified and generously rewarded by the regime:
“The Soviet violins at the world contests sound better than any other!”

Now, long after the events of 1917 shook the entire world, the country again faces an unknown future.
For a while, with the meteoric rise of Vladimir Putin, the former KGB official of the Soviet secret police,
with his “liberal authoritarianism,” there was a short-lived illusion that things might change, that those
Western democratic values would take root in the country: people were free to travel, express their
opinions, form political parties, and even openly demonstrate their opposition to the regime.

Only very few realized that all those so-called “freedoms” were never guaranteed by the constitution;
people had no right to bear arms to defend themselves, and all power rested with the unelected
government. Those temporary freedoms were nothing more than erstwhile Soviet-style permissions of
the Putin government, which had the final say and the military power to cut short any or all of them at
any time.

Politically, Vladimir Putin introduced tighter controls over parliament and the media and his opponents
— moves that are reminiscent of the Soviet era.

Putin’s recent victory was absolutely predictable to those familiar with the post-Soviet political history
of the country. It was a fait accompli.

Kasparov Loses Political Chess Match

Garry Kasparov is a Russian chess grandmaster, widely regarded as the greatest chess player of our
time. In 1985, at age 22, Kasparov became the youngest-ever undisputed World Chess Champion.

In 1989, Kasparov defeated the chess computer Deep Thought in both games of a two-game
match. In 1996, he won the match against the IBM chess computer Deep Blue.

In February 1996, IBM’s chess computer Deep Blue defeated

Kasparov in just one game [Deep Blue-Kasparov, 1996, Garry Kasparov lost his political
Game 1). Undaunted, Kasparov stuck to his guns and, after chess match.
gaining three wins, won the match against the silicon (Getty Images)
monster.

In 2003, Kasparov engaged in another match, “Man vs. Machine” World Championship against Deep
Junior. He won a prize of $175,000 and took home the golden trophy.
Afterwards, all Kasparov said was that he had outplayed the machine.

What an incredible triumph of the human brain over the computer, that awe-inspiring mechanical
creation of our modern technology!

In March 2005, Kasparov announced he would retire from serious competitive chess, his reason being
the lack of personal goals in the chess world. He decided to immerse himself in Russian politics, which
he viewed as “heading down the wrong path.”

The concern was not new for the chess master. Already in 1990 Kasparov had taken part in the creation
of the Democratic Party in Russia, as well as in the creation of the “Choice of Russia” bloc of parties, and
in 1996 he took part in the election campaign of Boris Yeltsin.

In 2005, after Kasparov retired from chess, he turned to politics and created the United Civil Front, a
social movement whose main goal is to “work to preserve electoral democracy in Russia”

Kasparov vowed to “restore democracy” to Russia by toppling the Russian Prime Minister Vladimir
Putin, of whom he has proven himself an implacable and outspoken critic

He was instrumental in setting up “The Other Russia,” a coalition which opposes Putin’s government.
“The Other Russia” has been boycotted by the leaders of Russia’s mainstream opposition parties.
Kasparov has argued that these parties are controlled by the Kremlin, despite the fact that they publicly
oppose presidential policies.

On numerous occasions, Kasparov helped to organize demonstrations and rallies of protest in Moscow
and St. Petersburg against anti-democratic, unlawful practices of the Russian ruling elite.

Kasparov was among the first signatories and one of the architects of the online anti-Putin campaign
“Putin Must Go,” which launched in March of 2010.

On Jan. 31, Kasparov hosted a meeting of opposition leaders who organized the mass march of protest
on Feb. 4.

Yet, Putin is again in the Kremlin. A great mind, a great chess strategist who triumphed over the
computer, Kasparov was unable to unseat Putin, an ignorant nobody, the almighty KGB man, who all
these years meticulously played his own cunning game, developed his own politically criminal ways and
strategies to hang on to power.

And even the brain of a genius was no match against all that brawn.

History Will Decide Our Destiny

Marx and Lenin, and later Soviet propaganda, asserted that crimes and criminals
exist due to poverty in the “capitalist world.” In their “socialist-communist
world,” there will be no poverty and hence no desire for wealth.

After the socialists-communists had seized power in Russia, Lenin became the
head of the government. Why? Allegedly, because he wanted to eliminate
poverty. As for those saying that he was vain, well, quite a few Russians will tell
you that those who spread such absurd slander should be sent to prison.

Lenin died, but the next Soviet ruler, who named himself “a man of steel,”
created a society which lasted till his death in 1953 and which surpassed in
cruelty all the regimes, including those of tsars Ivan the Terrible and Peter the
Great of the old Russia.

The next act of this tragedy was the invasion of

Chinese visitors fill in survey forms
Russia by the National Socialist [Nazi] Party of
near the Microsoft booth during a
software fair in Beijing. Germany. The “Nazi leader” was finally thrown
(AP Image) out of Russia and committed suicide.
Those events were just adventures before the “People’s Republic of China” (PRC)
appeared in 1949, and China itself became a new Chinese edition of the old
China.

On Aug. 5, 2010, I received the following letter from Eduardo Aleman, a reader
of mine:

“Mr. Navrozov,

Every time I read a news [report] about the spectacular growth of the Chinese
monster, I remember your articles. For instance, today, a spokesperson from the
Department of Defense was commenting that a new missile soon to be
operational is capable to destroy an aircraft carrier placed 900 miles from the
shoreline. Why the surprise?

“This same week it was announced that China had surpassed Japan as the
second world economy, only behind US, but all the prospects point that will
change in about a decade, when the Chinese will be the first one . . .”

He concludes his letter as follows:

“However, our country is still seeing this opium dream and sending its best
technology to China (Microsoft has installed its research center for new
technologies there) and we keep graduating many more lawyers and ‘specialists
in communications’ than engineers and scientists.”

The victory in the two world wars depended at that time on the latest
achievements in science and engineering. The war became a war of science and
technology.

Nuclear weapons? Nowadays, this is considered old stuff — created by German

scientists during WWII and ignored by Hitler, who was too backward mentally to
appreciate the importance of such a capability.

Those who knew better developed them further and won the war.

The PRC, which had not existed as the military giant it is today, now boasts a
population of 1.339 billion. What an infinite arsenal of warriors to draw upon!

We are living in a new era. Its victors will be those who belong to this new era —
not those who recall how they had defeated Hitler.

Yes, the new military epoch began with Russia’s victory, Hitler’s suicide, and
with all those new military and technological achievements of the late 20th
century.

The 1.339 billion Chinese slaves can survive any war better than the population
of a free society — unless the free society has enough determination and
willpower to keep its latest achievements in science and technology from getting
into the hands of the communist slave owners.

History will show which society is destined to survive and which to perish.

Learning from the 'Slaves' of Oppression

Let me reflect on our release from Russia in the early 1970s.

A slave-owning “government” can mistreat any data on anyone and convert to slavery anyone except the
“government” slave-owners.

Freedom guarantees that the rights of any human being be

A preserved segment of the Berlin defended in an independent court of justice if his or her
Wall has become a symbol of the human rights are violated.
power once wielded by the former
Soviet Union.
(Getty Images)
Miraculously, I was given permission to leave Soviet Russia in the early 1970s, with my wife, who had
learned English with the same stubbornness and skill as I did, our son (today a scholar), and my
mother, a medical doctor. What country did we turn to?

We chose the United States because it was powerful and intelligent enough to steer the future course of
mankind toward freedom, not slavery.

That was our choice.

We left behind our Moscow castle, probably the only one in the country built by a professional architect,
with terraces and balconies surrounding the house and acres of forest land stretching as far as the eye
could see.

We almost never talk about it, since we never considered it our property even though we worked hard
and bought it with our own money. Nobody in the country could own property.

Our neighbors, high-ranking communist party functionaries, were given property, which could have
been taken away from them at any time if they fell out of grace with the regime.

Spiritually, we were never attached to it: Soviet power was getting closer and closer to our isolated life.
So when the news first came that there was a chance to escape, we went for it and never looked back.

And here we were in New York, with the six windows of our apartment on the 21st floor, and a terrace
overlooking the hills as high as our building — all green, all lights, stretching left and right to infinity.

Yes, the United States was that country from which all freedom-lovers like myself could try to turn the
world around toward freedom — and away from slavery.

Upon my arrival in the United States, I began writing my weekly column, with an emphasis on the
problems of defending freedom against slavery.

In the absence of universal freedom, the knowledge of any country from the point of view of world
freedom versus slavery, lacked sufficient reliable analysis.

And what about sufficiently reliable and valuable analysis of slave countries by those so-called certified
“specialists” produced in free countries?

I listen to what they say, and I also speak with them — as a former native of a slave country in which I
had lived from birth.

An analyst who is not born in the country he or she studies, and who lacks the intimate knowledge of a
native is absolutely useless if he or she is trained by academics from a free country.

He or she provides no valuable information, and worse yet, even misleading, or harmful information.

This alone may lead to the death of the free world, deprived of a native understanding of a slave
country.

In the huge hall of a newspaper, which invited me to speak upon my arrival to the United States, one of
those present who got interested in my presentation, later invited me to write for his publication — and
I still write a column for him every week.

Free countries have one decisive advantage: They can publish the writings of those who fled their native
slave lands and who now relish the taste of freedom.
Those former natives of slave countries now living in freedom can provide an intimate look into the
workings of slave societies and be an infinite source of valuable information about the vast mortally
dangerous unfree world, which poses a threat to freedom.

Even the official Soviet state hymn revealed the global ambitions of the former Union. The division of
the world today is bigger than it was then.

And the weapons? Surely, they have become increasingly destructive and easily available to despotic
rulers of closed societies.

The ongoing silent war has become more sophisticated, destructive, and competitive — owing to the
greater speeds and availability of new technologies.

Free countries should make full use of the authentic, intimate knowledge of closed societies from former
natives who were lucky enough to escape an oppressive dictatorial regime.

They might now be the only reliable source of information needed by the free West to preserve
freedom.

Obama Snubs Individual Freedom

Some centuries ago, there originated a thing called freedom in some countries of Western Europe —
particularly in Great Britain, and later in the United States.

The founders of the United States created a unique society allowing a maximum amount of liberty for
the individual and restricting government involvement into the life of an individual to the most
infinitesimal minimum ever seen in the history of the civilized world.

The founders of the United States put the individual at the

A protester prays outside the Supreme top of society — not a monarch, or dictator, or president, or
Court as justices hear arguments on legislative body.
Obamacare.
(Getty Images)
The American Constitution proclaims the rights of the
individual because the individual is the only entity that has inalienable rights.

The president of the United States and members of government are sworn to uphold the Constitution of
the United States and to protect the inalienable rights of individuals. And this is the basic principle on
which this country has been built.

In a free society, the individual can make decisions about his life as he chooses as long as he does not
damage another by some means — such as murder, assault, fraud, theft, coercion, etc.

But in a government-controlled society it is government officials who decide what the individual reads,
hears, or purchases.

In free societies individuals decide who they will favor or not favor by either purchasing — or not
purchasing — a certain commodity or idea.

And this is where President Barack Obama comes in. Obama thinks otherwise.
He believes he is above the law and has the right not to abide by the Constitution of these United States.

I am talking about Obamacare.

Does a U.S. president have the constitutional right to make anyone buy medical insurance — or any
other kind of insurance for that matter?

Is there anything else President Obama would like Americans to buy? Maybe he would like everyone to
buy and read the complete works of Karl Marx? Or maybe he would like American families to spend
their dollars vacationing in the People’s Republic of China to contribute to the military strength of his
good friends there.

I wonder just how far President Obama’s ambitions will go if he is elected for another four years?

At present, the potential military advantage of the free countries over slave countries such as China is
enormous. Scientists working for the militaries of free countries do their utmost to ensure military
superiority when the free world is threatened. Their unique inventions should be cherished and never
shared with dictatorial regimes posing as our friends.

Only in freedom — where a person is not a slave obeying the omnipotent ruler’s orders — can a person
be free to pursue his or her own field of endeavor and make a valuable contribution to the development
and defense of a free society.

Obama Has Dictatorial Tendencies

I left “Soviet Russia” with my family at the first opportunity, for we felt that the creeping “half-
dictatorship” under which we lived was a precursor of the full-blown, cruel dictatorship it used to be
during Stalin’s times.

We lived through those horrific forebodings, and felt unbelievably lucky to have escaped from that
hell into the paradise that was the United States.

But after living in this country for 40 years, we cannot

A protester carries a sign that reads, escape the feeling that even in this unique democracy,
"The welfare of humanity is always President Obama’s dictatorial tendencies reveal themselves
the alibi of tyrants" outside the in a slow, step-by-step process of chipping away at people’s
Supreme Court. inalienable rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution.
(Getty Images)
For example, Obama is out to abolish the right of American citizens to own guns. The Second
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.”

In Russia, before Vladimir Putin came to power a month ago, mass pro-democracy forces came out to
protest against the government’s fraud favoring Putin’s party victory.

The prevailing criticism of the Russian people in the West was that the Russian protesters were weak,
indecisive, disunited, and could not fight for their freedom. Others were saying that they now have
enough freedom — they can travel all over the world, open up businesses, and trade with foreign
countries.
More than that — they enjoy freedom of speech, can criticize the government, and can form political
parties.

There was only one thing not mentioned. The Russian people are unarmed.

They have no right to bear arms — to defend themselves and fight for their democratic rights. How can
they fight against Putin’s heavily armed militia and the army? With kitchen knives?

Even that would be considered a crime! Not a single Western country came to support their fight as they
did in other countries.

I am saying this in connection with Obama’s latest unconstitutional move to take away the right of
American citizens to own guns. That probably will be the first thing on his agenda — to institute gun
control — if he gets re-elected. To disarm the country.

If he succeeds, will his dictatorial appetite be satisfied?

I doubt it. Obama once said he wouldn’t mind being a one-term president. Now, in a recent television
interview, he said he desperately needs to be elected to a second term.

During his trip to South Korea, Obama found foreign support from Dmitri Medvedev, his new Russian
“friend,” who promised to help Obama get re-elected in exchange for the American technology Russia
needs.

Unable to suppress his ambitions, President Obama issued stern language to the Supreme Court of the
United States regarding his healthcare law, expressing confidence that “Obamacare” would not be
overturned by the nation’s highest court.

On Monday, April 2 at a White House press conference, Obama said: “I am confident this [law] will be
upheld because it should be upheld,” (a familiar threat found in the erstwhile Soviet press). Obama went
on to say that overturning the law that he had signed would be an “unprecedented and extraordinary
step,” comparing the court’s possible rejection of his law to “judicial activism.”

President Obama reminded everyone that the Supreme Court justices were “unelected,” while the law
was passed by a democratically elected Congress.

It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will rule on the matter, but the ruling is bound to have a
significant impact on Obama’s chances for re-election — and ultimately his dictatorial tendencies.

U.S. Freedom Is at Stake in Election

Will the United States Survive Obama’s Second Term?

Before Hitler invaded Russia, a fair answer to the question “Who’s going to win World War II?” would
be Hitler’s Germany. Its military science and technology were developed more than in any other
country. But history ruled otherwise — Hitler was defeated.

Germany’s “military leader,” Adolf Hitler, considered

Obama meets with Medvedev on himself to be the most intelligent human being in the history
March 26. of mankind and, of course, the greatest military leader.
(Getty Images)
Germany was the country in which nuclear technology was born and a project to develop nuclear
weapons was under way, a sufficient condition to carry out the dictator’s ambitions to conquer the
world. Instead, Hitler invaded Russia in 1941, before the nuclear weapons' project was realized. He lost
the war and consequently committed suicide.

Some territories inhabited today still include social structures that existed millennia ago. The word
“slave” has become publicly unacceptable, yet even now slavery prospers in some countries under such
names as “socialism” or “communism.”

The appearance of a new social structure such as freedom and the success of the free countries have
been the result of unprecedented military development of sophisticated scientific discoveries. But the
emergence of the USSR and later of the “People’s Republic of China” (PRC) demonstrates the slow, self-
contradictory, and convoluted progress of freedom.

Despite the fact that the physicists in Germany were successfully developing the new, highly
sophisticated weapons, Hitler did not seem to know or care about them. His ignorance and stupidity,
however, turned out to be a blessing for the entire world by saving it from the ruthless and ignorant
dictator. That “conqueror of the world” ended up killing himself.

Of course, the willingness and determination of a country to win a war are of great importance in its
defense. However, military science and technology and military preparedness of a country are
sometimes more important for winning a war than the sympathy or hostility of the majority of its
population toward that war.

The above-mentioned factor kept going down in importance as the disparity between the armaments of
technically advanced and backward countries suggested that a country could easily perish unless its
weapons were advanced.

In today’s world, freedom and democracy closely coexist with the most vicious totalitarian regimes, and
these two opposites are pitted against each other in an ongoing deadly battle.

Those who live in free, democratic countries take their liberties and their way of life for granted. They
enjoy themselves. They are lax — oblivious to the fact that their very existence is envied and threatened
by the owners of slave countries such as the People’s Republic of China, North Korea, or Iran.

Not so long ago, the gap between the level of development of military power in the most and least
scientifically and technologically developed countries was far greater than it is now. Then it became
easier and more affordable for a less developed country to acquire weapons and military know-how
from highly developed countries than developing and producing its own.

It is fashionable these days to promote “friendship and cooperation” among all countries, irrespective of
whether they are free democracies, pretending to be free or simply outright dictatorships. We do this
through trade, tourism, scientific conferences, exchange of scientists, students, and facilitating access
to new science and technology.

And this is where the free countries lose: they are as gullible as they are open-minded. Chinese dictators
will stop at nothing when it comes to enticing a unique scientist to come to work in China. They will give
him or her whatever they desire — from money, to their own labs equipped with the latest technology.

It is quite acceptable to admit that Hitler was an illiterate, arrogant nonentity — an idiot.

But what is President Obama, a basketball player turned “intellectual” because he went to an Ivy-League
college? A certified law professor, and community organizer?

As president, he took an oath to protect the independence and freedom of this country.
An American president representing his country abroad is expected to uphold the interests of his
country rather than his own concerns about re-election. During President Obama's recent trip to South
Korea, he confided his worries about his re-election campaign to Dimitry Medvedev before an open
microphone. The entire world heard his comments and laugh at.Mr. Obama.

Was Obama there representing the United States or his own interests? The scandalous event is being
discussed in the Russian press. American president needs help to get re-elected, eh?

Things such as this are not out of character for Mr. Obama. Remember his opening of American secret
military bases to Chinese generals? A sign of goodwill and friendship? A sign of bad judgment?

To all those Americans who intend to vote for Obama: Why stay in this country and bother with
elections? Why not move to China?

There, the burden of choosing a president will be lifted. The PRC will take care of that.

Obama is Putting US on Slow Boat to China

Even Stalin would have had a very long way to go before becoming the owner of the globe. Russia, which
Stalin seized, technologically lagged behind countries with developed capitalist systems.

Germany, for example, had become industrialized long before Russia.

It is hard to imagine what Russia would have been like a

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev century after 1917 if not for its owners’ invention of a new
examines a bust of Soviet physicist Soviet-style propagandist pseudo-culture and their
Yulii Khariton in 2009. Khariton was desperate efforts to have the country militarized at any price,
a chief designer of the Soviet atomic even at the expense of millions of lives lost either from
bomb. starvation or in hard labor camps — the source of the Soviet-
slave workforce.
(Getty Images)

The Soviet project to develop an atomic bomb was a clandestine R&D program begun during post-
World War II, in the wake of Stalin’s discovery of the U.S. nuclear project.

Through sources in the Manhattan Project, the Soviet intelligence obtained important information on
the progress of the U.S. atomic bomb effort.

In 1945, after winning the war over Hitler’s Germany and realizing that America had successfully
deployed the atom bomb against Japan, Stalin accelerated nuclear research to develop his own atom
bomb, which was tested in 1949, thus making Soviet Russia the second nuclear nation after the United
States.

Why is freedom so precious and why are there so many people living under dictatorial regimes who are
trying to escape from them and come to live in these United States? The answer to this question is that
this unique country provides unlimited possibilities to those free-thinking and talented people who
want to express their original ideas and ambitions to pursue and realize their ideals. It allows them to
live their lives according to their wishes.

Yet the beacon of freedom is growing dim.

And here I get to my main point — another key invention of the 20th century — the Internet.

Its original brief was to develop information technologies that could survive a nuclear attack. The
Internet was invented and founded by the U.S. Department of Defense for sharing information via
computers. That was in 1969. The Internet dates back to the 1950s and 1960s, although few of us knew
of it then as it was part of the American defense system.

Today, the Internet is for the most part an ungoverned global network.

Nowadays it is hard to imagine our lives without the Internet — from social networking to shopping to
getting all information of interest. It is like a huge global social club where people exchange information
and their ideas about politics, activism, political issues, governments, and elections. It provides a
political discussion forum for all views on all subjects.

“If there was ever a tool governments on this planet should fear — it is the Internet. And they know it,”
we read in an article by Longstreet in Canada Free Press. “Because without America there is no Free
World.” And further: “The Internet is the voice of the free people. And it is dangerous . . . The US
government is working day and night to devise a way to . . . rule the Internet . . . to gain control of it so
that they can control content and even access . . . Here in the U.S., our government snoops on its
citizens activity on the Internet. Send an e-mail and the US Government reads it.”

And here is another quote from a piece by Paul Joseph Watson in Prison Planet.com: “New Bill Gives
Obama ‘Kill Switch’ to Shut Down the Internet.” He writes: “The federal government would have
‘absolute power’ to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill . . . legislation which
would hand President Obama a figurative ‘kill switch’ to seize control of the world wide web . . . the
legislation created ‘the potential for absolute power . . .”

Because “The [Obama] government has been searching for any avenue possible through which to
regulate free speech on the Internet and strangle alternative media outlets . . . Similar legislation aimed
at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down
networks has already been passed globally, including the UK, New Zealand, and Australia . . . Handing
government the power to control the Internet would be the first step towards this system, whereby
individual ID’s and government permission would be required to operate a website.”

What we are seeing here in the United States is Marxism at work — this is government “command and
control.” Barack Hussein Obama is the most dangerous and one of the most thoroughly dishonest
presidents this country has ever had.

It is his cynical and self-serving brand of legislative activism that is putting us on the slow boat to China.

U.S. Shouldn't Trade Freedom for Profit

One of our family’s aims in coming out of Russia to the United States was to help Westerners
understand Russia, from which the West was cut off for almost a century. The main source of
information had been what Soviet propaganda was feeding them.

This week, as I was writing my column, I received an e-mail from Saher Ahmed, a university student
writing on Russia and the West. Saher was particularly interested in how the West has influenced
Russian Culture and Society.

“I am trying to gain a further understanding of why, after the

Traffic passes by a McDonald's in collapse of the Soviet Union, did Russia not attempt to
Beijing.
(AP Image)
integrate more with the West? And what led Russia to create an alliance with China over Western
countries?”

I have received similar e-mails from readers, and I am happy to see that there is a growing interest in
the future destiny of the free world and the United States. Its death would come as triumph and glory to
the owners of China, with its 1 billion, 300 million people, many of whom could one day be turned into
soldiers and armed with the latest weapons and military technology.

The end of the United States would likely mean the end of all other free countries. Why? The people of
China are slaves, as were the inhabitants of slave countries hundreds and thousands of years ago.

In free countries, people became free to take control of their own lives and engage in activities according
to their own choice. Free people are free to do anything except what a court of justice finds harmful to
other people.

By a stroke of luck in 1972, having miraculously escaped from Soviet Russia and still left with the bitter
taste of the Soviet regime in which I could not freely express my thoughts and write about what was
truly going on, I found myself writing a book about the horrors of the Stalin regime in the safety of my
new home in New York (Stalin died in 1953).

My book “The Education of Lev Navrozov: A Life in the Closed World Once Called Russia” was
published by Harper&Row (New York, 1975).

In his mail of April 24, Mr.Ahmed asks me why, “after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia did not
attempt to integrate into the West? And what led Russia to create an alliance with China?”

The great Russian art was eliminated by Stalin as “decadent” and replaced with the “realistic”
glorification of Stalin’s Russia — and above all — of Stalin himself.

And “what led Russia to create an alliance with China?”

Well, Western countries also have created an “alliance with China.”

Western countries are outpacing each other in their efforts to create
strong alliances with the slave-owners of China, which encourages Western businessmen to relocate
their businesses over to China and
enjoy the benefits of cheep — or slave — labor.

As a result of those “friendly alliances,” China is getting stronger and stronger, while free Western
countries become victims of their own greed.

Jobs are leaving for China, causing high unemployment in Western countries. To pay unemployment
benefits, governments
take high-interest loans from China, thus getting deeper and deeper in debt and coming to depend more
and more on China’s good will.

Western scientists are tempted by the enormous benefits offered to them by Chinese dictators to deliver
new military technologies.

As a result, China is getting stronger militarily, while Western countries are losing military superiority
and the ability to defend themselves.

At the same time, the attitudes of Western countries become noticeably lax, and less critical of human
rights abuses going on in China.
In short, Western countries are deriving high profits from Chinese cheap slave labor at the expense of
freedom.

Russia, on the other hand, is China’s immediate neighbor and, as any Russian will tell you, Russia fears
an invasion from the Chinese army. For many years, the Chinese have been illegally crossing the
Russian border and quietly settling on Siberian soil.

Do Western free countries have the will and courage to survive? Do they realize that unless they change
their attitudes about the Chinese communist dictators, they risk one day losing independence and
freedom to the Big Dragon’s empire.

Putin’s Dictatorship Is Back

It seems that quite recently things looked so promising in Russia. In my recent columns, I happily
noticed that there are quite a few burgeoning signs of freedom in Russia that were impossible even to
think of in my time: freedom of travel, freedom to leave the country, or start your own business.

I could not believe what I read in the Russian press or interviews with those who openly criticized the
regime. However, one suspicion never left my skeptical mind: Was all that for real? Are any of those
rights guaranteed by the Constitution — the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial by jury, or the
right to bear arms to defend one’s self, for example?

All those 40 years since I escaped from Russia I was tempted

Russian opposition supporters protest by my Russian friends who like me came to live in New York
Putin's presidency along a boulevard and were shuttling back and forth to Russia either out of
in central Moscow as Russia opened a nostalgia, curiosity, or for a business they opened here:
criminal probe into the beating of a “Come, Lev, just take a look! You wouldn’t believe how much
female protester by riot police. things have changed there. We go back and forth and
nothing happens to us. After all, you were born there, you
(Getty Images)
speak Russian, you left behind your friends . . .”

Our family never entertained that crazy idea or gave up our unspoken pledge never to look back on that
hell we left behind.

Then it became known that Vladimir Putin, after four years as prime minister, would be seeking a third
term as Russia’s president.

Not so long ago, in March of this year, in one of my columns, I wrote about massive anti-government
demonstrations in Russia against the election fraud by Putin’s party, “Edinaya Rossiya,” which excluded
Putin’s rivals from the ballot, arrested and jailed some of them and murdered others.

No wonder I was surprised to hear that President Barack Obama promptly called Vladimir Putin, a man
I know as a proud KGB spy who spent his entire life learning how to hate and destroy America and her
values, to congratulate him on his party election victory. “Obama made no reference to Putin's
documented electoral fraud, his exclusion of rivals from the ballot (even as he jailed or murdered
others), or his support for dictatorship and mass murder in Syria," according to an April 1 article in the
American Thinker.

On Monday, May 6, I got a call from Mikhail, my nephew, an American artist, who was in Moscow to
attend his mother’s funeral. "Lev, he said, you were, as usual, right: things here have changed for the
worse. Tomorrow, on May 7, at 12:00 pm Moscow time, Putin will be sworn in as Russia’s president for
a third term. You cannot imagine what is going on here: the streets are flooded with security police.

"The center of the city is blocked by Putin’s special forces; those who live in the New Arbat Street are
prohibited from leaving their homes. The exit and entrance to the Kropotkin and Arbat metro stations
have been blocked for the time of Putin’s inauguration so that the passengers have no way to exit or
enter them.

"People are being detained by special police all over the city — along the sidewalks, in parks — and
being thrown into police cars. The entire city is lifeless. Streets are desolate. People are being arrested in
the streets all over Moscow. Putin’s police examine all coffee shops and are making arrests. The Pushkin
Square and the Arbat streets are controlled by Putin’s people carrying posters 'Putin Loves Us All!'

"I have never seen it happening before. Putin’s inauguration is being transmitted all over the television
screens."

In his 33-word inauguration speech, Putin swore to defend the lives and freedom of the Russian
citizens. He said the following years will be decisive in making better the lives of the Russian people.

At 12:07 pm, the inauguration ceremony was over, and Putin became the Russian president, likely to be
president for life.

Meanwhile the crowd on Nikitsky Boulevard cried out: “Putin is a thief!” Whereupon the OMON people
surrounded them and 200 people were arrested. The crowd dispersed.

"Well, Lev, said Mikhail, you were right — the people here have no constitutional rights, and Putin’s
dictatorship is back."

Western Countries Take China’s Bait

From Moscow, the capital of the slave country founded in 1917, I came to New York, to the 21st floor of a
skyscraper.

The owners of the slave country had created their radio and television and even their own art and
philosophy.

In short, they created a new culture, with inevitable shortcomings.

Pre-1917 Russian culture was based on the concept of genius.

An electronic billboard promotes The West followed, recognizing Russian writers of genius
China in Times Square. The West such as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, or Chekhov.
takes advantage of China's cheap
labor at its own peril.
(AP Image) Post-1917 Russian culture was founded on the premise of
confrontation. Before 1917, the communist hymn
“The Internationale,” which had been created with the participation of Marx himself, was first secretly
sung in Russia.

The message of the hymn could not be clearer: “Workers of the world, unite!” and declare war on
“capitalists” by taking away their property. “Destroy the old world and build a new one, which will
belong to you!” It was not a song. It was a declaration of war.
The message worked in Russia. Tsar Nicholas II and his family were killed, the old Russia with its
unique culture was destroyed, and those who perpetrated those crimes grabbed power. Later, those
“proletarian” factions led by Lenin, who originally seized power, came to fight each other, and Stalin
became the ultimate dictator of the country.

China is another case in point. The old Kuomintang regime was wiped out and found its refuge on the
island of Taiwan, where they established a flourishing democracy, while mainland China still
aggressively pursues the ideas expressed in “The Internationale” — a ruthless dictatorship with the
“proletariat” turned into obedient slaves.

The present-day Chinese dictators, with their1.3 billion slaves, who could be readily turned into the
world’s largest army, menace the West.

Their “peaceful” efforts, which are masqueraded as benevolent trade relations, are actually veiled well-
thought-out efforts to achieve unprecedented military superiority to take over the free world.

It looks like the free countries are taking the bait. Their greed to make ever more money by exploiting
Chinese slave labor is limitless.

Many Western businesses have actually relocated to China — just look at the new office spaces for their
CEOs in multimillion-dollar skyscrapers from which they conduct their trade operations, all built with
Chinese slave labor. And all these motives are more often than not being overlooked by Western human
rights organizations.

A few days ago, while searching the Internet, this title caught my attention: “Report: Chinese tech firms
involved in military collaboration.”

According to the report the “Chinese Liberation Army (PLA) is arming and developing soldiers with
advanced information warfare capabilities, deemed a ‘genuine risk’ to the U.S. military operations when
a conflict arises.” And “China [is] boosting information warfare capabilities, with help of academia and
commercial IT sector, posing risk to Western government and firms.”

I was startled to find that based on “a report by contractor Northrop Grumman for the U.S. government
on the cyber threat posed by China . . . Beijing has come to believe that information warfare and
computer network operations are an essential aspect of any military operation and are integrating them
with traditional components through a framework called ‘information confrontation.’”

The report goes on to say that the “Chinese military is constantly evaluating U.S. command and control
infrastructure and are likely to target these systems with electronic countermeasure weapons, network
attack and exploitation tools in time of conflict . . . China’s military also relies on academia and the
commercial IT sector to boost R&D efforts.”

China’s continual involvement in state-sponsored hacking of computer systems in the United States is
another case in point. According to the report, last year China was accused of a decade-long cyber
espionage attack whereby hackers broke into ISP networks of hotels and used traveling employees to
gain access to confidential corporate mail.

What will be the battle for the globe? The magic answer is, “The will to defeat the enemy no matter
what.” It seems that China, created by the communist Mao, possesses that will, while the West does not.

That is their choice. In a slave society such as China, slaves cannot choose between life and death.
Don't Take China at Face Value

Last week we had a call from someone whom we hadn’t spoken with in some years: an intelligent young
man, a brilliant computer specialist, with a keen interest in international affairs. He was particularly
interested in Falun Gong persecutions in China.

He had several Chinese friends associated with the Chinese human rights group located in California.
There he met a bright Chinese girl whom he later married.

Incidentally, before my wife started typing up my writings —

Chinese People's Liberation Army I wrote them in longhand. Alan Freed, a dear friend of ours
soldiers and officers line up outside and a priest, typed up my columns.
the Great Hall of the People earlier
this month.
(Getty Images) He also performed the marriage ceremony of those two
young people.

Shortly after the couple had their first child, our young friend found himself unemployed: The company
he worked for went out of business. His wife was still working when a second child was on its way.

The couple struggled financially. Hopeless, with no prospects to find a job, the couple, at the suggestion
of his wife’s family in China, decided to relocate there.

We just refused to believe that after having been so active in exposing and criticizing the dictatorial
regime in communist China — fully aware of the atrocities perpetrated by the Chinese rulers against
human dignity — they decided to go live in that country.

I would believe that if they were ignorant people and did not know any better.

But not they!

I tried to dissuade them, but all to no avail. I stopped speaking to them and would not pick up the
phone.

Quite unexpectedly, two years ago we had a call from this former friend of ours then living in China,
who was visiting his mother in New York.

My wife had a brief, formal conversation with him, and he said that things were going well. He had a
well-paid job with a small Chinese company and learned to speak Chinese — fluent enough to
communicate with his Chinese co-workers.

Last week we heard from him again. He said that he and his family are back in the United States. The
company he worked for in China went out of business.

They are expecting a third child.

He asked my wife if there is anything he could do for me — for example, doing some research on China.
Because, he said, he now knows the country so much better.

It was a very long conversation. I heard my wife passionately arguing with him when at the other end he
was saying that we don’t understand that country, that it is now the most peaceful country in the world
because the Chinese military is not engaged in any military conflict.
Things have changed there, he went on to say. The pro-human rights wing of the Communist Party is
taking over: Falun Gong people are no longer persecuted. The blind human rights activist and his family
are on their way to the United States, and more: The Chinese communists are downsizing their army.

Actually they would keep only a tiny army well equipped with the latest technology — only for defense
purposes.

Why, he asked, can’t you both understand China — the country which for centuries was ignored and
abused by the West? Now China is trying to improve its image. And you still don’t get it.

But we do get it.

It is the Westerners like him — born and bred Americans, raised in freedom — who had a chance to
have lived and worked for 5 years in China, who don’t get it.

We knew quite a few Americans in Russia who for years lived and worked there, and had no idea how
the system worked.

Stalin’s ubiquitous propaganda worked so skillfully that one had to be born there to know the truth
behind it.

I keep a watchful eye on what is going on in China — and I distinguish familiar signs of Stalin’s former
era. The ultimate goal of both societies — to take over the world — has not changed.

What has changed is China’s methods to achieve its ultimate end game.

Our young friend’s main argument was that China is disarming. But why should it keep and feed the
biggest army in the world, I wondered?

Let the soldiers live and work on their own and provide for themselves and their families. If need be,
they can always be brought back at a moment’s notice.

On the other hand, to have a small army with cherry-picked specialists, armed with the latest and best
technology, know-how, and technological savvy makes more sense. China’s one-billion-strong army is
always there.

The moral of my story is that if a Westerner finds himself/herself in a slave society such as China,
he/she should not look for signs of something that is familiar to them and mimics their own free
country.

Rather they should try to understand the workings of that secretive communist system and get the
answers to what is hiding beyond the regime’s skillful, deceitful propaganda masking the actual
intentions of its masters — to perpetuate their communist regime at the cost of destroying Western
freedom.

Sometimes Secrecy Is Necessary

Before the 1917 revolution in Russia and for a while after it, no one paid attention to the meaning of the
words involved, though the meanings of words are decisive — in thinking and its conclusions —
incarnated in the words of the language of a given nation.
 In Russian, someone employed to work at an enterprise is
Mariela Castro, daughter of Cuban called a “worker,” a “rabochiy.” But the Russian word “rab”
President Raul Castro, praised means “slave,” and hence “rabskiy” means “servile,”
Obama's stand on gay rights during “thoughtless,” “purely imitative.”
her visit to the U.S.
(AP Photo)
As a Russian poet of genius said when he was exiled for his
freethinking poems:

Farewell ye, the unwashed Russia,

A country of slaves and of the owners of slaves.
Farewell ye, the blue uniforms
And those who obey them.

Perhaps, behind the Caucasian mountains

I can hide from your watch,
From your all-seeing eyes,
And from your all-hearing ears.

I was born in 1928 in Russia, which had become “Soviet” in 1917. My father was a Russian writer, and
my mother was Jewish, who brought herself up spiritually on great Russian literature. Professionally,
she was a medical doctor, a neurologist.

My ideal was a free West, such as still exists in Britain, for example, and I learned to speak English. In
Russia, I believed I had been living in a country-size prison, and I was later flattered to be taken for a
native English speaker.

It was quite an accomplishment, considering the fact that I had never been abroad, since Stalin’s Russia
was a closed country, isolated from the rest of the world, and only Stalin’s death in 1953 promised a
breath of fresh air.

Scientists in the free countries in every field of endeavor, and especially in the field of military research,
are performing a noble task of inventing new technologies, new ways to defend their endangered
freedom.

Their victory depends upon their unique talent and ingenuity to be able to anticipate any form of
possible attacks on our free countries. Naturally, all of us living in freedom depend on their unique
talent and should nurture and appreciate it by ensuring that they have everything they need for their
work and are not tempted by better conditions for their research offered them by those who want to
destroy us.

Those who invented firearms could hardly imagine today’s airplanes dropping bombs!

Then there came the atom bomb. And now we live in the age of the Internet and cyberweapons. A
number of nations have — or are seeking — to acquire such weapons, and there are concerns that
terrorist groups of individuals may acquire the technologies and expertise to use these destructive
weapons.

Luckily, mankind has not yet witnessed a cyber war, which does not mean it may never happen.

Dictatorships may not be creative, but they make up for it by aggressively acquiring technologies by
whatever means it takes — like spies stealing technological secrets from free countries, and the United
State in particular.
The American mass media claims there is too much secrecy around American military research, and
they are looking for leaks to report, not realizing that by doing so they inflict potentially heavy damage
to the country’s defense.

Stealing talent from free countries is not something new. Stalin, for example, enticed famous nuclear
scientists from the West to work for him when he needed to expand his nuclear research.

Stalin created a submicroscopic secret world in which they could work. Every wish of theirs was
immediately granted — a fairytale island in Stalin’s otherwise destitute, savage country to satisfy their
every whim. They worked in absolute secrecy, and under no circumstances were they allowed to leave
the country — even to attend international scientific conferences.

President Obama has already turned to the likes of then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev — and
ostensibly Vladimir Putin — for help in his re-election campaign. More recently his administration
granted a visa to Raul Castro’s daughter, who reciprocated by praising the president's stand on gay
rights.

The future of the world is still obscure. In 1949, there appeared a country which the communist criminal
Mao named the “People’s Republic of China” (PRC). It not only threatens the free world, but has at its
disposal 1.3 billion warriors ready to follow their owners’ orders.

Beware not of the horrors of the past, but of the unknown horrors of the future.

Painful Lessons in Freedom — and Communism

While surfing the Russian Internet the other day, I came upon the Snob site (www.snob.ru), an
“international Russian-language media project, which was launched in 2008, with the aim to connect
international and global audience of influential, high-net worth individuals.”

One item jumped at me right away: “Lessons of Patriotism from Tim Kirby,” an interview by Russian
journalist Lera Yakutina with Timothy Kirby.

The American-born Kirby had emigrated to Russia from the

Russians and American expatriates United States, which he left behind.
are shown here watching the
inauguration of President Obama at
an American-style diner. “I am an American. I moved to live to Russia, and I am here
(Getty Images) to stay for good. I did not enjoy my life in America. For me, it
was much too complicated. I never felt too comfortable there
— I always felt I was out of place. I did not belong there. I could not fit into that society. For me, it was
too materialistic. It’s that simple.”

The interview was in Russian, the language he spoke almost perfect.

Responding to the interviewer’s question whether it was difficult for him to master the Russian
language, Kirby said that it takes a great effort to learn any foreign language, especially taking into
account the fact that foreign languages are not being taught in American schools.

Of course, you can take it on an extracurricular basis, which is not obligatory.

And so the lengthy interview went on and on. The gist of it was that life in the United States was for him
a complete disappointment.
When I read the interview, something else went through my mind — something I and my family lived
through while we were still in Russia.

I and my wife were also studying a foreign language. German was taught in all Soviet schools
throughout the country. But we both studied English on our own, by taking private lessons, outside the
classroom.

Secretly, we both had the same dream: to escape the Stalin’s paradise-on-earth once called Russia into
the United States.

After graduating from the Moscow Institute of Foreign Languages, we both went to work at the Foreign
Languages Publishing House. It was there that we first met. I translated Russian classical literature into
English, while my wife worked as an editor.

There, at the publishing house, we were lucky to work with native-born English-speaking colleagues. To
us, who had an impossible dream to escape our hellish life and come to America, such people were an
enigma: those poor souls were victims of their own doing. Most were Americans along with some Brits
who had joined communist parties in their countries.

They came to Stalin’s Russia in the hope that they would be hailed as heroes and enjoy the communist
paradise, as promised by Soviet propaganda. Some of them gave up their foreign passports and became
Soviet citizens. Upon their arrival, however, they were arrested on suspicion of being spies and were
sent to serve time in concentration camps.

Upon their release, they were lucky to find a place to live in a communal apartment and get a job. Those
poor souls trapped in that strange, vicious regime, shared with us their memories of the lives they left
behind. Some of them kept photographs of their weddings, houses, and the free lives they gave up.

They were all depressed. There were those who could not take it any longer and committed suicide.

We became friends with Jack G., an American, who came to Russia for a different reason. His father, a
dentist, had been an American communist, who despised his son’s anti-communist attitudes.

Jack was an intellectual, loved classical music, and was an accomplished pianist. To prove that his
father’s communist beliefs were fantasy, Jack decided to go to Soviet Russia to see what was happening
there with his own eyes.

Jack traveled there as a tourist. He stayed at the Moscow Intourist Hotel and for a week enjoyed
sightseeing and making friends. He was appalled at what he saw: the unfriendly faces of poorly dressed
people in the street, empty stores, striking poverty all around.

He decided to go back home before his tourist visa expired. But that did not happen. He was detained by
Soviet police, questioned, then pronounced an American spy, and arrested. Jack spent seven years in a
concentration camp. His health deteriorated, he lost all his teeth.

We met Jack after he was released from prison. He was looking for a job, and I was happy to help him
survive. He was a brilliant storyteller, but he spoke very little Russian.

Jack never renounced his American citizenship. His mother, a New Yorker, despite her failed desperate
attempts all those years to get him out of that hell, suddenly got her visa and came to Moscow to see her
only son. She already knew about us, and showered us with gifts for our newborn son.

Soon afterwards, Jack brought us good news: he received an invitation from the American government
to come back to the United States.
Shortly after, he and his wife, an American-born girl he had met in Moscow — who waited for him all
those seven years he was in prison and supported him by sending him food parcels — went back to the
United States.

They stayed with Jack’s mother for a time and then bought a house in Cleveland, where Jack got a
teaching job at a university.

When we arrived in the United States, they came to see us: “Welcome to the country of your dream, Lev.
Welcome to our America!”

Jack’s health was failing, and soon we had a call from his wife that Jack passed away.

A Warning to the West

In one of my earlier columns, I tried to show that during his two terms (from 2000 to 2008) as Russian
president, Vladimir Putin's play at democracy was really a calculated, well-thought-out ploy of a life-
long communist and KGB man, who sought to deceive the West — and the Russian people in particular
— to win in 2012.

After earning a law degree in 1975, Putin joined the KGB, the security force of the former Soviet Union.
A career KGB man (he never gave up his membership in this organization, which still exists under the
name of FSB as the main domestic security service and successor of the KGB. It is headquartered on
Lubyanka Square, the former headquarters of the KGB).

Putin has the smarts and experience to successfully

Russian President Vladimir Putin manipulate public opinion within and outside the country.
(AP Photo)

In his first speech as president — hand-picked by ailing President Boris Yeltsyn in 2000 — Putin
promised: “Freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of the press, the right to private
property — these basic principles of a civilized society will be protected.”

Referring to the constitutional rights of the Russian people, there was one flaw — the right of the
citizens to bear arms to protect themselves is nowhere to be found in the Russian Constitution, adopted
in 1993.

Not surprisingly, the free Western countries were jubilant: Russia seemed to be on its way to democracy
— a partial democracy, but a democracy nevertheless.

Basically to impress the West, Putin created an almost perfect illusion of free, democratic Russia:
foreign businesses flourished in the country, Russians could freely travel all over the world, political
parties of all denominations were free to form and have their debates in the Duma (Russian
parliament).

In 2004, when Putin’s first four-year term was over, he got re-elected for a second term (2004-2008).

After his second term Putin carefully orchestrated his future political plans by supporting Dmitri
Medvedev for president. Medvedev won and was elected the new president, succeeding Putin.
Medvedev, in turn, nominated Putin to be prime minister.
The four years of Medvedev’s presidency, with then former President Putin wielding the real power,
were not spent in vain: then Prime Minister Putin was busy preparing to take back his presidency.
As prime minister, Putin changed Russian law to lengthen the presidential term to six years.

Everything was on Putin’s side.

At the end of his second term, Putin strengthened the army with the latest modern technology. He
created special units of police (OMON).

As of 2008, an OMON unit was in every oblast (region) of Russia, as well as in many major cities. For
example, an OMON unit is located within the Moscow City police department, and a separate unit is
located within the Moscow Oblast police department.

Putin also encouraged foreign governments to invest in Russian businesses and to buy contracts to
manufacture military equipment in Russia.

It was not hard to predict the that Putin would win a third term as president (actually unconstitutional)
in 2012 for several reasons. First and foremost, the Russian people were not armed and therefore
presented no physical threat to Putin.

Putin had meticulously prepared his victory way before the election. He created the illusion of a rivalry
among political parties and then excluded his rivals from the ballot, making sure they stood no chance
of winning his well-orchestrated game.

Putin declared victory while thousands of protesters poured into the streets to expose his party’s
fraudulent election results. There were multiple arrests against peaceful protesters.

The so-called constitutional rights that Putin referred to when he came to power —freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, freedom to hold meetings, to form political parties, freedom to travel abroad, to
possess property, to open businesses, and so on — are nothing more than promises, not the inherent
rights of the people.

They are the icing on the cake being manipulated by Putin any way he wants.

Not that these rights are unimportant. They are basic inalienable rights that are enjoyed by free Western
countries under the guarantee of Constitutions.

Here is my warning to the free West — and to the United States in particular: Beware of Putin and his
far-reaching dictatorial ambitions. His recent victory will most likely set him up to be president for life!

Beware of naïve and incompetent Barack Obama, who rushed to congratulate Putin, this lifelong KGB
apparatchik and potential enemy of the U.S. and the free West upon his fraudulent election victory.

The rules of modern warfare have changed. Communist dictators have changed their strategy. Look at
the PRC: they talk peace while preparing for war. Look at the political alliances they form: Russia,
China, North Korea.

Ask yourself, is President Obama really on our side?

America Needs More People Like Steve

“Mr. Navrozov, I have been reading your columns for the last two years. Your knowledge of liberty vs.
communism is unsurpassed. I pray that you will be able to continue to teach the free countries the
importance of keeping liberty alive. I wish I were able to take over for you in this capacity. I inform all I
talk to about you and your knowledge of communism vs. freedom. Thank you for all you have done. I
am one American who believes what you have written. I’ve tried to find a book you may have written. I’ll
keep looking to find it. I’d love to read and study it. I’ll do what I can to keep LIBERTY alive. God help
us all.”

The email was sent by Steve Finan.

I believe that Steve’s e-mail is important for the benefit of all

Americans celebrated freedom this those who believe or can be persuaded to believe that
week in New York and around the without freedom/liberty, a country is likely to become a
country. country-wide prison, complete with torture chambers.
(AP Photo)

Nothing can be a greater menace to freedom than the seizure of all power by one person or a group of
like-minded persons in a country (and later the entire world) calling themselves “communists,” or
“Marxists,” or “progressives,” or whatever else the seizers of all power and hence of all wealth may
choose to call themselves.

Enormous concentration of unlimited power in the hands of one person means the possession of all the
country’s (or world’s) wealth, including its attractive young people.

The ownership of entire wealth — including human wealth — is inspired by the reading of Karl Marx,
the reading which must be a solemn ritual for those who embrace the Marxist-communist ideals.

Soviet propaganda made enormous efforts to prove that it is only in a “bourgeois” country that thieves,
gangsters, and all other pursuers of wealth can thrive due to their greed. Not so in the “communist
paradise.”

Those calling themselves “Marxists,” or “communists,” or “liberals,” or “progressives” claim that to

appreciate the meaning and value of wealth, one must read Marx. Imagine someone in a “bourgeois”
society who does not perceive wealth. But then, if he does, it is argued, that someone must have read
Marx and thus comes to understand and value wealth.

It is hard to overestimate the importance of Steve’s e-mail.

His goal is to unite all free countries to step up the defense of freedom/liberty against all those who are
planning to become a global force which will seize and usurp the supreme power in the world.

Those evil, destructive, liberal forces know how to work crowds of young, impressionable people by
their eloquent rhetoric and meaningless promises that are never kept. They have the capacity and
eloquence to assure the young voters that all they need to do is to vote for them. And if the seizers of
power fail them, well, there’s always another chance.

At one time, the communist “Internationale” proclaimed its actual goal:

The two worlds are fighting their final battle!
Our slogan: “The world USSR is winning the fight!”

Only a global fight in defense of freedom and liberty for all can preserve those precious values, without
which the world will be turned into a global prison for those who are lucky enough not to have been shot
to death.

The goal is to save the world from the likes of Lenin or Hitler or from those who have not yet realized
their dictatorial ambitions.

Those such as Steve are absolutely indispensable if we want to preserve the free world, and our free
country in particular, from those who want to destroy it.

Obamacare Is Throwback to Soviet Russia

In 1972, my wife, our son, my mother, and I were on our way to the United States from Italy, where we
had spent almost six months waiting for our American visas to be processed. All other Russian émigrés
who also received their visas chose to go to the United States by plane. Because my mother was ill, we
had to go by boat.

A seven-day journey on “Leonardo da Vinci,” an Italian luxury ship, was for us an unforgettable
experience. Great weather all the way to New York, great food, evening dances, and a friendly captain,
who paid special attention to my wife, contributed to our great expectations that lay ahead.

It looked like most of the passengers were Americans. We became especially friendly with a young
couple from New York. They wanted to hear all about Russia — free education for all? Free medicine for
all? Or was it just what Soviet propaganda had told them?

Well, I thought, Soviet propaganda did well. What it did not tell them was that this so-called free
education always had a catch.

Shortly before you graduated from college, you had to sign a contract that you agree to work a certain
number of years wherever the government would send you to take a job “po raspredeleniyu,” as it was
known (naturally, it wouldn’t be in Moscow, or St. Petersburg, or any such other livable city — Russia is
a big country! And, naturally, for a miserable pay). And only those who had influential friends who
could help them get a job on their own could get out of this contract.

We were born into the Soviet system and spent 40 years before we had a chance to extricate ourselves
from that hell. Corruption always pervaded Russia’s health system. The Soviet system of socialized
medicine, which nominally guaranteed full health protection to all citizens without charge, had been
installed by Stalin in the mid-1920s.

Despite the nominally equitable nature of Soviet socialized medicine, the actual system was highly
stratified according to location, with far inferior care and facilities available in rural areas, and
especially according to political status.

The Soviet medical system maintained a completely separate, vastly superior system of clinics,
hospitals, and sanatoriums for party and government officials and other Soviet elite groups such as
writers, actors, musicians, and artists.

The quality of medical care was dismal, except in facilities designated for the Soviet elite.

Russia’s hospitals and polyclinics away from Moscow lacked basic amenities, like hot water, and often
no running water at all.

Although healthcare was free in principle, the chances of receiving healthcare, the chances of getting
adequate treatment depended on the patient’s wealth — particularly the ability to bribe (in the form of
cash, gifts, etc.). This is how it was then, and this is how it is now.

My mother, a medical doctor (PhD in neurology), worked at one of the major Moscow hospitals. If not
for the fact that we had access to her colleagues, my wife would have lost our baby when she was six
months pregnant.
She developed contractions when I was not at home and called the emergency service, which took her
almost by force to the nearest clinic, where they said they needed to abort the child.

My wife managed to call our doctor who within minutes was at the hospital and took her home. That
famous doctor (Dr. Tsovyanov) kept my wife in bed for three months and then delivered a wonderful,
healthy baby.

And that was the story I told my American friends. Soviet is a class — not classless — society, as Soviet
propaganda wanted them to believe.

There were (and still are) exclusive hospitals and good doctors for the privileged few (Communist Party
members).

That was 40 years ago. I am told that nothing has changed since then. Except that the nouveaux riches,
that new, special class of Russian millionaires, now get their medicine abroad: in Switzerland, Germany,
and the United States.

Recently I had a call from a friend, a Russian wealthy businessman, for whom money is not a problem.
His 70-year-old mother developed a lung disease and was getting confusing diagnoses from Moscow
doctors. I put him in touch with one of the best doctors in New York who now takes care of his mother
from his private practice.

I dread to think about what will happen to medical care in this country. Obamacare will destroy the
delicate fabric of existing free-market medical services.

My only hope is that this time American people will show their muscle and prevent President Obama,
with his communist ideals and his utopian socialist policies, from getting another four years in office (he
said he so desperately needs) in order to complete the destruction of this unique free nation.

This year, when we mark our 40th anniversary of our free life in this country of our dreams, we want to
express our infinite gratitude to our dearest American friends, Daniel Rose and his wife Joanna, whose
efforts made it possible for us to get out of that Soviet hell and who helped us settle here in New York to
start our new life in freedom.

Obama's Immigration Plan Furthers His Socialist Views

The year was 1969. To an outsider, it would seem that the occupants of that white stone house on the
hill, with acres of birch trees, a cherry orchard, and a high fence were happily enjoying their life.

We worked at home. Rarely, my wife, chief editor of the Soviet branch of the international Nuclear
Physics magazine, published in Copenhagen, and headed by academician D.V. Skobeltsyn of the
Lebedev Nuclear Physics Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, had to drive to Moscow to take
care of the scientific papers submitted for publication.

Our son did not attend school, studying at home on his own. We often saw him poring over chemistry
books, old Russian literature, Latin textbooks, and Greek Anabasis of Xenophon. He also displayed
interest in mineralogy and theatre. At the age of 10, he won the first prize in chemistry at the Moscow
University student competition.

At the time, nobody could leave the country. That privilege was reserved for Communist Party
functionaries, which we were not.

We created a world of our own, away from the outside Soviet regime. We didn’t even fit into the world of
our neighbors — Soviet writers, Communist Party members, and politicians. But our isolationist way of
life was raising brows.
We knew that our artificially created independence wouldn’t last long. And we were right. Local
bureaucrats started making sudden incursions into our privacy. They were trying to find out why our
son did not attend local school.

Once during such an incident, a local school bureaucrat forced herself into our house to see our son. Our
housekeeper showed her to his room, and she saw him painting the symbols of chemical elements all
over the wall. She was pleasantly impressed and then told us, “I see your son is not doing dishes in the
kitchen.” She never bothered us again.

Despite our seemingly tranquil life, away from Soviet realities, we became more and more despondent
and dissatisfied with our senseless existence. Something desperate was brewing in our minds. We were
thinking about finding a way to escape.

Obsessed with this idea, we were spending days and nights, developing a workable plan. We were
wealthy. We had money. We had property. We enjoyed good reputation.

We thought we would be above suspicion. We would buy a pickup truck, will have it made into an
armored vehicle, and would travel to the south of the country, the usual destination of vacationing
Soviet bureaucrats, and break through border controls and into Turkey, which we knew was a NATO
member and would never send us back.

So everything was thought out to the minor detail. That is until one day a close friend of ours, a human-
rights activist, a close friend of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn (and his distant relative) came to see us. We
shared with him our secret plan.

“Are you out of your mind, Lev? Have you seen a Russian border? I served in the army in the South — I
know. A Soviet border is a metal barbed-wire fortification — two rows of fence running parallel to each
other, forming a corridor, with dogs and armed military patrols pacing back and forth.

"Bright lights at night. Sirens go up the minute someone comes close. There are multiple checkpoints
before you even get close to the border. You’ll all be apprehended and arrested, if you don’t get shot
dead first. Trust me, Lev, and be patient. We are working on it. Things will change. Two families already
got permission to go to Israel. There will be more.”

Fortified Soviet border, against whom? Nobody seemed to want to get into that Soviet paradise! The
pitiful victims of Soviet propaganda who were willing to come didn't have to cross the border — they
could have come on their own only to get trapped later by the regime and spend their lives there until
they died.

We sold our house to a prominent Soviet academician and moved into a Moscow apartment.

Our friend was right. Shortly after, we applied for the permission to emigrate, and it was granted to us
sooner than we expected.

We spent almost 6 months in Rome, Italy, waiting for our U.S. visa to be processed. There we were
interviewed by an American CIA person, who wanted to become familiar with each of us.

Why am I writing all this now?

The problem of illegal immigration to this country is actually a hot topic being discussed in Congress
and in the media.

We were investigated for six months before we were admitted to the United States. So why break the
existing immigration laws, which have worked so well? Why then observe laws for legal immigrants
while giving free entry to the country by the illegals?
Do they still remember those first immigrants of old who were checked at the port of entry? Is not this
great nation built by immigrants who legally entered it? And why is there so much opposition on the
part of the Obama administration against the states that are affected most by the illegal immigration
and which want to enforce the laws?

I think I know why: All Obama cares about is his desperate desire to win another four years of
presidency, during which he will implement his socialist ideals and turn this country into a Soviet-style
dictatorial paradise, the familiar signs of which already cannot escape me. Vladimir Putin and the
Chinese slave-owners will help him, and the illegal immigrants, who place their trust in him, will come
in handy.

Recalling Stalin’s Madness

Let me remind my dear readers that I was born in 1928. As such, I was to live in Stalin’s hell on earth.

Created in pre-Soviet Russia were works of genius (such as those of Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, or Chekhov),
which were translated into the languages of all culturally advanced countries. The Russian classical
music also impressed the West.

Science, philosophy, and other fields of culture were

Geogian children visit a museum developing and promised a no less significant future than in
dedicated to Soviet dictator Joseph the most culturally developed countries.
Stalin in his native town of Gori.
(Getty Images)
My father was a writer. As such, he was a member of the
Union of Writers. When Hitler’s Germany attacked Russia, Hitler sent into the country troops of
motorcyclists equipped with machine-guns. My father volunteered for a Russian volunteer army; he was
killed by a German machine-gun mounted on a motorcycle.

Installed in the Club of the Union of Writers in Moscow is a memorial marble plaque honoring the
names of the writers who had been killed during the Hitler invasion, each name engraved in gold. My
father’s name is among them.

My mother was a distinguished medical doctor, with a PhD in neurology.

Both parents loved me. But while my father took care of my mind, my mother protected my health.

Stalin (from the Russian word “сталь,” which means “steel”) died in 1953. His method of ruling Russia
was simple. A multitude of domestic spies were listening secretly to what was said in private and then
reported it to those on top at the People’s Commissariat, that is, the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

The so-called “criminal” would be arrested, confessed under torture to allegedly saying things he may
not have said, and shot or sent to a concentration camp to work and die there.

Meanwhile, mentally an idiot, Stalin was building a country able to withstand and counterattack Hitler’s
Germany.

Having sustained heavy losses near Stalingrad and unable to resist Stalin’s forces summoned from
Siberia, Hitler’s army was being chased out of the country, beyond the Russian border, and onto
German soil.

Having lost the war, Hitler committed suicide.

In 1953, Stalin died, and the new era began. The power in the country was changing hands.

With the change of the regime — 17 years after Stalin’s death — I and my family finally got a chance to
leave the country. Imagine the unimaginable — we were on our way to the United States! And erelong
we moved into our spacious apartment on the 21st floor, overlooking the horizonless Van Cortland Park,
stretching as far as the eye could see.

What have I been doing since my arrival to our new country? I smuggled from Russia the manuscript of
my book on microfilm, later published here by Harper & Row: “The Education of Lev Navrozov: A Life
in the Closed World Once Called Russia.”

“The Education of Lev Navrozov” recreates the life of a spiritually isolated individual inside a vast,
omnipotent machine-like society — cruel, barren, and destructive.

Robert Massie, author of “Nicholas and Alexandra” described my writing as having a sensitivity long
missing from Russian letters: “As if Proust had somehow blended with Orwell,” he said.

I have been trying to educate and save the free West — no, not from Russia under Stalin, but from the
new and even more dangerous monster such as Mao’s regime, which he called the People’s Republic of
China (PRC).

The similarity is obvious. Countries like Stalin’s Russia or today’s PRC produce powerful weapons and
armies. The size of the population of the PRC (1.3 billion people) will enable the PRC to create a military
power far surpassing that of any other country.

It is no accident that Russia, with its formidable growth of power under Stalin, is now unable to contain
the former territory and is making concessions to China, its mighty neighbor.

Which world country can stop China’s “peaceful” expansion and eventual takeover of the world,
equipped as it is with the latest Western technology, the know-how stolen from the West, plus its
population of 1.3 billion?

Why a Former Soviet Citizen Supports Romney

I was born in Moscow; I went to a Soviet school, where I discovered that there were things one should
never mention in class. In particular, my parents told me never to reveal to my classmates any
conversations we were having at home and never to discuss anything going on in our family.

So at an early age I learned how to keep my mouth shut.

Children in my class talked about everything — what was

Former KGB officer Vladimir Putin happening at home, who their family’s friends were, what
now sits at the helm of Russia. books they were reading, what radio programs they tuned to,
(Getty Images) and so on.

There were innocents among us who discussed all the details of their families’ lives, not suspecting that
someone might be listening to what they were saying in order to report it to their KGB bosses.

There was one boy in our class who paid a high price for having been overly talkative. He said that his
father had a fight with a neighbor over food shortages in Moscow and allegedly complained that food
prices were high and life in general was miserable.

At night, there was a knock on the door, and his father was taken away by the KGB men. He was
pronounced an “enemy of the people.” His son was summoned to the KGB to confirm his story.

The boy’s father (Iosif U.), a highly specialized engineer, was educated in Germany. Building bridges
was his specialty. And that was precisely what the Soviet authorities were looking for: they needed a
brilliant engineer to build a bridge of strategic importance in Siberia.

Without trial, I.U. was “sentenced” to seven years. He was serving his term in Siberia, where he was
building that bridge. The boy’s mother was allowed to see her husband twice a year and even to spend
some time with him.

As a somewhat important prisoner, he enjoyed certain privileges like living in a wooden hut of his own,
with no utilities except a Russian stove for heating, to withstand the Siberian winter and prepare his
own meals.

That was not the only story of this kind. Whenever the Soviet dictators needed free labor, they would
arrest a person “on suspicion,” usually at night, and then, without trial, sentence him to serve time in a
hard labor camp, where the person would work for free.

On occasion, some KGB man would spot a woman to his liking who wouldn’t reciprocate his feelings.
No problem! In his attempt to get her, he would have her husband arrested and their children, if they
had any, sent to an orphanage, leaving the KGB man to take his prize. We were close to one such family
— the husband was arrested, but his beautiful wife committed suicide. We took their little girl to live
with us.

And that was but only one of many such episodes from the criminal reality of Soviet everyday life.

You can imagine our joy and disbelief when we got the news that we were allowed to leave the Soviet
hell.

On our arrival to New York, we settled in what we still think is a beautiful apartment, I finished writing
my book “The Education of Lev Navrozov: A life in the closed world once called Russia,” which was
published by Harper’s Magazine Press in 1975.

In the late 1970s, I challenged the liberal New York Times and invited its owners and publishers to a
conference in a New York hotel to debate. They did not grace the packed conference hall with their
presence. So I delivered my address, debating their symbolic presence next to my rostrum, and took
questions from the audience.

Having come from Soviet Russia after having spent over 40 years of my life there, I knew I had an
obligation to share my first-hand experience of living there and telling the truth about the Soviet
criminal dictatorial regime.

I hear those dark times are coming back, with Vladimir Putin, a mighty KGB man, again at the helm of
the country.

In my lecture tours I tried to enlighten Western countries about the harsh realities of Soviet life and the
need to always be ready to defend democratic values.

The American audiences were very responsive: 36 of my articles were read into the Congressional
Record by Sen. Jesse Helms, a truly great American and champion of freedom, and Ronald Reagan
published my article in his newsletter.
Excerpts from my 47-page article “Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Third Reincarnation,” published by “Global
Affairs ” (winter 1987) was also read into the Congressional Record (Congressional Record — Senate.
Vol. 133. Proceedings and Debates of the 100th Congress, First Session. Washington, Wednesday, April
29, 1987. No. 67).

I am now worried about the future destiny of this exceptional country: Will the American Constitution
survive Obama’s desperate attempts to chip away at its very foundation, which was built so well by the
Founding Fathers?

Look at the list of liberal, “progressive” organizations. There are hundreds of them — many sponsored
by that overnight billionaire socialist George Soros —and all of them supporting Obama’s liberal,
destructive socialist policies.

My only hope is that this time, while it is not too late, the American people will make the right choice by
giving their votes to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, both of whom will steer the country back on the right
track.

Talent Is Rare, But Equipment Is Not

England was our first love. Good Old England. There was no way for us who studied English to go and
live there, which was our impossible dream. We got to learn so much about it from books and
recordings.

Our son studied English by listening to Gielgud’s recitals of Shakespeare’s poems. He imitated Gielgud
so well that we often could not tell if it was the actual recording or our son’s voice coming from his
room.

A friend of ours, Violetta Boft, a well-known ballet dancer

The late Lionel Barrymore played Dr. with the Moscow Art Theater, came to dinner with her
Gillespie in the 1938 classic, "Young friend, artistic director of the theater. To entertain our
Dr. Kildare." guests, we asked our seven-year-old son to recite a piece by
(AP Photo) Gogol “Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka.”

Viola’s friend was so impressed that he wished our son was one of his students. “Jesus performed a
miracle,” he said, “by turning water into wine. My students, on the contrary, manage to turn wine into
water. Your boy could teach them a thing or two.”

While sailing aboard the S.S. Leonardo da Vinci from Italy to New York, we made a few friend. I
especially remember a young American couple from New York. “Tell us, Lev, Is there anything you left
behind in Moscow that you’ll miss in New York?”

Without a moment’s hesitation, we both — my wife and I — said, “yes, of course, our dentist!”

A roar of laughter followed. “You must be kidding! Dentistry as we know it, does not exist in Russia. The
equipment is outdated; the dentists are not well trained.”

“All of this is true,” I said. “There is only one thing you overlook — talent.”

Iosif Solomonovich Shapiro and Emiliya Mikhailovna, his wife and his loyal assistant, worked dental
miracles. They occupied a spacious, six-room luxury apartment in a pre-1917 building, an example of
the pseudo-Mauritanian architectural style that was both their home as well as a two-room dental office.
I remember Dr. Shapiro used a wooden hammer to insert a metal rod in the root canal. And I still have
the tooth to prove it.
We were not the only ones who valued his expertise. His other patient was Josef Stalin. Dr. Shapiro was
his personal dentist. Shapiro never talked about it, and we never asked him about it.

Later, however, already in New York, we read a more detailed description of Stalin’s personal dentist,
Dr. Shapiro, in memoirs of Anatoly Rybakov, author of the widely acclaimed “Children of the Arbat.”

‘Listen,” our new friend said, “my father is a dentist. Before he moved to Canada, he used to say there
was only one dentist in New York — Robert Lichtenstein. Remember that, Lev, in case you need a
dentist.”

Some time passed, and I needed to see a dentist. “You remember we have the name of the dentist they
gave us on the boat. Go see him,” my wife suggested. But why should I go to Manhattan? In Riverdale,
where we live, there is a dental office every two blocks.

So I went to see one of them. The filling lasted for a few days. I went back to that same office and had a
new filling, which replaced the old one. And that, too, I also lost in a few days.

I had yet another appointment with her. She said I developed an infection and suggested that the tooth
should come out. But all I needed, I thought, was a filling in an otherwise perfect tooth which had never
bothered me. That was when I went to see Robert Lichtenstein. And since then, he is the only dentist
our family trusts.

Latest, modern equipment? Of course, they got all of that. What is rare is talent, which no money can
buy.

Do you remember the film “Young Dr. Kildare?” One of the characters, a seasoned older physician — Dr.
Gillespie — addressing a young medical doctor said, “You can track a hundred docs but one and only
one can have this mysterious ‘something’ I saw in one. And you have that one.”

I cannot describe in better words the mysterious ways of Dr. Lichtenstein. Latest equipment you can
buy — talent you cannot.

Dr. Lichtenstein’s talent is highly recognized. He maintains an office in Manhattan and serves as the
clinical director of Affiliated Cosmetic Dentists of New York on Lexington Avenue. He is a member of
the International Congress of Oral Implantologists and is a lecturer on advanced implantology at several
national dental conventions, including the prestigious American Dental Association.

Born in France and immigrating to the United States at age 10, Dr. Lichtenstein’s early multicultural
background contributed greatly to his personality. He is fluent in several languages, including French
and Hungarian. And it is this rare, unique quality, that mysterious “something” Dr. Gillespie talked
about that I found in Dr. Lichtenstein.

High-Speed and Dangerous

This is the title of an article by Yelena Sidorenko in the Russian newspaper Vzglyad: Delovaya Gazeta
(“The View: the Business Newspaper”) of Aug. 15. Its subtitle reads: “For Almost a Month, Americans
Failed to Detect Russian Submarine Near Its Shores.”

A Russian Akula-B-class nuclear-powered attack submarine of Project 971 (as it is classified by the
NATO), armed with long-range cruise missiles, sailed undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for almost a
month. The Washington Free Beacon cited unnamed sources in reporting the incident, the second time
since 2009 that a Russian submarine has sailed close to the United States.

The author of the Russian piece goes on to say that “Bill

This 2004 photo shows the Vepr Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon, who is known to be
Russian nuclear submarine of the close to the Pentagon and was the first to have reported the
Project 971 Shchuka-B type, or incident, says, quoting the unidentified officials, that a
Akula-class (Shark) by NATO ‘nuclear-powered Akula-class attack submarine is one of
classification. Russia’s quietest submarines’ and that the ‘Akula was built
for one reason and one reason only: to kill U.S. Navy ballistic
(Getty Images)
missile submarines and their crews’ and that ‘it is a very
stealthy boat so it can sneak around and avoid detection and hope to get past any protective screen a
boomer might have in place…”

Sidorenko notes that the “incident shows that during the next 10 years Barack Obama’s administration
is planning to cut $487 billion from American defense budget.”

In his interview to the same newspaper, Vzglyad, Igor Korotchenko, editor-in-chief of the National
Defense magazine, said that if it is true that for a whole month the Russian submarine did actually sail
close to the American shores without having been detected, then “this testifies to the fact that Russia
still retains its military potential and is ready to carry out such missions, for which our navy deserves
our high respect.” To which an unnamed Russian military expert added: “Our submarines are excellent,
and our crew is highly professional.”

When I was reading this, an overly familiar feeling grabbed me — a déjà vu of fear and disgust — as if I
was back in Stalin’s Russia, where the Soviet media and Soviet subjects were supposed to write and
speak about boundless heroism, strength, and bravery of the Soviet people. Here is a Soviet song
popular at that time:
Our armor is strong, and our tanks are fast
Our people are full of courage
Standing in formation are our tank men,
The favorite sons of our motherland.

I came across an opinion by Jeff G. in Protein Wisdom: “Between our internationally open borders, our
uncontrolled waters, and all the cuts to the military, it’s almost as if Obama wants us vulnerable. To
something.”

I bet he does! Obama will stop at nothing to get re-elected. I cannot help but recall what has come to be
known as the “Obama-Medvedev hot-mic moment”(during talks in Seoul):

The microphones picked up Obama’s voice begging for some political help from Vladimir Putin — to
gain the “flexibility” to cave on missile defense — dismantling of even the smaller missile-defense
system to which Obama committed in 2009.

“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility,” Obama was heard to say.

While looking through my files the other day, I found a letter from Dr. Glazer, a Russian émigré, and
professor of biology at the City College of New York. After having spent the best years of his life in
Stalin’s concentration camp in Siberia for allegedly “anti-Soviet pronouncements,” he was released and
emigrated to this country sometime in the 1980s.

“The problem of the Western, ‘free world,’ and this country in particular,” he writes, “is that it allows [a
country] to freely destroy itself. And the sad thing is that during this process it is unaware that it is
being annihilated. This liberal-democratic, irreversible self-destruction drives me to despair.”
I am witnessing an interesting phenomenon — the factor of likability — during the current presidential
election. And this just boggles my mind. Is this important for the well-being of the entire nation? Good
looks, a dazzling smile, fluent speech to the point of being insincere or deceitful doesn’t make a good
president.

Obama’s likability factor is 92 percent! This good-looking man had almost four years in office, in which
he has failed to prove he deserves another term. A figurehead, a person who is being manipulated and
backed by people such as George Soros, whose head is stuffed with Marxist-Leninist garbage and self-
aggrandizement.

Stop Obama from further destroying the United States of America!

Beware of Obama’s Socialist Ideals

Am I to believe that I have wasted 40 years of my life in this country trying to explain the nature of
dictatorship and what it meant to have been born and lived in Stalin’s paradise the first half of my life?

Have I failed to pass on to you my firsthand knowledge of the misery of millions of gullible, trusting,
Russian people, who fell prey to the fiery, well-rehearsed speeches of eloquent Marxist social-
revolutionaries — leaders who promised fraternity, equal rights, free medicine, free education, good
lives, and sharing the wealth of the rich. They found themselves trapped for life in a socialist, inhuman,
criminal “experiment.”

What did the Russians get instead? Lies, empty promises, high unemployment, and more lies.

Sound familiar?

Russian skepticism is well expressed in an old song about a young girl, who sings to someone she is
dating but who does not propose to her:
"Ahh, stop your lies my dear sweety,
Your words are no longer new.
All you promise is just words and words.
Just empty words that come from you."

America for us Russians was a dream, a fairy tale, a beacon of justice and freedom. It was the country
we all dreamed about. And I have lived long enough in this country of my dreams to witness the
triumph of justice — racial equality, the colorblind America. And yes, the election of the first black
president of the United States! American voters made the right choice, I remember thinking — young,
bright, an accomplished student of law.

Little did I know four years ago that the man the country
Barack Obama worked as a voted for had his own agenda for re-shaping this country by
community organizer in Chicago for bringing about social changes — the same social changes that
three years and then studied law at Marxists had inflicted upon Russia.
Harvard. He is shown here during
his time at Harvard. Now is the crucial time for voters to ask themselves if the
(AP Photo) choice they made four years ago was the right one. And if the
answer is no, do not vote to give Obama a second term (one in
which he said he so desperately needs).

Fire him, let him join the ranks of the unemployed and start looking for a job.

It is one thing for the president to say he is one of you, that he understands you and knows how it feels
to live from check to check or not have a job. It’s quite another thing to become one of you — to lose his
job, and then his home because he can’t afford to pay his mortgage, or even send his daughters to a
school of his choice.
Obama was the wrong choice four years ago.

Do not give him another chance to carry out his agenda to convert this unique country into a Soviet-
style “socialist paradise.” It was a painful experience for Russia, and it won’t work for this country. It
took the Russian people almost a century to gain back even a semblance of freedom, like traveling
abroad or having their own businesses.

All attempts at achieving full democracy have failed, because the people are unarmed and do not have
the right to bear arms.

Hasn’t Obama been advocating gun control for this country? This is how it starts. Before you know it, he
will sign gun control into law, in violation of the American Constitution, which grants people the right to
bear arms and defend themselves. Another four years in office and Obama will irreversibly change the
United States of America as we know it.

What did Americans who voted for Obama know about the man to whom they so readily entrusted their
country, their lives, and their future?

A handsome man, a college graduate with a law degree, Obama settled in Chicago, where he started
working as a community organizer for a Gamaliel Foundation organization.

What is a community organizer? Every city in Stalin’s Russia used to have community organizations.
Every building, usually in the basement, had what was called “krasny ugolok” (a “red little corner”).
That usually was a place adorned with political posters, communist propaganda literature,
“educational” books on “communist leaders”— Marx, Lenin, and Stalin.

Those “red little corners” had sports equipment, billiards, and all sorts of games and entertainment,
where mostly young (and sometimes not so young) people would get together, actually forming their
grass-root political (“komsomol”) communities sponsored by the Soviet government.

Saul Alinsky, based in Chicago, is credited with originating the term community organizer. This is what
we read: “Alinsky wrote “Reveille for Radicals,” published in 1946, and “Rules for Radicals,” published
in 1971.

With these books, Alinsky was the first person in America to codify key strategies and aims of
community organizing. He also founded the first national community organizing training network, the
Industrial Areas Foundation, according to Wikipedia.

“There are many notable community organizers: Mary Harris ‘Mother’ Jones, Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Ralph Nader, and Barack Obama among others.

“More recently has come the emergence of youth organizing groups around the country. These groups
use neo-Alinsky strategies. Most of these groups are created by — and directed by youth — or former
youth organizers.

“Since Obama’s election, the campaign website, formerly ‘Obama for America,’ has been renamed
‘Organizing for America.’and has been placed under the auspices of the Democratic National Committee
(DNC). This rebranded organization promotes the president’s legislative agenda items, such as
healthcare reform, which was a key focus of the ‘OFA’ during 2009,” states Wikipedia.

I watched the first presidential debate last week — Obama vs. Mitt Romney, a bright, intelligent man of
business I would trust. Obama struck me by being just a figurehead, a puppet of community organizers
who propelled him to this high post. He was helpless, listless, with a blank expression on his face.
How dare this “law professor” deliver racially charged speeches to the country that elevated him to its
highest post, accusing it of racism?

American voters must realize how crucial their choice will be in the forthcoming elections: To either
reinstate the former glory and strength of this country or fall prey to community organizers and socialist
ideals.

Vote for Mitt Romney!

America's Unprincipled President

I am going to say something I know may not be popular with the readers. I spent half of my life in
Stalin’s Russia. I was born there, got married there, and I never knew what the television set looks like.
My mother would say, “Why do you need to watch television — we have plenty of books you can read!”

My father (a Russian playwright, who was killed as the Germans began their invasion of Russia in
WWII) meticulously collected rare Russian books, manuscripts, translations of English, French,
American, and other world-famous authors as well as reproductions of world-famous painters. Mother
was right — there were plenty of books at home to read, and I read them all.

Then I got married, and my wife shared the family tradition of not having a TV. Shortly after that we
had a son, who was exposed to all those books since he was a baby. First, his nanny was supposed to
read them to him; then, when he could read on his own, he would rummage through the books and pick
the things he liked, so that reading for him became a necessity, something he could not live without.

On our son’s sixth birthday, we bought a house not far from Moscow, and, naturally, moved all the
books there. The house was huge, and our library was a comfortable place to spend time.

Our son did not go to a Soviet school. Schoolchildren spent plenty of time and energy studying Soviet
propaganda literature, and obligatory martial arts, and so on. His time was not wasted.

We never told our son what to do, which books to read, which friends to choose. Our business was to
make sure he had at home everything we thought might be of interest to him. Of course we bought for
him all the textbooks on all subjects they take at school.

The rest was up to him.

Since we worked at home, the rule was that our son does everything on his own without disturbing us.
And only if there was something he could not understand, if some explanation was needed, could he
come and ask for help. And that was how it worked.

Without any exaggeration, I can say that by age 12 he had read all of Russian classical literature. And
before that, unbeknown to us, he sidetracked into chemistry.

Our friends, whose house was next to ours, were relatives of the then well-known chemical biologist
Olga Lepeshinskaya, whom Stalin had made famous for her alleged “discovery” of reversing the aging
process by the use of baking soda baths. She had died of old age shortly after we moved into our house,
and her relatives bequeathed to our son the entire contents of her laboratory, which he moved into a
shed specially built on our property.
By that time we became so worried that he spent so much time on chemistry, of which both of us knew
very little, that my wife decided to take him to a professor of chemistry at the Moscow State University
just to see if all his “play” justified the risks of not going to school.

My wife waited for four hours outside the lab, waiting for the answer.

At last the professor came out and said that he was so impressed by our child’s knowledge that he
wanted to know if she would be willing to start bringing him to his chemistry lectures to assist him. He
also said there would be a university entrance exam, and he would like our son to take it. He passed that
exam.

Shortly after that his interest in chemistry vanished as unexpectedly as it had appeared, and he turned
to English language and literature.

Why am I writing about all this? Because I see how much time and effort children in New York schools
spend on something that is of no interest to them, and later in college, just to get a degree which they
may never use in their lives. In other words, their natural God-given talents get suppressed, first
watching television, then in preschool classes, later in school, and then wasted for good in college.

This long introduction has a short ending. The other day, my wife was grocery shopping at a nearby
food supermarket. At the checkout counter there was a black woman with a beautiful little girl, who
looked 5 to 6 years old. The girl was crying, asking her mother why the bad, wicked people want to kill
the Big Bird. My wife interjected “Sweetheart, this is not true! Nobody wants to kill the Big Bird.” The
girl’s mother turned and said, “What do you know about it?” As they were leaving, my wife heard the
woman say to her daughter, “Don’t worry, our president will never let them kill the Big Bird!”

Who is the Big Bird? I asked my wife. “Well,” she said “You would have known it if you watched
television!”

But, I said, I do watch the Fox News channel. I even watched the first presidential debate and still
cannot get over the dismal impression left by Obama’s performance. Without the teleprompter and the
written instructions, he struck me as a person without any substance, absolutely unable to think. I
watched his blank, unresponsive, helpless face not able to concentrate on the question, let alone
respond. And more — for the first time I saw his face without a smile: a face of an unintelligent human
being.

The next day I saw Obama campaigning for the second term of his presidency. Surrounded by a huge
adoring crowd, his face was all smiling. That was when he is at his best: He did not have to think.

He repeated his usual lies and platitudes about his future “Forward” promises — his way to excite the
crowd to raise his “likability” ratings — his irresistible smile, lots of hugs and handshakes. Isn’t that just
what the crowd expects from him?

And then I thought, my God, even little children are being drawn into Obama’s presidential game — his
struggle for power. Does he have any shame?

Romney Won't Look at Russia with

Rose-Colored Glasses
I was watching Fox News, when an image of President Barack Obama delivering a message flashed on
the screen for a mere second. The clip was gone no sooner than it appeared, but it was enough for me to
catch it: “I run not on what I have done, but on what I will do.”

It is customary for every big company to evaluate the performance of its employees at least once
every year. Those who did well for the company get promoted and enjoy raises. Those who
underperform get fired.

So, I thought, now is the time to evaluate President Obama’s

GOP presidential nominee Mitt performance, to see if he has lived by his promises and done
Romney assured the American people any good for the country.
that he won't look at Russia through
rose-colored glasses.
(Getty Images) Obama Pledged in 2008: “There’s new energy to harness,
new jobs to be created, new schools to build, and threats to
meet, alliances to repair. But, America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will
get there. I promise you, we as a people will get there.”

That was four years ago. Let’s see if he has kept his optimistic promises:

The price of gas is skyrocketing, millions of jobs are gone, unemployment is over 8 percent, our national
debt rose to $16 trillion, and American children have not made it to the top of the list in math and
sciences.

Obama said that improving education ranks No.1 on his list of his priorities. He also said he “loves
teachers.” What exactly did he mean by that? As in every profession, there are those armed with college
teaching degrees, but who are absolutely incapable or disinterested in passing their knowledge to
children. There are also those wise, brilliant teachers we remember for life.

Has Obama done anything to encourage and reward talented teachers who exhibit special talent and
excellence in educating our children? No, I think not.

All in all this did not prevent Obama during the presidential debates from arrogantly bragging about his
alleged achievements. If you listened only to what he had to say, you’d think that jobs are coming back,
women are happy, there is no foreign debt, we have great teachers, and our country is thriving. You
would believe that there are not millions of people on food stamps and thanks to the president’s foreign
policy, that the world — even Libya? — is friendly to America.

Reality is just what Obama says it is. Listen to what he says, not what he does. Will American voters
again fall into his trap?

The American economy is in a shambles, and the recent events in Libya have also revealed Obama’s
inability to defend our great country abroad.

The attack on American property, and the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other
Americans in Benghazi — all killed in the line of duty — constitute an act of war, which Obama and his
administration are trying to keep under wraps by concealing the truth, distorting facts, and shamelessly
lying to the American public.

I hold Obama responsible for his incompetence and his treacherous inability to handle American
foreign policy. Can you imagine our future if Obama gets elected for a second term? Vladimir Putin’s
school of Marxist socialist methods has not been lost on Obama.

Was it not intentional on Obama’s part to have been visiting England when a group of Chinese military
generals was allowed to inspect secret American military bases never before accessible to an outsider?
He later used his being away as an excuse. As a lawyer, he should know that ignorance is never an
excuse!

During the last presidential debate, Obama accused Mitt Romney of considering Putin’s Russia the No.
1 threat to the United States, an accusation that the former Massachusetts governor dismissed,
describing Russia as a geopolitical foe.

“Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again,” Romney said during the debate. “I
have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr.
Putin.”

Unfortunately, the president cannot make the same statement.

Remember when Obama was caught on a hot microphone telling outgoing Russian President Dimitry
Medvedev that he will be in a better position to negotiate with Russia over a missile defense program
after the election?

Said Obama: “This is going to be my last election. After my election I will have more flexibility.”

Medvedev said he would transmit the information to Putin (the former KGB spymaster). Putin’s
response was not long in waiting. In an interview with a Russian newspaper, Putin said that he likes
Obama, that he considers him an honest and trusted man whom he would like to be friends with.

According to Russian press accounts, Medvedev delivered a letter from Putin to Obama during the G-8
Summit at Camp David on May 20. “I delivered him (Obama) a letter from Vladimir Vladimirovich
Putin, in which we stipulate our position with respect to our mutual relations,” said Medvedev in one
account. “Our two great nations have common problems, which we will solve together on a mutual
basis.”

Russian soldiers will be training with U.S. military forces in the United States — and not without
Obama’s blessing.

There is one week left before the presidential election. Do not let Obama destroy this great nation. My
only hope for this nation to survive and recapture its former greatness is to fire Obama — for his inept
economic policies and what I would argue is his treacherous foreign policy.

Let us send the president to join the ranks of those unemployed Americans, who lost their jobs through
Obama’s incompetence in handling the American economy. Let us give our votes to Mitt Romney — a
wise man, and successful businessman, who knows how to put this country back on track.

Welcome to Soviet America

Welcome to Soviet America!

“Lev, this is Julie. Do you remember me?” The voice on the phone sounded familiar. She went on:
“Almost 40 years ago, I believe the year was 1975, I went to see your play ‘Welcome to Soviet America!’
at Carnegie Hall. It was a one-actor play, in which you played all the roles, while my husband was
helping you to set the stage and change the lighting, which was part of the script.”

Well, of course I remember Julie and her husband Alexei Tumerman, who passed away a few years ago.
We met them here in New York, and Alyosha, as we called him, became my devoted friend and
follower.
The only child of a well-known Soviet physicist Lev Tumerman and the author Lydia Shatunovskaya, he
became an orphan at age seven. He was raised by his grandmother after both his parents got arrested.
Tumerman’s research laboratory was taken away from him, and he and his wife were, without a trial,
declared “enemies of the people” and sent to a concentration camp in Siberia.

We heard that story while still in Moscow, when my wife went to work for Academician Skobeltsyn,
head of the Lebedev Physical Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences (FIAN) and editor of the Soviet
branch of the international magazine “Nuclear Physics,” headed by Prof. Rosenfeld and published in
Copenhagen, Denmark.

The above detail is important. The arrest of Lev Tumerman, much loved and respected by his associates,
who devoted his life to the creation of the institute, came as a shock to everybody — it heralded the
beginning of a new wave of arrests. The boy and his grandmother remained penniless. So former
professor Tumerman’s colleagues at the Academy of Sciences initiated a money-raising campaign to
help the now orphaned child financially: for years, every month they delivered the money to Alexei’s
grandmother.

Extremely bright and intellectually astute, Alexei never went to college. He became a human rights
activist and close friend of Academician Andrei Sakharov.

Alexei emigrated from Soviet Russia to the United States, and that was where we met. A bitter enemy of
the Soviet regime, he became part of our life — he shared my views and assisted me in every way he
could.

On our arrival to the United States, after I published my book “The Education of Lev Navrozov: A Life in
the Closed World Once Called Russia,” I embarked on a world lecture tour, explaining the Soviet
criminal system. First it was American university audiences, then Canada, South America, Japan,
France, and Italy. The response in the press was very enthusiastic. And yet, I was not satisfied.
Something else had to be done — with some visual effects.

I could not fail to notice that my message to explain the harm to freedom and democracy done by the
liberal, socialist ideas was appreciated mostly by conservative audiences (the Yale Conservative party,
the New York Conservative Club, and the like), while the liberal press pursued its own agenda.

My first attack was on the liberal New York Times, which for years concealed from the American public
the atrocities perpetrated by the Stalin regime. Stalin’s best friend was Walter Duranty of The New York
Times. For decades, the newspaper carried his dispatches from Moscow, repeating Soviet propaganda,
depicting happy lives of the people in “Stalin’s paradise,” which were outright lies and concealed the
ugly truth and suffering of the Russian people enslaved by Stalin’s criminal henchmen.

And that was why I wrote the play “Welcome to Soviet America!” The plot of the play and my message
were very simple — to show the life in socialist America after it was conquered from within by the
liberal, progressive, Marxist socialist ideas espoused by The New York Times and the rest of the liberal
social media.

I tried to show how the fragile fabric of American freedoms, guaranteed by the American Constitution,
was being destroyed. Americans lost the right to bear arms to defend themselves. Businesses lost their
competitiveness, the American middle class disappeared, rural food-producing areas went out of
business, and general poverty set in.

Government bureaucracy, however, thrived. New York City was renamed Bonoski City. Government
bureaucrats kept their luxury apartments and houses. Their children went to special private schools,
and their salaries skyrocketed. Outwardly, there was no taxation — government withdrew taxes secretly,
the Soviet style — which gave them a good pretense to say that in Soviet America the middle class is not
taxed.

The American people are free and happy. American medicine, which used to be the best in the world,
has been socialized, streamlined the Soviet way. Everyone can get it for free, but nobody can afford to
see his/her own doctor (except those high-paid government bureaucrats paid by the American voters).
In other words, the country became the American paradise Soviet style!

The Carnegie Hall in New York was packed. When the lights went up, the audience did not want to
leave. Everybody wanted to talk to me, to have me sign my book, which was being sold right there. In
other words, the play was a success. It was, however, a one-time event, because I had no means to cover
all the production expenses.

I also was a merciless critic of unwise American foreign policy. President Ronald Regan published my
criticism in his monthly magazine.

I found in my archives, a letter from the White House (Graham M. Kinahan, The White House, Room
93. Washington, D.C. 20500. February 24, 1988): “I have come to value your keen insights on so many
issues of national security. Your timely words of concern read like a carillon call blasting forth a
message we should all heed. Your faithful readers share a keen desire to stem the tide, to do what we
may to buttress our pluralistic society in the face of so much apathy and malaise. Dare I say it, we carry
on as if we had a ‘death wish,’ a desire to flirt with the possibility of losing our free and open society. I
fear, however, that Americans as a whole will continue to fall prey to the liberal press and the wily ways
of formidable totalitarian adversaries . . . I am grateful that we live in a society where options like yours
are heard . . .”

That letter still resonates today with President Obama’s present-day foreign policy. A Russian
publication recently carried an item on Vladimir Putin’s “Modernization [of the Russian military] the
Way Stalin Did in the 1930s.”

With friends like Putin, Obama does not need to have enemies.

Learning Russian in the Womb

I recently saw an article posted on a website and couldn’t agree more with the author’s premise as some
states — including my home state of New York — consider relaxing the laws with respect to late-term
abortions.

The article was about the surprising amount of learning that takes place in the womb.

I was preoccupied with this subject for years —most probably since the birth of our grandchild.

Eighteen years ago we received a phone call from our son, who lived in London. We knew he and his
wife were expecting a baby, and that was why he called — to tell us he had taken his wife to the hospital.

He said that if we wanted to welcome our grandchild, we would have to fly to London right away.

And so we did.

We stayed at a hotel close to the hospital, where all night we anxiously waited for a call from our son.
The call came around 3 a.m.: “You have a grandson!”

And my wife, who always wanted to have a grandson just as much as she had wanted to have a son, said
God had worked another miracle.
And there we were — at the hospital, all of us —a proud grandmother and grandfather. I am now
looking at the photograph: my wife holding her treasure in the first hours after his birth, wrapped in a
Russian cashmere shawl (Orenburgskiy platok) that our American daughter-in-law so lovingly put
around her newborn.

“Do you think he will understand Russian?” we wondered. “Don’t make me laugh,” was our son’s
answer. “For months I spoke to him while he was still in his mother’s womb. I read Russian fairytales to
him. I talked to him in Russian, sang Russian songs to him . . . He will remember all of this!”

And the boy did. His American mother, a Cambridge graduate, helped to recreate a genuine Russian
world for him with Russian nannies, Russian toys, Russian books, Russian piano teachers.

All of that took place years ago. Our grandchild will be 19 this year.

His Russian is impeccable, undistinguishable from that of a native speaker. He is now in his first year at
Oxford.

He is also fluent in several languages: he speaks English with his mother and his American
grandmother and grandfather, Russian with his father, me, and his Russian grandmother.

He speaks Italian, French, and some German. He loves classical music. He reads Latin and Greek texts.
He likes languages, but does not rule out other interests in the future.

The message of my piece here is that the time our grandson “spent” in his mother’s womb was not
wasted.

To prove this, here are several studies, published early this year, which confirm that newborns are much
more than eating and sleeping machines.

“At birth they are primed and ready for social input,” according to one such study. “Decades ago, people
assumed that newborn babies were empty-headed passive lumps . . . that babies didn’t really have
minds — not yet — and they certainly didn’t respond to social stimuli. Today we know differently. It
appears that babies are born with remarkable social capacities that help them identify voices and faces,
communicate, and develop an understanding of other minds . . . So neonates aren’t blank slates, and the
people who care for them are more than diaper-changers.”

According to “The Secret Life of the Unborn Child” by Andreas Moritz, “Now we know that childhood
experiences are not the only factors that can determine our destiny. A child’s life does not begin with his
birth. Since we cannot see the infant before he is born (except through ultrasound machines), it doesn’t
mean he has no links to the outside world. Although the unborn child lives in a world of his own, he is
still influenced by everything that happens around him, especially the thoughts, feelings and actions of
his parents.

"Research has shown that a fetus can lead an active emotional life from the six months, if not earlier. He
is able to feel and can even see, hear, taste, experience and learn while in the womb. The feelings that he
has during his stay in his mother’s womb depend largely on how he deals with the messages that he
receives mostly from the mother, the father, and the environment.”

Moreover: “There is strong evidence that a father who bonds with his child while he is still in the womb
can make a strong emotional difference to his well-being. A newborn baby can recognize his father’s
voice in the first one or two hours after birth and respond to it emotionally, provided the father had
been talking to the child during the pregnancy. The soothing, familiar tone of his voice, for example, is
able to stop the child from crying, indicating that he feels protected and safe.”

Indeed, during our next visit to London, for our grandson’s first birthday — when he was teething and
the pain was unbearable and his suffering was so intense that nothing and none of us could soothe him
— his mother said that our son was a calming force. She took the baby upstairs to our son’s study. The
moment his father took him in his arms, the boy quieted down, stopped crying, and happily went to
sleep. Wasn’t that a miracle?

Perhaps I am getting sentimental as I look through early photographs of our grandson — who at the
time could barely sit straight in his father’s lap — but I cannot help but wonder if we are treading in an
area that man should not be treading in with respect to late-term abortions.
If someone can get a head start on the difficult Russian language while still in the womb, what else
might they understand — or feel?