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.
You can e-mail me at email@example.com.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.