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)
- the possibility 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:
- the conviction 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!
Lev Navrozov can be reached at email@example.com.
© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.