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.
Lev Navrozov can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.