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.
You can e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
© 2016 Newsmax. All rights reserved.