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 Jianhui He, criticizing my geostrategic view of the world today as biased and outdated.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.
You can e-mail me at email@example.com.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.