Tags: china | slave | state

China: Sociopolitical Ideology of a Slave State

Friday, 15 May 2009 02:51 PM

By Lev Navrozov

  Comment  |
   Contact  |
  Print   |
    A   A  
  Copy Shortlink

A nation’s political consciousness depends to a considerable degree on the key sociopolitical notions that the nation has fostered throughout history.

For example, in Russian, the words “government” and “state” come from the word gosudar, that is, “supreme master-owner”; while the word “power” (vlast) means not “might” or “force,” as it does in English, but “ownership,” “possession” — of serfs or slaves, for example.

The word “monarch”? In Russia, the only monarch called “great” was Peter I (1672-1725). Independent Russian historians have told us (before Stalin launched Russian nationalism!) that Peter the Great would go to an “assembly of nobility,” imitating Western customs, would pick among the guests the female he liked and rape her on the floor in the presence of the entire assembly.

On the other hand, everything great in Russian literature and music, still valued in the West as well, was created under the 19th-20th century tsars or by those who grew up under them.

Yet even in Stalin’s Russia, many Russians associated the tsars with tyranny, bigotry, and obscurantism, while Stalin, in their perception, killed only enemies and rewarded only heroes. He was as just, as wise, and as omniscient as God, and toward the end of his life he decided to become the God of the Eastern (Orthodox) Christian Church, but he died before his literal religious deification.

In England, the political development began anew after the fall of the Roman Empire. In the 13th century, the monarchs in England gave their subjects the Magna Carta, also known as the Great Charter of Liberties. The Great Charter of 1215 contains 63 clauses. Said Clause 63 (in the translation from Latin into English):

No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned, or disseized [dispossessed — L.N.], or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed, nor will we go upon him, nor will we send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers [“jury trial,” which already existed — L.N.] or by the law of the land.

That is, the monarch of England, according to Magna Carta, is a protector of liberties.

Well, today, in England, the king or queen has preserved the image of the monarch of the Great Charter.

The fact that English is the main language of the United States (Canada and Australia) has influenced the political culture of these countries.

In the United States, the role of the parliament is partially played by the Congress, and the role of the English monarch and his or her prime minister by the U.S. president elected by a majority.

Any American adult, unless medically certified as psychiatrically sick, has the right to elect, and be elected as, the U.S. president.

One of the demands of the French Revolution — equality — was thus fulfilled in the United States shortly before the French Revolution.

Unfortunately, the word “equality” is ambiguous. Yes, everyone should be equal before the law.

A U.S. president can be impeached, that is, removed from office for misconduct, and put on trial before a legislative body. But the word “equal” may also mean that anyone, psychiatrically normal, is equal to anyone else in his mental ability. This view was a widespread belief not so long ago.

It was assumed (by many socialists, for example) that if everyone had unlimited educational opportunities, everyone would be equal in mental ability even to someone called genius.

Today, we know that people inherit the seeds of mental abilities, which they may nourish.

If we have a group of randomly picked people, the greater the abilities we seek in them, the fewer people we will find who possess these abilities, while individuals of genius are great rarities.

France has not faired well with its equality, which was known in France since 1794 as égalité, a word coined from the Latin word aequalitas.

The French Revolution, with its égalité, ended with Napoleon, a predecessor of Hitler. As emperor, Napoleon also tried to conquer Russia and also failed.

My "New York Times Almanac" introduces the first U.S. war (1775-1783) as the Revolutionary War. Period. So it was not just a war against Britain of a British colony for its independence: It was a revolution against the British monarchy and for the (French) revolutionary égalité, since the U.S. Revolutionary War was one of the causes of the French Revolution, just as the French culture on the eve of the French Revolution was one of the causes of the U.S. Revolutionary War against Britain.

In 1940, Hitler routed France with its égalité almost in a month, while the United States was protected by two oceans reliably enough until the 21st century.

Now, who was Hitler?

In 1934, 90 percent of the population of Germany approved of Hitler in a plebiscite. Why? Because he was an ignorant fool, and they were “equal” to him, and not to Germans of genius. Equality! Egalité!

After routing France, Hitler did not wait for the production of atom bombs by his atom project, which in 1942 seemed to be ahead of the U.S. atom project, and that would have made him the owner of the world.

Instead, he spent his resources to conquer Russia in 1941 and was routed because he was even more of an ignorant fool than Stalin. He shot himself in the mouth.

Incidentally, in 1934, when 90 percent of Germans approved of him in a plebiscite, a number of Hitler’s (Nazi) rivals like Gregor Strasser were executed without trial, which resembled Stalin’s killing of his (Marxist, communist, Bolshevik) rivals.

Stalin was a vozhd, the word applied in the Russian text of the Bible to Moses. Hitler named himself führer, a word that has many meanings in German, including “pilot.”

While Stalin was the "Moses" of Russia, Hitler was the pilot of Germany. But flying where?

In 1934, 90 percent of Germans approved of him in a plebiscite because he, an ignorant fool, promised to reverse World War I, and they approved of him in 1934 because they believed him, ignorant fools as they were. Instead of the reversal of World War I, he gave them World War II, with all its deaths and devastations, and a Soviet colony in eastern Germany and in Berlin.

New Napoleons — Stalin, Hitler, and Mao — were brought to power (that is, to slave ownership) by millions of ignorant fools due to égalité. And today the danger is that the United States and hence all the other free countries will become defenseless against the new slave state of China.

So far, England has been avoiding égalité. Yes, finally, in the 20th century, all psychiatrically healthy inhabitants of the country became voters (universal suffrage). But they elect not the “British president,” but members of parliament, and then voters within parliament present to the monarch one of its members, and His or Her Majesty makes this member of Parliament His or Her Prime Minister or whatever.

The procedure did not keep Tony Blair, who thus became the prime minister in 2001, from participating in an idiotic venture, a six-year war in Iraq, while neglecting the danger of the dictatorship of China, with its population of 1.3 billion.

It would be unfair to call George W. Bush just an ignorant fool. He is feeble-minded in the psychiatric sense, as some data of his biography suggest.

The difference between him and Tony Blair is that while George W. Bush (a Republican) had an abnormally slow speech (unless he read a prepared note), Blair (of the Labour Party) was an abnormal chatterbox.

As for the "big Communist Parties," they grew in the 20th century in Russia, France, Italy (after World War II), China. A "Communist Party" is a nostalgic recall of absolutism, its only content — the rest is changeable and was a repeatedly changed infantile prattle.

In Germany, the infantile prattle of Marx and Engels, both Germans, was ousted by the infantile "national-socialist" prattle, another nostalgic recall of absolutism.

You can e-mail me at anvlev@cloud9.net.

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

  Comment  |
   Contact  |
  Print   |
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

Learning Russian in the Womb

Tuesday, 26 Feb 2013 15:44 PM

I recently saw an article posted on a website and couldn’t agree more with the author’s premise as some states , includi . . .

Welcome to Soviet America

Thursday, 29 Nov 2012 09:40 AM

“Lev, this is Julie. Do you remember me?” The voice on the phone sounded familiar. She went on: “Almost 40 years ago, I  . . .

Romney Won't Look at Russia with Rose-Colored Glasses

Tuesday, 30 Oct 2012 15:50 PM

I was watching Fox News, when an image of President Barack Obama delivering a message flashed on the screen for a mere s . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved