Tags: china | super | weapons

China Is Greatest Threat in History

Thursday, 03 Apr 2008 10:30 AM

By Lev Navrozov

Share:
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
   Forward Article  |
  Copy Shortlink

What Christopher Columbus regarded as India up to his death was a sparsely populated land, virtually unarmed to fight the Europeans. The continent came to be a British colony.

Then there appeared the independent United States, quite safe geostrategically speaking. Look at the map. The Atlantic Ocean to the east of the United States and the Pacific to the west, the vast, free, friendly, and sparsely populated Canada to the north, and a fairly short border with Mexico to the south.

Europeans brought to America the Industrial Revolution; that is, the age of machines, which could be reconstructed into weapons. A country’s military might corresponded to its “industrial development.”

In the 20th century, new societies originated, such as Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany, who were socially at the stage of state slavery, and developed their military might per se. However, Stalin’s Russia was as yet too weak for global domination, and it was invaded in 1941 by Hitler’s Germany. The United States helped Britain and Stalin’s Russia to defeat Hitler, who declared war on the United States, but his bombs never fell on the United States.

Note, however, that Hitler’s development of nuclear weapons, which are not transformed machines of the Industrial Revolution, was at one time ahead of the U.S. Manhattan Project. New slave countries, combining the state slavery of the antiquity and the development of new weapons, which are not transformed machines of the Western Industrial Revolution, have not disappeared.

The population of Germany is projected to be just over 82 million in 2010. So the free West will potentially face at least 16 Nazi Germanys worth of population in China.

China develops weapons that will act in outer space all round the globe. The United States is to be as accessible to them, and hence as endangered as any other territory of the earth.

In the 19th century, it did not matter for the survival of the United States who was the U.S. president. But today!

About eight years after his election, it is clear that George Bush has been, geostrategically, worse than zero. Nothing happened in his time in office except wasting a trillion dollars on the absurd “war in Iraq,” four thousand American lives, and uncounted Iraqi lives, as a result of which the dictatorship in Iraq will likely be Shi’a, that is, more hostile to the United States than was the Sunni Saddam Hussein’s Sunni rule.

Well, this is minor damage compared with the annihilation of the West by the post-nuclear super weapons created by the Chinese dictatorship in cooperation with Russia.

Even if all U.S. presidents so far had been as harmful as George Bush (or his dear father, who sent April Glaspie, on July 25, 1990, to Iraq to assure Hussein that the United States would not mind Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait), the United States would have survived owing to its geostrategic situation and the absence on the military world scene of global post-nuclear super weapons, developed by the dictatorship of China.

But the critical time is drawing nigh, when a U.S. president, as geostrategically blind as George Bush or as any one of the three presidential candidates, may fail to prevent the annihilation of the free West.

In 1832 there was great news in Britain: One out of every seven adult males had now the right to vote in order to elect — no, not the prime minister, but members of parliament, so that the party that enjoyed a majority in parliament could make its leader the prime minister, with the blessing of the monarch. In 2008, all American adults except those found mentally unfit, have the right to vote.

There is one other detail. In 1859 John Stuart Mill published his book “On Liberty.” As a child, Mill never went to school, and as an adult, he was not connected with any university.

How did he manage to be remembered even today as a genius? He spoke of magazines with horror. But his books were bought, and this was how he became a world-famous thinker. The profits of a modern TV station come from advertisements, and their price depends on the number of TV viewers the TV station has, even if they view this particular TV station only because it is more sexually explicit or because it seems funnier to more viewers than any other TV station.

This is how it happened that a majority of the U.S. electorate voted twice for George W. Bush, while in 2008, 45 percent of voters — no, not just said that their vote for him was a mistake, but demanded impeachment for him — not for an affair with a White House intern and then an impudent denial of it, but for being mired (five years!) in Iraq, while China has been developing post-nuclear super weapons.

So, the British politicians of 1832 assumed that it is insane to grant to 100 percent of the psychiatrically healthy adult population, and not to its most intelligent 7 percent — to elect even a member of parliament, not the prime minister!

Those British politicians in 1832 were right in the sense that only the most intelligent 7 percent of voters can be expected to elect intelligent statesmen. But British and American politicians of 2008 will say: “If only 7 percent of the psychiatrically healthy adults have the right to vote, then the other 93 percent will declare that they did not elect the powers that be and hence the decisions of these powers that be do not apply to them.”

Besides, who and how can determine these most intelligent 7 percent? If, say, special commissions will determine those intelligent enough to have the right to vote, who will determine the intelligence of the members of such commissions?”

So, what is the solution to saving the West from being annihilated by the slave state of China? The British selection, in 1832, of 7 percent of the population as voters and the dismissal of the rest as mentally unfit for the task is impossible. On the other hand, the universal right to “elect and be elected” leads to the election of U.S. presidents who are mentally below what is needed to defend the free West against the slave state of China whose population is equal to that of 16 Germanys.

The advantage of the free West is freedom, which can be turned into a tool of geostrategic enlightenment. Let us have John Stuart Mills, who will be paid not by advertisers for the size of the entertained audience, but by consumers of thoughts, in particular, in geostrategy. Freedom and hence the free thinking of thinkers of genius is the advantage of the free West over the dictatorship of China.

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

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Share:
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
   Forward Article  |
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Retype Email:
Country
Zip Code:
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
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 . . .

Newsmax, Moneynews, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, NewsmaxWorld, NewsmaxHealth, are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

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