Tags: china | war | united | states

How to Ensure Adequate Defense of a Free Country

Thursday, 22 Oct 2009 12:30 PM

By Lev Navrozov

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink

An adequate defense of a free country requires an adequate government.

In the United States, the British system of electing a prime minister was replaced by the direct election of a U.S. president by a majority of voters, which opens the possibility of electing a mentally average mind, for the more minds think about complex problems in the same way and with a stereotypical simplicity, the lower is their mental level, while Einstein, who in 1939 explained to Roosevelt the immediate need to begin to develop the “atom bomb,” used to say that he was understood by seven people in the world. Fortunately, Roosevelt’s mind happened to be far above the average.

At a two-day meeting in Washington, including top officials from China, President Obama has proclaimed himself and the United States a “partner of China,” while in the past decade China’s Gen. Chi Haotian, the minister of national defense up to 2004, proclaimed in his speeches that China should poison or infect with a mortal disease one-third or two-thirds of the Americans and then transfer their homes and other property to the new (Chinese) settlers as to the really superior race, whom one-third of the Americans left alive are to serve manually.

This information became available in the West via the Western press and television, but the last three U.S. presidents have been deaf to it, not to spoil their “good relations” with the owners of China.

Before the 21st century, the absence of a U.S. president as a unique mind and a unique soul in the defense of the United States was not so tragic for the United States, since North America was protected by the two oceans and Canada against the armed forces of the time in the possession of Hitler.

Canada is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, formerly known as the British Commonwealth. In the American Revolution against Britain, the United States destroyed or ousted those sprouts of the British political wisdom, which had been developing within the English history since the 13th century (Magna Carta).

The Canadians do not elect a Canadian president by a majority of voters.

On the other hand, as William Safire wrote in the New York Times on May 18, 1998, U.S. President Clinton, “hungry for money to finance his re-election overruled the Pentagon; he sold to a Chinese military intelligence front the technology that [U.S.] defense experts argued would give Beijing the capacity to blind our spy satellites and launch a sneak attack.”

George W. Bush saw the threat to the United States coming not from China (population: 1,331 billion) but from the oil-rich Iraq (population: 26 million, 35 percent of whom were Sunni, favoring the free West), and he invaded Iraq in an absurd five-year campaign.

As for Obama, he is a “partner of China” but is vigilant to whatever is going on in Afghanistan (population: 30 million).

The people of England do not elect a U.K. president. They elect members of parliament. The largest party in parliament sends its candidate to the king or queen for the approval as his/her prime minister.

Let us also recall that the word democracy was launched by ancient Athens. The word democracy came from the word demos (“common people”), and the word aristocracy from the word aristos (“best”).

The “revolutionary America” and the “revolutionary Russia” abolished their aristocracy. Yet classical music has been performed in both countries by aristos and for aristos.

All uniquely valuable creativity in arts or sciences, philosophy, or geostrategy, involves aristos.

The U.S. election of a U.S. president by a majority of voters contradicts the organic law of cerebral creativity, according to which the mental ability of members of a similarly thinking group is likely to be the lower, the more numerous the group is, and genius is not a member of a group of millions of similarly thinking members.

If President Roosevelt was a genius, then his election as a U.S. president by millions of Obamas was accidental, and if he had been an Obama, just as were those who voted for him, he could have been fatal for his country.

Today the danger has grown immensely.

If the president is a genius, he must be at the peak of a human pyramid, corresponding to “an intelligence statistical curve,” and transmitting his ideas to the people at large.

This is accepted in cultural or in intellectual endeavors in the West. How can a government do without such a pyramid? Or is the defense against the PRC something so simple that any Obama elected by a majority of Obamas can create it?

Why should President Obama be expected to be smarter than the evil dictators of China?

An Obama who would begin today to engage in a globally developing and vitally important field like war — without any proficiency in it and without any evidence of his proficiency — can be called an idiot and what he has been doing an idiocy.

The U.S. president has been elected by a majority of psychiatrically healthy adult Americans who wished to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Suppose he is a genius in establishing the single-payer healthcare system. And, his all-American healthcare will be the world’s best. But why should a genius in single-payer healthcare be automatically expected to be a genius of today’s geostrategy?

Surely it is safer for him to become a traitor with respect to the United States and a slave of the owners of China, helping them enslave that one-third of Americans who are to remain alive as servants to the superior race from China.

There is a sweet delusion in the free West that a free country is by definition more powerful than a slave country like the “People’s Republic of China.”

This is a delusion.

Freedom has one military advantage: It produces people of genius like Einstein, who flourished in Germany before Nazism, but who emigrated after Hitler’s advent to power — and it was his letter to Roosevelt that was to destroy Hitler, for Hitler stopped the active development of the nuclear bomb in Germany, while the United States had developed it by 1945.

Without the atom bomb, Hitler lost the war in Russia and committed suicide, not to face the public trial and be executed by his war enemies.

But a slave country like post-1949 China has many advantages in war. For example, its every inhabitant (except little children and invalids) is psychologically “mobilized” in war or in peace as in the severest war.

The war losses never deter the owners of a slave country, for they do not sustain any personal losses unless they lose the war as Hitler did.

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

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  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