In his e-mail, a reader of mine asked me why I had emigrated to America since I am so critical of George W. Bush, who is, in my reader’s perception, an equivalent of America.
My answer is that I am so much concerned with the survival of the West that I came to America to help the survival of the West and prevent its annihilation by post-nuclear superweapons developed by the dictatorship of China (with the help of Russia).
It took millennia to create a civilization that produced, in the past six centuries, French painting, German symphonic music, calculus, etc. Possibly such a civilization will never originate again. No human beings will appear again. There will be left nothing except dead relics of the past.
In France (to take her as an example), roi (the king) once ruled his peuple (the people). Why? Because he had inherited his right to rule them. Now we see how the people of the United States elect their president. Of course! They have to be governed by someone whom they trust and value enough to be elected.
Here comes the first “but.” Did those who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 or in 2004 know that he deserved their trust and had the value they ascribed to him?
To put this as a statistical problem: What is the percentage of the electorate whose trust cannot be relied upon and whose value they place on the presidential candidate they are electing does not correspond to reality?
The U.S. president is also the commander in chief. George W. Bush has been fighting for five years Sunnis of Iraq, a small Third-World country. I am not discussing the criminality of his “pre-emptive war.” I am referring only to its geostrategic absurdity.
The United States (population: 291 million as of 2003), aided by countries like Great Britain, has been unable to defeat Iraq, whose population, as of the beginning of the century, was 21.4 million, with only a percentage of Sunnis fighting.
Imagine the dictatorship of China (population: 1.3 billion) instead of Iraq’s Sunnis. But neither George W. Bush, nor the presidential candidates (with one exception: Duncan Hunter) have ever mentioned the threat from the dictatorship of China, relying on Russian military scientific and technological cooperation.
I have always been an opponent of militarization. But the impression the United States creates in 2008 is that apart from that Iraqi farce, wars have never existed and will never exist.
Owing to the United States and Western European failures in Iraq, we saw on television several combat uniforms. But otherwise they do not seem to exist. War seems to have been abolished forever except in Iraq (and in Iran?). Military science and technology? Only in “Oblivion: America at the Brink,” published in 2005 by Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden (U.S. Army, retired) and sent to me as to someone concerned with the defense of the West.
This is how the author is introduced in the book:
Lieutenant Colonel Thomas E. Bearden (U.S. Army, Retired) was previously a senior scientist and department manager with the Alabama division of a major aerospace company where he directed the company’s design and production of expert systems (artificial intelligence) applications for the U.S. Army command systems. He has more than 29 years of experience in air defense systems, tactics, and operations; technical intelligence; nuclear weapons deployment; computerized war games; anti-radiation missile countermeasures; and military systems requirements.
Bearden obtained a Master of Science degree in Nuclear Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology and a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics from Northeast Louisiana University. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.
Bearden was a member of Mensa, Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained, International Tesla Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Association of American Physics Teachers, the Air Force Association, the Association of the U.S. Army, the American Nuclear Society, and the American Defense Preparedness Association. He is currently the Director of the Association of Distinguished American Scientists (ADAS).
This is what the author says, as he ends his book, in his “Final urgent commentary”:
The darkest days in the history of our republic lie immediately ahead of us.
If we are to survive, we shall need the most strenuous and rapid effort in our history, now.
In times of grave peril, Americans have always rallied to national liberty, and survival. We must do so again.
God bless and keep America! We pray for its survival.
Militarism versus pacifism. Recall France in World War I and in 1940. In World War I, France fought throughout the war — for about four years — and contributed its bit to the victory. In 1940, the French were running along with the British, and the outcome of the war was obvious within days.
Militarism is oppressive, but pacifism may lead to what happened to France in 1940 — war as a French-British flight.
More important, pacifism weakens the will of genius to create weapons superior to those of the enemy. Financial rewards are important, but the combat mood also helps, while all-pervading pacifism helps self-disarmament.
Pacifism now reigns supreme in the United States. Imagine such a mood in France in 1940, before its war with Germany. But the size of the military threat grows with every year as there appears the military technology of this year, and that of the previous year became outdated.
The dictatorship of China is waiting for the year when the Chinese technology becomes able to destroy the Western technology or someone destroys the Chinese technology. Who will first destroy the enemy’s lethal technology? The victor will dominate the world.
The geostrategic tension has never been greater in the history of mankind. But what do we hear from the US president and the presidential candidates? They seem to be living on a different planet where a war means not, for example, universal death, but one of those cheerful scenes on TV screens or on boxes of whatever is advertised for sale.
It is not impossible that destroyed will be both opponents—the West and China, or all life on the planet Earth. The history of mankind will be over. The origin and development of every being may be unique. We can imagine a planet that has no human beings the planet Earth has.
Certain living beings, able to communicate on a rudimentary level, will say: “Yes, there were living beings, looking very much like on those paintings and in pieces of sculpture we find sometimes. But those living beings made horrible toys with which they killed themselves.”
You can e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.