Even those who misuse the word “democracy” to mean all aspects of “freedom” know that the word came from ancient Athens, where it meant the political victory of “demos” (common people) over aristocracy.
Today this suggests the United States, where even the public use of aristocratic titles was dropped, is a democracy, but not England, where aristocracy exists politically. As England’s official text reads, “The House of Lords makes laws, holds the Government to account, provides a form of independent expertise and is the highest court of the land.”
A common belief in the United States that an elected head of government or a member of Congress is more intelligent than a random normal adult who has voted for them is absurd.
On the contrary, the larger the number of random psychiatrically normal adults who have voted for a certain individual as the most intelligent person imaginable, the lower is their average intelligence (and the person they voted for). Albert Einstein was for many years understood by seven people, according to his count.
Inevitably, when the United States has been mortally endangered for the first time in its history within the continent between oceans, and between Canada and Mexico, the behavior of its presidents (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and perhaps Barack Obama) and of Congress as a whole has been absurd.
Going from the presidents and Congress to legal justice, I personally experienced how absurd its legal basics are as being practiced in New York courts.
A New York Russian-language newspaper wrote that from my columns it was clear that I was a Soviet spy. I sued the newspaper. The judge would not make the newspaper pay a cent for its idiotic libel. What spy would write in his weekly column that he is a spy? Why was the judge so absurd? Judges are elected, and the judge would not offend a newspaper that could influence the voters.
In a more audible lawsuit, Golda Meir, prime minister of Israel (1969-1974) sued me for my having recalled in my columns that she had praised Stalin in the press. The judge made a speech in which he said that “we,” that is, Jews (assuming that all those present in the courtroom were Jews) must do everything to help Israel to survive. While my recollection of Golda Meir’s praise of Stalin could once be useful, it was now harmful to Israel. I wondered what the judge’s decision would be, but the case began to attract media attention, and Golda Meir ordered her two lawyers to withdraw the lawsuit, which they did.
The lawyers were another discovery of mine. At that time, I could not afford them. No more than can most Americans. But are lawyers always better than self-defense? When Golda Meir’s lawyers spoke, and I answered them, the judge said to me: “I have not seen you before. How long have you been practicing in New York?”
To my dismay, I learned that unlike New York, many American states did not allow litigants to defend themselves — they were to be represented by “professional lawyers.”
Were “professional lawyers” so superior to self-defense? Golda Meir was said to have hired the most expensive law firm in the United States. I will mention one detail. Both sides were to meet a judge on duty to establish the details of our meeting with our judge.
I came strictly on time to meet the judge on duty, but Golda Meir’s lawyers did not appear, and I established with the judge on duty all the details of the meeting with “our judge” to my best advantage.
The staircase from the floor where I met the judge on duty went down to the lobby, leading to exit, and when I was down, I saw Golda Meir’s two lawyers of that most expensive law firm in the United States, arriving late, as two schoolboys late for school. They began demanding that I go up with them and even threatened me with legal penalties if I didn’t. I just laughed and proceeded to the exit.
The free countries have survived owing to two factors.
The European free or private enterprise wanted to manufacture as many metal and stone goods as possible, and that required steel machine tools. Thus, the private enterprise industrialized their countries, and so they could produce mechanical weapons as well, such as machine guns, which Kipling regarded as tokens of military victory.
Now, in the Imperial China, the emperors regarded Western industrialization as a vulgarity of inferior people. Hence Britain routed China in the two 19th-century Opium Wars to make the Chinese abolish the ban on buying opium, sold in China by British merchants.
The other factor in the survival of the free countries was the location of the most powerful of them, the United States (see above).
But the 21st-century geostrategy is altogether different. The warfare is becoming global, going across the oceans and into the space, and molecular nanoweapons are the 21st-century equivalents of the 19th-century machine-guns and of the 20th-century atom bombs.
In past centuries, the now free countries made a tremendous sociopolitical advance. Millennia of history lie between them and the “new slave states” like “Soviet” Russia, “Nationalist-Socialist” Germany, and “Communist” China.
Yet the post-nuclear weapons mean World War III, compared to World War II, which was limited in weapons of killing and destruction. Besides, Hitler made several stupid suicidal mistakes, and the new owners of China may avoid them.
The United States and other free countries have little time to develop their societies to an even more advanced freedom and better able to defend themselves and their freedom owing to greater freedom.
This requires a widespread understanding of the China threat. Let us preach — let us create the biggest possible audience.
I am looking for the means to create the film about the China dictatorship’s attack on the free countries, so that a considerable segment of the population of the free countries feel the horror of what will happen if the present lies, indifference, and betrayal of the free countries by many of their own citizens continue.
You can e-mail me at email@example.com .
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.