How did I learn British English in Russia? When I was a child, German was taught in Soviet schools. But I asked my parents to invite a private teacher — an English lady who made her living by teaching English.
As I grew up, I continued to be an “Englishman in Russia.” I began to work in a publishing house, where I translated Russian classical literature into English and sometimes edited English texts. As I remember now, there were four of us at the office table, including a young girl I took for a young English lady. Just as I did, she also played a “Briton in Moscow.” After hours, I would walk her home.
Well, we became an English couple in Moscow. We got married, and in 1972 we “emigrated,” that is, the Soviet authorities played at emigration, and we had no objection against being delivered to the New York 22-storied apartment building in which my wife and I are still living. At that time, also living with us was our son, now a unique translator of Russian poetry into English, and last but not least, my mother, a professor of medicine.
Much of its political wisdom the United Stated took from Britain. But here is a disastrous exception. In Britain, the queen/king is the head of state. The prime minister is the head of government. The British appoint their prime minister; they do not elect their prime minister by a “majority of the people.”
American revolutionaries thought that would be old-fashioned and established the general election, according to which the president of the United States is the head of state and head of government of the United States. The president leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander in chief of the United States armed forces.
The U.S. president is frequently described as the most powerful person in the world. All this means that the U.S. president is elected by an electoral majority, whose minds cannot be at the level of genius (as was the mind of the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who saved Britain from Hitler’s invasion).
But fortunately, the American revolutionaries were not as powerful as the Russian revolutionaries, who even destroyed themselves, except for Stalin, a ruthless fighter against all freedoms, except his own freedom to kill anyone any way he fancied.
Let us now see how armed some world countries are. A country’s military power is measured by the number of its “military people” in active service, the reserves, and paramilitary force.
As for the “latest weapons,” those may be hidden reliably enough. On the other hand, they may require specialized active service, and this may be more expensive than just maintaining active service.
Wikipedia’s “List of countries by number of troops” consists of 6 1/2 pages (about 160 countries), but it is enough for me to mention just two of them. “People’s Republic of China”: 3,455,000 military service people and the United States of America: 2,455,837, that is, less by almost 1 million military service people.
I hope the readers will realize that unless the world reforms itself, humankind can expect nothing but death.
There are free countries. Outside them the world is socially at the level of thousands of years ago. There are billions of people who have been sold or sold themselves into slavery, but the word “slave” has become obsolete as not being elegant enough for our times. The slaves are a mind-boggling wealth, which belongs to powerful slave-owners, dictators, and whoever else has money or power or both.
The immediate problem is to explain to the 7 billion people on the planet earth how dangerous the present state of the world is and how an expanding output of more and more powerful weapons in the hands of dictators makes it more and more difficult for mankind to escape death.
It is only the British-like freedom for all without the “general elections” of the head of the state and the head of government that can prevent slave enterprises, arising, developing, and producing ever newer and increasingly dangerous weapons.
As I wrote in my previous columns, the free countries should institute a global union, whose members value freedom and will be tireless advocates for mutual peace. Only such a union will be able to induce an aggressive country to reduce the production of its weapons to a mutually safe (nonaggressive) level.
It is only such a union of free and peaceful countries that will have the international influence with respect to the countries which are “slave countries,” determined to defend themselves against any attempt to limit their slavery, which is more profitable to their owners than the same number of free hands.
I understand that the members of the global union will have to be sophisticated in international affairs. But what is the alternative? The death of mankind?
Of course the global union’s policy must include the statement that “those who bring war die in war.” The experience of Germany in World War I and World War II is persuasive.
Free people and believers in freedom! You should be talking with the rest of the world.
Lev Navrozov can be reached at email@example.com
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.