Tags: Who | Lev | Navrozov | and | Does | Have | Anything

Who Is Lev Navrozov and Does He Have Anything to Do With the 'Death of the West'? – Part II

Tuesday, 16 April 2002 12:00 AM

We received our exit visas. Geostrategically, my plan was simple. Ray Anderson, the Moscow correspondent for the New York Times, and his wife were guests at dinners in our country house about 16 miles from Moscow. On one New Year's Eve (ssh, lower your voice) they even stayed overnight in our house!

Anderson called the New York Times Magazine editor, told him I was coming to New York and advised him to receive me. So I expected to publish, in the New York Times Magazine, an article about the Soviet development of Superweapon No. 3.

The message would thus become known around the world, whereupon there would be no reason for the KGB to assassinate me. On the contrary, an assassination would likely fuel the world sensation and thus enhance the message.

On our arrival in New York, I was duly received by the New York Times Magazine editor. He was not interested in my message. He apparently regarded it as my fantasy, possibly an obsession or mania.

But there is no reason to blame the New York Times. Neither before 1972, nor for the next 20 years, up to President Yeltsin's 1992 opening of the former Soviet bioweapons archipelago to international inspection, had any Western media outlet ever expressed even a conjecture that the Soviet or Chinese rulers were developing superweapons meant to be as superior to nuclear weapons as the latter were to firearms in 1945 – that is, able to destroy the West without the possibility of Western retaliation.

No one could predict in 1938 that (nuclear) Superweapon No. 2 would be ready for action in 1945, and not earlier or later. Similarly, no one could predict at any time between 1972 and 1992 that Superweapon No. 3 in Soviet Russia would not be ready for action the next year, next month, next week.

This meant, oh yes, the (violent) death of the West then and there. Or the Soviet ultimatum demanding Western unconditional surrender. However, in contrast with the U.S. ultimatum presented to Japan in 1945, such an ultimatum may be impossible, since the warning may enable the West to avoid the total annihilation of its retaliatory capacity. The fatal attack may have to be a total surprise.

So I would be saying as my last words, dying with the West: "This is Superweapon No. 3 in action, as I explained it to the New York Times Magazine editor in 1972."

Joyce said that history is a nightmare from which he cannot awake. Part of my nightmare was that I could convey my message in those small periodicals and on radio talk shows that were run by "foreign policy conservatives." But to do so was to invite KGB assassination, since these periodicals and radio talk shows could not make my message world-known.

The mainstream media, which could make my message world-known and hence avert the KGB assassination, were run by "foreign policy liberals," who believed in President Kennedy's declaration in mid-1963 that the Soviet rulers (contrary to what he had been asserting before) were after peace, not world domination. The Soviet rulers were after peace!

And here was I with my horrible message that Gorbachev (that Nobel Peace Prize winner!) was developing a superweapon capable of annihilating the West, including everything and everyone able to retaliate.

It might seem that President Yeltsin's opening for international inspection of the former Soviet bioweapons archipelago produced a revolution in the Western geostrategic brain. But there has been no such brain. This is why the tentative title of the proposed book is "Out of Moscow and Into New York" and its tentative subtitle is "A Life in the Geostrategically Lobotomized West in the Age of Terrorism and Post-Nuclear Superweapons."

On Oct. 29, 2001, NewsMax.com posted my article (See "

It was like interviewing Hitler, after he had been deciding whether to annihilate 6 million Jews, to elicit his condolences regarding two American Jews, killed by an anti-Semite, and his abhorrence for such a heinous crime.

Larry King's brain had no section that would contain any trace of the geostrategic history of the past 40 years, including President Yeltsin's opening for international inspection in 1992 of Gorbachev's bioweapons archipelago, for which the anthrax annihilation of the West was inadequate, since it would not annihilate everything and everyone able to retaliate.

Never have I seen in the Western media the post-1992 horror of public conjecture by the Western political establishment that a violent death could befall the West at any minute. Nay, the West has ignored the Chinese development of Superweapon No. 3 as well, though conjectures and suspicions were expressed in the first half of the 1990s and were then forgotten.

Instead, the West has been engaged in "brilliant" wars against small, weak countries, since there is no longer a Soviet empire to help those countries militarily, as the Soviet empire helped North Vietnam.

On the other hand, since 1992 I have felt myself on much firmer ground. There has been no danger of KGB assassination, and if Putin is to be a dictator, some time will pass before his dictatorship becomes as absolute as the Soviet dictatorship was.

As for Chinese development of Superweapon No. 3, I had my article about it in Newsmax.com posted on April 10, 2001 (See

One reason is obvious. Given the Soviet parity with, if not superiority to, the West in nuclear weaponry, the Western discovery of the Soviet development of post-nuclear weapons could lead to the Western conclusion that the Soviet rulers were not after peace (and self-defense by retaliation and MAD), but rather world domination, as they had been assumed to be by President Kennedy up to early 1963.

Now, because of the Chinese inferiority to the West in nuclear weaponry, the Chinese rulers, while officially denying (of course!) the development of post-nuclear weapons, would not unofficially mind the West suspecting them of developing such weaponry and thus perceiving them as not inferior to the West in military might.

So, in 1992 it was proved, by an archipelago of hard evidence revealed by President Yeltsin, that I had been right, and my brain is intact while the Western political establishment is geostrategically lobotomized, and this is why it does not perceive the Chinese development of post-nuclear weapons either.

Way back in 1978, I set up a nonprofit organization named the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc. Our advisory board included (in alphabetical order):

Without going into our activities, let me say that we have failed to attract the attention of the Western political establishment to the supreme danger of Superweapon No. 3, developed in Soviet Russia and then in China.

History is still a nightmare from which the West cannot wake up, as NATO has been engaged in totally irrelevant "brilliant" wars against weaklings like Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.

As for Israel, under suicidal terrorist attacks (to which the boastful megalomaniac bin Laden and his al-Qaeda are not even "linked"), it is in a worse predicament after 18 months of the Israeli counterterrorist terrorism against "them," including Arafat – as irrelevant as bin Laden, for Arafat cannot either create or forbid the genetic inclination of certain Moslems to suicide, assuring the form of terrorism "for the cause." On the other hand, the suicidal terrorists can assassinate him.

In his letter to me, Saul Bellow wrote that the solution is to write a book on the subject. Here is how my literary agent, Lenny Cavallaro, begins his two-page query to publishers:

"I doubt whether you (or anyone) can restore the diminishing sight of what you call 'the sightless and hence doomed' West. What one can attempt is to describe the condition in its fundamentals. This indispensable description, if it is to be uncontestable, will take more strength than any normal man has, for what we have is a probably fatal case of political poisoning, and the distortions and hallucinations it causes may be impossible to dispel. You must have more strength than any normal man, or you would not have set yourself such a task."

A publisher publishes a book written by the world's No. 1 specialist in a certain field of medicine, for example. The book sells at $450 a copy to 3,000 physicians and thus grosses $1.35 million.

Of course! Patients who have a disease that has hitherto been considered terminal want to survive. Their physicians want to know about the new methods of medical treatment of such patients. The world's No. 1 specialist in the field describes these methods in his book. The physicians are ready to pay $450 per copy, for their patients will pay them for the treatment.

With the survival of the West, the case is not so clear and straightforward as with the survival of a patient. Is every Westerner as concerned about the "death of the West" as about his or her own death as a result of a disease, for example?

One of the first influential literary agents in New York I applied to called me "in five minutes" (as he told me) after he had received my query and said that since his youth his favorite writer had been Bernard Shaw, and I was (in his opinion) a second Bernard Shaw.

I answered facetiously that I was happy to hear this because Shaw was commercially successful. "Hence you will take me on as your client. Otherwise, of what avail would it be to you to have as your client a Bernard Shaw who is a pauper?"

I also told him that I was the opposite of Bernard Shaw. While he said paradoxes, I say ABC truths, while it is the Western political establishment that has been saying paradoxes like President Kennedy's paradox of mid-1963 that the Soviet rulers were after peace, not world domination.

After this pleasant exchange, I duly sent him the Proposal and sample materials. Having read them, he said that he could not take me on because they had induced in him a severe depression. No matter how commercially promising my book can be for him professionally, his "good spirit" is dearer to him.

And that is the problem. In the United States, there has been a cult of good cheer, optimism, being "upbeat." Partly, this comes from business, in which everyone must make believe that he or his Enron is "on the upbeat" and do so all the more cheerfully the closer it is to bankruptcy.

Why read a book about a mortal danger to The West, Inc.? Pat Buchanan's "Death of the West" was published because it is, actually, an upbeat, optimistic anti-depressant. Its message is that if he is elected president of the United States, the West will be hale and hearty, live and kicking, upbeat and upswing, instead of dying.

Every presidential candidate explains how worse off the country will be if he is not elected. Buchanan brings this tendency to its logical extreme: The West will die unless his political and religious agendas have been accepted by the electoral majority of the United States. His name has a high "recognition factor," and his publisher could well expect enough readers of the book among his former and potential voters.

It was my good fortune to have found a literary agent who is depressed (if he is depressed at all) not by my book's ABC truths, but by the fact that they are not perceived by the Western politico-cultural establishment, including the commercial mainstream media and hence many Westerners under their influence. As a professional, he is looking forward to the commercial success of the book, but just as for me, its commercial success for him is only an "attending circumstance," indicating that the book is being widely read,

Another stroke of good luck for me is my computer-Internet whiz, Alan Freed, a Lutheran pastor, who, though he has retired, is deeply involved in his church for seven days a week as a dedicated youth volunteer. I dare think that his computer-Internet association with me is also part of his worldview. Luther's phrase has been quoted so often in German that I will quote it for a change in English: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise."

Lenny Cavallaro and Alan Freed are my two comrades-in-arms against the tremendous odds of our struggle for the survival of the West. I am not alone. There are three of us. For those who find my book's ABC truths depressing, I will strike a lighter note by recalling another trio – in a ditty familiar to every Russian:

To play safe, even publishers of serious trade books look at how much money the author's previous book made. In the United States, my previous book, "The Education of Lev Navrozov" (Harper & Row, 1975) received over 100 reviews, and quotable quotes praising it occupy three pages. This is how Newsmax.com sums them up, along with the responses to my subsequent writings:

But Golda Meir, prime minister of Israel from 1969 to 1974, sued me and threatened to sue Harper & Row as well, for my statement in a Commentary article and in my book that she had passed to Stalin the list of Soviet Jews wishing to fight as volunteers in the Israeli War of Independence, because she considered Stalin the best friend of Israel since he had promptly recognized Israel.

To make trouble for the British? How cynical! Golda believed that Stalin loved Israel because the Israeli struggle for independence was a national-liberation movement, and surely Stalin was the world's greatest champion of such movements. Needless to say, Stalin sent the Jewish volunteers not to Israel, but to Siberia.

I believed that the Israeli statesmen were as mediocre as their American colleagues. Indeed, look at the predicament of Israel in 2002 after decades of efforts to attain peace. Golda was regarded as the wisest Israeli, and hence Western, foreign-policy maker – on a par with the wisest Winston Churchill. To prick both bubbles, I gave two examples (one for Golda and the other for Sir Winston) to show how naive they were.

My Golda example was based on documentary evidence, such as the letter of an Israeli official who reported that Golda Meir's government had destroyed all the copies but one of a book, already printed by those whom Stalin had sent to Siberia per Golda's list, but who had survived and emigrated to Israel.

Ironically, the official reported that he had preserved one copy of the book for himself as a historical souvenir. Imagine the world sensation: this official subpoenaed, along with his copy of the otherwise destroyed book.

Indeed, the sensation was on and snowballing. Canadian television paid me more than I had ever received for a lecture just to fly to Canada and appear for half an hour before their viewers as "the defendant in the Golda Meir case."

Why, then, did Golda file her lawsuit in the first place? She wanted to intimidate Harper & Row and make it freeze my book instead of selling millions of copies of it on the crest of the world "Golda Meir case" sensation.

To many Jews, such as the judge who refused to dismiss the case, it was immaterial that I had told the well-documented truth as an example of the dangerous mediocrity of the Western, and in particular Israeli, political elite.

What antagonized such Jews was the fact that I had diminished the aura of the "heroine of the Jewish people," and that was unpatriotic (that is, un-Israeli), un-Jewish, anti-Semitic. The fact that I had been helping to raise money for Israel was irrelevant to such Jews.

Golda attained her goal: Harper & Row was intimidated. My book was frozen, as Harper & Row had promised Golda in exchange for her promise not to sue the publishing house and thus relieve it from the wrath of such Jews.

Whereupon she withdrew the case against me as well, for its continuation might have led to disastrous consequences for her, even with Harper & Row safely neutralized. She would have been revealed not just as a naive person (the way I described her), but also as an unscrupulous, wily politician who had destroyed the immigrants' book and sued me for $3 million in order to conceal her blunder.

What was the moral for me of Golda's successful intimidation of Harper & Row?

The advance I had received from Harper & Row was small: My sensation value on our arrival in the West was zero because in Soviet Russia I had been a political criminal who had never been caught by the KGB and hence never sensationalized in the West. I had never published in Russia a single line of my original writings – only my translations. If Harper & Row had given me a substantial advance, they would have thought twice before submitting to Golda Meir's pressure.

PUBLISHERS: Should you be considering the publication of Lev Navrozov's book in progress, "Out of Moscow and Into New York: A Life in the Geostrategically Lobotomized West in the Age of Terrorism and Post-nuclear Superweapons." (please bear in mind that a substantial advance is expected), the 27-page Proposal and the first 106-page section of the book can be mailed to you if you apply to me (

© 2018 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
We received our exit visas. Geostrategically, my plan was simple. Ray Anderson, the Moscow correspondent for the New York Times, and his wife were guests at dinners in our country house about 16 miles from Moscow. On one New Year's Eve (ssh, lower your voice) they even...
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

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