Skip to main content
Tags: china | super | weapons

China Is Greatest Threat in History

By    |   Thursday, 03 April 2008 10:30 AM EDT

What Christopher Columbus regarded as India up to his death was a sparsely populated land, virtually unarmed to fight the Europeans. The continent came to be a British colony.

Then there appeared the independent United States, quite safe geostrategically speaking. Look at the map. The Atlantic Ocean to the east of the United States and the Pacific to the west, the vast, free, friendly, and sparsely populated Canada to the north, and a fairly short border with Mexico to the south.

Europeans brought to America the Industrial Revolution; that is, the age of machines, which could be reconstructed into weapons. A country’s military might corresponded to its “industrial development.”

In the 20th century, new societies originated, such as Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany, who were socially at the stage of state slavery, and developed their military might per se. However, Stalin’s Russia was as yet too weak for global domination, and it was invaded in 1941 by Hitler’s Germany. The United States helped Britain and Stalin’s Russia to defeat Hitler, who declared war on the United States, but his bombs never fell on the United States.

Note, however, that Hitler’s development of nuclear weapons, which are not transformed machines of the Industrial Revolution, was at one time ahead of the U.S. Manhattan Project. New slave countries, combining the state slavery of the antiquity and the development of new weapons, which are not transformed machines of the Western Industrial Revolution, have not disappeared.

The population of Germany is projected to be just over 82 million in 2010. So the free West will potentially face at least 16 Nazi Germanys worth of population in China.

China develops weapons that will act in outer space all round the globe. The United States is to be as accessible to them, and hence as endangered as any other territory of the earth.

In the 19th century, it did not matter for the survival of the United States who was the U.S. president. But today!

About eight years after his election, it is clear that George Bush has been, geostrategically, worse than zero. Nothing happened in his time in office except wasting a trillion dollars on the absurd “war in Iraq,” four thousand American lives, and uncounted Iraqi lives, as a result of which the dictatorship in Iraq will likely be Shi’a, that is, more hostile to the United States than was the Sunni Saddam Hussein’s Sunni rule.

Well, this is minor damage compared with the annihilation of the West by the post-nuclear super weapons created by the Chinese dictatorship in cooperation with Russia.

Even if all U.S. presidents so far had been as harmful as George Bush (or his dear father, who sent April Glaspie, on July 25, 1990, to Iraq to assure Hussein that the United States would not mind Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait), the United States would have survived owing to its geostrategic situation and the absence on the military world scene of global post-nuclear super weapons, developed by the dictatorship of China.

But the critical time is drawing nigh, when a U.S. president, as geostrategically blind as George Bush or as any one of the three presidential candidates, may fail to prevent the annihilation of the free West.

In 1832 there was great news in Britain: One out of every seven adult males had now the right to vote in order to elect — no, not the prime minister, but members of parliament, so that the party that enjoyed a majority in parliament could make its leader the prime minister, with the blessing of the monarch. In 2008, all American adults except those found mentally unfit, have the right to vote.

There is one other detail. In 1859 John Stuart Mill published his book “On Liberty.” As a child, Mill never went to school, and as an adult, he was not connected with any university.

How did he manage to be remembered even today as a genius? He spoke of magazines with horror. But his books were bought, and this was how he became a world-famous thinker. The profits of a modern TV station come from advertisements, and their price depends on the number of TV viewers the TV station has, even if they view this particular TV station only because it is more sexually explicit or because it seems funnier to more viewers than any other TV station.

This is how it happened that a majority of the U.S. electorate voted twice for George W. Bush, while in 2008, 45 percent of voters — no, not just said that their vote for him was a mistake, but demanded impeachment for him — not for an affair with a White House intern and then an impudent denial of it, but for being mired (five years!) in Iraq, while China has been developing post-nuclear super weapons.

So, the British politicians of 1832 assumed that it is insane to grant to 100 percent of the psychiatrically healthy adult population, and not to its most intelligent 7 percent — to elect even a member of parliament, not the prime minister!

Those British politicians in 1832 were right in the sense that only the most intelligent 7 percent of voters can be expected to elect intelligent statesmen. But British and American politicians of 2008 will say: “If only 7 percent of the psychiatrically healthy adults have the right to vote, then the other 93 percent will declare that they did not elect the powers that be and hence the decisions of these powers that be do not apply to them.”

Besides, who and how can determine these most intelligent 7 percent? If, say, special commissions will determine those intelligent enough to have the right to vote, who will determine the intelligence of the members of such commissions?”

So, what is the solution to saving the West from being annihilated by the slave state of China? The British selection, in 1832, of 7 percent of the population as voters and the dismissal of the rest as mentally unfit for the task is impossible. On the other hand, the universal right to “elect and be elected” leads to the election of U.S. presidents who are mentally below what is needed to defend the free West against the slave state of China whose population is equal to that of 16 Germanys.

The advantage of the free West is freedom, which can be turned into a tool of geostrategic enlightenment. Let us have John Stuart Mills, who will be paid not by advertisers for the size of the entertained audience, but by consumers of thoughts, in particular, in geostrategy. Freedom and hence the free thinking of thinkers of genius is the advantage of the free West over the dictatorship of China.

You can e-mail me at

© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

What Christopher Columbus regarded as India up to his death was a sparsely populated land, virtually unarmed to fight the Europeans. The continent came to be a British colony.Then there appeared the independent United States, quite safe geostrategically speaking. Look at...
Thursday, 03 April 2008 10:30 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Sign up for Newsmax’s Daily Newsletter

Receive breaking news and original analysis - sent right to your inbox.

(Optional for Local News)
Privacy: We never share your email address.
Join the Newsmax Community
Read and Post Comments
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.

Interest-Based Advertising | Do not sell or share my personal information

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
Download the NewsmaxTV App
Get the NewsmaxTV App for iOS Get the NewsmaxTV App for Android Scan QR code to get the NewsmaxTV App
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved