Tags: 'Black' | Projects | Democracy?

'Black' Projects in a Democracy?

Thursday, 24 March 2005 12:00 AM

(There is a principle that states that you should never let the enemy know how smart you are, which leads me to think that it is a possibility that the U.S. is actually engaged in such covert research.)

I am sure your audience would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

I have been encountering this secret glad news or indignant suspicion concerning supersecret or "black" projects for at least 26 years, ever since I published my article about the virtual nonexistence of the CIA in Commentary magazine in September 1978.

Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, who agreed with my criticism of the CIA, met with me and declared publicly, after he had been elected, that the "Evil Empire" was developing post-nuclear weapons (while the United States had stopped the development of such weapons in 1969). During his election campaign he had quoted my article, and the audience roared with laughter – the CIA was, tragically, the laughing stock.

Today, 26 years later, no one would be surprised by this – after the CIA's "espionage data" about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his ties with Osama bin Laden, used as the causes of the war, proved to be the CIA fairytales, while the realities – the conversion of Iraq into a fundamentalist Shia theocracy and the Sunni guerrilla war – had not even been hinted at by the CIA.

But imagine the reaction to my criticism of the CIA 26 years ago, especially after it had been reprinted or outlined by more than 500 periodicals all over the West.

Let me say in passing that, though I "converted" the U.S. president, no project was created to develop post-nuclear weapons or any other means to counter the Soviet and later Chinese development of them. The CIA declared that President Reagan's statement was "evil-empirism" and most members of Congress agreed with the CIA.

I proposed to a major publishing house a book based on my article, but the editor in chief explained to me the following: That CIA that I had ridiculed existed to act the "fool" in order to mislead the enemies, while the real or "black" CIA supplied the real or "black" espionage data to the U.S. government and Congress so secretly that even most members of Congress knew nothing about it.

"What about President Reagan?" I asked. "Is he also pretending, in order to mislead the enemies, that the CIA I ridiculed is the real CIA? Or perhaps he is not the real president either, and deeply hidden somewhere there is a secret or ‘black' president? What about the Congress? My article was based on the CIA testimonies in Congress. Has the Congress been pretending that the CIA and its testimonies are real? Or perhaps there is a secret or "black" Congress as well, of which we know nothing?"

It is true that, when at war, "democracy abdicates," to use the phrase of World War I. The U.S. Manhattan Project during WWII was a "black" project – in the sense that it was decided upon, on the advice of emigre nuclear physicists such as Einstein, by President Roosevelt alone, without Congress, because the United States was at war with Hitler's Germany (indeed, Hitler had declared war on the United States!), and the emigre nuclear physicists warned Roosevelt that Hitler could develop "the atom bomb" ahead of the United States.

The only difference is that "the supreme leader of China" decided on the Chinese seven-field "Manhattan Project" in 1986 in three days, while the U.S. nuclear Manhattan Project became possible in 1938 but went into full operation only in 1942, that is, in more than three years, not days.

In peacetime, however, democracy does not abdicate. What is needed first of all for military allocations is a favorable public opinion. In 1942 the United States was at war with an admittedly evil enemy, and the outcome was not clear when German troops had reached Moscow in 1941 and the Volga in 1942. The fall of Stalin's Russia meant all of its enormous resources in Hitler's possession to process them into enormous global air and naval forces.

On the other hand, few Americans have learned in the past 18 years even about the founding in 1986 of Project 863 in China (see below). Members of Congress who have been saying what I have in my Internet column about the mortal danger of the dictatorship of China have been as nationally inaudible and invisible as I am. If China, in alliance with Putin's Russia, is ignored as a mortal danger, then what are post-nuclear Manhattan Projects for, especially considering U.S. financial difficulties?

Now, even the Chinese media represented the founding in 1986 of Project 863 to develop post-nuclear superweapons in seven fields as the decision of the "supreme leader" alone, on the advice of Chinese scientists, but without any legislative body. All the resources of China are "black" resources, and all projects of development of post-nuclear superweapons are "black" projects, of which no one may know except the "supreme leader" himself.

Yes, the Chinese media reported the founding of Project 863 because the "supreme leader" told the media to do so. Why? He believed that the U.S. political establishment is so infatuated with its global power, such as Ronald Reagan's SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) proposal, and with its global mission, such as the establishment of world "freedom and democracy," that it is necessary to cool it off.

In the same way, Stalin displayed in the military Red Square parade in 1940 the latest Soviet weapons to deter Hitler from an attack on Soviet Russia. The "supreme leader" of China was mistaken: No one in the U.S. establishment has noticed the Chinese press report.

In a democracy, public opinion is basic to decisions in Congress. And public opinion, not without the influence of the mainstream media, regards the "supreme leader" of China as a champion of peace, except for his intention to annex Taiwan, just as in 1938 "the majority of the British people" regarded Hitler, annexing and intending to annex all territories populated by Germans, as a true German patriot, eager to reunify Germany.

A member of the U.S. Congress drawing attention to the geostrategic danger of China in alliance with Putin's Russia runs a definite risk of being not re-elected, as being considered a warmonger, a firebrand, a troublemaker, as Churchill was regarded in 1938 and until Hitler grabbed "the rump of Czechoslovakia" and invaded Poland.

Whenever there is a promise of development of a geostrategically decisive superweapon, the "supreme leader" of China pours a golden rain on the project, inviting for it the world's best scientists and technologists in the field. The project will not work out? So what? There are other projects – and all candidates for the geostrategically decisive weapons should have a golden rain to grow.

In the United States, the U.S. Congress has not allocated a cent to molecular nanoweapons, which Eric Drexler, the founder of nanotechnology, described in his 1986 book. You see, the commercial users of nanotechnology do not favor the development of molecular nanoweapons because the project will divert from them government "allocations on nanotechnology."

Some of them declare that molecular nanoweapons are unfeasible and that Eric Drexler is a charlatan as far as his warnings about the possibility of molecular nanoweapons are concerned.

Ironically, those commercial nanotechnologists tacitly admit that Drexler is a man of genius as far as the rest of nanotechnology is concerned!

Molecular nanoweapons are unfeasible? China's "supreme leaders" will say: "Let our world's best scientists and technologists in the field try to develop them and say they are unfeasible only after they have failed to produce them. If negative predictions had been decisive, we would not have aviation today, since the flying of heavier-than-air crafts seemed absurd to many specialists before the craft did fly – and how!"

The "supreme leader" of China is ready to experiment with the development of all possible candidates for the geostrategically decisive weapons, while the U.S. Congress has publicly refused to allocate even a cent to the development of molecular nanoweapons, though the founder of nanotechnology is a born and bred American, who described the possibility of such weapons in 1986 and has co-founded the Foresight Institute on his own.

There is no need for the U.S. political establishment to "publicly act the fool": The Western political establishment IS a collective fool, nay, a collective suicide, except for some of its members who are no more nationally visible or audible than I am.

The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com. You can also request our webmaster@levnavrozov.com to send you by e-mail my outline of my book.


© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
(There is a principle that states that you should never let the enemy know how smart you are, which leads me to think that it is a possibility that the U.S. is actually engaged in such covert research.) I am sure your audience would appreciate your thoughts on the...
Thursday, 24 March 2005 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