Tags: the | U.S. | Political | Establishment | Omniscient?

Is the U.S. Political Establishment Omniscient?

Thursday, 31 March 2005 12:00 AM

I've been reading your articles with interest and applaud your efforts to bring the threat of China (and its nano-weapons) to the attention of the public. However, I have trouble understanding your often repeated belief that the powers-that-be in the US are unaware of, or indifferent to the threat posed by China. In my mind, the US administration is all too aware of the fact that China is the main enemy, but cannot talk of this, or openly defy China due to the fact that China has the US in a financial headlock. As the world's largest debtor nation, the US is dependent on foreign nations to finance its spending. China – holding about 10% of the US's national debt – could flatten the US economy in a day if it so wished (and it may soon).

My reader in Amsterdam is right when he says that China has the United States "in a financial headlock." But is this the only reason why the U.S. establishment has been silent about the mortal military danger of China, and few Americans know about the founding in China in 1986 of Project 863, developing post-nuclear superweapons in seven fields?

Hitler's Germany did not hold 10 percent of the British national debt and could not flatten the British economy in a day. Yet when Chamberlain gave away to Hitler that part of Czechoslovakia where many Germans lived, the majority of the Parliament and of the people at large were delirious with joy.

Why? Hitler was perceived as a German patriot reunifying Germans. In the case of Czechoslovakia, there was a conflict because Czechoslovakia did not want to give away part of its territory only because many Germans were residing in it – after all, they could go to live in Germany. Chamberlain removed the conflict by giving away that part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler. So Hitler was happy, and peace was no longer endangered.

It was only after Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland in 1939 that the delirious British joy of 1938 dissipated.

Now, was Chamberlain "all too aware" that Germany was "the main enemy"? Even if he was, what matters is what Chamberlain did, not what he was "all too aware" of. The same applies to the majority of the British political establishment and the British people at large.

China can "flatten the U.S. economy in a day." Well, this danger no doubt contributes to the reluctance of the U.S. political establishment to react to the mortal military danger of the dictatorship of China, no matter to what degree each member of the U.S. political establishment is or is not aware of "the fact that China is the main enemy."

Why should we assume that the majority of the British political establishment understood in 1938 nothing about Germany, while the majority of the U.S. political establishment is omniscient in 2005 about China, but "cannot talk of this"?

My columns and my book address all Westerners as well as the Chinese dissidents, and not just the Western political establishment, leading the West to its annihilation or unconditional surrender either blindly or consciously – "all too aware" of what the dictatorship of China is and what the dictators are doing to bring about the annihilation of the West or its unconditional surrender.

Still, it can be asked: Is the U.S. political establishment so omniscient today (in contrast to the British political establishment before 1939)?

If the U.S. political establishment is so omniscient, why did it, two years ago, pick Iraq (a small and technologically undeveloped country) for "the pre-emptive war," and why did it ascribe to Iraq "weapons of mass destruction"? Why didn't the U.S. political establishment foresee that while the fundamentalist Shia majority would hail the invasion as terminating the power of the less fundamentalist Sunni, the latter would wage a guerrilla war, which may continue for another two, 10 or 20 years?

The U.S. political establishment is omniscient about China? How and why? In 1978, I wrote in Commentary magazine about the virtual non-existence of Western intelligence/espionage vis-a-vis dictatorships like Soviet Russia or China today. Iraq has demonstrated that nothing has changed in U.S. intelligence/espionage in 25 years. If the U.S. establishment knew nothing or worse than nothing in 2003 about Iraq (population: 22 million), why and how can it know everything about China (population: 1.3 billion)?

Listen to the television "hosts" and their "guests" with academic degrees. They do not notice the mortal military (or economic) danger of the dictatorship of China. For that reason alone, what they have been saying can be defined as "Philistine twaddle."

In the last 15 years there were four Western wars on small or virtually defenseless non-nuclear countries: (1) the invasion of Iraq in 1991, and "the sanctions" for 12 years, as a result of which half a million Iraqi children under the age of five died; (2) the war on Yugoslavia because Milosevic had allegedly ordered the massacre of 44 Albanians (actually, a fabrication of the Kosovo Liberation Army); (3) the war on Afghanistan to kill Osama bin Laden because he had boasted that he had "planned and carried out" the terrorist act of Sept. 11, 2001; and (4) the war on Iraq again (see above).

Those four wars and their justification testify to the low mental level of the U.S. political establishment, not to its omniscience.

Another doubt concerning the omniscience of the U.S. political establishment. China "could flatten the U.S. economy in a day if it so wished (and it may soon)." How and why hasn't the omniscient U.S. political establishment prevented this kind of economic destruction of the United States by China?

Is today's geostrategy a definite body of well-researched knowledge that may be in the head of every member of the Western political establishment as a field of mathematics is in the head of a mathematician working in this field? Alas, there is no such field of geostrategy. Much of what I state in my column and in my book has never been publicly said before.

For example, the aggressiveness of big dictatorships has been explained by the dictators' evilness, such as that of Hitler, who has been represented in the democratic West after 1939 as a melodrama villain, screaming and half-insane.

I contend that the primary motivation for the quest by a big dictatorship for world domination is its dictators' understanding that unless they destroy the democratic world (or make the relevant countries their colonies), their population will emulate the democratic West and will take away their power, as the population of Soviet Russia took it from Gorbachev and the population of China created the Tiananmen movement aimed at restricting or limiting the dictator's power, which could have led to his total loss of it.

The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com.

104-104

© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
Pre-2008
I've been reading your articles with interest and applaud your efforts to bring the threat of China (and its nano-weapons) to the attention of the public.However, I have trouble understanding your often repeated belief that the powers-that-be in the US are unaware of, or...
the,U.S.,Political,Establishment,Omniscient?
1138
2005-00-31
Thursday, 31 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.

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