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 III

Wednesday, 08 May 2002 12:00 AM

A way for a serious trade book author to attract the attention of publishers is to publish excerpts from his proposed book in periodicals. Between 1972 and 1992, publishing in periodicals was no problem for me, since the "foreign-policy conservatives" believed, as I did, that "the Soviet danger" did not pass away in mid-1963 because President Kennedy changed his mind and said there was none.

Thus, my article of 1978 about the virtual nonexistence of Western intelligence/espionage was reprinted or outlined by about 500 periodicals all over the West, down to the Australian in Australia. Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan and I met to discuss the problem of the CIA.

But with the collapse of the Soviet empire, the term "foreign-policy conservatives" lost its meaning: Many of those who once were aware of the Soviet danger do not see the danger of the development of post-nuclear superweapons in China. In 1992, I began to publish in the major periodicals of Russia, such as Izvestia (Pravda remaining pro-Soviet), and lost touch with the Western media.

With one exception. I had been contributing a thrice-weekly column to the New York City Tribune up to 1991, when the paper folded due to the mistaken assumption that the paper had done its bit to bring down the Soviet dictatorship and was no longer necessary.

The Tribune's editor in chief, Robert Morton (now the editor of the Washington Times weekly), saw his young assistant immersed in piles of letters. "What are you doing?" the chief asked. Answered the young man, "I think that our columnist Navrozov is underrated. I am sending out letters to attract attention to his column."

Christopher Ruddy (that was the young man's name), now the president and CEO of Newsmax.com, does not need any accolades of mine. But gifted and successful men are often egocentric. The recollection above (which I cherish) shows how generous he is to

Christopher Ruddy did not believe that an eternal peace on earth set in as a result of the fall of the Soviet dictatorship, and after the folding of the New York City Tribune, he launched the New York Guardian, in which I was a regular columnist. In 2001 I contributed the first excerpt from my book in progress to his Newsmax.com, and it was he who suggested this current article and its title.

Newsmax.com prepares and posts the excerpts on its website, and here I have to mention the excellent work of its editors, in particular Rita Samols. Each month, Newsmax.com receives from 6 to 8 million cumulative visitors to its site.

Newsmax.com's ever-alert exclusive publicist, Sandy Frazier, arranged for my appearance on seven radio talk shows following my article about the development of Superweapon No. 3 in China. Another consequence was a one-hour interview on "The Conversations with Harold Channer," MNN Channel 34 of the Manhattan Time-Warner cable system.

On April 3, I spoke about "

What has been surprising to me about the e-mail and electronic talk show responses is the acceptance of my ABC truths, which may seem to many Americans, under the sway of commercial mainstream media, as perverse as Bernhard Shaw's paradox that people infect microbes, not microbes people.

I apologize for being unable even to mention all the e-mail responses to the Newsmax excerpts of my proposed book. With my apology, I skip e-mail responses that are too detailed to the point of being irrelevant. Or that express appreciation, and require no answer except thanks.

Such is the e-mail of John Mallon, introducing himself as a person who reads "your work on Newsmax and can't wait to read your book!"

Or that of Greg Finney, thus beginning his e-mail: "I read your piece on Newsmax.com regarding Christiane Amanpour, the roots and meaning of the word 'Islam', and the West's reaction to Islam. I commend you for this article, as I think it does a great service in pointing out how hopelessly naïve our politically correct culture can be."

Or that of a Newsmax reader who ends his e-mail to Newsmax.com as follows: "Please forward my comments to Navrozov: a great article [on Islam]. Making copies and handing them out."

Or that of David Reed: "I always get something from your articles on Newsmax. I appreciate your latest one on Christiane Amanpour and the 'religion of peace,' formerly known as Islam."

Or that of Greg Stockton, writing about Part 1 of "Milosevic and the Impeachment of President Clinton": "Well done!! The wrong people are on trial. My blood boils and my heart screams out at the raw injustice of it all. Thank you for your serious effort to expose the truth."

As Part 1 of "Milosevic ..." was posted, Sorge@themail.com suggested three pages of relevant materials and recommended his site. I wish to thank him as well as Gills d'Aymery, who recommended his site, swans.com.

On the other hand, the following e-mail from a courteous and appreciative Moslem gentleman calls for my answer. He writes:

You have written an interesting article regarding the non-involvement of bin Laden in the 9/11 tragedy. The purpose of writing this note to you to register my complaint to you about your equating bin Laden with the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (May God's peace and blessings be upon him). I urge you to retract all such references from you article (book). I hope you are a gentleman enough to understand that this is highly objectionable to Muslims.

The other problem that I as a Muslim have with your article (book) is that at several places you refer to bin Laden's companions as his worshipers. Muslims do not worship anyone except the One and The Only One, God The Almighty. I therefore urge you to retract from your article (book) all such references as well. Thank you. Syed Mohiuddin

Dear Mr. Mohiuddin, Greetings!

With respect to Muhammad, it is as impermissible to criticize him, a statesman of the 7th century, from the modern point of view as it is impermissible to misrepresent him as a statesman of the 21st century.

Take war. The notion that wars are divided into aggressive (hence evil) and defensive (hence good, just and heroic) became widespread in Europe only late in the second half of the 19th century and accepted in the early 20th century. Before, wars had been perceived in the West as duels (cf. knighthood, chivalry, nobility).

It would have been absurd to claim that a knight or an aristocrat was evil because he challenged another knight or an aristocrat to a duel for no reason at all and killed him. His challenge and killing were good, just and heroic if they followed the rules of chivalry: thus, the killer was to expose himself to an equal chance of being killed by his opponent.

How frail is this historically recent notion of aggressive vs. defensive wars has been shown by the NATO attack on Yugoslavia in 1999 (see my Newsmax.com excerpt, "

The war on Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban and kill or capture bin Laden as well as his al-Qaeda, was not defensive either, if only because bin Laden and his al-Qaeda had nothing to do with the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001.

Therefore, those who praise Muhammad and his successors for allegedly preaching and practicing peace and exclusively "defensive wars" as against "aggressive wars" or conquests are merely making themselves ridiculous.

Equally ridiculous are those who curse Muhammad and his successors for their "aggressive wars" that created the Islamic world, which was as extensive as those empires created by the "aggressive wars" of England, Spain and other European countries.

It is no less wrong to apply 7th or 13th century standards to the 20th and 21st centuries. Hitler did not do anything that had not been done before him. But he did it in 20th century Europe, not in 13th century Mongolia. This is why he must be judged severely.

Not that I compare bin Laden to Hitler. Hitler came to power in Germany, in particular because he was a brilliant speaker. He was also a genius at conventional war.

Bin Laden is a stupid, boastful and cowardly nonentity, whose only achievements were the fortune he inherited from his father and the screen he played, as a result, for the CIA, which created his bunch of guerrilla soldiers, later pretending to be suicidal terrorists. He must be judged severely because his boastful threats to kill Jews and Christians belong to the 7th or the 13th, not the 21st century.

The U.S. mainstream media have converted bin Laden into the omnipotent devil of global terrorism – hence his worshipers, whom you do not recognize as Moslems. I cannot agree with you more, and in my book I will quote your view. But the trouble is that

Curiously, Lane Core Jr., presumably a Catholic, tears events out of their historical time context in the same way Syed Mohiuddin does, applying to them the standards that began to emerge in Europe only in the second half of the 19th century. He writes:

Re: the Crusades: "... The crusades were in every way a

Re "the" Inquisition, allow me to refer you to the articles in the Catholic Dossier, Nov-Dec 1996.

The Crusades cannot be, and were not, defined as defensive versus aggressive: Their proclaimed initial goal was not military-political, whether defensive or aggressive, but religious, as their name implies. The Crusades and the Islamic wars were religious, according to both sides, and it is futile to apply to them today's Geneva conventions and international laws, which, incidentally, NATO and the United States do not observe either.

The proclaimed goal of the NATO attack on Yugoslavia was to prevent Milosevic from killing the Albanians. Even if his killing of 45 Albanian civilians was not a fake, how does NATO's concern for Albanians make the NATO attack defensive?

The Inquisition? It belongs to the Dark Ages. It is ridiculous to apply to it the latest and most enlightened standards of religious tolerance and legal justice.

Among the e-mails is another example of applying today's standards to the past.

The argument is conducted at the beginning of the 21st century at a far lower level than it was conducted by Bergson in 1907 (L'Évolution créatrice). The beginning of my book is devoted to Freud. Why? I want to show how this feeble-minded charlatan's idiotic fantasy became the science of sciences of the 20th century West. But what about Einstein? Surely religion cannot ignore his time-space revelations?

The "phenomenal growth of the Christian Church in the modern era"? Let me quote Pat Buchanan as an observer. He complains of "empty" Christian churches (while mosques are "full"). Well, in the United States, at any rate, 50 percent of the population attend churches while the figure for England is 10 percent! Let me give one reason.

Believers of all denominations, agnostics, and atheists all agree that Moses and Christ were great men, though they have never read even junior school textbooks of today. Where are such great men or persons today in the Judeo-Christian culture or religion? Christ's sermons are called "The

On March 20, 2002, Sergej Oudman proposed to my literary agent to put my book on their site when it has been published. Well, we will continue this conversation, together with Newsmax.com, when the book has been published.

An e-mail from Odd Benestad of Norway says that he read the excerpt about bin Laden at www.rense.com. Well, I have contributed the excerpt to Newsmax.com exclusively! In a similar case, I learned that Part 2 of "Milosevic and ..." was posted by Antiwar.com!

Anyway, the Norwegian reader expresses his view that the bin Laden videotape is a fake. There are numberless fantasies about bin Laden and the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, that are current in Western Europe, Russia and the Islamic world.

But I do not deal in fantasies, no matter how breathtaking, fanciful and "interesting" they are. If the bin Laden videotape had been faked by the U.S. government, the fakers (the CIA?) would have tried to make it show that bin Laden had planned and carried out the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. Actually, the inept, stupid and ignorant bin Laden demonstrates on the videotape that he is a boastful charlatan who had nothing to do with those terrorist attacks and with suicidal terrorism in general (which has been so rife in Israel of late).

Joseph Zabinsky seems to me to be closer to the truth of the terrorist act of September 11, 2001: "In your article, you state that the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was actually concocted in Hamburg. What is your source for this idea? Just curious. By the way, I enjoyed your article very much, and made sure to email it to a few friends of mine."

Suicidal terrorism originates not in offices of governments or other bureaucracies, but in the minds of individuals generally inclined to suicide (see "

The decision of 19 men to sacrifice their lives together, acting in cooperation and at the same time, is 19 times more unique. These 19 martyrs had to meet and discover one another, to come to love and trust one another, to become brothers-in-death – indeed, a single organism dedicated to its death mission.

Once such a psychological event has taken place, the rest, such as financing or other help, will be forthcoming. Many terrorists worked (as taxi drivers, for example) to finance their terrorist acts on their own.

How does such a psychological event – 19 men ready to sacrifice their lives as brothers-in-death – originate? The history of terrorism in the past 150 years indicates that young people (mostly men, statistically many times more inclined to suicide than women even in monogamic Christendom) in high and higher schools find one another as devoted to a common cause to the extent of their readiness to sacrifice their lives for it.

They organize a "cell" (or whatever they call it). Such was the origin of the "Hamburg cell," a "cell" of Moslem students at a technological institute in Hamburg, Germany.

Speaking of the "Hamburg cell." One of those who positively responded to "

Though for me this subject is only a tiny fragment of my book, used to illustrate one of its key theses, viz., the mental regression of the Western politico-cultural elite outside science, technology and the performance of classical music and opera, Nicholas took me to a diner in our neighborhood when he came to New York for several days, and we spent three hours discussing this and other socio-political subjects. In his e-mail he presented the following description of the "Hamburg cell" in the media even before the subject blossomed out in the New York Times on November 28, 2001:

By mid-October 2001, the press and TV reported all of the major details of the plot as it is now known: the origins in Hamburg, the move to the United States in 2000 by Atta, Al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah, the arrival of the other alleged plotters (including 15 Saudis) in the U.S., their lessons at various flight schools in Florida, California and elsewhere, their various meetings in Florida and Las Vegas, their financing from accounts in UAE, their various contacts with U.S. citizens, the presumed leadership of Atta, the presumed Atta will of 1996 and Atta's supposed "final instruction" to the other plotters, written in the week before the attack and found at three different locations. ... All of these were part of the public record and had been rehashed several times on CNN, etc. by mid-October 2001.

As soon as Part 2 of "Milosevic ..." was posted by Newsmax.com, there came an e-mail from Dr. Aleksandar Jokis of the Department of Philosophy and Conflict Resolution Graduate Program at Portland State University, director of the Center for Philosophical Education and editor of an international philosophical magazine.

Your work in progress sounds great. Before you print it you may want to consider the following friendly amendments. There are (in part 2) 3 pretty serious imprecisions so serious that they may ruin the impression of an otherwise good and informed commentary.

The second "imprecision" is, according to Dr. Jokis:

He was in Moscow in 1938 and 1939, and in 1940, he convened in Zagreb the 5th Communist Party congress, which resolved, on Stalin's order, to keep Yugoslavia out of the war against Hitler, with whom Stalin allied up to Hitler's attack on him on June 22, 1941, whereupon Tito was sent by Stalin to Belgrade to prepare an uprising and guerrilla war against the Axis army in Yugoslavia.

It is true that at the end of the war, in 1944, Tito "conferred" with Winston Churchill (who was a Soviet war hero at that time), but it is also true that prior to this meeting, he had made a

Stalin's charge that he was trying, according to Stalin, to achieve

Characteristically, it was not Tito who exposed Stalin, as did Khrushchev later, but it was Stalin who represented Tito as the Hitler of Yugoslavia. However, Tito did not stop instilling hopes in Stalin that he would return to the bosom of total obedience to Stalin. It is only after Stalin's death in 1953 that he discarded his flirtation with his former ruthless boss, without whom he would never have become the dictator of Yugoslavia.

As for Tito allegedly having been a "British agent," Chapter 4 of my book demonstrates that the post-1917 history of the British SIS (Secret Intelligence Service) is a history of boastful lies, spread, in particular, by the SIS, which has also the power to suppress, at least inside England, the exposure of these self-serving lies.

The third "imprecision" is, according to Dr. Jokis:

But it is the president of a country who bears the responsibility for such an action, even if he was publicly silent about it, and even he publicly bemoaned the sale he was arranging through the chief executive's channels. The sale could not have taken place if the president had

Jan 7, 2002:

Feb. 4, 2002:

March 18, 2002:

March 22, 2002:

April 30, 2002:

May 2, 2002:

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 (

© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
A way for a serious trade book author to attract the attention of publishers is to publish excerpts from his proposed book in periodicals. Between 1972 and 1992, publishing in periodicals was no problem for me, since the foreign-policy conservatives believed, as I did,...
Wednesday, 08 May 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