Tags: World | Peace | vs. | World | Domination: | View | Beyond

World Peace vs. World Domination: A View Beyond Good and Evil

Thursday, 26 June 2003 12:00 AM

My column

Mr. Stroupe explains how difficult it is to destroy or neutralize the Western means of nuclear retaliation, that is, to overcome Mutual Assured Destruction. "This is a very great technological hurdle to overcome, not impossible, but extremely difficult." His e-mail ends as follows:

Well, the development of the "atom bomb" was also a very great (and some believed impossible) hurdle. Yet Nazi Germany began developing it before the United States did, but since 1939 its resources were tied up in the conventional war for world domination, while the United States had sufficient resources to clear this hurdle and obtain the "atom bomb."

So the problem is the will to world domination or the prevention of enemy world domination. Hitler was able to strive for world domination. Why? Because Nazi Germany was not a democracy.

Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others. To discuss world domination beyond good and evil, let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that democracy is the worst form of government. Period. It is worse even than absolutism, such as Hitler's dictatorship.

The German people voted for Hitler in 1932 as their defender against Stalin's invasion of Germany, which was virtually defenseless under the Treaty of Versailles. But Hitler was preparing for and then waged a war for world domination, for which most of those who voted for Hitler or his party in 1932 did not vote.

He wanted world domination because it would have prevented any subversion of his power by the "bacillus of Bolshevism" and the "bacillus of democracy." World domination would have given him unlimited world power, greatness and grandeur unprecedented in history.

Daryl Gerstenberger writes to me in a long, warm and stimulating e-mail of June 18 that China called itself Jung Gua, Central Empire. In the 15th century, China could have conquered Europe and the rest of the "outskirts of the world," but the Central Empire considered these outskirts not worth conquering. Yet today these outskirts threaten the multimillennial absolutism of the Central Empire. Remember the Tiananmen Square movement for democracy in China in 1989?

Let us now imagine that Germany of the 1930s (or China today) were a democracy. For Hitler, his war for world domination was a breathtaking global game of self-aggrandizement. The entire world learned his name – he became as famous as Alexander the Great or Napoleon.

Throughout the war he was safe and comfortable in his bomb shelters. He lost his global game and committed suicide, as often does a loser at cards or in business.

But the German people? Their homes were bombed for five years. They, as well as their near and dear, were killed or died of wounds. Given a democracy, many Germans would have said publicly that Hitler was an egomaniac playing with millions of German lives, and that his war would end in the occupation of Germany by foreign troops, including Stalin's, whose invasion Hitler had been elected to prevent.

Silent, secret preparations for global offensive war are impossible in a democracy, for better or for worse. Just start secretly in the United States what China has been doing since 1986 – developing post-nuclear weapons – and the secret will be out if only because a participant of this secret project will declare on a TV program that the United States has been violating the international agreements to which it is signatory.

The Vietnam War was possible for the United States as long as the U.S. losses were insignificant. But when the number of U.S. casualties approached 50,000, the protesters became numberless. They carried the poster "Nothing is worth dying for!" Indeed, the U.S. presidents and many VIPs who had planned the war did not die in Vietnam: They lived safely and comfortably. "Why should we, who did not plan the war, die for whatever they have told us to?"

Inversely, since China is not a democracy, the preparations for world domination are not publicly condemned or thwarted. Project 863 for the development of post-nuclear superweapons in seven fields (including genetic engineering) was founded in 1986 and has been general knowledge in the Chinese media.

But in the 17 years since then, there has been not a single protest in China audible or visible enough to be reported by the Western correspondents in China. As for the West, the New York Times reported on Project 863 (in a couple of paragraphs) on October 7, 2000, and that has been the only mention of it that I know of in the Western media since 1986.

In conclusion, William Stroupe asks me, "But how could this [the destruction or neutralization of all Western means of nuclear retaliation] possibly be done from a technological standpoint?"

In my school essay shortly before the explosion of two U.S. nuclear bombs in Japan, I wrote about the advent of a superweapon, to be expected owing to an even quicker pace of development of science and technology. Nor was I original. Published in many countries in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s were books with titles like "Weapons of Future Wars," and as a schoolboy I had been reading them.

But if these authors or I had been asked "But how could this possibly be done from a technological standpoint?" none of us could have said anything because no book published before 1945 even hinted at nuclear weapons as "weapons of future wars."

Suppose a participant in the Manhattan Project had explained in 1942 to us, contrary to his secrecy pledge, that the production of heat, light and radiation in the sun can be put into a bomb or a missile, which will then act as a slice of a sun on earth, burning and melting a large city with all its inhabitants.

The authors of those books about the weapons of future wars would not have believed that such a slice-of-a-sun-on-the-earth could even be created, and they would have decided that it was certainly more improbable and impossible than all of the weapons of future wars they had described in their books.

Some Americans believe that everything science and technology will create tomorrow, in a week, or in three years, can be described now and as simply as "how to lose weight without dieting."

* * * * *

The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com. My e-mail is

© 2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
My column Mr. Stroupe explains how difficult it is to destroy or neutralize the Western means of nuclear retaliation, that is, to overcome Mutual Assured Destruction."This is a very great technological hurdle to overcome, not impossible, but extremely difficult."His...
Thursday, 26 June 2003 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