|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Knowledge the U.S. Needs to Survive Lev Navrozov The dictatorship can be seen under its civilian clothes as the highest military command of a country obeying its will as a single military camp. In civilian, not military, terms the highest military command is a collective slave-owner, and the inhabitants of the country-wide military camp are state slaves. There is nothing new about it: the word "absolutism" appeared only in 1830, but absolute paramilitary power, vested in one or more rulers, had existed (in China, for example) for 4,000 or 5,000 years. The words "dictator" and "dictatorship" became opprobrious in the 20th century: Stalin was "vozhd," the word applied to Moses in the Russian text of the Bible, and Hitler was "Führer," which means in German anything or anyone, driving, guiding, piloting, leading, trail-blazing. In a constitutional monarchy such as Britain, or in a constitutional republic such as the USA, the majority had to approve the war against Hitler and hence to see that he was an aggressor, which he obligingly demonstrated by taking over the whole of Czechoslovakia contrary to the much vaunted treaty of 1938, by invading Poland, linked though it was by a mutual defense treaty with Britain and France, by Blitzing France itself, and by declaring war on the USA in 1941. The dictatorship of China is not geostrategically stupid as Hitler was. Since 1949, that is for 58 years, it would not invade Taiwan as "part of China." It kept the Western image of itself, as an impeccably peaceful country, while developing a super weapon able to deliver a fatal surprise blow to the USA (shahou jian). Had Hitler pretended that he personified peace, while secretly developing "the atom bomb," the world would have been his. The governments of the democratic West seem to understand the dictatorship of China no more than they did that of Germany before 1939: If Hitler had not revealed his aggressiveness by Aug. 2, 1939, when Einstein sent a letter to Roosevelt about the possibility of nuclear weapons in Germany, Einstein would probably have been perceived as a Jewish immigrant, taking revenge for the German anti-Semitism. Some of my Western readers amaze me by their geostrategic perspicacity. Recently, I have received two such letters, one from John M. Franse (Tennessee) and the other from Pat Shearon (Myrtle Beach, S.C.). But alas, there are also e-mails of a different kind. Story Continues Below
For example, what about the unconditional surrender of the USA, if China develops, in cooperation with Putin's Russia, a super weapon as superior as "the atom bomb" was in 1945? Since Japan surrendered unconditionally after the USA dropped two atom bombs on two Japanese cities, I always stipulate that if Japan, a country obsessed with suicide (recall its kamikazes), could surrender unconditionally, the USA may also do so if suddenly confronted with weapons compared with which nuclear weapons are obsolete, since they cannot find the attacked country's secret weapons of retaliation, that is, they cannot avoid Mutual Assured Destruction. Yet Donald Kakretz sent me (on April 20) a longer-than-half-a-page e-mail, which concluded: "No, Mr. Navrozov, the Chinese (or any other power) might be able to defeat the United States and colonize it, but not first without killing all our armed citizens. That is all for now, as I must prepare for my shooting match tomorrow." The Chinese author of the article I outlined in one of my recent columns suggests the killing, after the surrender of the U.S. government, of all Americans by a poisonous gas. So Mr. Kakretz will be mass-poisoned. How will this change the general picture? This will be a war of annihilation, not of shooting matches between Chinese and Americans. On the same day (April 20), Louis (no second name) sent me an e-mail with this subject line: "Why wait?" Says Louis. "Whatever influence you have should be spent on getting us to strike China first. Nuke Beijing, Shanghai . . ." Brilliant! Except that nuclear powers hide some nuclear weapons for retaliation, and those hidden by China will nuke New York, Los Angeles . . . This has been known for decades as Mutual Assured Destruction. Except for a short interval, before Mao's seizure of absolute power in 1949, the rulers of China "elected themselves" for 4,000 or 5,000 years by intestine or full-scale wars against their rivals. They could not be strategically stupid, as is Bill Clinton or George W. Bush, because they emerged victorious from the deadly intestine wars or even from the wars of the "Warring States" period. The strategy of Sun Tzu, who lived in the 4th century B.C., and of his great-grandson Sun Pin, both of whom John Franse discussed in his e-mail were part of those life-or-death intestine and full-scale wars for power, based on deception. Recall Stalin's intestine war of deception for his power since 1922 and up to his death in 1953. When Stalin was dead, Beria on vigil at his deathbed proclaimed: "The tyrant has died!" But then it seemed to Beria that Stalin had moved — so his death was a deception! Weeping, Beria begged the corpse of Stalin to forgive him. What a triumph of deception even though Stalin did not have the advantage of reading Sun Tzu and Sun Pin and acted as an untutored genius of deception. As Franse notes in his e-mail, "needless to say, nothing about China is as it seems. They are masters of deception, as were the first practitioners of Sun Tzu's doctrine." Whom will Kakretz vote for to be the next U.S. president? Someone who believes that China would never make the USA surrender as long as there are armed Americans like Kakretz? As for Louis, he will vote for a U.S. president who will immediately nuke China; that is, he will vote for a madman or for an illiterate in the military history of the past decades. The last sentence of Franse's e-mail is also worth quoting: "Every day we spend in Iraq is just another day China has to develop the most powerful weapons known to mankind." The dictators of China have emerged victorious from a live-or-death intestine war for their power. How did Bill Clinton or George W. Bush acquire his power? How did their voters decide that they would be better presidents and better commanders in chief than any other candidate? On the strength of what? Bill Clinton's smile? Or George W. Bush's smirk and his greeting with his outstretched hand? Published in 2003 was a 400-page New York Times best seller: "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential." Indeed, on the cover Bush walks with a smirk on his face and his right hand outstretched in a greeting, while Rove follows so closely that his chest almost touches Bush's back. So the voters actually elected Karl Rove in the flesh of George W. Bush as president and commander in chief. Recently we saw on television's "Late Show," Bush's brain in the flesh of Karl Rove who "danced," that is swayed between two partners, each with a microphone. Every partner pressed the microphone to Rove's lips, and Bush's brain shouted or shrieked or whined "Karl Rove," and swayed to another partner to tell the name in another fanciful key. Well, Bush's brain made George W. Bush presidential. As a result, the USA has moved by another eight years toward its annihilation or unconditional surrender. So why shouldn't Bush's brain "dance" under the name of Karl Rove? Is not the annihilation of the USA worth such a "dance"? You can e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.
Editor's note: Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2009 NewsMax.Com |