|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
China: The World's Greatest Threat Lev Navrozov "What should I do to rescue my country?" This is what American and West European e-mails keep asking me. My answer: Elect a U.S. president and have a British prime minister who understand what many of my readers do. The mortal danger to the United States and to the West in general comes not from some Sunni, waging a guerrilla war in Iraq against the Shia (and against foreign troops, helping, objectively, the Shia to establish their dictatorship). Mortal danger comes from the biggest dictatorship in recorded history: China. The population of China exceeds the total number of Sunni more than 100 times and China cooperates with Russia, which began to develop super weapons soon after Stalin had obtained the "atom bomb" in 1949 — so late since all the resources had been going, until 1945, into the conventional war against Hitler, though as early as in 1941, the Soviet newspapers carried Pyotr Kapitsa's description of the "atom bomb" and its geostrategic importance. Now, why should we expect that a presidential candidate of 2008 such as Hillary Clinton would prove to be better able to defend the West against the dictatorship of China than were the U.S. presidents elected in the past two decades? Also, how well informed have the U.S. media been? No media exposed George H. W. Bush when in 1990 he provoked Hussein through the newly appointed Ambassador April Glaspie into the invasion of Kuwait; that is, into a war with Iraq, which has continued, with variations (such as the "sanctions") for 18 years and has given the United States nothing but casualties, gigantic expenses, and the hatred of many Muslims. Muslims regard the war as an attempt to acquire Iraqi oil for U.S. oil shareholders and they remember the death of half a million Iraqi children as a result of the "sanctions." Story Continues Below
In 2007, it is fashionable to condemn the war, and the media conform. Now, where were they in 1990 — or even in 2005? When the war against this small technologically backward Third-World country was generally recognized in 2006 as being lost, it did not take any intelligence to yell: "Hip, hip, hurray, the war is being lost, get out of Iraq!" But on Oct. 11, 2002, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., voted, with 77 members of the Senate, for the "authorization of the use of the U.S. armed forces against Iraq," and the day earlier she made a "floor speech," the text of which occupies six pages in small type. There is not a single new or original thought in those six pages. The main reason she voted for the Senate's decision to "authorize" the war in Iraq was the CIA's report that Hussein was hiding "weapons of mass destruction" he had used, with the U.S.' blessing, against the Kurds who had sided with Iran. Here I have to mention my study, though I have never sought any government, legislative, or "academic" rank. In September 1978, I published in "Commentary" my article, which demonstrated that the CIA and the British Secret Service did not exist as organizations of intelligence/espionage, but were just teams of clerks who passed their own inventions (often quite stupid) for intelligence/espionage data. In 1901, Kipling published his novel "Kim." Kim was Kipling's ideal of a British spy, and a member of the British Secret Service Harold Philby took his name and published in 1968 "My Silent War by Kim Philby." There is only one but. Kipling's Kim was, safely, a British spy in India, a British colony, while Kim Philby was, as safely, a Soviet spy in the British Secret Service. They belong to two different epochs: it was as easy to be a British spy in a 19th-century British colony as it was easy to be a Soviet spy in the mid-20th-century British Secret Service. On the other hand, it was so suicidal to be a British or U.S. spy in Soviet Russia (or in today's China) that such spies never existed: "the spies" sat at their desks in Britain and the United States, respectively, and produced their intelligence/espionage "reports" in total sedentary safety. On the other hand, 12 million spies can exist in the United States as illegal aliens, apart from employees of Chinese corporations and other "legal Chinese." My "Commentary" article was reprinted or outlined in more than 500 periodicals of the West. In the United States, Tom Bolan, chairman of the East Side Conservative Club, where I lectured, gave his guest, William Safire, my article, with appropriate recommendations, but Safire never even mentioned it in his majestic New York Times. What for? The Western intelligence/espionage doesn't exist? But why do you need it if Safire surpassed the CIA and the British Secret Service in his inventions? According to him, it was Hussein who had organized and paid for the attack on the World Trade Center Tower and Pentagon. That is, not only was Hussein going to launch war against the United States with those "weapons of mass destruction"—he had already attacked the United States! I argued in my "Commentary" article of 1978 that the CIA's inventions were often strikingly stupid. Nuclear powers have never used nuclear weapons against one another for fear of the attacked country's retaliation—Mutual Assured Destruction. Now, the CIA said that Hussein might use "weapons of mass destruction" (such as mustard gas of WW1) against the United States without any fear of being killed in retaliation — yes, by nuclear weapons. However, surely in the stupidity of his inventions, Safire could beat the CIA and the British Secret Service. What about Hillary Clinton? In 2007 she was unrecognizable as compared with 2002. She sent a mass e-mail to her supporters "urging them to sign a petition calling for a troop withdrawal from Iraq." To "end the war in Iraq" is as important as to "achieve universal healthcare coverage." Listen to the whole paragraph: "We can end the war in Iraq. We can achieve universal healthcare coverage. We can commit to energy independence. We can restore America's rightful place on the world stage. Working together, we'll get our country back on track." So, what is the moral or conclusion? Geostrategically literate U.S. presidents and members of the U.S. Congress can be elected only by geostrategically literate voters, possible in substantial numbers only owing to geostrategically literate media. Hence the purpose is to organize the production of TV programs and of movies, independent of the dominant media and showing the geostrategic reality of today. I have created a certified nonprofit called the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc. But I am not a businessman, while the production of TV programs and of movies is a business even if it relies on a nonprofit. Appeal to businessmen wishing to save their country (and the profits that they can make in the process are not contraindicated). What I have discovered so far is that some prospective saviors of their country are afraid to antagonize the dictatorship of China, which enables them and/or their friends to make super profits. Bear that in mind. 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 © 2008 NewsMax.Com |