Fake History Lie: The Allies Won The Good War And Treated Defeated Germans Humanely

Fake History Lie: The Allies Won The Good War And Treated Defeated Germans Humanely

By John Wear
The Lie:

The Allies fought the Good War. They treated defeated German men, women and children humanely.

After learning about the murderous rape rampage of Soviet soldiers following Germany’s defeat in WWII, a young Polish man in Gdansk, Poland was so deeply affected he created a statue titled Komm Frau, of a pregnant young woman being raped to memorialize the memory of the 2 million girls and women. After displaying it on a city street, he was promptly arrested and the statue was removed.

A beautiful traditional English setting, the Victoria Tower Gardens, will soon be blighted by a new Holocaust Memorial. Nicknamed the “toast rack” few people can figure out how this monstrosity memorializes suffering. Holocaust Memorials increase in number every year around the world.

The Truth:

There were clear designs to destroy Germany before WWII. The Allies also committed horrific crimes against Germans after World War II while preparing for and conducting the Nuremberg show-trials for vindication. This is because the breathtaking scale and horror of the atrocities committed against Germans dwarfs the so-called Holocaust. The real agenda of World War II was the complete destruction of Germany in perpetuity, as evidenced by German leader Angela Merkel throwing away a German flag in disgust on a globally televised platform.

The “Good War” Ends & 95% Of Babies Born in Berlin The Summer of 1945 Die On America’s Watch: The Policy To Expel & Force Resettlement of Germans into Germany
After signing the pre-Armistice contract to end WWI, the Allies continued their naval blockade. This resulted in the starvation of 800,000 Germans (the elderly and young children were the worst affected), to force Germany to sign a new and unfair contract – The Versailles Treaty. NO MERCY! The Unprecedented Vengeance Of The Versailles Treaty

Despite Hitler’s repeated efforts to avert a world war and defend Europe from a   Communist take-over by the greatest offensive army ever created, the Allies led by Churchill and FDR, conspired to create WWII.

A Blank Check & Forked Tongues: How Britain & Poland Started WWII & Blamed Hitler & Germans For Eternity!
Did President Roosevelt Betray America To Force An Unjustified Global War?

The intentional prolonging of WWII permitted the extraordinarily excessive saturation bombing of Germany. The Holocaust firestorm of the militarily unimportant city of Dresden alone resulted in 250,000 people dying including refugees, The bombing was followed by the aerial mowing down by bullets of survivors. Even the last surviving Zoo animals were mowed down. This Hellstorm has been publicly revealed by the efforts of many including Thomas Goodrich and Kyle Hunt.

Gen. Patton Exposes The Allied Conspiracy To Extend WW2 & Give Eastern Europeans To Stalin. Suddenly Patton Dies Burying The Real Holocaust

The saturation bombing and destruction of food and medical supply lines resulted in the senseless deaths of Germans and many concentration camp inmates due to months of hunger and diseases including Typhus. Large numbers of refugees from neighboring countries fleeing the Red Army also died.

While Germany’s unconditional surrender to the Allies marked the end of a long nightmare for German citizens, it was the beginning of a new, even more dangerous future. Most Germans assumed that as bad as the coming weeks and months might be, the worst of their death and suffering was behind them. However, although World War II was history’s most catastrophic and destructive war, the death and suffering of Germans increased after the end of the war. What lay ahead for Germany was, as Time magazine later phrased it, “history’s most terrifying peace.”[1]

Numerous writers had warned of the terrible consequences that Germans would face if Germany lost the war. In his widely read book published in 1941, Germany Must Perish, Theodore ((((((Kaufman)))))) wrote:

This time Germany has forced a total war upon the world. As a result, she must be prepared to pay a total penalty. And there is one, and only one, such total penalty: Germany must perish forever! In fact—not in fancy!…The goal of world-dominion must be removed from the reach of the German and the only way to accomplish that is to remove the German from the world….There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forever of Germanism—and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Germany from ever again reproducing their kind.[2]

Why the Holocaust Story Was Invented

((((((Kaufman)))))) concluded that all German men and women should be sterilized to eliminate Germanism and its carriers.[3] Many leading American journals such as Time magazine and the Washington Post expressed strong support for this genocidal concept.[4]

The Allied postwar treatment of Germany resulted in more German deaths than were incurred during the Second World War. While the exact number of casualties will never be known, the number of German military and civilian deaths during World War II is approximately 6.5 million.[5] The total number of German postwar deaths from 1945 to 1950 almost certainly exceeds 9 million. Few acknowledge the incredible death toll amongst the elderly and young after more than 16 million Germans were expelled from their homes and home lands, nor the fate of those who were trapped in the Allied-run concentration camps.

The Nuremberg trials failed to recognize these horrific crimes committed against the German people. They also overlooked the intentional starvation of ethnic German infants and children in post-WWII Eastern Europe.

The German dead do not tell the entire story of the tragedy that was inflicted on Germany after World War II.

In Germany as a whole it is estimated that 2 million German girls and women were raped in the aftermath of the Second World War. This represents more rapes against a defeated enemy than any other war in history. The German women and girls (as young as 8 years old) who had been repeatedly raped, often with torture, and survived had to bear the physical and psychological scars for the rest of their lives.[6] Compounding this atrocity was the post-WWII requirement that these victims assume guilt and pay on-going reparations for their role in alleged German atrocities.

The Soviet, French Senegalese and Moroccan troops were notorious for raping German girls and women.

By contrast, the German army behaved very correctly toward the people of occupied territories whose governments were signatories of The Hague and Geneva Conventions. Rape by German soldiers in these territories was strictly forbidden. This has been confirmed by numerous sources and is beyond dispute. For example, after a tour of inspection in which he visited areas where the Germans had been in occupation for four years, Frederick C. Crawford stated in his “Report From the War Front”:

The Germans tried to be careful in their dealings with the people…We were told that if a citizen attended strictly to business and took no political or underground action against the occupying army, he was treated with correctness.”[7]

The German POWs fared no better, if not intentionally starved to death by Americans, they were slave labor for the other Allies and died in the millions.

If laws must be adjusted to a particular crime scene to defend that specific crime scene from forensic investigation, then that is a most odious set of laws akin to the Nuremberg Trials.

While a 96-year-old man is deemed fit to serve a prison sentence, we are awaiting the equivalent ‘justice’ to be granted to the non-Communist Jews who were intentionally deprived of food and basic necessities by the gangs of Communist-Jews in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp.

Buy Germany’s War


[1] Keeling, Ralph Franklin, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War against the German People, Torrance, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. XII.

[5] Bessel, Richard, Germany 1945: From War to Peace, London: Harper Perennial, 2010, p. 388.

[6] Lowe, Keith, Savage Continent: Europe in the Aftermath of World War II, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2012, pp. 51, 55.

[7] Keeling, Ralph Franklin, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War against the German People, Torrance, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, pp. 64-65.

[2] ((((((Kaufman)))))), Theodore N., Germany Must Perish! Newark, NJ: Argyle Press, 1941, pp. 6-7, 28, 86.

[3]Ibid., pp. 88-89.

[4] Goodrich, Thomas, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany,1944-1947, Sheridan, CO: Aberdeen Books, 2010, pp. 7-8.

Why Internment Camps Are Necessary: A St. Louis-Inspired Visual Argument

White Man,

No matter how many times President Cuck pushes the idea of saluting the same “beautiful red, white, and blue flag,” and no matter how many times you push unity, these people are going to hate you.

They will continuously agitate against you, will constantly plot against you, and will pray to whatever it is they believe every single night that the day may soon arrive when they will be able to kill you.

They wish to rape your women, torture your children, and make you watch before they slit your throat.

They are tearing down your history before your eyes, and will soon turn to the real flesh and blood thing once stone, metal, and concrete becomes boring.

Even if you were to somehow seize control of the state and push for repatriation/deportations, you would have these feral creatures strike hard while the details were hashed out.

No, the only places these critters could be safely contained would be inside properly-constructed camps sealed by barbed wire, guard towers, and soldiers aplenty.

This would of course be a temporary measure, and yes, I suppose you would have to send in rations from time to time, but it’s probably the only measure that would work in the long-term.

Otherwise, you might as well start explaining to your children that what you are about to witness will soon become a daily feature all across this crumbling nation.

And I think we found one of the potential (((ringleaders))) of this specific semi-riot, because all of a sudden it smells quite like certain parts of New York City, Miami, or Boston up in here.

It’s nature and nature knows how to correct an anomaly. Do you really want these pathetic, weakling white zombies, who are so easily manipulated by the government/media/entertainment, to breed with sturdy and clear-headed whites? No way! Trust me, our people are being strengthened and reinforced by being culled of our defective. It’s a win-win. We get rid of our worst and other groups reap the “benefits”!

If that dark day ever comes when Whites become a minority in the USA, an attempt at our extermination is guaranteed. The magical thinking orcs and antifa have themselves convinced that once their hated overlords are displaced then everything will be a multi-culti utopia. We all know that this is bullshit, and that the inferior groups will remain inferior whether they’re calling the shots or not (and let’s be realistic, the idea of niggers running the near-future USA is ludicrous. Jews, Chinese, Indians, and High caste Hispanics will be locked in a power struggle while the country deteriorates), but as the unhappy dindu and mestizo/Indio remain mired in failure despite the ending of “White Privilege,” they’ll still have to blame the evil Whitey for their plight. Whoever the elites are at that time will encourage the demonization of Huwhyte remnant in order to distract the seething hordes of Mordor from tearing up the place.

More on NERES centers later.

China Plots New World Order

China Plots New World Order

from newsmax.com

For over two weeks the world news has been revolving around the massive earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan and left behind tremendous devastation and loss of human lives.

It was one of the worst disasters in Japan’s history.

Some calamities of nature are impossible to predict or cope with. Human calamities are far more predictable because they originate first inside human minds of the rulers of slave states like the “People’s Republic of China” (PRC), so named and created by Mao in 1949.

Few Americans suspected how urgent it was for America to develop nuclear weapon ahead of Germany. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had never heard of the German nuclear project, which was already under way, until the late 1930s, when the news came to him in a letter from a German scientist of genius, Albert Einstein, in which he alerted the president as to how crucial it was for the United States to be ahead of Germany in developing the nuclear bomb. President Roosevelt was quick to act: the United States developed and obtained the nuclear bomb ahead of Germany.

Roosevelt received Einstein’s warning in the late 1930s, and the nuclear bomb was ready in the 1940s. Today it is March of 2011, and I tried to find out if any superweapons as advanced as superweapons in the 1940s have been constructed since then in the United States or in Germany or in any other country. No!

Has any country produced a new, advanced, modern nuclear superweapon in the last 70 years? No one knows. But what is known is that no advanced free country has produced it! It is peace, you know, not the 1940s — which experienced a war between countries like Nazi Germany, the United States, Great Britain, Soviet Russia, etc.

But what has been going on in the deepest recesses of countries like the PRC we don’t know.

I have in my possession the “World’s Most Comprehensive and Authoritative Almanac,” “The New York Times Almanac of Record,” edited by John W. Wright, with editors and reporters of the Times.

It contains more than 1,000 pages, but there is not a single reference to nuclear weapons
(I have the Almanac of 2007).

It is little surprise that the news about powerful war preparations in PRC and other such alarming events does not reach most U.S. populations, who spend public time on searching for wonderful clothes and other pleasurable items.

Let us now recall how Germany surprised the world. Surely it was a country of philosophers, poets, and such others. But it turned out to be the world’s most dangerous military machine, which occupied France as though France and Britain (with British troops in France), were not modern industrial countries but a French-British health resort.

World War III will bring many such surprises, and finally the call will be, “Kill all the people of the so-called free countries, or they will kill us.”

Today it is not the 1940s, but 2011. Slave countries have massive populations and their rulers understand that World War III may end up unfavorably for them, and therefore they should be as ruthless as their weapons.

War is a calamity, which “slave” countries are preparing to win, and the United States has, owing to its “general election,” a U.S. president who is a friend of the PRC, who had invited the PRC ruler to the White House festivities to honor him as the leader of the PRC.

Slave societies do not change essentially in peace and in war, since they are always at war and their inhabitants are always slaves. Hence their output of evermore deadly weapons is not affected.

Slavery is a permanent war against slaves, whom propaganda convinces from the cradle to the grave that they are the happiest inhabitants of the earth and will be angels after what heretics describe as the end of earthly happiness.

Once upon a time, all people were being persuaded that they were immortal and, after what heretics and savages described as their mortal end, they would wake up to a happy, beautiful, eternal experience beyond any description in any human tongue.

That persuasion worked in the European Medieval times. Surely it can work in a slave society today, while all the vital forces of a slave state are being aimed at achieving military superiority over the countries calling themselves free to attract the credulous.

China’s Former Defense Minister Predicted World Domination

It is a dual reality that had been awaiting those born in Russia, after it had become Soviet Russia.

Why did the word “Russia” figure into the name of post-1917 Russia — “Soviet Russia”?

The Soviet culture-propaganda had a dual vision of Russia. On the one hand, Russia was so bad that its replacement with the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” was the greatest achievement of world history.

This “Union” was to occupy the entire world. On the other hand, that horrible old Russia, overthrown by Soviet arms, had produced amazing operas (performed in the opera houses left by that old Russia), unique plays, and music and literature worthy to be called classical.

I quickly found that the only way to make a living for me, away from hated Soviet propaganda, was in translating Russian classical literature into English, and a Moscow publishing house sold the books abroad and paid me handsomely.

From the best-known Soviet pop singer Leonid Utyosov, my wife and I bought a three-storied stone villa, with a birch tree coppice, opposite the back of the building, and an apple orchard — opposite its front.

In 1972, 19 years after Stalin died, the Soviet rulers decided to permit several hundred “Soviet people” to emigrate from the “Soviet country”! The news, however, was too sacrilegious to have ever been reported in the Soviet media.

Now in New York, my wildest dreams have come true. I smuggled out the manuscript of my book (on microfilm), which I clandestinely had written in Russia, and had it published by Harper & Row. I lectured to the university audiences on the future of the world all over the country and abroad. Now I have been writing a weekly column for my appreciative editors — to save freedom, freedom which created genius in old Russia and, having lost it, became a slave society.

On March 24, 2011, I received many e-mails from my readers. One of them, Gesa L., wrote that “I just finished reading some of your columns at Newsmax.” He goes on to say that in 1978, his “Group of 70” faced “a huge communist demonstration in Bonn, Germany, where some of us ended up in hospital.”
“Thank you for opening the eyes of many and keep warning the public,” he concludes.

In another email on March 24, 2011, Ken K. says that he enjoyed my article “China Plots a New World Order.” He also sent me a link to Chi Haotian’s speeches of 2005, “in case you might have overlooked them.”

In fact, I did read them and wrote about them in 2005. Chi Haotian was the Minister of Defense of the PRC and delivered his pronouncements in his speeches in 2005.

First of all, in his first of the three speeches, he announced that “Hitler’s Germany had once bragged that the German race was the most superior race on Earth, but the fact is, our nation is far [!] superior to the Germans.” That is, to the German Nazis.

Now, thanks to Ken, I am again looking at the text of the speech delivered by the PRC Minister of Defense in 2005.

Says Chi Haotian: “Many citizens say in private, ‘We never voted for you, the Communist Party, to represent us. How can you claim to be our representatives?”

Well, Stalin staged a general election, except that the only candidate was Stalin. I decided to go to our “voting station” to vote against him. It was not difficult to slip my anonymous voting paper, with my note against Stalin, into one of the numerous boxes that voting papers were dropped in.

So what did the Chinese government do? Says Chi Haotian: “whether we can forever represent the Chinese people depends on whether we can succeed in leading the Chinese people out of China.” That is, invading the world and giving it to “the Chinese people.”

Further, Chi notes: “Only countries like the United States, Canada, and Australia have the vast land to serve our need for mass colonization.”

It is necessary, he goes on to say, to “focus” on “developing lethal weapons that can eliminate the mass populations of the enemy countries.”

Well, what does this article tell us? When we, watchers of societies deprived of freedom, were speaking about the global ambitions of the country which Mao named “People’s Republic of China” in 1949, we were accused of childish fantasies.

In vain did I try to attract the attention of the free countries to Chi’s speech when it first appeared. Perhaps now in the free countries, there are more sensitive watchers of China?

Time is running out. PRC is working at full speed — in particular, to train its billion people, by which its population exceeds that of the United States, into new builders and users of new superweapons.

Free-Thinking West Must Vigorously Defend Against Slave States

The free countries will not survive if there is only dedication to prosperity and not to freedom, as there is no free thinking but only recitals of university or government texts.

Unique, high-level free-thinking in the West came to be known as genius, and this is what the U.S. president and his British counterpart, the prime minister, should be.

But before analyzing intelligence as uniquely valuable free-thinking, it is worthwhile to repeat what I wrote before in previous columns, such as the fact that the prime minister in Britain gets appointed, not elected by the majority of people.

A majority of 100 million American voters (that is, all who cared to vote) voted for Obama, an open friend of the “People’s Republic of China,” the main enemy of the United States. The PRC was created in 1949 by the communist Mao, said to have killed many more people than did the communist Stalin, without any court hearing or with “propaganda courts,” obeying Stalin and Mao, respectively, as their slave owners.

The U.S. president, elected by a majority of 100 million electors, may turn out to be not a thinker of genius but an idiot. Well, a majority of 100 million American voters may be smart in other fields, but idiots in international relations.

This is why in Britain the prime minister (the equivalent of the U.S. president) is not directly elected “by general vote.” He is chosen by the political party with the greatest number of seats in Congress. After his discussions with the most intelligent people of the land, including the queen and king, he becomes the prime minister.

Are the American admirers of Obama sure that the American people are incomparably more intelligent than the British people?

This brings us to a general question, What is intelligence, that is, free thinking, in contrast to repeating what is trite or absurd or both, and what idiots say?

In classical antiquity and in the West-European Medieval classical culture, thinkers of genius had disciples, and that was how education in intelligence had existed until came those universities which were indeed universal, for they taught above all whatever ensures a prestigious job with a good salary.

But this is not the intelligence or free-thinking that distinguishes an original human mind from a machine.

Intelligence is an inner human ability which endows one human mind decades or centuries before it does other minds, though sometimes the interval of hours or even minutes may spell life or death for the free countries as well as for the owners of the slave countries trying to enslave the free countries, since slaves for slave-owners are their wealth.

Before the 20th century, countries were divided into advanced, industrial countries, in particular where machines and weapons were produced, and those which were mainly agricultural, with their bucolic nature, the main attraction for the travelers.

Russia was the first country which upset this division. The owners of Russia established an industry that was sufficiently powerful in the production of weapons, which later proved to be a decisive factor during World War II in defeating Germany and routing Hitler’s army from the territory of “Soviet Russia.”

It has to be noted that Germany had already been a developed industrial country, while Russia started its speedy yet powerful industrialization by the communist Stalin (who died in 1953).

According to Wikipedia, the number of trained military personnel in the “People’s Republic of China” as of 2010 exceeded that of the United States by 1 million (about one-third), and there is no doubt that the PRC relies or will rely on its surplus of 1 billion (!) people.

The “People’s Republic of China,” often called in the West just China, is a slave country, and yet it is not clear how the United States will defend itself against China if the United States is attacked now or in 20 or 30 years.

Yes, to survive in the next half a century, the world requires intelligence and free-thinking on the part of the free countries, not a “general election” of a U.S. president, friend of the PRC, to defend them from an aggressive slave country.

Slavery is also an economic advantage. The slaves can work for a tiny fraction of what free people get in free countries for the same work. To stay alive, the slaves must obey orders from their owners.

In short, in our age of militarized industrial slavery (as in PRC), the free countries must take all advantages of freedom — above all in the intelligence that results from free thinking.

A Good Defense Against China Is a Solid Offense of Knowledge

France was the country of Napoleon, and in alliance with England, it defeated Germany in World War I. But during World War II, Hitler’s occupation of France, with the British troops that were in France to help France defend itself, was a short pleasure trip for Hitler’s army. Many came to believe that he would conquer the world!

In the late 1930s, a German sent a letter to President Roosevelt. I keep a copy of the letter. The German’s name was Albert Einstein. My Encyclopaedia Britannica says that Einstein was born in 1870, and by the late 1930s he had all scientific titles and awards that can be bestowed on a physician of genius.

In 1913, Einstein became a professor at the University of Berlin, director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, and a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. In 1922, he received the 1921 Nobel Prize in physics. And so on.

There was only one biographical detail which was not disclosed because Nazi Germany began the extermination of Jews, but even my Britannica (the latest edition, which I bought when we came to the West in 1972) does not say in its three-page article about Einstein (vol. 8, pp. 95-97) that this super-genius was a Jew. The Nazi rulers of Nazi Germany forced Hitler to join the extermination of Jews (look up any detailed biography of Hitler published in the United States to see that earlier Hitler had not been an anti-Semite).

In the late 1930s, Einstein and his family decided to leave Germany (while the going was still good, at least for them). As they were leaving, Einstein dropped into the mailbox his letter to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Its moral was simple: Those who would have nuclear weapons would win World War II, and those who would not would lose it.

And those who conducted the anti-Semitic campaign in Nazi Germany could well say, Come on, the destiny of mankind depends on what a German Jew said or did?

Yes, that’s it! Owing to Roosevelt, the United States had nuclear weapons, while Nazi Germany had already collapsed, and the United States dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, whereupon Japan surrendered immediately and unconditionally.

Einstein died in 1955 at the age of 85, and I wonder if anyone asked him to write a column “How I, a lonely Jew, won World War II because Nazi Germany had started the extermination of Jews and I with my family decided to leave it and hence mailed my letter to President Roosevelt.”

Owing to developing science and technology, we can imagine the growth of global-scale military operations. But just as before, much will depend on the performance of human beings, not only machines per se.

A free country makes it possible to see human beings as they are. The slave societies convert human beings into mechanisms behind uniform masks.

Hence any slave may be infinitely dangerous because a slave’s personality is hidden behind his or her mask. Take myself, as an example. The owners of Russia let me and my family leave the country, and I emigrated to become a free man able to freely express myself in my books, my lectures, my speeches on radio in English (for the West) and in Russian (for Russia) what I had not dared publish or say in Russia, where behind my mask I was totally unknown to the totalitarian powers that be until I was safely out of their reach. Yes, in such a society, slaves like myself are totally unknown to their owners as their worst enemies.

Knowledge of the enemy has always been considered a decisive prerequisite of the military victory. But here the totalitarian owners of the countries are thus faced with millions of totally unknown enemies like Albert Einstein or me or anyone such that you know.

The “People’s Republic of China,” which will move to conquer the world (read the speeches of the minister of defense Chi in 2005), will have two armies to defeat: the foreign army and its own native army, whose soldiers may be secretly against their rulers, as was Albert Einstein against Nazi Germany at the end of the 1930s or as was I against the Soviet rulers.

Here the pattern may be more unpredictable than it was during the Western wars among nations whose troops were not made up of slaves. With slaves as soldiers, the picture will be more unpredictable and chaotic, since slaves are unpredictable by definition. No, it wasn’t Hitler who in the late 1930s was told by the German physicist Albert Einstein how to defeat all enemy countries by nuclear weapons!

Globalization Does Not Make an Enslaved Country Free

Globalization has become a fashionable trend. Many industrial goods which originated in Britain, the mother of industrialization, began to be used by both free and slave countries throughout the world.

Another sphere of globally used goods is the military. The unfree countries try to acquire the most advanced weapons of the free countries through espionage. We are led to believe that eventually all countries will thus make up one world; that is, they all will be “globalized.” Karl Marx espoused a similar idea of a single world, but his was to be realized through a global revolution, not through similar goods spreading all over the world.

Slavery goes back to antiquity. On the other hand, in the free countries of today, all inhabitants are free, except those who are convicted of crimes.

The main role of the military in a free country is to protect the country and its people from being annihilated or enslaved. The origination and existence of slavery are inevitable in those countries in which there are no social safeguards of freedom, as there were none in Russia after November 1917.

Ironically, war globalization in World War I played its full role in the conversion of Russia, a country which had produced people of genius in culture, including sociology, into a full-fledged slave state. By 1917, Russia had been too exhausted, demoralized, and desperate to resist Lenin, with his “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and a semi-literate Georgian gangster Stalin, who spoke Russian with a heavy accent and grabbed the absolute power in the country.

The name “USSR,” as Russia came to be called under the pseudo-emperor Stalin, has perished after the dictator’s death, as have other “Soviet” names. Why do the owners of slave countries love and encourage “real globalization”?

Stalin’s slaves glorified him — they had to pretend that they adored “our teacher and friend Stalin,” who owned them. Powerless, with no means to defend themselves, slaves work for their owner on his terms (such as “If you don’t work hard enough, I’ll order to torture you to death”).
Also, slaves, who work for their owners practically without pay — barely enough to sustain life and be able to work — are the ideal slaves.

To a slave owner with a leaning toward Marxism, such social arrangement nurses high hopes of slave countries eventually achieving communism, the conclusive phase of socialism, when everyone will be satisfied according to their needs, not according to their ability to work.

In unfree countries, all inhabitants, except their owners, as was, for example, Stalin, who died in 1953, are slaves, who are watched, arrested, tortured or killed by the secret police. The chasm between the free countries and the slave countries is not getting less pronounced because their slaves can buy the same “global” umbrellas.

Public radio, television, and other controlled media in slave countries exist in order to glorify the life of their slaves and to malign the free countries for their “exploitation” of the “working class” by the “bourgeoisie.”

The owners of the slave countries are trying hard to stifle any display of freedom in their countries, for they know that secretly many of their slaves are yearning for freedom.

In a desperate attempt to prevent the “emancipation” of their slaves and to preserve the status quo of their power, the owners of slave societies are encouraging globalization by providing access to the free Western countries to use cheap labor of their slaves, thereby creating a false impression of the benevolence of their regime, meanwhile acquiring Western know-how and the latest military technology for their future wars to destroy the free countries by conquering them and thus acquiring more slaves.

The fact that, say, the population of the “People’s Republic of China” exceeds that of the United States by 1 billion people should be counterbalanced by the fact that the people of the free countries are more creative (for creativity needs freedom), motivated to defend their freedom, and in case of war with a slave country, they will liberate its slaves and thus win them over to their side.

Yes, the weapons of all countries are being globalized. None of today’s countries can even think of starting a war without having the latest modern weapons based on the latest research in science and technology.

On the other hand, socially, there has never been less globalization: The free countries and slave states have never differed more than they do today. And herein lies the strength of the free world.

China Plotting Communist Takeover

“China’s Master Plan to Destroy America”: This is the subtitle of a book written by two colonels of the People’s Liberation Army and copyrighted in 2002.

The United States is the most powerful country among the Western free countries, and even just by pestering it, PRC becomes globally significant.

Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition) says on page 709: “Maoism in China was developed chiefly by Mao.” (Surely — but with some help from books by Karl Marx.)

According to Marx, the first step of the victorious communists will be to dismiss all non-proletarians; that is, creators of all inventions, all machinery, and other aspects of all production, as well as all advertising of what is being produced. After that, the production would be in a hole and “the working class” would also die of hunger.

Owing to Marx, Mao gave the Chinese a vision of one-country world of the future, following the world “communist revolution.” Mao called himself (and was called) a communist, and the society he named “PRC” in 1949 also called itself and was called “communist.”

But today it is difficult to find the word “communist” even in the PRC materials. The reason is that the PRC was to fight for its communist world in alliance with the most powerful countries. However, the very word “communist” became unacceptable in too many countries to parade it.

Each time the PRC is testing anything new in weaponry, it attacks the United States (though never overtly enough to raise justified suspicion) since the reaction of the United States is useful for the PRC to know.

Also, an honest-to-goodness world war may indeed start in “x” months or “y” years, to make the PRC the owner of a single communist world. The PRC will be all ready to participate in that “communist (shhhhh) war.”

I get the impression that the names of Chinese communists are never revealed in public. They are secret agents, expected to be highly motivated, interested, and active.

Is China’s hope to possess the world on the basis of nothing except Mao’s words? No! The United States is the most powerful country among the free Western countries. But the population of the PRC is bigger than that of the United States by 1 billion people. Imagine a billion people converted into creators, producers, and users of the latest weapons on the world battlefields.

China is said to have existed for 6,000 years. Its science and technology go as far back into history as those of Rome and Greece. So science and technology are not its weaknesses.

I am getting a lot of materials about China from my readers, which they send me in the hope that I will use those materials and make them known. One book, entitled “Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America,” was written by two colonels of the People’s Liberation Army.

Originally, the book was published in 1999 by China’s People’s Liberation Army, Beijing, and then by Pan American Publishing Company, Panama City, in 2002.

The Soviet communists used inventions about the fabulous growth of welfare in their country. The Chinese communists avoid calling themselves communists, and their inventions are about warfare, not welfare. Indeed, in totalitarian societies of the last century, there have been propaganda fictions of either fabulous welfare in their own countries or fabulous warfare in other countries to conquer them and create sources of “welfare for their people.”

Naturally, a country devoted to warfare evokes greater hostility in the outside world than the one devoted to welfare, though warfare and welfare can mix or merge. Warfare destroys the prosperity of the defeated (if not totally destroyed) country, while welfare leaves it open for robbery without warfare.

If the PRC creates a line of allies engaged in warfare, the position of the United States may, indeed, become desperate. Its rescue may depend on its ability to defend itself, not only on its ability to conduct unrestricted warfare.

It is not impossible that what Stalin’s Russia failed to do — create world communism — will be done by a global entity, dominating the world by the PRC, which the communist Mao created and so named in 1949.

Not so long ago, there was a strong general belief in mental development due to education, progress, philosophy, and enlightenment. Surely, Hitler was an illiterate, a soldier in a country left defenseless in a blind alley of a military rout.

Looking at the festive cover and title of the book authored by the two colonels, I am thinking about a world-sized lunatic asylum, into which mankind will confine itself, as made hopelessly insane by “unrestricted warfare” and “China’s master plan to destroy America.”

China Seeks World Conquest to Protect Its Tyranny

Before the 20th century, China had existed for the West only as a historical memory.

In the 20th century, however, China’s conquest of the world, to protect the tyranny in China, seemed realistic in the West: It was recalled that the population of China exceeds that of the United States by 1 billion, and an army so gigantic and well armed it could conquer the world if it is not defensive enough.

Mao attracted Western attention after he had become the chief military man of China and later its ruler.

The official name of Stalin’s Russia was the USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Well, China is just one republic, and hence it is one in Mao’s acronym: the PRC, or “The People’s Republic of China.”

The name of Mao’s army is the exact replica of that of the Soviet army: “workers’ and peasants’ red army.” All of Mao’s ranks in China are fashioned after Soviet military ranks.

Soviet Marxism was Mao’s original to copy and admire.

What is Soviet Marxism? Marx was not involved in production. So, according to Marx, “leaders of production” are parasites by definition. The results were the enrichment of the parasites and the progressive poverty of the working class. What’s the way out? Eliminate the parasites!

To project his infinite power, Mao introduced or reintroduced mass torture even for a vague and often impersonal offense.

Mao’s status has been elevated during his rule. Outside China there has been a strong fear that China is preparing for war to dominate the world, in particular to deliver itself from the danger of being conquered (by Japan, for example).

Just as some other silent skeptics in Russia, I wondered even as a child why social systems which advertised themselves as the most collective had one person — like Stalin or later Mao — as the overall leader or absolutist owner of the country.

There are discrepancies in all Marxist theories, as there are in life. A human being must be loved and medically treated like Mao, who lived beyond the age of 80. And here we learn that Mao treated human beings like insects, of whom he destroyed from 40 to 70 million between 1949, when he became the “leader” of the PRC, and 1976, when he died.

It is small wonder that after Mao’s death the “leaders” of China have been processing its extra 1 billion people into global human troops and producers of global military weapons.

Let’s face it. The country with the largest and most technologically advanced army on land, in water, and in space will be the owner of the world. The survival contest has started; its advantages in the Western democracies being freedoms used by genius and talent, the defense of individuals and corporations against crime, competitive results, and their protection.

A lawyer in a democratic country would say that nothing above contradicts its legal rationale. Yes, all that is required is to understand that the primary importance of this rationale is not the satisfaction of individuals defended by law, but the eternal renaissance of creativity. The new renaissance needs a permanent renaissance for its own permanent survival.

It is to be hoped, but should not be expected as a law of social spiritual development, that finally the renaissance becomes universal, and the war, kept vigorously alive as a method of criminals (like Stalin, Hitler, or Mao) will be discarded as was cannibalism.

In other words, Mao, who was born in 1893, expected as he was dying (and leaving behind his numerous former wives) that his sermons had convinced mankind to go centuries or millennia back, that is, to live as happily as in the “People’s Republic of China,” to use Mao’s name for the slave state of China.

Mao established his PRC by killing, torture, and maiming, and he evidently expected that his PRC bliss may thus be established everywhere, except those countries where the entire population can be wiped out, as Hitler was forced by a “powerful group” to wipe out Jews.

Mao aimed not at the destruction of Jews, but of all people refusing to become slaves. To become slaves or be dead: that was the only general choice.

Yes, mass murder, mass torture, and slavery for all those who survive in China had the “leader” whose Chinese name was Mao Zedong, or Mao Tse-tung. Well, he had a shortcoming: His forehead was both low and retreating, which made him look like a slave of 3,000 years ago.

China Seeks to Enslave the World

There is an opinion that the cause of slavery is the historic backwardness of a country. Actually, the cause of slavery is the same as that of other crimes: impunity. Slavery is one of the gravest crimes, for the criminal robs his victim of everything except what is needed for a slave to carry out his or her owner’s wishes.

Stalin, Hitler, and Mao were equally uneducated (except for the Georgian Stalin, who could barely speak his working tongue — Russian). But their slaves were to take them for gods, not idiots that they were.

In Russia, I was living in Moscow, when one fine day it was announced that Stalin would be the candidate to vote for in our district. I described how I voted in my earlier columns. But the episode is highly relevant, and so I recall it again.

I was to go to our local voting station to “vote.” At a table, several officials held a list of the “voters” with their addresses. I was to take my voting bulletin and drop it into one of the voting boxes down the hall.

Now, what would have happened if I had not turned up to vote? An official would have come to remind me that it was Election Day and that I was expected to vote before midnight.

So I duly went to our voting place and duly dropped my voter’s bulletin into one of the boxes.

Secretly, I had also picked up (with my hand in glove!) another bulletin, wrote on it (in block letters) why I was voting against Stalin, and, with my hand in glove, dropped that bulletin into one of the boxes.

Soon after midnight there was a ring at the door of our “communal apartment,” shared by five or six families. The police were searching the entire electoral district. At their demand, I showed them my passport. They had found nothing suspicious.

Of course, like any slave-owner, Stalin was assuring his slaves via his powerful propaganda that they were free, in contrast to those whom Marx called the “slaves of capital.”

About 15 years after Stalin’s death, several hundred “Soviet people,” including myself and my family, were granted permission to emigrate. By doing so, the new Soviet rulers were trying to offset the scandalous fact that at that time some Soviet spies were apprehended in the United Nations. The diversion worked: Western newspapers front-paged the unprecedented emigration news from Soviet Russia!

So there we were: from the slavery of Moscow to the freedom of New York, where I started publishing in the then fashionable monthly magazine Commentary.

Of course, on the issues like freedom, many are influenced, at the beginning of or throughout one’s life, by one’s native country.

In Britain, the prime minister (equivalent of the U.S. president) is not elected by the people, most or many of whom are not qualified to do so, but is nominated as the chairman of the largest political party in parliament and then referred to the queen to be confirmed as Her Majesty’s prime minister, provided he or she satisfies Her Majesty’s requirements.

Someone like Obama, therefore, could not have possibly met any of those requirements and could have never qualified for such high office.

By contrast, elected in the United States was a certain Obama, who had Marxist-Maoist leanings and particular sympathies for China. Nevertheless, those who voted for Obama did not pay much attention to that fact or maybe they just didn’t care to find out anything about him and awarded him (through their ignorance) the greatest political honor of being the U.S. president.

On the other hand, unlike Obama, Russia fears, and not loves China, its neighbor. And it is partly out of this fear, which is quite real, that Russia has withdrawn from the territories of what formerly constituted its “national republics.” Officially, Russia is now called the “Russian Federation,” or RF. At the same time, possibly also out of fear, Russia has been helping China to accomplish its military projects.

On Dec. 6, 2010, NEWSru.com carried on its front page an article entitled “An Epoch-Making Shift”: China Has Mastered The Russian Aviatechnology, Which May Change The Military Balance.

According to NEWSru.com, the above is a paraphrase of an article which appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

What’s the gist of it?

After China has copied all the best Russian weapons as well as the best Western weapons and has put that knowledge into its armed forces (which could be based on its “extra” 1 billion people), the RF will practically cease to exist, except maybe for some former Soviet slaves, important for the military industry, who will be relocated to China to slave there for their new master’s world ownership.

China Prepares for Modern War

To their owners, slave states may seem more powerful in principle than free countries and destined to defeat them.

I repeatedly mention in my columns that in late 1930s Germany, only a genius such as Albert Einstein understood that a country that would be the first to possess nuclear weapons would win the war.

Einstein’s letter to Roosevelt saved the world from being conquered by Hitler had Hitler been armed with nuclear weapons. Actually, Japan, which did not have nuclear weapons and which attacked the United States, surrendered unconditionally after the United States dropped two nuclear bombs on Japanese islands Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Einstein was born in Germany in 1879. If freedom is measured by the depth of personal philosophies, Germany before 1914 was the world’s freest country. By the late 1930s, however, it had regressed to totalitarian militarism with global ambitions.

Einstein saved mankind by having discreetly left Germany with his family and sending a letter to President Roosevelt warning him about the crucial military importance of nuclear weapons. The United States built them promptly enough and had them by the end of Hitler’s debacle in Russia and his consequent suicide.

The inside of flap of “Cyber War,” written by two former U.S. government officials, says that the senior of the two authors, Richard A. Clarke, served “in the White House, and Bill Clinton appointed him as National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism.”

What is “cyber war”? Clarke is over 60 years old, but this is his first study on the subject.

I pulled up “cyber war” on my computer and received thousands of results mentioning Clarke, as though the United States is consumed by a “cyber war” and is fighting it back under the expert leadership of Clarke.

Norbert Wiener (1894-1964), a mathematician, engineer, and social philosopher, coined the word “cybernetics” from the Greek word meaning “steersman.” He defined it as the science of control and communication in the animal and the machine.

Cybernetics treats not things but ways of behaving: It attempts to understand how systems behave themselves, control themselves, and organize themselves. Cybernetics cuts across many traditional disciplinary boundaries, like engineering, systems control, computer science, biology, philosophy, and the organization of society.

If the United States stays at the mental level of Bill Clinton and his appointee Richard A. Clarke, the annihilation of this country is almost certain.

Today a global military analysis should begin with the statement that China has about 1 billion more inhabitants than the United States. This 1 billion Chinese are a huge reservoir from which to draw those capable to be involved in science and technology.

Of course, since a born inhabitant of China is a slave, this gives the slave state of China its advantages in war. But its disadvantage is that a genius like Albert Einstein cannot be identified in a slave state because there is no other known genius in the field, and hence the field does not exist.

On the other hand, in a free society, Einstein would be discovered by another Einstein if such exists, or by someone aspiring to be a genius.

Much of what is mentioned by the authors of the “Cyber War” as the “new war” threatening the United States has been used hundreds or thousands of years before: espionage, terrorism, sexual seduction, stealing of military plans and what have you. Of course, new science and technology came up the means to destroy them.

Both free countries and slave states have their own advantages and disadvantages in war in general and modern war in particular.

Many inhabitants of free countries take freedom for granted, as existing for them only to enjoy their private lives. Recall the documentary films showing the carefree French on the eve of Hitler’s occupation of France, which happened at a lightning speed.

And what about the current U.S. president’s friendship with China, his desire to see China grow strong, a country which may yet conquer the United States with such ruthless cruelty that will surpass that of Hitler’s occupation of France?

Incidentally, Norbert Wiener became an opponent of war in general. Why not? Freedom in America! One can study cyber war and be openly against war, any war, war in general, and without as much as paying attention to how China has been using 1 billion of its “surplus” population for preparing its war to win the ownership of the world.

China Readies for World War

Recently China’s intentions to unleash a new world war to conquer the world have grabbed the attention of the Western media.

An unfounded Western invention? No, not this time!

The population of the People’s Republic of China exceeds that of the United States by 1 billion. With such advantage and having adequate weapons, China can bury the United States, to say nothing of smaller countries. This is a fact nobody can deny.

The United States and practically all advanced countries participated in World War I and World War II, not to mention smaller wars. What about the “People’s Republic of China”? Here from my collection is the photograph of the smiling Mao, raising his fist to salute the coming of the next “new Russian revolution.”

Well, the “new Russian revolution” never came. But what was important for Mao was to stop using the word “war” in a positive sense. All wars are mass murders. Mao was interested in revolutions. Hence Mao’s China had no need for the latest weapons, since surely the “new Russian revolution” would be armed by Russians themselves.

For about 10 years the Western media have been suspecting that China is making war preparations to conquer the world. On Aug. 5, 2003, few noticed the headline in the blog ParaPundit: “Students from China Caught Stealing Military Technology.”

Well, for years, some 50,000 students from China studying in the United States have been stealing the knowhow and military secrets and whatever else necessary to make the army of the People’s Republic of China the world’s supreme leader.

But many or most leaders of the democratic countries were worried more about their careers than about the safety of their countries, and in particular, about the scandals involving Chinese students in America pilfering American military secrets and sensitive military data. For example, President George W. Bush had a meeting with China’s leader and the scandals were waived aside.

Why do these 50,000 Chinese study in the United States? Well, the United States has been trying to help the People’s Republic of China to educate its people. Hence 50,000 Chinese “study” in the United States — actually helping to equip China’s army with whatever it needs to achieve its ultimate goal: global victory, requiring the world’s best weapons.

In June of 2010, The Washington Post published an article headlined “China Becoming a Scientific Superpower.”

At this point let us recall the millennial social differences between freedom in the United States and other democracies and the absence of it in the People’s Republic of China, converting its inhabitants into slaves, living by sacred rules of slavery.

There is nothing that a free American cannot say or do unless a court finds that those actions do harm to other human beings. On the other hand, there is nothing a Chinese inhabitant can dare to do or say if that contradicts the sacred rules of slavery, established as they were established millennia ago.

That chasm was understood in the United States and other free countries after China’s inhabitants were shot about 20 years ago for saying that it would be good if some government institutions in their country were elected by the people.

On Sept. 23, 2010, the China’s Premier Wen Jiabao spoke in New York. He said, “There are thousands of reasons for U.S.-China relations to move forward.” He went on to say that he “is an optimist about the relations between the two nations.”

Chi Mak had began sending “sensitive materials” to China in 1983, two years before he became a U.S. citizen. Today he is on trial. That is, for 24 years he was sending American sensitive military (naval) technology to China. He is now 66 years old — well, it’s time for him to get some rest.

But surely there will be others like him until China surpasses the United States in the effectiveness of its military weapons to successfully wage its global war to grab and enslave the world.

In this column, I tried to show the “U.S.-China relations” as the U.S. mass media have presented them, and hence most Americans have perceived them, especially in view of the fact that in his New York speech last month Wen Jiabao expressed his optimistic belief that mutual relations between the United States and China should “move forward.”

However, apart from what top Chinese officials may be openly saying for Moscow and the entire world to hear, something infinitely more important and sinister may be secretly discussed in their offices. And this will be the subject of my next-week column.

China Eyes Free Societies

In the first millennium, China and the countries west of China barely knew of each other’s existence, and if a Chinese were asked why he or she never visited Western Europe, the likely answer would be that those Western countries were so boring that no visit was worth it.

In 1949, China appeared in the West under its new name, which had been invented by Mao and presented in English as the “People’s Republic of China.”

The French word “republic” means “wealth (res) of publica,” that is, of “people,” and so Mao’s new name of China meant “People’s Wealth of People of China.”

In the People’s Republic of China, the Tiananmen Square’s participants publicly dared to call for the free election of the government — and were shot.

In the United States, Obama repeatedly expressed his sympathy for the slave society of the post-1949 China — and remains the freely elected U.S. president.

At one time China was regarded in the West as a “big village,” while many crucial strategic achievements (like the Newtonian mathematics and physics) were made in China before they appeared in the West.

So what’s the way out for the West from the looming disaster threatening it by Mao’s China?

While the population of a country such as post-1949 China may be acting reflexively, the population of the West must act as one human being, aware of the overall goal to preserve freedom. This is a route of suffering, ensuring the superiority of the general awareness of the goal of the survival of a free society over a slave country.

The pacifist mood of France, attacked by the totalitarian Germany, ensured the French collapse. Even the totalitarian Germany lost its war with Russia owing to Hitler’s nonchalant mood, good for a play at war, not the war of Hitler’s Germany against Stalin’s Russia.

Thus we arrive at the most tragic dilemma: Freedom is the possibility to do what he or she wants to do, is it not? But then a free country such as France may be routed, as it was by Hitler, precisely because of her freedom.

Freedom just for the sake of freedom leads to death. The death of that same free person. Or the death of a free country. Freedom has to be meaningful, just as the human life has to be meaningful.

Otherwise even Hitler, having invaded Russia, could expect nothing but a bullet through his brain.

When speaking of the meaning of freedom, we speak of a national freedom or of the freedom of all free nations in the world.

When a free nation ignores the danger to its existence because it finds better ways to enjoy its freedom, contrary to the interests of self-preservation of national and world freedom, the latter gets destroyed, as the freedom of France was destroyed when Hitler invaded it.

Let us not forget that the preservation of freedom depends on us. It is our personal responsibility as well.

In a country in which a friend of today’s China is in the White House, a lot of sensitive information gets released and becomes easily available and harmful to our country. If you happen to be in possession of such secret information, do not divulge it; do not give it away just because you happen to have access to this secret information.

Do not destroy your country while it is still yours.

I wonder whether a healthy change will come to the United States before long. Let us remember that each of us is responsible either for a process of its innovation or for its hopeless decay, which may end up as it did in France with Hitler’s conquest.

I call upon all those who want to preserve freedom in the world. Let each of us act like dramatic personae in a possible, real-life final tragedy of mankind, brought on by slave societies.

Yes, one person can do a lot if he or she acts intelligently and does his or her best for the benefit of freedom in our world, where the population of the People’s Republic of China exceeds 1.3 billion.

At the same time, let us not forget that the scale of death and destruction in war increases automatically with the growth of technology. There may come a time when war will become the suicide of mankind.

The problem now will be to keep the world scale of war deaths and destruction within the crucial limits. Still, let us see and hear more of the best world strategists. Let no one be surprised if everyone in a free country will be a literate, well-informed world strategist saving from death at least the free part of mankind.

This may lead to more time spent on the saving of the free world than on watching the television programs, whose aim is to sell fashionable trinkets or “movies about war.” We should remember that without countries dedicated to freedom the universe will become a corpse.

It is possible that before long we will have the final judgment as to whether the world will embrace freedom as it still does, or whether it will sink into slavery.

Human life, whether free or slave, may disappear forever due to ever-new military technology.

Will the U.S. Be Conquered by China?

At the beginning of the “Sovietia,” Stalin was concerned that by destroying the treasures of Russian art, valued all over the refined world, he would get branded by the West as a vandal.

Osip Mandelstam, a Russian poet considered a genius, wrote a stinging poem about Stalin. These are the opening lines of the poem (which was not published at the time, but it was copied, read, and passed on):

We live without feeling the earth under our feet.
What we say is never heard ten steps away.

Now, was Mandelstam a poet of genius? If he was, he would not be killed publicly right away. There would be problems abroad: “Stalin has killed a poet whom the Russians call the greatest, not only in Russia but in the world at large.”

Stalin contacted the poet Boris Pasternak: “Is Mandelstam a poet of genius?” he asked. “Yes,” Pasternak answered, “but I would like to speak with you about something else.” “What about?” Stalin asked. “Life and death,” was the response.

Stalin hung up.

Mandelstam was committed to a temporary exile, where he lived with his wife, Nadezhda, and where he created his great poetry. Months later he was sent to a concentration camp, where he perished.

There were no changes in the Sovietia except those for the worse, until 1970 brought incredible, impossible news: Several hundred “Soviet citizens” were allowed to emigrate to the countries of their choice!

Where should we emigrate? For quite a few of us the choice was made by history.
The English-speaking countries have the most elaborate freedom rights! And that was where we went — America! — the most powerful free country which would be able to defend us best.

Before going over to the current flow of time, let me devote a couple of paragraphs to the life of myself and my near and dear here in New York City. During our life in Moscow, Russia, we eyed our beloved English-speaking countries, where the freedom of speech (such as writing poetry by Mandelstam) was no crime, one that could end in a poet’s death in a concentration camp.

We had a nervous worry about the survival of the free countries in the age of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, and in New York I began writing a weekly column about the world at large. My wife was my secretary, since both of us went through the same world drama.

Now, after having lived in America for 40 years, I cannot help comparing the electoral systems of the United States and Great Britain.

The majority party in the British parliament, which receives more votes than any other party, nominates a candidate to speak with Her Majesty, after which the Queen either approves or rejects the nominee to be her prime minister.

The British briefcase “Prime Minister” contains about 50 pages. Why did I choose to write the above paragraph? Well, some information is more important the greater the number of those who voted for it. But with other information, it may be the other way around: the fewer the voters know about it, the more valuable it may be.

Had not the U.S. president received the information about nuclear bombs through a letter he received from a great German scientist (who was not even a voter in the United States!), Hitler with nuclear bombs would have become the owner of the world.

The American government power is said to have originated in the American Revolution.
I saw it being abused by Obama after he became president of the United States. Shortly after Obama moved into the White House, he declared a new era of “cooperation, not confrontation” with China and arranged for the two days of high-level talks with Chinese officials. Said Obama: “The relationship between the United States and China will shape the 21st century, which makes it as important as any bilateral relationship in the world.”

Has Obama read numberless conclusions of experts about the coming destructive war between the United States and the “People’s Republic of China”?

But what about those Americans who believe that the China founded in 1949 by Mao, the Stalinist who killed 64 million Chinese, will save America because Obama declared it to be its friend?

What about us who emigrated to the United States, and not to Britain, because we believed that as a larger country than Britain, America will be able to defend its citizens better?

Actually, all Americans who want to remain Americans, can, on the contrary, find themselves in a trap, created by Mao and his “communist China.”

It is generally recognized today that the harm to Russia done by the “Russian Revolution,” which took place in a country by no means as free as Britain, was tremendous, and its inheritor Stalin died only in l953, but his unprecedented-scale atrocities continued after his death.

It may be appropriate to mention here that Canada is not part of the United States.

Surely had America remained part of the English-speaking territory, the queen of England would have spoken with Obama after he had been elected and would have rejected him after their conversation.

The opposite result? It seems possible for those who make up Obama’s noisy army of those who have been and will be displeased with any America except if it becomes the “People’s Republic of America.”

Obama discovered the “People’s Republic of China” not by reading scientific accounts, but by “their flesh and spirit” being “mine now and for centuries ahead.”

Russia, US Should Join Against China

A smart Russian friend of mine, an outstanding technologist living and working in the United States, sent me a 17-page transcript of one of Yulia Latynina’s Saturday television talk shows called “Code of Access.”

Google introduces Yulia as a “Russian journalist, writer and radio host” and devotes to her nine headlined paragraphs plus “video results.”

To me, a Russian who emigrated from Russia 40 years ago, Yulia is a Russian woman in a new role in a new Russia. Forty years ago her program would have been impossible and, indeed, inconceivable: a charming young woman discussing life in Russia on her TV program, criticizing its social and political aspects, thinking out loud . . .

Indeed, I find in Latynina’s program the thoughts which I have not heard in the United States, but which are politically infinitely valuable.

Here is my favorite, on page 10 of the transcript: “As for elections . . . Dear ladies and gentlemen, a remarkable public opinion poll was taken in 2007: Does the Sun revolve around the Earth or does the Earth revolve around the Sun? Of those polled, 27% answered that the Sun revolves around the Earth.”

In the elementary school of Russia, it has been explained that the Earth rotates around the sun, but to the people on the Earth it seems that the sun rotates around the Earth. Yet 27 percent of potential voters forgot the school explanation.

I also have developed a similar point when I asked how U.S. President Roosevelt could be presumed to have known that it was a life-or-death matter for the United States to build a nuclear bomb if perhaps none of his voters had ever heard of such a bomb.

It was only Einstein, at the time not yet officially an American immigrant, who in his 1939 letter to Roosevelt explained the nuclear bomb and the dire need for the United States to have it and thus save the free countries from being atom-bombed by Hitler, for Hitler’s Germany had started developing nuclear bombs already in 1939.

President Roosevelt was quick to respond to Einstein’s letter, and the United States outpaced Hitler’s Germany by having obtained the nuclear bomb ahead of it.

Having President Roosevelt, however, was just good luck for the United States and other free countries. But the destiny of the world should not depend on just good luck. The United States should work out a foolproof, reliable electoral system as to leave no opportunity for error, misuse, or failure in choosing a president.

In her television talk show, Yulia is quick, colorful, and witty. At the same time, at the beginning of her talk, some will find that she is too brief and light, considering the gravity of the subject.

This is how the transcript begins: “There are many questions concerning Putin’s negotiations with China and especially concerning the article in the newspaper Vedomosti which mentioned a forthcoming Russian-Chinese treaty, in which sold to China is Russia in total and a little more.”

Latynina goes on to explain: “As far as I know, the Kremlin is afraid of China to a state of horror, to a stomach ache.”

In my weekly columns published in the United States, I keep saying that the People’s Republic of China, with its population of 1.3 billion, is or will be against the United States, with its 300 million people, like four Chinese armies confronted by the U.S. Army. In the case of Russia, with its population half of that of the United States, it will be like eight Chinese armies confronted by one Russian defense army.

But that’s not all. Hitler’s Germany could not bomb the United States: It was impossible to fly bombers across the Atlantic Ocean and back.

Now, the ground army of the People’s Republic of China is capable of invading Russia, since China adjoins the eastern edge of Russia.

It is true that Imperial China never invaded other nations. But it is worth asking why not. Because Imperial China regarded all nations so beneath itself that to invade them would be as aimless as to make havoc of useless and disgusting beasts.

At the same time it is worthwhile to recall the “Tatar-Mongol Yoke” in Russia, which began in 1240 and was overthrown only in 1480, that is, went on for 240 years!

Yet the danger to Russia is far greater than to be invaded by China’s ground army.

I already described in my columns how Col. Larry M. Wortzel (United States, retired) had confirmed in his online memo that the People’s Republic of China had been working on “space warfare.” Google search “Larry M. Wortzel” provides “about 49,100 results.”

There is plenty of such information today, and Yulia describes how much the Kremlin fears China.

The fear is justified (but is not sufficient!). What is China’s “space warfare”? So far wars have been waged at the Earth. But we know that the Earth is only a tiny speck in the vast Universe. And the Earth with its atmosphere and stratosphere is surrounded by the space of the Universe.

It is there that the People’s Republic of China has been creating a new warfare, as Wortzel describes it, with the help of Google. Let us recall that the People’s Republic of China has expelled Google from its territory. The space warfare should be kept secret until it’s ready to go into action.

So what should the Kremlin do, apart from experiencing fear, as described by Yulia Latynina? In the United States, I have been asked by my readers on which side Russia is: on the side of the United States and other Western countries or on the side of the People’s Republic of China?

Yulia, you should say to the Kremlin: Your fear is justified. But surely it is no good to fear just for the sake of fear itself!

The Kremlin should side with the United States and join, together with the other Western countries, in the development of defense against the People’s Republic of China, including its space warfare.

Yulia, do you see any other way out? I don’t. Please use your outstanding intelligence and knowledge to help save Russia and other endangered countries.

China Preparing for World War III

Since the future of our world is likely to be decided by World War III, it may be of interest to predict its outcome.

Owing to my obsession with freedom, I emigrated from Russia with my wife, our son, my mother, and several hundred strangers (the purpose of the owners of Russia was to create the fantastic impression that Soviet Russia was a democracy!).

My eagerness to emigrate was reinforced by my egomania, according to which I fancied that in the West I would be writing in English whatever I thought and be paid for it, since enough Americans and other Westerners would find what I wrote worth reading.

In 2005, Gen. Chi Haotian of China, its “minister of national defense” since 1993 to 2003, revealed in his speeches that in China’s war on the United States, from one-third to two-thirds of Americans would be poisoned or infected biologically by the Chinese, and their homes and property would be transferred over to Chinese settlers, since the Chinese (and not the Germans, as Chi stipulated in his speech) are the superior race and must have everything best in the world.

Anyway, a slave state (China) has this advantage over a free country (the United States): it can reward (enrich!) 100 million or 200 million of its troops and its civilians with what those killed (poisoned and infected) Americans and their ancestors had been acquiring for the past two-and-a-half centuries.

In the United States, an American’s betrayal of his country to China may well be seen to be his use of his freedom.

This certainly applies to the U.S. presidents, whose elections (which have little to do with the appointment of the prime minister in Britain) contradict the knowledge of mental ability, according to which the value of a thought may include its exclusivity: Einstein said that he was understood by seven people in the world.

It was only owing to Einstein’s letter to President Roosevelt in 1939 that the Americans got the nuclear bombs before Hitler’s Germany completed its nuclear project.

Einstein emigrated to the United States because he was a Jew. Suppose he was not a Jew and did not emigrate? Hitler would have “the bomb,” which his Germany began to develop earlier than the United States. But what about the 100 percent American professors?

None of them wrote a letter to Roosevelt about both possibility and necessity of developing the nuclear bomb. Einstein did, though officially he was not yet even an immigrant.

Have you ever heard the word “professor” used before the name “Einstein”? To begin with, he was not a professor.

Mental worker and mental work have been evaluated in the free countries in the past centuries as “genius,” “highly important,” or as “mediocre twaddle,” “a pack of insults, to humiliate his opponents.”

Today such comments are conspicuously rare in the United States. If a holder of an opinion is a professor (something one can buy online!) or has another degree, rank, or title, that opinion is accepted at least politely, and if he/she is just an Einstein, his/her opinion is ignored or met with a pack of insults.

The result? My article “What the CIA Knows about Russia” (worse than nothing!) in the September 1978 issue of the Commentary magazine was reprinted or outlined in about 500 periodicals all over the free world.

The most powerful free country has no intelligence service! A catastrophy? Yes! But the case was buried by professors and other titled officials in total silence as beneath attention.

In the United States, it is still understood sometimes that scientific, technological, philosophical, political or artistic endeavors have different levels of achievement, and not just one level. Yet the academic and government bureaucracy in the United States tends to reduce all of its endeavors to one level of mediocrity.

In the post-1949 China, we have been facing a geostrategic paradox.

By the standards which had prevailed before the “advanced” Hitler’s Germany was routed by the “backward Russia,” China was classified as “backward,” since it had a vast agricultural population living outside cities.

In 1917, the “backward” Russia produced 3.1 million tons of steel, as against 45.8 million of the United States. But in 1989, the figures were 160 million for Russia versus 96 million for the United States.

In 2007, China produced 489.2 million tons of steel, while the U.S. output stayed near its 1989 figure. Which one is a backward country?

Just a decade ago, China was still considered backward because of its huge population.

Today it is obvious (though not to most academic and government officials in the United States) that the population of China, which is 1.3 billion, that is, more than four times larger than that of the United States, can be converted by the slave state of China into at least four times more creators and users of the latest weapons than can the United States.

A “slave state” is a mobilized military country, in which every slave is a mobilized military man or woman.

The slave state of China has been at war, though that war is internal until it becomes an assuredly victorious limited operation, like conversion of the United States (described by General Chi Haotian) into a Chinese country as part of the Chinese world empire.

On the other hand, a free country enables everyone to be a great thinker as Einstein was. But many Americans would not like to be Einsteins even if they had the ability.

I have not met anyone in the East or West more dedicated to freedom than those in charge of Newsmax and WorldTribune. But the tremendous mission of rescue of the free world from the slave state of China requires a far greater attention.

Hence life in the United States is presented by the rest of the media as an ongoing festival, in which money as well as new goods and services, crimes, and sex are the most prominent, while for weeks or months China seems to have never existed.

Few people in the free countries believed that Hitler would launch aggressive wars to become the world dictator until he launched them just as soon as he was able to do so. But to the owners of China, wars should not be started unless there is a certainty that having started them, they will win them.

The masters and slaves of China are preparing for victorious wars while free Americans enjoy their festivals.

How to Ensure Adequate Defense of a Free Country

An adequate defense of a free country requires an adequate government.

In the United States, the British system of electing a prime minister was replaced by the direct election of a U.S. president by a majority of voters, which opens the possibility of electing a mentally average mind, for the more minds think about complex problems in the same way and with a stereotypical simplicity, the lower is their mental level, while Einstein, who in 1939 explained to Roosevelt the immediate need to begin to develop the “atom bomb,” used to say that he was understood by seven people in the world. Fortunately, Roosevelt’s mind happened to be far above the average.

At a two-day meeting in Washington, including top officials from China, President Obama has proclaimed himself and the United States a “partner of China,” while in the past decade China’s Gen. Chi Haotian, the minister of national defense up to 2004, proclaimed in his speeches that China should poison or infect with a mortal disease one-third or two-thirds of the Americans and then transfer their homes and other property to the new (Chinese) settlers as to the really superior race, whom one-third of the Americans left alive are to serve manually.

This information became available in the West via the Western press and television, but the last three U.S. presidents have been deaf to it, not to spoil their “good relations” with the owners of China.

Before the 21st century, the absence of a U.S. president as a unique mind and a unique soul in the defense of the United States was not so tragic for the United States, since North America was protected by the two oceans and Canada against the armed forces of the time in the possession of Hitler.

Canada is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, formerly known as the British Commonwealth. In the American Revolution against Britain, the United States destroyed or ousted those sprouts of the British political wisdom, which had been developing within the English history since the 13th century (Magna Carta).

The Canadians do not elect a Canadian president by a majority of voters.

On the other hand, as William Safire wrote in the New York Times on May 18, 1998, U.S. President Clinton, “hungry for money to finance his re-election overruled the Pentagon; he sold to a Chinese military intelligence front the technology that [U.S.] defense experts argued would give Beijing the capacity to blind our spy satellites and launch a sneak attack.”

George W. Bush saw the threat to the United States coming not from China (population: 1,331 billion) but from the oil-rich Iraq (population: 26 million, 35 percent of whom were Sunni, favoring the free West), and he invaded Iraq in an absurd five-year campaign.

As for Obama, he is a “partner of China” but is vigilant to whatever is going on in Afghanistan (population: 30 million).

The people of England do not elect a U.K. president. They elect members of parliament. The largest party in parliament sends its candidate to the king or queen for the approval as his/her prime minister.

Let us also recall that the word democracy was launched by ancient Athens. The word democracy came from the word demos (“common people”), and the word aristocracy from the word aristos (“best”).

The “revolutionary America” and the “revolutionary Russia” abolished their aristocracy. Yet classical music has been performed in both countries by aristos and for aristos.

All uniquely valuable creativity in arts or sciences, philosophy, or geostrategy, involves aristos.

The U.S. election of a U.S. president by a majority of voters contradicts the organic law of cerebral creativity, according to which the mental ability of members of a similarly thinking group is likely to be the lower, the more numerous the group is, and genius is not a member of a group of millions of similarly thinking members.

If President Roosevelt was a genius, then his election as a U.S. president by millions of Obamas was accidental, and if he had been an Obama, just as were those who voted for him, he could have been fatal for his country.

Today the danger has grown immensely.

If the president is a genius, he must be at the peak of a human pyramid, corresponding to “an intelligence statistical curve,” and transmitting his ideas to the people at large.

This is accepted in cultural or in intellectual endeavors in the West. How can a government do without such a pyramid? Or is the defense against the PRC something so simple that any Obama elected by a majority of Obamas can create it?

Why should President Obama be expected to be smarter than the evil dictators of China?

An Obama who would begin today to engage in a globally developing and vitally important field like war — without any proficiency in it and without any evidence of his proficiency — can be called an idiot and what he has been doing an idiocy.

The U.S. president has been elected by a majority of psychiatrically healthy adult Americans who wished to vote for the candidate of their choice.

Suppose he is a genius in establishing the single-payer healthcare system. And, his all-American healthcare will be the world’s best. But why should a genius in single-payer healthcare be automatically expected to be a genius of today’s geostrategy?

Surely it is safer for him to become a traitor with respect to the United States and a slave of the owners of China, helping them enslave that one-third of Americans who are to remain alive as servants to the superior race from China.

There is a sweet delusion in the free West that a free country is by definition more powerful than a slave country like the “People’s Republic of China.”

This is a delusion.

Freedom has one military advantage: It produces people of genius like Einstein, who flourished in Germany before Nazism, but who emigrated after Hitler’s advent to power — and it was his letter to Roosevelt that was to destroy Hitler, for Hitler stopped the active development of the nuclear bomb in Germany, while the United States had developed it by 1945.

Without the atom bomb, Hitler lost the war in Russia and committed suicide, not to face the public trial and be executed by his war enemies.

But a slave country like post-1949 China has many advantages in war. For example, its every inhabitant (except little children and invalids) is psychologically “mobilized” in war or in peace as in the severest war.

The war losses never deter the owners of a slave country, for they do not sustain any personal losses unless they lose the war as Hitler did.

Are Americans Awakening to the China Threat?

I began publishing columns about the “China Danger” after unarmed Chinese in the Tiananmen Square in 1989 called for a peaceful limitation of the unlimited power in their country, to which the dictators of China responded with what has been described in the West a “massacre.”

What was a discovery to me? The Chinese will to freedom, which later manifested itself again in dozens of millions of withdrawals from the Chinese Communist Party.

I drew the following conclusion: We can well assume that the only way for the dictators of China to preserve their dictatorship is to conquer the world and thus eliminate those countries whose freedom seduces so many Chinese.

That became a theme of my columns, and I was especially interested in the public speeches of General Chi Haotian, China’s minister of national defense from 1993 to 2003.

He now is 80 years of age, but he still is a top official. In his public speeches, he described China’s global strategy. Between one-third and two-thirds of the population of the United States is to be annihilated (biologically) and their homes and other property are to be transferred to the new Chinese settlers.

One-third of Americans will be left alive to serve this “superior” race. Due to such conquests, China will become a global empire.

Initially, General Chi’s predictions were ignored by many “American experts” and passed off for forgeries and what not. Those experts did not seem to understand that if the rulers of China had regarded Chi’s speeches harmful, not useful, to them, they would have made Chi lie to the West that those speeches of his are criminal forgeries and that he, General Chi Haotian, has nothing to do with them.

Even if we accept the totally improbable version that he refused to obey the rulers of China (and had been properly tortured to death, using the Chinese experience in torture of thousands or millions of years), the rulers of China would have found another way of lying to the West that so-called “Chi’s speeches” were forgeries.

Anyway, recently I have noticed that General Chi’s predictions, which I have quoted in my columns, are being taken seriously by American readers of my weekly columns (while President Obama had declared the dictatorship of China and the United States, as represented by himself, to be “partners” in the 21st century).

Chris Reynolds of Dallas, Texas, begins his almost page-long e-mail to me on Sept. 4, 2009: “Please continue writing your outstanding columns about China and other threats facing the United States. You have a rare talent for writing about complex issues in very clear terms, without hyperbole, so that even the most ignorant or stubborn people should be able to comprehend your writing without misunderstanding.”

The day earlier, Sept. 3, an e-mal to me said: “Keep up the good work,” and the next day, in his page-long e-mail of Sept. 4, David Fellows had this to say: “First of all, let me say that every chance I get I read and enjoy your articles. I thank you for what you do to inform my fellow Americans, many of whom are living in an intellectual fog.

“Unfortunately, the ones who are most in need of your insight are too busy ‘drinking the Kool-aid’ as we sometimes say in our country.”

My column of Sept. 17, 2009, produced a string of e-mails. On Sept.18, Bret Simms wrote: Hello, great article! My only question is why are so many Americans asleep into thinking one day we will not be attacked.

“My opinion is that the U.S government is in some ways provoking an attack which will neutralize the U.S.A. An attack that could take place in mere yrs . . . . I am born and raised U.S. citizen and love my country. The people of THE UNITED STATES I fear are in for a rude awakening. Again great article . . . keep speaking truth!”

The following day, Gregory Camp begins his e-mail, “Dear Mr. Navrozov, I just ‘discovered’ your work and am forwarding your articles to my friends and colleagues. Thank you for bringing this information to the public.”

On Sept. 17, the day the column appeared, I received an e-mail from Darryl Hicks, executive administrator of mybestyears.com: “Chilling! You’ve just put together the most striking column we’ve read.” And then he ends, “We would certainly enjoy putting the spotlight on you and this invaluable column about the Chinese official [General Chi Haotian].”

What’s the conclusion? It seems to me that mentally alert Americans who value the United States for its freedom and all that freedom brings with it, including personal safety from political persecution, and not only for advertised goods and services at the lowest possible prices, are ready to understand that the United States is a country that is being threatened by a war of annihilation, to be accompanied or followed by similar wars of China on all the other free countries less capable of defending themselves.

What is necessary is to make the danger signal reach millions and dozens of millions of Americans as it has reached those whose e-mails I just quoted above.

Several months ago I suggested production of a film on the subject. The donations to our not-for-profit Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., are tax-deductible.

Alas, I am too busy, writing, to go into the money jungle, so that the center has no money to create a highly professional and successful film explaining the geostrategic situation of today.

France, together with 10 British divisions in France, was overrun by Nazi troops within six weeks. The French culture, with its intellectual sophistication, education, and Napoleon in its military history, did not help to defend the country from the Nazi invasion. Nor had the 10 British divisions foreseen their destiny.

Will the United States in its defense against the dictatorship of China, with its population exceeding that of the United States more than four times, go the way France did in its defense against the dictatorship of Germany?

West Oblivious to China Threat

Why is the West asleep? This is what I was asked by Jonathan Smithson, an Australian of English and Chinese descent, who sent me a piece from a speech delivered by Chi Haotian, the minister of national defense of China up to 2004 and a top military analyst today, and published by the dissident Chinese newspaper The Epoch Times, sold in English in English-speaking countries. The space allocated by The Epoch Times to Chi consists of 571 entries, and the first entry is summarized as follows: “A leading Chinese Communist Party official argues for exterminating the population of the United States.”

In Chi’s 12-page speech, which The Epoch Times published on June 6 under the title “WWIII: War Is Not Far from Us and Is the Midwife of the Chinese Century,” Chi devoted on what is page 2 of The Epoch Times publication to his demonstration that the Chinese are the superior race to win in WWIII its right to the “Chinese century.” Says Chi:

“Hitler’s Germany had once bragged that the German race was the most superior race on Earth, but the fact is, our nation is far superior to the Germans.”

Smithson sent me two e-mails. One contains a piece of Chi’s speech from The Epoch Times. In the other, Smithson (who has degrees in law and medicine) asks me “Lev — Why is the West asleep?”

The piece of Chi’s speech from The Epoch Times reads:

“We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios,” Chi begins. What are they? (1) China succeeds in the surprise attack on the United States. (2) China’s attack fails and triggers a retaliation from the U.S. The result? “More than half of the population of China would perish.”

The conclusion? “Whatever the case may be,” Chi goes on to say, “we can only move forward fearlessly for the sake of our Party and state and our nation’s future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices we have to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone!”

But Chi looks into the future without fear or hesitation. “In any event,” Chi goes on, “we, the Chinese Communist Party, will never step down from the stage of history!”

So? “In my view, there is another kind of bondage, that is, the fate of our Party is tied up with that of the whole world. If we, the Chinese Communist Party, are finished, China will be finished, and the world will be finished.”

Chi is actually kind: “It is indeed brutal to kill one or two [or maybe three?] hundred million Americans.” You see? “But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the Chinese Communist Party leads the world.”

Chi wouldn’t want to kill one, two (or three?) hundred million Americans just for nothing! “We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths.” There is one “but” though.

“But if history confronts us with a choice between death of Chinese and that of Americans, we’d have to pick the latter, as for us, it is more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party.” Why? “That is because, after all, we are Chinese and members of the Chinese Communist Party. Since the day we joined the Chinese Communist Party, the Party’s life has always been above all else!”

It is curious that the “Party,” possessing China and aiming at possessing the world, no matter what victims, is represented by Chi as an infinitely priceless living being whose “life has always been above all else.”

We can now answer that question Smithson raises in his e-mail to me: “Lev — Why is the West asleep?”

The Western democracies have survived owing to industrialization, including science and technology producing ever more effective weapons, up to the nuclear bombs in 1945 by the United States and its allies. But in the 20th century it also turned out that Stalin’s slave society can also produce no less effective weapons. And in the first decade of the 21st century here is Chi arguing that China should be the first to annihilate the U.S., to be on the safe side.

In China, all humans, except the owners of the country, are slaves used as producers or users of weapons. Now, in the free countries, defense is a matter of will of most citizens. Defense requires money as well as the people with outstanding military abilities. The Iraq War demonstrated that there were no such people to lead that war from the beginning, and the initiator of the war, supposedly an adequate military commander, was an ignorant fool who dragged a war against Sunni, and for Shia, in a small backward country for six years.

No, Bush was not asleep. As the president and commander in chief, he could not help hearing what Chi said as the minister of national defense of China about the need to attack the U.S. and exterminate its population as that of an inferior race. But Bush was not interested. He was absorbed with his own Iraq war for his own reason(s).

Is the West asleep? On the contrary, the West is wide awake, in its daily hunts for money and the best bargains, as well as enjoying life in every other way possible. But even purely financial preparations for war will impose higher taxes, and who wants them of their free will?

In short, the free people of the free countries must do of their own free will what slaves in state slavery countries do out of fear of ruthless vindication, including torture. Is this possible? Or are we living at the end of sociopolitical freedom, and mankind will soon be in global slavery forever and ever and anon?

Is UN plotting to bring illegal aliens from Libya to Europe?

Is UN plotting to bring illegal aliens from Libya to Europe?

Thousands of sub-Saharan African illegal aliens are in detention centers in Libya. Gaddafi had been processing them for repatriation as part of a large agreement with Italy.

Since problems began in North Africa, illegal aliens have been flooding into Southern Europe creating a major crises. The launching of the Sarkozy/Obama war in Libya has made matters much worse.

Libya just made a deal with the UN to allow aid workers to Tripoli and Misurata. The UN has already commenced the evacuation of as many as 5,000 Philippine oil workers. However, the radical left-wing European media is calling for a “rescue” of detained illegal immigrants in Libya as well.

Italy, Malta, and Greece are at breaking points. Popular anger over EU immigration policies is boiling over.

Now France has openly violated EU immigration law to block the entry of illegal aliens “lawfully” crossing the Italian/French border. This has given the Italians ammunition to go against EU open borders policies as well. France had been blocking illegal aliens along their Mediterranean border and diverting them to Italian Islands. Italy retaliated by given some of them temporary visas so they could legally cross back into France. In return France called up riot police to block their entry.

Meanwhile German officials have already stated that they will not agree to take a share of the new illegal aliens.

One of more straw could break the camels back and lead to open defiance of the EU by Southern Europe over immigration laws.

What is Behind the Collapse of Civilization?

What is Behind the Collapse of Civilization?

From http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

What if the sympathy for terrorism and the drive toward socialism, the falling birth rates and cultural bankruptcy in civilized countries, the economic decay and decline of the family all had a common cause? What if that common cause lay behind the multitude of ways that we can see civilization collapsing around us. Following that cause will require a brief journey, not into the realm of geopolitics or global economics, but into the human spirit. 

They say that the child is father to the man. But what becomes of the man when the child never grows up? That is the unfortunate question that civilization as we know it, is confronted by. That is the question it will have to answer if it wants to survive.

The journey from child to man occurs in three stages. ADULATION. REBELLION. INTEGRATION. The child adulates the parent. Then as the adolescent is forced to begin transitioning into the adult role, he responds with rebellion. When he takes on into his adult role, integration occurs.

Generally speaking, this cycle occurs individually within families, but it also occurs on a generational level, as a generational rebellion gives way to its integration into the larger cycle of a nation, a group and their history. And just as the rebellion of the adolescent helps him discover his talents and leads to his integration, a generational rebellion helps define a generation’s ability to join with and contribute to their country. What happens however when this cycle is aborted at the Rebellion stage, is a perpetual adolescence or a case of arrested development, in which there is a constant rebellion driven by a compulsion to see the world in childish ways in order to maintain the constants of childhood.

Welcome to the world today. But not just today. We are living in a First World that is in a state of arrested development. We are surrounded by a culture that is a product of arrested development. We are surrounded by the politics of arrested development. To read the newspapers, to turn on the television and to look at the level of debate in society after society today, is to see the effects of generations that are in a state of perpetual adolescence, producing children who are born into a culture where that is the default state. While there are still plenty of adults around, the loci of cultural and political impact centers around those trapped in the Rebellion stage, and sizable numbers of the population in every First World country carry on their worldview.

Let’s take a closer look now at what the Rebellion stage looks like. This is vitally important, because we’re living in it now

The Rebellion stage is the transition between childhood and adulthood. It’s a reaction to the child being forced to discover what the adult world is really like, and to begin taking on adult responsibilities. (The Mid-life crisis is a somewhat similar event.) The Rebellion stage is marked by the aggressive imposition of a childish worldview on the adult world in order to maintain childhood’s premises for those who are no longer children.

The Rebellion stage often features the embrace of idealistic politics that are short on realistic plans, but emphasize idealistic global solutions. (Seeing the world’s problems as a child sees it.) The Rebellion stage often sees a rejection of conventional adult authority and rules, in favor of alternative systems that are either anarchic or benevolently totalitarian. (By rejecting conventional authority, the child also rejects the possibility of taking on an adult role, and instead searches for maximum freedom from responsibility through either a complete lack of rules, or a complete lack of rules backed by the security of a nanny state.)

At the Rebellion stage, cultural value is placed not on achievement, but on creativity itself. Art is detached from actual artistic accomplishment, but valued as an internal expression of self. (To a child, finger painting is important for the joy of creating, not necessarily for the objective value of the results) Film, theater and novels are valued purely for their shock value, which means breaking taboos becomes the highest form of drama or comedy. (The child has a short attention span and is captivated by that which startles him and thereby gains his attention.)

In the Rebellion stages, there is no grand system of ideas, only contextual values. Morality is relative, because objective rules are too confining and seem to lack empathy and space for the expression of individual impulses. (To the child, rules are emotional, not rational. Contextual, not eternal.) The Rebellion stage results in the romanticizing of one’s own emotions of confusion, oppression and disenfranchisement, and projecting them on the outsider, who is considered “closer” than members of one’s own group because he too is an outsider. The outsider comes to seem like a pathway to a form of natural vitality, both physical and spiritual, that has been denied to him by his own “conformist” upbringing. (The child yearns for the natural order and the natural impulse as a defense against the artificial and abstract rules of the world.)

It’s easy enough to see all of these elements around us, in our institutions, in our culture and our politics. To actually see the flash frozen Rebellion stage worldview in action, consider the cultural stereotypes in the United States of the contrast between the 50’s and the 60’s. Reduce them to their most cliched. The oppressive workplace vs the open air concert. Working for the man vs Doing your own thing. Being passionate about the world vs. Believing what everyone else does. The three piece suit vs The free spirit. These stereotypes even at their most negative embody a very simple contrast, between Civilization and its Discontented.

Just as the adolescent rebels against having to take on adult roles, by trying to return to childhood. Generationally speaking, those who reject taking on the adult roles of a civilization, instead try to drag that civilization back to a juvenile stage. And juvenile in terms of civilization, is just another word for primitive or savage.

To romanticize the primitive and the backward, whether it’s hanging up Jackson Pollocks in place of Rembrandts, cheering on whatever bunch of Third World thugs wants to destroy us this era or rejecting monogamy and marriage, or arguing that we need to restrict technology in order to protect the environment– all stem from the same hostility of civilization’s children… to the civilization that gave birth to them.

Let’s take a look at Hollywood for a moment, which switched from serving up celluloid fantasies in which the forces of order slaughter the representations of primitivism to celluloid fantasies in which the forces of primitivism slaughter the forces of order. While critics label the former as jingoistic, and the latter as safely politically correct, both are cultural expressions of a struggle between civilization and primitivism. The shift marks the cultural ascendancy of those whose sympathies are wholeheartedly against civilization and to whom the emotional resonance of a return to a simpler and more primitive way of life is stronger, than the emotional resonance of protecting civilization. These films represent the rebellion against civilization by those who see it to be poisonous and threatening to their “natural impulses”, in its implicit demand that they stop acting like children and grow up.

This of course brings us to the Noble Savage. To the rebellious children of civilization, he points the way back to a simpler and more natural way of life. While former generations wanted to justify their way of life by “civilizing the savage”, their angry children wanted the “savage” to justify their way of life by teaching them to be savage too. Both approaches are of course racist and ignorant, but only one is safely politically correct.

The romanticization of the “Other” as the “Noble Savage”, who in this stereotype is closer to nature, impulsive, generous, pleasure seeking, innately vital and spiritual– has allowed emotionally adolescent First Worlders to transform numerous minorities into “avatars” for their own arrested development. And in always being on the lookout for someone to play Jim to their Huck Finn, for their own adventure down the river, and into a perpetual childhood away from the challenges and demands of adult civilization. Who will teach them how to find the “savage” in themselves, by showing them to discard civilization and become more generous, spiritual and natural.

In the process, they’ve practiced a racism just as pernicious as anything they’ve campaigned against, but it is a racism that they cannot let go of, because it is also the only reason that they are against racism in the first place. And in the process it will also destroy them, because their worst miscalculation has been to adopt the Muslim as the latest in their line of “Noble Savages”. And the rising amount of Muslim violence only makes them cling harder to the newfound “savages” whom they hope will show them how to take care of that pesky civilization thing once and for all. Which indeed given time and power they will. However at the other end of civilization will not be some lost primitive eden, but slavery, oppression and death.

Let us look now at the birth rates. The birth rate has dropped drastically in just about every civilized country. But that is not surprising because adolescents are not particularly interested in having children. It is generally the more traditional sectors of a country that maintain the childbirth rate, and incoming immigrants. Meanwhile in the cultural centers, couples marry later and give birth to children much later, and in smaller numbers, if they bother with that at all. Children after all require parents to take on an adult role. Many First World couples instead decide to focus on themselves. As one European couple explained in an article, they could either have a car and an annual vacation or children. And so they made their choice. And so have so many others, without the newspaper headlines.

Arrested development means delayed maturity. The educational system has expanded to accommodate that, with larger numbers of young people maintaining their higher education as late as their late twenties. Lowered sexual mores also means delayed marriages or no marriages at all. A Me First culture also helps insure a higher divorce rate. Together all these help keep the birth rate down. But the overriding factor is the escape from adult roles by instead focusing on self-fulfillment and pleasure seeking, over taking on adult responsibilities. That means a Rebellion culture is also a low birth rate culture (an ironic contrast to the Noble Savage whom they strive to emulate.)

Adulthood requires transcending the self. By contrast perpetual adolescence never does. Instead it makes the self, the focus of everything. Politics, art, culture, institutions and the whole world become nothing more than projections of the self. Politics is reduced to reduced to supporting politicians who mirror your anger or promise to take care of you. Art is reduced to self-fulfilling creativity without actual creative accomplishment. Institutions operate by either making rules for everything or having no rules at all. Moral relativism and anecdotal evidence dominate public rhetoric. There is a great deal of wealth, but it is spent as fast as it appears. Such a culture cannot survive for very long, because what it builds cannot hold its own weight.

Generational rebellion, like adolescent rebellion, plays a very important role in regenerating a culture. A brief period of rebellion uses a child’s viewpoint to shake up a culture and introduce new ideas and perspectives. Some of these new ideas and perspectives are then integrated into the existing system to enrich and strengthen it. This cycle can help take a civilization to new levels and heights.

However when this cycle is aborted, the rebellion stage never ends. Instead it stagnates. New ideas become old, but there is nothing to replace them, because the ideas have never become integrated into anything greater than themselves. Instead the next generation, which has nothing to rebel against but rebellion itself, rebels by finding new extremes to go to. Politics becomes increasingly more abrasive, even as it becomes more devoid of actual content. High culture transforms into random trends of the moment. Low culture simply panders shamelessly to shock value and spectacle.

The cult of youth dominates the culture, which makes Carpe Diem the only moral law, as social and economic activity becomes centered around everyone scurrying to deny the march of time by fulfilling their own selfish needs. Religion collapses, except for cults and mystery religions which offer secret ways to be immortal. The birth rate drops sharply and family life, the center of any civilization, collapses as well. Industry dies away and is replaced by personal services. No one wants to do the dirty work, and in any case a falling birth has created numerous openings at the bottom, and so migration brings in a new lower class, which a bored upper class sees as exotic and exciting. The worship of the Noble Savage eventually ends with the sack of civilization.

We have gone down this road before, and it always leads to the same place. The failure by a civilization to continue the cycle by integrating into adulthood, will mean its destruction… if left unchecked. Just as a man, who insists on remaining a child cannot survive on his own… so too a civilization that insists on running away from itself, will perish in the flames of its own making.

The Rebellion stage transitions into the adulthood stage through Integration. With Integration, the adolescent models and accepts the adult role and the responsibilities that come with it. Through Integration, the student comes to see himself as the teacher, the son as the father, the daughter as the mother, the worker as the manager… and a generation takes the next step in the history of its people. The creativity and new ideas it brings with it, becomes integrated in constructive ways and forms the next chapter of the great story of their civilization.

However the modern day educational system helps take the child in the Adulation stage, when he still looks up to and respect adult roles, and its teachers and professors who idolize the Rebellion stage, teach him that this form of arrested development is the highest wisdom. Integration is then delayed or aborted, and the modern intellectual dialogue becomes centered around Rebellion stage ideas.

Adult role models are of course key to that integration. The decline of the family, both in personal and public life, makes integration much more difficult. Particularly if the culture insists on degrading adult role models, and presenting negative models instead. A culture’s myths and stories help guide the adolescent into adulthood. As do the tasks he has to perform. When a culture’s stories become rebellion stage oriented and the tasks involve participating in an indefinite educational program, this too makes the transition to an adult role that much more difficult. Overlay all this with a nanny state that is itself the symptom of a Rebellion culture looking to create substitute parents to take care of them– and it becomes harder for the next generation to become adults.

Adulthood means transforming the Resistive Creativity of the Rebellion Stage into the Constructive Creativity of the Integration stage. Resistive Creativity is creativity that exists in defiance to some form of restriction. Where Resistive Creativity was once a symptom of youthful rebellion or bohemian attitudes, it has become ubiquitous in the First World today. By contrast Constructive Creativity, which is additive creativity that focuses on craftsmanship and creating a final product that benefits people, rather than simply expressing a resistance to rules, has become harder to find. As a result of this, America has begun suffering a decline in non-theoretical sciences, as well as in its culture. And we are burdened with politicians who are creative in terms of being able to come up with all sorts of big ideas, but not constructive in terms of being able to see them through.

Socialism. Dhimmism. Low birth rates. The breakup of the family. The decline of the West. The rise of the Nanny State and the fall of human freedoms. The adoration of anyone willing to upend civilization– all have a common denominator. And this is it.

The adolescent rebels against adulthood by trying to function as a child, living without fear or consequences, embracing idealism rather than ideas, and self-fulfillment over responsibility. A culture rebelling against civilization tries to function as they think primitives do, by trying to be children again. And the results are all around us.

They have turned the State into a nanny to care for them. They have worshiped the murderer for being impulsive. They have discarded the family and children, as obstacles in the way of their egotistical pleasure seeking. They have declared war on industry and technology as antithetical to their worship of the primitive. They have based their culture around the things that shock them the most, and their politics around that which they are cued to find inspirational. They have turned their backs on civilization, trying to escape the adult responsibilities it demands of them. But the past offers no escape from the future, and the man cannot become a child again… he can only mimic a twisted parody of a child. 

The Rebellion stage cannot continue indefinitely. It has long ago become stale. Yet by failing to move on, it has trapped generation after generation in its broken cycle. And the only way out for the First World is to put aside childish things and make the decision to at last grow up. If we cannot do that in the face of the Jihad… we may never do it at all. In the aftermath of 9/11, there was a flash in which a culture that had been taught to forget adulthood, suddenly experienced what it was like to be adults. Some reverted back again. But many did not. Year after year, the knife is moving closer to our throats. Technology alone cannot turn it back. Only the adult mind, the adult determination and the adult will to defend ourselves at any cost can do that. And by finally taking on that long neglected adult role, the First World’s perpetual adolescent cultures may finally become adults again.

Identifying with the Enemy – The Identity Crisis of the First World

Identification is at the core of human allegiances. We identify with a family, a community and a nation. We identify with ideas and beliefs, with groups that share those beliefs. And we uphold the fusion of belief and community, idea and nation.

Through this innate form of identification allegiance, nations and ideas, including our own nations and ideas, thrive and survive. The increasing failure of this process is also what’s killing the First World.

Much of the problem lies in the fact that the First World and its ideas and belief systems no longer has anything but the thinnest of identities. And without an identity, identification fails as the individual has nothing to grasp on to, and identify with.

Most of the West has become “diversity oriented” with diversity no longer emphasized simply to promote tolerance, but as a goal in and of itself. Goal oriented diversity exists for no reason except to promote diversity as the ultimate good. Like a biological mechanism turned cancerous, diversity reproduces itself for no purpose except to have more diversity. And while some diversity is a good, unlimited diversity is as destructive as any virus because it breaks down all substance, leaving behind nothing behind but the worship of itself.

Multiculturalism has increasingly diverged from promoting diversity in order to focus unity within a nation, to promoting diversity of nations within a nation. The Eurabia problem is the result of abandoning any limitations on diversity, and exposing a culture that believes in diversity to one that does not. The results are ugly and inevitable from both a biological and a sociological standpoint.

And identification loses its hold when diversity has thinned down national identity and culture to the point that there is no longer anything to identify with– that is except the outsider culture. Multicultural diversity promotes outsider culture and identity at the expense of national culture and identity, which has to make way for it, or be eradicated outright for standing in the way of the multicultural approach.

Little wonder then that the development of the youth finds them identifying with the outsider culture. It is of course a normal part of the maturation process for youth to identify with an outsider culture, this can manifest itself in the children of the upper class seeking out the lower class, in music, culture and politics that is violent or revolutionary. As Churchill said, “If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.” The evolution from one to the other is not merely a matter of common sense or reason, but the more practical one that comes from maturing to identify with your adult role in life. (Much the same as children who identify closest with a cross-gender parent, realign their identification when they begin to actually fill a male or female role.)

But to actually complete the identification process, there needs to be an adult role to fill within a nation that projects a strong sense of its own identity and interests. The failure of the First World to provide both these things has led to delayed adolescence and maturity, to the rise of 30 something and even 40 and 50 something old ‘children’ who have never grown up. And it has of course greatly increased the number of ‘twenty-five year old liberals’ who failed to grow a brain, even when they’re sixty-five.

The two problems are intertwined with each other, and they have helped create a constellation of other destructive cultural pathogens feeding off each other. The delayed maturity has created a youth centered culture, so that First World nations have cultures that are oriented not toward the wisdom of age, but the flashy impulses of youth… the new, the trendy and the loud and furious. Obama’s victory was the product of a culture that had warped itself to worship youth, in which style and fashion were far more decisive than experience and knowledge. Such a culture is of course absurdly easy to manipulate if you have the leverage and the organization.

A youth oriented culture is a Carpe Diem culture, it does not plan or think ahead… it simply does. Its identifications are shallow and fleeting, though often passionate… because it is still looking for something to identify with. The value of a thing is indicated by its stylishness and fashionability. Cutting edge matters more than reliability.

The maturation process is one in which the total identification of the child often gives way to the rebelliousness disidentification with family and society, an individuation technique that causes identification to drift until it localizes itself back on the family and the nation, as the now developed individual takes on an adult role in his society.

Revolutionary movements throughout history have understood that gap quite well and exploited it, most successfully by the left wing movements of the 19th and 20th centuries which turned revolution into a science. The second half of the 20th century however saw the culmination of their triumph in America and Europe. (The 1980’s in the case of Israel.) Using the youth as leverage, the counter-culture became simply culture, both in the general and the political sense. The nature of the “adult role” in the First World changed dramatically, the family imploded, and every generation thereafter was in turn the product of a society whose elders were no longer true adults and whose societies had traded their national ideals for progressive liberal filler.

What are the consequences of all that?

When the maturation process is interrupted, the identification with the adult role does not occur. Like a rope without an anchor, such a person is untethered from any long term allegiances, guided only by emotion and frustration with his limitations. For such a person “outsider identification” becomes the norm, a way to channel his own rejection of an adult role and authority. On a societal scale, what happens looks a good deal like Stockholm Syndrome… but it is an identification driven not by fear, but by immaturity.

For “outsider identification” to be a serious factor, the outsider culture must be stronger and more durable than his own culture. This of course is a natural product of shortchanging a national culture as being reactionary, racist or nationalistic… in order to make way for the diversity of a multicultural society. When a native culture is displaced to make way for an outside culture or cultures, the natives begin to identify with the last culture standing, or the one that appears stronger, more vital and more defined.

The same process that occurred in the Third World, in Africa and Asia and the Middle East… has now reversed and is taking place in the First World, in countries such as Europe and America instead. Outsider identification is not unusual for oppressed minorities. For example the Brown vs Board of Education Supreme Court case relied on the Clark doll test in which black children identified black dolls as ugly and white dolls as appealing. And in counterpoint, Larry King’s daughter wishing she was black in the aftermath of Obama’s election demonstrated a reversal of the Clark doll test.

But Americans and Europeans are not oppressed minorities, they are successful majorities. They have not been segregated, shunned, enslaved or discriminated against for a long time. Until now.

The cultures of the First World are no longer thriving, they are dying. It’s a slow death and it’s an ugly one, much like a man who year after year consumes contaminated food that he knows will kill him.

The black children in the Clark doll experiment identified with white dolls because they had learned implicitly that being black was bad and white was good. American, European, Australian, Israel and many other children from the First World have been taught for over two generations now that their nations, their cultures, their way of life and their ideals are bad. Their nations and cultures are only good to the extent that they identify with the outsider.

Is there any wonder that we’re living in nations which have swerved destructively to the left? It would be a miracle if we weren’t. Nor is it remarkable that we’re living in societies run and stocked with children who have never grown up. To grow up you have to take an adult role in your society. With nations held in contempt, society transformed into a multicultural comparison chart and the family despised… it would be a miracle if we weren’t overrun with overgrown children everywhere we looked.

The identity crisis of the First World, of the civilized nations of the world, is at the heart of our problems. It isn’t simply a matter of what is taught in the schools, because the focus on identifying with the outside culture is a message projected in every form of popular culture, it is echoed by truisms and advice columns, by movies and TV, by music and literature. There is no escaping it and no way to insulate yourself defensively from it.

Islam has emerged now as the ultimate outsider culture, one that is transforming Europe into Eurabia. And ever since 9/11, for eight years straight, the Muslim world has been the focus of attention in America. Little wonder that we can see Keffiyahs everywhere. Not in a system that has repeated the message over and over again that Muslims are our victims, that their religion and way of life is nobler and superior to our own. 

That is the problem we face and our challenge. To survive we need to promote a positive national identity that is not based on diversity or outsider culture, and we need to channel it into resisting outsider culture where it is inappropriate or a threat to our own nations or cultures. That does not mean intolerance for the sake of intolerance, but an identification with our own way of life.

The Islamic threat is a terroristic one, but also a demographic and a cultural one. Yet it is often the cultural threat that is most decisive, for to conquer a nation you must first destroy its culture, its sense of self and the method by which a nation’s youth identify its future as their own.

To survive and to win, we must have more than strong militaries, we must have strong cultures. Patriotism, nationalism and faith attached to vital and specific identities can form a generation capable of standing off the tyranny of Islam. It can help transform First World nations from childishness to maturity, as the aftermath of 9/11 temporarily did for so many Americans. That atrocity was the wake up call for many who realized not just the evils of our enemies, but the virtues of our nation. It faded, like most awakenings based on the shock of an individual event will. What we need is more than just a wake up call, but national awakenings built on a revival of national values and culture to show us who we were and who we can be again.

The Nature of the Bureaucratic Beast

There are two types of revolutionary movements, those that discharge their accumulated energy on returning power to the people and those that invest that energy into building up systems. Both are approaches to remedying injustice. The former gives the people the responsibility to guard their freedoms, the latter presumes that injustice can only be remedied by systems, not by people. The former is democratic, the latter is autocratic. 

The modern day liberal is autocratic. His beliefs are the product of an aristocracy which rejected rule by a hereditary aristocracy, in favor of rule by an ideological aristocracy. They called this process by which one elite winnowed itself down, revolution, but such purges were not true revolutions, they were the transition of power from people who ruled because of their blood, to people who ruled because of their revolutionary consciousness. These people too generally came from the upper to middle classes. The only difference was they believed in a new kind of aristocracy. An aristocracy built on the right of those who knew better to rule in order to improve the lives of those who did not know better. That boiled down, is the essence of the left.

Democracy is not idealistic, it is realistic. It must be realistic because it disperses its decision making among the people who rule it. Those people have natural human failings. Rule by democracy means playing the odds. It means not investing too much in any particular wave, but having confidence that the combined waves will eventually carry the ship home. Centralization is alien to democracy, because it means investing in systems at the expense of the people. The increasing centralization of a government also means a reduction in the extent to which the people participate in its decisions.

In a democracy, individuals do the long term planning, while governments do the short term planning, because all long term planning is subject to revision, when the government is subject to revision. This is its weakness as it combines a wise people with a government that has difficulty thinking more than a few years ahead. When central planning becomes the focus however, individuals do only short term planning, while governments do all the long term planning for them. This is a far more devastating weakness in the long run, because it combines a foolish people with an arrogant government.

Liberal aristocracy is not realistic, it is idealistic. It does not follow workable policies, but policies that it believes must work, because they accord with their ideological view of the world, or simply the will of their leader. Where democracy suffers from ‘spot fallibility’, the centralized systems of the left suffer from ‘total fallibility’. This resembles a unit with several internal serviceable parts that can be swapped out and replaced, as opposed to a sealed single integrated unit that cannot be serviced. The former can have parts that will fail and be replaced, and still go on working. The latter will simply fail and take everything down with it.

Movements which claim to be revolutionary and liberationist, which instead are quickly revealed to oppressive and elitist, reveal a fundamental hypocrisy. And grand hypocrisy in the ideals of a movement demonstrate its unworkability, just as a product whose description differs fundamentally from its actual functionality will never do what its buyers expect it to do. In a political movement, hypocrisy may be similarly described as a divergence between words and actions. When words and actions dramatically diverge, it means that the stated purpose of a movement is not its real purpose.

The stated purpose of the left is to liberate, but its actions are oppressive. And it is its actions which are therefore truly revealing, not its words. Hypocrisy is revealed in that gap between actions and words. The wider the gap, the more unstable the actual policies of the movement will be. Since goals are most easily met when there is the least divergence between the real goals and the stated goals, major gaps result in goals which can never be met. When goals are unmeetable because of flaws in the ideals of the movement itself, the movement can either confront the gap between its ideals and its actual aims, or maintain ideological conformity through ideological xenophobia, by blaming outside enemies and internal subversives for its failures. Either way its only remedy is likely to be more of the same, expanding the very systems that are failing. 

Ideological autocracies that are revolutionary require a constant revolution to maintain their vigor. This means fighting internal and external enemies. Since political autocracy is institutional, liberal autocrats thrive on tearing down existing institutions and replacing them with their own institutions. Habitually distrustful of natural institutions such as the family. they insist on replacing them with artificial institutions of their own making. Once overlaid with laws and given large responsibilities, these institutions quickly devolve into bureaucracies. The more control is exercised over them, the more centralized they become. Each modification only adds another layer of bureaucracy. Reform of the bureaucracy then itself becomes an exercise in expanding the size and scope of the bureaucracy.

Bureaucracies also make for a wonderful cover for hypocrisy as they appear to be governed by wholly objective rules. This of course ignores the underlying bias at the heart of bureaucracy. The bias of the system. Human laws are those laws which protect human beings from each other and the system. Inhuman laws are those laws which protect systems from human beings. Bureaucracy thrives on inhuman laws, because by equating human welfare with its workings, it acquires a superhuman status. Bureaucracy becomes next to godliness.

Centralization requires a constant expansion of the size of government in order to accommodate larger responsibilities. This process can rapidly transform a democracy into a bureaucracy, as such a system cannot be run by the people. Instead it is run by a series of internal laws, overseen by managers who outlast virtually all politicians. While politicians may try to dictate to bureaucracies, their ability to interfere in the internal workings of the bureaucracy is limited by the same process that makes it impossible to people to manage those bureaucracies. Size.

Where businesses expand through revenues, bureaucracies expand through the scope of their responsibilities. Since all institutions seek to expand, yet businesses are limited in the scope of their expansion by their revenues, while bureaucracies are only limited by the scope of their responsibilities– bureaucracies are able to expand well beyond businesses. And they are not bound by resources, as those resources are derived from the winners in the economy. Unlike businesses who have to bet on the right horse to win, bureaucracies win no matter which horse comes in first. Because they are built on resources taken from the businesses who won the bet.

Bureaucracy is the perfect pair to liberal aristocracy, because both of them are undemocratic. Bureaucracy eventually swallows revolutionary impulses, making them into another aspect of the system. A system that is wholly corrupt, because it wields power without oversight. Thus bureaucracy becomes the ultimate expression of that fundamental hypocrisy at the heart of the revolutionary impulse by aristocrats promising freedom to the people they would rule over. It reaffirms their rule, drowns their opponents in regulations and fosters secret systems of loyalties and affinities within the bureaucracy that can be used for internal feuds and rewards.

When power is invested in a system, the system itself becomes the expression of that power, wholly apart from any goals that it was originally meant to serve. When an ideology invests power in a system, the system comes to represent the meaning of that ideology. Bureaucracy is the terminus of all ideologies that steal power from the people. It is an expression of their belief in the system over the people. Those who would rule in the name of the people, must either give up power to the people, or cease to deny the hypocrisy at the root of their ideology.

Bureaucracy is institutionalized hypocrisy, it is the product of rulers who believe in systems rather than in people. It consumes what the people produce, and its consumption has no limit beyond its ability to draw those resources from the people. Like every parasitic system, it is ultimately undone by its own parasitism, in that it will either weaken the people too severely for them to defend it when the time comes, or outrage them sufficiently so that they will overthrow it. Either way it is a dead end. And so are the ideologies that invest their energy in them.

What We Can Learn from the Soviet Union

Take a tour of North Korea or the former Soviet Union and you will encounter massive structures and tremendous projects, epic in scope which are nevertheless complete failures. North Korea has been building a 105 story hotel since 1987. Even if it ever gets finished, there aren’t any people to stay in it. China and the USSR specialized in massive and massively disastrous dam construction projects. The Banqiao Dam failure alone killed almost 200,000 people. That’s more than every natural disaster in American history combined. 

The Soviet Union used wheat as one of its national symbols, but despite being a vast agricultural empire, had gone billions into debt to buy Western wheat. Even as the Warsaw Pact nations were talking about destroying capitalism– by 1986 they had racked up 138 billion dollars in debt to Western banks to pay for basic subsistence level imported goods.

What went wrong? There was one easy clue. Altogether Soviet farmers used less than 5 percent of the land for private farming, they produced a third of the agricultural produce. Meanwhile the massive system of collectivization at the heart of Communism couldn’t even feed its own people. But all the while agricultural officials went on reporting record harvests each year.

The system was completely broken but only the people at the bottom had any inkling why. And there was no way for them to communicate that up the chain of command. Even if they had been able to, their only reward would have been a jail sentence. Those at the top could not concede that the system was broken, let alone why. Instead they put the country deeper into debt to pay for the consequences of their disastrous economic program.

This is not just history. It’s the present. It’s us.

Think about a country with a 15 trillion dollar debt whose leaders and media insist that everything is going swimmingly. A government which goes into debt for grandiose projects every year– and none of them ever amount to anything. A new year and a new trillion dollar budget, packed full of projects that are dead ends. Grand ideas that make the politicians feel good about themselves, but can never work. We beat the Soviet Union– but these days we look a lot like it. A repressive bureaucracy, an out of touch political class, mounting debt, failing industries and an angry populace caught between government benefits and enforced poverty.

North Korea has been building a 105 story hotel since 1987– and we still haven’t even managed to construct a much smaller replacement for the World Trade Center. But during the Great Depression, New York city and state governments built the Empire State Building in a single year from blueprints that were done in two weeks. Why can’t do we do in 2011 what we did in 1931? How is it that 80 years later, with space age technology, computer modeling and instantaneous data access–  we’re less competent than our ancestors were?

What changed is our society. We have gone from a pragmatic goal-oriented society to a political society governed by ideology. The emphasis has shifted from the results, to how you get them. 90 percent of the effort is directed at the methodology and 10 percent at actually getting it done. Everything is politicized and nothing is accomplished. A project used to begin with a vision and end with a structure. Today it begins with diversity and ends with a bailout.

We’re losing our competence, the same way that the Russians lost theirs. The same way that people living under every ideological tyranny does.

A pragmatic society sets goals and relies on methodologies that are based on the real world. An ideological society however develops its goals and methodologies in relation to its ideology. Imagine two people who are expected to fix a car. Both are given a manual. The pragmatist’s manual has the schematics of an internal combustion engine. The ideologue’s manual is a thousand pages and explores the political implications of the internal combustion engine. After a few hours the pragmatist drives away and the ideologue decides that the car should stay broken until someone designs an ideal engine with no negative political implications. Scale this up, and it’s how we do everything today.

An ideologue believes that the feasibility of a project derives from his ideology. That is why liberals will argue that wars they don’t believe in are unwinnable, but wars they do believe in are winnable. A stimulus package they disagree with is hopeless, but one that meets their political criteria is the only thing standing between us and the abyss. Where people are supposed to reality-test, they have an ideology-test. If it passes political muster– then it must work. If it doesn’t– then it can’t. If a politically approved idea fails, then either it didn’t follow the party line closely enough or it was sabotaged. If a politically disapproved idea succeeds– then it’s a menace and it must be shut down because failure is still imminent.

A Chinese engineer during the 60’s and 70’s was expected to use Mao’s Little Red Book to develop his methodology. A Soviet scientist was supposed to do his research based on general principles laid out by political appointees. There was no reality testing. When ideology finally collided with reality, it was either hushed up or blamed on foreign spies. The United States stayed ahead because its society was less shielded from reality testing. Grandiose failures could still happen, but they were the fault of individuals or groups– not of the central ideology. When the Soviet Union finally became big enough to fail– it collapsed. The United States kept on going. But now we’re caught in the collapse of a liberal ideology that has overtaken the country.

Ideology creates a reality gap as its proponents try to use it as a guideline for getting things done. Some ideologies have bigger reality gaps than others. The more utopian an ideology is– the more the gap yawns. As the gap increases, the proponents go down the rabbit hole and lose touch with reality. They don’t go insane, what they do is begin treating the real world like a puzzle they can solve if they can just get all the pieces to fit. That mindset makes them extremely manipulative and ruthless in pursuit of their goals, but absolutely incapable of understanding why those goals fail.

When given power, they address every setback by trying to expand their sphere of control. If a welfare program is bankrupted by high food prices, then they impose price controls, if the supply of food dries up, they nationalize the agricultural sector, if the harvests fail then they collectivize farmers. Each failure is blamed on outside factors which they strive to control. Once they control all the major internal factors, then they settle down into a vast bureaucracy in which officials report only good news up the ladder. That way there may be no food, but the reports going to the top say that food is plentiful. Eventually hunger or food riots set in and the state collapses.

Policy detached from reality is guaranteed failure. Ideological policies are certain to fail in the long run, and ideological tyrannies insulate themselves from knowledge of those failures. Measuring all success or failure only in light of compliance with the tenets of the ideology makes corrections very hard to apply. How do you fix a problem with broken tools? You can’t. Politicization creates a broken methodology. Ideological methods used to fix problems create more problems– because the real problem is the ideology.

We don’t lack abilities or resources. The damage is cultural. A society overseen by an elite that believes “Everything is Political”, that the ideological compliance of a product or a deed is of primary concern, is hobbled by that way of thinking. An ideological society bleeds wasted energy. Its rulers are more concerned that everyone only do things their way, than that anything actually get done. Multiple overlays of regulations and procedures breed apathy, corruption and defeatism. People and businesses either go rogue or stop trying to anything at all and just hold their hand out and get on the dole.

These conditions create a large number of human sheep and a growing number of human wolves. The society implodes, along with whatever law and order it provided, and the wolves take over. From Utopia to the Jungle in one easy step. Peel away the propaganda and a surprising number of our enemies look exactly like this. And we’re going down the same road. Clinton and Obama are low marks in American history. What follows after them may be worse.

As the society’s morals and codes break down– the human wolves come out to feed. Revolutions are begun by idealists, but completed by tyrants. Brutality and ruthlessness in the name of an ideal are delegated to those who practice it for its own sake. As the Russian Revolution paved the way for Stalin– the chaotic mix of idealism and brutality practiced by liberal elites may open the door for our own monster. The man of vicious cunning that desperate liberals will turn to save their failing system in their darkest hour. The wolf among the fold whose brutality they will mistake for competence, and whose disdain for the individual will be taken for the mark of the true believer. That dark hour has not yet come, but if American liberals are faced with the prospect of absolute failure in the face of economic collapse– there is no telling who may rise in such a desperate moment. Liberals elevated Obama to stop the War on Terror. Whom they would elevate if Wisconsin goes national can only be imagined.

We are at a dangerous intersection now, committed to a course we cannot sustain in any way, shape or form– but one we also cannot break from politically. The elites have warped everything from economics to foreign policy into unreal forms to sustain the illusion of momentum. We are crashing, but they pretend that we are soaring to the skies. The ability to communicate their peril to the general public and devise workable solutions will determine whether we will remain strapped in our seats during the crash or whether we will learn to fly again. Everything from the economy to the Islamic threat hinges on being able to communicate the peril to the public so that the ideological blinders fall away and we become a pragmatic society again, capable of making the decisions we need to survive.