|
 Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972 He settled in New York City where he quickly learned that there was no market for his eloquent and powerful English language attacks on the Soviet Union. To this day, he writes without fear or favor or the conventions of polite society. He chaired the "Alternative to the New York Times Committee" in 1980, challenged the editors of the New York Times to a debate (which they declined) and became a columnist for the New York City Tribune. His columns are today read in both English and Russian.
|
 |
The other day I received a telephone call from a company, offering mailing machines to our Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc. I said thank you, we don't need such machines because we do not use Òslow mail,Ó since e-mail costs nothing and is instantaneous. I was going to hang up, but the caller asked me what our not-for-profit corporation was doing. I told him, and he said: ÒWhat you are doing is uniquely important. Nothing is as important as what you are doing.Ó
Mind you, I was speaking not with a world-known thinker, but with a random salesman who had called me to sell us mailing machines.
And, lo and behold, this random salesman began to explain to ME how dangerous the dictatorship of China (not Saddam Hussein!) was!
This random salesman was more intelligent than all TV hosts and guests, nearly all members of Congress or Democratic presidential candidates and others nationally visible, audible, and widely read as outstanding political authorities, specialists, Òpundits,Ó etc. As of December 2003, these best and brightest, that is, the best visible and audible in the media and hence assumed to be the brightest, will continue to speak about Iraq as though this is the most geostrategically dangerous country of the 21st century, deciding the (life-or-death) destiny of mankind.
In 1859 in England John Stuart Mill predicted and partially observed societal mental regression. The word ÒsocietalÓ is important. Mill did not mean that all Englishmen were becoming more stupid or that all Americans would be more stupid in 2003 than they were in 1859. What he meant is that while randomly sampled individuals were and would be more intelligent, those shaping the public opinion in a society and/or responsible for its international behavior did and would become less intelligent or more stupid. This is SOCIETAL mental regression, which may be accompanied by INDIVIDUAL brightness, smartness, intelligence.
What is the cause of societal mental regression?
In the 20th century, the word ÒdemocracyÓ began to denote the absence of dictatorship. In Mill's times, the absence of dictatorship was called constitutionalism or, as Mill put it, Òthe protection of a country against the tyranny of the political rulers.Ó The United States was (and still officially is) a Òconstitutional republic,Ó and England was (and still officially is) a Òconstitutional monarchy.Ó What did the word ÒdemocracyÓ mean? It meant in Mill's times and up to the 20th century the opposite of aristocracy. In democracy, every mentally normal adult had the right to vote: universal suffrage. In aristocracy, only a certain elite had the right to vote, as was the case in England in 1859.
Mill was for democracy Ñ for universal suffrage Ñ because he believed that it was impossible to establish that one mentally normal adult deserves the right to vote more than another. What are the criteria? Education? But many nations have the expression Òlearned fool.Ó Even as a child Mill never went to school. Formally speaking, he was totally uneducated. Yet he became a world-known thinker, while many university professors of the humanities are mediocrities at best and Òlearned foolsÓ at worst.
Women had no right to vote in 19th century England. But Mill argued that his wife was more intelligent than he was, a world-known thinker.
Yet, while Mill was all for democracy versus aristocracy, he was aware already in 1859 of what Churchill said about a century later: ÒDemocracy is the worst form of government except all others.Ó Yes, while better than aristocracy, to say nothing of absolutism (or dictatorship!), democracy has its reverse side Ñ taken as it is without comparison with aristocracy, absolutism, or dictatorship, it is the Òworst form of government.Ó Why?
Democracy has been leading to societal mental regression outside science and technology, medicine, and other such empirical or experimental fields.
Let us follow Mill's argument.
The higher the intelligence or ability the fewer people possess it. The word ÒgeniusÓ cannot be applied to every majority voter. In 20th century science, it came to be applied to Einstein, but no one as yet has said that 100 million geniuses voted for a U.S. president or 10 million for a member of Congress, who are thus men or women of super-genius by definition. Einstein used to say that he was understood by seven people in the world. His discovery that there is no universal time, but that each point in space has its own time, seemed, initially, insane.
How did he become world-famous as a scientist of genius? In science, an achievement of genius is proved as such experimentally.
How did John Stuart Mill become world-famous as a thinker of genius? He had readers Ñ a following just as the world-best operatic tenor or soprano has a following that regards him or her the world's best and buys expensive tickets to listen to them.
Now note who is cited in the United States today as the highest authority, telling the ultimate truth. The electoral majority! Of course! It can elect the U.S. president himself, and then he will be telling the ultimate truth on behalf of the electoral majority that has elected him.
Finally, such a society has no thinkers of genius. The last world-known American thinker of genius was Sidney Hook, who was forgotten in the United States even when he was still alive. He told me to find a magazine in which he could review my book to the best advantage. But when I called the editor of a magazine to tell him that SIDNEY HOOK HIMSELF, known even in Russia, was ready to review my book in the magazine, it turned out that the editor had never heard the name. You see, it is believed more and more widely and strongly that the truth cannot come from an individual like Einstein or John Stuart Mill. No, Einstein could not tell the truth. Nor could even seven individuals on earth who understood him. The truth can come only from millions, or still better, from billions of those who have never understood him and never will.
It is silly and dangerous to assume that China is simpler to understand than Einstein's space-time, and while only seven individuals on earth could understand Einstein's space-time, seventy million voters understand China and know how to deal with it.
In Mill's time, this understanding was not a life-or-death matter because the West, and in particular England, had enormous scientific and technological superiority over China. The stupid political leaders of England began a stupid war in China and forced its government to accept their outrageously unjust demands. In 2003 the Western Coalition has been unable to cope even with a midget like Iraq and its guerrilla war of harassment that not a single public figure in the Untied States or England was intelligent enough to foresee or even to conjecture as the remotest possibility.
Lev Navrozov's (navlev@cloud9.net] new book is available on-line at www.levnavrozov.com. To request an outline of the book, send an e-mail to webmaster@levnavrozov.com.