|
 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.
|
 |
My readers may still remember my column of Dec. 5, 2004 about an American businessman in China, who did not believe that “money is everything” and who, therefore, did not sell anything of strategic importance to the dictatorship of China, but on the contrary, said in his e-mail to me about my “China-threat columns”: “I want to tell you that you have been doing a great job.”
I have received another e-mail from this “American in China,” whom I call John Doe. Naturally, I will not disclose his real name or any particulars that could identify him. He writes:
Why has John Doe been living in China? He loves China minus its dictatorship. It is his love that makes him particularly sensitive to her misfortune of dictatorship. I understand it because I loved and love the culture of Russia that blossomed in the second half of the 19th century, and did not die until the 1930s. Says John Doe:
As I read John Doe's e-mail versus the “open Chinese media” (in contrast to the “closed information” available only to the powers that be) I think about where I experienced this before? Of course! In Soviet Russia, with me as a secret dissident, a Russian John Doe, versus the “open Soviet media” (in contrast to the “blue” dispatches of the Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union, which were available only to the powers that be).
What was the most important news items in the “open Soviet media”? Space flights! Already in the 1930s the United States had a large fleet of long-range passenger airliners. Ironically, the Russian aircraft designer of genius, Igor Sikorksy, who fled from Russia to the United States n 1919, made an immense contribution to the construction of heavy four-engine aircraft. Anyway, in the 1940s and 1950s he United States had a fleet of transatlantic bombers as well as of bombers in the NATO countries near Soviet Russia, while the United States was unaccessible to Soviet bombers. A way out? Transcontinental missiles and space satellites!
So the Soviet space flights were tests in space satellites, able to hit the United States with nuclear bombs and nuclear missile warheads. But in the Soviet “open media” the Soviet space flights were scientific “space missions,” befitting the world's most progressive science of the country.
Now the world's most progressive country is China. Marx, Lenin, and Mao are invoked by the Chinese open media. They asserted that Communism is the future of mankind. Private enterprise? Well, Lenin introduced it in Soviet Russia in 1921, and only Stalin (whom the Chinese “supreme leaders” have rejected as their teacher) discontinued it in the early 1930s.
On Sept. 26, China Daily online said:
Said China Daily online on Sept. 26:
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.
I read your work every week and I am a firm believer in your core theory of China's intentions. I personally do not know enough about Nano-Tech, but knowing what I know about the world, China and the US, I have no reason to doubt your claims about what is going on. Westerners' totally naďve attitude toward China (including their lack of understanding of not only China's intentions, but of the actual situation within China as well) sickens me.
I have been here for years. I love it in China. I have so many friends here and I respect the culture and speak the language. However, I also really understand what is going on here. 99.9% of westerners that come over here have no clue. I am worried. I understand the mentality of the people here, and how they think. I also understand how they look at the rest of the world and why they have the perspective that they do (because of the government's influence and culture). I also understand that most of China is not what foreigners see when they come. They see one part of China (ie Shanghai or Beijing) but they do not know nor can they understand the reality of the rest of China or even of the dynamics of “prosperous” cities that they are in. It's all smoke and mirrors and they just eat it up with a spoon.
What also sickens me is the idea that this dictatorship will somehow morph into democracy. Actually, it is not going anywhere unless it falls violently. No one in China will take the necessary stand. They know what will happen to them, and thus the dictators, as they obtain more resources, are getting more and more repressive but in more and more subtle ways (especially in high profile parts of China).China's first manned space flight in October 2003 made it the third country able to launch a human into space on its own, after Russia and the United States
How can the world's most progressive country live without space research? I recall a Soviet drunk (in contrast to New York, alcohol was served in Moscow in the street) holding up a glass of vodka and speechifying: “We shall land on Mars and all the other planets.” No, the Soviet military had no need even for landing a progressive Soviet man on the moon, to say nothing of Mars. China's second manned space mission — and its first to carry two astronauts — is due to launch on October 13, weather permitting, and returning five days later.
So, the “manned space mission” has been and will be the key news for weeks or months. China will land a progressive Chinese man on Mars and the other planets? No, no, no — this is of no value to the military. A Chinese top official (not a drunk in Beijing) should say: “We will have post-nuclear superweapons, able to destroy the Western means of nuclear retaliation and thus circumvent Mutual Assured Destruction. But meanwhile our ability to nuke the United States from space satellites will not be amiss.”