A rare book about "China's Plan" for world domination

---

See the Lev Navrozov Archive By Lev Navrozov SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM 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. .

Isak Baldwin, our associate, called me from a bookstore and said that on sale was a book by Steven Mosher, ÒHegemon: China's Plan to Dominate Asia and the World.Ó I collect all books on China today, and I immediately responded: ÒBuy it!Ó

The book was published in 2000 by Encounter Books in San Francisco, and I have never seen it reviewed or even mentioned. Books about the ÒChina ThreatÓ that were published in the late 1990s were actually aimed at Clinton. Mosher's ÒHegemonÓ stands quite apart.

When the Tiananmen movement was crushed by steel (literally) in China in 1979, he was in China and wrote a Òseries of articles on human rights violations.Ó He was thrown out of the country by the rulers of China as a Òspy.Ó He writes:

ÒInstead of expressing outrage over this absurd charge leveled at one of their own, my colleagues one by one distanced themselves, each afraid that by voicing support he or she would be singled out for punishment by the Beijing regimeÑpunishment in this case being denial of access.Ó

On the other hand, in his book published 20 years later, Mosher lists 19 ÒChina watchersÓ who helped him with his book.

So the author is a hero, determined to tell the truth, and relying at the same time on a formidable array of other specialists.

The book consists of 7 chapters and 3-page preface. The convenience for the reader is that the preface explains the Chinese plan for world domination and how to counter itÑall within 3 pages.

The Chinese plan for world domination or ÒhegemonyÓ? It is a Chinese self-delusion. You see, ÒChina has convinced itself that it can get hegemony on the cheap. By enlarging its missile force just enough to neutralize America's strategic advantage and by modernizing its conventional forces sufficiently to overpower its smaller neighbors, China's leaders believe that in coming years it can effortlessly enlarge its sphere of influence as America retreats.Ó

This is why the subtitle of Mosher's book speaks about ÒAsia and the World.Ó First China will dominate Asia and then move on to dominate the world.

But how could China have convinced itself in something so stupid? Because according to the book, those in charge of geostrategy in China are amazingly stupid. Indeed, they do not have the slightest idea of geostrategy, and their Òplan to dominate Asia and the worldÓ is like children's play at tin soldiers that keep moving on and defeating the enemy.

Mosher himself did not seem to have the slightest idea of geostrategy either. Well, if Mosher and his 19 collaborators, including one congressman, do not have the slightest idea of geostrategy, what can you expect of those Chinks? They imagine they can move on and defeat the United States until they dominate the world! What a laugh!

Naturally, then and there, within the same 3 pages, Mosher explains how these ignorant Chinese fools should be disabused of their dangerous misperception: ÒThe best antidote to this dangerous misperception of American decline is a carefully calculated military build-up of naval and air force elements. . . .Ó

If those stupid Chinese leaders are so stupid that they will try to keep pace with the U.S. military build-up, they will go bankrupt and will fall (as did Gorbachev in Russia in 1991). Otherwise they will understand that China cannot afford the pace, and Òthe imagined arms race will be over before it begins. China will drop out.Ó

Mosher and his 19 experts are living in the pre-nuclear age, before 1945. Not so the Chinese leaders. This is how they reasoned in 1986, according to the Chinese press.

From times immemorial and up to 1945, a war for domination of the world or of a large part thereof was a conquest of successive territories. Thus, in the 1930s, Japan conquered a huge area, including much of China. Such wars I called in my ÒNew York City TribuneÓ column in the late 1980s EXTENSIVE, in contrast to the first INTENSIVE war, in 1945, when Japan surrendered to new U.S. (nuclear) superweapons despite the vast area it had conquered. Between 1945 and 1949, when Soviet Russia obtained nuclear weapons, the United States could, if it had wished to do so, have established world dominationÑINTENSIVELY, not EXTENSIVELY.

Naturally, in 1986 the Chinese leaders decided to establish world domination Ñnot EXTENSIVELY, as Mosher described it and as was being done 2 or 3 thousand years ago, but INTENSIVELY, with the help of post-nuclear superweapons, to be developed by Project 863, which the Chinese leaders founded in 1986.

After 1949, world peace has rested on Mutual Assured Destruction. The United States, Russia, or China (since 1964) had means of nuclear retaliation. Now, the Chinese post-nuclear superweapons are to be able to destroy the Western means of nuclear retaliation, and then the West will be at the mercy of China.

Instead, Mosher and his 19 specialists ascribed to the Chinese leaders a plan of 2 or 3 thousand years ago: the Chinese troops conquer territory after territory first in Asia and then all over the world, and thus acquire world domination. Having ascribed this plan to the leaders of China, Mosher exposes its stupidity and explains how it can and must be foiled.

The rest of the book explains why China strives for world domination. My explanation is prosaic and is not rooted in Chinese history, since I see no difference between the motivation of the Chinese dictators and that of the Soviet dictators until the last Soviet dictator Gorbachev collapsed in 1991, and when and how dictatorship returns to Russia is not yet clear.

Here is my explanation (also to be found in the ÒNew York City TribuneÓ of the 1980s). Winston Churchill was one of those who called in 1918 for the invasion of Soviet Russia in order to destroy the Òbacillus of bolshevism,Ó which was subverting the West (Hungary became Soviet, and Germany was on the verge of becoming Soviet). The leaders of China want to destroy the Òbacillus of democracy,Ó which subverted many young Chinese in 1989 (the Tiananmen movement). The Soviet dictator had been motivated in the same way.

According to Mosher and his 19 colleagues, the Chinese intention to dominate the world is rooted in Chinese history. Ironically, in contrast to the British Empire, whose colonies exceeded about 100 times the territory of England, or in contrast to the Russian Empire, which conquered many nations having nothing to do with the Russians, China could, at the time Columbus sailed to conquer ÒIndia,Ó have conquered Europe and ÒIndiaÓ and the rest of the world, but would not, because the rulers of China felt themselves safe from foreign subversion.

The title of Mosher's book is ÒHegemon,Ó and the word ÒhegemonÓ and ÒhegemonyÓ are used dozens of times to denote the ancient and modern Chinese power-holders and their power.

Hence the Chinese ruler is the hegemon (not just a dictator, emperor, tyrant, despot) and the hegemon seeks world hegemony (not just world power, domination, dictatorship). In short, this is all intrinsically Chinese, and not just like West European empires, absolutism or dictatorships like Hitler's Third Reich or Stalin's Soviet Russia.

Actually, the words ÒhegemonÓ and ÒhegemonyÓ are Greek, got into English only in the 16th century, and had nothing to do with China, except that those Chinese Communists who write English have used them because these were favorite words of Marx (Òthe working class must be the hegemonÓ). The words are much milder than the word Òtyrant,Ó Òtyranny,Ó Òdespot,Ó Òdespotism,Ó Òabsolutism,Ó Òslavery,Ó but Mosher and his 19 colleagues assume that if misapplied to China, these Greek words acquire a specific sinister Chinese connotation.

The Western hopes to change this hegemony, allegedly inherited from the milliennia of Chinese history, is based on Western myths, according to Mosher: ÒMyth: Communism [hegemony] is moribund, and democracy is the wave of the future.Ó ÒMyth: the rise of market forces and international trade will transfer China into a free market democracy.Ó ÒMyth: the pull of American culture will make China into the mirror image of the United States.Ó ÒMyth: the communications revolution and the Internet will change China.Ó

Thus, all Western hopes that hegemony will change and all attempts to change it are illusions. There is no remedy except that which Mosher presents: more U.S. weapons to bankrupt China or make her give up its stupid illusion of its ability to participate in the arms race with the United States.

However, in the last paragraph of his book Mosher bursts into a joyous hymn. American optimism! Finally, there will be Òthe triumph of democracy in China.Ó It Òwill bring these two great peoples, the Americans and the ChineseÑso alike in many ways, so different in their current forms of governmentÑtogether once and for all.Ó

Twenty pages earlier, Mosher argued that the West is the West, and China is China (or hegemony for thousands of years), and never the twain shall meet. Now the Americans and Chinese, Òso alike in many ways,Ó merge Òonce and for all.Ó

How to explain this sudden outburst of joy?

When Hollywood films were looked at askance in Stalin's Russia, Stalin secretly saw them, and he explained what he liked: ÒNo matter how hopelessly gloomy a movie is, the ending is happy! This is optimism! We must also have it.Ó

Mr. Mosher's book should have been entitled: ÒHegemony, Ending in a Song of Joy: China's Illusory Plan to Dominate Asia and the World.Ó

On the back cover we can read what Congressman Dana Rochrabacher said: ÒHegemon is more valuable than 100 CIA briefings.Ó My God! Then what are CIA briefings worth?