The mind of a U.S. voter

---

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.

In the presidential election of Nov. 2 about 40 percent of the U.S. population eligible to vote did not vote. This is less than in 1996, but more than in 1964.

My reader from Smyrna, Tennessee, who introduces himself as a conservative, thus begins his e-mail to me of Oct. 29: ÒYour writings have always intrigued me but I do not believe the West is worth saving.Ó

He lists drawbacks of the West. The trouble is that we have to choose not the best of all possible societies, but the worst society except all others, which are still worse.

Anyway, this conservative from Tennessee belonged to those 40 percent of the U.S. electorate who did not vote at all. Unless he voted for that candidate who would lead the West to nano-annihilation more surely than his opponent.

On Oct. 30, Richard Bell from Houston, Texas, sent me an e-mail that begins: ÒPlease allow me to help you understand [I need help like a junior school pupil] why this country invaded Iraq.Ó

Well, why? To create a new Texas in a Third-World country, virtually defenseless, except for guerrilla warfare? Says Richard Bell: ÒFirst, the invasion of Iraq had little to do with bringing freedom or democracy to Iraq. That was White House window dressing to appease the liberals in our country.Ó

You see, those stupid liberals have fallen for the deception. But not Richard Bell:

ÒThe real reasons for invading Iraq are simple and basic. One, Iraq will provide a military base of operations for future conflicts in the Middle East. . . . Two, the mission of this country and this generation is killing Islamic terrorists. And Iraq is where those terrorists happen to be.Ó

But surely those terrorists (or call them guerrillas) appeared only after the invasion of Iraq. It is possible that the future Islamic Iraq, based on the fundamentalist Shi'a majority, WILL become a Òmilitary base of operations for future conflicts in the Middle EastÓ and a center of Islamic terrorism against the West.

On Oct. 28 I received a page-long e-mail from Robert E. Canup II, who is even more arrogant and condescending than Richard Bell from Houston, Texas.

Canup sounds like Einstein speaking with a child who has never studied physics. His e-mail begins: ÒLet me explain why no one [!] is paying any [!] attention to what you keep saying about Chinese post nuclear super weapons.Ó

It is true that in order to save the West from nano-annihilation or slavery it is necessary, I believe, to have my book, now sold online, published by major Western publishers and have the West-saving message propagated by the Western mainstream media. The majority or substantial minority of the democratic West must heed the message and make the Western governments heed it too.

But this does not mean that Òno one [!] is paying any [!] attention to what I keep saying.Ó

Canup explains why I have been so totally ignored:

ÒThe pros in the ordinance business don't pay any attention because they understand something which you are missing: Devices by themselves don't matter. For example, what turned the A-bomb from a big useless explosive into a devastating weapon was the B-29. It is not the device but the ability to deliver it to a target that creates a weapon.Ó

Canup must never have read a line about molecular nano weapons: he does not know that molecular nano weapons are not bombs like nuclear bombs, but a hurricane of trillions of nano, that is, less than microscopic, molecular particles. Each particle is both a tiny ÒbomberÓ and a tiny Òbomb,Ó and trillions of these destroy enemy means of nuclear retaliation, such as U.S. bombers on duty in the air, be they B-29, B-17, or B-1 and B-2, which Canup parades as the best proofs of U.S. invincibility . After trillions of such nano particles have destroyed the U.S. means of nuclear retaliation, the United States will be at the attacker's mercy, and will, if lucky, surrender unconditionally.

Canup has invented his own Ònano weapons,Ó equivalent to a Òcup of acidÓ:

ÒNano weapons have to be delivered extremely precisely to do anything to a target. If you can deliver a weapon that precisely a cup of acid would do the same job a lot cheaper.Ó

Then Canup goes into world history, based on his discovery that mankind consists of supermen, that is, Americans like Canup, creating superweapons such as bombers for the precise delivery of Canup's nano bombs, and Orientals like Russians, Chinese, and Japanese, capable of nothing except what makes supermen like Canup ridicule their pathetic attempts at military power.

ÒIn the cold war the Soviet Union always called us a 'paper tiger' but the truth is that was just a case of projections: it was really the soviets who were paper tigers.

That fact was exposed to them in the Gulf War when the finest Soviet equipment was obliterated by the US military. The effects on the Soviet military were devastating: there were a lot of drunken generals in the USSR after the Gulf war when they realized we would roll over them about like we did the Iraqis.

First of all, the United States was called a Òpaper tigerÓ not by Òthe Soviet Union,Ó but by Mao to assure his subjects that the United States would never attack China, even when the United States had nuclear weapons, and China (before 1964) had not. Mao was right: the United States never attacked China, while in the past decade the Òpaper tigerÓ was in unrequited love with Mao's successors.

Second, I wrote for the major Russian periodicals in Yeltsin's Russia in the 1990s and, of course, read them, but I have never heard of Òa lot of drunken generals in the USSR after the Gulf war.Ó Soviet Russia had been selling conventional military equipment to Iraq, but never sold or gave free its latest weapons because every Soviet general, even when drunk, understood that Iraq, a small and virtually defenseless country, cannot resist the United States except by guerrilla warfare in which the United States has been bogged down because the ÒprosÓ in the Pentagon and the CIA did not foresee it.

When a Russian general was asked in 2003 whether the Iraqi troops had the famous Russian Ògrads,Ó a superpowerful earth-to-earth missiles, descendants of Katyushas who horrified the Germans in WW2 and were one of the causes of their defeat, he answered that if they had had Ògrads,Ó nothing but Òa wet spotÓ would have remained of the Coalition troops.

Canup dismisses as Oriental and hence inept and useless the technology of Japan, which is so silly that is not worth even Oriental Japanese laughter. Finally Canup demonstrates the Oriental technological ineptitude of China:

ÒAbsolutely nothing came out of the Japanese effort [the Òfifth generation supercomputer programsÓ] for the same reason that nothing is going to come out of the Chinese [molecular nano weapons] program regardless of how much money they throw at the problem. Why is that? The answer is oriental culture. These are beehive societies where the only value that an individual has is as a part in a machine. Sorry, such societies haven't created anything in thousands of years.Ó

If Canup had ever read a school textbook of history, he would have known that the inventions, including firearms, that appeared in Europe after it overcame its barbarian savagery between the destruction of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance, had been invented in China centuries earlier. The gas for lighting and warming had appeared in China 23 centuries before it appeared in the West.

What do we see in today's China?

Within the scope of this column, I cannot go into the development of post-nuclear superweapons in China since 1986, but let us see how carefully China picks up everything valuable in this respect in the West, while the West ignores it (see NewsMax.com, my column of Nov. 5 ÒA 'Politically Correct' Nano ConferenceÓ).

Speaking of nano weapons, Canup never even mentioned Drexler, the founder of nanotechnology, whom the U.S. government and Congress have been depriving of funds for his erstwhile discussions of molecular nano weapons. Canup displays his comical total ignorance of the subject.

What about today's China?

Isak Baldwin, the manager of our Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., and his Chinese-speaking assistant have sent me a transcript of a Chinese Nano Website in English and Chinese with links to ALL of Drexler's studies, as well as three other studies on the subject. Why are these links in both Chinese and English? The Chinese developers of nano weapons should know English as well, while American like Canup would never learn a word of Chinese, a language of a genetically inferior, sterile, and inept Oriental culture.

Drexler's study of 1991 (with Chris Peterson, co-founder of the Foresight Institute) is posted in its entirety (13 chapters, with Foreword and Afterword!) at the Institute of Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

An article ABOUT Drexler is posted on a Chinese-English-language learning website! Another website, helping the Chinese to know English better, carries an article on molecular nano technology! Richard Feynman's Ònano speechÓ on December 29th, 1959, is posted at the Institute of Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and in print the transcript contains 17 pages!

The end of Canup's e-mail to me to help me with my geostrategic education is remarkable:

ÒChina isn't a military problem, Iran with nukes and missiles IS. That is why we are in Iraq, to surround them.Ó

You see? The United States (in alliance with Tony Blair's England?) is to SURROUND Iran AND China (population 1.2 billion). Why not surround the Islamic world as well (population: 1.3 billion) for full measure?

In Communist China it makes no difference how well the Chinese people know history or understand geostrategy. They do not elect their Òsupreme leaders.Ó

But Canup is a voter, ELECTING the head of state and government as well as Congress. Surely voters like Canup are disastrous. What is their percentage in the Western electorate? They seem never to have been going to school, yet assume themselves to be omniscient Ñ almost Godlike. Their ignorance is matched only by their arrogance. What can such voters lead the West to except nano-annihilation or slavery?

* * * * *

For more information about Drexler's Foresight Institute and its lobbying in Congress, see www.foresight.org

To learn more about the Chris Phoenix report, suggesting a Ònano Manhattan Project,Ó go to crnano.org.

For information about the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., including how you can help, please e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.

The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com. You can also request our webmaster@levnavrozov.com to send you by e-mail my outline of my book.

It is my pleasant duty to express gratitude to the Rev. Alan Freed, a Lutheran pastor by occupation before his retirement and a thinker by vocation, for his help in the writing of this column.