The right and left agree on the China threat: There is none

---

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.

According to my Webster's, the words ÒRightÓ and ÒLeftÓ appeared in politics with the emergence of Western elected legislatures. Those members of them who sat in a legislative chamber Òto the right of the presiding officerÓ and Òfavored traditional or conservative attitudesÓ were the Right, and those who sat to the left of him and Òadvocated change in the name of the common manÓ were the Left. The phrase Òright wingÓ appeared only in 1905, and the phrase Òleft wingÓ in 1884.

In the U.S. Congress the Right-Left seating has not been observed, but otherwise Webster's definitions above apply. The Democratic Party has been the Left, and the Republican Party the Right.

Unfortunately, the American Right sometimes fails to acknowledge the Left changes in the United States, but takes them for granted as though these changes had come from the Founding Fathers. Here are two of these changes: progressive taxation, whereby wealthier Americans pay as taxes a higher percentage of their income than do poorer Americans, some of whom pay no taxes at all; and social benefits to poorer Americans at the expense in particular of progressive taxation, since a surgical operation may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and few Americans can pay for it out of their earnings while many of them cannot pay their rent.

So the Right and the Left in politics make sense in countries with elected legislatures. But they make no sense in a dictatorship, because the dictator does whatever he thinks necessary or beneficial for the preservation and growth of his power whose maximum is world domination. Hence it is absurd to regard Stalin's Russia or China today as left-wing and Hitler's Germany as right-wing.

Stalin accepted up to the late 1920s Lenin's decision to permit private enterpriseÑcapitalism, as in China today. Surely this is not left-wing! Then Stalin abolished it. Why? In the 1930s, he was in a great hurry to carry out his Òindustrialization,Ó that is, to create the most advanced Òindustrial baseÓ for the development and production of the most advanced weapons. Now, private enterprise was an obstacle because it spent resources to supply the demand of the population for consumer goods and services, and Stalin intended to put the population on minimal rations. His new departure was originally called officially Òstate capitalism,Ó and surely it was no more left-wing than private capitalism.

In 1943 Stalin began to promote the Orthodox Church and to replace Marxism with Russian nationalism. Before his death in 1953, there were mass dismissals of Jews. He was planning to become a Byzantine emperor (about whom he had learned in his youth, in his Orthodox seminary). That is, he was to be God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, as a Byzantine emperor had been. As for the Jews, being dismissed, they were to be dealt with in Stalin's version of Hitler's Final Solution. What is left-wing about all this?

Hitler called his ideology ÒNational-SocialismÓ because the word ÒsocialismÓ had (in contrast to the United States today) a wide appeal in Europe. At the same time the word ÒnationalÓ (complete with anti-Semitism) was to appeal to German nationalists, including anti-Semites. What is left-wing about Hitler's extermination of 6 million Jews, including the poor, the sick, and the children among them? At the same time, surely the Left in Europe and the United States has not been anti-Semitic and condemned Hitler's mega-massacre. Hitler launched the mega-massacre of Jews after his defeat at Moscow in the winter of 1941/42 because he wanted to make his subordinates heinously guilty in the eyes of the English-speaking countries and thus prevent his subordinates' betrayal of him to them.

When I lived in Soviet Russia, up to 1971, I witnessed a horrible political illiteracy of many Russians. I had learned English, read books and periodicals in English, and listened in English to the BBC and the Voice of America (all foreign broadcasts in Russia were jammed). But even those Russians who rejected the Soviet propaganda rarely knew anything else, and their political notions were often more fantastic than the Soviet propaganda. But I dismissed their fantasies, for nothing depended politically on themÑthe dictators did what they wanted.

But in the United States, the wild political fantasies of some of my Internet readers scare me because they are voters, and U.S. politics largely depends on the voters.

On Nov. 28 I received a full-page-long e-mail. Its author (from Andover, MN) requested through the Internet my agreement to confirm my receipt of his e-mail, and I clicked my agreement. So the author was worried that I would not read his e-mail and thus would stay unenlightened by him, or, still worse, that I would pretend that I had not read his e-mail and would continue to spread my political mistakes, which my Andover reader calls Ònonsensical.Ó

My Andover reader begins his e-mail of Nov. 28 by quoting my column (NewsMax.com, Nov. 26, ÒAnother Post-Nuclear Superweapon?Ó): ÒIn the United States, Stalin's Russia was assumed to be left-wing (which was absurd) and Hitler's Germany right-wing (equally absurd).Ó Your words are nonsensical. The true political spectrum is: The Extreme Left: totalitarian dictatorship; all-government; no individual freedom.

What about the ÒExtreme RightÓ? Thank God: Òcomplete freedom of the individual,Ó for Nazi Germany was Òon the extreme [!] left.Ó

So Òon the extreme leftÓ is the Nazi destruction of the German Communist Party and all socialist or social-democratic parties or other parties of the Left. What about Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, etc. Are they are also Òon the extreme leftÓ? Then, perhaps, all kings, emperors, sultans, khans, etc., under absolutism are also Òon the extreme leftÓ?

Says my Andover reader: ÒBoth Stalinist Russia and Nazi German were on the extreme left. Nazi is short for NATIONAL SOCIALISM. Take note of the word 'SOCIALISM.'Ó

But why take note only of the word Òsocialism,Ó which Hitler ascribed to his creed because he could ascribe to it anything that helped him to gain and maximize his power? Why not take note of the word Ònational,Ó that is, his nationalism, based on racism, according to which the Germans were the Aryan race, superior to the Americans except for Òracially pureÓ Germans among them. Is this all Òon the extreme leftÓ?

In short, it is not ÒabsurdÓ that Stalin's Russia was left-wing. It most certainly was; just as was Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Kim Il-Sung's North Korea, and Castro's Cuba. Remember all of the Leftist elite who practically swoon at the sight of Castro and visit him regularly (Jesse Jackson, the left-wing media star)? There is a definite connection there that you ignore at your peril.

Note that my Andover reader gives Mao's China (1949-1976) as a left-wing example. What about China from 1977 to 2004? Has it become as right-wing as the Òright-wingÓ model of government that Òthe founders of the U.S.Ó believed in, according to the e-mail from Andover. If this is not the case, then it can be said that the American Òrightist eliteÓÑÒpractically swoon at the sightÓ of the dictators of China Òand visit them regularlyÓ or invites them. There is a difference between Cuba and China. Castro has been afraid in the past forty-odd years to be assassinated or overthrown by the United States. The dictatorship of China has been developing since 1986 post-nuclear superweapons, able to annihilate the West, to which the U.S. political establishment (both right- and left-wing) has been willfully blind.

According to my Andover reader, the enemies are not outside (in China), but withinÑthey are the Left, and above all, the Democratic Party: It is no secret that the Democrat party in the U.S. harbors much sympathy for communists and socialist regimes. Just witness the Speaker of the House Jim Wright's trip to Nicaragua in the 1980's to denounce the Reagan administrations efforts to support the opponents of the communist regime.

Incidentally, without any U.S. support to the Sandinista regime, Violetta Barrios defeated in 1990 the Sandinista leader in national elections, and a Òconservative former mayor of ManaguaÓ defeated him in the presidential election in 1996. But never mind! What is important? Nicaragua (the population in 1980: 2 million) was a threat to the United States, but China (the population in 2004: 1.3 billion) is not.

The left-wingers inside the United States (the Democratic Party) and outside (not China in 2004, but Nicaragua in the 1980s) dream of taking over the world: The glue that binds them all together is the Socialist dream of uniting the world under the umbrella of governments that replace God with Man as the guiding philosophy of governance. The only way that can happen is to destroy the United States founders' orientation of individual freedom guided by faith in Almighty God as grounded in the Constitution. I would have to write a book to explain all of this in full, but the evidence is everywhere for those want to see.

That is, what is crucial is not the defense against the development of post-nuclear superweapons in China, in Òstrategic partnershipÓ with Putin's Russia, but the victory over the Democratic Party. Indeed, in the 3 debates before the presidential election of Nov. 2, Òthe China threatÓ was not mentioned even once. The goal was not the survival of the West, but the defeat of the opposing party.

The Republican Party defeated the Democratic Party on Nov. 2. Now, the Andover fantasy-monger offers a fantasy, according to which the primary and, indeed, sacred goal is to finish off the Left in this world as the only source of totalitarian or any other oppression and in particular, finish off the defeated Democratic Party, conspiring against the Right in the United States with the Left elsewhere (such as in Nicaragua in the 1980s).

The only trouble is that the political right-wing fighter from Andover, the U.S. government, the U.S. Congress (with few exceptions, nationally inaudible), the CIA, the Pentagon, the universities, and the mainstream media, have been willfully blind to the threat, endangering the very existence of the United States (or the West as a whole) and have thus been betraying their country to the dictatorship of China Òin strategic partnershipÓ with Putin of Russia. Now, my Andover reader is trying to switch the issue of an external threat, endangering the very existence of the United States (or the West as a whole), onto an intestine feud between the ever Òpatriotic RightÓ and the ever Òtreacherous Left.Ó Well, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao destroyed all left-wing (and right-wing) parties except the ÒpartyÓ of their ÒpatrioticÓ subordinates, obeying them like their slaves. Is this what the Andover fantasy is bound to lead to?

But will such a victory of the U.S. Republicans over the U.S. Democrats ensure the global victory of the U.S. Right? On the eve of the Coalition's invasion of Iraq, the U.S. defense budget exceeded 20 times Iraq's entire Gross Domestic Product. Yet Iraq's (guerrilla) war does not abate more than 20 months after the invasion. Now, China graduates 4 times more scientists and engineers than does the United States, and 10 times more students study nanotechnology in China than in the United States. To be willfully blind to Òthe China threatÓ does not mean that it will not keep growing to become fatal.

* * * * *

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.