World Tribune.com


"Coast to Coast AM" vs. Chinese nanotechnology


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.
Lev Navrozov

February 2, 2004

My Three-Hour Interview on ÒCoast to Coast AMÓ ÒCoast to Coast AMÓ is Òthe largest overnight radio show in the United States,Ó and on January 6, I received an e-mail from its smart and charming producer, Lysa Lyon, requesting me to contact her about my interview and saying that they are Òvery interestedÓ in my columns Òon China, nanotechnology, and the world geopolitical scene.Ó

Today, the day after the interview, held at 2 to 5 a.m. EST on January 20, I have received over 100 subscriptions to my book on line and about as many e-mails. I wonder whether the flow will continue or swell or subside tomorrow. But it is already clear that the subject, carefully avoided by the mainstream media, is becoming, as a result, all the more explosive.

Some ÒCoast to Coast AMÓ listeners had also listened to me on Barry Farber's program two days earlier, and they praised the program. You bet! Barry speaks 26 languages. I have been speaking on his program (in English!) for over a quarter of a century, while George Noory, the host of ÒCoast to Coast AMÓ had heard me for the first time.

On the other hand, the interview with George Noory possibly shows how far the American public has advanced in geostrategic awareness in the past half year or so. On 8/17/03 at 7 p.m. EST I was interviewed on the Bert Lee Show KTKT-AM (Tucson, AZ). I had not been sought out by the radio station Ñ a very influential publicist had foisted me on its host. The latter's reaction was rage, and his goal to make me come to my senses. Why was he outraged? What I was saying ran counter to everything being said and implied by all civilized mankind, including the U.S. government, with its CIA, universities, and mainstream media. So the Western civilization was all insane on the issue of geostrategy, and I alone was sane? Who was I? The president of the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, which I co-founded in 1978 and which now does not have the money to pay its Chinese translators?

Possibly, the host would have called for psychiatric help, but much to his amazement, three out of the four callers said that I was sane, and it was the Pentagon, the CIA, and the mainstream media that were insane on the issue of geostrategy, that is, on the issue of survival of the West, for their insanity may end with the annihilation of the West.

George Noory was the opposite of that enraged KTKT-AM host. He was a highly intelligent, knowledgeable, and tolerant gentleman intellectual, helping me to present my view, which may be not politically correct, but who would listen to politically correct views by radio at 2 to 5 a.m. EST?

In their e-mails to me, many listeners to the ÒCoast to Coast AMÓ interview with me describe their astonishment, horror, and gratitude. At 2 a.m., owing either to insomnia or out of habit, they began listening to the interview, and what did they hear?

According to the U.S. government, universities, and mainstream media, there is only one military unpleasantness in today's world: several (usually two) soldiers of the Coalition are killed daily in Iraq. When that unforeseen mini-war is over, the other Òrogue-statesÓ are similarly pacified, and Islamic suicidal terrorism Òis eliminated,Ó mankind will live happily ever after, in an undisturbed world peace.

Now, what was I saying on ÒCoast to Coast AMÓ? Since 1986, Project 863 in China has been developing, in seven and then eight fields, post-nuclear superweapons, able to destroy Western means of nuclear retaliation and hence to annihilate the West.

ÒReduce it to nothing,Ó George Noory prompted.

ÒWell,Ó I said. ÒMolecular nano assemblers are expected to be able to reduce any substance to atoms. But, of course, molecular nano weaponry is only one candidate. Remember that Project 863 has been developing superweapons in eight fields.Ó

The first surge of resistance to this tragic, but not yet altogether belated, news is the a priori postulate, which George seemed to share: the United States is at least as advanced in any superweaponry as China. I said that I had refuted this a priori postulate in my NewsMax and WorldTribune column ÒWill Eric Drexler Save the West from Nano Annihilation?Ó

Drexler is the founder of nanotechnology, and he coined the word ÒnanotechnologyÓ itself. His book of 1986 (ironically the year when Project 863 was founded in China!) was subtitled ÒThe Coming Era of Nanotechnology.Ó In it, he described both creative and destructive possibilities of nanotechnology.

But the U.S. government has ignored Drexler and his research institution ÒForesightÓ because the U.S. government has ignored the geostrategic possibilities of molecular nano assemblers and the need for defense against them.

I should say that the U.S. government has been quite consistent. If the dictatorship of China is a peaceful manager of trade, of growth of prosperity in China, and of tourist attractions, the fact (described in the Chinese press) of the foundation of Project 863 in 1986 never was Ñ the Chinese press and the Chinese Internet have been hallucinating. But if China does not and will not develop molecular nanoweapons, who else does or will? Not the evil Saddam Hussein, found as a living corpse last December! Now, if no country does or will develop molecular nanoweapons, why should the United States invest billions of dollars in the development of them and of defense against them?

The supreme military need of the United States is to kill those Iraqis who kill several Coalition soldiers daily. Good pistols and rifles are the best or the only possible weapons in this case. Anyway, molecular nano assemblers or any defense against them will not help. So, why spend billions of dollars on them?

But if there is no government allocations in a certain military-scientific field, how can anyone expect its development?

To expect that Drexler on his own, without billions of dollars in government allocations, will develop molecular nano assemblers is the same as to have expected that Einstein on his own, without billions of dollars in government allocations, would develop nuclear weapons. All Einstein could do was to write a letter to Roosevelt to assure the U.S. president that the development of nuclear weapons (in Germany, for example) was possible, though many scientists, to say nothing of officials, contended that it was impossible.

Roosevelt ignored Einstein's letter. But the Jewish emigres found Òtheir manÓ in the White House who drew Roosevelt's attention to Einstein's letter. Roosevelt allocated Ñ $6,000 (!). The Manhattan Project could have started in 1938. It did not come into its own until 1942. It finally did, because the United States was at war with Germany, and Einstein's warning that Germany might develop nuclear weapons ahead of the United States could not be treated lightly.

As Barry Farber quipped during our program, in contrast to 1942, the United States is not at war, but at love, with China.

The history of the development of nuclear weapons makes nonsense of another aspect of the a priori postulate that any scientific research in any field is at least as advanced in the United States as in any other country.

Before Hitler came to power and the Jewish scientists like Einstein fled to the United States, nuclear physics was far more developed in Germany than in the United States. If not for Hitler's anti-Semitism, Germany would have developed nuclear weapons ahead of the United States without difficulty.

It is a childish ethnocentric self-deception to assume a priori that the United States is ahead of China in the development of all post-nuclear superweapons, even if the U.S. government has not allocated a cent on the development of, for example, molecular nano assemblers.

What was the reaction of ÒCoast to Coast AMÓ listeners in their e-mails to my tragic news? I will mention two kinds of responses.

(1)ÊÊÊÊDonations to our not-for-profit CSWD, Inc. Well, those listeners believe that if the U.S. government has not allocated and will not allocate a cent to the cause of survival of Western civilization, they, the Òordinary people,Ó should donate to it.

(2)ÊÊÊÊSome listeners assure me that I do not understand that, apart from legitimate U.S. institutions, such as ÒForesight,Ó headed by Eric Drexler, the founder of nanotechnology, there are ÒblackÓ institutions of which I do not even suspect. Thus, along with Drexler's ÒForesight,Ó ignored by the U.S. government financially, there is a ÒblackÓ molecular nano weapons institution on which billions of dollars are lavished by the U.S. government (or the ÒblackÓ U.S. government?) and which has, in its molecular nano assembler research, left that backward China far behind.

Eric Drexler is a man of genius who can be compared to Einstein. But according to these e-mails to me, in the magic world of ÒblackÓ institutions, Òeveryone is Einstein.Ó In the United States, you see, there has never been any dearth of Einsteins (or of Drexlers).

The belief in American Òblack institutionsÓ is not new. When I published in 1978 an article according to which the CIA was a hoax, and Ronald Reagan decided to create a new CIA, an editor of a major New York publishing house said to me that they would have published my book, based on the article, but the trouble was that the CIA I described WAS a Òhoax,Ó a Òsham,Ó created to mislead the Soviet and Chinese intelligence agencies, while hidden in the most secret depths was the real Ñ ÒblackÓ CIA, which was ubiquitous inside the most secret vaults and offices of Russia and China and hence omniscient.

I said to the publisher that in that case there must be the ÒblackÓ U.S. president, while the elected U.S. president must be a sham to mislead Russia and China.

After the sham U.S. president's sham speech, the ÒblackÓ U.S. president would crawl out in his ÒblackÓ Oval Office and say: ÒGood for you! Now the dictators of Russia and China are sure that the U.S. president is a fool!Ó

The Americans who believe in ÒblackÓ institutions actually envy a totalitarian dictatorship where anything and anyone can be deceptive fiction, while the realities are concealed.

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.

February 2, 2004

Print this Article Print this Article Email this article Email this article Subscribe to this Feature Free Headline Alerts


See current edition of

Return to World Tribune.com Front Cover
Your window on the world

Contact World Tribune.com at world@worldtribune.com