The word "Communist" became generally known owing to Marx, Lenin picked it up, and Mao also stuck it onto himself and on his whole gang he came to call the "Communist Party."

By "Communism," Marx (and then Lenin) meant a world utopia, in which there would be no money and everyone would work without any remuneration to the best of his or her ability and get free of charge whatever goods and services he or she needed.   

What was the political system of Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, or Hitler's Germany? How do such societies originate?

Many people like to own property. The ownership of slaves reappears in history, though the word itself may change. By 1917 in Russia and by 1949 in China, the Russian and Chinese "proletarians" were to understand that they were poor because they were being robbed by their rapacious employers (capitalists or bourgeois), who were "overthrown" and replaced by the Communists, ready to live in poverty for the sake of their beloved "working class."

A weakness of this theory is that in 1989, that is, 40 years after the rapacious capitalists in China were replaced by the proletariat-loving Communists, the "working class" was even poorer than it was 40 years earlier.

The Tiananmen Square movement included many university students, who came to the Tiananmen Square, Beijing. The professed goal of the movement was democracy in China.

But after 40 years of their ownership of the country, could the owners of China become part of "the people"? They knew that apart from the Tiananmen Square gatherings, about 100 public protests occurred every year, but the owners of China successfully concealed them from the outside world.

On June 4, 1989, at 2:00 am, 300,000 soldiers of the People's Liberation [!] Army entered the Tiananmen Square (with tanks) and started what came to be called the Tiananmen Square massacre. The massacre became known throughout the world.

The owners of China concluded that the suppression of their slaves in China (one-fifth of the population of the globe) was more scandalous than the wars to conquer ("liberate") foreign countries.

The People's Liberation Army had been ordered to liberate (to shoot) all those democracy-seekers in Tiananmen Square. In charge of this liberation (shooting) was General Chi, who in 2005 said that in China's forthcoming war on the U.S.A, from 100 million to 200 million Americans would be poisoned and infected with mortal diseases.

A book published in 1999 and entitled "Red Dragon Rising" and subtitled "Communist China's military threat to America" carried on its cover a photograph of two gentlemen: one was General Chi (see above) and the other U.S. President Bill Clinton. Another photograph explained: "President Bill Clinton holds a White House meeting with People's Liberation Army General Zhang Wannian, whose 15 Airborne paratroopers mowed Chinese civilians during the Fourth of June, 1989, Tiananmen Square massacre."

In the book, witnesses recall that the People's Liberation Army killed on sight children of all ages, including a girl of five or so who was holding her mother's hand.

Let us see the Tiananmen Square massacre as a global event, since the population of China accounts for one-fifth of that of the globe.

On the eve of June 1989, the owners of China probably thought: "For quite a while we did nothing. If the Tiananmen Square movement spreads, it will come to power. That is, we will be deposed and killed. In the past 40 years, we did enough harm to be sentenced to death." In other words: "Full speed ahead! China should be more powerful than the U.S.A. We should liberate the U.S.A. We should liberate the world-for Communism."

Compare the pre- and post-1989 figures for China's military growth. You will see that a steep all-out military growth began in 1989 and has continued for 20 years.

It is not easy to defeat the free countries and establish the Chinese world empire. But it is more difficult to defeat the 1,331 billion Chinese slaves. Hence, since 1989, the do or die slogan of the People's Republic of China has been: the Chinese World Empire.

I receive many letters expressing my readers' appreciation of sounding an alarm in connection with the People's Republic of China, as this slave state calls itself. But a few letters express their authors' indignation that I upset them for no reason at all.

Let me recall George W. Bush's five years of war with Iraq (its population: 26 million, as against about 300 million of that of the U.S.A.). The only prize the U.S.A. won was a pair of shoes thrown by an Iraqi journalist at the U.S. President during his farewell visit to Iraq.

Freedom is great. But some of those living in freedom use it to keep their eyes closed to the mortal danger for the sake of not ruining their good mood. Remember those British prime ministers before Churchill? They were responsible for keeping their own good mood as well as the good mood of many English people, who had been assured that Hitler would not attack France and Britain. Actually, Hitler occupied France "with a lightning speed," and if it were not for Churchill as the Prime Minister and Hitler's war (finally lost) with Russia, the same fate could have befallen Britain.

The unwillingness to see the danger is not a source of safety, but rather is that of a fatal danger. Tireless efforts are necessary to anticipate that danger, while living comfortably with eyes shut to that danger ensures most pleasant life until the danger strikes to kill.

What is important to understand is that we are living in a strategically new epoch, which requires new geostrategic knowledge and new geostrategic thinking.