Worldwide Web

  Commentary . . .

Lev Navrozov Archive
Thursday, February 3, 2011

Hu’s state visit: What if most Americans had voted for a Nazi sympathizer

Lev Navrozov emigrated from the USSR in 1972. To learn more about Mr. Navrozov's work with the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, click here.

The West noticed PRC only after the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy movement was drowned in blood by the dictatorship.


Also In This Edition

Everything confirmed the opinion that Mao’s brainchild had been working to convert its population, exceeding, for example, that of the United States by one billion people, into a power appropriating the world, given the scientific & technological means.

On Jan. 25, that is, about a week after the White House flamboyant reception of PRC dictator Hu, Obama delivered his televised State of the Union Address, which lasted over an hour.

But what had been going on during the week of Jan. 19, Hu’s arrival to the United States? Had Hu received all the accolades on the newest page of history: PRC and the White House of the U.S.A., fighting together to achieve their common goals?

In his State of the Union Address, Obama did not say a word about the events of that week.

His State of the Union Address was a speech — well, meant to be read by overzealous university students.

Well, here a reader might ask me, but, look, who have elected that Obama?

The answer is, he was elected by other Obamas, who account for a majority of the population of the United States. They did it once, and Obama is doing everything to ensure they pull it off again. He is already up and running, strategically calculating every move. During his recent trip to Wisconsin, he talked about winning the future: “Let’s get serious. We’ve got to up our game. No room for second place, we need to win the future. This is the place where the race for the 21st century will be won.”

The British have understood that the British prime minister (corresponds to the U.S. president) should be appointed and not “elected by the masses,” because “genius” is just one person, while a majority is mentally mediocre.

But since the separation from Britain received the fashionable revolutionary color, the separatists decided to prove that in contrast to Britain, every “leader” should be “elected by the people” even if those “people” could not read and write.

As a result of such “revolutionary election” of “leaders” by millions or dozens of millions of Obamas (“the people”), the United States will perish in wars with PRC (or on the side of PRC, as Obama would have preferred).

In our epoch of superweapons and superwars, it is especially dangerous to trust all leaders elected by unknown voters, nicknamed “the people.”

On Jan. 17, two days before Hu’s arrival to the United States, carried an article originally published by the Financial Times “Hu Questions Future Role of U.S. Dollar.” The article, in part, says that Hu Jintao has raised questions on the role of the U.S. dollar in the global monetary system on the eve of his state visit to Washington, saying that “the current international currency system is the product of the past.”

There has been a long argument between PRC and U.S.A. as to whether the global unit of financial exchange should remain the dollar or be replaced by the Chinese yuan.

In his State of the Union Address, Obama did not say a word about obvious advantages of the dollar.

So what’s the conclusion? PRC is not a “country” but a “continent,” whose population surpasses that of the United States by over a billion people.

Yet the friendship with PRC as played out by dictator Hu and U.S. President Obama may deprive the United States of allies it would otherwise have. The PRC will abandon the United States at the moment chosen as the most fatal for the U.S.A.

Unknown are the motivations of those who have been emigrating to the United States. Freedom? The definition of “civic freedoms” in contrast to just “physical freedom” can only be perceived by sufficiently sophisticated minds.

In other words, with his adoration of PRC, Obama is not an exception — he is an example of those Americans who may like the United States. But they like PRC more or at least as much, and nothing seems to them more welcome than the unity of the two countries.

In my previous columns, I wrote about the tremendous military potential of the PRC over that of the U.S.A.: one billion more people, who can be trained for the armed forces as well as in the field of science and technology for the production of superweapons.

But here yet another strategic advantage can be added: In PRC, any deviation from what has been ordered by the dictator is a crime punishable by torture to death, while in the United States, the population is free to sympathize with the PRC, a ruthless enemy of the U.S.A. and other free countries.

Imagine half of the population of the United States during WWII sympathizing with Nazi Germany and voting for Hitler’s supporter and friend to be the U.S. president. No less egocentric was the state dinner to honor Hu, Obama’s friend and the head of the PRC.  

Lev Navrozov can be reached by e-mail at To learn more about and support his work at the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, click here. For information about making a tax-exempt donation to the non-profit Center, send e-mail to


One reason that ultra-leftists admire and fawn over dictators is that dictators exercize the absolute control over their countries that ultra-leftists wish that they could. They need that absolute control in order to be able to make the proper decisions for the country, which they believe only they are intelligent enough to make. Ultra-rightests are really not very different. Ultra-leftists seem to single out economic groups to oppose, while ultra-rightests tend to focus on ethnic groups. However, they can love each other, and share their hatreds, when it suits them. Islamists love Hitler, because he killed Jews, notwithstanding that virtually all Islamists would not meet Hitler's racial purity tests. White supremicists love Hitler for the same reason as Islamists, but they would do away with the Islamists. In universities, the elite of academia love Islamists, but their real heroes are Che and Mao, both of whom did away with teachers in order to achieve their goals. People close to Obama, including some of his appointees, have made clear their admiration of Mao, the undisputed world record-holder for killing people. Which brings us to the question as to why Hu was given a State Dinner. The answer lies in looking at those who gave Hu the State Dinner. They would have given Mao a State Dinner, if he could have showed up.

Syd Chaden      2:53 p.m. / Friday, February 4, 2011

About Us     l    Contact Us     l     l
Copyright © 2011    East West Services, Inc.    All rights reserved.