Before Obama was elected as U.S. president, there had been an opinion that the U.S. population, with few exceptions, is patriotic and ready to sustain material sacrifices for the sake of saving their country. I asked several patriotic Americans why they voted for Obama: Because of the material benefits he promised to give them!
The freedoms of speech as well as other freedoms so dear to those who enjoy them and/or use them professionally may be considered useless to those who do not need these freedoms and who do not believe they are needed.
If the giant armies of the PRC take over the United States, the PRC may convince the Americans that their living standards will be rising (as Stalin kept convincing the Russian population, up to his death in 1953).
In other words, the PRC’s takeover of the United States will mean the conquest of the world, for which country will fight the PRC if the United States fails to defend itself?
To maintain the global order, the PRC will station their troops all over the world to keep an eye on all the conquered countries to ensure its domination.
Today, some Americans doing business with the PRC, seem to be convinced that their engagement with China strengthens international friendship and hence peace now and anon.
To sustain the above scenario, after the PRC conquers the United States, it will try easier cases, until the world will be safely in its powerful hands.
My question is, what is being done in the United States to prevent the PRC from taking over the entire globe? Nothing has been done with President Obama at the helm of the country. After Obama was elected, my column was headlined “Obama’s Deference to China Makes Him Unfit to Be President.”
But nothing has changed since then, while Obama may be re-elected for the second term.
Soon after I came to the United States, I knew that the danger to the existence of this country was coming from the communist China, and I wrote about it in newspapers and magazines, and I lectured on the subject to the eager university audiences all over this country as well as abroad.
Possibly more than 9/10 of the psychiatrically healthy American adults should not participate in the “general election” of the U.S. president because not all of them are born sufficiently intelligent to make the choice. The British understood this, and this is why they do not elect by general election their prime minister (who at least partially corresponds to the U.S. president); instead, they vote for the party to represent them in parliament.
In Britain, the head of a majority party, which receives most of the votes in the general election, becomes the prime minister, a person whose ideas are already known to his peers in parliament and who has already earned his reputation in parliamentary debates and proved himself to be one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable persons to be worthy to become the head of the British government.
The American Revolutionaries would have been shocked by the “bourgeois” slander of my contention that the psychiatrically healthy people differ in intelligence! This would have been perceived as an impudent bourgeois lie to condemn any attempt to proclaim mental equality of all “workers and peasants.”
But I still argue that not all psychiatrically normal people deserve equal privilege and the right to make a crucial choice in electing the president of the United States.
The books which were not accessible to me in Russia opened to me here in the West all the beauty of living in New York, as seen through the open windows of our 21st-floor apartment — a huge ballad, with lights rising to half of the sky, buildings, trees, street lights — and, of course, roads, with cars and trains running.
Well, I am getting lyrical. But I am still worried about the fate of this unique, trustworthy country, oblivious to the danger coming from the communist China.