Which Is Stronger Militarily: A Free Country or a Slave State? 军事上专制国家强大还是自由国家强大？

那夫罗佐夫 引言： Words from Navrozov:

What is tragic is that I, an American since 1972, have never heard any top official or an officer explaining how to defend the United States against a “developed” China, and I have never heard that someone (a U.S. president?) has even tried to imagine how this can be done. --- Lev Navrozov

悲剧性的是：自从我在1972年成为一个美国人后，从来没有从美国的官方人士们听到过如何抵御一个发达强大的专制中国，也从来没有一个美国总统想像过一个发达强大的专制中国对美国的威胁并因此有所准备。 --- 那夫罗佐夫

www.kaichenblog.blogspot.com

Which Is Stronger Militarily: A Free Country or a Slave State? 军事上专制国家强大还是自由国家强大？



Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:42 AM

By: Lev Navrozov

Before the origin of Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany, all countries were divided into “developed,” that is, developed industrially (read: scientifically and technologically), and “backward,” that is, not developed industrially, but engaged in farming, ranching, and forestry, often not essentially different from what they were thousands of years ago.

Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany were changing this view. Germany was a Western country, once greatly respected for its music and philosophy. Yet it turned into an aggressive slave state, partly due to the Versailles Treaty, blaming exclusively Germany for World War I and making it virtually defenseless against Stalin’s Russia.

In 1917, Russia was considered a backward country: its annual output of steel was three million tons. But Stalin “put it through industrialization,” as a result of which its steel output surpassed that of the United States, and in World War II Stalin routed Hitler, who committed suicide.

A large population, as in China, was regarded in the West as a sign of backwardness: Britain routed China twice in the 19th century and forced it to abolish the prohibition to buy opium, while in the 20th century Japan was carrying out its successful conquest of China until Japan was defeated in World War II and surrendered after the United States “dropped atom bombs” on two industrial cities of Japan.

Today it can be said that the size of a country’s population is a measure of its possible military might. If this country is a slave state, its owners can transform (as Stalin had done by 1941, when Hitler invaded Stalin’s Russia) its hitherto non-industrial population into producers and users of modern weapons more quickly than a free country.

(1) Hence the first military advantage of China as a slave state. Its population of 1.331 billion, converted, at a low cost, into low-paid producers and users of modern weapons, will make it the world’s most powerful country.

General Chi Haotian’s projections of how his China will conquer first the United States and then all the other countries are not only propaganda to inspire Chinese for World War III, but also are realistic predictions. Unrealistic is the United States, whose presidents have been refusing to see a sinister present and an entirely possible future which General Chi Haotian has been describing at least from the year 2000 to 2009.

Such is an advantage of China as a slave state, which once was dismissed, owing to its huge agricultural population, as a “backward country.”

(2) The top owner of the slave state and his subordinates are interested in war of aggression, since all the property acquired thereby, which they will desire, will be THEIR property, and the war will be THEIR war. The defeat in war may result in their being executed by the victors. Recall the trial of the top Nazi officials after they were defeated in World War II, and Hitler had escaped the trial because he had committed suicide.

(3) As for the rank-and-file population, in a free country a certain part of it makes use of the privilege of freedom to live for himself/herself and, in particular, to avoid noticing the danger of a war to the country as a whole, as long as possible and then do for the victory as little as possible. In a slave state such a “living for himself/herself” is a heinous crime.

(4) The population of the free countries cannot expect any addition to their private property from defeating the slave state of China. Now, General Chi Haotian has explained in his speeches that up to two-thirds of the population of the United States (and other defeated countries) will be poisoned or infected by mortal diseases, and their homes and other property will be taken over by the new (Chinese) settlers as by the superior race.

(5) William Saffire seems to have been the first to reveal (in the New York Times) the news that a U.S. president can be a traitor with total immunity even if the country in question (China) was a growing danger to the United States.

(6) Now is the time to mention an advantage of the free countries.

The principle of freedom is that a human being is free to do anything except what harms other human beings, according to a legal judgment.

The principle of a slave state is that it evaluates every human being on its territory from the point of view of the interests of the slave state and arranges his/her existence accordingly. If he/she has, according to this evaluation, a value only as a menial worker, he/she must continue to do his/her menial job. If he/she would not, he/she was, in Stalin’s Russia, branded as a “parasite” and sent to a labor camp.

In Stalin’s Russia, Einstein would have found himself in such a camp because no one, except an equally great genius, could originally recognize him until he received, at the age of 43, a Nobel Prize (with an understated lame definition). But before Hitler turned Germany into a slave state, it was free enough to value Einstein (a Jew!).

Then he left Nazi Germany for the United States, where in his letter of 1939 he convinced President Roosevelt to start the development of the “atom bombs,” to be ahead of Nazi Germany and Japan. On the other hand, Hitler halted the development of “atom bombs” in Germany, and Japan proved to be far behind.

Thus Einstein, who initially was thought to be just crazy, saved the free world from a German or Japanese atomic conquest.

How will the United States be able to hold out against the slave state of China when the latter transforms its 1.331 billion people (plus those who will grow up during that transformation and minus children and invalids) into producers and users of its latest weapons?

I will try to answer this in my next column.

What is tragic is that I, an American since 1972, have never heard any top official or an officer explaining how to defend the United States against a “developed” China, and I have never heard that someone (a U.S. president?) has even tried to imagine how this can be done.

You can e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.