[Homestead] China, Sol Navrosov
tvoivozd at infionline.net
Mon Sep 20 17:59:15 EDT 2004
Littlle turgid but understandable---I appreciate his acknowledgment that
the Soviet Union in no way resembled any definition of Communism---that
was and remains a pejorative term used by Western Mythmakers with an
ideological catechism to follow.
The Soviet Union under Lenin was an oligarchy. Ten or fifteen years
later under Stalin it was a dictatorship. Whem Stalin died it was once
again an oligarchy---and in its later stages better defined as an
oligarchical kleptocracy where commissars looted state-owned business at
will, later confiscating the profitable ones by sweetheart deals with an
accomplice olihgarchy. Now under Putin the outlines are cloudy---Was a
sort of democracy when he took it over, now driifting back toward
dictatorship and relying on his old KGB cronies for staff work and
important governmental positions where he can rely on their
self-interest to be in lockstep with Putin---sounds like the recent Bush
record where kleptocracy has for four years has been in firm control of
the U.S. government and economy...
There's a strong Stalinist contingent in the Mainland Chinese government
and its military---Hu has as his principal objectives the reduction of
the rich-poor gap, reduction of official corruption---and a lot of other
things on his plate like the precipitous decline in China's ability to
feed itself, the terrible acceleration of environmental destruction. He
has to establish priorities with limited funds---nobody knows yet his
order of priorities----we will certainly find out in the next few years..
Stalinist China propaganda from a surprising source
<http://184.108.40.206/2004/l.html> 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. /
September 20, 2004
Established in Washington, D.C., in 1982, the Jamestown Foundation thus
defines its mission:
�The Jamestown Foundation's mission is to inform and educate policy
makers and the broad policy community about events and trends in those
societies which are strategically or tactically important to the United
States and which frequently restrict access to such information.�
The Foundation has e-mailed to me the Sept. 2 issue of its �China
Brief,� a �journal of news and analysis� re China.
Of the 3 articles in the issue I have found only one of interest to me,
judging by its title, �New National Strategy Provides Insight into
The word �rise� is as vague, propagandistic, and alien to English as the
Soviet Russian word �podyom,� which Mao took from his teacher Stalin and
had translated into Chinese as �rise.� The two authors of the �China
Brief article do not use even once the word �dictatorship� in
application to China. for in post-1949 China the form of government is,
you see, not dictatorship, but �true democracy,� as it was in Stalin's
A Chinese reader of my Internet column explained to me that in contrast
to Soviet Russia the leadership in China is collective.
Well, in Soviet Russia, when Lenin became incapacitated by his illness
and then died, the dictatorship was �collective� � it was an oligarchy,
and Stalin became a sole Mao-like dictatorship only 10 or 15 years
later. When Stalin died, an oligarchy again ensued. And so on up to
1991, when the dictatorship fell � if only for a while.
Avoiding such �bad words� as �dictatorship,� or even �oligarchy,� the
�In late July, the Politburo standing committee met for a study session
to consider ways to build a 'prosperous nation and powerful military. .
Then, in parentheses, follows the Chinese version of �prosperous nation
and powerful military.� It is clear what for. Exactly the same could be
said by Stalin in Russian (or in his native Georgian). But according to
the ritual of American university humanity scholarship, it is necessary
to drop Chinese words in �Chinese studies� as it was necessary to drop
Russian words in �Sovietological� scholarship, no matter how absurd, or
propagandistic, or shallow.
The question that the article answers: What is a more �powerful
military� for? Stalin answered �for peace�! And this is how the article
answers the question:
�While the idea that carrying a big stick gives a nation the ability to
negotiate peace on their own terms is not novel [no, it was proclaimed
by ancient empires, to say nothing of modern dictatorships], its
adoption by Chinese leaders potentially signifies a major departure for
Chinese national strategy, providing insight into a new phase of China's
development that will undoubtedly affect its international relations in
the post-cold war period.�
The article takes Taiwan as an example. If the People's Liberation Army
is powerful enough to �liberate� Taiwan, and deter the U.S.
participation in the defense of it, then the latter will PEACEFULLY
discard its wish to be independent of China. The same applies to Hong
Kong (or Tibet). See? The Politburo's increasingly �powerful military�?
This is all about peace and for peace.
Speaking of the United States or of the democratic West as a whole. When
the �powerful military� of China become powerful enough to annihilate
the West (by molecular nano weapons, for example), they will never start
a war (the idea!) if the West surrenders PEACEFULLY as did Japan when
two �atom bombs� were dropped on its two cities in 1945.
With the West as a colony of China, the advantages of this new peace (or
should I say �peaceful rise,� imitating the Pidgin English of the
article?) will be tremendous for China. The West will work for China as
for the most ruthless employer in the old times of unlimited
exploitation, and at the same time the United States will no longer
subvert, by its very fact of independent existence, any Chinese as it
happened on Tiananmen Square. Neither Taiwan nor Hong Kong (nor Tibet)
will be any problem henceforth. And the world PEACE will reign supreme,
for those countries that will challenge it will be offered PEACEFULLY to
surrender or face annihilation by the �big [nano] stick� of the Politburo.
Note that the word �buro� in �Politburo� is spelt in the article not in
the English way: �bureau,� but in the Russian way, �buro� as Stalin
spelt it and Mao followed. The political world of China is that of
Stalin's Russia minus Stalin's �world's most democratic general
elections.� The phrase �Communist China� is too general. The phrase
�Stalinist China� is more accurate.
Now, who are the authors of this �scholarly study�?
Zhu Feng is a �Chinese citizen� (not a Chinese dissident who has escaped
to the USA in search of freedom). He is a scholar at the Center for
Strategic (!) and International (!) Studies in Washington, D.C., AND a
professor in Peking University in the capital of Stalinist China. If he
knows nothing else about it, he does know that if he writes what runs
counter to the Stalinist Chinese propaganda, he will lose his Peking
University professorship � at the very best.
However, this knowledge may be quite subconscious. Consciously, he may
well believe that he is a free person in the world's freest country, as
Stalin's Russia was officially called. Many Chinese are no less na�ve
politically than were Russians in Stalin's Russia or than children under
Thus, on Sept. 5, Professor Jun Hu of the Shanghai Institute of Applied
Physics sent me an e-mail, protesting my mention, in the foreword to an
article by Robert Marlow in Nanotechnology Now
(http://www.nanotech-now.com], of Dr. Hu's nano-bio research as �a
supporting evidence for your points on 'China threat.'�
Dr. Hu says that already in January 2000 he and his team were �ahead of
other researchers in the world.� I have not read the final version of my
Foreword, but in general this is my point. If Dr. Hu could be in January
2000 ahead of the West (by years!) in nano-bio research, why could not
Stalinist China be ahead (by years!) in nano weapons research, for which
the Politburo of China can allocate any money without any legislative
body or any public notice?
Besides, whatever intentions of Dr. Hu have been, no one can vouch that
his world-leading nano-bio research will not be useful for the
development of post-nuclear superweapons. Many scientists who had
studied nuclear physics up to 1939 did not suspect that their studies
would lead to the development of nuclear weapons from 1939 to 1945.
The second author of the �China Brief� article under discussion is Drew
Thompson, who �worked� (?) in China �for 7 years in the 1990s,� but
�China Brief� does not say what his work was. If he writes, with Zhu
Feng, what runs counter to Stalnist Chinese propaganda, he will not be
allowed to re-enter China at the very best, which he knows, even if only
What is the role of such �Chinese studies�?
Outside universities, there has been the total oblivion of what was
still occasionally called in the 1990s �the China threat.� However, the
academic �China studies� have continued to exist, since the salaries are
paid, the social benefits are issued, the grants and endowments are
intact. Besides, some Americans, terrified by the general silence re
�the China threat,� express hope that at least �academic Chinese
studies� are not silent.
No, they are not. And as the �China Brief� of the Jamestown Foundation
indicates, they are engaged in Stalinist Chinese propaganda.
* * * * *
For more information about Drexler's Foresight Institute and its
lobbying in Congress, see www.foresight.org
To learn more about the Chris Phoenix report, suggesting a �nano
Manhattan Project,� go to crnano.org.
For information about the Center for the Survival of Western
Democracies, Inc., including how you can help, please e-mail me at
navlev at cloud9.net.
The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com. You can also request
our webmaster at levnavrozov.com to send you by e-mail my outline of my book.
It is my pleasant duty to express gratitude to the Rev. Alan Freed, a
Lutheran pastor by occupation before his retirement and a thinker by
vocation, for his help in the writing of this column.
/Lev Navrozov's (navlev at cloud9.net <mailto:navlev at cloud9.net>] new book
is available on-line at www.levnavrozov.com
<http://www.levnavrozov.com>. To request an outline of the book, send an
e-mail to webmaster at levnavrozov.com <mailto:webmaster at levnavrozov.com>. /
/September 13, 2004/
More information about the Homestead