I came to America longing for freedom and now I’m getting Obama’s ‘revolution’
Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972. His columns are today read in both English and Russian. To learn more about Mr. Navrozov’s work with the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, click here.
By way of propaganda, in the early 1970s, the “Soviet Union” permitted several thousand of its inhabemigrated (with my family) to the U.S.A. because this is the most powerful of the free countries and hence most capable of survival, defending freedom anywhere in the world.
As far as freedom in the United States is concerned, I am not disappointed. Since the day of my arrival, I have been writing and publishing what I have wanted to. But will the U.S.A. be able to survive and defend freedom anywhere in the world?
America achieved Independence as a result of the war with England. The latter stopped the war, since in the 18th century it was impossible to deliver enough timely supplies to the British army across the Atlantic during the war. Ironically, the Atlantic and the Pacific have defended the U.S.A. in the 19th and 20th centuries as well.
Canada is not independent-it is part of the Commonwealth of Nations. But it is as free as the United States.
I still remember my surprise when I saw the engravings and cartoons of America at the time of its struggle for independence, with this inscription in the middle of them: “The American Revolution”. So it was a revolution! Against a British autocracy? So Britain remains a pre-revolutionary autocracy!
Here is a text from the Britannica article about how a British official named Winston Churchill, who described Nazi Germany as a mortal danger without any compromise or reservation. Here is my Britannica article (vol. 5, 750):
On May 10, 1940, with the news of the German invasion of the Low Countries, [Neville] Chamberlain [the Prime Minister], resigned . . . Chamberlain advised the king to call Churchill to be prime minister.
In the U.S.A., the president is elected by a majority of all psychiatrically normal adults who want to vote for him. Thus, President Obama was elected possibly because those who favored his healthcare program constituted sufficiently many extra voters for him (while my neighbor called it scornfully “socialism”).
In any case, possibly none of those who voted for Obama and least of all Obama himself have spoken about the “People’s Republic of China” the way Churchill spoke about “National-Socialist Germany.”
So instead of the American Churchill of today to be in charge of the survival of the U.S.A., elected was a young man who called the U.S.A. a “partner” of the “People’s Republic of China,” which killed several times more people without any legal process than did Hitler’s “National-Socialist Germany.”
The expected Obama’s “revolution,” evidently to change the Constitution, possibly aims ultimately at absolutism inside the U.S.A. with him as the permanent dictator, subservient to the “People’s Republic of China.”
Here is another important fact in the survival of a country versus its non-survival or death:
I do not know of a single American who has heard of Chi Haotian, the Minister of National Defense of China up to 2003 (he is now 80 years old), who has read his explanations as to why China should annihilate the U.S.A. and lead the world before the U.S.A. tries (of which Chi was convinced) to annihilate the People’s Republic of China.
What about the U.S. universities, which produce more professors and other degreed graduates per one million inhabitants than the universities of any other country?
Way back in 1987, Allan Bloom, a “professor of social thought” of the University of Chicago, published a 392-page book entitled The Closing of the American Mind and subtitled How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students.
My question is: If this is what higher education in the U.S.A. has been doing, how is Allan Bloom or his books or his University of Chicago different and why?
Social thought or any other thought may be a thought of a person of genius or a cliché.
My uncle Yakov Mints used to publish in Russian and in French a magazine entitled Genius and Insanity. According to the studies in the magazine, no one except another genius can tell the difference between genius and insanity, since both may be equally beyond the understanding of anyone except another genius. Let us recall Einstein (1879-1955). Who understood his thought, when he expressed it, that there is no time in general, since every point of space has its own time?
It may also be relevant to note that it was Einstein who drew the attention of President Roosevelt in 1939 to the probability of the production of nuclear bombs by Nazi Germany.
What if Hitler was smart enough first to produce (secretly) atom bombs and then attack England, the U.S.A., and Russia. They would have surrendered as did Japan to the U.S.A. after the latter’s nuclear strike.
But how has Allan Bloom contributed to the “opening of the American mind” and has otherwise been the opposite of today’s American “higher education” he criticizes on the 392 pages of his book? Displayed on the first (unnumbered) front matter page are the titles of his own four books. The first book is Plato’s Republic (translation and editing), the second book is the translation and editing of Politics and the Arts: Rousseau’s Letter to d’Alembert; the third book is the translation and editing of Rousseau’s Emile, and the fourth, Shakespeare’s Politics. Is this not “academic education” at its most conventional, trite, and belated?
Predictably, I have on my shelves The Republic of Plato, translated by Francis Cornford (Trinity College, Cambridge), and published by the Oxford Universitiy Press in 1941, 1945, and 1973. So what should a reader like me do? To read Allan Bloom’s translation, as superior to Cornford’s? What if I found Plato’s book of little interest despite all the worship of him in Western “academic education” for many centuries?