Table of Contents
Introduction: The Socialists’ One-Hundred-Years War On America, 1917–2017
The Epilogue -- But Not the Final Chapter
2. War Creates the Opportunity to Expand the Revolution
3. Boys with $5 Billon Seed Money
4. The Commissariat for Investing in Capitalism
5. From Strategy of Envy to Fear of Weather
6. An Energy Conservation Strategy Inspired in a Hot Tub
7. Is Smoke from the Bohemian Club Still Legal?
8. October 18, 2007, Conference at Newport Beach
9. Political Correctness Poisons Civilizations
10. Senator McClintock Describes California’s Suicide
11. Socialism Fails in America
12. Watermelons Learn About the “Virtue of Poverty”
13. Eco-Imperialists’ Church of Climate Change
Part Two: The Future
14. On Quantum Politics: Right and Wrong Are Dead
15. Introduction of the American Left
16. The Great Deception: Reds Become Greens
17. The Passengers in the Old Gulfstream Five
18. The Source of California’s Wealth Mystifies the Left
19. A 747 Eastbound over the Pacific Ocean
20. New Age Marxism Takes a Foothold in America
21. Multiculturalism Divides the American Nation
22. Culture Is Not a Civilization
THE SOCIALISTS’ ONE-HUNDRED-YEARS WAR ON AMERICA, 1917–2017
It was very dangerous to be alive during the twentieth century. Nazis and assorted Fascists killed many millions simply on the basis of race. But the Reds outdid them all by a factor of ten. They killed about one hundred million people simply for saying something, for speaking out. Indeed, life in any of the People’s Republics was quite unsafe for anybody who practiced free speech. Criticizing the ruling Communist Party was simply not allowed, and if you did not know who was listening, your politics could become a very dangerous activity indeed. One soon learned that survival depended on knowing the secret code that identified who in the group was the Party member and how dangerous he was. The code classified Party members into tomatoes, radishes, and watermelons. Tomatoes, red inside and outside, were a danger, but known. Radishes, who were only red on the outside, were harmless. Watermelons, however, were deadly; green outside, red inside.
After having some success with spreading Communism from Moscow beyond Eastern Europe into small, distant countries such as Cuba, Nicaragua, Angola, Korea and Vietnam, the Party realized that it wais the United States of America that stood in the way of its total domination of the world. More than that, there were some signs indicating that America might even endanger the Communist domination where it already existed.
When the poor of the world started to vote with their feet—many millions abandoning Communism and joining Capitalism even by risking their lives—the Party needed a new strategy. It turned from Red to Green, and today, watermelons-flavored politicians already rule America’s east and west coasts.
This is a story that spans one century, from 1917 to 2017. From 1917, the year of the Soviet Revolution, nine decades of historical facts and extrapolations provide data for the fiction and projections of the final decade that ends with the year 2017. It describes how we got there and what can happen to the whole world if the watermelons end up ruling America.
Berkeley and Oakland
THE EPILOGUE -- BUT NOT THE FINAL CHAPTER
One hundred years after the Soviet Revolution
Mexico City International Airport. It was a crisp and clear Christmas day of the year 2017 in Mexico City. What a difference from the smoggy days of the previous century when citizens of Mexico City could not decide whether to walk with their eyes open or shut. Now the air was as pure as in the days of Montezuma. Today, it was so clear that one could see, a few moments ago, a small black dot descending against the background of the white snowy slopes of Popocatepetl volcano.
Three minutes later, the dot became a Grumman Gulfstream Five jet. It dropped from the sky, leaving behind a thin trail of haze from its two engines, and hit the runway like a rock. Captain Roger Leach reversed the thrust. The two engines screamed bloody murder for a moment—“don’t do this to us, Roger; we are old and fragile and about ready to fall apart.” But they did not. In a moment, the engine noise was replaced by the quiet thumping of tires on the extra-long runway, seven thousand feet high, on the twentieth parallel.
The ancient G-Five had just performed another perfect landing. In less than a minute, it was rolling toward the newest architectural wonder, the place the whole world was talking about: the imaginative, new International Airport and Resort of Mexico City.
Mexico was no longer the poor neighbor of the wealthy Estados Unidos up north. It was now the second richest country in the Northern Hemisphere, right after Russia. Some said, even ahead of Russia. Mexico had oil; it had sunshine; it had nuclear power; and above all, it had an abundance of educated people. And the biggest surprise to all who remembered the dusty old Mexico: It had water.
Mexico showed the world that water could not be destroyed, no matter what you did to it. It was the best renewable resource. Water, water was everywhere, and the new airport was there to show it. Beautifully channeled through shallow canals lined with mosaic tiles, water flowed through the gardens of orchids and cascaded down along the escalators. Mexico City not only had the most beautiful air terminal in the world, but it was also a first-class resort. American tourists would fly there for Kwanza vacations, after ACLU managed to get Christmas outlawed because it contained God.
Mexicans still called their northern neighbors gringos, but few knew why. Some thought it was because in the old days they paid for their vacations with green money. Those days were now gone. Some gringos had managed to convert their dollars into pesos and open secret bank accounts in Mexico just before the United States went Socialistic. Only they could still afford vacations in Mexico—if the government would let them travel out of the country. Generally, Americans were not allowed to travel much anymore. The State Department kept tight control over emigration. Too many Americans simply went abroad and remained there, having had enough of Socialism.
Five years earlier, the “World’s Smartest Woman” won the presidential election on the Green Democrat—sometimes called the “Watermelon”—platform. She easily defeated the one-term Eco-Republican president about whom most people said he did more damage to America than Carter.
“Tax the rich until there’s no more rich” was her brilliant slogan, a path to power invented by the progressive politicians who saw the National Science Foundation 2003 report that 50 percent of Americans could not tell how long it takes for the earth to circle once around the sun. This was the signal that public schools had accomplished their mission. It worked for Lenin too, with the dumb Russian peasants. Indeed, the Green and Peace slogans had great appeal among the dumbed-down population.
“We do not want to be the only superpower,” declared the first woman president of the United States during her first executive order as the commander in chief. To get even with the marines, who rejected her application during her early twenties, she demilitarized America and created the Virtual Armed Forces to the delight of the Chinese computer video games industry.
Next, the greenback, “this symbol of Imperialism,” was taken out of circulation, much to the dismay of some billion people all over the world who had their dollars stashed away as their “golden reserve.” The reference to In God We Trust was just too much for the new government officials. The States became a cash-less society, run by the massive computer networks that kept record of everybody’s consumption. In 2013, America added this statement to its “living” Constitution: “from everybody according to ability to everybody according to need.” The word need made consumption-recording legal. It was no longer unconstitutional for the state computers to know who was where and when.
The greenback was now out. Food stamps replaced money, and government-issued credit cards were used for everything else. At the end of each month, each citizen received a Statement of Consumption over the Internet. A green screen popped up if consumption was acceptable; yellow was a warning, be careful; and if red showed, expect a visit from the consumption police. The blue screen continued to be reserved for “critical system failure.”
Being Green was now even more fashionable—especially if you were also anti-nuclear. By the time most voters noticed that the Greens, or actually the Reds, were running the government, it was too late. America was a nuclear-free zone from the Canadian border to Mexico. First, all the remaining nuclear power plants were closed. The president nationalized electricity producers and fixed the retail price. “We will make power affordable … to the people,” she said. The United States was soon buying electricity for a higher price from Mexico and Canada than it sold it to its customers. A financial disaster had to follow.
This was just a sign of the things to come. When something is cheap or free, people use more of it. The new parameters in the Constitution of the Socialist America, so carefully resurrected from the ashes of the Soviet Empire by the best progressive professors from Harvard to UCLA, did not create conservation. On the contrary, they created waste, and with waste came shortages—shortages of everything, including government revenues. The more the government raised taxes, the less people wanted to work. Each increase of taxes on the “rich” was followed by a corresponding decrease of private investments. Jobs dried up, and the government had to step in with work projects. For that, they had to increase taxes, or borrow money. And the vicious spiral thus began.
But from where to borrow? It was a custom during the twentieth century that any country that went broke, from Argentina to Zimbabwe, simply asked the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank to come to the rescue. Or better, one could ask the United States for foreign aid, and one would usually get it. Or best, declare a war on the USA, lose it, and America would rebuild your country.
All these solutions now collapsed. America, the main contributor to the pot of money in the IMF and the World Bank, was broke. Where could the American president go now to ask for a loan? This was the problem that laid heavily on the World’s Smartest Woman, the first woman president of the United States of America.
This was the reason why today the Virtual Air Force One presidential jet descended into Mexico City carrying on board the World’s Smartest Woman and two not-as-smart government officials.
Theirs was the last attempt to salvage the doctrine of Socialism that had begun one hundred years ago in St. Petersburg by two fellows named Lenin and Stalin. Their October Revolution of 1917 was so successful that each one named a city after himself. Oh, how the power hungry around the world envied their power! Alas, by 1995, Leningrad and Stalingrad were renamed back to St. Petersburg and Volgograd, respectively. The Russians had had enough Socialism. Not only in Russia; Socialism was dead in all the countries that had tried it.
But one. There was one more try.
Lenin insisted that the nineteenth-century revolutions were not successful because they were joint movements of the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Lenin was wrong; with some help from rich America, all proletarian revolutions of the twentieth century failed too because the poor do not create jobs. Thus, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, many American Marxists diagnosed that Socialism could succeed only if given enough money. Enough power-hungry American rich agreed, and the international Socialist movement, the haven for former communists, found its way into the United States of America.
The United States Congress was no exception. At least 55 members of the House of Representatives were members of the Progressive Socialists Caucus. Among them was Nancy Pelosi who became the Speaker of the House in 2007. She applied the totalitarian principle to the governing, once only seen in the “one-party democracies”, by shutting down the Congress to prevent the vote on oil drilling. No stranglehold of American economy could have been more effective. Why?
PART ONE: THE PAST
The Proletariat Share the Shortages
1919, Post-revolutionary Soviet Union
The Communist victory of October 1917 had been consolidated. The revolutionary leaders now enjoyed all the luxuries of the czar of Russia. Not so the proletariat. Though this was the revolution of the proletariat, there were simply not enough palaces to divide among the peasants. To do something for the peasants, the revolutionary leaders executed the czar and his family.
Russia was now ruled by the revolutionaries who made it happen. Lenin and the whole Central Committee of the Communist Party occupied the golden halls of the Kremlin. From there, they planned to spread their revolution all over the world. They had absolute power in their hands, and some actually believed that the workers’ revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat would produce something close to paradise on earth.
They failed miserably. Less than a century later, their names were lying on the dust heap of history. But they would not be forgotten yet. They may have been dead, but their ideology and thirst for power lived on.
Very few children born into the twenty-first-century Capitalist life of luxury and ever-increasing abundance could imagine the misery that these names caused to several hundred million people who lived during the twentieth century.
History was about to repeat itself. The Comintern plan, laid out one century ago, could still succeed. The plan intended to install one world Soviet Communist government based on “from everyone according to his ability to everyone according to his need.” This Marxist principle of operations would restore to the unsuspecting world of the twenty-first century all the miserable shortages known to peoples in Communist countries during the twentieth century. Never mind that to date not one university professor of Marxism had yet been able to explain who decides how to measure your “ability” and how important your “need” is. But you could be sure it was not up to you to decide, for that would be Capitalism.
The Comintern plan, the logical fulfillment of the Communist Manifesto of 1848 took a whole century to hatch and received over time such a transformation that even its parents, the delegates to the Communist International, would not recognize it. Lenin was determined to foment socialist revolution throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
The Comintern was an international Communist organization founded in Moscow in March of 1919. Communist International proclaimed to fight “by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international soviet republic.”
To the principal leader, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the objective, to spread the Socialism all around the world under the guise of proletarian revolution, was clear from the start, but how to reach it was not. “Use all available means” was the best Lenin could come up with. Refinements will come later.
“Lie, cheat and steal, kill if necessary.”
And then Lenin showed his long vision into the future: “If you run out of proletariat, make it; create welfare recipients.”
Initially, the planning process was not too secret. The Comintern held seven World Congresses, the first in March 1919, and by 1928, it was estimated that the worldwide membership counted five hundred thousand members excluding its Soviet membership.
The Comintern proclaimed that the Capitalist system was entering the period of final collapse and that as such, the correct stance for all Communist parties was that of a highly aggressive, militant, ultra-left line. In particular, the Comintern described all moderate left-wing parties as “Social Fascists” and urged the Communists to devote their energies to the destruction of the moderate Left.
“Go from country to country. Lie. Promise you will tax the rich until there are no more rich.“ Lenin winked to the comrades in the front row where several French and Polish delegates sat “… The poor will think they will get the riches, but no, do it like we did it in Russia.”
And not to be misunderstood, he turned to the large group of German Communist leaders: “But don’t tell them that we only attained equality here by making everybody equally poor rather than equally rich … You want especially the greedy, lazy suckers to think they will all be rich without working. They will vote for you in masses. Promise general welfare; promise health plans; promise free food, vacations, and family leave. But always remember, ‘to everyone according to his need.’ Then infiltrate one left-wing party after another. Lie more, blame the rich, and they will elect you. Remember, the poor countries will be easy. Then take over the governments. By force if necessary.”
Lenin was a good strategist and knew his enemies. “Then comes your big task—America. Everybody in America is rich. There are two kinds of Americans. Some are rich because they worked for it, and others are rich by being lucky. Don’t bother with Republicans. They worked for their money. Go after Democrats; many inherited their money or earned it without much work as attorneys or actors or by marriage. They feel guilty and are perfect candidates for our useful idiots program. Get them to our side, and we’ll control the world!”
Lenin wanted to add “and then we’ll shoot them,” but he thought it was redundant anyway.
Soon after that, Lenin died. Stalin took over. He realized that Capitalists were not fools. They simply would not let Comintern take over their countries just because they had some slick propaganda and could organize a sequence of proletarian revolutions.
The plan required more finesse, but finesse was not Stalin’s forte. He liked the opposite: the heavy hand. And thus, in 1932, special sections were established in many national Communist parties with the purpose of keeping complete records of all party activists. Detailed questionnaires had to be completed by all the leaders and sent to Moscow. The French Communist Party alone sent in more than five thousand dossiers before the 1941 war.
Now the Comintern had become thoroughly bureaucratized and fully under Stalin’s control. The members’ discipline became incredibly strict. Anyone suspected of a minor error was “invited” to visit the Soviet Union, most often for health reasons. Alas, most did not appreciate Moscow’s “weather.” Their health deteriorated, and they never returned to their home country. Many of them died there from other complications. Yet, to this day, American Liberals claim that the USSR had the best medical care in the world. We have proof, they say, just like in Cuba today.
Stalin’s purges of the 1930s decimated Comintern activists who were “living” in the USSR. Clerks were no exception, 133 out of the Comintern staff of 492 being victims. Several hundred German Communists and anti-Fascists who had fled from Nazi Germany were killed, and more than one thousand were handed over to Germany.
One, Leopold Trepper, recalled those days: “In house, where the party activists of all the countries were living, no-one slept until 3 o’clock in the morning. Daily, exactly at three o’clock the car lights began to be seen, we stayed near the window and waited where the car stopped.”
Hundreds died in labor camps. The leaders of the Indian, Korean, Mexican, Iranian, and Turkish Communist parties were executed. Only two German Communist leaders survived; one was Walter Ulbricht, who ran East Germany until the fall of the Berlin Wall. Out of eleven Mongolian Communist Party leaders, only one survived.
The iron-clad party discipline was thus established.
War Creates the Opportunity to
Expand the Revolution
1945, Eastern and Central Europe
At the start of World War II, the Comintern supported a policy of non-intervention, arguing that this was an imperialist war among various national ruling classes, much as World War I had been. Not to be outdone and as a friendly gesture to each other, Stalin and Hitler divided Poland fifty-fifty. However, when the Soviet Union itself was invaded in June of 1941, the Comintern switched its position to one of active support for the Allies. The Comintern was subsequently officially dissolved in 1943, for working with Capitalists did not fit its platform. But not for long. It was secretly revived four years later, with the same objectives: to create one world government to rule one global Soviet state. But without the help of American wealth, many things went wrong.
After the demise of the USSR in 1991, no records of the Comintern plan were ever found. Although many members of the Central Committee who had heard something about how America would be taken over with help from within were still alive, only some glimpses could be found in the files that the KGB meticulously kept on President Ronald Reagan. These files miraculously ended up in the Hoover Library at Stanford University. From these and the events of the twenty-first century, the story that follows could be extrapolated.
One thing is certain; at the end of World War II, the Soviet leaders saw the enormous surplus of everything that America was able to produce during the short four years. And then, in a gesture that stretched communists’ credulity, America gave it away to any country that asked for it. Of course, all the Communist countries were ordered by Moscow to decline it, for it would show to the newly enslaved nations the real difference between American and Soviet aid.
Stalin now realized that their global plan, the Comintern plan, could only succeed if it was planted to grow in the fertile grounds of Capitalist countries. How? Certainly not by engaging proletariats and peasants. America had too few left, the Comintern concluded. From the events that followed, we can now imagine what were Lenin’s words that inspired the plan to conquer the world:
”First, don’t forget to create a welfare class to replace proletariat. You will need them to vote for you. Next increase the government in all directions. These are your employees, apparatchiks, they work for you. Then demand protection money from businessmen like gangsters do. That’s why you have apparatchiks. Their money you will need for propaganda.
“Get your people to small public offices, such as school boards. Then tell schools what to teach and order media what to write,” wrote Lenin. “For that, you will need to buy a lot of people and need a lot of money. Where do you get it? America is full of the useful idiots who feel guilty for being rich. They will not openly give you their money, but will do their damn best to make sure it will come to you.
Boys with $5 Billion Seed Money
1947, Kremlin Palace
It was the summer of 1947, and the crops failed again in the Soviet Union. No excuse was possible, blaming neither Hitler nor Roosevelt, not even Churchill. Stalin called to his ornate office, from where czars ruled for centuries, two of his closest financial advisors: Lavrenty Beria, who ran NKVD (later renamed KGB), and Lazar Kaganovich, minister of industry.
“You are both Jews and understand Capitalist finance better than the rest of the muzhiks with dense minds full of mashed potatoes that sit on my cabinet.”
Both fellows smiled nervously. “Da, Comrade Stalin.”
Stalin continued speaking through his teeth, which held his pipe. “I am tired of having to tell the party to divide the shortages among the peasants. I’ll just have them shot if they cannot grow more food.”
It was really pretty embarrassing. People were starving in all of the People’s Republics, including the victorious Russia. In Ukraine, the former breadbasket of Europe, people were simply dying of hunger. They were used to it … just like the thirties, they said. But anyone younger than twenty learned in school that this was Amerikanski propaganda. Workers there starve too. All of the Eastern European nations from Poland to Albania stopped producing food, and the always food-rich Hungary barely fed its own people. The children in potato-growing regions of Yugoslavia were sent to the fields to collect the Colorado potato beetles that were eating up even the few potato fields that were planted. They were told that American planes were air-seeding the Colorado potato beetles at night to ruin the Socialist economy.
The war was over, and Stalin’s power was paramount. He was God. Having flunked the divinity studies (like Al Gore decades later), he actually believed his was the supreme force (like Al Gore later), sort of Mother Nature with a mustache. There was no way to blame the gods of rain or any such thing. Stalin was the end of the road, and there was no god above him. It would have been an easy way out to blame God, but by now, people had been told over and over again there was no God. The dialectic materialism of Marx, Engels, and Lenin was the religion. It was a credible ploy; how can there be a God when you cannot see it?
Stalin filled the godless void; he called himself generalissimo. Indeed, as a general of all generals, he was supreme. He outsmarted Roosevelt so to give to the Soviet Union control of half of Europe. Even Churchill could not prevent this foolishness. But he had not, like Roosevelt and his trusted aide Alger Hiss, been reading the New York Times and its Pulitzer Prize reporters, whom the NKVD led by the nose. They were reporting such wonderful things from Moscow! Now that the danger from the West had turned into admiration, the time had come to consolidate his power at home. Stalin knew the first rule of party discipline well: Heads must roll. The more, the better, and people will believe.
Hundreds of revolutionaries’ heads rolled. But Kaganovich knew that rolling more heads would accomplish nothing on the world scale. He had a sharp and courageous mind. “We need to do it like Capitalists do it.”
With that pronouncement, Beria stood up, reached into the pocket where he kept his pistol, and was prepared to arrest his colleague on the spot, but Stalin waved him off and turned to Beria, “Explain yourself, tovarishch Lazar Moiseyevich .”
“Comrade Vissarionovich ,” started Kaganovich, also addressing Stalin with his family name. Stalin was the name Josip Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili gave to himself during the revolutionary period, just like Vladimir Ilyich became Lenin and Josip Broz became Tito.
“Comrade Stalin, we have structured the organization to rule the world, the Comintern. We are halfway there, but we will not succeed unless we conquer the Capitalist countries, especially America.”
“They are the ones that can produce food,” continued Kaganovich, “not just food. Remember the fifteen million pairs of boots they sent when Hitler attacked us? They produced more DC3 airplanes than we produced tanks. They produce Packard cars that we copied to hand-make our twenty official limousines. But what do we really have? We parade our ballet and opera, but these were all created before our glorious revolution. Even Pavlov got his Nobel Prize in 1909. No, tovarischi, we must do something to copy the Capitalists. The only way that we can conquer them is to beat them at their own game, making money.”
Beria saw in Stalin’s eye a spark of agreement. He put the pistol back into his jacket pocket.
“Let me propose a plan that will be so secret and so effective that Capitalists themselves will help it succeed. ”
Stalin got up, stuffed his pipe, and commanded, “Proceed, tovarishch. Every plan that you have ever proposed could have been created by the devil himself.”
Yes, the reference to the devil was still politically correct, for he presented no competition. So, Kaganovich began: “Here is what we do. We select five hundred young fellows, seventeen or eighteen years old, Jewish if possible, with the highest scholastic credentials. They can be Russian, Polish, Hungarian, or Romanian. Then we send them to the West to their best schools of business. Let’s pick some for now: London School of Economics, Columbia University, Yale, Stanford. Why the best? For, when each boy graduates and finds employment in financial markets, we will send to each ten million dollars to invest on behalf of the Party. My friend Beria’s agents can handle that part well. The financial secrecy assures us that nobody will know whose money it is. We have some eighty billion dollars in gold to use. Why not put it at risk? Some will fail, certainly. But some will succeed, wildly. They will become respected financial personalities with access to the most influential politicians. And with the money, we can finance media, elections, demonstrations, even academics.”
Stalin closed his eyes. That was his way to think—not to look at other people’s eyes, not to check for affirmative or counter views of others. Stalin was a one-man show. When he was making a tough decision, it was his and his alone. After five minutes of total silence, he opened his eyes.
“Ochen harasho, comrades, let Comintern develop the plan, but in total secrecy. Nobody but the Central Committee must know about the investment money. All must think it is a great plan of providing the best youth in our Socialist countries to learn about the evil methods of Capitalist business. Some people out west will doubt our good intentions. They will say, ‘But how can a seventeen-year-old get to London, tovarishch Vissarionovich?’ Borders are closed so tight that not even a mouse can escape, and people who try, we shoot. And then, ‘Who pays for living expenses and tuition?’ they will ask. ‘Something is fishy here.’ So, Lavrenty, it’s up to your organization to keep this ultrasecret by explaining it away in such an innocent way that your friends, the useful idiots who are professors at foreign universities and journalists in Western media, will buy it completely.“
Stalin certainly knew whom to depend on then. Lenin told him some thirty years earlier whom to recruit: First get the media; then get the teachers; then get the useful idiots. Results came sooner than expected. In 1930, he learned that the Central Committee knew that the propaganda was beginning to work when an aged Californian writer and editor, Lincoln Steffens, returned from a trip to the Soviet Union, declaring, “I have been over into the future, and it works.” Soon after, a New York Times reporter, Walter Duranty, received a Pulitzer Prize for his 1931 series of enthusiastic articles about the Soviet Union. The reports were later totally discredited as Soviet propaganda, but when the Pulitzer Prize stood, this was good news for the KGB: “We are doing better than we thought.” Others followed, mostly useful idiots, but no American politician was yet converted to Leninism. For this, Stalin knew, more money was needed, and he had to get his own team together first.
The Commissariat for Investing in Capitalism
1950, Kremlin office complex
The heavy office door in one of the least attractive buildings of the Kremlin displayed a sign in very small gold letters only for a few hours and then it was removed. It read: контора для финансовохозяйственный инвестировать 
Stalin had scheduled the meeting here twice and cancelled it both times. He could not decide who would be the three best brains to run the ultrasecret Commissariat. He was investing half of the party’s gold. Some three thousand tons of it would be converted into Capitalist securities and other financial instruments and controlled by the Commissariat of Financial Investments, KOFINT for short.
KOFINT would operate from two well-hidden offices in the NKVD block 7, on the top floor with a view of block 5, the so-called Investigative Prisons Department, and a glimpse of the river Moskva; just to remind them that there was a real life out there.
Stalin seldom tested his thoughts on others, but this time, he asked two KGB agents from the coding section that was located nearby if they could break the meaning of KOFINT. Their reaction was swift: “Da, da, Comrade Secretary General … no decoding was needed; we saw the new sign on the door, the контора для финансовохозяйственный инвестировать.”
It was a fatal reply. A different code name was needed, and the two KGB agents were assigned immediately to Mexico where the KGB already had experience with liquidating Trocky.
ULTRA! The thought flashed behind Stalin’s low forehead; he remembered how the KGB was baffled for many years about what ULTRA was, so Stalin decided on the code name ULTRA. Not really original, he said to himself. Let Churchill’s boys think we have cracked some code or whatever.
ULTRA was the name Winston Churchill gave to the super-secret cryptographic machine and decoding algorithm with which the British were able to decode top secret radio messages of the German High Command during World War II. Thus, until Hitler’s final days, ULTRA was responsible for many Allied military victories. But ULTRA’s effectiveness would have turned into dust the moment the Nazis got the slightest suspicion that their high-command messages were decoded and read in London. To protect the secrecy was not enough. Winston Churchill added a security level that no other secret had. He surrounded the secret with “the bodyguard of lies.” Now Stalin would do no less.
Then he asked that a form letter of appointment be typed.
“Comrade … ” read the five identically terse memos typed on an Underwood typewriter using red ribbon, “you have been chosen by the Secretary General of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to be one of the three members of the project ULTRA.”
The letter continued: “YOU MUST TREAT ALL MATTERS CONCERNING PROJECT ULTRA AS THE ULTIMATE AND PARAMOUNT PARTY SECRET.
“You are ordered to report on … at 19:00 hours at the work offices of ULTRA in block 7A, NKVD headquarters. There you will meet with me and the other members of the ULTRA directorate.”
It was signed, “Secretary General, Communist Party of the Soviet Union …”
Stalin penned in the names on the red forms. Only three, not five. He decided to add Molotov and kept the original two, Kaganovich and Beria.
“The foreign minister must know what we are doing. We cannot hide this from him.“
Stalin was already having some doubts about Molotov. Vyacheslav had been spending too much time in world capitals and had become accustomed to the good life of the Capitalist bourgeoisie. “If he becomes a problem, we can always send him to govern Kamchatka” was Stalin’s final thought as he handed the three orders to his aide, Nikita.
From Strategy of Envy
to Fear of Weather
Around 1952, New Plan to Rule the World
The four highest-ranking leaders of the Soviet Union—Stalin, Beria, Kaganovich, and Molotov—sat down around the heavy, golden rococo table with a magnificent multicolored inlaid marble top. Many years ago, when this table was given to Catherine the Great by her finance minister Potemkin, the Great Catherine immediately rubbed the marble to see if the paint would come off. It did not. She hadn’t trusted Potemkin since he fooled her with movable village scenery. This was the point now that Stalin wanted to make: We are talking here real money, not some inflated rubles, worthless promises, or just hot air propaganda. Everything in this project will be real.
“Tovarishchi, ULTRA requires imagination, skill, and gold. A lot of gold. This is the first time that our revolution has all three.“ With that, Stalin opened the meeting. “The proletariat was always told that the rich get richer, so let’s see if the rule really works. Some of the boys that we select for project ULTRA will become fabulously rich. Their skill, imagination, and our gold will produce more gold, and when our time is right, we will spring them into action. How, you ask.
“The plan has two parts: part one, we create the financiers, and part two, the financiers engage the activists. Twice removed from us, nobody will know who is running the show. It will all look like spontaneous decisions by individuals. We will strangle the democracies at their strongest point, individualism. First, the ULTRA project will create the financiers. They will be totally devoted to us; our NKVD mind control and brainwashing techniques will take care of that. It will take ten, twenty, or more years to fill up the money tanks. Many will lose it all in speculations, but the wealth of the winners will grow faster than the Capitalists’ economy.“
Lenin said: We must control the film industry, for film is the most important propaganda tool with which to reach the masses. Press comes second.
Stalin knew how to convert any of Lenin’s advice into action, and here was a major case in point. He continued:
“Then we will let the financiers engage the activists. First, the media. Some media is already ours. The useful idiots come next. These are the bleeding-heart Capitalists. Then the politicians; we will let them find the financiers. Comrades, let me tell you, many politicians in the democracies are attracted to money like flies to excrement. This task is the easy one. We want corruptible people with huge egos, arrogance, hubris, greed, and selfishness—the type whom we can easily convince that Capitalism is the enemy of life on earth. We will finance their political campaigns with almost unlimited resources. They will bite on that.
“With that wealth, we will destroy the very economy that produced it.”
Molotov nodded knowingly. He knew what Lenin meant by “useful idiots.” He removed his wire-rimmed glasses and looked with his biddy eyes first at Beria and then at Kaganovich. Did they get it? Both just sat there, afraid to look skeptical.
Stalin kept on talking. ”We must grow a completely new class of useful idiots. What is a useful idiot, you ask. Remember what Lenin said: ‘the Capitalist dupes who will sell us the rope with which to hang them.’ Where do we find them? We grow them like watermelons. Red inside, green outside. We’ll start with American schools. The graduates will come polished from big universities with glorious reputations, with law degrees, no less. We need useful idiots raised by Harvard, Yale, Berkeley, Stanford, and other schools that are known for producing exceptionally talented and creative graduates. They will give us instant credibility. But these graduates will be different. They will believe that America did untold injustices to the poor in the world. They will talk about level playing fields, but what they will mean is leveling the score. Wealth transfers from the rich to the poor. Their science will be political science, and their economics will be ecolonomics. This will be the ultimate victory of the proletariat. Rich people will be gone. Tax the rich till there are no more rich. The whole world will be equally poor. We can do that; we’ve done it before!”
Kaganovich, the financial type, could not wait any longer. ”And how will we hang the Capitalists?”
The answer was so secret that even Stalin had to whisper it to the three stooges: “Communism was the biggest lie perpetrated on humanity, until this one, comrades. Communism was based on envy. Not all believed in it, and proof of its failure was visible sooner or later. We have a foolproof lie now; it is based on fear. Fear of bad weather. Weather, da, with weather, we will scare them into submission … We’ll do it with weather, my faithful golubchiks.”
1992 Winter in Berkeley, California
Hillegasse Avenue is a quiet suburban street south of the University of California, Berkeley campus. Houses there were built about a century ago. They were far enough from any student riots of the sixties and therefore qualified as belonging to a quiet neighborhood. Once the Vietnam War was over and the Liberals that ran the City of Berkeley had to find some other causes, the traffic diverters were installed. These channeled traffic to only a few streets—preferably where Capitalists lived. This preferential treatment of some homeowners created intolerable traffic bottlenecks and pollution for some—and quiet streets for those who knew somebody on the city council.
Of course, the city councilwomen agonized over this unfairness. But the always progressive-thinking city council had a solution: “We can reduce traffic by imposing a commute tax on everybody who comes to Berkeley to work.” The idea did not get far. Any business that saw the writing on the wall closed down or ran away. But, who cares about small businesses? They were there just to make a profit.
Indeed, who cares when thirty million or so California taxpayers provide a steady flow of cash to the university and in turn to the university community? The City Council could not care less where the money came from. It simply came. And only this was relevant.
People who in one way or another were associated with the university owned most houses on Hillegasse Avenue. Tonight, in one of them, an important meeting was about to begin.
Professor Andy Wolinski was not really a full professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of California. He just behaved like one. Wolinski was just an assistant professor, but he wanted to save the world, and a strong title without “assistant” helped, he thought. He pulled his Volvo into the driveway of a large, redwood-shingle-walled house. Three other cars were already in the driveway.
Probably belonging to our group, thought Wolinski. He noted they all had “Free Tibet” bumper stickers.
“Now, that’s strange. This is a Green Party meeting.”
He wandered to the back of the house where seven people were already crowded in a hot tub, steaming in the cold December air. The house belonged to one of them, Dolores, a Berkeley activist. Dolores let Wolinski squeeze in between her and a bearded fellow who said, “I’m Charles,” and started the meeting.
“It’s symbolic that we are holding this meeting in the hot tub. It’s about water. We have an amazing opportunity to save some of this precious natural resource. As you know, last month some three thousand houses burned up in Oakland Hills. These houses will be rebuilt. And you know what? They will be rebuilt with toilets that waste five gallons of water each time you flush unless we stop them. Now, we know that there is a three-gallon and a one-point-six-gallon toilet on the market. Just calculate the water saved if we make these mandatory.”
Another girl, Fataisha Firmat, arrived. She always arrived late. She came to Berkeley to major in women’s studies and was ready to enter politics once she knew what to do. She was well connected with some political figures in Sacramento, and a job in the White House would be waiting for her as soon as the Democratic Party won the presidency.
“Sorry I’m late.” Fataisha always used this instead of “Hello.”
“But go on with your numbers. I cannot help you much with calculations. Not my forte,” chimed Ms. Firmat proudly. She was once asked by a mathematician if she was related to the mathematician Fermat who posed a problem that nobody had solved yet. “Not that I know,” she replied, embarrassed that a mathematician could possibly be in her family. This was the New Age; anything rational was for Conservatives in the fly-over country, and public figures were proud to proclaim their ignorance of sciences. What counted was saving the planet.
Andy Wolinski returned to the prosaic topic of toilet flushing: “And the energy you can save.”
Charles scratched his head, squeezed the water out of his beard, and prepared a question but was beaten to it by a topless girl with long blond hair that was totally wet.
“What energy?” Her voice continued through the steamy air to the other side of the tub, “I’m Inge. I don’t know what you are talking about. What energy? Aren’t we talking about water?” She had difficulty seeing what electricity had to do with water.
Professor Wolinski, who was old enough to attend school when physics was still taught, was able to explain.
“Well, you have to pump water up. That takes electricity. The higher you pump, the more electric power you need. When water comes down, it flushes.”
This seemed to satisfy Inge, who, being a student of political science, had some knowledge of politics but zero knowledge of science. Charles seemed to agree but needed a few more facts.
“How do we know that the one-point-six-gallon toilet will flush clean? Suppose you have to flush several more times?”
Inge, displaying some of her political know-how as well as her topless front, leaned forward. “Do you think that a law that you are allowed only one flush is enforceable?“
It was laughable that a group that wanted to free Tibet would deal with such a low-level issue as a compromise solution on flushing toilets. But their intentions were sincere; if you want to save the world, you might as well start at home. So, the three-gallon toilet was nixed in no time. The group calculated and concluded that a 1.6-gallon device was simply a revolutionary idea. Such a law would save fifty thousand gallons of water each day on the Berkeley campus. Of course, the campus police would ticket the violators. The same ticket rate as parking in a yellow zone would suffice.
Ms. Firmat was always ready for federal action. “You make this a federal law and you end up saving several billion gallons each day.”
They agreed to start with Sacramento and push the law through the assembly. Saving about one megawatt or two of energy just by flushing less would certainly put the Green Party on the map. It would also prevent the rolling blackouts.
“It takes so long to heat up the hot tub once it cools off.” Dolores was all smiles, for she just knew they solved a big social problem.
It was time to depart. Wolinski first hugged wet Inge and then turned to Dolores. “One more thing. I noticed that we all want to free Tibet. We did not do anything to free Tibet this time. And Berkeley is already a nuclear-free zone. But we made a good start, and we should feel good about advancing ecology.”
“Yes, we should feel good about it,” said Dolores. “Feel good, that’s all about it. I feel good just thinking about freeing Tibet.“
“Perhaps China will do it,” said Inge.
“Inge, China already has it,” mumbled Wolinski while walking towards his Volvo. He also said something inaudible about dumb blondes being just right for political science majors. He was quite certain that soon all toilets would flush with 1.6 gallons of water, but he was not sure at all that one flush would do it. A much better method had to be found to become the code. He unlocked the Volvo wondering what penalty there should be for American citizens buying and smuggling foreign toilets into the country.
San Francisco, Winter 2000
Cigars were still allowed at the all-men’s Bohemian Club in San Francisco, and the city supervisors had not yet outlawed wood-burning fireplaces. But although this was the end of the twentieth century, some traditions from the old gold rush days persisted, even under relentless attacks from eco and diversity Fascists.
A sparkling fire of cedar logs in the vast fireplace of the Bohemian lounge blended its aroma with the smoke of Fuente cigars and in infinitesimal layers deposited yellow patina on the fine oil paintings that many Bohemians had painted. It all added to the club’s widely known artistic atmosphere. Three gentlemen of an age that showed that World War II was not totally unknown to them were enjoying their after-lunch cigars while being engaged in a rather hot debate about the government’s surplus.
“They have a surplus of over ten billion dollars up there in Sacramento,” explained Charlie Van Ness. Charlie was no artist, just a businessman, a real estate man with some hidden artistic talents, a combination that was always welcomed by the Bohemian Club. This criterion ensured the quality of membership at such high a level that several former U.S. presidents, members of the cabinet, and other high political figures were members. These did not have to flaunt their artistic talent since it was assumed they probably had none. If the place still maintained a lot of class, it was because, so far, no former peace protesters or free speech demonstrators were invited to join, regardless of the political power they had attained. This was no Marxist nest.
“The only thing to do with the money is to return it to the people. It’s theirs,” said John Thompson, using his immaculate Texas logic and accent. John was a navy admiral, just retired, still flying the friends’ Gulfstream as a part-time pilot. He was also a part-time grape grower in Napa Valley.
“I cannot think of a worse way to spend the surplus than to leave it to the bureaucrats.”
“Indeed, all the bureaucrats will do is hire more bureaucrats. Just look around. What has California’s government done with our money over the last forty years? Bridges, freeways, schools, museums, theaters—they were all here when we came out of school. Even BART, the rapid transit rail, was started about then. Can you point to anything else aside from more office buildings for state bureaucrats?
“One concert hall with bad acoustics … but no, hold it … the Davies Hall was built with private funds!
“And to add insult to injury, after they spent our money on some worthless office buildings that produce nothing of value but paperwork, they name the buildings after themselves.“
“But it’s a sure way for the governor to be re-elected,” added Charlie. “Make people dependent on you and they’ll vote for you, like it or not.”
By 2012, things were worse than ever. How could you manage the state when one-third of tax revenues came from 3 percent of people who work in agriculture, and when the second third, electronics, was trying to leave the state, and when the rest of the people worked for the government or were on welfare? To vote for you, all that Californian voter needed was to be scared by “the fear of climate change.”
For the first time in history, the door opened wide for the Socialists to win in the true free elections. Only a few brave politicians valiantly fought the trend, knowing that if California, the trendsetter, went, the rest of America would soon follow. This would be a disaster for the whole world.
October 18, 2007
Conference at Newport Beach
“Ah, the dispassionate language of science and reason.” Senator McClintock began his speech at the Western Conservative Political Action Conference.
“In a speech in New York several months ago, our own governor called those who question the religion of global warming ‘fanatics’ and vowed our political extinction.
“I certainly don’t want to die a traitor’s death or be run out of town on a rail. So I want the record to be very clear: I believe that the earth’s climate is changing and that our planet is warming.
“I actually figured that out in grade school in the nineteen sixties when our third grade class took a field trip to the Museum of Natural History and saw the panorama of dinosaurs tromping around the steamy swamps that are now part of Wyoming. They were right next to the exhibit of the woolly mammoths foraging on the glaciers that were also once the same part of Wyoming.
“And I never got a Nobel Prize for that discovery. In fact, I later found out that my third grade teacher never even nominated me!
“Then I got to high school in the nineteen seventies and learned from the Al Gores of the time that we foolish mortals were plunging ourselves into another ice age. All the scientists agreed.
“By the way, you may have seen the Washington Times story a few weeks ago about the researcher who recently stumbled upon a lurid story in the Washington Post dated July ninth, nineteen seventy-one. It included the scary headline: ‘U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming.’
“The scientist based this on a scientific climate model developed by a young research associate named James Hansen. They warned that continued carbon emissions over the next ten years could trigger an unstoppable ice age.
“This is the same James Hansen who is one of the gurus of the current global warming movement. And it is the same James Hansen who, just three months ago, published a paper claiming that continued carbon emissions over the next ten years could trigger a runaway greenhouse effect.
“Let me begin by asking three inconvenient questions.
“First, if global warming is caused by your SUV, why is it that we’re seeing global warming on every other body in the solar system? For the last six years, the Martian south polar ice cap has conspicuously receded. Pluto is warming, about two degrees Celsius over the past fourteen years. Jupiter is showing dramatic climate change by as much as ten degrees Fahrenheit. Even Neptune’s moon, Triton, has warmed five percent on the absolute temperature scale—the equivalent of a twenty-two degrees Fahrenheit increase on Earth—from nineteen eighty-nine to nineteen ninety-eight.
“If you have any doubt, just Google ‘Pluto warming’ or ‘Mars warming’ or whatever your favorite planet might be.
“Meanwhile, solar radiation has increased a measurable zero point five percent since the nineteen seventies. Is it possible that as the sun gets slightly warmer, the planets do too?
“This would be a little scary in its own right, except for the second inconvenient question: If global warming is being caused by your SUV, why is it that we have ample historical records of periods in our recent history when the planet’s temperature was warmer than it is today?
“During the Medieval Warm Period, from about nine hundred to thirteen hundred AD, we know that wine grapes were thriving in northern Britain and Newfoundland and that the temperature in Greenland was hot enough to support a prosperous agricultural economy for nearly five hundred years.
“The Little Ice Age that lasted from thirteen hundred until eighteen fifty brought that period to an end. We know that during colonial times, Boston and New York harbors routinely froze over in winter, and during Elizabethan times, an annual Winter Festival was held ON TOP OF the Thames River, which froze solid every year.
“And finally the third inconvenient question: If global warming is caused by YOUR SUV, why is it that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide always follow increases in global temperatures by several hundred years, indicating that CO2 is a byproduct of increasing temperatures—not a cause?
“Is it possible that this is the reason Al Gore won’t debate the subject? You’ve seen his movie An Inconvenient Truth. In it, he portrays himself as an indefatigable, lonely sentinel (who should have been president of course) wandering the planet trying desperately to awaken the world to the danger it faces. ‘I’ve given this speech a thousand times,’ he says about a thousand times.
“But according to the Chicago Sun Times, this pious paragon of truth—who assures us he’s willing to go anywhere and talk to anybody to save us from our mortal folly—is strangely unwilling to take up the Heartland Institute’s publicized offer to organize an international debate on the subject. The institute has challenged our new Nobel Peace Prize laureate of the Left to debate any one of three internationally recognized authorities who dispute his claims, and it’s willing to front all costs—at Oxford University, no less—and in a format of Gore’s own choosing.
“After all, Gore’s new book extols the importance of science and reason in the public policy debate, so what better way to deliver the coup de grace to the ‘skeptics’ than to expose their fallacies in front of an international audience?
“And yet, Al Gore, who has given his speech ‘a thousand times,’ won’t give it just once more in a forum where it might be questioned by a knowledgeable authority.
“We’re told that the debate is over and that all scientists agree. Call this the Emperor’s New Clothes argument. But it’s simply not the case.
“The ISI Web of Science is one of the most comprehensive collections of peer-reviewed scientific papers in the world. A recent survey of all papers on the subject of climate change that were published between two thousand four and February of two thousand seven found that only SEVEN percent explicitly endorsed the position that man-made carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming. SIX PERCENT explicitly rejected it, and a majority of the remaining papers were neutral.
“In fact, another directory of peer-reviewed scientific papers explicitly refuting the theory of human-induced catastrophic global warming lists over five hundred leading climate scientists. The survey itself was conducted by a team that included Fred Singer, author of Unstoppable Global Warming – EVERY 1,500 YEARS, whose qualifications include being the founding director of the National Weather Satellite Service.
“I believe it was Ogden Nash who wrote:
’The ass was born in March
The rains came in November
Such a flood as this, he said,
I scarcely can remember.’ “
1956, Kranj, Slovenia, former Yugoslavia. Here is where this book’s author steps into the middle of the story:
In the summer of 1956, a long line of American-made limousines glided towards Tito’s palace at Lake Bled. There were Buicks, Chevrolets, and even a few Cadillacs out in front. They carried two important Communist potentates, Soviet co-premiers Khruschev and Bulganin, and of course their host, Tito.
Seeing important Communists in Capitalist-made cars was not an unusual sight for me. Tito had several residences near Kranj, my hometown. We knew when he was coming. Our house was along the highway, and police always alerted us hours before by posting guards at dense intervals along the road. What the guards could not do was prevent anybody from admiring these magnificent American automobiles with all that chrome.
And, to dream. Easy for a twenty-year-old. For, one day, Socialism would be completed and no longer would class distinction be defined by the rich, who owned a pair of bicycles, and the poor, who owned a pair of shoes. Or even a better dream (if you dared): Socialism would collapse one day, and we would all have cars like those in America.
The first decade of Socialism was getting us nowhere. While citizens in Western Europe, even those who were bombed into oblivion, were already searching for parking places, a private car in Slovenia was almost unknown. What war and confiscations did not take out of circulation, the wear and tear did. By 1956, there was not a single traffic light in the whole country, to say nothing about a parking meter. And a traffic jam was called when a crowd stood around a 1956 Plymouth with foreign license plates and big tail fins.
Let me return to the Soviet chiefs; what were they doing in Slovenia? Did their visit mean a reconciliation? Did they want to patch up the Tito-Stalin break of 1948? Stalin was now dead and discredited, and Tito was dealing with the West. Yugoslavia had little else to offer to the West but its somewhat strategic position, and for this “non-alignment” Tito was receiving annually several billion dollars of aid from America. The aid came in several forms: military aid, luxury products (as the limousines attest), cash, technology, and even some food for the people of this country that before Socialism exported food. What were the Soviet Communists after?
In a few months I found out what the Soviets wanted. But it took me another seven years to find out why: Political correctness finally caught up with the Marxists. Here is how it happened.
Ancient Greek skeptics believed that all knowledge is uncertain. That led them to keep asking questions rather than becoming silenced by the certainty. That’s how we discovered that the world is round and that the sun does not revolve around the earth. The Vatican’s unacceptability of such “politically incorrect” knowledge prevented the appearance of another Galileo on the Italian peninsula for the several centuries that followed. Creativity simply moves where it is welcomed. And so it did—to France, Holland, and England, where such minds as Newton’s added quantum jumps to our knowledge.
But let me return to 1956. A few months after Khruschev and Bulganin’s visit with Tito, I had my first “professional” summer job. Entering the fourth year of electrical engineering, my assignment was at a company called Iskra, a state-owned manufacturer of electrical goods, a Yugoslavian General Electric. I was hoping to expand my interest in electronics, but there was not much of it in these pre-transistor days, and the first week was spent watching electromechanical telephone switching gear being built.
Then came an interesting change. My boss, who knew that I was following American electronic technology closely (without knowing my secret agenda), asked me to work on a new assignment. The job was more theoretical than practical, which suited me just fine. It was called something like Soviet Technological Assistance (STA) to Underdeveloped Nations. My job was to fill up many forms provided by the STA program, describing in detail our manufacturing processes for several American devices that Iskra was manufacturing under license. I also had to copy all the mechanical parts used in manufacturing and provide electrical diagrams.
So this was the result of the visit by Khruschev and Bulganin. I could just hear the proposal to Tito: “The Soviet Union will provide you with this great technological assistance. And how will we do this, you ask. You will take the Amerikanski device that you are building under license and copy the parts. Here is the machine that will do that; you put the part here, below the glass, focus the lens, put tracing paper on the flat glass, and trace the outline of the part. Add all the dimensions. Complete the forms, put together a package, and send it to the minister of industry in Moscow. Our experts and commissars will review your process and advise you as to where you can make improvements.”
A transfer of technology from the USA to the USSR through Yugoslavia! I could not believe it. I didn’t stay around long enough to know if anything came back from Moscow. I decided that one month of this was enough and made a firm decision that I would never work under Socialism again. It was time to get ready to skip across the border.
Seven years later, I was working for IBM in San Francisco and living in Berkeley. In the mid-sixties, Berkeley was not yet polluted by left-wing radicals, perversion activists, and minority rights mafia. Often called the Athens of the West, the place had more Nobel Prize winners than potholes. It was one gusher of creativity that eventually made America the sole superpower—and thus ensured Pax Americana, the longest known period of peace since Pax Romana.
In Berkeley you could meet Nobel Prize winners like you would meet film stars in Hollywood. I was lucky to meet Emilio Segré.
Professor Segré at that time headed the famous Department of Physics at the University of California in Berkeley. Famous, indeed, for nuclear physics was still the elite science. One of Segré’s major contributions was in constructing a couple of bombs that actually worked and quickly ended World War II. This was just a few years before Hollywood proved Lenin right by engaging Jane Fonda with a little help from the hysterics after the Three Mile Island power plant shut down. Fonda, who could not tell the difference between a proton and a potato, successfully denounced atomic energy as the enemy of civilization.
But in freedom, creativity strives, and physics found a following in the booming computer industry. Much to the eventual surprise of the Soviets, who based their quest for world power on nuclear bombs, computers turned out to be the weapons of victory. The refined inequality of unpredictable results that only liberty can create prevailed over the predetermined equality of results that brute force of the totalitarian society insists on.
Professor Segré saw it all early. Once during a game of Scrabble at his home in Lafayette, our conversation turned to the embargo of IBM computers to the Soviet bloc and then to how Soviets were stealing our secrets. I told him about my experience with Soviet Technological Assistance.
Professor Segré got up. “Let me show you why they need to do it. Political correctness prevents invention.” He walked to his bookshelves and pulled out a book.
“This was given to me by Pyotr Kapitsa. It's in German, a translation of a Russian college physics textbook,” he said and pointed to a page that he obviously had kept well marked. Here it was, a sentence in bold letters, stating that according to Lenin, the foundation of Marxism is dialectic materialism, which conflicts with a belief in God. “Therefore, the Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty is unacceptable to Marxists.”
I believed right away that this book was no fake. Soviets indeed provided translated schoolbooks to the nations of Eastern Europe under their control. I remember well my history books in Slovenian high schools. They were all translated Soviet history books. Here it was again—a reverse form of the Soviet Aid.
Let me repeat it, said professor Segré: “Therefore, the Heisenberg’s Principle of Uncertainty is unacceptable to Marxists.”
This Marxist dogma delivered such an insidious blow to the Soviet state that the revelation of Soviet technological misery was uncovered only during the détente of the early 1960s, when some scientific exchange was allowed and Pyotr Kapitsa brought this innocent-looking book through the Iron Curtain. But the revelation was not known to public, for few people read books written by physicists. Although the widening technological gap between the two superpowers was apparent to most, the reason for it remained a mystery for some time, perhaps even to the CIA and the highest officials of U.S. government.
“I think I know why the Soviets would pay any price for your computers,” said Segré.
“Schrödinger also wrote about the Soviets’ transistor industry blunder.” I remembered, and Segré agreed, commenting that the cause of this gap between the USA and the Soviet Union may not become apparent to the public for several decades.
Indeed. Almost thirty years later, the damning evidence of what damage political correctness can do became apparent. Nevertheless, the credit for the collapse of the USSR was given to the Soviet Secretary of the Communist Party Mikhail Gorbachev for allowing Glasnost and Perestroika as well as to pressure from the Strategic Defense Initiative, U.S. military, and Reagan’s diplomacy. All these surely played a part, but a secondary part. The primary cause of the Soviets’ demise was in a single word: atheism.
The Soviet Union officially ignored the discoveries of several Nobel Prize-winning physicists because they were politically incorrect, in violation of Marxism, “against dialectical materialism”—in short, too close to affirming God.
Was there a divine force that let the United States end the World War II with the atomic bomb? Was there again a divine force that let American transistors collapse the Evil Empire?
Who were these men whose God sank the godless Soviet empire? The discoveries made by six Nobel Prize winners played a role in the description of the Soviet blunder. All six were physicists: Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Prize 1932), Erwin Schrödinger (Nobel Prize 1933), William Shockley (Nobel Prize 1956), Emilio Segré (Nobel Prize 1959), Lev Landau (Nobel Prize 1962), [L1] and Pyotr Kapitsa (Nobel Prize 1978). All six discovered indisputable laws of nature that opened the way for the development of the cornucopia of electronic products we know today.
But not all scientific endeavors are politically correct. In the Soviet Union, discoveries had to conform strictly to the party’s dogmas, such as the dogma pronounced by Friedrich Engels, the co-founder of Marxism who declared in the nineteenth century that the law of conservation of energy was to be forever fundamental to science. (So far he’s been right, but that does not excuse his pretense to play God.)
The free world was not constrained by any such dogmas. Suffice it to say that discoveries made by Heisenberg (uncertainty principle) and Schrödinger (quantum theory) allowed Shockley to invent the transistor, the device that from the late ’50s on has been improving and extending our life in millions of ways and forms.
While the transistor technology wildfire spread throughout the free world, it could not jump the Iron Curtain. The political correctness of atheism simply did not allow Heisenberg’s discovery of 1927 to be taught in schools. It was too much for the Marxists to allow that the behavior of an electron could be predicted only on the basis of probability. This was close to admitting that God is the ultimate authority rather than man, a destructive idea in a society that was built on In Party We Trust instead of In God We Trust.
The first evidence of this devastating twist of political correctness appeared in the early sixties in a book by Erwin Schrödinger. In it he describes the reasons for the ever-widening technology gap between the USA and the USSR. While the USA was producing computers, TVs, radios, medical instruments, airplane navigational tools, etc. that used transistors, the USSR continued to build the same circuits with vacuum tube devices that we remember glowing inside the radio sets of our grandmothers.
Years passed, and by the 1970s the Soviet economy fell so far behind that they would do anything to get transistor technology. Wisely, most of it was embargoed, so many Soviet vice-consuls assigned to the United States were ordered to obtain designs, plans, and techniques from the American semiconductor industry in any way possible. The party would rather steal than directly acknowledge the existence of God.
By 1980, this simple mistake
of politically correct science and technology could no longer be corrected.
Soviets could never catch up. Professor
Segré compared the damage of political correctness
exercised by the Soviets in the twentieth century to that of the Vatican in the
sixteenth century when they made Galileo recant. For the three centuries that
followed, science simply left Italy and moved to friendly countries, England,
France, and Holland.
In both cases, it was not God but organized religion that chased away Galileo’s and Heisenberg’s discoveries and stalled the civilization. Similarly, the brilliant discoveries of Arabs ended after the eighth century when an organized religion called Islam established what is politically correct and what is not. Discoveries simply moved to where they were more welcome.
In the early twenty-first century, the religion of global warming, which is essentially anti-energy, is chasing away the industries that need energy. Businesses from bread bakeries to slicers of silicon wafers were destroyed by the religion of global warming, simply because the growth of the industry that produces energy, mainly nuclear power, oil, and natural gas, was prevented. The result was the same as under Islamic, the Vatican’s, or Communist doctrines: a darkening of the age.
In the godless Soviet Union, the secretary general was the highest authority. The best the Soviets could do was to blame organized religion or America for their failures. But we must not confuse God with organized religion. To equate the two is like equating the sky with airline schedules. Politicians and the judiciary should understand this difference and leave God alone.
No bureaucrat can plan invention. Only God knows where and when the next magnificent law of creation will be found. And by whom. So far, it has happened to the good guys.
Senator McClintock Describes California’s Suicide
Perhaps here is the only place where California’s Liberals will read about the suicidal folly of their carbon dioxide policy, so we need to continue Senator McClintock’s speech of October 2007:
“But now I would like to address myself to a grim subject: the actual threat that global warming poses to our planet—and most specifically to California. And that threat is very real, and it is devastating.
“I speak specifically of the radical policies that the global warm-mongers are now enacting.
”Last year, in the name of saving the planet from global warming, California adopted the most radically restrictive legislation anywhere in the nation, including AB Thirty-two, which requires a twenty-five percent reduction in man-made carbon dioxide emissions within thirteen years.
“To put this in perspective, we could junk every car in the state of California RIGHT NOW and not meet this mandate.
“Californians just approved forty billion dollars of bonds that California’s political leaders promised would be used for highways, dams, aqueducts, and other capital improvements. They are desperately needed.
“But at the same time, those same political leaders have imposed a twenty-five percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
“Now here’s the problem. Building highways, dams, and aqueducts requires tremendous amounts of concrete, the principal ingredient of which is cement.
“How is cement produced? It is produced by taking limestone and superheating it into a molten state; it comes out the other side as a compound called clinker. Clinker is about two-thirds the weight of the original limestone. The missing one-third of that weight is carbon dioxide. And when you include the emissions required to superheat the limestone, it turns out that for every ton of cement, a TON of carbon dioxide is released. It’s the third biggest source of carbon dioxide in all human enterprise.
“But now we have a law that specifically forbids us from doing so. That was the essence of the Jerry Brown lawsuits against new highway projects that were part of the summer budget impasse.
“Citing AB Thirty-two, Brown argued that unless the counties could show how they would build highways without using earthmoving equipment or concrete—and that once built, that people would not drive automobiles on them—the only legal use of the funds would be to promote mass transit, transit villages—and I’m not making this up—pedestrian trails and bicycle paths.
“So much for construction.
“Agriculture is in big trouble, too.
“You can start with nitrogen fertilizer, which is a critical component of all agricultural activity. Unfortunately, it produces large amounts of nitrous oxide, another so-called greenhouse gas that must be radically curtailed in California.
“The wine industry is also in for a shock. Fermentation of wine occurs when a molecule of glucose in the grapes is converted into EQUAL PARTS of alcohol and carbon dioxide.
“But the biggest agricultural impact is the administration’s mandate for heavily subsidized use of ethanol fuel. Ethanol is produced in exactly the same way as the alcohol in wine: The glucose in corn is converted into equal parts of ethyl alcohol and CARBON DIOXIDE.
“Following AB Thirty-two, the governor’s appointees on the California Air Resources Board imposed a requirement that ALL gasoline sold in California within THREE YEARS must be comprised of at least TEN PERCENT ethanol, doubling the current mandate.
“Now think about this: An acre of corn produces about three hundred fifty gallons of ethanol. There are fifteen billion gallons of gasoline used in California each year. In order to meet the ten percent requirement in three years, it means converting four point three million acres of farmland to ethanol production. Now that’s a lot of farmland, considering that we have a total of 11 eleven million acres producing any kind of crops in California.
“Current ethanol mandates are already producing serious shortages in other parts of the world, as farmland that had been producing food shifts to ethanol to chase hundreds of millions of dollars of government subsidies coming out of your pocket. There were riots in Mexico earlier this year in response to spiraling tortilla prices.
“And we’re seeing this across the board—including commodities like milk and beef that are responding to increased prices for corn feed. And as you see your grocery prices rise as a result of this policy, just be glad you’re not in the third world. Food is a relatively small portion of the family incomes in affluent nations, but they consume more than half of family earnings in third-world countries.
“So when the global warming alarmists predict worldwide starvation, they’re right. They’re creating it.
“While we’re on the general subject, you may have noted that Interstate Bakeries announced last month that they are completely withdrawing from the Southern California market. They are shutting down four bakeries, seventeen distribution centers, and nineteen outlet stores—and throwing thirteen hundred employees out of work. They’re the makers of Wonder Bread, Roman Meal Bread, Home Pride, and Baker’s Inn.
“If you’re a fan of those breads, you’d better stock up now; they’ll be gone by the end of October.
“They cited the high cost of doing business in California, but I believe had they stayed they would have faced an even thornier problem: Bread is only bread because of the carbon dioxide produced by yeast. It’s the same chemical process we’ve been talking about, although in this case, the central ingredient IS the carbon dioxide. That pleasant smell of baking bread is the ethyl alcohol oxidizing as those gases are vented during baking.
“Electricity prices are also taking a heavy hit. California already suffers one of the highest electricity prices in the United States, but that situation is about to worsen.
“A companion measure to AB Thirty-two was SB Thirteen sixty-eight that prohibits the importation of electricity produced by coal—even state-of-the-art plants thousands of miles from California that meet all EPA requirements.
“Truckee became the first victim of this law. Truckee was about to sign a fifty-year contract for electricity produced by a new coal-fired plant in Utah. They were forced to back off because of AB Thirteen sixty-eight. They just announced the new contracts to replace that lost power. Instead of paying thirty-five dollars per megawatt hour, Truckee electricity consumers will now be paying sixty-five dollars per megawatt hour.
“It gets worse. Last month, the chairwoman of the Air Resources Board—which was given virtually unlimited power by AB Thirty-two—announced that they will TRIPLE the number of AB Thirty-two regulations this year.
“The radical laws now in place in California are having a dramatic impact on energy production, agriculture, manufacturing, wine-making, and construction, just to name a few sectors of our economy.
“We are already seeing the economic impact in California.
“Nationally, the unemployment rate is stable at four point six percent. Until last year, California’s unemployment rate tracked with the national figures, but since January—while the national rate has remained stable at about four point six percent—California’s unemployment rate has skyrocketed from four point eight percent to five point five percent.
“I was struck by the governor’s speech to the United Nations last week. He said:
Last year in California, we enacted groundbreaking greenhouse
gas emission standards.
We enacted the world’s first low carbon fuel standard.
Do I believe California’s standards will solve global warming? No.
What we’re doing is changing the dynamic, preparing the way, and encouraging the future …
“So even the individual most responsible for this economically catastrophic public policy ADMITS that it’s not going to solve global warming. He just wants to set an example.
“I believe he is going to set an example, all right.
“Responding to the enormous new burdens imposed on our economy, our state’s revenues have taken a dramatic turn for the worse. On June thirtieth, we closed the books on the biggest deficit in California’s history—more than six and a half billion dollars.
“We just got the first-quarter revenue numbers for this new fiscal year. State revenues needed to grow TWICE as fast this year as they did last year to avert an even bigger deficit.
“In the first quarter, though, our revenues are actually shrinking. Last year at this time, we had one and a half billion dollars in the bank; we now have a bank overdraft of seven and a half billion dollars that’s being covered entirely by internal borrowing.
“That’s a NINE BILLION DOLLAR DIFFERENCE. And that’s the measure of our actual year-over-year deficit spending.
“Combined with the growing budget deficit projection for next year, we could be facing a two-year gap of twenty billion dollars by May—and we don’t have the money to cover it.
“There is one other thing that strikes me on this issue, and that is how puny is the amount of carbon dioxide produced by human enterprise compared to simple, natural processes.
“The AB Thirty-two mandate is to reduce man-made carbon dioxide emissions by one hundred seventy million metric tons per year. That’s what all this tremendous economic dislocation is about.
“Now let me mention one other man-made source of carbon dioxide that they don’t count.
“Every one of us in this room will produce about two point two pounds of carbon dioxide today—by breathing. That’s over eight hundred pounds of carbon dioxide per year. If anyone brought a pocket calculator, pull it out and stay with me here.
“There are six point six billion of us on this planet. That comes to five point three trillion pounds or two point four BILLION metric tons of carbon dioxide—simply through the process of human respiration. And that’s before you count up all the cats and rats and elephants.
“So all of this economic dislocation is over a tiny fraction of natural carbon dioxide emissions.
“The only good news I can offer is that perhaps we’re all wrong. Perhaps the unprecedented burden now imposed upon our commerce will produce a wave of new investment and innovation and environmental purity as the governor has so loudly promised. Perhaps the unprecedented levels of deficit spending will send our economy into paroxysms of prosperity. Perhaps.
“But there’s another possibility. There’s a possibility that we’re right, and that the inevitable economic realities of these outrageous regulations are already beginning to destroy California’s once-vibrant economy in a dark and miserable example of human folly.
“And we must be prepared for that possibility. In normal times, citizens don’t pay a lot of attention to public policy, and that’s why democracies occasionally drift off course. But when a crisis approaches, that’s when you see democracy engage. One by one, citizens sense the approach of a common danger and they rise to the occasion. They focus—they look beyond the symbols and rhetoric—and they begin to make very good decisions. Political majorities can shift very quickly in such times. Polls can reverse themselves almost overnight in such times. And I believe that day is now rapidly approaching.
“People ask me all the time: ‘What can I do?’ And the only answer I can offer is the answer the great abolition leader Frederick Douglass offered to a young protégé. He said, ‘Agitate. Agitate. Agitate.’
“We have greater tools with which to communicate with our fellow citizens than ever before. The Internet and talk radio have given us powerful new ways to organize and reach people. And we have something else that’s even more important: truth and common sense.
“We have based our entire form of government on the assumption that when democracies engage, they make very good decisions. The radical policies now imposed on California are already beginning to impact the economy, and will have an increasingly negative effect as they proliferate in coming days. As the impact of these policies is felt, people will begin paying close attention to policymaking and the policymakers responsible, and then they’ll begin exercising something that the majority of California’s public officials have so completely lacked: simple common sense.
“And at that moment, we will see a new political awakening and a new political realignment in California, and before you know it, we’ll be living once again in Reagan Country.”
Socialism Fails in America
1620, New England
Almost four hundred golden years of American civilization separate us from the first try at Socialism. On August 1, 1620, the Mayflower set sail from Plymouth, England, seeking freedom and equality in the New World. Among one hundred passengers were forty Pilgrims, led by William Bradford. During the trip, which was no pleasure cruise at all, Bradford made all agree to a contract stating that just and equal laws would apply to all members of the new community when they reached the New World. In modern terms, he wanted to build a Communist America.
The Pilgrims landed in New England on a chilly November day. Bradford wrote in his journal that they found “a cold, barren, desolate wilderness … no friends to greet them … no houses to shelter them … no inns where they could refresh themselves.” 
The cost of their freedom was very high; during the first winter, half the Pilgrims died of exposure, starvation, or sickness. Spring and Indian help arrived none too soon. The settlers learned from the natives how to plant corn, fish for cod, and hunt for fur. Although the Pilgrims were now at least surviving, their community did not prosper. Why? The original contract into which the Pilgrims had entered required that everything produced went into a common store and that all the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community.
Today, the whole world knows that Communism produces nothing but shortages of everything. Everyone who is still trying to make Communism work can justifiably be called stupid or evil. But four hundred years ago, long before Lenin or Marx were even born, the Pilgrims tried Socialism with the best intentions—and failed.
Most people, save some professors of political science, now know why: The Pilgrim community discovered that even the most creative and industrious people were not inclined to work any harder than anyone else, unless there was some personal incentive to drive and motivate each individual.
During the twentieth and early twenty-first century, much of the world stubbornly experimented with refinements to Socialism. It was a fail-safe gamble; certainly America was always there to ship food to end starvation. The Pilgrims, however, had no America to ask for food. They were America, although in embryo form. So the embryo decided to abort Socialism to survive.
Bradford, now the governor of the colony, recognized that collectivism was so costly and destructive that the Pilgrims could not survive another winter. Fortunately, there was no economist or politician around to stop Bradford from discovering the power of the marketplace. He took bold action. He privatized the land by assigning a plot to each family to work and manage.
Later, he wrote this detail into his journal: “The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years … that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing—as if they were wiser than God.”
And he continued, “For this community was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense … that was thought injustice.”
Unlike many Socialists who always blame other factors but themselves—bad weather, lack of capital, not tried long enough, war damages, etc.—and stay on the Marxist course while sinking ever deeper, the Pilgrims were not impeded by any doctrine. They discovered, although just in time, that people could not be expected to do their best work without incentive. They did not wait. Bradford released the power of free enterprise by instituting the Capitalistic principle of private property and free markets. He allocated to every family a plot of land to work and allowed it to sell its own crops and farm products.
“This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been,” wrote Bradford.
Almost overnight, the Pilgrims found they had more food than they could eat. They started to trade their surplus with the Indians for their goods. Profits soon followed, allowing the debt to the merchants in London who financed the Mayflower cruise to be repaid.
The word of prosperity at the Plymouth settlement quickly spread among the oppressed and poor on the other side of the Atlantic. For the next four hundred years, it attracted millions of immigrants to America, to seek freedom—and the prosperity that resulted from it. Not only did the Pilgrims’ settlement survive splendidly, but their offspring learned the lesson so well that a century and a half later they created the United States of America. For the next two hundred and fifty years, their country became more than just the food basket to the rest of the world. From these precarious beginnings—that would have ended in a disaster but for one good decision made by Governor Bradford—it became the beehive of unprecedented creativity and creations as well as the only superpower on earth.
For the next four hundred years, many countries were saved from hunger and oppression by receiving American food, clothing, education, enlightenment, and even military help. Unlike any other superpower in history, the only thing America ever asked for in return was small plots of land where its soldiers could be buried. America was copied in every way imaginable, from its Constitution to its music, and everything in between, yet the copies seldom surpassed the originals.
It is an axiom that one can never get a job from a poor person. It is also an axiom that only the rich can help the poor. But the rich can also destroy, and that was the brilliant strategy of the Comintern plan, using the Watermelon Conspiracy. Several high-level meetings have already been held by the Greens in the exotic places where great food, wine, and lodging are certain and success is only probable: Rio de Janeiro, Montreal, and Kyoto. Now, in early December 2007, swarms of expensive private and luxurious government jets were descending on Bali.
Watermelons Learn About
the “Virtue of Poverty”
Bali, Winter 2007
While good intentions usually produce prosperity and wealth, good intentions can also create poverty. Sometimes, mismanaged wealth and prosperity can self-destruct within good intentions, and the surprising result is: poverty. The case of ethanol is an excellent example of doing-good going haywire. Food that was intended to feed people became fuel for the machines, creating a worldwide shortage of food. It obviously did not occur to the politicians who created this world-class food shortage that, unlike humans, machines’ appetites are unlimited.
At the turn of the second millennium when the average life span was twice of that two centuries ago, the Green lobby, in its effort to send the world back into the dark ages, attained another major victory. For thirty years, America did not construct a single nuclear power plant and drilling for oil and gas was suspended. The fashionable substitutes were solar and wind energy, but together they could not provide more than 2 percent of the energy needed by the three hundred million citizens of the United States.
With China and India joining the energy consumer market, the price of available oil quadrupled. Then, a few blessed politicians in America ordered that alcohol, made from grain, be mixed into gasoline.
In a couple of years, the world ran out of cheap food. The price of grain doubled. The impact on the citizens of poor countries, where half of a family’s income is often needed for food, was devastating. To solve the problem ecologically, the assorted Greens called together a conference on the virtue of poverty. Bali seemed like a suitable place for the meeting that would create more poverty, for it followed similar luxurious gatherings in Rio, Montreal, and Kyoto.
For centuries, the noble objective had been to enrich as many poor people as possible. Then came Communism, which managed to make everybody poor. But Communism was not successful worldwide, and Capitalist countries created ever more rich people. But not enough. Some of the rich who thought themselves elite decided there was virtue in poverty, especially when by being poor you could save the world.
In the winter of 2007, so many private jets descended on Bali to attend the global climate conference they had to be parked on a nearby island. The who’s who of the future world government was in attendance. The topic, “the virtue of poverty,” could not have come at a better time: Let’s prepare the poor for the doubling of food prices.
Another profound social discovery and what to do about it was discussed: electricity. Breathlessly described by one U.S. environmentalist, the introduction of electricity is “destroying” the cultures of the world’s poor.
This was too much for another pioneer of the environmental movement. He left it because he viewed it as too radical and called the anti-electricity views an example of the “Eco-imperialism” of the white upper-middle class who think it’s “neat to have Africans with no electricity.”
The editor of the San Francisco Earth Island Institute’s online magazine, The Edge, Gar Smith, spoke about what he considered to be the virtues of poverty. San Francisco was replete with environmental groups, for it was indeed a fine environment to live in for any trust-fund kid who believed in Eco-imperialism. Earth Island Institute was once popular with millions of schoolchildren for its efforts to save Keiko, the killer whale that starred in the movie Free Willy. Now they found a greater cause and sent representatives to this week’s Earth Summit in Bali with a message that they must have borrowed straight from Marie Antoinette’s manual of “What to Say to Peasants.”
“World’s poverty is relative; you can’t really have poverty unless you have wealthy people on the scene. The idea that people are poor doesn’t mean that they are not living good lives,” Smith said.
This certainly made sense until Smith made this pronouncement about the introduction of electricity to the poor residents of the developing world: “I don’t think a lot of electricity is a good thing. It is the fuel that powers a lot of multi-national imagery. Electricity can wreak havoc on cultures. I have seen villages in Africa that had vibrant culture and great communities that were disrupted and destroyed by the introduction of electricity,” he said. “With the introduction of electricity, the African villagers spent too much time watching television and listening to the radio, allowing their more primitive traditional ways to fade away.”
Smith lamented: “People who used to spend their days and evenings in the streets playing music on their own instruments and sewing clothing for their neighbors on foot-pedal-powered sewing machines lost their culture with the advent of electricity.”
He forgot that the average life span has doubled wherever electricity became available. “If there is going to be electricity, I would like it to be decentralized, small, solar-powered,” Smith said, forgetting his own use of microwave ovens, computers, heaters, power tools, dentist tools, street lighting, flush toilets, and thousands of other conveniences. On the few watts generated by solar power not one of those conveniences would be useful, and many could not even run. He challenged Americans to give up their own modern conveniences and then threw this verbal hand grenade into the crowd: “The real question is, what personal conveniences and self-indulgences are you willing to give up in order to stop destroying the planet?”
This accusation was taken seriously, especially by the scientifically illiterate public, much like the peasants of the Middle Ages who bought indulgences to be relieved of their sins and attain heaven sooner. By now, the naïves who had become used to having any ailment taken care of by the big government programs, fearing they weare destroying the planet, soon created a new health crisis—eco-anxiety. Some seriously believed that the U.S. was not a model for the rest of the world to follow because our level of consuming was unsustainable. Smith projected that if the rest of the world consumed at rates similar to the U.S., the environmental degradation would require “three extra planets to exploit.”
The assembled group, already pre-qualified as a hate-America crowd, was delighted to hear that America was exporting the “myth of the American way” of life. Smith revealed to the group that many of his friends had already voluntarily given up automobiles in favor of bicycles and mass transit. He neglected to explain how the masses would go shopping at COSTCO or HOME DEPOT by bicycle or by mass transit, but nobody noticed the problem.
The gathered eco-society simply assumed that one ate in restaurants like they did and lived like they do. In quaint college towns where most attendees spent their youth debating politics in coffee houses or attending lectures, these were easily reached by bicycle. Now, in big cities, they had limos or taxis. Plumbers and such were just a phone call away; they make house calls. You do not need to drive to the hardware store if you are rich.
If you are rich, the automobile is a passé technology.
To prove the point, Smith used the collapse of Communism in the former Soviet Union as an example of how to solve ecological problems.
“There is a solution to climate change and pollution. We saw it happen to Russia when their economy collapsed. When their industrial plants closed down, the skies got clear. Their air is a lot cleaner now,” Smith said.
However, in the USSR all businesses were government-owned, for this is the main distinction between socialism and capitalism. Therefore, it was the government that could not care less whether Russians would breathe clean air or drink clean water. It was not the automobile-based economy that was producing pollution in Russia anyway. The Russian economy was already bicycle- and shoes-based, the nirvana that Smith wanted America to regress into, some day in the not-too-distant future.
Eco-Imperialists’ Church of Climate Change
By 1980, the founding member of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, had had enough of green peace terrorism. He abandoned Greenpeace after becoming disillusioned with what he considered to be the group’s radical approach to environmental concerns. Instead, Moore put his energy behind the environmental advocacy group Greenspirit and distanced it as far as he could from Greenpeace, which was running “Eco-imperialism at its worst.”
“It’s that kind of arrogance that is coming from a movement that is basically white upper-middle class and is saying that it’s neat to have Africans with no electricity,” explained Moore. “Many Greens now represent a naive vision of returning to some kind of Garden of Eden, which was actually not that great because the average life span was thirty-five.”
“Poverty is romantic … what a terrible thing to say. It’s just so obviously stupid—this romantization of poverty, where people can’t afford to fix their teeth, can’t afford decent nutrition, can’t afford proper health care, can’t afford education. What do they think—that some illiterate with her teeth falling out and living in the mountains is a good life?” asked Moore.
The dire poverty that existed in the developing countries, especially in Africa and Latin America, was a kind of poverty that no one would wish on anyone. Yet, many of the poverty-stricken residents of the developing world did seem optimistic despite their conditions. That did not mean they were happy. Hope springs eternal. The tourists from Capitalist countries who visited Eastern Europe during its Communist decades learned why people could still laugh while they were dying of malnutrition: They were telling jokes about their leaders. Satire is the last resort of the oppressed.
By the turn of the millennium, they were telling jokes about the environmental movement too, featuring some of the world’s biggest losers who became Eco-imperialists: Al Gore and Mikhail Gorbachev. The original mission of ecological protection had been failing, except in the richest countries. India, China, and Brazil became the worst polluters, and even Europe failed to attain the Kyoto objectives, for which they so arrogantly signed on. Eco-imperialists now borrowed Lenin’s techniques by encouraging class envy and anti-Capitalist rhetoric.
The environmentalists added a modern component to Leninism: Inject guilt into people for consuming, as if consuming by itself causes destruction to the environment. There is no truth to that at all; the wealthiest countries on earth have the best looked-after environments. Poverty, not wealth, is one of the biggest threats to the earth’s ecological health. The evidence is that environmental destruction is caused by poverty, because there is no money to reforest, no money left to prevent soil erosion, no money to clean the dirty water.
Then, in 2005, the Green wave and global climate change religion were joined by the farm lobby, and the U.S. Congress made ethanol a mandatory additive to gasoline. Since ethanol is made from grain, in two years the price of corn doubled and the poorest people were hit the hardest, having lost their cheap source of food. When more than half of your budget goes for food and the price of food doubles, the result is hunger. Thanks to the political activists and media, both having very little actual scientific background, trying to save the world on behalf of the newfound religion of global warming caused the poorest countries to become even poorer.
In 2008, speaking before an audience in Boise, Idaho, Dr. Moore confirmed that there is no proof that humans are causing global warming, and he wisely advocated a dramatic shift toward reliance upon nuclear power.
In light of the fact that Greenpeace was originally established for the very purpose of opposing underground nuclear testing, the Greenpeace founder’s change of direction was most refreshing. The highest guru from the eco-political culture contradicted the agenda promoted by science illiterates from Hollywood who blessed Al Gore for advancing his silly and self-serving global warming crusade with fabricated evidence.
Dr. Moore, who today represents the Clean Air and Safe Energy Coalition, believes that the only viable way to reduce America’s reliance upon fossil fuels and foreign energy sources is to add hundreds of safe nuclear power plants during the upcoming decades. Although he acknowledged that solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources could assist in this transition, they simply don’t possess the enormous potential that nuclear energy does.
Naturally, radical environmentalists reflexively accused Dr. Moore of selling out, because their other arguments against nuclear power have evaporated during recent years. So how did Dr. Moore respond to these accusations? He merely pointed out that his professional and educational backgrounds are in actual science, whereas people whose backgrounds lie in political activism dominate Greenpeace.
And Dr. Moore was correct. The simple fact is that nuclear power provides America’s cleanest, safest, most reliable, cheapest, and most independent source of future energy.
Nuclear energy emits none of the so-called “greenhouse gases” that environmentalists claim warm the globe, so one would assume that they would enthusiastically embrace it. But alas, environmentalists continue to irrationally oppose nuclear energy at every turn, oblivious to their contradictory positions.
With 103 reactors in operation across the United States, nuclear power today provides 20 percent of America’s electricity, our second-largest source. By the year 2030, this is expected to expand to 25 percent, even as American energy consumption increases. Even France, a nation that those on the Left typically wish to imitate, generates over 76 percent of its electricity through nuclear energy. Despite this, the environmentalist lobby is not persuaded.
Additionally, the uranium from which nuclear energy plants obtain their power exists in abundance within the United States, as well as Canada and Australia. Accordingly, nuclear energy allows Americans to reduce reliance upon the Middle East, Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, and other undependable nations such as Nigeria.
Moreover, unlike other renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower, nuclear reactors do not depend upon unreliable weather or fluctuating natural conditions, rendering it far more reliable. It is also less subject to skyrocketing commodity prices and foreign suppliers than other energy sources, such as oil or natural gas.
And in terms of safety, a person would have to live next to a nuclear plant for over two thousand years to receive the amount of radiation created by a single medical x-ray. Nuclear generators are also better protected against terrorism and other calamities than other plants, as the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that nuclear plants “are probably our best-defended targets.” And despite such over-hyped media creations as Three Mile Island, not a single life in America has ever been lost due to a nuclear malfunction or accident.
Nuclear energy also has the lowest production cost of the major sources of electricity. Clearly, nuclear power could help alleviate many of America’s increasing energy difficulties. Ultimately it would reverse the shortage of food created by hysterical environmentalists’ propaganda, emanating like bad exhaust fumes from their countless lavish buffets at Earth Summit conferences.
But will America listen to science? No religion dies easily.
PART TWO: THE FUTURE
On Quantum Politics:
Right and Wrong Are Dead
2001, The beginning of the Big Government
For some twenty generations after the Pilgrims applied the free enterprise system to farming, Americans enjoyed four centuries of prosperity and also helped millions of people all over the world survive. Then it all came apart.
America abandoned the fundamental decision that Bradford made. Individualism was out, and big government was in.
For four centuries, the right was right and the wrong was wrong. The truth came in discrete pieces, quanta. But in the late twentieth century, the system of truth quanta, right and wrong, changed. Now it was a mush, where right started and wrong ended was a matter of personal opinion. Black and white were replaced by shades of gray. Relativism ruled: Everybody could be a little right and at the same time a little wrong or vice versa.
This was the principle of now-extinct quantum politics: Things can be right, and things can be wrong. Bradford was right; Lenin was wrong. But many a professor of soft subjects at American universities still thought there was the third way: a shade of gray.
Marxism would succeed—if only given enough time, money, smart people, and so on.
And so began the new era of relativism. Right was right, maybe. Wrong was also good, sometimes. And so, each law passed by Congress and each White House decision, even each decision by the Supreme Court, had more than two sides. Each proposal, regardless of how valid, met with several oppositions, regardless of how idiotic. You are OK and I am OK was the book to read.
One side won, the other side lost, and there was no way of telling who won until the votes were counted, and not even then. Civilization advanced like a snail climbing up the wall, up during the day, sliding down during the night. Progress happened if the winner was right, and decay occurred if the winner was wrong. Our past was made out of such right and wrong quanta.
The decisions made by the best American presidents also were the best for America, and decisions made by the worst American presidents set America back. Or, was it vice versa? How could we have won World War II or dismantled the Soviet Union with relativistic Carter or Clinton? Fortunately, American presidents’ rule is limited to two terms, and although the voters can be fooled more than once, they cannot be fooled twice in a row.
Imagine an America in which certain right quanta did not occur.
To begin: The isolationists in America succeeded in 1940 and abandoned Great Britain to its fate; peaceful coexistence with the Soviets remained; we left oil in Kuwait to Saddam; Clinton vetoed welfare reform for the third time, and so on.
Assume that for all the key decisions the coin had actually fallen on the wrong side. You would now be living in the Fourth Reich or the USSA—the United Socialist States of America. And things would not be well. This is the setting of our future that is facing the attack of a religious force, Islam.
Our relativistic government no longer can tell the difference between a friendly force and an enemy. Multiculturalism blends good and bad quanta into an amorphous mess. Like mixing good and rotten apples in the same box, soon all will be rotten. President Reagan was the last president who clearly articulated right from wrong, and Americans understood it. We elected him twice with immense majority and thus entered a period of peace and prosperity.
But not for long.
With peace dividends and the absence of danger came the luxury of a “kinder, gentler” society. Suddenly unambiguous, straight-talking America slipped into the future without clear definitions of good and bad, right and wrong. We no longer were even allowed to discriminate between the two. The word itself was eliminated from use. The result was Clinton and then Bush.
Now our political leaders can only be elected by promises they cannot keep—in short, lying, for the lie allows diversity and relativism. Telling the truth is telling it like it is. And being accused of telling it like it is, is no longer socially acceptable.
So how can a socially unacceptable person ever be elected, especially in a society where only half of the eligible voters care to vote? Those who do not vote do so because “all politicians lie,” and many of those who vote believe the lies.
Introduction of the American Left
It is said that the American Revolution succeeded with one-third of the population being for secession, one-third for staying with the British, and one-third who were afraid to take sides. That is how in the early twenty-first century the American Left succeeded in taking over America.
Who is the American Left? From the top down, the wealthiest politicians are Left Democrats, most worth hundreds of millions of mostly inherited dollars. Following them are Hollywood actors, who are paid millions for reading other people’s lines but believe nevertheless they are smart enough to make public policy pronouncements. Next come the people who became journalists because they could not do math or fainted at the sight of blood; 90 percent of these vote for the Left. They work for the major newspapers that keep losing readership and the TV networks, watched mainly by the lower-IQ society. The third group is the professors with tenure in rich universities, well endowed by now-dead white males whom they so despise. Most of the endowments would never exist had the donors followed their teachings.
The American Left—and not you—always knows what is good for you. Never mind the spectacular failures of such famous Socialists as Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Ho, Mao, Allende, Ortega, Mugabe. At the micro level, there are Leftist leaders such as Jim Jones, friend of the San Francisco Liberal elite and former chairman of its Housing Commission, who convinced nine hundred people to drink poisoned Kool-Aid and die. Will the supply of such names ever end? They all came to power as minorities pretending they knew what was good for the majority. They were blindly followed, and all failed miserably.
The American Left believes it can do far better. But, when we revise history according to the wishes of the American Left, a catastrophic picture emerges too scary to contemplate.
Nevertheless, fear aside, let’s look at the conditions in America as if the votes of the Left had prevailed during the last two decades of the past century.
First, the Soviet Union is still here, but now it has the largest military on earth. We continue the precarious “peaceful coexistence” based on matching nuclear weapons thousand by thousand in the strategy that carries an appropriate name MAD -- Mutually Assured Destruction—that is, tens of thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at each other. But the Soviet Navy rules the oceans now after President Clinton reduced our navy by half. The economic boom did not happen, for President Reagan could not decrease taxes and Clinton successfully increased them. The Kyoto Accord was signed, and it prolonged the longest recession of the American economy in history. With the USSR stronger than ever, the Warsaw Pact nations remain under Soviet control; there are no peace dividends and no free Poland, Hungary, Estonia, etc. Yugoslavia still has the third largest army in Europe, and Khadafi keeps terrorizing tourist trade in the Mediterranean. Grenada or Nicaragua or both are now members of the Central American Communist bloc and members of the Havana Pact. The Berlin Wall has been reinforced with the best technology Silicon Valley can produce. Iraq owns Kuwait as well as Saudi Arabia and emirates. We are paying ten dollars for one gallon of gas, which made Al Gore happy. Domestically, Hillary Clinton’s Health Care Reform Act passed, and one-seventh of the nation’s economy is now run by government officials. The best medical care in the world is now on par with the quality of the post office or DMV, but not as swift. Thus, the black market persists, and many physicians are in jail or have moved to Mexico. The Welfare Reform Act did not survive three Clinton vetoes, and welfare rolls are swelling with unwed mothers. As soon as the jurisdiction of the World Court was acknowledged, it ordered the White House to negotiate peace with Osama bin Laden. Most people now work for the government. Elections are still free, but you do not bite the hand that feeds you.
These events are the political quanta that defined the entry into twenty-first-century America just as Bradford’s decision of 1621 defined eighteenth-, nineteenth-, and twentieth-century America. What is a political quantum?
Our future is not made out of never-ending political debates. It is made out of a few but quantifiable political decisions that often depend on the narrow margin of votes in Congress, where a switch from Yes to No can turn good into bad, wealth into poverty, life into death. Such quanta, and not what we do day to day, define our happiness—or misery.
Quantum mechanics, laid out during the first quarter of the twentieth century, profoundly advanced our understanding of nature and provided the basis for so many technologies that by the year 2000 almost one-third of the United States’ gross national product was based on inventions made possible by quantum mechanics.
Yet, after one hundred years, some fundamental enigmas of quantum theory remain unresolved in physics—and the same is true in politics. We simply know that quantified events affect our lives, positively or negatively. The same is true with quantum politics. We can never predict the result with certainty, but we can look back and apply some probability to what is about to occur in the future.
There is already one known link between quantum politics and quantum mechanics. We now know with certainty that a major factor of the Soviets’ demise was that Marxism simply could not accept the probability aspect in quantum mechanics. It was too close to acknowledging God, a concept that is in serious contradiction with the dialectic materialism of Marxism. Anyone who seeks ultimate power will not defer his power to God.
It is now easy to look back and see how badly the Marxists blew it. But this was not the case even in the ’80s when many American TV personalities and university professors considered the Soviets’ choices to be just a different path to the “pursuit of happiness.”
Here’s what some leading lights of the American Left pronounced in all seriousness in the face of millions of refugees who risked their lives to escape from Socialist countries. Seweryn Bialer of Columbia University wrote in 1982: “The Soviet Union is not now nor will it be during the next decade in the throes of a true system crisis, for it boasts enormous unused reserves of political and social stability that suffice to endure the deepest difficulties.”
Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Lester Thurow went a step further, claiming that the Soviet Union was “a country whose economic achievements bear comparison with those of the United States.” As for President Reagan’s talk about trying to liberate Eastern Europe, Thurow announced that “it is a vulgar mistake to think that most people in Eastern Europe are miserable.”
John Kenneth Galbraith of Harvard concluded as late as 1984 that “the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast to the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower.“
Historian Arthur Schlesinger took a trip to Moscow in 1982 and later declared that the vision of pushing the Kremlin over the brink was nonsense. “I found more goods in the shops, more food in the markets, more cars on the street—more of almost everything, except, for some reason, caviar.” He was dismissive of “those in the U.S. who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of economic and social collapse, ready with one small push to go over the brink … Each superpower has economic troubles; neither is on the ropes.”
Thanks to such “useful idiots,” as Lenin called them, it took almost one hundred years to empirically prove that the Marxist formula “from everyone according to his ability to everyone according to his need” creates nothing but shortages, waste, and general misery. Today, it no longer fools most people in the countries where it was tried, and everybody who could escape it, did.
A much better method had to be found to make the naive masses in the rich countries willingly accept their loss of their freedom.
As soon as the Y2K scare
fizzled out, the scare was resurrected as “global warming.” But that too did
not last long when the cooling trend followed. So that nobody could be
offended, “global warming” became “climate change.” Can’t define the coming
“danger” any safer than this.
The Great Deception: Reds Become Greens
The Green movement turned out to be a perfect answer and the ideal heir to Marxism. The Green movement did not ask for the redistribution of wealth, the doctrine that propelled the Red movement and eventually destroyed it because it was unable to create wealth, such as food, machinery, or energy. Once promised, this wealth had to be created and provided to keep people happy.
The Green movement spread like wildfire because it contained a simple and unassailable dogma of the conservation of the earth’s resources, as God created them. Poverty is romantic, claimed the Greens.
The generation born after World War II, who never saw a shortage in their lives, was therefore quite easy to deceive. By the beginning of the third millennium, the deception was mostly complete. By then, like some medieval saintly movement, the Greens attained a monopoly over the protection of air and water with the implied pretentious notion that whoever opposes them is for dirty water and foul air.
Here was the air-tight and water-proof doctrine to attain and maintain political power. No longer was there the problem of perpetual shortages that haunted governments of Socialist countries, such as shortages of bread, toothbrushes, shoes, soap, and other basic items that people need. This time, no promises would have to be broken since nothing had to be made or provided.
The road to power was simply in convincing people that doing less is better than doing more.
This was a brilliant change in the Red’s former operating plan, but the objective was the same: attainment of absolute power by a small group of activists.
The new ruling class no longer needed to fabricate Five-Year Plans to deceive the people as to how much better they would be five years from now. The new ruling class no longer needed to explain over and over, as they had to in the Socialist countries, why the Five-Year Plans were not met. Then, a simple promise of a new Five-Year Plan would fool most of them again. Now, less would be more, and whatever goods the small ruling class needed could simply be imported from exclusive boutiques in Paris.
The Greens learned about exclusivity from the history of the Reds. The Communist Party never accepted more than a tiny fraction of the population into its membership ranks. Why bother with membership in a single-party state where party membership has no bearing on the election results at all? All that a higher number of party members would do is degrade the elite-class status of the party members and their quality of life. There are never enough goodies to spread among the elite anyway.
The Passengers in the Old Gulfstream Five
2017, Mexico City International Airport
The high-pitched whine of G-five’s twin jets at low rolling power could not hide an ear-splitting blast from the cabin: “Roger!”
The president was obviously not pleased with the landing. Her deep voice continued, “What the hell was that?”
“Carrier landing, ma’am,” answered Roger’s copilot, John Thompson. “It was my doing. Just a little practice.” He was not about to call the bitch Madam President.
Better explain that, thought John. “I have to do it when I can, ma’am. We no longer go out into the middle of the ocean and practice landing. No fuel. All we get is a simulator here and there. Just enough to get killed if we have to defend the country.”
John, of course, had his doubts if it was still worth defending the country. For whom? For Commie pinkos who have taken over and become the ruling class?
Yes, the shortest path to riches is Communism. Back in the previous century, would the Russian people want to defend themselves from America? No, only the Soviet leaders would. Same for Mexico. But now, the tables had turned. During the last decade, Mexico’s fortunes had changed. Mexico was now flush with money, mostly by selling energy, of all kinds and types, to its impoverished neighbor up north. Up north, especially in once-wealthy California, with Socialism came shortages. Nothing was learned from the prior century’s history of the Soviets and Eastern Europe. It can’t happen here, they said, but it did.
Therefore, John, a former navy pilot, could now only fly simulators. Virtual reality was everywhere. But John wanted to enjoy this landing. It was the real thing. Like landing on an icy runway. Drop down on engines only, no brakes all the way to the ramp. Closest thing to drop in onto the heaving flattop.
“Like making love,” said John to himself, “there is no substitute for the real thing …” But he kept quiet. The three women on board made the rules. Two of them had studied in Berkeley, and their careers were in the world of virtual reality, artificial intelligence, and dot orgs. Would they even understand that there were things that could be done better without electric power?
Now they were on the ground. The World’s Smartest Woman and her two aides, Rose Thorn and Fataisha Firmat-Acton, flew into Mexico City on important business. Fataisha, the secretary for public benefits, and Rose, the first woman vice president of the United States, developed a plan to get financial help from their southern neighbor. They arrived with their hats in their hands. Half of the country, especially California, was out of power. Out of juice. The rolling blackouts were replaced by the rolling power service, and this really hurt the economy. Not only did the industry begin to move south of the border, but people were also missing work just to do their laundry, waiting for the power to come on.
Calling the president and the World’s Smartest Woman “ma’am” was not proper protocol, but John Thompson did not give a damn anymore. He was a guy from Texas, and he knew he had made a mistake in not returning home after the 2010 Texas Independence Referendum. Now he was stuck with these three hens in a rusty jet. He may still split one day, if he could only sell his old Napa vineyard.
Fataisha looked through the big oval window as their Gulfstream came to a stop. “No red-carpet treatment today … Mmmm … But, a mariachi band is playing …”
“No, not for us,“ she determined after some pause. It played for a planeload of arriving Italian girls. Sixteen-year-olds or so.
“My, God, they are clones!”
Indeed, they were all identical. Italians had it all figured out. If you have to clone something, why not the best you have? Drudge Media System reported that the only problem they had was whom to clone: Gina, Virna, Sophia, Antonella, Silvana, etc., etc. … The mariachi were a telltale sign of who would be received by el presidente today …
“No red carpet … Well, let’s make a dignified exit anyway.”
Rose remembered the feeling of superiority she had every time she welcomed some third-world country dignitary at Dulles Airport. Now she was one of them. Nevertheless, her training in self-esteem was excellent.
“Let’s show them we are from Socialist America, not from some third-world country.”
Rose, the tallest of the three women on board G-five, was about six feet tall and presented a substantial figure, worthy of the first woman vice president of the United Socialist States. She stepped in front of a mirror.
Trying to install her fashionable hat, a la Bella Abzug style, with not too much success, she bumped her head into the low cabin ceiling and all she could see was her feet.
“I sure miss the old Air Force One, or Two, or even Three,” she said to the World’s Smartest Woman, remembering the heady days when she and Fataisha were promoted from interns to aides in the White House several decades ago.
“Even the tail section, where they put Newt, was more comfortable.”
“But that’s the price of building Socialism,” she mumbled to herself, and then aloud to her companion: “Fidel Castro told me he had to fly in Cessnas. And, poor fellow, probably still does, with a parachute attached.”
“Now … let’s get serious. We are here to get electricity and oil from these macho bandidos.” Such words were outlawed during the days of blooming multiculturalism, but now the tables had turned.
“You think our payment plan will work?” asked Fataisha. “These guys know they have us over a barrel.”
“But … Joe assured me that his new mega-movie, The Multiple Bypass at Templo Major, will do it. It’s a master work of multiculturalism. We apologize. We are sorry. We totally misunderstood the Aztecs’ heart surgeries. In it, America clearly states: We got it all wrong.“
“Joe already sent them the promo.” Joe was actually Yussuf, originally Joseph Schmellnik, the film producer who made his fortune making porno movies for the Internet. His was the only business that actually made money during and after the dot-com flameout. To keep his empire out of trouble, he contributed heavy campaign donations, for which he was allowed twice to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom. After 9/11, he changed his name to Yussuf to be in line with the Muslims—after all, they ran the banks now—then he became Giuseppe upon the Vatican denouncing his porn business. When the Leftists came to power, he said, “Just call me Joe, like Stalin.” And he continued to make money by making TV ads for corrupt politicians.
“They should like that,” concluded Rose. “I’m so glad we made Hollywood the privileged industry. Make sure they get an extra ration of electric power.”
She turned to the flight attendant who was holding her bag. “Steward, let’s go.”
It gave her a special pleasure to get even with the male chauvinistic pigs who still called flight attendants stewardesses.
The Gulfstream steward pushed the steps button and the steps unfolded out of the door. The three important ladies walked off the plane to shake hands with the deputy director general of Petrolieros Mexicanos.
“Only ten years ago, many of these guys would be happy if I’d let them blow leaves in my garden in Berkeley,” Fataisha whispered to the World’s Smartest Woman, lamenting the disastrous turn of events. The new Socialist America was falling apart in front of her eyes. Fifty years had passed since the dismantling of the Capitalistic freedom of America was started in Berkeley with the free speech movement. The leaders of the American Left were supposed to build a new, better America and world.
Early 2000’s, the river of gold dries up
John Thompson returned to California in the late twentieth century from Texas and bought himself ten acres of land in Napa Valley—then you could still buy or sell and own land—and planted it with grapes. He could do anything well. After teaching the IBM management trainee classes in San Francisco, he flew Boeing 747s for TWA till it went bankrupt, then tended his vines and flew navy jets from Alameda Air Station. Life in California could not get any better. How long can this good life last, John often wondered. He remembered what John Steinbeck wrote in The Log from the Sea of Cortez: “And suppose some all-powerful mind and will would cure our species so that for a number of generations we would be healthy and happy?”
It almost happened. Liberals invented the “all-powerful mind” of government. It would take care of any problem anybody had: universal health care, food stamps, aid for dependent children, paid family leave, etc. Steinbeck analyzed the consequences: “These are factors as powerful as other genetic factors. To cure and feed would be to change the species, and the result would be another animal entirely.”
The human species changed. By 2010, a new human animal began to prevail in America: Liberals. But the fail-safe law of nature resists change; plenty of species remained unchanged. The main one was appropriately called Conservatives.
Steinbeck continued: “Certain communicants of the neurological conditioning religions practiced by cowardly people who, by narrowing their emotional experience, hope to broaden their lives, lead us to think we would not like this new species. These religionists, being afraid not only of pain and sorrow but even of joy, can so protect themselves that they seem dead to us. The new animal resulting from purification of the species might be one we wouldn’t like at all. For it is through struggle and sorrow that people are able to participate in one another—the heartlessness of the healthy, well-fed, and unsorrowful person has in it an infinite smugness.”
So, who needs defense; who needs the military? Who needs to work, even think? Captain Thompson often wondered how long this partying could last before they hit us from behind, if not from the front. First the Alameda Air Station was closed; the navy found the area too hostile to the military. Both California senators and most congresswomen were antimilitary. Alameda was Congressman Dellums’ district, and the congressman was no friend of the military. Then came the TWA Flight 800 explosion. John was quite sure it was an act of terrorism not a 747 malfunction. But political correctness prevailed. After all, we were creating a multicultural society and, really, we could not take sides. TWA sold its last 747 by 1998. And finally, on that fateful September 11, 2001, when TWA made its last transcontinental flight, another protected minority converted four Boeings into kamikazes and killed three thousand innocent people. It seemed the good life for John was over.
Not quite. In 2001, the Californian economy became the fifth largest in the world. Why California got so rich was lost on most people. Bigger than France. Only three decades earlier, France was one of the four superpowers of the world. What happened? This was such heady stuff that according to the fashion of the age, only some Hollywood stars could understand it. Once or twice, even Congress consulted clueless actors’ expertise, knowing full well that their knowledge was obtained solely through their acting roles. No, they did not have a clue what made California wealthy, was the answer. California simply was rich because it was California.
That type of logic prevails with most actors. They are professional pretenders, and their acting fame qualifies them as spiritual leaders to many. Most believe that moral relativism should replace the U.S. Constitution anyway. At least in California, most people believe them.
Some Californians thought this was crazy and emigrated to Texas or Nevada, but John was retired by then and growing grapes. He decided to stay. But little did he know that in a few years he would be a citizen of the first Socialist state on the American continent, save Nicaragua in the ’80s. Even his small possession earned with hard work, the vineyard, was in danger of becoming state property if he did not pay all the taxes that the government kept inventing to keep bribing the voters with programs of all kinds.
In his young days, John Thompson was a navy flyer, and now he was moonlighting as a pilot of the presidential jet. At least he could get some flying hours in this way. Due to the demilitarization policy, there was no money for military flights. Moreover, this way he could pay the wealth tax the state put on his vineyard. But more than that, he was able to visit foreign countries, a privilege which was now only available to the state officials, like the three women on board.
Eastbound over the Pacific Ocean
2010, Conversation in Air Georgia 747
America used to grow magnificent watermelons. Nick Pisarenko was one farmer who grew some of the sweetest and crispest watermelons. These you could buy at any American supermarket for a couple of dollars, from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Nick’s watermelon ranch was started in the 1930s by Nick’s parents with a couple of dollars to their name in San Joaquin Valley—what used to be a desert in mid-California. When three-quarters of a century later Nick inherited the ranch, it was already quite a valuable property.
There were some problems, though. Nick had to install special water pumps that would not suck in the yellow-bellied lizard that liked to swim in the pond. And pumping water needed a lot of expensive energy. But more surprises were in store; the inheritance tax he owed to the government was almost two million dollars, an amount of cash that Nick never dreamed of having and certainly had no way to pay. He found some Mexican buyers. They were flush with money. He sold the watermelon patch to Jose and Miguel, two brothers who were actually illegal immigrants.
As much as he loved his native California, Socialism makes people vote with their feet, and Nick emigrated to Ukraine, almost one century after his father left it for America. That is how much the world had changed … Nick’s father Nikolay, came to America around 1925 after an exhausting trip across Siberia, just barely escaping Soviet troops, crossing China in and on freight trains, and from there taking a ship to America. He arrived in America like most legal immigrants: with no money but with plenty of talent and will to work.
Back in 1917, somewhere in the endless plains of Russia, the junior Nikolay attended school while helping on his father’s farm. They, and farmers all around them, grew enormous amounts of food and sold most of it to Western Europe. No marketing pitch was needed then to call Russia the breadbasket of Europe. Most Europeans knew it.
Then came 1917, the year of the Soviet Revolution, and everything in Russia changed for the worse, or worst. Nikolay sensed what was coming. Lenin was not fond of landowners, so-called kulaks, and eventually killed most of them—among them Nikolay’s father and his elder brother Pyotr. Lenin was convinced that the government could grow food far better than the kulaks could. But he was wrong.
This was the beginning of the great Russian famine during which several millions of Russians perished of starvation. Nikolay was lucky. Just in time, he abandoned his home and everything he had. But he saved his life—and this was enough when you came to America. There he ended up growing watermelons. And what watermelons they were! You could not find anything like this in Europe.
Now Nick, Nikolay’s son, in his late seventies, was flying back to Ukraine, almost on the same route his father came in—across the Pacific Ocean. In the seat next to Nick was an elegantly dressed girl. She introduced herself as Jacqueline—but call me Jackie—and told Nick her parents were Vietnamese refugees. She was born and raised in California. She received a scholarship in Tbilisi University in Georgia to work on a master’s degree in viticulture.
“So both of us are second-generation refugees from the Reds,” observed Nick.
He was pleased to have such civilized company on a long flight, remembering that his luck with seat companions had not been too good recently. Usually the young ones were quite dumb, as a rule the products of TV, video games, and public schools. The electronic beat of acid rock must have dissolved any metal they were made of as well. Nick often thought that the rings they hung from their noses and ears and other body parts substituted for their lack of inner metal.
This girl was different. She wanted to know what he did.
“I used to farm watermelons.” In no time, the conversation between the former farmer and the future agronomist reached the fine points of growing watermelons.
“Watermelons are green inside and out when small,” Nick explained. “As they grow, they become more and more red inside.”
“Ah, they are so good,” Jackie said, ”yet … they got such a bad name in Vietnam. My grandfather in Saigon was exposed by a watermelon and executed.”
“Really?“ It had been decades since Nick heard his father use the word in this same context. Beware of watermelons, he used to say.
“So the term was universal,” concluded Nick. The code word spanned generations. He went on:
“Communists killed about one hundred million people during the past century.
That many dead bodies should have been proof enough that life in any of the People’s Republics that constituted the evil empire was quite unsafe. Socialism can be dangerous indeed.
Consider that these people did not die in any physical battle. Almost all were executed for practicing free speech.“
Jackie nodded, carefully looking around for anyone who may be listening to their conversation.
Nick continued, “Criticizing the Communist Party was simply not allowed, and if you did not know who was listening, talk became a dangerous activity. One soon learned that survival often depended on knowing the secret code which identified who is the party member and who is not. The code classified the party members into tomatoes, radishes, and watermelons. Tomatoes, red inside and outside, were a danger, but known. Radishes, who were only red on the outside, were harmless. Watermelons, however, were deadly.“
Jackie nodded; her father often described his life in Vietnam in these terms. She continued to listen.
“When in 1991 the evil empire collapsed, the radishes could shed their red coats. Now they no longer needed to be sycophants to earn their living. The tomatoes, now totally discredited by the abundant evidence of the failures of Marxism, could not hide. Their visibility swept them into friendly territories of academia and media; they became professors and journalists.“
Nick turned toward Jackie so that he could make this point very clear: “But the watermelons were not noticed because they found their place among the Greens.
“We now even have the hate police in California. You go to jail for hate speech.”
“It is almost here; it’s plain as day. Nevertheless, so few people saw it coming.” Jackie nodded. “But we are safe here. This is a Georgian plane; they have real glasnost. No free-speech police here.”
Nick could not agree more. “How things have changed,” he sighed. “In America, rights were your guarantees against government. Then came Clinton, who wanted us to be like Europe. In Europe, rights are your entitlements to what the government ‘owes’ you and allows you to do.”
“Indeed so.” Jackie learned civics and U.S. history well from her teacher at the San Jose State University business school. ”Equality meant everyone has the same rights before the law. Then the Liberals copied Europe, and now equality means the government should make sure everyone earns the same money and has the same level of success.
“That is pure Marx. The power of our government was limited by our Constitution, but we just have too many lawyers. They made the Constitution into a living document, and it is so alive that there are virtually no limits on what the government can do.”
“Even control free speech. That’s why I am again voting with my feet. I’ll miss California but not its government. Fortunately, I speak the language; it’s almost like going home. But where will the Americans go to escape Marxism. England?
“Let me tell you a story my father told me about how free speech worked in the Soviet Union, the workers’ paradise.“
“Ivan Ivanovich was a worker in a steel mill,” continued Nick, “of the polluting type that any Socialist country needed to meet its ever-elusive goals of the Five-Year Plan. Comrade Ivanovich always attended the Five-Year Plan meetings; after all, absence itself was a form of free speech that you would not dare to exercise. At the end of each meeting, the commissar, who conducted the meetings, always asked: ‘Are there any questions?’
“There never were. It was normal procedure that nobody ever had a question, and this formality always concluded the meeting. To everyone’s delight.
“One day, when the commissar asked, ‘Are there questions?’ Comrade Ivanovich raised his hand and said, ’Yes, I have one. Why have we no bread?’
“The surprised commissar did not expect a question outside his tons-of-steel pitch and especially not this one. He had no ready answer but replied, ’Well, let me ask about this at our next Cell meeting. I’ll give you the answer next time.’ Reaching for his notebook, he inquired, ‘Comrade, what is your name?’ With that, the meeting was over.
“The following week, the commissar again talked and talked about the Five-Year Plan and its coal and steel production, but not a word on the bread shortage. Finally the time came again for questions, and again there was the usual silence. Finally a small voice was heard from the back of the room: ’Yes, Comrade Commissar, I have one question. Where is Ivan Ivanovich?’
“For seventy-five years, people were disappearing for such or other negative comments—and then came ‘glasnost.’ With it, free speech returned to Russia. By 1991, the Red empire collapsed and the secret code was no longer needed. The world breathed a sigh of relief. Communism collapsed of its own weight and no nuclear war was necessary. And so it seemed. Glasnost led to free speech, and free speech led to free elections, from Albania to Russia. Free speech and free elections—we were assured—would purge the world of Communist dictators just like the wars eliminated the Nazis and Fascists.”
Nick looked out of the window. The blue of the Pacific Ocean was below them and the American continent was far behind.
“The promised land has changed. For four hundred years, the world was beating on its door to come in. What actually happened?” asked Jackie.
“We were misinformed. Although Communism lost, the Communists won. Changed color, became Green, leaped the Atlantic, and landed in America. How could this happen in the countries where free speech and free elections were assured, and indeed happened? Free speech and free elections are wonderful concepts if all the people have equal opportunities to have their speeches heard and to present their platforms to large audiences. Such equal opportunity, however, was simply not present in the former Communist countries, because the state owned all—that is, one hundred percent—of the property. How else can you attain Socialism? All the assets—banks, insurances, factories, schools, media, forests, farms, or any other significant property that was plundered by the Communists when they took power—were in the hands of the plunderers. It was a redistribution of wealth, from many to the few who ran—or better, owned—the state.
“As we now know, no force or violence was needed for the change. The Soviet system collapsed of its own weight and disintegrated. The new governments of the just-born democracies in Eastern Europe were now looking towards the West for advice.
“Alas, just at that time in the West, precisely in the countries that built their prosperity by respecting private property, the concept of redistribution of wealth that collapsed the Soviets became popular. Professors from Capitalist universities, such as Harvard, crisscrossed Eastern Europe and advised many a naive new government against restitution of property to the legitimate owners. This was terrible advice, for it ensured the re-election of former Communists to power. Now they obtained power by legitimate means. They also proved a new political strategy: It’s easy to win free elections if one party holds all the wealth.
“This technique to win elections was not lost on some politicians in America: Could we pass a law in the United States Congress by which only some can influence elections, by selective freedom of speech? Yes, indeed, we could.
“The first step to this goal was attained by the 2002 campaign finance reform act, proposed by senators McCain and Feingold. Like the term workers’ paradise in the twentieth century, the act used all the right words to appear benign. Yet, it banned free speech to any citizen sixty days before the elections—precisely at the time when an average voter starts paying attention. Of course, it exempted the media.
“Thus, instead of the American political model infecting Eastern Europe, it was the political model from Communist Europe that infected America. The candidates promoted by the media began to get elected. Certainly nobody could claim that the elections were not totally free, especially since one would expect that people in the media were of a balanced mix of political opinions. But that was not even close. Already in the early nineties, Vanderbilt University showed that about ninety percent of journalists voted for candidates that stood for more government and less individual freedom. Now, in the twenty-first century, the American people, so easily influenced by advertising, were in the hands of the media, driving it down the road toward the growing black hole of Socialism.
“We hoped President Bush would veto this monstrosity, but he passed the buck to the United States Supreme Court. They deliberated the constitutionality of the campaign finance reform—is it a violation of free speech or not?—but watermelons were in the majority again, and the campaign finance law was ruled constitutional. The outcome was expected, for the only justices that the Senate would have approved for the Supreme Court were the product of big law schools, where the Liberal Left has gained absolute power.
“Thus, the campaign law became law and the media in America was the sole voice able to influence elections. They no longer reported the events. Rather, they interpreted events with bias and sympathy toward the failures, the guilty and the unlucky. Achievement not only became politically incorrect, people began to envy achievers, and they in turn simply ended achieving.
“Precisely what happened to the Communist bloc fifty years ago was now happening in America. America was beginning to lose its competent workforce. The competent and the achievers began to leave the country for places where they were appreciated, and those who remained said, ‘They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work …’”
“Isn’t that exactly what we are doing?” asked Jackie. She was still a student and had a lot more to say about education.
the American Nation
Jackie had much to add: “The availability of a competent workforce turned out to be even a worse problem in the Socialist-leaning America than it was in the Communist countries. If Communists did one thing right, it was to provide a good education to the masses. It was built on the disciplines of existing civilizations and not on such aimless mush as outcome-based education and moral relativism. The Communists’ good schools turned out to be their tactical error; instead of enhancing their power, they were the major factor contributing to the collapse of the Communist empire.
“It seems that the American Liberals did not want to repeat this mistake. They did all they could do to dumb down public schools and increase the number of dependent people. The collapse of public education created millions of semi-illiterate voters, TV addicts who reacted to images with feelings rather than brains. The media went along; it glorified performers: rock bands, movie actors, or sports stars who produced nothing of value, yet something an average journalist’s IQ could understand and the underclass could easily follow. On the other side, people who were creating the nation’s wealth and its well-being were ignored. Producers and creators, such as engineers, farmers, inventors, chemists, and such, were doing things that were generally over the heads of the media or impossible to cover in TV bites. These people who created the highest living standard that the world has ever experienced were seldom recognized for their contributions. Instead, they were taxed to the point where many stopped working.
“Look, here we are, you of Ukraine stock and I from Vietnam. You would think American natives would see the severity of the problem of education better than you and I can. But it appears they are concerned with the fluff of multiculturalism.
“This is a political disease that the American Liberals invented to attack their mother country: the divisiveness of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism defined all cultures as being equal in value. The idiocy of the concept was immediately apparent if you asked: How about the Nazi culture? The political theory divide and conquer that created the power of the Roman emperors, divide et impera, was now re-invented by the Liberal politicians to rule America.
“Multiculturalism was exactly the reverse of the process that created America. It was the undoing of several-centuries-long evolution, where the best of the diverse cultures of immigrants to America were blended into the glorious and coherent American civilization. Liberals have destroyed it, but is it dead?” wondered Jackie.
Nick had the flight steward bring over two cognacs. “Cheers to you, Jackie. It’s young people like you that will bring it back to life … America was created by immigrants, and immigrants will save it. But don’t ask me who, when, and how.”
Culture Is Not a Civilization
At the beginning of the third millennium, ethnic diversity was unraveling America with full force. Thanks to the brainwashing in schools and by the media, Americans now imported the weak and the bland instead of the “tired and poor” and confused their culture with civilization. A witch doctor from New Guinea had to be equally admired as an Austrian concertmaster. Though all cultures, from Albania to Zimbabwe, have a valid raison d’etre, their reason for existence is not of equal value. Regardless of what these nations’ contributions are, or were, a culture does not a civilization make.
Civilization is an accumulation of layers and layers of accomplishments, often from different cultures. Yet, many universities in pursuit of political correctness threw out the accomplishments of the so-called “dead white males” who certainly came from different cultures, in favor of some drum beating.
It does not take long for such an atmosphere of equivalence-at-all-costs to attract the negatives and repel the positives. Only in the totalitarian countries can the negatives operate freely in society, for the totalitarian authorities provide them legitimacy. By the year 2000, America was still a free country, so the negatives had to find a hiding place among the respectability of the Greens. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the former American Reds and their Progressive sympathizers—an assortment of Communists, Socialists, and other true believers, even thugs, for whom the government is the answer to all problems—changed their color to Green. They hijacked the ecology movement and thus managed to attain more credibility than Capitalists, regardless of the abundant proof that the Communist rather than the Capitalist industry caused the greatest damage to the environment.
And then, during the first decade of the twenty-first century, many found a home in the Democratic Party. Green outside and Red inside, it was inevitable that a so-infiltrated party of FDR, Truman, and Kennedy was soon nicknamed the Watermelon Party by those few who survived the evil empire.
The first indication that Greens were bad for America was their terrorist acts. Driving spikes into trees scheduled for cutting caused many bad chain saw accidents. But that was just the beginning. The Unabomber advocated his beliefs by sending letter bombs. A Green activist in Berkeley accidentally blew herself up in a car while transporting a bomb. Another Green activist was driving all over the Midwest placing pipe bombs in letter boxes. Some Green terrorism was more subtle. Huge projects were closed to protect a few insects; private property was confiscated for disturbing a rare rat; farms went bankrupt when their water was taken; pastures were closed to ranchers; and oil drilling was stopped. Some convicted terrorists from the sixties even managed to find jobs as university professors from where they could spread the damage while on the government’s payroll. Two convicted terrorists of the Weatherman group who were sentenced to sit many decades in prison for blowing up buildings, but were pardoned by President Clinton, became advisors to a presidential candidate in 2008.
There were some genuine Greens who tried to put sense back into the movement—the co-founder of Greenpeace resigned in 2002—but critical mass was reached. The thin layer of Green was now just a camouflage for the voluminous Red center. Under Green skin, with major media on their side, the former Reds easily convinced many a dumbed-down naive American citizen that the opposition party only wanted to breathe dirty air, drink polluted water, and govern sick people. Only the Greens were for clean air, clear water, and healthy people. People believed it, just as one hundred years ago they believed Lenin and eighty years ago they believed Hitler and Mussolini.
On the one hundredth anniversary of the Soviet Revolution, in 2017, it was clear that the American Greens were driving the country towards the final step of Socialism, 100 percent government and 0 percent individual responsibility. Khrushchev unveiled the plan in 1963 when he told Americans in San Jose, California: “We will bury you.”
Nikita was not too far off; one hundred years after the Red October revolution in Russia, Americans, while thinking Green, elected their first Red government.
The Liberal school system had done its work.
Schools Create the New Dark Age
Flashback to the events of 2009.
Schools were now ruled by a monopoly of PhDs in education, the worthless doctors of teaching. For years, one could obtain the PhD degree in education by simply following the rules of New Age behavior. Revolutionaries of the sixties, members of terrorist groups such as the Weatherman, Symbionese Liberation Army, Black Panthers, and such who blew up buildings and executed judges, now qualified to be professors at many respectable universities and colleges of education. At many American universities, a violent pedigree was a resume enhancement, preferably if it had some Marxist flavor. Sometimes even wearing the right tattoos or a ring through the nose would help to get the job, for it showed the common ground between teachers and students. With the support of the federal Department of Education, the teachers were told to leave no child behind. Leading edge? Many thought that no child left behind meant that the front should stand still or even back up until the trailing edge of stragglers caught up with the front.
There were many great efforts to create the New Age generation—brainwashed on antimilitarism, reinforced with pills into quiet submission and unisex behavior. Yet, boys will be boys, and girls will be girls. Genes in children do not sleep. Here and there, especially in the fly-over states where Liberalism, Marxism, and the general government’s we-know-better-than-parents–what-is-good-for-children attitude had not yet taken a foothold, acts of shocking student violence still occurred. It was somewhat acceptable that such unenlightened states, which the media designated as “red states,” would still have a problem with undisciplined students who listened to what their parents said. But for such outrage to happen in the Liberals’ controlled “blue” states, it was very disturbing. The government had to get involved although the Constitution says said nothing about it. The Department of Education, employing thousands of bureaucrats who did no teaching whatsoever, must have somehow been involved, but not in the three R’s. Moral relativism provided them with plenty of opportunities. Following are a few examples.
It started in Vermont, where Johnny and Marco got into a fistfight after school. Several students made a video and sent it to YouTube. The police were called, and the Armed Response Unit arrived and arrested Johnny and Marco. Mobil devices with videos of fights were confiscated as evidence. They were charged with assault, and both were suspended even though Johnny started it. Diversionary conferences and parent counseling meetings were conducted and the video was shown on six Internet sites.
Massachusetts soon followed. Jeffrey wouldn’t sit still in class, disrupting other students. Jeffrey was given huge doses of Ritalin, was counseled to death, became a zombie, and was tested for ADD. The school got extra funding because Jeffrey had a disability. Jeffrey dropped out of school.
Things got worse. In Illinois, Billy’s fly ball broke a window in his neighbor’s car, and his angry dad slapped him. Billy’s dad was arrested for child abuse. Billy was removed to foster care and joined a gang. Billy’s sister told the psychologist that she remembered being abused herself, and their dad went to prison while Billy’s mum had an affair with the government psychologist.
In New York, Jose, a college student, brought cigarettes to school. The police were called, and Jose was expelled from school for drug possession. His car was searched for drugs and weapons.
In Michigan, Mohammed failed high school English. Mohammed’s cause was taken up by a local human rights group. Newspaper articles appeared nationally, explaining that making English a requirement for graduation was racist. A civil liberties association filed a class action lawsuit against the state school system and his English teacher. English was banned from the core curriculum. Mohammed was given his qualification anyway but ended up mowing lawns for a living because he could not speak English.
In California, ten-year-old Johnny fell during break and scraped his knee. His teacher, Mary, found him crying and gave him a hug to comfort him. Mary was accused of being a sexual predator and lost her job. She faced three years in prison. Johnny underwent five years of therapy and became gay.
With schools like these all over America, in a few years American businesses would run out of employable high school and college graduates and move the last remaining factories and laboratories out of the country. The “hidden” tax revenues that were never appreciated nor understood by the Liberals, resulting from the royalties for the creative work of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, either expired or traveled beyond the border with corporate headquarters, inventors, and creators.
The attack on corporate America had succeeded beyond the Liberals’ wildest dreams. The new dark ages—which started with the 1964 free speech movement in Berkeley and brought us first one-chord guitar music then anonymous sex, followed by the drug culture, and culminated in the Church of Climate Change with its relentless attack on any profitable business—infected the whole nation in less than half a century. Marxist professors also successfully brainwashed most Americans and especially Congress, where the windfall losses were never investigated, only the profits. When Congress found that profits were “bad,” it sent a signal to many taxpayers indicating that losses were good. The same happened in Communist countries; many decided to enjoy life and stopped working. Tax revenues plummeted.
The unintended consequence really surprised the United Nation bureaucrats when they realized that more than one-quarter of their total funding came from America. Is America now broke? The concern about their meal ticket became the call for an urgent meeting with the Nobel Prize Committee.
2016, No Feeding Hand Left to Bite
Pressure from the United Nations and the International Socialist Organization on the Nobel Prize Committee was unbearable. These were old friends, after all. The Nobel Prize Committee was asked to restructure the awards. The Socialist government of the United Socialist States of America, now changed to USSA, pressed the hardest.
The meeting was held in the former Vanderbilt mansion in Poughkeepsie, New York. The mansion did not quite match Versailles, but it was the closest the USSA State Department could come up with to accommodate public dignitaries who had now gotten used to the lifestyle of the power elite. A necklace of helicopter limousines was parked around the vast immaculate gardens overlooking the Hudson River. The new elite class no longer used roads. The potholes were for the people’s transportation. They made travel unbearable even in the air-cushioned automobiles, but more than that, the political elite had to avoid contact with people. It was no longer safe for the elite to travel on the surface. Although the Second Amendment was deleted with the revised Constitution, few guns were collected, and here and there a bullet would fly off a potentate’s vehicle. Limos that traveled through the air space were the only way to go. Or by water; down the slope toward the Hudson River were several yachts, none shorter than two hundred feet. All public property. To represent the people, they always said.
The conference was in the ballroom. The gold leaf ceiling, mirrors, and chandeliers were bouncing light off of each other and off of a few bald heads who sat around the table as well. But in the setting that Marie Antoinette would have approved of, most attendees looked out of place. The gathered had all the finesse of federal prison guards, evidence that the feminazis had at long last come to power.
“We at the Nobel committee certainly understand the complaint by the United Nations representatives,“ meekly proclaimed one shiny baldhead, belonging to a Norwegian man who tried to make the last stand.
“Which is …” The hostile looks from the women who now ruled the impoverished world caused him to dampen the rest of the sentence. “… that it is not fair that most of the Nobel Prizes to date have been given to white men.” In the minds of the assembled, this was not far from an admission of racism. It certainly was the type of self-accusation and admission of guilt that would reappear every century. During the Holy Inquisition, it guaranteed you death without torture; during French Communes, quick separation of mind from the body; during Stalin’s terrorism, it was an invisible shot in the back of the head. In this multicultural setting, the Norwegian certainly did not know what to expect. But he had to go on.
“We have done our best to award peace and literature awards to people who are not white, although they were hard to find. But we are very proud of our records of giving Nobel Prizes to some real losers. For example, my colleagues gave a Nobel Prize for Economics to a Soviet economist when the Soviet economy was in shambles. That was at the time everybody knew the Soviets could not even feed their own people. Remember also, we gave peace prizes to Arafat while he was terrorizing Israel and to Gorbachev for losing the arms race to Reagan. We awarded Al Gore for exposing global warming—when global cooling was almost a decade old. This one was not too bad, for we called it ‘climate change’ and we were right whatever happened. And we have been really, really trying to give every Nobel Prize in Medicine to people who work on AIDS.”
“Why?” The Norwegian looked around the table to see if people really believed what he was saying and then continued, “… we want to encourage sexual practice that does not produce children. We also want to discourage such medical research that keeps old people healthy too long. It is no longer in the public interest to keep the old folks alive. The social programs for the old people simply cost too much.”
“But …“ He took a very deep breath. Now he was about to open a sensitive issue and knew that his was the minority opinion. ”… the Nobel committee does not want to eliminate Nobel Prizes for Chemistry and for Physics just because these awards only go to the white folks. We are open to give them to any race.”
This brought the American ambassador to the UN out of her chair. She was a former madam who became a poet, then professor of history at Harvard and a recognized expert on slavery.
“I propose that these physics and chemistry awards be eliminated immediately. Just look at the American slave owners. Benjamin Franklin, a slave owner, invented electricity. Thomas Jefferson, another slave owner, analyzed weather, tested balloons and submarines, even brought matches to America. No, no. Physics and chemistry have done too much discriminatory damage to our society. The physicists even produced two atomic bombs that were dropped only on minorities. This has to stop, and I ask you to vote for my proposal, which is: I want the money to go for new classes of awards—rap poetry, barbecue technology, to mention just two.”
The assembled Socialists, Leftists, and Liberals just loved these words. The applause and the buzz gave the former madam extra energy. She became inspired with a breakthrough idea.
“Now,“ she continued in her whisky-softened voice, “I am not a hardheaded woman, and I am offering a compromise to all the physicists out there. Let’s combine their award with education and give a Nobel Prize for Physical Education. It certainly is close enough to physics. Thank you.” She laid down all of her three hundred pounds on the delicate Louis XV chair that gave out a sigh of unwanted pressure.
The next speaker was a representative from the American National Teachers Union. “Comrades, por favor, por favor, don’t you know that we stopped teaching physics and chemistry ten years ago? We are a developed nation. Our children no longer need to sweat the hard subjects. Our children no longer have to win. Winning is bad. All baseball games now end in a draw. As Marx said, eliminate the differences. Bring us the lowest common denominator. We should now recognize the losers—our artists who cannot draw, rock musicians who know only one chord, poets who cannot spell, actors who can barely read, journalists who copy from each other—and if we should really want to try, let’s award excellence for being a homeless drug addict, a creator of illegitimate children, a sexual deviant, a transvestite child molester. This is our diversity! Let us celebrate diversity.
“Several years ago, we said we would leave no child behind. Even if we do not move a single child forward, we will succeed. We must have equality, and equality can be achieved only by bringing everybody to the level of the lowest common denominator. We can regress and nobody will be left behind. Even there we have some work to do, for among developed nations our children continue to score the highest on their self-esteem and basketball. Let the underdeveloped nations slave at trigonometry, organic chemistry, and quantum mechanics like our forefathers did before they became wealthy. We are already wealthy; we don’t need that stuff.”
“Okay, we have time for one more comment,” said the chairman.
“Thank you, Madam Chair. As a representative of the artists union, I fully support the previous speaker’s recommendations. Just look at what caused global warming: physics and chemistry. They are the root causes. They have to go if we want to survive.”
Predictably, votes were cast and two-thirds of the votes were for eliminating physics and chemistry from the Nobel Prize list. Immediately, this success was broadcast by every government-owned television channel. The last bastion of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, which Liberals blamed for all the misery in the world, was demolished. There would be no more logical or mathematical proofs. Thinking was now out; feeling was in. It would appear that the superstitious belief in the global climate change won.
“We knew we were on the right track,” commented the mayor of Oakland on national TV that evening. “Several years ago, we invested in cultural centers to teach pottery and yoga in green facilities with such eco features as waterless urinals. Our graduates will now be competitive for Nobel Prizes too.”
Were the preacher Malthus and the quasi preacher Gore right? The media said so, and not for the first time in human history, the last lights of rationality were going out and the world was sinking into irrational darkness.
“We should leave no culture behind” now meant: wait until all cultures catch up with us—even at the cost of regressing. Waterless urinals, invented by the former Roman emperor Vespasian two thousand years ago became the signal: We are all in this together. Instead of creating more sources of energy that would allow the whole world to flush, the pre-Roman “green” technology, some two thousand years old, was re-employed during the energy blackouts.
Then, the most appropriate question for the age of creeping darkness was raised: How long may we keep the lights on?
How to Keep the Lights on During the Dark Age
2009 Even Children Fear to Exhale
When in 1945 everything was falling apart in Adolf Hitler’s attempt to rule the world, his scientists redoubled the effort. “Find solutions to the energy and to the food crises. Wherever!” was the high command. Soon there were some breakthroughs from unlikely sources. Making gasoline out of coal was a success, but butter made out of cow manure just did not smell right. The two problems were not linked, and at least Hitler had partial success while continuing his losing battle.
But in the losing battle of the twenty-first century to eliminate climate change, the crises of energy and food were linked. The production of energy required that food be converted into energy, primarily ethanol, while the production of food needed energy that used ethanol. It was a no-win situation; rather, it was a lose-lose arrangement, spiraling out of control.
The Green lobby managed to outlaw nuclear and hydroelectric power many decades ago. The last attempt to drill in Alaska was vetoed by President Clinton. So few new oil or natural gas wells were drilled since then that the production volume was negligible relative to consumption. The United States had enough coal to last a thousand years, but coal powered plants were outlawed also. Food-powered energy was the last resort. But also most politically correct, for it leveled the playing field with the most backward tribe on earth.
Most Americans were on a diet, so this was an easy sell. But, the authorities had to deal with the problem of where to find more food to be converted into energy.
California again led the way. The bureaucratic breakthrough happened soon after 2009 when the newly elected governor formed the Department of Energy and Food, DEAF. The energy shortage devastated the revenues of the most populous state of the USA. Of California’s three main industries—agriculture, electronics, and film—the electronics and film industries were emigrating to other states due to the lack of energy. Agriculture, the only tax-subsidized industry, did not leave. This put California on a path to becoming a third-world country. It already looked like one with all the illegal immigrants taking advantage of free health care, free schools, and free food.
But many immigrants came to California to improve their lives, not to make it worse. One such person was Jose Manuel. He knew not a word of English when he sneaked across the border ten years ago. After having spent several years under the protection of the sanctuary city of San Francisco, he knew enough English to become a DEAF inspector. His job took him often to those fitness gyms that sprang up all over the country, full of exercise machines that people pushed and pedaled in brightly lit rooms with TV sets glaring from every wall all night. Having been raised in Nicaragua, where muscle power was the main source of energy to grow food, this seemed to Jose a shocking waste of human energy as well as of electric power.
2016, a Trickle of the New Spring
At that very same time, three thousand miles away in a remote cabin on the shore of a small lake in Idaho, seven boys and nine girls were watching the stars appear over the nearby mountain peaks that only minutes ago were glowing red in the setting sun. And not one of them had the arrogance to ask, “Will the earth be there after I grow up?” They knew that this scene has already been repeated several billion times and will repeat again, with or without them.
The sixteen children were members of the Right Wing Renaissance, an international organization of young people dedicated to restoring civilization.
All sixteen children were products of home schooling. Most never attended a public school or any classes on multiculturalism and moral relativism. They knew that spring, summer, autumn, and winter were just convenient names for mushy concepts of global warming and cooling and climate change, and that all these changes were caused by the sun, even the perceived shortage of polar bears.
All these children were born a decade after the Reagan years and after the collapse of the Soviet Union. By not attending public schools, they learned history. They learned about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution and the wars that were fought and won for freedom. They learned about the strange concepts of nuclear disarmament, peaceful coexistence, and mutual assured destruction, although this simply made no sense to them in the context of the world into which they were born where only one benevolent superpower ruled. They were taught how the peace dividend produced the moral slide of our civilization by allowing the leader of the free world perversities and derelictions of duties not seen since Caligula ruled imperial Rome. And how the people followed his example.
For such mismanagement and the selling of national secrets for fat campaign donations, America soon had to pay a substantial price. Motivated by their love-hate paradox of the Hollywood pornographic industry, terrorists from the Islamic world pounced on America while it was sleeping. While its children were being brainwashed in multiculturalism, another culture tried to give America the mortal blow. Nevertheless, the public schools pushed moral relativism until, at the turn of the millennium, it became not only fashionable, but actually required.
Out went the understanding of the laws of nature that extended the human life span to almost one hundred years. A belief in Mother Nature that regressed to the lifestyle of animals was in. Abundant genetic crops were out; a shortage of organic food was in. Abundant nuclear energy was out; dim lights in rooms too hot or too cold were in. In short, misery was in.
Misery was tried previously during President Carter’s administration for four short years, but people did not like it. It was too close to, say, life in the Soviet Union or China. Misery was now back. It returned in full force, ensured by and due to the existence of the First World Socialist Government. Its leaders knew that Socialism requires misery like fire requires oxygen. Eliminate misery and Socialism dies; and the other way around. The solution to end misery would also be the end of Socialist government, including all the goodies that political power brings along.
To stay in power, Socialist governments have at all times depended on abundant and strict police control of its citizens’ movements and thoughts. In the eighties, the stronghold of the Soviet Union over Russia and Eastern Europe was cracked by President Reagan, who understood the power of human creativity when it is given freedom. But Socialists regrouped globally and invented a new, easy to sell religion. The Church of Climate Change preached the new insidious simplistic philosophy that energy consumption causes bad weather. Within a decade it created general misery and poverty worldwide.
Three decades after Reagan’s market driven economics liberated half of the world from slavery, the first World Socialist government was formed by the naïve new generation who, without knowledge of history allowed it to repeat itself.
But the spark of freedom never dies. Due to the wisdom of some parents, some boys and girls escaped the thought control. In the darkest years of the early twenty-first century, they were able to discover and build techniques to again advance the human life span and enrich civilization.
They worked, like their grandparents in obscure locations, far away from the approval of government bureaucrats, mostly with private funds after the government, fearing climate change, turned off all funding of energy-consuming technology.
Like the first Renaissance, the Second Renaissance expanded civilization beyond anything imagined before. Following the Second Dark Age, the Second Renaissance created many magnificent discoveries that improved life on earth into many centuries beyond the twenty-first—nanotechnologies, physiobiologies, nuclear medicine, micronutrition, and such. These discoveries prolonged people’s life span; one hundred years was now an approachable average for most. No government bureaucrat could ever even dream of such unpronounceable innovations as graphics processors, CMOS optics, copper chip metalization layers, content addressable memories, new backhaul systems, modulator-based projection displays, multicore and multicell and tile processors, 3D silicon structures, image based I-O, optical transponders, on-chip test engines, transceivers, cable optics, fast-hardware trusted platform modules, and memistors. Not even a single bureaucrat, not one. Yet, these and many other unplanned but magnificent breakthroughs in science and technology produced techniques that not only provided longer and healthier lives but also insight into nature that gave enough food and energy for everyone.
According to all the predictions by the people who dealt only with words rather than instruments, such an outcome was dead wrong. Business executives, presenting verifiable facts and concrete results, were pitted against politicians, judges, and journalists who dealt with unverifiable abstract thoughts. We could always verify what physicists said but very seldom could trust sociologists. It is the condition of trust. By contrast, the sociologist dealt in broad propositions—such as, “ethnic diversity improves educational outcomes” or “patriarchy causes war”—that, by sinking into a mush of definitions, defy disproof.
By avoiding such mush, the sixteen children in Idaho and many millions all over America restarted the engine of innovation and productivity.
They were the carriers of the American gene, which no amount of Liberal indoctrination could destroy forever.
1500 to 2000, Evolution of Freedom Continues
In 1789 the French revolutionaries came up with this slogan: Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. Fraternity was probably added by the French for style—it made the slogan sound elegant—hoping that women would not notice: “Alors, where is Sororité?!”
Today, fraternity is just another sexist term without the balance of sorority, and political systems simply dropped both. That left only liberty and equality to work with.
After the French Revolution, many revolutions tried to combine the two remaining ideals, liberty and equality, into a workable economic system, but without success. The two simply contradict each other. A system based on liberty is Capitalism, and a system based on equality is Socialism.
A system that insists on equality cannot allow liberty because liberty produces and assures unequal results. Equality evens out the results to the lowest common denominator while liberty allows spectacular successes as well as spectacular failures.
The winner or the loser is progress, for progress is not achieved by mediocrity but by excellence. Therefore, only liberty assures progress. Equality at best ensures status quo, but more likely, decay.
America began with a heavy dose of liberty. As the American nation matured with the proportion of immigrants diminishing, each generation had a slightly diluted preference for liberty-and-risk in favor of equality-and-safety.
Why, then, did Americans not succumb to the social safety model during persistent Socialist attacks, and not even during the brief victory of the Liberals when they wanted to Europeanize America?
It is highly probable that the “homo Americanus” has a different gene pool than most “homo Europensis” have. This natural selection evolved during the five centuries after 1500, because only the people who had the courage to leave everything behind for the sake of freedom and independence came to America. Imagine the travel days before the jet age, when leaving the place of your birth, your parents, relatives, friends, and any property dear to you meant leaving all behind you. Forever.
The “couch potatoes,” albeit not exclusively, preferred the comfort of home. Such triage eventually produced in America a far higher density of risk-takers and adventurists than in Europe. These are the components required for innovation and invention as well as for preservation of freedom.
In each person, there is a mix of two types of genes. One type controls our inclination toward liberty-and-risk and the other our preference for equality-and-safety. The mix of such genes regulates all our behavior.
The immigrants to America brought to the new country the prevalence of liberty genes—otherwise, they would have never emigrated. Through this natural selection, America benefited from a much higher concentration of risk-takers, resulting in its formidable creativity.
Very few people came to America for equality. As the nation matured, Americans with a prevalence of liberty genes became Conservatives, while those with a preference for equality became Liberals. Liberal? What a misnomer! Just like their European cousins, Liberals in America evolved over the last few centuries into “we would rather hide from the bear than attack it.”
Thus, it follows that only Conservatives have been able to successfully protect liberty wherever it needed to be protected. The evidence is plentiful, but the Berlin Wall is evidence enough. It stood for decades during the Liberals’ pursuit of peaceful coexistence with evil. It only came down when the last Conservative president, Ronald Reagan, stated our liberty-and-risk strategy: “We win, they lose.”
Thus, the end result was as good as it was inevitable: the world’s only benevolent superpower. This superpower now lays immobilized and dormant, ruled by genes of equality, where evil and good are equal, awaiting the surge of a new generation with the American liberty genes.
╬ THE END ╬
 Quotes that are part of the record have been footnoted. Quotes without a footnote are fictitious, added to illustrate the probable situation of an event.
 American Civil Liberties Union, formerly often a front for communists, now operating openly with a similar agenda.
 Members of the Progressive Caucus, US Congress 1998 : http://web.archive.org/web/19980206053229/www.dsausa.org/pc/pc.members.html
 What had first been simply the need of the moment was transformed into a full-fledged political project: world socialist revolution. The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press 1999), 271.
 Lenin’s telegram on 10 August 1918: “Comrades! The kulak uprising in your five districts must be crushed without pity. The interests of the whole revolution demand such actions, for the final struggle with the kulaks has now begun. You must make an example of these people. (1) Hang (I mean hang publicly, so that people see it) at least 100 kulaks, rich bastards, and known bloodsuckers. (2) Publish their names. (3) Seize all their grain. (4) Single out the hostages per my instructions in yesterday's telegram. Do all this so that for miles around people see it all, understand it, tremble, and tell themselves that we are killing the bloodthirsty kulaks and that we will continue to do so. Reply saying you have received and carried out these instructions.
PS. Find tougher people.”
Ref.: The Black Book of Communism (Harvard University Press 1999), 72.
 Comintern 7th Congress and the Popular Front http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comintern
 “Very good”
 Office of Financial Investments
 Kamchatka is a large peninsula in Eastern Siberia, next to Mongolia, as far as you can go from Moscow. Molotov was indeed dispatched there after Stalin’s death in 1953.
 Potemkin tried to impress upon the czarina how well her subjects lived by constructing a few stage sets of beautiful villages and setting them along the Volga river as Catherine the Great sailed by.
 Kapitsa--one of the few Soviet scientists to receive a Nobel Prize. Pyotr Kapitsa was born in Petrograd in 1894, attended Petrograd Polytechnic and in 1921 went to Cambridge. He worked with Sir Rutherford and became an assistant director of magnetic research at Cavendish laboratory, fellow of Trinity college and a member of the Royal society. In 1934 Kapitsa went to a professional meeting in Moscow from which never returned. When the American atomic secrets were passed to Soviets in the fifties, Kapitsa was one of the few scientists in the Soviet Union who understood Quantum Mechanics and was therefore placed in charge of developing the Soviet atomic bomb. But the importance of the physics that gave birth to transistor was still not understood by the Party.
 Russian for “free speech” and “change,” a novel concept for Soviet citizens who used to be shipped to Siberia by the thousands for even thinking such thoughts.
 In short, the uncertainty principle states that any attempt to measure the velocity of a subatomic particle, such as an electron, will confuse the simultaneous measurement of its position.
 Cecily Hastings, trans., Erwin Schrödinger: My view of the world (Cambridge University Press, 1964).
 “U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union proceeds on the assumption that the maintenance of power by the Soviet regime rests ultimately on force and that Soviet external aggressiveness stems in part from the nature of the Soviet political system,” Harvard professor Richard Pipes began the forty-three-page secret NSC paper. Pipes went on to quote Khruschev’s conclusion that if a real arms race took place, it might “bring about the collapse of socialism and a restoration of capitalism in our country.” Ref.: Richard Schweizer, Reagan’s War (Doubleday), 156.
 Rush H. Limbaugh, See, I told you so (Pocket Books) 70.
 To this day, Russia has barely one car per one hundred Russians, while in the “mythical” U.S. economy, we have about two cars per one U.S. citizen. And water and air in the U.S. are still far cleaner than in Russia.
 MAD is a product of the 1950s’ US doctrine of massive retaliation, and despite attempts to redefine it in contemporary terms like flexible response and nuclear deterrence, it has remained the central theme of American defense planning.
 Foreign Affairs. Winter, 1982/83
 John Steinbeck, The Log from the Sea of Cortez (Viking Press, 1951), 117.
 John Steinbeck, The Log from the Sea of Cortez (Viking Press, 1951), 119.
 A severe famine of 1921–22 that occurred in Bolshevik Russia. The famine killed an estimated 5 million in the Volga-Ural region. The Bolshevik government had requisitioned supplies from the peasantry for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production.
 The title of her enemies. It was apparently invented by Hillary Clinton during the Monica Lewinski scandal.
 Thomas Malthus set out an idea in 1798 that the world would run out of food due to the limits of available land. Until 2008, the world has been awash in food, except in the countries with failed Socialistic economies or where green energy policies are converting food into fuel.
 Intel decided in 2008 not to build another plant in California. An Intel plant provides annually up to one hundred billion dollars’ income to its infrastructure.