Anti-Subjugator

I was going through my folder looking for something and I found this article, which I wrote in September 1982, Year 10, which would have made me 15 years old. I was living in Fiji at the time, and I used to listen to shortwave radio from all over the world. This letter was written to Radio Moscow World Service. It was typed. The political thought was of course in a very different world where we had the threat of the Soviet Union hanging over our heads. But it shows my first attempt to try to solve this problem. It was titled "NUCLEAR FUSION : OUR LAST CHANCE" and here it is:

In the westernised world (I am Australian), the general opinion of Russia (we all call the U.S.S.R. this) is that they are the "bad guys". Very few of us know much about the government system in U.S.S.R. except that it differs from our own and therefore wrong. However, I have gained knowledge about communism from Radio Moscow's broadcasts. I think there are some points about this system that should be taken up by our own governments but others than should be ommitted in the communism government.

Leaving this topic for the moment, I shall talk about peace and harmony within a country. How can we expect to have world peace when we cannot even have peace within a country? In the U.S.S.R. there is peace between all her people regardless of culture or race. However, in the U.S.A. there is discrimination between the whites and the Negroes, the same as in the U.K. What is it that determines which countries have peace and which have discrimination?

I think that it depends on the joining together of two parties to defeat a third, common enemy. In U.S.S.R., all the people had to join together as one to overthrow the marxist government. This is what I feel united them. In U.S.A. the fighting was between the people and not against someone else. In the American War of Independence it was the whites vs England and not the whites and the Negroes against England. Of course, this is not their fault. They had no reason to want to fight against the English because they had nothing to gain. They would be made slaves regardless of who won. The American Revolution made them free from slavery but not from discrimination. There was nothing to unite them.

So how can we have world peace? It is very well for the countries to say "let's be friends" but there has to be some common drive to unite them. Otherwise there is no reason they should be friends. The drive that the people and governments are trying to use at the moment is the preservation of the human race. Both U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. fear for the drastic loss of life that would be the result of a nuclear war. I do not think that this common drive is enough. I do not think there will ever be a nuclear war. Everybody is too scared to start one. If there was one no-one would win. Both U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. will be destroyed. The more nuclear bombs there are, the more people become scared resulting in world peace. I do not mind the nuclear arms race for the danger it imposes. However, I feel that too much money is wasted in this race.

What could be a common drive that would result in U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. joining forces? If we were subjected to attack from a planet in another solar system, I am fairly sure that U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. would immediately join forces. However the chances of an attack by "U.F.O.'s" is so improbable that it can be considered as negligible.

A better drive would be that of the energy crisis. In another thirty years it is expected that our supply of oil will be finished. Cars will have to be run by batteries, this being inefficient. Both U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. - indeed the whole world - is trying to perform nuclear fusion. If the leading scientists of all the countries (or at least the five superpowers) were to work at this problem together there is at least a chance of success.

With success, there will be unification of the countries - if success was achieved by joint effort. If the leading scientists do not work together, one of the other of the countries will be the first to perform nuclear fusion. If this was U.S.A. then U.S.S.R. would lose no time in stealing the secret at any costs and vice versa. This would result in further severing relations between the involved countries which could never be patched. Nuclear fusion must be performed by a joint effort between the countries if we are to have world peace. Otherwise relations will be severed forever. This is our last chance. The leading scientists must work together immediately. It all depends on our governments.

It should be noted that it is only the scientists that need to combine knowledge. The governments may remain different although it would be desirable to have the one government system throughout the world. This could be gradually achieved through smaller ties binding together to produce the complete combination. The smaller ties begin with scientists working together. The United Nations is trying this already in their scheme "Atoms for Peace" but this is so far a failure. Another gradual binding tie is that of the language barrier. The world would be better if there was a universal language. Esperanto is the obvious solution. However no-one seems to be trying to introduce this language. It requires world co-operation to introduce this language. I feel that by starting with English-speaking countries Esperanto should be made compulsory for a certain length of time in high school (e.g. the first year at least).

For complete stabilisation of governments, a new, perfect government should be made. The good points of communism and democracy should be used and the bad points omitted. Pretend democracy is blue and communism is yellow. If you mix the two you will get a new, green government. The blue government (democracy) can never become yellow and vice versa. This is true because no-one is willing to leave their own system just as no-one wants to leave their own language.

In a new government, I think some of the following things should be noted. Concerning communism, U.S.S.R. says that this is the government its people want. If the government is so sure of this, why don't they let the people have the right to elect their own government and see if the present members get re-elected? Also human rights should be observed. I believe in freedom of speech. This also applies to writing. At this moment I am writing this essay without any fear of prosecution. In fact it only occurred to me in the middle of the essay that people in U.S.S.R. are not allowed to speak against their government. It shocked me to read that Russians were not allowed to form rock-bands and play western music. It cannot be said that they do not wish to listen to such music as I also read that they formed secret rock-bands for their music. There are definitely faults in communism.

On the other hand, there is no unemployment in the U.S.S.R.. Also there are no strikes and wages and prices are also fixed. This could or could not prevent inflation. I do not pretend to know about this field. However I do know that inflation is a world-wide problem especially in such places as the U.K.. Most democratic countries have their fair share of inflation. Maybe this can be stopped using wage and price control.

Concerning free trade, I think that there should be restrictions to prevent having too many people in the one line of business. However, I think that people should be able to choose their own occupation, unless they are unemployed. If they are unemployed they should have to find another line of work until there is job opportunity.

I hope my essay has been of interest to somebody. I doubt anyone will take much notice of it though because I am just a nobody. If I were President Reagan I might be able to do something but since I am not I shall just sit back and watch what happens when nuclear fusion is discovered. It will be through no fault of mine when relations become severed. I have done my bit by writing this essay. I just hope someone reads it and agrees with me. Now I shall be content to leave the matter in someone else's hands. At least I have tried.

THE END


Now, with the benefit of 25 years of hindsight, let me fisk my own writing.

"In the westernised world (I am Australian), the general opinion of Russia (we all call the U.S.S.R. this) is that they are the "bad guys"."

And? What makes you think this is not an accurate assessment of the Soviet dictatorship? If they're willing to put their own people in gulags, what do you think they will do with you?

"Very few of us know much about the government system in U.S.S.R. except that it differs from our own and therefore wrong."

No, it is wrong because the Soviet government totally violates the Golden Rule, whereas our governments are based on the Golden Rule. This Golden Rule, invented by Aristotle, amongst others, has been around for literally millenia. This is not new technology.

"However, I have gained knowledge about communism from Radio Moscow's broadcasts."

Yep, that's where I would go for fair and balanced reporting on communism too.

"I think there are some points about this system that should be taken up by our own governments but others than should be ommitted in the communism government."

Well, you should start from the basis that our governments are the best known to mankind, and get the whole world up to our standards first, and then we can start some experiments to see if we can improve on what we've already got. Preferably experiment on some small islands so that we can bail them out when it all goes horribly wrong. And leave out the human rights abuses when engaging in these experiments.

"Leaving this topic for the moment, I shall talk about peace and harmony within a country. How can we expect to have world peace when we cannot even have peace within a country?"

Yes, that is true. It annoys the hell out of me to see people talking about world peace when they engage in violence at a personal level.

"In the U.S.S.R. there is peace between all her people regardless of culture or race."

Really? Well, if locking people in chains so that they can't move and engage in violence is considered to be "peace", then is that actually a good thing?

"However, in the U.S.A. there is discrimination between the whites and the Negroes, the same as in the U.K.."

Aya aya aya. How stupid are you that you fell for that left-wing crap from the media? I assume you're implying that the Negroes are the ones being discriminated against? Have you bothered to look at the statistics for black on white crime vs white on black crime? You should do a google search before parrotting this rubbish. Don't you have google in Fiji? BTW, is there any specific American law that you don't like? The only ones I have heard of around that timeframe are the ones that give blacks preference because of the colour of their skin. "affirmative action". ie racism. Of course under the wonderful communist system, everyone is discriminated against equally. Is that what you're after?

"What is it that determines which countries have peace and which have discrimination?"

You seem to be defining "peace" as "lack of crime". Where did you get the figures of the Soviet crime rate from? The ever-reliable Radio Moscow??? What are their statistics for the number of people thrown into gulags? And as far as "discrimination" is concerned, you'll need to start by naming the law you disapprove on and then we can debate the merits of it. I'm against the discrimination against whites due to "affirmative action", are you? Or are you one of these filthy racist hippies?

"I think that it depends on the joining together of two parties to defeat a third, common enemy. In U.S.S.R., all the people had to join together as one to overthrow the marxist government."

You're really off with the fairies here. First of all, marxist=communist. They had a "revolution" to INSTALL the current Marxist dictatorship. And the people did not rise as one in a glorious revolution. That's just propaganda. It always comes down to what the military chooses to do.

"This is what I feel united them."

No group of people is "united". The word you're looking for is "enslaved", or if you want to be technical, "subjugated". You want people to be united in slavery???

"In U.S.A. the fighting was between the people and not against someone else."

Not sure what you're talking about here. Are you talking about the American Civil War? Or the racist American laws against whites? What "fighting"? Crime? Je suis non comprehendo.

"In the American War of Independence it was the whites vs England and not the whites and the Negroes against England."

Well, it was far more complicated than that. You do realise that the American "revolutionaries" were just a militia, not some spontaneous glorious uprising, don't you? And you know that they only had the support of about 1/3 of the US population? And they only succeeded thanks to French heavy-lifting in what was essentially a military vs military clash, with the French being victorious at the end? And EVEN THEN, the English could have easily returned, but simply chose to let America be independent, much as they chose to let Australia be independent too?

"Of course, this is not their fault. They had no reason to want to fight against the English because they had nothing to gain. They would be made slaves regardless of who won. The American Revolution made them free from slavery but not from discrimination. There was nothing to unite them."

Sorry, I got lost there. Did you mean the American Civil War? Yes, that freed them from slavery. And yes, they were still discriminated against after that, although at the time you wrote this essay the discrimination had been reversed. How come I didn't hear you railing against the anti-white discrimination? Or do you only care about discrimination against blacks? If you do, you're a racist. There's no other word for it. However, the general concept of "what unites people?" is certainly worth exploring. What makes people friends and allies? Is there something that transcends race? If so, what is that elusive substance? We need to bottle it when we find it.

"So how can we have world peace? It is very well for the countries to say "let's be friends" but there has to be some common drive to unite them. Otherwise there is no reason they should be friends. The drive that the people and governments are trying to use at the moment is the preservation of the human race. Both U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. fear for the drastic loss of life that would be the result of a nuclear war. I do not think that this common drive is enough."

Why not? Why isn't being human enough reason to unite? However, to be fair, you are basically correct. Being human is not enough. Do you really want a rape victim to unite with her rapist because he's a fellow human? Wouldn't it be more sensible to divide people up into good/neutral/evil, and then unite the good to go and vanquish the evil? ie unite the (good) HUMANISTS. Perhaps do this quietly though, as we don't want the non-humanists to know that we're gearing up to vanquish them. The Soviet Union is far too dangerous. We shouldn't alienate other evil people who would otherwise be willing to help us against the Soviet Union. Much the same way as we allied with the Soviet Union against the Nazis. You need to learn about geostrategy. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the Americans actually know what they're doing?

"I do not think there will ever be a nuclear war. Everybody is too scared to start one. If there was one no-one would win. Both U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. will be destroyed. The more nuclear bombs there are, the more people become scared resulting in world peace. I do not mind the nuclear arms race for the danger it imposes. However, I feel that too much money is wasted in this race."

Ok, I can agree with all that. Yes, we should not be squandering limited resources on these things. But the blame for this squandering belongs solely on the shoulders of the Soviet Union. If you have any complaints, tell them to at a minimum get out of Eastern Europe. While ever there is an existential threat to Western Europe, the correct thing to do is to fight the Soviet dictatorship at every juncture across the globe. Defeat them first, then we can discuss standing down our militaries and using those resources for something more useful.

"What could be a common drive that would result in U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. joining forces? If we were subjected to attack from a planet in another solar system, I am fairly sure that U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. would immediately join forces. However the chances of an attack by "U.F.O.'s" is so improbable that it can be considered as negligible."

Ok, I can agree with the general concept of wanting to unite the world, but it should be united under the banner of freedom. We shouldn't meet evil half-way and morph into some nihilistic mindset. If you do that for long enough you'll end up being a US Democrat.

"A better drive would be that of the energy crisis. In another thirty years it is expected that our supply of oil will be finished."

That's just propaganda put out by idiots with nothing better to do.

"Cars will have to be run by batteries, this being inefficient. Both U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. - indeed the whole world - is trying to perform nuclear fusion. If the leading scientists of all the countries (or at least the five superpowers) were to work at this problem together there is at least a chance of success."

Well I certainly like the idea of the best minds in the world working together on this problem.

"With success, there will be unification of the countries - if success was achieved by joint effort."

Again, you're trying to unify with evil. Also, I don't know where you get the idea that inventing nuclear fusion will magically get everyone joining together. Why wouldn't that simply result in an alternative energy source? How would the fundamentals be any different? The Soviets would still be evil monsters enslaving Eastern Europe, and the Russian people themselves for that matter. Sure, I want unification too - ON OUR TERMS. ie FREEDOM.

"If the leading scientists do not work together, one of the other of the countries will be the first to perform nuclear fusion. If this was U.S.A. then U.S.S.R. would lose no time in stealing the secret at any costs and vice versa. This would result in further severing relations between the involved countries which could never be patched."

Is that what your crystal ball told you?

"Nuclear fusion must be performed by a joint effort between the countries if we are to have world peace. Otherwise relations will be severed forever. This is our last chance. The leading scientists must work together immediately. It all depends on our governments."

It all depends on the Soviets being held at bay so that our successful capitalist societies are not destroyed in an instant. And that is a problem our governments are already working on. I guess you're trying to look at things from the Soviet dictator's point of view and trying to make them see reason. Good luck with that one. Dictators wouldn't be dictators if they were reasonable people with morals.

"It should be noted that it is only the scientists that need to combine knowledge. The governments may remain different although it would be desirable to have the one government system throughout the world."

We don't even have one government system within a country. But yeah, common standards would be good. But you need to be very careful that "one size fits all" is actually beneficial to the people. I'm not so clear on that myself. Having multiple choices available means that if you can't stand the morons around you, you can emigrate. NSW has banned X-rated movies, while the ACT hasn't. Do you want to lose the option of moving to the ACT to get your human rights back which NSW voters took away from you?

"This could be gradually achieved through smaller ties binding together to produce the complete combination. The smaller ties begin with scientists working together. The United Nations is trying this already in their scheme "Atoms for Peace" but this is so far a failure. Another gradual binding tie is that of the language barrier. The world would be better if there was a universal language. Esperanto is the obvious solution. However no-one seems to be trying to introduce this language. It requires world co-operation to introduce this language. I feel that by starting with English-speaking countries Esperanto should be made compulsory for a certain length of time in high school (e.g. the first year at least)."

It takes a lot longer than a year to learn a language. What's the point in wasting people's time by making them not fluent in their second language? If you're going to do that, you need to do it properly. Also, the English language, while certainly flawed, and while it wouldn't be designed like that from scratch again, is extremely rich. You will likely lose all that richness by moving to Esperanto. Besides which, a Turk once complained to me that Esperanto was designed by Westerners with no input from the East. So if it's already dead in the water, then it's dead dead dead. However, having said that, I've read that a second language has other benefits, changing the brain. And since there is no obvious second-language for an English-speaker to learn, it may as well be something like Esperanto. But it is probably too late. English is rapidly becoming the world lingua franca. Maybe when the world has mastered English we can talk about morphing into Esperanto etc. Until then, English is ubiquitous. Do you have that word in Esperanto???

"For complete stabilisation of governments, a new, perfect government should be made."

Uh oh. "perfect"? How about "best practice that we know of"? And we pretty much have that already, if you look at a common subset amongst western countries, rather than trying to mix in evil dictatorships.

"The good points of communism"

Uh oh. Communism has good points? What would that be? Free food down at the local gulag? Free funerals for those killed in Stalin's purges?

"and democracy should be used and the bad points omitted."

Sometimes you have the situation where one system is the best we know of, and the other is pure evil. What do you do then?

"Pretend democracy is blue and communism is yellow. If you mix the two you will get a new, green government. The blue government (democracy) can never become yellow and vice versa."

Now ask those blue people if they want to be green or whether they are perfectly happy being blue and don't want you to destroy what their ancestors have built up over centuries.

"This is true because no-one is willing to leave their own system just as no-one wants to leave their own language."

I'm sure the occupants of the Soviet gulags are willing to leave their system. You're probably talking about the Soviet dictators being unwilling to leave. That's basically true. You need to somehow get a nice guy to work his way through the evil system and reach the top. And what are the chances of Gorbachev pulling that one off? Regarding language, I'm happy to switch from British English to American English, which has now swamped the internet and become the new standard because English is defined by common usage. How about you?

"In a new government, I think some of the following things should be noted. Concerning communism, U.S.S.R. says that this is the government its people want. If the government is so sure of this, why don't they let the people have the right to elect their own government and see if the present members get re-elected? Also human rights should be observed. I believe in freedom of speech. This also applies to writing. At this moment I am writing this essay without any fear of prosecution. In fact it only occurred to me in the middle of the essay that people in U.S.S.R. are not allowed to speak against their government. It shocked me to read that Russians were not allowed to form rock-bands and play western music. It cannot be said that they do not wish to listen to such music as I also read that they formed secret rock-bands for their music. There are definitely faults in communism."

FINALLY you said something sensible!!! Why didn't you just say this in the first place? If it were me, I would have just written to Radio Moscow and said "after having listened to your sick propaganda for a while, I now understand how truly evil you are, and I look forward to seeing your sick society collapse". None of this crap about nuclear fusion. Direct and to the point. Guaranteed to make them give up their evil ways.

"On the other hand, there is no unemployment in the U.S.S.R.. Also there are no strikes and wages and prices are also fixed. This could or could not prevent inflation. I do not pretend to know about this field. However I do know that inflation is a world-wide problem especially in such places as the U.K.. Most democratic countries have their fair share of inflation. Maybe this can be stopped using wage and price control."

Ok, let's go through this mess. First of all, you can have no unemployment in our democracies too, if you just want to employ people to breathe air and pay them the dole. That is effectively what the Soviets have done. They employ people to do nothing, or do little. And it has a corresponding effect on their standard of living. No strikes because slaves don't strike. Good one. Wages are fixed to a low standard for everyone. Good one. Prices are fixed and the result is interminable queues for food, and then a market opens up to pay old people to queue for you. What a great idea. As for the world-wide problem with inflation, how about you give me the figures for how many people died of inflation in the year prior to you writing your essay, and we'll take it from there? Perhaps there's something else you could burn your bra over instead? Like the road toll maybe? How about a campaign to ban cars? Do you want to save lives or do you just want to get to Granny's quickly? What's more important to you in your list of priorities?

"Concerning free trade, I think that there should be restrictions to prevent having too many people in the one line of business."

So far no-one has come up with a better method of sorting that out than letting the free market decide. It's OK to try new experiments though, so long as you don't violate human rights in the process.

"However, I think that people should be able to choose their own occupation, unless they are unemployed. If they are unemployed they should have to find another line of work until there is job opportunity."

I assume you're just saying that our existing system is better than communism? If so, I can agree with that.

"I hope my essay has been of interest to somebody. I doubt anyone will take much notice of it though because I am just a nobody."

That is correct. Fortunately Gorbachev was working his way through the system and managed to solve the problem anyway. And Yeltsin. Two wonderful men. I've got both of their books.

"If I were President Reagan I might be able to do something"

Reagan was already doing something - using America's kick-arse capitalist economy to fund military projects which the Russians were simply unable to afford to match, and totally wrecking their economy. Modern wars are actually economic.

"but since I am not I shall just sit back and watch what happens when nuclear fusion is discovered."

You'll probably find that communism will collapse before that happens, and that even if it didn't, it wouldn't make any difference anyway.

"It will be through no fault of mine when relations become severed."

Severing relations with an evil dictatorship has a lot going for it.

"I have done my bit by writing this essay. I just hope someone reads it and agrees with me. Now I shall be content to leave the matter in someone else's hands. At least I have tried."

Ok, I'll grant you that you tried, but you're barking up the wrong tree by giving some sort of moral equivalence between the US and the USSR and trying to find common ground between them. Christians and Muslims have had the same problems trying to find common ground between a pretty nice guy like Jesus and an evil mass-murdering pedophile rapist like Mohammed, and similarly failing. There is a way to do it, but it's beyond both of their capabilities.

Regardless, from the time you wrote this up until the time of the 2003 Iraq war, the US seemed to be following a strategy which was working just fine to defeat evil in this world. I wouldn't want it any other way. Thankfully there were more sensible people than you working on the geostrategic problem of toppling all these enemies. It is only in the last few years that some doubts have been raised as we suddenly found that not everyone in our democracies has been working on defeating evil. A huge number, a majority even, seem to have this quaint idea of "equal rights for evil dictators". I hope it wasn't because of something you said! Something about mixing paint? Good grief. Where do you people come from? Get with the program already!