On November 15, CNN showed yet another debate of presidential candidates. This time seven Democrats were on the stage, answering questions from the audience.

My impression: the United States is one of the world's small parochial countries. It is immersed in its own local life. But what about the outside world? The subject of the debate about the outside world was either old "general daily news" — the war in Iraq (all the participants of the debate being against the war as per fashion on 11/15/07) or current "general daily news" — Pakistan and the "toys from China."

The "general daily news": those toys imported from China and injuring American children.

Well, to begin with, many of these imports have been produced by $2-a-day slavery, including child labor and sweatshops. No wonder some of the imported toys are defective. But owing to its slavery, the dictatorship of China makes out of the USA trillions of dollars, in cooperation with American and Chinese businessmen.

All of the dictatorship's profit or any arbitrary part of it goes into the development of post-nuclear super weapons, able to annihilate the USA or make it surrender unconditionally. But this is beyond the "daily general news." Western culture has been developing into a "police pad." To be successful, even a work of serious literature or high art must contain at least one murder or a fatal accident. China's development of post-nuclear weapons able to annihilate the entire population of the USA is not entertaining. But here are fatal accidents: some children who played with toys imported from China were injured. General daily news! Presidential candidates and voters are interested!

On November 15, I received from my reader Lars Gilbertson an e-mail that said in part:

It seems to have become "uncool" in America to even discuss the potential threat of China and superweapons. The new standard is for everyone to be so "laid back" and politically correct and nonjudgmental.

Lars Gilbertson reacted on the same day to my column of 11/15/07 about Hillary Clinton's article in the November/December 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. But what he said applies to all seven Democratic presidential candidates participating in the debate of 11/15/07. A goal of the debates was to see whether Obama had pushed off Hillary as the leader of the race. Actually, he was no worse (if no better) than the six other presidential candidates, discussing the "general daily news" of the "mass communication media."

Does it matter who of them will be elected as U.S. President?

While George W. Bush was twice elected as U.S. President, last summer 45 percent of Americans favored impeachment hearings for him. Bill Clinton, who was also elected twice as U.S. President was not indicted after impeachment hearings only because the Democrats in the Senate did not vote for his indictment for fear that it would harm the Democratic Party as against its Republican counterpart. How can anyone believe that Hillary Clinton is superior mentally to her "nearly impeached" husband or to George W. Bush for whom 45 percent Americans favored impeachment hearings?

Until the 20th century, the West had a technological and hence military superiority over countries like China (recall the two Opium Wars!). In the 20th century, Hitler's Germany would have defeated the free West if Hitler had not been a geostrategic idiot, but had continued his development of nuclear weapons under his mask of peace of 1938, instead of launching conventional wars against Poland, France, Britain, the USA, and his ally-Stalin's Russia, in which he was bogged and committed suicide in Berlin, to avoid being captured by Soviet troops.

Today, the West faces a non-Western enemy, China, whose dictatorship is by no means as geostrategically inane as Hitler was, and cooperates militarily with Russia, which Hitler attacked. On the other hand, as I said above, the current U.S. commander-in-chief has been twice elected as the U.S. president, but last summer 45 percent of Americans favored impeachment hearings for him.

Having seen and heard the presidential candidates shown by CNN in 2007, we have to ask: "Does the presidential election procedure that was a matter of pride in the USA in the 19th and 20th century fit the 21st century?" Genius (in today's geostrategy, for example) is a rare gift, not the general ability like Hillary's ability to speak her mother tongue. How can a voter discern a geostrategist of genius if this voter does not know the ABC of today's geostrategy and is no more intelligent than Hillary?

A way out so far has been this: let both presidential candidates and voters keep mum about subjects like the annihilation of the West by the dictatorship of China. This is pleasant for both voters and presidential candidates who are thus convinced that they are omniscient even if he or she is stupid and/or ignorant. In the debates, Hillary referred to her head as Einstein might have referred to his. The method is not new. A Russian novel in verse of the early 19th century told how a flippant chatterbox knew "how to keep silent with the air of a sage on an important issue."

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush knew how to keep silent about China for almost 16 years with the air of sages. And the voters also kept silent on the subject for those 16 years and will keep silent until the time comes to be annihilated by the Chinese post-nuclear super weapons.

As for problems like poisonous or otherwise defective toys imported from China, such problems, will no doubt be solved, since the dictatorship of China needs peace to have access to Western military know-how as well as Western money to become omnipotent vis-à-vis the free West, for Liberty is the main enemy of the dictatorship of China, and either the latter establishes its world domination or it will lose its all in its native country as well, as Tiananmen demonstrated in 1989 and the fall of the Soviet dictatorship did in 1991.