They control the education system, the television "programming" and the medical field and on and on.

Who are the "they" that control every aspect of Western sociocultural milieu? Certainly, they are not those in political offices, who essentially have no real power to affect any thing tangible in Western society. "They" would not be the bureaucrats, who operate all the levers of government, yet have precarious economic existence. "They" are not academics and intellectuals, who though influential with the ignorant youths, have no power (hence their perpetual discontent and ill-temperament). "They" are not the failing newspapers and increasingly irrelevant cable news networks. There are the moneyed class, but their only interest seems to be making more money. The only organised, focused, and far-sighted group may be the communists, but they are facing opposition from nationalists and reactionaries, and do not hold monopoly on the levers of social influence or power.

The problem with the West is the social and cultural chaos engendered by the innumerable factions squabbling with each other over trappings of power, in the absence of real, hegemonic, political power. The character of modern Western government/political system seems to be the curious fear to rule. Power vacuum inevitably creates chaos. It is not freedom that the hoi polloi demand, but rational governance and competent leadership. The failure of the modern Western governments to rule, has led to the social and cultural fragmentation. Decision by referendum and poll data is prostitution, not governance.

Tiananmen ought to be discussed in context. The CCP did not execute the protesters on whim or pique. The USSR, the one constant political symbol of international communism, fragmented into irrelevance. The East German government dissolved, due to miscommunication between its politburo and the border guard station. Yugoslavia was devolving into ethnic enclaves, preparing to eat each other. Any wrong decision, any sign of vulnerability by the central government could have resulted in China fragmenting into 55 ethnic regional enclaves, and another rebirth of the warlord era.

Would 1 billion people have had a better life under mafia rule, in the likes of Yeltsin's Russia? Would the Chinese have fared better in civil strife, along the line of Yugoslav civil war? The average Western thinker seems to think that mere freedom begets utopia, in the absence of sociopolitical infrastructure, national boundaries, legal enforcement, common cultural perspectives, and political stability. If the Shanghai clique did not wrest control of the government in a coup from Deng, China may have dissolved into irrelevance, into which Russia has devolved. The Toad merely traded lives of thousands, in order for the CCP to remain in power, and in the process, may have averted sociocultural collapse. In this circumstance, the interest of the Party may have been aligned with the well-being of the many, however unintentional.

Geniuses are not necessarily a positive force in human history. Gengis Khan was a genius, and killed more people and destroyed more knowledge than any human being past or present. Einstein's genius brought forth the atomic bomb and the nuclear sword of Damocles. The geniuses of the French intellectuals gave birth to the Terror. What new horrors will the genius of bioengineering usher for the 21st century? The West has a mercantile perception concerning information - always seeking to acquire and demanding more quantity - rather than understanding that some information is dangerous and need to be regulated.

What the West needs is a government that rules. The flowers of human liberty and prosperity blooms only under the harsh sun of iron fisted leadership that engenders sociocultural stability.