Best 55 quotes of J. R. Nyquist on MyQuotes

Although America is a country with all the faults that attend a varied humanity, it is nonetheless a symbol of freedom. It is, more precisely, an experiment in freedom where an average person can live a decent life; where the voice of the political fanatic is muted, and the ideologue is distrusted; where even the demagogue must check himself, and make the customary bucolic sounds. The totalitarian misfit, seeking a more glorious existence, can find no sustenance in this kind of politics. If he runs for office, if he is elected, he is demeaned by critics and compelled by bribery. At best he can corrupt the constitutional mechanism in some small way, or he can promote some harmful legislation. But he cannot become dictator without exposing himself to arrest and prosecution. Power is not there to be had. Glory is not there. For the glory-seeking politician there is only final humiliation. Even the most promising presidential career, with high approval ratings, is finally blighted by a negative press. Clinton, Bush, Obama – all two-term presidents – ended their terms as lame ducks, finding themselves encircled by an ever tightening ring of criticism and scandal. Such a political system must appear a kind of prison to the totalitarian.

America is no Third Reich. Though its military knows the technique of blitzkrieg, the politicians don’t know what to do with the resulting “victory.” The American people are not an imperialist people. They do not particularly like foreign adventures, or telling other people what to do. The “war on terror,” therefore, tends toward farce. It is not imperialism, but misguided philanthropy in which many people are killed and America’s enemies gain the advantage. J.R.Nyquist

America's misguided democratic idealism would give all power to "the people" - our favorite rag doll and mock idol. But there is no power in the people, and no "people power." Furthermore, the peoples' victories at the end of the Cold War (in Eastern Europe) did not play out as advertised. And yet, the democratic mythology continues to prevail. Modern man refuses to see politics for what it is. The world believes a lie, as it usually does. At present it is fashionable to believe that democracy is the final solution of mankind's political problems, or failing in that belief, men blame America for the ills of the world. America is said to be the "lone superpower" as the world is gradually turned against her. But consider the terrible helplessness of the United States during the September 11 attacks - now mirrored in the inept diplomacy and misguided military strategy of an administration at war with its own intelligence services, incapable of preventing future terrorist attacks because it will not stand against the populace's hedonistic impulses.

An obvious threat, like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor is not the greatest danger. It is the subtle, camouflaged threat, that creeps up from behind. It is this camouflage that gives reluctant men a way out. "We need not fight. We need not make a fuss. There is nothing to fear." When this is the prevailing view, people who understand a given threat may ask: "What is to be done?" As long as we are isolated individuals, there is nothing to do. The individual may be honest with himself, but groups are not honest. What prevails overall is an optimistic dismissal. "The threat isn't real." This is how Hitler got so far. This is how Communism took over so many countries, and continues today under camouflage. There is nothing the individual can do that will sway the crowd. And as we are a republic, our political system operates according to the psychology of a crowd. The majority are caught up in the fads and media trends of the moment. Cynical and empty publicity characterizes much of our public discourse.

Anti-Americanism is now the mother's milk of the American educational system. Many schools in the United States teach that capitalism is exploitative and American foreign policy is imperialistic. Patriotism isn't taught in American schools. This needs to be understood. The sins of America's past are emphasized while the country's virtues are eclipsed. The achievements of capitalism are denied by environmentalists, socialists and anarchists whose voices have poisoned the well of higher education to the bargain. The older generation has been asleep at the switch, not looking too closely at what their children have been taught. And now the damage is far advanced, and the country's bureaucracies are packed and crowded with people who haven't a clue. Oddly, the United States is undermined by a national psychology that tolerates sedition and treason as if these were legitimate forms of dissent.

As Baskerville points out, wherever fatherhood is discarded or diminished, we find “impoverished, crime-ridden and drug-infested matriarchies.” Taking on the role of proprietor, the state becomes the father under such “matriarchies.” According to Baskerville, “Without paternal authority, adolescents run wild, and society descends into chaos.” Quite naturally, the state has an ever-increasing reason to intervene in such a society – and inevitably, in the economy. What many defenders of capitalism have failed to understand is the connection between paternal authority and the free market. They have failed to understand that the erosion of patriarchy signifies the rise of a leviathan state (i.e., ever increasing government controls on the economy, and socialism).

As Christendom suffers attack upon attack, indignity upon indignity, defeat after defeat, a new religion moves in to take its place. This great and rising sect of our time, which is socialism, has three major objectives as outlined by Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky. First, socialism wants to destroy capitalism (i.e., in terms of private property in the sense of business ownership); second, socialism wants to destroy the family; and third, socialism wants to destroy the nation state. As Bukovsky pointed out, the socialists failed to destroy the idea of private property, but they have partly succeeded against the family and the nation state. The breakdown of the family is all too real for anyone to deny, and this breakdown spells disaster for a society that is too weak to resist.

Brilliant people and dull people get drawn into violence and destruction because they are led to it by a desire to “make history” or “advance their career.” They want to solve great problems, but they have lost patience with nonviolent ways of solving problems. They want instant results. So they take a bloody shortcut.

But if those coming forward with elaborate plans for the “reformation” of society are not really interested in the cause of humanity, what does motivate them? Simply the desire for power: On this point Lewis is in emphatic agreement with both Hayek and Mises. Hayek: “[T]he desire to organize social life according to a single plan itself springs largely from a desire for power.” Mises: “Every dictator plans to rear, raise, feed and train his fellow citizens as the breeder does his cattle. His aim is not to make them happy but to bring them into a condition which renders him, the dictator, happy.

But there is a difference between the systematic evil of totalitarianism and the ordinary corruption we find in all institutions, at all times. Totalitarianism is a system of highly organized murder and oppression, driven by ideology. American institutions, in comparison, were not created to facilitate mass murder and dictatorship.

Continuing to play the Devil’s Advocate, I now appeal to the political algebra of Soviet strategy and Communist subversion. The Communists always infiltrate their opposition. They always try to take over their enemy’s camp from the inside. Quite naturally, they long ago targeted conservative groups in America for takeover. Anyone who thinks this isn’t done can check with the history books. It is always done. To sabotage or mislead one’s opposition, to divide and conquer an enemy, to divert and diffuse a dangerous counter-movement, the Communists always send infiltrators.

Critics of the U.S. Constitution say it is an instrument of class oppression – made by the rich to the disadvantage of the poor. They deny the reality of separate powers under the Constitution. For them, the inequalities of the market economy must be corrected by government intervention. A century ago Le Bon wrote of the difficulties involved in “reconciling Democratic equalization with natural inequalities.” As Le Bon pointed out, “Nature does not know such a thing as equality. She distributes unevenly genius, beauty, health, vigor, intelligence, and all the qualities which confer on their possessors a superiority over their fellows.” When a politician pretends to oppose the inequalities of nature, he proves to be a special kind of usurper – personifying arrogance in search of boundless power. Logically, the establishment of universal equality would first require the establishment of a universal tyranny (a.k.a., the dictatorship of the proletariat). A formula for doing all this was worked out in the nineteenth century, and was the program of Karl Marx. Le Bon warned that socialism might indeed “establish equality for a time by rigorously eliminating all superior individuals.” He also foresaw the decline of any nation that followed this path (i.e., see the Soviet Union). Such a society would aim at eliminating all risk, speculation and initiative. These stimulants of human activity being suppressed, no progress would be possible. According to Le Bon, “Men would merely have established that equality in poverty desired by the jealousy and envy of a host of mediocre minds.

Exploit the counter-revolution – Some strategists believe that a counter-revolutionary or right wing reaction is unavoidable. It is therefore necessary, from the standpoint of sound strategy, to send infiltrators into the right wing. Having a finger in every pie and an agent network in every organization, the Communists are not afraid of encouraging counter-revolution, secession, or civil war in the wake of financial collapse. After all, the reactionaries and right wing elements must be drawn out so that they can be purged or, if necessary, turned into puppet allies. Already Putin is posturing as a Christian who opposes feminism and homosexuality. This has fooled many “conservatives” in the West, and is an intentional ploy which further serves to disorient the West.

Freedom for the rest of us is realized by humiliating our most powerful politicians. The people are free while the power-seeking class must live in a fishbowl. The Marxist, the Nazi, the fanatical Muslim, hate this sort of system and dream of breaking it to pieces. For all their ideology they are not about ideas. They are about power and being the center of attention. So it’s not surprising that misfits, here and in Russia, are on the same page. They all hate America.

Furthermore, a serious distortion of statesmanship occurs. Year by year, the statesman's time is increasingly devoted to an growing subset of misfits and neurotics, supposedly "oppressed" by an unfair social system which must be rectified. Little by little, the "oppressed" become the state's chief preoccupation, eclipsing the traditional tasks of statesmanship. The system no longer justifies itself in religious or historical terms, but on egalitarian grounds, in terms of "fairness" or "social justice." What actually happens, overall, is that greater and greater demands are placed upon the productive citizen to provide for the unproductive.

Good strategy depends on knowing the enemy, on knowing the enemy's nature. In making this general observation, which deceptively resembles a jeremiad, I am not advocating the invasion of Iran or Syria. I am not suggesting that the invasion of Iraq was the right move. I rather think that America is morally and intellectually unprepared for war of any kind, and should avoid engagement if possible until it can put its own house in order. Wars are fought and won within the human heart, often before any fighting begins. That is why today's intellectual and moral trends are so alarming. J.R.Nyquist

He must do more than issue orders. The general must appeal to the best that is within his soldiers. The response to trust and confidence is trust and confidence. A commander who gives men an opportunity to prove themselves will be rewarded with brave deeds. Give people their dignity and they surpass all expectations. Reduce a man to slavery and his efforts will be as meager as his stake is small. In war as in economics, freedom is decisive. (And freedom means, first and foremost, the dignity of the thinking man).

I believe the course of events is dictated by a Leninist and Stalinist political culture which has grown out of the precedents of czarism and Bolshevism, involving a bag of tricks in which six elements are used to achieve political and economic results: (1) provocation; (2) divide and conquer; (3) infiltration of the enemy camp; (4) disinformation; (5) controlled opposition; (6) and strategic deception. Various special formations and ideological sub-weapons have been developed by Moscow to amplify the working power of these six elements, including organized crime, drug trafficking, international terrorism, national liberation movements, revolutionary Islam, free trade, global warming, feminism, the homosexual movement, gun control and multiculturalism.

In a future war the victorious side will dictate the peace to the defeated side in the exact manner described above. This stems from the nature of modern weapons. Such weapons are made to produce decisive results. They are made to engender capitulation and stop all arguments, all negotiations, all half-measures. Atomic bombs were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The result was the surrender of Japan. Diplomatic power is weak when compared to atomic power. In fact, the illusions of diplomatic power must work against those states that favor negotiation over and above measures strictly undertaken to assure military success.

In closing, the reader may profit by a quote from Yuri Bezmenov on the nature of Russian subversion. According to Bezmenov, the highest art of warfare is to subvert anything of value in the country of your enemy, until such time that the perception of your enemy is screwed up to such an extent that he does not perceive you as an enemy…. J.R.Nyquist

In real life, the political and strategic games used by politicians and statesmen are in fact social games - requiring social intelligence as well as technical mastery of information. The skills of the orator, cultivated by ancient statesmen like Cicero and Demosthenes, or by modern statesmen like Benjamin Disraeli and Abraham Lincoln, require emotional maturity and the talent of seeing events through the eyes of others. A great statesman sets aside his own egoism. He takes a more objective view. In this way, he avoids the errors that attend a purely egoistic standpoint. The explanation which Kierkegaard offered, which is none too flattering, is that people no longer desire a great king, a heroic liberator or an authoritative religion. They don’t want strict rules or high standards. That is because they want an easy time of it. They want a soft existence which can only be guaranteed by eschewing the great and heroic, the true and the noble. This is the moral perspective of high politics and of true statesmanship. Only those who reach this fifth stage can transform world calamity into world regeneration.

In truth, to call such a person a “misfit” is an understatement. The narcissist and the psychopath alternate between lashing out and a “pathological, all-consuming envy.” Deep within, the misfit hates himself and doubts his own worth. This helps explain his need for total power as a path to total and unobstructed self-affirmation. “Narcissists look for new victims for the same reason that tigers look for new prey: they are hungry, constantly starved for adoration, admiration, acceptance, approval,” wrote Vaknin. Political power, for such a person, acts as a salve. “Many narcissists end up being delusional, schizoid, or paranoid,” Vaknin added. And some Narcissists enter politics, join a totalitarian movement or a criminal gang – and become dictators. These are the biggest and most dangerous tigers of all.

I’ve often wanted to explain why I disagree with this thesis, although I understand that globalism and internationalism are genuine movements in their own right. In recent columns I have attempted to show that stupidity is normal in politics, and we cannot always pin mistakes on cunning conspirators. Politics is about group interaction, and groups make us stupid.

Most battles are decided when one side or the other loses heart. Armies and nations do not typically fight to the last man. They fight until their faith gives out. And this is what we must fortify against. It is time to inwardly prepare because a great test lies in front of us. If we fail that test there is no second chance. There is no opportunity to go back.

Once upon a time there was a standard. It gave us men rich in thought - but all is trodden underfoot by a swinish multitude. Every area of intellectual endeavor is tainted. Over 120 years ago the historian of European morals, William Lecky, praised Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) for honesty and seriousness. Lecky said that although Carlyle was a very poor man for many years, he never sought wealth by advocating popular opinions, by pandering to common prejudices, or by veiling [his] most unpalatable beliefs. According to Lecky, Carlyle's standard of truthfulness was extremely high, and one of his great quarrels with his age was that it was an age of half-beliefs and insincere professions. Lecky tells us that Carlyle used to speak of men who 'played false with their intellects'; or, in other words, turned away their minds from unwelcome truths and by allowing their wishes or interests to sway their judgments, persuaded or half-persuaded themselves to believe whatever they wished. A firm grasp of facts, he maintained, was the first characteristic of an honest mind; the main element in all honest, intellectual work.

Once you buddy up to killers you cannot allow yourself to take their criminality too seriously. You become yourself an apologist for them — from necessity.

One of the most famous enemies of Soviet communism is Vladimir Bukovsky. He was tortured by Soviet authorities and spent many years in Soviet prisons. He was even declared “insane” and sent to a psychiatric prison. When Bukovsky was exiled to the West, people paid lip service to his courage; but few heeded his warnings about Gorbachev’s Perestroika. Bukovsky reminded everyone that all Soviet leaders were liars. Gorbachev, he said, was no exception—and was certainly no democrat. Like Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev, Gorbachev was a liar and a hangman. But hardly anyone listened. Everyone wanted to believe the Cold War was over.

Polarization, of course, is no accident. A divide and conquer game is now underway inside the United States which is calculated to produce instability. It naturally comes on the heels of a societal demoralization (decades in the making). Given current preparations for war in Korea, stage three (crisis) will likely result from a military clash in the Far East. The final stage (normalization), signifies the acceptance by the United States of Russian and Chinese military dominance (formalized by a treaty). This, of course, is only one dimension of the crisis/normalization process. Yet, if things go according to plan, it will be the decisive dimension. Of course, destabilization is carried out by secret agent networks in much the same way as demoralization. It is a process guided by KGB officers and recruited agents. These agents not only operate on the political left. In order to guide the process the KGB has placed agents on the political right – in the guise of rock-solid conservatives. Bezmenov says that recruiting agents on the left is, in fact, not as important as recruiting (or planting) them on the right.

Polybius credited the Spartan lawgiver Lycurgus with the invention of mixed government. Naturally, mixed governments themselves would eventually succumb to degeneration. But this process would take centuries rather than decades. This was shown by the examples of Sparta, the Republic of Carthage, and Rome.

Rabid Chinese ideologists who point nuclear, chemical and biological weapons at us must have their reasons. And who is to say what their definition of victory might be? A smoldering wreck of a world, under firm totalitarian control, might be their ultimate aim. After all, communists have wrecked their own and other countries again and again without even using nuclear weapons. “Origins of the Fourth World War

So the misfit as totalitarian politician (Putin), being of the criminal type, finds intellectual flunkies (like Dugin) to invent vainglorious political theories (like the Fourth Political Theory), which are merely excuses for an attack on normal society, on freedom, on the wellbeing of average people everywhere. For this purpose, and with simplification in mind, America is their natural whipping boy, their intended victim, their object of envy and disdain, and the focus of their strategic malevolence. On Russian television, on this day, 15 March 2015, the evil dwarf-president, demonstrating his thermonuclear manhood by way of compensation, is merely another one of those damn fool misfits – like that scrappy little Stalin, or wee little Lenin. What is needed, perhaps, is a big strapping fellow to sweep this malignant race of dwarfs from the Russian stage. Perhaps Boris Nemtsov would have been that fellow, but Boris was gunned down on the street in Moscow. It is said that the assassin shot him four times in the back. The ultimate coward, of course, is not the one who shot an unarmed man in the back. The ultimate coward was, assuredly, that same totalitarian pygmy who was blaming America on Russian TV, and whose regime has overseen many political killings. It is sad that Putin’s cleverly staged absence pushed the fallen Nemtsov from public remembrance, placing the murderer center stage and, yes, Vladimir, it is all about you after all, isn’t it? Yes, oh yes. In America as well as in Russia, it takes a traitor and a misfit.

That our best minds have been misinformed, that they will continue to misunderstand, is given. In consequence, the West’s position will continue to erode away. This is not seen, however, because today’s prevailing mode of thought sees the future as an extension of today’s normal life. From this perspective it does indeed appear that Russia has suffered a defeat. Russia’s economy has suffered and Russia has lost diplomatic prestige. But Moscow has not changed course because Russia is not trying to preserve today’s “normal life,” and diplomatic prestige is not as important as nuclear supremacy. The sum of diplomatic approval from militarily ineffectual countries is of no value. Temporary economic losses are meaningless. If strategic nuclear supremacy is acquired, the world can beg for negotiations as Gen. Krebs begged General Chuikov. But negotiations will not take place. Only surrender will take place.

That which has always been true, and will always be true, cannot be denied forever and cannot be ultimately defeated. Even if the Russians and Chinese plow the rubble and harvest their pillage, they cannot profit from it. The embodiment of annihilation does not gain by annihilating. It merely exhausts itself upon the destroyed object and passes away. Man returns to himself, despite what happens. Feminism will be discarded, homosexual marriage will no longer be an issue, multiculturalism will remembered as an absurd craze. The ruins of so many cities will remind future generations that there is no safety in thinking oneself a “citizen of the world,” and there is no future in denying the eternal law. Man may only build safely as he has built before.

The best society, in reality, is a society in which evils are limited by devices of Machiavellian construction (as opposed to devices of utopian or ideological construction). And in order to make such devices, you have to understand how things work. This is very different from how they “ought” to work.

The cause of Communism's bloodthirsty history may be found in the grandiosity of Communism as an idea, and the grandiose self-conception of the Communist as an agent of that idea. The successful strata of Communist revolutionaries suffer from an enormous, bloated egotism. One has merely to examine the psychology of a Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. Such are the special pampered children of history, magnificent in their own eyes, epic heroes, supreme and god-like agents of history's splendid drama. Here one finds no sense of self-limitation. There is only self-expansion. Unlike the well-adjusted human being, the aspiring Communist dictator is soaked in arrogance. From all of this flows the bloodthirstiness of the mass murderer. Identifying himself with the forces of history, the Communist leader puts himself in God's shoes. Here is a narcissism so pathological, an emptiness so profound, that nothing may come of it except monstrous crime.

The empty self therefore becomes a political problem. An empty politician has a great deal to make up for. How will he compensate for his emptiness? The empty politician is easily drawn into a grandiose self assignment. And this must prove disastrous for society, as the promises of an empty politician are themselves empty. In fact, he brings about the opposite of what he promises. This has long been true of the totalitarian dictators. Increasingly it is true of democratically elected leaders in the West. It seems, as well, that the conflict between the totalitarian East and the consumerist West may, in the last analysis, devolve into a conflict between two types of emptiness: in the first instance, the emptiness of the characters in a Woody Allen film; in the second, the emptiness of "a boot stamping on a human face - forever.

The lesson of this story is clear. The spirit of Sabinus always turns to its enemy for safety. It is not a spirit of self-reliance and strength in adversity. It represents the worst weakness of all: namely, cowardice. Instead of accepting the necessity of battle, Sabinus always sought to negotiate. His method was to trust a deceptive enemy at every turn. The result of such leadership was a disgraceful massacre. This is always the outcome, and will be the outcome for any country that is governed by such a spirit.

The new teaching refrains from laying a foundation; for the new educator, as revolutionary, is a destroyer who seeks to annihilate everything. He seeks to eradicate the past, to eradicate man and woman, to eradicate the parent, to eradicate both the nation and the patriot – and finally, to eradicate God. This is the work of today’s education. It is a work of disorganization, disintegration, and hatred. The revolutionary seeks a blank canvass upon which to paint in whatever color he chooses. The chosen color, of course, will be red. Those countries already submerged by the nihilist dictators are arming themselves. They are getting ready to unleash a wider destruction. Like all psychopaths they are motivated to find victims wherever they can. The consumption of victims is their mode of self-affirmation.

The problem, then, is not East versus West. The problem is that the elites in nearly every country have become rotten and socialist. As Bukovsky wrote in his book, “Even the ageless James Bond does not fight the KGB, but is most frequently in an alliance with the KGB, against some mythical super-corporation headed, as a rule, by a lunatic capitalist.” Bukovsky’s book, “Judgment in Moscow,” will be released in English in May. What does he say happened toward the supposed end of the Cold War? Bukovsky wrote, “This was a full debacle, a total surrender of its positions by the West at the most critical moment of our history.

The question that has puzzled Kremlin rulers since 1953 is how to perpetuate the house Stalin built without acquiring Stalin’s evil reputation. Unwilling to forfeit their control over Russian society, and unable to fully appreciate the devilish efficacy of arresting and executing millions arbitrarily, the Soviet ruling class charted a middle path that would pacify the West without losing the essential components of empire. This middle path, which brings us to Vladimir Putin, combines low profile red-brown totalitarianism with lip service to democracy and free markets. It is a case of power retained. Instead of genuine democracy, Russia is guided by secret totalitarian structures that govern through fictitious political fronts. In essence, there has been no capitalism in Russia since 1991. There has been no democracy. It was all an elaborate KGB hoax. The mask that hides the totalitarian face of Russia isn’t perfect. It has fooled the experts and pundits only because they wanted to be fooled. The inhumanity of Stalin’s regime was so great, its injustice so mind numbing, that good people don’t want to believe that Stalin’s system was and is a work in progress. We don’t want to admit that Stalin’s murder machine is undergoing renovation, that we ourselves may be included among its next victims. Such an admission would turn our world upside down, and such a turning is not at all desirable – especially when we consider that Stalin saw Hitler as “the icebreaker” of the Revolution. This leads us to the unpleasant possibility that Putin may see Osama bin Laden as an “icebreaker” as well.

There is a fascinating passage in Nietzche’s Twilight of the Idols that is one of the great passages in philosophical literature, and you don’t have to agree with anything else Nietzsche says, but this is a real gem: Writing about education in Germany in the 1880s, which very much describes our educational situation today, he says: “I shall straightaway set down the three tasks for the sake of which one requires educators. One has to learn to see, one has to learn to think, one has to learn to speak and write: the end in all three is a noble culture. Learning to see – habituating the eye to repose, to patience, to letting things come to it; learning to defer judgment, to investigate and comprehend the individual case in all its aspects. This is the first preliminary schooling in spirituality; not to react immediately to a stimulus, but to have the restraining, stock-taking instincts in one’s control. Learning to see, as I understand it, is almost what is called in unphilosophical language ‘strong will-power’: the essence of it is precisely not to ‘will,’ the ability to defer decision. All unspirituality, all vulgarity, is due to the incapacity to resist a stimulus – one has to react, one obeys every impulse.” He later says, with great psychological insight, “almost everything which we crudely name ‘vice’ is merely this physiological incapacity not to react.” He further states: “A practical application of having learned to see: one will have become slow, mistrustful, resistant as a learner in general. Jeff Nyquist

There is a tendency, especially today, to reduce all political analysis to an ideological formula, and to judge everything according to this formula. Such a reduction is usually erroneous, even dangerous, when applied to a complicated world. It is, of course, easier to simplify everything in order to make it more comprehensible. But the world does not become simpler when we ideologically simplify. We become simpler – to the point of stupidity.

The revolutionary notion, as Kuby explains, holds that “vice as a form of social control is virtually invincible.” In other words, when the individual gives up sexual self-restraint, he engenders a rising totalitarian power. To understand how this power works, Kuby lists those who stand to benefit from the family’s decline: (1) anyone wishing to make humanity into rootless fodder for the sake of global ambition, (2) anyone who wants the West to sink into a “demographic winter,” and (3) anyone who wants to eliminate Christianity.

The stock exchange is a poor substitute for the Holy Grail,” warned Schumpeter, who added that the middle class is “rationalist and unheroic.” In fact, middle class man “can only use rationalist and unheroic means to defend his position or to bend a nation to his will.” These are disturbing words for Americans, who are egalitarians to the core. The notion that “all men are created equal” is branded into our consciousness. But let us be honest for a moment. Men are hardly created equal in reality. If you factored in education and training, men would not long remain equal even if they were created so. Some are naturally gifted from childhood. Some benefit from hard training and long study. It used to be that aristocracy, under the best circumstances, was a training in leadership that would begin at infancy. What we are now left to is the training of opportunists by state functionaries.

The whole world stands to be engulfed. The destruction, when it is unleashed, will be unprecedented. The totalitarians in Russia, China, Iran and the Arab world are preparing for war. Now that Bush's position is collapsing and the Party of Outright Appeasement has begun its reign, the enemies of freedom see their chance. Cowardice and stupidity have conspired, and the result is "opportunity." Western progress has finally given the totalitarian regimes a generation of "last men," about whom Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote: "The earth hath become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small." The "last man" comes at the end, when civilization begins to die. And indeed, the Western democracies are dying. I am reminded of Titus Livius's description of Rome's descent into despotism as "the dark dawning of our modern day when we can neither endure our vices nor face the remedies needed to cure them." We congratulate ourselves on the interest-group demagogy that produces policy in the West, throwing up words like "democracy" and "freedom" when the reality of the situation is better described by words like "anarchy" and "licentiousness.

This exchange is what an unconditional surrender sounds like. It is the ultimate form of diplomatic coercion. The city of Berlin had been turned into rubble. The defeated country was at the mercy of its enemy. Coercion was the means by which unconditional surrender was obtained. Under the circumstances, diplomatic prowess was meaningless. Only military superiority mattered. A few hours after the unsuccessful negotiation attempt, Chancellor Joseph Goebbels committed suicide. On the next day, 2 May 1945, Gen. Hans Krebs, Chief of the General Staff (OKH), also committed suicide. The above conversation is noteworthy for two things: (1) The Russian side had the power to exterminate the German side, and (2) there was absolutely no negotiation or diplomacy. Valeriano and Maness would do well to review the conversation between Krebs and Chuikov. In a future war the victorious side will dictate the peace to the defeated side in the exact manner described above. This stems from the nature of modern weapons. Such weapons are made to produce decisive results. They are made to engender capitulation and stop all arguments, all negotiations, all half-measures. Atomic bombs were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The result was the surrender of Japan. Diplomatic power is weak when compared to atomic power. In fact, the illusions of diplomatic power must work against those states that favor negotiation over and above measures strictly undertaken to assure military success.

Today, as never before, the pariah is the only man with the chance to think for himself. Everyone else is relentlessly compelled by peer pressures. Everyone constantly blackmails everyone. The threat of ostracism easily molds the soft democratic soul into fashionable shapes. The out-of-fashion individual, the outcast (perhaps the only real human being remaining) eats out of some dumpster on the edge of town. -J.R.Nyquist "Origins of the Fourth World War

To destroy communism we must be willing to risk our lives. If we are unwilling to do this, then we won't survive. The Red Dictatorship will triumph. Cruelty, war, famine and distress will rule the earth. Then, truly, would come the end of history --- and a world where The Gulag Archipelago sings its woeful tune, like some broken record, through all posterity. "Origins of the Fourth World War

To seek and hold political power is to seek something that distorts self-conception, enlarging the ego as it corrupts the brain.

Weber, once said three qualities are decisive for political leaders: "passion, a feeling of responsibility, and a sense of proportion." A great statesman, however, has additional advantages: strength of soul, firmness, sound judgment, self-confidence and shrewdness. An effective national strategy depends not only on good ideas, but firmness in carrying them forward. If a nation cannot promote, within itself, great statesmen or strategists, then it may lose ground to other nations. J.R.Nyquist