Replies

Tex, Here are two articles from Nyquist himself explaining who he is and where he is coming from.

The Wilderness of Mirrors Revisited: How I got here, pt.1

I've been reading over the posts in this thread, and many people are making statements about Nyquist that just aren't true. One person claimed that he believes the "Russians are Coming" and that he proscribes to every new conspirasy theory that comes along.

This is just plain false. Mr. Nyquist has one belief and one belief only. He has written countless articles debunking the most popular "theories" (Illuminiti (SP?), masonic cabal, etc). Here are just two:

So many conspiracies, so little time

Not all Conspiracy Theories are Created Equal

He also has a website: HERE

I would highly encourage you to read his articles. I would also encourage you to write Mr. Nyquist an e-mail with your analysis of his articles. I have done this and have found him to be very responsive. He is personable and appears to be well learned. I found his correspondances to be thought provoking and enjoyable, even if I did not always agree.

Think what you will about Nyquist, but personally, I do not put him in the tin-foil hat category. There are just too many things happening in the world that Russia and China have their hands in, as was pointed out to me by a fellow freeper with the following links:

Russian and Chinese leaders face three centers of nuclear military power with which they have to deal.

Geopolitical Strategies of Russia, The 'Commonwealth of Independent States' and China.

The Commies are comming, the Commies are comming...

Anyway, that's my two cents, for what it's worth.

RLTW!

Semper Suo

A few other facts. Ex-Marine, UC Irvine Masters, author of "The Origins of the Fourth World War: The Coming Wars Of Mass Destruction." and one very busy man. What he writes and says is actually not all that far off from what folks like Kagan, Cheney, Gaffney, and Perry (the one on Newsmax, not the liberal one!) have been saying. In essence, his central message is that we have not learned from other past (and now failed) "democratic" civilizations who, after a period of supramecy, allowed whatever version of "PC" and creeping social decay to inhibit their ability to coldly calculate what steps were necessary to defend their nations and preempt growing geopolitical threats. The most recent example (not mentioned in his book, unfortunately) was the UK, 1919 - 1939. Liberals, homosexuals, peacenicks, nihilists, communists, and, I hate to mention, myopic businessmen who naively believed that commerce was the antidote to all aggressive regimes and subsequent war, dominated the public square in the UK at that time. They defunded defense, and cowered from confronting an escalating series of afronts to their geopolitical position.

Have we not, in essence, really done the same? I urge you all to avoid viewing 9/11 solely in terms of Al Qaida, so called "terrorism" or even solely in terms of the band of Islamic nations in the southern half of Asia. Look back as recently as summer 2001. At that time, I was seeing verious reports in the press about the PRC leading a cabal of nations, including all of the present "Axis of Evil" and increasingly even Russia and the CIS, ostensibly, "to challenge American hegemony" blah, blah, blah. How can we view this rhetoric, the EP3 attack, 9/11, the latest intifada, the Pakistani aggression in Kashmir, the Burmese aggression on the Thai border, and a number of other less than favorable (for the West) geopolitical events as being mere coincidence? It's is high time for us traditionally naive, benefit of a doubt giving Americans to take a much darker view of the overall geopolitical situation and to immediately cease trusting nations of not only the "Axis of Evil", but a number of others including the PRC, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Cuba, Myanmar, Laos, and others. The next axis, which Bodansky titled "The Trans-Asian Axis" is jelling, and by the time the actions of the Axis become 11 O'Clock News obvious, it will be too late for us to get our act together. Prove me wrong.