JR Nyquist's Latest
Posted 05 May 2006 - 02:45 PM
Posted 09 May 2006 - 12:08 AM
Posted 25 May 2006 - 08:09 PM
We are seeing signs that the final failure of the third and final naive attempt to overcome tribalism, competing ideologies, and human nature using the artifice of a global economic system and a global peace treaty, is coming to its bloody end.
In truth, the so called "Electronic Herd" was always constituted, in the majority, by Western investors. The so called "Electronic Herd" are moving their assets out of so called "Emerging Markets" at a record pace and - miracle of miracles - are now purchasing WAR BONDS from Western governments.
So called "Populism" - in this particular sense, a feel good euphamism for Communist resurgence - is spreading throughout all the usual old spots, as well as some new ones that were only attempted in the past by Che Guevara.
Renationalization has been set forth across the "former Soviet Union" particularly within its old 1919 core.
Fort Bliss is ramping up for - something.
Suddenly, even the most naive wishful thinkers are acknowledging the Bruning-Hitler like clandestine war preparations happening in Communist Red China. Meanwhile, out of a supposed pile of rust, a newly robust Red Army rebuilds multiple eschelons which would be the envy of Stalin as he snidly laughs from his perch in deepest Hell. And this time around, the world's largest tank force will have something a bit better than muddy ruts and frozen rivers to travel on. The diabolical plan which Stalin had set forth to out Blitzkrieg the kriegmeisters, can now occur in fact, and with a much swifter lunge into a thoroughly unprepared Europe. A second thrust, unthinkable during the late 1930s and early 1940s, when jungles, mountains, rivers and seas necessitated the high friction overextended Imperial Japanese approach, into the ancient and noble heart of Southeast and perhaps even South Asia, can now be completed. Fulda is complemented by Chiaing Rai.
The world's longest range bomber, the TU-95, still flies, with amazing late generation engines that are not quite fanjet and not quite turboprop - a far thinking creation which aimed not at the Cold War but the Next War.
Unknown and surprising new weapons, reliant on less expensive surprise tech, reflective of the Oriental mind, brew in unknown labs across the Mysterious East. Meanwhile, with smugness and a false sense of technical superiority, we gloat about our own versions of the UK's utterly failing 1920s strategies of low manpower high tech warfare.
At this point, only the most die hard Western intellectual ideologues still consider the last blast of infantile dreaming to be in any way salvageable. Even the dense masses sense that the impending discontinuity - a break in a sequence which has spanned for some 500 years - will fall on us as a certainty as reliable as the coming of night after day.
Ahoy Columbus! The journey must now begin!
Posted 25 May 2006 - 08:26 PM
"Men are tribal animals and Europeans are not as enlightened as they pretend."
"The death of communism, for example, has proved to be an exaggeration. One only has to look at events in Latin America, Africa and Nepal. When the next Great Depression overtakes the world, the communist cause will revive. The ideological struggle is constant and ongoing. No ideology ever wins a final victory. Truth itself rises and falls with the truthful."
"Berlinski has the added virtue of realizing Russia’s threat to Europe, even though the Europeans and Americans prefer to ignore it."
Posted 30 May 2006 - 09:44 PM
“launching a military campaign to encircle Russia and turn it into a NATO chattel.”
I don't feel naseous, just dazed. Maybe I'll shave my beard.
Here are some quotes from Guess who said this? Please forgive this 87 year old gentleman.
"All this leaves no doubt that they are preparing a complete encirclement of Russia, which will be followed by the deprivation of her sovereignty," he said.
Russia, he suggested, was all that stood between NATO and the "downfall of Christian civilization."
He praised the efforts of Mr. Putin "to salvage the state from failure."
As a final secret comment...I hope the starshy is correct about encirclement, and is speaking to us in animal farm code and meant Nato is all that stands between Russia and the downfall.
I researched more. Somethings amiss here. Here are June 2005 statements.
“It is often said that democracy is being taken away from us and that there is a threat to our democracy. What democracy is threatened? Power of the people? We don’t have it,” he told Rossiya, the state-run channel.
He said that the State Duma, dominated by the Kremlin’s supporters, was acting “as if it were drunk” and the country could face an upheaval similar to last year’s Orange Revolution in Ukraine if the Government did not change course.
In a previous televised interview, he attacked Mr Putin for failing to crack down on the oligarchs, the two dozen businessmen who bought state assets cheaply in the privatisations of the 1990s.
Probably, he's just an old pacifist. “Democracy is not worth a brass farthing if it is being installed by bayonets. Democracy should grow slowly and gradually.”
Posted 30 May 2006 - 10:20 PM
Incidently, I always find Jeff's articles with a somber, dreary ominous foreboding of gloom. Full of truth.
Yet here I found a flicker of hope and advice. Probably for Bush.
Avoid unnecessary provocations, attempt a dialogue and remain cool.
This truly is the answer. Faith in Jesus Christ, and loving enemies.
Bush should call the nation to fasting and prayer and talk privately to A-man from Iran, as well as Putin.
Posted 09 June 2006 - 01:15 AM
The authors of the U.S. Constitution feared democracy, even as the ancients called it the worst form of government. Democracy is only one element in a “mixed” constitution in which powers are checked and balanced. The power of the many should never be absolute. The fathers of a country, the aristocrats and senators, must have the strength to say “no” to the people. The malcontents will cry foul and bitterly complain of an elite conspiracy. Yet oligarchy is not a conspiracy.
Machiavelli tells us that the populace, “misled by false appearance of advantage, often seeks its own ruin, and is easily lead by splendid hopes and rash promises.” In Book One (secton 53) of his Discourses, he explains how the Roman populace sought to aggrandize itself by moving into the houses and buildings of a wealthier town that had surrendered to them. The senate was against such a move, and many senators would have preferred to die than go along with the plan. Machiavelli thought that two things were noteworthy about this episode: “First of all, the populace, misled by the false appearance of good, often seeks its own ruin, and, unless it be brought to realize what is bad and what is good for it by someone in whom it has confidence, brings on republics endless dangers and disasters.”The dominance of the few over the many (in a republic) need not be viewed as an evil circumstance. It is, in fact, unavoidable and natural. In our time, as in Machiavelli’s, the decisive question is not oligarchy or democracy. The decisive question is, “Which oligarchy is best?” Do we prefer the clerical oligarchy of the Islamists, the technocratic oligarchy of the scientific socialists or the market oligarchy of capitalism? Leadership belongs to a small elite in every nation, and this elite must stand against national insanity. In the case of America today, the people want endless credit. They want prosperity uninterrupted by the natural cycle of boom and bust. . . Sadly, when a republic falls into decadence, the madness of the people may be rivaled by the madness of the leaders.
What would be "noteworthy" now is that any public official would prefer to die rather than go along with a ruinous, yet momentarily popular, policy. Which is why, of course, the populace cannot be "brought to realize what is bad and what is good for it by someone in whom it confidence," because how can it have any confidence whatsoever in leaders whose "madness . . . rivals" theirs?
I recall being derided by some of my fellow Christians, on several occasions, for my custom of giving something up for Lent. At first, when people accused me of blind superstitious adherence to an outdated and pointless practice, or of engaging in "works righteousness," I wasn't sure how to respond. Though I didn't think I was doing it for either of those reasons, I made no attempt to rebut their accusations until an Orthodox writer gave me the clarification I needed. Fasting, she said, was indispensible training in the power to say "no" to ourselves.
We have lost this power, and since our leaders come from among our own ranks--not from an aristocratic warrior class, as in days of yore--they can have no more power than we to put the brakes on our appetites and delusions.
Posted 09 June 2006 - 10:53 PM
The first kind of political dishonesty is weak and compromising.
Compromising will lead to city-states.
Weak? God makes strength in weakness.
Weak leader ask God make strong.
Posted 10 June 2006 - 01:13 AM
In a democratic age, with the public stupefied by television, with myths in place of facts and ideology in place of moral ideas, politics necessarily becomes a competition in mass corruption . . .
I found JRN's allusion to James Burnham's book, The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom particularly enlightening:
Burnham called his book, “A defense of political truth against wishful thinking.” It is not a book for moralists who dream of a perfect world.
I am coming to see that one of the best ways to defend freedom is to turn resolutely away from all forms of utopianism, away from wishful thinking about the perfectability of man and his institutions, and especially about that ultimate "pie in the sky": universal peace with a "free lunch" for all.
From Origins of the Fourth World War, pp. 168-169:
To remember the past is to know that war always comes. This is part of the historical process. Our inability to reflect on this process defines and dooms us. As the Russian generals long have said, a future world war will be a nuclear war, involving the mass use of nuclear missiles. In the United States, nobody wants to acknowledge this possibility. Conservatives imagine they are opposed to utopian idiocies of the liberals and leftists. But the socialist paradise conservatives oppose is, at bottom, a capitalist dream. Peace and plenty for everyone--the illusion of all illusions--dominates conservative thinking to such an extent that any serious talk of nuclear war is unacceptable to the conservative. He will not tolerate it. The idea that world war is inevitable threatens his utopian project. . . War is the law of history. The armed man, under the discipline of a mixed system, under a moral law undergirded by a belief in the supernatural, has always been the principal stabilizing progressive basis of every age. Modern ideology, so far as it ignores this basic truth, is dangerous to mankind. The idea that we are somehow different, that we stand above history. . . is absurd.
Posted 14 June 2006 - 03:47 PM
Famous last words in stock markets and geopolitics: "It's going to be different this time!"
Yeah, right! ........
Posted 20 June 2006 - 02:32 AM
It is hard not to conclude that the Democrats want America to be defeated in Iraq and that it is not only their electoral opportunism but their worldview that demands it. This shows how different the Democratic Party is from what it was a generation ago when its stalwarts assumed the moral leadership in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The current Democrats bear no kinship to the John F. Kennedys, Hubert Humphreys and Scoop Jacksons who saw this prior conflict in the same black and white terms as Bush does the present conflict, and whose disheartening moments were far bleaker than the setbacks the U.S. has experienced in Iraq. Such men would be read out of the Democratic Party today and reviled as yahoos for their patriotism.
The worldview of the current Democrats was created generation ago in the first war that America lost on the home front, and it hasn’t changed since. Notwithstanding the Democrats’ timorous, and reluctant -- and quickly retracted -- support for the war in Iraq, and notwithstanding the disingenuous insistence that “anti-war” activists also “support our troops,” the leaders of the Democratic Party left – Kennedy, Kerry, Carter, Gore, Pelosi, Murtha -- looked on the Iraq War from its onset as another Vietnam. Whenever there is the possibility of the use of American power against an enemy that can fight back, it is always for the Democrats a quarter past Tet.
From the beginning of this war they have waited impatiently – if not eagerly -- for U.S. troops to sink in a desert “quagmire.” For them a government elected by some eighty percent of the people is as corrupt and ineffectual as the Diems were in Saigon some forty years ago. An incident in Haditha for them is another My Lai even before the investigation of what actually happened is complete. In their every act the Democrats echo the cry of the McGovern left from 1972: “Come home, America.” Come home to the defeat and impotence that should always constrain American power to make the world a better place. Come home to contemplate the sins of arrogance and empire that originate with the founding of the nation. Come home even though it means inviting those who hate you to disrespect you as well and follow with their suicide bombs and subway poisons and hijacked deathcraft crashing into your national monuments and homes.
What emerges in many of JRN's columns--including his recent one, "Unfinished Business, Then and Now"--is an understanding that our unwillingness to stay the course in any difficult, dangerous venture is attributable to a pervasive corrosion of discipline, morality, and vision: it's not just a "Democrat thing" but a culture-wide weakness of character and conviction.
In its foreign policy the United States seldom finishes what it starts. Because American foreign policy is at the mercy of domestic policy, and the business of America is business, it would be silly to take the government's stated foreign policy seriously. . . America cannot have an effective or consistent foreign policy under any president, because the narcissistic self-misconception of the country negates any and all long-range future considerations. . . The grand mess of America's present foreign policy began with the unfinished business of World War II. In the final chapter of Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, economist Joseph Schumpeter described Russia's victory over America at the end of the war. Yes, he said, the Axis powers were defeated by America and Russia. But the real victory went to Russia, because the Americans--with so many military advantage, refused to win. "Surely," wrote Schumpeter, "it was not worthwhile for this people to undergo sacrifices to carry on a conflict in which untold horrors were inflicted upon millions of innocent women and children if the chief result is to free the most powerful of all the dictators from between the two armies [German and Japanese] that hemmed him in. Surely this is a case where a job half done is worst than nothing."
JRN continues to quote Schumpeter, who says that the U.S. "accept[s] an activist course. . . of interference beyond the seas . . . [only] when violently excited . . . But it soon tires of it, and . . . [is] very anxious to return to its habitual ways of life." JRN concludes that "the closest thing to a permanent U.S. foreign policy we can find" is the "pattern of pre-war appeasement" that is the "normal state of affairs."
In The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis alludes to St. Augustine's definition of virtue: " . . . ordo amoris, the ordinate condition of the affections in which every object is accorded that kind and degree of love which is appropriate to it," then to Aristotle's assertion that "the aim of education is to make the pupil like and dislike what he ought." A man's loves, his emotions, must be "organized by trained habit into stable sentiments," for "in battle, it is not syllogisms [or ideology, or propaganda] that will keep the reluctant nerves and muscles to their post in the third hour of the bombardment. The crudest sentimentalism . . . about a flag or a country or a regiment will be of more use." (p. 34)
This is where our education (both inside school walls and without) has failed us: As Yeats foresaw in The Second Coming, "the best lack all conviction" regarding what/who is worthy of love and respect (and what, on the other hand, ought to be hated and resisted), while "the worst are full of passionate intensity" to remake man and rewrite natural law.
Lacking conviction, we lack character. And lacking character, we bail out of onerous duties, inconvenient pregnancies, troubled (or simply humdrum) marriages, and the responsibilities of an effective national defense--thus paving the way for thugs and tyrants.
Posted 20 June 2006 - 03:41 PM
"The Right is a fiction. Everyone is on the Left" - J.R. Nyquist
RE: WW2 - WW2 was our great lesson and test, and we failed.
The real lessons of WW2 ought to have been:
1) Keynesian economics are complete rubbish.
2) Populist socialism is destructive to national comprehensive strength.
3) Whenever one of the "Devils" (as defined by Paul Johnson) gains power in a nation, kill him immediately and severely punish that nation in a manner Von Clausewitz would have recognized.
4) Assume that the worst available weapons will be used. Get them and use them first.
5) Don't ally with any of the "Devils" (see #3.)
6) Grab as much land as humanly possible, then position yourself to secure it and to continue the roll back until it hurts.
7) Once the genie of mass totalitarian genocide is out of the bottle, it is impossible to put it back.
8) Assume that someone, somewhere in the world, who you never even considered, is rooting for the "Devils" and assume you will have to kill him some day too.
9) Have a specific and realistic plan for fighting and winning a global war of mass destruction.
10) He who has the gold makes the rules, he who has the guns has the gold.
Posted 20 June 2006 - 08:11 PM
Going nowhere fast ....
Shakespeare wrote, “Plenty and peace breed cowards.” Peace has been called the “nurse of drones.”
Yes, it's a problem. Kids cry mumy when little, and half grown adults cry doctor or lawyer or other demagogue or sales guy like Friedman the minute something is wrong instead of believing that they can fix it themselves, that they can help by bettering themselves and listening to true stories of resilience.
It's totaly psychological and psych warfare. People believe in the end of it all for them if this or that benefit is not in there for them. The modern culture breeds suicide because it breeds helplessness by selling "vital items" which cause great distress to those who lose those, not realizing they never really needed them in the first place, and that it's like it's really is like a blessing for the "drug user" who runs out of money and cannot buy this stuff anymore.
Thus we run into situations where we say: "without China, we cannot compete" "Americans won't do the jobs Mexicans do"... say what? Most the soldiers I'm with are white, and most hispanics are either PortoRicans or 2nd generation Chicanos... excuse me, but these people do do the job, or even less gratifying jobs. Killing people is grim work.
Something is really wrong with this defeatist attitude... we might as well get "protection" from a foreign army then.. what are you? Crazy! As my female DS would say.
Posted 24 June 2006 - 12:57 AM
From Refusing to Face Reality:
Behind Washington’s infighting there exists a deeper, more dangerous truth. The problem lies in the sociological realities of daily American life and the way Americans think, the way Americans evade reality, and the stubborn refusal of the world’s greatest power to adapt. It doesn’t matter how far off the WMD threat actually is (two years or ten years), because the final detonation will remake the world in the blinking of an eye. The use of the weapon is inevitable, and that is the point. America must be ready, though America resists making ready. In World War II the United States mobilized and everyone sacrificed for the nation’s future existence. But today one sees a government afraid to ask for sacrifices, and a people quick to grumble about the least security-related inconvenience. This speaks to a psychological unwillingness to take things as they are. Americans want to live comfortably in the face of eventual disaster, right up to the last moment. And this has a financial side, and a cultural side as well. In short, we face an economic and social crisis that coincides with our national security (WMD-proliferation) crisis. The root cause of each crisis is the same.
Many years ago, my high school history teacher observed (almost as an aside, before moving on to a related topic), "People don't build these weapons [i.e., nukes] not to use them." He wasn't, as I recall, saying that one particular side or leader in the Cold War wanted to use them, only that their use was inevitable. Is there a time in the history of the world when combatants refrained from using the deadliest, most effective weapons available to them?
JRN does, again, cite the TFP connection, this time with regard to the recently uncovered al Qaeda plot to gas NYC subway riders. Ayman al Zawahiri was the one to have ordered (and then called off) this planned al Qaeda poison-gas attack. JRN speculates, "In terms of its command system regarding terrorist operations against the United States, al Qaeda seems to be led by Zawahiri instead of bin Laden." He then reminds us: "We must not forget that a Russian intelligence defector has fingered Zawahiri as a longtime agent of Moscow. What is being planned and who is nudging the plan is something the American side fails to consider."
Posted 24 June 2006 - 08:35 PM
My only disagreeement is that he used the term 'Americans', implying that it was the decision of the entire country to surrender Eastern Europe to the Soviets following VE day. In fact, it was the Communist-riddled Roosevelt administration that allowed this turn of events to transpire, although Franklin himself obviously did not live to see the final outcome. At Yalta, he made common cause with 'Uncle Joe', and ignoring the horified protests of Churchill (if memory serves me), went ahead and agreed to the surrender of the formerly free Eastern Bloc nations to the Soviets.
Posted 17 July 2006 - 02:01 PM
* Once upon a time the American president said there was an “Axis of Evil,” consisting of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. In case the reader is confused by those who publicly denounced or ridiculed the president’s language on that occasion: the countries in question were all governed by totalitarian politicians; that is, by violent criminals whose absolute power of life and death over the least internal opposition was undeniable. Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq exterminated twenty to thirty thousand Iraqi citizens per year. The North Korean dictator has starved over a million North Koreans to death. The Iranian mullahs hired assassins to dispatch any Iranian writer who mocked or questioned their authority. At the time of Bush’s Axis of Evil speech, the rulers of Iraq, Iran and North Korea depicted the United States as if it were their very own mirror image. The warmongers in Pyongyang depicted Washington as constantly plotting war. Saddam Hussein’s habit of invading his neighbors was transformed into a noble defense against American imperialism. The Iranian mullahs, who dream of blanketing Israel with nuclear bombs, say that America and Israel are “satanic.” This tendency to see oneself in a distant foe belongs to the totalitarian mind. The demonizing of the United States would occur whether the Americans sent food and medicine or bombs and infantry. This would be the case even if Al Gore had been inaugurated in January 2001 instead of George W. Bush.
* Iraq, Iran and North Korea were small, poorly run, pariah states, entirely dependent on the “former” communist bloc. Iraq, Iran and North Korea do not pose a threat on their own, but only when armed and assisted by larger enemy states. But the West does not accept the idea that these larger states are enemies. Here we find a problem of intellectual digestion. Only small states with nuclear weapons pose a threat. Big states, like Russia or China, are always friendly. The West won’t accept any other formula.
* Two months ago, in President Vladimir Putin’s state-of-the-nation address, the Russian president defiantly announced that Russia would build up its military potential. “We are aware what is going on in the world,” he declared. “Comrade wolf knows whom to eat, it eats without listening and it’s clearly not going to listen to anyone.”
* The United States has been undermined from within. Its educational system is anti-patriotic. Its media elite is oriented toward consumer products and entertainment. The Americans lack anything like a counterintelligence organization. Anyone opposed to foreign subversion is a racist, a paranoid or a xenophobe. To declaim against China is to arouse the ire of big business. To declaim against Russia is to beat one’s head against an impregnable ignorance.
* And there is nothing sinister in the fact that Moscow’s upstanding totalitarian functionaries coordinate their national strategy with the Butchers of Tiananmen Square (those wonderful humanitarians, managers of the world’s greatest brainwashing labor camp system – as described in the works of Chinese dissident Harry Wu).
* Whatever the faults of the United States, the tragic decadence of American liberty is not to be compared with the genocidal machinery of the Eastern Bloc. Dip your sorry head, as you may, in the acid bath of anti-American half-truth and note (if you can) the sorry pips and squeaks of derangement that invariable bubble upward and outward. Major wars are between major powers. This preoccupation with the small, insignificant dictators, terrorists and mullahs will prove fatal.
Genocidal machinery, previously an odd and sick abnormality, became a main stream, undeniable, genie out of the bottle, as of 1933. Although the genie was injured by the gallows in 1946, it nonetheless lived. It not only lived, but thrived. Now, that genie is 1000 fold stronger than it was in 1940. It has captured the imaginations of the majority of those who live on the Asian continent, especially those who do not run banks or Starbucks but who are instead toilers who you'll never see on ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN. There are angry billions ready to liquidate Jews and after that, all others who subscribe to traditional Judeo Christian and / or English thinking. For those of you in Rio Linda, that would mean, like .... YOU!
Posted 05 August 2006 - 11:08 AM
You can google around Friedman's new book The Earth is Flat, I believe, and suffice to say that he is in full spin mode for his "foresight" in The Lexus and The Olive Tree. He is saying globalization has overcome its critics but does comment he is worried his kid in highschool has now to compete for a job with the one in India or China. This sums up the liberal mindset: they want free jobs and kumbayanism, and thus they end up worrying like Marilyn Monroe about which guy to worry most about, ie the cautious conservative who requires discipline and hard work or the China man who makes sexy offers.
Posted 05 August 2006 - 12:07 PM
by J. R. Nyquist
I typicaly read a Nyquist article several times because of his ability to go deep along many facets. With that caveat drawn, I read his latest this morning and came away with more of a visceral reaction than one of analytical observation.
The feeling I had was one of being objectively cognizant of a composer laying down the final touches to a masterpiece symphony. He's not quite ready to reveal his work to the public, but it is an extreme accomplishment nonetheless.
Once seemingly disparate terrorist organizations with distinct goals are beginning to coalesce with their intents being slowly unveiled. It appears that the Outside Force is methodically knitting them together to achieve concurrent malevolent purposes. When will the symphony be performed for the first time on the world's stage? Time will tell.
Posted 06 August 2006 - 04:21 PM
I would posit that your "composer" is God Himself. Be prepared folks, the times are interesting indeed.
The feeling I had was one of being objectively cognizant of a composer laying down the final touches to a masterpiece symphony. He's not quite ready to reveal his work to the public, but it is an extreme accomplishment nonetheless.