- - http://wydawnictwopodziemne.com/en -

Triangular Constellation

Posted By admin On 8 November 09 @ 1:52 In Jeff Nyquist | 16 Comments

Jeff Nyquist talks to Dariusz Rohnka

Part One

Dariusz Rohnka: Jeff, you belong to a very small group of American writers trying to understand the events of 1989-1991. What in your opinion was the decisive factor in the universal acceptance of the official version of events? Why is it that other interpretations aroused so little interest?

Jeff Nyquist: The decisive factor in the universal acceptance of the official version of the “fall of Communism” was the success of Soviet active measures in Western countries, along with the steady advance of socialist ideas within those countries.

Why were alternate interpretations disregarded? The West is addicted to comfort, to the flattery of public conceits, to obligatory economic optimism, and to the mistaken assumption that only popular regimes can endure. The West does not realize that dictatorship is the norm in human history while freedom is the exception. Therefore, the West was ready to assume that its way of life was bound to win. The Conservatives were eager to claim a victory for themselves, while the socialists were given the chance to advance their agenda without the stigma of the USSR.

DR: Myth of collapse of communism survived unscathed and unchallenged through the last 20 years. General perception is that not only was communism eradicated as a political force but also the concept of Soviet power as enemy disappeared. In its place we have instead the “axis of evil” or Islamic terrorism, and their ties with Moscow or Peking, both in the past and presently, are overlooked. What are the practical consequences of such persistent and effective disinformation?

JN: Soviet strategy entered a diversionary phase in 1989, with the following features. First, they took away the West’s concept of the enemy by removing the word Soviet. By September 2001 they succeeded in establishing a new enemy – al Qaeda. The practical consequence of this strategy is twofold: The Americans are engaged in a program of nuclear disarmament; and they have become diverted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This means that the U.S. is no longer monitoring or countering the war preparations of Moscow’s new military bloc.

DR: Long term strategy, which has global triumph of communism as its ultimate goal, adopted under the guidance of Shelepin and Mironov in the Sixties, was perfected for decades. The so called “democratic opposition” was organised in Eastern Europe to take over “democratic” government. In Western Europe cooperation of Eurocommunists with Social-democratic parties of the Left brought EU into being. Could election of Barack Obama be seen as a similar development in the United States?

JN: The election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States signifies the end of the American Republic as a bulwark against socialism, and the end of America’s protective nuclear umbrella for the free world, which will soon face an unprecedented crisis. Barack Obama began his political career in the living room of an infamous American terrorist and communist named Bill Ayers. It was at Ayers’s home, in 1995, that Alice Palmer introduced Obama as the man who would take over her Illinois State Senate seat while she committed to run for U.S. Congress. Palmer’s ideology may be seen in the fact that she attended the 27th Congress of the Communist Party Soviet Union (which she wrote about in glowing terms afterward). Obama is clearly from the Communist dominated element within the Democratic Party. He is, indeed, the American equivalent of a Eurocommunist.

DR: You mentioned Bill Ayers who is not widely known outside the United States. It is difficult for non-Americans to comprehend how a person like him could play such a prominent part in American politics today? Could you please enlighten us?

JN: Ayers is not prominent, insofar as President Obama has publicly distanced himself from Ayers for obvious political reasons. This is done in a calculated way, in order to confuse the public. In fact, Ayers has been an ally and mentor to Barack Obama for many years. It is rumored that he wrote Obama’s first book. The very suspicion of such a connection should have disqualified Obama from the presidency. He does not deny visiting Ayers’s house or being the hand-picked successor of Alice Palmer. There is no question, in all of this, that Ayers and Palmer hail from a communist milieu. But most Americans today do not know what a communist is. Furthermore, the era of strong anti-Communism in America has been maligned in media reports, television documentaries and popular movies. It has been debunked generally as “McCarthyism,” which signifies injustice and paranoia. Of course, there are voices who are warning the American people about the connection between the former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers and Barack Obama, and a minority is troubled by the news. The majority, however, thinks nothing about it. They have been indoctrinated with the notion that people who talk about Communists in government are not credible, and even if it were true it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing (as far as they know).

DR: The optimists would say that the American Republic has had its fair share of socialist Presidents and yet survived. What, in your opinion, makes Obama significantly worse than F.D. Roosevelt, J.F. Kennedy or that most famous of peanut farmers, Jimmy Carter?

JN: I don’t think it’s correct to describe Roosevelt, Kennedy or Carter as socialists. While Roosevelt flirted with socialists, he was not himself a socialist. Jimmy Carter was manipulated by socialists within his party but his anti-Soviet measures in the wake of the Afghan invasion were tougher than those of President Reagan (i.e., grain embargo and boycotting the 1980s Olympic Games in Moscow). Kennedy was stridently anti-Communist and his socialist pretences were little more than political posturing. The danger in these politicians was the way in which they pandered to the left, mixing traditional messages with concessions to socialism. In the case of Obama, we see a man who was groomed by actual Communists, like his boyhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis, or Bill Ayers – who is suspected as having ghost-written Obama’s first book. Obama is unlike any previous American politician, and there is every reason to suspect that he hates America’s free market system.

DR: In your Origins of the Fourth World War you start with the assumption of the inevitability of another global conflict. You see war as a constant and essential element of human history. If so conflict between the Soviets and China on one hand and the United States on the other, is inevitable. Are you convinced that this is the only possible scenario?

JN: In the triangular constellation of Russia, China and the United States we find decisive factors that make Russia and China allies of necessity. They are temporary allies, of course, because all alliances are temporary. The factors that make this alliance may be simplified as follows: First, Siberia and the deserts of Central Asia provide an enormous natural barrier between the two countries. It is plain to see that even if China defeated Russia, she would merely take control of Siberia. How many Chinese can be settled in Siberia? As for Central Asian oil and gas reserves, it is cheaper to buy oil and gas than to take these resources from a nuclear superpower. As for the Russians, their position in the Far East depends on the future status of Japan and South Korea (currently under the American umbrella). Here is where the most decisive factor comes into play; namely, the existence of the United States. If China attacked Russia, the United States would undoubtedly help Russia and penalize China. If Russia attacked China, the United States would help China and penalize Russia. This is the well-known pattern of American international behavior. If China wanted to overrun all of Russia, it would have to deal with the United States first. This is the real lesson which dictator states learned from studying World War II. They learned that America will not allow an aggressive power to dominate Europe or Asia unchecked.

The need to undermine the United States economically and internally has been a key aspect of Soviet and Chinese strategy since the death of Stalin. The Russian and Chinese leaders continue to show their commitment to overthrowing American power by their subtle campaign against the dollar, by their aid to anti-American dictators and movements around the world. The key point is, Russia and China cannot enjoy the dominance they otherwise would enjoy over Europe and Asia without the fall of the United States. Russian and Chinese strategists are very clear on this point. They understand their position perfectly. Even the Sino-Soviet split was used by the Chinese to break out of the West’s containment and achieve favored nation trading status with the U.S. This, in fact, was a policy for penetrating and damaging the U.S. position economically. And so it has proved to be the case.

DR: Does this mean that you do not expect the Kremlin and the Chinese politburo to continue with the charade of Sino-Soviet split to keep deceiving the West? Do you expect the conflict between Peking and Moscow to be “real” or merely for the show, i.e. to extract further concessions?

JN: The Sino-Soviet split ended long ago. In 2001 the Russians and Chinese signed a friendship treaty. Genuine conflict between the two countries is only likely if America is removed from the international scene as a major power.

DR: Should we accept the theory of inevitable armed conflict, we must consider relative military potential of both sides, even if our knowledge on the subject is only fragmentary. Is America prepared to repel an all out attack? If so how likely is that state of readiness to continue?

JN: The theory of inevitable armed conflict is not a theory. Armed conflict is always inevitable. How would it sound if I spoke of the “theory” that all men are mortal, or the “theory” that the earth will continue to turn on its axis? These are not theories at all. A philosopher may haggle on the fine points of theory, but every sensible person knows that those who came before us are dead, and those who come after us will die; that the earth will continue to turn on its axis. Furthermore, we know that history is punctuated by periods of war between major powers – between Athens and Sparta, between Rome and Carthage, between Christendom and Islam, etc. If you want to see who is going to fight, look at the major powers.

Today the strategic position of the leading countries is absolutely clear: In order to divide the world between them, Russia and China must destroy American power. If the dictator states fail to do this, they will not survive. Eventually, democracy and the imperatives of normal life will overtake them; for this is what America represents in the world. America has therefore relied on the common sense of humanity to recognize the superiority of free markets and free elections. Sadly, it has been a grave error to rely on “common sense” alone. The leading dictator states have turned to a more elaborate system of subversion. They know that common sense is easily confused. Their goal is not simply attained by a sudden nuclear strike against the United States. Decades of subversion and psychological warfare have already passed. At this late hour the United States has been undermined culturally, spiritually and politically. And now America is being disarmed by false diplomacy. We must not forget, as well, the promotion of anti-Americanism within America itself. Then there is economic warfare, as conducted through China’s trade policy and Russia’s manipulation of oil and gas prices (via its operatives in the Middle East and elsewhere). And do not forget the diversionary warfare technique of “gray terror”, as described by Viktor Suvorov in his book titled Spetsnaz and further illuminated in the testimony of Alexander Litvinenko (who named al Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahri as a longtime KGB agent). The Russians and Chinese have penetrated American banks, organized crime and politics. The poison has gone everywhere, and no effective antidote has been applied. After thousands of KGB-GRU operations against the United States, there is little chance that the U.S. nuclear umbrella will remain for much longer. The United States is in the process of disarming itself in a decisive way. Of course, there may be an attempt to oppose this disarmament. But such an opposition only introduces us to the fact that America is divided between an unwitting Soviet faction and a befuddled patriotic faction. In a civil war between these factions, the Russians and Chinese gain the advantage.

DR: How possible is it, bearing in mind the economic weakness of the developed world and the apparent readiness of the West to unilaterally disarm, that Soviet objectives could be achieved without armed conflict on a global scale?

JN: It is possible, but not likely. This is because the pre-condition of Moscow’s victory includes a severe slump in the global economy. This slump, while contributing to America’s displacement as global power, will necessarily lead to the destabilization of Europe and Asia. Wars will break out, and nationalism will re-emerge as a force. It is hard to say how things will play out, but the Russians will not be able to keep Europe under their thumb through peaceful means for long.

DR: You wrote some time ago about the Arctic Sea incident. Isn’t it just too puzzling for words? Why would the soviets use such complicated means of transport to Iran if they could have delivered the missiles via the Caspian Sea without anyone knowing? In that context doesn’t the Iranian connection look suspiciously like a smoke screen for something else?

JN: The Arctic Sea was obviously carrying secret cargo of strategic value. And you are right to say that the Iranian connection looks like a smokescreen. For those who do not understand the Russian General Staff’s operational method, I will quote the words of former GRU Colonel Stanislav Lunev: “If you ever hear that Arab terrorists have attacked an American city with nuclear weapons, don’t believe it.” He said it would be Russian special forces commandos conducting the attack. I asked him what followed this initial nuclear terrorism phase, and he said, “After a period of weeks or months the Russian missiles will come [to finish the job].” Instead of making an elaborate explanation I will list a few concepts: (1) A decapitation attack to eliminate all those with the authority to launch nuclear retaliation strikes; (2) diversionary attacks to conceal the identity of the real attackers; (3) disarming attacks to eliminate remaining nuclear weapons.

DR: Perhaps you could offer us an elaborate explanation after all, please?

JN: The public, generally, does not understand the concept of a nuclear war. Like all other forms of warfare there are tactics and strategies. It is not a simple affair of nuclear strike and counterstrike. Put yourself in the position of someone charged with winning a nuclear war. How do you defeat a nuclear-armed opponent? The key to winning a nuclear war is to eliminate the enemy’s nuclear weapons without allowing him to launch any in retaliation. In strict military terms, the nuclear strategist wants to paralyze his victim by attacking and eliminating the leadership of the target country, so that there is nobody left who can order a nuclear strike. Please keep in mind that only a handful of people in the United States can order the launch of nuclear missiles, and only they have the launch codes. Therefore, the attacker begins (1) with a decapitation attack under false colors. The attackers will seem to be Arab terrorists. In reality, however, they will be Russian or Chinese special forces commandos tasked with breaking the U.S. military’s chain of command. The diversionary attacks have already happened, and 9/11 was probably one of them (if we are to believe the testimony of Alexander Litvinenko and others). Finally, when there is no danger from American nuclear weapons, the main Russian missile forces can be used to destroy American missiles which will be sitting helpless in silos and in ports or air bases. The elimination of a society’s leaders is a temporary expedient, so that a brief window is opened for attacking the weapons themselves. Once the weapons are eliminated, America could not deter enemy attacks on her cities. Russia and China will then have strategic nuclear supremacy. No country will then be able to stop them. At that moment, the world will belong to them. The small arsenals of France, Britain and Israel would have no effective deterrent power. The Russians would demand their dismantling in the same way Sparta, in ancient times, demanded that defeated cities take down their fortifications.

16 Comments (Open | Close)

16 Comments To "Triangular Constellation"

#1 Comment By Chris On 17 November 09 @ 10:53

This is probably one of the most honest, and intelligent,(“he who fails to learn from History,is doomed to repeat it’s errors”), analysis that I’ve read yet. And, I’m a Research Specialist & Intelligence Analyst, so, History, and it’s lessons for posterity is a subject with which I’m VERY familiar, and Jeff has done a superlative job of detailing the major Historic precedents and their likely impact on future event sequences, & the serious consequences of ignoring them. As well as the goals & tactics of Russia & China, and how they will seek to reach their “LONG TERM” goals.

Bravo Jeff, bravo!

#2 Comment By lynnie On 19 November 09 @ 1:09

JRN is one of the clearest thinkers today. Thanks!

#3 Comment By Serge Kabud On 2 December 09 @ 5:47

Jeff Nyquist is in fact one of if not The leading thinkers of out time.
I am lucky enough to be his friend and have the unique opportunity to learn from him

But the most important is : his work is a a true road sign where we have to go and what to do in order to clean this World from communism and state organized crime

and if we dont do it now: kremlin people in their union with chinese communists will definitely destroy most of the world population through a series of genocidal wars

#4 Comment By michał On 2 December 09 @ 10:31

Well, friendship is one thing and truth is another, as a famous saying attributed (wrongly) to Aristotle states, so it’s always dangerous to mix the two. More to the point: how do you propose to clean “this world” from communism now before Kremlin destroys the world population in a series of genocidal wars? I have to say, I’ve been thinking about it for some time so I’d welcome a “true road sign”.

#5 Comment By Serge Kabud On 3 December 09 @ 12:42

Well, Michal, since Jeff is still writing his response i may try to answer in a mean time.

`We` are in a stage of gaining knowledge that `we` don’t have yet,
~we~ as a global anticommunist movement so to speak.

Only 2 days ago we discovered that Golitsyn was translated in Poland with a help of a good man

so we were very happy and researched his biography and we found mere details on the fight that Poland puts up against KGB. Well you Michal probably know so much more about it and we hope you can teach us here.

This is what shocked us:

(if link will not work just google “trying redefine poland” and you will find it)

so then, learning that Radek Sikorski was opposing the clean up we went here

This `radek` charachter was `consulting` Ukrainians in the late 80s early 90s, the Rukh people who for the most part were KGB agents and traytors, mind that.

I believe that radek should be exposed in a very straight forward manner and it will serve Poland national interest(correct me if I am wrong)

Our good friends in Poland like people who read and post here, friends in Check Republic, Ukraine, Georgia-

we all are trying to learn better how enemy operates and what can be done.

And at this point we are planting seeds, we gather knowledge and disseminate it, we educate ourselves and our allies.

Lots of thing should be properly reconsidered and masks must be taken away from the brutal enemy faces.

The achievements of people like Antoni_Macierewicz and Kaczyński brothers how limited they may look are fascinating for us in Ukraine and USA

You should understand that communism is advancing not only in Eastern Europe and EU
but in USA as well. It is a very dangerous times we face now but it means that we got to fight back and act on the principle

learn yourself and your enemy and you will not be defeated in a million battles

God Bless Poland

#6 Comment By michał On 3 December 09 @ 9:14

Dear Mr Kabud,

Thirst to knowledge is always welcome but I would tentatively warn you against relying too much on sources such as wikipedia. It’s mostly harmless nonsense but all too often dangerous disinformation. Having said that, I would not have much good to say about Mr Sikorski but this is exactly how disinformation works: it plants vital pieces of falsehood in a demonstrably truthful picture.

In that context, it makes sense to look more closely at the alleged achievements of the Kaczyński brothers and Antoni Macierewicz.

In my view, they have presided over further muddying of the waters, as if the water surrounding Polish independence was not murky enough. I regard Mr Macierewicz as an honest man. He was against the so called ‘round table talks in 1989 and then in 1991 he tried in vain to expose high number of communist agents in high places in allegedly “reborn Poland”. The government in which he served as minister of the interior was toppled in a parliamentary coup led by comrade Lech Wałęsa, who stood accused of being one of the agents in high places.

To an objective observer, this sequence of events would be enough to prove that Golitsyn was right: that commies have prepared for decades a false handover of power to their own agents and fellow travellers. This in turn, proves that today’s Poland is no more than a continuation of “polish people’s republic” (forgive me, I don’t like to bestow the honour of capital letters on communist creations so I never write soviet or kgb with capitals). But if it is, than how can one serve in its institutions? How can one be a member of parliament, a minister, a president? To my mind this is a contradiction. We wrote an open letter to Mr Macierewicz asking him about these contradictions. Not surprisingly we had no response.

I must add that I still retain great respect for Mr Macierewicz I just cannot agree with the political choices he had made.

#7 Comment By Serge Kabud On 4 December 09 @ 6:41

Oh, Michal, but of course.

well, wikipidea is just a tool, a collection of quotes and links. You may add to the wiki article on Mr Macierewicz yourself what you consider to be important and that would be really important in our struggle. On Walesa on the other hand history will add a pile of excrement : he will be damned and his name will be a synonym to `dirt`.

i have to agree that Kaczyński brothers and Antoni Macierewicz achievements are relatively limited. It is quite obvious. yesterday I talked to my friend in Polnad.
he summarize it all like this: “Kaczyński brothers and Antoni Macierewicz tried but failed and kgb dominates. Nothing can be done”

I dont buy it. because I know a little bit about political game and realize how complicated and dangerous it is, so I learned appreciate the little good things.

Here is some episode from the past

My another friend in Poland was arrested in Moscow in 1986, where he was lured from Ukraine by some ` friends` that he did not realize who they were.

The game was: kgb wanted him to be an informer on me and my friends. They could not do it in Ukraine because the interest that enemy had to us was so sensitive that they did not want ukrainian kgb to know about it. My friend told the enemy to `fuck off` even though he knew it will mean years in jail. he got 6 years.

I left Ukraine in 1988, he was still in jail. I had no idea what actually happened, that he was taken to Lubyanka not just arrested on a drug charge as it was officially said. I did not know that he refused to become an informer.

By the way i never was even close to the level comparable to Kaczyński brothers and Antoni Macierewicz. I only learned the truth in 2006 when he came to USA and told me. He himself has no idea why it happened. He only knew that I and my friends did not like soviet regime , thats all.

Another good example is Ukrainian President Yushchenko : kgb almost got him dead. His survival was a miracle almost. Thats the game we are in . It is rather bloody and complicated.

May I suggest that we all underestimate the strength of the enemy, their ability to plan and methods they apply.

Ukrainians are very unhappy with Yushchenko. They dreamed that he will make them live in Paradise. But it is almost impossible to confront kremlin and all that.

For someone like Yushchenko : it may be a very tough choice to even contact people like us because that will put us in danger. Enemy may try to kill us. Because they know what we want and what kind of alliance it can be if the president starts to listen to us or something like that.

May be that is a reason why Macierewicz never answered you. may be not. I dont know.

Who knows, there is this theory that Yushchenko was not just poisoned but given friendship drugs or some other psychotropic substances. Or threatened in some other way.

At this point we came to the conclusion that now it is time to do some homework, to put together our collective brain and try to understand what is going on, and educate others. We were too naive not long ago. We had no idea what kind of a game it is.

Now we only start to realize it. Looks like it is very much involving things like weapons of mass destruction. I was not realizing it not that long ago.

But we have no doubt that we will prevail and destroy our enemies.
Poland will be free.
Ukraine will be free.
USA will remain a free country, but we will have to work very hard on it.

As far as been involved at official level as Kaczyński brothers and Antoni Macierewicz are:

would it be better if they would just leave the game, and do nothing? Are you sure?

They published Golitsyn, that fact alone inspired us. Ideas have power. powerful ideas have strategic impact. May be it is worth playing the game after all?

#8 Comment By michał On 4 December 09 @ 8:57

Dear, oh dear,

No. In the nicest possible way, wikipedia is NOT “just a tool” exactly because anyone “may add to the wiki article on Mr Macierewicz what he considers to be important”. This is a charter for cheats. This is a charter for agit-prop.

The Kaczyńskis ought not to be assessed by their achievements, which are meagre, but by the scope of their ambition, which was even more limited. Macierewicz is a more complicated case, hence our letter to him.

Yushchenko is indeed a good example and I will return to him separately. In this instance, let me just shyly point out that I think the brilliantly accurate name of “demokratura” originates in the Ukraine. It describes the elite of power, which used to be known in the soviet times as nomenklatura, and which still presides over allegedly “democratic” phase. Yushchenko is clearly a member of that group, regardless of his run in with kgb.

You obviously MAY suggest that we all underestimate our enemies but I hardly think it applies to the authors on this website. If anything we were accused many times of overestimating the soviets.

And as a final point: please do not “put together collective brains”. Intelligence is always individual and collectives have no brains at all. That is why they so easily fall pray to the manipulation whether by the commies or anyone else.

#9 Comment By Serge Kabud On 4 December 09 @ 9:33

On wiki: so you criticize it as a tool, but do not offer better sources.

Please do provide if you can so we learn about Kaczyńskis and Macierewicz.
You obviously have things to say, so we are listening.

I am not sure why do we have to care about other people ambitions but not the solid achievements: this is tricky and not clear. Very unclear: it bothers me.

On Yushchenko: he is much less nomenklatura then my family was or many of my friends. So it it virtually indistinguishable.

We know a lot about him and his family. Including details of the assassination attempts on him.

Concept of nomenclatura is a good one but very outdated.

Today they operate underground, using multiple tricks like fake death of the important operatives like Dudaev or the recent one:

We would like to see the open letter to Macierewicz, is it possible please, because i have no idea what do you mean.

Yushenko is not in a conflict with just kgb, he is in conflict with global communism, with moscow to put it short. It is much worse. He is on the list of major enemies for them.

The final point makes me worried. Logically it means that researchers have to seize ANY publications or communications. This is exactly what enemy wants.

#10 Comment By Serge Kabud On 4 December 09 @ 9:37

i found the letter here

will read and comment

#11 Comment By michał On 4 December 09 @ 11:03

Forgive me. I would have given you the link but I was unaware that you can read Polish.

I will come back on other points in a moment.

#12 Comment By michał On 5 December 09 @ 12:27

First of all, I do not offer better sources and I stick by my criticism of wikipedia and other net based sources based on the same open architecture. To use them without engaging the critical part of the brain is madness but having just written this I immediately thought: there’s nothing new under the sun: no source could ever be accepted without critical analysis. Internet has not changed much here. In every intellectual pursuit we must analyse and compare and these are the only two tools we have.

I am not a proselyte, nor am I a propagandist, and am not concerned with dissemination of information about Antoni Macierewicz or the Kaczyńskis. Politicians can only be assessed on the basis of what they say and what they do. In my eyes, these three belong to the continuation of the “polish people’s republic” in varying degrees. If I speak at all, it is only in the interest of truth, even if I am very much aware that the truth has no interests and is perfectly indifferent to our struggles. I’m glad that I’ve made you worried though, because there’s nothing better than intellectual discomfort when we search for truth.

And now to the subject matter. That Yushchenko is a member of the demokratura seems beyond debate. Nevertheless, you suggest that this is not a relevant assessment but instead we ought to look at the fact that he is in conflict with kgb. But hang on! Trotsky was in conflict with gpu too and it didn’t exactly make him an anticommunist. Slansky and Rajk were executed, Gomułka arrested, Rokossovsky tortured – were they all somehow “on our side”? The “list of major enemies of communism” unfortunately usually consisted of communists and being part of that list does not make one an ally of mine.

#13 Comment By ernest On 26 December 09 @ 4:14

Dawno nie czytałem większych bzdur. Nyquist to jakiś facet totalnie oderwany od rzeczywistości, zwłaszcza ekonomicznej. Wydaje się jednak, że jest nie pożytecznym idiotą, a raczej kretem, celowo odwracającym uwagę od rzeczywistej gry. Rozważanie Obamy jako choćby w części niezależnego polityka wywołuje uśmiech politowania. By już nie wspomnieć cytatów: “Ostatecznie demokracja i wymogi normalnego życia zwyciężą, a to właśnie reprezentuje Ameryka w dzisiejszym świecie. Amerykanom wydawało się dotąd, że zdrowy rozsądek ludzkości wystarczy, by rozpoznać wyższość gospodarki wolnorynkowej i wolnych wyborów.” albo: “Ataki odwracające uwagę już miały miejsce, „11 września” był prawdopodobnie jednym z nich”…. Facet chyba nie jest aż takim kretynem? Musi więc być manipulatorem. Naiwne klepanie o dzisiejszej “amerykańskiej prawdziwej demokracji” przegrywającej z radziecko-chińskim spiskiem, pomijanie roli wielkiej finansjery w polityce światowej, czy ignorowanie oczywistych faktów ukazujących istotę wydarzeń 9/11 ? To aż aż krzyczy o komentarz. Na głębszy komentarz mnie osobiście żal się wysilać, bo ten żałosny wywiad nie jest nawet wart przeczytania.

#14 Comment By Dariusz Rohnka On 26 December 09 @ 7:55

Szanowny Panie,

Żal istotnie wielki, że nie chce się Panu wysilać na „głębszy komentarz”, tym bardziej, że to co mieliśmy przyjemność przeczytać powyżej nie wydaje się komentarzem choćby nawet tylko „płytkim”, a jedynie stekiem insynuacji, głupstw i obelżywości pod adresem Jeffreya Nyquista. Jeśli ma Pan istotnie jakieś poglądy, a wierzę że tak właśnie jest, zapraszam do śmielszej i nieco bardziej zrozumiałej ich artykulacji.

#15 Comment By Johnd18 On 10 May 14 @ 12:46

You’re so interesting! I don’t think I have read anything like this before. So wonderful to discover somebody with some unique thoughts on this subject matter. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This website is one thing that is needed on the internet, someone with a bit of originality! addakffececc

#16 Comment By Johnk243 On 10 May 14 @ 12:50

Good writeup, I am normal visitor of ones blog, maintain up the excellent operate, and It’s going to be a regular visitor for a lengthy time. aaeeakbkgdck

Article printed from : http://wydawnictwopodziemne.com/en

URL to article: http://wydawnictwopodziemne.com/en/2009/11/08/trojkatna-konstelacja/

URLs in this post:

[1] : http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoni_Macierewicz

[2] : http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical_diary_trying_redefine_poland

[3] : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radosław_Sikorski

[4] : http://www.topix.com/forum/world/russia/TKDVTCJF01CRVH6JK

[5] : http://wydawnictwopodziemne.com/2008/02/10/list-otwarty-do-antoniego-macierewicza/

Copyright © 2007 . All rights reserved.