My condolences to the Polish nation following the death of President Kaczyński. It is a sad affair, and suggestive. The plane of the Polish president may one day be thought to represent Europe, which now thinks of mass murder as something belonging to the past.
Now to give an answer to Darek Rohnka. I do not understand his assertion that my thinking has undergone a “transformation, which has recently occurred.” Darek says that I’ve made some kind of irrefutable dogma out of the idea that Saakashvili is opposed to Moscow. In an article, published on his site, titled “Making the Enemy’s Strategic Objectives Intelligible,” I wrote as follows: “If we examine the Georgian events … we see that Moscow needed a reliable partner in Tbilisi who could start the war in a way that later indicated the fault was on both sides – that it wasn’t a simple case of naked Russia aggression.”
So much for my “irrefutable dogma.” I admitted the possibility that Georgian President Saakashvili might be an agent of Moscow. At the same time, however, Saakashvili has done some remarkable things against socialism and against Russia. So I have expressed cautious optimism, which is not for everybody. All of this demonstrates my open-mindedness, and the fact that I am ignorant of many things, groping in the dark with everyone else. What has been unacceptable in our discourse, related to this, is the automatic assignation of “Soviet tool” to leaders of former Communist countries merely because it aligns with Golitsyn’s thesis. It is not that I disagree with Golitsyn. What I disagree with is an attitude that makes facts subordinate to theory. If my thinking has ever been different from this, then you may indeed assert that I have been transformed. It was easy to see that Georgia was still under Moscow’s dominion when Shevardnadze was in power. But how do we evaluate Saakashvili? In specific cases of specific countries, when so much is happening over so many regions, we need specific knowledge. Even then, we must be careful not to overstate our case. When we can show Moscow’s hand clearly, then it is important to trumpet our findings, explaining how they confirm what Golitsyn wrote so many years ago. However, to blithely assert that whole governments and named presidents are agents of the KGB, then we bring discredit to ourselves by pretending to know more than we actually know. Theory is not a substitute for factual knowledge.
And please, do not mischaracterize my earlier statements. I never put forward an almost irrefutable dogma about Saakashvili or Yushchenko. As noted above, I clearly pointed to facts suggestive of Saakashvili’s collaboration with Moscow. Also, and more important, I never said the Soviet strategy was “in tatters.” I said that the strategy suffered setbacks, and that it was forced into an extended situation which resulted in problems within the control mechanisms. What we see today, quite clearly, is Moscow’s ability to trample down politicians like Yushchenko. As for the Polish leaders who died in the recent plane crash near Smolensk, they have been killed in a way that establishes their anti-Communist credentials with grim finality. Or will you say they were all KGB agents?
Do we really imagine that everything comes off perfectly in favour of the Kremlin? Real strategic plans do not work this way, and there is no excuse for implying that everyone on earth belongs to a false front – that there are no worthwhile candidates or parties or leaders, implying that President Kaczyński was some kind of KGB agent. If he was such an agent, then prove it and be done. Lay out facts and arguments. Don’t simply assume it from the writings of Golitsyn. Such a standpoint paints with such a broad brush, and with such negativity, that nothing positive can be done in terms of counter-strategy.
To those of you in Poland, and those in Ukraine who may read these words: – read carefully, and do not mistake my meaning for some kind of psychological compensation. These are life-and-death matters, especially since someone is making war on you. Of those countries slated for destruction and extermination by the Communist side, America is target Number One. So please do not forget what is written here; namely, that America could be struck down tomorrow and there will be no remedy. Therefore, if any hope is to be found in the world, it must be found in those countries that survive. This is not compensatory, but logical. And that is why I have urged my Russian, Ukrainian and Polish friends to translate and discuss Golitsyn. Knowledge of Golitsyn’s work will allow the people of Russia, Ukraine and Poland to understand who the executioners are, and what their method has been, and what is to be done. This has nothing to do with whether Yushchenko or Saakashvili are authentic. It does, however, take notice of Moscow’s vulnerability which the employment of such politicians – if they are KGB agents – necessitates. Here I find, in Russia’s maneuvering, an admission of weakness. The Russian politicians know they are vulnerable to Polish and Ukrainian nationalism, which they seek to sabotage and divert at every opportunity. And Moscow’s propaganda has been so successful, that many do not dare to think of themselves as nationalists – supposing the term synonymous with fascism. And so, everything in Europe is reduced to a miserable liberalism that collaborates in its own suicide.
The Kremlin’s strategists are human. They are not gods. Am I supposed to say they win all the time, and never fail at anything? Should I say the KGB is omniscient and omnipotent? That would be idiotic, and is not necessary to Golitsyn’s methodology. Besides, there is no Gospel of Anatoliy Golitsyn. There are merely a number of correct predictions, and some failed predictions, and a method of analyzing events to generate further predictions.
And Darek, please, I have not postulated an “independent Ukraine” surrounded by a chain of hostile “Russian” forces. I described Russia’s careful system of encirclement, which includes Moscow’s military union with Belarus that would allow Russian troops to occupy Western Ukraine, cutting it off from Poland. I wrote, clearly and unambiguously: “To avoid misunderstanding, at no point do I think the Orange Revolution secured genuine independence for Ukraine. I am not confused as to the hidden or not-so-hidden KGB structures in the country. I refer to Boris Chykulay’s excellent report on the likely extent of the former KGB’s penetration of Ukraine’s political system. I write this so that [my Polish friends] will not misrepresent my position, suggesting I have proclaimed Yushchenko as the Second Coming, or that I refer to Ukraine as a genuinely independent country.”
And please stop objecting to the word “Russian.” Golitsyn himself refers to the “Russian strategists” in his work. It is hardly sensible to quote Golitsyn, then bash me for using Golitsyn’s terminology. And again, please do not mischaracterize what I have just written as anti-Russian. But then, you will go ahead anyway. This is what you and Mr. Bąkowski do. I write “X” and it comes back to me as “not-X.” I attempt to clarify, but it still comes back as “not-X.” And then it is said that I prefer to listen to “fairy tales from an inebriated Yeltsin”. The reason, it seems, is my “proud nationalism” which leads me into the same abyss as Churchill and Piłsudski. Setting aside the fact that I am not a “proud nationalist,” but a nationalist from sentiment and humble necessity, I should like your argument against everyday nationalism clarified. Do you object to the fact that wars are now fought between nations instead of between fifes, clans or tribes? And cannot you recognize the absurdity of using the word “patriotism” divorced from the word “nation”? Patriotism is either national patriotism or some form of local patriotism. For an Athenian of the fifth century B.C. patriotism was city-state patriotism. For us, in our day, patriotism means national patriotism (what I call “nationalism”).
In this matter Nazism did more for the Communists than most people realize. Because of the Nazis and fascists, nationalism has been discredited throughout Europe, which is now made up of nations so weakened that they cannot defend themselves. Poor sick Europe, with its guilt-ridden nationalisms. If you persist in equating nationalism with fascism, then fascism is what you will get in the end.
The idea, as well, that belief in the progressive qualities of the national unit somehow necessitates the view that all nations are antagonists, is a throwback from the imperialistic ambitions of the pre-war European powers. Nationalism and imperialism are not the same thing, and the one does not necessitate the other. As for the fate of the Hungarian fighters in 1956, or the Cuban counterrevolutionaries at the Bay of Pigs, or the Hmong in Laos, or the Vietnamese allies of the United States, their sorry fate was not dictated by American nationalism. It was dictated by strategic error, bad policy, and the hopelessness of the CIA as an intelligence agency. How are such events an indictment of nationalism? They are not.
Reading Golitsyn, and appreciating his analysis of Soviet strategic deception, is no substitute for fact or common sense. Golitsyn’s work helps us to figure out what Moscow is planning next. It is not a pill that, once swallowed, gives us omniscience.
Send to a friend
[quote]To those of you in Poland, and those in Ukraine who may read these words: – read carefully, and do not mistake my meaning for some kind of psychological compensation. These are life-and-death matters, especially since someone is making war on you. Of those countries slated for destruction and extermination by the Communist side, America is target Number One. So please do not forget what is written here; namely, that America could be struck down tomorrow and there will be no remedy. Therefore, if any hope is to be found in the world, it must be found in those countries that survive. This is not compensatory, but logical. And that is why I have urged my Russian, Ukrainian and Polish friends to translate and discuss Golitsyn. Knowledge of Golitsyn’s work will allow the people of Russia, Ukraine and Poland to understand who the executioners are, and what their method has been, and what is to be done. [/quote]
Nie ma Polska we swiecie lepszego druha i przyjaciela nizli Jeff. Jestem studentem jego blyskotliwych analiz od ponad dziesieciu lat. Nie ma takiej drugiej osoby na swiecie jak wlasnie on. W obliczu apatii calego swiata, za wyjatkiem jak zwykle Turcji, Chorwacji, Slowenii i panstw baltyckich, jego zaangazowanie w nasze sprawy jest niesamowita sprawa. Nie mamy w Ameryce wiekszego sympatyka niz pan Nyquist. On wie dobrze ze jestesmy wespol z Ameryka sojusznikamo w bitwie o prawde i wolny swiat.
Szanowny Panie Duchu,
Jeżeli poszukuje Pan przyjaciół, druhów i sympatyków, to przyzna Pan chyba, że Podziemie nie jest najlepszym do tego miejscem. “Zaangażowania w nasze sprawy” ostatnio domagano się chyba w zetemesie, zresztą nie wiem dokładnie, nie bywam w prlu, być może są jakieś nowe komsomoły.
W każdym razie, nas tutaj interesuje prawda, a nie zaangażowanie. Jeżeli któraś część powyższego w jakikolwiek sposób zbliża Pana do prawdy, to proszę się łaskawie podzielić tym objawieniem, bo ja niczego podobnego w powyższym nie widzę.
Michal,
——————————————————-
nas tutaj interesuje prawda, a nie zaangażowanie
——————————————————-
W tym jest sek.
Straszenie nas ze “spośród krajów wytypowanych do zniszczenia i eksterminacji przez stronę komunistyczną, Ameryka jest celem numer jeden. Dlatego nie zapomnijcie, co tu zostało napisane; mianowicie, że Ameryka może zostać jutro powalona i nie będzie sposobu, aby temu zaradzić” jest bezsensowne. Ameryka Obamy ?
Nykvist chyba nigdy nie zrozumie, ze zagrozona nie jest zadna “Ameryka”, tylko ludzkosc. I ze zagrozenie to nie polega na “powaleniu Ameryki”, tylko na stopniowej bolszewizacji autentycznych, patriotycznych, “mayflowerowskich” Amerykanow.
Nota bene, Ameryka moze rzeczywiscie zostac powalona (przez wysokie podatki i inne bledy ekonomiczno-polityczne). Ale za to trzeba bedzie winnic Obame i innych politykow, a nie zadna “strone komunistyczna”. I taki upadek Ameryki malo mnie niepokoi. Duzo bardziej niebezpieczna bylaby silna Ameryka zdominowana przez komunistow, niz “powalona Ameryka” zbankrutowana przez Obame.
Jeff,
You’re talking at cross-purposes, like a sculptor accusing a painter of being two-dimensional in his work, and a painter accusing a sculptor of ignoring colors.
You’ll never understand that it’s not “America” that is in mortal danger, but humanity. And this danger isn’t related to America’s position in the world, but to the degree of the “bolshevization” of authentic, Mayflower-descended, Buchanan-loving, Obama-hating, American patriots.
The danger isn’t that America could be struck down. The danger is that it could become an even stronger superpower dominated by English-speaking, stars-and-stripes-waving, superpatriotic BOLSHEVIKS…
This is well said.
I don’t hold much hope for people who cannot tell the difference between patriotism, i.e. love of one’s country, and nationalism, i.e. love of one’s own nation. It is possibly true to say, that Poles can see this distinction with more clarity (although many don’t!) because of the vagaries of our history but, on a purely intellectual level, lack of experience is no excuse. Nationalism is as much a bastard child of anti-French revolution, as bolshevism is.
I believe these discussions are very healthy and hope that noone gets too miffed and takes theis ball and goes home. I do worry that because of the confrontational approach taken by the Poles that Jeff will elect to do just that. It must be very tedious for him to address each point of contention and I hope that the tone of the debate, which seems to me to border on hostility on the part of the Poles, will moderate.
As for Sonia’s comments, I must remind her that this is the land of Reagan, whose political fame began with his speech first given on the eve of the election which saw Barry Goldwater go down to defeat, despite Reagan’s brilliant and inspiring speech. Ronald Reagan said in that speech that if the communists were victorious it would be the end of civilization as we know it, that humanity faces a thousand years of darkness unless the communists are defeated. Reagan wasn’t just talking about America, but the whole world, all of humanity. Jeff Nyquist knows this fact and knows as well that no country but America has (had) the ability to defeat the communists. He also knows that when and if major war begins again, its sole purpose will be the physical destruction of the population of the United States for the very reason that this country is the only impediment to the imposition of worldwide communist rule. To my mind he has written hopeful things about Europe based on the knowledge that once major war starts anything is possible, including hanging communists from lampposts in London, Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, and even Moscow.
As for the idea that the Bolsheviks in America are going to be allowed to administer the country in the communist Utopia to come, that is as big a stretch as one can make, especially considering the lessons taught by Yuri Beezmenov, who said that American communists and socialists would be the first to be lined up and shot once the Russian-led communist occupation begins. Furthermore, it won’t happen for the reason that, thanks to Jeff’s investigations, we can count on civil war erupting in the fairly near future in this country, a thing we know (thanks to Jeff) the Kremlin is orchestrating, and which will result in American patriots doing the job of lining idealistic American communists up against the wall, doing the job of the Red Army for it. America, despite the protestations of mainstream conservative elites who tell us that Obama is not a communist or socialist, know better. While we have chosen to live with the results of the 2008 election until now, know that the barrels of 600 million guns in private hands will be will be put to their best possible use before we succumb to total communist control from within, and those of us who are still left to fight will use them against the communist invaders who are counting on the impending civil war for the opening they need, for the ultimate weakening of the U.S., to invade and occupy our land and exterminate us.
It is not that Jeff doesn’t understand that humanity is in mortal danger, Sonia, but perhaps it is you who does not understand that America is humanity’s only hope.
I apologize for the typos in my last post and hope they can be overlooked. None of them are too important except for the extra e in Bezmenov’s name.
HL Shancken
—————————————————————
which will result in American patriots doing the job of lining idealistic American communists up against the wall, doing the job of the Red Army for it.
the barrels of 600 million guns in private hands will be will be put to their best possible use before we succumb to total communist control from within
—————————————————————
Is that what you describe as “America is humanity’s only hope” ? What you are describing is a perfect Bolshevik revolution. An anti-Moscow Bolshevik revolution. Just like Pol Pot organized an anti-Moscow Bolshevik bloodbath.
If killing “Communists” (real or imagined) could kill Communism, Stalin would be a perfect counterrevolutionary hero.
The key is actually who gets to decide who is a “Communist” in that case. In America you describe, the word “Communist” would just become another “kulak”, “counterrevolutionary”, “trotskyist” etc. And the REAL Communist would be the one with the power to decide who is a “Communist” and can therefore be exterminated.
Sonia, I didn’t know you were a pacifist. Your response to me is bizarre and seems to be framed in the context of an internecine communist quarrel. A nation which fights to restore what George Washington and the other founders secured for us is being compared to Cambodia? This is beyond bizarre. I would provize more of a response but you’ve left me at a loss for words..
HL Shancken,
—————————————————-
A nation which fights to restore what George Washington and the other founders secured for us
—————————————————-
In the 1940’s, Stalin’s propaganda very skillfully convinced Roosevelt and other Americans that the Soviet Revolution wasn’t really all that different from the American Revolution. And they actually had some pretty solid evidence to back them up. White Russians escaping to Western Europe after the Soviet Revolution ? American loyalists escaping to Canada after the American Revolution. Kulaks having their land confiscated and living in misery on collective farms ? American Indians having their land confiscated and living in misery on reservations. Gulag prisoner cutting trees in Siberia ? Black slaves picking cotton in the South.
And just like the Soviet Revolutions had their reformers like Gorbachev, the American Revolution had their reformers like Lincoln…
Granted, the scale wasn’t at all the same. The American Revolution was a mild flu compared to Soviet Revolution’s ebola outbreak. But both events were calamities. A relatively small calamity and a huge calamity.
Michal, The way you’ve worded your response that follows Sonia’s post indicates to me that you’ve attempted to point out a difference but have failed even to make a distinction. Pease clarify how love of one’s country is different from love of one’s nation, because to me the two terms are synonymous. In this era when Moscow-directed communists have infiltrated and subverted virtually every country on earth, we need all the patriots we can get, and if patriots aren’t nationalists, what are they?
HL Shancken,
————————————————–
Pease clarify how love of one’s country is different from love of one’s nation
————————————————–
Are you kidding ? You really don’t see a difference?
In pre-war Poland, a patriotic Jew loved Poland. A nationalistic Jew hated Poland.
In United States, a patriotic African-American like Clarence Thomas loves his country, the United States. A nationalistic African-American like Louis Farrakhan hates his country.
And this applies to ethnic majorities as well. For nationalistic Poles, Polish nation doesn’t include Jews.
Shancken,
So in your view it is Americans against the Poles, is it? Come on, get a life! Or is it “hostile Poles” against the poor defenceless Nyquist? Let’s just make one thing clear: I don’t give a flying rat’s ass about the nationality of the participants – all are welcome in The Underground – but they must make sense and some of Nyquist’s statements do not. For instance: “And cannot you recognize the absurdity of using the word “patriotism” divorced from the word “nation”?” As silly statements go this one must rank as one of the funniest I’ve ever read. I guess they were saying this to Copernicus: “Oi, you stupid Polack! Can’t you recognise the absurdity of the notion that the Earth should evolve around the Sun?”
Patriotism is love of one’s country, love for the land of our Fathers. Nationalism is love of one’s nation (defined in a variety of ways). These two are not one and the same thing. Sonia gave many historical examples above but there are many contemporary too. Do you think white farmers in today’s Zimbabwe are not patriotic? I think they are much more patriotic than the thugs who are trying to beat them out of the country of their Fathers. Ah, but the others are nationalistic thugs… Do you think Evo Morales’s “indigenous people” in Bolivia are more patriotic than their opponents? I doubt it. It’s the nationalistic principle that triumphs there. Oh, how strange! In both cases it is the bolshevik thugs who are using nationalism to their advantage. It must be something in the water they all drink…
Enough of this. The Earth evolves around the Sun. Full stop. Let’s go back to this “Americans vs. Poles” thingy, shall we? I thought that was fun. One of the main bones of contention between us and Nyquist was the status of Saakashvili and Yushchenko as alleged agents of kgb. The irony of the whole debate is that Nyquist ascribes to Darek and me the position we did not ever hold, I merely quoted … you, HL Shancken. I quoted you here http://wydawnictwopodziemne.rohnka5.atthost24.pl/en/2009/12/31/trzeci-eszelon/ only to proceed to disagree with you, which unfortunately Nyquist could not comprehend. So the real quarrel is between you two, whilst my position is somewhere in between, namely: I do not know whether they are kgb. I think it is a serious accusation to make but I could see some strength in your argument so I was going to be much more careful than Nyquist. However, it seems to me that in your eyes it is Nyquist who is closer to your position when he was really diametrically opposed to it. I wonder why it is so? Could it be something to do with this “Americans vs Poles” debate? If you still needed further examples: that’s what I call nationalism.
And lastly, just a friendly word of advice: don’t call Sonia a pacifist, you may have a war on your hands.
HL Shancken:
“I do worry that because of the confrontational approach taken by the Poles that Jeff will elect to do just that (i.e. leave). It must be very tedious for him to address each point of contention and I hope that the tone of the debate, which seems to me to border on hostility on the part of the Poles, will moderate.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Sonia Belle:
“——————————————————-
nas tutaj interesuje prawda, a nie zaangażowanie
——————————————————-
W tym jest sek. ”
////////////////////////////////////////////////
A walsnie nie tu jest ten sek. Chodzi mi o cos zupelnie innego!
Jeff Nyquist (tak Ms. Sonia, Nyquist, a nie “Nykwist”) writes:
“It is hardly sensible to quote Golitsyn, then bash me for using Golitsyn’s terminology. And again, please do not mischaracterize what I have just written as anti-Russian. But then, you will go ahead anyway. This is what you and Mr. Bąkowski do. I write “X” and it comes back to me as “not-X.” I attempt to clarify, but it still comes back as “not-X.” And then it is said that I prefer to listen to “fairy tales from an inebriated Yeltsin”.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
What the above statement signifies to my mind is that Mr. Nyquist is a little peeved at the dismissive and confrontational tone of Ms.Sonia an pan michal’s conversation with him, and indeed may not be returning to write here further as suggested by HL Shancken.
Mr. Nyquist is not some unschooled bushman from Kalahari desert or even some American buckaroo from the Wild West, but instead is an accomplished and internationally recognized (and quite famous) author, scholar and thinker. Your intellectual arrogance panie michal is quite puzzling to me. Could it be some inexplicable case of professional jelousy or something even more sinister? I assume that based on the above exhange between Ms.Sonia Belle and you Mr.michal, that you both prefer to agree with each other on esoterica which is peripheral to the gist of the subjet matter here, rather than wellcome Mr. Nyquist (and even humble me) to your own exclusive dissident discussion club. We cannot afford to loose Jeff Nyquist. We do not have all that many equally distinguished and wise friends in the West!
duchPHL
First of all, I think you have not read the exchanges here very carefully. Darek Rohnka very clearly stated that the above article is the last by Nyquist that will be published in The Underground so whether he is peeved a little or a lot is quite immaterial. Since Darek translated and published dozens of his articles he is better placed than an anonymous commentator – at least in my humble opinion – to decide whether “we can afford to lose Jeff Nyquist”.
Oh, but I think I have only just realised that you do not speak about The Underground! I think you speak in the name of “all Poles”. Or is it a royal we? Whichever plural it turns out to be, I prefer the singular. Every individual with his individual views is welcome here, as long as he is prepared to offer an argument, to articulate why it is that he holds his particular individual view. His view will be scrutinised here with the intellectual rigour it deserves. I take no prisoners because there are no intellectual prisons apart from a closed mind; I ask no quarters because I can only benefit intellectually from being proven wrong, it could only improve my understanding. But I do not take kindly to sycophantic comments, the likes of which we have unfortunately witnessed here. Have you seen this one:
“Well, mr Nyquist I thought You can no longer surprise me because I follow your work so close for several years already i was wrong, this is a great piece of work”
Just in case you thought this was an isolated event, here’s another of such productions:
“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”
The intellectual content of this is precisely zero so, please, do not add to this cacophony. I am glad that you found something puzzling here because puzzles provoke thought and whatever is thought provoking is at worst interesting but at best enlightening. In other words, the “humble you” is welcome when it attempts to articulate the puzzlement the “humble you” experienced but when it tries to vaguely insinuate some professional jealousy or “something even more sinister” it is being a trifle silly.
Lastly, you clearly have never read many exchanges in The Underground if you think that Sonia and I prefer to agree on anything, let alone the “peripheral esoterica”. You probably know the sinister personage of one Adam Michnik. He famously said in the 80s that what is common to us all is more important than what divides us. Not for the first time, and not for the last, he was obviously wrong. We are defined as individuals by our differences and that is worth debating, whereas placating “distinguished and wise friends” is not worth a dime. This is work for apparatchiks.
My whole life I recited the U.S. pledge of allegiance: “…one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
But now you tell me that my country is not a nation — not a nation-state.
It is also interesting to know that loving my nation, instead of my country, makes me an anti-Semite.
Silly me.
Goodbye
You what?!
I think I will have to wait for six months and digest the above comment in its profound splendour before attempting to respond.
It took me a few days to comprehend. Apparently, Nyquist is referring to Sonia’s comment above. Sonia was trying to clarify the difference between patriotism and nationalism but how Nyquist managed to address her words to himself will have to remain his sweet secret. I invite objective readers to decide for themselves whether Sonia or anyone else called him explicitly or iml;icitly an antisemite.
Lest we forget, we are dealing here with a man who saw fit to accuse Dariusz Rohnka: “I write “X” and it comes back to me as “not-X.” I attempt to clarify, but it still comes back as “not-X.”” Not for the first time, he who is guilty accuses others of his own sins.
I’m afraid nothing in Nyquist’s writing surprises me anymore.
pierwszy lepszy polityk zamieszany w cokolwiek co jest tu opisywane jest ekspertem w danej dziedzinie nie zaś wy którzy tu spekulujecie na zasadzie co by było gdyby bez wiedzy o podstawowych faktach
Szanowny Panie,
Najwyraźniej posiada Pan wiedzę o podstawowych faktach, dlaczego zatem nie zechce się Pan nią podzielić? Nie wytykałby Pan przecież ignorancji faktów, których sam nie jest Pan świadom, czy tak?
Czekam zatem w pokorze na iluminację.
Hello, As a policy I do not post or write much onto the web.
But I would like to point out that communications on the
web or in the real world; are of two types: A rationalization
for inaction, or not. With some gray area of course.
The freedom movement needs
actions, not arguing over words.
Jeff’s writings have one massive
sub text, if we lose the war for
goodness on earth it will be
because too many people
took their “eye off the ball”.
If he is too easily upset according
to you, so what?
Will your actions vs. the USSR
be that much more effective
if his words were slightly better?
Brendan Guy McMahan
current leader: Bountiful Fury
and yes, a fan of jeff’s
Good for you, Brendan Guy McMahan!
Frankly, whether Jeff Nyquist gets easily upset or too easily. doesn’t worry me one bit, but your assumption that it does, leads me to believe that you haven’t read the exchanges very carefully. That said, I wouldn’t expect anything else from a fan. Let me explain that, just in case.
You see, an intellectual discussion is concerned with the truth. Not with effect, not with any ‘good’, not with a pragmatic definition of the truth (so close to the hearts of our errant American brethren) and most definitely not with action or inaction. Once it begins to be concerned with any of these things before truth it becomes an ideological discussion and ideology is what we fight against. Any ideology – be it communist or nationalist – will be denounced on these pages. In search for truth, by definition, we cannot remain ‘fans’ of anything other than the truth. I quoted this many times during the long debate with Jeff Nyquist: amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas. Jeff Nyquist was our friend. We translated and published him ceaselessly – a thankless task – but truth is a bigger friend and once he said that Poland was a “frontline state” we had to begin to question him a little. Hence the long discussion. If the only good that ever comes out of that debate is the fact that Jeff Nyquist now quotes approvingly from Józef Mackiewicz – I for one am satisfied.
Lastly, I wonder what gave you the idea that it was all “arguing about words”? It wasn’t, my dear. Jeff Nyquist “words” are very good indeed. In fact, as his ‘fan’ you should know that there’s no need for his words to become “slightly better”. He writes splendidly!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3EazIRwi0U
Now, now, brown cow….
michał,
It is part of my nature to be
concerned with the morale of the troops.
I live in a country that
is poor in thought,
and very poor in
21st century
leadership, so far.
But I intend to win.
Thank you for your
work on spreading
jeff’s ideas and
writings.
I’m sure you can see
the severe problems
my program faces.
So someday if you can
email me clues
about how I
can see to the
bottom of a person,
I would be very
grateful.
— or any other wisdom —
brendan
by the way:
It is an action template
that can be used by
any individual in
any area of the world.
Dear Brendan,
If I knew how to see to the bottom of someone’s soul I’d be a wise man.
But I think we ought not to lose sleep over our inability to see through other people. It’s human, all too human. We should worry about the things we can control and we cannot control the behaviour of other free people. We can control the way we think, so we ought to be uncompromising in our thought and always think through the ideas to their ultimate end. We cannot control the outcome of our actions, however much we try, so we must take care to control the means we employ in our endeavours, regardless of the ends.
I wish you all the best.