Readers are encourage to write the editor at JRNyquist@aol.com 

Subj: inquiry: counterstrategies 
Date: 5/14/01 9:41:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time 
From:    lroberge@sunyorange.edu (Lawrence Roberge)
To:    jrnyquist@worldnetdaily.com 

Dear Mr. Nyquist,  Greetings!  

    I have read your most recent articles with interest and fascination (I have a lot of history in my background despite my expertise in biology, biotechnology, chemistry and biological weaponry).

    I have read much discussion on the threat to the U.S. by various aggressor nations and their development of weapons of mass destruction, or the techniques of mass or public decay (moral, economic, or social). I am one to try to develop counter-strategies for various scenarios and challenges (personal, community or national).  I am curious as to your thoughts on this issue: it appears many writers discuss the challenges or threats by various forces .... but many of these writers do not come up with various counter-strategies (defense, weapons, technologies, social action, political action, economic actions, etc.).

    Do you have any thoughts as to why many writers or various individuals focus on the threat and do not spend equal time (or even some time) on  counter-stregy discussions?  What do you think?

    Thank you for your time.  Best wishes.

Dear Professor Roberge,

    You raise a great question. The reason that writers spend little time on counter-strategies is that a realistic adaptation to mass destruction weapons requires institutional changes that have long been politically unacceptable to Americans. 

    It was the Gaither Committee, back in 1957, that first attempted a realistic look at the weapon of mass destruction problem. The report issued by the super-secret committee, which included leading military officers and scientists, is known (predictably) as the Gaither Report (even though Rowen Gaither had little to do with it, owing to ill health). 

    The Gaither Report Report was 29 pages long. Its official title was "Deterrence and Survival in the Nuclear Age." The report was given to President Dwight Eisenhower on 7 November 1957. The authors of the report saw serious long-term dangers to the United States and offered a number of solutions, of which only a few on the military side were adopted (like keeping SAC bombers in the air and putting long range missiles in underground silos). 

    Because we were then entering an era of hydrogen bombs and long range missiles, the Gaither Report said that the country had to develop a massive shelter system to protect the country's civilian population. A crash program costing over $20 billion (in 1957dollars) would be necessary. The report also recommended diverting concrete from freeway construction to meet the demand produced by the shelter program. In addition, the population had to be politically oriented and trained to withstand the shock of a future nuclear attack, and to react with self-protective measures. 

    The Gaither Report, in essence, advised that America halt its advance toward consumer hedonism. Given the realities of the new weapons, the country would have to adapt to a future environment bristling with nuclear bombs and missiles. The next world war, no doubt, would be a nuclear missile war. To meet the requirements of national survival, preparations had to be seriously undertaken as the Russians were beginning preparations on their side. 

    But Eisenhower largely rejected this report. He was reinforced in this rejection by the thinking of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. They both envisioned a bloodless victory against Russia. This victory would be achieved by the construction of massive shopping malls and endless freeways. Yes, our nuclear deterrent would be protected, but our people would not be protected. They would live carefree and happy lives, unencumbered by civil defense and militarized educational requirements in the secondary schools (i.e., health, drivers ed, plus civil defense). According to Eisenhower's vision, we would triumph over the Russians by living better than the Russians. We would show them how to live the good life. We would lead by example. We would shop our way to victory.

    No sacrifices, no hard decisions, no tragic confrontations. The formula of Eisenhower was irresistible in its appeal. It was a formula that quickly became institutionalized and intellectualized within the policy-making elite. We lived that policy, and we lived good. At the end of his term, Eisenhower indirectly warned against the authors of the Gaither Report, calling for Americans to "stand guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence ... by the military-industrial complex."

    The paranoia of the left and the right seized upon Eisenhower's words.  Today we are left with notions of a "secret government," conspirators, etc., and Gen. Eisenhower's own words became the very description itself of a sinister militaristic impulse from within.  "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist," Eisenhower warned.

    We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

    Here are the words of a general -- the nation's leading general, with five stars and the presidency behind him. 

    As for proposing a solution to the threats that face us, the solution has been to buy off our enemies.  Our solution is to build factories in North Korea, China, Russia and Vietnam. 

    In my judgment it is going to backfire.  Trading with China and Russia will not transform these nations into democracies.  Trade will only guarantee that our military-industrial complex -- so long maligned by the left and the populist right -- is thoroughly undermined and weakened.   

    We had our chance, we might have built defenses.  But now we are the equivalent of political heroin addicts. We are addicted to an irresponsible national life and it feels so good. Serious solutions to serious problems are now beyond our inner resources. We haven't the political will or intellectual integrity to cut through our own illusions. Something vital in us has rotted away. In order to fix the situation we must first have a diagnosis, a deep sociological analysis, followed by public understanding of the problem. But this will never happen. The public is too dumb, the truth of the matter is too unappealing. 

    If you presented the Gaither Report today, people would shake their heads as if you were a lunatic. Fallout shelters? National self sacrifice? Patriotic or militarist education for our high school students? 

    Hell, if nuclear war happens its the end of the world anyway -- it's nuclear winter and glow-in-the-dark time. In a nuclear war we all die and there's no point. So eat, drink and be merry. Enjoy the moment. Forget about that morbid military stuff. Trade with China. Fund the Kremlin. Shop and until they drop! 

    Here is your modern American solution. And most latter-day intellectuals think that this solution has worked perfectly. We won the Cold War by living high off the hog. Isn't that the real story here?  We beat the Russians by talk and retreat, by growing softer and softer under a shopping mall regime. We let our kids smoke pot, our schools descend into political correctness while counter-intelligence collapsed -- if it was ever there at all.  

    Any academic or literary person who dared suggest that we lost the Cold War, that we built a regime of self-indulgence and self-delusion, would find his work -- if published at all -- completely ignored. He would be barred from a respectable career and denied a hearing by those in authority. In church and in town they would whisper, "There goes that kook." 

    Realistic solutions to realistic problems are not always realistic. This is the Catch-22 of our politics.    

JRN

In a message dated 4/16/01 8:03:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, pweishaupt@autometric.com  writes:

    I must be confused. I was introduced to Henry Hazlitt by your web site, and agree with Adam Smith that every human being has the right to buy the goods they need from the lowest cost producer, so why should we totally boycott China?  [You write in your letter's section:]

    Dear Mr. Kemper, I'm glad to hear you are determined to boycott China. Our government leaders have received toomuch campaign cash from companies doing business in China for us to rely on Washington. We must therefore organize a boycott ourselves. We should all relentlessly pressure our friends, relatives and acquaintances. Americans who buy Chinese goods should be made to feel ashamed of themselves. JRN

    This isn't fair. While we should (and unfortunately don't) recognize the Sino-Russo threat, why don't we STOP EXPORTING high technology items to China/Russia/ + Everybody and their brother, and simultaneously restore our own military strength?

Dear Peter,

    It is impossible to trade in one thing and not in another. The more we trade with China, the more our technology leaks out to them. Communist nations, dedicated to the ultimate destruction of the market did not exist in Adam Smith's time, in 1776. If Smith were alive today, he would advocate a boycott of all communist or potentially communist countries. That is a certainty once you realize that Smith was not simply an economist, but a moral philosopher who would have been seriously shaken by the appearance of totalitarian socialist governments armed with mass destruction weapons. These are governments that use capitalism to destroy capitalism. They contract our businessmen to build machines that will be used to destroy us. In this as in everything, communist methods are criminal methods; their market is not a free market. It is controlled by military and Party organizations. They are in an undeclared state of war with us right now. Everything we give them can and will be used against us. Does Adam Smith advocate trading with enemy countries at a time of war?  That is not possible. Let us not cling to general principles that do not apply to a particular case in point.  

    Such a use of concepts might get us all killed.

JRN

Subj: Re: Rooted In The Past
Date: 5/10/01 3:29:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: zxcvb1@flash.net  (MICHAEL W LESKO)
To: jrnyquist@worldnetdaily.com  (J R Nyquist)

    A wonderful article; only through an understanding of history can wer ealize how wrong the current path that we find ourselves on, historically speaking, is. One of the early great revelations of Thucydides is the tragedy of Corcyra -- the first occurrence in literature where the evil of faction causes the inversion of society; where the most outrageous atrocities cause glee and reverence; where the civil and compassionate became marginalized and are relegated to a position of impotence; where the institution of government is used, not to protect, but to punish ... the phenomenon that has become so familiar in our time, to be found in Northern Ireland, Lebanon, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda.

Mike Lesko
Plano, Texas

Subj: re:weapons mass destruction
Date: 5/13/01 8:43:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: kmillar@arc.govt.nz  (Kent Millar)
To: JRNyquist@aol.com 

Hi, I am writing regarding your article over the spy plane incident.

Firstly I would like you to know that I am a New Zealander who believes in the coming holocaust and who has a neutral viewpoint on U.S/Sino relations.

I bring to your attention, the claim that the U.S. would hand over a Chinese spy plane if the situations were reversed. I find this very hard to believe. I can not imagine the U.S. allowing a nuclear capable Chinese battle group parked off the coast of the U.S. between California and Hawaii as is the case in the south china sea. I cannot imagine the U.S allowing China to conduct spy missions from this battle group in air space that the U.S. would claim its own. And, I cannot believe that if that spy plane collided with an U.S. fighter, America would (especially if they were coming 2nd in the technology stakes) hand back the Chinese spy plane.

I also bring your attention to China's record over the last 50 years. Over the last 50 years has the U.S. invaded, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Diego Garcia, Iraq and Yugoslavia?

The Chinese leadership may not be the most pleasant of people, but don't try to tell me America is squeaky clean. I am not an American hater, it is the one country on my wish list to visit in my life. Or at least before it is destroyed.

I would also like to point out the West's weakness in the sense of its liberalism (Freedom of religion specifically) when some Ayatollah declares a Jihad and calls on all genuine Muslims to take up arms against the "evil West" . Which way will the Muslims in the U.S/NATO Army point their guns?

Kent Millar

Dear Mr. Millar,

    I never said America is "squeaky clean." However, you are wrong to list the U.S. as an aggressor or "invader" in Korea and Vietnam. The Republic of South Korea and the Republic of Vietnam were invaded by communist armies supported from Russia and China. The United States sent troops to stop these invasions.  The same holds true for the Iraqi situation. It was not the United States that initiated the use of violence through aggression.  Saddam Hussein, who had previously attacked Iran in 1980, turned and attacked Kuwait in 1990.  He thereby threatened the oil resources upon which the West depends.  The United States had no choice but to drive the Iraqi invasion back.  

    But in the case of Serbia you are right.  The United States has acted in violation of international norms. Our involvement in Kosovo was wrong and it was stupid.  We also damaged NATO by leading the alliance into a violation of its charter.  This was an evil precedent which strengthened the moral claims of the communists in both China and the former Soviet Union.  

JRN

Subj: stick a fork in us
Date: 5/12/01 3:13:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: LARRYRAYE40@aol.com 
To: JRNyquist@aol.com 

Dear Jeff,

    Now do you believe that Bush jr. is Illuminati? I voted for him as you said. He was the last hope. Now can you see that it doesn't matter whos in the white house? They gave us a bad choice and a worse choice - both handpicked of course, by the powers that be. I feel your sense of hopelessness, and share it. I truly believe you will find the fate of the US in the Old testament book of jeremiah ch. 50 and 51. We have forsaken God and now he will forsake the USA.(also read rev. ch.18) .

    This country has become babylon - just look at the description - the country that made the merchants and ship captains of the world rich will be destroyed in one hour. Do you see the connection? ( rev.18)

    As for your Yugoslavian friend [see last week's letters], who quotes a local prophet that the Russians will inherit the earth, please direct him to Ezekiel 38 and 39. Russia is Magog -- look at her list of allies, led by Persia (Iran, Iraq) Ethiopia (communist Africa) and Libya. God will personally take a hand in smashing these bloodthirsty beasts as they ride upon the mountains of Isreal to take a spoil. Also notice here the "isles that dwell carelessly"

    I believe that's also the USA in Prophecy. 

    So, Russia and the USA are both going to be sharing the same fate. No winners only losers here. The surviving world gets to live for the last 7 hellish years of Earth's history with the Antichrist and his one world government. 

    Our only hope -- the blessed hope -- is the Lord Jesus Christ returning for His church, to snatch them away before the carnage begins. (the rapture of the church 2 thes. 2
1 cor. ch. 16.)

    I know yours is not a religious site, but since you printed the Yugoslav's prophecy I only ask for equal time on behalf of the Lord and what his prophets have to say regarding these last days.

    If there is anybody reading who has not yet accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal savior, Please take the opportunity to do so before it is too late!

Take care and God Bless,