7 May 2001

Letters to to JRNyquist@aol.com

Subj: World War III
Date: 5/4/01 9:07:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:    njovanovic@primus.com.au  (Nikola Jovanovic)
To:    JRNyquist@aol.com 

Hello.

      I agree with your view on [a] major conflict in the future.  In fact you are almost 100 percent accurate when you describe the games of deception that the Russians are playing with the U.S.  Only idiots cannot see that the U.S. has been outmaneuvered and outgunned.  All I can say is: BAD LUCK.  Your country will get the taste of sour grapes as a result of wrong doings on the world scene.  Let me make myself clear: the U.S. is not an innocent women waiting to be raped.

      I do not think that I have seen any of your comments in the past condemning the rape of [the] Serbian nation by your government and dismembering of its lands even though we were allies in the previous world wars. How do you explain that the former enemies of your country such as Croats, Muslims and Albanians are embraced by Americans as the best of the buddies? Or maybe history classes are not taught in the U.S. schools these days?  During the long period of "communist" dictatorship the Serbs were persecuted and ostracized in favor of the other ethnic groups and hundreds of thousands of Albanians were let into the country.  Today we see how your "democratic nation" is helping those illegal immigrants take away a good slice of Serbian lands. Well, I think that the U.S. will end up having a similar problem with [its] Hispanic population.

      I used [quotation marks] as neither the east was communist nor the west is democratic, as ideally the real communism and democracy is an utopia....

      You use terms such as liars to describe Russians and Chinese, however I suggest you use that term for your country as well, because there is no difference. In fact I have not seen such monstrous acts as the bombing of  Serbs done by the Russians or Chinese.  I would not say a word had that attack [been] justified or provoked, but it served the interest of your country in the region (Caspian pipeline project -- one intended route is through Balkans).  I am just waiting to see how NATO stands to destroy Macedonia as well, or maybe your CIA has lost control over its Albanian thugs.  So, let me ask you one question, how is it that you wholeheartedly defend Muslim fanatics of Balkans and in Chechnya, but throw rocks on Talibans, Iranians, Iraqis?  It is because that serves the strategic interests of the neofascist gang in the U.S.

      Had those mullahs in Chechnya had a little bit of brains they would turn their land into living paradise after the first war with Russia. On the contrary those idiots were duped by the CIA to go on and "liberate" more Muslim land around the oil fields. I guess with more than 90,000 casualties they are being slowly exterminated. You are right when you say that Russia does not want to end the conflict there, it serves as a good training exercise for the military and keeps the region unstable (I pity the U.S. oil companies).  

      Putin recently suggested to Macedonia to go all the way in fighting the rebels.  He is not Yeltsin. Would NATO bomb Macedonia? Do not think so.

      ...the U.S. generals are so stupid. They bogged themselves [down] almost everywhere around the world. How would they fight in Balkans and against Iraq, Korea, China at the same time?  When Russia gives a flick the Serbian military would turn Balkans into ashes. I think that you know that the Kosovo handover was engineered by the Russians in order to get NATO tied down with billions of dollars wasted every day knowing that NATO is impotent to solve the problem with Albanians.

      If you want to confirm your predictions get yourself a book that contains the prophesy of Mitar Tarabic, a well known Serbian seer from the 19th century. He predicted a Third World War (hi-tech weapons). The war would be started by a leader of the big country across the ocean (USA), [a president] who himself is son of a former president, by attacking the red king (possibly China, Korea). The war would not last long and mainly the air forces would be used. Navy and ground troops would not see much of a fight because pozytronic weapons would be used to maim people and not to kill.  Russia would fight against Italians (NATO), the seer prophesied some of the major air battles over the Serbian skies. Planes would be falling from the skies engulfed in fire so the people in them die and shrink to the size of children (puzzling). Russia would win the war becoming the strongest and most respected country in the world. Turkey would be forced out of Europe and Russia would take Istanbul turning it into a new world capital (UN). With Russia's permission the Serbs would retake all the lost lands.  There would be no more wars and the new way of living would come from Russia to be accepted all round the world.

      My interpretation of this prophesy is that the newly armed China would try to reclaim Taiwan, and the U.S. would be tricked into intervening, presenting itself as an attacker (Taiwan is China's internal matter).  This would serve [the] Russians to present themselves as saviors of the free world.

      Good luck. -- Nick.                   

----------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Jovanovic,

    Thanks for writing.  I spoke out against the bombing of Serbia on national radio and wrote against it on Newsmax.com.  I was also a guest on the Art Bell Show in April 1999, the biggest night-time talk radio show in America with millions of listeners.  I believe it was rebroadcast in May of that same year.  

    It was a painful thing to watch America and NATO break the charter and act against a former ally.  That being said, I do not agree with those who compare America to Nazi Germany.  This is an exaggeration.  What NATO did was wrong, but on a scale of one to ten it does not compare to Hitler or Stalin.  The same I would say of Milosevic.  He was not such a big monster, and was unjustly compared to Hitler.  In terms of the outcomes he produced, all normal countries have leaders who bungle national strategy.  One might even say, in jest, that Milosevic was "very American" in this regard.  Looking at the Balkans fighting, it seems to me the goals were always confused, the decisions were always stupid and senseless (on all sides); so the bombs fell and lives were taken.  But of all countries, Russia reaps the benefits by winning the people's hearts and minds -- by guaranteeing for itself an impregnable regional position for the future.  Serbia will be a Russian protectorate in the end, if not an integral part of a new "Union" with Russia, Belarus and others.  

    Since you made a crack about Americans' knowledge of history, I will offer an insight for you. Americans aren't really taught much history in the public schools.  They are taught about sex, racism and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  That is our "social studies" program in a nutshell.  In fact, most Americans probably cannot locate Serbia on a map. (So much for geography.)  I tell you this from my own experience, having been a school teacher.  One in ten of my high school juniors could correctly name the continents and oceans if handed a blank world map.  That was 15 years ago and standards have fallen further since then.  Our society as a whole is preoccupied with entertainment to the detriment of history, philosophy, moral teachings, religious studies, etc.  We've lost our moral compass and our connection to the past.  Many of our best educated people, who have attained rank and power, are characterless climbers.  Their intellectual integrity is suspect and their thinking doesn't even rate as shallow.  (Perhaps you have heard the American saying, "Blow in my ear and I will follow you anywhere.")

      However, I must defend my country and its leaders against a false comparison.  America's oligarchy has faults and sins, and there has been a serious moral decline, but America is a tiny retail store next to the wholesale murder outlets of Moscow and Beijing. Their criminality is far darker, far more sinister and difficult to resist.  To be a successful democracy requires a talent for business, not a talent for murder.  To be a successful one-party state requires a rare and inhuman ruthlessness. The calculus of the Kremlin in Chechnya and the PLA in Tibet is not the American calculus in Kosovo.  People died in your country, and that was wrong, but it was not so sanguinary as to compare with routine Russian or Chinese atrocities.  Just talk to a Tibetan or a Chechin.

    You write about Russia and China as if they are innocent countries, as if the slaughter in Chechnya or the crushing of Tibet are not real events.  During the last 80 years Moscow's troops have invaded dozens of countries, effecting the murder of millions.  The atrocities in Tibet, on the part of China, were also carried out on a grand scale.  There is a tremendous difference between systematic oppression and murder, carried out over decades, and an irresponsible two month bombing campaign that did not purposely aim at civilian targets (though these were hit).  Your assertion of moral equivalence is therefore mistaken.  As for the KGB lieutenant colonel in the Kremlin, he is a fairly decent person for an intelligence careerist, but he is still part of a profoundly criminal organization with a bloody history.  If Putin is not personally brutal, then he is nonetheless brutal by virtue of the institutions that supported him into power.  

      You are right to say that the East was never communist according to a pure conception, and that the West is not democratic.  Reality and ideology are separate universes.  All political systems are oligarchic.  Rule is by the few.  Democracy is just a more humane way to organize oligarchy.  You may sneer at this reality, but freedom of speech and the freedom to buy and sell is made possible under this system.  Prosperity is also a byproduct because the arts of peace are given full play. This has to be recognized. 

      As for the stupidity of our policies in supporting Albanians and "throwing rocks" at the Taliban, I am in complete sympathy with your statement.  American policy has reached a point of complete incoherence and irrationality regarding Moslem countries.  Rather than simply chalking this up to American perversity, however, I believe the key is to be found in Moscow's manipulation of American policy.  You must not underestimate the extent to which Russian agents have penetrated Washington.  It also has to be said that Russian "perceptions management" is brilliant.  They are experts at psychological warfare.  I could tell you stories in this regard, but suffice it to say that the CIA has been penetrated, the White House has been penetrated, and the State Department has been penetrated.  The rest is the madness of clockwork, the stupidity and laziness of bureaucrats and the incomprehension of know-nothing citizens.  

      One more comment I'd like to make:  we must think dialectically about the Yugoslav situation.  In 1967 Moscow ordered its satellites to infiltrate Yugoslavia, to prepare to break the country up along ethnic lines after Marshal Tito's death.  The idea was to use agent networks to control multiple sides in this future conflict, in order to play political games and win control for Moscow.  This maneuver is called the "scissors strategy" and was outlined by KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn in his 1984 book, New Lies for Old. Moscow's long-range plan regarding Yugoslavia was described in 1982 by Major Gen. Jan Sejna, a high level Czech communist defector.  Here is Sejna's statement on Yugoslavia, for those who care to read it:

...the Russians worked out various contingency plans to operate after [Tito's] death.  They intended to exploit the nationalities question by infiltrating the nationalist leadership, and to penetrate the various opposition movements which in Tito's waning years would be drawn increasingly into Government.

    Sejna also stated:

    ...if the pro-Western group [in Yugoslavia] managed to control the whole country, and if it refrained from provocative actions -- the least welcome prospect from the Soviet point of view -- the Russians would try to break up Yugoslavia into separate states....

    The power of the Russian security services should not be underestimated. It should not surprise us if Slobodan Milosevic turns out to have been a KGB agent, recruited Decades ago.  His handling of the Yugoslav crisis, step by step, led to the breakup of the country.  He intensified divisions and accelerated splits in the country, to such an extent that we are all left scratching our heads.  Was he a Kremlin? 

    As for those who are CIA agents, you are mistaken if you think the CIA was behind the Dagestan incursion out of Chechnya.  Mufti Kadyrov himself stated clearly and plainly that Russian Prime Minister and former Interior Minister Sergei Stepashin was behind this "incursion," which was a classic provocation, and Putin admitted as much in a private meeting with Kadyrov after the fact.  In all these matters, the Devil is in the details.  It pays to remember that the Americans are behind the curve when it comes to strategic thinking.  The Russians are the masters.

      I suspect, as you do, that World War III will begin with a regional confrontation or economic crisis. This crisis will facilitate a strategic diversion of America's attention, opening the way for a direct attack on the United States.  If I were a Russian or Chinese strategist, this is where I would concentrate my planning resources.  

JRN

-------------------------------------------

Comment
From A.H.
5-4-1

Jeff,

      Concerning the USS Liberty. I was a Russian linguist in the U.S. Navy. I worked at the NSA and also rode subs and flew in surveillance aircraft. While at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey California in the mid 80's, I met and became friends with the Captain of the aircraft carrier that was in the Mediterranean when the USS Liberty was attacked [during the Arab-Israeli Six Day War in 1967].  He told me that he was told by his intelligence that an attack was imminent, and that immediately after the attack he sent fighter-bombers out to destroy the airfield from which the Israelis launched the attack.

      He told me that he personally received a call from the "White House" (he wouldn't say who it was, but there is only "one" commander-in-chief there) to recall his aircraft. He also told me that it was the only time in his career that he seriously considered disobeying an order.

      He told me that the attack was deliberate. And I must say that we in the Naval intelligence community consider the incident dastardly, and I know for a fact (I worked at the NSA) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing.

A.H. 

---------------------------------------

Dear A.H.,

      The information you relay about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty deserves to be mentioned in history books.  It is characteristic of our government, ever since the beginning of the Cold War, to forgive slights and injuries, to turn the other cheek when our people are attacked.  

      But the USS Liberty attack may be in a category by itself.  Our Middle East position leaves us between a rock and a hard place.  We want to be friends with the Arab states, especially the ones with oil, and we want to be friends with Israel.  Would it surprise you if, in early June 1967, we were helping the Arab's with intelligence?  

      Because Israeli strategists believed we were assisting the Arabs with intelligence, the attack on our ship was almost certainly deliberate.  The Israeli's believed there was a threat of some kind, right or wrong, and they attacked.  A tragic result followed.  The documentation for the deliberate nature of the attack is presented in John Loftus and Mark Aarons's book The Secret War Against the Jews.

      According to Loftus and Aarons, on 2 June 1967 (six days before the Six Day War), the Liberty had been "taken over" by three NSA officials who were picked up at Rota, Spain."  Supposedly this elite group was led by someone who was simply called "the Major."  They had exclusive control over some special equipment, and they had a sensitive assignment to carry out.  

      According to Loftus and Aarons, the U.S. Navy knew nothing about the secret mission of the three men from NSA.  They were sent by the White House, and were experts in Hebrew.  It has further been claimed that their mission was to spy on Israel so that President Johnson could placate the Arabs with helpful information.  According to two British historians, the CIA actually passed strategically vital information to King Hussein of Jordan, warning of the Israeli attack on Egypt.  (Hussein quickly communicated the warning to Cairo.)  

      Is this story true?

      It is doubtful the Israelis would attack a U.S. ship just for fun.  There was a perceived threat and a real reaction.  The New York Times also reported on this (see July 16, 1972, p. 19).  

      It seems clear, from the ship's positioning that the Liberty was monitoring Israeli troop movements (rather than Egyptian).  Loftus and Aarons wrote: "The only possible purpose for such close monitoring of the Israeli troop withdrawal was to tell Nasser where the holes were in the remaining Israeli forces."

      That may be a paranoid conclusion, totally without foundation, but it would explain the Israeli attack which was, as you say, intentional; at the same time, it was not informed by a general hostility to the United States or its interests.  

      Should we have then attacked Israel and joined with the Arabs?

      Conventional wisdom would say no.  Attacking Israel in that event might have driven the most powerful Middle Eastern country into Russia's arms.  Truly, it is a lamentable situation when you cannot defend your own people without hurting your country's global position.  

      It has to be admitted that the conflict in the Middle East is inconvenient for the United States.  Our national interest lies more with the oil-producing Arab states.  At the same time, our historical connection with the Jewish people does not allow us to make a cynical choice in favor of our material interests.  The Christian religion, which has been dominant in one form or another in this country, derives from Israel and the Jews.  In addition, the Jewish-American lobby is not without influence.    

      It seems that America cannot afford to be anti-Arab or anti-Israeli.  We are caught in the middle, as were the servicemen on the USS Liberty.  

JRN

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Nyquist,
     
      It is strange to me that Westerners do not recognize the strategic value of Taiwan, not just for her ship yards, as some suggest, but for her geographic position. Taiwan guards the northern entrances to the South China Sea. This sea is quite possibly the most strategic sea on earth, as control of it can choke off S. Korea and the second largest economy on earth, Japan. The South China Sea is similar in size and shape to the Mediterranean Sea, and in today's world, probably more important. Looking at an upside down globe, the South China Sea is strikingly similar to the Mediterranean with the Straits of Taiwan being equivalent to the Straits of Gibraltar and the Straits of Malacca being the Suez Canal. Even the Spratly Islands could be considered the strategic equivalent of Malta, being in almost the dead center of the Sea.

      In this light it appears the Chinese are taking the same strategic choke point approach to sea power as the British did after the Napoleonic wars when they acquired the choke points of Gibraltar and built the Suez Canal (not sure of the time period of that, but it was certainly sound strategically) One can see this by China's designs on Taiwan and Chinese interest in naval bases in Myannamar that are close to the Straits of Malacca.

      One final note is that from this evidence, it is obvious that Western assumptions about Chinese interest in Taiwan are false. Our assumptions are that their interest is historical. This is NOT true. Their interest is purely strategic. Communists have no interest in history. In fact, Communism itself is a corruption of history with its dialectic that traps true history in a box of the Communist's making. We assume that their interest in Taiwan is also Nationalistic. However, Communism only uses Nationalism for its own survival as Stalin did in 1941-1942 and the Red Chinese are doing today.

      Knowing that China's interest in Taiwan is Strategic and not Nationalistic or Historic seems to me to be important in that it shows that Chinese intentions toward Taiwan might be far more clear and present than longer term and evolutionary. I wish Western planners had the strategic vision that the Red Chinese planners appear to have.

      I wondered what you think of this analysis Mr. Nyquist and if you have anything to add that I may have overlooked? Look forward to hearing from you.
   
      Respectfully, John O'Grady.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

John,

      Thanks for writing.  Yes, I think you are correct.  The communists are following good strategy.  I would add to what you wrote about their historical "interests" in Taiwan by noting that the communists plunder Chinese history and take what is useful from it. They ransack the past for scraps of hatred and resentment, so that feelings of revenge can be harvested and converted into pure power.  For example, they take China's historical grievances against European imperialism to build support for the People's Liberation Army war machine.  Just as you say, they also employ nationalism to strengthen a tyranny based on an internationalist ideology.  They use capitalism (e.g., Lenin's NEP and Deng Xiaoping's Four Modernizations) to build socialism, to pave the way to an ultimate communist victory.  

      This may seem baffling to Americans, but it is not baffling at all to those who think in dialectical terms.  Revolutions are produced through a struggle of opposites.  Therefore, let the left make use of the right and the socialists make use of the capitalists. Contradictions are the basis of all progress, said Marx.   

      Most scholars and intellectuals, especially conservative ones, imagine that Russian and Chinese communists don't really believe in Marx and Lenin.  After all, the communists are smart and sophisticated people. They couldn't possibly swallow all that nonsense about the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie.  But Westerners should be careful, since authentic and determined communists have always refrained from stating their deep-down views in mixed company.  Due to this, the leaders of the People's Republic of China are often described as "pragmatists." Russian President Vladimir Putin is also styled a "pragmatist."

    But what does this pragmatism consist of?

    Last year Putin described Russia's hard-line communists as "cockroaches."  But if you have an ear for Leninist subtlety, and if you remember that Putin's is a self-described "Soviet person," then you realize he is merely sneering at the simple-mindedness of low brow communists -- those who signal their revolutionary intentions in a crude way and frighten the bourgeoisie unnecessarily.  Red insects of this kind have always been dead weight for communism because these people have no tactical nuance or sense of the rational-scientific basis of Marxism-Leninism, which is not a dogma but a flexible and open-ended intuition about the overall direction of history.  In this regard, dogma has always been a tool used by communists to guide the naive and stupid masses along the prescribed path.  And this path is a zig-zag path, which the Communist Party itself must devise, so that yesterday's dogma's becomes today's nonsense.

      Regarding Taiwan's strategic value, your several points go to the heart of the matter.  If China were governed by normal people and not communists, then the very question of Taiwan would not be a strategic question.  In fact, the South China Sea would not be a place for intensive war preparations.  The people of Taiwan would be encouraged to freely join a union with China, knowing they would be part of a normal country on its way to a prosperous future. But China is not a normal country and its future development is in the direction of war and expansionism.  As researchers like Steven Mosher, Edward Timperlake, William C. Triplett and Bill Gertz have shown, China seeks hegemony -- not merely over the South China Sea and the adjacent islands, but over the entire Pacific Ocean and the adjacent continents. The Chinese strategists themselves have adopted a rather ominous slogan, which originated with Col. Wang Benzhi: "Use reality, make a noise in the east, but strike to the west." 

    This is highly suggestive of the overall tendency of Russian and Chinese strategic thinking.  The real obstacle to their power is America.  Why strike to the East when the West will come and clobber you?  Why not divert the West's attention with a noise in the east, then hit America with a massive strike?  

      This should be obvious to any careful strategic observer.  America's policy-making establishment commits a grave error indeed by treating the Chinese government as a normal government run by normal people.  When I interviewed Harry Wu, a 19-year veteran of China's labor camp system, imprisoned for nothing more than "political incorrectness," he described the Beijing government as "butchers." Former GRU Col. Stanislav Lunev has repeatedly emphasized this point about Russia's leaders. "These are not human beings," he once told me. "These are crazy persons."  

      Think of what that signifies.  Butchers are not normal people.  A state founded by such men is a criminal enterprise and not a legitimate endeavor.  The sooner we realize this, the safer we will be.

JRN

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the reply Mr. Nyquist,

    China's ambitions most certainly do extend out into the Pacific. However, it seems the easiest way to engage their navy in battle would be in the South China Sea as they will probably conduct offensive operations against Taiwan in the next two years which, in my limited knowledge, would be before they can build a navy capable of "blue water" operations.

    I think they will move within two years or sooner because, contrary to opinion in the West, they have dropped all pretext of economic development. Their economy is beginning to implode simply because the government's attention [has] shifted to war-fighting and political crackdown round about 1998 or 1999. As far as any distracting world developments that would disperse U.S. firepower to other regions during a Taiwan crisis, I would imagine there will be something like that, although their chances of capturing Taiwan and defeating one to three U.S. carrier battle groups, in my opinion, are better than even regardless of world events beyond Taiwan.

    The taking of Taiwan, I believe, the Chinese see as the key to crushing the American-Japan alliance. With control of Taiwan the Chinese would have a knife at Japan's throat and Japan would rapidly become neutral and cool toward the U.S. and much friendlier to China.

    I wish there were more leaders like Lee, the leader of Singapore, who seems to have recently been urging a hard-line on China. Some of the leadership in the South China Sea region still have some of the old steel nerves that Western leaders used to have before decades of Social Democracy turned their blood into milk. These old virtues of some of the leaders of the Asian "tigers" are described in David Gress's book "From Plato to Nato" who hypothesizes that some of the leadership in non-Communist Asia is more "Western" in the sense of the old Victorian English virtues than we are in the West today, with our obsession with every other culture but our own.

    I believe this decoupling of the U.S.-Japan alliance is essential for the overall effort to isolate the United States, which is essential to defeating the U.S. in a global war. A U.S.-Japan alliance is a formidable, powerful bastion and I am sure causes the communists to wet their pants on occasion. The problem for us as Americans is that we have come to view that alliance as "natural" and we have become complacent in its cultivation and I think the Chinese know this and see our complacency toward the alliance as a grand opportunity to separate us from our Japanese allies. The capture of Taiwan would ensure the separation.

    If the U.S. Navy can defeat the Chinese in the South China Sea, we just may change history and truly change China in the process.

    Thanks Mr. Nyquist, look forward to any comments you might have regarding my analysis whenever you have time.

Respectfully, John O'Grady

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

John,

    You are absolutely right about China's diplomatic aims in the Western Pacific. I have only one additional comment. China's naval development will never match ours (prior to a nuclear strike). But if you consider that strategic missiles can sweep the seas as effectively as navies, why should China worry too much about building up a super-modern navy? With nuclear weapons and missiles, even a mediocre navy can be highly effective if organized under the best nuclear war-fighting concepts.  

JRN

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subj: RE: unilateral disarmament
Date: 5/3/01 5:27:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:    drkwcap@yahoo.com 
To:    JRNyquist@aol.com 

      The rocket Challenger blew up. And do you know why?

      Because big wig engineers at NASA would not communicate nor listen to a small time engineer who had seen a fatal flaw that put reasonable doubt against the launching of the rocket. And because that man's intuition was dismissed by making him bear the
burden of proof (instead of the big wigs doing their hard but necessary duty of bearing the burden of proof) the rocket blew up.

      The cockiness of the U.S. government big wigs, especially at the state department, are what is going to cause this majestic nation to blow apart the way the majestic rocket Challenger blew apart at NASA (because of cockiness).

Cyril Pomart

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cyril,

    Your analogy is apt.

JRN

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subj: Generational Discontinuity
Date: 4/28/01 6:12:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:    gtstaley@peoplepc.com  (George Staley)
To:    jrnyquist@worldnetdaily.com 

      You make some good points, but you never identify who is responsible or why this discontinuity is taking place.  It is due to the influence of the psychiatrists and psychologists in our society.  Ever since professor Wundt decided in Leipzig Germany in 1879 that man was an animal with no soul we have seen a concentrated attack on God and morals in our culture.  The decline of Western Civilization is full of evidence to the fact.  When they got their hands on the American educational system in 1963 they got control of our young people.  Do you ever wonder why the stats on education have continued to fall ever since?  They are drugging and behavior-modifying our young people to death. Ninety percent of all Ritalin prescribed on the planet is given to American children. ADHD has never been scientifically proven to actually exist!  It is a made-up disorder used as a excuse to modify and control our kids and turn them in to life-long drug addicts and criminals!  These mind altering drugs cause suicidal behavior and anomalous random acts of violence (school shootings).  Also, every one of these children were in psychiatric hands when these shootings took place.  We should be going after the "psychs" not the guns!

      Do some research and lets identify these bastards and root them out of our schools and institutions, they are the cause of untold suffering in our society.

    Go to  http://www.cchr.org  for more information.

Tom Staley

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr. Staley,

      I agree with you that psychiatry tends to be dangerous.  Fourteen years ago, while in graduate school, I worked as a teaching assistant for an Intro to Psych class (because they didn't want me teaching in the political science department).  One day the professor I worked for cited a study that alleged psychologists (as opposed to psychiatrists) tended to harm rather than help patients.  

      I also worked part-time at a psychiatric hospital for six years.  From what I saw, dedicated nurses who treated patients with love and respect deserved all the credit.  The doctors were ridiculous.  Ironically, the doctor who headed the hospital ended up in a chemical dependency unit being treated for drug addiction.  

      The public needs to be more skeptical of psychiatrists, psychologists and marriage counselors.

--------------------------------------------------------------

TO: J.R. Nyquist
FROM: William Jennings
hilobill@hotmail.com  

Mr. Nyquist,

    Please allow this to print in your Letters Section:

Dear Readers of JRNyquist.com,

    I have followed Mr. Nyquist's work since early 1997.

    After reading his book, Origins of the Fourth World War (see my book review at http://www.amazon.com -- search title or "J.R. Nyquist"), I was convinced more than ever before that my earlier suspicions, while assigned to Germany with the Army from 1989-1992, were correct.

    Recently, I dug very deep into my pocket to help Nyquist's efforts to spread the message by donating as much as I could afford.

    Perceiving Nyquist's reluctance to remind his readers that he needs such support, I encourage all of you who benefit from his immense knowledge and research to PLEASE send a donation as quickly as you can.

    Make your check payable to "Jeff Nyquist" at: