Been trying to get a biography of Nyquist on the web. No luck. Any links?

I noticed a great deal of rhetoric, but no answers. Were they overlooked? Do you have any answers? 1) Why do Russia and China have to be allied for either one to smuggle nuclear weapons into the United States and detonate them? Do you not realize that they would be LESS likely to agree to such a course if allied? 2) Why is the obvious American reaction to a nuclear sneak attack - an immediate and unconditional ultimatum to comply with a forensic audit of the strategic chain of command and OOB in the suspect country, followed by war and nuclear retaliation - being ignored? Am I wrong to conclude that you're avoiding the obvious for a love of the fear you are trying to promote? 3) What explanation do you have for the Soviet Union's absolute failure to undertake these tactics when circumstances favored in the 1970's or 1980's? What's your explanation for the fact that no evidence of nuclear bomb smuggling has ever been detected? Why do you persist in a theory with no evidence or historical precedent, if not to needlessly promote tension and fear? 4) What measures do you suggest we take to account for the possibility that you are dead wrong? I'm quite open with mine - to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent and the willingness to use it. What's yours? Q: Otherwise, certainly you could show by example just one notion of "TFP Thesis" - TAKEN IN CONTEXT - that reveals some sort of "disjointed rambling paranoia," A: Bill, I've demonstrated numerous examples. To repeat some - 1) The notion that Russia or China would smuggle in nuclear bombs for surprise attack on our national territories is ludicrous. 2) The idea that China is somehow taking over Canada in a political sense is ludicrous. 3) The contention that Russia has given China a blank cheque to start a nuclear war over Taiwan is ludicrous. 4) The supposition that the USSR fell apart in accordance to some murky long-range plan is ludicrous. My conclusion is that you persist in marginal theories because your objective is to promote fear and hatred of rivals that are not our enemies. There are few REAL examples of Sino-Russian cooperation that menace our interests. Ergo, to move forward, obtuse conclusions are drawn from threadbare sources. Q: It's one thing to honestly understand someone's position and disagree with it or with his conclusions. It's quite something else to call into question his motivations (from thin air) and to berate him and the rational process of thinking that brings him to different conclusions than your own with epitaphs, such as, "paranoia." A: Bill, must I continue to remind you of the basic facts of this case? It is you, not I, that are issuing some sort of call to arms against other nations of the world - at a time when our national means to promote our interests are in a period of relative decline. It is you, not I, that is claiming the type of sinister motive and deception that virtually precludes diplomacy with such "animals" as the enemies you describe. How can such constant claims of brutal duplicity based stringently upon national lines do anything but enflame racial or national hatred? You do realize that our world's history is replete with examples where such antagonisation lead to needless slaughter and bloodshed, don't you? It is you that must demonstrate why such a poisonous message as the one you try to deliver should be met without some inherent prejudice or suspicion of you.

Q: whell glenn you seem to have very silly questions (this is earlier) "why is Russia and China allied are they in love or something"...you sound like your in middle school!!! that is folishnes its a country not an actual living thing. Right. Now answer the question: "Why do Russia and China need to be allied for either to attack the United States with smuggled nuclear weapons?" To save you trouble, I'll answer it for you (since no one on the other side seems capable of doing so). The answer is: They don't. Should either wish to smuggle, they could proceed without consultation or cooperation with the other partner. In fact, the introduction of an alliance to perform an operation for which an alliance is not required introduces a needless complication for the offending party: Of China and Russia, the party that did not wish to engage in such madness would "put the brakes" on the program. That is, by simple logical deduction, an alliance between China and Russia would DECREASE the chances that such stupidity as Bill claims would ever take place. If China, for instance, discovered Russia to be covertly placing weapons in America, they'd go ballistic. And obviously so - for how could Russia possibly escape retaliation from America save for the possibility that they could frame their "ally" for the hideous deed and deflect our wrath onto an innocent party? Seriously dude, I was listening to this crap in school back in 1980. Or didn't you hear? Polish freighters were deploying nuclear bombs on the floor of the Great Lakes in the late 1970's to destroy Toronto and Chicago. Same garbage, different preacher. Q: China andd Russia had a major goal and that was to destroy the capitalist of the world, which would be America. A: Again, a modicum of logic. If this were the goal, then why does the capitalist world still exist? To repeat my question, are you of the delusion that those MIRV'd SS-20's dotting the landscape of the former Soviet Union were made of cardboard? Even holding the attitude that China and Russia seek such and end is destructive of our interests. Make no mistake - these two countries are dangerous if cornered, and if we proceed with the assumption that they are nothing but mendacious vipers out to destroy us, then we might, sooner or later, get into a horrific war which will get millions of our people killed. Q: Now I dont know what kind of plan they would make to destroy America but what HB has on his website could be some good evidence of them wanting to destroy the United States.It seems like a sci-fi book does int it? The Soviet Union was secretly broken up to foll the US and then struike when it lest expects, but if that is true what are you going to do? A: You make sense with, "It seems like a sci-fi book doesn't it?" Yes, it does seem like fiction. That's because it IS fiction. Do understand, there is no comprimise or bridge between Bill's and my opinion on the subject. My belief is that Bill is expressing symptoms common to men disposed to commit aggression. That is, to carefully select (no matter how silly) any thread or scrap of "evidence" from the ether, to promote fear, hatred, and a feeling of urgency to lash out. In time, I'd guess, our understanding of the human brain will identify the biological workings of this thought pattern and it's association with calculated predation. Go to a rowdy bar at closing time, you'll see the same phenomenon. A target will be selected for a fight, and anything they say or do will be taken as an excuse for escalation. It's the same with Bill. Concessions on our rivals part aren't concessions - they're part of a sneaky plan. The Warsaw Pact falls apart? Sneaky plan. Most of the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces OOB falls into the territory of splinter nations? Sneaky plan. Etc, etc., yawn, etc. Having no evidence of aggression isn't a deterrent - evidence is fabricated to fit the case. Bill's view on the issue allows no possibility that he's wrong. My view is that Bill is weak - much like a white-knuckle flyer cringing in terror over the thought of a one-in-a-million chance of disaster.

McDohl, I haven't kept up on the situation between Belarus and Poland, as my school work has been occupying a large part of my time. However, that audio link I provided in my previous post addresses it somewhat. Just from picking up the small bit it presented, it sounds similar to the dialectical concept of false splits, confrontation, opposition possibly in furtherance of projecting the image of independence of thought, goals and objectives. But, that's only a guess since I just don't know enough about it currently. (Possibly J.R. Nquist addresses it on his site: ) As far as Aug 17th is concerned, for the same reasons above, I haven't heard much of it except in passing. One thing I heard - if this is one and the same you reference - is a hightened sense of security concerning gas filled tankers being hijacked and exploded in suicide attacks. The probable next attack, or series of attacks, I'm more concerned with are ones that far worse than 9/11, such as, the purported nuclear capability ascribed to al-Qaeda and the "American Hiroshima" that Paul Williams has spoken about. A series of tankers exploding across the country would not topple our economy; suitcase nukes quite likely would. (And/or some other asymmetrical attack, e.g., biological release of agents, EMP attack, etc.) HB

WorldNetDaily.com may still have a brief one attached to his past articles; FinancialSense.com may; orm SierraTimes.com. You can go to TheFinalPhase.com and find at the home page an article of his, "The Wilderness of Mirrors: How I Got Here," which is somewhat of a personal bio. Also, at that same location, under the title, click on his name and it will take you to a page of past articles at WorldNetDaily, NewsMax, Sierra Times, and FinancialSense, which, as I said, may have a bio link along with his articles. Other than that, you can check his site out to see if he has one there: jrnyquist.com He wrote the book, "Origins of the Fourth World War," and has been involved in this pursuit since about 1988. He has a BA and MA in Socialiology and History (I believe), which compliments the overall subject of TFP quite well as much of the factors of TFP deal with societal degradation, cultural decline, human perception, history, etc. Hope this helps a bit. HB p.s. (Also, you can check out my forum that covers the entire spectrum of TFP at: http://thefinalphaseforum.invisionzone.com/index.php? )

Glenn, None of the things you have offered in this whole thread has even come close to representing what “TFP” is all about. You have substituted supposition for substance. In just one example, you've said, "Seriously dude, I was listening to this crap in school back in 1980. Or didn't you hear? Polish freighters were deploying nuclear bombs on the floor of the Great Lakes in the late 1970's to destroy Toronto and Chicago. Same garbage, different preacher." The issues contained in TFP have evolved from the first-hand information and methodology of analysis brought forth by Anatoliy Golitsy, which was first made public with the release of his book in 1984, "New Lies for Old." The material in that book had to be first cleared by CIA before being published. Golitsyn submitted his manuscript in 1980 to the CIA for this purpose. (Which, in all likelihood meant the contents of his manuscript were being written a year or two prior, 1978 - 1980 - this is a decade before the Berlin Wall came down.) How is it, that 10 years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, 5 years before Gorbachev ever assumed a leadership role in the USSR, Golitsyn was warning that the long-range strategic plan of deception would begin entering it's most dangerous phase, "the final phase," with the ascension of a new kind of Soviet leader (he described a Gorbachev-type leader quite accurately); the apparent liberalization of Soviet Bloc countries; "opposition" parties that would tend to impress upon the West that true change was happening and a transformation taking place; relaxation of former constraints on these nations' populace, e.g., travel within and abroad; the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact; the taking down of the Berlin Wall; reunification of Germany; free elections in former Soviet Bloc countries & the USSR; the dissolution of the USSR; and, 139 out of 148 other predictions which came to pass based on his understanding of how the deception would unfold? The motivations you ascribe to me are likewise incorrect and unfounded. You have no basis in truth to assert them, yet you do, even attributing it some sort of biological malfunction. You are speaking from ignorance. What I am attempting to do, as well as all those familiar with Golitsyn and the overall concepts behind TFP, is to warn, to avert, to thwart that which would cause the thing you assert is the end result of bringing forth this warning: millions of lives lost, moreover, the extinguishment of freedom worldwide. The thing that I and others are doing is likened to what Gen. Billy Mitchell tried to do when he warned that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor by an unheard of, “preposterous” means: aircraft carrier. The difference is, he warned of the growing threat and intentions of Japan 15+ years before 12/7/41; America and the West may have less than five years before the threat and intentions of Russia and China manifest itself. Of course Billy Mitchell was ridiculed, mocked, and may have had his motivations questioned, too. So, feel free to think what you like. Each time you come on-line here and try to assail the things I've put forth in the distorted, inaccurate, twisted manner you do and falsely proffer it as representative of what TFP is all about, you only prove to me further that you haven't done your homework on the issue. You haven't attempted to understand. You haven't been honest in you "debate." You have only lashed out with insult and disparaging remarks. Lastly, contrary to your assertion of my views, I accept and acknowledge that I could be wrong, that Golitsyn could have been wrong, that maybe things have changed and a once existing long-range plan has been since abandoned. On this account especially, I hope and pray I am wrong. But, at the same time, I can not blindly ignore what coincides with the geo-political patterns of the last 16 years - since I've been watching - which tend to corroborate the things Golitsyn warned of back in 1984 (and 1995 in, “The Perestroika Deception”). But, if I am wrong, that does not mean that what you purport TFP to be is correct. Because, your misrepresentations on the matter prove to me - beyond all reasonable doubt - that you don't even have a basic understanding of it at all. And, that tells me that you have not been honest in you “debate.” What if you’re wrong, Glenn? HB

Bill if such an attack happens would we see smaller conflicts erupt around the world? like N.Korea attacking S.Korea?

You think russia would give china ther technology to win ? why havent they because they are unsure of china as usa is china is on the so so line as we dont know what her intentions are right now but if it does come to war it will be china china needs no help from russia to fight why would russia fight usa and why would china fight usa yeah mabe over taiwain china and usa but russia would never interfere because of one reason they would frown upon that and join our side for them to pull out russia is not as bad as you think russia is trying to make relations with usa and the western allies so we can shaire technology to destroy these terroist and china seems to not have no attacks are worry about this yet they let these terroist post videos of them filming goverment buildings of china? hmm whats up with that china with the terrys? i suppose they have a hand in that some way because its mighty funny that china has not been attacked with all ther violence agaisnt muslims and what not russia allie with china i think not what you said hilo is crazy about stop trade with china first you need to think what is all of our thiings made from china i have said this forever for usa to make more money we must make our own things not sweden not germany usa should make ther tanks in the usa yes we make sum of our weapons in usa like the new ones but the abrams m1 is produced in finlan are sweden if im not mistaken but any way you worry about alqauda ahaha if ther are bombs there already here since 1984 and probly usa uranium at that why would china have to hide ? they are a country who needs not to hide and they cannot hit any place in america mostly just the west coast and most of ther nuclear bombs cannot go that far most are for use tactical nukes set for bombers and what not russia is weary of china as we are member the russia border wars????? i do with my cousin he is a russian he was in the army he says they worry more about china then the usa right now because they are a threat to all of the world not just usa but to us all

McDohl, I think it's quite likely North Korea will attack South Korea (and it will be a bloodbath). This could happen in many ways, but one major one that I would expect is if and when China (I think it will at some point) attacks Taiwan. Or, NK might attack SK in advance of China attacking Taiwan. North Korea is most likely a partner in the overall plans; I have little doubt of this. A full unfolding of TFP would most likely also include Cuba, Venezuela and possibly Brazil and Columbia. Also, some Central American nations would also play roles and even possibly Mexico. HB p.s. Are you from Ireland, by chance?

Ozamist, You mentioned, "...russia is weary of china as we are member the russia border wars?????" Many of our misperceptions today about China and Russia surround the "Sino-Soviet Split" that included border clashes with real lives lost and real blood shed. According to Golitsyn, the image of a Sino-Soviet was intentional in order to decieve the West into building-up China (thinking it was playing China off of Russia, further dividing them & thereby neutralizing their otherwise, strong, united front. This is exactly what Russia and China wanted. They called it a scissors strategy which actually would serve to cut up the West. They West would provide trade, normalized relations, other concessions, etc. Russia couldn't afford to build China up on its own, so they did what is very standard for Leninist, dialectical thinking: fake a split, the West would provide the rope to hang themselves with. If you read the thread several posts down that I put up, "Letter....", you'll read a synopsis that includes this perception management ploy of Russia and China to project the image of distrust and animosity. This misperception affects much of Western analysis about these two countries intentions. HB