Talk:Jeffrey Nyquist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

There appears to be a pattern of continued vandalism by an anonymous user who operates out of the IP address pool 217.134.x.x. Is it time to report this person as a vandal to WP? The page edit history shows that this anonymous user appears to simply disagree with there being any WP page on J.Nyquist at all. But J.Nyquist was and is a real columnist (and generally considered a "geopolitical" analyst and columnist by the news organizations he wrote for), and author, and radio interviewee, radio commentator, and radio host and interviewer. This all would certainly qualify J.Nyquist to have a WP biographical entry. I think that any additional vandalism by this anonymous user should be reported to the WP administration. If you disagree with this, please state your reasons here. -Coldwarrier 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally agree with your assessment, but administrators might not consider his behavior as vandalism (although you can try to report him after asking him to stop his behavior at his talk page). You may also either revert his changes, or start editing an older version and improve it (this is preferred).Biophys 17:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
One of the very real problems with trying to communitcate with this anonymous user using his "talk" page is that he comes in on a variety of IP addresses from his ISP. He uses any one of several IP addresses from the pool 217.134.x.x. I left a message on "his" talk page but it is likely that he will not come in on that particular IP address again for years (or never)! So he will never see those messages. Since he only likes to do reverts as his infantile response to any new information (no matter how small sometimes) rather than posting something on the "talk" page, there may be other way to communicate with this anonymous vandal than by taking steps to report him as such (possibly having the whole IP address pool where he comes from banned). As I've already mentioned, I've left a message on his "talk" page (of the last IP address that he used) to bring his disagreements over to the Nqyuist-talk page. But he will likely not see that since he is using dynamic IP address assignment from his ISP. What are some suggestions by others on how to hanfle this vandal? -Coldwarrier 20:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
He will see your comment on his talk page. It also does not matter that his IP address is dynamic (administrator can handle it). But if you report him as an alleged vandal, administrator will probably decide that you have "a content disagreement" with him. You may edit the article or revert his edits, but please read WP:3RR first. I tried talking with him (see this talk page), but it did not help.Biophys 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I reverted to the lastest version. The anonymous vandal-editor out there (from IP address pool 217.134.x.x) is welcome to explain his disagreements with the subject matter of the article here on the talk page. From your latest complains (speaking now to the vandal person) it seems like you think that someone is claiming that Nyquist currently writes a column for WorldNetDaily. This is not so. No one is claiming that he is currently a columnist for WorldNetDaily. We have only stated that he was a columnist for WND in the past. Are you disputing that? He was also a columnist for Sierra Times and NewsMax. He is currently a columnist for FinancialSenseOnline. What is your problem with these facts? You do not have to deny that he has been a columnist for several news sites in order to disagree with his (Nyquist's) views on things. You are welcome to start a WP article on yourself and express your own views there. I'm sure that everyone would welcome seeing your views on your own biographical WP entry. Are you upset that Nyquist recently became the host of his own radio program on WIBG (the information that I added to the article)? You do not have to deny that he now hosts his own radio program in order to disagree with him. But this is a WP biographical article on a person, and it is expected by readers to find out what this Nyquist person has done. Being a columnist and a radio host are among the types of information that are obviously appropriate for a biographical entry on a person. Maybe you should become the host of your own radio program if you want a forum to express your own views on things. I'm sure that there are many radio stations and national radio networks out in America that would be more than happy to give you your own radio program. I'm sure that many people in America and the world would also be very happy to tune into your program. More power to you! -Coldwarrier 00:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
There was a large deletion of text by an anonymous user from IP address pool 217.134.x.x. I did a revert to the last good version of the article. - Lastingwar 16:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
To the others who have contributed to this WP entry (no matter how little) you may want to take note that the anonymous user (IP address 217.134.x.x) who has been vandalizing this WP entry will not hesitate to possibly vandalize your own WP-user pages. That anonymous user vandalized my own user page on June 10. You may want to check your own WP-user pages for vandalism from this same anonymous user. -Lastingwar
I think this is funny. A few days ago I looked at your vandalized personal page and have learned that you like conspiracy theories, that you are "living in a hunting shack in the Rockies" and other things. I thought: Wow! What a sincere man. Usually people do not say that. Sorry. Hope you will enjoy editing in WP.Biophys 03:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
My user page just got vandalized again (on June 16) by this same anonymous user who has been vandalizing this WP entry. Apparently, for some, about the only thing they know how to do is to vandalize WP entries (as he has been doing with this entry again) and user pages. To the anonymous user out there: is there anything more constructive that you think you can spend your time on than just vandalizing everything you touch? -Lastingwar 14:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WORLDNETDAILY

An anonymous user included a fragment from the following statement by libertarian Justin Raimondo:

If anyone is even trying to fulfill the true potential of Internet journalism, it is Joe Farah's WorldNetDaily. To a large degree, Farah has managed to succeed: aside from having a great selection of links, his WND team's original reporting on the infiltration of CNN by US military "interns," and other scoops, have made his site one of the brightest stars of Internet journalism. The commentary section is tilted toward the conservative-libertarian side of the spectrum, but it is broad enough to include voices from the left – and ideologically idiosyncratic sites like Antiwar.com. Foreign policy news usually gets a good slice of bandwidth, but lately has taken a dive in quality due to the Hal Lindsey-pro-Zionist-Christian "End Times" spin put on WND's Middle East coverage. Give it a break, guys. In addition, if their columnist J.R. Nyquist is an "expert" on Russia, then I'm Henry Kissinger. But don't let this keep you away: it's well worth a daily visit.

The segment is following: "if their columnist J.R. Nyquist is an "expert" on Russia, then I'm Henry Kissinger." This is inappropriate for WP:BLP, because Raimondo does not criticize any specific views or points but simply cursing the author (living person). Clearly, this is simply a cursing, rather than a valid information/opinion. This is hardly appropriate even for article WorldNetDaily. Biophys 17:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. In case you hadn't noticed, this is meant to be an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not here to promote outlandish theories. The inclusion of Raimondo's comments is valid, since he is far more notable than Mr. Nyquist. 217.134.106.8 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I promote nothing. Let's simply follow WP policies including WP:BLP. I believe that you violate WP:BLP here, and you did not provide any arguments of the opposite. It does not matter who is more notable. It matters that the cited passage does not carry any information except cursing (so it is not appropriate for Encyclopedia), and this is a clear defamation of a living person, without any justification, so it violates WP:BLP.Biophys 17:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
He's basically saying that Nyquist is not living in the real world, which would be the widespread impression, certainly not a "curse". Raimondo's comment should be included here because he's the only notable figure (apart from Nyquist's defector friend Mr. Lunev) to have even mentioned him. 217.134.106.8 18:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
He is saying that J.R. Nyquist is NOT an expert on Russia, although this is one of Nyquist's main subjects. Saying that someone is not an expert in his professional field is pure defamation, unless supported by certain arguments or clear and obvious examples. Hence, WP:BLP violation. Biophys 18:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You could argue that David Icke is an "expert in his professional field". Nyquist's theory (largely borrowed from controversial KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn) that the Soviet Union didn't really collapse, and that the whole thing was staged by the KGB, is an extreme one and is bound to attract ridicule from many in the mainstream. Raimondo is the only mainstream commentator to have even mentioned Nyquist, so is more than justified to include his statement here. 217.134.235.209 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This is biography of a person; not a propaganda of anything. Biophys 23:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not propaganda, please support your claims about propaganda with reliable sources. We have provided reliable sources for our statements. Vlad fedorov 05:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Employment

Contrary to what some have stated, Nyquist was not fired from being a columnist at WorldNetDaily. He resigned his position there when he took up his position as a columnist at Financial Sense Online.-Coldwarrier 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

There are many "Wikis", not only Wikipedia: SourceWatch, etc. The educational site you refer to is one of such wikis. It is O'K to make links for convenience of a reader to such sites, but this is not a reliable source, just as SourceWatch, see WP:SOURCE.Biophys 15:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Also note that we must prefer reliable scholarly secondary sources, such as book that I cited, in case of contradictions between different sources, see WP:SOURCE.Biophys 01:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disinformation agent?

Please take a look at article Anatoliy Golitsyn. It says "In January 1962, the KGB sent instructions to fifty-four residents throughout the world on the actions required to minimize the damage. All meetings with important agents were to be suspended. [1]. In November 1962, KGB head Vladimir Semichastny approved a plan for assassination of Golitsyn and other "particularly dangerous traitors" including Igor Gouzenko, Nikolay Khokhlov, and Bogdan Stashinsky " [reference to book]. What kind of "disinformation agent" is that? Why would they evacuate all residencies and wanted to kill their "successful disinformation agent". Besides, he betrayed a lot of very important Soviet agents to the Weast. Biophys 22:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as I said: The claims by your source contradict well-known facts (see above). We can not make large "pro" and "contra" sections about Golitsyn here. This article is not about him. Main point is this. The arguments about Golitsyn would require a large separate article. If you want to do it, you are welcome to article Anatoliy Golitsyn. But this article is not about him.Biophys 00:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV fork

What you are trying to accomplish called "POV fork" in WP. The Golitsyn's controversies should be described in article about Golitsyn, not here. Biophys 00:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask you stop creating here POV fork about Golitsyn. Creating POV forks is violation of official WP policies. If you want to provide any background information about Golitsyn, this can be done only briefly and in footnotes.Biophys 16:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's collect some relevant materials

So what he claims?

"Once Upon a Time in the West" (his web site and blog) "holds to the position that the "collapse" of communism in Eastern Europe between 1989 and 1991 was part of a long-term strategic deception orchestrated by the Moscow-Beijing Axis. Current events are analyzed here in that light. In particular, we monitor the activities of the restored Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the spread of neo-communism in Latin America, and the Islamo-Marxist alliance. All information is based on open-source documentation, including mainstream and state media, communist websites, and Soviet Bloc defector testimony."

The banner of his site shows Russian President Putin and Chinese President Hu; Sino-Russian naval exercise, 2005; leaders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, during Sino-Russian army exercise, 2005. It displays the following citation:

"The plans for the resurrection of the USSR are well known to Putin and the present regime and are outlined in the documents of the UCP-CPSU and Communist Party of the Union [of Russia and Belarus]." -- Oleg Shenin, Chair, (Restored) Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 2003

People said the communist movement was dead. What we see around the world today shows just how wrong they were. Today we see communists in the leadership of the peace movement, the anti-racist movement, the trade union struggle — that is where our experience and analysis really counts. Without our leadership, those movements cannot defeat capitalism. --Kate Hudson, President, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, member, Communist Party of Britain; statement made in New York City, May Day 2005; quoted in People's Weekly World, May 7, 2005

The demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. -- Vladimir Putin; quoted in The Boston Globe, April 25, 2005


Russia has fully recovered the status of a superpower, having global responsibility for the situation on the planet and the future of the civilisation. -- Sergei Ivanov, First Deputy Prime Minister, Russian Federation; quoted in Izvestiya, July 13, 2006

Virtually all the characteristics of a modern democratic state have disappeared [in Russia]. The government and parliament cannot function without everyday instruction from the top. The judiciary cannot be said to have any sign of independence. Responsibility at the regional level of power has been totally destroyed by abolishing the direct election of governors. -- Mikhail Kasyanov, former prime minister of Russian Federation; speaking at International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, June 26, 2006

Don't go to Italy, there are many KGB agents among the politicians: Romano Prodi [prime minister as of 2006] is our man there. -- General Anatoly Trofimov, FSB Deputy Chief, to FSB Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Litvinenko, circa 2000; quoted at United Kingdom Independence Party website, March 4, 2006

There is no such thing as a former KGB man. -- Vladimir Putin, Russian Federation President, FSB Gala, December 2005; quoted in Newsweek, February 6, 2006

Latin America is turning Red. --Gennady Zyuganov, Chair, Communist Party of the Russian Federation; quoted in Eurasia Daily Monitor, January 27, 2006

Russia has ceased being a free and democratic country. -- Andrei Illarionov, Putin's former economic advisor; quoted by BBC Online News, December 27, 2005

Some partisans here in WP will especially like that:

In the afternoon the Transnistrian President Igor Smirnov met with Oleg Shenin, the Chairman of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The goals of the communist movements of the Russian Federation, PMR [Transnistria] and RM [Republic of Moldova] were discussed in the course of the meeting with the guest from Moscow. In Oleg Shenin's opinion, they should combat the expansion of imperialism on the post-Soviet territory retaining the best ideas of communists of the Soviet Union and increasing the prestige of the party among people. -- Official Press Release, Government of (Unrecognized) Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, May 28, 2004

All of that and a lot of other things can be included in this article. I have to go. Will be back later.Biophys 15:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Vlad fedorov and myself have noted that Biophys has been conducting a obsessive and paranoid Russophobic crusade for some time now. See here: Special:Contributions/Biophys 217.134.92.132 16:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
To the contrary, I work to improve quality of Wikipedia articles using best available sources, such as good scholarly books written by well recognized historians (Black Book of Communism and others), and also first-hand memories of people (expert witnesses), such as Ion Pacepa. Yes, these sources contradict official Soviet propaganda. Hence the disagreement between the sources (not me!) and Vlad. Therefore, he deleted references to sources from the articles to prove his point, just as you did here.Biophys 16:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Get real! Even the neocons haven't touched this paranoid garbage. I'm sure they would if they believed this Communist plot to be true, which it isn't. People elect socialists in Latin America, get over it! 217.134.92.132 16:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The sources I am using are educational or scientific. They have nothing to do with "neocons" versus "liberals", "Russians" versus "Americans", or other political "paranoid garbage" as you said. This is Encyclopedia.Biophys 18:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This obscure paranoia and speculation does not belong in an encyclopedia. You are ruining Wikipedia. Stop it. 217.134.93.240 19:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's collect some links

You think fat old Gennady "Zero Charisma" Zyuganov is going to resurrect the USSR? You are humiliating yourself here. 217.134.93.240 19:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, not! I am not an idiot. There is nothing left for Zuganov to do. New "soft" totalitarian system has been already resurrected in Russia and many former Soviet republics. The Communists are simply players in Checkist team who are leading right now. But we could argue about it forever. Let's simply make articles and follow WP rules. You should either stop inserting POV fork about Golitsyn here or we include info about him in sufficient details. Biophys 20:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The Russian people will tire of the Chekists, and will return to the Western/EU fold. I'm hoping that the more liberal Dmitry Medvedev will get elected next year. All sensible people have now discredited Golitsyn, this must be emphasised, but he does not merit a detailed description here. 217.134.236.169 22:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You surprise me. Do you really think that Russian public has any power? In advance to the coming elections few remaining "oppositioners" (like Albats, Kasparov or Shenderovich) will be exiled, arrested, or die from "heart attack" or "allergy". KGB finally came to power and will stay for 20-30 years at least.Biophys 04:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the Russian media is biased in favour of Putin, but there is no evidence of widespread ballot rigging in Russian elections. People wanted a tough leader to replace the weak Yeltsin and sort out all the chaos in the country. Yeltsin was afraid of Zyuganov getting elected, so he elevated FSB chief Vladimir Putin to be his replacement, and in return, Putin guaranteed the Yeltsin family's immunity from prosecution. I think a Medvedev presidency will relax the situation in Russia somewhat and return Russia to the European path. 217.134.105.194 16:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you register as a wikipedia user, please?Biophys 01:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I am a user. You think I want to be labelled a "KGB agent" by Nyquist and his followers? 217.134.110.67 16:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you do not want to register, this is up to you. But this article grossly misrepresents views of Nyqist. I will rework it completely as time allows.Biophys 17:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
He thinks the Soviet Union never collapsed and is about to nuke us all. The article is more than kind to him. 217.134.94.82 18:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
No, that is misrepresentation you are trying to promote here. As about nukes, they will be used again one way or another. This is only matter of time.Biophys 18:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Better move to Idaho then. LOL 217.134.96.241 19:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article is a disgrace

Jeffrey Nyquist is a PhD dropout who jumped on the far-right Golitsyn conspiracy bandwagon and dismally failed. Wikipedia is certainly doing a good job of helping his career now, isn't it! With this extremist claptrap being promoted, no wonder Wikipedia is fast losing credibility! 217.134.236.106 00:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

look at Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Also, don't just add stuff without consulting here first. Thank you. Whsitchy 00:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
To that anonymous user from the IP address pool 217.134.x.x, I think that everyone agrees that any controversial material on Nyquist should be properly sourced. This would apply to you as well. You do not have to agree with what some person believes, but it is still proper to put what that person believes in a biography on that person (like what this WP article is here). If you have some statement about what you think Nyquist has done at some point, that material is proper as long as it is sourced (that you can include a reference to the material supporting your statement). But do not put statements that you have no supporting source for. For example: you previously stated that Nyquist was fired from each of the news sites that he previously wrote a column for due to his extreme views. You did not have any source for that statement. That is both untrue and defamatory and must be immediately removed from any articles on a living person if there is no source for it (according the WP rules). Thank you for your attention to these details. -Lastingwar 00:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Everybody can see what a farce Wikipedia is becoming. It is now being used by political extremists to promote other (non-notable) extremists. They aren't even hiding the fact, just look at the usernames here. 217.134.239.37 15:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP problems again

Please take look at WP:BLP policy. Someone edited text about Nyquist book, but he apparently did not read the book himself and therefore distorts its meaning, basically trying to "prove" that author of such book is an idiot. This is a BLP violation and should be corrected immediately.Biophys 04:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not trying to prove anything about Mr. Nyquist. It appears you've been working with chemicals too long. 217.134.228.22 16:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Take your inflammatory comments elsewhere. WP:CIVIL. Kuroji 10:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Right. This article once has been protected from editing by anonymous users after my report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If one traces back edits by 217.134... of this and other articles, most of these edits are reverts. Looks like an "edit warring only" account. But I am not sure what WP administrators would think.Biophys 20:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say we have a small edit war on our hands, as 217.134.*.* has reverted several times. This sort of situation is unfamiliar to me. What's the next step? Kuroji 23:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This looks like a content dispute rather than vandalism. Have a look at Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Further_dispute_resolution. utcursch | talk 03:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
At least in part this is a conduct problem. This anonym. user vandalized twice personal page of another user who also edited this article: [1]Biophys 04:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article protected

I have protected the article for a week because it has been the subject of a long-term edit-war between an IP address and various editors, switching back and forth between two different versions. The related issue is whether a description of his theories that makes Nyquist look like a fool is a BLP violation (and some negative comments about Anatoliy Golitsyn with reference to the FBI and CIA). I haven't quite decided that, though the other conflicts about content make me reluctant to switch to semi (which would clearly disfavor the IP editor in this dispute). On the other hand, the comments by the IP on this very talk page haven't been very productive. If that pattern continues this week, I will simply switch to semi-protection. Part of having editing privileges here includes civilly discussing changes. Please do that.--Chaser - T 04:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Wikipedia Administrator, the current version is blatantly misleading and irresponsible historical revisionism. Russia is not a "totalitarian state" as the article is trying to imply. Mr. Nyquist's views must be put into historical context, and not be portrayed as truth. Also, Golitsyn was indeed rejected by the US intelligence establishment, as was his handler James Angleton - "His excesses as a counter-intelligence czar, arising from extreme paranoia that may have been clinical, had adverse effects on the Agency, especially during the 1970s." 217.134.238.184 16:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
He isn't the first nor last person to allegedly do this. This is an article that points out his views, not the validity of them. You, on the other hand, seem to be quite determined to push your particular point of view instead of a neutral point of view, with inflammatory and derogatory comments toward other editors. His claims are on their face absurd anyway, quite frankly; this is not the place to start a discussion on whether he is right or wrong. Kuroji 02:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you please give an example of where I am POV pushing in the article? If the following statement isn't POV I don't know what is: "World War IV and use of nuclear weapons are inevitable because totalitarian political forces are still in control to this day in Russia, China, and many other countries." 217.134.226.100 16:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Note that this statement is preceded by 'In his book "Origins of the Fourth World War"'. That summarizes the views he puts forth in the book, it does not say that this is fact. Are you even reading the article? Is your reading comprehension level low? Perhaps you've been misreading what has been stated in this article - all of it clearly states that these are the views of a lone author, not that they are facts. Kuroji 23:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You said: "Is your reading comprehension level low?" Now who's making the "inflammatory and derogatory comments"? Perhaps it would make things a little easier if the statement was reworded to something like this: "... World War IV and use of nuclear weapons are inevitable because, he alleges, totalitarian political forces are still in control to this day in Russia, China, and many other countries." BTW, your reading comprehension level appears to be almost non-existent since you have failed to answer my question. Where in the article have I been POV pushing? 217.134.234.16 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that was a sincere question. I have a friend who is dyslexic and he seems to have similar problems at times. Kuroji 15:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Great. Now please answer my question: Where have I been POV pushing in the article? 217.134.234.16 15:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by the same anonymous user - again

You wrote: "rv - I have read it too. The entire book pushes the "stupid claim" that perestroika and the collapse of the USSR was a staged "deception". It's a conspiracy theory.". Thus, you failed to provide a direct citation (with pages) to support your claims. What you are writing is your own interpretation (destruction of USSR is a "hoax"; fall of Berlin wall was staged by KGB, etc.). Unless you can justify your claims by citation of the book, this can not stand.Biophys 18:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Excerpt of Golitsyn's writings here: http://www.spiritoftruth.org/coup.htm

Memorandum to the CIA: 26 AUGUST 1991

I did not ask about Golitsyn. This article is about Jeffrey Nyquist and his book.Biophys 20:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Nyquist developed (or rather borrowed) his ideas from Golitsyn. I don't need to tell you that because he admits the fact himself. 217.134.232.81 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Anatoliy Golitsyn

THE AUTHOR'S ANALYSIS OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CALCULATED SOVIET 'COUP' AND OF ITS CALCULATED 'FAILURE'

According to my assessment, the Soviet 'coup' and its 'failure' constituted a grandiose display of deception - a provocation. The 'ineptitude' of the participants in the 'coup' and the 'failure' of it were skillfully planned and executed. The main argument in support of this assessment is that the Soviet military, the KGB, the Party and leading media figures apparently had neither the skill to launch a successful coup nor the guts to crush resistance to it. This is news indeed!

Facing a real crisis in Hungary in 1956, the same forces displayed exceptional skill, know-how and determination in crushing a genuine revolt. Knowledge of the Soviet mentality and of Moscow's record of ruthless action has convinced this analyst that the Soviet military, the Party and the leaders of the media all have the skill, the will and the courage to crush genuine resistance and opposition. They did not display them on this occasion because the abortive 'coup' was carried out in accordance with Party instructions; and it was the Party and the Komsomol themselves which organized the alleged resistance to it.

The real participants both in the 'coup' and in the 'failure' were some 20,000 or more chosen Komsomol and Party members in Moscow with two or three tank divisions guided by their political commissars and a handful of dedicated Party officials and generals who sacrificed their prestige in the interests of the Party's strategy and under the guidance of its strategists. The calculated nature of the 'coup' and its timing show that it was staged by the Russian, President Yeltsin, to save the essence of the Union at the time of transition to a new form of federation.

The abortive 'coup' and the 'resistance' to it were carefully calculated displays intended primarily for the West. This explains why Western media contacts with Moscow were not curtailed. On the contrary, the big guns of the Soviet media like Vitaliy Korotich and representatives of the Arbatov Institute were on hand both in Moscow and in the United States to 'help' the Western media with their interpretation of developments in the USSR. The episode shows how well Soviet strategists like Arbatov and his experts on the American media have mastered the art of projecting such displays for consumption by the American media, and throughout the West.

The Soviet strategists sought to underline for the West the dramatic ineptitude of the 'coup' and the spectacular courage and resistance displayed by the new 'Russian democrats' and their leader Yeltsin in 'defending' the Soviet Parliament- their symbolic equivalent of 'The White House'. The main external objective of the display was to demonstrate to the West that Soviet democratization is genuine, that it has the support of the people and that it is working. They want to convince the West that Western investment in the USSR will pay dividends.

They expect that the West will now respond with a new Marshall Plan which will bring Western technology flooding in to the Soviet Union, promoting joint ventures and stimulating a restructuring of the Soviet economy along the lines of the revival of the German and Japanese economies after the Second World War.

Internally, one objective is to influence the Soviet population towards acceptance of the new Party-controlled 'democracy' as a real power and to develop the strength and maturity of the new 'democratic' structure and the popularity of its leaders, especially Yeltsin. Another objective is to exploit this staged 'coup' in order to reorganize and 'reform' the Soviet bureaucracy, the military, the intelligence and counter-intelligence organizations and the diplomatic service, and to give them a new 'democratic' image.

The Soviet strategists realize that only with such a new image, implying a 'Break with the Past' and severance from Communism, can these organizations be converted into effective weapons for convergence with their counterparts in the United States. A further internal objective is to emphasize the change in the system by means of the spectacular, televised but calculated removal of old Communist symbols like the monuments to Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy, and the red banners.

These changes do not represent a genuine and sincere repudiation of Soviet design and intentions to secure an eventual world victory. Although very spectacular, the changes are cosmetic. They demonstrate only that Arbatov and others know how to manipulate the American and other Western media through the use of powerful symbols such as the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the toppling of Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy statues and Yeltsin's staged 'defense' of the Soviet 'White House'.

If the Soviets were truly moving towards genuine democracy, and were intent on a true 'Break with the Past', these symbolic changes would be accompanied by the introduction and implementation of a de-communization program, the irrevocable (not cosmetic) prohibition of the Communist Party and Komsomol organizations at all levels throughout the USSR, and the removal of 'former' Party and Komsomol members from all the main seats of power including the KGB, the Soviet army and its political commissar administration, the Ministries, especially those for the Interior and Foreign Affairs, and the trade unions.

Yeltsin has allegedly banned the Communist Party in Russia. But the question should be asked: Why did he forget to ban the Komsomol youth organization?' [Note: According to 'The New York Times' of 29 September 1991, the Komsomol voted to dissolve itself; its regulations were changed 'to allow subordinate youth leagues in the Soviet Republics to succeed it' - Author's emphasis].

To carry conviction, the necessary purge of former Communists would have to be carried out at all levels, as was the intention with the de-nazification program in Germany after the war. Without any such program, present changes, however impressive, will remain cosmetic.

There are at present no means of distinguishing reliably between a genuine democrat and a former Communist in Russia. However one important criterion for judging the sincerity of the abrupt and virtually simultaneous conversion of former Communist leaders into true democrats would be a frank official statement from them that the Soviet Party and Government adopted a long-range strategy in the years 1958 to 1960, that 'Perestroika' is the advanced phase of this strategy, and that it is to be abandoned forthwith in favor of normal, open, civilized relations. There has been no sign whatsoever of any such admission.

Further criteria for judging the sincerity of the abrupt conversion of 'former' Communist leaders into believers in true democracy would need to include:

Accept the new Party-controlled 'democracy' as a real power and develop the strength and maturity of the new 'democratic' structure and the popularity of its leaders, especially Yeltsin. Another objective is to exploit this staged 'coup' in order to reorganize and 'reform' the Soviet bureaucracy, the military, the intelligence and counter-intelligence organizations and the diplomatic service, and to give them a new 'democratic' image.

The Soviet strategists realize that only with such a new image, implying a 'Break with the Past' and severance from Communism, can these organizations be converted into effective weapons for convergence with their counterparts in the United States. A further internal objective is to emphasize the change in the system by means of the spectacular, televised but calculated removal of old Communist symbols like the monuments to Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy, and the red banners.

These changes do not represent a genuine and sincere repudiation of Soviet design and intentions to secure an eventual world victory. Although very spectacular, the changes are cosmetic. They demonstrate only that Arbatov and others know how to manipulate the American and other Western media through the use of powerful symbols such as the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the toppling of Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy statues and Yeltsin's staged 'defense' of the Soviet 'White House'.

If the Soviets were truly moving towards genuine democracy, and were intent on a true 'Break with the Past', these symbolic changes would be accompanied by the introduction and implementation of a de-communization program, the irrevocable (not cosmetic) prohibition of the Communist Party and Komsomol organizations at all levels throughout the USSR, and the removal of 'former' Party and Komsomol members from all the main seats of power including the KGB, the Soviet army and its political commissar administration, the Ministries, especially those for the Interior and Foreign Affairs, and the trade unions.

Yeltsin has allegedly banned the Communist Party in Russia. But the question should be asked: Why did he forget to ban the Komsomol youth organization?'

[Note: According to 'The New York Times' of 29 September 1991, the Komsomol voted

to dissolve itself; its regulations were changed 'to allow subordinate youth leagues in the Soviet Republics to succeed it' - Author's emphasis].

To carry conviction, the necessary purge of former Communists would have to be carried out at all levels, as was the intention with the de-nazification program in Germany after the war. Without any such program, present

changes, however impressive, will remain cosmetic.

There are at present no means of distinguishing reliably between a genuine democrat and a former Communist in Russia. However one important criterion for judging the sincerity of the abrupt and virtually simultaneous conversion of former

Communist leaders into true democrats would be a frank official statement from them that the Soviet Party and Government adopted a long-range strategy in the years 1958 to 1960, that 'Perestroika' is the advanced phase of this strategy, and that it is to be abandoned forthwith in favor of normal, open, civilized relations. There has been no sign whatsoever of any such admission.

Further criteria for judging the sincerity of the abrupt conversion of 'former' Communist leaders into believers in true democracy would need to include:

An official admission that the 'dissident movement' and its leader, Sakharov, were serving the interests of that strategy under KGB control; Public exposure of the main KGB agents among Soviet scientists, priests, writers and theater and movie personalities who have been playing an active role in the KGB-controlled political 'opposition' - especially those like the 'conservative' Kochetov and the 'liberal' Tvardovskiy who in the 1960s engaged in a Party- and KGB-controlled debate intended to convey the false impression that Soviet society was evolving towards democracy; And finally: a categorical repudiation of any strategic intention on the part of the Soviets of working towards 'convergence' with the United States. The self-evident absence of any of these criteria indicates that the symbolic changes mean no more than that the strategists had reached the conclusion that the old symbols had outlived their usefulness - at least, in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe - and had to be replaced by new, more attractive, popular symbols. Moreover these cosmetic changes are logical and were predicted earlier by this analyst. The Soviets realized that convergence with the United States cannot be achieved under the old compromised symbols like Lenin, Dzerzhinskiy and others associated in the Western mind with terror, repression, exile and bloodshed. Convergence requires the introduction of new, attractive, national and 'democratic' symbols conveying the impression that Soviet 'democracy' is approaching the Western model.

No doubt these cosmetic changes, the reorganization of the Soviet bureaucracy and the new, more enigmatic status of its leaders like Yeltsin will be seen by the West as a deepening of the process of Soviet 'reform', offering new opportunities for Western policy. But the West's main weakness remains unchanged: it cannot grasp the fact that it is facing an acceleration in the unfolding of Soviet convergence strategy which is intended to procure the subservience of the West to Moscow under an ultimate Communist World Government.

The Machiavellian boldness and imagination displayed by the Soviet strategists through their staged 'coup' and its preordained defeat are alarming. No doubt these maneuvers will be followed not only by faked suicides, but also by staged trials of the alleged leaders of the 'coup'. These leaders may well be sentenced to apparent prison terms. But in fact they will live in comfortable retirement in resort areas like the Crimea and the Caucasus. Russia is a big country and places can be found for them to hide.

The' coup' and its 'defeat' show that the Soviets will go to any lengths in pursuit of their convergence strategy. This reminds me of remarks by Vladimir Zhenikhov, the former KGB Rezident in Finland, and Aleksey Novikov, another KGB

officer, at the time the strategy was adopted in 1961. Both of them had recently returned from home leave in Moscow. When I asked for the latest news from headquarters, both replied using different words but to the same effect: 'This time the KGB are going to finish with capitalist America once and for all'. I believed them then, and I believe that what is happening now is a bad omen for Western democracy.

The other alarming aspect of the situation is Western euphoria and the uncritical acceptance of present Soviet developments at their face value. This shows how easily the West can be taken in by staged Soviet spectacles, and how justified the strategists are in believing that their 'era of provocations' will produce the intended results. Furthermore, Western euphoria and naiveté serve only to encourage the Soviet strategists to stage new spectacles more convinced than ever that their strategic designs are realistic. .

217.134.81.133 18:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the edits by the anonymous user. The present article is about Nyquist, not Golitsyn. Also, many or most of these edits were simply additions of previous bad edits. -Lastingwar 02:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Nyquist derives his theories from Golitsyn. To User:Biophys and User:Lastingwar, please stop whitewashing sourced material from this conspiracy theorist's article (you clearly don't want us all to learn that Mr. Nyquist laughably regards Pat Robertson of all people as "pro-communist") and please take your 'reds under the bed' crusading elsewhere. All those pushing nonsense conspiracy theories and pseudohistory should be banned from editing on Wikipedia. 217.134.232.81 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golitsyn and Nyquist

Once again, this article is about Nyquist, not about Golitsyn. I wonder if you read the Nyquist's book at all. Yes, he cites Golitsyn a few times, just as many others. This is not a book about KGB deception strategy (a subject of Golitsyn's book). The Nyquist book title is "Origins of the Fourth World War". It is about the inevitability of a new global war involving use of WMDs, the war between East (Russia-China) and West (US-Europe), the war that East could win. I personally think he is wrong in certain questions, including Russia-China relations. But however wrong the author could be, let's not picture him more biased or stupid than he really is. That contradicts WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies.Biophys 18:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nyquist bases his entire world view on Golitsyn's theories. Given that he thinks Pat Robertson is "pro-communist", I'd say the only one making him look "biased or stupid" is himself. 217.134.227.42 18:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
"World view" is something very poorly defined. What is your or my "world view"? Nyquist is clearly an "anti-communist". This is all. We should operate only with very specific facts and claims in WP articles and especially BLP. These facts and claims should be clearly and unequivocally supported by sources.Biophys 19:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
A world view based on Golitsyn's theories is very clearly defined, it's a conspiratorial fantasy world view. An example of Mr. Nyquist's pseudohistory: "The real history of the revolutions in Eastern Europe has yet to be written. Watching events in Eastern Europe with Golitsyn's warnings in mind, the evidence is strongly in favor of the thesis that the communist system was collapsed intentionally on orders from Moscow." [2] 217.134.81.59 22:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
That is something debatable. A lot of people believe that the Soviet Union and the Eastern Communist block collapsed because of the Gorbachev's glasnost' and perestroika policies. The changes have indeed been initiated from "the above", but certainly not to destroy the system. But was the system really destroyed in Russian Federation, Turkmenistan and some other former Soviet republics? That is another debatable question. That is why I like people like Nyquist who try to question everything (in natural sciences too). They force you think, although they may be as wrong as everyone.Biophys 01:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Good Russian poetry about reforms from "above" initiated by Gorbachev:
Нельзя поднять людей с колен
Покуда плеть нужна холопу
Нам ветер свежих перемен
Всегда вдували через жопу
(by Igor Guberman). But I can not translate this well. Biophys 01:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)