Polemical foul play

Jeff Nyquist replied with his No Substitute to Common Sense to my previous polemic entitled Same Old Nationalism, where I expressed serious concern regarding the substantial change of tone and shift in meaning in his recent writings. I wrote as an attentive reader of his texts but also as a translator and publisher of dozens of his articles; as a political ally and a friend who perceived that some of the paths he had taken were leading him astray. In return a bucketful of swill was thrown on my head; I received in response a load of gibberish, which is not only untrue but also dishonest. No, Jeff, we will not conduct a debate in such fashion!

Jeff Nyquist maintains: he never stated that Ukraine is a sovereign state; he never made an “irrefutable dogma out of the idea that Saakashvili is opposed to Moscow”; he never said that “soviet strategy was in ‘tatters’”. It is true, he never used those words verbatim, but the tone of his statements left a decisive impression in reader’s mind. For instance, in the interview published on this website in November 2009, he was quite unequivocal:

The peace and prosperity mediated by American power is also coming to an end. What happens next will depend on the people of Poland, Ukraine, Germany and France (among others). Poland is a front line state in the struggle against Russian power, and everything that happens in Poland today is decisive for Europe. The Russians face serious problems at home, and their strategy of neutralizing the United States is simply a preliminary step to subjugating Europe. If the countries of Europe show their resolve, Russia will be placed in a hopeless situation. Here Poland can set the tone for the rest of Europe. It is my hope that Europe (in the days to come) will recover its moral courage, its internal vitality, and its faith.

And a little later:

… the events of 2008 indicate that Victor Yushchenko in Ukraine and Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia appear to be authentic anti-communists. In the case of Poland’s President Kaczyński, I am told that he is working to purge the communists from Polish national life.

In trying to create an apocryphal version of his views, Nyquist is attempting to conceal the impression he inevitably made with his previous pronouncements but in doing so he steps firmly on a winding path leading to political spin. Instead of bravely and truthfully admitting to some haste, with which he afforded significance to Eastern European “leaders”, with which he gave them import they could not possibly possess and a historic mission, which they do not intend to fulfil – he decided to accuse me:

And please, do not mischaracterize my earlier statements. I never put forward an almost irrefutable dogma about Saakashvili or Yushchenko. As noted above, I clearly pointed to facts suggestive of Saakashvili’s collaboration with Moscow. Also, and more important, I never said the Soviet strategy was “in tatters.” I said that the strategy suffered setbacks…

Having said that, Nyquist moves on to a direct attack on me personally, using to that end the victims of the recent plane crash:

As for the Polish leaders who died in the recent plane crash near Smolensk, they have been killed in a way that establishes their anti-Communist credentials with grim finality. Or will you say they were all KGB agents?

This is the irresponsible way Jeff Nyquist, burdened with an “open mind”, decided to argue. At the same time, he warns of an attitude that makes “facts subordinate to theory”. Perhaps we ought to ask, therefore, how in the context of his methodology, will Nyquist support his statement that the “Polish leaders” had been “killed” near Smolensk and how does that murder “establish their anticommunist credentials”. Perhaps it would be worth our while to ask but I will resist the urge this time. I have lost interest in the Nyquistian way of thinking.

Jeff Nyquist can show not a single FACT to support the assumption that victims of that plane crash were murdered by soviet secret services. He is blatantly incorrect in asserting that their death establishes their anticommunist credentials. People who died in that crash were not flying to fight soviet Russia, and surely did not expect the tragic fate that met them. It is irrelevant who Jeff Nyquist actually had in mind – representatives of the “Katyń families” or the pilots, the generals, i.e. ex-soldiers of the communist “polish people’s army” or members of the repainted post-communist parties, be it the ruling citizen’s platform or the presidential law and justice, or even the traitor to traditions of Polish II Republic, Ryszard Kaczorowski, the last President of the Polish Government in Exile who surrendered the insignia of the legitimate Polish state into the hands of the communist rulers of the “polish people’s republic” in 1990, or the heroine of Solidarity in 1980, Anna Walentynowicz – death of all these people does not confirm anything apart from the fact that they were victims of a plane crash.

Despite the alleged political blindness, which Jeff Nyquist seems to be accusing me of, I do not intend to say that “they were all KGB agents”. Not just because I do not know anything about it but also due to the more important consideration, that the question of being or not being an agent always seemed to me of secondary importance for the reasons best formulated by Józef Mackiewicz:

It is irrelevant whether someone acts as ‘agent provocateur’ or from his own deep convictions. What is important is whether his actions are beneficial to the Soviets and the international Communism, regardless of his conscious motives. It is not unknown for a person to act in good faith, for his own idealistic reasons far removed from any ‘provocation’, and still be more useful to the Soviets due to his effectiveness… This is not a paradox. This is political reality.

Naturally, the above could not interest Jeff Nyquist, just as the rest of Józef Mackiewicz’s writings available in English, which he studiously and deliberately ignores. He is much more interested in debating views he had never heard, at least not from me, but which in a fit of polemical foul play, he would like to find in my text, implicitly accusing me of lack of criticism towards Golitsyn’s methodology. He writes – I hope I am free to assume – in the context of my alleged views, as follows:

However, to blithely assert that whole governments and named presidents are agents of the KGB, then we bring discredit to ourselves by pretending to know more than we actually know.

Thus spoke Jeff Nyquist. He spoke thus despite the fact that I have never referred to the views of the author of New Lies for Old in my article, that I have not said one word about any KGB agents and I don’t presume that Nyquist knows my articles written in Polish. What a pity he doesn’t. If he did he would have read the first, as far as I know, review of Golitsyn’s The Perestroika Deception, where in 1996 I wrote:

There are lots of question marks over details in Golitsyn’s analysis. One can question his tendency to interpret almost every event as beneficial to the Communists. He probably overestimates the capabilities of their special forces. It is hardly plausible that all representatives of all non-Communist groups were controlled by the Communists. It seems to me that the reality we are dealing with is less tightly controlled than Golitsyn was ready to admit.

Even if Jeff Nyquist had had the opportunity to acquaint himself with the above paragraph, I doubt he would be persuaded not to step onto the shaky ground of debating views I have never expressed. He seems to prefer it that way, be it for ease or pleasure. However, it’s not the sybaritic side of his nature that motivates him, it’s rather his reluctance to give ground with regards to his assumed historical correctness. And thus, burdened with his “open mind”, Nyquist retains exclusive right to pronounce drivel such as: “The Kremlin’s strategists are human. They are not gods”, and similar truths of Nyquistian gospel. He says all this, lest we forget, when “America is target Number One. […] America could be struck down tomorrow…”, when his American Fatherland would expect from Nyquist-nationalist something more (perhaps humility?). But instead it will get a grandiosely phrased little hope that, as if ex Oriente lux, deliverance from soviet thraldom can come from the “anti-Communists” like Saakashvili and Yushchenko.

Life sometimes brings sad surprises. The U-turn in Jeff Nyquist’s views is one of them. But the manner, in which he decided to conduct this debate I found even more depressing. So what I’m going to say, I say with heavy heart.

Due to the unacceptable method of discussion adopted by Jeff Nyquist, and also due to the fact that he refused to publish my text on his website, although he was asked twice, his articles will no longer be published in The Underground. No Substitute for Common Sense is the last of Nyquist’s texts that we will make available to Polish readers. As the owner or administrator of at least two websites he has enough options to publish his views, even more controversial than those he published here, so our decision should not inconvenience him or diminish the popularisation of his writings.

The only thing that remains is to take my leave. So, farewell, Jeff. Farewell, my ex-friend!