A Ukrainian-American Journalist Interviews J.R. Nyquist
QUESTIONS and ANSWERS

NADIA: In your opinion, will Trump avoid conflicts of interests as president, or will such conflicts become the new normal under a Trump administration?

 NYQUIST: This question was answered at Trump’s recent press conference. A law firm was hired to build a protective barrier between President Trump and his business interests. Trump will have nothing to do with his businesses until he leaves office. He has resigned from each of his business entities. Also, Trump’s sons have a special watchdog appointed over them, with a veto power over key decisions in order to avoid the least appearance of impropriety. It seems that Trump is taking extraordinary measures to detach himself from his private commercial interests.

 NADIA: What kind of political culture is about to normalize in Trump’s America? Would he satisfy the main expectations of his core electorate, the working class of the swing states? What about his agenda on isolationism, protectionism and “returning manufacturing jobs” from abroad without breaking up our economic system?

NYQUIST: Of course, Trump’s election campaign lacked decorum. More and more we have come to classify our system as a “democracy.” The political theorists of antiquity considered democracy unstable and likely to descend into “mob rule.” The lowering of standards was considered one of the dangers of democracy, where high office would be open to the meanest people.

NADIA: So, is the democratic system not the best? What system do you advocate? Was Sir Winston Chruchill wrong when he famously said that democracy is the worst form of government except all others?

NYQUIST: Churchill’s references to democracy are amusing and somewhat paradoxical, but to those who understand the actual theory behind “free institutions,” there is no paradox. What Churchill understood, as a historian, was that the British Constitution was neither democratic nor monarchical nor aristocratic. The British Constitution was a mix of all three – part monarchy, part democracy and part aristocracy; with a King, a House of Commons, and a House of Lords. This system was once known as “mixed monarchy,” and the classical political teachings of the free world held that this was the ideal system for advancing and preserving prosperity and liberty. Tyranny is not merely a potential feature of monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy may also produce a “tyranny of the majority” or “tyranny of the masses” as Alexander Hamilton argued. A corrupt democracy can be used to overthrow the rule of law, paving the way for an authoritarian popular despotism as occurred in the French Revolution when the Estates General and the Paris mob overthrew the monarchy. What ultimately followed from this was called “The Terror,” and it was as monstrous as it was bloody and lawless. Alexis de Tocqueville famously warned, as well, that decisions based merely on the “the claim of numbers” are not of equal standing with those based on right. The key point for the English political tradition is that right should prevail. While many have described the United States as a “democracy,” the technical reality is that ours is a mixed system in which the President fills the role of elected monarch, the House of Representatives is the democratic element, and the Senate is a kind of aristocracy. In addition, the sovereignty of the states checks the usurpations of the central government and provides an additional break on the concentration of power at the center. This is the perennial problem of Russia and other despotic States, as you know, that the central government always overpowers the outlying regions and thereby forestalls the possibility of self-government. We ought to acknowledge that tyrannical power is always centralized power, and local power is its nemesis. So, to answer your question in light of the truth about free institutions, democracy is not the best system – but to further clarify, our system is not actually a democracy. In America ours is a federal mixed system of checks and balances partly modeled on the Roman Republic, which was itself based upon the mixed monarchy of ancient Sparta. Churchill was perfectly aware of this. Such an understanding was the foundation of all British political education prior to the First World War, as well as to American political education prior to the American Civil War. It was only in later times, through the continued advance of so-called democratic socialism, that people were constantly told that they were living (or should be living) under democracy. Thus our political heritage was intellectually corrupted, then buried under confusing terminology (which included words like “socialism” and “democracy,” which in fact have little practical meaning once you understand the actual mechanisms necessary for the creation of free institutions). Today our freedom is gradually wearing away as political correctness and a Soviet-like socialism continue to advance in every Western country.

NADIA: Does Trump’s outrageous behavior represent a threat to this constitutional system?

NYQUIST: As I indicated already, Trump's presidential campaign was ill-mannered. But his political opponents, as polished and credentialed careerists, were not to be trusted at all. Most of them were beholden to financial interests that had long ago abandoned the country in favor of profit. Trump was rude to them. Perhaps he was right to be rude. Perhaps not. Whatever the case, I do not expect his presidency to be more “polite” than his campaign. His way of talking and acting appears to be part of his character, and character does not easily change.

NADIA: Do you mean Sen. Marco Rubia, Gov. John Kasich, Carly Fiorina or even Ted Cruz are not trustworthy? I understand why Hillary lost, but I cannot understand why Trump, with his outright demagoguery, won the Republican primaries. Was it because of his plain-speaking appeal to blue collar workers in the swing states? Was it distrust of our elected officials? I do not understand how you can say that the other Republican candidates were untrustworthy, since they are not really part of the Washington “swamp.” Also, they took a highly critical approach to the Kremlin. I am concerned that pro-Russian lobbyists were one of the many factors that led to Trump’s Republican primary victory.

NYQUIST: Last year’s Republican candidates, excepting Mr. Trump, are people who necessarily depend on donations from special interests; and this turns out to be a problem. By virtue of their funding, these politicians owe favors to people who conduct business overseas – especially in China (but not only China). Of course, you might call Trump’s campaign “demagogic,” and he certainly is a demagogue in the classical sense of the word. So is any office-seeker who makes an impassioned appeal to the people over the heads of the elites. This is what Trump did, and as we know from Roman history it is a very brave thing to do, especially when the elites have become as degenerate as ours. Under present circumstances it may be observed that the elites are not doing their duty. When I said that mainstream politicians (including Republican politicians) are not trustworthy, I was thinking of their support for a system of free trade that is not free at all – but a system of trade that is one-sided in its harmfulness to the United States. Everybody knows that the Chinese engage in unfair trade practices. Everybody knows about the collapse of American manufacturing. Why have our “patriotic” Republican politicians failed to remedy the situation? In fact, they openly support a system of trade that damages the U.S. strategic position as it empowers China. This fact is hardly discussed publicly. The political class is not wealthy in its own right. It costs millions of dollars to run for Congress, tens of millions to run for the United States Senate or the White House. Those who grow rich off the China trade know they must pay off American politicians or lose their market position. Sadly, those enriched by the China trade buy politicians the way you and I buy groceries. As a result the United States is being financially despoiled, year after year. In what sense is this honest? During the past thirty-five years our politicians (in both parties) have championed policies that effectively destroyed tens of millions of manufacturing jobs. Look in the store today. Most things are made in China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Mexico, Japan, etc. When I was a child nearly everything worth having was made in America. It is, in fact, dangerous to the national security to have so many things made overseas. In one key economic sector after another, the strategic position of the United States is becoming untenable because we cannot support our own armed forces in a prolonged conflict. How can we then say that these politicians are honest when they all support China’s interests over those of their own country? If they were patriots they would sound the alarm. As for the vaunted anti-Kremlin stance of so many Republican presidential candidates, I am sorry, but imposing a no-fly zone in Syria or sending weapons to Ukraine would be irresponsible. No statesman commits himself to unwinnable conflicts that the general public would oppose on grounds of common sense. It would be unwise to start a war with Russia in Syria or threaten Russia’s position in Eastern Europe. Right now Russia is militarily superior in Europe, and any provocative action carries the risk of Russian preemption. We must also design our diplomacy to win over the Russian people, to discredit the propaganda campaign of Putin’s media lackeys. I am the last person to promote the appeasement of Russia, but the United States has no business invading Syrian airspace or sending NATO weapons into Ukraine. How would we react if Russia imposed a no-fly zone over Israel or sent weapons to Mexico? I am sorry, again, but aggressively confronting Russia in Syria and Ukraine would play directly into Putin’s hands. If I were a Russian citizen hearing these various American candidates talk about shooting down Russian aircraft, I might conclude that these American politicians are warmongers. I would then be inclined to believe Putin’s lies. I hope what I’m saying makes sense, because this is a very tricky business. Threats of war against Russia can backfire to the benefit of Putin, because Putin’s efforts are concentrated on winning support within Russia. If we appear to threaten Russia, we give Putin what he wants. If we are sober and reasonable in our approach, Putin’s propaganda will collapse. As you know, the people of America do not want to hurt Russia. It is the furthest thing from our minds. Why, then, do these politicians talk about shooting down Russian planes and killing Russian airmen? This doesn’t represent how we feel. Do we oppose the annexation of Crimea? Of course we do! Should we denounce Putin’s aggression? Of course we should. It is better, by far, to identify the lies and misdeeds of the Russian government. It is never good to verbally threaten Russian servicemen, or advocate actions that place Russian and American military forces in direct conflict with each other. Russia is a nuclear power, and Russia’s nuclear forces are fully modernized. I should also remind you that none of these politicians, who are “highly critical” of Putin, did anything practical or effective to strengthen the U.S. nuclear deterrent. Trump, on the other hand, has outlined a plan for rebuilding the U.S. Navy and nuclear deterrent. These steps must be taken before Russia can be safely contained. If we poke our nose into Syria, a country which has never threatened us, we will end up justifying a Russian invasion of the Baltic States. Statecraft is an art, and these Republican candidates who rhetorically threatened Syria and Russia have no art.    

NADIA: You say that Putin’s position on Russia has been “deceptive.” Yet he talks with admiration about Putin, about his desire to meet the dictator in person, about murky deals such as “nuclear arms reduction. Why does Trump talk about lifting sanctions? Why did he appoint Rex Tillerson who holds the Russian Order of Friendship for his dealings with Rosneft? Why among Trump’s most trusted advisors do we find people like Paul Manafort, Henry Kissinger, Carter Page and other Russia lobbyists? Many analysts point to the fact that Trump has flip-flopped on many issues but not on Russia. If all this is a deception on Trump’s part, what is the purpose of a deception that fools Trump’s electorate?

  NYQUIST: I do not think Trump “relentlessly talks about his admiration of Putin.” Let’s not exaggerate. Instead, we should think in terms of Trump’s strategy. If Trump says Putin is a strong leader, or that Putin is admired within his own country, it is a diplomatic compliment which signals a willingness to talk. But are the Russians willing to talk? No, not really. Trump knows that Russia is a police state where visitors are blackmailed through “honey traps.” He said as much in reaction to the “golden shower dossier.” Please note: the press did not pick up on Trump’s comments about Kremlin blackmail techniques. Undoubtedly Trump saw, and recognized publicly, that Russia is not his friend; that the Russians were out to damage him through this fake “dossier” given to a former British spy in Moscow. Trump’s advisors and national security appointees, especially Michael Flynn, know that Putin is dangerous. Shall we read between the lines here? Why does Trump talk of an arms control treaty with Russia? Right now Russia is ahead of the United States in armaments. Unlike Clinton or Obama, President Trump wants a treaty to address the imbalance. Even now the Russian government will not consider such a treaty. Indeed, they do not want to forfeit their military superiority. Look at the actual balance of military forces. Trump talks about lifting sanctions on Russia to test Putin’s intentions. If Putin is not interested, Trump knows that Moscow might well be contemplating an invasion of the Baltic States. In respecting this, Tillerson is a good pick from the standpoint of warding off an invasion. Putin dares not claim that Secretary of State Tillerson is Russia’s enemy, or that Trump is plotting against the legitimate interests of the Russian people. He would not be believed. Was Trump’s appointment of Tillerson an error? I think it was shrewd. If Russia invades the Baltic States on the pretext that American forces are threatening St. Petersburg, who will believe it? Regarding other figures in this equation: Paul Manfort is problematic but he is no longer in the picture. Henry Kissinger is also problematic, but his pretense of coherence is no longer as persuasive now that he is afflicted by extreme old age. Carter Page concerns me, but again, he might serve as a proof of America’s good will. As far as Trump "deceiving his electorate” about Russia, I hardly think his behavior is meant to deceive the American electorate; for they do not think of Russia at all. In truth, Trump’s Russia talk is strictly aimed at Putin’s constituency. This becomes apparent when you realize that Trump has no domestic political reason to talk about Russia, and gains nothing politically. Russia is not one of those subjects that Americans are concerned with, even when the mainstream media cries foul over alleged Russian interference in the election. When have these media “watchdogs” ever cared about Putin’s wickedness? They applauded Obama’s Russian reset.

NADIA: So Trump is trying to make a deal?

NYQUIST: There is a dance that takes place prior to any negotiation. The opening play is to feel out the other side’s intentions. Trump’s public statements about Putin are clearly tailored to this end. And the objective of Trump, judging by his past history, will be to get the best possible deal. This is because Trump is all about winning. He is obsessive about being top dog. I do not see any flip-flopping on this principle – at least not yet. He is not the puppet type. From a psychological standpoint this should be absolutely clear. Therefore, Trump’s talk of lifting sanctions is like wagging a hunk of meat in front of a hungry Russian wolf. Let’s see if the wolf takes his hand off, or licks his hand. Let’s see what Putin’s gang is willing to do.

NADIA: Given what is happening now, will resentment and resistance to Trump’s populist agenda eventually lead to drastic “left turn” and a crushing defeat for Republicans at the next congressional elections in 2018? Also, can you explain why the United States is so divided between Left and Right camps?  

 NYQUIST: It is possible that Republicans will lose the mid-term elections. But that depends on what happens in the coming months. The country is ideologically divided as you say. This has to do with the schools and universities where a not-so-thinly-disguised Marxist agenda has been dominant for decades. This may be hard for Ukrainians or Russians to understand, but America has always had a strong internal socialist movement. The American socialists have worked quietly and effectively; so much so that the world has failed to notice their achievements. Being outnumbered and in a minority they plotted and schemed to build a future majority. They cultivated racial minorities and women. They encouraged illegal immigration. They infiltrated the schools in order to indoctrinate the country’s children. They flooded into government and now control most federal departments. They dominate the media and entertainment. In terms of political parties, the communist left began infiltrating the Democratic Party in the 1920s. This infiltration accelerated in the 1970s. Today the Democratic Party of the United States is ideologically akin to the Communist Party Soviet Union in its objectives and attitudes; that is to say, the Democratic Party is fiercely anti-American, anti-capitalist, and opposed to American nuclear weapons. Yet the Democratic Party leadership maintains the pretense of being pro-business and pro-American. They even pretend to oppose the Kremlin. However, once you begin to look at the policies advanced by the Democrats, a completely different picture emerges. On the environment, on education, on world affairs, policy after policy is calculated to weaken the United States while strengthening our enemies. The Democratic Party of the United States has assisted, by secret and underhand means, the military buildup of China and Russia. It has openly strengthened the position of Iran. It did nothing to oppose the communists in Venezuela or South Africa, or the Congo. They have relaxed our position toward communist Cuba. There is a body of testimony and documented history, which shows how the Clinton White House transferred military technology to China through the Commerce Department in the 1990s. When Obama entered office massive technology transfers to Moscow took place under the “Russian Reset” policy. Moscow’s current military buildup was fueled by these technology transfers, managed by Hillary Clinton. Given the history of Hillary Clinton’s support for Russia and China, there is reason to doubt her assertion that Trump is “a Russian puppet.” Even more sinister, the Kremlin is clever enough to support Hillary’s claims about Trump through a variety of gestures. But ask yourself: Since when have Russian leaders told the truth about anything? The Kremlin lies even when there is no need, if only to keep in practice. With so many winks and nods, and with Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s pro-Trump television appearances, are we expected to believe the Russians wanted to help Mr. Trump? How many votes did Zhirinovsky win for The Republican candidate? The Russians were not trying to help Mr. Trump. Those who are well-informed know that Clinton and Obama have acted as Russian puppets for many years. Trump, who was once befriended by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s assistant (Roy Cohn), is perfectly aware that the collapse of the Soviet Union was not a victory for freedom in Russia. He is probably aware that the Communist Party apparatchiks remained in control under new names and new slogans. Even if Marxism-Leninism cannot be openly proclaimed from Moscow, Leninist attitudes and ambitions remain at the core of the Russian regime today. We see, in the writings of National Security Advisor Flynn, a recognition of Russia's enmity, and a recognition of the role played by Russian terrorism – including its links to Islamic terrorism. It seems to me that Trump’s appointees and advisors represent the most realistic people we could have gotten under the present circumstances. It also appears that Trump’s seeming softness on Russia is prudential. He doesn’t want a war because the United States might lose. The West has never been weaker in relation to Russia than it is today. The former socialist bloc could, at any time, assert itself in ways that would have been inconceivable during the Cold War. It has to be understood that the manipulation of the Right and Left in America and Europe is a Russian game. A conflict between Right and Left in America is advanced, quite clearly, in the interests of Russia. 

 NADIA: You say that the Democratic Party is ideological akin to the Communist Party Soviet Union. In that case, America should resemble the USSR. But it clearly does not. Yes, some features of social democracy are seen in our federal entitlement social programs; especially those that support the elderly, the disabled, and low-income people. Do you think such programs as Medicare, SSI, and food stamps are anti-capitalist? What about racial minorities? Do you think Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a socialist or a communist? How, in your opinion, should racial minorities and women be treated in modern American society? In my opinion, capitalism with limited social welfare orientation is the near-ideal system that has made capitalism successful during the Cold War. What about the rights of illegal immigrants who fled their home countries due to terrible conditions. Aren’t these people good enough to be citizens? Does violating the border necessarily make someone a criminal? Surely you agree that immigration policies must be more nuanced and made easier for those who are unlucky in their home countries but aren’t criminals. And of course I agree that the far left wing of the Democratic Party is anti-American and anti-capitalist, and I agree that Obama represents such people. But the party’s core has a good reason to exist. If there were no Democratic Party, what would the political system be? – a one party state?

NYQUIST: The United States does not resemble the USSR because of the Constitution, not because there are no communists here. Americans are committed to their Constitution, to the rule of law. However badly the Constitution has been battered by the subversives and infiltrators of the left, the enemies of freedom and capitalism are limited in what they can accomplish. Dominating the upper ranks of the Democratic Party is not sufficient. Controlling the White House is not sufficient. The officers of the U.S. military are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and so are the President’s body guards – the Secret Service. Every armed man working for the government is, first and foremost, loyal to the Constitution. They are trained to disobey illegal orders. This is a very different situation than we find in Russia. One might control the levers of power here, but it is dangerous to attack the Constitution openly. This is what protects us – as I said before. It is the system of checks and balances that makes the difference between freedom and tyranny. You ask if social welfare entitlements are in direct contradiction to capitalism and freedom. It is hard for people to understand today, but when America was most free there were no entitlements. The independence of the individual goes hand in hand with freedom. The dependence of the individual on the State introduces a dangerous element, where the State becomes all-powerful and determines the life of the individual. As the State moves in, the family degenerates. Where families took care of their own, people now abandon their relatives to the care of that “coldest of all cold monsters.” I do not believe this has been a positive development. The church took care of people in need, and so did families and neighborhoods. It was done locally, with genuine concern, people-to-people. The State takes over this function on the false idea that people do not help one another in difficult times. After decades of this, people have lost the organic institutions and sensibilities that attend true charity. Helping disabled people is noble, but now the government has taken this over. But how effective is the government at dealing with poverty? The fact is, poverty was declining every year in this country until the government stepped in. From the moment that happened poverty has been growing. As many of us know, the government is a heartless machine and bureaucracies like to expand without limit. Consider, as well, the rules and regulations – the present-day interference of government in family life, the interference with the rights of parents, the abuses of Child Protective Services, the abuses of the Family Court system which routinely violates the rights of mothers and fathers; for it is written in our law that no man (or woman) may be deprived of life, liberty or property without “due process of law,” that is to say, a jury trial. Today our courts seize the property of people who have committed no crime, who have broken no law, because of no fault divorce. This is one example of the abuses of power which attend the Welfare State. Many lives have been destroyed by these courts. Many children have been injured. Families have been despoiled of their wealth even as wealth is redistributed from one group of people to another. The people who changed our legal system, who introduced these legal innovations, hold to a totalitarian ideology. For them the State is the answer to every problem. Your many readers, especially those who experience life in the Soviet Union, know that State power solves nothing. It becomes, in time, the worst problem of all. You ask about Dr. Martin Luther King, whether he was a communist. I do not think he was, but every important movement in this country is targeted for infiltration by the communists or by the KGB. They want to create divisions here between man and woman, black and white, rich and poor. They want Americans to turn against each other. That is the work of the KGB in America. How should women or minorities be treated? The Constitution says how citizens of every kind are to be treated in this country. The only guarantee we have of equal and fair treatment is the rule of law – not the rule of ideology. We must be wary when people politically identify themselves as women or blacks or other minority groupings when their relevant identity should be as Americans. How shall any of us be safe if we fall for the tricks of foreign agents of influence who seek to weaken by sowing discord? Immigration policy is a complicated subject. But the first rule is that America is a country and it deserves to have a border. Anyone who tells you that America should have an open border is an enemy of the country. For the border signifies sovereignty and security. It signifies our right to protect our territory from colonization and infiltration by foreign powers and their terrorist agents. Quite naturally, regarding your last question, I do not advocate a one party state in America. Like many people, I hope and pray that the Democratic Party will come to its senses and reject its current leadership and the radical ideology that rules dishonestly from the shadows. I believe the truth of this will be exposed, and one day the situation will be corrected. If not, then the country is ultimately doomed. And to address your immigration question more directly: yes, a person who illegally crosses an international border is a criminal. Committing an illegal act is what defines a criminal. Law abiding people do not break the law. If they did, they would not be law abiding. 

NADIA: Do you think the idea of mutually reducing nuclear arms will play out? In your opinion, in what areas would this benefit U.S. strategic interests?    

 NYQUIST: A reduction of the nuclear arsenals in Russia, America or China is not going to happen. Russia is far ahead in nuclear weapons and China is building fast. It is not in their interest to make an agreement with America, since America has fallen so far behind. At present the U.S. is outnumbered on two sides. More seriously, the U.S. arsenal consists of obsolete warheads. We have not tested a nuclear warhead in 25 years. Please understand that Nuclear weapons have a limited shelf-life. Right now the U.S. nuclear arsenal is seven years past its expiration date. Nobody knows if America’s strategic warheads are in working order. This problem is not talked about in public, but is discussed in private by worried experts. There have been articles about this situation in the Russian press, and it appears the Kremlin is perfectly aware of America’s strategic difficulties. For many years the Democrats in Congress and the White House blocked the Reliable Replacement Warhead project. Hillary Clinton, while running for president, promised that she would kill the project if elected. Trump has promised to support the project. Of these two leaders, which is the Russian puppet? You tell me.   

 NADIA:  Do you think Russia has actual compromising data against Trump aside from the controversial “golden shower dossier”? For example, Andrey Illarionov (Putin's economic policies adviser in 2000 - 2004, now a Cato Institute fellow) writes that 19 per cent of Rosneft shares are in Trump’s possession in an offshore? If yes, how would it be played out by Russia?

NYQUIST:  These stories about Trump having serious connections to Russia are constantly popping up, and the more we check into them the more we discover a tissue of lies. I would wager that Illarionov is not in a position to prove anything regarding offshore accounts. If there was truth in it, why would Russia’s leading surrogates and helpers in the Democratic Party be the first to denounce Trump as a Russian agent? Since when do agents of the SVR publicly denounce other SVR agents? I am sorry, but there is an inconsistency here which is further highlighted by demonstrably false information in the “golden shower dossier.” Seriously!  I can only conclude that Mr. Steele, formerly of MI6, went to Moscow and was fed disinformation by the FSB. Again, the “golden shower dossier” is false and we can see where it is coming from. No, no, this is all theater. The Russians would be in a much better position right now if Hillary Clinton had won the election. So if they had dirt on Trump they would have used it already. They would have stopped him from winning. They would have thereby prevented an attempt at rearming the United States.

 NADIA: Is the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats and closing the “diplomatic dacha” mansions in New York adequate retaliation to the hacking attacks that are compromising the U.S. national security?

 NYQUIST: I do not think it is retaliation at all. The SVR officials working undercover in the United States had special assignments related to Obama’s government. Now that Obama is leaving office, these operatives will crave replacement. A new team will be required to deal with Trump’s America as opposed to Obama’s. In fact, Obama may have been doing the Russian special services a favor by expelling them. What relevance is there for an intelligence officer who is running five spies out of the State Department when his spies are going to be cashiered by Trump? As for the hacking of the Democratic Party, I seriously doubt whether the Russians were behind it. The techniques used in this hacking were those employed by teenage boys. Again, are we to believe that Russia would have seriously undermined Hillary Clinton’s campaign when she was committed to weakening U.S. nuclear readiness? As for Clinton’s threats against Russia and her call for war in Syria, words are not proof of anything. Deeds are proof. Clinton’s deeds have always been to Russia’s benefit. Are we so simple to believe in her now, when she declares that someone else is a Russian puppet? This is completely upside-down.

NADIA: Is constraint of China’s economic expansion a priority on Trump’s agenda?

 NYQUIST: I don’t think Trump’s goal is to limit China’s economic expansion. He simply does not want our factories relocated to China. He does not want our technology appropriated by China. He does not want trade deals slanted in China’s favor. To protect ourselves from unfair trade practices is not an attack on another country’s economy. It is fundamental to the political independence and national sovereignty of the United States. Somehow people in America have gotten the idea that if we destroy our own economic advantages foreigners will be more cooperative and friendly. But in reality, if America suffers economically it will damage many other countries. At the same time, America’s loss is Russia and China’s strategic gain. And that is the point. Of course, the ruination of America will not give the Russians or Chinese more bread. Authoritarian leaders, like the rulers of Russia and China, do not care so much about the prosperity of their people. They care much more for the continuation of their power. As long as America is prosperous and free it is a threat. Many Russians and Chinese see the freedom of America and want it for themselves. This troubles Russia’s leaders. To know that men can live in freedom, and elections are not foreordained by elites, is not an idea the Kremlin likes. It is an idea they positively hate.

NADIA: Do you believe “post-truth era” is looming in the U.S. and also in Europe? Does the “Trump era” pose danger for the world order?

 NYQUIST: The post-truth era has been with us for a long time. George Orwell wrote about it in his novel, 1984. His model was the Soviet Union, a nation built upon lies. Through tens of thousands of agents on every continent, the Russian disinformation apparatus has worked continually for many decades. It has sown the seeds of the post-truth world. It invented nuclear winter and the global warming scare. It created myths surrounding the death of President Kennedy. It confuses and disorients liberals and conservatives alike. Once you have seen past five lies, ten more lies come up to ensnare you. Do you think the CIA is a conservative, patriotic organization? It was penetrated by the KGB long ago. Besides, we just endured eight years of a communist-mentored president in this country. Yes, Barack Obama was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, a card carrying member of the Communist Party. Davis’s FBI file says that he was probably working for the KGB. Obama has never talked truthfully about Davis or his other communist ties. In fact, Obama announced his entry into politics in the living room of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn – formerly terrorists of the Communist Weather Underground. There is much that can be written about this. The communist penetration of America is the great untold story of the last hundred years. To not understand this story is to have missed everything. The Soviet Union’s greatest weapon was not the atomic bomb. It was the countless communist sympathizers here in the United States. It was a free country which eschewed background checks and proper vetting for sensitive jobs. It was presidents, like FDR, who brought communist agents into high-level government posts. It was presidents, like Eisenhower, who preferred political peace and quiet to Senate investigations of treason within the US Army. Those who opposed communism in the United States were slandered and ultimately blacklisted, not the Communists. Look at our films and tell me who the heroes are. Do we find anti-communist heroes, or anti-communist villains? Who is celebrated as the hero of the 1950s? Not Senator Joseph McCarthy. He is reviled as the “worst man in American history.” Yet he was the greatest enemy the communists in this country ever had. You want to talk about the “post-truth” order? Senator McCarthy was the one “blacklisted,” falsely accused of doing the exact things that were done to him. Please ask yourself where “political correctness” comes from? It comes from the communists. And those communists were allied to Moscow. They swore allegiance to Soviet Russia. And if you want to know what the fall of the Soviet Union signified, and why the Communist Party Soviet Union was allowed to fall apart, it was for this reason. An effective demonstration of collapse was sufficient to open a path for the communists here – the communists in the Democratic Party and their fellow agents in the Republican Party. You ask if Trump is dangerous for the “world order”? Which world order do you mean? Trump is not a nice fellow in many ways, and he may prove ultimately disastrous; but he is not the author of lies, the inner cause of our decline, the traitor who fatally weakened our nuclear forces. Through many decades the communists have secured the mineral resources of Africa for themselves. They have taken over Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and more. They have Brazil and Colombia in their grip. The Prime Minister of Canada is their tool. The Chancellor of Germany was, in her youth, their creature. Look closer at the figures who rule the world. In the Philippines the top man says he will now side with Russia and China against America. What do you think has been happening since 1991? The collapse of the Soviet Union opened the way for the greatest Trojan Horse of all. Do you remember Homer’s story about a large wooden horse? In distant antiquity the Greek Army collapsed and went home after a ten-year siege of Troy. As a gift, they left behind a large wooden horse. Inside this horse were soldiers. When the Trojans pulled the horse inside their gates, they made a fatal error. So I must tell you, in this context, the collapse of the Soviet Union unleashed many Trojan Horses. Here and there we see that Moscow’s plan miscarried. But overall, the plan was a success. I am afraid that the “post-truth” era has been with us for a long time. The enemy is inside the gates.  

 NADIA: Are you going to write about this?

NYQUIST: I have written about this for many years,  and I will continue to write about it.

NADIA: Referring to the depiction of anti-communists by Hollywood, would you say that Hollywood is far left or communist?

NYQUIST: Hollywood is a big place and a complex thing. There are good films and good directors in Hollywood. But in general, the industry has a leftist slant. When depicting the so-called McCarthy era we find that Senator McCarthy is almost always cast as a villain. Among the most dishonest films in this respect are, in order of dishonesty, “good night, and good luck,” “Guilt by Suspicion,” and “Trumbo.” The list can be lengthened to dozens, including “The House on Carroll Street,” “Season of Fear,” and “Persistence of Vision,” – there are too many such films to count.

NADIA: Where does political correctness come from? I cannot understand what this term actually means. Some use it to signify civility toward minorities; others talk about certain taboos, still others simply curse it. What does it mean, exactly?

NYQUIST: Political correctness is an ideological concept – a weapon – for breaking down opposition to communism. It is used in the universities by Marxists and by the media. It involves a form of intimidation, of social blackmail, to which we are now all subject. Anyone who opposes political correctness is not going to have an easy time. Basic, common sense observations are not permitted under its dictate. It is no longer safe to suggest that a woman is a woman, or a man is a man (in the natural understanding of those terms). One must deny sexual identity and sexual differences. A woman must be a kind of man and a man must be a kind of woman. One must also deny the significance of national and ethnic differences. All people are one people, and anyone who denies this is a racist or ethnic bigot. All religions must also be blurred together, so to speak. (Does any of this sound familiar? Are you catching the tune?) American culture, which was once Christian, cannot be Christian any longer. This is why homosexual marriage has become a propaganda centerpiece of political correctness. Quite naturally, this bit of theater places the Bible in the position of being wrong (i.e., bigoted). Furthermore, the imposition of a border between the United States and Mexico is no longer acceptable. Everyone should have the right to come to the United States. We are Nazis and racists if we wish to preserve our nation’s territory, language or culture. In fact, any attempt to defend the country is a thought-crime. It is Hitlerism. To hold to American values, to American folkways, to American traditions, is “intolerance.” The new American tradition is a mishmash of all traditions. By this subtle device we are deprived of our national identity; for that identity is said to represent bigotry, imperialism, sexism, slavery and militarism. What then is left to us? Soviet socialism is all that remains. But nobody will admit this openly. Pretending to sensitivity and tolerance, political correctness subtly undermines American patriotism and masculinity. It is very important for the United States to be weakened in this way; for if you emasculate the men, and if you portray patriotism as racism, who would dare to defend the country? Will it be defended by the women who marched on Washington last week? It would be absurd to think so. The strategists who designed political correctness are enemies of the United States. And their ideological weaponry is very sophisticated.

NADIA: You mentioned the Prime Minister of Canada. Do you mean Justin Trudeau? And what about Angela Merkel? She seems rather anti-communist to me.

NYQUIST: Please study carefully the career of Prime Minister Trudeau. Look at his father, and his father’s Soviet connections. Once again, there are also serious questions about Angela Merkel. Many people outside Germany do not know that German intelligence officials attempted to warn the Christian Democrats against making her the head of their party. German intelligence officials said, “She is a dangerous person.” But the politicians didn’t believe them. Facts about her past involvement with communist and Soviet organizations have emerged in Germany, and there is no doubt she has not been forthcoming about her past. Does this prove that she is a Russian agent? No. But there are too many people with Marxist connections leading Western countries – including the Clintons and Obama here in the United States. None of these people could have come to power without the benefit of the so-called “collapse of communism” in the USSR. The political climate would not have then permitted it. Therefore, I say again, the collapse of communism in Russia opened a pathway for communists in the West. And it is a pathway to power.