"The Soviet strategic literature indicates that chemical and biological agents will be used against 'unsalvageable' populations, even after they have been disorganized and disarmed. As the Communists define it, an unsalvageable population is thoroughly and irredeemably bourgeois. Such people are past the point of benefitting from any sort of re-education. Therefore, all unsalvageables will be subject to a Kremlin-inspired 'Final Solution,' probably by way of biological attacks."

-- Origins of the Fourth World War, p. 205

-- Ct Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), April 12, 1999

Answers

Can we get w.w.III out of the way first?

-- SCOTTY (BLehman202@aol.com), April 12, 1999.

"I don't know how the third world war will be fought, but the fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones."

--Albert Einstein

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 12, 1999.

wow! a science fiction troll!

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 12, 1999.

I don't think this is science-fiction:

http://www.northcoast.com/~jnyquist/

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), April 12, 1999.

Perhaps not science fiction, but ALSO on that site (via the timeline section). . .

"SPECULATION AS TO FUTURE COURSE OF EVENTS: (a) Impeachment process promises to begin (b) Terrorist diversion (or other diversion) (c) Clinton invokes emergency powers (d) Clinton is removed from power (e) Nuclear exchange between Russia and United States (f) Chinese troops appear in West Coast ports and Panama Canal. (g) United States collapses (h) China and Russia suffer genuine split after loss of mutual enemy.

(What makes me think that site hasn't been updated in a while?)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 12, 1999.

FM,

I don't see your point. A) has occured and run it's course. B) has occured, both in terms of OK City, and NATO bombing ("other" diversion). The case has been made for C), in the context of Y2k. The case for D)-H) is made on the rest of the site. Which you ignore.

If you take issue with the man's thesis, why not come out with it, instead of splitting superficial hairs? The information presented there doesn't make me comfortable either, but I don't take issue with his formatting, or his literary style...

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), April 12, 1999.

My only point was: Clinton was not removed from power as a result of being impeached. The Senate refused to do so.

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 12, 1999.

We can all watch the fun with Dan Rather starting tonight. He is in Belgrade. Do the Serbs take journalists prisoner? Yes.

-- JIT (tosee@Dan.report), April 12, 1999.

FM,

A pot shot, which puzzles me.

This may be important to you if it upsets you that much. Trust your gut instinct and find out why. Ask yourself: "what if this guy is right?" Just think about it.

I don't see any error in the site re Clinton. He may yet be removed from office; he may yet be impeached for exchanging missle and sattelite technology for chinese mafia(govt) campaign cash (see "Year of the Rat"). Maybe not. In any case, this focus on Clinton pales in significance when considering the site's thesis, which is that Russia is just as communist as it ever was, has, and still does, believe it can win a nuclear war with us and is preparing to do so (with our money!) and has been working at the destruction of America from within. We're patting ourselves on the back for destroying them from within; but the idea here is that they are feigning defeat to make us drop our guard - not a terribly original strategy, but it seems to be working well enough. I would like to see this examined critically and reasonably.

I should add that I don't want this guy to be right, but the more I work with it, the more it explains.

The connection with Y2k as a "window of opportunity" should be obvious.

Also see Art Bell, 7/15/98.

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), April 12, 1999.