PDA

View Full Version : Soviet Collapse Lessons Every American Needs To Know



Sparky
21st October 2010, 12:38 PM
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am not an expert or a scholar or an activist. I am more of an eye-witness. I watched the Soviet Union collapse, and I have tried to put my observations into a concise message. I will leave it up to you to decide just how urgent a message it is.

http://madconomist.com/what-if-us-collapses-soviet-collapse-lessons-every-american-needs-to-know

Book
21st October 2010, 12:47 PM
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/

He has his own blog now. Well worth the read Sparky.

|--0--|

gunDriller
22nd October 2010, 04:55 AM
Dmitry talks a lot about food shortages, but he never says ANYTHING about eating earthworms.

what's up with that ? 8)

palani
22nd October 2010, 05:17 AM
Keep in mind that the Soviet Union entered bankruptcy around 1917 with their revolution. They left bankruptcy when the E Berlin wall fell 70 years later.

The U.S. on the other hand entered bankruptcy around 1789 with the formation of the first "private" national bank. The U.S. continues to choose bankruptcy (in 70 year intervals... 1859, 1929 and 1999).

Just saying the U.S. is much more experienced with and appears to be much more comfortable with national bankruptcy than the Soviets. Perhaps it is the specter of food shortages and loss of government services that forces the U.S. into insolvency time after time. As long as this fear of the unpredictable exists my projection is that bankruptcy will continue to be chosen.

hoarder
22nd October 2010, 06:04 AM
The word "collapse" is bantied around quite a lot on these PM forums, yet the definition of "collapse" is seldom discussed. All this "bring on the collapse" kind of talk has confused me.

Here's what Merriam-Webster says:

Definition of COLLAPSE
intransitive verb
1: to fall or shrink together abruptly and completely : fall into a jumbled or flattened mass through the force of external pressure <a blood vessel that collapsed>
2: to break down completely : disintegrate <his case had collapsed in a mass of legal wreckage — Erle Stanley Gardner>
3: to cave or fall in or give way <the bridge collapsed>
4: to suddenly lose force, significance, effectiveness, or worth <fears that the currency may collapse>
5: to break down in vital energy, stamina, or self-control through exhaustion or disease; especially : to fall helpless or unconscious

When something collapses, doesn't that mean that whatever was holding it up caved in or folded up?

So first we have to define what is holding it up.

Transformation seems like a more suitable word.


When the USSR "collapsed", did the former rulers lose power and did their enemies take power ? No.
I think it was just an ideological transformation, from communist to ambiguous. It was a policy shift. Nothing but force was holding up the USSR and the SAME force is still holding it under control. If force was holding it up and it's still under control of the same force, doesn't that mean it didn't collapse?
Just asking.

RJB
22nd October 2010, 06:16 AM
Dmitry talks a lot about food shortages, but he never says ANYTHING about eating earthworms.

what's up with that ? 8)
Feed earthworms to your chickens and the nice birds will give you a yummy egg instead.

Sparky
22nd October 2010, 10:32 AM
Good question hoarder.

You are describing more of a "regime collapse", whereas I'm more intrigued by the potential for a "system collapse", which can occur without a change of leadership.

I think the most likely symptoms of collapse would be appear as interruption of availability (for a period of at least several day) of key item classes:

1) Food, potable water, supplies
2) Fuel for transportation, heating
3) Cash, credit
4) Services

Personally, I think any collapse in availability might be short-lived, because as lethargic as Americans are, their strength is that they become energized and extraordinarily productive during major crisis situations.

Having said that, such energy is only sustainable for a matter of weeks or months. If during the period of rejuvenation, the underlying structural problems are not addressed, then I could see a second, more serious wave of collapse. As such, if there is to be a SHTF scenario, it would probably result as this second wave. Longer terms symptoms would then include deteriorating infrastructure both physically (transportation system, buildings, property, etc.) and organizationally (municipalities, schools, health care, etc.).

Interestingly, the first wave would probably be in a state of deflation, where cash is king for acquiring available resources. In response, the government would declare crisis and flood the system with physical paper (not just digital handouts), setting up an inflationary background for the second and more serious wave downward.

I'll also add that I think this country has the wherewithal and resources to ultimately rebound from either level of crisis, though it may take a number of years.

Book
22nd October 2010, 11:04 AM
When the USSR "collapsed", did the former rulers lose power and did their enemies take power ? No.



:o

New Russians and Old Israelis

Russian Jewish oligarchs seem to embrace Israel. The major reason behind their interest in the Promised Land is its non-extradition statute: Israeli law generally bans rendering a Jew to foreign prosecution. Israel is also notoriously lax on money laundering and foreign tax evasion: police investigate money laundering only when it coincides with a major tax evasion in Israel. Another reason why Russian oligarchs love Israel is because she is a backwater village to them, susceptible to inexpensive takeover.

Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs invariably participate in those countries’ elections; large business there is inseparable from politics. The costs and difficulties involved in Russian and Ukrainian politics dwarf those of Israel. It is not unusual for a Ukrainian oligarch to spend $10-30 million for his own tiny party in parliamentary elections; contributions to large parties, especially in Russia, run much higher. Parliamentary seats are sold at $4-10 million apiece. In comparison, the power in Israel comes on the cheap. Russian oligarchs see Israel as a political investment opportunity. For them, it is not only or even primarily a matter of profiting from politics, but mostly a way to realize their dreams of power. They come so close to power in Russia and Ukraine, but are always vulnerable to anti-Semitic rulers. In Israel, the oligarchs can finally dominate.

Israeli politics is very provincial. Even a no-one called Netanyahu rose to power by hiring American campaign managers and investing relatively little in advertising. Peace Now became prominent by using forty-year-old tricks of political campaigning. Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs possess vastly more sophisticated experience in managing political campaigns and imagine they can influence Israeli politics efficiently.

The oligarchs are far smarter than average Israeli politicians; it’s hard to find a person sillier than an average MK. But it takes luck rather than genius to become an oligarch in Russia, and the magnates often overestimate their political power. The oligarchs are hapless in politics, consistently losing their political investment on the advice of cheating campaign managers.

Thus we see Michael Cherny and Vadim Rabinovich’s investments in Lieberman going sour; after short-term success, Lieberman the phony predictably loses his support base. Cherny and Rabinovich bet on militant Russian identity in Israel, but once that idea failed to bring Lieberman’s electorate substantial improvement, they weren’t able to redefine his platform. With Likud making inroads into Lieberman’s Russian audience, and ad hoc parties such as the Pensioners’ taking their share of Russian voters, Lieberman’s project is doomed. Lieberman will retain some supporters—those bent on taking him for a messiah—but their number will guarantee him only an insignificant position in the Knesset. It is possible that Lieberman can heat up his voters with demagoguery once again, but his trend is downward. Lieberman’s case is the first Israeli instance of a phenomenon that is widespread in the Ukraine: parties which depend on lone oligarchs are doomed. The oligarchs cannot allow their parties to be strongly anti-government, and so the parties lose their opposition identity, becoming mild and unattractive for voters. Lieberman’s oligarchic sponsors do not rationally depend on the Israeli government, as they make money elsewhere, but so far they habitually avoid alienating the ruling establishment.

Or consider a Jew with an odious last name, Gaydamak (gaydamaks are the worst anti-Semitic strain of Cossacks). He partners with KGB/FSB in many businesses, from Soviet foreign debts to weapons sales, but now he has miraculously transformed into an Israeli philanthropist. Gaydamak was always frank about his social and eventually political ambitions in Israel. After the years of being derogatorily called “Arkasha” by his KGB overseers, Gaydamak wants to become a political boss. His entourage of Israeli advisors is laughable, though; they play the king rather than trying to make him. In the Israeli political vacuum, Gaydamak’s bizarre political party may win asmany as fourteen seats, but will hardly enter the Knesset in subsequent elections. Messianically minded Jews have elected a number of such single-session parties, and almost none of them has ever staged a comeback. Gaydamak’s sensible social slogans target voters across the political spectrum, thus making him dangerous to every politician. Upon entering the Knesset, Gaydamak would likely be ostracized by his fellow politicians. He can make a decent political figure: not prone to petty corruption and not very left.

Like other very rich Jews, Gaydamak cannot be rightist or Jewish: such a stance would offend his Gentile friends and business partners. Olmert likewise describes Bush, whose peace process is killing the Jewish state, as very friendly; Jewish values and interests are an uncivil obstacle to the friendly chatting of ex-Jews with fellow Gentiles. It is impolite to stubbornly insist on Abraham’s right to Hebron and Jacob’s right to Schem when a powerful, friendly Gentile wants to help you out of that mess with the Arabs that his predecessors set up. It is ludicrous to speak of Jewish choseness, the truth of Judaism, and the religious right to the land at business meetings and debauched parties. Gaydamak, accordingly, spends money to alleviate the harm done by defeatism rather than helps to achieve the victory; he helps Sderot refugees rather than outpost settlers.

Lev Levaev comes very close to being the fifth column. His major income source, trade in Russian diamonds, wholly depends on Putin’s whims; Levaev, therefore, has to dance carefully to Putin’s tune. And so Levaev sponsors the alien Russian culture in Israel; instead of integrating the Russian Jews into the Israeli milieu, they are kept distinct. Levaev also fosters political ties between Israel and anti-Semitic Russia; his role is especially dangerous because of his contacts in the highest political echelons of Israel. Levaev cooperates with Putin, and—for example, on Angola diamonds—with Mossad’s ex-chief Danny Yatom. It is plausible that he acts as a link between them, essentially abetting high treason. Levaev, like other oligarchs, is leftist: an aggressive, religiously charged Jewish state is not good for his business. Superficially, Levaev supports Chabad charities, but his own shopping malls work on Shabbat. The Jewish schools Levaev sponsors in Russia and Ukraine are thinly disguised assimilationist shops which teach formalized religion, which is hateful to the children, instead of the real Judaism and Jewish values. Levaev is a typical religious atheist who separates God from business. Like Vyacheslav Kantor and so many others, Levaev chose a respectable position as Putin’s court Jew instead of simply being a person true to Judaism.

The latest Russian Jewish oligarch who has established a connection with Israel is Roman Abramovich. He survived Putin’s purges of Jewish oligarchs, and exhibits absolute loyalty to the Russian regime; and a shred of loyalty to anti-Semitic Russia amounts to treason against Israel. Abramovich is far richer than any other Israeli oligarch and, considering his extravagant spending habits, can reach almost any political goal, if only temporarily. There is no doubt that Abramovich would be as left and pro-Russian as the other oligarchs. He has a history of social mega-projects in Chukotka, a far Siberian region where he serves as absentee governor. Abramovich is therefore likely to follow in Gaydamak’s steps, starting with huge cocktail parties and ending with pompous welfare projects. Given Abramovich’s track record of keeping a low political profile in Russia, he is unlikely to exhibit political ambitions in Israel.

Putin’s tremendous influence on Russian Jewish oligarchs presents a problem. Putin is very different from previous Russian leaders: he is not a nomenclature bureaucrat who carefully charts his course, but a petty KGB officer turned corrupt businessman turned politician turned tsar. Putin is, in a sense, rootless; he lacks political fundamentals. His thinking is that of the proverbial “new Russian” businessman, entirely lacking strategic dimension. The nearest Western analogy is of a spoiled and not particularly bright child who suddenly became a large company’s CEO. Putin is unpredictable; he makes moves based on curiosity and desire to show his power. Now the Putin-controlled Jewish magnates can establish control over Israel. They can spend much more on elections than any Israeli party, and invest more in the electoral-oriented welfare than any charity. In all likelihood, the MAPAI-built security apparatus of Israel will grind the oligarchs. And we shouldn’t pity them.

http://samsonblinded.org/blog/new-russians-and-old-israelis.htm

Soviet Union got totally kosherized by their enemies.

hoarder
22nd October 2010, 03:07 PM
You are describing more of a "regime collapse", whereas I'm more intrigued by the potential for a "system collapse", which can occur without a change of leadership. You made some good points.
Power and money are interchangeable and in some cases inseperable. Most of the money is now in the hands of power players, unlike earlier times when much of the wealth was held by independent innovators and small industrialists.

Those in power worldwide are now at the helm of a globalistic agenda. They know what is coming because they have steadily been steering us there. That said, there will be no loss of power on their part when any economic system collapses.


Whenever there is change of any kind, those who know about it in advance benefit the most by it. There will be no "voids", where the common people might regain their power. The rulers have safeguarded against it.

One thing for certain, if there are any power outages, they will only last long enough for the frozen foods to spoil. Our rulers will make sure any power outages are short-lived because during a power outage they LOSE POWER. Teevee is how the masses are controlled, they will make sure we have teevee available and that we spend the least time possible speaking with one another.

PatColo
25th October 2010, 07:48 PM
Mike Ruppert interviewed Dmitry Orlov in The Lifeboat Hour - 10/03/10

http://lifeboathour.podbean.com/mf/web/8drchi/TheLifeboatHour100310.mp3

all archives @ http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-lifeboat-hour/