More non-mass media clarity about the Ukrainian situation …and by extension, the fate in the U.S… from THE VINEYARD OF THE SAKER. A man after my own mind. (A well informed ex-military analyst who is laying it out for all with ears to hear.)

The U.S. is…one more time once, as Count Basie used to say…shooting itself in the foot. Read on. (Emphases mine.)

How the Ukrainian crisis will eventually bring down the AngloZionist Empire

There are many theories out there about what exactly caused the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Some say that it is Ronald Reagan with his Star Wars program.  Others say that this is the war in Afghanistan or the Polish union Solidarnosc.  Other popular theories include the failure of the Soviet economy, the drop in oil prices, the inability to produce consumer goods, the yearning of many Soviets for western-style freedoms and incomes, national/ethnic problems, a hypertrophic military-industrial complex, a massive and corrupt bureaucracy, the corruption of the CPSU and its nomenklatura, the personal treason of Mikhail Gorbachev and many other theories.  While all of these factors did contribute to weaken the Soviet system, I do not believe that they brought it down, not even combined together.  What really brought down the Soviet Union was something entirely different: an unbearable cognitive dissonance or, to put it more simply, an all-prevailing sense of total hypocrisy.

But before I make my case about the role of hypocrisy, let me first clarify why I don’t believe that any other of the theories I listed above make sense: simply because the USSR survived much, much, harder times.  Frankly, the entire period from 1917 through 1946 was much worse than anything which happened during Brezhnev’s “stagnation” or after.  And yet, not only did the Soviet Union survive, it almost single-handedly defeated the biggest military machine Europe ever created – Hitler’s Wehrmacht – it also deterred the Anglosphere from its plans to attack it at the end of the war.  Then it more or less won the “space race” (with the very notable exception of the race to the moon which the USSR lost on 24th of October 1960), built what was arguably the most powerful conventional military force on the planet while enjoying an internal economic boom. By any measurement, the USSR was a formidable power during a very long period.

But then something went very, very wrong.

Personally, I am inclined to blame Nikita Khrushchev who, in my opinion, was by far the worst leader the Soviet Union ever had.  

—snip—

Anyway, with his anti-Stalin campaign Khrushchev basically told the Soviet people that what used to be white yesterday is henceforth to be considered black and that what was black is now white.  On a deeper level, that also showed that the Soviet Union was ruled by complete hypocrites who had no personal beliefs and who stood for nothing except for their own power.

The poison of disillusionment and cynicism injected by Khrushchev and his clique acted slowly, but surely, and by the time Leonid Brezhnev came to power (1964) it had already discreetly permeated all of Soviet society.  By the 1980 it was omnipresent at all the levels of society, from the lowest and poorest to the top party officials.  I don’t want to go into all the details, but I will say that the fact that almost nobody stood up to defend the Soviet system in 1991 and in 1993 is a direct result of that poison’s erosion of the Soviet society.  By the 1990s everybody knew that even if the ideals of Communism were good (which some still did believe while some did not), the modern Soviet society was built on a gigantic lie which nobody was willing to fight for, nevermind die for it.

—snip—

How does that all apply to the AngloZionist Empire and the Ukraine?

It is quite obvious, really.  I tend to agree with Alexander Mercouris, Mark Sleboda and Mark Hackard when they say that the USA, ruled by incompetent and poorly educated politicians (rather than by professional diplomats or real statesmen) probably expected Russia to roll-over and accept a Banderastani regime in power in the Ukraine.  And when Russia refused to accept that and pushed back, the AngloZionists made their initial miscalculation even worse by dramatically increasing their rhetoric and by insisting that black was white and white was black.

For the AngloZionist a neo-Nazi armed insurgency which seizes power in contradiction with an agreement it had signed less than 24 hours before is a “legitimate representative of the Ukrainian people”.  The Baderists are philosemites and democrats, while the people in the eastern Ukraine are either Jew-hating extremists or Russian agents.  When the folks in the western Ukraine engage in a campaign of terror, murder and looting, that is an expression of democracy, when the people in the east seize SBU buildings it is terrorism.  When Yanukovich was faced by protesters the US demanded that he not use any force at all, not even cops with sidearms, when the junta leader Iatseniuk faces protesters, he is acting with praiseworthy restraint when he sends in tanks, artillery pieces and combat aircraft.  The referendum in Crimea is illegitimate because it was allegedly conducted at the point of a gun, while the proposed upcoming Presidential election will be legitimate even though they will be organized and conducted by bone fide neo-Nazis and even though two candidates get assaulted and cannot campaign. I could continue to multiply the example here ad nauseam, but you get the point: what the AngloZionists are declaring urbi et orbi is basically that black is white, the earth is flat, 2+2=3, up is down, etc.  They are doing exactly the same thing that Khrushchev did in the USSR: they are showing their own people that they believe in nothing and stand for nothing except their own power.

Not that the American people need much convincing, I would add.

In my admittedly subjective opinion the level of disgust of most American people with the Federal government is already sky high.  Sure, most people feel impotent and believe that there is nothing they can do about it.  When they vote for peace, they get more war.  When they vote for less taxes, they get more.  When they vote for more civil rights, they get less.  There is an entire generation of Americans out there which is as disillusioned and as disgusted with their own rulers as the Soviets were with their rulers in  he 1970s and 1980s.

—snip—

You want more uncanny parallels [between the current U.S. and the pre-collapse U.S.S.R]?  Sure!  How about:

  1.   A bloated military budget resulting in an ineffective military
  2.   A huge and ineffective intelligence community
  3.   A crumbling public infrastructure
  4.   A world record in the per-capita ratio of incarcerated people (US GULag)
  5.   A propaganda machine which nobody trusts any more
  6.   An internal dissident movement which the regime tries to keep silent
  7.   A systematic use of violence against the citizens
  8.   An increase in tensions between Federal and local authorities
  9.   An industry whose main exports are weapons and energy
  10. A population fearful of being spied on by the internal security services
  11. A systematic assimilation of dissent with espionage and terrorism
  12. A all-prevailing paranoia about internal and external enemies
  13. A financially catastrophic over-reach of the empire across the planet
  14. An awareness that the entire planet hates you
  15. A subservient press-corps of presstitutes who never dare to ask the real questions
  16. A sky-high rate of substance abuse
  17. A young generation which believes in nothing at all
  18. An educational system in free-fall (the Soviet one was much better, btw)
  19. A disgust with politics by the general public
  20. A massive and prevailing amount corruption on all levels of power

These are just a few examples which apply as much to the USSR of the 1980 as it does to the 2014 USA.  There are also plenty of differences, of course, no need to list them here as they are quite obvious.

My main point is not that the USSR and USA are the exact same, but only that the similarities between the two are becoming uncanny and numerous.

In conclusion and to put things simply: what the AngloZionists are openly and publicly defending in the Ukraine is the polar opposite of what they are supposed to stand for. That is an extremely dangerous thing to do for any regime and the AngloZionist Empire is no exception to that rule.  Empires often crumble when their own people become disillusioned and disgusted with massive discrepancy between what the ruling elites say and what they do and as a result, it is not so much that the Empire is faced with formidable enemies as it is the fact that nobody is willing to stand up – nevermind die – in defense of it.  Just look at the following sentence:

(in the Ukraine) “Barack Obama and the Democratic Party stand for racism and Fascism”

Amazing, no?  But it is true, even though this short sentence has enough tensions inside it to explode the brain of many Americans, especially Democrats.  I put the “in the Ukraine” in brackets to provide the context but, of course, the context does not matter one bit.  You cannot be for liberal policies at home and for Fascism abroad.  Nor can you be an anti-racist who supports racism, it don’t matter one bit were that racism is located.  Values truly held are applicable to all and everywhere.  You cannot oppose torture in country ‘x’ but favor it in country ‘y’.  That is plain ridiculous.  So let me restate the sentence above this time without the context in brackets:

“Barack Obama and the Democratic Party stand for racism and Fascism”

Blows your mind, doesn’t it?

And, of course, the very same can be said of McCain and his party:

“John McCain and the Republican Party stand for racism and Fascism”

Still painful, no?

How about this one:

“The EU stands for racism and Fascism”
Or, even better:

“The ADL and the Weisenthal Center stand for racism and Fascism”

Or this one:

“Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch stand for racism and Fascism”

Pretty amazing, no?

Now try combining any of the above with this one:

“Putin and Russia stand for democracy, freedom and human rights”

Ouch!  That one would really hurt a lot of American and Europeans.

Of course, this is not how the events in the Ukraine, or any other event, is presented in the official public media and the zombified public discourse.  But neither was that the case in the USSR.  Still, not all people are stupidified zombies – though some, of course, are – and they do their own, quiet, little thinking in their own heads.  Sometimes they toss ideas around with their friends.  In the Soviet Union the “Petri dish” for politically incorrect discussion was usually the kitchen.  In the USA it might be near the barbecue.

—snip—

The Ukraine is far away from the USA, and only 1/6th of Americans can place it on a map.  But the consequences of the very high visibility involvement of the US regime and the AngloZionist Empire will be dramatic, if delayed in time.  Already nobody in his/her right might would give Obama his Nobel Peace Prize again.  So even though the formidable western propaganda machine is way more capable and sophisticated than anything Goebbels or Suslov could have dreamed about, it cannot hide reality forever.

This is why the Empire is so desperate for some kind of victory in the Ukraine.  If it cannot be respected any more, it needs to be at least feared.  But if the Ukraine explodes and Russia gets Crimea and the East (which appears increasingly likely) then the AngloZionist won’t even be feared anymore.  Once that happens, the life expectancy of the Empire will become very, very short.

So yes, knowing the truth does make one free, and the truth is the most powerful empire-buster ever invented.  It brought down the USSR and it will bring down the AngloZionists too.  It is just a matter of time now.

The Saker

Before any of you get your panties in a bunch over the whole “AngleZionist” thinhg, more from the same website:

Replies to some of the comments made about my latest post on empires and lies

First, I have to apologize but the lack of time does not allow me to reply to all your comments.  I had to pick some and leave other out.  Here we go:

@Tom Burnett: That’s it. I am tired of hearing you refer to America as an ‘AngloZionist’ empire and me and my countrymen as AngloZionists”.

What a stupid comment to make!  First, I never referred to you or any Americans as AngloZionists.  I spoke about the AngloZionist empire.  Second, you wrote me in your email that you are Scottish.  Good, then at least you should not that you are not Anglo to begin with, but Celtic.  As for Zionist, this is not an ethnicity, but an ideology which can be shared by Anglos too (Pastor Hagee for example).  Besides, had I written about the Anglo Empire or even US Empire would you have been happier?

Seriously, the current Empire was built on what is left of the old British Empire and it is run by what are called the Echelon countries.  These are the members of the so-called UKUSA Agreement aka AUSCANNZUKUS or Five Eyes.  In other words, this is the Empire of the Anglosphere.  Some add France, especially after Mitterrand to this list, giving us the pittoresque abbreviation “FUKUS” (France, UK, US).  But the fact that France is not part of Echelon really proves its 2nd class status in the Empire.  Israel, however, has a special status.  Officially, it is not even an ally of the USA.  In reality we all know that the Zionist Lobby has a huge power in the USA and some even speak of a Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG) or Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC).  What is undeniable is that the USA vetoed more resolutions than any other UNSC member and that most of those were in defense of Israel.  It is also undeniable that when the Israeli Prime Minister speaks at a joint session of Congress he gets more standing ovation that POTUS (29 to 25).  I won’t bother multiplying the examples of this, but I submit that the interest of Israel are different than those of the Anglosphere.  This is why I speak of a AngloZionist Empire.

You and your countrymen are simply the hostages, the serfs, the cannon fodder and the exploited taxpayer for this Empire. To underscore that I even wrote this in my analysis:

“interestingly, there is definitely a strong anti-regime movement of American patriots out there. These are folks who have the wisdom to differentiate between, on one hand, their country, their people, the ideals upon which the US society was originally built, and, on the other hand, regime in DC and the 1% of the population whose interests this regime works for. Amazing, no?”

Then I also wrote:

“there was no “occupy the Kremlin” movement in the USSR while the Occupy Wall Street movement in the USA was very large and widely spread across this huge country. Nor has there ever been a Soviet equivalent of the huge 1990 anti-WTO protests in Seattle. So the American public is nowhere nearly as passive as some think.”

So not only did I never say that American people were AngloZionists, but I even compared their level of resistance to the AngloZionist empire favorably to the Russian resistance to the Soviet Empire.

And yet, you turn all patriotic on me and tell me that you are fed up and want off my mailing list.  Sure – no problem.  But next time around, make sure you read what it says before having an anger fit, ok?
 

And:

Now I need to tackle a more complex issue: racist comments.

I must begin by stating what I subjectively consider to be racist for the purpose of this blog:

  1. the idea that humans differ from each other in essence.
  2. the idea that your genetic makeup restricts your freedom of choice.
  3. the expression of irrational hostility to an ethnic group or race.
  4. the denial that all humans are equally precious to God or that some humans deserve a special status not granted to others.

And, just to clarify, here are a few examples of what I do not consider racism:

  1. Criticisms of religions, tribes or ideologies because a person has to make a choice to belong to a religion, tribe or a political movement.  Thus it is absolutely legitimate to criticize Judaism, the Jewish tribal identity or Zionism.  It is, however, not legitimate to criticize somebody born Jewish just for that fact.  Nobody chooses his/her ethnicity.
  2. The opinion that races are different in certain aspects; saying that Blacks have a lower IQ then Whites is a hypothesis which must be proved or disproved based on facts.  Facts, whatever they are, are neither racists nor non-racist.  They just are.
  3. It is not racist to state that one is of the opinion that Italians and Greeks tend to be louder than Norwegians, it is not racism to state that Hungarians are taller than the Japanese or that Argentinians are more musical than Iraqis.  In all these cases what is being asserted is that races, nations, ethnicities are different in some aspects, but not in essence.
  4. It is not racist to say that the gas chambers were never used to kill Jews, that Stalin was about to attack Germany when Hitler preempted him with his own attack, or that the Turks never committed a genocide of Armenians.  These are historical topics which should be freely investigated and either affirmed or disproved, not censored.

(Just for the record and to be clear: I endorse none of the examples I have given above to illustrate my point)

In other words, there are race or ethnicity related opinions which can be controversial or which some of us mind find offensive, but which still are part of the realm of legitimate speculation and investigation.

For the purpose of this blog I will try to stick to a narrow definition of racism because I do want to avoid censorship of ideas as much as possible.

Frankly, I will try to use common sense first and foremost.  I think that for 99.9% of you this should make no difference at all.  But a few trolls, freaks or paid provocateurs will now be shown to the door.

Many thanks and kind regards,

The Saker