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.
Though this is controversial, but I believe that Khrushchev and a clique of supporters murdered Stalin by poisoning him, and then engaged in a massive propaganda campaign to justify their action and legitimize their rule. It all began with Khrushchev's (in)famous "secret speech" at the 20th CPSU Congress and it continued throughout most of Khrushchev's rule. Khrushchev, who personally hated Stalin, used every truth and untruth possible to literally demonize Stalin. Worse, Khrushchev objectively joined forces with the many Trotskists worldwide who had been spreading the "Stalinism" myth for decades.
Let me immediately clarify that I am not at all an admirer of Stalin whom I consider to be a bloody tyrant and a absolutely ruthless, if personally charming, dictator. But I will say that Stalin was most definitely no worse then Lenin, Trotsky or Khrushchev and that as a statesman his was far more skilled then any other Soviet leader. As for Khrushchev himself, he was the protégé of Lazar Kaganovich, one of the worst scumbags in Soviet history, he was also an eager participant in many bloody repressions, and generally a comprehensively immoral, unprincipled and outright evil person.
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.
That rot of disillusionment and cynicism is also what defined the 1990s and the "democratic nightmare" of the Eltsin years. People now say that this was the time when "every young Russian boy wanted to become a Mafia Don and every Russian girl a prostitute" - not quite literally true, of course, but generally true nonetheless. It is only with the coming to power of Putin that this poison began to weaken and that the Russian society began to re-discover true ideals and a belief in values worth standing up for.
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 statemen) 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 than what 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 the 1970s and 1980s.
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? The Soviet Union had its formal nomenklatura while the USA has it own, informal, one. About 1% of the population in each case.
You want more uncanny parallels? 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 AngloZionist 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. Empire 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.
Of course, we are not going to see mass demonstrations in the streets of Washington DC, most people are going to keep this kind of "crime thoughts" private or for a small circle of trusted friends, but let me remind you all that since we are making comparisons between the USSR and the USA, 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.
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
