During my pre-hospital days, when I still hung out with a lot of ‘the system people’, I had been if not an ‘honorary Jew’ then certainly a sympathizer. Therefore it often happened that my Jewish friends and acquaintances did not mind my presence when they felt like saying an honest thing or two about the ‘damned natives.’ I never argued with them but listened with interest. Here are a few examples.
‘The system’ Jews seldom used the word ‘Russians’ but preferred euphemisms such as ‘common oafs’, ‘proles,’ ‘peasants,’ ‘ignoramuses,’ ‘dull wits,’ or ‘straights.’ Once, a guy was telling me about the book Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut that he had just read. I remembered how he described in his own words an episode where US POWs arrive at a German concentration camp. The main character of the novel mentions Soviet POWs standing against a barbed wire that divided the British and the Russian areas, begging for food. His offhand comment ran something like: ‘If you can imagine! All these oafs could think of only one thing — the grub! Imagine what a dull bunch of bastards! Especially compared to the Brits — always clean and orderly Brits!’
He failed to notice what Vonnegut was driving at — that the Soviet POWs, unlike the British ones, were barred from the Red Cross food, so they were slowly dying from starvation. Yet, for him it was a proof of their ‘oafishness.’
I always found ‘out of the blue’ remarks by Jews on the nature of Jewish intelligence fascinating. Once, a Jew remarked ‘Oh, but it is easy to recognize a Jewish artist even if he uses a non-Jewish last name. The Jews love to use brown colors. I don’t know why but they do. It is so often brown, brown, brown!’ Musicians theorized about music: ‘Oh, but why bother to learn to play an instrument if they (goyim) cannot tell the difference between good and bad music? The crazier you play the better! Look at all those free jazzmen! I am not sure if any of them knows how to handle their instruments correctly, but what holy racket they make! You’ve got to be a near genius to play that bad!’ I also talked with abstract painters. Their approach was equally simple: make it look as crazy as possible!
It seemed that for these people ‘simplicity’ and ‘craziness’ were the two major ingredients of any well-conceived creative art. ‘If you write poetry, write gibberish. The stupider you can make it — the better! People would always try to decipher some hidden meaning of such music (for example) even if it sounds like farting and screeching!’ To make it absolutely the best, do it under the influence of drugs. Only drugs can liberate true creativity and craziness. One cannot make anything truly crazy or ugly without drugs. They take away inhibitions and common sense.
Naturally, they spoke with arrogant disdain of those who possessed any skills. ‘Him? A musician? Oh no, he is just a sportsman’ (a way of denigrating a musician would could play really fast!) A realist artist? But he is just a bad photographer!’.
Vladimir Mayakovsky in 1910
On the other hand, you would hear things like ‘he must be a good artist/musician/actor! Just look at his eyes, man! I believe he was totally stoned!’ Picasso was stoned all the time. Coltrane — jeez man, what a nark!. Looking at the portrait of Vladimir Mayakovski where the poet was photographed with a cigarette between his lips: ‘He’s puffing on a joint and they (goyim) don’t even dig what he is smoking! ’
Many artists expressed their views on the role of fine art and culture in social life. Some of them were appalled after visiting a museum or an art exhibition: ‘Oafs and peasants shouldn’t be allowed to look at it! What do they know? The art should be kept only for the chosen few, not for these swine! ‘ Or ‘we must salvage and protect all the culture from THEM’. In their opinion, not only paintings but also all books (and good clothes, and good food… everything) should be distributed to whose who can appreciate them, for the cultured elite, for the chosen few. (Again, ‘the elite’ was one of their favorite terms.)
* * * *
Towards the late 1980s, the Soviet media finally admitted the existence of ‘the system’, but it still refused to see it for it was — an underground subculture. From the old school ideologists’ point of view, a Soviet underground culture simply could not exist because it was incompatible with ‘proletarian culture’. Therefore, the authorities simply labeled it a weird teenage fashion, or they analyzed it as isolated incidents of ‘antisocial’ youth behavior. Yet, some concerned parents weren’t satisfied with such explanations. They saw that their children were developing strange habits, wore weird hairdos, listened to crazy music, read strange books, developed an interest in Eastern philosophies and, what was the most horrifying of it all, talked about politics and used drugs. Thus, these parents began to wonder what ‘the system’ truly was. Was it an informal underground organization? Was it a criminal mafia or an illegal political party? A drug ring? A teen gang? What was it?
Once again, the Jewish members of the Soviet intelligentsia knew well what ‘the system’ meant and what their kids were up to, as many of them actually encouraged drug use (‘taken in moderation, it’s better than drink’), political dissent and alternative lifestyles.
But if ‘the system’ was a form of protest of the younger generation against the oppressive regime, what were they protesting against? What was it that they found so bad about the Soviet system?
A clear answer to this question does not exist. The movement only becomes clear if one discusses the Jewish sensibilities of its core members. Of course, some of the sentiments of Jewish ‘systemnys’ could be labeled as liberal, although they are a far cry from what passes for liberalism now. On the other hand, and I know it from experience, the Soviet Jews weren’t big proponents of multiculturalism. In fact, their attitudes were mostly permeated with a sense of racial superiority, especially towards African students or any national or racial minorities.
Their liberalism was most apparent in their attempts to form alternative institutions, such as Jazz schools, musical clubs, artists’ associations and unions — all institutions where Jewish creative genius and their social networking reigned supreme. Also, there were cliques of likeminded people who formed informal circles inside their places of employment or study. There were outcries among students to liberalize academic programs (e.g., to make Freud a larger part of the curriculum), to allow access to information (mainly the works of liberal authors), to make abstract art an official form of art in the Soviet Union (instead of Social Realism), and to disband state-run Music Unions and let rock bands take their place. There wasn’t any talk about allowing free markets or even partially abolishing the absolute state monopoly on sales and production. There were constant complaints about Soviet politics and about the regulations regarding emigration laws; a lot of ‘sistemnys’ wished to be granted the freedom of movement — the right to leave the country or to travel abroad freely.
In the end, ‘the system’ did not leave any visible marks on the cultural life of the USSR. Indeed, it’s surprising that such a large gathering, a counterculture, an enclave of so many poets, artists, and musicians failed to produce anyone of importance. ‘Sistemnys’ were ready to hail each other as true creative geniuses. This, of course, is a good Jewish tradition: you could hardly find a Jewish family where the parents don’t regard their child as a ‘prodigy’. However, to quote another Jewish member of ‘the system’, ‘art is long lasting, but I am not; so I decided to stop playing music and start making money’. In the end, doing well at business would always be the first choice of these creative geniuses, and it’s no secret that the financial and business life of the new Russia is heavily Jewish, although I cannot say whether the newly hatched businessmen had been promising artists in Soviet times.
On the other hand, ‘the system’ managed to turn so many of the best and brightest non-Jewish young men and women into wrecks that one cannot help but to wonder —was that its purpose?
The Joys of Jihad: Islamentable, Isatrocious, Isbetrayal
Nordics versus Implicit Jews in "The Switch"
Among the derogatory and insulting terms Jews use (common oafs, proles, peasants).. you can thank Goldman Sachs for their contribution to Jewish racism with the term..
“muppets”
Notice how the media hides this aspect but at least couldn’t keep the term out of sight. What has changed since the 1970′s swindles, the 1980′s swindles, the dot.com swindles, the 2008 swindles,… NOTHING.
Same tribe.
What was the purpose of ‘the system’? Jews are very intellectual and philosophical, and question everything. They can’t just live in a society, but must dissect it and find its faults. I see this mentioned in this article with the mention of the author Kurt Vonnegut, and other authors. Sometimes it makes me wonder if the goyim/Gentiles ever read books or have an interest in ideas, because it seems to me, in this article and the other one awhile back about the Dada movement, that Jews are naturally hungry for new ideas and finding new ways of organizing society or dismantling it. It seems the goyim/Gentiles never come up with anything new, but wind up being the followers who are intrinsically attracted to new ideas but never put themselves out there to form new movements. Or maybe the goyim/Gentiles are simply mute, not having a vocabulary to vocalize on their own. No one can deny one doesn’t have to be a Jew to see inequalities, hypocrisies, and wrongs often embedded in the status quo, and many goyim do see these things themselves, but seem to have no way to voice them. It seems to always takes the Jew to do this. I wonder if this is the crux of the sense of Jewish superiority the Jews have?
The goal is always to undermine us and strengthen them. Look at the cycle of Jewish designers making the classic WASP look into the image of dowdiness. Cycle around to Ralph Lauren making a fortune with cheap imitations. The cycle is the same.
@blue rose: Gentiles have lots of creative ideas. They are, however, more often constructive than destructive. The German gentile invention MP-3 was rebranded as being new ergo, I-Pod. Blackberry now has its knockoffs. Zuckerberg was hired to create a social media website, but had his own idea to develop something that just happened to be identical to what he was hired to, but did not, produce. Freemasonry existed in a benign form until invaded by the Jews of the Illuminati.
Jews see everything they don’t control as a threat. The Tea Party started as a dissident group attracting both disgruntled Republicans and Democrats until it was infiltrated and now controlled by whom?
Their g*d Yahwah is a destroyer. The only things constructed are for the purpose of destruction. Atomic bombs, and Germ warfare. The medical associations destroy health with big pharma. The “bar” destroys natural justice in the courts. The list goes on.
Good gentile ideas are doomed to obscurity or shouted down if there is any hint the idea would not be “good for Jews”.
The Jewish penchant for wanting to restrict culture to the elite, that is, themselves, is a spot on observation. For the Jew it is not enough to have, all others must not have.
This meanness is a prime characteristic of their racism. It is evident in the apartheid cruelties towards the Palestinians. It is insufficient that Israelis prosper, the Christians and Muslims there must live in unsanitary poverty. Having a swimming pool is nice, but thirsty neighbors are better.
It is no wonder that Christ’s message of Love is so repulsive to them. Hatred permeates Jewish souls.
@tadzio:
Great comment.
The writer paints a grusome picture of how Jews behave in every day life. They seems always to have some fad or fashion or politically correct lifestyle going on. One that always misleads the young. Young whites get caught up in it, bringing them grief and a tragic waste of young talent.
Seemingly, Jews don’t bother with inventing intricate schemes among Blacks, Arabs, or other non-white groups. They don’t seem inclined to waste their creative juices on those socieities. Not that they don’t influence them to violence and revolt….Jews can never NOT instigate wars and insurrection. Evidently, they fieel their religion and god sees nothing wrong with it. How fortunte to have one’s own special god.
If you notice…the Jewish god does not like anybody except the Jews. It is for sure he is not like other gods who lay down the golden rule. Instead, he is violent, merciless and vengeful. He loves killing off whole groups of people for the benefit of the Jews. He is a firm advocate of Jews plundering other people’s money, property and goods – and countries. Not once does he advocate honest dealings, decency and fair play. He sees nothing wrong with murder, rape, incest, pedeophila, killing infants, small children and their pets, smear mongering, acting as Thought Doctors for the world’s inhabitants, dispossessing host people in their own cultures, making money off continuous warfare … the whole ball of wax.
Plainly, the Jewish god is the only god that is ethnic – Jewish to the bone. He seems made to order, a god in the Jew’s own likeness. A god who knew how to unify the Jews and inflict the world with “organized Jewry.”
@blue rose:
Your idea that “goyim” don’t create new ideas but that Jews do is simply wrong. As far as I understand it, the history of Western civilization is a continuous stream of new creative ideas, that is why it is the most advanced in the world.
Jews too create new ideas, but those are meant either to corrupt or to destroy. Read prof. MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique for confirmation. It is not for nothing that the neo-con term “creative destruction” was coined by a Jew (Michael Ledeen). Being “creatively destructive” has been this people’s business since Biblical times, a scourge for the whole world.
@Franklin Ryckaert:
The term ‘creative destruction’ was first used by the German economist Joseph Schumpeter in his 1942 book ‘Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy’. Schumpeter was talking about how competitive capitalism guarantees there are always businesses going bust (the destruction part), yet this constant liquidation of inefficient and badly managed businesses tends to lead to increased material living standards for society by ending the misallocation of scarce resources (the creative part). Of course, that a slimy neocon Jew like Ledeen would steal Schumpeter’s term and claim it as his own coinage is only to be expected.
“In terms of politics, Schumpeter revealed his most disagreeable side
during World War II. Time and again he ranted against Slavs and Jews
and sympathized with Adolf Hitler. At the same time, however, he lent his
help to many of the refugees arriving in the US. After 1945 he spoke of
a “Jewish victory” and questioned the Nuremberg war tribunal (cf. Piper
1996, p. 101).”
Schulak, Eugene-Maria, The Austrian School of Economics: A History of Its Ideas, Ambassadors, and Institutions (2011). p. 79.
The above shows a side to Schumpeter that seems to have gone straight down the memory-hole, for some reason.
@Trenchant: I’m no fan of Schumpeter as an economist, but a fool he was not.
@Franklin @ Curmudgeon
What I meant was that Gentiles/goyim may create a continuous stream of ideas from a purely technological perspective, but I see nothing coming from Gentiles/goyim in the way of social ideas for social change that addresses societal ills. In this area, the Jews seem to excel. I think because of the inability of Gentiles/goyim to be effective in addressing social ills, this is probably the main reason why the Marxists got their foothold into this country as a result.
I know for a fact young white Gentiles see many of the hypocrisies and inequalities embedded in society, but for them the status quo doesn’t allow for change somehow. The author Mark Twain is well known for his seeing through the false facade of society. Young Gentiles have read his books and understood his message.
Another author, Henry David Thoreau in his book On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, wrote about the government and abolition. He asserts that because governments are typically more harmful than helpful, they therefore cannot be justified. Democracy is no cure for this, as majorities simply by virtue of being majorities do not also gain the virtues of wisdom and justice. I don’t want to get into the slavery issue here. I only bring out Thoreau as another author who was able to see through society’s facade. Young Gentiles have read Thoreau and understood his message.
The young are very idealistic. Yet I never see any social movement that began from a purely white Gentile perspective to try to achieve societal change. It seems to always take the Jews for this. And young white Gentiles, being idealistic, always jump on the band wagon of these movements. The problem is, as we see with Alexander’s experience in his article here, Gentiles don’t know how to play the game well enough to keep themselves out of trouble. That’s the only problem.
Gentile ability to create technologies is all well and good. But society and civilization is more than mere gadgets, or even advanced technologies. These do nothing to address societal ills. Certainly not in a direct, specific way, depending on your definition of ‘technology’. So social change must come about in other ways, like anarcho-pacifism, or “non-resistance”.
If the young white Gentiles were up against the entrenched and mummified resistance to change of the status quo, this seems to me the perfect “in” for the Marxists, who took things to the extreme. Now Society as a whole has a lot more problems to deal with as a result.
@blue rose:
-”They can’t just live in a society, but must dissect it and find its faults. ” …The more I’ve read about Jewish society and subcultures, I have to conclude that they exist adventitiously on the main body of whatever society in which they live. They could never form their own society, (since it would be too dysfunctional) but need healthy societies, where people follow a routine and don’t behave sociopathically, for their survival. (Watch a sociopath. He can exist only because not everyone else around him is a sociopath.)
-”It seems the goyim/Gentiles never come up with anything new, but wind up being the followers who are intrinsically attracted to new ideas but never put themselves out there to form new movements.” …Or, maybe their ideas are absconded with. Again, if you get to always play the perpetual outsider, you are free to criticize. And, what a delightful position it is to be in: One has no personal stake in the society in which they live, be it Russian or American, and can always be working for the “brighter,” “better” day beyond the horizon, which everyone matured beyond adolescence knows doesen’t exist. Plus, as an “outsider” one never has to take responsibility for the problems that bedevil your society. Could it be that’s why so many Jews are liberals? They’re free to criticize the societies in which they live but have no stake, never have to take any personal responsibility for its ills nor for past mistakes and can always dream about a brighter tomorrow, acheivable if the stupid goyim would only adopt one’s latest hare-brained scheme.
@tadzio:
“It is no wonder that Christ’s message of Love is so repulsive to them. Hatred permeates Jewish souls.”
The fundamental question from the story of The Good Samaritan remains: “Who is my neighbor?” One may disagree with the way the evangelist answers that question, but its answer remains the starkest line of demarcation between Judasim and Christianity; and Christians who don’t see it or refuse to see it are fools.
@Heather Blue:
‘If you notice…the Jewish god does not like anybody except the Jews.’
No deity worthy of reverence or worshop would have upheld the cheap trick of Jacob stealing Esau’s final blessing from their father Isaac. The Jewish god is a fool, or he is a shyster who condones theft.
@blue rose:
You are probably right in saying that Jews are often prominent in movements for social change , while Gentiles are often followers. To what extent this is an expression of their “revolutionary spirit” (as per Michael Jones) or a genuine desire to “repair the world” (tiqqun olam), as they themselves avert, has to be seen. My impression is that more often than not the creation of such movements is merely a ruse to dispossess the majority and to remove the ruling elite from power to be replaced by the Jews themselves ( hence the “contradictory” phenomenon of Jewish bankers financing Jewish communist revolutions). Into this pattern fit most of the movements for social change instigated by Jews, to wit : the “Russian” revolution, the Civil Rights Movement in the US, cultural Marxism, feminism, gay rights, “anti-racism”, open borders advocacy etc. etc. All these movements led by Jews promise a Utopia on earth but deliver a nightmare instead. There is no reason to admire the Jewish “excellence” in this respect.
As for the “inability” of Gentiles to lead movements for social change, both theoretically and practically, all the first great thinkers of the socialist movement were Gentiles : Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, Proudhon, Bakunin.
Which of the following movements were created by Jews : Red Cross, Salvation Army, Environmental Movement, AAA etc.? Were the “socialist paradises” in the Scandinavian countries created by Jews? For an example that Jews love to hate the most : National Socialist Germany was extremely efficient in solving its social problems, and that without destroying traditional values. (most of Germany’s problems were created by the Jews in the first place). Talking about a wholly different kind of “Goyim”, the Japanese have a very well ordered society with very few social ills (poverty, crime, degeneracy), all achieved without Jews.
I think for the solution of our social ills we can very well do without the Jewish “genius”.
@Felix:
You’re right about the Jews and how they interact in any society they find themselves in. It isn’t that they could never form their own society, however, it’s because prior to Israel becoming a nation, they have travelled and lived in other countries that they had no ties to.
In order to prosper, they were in a supreme position to objectively analyze those societies, looking for the weak points. They felt free to criticize, as you rightly say. Then the set about taking advantage, right under the noses of the host populations, and again as you say they have no stake, and so never have to take any personal responsibility for its ills. When Jews in politics want to put forth some new, bold liberal idea, I notice they usually get some Gentile politician to go along with them, and the Gentile politician is the one before the cameras. If there’s any criticism by the public, it’s the Gentile politician that takes it, while the Jew behind-the-scene is free to leave unscathed.
Basically they have travelled through time as strangers in a strange land, but seeing to it they prospered themselves. They do place a high value on education for their children, and steer them into lucrative professions, preferably ones that come with power. I know of one Jew who was in the military. But he went into the Military Police. This way he was on the authoritative end of things.
@Franklin Ryckaert:
I have read about that term from the Michael Hoffman site: to “repair the world” (tiqqun olam). I looked at some Jewish sites that espoused tiqqun olam, and maybe I’m naive, but at least those sites did seem to want to ‘repair the world’. It has to do with their Cabala. The righting of wrongs in order to do God’s will or something. But I’m not impressed with their idea of it. What’s behind it all is their belief in their God Yahweh’s promise to have them rule over the earth and make them inhabitants of the Earth ‘as grains of sand’. So basically, if it’s Jewish — I don’t buy it.
I don’t know what movements these Gentiles created that you list: movement were Gentiles : Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen, Proudhon, Bakunin. I never heard of them.
‘Which of the following movements were created by Jews : Red Cross, Salvation Army, Environmental Movement, AAA etc.? ‘
Well, the Red Cross and Salvation Army are good organizations, and I’m in favor of Environmentalism, but if AAA is the car organization then it’s useless, as they are not advocates for drivers who are hit with high parking and driving tickets, and ever increasing car insurance, high cost of registration and other fees for the ‘privilege’ of driving a car.
In any event, those few organizations don’t address any actual societal ills, inequalities, or hypocrisies. The Jews do this, though I think the entire thing has gotten way out of hand.
@Felix: I’m sorry, I didn’t really understand your point on the Good Samaritan parable and the evangelist, could you elaborate, please?
@blue rose:
“It isn’t that they could never form their own society, however”
Actually I think that’s part of the problem. Look at Israel, a nation rampant with crime, crappy infrastructure, and poor work ethic. They don’t even want to serve in their military.
Jews are motivated by a hatred of “Gentiles.” That’s what spurs them on A Jew is defined as a non-Gentile. Take away the Gentile and you take away the Jew as well. That’s why they have a fundamental need to be with other people.
From a psychological perspective I don’t think they can be a people in and of themselves, among their own. That would mean working for themselves, and as Bobby Fischer said, Jews don’t like to work.
@Trenchant:
In the gospel of Luke after the lawyer responds to Jesus that to gain eternal life, he must “love the lord thy God with all they mind and all thy heart and all they strength, and he must love his neighbor as himself,” he then asks Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?” To which Jesus responds with the story of the Good Samaritan, illustrating the kindness demonstrated by a member of a race detested by the Jews of his time, even as the beaten man’s co-religionists hurried on their ways. Jesus then closes by asking, “Who was a neighbor to the man?” Clearly, it was the Samaritan, and in this passage, there is an attempt to expand the recognition of whom a Jew saw as his neighbor.
On the other hand, in the 12th century the Jewish sage, Moses Maimonides explained that the maxim, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” meant that Jews were morally enjoined to love their fellow Jews. Christianity, on the other hand, morally enjoins its followers to love everyone. (FYI: Pious Jews regard Moses Maimonides with the same respect we give to our founding fathers. So, what he says isn’t just peanuts.)
I have been told “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” was first said by the 1st century BC rabbi and Pharisee Hillel. While both Christians and Jews adhere to this saying, depending on the meaning of neighbor, its moral mandate is starkly different. And, if as a gentile I am not morally enjoined to the Jews as their neighbor, in the other parts of scripture where the word neighbor is used, does the full protection of those moral injunctions not apply to me? Or, am I somewhow second class? For example, Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s goods; thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s goods; and thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.
@blue rose: Senator “Scoop” Jackson was the perfect Goy front-man for the Jews who was instrumental in getting scores of Jews – including the “Russian” Mafia – out of the Soviet Union and into the United States. Scoop is now a neocon icon.
The innate modus operandi of the Jew is irreverence, to stir the pot, challenge the status qou, create hatreds, divide and conquer. There can never be peace where there is a concentration of Jews.
I don’t know if this movie is actually new or not, but it relates to Alexander’s article here. From FrontPageMag (Jewish):
‘Frontpage Interview’s guest today is David Satter, an expert on Russia and frequent guest on Frontpage Magazine, whose new film, “Age of Delirium,” about the fall of the Soviet Union will premiere Friday, March 16, in New York at the Tishman Auditorium, 40 Washington Square South at 7 pm. Details about the screening which is open to the public are contained in this Facebook link.
‘The film is based on David Satter’s book of the same name.’
The FrontPageMag is a very short interview with Satter, hardly worth reading. I wouldn’t know how accurate the movie is.
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/16/age-of-delirium-1/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5763d7d588-Mailchimp_FrontPageMag&utm_content=Yahoo!+Mail
@Felix: Thank you for the explanation, but I am still unclear about the evangelists’ interpretations – are you referring to Christian Zionist preachers?
@Franklin Ryckaert:
One reason that the branch of “Evolutionary Psychology” is so hated by the Liberal Left, and Jewish cacademics is that it provides a powerfull methodology for discovering these destructive “meme’s”
@Trenchant: By evangelist’s interpretation of a 1st century BC Jewish maxim, I mean the ones who wrote the gospels. It seems Jesus is attempting to expand the meaning of the term “neighbor” and the people to whom a Jew has a full moral obligation to more than just ones fellow Jews. Granted that Christianity is a hybrid between Judaism and Neo-Platonism, the evangelist may be seeing moral obligations through the Greek idea of universality.
@Felix: Thanks.
@blue rose:
There were many social or cultural movements started by Gentiles. Only that they were destroyed or hijacked by the jews with their long time tested devices.
Regarding this extraordinary series of articles. Extraordinary is still an understatement! I repeat.
Don’t think that in USSR there were no great Russian intellectuals. But it was extremely dangerous to try to start a “movement” or even a “fashion” – because they could got “suicided”, “deported”, “banned”, etc. Many of them are known or unknown martyrs. A drug dealer was much harder to be eliminated than a member of Science Academy or a famous writer. Communists allowed some things but other things were astutely banned.
In my opinion such “movements” like “systema” were state sponsored – if half of the members were KGB informants, how can anyone believe they were not created and effectively sponsored by state? They were probably designed as safety valves for any discontent and turned into a very destructive social weapon. To promote and enlarge the split between what might become a national elite and the “urla”. To destroy the brightest young people or at least lure them into dead-ends.
The two elites, the communist and the jewish – distinct but interconnected, hoped to destroy or make impossible any competition for power. “Systema” served them well.
Once the USSR collapsed they were able to plunder everything not hindered by anyone. A druggie with no competence is not much of an enemy. The drunkards of the “urla” even less. All the other, raised above these and awakened were simply killed and/or discredited.
I don’t know right now names from the former USSR but I am sure there were many intellectuals killed to avoid any competition. Real martyrs of our race.
In my own country things went this way. The best poet Nicolae Labis was killed by a jewish thug (it’s an entire horror story here regarding the last days of the poet), the best writer Marin Preda was forced to drink vodka until he passed out and left to die alone, when a great poet – Adrian Paunescu – founder of a mass movement got banned after a strange incident and discredited.
@Razvan:
Wikileaks serves as systema in the land of the free.