Generational Dynamics World View News

Discussion of Web Log and Analysis topics from the Generational Dynamics web site.
Higgenbotham
Posts: 7436
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:28 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Higgenbotham »

DaKardii wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 1:14 pm
Higgenbotham wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 1:50 am
Having read this exchange, I was curious as to whether such a TV show existed. I found this article which references such a show, as well as the fact that American news media (specifically AP) did not report the story of the Russian Oligarchs accurately.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this web site having never heard of it or read it before, but the article appears to be thoroughly researched and any facts in it that I am aware of are accurate.
I find it interesting that the article you cite says that there were only seven oligarchs, which is false. There were numerous others, including at least six who wielded a similar amount of individual power as the seven mentioned in the article. Some of these oligarchs were already in control of massive companies before the collapse of the USSR, having been appointed to their positions by the Soviet government. Yeltsin was not able to remove them because Gorbachev never gave him the opportunity to do so before dissolving the mechanisms that would've made that possible.
I believe the reason seven oligarchs are mentioned is that the Russians themselves coined the term “semibankirshchina” (the rule of the seven bankers) to describe the Oligarchs.

As described in the article:
In Russia, the oligarchs are deeply loathed, considered villains who worked to bleed the country dry; during their reign many Russian citizens saw their life savings disappear overnight. A new term was coined for their dominance, “semibankirshchina” (the rule of the seven bankers), and they were widely known to have wielded small, murderous armies.
It would be difficult to find another verifiable method to identify who the Oligarchs were or how many of them there really were, other than to go with what and who the Russian people themselves said they were. For example, the Oligarchs were known to be billionaires, but if we were to look at the 1998 Forbes list of billionaires, there only appears one Russian name on the list, Potanin, who was also one of the seven. By 2004, there were many Russian names on the list and, at that time, there is some overlap with 3 of the 7 appearing in the top 7 slots on the Forbes list. But a lot had changed between the time the Oligarchs accumulated their wealth (perhaps the year 1998 being the most representative year to look at?) and 2004 when Putin had already taken over and run the Oligarchs out of the country or, in the case of Khordokovsky, threw him into a prison in Siberia.

Also, being appointed by the Soviet government to control a company before the collapse of the Soviet Union does not equate to ownership and does not make one an Oligarch. What distinguishes the Russian Oligarchs was their seizure and ownership of wealth after the Soviet Union collapsed.

"Russian oligarchs are business oligarchs of the former Soviet republics who rapidly accumulated wealth during the era of Russian privatization in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 1990s."

These definitions are accurate and defensible, not the one you just made up.
Last edited by Higgenbotham on Fri Nov 27, 2020 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
While the periphery breaks down rather slowly at first, the capital cities of the hegemon should collapse suddenly and violently.

DaKardii
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:17 am

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by DaKardii »

Cool Breeze wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 2:03 pm
DaKardii wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 1:28 pm
Cool Breeze wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 12:28 pm
Take Dennis Prager, a wise and honest man. But still beholden to the victim status of the "motherland" and not that honest about all the Dual Citizens who make decisions, big decisions, for our US government.
Who are these "dual citizens" you speak of? All Jews? Or just the ones who actively sought Israeli citizenship and acquired it? Because there's a dangerously common misconception that all Jews are Israeli citizens for no reason other than the fact that they are Jewish. That's not, and never has been, how Israel's "right of return" law works. If you want Israeli citizenship, you have to actively seek it, and pass all relevant tests to receive it. Just like any other country.

Another note, Israel is not the only country that has right of return laws. Several other countries also have them, such as Armenia, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, and Spain. Donald Trump himself is descended from German nationals; by "right of return" standards he has the right to reclaim German citizenship. Surely that wouldn't make him a dual citizen of the US and Germany in your eyes, would it?
I don't believe ANY dual citizen should be allowed to be a congressman or higher office holder of our country. That's even crazier than dual citizenship in the first place, which is a contradiction as well (and also something that only exists for either economic resources or subversion). You go off on many tangents here, I have no comment on "right of return" because of what I have already stated. I have no allegiance but to my country, and I find it weird that others even try to obfuscate the conversation, but that's precisely why we are having this discussion now, aren't we?
You know why I went off on those "tangents?" Because I've previously encountered people on other forums who believe that all American Jews are dual citizens because Israel's "right of return" law exists. And they use that premise to make bad faith arguments that are rooted in anti-Semitism, not legitimate concern over who is running our government.

PS. I completely agree with you that dual citizenship should not be allowed in the US. But there must be a very fine line as to how dual citizenship is defined. Hence my question, which you didn't answer. What is a dual citizen, and how do you become one?

DaKardii
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:17 am

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by DaKardii »

Higgenbotham wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 2:33 pm
I believe the reason seven oligarchs are mentioned is that the Russians themselves coined the term “semibankirshchina” (the rule of the seven bankers) to describe the Oligarchs.
All seven of those oligarchs came from a group recruited by political consultant Sergey Kurginyan to sign what was known as the "Letter of Thirteen," which urged that the 1996 elections be cancelled and a compromise government be created between Yeltsin and the Communists to prevent total economic collapse. Hence why I mentioned the other six that wielded a similar amount of individual power as those seven. Those are the other six who signed that letter.
Higgenbotham wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 2:33 pm

Also, being appointed by the Soviet government to control a company before the collapse of the Soviet Union does not equate to ownership and does not make one an Oligarch. What distinguishes the Russian Oligarchs was their seizure and ownership of wealth after the Soviet Union collapsed.

"Russian oligarchs are business oligarchs of the former Soviet republics who rapidly accumulated wealth during the era of Russian privatization in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 1990s."

These definitions are accurate and defensible, not the one you just made up.
I'm not making up any definitions. I'm just pointing out that some of the oligarchs had their companies hand delivered to them by state actors. Not a majority of them and certainly not all of them. And of course in the post-Soviet era they were able to build their wealth up to levels that weren't possible under communism. Not disputing that at all.

Cool Breeze
Posts: 2935
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Cool Breeze »

DaKardii wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 2:45 pm
You know why I went off on those "tangents?" Because I've previously encountered people on other forums who believe that all American Jews are dual citizens because Israel's "right of return" law exists. And they use that premise to make bad faith arguments that are rooted in anti-Semitism, not legitimate concern over who is running our government.

PS. I completely agree with you that dual citizenship should not be allowed in the US. But there must be a very fine line as to how dual citizenship is defined. Hence my question, which you didn't answer. What is a dual citizen, and how do you become one?
Each country specifies in its laws on who can become a citizen, and/or if dual is allowed. For example, Panama does not allow dual citizenship, and I consider that sane, healthy, and how every country should handle it. I'm not sure what you want me to say here, I am just reporting facts. You seem to be suggesting I have something else going on in my mind, which I don't.

I'm sick of buzzwords and terms like "anti-semitism". They do nothing but stop honest dialogue or inquiry and are rooted in disdain for free speech. That's all I will say about that. I look at people's arguments, behaviors, and actions and I make conclusions. That is all.

Let's get back to what we think will happen in the world economy, or in the world struggle for power, as we move forward.

Cool Breeze
Posts: 2935
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:19 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Cool Breeze »

John wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 1:19 pm
The assassination is a major blow to Iran for a couple of reasons.
First, Fakhrizadeh was well protected by Iran's national security
apparatus, the assassination reveals a major failure. Second,
Fakhrizadeh was believed to be leading Iran's effort to develop a
nuclear bomb.

Although Israel is the obvious suspect in the assassination, the BBC
is suggesting another possibility. The hardliners in Iran's
government executed the assassination in order to increase tensions
and prevent a new deal with the Biden administration.
John, where do you see Israel as a player or agitator in the next crisis war? You seem to indicate that they are a side player in your former analyses, since China is your public enemy #1 (which I agree with).

What is your take on Iran (since you said they'd join the allied powers) moving ahead? Do you think Israel likely was the genesis of the assassination?

Thanks,

CB

Xeraphim1

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Xeraphim1 »

Cool Breeze wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:43 pm

Each country specifies in its laws on who can become a citizen, and/or if dual is allowed. For example, Panama does not allow dual citizenship, and I consider that sane, healthy, and how every country should handle it. I'm not sure what you want me to say here, I am just reporting facts. You seem to be suggesting I have something else going on in my mind, which I don't.
While technically Panama doesn't allow dual citizenship, it only requires that a person acquiring said citizenship renounce former citizenship. Many countries, the US included, do not accept said renunciation and have specific processes that need to be followed.

Or, as in my case, Panamanian citizenship can be acquired by birth (jus soli). All I need to do is file the correct paperwork which isn't likely to happen.

That means that your statement needs to be qualified. The same is true in regard to other countries.

While in most cases jus soli and jus sanguinis are the same, there are many, many instances where they are not.

DaKardii
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:17 am

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by DaKardii »

Cool Breeze wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:43 pm
You seem to be suggesting I have something else going on in my mind, which I don't.
Yes I am suggesting that. Not only because because you still haven't given me a straight answer on whether or not all American Jews are dual citizens by default even though I've asked you multiple times, but also because you've already said that the key to European survival is to understand and eliminate "Jewish subversion." What am I supposed to make of that?
I'm sick of buzzwords and terms like "anti-semitism". They do nothing but stop honest dialogue or inquiry and are rooted in disdain for free speech.
They're not buzzwords. They have actual definitions that can easily be looked up. If some radical wants to reject those definitions and try to unilaterally redefine those words to suit their agenda, just call him/her out on that nonsense and expose him/her as a dishonest debater. Unfortunately, these days way too many ordinary people on both sides of the political spectrum are either too scared or too lazy to actually do that when it comes to debating radicals. They just let the radicals hijack the narrative and then cry about that happening while not even trying to come up with some sort of solution. Truly pathetic in my humble opinion.

DaKardii
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:17 am

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by DaKardii »

Cool Breeze wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:47 pm

John, where do you see Israel as a player or agitator in the next crisis war? You seem to indicate that they are a side player in your former analyses, since China is your public enemy #1 (which I agree with).

What is your take on Iran (since you said they'd join the allied powers) moving ahead? Do you think Israel likely was the genesis of the assassination?

Thanks,

CB
John has stated on numerous occasions that the war will pit "Arabs against Jews" and "Shias against Sunnis."

While that makes it obvious that the Shia-governed Arab states will be pro-Iran and the Sunni-governed Arab states will be anti-Iran, that also means that Israel will be picking a side among the divided Arab world. So "Arabs against Jews" will actually be "Some Arabs against Other Arabs plus Jews."

I've been crossing my fingers that Israel pick the Shiites, but Netanyahu seems to be hellbent on picking the Sunnis. A great shame because this would result in the US and Israel being on opposing sides in the war. Just the thought of that happening makes my stomach turn.

Guest

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Guest »

DaKardii wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 1:14 pm
Higgenbotham wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 1:50 am
Having read this exchange, I was curious as to whether such a TV show existed. I found this article which references such a show, as well as the fact that American news media (specifically AP) did not report the story of the Russian Oligarchs accurately.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this web site having never heard of it or read it before, but the article appears to be thoroughly researched and any facts in it that I am aware of are accurate.

In Israel they are covered frequently, often with adulation, including a recent hit Israeli TV series called “The Oligarchs.”

“Some of its episodes,” according to Israeli writer Uri Avnery, “are simply unbelievable or would have been, if they had not come straight from the horses’ mouths: the heroes of the story, who gleefully boast about their despicable exploits. The series was produced by Israeli immigrants from Russia.”

Avnery writes that the oligarchs used “cheating, bribery and murder,” as they “exploited the disintegration of the Soviet system to loot the treasures of the state and to amass plunder amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars. In order to safeguard the perpetuation of their business, they took control of the state. Six out of the seven are Jews.”

According to a Washington Post story by David Hoffman, the group bought and controlled Russian governmental officials at the highest levels. After financing Yeltsin’s election in 1996, Hoffman writes: “The tycoons met and decided to insert one of their own into government. They debated who and chose [Vladimir] Potanin, who became deputy prime minister. One reason they chose Potanin was that he is not Jewish, and most of the rest of them are, and feared a backlash against the Jewish bankers.”

In Russia, the oligarchs are deeply loathed, considered villains who worked to bleed the country dry; during their reign many Russian citizens saw their life savings disappear overnight. A new term was coined for their dominance, “semibankirshchina” (the rule of the seven bankers), and they were widely known to have wielded small, murderous armies. There are rumors that Berezovsky, subject of the respectful AP article, was even responsible for the gunning down of an American journalist, Forbes Moscow editor Paul Klebnikov.

While no one has been charged with the murder of Klebnikov, who had written a book on Berezovsky, many suspect a Berezovsky connection. As a friend of Klebnikov wrote: “Experienced expatriates in Russia shared an essential rule: Don’t cross these brutal billionaires, ever, or you’re likely to go home in a box.”

The Chechnya Connection

There is evidence that Berezovsky’s responsibility for death and tragedy may be vastly greater.

“Berezovsky boasts that he caused the war in Chechnya,” Avnery reports, “in which tens of thousands have been killed and a whole country devastated. He was interested in the mineral resources and a prospective pipeline there. In order to achieve this he put an end to the peace agreement that gave the country some kind of independence. The oligarchs dismissed and destroyed Alexander Lebed, the popular general who engineered the agreement, and the war has been going on since then.

“In the end,” Avnery writes, “there was a reaction: Vladimir Putin, the taciturn and tough ex-KGB operative, assumed power, took control of the media, put one of the oligarchs (Mikhail Khodorkovsky) in prison, caused the others to flee (Berezovsky is in England, Vladimir Gusinsky is in Israel, another, Mikhail Chernoy, is assumed to be hiding here.)”

Yet, apart from the Washington Post, American media report on almost none of this. Instead, US coverage largely portrays Berezovsky and his crowd as American-style entrepreneurs who are being hounded by a Russian government whose actions are, to repeat the media’s commonly used phrase, “politically motivated.”

US news stories, even when they occasionally do hint at questionable practices, tend to use such phrases as “brash young capitalists” to describe the oligarchs. For example, a long series co-produced by FRONTLINE and the New York Times referred to these men as “shrewd businessmen,” and asked “what it’s like to be young, Russian and newly affluent?” Massive violence, dual loyalties, and control of resources are rarely, if ever, part of the picture.

When AP Moscow bureau chief Ingram was asked for this article about Berezovsky’s Israeli citizenship, she claimed to know nothing about it, a curious contention for someone who has been an AP news editor in Moscow since 1999. When Ingram was queried further, she hung up the phone.

An examination of Ingram’s reporting on the Berezovsky story cited above raises serious questions. Though she is located in Moscow, Ingram interviewed only two people for her news story: Berezovsky, who is in London, and Berezovsky associate Alex Goldfarb, in New York. One wonders why she interviewed none of the Russians residing around her.

Similarly, one wonders why not a single AP story has identified Berezovsky’s considerable connection to Israel.

Further, nowhere does Ingram’s article convey the ruthlessness of the oligarchs’ actions, or the significance of their holdings, including control of its media. Unnoted in Ingram’s report is the fact that her subject and fellow oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky have been two of Russia’s most powerful media tycoons.

Before Putin’s crackdown, according to the Washington Post, oligarchs had succeeded in seizing “the reins of Russia’s print and broadcast media, vital to the evolution of the country’s fledgling democracy and growth of its nascent civil society.” Berezovsky crony Gusinsky, who is close friends with Rupert Murdoch and was about the launch a satellite network, fled to Israel when it appeared he would be arrested.“

Somehow, AP’s bureau chief seems to have missed all this.

Does this matter to Americans?

AP is the major news source for the thousands of news outlets around the country who cannot afford to have their own foreign correspondents. When AP chooses not to cover something, its omission is felt throughout the nation. When national news networks and others leave out the same facts, the cover-up is almost total.

Russia, despite its current turmoil, contains enormous power. Its natural resources are gargantuan: it possesses the world’s largest natural gas reserves, the second largest coal reserves, and the eighth largest oil reserves. It is the world’s largest exporter of natural gas, the second largest oil exporter, and the third largest energy consumer.14 Russia’s significance on the world stage now, as in the past, is immense.

Similarly, the United States is currently the most powerful nation on earth. It is therefore essential that its citizens be accurately informed on issues of significance. Israeli citizens, Russian citizens, and citizens of nations throughout the world know the information detailed above. It is critical that American citizens be no less well informed.

For years, the neocons’ push for war against Iraq was largely uncovered by the US media. For even longer, the neocons’ close connections to Israel have gone largely unmentioned in mainstream American news reports. As a result, very few Americans know to what degree many of those responsible for the tragic US invasion and occupation of Iraq have been motivated by Israeli concerns.

The omission in coverage of Iraq has been profoundly disastrous, both for the Middle East and for Americans. In fact, it is quite likely that only history will show the true extent of this disaster. It is deeply troubling to see the same kind of omission occurring on Russia.
https://ifamericansknew.org/media/russia.html
I find it interesting that the article you cite says that there were only seven oligarchs, which is false. There were numerous others, including at least six who wielded a similar amount of individual power as the seven mentioned in the article. Some of these oligarchs were already in control of massive companies before the collapse of the USSR, having been appointed to their positions by the Soviet government. Yeltsin was not able to remove them because Gorbachev never gave him the opportunity to do so before dissolving the mechanisms that would've made that possible.

I also find it interesting that the article states that Israel is known for never extraditing Israeli citizens, regardless of the crime. Although that was true at the time the article was written, it is not true anymore, as Israel tightened its amnesty laws just a few months later to ensure that amnesty is not granted to Israeli citizens who are not domiciled in the country and are trying to relocate specifically to avoid prosecution. And even then, Israel had already demonstrated that it is willing to try and imprison Israeli citizens for crimes that were committed outside of Israel and in violation of foreign law. Example A: In 1997, Samuel Sheinbein fled to Israel after committing a murder in Maryland. Israel refused to extradite him, but it did try him in its courts for the murder on the request of the United States. Sheinbein was sentenced to 24 years in prison, effectively a life sentence as he would later be killed during an escape attempt. All that being said, the article is clearly trying to make it seem that Israel refused to extradite whichever oligarchs came to its country out of malice toward Russia. Personally, I just can't imagine Putin backing down if that were the case. He's not the type of person to do that. More likely, he doesn't care where those oligarchs go as long it's outside Russia. If Russia is not asking for extradition (or even prosecution within Israel), then why should Israel do it?

Meanwhile, I found the article that Uri Avnery wrote. I find that article suspect for several reasons. First, he leaves out very important details about the show, such as who produced it and when it aired. Second, he gets basic facts wrong. Boris Yeltsin did not have a heart attack on election day, nor did he spend his entire second term in the hospital. Boris Berezovsky never served as Prime Minister himself at any point. Berezovsky also never took credit for starting the Second Chechen War; he only said that he served as a messenger between the Russian government and groups opposed to Maskhadov (the leader of Chechnya at the time); the plan (whose leaconspirators allegedly included Putin) was to create a false flag incident that would create a justification for regime change in Chechnya, as Maskhadov was seen as being too pro-US at a time when relations between Russia and the US were deteriorating over Yugoslavia. Berezovsky also said that the plan failed because Putin betrayed the Chechen opposition groups he had collaborated with once the war started; the war should not have escalated to the degree that it did and that is all on Putin in the end. If the documentary itself is as flawed as Averny's article, then rest assured it too can't be considered a reliable set of information.
Guest wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 3:00 am
Ahem.
Ahem right back at ya. Look above.
You're an idiot. If you bother to Google this, you will a lot about the oligarchs. The seven mentioned were THE oligarchs; the baby oligarchs--that's what they call them--are just minnows. I used to find people like you ridiculous, but now I find you dangerous. You either support these criminals, or you are just virtue signalling to everyone else's determent. Either way, you are wrong.

Ahem, indeed!

Not Red

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Not Red »

DaKardii wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 3:08 pm
Higgenbotham wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 2:33 pm
I believe the reason seven oligarchs are mentioned is that the Russians themselves coined the term “semibankirshchina” (the rule of the seven bankers) to describe the Oligarchs.
All seven of those oligarchs came from a group recruited by political consultant Sergey Kurginyan to sign what was known as the "Letter of Thirteen," which urged that the 1996 elections be cancelled and a compromise government be created between Yeltsin and the Communists to prevent total economic collapse. Hence why I mentioned the other six that wielded a similar amount of individual power as those seven. Those are the other six who signed that letter.
Higgenbotham wrote:
Fri Nov 27, 2020 2:33 pm

Also, being appointed by the Soviet government to control a company before the collapse of the Soviet Union does not equate to ownership and does not make one an Oligarch. What distinguishes the Russian Oligarchs was their seizure and ownership of wealth after the Soviet Union collapsed.

"Russian oligarchs are business oligarchs of the former Soviet republics who rapidly accumulated wealth during the era of Russian privatization in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 1990s."

These definitions are accurate and defensible, not the one you just made up.
I'm not making up any definitions. I'm just pointing out that some of the oligarchs had their companies hand delivered to them by state actors. Not a majority of them and certainly not all of them. And of course in the post-Soviet era they were able to build their wealth up to levels that weren't possible under communism. Not disputing that at all.
You don't know what you are talking about. Alright, you have been looking around online, but this is after the fact. You still don't get it. You have never lived in Russia. You are out of your depth. Just automatically attacking "antisemites" because they have the nerve to point out the the truth, says a lot about you. I used to live in Russia. When people in Russia talk about oligarchs, they are talking about Jews. The terms are synonymous. You would know that if you had lived there. You know nothing.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 65 guests