in Vilnius, Lithuania.
I can't even explain it. Torture. Psy ops. Executions. People on that tour who had been in combat in Viet Nam were unable to finish the tour, unable to speak.
I will absolutely watch this film. Don't care how long it is.

This IS an interesting video, and thanks for sharing it. But it wasn't Mondale, and it wasn't Andropov. It was Reagan and Gorbechov, so the 20 years of "disillusionment" worked both ways...and "America won". Gorbechov got kicked out, Yeltsin came in and allowed the Soviet Union to be broken up and looted (privatized) with the advice of our Neoliberals from Harvard. George H.w. Bush promised not to move NATO to Russia's doorstep, but we lied. So the Russians have elected Putin, then Medvedev, then Putin, whose approval rate is above 80% in Russia. I believe Russians know the stakes about Western aggression, while Americans have NO idea what NATO is doing in our name. We just announced "NATO" will be putting four Divisions on Russia's border this week, to combat their "aggression". I call BS.

I will say that Mr. Bezmenov's characterization of stages in political change are not wrong. Stage 1: Demoralization--How about increasing productivity for America with no wage gains from it for the past two generations? That's demoralization, so that work is done; but it was done by American capitalism, and the "shareholder value" model that had become the mantra to enable corporate leaders to become the one-tenth of one percent, and following the meltdown, the Fed's complicity with free money and no prosecutions for too-big-to-fail banks.

Stage 2: Destabilization--2-5 years. The essentials fall apart--the economy, foreign relations, defense systems. Interesting triad, because since the 2008 meltdown, our economy is barely treading water according to official numbers, but we know, in the heartland and elsewhere it's worse than that, as in Greece and southern parts of Europe. Right wing parties are on the rise here and in Europe, and in South America, where Brazil may be structurally unable to hold an Olympics they probably "bought" from the OEC. Venezuela under economic attack, and others.

Stage 3: Crisis--Maybe 6 months. There are too many countries in "crisis" to name, almost all of them intentionally de-stabilized by the US, and we appear to have no strategy to get these countries in crisis to some form of stability. In fact, our recent history suggests that crisis is good for the MIC, so let's let millions suffer, because one thing is sure, they are not going to be on-shored onto America. I would suggest it's not too hard to imagine that in a war situation--which we are cooking up with Russia, for insane reasons--that our Japanese "Internment camps"--or worse--might befall Islamic people from the Mid-East who have or will land on European soil. The right wing is brewing in Europe, because of the blowback from our Middle East adventures in our never-ending quest for oil.

America too is facing a Crisis. It's called the 2016 Presidential Election. This election has shown WAY too many Americans just how messed up our political process is. The R's, because of their (ironically misplaced) Tea Party funding have now got a candidate who they can't get rid of, and who Party Leaders can't support, because he's not part of the R club, and he speaks inconvenient truths, as in America doesn't/can't/won't "win wars"--as if that is possible these days. We're in it to sell arms!

The D's, obviously, have thrown up on their shoes, in public, and the D' fundraising/coronation racket has been exposed to us blue-eyed, blond headed, "middle class" Democrats in a way we cannot ignore. What Bernie Sanders did was a miracle, IMO, and he did it the old-fashioned way--giving speeches and people showed up. He also got tech help, and that raised enough money to compete with the Clinton machine, thereby disproving the DLC myth that D's can only win if D's are co-opted. And I'm not conceding this Presidential race until Sanders does.

Stage 4: Normilization. I don't think this election will lay to rest the "Crisis" part of the deal. It's likely, IMO, that Bernie will not be the Democratic nominee. (But we shall see). I'll wait for polling to determine if Bernie will decide whether or not to run as a Green--but given the seeming evidence that elections can be rigged pretty easily, I would expect that won't be his choice. Assuming a Trump/Hillary election, I think "normilization" is impossible. The D's will claim all is good, but the Hillary recession (or the Trump recession) will call claims into question. Bernie's answers will look even better in retrospect.

I believe Bernie is doing us a tremendous favor as a [temporary] leader. His link has garnered over 10K activists looking to get involved in local and regional politics, and that is what it will take. Bernie is not selling or giving his list to the Democratic National Committee. Instead, he's attempting to PROLONGUE our "Crisis" period, to call out the class, power, and race distinctions, in a proper "Democratic Socialist" way, and build a program where better elected officials make better, more just choices, and given his openness to Modern Monetary Theory, it's an affordable program as well.

Sorry for the super-long comment. I just had to get that off my chest, and your post gave me a structure to do it.

Do you agree with that guy? Maybe 30 years ago there was some impending crisis, but I think we missed it. And then the Soviet Union fell, and communism was discredited, yada yada.

But I don't see us moving toward Marxist-style communism here. Maybe toward fascism, but not communism. Even the "democratic socialists" aren't going anywhere near the full soviet communism they had at that time.

He actually sounds like one of those neoliberals, where the market is god.

A "democratic" President who rules like a Republican and makes sure that they don't lose dominance. He keeps the useful idiots in positions of power so that they remain useful to those who seek to exploit them.

Politicians talk about it as if that is going to "fix" the problem of money in politics.

It's worth remembering that Robert Rubin pushed to dismantle the last parts of Glass-Steagall involving the Citi-Travelers merger and within a month or so of repeal, he left as Treasury Secretary and was working for Citibank.

Rep. Billy Tauzin was the lead negotiator on Medicare Part D and fought against having Medicare negotiate drug prices, so as to maximize the cost to taxpayers. Within two months of passage he got a job as the head of PhRMA and increased his salary ten-fold. These are just a couple notorious cases, but they aren't exceptional.

The privatization push is part of the legalized corruption racket. The revolving door is part of that racket. The idea that a presidential "team" could rake in over $150 million in speaking fees and $2 billion for a family foundation is part of that racket. Lucrative signing advances for books that no one wants to buy, are part of that racket.

Campaign finance is part of the equation, but in a way, it's ironic that Citizens United, which was originally designed as to take-down of Hillary Clinton, and the McCutcheon case in 2014 which ended limits on donations, have been exploited most effectively by Clinton.

Politicians, even Clinton, are happy to talk about the campaign finance side of the equation, because frankly, it's annoying, and humiliating to have to spend so much time begging for money. On the other hand, there's a lot less talk about the revolving door and the personal enrichment schemes that also play a major role in corrupting the political decision making process. Personally, I'd even be willing to pay more to staffers and members of Congress if they were prohibited from engaging in these kind of pay to play schemes. If they want to do things like speeches as part of civic education and as an extension of their public service -- that's fine. But they shouldn't be able to profit off it. And if they are able to profit from it, they should be barred from re-entering public office and restricted from lobbying people who remain in public office.

I'm supposed to believe someone who doesn't mention Ronnie Raygunz and his efforts to eliminate the rights of the people to defend America against his corporatist takeover of the USA? REALLY?

We've had about 30 years to see how this guy's predictions worked out, and the majority of those "benevolent dictators" happened to be KKKGOP and not KGB.

Everyone should know that I do not believe, on first brush, that former KGB agents ever change their modus operandi. With that caution of trust but verify, my support for free speech gives this person the right to post this on youtube. My gratitude is extended to a few discussion forums that allow for civil discussion of dissenting views. For that I am extremely proud.

They love to tell you exactly what they are doing - by accusing you of doing it. Everything Bezmenov claimed (mostly truthfully) the Soviets were doing the American fascists are doing.