Russian Prof. of Econ. Igor Panarin: "There Will Be Civil War In the US in 2009"

Came across this via Reddit… view here:

*Edit: I will update this post with more sources of Professor Panarin’s theory. Here are the links:

Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a3sayDZz.QKc&refer=us

  • [includes comment on how the elections & hope towards Obama are delaying dissatisfaction temporarily,
    and that comes March it will be apparent Obama cannot work miracles]

Drudge Report: http://www.drudgereport.com/flashrur.htm

  • [includes the following detail: "The paper [````daily IZVESTIA]```` said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events. " ]

``

Thoughts?

  1. I’m not sure what grounding this guy has other than vague speculations and hunches. He doesn’t seem to understand the US all that well.

  2. If it did happen, it might not be such a bad thing anyway.

I’m about to search more for this professor & his theory, but yeah, given time allotted on the newscast (3 mins, not including the delay for translation), it’s not surprising if there is more to his theory that anything in-depth couldn’t be covered.

As for if it did happen, I agree that it might not be a bad thing. However, if New York were to become another center of power (similar to D.C., is what I gathered from he said), I’m not sure how the FSP would bode up north, honestly.

We also have to consider the fact that, as far as I know, there are no remotely sizable citizen groups advocating for any kind of split of the US. I’m not sure who would institute the split and, if they did, who would agree. In fact, I would bet the farm that anyone who publicly advocated the theory of this split would be derided and laughed off any news show on which he appeared.

IMO, the split portion of his theory assumes too much (although, he doesn’t give an exact time frame for when said 6 portions of the USA form, although one can assume fairly quickly if he doesn’t give one, I suppose) , but I wouldn’t be surprised if secession movements capitalized on the increasing dire situation to increase sympathy & activism for certain states to suceed (to my knowledge, that’s already ocurring). I’m still not sure what states would suceede, regardless.

Portions of it I could somewhat believe, specifically his comment regarding central states becoming a portion into itself due to native american population, as Lakota has recently popped up (although that’s fairly unofficial stuff, from what I understand). Again, though, I think he has a sizeable assumption on his hand.

I’m still unerved by that fact that he made this prediction back in 1998, however.

Also, I found more background information here:

[ from: http://www.stockhouse.com/Community-News/2008/December/1/Igor-Panarin-s-predictions-for-the-U-S- ]

I think it’s inevitible, but not for what the economist assumes. First, there are the seeds for division in any society so long as they’re ‘exploited’ to their fullest potential. Second, those seeds right now are very much dorment in the United States only due to the fact of interstate commerce as it is right now.

The only way there will be a significant push toward civil war is when (not a matter of if in my view point) two factors come to the foreground: total disregard for local governance (this is becoming obvious in some areas, but in others it’s not obvious enough to make much of a divisive push yet) and total disregard for the economy as a whole (basically, what’s the point of a united anything if the top government does everything in its power to bungle up the economy more so than the local ones?). These two are more or less starting right now (even though the latter has been with us since the start in many ways if you dig through history of the United States), and I suspect they’ll grow as the measures to supposedly stimulate the economy make conditions worse (I don’t expect civil war or division in 2010, more likely 2012 in respect to actually seeing organized proponents even in state/local governments for secession.).

Also, what bothers me is that there seems to be no concerted effort by libertarians of all stripes to actually organize in a manner for our own individual survival for such a situation. It seems everyone thinks their own vision of what is to come will work and the others are automatically failures. That kind of thinking must end now if we’re to survival the inevitible power grab/breakdown. In the end, we shouldn’t be fighting over who’s vision of tommorrow is the best, rather we need to be fighting for our own survival and for those whom we value in our lives. Otherwise, what we believe in is worthless.

Here is the actual interview that various sources in the above quote from, where Panarin goes into more detail regarding his theory:

[from: http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/33836 ]

Interesting stuff so far, despite my own healthy skepticism.

Aside from surviving the oncoming onslaught, I take it from your paragraph, yes? I more or less agree.

I think we’ll survive it. I hate to sound crazier than the economist, but I sorta ‘see’ it as a pattern of events. It’s one thing about me that I’ve tried to understand in as much as why I’m able to simulate (in my head) with relative accuracy from current events the most likely future events. All I can honestly say right now from what I see in the possible pattern of events is that we’re approaching a point in these events where there will be no return, it’ll be do or die. And for us in particular, we better do, because for me dying is no option.

I agree again in the sense that at some point, it won’t be about hypotheticals & forum arguments / debates, although even when the time for reaction to circumstances comes in the form ‘the real thing’, those certainly would still go on in some form online.

Do you think the FSP is a positive thing, taking the possible series of events that are about to occur? Or should there be more than one FSP in various states that achieve more than the token sub-100 people involved?

I think the FSP is a good idea in the long term if you’re looking to influence local governance to your point of view. As for making other FSP-like missions in other states, I’m not sure, I think it should be a case-by-case basis for it because some states like Texas and California are often largely dependent on the Federal grants they take in to cover the gap in funding that federal taxes produce (feds get first dibs, then the states). So, I would strongly argue against trying such ventures in California or Texas. Then you have a state like Florida where a large immigrant (US citizens from larger states) influx in which the average immigrant came from states where the government was far larger than what Florida had/has, so again like Texas and California, it would be a no go for an FSP-like mission.

Oddly, I think the agricultural states like Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas have a similar chance of success like New Hampshire under an FSP-like mission because there’s enough people to keep them populated, but small enough over all to hold sway in the local governments (especially the state government). And right now, many people in these states feel silenced by the Obama win (if you’ve looked at the voter ratios in those states, you’ll find they clearly had a large population that felt McCain was a traditional conservative (enough) to favor him…reaching out these folks would be the best means to get them to agree to the reality that their destinies are their own and not DCs.