Download pdf — 155 Кб
1. The Provocation
“The Kommersant Ъ” newspaper N 230 (3806) (Dec 13, 2007) published the article “Americans Imagine a World without Putin” with subheading “The future of Russia studied”.
The article begins with following notification:
“A report called ‘Alternative Futures for Russia’ will be issued in Washington today by the authoritative nonprofit Center for Strategic and International Studies. Besides the usual criticism of democracy in Russia, some parts of the report are downright fantastic. One of the alternative futures the report contains is a scenario built around the possible assassination of Russian President Vladimir Putin on January 7, 2008, in Moscow. Kommersant Washington correspondent Dmitry Sidorov has read the report.
The authors of the 59-page report are director of the CSIS Russia and Eurasia program Andrew Kuchins, former senior director for Russian affairs at the National Security Council Thomas Graham, Assistant Professor of International Affairs at George Washington University Henry Hale, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics Anders Aslund and others. On the report’s cover are five photographs: Russian President Vladimir Putin with the G8 leaders, Putin with the Chinese President Hu Jintao, the recent arrest of Other Russia leader Garri Kasparov, snow-covered oil wells and children in a computer class.”
2. How to regard with this?
Political terrorism may have enemy political figures extermination as one of its aims. And in this role it really may be effective for strategic tasks solving in politics in the case if potential terror victims politics almost fully depends on irreplaceable “key figures”.
Correspondingly, if in fact conspiracy is deployed and operated, then this publication – is order for scenario's execution (non obligatory on January 7 and on placed named in the publication). Initiators may belong to liberal-bourgeois branch of masonry – first of all, in Great Britain, and, second, in the USA (The British prefer not to sully in such deals, but to operate through figure-heads). Foreign curators and their subordinate organizers and executors in Russia may have any opposite to post-Yeltsin bureaucratic regime political opinion (but, most likely, they aren't liberals: because liberals in Russia must stay unsullied in the case of conspiracy failure) or may have none – simply excited psychopaths permanently dissatisfied to all.
In aspects of sociology the counteraction to such structurally organized conspiracy is in competence of certain special services of Russian Federation. Although their activity undoubtedly needs for matrix-aggregorial support (i.e. prayers and direct volitional influence upon society aggregors from those who is able doing that).
Liberal-bourgeois brands of world’s free-masonry has motive for organizing conspiracy against top-officials of post-soviet Russian statehood: the realization into a fact of directive NSC-20/1 (Aug 18, 1948) “Our goals in Russia” was slowed down during previous 10 years. “Putin’s Plan”, which provide for country modernization and for several re-integration (within the former-USSR boarders) and integration (outside the USSR boarder) processes in international politics, in which Russia itself operates as subject (and moreover as coordinator – in some of them), on the whole raise a question about probability of realizing named directive.
So the question appears: What is the basis for the confidence of directive masters and western special services that such conspiracy may have success in Russia?
– Cause during 60 years, while NSC-20/1 acting, nor the Soviet leadership, nor the Russian leadership never gives it proper political estimation (not to mention about elaboration measures to counteraction NSC-20/1’s realization). Even after they got convincing proofs of its main proposition on the territory of USSR-Russia. So, how directive’s masters gave to interpret such behaviour of their “political opponents”?
– If not falling into decay, then the answer is evident: “Either we deal with our deeply conspired political allies, or – with hopeless idiots”.
If there is really no structurally organized conspiracy, then transatlantic report “Alternative scenarios for Russia” – is the sample of social witchcraft and expression of way of control by gossips and anecdotes spreading. In terms of DOTU (Russian abbreviation for The Sufficiently General Theory of Ruling) – this is attempt to organize the desired activity with non-structural methods of control. This method bases on the idea that probabilistic predetermination of certain events always exists. This predetermination may become real in consequence of circular non-address certain information spreading through society and some persons may react in a desirable (for initiators of this spreading) way when receiving such information. In this case this way assumes, that someone psychopathic maniac (or team) will respond to the “prognosis” of American political strategist and will transform transatlantic twaddle into action list.
In such cases (the same information was in mass-media before Russian president's visit to Iran) corresponding special services must function as in the case of structurally organized conspiracy, thus safeguarding on routes and at residences of governor ant other “key men”. Particular attention must be given to “non-typicalnesses” and inaccuracies in plans of guarded people movements and residencies: matrixes display in such “non-typicalnesses” and out-of-plan events, but interpretation of such signs may be accomplished only with their concrete conditions in situation development pace. There are no common receipts for interpretation (like “book of dream interpretations”), besides this one:
It is inadmissible to rate emotions nor through society, nor through special services, about real and unknown maniac (or maniac team) with aim to attempt to somebody's life) and thus they (i.e. special forces) must be “over-vigiled”.
If, against of this advice, enforce of fear emotions and apprehensions begins, then psychic energy of those, who was caught by such emotions, goes to rate up scenario matrix (with which scenario “over-vigiled” bind their fears and apprehensions). This, in turn, favours to realization of such fears, for example P. A. Stolypin’s murder, which became true, because guard service was overwhelmed by “over-vigil” but had no control over situation and had not understood real goals of those political forces, who's choice was political terrorism during that time.
December 14, 2007
3. Continuation (December 28-30, 2007)
Later, as NEWSru.com told (December 24, 2007): “Kuchins accused “The Kommersant” of misinterpretation of American politologists report essence”. (Look at publication on this site: “The author of ‘Putin’s murder on Christmas’: Relatively positive scenario with enough positive final tends to realize in Russia during following 10 years”).
Nonetheless, affected problems don't lose their actuality, despite of that refutation. Matrixes become apparent by events. The same matrixes – in essentially the same events repetition, may be with some differences, in other historical decorations.
The well-known aphorism tells about specific class of special cases of such repetition of essentially the same events: “The history repeats twice: first – as tragedy, second – as farce”. But this is not the only opportunity. In other cast there will be no the verb “to step twice on the same rake”.
IP USSR's Analytical Report “The Current Moment” N 11(59), 2006 “Time of Troubles in Russia (Smuta): the origin, the course, the overcoming” was dedicated to analysis of matrix-aggregorial processes in Russia's history.
It points at:
- The Time of Troubles (Smuta) – was a specific Russian phenomenon. It results from the lack of coincidence common people and “elite” notions about truth (harmony) in society.
- The full cycle of the Time of Troubles development contains of 2 phases:
- during the 1st phase it takes place solving of tasks of Russia's civilizational building, opened for other nations. During that “elite” becomes impudent and shows tendency to establish common people slave-owning in certain civilizational forms – according to achieved development level of slave-owning sub-culture (from rough power to “brain-washing”);
- fully impudent “elite” arranges its own time of troubles, at which ending “elite” builds anti-national clan-corporate “elitist” state (this is the aim for organizing time of troubles by “elite”), which follows to its break-up in consequence of vices and management incapacity of ruling “elite”, which opposed themselves to common people.
- Foreign forces always meddled in the Time of Troubles development in Russia. Anti-popular in its essence “elite” always collaborated with these forces. And thus “elite” (in consequence of its foolishness and arrogance) became dull instrument in foreign forces political struggle for final and irrevocable enslavement of Russia.
- Post-Soviet Russia is an “elitist” clan-corporate anti-popular state, which is typical for 2nd phase of Time of Troubles full development cycle.
- There are two ways in this phase of further statehood development:
- either break-up in consequence of ruling “elite” non-adequateness and viciousity;
- or either transformation to really common to the whole people and national state, in which power is a service to God and people, but not a sinecure or a means of parasitism of the clans standing apart on nation.
In the historical past – on boundary between XVI-XVII centuries – there was an opportunity to avoid statehood break-up (if one judges by known historical facts): Boris Godunov made activity towards solving of critical social problems.
However he crashed with sabotage and slander of those “elite” clans, who didn't recognize Ivan Grozny’ and his descendants rights for Russian throne. This conspiracy formed early during childhood of tsarevich (“son of tsar”, i.e. prince) Ivan (to come Ivan Grozny) and was multi-turned play. In this play Romanov dynasty was not the lowest player and finally got the throne. And all the blame for happened disturbance (Time of Troubles, Smuta) was laid upon Boris Godunov.
Analytical report by IP USSR “The Current Moment” N 5(65), 2007 “Egoists Are Doomed to Live and to Die Being Slaves” showed certain parallels in biographies of Boris Godunov and Vladimir Putin.
Yeltsin only got name Boris at his birth. And some people spoke ironically of him “tsar Boris”, after he became head of post-Soviet statehood in Russian Federation. Quite the contrary, in biographies of Boris Godunov and Vladimir Putin there are many things in common, despite the 400-years historical period between them:
- both were born in the 52nd year: Boris Godunov – in 1552, Vladimir Putin – in 1952;
- both started their state service at special service: Godunov – in oprichnina (special administrative elite under tsar Ivan Grozny), Putin – in KGB;
- both became actual governors in the presence of nominal state head: Godunov started governing during the reign of Fedor Ioannovich, Putin became prime-minister in August 1999 during B. Yeltsin was nominal president;
- both are “upstart without kith or kin” from standpoint of ruling “elite”;
- both are quite good administrators for their society, which initiated projects of social importance:
- from one side, these projects loyally oriented to meet also common people wishes but not only “elite” wishes;
- from other side, both of them (Godunov and Putin – undertook to solve actual tasks with wittingly unfit means (both don't have notion about that due to non-critical perception of received education), and both don't have social resources among common people, from which they may get skilled management personnel for solving these tasks;
- while being in fact alone in their politics, they avoided to conflict with historically established “elite” and to carry out any mass political repressions, didn't ask questions like “are you a fool or an enemy of the nation (parricide)?”, even when there were bases for that question, this let their political opponents to think better of it or to retreat off quietly;
- rumour groundlessly and presumably put the matter to Godunov’s and Putin’s hands responsibility for grave crimes: to Godunov – murders of tsar Ivan Grozniy and his son tsar Fedor Ioannovich and also “well-known” murder of younger son of Ivan Grozniy – prince Dmitri in Uglich-town; to Putin – poisoning of his chief A. Sobchak, explosions of houses in Moscow, murder of journalist A. Politkovskaya (citizen of the USA) and poisoning of former FSB employee A. Litvinenko in London with radioactive polonium;
- Godunov facilitated the Moscow patriarchy establishment, according to which Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) became autonomous, but not one of metropolies of Byzantine Orthodox Church; Putin set himself as obedient orthodox Christian, and he successfully furthered joining up Moscow Patriarchy ROC and Foreign ROC (by means that ROC got global status), also in Putin’s time orthodox propaganda get appreciable time at Russian TV and broadcasting and is in fact the only alternative to liberal lack of principles at federal TV and radio.
Godunov made start of formation of “elite’s” slave owning in serfdom form in relation to common people; Putin furthers spreading of promissory servitude (kabala) in form of mortgage and other methods to “live on credit, getting at interest”.
Also there are differences between disturbance times at XVI-XVII AD and at XX-XXI AD. Mostly marked differences are:
- During XVI-XVII AD disturbance, at first, Godunov attempted to reform state and society, and, at second, disturbance began. In our days we can see other turn of events: at first, state crash and chaos, at second, initiated by Putin reforms, which pretend to led revival of state and to further society's development.
- Moreover, Godunov and Yeltsin have only the same name (Boris) and death date (April, 23): Godunov dead in 1605, Yeltsin (officially) – in 2007. Vladimir Putin is alive, continues to lead the state, and “Edinaya Rossiya” declares that: “Putin’s Plan” programs Russia’s revival, and Putin will be “national leader” even after expiration of his leading authority.I.e. Yeltsin, as named “Boris”, in certain sense became victim, which replaced another person in matrix-aggregorial processes (whose biography has a lot in common with Boris Godunov biography, while he has another name). Boris was made “to fill the sacrifice” premeditatedly or he placed himself – this is another question.
- During Godunov's governing under Fedor Ioannovich some gossiped about would he be a tsar. Godunov had an evident choice: at throne or in exile (in better case) – so he became tsar. During Putin’s presidency also some gossip about either he break Russian Constitution and will be president for 3rd time, or either he’ll not break the constitution, but will stay governor in fact even after 2nd presidency ending. (end of quotation from named Analytical Report of May 2007).
After May 2007 many things happened in Russian political life. These facts have to do with examined problematic of matrix displays:
- Putin didn’t change present Constitution, and he is not participating in president elections (on March 2, 2008);
- He backed up Dmitry Medvedev for president of Russia.
During Time of Troubles (XVI-XVII AD) throne changed hands to man called Dmitriy. In official history he is known as Lzhedmitry I (false-Dmitry I). Someone may consider this coincidence of names of highest state power successor during past and present times of troubles as something like “historical curious”. But it is safer to consider this coincidence as repeating (even with variations) of the same matrix.
The latter binds to remember that (with no matter what historians say: either Lzhedmitry I – was Grigory Otrepyev, either Grigory Otrepyev was temporary alias of true prince – Fedor Ioannovich, which have been concealed from attempt upon his life and which was heir at law in forehand) man, who really ascended the throne under name of Dmitriy, didn't dead his own death, but he was killed.
I.e. this is reason to think about safeguarding of D. A. Medvedev.
It’s necessary to understand, that attempt at “key figures” life is not end in itself of its initiators; that such attempt (moreover successful attempt) – is means to attain another goals.
As an example one can take the murder of Benazir Bhutto at Pakistan. As a result Musharraf’s regime got problems, which it wouldn’t get in case of B. Bhutto would still be alive and her party would win parliament elections. It was certain third power who won after Bhutto’s murder, but not Musharraf’s regime or opposition, and, moreover, not the whole nation. This murder might not happened, if someone at Pakistan special services have not winked at preparation for killing of political figure (who evidently was not sympathized by everybody in these services).
If one of goals of the conspiracy against Russia is – to complete realization of directive NSC-20/1 (Aug 18, 1948), then owners of this project need destabilization and chaos in Russia. And what exactly can service to that – preparation for killing of V. V. Putin or D. A. Medvedev – is a political concreteness.
Also, it’s necessary to understand there is scenario, which let its initiators to kill two birds with one stone:
If D. A. Medvedev will be elected for President of Russia and V. V. Putin will become a premier, then, in case of D. A. Medvedev for some reasons will not be able to act as president, V. V. Putin (premier) will be his successor (until next president elections).
If attempt upon D. A. Medvedev will be organized and will be successful, then this scenario’s developers will put all the blame for conspiracy organization on Putin (i.e. with the aim to retain the highest state power for himself on the grounds of law. If attempt on D. A. Medvedev will not be successful, then imputations will be the same.
I.e. D. A. Medvedev in reality of present days may be entrusted the role, analogous to role of his namesake – Prince Dmitry Ioannovich (younger son of Ivan Grozny), who was killed in Uglich-town by assassins sent, according to official historical version, by Boris Godunov. Though history course indicates that this assassination was organized if not by Romanov dynasty, then by their foreign puppeteer with the aim to remove both Ryurik-Rabinovich dynasty (which became essentially pan-Eurasian), and Godunov dynasty, which have pan-Eurasian roots. However, gossips on theme that “Godunov” is guilt for all evil deeds in past and present are kind of “humanitarian factor”, which is able to arouse for disturbance only specific group of home intellectuals. For stimulating to disturbance the rest (sufficient mass of common people) someone needs financial crisis, which can defeat “Putin’s Plan” accomplishment: don’t forget, that despite of sufficiently successful situation with state debt (thanks to Putin’s regime), private businessmen were under such conditions, that during more then decade it have been profitable to get credits at foreign banks.
What works for such scenario in Russia today? – Many things:
- Named dependency of private and private-corporate sectors of economy from foreign crediting sources.
- Lack of not only national ideology, but also distinct and directly interpreted ideology of political parties – first of all of “Edinaya Rossiya” party – a kind of “bureaucracy trade-union” (considering citizen demands from any political party: course of world history, course of own country history, course of economy and finances, course of sociology – no one from parties, however, can't offer set of these courses).
- Journalists, keen to sensations, for some reasons haven't jet unearth “historical curious incident” – parallels in biographies of B. Godunov and V. Putin. However, opera (written by Johann Matteson in XVII century) “Boris Goudenow” was taken out to theatre stage especially for “elite” review. Mass-media trumpeted about it joyfully. This is one of stages of so called “collective unconsciousness” (aggregorial algorithmic) programming.
- Spreading in the Internet information about D. A. Medvedev’s Jewish ancestors and his marriage with Jewess, at the least, doesn't favour so-called “patriotic” circles (at society, state bureaucracy, army and special services) to trust him, and, at the most, impels to actions against him personally and his career up to connivance of attempts to his life.
- On December 28, 2007 at the evening TV-channel “Kultura” (culture) showed “Julius Caesar” movie, based on Shakespeare’s play (British performance of late 1950-s). This movie, obviously, doesn’t blend with pre-holiday preparations for the New Year, Christmas and “Old Style New Year” (by Julian calendar).In this movie Brutus, while appealing to Rome citizens after Caesar’s murder, delivers a speech full of modern “democratic rhetoric”. This speech may be a ready text for self-justification in case of successful attempt at V. V. Putin or D. A. Medvedev:BRUTUS:
Be patient till the last.
Romans, countrymen, and lovers! hear me for my
cause, and be silent, that you may hear: believe me
for mine honor, and have respect to mine honor, that
you may believe: censure me in your wisdom, and
awake your senses, that you may the better judge.
If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of
Caesar's, to him I say, that Brutus' love to Caesar
was no less than his. If then that friend demand
why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:
--Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved
Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and
die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live
all free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him;
as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was
valiant, I honor him: but, as he was ambitious, I
slew him. There is tears for his love; joy for his
fortune; honor for his valor; and death for his
ambition. Who is here so base that would be a
bondman? If any, speak; for him have I offended.
Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If
any, speak; for him have I offended. Who is here so
vile that will not love his country? If any, speak;
for him have I offended. I pause for a reply.
After that Marcus Antonius condemns killers:
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honorable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
In 2006 specially made crown (so-called “Monomakh’s cap”), adorned with precious stones, was presented to V. V. Putin, and he refused from it.
Shakespeare in this play shows clearly how to manipulate the crowd in order to justify any meanness of thirsting for power “elite”. Also, with such effect somebody, while arousing passion of the crowd, may arouse civil war in order to advent another “elite” to power. Brutus’ speech is full of democratic rhetoric, which is widely used by democrats in presence. However, Markus Antonius’ speech is also full of rhetoric, with help of which somebody can just to stir up hatred to rival's clan, but not to stabilize the situation in the state for nation’s blessing.
- Picture of V. V. Putin’s marble bust, almost the same with Caesar’s one, appeared in the Internet.
Though pro-American liberal-democrats in Russia still regard as main scenario the destabilization of political situation in Russia (K. Rogov told that without any confusion at article “Predictable Russia” (“The Vedomosti”, December 28, 2007):
“... while trying to paint “balanced scenario”, we inevitably put our foot into it. Because non-balanced scenario still is base and inertial. And crisis still is tool for settling contradictions”);
– none the less, discharging of destructive matrix, due to God’s charity and to personal initiative of those people, who work for transformation of their Motherland and the whole Earth, but not for consuming or other social status of their clan or their patron’s clan...
December 14-31, 2007