"Environment of Reflection". Politics with clean hands

I'm tired of the noisy campaign against all dissidents with elements of spy mania and conspiracy theories, unleashed by the media controlled by the security officers in connection with the antics of the left-wing outrageous girls from Pussy Riot, whose views are interesting, but which I do not share at all. I have my own, almost the opposite. Well, someone took off his pants somewhere and showed his ass.
But is this a reason to blame everyone? who does not share the only correct point of view (naturally, the point of view of the head of the house) in selling out to the West. in a conspiracy to overthrow the foundations and foundations? And a reason to show this ass in a thousand programs in different angles. The Kremlin arranged this PR for this ass. This is deliberate debauchery and an insult to the feelings of believers. Because at the time of the conditional removal of pants, i.e. performances of punks (translation: scum) there was not a single believer in the KHS. Don’t consider security mugs as such... But the media showed this ass a hundred times to everyone without fail and a million Pharisees cried out about the insult to their tender feelings and the need to burn the damned witches at the stake.

It is necessary to separate criticism of the church and criticism of religion. All liberals have a tolerant attitude towards religion. In the end, you can profess the point of view that you need to love your neighbor as yourself. That's what it is Orthodox Christianity and Christianity in general. Or is Orthodoxy not Christianity? Please love me. But don't meddle in my bed or my affairs. And this is done by a gang that undertakes to speak on behalf of 90% of the population, only because they want to love me as themselves. Faith is a personal matter for everyone, and the church is a totalitarian sect, meddling with its banner bearers in the affairs of society. They did not intend to love their neighbor, but to beat them. And they privatized religion, in this case Orthodoxy, like their accomplices from secular gangs, state property. As for other faiths, I can say that they do not interfere in my life yet. and I don’t care about them. Don't look for evil intent secular society. whose feelings were offended by the interference of the church in his affairs. I don’t forbid carrying money to church, I don’t mind, but I won’t go either. And let the Dkraks believe in love for one's neighbor or the love of one's neighbors. I'm not a Christian, but an atheist. Although they signed me up without asking.

Oleg, I am also against perverted love in relation to myself and my loved ones. The rest must choose their own beds and partners, but this should not affect public morals. If the church and the majority of society are against sexual perversions, then everyone must submit to these demands, especially since physiology is also on the side of the traditional view. I’m more likely an atheist too, although I’m baptized, but no one pulls me into church. They don't force you there either. Let those whom faith helps to live, regardless of religion, believe, but do not impose faith on others. They don’t force it on me, and if they try, I know both the Old and New Testaments well enough, this sobers up neophytes.

Modern politics is, on the one hand, an extensive network of knowledge in the political aspect (philosophy, political science, economics, geography, history, sociology, ecology, ethics, anthropology, etc.), and on the other, a way of action aimed at achieving something. something determining the nature of interaction between state and society in the internal aspect and between states in the external aspect. Most often in politics, the course of action in the internal aspect is aimed at achieving power, usually in the form of a struggle for power. In the external aspect, most often the course of action is associated with achieving the maximum possible benefit in relation to other states, as well as ensuring external security. And here, in most cases, the principle is realized: in politics, “the method is not important, but the result is important.” That is why political practice at the time of the appearance of the “Protocols”, and even more so in our time, is permeated with hypocrisy, meanness and deception, largely due to the insidious fetishization and slippery mythologization that have become established in it. But let us give a few characteristic excerpts from the “Protocols” concerning various aspects of the implementation of policies by the “elected”.

“Politics has nothing to do with morality. A ruler guided by morality is impractical and therefore not secure on his throne. Whoever wants to rule must resort to cunning and hypocrisy. The great national qualities - frankness and honesty - are vices in politics, because they overthrow the strongest enemy better and more faithfully. These qualities should be attributes of the goyim kingdoms, but we should not be guided by them” (from protocol No. 1).

“In order to distract too restless people from discussing political issues, we are now pursuing new supposedly political issues - industrial issues. In this field, let them rage!... Weaning themselves more and more from independent thinking, people will speak in unison with us, because we alone will begin to suggest new directions of thought, of course, through such persons with whom we will not be considered in solidarity” ( from protocol No. 1).

“Our password is strength and hypocrisy.

Violence must be the principle, and cunning and hypocrisy the rule for governments that are unwilling to lay down their crown at the feet of the agents of any new power.

Therefore, we should not hesitate to bribe, deceive and betrayal when they should serve to achieve our goal. In politics, we must be able to take other people’s property without hesitation, if with it we achieve obedience and power” (from protocol No. 1).

“We need to take into account the modern thoughts, characters, and tendencies of peoples, so as not to make mistakes in politics and in the management of administrative affairs. The triumph of our system, the parts of the mechanism of which can be arranged differently, depending on the temperament of the peoples we meet along the way, cannot be successful if its practical application is not based on the results of the past in connection with the present” (from protocol No. 2).

“The main success in politics lies in the secrecy of its enterprises: the word should not be consistent with the actions of the diplomat” (from protocol No. 7).

“When we introduced the poison of liberalism into the state organism, its entire political complexion changed: states became ill fatal disease− blood decomposition. We can only wait for the end of their agony” (from protocol No. 10).

This, in particular, is where the poisonous shoots in the nature of dirty politics in our time have largely taken root. We have already quite convincingly revealed this character from the political aspects discussed above (democracy, freedom, equality, fraternity, human rights, civil society, freedom of speech and economic policy) through the prism of the attitude of the authors of the “Protocols” towards them. And in order to make it possible in practice, in the interests of the well-being of society, to implement progressive options for these aspects, constructively justified at the end of each subsection, policy should be carried out by professionals with clean hands and thoughts. It is precisely such people who will be able to most positively perceive the scenario and technology proposed in this book for carrying out a restructuring that is truly necessary for the benefit of human society in the form of its transfer to SPM, based on IP. Therefore, the success of this restructuring will lie in how perfect it will be personnel policy upon the arrival of this type of people into the system of power and management. To approach the solution of this difficult problem, let us once again dwell on the objective nature of people.

Initially, no person, no society is responsible for what they are. After all, even by their natural heredity different people endowed with well-defined individual physical, physiological, psychological and mental characteristics. In addition, after birth, a person is formed in very different natural and social conditions. But if a person is born a physical freak, which is clearly visible to everyone, he himself, of course, is not to blame for this. The parents and the conditions under which it developed are not chosen after conception. But the birth of potential moral monsters (people prone to murder, villains of all stripes, unscrupulous in their actions) can be determined, especially in initial stage their existence can be quite problematic. This is precisely one of the rather complex problems of any society, what every person may be capable of in the future. If a person exhibits some kind of vicious tendency, then society should try to protect such a person from the manifestation of this social negativity throughout his life. Well, on the other hand, for the positive development of any society, it is very important to select from among your environment the most preferable people in various aspects and create conditions for them to perform fruitfully.

The above arguments are, of course, a trivial truth that the well-being of societies on any scale, including humanity as a whole, directly depends on its ability to localize social negatives as much as possible and develop social positives as much as possible. And here it is also quite obvious that the success of solving such a problem will also directly depend on how professional and moral the first leader of society, at the level of an individual country, the head of state, is. Unfortunately, within the framework of the modern world community, the heads of individual states various reasons There are quite a lot of people unworthy for such a role, who in their characteristics correspond to the pseudo- and anti-elite types of elitism. We will dwell on these reasons a little lower, but here I want to dwell in more detail on the above-mentioned in my opinion and the opinion of my extraterrestrial Teachers, clearly outstanding heads of their states, namely: Fidel Castro and A.G. Lukashenko.

Head of the Republic of Cuba Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz, who before his voluntary resignation combined two positions - Chairman State Council Republic and Supreme Commander-in-Chief - he is a highly intellectual, very honest and strong-willed person, despite the fact that he himself is not from a poor Cuban family, he became not just a revolutionary, but the leader of a revolution that overthrew the virtually puppet regime of Batista in Cuba. For me personally, a miracle simply happened when, after the collapse of the USSR and the Socialist camp, Cuba, under the leadership of Fidel Castro, preserved and continues to successfully develop truly humane human principles of its existence. It’s only a pity that Fidel Castro, over whom we, as we know, have no control, has now abdicated the above-mentioned powers. True, these powers were also entrusted to the legendary revolutionary, namely his sibling Raul Castor Rus. However, I would like to present to you, my dear reader, at least some of his views on the current situation in the world. The judgments presented below were expressed by him back in 2000, with which I personally completely agree:

“The advanced capitalist system, which later evolved into modern imperialism, ultimately imposed a neoliberal globalized order on the world that is completely intolerable. It has given rise to a world of speculation, the creation of fictitious wealth and values ​​that have nothing to do with real production, and fabulous personal fortunes, some of which exceed the gross domestic product of dozens of poor countries. It is unnecessary to add to this the robbery and waste of the world's natural resources, as well as the miserable life of millions of people. This system promises nothing to humanity and is not needed for anything other than self-destruction, and they will probably be destroyed along with it Natural resources, serving as a support for human life on the planet.”

“What happened 10 years ago (let me remind you that these judgments were made in 2000) was a naive and unconscious destruction of the great social and historical process, which should have been improved, but not destroyed. Hitler's hordes could not achieve this, even killing more than twenty million Soviet people and devastated half the country. The world remained under the auspices of the only superpower, which in the fight against fascism did not suffer even 5 percent of the victims suffered by the Soviet people.”

I also admire the President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Grigorievich Lukashenko. This person, in my opinion, and, I think, in the opinion of all honest and decent people, is close to the ideal of the head of state, the nature of the formation and construction of which we substantiate in the 4th section. The newspaper “TOMORROW”, and above all, its editor-in-chief, the famous Russian patriotic writer A.A. Prokhanov, reflects on various aspects of the formation of this state as the 5th empire at the current time (this was in 2008) from issue to issue. . The fact that a person like A.G. Lukashenko was able to legitimately, in the current conditions of “democratic reforms” that Shushkevich had already begun to implement in Belarus, also according to the scenario and patronage of “overseas consultants” with powerful financial support from outside, win in 1994 on presidential elections all the rivals vying for this post, and now even retaining it for the 4th term is a significant and even significant purely positive event not only for Belarus, but also for the entire post-Soviet geopolitical space. Below I present a fragment of A.G. Lukashenko’s speech, delivered at a UN session in early 2006, from which it is clear how much his judgments on the same tragic global event coincide with the above judgments of Fidel Castro:

“15 years have passed since the collapse of my country, the USSR. This event completely changed the structure of the world. Soviet Union despite all the mistakes and blunders of its leaders, it was then the support and hope of many states and peoples. The Soviet Union ensured the balance of the global system.

Today the world is unipolar. With all the ensuing consequences:

flourishing Yugoslavia was destroyed and disappeared from the map of Europe;

multiethnic Afghanistan has become a hotbed of conflicts and drug trafficking;

The carnage in Iraq continues to this day. The country has become a source of instability for a huge region;

Iran and North Korea are targeted.

Belarus is a country like the majority in this room. Emerging from the rubble cold war, Belarus has become a knowledge-intensive, high-tech state with ten million highly educated, tolerant people. The UN classified us as developed countries With high level human development.

We, like you, want little from the planet: peace and stability. We will create the rest ourselves with our own labor.”

We will need such knowledge in order to human civilization and its constituent elements, it is most correct to design the conversion technology for the transition to SPM, based on the IP. Naturally, such a transformation should begin with Russia and its immediate environment, i.e. from the post-Soviet geopolitical space. The quality of such technology will largely be determined through the correct understanding of the state of culture of the corresponding society. In turn, the degree of correctness of such an understanding will depend on the adequacy of the understanding of the phenomenon “culture”, which, in my opinion, in particular, is not entirely correct in modern conditions. Therefore, below, through the diagram in Fig. 1.3, I present my version, confirmed by my extraterrestrial Teachers, that in the very general case should be understood by this phenomenon.

In accordance with the diagram in Fig. 1.3, the culture of any intelligent substance in the most general case includes 3 constituent substantial elements: science, esotericism and art (see Fig. A). Theoretically, if this intelligent substance exists enough long time, then culture can fully become synonymous with art (see Fig.B), where Fig.B symbolically depicts the nature of the mutual transformation of the substantial elements of science and esotericism towards their mutual transformation. As for the symbolism “REALITY” and “IDEALITY” adopted in the diagram, this means that at any stage of maturity of an intelligent substance, the reality of its existence and interaction with the outside world from the point of view of evolutionary expediency should strive for an ideal corresponding to a 100% state “the degree of realization of creative creativity.”

In order to more consciously perceive the symbolism presented in the diagram of Fig. 1.3, we present a disclosure of the concepts indicated on it: culture, science, esotericism and art, with the addition to them of objectively determining the state of culture of any intelligent substance, namely religion and philosophy, which can also be perceived as its constituent substantial elements. We will make this disclosure through the interpretations traditionally accepted for these concepts at the current moment in time according to the dictionary of the Russian language by S.I. Ozhegov, and for the concept of “esotericism” from Explanatory dictionary on esotericism, occultism and parapsychology, compiled by A.M. Stepanov and published in Moscow in 1997, which I mark with the index “T” (traditional version). Due to the fact that, in my opinion, agreed with my extraterrestrial Teachers, traditional interpretations contain varying degrees of imperfection and inaccuracy, I present their more correct formulations, the interpretations of which are marked with the index “P” (proposed option).

Vladimir Petrovich Lukin. Politician with clean hands

I met Lukin a long time ago, when he entered graduate school at the Institute of World Economy and international relations, where I worked then. Then I went on a business trip abroad to Prague and lost sight of him for a while. But he knew that after graduate school he worked as a researcher and journalist. After I left Prague, Lukin arrived there and worked in the same magazine - “Problems of Peace and Socialism”. It was here that the “Prague Spring” of 1968 found him. Lukin was friends with Dubcek and sympathized with him. Being an honest, principled and very brave man, he did not hide his negative attitude towards the military suppression of the Czech “perestroika and glasnost”, although the liberal changes in Czechoslovakia were not called that then.

At that time it was really courageous act. Along with several dissidents who were not afraid to go to Red Square in protest, there were not many people in the USSR who openly condemned the actions of the countries Warsaw Pact in August 1968, although many people scolded them in secret and in their kitchens.

Who could then imagine that exactly 23 years later, thousands of Soviet citizens would take to the streets to sweep away communist totalitarianism and tens of thousands would defend the White House from the Kremlin putschists?!

But then, in the dark and dark period of political reaction, Lukin’s disloyal talk was enough for him to be urgently recalled from Prague to Moscow. He was fired from his job and was on the verge of expulsion from the party.

Soon after returning to Moscow, Lukin came to my newly formed US Institute. I won’t hide that in that situation, Lukin’s hiring gave me apprehension. But the reviews from people I respected about Lukin were most positive, and I decided, despite the “wolf ticket,” to invite him to work at my institute. True, I informed Andropov about this so that ill-wishers would not convey everything to him in a distorted light and would not turn him against me and Lukin. I was pleasantly surprised when Yuri Vladimirovich said: “Your institute, you decide for yourself.”

Lukin's authority both at the institute and outside it grew rapidly. I was glad about this, but I understood that Lukin would not stay at the institute for long: his scale and abilities were much greater; they should sooner or later lead to his nomination for political work. Which soon happened.

As I expected, Lukin was invited to a fairly high position at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Then, when they came big changes under Gorbachev, and then under Yeltsin, he became one of the most prominent and influential democratic politicians of the USSR and Russia, held high positions in parliament, and then he was appointed ambassador to the United States for several years. After returning from Washington in 1993, he and Yavlinsky created the Yabloko party (in fact, the first letters of this name are made up of the surnames of its founders - Yavlinsky, Boldyrev and Lukin).

It is impossible not to mention Lukin’s role in concluding peace in Khasavyurt in 1996, which put an end to the first Chechen massacre. Lukin was sent to Khasavyurt together with General Lebed to negotiate with Maskhadov. According to the peace agreement, the determination of the status of Chechnya was postponed until 2001, and the demilitarization of the armed opposition was provided for.

Nowadays it is customary to throw mud at this agreement, calling it almost “betrayal,” but I categorically disagree with such an assessment. The world was the only one the right decision At that time, the mistake was something else: after Khasavyurt, the Kremlin seemed to have forgotten about Chechnya. Moscow could not and did not try to control the situation inside Chechnya, nor to isolate the rebellious republic with a “cordon sanitaire” along its administrative borders in order to stop militants’ forays into neighboring areas, the free passage back and forth of gangs, weapons, drugs, smuggling and other things.

A “black hole” formed on Russian territory, which led three years later, in 1999, to a new war. As officially stated, the federal troops were better prepared for it. But why then did they again have to suffer such heavy losses - more than 20 thousand killed and wounded - and this on a territory comparable to the Moscow region, while possessing absolute superiority in heavy weapons, aviation, artillery, and armored vehicles?! Apparently, little has changed in our army in the more than 60 years that have passed since 1945, and the soldier, as then, is considered the most scarce item of “military supply”.

After Yabloko was ousted from the Duma in the unfair elections of 2003, Lukin, on the proposal of President Putin, was elected human rights ombudsman in Russian Federation. To tell the truth, this step by Putin surprised me, but, undoubtedly, it was one of the successful personnel decisions of the new president, unlike many others. It was probably impossible to find a better candidate for this job. Intelligence and education, impeccable honesty, integrity and unchanging civil position, sincere concern for ordinary people and open-mindedness are far from full list merits of Vladimir Lukin.

They say politics is a “dirty business”, but they forget that they make it that way “ dirty politicians" Vladimir Lukin is an example of the fact that politics can be done with clean hands, and this determines its goals, moral qualities, and to a large extent, effectiveness, because such a policy is likely to receive broad public support in our country and abroad.