2. Continuation (December 28-30, 2007)
On the Discharge of the Destructive Anti-Russian Matrix · перевод (English) · раздел 3 из 5
Перевод исходного произведения; точность перевода оценивается отдельно.
2. 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 [15]. 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 [16] 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 [17], 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 [18]) 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 [19] (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 [20].
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 [21]) - 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 [22]). 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) [23], 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.