Downloads: |pdf| |doc| |epub| |fb2| |illustrations|

— Don’t be sad, — said Alice. — Sooner or later things will clear up. Everything will take its own place and make a single beautiful pattern like lace. You will realize what everything is about because we get it right...

“If you are not interested in politics that does not mean that politics is not interested in you”. This quote, which for some reason people like to attribute to Bismarck, actually belongs to another — the Athenian Pericles. Bismarck paraphrased it this way: “If you do not care about politics, then politics will take care of you”. Therefore, as I have promised, — we turn to politics. The current politics and where it will bring us to if we DO NOT GRASP the reality in the ongoing.

It is not difficult to realize: no elected authority is able to function the way the theory prescribes it. In fact, this is a utopia out of the series “if we assume that all people are good and honest, some kind of social structure can be made out of them”. But no matter how good it is in theory, it will not work in practice, because, to put it mildly, not all people are good and honest. There is no point in wasting time creating another utopia. Models with other mechanisms of power formation are somewhat better, but they also have unacceptable vices. A dictatorship or monarchy in the short term perspective may or may not lead to some improvement. But in the long run, as the saying goes, “it is six of one to half a dozen of the other”. And it becomes MORE THAN DANGEROUS. In order to be protected from danger, you first need to understand its nature. If a water wall is approaching, you need to build floating platforms. If a wall of fire is coming up, you need to burrow down into in the ground. If there is a danger of plague, medication must be used. There is a different protection from each type of danger. In order to reliably protect yourself and resist, the first thing you need to do is to REALIZE WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW. This is the first serious knowledge from which you can start. As long as people feel like knowing everything, they have no chance to start up. The mainstream of people today, while assessing the ongoing events, is like a person with his nose buried in the ground. He only sees insects. You HAVE TO RISE HIGHER to see the grass. To see trees and animals, you have to stand up. The direction of the river can be seen from a bird's eye view... This will make it possible for us to understand some basic things which are necessary if we want to have our own understanding of what is happening around us — especially when WE CANNOT FIND an explanation to this and what all this can lead to.

Those who have read the works of N. Morozov¹ already perfectly understand that there is no History. There is an interpretation of the available information, a cocktail of fakes and real events. At a logic stretch those "facts" were combined into a fragile structure. The history of any state, any church, dynasty, as well as attempts to link all this into a single world history, is a set of political fables to please a specific moment. There are no facts. Any global decision is always made behind closed doors. The true motives are ALWAYS CONCEALED and not obvious. The secondary reasons are presented as the basic, and the real ones remain an inaccessible secret. Naturally, there is a sequence of real facts that have made history. But we have no idea about them. We only know what we are provided with to consider as real facts and history derived from them. Exactly this allows us to insist: there are no facts. The world will never know what the historical figure and the team behind him were really guided by when making a decision. Key players of yesterday and today have had every conceivable reason to conceal the true motivation of their decisions in order to increase their legitimacy.

After key decisions have been made, justifying mechanisms come into play. Press secretaries and image-makers adjust the solution in line with the situation and norms. The real motive is replaced by a legend and reinforced with “facts”. The “cogs” of the state machine write real documents. Ministries exchange memorandums and notes, declare protests and the like. At the same time, there is a leak of information, on which fakes, provocations, etc. are superimposed. In general, there is NO SENSE to list the tools by which fakes are first created, on the basis of which “real” facts arise, and out of them there made History house of cards.

Information forms the elite. The elite organize society. Society makes an epoch. By shortening the chain, we get: the information creator forms the epoch. Whoever creates the main information, on which our consciousness and subconsciousness grow, sets the main direction for the world. And today this is the key position of those who believe (and deliberately conceal what is truly happening) that they will achieve their “intended” goal, regardless of the fact that the attitude to information is determined by the source of information. For many people, the reason to turn away from the truth is the contradiction of the generally accepted interpretation of the event. You should admit that few people will double-check the reasons of this or that scientist or politician, if only because it is unrealistic due to the enormous amount of work. The majority always takes the beaten track WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT where it leads. This is NEITHER BAD NOR GOOD, this is taken for granted like water is wet, darkness is dark, and the mass is blind.

At the beginning of 2020, there began talks about the power transfer in 2024 or the solution of this issue in some other "legitimate" way dressed up as the previously announced transfer of power even to a proven successor from among the supporters and functionaries of the regime is an unacceptable risk to the national security. And talks began about the beginning of the “transit, transfer of power practically” AT ALL levels of the current government with their own speculation, reasoning and assumptions, which moved to the media and the Internet, flooding the already crowded field of all kinds of political speculation, mainly created and initiated by the current government itself... But few of the initiators of this process do understand the essence of the power transfer, its historical examples and what such actions resulted in, true, from the point of view of the so-called political processes, and not the true ones, WHICH WERE COVERED by this. Everything is being done so that these started up processes, pursuing specific goals, conceived by specific people who think of themselves as the “ruling elite”, are perceived by everyone else as natural evidence beyond doubt. But when looking at all this at the corresponding scale and, in my opinion, realizing the ongoing, I can state: the evidence is the main obstacle on the way to the truth. It forbids asking questions, there is no need IF EVERYTHING IS OBVIOUS. When there is a question, there is a chance to find the answer. When there is no question, because everything is clear, there is no chance of finding an answer. If Man had no questions, he would go down to the level of an animal (it has no questions). Man remains man through questions. They encourage him to look for answers. This is the driving force behind development. But this is NOT CLEAR TO THOSE who, through the invented by them so-called “power transfer” are trying to keep this power, which is flowing like water down a drain.

Time flies fast. On November 26, 2020, Alexander I. Yuryev, the founder of the Russian school of political psychology passed away. He was my friend and like-minded person, with whom we had done a lot since our acquaintance in 1991. As a token of memory of the great scientist, thinker and citizen, in gratitude for his support, for the information left to me on many issues, relevant and in demand now, I decided to present ONE OF HIS LAST WORKS, which was given by him to certain decision making people (I mentioned them above). Not finding their understanding, this work was published on several special scientific sites for a narrow circle of specialists — the analytical report “Why the new trend in Russian politics is called “POWER TRANSFER” 2020—2024”. It is one of many ways to hide information (with its formal publicity) from most people.

In order to take the reader beyond the usual ideas, I recommend that you carefully read the material, and this will allow you to more objectively assess today's statements of politicians “on the threat to all of us” and the internal, main threat to the country — “the disintegration of society within the country” and to understand — who, where. how and what— is disintegrating... and what an internal threat to the country means today.

I publish the information of A. I. Yuriev as detailed as possible and I will supplement this information with comments that make it possible to better comprehend the stated. The information being rather extensive with a lot of examples and conclusions, I consider it expedient to divide it into two parts. This will allow readers to find reasonable answers to questions that are troubling a lot of people today.

* * *

What is "Transfer-transit" of power?

A) “Transfer of power”, or “transit of power” — now often used and meaningful terms, denote a method of significant changes in state policy in the country in the next four years. But if this is “transfer of power”, then, as history shows, its results are POORLY PREDICTABLE, and often turn out to be completely different from what the authors txpected. And is it necessary to call the adaptation of the state administration system to the new political reality transfer of power?

This is especially important because there is no consensus among experts about the legitimacy of the concept “transfer" emergence. The opinions are very different:

• “the new political cycle puts the question of power transfer at the forefront”;
• “the power transfer is already underway”;
• “the transfer is sheer stupidity and sabotage”;
• “the transfer is inevitable, its staffing is underway”;
• “the power transfer in the Russian Federation depends on the “transfer of power” in the United States”;
• “the crisis of politics in “2021—2024 transfer””;
• “creeping revolution and dismantling of the welfare state”;
• “the “transfer of power ”as Perestroika-2”;
• “transfer scenarios: inertial, sudden and transformational”.

B) The reason for the appearance of the words “transfer-transit of power” in the political circulation is the forthcoming elections of President of the Russian Federation in 2024. Indeed, the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation must make a decision on calling elections not earlier than 100 days and not later than 90 days before the voting day. According to the amendments to the Constitution, the term of office of the president-elect increased in 2012 from four to six years. According to paragraph 3 of Article 81 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, one and the same person MAY NOT hold the office of President of the Russian Federation for MORE THAN TWO consecutive TERMS. This means that Vladimir Putin, who was elected president in 2012 and re-elected in 2018, will not be able to run in the 2024 presidential election. His term of office expires on May 7, 2024.

In order NOT TO HARBOR ANY ILLUSIONS regarding the “transfer-transit of power”, it is necessary to figure out what it implies. In order not to “reinvent the wheel” and not “step on the same rake”, it is useful to recall the historical lessons of power transfers in Russia and think about what price the country and the people paid for its realization.

C) The alleged reason for the appearance of the words “transfer-transit of power” in the political circulation was “mismanagement in Russia”. The end of 2019 in the Russian Federation was characterized by a clear awareness of the “mismanagement” in Russia, which was clear from the scale of non-compliance with the rule of law in the country. Sharp discontent among the people is caused by the corruption flourishing, theft, non-performance of official duties, impunity for crimes, and incredible enrichment of the elite against the background of the impoverishment of tens of millions of Russian citizens.

The concept “mismanagement” was introduced by D. I. Mendeleev, who in his time was concerned about the state of Russia. And the facts show that by 1917 most of Russia was practically “mismanaged”.

Population, gross national product (GNP) and the number of officials in the Russian Empire, France, Great Britain,
Germany and Austria Hungary around 1910

By 2020, the opinion was strengthened in the country and among the country's leadership that the organization of the state power, formed in Russia in 1993, had completely exhausted its capabilities in the context of the new political and technological reality — that is, the country was mismanaged. At the same time, all the countries of the world, not only Russia, as if on the command from some supranational center of power, joined the race to adapt their state administration to the new reality. I hope that readers understand that this is the direct consequence of the processes started up in 2012 within the framework of the new CS. There appeared the threat that only the countries with the system of power adequate to the new technological, economic and political reality would keep their sovereignty. However, reformatting public administration is a more complex scientific and technological task than creating a space rocket. In 2020, when the demand for change in the country became widespread, it was suddenly referred to as the “power transfer,” WITHOUT GOING TOO FAR into what that meant. Certainly, politics could not humiliate itself to the level of football, where a transfer means a temporary interval for the renewal of teams. In politics, this type of transfer can cause tectonic shocks in the country, which must be avoided in the process of reformatting state administration. The history of Russia is warning to us of such a danger, in which there are examples of sliding from the “reformatting” of power into “transfer of power”, and which cost the country too much. TRANSFER, as experience shows, is UNPREDICTABLE and often happens not at all as planned. From century to century, the designers of the power transit have made the same mistakes, believing that everything will be as they intend.Therefore, it is useful to remember past mistakes in order to avoid unnecessary sacrifices. We had examples. And we ought not to forget that those people who organize such things are devoid of rational thinking and are only capable of “dragging” everything they do today from the past.

It was not necessary to call the reformatting of power under the new political reality a transfer. And here is why!

HISTORICAL PART

Examples of power transfer: it is always unexpected, sudden, unacceptable, and unusual.

1. The transfer “The Ruriks — the Romanovs”. After the death of Tsarevich Dmitry Ioannovich in 1591 in Uglich — the son of Ivan the Terrible, and then the death of Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich in 1598, Russia became involved in the transfer of power: the ruling dynasty of the Ruriks was cut short. From 1584 up to the Zemsky Sobor (assembly) in 1613, it was unclear who would rule the country.

• The transfer price for the country. The transit consisted of a series of reigns: Boris Godunov, the impostor of False Dmitry I; Vasily Shuisky; False Dmitry II; Seven Boyars. The transit lasted until on February 21 (March 3), 1613, the Zemsky Sobor elected Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov, a representative of the new dynasty of Russian tsars — the Romanovs, to the kingdom. During the transit, Smolensk, eastern Karelia, the access to the Gulf of Finland, etc. were lost.
• The transfer price for the people. The Time of Troubles — this is how the time of the transfer “the Ruriks — the Romanovs” from 1598 to 1613 remained in the memory of the people. Here is the uprising of Bolotnikov, and the False Dmitry I and II, and the Russian-Polish war, and the Russian-Swedish war, and the Seven Boyars. The transfer is an unprecedented economic decline with great losses of the population. The size of arable land decreased 20 times, the number of peasants — fourfold. The transfer is the time of the Great Famine from 1601 to 1603: in two years at least 127 thousand people died, and cholera epidemics began. It came to cases of cannibalism, the starving ate dung.

2. The transfer “the Miloslavskys — the Naryshkins”. It happened after the death of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in 1676 and lasted until April 27, 1682. The transfer was followed by the Strelets Riots (1682), the seizure of power by Princess Sophia. After great upheavals, power in Russia passed from Sophia (the Miloslavskys) to Peter (the Naryshkins).

• The transfer price for the country. Renaming of the Moscow kingdom into the Russian Empire with the adoption by Peter I of the title of Emperor of All Russia and Father of the Fatherland (1721) occurred. The capital was moved from Moscow to St. Petersburg. The country became unrecognizably different. The transition of Russia under the control of the Germans in science, culture, education, governing and command of the army took place.
• The price of transfer of power for the people.There was reinforced recruitment of solders and laborers, who then died in masses in battles or from disease on ships and on the way to the army. The enormous mortality rate of laborers gathered for the construction of St. Petersburg, Kroonstad and the Ladoga Canal because of the too poor sanitary conditions. Peter I, having increased taxes threefold on the peasantry, depleted it out and cut off all supplies, therefore, the losses from hunger were unprecedented. During the reforms of Peter I, almost every fifth inhabitant of Russia died in the war or died of hunger and disease.

3. The transfer “the Romanovs — the Ulyanovs”. Nowadays, the most famous strategic transfer of power is in 1917 from Nicholas II (Romanov) — to Lenin (Ulyanov) — to Stalin. In April 1918, the Anarchist party was defeated; in July 1918, the Bolsheviks broke off relations with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries. In February 1921, the arrests of the Mensheviks began, in 1922 — the trial of the leaders of the Left Socialist-Revolutionary Party.

• The transfer price for the country. On October 25, 1917, the Russian Empire was reformatted into the Russian Soviet Republic; then on July 19, 1918, — to the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic; with the adoption of the Constitution of the USSR in 1936 and the Constitution of the RSFSR in 1937 — into the “Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic”. The losses of Russia as a result of four years of the First World War and three years of the Civil War amounted to more than 40 billion gold rubles, which exceeded 25 % of the total pre-war wealth of the country. The Germans left the administration of Russia, its science, culture, industry, and the army.
• The transfer price for the people. The life and death war for bread. More than 20 million people died or became disabled. Industrial production in 1920 decreased in comparison with 1913 by seven times. On November 1, 1920, there were about two million emigrants in Europe from the territory of the former Russian Empire. In Poland — one million, in Germany — 560 thousand, in France — 175 thousand, in Manchuria — more than 100 thousand, in Austria and Constantinople — 50 thousand each, in Italy and Serbia — 20 thousand each. In November, another 150 thousand people left Russia from the Crimea.

4. The transfer “Stalin — Khrushchev”. It took place on March 5, 1953, when the power passed from Stalin to Malenkov, and then to Khrushchev. Under Stalin, the state security bodies did not obey the party apparatus — Khrushchev subordinated the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the party. Khrushchev forbade spying on party officials, bugging them and taking any action against party members without the consent of the party committees.

• The transfer price for the state:a radical change in the country's political course. the expose of the cult of Stalin, rejection of the previous leaders, their domestic and foreign policies. Relations with the PRC and Yugoslavia were severed. The uprising in Hungary is suppressed. A course was set for the “coexistence” with capitalist countries, rejection of the image of an external enemy (USA, NATO, China).
• The transfer price for the people:the agricultural disaster in 1963, a sharp decline in the livestock. In 1963, the Soviet Union for the first time purchases abroad 12 million tons of grain, then 25. There was a shortage of bread. Dockers in Nikolaev refused to ship bread to Cuba. From June 1957 to April 1964, the security forces used military weapons 11 times (!) to disperse spontaneous riots. The most famous Novocherkassk, where 23 workers were killed and 70 people were wounded at the demonstration. The radical deterioration of life was masked by the temporary “Thaw”.

5. The transfer “Gorbachev — Yeltsin”. It happened in 1991-93, when power passed from the communists to the liberals: from Gorbachev to Yeltsin. An extraordinary congress of people's deputies of the USSR on March 15, 1990 elected Mikhail Gorbachev as President of the country; On December 25, 1991, after the Belovezhsk agreement, he resigned from office. The election of the Presidents took place in violation of the Constitution of the USSR.

• The transfer price for the country. The USSR ceased to exist: on July 10, 1991, Boris N. Yeltsin became President of the RSFSR, and on December 25, 1991, he signed a law on renaming the RSFSR into the Russian Federation (RUSSIA). He implemented the following reforms: price liberalization, free market; land reform — the transfer of land to private hands; privatization; reformed political power. The main goal is the transition from socialism to the market economy in the shortest possible time by the method of “shock therapy”. Then followed — the ban of the CPSU, cessation of the construction of socialism, collapse of the Warsaw Pact, etc. The Belovezhsk agreement, in accordance with Article 14, terminated the activities of all Soviet bodies on the territory of all republics.
• The transfer price for the people. By 1993, in terms of living standards, Russia went down from 25th place to 68. From 1992 to 1998, the population decline was 4.2 million, and the number of the country's working-age population decreased by 300 thousand people annually. The intensity of population losses in the Yeltsin period was five times higher than in the Stalin period. From 1991 to 1999, at least three million citizens left Russia for non-CIS countries.

Typical mistakes when preparing a transfer: it is always “not going” as planned.

1. A transfer is underestimation of the mood, feelings, and passions of the people.

The transfer of power in Russia in 1917 was predetermined in December 1904. The dismissal in an insulting manner of four workers by the foreman of the woodworking workshop of the carriage workshop A. Tetyavkin triggered off the mass strike, “the Bloody Sunday” of 1905, the revolution of 1905, 1917, the murder of the Romanov family, the Civil War and terror. The plant's administration was demanded to reinstate the dismissed workers and fire the master Tetyavkin — but it refused. In response, 12,500 workers went on strike on January 3, 1905, and 125,000 on January 8.

On the morning of January 9, 150,000 workers moved from different districts to the city center. The army used military weapons against the crowds of workers: sabers, rifles. On January 9, up to 200 people were killed; up to 800 people were wounded. The prestige of the royal power was irreparably damaged. This was taken advantage by 17 military revolutionary organizations operating in Russia and dreaming of the transit of power, they developed mass dissatisfaction with the “execution of January 9” into the fire of the Great Russian Revolution.

Underestimation. The contempt of the authorities for the political feelings of the masses, their feelings, passions, moods is always the Achilles' heel of the power transfer. Tactically, this contempt was exploited by the “monkey sitting in the tree”.

2. The transfer is an error in relying on the “tamed’ organizations".

George Gapon was a Priest of the Russian Orthodox Church, politician and trade union leader, eminent orator and preacher and simultaneously a police agent. He was the creator and permanent leader of the working organization “Assembly of Russian factory workers in St. Petersburg”. Gapon was the brainchild of the Police Department (Sergei Zubatov), he was ​​supported by the St. Petersburg mayor Nikolai Kleigels. Gapon wrote reports to them, to Metropolitan Anthony, Director of the Police Department Alexei Lopukhin, Deputy Minister Pyotr Durnovo, Mayor Ivan Fullon and others. Gapon was “their inside man”. Witte was reported that Gapon was controlled and the ministers would cope with the situation without his participation. Because of this mistake, all of Witte's economic and foreign policy achievements turned out to be nothing compared to the result of the peaceful march of the workers. Witte had to correct this mistake, being involved, in particular, in organizing “execution” trains to pacify Russia, and negotiating with Gapon, who turned out to be a “double agent” being under the influence of the Social Revolutionaries.

3. Transfer is an error when assessing the loyalty of the close ones.

Nicholas II was misled by Witte² and the Government, who considered the procession of workers (150 thousand people!) an event of little significance. The tsar left for Tsarskoe Selo, instructing the ministers to investigate those who went to him personally and carried his portraits and icons. However, the shooting of workers’ columns and the cutting of unarmed people by the cavalry, who had believed him for the last time, were no longer a trifle. Undoubtedly, after this, the Tsar realized that he was doomed: for eight years he did not appear in public until the already senseless celebrations in honor of the three hundredth anniversary of the Romanov dynasty in 1913. The Romanovs Dynasty ended on January 9, 1905.And when in 1917 with the betrayal of the personal guards and relatives, when Emperor and his family were arrested, not a single person in Russia or outside of it came to help him. It was not the revolutionaries who arrested the family, but the generals who were personally brought up by him: Alekseev, Kornilov. the Semyonov regiment, and the personal guard of the emperor immediately took the oath “of loyalty to the All-Russian State and obedience to the Provisional Government currently in charge of the state. Even the Division of His Own Imperial Majesty of the Convoy... expressed the desire to obey the requirements of the Provisional Government, elected by the State Duma and chaired by M.V. Rodzianko...“. All and everyone betrayed.

4. Transfer — the danger of participating in it.

4.1. The fate of Gapon. Gapon had to pay for the”transit of power”, whom the SRs entrusted to kindle the flames of the revolution. After January 9, he became an ally of Count Witte, a supporter of the reforms proclaimed by the Manifesto of October 17, and an opponent of armed methods of struggle. When he broke out of obedience to the Social Revolutionaries, imagining himself a political figure of the international level, he was hanged by them on March 26, 1906 in Ozerki in the outskirts of St. Petersburg on charges of cooperation with the authorities and betrayal of the revolution. He hardly self-confidently foresaw what his play on the border of “thin matter” and bloody revolution would result in.

4.2. The fate of General Alekseev. The transfer of power cost too much to General M. V. Alekseev, who also considered himself a “creator of history”.

A military leader, participant in the Russian-Turkish (1877—1878) and Russian-Japanese (1904—1905) wars, in the First World War he was the chief of staff of the armies of the Southwestern Front, commander-in-chief of the armies of the Northwestern Front, chief of staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief (from August 1915) — all this meant nothing from the standpoint of his loyalty to the Oath. Nicholas II absolutely trusted him. Alekseev had breakfast and dinner with the sovereign as his guest of honor. He discussed the state affairs at the fronts on an equal footing with the sovereign, but secretly prepared for his overthrow, and during the February Revolution (1917) organized the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne. He misinformed the front commanders about the Tsar's abdication. It was he who arrested the former tsar according to the decree of the Provisional Government, but soon he himself barely escaped the revolutionary soldiers. The officers dressed him in civilian clothes and sent him secretly to Rostov, from where he was chased out by Ataman Kaledin. Until his death, he, the key performer of the transfer, hid from people for whom he, without knowing it, opened the way to power, having achieved the abdication of the tsar.

4.3. The fate of General Ruzsky. An active participant in the transfer of power, General N.V. Ruzsky, believed that after the abdication of the tsar, everything would remain the same and even better for him. His services to the transfer of power include the fact that he did not let the train with the tsar into the rebellious Petrograd, he blocked the advance of the front-line units to Petrograd to suppress the beginning of the revolution, and it was he who physically forced Nicholas II to sign the Manifesto of abdication. The sudden resignation was a “bolt from the blue” for him, and he went to have a rest and treatment in Pyatigorsk. But there came a “payback” for participating in the transfer of power: on November 1, 1918, the Chekist G.A. Atarbekov cut the throat of General Ruzsky. The general hardly imagined that the third, unknown who “sat in the tree” when he vacated the throne for them, forcing Nicholas II to sign the abdication, would do this to him.

Ensuring the transfer: foundation, scientific approach, continuity, consistency.

Political operations such as transit of power are the intellectual development of many professionals from different fields of science and different countries. The so-called “intervention” of other countries has been provoking the transfer of power in Russia for more than a century (the Romanovs, Peter, Catherine II, Alexander I, and Lenin). The motives of these interventions have long been known: firstly, it is the expansion of the living space of Europe at the expense of Russia; secondly, it is free access to its cheap resources; thirdly, it is the accession of Russia for their ideology, making it a military and political vassal of Europe. The motives of the Russian elites are clear, who, in the struggle among themselves for the resources, are seeking the transfer of power. But all modern politics is a continuous chain of events in which each subsequent link is a continuation of the previous one. Therefore, the events of 2024 may be predictable. But who is doing it? When talking about the transfer of power, it is important to understand where the chain of preparation for the transfer begins, what links does it consist of, and how does it end today?

1. After the Second World War: the speech by Winston Churchill in the United States, in Missouri, in the town of Fulton on March 5, 1946 in a small hall of Westminster College. This speech is having been realized to this day, and everything that follows is its development. As soon as on March 14, Stalin said: “Mr. Churchill and his friends in England and the United States are presenting something like an ultimatum to the nations that do not speak English: accept our domination voluntarily, and then everything will be in order — otherwise war is inevitable”.

2. In the language of our time, W. Churchill's thoughts are set forth in the book “Democracy” by Charles Tilly . He cites the example of the definition of “Freedom House”, which includes real assessments of how citizens enjoy political rights and civil liberties. To recognize electoral democracy, Freedom House relies on procedural elements:

• an adversarial, multi-party political system;
• regular holding of highly competitive elections;
• a wide access of the main political parties to voters through the media and open political campaigning.

3. In order to study the implementation of W. Churchill's plans, many scientific centers were created, the most famous of which is the Club of Rome. Its creation was due to the need to understand the theory and practice of manipulation of an individual behavior and large human masses: the influence of the experience of the Great Russian Revolution of 1905-1917.

To start up the project, the President of the Club of Rome, Aurelio Peccei, wrote the basic book “Human Qualities”, which was also published in Russia. And everything else (Breton Woods, Washington Consensus, etc.) was the provision of the newly created science of human control.

4. Something went wrong with the transit of power. To explain what it is, — Z. K. Brzezinski wrote the book “Strategic View: America and the Global Crisis” (“AST”, 2012 — Political Insider (Eksmo)). He came to the conclusion that “Times are changing, the world is becoming multipolar, and if the United States does not revise its concept of the global role of “God's chosen hegemon in the world politics”, then they will face exactly the same systemic crisis that destroyed the USSR in its time”.

5. The new political situation in the world was presented by the Club of Rome in the form of a sensational report: “The Old World is doomed. The New World is inevitable!” (E. Weizsaecker, A. Wijkman). The authors refer to the Communist Party of China, which proclaimed the COURSE TO CREATE an “ecological civilization”, which is fixed in the Constitution and has already been reflected in the plans of the thirteenth (2016—2020) five-year plan. The hope is highlighted for a person's abilities, his thinking: it is necessary to “cultivate integral thinking, and not be limited to analytical thinking”. The authors note that teaching systems thinking is not enough, because "in systems thinking, there is a tendency to view reality in rather mechanistic categories that are not able to grasp its organic integrality."

6. The situation in the world is developing unpredictably, and the authors of intervention in the transfer of power are actively looking for its new forms, some of which are presented in the lectures by Nassim Nicholas Taleb called “Antifragility. How to benefit from the chaos. "The book makes life in the world where uncertainty reigns, but you DO NOT NEED to strive to predict the future, but you ought to be ... antifragile. Antifragility is a property of people (companies, states, etc.) that allows them under the blows of fate not only to withstand (and not collapse), but also become stronger. Antifragility means taking advantage of opportunities. Taleb writes: “The wind extinguishes the candle and lights the fire. The same is the case with chance, uncertainty, and chaos: each of us would like not to hide from them, but benefit from them. In other words, to become a flame that is craving for the wind. This, in short, is by no means the author's humble attitude towards uncertainty and chance”.

7. Specialists in Russia have their own vision of the new political reality for their own version of state modification. Sergei Pereslegin published an article: “The Global World: Extremely Unstable Development” (Neva Magazine, No. 5, 2009). His opinion: “In general, the situation on the “world chessboard” has sharply got worse. There will be no draw! There will be no “delayed” post-industrial transition! Over the next twenty years, we will face either a total post-industrial catastrophe or a post-industrial transition with a complete restructuring of all life formats”. This is described in more detail in the book “The Sum of Strategies”. Among other things, the authors are interested in passionaries: “people who have an innate ability to absorb more energy from the external environment than is required only for personal and species self-preservation and to give this energy in the form of purposeful work to modify their environment”, that is, creators and authors of history...

8. But in the Russian vision of the new political reality on the eve of the proposed transfer of power, there are undoubted mistakes, presented, for example, in the theory of “self-employed” in the gray economy of Russia. It looks like an attempt to call for the Law millions of Russian citizens who can be easily identified and taxed. In fact, these millions of people have been studied in science as a “precariat” class, and they see in it a new danger for the transfer of power, too. This problem is global, and it is described in the book by Guy Standing “Precarity: A New Dangerous Class”. The precariat is a new class that, on the one hand, plays an extremely important role in the production of both tangible and intangible values, and on the other hand, it is deprived of most social and political rights and guarantees: stable wages and health insurance, paid leave, access to education (precarious— unreliable).

9. A simplistic concept of ecology has led to the fact that behind making a profit from garbage — “money that cannot be eaten”, they ceased to see the physical, material reality.

The Russian North is NOT A GARBAGE DUMP!

How dangerous this “trifle” is for the transfer of power is shown by the events such as “Shies”. The importance of ecology is well represented in the book by Yuri Shevchuk "The collapse of the project “humanity”. The author warns against the mistake “to believe that the end of humanity will take place. Certainly — but not now and not even in the next thousand years. This misconception is due to the fact that people used to think that changes on the planet are slow. At the same time, everyone knows that the ethnic composition of the Roman Empire during the Great Migration of Nations changed dramatically in 15 years. Disasters are prepared slowly. But they happen quickly...”.

10. It is clear that the ruling class of Russia is trying to understand what is happening with the world of the new reality and integrate into it with the help of completely new ideas and solutions. For example, the Center for Strategic Research developed in 2018 a new fundamental project for adapting Russia to changes. The authors: M. Petrov, V. Burov, M. Shklyaruk, and A. Sharov presented the project: “The state as a platform”. The state for the digital economy. Digital transformation. Among other things, they write: “For the state. Reducing the level of costs on general government spending by 0.3% of GDP by 2024. An increase in the number of real-time economic indicators obtained from alternative sources. For the citizens. High level of satisfaction with the quality of the provided state and municipal services. Personalization of public services”...

As a result, a high-tech digital platform for public administration minimizes the human factor, and related to it corruption and errors.

The modern trend of political and social changes DOES NOT GROW out of the momentary actions of modern leaders of different ranks, but continues to develop, willingly or unwillingly, within the framework of the direction that was set many years ago at the global level and presented by W. Churchill, C. Tilly, A. Peccei, Z.K. Brzezinski, von E. Weizsaecker, Wijkman, N. Taleb, S. Pereslegin, G. Standing, Y. Shevchuk and many others — several pages are not enough to list them all. This should be understood when assessing the ongoing today and the actions of those in power. Today is the time for comprehension. Painful comprehension, right or wrong, and in general — why?

To be continued.

¹ Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov published three large works at the junction of the subject areas of the history of culture and natural science: “Revelation in the Thunder and Storm” (1907), “The Prophets"” (1914) and the 7-volume “Christ” (1924-1932), in which he presented the biblical texts as a reflection of real astronomical observations of early medieval Christian astronomers and formulated a theory of total falsification of human history (“antiquity is the Middle Ages”), which later strongly influenced the ideas of representatives of New Chronology — the theory of a radical revision of world history, created under the leadership of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, mathematician A. T. Fomenko.

² Sergei Yulievich Witte — Russian statesman, Minister of Railways (1892), Minister of Finance (1892—1903), Chairman of the Committee of Ministers (1903—1906), Chairman of the Council of Ministers (1905—1906).