Anatomy of power. Part 7

It is necessary to objectively see “Pravda in the eye” and answer key questions:

1. What was Russia in the foreseeable past within the average duration of the surviving generation. That is, the last 75 - 80 years?

2. What do we see it in the next 25-30 years within the beginning of the life of the generation that is born today?

We will not look for more right or less guilty.

Why?

Because these are emotions, and they interfere with understanding the truth, offend people, break them and do not allow to find a way out of the crisis of Russia.

We must find answers to these questions, if we believe that a person is reasonable.

Honestly - I'm tired of living in the country of unhappy destitute people. And there are tens of millions in Russia today. Politicians - units. They consider themselves an “elite” and do not include us in their number. Without us, they are nothing, but use us to conquer or retain their “elite” position in society.

We are involved in the redistribution of the authorities or used to conquer it. The personal fate of everyone depends on our solution.

Therefore, each of us must consciously participate in political processes - in the struggle of elites.
And must know the rules and laws of public being.

We, not the elite must make fateful decisions. Namely, such decisions are made in cases where the people give power to one or another policy.

When in 1991 a group of politicians decided to destroy the heads of three republics (Yeltsin, Kravchuk, Shushkevich) with their hands a unique and powerful state - the USSR, scientists and politicians of different nationalities loudly spoke about the “revival” of Russia, the national self -determination of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia, etc. At the same time, Russia's policies showed maximum eloquence and diversity of opinions.

Some urged to revive economic power, others - spirituality and morality. The third - to restore historical monuments and cultural traditions. The fourth demanded to return the monarchy.

You can call the fifth, sixth ... This discord was strengthened by authoritative figures of culture and art. They rustled that Russia was hanging at the threat of decline, crisis and even the destruction of culture!

In a short period of hype about the revival of Russia, many made their career. The “Renaissance” of Russia was declared the goal of the state and the whole people.

But it ended in the fact that from a single state - the USSR, which throughout the world, according to tradition, was simply called Russia, half of the population and part of the territory were “pulled out”. She was called the official term "state - Russia." This was the first result of the Renaissance: the traditional Russian Empire of the borders of 1913 decreased in size.

Many millions of people who remained in the trimmed Russia began to get involved in the struggle between themselves and also under the slogan "The revival of national self -awareness." Some politicians broke about the Russian people and the need to protect him and, of course, revival. They began to talk about the establishment of the so -called “Russian Republic” in Russia. Almost 30 years have passed since the beginning of the discussion. None of the many specialists and politicians proposed a universally recognized recipe for the salvation of culture. No one could clearly explain to the millions of ordinary people - what Russia should be “revived”: the X century, the time of Batu, Ivan the Terrible, Catherine the Great, Peter I or Nicholas II. These were completely dissimilar to Russia: different territories, different management systems, different peoples and cultures. The answers to the questions “which centuries”, “in what borders” and “with what culture” we will revive Russia, have not been received. But the main thing is what and how will we do? What levers and mechanisms to use?

It is unclear in principle whether the goal can be considered a revival, since this is a process. And the process of “goal” of activity can only be in complete physiological idiots.

But if the revival of Russia is not a goal, then what should be the goal of each of the Russians and the state as a whole?

And yet, what do not separate politicians think about this, but tens of millions of citizens. Those who do not have direct power, and their own only life and labor should engage in the “revival” of culture.

We will look for answers together, but first we need to understand what should be understood by the term “Russia” when we are talking about it? People? Government? Geographical open spaces?

Everyone has long and well know that the opinions of the "Russian" peoples and the "Russian" government have never coincided. As, however, they do not coincide either in the government itself or among the people. And geographical boundaries even today do not coincide with state ones. For example, those who live behind the Urals believe that they do not live in Russia, but in Siberia. Therefore, we will consider the problem more attentive! And on individual theses. First, let's look at the thesis "Russia - Government".

Louis XIV loved to say "the state is me."

In 1954, at the insistence of N. Khrushchev, a decree was signed on the transfer of Crimea from the jurisdiction of the Russian government to the jurisdiction of the Government of Ukraine. It was an internal business of the USSR, in which the external and internal (administrative) borders of the state did not change. The decision on one word N. Khrushchev was made out by the state of the collective administration of the state - “government”. This act was not interested in anyone abroad. The opinion of the people within the country was not asked.

In 1867, at the direction of Emperor Alexander II, Alaska was sold to the North American United States. And also no one asked the people. However, the American people too. But the boundaries have changed. According to historians, the ship on which they brought gold for the sold territory drowned, and the money did not get to the treasury.

Since 1949, in order to strengthen the defense capabilities of the USSR, he regularly tested nuclear weapons before an agreement was signed to prohibit the testing of atomic weapons in three media - on Earth, in the air and under water. Everyone in the world knew:

a) the USSR leads the arms race;
b) the USSR signed an agreement on the prohibition of testing.

But in both cases, the decisions of tests and their ban were made by the government. Regarding all interstate acts who sign individual ministers on behalf of Russia, or the head of state, they say: “Russia signed ...”. Or vice versa, “Russia did not sign ...”, although from the point of view of logic it is more correct to say: “In the USSR is conducted ...” or “On behalf of Russia ...”. In the same way, they say “France signed”, or “Estonia said a protest”.

So, between the categories of “Russia” and “government”, an identity sign is placed.

Is it right? In some cases, one can agree with this, but in many cases it is impossible. Because there is no absolute confidence that the interests of the government are fully consistent with the interests of the people.

The most striking example from recent history is the entry of troops into Afghanistan. The military contingent, directed to a foreign country by decision of several members of the Politburo of the CPSU, amounted to tens of thousands of soldiers. Was this aggression to the people (280 million people) needed? The unanimous answer is not! But all millions were silent, no one in the country protested, and the whole world accused the multimillion Soviet Union of aggression. The sign of identity between the government, the people and the country was set.

Yes, however, the Russian government never took into account the interests of the people who inhabited the country for centuries of history. For the "master of the country" cannot be a servant. In his opinion! But who was the master of the country in the new and modern history of Russia? In the Soviet period - the Politburo, the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Supreme Councils, the Councils of Ministers, the USSR and the Union Republics, etc., etc.

After 1993 - the president, the Duma, the Council of the Federation, Prime Minister, governors, mayors and heads of administrations, an army of officials working in Moscow and in the province. What has changed in the process of "revival of Russia", except for the name of the country?

Anyone who read Russian fairy tales edited by Afanasyev will remember that the most powerful dragon had 12 goals. In the battle of “Goodness’s Good” with a snake Gorynych, he “picks up a severed head, struck him with a fiery claw, put his head to his neck, and she grows again.”

In the Buryat (Mongolian) epos “Geser Abay Mighty”, which has survived from the depths of centuries and formed more than 1000 years ago, there is also a similar plot when the hero fights with a snake woman. Strange coincidence, right?

The “revival” is no less strange not mythical, but the real instruments of power over Russia are its government.

The most obvious example is the “Duma”.

The Duma, as a kind of government of Russia, was formed in pre -Petrine times. After the Petrovsky reforms, she was abolished, but revived in 1905. And once again the Duma was revived in 1993.

And how many times have the name of other instruments of power that the "owner of the Russian land" used? “Orders” - “collegium” - “ministries” - “departments”.

Changed - the names were “revived”, but the essence did not change - the system of power and the management of Russia, created 1100 years ago. But she does not have 3, not 6, or even 12 goals, but millions. And after 1991, their number is growing!

At the same time, a single system changes in its form, and the problems created by the Dragon essence remain. Those members of the government who are sitting in Moscow would like to completely subjugate the will of all others - regional governments and centralize the fullness of power. And members of the government sitting in regional, regional, and in other ancient cities, by all means are trying to break out of the control of Moscow officials. Someone succeeds, someone-no.

For a long time, the “mother of the cities of Russians” Kyiv is the capital of an independent state.

Alma-Ata, built in a deserted desert by the Russian Cossacks as a fortress city "Faith", is the largest city of sovereign Kazakhstan.

A decade has been conducting fighting around the city of Grozny, built by Russian Cossacks on the lands who consider their Chechen.

The “governor” of Chukotka and many “oligarchs” who own Russian assets invest money with the permission of the Russian government in the development of the economy of England, France, African and Latin American countries.

So the million officials who make up the Russian government have no common interest?

The conclusion is quite simple: the common interest of the army of officials who are members of the government is, but it does not coincide with the interests of the peoples inhabiting Russia.

And this interest is indicated by one “sweet” word - power!

Original