But is the confrontation over? And how will your mighty lever weaken tenacity of clever men and shift stupidity in fools?
F. I. Tyutchev
The five lower precedences undergo a precedence which is the most powerful in terms of sustainable results achieved i.e. the methodological precedence. All the precedences of the generalised means of controlling are mutually encapsulated and in practice they affect society in sync, complementing each other.
The worldview precedence forms this or that world-comprehension for a society as in forms a dominant world-comprehension. These are the "truths" that are recognised by most people as a credible view of the world and its laws. These representations are reflected in the language and its set phrases that people most commonly use in communication. They also include ideas about the purpose of society's development and the concept of how to control public life. The role of the world-view and world-comprehension, dominating in society, is manifested by developing or blocking the ability of many people to learn and create. The dominant world-view can be expressed in the texts which are the basis for certain cultures (Bible, Quran, Buddhist sutras), or it can be present at unconscious levels of a person, expressing itself only in folk epos and songs, traditions and public morals - i.e. in the collective psyche of society. Thus, Russia declares to the world that it has its own Concept of Development in the 3rd millennium, set out in clear lexical forms. This implies a change in the dominant world-view and world-comprehension in our society.
The world-view is built on generic genetics (spiritual heritage of ancestors - the biofield component of the genetic apparatus of the biological species called "Homo Sapiens"), which affects mostly subtle levels of the psyche. But this is not the only factor influencing the formation of each individual's world-comprehention. We all know how printing industry, when machining materials, produce one or another product depending on the matrix used. It is the matrix that shapes the image, the structural organisation of a future product. The current way of life in society is the same matrix, but it is applied to "ethnographic raw materials" if we have to use the terminology of some cynical political scientists. The nascent generation, being not always conscious of this, finds themselves placed in a matrix-concept and by the age of 15-20, in addition to their will, acquires the qualities that the masters of this concept want them to have. For example: no child has the physiological need for alcohol from birth. However, when we celebrate high school graduation in our reality, only a few are kept from self-poisoning with alcoholic beverages, then the dominant memory images, that are actively supported and imposed by adults, get triggered.
And for many people, having alcohol at prom "as an adult" is not their first time, because the paraphernalia of externally visible "maturity" (smoking, extramarital intercourse, dolce vita, etc.) are attractive to short-sighted teenagers, and they begin to master it in terms of ability. This is also the case in all other matters, including a person's world-view and everyday habits.
In our stereotypes, most of us do not know that it is the world-view and world-comprehension of the living generations that shapes global trends in social development or degradation for centuries and millennia. And all the more so because, contrary to the saying "One is as good as none", a great deal of a country's destiny and humanity as a whole depend one each particular person. But how often, when it comes to the destiny of a country and humanity, does one hear: "I am noone important, it is beyond my control". And such people don't think that they might have to answer God's question: "What have you done not to be 'none' and what does depend on you? That's their world-view and the world-comprehension they are subject to.
You can see this most clearly in India. In this country, you can witness a terrifying sight: up to 300 million people live in more miserable conditions than cattle. They have no housing, no job, no food, and no social or institutional care for themselves and their children. A similar picture can be seen in South Africa. So the world-view of these creatures differ from that of the rest of society, and they truly beleive they are "normal people". British colonists named them "little people", and in the local language they are called "non-existent people". They are even outside the caste system of traditional Indian society and any untouchable person in comparison to them is a nobleman. However, these "nonexistent people" consider both their "way of life" and the attitude of the rest of society to be the norm for themselves. They do not even feel like changing anything in their thoughts. They are satisfied with scraps and crust of bread thrown from a passing car by a "big person". They will never change their way of life or their well-being unless they have a new world-comprehension, a new vision of the world and the truth of the mission of man and humanity in it, to which they do not relate themselves.
There is another option of equal human relations. It is the one that corresponds to God's Providence. However, people with such beliefs, especially if they are faithful in their deeds, do not fit into the current social structure established by the Doctrine of Deuteronomy-Isaiah. In particular, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), the 16th President of the USA, expressed his opinion about the norm of humane cohabitation as follows: "I would not like to be a slave and I would not like to be a slave owner. This expresses my understanding of democracy". (http://www.democracy.ru/quotes.php), for which he was killed.
Nevertheless, despite having lived under the conceptual power of the Bible for more than a thousand years, it is unacceptable for most of us to build the welfare of the country at the expense of other nations, but it is equally unacceptable when someone is parasitizing on our kindness and openness, on our raw materials and energy resources, on our intellectual power. And that is why we can say that although Abraham Lincoln was an American, he was sort of Russian in spirit, which is not actually the case with many so called "elite Russians" of the past and present, although by blood they are "ethnic greatrussians".
There are only 4 inter-regional control centres around the world:
1) Euro-American conglomerate based on biblical culture and the corresponding concept of controlling with the "Deuteronomy-Isaiah" doctrine, which implies buying up the world with all its inhabitants and their property on the basis of a monopoly on usury on a global scale (headquarters - Switzerland);
2) the Quranic East;
3) the Buddhist East, which, like the Quranic East, throughout its history has not had and does not have social doctrines of global significance that could become an alternative to the "Deuteronomy-Isaiah" doctrine;
4) Russia is a special civilization because, having 'digested' the biblical atheism within 1000 years and Marxist atheism within 70 years, by the end of the XX century, we still have developed our own concept of social development of global significance, alternative to the Doctrine of "Deuteronomy - Isaiah".
The feature of the Russian civilisation is that, unlike all other regional civilisations, throughout the last millennium it is a civilisation within the borders of the state common to all its peoples. And that is why it is natural that when we talk about Russian civilisation, we are not talking about nationality, but morality, our world-view, our state of mind and attitude towards other people and the world of ethnically diverse people who have made up its cultural commonality over the centuries. It is no coincidence that we call Alexander Pushkin, who was partially Ethiopian, a great Russian poet, or, for example, Isaac Levitan, to be a great Russian artist, though ethnically he was of jewish origin; but at the same time many people are convinced that "in fact, Boris Yeltsin was not Russian". And they are right, despite the fact that he was "ethnic Russian", whom common people simply called a traitor, alcoholic and exploiter.
The essence of the conceptual power of the Russian civilization was very precisely and subtly expressed in such toys as matryoshka doll and Vanka-cork tumbler. In Ancient Egypt, the same idea was reflected in the multilayer sarcophagi. It would seem that formally it is the same thing, but the Russian nesting doll is a symbol of the dominance of life, whereas the ancient Egyptian sarcophagus is a symbol of the dominance of death and post mortem existence.
Every nesting doll enclosing it clearly limits the freedom of action invested in it. That is, everything is possible inside - from fascism to pseudo communism, but within the framework of a particular nesting doll, it is in sync with a particular concept.
The system of supranational controlling (conventionally named as 'global predictor') organises its game on the basis of strategic manipulations with the three superpowers. It is easier to organise two against the third. Before 1960, Russia's friendship with China was organised against the USA. From the beginning of the 1960s, the US and China began to "make friends" against Russia. Now Russia is consciously coming out of this vicious confrontation.
Our management, which often does not understand all the specifics of Russia, at least sometimes feels something and tries not to get plunged into alien scenarios of global policy, including conflicts programmed by the global controlling. "Be close to your friends, but try to be even closer to your enemies, because how else can you learn and change their intentions," says the wisdom which is unfortunately not followed by people.
The most important issue of the world-conprehension is that of God. The intellect in the universe is hierarchical and discrete. There is mineral life, plants and animal life. Man in this hierarchy is not the crown of intelligence in the universe. Above the level of human mind and intellect there are many other things, up to God. But just as a plant cannot have any idea about animals, the same way man is incapable at the level of reason to understand what God is. Regardless of whether he calls Him directly God, or, doubting His being, man still acknowledges the power of "something else that is above humans" and what he often calls "the Supreme Mind".
God gives a personal view of Himself to everyone according to how much a person believes Him. God answers the prayer of the believer who turns to Him; He answers in the language of life's circumstances according to the meaning of prayer, the more clearly a person is responsive to God when God turns to him directly through his inner world or through other people. The answer is expressed via statistics of "contingencies" that occur to a person. The prayer of a believer is a conscious address to God directly through words and silence. Accidents will be beneficial if you are doing something in line with God's Providence, or oppressive if you are doing something that contradicts this Providence. Only an unsuppressed psyche can enter into direct dialogue with God; alcohol, cigarettes or other drug users do not have this gift.
If a person tries to reach God through intermediary brokers, through the church, then the system of magical rituals invented by the church creates a false sense of connection with God, but in fact these connections are actually those which are so-called egregores (kind of mental condensate, i.e. egregore=imformation+'energy'+algorythms) formed by the mental activity of people themselves based on their biofield manifestations.
Accordingly, it is necessary to distinguish between egregorial inventions and Revelations given from Above - if you like, "from one centre" - and those that are identical in content, as well as recorded in writing. If you put the Bible, the Quran, the sutras of Buddhism on one table and, having honestly studied them, cleanse them from malicious distortions and perversions, it is difficult to miss the point that you are dealing with one and the same Message from Above - that Buddha, Christ and Mohammed, as well as other true Messangers, taught people one and the same thing. The only difference is that their oral revelations are presented in different ways in further writings and are accompanied by different forms of rituals, which have become the basis of their respective religious cults. If one has pure mind and sensitive spirit, instead of the strict dogma of theologians, it is possible to discern and reveal the corruptions. One cannont help noticing, for example, that the Bible chapters "The Book of Isaiah the Prophet" (Chap. 53) and "The Wisdom of Solomon" (Chap. 1, 2) provide information about two fundamentally different gods.
If you just look at the evil sometimes done under the name of Allah and read the Quran, you will see how far historically formed Islam is from what is written in the Quran, and from what Muhammad actually taught. In addition, in order to break down the integrity of readers' perception of meaning, the Quranic surahs are presented in a completely different sequence from the way they were sent to Muhammad. Moreover, in the Qur'an translations into other languages, the Arabic word "Allah" is in most cases left untranslated (including translations into Russian, although in Russian there is an exact analogue of this word — 'Bog', French would be Dieu, German — Gott etc.), so outside of Muslim culture, the vast majority is convinced that they themselves believe in God, but Muslims are mistaken and believe in some kind of "Allah", so, it turns out that Muslims allegedly have some kind of god of their own.
But if the word "Allah" is translated precisely by the word "God", then questions about the sources of contradictions on social and theological issues of both cultures are inevitable, because there is no reason to assume that God is a schizophrenic and that in the Revelations he gave information to different peoples that doomed them to conflict in His name. And these differences cannot be resolved by reference to a particular scripture, because every scripture is authoritative only for its admirers. With an open minded attitude towards each of them, they are all just man-made texts, not a "fax from God". This fact obliges us to answer the question "What is the truth? The answer is to start believing God (not in God) via conscience. Then the truth confirms itself and reveals lies, even if you call the scriptures sacred, even if someone elevates lies to the rank of "the truth from God".
As for the deification of Christ, this was done in 325 at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, when by a simple majority vote the son of man Jesus Christ was proclaimed "God" and "Son of God".
The future of our country is in true teachings of Jesus (mind that Jesus himself was not a Christian), as in the desire to live by the Righteousness and to glorify it, because the words 'righteous and right' are homogeneous. And it will not be possible to reimpose the lie of idealistic atheism (atheism of all creeds) on Russian people. "You can't hatch one egg twice," Kozma Prutkov said once.
Power is not a plate on a office door, but an ability to control shown in real practice. And the question is how and what organisational schemes are used for this ability to be implemented. Only those who, through conceptual power, coordinate the efforts of all other specialised types of power, carry out the complete algorythm of controlling over human society. At the same time, the scheme of their interaction in the biblical concept of controlling looks as follows.
The conceptual power in the biblical culture is anonymous and does not show itself to the society in any obvious forms of any public institutions, and its bearers do not expose themselves to the public like show business stars and public politicians. This attitude towards society of the conceptual power carriers is the basis for its ability to "imitate God", impersonating its will for God's will, though being an intra-social phenomenon arisen from inside the society itself.
Ideological power endows the realised concept with forms that are attractive to people. At the same time, the undisclosed goal of the concept, known only to the conceptual power, can be as far from the ideological colouring given to it as possible. For example, "perestroika" began with the ideas of economic acceleration, socialism with 'human complexion' and the fight against ebriety, which over time have transformed into their opposite. The meaning of ideology is to hide the true aims of controlling: one thing is announced, and by default the opposite thing is implemented.
The legislature conceptualises the legal norms it needs. It is secondary to the conceptual power and is therefore actually subject to the latter; only intellectually crippled people can rely on the ideas of an abstract legal state. Moonshining, speculation, buggery had been considered malpractice until the recent past. In today's environment, the same acts are actually encouraged by the authorities, and laws get rewritten to meet the new demands of the policy makers.
The executive branch implements the concept in a structural (based on power structures and business) and non-structural way (based on the unaddressed circular dissemination of information in society with predictable consequences, which is the basis of controlling). It is for these reasons that the result will always be mainly the one envisaged by the concept, not the executive branch, unless it is aware of the content of the concept. Even if the authorities sincerely want to do "what's best", they will still succeed in "always the way", i.e. in the way the supranational conceptual power wants it to be.
The judiciary ensures that "legality" is observed in society, and the main thing in observing legality is to protect the prevailing concept from invasion of concepts alien to it. If the prevailing concept is enslaving, then the judiciary also protects its thieves' laws from moral 'lawlessness' against them: that is why Mohammed, Christ and Buddha could be considered criminals according to the norms of their societies.
If the world-view and world- comprehension in members of society - and even more in leadership — do not have a clue about the phenomenon of conceptual power, of its internal information-algorithmic essence, then such a society can certainly not claim real freedom.
People's rule ('democracy' stands for power of free citizens, not free people, and these free citizens had slaves back then) is not about fruitless disputes on this topic at the level of the main ideologists of a state and not about the methods and terms of voting. It is ensured by leaving the system of secret initiations, by the public's open nature of forming its own concept, by availability of knowledge and skills for any member of society who sees some problems of public importance and is morally prepared to take responsibility to resolve them for the benefit of all honest people.
Free power cannot be realised in a society of "little" people, even if one of them has been pleased to become a fuhrer.
The answer to this is simple.As long as a society is a society of "little people", it is not capable of either power or freedom, with all the consequences for themselves and others. And this fact leads to the question: what is the difference between a "big person" and a "little person", the latter rather to be called shallow?
- A person who is not subject to degradation has such a culture of feeling and thinking that all the necessary knowledge and skills that he or she cannot take from the culture of society he lives in, or the validity of which he or she doubts for some reason, can produce from scratch at the pace of the situation. In fact, he is able to build new images that meet real needs, find new solutions and take new actions that lead him to achieve his goal.
- But if in this kind of situation a person is not able to produce new knowledge and skills needed to solve it for the good, then this incapacity expresses his shallowness, making him a "little person". He has little to have an impact on his own life, but at the same time he is dependent on those who have certain knowledge and skills, and may thrive by taking advantage of their shallowness.
The only thing we can say to justify the shallow is that most of them are not such from biological nature, but have been purposefully raised to be "little" without any prospects to get better.
This is a kind of analogue of Japanese bonsai art, only the object is not plants that are not allowed to grow to their natural size, using special techniques (pruning, pinching, special "hungry" diets, etc.), but people. Their genetic potential for development is not fully fulfilled by a corrupted culture and social organisation. And this "tradition" to prevent development is consolidated in the spiritual heritage, which is passed on to subsequent generations as a norm of existence, more and more increasing the inertia by working out automatisms in the unconscious levels of the psyche. The descendants will have to overcome this heritage with their conscious willpower in order to take place as humane beings, rather than being kind of humanoids supervised by a demon master.
As mentioned above, the first precedence of generalised means of controlling is information of a methodological nature, i.e. a description of the processes of cognition and creativity, as well as practical skills to educate an effective cognitive and creative culture in individuals. If all this is not only publicly available, but also lies at the heart of the system of general and vocational education, then you will get a society where the overwhelming majority is conceptually powerful and in line with God's Will. This society will live in a community where the meaningful will of everyone will complement and be supported by the meaningful will of others, without conflicts or contradictions. "For God is not the author of [a] confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." (1 Corinthians 14:33).
If information of the first precedence is the property of only a small group of ill-thinking clans, which maintain their monopoly on this information in the continuity of generations, then concealing this knowledge is done by a certain policy in order to maintained this monopoly. And accordingly, society finds itself in atheism, be it materialistic or idealistic one. The Holy Spirit, by virtue of atheism, will no longer quide the majority 'into all truth' (John 16:13). It is not because God denies them access to the Truth, but because they themselves reject it, being prisoners of prejudices embedded in their psyche. There is a false opinion in society that certain people, the elite, are naturally so clever and talented, while the majority are just grey, talentless mass that should be grateful to the clever and talented for controlling their lives. This is how mob-"elitism" is nurtured.
At the same time, conceptually powerful ill-thinkers keep throwing some socially significant ideas into society, using certain people under their control who have been selected and appointed by the elite. Ideas are proactively developed for the planned social policy. "The majority swallows them up, starts to consider them their own, and in certain everyday and political situations, they "think" about ready-made opinions embedded in their psyche, without thinking about the validity of those opinions or about where they came from and how and for what purposes they were embedded in their culture, and then are replicated in it to become a policy. And the mob does not suspect that other valuable opinions have been rejected and perverted by the popularisers in order to defame them and put into oblivion in the assessment of the "smart" stratum of actually "little people" who think they are great people. This is how the algorithm "No man is a prophet in his own land" works. And that is how the most sophisticated scheme of slavery is implemented: "The greatest slavery is to consider oneself free without freedom" (I. V. Goethe).
But this political practice is not an achievement of the last centuries, but an ancient means of creating mob-elitist social systems and maintaining mob-"elitism" in succession of generations.