Book 8, part 1. The New Civilization (2005)
Talking with presidents
Please tell me, esteemed sirs — all you presidents, prime min-isters and chancellors — who in fact is in control of nation-states?
The question may seem strange at first glance. Any school- child will offer the reply:
“Countries are under the control of the president, the gov-ernment, the Duma.”2
But an answer like that simply points to the extent of the mass illusion at work here, and not just in our country All sorts of ordinary people are under the spell of this illusion, just like the rulers themselves. It can and must be dispelled with the aid of logical thinking. Those who are unable to discern the illusoriness engendered upon the Earth will die without having really lived, because the whole of their so-called life is but an illusion.
And so — how to dispel this illusion?! First of all we should define what it means to ‘control a nation’. In the main, and perhaps exclusively, this refers to the control of social proc-esses and phenomena. The chief person in this control system is called a president.
So, let’s ask him:
“Tell us, please, Mr President, are you in charge of drug ad-diction in our country?”
“No,” the president will reply. “I’m not in charge of that.”
“What about the rapid development of prostitution?”
“No, I’m not in charge of that either.”
‘And what about widespread corruption and bribery?” “No.”
‘And the extinction of our population?”
“What are you talking about? I’m not in charge of anybody’s extinction.”
There are a whole lot of questions which he would have to answer with the phrase “No, I’m not in charge of it.” He has, in fact, no alternative, since giving any other answer would brand the ruler a criminal.
So it turns out that there are unmistakable large-scale processes taking place in society, influencing the lives of every single individual, but the supreme ruler and the whole host of officials under his command have nothing to do with these processes. What, then, are they, in fact, in charge of?
Upon closer inspection, all they do, it turns out, is involun-tarily and unwittingly supervise the concealment of the true rulers, who, you see, really do have a reason to hide.
In any case, no president, chancellor or prime minister can possibly be the real ruler of a nation, either in theory or in practice. Their only task is to carry out someone else’s will under the guise of their own, and this can be attested by scholars — psychologists, for example.
You and I can come to a similar conclusion if we make a careful analysis of our own lives.
Haven’t our own lives been influenced by ‘someone’ — say, in kindergarten, school or college? If they want to, they can bring us up to be communists, or fascists, or democrats, as in our present situation.
And through this process of upbringing and indoctrination, they engender the corresponding social processes.
“Reality should be determined only through one’s own self,” Anastasia has said. Her words are good, and true. But to understand reality, we need to reflect, contemplate. However, our prevalent way of life leaves precious little time for reflec-tion, and so by default we use someone else’s definition of re-ality that has been imposed on us.
In the case of a head of state, he has even less time for reflection than ordinary people. His daily schedule is cal-culated down to the hour and minute, and often not by himself.
History also teaches us the impossibility of a universally visible ruler actually controlling a nation-state.
It is known, for example, that in Ancient Egypt the pharaoh was raised by priests. Naturally, they knew in advance what many of the pharaoh’s future decisions would be. But even during the tenure of his reign they would still keep giving him advice. So in actual fact, the pharaoh was merely carrying out somebody else’s will.
Rulers in the Orient also had wise-men at their courts and consulted with them. But neither the Egyptian priests nor the Oriental court wise-men, nor the sages of our Vedruss period, ever burdened themselves with affairs of state. Their principal task was that of analysis and reflection.
Not affording such an opportunity to our present rulers and parliamentarians renders them incapable of exerting an effective influence on the processes taking place in society It deprives them of power.
This was confirmed to me by a well-known three-term dep-uty of the legislative assembly, who is also a professor with a Ph.D. in economics. But he confirmed this only after serving his parliamentary terms, when he finally had the opportunity to engage in reflection and analysis.
It was confirmed in the scandalous incident reported in the press when a deputy of the present Duma complained to the Constitutional Court that the President’s Deputy Chief of Staff advised a group of State Duma representatives in no uncertain terms not to reason things through but simply to vote as they were told.
Incredible as it may seem, the Deputy Chief of Staff, per-haps intuitively, turned out to be the closest of all to the truth. It was far quicker and more efficient for him to make decisions on his own than to have a crowd of people beating their brains out over these decisions — a crowd of people who didn’t have the opportunity to think. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that none of the parties in the State Duma have put forward even a slightly articulate platform that the public can understand.
The situation with the ideas and programme already put forward by Anastasia offer the clearest evidence of the inability of the existing system to engage in independent decision-making.
Anastasia’s programme has been supported by a great many people, and, as studies have shown, the overwhelming majority of these people lead a sober lifestyle and are inclined to reflection. Vast numbers of people in different parts of the country have overcome great challenges in their efforts to im-plement this programme. On the government level, however, there are people who seem incapable of even seeing what is going on in the public arena.
Not only that, but counteraction has begun which has served to highlight precisely the influence foreign powers have been exerting on Russia, and the fact that the country is far from being under the control of its own government.
This counteraction, of course, does not come from the ranks of the priests, who plan out programmes for centuries and millennia to come. It is simpler and more specific, and arises from the current system of world order, in which Russia has been assigned to the role of a supplier of raw materials for the West and a market for its substandard merchandise.
By‘the West’ I do not mean the ordinary people of Europe or America. I’m talking about a group of transnational companies and financiers who are interested in their own profits.
As we can all attest for ourselves, over the past decades their plans have been implemented at an alarming rate, while our rulers, to say the least, have done nothing to prevent this implementation. This is another fact clearly testifying to their lack of any kind of true power or authority.
The only counteraction to the destruction of the state and the annihilation of a significant part of its population is the programme put forward by Anastasia.
“But,” the majority of my readers might reasonably argue, “why do you continue to appeal to those who have no power and are incapable of changing anything?” I shall respond.
1. I am appealing, after all, not only to the authorities, but in the first instance to you, dear readers, in the hope that our combined efforts will enable us to understand the situation we find ourselves in — in the hope that this situation will come out in your interpretation in family chronicles. This is an absolutely vital step. Otherwise not only we, but our children, too, will have an unenviable future to look forward to.
2. I remember Anastasia’s question: “But who is to blame for the lack of acceptance of truth — the one who does not accept the truth or the one from whom he receives it?” I think that I am partly to blame for the lack of sufficient governmental support offered to those who have begun to set up their domains. I was not able to express the idea in a language government officials could understand. Sure, we all speak the same Russian language, but different segments of the population use it differently, and attach different interpretations to words.
In short, I am unable to express myself in a language gov-ernment officials understand.
The President’s administration, the Government and the Duma are all comprised of people, just like you and me. They too have children, wives and grandchildren, for whom, as would any other parent, they wish a bright future. And if they should prove capable of understanding the situation, they will gain true power and will be in a position to significantly influ-ence the positive processes taking place in our society. But where and how can we find the words capable of putting an end to this “vanity of vanities”? We must look! Otherwise new politicians will appear and will come up against the same system blocking their thought. Hence I am appealing to you, my readers, with a request to find together the words which will be understood by the various segments of our society
And so for the umpteenth time, I stand my ground and ap-peal to our President and Government.