Conception of social security

The conception ^[1] of social security - is the idea of building the society that will be worthy of the name of a Human, and at once is the world-understanding allowing to put this idea to life.

It can hardly be a secret that the modern civilization has created a vast amount of different problems connected not only with ecology and biospherical crises – in the social life one can see no kind of well-being. And the matter is not only in somebody’s personal activities on depressing the biosphere and other people – the matter is in passivity, inactivity of others! And moreover, aims announced by a government often differ greatly from ones that the government really has. However, such a ruling (when the aims being achieved really differ from those, which a state power pretend to work for; and the aims achieved remain unknown even after their achievement; in the same time the aims declared are called “temporarily unachieved” because of some problems ^[2] ) cannot have place save in the society of people completely ignorant in politics and ruling. And such phrases as “But what can I done being alone?” which are told by the millions, or “Let the guys from the White House make people’s life better” cannot help to solve the problems. They just shows one’s agreement with the situation existing – they shows that one is agree to be ruled; that he or she is agree that some “elite” lives better than others even without any reasons for this; that he or she is agree not to understand how the society lives as if his or her own life were independent from the life of the humankind in whole. But things don’t go such way.

Every society is managed in one way or another, and therefore the global historical process may be perceived as a global process of ruling which, at the first place, comprises many processes of regional ruling (policies of regional states and international policies, forces which are not institutionalised within state: mafias, Jewish diaspora); secondly, it proceeds within life processes of the Earth and Space, standing higher than it in the hierarchy. The theoretical basis of the Conception of Social Security (COB ^[3] ) is the Sufficiently Universal Theory of Ruling (DOTU) (one can generalize forever, but is there a reason for doing it? DOTU is sufficiently universal for describing any process of ruling or self-ruling with its terms). Accordingly to the Sufficiently Universal Theory of Ruling all means of ruling can be divided into general groups which are hierarchically displaced from the most effective to the less one. Such instruments of influence on society, whose reasonable use allows controlling its life and death, are:

• 1. Information of worldview nature, or methodology, which, once adopted, allows men to project – individually and socially – their “standard automations” of identification with regard to particular processes within the completeness and integrity of the World, and to define in their individual perception the hierarchic order of these processes in their mutual interconnection. This information lays foundation for the culture of thinking and for the completeness of ruling activities including also intra-social absolute power both on regional and global levels.
  2. Information of annalistic, chronological nature, in all do-mains of Culture and all domains of Knowledge. It allows seeing, in which direction the processes are developing, and to correlate particular domains of Culture as a whole and of branches of Knowledge. To those, whose worldview is based on the sense of proportion and is conformable to the World, this information allows identifying particular processes while sieving the “chaotic” flow of facts and phenomena through the worldview “sieve” – subjective human measure of identification. (Within the present context the culture means all information, which is not transferred genetically in the succession of generations).
  3. Information of fact-descriptive nature: description of particular processes and their interconnections constitutes the substance of information of the third priority, which includes the faith-teachings of religious cults, secular ideologies, technologies and facts of all domains of science.
  4. Economic processes, as an instrument of influence subordinated to purely informational instruments of influence through finances (money), which embody a totally generalized type of information of economic nature.
  5. Genocide practices, affecting not only those who live today but also the generations to come, eliminating the genetically determined potential for learning and for development by them of the cultural heredity of ancestors: nuclear blackmail-threat of use; alcohol, tobacco and other kinds of narcotic drugs genocide, food additives, all ecological pollutants, some medicines-real use; “gene engineering” and “biotechnologies” – potential danger.
  6. Other instruments of influence mainly by force – weapons in traditional sense of this word; killing and crippling human beings; destructing and exterminating material and technical objects of civilization, cultural monuments and bearers of their spirit.

Although there are no evident distinctions between the instruments of influence because many of them, by their capacities, could be related to different priorities, their classification in hierarchical order, as presented above, allows nonetheless to identify the dominating factors of influence that may be used as instruments of ruling, and in particular, as instruments of suppression and elimination of those phenomena in the social life that are conceptually inadequate in the sense of ruling.

When used within one social system this set is tantamount to generalized means of ruling this system. But when applied by one social system (social group) to others, which have different internal concepts of ruling, it is tantamount to generalized weapons, i.e. means of warfare, in most general sense of this word, or – instruments of support for self-ruling within another social system, when there is no conceptual incompatibility of ruling in both systems. This approach determines the priority order of the above classes of instruments of influence on the society because the changes in society’s state under the impact of the instruments of supreme priorities, entail much more significant consequences than those incurred by the instruments of minor priorities, al-though such changes proceed more slowly, without “noisy effects”. In other words, within the historically long intervals the level of effectiveness is increasing from the first point to the sixth, while the level of irreversible results of their application, which by and large determine how efficiently problems of the social life are solved in ‘now and forever’ terms, is falling.

For making the full ruling of the society one needs not just know about the highest ruling means priorities, but to act within them as well. And accordingly it is impossible to avoid the influence of the informational means of ruling. One can run away from the war, he or she can choose not to use drugs (including even alcohol and tobacco); theoretically a farmer can even live without trading with other world – so to be independent economically. But no one is able to replace the whole mankind with his own person. That’s why one living in the society will need to take it and those, who rule it, into consideration. The position of COB is that real true democracy is able only when everyone understands and knows HOW the society in the whole is ruled and WHAT FOR is it ruled. It means that everyone must master all means of ruling, and consciously supports with his activity the aims standing before him as the member of society and before the society in a whole. But for getting the unity of aims of the whole society the achievement of the certain culture of world-understanding by every member of the society is necessary.

If to remember the school course of Biology and to look deep inside your own psyche you can discover that the informational and algorithmic provision of man’s behaviour includes

1. basic instincts and unconditioned reflexes (of intracellular and cellular levels, and also of levels of tissues, organs, systems and organism), as well as their cultural veneers;
2. cultural traditions that are above instincts;
3. his or her own limited understanding;
4. «intuition on the whole» — things emerging from the subconscious level of an individual’s psyche, coming from collective psyche, external delusions and from being possessed as this term was interpreted by the Holy inquisition;
5. God’s guidance on the basis of the previously named things except for external delusions and possessions that are direct intrusions into another person’s psyche against the will of its bearer.

These are things, which are possibly or actually contained in every individual’s psyche. But there is something that puts a mankind away from the other biosphere, though neither biology, nor psychology and sociology don’t notice it and one cannot read it in any learn book. The matter of this reticence is:

Every specimen of Homo Sapiens can have one of the next types of psychical structure more or less stable during his or her adult life.

• Animal type of psychical structure – when the whole behaviour obey instincts, and becomes a satisfaction of instinctive needs without considering the circumstances;
• Biorobotical-zombie type of psychical structure – when culture-defined automatisms comes as the basis of behaviour, and the inner conflict between instincts and culture-defined automatisms is solved for the last in the majority of cases. But if changing social and historical circumstances demand to reject the traditional norms of behaviour and to work out new ones, “zombie” declines the creation and continue following the already-formed customs;
• Under the demonic type of psychical structure one understands that its representatives are able to create and using their will can overpass the dictation of instinct and historically formed culture. They can work out new lines of behaviour and of solving problems appearing before them and the society. Whether it will be a good or evil, as others understands them, depends on “demon’s” real morality. Getting any power in the society demonism demands an unconditional service to it, creating the most cruel and subtle forms of depressing the people;
• Human type of psychical structure is characterised like this: every its bearer realises the mission of a human – to be the God’s representative on the Earth. Consequently he or she makes his relations with the God during his or her life, and consciously, with his or her own ill, sincerely contribute to the God’s Providence in the way he or she understands it. The feedback (showing one’s mistakes) is closed from Above in a way that he (or she) founds himself (or herself) in the certain circumstances correlating to the sense of his (or her) prays and intentions. In other words: the God speaks to people using the language of life’s cirqumstances.

Moreover people gave birth to the fifth type of psychical structure themselves:

• The dropped into unnaturalness type of psychical structure – when a subject belonging to the specie “Homo Sapiens” intoxicates himself with different psychotropic substances: alcohol, tobacco or more strong drugs of nowadays. It leads to the unnatural distortion of the organism physiology character in the aspect of metabolism and in the aspect of biofield physiology as well. And its effect is: plural different errors of psychical activity in all its kinds (from sense organs work to the intellect and will), which are typical to the types of psychical structure of animal, zombie or demon (since bearers of human type of psychical structure don’t intoxicate themselves). Thus the anthropoid person becomes a bearer of psychic structure that has no natural place in the biosphere. And by the kind of his behaviour not corresponding to the circumstances he appears to be the worst of all animals. And for this breach of the status in the Earth biosphere predetermined for him (or her) such person inevitably gets the punishment from Above.

In the same time if a person became an addict for any fuddle he gets the stable distortion of his biofield, and consequently according to the parameters of his spirit he doesn’t belong to the specie Homo Sapiens any more. Moreover the most fuddles are genetic poisons, i.e. they break the work of chromosomal system and destroy chromosomal structures of those, who takes these poisons. Then defective chromosomes are inherited by the descendants and it undermines their health and potential for individual development and creative activity. It has even harder effect if the conception is made before recovering the chromosomal structures by systems acting in the organism. However if the genetic poisons come to the organism too often and in the huge portions systems of chromosomal recovering have no chance to repair all damages – in such case the descendants are doomed to degeneracy.

And this fact allows calling this type of psychical structure – created by men themselves and reproduced by the social culture – dropped into unnaturalness. For the human psychical structure the non-formal, non-dogmatic and non-ritual belief to God ^[4]during the Life and activity in course of God’s Guidance of his or her own choice are normal.

A type of psychical structure is determined by the upbringing and education. Thus if one doesn’t achieve human’s type of psychical structure by his youth it is because of social culture’s viciousness and also because of unrighteous bringing up by his parents. However being adult and understanding this fact one is able to change his psychical structure from any to a human one. This is a basis for a following individual development. Depending on the statistics of distribution of people by types of psychical structure the society forms its social organisation, develops its culture; either supporting the conservation of the state achieved and slave-holding system recurrence attempts; or supporting the recognition of the human type of psychical structure as the norm in the society, and its reproducing during the change of generations as a basis for a following individual and social development of nations and the whole mankind. And it is impossible for the people to get the power and to solve the problems standing before the Homo Sapiens in the beginning of the 21st century without achievement of the human type of psychical structure by the majority of people.

Among the information of COB there are economical studies and a theory; there are analyses of ideologies and historical works (the large section of the main book of COB “Dead Water” is called “Decapsulation” and is mainly historical); and what is the most important there is the information on the cognition methodology that allows coming to harmony with yourself and with the God, achieving the human type of psychical structure, learning to cognise the world around us. These and other materials one can find on the sites Mera.com.ru. There are works translated into English as well base in section In English. The conception of social security in its modern variant (2005) has being developed since 1987 by the initiative group consisting of common people, that took the name of “the Internal Predictor of the USSR” (IPUSSR). From those times the USSR as a state has disappeared but the social initiative continues its work under the same name. And it’s not only because it has become a special brand but because we don’t admit (in the juridical sense) the liquidation of the USSR made for execution of directives of the “world backstage”, different mason lodges, CIA and the National Security Council of the USA.

© These materials represent the heritage of the Russian culture. Therefore no private individuals or companies possess copyright with regards to these materials. In case someone ventures to privatize copyright in accordance with the applicable law, he will face the retaliation for theft, manifesting itself in the unpleasant “mystical” developments, reaching far beyond the legal limits. With all that, everyone whose wishes are based on per-sonal understanding of public good has full power and authority to copy and circulate these materials by the whole or by part, also with commercial purposes. Those who use these materials in their activities, bear full personal responsibility if fragmentary citing or ref-erence brings about the meanings, different to the true contents of these materials as a whole, and thus he has a chance to face the “mystical” retaliation, overpassing the legal punishments.

The term “predictor-corrector” originates from calculus mathematics, where it names the whole group of methods. In them the solution is found with successive approximations. The algorithm represents a cycle with two consequent operations executed: the first one is the solution prediction and the second is checking if the predicted solution satisfies the problem accuracy requirement. The algorithm comes to its end when the prediction satisfies the accuracy requirement.

Moreover, the scheme of ruling, in which the ruling signal is formed using the prognosis of the future system behaviour as well as the information of its present state, is also sometimes called “predictor-corrector” (though it is possibly more right to call it “predirector-corrector” – it directs the way in advance). With the scheme of “predictor-corrector” the highest quality of ruling is provided since the part of information circuits is completed through the predicted future but not through the accomplished past. This fact allows to reduce the lateness of ruling relative to the perturbation action to zero; and to use the forestalling ruling, (where the ruling action forestalls the cause that forces ruling), if it is needed. Considering different conflicts, from the view of the theory of ruling the scheme of predictor corrector often excludes even a possibility to strive with the system using it in advance.

So, the term “predictor-corrector” is widely known among mathematicians and technicians in the West.

As it follows from the history, the predictor-corrector scheme was used for ruling the social systems even in the ancient times. The superior zhrechestvo^[5] of the ancient Egypt was called “hierophants”, which meant their ability to read the fate (i.e. the matrix of possible states), to foresee the future. The last one is the basis of any ruling, since to rule a system (here: a society) is to lead it to the chosen certain variant from many possible ones on the basis of knowing these possible states. It’s naturally that choosing the variant depends on the real morality and will of those, who have achieved the foresight and ruling on its base.

The Russian word “жрец” (“zhrets”) is a composed word as many other ancient Russian words. The letter Ж (Zh – is read as French ‘j’) means the word ЖИЗНЬ (Life); and the word РЕЦ means “the one who speaks”. “Жречество” (“zhrechestvo”) means something like a community of zhretses; the suffix ‘-stvo’ refers to the English suffix ‘-hood’ like in “brotherhood”, or to ‘-ship’ as in “friendship”; and the stem variation is widely used in Russian, so ‘ts’ (is read as German ‘z’) in zhrets turns to ‘ch’ in zhrechestvo with adding a suffix. Thus zhrets can be understood as he who speaks about the Life (the Life in its whole sense, about the Life of men, of the mankind and the Humanity, of Cosmos the whole Universe, and of God), and zhrechestvo speaks about the Life for the Good of the society. In English there is a word “a priest” which is usually translated into Russian as “zhrets”, but it is not right, since “a priest” is an adherent of a certain confession, church or pagan beliefs, a pope, a clergyman etc. We will use it in such sense. The nearest analogue to the word “zhrets” in English is the word “soothsayer”, but understood not as “a foreteller” or “a fortune-teller”, but as “he who tells (and speaks) the sooth (the truth) [ about the Life]”. We will use the word zhrets using this Latin transliteration.

The phonetics, the lexical and conceptual systems of Russian language are rather special. This phrase cannot be translated into other languages without loosing many sides of sense and many associative relations. So the term “predictor-corrector” was introduced for better understanding of this and for using in English. However, today we introduce the word zhrets to English and will use it.

It is useful for an English speaking reader to learn Russian language to understand many particular features of its root, lexical, conceptual systems. We translate many works into English today, but it is sometimes impossible to translate all meanings of the word and all its relatives! Moreover, “to translate” means “to find a word in another language for the same thing, for the same image”. But how can one translate the concept, if there are no images in another language, no such things at all! Thus one should do not “a trans-lation” but “intro-lation” (introduction, intromission). So we “introlate” the word zhrets. And also we introlate another word: знахарь “znakhar”. “Znakhar” (‘kh’ is a single consonant as Scottish ‘ch’ in “loch”) originates from the verb “знать” (“to know”), which is very close to the word “значить” (“to mean”, “to sign”); the suffix ‘-арь’ (‘-ar’) refers to the Latin suffix (‘-ist’), so znakhar is “he who knows”, who has some knowledge but doesn’t share it with people.

Today in Russian all the words with such meaning: “ведун”, “ведьма” (from “ведать”=“to know”^[7]), “знахарь” means something like “a witch”, “a quack doctor”. But it doesn’t mean that one cannot understand the word in its literal meaning. And in literal meaning the word znakhar means only “he who knows ”. Zhretses with their foresight, knowledge, words in advance lead the course of life of society to an absence of poverty and to the well-structured and comfortable state, with all this keeping the society in harmony with the Earth biosphere, the Cosmos and the God. Znakhars are self-interested while exploiting the society on the basis of their knowledge, and they wittingly cultivate the ignorance and perverted knowledge in the society exploited. And this is the difference between zhrechestvo and znakharstvo. The harmony of society, its culture and Earth biosphere needs the global level of responsibility and of CARENESS about the well-being (not only a material one) of all nations on the Earth. English is today the most popular for international communication. So we take care of that you, English speakers, understand that what we want to say you but not what the masters of “false horses of enlightenment”9 want to give you as our opinion. Russians don’t need such words as “conception” – we have the word “жизнестрой” (“Life organization”), and English can also find some its old roots to avoid the dead Latin. Our opponents must understand that their monopoly on the knowledge is over. Using imagery: We pour our “spring water” into their “old wine-skins” for their “skins” split: we don’t like their “skins” and their stupefying narcotic “wine”.

One of the questions, which both enemies and supporters of COB usually ask, is the question referring to the persons – authors of COB. As an answer we’ll print the extract from the work by IP USSR: “Questions to the Metropolitan of Saint-Petersburg and Ladoga Ioann and to the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church”.

A person in our ill civilisation is not perfect. That’s why any creation of the cult of person (even if this person has rendered real services to the society), shows the viciousness of everyone following the cult; in the sense, that he or she wants to impose his or her own responsibility for solving problems to the cult person, who can be vicious (in his or her own way) as well. So we use anonymity when writing about the conceptual power and other sociological themes for avoiding an insouciant following this or that authority (formed by a chance or created for purpose) and for avoiding inattention while reading opinions of “non-authorities”. As we see it the anonymity should put away all prejudices, so everyone reading should understand the text according to his own conscience and morality. So he gets a chance to correct his mistakes without a psychological oppression of those, whom he considers to be doubtlessly authoritative. The deeds, the results of activity are important for people, for the society; but not persons who do it. If the action is good – he who does will lose nothing; if it is evil – none will avoid the God’s punishment, even if he or she wants. After saying this, we ask you not to understand the anonymity of the letter as an offence or distrust. Moreover the anonymity can disappear only after a personal communication, even if letters are signed and stamped.

• dotu.ru -In English

1. ↑ Conception – n. 1. conceiving or being conceived. 2. idea, plan. 3. understanding (has no conception). conceptional adj. [French from Latin: related to CONCEPT - The Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Rev. Sec. Edition. Edited by Della Thompson. – Oxford Univ. Press, 1996 – 1080 pp. ↩ ]
   Conception [Latin: conceptio] – 1) a system of views, a certain understanding of phenomena and processes; 2) a single, defining plot, a main idea of a literary or scientific work - The Dictionary of Foreign Words – 12th edition, stereotypic – Moscow: C48 Rus. yaz., 1985 – 608 pp.
2. ↑ Well, but “a problem preventing from achievement of some goal” from another point of view can be an aim of ruling realized by other subjects
3. ↑ COB - is the transliteration of the Russian abbreviation for the Conception of Social Security.
4. ↑ His Providence has not yet been known because one believes in Him, but nobody believes Him. (An unknown Russian author ) So, don’t mix to believe in God (which is usually understood as the belief in the simple existence of God) and to believe God (to believe God – is to believe what God says to be true).
5. ↑ Read a bit forward
6. ↑ The suffix ‘-ен’ refers to English ‘-ing’ meaning an action named with the previous verb. So “речь” (verb is “рекать” though today it is used not without different prefixes) – turns into “речение” and in English can be found as “speaking” (but not in its modern usual meaning) like an action when one speaks.
7. ↑ Though not only “to know” (in “ведать + Accusative case”, direct object), but as well “to be in charge (of); manage” (in “ведать + Instrumental (Ablative) case”, indirect object)

Daftedoff (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)