Текст книги "The Last Gambit"
Автор книги: (IP of the USSR) Internal Predictor of the USSR
сообщить о нарушении
Текущая страница: 1 (всего у книги 21 страниц)
V.V. Pchelovod
The Last Gambit
Mystical-philosophical political
detective story
(Second edition)
Saint Petersburg
2005
The page is reserved for the date-line and printing data
© 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 personal 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 reference 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. [1]
© Victor Vladimirovich Pchelovod
CONTENTS
Internal Predictor of the USSR:
explanation of the terminology used
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[2] 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.
Жречество занято жизнеречением[3] во благо общества.
Zhrechestvo speaks about the Life for the Good of the society.
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
Today in Russian all the words with such meaning: “ведун”, “ведьма” (from “ведать”=“to know”[4]), “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”[5] 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”.
Introduction. From Editors to a Reader
1991: it was the time, when the majority of Russians displayed interest in current conflicts between different political parties, either within the society or within CPSU, for giving the reforms this or that orientation. That’s why that part of the society, who regarded themselves as not indifferent to the future of Russia, watched TV regularly and bought and subscribed to numerous newspapers, where they could find out quite contrary opinions and agitations. Many of those publications written by authors, who felt themselves uncontrolled by CC[6] and KGB any more, contained some profound thoughts, but there was also lots of rubbish, because of the increasing commercialisation of mass-media, when publishers sought to get larger circulation – and income – by attracting readers with various preposterous and “exotic” things. It was the sign of time.
On Friday evening of June 28, 1991, a company of friends were driving to the country for the weekend, anticipating a moment of respite far from city bustle and a quiet exchange of opinions about the current events and the main political trends. Along with the usual country chattels, they brought some newspapers that remained unread during the week. Among them it appeared to be a Leningrad weekly “Chas Pick” (“Rush Hour”), dated by June 24, 1991, № 25 (70). This issue attracted their attention by a page full of drawings named “The Historical Picnic in a Name of Artemis”.
The first thought was: “What’s that? Do they have nothing better to fill their pages with?” But other, more urgent affairs vied for their attention and the question “What does it mean?” was dismissed – “We’ll see later…”
Later, on August 13, someone brought another issue of that very weekly “Chas Pick”, from August 5, №31 (76), where even two full pages were occupied with similar texts and drawings under a generic title “The Defence Picnic”. Again a question arose: «If “Picnics” have become a system in the “Chas Pick”, what this “system” might be and what could it express? » Then, on August 19, 1991, “a putsch broke out”, and “Chas Pick” with its “Picnics” was forgotten for some time. They surfaced later again, after the conspiratorial Treaty in Belovezhskaya Puscha, on the pages of the magazine “Molodaya Gvardiya” (“The Young Guards”), №1-2 of 1992, where the pictures of the “Historical Picnic” were supplemented with some commentaries under the title: “Masons knew all about the putsch beforehand”.
After that, they always remembered the “picnics” and other seemingly senseless publications (though senseless, if understood only in a direct sense rather than allegorically). Moreover, different people exchanged opinions about them, either in Russia or abroad. And it’s remarkable, that some readers got intrigued by those mysterious publications in the Mass Media on their own quite independently from us.
Meanwhile the third “Post Historical Picnic” appeared in the same weekly – “Chas Pick”, August 17, 1992, №33 (130), as if on purpose, on the eve of the putsch anniversary.
The conversations about those “strange” pictures and texts went on. And at last Victor V. Pchelovod[7] (this is his surname; but his profession is hunting “rats in the attics” and driving them out from there), getting tired of the endless oral discussion of all the same drawings and apparently senseless texts, within his spare time, unoccupied by his principal job, decided to render the materials of general oral discussion in writing. The result of this work is offered to the judgement of the reader.
The author’s original text, representing the results of observations, reflections and collective creative activity, was supplied with footnotes added by editors. They offer some explanations of different circumstances and terms.
December 16, 2001.
The second edition differs from the first one, published in December of 2001, with the additional errata correction and new interpretation of the questions about vectors of aims and vectors of deviation of ruling inversion within different conceptions of ruling and about the appropriate changes of the negative feedbacks to the positive and vice versa, which were left in reticences in the first edition. New footnotes were added. Moreover, quality of some defective illustrations was improved.
June 1, 2002.
Part I. Holmes and Watson
Saturday morning. September 22, 2001. London
That damp and misty September morning my good fellow and neighbour-tenant Mr. Sherlock Romero Holmes was particularly taciturn. We had scarcely exchanged a few words during the breakfast, set by Mrs. Hudson with her usual prim and proper punctuality at 8.45 sharp. In the recent years, we both got used to have our breakfast late in the morning. Overcharged with work, often we had to sit up well past midnight, and the disgusting climate and polluted streets of London in the beginning of the third millennium were hardly encouraging to have an early walk or a picnic. I do not want to sound grumpy, but the last century took its heavy toll on London, the same way however as on the other world capitals.
After the breakfast, yet for a good half an hour, Holmes was studying a whole pile of newspapers, puffing on his favourite cherry-tree pipe. I leafed swiftly through my morning issue of “Daily Telegraph”, scanning headlines superficially, garish, as usual, and discouraging from reading, and stopped for a while in the section of puzzles, cross-words and chess problems. Reading newspapers has long ago become an empty and bothersome habit of mine, nothing but a traditional morning rite, inherited by some accident from our idealistic ancestors, who once had naively believed in its exclusive usefulness. So much the more astonishing was the rapt attention of Holmes studying newspapers lying before him. At last, he leant back in his armchair and, blowing the rings of bluish smoke from his pipe, got lost in that state of aloof pensiveness and semi-consciousness, which always accompanied his incredible, almost Socratic, concentration of thought. I hated to interrupt him, but my curiosity won after all and I couldn’t help asking him:
You’ve found something interesting in the press today, dear Holmes, haven’t you?
It all depends on a reader, old chap Watson, – he answered enigmatically, looking at me askance and became lost in his thoughts again.
Frankly speaking, I was impatient to know Holmes’s opinion about some notorious event, but I did not dare to ask him to the point. I was sure, that his outstanding analytical mind could not pass by the puzzle, stirring up the attention of all inhabitants of our planet for good couple of weeks. However, I also knew very well, that Holmes didn’t like to dwell on subjects beyond his jurisdiction or to talk about the crimes not yet revealed by him.
We almost haven’t seen each other for the whole month, and meanwhile so many curious things had happened in the world, – carefully I tried again to start conversation, – and, by the way, today’s Saturday and I have nothing to do at the editorial office.
Oh, Watson, why do you like so much to beat around the bush? You’d better to ask straight, you know, – answered Holmes, a little bit irritated, like having guessed about my thoughts.
The beginning turned out to be rather discouraging, but it was too late to retreat.
You’ve caught it right, as usual, Sherlock, I’m greatly interested in your opinion about the latest terrorist acts in the USA. This is a crime of the century, isn’t it?! Thousands of victims, unheard-of destructions, tremendous insolence and coordination of criminal actions in plain view of the whole world, and at the same time – complete confusion of the government, lack of any clear trails that could facilitate the catch and indictment of the culprits. I’m sure it’s a hard nut to crack for the FBI gentlemen! It looks like this riddle was created for you, dear Holmes. Who else but you might be able to unravel this mysterious conspiracy! – I was trying to flatter my friend, and thus make him eager to talk. His answer, however, stunned me.
You’re wrong, Watson, – every schoolboy or apprentice is equal to the revealing of this crime; I have nothing to investigate in it. The FBI gentlemen, I have no doubts, are very well informed about the authors of this outrage.
Well, I beg your pardon, Holmes, why don’t they arrest the criminals then?
Let’s only wait, and they certainly will do it ... and almost for sure the arrested ones will have no connection with the events on the September 11.
My bewilderment hung heavily in absolute silence of the living room furnished humbly with antique items. One could not hear but the hollow ticking of Miller’s clock; the clock showed nine past ten already. Holmes has found it necessary to explain himself.
I hope, Watson, you don’t take seriously the version about the involvement of Muslims in that act of aggression?
To tell you the truth, I don’t know what to think. All newspapers and TV channels are trumpeting about Osama (Usamah) Bin Ladin and terrorists directed by him. They blow up anti-Arab hysteria with all their might. On the other side, so many people still remember very well, that in 1995, after the explosion of the FBI building in Oklahoma, in spite of the similar hysterical reaction of American mass media, the complete non-involvement of “persons of Arab nationality” in that tragedy was finally proven. And add to this that since 1979 and up to now, the CIA itself has been “cultivating” the talibs and Bin Ladin, who could be used in these events by someone secretly, to my mind. Therefore, I find it difficult to make a clear version of the events.
So let me congratulate you, old fellow. The Independence of mind, caution and ability not to draw hasty conclusions based on guesswork and information from unverified sources – these are wonderful qualities of a remarkable analyst. And it’s a pity that they’ve gone out of style so much time yet, at least in political and journalistic circles.
But what’s your version, Holmes? Wouldn’t you state it seriously, that American intelligent services themselves organized those abductions and explosions?
Who knows, who knows... – said my friend and became silent again, absorbed in his own profound speculations.
I knew Holmes for many years, and have learnt to respect his keen analytical mind, decisive, strong-willed character, and irreproachable decency. Moreover, my admiration of this man was so great that I didn’t even try to hide it away under a cold mask of conventional neighbourliness or slightly coarse camaraderie. Gradually, he had also become imbued with real sympathy for me, managing to estimate properly my tact and warm friendliness, and so paid me back with his complete frankness. I can’t remember him trying to conceal anything from me, whatever it was, save being compelled by requirements of professional ethics or punctiliousness with respect to private secrets of his clients, who trusted him. However, that was certainly not the case of this kind, and Holmes’s hesitations surprised me a great deal. I was patiently waiting for some explanation from him, but he remained silent.
My dear Watson, – he said at last, – don’t you think, that certain things in life are not worth learning? Was not it you, who once quoted for me some astonishing saying of the Great Russian poet Pushkin: «A fiction that elevates my soul is dearer to me than a host of base and despicable truths”.
Of course, this remark of my friend only warmed up my curiosity even more, and I hurried up to assure him that though certain circumstances, under which an element of intellectual chastity, verbal restraint and mystery could contribute to smoother relations within society and help avoid unnecessary friction, probably existed indeed, – this case was definitely not of that kind. After all, in national culture of Russians the concepts of truth, right, justice and fairness are intertwined so closely, that they all have the same root and have become the basis of Russian world outlook, under the name of Orthodoxy[8]. Some time ago, it was all the same for us, Englishmen, the heirs of freedom-loving Celts. Unfortunately then the words have gradually lost their original sense, and the phonetics of such professional term as «jurist» started to remind suspiciously that of «journalist» and «jeweller» carrying an obviously negative cultural reference, if not something worse. I dared to remind Holmes of an old adage that “the truth alone could set one free”[9] and expressed confidence that even a bitter truth was still better than a sweet lie. And all the more in regard to the events of such outstanding importance, as the events of September 11, which had stirred up all the mankind and perhaps were threatening it with an even more terrifying tragedy. I also reminded him of the spilled blood of innocent victims crying, so to say, for retaliation.
It seemed like my arguments have persuaded Holmes, because he appealed to me again, as if having shaken off the remains of his doubts, with his confident and nice smile inherent only in people, whose sense of their own rightness is based not on their conceit or impudence, but on the profound knowledge of the subject and absolute sincerity:
That’s good, Watson. Then let’s make an attempt to get closer to the circumstances of this case together, trying not to hurry, or get excited, or become flustered facing possible obstacles to it. Only logic can help us here, and impartial analysis, based upon the methodology I’ve learnt recently from my friends from Russia.
Of course! – I answered, paying little attention to the last words of Holmes, what wasn’t right, as it appeared soon. – Let this analysis be one more proof of the effectiveness of your great-grandfather’s almighty deductive method, the legend of Scotland-Yard!
That’s good that you remember about it. My great-grandfather was really an outstanding thinker for his time, and it is due to him that I am what I am now. Our family archives contain not only his personal notes, but also the memoirs of his closest friend Dr. Watson. And I can assure you that reading them is still a very instructive study today. But, nevertheless, it should be noticed, that a century ago Sherlock Holmes has made one great mistake, which cost us all too dearly: while he was chasing small criminal fishes of East-End in London suburbs, the real criminals of City managed to weave the huge web entangling almost the whole world by now.
Unfortunately, those years even that people who were aware of this problem, couldn’t see how serious it was, and treated it with carefree humour. Examples aren’t hard to find. My great-grandfather’s friend and biographer, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in a mood of playing a joke, has chosen twelve addresses of the most prominent London bankers with a reputation of honest and law-abiding people and sent to each of them such a telegram: “Everything is revealed. Hide away”. The other day all of them left London. Having done this, all of them admitted criminal and anti-social character of their activity, but really the matter was much more serious...
Former financial swindlers, counterfeiters and embezzlers of public funds succeeded gradually to pin down the government, university professorship, science, to gain total control of mass-media, to subdue the police, armies and intelligence of Eastern Europe and North America countries, and to begin systematic robbery and extermination of population in all other countries of the world. These unhappy states are called the countries of “the third world” on thieves’ slang. It is almost hopeless in our days to struggle with this criminals, up-to-date high developed and armed to their teeth, and not only hopeless, but sometimes illegal, because they themselves have created law systems for their own defence.
I’m ready to agree with you, Holmes, but let me see, how did they manage to do that?
Three main points were substantial here: firstly, universal concentration on realization of petty self-seeking interests, and, as a result, couldn’t-care-less attitude to the problems of social and global scale; then, the foundation of wide international net of secret organizations, and, lastly, creating of central banks and concomitant capture of monopoly on printing money, which means making value almost of the air – it can be deservedly considered the most amazing act of black magic in the history. The specific mechanisms of making this plan true you, Watson, will never be able to understand, until you thoroughly study the Yahoo theories of our great compatriot Jonathan Swift[10], and also Russian branch of very ancient tradition of establishing humaneness on the Earth. Now it’s not my task to introduce you to the entire course of so-called “higher” sociology, “higher” economy and of politics for the “select people”, because it would take years and years of intense teacher’s work, though in normal society they should be an integral part of compulsory education. So let’s limit to mere certification of this sorrowful fact, and start to analyse the problem interesting for us.
So, old fellow, what is necessary for an individual, mistakenly attributed to “Homo Sapiens” kind, hominid family, for committing a crime, is an obligatory combination of three factors in the character of a potential criminal: 1) a motive of the crime, 2) physical and technical ability to carry it out, 3) absence of moral barriers and fear of punishment, and in some cases – society itself doesn’t leave any choice for the person, and this is what European and American analysts aren’t likely to remember, while in the past the analysts of so-called “socialistic camp” countries were overemphasizing it.
The researchers-criminalists revealed the statistics, which was interpreted by their biologists-consultants this way: the kind of “Homo Sapiens” is not homogeneous, but consists of four subspecies, two of that predatory and much more predisposed to anti-social behaviour including committing crimes, than others. Believe me, Watson, all these theories are very curious, but minding to save the time we won’t focus our attention on them now. The analysis of three aforementioned facts will be sufficient. And now you yourself try to consider if the supposed “Arabian terrorists” deal with these components.
I appreciated Holmes’s fine manoeuvre. Actually, I was acquainted with “Arabian terrorists” not through hearsay. May be my life, like that of anyone else, was mostly predestined by life and activity of my ancestors, or, as it is called now, – family aggregors. There were no doubts, that my great-grandfather, Sir John Henry Watson, was the aggregor leader in our family; he was an officer of military medicine service, retired afterwards, the participant of the second Afghan campaign, the true friend and associate of a worldly-known detective of the past century, Sherlock Holmes. So unsurprisingly I’ve got good medical education, as many male members of our family, and had a successful practice in the navy-base hospital of Portsmouth during two years. When Russian troops invaded Afghanistan in the end of 1979, many of my Portsmouth friends paid their attention to the “chance” coincidence of that date with the hundredth anniversary of our unsuccessful second military campaign in Afghanistan. And though my great-grandfather’s involving into the hostilities wasn’t marked with any heroic deeds, he himself claimed that this involving predetermined all his further life. Therefore, when I was offered to work in the international organization “Doctors without borders”, I said to me – “that’s your fate!” and agreed without hesitating. All the more I wasn’t surprised, when this fate has thrown me firstly to the Pakistan camp of Afghan refugees, and then – to enigmatic and at the same time dangerous Afghanistan. And yet very soon in this far from romance place I got rid of many delusions of my youth and got acquainted with the warriors of Islam (“Arabian[11] terrorists” after September 11), this time not by family legends only. But there, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, I was to deal not only with warriors of Islam, but with wounded Russian prisoners of war too. At first they considered me to be a Mi-6 agent, and kept silent in my presence, but soon, making sure that I didn’t know Russian language, started to discuss ardently something between each other even in my presence. Trying to understand the true causes of this war, which, as I thought, had much in common with that of my great-grandfather, I started learning Russian language, hoping, that Russians, discussing their problems, will help me to comprehend correctly the current events. Having made sure, that I wasn’t trying to ferret out their “military secrets”, they became imbued with sympathies and were willing to help me in learning language, together with answering my strange, to their mind, questions. From these conversations with Russians I got to know that this war was incomprehensible not only for persons like me – those, who didn’t take part in operations directly – but even to direct executors. And the longer lasted this bloody mess, the more I guessed that everyone drawn into it was only tool in some mighty hands making big policy on the blood. As a result, when the term of my three-year contract was up, I returned to England, feeling the same bitterness and disappointment as my great-grandfather hundred years before. The circle locked. Desiring not to tempt the fate any more, I decided to deceive it. First, I gave up my medical practice, by which I was earning my living, and appealed to the old passion of me as a student – chess, supposing that this wonderful ancient game would give me an opportunity to hide from social problems of decaying western civilization. I came to this sorrowful conclusion yet in Afghanistan, considering even then, that the world was on the brink of the World War III – war between East and West, between Christian and Muslim civilizations. But I still needed money for living. For the beginning my friends helped me to get a job in the editorial of “Chess Monthly” magazine, and when I was a made man, I began to contribute to “British Chess Magazine” too. Two latest years I have been spending almost all my spare time in the weekly internet-publication “The Week in Chess”, or, as all of us called it, – TWIC.
