General Petrov Lectures: Concept of Public Security
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Psyche said:
Making another step in this direction, it is not that difficult to figure out who would benefit from supporting and fueling that kind of sentiments of people who are basically just lazy and authoritarian followers in their majority. Because having observed the same thought patterns or feelings in my country, I don't think those 50 percent or so who prize Stalin is the thinking and creative part of the society, even with taking into account the crooked mirror type of reality. Heck, how many people still believe in the official 9/11 propaganda? Does it make it true?
anothermagyar
Dagobah Resident
Yeah, I know people from Eastern Europe who forgot evil things in the past and wants 'good ol' times back...'.
Btw, what is this thing with women?
He talks about at the second video basically all the presidents and leaders of countries was controlled by their wives?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_50617&feature=iv&src_vid=rtl7Zt_SU68&v=3Jk_WM90NME
at 7:50 starts talking about:
""There also considered the sex relationship: man and woman.
Psychologically through instincts man subordinated to a woman.
Men thinking that they're deciding everything, because we are living in patriarchy.
And without understanding this issue nobody even think about it.
I will give you a few common examples:
We are choosing presidents, voting, selecting and they even say something.
But really we are not choosing him, but his wife.
Why? Because for example, Michael Gorbachev was completely under his wife's control.
And M. Gorbachev was doing whatever she wanted.
But Raisa Gorbachev was connected to the world government through a particular structure.
And world government was controlling Michael using his wife.
Another example: Stalin was condemned for putting Molotov's wife in prison.
You know, her name is Zhemchuzhina.
What it was all about?
At secret politbureau meetings members were talking about serious government issues.
Only members of politbureau knew about it.
Suddenly intelligence service from abroad reporting to Stalin that some people in Western Europe know the topic of this conversation.
Joseph gathered all the members of the politbureau and said:
"So, who said? There were only those who are sitting here! Who said?"
Well, all silent. He said:
"I will shoot you all!"
And Molotov was forced to admit that he told his wife in bed about that stuff.
Well, and she was connected to Jewish intelligence service.
That's why she was jailed.
And this fact is using now to prove that Stalin was a bad man.""
What do you think?
Btw, what is this thing with women?
He talks about at the second video basically all the presidents and leaders of countries was controlled by their wives?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_50617&feature=iv&src_vid=rtl7Zt_SU68&v=3Jk_WM90NME
at 7:50 starts talking about:
""There also considered the sex relationship: man and woman.
Psychologically through instincts man subordinated to a woman.
Men thinking that they're deciding everything, because we are living in patriarchy.
And without understanding this issue nobody even think about it.
I will give you a few common examples:
We are choosing presidents, voting, selecting and they even say something.
But really we are not choosing him, but his wife.
Why? Because for example, Michael Gorbachev was completely under his wife's control.
And M. Gorbachev was doing whatever she wanted.
But Raisa Gorbachev was connected to the world government through a particular structure.
And world government was controlling Michael using his wife.
Another example: Stalin was condemned for putting Molotov's wife in prison.
You know, her name is Zhemchuzhina.
What it was all about?
At secret politbureau meetings members were talking about serious government issues.
Only members of politbureau knew about it.
Suddenly intelligence service from abroad reporting to Stalin that some people in Western Europe know the topic of this conversation.
Joseph gathered all the members of the politbureau and said:
"So, who said? There were only those who are sitting here! Who said?"
Well, all silent. He said:
"I will shoot you all!"
And Molotov was forced to admit that he told his wife in bed about that stuff.
Well, and she was connected to Jewish intelligence service.
That's why she was jailed.
And this fact is using now to prove that Stalin was a bad man.""
What do you think?
anothermagyar said:
Sort of like "the female of the species is more deadly". Be wary of the female psychopath!
The other thing that got me wondering was his reference of the euro. He was speaking in 2004. So if the euro would not have been created, the economic apocalypse in the US would have happened a long time ago?
obyvatel
The Living Force
The comment about man-woman caught my attention too. The way the English translation was presented seemed to imply that women are the "power behind the throne".
The part about global mafia wanting to stamp out Judaism and convert everyone to scientology stuck out. He also took Bush's example to illustrate that politicians have to cater to ignorant and gullible public using Aristotle's quote "the best shoemaker can only be chosen by shoemakers".
He considered that negative news reporting by the media (misfortune, disaster and suffering) played a role in making people apathetic towards politics and that is what the global mafia wished. He was calling for greater political awareness and participation but I thought using this example was a little odd.
Some parts of the video did not have subtitles. There was a comment by someone called bluessucker for the second part of the introductory lectures video
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_50617&feature=iv&src_vid=rtl7Zt_SU68&v=3Jk_WM90NME
Can someone who understands Russian cross-check this?
The part about global mafia wanting to stamp out Judaism and convert everyone to scientology stuck out. He also took Bush's example to illustrate that politicians have to cater to ignorant and gullible public using Aristotle's quote "the best shoemaker can only be chosen by shoemakers".
He considered that negative news reporting by the media (misfortune, disaster and suffering) played a role in making people apathetic towards politics and that is what the global mafia wished. He was calling for greater political awareness and participation but I thought using this example was a little odd.
Some parts of the video did not have subtitles. There was a comment by someone called bluessucker for the second part of the introductory lectures video
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_50617&feature=iv&src_vid=rtl7Zt_SU68&v=3Jk_WM90NME
Can someone who understands Russian cross-check this?
Psyche said:
I don't think so. There is a pretty coherent community that have seen the end of the $ reserve currency for a long time. In their framework, the Euro was created to replace the $ reserve. But much time is needed to prepare the Euro for the replacement, and during this time, the $ reserve had to be supported. This support will come to an end soon. The PTB have their finger on the $ destruct button, and when they press it, dollars will come flying home to create a massive $ hyperinflation and destruction of the dollar. I agree with this for the most part, but what actually happens - we'll just have to wait and see ...
obyvatel said:
Yup, that's what he says. Not sure about the word "holy", but it is followed by "fair and just Russia, that is, there will be a life organization established on the planet earth according to our Concept of Public Security, first in Russia, and then in all the other countries/regions of the planet."
Added:
You could think he's talking about just spreading the idea and involving more and more countries to join, but right before he talks explicitly about how throughout history Russian borders have been moving out and in, back and forth, on and on, with Russia shrinking and then expanding again. So it seems he does mean Russia as the whole world Empire. Which would go hand in hand with his (to some extent) and some others' more and more popular idea about the superiority of the Slavic (=Aryan!) race...
Maybe your question should be formulated as: If Putin is a good guy trying to save the world, then what exactly did he do for it during his 13 years of leadership? (I can't call Medvediev a leader) Besides weapon sales, it's business after all. Rhetoric didn't change for ages in Russia about America and Zionists (since USSR), but when Russian authority wants to "punish" Americans, they make it using their own disabled children, instead of closing UN military base near Ulyanovsk. It all looks like a good play where everyone has his/her role. Lobachewski wrote that you have to experience pathocraty to be able to understand it, and it looks like a lot of people outside of Russia do not really comprehend what exactly is going on there. During "golden decade" of oil prices almost nothing has been made to make people's life better in Russia. Right now they are destroying leftovers of health and educational systems, just like they have the same goal of cleansing the surface of the world of common people as US do. And if we consider the idea that psychopaths (and other pathological individuals) are just expendable tools in the hands of overlords, than it doesn't matter if one single country is not joining the kill-all-arabs party while its population is dieing out.Pashalis said:
Returning to your original question, he's a president because he's fine for people who put him in his place. Heroes end like JFK.
Buddy
The Living Force
Laura said:
I just finished watching part 1. The first thing to mind was 'information asymmetry'. IOW, why are we being told this? I have some ideas, but I'm still not sure if the reason has been made clear? Maybe in the second part? I have no active doubts about what Petrov is saying, but my strongest impression here, when I add Putin into the picture, is of the trademark cleverness of the original Vikings.
It hasn't all come together for me yet, but I feel like something interesting is brewing.
Interestingly, just before I could submit this post, I started feeling a deep down anger that seems way out of proportion to the material just reviewed. Or maybe not? Also, the Cassiopaea site slowed down to a crawl.
Just to get a glimpse of what he is writing about, I've been reading some pages of Petrov's two volume book series with Google translate. You can find online text versions in Russian, with some searching (I'm keeping in mind that it's copyrighted material, just reading 'samples' here).
I noticed two things, that made me wonder. First, he doesn't have a whole lot of references, if any, to what he is saying. Maybe I missed some footnotes, but I couldn't find one single reference to anything. He is supposed to be highly trained, surely he must know the importance of referencing the source(s). One could argue, of course, that all his knowledge comes from empiric experience, but I still find this remarkably 'juvenile' for someone writing a serious book.
The second thing that caught my attention (and I could be off, since I didn't read the whole thing), was how he doesn't really provide anything more in these books than what was included in his introductory video. Well, that's a whole lot, of course, but since in his talk he says that he has only given 1/1000 of his knowledge, I was expecting more. Again, just guessing here, but I'm starting to get the impression that the reason why he seems so 'encyclopedic' and smart is because he has rehearsed and repeated the same 'bulk material' so many times that he knows it in his sleep.
Well, as said, I could be off but my 'nose' smells something fishy in this. But my nose has been wrong before...
I noticed two things, that made me wonder. First, he doesn't have a whole lot of references, if any, to what he is saying. Maybe I missed some footnotes, but I couldn't find one single reference to anything. He is supposed to be highly trained, surely he must know the importance of referencing the source(s). One could argue, of course, that all his knowledge comes from empiric experience, but I still find this remarkably 'juvenile' for someone writing a serious book.
The second thing that caught my attention (and I could be off, since I didn't read the whole thing), was how he doesn't really provide anything more in these books than what was included in his introductory video. Well, that's a whole lot, of course, but since in his talk he says that he has only given 1/1000 of his knowledge, I was expecting more. Again, just guessing here, but I'm starting to get the impression that the reason why he seems so 'encyclopedic' and smart is because he has rehearsed and repeated the same 'bulk material' so many times that he knows it in his sleep.
Well, as said, I could be off but my 'nose' smells something fishy in this. But my nose has been wrong before...
Buddy
The Living Force
I just finished part 2. What a heck of an introduction! I'm pleased to have this overall framework, though, and I find myself wanting to read or watch the remaining material.
[quote author=Aragorn]
The second thing that caught my attention (and I could be off, since I didn't read the whole thing), was how he doesn't really provide anything more in these books than what was included in his introductory video.[/quote]
Really? That's interesting because according to his comments in part 2, he is supposed to be explaining in depth, each element of the Concept of Public Security that he touched on in his 2 part introduction. Plus, he mentioned that the 'solution' is obvious, but that he'd get into that in later lectures.
Does anyone know what his obvious solution is? Or if he explained how we are to "unite and prosper" as the opposing concept to the Globalist's "divide and control?"
[quote author=Aragorn]
The second thing that caught my attention (and I could be off, since I didn't read the whole thing), was how he doesn't really provide anything more in these books than what was included in his introductory video.[/quote]
Really? That's interesting because according to his comments in part 2, he is supposed to be explaining in depth, each element of the Concept of Public Security that he touched on in his 2 part introduction. Plus, he mentioned that the 'solution' is obvious, but that he'd get into that in later lectures.
Does anyone know what his obvious solution is? Or if he explained how we are to "unite and prosper" as the opposing concept to the Globalist's "divide and control?"
obyvatel
The Living Force
It seems that Petrov was an insider spilling the beans which would explain lack of references. The stated goal of his activities was to provide wholistic knowledge to the public which takes away the information advantage of the global mafia over the rest of the world. He states that he did not even divulge 1/1000 of what he knows in the lectures - which if not followed up by later revelations could simply be a means of leading people on down the path he chooses setting himself up as the wise leader. There are some hints dropped in the second part of the lecture which does raise concerns - like "the best shoemaker can only be chosen by other shoemakers and it is unfortunate that politicians need to cater to the whims of public who know nothing about governance", "re-election is unnecessary if a leader is running the country well" - concepts which have been misused by countless autocrats and despotic regimes. Censure of negative news reporting is also a tried and tested technique for such regimes. The appeal to a "greater Russia" sounds imperialistic.
Petrov takes the example of the Bolshevik revolution to emphasize the need and efficacy of public education - and the glorification of Stalin as well as appeal to Russian mythology all appear to be designed to evoke nostalgia of a perhaps non-existent "golden past". He does not mention ponerology concepts without which it may be impossible to actually create a just and equitable society.
Here is my cynical speculation based on currently available data. In countries where the public has faced great hardship (true for Russia), people are more sceptical about political ideologies and politicians. To appeal to such a mass, more real data needs to be divulged than in countries where the public lives in relative luxury and are far more naive. That could be a reason for the insider revelations. Like he said "there is a program for everyone".
I could be mistaken - so fwiw.
Petrov takes the example of the Bolshevik revolution to emphasize the need and efficacy of public education - and the glorification of Stalin as well as appeal to Russian mythology all appear to be designed to evoke nostalgia of a perhaps non-existent "golden past". He does not mention ponerology concepts without which it may be impossible to actually create a just and equitable society.
Here is my cynical speculation based on currently available data. In countries where the public has faced great hardship (true for Russia), people are more sceptical about political ideologies and politicians. To appeal to such a mass, more real data needs to be divulged than in countries where the public lives in relative luxury and are far more naive. That could be a reason for the insider revelations. Like he said "there is a program for everyone".
I could be mistaken - so fwiw.
Buddy
The Living Force
obyvatel said:
Indeed and here, before I knew what was in the 2nd part video, is what I seemed to be intuiting, so to speak, and why I was feeling anger. It later clicked for me when I found myself listening to the parts that matched your quote above--especially the bold. Clever, indeed. Thanks for the feedback!
In case others are interested, here's some notes of the 2nd part video that I hurriedly transcribed while watching. Some wording may have been changed in places to make it easier for me to understand if I had to review anything:
obyvatel said:
It seems ironic that such statements as those above (along with the one about their new Russia to be "from ocean to ocean") come in the context of his underlying idea - as presented - of anti-globalization.