A good COP is not able to communicate effectively with many different strata and groups of society itself – good for all will not be. But it is possible for all not to be bad COP: it is only necessary that all and each has several bad. In this sense, the statement we are discussing is a classic statement of the “bad COP” to the “creative class”
Show full…
It’s a thankless job – to interpret other people’s political statements made by high official, always go wrong. But, first, still want. Secondly, the statement acquires a mass of circumstantial evidence, like (use vocabulary familiar to the author of the statement) murder acquires a mass of circumstantial evidence and material evidence (I’m not talking – “look who benefits”, this should also work).
You can try to interpret the article by the Chairman of the RF IC Alexander Bastrykin “About the need to put a barrier”. In essence, the statement is (in the best traditions of our civilization and in full accordance with the Canon) four parts – three ritual formulas and the resulting one. A spell on the U.S. as the enemy of the whole world, the spell of Russia as the Savior of the world and the spell of the difficulties generated by the only the USA directly to Russia, which are designed to prevent Russia to prosper and save the world. This construction is classical, not us and not today, invented. Spells, as we know, cannot change and don’t change, it’s part of the cult, which introduces students in the right mental state, but resulting in different speeches of different. So the spell is pointless. Talk about resulting.
Resulting from this statement is surprisingly simple: aside from the stream of sentences that are impossible or extremely abstract (everything to do with “strengthen” and “deepen”, “create concept”, “development ideology” and so on), it remains quite astonishing for its promiscuity, on the one hand, and awareness, on the other, list: to dramatically censor the Internet; to restrict the movement of capital; to impose a ban on cryptocurrencies; to introduce the confiscation of property; to expand the powers of the repressive bodies; to tighten the procedure for the settlement of border crossing and migration.
All of these proposals (apart from the fact that they are apparently ineffective in the fight against extremism, and the opposition) have one thing in common: they (also part of the first about the Internet) actually do not concern “ordinary people”. But they are sensitive to five percent of society (professionals of international level, independent businessmen, top managers, professionals, modern, breakthrough areas), not just sensitive, and is for them a red cloth, causing a sharp rejection and fear.
The question is: if people set out ideas uninteresting due to the total absence of intersections with this most people at the household level, if by adopting them the people really feel and because of its support for implementation is clearly not required, why so serious voice of these sentences, as if searching for popular support, is introduced quickly and quietly, and all? Well, censorship on the Internet our nation, three main classes which on the Internet: browsing porn, downloading torrents and surfing the social networks and on Dating sites – even as feel Holy don’t touch it, but, most likely, censorship on the Internet, no one can enter without first constructing a large-scale and completely controlled by anyone should the pornography industry and related industries, so to speak “impartasesti”. But the author of the statement – not some lobbyist, and statements not lobbying for business interests.
And and don’t need people’s approval – as if the author answers us and publish it in mass media coverage, not in “news” or “KP” in which one would hope the attention “of the people”, and in a very niche media, which it is on those five percent and calculated that only five percent of these and read. That is, the statement is just for them and designed. Does the author that you have read and accurately of three spell able and these five percent to induce a trance through which these readers agree to the proposals resulting from part and support them? Very unlikely – the author is known as a smart and experienced person, past a large school of control youth, and then quite adults. We can only assume that the purpose of the statement was to cause five percent of these reactions are just the opposite – fear and rejection.
The answer to the question, why to cause such a reaction, easy to find, if we return to the question of who is the author of the statement. The author is not an independent political figure, not an oppositionist, not a candidate for an elective office, in whose Toolbox is to promote their views and periodic throwing a challenge to the society to obtain PR. The author is an official of the heavyweight, the appointee of the highest rank clothed with absolute trust of the person appointing him. To assume an inconsistent statement of this kind it would be very strange. Accordingly, it is possible to assume that the statement is made in the interests of the whole system of government, embodied by the first person of the state. But the head of state may not be interested in straight disgust even a small but significant part of the population of their country from its policy! From this it follows only one conclusion: the statement is agreed, but produces something fundamentally different from what the head of state is ready to present as its policy.
I must say that the scheme of “good COP, bad COP” is used in Russia for a long time and actively. When bad cops are not, they create out of nothing – only to have the Creator on their background looked a good COP, without changing anything in its policy. Russian spin doctors has even reached such a level that, creating many “bad cops”, she managed to sell them to each other directly as such: the Democrats in Russia are now afraid of coming to power of Communists, and the Communists – Democrats; the liberals, nationalists, and nationalists – liberals; the security forces in government – economists in the government, and Vice versa; officials – Bulk (and Vice versa); the patriots of the USA (and the USA – will not believe – patriots), and in the center of this waltz is the last good COP, as it was conceived in America (where without it) a hundred years ago, everyone loves only because he’s not a bad.
A good COP is not able to communicate effectively with many different strata and groups of society itself – good for all will not be. But it is possible for all not to be bad COP: it is only necessary that all and each has several bad. In this sense, the statement we are discussing is a classic statement of the “bad COP” to the “creative class”. The real message of the statement (go to the vocabulary of those who see it) is simple: “don’t want to be friends with a good COP, a COP will be worse”. If the statement will have the effect of correctly dosed, a good COP won’t even have to do anything, just the opinion of “better he than they were” before the elections to the Duma will be strengthened in five percent of the population. Even if the medication will be more than necessary, we will soon hear from the “good COP” something apologetic, like “well, we do certainly not believe that we should, you know, so here it is right to interpret, straightforward, which, of course, everything should be done reasonably, in accordance with, know the circumstances, we’re consistently for freedom, against censorship…” and so forth. In this sense, the emergence of the Statement – a very good sign. Who barks – never bites, not because has no teeth or courage: just who bites – never barks, no need, and the prey will spook. And that, who barks – he knows, why it does and why it is.
