About CPS (Conception of public safety) in brief

It can hardly be a secret that the modern civilization has accumulated a vast amount of problems, related not only to the ecological and biosphere crises, but in the social life one can see no kind of well-being. The matter is not only in somebody’s personal activity in depressing the biosphere and society – it is in passivity and inactivity of others! Moreover, aims announced by a government often differ greatly from those that the government really has. However, the execution of such control1 (management) can only take place in a society of people completely ignorant in politics and control (management). Phrases such as “What can I do by myself?” and “Let the government make everyone’s life better”, told by the millions, do not help in resolving problems. They just show one’s agreement with the existing situation – that they agree to be controlled; that they agree to some “elite” living better than others without any reasons for this; that they agree to not understand how society lives – as if their own life were independent from the life of all of humankind (obviously, that is not so).

Every society is controlled in one way or another, and therefore the global historical process may be perceived as a global process of control which, primarily, is comprised of and includes many processes of regional management (policies of regional states and international policies, forces which are not institutionalized within the state: mafias, Jewish diaspora), and secondly, proceeds within life processes of the Earth and Space that are hierarchically above it.

The theoretical basis of the Conception of Public Safety (CPS, or “COB” – the transliteration of the Russian abbreviation) is the Sufficiently General Control Theory (SGCT, or “DOTU” – the transliteration of the Russian abbreviation) – sufficiently general for describing any process of control or self-control with its terms. According to the Sufficiently General Theory of Control, all means of control can be divided into general groups which are arranged hierarchically from the most effective to the least. Such instruments of influence on society, whose reasonable use allows control over its life and death, are:

  1. Information of worldview nature, or methodology, which, once adopted, allows one to build – individually and socially – their «standard automations» of identification of particular processes within the completeness and integrity of the World, and to define in their individual perception the hierarchical order of these processes in their mutual interconnection. This information is the foundation for the culture of thinking and for the completeness of control activities, including intra-social absolute power both on regional and global levels.
  2. Information of annalistic, chronological nature, in all domains of Culture2 and all domains of Knowledge. It allows one to see the direction in which 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 (measure, Russian: mera) and is conformable to the World, this information allows identifying particular processes while filtering the «chaotic» flow of facts and phenomena through the worldview «sieve» – subjective human measure of identification.
  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 current generations, but also future generations to come, eliminating the genetically-based potential for acquisition and development by them of the cultural heredity of their ancestors. These practices include: nuclear blackmail – threat of use; alcohol, tobacco and other kinds of narcotics, food additives, all ecological pollutants, some medicines and vaccines – real use; «gene engineering» and «biotechnologies» – potential danger.
  6. Other instruments of influence, mainly by force – weapons in the traditional sense of this word: those 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 distinctions between the instruments of influence (because many of them, by their capacities, could be related to different groups), their classification in hierarchical order, as presented above, allows nonetheless to identify the dominating factors of influence that may be used as instruments of control, and in particular, as instruments of suppression and elimination of phenomena in social life that are conceptually inadequate in the sense of control.

When used within one social system, this set is tantamount to generalized means of controlling this system. But when applied by one social system (or social group), to others which have different internal conceptions of control, it is tantamount to generalized weapons, i.e. means of warfare, in the most general sense of this word; or – instruments of support for self-control within another social system, when there is no conceptual incompatibility of control in both systems.

The order given above determines the priority order of these instruments in terms of their impact on society: changes in society’s state under the impact of instruments of higher priorities entail much more significant consequences than those incurred by the instruments of lower priorities, even though such changes proceed more slowly, without «noisy effects». In other words, within historically long intervals, their time-wise effectiveness (how fast the needed result is achieved) increases from the first point to the sixth, while the level of irreversibility of results produced by their application, which greatly influence how efficiently problems of the social life are solved in a “once and for all” sense, decreases from the first point to the sixth.

Executing full control over a society requires not only knowledge about the highest priorities of control means, but also action within them. Accordingly, it is impossible to avoid the influence of informational means of control. One can run away from war, not to use drugs (including alcohol and tobacco), theoretically one can isolate themselves economically by doing their own farming. Yet no one is able to replace the whole mankind with their own person, which is why one living in society will have to take it, and those who rule it, into consideration.

The position of CPS is that real and true democracy is possible only when everyone knows and understands HOW and WHAT FOR society is ruled. That is, everyone must master all means of ruling, and consciously support with their activity the goals standing before them as a member of society, and before society as a whole. But in order to achieve the unity of goals of the whole society, the achievement of a certain culture of world-understanding by every member of society is necessary.

Remembering the biology learned in school and looking deep inside one’s own psyche, one can discover that the informational and algorithmic provisioning of human behaviour includes:

All these are actually or potentially present in every individual’s psyche. But there is something that makes humankind distinct from other species in the biosphere, though neither biology, nor psychology or sociology notice it, and one cannot read about it in any textbook. The matter of this reticence is:
Every specimen of Homo Sapiens may be a carrier of one of the following types of psychical structure, more or less stable during their adult life:

Moreover, people have themselves created the fifth type of psyche structure:

Becoming an addict of any drug, one obtains a stable distortion of their biofield, and consequently, by the parameters of their spirit, they don’t belong to the species Homo Sapiens anymore. Moreover, since most drugs are genetic poisons (i.e. they disrupt the operations of the chromosomal system, destroying chromosomal structures of those who consume these poisons), the inheritance of defective chromosomes by one’s descendants undermines their health and potential for individual development and creative activity. This is more so if conception takes place before the chromosomal structures are recovered by systems acting in the organism. However, if genetic poisons come into the organism too often and in such quantities that systems of chromosomal recovery are unable to repair the damages, the descendants are doomed to degeneracy. Those smoking or consuming “a little” alcohol, supposedly “whenever they want” (and not doing it when they don’t want), should not fool themselves – the intensity of a systematic effect of various psychotropics on the psyche, is such that talk of sobriety of one’s spirit is mistaken (considering intellectual activity at its peak, the consequences of a one-time consumption of a glass of champagne or half-liter of beer are compensated after 2-3 years). This fact allows calling this type of psyche structure – created by mankind itself and reproduced by contemporary culture – dropped into unnaturalness.

For a person having a humane psyche type, a non-formal, non-dogmatic and non-ritual belief to God3 during their life and activity under God’s Guidance by their own goodwill are normal.

The type of one’s psyche structure is determined by their upbringing and education. Thus, if one does not achieve a humane psyche structure by their youth, it is because of social culture’s viciousness and unrighteous upbringing by their parents. However, being an adult and understanding this fact, one is able to change their psychical structure from any of the aforementioned to a humane one. Doing this serves as a basis for a following individual development.

Depending on the statistics of distribution of people by type of psyche structure, society forms its social organization and develops its culture, either supporting the conservation of the state achieved and slave-owning system recurrence attempts, or supporting the recognition of the humane type of psyche structure as the norm and its reproduction during the change of generations as a basis for further individual and social development of nations and the whole mankind.

Without achievement of the humane type of psyche structure by the majority of people, it is impossible for people to get the power to solve the problems standing before the species Homo Sapiens at the beginning of the 21st century.

What is the Conception of public safety?

Concept — n. 1. Idea, notion. 2. Plan, intention; conception.
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. .

The conception of public safety is the idea of building a society that will be worthy of the title of a Human, and at the same time will have a world-understanding allowing realization of this idea into life.

Among the information in CPS there are economic studies and a theory; there are analyses of ideologies and historical works (a large section of the main book of CPS “Dead Water” is called “Decapsulation” and is mainly historical); and, most importantly, there is information on the cognition methodology (culture of thinking) that allows one to come to harmony with oneself and with God, achieving the humane type of psyche structure, learning to cognize the surrounding world. These and other materials can be found on the site dotu.ru, which contain an “English” section with works translated into English.

The conception of public safety in its current state has been developed since 1987 by an initiative group consisting of common people, which has named itself “the Internal Predictor of the USSR” (IP USSR). Since that time, the USSR as a state has disappeared, but the group continues its work under the same name. This is not only because it has become a special brand, but also because we do not admit (in the legal sense) the liquidation of the USSR under execution of directives of the “world backstage”, different mason lodges, CIA and the National Security Council of the USA.

Internal Predictor of the USSR: explanation of the terminology used

The term “predictor-corrector” originates from calculus, where it names a group of methods in which the solution is found by successive approximations. The algorithm represents a cycle with two consecutive operations: the first one – the solution prediction (approximation), and the second – checking if the predicted solution satisfies the problem accuracy requirement. The algorithm stops when the prediction satisfies the accuracy requirement. Moreover, the scheme of control, in which the control signal is formed using the prognosis of future system behavior, as well as information about its present state, is also sometimes called “predictor-corrector” (though it is possibly more right to call it “predirector-corrector” as it directs the way in advance). The scheme of “predictor-corrector” provides for the highest quality of control, since a part of information circulation is circuited through the predicted future, not through the accomplished past. This allows to reduce the lateness of control relative to the disturbing action to zero, and to use forestalling control (where the control action forestalls the cause that forces controlling action to be taken) if it is needed. Considering different conflicts, from the view of control theory, the scheme of predictor-corrector often enough excludes even the possibility of confrontation with a system that is ready for it in advance. So, the term “predictor-corrector” is widely known among mathematicians and specialists of mathematical and technical profiles in the West.

As it follows from history, the predictor-corrector scheme was used for ruling social systems even in ancient times. The superior “zhrechestvo” (this term is explained below), the top-level ruling group, of ancient Egypt were called “hierophants”, which meant their ability to read the fate (i.e. the matrix of possible states), to foresee the future. The latter is the basis of any control, since to control a system (here: a society) is to lead it to a certain chosen state of many possible ones on the basis of knowing these possible states. Naturally, choice of the variant depends on the real morality and will of those, who have achieved the ability of foresight and control based on it.

The Russian word “жрец” (“zhrets”) is a composite word as many other ancient Russian words. The letter Ж (Zh – read as French ‘j’) means the word ЖИЗНЬ (Life); the word РЕЦ means “the one who speaks”. “Жречество” (“zhrechestvo”) is like a community of zhretses: the suffix ‘-stvo’ refers to the English suffix ‘-hood’ like in “brotherhood”, or to ‘-ship’ as in “friendship”. The stem variation is widely used in Russian, so ‘ц’ (‘ts’ – read as German ‘z’) in zhrets turns to ‘ч’ (‘ch’) in zhrechestvo with adding a suffix. Thus zhrets can be understood as one who speaks about Life (Life in its whole sense, about the Life of people, of mankind and of Humanity, of Cosmos the whole Universe, and of God), and zhrechestvo speaks about Life for the Good of the society.

In English, there is the word “priest” which is usually translated into Russian as “zhrets”, but it is not right: “priest” is an adherent of a certain confession, church or pagan beliefs (a pope, a clergyman etc.) and we will use “priest” in this 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 во благо общества.
Zhrechestvo speaks about the Life for the Good of society.

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.

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

It is useful for an English speaking reader to learn the 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 not do “a trans-lation”, but an “intro-lation” (introduction, intromission). So we “introlate” the word zhrets. We also introlate another word: знахарь “znakhar”.

Znakhar” (‘kh’ 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 signify”); 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 the Russian language, words used synonymously to “знахарь” are “ведун”, “ведьма”, from “ведать”=“to know” (“ведать + Accusative case”, direct object), as well as “to be in charge (of); to manage” (“ведать + Instrumental (Ablative) case”, indirect object), which mean something like “a witch”, “a quack doctor”. However, it doesn’t mean that one cannot understand the word in its literal meaning, and the literal meaning of 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 a well-structured and comfortable state, while keeping the society in harmony with the Earth’s biosphere, the Cosmos and God. Whereas znakhars serve their own interests while exploiting the society on the basis of their knowledge, and they wittingly cultivate ignorance and perverted knowledge in the exploited society.

This is the difference between zhrechestvo and znakharstvo.

The harmony of society, its culture and the Earth’s biosphere needs a global level of responsibility and of CARE about the well-being (not only the material one) of all nations on Earth. English is today the most popular for international communication. So we take care so that you, English speakers, understand that what we want to say to you, but not what the masters of “false horses of enlightenment” (“Translators are false horses of enlightenment” as said the Great Russian poet Pushkin) want to give you as our opinion.

Russians don’t need such words as “concept” or “conception” – we have the word “жизнестрой” (“Life organization”), and English can also find some words its old roots to avoid the dead Latin.

Our opponents must understand that their monopoly on knowledge is over. In a figurative sense: We pour our “spring water” into their “old wine-skins” for their “skins” to tear, as we don’t like neither their “skins”, nor their stupefying narcotic “wine”.

About the anonymity

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

A person in our ill civilization is not perfect. That’s why any creation of the cult of personality (even if this person has rendered real services to the society) shows the viciousness of everyone following the cult: that one following the cult wants to impose their responsibility for solving problems onto the cult personality, who can be vicious (in their own way) as well. So we use anonymity when writing about conceptual power and other sociological themes to avoid a thoughtless, careless following of an authority (formed accidentally or created purposely) and for avoiding inattention to opinions of “non-authorities”. As we see it, anonymity should exclude all prejudices, so everyone reading could understand the text according to their own conscience and morality, and so one gets a chance to correct one’s own mistakes without psychological pressure of those, whom one considers to be doubtlessly authoritative. The deeds, the results of activity are important for society, but not the persons doing it. If the action is good – the one who does will lose nothing. If it is evil – no one will avoid God’s retribution, even if they want to. Having said this, we ask you not to understand the anonymity of the letter as an offence or distrust. Moreover, anonymity can disappear only after personal, eye-to-eye communication, even if letters are signed and stamped.

  1. Control when the aims being achieved really differ from those, towards which a state power pretends to work, and results of control remain unknown even after their achievement; at the same time the declared aims are called “temporarily unachieved”, which may actually be the aim of control realized by other subjects. []
  2. Within the present context, “culture” means all information that is not transferred genetically in the succession of generations []
  3. As states a Russian author, “His Providence has not yet been known because one believes in Him, but nobody believes Him”; so it is important to distinguish between the “belief in God”, usually understood simply as the belief in existence of God, and the “belief to God”, i.e. “to believe God” – to believe what God says to be true. []