By this moment I couldn’t tell exactly, what attitude can this fragment have to the solution of “picnics” riddle, but something suggested me – there was some connection between them indeed. And it was the fragment with mentioning of the “effect of monkey’s paw”, which strike me most of all, for the image of monkey presented in the third “picnic”:
“Policy is a type of ruling. In the meantime, the theory of ruling suggests that it is objectively impossible to exercise ruling when the objectives and the hierarchy of their significance are unidentified and the simultaneously determined goals are incompatible. The doctrine outlined by Z. Brzezinski does not meet these criteria. In case the ruling is exercised tacitly, i.e. when its goals and the means of their achievement “go without saying” – and hence, the above principle is not relevant, – inevitably come unpredictable consequences which depreciate even the results achieved so far (as it was the case of the US NSC Directive 20/1 of August 18, 1948, in the sense that the execution of its main provisions between August 18 and 23, 1991 has generated even more serious problems for the USA) and may even invalidate them completely ( in the West this is called sometimes the “effect of monkey's paw”). It happens because the tacit (when it “goes without saying”) and declared (direct definitions) approaches are practically mutually suppressing by virtue of different objective and subjective factors; besides, in the social life they generate phenomena which are the result of their interaction”.
The text following this paragraph made me remember my latest conversation with Holmes, and then I started to understand, why these two notes were translated into English and why Holmes recommended me to study them:
“The same is true, if the present Z. Brzezinski's book relates to that information flow, by which the true American bosses are washing brains of those crowd members who are interested in politics and thus require for their self-psychological comfort some quasi-truthful explanation of the current events and of how they correlate with the officially declared ideological doctrine of state and with political strategy promoting this doctrine. As far as the bosses themselves are concerned, they are relying in particular on the doctrine, which has been designed for a very limited circle of initiated persons and thus better corresponds to the world's reality. However it could not being articulated in the society in its true dimension without provoking meaningless riot against their dominance or – what is even more dangerous for the bosses – without generating sensible freedom-loving actions of those whose future choice is humaneness.
If the latter is the case, then the concealed political doctrine and the doctrines declared with the purpose to "reason" the crowd in general and its substratum (parts) are inevitably contradicting each other in some of their aspects. But the crowd and its substratum are being self-managed on the basis of collective consciousness and unconsciousness generated by its individual members, and thus in those aspects of social life, where the activity of structures initiated into the real doctrine is inadequate, these structures are loosing their competence. Meanwhile, the foundations of society’s established structure are undermined by phenomena which are gaining strength, along with the crowd falling out of ruling exercised by the hierarchy of structures of mutual deception – whether big or small – whose chiefs are persons initiated in true villainy.
Such processes of loosing the ability to rule may develop in reticence and than suddenly become obvious in particular circumstances, when the crowd, inspired by its collective consciousness or unconsciousness, demonstrates unexpected behaviour”.
The final phrase of the fragment of review, printed in thick type: “Objectively, such was the internal mechanism of state collapse in the USSR, the same mechanism exists as well in the USA, and it is "working" already...” – made my future plans more definite. Now I knew exactly, what I should do! In recent ten years I, as well as the majority of common people in Western countries, was little interested in Russian affairs. In many respects it can be explained by tendentious approach of our mass media to coverage of even domestic events, to say nothing of its “potential” enemies, among which undoubtedly remained Russia. Occupied with chess reviewing, I was interested a little in global politics, and about Russian events knew only those facts, which I could meet in news reports on CNN or BBC when zapping sometimes. Thus I stood before the choice for the second time: to seek for materials about Russia in serious libraries, and for doing this I needed time and again good knowledge of Russian language, or… to wait for the call of Hopkins. Wednesday morning at last the telephone rang:
Hello, Watson. Let’s meet tomorrow at seven p.m. in the bar of hotel “Woldorf”. They serve fine coffee by French recipe there. I will have the man you need with me, Russian émigré Eugene Galba.
Evening. October 4. Hotel “Woldorf” and “Flight 1812”
Having finished my work, I put my way to the hotel “Woldorf” on the corner of Oldwich and Kingsway Street. Hopkins and his acquaintance sat by the table near the window to Kingsway Street and were discussing something with great animation. My friend introduced me to a short man, a little bit bald, with abnormally yellowish face and bulging eyes almost without eyelashes. He wore a tweed jacket of grey-green colour, and blue shirt without tie. He belonged to the type of people, which can’t make to stop your look at in a crowd or, all the more, to remember them.
Call me Eugene, – Galba held out his flabby and moist palm of the hand to me. – What exactly about Russia represents interest to you?
How long ago have you left Russia, Eugene?
Soon after the events of October of 1993.
And can you tell me about those events? I’ve never heard anything of it.
Many people, including myself, still can’t understand the underlying cause of them, and I’m not surprised at all, that the most part of Englishmen knows nothing dealing with it. Your government considered in August of 1991 and October of 1993 that democracy has won in Russia, didn’t it?
I know that in August of 1991 the great empire has finished up its existence.
USSR, as a great power, ceased in December of 1991, but in effect you’re right: the events of August 1991 determined the further fate of Soviet Empire.
Excuse me, Eugene, can’t you describe more thoroughly what was happening in Russia in August of 1991. Our press covered these events such way, that they seemed at the same time tragic – emotionally – and exaggerated grotesque – mentally. And then, two weeks later, as it usually happen, everyone forgot about it. Don’t you think that common people usually can’t keep in their minds the events beyond two-weeks-ago? Even terrorist acts in Manhattan that had stricken the whole world on the September 11 began to be covered by clichés like “black Tuesday” two weeks later, though demand for “antidepressants” has risen abruptly. And when ten years will pass, many people will mix up the “black Tuesday” of 1929[30] and “black Tuesday” of 2001.
Don’t worry, Mr. Watson, the matter with long-lasting memory is not better in Russia, but however I’m ready to tell you about tragic events of August 1991.
How long did they last?
According to the official version – four days, but in fact – five.
Why so different?
You may remember, Watson… excuse me – Mr. Watson.
Please, call me just Watson.
So, Watson, the majority of people learnt about GKChP from TV on August 19. And for the most of people it was like bolt from the blue.
Like “boom”, – I corrected him significantly, remembering the tile of the film on backside of the “Historical Picnic”, – and what does the abbreviation GKChP mean?