The "Keeping Eye" of a Scout Let's compare the life and character of James Bond with the life and character of a real intelligence officer. A career intelligence officer never carries recording equipment, weapons, encryption or notes with him, for fear of exposure. He cannot afford to be

“The Exploit of a Scout” (1947) dir. Boris Barnett, stage. Mikhail Bleiman (1904–1973), Konstantin Isaev (1907–1977) and Mikhail Maklyarsky (1909–1978) 483 As a scout to a scout, I will tell you - you are a fool, Stübing! 484 Thoughts, observations, conclusions. I dream of warning, preventing. 485 You

"Patience, friend, patience... And the stubble will turn into gold"- This famous phrase from the movie "The Shield and the Sword". I remember her from childhood. In film main character he often uses it to reassure his business partner and set him up for anticipation. At the same time, it promises huge profits. But if I remember correctly, this whole deal was a scam by a Soviet intelligence officer working under the guise of an entrepreneur.

Now imagine a ten-day period. There are 4 tapes per day for 3 hours psychological work . In each feed, in parallel, there are 5-6 different trainers with different techniques and courses. Some coaches come, others leave. And I want to go everywhere, steal everything and be in time everywhere.

Interesting to see and the work of various trainers from the point of view of leading groups, the topics themselves that the trainers offer are also interesting. As a rule, these are full-fledged presentations of their new works. Of course, they will not replace full-fledged training, but they will provide information and insight into the proposed method, and the opportunity to participate and experience its impact.

Therefore, there are many practicing psychologists and students at the ten-day conference. You can check for yourself the possibility of using various psychological practices and choose your own method, which inspires you now, and which you want to work with.

But there are also people at the ten-day period who are interested in trying to solve their problems various methods. They go to various trainers and ask them for help. What if it helps? I cannot say what the result is. But I wouldn’t conduct such an experiment on myself... What do you think?

And I have another question for the coaches. What is this ten-day period for them? Why do they come here year after year? As far as I know, this is not an opportunity to earn money; rather, it is an opportunity to show yourself, test your strength, find out your rating among peers, find out what your colleagues are breathing. And just to spend time - I mean, to chat.

I don’t know yet whether “my stubble will turn into gold.”
But I will definitely gain experience. Because today I visited the master NLP E. Likhacheva (Perm) and associate professor for work with symbolodrama A. Zhukov (Novosibirsk).

Calm and confident people, knowledgeable, thinking, able. I wanted to learn from both. I think this means that they completed their task, as I see it, of course, this task.

NLP- this, of course, is for the mind. Knowledge plus skills. Personally, I have a hard time learning this way. But that's me. What did you take for yourself? That everything is fine with my feelings and ideas. Intuitively I am moving in the right direction. And it pleases. But fundamental knowledge is great! And when they are also combined with practical experience, like Likhacheva’s, this evokes my great respect.

And here working with images in symbol drama- this delighted me. I think this is close to me. I work with simple images. But I couldn’t even imagine that a whole science was built on this!!! So much for the unconscious! What inquisitive people they are. Researched, realized, structured!!! Delights. For me this kind of work is creative. But the coach himself must be very attentive on the one hand, and not pushy on the other hand.

These are my discoveries of masters and new works today.

Alexander Minkin

Tomorrow, June 26, the congress of the Union of Right Forces will open. It is unknown what these forces will be called after closure. How many pieces they will divide into, where they will crawl - the jester knows them.

They, as always before death, want to unite with someone. With the Kremlin, with Yabloko... But there are already nine parties in the Union of Right Forces. Where else?

Nobody will remember the privates. All attention is focused on the fate of the leaders: how will they be seated? what will they lead? Is there a lot of money and from whom will they get it “to save Russian democracy”?

We wrote about one of the main right-wingers in the article “Cancer cell” (“MK”, March 3, 2004). Today - about two others: about Gaidar and Nemtsov.

Gaidar tobacco. Working for my uncle

The leaders of the right (“reformers”) treat the people like the hero of the famous film “The Exploit of a Scout” treats a stupid fascist:

- Patience, Stübing, and your stubble will turn to gold!

Who knew that this experience would be transferred to fellow citizens. Patience, Vanya, and your voucher will turn into a Volga.

This is a saying.

Gaidar heads the IET - Institute of Economic Problems transition period. As the name suggests, it is beneficial for employees that we always exist in a period of transition.

Leaders who are losing popularity like to convince people that they don’t change horses in midstream. They say that they, experienced ones, are better than beginners, from whom they don’t know what to expect. But this saying also means that it is beneficial for the horses that we always flounder at the crossing.

Gaidar and his IET are very involved important matters. They prepare a budget, compose presidential messages, recommend to the country's leadership what to do with pensions, benefits, taxes, the army, and customs. On the IET website it says: “In all these areas, the Institute has and develops its own position, which it actively defends.”

And in whose favor?

For example, the IET sent a report to the government: “Improving excise taxation of tobacco industry products.” This is no small matter. It's about about billions of dollars. Previously, a fixed tax was taken from the supplier: so many rubles per thousand cigarettes. The Gaidar Institute proposed reducing this tax, but adding a certain percentage of the wholesale price.

Gaidar really “actively defends his position.” He even went to the Duma to push through his excise taxes on tobacco.

As a result, for some reason our state began to receive less money from the tobacco kings.

Error in calculations? Unfortunately no.

The report on tobacco excise taxes begins:

“The role of government in economic management

Governments are involved in managing their countries' economies for a number of reasons, including to increase and redistribute wealth. To achieve this goal, governments regulate economic policy, as well as the collection of taxes and the expenditure of funds received by the budget. The task of an effective government is to ensure a balance between the macro interests of society and the country as a whole and the micro interests of citizens of their countries, taking into account specific circumstances. Taxation plays a leading role in this process.”

And this is how the report of the giant British American Tobacco corporation begins:

“The role of government in the economy

Governments participate in the management of the economies of their countries for a number of reasons including the promotion of prosperity and redistribution of wealth. These are achieved through economic policy and the collection and expenditure of Government revenue. The challenge for an effective Government is to balance the macro interests of society and the country as a whole against the micro interests of its citizens and their individual circumstances. Taxation plays a major role in the task of Government.”

The texts match verbatim. And who translated whom?

The British American Tobacco report appeared in November 1997. The report of Gaidar's IET - in 2000.

The creativity of the IET was to add the word “Russia” in some places, and remove “World Bank” and “International Monetary Fund” in other places - to feign patriotism and cover up the traces of other people's interests.

When you hold two reports in your hands, when you leaf through them and see dozens of pages of an exact copy...

There is a benefit for the seller and a benefit for the buyers.

The seller is a foreigner. We are the buyers.

Our IET has introduced a scheme through the government and the Duma that is beneficial to foreigners. If Gaidar works for them, then it means against us.

And he lives in our house. The IET occupies about 5,000 square meters at the address: Gazetny, 5 (formerly Ogareva), a stone's throw from Red Square. And it rents out most of its space to foreign companies.

Not long ago, the IET paid rent at three dollars per square meter in year. And he rented them to foreigners for 600 and even 800 dollars. 25,000 percent profit - neither drug dealers nor pimps could dream of such a profit.

Shortly before the Duma elections (2003), the Americans sent Gaidar to improve the Iraqi economy. The right was delighted. Of course: the United States is agitating for the Union of Right Forces, and you can’t find fault. But people are not stupid. If America instructs Gaidar to reform someone’s economy, then, of course, it is in the interests of the United States, and not the aborigines.

Gaidar, who, as head of government, left weapons to Dudayev, is today developing military reform. In whose interests?

Gaidar deals with pensions and taxes. In whose interests?

Gaidar is developing a strategy for Russia's development.

Wouldn't it be greasy?

Nemtsov the hero

Suicide on TV

When terrorists captured Nord-Ost, Nemtsov was one of those who went to negotiations. But he was the only one who went and didn’t get there.

Before this feat, the previous ones faded. The fee of 100 thousand dollars for a “book” that he did not write (not a word, not a letter) has faded. The transfer of officials to the Volga, which he started, faded when, at the request of Berezovsky, he was made first deputy prime minister of Russia. The unsuccessful attempt to eat a fish and sit on a Christmas tree faded when in a democratic newspaper, on the occasion of Stalin’s death, the SPS congratulated everyone on the 50th anniversary of the tyrant’s death, and in a conservative newspaper on the same day Nemtsov said: “When Stalin died, I still not born. Therefore, I can’t say anything good or bad about him.” What will he say about Hitler? about Pushkin? - they also died before Nemtsov appeared.

But to appear in front of television cameras as a hero (who decided to risk his life), and then fade away... It seemed that Nemtsov would make every effort so that no one would ever remember his unfinished feat. But on the eve of the Duma elections, he himself brought his shame to the television screen.

SPS leader Nemtsov and Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs Vladimir Vasiliev met in the TV show “To the Barrier!” (NTV). It was about the consequences and lessons of “Nord-Ost”.

Nemtsov, naturally, attacked. On behalf of society, he blamed the authorities and security forces for the fact that dozens of terrorists entered the capital, brought hundreds of kilograms of explosives, and then people died either from the gas, or from the fact that the assistance was poorly organized.

Nemtsov, however, did not start with common grief, and from yourself.

Nemtsov. I have great respect for Vladimir Vasiliev. This man really did a lot of useful things for the country: Colonel General Vasiliev warned me about the impending assassination attempt on me and, perhaps, saved my life.

TV viewers are waiting for a story about the terrorist attack, and Nemtsov talks about his heroism. It turns out that assassination attempts are being prepared on him, and the colonel-generals save him and thereby benefit the Motherland.

But it was not possible to be a hero for long. The TV presenter asked a question:

Boris Efimovich! For you, the theme is “Nord-Ost” in highest degree painful. I remember how you went to the Nord-Ost building together with Irina Khakamada. Were you inside the building or not?

A tough question. Kobzon (for the second time), Khakamada and Nemtsov went to another attempt at negotiations. But halfway to the theater center, Nemtsov began to mark time, calling somewhere... Kobzon and Khakamada entered the mined building together.

And here is the answer to the TV presenter’s simple question: “were you there or not?” I quote verbatim.

Nemtsov. I was not in the Nord-Ost building. I negotiated, uh, in agreement with the headquarters leadership. Here's the thing. At that moment, all the efforts of the state were concentrated on saving people and preserving the state. And, of course, everything was under the close attention and control of the president. Uh-uh... From the very beginning of the work of the headquarters - Irina Khakamada and I actually arrived there - there was an agreement that all our actions, I emphasize: all our actions must be coordinated and sanctioned by the headquarters and the Kremlin, which is the same thing that moment was completely. So, uh... There was a strict demand from President Putin, tough, direct and unambiguous, tough: I should negotiate with Abu Bakar, who will then be a neutralized terrorist, but not to go into the building. We were then in a state of martial law, a state of emergency. It was not announced, this regime...

TV presenter (interrupting Nemtsov’s theoretical arguments). Do you regret not going?

Nemtsov. You know, at that time, I think it was right for me to follow the president’s instructions. Right. Because if everyone did what he wanted, then I think that in general it would be terrible. This would be a complete collapse of the operation and the rescue of people.

TV presenter. Thank you.

It turns out that Nemtsov wanted it, but the president didn’t allow it.

The question “do you regret not going?” understandable. This is not about the fact that if he had gone, he might have saved someone. No. The question “do you regret?” means: regret that you chickened out? have you lost face? And in response - references to strict instructions, state interests and - turning the arrows on Putin.

But first he went. This means he violated strict instructions. And then he trampled in the middle of the yard - how do you understand? Was it Putin who called him at that very moment? Did you catch him halfway to the feat? Or did he suddenly decide to call Putin: they say, Vladimir Vladimirovich, I’m here, uh, in general, personally give me your strict instructions, and Khakamada - to hell with her, let her go, she’s not that valuable to the state, like me.

Nemtsov insisted on television that he acted with the best intentions, putting state considerations above all else. Previously it was called “he wants to bring the Marxist basis under his jacket.”

Nemtsov could have disobeyed the president. But he says that his campaign could have been interfered with by some higher plans. Which one? An immediate assault? If he had walked alone, he would have gone back and forth. But Kobzon and Khakamada were also walking. What kind of plan is this that they did not interfere with, but he would have interfered with?

And the president also looks very strange, like in a children's fairy tale. He let Primakov in, he let Kobzon in, he let Yavlinsky in, he let Khakamada in (let them die), but he didn’t let in this one - the smartest, the prettiest. Either he loves it very much, or he saves it for more important things - well, there’s a swim in an ice hole, and there are many other places where you can show courage.

People often repeat: “All politicians are the same.” It's a delusion. And the “Nord-Ost” tragedy highlighted many. And now we are not talking about doctors and journalists who risk their lives while fulfilling their duty. We're talking about politicians. They are very different. Nemtsov chickened out, but Khakamada, Primakov, Yavlinsky walked around. But they are also very different. Khakamada then did not leave the television screens, and Primakov and Yavlinsky were silent. Negotiations did not take place, people died, there was nothing to brag about.

And Khakamada, for all her courage, what could she say to the terrorists? “Boys, are you offended or what? Turn off your explosives for the hell of it, and I’ll help you open a small-medium enterprise.” No wonder they told her: “Go away. And don’t come again.”

In the TV show “To the Barrier!” everything is decided by calls from TV viewers. Whoever gets the most calls wins.

At the start, it seemed that policeman Vasiliev was doomed. After all, it was the police and the FSB who missed the terrorists. 129 people died, and how many became disabled is unknown. And none of the generals was punished or resigned. And in general, we don’t like the police very much.

But Nemtsov lost. What kind of reputation does the leader of the Union of Right Forces have to have in order to lose to a policeman?

After the default, in October 1998, he told with the same pride in a newspaper interview how, as the governor of Nizhny Novgorod, he sacrificed himself by agreeing to become the first deputy prime minister of the Russian Government:

Tatyana Borisovna Dyachenko arrived in Nizhny and spent the whole night convincing. She said: the president helped you all the time, and now the hour has come when you must help him. After such words, anyone honest man won't be able to refuse.

If, having heard such words from a lady, a decent person should agree, then why did Tatyana Borisovna need “the whole night”? Did she repeat it all night, and he agreed all night?

Alas, don't imagine any romance. Tatyana Borisovna did not come alone. Together with her, Nemtsov was persuaded all night by Berezovsky, who then said his best phrase:

- Boris Efimovich - in some places Boris Abramovich. And he wants to be Boris Nikolaevich.

Nemtsov can be understood. He sincerely believed that he was about to become president. It is impossible to understand the oligarchs who sponsor the Union of Rightist Forces. With that kind of money, couldn't they have hired a smarter leader for the right?

Even an idiot can be a king. But to be the leader of a real opposition - to seriously fight for power - requires intelligence, courage and will.