[324] This concerns the question how during decades cult of J. Stalin’s personality was created.

[325] J.V. Stalin reminds of the time when the conflict of «bolshevism and socialism in a separate country — «world backstage» and the world revolution» was the most acute one. The situation of 1918 was in many respects similar to the situation of 1952.

[326] The question of relieving J.V. Stalin of a part of his functions. K. Simonov talks about it further in detail.

[327] It’s distressing to die being a psychical-Trotskyite who hasn’t done his duty to the future.

[328] I.e. J.V. Stalin thought it necessary to speak without any pre-arranged text or thesis of his speech, which could become known beforehand to some of his «guardians» from the Central Committee staff.

This could entail frustration of Stalin’s put-up speech to the extent that he could die suddenly during the plenary session or before it and have no chance to speak.

[329] This is admission of the fact that they realized Stalin wasn’t power-seeking, but cared for succession in the work of Bolshevism.

[330] This is one more admission of the fact that Stalin was sincere in his concern for the future and wasn’t power-seeking.

[331] This oblivion of the fact of the matter resulting from reluctance to understand the matter is a characteristic feature of psychical-Trotskyism: neither the content nor the form, nor the meaning of the given information is remembered, but the emotional impression of the event, which is first of all caused by personal morals rather than the events themselves.

[332] If J.V. Stalin had been mistaken in V. Molotov’s personality, then several years after Molotov wouldn’t have appeared to be a member of the «antiparty group» which included «Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich and Shepilov, who joined them», that supposedly opposed Khrushchev’s policy directed at resumption of «Lenin’s standards of the party life» and who wanted to resume the order existed in the party and in the state under Stalin. K. Simonov doesn’t remember about it though.

[333] In 1962 in the town of Novocherkassk of the Rostov region mass disorders broke out caused by the rise in foodstuff prices (meat in particular), which followed immediately after the increase in output quotas at the Novocherkassk electric locomotive producing plant. People gathered on the square demanded meeting with A. Mikoyan. A. Mikoyan was secretly in the town at that time, but he didn’t speak to the people. K. Simonov doesn’t remember about this as well (though it’s possible that he didn’t know about Mikoyan’s whereabouts).

Everything came to the end with military units introduction into the town for «pacification» and burst of sub-machine gun fire: there were victims; after the meeting dispersal its «ringleaders» were arrested, prosecuted and shot.

A. Lebed being a teenager was sitting on a tree during the meeting. When the first bursts were fired, other teenagers like Sasha (then), who had been sitting on the same tree a branch upper and a branch lower, fell from the tree lifeless. Sashe fell down safe and sound, but he remembered this episode for all his life. He remembered about it in August 1991 what Muscovites should be obliged to him for.

As for the rise in prices in post-Stalin period, prices are reduced in national economy as the industry spectrum as well as the consumer satisfaction increase, the way it was done under J. Stalin.

In the antinational economy prices rise independently of the industry spectrum dynamics, as the rise in prices depreciates salaries, pensions, savings and thus makes everyone living by his own labor dependant on the system masters. According to this circumstance E. Gaidar and the «Union of the Right Forces» on the whole, A. Chubais, V. Chernomyrdin, A. Livshits and many-many others would better to hold their tongues and not to say they are true exponents of the democratic idea.

[334] These Molotov’s and Mikoyan’s attempts to justify themselves are just usual servility.

[335] This is a description of a zombie, which is most likely to fit their psyche formation. Every person is responsible for his/her psyche formation him-/herself (and not anyone else): if both of them are zombies, then this is their own and not J. Stalin’s fault.

[336] If the cult of his own personality was disagreeable to Stalin, why should he like the «smaller» cult of Molotov’s personality blossoming under the shade of the cult of Stalin’s personality?

[337] Molotov’s wife’s surname — Pearl — sounds in Russian translation as Zhemchuzhina, which became her party pseudonym and then turned into her surname; she was a Jew by birth. If Molotov knuckled under to his wife, she was imprisoned for revealed anti-bolshevist internazi influence she had upon her husband — a member of the CPSU Central Committee, Politburo and the USSR Minister of Foreign Affairs.

About bed-political women and sex-bombs as weapons of mass destruction see the work “From Human Likeness Towards Being a Human” by the IP of the USSR (first published under the heading of «From Matriarchy Towards Being a Human…”).

[338] Later on Malenkov overlooked, didn’t sense something, thus he found himself in the «antiparty group» together with Molotov. But it’s possible that Khrushchev’s neo-Trotskyists, who knew him very well, didn’t take him into their team and preferred to get rid of him including him into the «antiparty group» of Molotov, Kaganovich and Shepilov, who joined them.

[339] The first impression coming out of the depth of mind, as statistics shows, is in most cases very close to the impartially true one. Everything subsequent is an attempt to justify oneself, an attempt to justify the following Khrushchevism and Brezhnevism, whose nomenclature treated K. Simonov in a quite benevolent way.

[340] I.e. loyal lyric poet K. Simonov was an adherent of the monarchical variant of the power succession provision: where the leader gets a new one inter vivos.

[341] Unlike K. Simonov Malenkov understood that was not necessarily so. And unlike loyal K. Simonov the intra-system mafia was for the second monarchical variant: the «conclave» of «associates» proposes a new leader according to their interests. At the same time they could probably decide when they should bury the former leader. This became apparent in Malenkov’s reaction to Stalin’s suggestion, which would have made the intra-system mafia’s scenario impossible, if there had been Bolsheviks instead of lackeys at the plenary session.

[342] I.e. J.V. Stalin faced the same problem H. Ford had faced, but unlike H. Ford’s problem — Stalin’s one was at the national level:

«But the vast majority of men want to stay put. They want to be led. They want to have everything done for them and to have no responsibility. Therefore, in spite of the great mass of men, the difficulty is not to discover men to advance, but <to discover> men who are willing to be advanced» (H. Ford, “My Life and Work”, chapter 6. «Machines and Men»).

[343] On this subject see the book: Yu. Mukhin “Murder of Stalin and Beria”, Moscow, «Crimea bridge-9D», «Forum», 2002.

[344] But K. Simonov was the only one of several dozens of participants of the Central Committee plenary session in October 1952 who did it, though 27 years after. However he did it on his deathbed, as he didn’t want to go to a better world with a sin upon his soul: with the sin of concealment of the truth in his lackey silence. He knew the truth, but it was concealed from the rest of the society by the mafia power.

Besides, we should understand, that at the Central Committee plenary session in October 1952 J.V. Stalin didn’t just want to express his ideas supposing that delegates would take them round all the USSR. He really wanted to rely on the inner-Party democracy, but the plenary session participants appeared to be incapable of it. He wanted to see an irreversible result in the life of the party itself, and not only delegates to take his words round the USSR, where they would have no consequences and would soon be forgotten because of the flow of everyday events.