Alliance of the oligarchs and the Communist cannot beget any new meaningful strategy because both allies are ideologically sterile. The danger of this alliance consists, first of all, in the fact that it places destructive anti-state slogans on its banner. As early as in 1996 the CPRF tried to denounce the Belovezhski agreements and thus placed legitimacy of Russia as the successor to the USSR in doubt from the legal point of view. Collapse of the USSR happened due to the constitutional confederalism (right of nations to self-determination) when the unitary dictatorship ceased to contain the devil of confederation. Nowadays the oligarchs and the Communists actually demand a confederation for Russia. The mechanism for that is transformation of the country into a parliamentary Republic. Confederalism and separatism will be immediately introduced into the parliamentary model. The present day pseudo-oligarchs has no relation to the real oligarchy which has at least the selfish understanding of the power’s price and understands that the state for them means the capitalization of status. If there is no state infrastructure then fortunes evaluated in many billions are left unprotected. The power cannot be bought. It has to be won. Now the country is worn out by anticipation, despair and hope. The appearance of stagnation means that the processes that went down to the depths will inevitably erupt with a new power.

The arrest of Khodorkovski is something directly opposite to what is declared to be. Compliance with the law is impossible out of the context of the profound, non-repressive openness. Repression can annihilate and bury any public belief in the legal punishment. The events that develop now are a parody of 1937 and bring with them the net destruction. It is a genie of chaos released from its bottle. The unleashed process is the process of re-division of property. Regress is not stopped and overcome in Russia, de-modernization goes on unabated. The country needs an ideology which allows for construction of relationships in its elite and society.

The author’s key them is the American nation’s westward advance since the Revolution of 1775−1783 and the complex of ideas about America’s place in the world implying that Americans had to seize whatever sphere of the earth they could. The adherents of these ideas saw American overseas expansion as a revolution in world politics. They determined that frontier factor not only impelled the United States to move beyond its continental borders, but shaped the character of the people as well as their destiny. According to the doctrine they had to behave aggressively to build an empire. They needed to extend their business and trade into the world’s markets. They were required to enter a missionary struggle for the hearts of people and their freedom. Expansion of different kinds appeared as a necessity for Americans determined by scientific law.

The author demonstrates that in statistical reports and textbooks two very different types of human activity are presented under the same label of «advertisement». Of these two different activities only one may be considered as a socially useful activity. But it is far from being prevailing. Something different prevails: an activity which is closely related to the bigoted practices of «brain-washing» in J. Goebbels' agency and in Wahhabi training camps. Meanwhile not just the future of prosperous branch which absorbs expenses comparable to those for education but also fundamental theoretical principles of the science which came to Russia in 1990s from the West to replace «Marxian Leninst political economy» depend on the definition of advertisement. If advertisement is something different from what it pretends to be then the «objective» economic science is dubious not in some its partial and secondary considerations but in the very principles by which it defines itself. In other words, this science is based on sands, on an ideological cliches like «freedom of choice» or «the consumer’s sovereignty». The words are nice but are they relevant to the reality? If consumers' choice is free what are advertisement companies so generously paid for? If this choice is not free and a human person (a consumer, a voter, a respondent) is just a miserable puppet whose behavior is controlled from without in order to secure alien and too often blatantly hostile interests then what is the difference between the «open society» and the «totalitarian society»?

In Part 2 of his article the author develops his investigation of the medieval Russian eschatology further and makes an attempt to provide answers to several interrelated questions. How did a medieval Russian imagine the arrangement and geography of the world beyond the grave? How did these ideas transform in the 12th-17th centuries? Since the earliest centuries of Christianity the Church writers put a tough question and tried to find answer to it. The question was where souls of the deceased abode from the moment of their separation from the bodies and until the Day of Judgment which would have to follow at the end of times. To answer the question a doctrine of the «private» judgment beyond the grave was elaborated. According to the doctrine, souls of the deceased were divided at this judgment and left in waiting for the final retribution between the Heaven and the hell. In result of this doctrine not one but two judgments appeared in minds of believers and too often it was difficult to separate functions and meaning of these two judgments. Over the greater part of the Russian Middle Ages the fear of death and of the afterlife judgment was suppressed in consciousness of believers by the intense anticipation of the end of times, of advent of Antichrist and the Doomsday. In the second half of the 17th century a gradual change of eschatological paradigm occurred. The image of death was getting to be increasingly appalling. By the beginning of the 18th century the Russian Church gradually accepted the belief that the Day of Judgment which was promised in the Gospel and the Apocalypse would happen not soon and a human was able neither to calculate nor know the time of its advent. In order to acquire the salvation a pious Christian had to be always prepared for his/her death, to think of it and to feel the constant fear of it. The death became a substitute for the Day of Judgment. As the Middle Ages passed to the New time an individualization of the religious experience occurred and this process may testify the profound transformations in the depths of the whole Russian culture and public consciousness.

The author notes that Father Georghi Florovski accepts the authentic loyalty not to the letter but to the spirit of the patristic Tradition as the criterion of philosophical and theological thought’s soundness. Artistic taste, sense of style help a mind to find right direction in the spiritual domain but only the Divinely presence can serve as the criterion of the Truth in this domain. Florovski understands the religious dogma not as some formal logical definition but as a description of the real historical event, i.e., of descent of the Holy Spirit upon participants of the Church.

The article is devoted to the life and activities of V. M. Molotov who was one of the major political figures of the Soviet history. Molotov belongs to the old cohort of the Bolshevist revolutionaries. V.I. Lenin discovered Molotov and promoted him to the rank of a secretary of the Party’s Central Committee. Later on Molotov became Stalin’s right hand in his struggle for power. After defeat of the internal party opposition Molotov presided over the Soviet government and was the People Commissioner (the minister) of foreign affairs. In this capacity Molotov was the chief negotiator with Hitler, Churchill and Roosevelt. Upon the death of the leader and the father of all nations Molotov claimed the prime role in the party but suffered a succession of defeats and Khruschev dismissed him from the higher Soviet leadership and then from the party.