XI. Chapter 1. The Enthronement of the Third Zhrugr
When finishing the book on the metahistory of the Petersburg Empire, I compared two historical figures, whose characters and appearances are so different that putting them together would seem out of the ordinary. Yet, their historical roles are not only comparable, but, to a point, one comes as a variance of the other: they have an identical significance, each for its own cycle of epochs. Both heralded the zenith of the Russian witzraors’ might, their entering the path of outright confrontation with the demiurge, maximizing the tyrannical tendency, and initiating the process of the state’s collapse. These two historical figures are Ivan IV and Nikolai I.
Ivan the Terrible’s direct successors on the throne were Fyodor Ioannovich and Boris Godunov. The former was an exceptionally charitable, meek, and prayerful man, not only lacking in the skills of statesmanship, but in any superior intelligence for that matter. The latter had a mind of a true statesman that felt motivated to lead the country out of the stalemate, to which Ivan the Terrible had brought it, and to robustly settle the people’s lives through the harmonizing of the conflicting interests of different social classes and groups. One may suppose that the very fact of having such a person as Fyodor on the throne reflected the metahistorical need of Russia to counterbalance the image of a ferocious ruler with that of a merciful and angerless “God’s fool”. As for Boris, he was a clear, conscious reflection of the Russian statehood’s need to right and amend the wrongs of Ivan the Terrible, by way of eliminating any traces of oprichnina, bringing terror to a close, liberalizing legislation, and strengthening international ties.
Right after Nikolai I, Alexander II ascended the throne. He was a good-natured and compassionate, but also unstable, albeit very stubborn man, who had been nurtured on the principles of absolutism. Neither did his mind sparkle with particular brilliance. Nonetheless, it would be unfair to credit Alexander with extreme narrow-mindedness. One might say that this man was midway between the kind-hearted and pious yet half-witted Fyodor and Boris, an energetic and authoritative statesman. However, Alexander remained as far from the spirituality of the former as from the acumen and sensibility of the latter.
When the Russian historical scene bids farewell to a great tyrant that has reigned for some thirty or forty years and left behind him mountains of victims, brought the state to the brink of a military catastrophe, and has disparaged in the eyes of the people the very notion of an anointed sovereign, national leader and father, there inevitably will happen the following. His successors will attempt to right his wrongs by way of limited reforms, thereby striving to show that the reign of terror was a mere historical contingency, and now the authorities will be totally guided with the ideas of national wellbeing. At the same time, the new rulers that now have their hands fatally tied by the political succession, turn out to be incapable of shaking off the foundations of the old political concept. It is beyond them how much the tyranny and terror have delegitimized the ideas of this very concept in the eyes of people. To these rulers, partial distancing from the words and deeds of the deceased despot would appear sufficient enough for the people to forgive the authorities for the gory, monstrous, and meaningless stage that has just blown over. Yet, soon it will turn out that the people have not forgotten, have not forgiven, and are not going to forgive anything; that everything has calmed down only for the time being, as the system of policing that had been perfected by the despot, albeit weakened, carries on to exist; that the atmosphere of political, cultural, and spiritual autocracy that had reigned supreme for so many years has ossified the psychological soil, which then prevents any seedlings of new ideologies from sprouting. Nonetheless, from year to year, it will become more and more obvious that the people are dreaming of fundamentally changing the political structure, as, provided “business as usual”, they do not feel secure from the potential recurrences of past miseries. Another reason being, there has remained a feeling of profound resentment, which, merging with exasperation and the call for justice, cannot be satisfied with “bones”, thrown to the people as a gratuity for several decades of arbitrariness and bloodshed.
Such is a law of Russian history, a law in the sense that a certain historical phenomenon has recurred three times at the least.
It goes without saying that this law, while manifesting in a new social, cultural, and international milieu, molds the concrete historical material of the new epoch. As a result, we have as if a new variance of the old theme, now clothed in more complex specificities of the new time. One has to differentiate between the essence of this law and mere historical contingencies clinging to it. For example, it does not matter that the end of Boris’ reign saw the Polish witzraor meddling into the Russian strife, whereas nothing similar to that happened under Alexander II; or, that Boris died, or took his life, because an imposter appeared on the political stage, whereas Alexander was killed by the opponents of autocracy and the people’s avengers. What does matter is that both these figures expressed a desperate attempt on the part of the demon of “greatpower” statehood to amend the committed mistakes and crimes through systematic liberalizing reforms; both failed to hold on to this course, for it provided too broad an outlet for the gurgling discontent of the people; both staggered in their political initiatives now to the right, then to the left; both made now a step forward, then a move backward; finally, both underwent what all do, when trying to play both sides of the fence.
The root of these failures rests in the fact that both times, witzraors acted without the demiurge’s sanction, as it had been revoked long before. In the latter case, even a more tragic process was initiated: the demiurge had openly come to grips with the witzraor. It is under this angle that the metahistorian has to view all the events of Russian statehood and culture throughout the rule of Nikolai I, Alexander II, and Alexander III: the vehement fight between the belligerent principle of statehood and that of culture and creativity; the death of Pushkin and Lermontov; the suffocation of literature; paralysis of reflective thought; dominance of bureaucracy and militarism; weakening of international ties; the rising fear of the Russian colossus in Western countries; the lost Crimean War; the forced change of the course; abolition of serfdom; attempts at all kinds of reforms; more frequent outbursts of revolutionary passions; the grassroot terrorist movement “Narodnaya Volya”, along with its acts of terror; the murder of the king; the panic in the higher circles of the society; yet another dash backwards; the reaction under Alexander III and the ripening of a new revolutionary situation.
All this was aggravated by the fact that the demiurge Yarosvet and the Second Zhrugr were not the only contestants: the Zhrugr’s spawns, the predatory and rapacious younglings that every once in a while had budded off him, also gotten themselves involved into the strife. Before, Zhrugr had managed to eliminate the first two that had taken on the father, at the time when he did not have to fend off Yarosvet’s forces. Razin’s and Pugachev’s movements were drowned in blood. The third Zhrugr junior was feeble and rather passive: he did not even succeed to put forth his human instrument, the leader of the new movement; nor did he manage to involtate the masses of people. If anything, crushing the Decembrist movement did not take much effort. Shortly after Nikolai I’s death, the witzraor needed a kind of modus vivendi (a compromise between conflicting parties, translator’s note) after straining himself so much in his combat with the demiurge, and so too the historical state authorities, after thirty years of suppressing spirituality, whiffs of beauty, freedom, artistic genius, and forward-looking social thought. At this very moment, a new Zhrugr junior budded off: reddish-brown, very energetic, having black lusterless eyes and quite an intelligent ferocious face. Like a weaselly and evasive orca around a clumsy whale, he started circling around his emaciated ancient father. He demanded food from igvas, and his pressure was so intense that many of Drukkarg’s inhabitants did not dare to disobey: they started delivering the nourishing dew to the junior, instead of to the old Zhrugr. Soon, his strident, shrill, mocking, and brazen voice reached the earth’s surface, working its way through the consciousness of a few scores of people that possessed the sense of zeitgeist, as well as intellectual glibness, the will for social activism, and some writing skills at that. Through them, this voice began to transform itself into a small stock of new ideas. These ideas were being preached ably or without any spark of talent, but invariably with great vigor, cheerfulness, boldness, and, for the most part, with a strident, mocking, and cynical tone. The 1860’s commenced.
Only a step was left from word to deed, from propaganda to revolutionary terror. Change was made swiftly, and the old Zhrugr shivered in pain and rage, when the Zhrugr junior hacked off one of its main tentacles, as the agents of this junior’s will in Enrof murdered Alexander II right on a Petersburg’s street. Unstable, weak, and too lenient as he was, the emperor, nonetheless, had been the human instrument of the Second Zhrugr.
What about Yarosvet? Having revoked the sanction from the Second witzraor, could he bless his new spawn? What prospects did the rule of Zhrugr junior offer in Drukkarg? What new statehood could this being possibly build in Enrof, having started off with bloodshed? From the very start, its narrow witzraor mind had refused altogether to contain the involtation coming from the demiurge. What was the point of helping this being to occupy the place of its father? It was already poised to sweep the country with waves of revolutionary frenzy. So it should come as no surprise that, for the time being, the demiurge sheathed his weapon: this way, he allowed the “oldster” to concentrate on the struggle with his spawn. The father proved to have enough powers in store to emaciate the Zhrugr junior for quite a while.
Yet, the old Zhrugr could not outsmart himself. Having been long ideologically ineffectual, he failed once again to take advantage of this break for creating a new concept of authority, a new philosophical theme, any new ideals. Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and nationalism – these three components, and in the most debased and emasculated sense at that – were all the statehood of Alexander III could squeeze out of itself.
Yet, the older the witzraor grows, the more often new offspring bud off him. In the 1880’s, the igvas saw for the first time a new entity quietly slithering into Drukkarg and grabbing hold of the nourishing dew in the absence of the old Zhrugr. It was dark scarlet, its head perched on an uncannily elongated neck, with a whole lot of suckers. It did not have the guts yet to attack its father. Rather, it preferred to camouflage itself and to hide around, until it would be able to carry enough weight. Soon, the third entity came along: pale, very scrawny, yet featuring gigantic jaws. Why would an entity, relying solely on suckers for feeding, need those jaws, and why couldn’t it content itself with a tubular mouth for speaking, as all Zhrugrs do? Apparently, this monster had obtained those jaws preemptively, for satisfying some future need. At the time, he was only capable of quietly whining, as though complaining of his father, as well as systematically and sensibly making the case with the Great Igvas that he would have been more successful than his father in managing tasks.
Whole generations have now been nurtured on the ideals of revolutionary struggle and could see, from one side, the wholehearted heroism of the masses of people and their leaders during the 1905 events and, from the other, the bloody arbitrariness of the authorities. I understand that these generations would resent the thought that, behind all these marvelous epics, there lurks the strife of the abominable monsters of metahistory – so abominable that none of them could be hallowed by the glimmer of the demiurge’s sanction. Yet, the very fact of the witzraors’ existence and their infighting, diminishes neither the spiritual beauty of the revolutionary heroism; nor the justness of the subjective motifs that were driving the purest and most selfless champions of the people’s liberation; nor, finally, the nefarious cruelty of their executioners. One simply has to realize that the historical events blinding us with their grandeur and making us romanticize them are, essentially, the outcome of the metahistorical battle of monsters – precisely for this reason, such historical epics turn out to be so gory, and their concrete positive results are so dubious. After all, the fight of monsters lurks behind world wars, too. At least, it is good that we no longer romanticize them. Over time, we will stop seeing revolutions through rose-colored glasses either.
Yet, it is also true that metahistory overall, and the metahistorical drama of Russia in the twentieth century in particular, are not exhausted with the mutual strife of the metacultural hierarchies. Precisely the turn of the twentieth century and, especially, the grandiose events in Russia saw the influence of planetary principles, that is, the intricate entwinement and confrontation of inspirations coming from much more large-scale centers and pursuing much broader goals.
As is known, the mid-nineteenth century in Western Europe saw the formation of a universal teaching that, over the next hundred years, would reign supreme in a third of the planet. Its first triumph, having truly global ramifications, took place in Russia. Thus Russia was propelled into such a standing, which made this country the guide of nearly half of humanity and an active participant in the most terrible military confrontations that had ever shaken the surface of our Earth. There is no call for the metahistorical-philosophical analysis of this teaching here – it might be a topic for a separate monumental work. Yet, it is imperative to take notice of the inner contradiction of this teaching, that is, of a gap between its ideals and methods. Its economic side is deeply substantiated theoretically and morally justified. Precisely due to this gap, it underwent grave distortions as soon as its practical realization was made possible. As for the philosophical doctrine built atop the economical program, it was begotten by those plagued by the overall narrow-mindedness of the nineteenth century. Featuring belligerent rationality, inherited from “encyclopedians” and boosted by spectacular achievements in the natural sciences, those minds absolutized and dogmatized certain tenets of the then materialism. It did not even occur to them that these were very natural sciences that would undermine their dogmas in a century’s time. Economy, one of the “transmission gears” between the hierarchies leading the people and the historical reality, was proclaimed to be the supreme ruler of historical destinies. Was this a conscious deception? Apparently not. Yet, by the end of his life, the founder of this teaching (Carl Marx, t/n) hit upon the idea that this “transmission gear” was moved by some force. Yet, this new understanding would require such a dramatic rehashing of the entire doctrine that the founder preferred to pass it all over in silence. For all I know, no cues of this discovery of his were found in his papers, and my notice of it is based on the very sources that I use in all my other scientifically unverifiable claims.
It is clear that the positive ideals of this teaching, which resonated well with the dreams of the loftiest of hearts, were not and could not be inspired by Gagtungr. They are rooted in a host of universal human ideas, antagonistic to the planetary demon, which included quite a few manifestations of Christian spirituality. Yet, when ground over by the rollers of the energetic, tireless, prideful, narrow, and parochial mind, these ideas became flattened, smashed, compressed. Finally, they were squeezed of any spirituality, and their proclaimed methods turned out to be at great odds with the demands of common humanness. Perhaps, this spiritual deficiency showed most vividly in the contention that the only path to materialize these ideals was through an armed struggle, violent coup, merciless extermination of enemies, and the dictatorship of a single class or, rather, of its organized part, over all other social strata. Therefore, there unfolded a struggle between the demonic and providential forces within this teaching, between its ideals and its methods, even inside the mind and soul of its founder and, later, among its various interpreters and followers.
Moreover, this struggle carried on in the consciousness of the one who would take the helm of this movement in Russia at the turn of the twentieth century (Vladimir Lenin, t/n). A dream of humanity’s happiness and an ardent faith in having totally grasped the way of materializing this happiness, flamed in his soul. Narrow, selfish ambition was alien to him: he hungered for power not to revel in it but for the sake of the majority – he wanted to make it happy, and he thought he knew “how” more clearly and unmistakably than others. Even the adoration of nature or artistic beauty were not totally alien to him – later, he would self-flagellate himself for those moments, explaining them in terms of his class half-bakedness (Vladimir Lenin was born to a better-off middle-class family, t/n). Yet, his foolhardy passion did not allow him to look every which way. The fact that he himself had become an instrument of the scarlet Zhrugr junior or even of Urparp was revealed to him only in the very end, when he was terminally ill. Yet, there was no way to return, and no one would have accepted his backpedaling at the time.
Ivan the Terrible’s direct successors on the throne were Fyodor Ioannovich and Boris Godunov. The former was an exceptionally charitable, meek, and prayerful man, not only lacking in the skills of statesmanship, but in any superior intelligence for that matter. The latter had a mind of a true statesman that felt motivated to lead the country out of the stalemate, to which Ivan the Terrible had brought it, and to robustly settle the people’s lives through the harmonizing of the conflicting interests of different social classes and groups. One may suppose that the very fact of having such a person as Fyodor on the throne reflected the metahistorical need of Russia to counterbalance the image of a ferocious ruler with that of a merciful and angerless “God’s fool”. As for Boris, he was a clear, conscious reflection of the Russian statehood’s need to right and amend the wrongs of Ivan the Terrible, by way of eliminating any traces of oprichnina, bringing terror to a close, liberalizing legislation, and strengthening international ties.
Right after Nikolai I, Alexander II ascended the throne. He was a good-natured and compassionate, but also unstable, albeit very stubborn man, who had been nurtured on the principles of absolutism. Neither did his mind sparkle with particular brilliance. Nonetheless, it would be unfair to credit Alexander with extreme narrow-mindedness. One might say that this man was midway between the kind-hearted and pious yet half-witted Fyodor and Boris, an energetic and authoritative statesman. However, Alexander remained as far from the spirituality of the former as from the acumen and sensibility of the latter.
When the Russian historical scene bids farewell to a great tyrant that has reigned for some thirty or forty years and left behind him mountains of victims, brought the state to the brink of a military catastrophe, and has disparaged in the eyes of the people the very notion of an anointed sovereign, national leader and father, there inevitably will happen the following. His successors will attempt to right his wrongs by way of limited reforms, thereby striving to show that the reign of terror was a mere historical contingency, and now the authorities will be totally guided with the ideas of national wellbeing. At the same time, the new rulers that now have their hands fatally tied by the political succession, turn out to be incapable of shaking off the foundations of the old political concept. It is beyond them how much the tyranny and terror have delegitimized the ideas of this very concept in the eyes of people. To these rulers, partial distancing from the words and deeds of the deceased despot would appear sufficient enough for the people to forgive the authorities for the gory, monstrous, and meaningless stage that has just blown over. Yet, soon it will turn out that the people have not forgotten, have not forgiven, and are not going to forgive anything; that everything has calmed down only for the time being, as the system of policing that had been perfected by the despot, albeit weakened, carries on to exist; that the atmosphere of political, cultural, and spiritual autocracy that had reigned supreme for so many years has ossified the psychological soil, which then prevents any seedlings of new ideologies from sprouting. Nonetheless, from year to year, it will become more and more obvious that the people are dreaming of fundamentally changing the political structure, as, provided “business as usual”, they do not feel secure from the potential recurrences of past miseries. Another reason being, there has remained a feeling of profound resentment, which, merging with exasperation and the call for justice, cannot be satisfied with “bones”, thrown to the people as a gratuity for several decades of arbitrariness and bloodshed.
Such is a law of Russian history, a law in the sense that a certain historical phenomenon has recurred three times at the least.
It goes without saying that this law, while manifesting in a new social, cultural, and international milieu, molds the concrete historical material of the new epoch. As a result, we have as if a new variance of the old theme, now clothed in more complex specificities of the new time. One has to differentiate between the essence of this law and mere historical contingencies clinging to it. For example, it does not matter that the end of Boris’ reign saw the Polish witzraor meddling into the Russian strife, whereas nothing similar to that happened under Alexander II; or, that Boris died, or took his life, because an imposter appeared on the political stage, whereas Alexander was killed by the opponents of autocracy and the people’s avengers. What does matter is that both these figures expressed a desperate attempt on the part of the demon of “greatpower” statehood to amend the committed mistakes and crimes through systematic liberalizing reforms; both failed to hold on to this course, for it provided too broad an outlet for the gurgling discontent of the people; both staggered in their political initiatives now to the right, then to the left; both made now a step forward, then a move backward; finally, both underwent what all do, when trying to play both sides of the fence.
The root of these failures rests in the fact that both times, witzraors acted without the demiurge’s sanction, as it had been revoked long before. In the latter case, even a more tragic process was initiated: the demiurge had openly come to grips with the witzraor. It is under this angle that the metahistorian has to view all the events of Russian statehood and culture throughout the rule of Nikolai I, Alexander II, and Alexander III: the vehement fight between the belligerent principle of statehood and that of culture and creativity; the death of Pushkin and Lermontov; the suffocation of literature; paralysis of reflective thought; dominance of bureaucracy and militarism; weakening of international ties; the rising fear of the Russian colossus in Western countries; the lost Crimean War; the forced change of the course; abolition of serfdom; attempts at all kinds of reforms; more frequent outbursts of revolutionary passions; the grassroot terrorist movement “Narodnaya Volya”, along with its acts of terror; the murder of the king; the panic in the higher circles of the society; yet another dash backwards; the reaction under Alexander III and the ripening of a new revolutionary situation.
All this was aggravated by the fact that the demiurge Yarosvet and the Second Zhrugr were not the only contestants: the Zhrugr’s spawns, the predatory and rapacious younglings that every once in a while had budded off him, also gotten themselves involved into the strife. Before, Zhrugr had managed to eliminate the first two that had taken on the father, at the time when he did not have to fend off Yarosvet’s forces. Razin’s and Pugachev’s movements were drowned in blood. The third Zhrugr junior was feeble and rather passive: he did not even succeed to put forth his human instrument, the leader of the new movement; nor did he manage to involtate the masses of people. If anything, crushing the Decembrist movement did not take much effort. Shortly after Nikolai I’s death, the witzraor needed a kind of modus vivendi (a compromise between conflicting parties, translator’s note) after straining himself so much in his combat with the demiurge, and so too the historical state authorities, after thirty years of suppressing spirituality, whiffs of beauty, freedom, artistic genius, and forward-looking social thought. At this very moment, a new Zhrugr junior budded off: reddish-brown, very energetic, having black lusterless eyes and quite an intelligent ferocious face. Like a weaselly and evasive orca around a clumsy whale, he started circling around his emaciated ancient father. He demanded food from igvas, and his pressure was so intense that many of Drukkarg’s inhabitants did not dare to disobey: they started delivering the nourishing dew to the junior, instead of to the old Zhrugr. Soon, his strident, shrill, mocking, and brazen voice reached the earth’s surface, working its way through the consciousness of a few scores of people that possessed the sense of zeitgeist, as well as intellectual glibness, the will for social activism, and some writing skills at that. Through them, this voice began to transform itself into a small stock of new ideas. These ideas were being preached ably or without any spark of talent, but invariably with great vigor, cheerfulness, boldness, and, for the most part, with a strident, mocking, and cynical tone. The 1860’s commenced.
Only a step was left from word to deed, from propaganda to revolutionary terror. Change was made swiftly, and the old Zhrugr shivered in pain and rage, when the Zhrugr junior hacked off one of its main tentacles, as the agents of this junior’s will in Enrof murdered Alexander II right on a Petersburg’s street. Unstable, weak, and too lenient as he was, the emperor, nonetheless, had been the human instrument of the Second Zhrugr.
What about Yarosvet? Having revoked the sanction from the Second witzraor, could he bless his new spawn? What prospects did the rule of Zhrugr junior offer in Drukkarg? What new statehood could this being possibly build in Enrof, having started off with bloodshed? From the very start, its narrow witzraor mind had refused altogether to contain the involtation coming from the demiurge. What was the point of helping this being to occupy the place of its father? It was already poised to sweep the country with waves of revolutionary frenzy. So it should come as no surprise that, for the time being, the demiurge sheathed his weapon: this way, he allowed the “oldster” to concentrate on the struggle with his spawn. The father proved to have enough powers in store to emaciate the Zhrugr junior for quite a while.
Yet, the old Zhrugr could not outsmart himself. Having been long ideologically ineffectual, he failed once again to take advantage of this break for creating a new concept of authority, a new philosophical theme, any new ideals. Autocracy, Orthodoxy, and nationalism – these three components, and in the most debased and emasculated sense at that – were all the statehood of Alexander III could squeeze out of itself.
Yet, the older the witzraor grows, the more often new offspring bud off him. In the 1880’s, the igvas saw for the first time a new entity quietly slithering into Drukkarg and grabbing hold of the nourishing dew in the absence of the old Zhrugr. It was dark scarlet, its head perched on an uncannily elongated neck, with a whole lot of suckers. It did not have the guts yet to attack its father. Rather, it preferred to camouflage itself and to hide around, until it would be able to carry enough weight. Soon, the third entity came along: pale, very scrawny, yet featuring gigantic jaws. Why would an entity, relying solely on suckers for feeding, need those jaws, and why couldn’t it content itself with a tubular mouth for speaking, as all Zhrugrs do? Apparently, this monster had obtained those jaws preemptively, for satisfying some future need. At the time, he was only capable of quietly whining, as though complaining of his father, as well as systematically and sensibly making the case with the Great Igvas that he would have been more successful than his father in managing tasks.
Whole generations have now been nurtured on the ideals of revolutionary struggle and could see, from one side, the wholehearted heroism of the masses of people and their leaders during the 1905 events and, from the other, the bloody arbitrariness of the authorities. I understand that these generations would resent the thought that, behind all these marvelous epics, there lurks the strife of the abominable monsters of metahistory – so abominable that none of them could be hallowed by the glimmer of the demiurge’s sanction. Yet, the very fact of the witzraors’ existence and their infighting, diminishes neither the spiritual beauty of the revolutionary heroism; nor the justness of the subjective motifs that were driving the purest and most selfless champions of the people’s liberation; nor, finally, the nefarious cruelty of their executioners. One simply has to realize that the historical events blinding us with their grandeur and making us romanticize them are, essentially, the outcome of the metahistorical battle of monsters – precisely for this reason, such historical epics turn out to be so gory, and their concrete positive results are so dubious. After all, the fight of monsters lurks behind world wars, too. At least, it is good that we no longer romanticize them. Over time, we will stop seeing revolutions through rose-colored glasses either.
Yet, it is also true that metahistory overall, and the metahistorical drama of Russia in the twentieth century in particular, are not exhausted with the mutual strife of the metacultural hierarchies. Precisely the turn of the twentieth century and, especially, the grandiose events in Russia saw the influence of planetary principles, that is, the intricate entwinement and confrontation of inspirations coming from much more large-scale centers and pursuing much broader goals.
As is known, the mid-nineteenth century in Western Europe saw the formation of a universal teaching that, over the next hundred years, would reign supreme in a third of the planet. Its first triumph, having truly global ramifications, took place in Russia. Thus Russia was propelled into such a standing, which made this country the guide of nearly half of humanity and an active participant in the most terrible military confrontations that had ever shaken the surface of our Earth. There is no call for the metahistorical-philosophical analysis of this teaching here – it might be a topic for a separate monumental work. Yet, it is imperative to take notice of the inner contradiction of this teaching, that is, of a gap between its ideals and methods. Its economic side is deeply substantiated theoretically and morally justified. Precisely due to this gap, it underwent grave distortions as soon as its practical realization was made possible. As for the philosophical doctrine built atop the economical program, it was begotten by those plagued by the overall narrow-mindedness of the nineteenth century. Featuring belligerent rationality, inherited from “encyclopedians” and boosted by spectacular achievements in the natural sciences, those minds absolutized and dogmatized certain tenets of the then materialism. It did not even occur to them that these were very natural sciences that would undermine their dogmas in a century’s time. Economy, one of the “transmission gears” between the hierarchies leading the people and the historical reality, was proclaimed to be the supreme ruler of historical destinies. Was this a conscious deception? Apparently not. Yet, by the end of his life, the founder of this teaching (Carl Marx, t/n) hit upon the idea that this “transmission gear” was moved by some force. Yet, this new understanding would require such a dramatic rehashing of the entire doctrine that the founder preferred to pass it all over in silence. For all I know, no cues of this discovery of his were found in his papers, and my notice of it is based on the very sources that I use in all my other scientifically unverifiable claims.
It is clear that the positive ideals of this teaching, which resonated well with the dreams of the loftiest of hearts, were not and could not be inspired by Gagtungr. They are rooted in a host of universal human ideas, antagonistic to the planetary demon, which included quite a few manifestations of Christian spirituality. Yet, when ground over by the rollers of the energetic, tireless, prideful, narrow, and parochial mind, these ideas became flattened, smashed, compressed. Finally, they were squeezed of any spirituality, and their proclaimed methods turned out to be at great odds with the demands of common humanness. Perhaps, this spiritual deficiency showed most vividly in the contention that the only path to materialize these ideals was through an armed struggle, violent coup, merciless extermination of enemies, and the dictatorship of a single class or, rather, of its organized part, over all other social strata. Therefore, there unfolded a struggle between the demonic and providential forces within this teaching, between its ideals and its methods, even inside the mind and soul of its founder and, later, among its various interpreters and followers.
Moreover, this struggle carried on in the consciousness of the one who would take the helm of this movement in Russia at the turn of the twentieth century (Vladimir Lenin, t/n). A dream of humanity’s happiness and an ardent faith in having totally grasped the way of materializing this happiness, flamed in his soul. Narrow, selfish ambition was alien to him: he hungered for power not to revel in it but for the sake of the majority – he wanted to make it happy, and he thought he knew “how” more clearly and unmistakably than others. Even the adoration of nature or artistic beauty were not totally alien to him – later, he would self-flagellate himself for those moments, explaining them in terms of his class half-bakedness (Vladimir Lenin was born to a better-off middle-class family, t/n). Yet, his foolhardy passion did not allow him to look every which way. The fact that he himself had become an instrument of the scarlet Zhrugr junior or even of Urparp was revealed to him only in the very end, when he was terminally ill. Yet, there was no way to return, and no one would have accepted his backpedaling at the time.