The French Can't Quite Make Up Their Minds When it Comes to Monarchy

Having just read this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/nicholas-jean-sarkozy-nepotism-row I have to say the French haven't changed one bit. They just can't make up their minds when it comes to how they feel about a good, old-fashioned Monarchy.

The same country that came up with the Declaration of the Rights of Man made Napoleon Emperor not long thereafter.







They lopped off the head of Louis XVI, then (granted, with little choice from the Allies after Napoleon had driven them to ruin) restored the Bourbon dynasty with Louis XVIII!







They were an integral nation in the European revolutions of 1848, then voted Louis Napoleon to lead the Second Empire!







They gave birth to the Paris Commune in 1871, then sanctioned (justifiably, it could be argued) its subsequent and violent suppression.







France seems rather caught up in their own version of a romanticized Camelot at the moment, accompanied by a hostile undercurrent of suspicion and criticism. A well-documented and very consistent tradition of ambivalence...

Isn't Meritocracy a more important component of a just society than perhaps Representative Democracy itself? The proof is in the pudding, right? We ask only to be recognized and judged fairly by our work, and nothing else. Certainly, a "prodigious" offspring should not be penalized for talent, but in cases such as the above one should err on the side of caution.

Nepotism and Cronyism, it should be noted, are alive and well - thriving, even - in all contemporary social systems touting themselves as equitable, in the spirit of the rights of man, democratic, etc., etc., etc.

This is the litmus test of unwarranted privilege, social stratification, and the downfall of judgment by merit; a central - if not the central - component of a just and healthy social system, with equal opportunity for all. That is why we should frown (maybe "frown" is too tepid a word) when someone like George Bush gets his nepotistic nudge into Yale, or when Sarkozy's very young son gets appointed to some ridiculously senior position.

The Two Conflicted Selves of Turgenev and Chernyshevksy's Need To Respond To One of Them

Turgenev is someone I truly identify with, not as a writer (a dream, to write so) but as an individual conflicted with two competing identities: one, the liberal Country Gentleman, fond of nature, romanticism, decorum. Progressive, a humanist, but subject to the comforts of pleasant, secluded life. The other: the Stern Conscience - provocative, demanding, intellectual, uncompromising. A humanist for whom reform is not sufficient. The table should not be cleared, its legs should be kicked out. Rigorous, disciplined, haughty, and - on some level - hypocritical.

Not a terribly flattering portrayal. But I believe Fathers and Sons is a true projection of Turgenev's conflicted inner world; this - combined with the profound and disruptive resonance the novel created in Russian culture - is precisely what makes it one of the greatest works ever written.

Bazarov, the young nihilist, is his Stern Conscience. Nikolai Petrovich, the Country Gentlemen, is his weaker but ultimately more genuine self, hence the internal conflict.

Turgenev's life story absolutely reflects this pattern. His hero, the critic Belinsky (an early pre-nihilist revolutionary, himself the subject of a future post) who died earlier in Turgenev's life, almost jumps out from the grave in demanding Turgenev adhere to his strict moral obligations, while time and time again Turgenev tips his hand with ambivalence towards both the rigors of his responsibilities and the new generation in general.

While he desired their approval, their friendship, their sanction, ultimately his opinion of the nihilist revolutionaries was low:

"[He]... could not bear their fanatical rejection of all that he held dear - liberal culture, art, civilized human relationships. But they were young, brave, ready to die in the fight against the common enemy, the reactionaries, the police, the State. Turgenev wished, in spite of everything, to be respected by them.

- Isaiah Berlin (p.24)

This leads us to the fundamental question of Turgenev's novel:

Is Bazarov a positive or negative character?

That this remains in dispute only further underscores Fathers and Sons' brilliance. My own thesis is that he was a negative character; the fate and portrayal of Bazarov tips Turgenev's hand.

Enter Chernyshevsky
Now one of these fellows Turgenev desperately sought approval from was an editor of a radical paper (Contemporary) named Dobrolyubov, who wouldn't even speak to him. He would literally turn away and face the wall. That Turgenev tried so fervently to seek Dobrolyubov's respect, even under such conditions, shows just how deeply his psyche needed his Stern Conscience to validate his weaker but more authentic Country Gentleman self.

The radical Dobrolyubov's fellow editor was a chap named, surprise surprise, Chernyshevsky.

"What is to be Done?" was written in large part as a response to what Chernyshevsky and his cohort considered an affront to their movement: Turgenev's negative portrait of the nihilist Bazarov.

That Chernyshevsky felt he needed to correct the image Turgenev had created, only underscores Turgenev's true opinion of Bazarov.

Why is all this important? Well, Bazarov is often referred to as "the First Bolshevik". Thus Turgenev's opinion of him - historically speaking - is no small trifle. Further, placing the two novels in context with one another helps us understand them both.

A cursory and off the cuff analysis, but whatever. Next I will discuss the relationship between "What is to Be Done?" and Dostoyevsky's Notes From Underground, as well as the charater Roskolnikov as an antithesis to the positive/ideal Rakhmetov. There is a sort of circular portrayal, fluctuating from the negative, to positive, then back to negative, that has had an enormous impact on subsequent philosophical thought, politics, etc. etc.

Bazarov (ambivelant/negative) --> Rakhmetov (ideal/positive) --> Roskolnikov (anit-Rakhmetov/negative)

Each is a response to the last; anyhow more on this later...

What is To Be Done? In Literary and Historical Context

In the next few posts I intend to discuss the literary and historical context of Chernyshevsky's "What is to Be Done?" In order to do so I felt it handy to create the diagram below as a point of reference. I may - likely - will add to it, but first want to discuss each individual connection, starting with the relationship to Turgenev's Fathers and Sons. I find this relevant to the general understanding of the Russian Revolution, its relationship to some great works of Russian literature, as well as the various philosophical strains that evolved from the fundamental question it poses.

Without further ado, here's the chart (note I've avoided for a moment the progeny of Dostoyevsky because it gets too complicated too quickly. But I will discuss shortly - I'm sure you can't wait):

Life As A Finite Pie: George M. Foster's image of limited good

The notion of life as a finite pie is correlated to the image of limited good, a term famously and controversially coined in 1965 by Anthropologist George M. Foster (yes, I know, old white guy) to explain peasant behavior:

"peasants in all societies share a common 'cognitive orientation,' which he calls the image of limited good. Since nothing can be done to increase the resources that peasants divide among themselves, one person's gain is inevitably another's loss. ...[This] accounts for a great deal of otherwise puzzling peasant behavior. For example, people who believe that good is limited will understandably be secretive about their own successes and envious of others'; they will avoid cooperative work situations for fear of being cheated; and they will resist innovations that, in their view, cannot increase the available good. ...this 'image' often persists into an era in which cooperation and acceptance of modern techniques could lead to a better life for all. Peasant communities have strong sanctions against innovation: 'The villager who feels the need for Achievement and who does something about it, is violating the basic, unverbalized rules of the society of which he is a member'..."

-(Rethinking Psychological Anthropology, Bock p. 144)

The above is essentially a verbatim definition of how one might be expected to behave in our world of Swindlers and Fools. Thus the predicament in Russia - one of 'cognitive orientation' (which sounds so - I don't know - sterilized) - is not a unique one. (On a side note, the controversy boils down to essentially that his conclusions were a little too general; probably true, but shouldn't undermine the larger and very valid point.)

What is of interest, in my view, is that ultimately we aren't giving those holding the image of limited good enough credit, when perhaps we should consider such a 'cognitive orientation' may stem from an actual reality: a material world whose resources are indeed limited and finite.

Foster's view is in this sense ethnocentric, because the underlying assumption is that in truth, life is not a finite pie, but one of possibility, freedom, and liberty. The benefit of one does not necessarily entail the detriment of another.

If we accepted the premise that a world exists somewhere in which good is indeed limited and finite, then we run into a bit of trouble when it comes to creating Liberty there:

Liberty consists in being able to do anything which does not harm another.

- Declaration of the Rights of Man

Well, in the world of Swindlers and Fools, you can't do much at all that benefits you without harming someone else!

Thus we have a bit of a problem on our hands.

This is why the spirit of the Russian, French, and American revolutions were all essentially the same: models committed to the preservation of human liberty against - in spite of - what seems to be an inevitably rising tide: increased discrepancies between rich and poor, a greater gap between haves and have nots, increased corruption, greed, croneyism, nepotism, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

One might argue the question, "What is to be Done?" has yet to be adequately answered.

Enter Rakhmetov

If you read my last few posts (introducing in a very crude way the Russian nihilist, tying him in a very crude way to the dichotomy between faith and science, and then providing a very crude sketch of his world - the world of Swindlers and Fools) then it is now time to dig a little deeper and get into the meat of what this is all about.

So let's meet one of these nihilists in person, starting with arguably the most important one: Rakhmetov. As you will soon discover (particularly once you see his photograph), his influence on Russian history cannot be understated. We will look at him as both hero and caricature, and after that we'll meet his better-known antithesis (and one of the greatest characters in fiction): Dostoyevsky's Raskolnikov. Then we will tie all of these elements together in a nice revolutionary bow.

This is going to be so exciting! But let's back to the task at hand. To meet Rakhmetov, we must return to Chernyshevsky's novel "What is to be Done?" We must return also to the world and paradox of Swindlers and Fools. Why? Because Rakhmetov has been historically interpreted as Chernyshevsky's answer to this very severe and most fundamental problem - perhaps the most daunting problem of modern civilization.

Notice first that both Chernyshevsky's description of the problem and his solution are embedded in the language of characters. You can play the role of either a Swindler or a Fool. You can develop into a Vera Pavlovna (the novel's female protagonist). You can model yourself after a Rakhmetov. Everything is framed in terms of the individual. This is because his entire approach is - in accordance with the time in which it was written - one of personal character: personal moral and ethical virtue is what interests him; the structure of society is only significant in how it shapes the self.

In other words, if society is soil, he is interested in the plant, and from the plant the crop. The soil is only relevant in how it nurtures the plant - it must be rich with nutrients, it must drain well, etc., but in essence his approach is an inverted contrast to the manner in which these issues are discussed in social science today. But I digress, more on that later.

Now come on, let's meet Rakhmetov already!

It should come as no surprise that Rakhmetov is a nihilist (Remember "Nothing exists except that which can be observed by the senses"? Hence he is a student of the Natural Sciences) very much like Bazarov in Fathers and Sons.

And like the other central characters in Chernyshevsky's novel, he is neither a Swindler nor a Fool. He rejects the Swindler, but he won't subject himself to be the Fool, either. He declares this dichotomy as false and breaks it over his knee, his only weapon his mind.

But he is something a bit more too.

Rakhmetov is a moral ascetic hero, an ideal. While most in Chernyshevsky's novel are people willing to dedicate their lives to the greater good, Rakhmetov has gone further: he has truly sacrificed his. He lives in the most austere way, selflessly, his actions governed exclusively by the needs of the cause, guided by "principles and not passions, according to convictions and not personal desires.” He eats raw meat, sleeps on a bed of nails, reads voraciously, that sort of thing.

There are only a few of them, but through them everyone’s life will flourish. Without them life would wither and go sour. There are only a few of them, but they make it possible for all people to breath; without them people would suffocate. There’s a great mass of honest and good people, but there are very few people like them. But these few people are within that mass, as thine is in tea, as bouquet is in fine wine. They are its strength and its aroma. They are the flower of the best people, the movers of the movers, the salt of the salt of the earth.

He is, in essence, a professional revolutionary.

So why is this all important?

Well, in order to explain that I must tell you the story of the Brothers Ulyanov.

THE BROTHERS ULYANOV
Now, a long time ago, there were two very bright brothers, the Brothers Ulyanov. The elder one, Alexander (pictured left), went off to University and was arrested for his role in a plot to assassinate the Tsar Alexander III with a bomb planted in a textbook.

The event essentially destroyed the family, already struggling with the premature passing of their father the year previous. Alexander was hung, his sister Anna was exiled for her role in the plot, and thus one can only imagine the effect this all had on the surviving younger brother, Vladimir, and his mother.

Indeed, Vladimir Ulyanov realized he knew nothing of his elder brother's political beliefs. One night he went into his brother's room, sat down on his empty bed, and took "What is to be Done?" from the bookshelf.

He read it six times that summer.

He modeled his remaining life after this moral ascetic character Rakhmetov. In 1901 he outlined his revolutionary blueprint in a paper entitled, not coincidentally, "What is to be Done?"

Thus the character Rakhmetov came to life in Validimir Ulyanov, much better known for his revolutionary moniker than his real name. Here is his photo, or rather his mugshot from his first arrest as a youth. I'm sure you'll recognize him. Now, regardless of your opinion of him, whatever it may be (and please, don't make any presumptions about mine; I might surprise you) as I mentioned before his effect on history cannot be understated.

"He plowed me up more than anyone else... After my brother's execution, knowing that Chernyshevsky's novel was one of his favorite books, I really undertook to read it, and I sat over it not for several days but for several weeks. Only then did I understand its depth... It's a thing that supplies energy for a whole lifetime." - Lenin

The Adventures of Pinocchio: More on Swindlers and Fools

Carlo Coloddi's "The Adventures of Pinocchio", first published in 1880 and the inspiration for Disney's animated classic "Pinocchio", is also set in a world of Swindlers and Fools, to the point of caricature, which makes illustrating the idea a bit easier. Pinocchio is obviously a gullible Fool; the Fox and the Cat are Swindlers, and so on.

The scene I was most struck by was one neatly capturing the concept of life as a finite pie: one in which you will be lucky to get a few crumbs; slices reserved only for those who take at the expense and suffering of those around them.

Life as a finite pie is - I would argue - a foreign concept for most of us, simply because we have never experienced it firsthand. We are lucky, because if we did, it is very likely that in short while most of us would be Fools, and a few of us would be Swindlers. Most of us would have nothing, while a few of us would have more than their share.

But let's get back to the example. In the scene, the Showman Fire-eater - the basis for the character "Sromboli" in the watered-down Disney version (the cricket, incidentally, is crushed and killed by Pinocchio in the original) - calls on his two puppets, Harlequin and Punchinello, to bring Pinocchio to him:

"Bring that puppet here: you will find him hanging on a nail. It seems to me that he is made of very dry wood, and I am sure that if he were thrown on the fire he would make a beautiful blaze for the roast."
At first Harlequin and Punchinello hesitated; but, appalled by a severe glance from their master, they obeyed.

So Harlequin and Punchinello bring in Pinocchio pleading desperately for his life, and the Fire-eater (who "had not a bad heart") for whatever reason takes pity on him. He is saved.

Remember, however, that in this world life is a finite pie. If Pinocchio is not going to burn for the mutton, something - or someone - else will. And that is precisely what happens:

"...as you can see I have no more wood with which to finish my mutton, and to tell you the truth, under the circumstances you would have been of great use to me! However, I have had pity on you, so I must have patience. Instead of you I will burn under the spit one of the puppets belonging to my company. Ho there gendarmes!"
"Take Harlequin, bind him securely, and then throw him on the fire to burn. I am determined that my mutton shall be well roasted."

The gendarmes grab Harlequin. Pinocchio, beside himself, now pleads for the life of his friend Harlequin, all to no avail. Finally, Pinocchio - for the first time in the novel - shows he may just have what it takes to become a real boy. He says:

"In that case, bind me and throw me among the flames. No, it is not just that Harlequin, my true friend, should die for me!"
These words, pronounced in a loud, heroic voice, made all the puppets who were present cry. Even the gendarmes, although they were made of wood, wept like two newly born lambs.

Fire-eater, similarly touched, grants a pardon to both Harlequin and Pinocchio. Note, however, what he has to say about it:

"I must have patience! Tonight I shall have to resign myself to eat the mutton half raw; but another time woe to him who chances!..."

Thus life is a finite pie. Every act has a measurable consequence; for every give there is a take. Pinocchio is spared, therefore Harlequin must burn. Harlequin is spared, therefore Fire-eater must eat his mutton half raw.

But wait a minute, you say. Eating mutton half raw is a great deal different then being burned alive!

Yes, that is true, but that is just the point also. Fire-eater is a Swindler (albeit one, apparently, with some relative measure of compassion); Harlequin and Pinocchio are Fools. The consequence for Fire-eater is inversely proportionate to his slice of the pie.

In a world where life is a finite pie, stratification becomes inevitable because if someone must swindle for gain, someone else must therefore be fooled for loss. In such a system, when gain for one invariably results in loss for the other, we are left only with some sense of moral ethics (individual character, compassion, empathy, courage, virtue, sacrifice, etc.) as the sole counteractive force tempering suffering and oppression. And when that fails, if we are lucky and happen to live in a place that allows it, we are forced to resort to laws (in this light, a litigious society could therefore be viewed as one of individual moral failing)...

Now in the world I personally have had the good fortune live in, none of this could happen of course. Because in my world, although you could make a strong argument there exists a Fire-eater, he happens to have a large pile of wood for his fire, and therefore it is vastly easier for him to pardon Harlequin and Pinocchio. He has no dilemma or conflict; he never has to consider whether or not his mutton will be half raw at their expense.

In this same world I have had the good fortune to live in, one could argue also that the large pile of wood is rapidly dwindling (and one could also argue that this same pile was itself derived from a world of Swindlers and Fools, hidden from us behind a curtain, across an ocean, or over a border).

The question, then, is what will happen to this world when the pile of wood runs out - when the only way that Fire-eater can get his mutton properly cooked (as he prefers it) is by tossing one of his puppets into the fire?

Swindlers and Fools

Before I even begin a discussion of Nikolai Chernyshevsky's "What is to Be Done?", I want to talk about his world of Swindlers and Fools, for in order to appreciate the characters in his book, it is important that we first accept the parameters of the ethos from which they emerged.

The basic idea of Swindlers and Fools is this:

Suppose that life offers absolutely no possibility whatsoever except arduous and unrewarded toil, oppression, and suffering. Life is a finite pie from which you will be lucky to get a few crumbs, and the only souls who receive a slice are those that do so at the expense and suffering of those around them.

In such a world, one has only two choices: either (A) become a swindler - someone willing to take whatever they can get from others for their own personal gain, regardless of how it effects those around them; or (B) remain a fool - someone who resigns themselves to their dismal lot in life and accepts its innumerable cruelties.

In Chernyshevsky's own words:

Your entire previous life led to the conclusion that people are divided into two categories: fools and swindlers. “Anyone who isn’t a fool is surely a swindler,” you thought, “and not to be a swindler means that you’re a fool.” This view, Marya Aleksevna, was very accurate; until quite recently, Marya Aleksevna, it was completely accurate.

At the time his novel was written (1863), Russia was very much this kind of world: a world of extreme social stratification, class inequity, poverty, inhumane working conditions, devoid of human rights, absolutely no opportunity, etc.

Unfortunately a description that could and can be effortlessly applied to many parts of the world both then and now (including Russia). In fact, I was struck last night by a scene in Slumdog Millionaire, which presented the "Swindler or Fool" moral dilemma very well. Now, this film has received both criticism and praise, but no matter what you think of all that the moral dilemma holds true:

Early in the film, the gangster Maman has enticed Mumbai street children into his "orphanage" in order to train them to beg for money. To increase the children's earning potential, Maman uses chemicals to blind those who can sing well (to make them more sympathetic). One night, Maman and his cronies blind a boy in front of Salim and present him with his moral choice:

Choice #1. "Go get your brother Jamal and bring him to us. We will blind him too, but it will benefit you. You will become one of us. By helping us, you will get things the others don't. More importantly, you will learn that swindling others is the only way to avoid being taken advantage of yourself. Now in order to do this, there is only one caveat: you must become ruthless and heartless, like we are. So let's start with your brother Jamal."

- or -

Choice #2. "Remain a fool and remain someone who will forever be taken advantage of by people like us. You will get nothing, just like the others. In fact, who knows what will happen to you? Perhaps we will blind you instead."

The entire premise of this world is that these are the only two choices. If you accept the premise (as millions have and do) then you must choose one or the other. And the sad part is, of the two, anyone remotely clever or wise or ambitious will (if they can) opt for choice #1 - the swindler!

Don't dismay; this should be heartening, in some respects, because in terms of human nature, it means that in a different world operating under an alternate premise (one, suppose, that offered a few more choices), there might be fewer swindlers (and therefore fewer fools as well). It means that swindlers have the potential to be more humane and compassionate, if given more plausible alternatives. Good (or rather, improved) soil yields a healthier crop.

In many parts of the world, the soil has indisputably improved. There are still massive problems, of course, but the fact that we all know there aren't only two choices is relative progress. As is the possibility that life is not a finite pie. Our rejection of this premise is a given, so much so that it is difficult for us to imagine a world of Swindlers and Fools. It is a luxury we have - no, it is a right - a right that many, many people in this world still do not.

The most wonderful thing about this right is that it requires nothing but a change of thinking to claim it.

Back to Slumdog Millionaire. In the "feel good film of the decade", at least, there is hope.

Salim opts for:

Choice #3: Grab brother and run like hell.

Hope embedded in this action lies in its potential to prove Swindlers and Fools to be a false dichotomy. Yet Salim never truly escapes it; he remains conflicted by this moral dilemma throughout the story, and ultimately opts to become a Swindler, to his and moreover others' detriment.

Chernyshevsky presents a character in his novel that is a "third" kind of person, neither a Swindler nor a Fool. His name is Rakhmetov and I'll talk about him in my next post. What's great about him is he just so happens to be a Russian nihilist, not unlike Bazarov in Fathers and Sons - but with a wonderful twist - and thus we'll see how all this begins to tie together.

Russian Nihilism: Faith, Science, and the Bitter Atheist

Let us suppose that you believe in God, very deeply (if you do, this will obviously require less imagination then if you don't).

Let us suppose that you also believe in the Divine Right of Kings - that is - you believe (again, very deeply) that God has placed a single person to rule over your Land: an Emperor, holy and sacred. Your faith in this Emperor is no different than your faith in God; they are one and the same.

Whether you believe in God or not, this second item will likely require more imagination, as there aren't a whole lot of people left in the world who still believe in the Divine Right of Kings, and for good reason. It hasn't really worked out too well in the modern age.

Anyhow, there you are, happily feeling this way, when things take a turn for the worse: you and your family begin to suffer. There has always been suffering, so that's nothing new (not to make light of human suffering) but this time, when you attempt to figure out why this suffering has come to be, you and those around you cannot help but notice the Emperor and his policies seem to be causing all the trouble. Try as you may to lay blame elsewhere, the facts point back to that you have always held most sacred.

In other words, for the first time you find fault in your own unquestioned core beliefs.

In an instant, everything you ever believed in is a falsehood. For to call the Emperor into question is to call God into question - and ultimately to call belief itself into question. Suddenly one's entire world is unstable rather than sound. What is true? What is real? It is like a game of jenga (I know, bad analogy): pull one piece out and the whole thing topples.

Why? Because profound contradictions against an unquestioned world view create pressures so extreme that when core beliefs finally rupture, the result is not to crack but to shatter. Core belief is resilient; it holds on as long as it can, even in the face of absurdity, so when it finally goes, it goes in style. It bursts like a dam.

Van Gogh described himself as a "bitter atheist". I always loved this idea: a "bitter atheist" - someone who has been terribly disappointed, betrayed. Someone who once had a profound faith, and then lost it. A very, very different someone than the fellow who turned to atheism out of logic or reason or upbringing, without the accompanying companion of shattered faith (booooring!). Yes, a "bitter atheist" and an "atheist" are not the same thing at all. The former has more to paint about.

We live in a change state culture, that is, a culture where rapid and profound change is the norm, where each generation presents a disconcerting "gap" (not true of all cultures and societies), where each advent in technology presents new social challenges, and thus where, when things break, indeed they tend to shatter...

Leaving a lot of bitterness to go around, I suppose.

But I digress. Back to nihilism. Back to the poor soul who has just realized everything is a falsehood. Let's help this fellow out at once! Apparently he has a few questions...

Q: So, if I have recently learned that everything I believe in is not true, then how do I go about discovering what is true?

A: Well, you begin by clearing off the table:

• If everything I know is a lie, then nothing exists.

Q: Nothing? That's no fun. There must be something, right? Some truth? How do I find it?

A: Very, very carefully! Trusting nothing as given (throwing out every assumption you have ever known) you must observe the world around you and make note of everything you can see, touch, hear, smell, feel, etc., no matter how trivial. Later you will look at what you have observed and see if any patterns emerge. Then you will put these patterns to the test and discover if they reveal any truths. Thus:

• Nothing exists, except that which I can observe with my senses.

Q: A little less vague, please?

A: You will eventually refine this approach into a concrete method: you will create a hypothesis of what might potentially be true, then you will do your very best to prove it isn't, using your full powers of observation and reason. Thus:

• Nothing exists, except that which you can prove empirically to be.

Now that sounds familiar, doesn't it? Yes, that sounds like a scientist. And the method sounds like the scientific method. Because it is. From this idea - nothing exists except that which you can observe with the senses - modern science is born (or at least refined).


FATHERS AND SONS by Turgenev

Thank you, Russian nihilism. Now let us look at one of the greatest books ever written, Turgenev's Fathers and Sons, to illustrate this extraordinary paradigm shift in point of view.

In the white corner, we have Nikolai Petrovich. He is the father; he loves and admires nature, he believes deeply in the Tsar and God. Nature is divine and poetic to him.

In the red corner, we have Bazarov. He is a nihilist: nothing exists to him except that which he can observe with his senses. Therefore, he recognizes no authority. He does not believe in God or Tsar; he generally has disdain and contempt for any institution supporting what he cannot logically prove to exist.

In the middle we have Arkady, Nikolai Petrovich's son. Arkady looks up to Bazarov, but also admires his father, setting up a wonderful moral dilemma and tug of war. To illustrate, while Nikolai Petrovich cites verse (essentially divine, c'mon its Pushkin), Bazarov has little regard for his sentimental, romanticized view of nature...

"Yes, this is spring in all its glory," said Nikolai Petrovich. "Though I agree with Pushkin - do you remember those lines in Eugene Onegin?

To me how sad thy coming is,
O spring, O spring, sweet time of love!
What-"

"Arkady!" shoted Bazarov from the tarantass. "Send over a match will you, I've nothing to light my pipe with."

Meanwhile, Pavel Petrovich, Nikolai Petrovich's aristocratic brother, is far less tolerant of Bazarov than Nikolai Petrovich himself:

"What is Bazarov?" Arkady smiled. "Would you like me to tell you, uncle, what he is exactly?"
"Please do, nephew."
"He is a nihilist!"
"A what?" asked Nikolai Petrovich, while his brother lifted his knife in the air with a small piece of butter on the tip and remained motionless.
"He is a nihilist," repeated Arkady.
"A nihilist," said Nikolai Petrovich. "That comes from the latin nihil-nothing, I imagine; the term must signify a man who... who recognizes nothing?"
"Say-who respects nothing," put in Pavel Petrovich, and set to work with the butter again.
"Who looks at everything critically," observed Arkady.
"Isn't that exactly the same thing?" asked Pavel Petrovich.
"No, its not the same thing. A nihilist is a person who does not take any principle for granted, however much that principle may be revered."
"Well, and is that a good thing?" interrupted Pavel Petrovich.
"It depends on the individual, my dear uncle. It's good in some cases and very bad in others."
"Indeed. Well, I can see this is not our cup of tea. We of the older generation think that without principles (Pavel Petrovich pronounced the word as if it were French, whereas Arkady put the stress on the first syllable) - without principles taken as you say on trust one cannot move an inch or draw a single breath. Vous avez change tout cela, may God grant you health and a general's rank, but we shall be content to look on and admire Messieurs les... what was it?"
"Nihilists," said Arkady, speaking very distinctly.

Later on:

"What have you got there, leeches?" asked Pavel Petrovich.
"No, frogs."
"Do you eat them or breed them?"
"They're for experiments," Bazarov replied indifferently, and went into the house.
"So he's going to cut them up," observed Pavel Petrovich. "He has no faith in principles, only in frogs."

Pavel Petrovich has little regard for Bazarov:

"What a calamity it is to have spent five years in the country like this, far from mighty intellects! One becomes a complete fool. You struggle not to forget what you have learned - and then one fine day it turns out to be all rubbish, and they tell you that sensible men no longer have anything to do with such nonsense, and that you, if you please, are an antiquated old fogey. What is to be done? Obviously the younger generation are more intelligent than we are."

And Bazarov has little regard for Pavel Petrovich:

"Do you think I'm going to pander to these provincial aristocrats! Why, its all personal vanity with them, the habit of being top dog and showing off... But enough of him! I've found a rare specimen of water-beetle, Dytiscus marginatus - do you know it? I'll show you."

Note that Fathers and Sons was first published in 1861, while Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published in 1859, roughly the same time and intellectual milieu. Thus the natural extension of "nothing exists except what can be observed by the senses" is essentially equal to "look at this very interesting idea I have just observed with the senses!"

Perhaps this explains the often visceral juxtaposition between faith and science. A shame, really, because when you compare Nikolai Petrovich's divine love for nature with Bazarov's emprical/revolutionary love for nature, the bottom line is they both love nature! Whether one recites Pushkin or the other mumbles in Latin makes very little difference, one could argue.

A false dichotomy. But a dichotomy nevertheless, and one worth examining in more detail.

Considering that we are living in the "period after the fallen Emperor in which the principles of nihilism have supplanted principles of the divine, to varying and unsettling degrees", it seems to me we should spend some time looking at the Russian revolution, at Chernyshevsky's "What is to be Done?" and some other items, from a new, modern angle (not a Marxist one), in order to see if we can make some sense out of what is happening today. I'll do that in my next few posts.

Of course, there may be no relevance to this at all... And most people find looking back at history so incredibly dull, anyhow. For them I leave this description of Nikolai Petrovich's servant:

Everything about him, from the single turquoise ear-ring to the dyed pomaded hair and his mincing gait, proclaimed him to be a man of the advanced modern generation.

1850s, baby. Now that's punk rock.

The Mysterious Case of the Fiat Lorry and Rudolf Lacher

When describing the Ipatiev House, the word "courtyard" turns out to be as misleading to the Romanov story as "corset"

To often, when envisioning the house, we fail to do so taking BOTH wooden palisades into account, along with their corresponding gates. We imagine the Fiat lorry to have backed into the "courtyard" located within the walls of the Ipatiev property, when - I hope to prove - that was either quite impossible or enormously difficult, particularly under the circumstances. When rereading the text and thinking of what was really meant by "courtyard", much becomes clear - so much, I believe, that the evidence linking one of the alleged shooters - Rudolf Lacher - is cast into serious doubt.

First, let us examine each item:


THE FIAT LORRY



Article 1: the Fiat lorry - incredibly important to the crime - and yet so rarely examined in any great detail. "a one-and-a-half ton Fiat, with a flat, open bed of wood slats measuring just 6 by 10 feet and enclosed by wooden side rails." (FOTR, p.300) Think also about this: no rear view mirrors, very crude gear and clutch mechanisms, no power steering, poor turning radius (just have a look at the wheels!), low HP


THE IPATIEV HOUSE GATE



Article 2: The gate to the house, built in 1897, was never intended for motorcars, but rather carriages; as you can see, it was quite narrow with two sizable stone pillars on each side.


THE NARROW LANE



Article 3: This is VERY IMPORTANT: "Voznesensky Prospect, some FIVE FEET HIGHER than the Ipatiev house, was separated by a steep bank and a narrow, secondary roadway marked by a small, ornate shrine dedicated to St. Nocholas.

One COULD NOT exit or enter Voznesensky Prospect from the Ipatiev Gate (as is so often described). One could only turn onto the narrow lane. Here is another view; you can see, to some extent, the embankment and line of trees separating the smaller road with the broad prospect:




THE OUTER PALISADE:



Article 4: There are many photos, 3D models, etc. of the Ipatiev House; inexplicably none include a crucial part of the landscape: the external wooden palisade. Remember there were two fences at the time of the murder, an internal and external. This created a DRIVEWAY or COURTYARD between the Ipatiev House and Outer Wooden Palisade.


THE PALISADE GATES



Article 5: The outer palisade lined the steep five foot bank and enclosed the narrow lane; the trees were included within the fence. Now - this is also very important - there were TWO palisade gates, one to ENTER and one to EXIT the PALISADE:

"The second fence had two gates - one facing the Vosnesensky Lane, the second right opposite them, in the opposite side of the fence, close to the gate of the house... ...The [second gate] was built when we were there, AS IT WAS FOUND THAT AUTOMOBILES HAD MUCH DIFFICULTY LEAVING THROUGH THE FIRST ENTRANCE ON ACCOUNT OF A STEEP HILL. That was the reason why the gates facing the Vosnesensky Lane were constructed. The motor cars entered through both gates, but they left only through the gate facing the Vosnesensky Lane." (Last Days, p.168)

Why was it important? Because to go the effort of building a second gate meant there was clearly trouble with the first one - and not with trucks, with automobiles. Notice that the main house gate isn't even mentioned here; it was never used for motorcars.

CONCLUSION: THE LORRY NEVER PARKED INSIDE THE "COURTYARD" NEXT TO THE HOUSE. It couldn't: the lane and fence made the confined space TOO NARROW for the turning radius of a long Fiat truck into the narrow house gate.





Why does this matter? Because, as I hope to show, it helps create a reasonable doubt for the involvement of one of the alleged shooters, Rudolf Lacher (it also helps us better understand the timing, movement of bodies, etc.).

Let us now examine the testimony by following the journey of the Lorry on the night of the murder from the Ekaterinburg Military Garage to the departure from the Ipatiev House (that is all that concerns me here; the remainder of the night I leave to others). I quote often from King and Wilson's FOTR as it gives a great blow by blow account.

THE DRIVER

Serge Lyukhanov, official chauffeur to the House of Special Purpose. This is quite important, as it means he was all too familiar with the difficulties of driving up the hill, turning into the wooden palisade gate, and exiting out the second wooden palisade gate. He'd done it often with automobiles, and it was likely his complaints which led to the construction of the second palisade gate leading out to Voznesensky Lane. This, however, was not an automobile, it was a truck, and one about to be weighed down, both literally and figuratively, by a henious crime.

The truck was supposed to have arrived at midnight; instead it arrived at 1:30 a.m. Having informed Botkin to wake the others, Yurovsky "retreated to his office."

"Within a few minutes, through the open windows, Yurovsky heard Lyukhanov's truck; with the curfew, it was the only vehicle on Voznesensky Prospect. The Fiat rumbled passed the square and turned through the open gates of the palisade into the sloped courtyard... Yurovsky told Lyukhanov to drive to the opposite side of the square where he was to wait for further instructions. He left the Fiat parked next to the cathedral, while he himself stood in the dusty street, smoking; above him stretched the dark sky, dotted with twinkling stars." p.301

Here "courtyard" clearly means the driveway between the outer palisade and the house, not the internal courtyard withing the property walls. If it was possible to park in the internal courtyard, as so many picture, it would have taken quite an effort. And in the end Yurovsky would have told him, "Graceful parking job, old boy, now head over to the church and wait for my command", leaving Lyukhanov with another delicate job of getting out again. The reality was that Yurovsky probably simply called out his direction through the open window and L. drove directly out the 2nd gate.

At this point Yurovsky moves into action handing out pistols, briefing men. Medvedev makes rounds and informs outside guards. The Romanovs are ready, Yurovsky brings them into the infamouse cellar room, tells them they "would have to wait until the arrival of a truck; he then disappeared... Yurovsky found Ermakov, and sent him across Voznesensky Prospect to summon the truck." (p.305)

This is an extremely tense moment; the Romanovs are actually waiting in the little room while all this is taking place! So getting to the house and parking the truck quickly, particularly given how behind schedule they already are, is CRITICAL. Here is what happens:

"Lyukhanov hopped into the cab, driving the Fiat across the prospect and through the open courtyard gates [here, again, "courtyard" is used interchangeably]. Because of the steep slope of the courtyard, he decided to BACK THE TRUCK through the gate, leaving it at the top of the incline beneath the archway; once loaded, he worried that the weight of the corpses would prevent the truck from making its way back up the incline and out the gate." (p.305)

The word "gate" and "courtyard" are very ambiguous, considering there are not one but THREE gates, and not one but TWO courtyards. In truth, Lyukhanov, having been through this before, was worried about the steep slope exiting THE MAIN PALISADE GATE. Such difficulty, after all, was the precise reason they constructed the second palisade gate. This places the lorry not in the internal IPATIEV HOUSE COURTYARD but rather in the area in front of the house enclosed by the palisade.

Let us suppose there was the remote possibility of backing the lorry in the narrow house gate. It would - at a minimum - have taken several guards, a very patient driver, forward, reverse, forward again, reverse again, wheel cranking, cursing, lurching into gear, etc. All while the Romanovs sat in a tiny room and wondered what on earth was going on. No, time was of the essence and even if it were possible, they could not afford to spend it on arduous lorry driving manuevers. And, for that matter, why? The entire area was enclosed by a massive fence!

Now, let us examine how the vehicle departs, with its eleven bodies and six additional passengers:

"Lyukhanov started the Fiat's engine, and slowly the truck eased its way up the sloping drive and out of the Ipatiev House courtyard onto Voznesensky Prospect. It passed down the borad, deserted avenue, bereft of all traffic." (p.315)

COURTYARD here clearly means the area in front of the house enclosed by the palisade. For if the lorry were parked in the INTERNAL IPATIEV COURTYARD, according to these directions, in order to turn onto V. Prospect it would have had to drive up a five foot embankment and through a wooden palisade! Quite unlikely...

Now imagine the truck parked in the area in front of the house, enclosed by the wooden palisade: the truck eased up the sloping drive of the narrow lane and turned right out of the front wooden palisade gate onto Voznesensky Prospect. Voila.

By now you are very likely dying to know, WHAT DOES ALL THIS HAVE TO DO WITH RUDOLF LACHER?

I will not hesitate any longer.

First of all, he was a real person; if he has any relatives, they carry with them the burden of the accusation of murder, a burden I hope to dispel, or at least cast all that should be necessary to exonorate him: REASONABLE DOUBT.

RUDOLF LACHER

Here is his photo:



A good looking chap. The facts: Austrian prisoner of war. "Joined the Habsburg Army in 1914 and was sent to the Carpathian Front. In 1915 captured by Russian troops in Galicia and sent to labor camp in Urals. After the revolution, 'allowed to do work... provided I had authorization'... secured a job in Verkh-Isetsk factory, largely on strength of linguistic talents... speaking German and Russian... acted as official interpreter... rising quickly through the ranks of his comrades until he came to Yurovsky's notice. (FOTR, p.270)


THE ALIBI

He claimed on the night of the murders "Yurovsky had locked him into his room at midnight... insisted he had watched through the keyhole of his door as the victims passed, noting that all of the grand duchesses were sobbing as they descended the staircase. Later, he said, after a number of shots, he climbed on his bed and peered out of the window, counting 'eleven bloody bundles' as they were loaded into the waiting Fiat. (p.591)


THE CASE AGAINST RUDOLF LACHER

"Lacher's room, directly beneath Yurovsky's office, had one small window, with double panes of glass, sunk deeply into the two-foot-thick stone wall; between it and the courtyard gate, into which Lyukhanov had backed the Fiat, the first palisade was attached to the eastern facade of the Ipatiev House and, beyond this, the main stairs, with high concrete piers on either side, further obscuring the view and eliminating any possibility that Lacher could have seen what he claimed." (p.591)

The ONLY other evidence is "inferential": "Netrebin, who recalled that, of his comrades, only Lepa and Verhas did not participate in the shooting." (p.591)


ANALYSIS

Let us look at the case, point by point. We need to first see where this window and room were located.





You can see that photos of this window are hard to come by; nevertheless while the stairs obscure a small portion of the line of site, virtually all activity in this area in front of the house, once enclosed by a palisade, is visible from this window.

"Wait a moment!" says the prosecution. "What about the first palisade! Did you not read the testimony? "the first palisade was attached to the eastern facade of the Ipatiev House" thus obscuring his view.

"Have a closer look," says the defense. "The first palisade meets the wall precisely between the commandant's windows, splitting Lacher's window in two. He could, in fact, see quite clearly virtually any activity in this outer courtyard."

Here is a muddy photo of the first palisade (this too is often misplaced in models). You can see (barely) the visible half of the window. Look closely, it is indeed there. And more importantly, by viewing the placement of the fence directly between of the upper two windows, based on the location of the window in other posts one can better visualize the 50/50 split.



"But if the lorry was in the internal courtyard..." objects the prosecution weakly.

"No!" says the defense. "We have spent two previous posts and several hours proving otherwise!"

Recall the approximate location of the lorry, based on evidence and testimony:



CONCLUSION

Observe, if you will, his line of sight from said location:



"THEREFORE," thunders the defense, "Rudolf Lacher could very well have witnessed the loading of bodies into the lorry. Given the evidence surrounding the true location of the lorry, it is certainly far from IMPOSSIBLE he did not, casting REASONABLE DOUBT to his involvement in the shooting."

The judge, aroused from his slumber, looks about dazedly, finds Rudolph Lacher and claps the gavel. "Given the new evidence on the location of the Fiat lorry," he states judiciously (for isn't that what judges do), "You sir, are hereby free to go!"

A FINAL NOTE: Having read quite a bit about the murder of the Romanovs, do I believe that Rudolph Lacher was one of the murderers? Well, he certainly could have been. But as his attorney my job is only to demonstrate the weaknesses in the evidence against him, which I have done. Taking off that hat, because of the number of "Letts" used in the execution and Lacher's linguistic skills, it seems logical he may have been one of the shooters. We will never know for sure.

An Unsettling Conversation Between Moses and the LORD over Serotonin, Locusts, and the state of the Pharoah's Heart

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand over the land of Egypt for the locusts, that they may come up on the land of Egypt and eat every plant of the land, even all that the hail has left."

"But LORD," Moses replied, "The Pharaoh hath quelled the locusts, such that they no longer swarm."

"That's absurd," said the LORD.

And Moses shrugged his shoulders and stretched forth his rod over the land of Egypt, and the LORD brought an east wind upon the land all that day, and all the night; and when it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts.

And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the borders of Egypt; very grievous were they; before them there were no such locusts as they, neither after them shall be such.

For they did not swarm, nor did they cover the face of the whole earth so that the land was darkened; and they did not eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left; and... well you get the idea.

And the reason for this was the blocking of the Serotonin, the mechanism that excited the locusts and correlated to some degree with melancholy among the people, and thus the Pharoah's heart was not hardened, the eighth plague of Egypt was not terribly effective, the Red Sea did not part, etc.

And none of this made the LORD very happy.

The Mad Hatter's "To Die For" Tuna Melt

What better topic to begin J.T. Storey's official blog than with a popular recipe from my upcoming cookbook "Gems from the Trailer Park": the Mad Hatter's "To Die For" Tuna Melt!

Ah, come on, we're all going to die from something, so all concerns over toxic elements concentrated at the top of the ocean's food chain should be put to the side. It is that good. "Where goeth thine hatter, goeth I also" is a well-known aphorism among tuna lovers worldwide.

It is worth noting this recipe came in 2nd place at a recent tuna culinary contest behind a very well-presented seared ahi. Very dramatic it was: startling everyone, the chef shouted something that sounded like "aha!", only when he uncovered the dish it came out as "ahi!" Everyone clapped.

On with the recipe:

THE TUNA:
1 9 ounce can, Chicken of the Sea Albacore Tuna in "Spring Water"
1 hard boiled egg
1 tablespoon, sweet relish (essential, secret ingredient)
1/3 cup Helmann's mayonaise
1/4 cup diced celery
1/4 cup diced red onions
1 teaspoon yellow mustard
pepper, seasoned to taste

Directions:
Drain tuna water. Peel hard boiled egg (If you can't hard boil an egg, discontinue recipe at once; degree of difficulty hereafter extremely high). Mix all above in bowl, turning egg and tuna bits into something close to a puree. Okay that's stretching it, but you get the idea. It should look a bit like cat food. Refrigerate at least 2-3 hours.

THE MELT:
1 tablespoon butter
2 slices of jack cheese (or whatever you prefer. for more flavor, try a good Havarti)
2 bread slices (a true trailer park aficionado would go for the obvious choice, wonder white, but I know you can do better)
(optional) fresh avocado slices
(optional) fresh tomato slices

Directions:
Lightly butter outside of bread slices. Position cheese and tuna, or if you want to get crazy, sear the tuna a little in the pan before placing on bread. Take remaining butter and place in pan at medium heat. heat until bread is golden brown, flip, etc. Cover briefly to ensure cheese is melted. Cut in nifty halves and serve. Open face another compelling option.

OPTIONAL HARD ECONOMIC TIMES/DEPRESSION ERA THRIFT/DIET RATIONALIZATION RECIPE MODIFICATION:
When toasting bread, butter only ONE SIDE of sandwich. Then, while eating, cleverly position the butter side down, imparting flavor to tongue while simultaneously denying upper palette of the very same. This alone should satisfy any latent guilt regarding the rich flavors embodied in your meal. However, if you remain unconvinced, rest assured that the dry and possibly burned crust of the unbuttered sandwich side will most certainly lacerate the previously-mentioned deprived upper palette, leaving scars on top of mouth lasting several days at a minimum. That should constitute enough self-inflicted torment for even the most stalwart and rigid protestant (which in terms of degree should cover most everyone else), at least enough to enjoy a tuna melt.

So there it is. The next time you feel the need to mull over that famous riddle "Why is a raven like a writing desk?", try one of these.