The killer is pulled to the crime scene

At the beginning of the Great Patriotic War, the Areopagus of Soviet leaders decided to transport the mummy of Lenin from Moscow to Tyumen. So that the greatest value does not go to the enemy.

Marvelous! Mentally limited (compared to humans), ants rescue larvae of descendants, successors of the genus, from a ruined anthill. And intellectually unsurpassed high-browed pagans (but not diagnosed necrophiles in any way!) are hastily transporting the corpse. Save the dead.

A simple (and at the same time complex, partly literary) interpretation suggests itself, showing the (imaginary) conditionality and interconnectedness of everything that happens in the sublunar world: near Tyumen, in Tobolsk, the last Russian Tsar Nicholas II spent his days of exile, through Tyumen the tsar and his family tried elude reprisal (the saviors also developed a naval escape plan, which also did not take place), but the execution that erupted on Lenin’s orders crossed out hopes …

Ilyich (he had no rest) set off – twenty years later – to make sure: the sentence had been carried out, the execution had taken place, the monarch and his family were dead? Or did the infernal traveler belatedly take it into his head to repent before the finished off? Be that as it may, the killer was drawn to the crime scene. The embalmed leader did not reach Tobolsk, where the tsar was in exile – only a short journey – perhaps he was in indecision, not knowing whether those whom he had condemned to death would be kindly received. And yet the pilgrimage (forced? longed for?) took place. Having accomplished it, having calmed down or, on the contrary, horrified, Lenin returned to the memorial tomb and continued his peaceful (or ostentatious?) reclining, hiding behind marble walls from possible otherworldly revenge and this-worldly curse.

live canned food

Be afraid, beware of narrow-minded personification of historical upheavals!

It is common knowledge that preparing an escape from remote camps located in the Tmutarakan wilderness, hardened criminals seize (invite to execution, Nabokov would say) a victim doomed to the slaughter – a simpleton who agrees to become a fellow traveler, to keep company. They eat it along the way. More economical and practical than lugging heavy provisions on a hump.

It happens, however, that the fool initially appointed by the steak outplays the cannibals and grubs them himself. On the topic, I also recall an unaesthetic anecdote about feces that threatened a person: “I’ll eat you!” – and the man replied: “I will eat you myself!” – and fulfilled the promise, swallowed it. Summary: Good triumphs over evil.

A literal copying of an anecdote occurs when trying to put together and compose world history. Not in the sense that we rewrite it after the fact according to patterns that are beneficial for ourselves (or someone else), changing depending on specific circumstances and utilitarian goals. And that, without drawing a lesson from past delusions, we stubbornly follow the long-known erroneous canons.

Deposing Khrushchev, his fosterlings Shelepin, Semichastny and others like them, very nimble creators of the future who considered themselves a white bone, outlined the short-lived transitional figures of Brezhnev, who was supposed to be twirled, manipulated and pushed around at their own discretion. He was assigned the role (in line with the aforementioned criminal scheme) of “live high-ranking canned food”, was assigned the role of a hauler from the fire of hot chestnuts, a heat rake, whose services can be refused with impunity at the first favorable moment. (Again, the analogy with the world of insects, which lay their larvae in a body intended to be turned into a feeding trough, is correct.) However, the apparatchik, who was to (and contracted) to become caliph for an hour, lacking stars from the sky, turned out to be a grip: having violated a primitive maneuver, he seized the reins and settled with employers who used it in the dark. He quickly placed his people in key positions, and reined in the little competitors so much that they did not even dare to dream of revenge.

How many times the inventors of this common scheme burned with a blue flame! And not for the future! Truth: “The past teaches nothing” – is confirmed again and again. The seemingly fresh only repeats the old: the dancer Khrushchev himself was a compromise pawn, designed to briefly replace the deceased Stalin, while the more powerful comrades-in-arms (Beria, Malenkov, Voroshilov) sort it out among themselves and find out who is more valuable than mother history and worthy of becoming the successor to the mustachioed tyrant. Stalin was promoted to a leading (technical, clerical, secretarial) position due to his obvious dullness and lack of competition with bright (again white bone, of course, of a different consistency than Shelepin) revolutionary reformers – it seemed that a dropout who had not graduated from the seminary could not compete with universally educated, charismatic Trotsky, Lunacharsky, Bukharin… Soon they disappeared.

Tsar Nicholas II was grayish, sincerely believed: Sherlock Holmes was a real-life detective, shot stray cats and dogs (intelligence level!), He took in companions, slurps, gray minnows, no, like himself, cardinals. As soon as an extraordinary personality appeared (Stolypin, Witte – for all the difference in their views – were more talented than the monarch), and black envy overthrew rivals. On the scale of vast Russia (and not the tiny Danish kingdom), such selection led to the triumph of intrigue, wholesale betrayals, and all-out treason. Which is how it ended. Grayness, coupled with blackness, swallowed up, destroyed, together with no king, a galaxy of enterprising, non-trivial subjects. The drama of a worthless man who, to his misfortune (and the misfortune of Russia), turned out to be an autocrat, a weakling: forming a retinue, he was guided by destructive selfish motives of superiority over the worst, and not the best.

Catherine the Great and Napoleon

Why is Catherine II called the Great?

Still not great and still not named: she killed her husband, Peter III, a descendant of Peter the Great, rooted serfdom, set up a brothel from the royal apartments – and at the same time she was in a cunning correspondence with the leading philosophical minds of Europe, charmed the gullible Diderot and Voltaire (Khrushchev such dexterity!), they fell for a coquettish pretense. Men can be twirled not only erotically, but also calligraphically. She also composed plays – did she herself or did the favored courtiers (those who were not exiled and arrested) poets help? I knew who to caress.

It becomes clear why Napoleon attacked Russia: he took revenge for the brilliant compatriots deceived and humiliated by Catherine. Took revenge. Didn’t take it. Take a bite! Because there was a cotter pin, a pigalitsa, an undersized, and Catherine was the Great.

She circled everyone around her finger, starting with her husband and ending with the Russian people, offering him Potemkin villages as a mortgage; those who were not satisfied with such a choice dealt with Generalissimo Suvorov.

Would go down in history as the most enlightened monarchy. If it weren’t for Pushkin, his charmer couldn’t fool him, because she slightly didn’t coincide with him in time (he was born half a step away from her dominion). Pushkin saw through the porch: “… history will appreciate the influence of her reign on morals, will reveal the cruel activity of her despotism under the guise of meekness and tolerance, the people oppressed by the governors, the treasury plundered by lovers …” His passage recorded in fresh hot pursuit the enormity of the ten-faced hydra …

Who better to judge Russia – idle third-party interpreters, theoretically suggesting that from their “beautiful far away” they comprehended the mysterious power of endless bearish corners, or those who know their native land primordially, firsthand, who, endowed with “mind and talent”, managed to appear into the light in the land of year-round bear grass?

What would Pushkin say about our today? Based on the widely known and often quoted, we can assume: the undisputed beacon of Russian philosophical thought (no matter how you relate to the final, so-called reactionary period of his life and work) would give an exhaustive description of what is happening, perhaps repeating his famous formula: “the old dispute of the Slavs between yourself.” The stew of this self-styled cauldron combines the flight of Kurbsky to Lithuania, the explosive mixture of Andreev Rublev and Bogdanov Khmelnitsky, the enslavement of the German (by blood) Catherine of Poland and Little Russia, the Polish false rulers on the Russian throne, the exploits of generals Gurko, Stoletov, Skobelev for the sake of liberating the Bulgarians from the Turkish yoke, the beginning of a world war for the sake of the Serb brothers … In the conspiracy refraction, it is realistic to assume that the reason for the aggravation of relations between Russia and Poland lies in the plane of resentment on both sides by the love affair of the last Russian monarch and the ballerina Kshesinskaya, who embodied Gogol’s image of a beautiful seducer, because of which Taras Bulba decided the wrong one son.

The menu is incomprehensible and inedible for gourmets who are on the outskirts, and not in the midst of the tragic strife of the kingdom of the Vyatichi, Krivichi, Drevlyans, Polyans and Pechenegs, obscure to outsiders.