Letters from Vienna #121
Why Dostoevsky?
“The University of Milano-Bicocca, in Milan,” it was recently announced “has decided to postpone a course about one of the greatest writers of all time, Fyodor Dostoevsky.”[1]
There can be little doubt that Dostoevsky is seen as a potential threat to the Satanist/Globalist Deep State and its depopulation/slavery agenda but it’s not easy to see exactly why.
This letter will use make use of Joseph Frank’s excellent biography in order to suggest a possible answer.
“Dostoyevsky” Joseph Frank tells us “…clearly connects his novella with the ideological ambience of the time, and in his original proposal to Katkov he cites several newspaper accounts of recent crimes committed by students, which, in his opinion, indicated that the age-old injunction against murder had begun to lose its prohibitive force in their milieu. The crimes he singles out were committed in cold blood and after careful thought; they were not crimes of passion, or revenge, or crude rapacity; they were diligently carried out by persons with, presumably, consciences refined by education.”
“If these news stories made such an impact on Dostoyevsky…it was because he had long been fascinated with the figure of the intellectual criminal who justifies – or pretends to justify – his criminality in terms of a theory. Five years earlier, in one of the early articles about famous French criminal trials, which, as he wrote in a prefatory note, are “more exciting than all possible novels because they light up the dark sides of the human soul that art does not like to approach, or which it approaches only glancingly and in passing.” The first of the series dealt with the famous murderer Pierre-François Lacenaire, whose story gripped Dostoevsky because of the alliance between his obvious culture and refinement and the monstrosity of his deeds. Lacenaire, he wrote, “is a remarkable personality, enigmatic, frightening and gripping. Base instincts and cowardice in the face of poverty made him a criminal, and he dared to set himself up as a victim of his century. All this joined to a boundless vanity; it is the type of vanity developed to the utmost degree…”
“This recollection of Lacenaire may well have provided Dostoyevsky with some sort of character-scheme; but if so, it was one that he filled out in purely Russian terms. For the ideology that he places at the root of that “lack of steadiness…in convictions” among the youth unmistakably refers to the attempt of the radical intelligentsia of the 1860s to base morality on a Utilitarian foundation. The protagonist of Dostoyevsky’s as yet unnamed work decides to kill the old pawnbroker because she is evil, cruel and merciless; but he does not use his moral revulsion at her conduct as a justification for his deed. Rather, he persuades himself that her existence is “useless,” thus substituting a Utilitarian standard for his instinctive moral reaction. Such a Utilitarian criterion “befuddles” the young man, and he resolves to rescue his family by murdering the wretched woman and pilfering her coffers, after which he plans to devote the remainder of his days to good deeds (fulfilling his “humane obligations to mankind”) as a means of compensating for his crime. But Dostoyevsky also represents him…as inwardly questioning whether such a murder should be considered a “crime” at all (“if one can really call a crime this action against a deaf, stupid, evil, sickly old woman” etc.). If not, then the character should have no compunctions whatever about disposing of her life; no moral considerations of any kind need disturb him, since Utilitarian reason, not old-fashioned biblical notions of good and evil, have now become the basis of morality.”[2]
At the same time, and this is the important caveat, Dostoyevsky, emphasised “Slavophile” humility and human weakness when discussing crime[3]. In short: we’re all capable of committing appalling acts and no-one is wholly “without sin”. This is why, the criminal is to be regarded as “unhappy” rather than irredeemably evil. Nevertheless, Dostoyevsky repeatedly asserts the freedom of will. Blaming everything on “an unhappy childhood” or “unfortunate circumstance” is never an excuse.
The really interesting question is to ask what Dostoyevsky would have thought had he read the following: “A professor at Yale University has sparked outrage for suggesting that elderly Japanese residents should take part in a “mass suicide” by disembowelment to help the country deal with its rapidly ageing population.”
“Yusuke Narita, 37, an assistant professor of economics at the Ivy League school, has gained hundreds of thousands of followers on social media as he touted the controversial solution in multiple interviews and publications — but he’s also drawn ire, the New York Times reported.”[4]
Sadly, this is far from theoretical.
It’s impossible to know exactly how many weak, sick and elderly were murdered in hospital and old people’s homes in the course of the last two years but it’s a fair assumption that they constitute a large portion of the “Covid dead”.[5]
According to Politico: “A report by academics based at the London School of Economics found that in Italy, France, Ireland, Spain and Belgium between 42 percent and 57 percent of deaths from the virus have taken place in nursing homes. In the U.K., care homes have warned that the virus is likely already running rampant in more than half of the country’s facilities and that government figures likely vastly underestimate the number of fatalities. Half of all European COVID-19-related deaths have occurred among residents in nursing homes, according the WHO’s regional director for Europe, Hans Kluge.”[6]
If Covid doesn’t exist, which it probably doesn’t: what killed the elderly? In all probability they were murdered.
What is of interest is to note that the policy of “culling the populace” is not exactly new. In Vienna there was the notorious case of the “angels of death” when Maria Gruber, Irene Leidolf, Stephanija Meyer, and Waltraud Wagner murdered scores of patients between 1983 and 1989 at the Geriatriezentrum am Wienerwald in Lainz and in 2013 it was reported that: “The recent Independent Review led by Baroness Neuberger recommended discontinuation of the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying (LCP).”
“Developed in the 1990s to address barriers to the delivery of excellent care in the final days of life, the LCP was designed to support the high standard of palliative care prevalent in hospices to other clinical settings. It provided guidelines for best practice, focusing on symptom control, appropriate discontinuation of active treatments, psychological, social, and spiritual care of patients and their families, and frequent patient reassessment.”
“However, in recent months the LCP has come under intense media scrutiny, with the Daily Mail describing it as ‘a pathway to euthanasia’, compromising patient autonomy, used to ‘free up hospital beds’ and even for NHS trusts’ financial gain. Despite widespread support across the majority of the healthcare professions, the Review report is unequivocal: use of the LCP must cease. To examine the underlying issues that have fuelled this controversy, it is pertinent to consider the extent to which the Review’s recommendations represent a proper response to legitimate concerns or whether a good clinical tool is being sacrificed to a media furore.”[7]
In 2018 it was reported that: “A Supreme Court ruling this week that legal permission will no longer be needed to withdraw treatment from patients in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) will increase the likelihood that patients in this condition will be starved or dehydrated to death in their supposed “best interests”, Christian medical professionals have said.”[8]
There can be little serious doubt that the crimes of the last few years have been committed out of a mixture of Satanist pride and blood lust; the desire to commit acts of the purest evil, utilitarian “pragmatism” and the corruption of the medical fraternity, who have abandoned any hope of caring for their patients. Whatever the exact motivation happens to be: all those, from the “highest” oligarch to the “lowest” nurse need to be seen as “unhappy” rather than purely evil and have to be understood if not forgiven.
This time around these crimes against humanity are being perpetrated to “stop climate change” and to “save the environment” and to “stop the resources of the planet being exhausted”. Of course, all this “philanthropic” “environmentally friendly” benevolence is merely a form of self-deception, merely a cloak for base and foul murder.
[1] https://erudera.com/news/italian-university-suspends-course-on-the-great-novelist-fyodor-dostoevsky-due-to-russian-ukraine-crisis/
[2] pp.66-67 Dostoyevsky, The Miraculous Years, 1865-1871, Joseph Frank
[3] Das Milieu, 1873, Tagebuch eines Schriftstellers F.M. Dostoyevsky
[4] https://nypost.com/2023/02/13/yale-professor-suggests-elderly-japanese-residents-should-die-in-mass-suicide/
[5] https://odysee.com/@MaajidNawaz:d/Radical-Episode-17:d
https://rumble.com/v18lw20-vaccine-carnage-in-the-er-a-nurse-speaks-out.html?mref=6zof&mrefc=3
[6] https://www.politico.eu/article/the-silent-coronavirus-covid19-massacre-in-italy-milan-lombardy-nursing-care-homes-elderly/
[7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3782767/
[8] https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/9504/patients-can-be-starved-to-death-in-their-best-interests-
UK: 'Do not resuscitate' orders.