#KIRILLOV OBVIOUSLY!

[ailichi]

nearly every single character in Demons gets some sort of psychosomatic attack at some point

[linkspooky]

Somehow the connection between Dazai being called "Demon Prodigy" and Fyodor being refered to as a "Demon" like clicked inside my brain but I can't really put a finger on what is it supposed to mean wondering if you've got any thoughts about it?

Sorry for the long wait anon, your question was so good it needed a longer more detailed response. Dazai and Dostoevsky are both referred to as "Demons" because of the shared themes in the literature works the characters are inspired by. Dostoevsky published a book called "Demons" (or the Possessed) and in Dazai's case it's his seminal work No Longer Human. What is a demon, but the opposite of a human being?

The shared theme is that these are both existentialist novels (Dostoevsky's works are existential as a whole). Of course the connection between the two characters is probably inspired by the fact Dazai name drops Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment in No Longer Human. However the use of the word Demon itself to describe both Dostoevsky and Dazai most likely comes from Demons / The Possessed.

Demons is also called "the possessed", because the novel is about nihilism as a political movement moving through Russia at the time. For Dostoevsky the "Demons" in this context refers to the ideas which possess people, especially political ideas and how easily people can become swept up in those political ideas and political movements to the point where they are acting like something else is possessing their bodies.

The reason I waited until this chapter to start working on this meta was this set of panels exactly.

In a desperate move Dostoevsky prepares to be possessed by his ability acting as an evil personality inside of him like a split personality disorder, in order to trick Sigma and regain the advantage against him. He then proceeds to go "Ha ha, fooled you." While I believe that Dostoevsky is not suffering from a split personality (that was the lie) he is in a way possessed by his ideals like how real life author Dostoevsky was discussing in the book demons itself.

Demons was written in response to a young radical Sergey Necahyev and his followers murdered a former comrade Ivan Ivanov. It's a novel specifically written to counter people who are pushed into radical extremes for their ideals. The events of the novel itself depict a revolution Pyotr as the cause of a radical political movement that not only engulfs the town, but ends up killing most of the named characters in the story. Pyotr's biggest action in the novel is to murder a man named Shatov in the hopes of creating a big political storm, and wishes to make one character Stavogrin the face of his revolution, while another character Kirilov the scapegoat he blames the murder of Shatov on. Kirilov himself is a nihilist who seeks to kill himself in order to answer the question of whether god exists or not by becoming god. (This makes sense I promise). In simpler terms because I don't want to analyze the whole novel Kirilov is killing himself in order to prove a philosophical point because he considers taking your own life to be the ultimate expression of his will.

"If God does not exist" according to Kirillov, "then all will is mine, and I am obliged to proclaim self-will."

This is obviously connected to both Dostoevsky and Dazai who's ideals are suicidal in nature, and are willing to become a sacrifice for those ideals. I doubt I need to establish Dazai is suicidal. Did you know Dazai is suicidal he only talks about it constantly. Dostoevsky may be a harder sell because he never mentions it explicitly.

In Chapter 105.5 he refers to Dazai's death trap as a trial sent by god.

"Having said that it is true we were placed in great danger. The trial of the flooding is one fit for a subordinate of god like myself."

Obviously biblical representations are obvious, but referring to a situation where he nearly dies as a "trial" makes his relationship with god that of a martyr suffering for their religion. And Martyrs tend to die.

Dostoevsky also is instantly able to understand Nikolai's desire to commit suicide in order to prove the existence of free will and overcome God.

"Fantastic. You rebel against god and fight a battle to lose yourself."

There's two interpretations for why he spots Nikolai's innermost feelings right away, either he's that good or reading people or he deeply relates to Nikolai. Considering Nikolai calls him his most intimate friends I lean towards the second.

He's also completely non-plussed about Nikolai designing a death game specifically to kill him. Dazai refers to Nikolai as a good friend after finding that out, and Dostoevsky agrees with him

His introductory chapter is him deliberately allowing himself to be captured, isolated, probably even beaten by an executive of the Port Mafia in order to obtain a larger goal of information on the Mafia's secrets. That was running the risk of the Executive simply shooting him in the head to remove him as a threat. His method of killing said executive is to convince him into hanging himself.

The concept of suicide is heavily associated with Dostoevsky as a character. He induces a little girl to commit suicide by pulling the pin out of a grenade hanging from her neck. His original plan for Nikolai his closest friend was to have him commit suicide to frame the agency, which only didn't succeed because Nikolai opted out.

In general Dostoevsky is willing to sacrifice lives for his ideals, but despite him being framed as a manipulative mastermind ruthlessly using others, he's also willing to use himself and sacrifice himself for those same ideals.

If Dazai and Dostoevsky are both "Demons" possessed by ideals, then what better way of ridding yourself of your own humanity then by killing yourself. As Jouno establishes in his fight against Kunikida while the agency flees that no matter what humans will ultimately fall short of ideals.

Others refer to Dostoesvky as a demon, and Dostoevsky refers to himself as a "servant of god" but both of them are equally distanced from humanity. If you take out the "good vs. evil" allignment aspect of them, then gods and demons are the same in that they're both not human.

In Dazai's case it's a bit more obvious, the novel he's based off of is literally called "No Longer Human" or in some translations "Disqualified as a Human Being" or "Failed Human."

Both Dazai and Dostoevsky are characters willing to distance themselves from their own humanity in pursuit of their ideals. They live for ideals, and not people, which is part of what makes them so willing to manipulate others.

Dostoevsky and Dazai make grand statements about humanity, Dos believing them to be foolish and Dazai calls them interesting. These are both said from the perspective of an outsider looking in. Even when Dazai is speaking fondly of humans, he still doesn't consider himself to be among them.

"We thought of over a thousand ingenious schemes and still ended up here in a prison at the end of the earth. The ones who actually make the world turn are those who scream within a storm of uncertainty, and run with flowing blood."

Once again this is drawing from the novel No Longer Human where the main character is continually unable to mesh with the rest of society in a genuine way so he lies and deceives everyone around him.

"In other words, you might say that I still have no understanding of what makes human beings tick. My apprehension on discovering that my concept of happiness seemed to be completely at variance with that of everyone else was so great as to make me toss sleeplessly and groan night after night in my bed."

While Dostoesvky's other novels end on more positive notes, Demons is one of his most tragic. The novel ends with a suicide practically the same way that No Longer Human ends with the main character Yozo's implied suicide with the entire novel forming his suicide note.

In the main canon this Dazai most likely won't kill himself as he is given an ideal to continue living for by Oda, but we already witnessed a version of Dazai in the Beast Au who does commit suicide for an ideal, that being keeping the world he created where Oda lives and is allowed to write his novels alive. Dazai is also still in the pattern of behavior of sacrificing himself to fulfill an ideal, such as his willingness to sacrifice himself for Sigma to help convince him to join the agency and turn against Dostoevsky.

Their willingness to die for ideals does not make them entirely selfless martyrs, though. They are both incredibly manipulative and have a tendency not to treat people like people, as they both work in ideals and not people. Ideas are straight forward and pure, people are messy and unpredictable. Sitting on the outside of the gameboard, and treating everyone like a piece you can continue to keep your distance from other people. Dazai may say he admires those people who are in the thick of things shedding blood to make the world turn around, but he doesn't go out and join them.

Rather than self-sacrificing it might be better to say they are self-negating. They don't see themselves as individuals, and that also applies to others sometimes, especially in cases where they don't respect their individual free will. Atsushi is completely dependent on Dazai to the point of not thinking for himself and hallucinating Dazai to tell him what to do. Akutagawa lives for Dazai's praise which Dazai uses the stick and carrot approach to keep leading him forward. Nikolai himself rebels against Dostoevsky when he realizes his friendship with Dos might be controlling him and therefore his decisions may not have been of his own free will. Then there's you know the way Dos treats Sigma, which is even worse than the way Dazai has treated Atsushi or Akutagawa.

Which connects to the novel Demons as well, when people are possessed by radical ideals other people get hurt. Pyotr murders a man, frames another man for the murder prompting his suicide, and in that starts a frenzy in the town. When possessed by an ideal, you are less accountable for your own actions. If Dazai and Dostoevsky are not human, but rather demons or servants of god pursuing a higher ideal then why should they even have to follow human rules? Why give respect to humans as individuals if they are doing these things for a higher purpose, for the benefit of everyone?

Dazai and Dosteovsky are both striving towards completely opposite ideals. Dazai's ideals are Oda's ideals, if saving or hurting people doesn't make a difference to you then choose to save others because that path is more beautiful. Dostoevsky is also pursuing a more beautiful world, striving towards that same beauty, but in his mind the way to reach it is purifying the world of impurities. He wants to push everyone towards the perfectionism that he believes God intended.

"Me? I'm not doing anything. I just sat here and prayed, and my prayers have reached god. It's beautiful, isn't it?"

Even from his introductory chapter, it twists Dostoevsky's actions to show that in his mind he is likely "saving" evil people.

"The crime was thinking. The crime was breathing. He has been liberated from that." (I suddenly understood. Who does evil save?)

When Dostoevsky induces a little girl to commit suicide in Cannibalism, he paradoxically speaks of a better world for children. Dos isn't making a joke or laughing maniacally here he genuinely seems sincere.

"Good fortune for this world. A blessing for children."

Their ideals seem to be opposite, but in a way they're both working towards the ideal of "saving people" and just disagree on what saving them actually entails. Dazai could also easily slip into becoming someone like Dostoevsky, hence why his lowest point and his most violent and abusive self is his mafia era where he's referred to as the "demonic prodigy." Beast gives us a glance at what Dazai would look like in a world where he never met Oda, and he effectively becomes the main villain of that world in place of Dostoevsky. He even uses the book to create his own personal ideal world, which is what we know so far of Dostoevsky's motivation in the main canon.

They are the same and opposite in many ways, including the way they are pictured in the fifth season opening that I used as a banner image for this post. Dazai is standing in the light, Dostoevsky is in the middle of a clouded, dark and stormy sky, the time of day is different but they're still standing in the same place, a ruined demon.

Which is why they are both referred to as demons. They both play at being servants of god, or demons rather than seeing themselves as people. They both are possessed by greater ideas which can lead to their less than savory actions. They're both seen by others and themselves as inhuman, and then use that same thing as an excuse to distance themselves from the people around them.

Most importantly, both characters are painfully human.

[presteblodbad]

how do you think pyotr wouldve reacted to stavrogins confession if he'd read it? shatov and kirillov would be disgusted they'd worshipped someone like that and I can see it being a last straw thing for pyotr. but I can also see him just scrambling around to make sure no one finds out about it like an overworked PR manager. Would it change his perception of stavrogin though? To a point it appears that pyotr sees stavrogin as a bored, troubled, partyboy when he's really more in the 'sadistic lunatic' category.

thanks for the ask! warning it will be long and i apologise right away, i can write neither briefly nor coherently.

i find answering to the "post-canon" and "alternate story" questions about devils to be quite difficult and maybe the reasons i have are more or less obvious, but there are some. as in - it's hard to define who verkhovensky actually is, and taking that further - it's hard to define where could possibly lie "the line" (in terms of morality).

because, for me, i'll be interpreting his "stavrogin oriented opinions and choices" differently, depending on which pyotr stepanovitch i'm talking about.

one of "two" pyotr stepanovitchs is presented to us by the narrator - and i have many reasons to doubt the information he has given to us in his chronicle - from being obviously biased to presenting us tons of dialogues that are just obviously a work of his imagination. that pyotr is an incarnation of the devil from the beginning to the end - and i interpret it obviously in context of dostoevsky's times, because the modern ideas are completely different - but he's, i'd even say "the biblical" devil. so, the way the chronicle presents him - he was born evil - sinful from the moment his mother conceived him. even though he went through an awfully deep period of christianity for the most of his life - he's shown to have no morality whatsoever. according to the narrator's view - i wouldn't probably expect pyotr to be especially bothered by stavrogin's confession on a moral background. if we assume that pyotr reads the confession when stavrogin is already dead - i even doubt he'd do anything with that fact - i don't think he would work himself to death to protect stavrogin's reputation. for some reason i can't imagine him "mourning", rather being endlessly frustrated but forgetting about nikolai quite quickly. but that's where the stairs start when we assume that pyotr reads it and stavrogin is still alive. i think if this were to happen in the book - the narrator would probably tell us that pyotr maybe was disgusted and started doubting everything about his worship for a moment - and then maybe realize that stavrogin reached the true peak of debauchery and nihilism. then, in the scenario where he actually plans the revolution and takes it very seriously as his political plans (politics over feelings) - it's possible he'd work to hide that confession from the public but look at stavrogin as his little private satan to worship (as he has so far, but in a worse and far more wicked way. i'm not saying about following his steps, but about the sickest kind of adoration for the image of evil). in the scenario where all he does in his life, he does for stavrogin (feelings over politics) - he'd probably try to hide the confession as well, but there's a possiblity he'd feel sick with this being an actual fact confirmed by stavrogin himself. if what really had control over him were the feelings towards nikolai - i still think he'd in the end come back to the adoration. the reason why i feel that there would be such a difference in his feelings in "politics over feelings" and "feelings over politics" scenarios, is that in each of these examples the first word stands for his real motive - and the second as the way of executing his plans through a lie. the first one focuses exclusively on his personal ambitions and the other - on the deep feelings towards the person of stavrogin.

but, as i said earlier - there's another pyotr stepanovitch i like to talk about as well. and it's the one that is to be found between the lines of dostoevsky's personal anti-nihilistic opinions. it can be a risky thing to discuss, but i'm talking specifically about the case where we think about him more realistically, because that's what we're used to reading dostoevsky stories - and not a fantasy scented literary character (i see him like that mostly because of the narrator and because of the amount of symbolism that's thrown onto him). the one in which the devil is not born into the society, but created by it. in which the fact that pyotr was born a bastard has nothing to do with who he turned out to be and in which we assume that his external appearance of a serpent and his first appearance in the chapter of that title is literally a coincidence. that pyotr was for his entire life abandoned and painfully religious - up until some event in his life that turned him into a murderous nihilist. here i can say, i truly believe that pyotr could be a nihilist by choice, going through something extremely traumatic but because of him being christian to death up until 16 years old - there's a chance that he has some morality left in him and that possibly stavrogin's confession would be his last straw.

that version of pyotr could be more emotional, this is the version who was certainly honest in "ivan the tsarevitch", revealing his inferiority complex and true worship. if stavrogin was still alive, maybe he'd even talk to him like to a normal human being about the whys and whats, get angry with the explanation, leave stavrogin for good and live with the pure feeling of disgust (or frustration) towards him. if he'd read it after stavrogin's death - i can imagine it would be even harder to him, not to have him around to confirm the confession out loud. maybe he wouldn't even believe it and live with denial and a distorted view at the world.

the reason why i don't mention "feelings over politics" and "politics over feelings" in this case, is because i believe that this pyotr has a different motive for spreading chaos - a coping mechanism. contrary to the first pyotr who does it merely because of his morality - or rather the lack of it, someone who was "born to destroy". this pyotr becomes a nihilist to feel better and he finds solace in stavrogin - the politics in this case are more of a backround, it's just an idea he chose but the true motive is to "heal".

[rooftopvibes]

🎃Books i read in October🎃

Madeline Miller / The song of Achilles 🏹

(368 pages)

Greek myth and queer love. Patroclus gets exiled from his kingdom, meets Achilles, develops feelings and their relationship grows stronger. War starts, Achilles the great warrior wants to fight, wants to be famous and remembered so Patroclus joins him. There is also stuff going on with Achilles mother (a god, complicated relationship), other greek gods and so on. The novel is written in Patroclus point of view.

I read the book in english (2nd language) and found it difficult to read at times especially at the beginning i didn’t know what was going on. After some time i got into it and it was easier to understand but it definitely took me some pages. The novel has beautiful paragraphs and is well written but i can’t say that i love it. If it wouldn’t have been for the queer love story, I wouldn’t have even read it so I was kinda disappointed that it was more about war and the queer love story wasn’t a big part of the book, you barley get to read about Patroclus and Achilles conversations, most part is about how Patroclus is obsessed with Achilles because of his blonde hair and his beautiful body. Some scenes were kind of unnecessary in my opinion since they didn’t add much to the story like the stuff Patroclus had going on with the women. There were chapters i liked more, the beginning i liked the most also the part where they are with Chiron but when the war was starting, that wasn’t too interesting for me. Also I wished to get more information or longer chapters about specific topics like Patroclus killing the boy, how Achilles and Patroclus sleep in the same room and talk, Achilles and his relationship with his mother, Patroclus and his feelings about being exiled… since these topics have a lot of potential for a good story. I feel like i didn’t get to know any of the characters well and they were only being touched on the surface. Regardless of that I totally understand that this book is loved by many.

Albert Camus / The Myth of Sisyphus ☕️

(174 pages with afterword)

In this essay Camus introduces his philosophy of the absurd. He is influenced by philosophers like Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. He writes about absurd people, to give examples of people living the absurd, like Don Juan, an actor and a conqueror. In the third part of the essay Camus writes about philosophy and literature (the absurd artist), Kirillov (a character in Dostoevsky’s novel Demons) and finally about Sisyphus, following a chapter about the absurd in Kafka‘s work, which originally had to be removed from the novel (since Kafka was a jew and it was 1942 in Paris) and was meant to be there instead of the chapter about Kirillov (I‘m very glad that he included both!!)

Since it’s an essay it obviously isn’t read like a novel and I don’t read many essays so at times it was kind of difficult but I would say that it’s still a work that is relatively easy to understand in comparison. It only has 174 pages but i couldn’t read the book as fast as I would read a novel since you may want to reread certain paragraphs and you need to be focused to understand. It was my 2nd time reading this. The first time I read it 1,5 years ago. This time I feel like i understand it way better since I read more works that are being talked about. Still I think this is an essay you can never read enough times because you‘ll always come to new conclusions also with life experience and as you grow older, you‘ll have a different perspective on life, this means you‘ll also read this book in a different way and be able to understand it from another perspective. I found the first chapters more difficult to read than the later ones. My favorite chapters were the one about Kirillov, Kafka, and the one about the absurd artists. I found it very interesting since I make art and it made me question my work. Overall i find this essay so interesting and think about it a lot, it changes my perspective about suicide and life. The Myth of Sisyphus is truly a masterpiece and always a pleasure to read.

Franz Kafka / Der Verschollene (Amerika Roman) 💼

(320 pages)

What the novel is about: 16 year old Karl gets sent to america by his parents because the maid got pregnant by him (which seems not content and brutal). Surprisingly he meets his uncle on the ship to america (which was the funniest part of the book, it was so random). So he gets to stay at his uncles house but only for a short period of time because his uncle also throws him out of the house since he met with a friend and stayed there overnight which was absolute horror and the house gave me Dracula vibes. So now he meets two people in the hotel he‘s staying at, they are also looking for a job and invite him to come with them. He joins, he gets betrayed, he leaves his „friends“ to work at a hotel, he was getting food at. A lot of drama is also happening there, he gets fired. He meets his friends again and is a maid (slave) for the wife of one of his friends where he’s staying and sleeping on the balcony. The novel ends with Karl fining a job at a circus and an additional chapter about how he was brining Brunelda (the friend’s wife) to some man, basically „freeing“ her.

Unfortunately the novel remained unfinished so the end is kind of a mystery to me and i really wonder what is meant to happen. Kafka has this talent to not make me question anything while reading the novel and viewing the things that happen as „normal“ so after i looked through the phrases i underlined and reread some paragraphs I was so sad about the amount of abuse and sadness there is. I just love how the characters don’t have a reaction when something bad happens and are just like hm okay this is how things are and never question anything so it kind of leads the reader in this direction too. Somehow Karl was the only one who realized how messed up things are and stood up for himself but at the end of the novel it seems a little bit like he lost that energy but i might be wrong. It’s the typical thing you read in Kafka’s work: the hierarchy, the no escape which was not only a feeling but also a moment where Karl literally couldn’t escape from Brunelda’s room. Karl always gets rejected and betrayed it’s heartbreaking. To me the novel also screamed pleasing your parents/people. It also has fragments of Kafka‘s relationship with his parents since his father was not proud of him and scared him. I really see why Kafka makes the parents send Karl away even though it seems like he was abused. It’s just brutal. The rooms/locations that are being described make me claustrophobic, sometimes i even have to take a break from reading because i can feel like tight floors, full rooms and breath the bad air. There is so much to say about this novel. I could write a whole essay about it.

E.T.A Hoffmann / Der Sandmann | Fräulein Scuderi ⚗️

(47 | 77 pages)

I have a hard time summarizing these two short stories since so much happens. They both revolve around mysterious topics, and you always get the sense of this atmosphere. The sandman (engl. title) is about Nathanael, telling his brother about his childhood memory of Coppelius/the sandman who visits his father to they do alchemistic experiments. Coppelius appears as a mysterious scary figure. Later on he believes to see Coppelius again and he drives him insane.

Mademoiselle de Scuderi (engl. title) is taking part Paris. The city is in fear by thieves that steal jewelry and murder their victims. Lately there were also many attempts to poison people. Scuderi meets one who is believed to be a part of the group of thieves, but she believes in his innocence. He tells her the whole truth at the end.

I had to read the sandman some years ago for school and I just remember it making me feel scared and also disturbed. Now years later I still remembered what will happen so it didn’t surprise me too much when i read it again but still it didn’t lose it’s mysterious atmosphere and i loved how the sandman was being described. I think the story is up to date even though it was written in the 18th century. Especially that part when Nathanael falls in love with this pupped made me think of today and how we now have AI and things like this and this is something that can happen in the future.

I was really tired when I read Mademoiselle de Scuderi so i was slightly confused because there were so many characters in very few pages. I again liked the atmosphere a lot.

If you like Kafka, you will also like E.T.A Hoffmann. I read some articles about both of them and how they create a similar kind of atmosphere and I also saw the similarities.

Stefan Zweig / Schachnovelle ♟️

(75 pages)

The royal game/Chess story (engl. title) is Zweig‘s last and most famous novella. Here we also have an anonymous narrator like in his other novel „Amok“. The story takes part on a ship. One of the passengers is the world’s best chess player. Through this passenger the narrator meets another person Dr.B who happens to watch them play chess and interferes. He was imprisoned by the Gestapo and punished with the treatment of nothingness. He lived in a hotel room with no one to talk to and nothing to do. One day while he was waiting in a room to get interrogated, he was able to steal a book about chess. After getting bored by the book he played chess against himself and lost his mind as you can imagine. He ends up in a hospital and didn’t have to be imprisoned again. So he sees these people on the ship playing chess and they want him to play against the champion which he agrees to. The doctors told him to avoid chess since he could get ill again, but still he plays another game and he starts to get ill again.

It surprises me that this is Zweig‘s most famous works since i liked his other works more. But i can understand because it is a great work and historically relevant too. It amazes me how you can see deeply into the mind of Dr.B and have such a clear picture of how he suffered in his hotel room. Him going insane is a totally understandable process and it was like i felt his emotions and i knew what he was talking about since i had times where i played card games or thinking games and they really did something with my mind so i feel like it wasn’t only because he split into two different personalities (black and white chess players) but also because of the game itself. I also found this form of punishment interesting since it is something that is very likely to drive you insane so Dr.B thought he found something to save him, it ended up driving him insane but also saved him in a way since he could escape. Another thing that I love is this anonymous narrator and how Dr.B tells him about his life because I feel like it’s important that the narrator is anonymous, otherwise he would‘ve been more districted especially if someone already has an opinion about you. So this is really freeing and the whole atmosphere of being on a ship and confessing your life story in some kind of way is very freeing. Overall it’s an amazing book and I would recommend it to everyone since it’s only 75 pages and you can read it in one day.

[mariacallous]

In late January, the Russian Foreign Ministry launched its latest disinformation campaign, claiming that Moscow had acquired more than 20,000 documents about a supposed secret U.S. biological weapons program in Ukraine. Spreading this fake news via its official Twitter account, the ministry also claimed the U.S. Defense Department “aimed at creating elements of a biological weapon, & testing it on the population of Ukraine.” This tweet alone received more than 2 million views. The Russian Embassy in Washington stepped up next, recycling the Kremlin conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was engineered as a bioweapon by the U.S. government.

All of this is part of a familiar deluge of fake news coming out of Moscow, and the obvious absurdity of these claims could prompt U.S. officials to dismiss them. Such complacency, however, would be a mistake. The problem is that they draw attention away from Russia’s genocidal war and other actions, not least because articles such as this one need to be written to debunk them. Even the most far-fetched charges against the United States are taken seriously in some parts of the world—and, increasingly, among Americans beholden to pro-Russian propagandists such as Fox News’s Tucker Carlson. The long history of Russian and Soviet disinformation campaigns shows that they are far more successful than one might think in spreading doubt about U.S. actions and intentions, and Moscow scores a win if even a small fraction of people fall for what, to most observers, appears patently ludicrous.

It is therefore a dangerous omission that Washington still has no counter-disinformation strategy beyond the occasional official denial of Moscow’s claims.

Russian propaganda inventions can be quite elaborate. In December, the Russian military’s head of radiation, chemical, and biological defense, Igor Kirillov, claimed Russia had discovered a “large-scale burial of the remains of biomaterials” in Lysychansk, a Russian-occupied city in eastern Ukraine. It had supposedly been put there by the U.S. Defense Department as part of a secret program. Kirillov then fabulated that Russia’s discovery had led the Pentagon to move this supposed bioweapons research from Ukraine to Central Asia and other parts of Eastern Europe. Last year, Russia requested a formal meeting of the Biological Weapons Convention to accuse the United States of operating biological weapons laboratories in Ukraine. Most participants who spoke during the meeting rejected Russia’s assertions.

At a meeting of the United Nations Security Council, Russia accused Ukraine and the United States of a plot to use migratory birds and bats to spread pathogens. The Pentagon, Russia claimed, was also collecting blood samples from Ukrainian COVID-19 patients to develop biological weapons genetically targeted at “the Slavic ethnicity” as part of a larger plot whereby the United States manufactured COVID-19 to retain its international power. In that vein, Kirillov also thought it was suspicious how quickly the United States was able to produce mRNA vaccines to treat COVID-19. Actual facts are obviously not the point for the Kremlin’s information warriors, who run a sophisticated operation weaving together misleading and often unrelated narratives to spread rumors and sow doubt.

The Kremlin honed many of these techniques in the Cold War, when the KGB conducted Operation Denver, a successful disinformation campaign that blamed the U.S. government for creating and releasing HIV, the virus that causes AIDS and killed millions of people worldwide before treatments were developed. This fake news was picked up and spread by media around the world, especially in developing countries. This narrative and others like it were part of Moscow’s agenda to systematically frame Washington as a nefarious actor with a secret agenda to subjugate—and even exterminate—populations, especially in the developing world.

More recently, the Russian ministries of defense and foreign affairs accused the United States and Britain of chemical attacks in Syria, a grotesque inversion of the truth. Russia was using a well-worn playbook, accusing adversaries of crimes against humanity that Moscow’s own close ally was committing.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s propaganda operatives recognize that Russia’s own state media and government officials lack credibility in the West. Just like the Soviets used left-wing journalists and protest groups as useful idiots or willing intermediaries, Russia today focuses on infiltrating Western far-right networks, right-wing media, and populist parties to spread its narratives. Atlantic Council fellow Jared Holt has described how Russian disinformation trolls exploit far-right groups’ existing obsession with secret government plots, for example by piggy-backing on conspiracy theories popular with QAnon. In this paranoid underworld, secret government bioweapons are a recurring theme.

Russian disinformation then capitalizes on the viral spread of these narratives from secluded circles to broader audiences via social and mainstream media. For instance, after a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing confirmed the well-known fact that the United States supports epidemiological institutes in former Soviet countries—part of a post-Cold War disarmament agreement that turned military labs into civilian public health institutions—a number of far-right channels and platforms spun this information through a pro-Russian lens. On Fox News, Carlson claimed the hearing “just confirmed that the Russian disinformation … is, in fact, totally and completely true.” Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast trumpeted the “U.S. biolabs in Ukraine” narrative as well. Donald Trump Jr. tweeted out to his audience of 9.7 million that the bioweapons story went “from conspiracy theory to fact.”

Russia has pursued similar tactics in Europe. In the days leading up to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin spread bioweapons disinformation around Europe to help rationalize the impending war. After a Russian Telegram channel posted documents showing supposed evidence of Ukrainian plans to use bioweapons, German pro-Russia channels and organizations, such as Anti-Spiegel, amplified the narrative. Eventually, the disinformation attracted the attention of political figures. Steffen Kotré, a member of the German parliament for the pro-Russian Alternative for Germany party, demanded that parliament debate “bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine.” A study later found that almost 7 percent of Germans believed the bioweapons disinformation.

The first step in countering Russia’s narrative begins with explaining the truth to global audiences. At the most recent Biological Weapons Convention review conference in Geneva, the U.S. delegate accused Moscow of hiding an active biological weapons program, a blatant violation of the convention. He also pointed out Russia had continued Soviet-era biological weapons programs rather than dismantling them, as Moscow claims to have done. The case perfectly illustrates the four steps in the Russian disinformation playbook: deny everything, unleash false narratives, accuse others of what Russia is doing, and repeat. Unfortunately, Washington has not amplified these messages any further. This is a lost opportunity, as more Americans and Europeans have probably heard Russia’s disinformation narrative than the U.S. government’s rebuttal.

Second, the U.S. government should finally enter the world of 21st-century media. Too much of its engagement with Russian disinformation is still based on stodgy diplomatic statements and policy reports. Russia has been engaged in a successful information operations campaign adapted to social media and other contemporary communications channels, and the United States should respond. While reports and fact sheets debunking Russian lies are valuable for, say, journalists engaging in research, these tools will not reach ordinary people. Instead, a smart U.S. campaign would, for example, mock the Kremlin on social media with sharp commentary and humorous memes about Russian bioweapons programs. Many other governments have begun fighting back against the Kremlin’s disinformation trolls this way—Ukraine’s social media strategy is just one example.

The Kremlin despises being mocked, and Russia responds to direct condemnation—even if it is produced in Hollywood. In 2019, HBO released a miniseries on the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the Soviet Union. The series’ negative portrayal of Soviet authorities angered Putin to such an extent that the Kremlin immediately banned the series. State news media, such as Sputnik, attempted to discredit the show. Russia’s NTV even announced plans for its own series about the disaster. (And we wouldn’t be surprised if the channel blamed the United States.) Unsurprisingly, the Kremlin’s heavy-handed efforts to censor the show have only increased Russians’ interest in watching it—a well-known result of censorship known as the Streisand effect.

Finally, it is even more important for Western governments to put Russia on the defensive in the information space. When the Kremlin is on the defensive, it will spend time, energy, and resources defending itself in the information space instead of attacking the West. For example, the United States should craft new ways to amplify the truth about Russia’s existing bioweapons program and violation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. government has been reluctant to use information campaigns to its full advantage in fighting the country’s adversaries, which has yielded the information space to anti-U.S. propaganda. While outrageous claims about the United States crafting pandemics or using birds to spread diseases may seem unbelievable, Washington’s silence lends credibility to Kremlin-spun narratives. The United States urgently needs a 21st-century information strategy focused specifically on Russia’s activities—and give Putin a taste of his own medicine.

[cohendyke]

hi! do you recommend reading demons/have any tips? i recently read crime and punishment and im trying to get into more ruslit

hi! this is going to be so fucking long im sorry in advance lmao

overall i really liked it, crime and punishment is still number one for me but this is a close second (until i finish tbk and notes from underground.) i know some people (cough, redditors) hate it because it's pretty long for like. three things to happen at the very end but!! i would argue that a big part of the point of the book is how the village and the different classes within interact. it's not plot driven, but it's also not meant to be plot driven; its a satire of real people who dostoevsky knew of and hated lmfao. (side note i love how so many of his works are thinly veiled criticisms of shit he hated. he is So Interesting to me) demons is also pretty swag because you could make the argument that multiple characters can be easily read as gay which adds SO MUCH. (the big one is pyotr verkhovensky, but they’re all kinda 💅 ) no spoilers though if you’ve been on my blog since i finished you’ve probably seen them but there is one chapter that is very very emotional and touching and i was crying... iykyk. anyway the rest is under a cut

some things that would be helpful when reading this is for starters, reading it on a regular schedule; there are a lot of details early on that i forgot because i was just picking it up when i felt like it/when i had time. also, the pevear/volokhonsky translation hits (there are a lot of scenes with word choices that made me go umm... gay.... so if that’s your thing...) and the appendices are very in depth and very explanantory (demons is verryyy 1860s russia and there are a ton of references to that and i, as a 21st century north american, did not understand at all.) It took me 3.5 months to finish demons, but i wasn't reading it very consistently. Finally, i think most editions/translations have the chapter 'at tikhons' as an appendix, and apparently it was one that dostoevsky wanted to include, but wasn't allowed to. definitely read it, either right after the chapter that replaced it, or the end of the book. (i read it after i finished the book)

Here are some themes/devices to keep an eye out that i looked for that are pretty significant imo

what is stavrogins deal? is he the mastermind/god people seem to think he is? is he a villain or is he just caught in a shitty situation?

DEFINITELY read into christian imagery and allusions. note allusions to the holy family (i picked up on two, there probably are more) and who is being called a christ figure, and who is calling them that? are they right?

what is the deal between stepan trofimovich and varvara petrovna? what events can they be blamed for? are they just as bad as pyotr/the revolutionary circle?

likewise, take note of things that are called demonic, insane, possessed, etc. note when they happen as well, and the frequency.

try to pinpoint when things start to go wrong for everyone/when fate is sealed.

look at the main guys in the revolutionary circle, and which ideologies they seem to represent, as well as their main conflicts. what are their main personality traits?

the ladies, both Stavorgins Sluts (sorry marya timofeevna:( ) and the rich old ladies. how are they hypocritical/ironic? are they victims or enablers of their men (specifically stavrogin and the verkhovenskys) which of them are ignorant (or are they just stupid? note: definitely not a feminist novel.)

a lot of people (not just tumblrinas) read pyotr verkhovensky as kind of gay when it comes to stavrogin. is he actually, or is he acting to further his schemes as some sort of fucked up flattery? how is this expressed through the eyes of other characters around him?

what is the deal with kirillov and shatov? what do their philosophies say about one another and their relationship (pertaining to like. literary analysis but also are they gay?)

obviously this is a critique of nihilism/atheism/socialism in russia in the 1860s but i found that a lot of the sentiments and the r/epublican party/ m*ga movement. do you agree? what do you recognize from today’s politics? 

if you read this mess of a book (cue white mom sign that says bless this mess, because there is so much drama ) i hope you enjoy it and please like. talk to me about it i need to scream about this criminally underrated book.

[hamliet]

HAVE YOU SEEN CHAPTER 79 OF BSD?!

Yes!!! Everyone say thank you @akai-koutei, the hero the fandom needs.

It seems to be setting up for a final battle this arc (dare I hope we see Akutagawa?) but obviously, the chapter is mostly set up and a lot rides on who exactly “Kamui” (god) is and whether “erasing” the ADA is his ability or the book’s.

Suggestions I’ve seen:

Mishima Yukio, the writer of The Decay of the Angel. Started a coup, which could be related to what he’s doing now.

Kawabata Yasunari, the first Japanese author to win a Nobel Prize. He committed suicide by gassing himself. He was friends with Mishima, and since we know there are two  more DoA members, they might come together. 

Rilke, which was suggested on Twitter for the way his works notably inspired Mishima and for the er, stunning resemblance here. His poems are great.

Tolstoy, for no other reason than no collection of Russian writers is complete  without him and War and Peace as an ability. But to stretch things  further, Tolstoy is known for exploring concepts of God in his works, and he got heavily religious in his later life. TBH he’s the least likely on this list and will probably appear in a later arc.

Honestly, I think the remaining DoA members are the first two, so Kamui is one of them. But I’m happy to be wrong.

But let’s get back to Sigma,who might not appear again for a bit. Through exchanging the information he most wanted to know with Atsushi, Sigma for the first time experienced a relationship that wasn’t transactional, but transformational. He most wanted empathy, which Atsushi gave him. It’s what his ability could be used for, rather than using him as essentially a safe vault of information.

Sigma seems to be a middleman for Gogol and Fyodor, a child who matters… I plan on writing another meta on Fyodor and Gogol and how they’re basically two sides of the same coin (they both represent aspects of Dostoyevsky’s Kirillov) with Sigma in the middle and, perhaps, key to them not destroying each other.

[art-now-ukraine]

Wheat field., Sergei Kirillov

Obviously, at sunset or dawn time! The color of the lightning, and the ray of the sun, and the heavenly, already or still, with a deep blue color, are reflected! Both spectacular, and simply beautiful painting! Delight!!!

https://www.saatchiart.com/art/Painting-Wheat-field/925049/4366948/view

[incorrectlit]

Stavrogin modern au!

THE FERAL BEAST HIMSELF:

BASICS:

- full name: Nikolai Vsevolodovich Stavrogin

- Gender: male

- Sexuality: aromantic bisexual

- Pronouns: he/him

OTHERS:

- family: Varvara Stavrogina (Mother)

- Birthplace: St. Petersburg

- Job: Instagram model and influencer. He also has a YouTube channel which consists of promotional videos for Verkhovensky’s campaigns and videos of Stavrogin going absolutely ape for no reason

- Phobias: none

- Guilty pleasures: this bastard’s a real sadist, but he’s not exactly guilty about it.

MORALS:

- morality alignment: CHAOTIC EVIL

- Sins: lust/greed/gluttony/sloth/pride/envy/wrath

- Virtues: chastity/charity/diligence/humility/kindness/patience/justice NONE OF THE ABOVE

THIS OR THAT:

- Introvert/extrovert: extrovert

- Organized/disorganized: organized

- Close-minded/open-minded: close-minded. He’s a stubborn sonofabitch

- Calm/anxious: calm. You’ll never catch him breaking a sweat.

- Agreeable/disagreeable: HAHAHAHAHA DISAGREEABLE WHO TF YALL THINK WE’RE TALKING ABOUT HERE

- Cautious/reckless: reckless. Very reckless.

- Patient/impatient: impatient

- Outspoken/reserved: actually, reserved. He’s taciturn when he’s not going batshit

- Leader/follower: leader obviously

- Empathetic/unempathetic: unempathetic. The man doesn’t have a shred of empathy in his body.

- Optimistic/pessimistic: pessimistic

- Traditional/modern: modern

- Hard-working/lazy: lazy

RELATIONSHIPS:

- OTP: Stavrogin x Verkhovensky is my guilty pleasure

- OT3: none

- Brotp: as I’ve said before, I like the idea of him, Verkhovensky, Shatov, and Kirillov all having a really toxic friendship where they all hate each other but can’t seem to leave each other alone. Also, I love the idea of him and Dasha being best friends.

- NoTP: Liza!!!!!! Leave her!!! Alone!!!!!!!!!!

[oceancamp]

Pyotr

sexuality headcanon: gay

ship(s): obviously Verkhovensky/Stavrogin, and I have some ideas about Verkhovensky/Kirillov but not coherent enough for me to talk about yet lmao, and Verkhovensky/Erkel maybe too

most heartbreaking moment: my last re-read got me thinking about how finding out about Stavrogin leaving after their last talk in Skvoreshniki affected him, how his mood worsened at any mention of Stavrogin. there’s also that part where Liputin was walking behind him trying to keep up with him on a narrow path and it reminded him of that time when he ran after Stavrogin like that in the Ivan The Tsarevich chapter, which realization really pissed him off

another thing re-reading reminded me about is Stepan’s absolutely shit parenting. it’s literally like:

favourite things about this character: there are many things that make him a very interesting character, but probably my favorite one are his mannerisms like how he was freeloading at Lembke's place and how generally he hardly ever really tried to appear likeable lmao

fic idea(s) currently in my head for this character: beside the one i’m working on i’ve been thinking about having him meet Erkel again post-canon

song that reminds me of them: Stranger By The Minute and maybe Slave Called Shiver too (by Porcupine Tree), Thank You For The Venom by MCR (i take this one as something that could be about him n Kirillov)

thanks for the ask ♥ ♥ ♥

[kittoforos]

having nationality feelings, this is the part where i listen to “finlandia” and cry

(yes this is ultimately бесы-related)

i guess this is sort of always at the back of my mind but it’s been more urgent lately, maybe for obvious reasons as i get ready to graduate college and make important decisions that will likely shape and guide a lot of my life

i don’t know where i’m supposed to go: i don’t feel at home anywhere? i never have? how am i supposed to love and understand the land i was raised on/in more than any other random patch of earth, my native tongue more than any random handful of sounds and rules, my body more than any other? why should i love life, which i know, more than death, which is unknown and unknowable to me? all things Are and Are Not in equal measure, i am fundamentally the same as all people and fundamentally different from all people, why am i supposed to feel loyalty to any set of conditions just because they’re familiar? i really admire the kind of love of homeland and of home culture and of family that some people have, but i just can’t dig up any in myself? i feel like i’ve been cut out of some secret. i have more memories of the things i know, obviously. this does not translate to greater love! i feel rootless and alone, and without any choice in the matter. and there’s no reason for me to feel this way! i have all the protections of whiteness and legal citizenship of a very powerful nation, but here i am feeling fundamentally, permanently cut-loose all the same, in part because i’ve always been within this semi-visible, very unthreatened framework

like i was just listening to the english lyric set to Finland, and like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDXNHPeRB0k

i can’t even get as far as the premise! my dreams are not where my ass is sitting! i am in awe (genuinely, colored with fear) of sublime nature and of city-souls wherever i find them, i’m not particular to my homeland as such

when it comes down to it, i have no god, no homeland, no blood, no arts, no gender, no costume, no language even, not now that i know more than one (and often feel better/safer/more myself in L2, which is so geographically and culturally removed from L1!). nothing is personal for me. i have nothing to fight for but universal justice, nothing to die for but the betterment of the lives of others, for lives that i fundamentally cannot understand

what i’m saying here is: i totally get book!kirillov’s strange, distracted, depersonalized brand of messianic, self-sacrificial nihilism as the only moral expression of a self so big it’s invisible/worthless. “дворянский жест” indeed

[citynomadi]

Finland 100 - Year 1926

When you step on an architectural walk in Porvoo, start by the cathedral, build in the 13th century. It is obviously the oldest building in Porvoo.  

Get to know Finland 100 years by 100 routes in citynomadi.com/finlanlad100

Photo by Dmitry Kirillov, flick.com

[incorrectlit]

verkhovensky and kirillov from demons for that character ask, modern au for both?

Ho ho ho evil boi (Verkhovensky):

BASICS:

- full name: Pyotr Stepanovich Verkhovensky

- Gender: male

- Sexuality: gay and definitely a bottom

- Pronouns: he/him

OTHERS:

- family: Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky (father) and his mom

- Birthplace: Berlin I think. Somewhere in Germany, where his dad was a professor. He and his mom moved to St. Petersburg when he was very young though.

- Job: some sort of politician. I’m not sure how the Russian gov works, but I’d like to say the equivalent of an American congressman.

- Phobias: he faints at the sight of blood

- Guilty pleasures: Stavrogin heheheh

MORALS:

- morality alignment: lawful evil (feral bastard)

- Sins: lust/greed/gluttony/sloth/pride/envy/wrath

- Virtues: chastity/charity/diligence/humility/kindness/patience/justice

THIS OR THAT:

- Introvert/extrovert: extrovert to the extreme

- Organized/disorganized: amazingly organized

- Close-minded/open-minded: open-minded

- Calm/anxious: calm until shit really starts hitting the fan

- Agreeable/disagreeable: agreeable! He’s a people pleaser, which is what makes him so dangerous

- Cautious/reckless: cautious. He plans carefully — it’s not his fault his followers don’t listen

- Patient/impatient: patient for plots, impatient for everything else

- Outspoken/reserved: outspoken

- Leader/follower: L E A D E R

- Empathetic/unempathetic: Unempathetic

- Optimistic/pessimistic: optimistic

- Traditional/modern: modern

- Hard-working/lazy: hard-working. He won’t stop til he gets what he wants

RELATIONSHIPS:

- OTP: Stavrogin obviously

- OT3: none

- Brotp: I like to think that he, Stavrogin, Kirillov, and Shatov all have this incredibly toxic friendship where they all kind of hate each other but they can’t stop hanging out together

- NoTP: anyone who isn’t Stavrogin tbh

Kirillov:

BASICS:

- full name: Alexei Nilych Kirillov

- Gender: male

- Sexuality: homoromantic asexual

- Pronouns: he/him and they/them

OTHERS:

- family: he’s got an older brother, but they don’t talk much

- Birthplace: Moscow

- Job: lobbyist in Verkhovensky’s back pocket

- Phobias: agorophobia

- Guilty pleasures: he cuts

MORALS:

- morality alignment: true neutral

- Sins: lust/greed/gluttony/sloth/pride/envy/wrath

- Virtues: chastity/charity/diligence/humility/kindness/patience/justice

THIS OR THAT:

- Introvert/extrovert: introvert

- Organized/disorganized: disorganized

- Close-minded/open-minded: open-minded, particularly to nihilist ideas

- Calm/anxious: anxious

- Agreeable/disagreeable: generally agreeable

- Cautious/reckless: cautious

- Patient/impatient: patient

- Outspoken/reserved: reserved, except for one time when he yelled some revolutionary phrase during a boring lecture in college and then jumped out the window

- Leader/follower: follower

- Empathetic/unempathetic: empathetic mostly

- Optimistic/pessimistic: pessimistic in the extreme

- Traditional/modern: modern

- Hard-working/lazy: ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh not really either

RELATIONSHIPS:

- OTP: I like to think of him and Shatov as exes

- OT3: none

- Brotp: read what I said in Verkhovensky’s

- NoTP: none that I can think of