phrased that way.
Not exactly so, that's true.
Listen, Rodya, and tell your opinion.
All started from a socialistic point of view...
Why are they talking to me in such tone?
Are they teasing me or is it just my nerves?
He's simulating again. Is it really worth talking to you?
Are you really such an actor?
Did you think i'm not? Just wait, and i'll do a snowjob on you, too.
No, i'll tell you the whole truth.
Talking about all theses crimes and stuff, i remember one article of yours...
Crime....or how did you...i forgot.
Two month ago i had the honour to read it in "Periodic Speach".
Bravo, Rodyka! I, too, didn't know. Today i'll go to
reading-room and ask for this issue.
How did you decide this article was mine?
Was it signed with initials?
By chance. Through editor, i know him. Quite interesting.
I examined, as i remember, psycological condition of a criminal..
during commiting of a crime...
But not exactly this part drew my attention, rather some thought at the end of the article...
if i'm not mistaken, there's a hint as if there are people in the world
who can, more precisely, who has the right to commit crimes.
How? The right to crime?
Once more because society corrupted?
No, not because of that. The thing is that in his article
people are divided in ordinary and extraordinary.
Ordinary must live in submission and obedience to law
"don't commit" because they're... ordinary.
BUt extraordinary has the right to break any law
because they're...extraordinary.
How come?
It's impossible.
You know, you outlined everything almost correctly
but i don't insist upon that extraordinary man must commit crime
i only insinuated that extraordinary man has a right, unofficial right, that is,
he himself, with his inner judgement can allow himself to step over certain obstructions.
Let's say, one, ten, hundred people are standing as an obstruction
in Newton's way and hampered making his discoveries.
In such case Newton would have the right and even the obligation
to eliminate these ten or hundred people.
Anyway, masses almost never know these rights, they punish and hang for it,
but next generations set these punished on pedestal and bow before them.
?????
????? they themselves start to punish.
If it is needed.
All these great lawgivers, benefactors of mankind,
all these lykurgoses, solons, napoleons, all to the last one were criminals
because of just that one thing that they broke the law for the sake of the new,
and, doubtless, didn't stop because of blood but were terrible shedders of blood.
And if that's so...
not only great ones but every man going over boundries
must be criminals by their nature.
I think only that by nature's law people generally fall in two categories
in the lower, that is, material, so to say, only for creating their equals
and in special people who has the gift to declare new word.
First are masters of present, second - of future.
First are keeping the world,
second are moving it and bringig it to target.
All of them has equal right to exist,
so long live eternal war! Until New Jerusalem, of course.
Do you also believe in New Jerusalem?
I do.
And do you believe in God?
I do.
And resurrection of Lazarus?
I do. Why do you ask?
Literally? Believe?
Literally.
So it is.
I'm just curious, excuse me.
Just say one thing - how to distinguish these extraordinary people?
Do they have any marks from birth?
You'll agree, if there's some pell-mell...
You're joking! You're fooling each other, aren't you?
Do you seriously, Rodya?
Well, bro, if you honestly are serious...
That's nothing new, that's written and printed thousands of times,
but what is completely original is that you judge by conscience but that's worse than official sanction to shed blood.
Completely fair. It's worse.
And what if some man or youth thinks that he's Lykurgos or Napoleon
and starts to eliminate everybody around?
There is, let's say, some big motive, he needs money...
and he