Fanny Kaplan - biography, information, personal life. Stalin - The Man Who Saved Capitalism

Fanny Efimovna Kaplan (nee Feiga Khaimovna Roitblat). Born on February 10, 1890 in the Volyn province - shot on September 3, 1918 in Moscow. Russian revolutionary Socialist-Revolutionary, perpetrator of the assassination attempt on V.I. Lenin.

Fanny Kaplan's height: 158 centimeters.

Fanny Kaplan was born in the Volyn province in the family of a teacher (melamed) of a Jewish primary school (cheder) Chaim Roydman.

During the revolution of 1905, Kaplan joined the anarchists; in revolutionary circles she was known under the name “Dora.”

In 1906, she prepared a terrorist attack in Kyiv against the local Governor-General Sukhomlinov. During preparations for the terrorist attack that her common-law husband was preparing Victor Garsky(aka Yakov Shmidman), in a room at the Kupecheskaya Hotel (Voloshskaya St., 29), as a result of careless handling, an improvised explosive device went off. Kaplan suffered a wound to the head and partially lost her vision, after which, while trying to leave the scene, she was detained by the police. Garsky fled.

The police description of Fanny looked like this: “Jewish, 20 years old, no specific occupation, has no personal property, has one ruble of money on her.”

On January 5, 1907, the military district court in Kyiv sentenced her to death, which, due to Kaplan’s minority, was replaced by lifelong hard labor in the Akatuy convict prison.

She arrived at the prison on August 22 of the same year in hand and leg shackles. Her accompanying documents noted her tendency to run away. In September she was transferred to Maltsevskaya prison.

In 1907, she needed surgery to remove bomb fragments from her arm and leg, and suffered from deafness and chronic articular rheumatism.

On May 20, 1909, she was examined by a doctor in the Zerentui prison district, after which complete blindness was discovered. In November - December I was in the infirmary.

Before 1917, while in hard labor, Kaplan met the famous activist of the revolutionary movement Maria Spiridonova, under whose influence her views changed from anarchist to Socialist Revolutionary.

Kaplan did not write a single request for pardon. I was sick and was in the hospital several times. She was blind due to hysteria - as stated in the medical report. She read with a magnifying glass.

One of the convicts recalled about her: “In the cell with us was a lifelong convict Kaplan, blind. She lost her sight in Maltsevskaya. During her arrest in Kyiv, a box with bombs that she was storing exploded. Thrown by the explosion, she fell to the floor and was wounded, but she survived. We thought that the wound to the head was the cause of her blindness. At first, she lost her sight for three days, then it returned, and with a second attack of headaches, there were no ophthalmologists at the penal servitude; No one knew whether it was vision or this was the end. One day, a doctor from the regional administration was visiting the Nerchinsk penal servitude, we asked him to examine Fani’s eyes. He made us very happy with the message that the pupils reacted to light, and told us to ask for her transfer to Chita, where. she can be treated with electricity. We decided, come what may, we must ask Kiyashko to transfer Fani to the Chita prison for treatment, I don’t know whether the young girl with blind eyes touched him, but we immediately saw that we would succeed. After questioning our commissioner, he loudly gave his word to transfer Fanya immediately to Chita for testing.”

In 1913, the term of hard labor was reduced to twenty years. After the February Revolution, she was amnestied along with all political prisoners.

After hard labor, Fanny lived for a month in Moscow with the merchant daughter Anna Pigit, whose relative I. D. Pigit, who owned the Moscow tobacco factory Dukat, built a large apartment building on Bolshaya Sadovaya. There they lived, in apartment No. 5. This house would become famous in a few years - it was in it, only in apartment No. 50, that Mikhail Bulgakov would “settle” a strange company led by Woland.

The Provisional Government opened a sanatorium for former political prisoners in Yevpatoria, and Kaplan went there in the summer of 1917 to improve her health. There I met Dmitry Ulyanov. Ulyanov Jr. gave her a referral to the Kharkov eye clinic of Dr. Girshman. Kaplan underwent a successful operation - her vision partially returned. Of course, she couldn’t work as a seamstress again, but she could distinguish silhouettes and orient herself in space. She lived in Sevastopol, treated vision and taught training courses for zemstvo workers.

In May 1918, Socialist Revolutionary Alyasov brought Fanny Kaplan to a meeting of the VIII Council of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. It was at this Council that Kaplan, through Aliasov, met the former deputy of the Constituent Assembly V.K. Volsky and other Socialist Revolutionaries from the Combat Organization.

Fanny Kaplan's assassination attempt on Lenin

Kaplan was arrested right there, at a tram stop on Bolshaya Serpukhovskaya Street. She told the worker Ivanov who arrested her that it was she who shot Lenin. According to Ivanov, when asked on whose orders this was done, she answered: “At the suggestion of the socialist revolutionaries. I fulfilled my duty with valor and I will die with valor.”

During the search, Kaplan was found with Browning No. 150489, a train ticket, money and personal belongings. During interrogations, she stated that she had an extremely negative attitude towards the October Revolution, stood and now stands for the convening of the Constituent Assembly. The decision to assassinate Lenin was made in Simferopol in February 1918 (after the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly); considers Lenin a traitor to the revolution and is sure that his actions “remove the idea of ​​socialism for decades”; The assassination attempt was carried out “on my own behalf”, and not on behalf of any party.

From the interrogation report of Fanny Kaplan

On the same day, in Petrograd, the chairman of the Petrograd Cheka, Moses Uritsky, was killed by the Socialist-Revolutionary terrorist Leonid Kannegiser. The assassination attempt on Lenin was the signal for the beginning of the Red Terror on September 5, the taking of hostages by the Bolsheviks and their execution.

She was confronted with the British ambassador Robert Lockhart, who had been detained shortly before and accused of espionage.

Fanny Kaplan was shot without trial on September 3, 1918 at 16:00 in the courtyard of the auto-combat detachment named after the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.(behind the arch of building No. 9 of the Moscow Kremlin) on the verbal instructions of the Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee Sverdlov. To the sound of running cars, the sentence was carried out by the Kremlin commandant, former Baltic sailor P. D. Malkov in the presence of the famous proletarian poet Demyan Bedny. The corpse was pushed into a tar barrel, doused with gasoline and burned near the walls of the Kremlin.

At the initial stage, Ya. M. Yurovsky, who had arrived in Moscow the day before from the Urals, where he organized the murder of the royal family, was involved in the investigation of the Kaplan case. Historian V. M. Khrustalev wrote that the cruelty of the execution of the death sentence and also the way they dealt with Kaplan’s corpse suggests that in relation to Kaplan, the experience acquired by the security officers in Yekaterinburg during the murder operation may have been involved and the liquidation of the corpses of the royal family and their associates.

Already in our time, the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation officially closed the case of the assassination attempt, insisting on the only version - it was Kaplan who shot Lenin.

Fanny Kaplan (documentary)

P. D. Malkov about the execution of Kaplan: “Already on the day of the assassination attempt on Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, August 30, 1918, the famous appeal of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee “To all, to all, to all,” signed by Ya. M. Sverdlov, was published, which declared merciless mass terror to all enemies of the revolution.

A day or two later, Varlam Aleksandrovich Avanesov called me.

Go to the Cheka immediately and pick up Kaplan. You will place her here in the Kremlin, under reliable guard.

I called a car and went to Lubyanka. Taking Kaplan, he brought her to the Kremlin and put her in a semi-basement room under the Children's half of the Grand Palace. The room was spacious and high. The window covered with bars was located three or four meters from the floor.

I set up posts near the door and opposite the window, strictly instructing the sentries not to take their eyes off the prisoner. I personally selected the sentries, only communists, and I personally instructed each one. It never occurred to me that the Latvian shooters might not notice Kaplan; I had to fear something else: that one of the sentries might put a bullet into her from his carbine.

Another day or two passed, Avanesov called me again and presented me with the decision of the Cheka: Kaplan - to be shot, the sentence to be carried out by the Kremlin commandant Malkov.

When? - I asked Avanesov briefly.

Varlam Alexandrovich, always so kind and sympathetic, did not move a single muscle on his face.

Today. Immediately.

Yes, I thought at that moment, the Red Terror is not just empty words, not just a threat. There will be no mercy for the enemies of the revolution!

Turning sharply, I left Avanesov and went to my commandant’s office. Having called several Latvian communists whom I personally knew well, I instructed them in detail, and we set off for Kaplan.

On my orders, the sentry took Kaplan out of the room in which she was located, and we ordered her to get into a pre-prepared car.

It was 4 o'clock in the afternoon on September 3, 1918. Retribution has been completed. The sentence was carried out. It was performed by me, a member of the Bolshevik Party, a sailor of the Baltic Fleet, commandant of the Moscow Kremlin Pavel Dmitrievich Malkov, with my own hand. And if history were to repeat itself, if again the creature stood before the muzzle of my pistol, raising its hand against Ilyich, my hand would not have wavered, pulling the trigger, just as it did not waver then...

The next day, September 4, 1918, a short message was published in the Izvestia newspaper: “Yesterday, by order of the Cheka, the woman who shot comrade was shot. Lenin’s right-wing Socialist-Revolutionary Fanny Royd (aka Kaplan).” BP."

There is a second version that Fanny Kaplan was not actually killed, as the workers were then told, in fact she was sent to prison and lived until 1936.

For example, witnesses claimed to have seen Fanny Kaplan in Solovki. This version is refuted by the memoirs of the Kremlin commandant P. Malkov, who definitely wrote that Kaplan was shot by him personally. Although the reliability of these memoirs itself is questioned, the version of leaving Kaplan alive still looks implausible - there are no visible reasons for such a step. In addition, there are memoirs of Demyan Bedny, who confirms that he saw the execution.

Currently, there is an active dissemination of the version according to which Fanny Kaplan was not involved in the assassination attempt on Lenin, which was actually carried out by employees of the Cheka.

In particular, it was hypothesized that Fanny Kaplan was not a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party and that she did not shoot at Lenin, because poor eyesight would not have given her the opportunity to shoot accurately at the leader. Meanwhile, X-rays confirmed that at least three bullets hit Lenin. In addition, according to this hypothesis, the bullets extracted from Lenin’s body allegedly did not match the cartridges for the pistol from which Kaplan shot. The gun was kept as evidence in the Kaplan case.

This version became widespread after the collapse of the USSR; Kaplan’s guilt in the assassination attempt was never officially questioned.

Fanny Kaplan appears in the film "Lenin in 1918", the second part of the dilogy (after the film “Lenin in October”) by the director, created in 1939 (re-edited in 1956). The film tells about the events of 1918 that took place in Moscow. The Civil War, famine and devastation are in full swing. The government of Soviet Russia is working hard in the Kremlin.

At the same time, a conspiracy is brewing, which is uncovered by Commandant Matveev. The conspirators, however, manage to escape and then organize an assassination attempt on Lenin during his speech at the Mikhelson plant. After Kaplan shot Lenin, he was ill for a long time, recovered and returned to work.

Actress Natalya Efron starred as Fanny Kaplan.

A researcher must have a cool head and a calm heart in order to calmly analyze world history, which is nothing more than a battle of economic interests. The excellent work of Lewis E. Kaplan reveals the mechanism of the functioning of the dollar economy, which arose and strengthened due to the Cold War. True, the author adheres to the prevailing opinion in the West that Stalin unleashed it, as if Churchill’s Fulton speech had never happened, but otherwise the American is quite convincing.

Waiting for the crisis

In the Soviet Union, instead of scientific economics, a set of political postulates dominated, so Kaplan’s book will be a revelation for many. First of all, in relation to the mechanism of functioning of the world economy. As for Stalin, he fell victim to his own dogmatism, although we still have to pay the price.

The end of the First World War caused an unprecedented surge in demand. The main winners - Great Britain, France and the USA - plunged into the abyss of consumption, largely counting on gigantic reparations from defeated Germany. Production grew, the stock market swelled, and lending expanded. When they restored what was destroyed by the war, and the market saw a drop in demand, the stock exchange bubble burst. The Great Depression struck. In full accordance with Marx's theory.

In Germany and some other countries, in the wake of the crisis, fascists or the extreme right came to power. Only the Soviet Union, which has nothing to do with the world economy, did not suffer. Moreover, Stalin, harshly exploiting the population, in a short period of time, in fact in 10-12 years, turned agricultural Russia into an advanced industrialized state. This made the leader finally believe in Marxist dogma.

After World War II, the Generalissimo expected in a few years to witness a new world economic crisis, which, in accordance with Marxist-Leninist theory, would inevitably provoke armed confrontation between the imperialist powers and the socialist camp. Therefore, Stalin continued to maintain a huge army, preserve the wartime economy, and transfer state resources into building up the combat power of the USSR.

However, Lewis E. Kaplan admits: “Both sides believed that sooner or later their rivalry would lead to direct conflict and that impressive military superiority would be the best defense.” For several decades, opponents accumulated weapons until they acquired the ability to repeatedly destroy each other and the entire planet. And in this long process, the Almighty Dollar was born. The ruble was not a competitor to it, since it was a very conditional internal equivalent, secured only by the opinion of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Its filling was regulated very simply - by predatory monetary reforms, rising prices, lowering working rates, forced purchase of bonds, and a commodity distribution system.

The author of the book explains in detail and intelligibly, so that even a non-specialist can understand, how the dollar occupied a unique place in history. The Bretton Woods agreements, the creation of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund turned the American currency into world money on a par with gold. Thanks to this, excess dollars were absorbed by the global economy, allowing the United States to run any budget deficit. Huge spending on the armed forces essentially turned out to be a financial injection into the country's national economy... The result? Very quickly, the United States economy turned into a “consumer economy” (two-thirds of US GDP comes from consumption and services).

Prosperity in debt

The post-war consumption boom brought unprecedented tax revenues into the American treasury. The US budget of 1949 was in surplus, but in 1950 a deficit had already emerged. The economy began to decline, production was declining. Marxist dogma was coming true. But then, as Lewis E. Kaplan writes, “Stalin began to fulfill his own prophecy. By moving the troops of communist North Korea south, he launched the flywheel of the permanent US defense economy.” The budget deficit has become the core of the US economy.

Analyzing the events of the Korean War and the actions of President Truman's administration, the author shows how the fighting affected the economy. Federal budget expenditures in percentage terms were in no way inferior to Soviet ones. In 1950, US defense spending accounted for 32.2% of the federal budget, and three years later it had risen to 69.4%. According to Lewis E. Kaplan, national defense remained a top priority as long as the Cold War continued.

Year by year, from one president to another, the author traces the history of the United States in the second half of the twentieth century. The Vietnam War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, events in the Middle East and a number of others, where two socio-economic systems came into conflict indirectly, appear before the Russian reader in a slightly different light than he is accustomed to seeing. And the States themselves are losing their usual aura of success and prosperity. For example, the book recalls that in the 1960-1970s, annual inflation in the country sometimes exceeded 10%. As we have now. And the oil crisis of the early 1970s simply overturned global industry and crippled US automobile corporations.

Now the price of oil seems unprecedented, a 5-fold jump is hard to imagine. But that's exactly what happened in 1973. A barrel rose in price from three dollars to fifteen. The period of prolonged inflation lasted 10 years. At that time, America, with its unemployment and other problems, did not seem so attractive. It was then that the time for détente came, and the United States and the Soviet Union began a successful negotiation process.

Eight years of “Reaganomics” became a period of unprecedented prosperity for the United States, with tax cuts and increased military spending. Inflation has decreased many times over, and household incomes have increased. But the national debt has also tripled. At the same time, in response to the American “star wars” program, the USSR was working hard, building dozens of nuclear submarines, thousands of aircraft and tanks, and the Buran space system. These were crazy unproductive expenses, while in the US budget billions developed the economy. And the excess of paper dollars was absorbed by the rest of the world.

After this book, it becomes clear how the global “dollar pyramid” works. And how, by producing paper money, America absorbs 30% of the planet's resources. It is clear why the White House is increasing military spending and persistently creating a missile defense system, despite its ineffectiveness. And it is absolutely obvious that Russia will always lose the arms race to America. The problem is that the United States cannot stop in this race - the dollar foundation of the world will collapse.

And now the annoying fly in the ointment. The translator blindly transcribed the names of Korean dictators into Russian, but the editor did not finish reading. The North Korean's name was Kim Il Sung, not Kim Il Sung, and our South Korean president was always written Syngman Rhee, not Singman Ri.

The oldest teacher and methodologist Isaac Erukhimovich Kaplan has been the author of “Literature” since 1994, and he published his last article about the legendary poem by Konstantin Simonov “Wait for me, and I will return...” he published here in the spring of 2004, shortly before his death. And some other articles included in this, alas, posthumous book of his, also first appeared in Literature - that is, they were proposed by the author to his colleagues for immediate verification of them in action.

Leafing through the collection of I.E. Kaplan, the first thing you notice is the relevance of his subject matter. Let us remember, for example, the final exam in literature... The peculiarities of its conduct today sometimes baffle both students and teachers. What forms of control should we prepare children for? What skills to develop?

But there is one type of work that a graduate will be faced with in any case: whether he takes literature in the form of the Unified State Exam, or writes an essay. We are talking about the analysis of a poetic text. Any wordsmith will agree that this is one of the most difficult forms of analysis that a student should learn.

Genuine lyrics for modern teenagers, immersed in the swampy fog of pop pop, remain, as a rule, a pole of inaccessibility. On the other hand, the fabric of a poetic text is so delicate and requires such careful treatment that analysis of a poem often destroys what poetry exists for. But during the exam, children are required to independently interpret and evaluate the poem!

It is in this search for effective, gentle forms of teaching the ability to read, understand and think about poetic works that the book by I.E. Kaplan can be of significant help.

Let’s admit: in general, there are a lot of aids that help a wordsmith in his difficult work. But mostly they contain literary material: they explain the features of poetic speech, consider poetic meters, and analyze figurative and expressive means. The teacher certainly cannot do without this material. But you can study the rules of the road and the structure of a car for as long as you like, but still not master driving a car. Philology is much more difficult.

Based on his more than half a century of teaching experience, I.E. Kaplan stays true to the tried and tested method: learning from sample analysis. He offers his reader thoughtful analyzes of poetry included in the high school curriculum. Here are just the names of the authors: Pushkin, Lermontov, Tyutchev, Nekrasov, Fet, Blok, Mayakovsky, Yesenin, Pasternak, Zabolotsky, Simonov, Tvardovsky.

I.E. Kaplan reveals methods of analysis with which it will be possible to attract the attention of high school students to the limitless possibilities of the word, teach them to understand the integrity of the artistic structure of a poem, and help them comprehend the uniqueness of the poet’s view of events, people and the world around him. At the same time, the author does not impose his point of view on the poem on the teacher as the only possible way to study it. He assumes that a creative teacher will make his own adjustments to the analysis done and bring in additional material.

In addition to the analytical part intended for the teacher, each analysis contains questions and assignments for students. It should be especially noted that they do not duplicate the tasks of textbooks, but are aimed specifically at developing skills in working with poetic text.

Particular gratitude is given to the Appendix to the collection, which contains excerpts from the memoirs of contemporaries about those poets whose works became the subject of analysis. “A teacher’s appeal to memoirs and letters from literary artists is always fruitful,” writes I.E. Kaplan. “With their authenticity, they have a great impact on schoolchildren, resurrect a distant era, help to understand the writer as a person, and explain a lot in his works.”

The list of poetic and methodological literature that concludes the book is also useful. It contains only twenty positions, but it is composed so thoughtfully that once again one cannot help but feel behind these lines the enormous professional experience of the author, his responsibility for what is recommended.

And, finally, although this manual is intended primarily for a language teacher, like any good book, by its very content and even its construction it significantly expands the reader's address and will be a good help in preparing essays for students, and will give the applicant material for his independent preparation for exams .

Lewis E. Kaplan

The man who saved capitalism

Introduction

To my wife Carolyn, without whose advice and careful participation this book would not have been possible

At the turn of the century, capitalism created its first miracle of the 20th century, the multibillion-dollar United States Steel corporation. And today, thanks to the efforts of the American banker J.P. Morgan and the necessary support of the steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, America remains the main capitalist power in the world. United States Steel Corporation's sales today exceed the US government deficit in 1900. A little over a hundred years ago, a billion dollars was just a conventional amount in which the sky-high “blue” dream of an American businessman could be measured. And today the assets of the company of Bill Gates, one of the founders of Microsoft, are estimated at more than $50 billion. Currently, there are more than 300 dollar billionaires, but according to Forbes magazine (as of 2007, there were about 900 people worldwide, according to the same source. - Note lane). According to research firm TNS, the number of “households” with incomes of more than $1 million exceeds 8 million in the United States, excluding the value of their single-family homes.

If you add these figures to the fortunes of the European rich, who grew fat on the oil flows of the Arab sheikhs of the Persian Gulf, and to the holdings of Russian oligarchs, who received their wealth as a result of the “privatization” of the former property of the Soviet Union, the sum is staggering. Where did this untold wealth, amounting to tens of trillions of dollars, come from? Maybe some spirit with Aladdin's magic lamp helped here? Or, contrary to common sense, the efforts of one person could create such an impressive capital?

Those who perceive the title of this book as a manifestation of irony, a desire to undermine any foundations, and so on, will be wrong. No. This book is written about a man who forever changed the forms of capitalism and the way they are implemented, which in turn led to incredible and unprecedented prosperity for the United States and parts of the rest of the world.

If we make such an assumption, it will call into question the collective mind, common sense in general. However, let us repeat once again: the collective mind exists only until it is overthrown. But, ultimately, history is a presentation of a chain of certain events, sometimes innocently distorted, sometimes not, but on the whole corresponding to the necessary order in which scientists place them in order to understand what actually happened. Tracing past events is not particularly difficult, since historians have physical data (this means not only documentary, archaeological research, but also the radiocarbon method of determining the age of objects and geological and chemical studies of layers of cultural rocks. - Note lane). No, it is the interpretation of the data obtained that is often the cause of historians’ mistakes. Ultimately, objectivity is lost because the winner finally puts down the sword and, so to speak, takes up the pen.

Today, Joseph Stalin is described as a dictator who ruled the Soviet Union with an iron fist for the purpose of creating a socialist state under the rule (or at least in the interests) of a certain proletariat. In fact, it was an attempt by the ruling clique, led by Stalin, to create a new society in which the concept of “economic justice” would surpass in importance what in the West is called morality.

And this is the fundamental trap of Marxism. Instead of using the fruits of the labor of many by some few, it is assumed that they (the fruits) will be distributed equitably among all to achieve the general well-being of the people. This was an attempt by Karl Marx and others to intercept the flow of the European romantic movement at the turn of the 18th–19th centuries, direct it into the mainstream of philosophical understanding (and give it an appropriate basis). Or it was the war cry of the French Revolution, with its famous slogan “liberty, equality, fraternity”, which was given the shell of German deterministic philosophy.

It sounded romantic and unusual enough to attract a small part of the then intelligentsia, who accepted Marx’s (essentially messianic) call for social (and economic) justice. This frightened the bourgeoisie of that time, since this new prophet of the “Old Testament” predicted the inevitability of such a revolution in life.

This is not a book about Marx, who is still considered an authoritative scientist in some academic circles today. No, this book is written about Stalin, about his views on the Soviet Union and on the world of capitalism, in the surroundings of which this experiment to create a “socialist” society took place. The purpose here is not to criticize or justify his actions; the book attempts to evaluate the actions of this person in a certain perspective of consequences. If you look at Stalin in this way, you can understand why, half a century after his death, an indelible imprint on modern society - albeit partially erased by the inexorable time - remained as a result of his activities. Having led the desire of people to get from Russia to the promised land, he set in motion all the nations on earth. Unlike Marx, who now looks like only a theorist, looking at the world of things in a simplified way, Stalin was a pragmatist. He created something that did not exist before - a viable socialist state.

Marx predicted that the rise of the proletariat to political power was inevitable, and Stalin realized that only force could bring the desired results. The brutally honest and somewhat cynical view of things was perceived by the outside world as unbridled barbarism. According to Stalin, violence was necessary for the socialist economy to flourish. But he had neither the time nor the desire to wait until the proletariat realized the fate in store for them. As he later said in a conversation with writer John Gunter, “a million deaths is a statistic. One death is a tragedy."

According to those in the West who were sharply critical of Stalin, and those who managed to survive the Soviet system he created, he was a man completely devoid of morality. No one wanted to accept the idea that his goal was to create a new breed of people, devoid of "self", who would be able to gradually learn to subordinate their desires and personal idiosyncrasies to the public good as a whole. This is exactly how Marx described the people of the future in his works, and Stalin decided to make it a reality.