Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer
The plot of the clip is obscene. The orphanage is given for adoption. But in the process it turns out that the adoptive parents of the child will be a gay couple. Two aunts-educators, embarrassed by what they saw, make faces dissatisfied with their faces, and one even wipes out a stingy tear, and then spits after the adoptive parents. Already at this moment, we see how post-Soviet propaganda loses in aesthetics. It would seem that it could be easier than to contrast the "beautiful" with the "ugly"? This is a simple but always working technique. Post-Soviet, as if in rebellion to the Nazis (the propaganda elements of which they use quite widely), are doing exactly the opposite. They expose the antagonists to the “ bad ” beautiful gays as “good” , but at the same time repulsively ugly babes - “saleswomen”.
Interesting and symptomatic is the fact that the actor Alexander Filimonenko, who played the role of one of the gay men, said that he did not consider himself a homophobe and simply worked out the role offered to him in this and in another, unreleased video. He said he did not know who the customer of the video was and was not interested in politics, but planned to vote against amendments to the Constitution after he was fined by police for violating the self-isolation regime.
Homosexuality is a secret sacral bond of the neo-Soviet Russian Federation. But not that homosexuality that in the West is associated with freedom from imposed gender cliches, but the basis of the local cave monkey hierarchy of the “omitted ” . A lot has been written about the connection between homosexuality and passion for totalitarian practices. This topic was of interest to many - from ancient Greek and Roman philosophers - to Fromm and Reich. Her aesthetically successful, but archaic-suicidal embodied in his work Yukio Mishima. And the caricature - fine-boned aesthetics of the red hut - Eduard Limonov.
In the 21st century there is no need for a modernist tear that dictates a strange connection between passion and the state. And only an internally unfree person continues to search for her. For example, the faded nationalist Yegor Kholmogorov, who was once fed by the once pro-government and now free-floating political strategist Pavlovsky, is old-fashionedly afflicted:
“There is a hackneyed thesis that totalitarianism is certainly evil, but aesthetically beautiful. And no democracy can be compared with him. Of course, I am not a democrat and an aesthetically monarchist, but if we talk about these three angles, Nazism-Communism-democrats - isn’t Norman Rockwell the most aesthetically perfect for all this speerism and two leaders after acid rains? I’m probably already too old, and the totalitarian aesthetics are designed for a young hormone”.
This “Freudian” self-recognition perfectly illustrates the clinical observations of the aforementioned Fromm and Reich. The only thing that continues to surprise is the monstrous unaesthetic nature of the Russian propagandists and ideologists themselves, as well as their truly caricatured “creatives ”.
I would like to say a few words about Gleb Olegovich himself. The character is extremely promising and talented, it was as if eaten by the post-Soviet environment. The Soviet-intellectual party, like a crooked mirror, reflecting the state of the entire oppressive Soviet system, was its miniature model. A typical example of such a community was the Yuzhinsky Circle, which formed around some odious people - Mamleyev, Golovin, Dudinsky, Dzhemal, Dugin.
Surprisingly, Pavlovsky’s early entourage did not differ stylistically or psychologically from the “Yuzhinsky” ones. Unless the former had Marx and Solzhenitsyn on the table, and the latter had Nietzsche and Heidegger. Note that, according to the basic political methodology, they were all supporters of herd ideas, as if they had left the Higher Party School under the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, which was your Gogolian overcoat. And Pavlovsky himself was a Marxist.
The main conclusion that can be drawn from the story of Gleb Pavlovsky is that the Kremlin always throws its followers, no matter what role they present. The fate of any intellectual in power, not claiming power, is sad. Here is a quote for you at last:
“On April 21, 2011, the head of the FEP, who was habitually heading for the next meeting in the Kremlin, unexpectedly did not work at the Spassky Gate. The young guard was surprised to suggest that there was a failure in the system. But Pavlovsky himself immediately understood everything. So his everyday era in the Kremlin ended”.
"Devil" always pays shards. Surprisingly, his steadfast tin Urfin-Jus soldiers, including Kholmogorov, who was left without the Kremlin rations, still have not realized this obvious fact.
Having built a vulgar anti-Gey movie, propaganda shot itself in the leg. An attempt to attract attention by any means, to become a sort of alpha male of the unconscious, will inevitably turn into the opposite. Among the Russian security forces, as well as among officials, there are many gay people. This topic is both incriminating and revolutionary. There will come a time when brave guys in military uniforms and business suits can not stand the scabbling tickling of their owners who are secretly dressed in latex (because who so passionately hates gays, like latent gays themselves?) I am only for such a turn. Gay revolution is at least beautiful!
From the editor:
The editorial position may not coincide with the opinions of the authors. However, despite the controversial conclusions of Alina Vitukhnovsky, I would like to add a significant point: the video shows a completely unrealistic situation for Russia. It is absolutely impossible to distribute children from orphanages at the first request of anyone who gets there right now. In any case, this act is preceded by a long and thorough examination of adoptive parents, who should be at least a husband and wife in the traditional Russian sense (marriages between gays and lesbians in the Russian Federation are not valid!).
But let's say that the authors of the video presented a certain hypothetical situation from the near future. But in order for it to become a reality, it is necessary to adopt a federal law on a new adoption procedure. And for this, the "blue" lobby should prevail in the State Duma, the Federation Council, and even the President himself must openly sympathize with the ideals of the world "rainbow".
Today it is impossible to believe in such a balance of power. It simply does not exist in principle and will not be in the coming decades in a country that preaches homophobia at all levels.
That is why the propaganda video is very weak. In a word, bullshit...