Russian literature lies: suffering teaches only slavery

Alas, in the philosophical world, in which any concept will always be in demand, any idea of a conditionally optimistic nature (and often the more stupid, the more optimistic, and vice versa), what can be called objective (objectified) reality, the truth will always lie under a layer of layers consisting of optimistic nonsense.

If in today's world what happens in religious interpretations is usually called the apocalypse (not in the sense of the "end of the world", it will not exist, but in the direct sense of this word - as revelations, phenomena of the true essence of being), there is a need to either veil what is happening, or divert the focus of attention to the side. But in the post-informational world there is no loophole, a secluded place where you can hide anything. Thus, each individual will be sprawled under the weight of a private existential experience that he cannot digest because he was not taught to do so. A kind of psychological implosion will occur.

It is a pity that academic philosophy deliberately ignored authors who follow not a general, but a private, Gnostic path, from Max Stirner to Heydar Jemal. Jordan Peterson, who even at first became quite successful, primarily due to his talent and professionalism, was actually hunted down and marginalized by the raging politically correct crowd, the very new proletarian golem that was being created before our eyes.

“The things Alina is now writing about, Max Stirner was trying to explain long and boringly”, one of my readers noted about me. And he was partly right.

Max Stirner (his real name is Johann Kaspar Schmidt, Schmidt) was born on October 25, 1806 in Berlin). In his book The One and His Property (1844; Russian translation, 1918), he tried to consistently defend solipsism in anthropology, ethics, and law.

Stirner's main idea is that the ideals and social attributes of a person are something universal, while every empirical personality is unique. Therefore, everything that refers to "man" in general does not refer to this ("only") "I". The concepts of "man", "law", "morality", etc. were interpreted by him as "ghosts", alienated forms of individual consciousness.

Russian literature lies. Well, if not all Russian literature, then its learned textbook conclusions - for sure. What does suffering teach there? Tolerance, patience, philanthropy? Translated into the Eurasian - of course - compliance and slavery. The sacralizer of suffering in literature is worse than a priest, worse than an agitprop.

And suffering does not teach me (but only torments and torments). Experience is for fools. For the smart, experience only spoils the appearance. And I know everything beforehand. Extractive, you know, gnosis.

Well, if the level is lower, closer to life to argue - suffering taught me only - the conviction of faithfulness to follow my own course. Attempts to ignore suffering itself. And in no way should he sacralize him, that is, not endow him with any super-meanings, such as: useless reflection, feelings of guilt, etc., etc.

I and My Idea are the only things that matter. First of all. Stirner double, please!

Recently I was interviewed by a student of the Higher School of Economics (NRU HSE). She was interested in the figure of Heydar Dzhemal, one of the brightest thinkers in Russia in the 1990s. I believe that Heydar Jemal is much broader and larger than the ideological and political concepts that he promoted. Being a hostage of modernity, he could not imagine any other development of events except within the framework of classical modernist ideologemes. They literally entangled him hand and foot, hindering the flight of thought.

In 2006 I interviewed him and I want to quote a little for the story:

“AV: What do you think a true hero should do in a modern situation? I mean, those who are presented to us as heroes are not heroes. People rotate in gyms, get romantic tattoos on themselves, read books about ideologues and rulers of the past, or even Heidegger, but when you come across them, you find their complete emptiness and complete lack of understanding of how they actually live. They can only live by following the book's instructions, constantly comparing themselves to the heroes of the past, but the problem is that they are far from that. At the same time, the real hero, it seems to me, is not distinguishable, because he has a different tactics, because the real hero is infinitely sophisticated and infinitely elusive.

Heydar Jemal: You have a very good intuition. But, firstly, it is good if they are guided by the instructions of the books, and if they have a supervising officer of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, then everything is completely simple and banal. And usually it does not come to books, but stops at the level of the supervising officer or some person from the structures who organizes them.

The most important thing is to understand that the hero as a category must be rooted in the very organic nature of the historical process. Where did the heroes come from in reality? The fact is that the modern hero emerges from the moment the estate society collapses, and, accordingly, the class of warriors, the Kshatriya caste, carriers of passion, strength, sacrifice, leaves the system of the pyramidal organization - just like other castes. The bourgeoisie is also disappearing. And the lower stratum, "vaisyas" and sudras, organized as the proletariat or slave labor force, also disappear, because after 1945 a homogeneous human mass arises, which turns a kind of wheel that lifts some part to financial success and throws the rest down.

And there is no difference between an oligarch and some marginal without money - they belong to the same lumpen space. And those who have roots in the warrior caste find themselves outside the framework of society and form the so-called distant outside. Distant, because there is a near outside - artistic, bohemian, marginal, which is more or less included in this space..."

The other day I reviewed his interview with Pozner, one of the last, at least widely known. And Geidar seemed to me for a moment a monstrously naive and vulnerable person. It seems to me that a philosopher of this magnitude should not have given himself up to be killed by a “black hole” - Russia, as he called it in some kind of delighted rapture, for this hole had swallowed him up. Like Islam, it is an interesting but potentially destructive topic that attracts provocateurs and marginalized people whom he himself criticized.

I am also sorry that Heydar Jemal, willingly or unwillingly, contributed to the strengthening of the pro-government ideology - namely, he asserted the conceptually unsound, outdated geopolitical role of Russia in the world, popularized Eurasianism and the ideas of the “third way” in the person of Dugin and other pro-naphthalene conservatives from the Izborsk Club.

However, I want to note that he was a very charming and pleasant person in personal communication, not at all a villain, as he was seen by a number of frightened liberals. I have always remembered his compliment: "Alina, Limonov is not worth one of your black nails" (at that time I had a black manicure).

Now I realized that my concept of a hero is radically different from his. The hero consists of fear and an absolute understanding of the nature of things (leading either to greatness or madness), but not from pumped up metaphysical muscles and pathetic declarations. Therefore, the philosophical misunderstanding of the last century - the superman - could not take place.