Posted 27 июня 2020,, 20:59

Published 27 июня 2020,, 20:59

Modified 25 декабря 2022,, 20:55

Updated 25 декабря 2022,, 20:55

Asexuality as a political factor of the future

27 июня 2020, 20:59
Алина Витухновская
The more civilized a person is, the less capable he is of experiencing, and the more he is capable of logical constructions.

We often encounter attempts to endow tyrants with some superproperties. Generally perverse. Caligula went down in history as a pervert emperor. And the history of ancient Rome is sometimes presented as the story of sexual perversions with breaks in conquest.

Looking a little ahead, I want to note that in modern society, where sexuality meant much more than in the modern world and actually stood at the forefront, the significance of sexual intrigue was great. Now the story that Stalin did not tolerate homosexuals and in 1933 outlawed any manifestations of same-sex love seems shocking. For propaganda purposes, a "conspiracy of homosexuals" was invented, united, supposedly in order to "overthrow the political system".

Biographers write about Stalin that he was afraid of smart and educated women. Not only was he afraid of them, he hated them and tried to stay away. Always and with everyone, he wanted to be in a dominant position. His true lover was power.

The well-known book of Erich Fromm, a German sociologist, philosopher, social psychologist, psychoanalyst, representative of the Frankfurt School, one of the founders of neo-Freudianism and Freudomarxism with the intriguing title "Adolf Hitler. The clinical case of necrophilia”, oddly enough, is replete not with descriptions of the real deviant behavior of the Fuhrer, but with voluminous exaggerations of this kind:

“Another trait that betrays a necrophilia in him is boredom. A vivid manifestation of this characteristic form of lifelessness was his table talk. In Obersalzberg, Hitler and the people around him went to the pavilion for lunch, where they were served tea, coffee, cakes and other goodies. “Here, over a cup of coffee, Hitler made the longest monologues. What he was talking about was mostly known to the audience, so they hardly listened to him, but merely portrayed attention. Sometimes Hitler himself fell asleep in the midst of his rants. Then the company continued to talk in a whisper in the hope that he would wake up in time for dinner. ”Then they all went back to the house, and two hours later they served dinner. After dinner, two films were shown. Then, for some time, everyone exchanged their impressions of the films, usually pretty banal”.

“The sex life of Hitler was the subject of a wide variety of speculations. Many authors claim that he was homosexual, but there is no corresponding evidence, and it seems that this was not so. On the other hand, it is not confirmed that his sex life was normal and that in general he was not impotent. The main source of information about this area of Hitler’s life is the memory of Hanfstaengl, who in the 20s and early 30s. spent a lot of time with him in Munich and in Berlin”.

Analyzing such works, one gets the impression of their excessive, and sometimes hypertrophied engagement and inadequate sexual accentuation. Should evil possess any oddities? Excess properties? Probably not. I do not believe in operetnye villains, and Fromm describes to us just such a type.

The general historical trend is based on the depersonalization of power with its transition from monarchy and class order to explicit, open, collective forms (democracy, liberalism) and semi-open and closed totalitarian communities acting in a public field through appointees only imitating kings and kings of the past.

In semi-closed and closed totalitarian communities, the power of sexual incriminating evidence has power. However, in democratic and liberal societies, where the same gays have equal rights with everyone, the role of such stories is reduced to a maximum of yellow rumors.

Surprisingly, not only software “humanistic” psychologists, but also the entire socialist (especially domestic) feminist, seriously believe and habitually assert that benevolence and femininity (masculinity is an option), gentleness and non-aggressive sexuality (again about eternally female) promise a kind of gesheft, while the situation is exactly the opposite.

People (and the local people are no exception) are drawn to the cold, detached, indifferent. Hence the eternal passion of salon young ladies for copying profane images, such as Venus in furs (She’s Inhumans under a fur coat), etc., etc. It’s not even a passion for whipping, it’s not even masochism, it’s a desperate statement of subjectlessness given to you in fetish gestures. In the words of Batman my Vanka - "I need to be ordered." Well, at least honestly.

People are still concerned about the manifestation of deep feelings. But the majority, I believe, is only able to imitate them or achieve them in an altered state of consciousness. Spiritual impulses are often only neuroses. And mystical sensations and insights are nothing more than a game of a clouded mind. A mixture of Art Nouveau and savagery. Archeomodern.

Experiences and reflections are primarily associated with ignorance of the nature of things. The more civilized a person is, the less capable he is of experiencing, and the more he is capable of logical constructions. The mass unconscious governs individual individuals. And society adjusts their emotions to their needs. As a rule, purely biological. So before you experience something, think about whether you are experiencing it?

That is why, in my opinion, it is absolutely not worth it to unnecessarily extol emotions. 19th, 20th century - the period of sacralization of love. Authors like Erich Fromm make her an antagonist of the desire for power and social self-affirmation, the desire for a resource, etc. Thus, a whole layer of potential competitors of the conditional elite merges. The cult of love is a kind of hippie movement or psychedelic revolution. But for the wider masses. Which, as you know, were also needed to level a huge part of society, which could lay claim to power and resource. That’s the whole mystery of world politics.

My assumptions about the nature of asexuality have been confirmed in the arguments of the practicing psychoanalyst and certified sexologist Dmitry Zapolsky:

“Asexuality is the norm that little is said and written, because research is not popular, it is difficult to get a grant, and the topic itself causes unconscious resistance from those who associate themselves with sexuality - that is, at least 70 percent of people. This is one of the modern prohibitions of the collective unconscious in which sexuality is overrated. In fact, this is an artifact of the twentieth century: the time of the "hunt for orgasm." You can talk a lot about changing optics, but to see the asexuality of people, to recognize it, not to mention the study of the phenomenon itself, means “pure philosophy”, not related to the circumstances of life and the functions of the philosopher himself. I often have to deal with this phenomenon in the real psychodynamics of my patients, and not in the analysis of history, and I answer this way: asexuals are almost 30 percent of those who seek the means of a psychoanalyst in the dialogue of their consciousness with the unconscious. And their request to me usually sounds like this: “Doctor, I do not want anything, but is this normal?”

Yes, it is normal. And usually: always, at any stage of the development of societies, a significant part of the population did not participate in self-reproduction. The Darwinian Marxists, because of their simplicity of mind, did not understand the nature of the phenomenon: “How so! They do not produce offspring, which means that this feature cannot be continued in the offspring! And this means that such a sign as the lack of desire for reproduction, that is, the desire for copulation, coitus, congress, copulation, cannot be transmitted in the genes of mankind! “Sexual Intercourse”.

The great Kinzi, the founder of sexology-as-it-is, was the first scientist to encounter asexuality. But, naturally, the phenomenon itself was discounted (it was not in its optics, it was completely redundant: after all, antisexuality was much more significant for it, that is, the optics that deprive of its scientific interest of crowding out human sexual behavior from the scientific horizon). Kinzy was looking for an application of his perspective: he divided people into heterosexual and homosexual. But he first realized that there was still “unsuitable” material - people to whom any concepts of sexuality were not applicable. Before Kinzi, Freud and his followers created the same trap for themselves.

They should think, reflect on a historical fact: there have always been communities of warriors, sailors, and most importantly, monks and nuns: those who did not marry, did not copulate, did not live by their attractions: but the XX century was simple and clear: if someone had something it’s not, then this “something” has been supplanted. Do you have cigarettes? And if I find it? The twentieth century was a gopnik, suggesting that the subject has no right to “not have” something that should be present for everyone!

Asexuals in the population are more than 6 percent. As a practicing psychoanalyst and sexologist, I see their number from a quarter to a third. And many of them do not even assume that sexual activity is not something coming from them, but simply a tribute to society. After all, where the stream, there I am. You can’t be worse than others, this is a construction of upbringing: you are a girl, you should marry / boys like, give birth to children, etc. Or you are a man, do not whimper!

Here we touch upon a very important nuance: gender. People in XXI were told: you have sex. You can change it. But in the end you choose from three options: either homosexuality, or hetero, or bi. Well and another queer: you can flow all the time into one of these states. The perversity of this optics is commonplace: it requires gender. Like a nationality. You can’t “travel” through countries without a passport, you must have one (or several). But gender is primarily sexual self-identification. If it’s not there, then “sit in your village”, you will not be allowed to go through the border by dudes in uniform who have no likes and dislikes, only instructions and laws. The "regimenity" of sociality is that a person without gender identity is deprived of his rights. And urgent, most important. And he "buys" a passport, performing the ritual. And at the first opportunity he hides it in a secret pocket, if he is honest with himself, and not the object of manipulation by others driven into the Procrustean bed of the general rule: be like everyone else, do not lean out, no one needs you if you are not associated.

Advertising and propaganda is created by the creative class. And aimed at the sexuality of the audience. He who is not with us is against. And if you do not buy / do not want to serve / not ready to sacrifice yourself in the name of (leader, progress, ideas, homeland) then you are an outcast. Asexuals are not affected by symbols. Like deaf music. He does not hear. You can show him with gestures, pat on the shoulder to the rhythm, but it's too difficult! The advertising customer does not count on the deaf audience. And the manufacturer of the “product” does not see it, the cost of advertising for asexual is high, and the profit is minimal. Asexuals were thrown out of the consumption process more than a hundred years ago, they are on the sidelines of discourse and will always remain there: mass products are not for them. There are those who take this audience into account when searching for consumers, but asexuals are used to their “marginal” position, they cannot be “hooked” with a standard hook with a “live” bait, they have their own discourse and path. They move the world, striding towards other meanings, turn the earth, create a non-mass (real) culture. And this is the meaning of human life, which is not reproduced at their expense”.