About pitiless adults and relentless children

Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer

I like the open, cheerful, honest infantilism, which is partly characteristic of my generation. This is a celebration of eternal youth. Invigorating candor. But the infantilism of the older generations seems to me dangerous. Here adults are ruthless and children are ruthless.

I often meet with negative attitudes towards adolescents and adolescents. As if this is something ridiculous, absurd and even anti-aesthetic. On the contrary, it seems to me that adolescence is the only actual and maximally authentic form of existence. Moreover, it is quite profitable technically, socially, economically. A person is no longer a prisoner of his parents, but not yet a slave to society. An ideal format of existence, moreover, radically close to genuine gnosis. For the child is not yet catching up, and the adult is already slowing down.

But seriously - society, society, the world, nature to a greater extent parasitize on the individual, especially on children, trying to raise them to fit their needs. What cannot be compensated morally (and nothing is possible!), Must be compensated materially - with that same universal basic income.

More about moralizing. How strange it is to say “I forgive” in the absence of someone who needs this forgiveness. One well-known poet in narrow circles, who changed his shoes from a democrat to the Crimeanashists, once exclaimed: "But I forgave Stalin!" Well, of course, this is a declaration of insignificance, learned helplessness and pseudo-latitude of a pseudo-soul. Admit that you simply do not have the resource to punish your enemy.

Calls for lustration from the same series, just the opposite. What is the point in the declaration of intentions of those who cannot realize them? Moreover, unfulfilled threats, unfulfilled more than twice, begin to be perceived comically.

Soviet educated people are always arguing with me. As if they know something more about life than I do. However, their personal biographies not only do not prove, but also refute this fact. Something I would not like to exchange with them. The typical argument of a Soviet educated person in the event of a discussion of a problem is “Well, you’re smart”. That's all.

The Soviet educated person will not do anything, because he is not trained. Well, except for chatting or intriguing. For him, the mind is both a thing in itself, and an excuse, and an element of "class superiority." And a comfortable guarantee of further half-suffering.

Of course, the Soviet educated person does not suffer. Another suffers (for example, you). That is why you have to be smart, so that the sovobr knows - here she is smart ("like me"), and also suffers. And I'm smart - and no. I do not suffer. Because am smart.

Russian literature sacralizes suffering, because in reality the other is always suffering. You are not Anna Karenina, it is not for you to lie under the train. The Soviet educated person is cunning and rubs his hands somewhere around the railroad bend.

In general, "You're smart!" Is a mantra. Conspiracy. Prayer. If you're smart, you don't have to be pretty. Rich. Healthy. Famous. It's all "Fi, how unspiritual!" I’ll be so calm. So I'm running away from Soviet educated persons. I'm smart. Soviet educated person is a fool.

Children are often bargaining chips for the infantile local man. A way to arrange your life, again, hiding behind good intentions. Restless, fussy, hysterical-envious, odious journalist, whose name should not be remembered in vain, with a blue eye claims that by emigrating from Russia for the sake of the future of children, people lower their social status.

Yes, in today's Russia, having children is, in principle, a crime! Unless you are a government official, of course. And the government officials, in general, have not entirely clear prospects.

Not only is this just another pro-government throw-in, it is also incredibly stupid. However, she finally found her audience - these are "aunts" from Yandex Zen. An amazing type, somehow restored from the 70s. There literally everything is duplicated, from dressing gowns to apartment design and, in fact, reasoning. A sort of aggressive swampy borscht grumbling. And compote-jelly loyal mucus.

Like the pseudo Lolita from "Marshes", this journalist and "aunts-aunts" are the vanguard of the state agitprop. Angry and poor, passive-aggressive, they will still show their fangs. The theme of Lolita and the accompanying sexually motivated games is a theme, by the way, also deeply infantile. As well as the topic of sex play, in principle. But in the case of teenagers - especially.

After "Lolita", which continues to be studied and protested, follows the new literary bestseller of the MeToo era, "My Dark Vanessa". Another book about how adults steal sex from children. Well, not just sex. Vitality, intrigue, sacredness (not in the traditional sense, but in the sense of "realness").

After all, adults have nothing real. Love of adults - well, boredom is mortal! So first they steal, and then sell under the guise of morality, work with trauma and other psychoanalysis for the poor.

The trouble is that the so-called adults (in fact, just frustrated children) do not feel the time. First, there can be no second Lolita. Secondly, and the first one is already outdated. Thirdly, today's "children" are asexuals and desacralizers. But nobody wants to understand this.

For inert traditional thinking, to understand is not to be. By the way, about true knowledge (knowing) one can say - I know, then I do not exist. But this is about the real thing.

The social world works the same way as advertising. And vice versa. People want something just because they are often shown it. And because others have it. Such a global pseudo-wish scam. I clearly understood this from childhood and did not want much. From what was offered - practically nothing. I didn't have typical childhood desires. And was I a child?

In essence, a child is not only the most powerless creature, but also a rather uncomfortable unnatural role model. That is, literally, children are forced to portray children.

I still have desires, as I wrote - to count on the fingers of one hand. Because everything in the world is exactly the opposite. One has only to correctly formulate the question. I don’t need something because others have it. Why do I need something, since others have it? Here I absolutely do not want to waste your time on trifles, which, as it seems to most, make up a person's life.