Posted 1 февраля 2022, 11:43

Published 1 февраля 2022, 11:43

Modified 25 декабря 2022, 20:55

Updated 25 декабря 2022, 20:55

About the death of an actor and the essence of watchdogs

1 февраля 2022, 11:43
Алина Витухновская
The actor of bad Soviet cinema died. He managed to speak out in support of the authorities regarding the annexation of Crimea. A simpleton who played simpletons. It is interesting, for what purpose in general the Russian people are constantly exposed as retarded, half-drunk and short-sighted?

Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer

I do not want to go into conspiracy theories, but there is some mystery in this.

A post-Soviet man was brought out of a Soviet man, almost a Mamlei kurotrup, voting for Crimea with both wings. His body is that of a chicken, and his head is that of an imperial double-headed eagle. He has no brain, and instead of a soul he has a pension.

It is unfortunate that quite young people have become hostages of these mosfilm pro-naphthalene scenery that has fallen on our heads. It is easy and pleasant to speak the truth. And about life, and about cinema.

They blame me here about the fact that you can’t speak out on the day of death. Is it possible to steal our lives, playing along with the militaristic authorities? They took away your life time (years!), freedom of speech, economic and political freedoms, established a dictatorship in the country, and you continue to defend those who helped (including) to organize all this. What is it, if not Stockholm Syndrome?

The hysteria that arose in my comments about my previous posts about the death of a Soviet actor who served the dictatorship evokes bad thoughts. It shows not only the essence of Soviet "culture" itself, but also the essence of its watchdogs. In this case, one fairly well-known journalist with nominally liberal views.

The rhetoric of the journalist is cheekily deviant in the style of the inscriptions on the fence. An aggressive presentation suggests that the person himself does not believe in the value of what he protects. Such pseudo-liberal guardians with distorted cultural optics brought us back to Scoop 2.0.

And about whether Soviet cultural figures will be remembered. Except for the rare semi-genius loners, of course not. Soviet culture does not exist in the global world. Not because the global world is bad. But because Soviet culture is bad. Not interesting. Uncompetitive. Therefore, mediocrity is interested in the restoration of the red project and even the dictatorship. Although, of course, they will never say this directly. But only inside it they can still "exist" for someone. Simply!

You want to return to the Soviet Union. But you can return to it only nominally. Technically. Bureaucratically. You can even revive the Gulag and ice cream for 18 kopecks. But it will all be fake in some way. Poor quality imitation. Only suffering will be real. But it's always like this here. It is impossible to return to the past.

So, for example, nothing will ever return the world to the era of modernity. Art Nouveau with its "great" ideas is only a hypertrophied and also propagandistic distortion of reality. A project with incorrectly configured optics. The modernist world did not resolve the problem of the injustice of existence. He simply focused on ideas (ideologies) as forms and methods of controlling the mass unconscious. If the current government had a real modernist, and not a fake (postmodernist) ideology, then everyone would howl. Postmodernity has only made the optics more honest.

National Socialism was also a modernist ideology. When people are only interested in power and resources, it is much safer for the rest. Than when interested in the idea for which everything is sacrificed under the "sacred" justification. It is not for nothing that many interpret both Italian fascism and German National Socialism not even as modern, but as supermodern. Surprisingly, the romantic majority considers modernity to be a kind of ideal that opposes both archaism and postmodernity. This is a naive and dangerous simplification.

An interesting fact is that in the post-Soviet space an amazing and stable type of a kind of “idealistic” bookish person has formed, in which the more idealism, the more disregard for life. Both to one's own and to someone else's. And especially to its quality. But this is a secret, veiled neglect. He will never say directly that he does not care about health and life. But in a situation where a normal person will take care of self-preservation and comfort, this one, driven by "lofty impulses", will aggravate and ignore the risks. We all remember the sad story of the meeting of two poets in the midst of the first waves of COVID, culminating in the death of one of them.

In case of illness, people still commemorate “God” with a kind word. In political agony, they rely on the "wisdom of nature", which, in their opinion, is automatically transferred to society. They believe in the impeccability of the “divine” plan, some kind of “cunning plan” of the “god”, in which they will certainly find salvation, and as soon as the matter smells fried, they immediately shout “Do not look up!”. Well, you understand.

In the meantime, suffering as the universal currency of the post-Soviet stagnation is growing in value. Finally, I understood why I don’t like Vera Polozkova’s poems, which are quite high-quality by format standards. Rapture of anguish. Admiration for suffering. Pseudo-existential sadomaso. In fact, this kind of perversion is purely physiological, it is only seasoned with education and rhyme, which gives it the status of a non-existent spirituality. In other words, a person simply likes to suffer. The culture of suffering is always dressed in the garb of humanism. But never humane. Vice versa. Suffering only breeds suffering. This is one of the reasons why Russia is once again slipping in the historical wheel of samsar.

But there are individual quantities that suffering only aestheticizes, makes more monumental. For example, Joseph Brodsky. The envious and hysterical Limonov called Brodsky a "poet-accountant", which surprisingly took root among literary and other trolls. However, Limonov himself is a comic figure, a semi-systemic trickster in hysterics. In Limonov there were a lot of bad women. The desire to look courageous, a warrior, a hero with a complete mismatch with these categories, of course. And nothing monumental, unlike Brodsky.

At the age of 20, I formulated that writing is primarily a calculation. The poet is the accountant of meaning and language. Calculating everything so that it works is genius. The fact that the profane post factum believe written "from the heart." “From the heart”, as a rule, graphomaniacs write.

Graphomaniacs and a bored public are again trying to throw geniuses off the ship of modernity. Here is an interesting reaction by which one can observe the schizoid nature of the post-Soviet consciousness. I see it here, I don't see it there. You cannot forgive Brodsky "On the Independence of Ukraine". And Limonov, with his office of the NBP (an organization banned in Russia) next to the police station, ready-made free manuals for the current government and other "Stalin-Beria-Gulag" should have been included in various political coalitions and continued to be valued as almost a great Russian writer. Well, what kind of writers, such is now Russia. Crooked, frail, hysterical, on cheap militaristic show-offs. About Brodsky and Limonov, everything is logical here. Greatness is not forgiven for anything. Nothingness - everything is allowed. Here, all the Nietzscheans are at minimum wages, but I forgot.

From the editor:

The opinions of the authors of the publication may differ from the position of the publication and are published in a discussion order.