Posted 22 февраля 2022, 14:33

Published 22 февраля 2022, 14:33

Modified 25 декабря 2022, 20:54

Updated 25 декабря 2022, 20:54

"That very compote": why everyone in Russia piles lies upon lies

22 февраля 2022, 14:33
Алина Витухновская
Our society was especially ideologically fundamentally hypocritical under the Soviet Union, then, in the 1990s, for a moment it sobered up and became honest, and now it has lied again.

Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer

War in the modern global world in the form in which it is presented by the layman is no longer possible. This is easy to explain with technical examples. So the means of destruction, reconnaissance and communications have increased significantly in their potential, as well as defensive capabilities. Thus, any major offensive can be decisively thwarted before it even starts. The economic aspect of hostilities, imaginary or real, is also important. The cost of one anti-tank weapon and one tank differs many times, which makes any, even a massive tank attack, absolutely unprofitable. And so it is in almost everything that concerns war as a phenomenon.

We know from the classics that war is the continuation of politics by other means, when other means are impossible. Now war is the creation of a large-scale and costly socio-economic event, a kind of global spectacle produced solely for the sole purpose of further usurpation of power. To bring final clarity to what is happening, I want to separately note that modern, that is, hybrid warfare, has three main components.

The first and, perhaps, the most important of them is informational, propaganda. Society is pumped up with the rhetoric of war in order to set the vector of confrontation, to designate the enemy, in other words, to direct the arrows to the “guilty”. The second component is, in fact, a military provocative one, mainly consisting of internal, external and border special operations and even local armed provocations. And the third aspect is cultural, reinforcing, which consists in creating a specific layer of culture that justifies the war and everything connected with it (hardships, hardships, intrigues of enemies, etc.).

The latter is particularly well illustrated by the turbulent activities of the plainclothes writer Zakhar Prilepin, who has now settled down on Yandex Zen, which has quickly turned into a marginal resource. There, a tipsy-hysterical mental commander in a torn vest neurotically explains the policy of the party and government to rare and bored network cheers-patriots.

If earlier homosovieticus consisted, like Winnie the Pooh, of chants and screams, now the filler of the public golem is amorphous "spirituality", outdated slogans and archetypes. And the agitators themselves understand perfectly well that their ship is sinking. Just as they previously wanted to send the opposition elite on a “philosophical ship,” so now they are frantically clinging to the sides and ropes of their now sinking semantic Titanic.

Refugees were sent from the LDNR to Russia with a one-way payment of 10 thousand rubles (but this is not accurate). Theater of military operations in Mosfilm scenery. Probably, even crafts of the court master of ceremonies Mikhalkov gathered extras and more. But before us is a performance of the level of Kurginyan. No wonder he is a theater director himself. 10 thousand is economic snobbery, precisely expressed contempt for people, treating them like cattle. 10 thousand rubles is the cost of a human life under a dictatorship.

Solovyov almost burst into tears on the air when Simonyan, like an overgrown schoolgirl, read Rozhdestvensky's poems about the war. There are three in one - two infernal propagandists and a bad poet. For the most part, Soviet poetry was to the extent hypocritical and "on the topic of the day" to which it was "real". It touched in the souls of those same Soviet people those very strings that did not originally exist, but they were literally “trained” to exist. Thus, homosovieticus was that strange half-golem who did not know what he really felt - what was close to him, what was “accepted” or nothing. But more often still - something between "what is accepted" and "nothing". In addition, sentimentality is a kind of hypercompensation for hypocrisy. They say that a man who has lived out of the light of everyone around sobbed while watching the program “Wait for me”. In general, propagandists are overplaying. Now everyone is playing.

Military-political intrigues were crudely camouflaged with Olympic white noise. And here we are faced with endless hypocrisy. Russian society is nothing but a collective latent Humbert playing the sentimental game of saving Lolita dolls. In our case, a young figure skater. It lavishes so many feelings, produces so much anguish, imitates emotions in such a way that it seems - and really feels. But this same society in its true essence is a rapist and, at best, an indifferent passer-by. If as much time as you devote to the “girl from the TV”, you would devote to your own children, and to yourself, the country would be different. In itself, watching the Olympics, ballet, etc. is a legacy of socialism. Semolina porridge for adult children from black and white noise, noise against the background of a bloody fog. Only then all this was the main dish in the Soviet collective farm canteen, and now information restaurants are everywhere, and you again demand “that very compote” from the waiters.

Our society was especially, I would even say, ideologically fundamentally hypocritical under the Soviet Union, but then, in the 90s, at some point it sobered up and became honest. And now it's screwed up again. And lied so that this not only looks, but is pathological. In the progressive world, of course, there are also lies. But it is quite rational and pursues specific benefits, albeit in the short term. At the same time, it is also the subject of condemnation. Russian lies are lies to others and to ourselves, which no longer make sense. In one of the previous articles, I noted that propaganda does not work. Also, many public illusions do not work. One question remains - why do you lie to yourself? Hamlet's question, and also rhetorical.