Posted 11 января 11:33
Published 11 января 11:33
Modified 11 января 11:43
Updated 11 января 11:43
Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer
A person owes nothing to anyone.
Unless, of course, he borrowed. However, to this day in the world, and especially in Russia, there is a kind of public misconception that the baby, having barely fallen out of the "metaphysical uterus", owes everything — from parents, to the state and the full, but sinister abstraction — the Motherland. Moreover, the material umbilical cord is cut, and the metaphysical cord remains. It should be cut from the very basics, namely, from the question "Is there an absolute good being?"
But since life is given to us without our consent, we are simply confronted with an existential fact — others. Then if someone owes us, it's those "others", but they are not even able to clearly explain what this "good" is? After all, if life were an unconditional good, there would be no questions about its "meaning" and "sacred values". If life were good, people would not go to die meekly for chimeras. Usually, the value of life is contrasted with the horror of death. But the horror of death not only reduces its "value". It only reflects the existing state of affairs. By and large, you have to pay for life. And they should not pay with their lives.
A story about how a certain mother, imbued with the ideas of the system, decided to write a statement to the authorities for the children ("they work for the enemy, because they earn a lot"), if, of course, they themselves do not go to "defend the Motherland", was actively distributed on the network. The children, don't be fools, left the country, leaving their mother some money for the first time and ending their relationship with the distraught old woman. The public wonders how this is possible. The story itself looks "done", painfully smooth, too propagandistic (anti-propaganda). Real stories have a lot of rough edges, which gives us a sense of authenticity, vitality. This one is not. But the essence of the relationship is described in it absolutely correctly. The socialist mycelium, the metaphysical uterus of the Motherland, who gave birth by virtue of an imprint and instinct, gets rid of her children, devours them as unnecessary witnesses of her own vanity, spent elements.
And most importantly — all this was before February 24. You just didn't want to see it. To destroy under one pretext or another is an unspeakable mantra of relationships that I have observed almost since infancy. Here, in general, their own are more dangerous than strangers. It's worth learning, then you won't shout about betrayal. In fact, they cannot even betray here, because they are not initially in the paradigm of human relations.
The current political situation is a reason, but not a reason for legalized disposal of children. This is, among other things, a generational conflict. Therefore, the conditional revolution will be carried out by the young. It will be such a "holiday of disobedience", it will not seem enough. The life of an individual largely takes place in the intimate and dark field of the family, this life is limited by many taboos, is unreasonable and therefore dangerous. Tragedies, slow (latent) and the most real murders take place there. In general, if you add a family to the triad "school-army-prison", the whole authoritarian structure will fall into place. Dictatorships are more simple than complex. Russia is more simple than complex. But most do not have the courage to realize simple things. Moreover, prison is the softest construct, absolutely lubochny. The prison is the least like a prison. And most of all, the whole world. Especially the "Russian" world.
Ethics directly depends on aesthetics. Therefore, what is happening now has not only political, but also aesthetic roots. Or rather, anti-aesthetic. And we see how the "ugliness" of ideology and the taboo on beauty imposed by Soviet and then world socialists (body positivists) literally coalesces. Someone publicly assessed the appearance of the girls in the cafe and immediately underwent public obstruction. The pseudo-hierarchical socialist society consists of taboos and is at the kindergarten "moral" level, namely at the level of "what is good and what is bad". In the comments to the one who dared to go beyond the "boundaries of what is permissible", the Soviet poet Zabolotsky is quoted with his monstrous and vile hymn to ugliness. As a child, this text plunged me into a deep melancholy. As is this constant disregard of the environment for aesthetics in the name of "spirituality". Then I forgot the poem. But you don't. You are continuing to live in the Soviet paradigm. At the exit — there is not only aesthetics in the Russian, there is nothing. Zabolotsky gave you a body positive, and the body positive at the exit is a dictatorship.
Aesthetics and appearance were neglected not because they were spiritual and intellectual, but because they were poor and lazy. And poor because they are lazy. Soviet culture of this kind is a swamp in which everything is drowning. But not only are you drowning yourself, but you are dragging others along with you. If you put a glamorous magazine on one side of the scale, and 10 books by Soviet writers on the other, the glamorous magazine will definitely outweigh.
Children are much smarter than they seem. Therefore, they realize their unattractiveness, not "when they grow up", but immediately. The more cynical the rhyming sentences about the shimmering vessels sound. Here, comfort is taken away from children, beauty is taken away, and even hope for it is taken away. In the comments, the author of the "hymn to ugliness" was suspected of almost a passion for children. Oh, really! What kind of passion is there "for the short-term"? This is empathy, but empathy the reverse side of which is schadenfreude. As a matter of fact, the reverse side of the moralistic reflections around the real Lolita is an attempt to steal energy from children (taken for sexuality). It is useless to steal it, you are adults, everything is "desacralized", which means it is boring. But you still steal. Amazing people. Is it out of some kind of metaphysical greed, existential envy, ontological meanness?
There is a common cliche that the cult of beauty is dictated to us by the fashion industry, glamour, and the mainstream. This is not quite true. Or rather, not at all. They write: "The cult of beauty has changed a lot from the 1990s to the 2000s." Just not much, if you exclude the body positive. And there is no cult. There is beauty and non-beauty. Otherwise, by what signs will we unmistakably distinguish the same Lolita in a crowd of others? People who seemed beautiful to me as a child, as it turned out after the fact, plus or minus corresponded to the format of glamorous magazines. But I liked them before I saw the glamorous magazines. The denial of the "cult of beauty", as a rule, is based on latent envy. And according to the argument that the idea of a body positive came from the West. This does not deny that it is essentially socialist. The body positive is promoted by leftists, because it became clear that there are not enough benefits for everyone. The basis of the body positive is the unwillingness to share the resource. No more.
Also, arguments about naturalness ("natural for a man, for a woman," etc.) are arguments in favor of the poor. Which is natural — in most cases ugly. And in the rest — it is not necessary. Naturalness is the second name of the inertia of being. Naturalness is an adaptation of socialism to biology. Literally — grassroots equality with a human face. Naturalness is also the disguise of tradition, an autochthonous monster god.