A nightmare of frenzy

The story with a public rape of a 17-year-old girl (we will also not forget about the rape of Russian law) with cynical dumbasses in Chechnya and Moscow speaks not only about the unfortunate state of the minds of active participants in the event; She is about the state of the minds of most spectators, talkative and silent. Much has already been said about this story on the merits; The main replicas belong to the courageous journalist of Novaya Gazeta, who excavated her, and the Russian feminists, who gave her only accurate interpretation. Mashcht's vileness of the patriarchal society, everything is true. I would only change this phrase a little: the Mashcht's vileness of the society, who decided that it was patriarchal. This, in my opinion, is worth saying a few more words.

First of all, the current Russian society is as primordial-patriarchal as Ramzan Kadyrov-the Chinese emperor. The revolution and the first one and a half decades of Soviet power made such a society impossible-and not only because of hatred for everything that could be called "old order." For the construction of communism, a rather homogeneous mass is needed, so the gender difference, like class, was perceived with suspicion. The purpose of the liberation of the Soviet woman from patriarchal slavery was the formation of a full -fledged builder of a new life; From here - Down with home life, family and so on. With all the atrocity of the Bolsheviks, they really freed women - at least those who survived after the Civil War and who followed, regarding vegetarian repressions. The rejection of the construction of communism in favor of the implicit, with mobile chronological and substantial boundaries of socialism, rejection of the idea of ​​the world revolution in favor of the recreation of the Russian Empire on relatively new ideological grounds - all this buried gender emancipation; The repatrianchialization of society was started under Stalin. The return to the practice of property inequality, which turned, as you know, into a property abyss in late Stalinism (this was written, for example, Lidia Ginzburg), a thing from the same series.

We are dealing with a society that considers the Brezhnev Soviet Union to be his “ancient source”. Therefore, for the production of acidic jokes about drama with an unfortunate Chechen girl, the film "Caucasian captive" is used.

A new attempt at emancipation is Khrushchev’s and Early Brezhnev time. Here is a matter not only in the cover of the Soviet 1920s, which was, in fact, a “thaw”; Soviet women began to earn about the same as Soviet men (maybe a little less, but this is not so important here), but at the same time all the homework and raising children remained behind them. The Soviet “man” - it really doesn’t matter, urban or rustic - was not very necessary. For the most part, he sat in the Alcoholic T-shirt in the kitchen, quarreled with his wife, who, after work, cooked lunch, and even looked after how children did her homework. It was then that the Soviet man imagined that he was the main one: after all, as the main one, he really does nothing, but he can disgrace his wife, or even to beat her. Before us is a type of creeping resistance of the new Soviet philistinism relative to the already old, half -sustained communist ideology of equality; Today, when the fathers and vinegar aunts swear to the loyalty of the covenants of beautiful antiquity, they actually reproduce the late Soviet gender alignment.

The so -called tradition in post -Soviet Russia is a late Soviet tradition, which is mostly not leaving deeper than 1965. Knowledge of more ancient customs than to crush the bubble on three in the entrance is based on late Soviet cinema, literature and pop culture in general. It is significant that for the production of acidic jokes about drama with an unfortunate Chechen girl is used - what else? - The film "Caucasian captive" (1966). We are dealing with a society that actually considers the Brezhnev Soviet Union, more precisely, the late Soviet pop culture. The “patriarchalism” of such a society is not embodied in gray-haired old elders who analyze the arcas of relatives, but in half-drunk men-rhizons, liars, rapists and loafers who are accustomed to compensate for their worthlessness, erupting the next nonsense about “heifers” and about 27-year-old women who lost Fuckability . It is funny that the author of the famous saying did not ask about his own Fuckabolyity- after all, he is indestructibly convinced that the referee can only be one, in training with elongated knees, in the same alcoholic T-shirt, with a glass in one hand and a newspaper “Soviet Sport” in the other. Not an venerable elder, but a spinning Afonya - this is a pillar of the post -Soviet patriarchy. Moreover, Afonya is a symbol of the possible reconciliation of Russian society: after all, under the banner of the “heifers”, anyone is ready to stand up, liberal and Crimean.

The author of the famous saying about 27-year-old women did not wonder about his own Fuckability-he is indestructibly convinced that the referee can only be one, in training with elongated knees.

And here the main question arises: why everything happens, that is, in fact, why everything has already happened. Where does this passion for all the spoken and homespun, which turns into a passion for the sincere late Soviet longing, skillfully distilled in a dozen claustrophobic films of Brezhnev times, where boring people of the pre -Democratic era go in Lviv buses among other boring people, are unfortunately joking and, most importantly, they know that tomorrow will be like yesterday? The only difference is that those late Soviet ones, the heroes from such knowledge suffered (albeit not very much), and the current ones are enthusiastically dreaming of falling into the same state. The most naive of the critics of Putin’s society see this return to “feudalism”, then to “wildness”, or even “scooping”, which is completely wrong, even the last. The “scoop” is relevant here only because the pop culture of the second half of the sixties to the mid-eighties is the only real reality available to this society; What was before, completely incomprehensible to the post -Soviet person, is not read [1] . This consciousness is locked in a camera where there is no “modernity” and there is no “future”, and the “past” is shown on the TV. Moreover, the “distant past” is taken in the images of the “recent past” and is served to the viewer as an “eternal past”. So, in fact, there is no past there either. There is an eternal present that does not mean "modernity." Rather, on the contrary: modernity implies history, the eternal present is not. The post -Soviet man simply dreamed of falling out of the story that so offended him. He deliberately did this, without realizing that he himself is the purest result of the story that had traumized him. As a result, the historical time based on the idea of ​​discreteness of chronologically located elements was replaced in his head with mythological, where everything is everything, without any distinction. Fomenovites were right - "Batu is Christ this is Alexander the Macedonian it is a baty." The circle always closes. Let me remind you: among the followers of the "New Chronology" - Eduard Limonov and Harry Kasparov. This also explains a lot.

Speaking simply, the post -Soviet society is trying (and rather unanimously) - on top of ethnic, cultural, religious and even social barriers - to cancel history, but only for itself. Around, let the events rage - if possible, unpleasant, so that there was an occasion to pose - but here we are going along the rolled rut. There is no conservatism in this; The latter proceeds from the fact that at some moments of the past it was good, but at some there is no, conservatism is based on a choice between different images of the past, respectively, at the act of distinction. The conservative will love either the king, or Lenin, or Stalin, or Brezhnev; He simply cannot love them all at the same time. The Communist Party is trying to play the role of a conservative in a post -Soviet society, but instead of conservatism, they get a pink vomit, the color of which is determined by a combination of undigested and erupted red (communism) and white (Orthodoxy and nationality) corpuscles. Actually, the whole “tradition”, which is worshiped today in Russia, is the same pink color.

The post -Soviet man simply dreamed of falling out of the story that so offended him. As a result, historical time was replaced in his head with mythological.

So, to cancel history is a grandiose task, no less serious than the desire of Ulrich from the “man without properties” “cancel reality”. Since the conversation about the great modernism has come: “cancel the history” performed by the conditional Putin official, the Chechen policeman or a modest teacher in the city of Lukoyanov of the Nizhny Novgorod Region does not at all correspond to the hysterical “wake up from the nightmare of history” performed by the Joyce Stephen Daedalus. Daedalus specifically tormented by his concrete-historical environment of the era of national revival, when the “national tradition” was not so much revived as invented, constructed, finished. Almost all “national-poisoning” appeared at that time, from the second half of the 19th century to the beginning of the XX. It was a process that ultimately led to world wars, the deaths of five empires, revolutions, to create independent “national states”, totalitarianism and authoritarianism, ethnic purges and genocide - as well as to the heyday of late -romantic literature, music, theater and painting with sculpture. Finishing the “portrait of the artist in youth”, Joyce wakes up from this nightmare - and tries to arouse his hero. “Ulysses” is a monument to this awakening, and the one who introduces Daedalus into the world of real modernity is a layman, a Jew, and cosmopolitan Bloom. The nightmare of slavery in the invented tradition ends, wakefulness in modern history begins. The post -Soviet man, unlike Daedalus, does not consider the story a nightmare, he simply believes that it - being painful and unpleasant - simply does not exist for him, only for others. The post -Soviet man is self -centered, he is a narcissist, he is not interested in other people who suffer and suffer from history - it is enough for him that in his life, as it seems to him, there is no place for history. That is why the famous insensitivity and inconsistency of the post -Soviet man to any regrettable incidents outside of Russia, from natural disasters and crimes of the genocide to terrorist attacks; The only feeling that this kind of event gives birth to him is sluggish gloating. He has long been out of history, let them suffer there.

So the post -Soviet traditionalism, part of which became the Soviet patriarchate, is not at all described by the slogans and phrases like “Back in the USSR”, “New Middle Ages” or “New Feudalism”. This is said by many nonsense, I hope sociologists, anthropologists and historians will ever explain that the public rape of a minor undertaken in May 2015 (and approved throughout the country) has nothing to do with the USSR or the Middle Ages and feudalism. Just like the purchase and sale of captured girls with thugs from the Islamic state. I note to the side that the “black legend” about the Western Middle Ages (and there was no other), created by the progressive Soviet intelligentsia and uncritically perceived today, greatly obscures any conversation about the current day in general. Everything that the progressive intellectual does not like, he attributes to an incomprehensible distant time, when they went on the Crusades, burned witches, indulged in superstitions and did not even know that all these habits would not be convicted somewhere, but in the novels of the Strugatsky themselves. The intellectual was not aware that the witches were burned for the most part after the end of the Middle Ages, he himself indulges in no less than a medieval person, and most of the so -called medieval (or even ancient) traditions were invented relatively recently, two centuries ago, if not later. But back to our subject, to the rejection of history.

The slave lives exclusively in cyclic time, therefore it is indifferent to both the past and to the future.

The interaction from the result should be separated here. The first is quite bourgeois, more precisely, fine -bourgeois. The small bourgeois of a certain variety, namely the Rantier, is who dreams of being outside history. Life on a rent is possible for people who are completely deprived of the desire to act themselves, at their own peril and risk, and at the same time dreaming, so that, while they indulge in idleness, interest drips non -stop. The post-Soviet man after some attempts on something interesting (and even impudent) calmed down in the nineties, settled down and began to live on interest. At first, these were interest on the sale of resources, and then, gradually, not without the ominous participation of the cultural servants of the authorities, the economic resource turned into a symbolic one. As Ilya Kalinin brilliantly showed , instead of oil, history became the resource; In fact, it is not even a story at all, but a late -Soviet version of history, formulated by the collective efforts of different people, from Pikul and Chivilikhin to Eidelman and Lotman, from Sergey Bondarchuk to Govorukhin. It is there that inexhaustible deposits of all the necessary ideas about the past. An amazing time - it was then that several thousand people invented all the necessary footing cultural feed for several subsequent generations. They created huge capital, descendants put it in the bank, live on interest and dream that this never ends. This will never end if you declare capital, the bank and yourself, receiving interest, eternal, not subject to historical time.

If the intention was (and there is) petty -bourgeois, then the psychology of slaves was the result. I am far from the journalistic attraction/hysteria and vulgar discussions about the "original Russian slavery", "nation of slaves" and other nonsense. The whole “origin” of this kind is also relatively fresh production. But here is the thing that should be borne in mind. In the era of modern times there was not a single class or a large social group that really existed outside history. Even the peasantry, which is often accused of “backwardness” and otherwise, actually lives and lives in history - if the latter understands the market of agricultural products, agricultural lending system, state and international support of the agricultural sector and so on, so on, so on, including a policy on which all of the above depends. The peasantry was an important driving force of Russian revolutions, the Civil War in Spain, and so on. I'm not talking about the proletariat, middle class and elite. All of them live - albeit sometimes and reluctantly, according to duty, following their class purpose, in history. And only the slave is in the mental space outside it. The slave lives exclusively in the cyclic time of the working day, for there will be almost never any serious change in his fate, his status will never be. He has nothing to hope for - and he does not hope. That is why it is indifferent to both the past and to the future. A slave does not live a public life, since it does not have public interest - and it cannot be. The slave does not live a political life, because it cannot have political interest. Finally, the slave has only one - sometimes very powerful and living - culture, its own. Other cultures can be for him only a superficial, condescending interest.

Violence against the unfortunate teamer under the boor of the crowd is “good”, since it happened in our hut. Tradition.

Of course, we are talking about modern slavery, the era of modernity, and not the ancient. About the slavery that developed in the early new time, and then gained a second wind in the twentieth century. Oruell wrote about this in 1942: “Who could imagine twenty years ago that slavery will again become a reality in Europe? And they returned to him right before our eyes. Labor camps scattered throughout Europe and North Africa, where Poles, Russians, Jews and political prisoners of other nationalities build roads or drain swamps, receiving exactly so much bread for this, so as not to die, this is the most typical slavery. Well, perhaps so far, individuals are not allowed to buy and sell slaves. In all other things - say, with regard to the separation of families - the conditions are probably worse than they were on American cotton plantations. ” Such slavery, which had a different history in different countries (but in some places, thank God, it was not at all) is also a recent invention, but masking under the “tradition”; It is not for nothing that even such a thin thinker as Orwell uses the word “returned”. No, they did not "return to him," but "they created it." The unconditional champion in such modern slavery in the last century was the USSR. The descendants of those who survived the most terrible Soviet times took a loss from a story that for their ancestors was a tragedy, as the most light and minor, even pleasant option. So the post -Soviet bourgeois consciousness, the consciousness, albeit a small, but master, was reproached by the consciousness of a slave.

Поэтому все, что происходит внутри круга «неистории», по умолчанию хорошо и правильно, ибо так было и так будет . Если почитать многочисленные сетевые комментарии по поводу отвратительной чеченской свадьбы, в этом убеждаешься. Кадыров неудачно все организовал, это да. Астахов неудачно пошутил — верно; мужику ведь можно пороть чушь, разве нет? Но, по сути, ничего страшного: подумаешь, девушку в семнадцать лет насильно отдали немолодому женатому дядьке, тоже мне — трагедия, вы что, «Кавказской пленницы» не видели»? Там, в горах, всегда так было! Но главное даже не это, а совсем другое. Как сформулировал один из милых доброжелательных россиян, если браки геев — это хорошо, то почему же это плохо ? Вот здесь выпавшее из истории сознание встречается с историей. Браки геев — результат долгой, сложной общественной кампании и политической борьбы. Они — продукт изменения, значит, продукт истории. Оттого они «плохи». А насилие над несчастной тинейджерицей под хамский гогот толпы — это «хорошо», так как в нашем бараке так повелось . Tradition.

Любопытно вот что: никто никого не заставлял — и не заставляет — так думать, говорить и действовать. Всё сами.

[1] Оттого и сегодняшние опереточные сталинисты разговаривают гладкими словами из мягкосталинофильской продукции 1970-х, а не корявым идеологическим языком позднего сталинизма. Палаческие же лозунги из времен Большого Террора неосознанно берутся как цитаты из позднейшего пересказа историй о полезности сталинских времен. Да и сам образ Сталина в нынешнем российском сознании — из официозной кинопродукции семидесятых: уютный кавказский дядюшка с трубкой.