Acting-Out Politics

Weblog opens discussion about the psychology of Bushmerican style of behavior.

Mary’s father (personifying in the film the secular version of God-Father) is explaining to her the religious version of the universe’s very construction

The father (Bruno Cremer) uses geometry to symbolically explain to Mary the importance of the concept of emotional solipsism for building independence of the character


Upon her return from visiting her father (her parents separated and Mary – Rebecca Hampton now leaves with mother and spends the weekends with father) she is putting on Mahler’s symphony and with magic suddenness started to improvise a dance-pantomime. She never had done something like this before. But her father had mentioned to her Mahler’s music right before she has left.

In the beginning Mary’s dance looked like a dance…

…or even like a not typical rhythmic physical exercise to a solemn music.

But step by step many viewers start to feel tense and unpleasant

We have never seen anything like this and don’t know how to react to something like this. It looked as if something terrifying started to happen with Mary in front of our very eyes. Traditional religious believers could perhaps say that it is devil enters Mary’s soul, but it looks that according to the logic of the director’s (Anne Marie Mieville) images it’s not a devil but rather something like a demon of solipsism enters Maria’s soul and her unconscious (demon as a symbolic name personifying the very spirit of post-modern way of living, when self-assertion and permanent rivalry for getting advantage over others became the very goal and meaning of life).

When Mary’s mother (Aurore Clement) returns home she finds Mary on the floor. She felt as if after losing consciousness – she became like another human being. May be, it’s just the natural result of becoming older when a human being starts to really internalize the social norms.


Mary will continue to live with her mother and visit her father, but in this shot we see that mother and daughter, as if, are saying goodbye. O no! Mary (Rebecca Hampton) will continue to be loved by both parents but in another way, more matter-of-factly, less emotionally. May be, indeed, Mary is just growing up and along with it everything becomes strangely different… But, may be, she has lost something – before she loved mother and father together, as one being and she felt herself as a part of both of them. She and both of them loved one another simultaneously – she loved to be a part of them, a participant in their love for each other and for their love towards her, but now she felt that she lost something very important (really crucial) – their family togetherness, her family’s internal unity, little community (which for her was modeling the social life as a community of human love). But now she felt, as if, alone in the society, lost there as a traveler inside it following her own tough route.

Ernst’s Bitterly Ironic Representation of Marital Pride

Max Ernst “Monument to the Birds” (1927)

A man, involved into marriage always feels that he is a head of the household, even when in everyday life sense it’s not the case. How proudly he is looking at the world around. His wings look like an armor. His eyes are pathetically enlarged by his suspicious attention to the space. He, as if, is not just looking, but visually interrogating the space – is it empty of potential rivals who are for sure on their way to intervene in his kingdom to kidnap his wife, steal his children and destroy his nest/property? But what is a married man/bird without a wife, children and property? – “Just a damned fool”, like the hero of O’ Neill’s play said.

Married woman personifies comfort, not only for her husband and children, but for herself or rather to herself – she is a comfortable comfort. Looking at the painting we feel that she is enjoying her soft thick wrap, and just to see her giving herself to it makes the viewers too feel relaxed, pleasant and comfortable. That’s how she is supposed to be perceived by her bird/king husband and her children and her sofa, refrigerator, dresses, etc. By the way, between the husband and wife we see something like her second wing that, as if, doesn’t completely belong to her – this additional part as if belongs to them both – to the wife and husband. It is a wing of love. Let’s call this extra part the signifier of the very family embrace of dad and mom, symbolizing for the kids – Her herself and Him himself in a comfortable her-him-ness.

On the side of the mother – under her legs, if to use human association we see her two chicks. The problem here is that the elder chick-brother is already tortures the younger and smaller one with his enlarged – predatory double beak (that even his father doesn’t have). Under the chicks we can see a hatchling – the third inhabitant of the monumental life of marriage-nest. But it seems that this youngest addition to the family also has a double, still soft variant of a beak. Ernst is obviously emphasizing with his bird-human family the progress in the ability to fight and to kill from elder to the younger generations.

Today, in contradiction to American traditional – democratic, although sometimes not too efficient humanistic education (liberal arts), many parents believe that children as early as possible have to be taught how to fight for domination and how to become more successful in self-assertion than others “or children never will be on the top and instead will rot on the bottom for the rest of their lives”. So, the family life of “human birds” (Ernst’s metaphoric birds) is to nurture not the human part of the birds and not the bird part of the humans but creatures who know how to fight for success, for existence and for personal and financial power.

Marriage is not as innocent and matter-of-fact structure as it seems just because it exists and became habitual. It includes unconscious possessiveness and need to feel that you are in control of your family – the precious feeling of my-ownership of my family. That’s why marriage is a form of power and money (which are able to incarnate – to take the form of various things and substances, make them to behave like themselves). The household is social status and money in the form of family life. It’s from this intimate connection inside the authoritarianism of family structure we see child and spousal abuse and violence and… high rate of divorce, when only money saves the spouses from hate and violence. Of course, there is a way to avoid violence even without divorce. It’s to kill your own soul, to transform yourself into a marionette through mutual psychological manipulation between spouses. It’s difficult to collect statistical data about how widespread this deadly peaceful resolution of marriage is.

Note: Ernst’s “Monument to the Birds” and Jean Luc Godard’s “Contempt”

Let’s just imagine that a male – bird/husband in a situation of the appearance of an alternative male nearby – will not behave as a typical husband (feel bouts of hate towards a rival or will start to demonstratively sulk). Paul (Michel Piccoli), the Camille‘s (Brigitte Bardot) husband in Godard’s “Contempt” is a very intelligent man – he doesn’t have a psychological need to play traditional role. But for this to happen in real life creatures including people have to be in a Zoo. In real life we will see violent intentions or proud violence in all directions. That’s what the Ernst’s “Monument to the Birds” is about. Marriage is a special bond with absolutist elements in it – it is a precious monument and simultaneously a fort. It is on this – blindly religious, conservative, intolerant background the majority of people have based their personal love. Of course, some people can marry in a psychologically secular context because of their genuine democratic sensibility, but they’re far from being the majority today. Often people with obviously democratic tastes carry deep conservative pockets in their unconscious.

“Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders”
Matthew 27:3

Rembrandt van Rijn, “Judas Returning the Thirty Pieces of Silver”, 1629

May be, because we live in an epoch of money-monarchy where the alchemy humans practice transforms life into money, some of us are inclined to be critical of the financial totalitarianism and even feel a slight skepticism about Matthew’s 27:3 story. Of course, this skepticism in no way means that it is possible to doubt the Matthew’s truth. The doubt can be related only to the importance of the returning of the money. First of all, Judas “ saw, that he was condemned, and he didn’t want to be hated by the people and, god forbid, to lose eternal life and so on, and for this “noble” reason decided “to restore back the benefits from God. Secondly, for people who as we see today “making business” all the times risk is part of the game – “Today I won, tomorrow I lost and day after tomorrow I will try to win again!”, etc. That’s how some people have always lived and especially today much more people live like this with much more intense, insistent and “productive” dedication.) In this sense Judas is far from being original. Manipulation of people and circumstances through money always includes betrayal of somebody.

And still, the reality is reality and to return thirty pieces of silver is, indeed, not easy. Observing today’s people making life through making money (as if permanently buying their living, every day, every hour, every minute) we understand the predicament of Judas – his sweet hopes and its catastrophe and his acceptance of the inevitability of losing money for the sake of larger/bigger benefits – there is Eternity – yes, life sometimes is very tough.

Triviality of Judas’ behavior is the point here – betrayal for the sake of self-enrichment and courageous and shame-eating decision to return the money (for the sake of his own benefit again) makes the whole event not interesting enough. The semantic punctum is that the return of money is even worse than the getting it. It’s like the second of two betrayals – this time it’s betrayal of his chance of becoming rich. Two betrayals do not work against one another, to the contrary, they add to each other. Judas ends with being judged as a double betrayer – of the sacred belief and the importance (for many people – “sacredness” of self-enrichment). In other words, Judas is left with nothing. Of course, somebody will say that he returned himself eternity. But what kind of eternity can it be for Judas? Just to sit and think about his two betrayals. Today, for example, nobody will be left with such an idiotic result. Modern billionaires always will be left with financial eternity (Watch Fassbinder’s “The Third Generation”).

Rembrandt van Rijn, “Judas Returning the Thirty Pieces of Silver”, 1629

May be, the reason that the sketch “Judas Returning…” (The first picture above) seems so inarticulate and so not clear – is that Rembrandt was a bit lost in its meaning. But in his painting (the second picture immediately above) certainty of the situation, it seems, is related to the realistic depiction of the characters and not because of what’s going on. The “High Priest” is pompous and proud of himself in both works – the sketch and the painting. But in the painting the entourage of the rabbis is, as if, confused and behave as if they want to stop Judas from returning the reward-money. It appears that they don’t feel themselves completely comfortable – they, probably, prefer Judas to feel completely responsible for Christ’s Crucifixion (to stay with/hang on to the money). Perhaps, they are now discussing that it’s too late and impossible to change the result and to accept money back. Indeed, it’s logically impossible for them to agree to repossess the money. History is not a playmate. History is playful, but it’s final. History is changeable because its steps change the reality. But it’s final because with its each step the very direction of history has been changed. Judas can return the money, but the priests cannot refuse it – they are doomed forever to keep it. Even if they throw Judas out of gates, even if they spank him or throw the money back at him history will say that he returned it.

Judas is… ahead of the “priests”. He has his will though it won’t change much for him. But they don’t have a will about what’s happened, because they are murderers, while Judas is just a betrayer. But look how arrogantly monumental are the posture of Chief Priest’s head and expression of his face. Among the other priests pretty busy with their self-aggrandizement the Priest of the priests is the most super-human. In comparison with him Judas’s final and painful humility makes him a repented sinner – just a human being.

Rembrandt (1606-1669) was only 23 when he made his sketch and painting on the topic.

Note: In the sketch (the first picture) Rembrandt has drawn a lot of impressive and sometimes controversial details, but their analysis will demand special effort in future.

Grateful for President Trump’s easy tongue we got very important information about Adam Schiff, the Chairman of Intelligence Committee who is leading the impeachment inquiry. In one of his recent rallies President who is generally prone to use canards is mentioned Schiff’s “un-athleticism” and his “small neck” among other pearls of knowledge. These drops of scholarly intelligence are quickly becoming a very valuable information for many Trump’s admirers.

When the Republican Representatives or councils are interrogating the witnesses they pronounced their words very rapidly, probably because they‘re rushing to assert their positions and ideas before they start to question the witnesses. And even when they do, they are all the time interrupting those who have answering, inserting their own speech inside the answers of witnesses and often even interrupting themselves. Besides, their own verbalizations are full of juicy emotions and intonations that express obvious suspicion, skepticism, irritation, mocking and irony. But when Adam Schiff starts to talk we feel fresh air around – we are able to hear articulation of meaning. Semantic clearness makes heavy hints and greasy equivoques of Republicans to disappear. Mr. Schiff’s speech is clean, ideas are clear and so the essence of what he is saying regardless of your agreement or disagreement.

Why is there such a difference in the very manner of talking in public on part of Adam Schiff (and to a substantial degree of the other democratic congressmen and the witnesses) in comparison with the emotionally stressed logic and grimaces of the Republican Congressmen?

Just imagine – Representative Adam Schiff is like the first man on Earth. How much the first Adam saw, how much he had to notice! How much he was able to remember! To understand! After Trump’s jokes about Schiff we (watching the hearings on TV) noticed something about Schiff’s eyes which are able to look and to see so much without turning them away from the unbearable things before him – the truth of the evil some people carry inside – the cruelty, greed, hate, belligerency, dishonesty, indifference for other people, etc.

We thank Adam Schiff not only for his intellectual tirelessness, but for being strong morally and emotionally and for being an exemplary American politician in any circumstances.

Utopianism associated with the proliferation of electronic technology and cyber-culture…
Franco Berardi

Human beings respond to the new state of hyper-stimulation by a panic reaction…
Franco Berardi

It was not easy to go through the 20th century of wars, episodes of hunger and permanent looking for job – without mass-culture. Pop-entertainment added smiles to the tears, laughter to drying soul and deeper inhales to the lungs. In this sense humorous moments of life and smiling at human destiny had its compassionate aspect. Even the guitarized optimism, even the drum set, even the flat singing still have a human touch – singing through the human throat, although it was athletically taxed by the running of the rock stars from the one end of stage to another or rhythmically jumping under the jubilation of the adoring fans. But this existentially mass-cultural entertainment was respectfully appealing to human community, human beings and universal nucleus of a common humanity.

In 21st century, on the other hand, entertainment forces started to use technological machinery to shape-and-mold human beings’ perception like god did to form Adam’s body and soul. But to adapt to new – electronic/cyber forms of entertainment is a bit tricky, it demands a bit extra, it’s overstimulating your emotional peace. It’s, as if, new entertainment demands more of human dedication, than the traditional one. Entertaining technology (ET) in the new century made an impressive leap, but not necessarily ahead, but rather deeper inside the human perception. Now ET utilizes human perception more than before, when music was, as if natural sister of human soul and the point was the understanding what music is telling you, not to learn how to survive when “music” pushing-and-throwing you into abysses like athletic exercise machines and by this creates the effect of satisfaction based on the individual’s pride in his/her physical heroism while their human soul with its emotional needs is not participating in procedure at all. Technical toys for adult entertainment (like super-smart phones) – technologization of brains instead of nervous system like in rock-music, become more and more expensive while at the same time much more flattering to its private users. The latest models of cell-phones, for example, include some digital miracles, and that makes their owners to feel that now they can possess some magic powers.

One of the rare high-tech types of toys with “objectively” a near supernatural power is the new assault rifle machineguns with 100-700 round capacity magazine. New types of militant videogames with supernatural illusion of being in real space and fighting with real enemies are of prophetical power (right under hand with pressing few buttons). Another type of military videogames about fighting in the natural condition of the Earth, Venice and Mars and other galaxies is ready for consumers. All these and other types of rewarding impressions and actions are so real and attractive that the creatures of the 21st century learn to live a new ways of life with magic speed. The problem is not only that the adults while being involved with cyber and digital entertainment are psychologically transformed into children, but that these adult-children have psychologically stopped to be human beings – they are transformed into toy-specialists – toy-engineers and toy-technicians – little robots who are digitally controlling toy-technology which controls them. The area of human interaction is more and more outside them.

But the most innovative high-tech qualification is the manipulation of the human brains by billionaires and their spokespersons and by the politicians trained in semantic modification of truth about actual reality. What was before the politicians’ conscious and unconscious lying about reality, today happens to be the art and science of intellectual manipulation of human thinking’s mental operations. Human brain normally is a complicated “organism”, but techniques of manipulating human thinking can twist our cognitive operations into semi-schizophrenic (fragmented) modalities or/and artificially retarded/reduced state embellished by the emotional vignettes of subjectively felt pleasures fed by a methodical construction of hate, contempt and heroic megalomania. More and more think-tanks specialized in developing distortions of thinking, get investment money from the billionaires.

What starts with mini-singing and guitarizing (the difference between guitarizing and playing guitar is that the first activity is connected with intense exhibitionist pleasure impregnated with pride in the rock-singer’s social and financial success), step by step has developed into the invention of high-tech toys and TV-shows based on strategies of distorting human traditional – naïve and straightforward perception of reality. Semantic distortion of human language (for example, masses of refugees from Middle East and Africa to European countries are matter-of-factly called “German Nazis”) or Antifascists groups are called “Antifa” – the word eliminating the traditional meaning signifying the heroic role of the antifascist movements in history, etc., is part of the problem.

Technologization of entertainment is connected with multiplication of technicians-creators of techno-entertainment. Instead of creating the conditions for life – what became created are high-tech toys. The inventors of new electronic toys could be just desk clerks, professionals with miserable bureaucratic salaries had it not been for selling their toys to billions of people all over the world. Digitalization of entertainment causes people to handle their new toy-like obsessions – to master digital mechanisms of entertainment in order to obtain new pleasure – to feel themselves masters of operating the digital robotics, as if they are co-entertainers participating in its creation. Today, it’s not enough to play with the cartoon characters on the screen or with savvy personages of Hollywood productions. Today – to get pleasure you have to participate in the brain-mechanism that entertains you! You yourself have to be able not only answer questions which the entertaining mechanism indirectly puts to you, but also to develop these questions. You yourself have to make digital connections to create results full of new entertaining potentials – the situation is that you as an object of a complicated entertainment is participating in using the artificial mini-brains of the entertaining machines you have purchased – to forget about the burdens of the old human world, exhausting and exhausted, the real world with boring and impossible life. But now you got a chance to compete with another players of the same game, to win over other users. Making profit on video-games torpedoing life while transforming people into creatures from another planet alien to the problems of – alive earthly life.

At the end, there are two worlds – an ungraspable, unsolvable and a traumatizing real life that requires scrupulous studying and on the other hand the magic world of techno-entertainment – a life that seems really real and irresistible because it’s rewarding you with pleasures of being entertained. Traditional entertainment was already an instrument of distraction from life. Without mass entertainment during several decades after WWII this degree of infantilization we observe today, in 2019 could be impossible in US. And we couldn’t get Ronald Reagan, Dick Nixon, Bush Jr. and finally end with Trump-double or triple Jr. But with today’s high-tech super-entertainment the Trump-Lump world is just a beginning. For the first time in history the world got a pseudo-monarch with a brain of a nasty child, thin skinned and vengeful as a demon, greedy like a tyrannosaurus and belligerent as a high-tech nuclear missile looking for targets.

How much longer can this continue? Even the newspapers well experienced in redacting and perfuming the political texts have to let the raw hate and shameful beating and labeling the political opponents to jump on the pages like clowns on the circus ring. With TV news the situation is even worse – TV success-makers have always preferred to throw for their audience cheap hotdogs instead of the traditional puritanical stakes – but today the political opera offered to the public is often loud slaps, uppercuts and juicy spits.

Insulting verbal constructions, unrealistic lies (some of them are like child’s metaphors), and tough like teeth threats (as if accompanied by moving in the air Presidential fists) – you almost can hear these fists movements in the air. But the threats itself are arousing in the crowds pulsating hatred and aggressive impulses.

His biggest mouth in the country is permanently wide opened, like wall-speakers in every German household in the pre- and during WWII. Today, the prize-President (prize-ident) is pompously high-tech effective (through technological trick of twitter). His noise with belligerent rotting rhetoric – coils around and constricts the hearts of the simpleminded mass admirers hungry for propagandist tone.

To have loutish manners doesn’t mean not to have manners, as people sadly said in the past. And the president has his own manners, raw like blows, greedy like a palm with sweaty golden coins and simultaneously seductive, cruel and dangerous intentionality.

Giasone e il Centauro 1

Giasone e il Centauro 2

Why in the first still Centaur (Laurent Terzieff) looks at the Jason-the child, while in the second still he puts his gaze down?

Everything’s sacred in nature. Remember, my boy: there’s nothing natural in nature. When it seems natural to you, it’ll be the end. Something else will start. Good-bye sky, Good-bye Sea. But now the sky is beautiful! To look at it makes us happy… Don’t you think that even a little piece of nature could be possessed by a god? What you see is an apparition. Look at that black streak on the sea, shining and pink like oil. The shadows of the trees. A god is hidden everywhere you look. lf he is not, he’s left traces of his sacred presence: the silence, smell of the grass, the chill of fresh water. Yes, everything’s sacred. But sanctity is also a curse. Whilst the gods love, they also hate. May be you think that besides being a liar, l ‘m also too poetic. For ancient man the emotion he feels at the sight of a summer sky equals the more internal, personal experiences of modern man. You’ll travel to distant lands. You’ll experience things in a world we can only imagine. That which it can’t foresee, sadly, are the errors it will lead you to. Who knows how many there’ll be? That which man has witnessed in the cultivation of grains, that which he has understood from seeds as they are reborn, represents a definite lesson: the resurrection. But this lesson is no longer useful. That which he has gleaned from seeds holds no more meaning for you. It’s like a distant memory that no longer affects you. In fact, there are no gods.

Giasone/Jason as a child who is welcoming the world as soon as he is seeing it

Giasone and Chirone are in the midst of the world

Giasone is thirteenth years old – he is listening to his teacher (Centaur): Life is very realistic. Only he who is mythical is realistic and vice versa. This is what our divine reason foresees. That which it cannot foresee, sadly are the errors it will lead you to.

Il Centauro Chirone (Laurent Terzieff) instructs Jason (Juiseppe Gentile) in his first adult adventure – You’ll go to your uncle who stole your throne, and reclaim your rights. To eliminate you, he’ll have to come up with an excuse. He’ll send you on a quest, may be to retrieve the Golden Fleece…

Centaur – What are you doing here? What are we doing here?
Jason – Is it a vision?
Centaur – We are both inside you. You have produced us.
Jason – But I knew only one Centaur.
Centaur – No, you have known two – The sacred one, when you were a boy, and the desecrated one, when you became a man. But what was sacred is preserved in the new – desecrated form. And now we are one beside the other. He speaks not much of course, I can speak for him.
Jason – Why I have to know all of this?
Centaur – Because it is reality. You to love Medea and you also pity her. You understand her catastrophe, her confusion connected with her being from ancient world but living in a new world.
Jason– But why are you telling this to me?
Centaur– Because nothing can stop the old centaur from thinking. And nothing can stop the new centaur from expressing it.

Centaur during his apparition in front of Jason is opening to him the unbearably cruel truth of his adult destiny

In a world which is based on calculation of one’s advantages and gains as ultimate value, compassion to others and the ability to sacrifice career and social success is above human power

After doing what he had to do – to encourage Jason for his betrayal of Medea and their children, to prepare him to be strong for the sake of his future, Centaur Chiron (Laurent Terzieff) feels… post-factum compassion for Medea (Maria Callas) for what awaits her.

Medea’s older son whom she in despair after her husband’s betrayal, will kill – to share with Jason their mutual suffering (the only feeling they will have in common together, forever).

Pasolini is rehearsing with Laurent Terzieff the last scene of brief final talk between Centaurus Chiron and Jason

Soon after the war the American youth with democratic sensibility (AYDS) started to “divorce” the elder generations (with its authority over the socio-economic life, over weapons and money at the disposal of the country and over American way of life). Young Americans with democratic sensibility (YADS) became disappointed with wars, financial inequality and conservative strictness which authorities – wealthy magnates, governmental officials and heads of families were matter-of-factly imposing on the population. YADS were tired to follow, to appeal, to need consultations, to ask questions – to ask for permissions and to adapt. They wanted to create their own life, to do what they want. They wanted to live as they like, to be equal to “adults”, to prove that they can “survive” without the elders (with their air of superiority and condescension). More, they wanted to live, not just survive. They grew tired of being employees, workers and students in relation to the elders hooked on inequality, despotism and wars. They wanted to be able to hire themselves by themselves and “make” money in ways they could prefer.

This post-WWII “divorce” between generations of Americans created mass-culture. And mass-culture changed everything. And nothing – this everything was nothing. The appearance of life changed radically although it took some time to notice this change. The appearance of life has changed, but not its essence. What can you expect from kids, except groundless idealism, impulsive passions and stubborn capriciousness? Yes, adult business, adult wars, adult education and adult private life started to change, when the new generation began creating its own life and build its own – youthful adulthood. The young started to sell what they themselves created, and they started to sell to people of their own age or even younger. They started to sell to children, through the pockets of their parents – little nice sing-songs and song-sings. They started to make music using technology of “minimal musical accompaniment”. Soon this minimum becomes gross super-maximum on, as if, magically enlarged stages, while the swollen guitars became the symbol of the “daringly” phallic pop-glory! The girls and kids in the audience felt joyfully hysterical, and this artificial ecstasy became not only the definition of human freedom, but the teens and teenagers’ democratic right for a “radical” sexual liberation.

But one problem among others is that the youth started to sell the muse of music while unconsciously identifying with… the social status of adults, and it’s very difficult to be teenager hating adults but without role models of mature age. So, they were doomed to imitate the adult behavior while sincerely dreaming to be “absolutely different”. The result is that they were different from the adults in how, not in what. They kept the essence of greed and financial megalomania while indulging in illusion of being different from conventionally outdated American adults.

Some of them became impressively reach without any help or advice from business people of the previous generations. Eventually they were able to hire the older specialists, but on their own, young talents and dealers’, conditions. Everything was more than successful, but… together with semi-unconsciously self-injecting some adulthood into their blood the new generations lost something that only adults can sustain, support and enhance, like rationality (although technical and manipulative), realism (although flat and dogmatic) and cognitive maturity (although calculative and egoistically rooted). Traumatized by the conservative tendencies borrowed from previous generations, YADS tried to cut themselves from adulthood as such, and this means that they enveloped themselves with socially normed immaturity and functional childishness necessary for financial success (from the American adults the young generation took the plebeian yearning for success free from existential spirituality, but from their own past they developed tasteless bombast and noisy pomposity).

Mass cultural people (oriented on quick and smooth consumption) are by definition over-fixated on the present tense, on immediate winning (without considering the consequences of their actions and quality of their success), on any chance for self-assertion (based on megalomaniacal feelings), on yearning to prevail over the situations and on feeling dizzily high from any success. Adulthood, unintentionally internalized by the youth became infantilized, but the youth growing into nominal adults are assimilated their forerunners’ concentration on survival and control over life and became dogmatically serious and fixated on the manna, moons and mines of money regardless of their idealistic worldview.

Mass culture encourages escapism from the “boring” and always risky political reality, so only American youth with conservative sensibility (AYCSs) can stay politically oriented because they’re emotionally supported by the hate for others – hate is immanently self-aggrandizing: hated people are always devaluated in the eyes of the haters and, therefore, elevate the self-value of haters. AYDSs are prone to be involved in rock concerts subculture, and if they still have a practical attention to political “controversies” they more and more dissolve them in easy lyrics, music-pusik and drug-alcohol chats, even while some super-stars periodically make self-promotional concerts with sentimentally empathic humanistic tonality. AYCSs are inside the athletic segment of mass culture – they are fans of sport-superstars and happily participants of grandiose athletic events and high-tech gun-training ranges (the private guns subculture is an impressively active part of mass cultural agitation). Both – AYDSs and AYCSs are widely internalizing the post-modernist Hollywood and TV entertainment and “scientific” suggestions of how to feel good, optimistic, self-respectful, strong and happy and group-involved.

The impulsively ecstatic aspects of mass-cultural perception of the world already practically destroyed serious art and aesthetic sensitivity which was always the background of literature and in 20th century made it even possible the existence of serious (although financially peripheral in US) film culture. Without serious art – garden of humanistic – liberal arts sensibility, human psyche is losing its dedication to existentially spiritual human life. Personal emotional crudeness (in AYDS) and brutalization (in AYCS) become progressively inevitable and helped by growing people’s psychological attachment to digital technologies. The most primitive dogmas make a nest in the souls of the AYCS, like the most desperate fears in the souls of AYDS.

Many of AYDS became much richer than their fathers ever were. In the case of the elder generations their humanity was blended with industrialization – they were part of a giant system of industrial production and had a feeling of participating in producing collective results important for whole country. In addition, they were lucky to enjoy the post-war democratic liberalization. But today, the new adults who were the kids of post-WWII are cut from togetherness of the size of the whole country their parents were a part of. Today, the AYDS and AYCS are mainly geared for money-making as such – for financial sector of the economy, techno-scientific education and “heavy” dreaming about petty money schemes. These interests are isolating the people from the public life of the country. They dream about jobs connected with local opportunities, technical knowledge and “high-tech” results. They are doomed just to make careers, just to make success. For them bosses make the decisions while the business of the employees is do their job effectively. From the rebellious youth we came to a prosperous, but in no way a stable, reliable and respectable philistinism.

« Previous Entries  Next Page »


December 2019
« Nov    




Recent Comments