Before proceeding with the analysis of famous films and television series, I would like to make a reservation right away: everything that will be demonstrated in this material does not concern any propaganda methods or meanings specially introduced into the minds of the masses in order to improve the mechanisms of managing people, rather, it is the foundation of all Western culture, and has more to do with the mentality of Western man.
Western cinema often deals with the relationship of the individual with society, creates certain images about the place of the individual in society. This issue is always a concomitant background in many paintings and almost never forms the basis of the plot, although it quite often predetermines its development.
According to our President V. V. Putin in an interview with the RT channel, "we now have no ideological contradictions with the United States, but there are fundamental cultural ones." And, indeed, ideological contradictions with the United States and with the entire Western world as a whole, we overcame in 1991, when we abandoned the communist system in favor of capitalism: the market became "free", we began to talk more and more about freedom of speech, competition, etc..d. So, only fundamental cultural contradictions remained. What are these contradictions? Let's go back to the interview with V. V. Putin to RT channel:
So, the basis of American identity is an individualistic idea. What is individualism? Wikipedia offers this definition:
Thus, despite the seemingly superficial absence of ideological differences between the United States and Russia, the contradictions between our countries are deep, since the basis of our worldview, the basis of our society is made up of completely different concepts of life.
Naturally, if individualism is the basis of Western culture, then this philosophy will be reflected in all manifestations of this culture, including cinema. Therefore, it makes sense to see how individualism is represented in Western cinema.
Promotional video:
Superheroes as a triumph of individualism
The theme of superheroes has become widespread thanks to the cinema of Hollywood, and has its origins in comics, which have gained particular popularity in the United States. Let's try to draw a typical prototype for an American superhero.
As a rule, this is a person who, in childhood or already in adulthood, or already being a superhero, has experienced some kind of tragedy, for example, the death of loved ones - the murder of parents or a loved one, etc. This tragedy usually becomes the starting point in the formation of the superhero personality. Now he looks at the world with completely different eyes: there is something that needs to be changed, there is something that needs to be fought. He constantly returns to the past and relives what happened. This wound from the past, from the time when he was powerless to change anything, makes the superhero act.
A superhero, as a rule, is a loner, and if he has assistants, then they help him extremely indirectly: their maximum help consists in providing information and in technical support. Such assistants do not take direct part in resisting evil.
Even when there are many superheroes, many of them prefer to act according to the principle "every man for himself", and if they unite in some groups, it is only out of urgent need, while pursuing, first of all, their personal goals and objectives … At the first opportunity, they are separated from the collective, since existence within the framework of any social unit burdens them.
Ultimately, the plot of any picture about superheroes is reduced to the moment that the existence of all mankind and planet Earth depends on one single person, and only he is able to defeat evil.
Summing up the description of the image of a typical superhero, we can conclude that this hero, as a rule, is a kind of sociopath who is extremely bad at getting along with people, and is a complete individualist. He does not trust other people, believes that he does not need anyone's help, distances himself from everyone who offers such. The psychotype of such a person is just a hymn to individualism!
Of course, not absolutely all comic book heroes fall under this characteristic, but the vast majority. Take the Marvel Avengers, for example. In the 2012 film The Avengers, four superheroes must confront the evil that threatens the enslavement of humanity: the Hulk, Captain America, Iron Man and Thor. And besides superheroes, there are two agents: a Russian named Natasha Roumanov with a very dark and murky past and an agent named Barton, who joins the avengers towards the end of the picture.
All the heroes, having received a special invitation, find themselves at the secret flying base of the Shield agency, where they are introduced to the upcoming problem. And what would you think they would start doing? Are they trying to work out a plan together to prevent the impending war? No, they are measured by their masculinity. They are constantly in confrontation with each other. Once at the flying base, everyone pursues their own personal goals: Tony Stark is trying to find out what the Shield Agency is up to, Natasha wants to save Barton, Thor wants to stop Locke. Perhaps only Captain America and the Hulk realize what duty, honor and service are. And only the death of one of the agents, who believed in superheroes and carried with him (kept in his nightstand) Captain America's cards, makes the infantile egoists somehow unite into something whole, like a team. That is, a superhero always needs a personal tragedy that will sink into his psyche and force him to act in the right direction.
In the final battle, the superheroes work quite well together, helping each other, acting according to the planned plan. Everyone plays a role. But the unifying factor is only a general misfortune, and this misfortune is neither more nor less - the enslavement and death of all mankind. Iron Man, when he gets his sight about Locke's plans, he himself goes to the building of his corporation, without notifying the others. Question: if he himself could defeat Locke and stop the opening of the portal, would he wait for someone? Did any of them become? This suggests that only a common global catastrophe forces them to be united at the moment, in ordinary life they are not ready to share their laurels of glory and honors.
In the sequel to the Avengers franchise. Age of Ultron”the whole problem is based on the inconsistency of Tony Stark's work with the team, his pursuit of his personal goals and ambitions. His belief in his special super-genius leads to a fatal mistake, which then the whole team of avengers disentangles over the next two hours of the picture. It is through the fault of Iron Man that the artificial intelligence Ultron appears, which wants to destroy all of humanity by setting up a nuclear explosion. Petty tyranny, life according to the principle "I am smarter than everyone, what I want, I turn around" - these are the main attributes of the personality of Tony Stark and many other superheroes. And again, only an impending catastrophe can tie the avengers into a common team.
The collectivism of people with supernormal abilities is, as a rule, a reflection on the realization of the fact that they are not able to cope with this problem alone.
In addition, the very idea of superheroism is the idea of some kind of exclusivity. Take Spider-Man, for example. There was a guy who was absolutely unremarkable: the girls did not pay attention to him, they hurt him at school, etc. And then, thanks to an experiment out of control, Peter Parker gains superpowers, and his life begins to slowly change for the better. He gradually begins to turn into a spiderman - the only person able to stop periodically appearing villains who dream of taking over planet Earth. Glory, honor, and gratitude of society to him. Which of the kids won't dream of this? That would be so for me! And you don't have to do anything, once - and in superheroes, if only fate would point a finger at me and say: “Here he is - the chosen one!” And threw a spider in his bosom or some other insect.
Of course, children need heroes, perhaps even with superpowers. But I would like these abilities not to be given to them by birthright or by pure chance, but acquired as a result of strong, brave human actions. In this sense, Iron Man and Batman stand out from the general mass of hyped superheroes. Iron Man, being in captivity, not only survived, but also invented his own superhero. He gained his superpowers from the fact that he studied and worked hard. Although in essence he is a complete individualist, disregarding any duties and rules, avoiding any conventions. Batman also created his own image. He personally invented a suit for himself, various electronic and mechanical devices, transport, etc. But he, again, is a complete individualist, since he does it only becausethat in childhood he lost his parents due to criminals, so he fights crime alone - this is his personal vendetta to the entire underworld.
Individualism in the school environment
Let's touch on a little modern films for young people. As a rule, these are comedies, although there are also dramas. In these films, of particular interest is the school environment in which the main characters reside. How often have you seen something like the following in movies?
The main character is a simple, unremarkable guy, and maybe even a loser. There is a superbeauty in the school that this hero really likes. He dreams that she will turn her attention to him, but the beauty is dating another guy, usually a kind of informal leader at school. This leader is the strongest in the literal sense, maybe the captain of the school football team. He has a couple of handy people, he is cocky, and using force, he manipulates other people. Even a beauty meets him just because she is forced to do it. Such a boyfriend will discourage any guy from taking care of the one whose rightfully his strength.
The loser is periodically bullied: they dip his head into the toilet, throw him out somewhere and do other children's "pranks". But in the end, it is he who will turn into a real prince, get the beauty and become the king of the prom, and the bully will remain a fool.
What is wrong with this plot? Do you see in this plot at least some hint of collective coexistence, the ability to negotiate, to live, if not in friendship, then at least without conflict? On the contrary, such a scenario tells young people that school and life in general is a jungle, where the fittest survives, where everyone is for himself. And if you cannot win by force, then you must win by cunning. Your ultimate goal is the top of the pyramid of this society, you must achieve everything you want in life. For this you must be ready for anything.
Often a moment passes that a guy who does not have the proper authority at school cannot even come up and ask a classmate from a more prestigious school group something. But what is there to ask - you can't even look! That is, thereby the viewer is given the idea of a strict stratification of society into social cells with completely different authority, the possibility of influence, popularity, etc.
Who can be brought up by such a school image ?! People with the worldview of complete individualists, as closed as possible from society, who do not want to create any social ties because of the banal distrust of others. Remember, as in the Soviet Mowgli: "Every man for himself!". This is just about the image of an American school educational institution, at least shown on television.
Now let's turn our attention to products for an older audience.
Examples of popular science fiction films that discredit the idea of collectivism
Lost (2004)
Quite a well-known and popular TV series, which at one time aired in prime time on Channel One. In 2007, Lost was ranked fifth on the list of "Best Cult Show in History" by the American television weekly TV Guide.
The plot, I think, is also known to many. So, some of the surviving passengers of Flight 815 end up on a desert island. One of the plot lines of the film is some others who for some reason kidnap children among the survivors. Further, the veil of secrecy gradually falls from the society of others. We learn that this society is a kind of community, a commune that has existed in isolation for many years. The community is run by Ben, who was recently held captive by the survivors. Ben is described by the community as a very cunning, evil and vengeful person who is capable of any meanness. In one of the flashbacks, we are shown how Ben killed all the Dharma staff with poison gas, including his father. Ben is a true tyrant, and he naturally keeps most of the commune at bay. Many of the commune are unhappy with their life on the island and want to return to the normal human world.
Thus, the community in this series is shown as a kind of superstructure that inevitably suppresses the personality and interferes with the realization of personal interests and goals. Individuals living in a commune are forced to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the goals of the collective, or rather, for the sake of the goals of the leader of the collective, Ben. At the same time, the commune operates quite well-coordinated and efficiently.
On the other hand, the society of others is contrasted with the society of survivors. Survivor society has a completely different structure. This is, of course, a society of individualists, in which everyone pursues, first of all, some of their own personal interests. If these interests coincide with the goals of the entire team, then the individual helps in their implementation, if not, then does not help. For example, survivors need to solve some problem of providing water or food, it is necessary to examine nearby territories, etc. And this gathering of individualists begins to negotiate with each other: one wants to get a weapon at his personal disposal for this, the other goes to watch the third, the fourth worries about his beloved, so he follows her, etc. This is how the individualists organize themselves. Each individualist has his own skeletons in the closet: one is a special agent,another has committed a crime, etc. At some point, an individualist can calmly deviate from a common task for the sake of his goals.
Even in the first season, the society of the survivors is so fragmented that one of the main characters named Jack talks about the need to act together, otherwise they will die.
In addition, this society has an “initiative group” consisting of the main characters of the television series. This, one might say, is the elite of the society of survivors. They are much deeper into the secrets of the island, into the problems, while they themselves decide what needs to be communicated to others and what not.
Thus, against the background of the main events of the series, two societies collide: a society of survivors or a society of individualists and a society of others or a commune. A tricky question: which society in this series is presented in a more favorable light ?! Of course, the society of survivors, since at least there is personal freedom in it, and everyone is free to do what they want, and do not care that this often interferes with solving some collective problems, and, ultimately, can lead to the death of all heroes.
Spiral (Helix, 2014)
The series tells about a certain secret laboratory in the Arctic, which is developing in the field of virology. The virus created within the walls of this research center is getting out of control, as a result of which some of the workers are infected. A special team arrives at the laboratory to investigate the incident.
Again, against the background of the main events of the series, we are shown those infected with the virus. Naturally, these are zombies that hunt people. At some point, it becomes clear that zombies are not just controlled by their instincts, but act according to a certain plan. Among the infected there is a leader, and the structure of their society resembles a swarm. Zombies act in concert and together.
In the team of arrived specialists, everything is different. Each performs the assigned task based on personal motivation: one arrived to save his brother, the second turns out to be a secret agent who must steal a sample of the virus, etc. That is, team members very often act in an extremely fragmented manner, while making many mistakes, because of which people die.
Again we see a confrontation between two completely different types of society: a collective society and an individualistic society. And, naturally, the society of individualists, with all its shortcomings, cannot but win.
Under The Dome (2013)
The most popular American TV series, based on the novel of the same name by Stephen King. The plot tells about a certain strange dome that covered the small provincial town of Chesters Mill in Maine, along with its inhabitants. The dome is impenetrable, withstands any load, up to nuclear bombings, and people cannot leave its limits.
In the third season, the inhabitants of Chesters Mill, following the creators of the dome, find themselves in special cocoons. These cocoons recreate for them an alternative reality - a matrix in which the events of the dome are already behind. Chesters Mill lives his usual life. A memorial was erected in the city in memory of all those killed inside the dome. However, something in this matrix differs from reality: people have been healed of their ailments, have become kinder, more responsive, live in harmony, and now they are much closer to each other. They are increasingly talking about the need to move forward, that it is good to be a part of something bigger than yourself. There is constant talk about some next step.
That is, the matrix performs the function of reprogramming the consciousness of the inhabitants of Chesters Mill, reorienting them to collective coexistence, to the collegiality of the intellect, if I may say so. Crisis psychologist Christina Price is working inside the dome. She is trying to reconcile the inhabitants of the town, to introduce into their minds the idea of the need to live together. The creators of the dome call this experiment a correction.
Next, Julia and Big Jim free people from their cocoons. Residents of Chester's Mill find themselves face to face with the world they tried so hard to forget: the dome has not gone anywhere, the town is in ruin, lack of food, fuel and medicine.
However, something has changed - the people themselves have changed. Under the leadership of a new, as-yet-to-be-announced leader Christine Prize, people are transformed into a tight-knit community. Naturally, in the Western culture of individualism there can be no other image of the collective, like a gathering of zombie sectarians who have been brainwashed: people completely lose their critical thinking, it is useless to appeal to any logic, they are ready to follow their new leader anywhere, whatever he suggested. As a result, a community appears, reminiscent of a detachment of soldiers, ready to march in one leg and obey. Suppression and control of the individual for the sake of being part of something larger, for the sake of a common goal is the main sign of collectivism, according to the Western worldview. All dissenting "weeds" threaten prosperity and therefore must be destroyed.
According to the theory of individualism, progress is “the fruit of creativity and personal eccentricity,” as one of the series' main characters, Big Jim, stated. Individualism does not see the path to development in collective activity, since the collective destroys everything human in us, all our little flaws and weaknesses that make us so unique and unique. Personal freedom is constantly being infringed. So, in the new community, the Barbie character can no longer be with Julia and must be with Eve, the other heroes, Joey and Norrie, love each other, but the community determined that Norrie should be with Hunter contrary to their feelings.
In the series, Christine Prize, as a community leader, is extremely incompetent on many issues, and often her mistakes are paid with her lives. Its task is not to try to unite people on the principle of finding common points of contact of personal interests, explaining the need to make efforts to solve problems that are vital for people, its task is to unite the team and subordinate all its members to their will, develop unquestioning execution of orders without any own criticism and analysis.
Further, Christine should be replaced by a new "queen". This is what the community calls its leader. Eve is carrying the Queen. People are waiting for their new leader, literally, as a second coming, thus, their sectarian behavior is once again emphasized. The newly born queen needs the energy of the dome, while the dome begins to clog up - people under the dome begin to have problems with oxygen. And then Christine Prize gives the last task to her subordinates: to take all the elderly people to the lake and drown them so that the young and stronger members of the community, capable of reproduction, have enough air. Then they are taken for "unpromising" children from the point of view of survival. Representatives of the "clan" are ready to follow their leader anywhere, so they voluntarily enter the lake and die or jump out of the window when necessary. So,according to the creators of the picture, self-sacrifice is manifested in the team.
The new queen is even more ambitious, cruel and pragmatic and, by the way, more selfish. She has her own far-reaching plans, and those who obey her are only a tool for their implementation. She believes that the community under this dome did not work, therefore, after its destruction, she will leave her subordinates to their fate.
This is how individualists see the leader of a society infected with collectivism: a tyrant, usurper and tyrant.
Probably, this is how the representatives of Western civilization see the whole Russian world, rallying under external aggression around its national leader. For them, living according to our principles is a violation of freedom and human rights. In their eyes, we are just zombie monkeys who have been brainwashed by the media. Although they themselves are in the same situation, if not worse, the Western elites have long since realized the full power of television and mass media in shaping public consciousness. In support of this, it is enough to mention the book by E. Bernays entitled "Propaganda", written back in the thirties of the twentieth century.
In the system of great class stratification, the exploitation of man by man, there can be no other way than to develop a contented attitude toward one's position. The Western individualist is so glad that he is free to choose his sexual partner, drink and brand of vacuum cleaner, that he is ready to forget about the cruel injustices that permeate his society.
Equals (2015)
Humanity has experienced another catastrophe: nuclear bombs, dropped within twenty-eight days, destroyed 99.6% of the habitable territory on the planet's surface. This catastrophe is called the Great War. Only two plots of land survived this war: the territory in which the society of equals now lives, and a peninsula located in the west. Some primitive people live on the peninsula, probably surviving a catastrophe in the wild. These primitive people live by emotions and instincts, which in a newly built society are considered defects and relics of the past.
The collective, in contrast to the primitive ones, is engaged in achieving higher goals and is engaged in space exploration. People no longer need to emphasize their individuality, so everyone is dressed in the same white tailored suits. In general, despite the emphasized collectivism, people live in a very lonely and standard way. The main character spends time either at work or at home. At home, as a rule, he is engaged in the collection of three-dimensional puzzles. A monotonous, boring life without any hint of happiness, cold, identical apartments - this is what the desire for "equalization" leads to, according to the creators of the picture.
Any deviations in behavior, suspicious actions, are called a syndrome of acute consciousness (SOS) and are compulsorily treated by the health and safety service. Through screens located in public places, calls are constantly heard to report all suspicious incidents, the history of mankind is told, and what problems a new type of society has managed to solve, getting rid of the so-called defects in the form of emotions and feelings. People who show signs of SOS are also called defects. The society is also informed about violators of the accepted order. For example, a man and a woman were accused of "acting together" and sent to compulsory treatment to suppress emotions and feelings. Couples, according to new social norms, pose a particular danger both to others and to themselves."Collective" suppresses the most beautiful thing in a person - love.
The new society multiplies through the artificial insemination of women, while women are summoned to this procedure by order, receiving subpoenas (like in the army).
Anyone who is diagnosed with the first stage of SOS is prescribed a course of inhibitors to "relieve suffering." In the last stage, the "patient" can no longer be a full-fledged member of the team, and is sent to a special EON center, where either he undergoes a course of electrical stimulation to suppress emotions, or ends his life path with one of the proposed options, including suicide.
Thus, another society of the collective type with complete suppression of personality, erasure of individual identification and suppression of the normal psychophysical state of the individual is shown to the attention of the audience: the individual cannot experience feelings of love, fear, sympathy, etc. And all these factors for some reason are tied precisely to the collective model of building society, as if such factors cannot arise in a society of individualists - in a society where everyone seeks to live at the expense of exploiting someone else's labor, where the slaveholding hierarchy leaves sometimes the most talented representatives below the poverty line the human race. A soldier in war is not put under the same conditions when he is obliged to go to kill another person? Isn't the head of the company placed under the same conditions,when in order to fulfill a business plan you have to kick thousands of people out into the street? Isn’t the same conditions imposed on a poacher who exterminates a rare species of animal in order to feed himself and his family? What compels them to do this? Are they experiencing compassion or fear or love at this moment? Is human lack of freedom a product of collectivism? Or maybe, to be honest, this extreme degree of unfreedom is the product of extreme injustice, the desire of a certain stratum of society to own the whole world?then such an extreme degree of unfreedom is a product of extreme injustice, the desire of a certain stratum of society to own the whole world?then such an extreme degree of unfreedom is a product of extreme injustice, the desire of a certain stratum of society to own the whole world?
Equilibrium (2002)
The dystopian film "Equilibrium" tells about the difficult path of humanity, which led it to the point of building a totalitarian state. People came to the conclusion that emotions and feelings are to blame for the fall of human civilizations, their plunge into the chaos of war and anarchy. Society decides to get rid of this "leprosy", to overcome the nature of its psyche. A special medicine was invented for suppressing feelings - prosium. Now the individual physically experienced nothing in the sounds of inspired music, in the wonderful and sublime images of poetry, fine arts.
In society, everyone is under total surveillance, even children are watching their parents, and in case of any incriminating manifestations, they can calmly report them. Any works of art from past civilizations are subject to confiscation and complete destruction. Naturally, a resistance organization appears that tries to preserve the human heritage, realizing its value and refusing to accept the prose.
To catch all those dissatisfied with the regime, all dissidents, a special organization was created - Tetragrammaton, where special fighters - clerics are trained. Clerics (from the Greek. Minister of worship, church) are engaged in all the dirty work to cleanse society of all manifestations of disagreement.
Thus, in the film Equilibrium we are dealing with a totalitarian society, similar to that described in the novel by J. Orwell "1984" with complete control not only over behavior, but also over a person's thoughts. The atmosphere is constantly heightened by the artistic design of the picture: flags like fascist ones, children with hairstyles like Hitler's, constant propaganda through loudspeakers, announcing the achievements and advantages of this type of society, a gray mass of people in the same costumes.
That is, we are again shown one of the extremes of the pendulum of the social structure: if there is a taboo in society, then they are elevated to such a hypertrophied form that they suppress the individual in all its manifestations. At the other end of this pendulum is complete freedom without any restrictions. And one gets the impression that humanity, in principle, is unable to build something in between, following a sense of proportion.
Initiate (The Giver, 2014)
In this film, we observe exactly the same features of a collective society as in the previous examples. Humanity has suffered another catastrophe. The end point of disagreement between people was the construction of special social cells - communes. How does a commune work?
Children are raised in an incubator, women in labor are assigned and fertilized with specially prepared genetic material. Defective babies are "removed", that is, they are killed with a special injection. Further, at the naming ceremony, the newly born members of the commune are given names, and they are sent to special family units for education. In the commune, no one has a surname, that is, no family affiliation. The family unit is just a function, almost like a job, a duty to society.
From childhood, children are taught five basic rules:
- Use words correctly. That is, you cannot use words with a clearly negative and brightly emotional connotation.
- Wear the prescribed clothing. That is, all members of the commune wear the same costumes.
- Give special injections every morning. Injections take away emotions.
- Observe curfews and daily routines: strict limits for rest, sleep, work, study, dinner, etc.
- You can't lie.
Also, touching other members of the community, unless the people are the same family unit, is strictly prohibited. There is no music in the commune. When they come of age, the elders determine the occupation for the grown children, and the children must unconditionally obey their will. All residents of the commune are constantly monitored by video. The world is made in black and white to thicken the colors. This was done to create complete uniformity, to raise it to the leveling limit:
But together with the rejection of diversity, a person loses the joy of enjoying the beauty of this world, the whole palette of colors of sunrise and sunset, sky and sea, green forest, etc.
Also in the commune there is a ceremony of removal to another place: this is a voluntary mortification. The members of the commune do not realize that this procedure is just murder, and the other place is the other world. Removal is applied not only to the elderly, who are about to free up their habitat for grown-up children, but also, as mentioned earlier, to “defective” newborns.
That is, again we are faced with a collective society of a totalitarian persuasion. Indeed, from the point of view of the individualist, this type of society can only be built by violence against the individual, oppression of the individual. Hence, everything that follows - up to the elimination of the color of the world and such words as love. For an individualist, in a world where a person lives not so much for himself as for the sake of others, there can be no love and compassion, and people are just cogs of a ruthless system.
The main character named Jonas is assigned as the host of the memories. According to the elders, he has the ability to "see further." At the appointment ceremony, he receives a triangular object - probably a symbol of the pinnacle of the hierarchy of power, because he should become the next keeper of memories. For the host, the rules are somewhat different than for the rest of the community. The host can:
- Don't follow the rudeness rule.
- Ask any questions.
- In addition to daily injections, it is forbidden to take other medicines, especially for pain.
- You cannot discuss training with anyone else.
- Can lie.
That is, the essence of Jonas' transformation is the gradual acquisition of more and more personal freedom. Ultimately, the Giver hints that injections can be omitted. Jonas, refusing to inject, plunges into the world of emotions and feelings, imbued with the beauty of memories of the past, where people were able to truly enjoy happy moments. Memories, a world that has acquired colors, vivid impressions make Jonas look from a completely different perspective at his commune and the routines adopted in it.
One day the Giver explains to the Receiver that "YOUR home is not just a dwelling." That is, the individualistic worldview has a completely different attitude to property, assuming that it must necessarily be in someone's private hands, and only in this way does it represent some value.
In short, Jonas's transformation is about finding individuality, which, according to the individualist, is about finding happiness.
But one of the memories shown to Jonas just very clearly characterizes the individualistic system: killing an elephant for money, for his own benefit is the first pain that the Receiver sees. This memory very vividly demonstrates what causes such troubles in our civilization: corruption, environmental pollution, murder of our smaller brothers - and this is not the whole list. Selfishness makes a person commit such crimes, since only a person who thinks about himself can steal money from other people, from the state, pour slop into rivers without spending money on their disposal, kill animals either for fun or for profit.
However, the number of good memories from the past civilization clearly exceeds the number of bad ones. And we are constantly shown that for all the flaws, that world was clearly a better place. Yes, no one argues that building a society where even love is prohibited is not the way. But why are we not offered another option, where people are united in a common impulse - to create harmony on our planet, where everyone is ready to give himself up for the happiness of others without any injections, spying and coercion, where differences in skin color, religion, ideology did not interfere would people live in respect and harmony? But at the same time, selfishness would be defeated, people would finally step over it into the future of collective coexistence, of conciliar reason.
Of course, this all looks utopian. But I want to believe that nothing is impossible, and humanity is able to overcome its weaknesses, heal and become truly happy. However, such stories, most likely, offer to convince us otherwise.
Who needs it?
This statement was made by German Gref at the session of Sberbank of Russia "Breaking the management deadlock". In the same speech, German Gref also touched upon the issues of the need to preserve strata in society and the role of the media in this.
That is, the preservation of power, their elite privileges, class inequality, the exclusion of other representatives of society from the ruling circles to the levers of control - this is one of the main goals of not only a part of national elites, but also transnational elites as a whole.
How can this be achieved? Obviously, in addition to instilling in people the idea of consumption, putting them on various dubious entertainments so that they do not think about what is really happening (remember "Island of Fools" in the cartoon Dunno on the Moon?), They must also be divided as much as this as much as possible - the principle of "divide and conquer".
One person is powerless against the system, which, moreover, has a lot of ways to suppress any disagreement. But any grouping of people is already dangerous, especially if these groups become numerous. From here follows all the benefits of the ideology of individualism, the transportation of which into our consciousness and is carried out through the media, turning people into selfish arrogant infantiles who are dissatisfied with their position, constantly gnaw at each other, but cannot change anything. Hence the need to destroy any rudiments of collectivism at the root, so that even thoughts of the dream of collective peaceful coexistence are not in their heads. Therefore, the collective society in modern cinematography is constantly associated with tyranny and oppression of the individual and his freedoms.
Hollywood in this sense is the mouthpiece of such ideas. But why is the American film industry so actively exporting the ideology of individualism around the world? The fact is that it is very easy to play on such disunity of people. It is no longer a secret to anyone that the American elites are pursuing a rather aggressive foreign policy, considering the United States a hegemonic country. One of the methods of influencing the satellite countries is the so-called theory of controlled chaos. The orange revolutions that have swept the world in waves are controlled chaos in its practical application.
Pay attention to the countries of the Middle East, which at one time could not agree among themselves on the creation of some kind of common economic, political and military space, which the late Muammar Gaddafi called for in his speeches.
In addition, these countries have an extremely orthodox attitude towards religion, and even adherents of various currents of Islam cannot agree with each other, not to mention tribal strife and inter-confessional conflicts. It is the fragmentation of the countries of the Middle East that has led to the events that we are witnessing today.
What is the fertile ground for controlled chaos to grow? Obviously, it is necessary that individualism be the dominant ideology in society, since when people cannot find a common language, cannot negotiate with each other, are unable to work together, it is easy to drive wedges of contradictions between them and set them against each other.
What to do?
In the fall of 1945, two months after Japan's surrender, a series of matches between Dynamo Moscow and the best clubs in the English football league took place. Naturally, football was far from the most important activity of the dilapidated, hungry and badly beaten country - the USSR, which had only defeated Nazi Germany.
England, as the ancestor of football, of course, was considered the undisputed favorite in this game. We had nothing but the spirit of the just won victory in the bloodiest war, and people welded into a monolith in the crucible of world slaughter. This is how Russian journalist Konstantin Semin describes this game.
Two thoughts from K. Semin's material that I would like to highlight.
The example with sports is certainly not the only one. If you look at our traditional culture, then it is all saturated with collectivism. These are choral songs, and ceremonies, and holidays that were never held alone or in a narrow circle of the family, on the contrary, as a rule, mass festivities were organized.
"Sport is the same war, only without shooting," said George Orwell, author of 1984 and, incidentally, the term Cold War, who commented on this series of matches.
So what kind of war are we talking about? Returning to the words of our President V. V. Putin, mentioned at the beginning of the article, is, first of all, a war of ideas: collectivist and individualistic. Moreover, if we consider the series of football matches of the 45th year from this point of view, then it should be noted that collectivism is our cultural advantage, which can bring us victory on any front, be it sports, be it an information war, be it an open military conflict. And we are simply obliged to use it in our confrontation with destructive meanings that they are trying to introduce into our culture, including through cultural cooperation and the sphere of cinema.
Moreover, the cleansing of collectivist ideology from our consciousness can lead to the destruction of the Russian mentality, the erasure of our self-identification. After all, such a fundamental concept as justice - one of the pillars of Russian civilization - is wholly and completely the basis of the collective. Without a fair attitude towards each person, it is impossible to unite people, and even if it turns out to solder something, such a social group will be extremely ineffective to work.
Thus, in the light of recent events in the world and the constant threat of escalation of tension, which only the lazy is not talking about now, it is necessary to unite people around those values that are the foundation of building our society: family, justice, faith in God, friendship and brotherhood of peoples. Only in this way can we win this final war for our souls.
Author: Oleg Ishchuschiy
