Destined Others

By: Jonathan Seidel

Zizek critique of the Levinasian ethic: enduring inhuman otherness/no facial otherness

Levinas’ ethical push post-WWII caught on in the French continental project. Ethical stabilisation was a necessary asset to purging any future holocaust. While Levinas’ ideas are monumental and revolutionary, Zizek finds them to be incomplete. 

Levinas’ ethics as first philosophy topples Heidegger’s being as first philosophy. Placing the other before the self is a method of dignifying the other before the self. Before I know myself I know you and then through knowing you I know myself. While the theoretical basis is compelling, realistically it runs into a few problems. In his face to face ideal, there is a connective maturity in recognising the other as a human beyond the cultural tides. Ridding the stereotypical mischief clouding one’s judgement. Peeling back the humanity over the difference separating the particularity between the dual encounter. It is the automatic signification that precedes any malice.

Sympathising with Levinas’ attempt is critical for adolescents. It is the hyper racial and normative discrimination that belies any proper continuation beyond youth. I personally recall playing in the park by Shop Rite in Englewood with a black kid who was a year or so older than me though I was taller than him. It did not even occur to me who he was or what he looked like. He was fun to play with. Years later, I broke my foot on the last day of school, an hour before Shabbat. That summer I was unable to attend sleep away camp and went to “summer school”. I made friends who were unlike me. While I was happy to befriend them I was aware of my difference. My own ability to befriend non-Jews is parentally educational and personally enjoyable as an extroverted outgoing individual. Not staying in touch with either kid is of little concern as I was young and we were heading in different directions. It had nothing to do with my feelings towards them and more to do with our divergent lives. 

While there is something to be said of the situational event. I was only friends with these kids in either the playground or at camp. Once I left in the evening, there was little connection or concern to do so. We were circumstantial friends. This was not a conscious attempt to salvage loneliness but because our busy lives and environmental factors distanced us. Varying priorities isolated us. If I saw them again I would be happy to speak to them. The event itself was a meeting place to display our friendship. This is unlike a Romeo and Juliet love affair meeting in secret as not to sound any alarm bells. This was not a sacrilege but simply an enjoyable moment. Yet it does say something about the congregation of diversity. I even recall my mother speaking casually with the playground friend's mother. I have never asked if she remembers, while she may say the women was a sweet lady, it does not take away from our different lifestyles. Particularities do officially divide people though without malice. 

It is crucial to note that in my adolescence, I was unaware of the difference. By the time I reached that summer I was cognisant of differences I personally did not care that I was Jewish and did not attempt to hide my religiosity. My own diversion into special needs was a similar step in questionably unforeseen circles. In a humble moment, my personality is openly exposed to otherness. Others are not. There may be shy individuals, though this occurs in adolescence, it isn’t usually because of cultural differences. The youth are energetic and cease to see otherness. They see friendship. Calling an older sister evil while hugging his black friend on the playground. Children do not recognise the multitude of difference. Yet the difference is heightened by our own social slogans. While inevitably consciousness will recognise the racial and religious variance it does not need to quell the friendship. I owe a lot to my parents who fervently taught to treat all with respect. 

Levinasian ethics for me sounds perfect but my educational upbringing imprinted this ideal. For adults to be taught this motif is not easy, grounded in their stereotypical makeup. Levinas’ goal operates in the theoretical. If I see the other I should reflect my identity through theirs. The ontological primary cannot hold up to the pragmatic faculty. While Levinasian ethics does produce an exalted result following the encounter. The recognition of the other before making any other deductions. When the stereotypical inquiries come to mind denounce them. There is a sacred moment that is quickly come and gone tarnished by the fast pass routine. A radical mental shift is necessary. Heidegger’s being as first philosophy extends all the way back to Aristotle. Levinas is searching for an entirely new modality in ethics as first philosophy. A psychological attack on the ontological stake. The ontological is still theoretical and thus indefensibly counteracting. 

Ethics as first philosophy is the ultimate goal. Yet it comes at a radical revolution in history. Levinas’ theory is one that must be educated and habituated. One usurping western philosophy. Altering the core of the western canon is a fireable offence in the philosophical world. There is not enough influence to change the perspective. For now, the solution is to mess with the mechanics. The runaway train will advance but a lever must be pulled to shift the train to a different track. On a different track with a different destiny. While the runaway train is on course for its cyclical attitude, there is human engagement to make minimal changes that may have an incredible effect. The parental guide either will teach to love or to hate the stranger. Some parents may not let their children engage with foreigners. Without exposure the values never arise. The youngster mentality is heavily influenced by their surrounding experiences. If not now then when?

This is where university comes in. For me it was the armed forces. In my situation I was forced to coexist and befriend. We needed one another to accomplish the trials and tribulations. Put our fate in each other’s hands. While we never spoke of politics, such points were irrelevant. The ability to advance and build meaning seeking relationships that transcend the stereotypical makeup given the dire circumstances. While the racial-ethnic barrier can be surpassed, can the political side? This point rings true in universities as well. Exposed to diverse ethnicities produces friendships in the same game. A classmate of varying origin is another student. One who can be approached. Their skin colour or cultural garb may be intimidating from the unknown but not out of malice. This can be overcome in routine procedure. Even beyond the autonomous move, placed in class with such individuals can be heteronomously imposed to garner connection. 

Ethnicity can be veiled to some extent but it is usually shines in its own right. Nor should one feel the need to hide it out of fear of vicious attack. Many Jews do not cover their heads in public in fear of backlash. While racial aspects cannot be hidden, it is clear that these aspects can surely be triggered and overcome. These are not topics of conversation but of perception. Racism is prudently manifested. My mother once argued that Americans need a national service since university is not the cultural hub it used to be. The collegiate dialogical adventure has become a breeding ground for monistic echo chambers. Yet despite the young moralists already at the peak of social justice and racial equality, they are not always at the head of ethnic defence. Still their hyper moralised mentality is a product for futuristic hope. Assimilation amidst maturity fools the prevailing ethnic monism. 

Stereotypes only exist insofar as they remain in the abstract. They exist in the sphere of speculation and accusations. The little evidence nor factual support is the devilish kind of insecure testimony. The ideas can only be quashed with conversation. Stereotypes are not reoccurring issues but embellished narratives. Generalisations are concocted to despair the potential acquaintance. See a news story ferment it into an epidemic. This attitude precedes the conversation. Facial recognition alarms the brain to advance quickly. Alarm bells racing to reach a sanctuary. Humanity is found in dialogue. Conversation pronounces the similarities that compel identification. Avoiding engagement will only permit more isolating negativity. It is the impassioned disassociation prompting its perpetuity.   

Conversation may quell the ethnic divide. Realising the humanity in one another. The meta-narrativising is brought to a halt in the exclusive encounter. All those prior conceptions become misconceptions. Conversation thought may reach the humanity of the other yet breaching the ethnic gap still remains in the sphere of the philosophical. Where people stand on issues can not be breached to the humane capsule. Ideology mixed with ethnicity forges stalemate dialogue. The hot button issues unable to communicate efficiently becomes a stereotypical assailant. The political sphere is corrupted of conversation. The engaged encounter between two racially congruent individuals. Yet when the political banter raises eyebrows on the divergent opinions the smile fades into a scowl. The expectation shattered in the ideological foot.

Precautionary divestment is a sincerely tracked attempt. Wishing to live in a sacred echo chamber. Protected from otherness. Wishing to live alongside friends. Only the deepened friendship can surpass the betrayal of political adversary. Convoluted narratives conjoin the friend with other problematic factors. He is one of them. Yet they’re humanity, love for golf and charismatic personality is worthwhile to keep around. It becomes a semi-pragmatic endeavour. The ontological perception is still how bring the greatest conformity to the self. To be living right with those alike. Seeming disagreements need not end the friendship as long as there is a desire to maintain it. It is a dual desire. Unfortunately, the political adversary loses much of his humanity if the foundation is loose. Stereotypical attitudes against otherness conveys its harsh polemic directly. Beliefs are central to value systems.

Otherness is the unknown and scary. A guest at a party out of town. Visions of the night’s events send shivers down the spine. Anxiety corrals preventing ease and potential advancement. Confidence sheds the fearful armour. Stereotypes arise to encounter and those after encounter. Otherness is thus the discomforting public sphere. Walking in and chatting people up lessens the unknown to recognisable. At times it takes a leap of faith beyond conventional wisdom. A deep breath and a step forward. They collapse with each advance. Chatting up someone feeling a spark but the difference of opinion becomes a swift turn off. Instead of walking away, take pride in the ability to possess opposing opinions. Finding a compromise on the issue. Opinions are convictions while some may be dubious or outlandish, they are strongly held beliefs. Making a good impression is resolving the tension between both opinions. Respectfully disagreeing and proposing the felt position. It is not about discarding theirs but respecting it with a principled challenge. 

Politics polarises people. It is not simply a  governmental approach but a valuational merit. Humanity can be dignified in the conversational discussion. Bordering on unsolicited radioactive inquiries. Reaching dire territory will raise emotional levels. The dialogical humanity regresses into inhumanity. The switch is flipped to antagonising deceit. The blazing attempt to be friends has fondled into madness. From encouraging gestures to finger pointing. Passing the first test of confronting the other can abruptly falter in a matter of minutes. A wrong word, misconstrued position is all it takes. Our beliefs are canonised in the halos of a metaphysical order incapable of mistranslation. Perfect at every angle and avenue. Any attempt to purge that perfection is a violent attack. Quickly cutting ties deserting to preserve its sanctity. While these conversations hit the heart of an individual’s being it is voided to save face. Salvation comes in open disagreement without offence. Contending the possibility of another’s legitimacy.           

All Hail!

By: Jonathan Seidel

The one true king

The marxist narrative is between the oppressed and the oppressor. The duality follows Hegel’s master-slave dilemma. There will be one person with the power and one person without power. The powerful will control and exploit the powerless. This aristocratic tone does remain true in corporate economies. The CEO owns the means of production and receives the money to which he distributes. While politicians are elected, once they are, they act free of punishment. The democratic creation attempted to curb exploitation but only furthered it with no finger to point to. At least in monarchies, there was someone to blame, today it is a never ending cycle of botched corruption. It is the sheer might that oppresses the slave but the lack of liberty to fight back. The rules are concocted by the elite. There is little power afforded to the citizenry. They were made to be servants with limited choices. To choose their master but not fret for as long as he reigned. 

The helpless impartiality of the public to the regime’s unlawful behaviour and its unethical standards lies in the comfort of a master. Nietzsche’s slave morality is problematic but not in the description as he describes it. Slave morality looking out for the downtrodden is different than submitting to a corrupt leadership. If anything it is the master morality public who are content with the inequality and subversion of liberties under their noses. Master morality prides itself on hierarchical order. For the masses to accept just because. It may be no wonder that the German republic so quickly fell and the citizenry were content with outcasting anyone that was not pure Aryan. They were slaves to their own demise. Slave morality is a more encompassing picture of society. It attempts to unify and secure the totality of the community. Its egalitarian format opens trade and networking through the common care. 

Slave moral empathy derives from the shared depressing experiences. The hallowing past links emotionally to a better tomorrow. Their suppression at the hands of hierarchical institution enhances their pessimism. Distrust is for the powerful not the weak. The average citizen is perceived in a favourable revolt against elitist preconditions. Even Plato’s philosopher king is the victor who heroically returns to aid his fellow sufferers. The philosopher king is he who has suffered before. He is not some divine appointee or generational hag but an ally. A shared experiencer. The political elite remain disassociated from society. The philosopher king returns to the bandaged individuals. He left the projects and gives back to society. He speaks to them. The philosopher king is not a tyrant but a former slave turned leader. With his newfound prestige he can elevate those who struggled in a Spartacus kind of way. 

Yet, the danger of losing a prospect to become so preoccupied with fame he forgets his roots. While many successes have given back to the dreadful areas they grew up, there are still horrid issues plaguing the country. There is more they can do. Instead of using their money for lavish outings and crazy expenditures they can give some more to the communities. Yet money is not everything. The philosopher king brings knowledge more than money. It is about education and aid more than construction buildings. The political elite play by their own rules. Democracy is intended to represent the people but it becomes an exclusive club for the elected. They do whatever it takes to keep that power. All the macho inspirational speeches are waived with little action and execution. The former slave idealist becomes a master with new ideals. 

Ideally, the master-slave duality should be finished. A democracy is representatives. Politicians are for the people. They work for the citizenry and yet they treat the public as ignorant idiots below them. Modern democracies did away with aristocratic governments. The duality would transform into a leader-follower duality. Someone must lead and others will follow. A charismatic educator and visionary to bring the people forward.      

Be like Bats

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Batman: slave morality and the invention of the sigma

Contemporary pseudoscientific entries display a binary of human ontology. Some males are alpha and others are beta. Some dominant and others are submissive. While in Marxian duality there are oppressed and oppressor as well as leaders and followers in folklore, humanity is much more diverse than these terms can convey. Yet buying into these binaries for argument’s sake can shed light maybe not on ontology but on expression. The master-slave morality is an example of threefold human expression.

Nietzsche’s master-slave is interesting given his slave is less obedient and more a rebel. If anything slave morality would be dealing within the system. The ideal slave morality would be the beta model. A group that accepts the hierarchy but impassions itself via motivation or promise. The slave is the master’s property and thus must concede to the stereotypical layout by the master. The alpha sets the standard standing tall above the hierarchy. A top-down classical political fashion. There is little the slave can do other than provide himself with hope of salvation. Coping through the matrix designed to keep him down. The master solidifies his control by ensuring the slave follows through.   

Yet Nietzsche’s slave morality portrays sigma energy. Modelled after John Wick. A sigma is one who rejects the master’s hierarchy. The master attempts to impose his will but the slave rejects it breaking away with his own system. The slave is no longer a slave in the colloquial sense. While the master may continue his dominant reign chastising the disobedient slave, the slave no longer perceives himself as a slave. He is free and independent. He has successfully constructed a model beyond the master’s capacity. His rebellion leads him to his framework. While he continues to struggle under the might of the master’s angst to regain control he rejects the master’s imposition. The master exiles him in disgust, yet he is the victor. Able to harness his strength and push on despite his alienation. 

The master has cultivated generational power but the former slave demonstrates his unique prowess by developing a unique strategy away from this might. Pushing through despite his continuous attempts to destroy him. He is considered an outcast. No master nor slave is to join him but they are inspired by him. It is only through prolific propaganda that the outsider remains a vicious outsider. Order has been broken and the master must resort to underhanded deviltry to salvage his reputation. The former slave is a renown rival. A scary adversary that wishes to do his own thing. He does not see the master’s system as relevant. He seeks a new model a revolutionary paradigm. It is this danger that the alpha fears the sigma. The sigma objects to the hierarchical blasphemy. Instead promoting a more horizontal approach. A novelty that seeks to overthrow the master’s ways.      

Slave morality creates the idolised mysterious sigma. His ways are out of sorts and indeed foreign but they appeal to the common good. An insightful ordeal that designates a model picture for a better future. The slave who has experienced the hardships and nonsense of the master’s system decries its ignorance and paranoia. Mustering courage he dismisses its prowess and paves a new route devoid of the formalistic obscurity. Generational power gone in a single moment. Breaking out of the matrix of masterful dominance. No longer a new world order is relevant. The aspiration is tantalised but action is taken to reduce the master’s influence. The mysterious one is outcasted for his outbursts. His aspirations deal him out of the community but he returns and raises up a rebellion. A revolution against the master. Undermining the hierarchal order with the bottom half putting the system in disarray through armed challenge. 

Historically, the slave rebellion comes in many shapes and sizes from the Exodus to the Magna Carta to the American and then Russian revolutions. Each of these sought a new route out of the status quo. A successful bottom-up solution. In each situation ironically an elite individual (Moses, Fitzwalter, Washington and Lenin) led with help from the lower half. Only when lowering themselves to the difficulties of the slavish depravity did they see the light. Able to transcend the matrix of the dominating presence. All arising from wealthy homes to alter the trajectory of the new nation. The common theme is the historical-mythological narrational recognition of master morality’s falsities. The slave did not always need an external saviour but a misguided elite who came to their aid to join their fight. To surpass master morality a new world order was stabilised by a balanced masterful consent to the slavish rationale. 

Though it may be this masterful transition to slavish notoriety that maintained the master hierarchy. If the leader was trained by formal masters aspects of the previous institution will be kept. Despite daring attempts to promote liberty, hierarchies were maintained. Ethically resolved tensions but the continuous hierarchies remained. Profitable in the short run but their structural inflexibility retain the defiling future. Biblical kings and congressional members placed themselves above the people. The greatest attempt in Leninism was followed by Stalin’s murderous rage. His dictatorship placed him beyond all others. Slave morality has yet to escape the structural affinities of master morality. While they make grand innovations they stumble onto their own master framework that is toppled inevitably. Rebellions occur through the reign with a rollercoaster ride of turmoil but unable to reach that idealistic anarchist equality. 

If former masters turned liberators cannot escape the structure ingrained in their psyche. Liberation of the slave is to provide a new order for the free. The freed slave is now lost in the chaotic wilderness and needs order to configure itself. The former master recalls the structural stability and enforces a reformed Leviathan. Similar to the last order but more ethically innovated. The liberator does not know any other model and yet even television shows like Vikings which take a farmer turned rebel becoming an unwarranted king. Even when the leader himself wishes to distance from the older order. He not only takes the place of his captor but the external influences and his widespread respect reaches new heights in his kingship. The biblical episode follows the metric with kingship reigning in following surrounding political influence. While the American distaste for kingship distances its namesake, the president has slowly garnered king like power and even the government has reached aristocratic status. Everyone may be created equal but not everyone is judged equally. 

Stalin’s failure had much more do with the idealistic fault than communism’s natural fallacy. External propaganda and elitist fear-mongering plummeted the ensuing success of communist agenda. Despite the anti-communist push, the slavish revolution startled order with little to go on. It was a new model that hoped the government would ensure equality. There were many successes but elitist paranoia swept across all countries. The Tzar’s regime influence did not dissipate. Stalin or Mao had big blunders but their dictatorships were neo-kingships. Yet so were democratic governments. Gulags were awful but given the democratic bias the American prison system is seen as so much better despite its torturous conditions. The inability for the slave morality to survive was due to generational conformity.

If anything unlike Lenin, Stalin was born to a poor family and suffered under the Tzar’s regime. He was not an empathetic outsider but a struggling insider. He had the capability to topple the system and bring security to the people. To be the perfect Joshua to Moses. Yet unlike Joshua, his uphill battle had little allies and many powerful foes. Stalin’s failed conquest to ensure soviet security was pushed back as an imperial danger to the global paradise democracy preached. Yet it may have been his slavish history that derailed his success. He did not understand the world enough. He played with fear while his successor Gorbachev played politics. The latter failed but it was the historical decline that sent his plans asunder. His centralism of armed conflict persisted into the afghan conflict which like many wasted wars woke up the public of this nuisance. 

Communism was the first bottom-up attempt to remove the generational monarchical hegemony with an entirely new structure. Democracy existed in antiquity and briefly in the Middle Ages but nothing like communist publicity. While ancient hunter-gatherers to some extent and certain Native American groups were proto-communist in their economic forum others like Inca or Aztecs were imperial and hierarchical. There is a diversity even amongst the americas. It is in this depiction that communism is even harder to secure in its fully slavish creation. Nietzsche may have hated democracy but there may be some aspects of representative democracy in its elitist surge that he would revere. On the face of it he would reject the equality for all slogan but recognising realistic trends of elitist overhaul may have found some liking. Yet communism was the worst in its ultimate equality and childish emasculating sharing. 

Nietzsche’s apolitical nature did not stop his proto-fascist vibes (more Mussolini than Hitler). The master race would prevail in the masterful takeover. Today in liberal democracies it is the rich corporatists and congressional elitists. Nietzsche’s promotion of aristocratic hegemony in the Genealogy of Morals has more in line with the Sheriff of Nottingham than Robin Hood. Zarathustra desires a different model away from the conformist narrative. One faces the alpha the other the sigma. The one thing Nietzsche consistently hates is the betas. The inability to self empowerment by collective or individual is a failed sequence. Nietzsche’s aspiration provides one possibility while the batman comics provide two others. Zarathustra is the mystics unable to handle the matrix and runs away. He tries to preach his ideal but is mocked and gives up on society’s rehabilitation. He masters his own prestige over the coercing narrative. Yet this abandonment unlike the former mentioned leaders did return to liberate. Unwilling to back down against the standard order.

While many of the character mentioned attempted to create a new society the sigma soul is not always a militant revolutionary. The rebel attempts to coexist within the existing model but alter the current mechanics. In many instances this brave liberator is behind the scenes or an apolitical figure. Harriet Tubman and MLK were perfect examples of rebellious figures who displayed the duality between a hidden Underground Railroad and a revealed March at Selma. Batman is the nighttime concealed hero and superman the daytime spotlight hero. Batman is the whistleblowers and unnoticed champions of change. His lack of powers symbolises a lack of power in the system. His sigma smugness pushes back against the crime lords by stopping crime. The rebel does not have a following but a single individual with a his body and wits to protect the conformists. He fights back the masterful corrupted hierarchy with his own will. Yet it is his wealth that enables him to access the innovative means to stop crime. 

Batman is akin to Moses with a less revolutionary charm. Finding more compatibility with Jefferson before his political fame. The rebellious Batman fits Camus’ absurdism as the foil for the Joker’s chaotic nihilism. Humans are selfish hierarchies are deplorable may as well destroy everything. The Joker pushes back against the governance with chaos and disarray. Instead of leaving he remains in the depraving society but makes noise to inspire change positively or desire destruction negatively. Whatever the Joker’s agenda his sigma rage is a reactionary cruelty. If the world is cruel well then either he will be cruel in response just for its sake or for people to recognise the faults and rebuild. No matter, the Joker is unwilling to be a slave any longer. His menacing wit and exotic mania leads to his villainous supremacy. A tragic idealist anti-hero living his way against the grain. 

Joker’s foil is an internal stoic mastery. Joker’s slavish revolution seeks anarchy. Dismantle all the wealthy villains. Seek to establish an equivalent vicious selfishness. Batman thought aware of the world’s harsh truth works within the system for change. To route out the evil. Refusing to kill in order to maintain some order. Working with Commissioner Gordon to fortify and rid the devilish instability. Batman fails many a time to alter society’s depravity but it is through his conviction and thereby his actions that is truly remarkable. Batman himself remarks his purpose is to symbolise that it is his actions that define who he is. He fights for the common man. Yet it is his lack of successors that keeps the people down. For all of Batman’s success his own key-tonight is his attitude. He is a sigma but a deep loner with little deeper connections. Speaking of his crime fighting alone he has limited sidekicks no more than ten at a time to fight the good fight. Yet this continues to be a capable sliver but nonetheless a sliver fighting for the people. 

He is never able to reach the promising goodness of collective rebellion. Even his successors stick to their solo shows. Nightwing moves to a different city, a little more emotional but alone in his crime fighting journey. Crime fighting whether alone or on a team is still on behalf of the people. To an extent it’s a super-powered police force. Yet this agency is the mistaken understanding policing. Policing is to maintain order not to end systemic policies. They must collectively fight with the common man. Democracies have taken the individual out of the lawful equation. It is illegal for an individual to resort to violence to stop a crook. Citizens are to be bystanders. Yet in the crime-stricken debased hierarchy someone outside the system unaffected by the systemic nature. While a batman is necessary to evoke the message and implement potential change, the people must break free of the matrix. The goal is not for Batman to free everyone through action and conversation. 

Slave morality is eclipsed by the system’s failure. Recognising the unequal treatment from the outside from the unexpected leads to a change in perception. Batman’s wealth could not save his parents, the untouchable became mortal. For Moses the enslavement leading to menacing murder was a step too far. While he enjoyed the royalties of the kingdom exposure to the disenchanted oppression was unbecoming. Most people accept the conditions they are in. The consistent rogue aristocrat is perceiving the issue from beyond. The empathetic brutality courses through their veins. It is the insider who struggles to exit the prevailing thematic lifestyle. It is just life destined for mediocrity. Neo can only leave the matrix, he can only become a sigma by taking the red pill. Only by accepting the chemically altering reality can he fight back. Yet for those outside the system its that obvious. For the Israelites it was unthinkable but not to Moses. The difference between the loyalists and patriots amongst the colonists resembles the grand shift in perception. 

Plato’s enlightened individual eclipses the matrix. The systemic darkness bolsters ignorance. It’s not passivity but well kept secrets. The philosopher king returns to aid the disheartening individuals. Unlike Batman, Jefferson takes his political philosophy and moral virtue to the presidency. While Jefferson remained in the hierarchal chair he did so by epitomising a new style of thinking. Protecting the people on a political level not just as a patriotic vigilante. The comic strip ally is Green Arrow who combines vigilantism and politics. Attempting to bring a synergy but unable to distance from the vigilante life he eventually steps down. Jefferson put the public service first before his philosophical rampage. The issue with both figures is that innovations were inside the hierarchy and refused to dismantle them. A political figure inside the matrix cannot easily disbar the framework. Gradually yes but with additional assistance. Alone he can defeat crime on the streets with more might but is repelling criminals not stopping the systemic processes that create it. 

Even the outlier who seeks to sow change is incrementally good but leaving office or crime fighting leads down a dark path without a virtuous successor. Democratic continuity was a collectivist agreement. Unifying stability generationally. The people held to this model with the structural affinities. Yet the racist overtones were startled by Lincoln but remerged with Jim Crow. Slavery ended but remerged in wage slavery. Innovative changes are incredible but without an entire network change political alteration is meaningless. The ethical guidelines must be bolstered over the governmental action. The leader sparks the genuine persistence from communal laity. Success of the bottom-up revolution must be with engaged accountable laity. The people must represent and push back when unrepresented. To not accept the troubling status quo and push back. Reaching the absurd abyss is a moment of reflection and seeking an alternative route. It is not the end but the cessation of this specific path. The sigma is a rallying figure but must engage the laity on their level to ensure collectivist solutions. 

False Gods

By: Jonathan Seidel

Part 2: master morality as the inventor of ethical conduct promoting exclusivity and  feeding off of fated superiority on the basis of divine right or generational identity 

Nietzsche’s master morality is impacted by this individualistic strength to power. Yet the master is the aristocratic dynasty that seeks to reinforce stereotypical attitudes. 

Slave morality creates morality attempting to bridge the true good and evil in order to urge the master into submission. The master is forced to submit and then entertain the fabricated socially constructed ethical chamber. Yet this archetypical attitude maintains that the master is somehow a freely nice guy who is trying to assert himself in the world. The master at times is a successful investor but many a time is a product of privileged assets that place him a top the food chain without doing anything. There are cases of social climbing and doing the work but many other times it’s lending heritage to brand ones destiny. The first master does cultivate his order. Yet his sons do not. They just follow his footsteps. If anything they are solely provided such access for being born without any effort. They can be bums all they want and yet still honoured for their name. 

Social structures have existed since Mesopotamia and Egypt. Literacy was a model of extensive nobility. Genetics played a role for the pioneers but once their place was cemented in the upper class their children had the same affordability. The parent could teach the children and keep them noble. Literacy had a major impact on wealth which was also constituted generationally. While certain groups were able to achieve harmony in social division, later groups weren’t able to. Egyptians could, Greeks could not. It wasn’t so much an invention insofar as historical division divided people. Class became a statement of placement in society. Greed and envy plagued societal norms. The caste system in Egypt was not as derisive as it became as monarchs grew power hungry and nobility maintained their leash. Genetics and connections afforded one a better status in ancient society. The more talented the higher up on the totem poll but little instability in between.

The master’s didn’t make a name for themselves they were able to do something others weren’t. For all subsequent generations it was a name or branding that enabled noble presence. A connection of sorts that assisted without having to do much. Many of the master’s had little will to power. It was birth to power. Deserved by divine right or parental honour. By what means is that deserving. Nothing was done except be born. To boss around by virtue of bumming around is truly a horrid case of self actualisation. It is an immature irritating dubious selection. Luck benefited not skill or passion. Nobles flex their might when reality they have no skill. They did little to deserve the place they are. Their grandad may have been a war hero but they are nothing but buffoons feeding off legacy. Tarnishing that legacy but utilising for personal gain with little earnings. Nobles of all generations are a descendent of a true warrior or a lucky victor. 

Nobles create their morals but those morals do not concern expressions but concern identity. The noble model is to be amoral and superior. To do whatever one pleases. It is only wrong if the peasant does it. Rules that govern status are those apply generationally. Respect is warranted by virtue of brith. A dubious metric of veracity and yet a historical assessment. Delegitimising all those who aren’t nobles. The master of luck became a noble and then his descendants branded the name to keep their power. They have no virtue nor skill but still positionally at the top. It is in their exclusionary detail. They live in their ivory towers and gated communities. Only certain folk can enter and dialogue with them. There is illegality against measuring up to a noble. They placed normative manners under arrest to maintain their hierarchy. Afraid of losing their might, they are dysfunctional and deeply untalented. The master’s create an ethic to ensure they are kept on top. Making dubious divine rite and generational names to give themselves the edge. Not from this family such a bum. Bums can never be royalty. Stay in your lane peasant. If your father was a peasant then you are one. That is just the way the world works.

Sounds quite phobic. They wish to maintain the hierarchy because they would falter without the ingrained aid. They are the true bums but make excuses like their daddy was a war hero. Yeah but they are not and do not deserve that prestige. They are lucky oddballs who win the jackpot and then run around praising themselves of their accomplishments. They dictate all these rules to ensure that their group remains exclusive. If it were opened to the public others would jump right in. The second generation are nowhere near the first. Taking their riches for granted. The peasant seeks equal opportunity but the noble won’t allow. If they were put in the same course with the same variables the noble would get smoked. His little passion and motivation is a mark of an oppressive noble. Nobles held on to their power lest the peasantry partake in more affairs. Their power depleted and their influence in ruin. The master morality clause is a fearful gesture to keep wealthy folk in charge not out of any goodness but because the impoverished would seek to level the playing field. Nobles are rotten maniacs. Easily destroyed in a fair trial. 

It becomes a sentiment of identity politics. Part of the privileged house presents superior resources. The fated existence is a miracle in of itself. Gifted presents for existing while others toil to earn their place in life. A parent wishes to leave a legacy but that does not mean that the children are deserving nor mock others for their uncontrollable circumstances. The only thing true is whether a part of the pack. There is no good or evil as such categories are defined under a categorical imperative. A category given by a higher deity or universe. A world where everyone is held to the same standard. Action is judged not appearance. A MLK like speech of sorts. Content not colour. Ethics is drawn with all under the same code but the imbalance accorded from class difference places people on different levels with varied ethical approaches. In a way there is moral relativism designated by social class. The role of good and evil is to balance all under one class. the universe sets a moral standard and everyone complies. Yet this only operates in a shared experience. Those who do not buy into it reject with their own autonomous ethical framework which may be categorised by the moral absolutism of equalisers. All are held to the same standard of belief.

The nobility do not adhere to this equality or a universal order. While they may believe in a deity they see themselves as superior. Blessed to rule in his place. These gifts are appearance not action. Good and bad are relative to them depending on who is targeted. A noble targeting a royal is bad but targeting a peasant is good. Though the US court system may be a better parallel as guilty for hitting a royal but not guilty for hitting a peasant. The noble is not innocent but there are no repercussions. So it’s not good but not bad. Hitting itself is an action that erases the innocence but accountability is based on the result. To an extent there are moral imperatives in the biological interest. Robbery could be said to be wrong but who is being robbed is debatably a farce. In this case attacking a noble in ancient society versus today. Hitting the noble would have way worse consequences due to the class difference. Death could be afforded while today it may be a fine. Hitting is wrong but the punishment would equal to damage not based on posture. The reverse is also true, while hitting a peasant would not have costed anything now it would. While slaves had quite different ethical barriers, peasants were not owned and were members of the state. 

Peasants worked for the nobles. The nobles had land and the peasants worked that land. While there was a rule of law that grounded the society it was far from equal in nature. While law was intended to usher in a cohesive society, many a time it was weaponised to maintain a hefty power over the poor. A classic modern example would be Jim Crowe. Law was by design an orderly form of society that could be manipulated for better or for worse. Ethics imposed in the law were distorted to aid nobles. This by no means meant that nobles could go around murdering peasants but it does mean that there was an imbalance of ethical relation. Hitting an employer today or hitting an employee is the same crime, though other reasons may hinge on the settlement. The law is theoretically equal. The same cannot be said of the old systems. Especially when the differences were less about wealth and more about status. Even in the ancient democracies what clouded their fairness was the classist appearance. Today wealth is the barometer of status which though is not easy to attain is attainable, status cannot.  

It is the truth of status that bears resemblance in the seats of authority. Ethics were deranged to the master. For example homosexuality was permissible between class folk but not in between systems. You could fuck straight but you could not fuck up. Christianity dubbed it a sin for all and democracy liberated it for all. This does not mean that the latter groups were perfect but under the law there was equality even if social progress was still falling short. An equal erected foundation was the the floor to the ceiling. Propping up divine rite did not settle with many either which was the purpose of democracy and communism. To do away with some elitist status from brith. Either status was attained or status was irrelevant. Truth and falsehood were the only genuine metrics for the nobles. Good and evil were alter adoptions for everyone. Exceptions remain but good and evil applied to everyone on the same horizontal axis while truth and falsehood operated on a divergent vertical axis. A false noble just as a false prophet was attempting to mount status over others. Only those born on fate’s good side were worthy of reigning. Vertical relation enabled inconsistent responsibility to different individuals. Only those with the same status were worthy of good and others were of evil. 

Nietzsche’s master model is inadequate. The aristocrats for most time did not demonstrate any transformation. They pissed in their legacy by maintaining a hierarchy by virtue of birth. Legacy was everything even when the recipient had nothing to show for it. The peasants wished for transformation. Hell, the slave wished for transformation. Yet the master forbade. They designed a system that preyed on the weak. The weak did not choose to be weak they were designated as weak. Mythology cooked up a a lie about superior status. Others bought in to this ensuring the weak could not handle their own. Thus peasant children were unable to fight back at the disadvantage that fared throughout the generations. While it’s possible the first peasants are responsible for their feeble genetics, it is of little accountability to the peasant descendants under the legal hegemony of the nobles. Power was in ideological hold and illiteracy. Peasants didn’t have weapons nor ideas how to accord the revolution. While there may have been a leader that did not necessitate to all. The danger to themselves and their families was too much to bear with uncertain outcomes. Status was accepted and even when pushed back there was little resources to overpower the master. The master held onto the power he received from his father who got it from his father. Lucky suckers.

Slave morality is rather crude in its archetypical format but is insidiously ironic in coercive insecurity. The slave wishes to escape and establish his new egalitarian model while the master wishes to maintain his top-dog status and secure his elitist ranking. The law is the remnant of stature that keeps him a top. It isn’t as if there is some strength competition that realises such superiority. The leader is part of a dynastic legacy. A loser made leader by virtue of his ancestry. The law permits this reality. He is a slave to the system that makes him elite. If the slaves rebelled or infighting overturned the regime, they would be at the bottom of the totem poll. The law is their greatest ally. Their model only works with the law on their side. Their ethical inequity is based in their legal model. Had they been in the jungle they would be eaten alive. They construct a menacing reality for the slave so he does not rebel. Weakening his morale and psychologically depleting his aspirations to maintain control. Manipulation is the victorious strategy. The amount of effort designated for the master to ensure he remains on top is sadly entertained to assist the slow idiot catch up with the slaves. They do not posses anything other than a brand that sells in the legal order that has transpired. The slave is displaced and demoted to forbid his escalation. Weaponising the law to ensure captivity. 

Even when the slave burst forth and attempted a new edenic society he became the master. Nobles reemerged in religion and wealth format. The political chain did not aid the bottomless pit. The peasants still suffered under the new nobles. New hierarchies and dynastic metaphysics breeched the grain of egalitarian solidarity. Each ensuing egalitarian hope fostered on identity levels. Status was lost in the fated art but could be earned. Destiny could be rewritten. Yet while this on the surface was incredibly novel, the individualistic amoral market helped a few and harmed more. A society hellbent on rising and falling. Status was achieved by those with resources. Some have climbed up high but many were able to due to status. The founding fathers with the exception of Hamilton’s wit were previously wealthy individuals. Noble crusaders but connectors and upper class-men. Many successes are aided by connections throughout the upper and middle class. Identity is not supposed to play a part but biases are prevalent. Even beyond the status, related or a wealthy friend can educate and provide opportunities not given elsewhere. It is a part of life but status does mean something even if earned. Money over branding has won the day but then again names do mean something. Masters can prop up nobodies to become masters who do that to others. Some can defeat the system but it would be difficult to deny the generational fated existence that still suppresses the poor to rise.

Masters are a product of luck and chance. They then use their prestige gifted from others as a tool to oppress others. They may have even been friends with a poor crowd but now prestigious can never dare walk in those circles. Wealth does buy material and thus presents itself as a superior class with privileges not supplied to others. There are a few trailblazers but the myth of the American dream is that everyone works hard to get where they are. Even many immigrants had a connection or aid that bettered their chances. There are those working hard folk who defied the odds but there are many who given opportunities that place them above the rest and then look down at those who failed as if equal opportunity is a reality. They have schooling so they should succeed but what if their schooling is inferior due to their funding or professional desire to teach in that area. What about their tough communities, an obstacle more affluent did not need to overcome or tutors given handedly to those capable of hiring. There is an imbalance whereby some begin way ahead of the pack by virtue of mooching off the fated existence they were given. Such an archetypical attitude is of the lowest percentile. There are success cases but there are so many variables that invalidate the meta-narrative.