Christ-king/Napoleon god as the perceptive elevation to deity/searching for a master
Zizek argues that christ’s death is a larger than life moment. It is his persecution on the cross that embraces the mythical factorials. It is in his death, in his moment of utter demise that he is deified. His draining strength he calls out and those words are inscribed as the sacred last words of the man-god. This is one side of elevated persona. Napoleon’s might is another. Despite his small frame, his presence on his horse as military genius deified his mortality.
Nietzsche’s master-slave dialectic also moulds into a leader-follower. A slave accepts his predicament. Willing to fold all his ambitions for the way of his master. His destiny is fated and existence only garners his servitude to his master. The slave can become a revolutionary but many a time continues his servitude to a new master. He switches masters. Following whichever master provides the best deal. This slave morality albeit one that accepts the obvious indignation to propel oneself forward. At least in the egalitarian motifs, he attempts to procure a new model. A nicer world that he wishes for the peace of all slaves. Breaking down the master for a more serene world. In the midst of a slave mindset he does not take charge nor initiate change for himself. He is loyal to whoever provides the better deal disobedient at the quickest chance of greater benefit.
There is an obvious distaste for those who march like sheep. Always needing a master to direct them to the next step. Community’s study group is unable to find direction without Jeff’s guidance. Though Jeff relishes in this appointment barking out orders, it is a dangerous persona. There is a point where his leadership is challenged and when it is disappears briefly. Both cases, his ego cannot handle it. He must be the centre of attention. Yet the most problematic especially in the former example, was the group’s decision to look at someone for guidance. Whether it be Troy during paintball or Abed in the fried chicken episode. The latter is even more relevant in the group heeding every word Abed makes. Yet it is also ironic how the group so loyal becomes too greedy hoping for someone else to provide a better deal. Attacking the master for his inadequate gifts. An empty threat, a barrage of verbal assaults to seek a better role. Servants deserve more. A child annoying his parents repeatedly for the new toy. Once the fried chicken is done, Jeff is back in charge though it is made clear that Abed did this for Jeff’s ego.
The show’s experiment, even Abed’s social experiment demonstrates the power of means and fluff of loyalty. Fried chicken was Abed’s way of maintaining leadership but once it was gone his product was gone. Jeff’s charisma took over. This does point to Jeff’s confidence and leadership ability. He did not need to provide a material object to assume leadership but was simply his persona that gaged the crowd. This is on display all over. A character able to assume respect from others by his stature. There is an obvious capitalistic trope of owning the means as control in a mafia-like motivation. Though the hierarchy is evident. The study group may have forced their will on others to do them favours in exchange for fried chicken but they themselves were subservient to Abed and Abed to the chicken. His leadership hinged on the chicken, without he was nothing. Which is how Starburns went from the coolest cat to a troll. A leader only valued when he has the assets to provide.
Jesus is an interesting example in this regard. Jesus was only truly accepted after his death. His life was eventful but his mythos that holds stronger. He was the fried chicken. While he may have possessed Jeff energy. Able to cultivate a following, his voice did not extend to the rest of society while Jeff does to the rest of Greendale. While Jesus’ death is intangible its symbolism rings true. Devoid of his supernal character would strip him of his prowess. Jesus was killed like every other Roman criminal, singled out due to his offence to the Jewish survival, performed zero miracles and spoke ideas mentioned by every other spiritual teacher. The mythos of Jesus as a divine mortal mystified his legacy accompanied by his miraculous capabilities. He didn’t only do these crazy things but was killed for preaching these messages. He was betrayed by his own folk for deriding their deranged model. He then died for everyone’s sins. His deified death was a culmination of a new age, his death marked him as a martyr that saved humanity.
The difference in perspective illuminates a starring perceptive qualification. A rebel rabbi with a superiority complex angering the dangerous Romans or a revolutionary hero betrayed and murdered for his divine messages. It is not Jesus but his successors who take up his story. He is immortalised as this angelic character. The stories of his prophetic power and divine abilities were crafted much after his death. The rejection of law for love thus dying for the love over sinful humanity was proven with later penmanship. His successors deified him. It is not clear that he saw himself this way never writing about himself. His martyrdom eclipses the mortal for an immortal god. Embellished mythos describe him in the divine sanctity. Positioned as the protagonist against devilish rabbis and romans who worked together to murder him. He is the concocted main leader even after his death. Ironically, there are Jewish stories that argue Moses was discouraged from entering the land due to his potential deification. The Romans brutally murdered rabbis more uniquely and tragically without them becoming martyrs—such as Akiva becoming Akivism.
The masterful art of depicting an extraordinary man with a compelling narrative exploded on the scene. Given the problematic origin it was suppressed. Yet the influence grew amongst people with a simple message. Accept Jesus in your hearts and you will be forgiven and be saved. A simple message that required very little of the individual. From the legalistic Jews to the Imperial Romans. A simplistic model that spoke very smoothly to the individual. Repressing it only empowered it. Believing in something beyond the Empire with less obligations. A steal for the salvation. Infinite salvation or infinite punishment for a simple gesture. Though this gesture embroiled in its religious makeup and universal push brought nations together at the behest of an extended narrative though fragmented over time. Becoming a beacon of hope against the adversaries trying to disrupt its plain goal. Without context the story is one of single salvation.
The reformation sought to alter the theological discourse of Christianity, altering the origin story of Jesus. While it failed to elevate egalitarianism nor humility, it did swiftly reconfigure the Jesus character. Still immortalised but with less theological extras. Yet to strip him of his divinity and salving sins. The mythos was barely stripped of its prowess. The adversary still withered in the sands of time. The Jew the main antagonist who betrayed and murdered Jesus. An inconsistent ahistorical idea that paints him as the rightful character despite his dooming decision making. His divine embellishment protects any errors on his part. He is the leader, he must be correct. His message is the correct one. The only one. Anyone who does not accept is inhibiting the messianic age. Tribally attacking others who disagree. Yet even with less conviction in his actual existence nor his prowess still remains strong. Apologetics maintain a zeal in his message, an obvious one that strings in a selective notation. The secular agnostics see him in a positive light. Their heritage has not passed on them.
With dissolution of the religious order and political control, the Jesus motif is still strong in the christian mind. Pascal’s wager is worthwhile to ensure salvation. His presence is still ascribed in great detail. His message still invokes its divine presence. He has been immortalised and so his generational impact remains apparent. He is the fried chicken. Without his lore he is a nobody. Not only is he a blimp in history or deceptive lie created by later social climbers, he is a devilish man who arrogantly placed himself before the people. Since his message was apparently more important than the lives of his colleagues. His mythos must endure and even agnostics will uphold his legacy in fear of accepting a multi-generational mistake, a murderous lie that has cost the world centuries of hardships. In this case, Abed would never give the fried chicken. The only way to save face is to continue the lie. It may be true but it also is a belief in an uncertainty. Leadership began on providing a better metric and endures with herd mentality. Yet even logicians and the sceptics uphold in fear of hypocrisy. The machine must endure for the sake of sanity and innocence.
Napoleon is Jeff. A man on a mission of rule. Doing whatever he can to maintain his leadership. A figure able to present himself as a credible person to follow. His military victories warranted further rule but if the war stops and he is deficient in state politics he will be exposed as a fraud. His leadership hinges on a singular element, fighting abroad. Defecting from the regular motifs, his image stays alive in his strategic capabilities. Public diplomacy is a horror show. Jeff demonstrates his own insecurities and needs to end the fried chicken to reassert his power. He can only regain control if the only reason for his loss is a new master. To be a master is to be able to provide. Winning wars promotes patriotism but at what point does that fizzle out and people become sick of war. His reign depended on his ability to provide. A populist leader speaks a lot without necessary providing. His promising rhetoric inspires cohesion even none of his promises are implemented. Jeff tells Troy and Abed’s soldiers the same peachy speech which a ruse for him to get out of an exam. The selfishness is the ego magnifying benefit. Preaching to insecurities garners the most reciprocity come voting time.
Running on a rhetorical campaign is meant to meet the needs of the optimal use. How to keep the sheep in line as possible. How to keep them happy while benefiting ever greatly. The sheep are infantile and desire a master. The master simply needs to give them a reason to trust in him. Boosting his own character and placing himself in front sufficiently will habituate a relatable dogma. Jeff’s leadership comes from his initiative to be the star of the show. He sits at the head of the table, he directs the conversation around himself. He rolls the dice, he opens the backpacks he begins to study. He sets the tone of the group’s mantra. It is symbolically ingrained in the mantel of the group’s order. His ability to capture the hearts of the school rests on his protracted element from the dean and other’s faith. It is a bit of a domino effect. The gradual acceptance by some will eventually garner from others. He has skill and places his skills at the forefront. Once he places his first foot forward others contently take a step back. Troy’s emasculation struggle bridges the desire to be at the head by falling behind the group’s prior acceptance Jeff as de facto leader.
Nietzsche was correct that slave morality emboldens herd mentality but so does master morality. Desiring to be the leader cementing hierarchies as the necessary ordeal. The placement of hierarchies even in slave morality constructions reckons with the representative agency of needing a leader. Master morality only furthers a cause for submission. It seeks to maintain the same legacy leader. A charismatic leader may take charge but his charisma may be his only asset. It is not so much his descendants that the public should be worried but his own strategic implementation. He may talk a big game, talk the talk but not walk the walk. He may gather a crowd with his soothing but booming voice. Yet he also may be inefficient and insufferable. A leader doesn’t just peach but also acts. Acts in ways that are beneficial to the public not his own gain. The master lives by his own accord deceiving the masses into his frame. He assures them he is ushering in the utopia but this is a ploy. He is smart but not effective. He is a faulty master. One who doesn’t care for his slaves.
Slaves are duped into the social conscious. Deeply entrenched in their submitted aspects. Unwilling to risk the prestige to make something of themselves. They’d rather mooch off the master’s generosity and success. A perpetuated man-child living at home with his parents. Unwilling to leave as his parents will continuously provide for him. This destructive mindset hinders the breeching of herd mentality/. An immature motive to lessen personal activity and responsibility. They are minions searching for guidance. A wall of hope measured in the metaphysical. Wowed by the charismatic voice and divine undertones. Finding that shoulder to lean on. Minions do not wish to lead but to follow. To bathe in the glory of the master. A subjected by oriented will toward the master. A humble persona before the great one. The lazy slave does not wish to make a name for himself. Yet the slave who chooses his master is one who enjoys the riches of that kingdom. The slave places his favour in the leader to guide them to victory. Just as one hires an accountant to his job, the king does his job
Herd immunity is only negatory in its dogmatic static existence. Not everyone is a leader nor is every required to be. The master-slave operates in a shell of classist hegemony. Today the elected dawn the leadership cape. The slave is a humble member of the kingdom. Leading the charge is not the forte of the collective. One leads others follow. The charismatic voice needs assistance. The visionary needs structure, a CEO needs a well versed secretary to manage a calendar. It depends to what end does the slave refuse his freedom. To what degree does he forgo his independence. Citizens are slaves to the state no matter the civilisation. The leader himself is a slave to the rules that embody his reign. The master is not a master without his slaves. The reciprocal relationship recognises a debt to one another. The master may treat the slave terribly but he still feeds him and clothes him so the slave can produce. There may be a wickedness in behaviour and distain for ownership. Still, the necessity of one another to ensure their mutual bargain is destined by providing on both ends.
The mythos to christ may endeavour in their childish antics. Yet choosing such a master against the human tyrant may be the better choice. Masters subdue their slaves. The metaphysical deity usurps the human order to provide the greatest of freedoms. While man may be able to support his own will he seeks a mentor to obey for his own directive. The search for a master is meek with the Nietzschean hope to be a god amongst man but even the master caters to the order that indulges his power of the slave. The superman is the anarchic level of wilderness obscurity.
No comments:
Post a Comment