Despised Heroes

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Anti-semitism and Batman: use and scapegoat 

After the second Batman movie, The Dark Knight, batman is disgraced. Seen as a dangerous vigilante who couldn’t save Gotham. Batman takes the fall for Dent’s change of character to the twisted two-face villain. Honour salvaged by Batman’s self sacrifice. His tainted image follows the inverse experience of the medieval Jew. Brought in to save and then scapegoated when things grow problematic.

Batman is a revered hero. A vigilante who saves the city. Yet he is beloved insofar as he is necessary. He is called upon when people are in dire need. A requested assault to protect the innocent. Standing up for the downtrodden. Yet he is a menace. A scary and scarring figure. A bat shaped costume with extensive military training. A man on a mission but a mission not always requested. He claims to fight for those who can’t fight themselves but he does so out of personal ambition. He is not always requested and yet he comes.

Vigilantism is ill regarded. Law and order are necessary. Acting outside even for better results is only a temporary victory. The commonality can lead to a disastrous outcome. His rage and outlandish activity is the breaking of Dent’s sanity. Joker is the cause of Dent’s disfigure but is also Batman’s insistence. Dent is a ploy in Joker’s game. A vigilante who fails to toe the line will get others killed. One caught up in a grudge match will end up with bodies surrounding him. As long as he is successful he is praised. He keeps people safe they love him. He rides or dies on this motto. If he fails his stock falls. 

He has placed himself in a category of impossible perfection. The expectation is enormous. Taking on the criminal enterprise alone. While he does not openly claim to stop crime, his actions speak for themselves. People gravitate towards a saviour. This gravitation is coupled with an expectation. Trust conjoins the victim and the up stander. Failing to succeed is a major blow to confidence and faith. His ability to save Gotham at the end of the first and third movies make him into a hero. Yet the two endings have vastly different criteria. In the third movie, he is the ultimate paragon. He is immortalised and is free from criticism. His death marks a symbol and a fond memory never to be tarnished. The first movie is a part of the journey. The victory is temporary to his ensuing challenges. The victory spawns resistance for the one lunatic willing to stand against him. His presence permits criticism and symbolism. 

It is this open possibility that lends itself to the shifting like to dislike; from hero to enemy in the third movie. Defeating the Joker pales in comparison to Dent’s death. Murdering a beloved hero. A relatable figure fighting for justice is beyond reproach. He went too far and his symbolism shattered. No longer was he a hero but a villain. He was grouped with criminals. Bringing kingpins to justice was insufficient. Batman himself is tortured by his declining image. His body and soul broken. He allows his mind to distort his bodily autonomy. A tattered soul accepting the malice to his esteem. A distraught saviour enduring the destined ineptitude. 

It was all based on a lie. Batman took the hit for Dent’s corruption. To salvage his image and the people’s faith in the system, Batman became the villain. Gordon haunted by this truth wrote it down but failed to ever publicise it. Bane eventually does and trust is overwhelmed and betrayed. Dent’s legacy is tarnished within minutes of the secret’s exposure. Batman is exonerated but vanquished. His soul still wounded. Losing to Bane with an unresolved will. The symbolic hero is undermined needing a replacement. Batman’s death is the clear transition to a worthy hero. No secrets. A saviour open to the public for all to witness his incredible heroism. 

Batman is a prophet. His vigilantism mocks the corrupted social order. Hellbent on bringing justice. His words cut through the corrupted axis. People respond in dismay. His actions bring about change to the system. Fighting with the criminal giants. Displaying their sacred weapons to overpower the enemy. Their divine words to push the corrupt back. Elijah’s words are rejected. He defeats the false prophets at Mount Carmel. The people recognise there and plead for mercy. The following day, Jezebel the arch criminal, orders his death and the people betray him. His words fall on deaf ears without considerable change. Which is where Josiah’s revolution stands. The criminal underworld is overturned with prophetic and regal collaboration just like Gordon and Batman.  

In many ways this resembles the medieval Jew. Brought by the monarch to save the country. Economic expertise to raise the livelihood. Thriving to raise the country’s standards. A good life short lived. Protection from the monarch short lived. Agitation grew from the public and the monarch chose to exile the Jews he had invited. Agitation developed as the public grew richer. The king’s selfish priority rested on wealth benefits insofar as the public remained calm. Once the uproar enraged and the Jew’s had completed their job, they were left powerless and isolated. An obvious ploy for self aid with temporary benefits.

The Jew was the monarch’s saviour not necessarily the people’s. Unaroused by his workings and successes. Yet his benefits were worthwhile for the short term. Even befriending and socializing. Yet soon the scorn resurfaced. His difference exploited. He returns to his outcast nature. He is no longer the protector Batman but the villainous scum. Beloved for a singular moment caught up in the illusion of routine. A statesman with personified praise. Quickly dismantled at the realization of betrayal.

His introduction is murky. His presence unknown. He lives in the shadows. His aid is tremendous. Who is the saviour. Who is strengthening the city. The Jew claims this title. He promises to aid the city. To lift the impoverished up. He excels and the people love him. He is accepted by the bunch. Then disaster strikes. His true face revealed. He is a monster preying on Christian children. Exploiting them to the extreme. A villain with a cunning strategy. All faith in him is lost. An ally lost to an enemy. He didn’t become two face, he always was. Dent was a cover up. Slowly his closeness of ally to enemy descends to the borders. His resolve tainted to remote foreignness. The monarch blames him and he is “Gordoned”. Scapegoated for the monarch’s selfish image. 

The Jew progresses through the stages. He begins as a skeptical outlier. Becoming part of the peoplehood. Only to decline in the favor of saving face. The monarch takes credit for the Jew’s success. His fall from grace is intuited to his conniving demeanor. There is no appeasement. The former friend Dent is truly a monster. He ousts the Jew as the devil. Two face emerges from the corrupted nexus the Jew has built. The monarch paranoid and burdensome turns on the Jew. Vigilantism is rejected by the public. The Jew suffers from his royal insurance. The king knows but shuts his mouth turning a blind eye to the riots. Dent is the Christian economy bound by law and religiosity. One fatal mistake or realization of the Jewish agenda flaunts rebellion. Gordon does not stand for his ally. Instead he remains silent passively blaming the Jew for his aid. 

It is easy to scorn the other. The remoteness of the Jew. He is an outcast in a religious society. For all his good, the imperfections slowly catch up with him. He is hung out to dry. The blame officially placed on him. Rewarded for his efforts but uproar is inevitable. He will slip up with subsequent attacks demurring any fortification from his friend. No support or protection from his fateful friend. Promises broken and deals undermined. The mask of the Jew is dark and gloomy. He does not wear the bright stripes of Superman. The sunny day positivity. The Jew has no power but skillful art. His ingenious methods enable his success. Yet it is his abilities that are his biggest threat. His success lay at the cusp of annihilation. A foreign figure outcasted and abandoned.

Batman refuses to remove his mask. The Jew cannot. The public must remove their blinders. It is their glasses that are tainted. The Jew is a human before he is a Jew. He is Bruce Wayne. A Gothamite like so many others. Being before belonging. The Jew is an indelible investor to society. The Jew refuses to denounce his selfhood. He will not convert from pressure. His mask is his essence even if it utterly unacceptable. He is made a caricature of his true identity. His mask alienates him but provides the capacity to assist. Struggling but searching. 

Salvation is a Good Joke

By: Jonathan Seidel

Why more policing does not solve the problem

Matpat argues the Joker is the only one able to bring peace to Gotham. While Batman, Gordon and Dent try to reduce crime on the surface, it is the Joker who though maniacally perverts the system takes down the crime lords and brings peace. This film theory says a lot about intent and misunderstood villains.

Joker’s violence and kill count are to be condemned, yet his strategic genius is the sole way to protect Gotham. Gordon and Batman spend too much time stopping individual crime acts but fail to erase the system. Thwarting the villain’s actions but the crime lords live another day. Joker manipulates them as an ally and then burns all their money. He bankrupts them ceasing their leverage over corrupt cops and elaborate ploys. Joker’s actions are less than ethical but he is the only one able to thwart the perpetuated chaos. 

Joker acted alone as a spy. He is never acclaimed as a hero. He is a villain who is out to destroy everything. In grave irony, he is the true saviour of Gotham. He routs out the problem unethically but successfully. Following the normative routine does not always reach the desired result. Sometimes getting hands dirty is the sole way of defeating foes. You have to play by their rules. Batman had a boiling point which refused murder. He is blamed time and time again for allowing these criminals to wreak havoc. He is unwilling to end their terror for good. To be fair it is not fair to him to be haunted by the ghosts of the countless criminals he has murdered. That is a burden undeserved to anyone trying to maintain a pure spirit in the peaceful truth. It is this limit that prevents him putting the criminals behind bars. 

Batman’s strong sense of justice is careful and calculated. He plays by the law in some twisted order. Joker does not. He openly commits crimes  to dig out the criminal. He acts with sincerity and cunning deviousness. He thinks like a criminal playing the necessary character to save Gotham. Joker deceptively pins the crime lords against Batman placing them as their saviour. If they are to succeed they need him. He demonstrates his trustworthy skill by outwitting Batman. He must become the devil to stop the demons. He must rise as their leader to quash them where they stand. He is a spy, infiltrates the enemy to destroy them from the inside. He sneakily overpowers the crime lords. Batman could never do this as the knight. Only Joker is capable of this, the jester in disguise.

Is a spy the only way of ridding the crime lords? Batman is synonymous with materialised police. He is a skilled vigilante for justice. Yet he fails. He is an outcast. Dent is the beacon of hope. He brings people hope to route out criminals. His death leads to a peaceful city. His ultimate death was due to internal betrayal. Both detectives under Gordon’s authority betrayed him. Killing both Rachel and Harvey’s good nature. Their corruption may have been well intentioned but they were seduced by maniacal demons. They decided to act selfishly for their own salvation than the collective good. Dent was enthusiastic passionate about taking down crime lords. Yet abiding by the law protected the crime lords from demise. Dent’s optimism was his own downfall. 

Joker plays the crime lords’ game. He works outside the law committing his own felonies in the process. Yet it is him who brings the ultimate tranquility to Gotham. He does it most swiftly and without further harm. He challenges the people not just the crime lords. Are the people themselves capable of overcoming the psychological burden. A theme across superhero comics is the superheroes ability to stop the villain only for that villain to escape. The difference with Batman is the lack of paranormal capabilities. There are a few but in the Dark Knight trilogy, the emphasis is on mortal beings. Using their intellect and strength to overcome. Batman fights with gadgets not superpowers. In a way this makes it more relatable at the same time quite foreign due to his massive wealth and brilliance.

Batman’s universe can be synchronised with our own. A fictional world that finds similarities amongst our own. Why vigilantism is carried out on lower levels in the US for example. During the riots spreading through the country with little security, storeowners hired people to defend their stores from muggers. If law enforcement is failing to do its jog to eradicate evil, is it on the average person to stand up to stop it? According to the law or at least politically is not to. Let your store be mugged and neighbours family be attacked. The Dark Knight shows the dangers of a vigilante. Batman’s presence only bolsters criminal operations to act more secretly. If he cannot stop them then they continue their desirable business. While assisting where the government trails into the abyss. Yet the Underground Railroad that is praised for its efforts was vigilantism. It was not necessarily violent but it was standing up for perceived injustice through illegal means. 

Law enforcement’s job is to stop crime and deal justice. In the US, policing services  grew out of Washington’s vision for security. They are service members and the political ties are dangerous and monstrous. A division to assist the public in a capitalist society where cops can be bribed and aid the wealthy is all too common. The more wealthy a country is the less crime they may have is only one factor. Unreported crimes for wealthy pundits is another. While Batman seeks to live by a code never enticed by villainous gage. He remains outside the law. Again, Batman has his rules but if criminals are going to break laws then to catch them laws need to be broken. They find loopholes to divert criminality. The hero archetype that Batman eventually succumbs to does not stop the enterprise just the boss is out of the way. Law enforcement is a powerful entity but it would be wrong to see them as the sum of ceasing crime. They actually perpetuate crime in their ignorance to it occurring in their purview. Choosing to look the other way.     

There is a different metric. A town militia protecting the people. In Israel (beyond the political aspects). Many of the settlements in the West Bank are secured by the townsfolk. Everyone is strapped with a revolver for protection. This model ensures the people themselves are armed to defend. They do not wait for a knight in shining armour to save them. For the police to finally arrive but for their own self defence. Law enforcement cannot be everyone where at once. Split decisions need to be made in removing the threat. While these situations call for extreme measures. This is relevant for the ethical shift. The only way to eradicate evil is for the townsfolk to stand up for themselves. To gather together and rebel against the crime tyrant. Evidently in poorer areas access to weaponry is moot. Yet it begins with the community revolting. A collective heroism is necessary. 

Criminals will target easy prey but an awareness has been sparked. A reluctance to accept the criminal patronage. Standing against the ruthless imposition. It is not always about brute force nor wealth. Voices singing the same tune with the same goal. To protect one another as a family. Criminals will rise up and attempt to take power with tyrannical coercion. The more people stand together. The more sympathetic tones race across the nation. One community turns into many communities. A crime lord is only successful if everything is washed under the rug. If there is sufficient proactive protesting something can be done. It is difficult given the political nature and collusion so present. That is the purpose of the second amendment. It is the right to defend tyrannical regimes. It is a value point more than a last stand at the Alamo. Corrupt politicians and law enforcement is tyrannical even in a democracy. To ignore these aspects is to violently humiliate the downtrodden.

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.