Nothing But My Truth

By: Jonathan Seidel

Post-truth and hyper reality: lies and relativism 

The biggest issue of the contemporary age is not the absence of truth but subjectively objective truth. It’s not the decay of truth but the reinforcement. The power of perceived truth. Relativism is reactive rather than proactive. Each trying to derail the other’s truth. It’s just the continuation of modernity. From dual truth to multiplicity truth. From collective banners to smaller guerrillas. It is an illusion for ideological masochism.

Everyone lives in a hyperbolic chamber prideful in their own hygienic purity. Stopped in an endless echo chamber with zero tolerance for otherness. Changing the radio at the song they don’t like. It sounds off putting. It sounds sharp and eerie. There is little signal. Little connection to reciprocate. They cover their ears and shout back. People are exposed to other ideas through screaming battles. Yelling matches of the supreme degree. Everyone raises their point while overwhelming the other. There is no listening only speaking. Yip yapping with an endless vocabulary. Recycling the same jargonist hyperbole. It isn’t receptive nor instrumental. The slogans bounce off the other and back on the speaker. Listening to their own words into a dogmatic salute. Each sector screams charming their own base but with no recipients. 

Post-truth doesn’t mean no truth but my truth. Truth was objective now it is subjective. It was ideological and still is ideological. There are no rules except one’s expression. The meta-narratives have been retyped and lines redrawn. Thematically it’s the same world with a few new rules. Each truth is vying for candidacy as the biggest bully. Who can annoy the most people. Who can convince those to join their cause. So many lackeys placed at the hip. So many sympathetically duped into nonsense. Don’t think for yourself join our tribe. If you don’t you are this bad word or this mean word. Who can you scare the easiest. Who can you manipulate the easiest. It is all a game for supporters. Who can whip up the most empathy for their cause and vile for the opponent.  

Truth as it was half a century ago has splintered into more groups. Yet these groups are not isolated. They find commonality. Different groups that would seem worst enemies are bffs. Though many of these are one-sided. It is more an endorsement of another. Truth is important but only partial truth or a specific truth is accepted to be an affiliate or a friend. The Islamic world detests the LGBT community and yet the latter consistently promote their cause. For the latter it is the anti-colonial rhetoric. Libertarians promote pro-LGBT liberties and yet the latter criticise those anti-social care. Overlooking the deafening discriminatory ideology. It is an interesting pairing because one side advocates while the other side surely fails to reciprocate. The principle remains no matter the inadequacy.

What guides truth is general precepts in their absolute. Truth is splintered into personal expression but such is a false presentation. Truth isn’t subjective but projected. Subjectivity only matters in the accepted jargon of sexual or racial orientation. Limits are imposed. Yet not everyone is equal. The personal expression does not identify with external world. It’s called subjective but no one is saying Russia is entitled to their truth. The Israelis and Palestinians are entitled to their truth. Everyone wants to engage on one side or the other. Israelis are Nazis. and Palestinians are terrorists. Occupiers or jihadists. Each person is inserting their will onto the conflict. That is not subjective truth or relativism. A century ago, communism was hated upon but supported by others. The same is today. Splintered ideology is a different frame rather than conditional truths.

If anything is relative, it is the multiplicity of narratives. The various frame games. The debate today is mostly ad hominem attacks and screaming. Strawmanning and slurring. When there is debate one side takes the progress narrative and one takes the inequality narrative. One is the rebel and the other the revolutionary. The ideology isn’t necessarily minted into an ontological view of reality. Rather it is merely situational reflection. A conservative sees the world as human initiative and the liberal sees the world as institutional initiative. Can man solve issues on his own or does he need help. Even many conservatives concede to communal-state assistance. Especially in light of religious ideas for the latter, it is through guidance they can succeed. Yet this is different than federal assistance. The impact on the federal level is not only farther reaching but more compromised. Intending to salvage all under a single rubric.

People themselves are incapable of fostering the greatest good therefore institutions need to intervene whether domestically or internationally (it is no shock that numerically democrats exceeded their republican counterparts in warfare). This view of citizen v institutional  programming is a hot issue in many debates concerning medicine and schooling. The claim is that the right of such liberties is the state’s responsibility for the citizen. While whitewashing market criticisms may at times be fair it also demands human excellence as well as human duty. Yet this is parcel of the issue. Take immigration, those who wish to increase it do so on rights. High octane responsibility while limiters do so on duty to country folk. The liberal mind is concerned with all man while the conservative mind is concerned with fellow man. If all man is to be considered then it is the responsibility for each person to partake in the governing issues of the world while if it only some responsibility then only fellow men and even just the environmental surroundings are to be concerned.  

This inevitably leads to the Marxian view of good and evil on one side and the realistic proposal of good v evil on the other. To take a domestic example, CEOs are oppressors for profiting from their workers’ profit. Yet the capitalist will say the CEO hired the worker and provided him the opportunity, his interest and risk labels him the profiteer. Unlike a king, the worker is only a temporary worker who can climb up the ladder to be the CEO who profits. There is a progress vs. stagnation argument. To be fair Marx’s reality was a little more bleak but avenues have opened up since then. Opportunity has been provided, yet contemporary marxists will assail the opportunity as unequal. Lacking all different kinds of variables that ensure certain people do not get a leg up. Institutional intervention levels the playing field. If everyone gets the same medication and the same schooling everyone is equal (though this rarely ever happens due to the communal conditions). If the privileged are taken down a leg then the underprivileged can reach the same level. 

The capitalist sees this as sheer dubious intervention. People need to pull themselves up from the bootstraps. Try their best and then they will succeed. The capitalist has blind faith in achievement via hard work. It is a metaphysical truth while for the Marxist societal oppression is a metaphysical truth. Fate and destiny are the typological binary of the human condition. Either fate is the determining factor or destiny can be carved with engagement. Can he exceed the limitations imposed on his youth. Can he supersede the detrimental implications undermining his rise to stardom. Fate is a deal nobody asks for. It is spawned onto man. Yet once man is formed he can make choices. He can decide his future. Yet to what extent that is possible is under scrutiny. The debate is continued from a century ago. Only in a progressively democratic world can both points diverge. 

In a world of diversity both can staunchly adequately present their image. Progress versus stagnation is representative of human cultivation. The Marxist is the enemy or the capitalist is the enemy and no one is losing their head. To a degree this is the relativistic assault. The ability to finally have open deliberation. Communism is no longer dreaded nor decried yet neither is willing to give in an inch. Theoretically the opinions of the adversary can be held but practically they cannot be applied. To be a communist without blackballing and exiling. Though while communism in version areas is more acceptable, capitalism isn’t or privileged folk have no say. The previous argumentation may be muddled but the debate surrounding beliefs continues. In place of capitalism and communism you have a traditionalism and intersectionality. The same binary persists. Institutionally it is permissible but manifesting said belief is forbidden. The permissibility of adversarial opinion is not witch hunted but it is frowned upon. 

Heresy hunting is admissible but it is less institutionalized and more civil. There are examples in Assange and Snowden but this was the government against one man. While there is suppression, it is far more on the citizen level. Repressing voices is the style of the politically acclaimed townsperson. Deciding the truth by his own ideals. Orienting himself with a newfound tribe of protected hegemony. The civil doctrine of suppression is a far more daring sin. For the government to supersede the national ethic is to betray the people’s trust but for the people to do so undermines the fabric of the social order. It negates the principles belying the democratic ethos. The democracy part is tainted by beliefs in institutional structures but not ethical values. To insist on a monolithic doctrine no matter how noble is to usurp the label of democracy. It is to crush liberalism with a shade of tyrannical fright.

Relativism can only exist in a horizontal society but such a framework is subdued by false prophets and perennial advocates. The illusion of democracy in its strictest sense is the complacency of theoretical possibilities with the realistic insufferable rejectionist fragmentation. To mold a system of checks and balances that is readily colluding against its promised objective. An idealistic aspiration for divergent positions that is cross examined with criticism without scrutiny. To acknowledge otherness and revere it. To respect rather than tolerate opposition. Such a reverence is foreign. Each side at the other’s throat. There may exist two sides or more but its lack of approval is staggering. On the face of it there is multiplicity but its acceptance is a matter of reality rather than desire. People believe different things and are permitted to do so despite opposition and rejection. 

Medievalism rarely permitted difference. Politically, difference was a matter of death. Socially, difference was tolerated. The king’s law was the law. The project of ideological monism pervaded. The norm was a byproduct of state legislation. Different communities were regarded as second class citizens or even worse. A Jew couldn’t seek to override his exclusion no matter his wealth nor his charisma. Protesting was futile. Modernism has permitted diversity by virtue of its code of ethics. Not only could Jefferson and Hamilton disagree but they could debate it. Previously disagreement was either a conversation or non-starter. There was rarely any openness for otherness unless in its comical destitute form. Jews can reside in the country if they are stripped of their dignity. If they are excluded and hounded for their deviance. To be reminded as a living example of treachery. 

Modernism finally opens the floodgates for speaking one’s mind. Rebel in protest. Revel in the privilege of disagreement. Your protest will be condemned. Challenging norms is always a flaunting charge of inexplicable insolence. Yet one of courage and moral vision. Pushing the boundaries. Fear has continued to deny the disagreement. Freedom of speech and expression as notarized in the constitution, is but a selective phenomenon. It is selective to the side that believes they are correct. Silence a disagreement. Either the founders were idiots or prestigious. Intervention is by each side’s cultivation. Abolitionists compelled slave owners, McCarthyism denied communism and the mainstream purged anti-war callings. Today there is the hormonal therapy and abortion battles. How far is freedom of speech? Screaming Nazis? Burning the flag? Mocking the president? 

Unfortunately, most deny others that which they do not like. It’s not even about theoretical but practical. The plurality allows different people to do different things. The law doesn’t establish various laws but instead legislates permission for others to abstain. Abortion is permitted but those who disagree abstain, gender reassignment surgery is permitted with dissenters abstaining. It is not entirely permitted as a prostitution and drugs are still illegal. The law isn’t even about not affecting others but the person in their own vicinity is prohibited. The law itself is not about impact on others but rather what is deemed permissible to do to the self. The law intrudes where it believes it can curb the social practices. When it believes politically the dangers are strong. The state was complicit in deriding change in the sociopolitical exchange. 

The greatest emphasis of the power of the relativism is the acceptance of otherness to some degree. The government has more or less stayed out of sociopolitical elements. On the surface that it is. Mainstream sources turn groups into far right fanatics. There is a stronger liberal push that highlights the comfort with duality yet the threat of radical proportion is complicit in a cabal revolution. The state has limited some of its immense taboo orchestration. Yet the sociopolitical discomfort is wayward. It isn’t as horizontally implicit. The people argue of these issues and the state responds like a parent deciding the punishment for her kids. Who is right and who is wrong. At times arbitrarily deciding depending on if mom or dad is punishing. Each parent favors a different child. Each side teases the other hoping the parent will find favor in their side and punish the sibling. Siblings who despise one another. The parent doesn’t try to resolve tension only heightening it by consistently choosing each side to make their favorite child happy while angering the other. 

The state is not absent from sociopolitical controversy. The brunt of the debate is civil but the state does engender a more poignant force in fanning the flames. Cursing the child for disagreeing with her. How dare you. Your brother will be praised while you shall wallow in a timeout. For your insolence he will get an extra candy and you nothing. Yet this is but parcel of the insidious state monstrosity. The state was always perceived as the threat to the people. The premise of revolution is to overthrow the problematic monarch. Democracy has promised through elections to be a horizontal society but it isn’t. Ideally, the system enumerates a chain of coherent equality. Elections create self-interested elites who deny the normative principle of democratic peoplehood. They create their own neo-aristocracy. They feed off the horizontal cultural war only deepening the conflict. Each side appeals to the electorate to help them against the even adversary. Never realizing that there is more unity in the chambers of the elite. Colluding for self interest rather than the people. They are necessarily friends but their self interest overrides solving the people’s grievance.   

The irony is the explicit distaste for hierarchies and yet appealing to them. It’s akin to Bill Burr’s joke about feminists curling their pigtails in a fire or hostage situation. Only against the system when it doesn’t impact you but when your back is against the wall, deriding all principles for the easy way out. Liberals promote more government to quash others’ freedoms while conservatives promote more local government to enforce their ideals. One advocates equality as long as it for their side and one advocates liberty as long as it is for their side. Hypocrisy is evident. The government eats it up. Happy to intervene.  The enemy is the state. This isn’t an anarchic proposal but one of scrutiny and suspicion. Unchecked power is dangerous. Each side is building their own nuclear weapons to topple the other side. Each side of the horizontal society is ignoring the problematics of the electorate. When
Such inquires are raised they are shot down in favor of the culture war. The are perceived commoners playing dress up are not pretend. They are given the nuclear codes and they can use them. They may be imbeciles but even a toddler can push a big red button.

The horizontal society is a the semantic reality but truly it is a vertical society. There so much jargon but none of it is genuine. The truth is the governmental intervention most of the time well intentioned. Great ideas with terrible execution. Theoretical results with impractical impacts. A dubious society unaware of the detrimental consequences. Deriding the dangers posed for their own victory. What happened to democratic diversity. So we reached a point of political acceptance of communism but whiteness, masculinity and other apparent normative features are evil. On the other end only traditionalism is acceptable. Only government can instill this truth. Screaming are the minority of libertarians waving their hands. Let people be. Stop with the authoritarianism. Stop with heresy hunting. Accepting one feature and moving on to accost another. None of this is democratic. It is institutionally employing an ultimatum. That is tyrannical. That is devilish. 

Modern day democracies are a binary of opposites with the same resolution. Deploy institutional pressure. Deploy the nuclear codes. Scare them or even coerce them into submission. A truly scary time that fails to live by its democratic model. The preoccupation on Trump fails to assess the congressional evil. Their lack of democracy. Worse, is the people’s tyranny. Democratic backsliding is the institutional aspect but the people have been doing so for some time now. Outlawing otherness is the tyrannical spirit. The monistic undemocratic side. If only the people united under a common enemy—the state. An “enemy” that is to be pressured and assessed. Criticized and judged. 

Well Intentioned Intervention

By: Jonathan Seidel

Imperialism and abolitionism: the original universal attack (original Vietnam) for a moral good and its contemporary consequences (A day in history, African slave trade)

Europe engaged in the slave trade on a massive scale but the hard truth is that they weren’t the first nor the last to do so especially in the African arena. Yet in a twist of events as quickly as they came they began resenting the system ferociously and persuasively. 

The modern world is rife with global attempts to impose morals on others. Even today, we have yet to reach a point where people can do as they wish. While there is some debate about others do in their countries though this is hotly debated, the nationalistic paradigm is not as much. For example, the classic point is that communists can do whatever they want in their countries but not China nor Islamic countries. Alternatively, due to the inclusion of Islam in the progressive victimisation, the islamic jihad may be okay in other parts of the world (maybe even in east London) but not China’s exploitation or another’s. To some degree many liberals are sympathetic to other regimes like communist ones so that is okay but not another. The same goes for Muslims and Jews. Everyone wants everyone else to get in line with their foreign policy. Where they see human rights violations they wish to get involved. Few people are motivated by isolationist thinking. It is the duty of the west to enter the rest of the world. Whether you are a fan of Russia or you are a fan of Israel. To be a modernist is to believe it is the job of the west to ensure peace in selected biased countries. 

This kind of thinking always has a laugh at Lyotard. There has not and will not cease the pursuit of a single truth. No relativism just monism unless relativism means my way is correct therefore hold to it or else. Yet the prevailing themes of western participation in the global world is frequented by all. Those anti-colonialists believe in partaking in the the rest of the world to rectify the errors of the west. For their imposed imperialism. For civilising those areas. The west did partake in the slave trade and did take their colonial efforts a little too far but their case was just. Their cause was moral. They freed hundreds of thousands of slaves. They used force but the African nations were not going to do so nicely. While the west’s war on communism can be debated, the erosion of slavery shouldn’t. Unlike illiberal Arab or Asian countries it wasn’t religious, it was economic. The imperialists in their rabid abolitionism took to the nations to dispel the horrid practice. To end such a defiant practice. Some lefties may oppose such an action since it is invading another country. Another country can act as it wishes yet when two countries act as they wish, they ought to also do as they please. Deciding where to side is generally on whomever is the smaller group. The invader is not always the devil, it is the perceived problem. Standing beyond the practice is the status. 

In this regard, lefties today may decry the actions of the imperialists. Even if the imperialists rid slavery and moved on it would still be a problem. This is not to say that the imperialists did right by the nation but they did try to rebuild. They eviscerated the economy by ridding slavery. Just like the southern states without slavery inflation robbed any plausible attempt for proper institutionalisation. There was exploitation and conflict rising but it was of freed people. At times inferior status but not slaves shipped off to other areas of the continent. They were limited but free to live. This did give the imperialists a superiority complex which they wove but forgetting the liberation cheapens the growth and stabilisation of the area. Going as far back as the Roman Empire helped bury conflicts and engender prosperity. The idea of an expansionist territory wasn’t always terrible. If a smaller group was being mauled by a bigger fish, the whale came along and swallowed them whole. As a part of the empire the small group and the big groups conflict died and instead provided  privileges as members of the Empire. It wasn’t all good and stole autonomy but assisted the downtrodden which the abolitionist did in the Africa. It destroyed their empire but saved lives.   

A westerner must contest with the issue of slavery. Whether it was handled adequately is a separate story. It is interesting where contemporary left leaning liberals weigh on the Russia-Ukraine war. Those who wish to give foreign aid because of democracy or big bad Russia does sound similar to the anti-communist plunges of the mid century. Those who support Russia against anti-expansionism seem to permit Russia to conquer a freedom seeking people. This push for Russia has little to do with the moral failings of the other and a reflection of the national spot. Maybe some lefties are quite alright with Ukraine and muslims in China situation. Though most liberals and even conservatives find their footing in the western assistance locket. Even these lefties are not isolationists but support staff. The question then becomes what about the good parts that seek to route out the devil. If slavery is highly practiced ought it be eradicated? If China is placing  Uyghurs in concentration camps ought we step in? The reason for not doing anything seems to be not moral but political. If China was not as powerful maybe intervention would be approved. Yet there is much verbal protest by leaders and the citizenry. People care what happens in the world even if there is no actual military invasion. 

The imperialists saw that nothing was going to happen by complaining and crying so they took action. Much of the grief is to the morbid ramifications. Yet the end of slavery entered an occupation. Is slavery worse? Uncertain but it is an important measure to remember. It may have been wrong but it was ethically charged. It was not in search of exploiting at least not the first thing to come to mind. Instead it was to rid the evil slavery and then potentially be the new master. To take over from the horror for a lesser horror. Whatever the take on the intervention it was a noble thought.

Some Things Never Change

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Hegel’s dystopia and liberalism’s terror 

Plato’s critique is nothing short of historical. The Hegelian motif is contextual. The medieval march to modernity meets its match. Malevolence is encased in crewed nuance. Human growth is an ethical performance. Through organisational confrontation changes are bound to follow. Yet this progress is declining. Proud tribalist groups seek the same ideological doctrine of their ancestors. The game is the same even if the pieces are different. Ethics is a synonym for my way or else. The veil of technological immersion does not empower the moral side. If anything it only fuels the immoral modality. This progress does not have setbacks it has yet to evolve.

The problem is not the institutional system but the personal interaction. The stoic relation to one another. The democratic ailment rife with racist emotions only capitalises on the inherent dehumanisation. The universalist paradigm imposes its will demoralising those who do not fit the bill. Progressives push for institutional changes but altering mechanisms does not shift the personal abdications. A democracy that preaches freedom and produces wage slavery is hypocritical. A democracy still built on the equality of man suppresses the diversity of man. The argumentation of institutional freedom inherently presupposes a devious lacking. Promising a network that needlessly fails its goals. Shifting mechanistic burdens redirects the toxic liquid. The toxicity remains strong even if walled off. Without bastardising the liquid to a gas, the liquid un-evaporated lingers on. A blood stain under the rug.

The promise of a better tomorrow by shifting the goalposts is a haunted lie. Each generation asserting its dominance. This will usher in the utopia. Whether it be revolutionary systems or rebellious protests. Changes that may in fact demand social equity do not salvage the distorted portrait. It was the system that needed alteration. If the model is refuelled in a manner that maintains the organismic construction with different variables moved. The game of chess continues with elevated pieces. The queen no longer is restricted to moving one move diagonally but has unrestricted freedom. Able to move across the board with ease. Yet this move advancement is still burdened to protect the king. Pawns are still lowly pawns. Changing an elephant piece to a bishop centres on the ideological novelty but the space is sanctified for a special type. The pawn never changes always at the bottom of the totem poll. At least the religious placed him above the animals on the value hierarchy. 

Similarly, in the real world, peasants remained peasants. Their name may have changed but they have yet to usurp the incriminating futility of simple-minded foot soldiers. They fight for their lives for a cause that they lie dormant of proper grace. Peasants were the middle class before the middle class. Even if they are given more accessibility. Improving their lives at the cause of submission. Provided the bare minimum to discredit the counterbalance of fate. According dubious solutions to maintain the disastrous hierarchical asymmetry. Trickling down the innovative salvation. Permitting bits to be allocated to the disenfranchised. The lower levels are enslaved to the order that represses their growth. Rebellious causes protest the startling divide yet the system rejects their claim. The marvel surplus received in shredded heaps of secondhand crumbs. Selfish notoriety steals the majority of the equitable pie and leaves the crust to the peasantry. The share is proportionally divisible. The medieval age is far gone, fair wages are supplied. 

Air-conditioned homes and supermarkets ease the life burden. The peasants are rewarded with living. If sufficient work is applied then these assets can be purchased. A reward for hard work. Dangling a treat in front of the starving dog. Making the throwing motion but throwing air. The dog runs and is unable to find anything. Confused he continues his search but after failing for hours gives up in sad distress. He makes his way back to his owner who is cunningly smirking. The dog bellows in a depressed tone to which the owner’s mouth widens into a crackle. Bending over and presenting half a treat. Saved from hunger but still hungry. Treats used to be stale and now they are chewy. Delicious but still unavailable to the desired. Only if hoops are jumped through in a spectacle for elite humour can the the starving peasant satiate himself. There are no freebees, everything has a price. Even the generous owner who leaves the chewy treats out has left them out for days. Pouring the treats in a bowl was his job. The dog was fed just not with edible nor healthy food. 

Peasants are all equal in fated depravity. Yet they fight amongst once another. Distressed with their situation fury escapes their condition. Anger overtakes their clear-minded inclinations. The adversary is blurred. Hallucinating in a despondent state of crisis. Neighbours become the greatest enemy. Blue-eyed peasants check their affinities. Peasants but part of the blue-eyed club. Identical to his neighbours except for this biological marker. A fan club that met on Sundays for meetings. Blue-eyed members lived harmoniously yet the ongoing struggle was tumultuous seeking where to redirect anger. A blue-eyed government reigned so how could peasants be suffering. Neighbours must be the cause. The failure of the peasantry is the peasantry not the sovereign, he is trying his best but brown-eyed peasants are disorienting that trickled excellence. Stealing it for themselves. Those selfish bastards were former co-workers turned savages. Friends turned enemies. Staring down that neighbour and writing them off. Their eye colour is disfiguring. Their eyes turn red at night and hunt down blue-eyed babies. Ocular powers hypnotise the good blue-eyed folk forced to struggle in the lower class.

A reckoning is assumed in the revolutionary cause. Revolutions will drastically bring humanity closer to perfection. Moral ideas brand the campaign slogans. Demonstrations raise sympathetic slogans in search of change. These public displays are punished by the leader. The leader stubborn and paranoid refuses to concede. If he will leave willingly, he must be compelled. Violence in the name of salvation is the accepted trajectory. Killing conservative countrymen optimistic in pressuring the sovereign. Naive heretics with false dreams. Corrupt leadership cannot be altered. The tainted sovereign must be cleansed. A new ripe leader from a different tribe must revamp the proper annuls of leadership. The liberal zealots promise big for their cause. When the impure leader is ousted and the revolutionary leader takes his place, he fails completely to facilitate his dream. Conservatives are branded traitors. Their insight sought as a burden and decried for their disservice. The new leader is a reincarnation of the old leader funnelling his ideology into a scammed silence. The phone line disconnected left to cope with their burdensome pieces. Foot-soldiers remain peasants. 

No system is perfect. There is always room for growth. Self-growth voices unredeemed to the repressed peasant. A few tweaks here and there will perfect the imperfect. Ridding the legal deficiencies will habituate an ethical relation. It is the legal routine that disrupts the hope for ceremonial joy. Unity is blocked by systemic fraud. An intentional underlying discolouring agenda. Deep-seated resentment fades without legal separation. Ethics is solved by legal dictation. Fixing the broken valve allows the flow to persist. Wealth and positive attitudes are the solution. If train lines are diverted to a single train. All on the same train to the shared destiny. Compelling interaction will shed the stereotypical jargon for realistic deductions. Shouldn’t the decision to divert to one train be questioned? A well-intentioned goal but strategically positive? Fear and anger encompassing the groups must be solved by the restrictive rules to ensure the mission succeeds. Instead of advocating personal adventures to debunk those stereotypes, coercing societal clashes for the sake of a potentially future understanding after many have passed in the crossfire. Necessary deaths for the mission. 

Blind to the diverter’s intentions. A puppeteering conquest meshed into horizontal skirmishes. Focusing on the irrational distaste for fellow humans on the basis of psychological dissonance. A neurosis stemming from heresy-hunting warfare. Heretics are locals. Locals who do not agree with the progressive tone. Brown-eyed peasants have received unduly advantages. Bishops can charge their desire but a pawn must know his place. He must not cheat and think he be a bishop. Fighting hard through the thicket to reach the other side to be elevated. The pawn has done his work. His operator has placed him efficiently. He was fortunate and lucky. Able to reach the beaches of Normandy. His luck is polemically tied. The operator is never questioned. His decisions are accepted but the pawn still receives the blowback instead of praise. Proud that one of their own made it through. Fate is unfair but little is afforded to assist the unlucky. The operator sacrificed them. Some pawns snuck through but the pawns were to trap the enemy for the bishop to steal all the glory. The bishop has more prestige and thus he deserves to reap in the rewards of the kill that the pawn set up. 

Picking on fellow peasants for their success stories does little to raise unity. An echo chamber of monistic restlessness. Those who have succeeded are no longer tolerated in their circles. The face to face anguish brews contempt. The real villain is not some machine but neighbour peasant. His success must be from some cheat. He doesn’t deserve it. As a successful peasant he is isolated from his birth and newfound life. He is no elite but he is no peasant. An elite in body but a peasant in soul. The strife of isolation is tremendously overwhelming. Alienation is no fun escapade and his former friends see him as a stranger. His success which they all seek is the stain. Their deplorable luck is his problem to bear. Despite their behaviour towards him, an underground revolution brews to align with him. To re-establish control. Prophetic voices and hymns echo in the dim light. Caught up in a newly lavish light. He is happy but so far from the peasant mindset he drops off funds to help his brethren. They shoo him away in disgust. He leaves angrily misunderstanding their stress and his donating insolence.

Process is not evolutionarily but dynamic. Engulfed in the ideological sway turns ladders into slides. All roll for the slides. If the system is inverted then all will be solved. The climb is a monstrous trek with rarely any victors. To ensure the system aids everyone the system must do a half spin. This mechanistic shift requires legal hegemony and political banter to manipulate the model. Though representatives find more security in ensuring they enjoy their seat. The aristocrats of old are the politicians of new. Varying positions with a little more freedom but the same problem. The same failures in Athens and Rome are present in England and America. The power to rule does not accord with the people’s desires. Egotistical panic plays politics framing answers in evasive rejoinders. The vertical asymmetry is slowly catching on. The public though aware of the political ploys maintains its grudge against its fellow countrymen. Immersed in an obvious illusion. Having already seen the true face of the devil then mistaken the devil for a hallucination. Recalling the snippets of reform whereas his countrymen has failed to legislate. 

One step forward two steps back. Eventually the utopia will be reached. If steps forward were linear and not circular. Making the wrong turn not out of idiocy but madness. Following the map drawn by the institutional reps. Their word is prophetic. News anchors flaunt these maps to the public. Trust these, they were orchestrated by those reps themselves. Yet no one is able to breach forth. Returning to the same point of origin. Zero intuition or deviance is questioned. Those who deviate are hounded for their misdeed. News councillors mock them and publicise their sin for everyone to join in on the attack. The victim’s cry for assistance is ignored. Screaming do you not see the divine sing. The fire from heaven consuming only the victim’s sacrifice. The counsellors are not disturbed but the people are for a brief moment. Then the counsellors issue death threats and the public follows retracting the previous incident. Their repentance inadequate and conditioned on narcissistic preaching. In the same hole as their predecessors.

Evolutionary change would at least seem enlightening. The stale toleration is an unbridled public ignorance. No name calling in public unless felt otherwise. Ideally there is a distance since the stereotypical makeup cannot be eclipsed. Toleration admits defeat to the diversified congregation. Anarchist tendencies malign any essential tracker. Stripping ideology of its prowess. As long as the top-down order educates in its preferred model. The sown seeds of malice may only be verbal bullying but contextually it is more powerful than physical bullying. It is not a matter of a lesser degree. The magnitude of control is irrelevant as long as the mechanism remains in place. What is ideal is rarely ever upheld. Inching away at the borders to extend jurisdiction. The only real freedom is for the legislators who can never be prosecuted in their group protection scheme. Civil rights strengthened with contempt. Legality is the only way to ensure instead of refurbishing values. An educational lesson in the original document without speculating of historical insufficiencies. Nitpicking the language to ferment a societal picture denying the founding intention on a technicality. Fuel rage at the brainwashed instead of recognising their victimisation and fall guy positioning.

Vertical vectors are currently challenged. Backsliding avenues are exposing the radical insular corruption in the representative sphere. Rome has met its maker once again. The next caesar may be lurking in the shadows. The populist leadership to win back the people’s losses are crucified as an irreverent actor seeking glory. Blackballed from contention. Gradual dynamics protest but they are inconsistent. Blinded by the media’s strong interior. A wall of defence protecting the fraudulent. Are these backsliders and independents the near future utopian saviours? Ideally potentially but what will it bring? Will enough people get on board? Will it last? Every outlandish outcry is brief. Feeble public energy to challenge. Spewing talking points without consideration nor analysis. Short-term memory loss cuddles the nation’s peasantry. To the slaughterhouse they go without batting an eye. There is room for progress. A chance to speak up but insufficient outcry derails its impact. Exploitation is revealed detailed to the public but they have accepted their fate. Robots with no will. To be screwed cry about it and move on. There will is a tin box wound to obey.

Poor Souls

By: Jonathan Seidel

Jealousy of the impoverished cohesiveness: revolutionaries and democratic antagonism of the poor (Fromm, 82)

The working class has gradually turned conservative. Voting for right wingers in the elections. For many this seems anachronistic. If liberals are pushing for more welfare, why vote against material interests? The answer is simple antagonism to urban liberals. 

The middle class has notoriously despised the poor. Seeing themselves as either harder workers or god-given talent. The poor are those who are bringing this country down. The homeless are scorned and shouted at for requesting a donation. Even liberal jargonists will shove them aside to get to their esteem profession. The middle class sees the capitalist nation as a land of opportunity, thus anyone who doesn’t make it, it is on them. The middle class demands the poor be assisted by the rich. They should have to do nothing. The poor are not their problem. The rich have enough so they can deal with it. The middle class desires the rich be pulled down a rung. So they can feel like the rich. The poor make them a weird middleman between the rich and the poor. Liberals may believe that poverty is beyond someone’s control but that doesn’t mean they wish to associate or assist them. On the conservative side the lack of hard work dooms you and any correlation between the two.    

There is a good Game of Thrones line that sums it up quite well. To paraphrase, the middle class are the poor without their American apparel. If not for the extra few bucks the middle class wouldn’t be able to adorn itself. It would look poor. The difference between the poor and the middle class is shorter to rich. More so emotionally than practically. More so intellectually than economically. To be of the middle class is to be on the cusp of poverty. Perpetual income does pay the bills but without would sink to the depths of homelessness. Middle class individuals know that they can be poor with a slight misstep. The rich have trust funds and investments. The bare minimum of the million will provide. Annoyed at the seeming close quarters, the middle class rages against the vulnerable. Those they wish to separate from. To disassociate from. The middle class has money recognise that, they are not poor they should be in the streets for validation.

Someone commented that right wing propaganda inciting racist rhetoric is the rationale for voting against best interests. Yet, such a comment fails to explain what these interests are. It was white people who were redirected to undeserving minorities. While some of this may be genuine there are numerous other factors. It wasn’t as if left wing candidates were supplying the aid to the working class. Their racial programs and minority preoccupation left them in the dust. For most middle classmen, poverty is beyond circumstances but that is for certain people. Not all poor are created equal. Minority poor are subject to circumstances beyond their control. Immigration and discrimination. Yet the native white folk who are poor are just screw ups. They had their chance and let it slip. The middle class sympathises with sectors of the poor. So helping out Detroit but not Kansas. It is a matter of focus and interpretation. The overt concentration on other material interests over recognising the working classes’ difficulties pushed them right.

Originally, they were on the bandwagon for more welfare. Seeking opportunity to attain more money and protections. Yet in the seventies society shifted. Civil rights and the sexual revolution opened the door for other stragglers to be compensated. Blacks and gays who had been traditionally alienated were to be marshalled into better areas. Those who fell through would be paid for by the government. The government was taking on a lifetime’s guilty conscience to repent for past mistakes. A good idea but this left people angry. This being the case, rhetoric easily shifted to discriminatory conclusions. The government was placing more disadvantaged folk according to their position over native folk. Writing a wrong ignored others struggling in the midwest. The working class were left to fend for themselves. It is no shock that with Reagan the numbers began climbing. Through the years they have yet to understand only calling them racists. Obama and Hillary both lambasted the working poor as bitter, gun hungry and deplorable. 

The liberal argument is that these people are just racist people without considering the context. They created the racism and animosity toward minorities if that is even a factual claim. More so, they lost their vote not due to culture but to abandonment. They dug their own hole and have been shifting propaganda against them. It is the liberals who are two-faced. It is them who have attempted to dehumanise and deceive the public about a particular group. They gave rise to their right wing populism. Since the populists listened to them. Heard their cries and prophesied aid. No wonder Trump won many of their votes. Democrats also did the same with latinos. They mocked any minority who voted conservative with socialistic ideals which latinos despise given their history. Are many racists? Potentially. Yet what is the cause of their racism? Is it entrenched in history or a recent reaction to liberal prioritisation. 

Modern democrats vile fit for the working poor is not a new phenomenon. Locke and Marx both hated the poor. Neither the renaissance nor the revolutions assisted the poor. If anything they only furthered the issue. Beginning with the renaissance, the incumbent revolutions were middle class driven. They were for the sake of the middle class’ growth. Even after assisting the middle class to power they were left in the dust. Marx’s ideas came true and the poor were left in the dust. To some extent the American revolution differs in its nationalist agenda but the idea that when the proletariat takes hold he will undo the shackles of class formation is quite idealistic and throughout the past half century has yet to happen. Even in Napoleons’ tyranny the middle class became a beacon of hierarchical power. Ironically, the Russian revolution caused the same grief to the poor who had land but didn’t have resources that the government then owned similar to the Renaissance capitalist who quasi-occupied the poor’s own land. 

Seemingly the poor are always screwed. No wonder populists find a crevasse to exploit. Think about it this way, the middle class overtly wishes to move to green house gasses for a better tomorrow. Since none of their jobs weigh on such aspects they are likely to approve on the other hand working class who bank on fossil fuel in mining or truck driving are at a lost. The problem with the middle class is less the good intentions and more the lacking awareness of affecting others. The working class matter but most of government fails to represent them. The focus on diversity hires is progress but these candidates come from fortunate households. While they can attest to their respective communities, this leaves out and heavily deserts the white working class. This is not solely an American issue. One that occupies many multicultural western democracies. It is the middle class rhetoric that shields them from actually endorsing working class life. To see them as worthy countrymen to assist.

There is faint jealousy that exists. The working class is a group to their own. For many the homeless in Manhattan and dilapidated house in Kansas are the same. At times, the latter is worse. He is part of a cult. A group of fanatic racists. While there are some racial issues, they also are strongly religious and collectivists. They may live in rural areas miles from one another but they all know one another. They all shop at the same Walmart and eat at the same diner. Middle class personnel live in suburbs or urban cities and have never spoken to their neighbour once. Have different beliefs and background. It is a place of change and development. Vibrant discontinuity in the hopes of diversification. The poor have always banded together. Using culture and religion to tie them together. There are many working class who are generational miners. It is a legacy. In their fated religiosity they find comfort in their will. Farmers pass on their estates to their children. Country boys sing lullabies of their energetic youth. While not entirely perfect it is quite cohesive. 

The renaissance emboldened individuality. People sought to exit the poverty life. Newly secularists or devolving religiosities attempted to grab at the new life. Democracy provided new possibilities. Many took the plunge. Others weren’t as lucky or stuck to what they were good at. Industrialisation was promising but also leaving the familial tent. Heritage is strong and many stayed true to their family’s lifestyle. Content with their methods and gift. Whether this was particularly religiosity motivated is beyond but there is a cohesive and calming feeling of a small town. The urban life wasn’t one that was necessary. Many small towns had important professions. Skilled workers to develop the country. Prior to the social changes in the post-WWII era many were voting for better economic aid. Prior to their apparent racialising they were still the same exclusivist inclusive small town. The middle class doesn’t understand this. They have lost connections rarely speak to their parents and live amongst millions of people who they couldn’t single out ten. It is a different world.

Shameless also showed this to a degree. South Side Chicago is dangerous and deplorable. Yet they all banded together like a community no matter which skin colour. They were all poor and assisted one another with Kev for the poor or with Liam for the racism. It was the middle class woman who demonstrated a superiority complex. She was in the wrong. She looked down on them as hoodlums. Shameless is a television show but there is a certain attitude to the poor that the poor do not have for one another. Though that doesn’t mean the poor aren’t at fault. The poor have camaraderie as a familial framework that is not correlated in middle class areas (except cultural areas like Jews, Koreans, Lebanese). There is a disdain for the isolated nuance that compels angst against the poor. The middle class seemingly made it out but could easily return to the hole they dug out of. They are wannabe rich and for the time being antagonise those they agonise over.

The west has consistently pushed to help the downtrodden. Yet many of the peasantry have been left behind. Each revolution. Many peasants didn’t participate in the revolutions and for those who did assist were not compensated post-victory.  The oppressed class that being the egotistical middle class took power for themselves at the expense of the peasants. The poor remained poor through years. Industrialisation provided an outlet for many peasants but those who were generational workers or family tied stayed to their models. With the democratic disregard for the lower class, many siphoned their connections to the apparent helper for the charismatic populists. Especially with the growing focus on diversity, many natives/whites were overlooked and even ridiculed for existing. It was the abuse they endured that switched their vote. This only furthered united their social bond. Rural groups became even more centralised. Finding more commonality than progressive division hoped. Now liberals are looking back wondering where did it all go wrong. Maybe mockery and jealousy weren’t worthwhile appeals. 

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.