Heroic Villainy

By: Jonathan Seidel

Nietzsche’s theory in practice: 

Part 1: Slave morality between the ideal demoted master equaliser and the real meek illusionary public to the hierarchical master: Christianity and democracy

Nietzsche despised slave morality as it archetypically promoted feeble-minded fools. Victimhood straggling bums who fed off off others work. A resentment to the powerful cultivated in negating their order. Instead of producing a revolution to overwhelm the strong, they instead desired a model that equalised the playing field. This archetypical layout attempted to add more resources by finding camaraderie with others to undermine the individual powerful master. To crush the strong, many weak joined together in an egalitarian bond. Unable to defeat the strong they decided to deceive them into their butt fumbling philosophy. To defeat the enemy is not through a bigger weapon but opening them to a new frame. The power of logic defeated the strong by crafting a new mindset that altered the mechanics of life to better the weak’s livelihood. 

Metaphorically, the master asserts his dominance with his way of life. He is the daring leader who takes charge when others follow. The slave despises the master for inserting his will but the slave has failed to make a path for himself. He is a mere follower bereft of any charisma and backbone. The master takes charge because the slave repudiates any passion and motive. Subjugation is a consequence of inaction. His passivity and ignorance forced him under the whim of the master’s frame. The master innocently cultivated a life that the slave relishes in. Yet the master’s action was selfish for himself but selfless to include the slave. The slave grows tired of the master’s reign. Instead of changing the paradigm he gawks at the master’s model. The slave can become a master but instead he chooses to undermine him. In reactionary detail he displays true cowardice by demoting the master. Contriving a false narrative against the master. Asserting with conviction that the master took control of him. He was an innocent bystander who the master preyed upon. Sympathy lauds others feeling mistreated unhappy in their belated choice and push back. Instead of attempting to make any decisions let us derail your power and bring you back to weakness. 

A classic critique of communism runs alongside this version whereby an inventor puts his heart and soul into a project and excels. His activity and exertion produce results. Yet upon his completion he is raided by others who wish to steal his product. How dare you keep that item to yourself. Don’t be selfish share it with us. Your invention is for everyone. The inactive unconcerned wishing to feed off others' successes demands compensation. The democratic response is the capitalist does not owe you anything. He worked hard so it is his private property, you cannot gain from another’s successes out of envy. Preying on the strong is the bottomless pit of share your success with those who did not try. While this is a pseudo-critique as it undermines the communal destiny, there is a large consideration in the capitalist theme. External variables are ignored and the outstretched prying of the bums are seeking to extort for their own foolishness. The master is not some greedy jerk but someone who takes charge and makes something of himself. The slave is someone who wishes to enjoy the successes of others. Everything must be shared, it’s a team effort even if those spouting are doing nothing.

Community is the harshest critique. A humanitarian pose to shift the burden on the master to assist his brethren even without recourse. Helping out the slave is helping out a friend. It is the right thing to do. The slave response hearkens to a brotherly dispute. Older brother works hard and saves up money to buy a new toy. He brings it home and is overjoyed to play with it. He is relishing in this experience. Laughing quite loudly, his younger brother curiously motions over to see what is so funny. He sees the new toy his brother is playing with. Jealous that he does not have it he asks if he can play with it. His brother happy to have it declines the offer politely. Younger brother asks again and big brother declines again. Younger brother begins to kvetch. Big brother not caring for the dubious reaction of his brother ignores him. Cries get louder and yells that he will go get mommy. Mommy waltzes into the room and demands an answer for the whining. Big brother tells the story discreetly conveying that this toy was bought with his hard earned cash. Mommy responds you can give your brother a try. Big brother says it’s his toy and he is playing with it now, maybe later. Younger brother begins to sob louder. How about a few minutes Mommy inquires. Big brother says it is his as he bought it and he wants to play with it. Mommy’s anger flares shouting well we gave you that allowance and you live under our roof. Give the toy to your younger brother. Big brother relents in anger giving over the toy younger brother smiles. Mommy seeing his animosity don’t be mad you brought this upon yourself. 

Such a story is familiar to any older brother. The younger brother uses his weakness and sympathy to attain a higher power to strike down his overbearing brother. The egalitarian model is not simply equality, it is demoting the elder with a more powerful being above him. The older brother is in a place of power over his younger brother. He has the desired toy. The older brother is not seeking to oppress his younger brother just enjoy his share but the younger brother sees this as defiance. Recognising he cannot overpower his brother nor attain the toy, he uses his sadness as a victorious message. Bringing in a new power to the imbalance equalises the two brothers. Now instead of one luring over the other the parent is the overlord with two equal brothers. The younger brother does not even ask his parent to buy him the toy solely tries to steal his brother’s hard earned work. To Nietzsche, this is the slave immorality. The slave plays off that he is weak and therefore unable to take over. He then cunningly shifts the stage to place the master in chains. The master is categorised as a lecher and forced to pay homage for such sin. The parent will place the master in timeout for his relentless activity that is ignored for the benefit of the slave. The slave’s narrative becomes the truth.

The parent in the story is god or any ideological authority. Nietzsche focuses on Christianity as the root of this crime though it may have begun way earlier, even earlier than democratic Athens or the Exodus. Any ideological vision that upends the ruling power based on personal agitation seeks a slave morality in Nietzchean methodology. Yet there are some inconsistencies in the exodus scenario and Ancient Israel and Persia that stifle this ideal. On a technical level it was most probably hellenisation that created this mantra. Even in Ancient Greek democracy the classist divide was vivid. Nietzsche’s archetypes cannot operate in a system that rudely prohibits class growth. If paupers can never become kings then slave morality is non existent as slavish life is fated whether active or passive in life. Rebelling against rulership to shift the political order is quite the activity. Rome also in their republican efforts maintained a class difference with limits to the plebeians yet there is credible evidence that the peasantry did attain more rights. Unlike the former, plebeians maintained a stalemate whereby the gradually attained more rights all the while inferior to the patricians. There was more of an opening in Ancient Greece given its direct democracy. Still the aristocratic means held strong. Power was extended but consolidated. 

Where Nietzsche may be correct is in Christianity’s seeming intoxicating poison. It was a rebellion of the weak over the strong that led them to victory via Jedi mind tricks. Nero killed many christians but years later Constantine converted upon a victorious battle. The Roman Empire fell from lack of concern for the empire. What mattered was faith in Jesus not the Emperor. Gaul sacked a defenceless Rome since soldiers did not protect the gates nor the money. Christianity had stifled the intent on procuring material excess. None of that mattered. What mattered was Jesus’ salvation. Rome undermined its traditions and beliefs confusing the public and painting a new direction. The battlefield turned internally. Instead of the stoic mindset of establishing oneself, it was all in the hands of Jesus. The whispers of a new tradition. A new model that brings a new light. The mother figure entering shoving the idol toys to the side. Reprimanding the pagan emperors to desist from hurting their christian younger brothers. Firmly changing the narrative that it was not the younger brother who was demanding change but the mother figure who was. Mommy was demanding the older brother take a hot shower to purify and share his toys. A sneaky non-violent rehearsed lie to capture Roman hearts away from their passionate zeal for the empire—though imperial overpowered lunacy did not help with citizenry perception. 

At least with the Exodus story there is a battle. God takes the Israelites out of bondage quite viciously. The master was not going about his own business but ruthlessly torturing the foreigner. Afterwards the Israelites fight albeit with divine aid in the desert and during the monarchy. Additionally, ancient Israel was a fated existence based in tribe ethic of who could be king or priest. The egalitarian mind was under God but the brutish deception was more prophetic polemics lest the parental figure punish them. To an extent, David and Bathsheba and Ahab and Naboth do demonstrate the prophetic outcry and consequence for harming a fellow man. Yet the post-slave ordeal even if hierarchical does hold those with power accountable. There are legal limits under the divine word given by the most powerful leader. Emerging from a family there are differences even if similarities arise. Still, Christians were persecuted by the empire notoriously by Nero. The persecuted for their beliefs and divergence are killed. This is not a master polity but envy at the possibility of a younger brother. An older brother who dismisses his adopted younger brother because he looks different or acts different. Dismissing a younger brother for their decisions. Countless analogies warrant a congruency. The master’s envy at difference lashes out in phobic obscurity. The master creates the exclusive bubble administering his communal hub to pile-drive the other down to the lowest class. 

Ancient Israel can be accused of becoming the beast they deplored by conquering the seven nations. Though for them, the land was necessary not the thought process. If they left peacefully there would be no bloodshed but those residing weren’t going to go so they fought and won. A battle for land honourable in ancient warfare. What is dishonourable is backstabbing the ideology. Christianity sought peace and then became exclusive. The persecutions that followed and the universalist echo chamber that haunted the Middle Ages led to a diminishing possibility for otherness. Seeking egalitarianism and equality for all men was for those who accepted Jesus. Those who rejected him were targets. Only Jesus followers could live peacefully. The slave became the master attesting to the same cruel measures enforced on him. Nietzsche’s model is theoretically correct but contextually off. Christianity like Hellenism prior were liberally enlightened to those who bought into the ideology. Those who disagreed were banished and tortured. The Jews fit both categories forbidden to learn Torah under the hellenic Greeks and murdered by Christians. Jews were an easy target displaced and weak they could be trampled easily without batting an eye. Either the slave became the master or the slave invented a new master.

Both of these are correct. Nietzsche’s version of the nice jolly master is dead wrong and his brutish style is uploaded by the former slave. Now with power he exerts it on all those who made him suffer. He torments those that displease him. Yet moreover it’s the new hub that garners the most attention. Hellenism brought a new ideal that subsequent ideologies followed, the ability it to choose one’s destiny. While many couldn’t change their birth identity they could change personhood via conversion aka adopting ideals. Escaping the master morality by cultivating an equal society sounds more Persian than Christian. While Persia ran the Empire it permitted diversity. As long as taxes were paid, there wasn’t more that was demanded. Hierarchies maintained by fated existence with little attempt to universalise drama. To go back to the biblical example it’s Babylon that defeats Israel. A flawed hierarchy defeated by a raging logistical empire. Morals were less ethnically demanded. It is in the hellenised world that right and wrong are introduced. Even if hellenism was a metric of conquerers, only those who follow this specific regimen are in the right. Christianity doubled down and spiritualised this notion. On a metaphysical level those who refused the christian doctrine were enemies deserving what was ever coming to them. All damage done in his name. 

The grand irony is that it created a whole new monster. Equality to those who believed. The masterful life was for everyone in a specific circle. Yet even in that circle there was a hierarchical system. The former slaves created a new ideology that classified those who were the closest to the deity. Hellenistic priests were weak but maintained much power—though the feeble priesthood derives from Mesopotamian times. Strong warriors were inferior to the mighty priests. (King David and King Uzziah were lambasted by the divinely selected prophet who lawfully berated them for their sin against God. As loner brazen protesters the prophets were chased out and flacked numerously. Yet the prophet was a man wishing to not be there, a pagan priest desired the role). With the all consuming power over the monarchy, the church was able to orchestrate the reality they wished. Moulding it into a neo-master morality. A model akin to the old but with much better livelihood for those under its flag. The slave is the rejector. He can choose to be a part of the team and join team master or he can reject it and be on team slave. The morality chain becomes a choice. The master does as he pleases under his banner in the name of his god while the slave searches for hope. Yet finds little aid as his salvation awaits in the shadows. The emancipation was the hope. 

Unfortunately for the internal Christians, it was not all fun and games. Promised salvation and prosperity was brought with slavish attitudes and disgusting decorum. The church held sway but political bodies under the aristocratic shield belittled the peasantry. While the church had much power they could not save the peasantry from the sorrow. The master monarchies were at times Christian or Pagan or Muslim. The religious mantra either was unfulfilled or unsatisfied. Believers were promised an afterlife instead of the current materialistic joy. To cope with hardships incorporated by the classist religiosity underhandedly deserted their christian folk. The political nobility was favourable to the church and with its immense power the clergy reigned supreme and yet did little to evict the peasantry. Though the church did aid in certain measures to curtail noble violence and abuse. Yet the hierarchical order that the church professed only hindered the possibility of equitable relations. Peace with God was helpful but many believers saw their nobility as raising their prestige. With ties between the nobility and the clergy it only emboldened this truth. The wealth was between these two groups and charity aside remained in their hands. In a sense its ineffectiveness drew from its religious meekness. The clergy demanded reform but like the prophet were not soldiers. Damned to hell or not, the knighthood guarding the noble was the strong warrior who couldn’t easily be pierced. Generational branding only furthered their might against clergy interference. The mother figure was at work and the brothers fought it out.   

Emancipation struggles fought back against the noble exclusivity. The fall of the religious kingdom empowered people to take charge. A will to power of the slave against his oppressor. A new model against aristocratic longevity. Beginning in the renaissance and fully endowing itself in the American revolution was democratic ideals. Each man to mark his own destiny without concern what he believed—though still limited in race and gender. The US revolution against the monarchy stapled rights for all men which gradually included all races and genders. In its youth though exclusive to many was a hope for all. The most progressive society and yet has its issues. While initially a slave revolt against monarchical overzealous annoyance, the colonial might together would lead to prosperity. Inalienable rights for all citizenry. Yet as democracy grew it began to cultivate an echo chamber. Only democracy can save the world. Communism was evil. Democracy must travel worldwide to ensure democracy for everyone. Invading other countries with hellish collateral damage for such a purpose. For all the visionary beauty the hierarchy still remains. While there is more mobility there is still a huge gap between the rich and the poor. Politicians in bed with corporations only caring for their own needs. 

Democracy in all its amazing accomplishments added to the Christian gaze replacing God with the Leviathan. The democratic order will hold up society. It is the measure of ensuring peace and freedom. For blacks it has not. For the poor so often ignored. The slave becomes the master with nuances. A renewed oppressor with slanted progressivism to seem less shady. The same issue applies to Christianity as it does to communism and fascism. Each of these rebelled against a hierarchical order and imposed a new hierarchical order. One with diversified but central governmental power whether that be in the federal or local governments. There is no royalty or nobility named but they act as if they are. In these systems only those accepted into the frame enjoy the fruits of the system. While democracy happens to be the most open it the same illusion as Christianity. Promising equality and charity when it’s the same top-down nonsense continued for centuries. Preaching slave morality but really just adding a few slave nuances to the new and improved master morality. More people can oppress but then again it’s not equal. For some to reach the pinnacle and demoralise the weak but that is just progressive master morality. More people are given the opportunity to punch down. Slave morality by Nietzsche’s metric has crusaded and yet never integrated. A lie to bring about new power. Instead of holding onto the masters of old, democracy enabled new resource heavy people to become the masters. A new more liberal totalitarian regime but nonetheless totalitarian. 

Slave morality is a cooked lie. Nietzsche was right about the slackers but it never adapted evenly into an actual slave morality. It is a lie of the weak to become strong and then oppress the actual weak. It is not about bums but deceptive individuals hoisting gatherings to place them at the helm so they can become the new masters. The peasantry are still the peasantry. A few break through those with access and resources while the others are still in the basement hunkered down and defeated. A nice idea to bring about equality but it’s always a physically violent push that usurps the former regime with the same demon with a different perspective.

Accepted Fate

By: Jonathan Seidel

Nietzsche’s slave morality as submissive instead of reactive  

Nietzsche has a few choice words for what he regards as slave morality. In his sociological explanation, he argues that the weak fable individuals enslaved to the master resist with a new ethic. Their revolt is conditioning a new frame that usurps their agonising masters. It is submissive incarnation coping with the degradation. Yet, Nietzsche’s historicist clarification fails to understand the totality of history. 

His analysis makes sense in the christian context resisting hellenisation. Though christianity incorporated many aspects of master morality even if they played it off as slave morality. The church’s supremacy championed kindness but enforcing power. They utilised slave morality to quash the “master morality” vikings (which ironically is a cinematic construction). While this in itself incoherently acknowledges the mythos of nordic ethics, it does demonstrate the Church’s synthesis to control the masses. Nietzsche’s critique of christian institutionalism is fairly noted but that does not include pre-hellenistic morality whether in Persia or Jerusalem. The origins of Christianity seem have to submitted to the hellenistic vision and in time socially rebelled. The fall of the Roman Empire was an internal collapse. The lack of national patriotism was saved by religious cohesion especially in the Byzantine region. 

While the Church may have finagled itself into a powerful regime built on asceticism and purity, this did not cease hierarchies, superiority complexes or deranged otherness. The crusades are perfect example of punishing weak Jews (who were weak because of christian polemics and laws. Also were amazing merchants). Nietzsche’s argument of christian slave morality may exist in modern liberalism but it had zero affect in the Middle Ages. His slave morality clause is true to its inception under attack from the hellenised Romans such as Nero and Hadrian. When they attained power, equal to the Roman Empire they followed the same paradigm. They maintained the classist structure with a few tweaks. Placing the Church atop the noble chain and the Pope as the Emperor. The crusades were a call to fight and then the christian world responded consecutively. Whether or not the Church promoted killing innocent Jews, christians exacted their dominion over the helpless Jews. They were cattle with no protection nor way of overcoming the threat. 

The ethical dialectic begins in Ancient Greece and the shift in global perception. Thinking of great empires of Babylon and Persia. While they conquered the world, they rarely forced their beliefs on the nations they conquered, instead they required taxation. The Biblical stories attest to this and independence was a measure of strength and maintaining currency. Hellenism alters logistical conquest to ideological conquest. The ideological motive became ever terminable. Subjugating losers to the victor’s way of life. A uniform identity. Anyone out of line would feel the wrath. This measure of control ousts any otherness. Either with us or against us. Consequences were horrid. Take the ten martyrs or crusade victims. From Greece to Rome to Christianity, Islam to Nazi Germany and Liberalism. Each of these groups pushed their own ideology on everyone else forcing or expunging those who refused to conform or couldn’t. This has yet to end. From cyberbullying to heckling political polarisation has been so grave.

Acknowledging its history and universalist formulation subduing all otherness only promotes master morality and massacres. Persisting the theme with different characters or different orders did not alter the outcome. Different actors with the same mission to ensure their idea is uniformity accepted. This idea of power is the fear of otherness. There is a sole method. The modern movements of mcCarthyism and the red scare are perfect examples. Preaching democracy as the saviour the world and communism as the devil incarnate is a demonstration of monolithic advertisement. Ironically, the Nazis first came for the socialists then the trade unionists and then the Jews. It was the Aryan way or the highway. The Nazis like their predecessors followed the master morality methodology through brute force. Today, there is no critical thinking and the actors in charge like Nazism exert power over the other and the people stand idly by. A reoccurring theme that may not possess the same physical force of old yet does sufficient damage in media stereotypical polemics.

Slave morality at face value is a reaction to the master’s coercive force. That does not make it wrong. The submissive element toils in deconstructing the system. The ethic is to do the opposite. To reverse the hierarchy and undermine the power struggle. Nietzsche’s explanation explains the model in context of its resistance to the master morality. To expel the overbearing master, they attempt to do the reverse. They are the many whether the peasants in the feudal system or poor in the capitalist system who are at the mercy of the few controlling parties. The master’s are merely individuals who do as they wish excelling proficiently. It is the masses in their jealous revolt. They wish they can have what the masses have. They construct a boogyman fuelling their pettiness. It is not resilience it is foolish superficiality. It is a classic measure of apologetics justifying their own schemes. In capitalism is it the poor’s fault for not trying hard enough to gain money.

Apologists maintain that their way is correct and others are wrong. The red scare is regarded as the worst thing since sliced bread. The poor are poor because of their own insolence. The issue at large is the pragmatics involved. A system that overlooks the pain of the past in order to promote its agenda. Acknowledging their success and demoting others. Other’s failures is due to their own negligence. In the U.S. conservative arguments concerning absent fathers in the black community may be a cultural problem but given context with slavery and Jim Crowe there may be a larger psychological phenomenon. Another example is the competitive spirit but smaller businesses are at an inherent disadvantage and cannot compete and fail. It is a matter of recognising the complexity of situations. Nothing as as simple as it appears. There is more than meets the eye. There is an interconnected thread spreading from situation to situation, nothing is immune of influence. 

Power is a the heuristic of control. Nietzsche absolves the marxian critique. The capitalist or the christian is not an aggressor but simply living his own life. Additionally, it may just be “human nature” to take at will lacking any responsibility to one another. There is an axiomatic ethic for the people but little proactiveness to ensure tranquility. People who are left behind are those who are lazy and bitter. This view muddles the corporate control and political hierarchical disposition. The initial clever manipulator placed himself above all else and the ensuing generations have suffered for this fool’s errand. Garnering support though hypnotic charisma is a savage egocentric perception. Support turns into influence which transforms into power. To an extent there are those who are responsible for enabling the few powerful to attain such might. Yet in most situations it was done in good faith. If the people trust the ruling class then they should be alright, Yet it is the minorities who suffer the most as the scapegoats. 

Minorities did choose this fate. Blacks did not decide to be sold as slaves nor did Jews accept Nazi rule. At times Jews entered a town willingly but were promised to be cared for. William of Orange brought the Jews into England to help the economy and once they did their part he exiled them. He lied to them. Modern immigrants face the same challenge. It is not necessarily their fault and they then forced to start afresh in a foreign land treated as subhuman. Their minority status places them at the bottom of totem poll open for attack. Even when the nation promises protection is fails. Many a time there is no where else to turn. The majority’s submission is not equivalent to the minority. The majority also does not submit itself voluntarily to authoritarian rule. They are backstabbed by the leader. A promising prophet is a false prophet, the devil leading them to their demise. Being duped is not simple nor easily recognisable. The majority placed its hands in representatives that took it upon themselves to ensure their own future. Usually the founders are good-willed while corruption is a later generation, once power is entrenched in a certain class. 

Cementing oneself in the echelons of the hierarchical order is advantageous and prolonged. Not everyone is born into a specific family or brilliant to invent something or a charismatic individual. Nature and nurture are privileges that are not afforded to everyone. Attributes are fated and while there are ways to eclipse it, that is not always possible. Even with these privileges, there is an ideological necessity. Entering the aristocratic group, there are certain qualifications to their ideals. A medieval Jew was coerced to submit to the church to further his wealth and today is to keep trading with wealthy friends. As long as the wealth is maintained in the upper stratosphere, it gives little opportunity to strive beyond. Since many of these wealthy institutions have entrenched their power over decades, it does not switch to average Joe to pull off a miracle. The players may change but not the mechanics. A system regulated in routine for enough time, the norm disallows any fundamental alterations. Revolution becomes the sole solution. 

The ideologically possessed few reaching the top push their agenda for profit. Master morality is a misnomer. There is ethics here. It is to do whatever wish to maintain power. Feudal lord’s retained their might by expanding their circle. Both systems were highly profit incentivised. As long as profit is the prime motivator, it will continue to plague national cohesion. These few devilish characters redirect the public’s attention to the minorities as the scapegoat. It isn’t the greedy rich who have screwed the average person but the foreigners. Pinning the blame on otherness clouds the good willed civilian into a racist. The elitist club feeds on the people’s fears and directs them to these fictions with realistic consequences. They toy with people. Their influential might is placed in the minds of aspiring individuals. Everyone wishes to escape the average life for a spectacular life. All the riches and status. The powerful solidify their ethos with bogus achievements creating a yearning archetype. 

Nietzsche’s mistake is in presenting slave morality as this nourished rebellion. Yet the assailants are Jews and christians. It is from the oppressed but more those from a different order. Religious observers have a unique niche to perceive the world a different plane. Their spiritual mechanics is a kind of schizophrenia. While a fictional presentation by scientific standards, its metaphysical orientation educates a differing model of life with different values. Slave morality is not vigorous hate for the master. Needing to act out like a rebellious teenager doing the complete opposite of parental guidance. While elements concerning socialism’s anti-hierarchy are responsive that does not mean, that should not be an ideal to search for. The Jewish biblical model was heavily hierarchical and fated. Slave morality in a sense perceives the suffering of the out of control chaos. An empathy is constructed from the traumatic travesty. The altered perception switches from a materialistic view to a caring view. Personal success is irrelevant if the collective does not advance as well.       

It offers a grouped understanding. It is not individual aspiration but a collectivist dream. Understanding that technically there will be a hierarchy. Someone must lead the nation. Yet, in this situation, the representative clause is taken seriously. The leader works for the people because his ultimate goal is group development. It is honourable and generous. People working for one another is a duty. Appearances are hallowed for inner soulful presence. It was not an oppressed response out of jealousy but out of resentment. Devising changes to enter a new ethically successful society. Yet Soviet Russia failed in this regard. Just as the vikings pillaged for profit, Europe imperialised for profit and Soviet Russia worked for profit. A proper transition to ideal socialistic impact is through an ethical shift. Only those who have suffered understand the pain of others. The master does not care for consequence immune to his own pain. The slave sees his brethren suffering alongside himself. It unites them in a hopeful future. Responsibility for each other is a proactive claim to consistency check on people. The slave looks out for his own. Cogs in a wheel but in pursuit of a greater goal.

He does not work for his master’s industry. He wishes to be independent. Nietzsche forces morality into a binary. He does not see an oppressor but a successor. A celebrity everyone is envious of. Creating a reactive ethic to escape their status and destroy his status. If they cannot achieve then no one can. The slave is forced into the binary, he does not ask to be enslaved. He wishes for freedom. Whether from watching his master roam freely or simply recalling his life prior to his enslavement. Nietzsche’s paradigm suffers from acknowledging the master’s ultimate power over the slave. Given his critical democratic outlook it is not shocking that he dissolved the political setup back into a master-slave contract. There is some truth in the corporate feudalism but his answer of the superman is accepting the order of things. As it argues to fight fire with fire. To show one’s strength become a master oneself just as freed slaves become slave owners as well. There is an eternal hierarchy may as well play the game. The way out is to do others that which you did not like to be done to you. Don’t fret it’s natural selection. 

This latter move is completing jealousy by becoming the monster itself. The powerless slave is reactionary no doubt but it is not as if his identity is entirely invented by trauma experienced. It is obviously a major factor in inspiring such experience but the irony is that the powerless recognise that there will always be a powerless even in an equal society. Variables are predetermined that crush the perfect life. It is the powerless who traumatically introspect and recognise a new future. The initial thought is how to overcome this situation to live like the master in an oedipus rage. The second step post-reflection is to shift the paradigm. How can the gap be reduced How can we will live comfortably with less problems? Focusing on the collective drastically diminishes the individualistic growth. If the individual seeks out his own salvation he will either become the monster master or abandon society fulfilling his own greed. The powerless collective seek salvation together. Their ethical primacy is motivated by a mutual understanding of pain and dread.

Power is not the sole answer to peace. The recognition of the binary overpowering dominance bemoans the stragglers. Failing to fall in line with the ideological monism will torment any progress forward. The latecomers are at a  heavy disadvantage. They see revolution as the solution to equalising the playing field. At the current state due to the choices and influences some people have prevailed at the expense of others. Achieving heights whilst forgetting the rest of society. Nietzsche’s natural selection is void of collectivist responsibility. While he may loathe democracy he essentially is promoting its continuation in its Neo-aristocratic garb. Monetary passion need not be the aspiration of humanity. Individualism coerces self made accomplishments. Divided belittles those left behind. Often is not unskilled but repression. Those with power join to suppress otherness. They are actively ensuring their exclusivism. Their own privileges enabled their success and then prejudice others for attempting to achieve the same feet. Penalising attempts by cutting the rope collapsing the bridge to the wealthy sector. 

Reaching the eminent space on the backs of others should leave at least an ounce of empathy. In psychopathic denial he refused to admit he needed others’ help to reach the pinnacle. He affirms his own pride as a self made man. A ludicrous assertion that fuels his arrogance. He is safe in a new group away from the stragglers. He has made it and quickly forgets the troubles of old. In despotic disgust he challenges others to devour their souls to attain his prestige. He lacks sympathetic humanity for the suffering. People do not choose suffering. By variables generally under their control are placed in awful positions. Privileged individuals should use this as a time to look back. Even the owner who makes a huge profit, is only profiting from his workers’ hard work. He may have provided the supplies but it is their tireless effort that ensured his success. Gratitude loyalty and responsibility are values voided in the monistic individualism. The contract is incongruent. The employer doing others a favour. He fails to acknowledge their prominent work to accomplish the vision. It is not shocking that strikes occur. People grow angry when they are not appreciated for their work and uncompensated for their efforts. They are humans not animals to you with and do away when unnecessary. 

Any success story persists to require others to succeed. Any owner needs employees an author needs readers and a politician needs voters. Every success occurs with reciprocation. While the employee reader and voter are receivers and gracious ones at that, they still play a pivotal role in the success. If not for them, there would be no profit no company no book no campaign. Even more so the staff the owner author and political work with to put everything together. A recognition of the others’ need fuels an awareness of collectivism. In this language game of exchange it is less a gift and more a mutual need. The pride that comes with a moral implications. The ethical relation is beneficial in helping both camps without exploitation. Yet placing oneself in a higher seat as better than others. That they need you more than you need them, is dually egregious. It furthers this Nietzschean superiority complex over taking all for granted. Any concern for the other or collective is undermined. The monetary excess and profit generated are primary concerns not the concerns of the workers or the voters. Toying and manipulating people.                 

Context to master morality places its origin in hellenistic universalism. Its ideological backing pushed individualistic profit motivation. The church, medieval and modern imperialism both attribute to this norm. The only empire resistant to this affect was the east. The great Chinese empires did little to expand westward. They had their own superiority complex but their choosiness was spiritually relevant manifesting in a bordered existence. The asian empires that of the Mongols, Khmer  and Meiji committed horrific massacres as well but not pushed by ideological bound were religiously tolerant. They were barbaric in their own right like their western counterparts but to some extent it follows more of the ancient logistical conquest than the ideological universalism of the west. Both were tremendously brutal and hunted difference but at times the irony lies in the liberal deceivers who claim to push for freedom and liberty all the while planning to undermine the faithful. 

Such A Sad Man

By: Jonathan Seidel

The delusional reflective observer: the jealous and deceitful absurd hero. 

Isolated from centerstage, the sufferer watches as the world burns in front of him. Unable to change the trajectory of the societal progress. A viewer yelling at the movie screen for the hero to save the day. His shouts lay on deaf ears. The hero cannot hear him. He tells his friends but they are caught up in the moment. Hypnotised by the elements that cradle their passion. Smirking he inquires again of the lunacy they are believing in but to no avail. Shrugging their shoulders in assertion of a societal acceptance. Perplexed by the unanimous conformity he sits back and rejects the echo chamber of singularity. He doesn’t run away, he just sits there in disbelief and mocks the primitive monism alienated and irritated. 

His isolation emboldens his perspective on the problematic asset. From afar he is able to see the full wide range of views. He has much time to focus beyond the day to day. He engages in everyday life but the constant struggle questions the normative movement. Spending time alone in his own world perplexes the routine. He is unable to follow through with the workload of society. He becomes engulfed in the fantasies of a better tomorrow. Watching others fall slowly into delusion. Coerced by their own impassioned desires. He shrugs and continues forward growing sceptical of the fervent consistency. Observing uniform behaviour bothers his conscious. Copycatting merely feels ambivalent and dubious. Scepticism enrages into cynicism. Distorting the realistic frame with nuanced perspective. The glorious endgame is an illusion perpetuated by the idealism inherent in fictional aspirations. Walking alongside friends deliberating over the day to day is rarely cross-examined. Solely discussed in its socratic singularity internally rebuffing the odd commentary. Unable to convince the blatant patterns that intersect in his mind. He sees the numbers above everyone’s head but they just call him crazy.

Withdrawing to his room is an inevitable aspect of social isolation. He is threatening. His knowledge is superior and finds less compliance from his surroundings. He is perceived as a conspiracist. He is rumbling gibberish to the public. Finding little camaraderie conferencing his views. He urges those who disagree to take a step back and think but they are incapable. They call him a witch debasing his witchcraft. Accusing him of falsely poisoning other’s minds with his nonsense. His newly enlightened perspective is fishy and warrants polemical reactionaries. He retreats to his room in isolated focus. Pondering why they cannot see it? Are they so naive? He concocts experiments to deduce the rationale behind the error and the uproar. He concludes that they are too close to it. So stooped in this ideological frenzy they cannot but accept the truth. They are in too deep. Subconsciously they make recognise the error of their ways but consciously will never concede. Top prideful, they dig their own graves. He alienates to remain unaffected by the vitriol disenchantment. Not wishing to be infected by the grand lunacy overtaking the public. Safety from the hoodlums roaming freely in the pitch black darkness. 

He escapes the zombie ridden outside. Bolted shut he craves to not be bitten and fall back out of grace. Incapable of reasoning the obvious stench. Alone, he carefully examines and constructs a potential solution. Yet the cure is not easy to formulate. Zombies are transformed and entrenched in the bit. The medicinal salvation is a reckless but informative necessity. A medical solution that must be achieved by a respectable candidate. Though even a little by someone small can make a ripple in the waves. It may not reach the extravagant public but it can start with a few individuals. Conversation between individuals can lead to those individuals spreading out to speak to others. It is one thing to provide a cure. The real problem is convincing the public to take it. Zombies are witless soggy one track minded monsters. Injecting the cure is not enough. The only way to return to mortal form is to accept it. Their minds are mush so it is incredibly difficult for them undo their transformation into the undead. Yet to be affected by the drug must be considered working to fully execute its purpose. Forcing them back into mortal form will cause a chain reaction that only embitters their zombie form. The saviour must either leave the commune to start afresh elsewhere or slowly manipulate zombies back to the light. 

While his phobic relation to zombies is apparent it is also apparent that his perspective is justly due to not being a zombie. He may ache at the transformative monism but the monolithic goal is the zombie goal not the human goal. The latter does not need that nourishment to survive. Even in a civilised zombie society he is an outlier who fails to understand society’s goal. He may reject society’s aspirations but such can be said of his laidback and relaxed attitude. He is isolated and thus free from the retconning continuum. He sees the traffic lines as an observer without partaking in its incredulous manner. As an outsider he can critique because he is not a part of the trade. While the labour may be backbreaking the reward is joyful. He cannot attain given his rebuffed isolation. Remaining in the privacy of his room enables him to critique without even lifting a finger to exact his review of the event. A critic born of privileged courtship. Demurring the societal goal with his own take as he sits on his couch scarfing down buttered popcorn with a Diet Coke by his side. He observes but fails to appreciate the engagement. The fun from partaking in the communal element of societal progress. He sits in his room sad and lonely writing critical pieces to make himself feel better. 

He is a jealous man. He cannot have what others have. He is the quintessential slave moralist. He creates a profound model in his fictional perception to mark a new world order. He recognises he can never become the master. He doesn’t have the props or the ability. He is tragically a lonesome sufferer. He gives up the capacity to desire the societal rewards. The work hard great reward is a long shot for him. He doesn’t acknowledge the possibility. He is denied the access of such rewards. He cannot properly contend with the rest of society. If he cannot win he must change the rules of the game. The slave moralist recognises his limitations. Instead of trying hard nonetheless, he attempts to subvert the system. Offering a new compelling model that plays into his share. Why dare play a losing game when an alternative will be in one’s favour. He sees society grinding to the bow of the ship but what if he ordered the crew-mates to the stern. Those who successfully made it to the bow must now turn full circle and run the other way. Anyone who was near halfway has a better chance of winning. He has won because he is already at the stern as he champions those in progress to the bow to turn on a dime to his side. He incites deception that elevates his status while empowering those who were closest to the stern.

With his slave morality intact he cripples the master. All those who were headed to the bow have descended to his side. Offering them peace beyond the former goal. His deception has won the day. He knows others are quite overjoyed with his inspiration. His methodology overtly cradles the lower rank on the hierarchy. The stragglers made their way to his side. He inverted the hierarchy to fulfil his own hole in his heart. The irony of the sufferer’s move is that this was a necessity. Even if he could attain the master’s model he would be unhappy. The glorious societal reward was meaningless. It provided no closure nor any solution to his depravity. He seeks a remedy that differs from the classical option. He wishes for an answer for himself. That answer does not come easily in the media frenzy pouring hot lead down the throat. Hypnotising society into a monolithic tone. He stays quiet working on himself but his survival is only the first step. He ability to thrive depends on societal action. He may be an individual but the community is relevant to his success. His ability to overcome must begin with civilised shift. His enlightened identity places himself as a preacher to save others. He has seen the light, now it is his turn to preach these faults to the public. Teach them the wrongs of master morality only placing him higher on a pedestal. If he is martyred wow is his name engraved in the history books.

His absurdity emerges from his inability to see as they see. His vision is deluded with overcompensated analysis. The problems are real but they do not measure to the anarchic consequences he seeks. He criticises but lacks the motor to facilitate change. He shouts and argues but he fails to consider the position of the average individual. His habits are myopic. Upset with his own situation he projects the worst on the world. Darkness hovers over all of societal implementation. Victimising the affected in social aggression. His revolutionary canon is a hope for his own salvation. He is the tragic hero. A tragic hero with a tainted lens. He does see the issues. An obvious cause of taking a large look at the picture. Unable to follow through with the ideological jargon he observes the captivating slogans hurling individuals inside its field. Selfless to expose these ubiquitous dogmas he asserts alternatives to deploy a new frame for the future. The writing is on the wall. Selfishly believing that he has seen through the deception of societal imperialism. He is the purist angel seeking to save humanity from its harmful blunder. Unveiling the mechanic inequities that halt proper progression. Dismantling the narrational theology. All so he can play hero and have purpose in his life.

Without proper involvement he is a slug muttering blemishes in his cohort. Angry at the world he takes it out on societal problems. His polemics are exaggerated to the point of conspiracist propaganda. Overthinking the ignorance of the public. Endearing to a sociological class to argue the theoretical possibilities but fails to measure up to practical actualisation. Overloaded with frustration and countless hours of time he directs his fury to a new evil. He cannot solve his own problem so maybe the world’s is a good start. A pretty galvanising threat to overcome. An obstacle he brushes aside as a simple solution. Use common sense be kind and take accountability. Simple things he learned from the self help aisle he’s been fondling in the library. The timid inspiration leaps in its energetic sensation with minute concrete visualisation. A prophetic impulse with jargonist messaging. Zero framing or world building to actualise his message. A guru who employs big words in poetic lullabies to garner interest. Little is aided if hearts are lifted with benign hope. Getting people excited and then failing them with an unrealistic fictional plan. Other stragglers hear his call but most ignore his idiosyncratic tumblings. A nice musing ineffective on the world stage. Rashly and brazen, his words laced with ire erupting out of a volcano. He sounds like an angry old man ordering his younglings around. A man without understanding of the way of the world, just believing the world is burning. 

Indiscriminately, he doesn’t see the trees or the beautiful cosmos. He sees hellfire and demons. His private abode is serene while the outside is a diseased-filled atmosphere. He wanders to the incomprehensible tune of others. Inquiring of their ignorance he feels superior but then ashamed he cannot connect. He is alone and mortified of his own enlightened ideals. He prefers a world where he feels alive and at home. One that makes him feel safe. A world he creates and brings others in. He doesn’t want to be alone so he convinces others of his vision. Some agree but many dispense with his angry tone. He is flustered and needs help. He pushes them away. A sufferer just mad at the world. A crazy man with an obvious bias. Unable to truly reckon with the rest of society he constructs fiction.