Mass Shooters, Lone Nuts, and Cinema- Nietzsche’s Ubermensch Are Now Ubervillains

Western culture and society gives Friedrich Nietzsche a lot of credit. Some of his attitudes towards organized religions have merit, particularly the “original sin” spiritual debt complex he somewhat lightly touched on in his views concerning slavery. However, Nietzsche’s pessimistic, nearly apocalyptic views toward popular society and culture have actually been adopted by it, and his ideas seem to have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are two concepts specifically, Perspectivism and the worship of Ubermensch, that have burrowed themselves deeply into popular culture. The Ubermensch are well known, but Perspectivism is more deeply ingrained in our chaotic, “postmodern” age and its ongoing assault on humanism and our humanity. Since these two topics are quite large, they will be handled one at a time. Today, we will focus on the Ubermensch, which is often translated as “supermen” in English.

Nietzsche believed that the waning influence of religion and the belief in God would eventually lead to a loss of commonly-accepted values across a society. He believed that the “elites” of society (scientists, intellectuals, the very rich, and the politically connected) would then be obligated to provide new values to the helpless masses. These Ubermensch are to be so important that they are above the notion of laws and immorality, and there is no aspect of democracy or even national sovereignty in this concept. Nietzsche was suggesting the ultimate power fantasy, that a man could become, or at least be treated like, God. With no accountability and a might makes right attitude, this is the megalomaniacal undercurrent that still lives on in this day and age, and is the presumption of today’s “elites.”

Nietzsche also overvalued the role of religion as the linchpin of a society, which is true to some degree, but culture encompasses more than just philosophy and religion. For example, China’s incredibly rich culture has existed since around 2100 BC, that’s nearly 1,400 years before the monotheistic worship of Yahweh in Israel. Chinese writing, a key to culture, may have existed in a primitive form over 6,000 years before monotheism. In fact, the Israelis used to worship a pantheon of gods just like everybody else, meaning they could form their own beliefs rather than acquiesce to the worship of a single deity. There were no bibles, Korans, or Torahs toting “values,” and priests prayed for good weather, successful crops, and fertility among their people. There were cities with multi-ton, megalithic stone structures, organized farming and animal husbandry, and nascent art and culture. The older, polytheistic religions like paganism and the Greek pantheon actually had some quasi-scientific elements in them. Rather than attributing all of creation and purpose to the will of God, a philosophy that shut down brilliant people like Galileo, the ancient philosophers categorized and attributed specific aspects of nature and existence to their pantheon in an attempt to rationalize the world. Aphrodite was all about the creation of life and Hades dealt with death. Ares was associated with war and conflict and Dionysus linked to celebration and drunkenness. These are all aspects of life and human consciousness, and they represent culture as well. The ideology accompanying this type of naturalist philosophy begat great thinkers like Socrates and Pythagoras. So in a sense, the common religious philosophy that Nietzsche claimed was so crucial to the prevention of self-destructive nihilism could be just as suffocating as it was cohesive. There was a time when the postmodern dichotomy of science vs. religion did not exist.

So how does the Ubermensch fantasy present itself today? A very apparent example would be the current trend of prolific superhero movies. There is one about the “Superman” specifically, and the largely negative responses to it are very telling of the current state of Ubermensch worship. In the latest reboot, re-imagining, re-brand, rehash, or whatever marketing jargon you would like to call the remake of Superman titled Man of Steel, the reality of collateral damage incurred by the conflict between good and evil is brought to the forefront as Metropolis is reduced to a pile of twisted steel and powdered concrete. This aspect is necessary to set up the sequel, Superman vs. Batman: Dawn of Justice, but it completely negates the heroic efforts of Superman. The Ubermensch is above accountability, so when Batman confronts Superman on this issue, Nietzsche’s philosophical foundation for the entire superhero genre crumbles. The subconscious justification of an at all costs response to the antagonist is shattered, and Superman errs. Many have decided to lay the blame on director Zack Snyder, which is somewhat justified, but Snyder knows how to make a superhero movie. The movie 300 was far more of a superhero movie than anything Snyder made with DC. Just 300 Spartans stop the horde of foreign, evil Persians from invading their homeland, sacrificing themselves and their King in the process to preserve their culture and nation. Being so cut and dry, the plot is easy to understand and the protagonist is easy to get behind. This is how the superhero should be portrayed, according to Nietzsche.

From Suicide Squad to Batman v Superman, why are DC’s films so bad?

The fact that Zack Snyder is attempting a gritty, realistic version of the superhero genre is a fools errand anyway. The Watchmen series was written like that, so it works. Frank Miller’s Batman: The Dark Night Returns, was a welcome change of pace in a stagnant world of comics. The darker subject matter was a way to win back grown up fans, and the question of right and wrong became more ambiguous and complicated to keep an adult interested. These darker chapters of the comic book world were less about being realistic, and more about being complex and interesting. We are, after all, still talking about an alien flying out of a telephone booth wearing red underwear and shooting laser beams out of his eyes.

With Snyder’s latest flop, Suicide Squad, the darkness and deviance is pushed even further away from the original Ubermensch concept. Rather than rooting for a protagonist, the audience is expected to support a cast of super villains motivated by their own selfish interests rather than old-fashioned altruism. Instead of saving a school bus full of children falling off of a cliff or smashing open a water tower to put out a massive fire in the city, the characters of Suicide Squad engage in torture, kidnapping and betrayal to avoid completing their mission and advancing the story arc any way they can. Oh, and did I mention Superman himself is dead, rotting in a grave in Smallville during the whole movie? Being slaves to “nanobombs,” the villains of Suicide Squad do not portray the power fantasy, which is the main draw of the genre. I think it’s safe to say that Snyder has no idea why people liked superheros.

So if everybody understands the Ubermensch concept, even on a subconscious level, how powerful is the fantasy? Is it strong enough to drive someone to kill a President?

John Hinckley, Who Tried To Kill A President, Wins His Freedom

This “lone nut” did seem to have an Ubermensch fantasy as Hinckley was obsessed with the movie Taxi Driver. The protagonist, Travis Bickle who is played by Robert De Niro, becomes fed up with the dregs of New York City, going on a killing rampage against robbers, pimps, and mafia thugs. He even gets away with it and saves vulnerable Iris, played by Jodie Foster. Hinckley envied Bickle, he stalked Jodie Foster when she was attending college, and he mimicked Bickle’s assassination attempt on a politician when he targeted Ronald Reagan. The assassination attempt portrayed in the movie was itself inspired by a real attempt in 1971, leaving a presidential candidate paralyzed below the waist. Rather than portraying the true consequences of attempting such an egregious act, Taxi Driver allows Bickle to escape from the Secret Service, and his later vigilantism is excused and even praised in newspapers as his victims lacked virtue. The film was loved by critics, nominated for four academy awards, and later preserved in the national film registry and the Library of Congress. It is clearly a power fantasy and Travis Bickle is the Ubermensch, above any consequences for his actions. Obviously, it takes a very disturbed individual to think that murdering people would bring respect and admiration from their peers, but that is precisely what is portrayed. Hinckley may have misconstrued popular entertainment, and what is entertaining, with what is socially acceptable. Therefore, having a poor understanding of society and lacking social skills may have begotten this whole episode just as much as mental illness and the Ubermensch fantasy.

But what about mass shooters? As it just so happens, two of the most infamous were the Columbine shooters, and they also enjoyed a good power fantasy. Rather than Taxi Driver, these two enjoyed the film Natural Born Killers. Juxtaposed to excusing an instance of vigilantism and blatantly ignoring an assassination attempt, every important character in Natural Born Killers is a sociopath that participates in murder. The barbarity of mass killing is trivialized, but then again, decades of yellow journalism will have the same effect. But what is most disturbing is the power of notoriety given to the main character. While being interviewed from jail for a television appearance set to follow the Super Bowl, the character’s speech proves to be so powerful that it causes the prisoners to riot and the two main characters to escape. We are then left with a happy ending as the mass killers are living free in a mobile home with their two children and a bun in the oven. This is the Ubermensch family.

Now please understand, I am not advocating that the new standard for mass media be Teletubbies, I am just trying to point out the inherent social schizophrenia in our culture. People look at the mass shootings regularly appearing in the news nowadays and wonder how people can be so desensitized. I wonder who hasn’t been desensitized, at least in some small way. When these narratives are depicted for entertainment purposes, they receive praise from society. I’m not surprised at all when socially stunted, mentally ill, or maladjusted individuals are fascinated by them to the point of mimicry. If you don’t have a well-developed sense of societal values, irony, and satire, you won’t get that the film is so satirical and fantastical that it could have just as easily been a cartoon on Adult Swim. But what the lunatic fringe will get, just like everybody else, is the power fantasy.

There was a time when popular culture was not interested in such lowbrow storytelling. There was a time when people would say these films were made in bad taste, or were intellectually vacuous and playing off of emotions, cheap thrills, and guilty pleasures. Just like art, cinema has watered itself down to allow films that are social commentary or artistic expression rather than just creations of beauty, skill and passion. The latest iteration of Ghostbusters, with an all female cast and accusations of widespread sexism and misogyny as the reason why the movie was poorly made, is the latest example of how an attempt to inject social commentary, or exploit popular trends, can eclipse the original purpose of a movie- to show the audience an interesting, memorable story involving characters you would actually care about.

But I must stop myself before I get into the Perspectivism, and the postmodern relativism that allows directors like Paul Feig and hack… I mean… Zack Snyder to brand genuine criticism as bias or a result of a lack of virtue. The fact is, they are the ones who lack virtue, or are at least not smart enough to realize that making a good movie is much easier than defending a bad one. With movie budgets soaring into the hundreds of millions of dollars, movie making has become an industry, and with every industry you have the typical risk-averse investors, rule by committee and the ever present fear of the negative return. With these kinds of stakes, writers and directors are naturally going to gravitate towards the macabre, cheap thrills, and guilty pleasures to hedge their bets. The power fantasy is one of those cheap thrills, and the groundwork was laid by Nietzsche all those years ago. Considering how the man died a lunatic with a messiah complex, should it be any surprise that his philosophical concepts resonant particularly well with today’s psychopaths and sociopaths?

Are Sunnis Planning a Reform of Islam?

The suggestion of reforming Islam had almost always been met with violent disapproval in the past, but the idea is now being entertained in the middle east. About a month ago, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi didn’t just call for reform, he asked for revolution:

Egypt’s Sisi calls for purging religious discourse of extremist ideas

Egyptian president: Time to reform Islam, purge ‘discourse of extremism’

El-Sisi cites as motivation the threat of fundamental Islam to the international community via terrorism and a negative perception of Islam from the violence committed in its name. This would seem obvious to anybody who has watched the news in the past decade or so, but el-Sisi’s third reason is not as readily apparent.

“The Muslim world is going through a dangerous turning point and is facing unprecedented challenges targeting its existence and people, [and facing this] requires concerted efforts from all of us while putting all differences aside,” Al-Sisi said in the address.

It would seem that the third reason has to do with unity. The Ahram Online article puts it even more bluntly:

El-Sisi warned against those exploiting sectarian or ethnic differences to cause division in the Muslim world.

Taking into consideration Israel’s new found desire to normalize relations with its neighbors, Erdogan’s about-face on Assad, and Russia’s campaign on ISIS, a push is being made to bring stability back to the middle east. An unusual coalescence of interests converging around Russia involving Sunni-majority countries has suggested, to me at least, that a power bloc of Sunni nations is in the works. It is very likely that Russia has facilitated this since over half of its economy relies on oil sales, and a stable middle east is necessary if Russia plans on using its oil industry to take over the global energy market. Russia has been a strategic ally with Iran and has had close relations with India and Iraq, three nations who contain a majority of the Shiites in the world. If Russia can broker a peace (only temporarily) between the two sects of Islam, possibly involving Muslims willing to reform Islam, and succeed in the campaign against ISIS, a more stable middle east looks entirely possible. Considering China’s slow-motion take over of the South China Sea, they are looking to control trade, and stability is needed for a renewal of the silk road trade route running from Russia to China to Egypt.

Peace in the middle east? Sounds like a crackpot theory, alright.

When Art Became Cheap ‘N’ Easy

If you’ve been following my blogs about art, how technology has outpaced it, and the modern emphasis on expression and controversy, you might be wondering exactly how and when everything really got out of hand. I think it started, in earnest, with minimalism:

The Oppressive Gospel of ‘Minimalism’

How does an art movement go from confounding and avant garde to inspiring lifestyle choices and philosophy? If you were to ask a professional art snob, he would probably say something edgy but completely vapid like,

“Minimalism in the 1960s was very much along the lines of taking LSD,” says Miguel de Baca, an associate professor of art history at Lake Forest College.

The reality is much less provocative and a little more historical. From the 1700’s to the early 20th century, the industrial revolution drastically reshaped every aspect of human society from fashion to war. Newly mechanized agriculture required fewer farmhands and urban factories needed more laborers to increase their output. The result was the birth of the middle class and modern cities, and with that, modern popular culture and entertainment. This explosion of productivity and technology would spawn cross-continental railroads, massive foundries burning plentiful coal rather than wood, and the magic of electricity. With everybody from the richest entrepreneur to the poorest worker sharing in this massive upheaval, what did the artist have to offer with their landscapes and cherubs?

It is because of this age, and as a result of the wonders of that technology, artists felt it necessary to separate their work from reality. With abstract art, there were no constraints like perspective or anatomical proportion. The artist was now free to create something that could not be found anywhere else in the world, no matter how far you travel in a locomotive or a hot air balloon. This process of evolution would continue in the 20th century. Further development of technology would up the ante and compete with art directly. With the invention of film, television and radio, entertainment could be pumped directly into the home. The mid 1960’s would see the color television and color films, and photography was beginning to be accepted as a medium for art. Facing the possibility of becoming irrelevant and niche, the standards for what would qualify and be labeled as art were lowered. Films and television shows were created with capital from investors, teams of professionals and large studios in a way that no single artist could match. Rather than trying to top the spectacle of entertainment, minimalism reset what was to be expected from artists. By going to the opposite end of the spectrum from sensationalism and grandeur to obscurity and subtlety, the disparity between art and entertainment could be bypassed completely. By standing in opposition to entertainment, art had a new reason to exist. This is why modern art isn’t explained, people are just told they don’t “get it.”

When minimalism lowered the bar, it made sure that art could continue to exist alongside entertainment and technology. Minimalism was also a fresh alternative to the over stimulation of entertainment, and to consumerism in general. Requiring so little, minimalism allowed the inclusion of the lazy and those who lack artistic talent. Businesses could quickly and cheaply create a stylish but no-frills product without ever having to mention the words “budget” or “economy model.” Following the dynamics of capitalist competition, more and more would adopt this business-friendly exploitation of culture. Without Donald Judd’s basic shapes and unfinished pine, Ikea could never exist. It allowed the inclusion of the poor as minimalism began to be associated with frugality and asceticism, two virtues of American counterculture. Now that art was cheap ‘n’ easy, spread throughout culture and ingrained in philosophy, it would change society in ways it never had before, and it would continue to be relevant.

Today, art follows what I call the Kanye West Template. This involves creating as much false or real controversy as possible to gain exposure and maintain relevance. This is how pop culture is hacked and gamed. Rather than providing some kind of thought or creation that generates widespread interest and attains popular acceptance (hence, “pop”), a divisive and provocative viewpoint is presented to stir emotions and illicit a response. Other purveyors of the template include Donald Trump, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Charlie Sheen, among a bevy of artists like Justin Bieber and Marilyn Manson. But, can minimalism produce something beautiful? Although there is no virtue or value in schlock and laziness, the style can still be stirring. A prime example was constructed thousands of years ago in Giza by laborers paid in alcohol. The pyramids of Egypt are simple, they are giant stones arranged in fancy piles, yet they have inspired more awe, mystery, and debate throughout their existence than any piece of modern art.

How Modern Art and Celebrity Worship Encourages Society to Objectify People and Judge Personal Beliefs

If you’ve read my other article on modern art then you already understand how art has subjectified the act of expression itself over the objectification of a great thought, emotion, event etc. This means that in modern art, the style in which the artist expresses him/herself has been made as important as the work of art itself. The artist takes on a kind of cult of personality through the choices and attitudes (the thought process) they display in the art, attitudes which often clash severely with societal norms in order to affect the viewer. That means in modern art, it is literally style over substance because of competition from CG graphics and other electronic media. That is, except for these artists:

Banksy, Daft Punk, Elena Ferrante: The New Cult of the Anonymous Artist

There are very good reasons why some of the innovators in the article have decided to remain anonymous. The creator of bitcoin must have understood the potential destabilization of a decentralized currency on the currency markets, whose toes he/she could be stepping on, and how deep that side of the pool was. Banksy obviously knows that graffiti is illegal. Aside from the legalities, being anonymous also prevents one from becoming a part of the work, and a part of what is scrutinized by the public. The anecdote about jazz trumpeter Dupree Bolton hiding from the public due to the shame of his criminal record is one example of an artist separating themselves from their work to avoid judgement.

In an age in which engagement with artistic works has been displaced by gossiping about celebrity artists, the anonymous innovators have forced us to return our gaze to the creative product.

Objectifying the artist and including them, and their thought process and attitudes, with the work that is to be evaluated and criticized has changed how we as a society judge one another. In modern art, rather than judging an artist solely on the merits or lack thereof in their work, modern art encourages the examination of the choices, and therefore, the attitude of the individual during the artistic process. Particularly so if that behavior is deviant or controversial. It would appear, to my view, that this attitude has begun to spread or be spread into other areas.

In social media, commentary is valued equally to original content. Posts, status updates, and likes are often times commentary themselves. The emphasis is connectivity, or the ability to freely express oneself to another. When that ability is threatened, such as the attempt to copyright reaction videos on youtube, people respond quickly and emotionally.

The effect on social discourse is to significantly muddy the waters in ideological, epistemological warfare. Now that the person has been objectified, society is free to pass judgement on them as well as their ideas. This means that the event the most sophisticated, well-constructed arguments can be completely ignored and ad hominems heaped upon the person instead. Now that everybody has the option to kill the messenger, nobody wants to be the messenger and nobody’s getting the message. Rather than presenting an argument standing on its own cited facts and logic, the attitudes and beliefs of the presenter are the focus of examination. Those who have contradictory beliefs are “corrected,” and every social interaction becomes an opportunity to prove and reinforce loyalty to an ideology and rebuke outsiders.

Political correctness and “microaggressions” are an example of how specific choices of language, phrasing and interaction can be associated with undesirable attitudes by popular society rather than the individual. By giving into political correctness, one is forced to admit that they are, in some aspect, subconsciously antisocial and that popular society is attempting to correct them (white guilt anybody?) rather than attributing a different meaning, and intent, to their words and actions. Instead of ignoring the message and attacking the messenger, you only need one wrong word or act to establish bad character and discredit the messenger. Anybody wishing to have an intelligent discussion will be presented with a minefield with all of these divisive, pseudo-scientifically derived word and mind games.

The legal system has begun to take on these characteristics as well. Things like hate speech and hate crimes place additional emphasis, and scrutiny, on the thought process of the individual. Although the traditional, Orwellian meaning of thought crime does not require a specific act, these types of hate crimes do lay additional punishments on certain motivations and beliefs in addition to the act. Although the aim of these laws is admirable, one has to wonder if the act of having an illegal thought, and nothing more, would be enough to get one arrested in the future. With the spate of highly-publicized killings in the news lately (the media loves the ratings), legislation requiring mental health screenings is being proposed for gun buyers.

But none of this is new. For decades, the American people have been made to focus on aspects of psychopathy whether it be serial killers and suicide jumpers on the news or divisive, schizophrenic social attitudes and conflicts. When JFK was assassinated, Lee Harvey Oswald was the “lone nut.” In other words, on of us just went crazy and tried to kill the president on his own. This meme would be repeated for RFK, Ford and Reagan, and after being beat about the head with it for a few decades the people have succumb. The paranoia and polarization of our current times is the result.

Russia Investing in Agriculture to Compete With Future GMO’s

Despite sanctions and a slowing economy, Russia has allocated $3.5 billion to boost agricultural output in 2016.

Agricultural machinery production in Russia surges 35%

What seems like a relatively mundane effort is really an insight into Russia’s plans to exploit the distrust of GMO’s and replace the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency.  Considering how the west has vociferously pushed GMO foods with all of their accompanying proprietary products and pesticides, the legal strings attached to using intellectual property, and other reasons (the TTIP among them), only 28 countries have adopted GMO’s and 38 have banned them outright. So why is the west still pushing GMO’s so much? It has to do with the dollar and oil.

The status of the dollar as world reserve currency and the Saudi-American petrodollar scheme set up under Nixon and OPEC has been under seige since 2009. The BRICS bloc is now competing directly with the petrodollar, OPEC, the IMF, and even the SWIFT payments system, but the west has a plan. Now that the world’s oil markets can no longer be monopolized via US foreign policy, the west will relinquish control of this market and establish a new commodity to tie the dollar to. In March, the Rockefeller Foundation dumped all of their shares in Exxon.

That new commodity, I suggest, will be food, and I suspect that this is one of the reasons why the west has pushed for the adoption of GMO’s so doggedly. By creating crops that are more regular in output and resistant to bugs and bad weather, food as a commodity is more stable, predictable and easier to trade and profit from. When the dollar is separated from it, oil as a commodity will be devalued as much as possible in order to tank the Ruble and the Yuan. All of the talk about carbon emissions and climate change will see to that, and there are already investments by the Rockefellers and Jeff Bezos into new types of propulsion and clean energy sources.

But there is still one problem in all of this. A lot of people around the world still don’t trust GMO foods or Monsanto, and Russia has taken note of that. In the event that all of the effort and coordination behind the BRICS oil scheme was for nothing, Russia is still planning to compete with the west in agricultural exports. Unless the western powers can make GMO work, Russia may already have an advantage in offering an organic alternative. That is, if my crackpot theory is correct.