Some Men Just Want To Watch The World Burn (Video)

I don’t want to see the world burn. Just money, the “economy,” work, tradition, religion and conservatism. Oh, and for all borders to fall and all authority to be fucked hard in the ass forever.

“My friends and I were working for the local government. They were trying to buy the loyalty of tribal leaders by bribing them with precious stones.”

It occurred to me watching this. Isn’t that a little screwed up?  What did the local government have to gain from that investment, bribing tribal leaders with precious stones? Why did they want control of local tribes? Obviously in order to invest those precious stones they expected a greater return for that investment. How will that investment be paid back by tribal leaders? All they would have in trade is the labor of the tribe. Is it moral for the government bribe tribal leaders, enriching them, at the cost of the tribes labors? Also, is it moral to subvert the trust between the tribal leaders and the tribe. By bribing the tribal leaders, those leaders would then be working in the interest of those who bribed them, not the people in the tribe. Basically the government is buying the labors of the tribe, corrupting the tribal leaders.

The government in this scenario are motivated by the profit motive. Alfred says later that;  “Some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

So the first premise we see sets up the paradigm that money is “logical”. Money being mentioned first sets it’s level of importance in Alfred’s world outlook. It’s “the” thing by which all other things are measured. Clearly Alfred acknowledges money as a way to control people and society and that it’s moral to do so. A somewhat aggressive philosophy of money, rather than merely being used as a benign or peaceful medium of trade, as most people see it,  it is used to subvert. Basically in the hands of some money is weaponized, used as a tool of force.

The bandit didn’t put the same importance on money as the government or Alfred does, he doesn’t recognize money as a means to the authorities ends. He doesn’t recognize the “value” of money.  In order for money to have value everyone has to agree to recognize that value. Since he doesn’t then the bandit is not rational. If the money has no value then there are no means of control. So to not recognize the value of money is a challenge to authority. Of course Bruce Wayne has a lot invested in that outlook of money as a means of control himself, so you won’t hear any objections from him on the subject as such. Wayne is able to control a great deal of money in order to see to his pet “just” causes. Without that paradigm of money as a means of control he wouldn’t be batman.

Another thing that struck me as interesting is when Alfred mentions the ruby; “One day I saw a child playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine.”  So we are supposed to be shocked that a ruby was in the hands of someone where it didn’t belong. It belongs in the hands of governments or tribal leaders not children. There are assumptions in this story that are quite shocking actually if you look at them objectively. Clearly the bandit is a madman because he had no use for their method of controlling people himself, by evidence of where the ruby ended up. It makes me really wonder if Alfred’s characterization of the Bandit is realistic. It could very well be that the Bandit had a problem with the government bribing tribal leaders, that may be why he was raiding the caravans in order to stop the inflow of money(control). Though we only get one side of the story here. That side is being told by Alfred, who has much invested with the governments point of view. The person who is a kink in those plans is portrayed as a destructive madman by him. Though in fact it may be the governments plan, hence Alfred, who were the destructive force. The supposed “madman” may in fact of been perfectly rational by trying to stop the bribery and corruption of tribal leaders by raiding caravans and not falling prey to the same illusions by taking the stones for himself.

I’m wondering also about the portrayal of the Joker. As a chaotic and destructive force. He represents in the movie some type of anarchist. A very unrealistic and sloppy representation of what anarchy is. I guess the writers need any opposition to their world outlook to be portrayed as a Joker. Interesting that the Joker is a complete fabrication yet the governments bribing and corrupting tribal leaders as a means of control is a realistic and actually understated real world scenario mentioned offhandedly. That reality is not questioned.

If your world outlook is reliant on really underhanded, subversive, immoral practices like using money as a subversive means of corruption and controlling people, it’s probably very important for you to have some fabrication or justification for that outlook. I mean, nobody sees themselves as the bad guy, it’s always the other guy who is the bad guy. I’ve no doubt that the worst people in the world you can imagine thought that they were the good guys. So maybe from some point of view that Bandit was a bad guy. But if you question Alfred’s work with that government and their bribery, maybe not so much. The world is a messy place and it’s not always as clear as there being a good guy and a bad guy. Sometimes nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.