The movie "The Matrix" was highly influential, especially among a number of modern era philosophers who were quick to take the central concept of the story, that the reality which the protagonist thought that he knew was actually an elaborate virtual construction designed to enslave him, and compare it to our reality, implying that our understanding of the world is based upon Orwellian propaganda spread by the state. And not long after the movie’s release, the defining moment of the story: when the protagonist makes his choice between the red pill and the blue pill – a symbolic gesture in which he accepts either a comforting lie or a harsh truth; became a cliché for truth tellers and conspiracy theorists everywhere who used the analogy to portray their theories as "the truth that THEY don’t want you to know." Peddlers of all kinds of bizarre theories have used this analogy to essentially ask their readers a loaded question, "Do you want to be a courageous warrior for truth and accept my theory, or be a cowardly sheep and go along with the mindless crowd?" The implication is that by accepting a mainstream view of events one is choosing to become a brainwashed dupe, embracing machinelike conformity in the hopes of winning points from ones’ ideological overlords.

In the movie, the protagonist discovers not only the awful truth about the world, that it is a living nightmare where computers use humans as batteries to power their mechanized metropolis, but that he has powers beyond that of which he has ever dreamed, eventually destroying the matrix and becoming the savior of all humankind. Thus the truth, while awful, gives the protagonist something wonderful in return: a cause that turns his dreary existence into a glorious fight for freedom against a merciless robotic enemy. This is the notion into which philosophical references to the red pill/blue pill analogy try to tap, the idea that while the truth makes the world seem to be a frightening and draconian place, that the cause of revealing the truth will take on noble characteristics and transform the reader into a persecuted hero. I’ve referred to this idea as a "persecution paradigm" and went into describing it at length in The Burning Blade 13.5. The basic idea expressed there is that these persecution paradigms play to feelings of alienation and exclusion in the potential convert, making them believe that their suffering has a mysterious and nefarious external cause, and that by defeating those responsible that all can be made well again. The paradigms give the downtrodden convert a sense of purpose, transforming their suffering and other negative feelings into hope and positive feelings. Furthermore, the paradigms make belief systems self reinforcing by bringing the believer into conflict with the world, encouraging them to fight with righteous anger, and confirming their belief that the world is aligned against them when they encounter resistance. Such persecution paradigms have been wildly successful on the internet in convincing people of all sorts of conspiracy theories and other wild ideas. People seem to love a good secret and long to share it with others, oftentimes arguing vehemently in support of those ideas in chat rooms, forums, and anywhere else they can.

I would like to compare this aspect of the movie "The Matrix" with another movie about a protagonist who is also being crushed by the machinery of an uncaring world: "Brazil," which I highly recommend. In "Brazil", the hapless protagonist daydreams that he is a valiant warrior: complete with wings and a sword and shining armor; and in those dreams he fights numerous villains in his quest to rescue his angelic dream girl, who, by contrast in real life, is a lowly and somewhat butch delivery woman. His daydreams make his life more interesting and serve as an escape from his difficult and mind-numbing job, but the protagonist isn’t content to merely just dream about such things, and he tries to make his dreams come true, chasing after his reluctant dream girl and battling real life "villains" in the process. I won’t spoil the ending, but the contrast between the two movies is quite stark. In "The Matrix", reality is the dream and the dream is reality and the protagonist is able to escape the bonds of what he thought was real to become something much more than what he was. In "Brazil" the dream is just a dream which the protagonist tries so very hard to make real so that he can escape from the drudgery of his existence, which seems to me to be a more apt analogy for what "Matrix" style allegories and ideologies in general do for people. The way I see it, "The Matrix" is entertainment in the form of a persecution paradigm while "Brazil" is social commentary on what effects such paradigms can have on people.

As I’ve described in several recent issues of this newsletter, I feel that the modern trend in ideologies has been towards extreme individualism, so much so that narcissism and conflict due to clashing ideals have become depressingly commonplace. Politically, both liberals and conservatives have embraced an individualistic view of the world with liberals championing the diversity and personal choice aspects of individualism and conservatives championing the economic determinism and freedom from government aspects. Oddly enough both sides are able to portray the other in the role of "Big Brother" so that they can claim the individualist’s version of the moral high ground and portray themselves as heroes battling for personal freedom against an authoritarian conformist monolith. Liberals see conservatives’ support of corporations and the wealthy, their willingness to enforce notions of religious morality, and their zealous support of war and tougher law enforcement as evidence that they want to create a fascist, theocratic, police state where corporations make the laws. Conservatives see liberals’ support of heavy taxation, financial and environmental regulation, political correctness taken to extremes, and insistence upon creating more and more entitlement programs as evidence that they want to create a socialist, anti-religious police state where the most productive citizens work mostly for the benefit of the least productive. Thus, both political perspectives can portray themselves as Neo fighting the good fight against an oppressive matrix.

The same thing is happening in the religious realm. Jews, Muslims, Secularists, Atheists, and others have always been able to portray themselves as persecuted minorities, mainly because in the west most members of these groups have indeed had to battle prejudice and discrimination during their lifetimes. A poll conducted in the U.S. in 2007 showed that a surprising 53% of Americans wouldn’t vote for an atheist candidate for president, compared to just 4% who wouldn’t vote for a Catholic candidate, 7% who wouldn’t vote for a Jewish candidate, and 24% who wouldn’t vote for a Mormon candidate. Additionally the poll showed that only 5% of Americans wouldn’t vote for a black candidate, 11% wouldn’t vote for a female candidate, and 43% wouldn’t vote for a homosexual candidate. Despite Barack Obama’s election, prejudice still runs deep. Atheists tend to hold this poll up as proof that they are still viewed with suspicion by the general public as do a number of other minority groups. However, Christians in America have begun portraying themselves as a persecuted minority as well. They decry court decisions banning prayer in schools, the removal of religious icons on state owned property, and the acceptance of gay marriage in some areas as being part of a secularist agenda that is trying to outlaw their faith. They don’t want the state telling them that they cannot express their religious beliefs in any way that they choose, especially while they hold public office, and see that as an infringement upon their first amendment rights. And when they see the way that social morality has changed over the decades, with sexuality flaunted so overtly, especially in the media, with drug and alcohol use so prevalent, and with scandals of every stripe erupting in the halls of power so often, it isn’t difficult to feel that the entire country is going to hell in a hand basket. A Christian could easily feel like a lone holdout against a world that is enthralled by the devil’s temptations. And this, of course, plays into one of the oldest and most popular persecution paradigms: the Christian myth of Jesus dying at the cruel hands of those who mocked and doubted him, which forms the basis of their faith.

But feelings of persecution aren’t restricted to one’s ideological affiliation, and the fact that persecution paradigms can have a powerful influence on the mind does not mean that the world is not becoming a more draconian place. To the contrary, the fact that people are more willing to embrace persecution paradigms is evidence that alienation and exclusion are becoming more common in our society, and I see this as happening because the nature of our social fabric is changing. Inherent in individualism is the tendency, sometimes quite strong, to downplay the significance of others and become insensitive to their plights. As a nation of individuals we like to believe that we succeed and fail on our own, seeing the economy, as well as the social order, as a meritocracy where the strong and hard working thrive and the weak and lazy do not. As a result we work mostly to build ourselves up, refusing all assistance and expecting others to build themselves up without our help. Of course, we’re not beyond lending a helping hand now and then, but we shun dependency and throttle our desires to nurture the weak. The message to those who struggle is clear: suck it up and get back to work. And if one fails it is assumed that their failure is somehow their fault.

This creates a climate of alienation and exclusion similar to that found in societies which demand conformity and shun those who are different, except that in individualist societies almost everyone can feel excluded since there really is no inner circle or "in" group. When cliques form, these small groups of like-minded individuals can make anyone on the outside feel like they are being excluded from something better than what they have. And since groups of individualists tend to be loosely connected, it’s not hard for members of those groups to imagine that some other group of people is having a better time than they are regardless of their station in life. This is the driving force behind the phenomenon of "Facebook depression", which reflects how easily people can feel left out when they see other people showing off all the cool things that are happening in their lives. Sufferers see the pictures and read the comments on others pages and feel that their own peak moments simply don’t measure up. Instead of being happy for their friends and family they end up feeling sad for themselves. This is a pitfall of individualism, which can turn all of life into a competitive event where falling behind one’s standard of achievement, and many of us set our goals quite high, can make one feel like a lonely failure. Furthermore, since persecution paradigms tend to make people see the world in terms of "us versus them", combativeness, vindictiveness, and the desire to exclude those who are different can exacerbate these feelings in others when people who feel lonely or wronged lash out at each other and make others feel as bad as they do.

In a global economy, and especially in a recessionary environment, this individualism-stoked competitiveness extends into the workplace, creating an "eat or be eaten" environment which compels us to put ourselves before others. Greed is the carrot and unemployment is the stick and those two forces combined with inflation, equity loss, uncertain retirement, and spotty medical coverage seem to have everyone putting most or all of their effort into making sure that they get what they need first. Generosity has become a luxury that we simply cannot afford anymore. The system itself seems to persecute everyone involved, trying to squeeze every last ounce out of us and demanding more even if it gets it. And sometimes it’s not the system, but an actual person turning the screws on us, giving rise to strong feelings of persecution. Big government certainly adds to these feelings with high taxes, spiraling deficits, endless red tape, and the steady proliferation of the surveillance state. And it doesn’t help that when the party of downsizing government gets into power that the first things they target are the programs that assist the ones who are most in need. Of course, government is not the only intrusive force in our lives, and while it doesn’t get much attention these days the demands of corporations on their employees have steadily grown more invasive. Modern terms of employment often include mandatory drug testing, the signing away of one’s intellectual property rights, non-competition clauses which prevent employees from joining rival companies or starting their own businesses, and insidious "binding arbitration" clauses that force employees to go before private "judges" instead of public ones when they have a dispute with their employer. These hearings are settled without the disturbing potential that the little guy might win big. It’s a scam. Persecution is all around is no matter who we are, and it is very real.

Thus it is no surprise that ideologies and conspiracy theories which feature persecution paradigms have spread like wildfire through our culture. We are already very accustomed to the notion that the powers that be are more concerned with preventing us from causing them trouble than they are concerned with helping us become better and more productive people. That is no conspiracy. We see examples of it every day, for instance, when the G-20 meeting comes to town and the police state cracks down long before anything happens. So when the right persecution paradigm comes along, one that caters well to our particular personal knowledge and vulnerabilities, it clicks inside our minds and makes us say, "Aha! That explains everything." Now, these paradigms don’t necessarily make us feel better when we learn about something terrible, for instance, that all the gold in Fort Knox has been sold off to pay our nation’s debts and that our country’s mineral rights and national parks are next. But it does give us a dream; it gives us the belief that we can save our country if we can put a stop to the evil forces which are conspiring to destroy it. That can give our lives a sense of purpose.

Fiction can tap into these same feelings, winning our hearts by crafting a clever storyline where the protagonist battles people and institutions that resemble the ones which are making our lives a living hell. We sympathize with the hero and wish that we could be like that, our feelings in turn making us vulnerable to any ideological message that the author wishes to convey. Fiction makes ideology an easy sell because the author controls the entire world inside the book, movie, or game, and can make sure that the righteous people either succeed or are at least seen as sympathetic while the ignoble people fail or appear cruel, deluded, and evil. Ayn Rand’s "Atlas Shrugged" certainly fits this category as does George Orwell’s "Animal Farm" and Alduous Huxley’s "Brave New World". As ideological arguments go these books are little more than one long straw man fallacy, the author creating an extreme example of a society gone dreadfully wrong in order to claim that its ideals are false and thus that doing the opposite is correct, but when they are told in compelling ways with fascinating characters and intellectually stimulating discourse the message can sink in quite deeply regardless of the absurd premise.

Considering that the course of society is moving toward more isolated forms of individualism and that persecution paradigms play so well to people ground down by oppressive forces all around them it seems that the future will find us all caught up in a "Matrix of Matrices", that is, each of us building our own fanciful vision of the world which caters to our particular tastes. Rather than succumb to a mass delusion, like a common view of religion or a political ideology, we are more comfortable seeking out our own personal delusions, crafting a matrix that explains the unexplainable in a unique way which we don’t need to compromise with anyone else’s views. While this has brought us freedom of thought and expression it has come at the expense of social cohesion and the ability to come together for a common cause. In the matrix of matrices there are no common causes, no unifying rallying cries, and no opportunities for someone to give our shared beliefs a voice and lead us to a brighter future for we have no shared beliefs. Instead we are all individuals with our own ideas of what is right, what is wrong, and what must be fought for. So we can unite under a banner of vague words like "Hope" and "Change" with few mentions of specifics only to discover later that our internal disunity has strangled our democracy and that there is not much change and very little hope. We can also rise up as a tea party and invoke our country’s courageous founders as examples to follow, only to discover that our movement has limited power to get things changed and is being hijacked by powerful special interests. The political gridlock is crushing and even in a crisis we fail to move forward with workable solutions. In other arenas, a lack of cohesion makes us susceptible to divide and conquer tactics practiced by the powers that be. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer despite the fact that the latter far outnumber the former. How can this be so in a democracy?

Until recently it looked as if the only solution to achieve unity again was for a drawn out, global recession to purge the individualist spirit out of the majority and force us to embrace common view of the world in order to regain our strength. We won’t let go of our personal freedoms easily though, and it will take years of failure as individuals to get us to surrender them, but in time we will likely see that there are benefits in at least some amount of sacrifice and conformity to the whole. But an interesting alternative seems to be beckoning from an ancient land. The Egyptian people were able to unite and overthrow a seemingly invincible dictator and yet retain their identities as a diverse and unstructured resistance. Of course, the jury is still out as to whether what they have accomplished constitutes a revolution or not as the military leadership has been very slow to relinquish power, but if they one day succeed they could unleash an entirely new order, or rather a new disorder, upon the world.

It’s possible that we do not need to go back to the conformism of the past in order to effect profound and lasting change in our world. The matrix of matrices, while lacking uniformity and coherence, could somehow find a way to unite us, and even do so in a way that exceeds the strength gained through conformity and obedience to a single ideology. It could simply be a matter of each of us being willing to bring one small part of our diverse matrices into alignment with others’ matrices. Such partial uniformity could give us tremendous but limited strength to accomplish what we need to do while still preserving our individuality. In Egypt this was accomplished when everyone united against Mubarak. No matter what anyone in the country believed or what their problems were, the dictator could always be seen as the root cause of those problems in some way, allowing their diverse matrices to align in that one small area. Of course, forging a new government would likely require something much more complicated to unfold in side the matrix of matrices, something possibly arbitrary in its construction and more difficult to understand than anyone can imagine, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t happen. And if it should somehow arise this could be a very exciting and tumultuous era to live through: witnessing, and being a part of, the birth of a new ideology.