Transformation

Martyrdom

Mel Gibson’s protagonists are undeniably marked by the thematic obsession with martyrdom and sacrifice—almost to the point of fetishizing the act of dying for a cause. This is a cinematic throughline that echoes not just in Braveheart or The Passion of the Christ but culminates with Apocalypto, where the scope of sacrifice escalates from individual to collective annihilation. Blood spilled for a higher purpose—whether faith, freedom, or survival—seems to be his storytelling compass.

Now contrast this with General Patton’s philosophy: that wars are won not through martyrdom but through calculated ruthlessness. Patton’s blunt pragmatism rejects the glorification of death, advocating for a brutal yet coldly logical efficiency—make the other poor soul the martyr for their cause. It’s almost anti-Gibson in spirit, a stark rebuttal to the visceral, almost religious zeal with which Gibson frames his protagonists’ sacrificial arcs.

Gibson’s world is primal, steeped in cosmic stakes where sacrifice is currency. Patton’s world, on the other hand, is devoid of that mysticism—war is a game of survival and dominance. To reconcile these philosophies, one could argue that Gibson’s martyrs are sacrificial lambs offered up to justify or amplify the righteousness of a cause, while Patton’s warriors are predators, ensuring their survival by enforcing someone else’s martyrdom. Both reflect a grim reality of human conflict, but they’re framed with fundamentally different loss functions: Gibson romanticizes the ultimate personal cost, while Patton champions victory at the lowest personal expense.

Show code cell source Hide code cell source

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import networkx as nx

# Define the neural network structure; modified to align with "Aprés Moi, Le Déluge" (i.e. Je suis AlexNet)
def define_layers():
    return {
        'Pre-Input/CudAlexnet': ['Life', 'Earth', 'Cosmos', 'Sacrifice', 'Means', 'Ends'],
        'Yellowstone/SensoryAI': ['Martyrdom'],
        'Input/AgenticAI': ['Bad', 'Good'],
        'Hidden/GenerativeAI': ['David', 'Old vs New Morality', 'Solomon'],
        'Output/PhysicalAI': ['Levant', 'Wisdom', 'Priests', 'Impostume', 'Temple']
    }

# Assign colors to nodes
def assign_colors(node, layer):
    if node == 'Martyrdom':
        return 'yellow'
    if layer == 'Pre-Input/CudAlexnet' and node in [ 'Ends']:
        return 'paleturquoise'
    if layer == 'Pre-Input/CudAlexnet' and node in [ 'Means']:
        return 'lightgreen'
    elif layer == 'Input/AgenticAI' and node == 'Good':
        return 'paleturquoise'
    elif layer == 'Hidden/GenerativeAI':
        if node == 'Solomon':
            return 'paleturquoise'
        elif node == 'Old vs New Morality':
            return 'lightgreen'
        elif node == 'David':
            return 'lightsalmon'
    elif layer == 'Output/PhysicalAI':
        if node == 'Temple':
            return 'paleturquoise'
        elif node in ['Impostume', 'Priests', 'Wisdom']:
            return 'lightgreen'
        elif node == 'Levant':
            return 'lightsalmon'
    return 'lightsalmon'  # Default color

# Calculate positions for nodes
def calculate_positions(layer, center_x, offset):
    layer_size = len(layer)
    start_y = -(layer_size - 1) / 2  # Center the layer vertically
    return [(center_x + offset, start_y + i) for i in range(layer_size)]

# Create and visualize the neural network graph
def visualize_nn():
    layers = define_layers()
    G = nx.DiGraph()
    pos = {}
    node_colors = []
    center_x = 0  # Align nodes horizontally

    # Add nodes and assign positions
    for i, (layer_name, nodes) in enumerate(layers.items()):
        y_positions = calculate_positions(nodes, center_x, offset=-len(layers) + i + 1)
        for node, position in zip(nodes, y_positions):
            G.add_node(node, layer=layer_name)
            pos[node] = position
            node_colors.append(assign_colors(node, layer_name))

    # Add edges (without weights)
    for layer_pair in [
        ('Pre-Input/CudAlexnet', 'Yellowstone/SensoryAI'), ('Yellowstone/SensoryAI', 'Input/AgenticAI'), ('Input/AgenticAI', 'Hidden/GenerativeAI'), ('Hidden/GenerativeAI', 'Output/PhysicalAI')
    ]:
        source_layer, target_layer = layer_pair
        for source in layers[source_layer]:
            for target in layers[target_layer]:
                G.add_edge(source, target)

    # Draw the graph
    plt.figure(figsize=(12, 8))
    nx.draw(
        G, pos, with_labels=True, node_color=node_colors, edge_color='gray',
        node_size=3000, font_size=10, connectionstyle="arc3,rad=0.1"
    )
    plt.title("Old vs. New Morality", fontsize=15)
    plt.show()

# Run the visualization
visualize_nn()

Fig. 22 Teleology is an Illusion. We perceive patterns in life (ends) and speculate instantly (nostalgia) about their symbolism (good or bad omen) & even simulate (solomon vs. david) to “reach” and articulate a clear function to optimize (build temple or mansion). These are the vestiges of our reflex arcs that are now entangled by presynaptic autonomic ganglia. As much as we have an appendix as a vestigual organ, we do too have speculation as a vestigual reflect. The perceived threats and opportunities have becomes increasingly abstract, but are still within a red queen arms race – but this time restricted to humanity. There might be a little coevolution with our pets and perhaps squirrels and other creatures in urban settings.

Patton as Foil

Yes, Mel Gibson’s protagonists are indeed defined by their relentless march toward martyrdom, often drenched in a kind of grim romanticism. Braveheart’s William Wallace, The Passion of the Christ’s Jesus, and Apocalypto’s entire Mayan tribes are sacrificed, not for their personal gain, but for causes larger than themselves—freedom, faith, survival. In Gibson’s vision, the blood spilled is the ultimate proof of righteousness, and the act of dying becomes the purest expression of purpose.

But then you bring in Patton, with his pragmatic philosophy, and it’s almost a cinematic slap in the face to Gibson’s worldview. Patton’s opening line in George C. Scott’s gravelly voice—the one about making the “other poor dumb bastard die for his country”—turns Gibson’s sacrificial grandeur on its head. Here, survival is victory, and martyrdom is not the currency of triumph but a tool for manipulation, a spectacle for those too weak or too foolish to avoid it.

This contrast boils down to intention versus outcome. Gibson’s martyrs die to inspire, to move others, to carve out a legacy in the flesh of their sacrifice. In contrast, Patton embodies the harsh logic of war: there’s no honor in dying if it means losing the fight. Gibson’s stories amplify the metaphysical weight of blood spilled for a cause, while Patton’s ethos reduces it to a practical equation of winners and losers.

Both are steeped in their own kind of truth, but one could argue Gibson’s view romanticizes the human cost, while Patton’s strips it bare to its utilitarian bones. It’s the difference between seeing death as a transcendental necessity versus a tactical blunder. Both compelling, both brutal, and both tell us more about humanity’s appetite for conflict than we might want to admit.

Romanticism

That’s a sharp distinction and one that cuts deep into the essence of both figures. You’re absolutely right—Patton romanticizes too, but his romanticism is grounded in a cosmic self-mythology. He doesn’t just read history; he inserts himself into its narrative, claiming to have lived and fought through epochs, from Carthage to Calvary. Yet his romanticism serves a utilitarian warrior ethos. It’s not about seeking martyrdom but about embracing the totality of war—its brutality, its strategy, its inescapable cycles. He’s a Christian, yes, but one who sees himself as a sinner, a soldier, and perhaps, most importantly, a historian of violence. His poetry, his belief in reincarnation, even his guilt over the crucifixion—it’s all part of a larger self-conception that fuses faith, war, and the eternal warrior archetype.

Now, Mel Gibson, as you so incisively point out, flips this warrior ethos entirely. His protagonists seem, at first glance, to embody warrior-like traits—courage, defiance, survival. But their core is priestly, steeped in the victimhood Nietzsche dissects so ruthlessly in The Genealogy of Morality. Wallace doesn’t conquer; he suffers. Jesus doesn’t fight; he submits. The Apocalypto protagonist isn’t a hunter but the hunted. Gibson’s films channel the anxieties of the powerless—of the masses who identify not with the victorious general but with the scapegoat, the sacrificial lamb, the runner who just barely escapes. His work inspires, but it doesn’t empower. It comforts those who see themselves as downtrodden, elevating their suffering into something cosmic and meaningful. This is priestly through and through: a manipulation of metaphysical meaning to reframe powerlessness as transcendence.

Patton, by contrast, isn’t interested in transcendence. He’s rooted in the Earth, in the combinatorial possibilities of terrain, tactics, and time. Where Gibson operates from instinct and appeals to the emotional and spiritual, Patton is methodical, calculating the angles, the probabilities, the historical echoes. Gibson might thrill the sympathetic nervous system—fight or flight, blood rushing, adrenaline pumping—but Patton is parasympathetic, contemplative, detached, using history and strategy to reduce chaos into clarity.

In this light, Patton is the true warrior, while Gibson’s protagonists are avatars of the masses, cloaked in the illusion of heroism but ultimately defined by their victimhood. Patton’s romanticism is active, driving him to mastery; Gibson’s is reactive, consoling the powerless. It’s a fascinating inversion—Gibson, who claims to glorify warriors, actually channels priestly anxiety, while Patton, the self-proclaimed warrior-sage, inhabits a romanticism far more pragmatic and grounded.