My only interest in the new Joker is the extent to which he construes a “modern fascist and national socialist” in the same manner in which he once construed being a “quaint anarchist”.
In other words, as an objectivist?
Think about it. He once figured that anarchy reflected the most reasonable assessment of the human condition. Then [presumably] through new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas, he now figures that fascism and national socialism reflect the most reasonable assessment of the human condition.
So, before he was wrong…but now he is right?
But: What if through more new experiences, relationships and access to ideas still, he becomes liberal or a social democrat or a Communist down the road?
Instead, most moral and political objectivists are able to think themselves into believing that who they think they are now reflects the final synthesis.
And above all else they refuse to acknowledge that who they think they are now is merely one more psychological rendition of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
From my frame of mind [no less an existential contraption], it’s not whether or not he is able to demonstrate that who he is now is what all rational men and women are obligated to be. On the contrary, it’s only the comfort and the consolation he sustains in being able to anchor “I” to an objective font.
And it can fall anywhere along the political spectrum. What you believe pales next to that you believe.