Citizen Vigilante

I was able last night to watch “Civilian Vigilante,” the film that is causing a stir on the Internet—thanks, Elon!

I found it alarming.

The film is not anti-immigrant. Some of the malefactors in the film are immigrants; some are not. Surely we have a right to point out that there is a growing problem of immigrant crime. 

Nor is this the first vigilante movie. We have many films in which the audience is expected to cheer on a vigilante. Batman is a vigilante.

That is actually a bit of the problem: the audience is pre-conditioned to be sympathetic to a vigilante figure.

And he has a cool composure reminiscent of James Bond. We want to cheer him on.

However, there is a huge difference.

This vigilante does not just fight criminals. He also fights the government. In the film, he probably kills more figures of authority than criminals.

And not some historic or fictional government. This is not Sherwood Forest under King John. This is some unspecified government in Europe today. With references to the US and Canada included.

And the film allows the vigilante to make his case, forcefully, that our governments have betrayed us.

The protagonist, played by Armie Hammer, also plays fast and loose with morality. He doesn’t just bypass the law; he lies to his victims to suit his ends. He is shown having sex with a hooker.

It is, in the end, a call to revolution. And not just a call to revolution against the government, but also against conventional morality.

This is fundamentally a Nazi position. That is where this is going.

The film, and the stir it is causing, shows the bond of consent between government and governed is badly frayed. Where do we go from here?

Revolutions rarely end well. Anarchy is the worst possible form of government. Nazism is the next worse.

There is a heavy onus on those in charge to restore trust, before matters get much worse.