Notes on Review of THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI(directed by David Lean) by Trevor Lynch

https://www.unz.com/tlynch/the-bridge-on-the-river-kwai/

Nicholson’s “tragic flaw” is that he does not see that his virtues only really make sense when practiced among his own people, for their benefit. In the prison camp, however, these virtues are being exploited by a ruthless enemy who aims to destroy the Empire that Nicholson so loyally fought to preserve. There’s a lesson in this for white people today, since our openness to strangers, altruism, and moral idealism are being exploited by a system that is destroying us as well.

In a way, it's not so much a personal flaw as a cultural-professional vulnerability among the Anglos. On the one hand, Anglos were imperialist and race-ist and took pride in their blood and heritage. But their empire also claimed to be different from other empires. It wasn't merely about brutal conquest and exploitation of others but bringing of civilization unto benighted folks around the world. A light for both fellow Europeans on the Continent(as the British oh-so-superior to the Teutons, Slavs, and the fallen Latins) and the darker folks around the world. So, the British Empire wasn't just about white man clobbering the darkies but elevating them to higher forms of civilization. As one of the officers in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA explains, it's about 'discipline', not just 'guns'. One could also add excellence and meritocracy. In other words, Brits are better not simply because of their identity but their ability, know-how, dedication, and commitment to quality.
There was a time when Anglos had pride of seed, creed, and deed. They were about blood, culture, and work. So were the Jews, a rival power vying for dominance with the Anglos, an uneasy partner-in-crime. Jews knew that they had to undermine the element of seed and creed to gain control over Anglos. While preserving their own sense of seed/blood, Jews increasingly convinced Anglos in UK and US that they were too good for such ugly tribalism and 'racism'. Jews flattered the Anglos as the better kind of whites who, unlike those backward Italians and Slavs, lived by a higher universal creed and took pride in deed/work than in atavistic tribalism. Anglos increasingly fell for this BS pushed by Jews, but they were especially vulnerable as they were relative late-comers to civilization. While Jews had civilization for 3,500 yrs, predating even the Greeks and Romans, Anglos had been a bunch of barbarians until relatively late in history, and they grew to greatness only after the 17th century. So, Anglos had a weaker sense of roots and identity than the Jews did, and this made Anglos rely more on creed and deed than on seed.
Then, Jews worked on the creed/culture/ideology of the Anglos. Initially, Jews flattered Anglos for developing rule of law and culture of fairness, indeed far more than any other people. Anglos took the bait. Jewish flattery set a trap, however. If indeed Anglos possessed such a wonderful creed, how come they were such hypocrites and betrayed it with their 'racism' and 'classism' and imperialism' — never mind Jews financed much of British Imperialism, and never mind Jewishness has always been race-ist. So, eventually Anglos lost out in seed and creed. Hindus also picked up on the hypocrisy angle. It's like Gandhi said, "Western Civilization. It's a good idear." So, what did the Anglos come to rely on for pride as the years passed and as their outlooks and values changed(or were altered via manipulation)? Only the pride of deed and achievement, but they were bound to lose to Jews in this as well because Jews have higher IQ and are more able. So, once Anglos fixated on achievement and ability as the most admirable things that they should support and serve, they became cucks of Jews who are best at money-making and blacks who are best at sports, something Anglos are crazy about.
The signs of this is already evident in Nicholson who is so fixated on the pride of achievement. Perhaps, David Lean sort of understood because he made movies as the British Empire was crumbling, not least under the domination of the American Empire. Also, his movies required the funding of Jewish Hollywood. He was a proud Brit who had to work for others and make compromises, like Nicholson created his masterpiece(the bridge) under Japanese control.

Nicholson's dilemmas is further complicated by the fact that it's about empire vs empire. In DURKIRK, it's about British soldiers retreating homeward to defend the motherland. That is about true patriotism(though if the British had been more patriotic than imperialistic on the world stage, they wouldn't have gotten involved in another war with Germany that had no beef with the Brits.)
Both the Brits and the Japanese are invaders in Southeast Asia. They are patriots to the extent of serving their own empires, but empires trample on the patriotism of locals, and both Brits and Japanese are violating the lands of Southeast Asians. Thus, neither Japanese nor British can be pure patriots in the movie's setting. They are for imperialism, not nationalism.
Also, betrayal is part of the logic of empire, which is premised on winner-takes-all and losers-do-as-told. British Empire maintained itself through recruiting local collaborators or compradors(or traitors). British Empire required on the treason of the local elites. Japanese were the same way and had their own local flunkies. No empire can sustain itself without encouraging treason among the locals. And this logic seems to have come full circle for the British in RIVER KWAI. Brits work as collaborators of the Japanese(who, following defeat in war, became craven collaborators of the US empire). With universal nationalism, each people/nation is loyal to their own. But under empire, there is one winner and all the losers must betray their own kind in service to the winner. British Empire needed local traitors in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. And US empire has local cucks all over, like in Poland and Ukraine and Japan and Taiwan. (Currently, as Jews are the top lords of the US empire, white elites betray their own kind and serve their Jewish masters, much like how the Hindus and Hong Kucks once served at the feet of the mighty British.) Imperialism intrinsically fosters treason. It's based on the conquered serving the conqueror. Brits demanded this of locals whom they conquered. So, it's not all that surprising that the conquered soldiers in KWAI RIVER become collaborators to the Japanese.

Of course, one could argue that Nicholson calculated that the Japanese were doomed at any rate. Bridge or no bridge, Japanese were fated to lose to the combined power of US and UK and other allies. So, it's not like the bridge he was building was a make-or-break thing in the war. IF HE REALLY THOUGHT THAT, he perhaps wouldn't have built t. But he figures the Japanese will eventually lose and the bridge will ultimately come to symbolize not Japanese might but British excellence and achievement. His style of thinking is like Temporal Imperialism. Japanese may have the whip hand but they will eventually lose the war, and the bridge will come to symbolize British triumph in the long run. Time will vindicate British virtues of hard work and dedication. It's like black slaves picked cotton and did field work for the white massuhs but, today, blacks use it as a point of pride and done say, "Sheeeeeeeiiiit, WE done built America, even done stack up the White House like a pile of hot cakes."

At any rate, pride of deed is good, but no people can survive without pride of seed and ownership of creed. Jews did a fast one on the Anglos, and it should be lesson for all the world.

The Bridge on the River Kwai is masterful at exploring the fundamental distinction between aristocratic ethos that prizes honor above all else and the bourgeois ethos that prizes comfort, security, long life, and pleasure above all else.

Aristocratic ethos maybe, but not the Aristocratic way. With the passing of years, the aristocrats went from a hardy warrior class to a bunch of tooty-fruity playboys and slouches. While peasants did backbreaking work from sunup to sundown, many aristos whittled away the hours dressing 'gay', acting 'gay', talking 'gay', and etc. They powdered their faces and dressed and acted all whoopsy-doopsy. Just look at the high-born fells in CYRANO DE BERGERAC. Look at this guy's hairdo at 1:35 of the movie. It's ridiculous.

Once the wars ended or became rare, the aristos used their leisure time for little else but comfort and powdering their noses and sniffing snuff and sneezing. Sure, there were duels over honor, but mostly over petty egotistical matters. The aristos were into gambling and putting on big parties with rich food and decadence, and borrowed lots of money from Jews. Look at the aristos in BARRY LYNDON. What a bunch of toots.
True, not all aristos were alike. The Northern Europe types, esp Anglos and Prussians, were more conscientious and responsible. Instead of wasting their fortunes on good times, they used their privilege to run relatively cleaner governments, push social reforms, advance science, and patronize culture. Still, as kids were born into pampered privilege, many turned out to be soft mama's boys and floozers, like the pathetic son in BARRY LYNDON. Or consider Edward Fox's character in THE SERVANT. What a useless clod. Many aristos were about unearned privilege as they were born into position. Others did the work, and they lived off taxing their labor; at the very least, the bourgeoisie ran enterprises and took big risks. And many aristos only cared for comfort and good times. Also, their sense of honor was less about serving the greater good than a matter of personal egotism. Duels over perceived slights or someone stepping on someone's boots.

At least in terms of ethos, the highest value among the bourgeois was respectability, not comfort and pleasure that came with the rise of modern consumerism. Bourgeoisie were into money-making but also into stuff like the Protestant Work Ethic, restraint, discipline, and frugality. They believed work was good. The ideal was to keep working even if one had sufficient wealth for relaxation and leisure. (At the extreme, it could turn into a kind of Scrooge-ism. All work and no play.) Unlike aristocrats who shunned work and preferred leisure and privilege(if they could have it), bourgeoisie felt they should never rest on their laurels and keep working even when they had lots of money. Work was constructive and good for one's character, and so, one must work. Instead of spending one's money on fun and pleasure, invest and expand the business or invest in future enterprise. Or use money for philanthropy and build libraries and universities and do 'good work'.
As the bourgeoisie rose under the aristocracy, they felt culturally inferior and sought to win respectability by emulating the style of the aristos. Some bourgeoisie married into aristo families(on the decline) or bought titles. The bourgeois sense of respectability feared scandal and disdained the shameless and uninhibited, which is why anarchists like Luis Bunuel loved to expose and ridicule bourgeois anxieties and hang-ups. The bourgeoisie were repressed, and it was only with the rise of modernism and Freud's theories that things began to loosen up among the modernist children of the bourgeoisie. Also, the logic of capitalism transformed society from virtuous hard work and productivity to vice-laden hedonism and consumerism, but that came AFTER the cultural eclipse of the bourgeoisie and the rise of impulse-driven youth culture.

The Anglos, more than others, developed a fusion of aristocratic and bourgeois ways. Anglo aristocrats were more productive than most other aristos, and Anglo bourgeoisie were more repressed and respectable than others. There is something of the aristo in Nicholson but also something of the shopkeeper. He's like both a nobleman and a shop manager who counts every last penny. He believes in pride of work. He has boss mentality but also clerk mentality. He's so eager to prove he is worthy.

Since both Saito and Nicholson are master types, albeit at times “temporarily embarrassed” master types, the film needs a well-developed slave type as a contrast.

This is all relative among both the Japanese and Anglos. Saito and Nicholson are both master and servant types. Over their own men, they are masters. But they are also duty-bound servants of men higher up. So, while they are the two highest ranking men in the movie, they are mere servants of men even higher up the chain. Bushido means to serve, and every Japanese, no matter how higher up, was in service to someone higher. Samurai served the daimyo who served a higher daimyo who served the Shogun who, at least in principle, served the Emperor. Even though the Japanese Emperor didn't have much power, he was essential to the Japanese who believed everyone must serve someone higher, finally ending with the divine ruler. Same with the Brits. Everyone served someone higher. Every master was a servant to a superior, with the hierarchy ending with the King or Queen, who though not very powerful, symbolized the highest authority.

This is where Jews are different and perhaps unique. While Jews may play servant roles in society, every Jew, via the Covenant, feels that HE HIMSELF is special and chosen. His ultimate meaning doesn't come from serving someone higher or better but in valuing his own soul and self as having all the worth in the world by his personal connection to the one and only God who chose the Jews.
This is why Jews are the only immigrant group in the US who didn't come to serve others. Everyone else came to serve the mighty Anglos, but Jews had a powerful sense of self and believed, if anyone should serve anyone, the goyim should serve them cuz they got the Covenant, not the lowly goyim. In time, even the Anglos came to serve the Jews with such powerful sense of being.

the character of Commander Shears is a brilliant encapsulation of the slave type: cowardly, dishonest, and cynical about honor. Shears’ character is brought into sharper focus by making him an American, since America is a thoroughly bourgeois society that took pride in throwing off European aristocratic civilization, although vestiges of its ethos survived among the military and Southern planters. Making Shears a womanizer to boot perfected the character.

More like the Fugitive Slave type. A true slave type loves to serve. A slave has a kind of honor of his own. He believes he exists to serve others. He believes the meaning of his life comes from serving the master. A true slave would rather die for his master than live. It's like dogs who live for the love and approval of the master. And in a way, Saito and Nicholson have this slave mentality as well. Like loyal dogs, they will die for higher authority. Saito cannot tolerate the shame of disapproval from higher up. He feels it in his bones. Nicholson is always mindful of his reputation, not only among his inferiors but superiors back home. In a way, the master type and slave type are one and the same, and one cannot exist without the other. A slave believes he must serve and die for his master. In that, he too has a sense of honor. An ideal slave is loyal to the end. Also, an ideal master doesn't merely exploit his slave but appreciates the slave's loyalty, and this binds him to the slave. He must take good care of the slave. And to prove to the slave that he is no weakling and coward, the master must be willing to die alongside the slave. It's like lots of British officers died with the lowly soldiers in World War I.

William Holden's character of Shears isn't a slave type. He has no sense of deep loyalty. He wants to be free and do his own thing. It's a cowboy mentality, and to associate this with 'slave mentality' is ridiculous. Of course, one can say he's a slave to his personal needs and desires, but then, 007 would be a slave too because he loves women and gambling and good times. By the way, womanizing was a sport among the aristos, not so much among the slaves.
Also, Shears doesn't come across so bad because he's caught between empires. If he were an American soldier sent to Iwo Jima but dodged his duties for good times, he would be a lowlife rat. After all, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and Americans had to fight back.
But Shears is like a fish out of water between the British and the Japanese in some godforsaken Southeast Asian nowhere-land. Sure, Brits and Yanks are allies, and Japanese are the common enemy, but patriotism is rather hard to sustain in the jungles of Burma or Thailand or Malaysia or whatever. He feels like American soldiers in Vietnam War: "What are we doing HERE?" As far as he can tell, it's a war between empires in Southeast Asia, and he has no feelings about what the 'Japs' or the Brits are doing. He just wants to make it out of there alive.

I wouldn't call him cowardly but resourceful. His dishonesty is a survival mechanism among peoples he doesn't care for. He has little use for the Brits and far less for the Japanese. He doesn't feel like putting his neck on the line for either side. Also, his escape took some courage, and a true coward wouldn't be so brazen. Holden sort of reprises his role in STALAG 17, and George Segal took it up a notch in KING RAT.
Besides, there are varying degrees to cynicism, which doesn't come in one flavor. Some are opportunistically cynical to justify greed and loutishness, and there is something of this to Shears. But cynicism is also a smart response to the BS all around. It'd be nice if US soldiers today were more cynical and saw through the BS about 'honor, country, duty' blah blah when, in effect, they are nothing but attack dogs of the Jewish globo-homo ruling elites. How better things would be if white Americans were more cynical and saw right through the BS of GOP. How better if white progs saw through the BS of MSM and Jewish Power. Shears is both a self-centered egotist and a savvy observer who sees through the BS of authority. And the British who blackmail him into serving the mission are cynical in their own way. If they were really into principle and honor, they would have him prosecuted and even executed for impersonating an officer and etc. But they play him in the most cynical manner. They too know it is a game.

Shears is not bourgeois. He isn't into respectability or reputation, what the bourgeoisie care about most. He cares about being an individualist, being free and his own man. This makes him self-centered and selfish at times, but he's closer to the cowboy than the slave. He wants to roam free, and he doesn't want to fight battles for which he knows little. It's like the William Holden character in THE WILD BUNCH, a film that surely took some pointers from THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. An outlaw, he's out for himself, and he will deal with any side to get his cut.

One can argue that Shears is something of a worm, but a worm seeks freedom, not slavery(though one can argue such a cretin deserves to be a slave). Not to patriotism, not to honor, not to whatever. A worm would be like the Italian character of Lina Wertmuller's SEVEN BEAUTIES who spouts about dignity and 'honor' as a petty mafia hood, but when push comes to shove, chooses to save his own skin wherever and however.
Of course, slavery, used broadly as metaphor, can signify just about anything. Even to the want of freedom because freedom can mean addiction to one's appetites such as gluttony, sloth, and lust.
But, it's so easy to be cynical in war as all sides tell lies and betray trust. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the higher-ups exploit Lawrence's idealism and vanity to goad him into accomplishing something that will then be twisted and corrupted by diplomats who shill for oligarchs of the empire.
It's like the soldiers who fight and die in Sergio Leone's THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY seem foolish compared to the three men who figure life is worth risking only for their share of gold. And yet, freedom gains meaning in attachment to something, and in that sense, Shears is also a doomed figure. He can lie, he can cheat, he can squeeze out of tight situations, but ultimately what is he if he's only for himself, if he has nothing to die for? It's like the thief in Akira Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA, once having gained a glimpse of the Takeda Clan, wants to be part of it.

Now, are we to believe that Americans embraced slave-mentality because they rejected the aristocratic ways of Europe? -???- Because Americans wanted to be free and not bound to higher authority, they were choosing to be 'slaves'?
In Europe, the general rule was only the noblemen owned land and were armed. In the US, cowboys could claim their own turf and carry their own guns. Somehow, this made the US 'bourgeois' and 'slave'-like? In Europe, freedom and privilege were hogged by the aristocrats while their subjects lived helot-like existences. In the US, every person aspired to be free and equal under the law and maybe own his own plot of land. And anyone could ride horses and own guns. Sounds more like freedom than slavery to me. If something like aristocratism survived in the American South, it was because of black slaves. In other words, aristocracy cannot exist apart from slavery. You can't have one without the other. Thus, aristocratic system is also a slave system.
Many pro-aristocratic romanticists seem to believe that they themselves would have been noblemen lording over the peasants(much like every little girl who reads fairy-tales identifies with the precious princess than with serf girls who made up the bulk of society), but the chances are they would have been peasants because noblemen made up maybe 5% or less of any population in Europe. Aristocracy is slavery because only a few enjoy privilege while the rest are subjects without equal protection of the law.

To be sure, US began as a semi-aristocratic enterprise. The Founding Fathers were bourgeois-aristocrats and landowners(and even slave-masters). And in the beginning, only land-owners could vote, which was less than 20% of the population. Thomas Jefferson believed in 'natural aristocracy' based on merit, which is a bourgeois ideal as success among the business class is determined by ability + diligence; it is earned than inherited(though children who inherit capital and live off interest are like the new aristos). He figured a smart person is a natural aristocrat and should have the freedom to rise freely.
US became something closer to a real democracy under Andrew Jackson the populist, but if we follow Trevor Lynch's logic, Jackson was the great enslaver since he dealt a blow to the quasi-aristocratic form of governance instituted by the Founders.

As for the Southern Aristocracy, what a terrible bunch. The North relied on free white labor and equality under the law. South relied on black slave labor, which made the neo-aristocracy possible, even necessary. Again, aristocracy is built on slavery. If a few are to hog all the wealth and privilege, others must toil as helots.
The North did better than the South for having equally free white folks. The North was bourgeois, the South was aristocratic. It was the South that became the source of the racial woes that came to haunt America by relying on slave labor, especially that of blacks who are more muscular and more aggressive than white folks. And Latin America was even more aristo, with Spanish elites relying on masses of brown helots. How did that turn out?

White Nationalists can fantasize themselves as aristocrats all they want. The fact is aristocracy means special privileges for the 5% and slavery for the rest. How about freedom for all, and that is what Shears represents. Granted, freedom isn't enough as people often do stupid shit with their freedom. And freedom in a degenerate post-bourgeois society like the US immersed in consumerism and vulgarity is being wasted in the worst way.

Because aristocratism means special privileges for a few, it cannot exist apart from slave mentality. For a few to be aristocrats, most must be slaves. For a few to monopolize the power and formulate policy, most must be obedient dogs. That's what we have today in the US though Jews cleverly disguise the neo-aristocratism with calls to 'diversity, equity, inclusion', and other BS. No, the US is about aristocratic rule by Jewish Supremacists who regard the rest of us as slaves or at best serfs. Whites can be either deplorable Field Honkeys who must be whipped or servile House Honkeys, like the Wasp-Cucks in the Deep State, who serve their Jewish masters, darn tootin'.

But the solution isn't aristocratism but neo-fascism, an ideology that ensures equal dignity and protection for all the volk who are served by an elite whose highest vision is the good of the nation and people than its own caste and privilege.

The fact is Nicholsons of the world in US and UK would still loyally and 'honorably' serve the globo-homo Deep State whereas someone like Shears would see the utter BS through cynical eyes. Look at all those 'honorable' men in the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Pentagon. They dutifully serve their civilian leaders who, in turn as political whores, serve their Jewish donor-master class and quasi-prophets of satanic globo-homo.
In this, the 'master' mentality is a 'slave' mentality. The master mentality always feels a need to be within the proximity of power. Thus obsessed with power and control, it doesn't really ask whether something is good or bad. What matters most is to belong in the club and be in the game. Look at the master military class in the US. All slaves of Jews.
Now, if some US soldier saw through the utter BS of the system and used whatever means to get out of the army and no longer serve the Jews, would that be a bad thing? Also, why not be dishonest with a system that is utterly corrupt and mendacious? If goons of the FBI come to your door, should you be honest when the agency is full of dirtbags?
True, Shears is too carefree and self-centered to care about truth or meaning, but he's someone who no longer wants to be a dispensable cog in the system, a slave of masters with their imperial dreams. He's like a cynical version of Dr. Zhivago who doesn't want to fight for the Whites or Red but simply wants to live. Sure, he's a 'deserter' but he never volunteered to serve the Red and has no personal beef in the fight between the Reds and the Whites.

And for someone who wrote a book called WHITE NATIONALISM that calls for universal nationalism for all people, why all this romanticism about the British Empire and sense of honor and duty? Duty to empire?

THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI covers some of the concerns of Jean Renoir's GRAND ILLUSION, which is also set in a prison camp and concerns the role of class in modern warfare. Even though it's Germans vs the French, in some ways the German aristocrats and French aristocrats have more in common. In a way, it's the last aristocratic war as well as the first truly people's war(at least on a grand scale) as all sides appeal to nationalist populism despite the outsized role of aristocratic military elements on all sides. Unlike previous wars where aristocrats fought aristocrats with soldiers used as pawns, the common man mattered in World War I. This new Modern War wasn't about lowly soldiers serving the superior classes but the higher classes fighting for the honor of the entire nation where every soldier was worthy of dignity and pride. Or so every side claimed.

Both GRAND ILLUSION and MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE suggest an aristocratism that goes beyond class. A kind of spiritual aristocratism. In the former, the French aristocrat sacrifices his life so that his men(one a prole, another a Jew) can make the escape. Why would a man of higher caste give his life for men of lower order? Because, at least in the spiritual sense, more is expected of superior men. Similarly, the anti-aristocratic attitude of Jack Celliers(David Bowie) is paradoxically intensely aristocratic, at least in the spiritual sense. Though he rejects the notion of being part of the Superior Breed, he chooses the Herculean task of sacrificing his own life so that others may live. Only a man of superior courage and will could have done that. And this brings us to the figure of Jesus Christ, often referred to as King of Kings. A crass aristo-monarch like Herod is comfy with his privilege and power. His superiority is social-political. But for a man to reach spiritual aristocracy, he must prove a higher morality, greater courage, greater compassion, and greater will to sacrifice himself for the good of others. Thus, aristocratism, at its highest spiritual reaches, sacrifices itself for others(the inferiors) than sits snug and smug in its superiority.

Then Lean ended his career with Ryan’s Daughter (1970) and A Passage to India (1984), which fail as films in part because their slighter stories were overwhelmed by Lean’s epic style of treatment, which had hardened into mannerisms.

Agree about RYAN'S DAUGHTER but not PASSAGE TO INDIA. Though I don't care for the latter, the treatment suits the subject, and it was done with considerable restraint compared to RYAN'S DAUGHTER which is pictorialism gone wild. PASSAGE is stately and measured. It's a grand work set among ancient ruins of India, but it doesn't feel monumental; it focuses mostly on characters and drama than visuals. With Lean's fingers fine-tuning the knob, it varies between intimacy and grandeur than goes for nonstop epic treatment, the failing of RYAN'S DAUGHTER, which is visually 'high volume' at every moment. PASSAGE TO INDIA is also equally literary and visual(even more so than THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI that, for all its location shooting and action, feels a bit stagy). But whether some Hindu touched a white woman or not, I simply didn't care and wished the movie featured more elephants.

It's misleading to say Lean ended his career with RYAN'S DAUGHTER and PASSAGE TO INDIA as those two works are separated by fourteen years. They shouldn't be seen as a pair. If anything, their difference owes to the harsh critical rebuke to RYAN'S DAUGHTER having led Lean's self-doubt and discouragement, which nearly ended his film-making career for good. He learned something from the criticism, which is why PASSAGE TO INDIA is so different in style and tone from RYAN'S DAUGHTER. The latter was a case of Lean laying on epic film-making thick in utter disregard of the material. In contrast, PASSAGE TO INDIA has a sense of proportion. It is big when it needs to be, but also personal and intimate in other parts, like in his earlier films(which many critics consider to be his best). Lean learned from the failure, both box-office and critical, of RYAN'S DAUGHTER, which is why PASSAGE TO INDIA was greeted mostly with applause.

Let's Remember that Adolf Hitler was an Immigration-Invasion Enthusiast in More Ways than One

When Globalists are confronted with nationalists who argue for autonomy, sovereignty, and security, they often invoke Nazism and 'racism' to insult, shame, and intimidate patriots into silence, moral defensiveness, and apologetics. For example, when Hungary and Poland(and several other Eastern Europeans nations) refused the offer of countless African and Arab migrant-marauders, they were accused of being like the Nazis. Ironically, Angela Merkel of Germany herself berated those nations for drudging up negative ideological attitudes of the Bad Ole Days. And of course, the Jewish-controlled globo-homo-shlomo World Media praised Merkel as the true 'leader of the free world'. You see, if you neglect the needs of your own nation, compromise the safety of your own people, and enforce policies that essentially nullify national sovereignty, you're the darling of the Globalist Elites. But if you dare to defend your own nation from invasion(cultural, demographic, or political), then you're reactionary(or just plain evil) and standing in the way of truth and progress. And you will even be compared with Hitler and the Nazis(as Jewish Power has a way of invoking Adolf and his henchmen at every opportunity).

Granted, the problem of nations like Germany(and Sweden, France, UK, and etc) isn't just a matter of bad cuck-collaborationist leaders but the dire effect of the combination of moral narcissism, ideological(and 'spiritual') earnestness, cultural conformism, feminism, Holocaustianity as new religion, Homomania as new cult, Afromania as new idolatry, and Jewish mental colonization of goyim. After all, if War Guilt is the reason for the demise of national consciousness in Germany, how does one account for similar(or even higher) levels of cuckery in nations that were either victims of or victors over Nazi Germany? Or were neutral. UK should be proud of its role in defeating Nazi Germany. Sweden and other Scandinavian nations were neutral or were occupied by Germany. But in some ways, UK and Sweden are even worse off than Germany in many respects.
Part of the reason is that the agenda of Holocaustianity has been to paint ALL white nations with WWII guilt. According to this logic, all Europeans were directly or indirectly guilty of the Shoah. If Germany was directly guilty, some nations were indirectly guilty for (1) having collaborated with Germany (2) done business with Germany (3) not having done enough to defeat Germany sooner than later — Jews think gentiles should be happy to sacrifice their own sons to save Jewish sons because... Jews are eager to sacrifice their own sons to save goy sons? LOL — (4) having harbored similar 'antisemitic' sentiments and biases as the Germans even if they ended up fighting the Nazis. As Holocaust memorials and catechisms spread from one European nation to another, every European nation was made to share in the guilt.
Furthermore, the Jewish takeover of the US, eventually to become the sole superpower after the Cold War, meant that Europe went from a political colony of Anglo-America to that of Jewish-America. At the very least, Europeans could openly criticize Anglo-America because so-called Wasps weren't seen as a holy people. They were respected, admired, feared, and even resented as a powerful people, but it was understood that Anglos in UK and US were fair game to honest criticism. But when Jews took over the US, it became difficult for Europeans to criticize the new masters because Holocaustianity elevated Jews to the state of holiness. Being anti-American when the US was ruled by Anglo-Americans was one thing, but it was a far more sensitive matter to voice opposition to a US ruled by Jews and their cuck-puppets like George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

But there were other factors as well as to why Europeans, especially in Western Europe, got more cucky-wucked. One had to do with a combination of moral narcissism, ideological earnestness(or purism), and cultural conformism. This was especially true in Northern Protestant nations that had developed a more thoroughgoing culture of conscience and goodwill. Thus, Northern Protestants came to take special pride in being GOOD. Of course, 'good' is a broad term and open to change and revision. Most people are not independent thinkers and rely on OTHERS to supply them with the terms of Goodness. In the post-religious age, many turned to Marxism or some such ideology for answers. But with the fall of communism and rise of Jewish supremacist power, the Good came to be defined mainly by Jews. Jews not only had the money, influence, and connections but were basked and shielded with the glow of Holocaustianity. Just by being Jewish, one could say anything in front of a European audience and be treated like the sage of the age, a modern day prophet(and even messiah). How else did a third-rate huckster like Barbara Specter get so far spreading her Jewish supremacist filth in Sweden?

Being more earnest and conformist, Northern Europeans of Protestant background took the Good more seriously. Being Good became the cornerstone of their pride, and so, they became slavishly loyal to whatever was presented to them as Good. Generally, people who tend to be earnest and conformist tend not to be independent thinkers or free spirits. They want to latch onto something deemed as good and holy. Incapable of thought or vision on their own, they need Others to supply the vision of the good. For most of European history since the Middle Ages, the vision of Good was supplied by Jesus and other Jews who'd laid the foundations of Christianity. In the post-Christian era, it was the vision of the atheist Jew Karl Marx. After the fall of communism, it was the vision of globo-homo Jews who presented themselves as the neo-christs of the Shoah who died for the sins of white goyim and deserve to be worshiped. Since Jews are holy, whatever they push must be holy too. So, if Jews say mass-immigration-invasion, Afromania, and Globo-Homomania are sacred, so many Good people just go along.
Now, one may argue that Europeans, being white folks, are not conformist but individualist, but it's all a matter of degrees. Europeans are less individualistic than Americans, and furthermore, Western freedom wasn't based on anarchy and chaos but on order and discipline, i.e. in order for intelligent or imaginative people to do their thing and make a difference, they needed the support of a well-run social system where most people were mindful of their place in the larger society and carried out their duties with sobriety and conscience. Thus, white freedom was never like black freedom. Black freedom is about humping and jumping and hollering and walloping and acting like jungle savages. It is freedom at a crude and low level, like that of apes. It is the freedom of groins and asses, which is why blacks everywhere like to celebrate by shaking their butts and bumping-and-grinding. In contrast, white freedom is about the heart and mind, and for it to thrive, the lower freedoms must be suppressed. Obviously, it'd be difficult to maintain a society of scientists, doctors, engineers, and the like if young people, instead of studying in school and obeying rules to mature into responsible adults, act like Negroes & chimpanzees and indulge in the freedom of jungle savagery. If you want the freedom to be a doctor, you need the discipline to make it through medical school. Paradoxically, higher freedoms require restraints upon lower freedoms. One needs less partying and more studying(conforming to the ideal of education) if one is to get a medical degree and be prized as a doctor. So, white freedom is built upon white order, discipline, and conformism(to the respected and acknowledged norms of excellence, propriety, and competence). But this conformist streak can also lead to an urge to be agreeable in the eyes of the Order and not make trouble. In the modern world defined by fads and fashions(and with loss of roots, customs, and traditions), the idea of the Good can change almost overnight. Whenever the elites change their attitudes on a whim, they could use the power of media and academia to spread the New Good into every corner of society. How else did something as crazy as Homomania and Tranny-lunacy spread so fast? There is also the power of celebrity and entertainment. Just associate the 'gay pride flag' with advertising, famous stars, and TV shows, and millions of morons will be nodding along. As goy elites suck up to Jewish elites, the process of mass control is pretty simple. Jews decide what is Good. Then, goy elites, as collaborators, comply and obey the Jews. Together, the Jewish and goy elites spread the New Good to the masses, so many of whom just follow along unthinkingly as most people are incapable of independent thought or critical inquiry.
Now, Jews know that it's better to control and rule a people through moral righteousness than through fear alone. Humans are emotionally closer to dogs than to cats. Cats are naturally disobedient and defiant. They understand fear but not obedience. In contrast, dogs not only understand fear but seek satisfaction in emotions of outrage. Dogs love to bark at everything and work as a pack to hunt and tear things apart. But they also crave the approval of the master. While a dog-owner can use fear alone to make a dog do things, it's far more effective to make the dogs do things with enthusiasm, as if their own emotions are invested in the task at hand. So, even if the dog is really being made to hunt for the master, it is made to feel that it's a partner in the adventure. Dogs naturally love to hunt, but they also naturally want to feel 'justified' and 'approved' by the alpha superior. So, when the dog hunts for the master, it is not only acting naturally as a predator but seeking absolution as a 'good dog'. Its pack instinct craves approval. Its self-worth is indistinguishable from group approval. When a cat hunts, it is only for itself(though some cats may bring their kills to their owners out of generosity). When a dog hunts, there is more at stake than mere hunger or want of play. It seeks approval and confirmation from the master of the pack. Thus, it is emotionally far more invested in the hunt. There is a crude sense of 'righteous' and 'outrage mob' mentality. The prey isn't merely for the killing but for killing with special gusto and enthusiasm. If Jews were to just order goyim to obey and follow orders, goyim would grow resentful, rather like sullen cats. But if Jews manipulate goy minds like a master toys with his dog's mind, the goyim can be made to feel that their obedient service to Jews is a matter of righteousness and moral outrage. Just like a dog cannot distinguish between its own will and its master's will, a Jew-controlled goy is made to believe that his 'moral outrage' and righteousness is the same as that of the Holy Jew. When a dog kills the prey and has it taken away by the master, the dog doesn't feel that it has been used and exploited. It doesn't feel that its kill has been stolen from it. Rather, it feels 'justified' and 'righteous' in having done something deemed GOOD by the master. It feels tremendous satisfaction in being a Good Dog. Its goodness before the master becomes the main reward. So, even though it's been used, it feels self-worth and self-satisfaction in having been a Good dog that did something to please the master who represents not only power but the Team Spirit. The Jew-Goy relationship is much the same. The Good Goy has been trained to believe that the greatest satisfaction in life is to be Good in the eyes of the Holy Superior. Since Jews, Negroes, and Homos have been elevated to god-status, the Good White Goy feels that the highest good is doing whatever to appease and please Jews, blacks, & homos and doing whatever to bark & bite at whatever/whomever is deemed the enemy of the Three Holies of Jews, Negroes, and Homos. (The doglike nature of man can be seen in Christianity. In the end, the power of Christianity rests not in Jesus having been a decent fellow but the Perfect Man, the Son of God. His Godliness ensures the sanctity of His Goodness. In the film MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE, why does it matter so much that Jack Celliers[played by David Bowie] is the agent of Goodness and nobility? Because he is seen as the superior man. When a perceived inferior man is good, he is just seen as weak, wussy, or pathetic. It is only when a perceived superior chooses the good that the good become The Good, something worthy of admiration and respect. The power of Christianity rests on the faith that the Great has chosen the Good. The Son of God chose to be Good and died for the sins of man. Just like a lowly serf was more likely to be moved by a friendly gesture by a prince than by another lowly serf, mankind is most impressed when the perceived superior descends to his level. But why would the godly superior come down to ground? Because he's not just about naked power but about the Good. In Nagisa Oshima's film, Jack Celliers is perceived by Captain Yonoi as a superior man — indeed, Celliers has been highly regarded from by peers from childhood — , but Celliers takes the side of the suffering victims, and it is that fact that affects Yonoi's heart. In the end, it wasn't goodness per se but goodness-chosen-by-the-god-man that moved Yonoi to the point where he came to regard mankind differently.)

Because Jews used the media, academia, and state power to elevate themselves to neo-god status, as if they're a bunch of neo-christs who died for the sins of White Christian Europe, white peoples on both sides of the Atlantic have come to see Jews as god-men, the Holy Men, the saint-christ-messiahs. And Jews elevated Homos and Negroes to godly level as well.
But of course, reality suggests otherwise. So many Jews are lowlife weasels, gangsters, and hucksters. So many blacks are thugs, brutes, and lunatics. And so many homos and trannies are decadents, degenerates, freaks, sickos, and nihilists. If people come to regard reality as reality, they'd see the Real Jew, the Real Negro, and Real Homo. But because most people rely on mass media, mass entertainment, and mass education for their vision of the world, their minds are molded by endless celebrations and/or commemorations of Holocaust, Homomania, Magic Negro Cult(via MLK & Mandela worship and reverence of TO KILL A MOCKING BIRD as the Negro-Testament better than the New Testament), and etc. And there is cult worship of the Statue of Liberty as an icon of Immigration-Sanctimony while forgetting the fact that mass-immigrations have led to imperialism and even wholesale genocides around the world.
Ironically, the Three Peoples worshiped most by the world as quasi-holy are the most problematic. For all the Magic Negro myth, what are blacks mainly known for culturally, politically, and socially? Culturally, blackness has degenerated into Rap thuggery and 'twerking'. Politically, blacks are the most corrupt and incompetent around the world, both in Africa and America. Socially, they are notorious for high levels of crime and dysfunctions. But we are supposed to worship blacks as sacred victims and redeemers. But one wonders if all this pro-Negro sympathy owes more to pity for their historical victimhood or to awe of their current domination of sports & pop music, especially as globo-technology has spread Rap and black sports all over the world. Consider how even immigrants from nations without blacks know so much about black rappers and basketball players. As for black Africans headed to Europe, they've heard of white female sex tourists who come to the Dark Continent for jungle fever. And on their computers and smartphones, these black Africans no longer watch relatively tame stuff like BAYWATCH but Jewish-controlled pornography that tell the world that white women now belong to black men while white men are a bunch of cucks. Joe-Buckery has gone global. In MIDNIGHT COWBOY, Joe Buck has this idea that New York is filled with horny women who hanker for a Real Man from Texas. Tons of black Joe Bucks in Africa head for Europe in the belief that white women can't get no satisfaction from wussy white men and are eager for Negro men. BBC and British advertising now regularly feature the pairing of black man and white woman as the New Ideal, and this is becoming a feature of Hollywood movies as well. Needless to say, both BBC and Hollywood are run by globalist Jews. The way things are going, the future of France and UK will be Midnight Mandingo.

Anyway, on the subject of mass-migration and mass-immigration, nothing could be further from the truth than the notion that Hitler and the Nazis were all about closed borders and restrictions to immigration. Hitler's favorite nation was Great Britain, the center of the world empire that was created by endless adventure, invasions, conquests, and colonization of other lands. The British Empire was one of the biggest destroyers of walls. The British invaded India and huge swaths of Africa. They conquered Australia. They battered down Chinese walls and forced China to open to Western Imperialist powers. And UK, along with US, forced Japan to open up to the world. Hitler never denounced this aspect of British Imperialism. If anything, he admired the British for using force of arms, trade, and diplomacy to take control of one-fourth of the world. Rather than denouncing British power of movement and military might, Hitler praised the British and sought an alliance with them as the migratory masters of the world. (Of course, Jews also wanted partnership with the British as co-masters of the world. Jews feared that the Anglos might abandon the Jews and go with their racial brethren, the Germans, but the Anglos decided to side with the Jews as the Other Master Race. If Jewish Supremacists and Nazi Germans had one thing in common, it was admiration for Anglo/American conquest and domination of the world. Germans wanted partnership with Anglos, and Jews wanted marriage with the Anglos and Anglo-Americans. As Jews were more adept at infiltrating other peoples, they got closer to Anglo ears. Also, Jews controlled media in UK and US, giving them a huge advantage over Germans. Finally, the fact that a German nation existed made the British feel more of a threat from the Germans. In contrast, as powerful as the Jews were, they were without a nation of their own, and the Brits thought the Jews would never gain dominance in Anglo nations or the US. They thought wrong as Jewish Supremacism eventually took control of US, UK, and Canada; and today, World Politics is mainly about US, UK, and puppet EU doing the bidding of Jews as the Master Race.) Just as Jews admired the creation of new Anglo-made nations by invasion, imperialism, conquest, wars, and mass-immigration, Germans like Hitler were similarly impressed. Neither Jewish Supremacists nor Nazi Germans were bothered in the least by the fact that imperialism and mass-immigration of Anglos and other white immigrants led to the 'genocide' of the native population in both North America and South America. They cheered for the victors, the winners, the creators of New Nations. Jews didn't weep for dead American Indians. If anything, they joined in the White Conquest of the Americas. Super-rich Jews financed much of Western Imperialism. And lower Jews served as merchants, selling guns and ammos to the White Man to kill the Red Man with. Jews fully took part in the 'genocide' of the American Indians. And many German immigrants also joined with Anglos in the conquest of America and the destruction of the American Indian tribes. When Hitler was a young boy, he loved reading Western novels by Karl May. And he loved American Western movies produced by Hollywood Jews. Jews and Germans were agreed that Anglo-American conquest of the West was awesome. Just like Jews went on and on about how America is great as a Nation of Immigrants, Hitler felt likewise. He admired how Anglo and other white settlers, adventurers, and immigrants came to the New World, vanquished the indigenous folks, and created an imperial-nation, a nation that was an empire unto itself with vast spaces and resources.

So, contrary to current PC, Hitler was pro-immigrationist when it came to American History. He agreed with Jews that the native savages had to be swept aside to make way for the adventurers, pioneers, settlers, and vast numbers of immigrants. Even though Jews were more nervous about white racial thinking, they favored white nations in their doings and dealings. After all, one of the reasons why European Jews chose the US over other nations as the favored immigration-destination was because it was dominantly white(unlike Latin American nations that were mostly disdained by Jews). If we judge Jews by what they've done as oppose to what they've said, they favored whiteness uber alles. If Otto von Bismarck was essentially a German nationalist whose vision was to create a unified Germany that was sufficiently powerful and independent, Hitler's vision was infinitely more far-reaching. Like Kaiser Wilhelm before him, he thought in global terms. No, he didn't want to conquer the whole world, but he wanted Germany to have an empire of its own and be allied with the British Empire that had control of over a quarter of the world. If possible, Hitler wanted an alliance with Anglo-Americans as well, but he regarded this as unlikely as Jewish power was far more extensive in the US and because he thought the black problem would lead to America's ruination. Hitler was wrong about lots of things, but he was right about some things, namely about the dangers posed to the West by Jews and blacks as Jews could outwit whites and as blacks could out-muscle whites. In a way, it's understandable why Anglos and Anglo-Americans sided with Jews. There was something self-deceptive about the Anglo character. Though world conquerors and imperialists, they were vain enough to convince themselves that their power was all about spreading enlightenment, reason, goodness, progress, freedom, and justice. They committed their share of horrors but wanted to hog the honors. The problem with the Germans, somewhat in WWI but especially in WWII, was they were too blunt about the nature of the game, i.e. it's all about the Power. It's like gangsters want to come across as respectable, like Don Vito Corleone of THE GODFATHER. They don't want to be associated with someone like Tommy(Joe Pesci) in GOODFELLAS even though they are all crooks and killers. Hitler was too eager and excitable, too much like Tommy, and the Anglos with their preening vanity or righteous demeanor, couldn't stomach his ideology and movement. It was too 'pornographic' in terms of power. They wanted to do imperialism while pretending to have loftier aims. Jews understood Anglo psychology much better and knew which buttons to press to flatter the Anglos into thinking they were for 'justice' and 'peace' than war and domination. We see this with current US and UK. They are still playing the imperialist game but with nonstop rhetorical BS about how they're all about 'liberal values', 'peace', and 'democracy'. They now play the game under the auspices of Jewish supremacism, but the self-deception and duplicity remain the same. Of course, it's worse now than in the past because Jewish Power that pulls the strings remain hidden even if out in the open. Jews are especially dishonest as they are the most powerful people on Earth with supremacist aims but in pathological denial of their power & influence and never tiring of accusing OTHERS of supremacism. Jews wiped Palestine off the map but accuse Palestinians of plotting to wipe Israel off the map. Israel has lots of illegal nukes, but it accuses Iran of being a rogue nuclear state even though Iran has no nukes. Jews use their power to force all Americans to support Zionist imperialism and Judeo-centric supremacism, but Jews accuse whites who are skeptical of Jewish Power of 'white supremacism'. Jews are a very vile people. Though Jews would have us believe that Nazi Germans and Jewish globalists are polar opposites, they actually have more in common. They ended up as super-enemies in the 20th century not so much as opposites but as neck-and-neck competitors. It's like two boxers pummel each other in the ring because they have so much in common. They both want to beat the other feller and win the championship belt. Nazi Germany vs Jewish Empire was not about supremacism vs egalitarianism but about German supremacism vs Jewish supremacism. The difference is that Jews, like Anglos and Anglo-Americans, mastered the art of deceit by masking their supremacism with lofty talk of 'universal values'.

There's all this dumb talk of how Trump's anti-immigration stance is like Hitlerism. We are told that the 'plight' of migrants and illegal immigrants are like that of Jews during World War II. According to such logic, national walls = Nazism. But nothing could be further from the truth. During World War II, Jews were safest in nations with strong walls against Nazi Germany. After all, French Jews were endangered AFTER Germany breached French walls and conquered France. Any European nation that maintained its walls or barriers against German aggression was safe not only for its citizens but for Jews. The Nazi War Machine was a wall-smasher. Even though many Poles loathed Jews, the mass killing of Polish Jews happened AFTER Germany broke through Polish walls and defenses. National walls against Nazi aggression was the ONLY thing keeping many Jews safe and alive in Europe.

But the truest sign that Hitler was an immigration-enthusiast was his Lebensraum plan in the East. Long before he took power, he dreamed of conquering vast areas of Russia and opening them up for German immigrants who'd take the land from the Slavs and build farmlands for the Fatherland. Hitler eyed Russia much like white pioneers, settlers, and immigrants eyed the Americas. It was for the taking. Just like European and Jewish immigrants moved westward, displaced the American Indians, and built a new order, Nazi victory over Russia would have ensured that millions of German immigrant-invaders would settle in the East. Slavs would have been replaced by the Germans, much like how the Palestinians came to be replaced by the Zionists looking for their own lebensraum, or Levinsraum.
Granted, the Nazi plan was many times crazier than the American or Australian plan. For one thing, the New World and the world down under were sparsely populated(relatively speaking) with savages, whereas Russia had lots of people with rich culture and history. So, if the conquest of America and Australia was both inevitable and even necessary(to make way for progress), the destruction of Russia would have been a crime much like the Mongol destruction of Persia. To be sure, had the Germans prevailed in the East, they wouldn't only have committed great evils but built great cities and an impressive new order as part of a great German Empire. Unlike Mongols or Vikings who knew how to destroy and pillage but not build, the modern Germans would have been great builders as well as great destroyers, much like the Roman Empire. Still, German victory and mass-immigration into Russia would have been one big tragic hell for the Slavs and a great moral stain on German history.

Anyway, don't let anyone fool you that Hitler was about anti-immigration. He admired the immigration-invasions of the Anglo-empire, and he planned to create his own version of European Union by destroying borders among nations(much like Napoleon had once done), and he had a super-plan of Nazi Manifest Destiny into Russia whereby the German 'Cowboys' would expel, enslave, and/or exterminate the Russian 'Indians'. His lebensraum plan was deeply immigration-invasionist.