I guess not. All those brainy people on the Left, all those millionaires in Silicon Valley — not even they can figure out how to explain why we’re wrong. Why can’t they? Because we’re right. And so, we have to be smothered.
Proper terminology is of the essence. Indeed, many dissidents on our side have long argued that the Enemy willfully, stupidly, or just dishonestly uses false labels to smear the opposition. So, whites opting out of the globalist program are smeared as 'white supremacists'. Nowadays, if you mock Seth Rogan and Sarah Silverman's X-mas offal, you're a 'white supremacist'. Parents who criticize CRT are 'white supremacists'. Those who demand more investigation into the 2020 election are 'white supremacists'. Whites who are okay being white are 'white supremacists'. Dissidents on our side are rightfully angry that they are smeared with false terminology and slanderous labels. It's like brand-hoaxing, but then, we live in a world where trannies are labeled as 'women' as if gender-confused maladies are a badge of pride.
If the great lie of the Jewish globalist cabal is to smear anything pro-white as 'white supremacist', the great lie of White Advocates & Dissident Rightists(and conservatives in general) is to use the 'left' label on their persecutors. The Jewish-led Cabal is no more 'leftist' than pro-white groups are 'white supremacist'. (There is a small faction of genuine white supremacists but half of them happen to be recalcitrant neo-nazi and the other half are Feds.) Both sides dare not name it as it really is. Jewish Power(that is behind all this 'woke' garbage) and the Right spectrum are both incapable of seeing it like it is or saying it like it is.
It's far worse for the Right because, whereas the Jewish Lie is to pinpoint and vastly exaggerate the White Politics of the Right, the White Lie(that employs the 'leftist' label as all-inclusive epithet) is to give cover to the identity of their main enemy. Imagine Bob and Billy are at loggerheads. Bob goes out of his way to name BILLY as the baddie and says "BAD BILLY is an a**hole", "BAD BILLY is a shi*head", "BAD BILLY is a psycho", and etc. Bob calls Billy "Bad Billy" and associates Billy with all that is bad. But, what does Billy do? Instead of calling out on Bob, let alone Bad Bob, he blames all of Bob's nastiness on "Mr. Negativity". So, Bob is never mentioned by name. All his nasty antics isn't associated with his personage. Rather, they're blamed on some vague generality called "Mr. Negativity". Anyone listening to this debate would think, "Maybe Billy really is Bad Billy and responsible for all those awful things. And, if Billy is right, Negativity must be to blame for the other problems." In this war of words, Billy is named but Bob isn't. No matter how often Bob associates Billy with Bad Stuff, Billy never names Bob and blames Bob's bad stuff on some vague 'negativity'. Guess who's going to win?
Even though both the 'white supremacist' and 'leftist' labels are misleading or downright falsehoods, the key difference is, whereas pro-white people feel the sting of being called 'white supremacist', Jews and globalist elite cucks love being called the 'left'. It is precisely what they want. Imagine having all the power, privilege, connections, and advantages but being associated with radical egalitarianism. ROTFL. Imagine being George Soros and being called a 'leftist'. Imagine being Michael Bloomberg or the Google Billionaires or some Zionist Jewish tycoon and being called a 'leftist' because one supports the smoke-and-mirrors false 'leftism' of gender-pronoun nuttery that is really the product of capitalist decadence and globo-homo neo-aristocratism.
While Jewish Power isn't only naming but DEFAMING whiteness by associating anything pro-white or race-neutral as 'white supremacist', those on the Right Spectrum dare not name the real power behind the anti-white lunacy(either due to craven fear of Jewish Power or the internalization of the notion that ANY anti-Jewish criticism is tantamount to naziesque 'antisemitism'). According to Jewish-controlled 'wokeness', even 'progressive' whites are 'white supremacist'. Now, this much reviled 'whiteness' really applies to Northern European(and pale-faced)whiteness, not to Latin whiteness. You'd think given the Latin/Hispanic lead in the conquest of the New World, the slave trade, and various 'genocides', Latin-American whites would especially get it in the neck from 'wokeness', but they're relatively spared because they are useful allies against 'gringos', the real prize white horse on which Jewish Power sits astride. After all, if Jews had moved only to Latin America, would they be masters of the world? No, Jewish supremacism needed to harness the ability and competence of Anglo-Germanic whiteness.
'Wokery' says all (pale)whites are 'white supremacist', but the dividing line is between those who profess their sins vs those who refuse to repent. In other words, it shares the same moral-spiritual dynamics of Christianity that says ALL humans are sinners and must rely on Jesus for salvation. Thus, Christianity isn't about the sinless vs the sinful but about the repentant sinful vs the unrepentant sinful. The repentant sinful feel more virtuous because they confess their sins and admit to the wickedness within their hearts, and this fills them with righteous fury toward those who reject the notion of sin and refuse to self-flagellate themselves. 'Wokristianity' says all whites are stained with the sin of 'white supremacism' because of history(though some even claim it's ingrained in lame whitebread genetics, thereby the only way out is through ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs that makes white women give birth to sacred black babies, a kind of baptism of the white body with black semen, which seems to be the point of madonna's "Like a Prayer" video). 'Wokery' insists that even the most proggy do-goody whites are 'white supremacist' either subconsciously or by habit, legacy, or social privileges. Thus, it's not a matter of 'white supremacism' vs 'white egalitarianism' but between repentant 'white supremacists' who tirelessly purge their wicked hearts of this white 'sin' and 'white supremacists' who either revel in their supremacy or deny that they are supremacist even though they're beneficiaries of 'systemic racism'. This is why 'woke' whites are especially nutty. It's not just a case of tribalism of us-vs-them but the righteous pride of spiritual atonement. What made Christian piety so insufferable is also what makes 'wokeness' so hard to stomach. It's about people claiming, "I'm so much better than you because I atone and admit how totally shitty I am." Self-abasement as stepping stone to self-aggrandizement.
Of course, this nuttery is appealing to white progs because it's just pseudo-sophisticated enough to catch their fancy — ooh, 'subconsciously racist', that's some psychologically intellectual stuff — and comes with a kernel of truth, i.e. society doesn't suddenly change into what it professes to be but lingers(even for a long spell) with traces of the past, e.g. Modern India ideologically did away with the caste system, but the legacy lingers; China did away with Confucianism, but its cultural shadow still looms large; Japan hasn't been a samurai society for over a century and half, but certain samuraish ways still remain. But, the same could be said of Jews and blacks. Modern Jews claim to be mostly liberal and cosmopolitan, but their behavior continued to be guided by ancient tribalism. Blacks claim to be part of the modern world but are still driven by jungle-jive genetics.
The comprehensive use of 'white supremacist' to describe American History(and the West in general) is misleading. US was white-dominant than white-supremacist. It was founded by whites, and naturally whites created a new order in their image and on their heritage. (In a way, it was more Anglo-dominant as non-Anglo white immigrants were pressured to assimilate to Anglo-American norms. It's certainly the reason we all speak English.) But, if America had been founded and settled from the Pacific by the Japanese, it would have been Japanese/Asian dominant. Every civilization has a dominant force, power, presence, rule. Arab World was Arab-dominant, and Muslim World was Muslim-dominant. Slavic World was Slavic Dominant, just like Turkey was Turkic-dominant. A kind of dominance remains in force even under foreign occupation; such sub-dominance later becomes the basis for national liberation. Even under Roman rule, Jewish communities within Judea were Jewish-dominant. Even under British rule, India was demographically and culturally Hindu-dominant. Even under Russian-Germanic imperial rule, Polish society was Polish-dominant, and this Polish sub-dominance later re-emerged as rallying cry for national autonomy.
It's like, even under Jewish Rule over America, many white Christian communities remain white/Christian dominant. This fact appears to enrage Jews who want to substitute whiteness with total cuckery and Christianity with globo-homo-BLM 'wokeness'. The difference between 'supremacist' and 'dominant' is the former tends to have no sense of limits and seeks hegemony over others. When Adolf Hitler was focused on German revival, he was for German Dominance. When he invaded Poland and later Russia, it was a case of German Supremacism. Most white Americans today have no use for world conquest or control — the US, a huge country with the best land in the world, is enough for them. European patriots want to keep their own nations, worlds of their own. They don't want to conquer Africa, Asia, or the Middle East. Notwithstanding neo-imperialist morons like Richard Spencer(who thinks he's 007 in Darth Vader helmet), most white American patriots had enough of overseas wars and want the military to guard US borders.
If any group is in supremacist mode in the US, it's the Jews, homos, military-industrial complex, and the cuck-dogs of Zion(like John Bolton and so many others). It's amusing indeed that the most supremacist and aggressive forces in America accuse white patriots of 'white supremacism'. In other words, those who prefer peace and national security are 'white supremacist' while those who call for hegemony and more tensions with the rest of the world are for 'liberal democracy' and 'equity'. What a joke to be 'woke'. Essentially, 'wokeness' is a Jewish psycho-moral weapon to guilt-bait whites into paralysis and submission, which is then used to manipulate whites into serving Jewish Power. The mental programming goes like this, "I'm a white person stained with the sin of 'racism' and 'supremacism'. Thus, I deserve no agency and autonomy and must look to the sacred races for guidance. I must wash black feet and obey Jews, the Holy Holocaust people, and maybe just then, I'll earn an ounce of redemption points." Even though conzos reject 'wokeness', they have their own variation which operates much the same way. After all, what is the GOP platform based on but "We are the good guys because we cuck to Israel more"? But, why would the Party of White Christian Conservatives need to cuck to Jews and Israel? It can only be explained in terms of "We white Christians are morally deficient, therefore we need the approval of Holy Holocaust Jews to attain real moral worth." So, any Zio-Cuck conzo should look in the mirror before he or she lambastes the inner dynamics of 'wokeness'.
The knee-jerk tendency of designating the Enemy as the 'left' has made it harder to drive a wedge between the globalist/cabalist elites and the masses of whites into the politics of justice. Granted, there are some genuine leftist types who call foul on globalism, corporatism, deep-statism, and the like. But as long as they're lumped in with the billionaire oligarchs, Zionist-globalists, and the power elites, there will be far less inclination on their part to see the light and resist the real power. Indeed, even though Jewish Supremacists sometimes blame the 'right', they are far less likely to go on and on about 'the right, the right, the right' because they're focused on driving a wedge between elements within the Right Spectrum. By focusing on 'white supremacism', they seek to cause a rift between 'decent conservatives' and 'those racists'. So, even as the Democratic Party is broadly 'anti-right', it offers an olive branch to 'decent' elements of conservatism, and this is what National Review runs on: "We are the good decent principled conservatives who cuck half the time, unlike those 'racists'." In contrast, by constantly attacking the LEFT, the Right Spectrum only ends up strengthening the bonds between Jewish oligarchs/Big Capital and the white masses into Resistance Politics.
What we really need to do is drive a wedge between the elites and the leftist masses and then build a bridge between white populists and white socialists. Socialism isn't to be confused with communism, which is dead and has no chance. Socialism is necessary because the current system is a rigged game. The government is no longer interested in going after monopolies. 'Free trade' undermined unions. The Covid regimen showed how the Power can push a few buttons and destroy countless middle class businesses while fattening the wallets of the already-super-rich. Any notion of free and fair competition under such a system is a pipe dream. Now, the socialism I have in mind isn't anything like communism and accepts the role of capitalism. But it also understands that capitalism leads to monopolies, concentrations of power, and corporate collusion between big capital and big state(something totally overlooked by libertarians who seem to idealize capitalists as principled individualists when many of them are unscrupulous tribalists or gangstoids). The socialism I have in mind uses political tools to combat the worst abuses of capitalism and its cancerous coordination with elite power centers.
Also, this socialism isn't to be confused with statism(with is really status-ism via collusion of state and capital). True socialism is about use of power to favor the people, the powerless, and the under-represented. In contrast, statism is about careerism via government jobs or state funded programs. While socialism always needs to use the power of the state, statism is far less concerned with the interests of the people than for the individuals who procure roles for themselves in government or by NGO funding. Though statists often claim to be working for 'social justice' or the People, they are only in it for themselves. They are looking for sinecures and the like. The proof is in the pudding. Notice how so many urban educated 'woke' types and blacks claim to be 'socialist' but all they care about is obtaining some statist job or gaining funding so they can sustain status and lifestyle on par with the professional class. When have these 'woke' statist types ever spoken up for the workers, the underclass, and the like? No, it's mostly about globo-homo or tranny nuttery. Or pie-in-the-sky schemes related to global warming, which means all they have to do is produce more paperwork and 'studies' without doing anything concrete or real. Or, it's about More Immigrants so that Big Business can have cheaper hirelings. Or, it's about the mindless adulation of blackness as a kind of racial fetish when anyone really interested in black well-being would call for less immigration(thus raising wages for blacks) and more police protection(that not only shields whites from blacks but suppresses black-on-black violence).
The future must be neo-fascist or social-nationalist. It has to be about the union of rightism and leftism as both have much value to offer. So, stop dumping on the 'left' and focus on the supremacist manipulators of globalism, capitalism, and statism. At the top, it's Jewish Power. Speak up for Palestinians because what Zionists did to Palestinians was dress rehearsal for what is being done to the West. Do everything to make the people, 'right' or 'left', more aware of who really rules the West. Point out that the core tenets of Globalism are really fueled by ultra-right Zionist Supremacism, not by Leftism. For proof, look how Jewish Power has totally suppressed BDS and pro-Palestinian voices within the supposedly 'leftist' Democratic Party. Point out to the progs of their misguidedness in opposing 'white supremacism'(when whites only want liberation from Jewish supremacism) while, in effect, doing the bidding of Jewish Supremacists who are the main drivers of wars and imperialism around the world. Indeed, what better way to save the world than via White Liberation from Jewish Supremacism. Once whites say NO to Jewish Power, Zio-Globalism will no longer have a white war horse to ride on to trample around the globe.
Among many on the Right Spectrum, there's the image of the Democratic Party being driven to the Far Left. Nothing can be further from the truth. The problem is the Democratic Party is totally beholden to the Imperial Center. Biden's regime is filled with Jewish Supremacists and totally in cahoots with Big Capital. It sees eye-to-eye with Zion. It is favored by the Military Industrial Complex that revs the engine for wars with Russia, China, and/or Iran. Sure, there's massive border crisis and tranny-gender nuttery, but both are favored by Jewish Supremacist-capitalists. The True Left didn't come up with globo-homo, even though plenty of leftists foolishly signed on in deference to Jewish Power(but then so did plenty of conzos). If the Democratic Party were truly controlled by the Far Left, things would actually be far better. The War Industry would be called out. Wall Street would be denounced. Big Pharma would be condemned. Homos would be criticized for working in the deep state to spread wars and terror. Blacks would be called on to favor universal justice over racial idolatry. There would be calls to treat Jews and Palestinians equally. But where do you see that in the Democratic Party? In truth, the agenda is purely Imperial Centrist, aka Jewish-capitalist-supremacist.
I think The Searchers is absurdly overrated, for it is far from flawless. But it is still a great work of art that plumbs deep themes and stirs deep feelings.
Its high esteem owes to several reasons. Auteur Theory, mainly established in America by Andrew Sarris who regarded John Ford very highly. Ford has been a pantheon among auteurs. Also, John Ford and the Western are considered quintessentially American, and the Western genre defined Classic Hollywood. Though Ford made several fine Westerns, THE SEARCHERS gets extra-nods for its high energy and darker themes. It is at once a Classic Western and something of an Alt-Western more in line with those of Anthony Mann. Then, there's the French Influence. Jean-Luc Godard claims to have wept at the ending of THE SEARCHERS. Of course, the Auteur Theory(or Policy) originated in France, long an influential hub of cinephilia. Then, there was the Movie Brat influence. The American filmmakers who came of prominence in the 1970s got hooked on THE SEARCHERS. Why that one than other Ford Westerns? It was old-fashioned and revisionist. As such, it had double or triple meanings open to post-modern interpretation. It was as if Ford was channeling something of Sam Fuller & Elia Kazan in slight but significant deviation from his formula, much like Alfred Hitchcock with his batch of movies such as REAR WINDOW and VERTIGO. THE SEARCHERS offered the nostalgia of Old Hollywood but also a bit of edginess to keep it relevant in the turmoil of the 60s and 70s. THE SEARCHERS, like VERTIGO, has been prized as a bridge between the old and the new, and also an indication of what Ford(and Hitchcock) might have been capable of with greater artistic freedom, available to later filmmakers like Sam Peckinpah and Robert Altman. THE SEARCHERS and VERTIGO represent the dawn of something new in American Cinema and yet also represent what was lost with the new freedoms(that could just as easily lead to indulgence as inspiration). If Scorsese wandered into the darker regions of Fordom, Spielberg remained in the lighter spaces, as in THE WAR HORSE. So, when film critics, film scholars, and filmmakers vote for THE SEARCHERS, they aren't necessarily saying it is really one of the top ten greatest movies. Rather, they are voting for what it represents in terms of genre, theme, and significance. It also explains why RASHOMON rates so highly in polls. Though Akira Kurosawa made several greater films, its cultural significance cannot be overstated. Its effect was electric at the time and introduced the world to Japanese cinema.
Although The Searchers is set in Texas in 1868, Ford’s treatment goes beyond the historical to the mythic and epic.
The Western genre is innately mythic, but THE SEARCHERS isn't really big on myth. It's more folkloric and picaresque. Ford generally wasn't interested in Western genre conventions of the classic gunfighter and the final showdown that served as the basis of the myth. His Westerns were more about a group of men(and good deal of womenfolks) than about the Man. SHANE has mythic overtones. Pauline Kael derided the hero as Kid Galahad on horseback. And of course, Sergio Leone pushed the Western myth to the stratosphere with ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST, which is really about giants than men. Also, THE SEARCHERS doesn't feel like an epic. It spans several years over large territory, but the treatment is usually intimate and episodic than grandiose and sprawling. Much of the movie is a like a road movie or buddy comedy with Ethan & Marty and furthermore takes place in interiors. The movies doesn't try to be Large in the style of THE BIG TRAIL or THE BIG COUNTRY, let alone THE GIANT, a modern Western. There's no air of Importance to the story-telling. The obvious use of studio sets in some scenes further undermines the sense of the epic. Also, Ethan's brooding quality reminds us that he is more an embodiment of personal rage than a symbol of Western Expansion and Progress. He is an outlier.
The silhouette of a woman appears in the doorway... It is like watching a specter, a shade, taking on an embodied form. It has the feel of a creation myth. But what is being created? The answer seems to be civilization...
Ford didn't think in such big terms. That was the folkish Irish in him. She represents family, at most community. That's what Ford really loved and felt at home in. Civilization is a big concept with highfalutin ideas and monumental architecture. Ford had no real feeling for that. Even his modern movies, like THE LAST HURRAH, are more about community and a culture. In this, Ford felt sort of Indian-ish. After all, the Anglos often characterized the Irish as brutish, tribal, kin-oriented, and backward. Irish were more about pride than principles. So, even as Ford romanticized the coming of community to the West, he sort of lamented the coming of Civilization that would do away with manly roles and womanly roles in a close-knit community.
A rider approaches across the desert. This is a lawless land, where every stranger is regarded with apprehension.
Yes and No. There are Indian hostiles about for sure, and you never know when they might form a war party. But homestead is also part of an intimate community. Because there aren't as yet many people in the area, it seems all the white folks know each other by name. They are awful neighborly and supportive of one another, unlike city folks who are mostly strangers unto one another. So, unless there's Indian smoke and war drums, a figure on the horizon would likely be a familiar face and be welcomed into the house for coffee or broth.
Ethan clearly aims to stop fighting and make a home there... But Ethan’s attempt to reenter society and enjoy the fruits of peace does not last a single day, for there’s trouble afoot.
Ethan still can't get over the fact that the South lost. He has some of that Jesse James rage. If the Civil War were still on, he'd be in the fight as warring comes naturally to him. But by the time he reaches the home of his brother, he's come to bitterly accept that the North won and there's no way of turning back history. But deep down inside, he's smoldering over the defeat. He will fight with the Yankees against the Indians, but his Southern folks have been defeated by the Yankees, much like the Indians are being beaten by the cowboys. Also, he sides with white folks against the Red Man, but he probably feels bitter that the Yankee North waged war to free the semi-savage ni**ers against white Southern folks. The Yankees wage race war against the Red Man but also waged war on Southern White Man to free the black man who, being stronger and donger, could whup the white man.
In one way, the Indians disrupt his chance for peace and stability. In another way, the crisis saves him from a life of slow dissolution as just another farmer or rancher(like Eastwood character in the beginning of UNFORGIVEN before he embarks on a quest). He has reason to be a man of action once again, and he truly feels at home on the move. It's like the guy in TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A., while genuinely enraged over his partner's death, uses the opportunity to get his nihilist kicks. War is tragic, but peace is tragic for the man of action. It's like what Douglas MacArthur said about old soldiers just fading away. And the men in THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, while glad to be back home, feel so humdrum. In war, they were heroes. And the military guy in WORLD TRADE CENTER(by Oliver Stone), though saddened by the terrorist attack, also welcomes it as godsend. He can finally do what his kind is meant for: To fight and destroy.
Who is Ethan Edwards? He is a warrior and a wanderer in wild spaces: the space between warring civilizations and the space between civilization and savagery. He lives in the state of nature, not civil society.
Ethan is functional in both. Unlike Travis Bickle who is a bundle of neuroticism, Ethan is an all-around personality who fits equally well in civil society and war zone. He can be sociable and chummy as well as fearsome and aggressive. He's in his environment as a wandering 'cowboy', but people of the community feel comfortable when he's around. He gets along with everyone while simultaneously standing his ground. In other words, Ethan is very much a John Wayne character. He's sort of like Pat Buchanan. Pugnacious and always relishing a fight but also amiable and sociable with people of all stripes.
Once the Confederacy was defeated, he fought for the Emperor Maximilian for money. But war is a young man’s game. Ethan is getting too old for it.
Age isn't really a factor in the movie. Sure, Ethan isn't a strapping young man anymore, but he's still younger than some others in the community. And his reason for 'coming home' was the bitter acceptance of the lost Southern cause. He stopped fighting because the Southern defeat was total. It seems that, for a time, in Jesse-James fashion, he took part in revenge violence against Yankees and Carpetbagger types. But it became pointless as the South was lost. It was a bitter pill to swallow but swallow he did.
On two occasions, the Ranger Captain Clayton chooses to ignore Ethan’s possible crimes because they need his help. They sense that Ethan is like them: a guardian of peace and family life...
It's mainly because Ethan is a tough guardian of self. It won't be easy to force one's will on a man like Ethan. While he's useful as another white man against the Indians, there's just enough outlaw in him to intimidate even a proud and tough man like Captain Clayton. Clayton knows Ethan will not come peaceably if he tries to arrest him. And other men would also think twice about arresting him. Besides, as fellow Texans who share the bitterness of the Southern defeat, they sort of empathize with Ethan's vengeful feelings and actions against the Yankees. It's like even law-abiding Southerners who didn't take part in Jesse James' criminality looked the other way because "it was for Dixie and nothing else".
For instance, when a fight breaks out at a wedding at the Jorgenson home, Ethan shoos Mrs. Jorgenson inside because he doesn’t think a woman should see such things.
I think he was just clowning, a way for him to say, "You womenfolk pretend to be for home and hearth but love to see a good fight like anyone else." So, his action was sarcastic than moralistic. It's like when Laurie pleads with Ethan to stop the fight, he tells SHE started it, and soon enough she's reveling in the sight of two men whupping each other over her.
When Ethan finds the bodies of Martha and Lucy, both of whom were presumably raped, he spares others the sight. He has peered into the abyss so that others don’t have to.
That was more personal than anything else. He loved Martha and feels that Marty setting his eyes on her ravaged naked body would be more violation of her dignity. As for Lucy's body, he kept that secret so that young Jorgenson wouldn't lose his head. Just as he predicted, once Jorgenson hears what really happened, he burns with rage and rides off into an Indian camp and gets killed. In a way, Ethan despairs what happened but also understands Jorgenson died a manly death.
Ethan doesn't try to protect Marty from the horrors of the world. He was certainly about to kill Debbie right in Marty's presence. And when he shot the eyes out of the dead Indian, Marty was there as witness.
Mrs. Jorgenson says, “A Texican’s nothin’ but a human man out on a limb . . . This year and next and maybe for a hundred more. But I don’t think it’ll be forever. Someday this country will be a fine good place to be . . . Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come . . .”
She was a school teacher, you know.
Texas is a pagan land that demands human sacrifices before it becomes a decent place to live. This is why Ethan interrupts the Christian burial of his family to begin the search for the killers. Texas is not yet ready for such niceties. It needs more blood and bones, and Ethan is ready to lay down his own.
This is over-interpreting Ethan's motives. He's just impatient for action. He is not a high concept person who thinks in terms of history, meaning, and significance. He lives for what is his, whom he knows and cares for. The only larger loyalty he had was to the South and only because of the Civil War that divided the US into North vs South. Even if Ethan lived in a civilized setting without red savages, he would always be impatient and a bit impulsive, like the Burt Reynolds character in DELIVERANCE who is eager to reach the river. (Why? Because it's there.) Or the Stampers of SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION. Ethan isn't acting for civilization or even for Texas. The school teacher may see her life as part of something bigger, but Ethan lives for himself. Even his rescue mission for Debbie is really about his feelings, his sense of revenge, his personal vendetta.
Ethan is a man in a hurry. The proximate reason for haste is that with each passing minute, the girls are closer to rape, torture, and death. The deeper cause is that he’s over the hill, so his time is short.
With Lucy, that's true. She is a young woman, therefore a sexual target for the Indians. But even as victim of rape and murder, she would still be a white woman who resisted and understood the horror of what had happened. But it's different with Debbie. She wouldn't be raped. She would be turned Indian. She would be accepted into the very fabric of Indian life, and her loyalties would be with the Indians. She wouldn't be sexually violated but sexually initiated into Indian life to produce braves whom she would love as her own sons. In some ways, this is worse. It's like turning Greek boys into Janissary who genuinely accepted Islam and fought for Allah against Christendom.
It's like a white race-ist being killed by terrible Negroes is less tragic than white kids being turned into 'woke' enemies of their own race, essentially tools of vile Jewish Supremacists and ghastly Negroes.
He is cold and ruthless, using Martin as bait to trap and kill the treacherous merchant Futterman.
Actually, cold-and-ruthless would have been less unnerving. What's truly unsettling about the scene is Ethan's casual camaraderie with Marty. He uses Marty as bait but treats him like a long-lost little brother. Of course, one could say Ethan was just playacting, but his fondness for Marty(by that time) seems as genuine as the ploy is calculating. Thus, Ethan has the odd combination of warmth and ruthlessness(which could be said of Ford himself, a real son of a bitch but not without a heart). And the crazy-funny thing is Ford did it with comic touch. It's almost as if Marty passed the test of manhood with Ethan, much like Paulie saying, "You broke your cherry" to Henry in GOODFELLAS. It's the warrior's code. Warriors are a band of brothers but also expendable. It's just the name of the game. Ford made a movie called THEY WERE EXPENDABLE. So, the more Marty comes to accept his expendability, the more he becomes valuable to Ethan who lives his life like it's expendable.
He is also increasingly savage... He even slaughters buffalo simply to starve the Indians.
Modern times make us wonder what is and isn't savage. During World War I, the entire German civilian population was targeted for starvation with naval blockades. In the 1990s, Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton, both products of elite institutions, implemented ruthless sanctions on Iraq that killed countless lives of children. And the US uses food-and-medicine as weapons in its Jewish-Supremacist war on Syria. So, Ethan's 'savagery' was pure amateur stuff compared to what civilizations do. In a way, the dichotomy of civilization vs savagery misses the mark. American Indians were more 'war-like' because there were many competing tribes. But there was peace within the tribe. So, if Indians fought more, it wasn't because they were naturally more warlike or savage but because the sphere of peace was smaller for them. They belonged to a tribe surrounded by other tribes. Civilization has much wider sphere of peace but only because more peoples have been conquered and forced into the sphere. But when we ponder America's war-making on nations and entities that remain outside, independent of, or hostile to the Globalist Empire, it's utterly 'savage' and ruthless. Just ask the Syrians. Just ask the Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians in the Donbass. Just ask the Palestinians hated by the Jewish supremacist masters of America. We speak of civilization conquering savagery in the American West, but civilization itself is an amalgam of conquered peoples. The Irish who collaborated under the Anglos to conquer the West had themselves been forced into Pax Anglo. Same with Negroes. 20% of cowboys were Negroes, and they too warred with Indians. They too had been forced into Pax Anglo. So, spread of civilization is often about the conquered conquering the 'savages' yet to be conquered.
Ethan’s search for Debbie quickly takes on the quality of an obsession.
She is kin, the child of his brother. Also, she's the child of Martha, the woman Ethan loved. He lost Martha to Aaron, his own brother, and he's not about to lose the child of Martha to the Indians. Because she was abducted when young, the real problem is she can be raised to love the Indians. With Lucy, the Indians had to force their lust on her. But with Debbie, she could put out to some brave out of love. That would be the greatest betrayal.
There’s a lot to dislike about Ethan Edwards, but he’s the only man who could have rescued Debbie.
But the rescue is purely accidental, and her survival owes more to Marty. Despite all those years of wandering and searching, Ethan failed to rescue Debbie. He came close to killing her at one point, but Marty stood in his way. The final raid on the Indian Camp wasn't about Debbie. The cavalry was going to attack anyway, and she just happened to be there. And she could have easily gotten killed if the cavalry charged in. After all, plenty of Indian women and children were mowed down by the US cavalry. This is why Marty asks to sneak into the camp prior to the charge. And it is he who kills Scar. It wasn't Ethan's plan, but by this time, he's gained enough respect for Marty, who'd grown into full manhood, to let him have his way.
The central hangup of most critical writing about The Searchers is that Ethan is a “racist,” even a “virulent” one.
There is a virulent quality about Ethan, but what is impassioned among whites is usually called 'rabid' and 'virulent' by Jews. Of course, when Jews exhibit similar passions, those are noble and inspiring. Anyway, calling Ethan a 'racist' in the context of THE SEARCHERS seems pointless. I mean, who isn't a 'racist' in that setting? The movie features a race war between whites and Indians. Every white person in THE SEARCHERS is for the eradication of Indian savages to make way for white communities. Even the North, which abolished slavery in the South, was totally committed to Westward Expansion and the 'genocide' of the Indians. Whether Mr. Futterman the merchant is Jewish or not, plenty of Jewish merchants sold rifles and ammo to cowboys to go kill Indians with. Perhaps, the difference is other whites just do it as a necessary evil whereas Ethan really feels the 'racism' as a kind of all-consuming obsession.
A racist, in the words of Jim Goad, means “a vicious loser who hates people with different continental ancestry . . . merely to compensate for being an inadequate psychopath and to avoid taking responsibility for his own problems.”
There are people like that. Some white supremacist types are indeed the biggest losers. They aren't smart or strong. Their 'racism' is a crutch. They inflate their own egos and put down others to feel better about themselves. But this is true of all groups. Black supremacists tend to exaggerate 'we wuz kangz' BS to compensate for their loserdom in many fields. Now, if 'racism' was meant in this way, it wouldn't be a problem. The real problem is 'racism' now applies to ANY expression of white desire for self-preservation. So, any European nation that doesn't want to be swamped by the Third World is 'far right' and 'white supremacist'. Of course, Jews push this invective, but then, they demand that whites, who must forsake their own blood-and-territorial inheritance, totally support Jewish right of identity, pride, nationhood, and even hegemony over others.
It used to be 'racist' meant a nasty hateful jerk who hated just to hate. Now, a 'racist' is any white person who won't totally grovel before Jews and Negroes. And even if they do grovel, they would still be charged of 'white fragility' or some nonsense. But the fact that so many whites fall for this goes to show they are idiots. It seems white greatness owed to great white elites leading the white masses. Most white people are only good for following like sheeple. Once white elites abandoned their roles as proudly race-ist white rulers/leaders, the white masses just turned to the new Jewish elites for answers, and it's been ever increasing levels of cuckery.
Ethan clearly isn’t a racist in this sense. First of all, he is not ignorant of the Comanches. He knows their language and their myths. He respects them as enemies. He clearly hates them. But he doesn’t hate them because they are merely “different” or because he is a “loser.” He hates them because of their treachery, violence, and cruelty. They butchered his family after raping the women, something they did to countless other white families.
Comanches are a fearsome bunch, but whites are invading Comanche territories. Comanches fight back like the Germanic barbarians did against the Romans. So, even though whites are understandably horrified by Comanche brutality, it's hardly surprising that Comanches would react this way to white encroachment on their ancestral hunting and burial grounds. The thing about Ethan is he's a natural tribalist(though always wandering off into the turfs of other tribes). He feels most comfortable with us-versus-them view of the world. He even feels this way about whites. He surely killed lots of whites in the Civil War and even after the war. As a Southerner, he resented the North telling his kind what they can and can't do. As a white man, he's at war with Indians. As the brother of Aaron, he takes the massacre personally. If the Comanches had spared Aaron and Martha's family and gone after the Jorgensons, Ethan's anger wouldn't have been sufficient to become a 'searcher'. With Ethan, the personal is political and vice versa. The fact that he even fought in Mexico goes to show his main loyalty isn't to country or principles. It's about what feels right to him at the moment.
Critics are also exercised over the fact that Ethan would rather kill Debbie than allow her to stay with the Indians. Surely this is an expression of irrational “racism” and “hate.” But is it?
This is understandable. After all, Marty himself is shocked that Ethan would even dream of such thing. And Ford as storyteller is with Marty though privy to Ethan's motives. It's a variation of 'better dead than red'. It's been a common theme for people to prefer death with dignity than defeat with humiliation. In STAGECOACH, a southern gentleman saves the last bullet for the white woman lest she be taken by the Indians. Indeed, this rule applied to men as well. Better to save the last bullet for yourself than be taken hostage by Indians who might torture you in the most horrible way. In MASADA, the Zealots choose to end their lives than surrender to the Romans. In DOWNFALL, the Goebbels' wife would rather kill her kids than have them grow up as 'slaves' in defeated Germany. Many Japanese committed suicide than accept defeat in the Pacific War. A woman in13TH WARRIOR instructs another to kill the children than have them be taken as captives by the invaders if the defenses were to fail. The black woman in Toni Morrison's BELOVED killed her child than have her grow up as a slave. If white men had abducted an Indian child and raised him to fight on the side of whites against Indians, the boy's Indian father or uncle might have wanted him killed. Better than than have a red man fight for whites and kill fellow Indians.
Still, Ethan's decision to kill Debbie is deeply disturbing because she is wholly innocent. She was taken as a child by the Indians and raised as one. Under the circumstances, she is what she is. To kill her seems over-the-top, more an expression and realization of Ethan's personal rage than anything to do with justice or purpose. (Ethan would want to kill her even if or especially if she found happiness with the Indians.) Debbie's 'betrayal' isn't something she chose. She was acculturated into another world that accepted her as one of its own. It's like what happens to the white kid in THE EMERALD FOREST by John Boorman. He becomes a genuine Noble Savage. Now, in THE SEARCHERS, it's revealed at the end that Debbie never fully gave herself to the Indians. She did grow fond of them and came to regard them as her people, but deep down inside, she still remained true to her real family, like the priest in THE SILENCE(Martin Scorsese) kept the flame alive deep in his heart under captivity in Japan.
The real question about Ethan's decision to kill Debbie is, "Was it more for her sake or his sake?" I think it was more about his feelings, and on that note, it is wrong. It was his rage more than her interests that drove him to such extreme resolve.
Ethan also knows that once Debbie reaches puberty she will be raped. Maybe she will be killed then. Maybe she will be made into a squaw. Ethan would rather die than suffer that fate. He wants to spare Debbie from it. This isn’t racism and hate. It is an act of love in a terrible situation.
No, the rape issue was with Lucy. The problem with Debbie is she will be wed to an Indian. This is worse than rape as far as Ethan is concerned. At least in rape, there is the act of resistance. It's like the scene in THE BIRTH OF A NATION and THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS(by Michael Mann) where white women kill themselves than be taken by the Negro or Indian. White male 'racists' may be outraged by black-on-white rape but they are truly enraged by white-on-black love, aka Jungle Fever. At least the white rape victim resisted the Negro. In contrast, there is white lust and desire for the Negro in jungle fever. A white woman happily surrenders herself to black men. So, as horrible as Lucy's death was, Debbie's acculturation into Indian life seems worse to Ethan. She won't be raped but may 'freely' give herself to some Indian brave she regards as her husband to serve and obey.
Ethan would rather die than suffer such fate? You mean Ethan would rather kill her than suffer the fate of knowing of her 'betrayal'.
Whatever it is, can't it be race-ist and hate and love and honor all rolled into one? Why think in binaries? Ethan hates what has become of Debbie, but that hate exists only because of his love for her. It's often the case that the person you come to hate the most was the one you loved the most. You feel most betrayed when the person you trusted the most turns out the wrong way. The notion that Ethan, in his fit of rage and on the cusp of killing Debbie, was acting out of love is a bit of a stretch. There is love buried somewhere in Ethan's heart but also unhinged rage and hatred. He's not acting rationally based on questions of ethics(in terrible situations) but burning with fury of the moment.
The problem men face with women is twofold. In SEVEN SAMURAI, a woman abducted by bandits feels great shame, and later, face to face with husband, she would rather throw herself into the fire than have him look at her fallen self. (That peasant's rage makes Ethan's seem pale by comparison.) In THE WILD BUNCH however, it's not the case. When Angel asks the village elder if his woman Teresa was molested and taken, the old man says, "No, the bitchass ho ran off with General Mapache who has more blings to give her." Later when Angel encounters Teresa at Mapache's compound, she laughs at him, and he grows so enraged that he kills her. Kurosawa idealized the woman-as-saint, whereas Peckinpah saw women as natural whores, true enough in STRAW DOGS.
Raped by Black Savage or Jungle Fever? Long ago, maybe sex between black male and white female had a good chance of involving rape. Today, most of them are products of jungle fever, and furthermore, it's promoted by Jews and endorsed even by Conservatives and Donald Trump, the friend of Kim Kardashian.
TAXI DRIVER and HARDCORE, both written by Paul Schrader, reveal that the girls ran off on their own and chose to be whores than 'chores' and 'bores' in small town setting. And so many small town girls go to Hollywood and prefer to work as skanks than be stuck in nowhere-ville with the prospect of settling down with Average Joe. Even in PATTI HEARST where a white woman was really kidnapped and raped, she becomes one of the radicals soon enough. Coen Brothers did a variation on this with the porn girl in THE BIG LEBOWSKI:
And it is this question that haunts Ethan. How much of Debbie's 'betrayal' was forced on her and how much of it was voluntary? Is she a mere victim or a willing accomplice with the Indians?
Martin Scorsese was deeply influenced by The Searchers.
True, but his yammering about Ethan-the-'racist' is so sickening in that series he did on the Western. Sometimes, an Irishman would do well to paint his house.
Ford makes Martin Pawley one-eighth Cherokee. He first appears riding a horse bareback, then neatly dismounts while it is still trotting. He’s also late to dinner. Later we see that he is highly emotional and impulsive, although he is still a teenager. When he is a little older, he does not fight “fair” in a fist-fight. All this suggests that he has a bit of Indian wildness in him.
His entrance comes later to accentuate his 'intrusion' into the family setting as preferred by Ethan. The very sight of him triggers Ethan's deep-seated hostility. Ethan's reaction is 'animal', like when a dog instinctively feels wary of another creature. It takes time for Ethan's memory(of having saved Marty) and the family's affection for Marty to ease him back into the family setting. His mind knows that Marty is 'part of the family', but his heart remains wary of him. He feels tolerance but not bond.
As for being emotional and impulsive, those are more Irishy traits than Indian ones, whose stereotype was stone-faced stolidity. It's like Scar speaks in monotones. We learn that Ethan rescued Marty as a baby, and this foreshadows Ethan's rescuing(or sparing) of Debbie at the end. Both 'rescues' have an air of ambivalence. The white-man-side of Ethan didn't particularly care to save a 'half-breed' child, but perhaps the Christian side made him do, though he shunted the kid off to another family than raise him on his own. Likewise, we don't know until the very end what Ethan will do when he gets his hands on Debbie. He doesn't know it either, also the case with revisionist NOAH of Darren Aronofsky's movie that combines the Noah story with that of Abram. In the end, this 'Noah' just couldn't do it. The difference between Marty and Debbie is Ethan's heart wasn't into saving baby Marty but his mind was — he knew it was the right thing to do even though he didn't really care — , whereas with Debbie, his mind is set on killing her but his heart isn't, which is revealed at the end.
When Ethan sees him, he blurts out that he could be mistaken for a half-breed. In truth, he cannot. Played by Jeffrey Hunter, Marty has strikingly handsome Caucasian features
Yeah, Marty is supposed to have distinguishable Indian features. Back then, it was the norm in Hollywood to cast white actors for non-white roles. So, we must go with what Ethan says than what we see.
When Laurie suggests that it might be better for Debbie to die than stay with the Comanches, it is obviously not because she has a horror of miscegenation. Instead, she has a horror of rape.
No, it's more due to her feelings about mixing with savages. She doesn't like the idea of Debbie having Indian babies and living as a squaw-woman. She's high-spirited and proud but not particularly sympathetic. She's a bit vain and selfish, at least to the extent allowed by frontier experience. When Marty rides off to find Debbie, she takes it as personal slight and grievance. She wants Marty's attention on her than on Debbie. In this, she is sort of like Ethan. Both act like the world revolves around their feelings.
The characters of Marty and Laurie bring us to the main faults of The Searchers. They are incredibly annoying: less characters than caricatures. Perhaps these characters could have been saved by good acting, but both Jeffrey Hunter and Vera Miles as Laurie are committed over-actors. Marty is annoyingly whiny and buffoonish, and Laurie tends to be shrill.
I like Marty, but the performance is problematic because the actor was too old for the role, especially in the early years of the search. He acts too boyish for a full-grown man. Also, he plays the most morally and socially/racially complex character in the movie, but Ford wasn't sure whether he wanted Marty to be a comic sidekick or the voice of conscience. Vera Miles on the other hand shines like an apple. Her performance isn't subtle or complicated but from the heart, but Laurie is a simple girl with strong passions and full of spunk. She's a girl blossoming into womanhood, and it is peak Miles. It's a hearty and heartbreaking performance. She is bound by duty and does her chores and more but also defiant and self-centered. Her life revolves around work, but she wants the world, or at least Marty, to revolve around her. She's responsibility and vanity in one tight bundle. Even when she wails at Marty for choosing the search for Debbie over her, she goes through the trouble of retrieving the horse and handing(or hurling) him the rifle.
There is a great deal of childish flirting and bickering. It is often painful. But the worst thing about it is that Ford left nothing to accident. He clearly wanted it exactly this way, which is a terrible lapse of taste.
The problem lies in taking Ford and THE SEARCHERS too seriously. Ford never aspired to be a pure artist, and his movies are essentially folkloric popular entertainments. Much of the appeal owes to the air of familiarity. When you watch a Ford movie, you expect the similar cast of characters. It's like the Irish returning to Ireland to bask in Irishness. Ford's movies feel like 'home', even when set in the Western wilderness. Ford created his universe of characters, and the appeal was to popular and even vulgar taste. Ford wasn't exactly about good taste or sophistication. An average Ford movie was perhaps more complex than the usual Hollywood fare but not by much. His movies weren't Shakespeare or Dostoevsky. And much of THE SEARCHERS has to seen as Family Entertainment. It had nostalgic appeal, especially in the 1950s when Teen Culture was on the rise with the birth of the Cool. There's nothing cool about Ford's movies. When Laurie receives a letter, her parents hardly have any concept of privacy and tell her to read it out loud. It's old-fashioned and homey. Though Ford could be somewhat complex, his movies have to be taken like Norman Rockwell paintings(than Rembrandts). Naturally, they are filled with archetypes and caricatures than three-dimensional characters. THE SEARCHERS is very much the usual Ford fare but something a bit more, as if entertainment has been miscegenated with art into something promising to be wondrous, or monstrous.
terrible possibility that Lucas also copied Luke’s annoying whining from Marty and the juvenile bickering between Luke, Leia, and Han from similar scenes in The Searchers.
That owes more to screwball comedies.
By the end of the film, (Marty) is man enough to defy Ethan then fight off Laurie’s would-be groom, a grinning, drawling buffoon about whom the less said the better.
That 'grinning, drawling buffoon' is wonderful. It's hilarious because he talks like a hee-haw tard but sings like an angel. But the single most memorable character is Old Mose who looks racially ambiguous and is wonderfully goofy. He looks both infantile and senile. Inspired personality and performance. One thing for sure, characters like Old Mose show that the movie was as much bawdy comedy for the unwashed masses as a dark tale of race and redemption for thinking folks.
What happened? Obviously, Ethan has had a change of heart. But it makes perfect sense. He wanted to kill Debbie when she wanted to stay with Scar. But Scar is now dead, his people will be killed or captured, and Debbie has run away from the Comanches. So she has had a change of heart too. Now Ethan can rescue her, so he does. But that was Plan A all along.
No, this is too neat and rational. His murderous feelings toward Debbie went deeper than the problem of her loyalty to the Comanches. She'd been defiled in his eyes and is beyond redemption. Sure, his rage has abated some since his attempt to kill her, but the rage is still there, as Marty noticed many times. (Marty says that whenever Ethan talks about Debbie, his face goes 'red rum, red rum'.) And when Marty sneaks into the Indian camp, it is as much to protect her from Ethan as to save her from Scar. Marty fears that the US cavalry raid might serve as perfect moral cover for Ethan to kill Debbie(as surely some women and children will get killed in the melee). Even to the very end, Marty tries to stop Ethan, and Ethan strikes Marty to the ground and rides off in pursuit of Debbie. It is only when he holds her in his arms that he knows for sure that he won't harm her. It's like John Wayne's character wasn't sure what he was really going to do with Montgomery Clift's character in RED RIVER, an emotional precursor to THE SEARCHERS. On the one hand, Wayne's character vowed to kill the 'traitor', but face to face with the young man, he refuses to shoot him and slugs him instead until he is slugged back... until they make up. This element of THE SEARCHERS has something of 'existentialism'(fashionable at the time). In the end, we cannot sum up Ethan's final decision with recourse to logic, ethics, philosophy. He was torn between killing her and sparing her, and he didn't know what he'd really do until the very end when she was in his arms. In a way, she saves him as much as he saves her. That sense of mystery is what adds power to that scene. It's like the closing line of Scorsese's RAGING BULL. "So, for the second time, [the Pharisees] summoned the man who had been blind and said: 'Speak the truth before God. We know this fellow is a sinner.' 'Whether or not he is a sinner, I do not know.' the man replied. 'All I know is this: once I was blind and now I can see.'
Director Tony Kaye’s anti-skinhead morality tale American History X (1998) is proof that propaganda is far from an exact science. Just as Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket caused a surge in Marine recruitment, American History X actually increases audience sympathies with neo-Nazi skinheads, despite its best efforts to present them as hateful hypocrites and losers.
Art or entertainment takes on a life of its own. Especially in cinema, the visceral elements often override the cautionary tale. This is no less true of art as of propaganda. Martin Scorsese's GOODFELLAS is a work of art, so revealing about the world of Italian-American hoodlums, but the riveting style and wall-to-wall music make it a thrilling experience. Tommy(Joe Pesci), though clearly a loathsome psychopath, is colorful and entertaining. Even as we reject Henry Hill's worldview about 'wiseguys' who live it up and the suckers who work 9 to 5, we can't help reveling in the sheer audacity of the criminal world. John Boorman critiqued this aspect of the film and made a corrective with b/w THE GENERAL that features relatively dour Irish goons. Art can make the 'bad guys' sympathetic or even 'cool'. Entertainment even more so. Audiences LOVED to hate the Terminator(a 'bad boy' as a well as a bad guy), who was made into the 'good guy' in the sequel. Hannibal Lecter the sociopathic killer is admired for his taste & class(unlike the crude and gross 'Buffalo Bill') and superhuman brilliance(which makes him to humans what humans are to sheep). DOWNFALL is a work of art, and it features the Nazis facing doom as all-too-human characters not without qualities of honor and courage.
The audience has a dual attitude toward the Bad Guys. On the one hand, the audience roots for the Good against the Bad. The Good represent the viewers' superego. And yet, they are fascinated by the Bad because it represents their Id, their repressed darker nature. So, fiction narratives serve as a kind of psycho-therapy where the audience is allowed to indulge in their dark fantasies(via the bad guys) but have them snuffed out by the forces of light(the good guys). Have the cake and eat it too. Alfred Hitchcock understood this aspect of art/entertainment, especially in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN where the villain is detestable but also irresistible in his unrestrained egotism. He will stop at nothing to get what he wants. It poses a question as to the true nature of the Good. Is it an innate glow within every soul allowed to radiate or simply a matter of repressing the darkness in every heart? Some believe men are innately good but corrupted by society, whereas others believe men are innately bad(or beastly or animal) and, therefore, what we call 'goodness' is really a matter of repressing and regulating the worse devils of our nature — keeping the birds in the cage because, otherwise, the scenario in Hitchcock's THE BIRDS. Judaism and Christianity say man is tainted with the Original Sin, and goodness is a constant struggle in devotion to the Torah(Judaism) or acceptance of Jesus as the final arbiter and savior.
At any rate, it's misguided to see AMERICAN HISTORY X as failed propaganda. It's better to see it as failed art. If Tony Kaye simply wanted to make a piece of propaganda, he could have gone the route of Alan Parker with MISSISSIPPI BURNING or made something like FRIED GREEN TOMATOES where blacks are aglow with sanctity whereas Southern Whites are mostly semi-neanderthal rednecks. So easy to do. Or, consider all those anti-Muslim movies where Arabs are little more than screaming terrorists who blow things up along with themselves. Making a propaganda about the evils of skinheads would have been the easiest project, especially as even most members of the White Right consider skinheads to be demented morons. (Are skinheads even around any more?) Tony Kaye certainly fancied himself as something more than an entertainer or propagandist. He wanted to rise above the business of advertising(that made his name) and be renowned as an ARTIST, and art has to seek and reveal the truth. Art is simply more demanding than entertainment or propaganda.
Entertainment is usually about sticking to the tried-and-true formula that pleases the audience. Propaganda is about pushing a certain dogma, agenda, or worldview regardless of truth. It's more about faith or interests. Catholic Church pushes pro-Catholic propaganda, corporations push advertising(commercial propaganda) to make profits(though, of late, the PC 'woke' types use ads to push the idolatry of globo-homo and ideology of diversity regardless of their commercial value). In contrast, art calls for an inner struggle. It's like there are two meanings to Jihad. One is a physical war against the infidel. It is Islam as war propaganda. But there is another meaning, a wrestling with one's own soul and conscience to arrive at the higher/deeper truth. A writer or filmmaker working as propagandist merely needs to push his favored agenda/ideology or that of his employer. He's either an activist or hired hand. His main objective is to win the game than to know the truth.
So, if Tony Kaye merely wanted to make a piece of anti-white propaganda, it would have been easy. But Kaye most certainly wanted to work in the mode of an artist, and this pushed him to probe deeper and look further; he chose to consider angles he could easily have avoided as a mere propagandist. It's like Oliver Stone's egotism as an artist has fueled some remarkable works or, at least, remarkable moments. He was never an admirer of Richard Nixon, but he produced an empathetic portrait of the man that only an artist could have delivered. Stone has pro-black sympathies but was artist enough to show the ugly side of black behavior in PLATOON and especially in BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY where the VA hospital run by blacks is a hell hole. He came to sympathize with the communists in the Vietnam War, but he showed how the Viet Cong could also be brutal and atrocious in HEAVEN AND EARTH. Oliver Stone is perfectly capable of being a propagandist, as with the insane JFK, a work so over-the-top and contradictory — a paranoid fantasy made with Capraesque earnestness — that it amounted to little more than tabloid-cinema. Sometimes, Stone couldn't make up his mind whether he was an entertainer/sensationalist or artist/investigator. This was especially true of WALL STREET, supposedly a condemnation of Greed but, to any honest observer, a celebration of unfettered egotism. Who cares about Martin Sheen's wooden symbol of the Honest Working Man when Gordon Gekko steals the show from beginning to end? A work about financial fraud that comes closer to art is Scorsese's THE WOLF OF WALL STREET, though its over-the-top comical tone results in something closer to Animal House + Stock Market. Unlike GOODFELLAS that perfectly set the knob between the alluring and the appalling, THE WOLF OF WALL STREET mostly works as an amusement park for vice. (Also, it is dishonest in de-emphasizing the Jewish aspect of the gang of thieves, indeed far more egregious than the pimp not being black in TAXI DRIVER. It just goes to show, even those committed to art must tiptoe around certain matters in any given order with its sacred cows and taboos. It's been said many artistic-inclined Chinese film-makers chose to make works about the hinterland or non-Han ethnicities due to fewer taboos associated with such subjects. HORSE THIEF is a prime example.) A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is another film where the sheer visceral elements overwhelm the theme. For many viewers, Alex was more like a rock star than lowlife punk, and not surprisingly, Mick Jagger was considered for the role.
Now, the cult of the artist spans from conviction to conceit. Because the artist gets more respect than there mere entertainer or propagandist, many in the business strive to be one, if only for vanity-sake. There's more money in entertainment, but your average film-maker would rather be a Kubrick(or even a Tarantino) than a Michael Bay. Ambition says, it's all about the 'motherfuc*ing money', but vanity says it's about respect, and artists(or at least 'auteurs' like Hitchcock) own the veneration.
No wonder Woody Allen and Steven Spielberg aspired to make 'serious' works as well. Allen wanted to be more than a clown or comic. And for all his movie-making magic as entertainer, Spielberg wanted to be the next David Lean(though some would question Lean's credentials as an artist). But then, is the desire to be an artist a matter of virtue or a matter of vanity? Art comes naturally to some people. Ingmar Bergman and Michelangelo Antonioni were no fakers. Scorsese was born to be an artist. Even as a young man devoted to Catholicism, he wanted more than the official dogma. He had to find his own truth and meaning about God and goodness through through the Mean Streets of life. In contrast, Spielberg was a born entertainer. From a young age, he loved fantasy and escapism, and this accounts as to why even his serious works go only so far. Even when Spielberg dons adult glasses, his heart beats with the rhythms of a child. SCHINDLER'S LIST and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN are artful in their brutal depiction of history but almost childlike in their moralism and sentimentality. It's like watching MR. SCHINDLER GOES TO WASHINGTON and SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS FIGHT THE NAZIS. The violence in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is powerfully authentic and infinitely more brutal than anything featured in the works of John Ford or Sam Fuller, but the emotions are from Norman Rockwell and the Muppet Movie.
There are some people with genuine artistic souls but have an allergy to honesty, or openness. David Mamet is such an artist. He is obsessed with Jewishness but worried about giving the game away with too candid an approach. David Cronenberg is in equal parts natural entertainer and natural artist, but his artistic side shares the same neurosis as Mamet's. He too is obsessively Jewish-centrist but worried that goyim might get the 'wrong idea' if he shows too much. And yet, they turned this limitation into an advantage. They ply their art as games in which the audience must actively participate. Thus, their films are more engaging and provocative. Also, there is plausible deniability as the truth is pieced together by the audience. Mamet and Cronenberg can say the audience came to such-and-such conclusion on their own. In a way, Mamet and Cronenberg are less dishonest than cryptic. Instead of telling lies, they play hide-and-seek, also true to a lesser extent with Stanley Kubrick, especially with THE SHINING. Indeed, one might argue that it is this very hide-and-seek game of clues-about-Jews that make their works more rewarding.
Then, there are fakers posing as artists, and Aaron Sorkin really takes the cake. He has talent, a knack for elevated hackwork. But Sorkin's 'art' is all surface and no substance. His talent is for dressing up propaganda with the look of 'truth', rather like those people who turn plastic into items on the menu. It looks like food but is for the eyes, not the stomach. SOCIAL NETWORK has the look of a serious work about Mark Zuckerberg but is nothing but an apologia for Jewish Power. MARGIN CALL and THE BIG SHORT are similarly phony baloney, 'serious' works for unserious people. Upon closer inspection, they are essentially Jews blaming everyone else for the mess in which they played a prominent role.
On the evidence of AMERICAN HISTORY X, Kaye doesn't seem the out-and-out faker like the Sorkins of the world. Sorkin is actually worse than a honest propagandist who, at the very least, doesn't hide what he's doing. Sorkin, a tribal propagandist in artist's clothing, is a real slimeball who doesn't even have the conceit of an artist. Sorkin operates like Neil Simon in pretense of being another Mamet. He's just a con-man. In contrast, Kaye, though clearly lacking the true conviction of an artist(like Scorsese, Shohei Imamura, Jan Troell, Emir Kusturica, etc.), at the minimum exhibited the conceit of an artist, and that conceit drags him to uncomfortable truths in AMERICAN HISTORY X. Glorifying himself as an artist than mere entertainer or propagandist, Kaye didn't want to fall back on tired PC cliches about 'racism' and skinheads. (Also, it was clever as self-promotion because an overly simplistic movie would have been less controversial, thus less a topic of discussion.) Kaye wanted to show that he at least tried to understand, even empathize. As an artist, he felt an obligation to see the world through eyes of those he loathes. After all, there is good in everyone, and the world isn't made up of angels and demons.
Furthermore, he might have felt that the film would be more convincing and moving if it showed a character struggling to break out of his comfort zone. After all, it's natural for a man in a desert to look for water. He wants to find an oasis. Derek(Edward Norton) feels at home with his skinhead neo-nazi crew. There is a sense of place, a sense of belonging. In a way, they are more his family than his mother is. And yet, Derek must rise above that to attain a higher grace. It's like the final segment of THE LAST TEMPATION OF CHRIST. Jesus on the cross is in a hell of pain and suffering. An 'angel' arrives and offers him respite and relief. Jesus doesn't have to suffer and sacrifice himself for mankind that taunts and jeers at him. He can be a normal Jew with wife and family with a sense of belonging. And yet, at the end, Jesus rejects all that and seeks pain on the cross. Likewise, for AMERICAN HISTORY X to make sense, one must consider its neo-spiritual element. It is a quasi-christian tale told by a Jew. Derek becomes like a christ-figure who must rise above family and race to stand for the higher truth. Now, why would a Jew do that? Was Kaye the Jew encouraging the deracinating aspect of Christianity on whites? Or, is there a hidden/repressed element within the Jew who dreams for the messiah that can bring an end to the tribal conflicts that have marked Jewish existence from the beginning. In a way, the white vs black tensions in the L.A. of the film could be a reflection of the Jewish vs Arab/Palestinian conflicts in the Middle East. Many Jews, like neo-nazi skinheads, are totally tribal and territorial. They are Jewzis, and they see the world in terms of us-versus-them and take pride in that. But there is also a side of Jewishness that is deeply troubled by this seemingly never-ending conflict stemming from Jewishness's us-vs-them worldview. Despite all their wealth and power, Jews are outnumbered, and for how long can they carry on with these tribal wars and dirty tricks? On the one hand, Jews hate Jesus as the great traitor. But on the other hand, Jews can't help feeling that they missed the one great opportunity where Jews and Gentiles could have become one people through salvation offered by Jesus. (The second opportunity was with communism that sought to erase distinctions between Jews and gentiles, as among the classes, but in the end, capitalism won out, and rich Jews chose Zionism uber alles.) In a way, the neo-nazi skinheads in the movie represent the worst nightmare of the Jews, but in another way, they could be metaphors for Jews, the much vilified and hated minority. Indeed, Derek sounds more like a white Zionist than a white nazi at times.
Another thing. AMERICAN HISTORY X offered a convenient way for Jews to express their own angers and doubts about blacks. Because of the political/symbolic alliance between Jews and blacks, most Jews toned down their real feelings about black problems. But many Jews have known all along about the blacks. Howard Stern, the Id of the Jewish Community, spoke of how black thugs attacked Jews. From the 1960s to the early 90s, many Jews were victimized by black crime or just plain loutish behavior. Crown Heights mayhem was fresh in the memory of Jews when the movie was made. And the L.A. riots dampened the mood of the new decade. In the 90s, Al Sharpton was still strutting around and howling about 'diamond merchants', and Louis Farrakhan had his Million Man March. Also, many Jews felt blacks were ingrates, and of course, many blacks felt exploited by rich Jews.
But because of the political alliance, Jews couldn't express their anger about blacks as Jews. So, why not make a movie like AMERICAN HISTORY X that offers a no-holds-barred depiction of blacks as the thugs, louts, hoodlums, and punks that they be? But as the movie is about white skinheads vs blacks, these possibly 'racist' views would be white than Jewish even though Jews shared many of the same fears and loathing about blacks. It's like how Jews used Archie Bunker on ALL IN THE FAMLILY. On the one hand, Bunker was a simple-minded bigot, but then, he also said what was on the minds of older Jews in regards to the boomer generation and the 'shvartzes'. But since goy Bunker said it, Jewish prejudices were laundered as 'white goy' bigotry. This way, Jews could have the cake and eat it too. Air their very Jewish grievances but through goy figures who took the blame. Just like 'privatize the profits, socialize the losses', 'spew Jewish rage, blame goy hate'.
Another black figure who pissed off Jews in the 90s was Spike Lee. While many Jewish critics highly praised DO THE RIGHT THING, others were troubled by such an incendiary film set in a city that seemed to be on the edge. Though DTRT doesn't have Jews, it threatened New York(aka Jew York) with riots and mayhem in the name of black rage. (Black and Jewish relations reached a nadir with Mayor Ed Koch's brazen remarks about black criminals as 'animals'. And there was the matter of Bernie Goetz in the mid-80s and the Central Park assault-rape in 1989, the same year DTRT was released.) No wonder Hollywood went with DRIVING MISS DAISY than DTRT for the Oscars in 1989. Spike Lee didn't improve matters with Jews when he praised Louis Farrakhan and featured Jews as swindlers in MO' BETTER BLUES. In the early 90s, NY Jews had enough of blacks and went with Rudy Giuliani than David Dinkins, the first black mayor of NY. Indeed, there was a reason why Jewish Power favored globo-homo over black interests over the years. Even the presidency of Obama proved a bigger (ba)boon for the 'gay' community. If anything, Jews cleverly used Obama to mute the black community. With a Negro as president, many blacks thought they were winning when all Obama ever did was bend over to Jews and homos and pushed for more mass immigration. At any rate, as long as Obama was the candidate, black vote was overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party, and Jews need not worry. But many black voters stayed home in 2016, and furthermore, Donald Trump was gaining black vote with his anti-immigration-stance and his swagger as the 'first ni**a president'. It was out of this desperation that Jews in 2020 favored BLM over globo-homo to keep blacks reliably on the Democratic side. Another reason why Jews revived black identity politics was out of fear of white populism triggered by Trump and the internet. For Jews, 'America First' and its railings against 'globalism' were code words for 'white people need to break free of Jewish control', and so, Jews decided to ramp up hysteria about 'white supremacism' to suppress white identity and interests. And what better way to attack White Pride than by using the Negro Card because the Narrative have long featured blacks as saintly victims of slavery & Jim Crow and as the Idolatry-Industry have celebrated blacks as top athletes & rappers? But this is now, and things were different then, when AMERICAN HISTORY X was made, a time when many Jews were worried far more about blacks than about whites, most of whom seemed rather restive and apathetic.
Tony Kaye and Spike Lee have one thing in common. The vain desire to be acknowledged as artists(or at least personal 'auteurs'), but when push came to shove, it was more conceit than conviction. DO THE RIGHT THING, for example, has the look and feel of reality but is full of BS on many levels. One scene has every group badmouthing every other group, but in reality, despite all the differences and distrusts among diverse groups, the overwhelming racial tension in NY or any big city is white vs black, brown vs black, yellow vs black, Jewish vs black, Arabs vs black, Hindus vs black, and etc. Even Jews and Arabs get along more peacefully in NY than do Jews with blacks or Arabs with blacks. As with AMERICAN HISTORY X's empathetic treatment of Derek and skinheads, DTRT shows the human side of the Italian-American pizzeria owner and his sons(though it seems calculated than curious). They are not portrayed as simpleminded goombas or knee-jerk 'racists' and have their own rationales. So, their seemingly jaundiced views aren't entirely without reason, and Lee does show just enough of stupid black behavior to justify the prejudice. But when push comes to shove, Lee is a black tribalist first-and-foremost and sides with Buggin' Out and Radio Raheem when they are clearly the instigators of all that goes wrong. Buggin' Out's complaint that the walls of the pizzeria have pictures of Italian-Americans but no blacks makes about as much sense as a white guy complaining that a black man's rib or chicken joint has pictures of famous black bluesmen and sports stars. And yet, Lee in his interview thinks Buggin' Out has a point, which goes to show the kermitty-the-frog-lookalike-mofo is a real idiot. Lee is no Martin Scorsese. Though Italian-American with a deep feeling for his heritage and community, Scorsese cuts no slack for his kind, nor does he round up the narrative with some pat 'message'. Tony Kaye and Spike Lee do understand what it means to an artist, but it never carries over from conceit to conviction. As such, even as so many gritty details in DTRH and AHX ring true, the over-arching narratives and messages are unconvincing.
Derek is highly intelligent and articulate. He is also a natural leader. With Cameron’s help, he builds up a serious and well-organized skinhead gang.
It's possible that an intelligent man of some talent could be drawn to a movement of such idiocy. People naturally gravitate toward community, and if the only white-conscious one happens to be extreme, what choice is there? Also, it's easy to tower over idiots, which makes Derek's natural leadership qualities even more compelling. Still, more interesting would be a story about a white-conscious community that isn't extreme or deranged. It's like what Aldous Huxley said in BRAVE NEW WORLD REVISITED: The satire in BRAVE NEW WORLD offered only two extremes, savage authenticity and bogus artificiality with nothing in between. Likewise, movies about white identity tend to offer only two possibilities: 'Anti-racism' and radical racism, as if there's nothing in between. But the example of David Duke shows how white people can overcome this. Duke joined the KKK and dabbled in Neo-Nazism as a young man because he found nothing white-and-proud out there, but he later formulated a new movement of white identity/interests that paved a course generally free of Neo-Nazis and the KKK. And the saner elements of the Alt Right also represented this path. There are also Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald. And yet, in the popular imagination, if you aren't a self-loathing white 'gulliberal' who waves BLM and sucks up to Jews, you must be a 'white supremacist', a KKK, a neo-nazi! And AMERICAN HISTORY X, despite its somewhat humanizing portrait of skinheads, falls into the same trap. There is no in-between option, no rational course that balances white identity/interests with respect for other groups. Rather, white identity must be synonymous with racial extremism. It's like serving a menu where the soup comes icy cold or boiling hot but never warm. Goldilocks option is denied to whites. Unless whites are total self-loathing maggots, aka 'gulliberals' or 'cuckservatives', they are total 'white supremacists'. Sadly, many on the Dissident Right have internalized this dynamics and feel they must go 14/88 to be authentic as proud white folks when, if anything, they've fallen into the Jewish Trap of either/or for whites.
Derek refers to Murray as a “Kabbala-reading motherfucker” and reveals a huge swastika tattoo which he says means “not welcome.”
I wonder if the scene was alluding to the dinner in THE HEARTBREAK KID where the Jewish guy talks about honesty of the cauliflower. It's a powerful scene, and the hurt in Elliott Gould's character is convincing enough. He could be a nice guy, but Derek, so consumed with a race-war worldview, can only see him as The Jew, the enemy. Chances are the man never read the Kabbalah and happens to be a milquetoast secular Jew. And yet, there's a certain truth to Derek's attitude as well. Even though he, his mother, and the Jewish guy all share in the generic Americanism, there is a vast gulf at the deeper level, especially because Jews do have roots whereas most whites don't. Derek seeks to reconnect with roots but sadly connects with poisoned ones. To his mother, the Jewish guy is just another date. And on some level, he is just that, an American who happens to be Jewish. And yet, even regular Jews are somehow different in their deeper sense of heritage and loyalty, in their stronger sense of grievance. So, in some ways, Derek knows the Jew better than the Jew knows himself. Derek knows that, when push comes to shove, even regular all-American Jews are Jews first and American second. And yet, Derek isn't fully honest about his feelings because, apart from the real animus, there is a certain envy. After all, if whites had a similar sense of roots and heritage, they would not have lost to the Jews. When Jews came to America, they remained Jews first, Americans second; they kept with their deep loyalty. When white Europeans came to America, they became Americans first, Europeans second(or none at all). Jews didn't abandon their Old World ties, white Americans did. But then, European betrayal goes back to the adoption of Christianity. For a Jew to be Jewish means to preserve heritage, memory, identity, and loyalty. For a European to be Christian meant thje rejection of indigenous cultures in favor of a cult of a Jew as Messiah. Furthermore, to be Christian means a white Christian must regard a black Christian, brown Christian, and yellow Christian as more his brother than a white pagan is. Thus, Christianity was the first Americanism that made Europeans reject their own for something Other.
This is why E. Michael Jones and people like Nick Fuentes are foolish to cling to Christianity as the source of Western identity and pride. While a proud white person can be Christian, Christianity must be treated as one's personal ideology than core identity. It's a matter of creed, not breed. Jewishness in contrast is creed wedded to breed. E. Michael Jones faults the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, and Kevin MacDonald finds problems with the Jewish Culture of Critique, but the problem is less that Jews have them than that goyim lack them, or at least they lack them as their own. Without revolutionary spirit, there is stagnation. Without the culture of critique, there is only dogma and conformism. The problem for the white race isn't the Revolutionary Spirit and Culture of Critique per se but that they've outsourced them to Jews. Furthermore, is it even true that Jews are somehow unique in this revolutionary spirit? Didn't the Christian West try to revolutionize the whole world by spreading the Gospel to every corner of the planet? If Christianity is anti-revolutionary, why didn't it leave other peoples and cultures alone? Why introduce the Faith into non-Christian lands and try to turn the culture and values upside down? Long before Jews became communists and other kinds of radicals, Christianity in the West and then across the Non-West spread spiritual and social revolutions of far-reaching consequence. Furthermore, perhaps the revolutionary spirit owes more to certain factors in Northern Europe that made both Christians and Jews more bold, restless, aggressive, and impatient. After all, most Christian orders in North Africa and Near East were ultra-conservative and stagnant. And most Jews in the Middle East were hardly like the firebrands Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky. The real revolutionary spirit took off in Western Europe, especially in Northern Italy, France, Germany, and southern Britain.
Since the purpose of this film is to warn us against Derek’s ideas, one wonders what director Kaye and screenwriter David McKenna were thinking.
Yes and no. The film isn't merely an indictment of white 'racist' extremism but of the social conditions that make it fester and grow. To the film's credit, it doesn't shy away from the harsh realities that drive white kids into forming their own gangs. While the message is against white 'racism', it has the courage to admit that hatred doesn't exist in a vacuum. In a world of black and brown tribalism, whites have no choice but to band together, though whites in the film do it in a self-destructive way, though not as much as the fellas in ROMPER STOMPER. Trevor Lynch is being disingenuous in pretending that Kaye set out to make a simpleminded anti-white and 'anti-racist' propaganda and only accidentally stumbled on some inconvenient truths. No, Kaye set out to make an 'anti-racist' work of art, but the truths dredged up by artistic commitment didn't sit well with the favored narrative. This has long been a problem with scholars who are at once committed to truth and ideology. David Puttnam who wrote BOWLING ALONE set out to gather facts in support of Diversity but arrived at the opposite conclusion, which was painful for him. He was scholar enough to admit his thesis was disproven but ideologue enough to have written another book expressing the hope that Diversity could somehow work. But then, as reality never fully jibes with any single worldview or ideology, there is always bound to be some degree of conflict between what one believes and what one sees(if he has any interest in the truth).
Thus, AMERICAN HISTORY X is partly right, partly wrong. It's true that far-right neo-nazi types of movements in the West have been toxic, useless, and self-destructive. And yet, the film falters in posing only two possibilities: Far-right extremism and wishful hope in the Dream. But why should it be so? It's like there is a middle course between militarism and pacifism, and one doesn't have to be a total hawk or a total dove. In a way, this whole left-vs-right discourse has poisoned the blood politics. The great promise of fascism was the left and right could be fused together constructively, and the early successes of National Socialism were a testament to that. But Adolf Hitler's radical racism destroyed the future.
However, if they are going to present Derek as fearsomely intelligent, then they need to match him with a more capable opponent, and they don’t. This means that Derek Vinyard can win any fair debate, which matters to some movie watchers.
Edward Norton seems to be very smart(though also overly eccentric), but is Derek really fearsomely intelligent? Or does he seem highly intelligent in contrast to the morons he hangs with? Even a hill seems pretty high in the plains. Derek is certainly far above average in IQ, but he doesn't seem to be a genius. And if indeed he was truly smart, he would have seen through the problems of Neo-Nazism on his own. Derek is smart but not smart enough to avoid falling into his own traps of ideological fanaticism and dogmatism. In becoming so hardline based on his rage, he creates his own stupidity instead of advancing an alternative and superior ideology and worldview that rejects both naive Liberalism(& spineless 'conservatism') and far-right nuttery that attracts losers and ne'er-do-wells. In a way, he seems drawn to the skinhead world because he wants dominance, and it's easy to be a lion among hyenas. If you want to serve, you seek out the superior. If you want to lead, you seek out the inferior. Being the all-too-rare smart 'white nationalist' has gotten to his ego. But worst of all, he doesn't just adopt an extreme ideology but an extremely demented lifestyle of ugliness and degeneracy. In this, the skinheads weren't much different from Antifa, a bunch of druggies and degenerates.
Brooks(Sweeney_ has made a career reading lines in his resonant, well-modulated black man’s voice. But he doesn’t come off as particularly intelligent. Derek’s father Dennis dismisses Sweeney’s pontificating as “nigger bullshit,” impressive only to the witless and gullible. When Sweeney actually argues against Derek, it turns out that dad was right. Sweeney’s arguments are terrible.
Negro Sweeney may be a silly-ass jiver, but what makes a teacher special isn't necessarily his beliefs but his willingness to engage his students, encourage discussion, and provoke argument. So, the reason why Derek is impressed by Sweeney may have less to do with the Negro's brilliance(real or not) but his willingness to at least have a conversation with the 'enemy' that calls him a 'ni**er' behind his back. Today, so many Negroes want the 'conversation' to be monologues. Sweeney, at the very least, is willing to listen to 'racists'.
But Derek is a bit abrasive and autistic about “principles.” The Aryans tire of Derek’s preaching, so one day, their leader forcibly sodomizes him in the shower. This leads Derek to change his whole worldview. But that is just dumb and out of character. Derek keeps getting himself into trouble because he is a stickler for principles.
It's not just about principles but about authority. Prior to his prison term, Derek was always the alpha, and others looked up to him. Being part of the skinhead gang wasn't just about 'principles' but the pride of princehood. Derek spoke, others listened. He gave orders, others followed. They were his disciples. He felt he had the White Pride movement in the palm of his hand. No one among his peers dared to give him lip. He was the head wolf within the pack. In prison, he continues to see himself as the natural leader, and other whites should look up to him. But he realizes that guys in prison are harder, tougher, older. They are seasoned veterans of thuggery and criminality. If Derek went to prison for over-zealous behavior while foiling a crime, other 'Aryans' are probably there for brazen criminal acts. Derek was a leader of boys and girls on the outside, but he's faced with real men inside the prison. And when he begins to look down on the 'Aryans' as unworthy of his attention, others feel offended and put him in his place. He is ironically made the 'bitch' by fellow whites.
But nothing that has happened challenges his basic principles. Lamont proves only that every group has likable outliers... As for the Aryans: they are not supposed to sell drugs and rape one another. But is it realistic to expect sterling characters in prison? Besides, when people betray their principles, couldn’t that be because the people are bad, not the principles?
All very true, but we have to remember that Derek is an extremist with hardcore view of the races. It all depends on one's starting point. Reality allows for outliers and variances, but Derek developed a fanatical view of the world where whites are his brothers and non-whites are his enemies, pure and simple. Derek began to reject Political Correctness because he came to notice reality for what it was — lots of blacks are scum, and white people have grievances too — , but then he went far beyond noticing reality by creating his own fantastic worldview based on the iron laws of race. He didn't go from social naivete to principled commitment to reality but to a rather delusional iron law of the Aryans vs everyone else, especially the Jews and blacks. And for that reason, it is plausible that he is disillusioned by the behavior of the 'Aryans' in prison and grateful for the Nice Negro. Derek got to hating blacks so much that he was unwilling to admit that not all Negroes are insane bunners. Also, Lamont, buffoonish as he is, shows that decency isn't really about learning, intelligence, or highfalutin stuff; it's about people connecting on the level of openness and friendship. So, it's not really about 'basketball and pussy' but about being honest and forthright. It's like Zorba the Greek isn't a learned man but wise in instinct. Of course, contra Zorba's argument, it's much easier to see the good-or-bad in a man when peoples have their own nations. It's true that Greeks shouldn't hate all Turks, and vice versa, but it's good for Greeks to have Greece and good for Turks to have Turkey. Nationalism(minus imperialism) is the best means by which people can judge others by their character than skin color or ethnicity. After all, a Greek in Greece feels secure and need not worry about extinction of his people, culture, and land. Greeks and Turks once butchered one another because of the insecurities and anxieties created by the Ottoman Empire.
...it is merely a shaming tactic to liken complaints about white dispossession to blacks blaming the white man for their own failings. It might appeal to an older generation of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” conservatives, but Derek would see through it. What matters is the question of truth. White dispossession is real. The solution is not to “try harder” in a rigged system but to change the system. Blacks who still fail in a system of objective black privilege can’t blame the system for that. They can only blame themselves.
Not quite. Sweeney is different from most Negroes who only blame whitey(with encouragement from Jews). Sweeney is saying it's not enough for blacks to blame everything on white because of 'muh history'. Blacks as individuals must examine their own behavior and ask what they've done to make the world a better or worse place. And this rule should apply to whites as well. While Derek is right about the social problems caused by blacks and non-whites, his solutions have been lousy. Adopting extremist views, turning hate into a virtue, and reducing the world into a Manicheanism hasn't done anything for him or his crew. Derek's extremism made him blind to even the good things about other races while blinding him to the failures among his own kind.
After all, Derek didn't suffer merely for his ideas. He's not a saintly martyr. He made his own life miserable by adopting a cartoonish view of the world where it all boils down to heroic skinheads vs everyone else. Blacks and Jews didn't make him get a stupid Swastika tattoo on his chest. With his smarts and ability, he could have served his race in more constructive ways, but he chose the lifestyle of a skinhead lout, and this rubs off badly on his younger brother. For all his superior intelligence and leadership qualities, he didn't try to elevate his racial comrades but descended to their level of crude thuggery. Ironically, skinheads are totally 'whigger' material.
...when Sweeney chooses to focus on his individual life rather than questions of social justice, this is not moving from the “wrong questions” to the “right questions.” ...focusing on your own life doesn’t make social problems disappear. It simply distracts you from noticing them. Individualism is just escapism. It is a form of cowardice.
I don't think Sweeney is arguing for individualism. He's not saying focusing on one's individual issues will make larger problems go away. Rather, a better world begins with yourself. So, even if one has a generally low opinion of blacks, it simply wouldn't do to act like a lout and blame the world for it. There are too many things that Derek and his mates do that are self-destructive. And this was certainly true of the Alt Right. True, Jewish Power has done everything it could to destroy white identity and interests, BUT did Richard Spencer and Co. have to indulge in drugs and alcohol and act like louts? Did they have to get together and give Hitler salutes while screaming Sieg Heil? Did Spencer have to mess up his marriage in the most spectacular way? Did Matt Heimbach have to boff his mother-in-law and beat up his father-in-law? What was that? Jerry Springer hour? Does Chris Cantwell have to be a cantaloupe-head? Hating 'ni**ers' is one thing; must so many white-nats act like 'whiggers'? Especially when Jews are out to get you and smear you as a 'white supremacist neo-nazi', how about not acting like cartoonish clowns? If Jews use the rain machine to make you wet, the last thing you want to do is break your own umbrella. But that's just what Spencer, Heimbach, and Cantwell did.
Jordan Peterson, goofy guy that he is, did have a good point about making-your-own-bed. The world has lots of problems, and they won't go away however a good person you try to be on the individual level. That said, making the world a little better has to begin with you. If the world is full of lies, you-as-individual must stop telling lies. Derek was right about the rottenness of race relations in the US, but he made things worse by not only regarding others as crude stereotypes but becoming a crude stereotype, as if to confirm the propaganda of SPLC: "Look, they are nazis!" The best way to combat Jewish supremacism is not to embrace white supremacism but to reject all forms of supremacism and call for a limited nationalism for all peoples.
The movie explains this miracle with a ridiculous deus ex machina: the spindly black buffoon Lamont somehow has enough credibility with the various prison gangs to “protect” Derek.
This is actually far more plausible than people might think. Having been around plenty of Jews and blacks, I know how they think and operate. Blacks are not only about thuggery and apelike behavior, though there's plenty of that. There's a scene in DO THE RIGHT THING where the usually unpleasant Radio Raheem has a soft spot for Mookie(played by Lee). And Mike Tyson, the lout and thug that he is, could break down in tears thinking of Cus D'Amato. So, it's possible that Lamont, a much-liked figure among the blacks, could have asked for favors among the brothas who, out of favor to him, left the white boy alone. Unlikely but far from implausible. It's like the scene in THE KILLING FIELDS where the skilled pleading by Dith Pran with the Khmer Rouge leads to Sydney Schanberg being spared. Things like that do happen. Negroes are craaaazy, but if you know their psychology and treat them like children-who-are-bigger-and-stronger-than-you, you can get along. It's like the meanest nastiest black biatch will melt in your hands if you tell her how she looks so lovely in that weave, shoo. They suddenly go from crazy gorilless to happy gorilless.
Danny gets in trouble when he writes a paper on Mein Kampf for the civil rights portion of Murray’s class on American history.
That is the funniest thing in the movie.
Once Derek is paroled, he does not want to get back into the gang. Instead he wants to get Danny out of it. This is irrational. Derek killed two Crips. They will be seeking revenge. He has a better chance if he has the gang behind him. If he really wants to extract Danny and break with the gang, then he needs to be diplomatic about it.
He did try to be diplomatic and walk away on friendly terms, but things fell apart. The problem is it's not easy to bid farewell to a lifestyle like that. It's like the system keeps calling Deckard back to be blade runner. It's hard to walk away from gang life. It's like a family, a brotherhood. Also, the gang hero-worships him and has no clue as to his transformation in prison. As for the crips being out to get him, if they really were they would have gotten him in jail. Crips, lowlifes that they are, know that Derek didn't kill the blacks in a gang war but in a foiled robbery. It's like the mafia make a distinction between 'business' and 'personal'. Negroes are like that too. Also, it's not about being rational or irrational but being sensible. Derek has walked away from that life; he's outgrown it, much like Mark Wahlberg folded his career as a rapper. His priority is to save his younger brother from the lifestyle, and he knows they must go Cold Turkey. It's like when Lawrence of Arabia finally calls it quits, it's total and absolute. He's no longer a fellow Arab but a British soldier back on duty.
Also, whatever one thinks of Sweeney, he didn't have to do what he did. But he did it for someone who hates blacks because he believes that, on some level, there is something better inside Derek. So, on that personal level, he owes something to Sweeney who went the extra mile for an enemy. In a way, it's like the reverse situation of RIDE WITH THE DEVIL. Why does the black guy ride and fight alongside the Confederates even though it's the North that promises freedom for blacks? Because the Negro's master, unlike typical white Southerners, has set him free and treats him as a dear friend. On the personal level, the Negro feel indebted to him even though he would rather be on the other side. Rationally, the Negro should use the first opportunity to run and join the Northern side, but his sense of personal indebtedness to his master/buddy keeps him fighting for the South. He is both grateful and bitter. Their bond of friendship is also like a bondage. And Derek feels similarly about Sweeney. Much of human nature is personal, not rational. Consider the sentimentalism that affects even the Dissident Right, especially among the boomer types. Why are they so incapable of naming the Jew?
Also, Derek's transformation is a testament to the power of pain. What finally breaks Cool Hand Luke in the end? The grueling agony. He simply couldn't take it anymore. Likewise, Derek's transformation owes as much to pain & fear as to better understanding. Thus, it is both noble and ignoble. Through prison experience, he did become wiser and more broadminded. But he also became more fearful and desperate. But then, so many choices we make are not pure but compromised, a blend of courage and cravenness. Take Puyi in THE LAST EMPEROR. He really did change but under considerable duress. The story of Jesus is an outlier because He didn't cave to the pain.
...Danny’s bloody murder in a school bathroom by a Crip. Again, I am not sure what the filmmakers were thinking, but this conclusion does not support their anti-“hate” agenda.
The ending would indicate that AMERICAN HISTORY X is not a simple anti-hate message. It is disturbed by the radical politics of hate but is aware that hate is not a one-way street. There is plenty of black hostility and thuggery. Why not give the film its due in addressing this truth instead of being so incredulous that a propaganda movie subverts its own message? While the film isn't entirely truthful and invokes certain PC shibboleths, it has just enough courage and daring to break free of ideological dogma.
Tragedy of history is that sentiments are rarely in sync. Jean Renoir made THE GRAND ILLUSION as remembrance of the tragedy that was the Great War and as warning against another such conflagration, but Nazi Germany banned the film and embarked on war-footing. So many in UK and France didn't want war, but Hitler regarded their decency or moderation as weakness. Likewise, so many whites wanted to bury the hatchet and be nice to Jews following WWII, but Jews decided to destroy the white race. Sentiments out of sync in history.
AMERICAN HISTORY X ends on a note of tragedy. Derek really did change and tried to turn his brother around, but the immediate world remained as it is, with sun rising in the east and setting in the west. It was the hard lesson learned by the lord in Akira Kuroawa's RAN. As an old man, he'd seen enough battles & bloodbath and wanted to retire peacefully in an orderly world, but war was still raging in the hearts of man. In EXCALIBUR, Uther wants to call it quits and settle down. He's 'weary of battle', but his enemies are ready for more. The ending of AMERICAN HISTORY X is well aware of this ironic tragedy, and it was intentional. It's like when the sun is in the east, the west is dark, and when the sun is in the west, the east is dark. Rarely are humanity and history in sync. The film ought to be lauded for the courage to end that way.
Derek bears some responsibility for his brother’s death: not for exposing him to “hate” but for pulling him out of the gang. As a member of the gang, Danny enjoyed some protection, because the Crips knew that attacking him would lead to retaliation.
Being a member of a gang is a double-edged sword. It can mean protection by your buddies, but it can also mean carrying a target on your back. Notice how blacks who joined the Bloods or Crips had a higher chance of getting killed than blacks who didn't. Same with Mexican gangs. Some may join as a survival strategy, but chances are it will reduce their chances of survival as gang life is about guns and knives, like in WEST SIDE STORY.
Memory will not heal the divisions between blacks and whites in America, because there was no common community before slavery. There is enmity all the way down. Memory only polarizes race relations in America, which in turn polarizes whites against each other.
It all depends on who controls the memory. When proud whites controlled American Historical Memory, there was something for everyone. Anglos and Europeans deserved respect for having conquered and settled North America, creating a great new nation. But American Indians were ennobled in time as brave and worthy warriors who'd put up a courageous war against the white man. Cowboy and Indians were both honored. Black American experience was recognized as one of slavery, struggle, resilience, and color. And yet, White South was also admired for its loyalty, courage in battle, honor code, and its rich heritage. Every group got its due. But then, Jews came along and took control of the Memory and Narrative; the result has been total sacralization of the Negroes and total vilification of whitey, especially Southern whitey.
True, even with white control of memory, blacks were bound to be problematic due to evolution. Having evolved for 100,000s of years in wild Africa teeming with gorillas, rhinos, elephants, hyenas, lions, hippos, cape buffalos, leopards, and wild hogs, blacks evolved to be tough, fast, strong, nasty, wild, and crazy. Black women emphasized butt-shaking, and black men emphasized dong-swinging, and that's why black culture is mostly about the beat and beating up people. What were whites thinking when they imported so many of these black savages? But because blacks were so tough, they could be made to pick lots of cotton and carry big bales on their shoulders. Going was good for whites as long as it lasted.
Even though whites and blacks came to co-exist only relatively recently, there is a strong bond between whites and blacks because whites are so into black-derived music, so admiring of black athleticism, and so into black-buns-and-dongs. White race is into serious jungle fever. Just consider: Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, and etc. are all Slavs, but are Poles into Russian culture, are Russians into Polish culture, are Czechs into Serbian culture, are Serbs into Slovak culture? Chances are NO. But I'll bet they're all into rap music and 'twerking'. Or consider Japan, China, and S. Korea. They are all East Asian, but the chances are they don't much care about one another's cultures or histories BUT they are all into worshiping NBA Negroes and imitating rap music. What do UK, France, Holland, Poland, and Germany have in common? Jungle Fever. So, even though whites and blacks are racially different and even though many whites(including 'liberals') don't want to live with lots of Negroes, so many whites, cons and libs, are enamored of the rambunctious Negro. UK cheers for black athletes, France cheers for black athletes, Holland cheers for black athletes, and etc. Because blacks are so good at sports & hollering and because they excite whites with buns & dongs, whites have come to idolize blacks as the magical race, and this idolatry is what most whites have in common across entire continents. An Armenian may know almost nothing about Belgium, and a Belgian may know nothing about Armenia, but the chances are both are into worshiping Negro athletes and shaking their butts to rap music. What does a white Parisian have in common with a white Texan? They are both into black sports and black music. And they both celebrate ACOWW or Afro-Colonization-of-White-Wombs.
The most likely hypothesis is that the filmmakers were just smug. They thought that Derek’s views are self-evidently evil and that their own views are self-evidently good.
Or maybe Trevor Lynch is being a bit smug in thinking the Jewish Tony Kaye simply had no art in him and only propaganda in mind. Rather than seeing AMERICAN HISTORY X as failed propaganda, it makes more sense to see it as failed art. Like some of John Sayles films, it is willing to go further and dig deeper than your average Hollywood movie, BUT it doesn't go quite far enough and falls back on one too many time-worn formulas to fill in the gaps. Thus, it doesn't quite make it as art(which would be something like MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE), but the effort, even if half-hearted, is there.
Now, a failed work of propaganda would be Sam Fuller's ludicrous WHITE DOG that doesn't make sense even on its own grounds.
