Indeed, most of Hollywood’s leading Western and cowboy actors have been politically conservative, and quite a few have been Southerners.
But actors serve the story, and a good number of writers for Westerns were Liberals and even Leftists. Gary Cooper may have been conservative, but his role in HIGH NOON was written by Liberals. Not uncommonly, the directors were conservative but the writers were leftist. Unless the director is 'auteur' enough to rework the material, he will be realizing the vision of his ideological opposite. Of course, the ideology was only implied in many such Westerns. A story of white injustice against the Indians could be a sly dig at the mistreatment of blacks.
Also, we need to keep in mind that, as Paul Gottfried noted, leftism in them days was not what goes by its name these days. Leftists back then dealt with real issues. Maybe their solutions were misguided or misconceived, but they addressed real world problems faced by real people.
Today, most of what goes by 'leftism' is mindless capitalist celebration of globo-homo vanity, which has NOTHING to do with classic leftism. Globo-Homo, like much of what falls into the category of 'wokeness', is about neo-aristo egomania of narcissistic homos and even trannies. It is also a proxy of ultra-rightist Jewish Supremacism. Jews seek to kill two birds with one stone: Kill both classic leftism and white pride. Jews now hate classic leftism that strove for equal justice for all. Jews don't want equal treatment for Palestinians and white goyim. Jews want to lord over them as cattle. So, Jews have no use for classic leftism, which also happens to be anti-capitalist. Why would Jews want radical socialism when they got the most money?
One may say there's a strain of leftism in BLM & 1619 because blacks are socio-economically poorer, therefore 'equity' is about making things fairer or more equal between blacks and whites(and non-blacks). But this too is bogus. BLM is about ultra-right black supremacism. It's about howling about injustice even when some lowlife black thug is justifiably killed by the police while all the hapless victims of black thugs are totally ignored by the media. There is no equal justice in BLM. It's about blacks being given carte blanche to do as they please. Blacks can carry out massive pogroms and burn down cities and loot, but BLM tells us to pretend it's not happening(or to be justified as 'social revolution'). And even though there's all this hair-pulling about black under-representation in various fields, it's perfectly fine for blacks to be over-represented in pop music, sports, and government jobs.
BLM got so much traction because ultra-right Jewish supremacists find blacks useful to guilt-bait whites. That's it. If Jews really cared about equal justice for all, why do they shut down BDS? If anything, what Palestinians face in West Bank is 1000x worse than what blacks face in the US. If anything, blacks are the one who prey on non-blacks. And, virtually every black killed by the police deserved to die as they not only resisted arrest but did so violently. Like black-on-white violence is tolerated and even justified, US power looks the other way while Zionist settler-invaders continue to take land from Palestinians in West Bank. And IDF, the Israel Death Squad, is given leeway to mow Palestinians down like animals.
So, how about dropping the BS of calling the other side the 'left'? Firstly, today's 'left' isn't the real left. Furthermore, the left did its share of creating the Modern West. After all, the default position of civilizations throughout history was conservatism, i.e. to preserve the existing power system. Then, what set the West apart from the Rest. Unlike the Rest that was mired only in conservatism, the West broke free with a new spirit of progress, change, and even revolution(at times). These energies, growing in the West from the Renaissance onward, culminated in the French Revolution where leftism got overly radical and bloody. The lesson from the whole affair was one cannot change the world overnight, as Edmund Burke explained. Burke, by the way, was a gradualist liberal, not a conservative. He only seemed conservative relative to the hot-blooded French radicals. He was actually on the side of change and progress.
This is what set the West from the Rest that only knew conservatism. Now, there is great value in conservatism because civilization, even in 'liberal democracies', must be 90% conservative in its daily operations. Even if a society is open to new things, most of what it does must be familiar and established. When you order a hamburger, you don't want to be served an experiment every time. Also, there is a great heritage in the conservation of arts, culture, philosophy, history, and spirituality. Non-Western history is proof that the concept of progress and revolution aren't integral to the rise of great civilizations. Persia, India, China, and etc. were great civilizations without the cult of progress or revolutionary fire. But it was Western Modernity that brought mankind to new heights and even sent men to the Moon, and that adventurous spirit of curiosity and daring couldn't have come from conservatism alone.
And the Western genre's appeal is as much liberal as conservative. There is surely the timeless themes of heroism and good vs evil, but there is also the thrill of breaking free, being adventurous, taking risks, and trying new things in a new land. The conservative person is more likely to stick close to home, with familiar sights and sounds. The liberal person is more likely to venture to new places, even if it means never seeing home again, which is largely the story of American Immigration. How many Americans have gone back to visit their ancestral homelands?
The very nature of the Western sub-genre has had a significant influence in attracting certain types of actors to it. Westerns traditionally expressed the purest form of “good vs. evil.” Even in the more conflicted, morally blurred years of the later 1960s and 1970s, the few Westerns that were made seemed to never lose sight of that essential conflict.
Most Westerns are not about good vs evil. That would be THE EXORCIST where noble priests battle the Devil that makes a girl masturbate and puke too much. The Southern is also about good vs evil: Rednecks are totally evil, Negroes are totally good. Certain war movies, especially with Nazis, are about good vs evil. The Germans weren't always featured as monsters in movies like THE YOUNG LIONS, ENEMY BELOW, PATTON, and CROSS OF IRON, but they increasingly became Evil Incarnate as Jewish Power grew more confident in Hollywood.
The Western would lose part of its appeal if it were about Good vs Evil. For the Western to work, the good guys need rough edges, and the bad guys must have some appeal, if only to tempt us — after all, the outlaw embodies the freedom of the Wild West more than the lawman does; indeed, many Westerns are about the lawman figuratively killing himself by killing the outlaw, the death of whom no longer requires the lawman's tough guy ways.
For the Western to really work, good guys mustn't be goody-two-shoes, and bad guys must have a certain 'bad boy' allure — it's like how Leonard DiCaprio's role as heavy in ONCE UPON A TIME... IN HOLLYWOOD spices up the TV Western episode. So, even though Jack Palance casts a dark shadow in SHANE, he sure is magnificent. And James Stewart in Anthony Mann Westerns is a troubled figure. And Budd Boetticher's Westerns have the Randolph Scott character partnering for long stretches with questionable types who we aren't sure will turn out 'good' or 'bad', a kind of existential element to take shape in the journey. Shane is as much fighting his inner demons as the ranchers; he too was a hired killer. And THE SEARCHERS is riveting not only for its action-adventure but the inner turmoil of Ethan(John Wayne).
Still, many Westerns are indeed about Good Guys vs Bad Guys, and it's almost always about the Good prevailing over the Bad. However, this poses a moral dilemma for the genre. The triumph of the Good over the Bad in the Western is decided by a Single Factor: Which side has more guns and/or which side has the quicker draw. It's a matter of skill and luck, but where's the guarantee that the Good will always be better with the gun than the Bad? After all, chance is 50/50, heads half the time, tails half the time. So, logic would dictate that the Bad would win at least half the time in the Western.
But the Good or the Better almost always wins. It's as if the Good plays with a loaded dice or has an Ace up its sleeve. It has to be 'cheating' in the game of chance. We must believe that chance favors the Good like some cosmic force looking out for Forrest Gump(or Simple Jack) because he is so very good.
But, that's a childish fantasy like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. If anything, the Bad should have the edge because bad types are more likely to gained experience with guns. Also, the good has more on its mind. It's like conscience sometimes gets in the way of Superman in Part II against the villains who have zero inhibitions in their fight. And, even if the Bad Guy loses, it's not the end of the world for badness because anarchy and chaos are the natural state of the world. Badness will always threaten society. But if the Good Guy loses, it feels like the End of the World because most good folks are rather timid and cowardly; they are more like herbivores than carnivores. So, if the tough Good Guy falls to the tough Bad Guys, most good folks will be like sheep without the sheep dog to protect them from wolves and coyotes. Bad is bold and aggressive. But goodness is mostly peaceable and wimpy, and it is the rare person who is both Good and Tough. So, the loss of the Good Tough guy is incalculable.
And yet, in all these Westerns, the Good almost always wins over the Bad. The Western is about tough guys, wilderness, and frontier, but it pushes a reassuring morality fairytale where
the Good will somehow come out on top because, for reasons unknown, it reliably manages to outdraw the Bad in the final showdown.
But then, how reassuring is a moral universe where good vs bad is decided by trigger fingers? Imagine if the fate of social morality, good or bad, hanged in the balance of who won the football match or boxing match? Sports determines which side is tougher or more skilled; it doesn't say what is good, what is bad, let alone evil. The shoot-out is about the faster gun winning, not about the faster gun being the good guy. While the Good Guy has courage and conviction, the moral outcome is simply a matter of who can shoot faster, which is hardly reassuring. This is why duels were so stupid. While it was ostensibly about honor, it boiled down who was better with pistol or saber. So, plenty of duels were won by people who really deserved to lose. Now, we know this about dueling, and it's one of the reasons for its eventual disrepute.
But, the Western perpetuated the myth that the Good invariably wins over the Bad even though the only determinant is who can shoot faster. When two men face off against one another over honor in a classic due, there's 50/50 chance of either winning, or losing. But when two men face off in the Western, the good almost always wins?
Sure, we get it, people want happy endings where good guys win and ride into the sunset, but it's really a child's fantasy for adults, especially as the quickdraw was the invention of Western as fiction. The real gunslingers approached gunfights more like gangsters, with caution and dread, to come out alive by any means necessary. Gunfights were more like the confrontation in John Sayles' MATEWAN, not a Western but where guns prove decisive between capital and labor. Though set up like a classic showdown, it quickly turns into a bloodbath for both sides.
To the best of my knowledge, the only Western where the good guy loses to the bad guy is in THE BIG SILENCE(aka THE GREAT SILENCE), unsurprisingly a Spaghetti Western by Sergio Corbucci. Italians were far more nihilistic or radical in their treatment of the genre. The last man standing was simply the best shot, not necessarily a 'good' guy. Or the violence was a condemnation of the brutality of the Anglo order.
The ending of THE BIG SILENCE is traumatic precisely because we've grown so accustomed to the Good guy ultimately coming out on top... even if by something akin to a miracle(just like the classic anti-hero of the gangster genre invariably is killed at the end). The upright lawman(Brian Keith) is also felled tragically in CENTENNIAL, but it's a TV mini-series, a pretty good one, than a classic Western. The leftist Corbucci was out to dismantle the myth of the Western. CENTENNIAL strove to be a historically accurate saga of the West in a state of transformation from the world of the Indians & frontiersmen to the Modern World.
At any rate, the Western perpetuated the myth that chance, which is 50/50, will miraculously almost 100/0 favor the Good over the Bad when it comes to a contest of guns. It encouraged fallacious thinking bordering on fairytale. It also explains why John Ford made THE MAN WHO SHOT LIVERTY VALANCE as his last significant statement on the West(ern).
The 'legend' in the movie is that the Good Guy Stoddard(James Stewart) killed the Bad Guy Valance(Lee Marvin), and it went a long way in taming the West. But unbeknownst to the Good Guy on the night of the showdown, the Bad Guy was really felled by John Wayne's character lurking in the shadows. The Good Guy was slipped an Ace. The dice was loaded in his favor. The 'legend' in the movie is especially remarkable because the Good Guy didn't even have a 50/50 chance against the Bad Guy, a natural born killer. All he had was a prayer, a Hail Mary that miraculously became a touchdown. But in fact, an 'angel' was watching over him, much like Tuco has Blondie(Clint Eastwood) to save his neck in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY.
In the Western Genre, where good vs bad is decided by gunplay, how could it be that the good almost always wins, especially if the good guy fights honorably without cheating? Under those conditions, the bad guy has the equal chance of winning. For the good to usually or almost always win, it cannot fight fair, but that would mean good cannot be honorable. The Western formula of "Honor + Good Triumphant" simply doesn't compute. It can have one or the other but not both. This is the point of David Mamet's screenplay of THE UNTOUCHABLES. Elliott Ness tries to fight fair, but he simply cannot win that way. Sean Connery's character coaches him that you must not only fight dirty but dirtier. If they bring a knife, you bring a gun. If they beat up one of yours, you kill one of theirs. No wonder Jews won over the Anglos. Ugly Winning beats Beautiful Losing.
Especially if the Western good guy is upright and honorable(which implies he disdains cheating to win and offers an even chance to the bad guy), the main reason he always wins is because the contest is rigged in his favor by none other than the author. Of course, he is unaware of this, like the James Stewart character in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE is unaware, at least initially, that Valance was actually killed by someone else. If a Western author is really fair, he would flip a coin to see who wins at the end, good guy or bad guy? But people like happy endings.
In reality, black boxers beat the white ones, but in ROCKY II and III, the Italian Stallion manages to whup the Negroes in the era of Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes. But the implication extends beyond storytelling. It's about history. For all the talk of principles and meritocracy, white Americans rigged things in their favor. At one time, blacks were kept out of sports, which ensured that all the champions were white. Anglo-Americans favored one another over the ethnics. And this has been the case with every society. Jews rigged it for Jews, Italians rigged it for Italians, Japanese rigged it for Japanese.
After all, in a pure meritocracy, your kind has as much chance of losing as winning. So, for your group to win as a whole, the system must be rigged, at least in part. This is why intra-meritocracy makes more sense than inter-meritocracy. Anglo-Americans adopted inter-meritocracy and lost so much. Jews, in contrast, still play the game of intra-meritocracy, i.e. Jews fiercely compete with other Jews, but they also work together to rig the system against non-Jews. Just ask the Palestinians and the BDS movement. Incidentally, Jews use BLM as moral cover against what they do to BDS.
Indeed, the paucity of films in the genre during the last thirty years is the clearest indication that the Western as a clear-sighted vehicle for representing society’s conception of itself and its frontier past has fallen on hard times. Too many heroes in white hats and too strong an identification with a triumphant—and white—country, subduing all before it, doesn’t offer the best medium for representing the morally conflicted and self-loathing America of the 21st century.
I don't think it has much to do with Indians. After all, most Westerns were about lawmen vs outlaws than Cowboys vs Indians. Many more Westerns were like SHANE, HIGH NOON, and BIG COUNTRY than THE SEARCHERS. Even in STAGECOACH, which has a thrilling chase and shootout with the Indians, Ringo's(John Wayne) ultimate enemy is a band of white guys. And MY DARLING CLEMENTINE is about Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday vs the Clanton Gang. So, the Western can easily skirt around the Indian issue. I recall there was a popular long-running foul-mouthed TV Western series called DEADWOOD. Its popularity was proof that the Western could be revived with generous servings of violence and vulgarity.
Besides, the 'woke' community could have a field day with the 'genocide' of the Native Americans, and indeed, some anti-Westerns of the late 60s and early 70s ran on that very topic, like SOLDIER BLUE with its over-the-top scene of whites butchering helpless Indians. And there was LITTLE BIG MAN, a much better movie. Oddly enough, it was in this period that JEREMIAH JOHNSON was a pretty big hit. It was made by 'liberal' Jewish Sydney Pollack and starred 'ultra-liberal' Robert Redford, but it's really a celebration of tough white guy battling and whupping Indians. It shows the importance of the writer.
Anyway, 'woke' Hollywood has no problem making these Southerns about white 'racism', evil rednecks, angelic blacks, monstrous KKK, and etc. In a way, DJANGO UNCHAINED was as much a Southern as a Western, somewhat similar to the movies about Jesse James and Younger Gang(and RIDE WITH THE DEVIL). If Jewish Hollywood loves to rub the white nose in Slavery and Jim Crow, why not rub the white nose in the 'genocide' of the so-called 'Native Americans', though 'Pre-Americans' would be more accurate?
The reasons are threefold. Even though Jews in the past did occasionally compare the demise of the Indians with the Jewish Holocaust, it also has similarities with what Jews have done to Palestinians. Some Palestinian-American activist have made that very point. Also, Jews push the pro-immigration line of Great Replacement or White Nakba, and guess which people were 'replaced' first in America? The American Indians, of course, and the whole process was accelerated by mass immigration.
Yes, Indians are bad for the pro-immigration narrative. Plenty of immigrants arrived in the New Land to displace the Indians. Chinese laborers laid down railroad tracks that hastened the total erasure of Plain-Indians-America. Also, Jewish merchants sold guns and ammo to the cowboys to kill the Indians, i.e. Jews took part in the 'American Holocaust', and it is a sign of Jewish obnoxiousness the Holocaust Museum occupies the prominent moral space in Washington D.C. Yes, the Shoah was a horror, but it didn't happen in the US, and Americans didn't do it. In contrast, the destruction of Indians happened HERE IN AMERICA. And yet, Jews hold the vaunted position as the top victimological icons in American Politics. So vile.
At any rate, the Jewish logic of Zionism is now also applied to the US, i.e. while Jewish mass immigration to Palestine to replace the Arabs was a great thing, Israel must now remain a Jewish State and non-Jewish immigration must be prohibited or kept to a bare minimum.
Guess how Jews see white goyim, as akin to Jews in Israel with the right to homeland or akin to Palestinians who deserve to be replaced?
The way Jews see the US, it's one big Palestine, and Jews welcome masses of non-white immigrants whose children are indoctrinated with 'wokeness' to blame everything on whitey and to worship Jews, blacks, and homos(as the Tri-Idolatry) over all else, even their own identities and cultures, and this madness is even exported abroad.
Furthermore, Indians simply don't have much market value for current 'wokeness'. While the tragedy of Cowboys-killing-Indians may be morally charged for some, it just doesn't have the kind of power of Southerners-lynching-Negroes. At the very least, the American Indians fought back and did kill and/or torture a fair amount of whites. In contrast, especially because people don't know about black thuggery in the Old South, people have this image of neanderthal rednecks randomly killing helpless angelic Negroes. But there's an even bigger factor, and it's about black stardom in sports and pop music, which makes whites feel more sensitive and sorry for what was done to 'cool' blacks than to 'cold' Indians.
Notice the Noble Indian in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST hardly says anything, whereas mammy in GONE WITH THE WIND is always hollering up a storm. Silence may be golden, but noise takes the cake. It's like Tommy gets more 'respect' than Henry in GOODFELLAS. Tommy never shuts up whereas Henry doesn't say much. Don Rickles certainly didn't get where he did by being a stone-faced Indian.
Why would anyone bother to argue with E. Michael Jones' political theology? It is absurd because Jones conflates spirituality with rationalism, i.e. Jesus represents objective truths of the universe. The looniness is right there. If people want to accept religion as faith, prophecy, or imagination, that's fine. But anyone who claims religion = reason has no understanding of either.
Jones is useful to our side because, in his shotgun approach to Jewish Power, he sometimes hits the right targets. Same with Rick Wiles of TruNews. Even Neo-Nazis are useful in this regard. It's like radical leftists got so much of history wrong, but their anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism sometimes hit the right targets, the rottenness of the US empire and globalist-capitalism that needs to be exposed.
Otherwise however, there's no point in addressing E. Michael Jones' worldview. He's essentially a Paleo-Catholic crank who can't tell logos apart from bogus. But then, this 'James Lawrence' sounds rather too much like Nathan Cofnas larping as a 'Christian'. But whereas E. Michael Jones is clearly and sincerely nutty, there's something weasely and disingenuous about Lawrence's piece. It reads like misdirection that boils down to "Don't blame the Jews. Goyim started it, and Jews just followed, rather haplessly."
In Europe, it was the French revolution that emancipated the Jews, not the Jews who unleashed the revolution. In America, it was the Progressive and New Deal movements that raised them into the governing elite, and set the stage for everything that MacDonald describes in The Culture of Critique. Even Zionism, contrary to popular belief on the Dissident Right, was a 19th-century Protestant religious obsession (called ‘restorationism’) before it was taken up by Jewish nationalists like Emma Lazarus and Theodore Herzl.
First of all, only a moron rightist believes that everything revolutionary is bad and caused by Jews. Only a moron rightist thinks that everything leftist is wrong and that everything right is somehow noble. True, there are moron-rightists who still dream of monarchs & aristocracy and feel triggered by anything that hints of 'revolution'. In a way, such position has more to do with the likes of Bill Buckley — National Review ran countless articles on how the French Revolution was a dress rehearsal for 20th century radicalism, not only communism but Fascism — than with Alt-Right or the New Right, many of whom see the value of socialism and the positive role that revolution and social reforms played in the development of the Modern West. After all, what distinguished the West from the Rest? West accepted and even accelerated changes, revolutions in so many areas. This dichotomy also applies to the Christian West and Christian East, especially Byzantium. While the former grew and grew, the latter declined and fell under the Ottoman Muslims. If Christian logos is a sure formula of truth and power, why did Byzantium fail? It was far more 'theocratic' than the Christian West that broke free of Medievalism and gained much from neo-paganism of the Renaissance. What really made the Modern West was the fusion of neo-paganism(that sparked creativity in the arts and Hellenistic approach to logic and science) and Christian prophecy. The 'problem'(if it is a problem) with paganism is it lacks a unified vision of the universe and the future. According to paganism, there are many gods, therefore there is no single direction to history but a contest of competing forces, like with the gods in THE ILIAD. In contrast, Christian monotheism says there is one force, God, that leads history to fulfill a certain prophecy. Thus, the Christian mindset is more committed to a linear theory of progress. Now, Christianity alone could mean Byzantine enervation or Medieval ascetism that hardly moves history forward. But when fused with neo-pagan creativity and spark, the combination could open new horizons.
Anyway, only a fool would argue that the revolutionary spirit was necessarily bad for the West. If anything, it is what made the West, relative to the far more conservative Rest(and Byzantium). Pro-Western people don't have a problem with revolution per se. Rather, the problem has been with impatient radicalism rooted in the cult of rationalism. (Radicalism isn't content with organic pace of change and seeks to bring about utopia in single leaps. Granted, change and progress aren't necessarily organic. Rather, they must be encouraged and pushed. It's like plants need sun and nutrients to grow. Children need to be pressured by parents to study. Coaches must drive athletes hard. Inertia is often the natural state of things. Leftism in sane doses can prod society to move a bit faster, hastening the pace of change. There are limits, of course. A child can learn only so much in a week, and an athlete can improve his ability only so much in a season. Leftism sometimes pushes good ideas too fast, but it is truly fatal when it blindly pushes bad ideas as the answer, like with communism.) While the emergence of rationalism was a great thing for the West(especially in science, technology, medicine, etc), it also led to the hubris that mankind could figure everything out and know, based on 'science', what must be done. The result was Marxism(with its supposed 'scientific materialism') and, more recently, Covid Nuttery.
Science is of immense value, but it also spawned 'scientism', the conceit that one's worldview or ideology is foolproof for being based on 'science'. Such Iron Rationalism actually undermines real rationalism. This usually applies to the human sciences. At one time, the 'scientistic' element favored the 'scientific racists' who were so sure of their theories of race. Today, the 'scientistic' element favors the 'scientific anti-racists' who, based on incomplete evidence or willful self-delusion, insist that race is just a social construct. In both cases, true science is clouded by 'scientism' that really amounts to misuse of science for what are ideological purposes. ('Scientific Anti-Racism' will be far more harmful to the West as it will argue that 500 million black African immigrants won't make any difference to Europe because people are just people. 'Scientific Racism' led Europeans to mistreat or murder some peoples or groups, but 'Scientific Anti-Racism' can only lead to wholesale murder of Europe.)
Maybe some extreme Anti-Jewite or ultra-rightist believes every revolutionary movement was bad(and that we should be living in the Middle Ages) or that Jews were the key players in all these events. But that's mostly a red herring because it misses the essence of the current criticism of Jewish Power among today's white nationalists or white-centrists, most of whom don't care what happened 500 yrs ago, let alone 1000 or 2000 yrs.
Of utmost importance is what is happening NOW, and who can deny that Jewish Supremacism rules the West? Furthermore, who can deny that, what Jews push onto white goyim doesn't apply to Jews themselves. If indeed ideology controls the Jews, they would judge themselves by the same yardstick with which they judge whites. But they don't. A case in point. If the ideology of 'anti-racism' is indeed dominant in the West, Jews would not only be bashing whites for past discrimination against blacks but for white support of Jewish tyranny over the Palestinians. But the very Jews who decry white treatment of blacks insist and demand that whites support whatever Israel does to Palestinians(and Arabs in outlying territories). But 'James Lawrence' is rather like Nathan Cofnas on this issue. He'd rather sweep it under the rug while yammering about some Christian theological controversy from 1000 yrs ago. Like who cares about that crap? Maybe E. Michael Jones cares, but even most people who value Jones' criticism of Jewish Power don't care to read his books or lend any credence to his notion that Logos = Worshiping Jesus. I'd argue that most white nationalists or white-centrists are, at heart, neo-pagan, and good for them!
Also, what do we mean by Jews in the historical sense? Your average Jew throughout history didn't amount to much. The real movers and shakers were elite Jews, often the bankers and others with close ties with European elites. These individuals were most certainly manipulating events for Jewish interests. FDR, for example, had the overwhelming support of Elite Jewry. It's true that Jews were absorbing lots of ideas and attitudes from Anglo-Protestants and even following their lead, but it's also true that Jews were playing a prominent role in steering Anglos toward certain goals, like war with Germany. Sometimes, Anglo and Jewish interests overlapped, but more than any other group, Jews steered events in the interests of their tribal interest. Who can deny this? Jews were pro-Soviet at one time because Jews played a key role in the Russian Revolution and because Soviet Union fought Hitler's Germany. After the war, many Jews spied for the Soviet Union. But as the Soviet Union turned more pro-Arab and anti-Israel, even so-called 'leftist' Jews grew hostile to communism, and Neocons joined and even came to lead the anti-communist crusade in the 1980s. Who doesn't see a tribal angle to this?
And if ideology matters so much to Jews, how come all those 'liberal Jews' don't condemn ultra-rightist Israel? Why are they silent about Jewish oligarchs allied with Naziesque forces in Ukraine? If they're such good 'secular liberals', why do they turn a blind eye to Israel's support of ultra-religious ISIS and other crazy Jihadists working against secular Assad of Syria? Never mind what happened 500 or 1000 yrs ago. Why can't 'James Lawrence' address the world today? Why is he misdirecting our focus from the obvious truths in the here-and-now to some mumbo jumbo theological debates centuries ago?
Alas, this theory contradicts the central dogma of white nationalism: that racial self-interest is primary, and truths, doctrines and ideas are secondary. WNs want to live in a dark fever-dream, where every race except the white one is strategising for its self-interest under a cynical veil of ideals – and we need only become paranoid enough to perceive the hidden strategies, and deceptive enough to conceal our own self-interest in the same way. They do not want to live in the light of consciousness, where ideals really motivate individuals, and solidify the cohesion of groups – because in this reality, their own dream is reduced to a narrow and paltry ideal, a cult of biological race.
What a lying piece of turd. White Nationalists don't say racial self-interest IS primary. They know it from White Decline all around. If racial self-interest were primary, whites wouldn't be in this mess. What they say is that racial self-interest MUST BE primary. In other words, it can't be taken for granted and must be embraced as a consciousness. They say identity must dictate ideology, not vice versa. Why? History shows time and again that identity has greater resilience and longevity than ideas or ideology or whatever. Any people who forget this are fated to fade away and die.
Also, white-centrists don't believe in some 'dark fever dream' where whites must conceal their own self-interests. No, they are for exposing the Jewish self-interest and for OPENLY and HONESTLY exhorting and exercising white self-interest.
Being pro-identity doesn't mean one is anti-ideological. Rather, it means ideology must complement identity. History bears this out. Every religion came to be a tool of power, of a people or an order. Thus, Catholic kingdoms fought other Catholic kingdoms. One Arab tribe, though Muslim, fought another Arab tribe, also Muslim. Russia and China were both communist, but Russian communism served Russia, Chinese communism served China. Russian history is a clear case of identity outlasting ideology, i.e. Russia was Russia before communism, during communism, and after communism. Any people, culture, or civilization can weather the rise and fall of ideologies or political systems AS LONG AS the people remain intact. It is when the people are replaced that it's really game over. The fall of Imperial Tsarist system wasn't the end of Russia. The fall of communism wasn't the end of Russia either. But if Russians were to be replaced by another people, it'd be the end of Russia regardless of ideology. This is why 'muh democracy' is so dumb. "Gee, I don't care if white nations become 90% non-white as long as it still has free markets and elections."
The course of current Western History goes to show that racial self-interest doesn't come naturally or first-and-foremost among a people. A people can be brainwashed to welcome their own destruction in the name of false gods of ideology. Or a people can be conditioned to believe their purpose is to serve another people. The lower castes in India were made to feel this way about members of higher caste. In the past, blacks in the South were made to believe their lot was to serve whites because, on their own, they'd just be crazy dumb ni**ers. It's like dogs can be trained to favor the interests of the master over their own dog-hood.
But any people that wants to survive into the future better put race/identity before ideology or make ideology bend to identity. China adopted universal communism but molded it to serve the Chinese people. Iran practices universal Islam, but this doesn't mean it rejects Iranian national interest. Nicaragua practices democracy, but it's a national democracy than one that bends to the US globalist world order.
According to 'James Lawrence', the cult of biological race is a 'paltry ideal'. The white race, or any race, is the product of 100,000s or at least 10,000s of yrs of evolution. White race was forged by survival through all sorts of climates and terrains. It came into existence even before white civilization. Before there was white culture/society, there was the white race. In other words, race came before all else. What we call 'history' is maybe 5,000 yrs, or at most 6,000 yrs. 'History' and high civilization came to Northern Europe much later. Perhaps, Northern European history is 1,500 or 1,200 yrs, much shorter than Egypt's, Persia's, India's, and China's. Long before the rise of European civilization, there was the European race forged by struggle in ice and fire over many eons. This is a rich biological heritage that has value regardless of ideology. After all, a European's primary value is his European being, not whether he's a 'Christian', 'atheist', 'anarchist', 'socialist', 'capitalist', 'libertarian', and etc. This isn't to discount the importance of ideas but to state the obvious: being precedes believing. So, the most valuable ideology is one that places Being before Believing. European race came into existence long before Christianity or any other idea-system. And yet, for 'James Lawrence'(a larping version of Nathan Cofnas?), white consciousness of rich and deep racial history is a 'paltry ideal'. Maybe 'Lawrence' feels this way because he happens to be a paltry specimen of the white race: an ugly stupid dork idiot.
Now, it's true that one can read too much into the supposed Jewish Plan. It can get rather silly, like with Adam Green's theory that Jews cooked up Christianity and spread it to goyim to gain power over them. Green, like E. Michael Jones, is useful as a critic of Jewish Power because he sometimes hits the right targets. But the grand conspiracy theory of Christianity is just ludicrous.
According to Green, Jews turned goyim into Christian Anti-Semites who oppressed Jews so that Jews could, 2000 yrs later, guilt-bait goyim into serving Jews. ROTFL and LOL rolled into one. It'd be like saying blacks cooked up the slave trade so that blacks could one day guilt-bait whites into kissing black ass. And maybe Japan actually planned to lose WWII to become an ally of the US and gain access to US markets.
This is where grand-theorizing can easily jump the shark. Now, there is a kernel of truth to Adam Green's view. Jews are big thinkers and tend to be more strategic than other races. Jewish personality can be glimpsed in Isaac Asimov's FOUNDATION series where some Big Mind prophesies future events and sees what the normal mind doesn't see. Stanley Kubrick's films were also conceived on the Big Think principle. Jews have been obsessed with chess, a game of strategy where the winner is usually the one who computes more moves ahead. Now, some might argue this is merely the result of higher intelligence, but intelligence isn't necessarily interested in Big Ideas or grand concepts. Anglos have been an intelligent people but their mental skills were focused on empiricism, things that could be observed, collected, and studied. Plenty of very smart people are narrowly focused on a single topic or task. Intelligence per se doesn't strive for the grand theory of everything or the grand prophecy of what will be(or what must be). In other words, most intelligent economists weren't like Karl Marx with a grand theory of history, one who tried to tie together all the past with all the future, the science with the theory of justice. So, the Jewish mindset isn't merely the product of high intelligence. Rather, it's part of the Jewish prophetic tradition(which is more accurate than the 'revolutionary spirit'). Now, what came first in a chicken-or-egg way? Jewish personality or Jewish prophecy? Was there something in Jewish personality that favored propheticism? Or did the culture of propheticism favor those Jews who claimed to be farther-seeing and more profounder in reach? I don't know.
Now, does this mean that Jews long ago looked into the future and brought about events that led to the 20th century? No. While Jews are more strategic and farther-seeing than most peoples, no people(however intelligent or strong-willed) can look into the future and plan events that happen centuries, let alone millennia, later. Kubrick's films are about 'perfect plans' that always fail due to some unforeseen X-factor. There are lots of X-factors and/or black swans in history. Karl Marx based his prophecy on economic trends in his time. He failed to see how those trends would change with new developments in science and technology. Also, he underestimated the element of individual will and the power of the irrational. Furthermore, prophecies tend to undermine themselves because they not only serve as vision of the future but alarm that wakes the enemy. Marxist prophecy forced capitalists to wake up and amend their ways and make compromises with moderate socialists lest growing unrest and radicalism lead to real revolution. Thus, most prophecies are self-defeating by alerting the enemy to what's up ahead unless something is done(to suppress the movement or to win over the moderate voices within it).
Jewish History cannot be understood apart from goy history as most of it is about Jews co-existing with the far more numerous and powerful goyim. Thus, Jews lacked the autonomy that the Persians, Hindus, and Chinese had. Persians had their dominant space. Hindus had their own cosmologically ordered society. Chinese had their own Middle Kingdom. In contrast, Jews had to exist alongside goyim, and this meant they could never practice the kind of centrism of the great goy powers.
Now, if Jews were simply aiming to assimilate and do business, this would have been no big deal. Plenty of minority cultures assimilated and became part of larger cultures. Most of the tribes mentioned in the Bible no longer exist. They became part of Persian folks, Arab folks, Turkic folks, European-Christian folks, and etc. It could have been the same with Jews but for the fact that they came up with the most powerful religious concept and the idea of the Covenant that set themselves apart from goyim. So, even as goyim were more numerous and more powerful, Jews held this conviction that, ethno-spiritually at least, they were the best because of the Covenant with the one true God.
But because Jews insisted on serving their own JEWISH interests despite lacking a secure world of their own, they had to be more esoteric, clever, shadowy, and devious in their thinking and approach. They had to latch onto goy systems, values, fashions, and trends while somehow manipulating them to favor Jewish interests. Of course, Jews themselves were profoundly impacted by these goy values and systems(though, with something like Christianity, one could debate til the cows come home as to whether it's 'semitic' or 'aryan' because it's 'semitic' as foundation but 'aryan' as edifice). But no matter how much Jews adopted goy ways and ideas, they eventually made them serve Jewish identity because the very foundation of Jewishness is the ethno-spiritual Covenant; this core concept of Jewishness is so essential that it even defines secular Jews.
In contrast, Christianity is about weakening one's tribal identity in favor of universal values. To become a better Christian, you favor fellow Christians of all color over your own kind on the basis of blood. However, to be a good Jew means to stick with the Covenant and to believe in the fusion of spirit and blood, the Jewish blood. Thus, even if Jews and white Christians adopt the same 'universal' values, they eventually go separate ways. White Christians try to make themselves less white and more universal because the core principle of Christianity is to unite all of humanity as brethren under Jesus. In contrast, given the nature of Judaism, Jews use the same 'liberal' or 'universal' ideals to serve Jewish identity and interests because the core function of Judaism is preservation of the race on account of its sacred blood.
Look at Jewish Liberals and Wasps Liberals from the New Deal era. After WWII, with each passing year, white liberals became less race-centric, less tribal, and less nationalist, whereas Jewish liberals became more race-centric, more tribal, and more nationalist(even to the point of supremacism). If the power of ideology is paramount, white liberals and Jewish liberals would have ended up the same way. But today, white liberals denounce Hungary for trying to preserve itself while Jewish 'liberals' not only support ultra-right Israel but work with neocon Jews to make sure ALL US POLITICIANS totally support Israel while kicking Palestinians into the dirt. What do Jewish 'conservatives' in the US and Jewish 'conservatives' in UK have in common? Do they care about the preservation of the white race or Christian heritage in either country? No, it all comes down to "Is it good for Jewish Power?" The fact that there is far less animus between Jewish 'left' and Jewish 'right' than between white 'left' and white 'right' goes to show that Jews put identity before ideology, whereas whites put ideology before identity, a fatal development. Now, one could argue that the relative tribal unity among Jews stems from the anxiety of minority status, but it's the same in Israel where Jews are the solid majority.
There are two reasons why Jewish Identity is easier to utilize as the basis of political conviction. Jewish ethnicity has been sacralized via the Covenant. So, according to Judaism, Jewish pride isn't based on tribal arrogance alone but on the very word of God. In contrast, there's nothing in Christianity that bestows specialness on the white race. Thus, while white Christians could feel the glow of sanctity as Christians(though not so much anymore because Jews associated the history of Christianity with 'antisemitism', 'racism', and cultural repression), they can feel no such merely as whites. In contrast, the mere fact of being Jewish means God is watching over you. He chose your kind. (This is why the only solution for whites is to forge their own covenant with the power of the universe. White blood must be sacralized, but this requires the emergence of white prophecy. Christianity, in contrast, means that your blood is hopelessly tainted with sin and can only be cleansed with infusion of Jesus's blood. Covenant binds. Goy way was to divide goyim into aristocrats and subjects. Elites and peons. Because white elites looked down on white peons, Jews could manipulate the division by aiding the goy elites in the exploitation of goy masses. In contrast, the Jewish Covenant says even the blood of the lowliest Jew is equal to that of the richest Jew in the eyes of God. One good thing about National Socialism was it valued every German as part of the national volk.)
The other reason why Jewish Identity is politically justified is ironically due to Christian morality and its emphasis on victimology as basis of virtue. Jews ran with the Holocaust Narrative and made themselves to be the biggest victims in history... at the hands of the Christian West no less. (Some will say the Nazis were neo-pagan, but Jews argue that the entire history of Antisemitism, beginning with the Christian kind, led to the horror in WWII.) Thus, Holocaustianity guilt-baits white Christians with a twist on Christian morality. Jews are suddenly the new jesuses crucified by White Gentiles/Christians as the New Romans.
This guilt-consciousness has been the Achilles Heel of Christianity, at least IF non-Christians were to gain control of the Narrative. In contrast, Muslims are immune to such psycho-emotional manipulation because Muhammad told his followers to do some Jihad, kick butt, never apologize, and convert infidels(or kill them if they get in the way). You don't see Muslims groveling before Jews or bending down to wash stinky Negro feet. Islam can be plenty repressive and dogmatic but it's not sanctimonious like Christianity with 'turn the other cheek' spiel. Muhammad told his followers to kick the other (ass) cheek of the enemy, not turn the other cheek for the enemy to slap. Of course, Christians hardly turned the other cheek and preferred to wage war and kill lots of people, but this could eventually be used to guilt-bait Christian conscience IF the enemy were to gain control of the Narrative. And Jews gained control over the Narrative, which is why the New Western or Schwestern Values are based on a litany of white historical sins, especially to Jews and blacks(as Jews don't want whites to feel sorry for what they did to Arabs and Palestinians).
Now, it's true that what we call Jewish Power is the result of interaction of Jews and goyim. It's like Jews in Italy were different from Jews in France were different from Jews in Britain were different from Jews in Russia were different from Jews in Brazil were different from Jews in America from Jews in Iran and so on. If the Anglo World never existed, Jews would not be ruling the world. Anglos were super-ambitious and highly talented as world conquerors, and Jews rode on that white horse to world power. Also, even though certain Jewish elites had considerable influence throughout Western history, it's only recently that Jews gained anything like supreme power via the Anglos, especially Anglo-Americans who, at some point, decided to get on all fours and play white horsey to the Jewish rider.
So, Jewish worldview always changed and adapted in accordance to shifting historical landscapes. It's not as if a cabal of Jews in the 12th century were planning the Bolshevik revolution of the 20th century or globo-homo parades of the 21st century. Still, whatever Jews were faced with through history, there has been a running thread of bending and twisting things to serve Jewish interests, not least by suppressing criticism of Jews while amplifying criticism of their rivals or enemies.
Take Hollywood. One could say Jews didn't invent motion pictures. Jews weren't the first to start the movie business. But once they gained dominance in the industry, they were mindful to make it Jewish-friendly. Of course, Jews had to make compromises. In the early 20th century when Christians and moralists(and anti-Jewish elements) had lots of power, Jews had to agree to stuff like the Hayes Code and appease the Catholic Church. Jews were also mindful not to offend the American South. Still, Jews made sure Hollywood made lots of anti-German movies in the 1930s. And Jews in Hollywood did everything to blacken Joe McCarthy's name because HUAC at one time forced Jewish Hollywood to blacklist certain Jewish writers and directors. And Hollywood also made stuff like EXODUS while not making a single pro-Palestinian movie. So, while, in one way, Hollywood is just another American Capitalist success story, it's also been a Judeo-centric enterprise. Who can deny that Jewish control had a profound impact on how so many Americans(and global audiences) came to see the world? Via Hollywood movies, countless people around the world came to see Islam as synonymous with terrorism. Via Hollywood movies, countless Europeans came to regard white Americans as mindless gun-toting 'racists' who lynch blacks at the drop of a hat.
In a way, Jews are too smart for ideology or fashion trends even as they pretend to go along or get swept up for awhile. In the Sixties, Jews and goyim alike took part in the Counterculture. But whereas many simpleminded white goyim gave themselves fully to the hippie culture and the like, many Jews soon realized how silly it was. And there was too much money to be made than rolling in the hay, wearing flowers in your hair, and searching for Indians to touch. Better to organize rock concerts and rake in the profits than wear tie-dyes and waste your days as a 'deadhead'. Be like David Geffen.
Jewish intelligence can't help but seeing goyim as dumb. Suppose someone with 100 IQ found himself among those with 80 IQ. Would he want to take orders from the dummies? Would he consider them as his equal? He might pretend to because he's outnumbered. It'd sure be dumb for the 100 IQ guy to say to the 80 IQ crowd, "You guys sure are dumb. I'm smarter, I deserve to rule, so do as I say or kiss my ass!" Even dummies will take offense and kick his ass. So, what should he do? He pretends to be for 'equality' and act in interest of the common good while slyly gaining power over them. He may also guilt-bait the 80 IQ crowd by saying they are 'privileged' over the 60 IQ crowd even though he, with 100 IQ, is the most privileged among them all.
Higher IQ simply wants to rule over lower IQ. It's just human nature. It's like blacks, being tougher, want to be the alpha race over others. Blacks will not say it but feel it just the same. Indeed, blacks would be far less anti-white IF whites were equally tough. Suppose whites were just as good at fighting and sports. Suppose NBA and NFL were majority white and blacks made up only 13% of the players. Blacks would actually respect whites and have far less problem with whites having lots of good stuff. But blacks, being obsessed with fighting and sports, look upon whites as inferior wussy fa**oty race of slow white boys. Whites are inferior, so why they gots more than blacks? This infuriates blacks who believe they, as the alpha race, should rule. Jews feel the same way but on the basis of higher intelligence.
But it's not just about brawn or brains. After all, there are big tough guys who are mellow in temperament. And there are smart people who are nice and kind. So, their superiority doesn't make them especially nasty or hostile. But blacks are naturally oogity-boogity due to evolution alongside hippos, hyenas, and lions. They be nasty. And Jews are naturally pushy-wushy due to reasons of evolutions stemming from rabbinical and merchant competition. Thus, there are lots of Jews with personalities of Albert Brooks, Alan Dershowitz, Sarah Silverman, and Howard Stern. No wonder then that black brawn consciousness often leads to jive-ass thuggery, and Jewish brain consciousness often leads to sneering contempt, so evident among the likes of Chuck Schumer, Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, Jennifer Rubin, Rob Reiner(meathead), John Podhoretz, and etc.
This is why Jews and blacks sort of see eye to eye. Being advantaged in different areas, they often fear or resent the other, but they also take pride in having extra juice for causing havoc for the rest of us. Terms of Jew-Black Alliance goes as follows: "Jews will use all their might to browbeat and guilt-bait whites into elevating blacks as the gods and idols of the New US, and blacks in turn will dump on whites and 'white supremacism' but will not call out on Jews and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians."
But then, Jews get away with such anti-white crap because whites worship Jews as either the Chosen(Christian Zionists), Holy Holocaust People, Endearing Comedians, or High IQ Geniuses. Indeed, even HBD-sphere is worshipful of Jews. Why does Jared Taylor remain silent about the very people who've done most to de-platform him? It's because he's so enthralled with Jewish Greatness. People like Taylor and John Derbyshire are not hoping for equal partnership with Jews. Rather, they are willing to be servants and sidekicks of Jews in return for Jewish tolerance of white interests. "We white goyim will serve you superior Jews, the true master race, IF you Jews permit our white interests." But why would Jews agree to that? If Jews are the master race, it's only fitting for Jews to serve their own interests, not allow white interests. Now, what if some whites argue that Jewish interests and white interests are totally aligned... like the notion of Judeo-Christian? But Jews are not stupid. They know Christianity began as an anti-Jewish religion. Also, Jews and Europeans had a long troubled history, and all of sudden, Jews and whites are Best-Friends-Forever? No way. Besides, even if whites turned over a new leaf and are sworn to be nice to Jews henceforth, Jews know it's only a matter of time before 'antisemitism' resurfaces. Why? Because bad Jewish behavior will get out of control again. Jews know this. There are good Jews who prefer to play fair and decent, but there are also bad Jews who use every dirty trick in the book. The problem is, given the nature of Jewish Identity, if good Jews had to choose between good goyim and bad Jews, they will go with the latter. It's just a tribal thing. And so, bad Jews go unchecked and give Jews a bad name, and this leads to 'antisemitism'. Good Jews may not want bad Jews to act so badly, but they just can't make themselves side with good goyim against bad Jews. So, Jews have decided to destroy every last vestige of white identity and unity because, then, there won't be any white resistance no matter how badly the bad Jews act and how much the good Jews cover for bad Jews. (Of course, if good Jews aid bad Jews, they too become bad Jews.) Besides, good Jews figure, as nasty as bad Jews are, they(the bad ones) got bigger cojones to do what good Jews wouldn't dare do. Thus, sometimes, it's the bad Jews who really make things happen, from which even good Jews can profit... like the spread of gambling and Zionic scramble for world domination.
It's like good Anglos often relied on the ambition and adventurousness of bad Anglos to gain more territory and loot. But whereas whites reached a point where good ones called out on bad ones, good Jews dare not call out on bad Jews. Same with blacks. There are some good blacks, but in the name of 'brotherhood', they stick together and the good ones don't call out on bad ones... which makes black behavior worse, which can lead to more 'racism'. Even though good whites are far more likely to call out on bad whites, there's a limit to white conscience(as it lacks agency). In their worship of Jews and blacks, good whites dare not call out on bad Jews or bad blacks. Why, that'd be 'antisemitic' or 'racist'. It's a vile and vicious cycle of moral blindness and hypocrisy that the West has fallen into.
In Hawks’ hands, however, a movie about an episode in the history of America’s livestock business becomes mythic, epic, and philosophical.
Especially remarkable as it was Howard Hawks' first Western. In his first foray, he revamped the Western into something more visceral and thrilling, dark and brooding, as well as quirky and hilarious. In a way, it was the 'Citizen Kane' of Westerns and may have inspired new directions for John Ford as well. RED RIVER might have been rumbling in a corner of Ford's mind when he made THE SEARCHERS. Pauline Kael who generally didn't care for Westerns liked Hawk's first venture into the genre. I'm sure she was delighted by its level of wit and repartee usually found in the screwball comedy, already mastered by Hawks who was a great woman's director.
The frontier strips away the trappings of civilization and displays human nature and the origins of society naked in all their glory and squalor. Like such great Westerns as The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance , and Once Upon a Time in the West, Red River is an origin story about the transition from savage to civil society.
It's more complicated in the American Setting. We can trace European history from savagery(like in QUEST FOR FIRE and ONE MILLION B.C. with Raquel Welch) to barbarism(like in THE VIKINGS and 13th WARRIOR) to civilization — EXCALIBUR is about the change from chaos still marked by barbarian ways to the visionary rise of higher order, with all its advantages and problems. In contrast, America was made by the most advanced civilization at the time, that of Anglos who eradicated the lands of native savages but were not themselves savage. Although some degree of reversion(to nature and barbarism) took place among white frontiersmen, it wasn't long-lasting because progress and industrialization soon followed at breakneck speed. (In late 18th century, the Founders thought it might take centuries to conquer and settle the West. It happened in a matter of decades in the 19th century.) Unlike the Russian movement eastward into Siberia that was painstakingly gradual, the Anglo-American conquest of the West happened in a blink of the eye, historically speaking. Not long after the likes of Davy Crockett made it out West, they were soon followed, in a generation or two, by bankers, railroad men, clergy, and all sorts of merchants(and of course farmers). Also, the reversion was somewhat toward barbarism but never toward savagery. It's not like white men became American Tarzans. Some picked up Indian ways, especially the mountain men, but ranchers never lost their sense of social order and status. Whites also learned a lot from the Mexicans(who weren't savage but part of Hispanic culture) who pioneered the cowboy style and techniques. Indeed, Anglo movement to the Southwest was less stark in its contrasts than the movement into the Northwest. Up there, white men really encountered savagery of nature and Indian tribes. But the Southwest had already been partially tamed and domesticated by Spanish/Mexicans, and even the Indian tribes there were somewhat more advanced than the tribes in the colder north. The case of Anglos and Mexicans(as they often got along and even inter-married) was markedly different from the Anglos vs Indians in the North. The story of the American West isn't so much about an organic transition from 'savagery' to 'civilization'(like what happened in the Old World) but a transplantation of an already developed civilizational model on once savage territory.
THE SEARCHERS, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, and ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST are less about movement from savagery to civilization than outlawry to Rule of Law(though Leone's film is more cynical as it associated capitalism and industry themselves with criminality and gangsterism, whereas outlaws led by the Mexican Cheyenne[Jason Robards] in the story become, accidentally or not, the heroes who save the woman). While the settlers in John Ford's classics are in frontier lands, they've kept their folkish sense of community intact; if anything, it's been strengthened because they rely on one other for survival far more than city people do. They haven't reverted to the natural way, even to neo-barbarism. They uphold solid Christian ways and family values. In THE SEARCHERS, they are moving into Indian lands, and the red savages retaliate against the invaders out of vengeance(and/or cruel sadism). In LIBERTY VALANCE, the Indians are gone but the outlaws take advantage, much like the hoodlums in HIGH NOON. We shouldn't confuse criminality with savagery. As vicious and blood-thirsty as savages could be, they are being true to themselves. They live in a state of nature and regard animals as fellow spirits and brethren. They kill not as criminals but as proud warriors and hunters. Just as we wouldn't condemn lions or bears as 'murderers', savages do what comes naturally to their way of existence. In contrast, outlaws are the products of civilization. They know there are rules and social norms but violate them anyway because they like to be bad. As frightful as the Indians in THE SEARCHERS are, they have a crude dignity because their way of life is about pride of warriorhood. In contrast, the outlaws in LIBERTY VALANCE really are scum because they move in and out of society. They consciously act bad in a social order governed by rule of law. Ford made it somewhat more ambiguous because Liberty Valance is at times useful to the 'respectable' men of the community who hire him as muscle. But then, is it all that different from Jewish elites giving legal and moral cover to Antifa scum and BLM thugs to intimidate white patriotic voices who demand to be heard and represented? Whether ranchers or bankers, civilized order had ways of hiring thugs and outlaws to do the dirty work. US government even hired contract killers in the mafia to take out Fidel Castro, and of course, after WWII, US found many uses of the mafia in Italy and yakuza in Japan to suppress leftist elements. The employment of outlaws as enforcers by the railroad tycoon in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST is even more sinister than the use of Liberty Valance. While red savages may be merciless, the march of civilization progress is ruthless in its own way: Eradication of natives, wholesale destruction of nature, slave trade & plantations, exploitation of cheap labor(white ethnic immigrant and Chinese), and etc. Organized crime and pervasive gangsterism took root in the heart of civilization: Italy, New York, Chicago, and etc. "I'm going to make an offer he can't refuse."
In a way, modern civilization is sort of like Neon Savagery(especially with the large presence of blacks who have savagery encoded in their very genes), the point of TAXI DRIVER. If American Indians are close to nature and act halfway like animals, modern urbanites have been uprooted from family, community, and heritage. With unprecedented freedom, the modern city dweller can indulge in excesses without inhibitions of cultural restraint or moral shame(or the retaliatory balancing act of nature). In some ways, it's a more naked kind of savagery. An urbanite may not go around scalping people or hurling spears at strangers, but he could be a soulless consumer who lives by the neo-animal instincts of food and pleasure. Indeed, what is the culture of America but sports games and idolization of celebrities as the new shamans? In nature, a savage at least faces the risk of being destroyed by the very violence he exults in. Chuck a spear at a bear, and maybe the bear will tear you to pieces. Hump everything in sight, and maybe you'll die of disease. But, modern civilization not only encourages animal appetites but offers safety nets for the indulgent, which makes the appetites grow worse, like with the trashy elements in Portland and Kenosha. HIV was nature balancing excessive homo behavior, but science has procured medicines that allow homos to act like deranged perverts without facing disastrous consequences. Whether late Roman elite society or the current West, it's as if civilization can breed decadence that allows for a worse kind of neo-savagery that is shielded from the consequences of savage behavior. Savagery with safety-nets is worse than savagery met with counter-savagery(as in state of nature). Anarcho-Tyranny works hand-in-glove with cosmo-savagery. Community, in contrast, for all its limitations and problems, seeks a balance between the individual and the larger society. No wonder communitarians are at odds with libertarians. But then, both current communitarianism and libertarianism are useless because both worship the same gods of Jew-Negro-Homo Worship.
This transition is particularly problematic for Americans, since our default programming is liberal individualism that prizes equality, personal freedom, contractual obligation, private life, and comfort above things like adventure, conquest, honor, and glory, to say nothing of holiness and truth.
Those are big words and have multiple meanings. 'Equality' can be anything from Rule of Law and meritocracy to Christian Socialism to Stalinism. It's true that modern folks tend to take certain things for granted. They talk of 'rights' as if such exists in nature, is ordained by God, or simply comes with the territory of being human. In truth, the concept of rights is a social construct, and rights are operable only insofar as they are defended and enforced by rule of law backed by threat of force. A kind of infantilism has spread among the populace due to not only constant talk of 'muh rights' and 'muh liberty' but the economics of plenty in a country where obesity is a bigger problem than starvation among the poor. It's like children who believe money grows on trees(or just pops out of their parents' wallets and purses).
Still, it's understandable why those who use brutish means to accumulate property and wealth would want to move toward a contractual method backed by rule of law. After all, what they took by force could be taken away with even greater force... like in nature where a hyena steals carcass from a jackal only to have it stolen by a leopard, which might lose it to a lion, which might lose it to a pride of lions. It's like gangsters gain loot by robbery but secure it by deals with bankers who make it all legal, which goes to show Rule of Law can also be a kind of gangsterism(like with Paul Singer and George Soros with their armies of lawyers and friends in high places).
In a way, Europeanization(or white transition from barbarism to civilization) is contradictory because it uses the modes of one to achieve the modes of the other. In contrast, Africanization(or black wallowing in savagery) is more consistent. Blacks act like savages to act like savages and keep it all savage. Unlike white folks who acted brutal and even ruthless to make way for order and civilization, blacks rampage and steal stuff to be like apes; they wallow in brutality like it be one big house party or something. Black violence is more grasshopper-like, or 'let the good times roll'. It's no wonder whites have the 'guilt complex'. Whites used violence and brutality to create order and a system of rule of law(and rights), in which they took great pride of achievement. But in associating whiteness with gentlemanly ways, whites had a tendency to overlook their brutal means or to morally justify the past as having been worth it(despite the human costs). But anti-white forces, especially verbally clever Jews, could point to the hypocrisy of how the white gentleman's world was really created by white 'barbarian' ways. Perhaps, this wouldn't have been possible but for the holier-than-thou sanctimony of Christianity that preaches brotherly love, self-sacrifice, turn-the-other-cheek, and etc.; indeed, good luck with Jews trying to guilt-bait Muslims whose Faith calls for Jihad and justifies violence in the name of the Prophet.
When blacks act violent, it is to wallow in violence and loot & burn it all down. When whites act violent, it is to create a new order in which outright violence is no longer the preferred method of doing things; violence becomes the rightful tool of the state in meting out justice against those who would disturb the peace... though in our times, the state sanctions the violence of certain groups, like Antifa and BLM, against the relatively far more orderly and peaceful people(like MAGA types) because US is now a Jewish supremacist gangster state where the Tribe is 'more equal than others'.
Come to think of it, it's rather foolish for anyone to worry about 'equality' in current US where the top 1% has more wealth than the entire middle class, where Zionists are showered with praises and endless dollars for Israel while BDS, or justice for Palestinians, is smacked down by whore politicians of both parties and in 'blue' and 'red' states alike. There is talk of 'equity', but it's not about equality for ALL groups but about MORE for certain favored groups, which makes it essentially neo-supremacist. In other words, if blacks are vastly over-represented in certain fields(like pro sports), it's never a problem but something to celebrate. If anyone says NBA is almost all black and therefore 'exclusive' and 'unequal', he will be denounced as a 'racist'. There can never be Too Many Blacks, but where blacks are underrepresented, that is a Huge Injustice because, yes indeed, Too Few Blacks is intolerable. Likewise, it's never a problem if there are Too Many Homos in certain fields. Even in areas where homos are vastly overrepresented in proportion to their population, it is to be celebrated. So, if the fashion industry is dominated by homos than by women, all better applaud... or be damned as 'homophobes'. And of course, there can never be Too Many Jews in Wall Street, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Law Firms, judicial system, and among owners of sports teams. 'Equity' isn't about equality for all but MORE for blacks where they are underrepresented because they are deemed special, indeed superior to the rest.
What governs current America(and West in general) isn't the ideology of liberal individualism(which would be something like libertarianism) but the idolatry of tribal specialness, namely those of Jews, blacks, and homos, the only groups that really matter and lord above the rest. Just ask the Palestinians if the US is about 'liberal individualism'. Indeed, things would be much better for white folks IF the US operated on the basis of liberal individualism because, at the very least, whites-as-individuals would be treated equally as individuals among Jews, blacks, homos, and other groups. But certain identities take precedence over generic individuality of Americans.
The ONLY time in US history that prioritized equal rights as general practice was maybe from the mid-50s to mid-60s when the Civil Rights Movement took off amidst booming prosperity and youthful idealism when all seemed possible(and affordable). Before that, US was really about white domination in just about all fields. Even most white 'liberals' practiced open discrimination and favored fellow whites. But just when white popular sentiments were shifting toward a fairer system for all, Jews and blacks rejiggered the system for their tribal advantages. Civil Rights Movement soon turned into Appease-the-Blacks-Lest-They-Riot Movement. And it became more obvious by the day that Jews took a leading role in the Civil Rights Movement NOT to transform US into a fairer society but to burden whites with special guilt so as to control and exploit them for purposes of Jewish Supremacism. After all, even as Jews excoriated whites into feeling sorry for the past mistreatment of blacks, they also insisted on total white support for Zionist crushing of Palestinian aspirations. It was all bait-and-switch, but because the rhetoric of 'equal rights' or 'civil rights' took hold of the Narrative, a lot of people think White Woes owe to rise in 'equality' when the real problem is the rise of Jewish/black supremacism, followed by homo neo-aristocratism.
Of course, it wasn't just the Civil Rights Movement but the result of HBD factors. Jewish exercise of superiority in wit, will, and intelligence made whites feel awe of Jews as the true master race — notice even Jared Taylor still has wet dreams of high-IQ Jews eventually joining forces with hu-whites. And black talent in popular music and domination in sports(plus jungle fever based on black buns and dongs) made whites regard blacks as the awesome superior race of Muhammad Ali's and James Browns, what with so many of the big white acts since the 50s, like Elvis, Beatles, and Rolling Stones, owing heavily to black music, but then white fascination with black music goes back to ragtime and jazz(and existed even in Roman times when Roman elite women had orgies with African gladiator champions). But many white nationalist types would rather not touch on these issues because it hurts their sensitivities that Jews and blacks can be superior to whites in anything. So, they'd rather pretend that the problem is 'equality'.
Trevor Lynch pits "equality, personal freedom, contractual obligation, private life, and comfort" against "adventure, conquest, honor, and glory, holiness and truth", but in the case of American History, the two sets of 'principles' were often complementary. Why did many more Anglos take a chance in the New World than the French did? France was ruled by aristocrats, most of whom preferred privilege and comfort of their own estates to risking a new life across the ocean; and the French subjects had less freedom and incentives for risk-taking. (Indeed, I can't think of another caste/class that is more comfort-oriented than the nobility. Whereas peasants must eke out an existence, merchants must work hard at trade, and industrialists must build & run factories, all it takes to be a nobleman is to be born one. What can be easier than to be born into privilege and pampered from childhood and dressed in 'gayish' attire? Just by birthright, one is entitled to better housing, food, clothing, and all sorts of amenities. One is doted from childhood and grows up with a sense of entitlement. If barbarian-warriors as proto-noblemen had to fight to gain a piece of turf, the established nobility was surrounded by privilege and creature comforts. They wore dainty attire designed by effete homos. Their idea of living was horse-riding, costume balls, and powdering their faces. Or hanging around salons and exchanging gossip while fanning themselves with silk fans.)
Anglos outpaced the French in colonizing the New World because they had more individual incentives. While risks were high, so were the rewards for individuals willing to take a chance in new environment. Equality for such risk-takers simply meant they had something closer to an equal chance of owning their own property. In Europe, they might be tenant-farmers, especially as all the land was claimed by the nobility whose ownership was a matter of inheritance, or living off the achievements of their ancestors. But in the New World with as-yet plenty of open territory, even a commoner could stake his claim and own property. Material incentives have always mattered, which is why capitalism beat communism. Che Guevara spoke of Moral than Material Incentives, i.e. workers on farms and factory should work selflessly for justice, progress, brotherhood of man, and other lofty utopian ideals, but emotional incentives only go so far. Just like most Christians mouthed the correct platitudes but acted more in accordance to persona/material interests, so did the nobility, most of whom would have sold their mother down the river for extra social advantage. Consider all the family feuds among monarchs and noblemen. In EL CID, the Spanish Order is constantly threatened by the battle of egos among siblings. Ideally, noblemen are supposed to serve God and King, to be brave warriors in defense of territory and justice. They are supposed to rule with a sense of noblesse oblige. But practice was something else... just like real communism was far from ideal communism. Indeed, the biggest problem of egalitarianism is not that it produces real equality(which has never been the case) but instead just another form of aristocratism, which was George Orwell's point in ANIMAL FARM. For example, campaigns against 'antisemitism' haven't made Jews equal to gentiles but unequal in being shielded from any criticism of Jewish Power. BLM isn't about equal justice for blacks but black privilege to act thuggish and criminal without consequence. Blacks are now like Savage Nobles(not to be confused with Noble Savages), i.e. the laws that apply to whites don't apply to them as they are deserving of special privileges. The fact that it's okay for blacks to kill blacks and for blacks to kill whites but not okay for whites to kill blacks(even thugs) is suggestive of the old aristocratic ways where noblemen could kill other noblemen in duels but common-folk better not touch the hair of a nobleman even when the nobleman acted abusive and rotten.
So many Anglos were willing to join in the conquest and adventure for more equality and personal freedom. And even though they knew they had to work hard at it, they hoped for comfort as the ultimate reward with a land and home/hearth to call their own. Who in his right mind would favor discomfort over comfort? Did kings sit on beds of nails? Did noblemen favor potato sacks over silk clothing? Did French cuisine result from French nobility's insistence on gruel and fish-heads? No, the rich wanted creamy stuff; they preferred cakes while the masses barely had enough bread. Even hunters risk life and limb to finally make the kill and enjoy some good eating. No pain, no gain, and the gain is comfort. Athletes strain with blood and sweat, but it is to make money and gain favors. The only profession committed to virtuous poverty and hardship is the missionary life; of course, the kind of religious folks who climb to higher positions are out for something more than virtue. In the movie HAWAII(by George Roy Hill), one missionary is committed to a life of frugality, but his compatriots take over swathes of territory and grow rich. As one cynical character says, "You came here to do good but did well for yourselves."
Spanish America was more aristocratic in conquest and development, but who would point to it as success? (If AGUIRRE: THE WRATH OF GOD is about 'glory', less of it the better.) The American South has been called quasi-aristocratic, but if aristocratic types are wise and sensible, why did Southern elites build an economy built on black slavery? They lacked foresight and thought only in terms of short-term gain. And what a bunch of idiots to think they could take on the Industrial North with 4x the population. Maybe they did it for 'honor', but honor is no substitute for sense and reason. Lynch places 'honor' and 'holiness and truth' in the same column, but honor often blinds people to the facts. Japan, for instance, had no chance against the US, but its honor-obsession led it to down a disastrous path, totally oblivious to the TRUTH of war. As for holiness, it is a much deeper concept than honor. Honor is a matter among men, whereas holiness is about man and God(or gods), which is why the warrior and the priest are two different creatures, at least in theory, because in practice it seems like the most successful generals and preachers have something in common: they are rather good at politics/business than in honor or holiness. General Milley and Joel Osteen(and the Devil Pope).
Those who romanticize the nobility tend to be either deluded or servile. Even though the nobility has comprised only a sliver of society, they believe they themselves would be part of this special elect in a noble-run order. This is fairy-tale mentality, like the little girl who always identifies with the princess. Apparently, they believe themselves to be superior. But, if nobility is based on birthright, it means a moron born into nobility has privilege over a superior person born as commoner. Another type that yearns for nobility is the toady type. Even if he understands that his chance of being a noblemen is slim, he hopes to play the role of loyal servant & flunky and be petted on the head by his master. Like a dog. He wants to play squire.
The problem is nobility as a system is only justified in times of war. Once peace prevails upon the land, noblemen end up like the Knights of the Round Table in EXCALIBUR. Fighting men without the fight just party and drink and grow indolent and argue over trifles. But at least the knights do their own fighting in EXCALIBUR. Through much of history, it was the foot-soldiers drawn from common folks who often did the bulk of fighting and dying in wars, especially once longbows and rifles rendered swords into objects more of symbolism than combat.
In a way, the cowboy myth combines the ideal of equality and the romance of nobility. In the American West, anyone could ride a horse and carry a gun. 20% of the cowboys were black, and rustling cows(and fighting Indians) must have been more fun than picking cotton. Unlike in Old Europe where noblemen rode horses and near-monopolized the right to bear arms, gun rights were universal in America and horses were plentiful. So, the cowboy was like a universal aristocrat, a common nobleman. Mere equality is a bit boring, and mere nobility is stultifying, with a few lording over the rest as helots. But a world where everyone could ride horses, carry guns, have personal pride, and stake his own territory, it had the promise of justice and privilege of good fortune. It's no wonder the Western was once the most popular genre around the world.
Unfortunately, as Red River shows, you can’t carve civilization out of the wilderness by following liberal principles—although it is increasingly evident that liberalism can wreck any society that takes it too seriously. Liberalism forces us either to cover up the illiberal origins of our society or to destroy it in a fit of self-loathing.
It depends on how one defines liberalism. In a way, what made the Modern West possible was the Liberal Spirit. All non-Western cultures were far more conservative than the West. Even among Western nations, the most adventurous ones were the most liberal ones, like Netherlands and England. Catholic Spain initially took the lead in journeys of discovery but took a deeply conservative turn and became averse to risks and concentrated on what it had than reaching for more. The ultra-conservative Byzantine Empire shrank from lack of vitality and was eventually swallowed up by the Ottomans who, in time, would also grow ultra-conservative and fail to make progress vis-a-vis the more liberal West. China once built ships to travel as far as Africa but lost the 'liberal' spirit and turned inward like a turtle so sure of its invincibility before the rude awakening in the 19th century. Japan was more liberal during its civil war period. The various clans looked to Europeans for better guns and technology. But once Japan was united under the Tokugawas, it turned extremely conservative and kept contact with foreigners to a bare minimum. It was forced into a more a liberal position in the 19th century when it realized it had to learn from the West in order to develop and defend itself. In contrast, far more conservative Korea followed the lead of China and fell under foreign powers.
So, while it's true that excessive liberalism can lead to destruction, so can excessive conservatism. It can lead to stagnation, which breeds a decadence of its own, like with the Ottoman sultans and their harems, or the Spanish monarchy with its inbred morons. Even leftist systems can turn overly conservative and fail to make necessary changes. Like Soviet Union under Brezhnev, the era of stability but also steep stagnation. The liberal outlook is curious, adventurous, thrill-seeking, risk-taking, and expansive. It's about venturing far beyond home, leaving the comfort zone. It's about taking flight, like a bird. The conservative way is more like the turtle, hiding in its own shell, or a ground hog that burrows into the dirt for security. The best order is one with liberal outlook and conservative compass, aka fascism. It's like a ship needs sail, rudder, and anchor. It's like trees need both roots(and trunk) and branches(and leaves).
The TV series SHOGUN is indicative of the difference between East and West. In Japan, the various clans are fighting for dominance to secure Japan from the rest of the world. It's all about Japanese vying for control of Japan. In contrast, Europeans in Japan are vying for control of the world: Dutch vs Portuguese/Spanish vs English(and later Russians coming across Siberia). Because the Japanese clans need advantage in weapons(via trade with Europeans), there is an understanding between Japanese and Europeans for the time being. But this kind of liberalism is merely a means, not an end. It's strategic and temporary than principled and timeless. The ultimate goal of Japan is to forge unity and then shut Japan from the rest of the world whereas the West is trying to incorporate Japan(and eventually all of Asia) into the nascent global world order. The West has the far more liberal spirit as the End of History.
Because 'liberal' is a big word and has multiple meanings, John Wayne's character of Tom Dunson may not seem 'liberal' by current definitions. But in the larger historical context, he is part of the Liberal Spirit that made the white man venture far from home in search of new frontiers. Indeed, the leading voices in favor of imperialism in Old Europe were Liberal than Conservative. Conservatives wanted to focus on matters at home and emphasized stability/security above all else, whereas the Liberals were on the look for more opportunities for discovery and investment. (Conservatism came to defend the empire only after the Liberalists created it in the first place.) Someone like Dunson would have been rare among the Hindus, Confucians, and even the Muslims.
Indeed, individualism is what fueled Anglo adventurism and frontier spirit far beyond that of any other culture. Dunson takes this to extremes and indeed is something of an outlier even among his own race, rather like Ethan in THE SEARCHERS who is a misfit among his own kind. But one thing for sure, in the context of wider historical and cultural perspective, he represents the liberal spirit. Not in the do-goody willy-nilly Ken-Burnsy sense but in the love of adventure and risk-taking, the will to push beyond known boundaries. And there's the individual pride that makes him want to be his own master, his own king, than bow down to others. In most cultures, everyone had his place and allotted duties, and the 'good life' amounted to how one fulfilled those obligations. One's individuality was subordinate to one's given role in life. In contrast, Tom Dunson defines himself and plays by his own rules. He has a neo-barbarian streak but also a sense of individuality that could only have been realized through high civilization. He isn't just some wild man tussling for turf but a man of some vision and big idea.
In a way, liberalism gave way to the rule of law precisely because it unleashed so much competitive 'barbarian' energies. In other words, smart liberalism(as opposed to various dumb ones) is fully cognizant of the 'illiberal' animal energies of man. An ultra-conservative order need not worry about these illiberal and wily spirits because of the rigid hierarchy where rulers rule and the ruled obey. In an unfree society, the only thing that matters is making sure everyone sticks to his role and does his duties, nothing more, nothing less. But liberalism allows more freedom, and more freedom means more competition among free actors for their share of opportunity, wealth, success, and status. Instead of everyone just hunkering down and doing his duty, he uses his freedom to pursue happiness. But if it's a free-for-all, the result is mayhem. Therefore, in order for liberalism to allow for more freedom/individualism and to maintain order & stability, there has to be a rule-based order. This was the genius of the Anglo Way. It's something of a paradox that the British were both pioneers of modern liberty and among the most disciplined & rule-centered people in the world. They even came up with rules for the brutal sport of boxing. This way, mankind could harness the vital animal drive as fuel for competition & adventure yet also channel those energies toward pursuits that weren't mutually destructive among the competitors, i.e. winners would win gracefully and losers would accept that the others won fair-and-square. It's the difference between Grand Prix and Demolition Derby. Both are competitive and bring out warrior spirits, but one is governed by rules while the other welcomes mayhem.
(But there’s another option as well: to embrace the truth about our origins and stop immolating ourselves before the Moloch of liberal norms.)
But embracing such a truth would nullify one's commitment to civilization. Rather, the key is to acknowledge the origins while also rejecting it as outdated(though it may become relevant once again if and when the order falls apart and things must be built from scratch). In THE GODFATHER, Vito Corleone did the dirty things so that his son, Michael, wouldn't have to. And Michael works hard to go from the underworld to the upper-world. Much of British fortunes were built on piracy when the English were upstarts faced with the greater powers of Spain and France. Slave trade also filled British coffers. Those origins of British wealth and power must be acknowledged but, in order to make the transition toward higher civilization, cannot be embraced, let alone celebrated. But the real trick is to acknowledge that ALL peoples and cultures have done the same thing and, furthermore, without reaching higher levels of organization and productivity that would allow a people to finally bid farewell to the more brutish methods of wealth-creation and power-maintenance. But even without what is known as 'liberal guilt', a system can fall apart because a people become accustomed to newly created wealth and privileges and no longer want to dirty their hands with nitty-gritty. Like the decline of the family in Thomas Mann's BUDDENBROOKS.
In the end, the problem is less liberalism per se than who controls it. After all, if the toxicity of liberalism affects all people equally, then Jews would be filled with 'liberal guilt' over their tribal supremacism, history of exploiting gentiles, role in the slave trade, domination of opium trade in China, pushing for Middle East wars, participation in communism, and etc. But Jews use liberalism to make themselves out to be the saints of history while all blame is dumped on goyim, especially Northern Europeans. In the past, American Liberalism and Progressivism were into 'scientific racism' and white pride. Even while acknowledging the tragic aspects of American History, they also reminded white Americans of their uniquely vaunted place in modern history. So, in the end, the problem isn't so much ideology as how it is used by which people and for what purpose. For example, early communism in Russia was largely controlled by Jews who used it for Jewish ethnic advantages. Later, communism came to be dominated by goyim who used it to persecute Zionists. Jews and blacks use 'liberalism' for tribal power and to blame whitey. Whites, under Jewish mind-control, have come to use 'liberalism' to spit in their own reflection. It's like religion. If you use it to mean that God is your side, you feel empowered. But if you use it to mean God favors others over you, you feel powerless.
RED RIVER is a big adventure movie than a big concept one, the biggest of which may be Michael Cimino's HEAVEN'S GATE that incredibly welds together the Ellis Island narrative with the Wild West myth. In THE DEER HUNTER, blue collar men in some Pennsylvania town go hunting and end up not in the Appalachia but in the Rockies in Washington State. Next, they are seen back home with a deer on the hood. It's as if all the territories between the East and West never registered in Cimino's mind. Likewise, it's as if the ethnic immigrants went directly from Ellis Island to some godforsaken place in Wyoming(or Montana) in HEAVEN'S GATE. It's like Twilight Zone version of US history where entire populations are suddenly transported from the docks of big East Coast cities to the vast Northwest Frontier in the blink of an eye; the Midwest simply doesn't exist. Only a director as bold and visionary(and crackpot and ludicrous) as Cimino could have conceived of such a thing. Perhaps, he wanted to pull together all the loose ends of the American Pageant, a kind of Eastern-Western, where elite Harvard boys and newly arrived impoverished immigrants do battle with rancher barons and cowboys of the Wild West. Perhaps, the biggest concept Western ever, and a favorite of the homo film critic Robin Wood. Though Cimino was Italian-American, his imagination was rather European. Vastness of Russia notwithstanding, most Europeans had a hard time wrapping their heads around how truly gigantic America is. In FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, Jews embarking on the journey to America think they will be neighbors because one is destined for NY while the other is for Chicago. In Cimino's telling, the US might as well be the size of Western Europe because the immigrants fresh off the boat end up in the Northwest sooner than later.
The leader of the wagon train doesn’t want Dunson to go. They are all safer sticking together... The leader says Dunson agreed to go to California. Dunson says he signed nothing... The leader says that Dunson is too good with a gun to lose. Dunson replies that he’s also too good with a gun to keep. In the end, it comes down to the threat of force.
The above description indicates Dunson is an outlier, representative of a certain type of the American frontier spirit but far from quintessential(which would be the characters of THE BIG COUNTRY by William Wyler who are more the larger-than-life archetypes of the men who built the West). In other words, even if the Wild West didn't have Dunsons, the job would have gotten done, just like the white folks in THE SEARCHERS would have fulfilled their historic destiny without the likes of Ethan. Still, men like Dunson spiced up the West with greater derring-do and reckless behavior. You wouldn't want him as neighbor, but his kind makes for high adventure and theatrics, like Colonel Kilgore in APOCALYPSE NOW and George C. Scott in PATTON. As such, it'd be misleading to draw general conclusions about historical processes from Dunson's (mis)adventures. In a way, it was a departure for John Wayne. Because of his manly size and air of confidence, Wayne always stood out from the rest of the cast. That said, he still stood with than apart from them. His star-making role in STAGECOACH became the template for many roles to come. He's a bigger and tougher man than most but always siding with and standing by the good folks. He serves as their pillar. Even as a suspect in STAGECOACH, he goes out of his way to show he's a good guy who would never abandon the passengers(from the Indian menace) for personal reasons.
In contrast, his character in RED RIVER is borderline pathological in his self-aggrandizement that grows into full-blown hubris. Without much reflection, he charges forward. He is tough and has many admirable qualities but also setting himself up for a well-deserved comeuppance.
This opening scene establishes that Tom Dunson is not a man to be reasoned with. Once he makes up his mind, he is immovable. Being open to persuasion, of course, is one of the principles of parliamentary democracy. Dunson, however, is quick to reach for his gun to silence his critics. He’s a budding tyrant, not a liberal democrat. But, as it turns out, it takes a tyrant to found a great ranch in the wilderness.
He's not to be reasoned with but is nevertheless a reasoning man. Also, even as he insists on going his own way, he is adaptive and pragmatic to shifting situations and has some sense of limitations. After all, he's out to grab as much as he can but not all of it. And he's not really at war with the wilderness as the Mexicans have already half-tamed the land. In a way, it's as much the result of civilization vs civilization(Anglos vs Hispanic) as between whites vs reds.
The Founding Fathers were liberal democrats relative to the far more authoritarian patriarchs who came to dominate Latin America(which continued to have caudillos well into the 20th century), but it seems the 'liberals' achieved far more than the 'tyrants' especially because of the contrasts in foundations. Also, the reason why the Anglos did so much more than the Mexicans in the Southwest was because they were less tolerant of tyranny. If most brown folks meekly submitted to the tyranny of Hispanic overlords, white men stood their own grounds. Indeed, even though Dunson builds a great ranch and hires a lot of men to work for him, they don't bow down before him as their master. He's just boss.
Furthermore, Dunson's 'tyranny' is paradoxically in service of liberty and individuality. Free movement of peoples in the West made things more competitive and conflict-prone. That means one has to be tougher to claim a piece of territory and hold it. Dunson's 'tyranny' isn't to rule over minions but to stake out a piece to call his own. Indeed, he doesn't want to deal with servile men but tough men. Sure, they must take orders from him but must also have minds of their own and be able to wing it without orders. He takes an instant-liking to the wandering boy because the kid's tough and takes no shit from no one. It's like a drill sergeant acts tough with soldiers not to beat them down into wimps but to build them into tough fighting men. In FULL METAL JACKET, the sergeant becomes partial to Joker for showing initiative, toughness, and smarts. Joker admitted he cracked the joke: "Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?" Though gut-punched by the sergeant, he got up and made a war cry. Later, he saw through the sergeant's mind-trick and refused to reverse himself. Duly impressed, Sergeant 'promotes' him in the barracks hierarchy. This is a different kind of 'tyranny' than the Orientalist kind. In Japan, superiors tyrannized inferiors simply to make them obey and do as told. In contrast, the American Way has been to toughen young men up so that they will stand firm and show initiative, i.e. go from childhood individuality to adult individuality.
By the way, Dunson doesn't reach for the gun to silence his critics. If anything, he will listen to any man and is open to persuasion. But ultimately, HE must make the decision. He reaches for the gun not to shut people up but to threaten or blow away anyone who dares to take action against him. As long as it's a game of words, Dunson will talk and will listen to any man — he comes to a compromise with a neighboring rancher concerned about his cows being branded as Dunson's. Dunson turns to violence when talk is no longer the option.
A few hours later, the wagon train is massacred by Indians. Dunson and Groot see the smoke in the distance and prepare to defend themselves... Dunson also recovers his engagement bracelet from one of the braves, who surely killed Fen to take it.
One wonders if Dunson's action is a curse or a blessing. If his gunmanship could have saved the wagon trail(and the girl who loves him) from the Indians, he should have been there. He was most remiss in his duties to the larger community. A curse hanging over him.
On the other hand, maybe the Indians were too numerous and even his skills would have been ineffective against them, in which case he would have joined the dead. Then, it was a blessing that he went his own way. Apparently, he didn't feel for the girl as much as Ethan felt for Martha in THE SEARCHERS.
The next morning, they come upon a boy named Matt Garth (Mickey Kuhn) leading a cow... He’s gibbering from the horror. Dunson snaps him out of it with a brutal slap. It’s a rough beginning...
That's a crucial scene and sets up their final encounter in the movie. One wonders if Matt was really out of his mind(from shock) or just play 'dumb' to lower the defenses of the two men as he approached them. He recovers his wits the instant he's slapped and even quickdraws a gun on Dunson who, in turn, feints to wrest the gun from the kid. At any rate, the scene shows that Dunson is more a toughie than a tyrant. A tyrant wouldn't have tolerated a kid pulling a gun at him and staring right into his eyes with a sly grin. Dunson, in contrast, is actually impressed by the kid. Even after taking the boy's gun, his only advice is "Don't trust anyone", in other words, "Kid, you gotta be even tougher." And the boy, even after being orphaned(literally from his murdered parents or figuratively from the band he rode in with) by the Indian raid and knocked to the ground by Dunson, just dusts the dirt off and stands up. Dunson sees the kid has a spine and hands back the gun. A tyrant wants minions, submissive and obedient. A toughie wants other toughies. Even as each toughie seeks to be the alpha male, he admires fellow toughies, not wussies. And the kid passed the smell test of toughness. Almost instantly, he is more than a rescue, some helpless orphan; he is a junior partner. Dunson wants men with a streak of defiance and pride, a kind of rough dignity, than a pushover, flunky, or toady. He wants men with a firm handshake, not ones who bow down mindlessly to authority. Of course, this contradiction between his preference for tough men and his insistence on being boss later leads to tensions. Still, Anglo-American measure of manhood has been built on the ability to stand one's own ground in words, fists, and guns.
This has been the difference between Anglos and Mexicans. Though Anglos came in all sizes and demeanors, they believed in the ideal of individuality, toughness and pride. In contrast, Mexican society was about jefes on top and minions on bottom. The reason could be cultural and/or racial. Spanish society was more about hierarchy and less about individuality/initiative; it had less room for tough guys like Dunson who insisted on doing things their way. Another reason could be that the majority of Mexicans were brown folks, aka beaners or Tacoans, who were genetically predisposed to behave more like Guillermo on Jimmy Kimmel Show. Perhaps, the Aztecs got away with stuff like mass human sacrifice because so many brown folks were such submissive minions who just marched to their slaughter than ran or fought back; and today, violence in Mexico is the result of too many Nice Beaner Mexicans who don't stand up to the drug cartels and the like. They would rather keep a low profile and eat tacos and chili peppers. If black criminality is the result of Too Many Blacks acting crazy, brown criminality is often the result of Too Many Browns acting like timid scared folks of THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN; they need Gringos to come and save them from the bandits. Even in THE WILD BUNCH, Mapache and his henchmen are finally wiped out by the Gringos('otra vez') who act American than Mexican. (But it seems the Jewish War on Whites has led to the minionization of Anglos. In UK, Australia, and the US, Anglos have become some of the biggest cuckeroo dork wussies of Jews, blacks, and homos the world has ever seen. Granted, there are still many white folks who believe in freedom and pride, but the masses won't get anywhere without leadership. This is why Jews hated Donald Trump who, at least in style, played the leader role in the White Awakening. Just like cattle on their own won't make it to pasture or market, white people, no matter how angry and motivated, won't get anywhere without being steered by their own Moses figures. The question is, do the white masses have independent white elites who will lead them to green pastures or white cuck elites who will lead them to slaughter? Of course, Jews know this, which is why they focused on turning white elites into worthless cucks like Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, or Youngbungdongkin, not to mention the even bigger cucks in the Democratic Party. Alas, Trump could only play the role of White Awakener as his ultimate agenda was to serve the Jews. If whites are to survive, they need the next phases with the White Liberator and then the White Empowerer.)
If there is a disconnect between the young Matt and adult Matt(played by Montgomery Clift), the latter seems too nice and gentle compared to our first impression of the kid, who seemed not only tough but defiant and a bit impish. But then, Clift was a tooter, and there is an effeminate quality to his role. At any rate, the first encounter between Dunson and Matt was of distrust, violence, and mutual admiration, which become the basis of their later conflict and flare back up in the last scene.
When Tom finds the spot he wants to settle down on, he is greeted by two Mexican riders, who inform him that this land belongs by grant and patent from the King of all the Spains to one Don Diego, who resides 400 miles to the south. Groot thinks that’s too much land for one man. So does Tom. Groot is a Lockean, who believed that when we appropriate property from the state of nature, we should leave as much and as good for others. Tom, however, has no such notions. He wants to build his own empire.
The scene shows that, in Dunson's case, despite few pesky Indians remaining here and there, RED RIVER's origin-story is more about the clash of civilizations than civilization vs savagery. After all, Dunson points out that the Mexicans took the land from the Indians, and so, he's taking the land from the Mexicans. Then, what is the difference between the Anglo civilizational style and the Hispanic civilizational style? The Anglo expansion is more individualist and liberal. Even though Dunson is hardly a model citizen by current 'liberal' standards, his outlook and values are far more liberal than that of Spanish civilization that is more about traditional tyranny than individual enterprise. The two Mexican riders may be good with guns but they are minions who serve a tyrant with special claim over so much land. Why didn't Mexicans try to take the land from the oligarchs and big landowners? Why were they willing to be meek peons and peasants or serve as minions of the big lords? Because Hispanic World was ruled by tyranny and tradition. (Even the Mexican Revolution was a collective affair than a struggle for individual rights and freedom.) In contrast, Dunson believes that he, though a common man without an ounce of noble blood or some highfalutin lineage, is deserving of land and liberty with mettle and hard work. When he faces off against the Mexican gunman, he is risking his life for his own interests whereas the Mexican is risking his life for his superior. So, even if Dunson seems 'illiberal' by today's idea of 'liberalism', he is a far more liberal character when contrasted with the Mexican World with its rigid hierarchies and systems of who has what and what must be obeyed. Mexicans have been there for much longer than the newly arrived Anglos, but the difference is the Anglos are already staking their own claims whereas, in all that time, most Mexicans just accepted the state of affairs where a handful of Spanish-blooded tyrants claimed most of the land.
Groot is a 'Lockean'? LOL. Also, even though Dunson has bigger ambitions than Groot, they aren't all that far apart. Neither man is motivated by ideas but appetite, and Dunson simply has more. Man with bigger stomach consumes more, just like a brown bear devours more than a black bear. Dunson doesn't want an empire or think in imperial terms, like the Hispanics do. He doesn't want to rule over others but rule over his own; he just wants to make sure that what's his cut is big. There are neighboring ranchers, and he accepts their presence, just as they must accept his. If possible, he'd rather avoid a cattle war.
If anything, the arrival of men like Dunson signals the shift of Southwest Territory from Imperial Hegemony of the Spanish to the Individual Autonomy of the Anglos. Instead of some land baron laying claim to vast territories he doesn't even use, Dunson's way is to lay claim to land for use, and he knows there will be plenty of other individuals who lay similar claims to lands nearby. The violence when it flares up isn't the result of some Anglo seeking to be Emperor of the West but of vigilance of territorial disputes intrinsic to ranching. Whereas farmers could more-or-less draw clear boundaries, it was never so simple with the ever mobile cattle, which is why the Southwest Territory in its formation was the bloodiest in US history(apart from wars). In a way, there might have been less violence if US settled the Southwest in traditional imperial style. Suppose the ruling powers bestowed all the territory to some nobleman and his ownership couldn't be questioned. Then, there would have been no mass onrush by would-be settlers to grab what-is-mine. But, the Anglo Way was more liberal, meaning any individual with ambition and drive could try his luck in the new territory. It resulted in many individuals jostling for turf and spilling lots of blood, leading to the Billy the Kid legend.
Matt is the son Tom never had. But there is a strange intimacy between them... There’s more than just a hint of pederasty here. This is what happens on the frontier when women are left behind as too weak.
It's more homo-ish than 'pederasty' though it's obvious that neither man is supposed to be a homo like the toots in BROKEBACK MOUNTIN'. One might use the icky new term 'homo-social' to describe their relationship. (If such be 'homo-social', are Catholic priests and Islamic Imans 'homo-spiritual' because they are all men? Ridiculous term, this 'homo-social'.) Some have read homosexual subtexts into ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS and other Hawks' movies, but it seems to me mostly projection. Of course, it's possible that the writer meant it to be there but Hawks either didn't care or ignored it.
Still, the most homo-ish scene in RED RIVER is when Matt and another gunman, Cherry Valance(cherry LOL), compare their shooting styles and skills like two fruits in a bathhouse flexing their muscles and showing their stiffies. It's like guns and buns, toots and shoots.
By the way, as the big cattle drive in the movie takes place years after Dunson set up the ranch, women have surely settled into the community as well; besides, many of the pioneering folks were women from the get-go, and they were tougher and hardier than most men today. But they're mostly not shown because RED RIVER is a story about men and what they do. It sort of like what the college dean says in the novel THE BREAD GIVERS by Anzia Yezierska: "All pioneers must get hard to survive", he said. He pointed to an old faded painting of his grandmother. "Look! My grandmother came to the wilderness in an ox cart and with a gun on her lap. She had to chop down trees to build a shelter for herself and her children. I'm more than a little ashamed to realize if I had to contend with the wilderness I'd perish with the unfit..."
Paradoxically, the Western Frontier was both a Manly Man's World and one where women gained rough equality(or at least some degree of parity) with men before the rest of the country caught up. In the established and more civilized East, women could make nice as homemakers, but in the West, women had to learn to ride horses and shoot at Indians and varmints alongside their men; and they had to make the homes before they could go into homemaking. It's like Laurie in THE SEARCHERS has grit and spunk. She grew up doing boy stuff. So, women got the vote in the West before the rest of the country. And Howard Hawks always had a thing for tough chicks who could hold their own. He didn't like men who complained, which is why he loathed HIGH NOON filled with anxious characters who wrestle with conscience, and he liked women who could hang with the men. You either do it or don't. You slug, your hug, but either way, don't make a big deal of it.
As the drive progresses and obstacles mount up, the men become sullen and restive, and Tom becomes increasingly obsessive and tyrannical: Captain Ahab in a saddle.
Supposedly, the writer of the original story was inspired by MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY.
Pauline Kael: "Chase admitted, it's actually MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY turned into a Western, with Wayne as Captain Bligh and Clift as Fletcher Christian"
In a way, Dunson becomes more extreme, even unhinged. There's too much pride riding on the drive. Still, it's reasonable from his point of view because a man is only as good as his word. Those men gave their word to him. It was an oral contract: They would ride it out to the end, and he would pay them. It was understood that quitting is not an option, just like desertion is a serious crime in the military. Thus, Dunson's violence isn't arbitrary or based on whims of tyranny. It's based on mutual agreement, a sense of honor among men. Success or fail, the fact is those men gave their word to him, and he took them on based on that premise. From his perspective, they violated the 'law' and must pay. Dunson sincerely considers himself a fair man with the men. After the stampede led to one of his men's death, he tells Matt, "We'll bury him and read over him in the morning. And Matt... about his wife... see that she gets the full pay for the whole drive, just as if he finished it. And get her a... anything else you can think up." So, in his mind, he is more than just with his men. He even keeps the bargain with the dead man and his wife. So, when other men go back on their word and run off, he not only takes it personally but genuinely believes they are in the wrong. Besides, it's not like Dunson is taking it easy and basking in luxury while his men suffer. He shares all their hardships; he rides the same, sleeps the same, eats and drinks the same. If the men must drink swill for coffee, Dunson does too. In his mind, he is being on equal terms with them. He's more like a platoon leader in the field of combat than some general sitting in a posh office handing out orders.
Tom(Dunson) has no sense of being on equal footing with other men.
Yes and no. He's clearly the boss and leader. And yet, because he shares all their hardships on the journey, he believes he's on equal footing with them. He isn't just a leader of the men but one of the men.... unlike an aristocrat who wines and dines on the choicest morsels while the men must make do with grubs. This is why he especially feels betrayed by the men. In contrast, the Charlton Heston character in MAJOR DUNDEE comes across as something of a hypocrite because he doesn't always practice what he preaches.
Matt stayed with Dunson for as long as he did because he's seen both sides of the man. Dunson can be tough and ruthless but is not without a heart, a sentimental side. He even buried the Mexican he killed when he took the land and read the Bible over his grave. He made sure even his victims got proper burials. It's unlikely Dunson could have built a successful cattle operation if he were only about brutality and meanness. His men trust him because he's kept his word and been fair with them. And Matt is a bit touched by Dunson's concern for the dead man's wife. But there is the other side as well. The morning after the stampede, Dunson decides to horsewhip the overgrown child of a man whose sweet tooth set off the stampede. Sweet-Tooth-Man, though a fool, has pride enough to draw his gun(and surely get shot to death in the bargain by Dunson) than be whipped in front of everyone, but Matt comes to the rescue by shooting him first(to injure than to kill), whereby Dunson lets it be. In a way, Dunson is almost grateful that Matt intervened and arrived at a compromise position. The child-man got shot and punished but was allowed to live(and keep his pride intact). Of course, Dunson is too proud to admit Matt did the right thing.
...Matt leads a mutiny.. Tom vows to kill Matt... Tyranny might have been necessary to create the ranch and start the drive. But men are not animals, and Matt’s more democratic style of management is necessary to finish it. As the men move closer to civilization, they begin taking on some of its features. And in this case, who can blame them?
But didn't the rise of civilization lead to greater tyranny, at least for a long stretch before modernity and mass productivity allowed for more leisure and liberty for the masses? Many anthropologists believe that savages and barbarians were actually more democratic in the way they did things. Savages didn't have complex castes or classes. While some hunters/warriors had more power and prestige, they were more or less on equal footing with their peers. And they discussed matters as near-equals before a hunt, battle, or adventure. Things became less democratic with the rise of civilization, which led to the emergence of castes/classes and rigid specialization of skills, labor, and duties. A serf lived in civilization but was far less equal than a savage among his own kind. Even slavery among savages tended to be fluid, and slaves could become members of the tribe. It took complex civilization to come up with notions like the Untouchables in India. Spartans and Assyrians were highly civilized but also extremely authoritarian, though Spartan warriors, having passed the excruciating rites of passage, were at least near-equal among their compatriots(who made up an elite minority over the majority Messenians).
Dunson's problem isn't so much his toughness but its excess fueled by pride. Matt gains confidence of the men because he's willing to be more pragmatic in accordance to changing circumstances. It's sort of like what Merlin says to Arthur about Uther:
Arthur: "What kind of man was my father?"
Merlin: "Oh, he was brave, he was strong. He was a great knight."
Arthur: "Was he a great king?"
Merlin: "Well, he was rash. He never learned how to look into men's hearts. Least of all his own."
One advantage Matt has over Dunson is something called empathy.
If Dunson had been excessively indulgent with his men, that too would have been problematic, and in that case, Matt would have had to play tougher and tighten the slack. the real problem is excess, either way. This is what Oliver Stone missed in his confused morality play of PLATOON. He presents one sergeant(Tom Berenger) as overly tough, mean, and harsh while presenting the other(Willem Dafoe) as decent, kindly, and thoughtful. In truth, both men fail the test because one is too hard while the other is too soft. While it's true that the mean sergeant goes overboard, the nice sergeant's logic makes no sense: If he really believes the US should get kicked in the butt and that soldiering is about getting high on pot with Negroes, what the hell is he doing serving all these tours in Vietnam? Why not just go back to the states and join a hippie commune?
In the last act of Red River, Matt completes the drive. When his scouts find a wagon train ahead, complete with women and coffee, Matt changes the drive’s course to meet them. The men clearly need a break, and they are low on supplies. Tom never would have considered it. When the wagon train comes under Indian attack, Matt abandons the herd and rides to the rescue. Tom never would have bothered.
Matt heads for the wagons for relief but finds trouble with the Indians and nearly gets killed in the bargain(though he fears Dunson more than the Indians). I'm not sure Dunson never would have considered it, that is going toward the wagons. What matters most to Dunson is that HE's the one to make the final decision. Missouri as destination per se is less important than the fact that HE decided, and as in any organization(authoritarian or democratic), the buck stops with the boss. So, if HE decided to change course, that would have been okay. He's so used to being the leader that he's become overly confident and proud. So, had he considered it, he would done it and expected others to follow, or else.
When Matt meets and falls for a beautiful woman, Tess Millay (Joanne Dru), she asks to leave with him, but he refuses. She’s too weak for the road ahead. But he leaves her with Tom’s engagement token.
Not weak because she's a woman though. Weak because she's wounded. If anything, she's a feisty creature who more than holds her own in encounters with men. She asks questions first and doesn't like to be told what to do. She's very much a Howard Hawks staple, like Lauren Bacall in TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT. He liked tough gals who were at least the equal of men in the game of wit and wiles. And this woman is determined and makes her moves, usually before the men do. She shoots at Indians and, though not good with the gun, hardly flinches when an arrow hits her shoulder. Amidst the pain, she keeps her cool and sense of humor. Even under fire, she cares more for what she wants, handsome Matt, than worries about what may happen to her if the Indians prevail. And before she finally faints from the pain after the arrow is pulled out, she slugs Matt in the face as her savior/tormenter. John Ford also featured strong women(often fiery Irish ones), but they tended to be straight and narrow. Tess, in contrast, has something of the sultry vamp. There's the glow of the good girl but also shades of the bad, the temptress and whore. She smokes and hides a pistol in her shoulder brace in cold calculation.
And when she meets Dunson, the man determined to kill the object of her passion, she uses all manner of manipulation and even contemplates murder. Her love is aggressive. She has laid claim to Matt like Dunson once laid claim to a piece of Texas. Just like he had to have it and nothing better stand in his way, she feels likewise about her feelings for Matt. She will cajole and use her wiles to get what she wants.
She's also significant as the one who completes the circle. Dunson rode into the Southwest and lost his girl(to the Indians) because he went his own way. Tess could have ended up the same way but for the fact that Matt intervened and saved the wagon from the Indians. When Dunson lost his girl long ago, he never bothered to pick another woman(even though Groot and others found their own women and started families). Perhaps, Dunson, though low on guilt, is nevertheless haunted by regrets, and it seems he never quite forgot about the girl. And maybe his refusal to get married was a kind of subconscious self-punishment, a way of remembering the girl with whom he could have had a son. And yet, even though he lost the girl, a young boy wandered into his life and became a kind of substitute son, the boy he might have had with the girl. And what a tragedy it would be if Dunson killed Matt who saved a woman in the way the Dunson failed to do so long ago. Knowingly or not, Tess plants a seed of 'conscience' in Dunson's heart. He's still resolved to kill him but a brake's been placed in the momentum. When Tess heard of this terrifying figure Dunson, she was convinced he must be vile and monstrous because how could any decent man want to kill a good guy like Matt? So, she even hid a pistol and contemplated killing Dunson. But upon talking to him, she realizes he's not this monster but a man of real qualities who's driven more by pride than hatred. It's not hostility built on genuine hatred but on frustrated love. Also, even though she is still in love with Matt, she can see how a woman can fall for Dunson as well. Indeed, she half falls for him as well.
(Dunson) knows he is getting old. He knows that Matt is the closest thing he will ever have to a son. He knows that if he kills him, there will be nobody to carry on his vision once he has gone.
That's why he asks Tess to have his child, and she agrees to IF he chooses to end the hunt for Matt. While a woman's reproductive years are limited, a man can produce seed well into old age. Of course, her answer could have been just stalling before she could find the moment to kill him. But then, maybe she loves Matt so much that she would even have the child of Dunson to prevent Dunson's killing him. If Dunson really wants an heir, he can find some woman and still have children. But he has to finish the business with Matt. Consciously, Dunson feels betrayed and is resolved to kill him. But subconsciously, there's a sense he wants to meet up with Matt and square things because they have too much history together. Dunson is a like a house divided unto itself.
So, it's not that Matt is Dunson's only hope for a son. It's that Matt means a great deal to him. Indeed, Dunson's kind of hatred for Matt can only be the flipside of a great love. Why do family members often hate one another even more than they hate strangers? Eugene O'Neill built a cottage industry around such emotions. So did Arthur Miller with ALL MY SONS and A DEATH OF A SALESMAN. It's because of deep emotional bonds and deep love that make a sense of betrayal or failure so much more hurtful. If a stranger steals from you, you can hate him and forget him. If a son steals from you, that's really going to sting. Of course, Matt didn't really steal anything. He meant to sell the cattle and hand the money to Dunson, but what really matters is that Dunson feels his pride and authority have been taken from him, and that matters more than money.
He knows he is getting old. He knows that Matt is the closest thing he will ever have to a son. He knows that if he kills him, there will be nobody to carry on his vision once he has gone.
Sort of. But Wotan is the figure of moderation whereas Siegfried is the impetuous warrior who runs on passion and charges blindly into dangers. In RED RIVER, Matt seems more judicious and balanced(like Wotan) whereas Dunson has a tendency to allow emotions to get the better of him. Also, there is no great emotional bond between Wotan and Siegfried. More similar is the relation between Wotan and Brunnhilde. Wotan loves her dearly but must punish her for insubordination. Another comparison may be between Saul and David.
He’s a titan of industry, but at bottom he’s just a merchant. Now we see Tom willing to throw away everything he has built to avenge a very personal betrayal.
What does 'just a merchant' mean? And is it better to risk throwing everything away to fulfill a grudge(mistaken for honor)? At any rate, Dunson was never just a merchant. A merchant trades in existing goods and services. It's not the merchant who risks life and limb out in the frontier where something has to be built from ground up with his own hands. Merchant is a middleman, not a founder and builder.
Also, Dunson risked everything time and again to build the ranch. We notice he had to kill a bunch of men(who could also have killed him) to stake his claim and protect his land and cattle. And such bloodshed wasn't just for business for personal pride.
Pride is perhaps the biggest maker and unmaker of men. Pride is like a battle flag but also the shovel with which one digs his own grave. I'm always reminded of the line from THE WILD BUNCH where Pike Bishop and Dutch exchange these words:
Pike: "There was a man named Harrigan. Used to have a way of doin' things. I made him change his ways. A hell of a lot of people, Dutch, just can't stand to be wrong."
Dutch: "Pride."
Pike: "And they can't forget it... that pride... being wrong. Or learn by it."
Dutch: "How 'bout us, Pike? You reckon we learned - bein' wrong, today?"
Pike: "I sure hope to God we did."
That says so much about humanity, especially Sam Peckinpah the director, who lived and died by excess of pride and failed to learn from it.
It is an amazing buildup to one of cinema’s most anticlimactic and farcical resolutions. The mythic and heroic thrust of Red River points toward a bloody end: the unstoppable force of Tom Duson versus the unmovable object of Matt Garth.
But that's not really true. RED RIVER is folkloric and unfolds on the human level. It's not like ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST(or even THE BIG COUNTRY) that works on the level of archetypes. Leone's cosmic western is about the clash of titans. THE BIG COUNTRY is about the twilight of giant men who built the West before the dawn of the new way. Even SHANE has elements of myth. Reformed gunslinger as Kid Galahad and christ-figure.
In contrast, RED RIVER is unabashedly about Western folks. Consider the rough humanity of the cowboys hollering and hooting as the drive commences. It's not grand or mythic but earthy in its humanness. There's an air of fecundity about the movie and shouldn't be overly mythologized. It's filled with Western formulas, but the characters are exactly symbolic like the ones in DAYS OF HEAVEN.
Characters in RED RIVER have individuality and their own idiosyncrasies. It's not about fate ordained by the stars. There is a place for free will and chance. The random roll of dice. It's that kind of topsy-turvy movie where anything is possible. So, there is room for comedy along with suspense and tragedy. Nothing is etched in stone or 'written', and the American Character is not about fate and predestination but about possibility of change and learning to forgive and forget. Dunson may be unstoppable but can be slowed down, which is what Tess does. And Matt isn't unmovable. If he were so, he would have stuck by Dunson all along. After all, Dunson is like a father figure, the boss. But Matt was capable of being 'moved', of doing something as drastic as defying Dunson. It was because he was moved by the plight of the men who were pushed to the limit. Matt's good with the gun but is not a natural born killer. Indeed, there are shades of the quality of the girl Dunson failed to save in the movie's opening.
In RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, tensions come to a boil, and it seems the rivalry and resentment between two old friends, now bitter enemies, is unresolvable. The 'good' partner, Steve Judd, takes the betrayal especially hard, personal, because they were friends and had been through much together. His self-respect is the only thing he has left, but the 'bad' partner tried to rob him of even that which gives his life meaning and for what? Stolen money. The 'good' guy in HIGH COUNTRY is an arch-moralist in the way Dunson is not, but what they have in common is the iron grit to see it through to the end. Still, it's utterly believable when Judd forgives his friend in the final scene. In the end, the Western is about character, not about caste. There is always room for change, for redemption. The 'bad' partner, Gil Westrum, has come to see the light, to regain his lost moral sense. Also, the last exchange between the men in their renewed friendship applies to Dunson and Matt as well.
Gil Westrum: "Don't worry about anything. I'll take care of it, just like you would have."
Steve Judd: "Hell, I know that. I always did. You just forgot it for a while, that's all."
Likewise, in his pride and rage, Dunson forgot what has always been true between him and Matt. He loved the kid like a son. Even as he pursues Matt for a bloody showdown, there's another side of Dunson that is struggling to recover what is really the holy grail between the two men.
Tom’s wrath is too great to be turned aside by words. One of them has to die. The only really happy ending possible is Matt killing Tom. It is terrible to have to kill one’s tyrant father, but it is the only way to secure a future. It would be a powerful coming of age story.
That's the way GANGS OF NEW YORK plays out. That is tragedy where the young man kills the father figure but to avenge his real father, which complicates things a great deal. The ending of RED RIVER is very much in keeping with Howard Hawks' universe. Apart from Kon Ichikawa, I can't think of another director so versatile, so adept at juggling tragedy and comedy, darkness and gaiety. And in that spirit, the ending is a thing of glory and beauty. Besides, all throughout the movie, there was quirky funny stuff along with the heavy moody stuff. It's like Ethan in THE SEARCHERS wasn't all dark brooding passion. He was also a joker, even a child at heart at times, especially when Old Mose is around. Also, there was more to Ethan psyche that he cared to understand. He was determined to kill Debbie but, when he holds her in his arms, he can't do it. He becomes her savior and carries her home. That softer side was always there despite the simmering hatred. Likewise, there's the wrathful side to Dunson but also the softer side, one he loathes to acknowledge in a tough world.
But deep down inside, something prevents him from killing Matt. It's like God told Abraham to kill the kid but then decided otherwise. Even in real life, things don't always go according to plan. In ELENI, based on a true story, a Greek American journalist is sworn to avenge his mother who was murdered by a communist. But when the moment arrives, something happens and he can't pull the trigger. In TERMINATOR 2, Sara Connors plans to kill the evil scientist who came up with the system that led to Armageddon. But when face-to-face with the scientific genius, she just can't pull the trigger. He's a nice guy with wife and kid. Perhaps, it was also because he's black, and she just couldn't believe that some Negro is the greatest scientist in the whole world, sort of like discovering the top running back in the NFL is some nerdy Jewish kid. It'd be like killing Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. (Michael Corleone did go all the way and had his brother killed, but that didn't turn out so well.)
That Matt initially doesn't fight back suggests, despite his worst fears, he senses this side of Dunson. That for all the rage and machismo, there is too much between them for Dunson to actually kill him. Matt takes that chance, and when he finally strikes back, it's with the fist, something like Jacob's wrestling match. Also, Dunson doesn't have to die to make the point about the New West coming into being. He was loathe to admit it but at the end acknowledges that Matt has finally become a real man and may have made the right decision after all. The Old need not die and be crushed to make way for the New. It can accept the new reality and gradually fade away, like General MacArthur said.
In a way, the father figure fears and resents the rise of the sonny-boy figure. After all, it means the loss of authority. But it's also a matter to anxiety, that the sonny-boy figure may not be cut out for the tough task ahead. Vito Corleone thought Sonny was too rash and rough. Fredo was too dumb. He worried about Michael too because, though intelligent, his youngest son was kept away from the family business. But it turns out Michael has the wit and will to take over.
Dunson didn't know it at the time, but he finally realizes that Matt, in defying him, actually proved his own mettle, his fully-realized manhood. What better way than to defy the old man and bring it to a better conclusion? Too blinded by fury to see at the time, Dunson realizes that Matt's 'mutiny' was actually the biggest assurance that he is indeed the man for the job. Just as Dunson defied the odds to gain territory and build his ranch, Matt defied the big boss to steer toward what he deemed the better option.
There's a movie called DESERT BLOOM with Jon Voight and Annabeth Gish. Voight plays the father and is sometimes drunk and abusive toward his daughter. But he does love her. Problem is he feels helpless in a post-WWII world where the atomic threat looms over everyone. It's a world of technocrats and organization men, not of cowboys and individuals. His frustrations are partly a reflection of his inadequacy to protect his family from the world. When the girl finally defies him and rebels, one might think he would be upset. But actually he is relieved and makes peace with himself. Seeing his daughter self-confident and standing on her own feet, he feels less responsible for everyone.
One part of the father figure fears the rebellion by the child-figure, but another part of the father figure welcomes the rebellion because only then the child can prove that he has grown into manhood to take over the role of the new authority figure. Though Vito Corleone was distraught that Michael killed Sollozzo and the cop, he also understood that Michael is the real deal because he acted on his own initiative, just like when he'd decided to fight in the war. In defiance of the old man, he tapped into a deep well of inner strength.
The ending is fabulous. John Wayne's characters throughout his career were quick to fight but also quick to laugh and let bygones be bygones. He was not a fixed-in-stone character. Cowboys were not like samurai. And it would have seemed weird to have Montgomery Clift of all people kill John Wayne. It'd be like watching a deer kill a horse.
Wayne's style was tough but also yielding. Thus, his character is often deceptive. He smolders in THE SEARCHERS as if his hatred for the North is eternal, as if he's going to carry a personal war against the Yankees to his dying day. But, later when he encounters a Yankee cavalry, he jokes with them and gets along. Upon eyeing the grownup Marty for the first time, there's only unease and hostility. One gets the impression that he will never warm up to Marty, but he later does and even signs the deed to his property to the young man.
The whole appeal of John Wayne's character in SANDS OF IWO JIMA is he does have a heart(and even a kind of sentimentality) after all beneath the tough exterior. It's what the young man(who resented him throughout the movie) realizes as he reads the letter pulled from the fallen sergeant's pocket.
Ultimately, Dunson has to be seen as a variation of John-Wayne-ism than a historical archetype or model of political philosophy. In QUIET MAN, Wayne engages in the most brutal fist fight in movie history, but they all make up and laugh at the end. The ending of RED RIVER is so much in keeping with John Wayne's aura. A man who fights hard, drinks hard, fumes with rage, and can kill anyone at the drop of a hat but also one capable of letting bygones be bygones, forgive or accept forgiveness, and laugh about it, like a Viking. As a tough guy who admires other tough guys, he not only engages in rivalry but seeks camaraderie. In the long history of myths and legends, bonds between men start with a fight. Thus, they measure each other, and if both emerge from the confrontation relatively unscathed, they regard each other as blood brothers, and their scars become badges of honor.
In a way, RED RIVER is about the rite of passage and the anxiety of succession. There are three ways succession can take place.
1. The young man is obedient to the older man, does as told, and waits for his time on the throne. It's a peaceful transition. It's the conservative way. It's about loyalty and patience. The young man need not demonstrate toughness and initiative. Just the willingness to follow order and stick to his duties. While the old man may appreciate the young man's loyalty, he worries that his successor is too much of a dog, a flunky who never dares to stick his neck out. No sign of agency.
2. The young man is rebellious against the older man. He uses force to take over, and in the process, the old man is either exiled or killed. It's a violent transformation, radical or revolutionary(or animal as nature is about younger males thumping older males, even to death). It's about defiance and boldness. Naturally, the older man feels threatened by the young upstart. Still, he is impressed by the young man's brash confidence and outstanding qualities as an individual with mind and will of his own. Ideally, the old man would like to bend this extraordinary young man to his will. The problem is superior talents have ideas of their own.
Example 1 was typical of Oriental Despotism. Example 2 has been the staple of Modern Radicalism. The ultra-conservative succession and the ultra-radical succession.
But the Anglo and especially Anglo-American kind arrived at something in between. The succession did require some degree of loyalty and patience among those waiting in the wings. However, it wasn't sufficient to merely follow orders but required demonstration of some degree of individuality and initiative, the superior qualities of manhood. Don't just show that you're a loyal dog but that you got some wolfish genes as well.
This way is also fraught with problems, but there is some room for rebellion from below and a chance for those above surviving the change in power arrangement. It need not be like the Olympians toppling the Titans. Rather, old gods make room for new gods who nevertheless honor the former than exiling or demolishing them. Indeed, the one reason why the Anglo World relatively avoided the problems of succession of other civilizations owed to this middle ground between conservatism and radicalism. Civilizations mired in ultra-conservative succession became ruled by unimaginative flunkies who couldn't think beyond doing as told and what was expected of them. But civilizations given to ultra-radical succession led to bloodbaths, beginning with the French Revolution. UK avoided most of that by allowing enough room for both continuance and change. And even though American colonialists eventually rebelled against Great Britain, the two sides more-or-less made up their differences and remained the closest partners in world affairs, that is until Jews took over and made Israel the #1 'ally' of the US.
In a way, the ending of RED RIVER is reflective of something profoundly Anglo-American. For all the tensions, Dunson and Matt arrive at a compromise. Matt is the new man for the job, but Dunson still has a place and shall gradually fade away than being toppled like the French King or Russian Tsar.
Instead, however, Matt allows Tom to shoot at him. Is he used to this kind of abuse? Is Matt acting the role of Jesus, letting his father expend his wrath on him? But Matt can’t stop bullets or rise from the dead, so it seems like madness.
He took a gamble. Matt knows Dunson is capable of killing him. But he also knows that there is a kinder side to Dunson. Matt bets on Dunson not shooting him. Besides, even if Dunson does kill Matt, Matt knows Dunson will end up the worse filled with remorse once the rage abates. Dunson will finally realize he murdered someone he cares about most. So, either way, Matt can't lose. In some ways, Matt knows Dunson better than Dunson knows himself. Matt is smarter, more insightful, more empathetic.
So our storyteller—with flawless anti-tragic instincts—contrived to have Tom wounded by one of Matt’s friends, so his aim is off.
No, he stands way too close to Matt to be missing due to the wound. It's obvious Dunson is missing on purpose. He was so sure he'd plug Matt full of holes, but face to face, he just can't do it. Matt gambled on this and proved right. Furthermore, Matt's cool frustrates Dunson even more, like Lancelot's composure drove Arthur batty in EXCALIBUR. Composure > Combustion. Just like Gore Vidal beat William F. Buckley by not losing it, Matt beats Dunson in mind games. It's like matador and the bull.
And then, funnily enough, the nature of Dunson's rage turns from vengefulness to a teachable moment. Dunson fumes that Matt isn't man enough, that he's a coward. All those years of working under Dunson, but Matt won't fight like a man and just stands there like a statue. But once this emotional shift has taken place in Dunson, who then tosses away the gun and uses his fists, Matt knows murder and revenge are no longer part of the equation. It's about Dunson teaching Matt to be a man and about Matt finally showing that he's man enough to sock it to Dunson.
The duel to the death over honor has been replaced by a scuffle in the dirt.
What honor? It was never about honor but about pride. Honor is more than about personal angst, grudge, pride, and vendetta. There's an element of humility in honor. A man may risk his life in the name of honor because he believes in ideals, values, or codes higher than himself. In contrast, Dunson's anger was purely about his personal ego and pride. He felt humiliated by Matt because he was accustomed to being boss and being the leader of men. So, even though it wasn't a real mutiny — Matt defied Dunson not to take anything from him but to finish the job faster — , Dunson's pride just couldn't take it. Pride puts one's ego before the code, whereas honor puts the code before the ego. So, it's not like some lofty pursuit of honor turned into a rowdy slug-fest. It's just that nasty pride, filled with rage and even pigheaded stupidity, finally burned out. So, nothing valuable was lost and something genuine was gained for both men.
Having averted tragedy, the movie then plunges headlong into farce. Tess Millay breaks up the fight by firing off a gun.
It's a great comic moment and one helluva way to a happy ending.
Tom and Matt are breathless, bloody, and sprawled on their asses amid a peddler’s pots and pans. But they seem most stunned by the fact that they are being scolded like naughty children by a woman waving a gun around. Tess’s ravings are a classic case of dismissing the masculine struggle for honor—which basically encompasses the whole field of human history—as just a childish game.
Now, that's a childish insight. In a way, men ARE like children, which was also the point of Anthony Mann's WINCHESTER 73, where two grown men act like two boys fighting over a toy gun. In a way, much of what we call heroic or noble behavior is rooted in animal instincts and child play. It's like government is really just another version of high school politics. Also, it's not necessarily a bad thing that adults remain childlike in some way. It's like what the old man says in THE WILD BUNCH: "We all dream of being a child again." The appeal of the Western was partly to return to childhood dreams of heroes and adventure. Lion cubs playfight and grown lions really fight. There is a connection between cub behavior and adult lion behavior. Also, it is children who are most moved by stories of heroes and villains, action and adventure. In THE ILIAD, even the gods often act like children, and so much happens on the level of 'boys will be boys'. Achilles is often egotistical and petulant. The god Ares is sometimes like Bam Bam of THE FLINSTONES. When thrashed by Athena, he goes whining to Zeus who laughs in his face. The humor in the sword-pulling scene in EXCALIBUR owes to ruffian knights acting like bullies in a playground. Merlin said of Uther(who stuck the sword in the stone), "It's easy to love folly in a child."
It is a naive childlike notion that masculine struggles through history were really about honor. More often than not, it was about power and advantage. It's like childlike mentalities in America believe US military men are about honor, duty, service, yadda yadda yadda. No, they are toy soldiers, grocery clerks, or dupes of the cynical men of power. Indeed, so many stupid wars and mayhem could have been avoided if people acted a bit more adult-like and less childlike, less manipulated by call to 'honor and duty'.
Also, Tess isn't dismissing masculinity. If anything, she's drawn to Matt because he's a tough strapping young man. If he were a wimp or wuss, would she even care for him? And she's also impressed by Dunson because he too is one tough hombre. She is impressed with both men. She loves Matt but would consider producing a son for Dunson.
She lashes out at them because she's come to appreciate and care for them both, just like Bella in TWILIGHT don't want Edward the vampire and Jacob the wolf kid to beat the crap out of each other.
And she's right about another thing. Despite or especially because their rolling in the dirt and slugging each other(after all, they dispensed with guns and bullets), they do love one another. And she especially knows it because she's seen the softer sides of both men. Men are often loathe to show this softer side to each other. It may come across as effete, wussy, wimpy, soft, and 'gay'. So, men often wear emotional armors among each other. All tough exterior that hides the softer self. Men tend to lower their guard with women. Tess has been with both men and has seen the soft side of Matt(which completes his hard side) and the soft side of Dunson(who in his quiet moment acknowledges he never forgot the girl he lost long ago). Dunson and Matt never showed this side to one another but they bared it to Tess. So, Tess puts 2 and 2 together and spells out that they are not all about toughness. They do have a soft side and have feelings for one another.
Another thing is Tess is something of a tomboy, so her rebuke isn't exactly the female principle putting down the male principle but about someone who can straddle both realms. Earlier, it was obvious she's not a typical woman. She's the type to hold her own among menfolk. Because she's between masculinity and femininity and because she's between Matt and Dunson, she can serve as the bridge. It's like the Toshiro Mifune character in SEVEN SAMURAI. Precisely because he's 1/3 peasant, 1/3 samurai, and 1/3 bandit, he can serve as conduit among the groups. Samurai are rigidly set in their ways of warrior code and the peasants are set in their mode of survival; they arrive at an impasse that seems unresolvable, but Mifune's character breaks the ice because he has experienced both sides.
To borrow a line from Camille Paglia, if Tess Millay had her way, we’d still be living in grass huts. Hilariously, Tom suggests that Matt ought to marry her. I find this sudden transformation from embittered, slow-burning murderer to great big softie completely implausible.
Tess isn't some feminist. She is a pioneer. She is right there alongside the men in the building of a new order. She admires men of courage and mettle. She worships Matt as her white knight. It's just that her X-ray eyes see through the obvious. Dunson is blinded by pride but really loves Matt. And Matt didn't take up the challenge of the gun duel because the last thing he wants to do is kill Dunson. They settled for a non-lethal slug-fest to knock each other and clear their heads. Even without Tess spelling it out, Dunson and Matt surely realize that the war is over between them. They exorcised the demons like boys do in school yard fashion. But her words do put a finishing touch.
Also, it's not like Dunson goes from total blood-thirsty murderer to a humanitarian. Even at his angriest, he was repressing genuine affection for Matt, just like Ethan, even in his darkest mood, had some feelings for Debbie as the daughter of the woman he loved in THE SEARCHERS. The love was always there in Dunson for Matt but it was clouded by rage, but once the gloom-and-doom has cleared, the light shines again between them. It's just human. Many of us have sworn to hate someone forever only to see the anger eventually pass. Even between white men and the Indians, many learned to bury the hatchet and respect each other's worth as fellow warriors. After the most grueling boxing matches, the fighters sometimes embrace and appreciate each other. Men are quick to slug but also quick to hug.
in the last few minutes, it whisks us straight from barbarism to decadence.
Two men blowing off steam by duking it out and then the older man giving sound advice to the younger man to marry a tough-minded gal with X-ray eyes is 'decadence'? If so, we need more such decadence, which makes more sense than some delusional fantasies about 'honor'.
Also, what does honor via violence prove? Suppose Richard Spencer or Matt Forney called Trevor Lynch a piece of shit. What should Lynch do? Call for a duel? If Spencer bloodies Lynch's nose or if Matt Forney sits his fat ass on Lynch's face, does that mean Spencer or Forney is the better man? A duel proves who has better skills in combat. It doesn't prove who is in the right. (Indeed, even the Greeks acknowledged Hector was the better man despite losing to Achilles who horribly abuses the body.) Honor via violence has become especially pointless in a Negro-fied West. At least when the West was all white, regardless of who won the duel, the man with honor/glory was a white guy. But if things are resolved by violence today, blacks will own the 'honor' as they can easily beat up white guys. What is white flight but fleeing from black attack? Worse, Negroes, due to their jungle nature, cannot even win with grace but must showboat and act like apes. So, it's doubly humiliating for whites. Not only do they get thumped by blacks but must watch black booties shaking over them.
In a way, the ending makes perfect sense because the dam bursts for all three characters. Each had been holding something back but it finally pours outs. Dunson, in his great rage, held back his even greater love for Matt. Matt, in his lifelong deference to Dunson, held back all the resentments and grudges, which finally explode in the sock to Dunson's jaw, something that Groot himself has been waiting for all these years. Tess, the frontier woman, held back her softer womanly qualities and acted tough like the men. She even acted cool and nonchalant despite being shot with a poison arrow. Still, she's a woman after all, and her feminine qualities finally overflow into tears. It's all so joyous. Human moods can sometimes change like the weather. What looks like storm clouds can break into sunshine. Hawks captured this tragicomic aspect of life in all its glory.
If one expects every character to be symbolic and mythic, esp laden with political philosophy, one may be frustrated by sudden shifts and turns in attitudes and emotions. But, if one sees the characters as human like the rest of us, then it's the case that our natures aren't set in stone. While we are driven by larger forces from the outside and deeper forces from within, we also do 'write' our own life stories. There is free will, the possibility that things blow over. Just like friends can suddenly become enemies, enemies can be friends. As Dunson and Matt's first encounter were as 'frenemies', there were bound to be tensions that would explode one way or another, with either both dying, one killing the other, or more happily, both surviving and coming to a fuller understanding of the other and of oneself.
By the way, Dunson's hubris on the drive is indicative of an aspect of political psychology. Dunson was always tough but pragmatic as well. Of course, when the West was less crowded and when the American economy was less saddled with crises(mainly due to aftereffects of the Civil War), he had greater leeway. Still, he couldn't have achieved so much by being rigid and overbearing all the time. He had to rely on the knowledge and expertise of others. This side of Dunson is much like the remarkable men of history on the rise to power. Napoleon gained power by being both strong-minded and malleable. He was keen to the nature of shifting alliances and changing circumstances. He had to know when to stick his neck out, when to step back. Likewise, Mao's rise to power owed to his adaptability. He had a mountain-sized will but also the maneuverability of a mouse through tight crevices. He knew when to attack, when to withdraw. When to move boldly, when to hide. And of course, Adolf Hitler had to shake many hands in his road to power. He had to compromise with various figures in institutions and industries. He had to push hard at times but also act moderate and charm the skeptics.
But once these man gained supreme power and became accustomed to mastery over their domains, megalomania came to dominate their self-image and worldview. Confidence turned into pride into hubris. Toughness turned into a kind of faith in their invincibility. Result: Invasion of Russia, Operation Barbarossa, and the Great Leap Forward(and needless provocation of the Soviet Union).
Well, lucky for Dunson, he's pulled back from the brink, but that's very much in keeping with the American Character. Anglo-Americans were great fighters but also known for making up and burying the hatchet. Not a bad quality to have but fatal with Jews whose way is to never forget, never forgive, and always regard kindness as a weakness to exploit than good will to appreciate.
In a way, unbeknownst to both Dunson and Matt, the arc of their lives has been headed toward that moment. Sure, one could have ended up killing the other, or both could have died. But this is the West, and manhood has to be proven through a rite of passage. When Dunson picked up Matt in the middle of nowhere long ago, it was like a big dog took in a feisty cat. Matt is tough but feline, not canine. So, even though Dunson meant to hand over his ranch to the younger man, there was a lingering doubt in his mind as to whether Matt could really handle it.
Paradoxically, the only way Matt can truly assure Dunson is by defying him. He rose to the occasion, made the pivotal decision, and drove the cattle to the new(and preferable) destination. Dunson was too blinded with fury to see it at the time, but Matt was really proving that he could do it, that he could take over from Dunson. He may be a cat, but he can play top dog. It’s the crisis of succession. The older man doesn’t want to be bettered by the young man, but it is only then that the older man finally willing to relinquish the title.
And what better ending can one think of than Dunson, his rage flamed out, shows pride in Matt as a doer & fighter and at last fulfills the promise he made 15 years ago? He feels Matt has indeed earned it and devises a new brand that includes an ‘M’ along the ‘D’. The arc has finally been completed. A fabulous way to end the movie. Hawks made glorious entertainment, not deep tragic art.
Also, it sort of dawns on Dunson that Matt is the way he is because he learned under Dunson. In a way, Matt's bold action on the drive parallels what Dunson did at the beginning of the movie. Dunson was part of a wagon train but chose to go his own way. He deviated from the original idea because he saw something good in Texas.
Likewise, Matt shows initiative in opting for a new destination. His action mirrors what Dunson did in the beginning of the movie. He has a strong will of his own; and, even if it causes a rift with Dunson, Matt is becoming more like Dunson, someone who not only follows but can lead with his own decisions.
Even though Dunson becomes more unstable as the drive continues(not least due to lack of sleep and leg injury), he’s not being entirely irrational. When he left the wagon train in the opening of the movie, he hadn’t signed onto anything. He had merely joined a band of pioneers but made no pledge to stick with them to the end.
In contrast, right before the cattle drive, he spelled out in no uncertain terms to the men what the drive will entail. He said he'd understand why anyone may opt not to come along and said there won't be any hard feelings, and he meant it. If he were a true tyrant, he would have forced everyone to go with him, but he’s not like that. He spelled out the troubles ahead and made sure every man put the 'X' on the agreement. In other words, make a pledge.
Also, Dunson’s insistence on sticking to Missouri as destination is based on reason as well as pride. That the railroad runs across Abilene, Kansas is based on rumor and hearsay, not on verifiable fact. So, either way, it’s a gamble ahead. The way to Missouri is fraught with dangers from Indians and outlaws. But Abilene might not have trains running through it, in which the cattle will have been taken there for nothing. Thus, the choice is as much a case of gamble vs gamble as reason vs pride.
