There is much to recommend in the video above by Jared Taylor on the topic of White America's unique guilt regarding the enslavement of blacks. Taylor has been in the fight for white(or hu-white)peoples all over the world for much of his adult life, and he has brought intelligence, erudition, and dignity(especially relative to Neo-Nazi morons and Alt Right bad boys). But, everyone has a blind-spot, willful or otherwise, that misses out on the whole picture. Taylor is no different. There is so much that is good about the video, but it fails to answer its own question because it ignores the the founding creed of America, the notable advantages/talents of blacks(especially in the age of hedonistic pop culture), and the dominant power of Jews in current America. Once those matters are addressed, the truth is plainly visible. It should indeed be obvious WHY American Slavery has come to be regarded as a special evil unlike all others.
Though Jared Taylor is far more honest and courageous than most commentators on controversial topics, he tends to shy away from open discussion of Jewish power/influence, the black athletic/sexual threat, and the contradictions of the American Creed(and history). It is then hardly surprising that for much of the video, he goes into Pat Condell mode and dumps on Muslims and their brutal histories regarding conquests, slavery, and atrocities. Not being an expert on Muslim history, I defer to Taylor's knowledge on the subject. But why doesn't Taylor mention the Jewish role in slavery as well? Surely, Jews practiced slavery as much as any other people. According to Thomas Sowell, Jews played a prominent role in European slave trade in the Middle Ages. Jews sold plenty of white Europeans to Arabs and the like. (Jews also collaborated with Muslim conquerors of Southern Europe.) HUMAN RIGHTS FOR RAPISTS - Pat Condell
New World Slavery also had considerable input from Jews, especially in Brazil that brought over the most number of slaves. (Taylor says 12 million black slaves were brought to the New World. In college, I was taught that Brazil brought over 3 million slaves, and that was more than in all the rest of the New World colonies combined. So, I'm thinking the number had to have been less than 6 million.) Why does Taylor spare the Jews? He's been attacked, ostracized, and slandered by Jews and also removed from social media platforms and banking services. What does he have to lose at this point? Is he afraid that Jews will hurt him even more? Or, is he a starry-eyed seeker of the Great White Jew, the hope that Jews, being white(enough) and possessed of high IQ, will finally come over to the White Side as the intellectual engine of White Power? Well, he can keep dreaming, but reality seems otherwise.
Whatever Muslims may have done in the past(as slave-masters of captured blacks and whites), they are hardly the authors of the current Western demise. While Muslim immigrants may cause problems in Europe, Muslims themselves haven't controlled the powerful institutions that persuaded and browbeat Europeans into welcoming endless tides of non-white immigrants. White Politicians in Europe aren't generally beholden to Muslims. Rather, they take their cues from Jews who have near-monopolistic sway over media, academia, legal institutions, finance, and other centers of power. Jews also control the gods that make whites fear and tremble at the altars of Anne Frank and Nelson Mandela. And even though Muslims practiced White Slavery and exploited white women as sex slaves, so have the Jews.
Furthermore, Jews are the biggest White Slavers in the world today, even though they now do it legally. Jews control pop culture & pornography and use them to promote Jungle Fever and ACOWW(Afro-Colonization of White Wombs). Jews encourage cucky-wuckery among white men who are now reduced to cheering every instance of white woman ditching white man and going with blacks. Somehow, whites remaining faithful to their own race and having white children for white posterity is 'racist' even for mainstream 'conservatives'. Hardly surprising as both 'liberals' and 'conservatives' are utterly taken with the dogmas, idols, and narratives pushed by Jews who control academia and media. While this isn't slavery in the technical sense, it is in a deeper sense: Biological Slavery. After all, white women are going with black men and having black children not for color-blind reasons but interracist ones that say black men are the Real Men(with more muscle, bigger penises, and thicker voices) whereas white men are a bunch of slow flabby pansies whose role is to turn 'gay' and cuck to blacks. Jews don't so much push colorblind 'anti-racism' as interracism as a form of 'neo-racism', a proggy kind that says whites should mix with blacks not because race is just a social construct but because blacks are the superior race that deserves to lord over whites. And of course, in the relation between Jews and White Goyim is the unspoken faith that whites should serve Jews precisely because Jews are superior in intelligence(IQ), spirituality(the Chosen), and/or morality(eternally noble and saintly victims of 'antisemitism').
But Jared Taylor will not touch on these issues. It's likely he avoids matters related to Jungle Fever and the like because his formative years were more uptight about sexual matters, especially when pertaining to race. Still, Taylor has held nothing back in detailing black criminality and thuggery, their psychopathy and lower intelligence. On the matter of Jews, perhaps there is a kind of proto-boomerish sentimentality, as whites in the past grew up at a time when Jews hadn't yet consolidated their control of America and shown their true face. And it could be Taylor has had lifelong Jewish friends in the HBD community whom he's afraid to offend. It could be the hope for the Great White Jew. Or, despite having lost so much as the result of Jewish Power, perhaps he could lose even more, not even being able to hold his beloved American Renaissance conferences. At any rate, his reluctance to fully address the Jewish Question or JQ hinders him from a complete evaluation of what is really going on in the world, e.g. why has American Slavery come to be seen as a unique evil?
There are three key factors to be considered as to why the AMERICAN Slavery has become the focus of intense moral condemnation.
1. Jewish Factor. True, there were strong pro-black sympathies throughout US history, even before Jews arrived in large waves as immigrants. Before the Civil War, a Jew in America was more likely to be pro-Confederate and even own slaves. Abolition Movement had many fiery radicals fueled mostly by Christian moral outrage(that later became one of the pillars of the Prohibition Movement). Even many non-extremists thought slavery was a stain on America as a political and social project. And many whites in the North supported the war against the South to preserve the Union. The mindset was both nationalist and imperialist, as US was a nationalist outgrowth of British imperialism and spawned an imperialism of its own that spanned ever westward. A project committed to gaining more territory wasn't about to lose huge areas of the South, no more than the French were willing to let go Indochina and Algeria in the post-WWII period.
At any rate, prior to Jewish takeover of the US, there was a more balanced understanding of the struggle, war, and tensions between North and South. Being Anti-Slavery wasn't the same as being Anti-White, an unimaginable concept at the time. Most Northerners didn't want Southern whites to be terrorized by feral blacks. And even most anti-slavery whites in the North didn't believe in absolute racial equality between whites and blacks. If anything, the Republican Party soon became the conservative party of Anglo-American elites, big business, and the ever-expanding state.
Also, Northerners gave Southerners their due. Even if the South fought for a lost cause(that deserved to lose), they fought with courage and honor. Consider the sympathetic treatment of the South in John Ford's HORSE SOLDIERS. Dwight Eisenhower wrote glowingly of General Robert E. Lee. Before Jews took power in the academia and media to tip the scale, White America was, more or less, evenly balanced between conservative and liberal voices, with a modicum of mutual respect between the two.
But Jews did gain elite power in the US, with profound implications. Now, it's likely that many idealistic leftist Jews(when they were sincerely ideological) believed in the Boasian notion that Race is a social construct. Given their own struggles against goy prejudice(and explosions of violence), they felt special sympathies for non-whites and convinced themselves that the real dividing line between whites and blacks was mostly skin color, which could be overcome with social conditioning. (As things worked out, it didn't work because, while whites increasingly kept their side of the bargain, blacks failed ever more with theirs. Whites made an effort to become ever less 'racist', but this made blacks even more stereotypically uninhibited in aggression, violence, obnoxiousness, and ludicrousness, even to the point of a rapper calling himself Ludicris. But because whites traditionally held power over blacks, the assumption is the racial solution is entirely contingent on white improvement because whites control everything, whereas blacks are mere hapless victims with no sway over anything. Perhaps, this made sense at one time, but it no longer does, as blacks have plenty of power over many communities, even huge areas of big cities and key states. While one can blame the abusive parent for the problems of a young child, such lopsided moral aspersion is untenable when the child is a big teenager with considerable leeway in behavior and prone to delinquency. We are now at the stage where the black 'teen' is beating up the white 'parent', but we are still supposed to blame only whitey while pretending blacky is an innocent skittles-munching child.)
At any rate, Jews rule America, and Jews have thought long and hard about the essential pillars of their power. Jews know they got the talent but not the numbers to maintain the empire. They need white support. THIS is the main reason why Jews use blackness as the bullwhip against white identity, interests, pride, and freedom. Jews fear White Liberation more than anything, just like the British who regarded India as their 'jewel in the crown' feared the stirrings of Indian nationalism and resistance movement for independence. Of course, one could say Jews are being paranoid. Most whites are okay with Jews, and a whole lot of them are totally crazy about them. Jews, Jews, Jews, Israel, Israel, Israel. Whites love Anne Frank, Albert Einstein, and Jerry Seinfeld. But, Jews figure things can suddenly go south. Jews feel that much of white sympathy for Jews hinges on the Shoah, and perhaps its effect will fade over the years. Furthermore, Jews know themselves all too well. They know there are many wicked/crooked ones among them. Now, if good Jews were to flush out the bad ones, something like 'antisemitism' might not flare up. But Jews know they tend to circle the wagons. Good Jews(or better Jews) give cover to Bad Jews. Also, even Good Jews aren't good all the time and need bad Jews to do the dirty work, like with the respectable eye doctor in Woody Allen's CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS who calls on his gangster brother to deal with the woman problem. This means that Jewish Power will grow more corrupt and gangsterish. It means that even whites who'd been partial to Jews may grow increasingly suspicious of them. They might become 'red-pilled'. The fact is, when push comes to shove, even Good Jews have chosen to side with Bad Jews than side with Good Goyim. Ideally, good whites and good Jews should be united against bad whites and bad Jews. Jews have, over the years, goaded good whites to denounce bad whites and make common cause with good Jews and good non-whites. And many good whites have done just that. But have good Jews reciprocated by denouncing bad Jews? No.
Now, if good Jews don't denounce the bad Jews, aren't good Jews also bad Jews? When the good aids and abets the bad, what's the difference? Where is the Jewish outrage over Jonathan Pollard's release? Where is the Liberal Jewish outrage over what's been done to Palestinians? To morally cover for this contradiction, Jews have increasingly fused morality with identity politics. Goodness is less a matter of what you do than what you are. So, the mere fact of BEING Jewish is good. Never mind what Zionists have DONE to Palestinians or millions of Arabs. Jews are good because they are Jews, who are forever to be associated with the Holy Holocaust, timeless wisdom, genius(that is such a benefit to mankind, like the latest Covid 'vaccines'), and crowd-pleasing humor. So, never mind what Jews do. Just dwell on what they are. They are Jews, and that means they are good. And if you praise and bless Jews, you too must be good or better than those who don't. Result is moral rot.
It means good Jews should embrace bad Jews because the mere fact of Jewishness is good. So, even bad Jews are good simply for being Jewish. But in having embraced and protected bad Jews, even good Jews have made themselves bad. And the Jewish community, in insisting that goyim embrace and praise Jewishness on the basis of identity alone, have spread the moral rot to goyim as well. Most goyim never pay attention to Jewish behavior, actions, or impact on the world. The mere fact of Jewishness alone is synonymous with morality. "I have Jewish friends" makes you automatically better than those without Jewish friends, just like being Jewish makes you automatically better than being a mere goy. When morality turns into idolatry, morality turns into ethno-nihilism. Take the latest GOP yapping about Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream and West Bank. The ice cream company made its decision on the basis of Jewish behavior. Jews are occupying West Bank and tyrannizing the people there, who continue to lose land to Jewish 'settlers'. It isn't 'antisemitic' in the sense of targeting Jews simply because they are Jewish. The company policy is based on Jewish behavior. But, GOP-tards are howling like it's the biggest moral outrage simply because it was done against Jews. According to GOP-tards, being Jewish alone is enough to end the debate. Jews are right because they are Jews, just like God is always right because He is God. So, even though Jews are stealing Palestinian land, Jews are morally correct simply because they're Jewish whereas Palestinians are evil scum who dare to resist Jewish expropriation of their lands and property.
Now, a kind of 'morality' that is skewed toward favoring one group over another based solely on identity sounds like the classic definition of 'racism'. After all, if 'anti-racism' is the law of the land, all groups should be judged by the same set of rules. Then, why aren't Jews condemned for their actions against Palestinians? Why do Jews, who howl most about 'racism, racism, racism', of whites of course, demand that white goyim support what Jews do to the Palestinians simply because being Jewish makes Jews right? And why do Jews get away with this, as both most Republican and Democratic voters hardly raise a fuss about their political representatives shamelessly whoring themselves out to Zion? Fish rots from the head, and Jewish elite power has corrupted the moral health of America. Jews have done a bait-and-switch on whites. Jews pressured whites to abandon any vestige of white identity/interests and go for colorblind ethics for all, regardless of creed or color. But these very same Jews will shriek and howl if any white(or goy) says America should treat Jews and Palestinians equally with the same set of rules. Given the sheer hypocrisy of this, one would think whites would have caught on, but no. Why not? Because most whites rely on their leaders, elites, and representatives to tell them what is what, and most whites-at-the-top are bought-off and/or blackmailed whores of Zion. The other is the power of myth. As most whites grew up with Holocaust Mythology, Anne Frank Cult, and so many movies & TV shows were Arabs/Muslims are little more than swarthy terrorists or white-slavers, their emotionality favors Jews and Zionists over Arabs and Muslims. And as Jews control the news media, most Americans get a very warped view of Middle East affairs.
'Idolatrism' is the new 'racism'. This is why even Jewish Liberals are really Triberals, i.e. it's about the use of Liberalism to ultimately serve Jewish Tribalism. If white 'racism' was about favoring whites over non-whites on the basis of whiteness alone, 'idolatrism' is about favoring Jews, blacks, and homos over all other groups regardless of their deeds, action, or behavior. This is obvious with blacks. They burn, loot, and create havoc, but they are always moral saints. The notion that some creep like George Floyd would be considered a saint or angel would have been laughable in an earlier time, but it is reality today.
Now, it's true that certain groups underwent special tragedies in the modern era. So, one could sympathize with the victims of those tragedies. But to permanently affix tragic dimensions onto a group can only lead to moral nihilism. We can sympathize with Chinese of the Nanking Massacre period and with millions of Russians who died in World War II. But does the fact that many millions of innocent Chinese and Russians died mean that today's Chinese and Russians are automatically noble and saintly on the basis of identity and above moral opprobrium when they do bad? Sounds absurd, but such are the rules in the West in regards to Jews, blacks, and homos.
A major fallacy is to confuse victimhood with virtue. Most human tragedies weren't the result of saintliness, nobility, or martyrdom but of pure-and-simple defeat to the bigger power. American Indians didn't lose because they were noble pacifists who turned the other cheek. They lost because whites had the numbers and more guns. Blacks became slaves not because they were meek and humble but because they got captured by bigger African tribes who sold them for gold to white slave ships. While tragedies suffered by Christian saints resulted from pious acts of self-sacrifice, most human tragedies were really the result of one set of bullies losing to a stronger set of bullies. Japanese and Germans faced great tragedies in WWII, but they were in the fight, often as initiators. Also, while the Shoah was horrific, it was an extreme and fanatical reaction to lots of bad Jewish behavior. Jews weren't saintly victims but often a**hole victims. This doesn't excuse Hiroshima or the Holocaust, but it was not a case of wholly innocent and saintly people being killed for the hell of it.
Not only are we supposed to believe that Jews bear NO RESPONSIBILITY for the Shoah, but we are supposed to believe that all Jews everywhere forever and ever are akin to Anne Frank regardless of what they do. Saying that Jews deserve partial blame for the Shoah isn't the same as blaming-the-victim. If a woman minding her own business is attacked and raped in a park, she is blameless. Blaming her would be blaming the victim. But if someone in the park taunts and provokes others to the point where someone finally has had enough and beats him to a pulp, he is partly to blame. Given Jewish role in communism, financial capitalism, and cultural degradation leading up to WWII, yes, Jews do deserve some blame for what happened to them, just like Germans and Japanese must take some blame for the destruction of their nations in WWII. Sadly, Jews, in their Holocaust-moral-megaloamania, have learned nothing and are once again spreading filth and craziness all around the world with zero self-awareness that they themselves may be at the epicenter of world troubles. And the cucks play along and pretend all the problem stems from China or Iran(if the cuck is 'conservative') OR from Russia or 'white supremacists'(if the cuck is 'liberal'). And of course, blacks deserve some blame for the rot in their communities, but the current 'idolatrism' says that they are totally and eternally blameless(just like Jews and homos), and all the blame must go to whitey.
Unless Jews are judged for what they do than for what they are, 'idolatrism' is the order of the day in the US, and it is virtually identical with what is called 'racist'. The only difference is Jews have associated their identity with historical tragedy. Thus, one could say they are not favored for their 'skin color'. Rather, they are favored for their Memory. But morally pasting the past to the present to excuse bad behavior is just another kind of prejudice. In some ways, it is worse because Jews are invoking morality to act immoral. "Because Nazis treated us badly, we can act like Nazis and treat others the same way." Jews denounce 'white supremacism' not to attack supremacism as a general principle but to buttress Jewish supremacism.
Likewise, blacks complain about how white 'racists' in the past done stereotyped them as savage apelike thugs as a moral excuse to act like, well, savage apelike thugs prone to looting, robbing, beating, hollering, raping, murdering, shooting, and acting demented. But because we are supposed to judge blacks on the basis of Memory, they are forever the saintly slave-victim even when they use their advantage in muscle and natural aggression to terrorize entire communities. Blackkks are the main thugs and lynch mobs in America.
And of course, even though homos spread HIV and died from too many wild orgies of homo-fecal-penetration in bath-houses, parks, and wherever, they are not to be judged, lest one be denounced as 'homophobic'. More 'idolatrism'.
To better understand Jews and whites, suppose you're a rancher and have a variety of animals. You have a horse, a dog, a hedgehog, a frog, a monkey, a turtle, a cow, a goose, a chicken, a goat, a sheep, a hawk, a gopher, a deer, and etc. Which animal would you value most? Which animal would you be most mindful about having control over? It's most probably the horse. It's the most powerful and the most useful animal. Dog would be second, but you can't ride a dog or use it for plowing. Not only is the horse most powerful but it's also naturally fierce and independent(and least fearful of small man). A horse naturally wants to run free. And it surely doesn't want to carry a man on its back. Also, if it goes out of control, it can do most harm. One kick from a horse can turn a man's brains to mush.
In contrast, take a hedgehog. It is hardly of any use to man. It might be fun to have around as a pet. Also, even if a hedgehog acts out of order, what could it do? It can't harm, let alone kill, a man. Turtle might be put in a pond. Maybe it can be made into turtle soup. Again, it's hardly of any use to man, and there's no concern about its behavior. A goat-gone-bad might be troublesome, but even a bad goat isn't much of a threat to man. Also, goats aren't very useful for anything but producing goat milk. But the horse is very useful, and it must be made to obey and follow instructions. The well-being of the rancher counts so much on his control of the horse.
Jews see whites as the White Horse or the War Horse of Jewish Power. Without whites in the military, state, industries, and institutions to run things, Jews could only do so much. And among whites, Northern European whites are most prized. Indeed, would Jews have taken over the world without saddling on top of the Northern European horse? Anglo/Germanics are the prize stallion of Jewish Power. That is why Jews do everything to make sure that white people(especially Anglo-Germanics) obey and follow Jews. But carrots aren't enough. Jews have a lot of money, but money only goes so far. Japan spread a lot of money around in the 80s, and China does the same today, but they can only buy favors, not loyalty. And the stick isn't enough either, especially as Jews themselves don't have the military and/or police muscle to beat all whites into compliance. If they did, like with the Palestinians, Jews would probably rely less on 'white guilt'. After all, Jews know they got the stick of military power to crush Palestinians and don't bother to instill Pallies with 'Arab Guilt'. But Jews can't do to whites what they do handily with Palestinian men, women, and children. And that is why Jews use power of media and academia to instill white souls with 'white guilt'. THAT is why the subject of American Slavery has come to loom so large. Historically, Latin America enslaved many more blacks, but for the time being, Jews need Latinos as allies against the gringos and yanquis, and so the Narrative on Latin America is, "all the races are so wonderfully mixed, and there is hardly any racism down there, and all is forgiven and forgotten." History is often a game of selectivity. It's not about all that happened but about picking and choosing and shaping narratives to serve the power and agenda of the group that gets to select them.
2. American Credo factor.
Jared Taylor has often said that the Founders envisioned America as an outgrowth of Europe, especially the Anglospheric World and parts of Germania. The Founders also believed it would be a Christian nation despite the absence of an official religion or state church.
But the American Credo was chockful of contradictions from day one. Despite the social realities and personal preferences of the Founders(and the peoples back then), there were powerful tendencies in the American Vision that directed the national future toward universalism and globalism. There wasn't a single credo but competing credos. Some were merely sensed or taken for granted, whereas others were written down as laws and principles. And when one looks at the Constitution, pro-whiteness isn't spelled out. Perhaps, the Founders didn't need to write it down because it was taken for granted. But on the other hand, perhaps the Christian impulse and Enlightenment Values of the time gravitated toward a larger definition of Americanism. So, while the details of Americanism at the founding(and for a century and half) was Anglo-American, Eurocentric, and pro-white, the overarching goal aimed at something bigger. Also, universalism has a loftier perch than particularism. Enlightenment was credo-imperialist in wanting to unite the world with the power of reason and science. Christianity had the missionary zeal of converting the world and saving souls of all peoples. So, despite the many particularist realities of the American founding and history, there was a semi-utopianism that was either idealist or invoked idealism to justify the ambition for more conquest and power. Why did Christianity and Islam win out over more particularist cults and religions?
Consider the Old Testament, full of competing narratives and credos. At times, God is peace-loving and understanding. Other times, He is angry and violent, willing to smite entire peoples. Parts of the Old Testament suggest at the need for peace and understanding between Jews and goyim. Other parts suggest Jews should crush and destroy the goyim. God has many faces in the Old Testament, and one could use it to condemn or justify slavery. After all, Jews fled from bondage from tyrannical Egypt. But Jews also owned slaves, and Jews had no laws against slavery. There are times when God is about justice. Other times, His power seems arbitrary, a matter of whim. Old Testament says God is the only God, the sole Deity for all the world and all mankind. But it also says God has a special relation with Jews. Some Jews interpreted this as God commanding Jews to be light unto all mankind. Other Jews interpreted this to mean Jews alone have souls whereas goyim are like beasts who should be treated like cattle. So, there is no single interpretation of the Old Testament. However, the fact that the Old Testament led to the New Testament and the Koran that came to profoundly impact history suggests that its universalist urge was too powerful to overcome. Of course, Jews rejected it and kept with the Covenant. But some Jews forged a new religion that argued that God is truly for all mankind and not only for Jews. After all, if there is only one God and if He is about love and justice, why shouldn't He bestow His blessing equally unto all the peoples? And Christianity later inspired Islam, another universal faith.
Likewise, despite the contradictions within Americanism from its founding, certain ideas were bound to gain an upper-hand over others. The Founders spoke of liberty, freedom, dignity, and equal justice of mankind in general. They were Enlightenment idealists, and most Americans had a powerful Christian impulse to save the world, extending all the way to the time when Jared Taylor was a child in Japan of Missionary Parents.
History often depends on which elements have more charge, as in electrical charge. Suppose there are 50 of elements A and 50 of elements B. They are even-steven at the start, but suppose elements of A have more charge in them. Thus, they are more active and pull together and cause more commotion. Suppose, in coming together, they create sparks and create even more elements of A. So, A elements go from 50 to 100. In contrast, the elements of B have less charge. They are less active and manage to produce only 10 more of its kind. Over time, it's 100 A vs 60 B. Why did America achieve so much more than Russia since1800? Anglo-American Protestant spirit was far more charged than the Russian soul mired in Orthodox Byzantinism.
Some ideas are dry, some are wet. Some are cold, some are hot. The combination of Enlightenment Principles and Christianity(unmoored from statist controls in Old Europe) added more charge to the universalist impulses in American History. Universalists were often more aggressive and dreamy than the particularists.
Also, universalism was a way to deal with the moral contradiction inherent in the American Enterprise. America expanded by taking lands from the Indian savages who, in some cases, were wiped out. Also, America relied on black slave labor in the South. America could have created a Constitution that specifically said Whites have the right to rule over darkies and the red man, but then, the American Project would have sounded grimly Spartan. Sparta had the brooding Spartans lording over the cowering Helots. It was a dark order. Americans wanted to feel good about themselves. After all, Jefferson spoke of the Pursuit of Happiness. They were moralists and didn't want to feel mean and cruel. So, even though they did cruel things, they wanted to convince themselves that the American Experiment would eventually morally redeem all that had been done. If America had been founded on an island with no natives and without slave labor of another race, perhaps things would have been different. But to insist on a wholly white country in a land taken from the Red Man and labored by the Black Man and furthermore committed to the principles of freedom and fairness was something of a stretch. The very fact that blacks were allowed to become American citizens under the law meant that one didn't need to be white to be American. If blacks could be American like the whites, who was to say peoples from other parts of the world couldn't be Americans one day as well? Surely, whites in the 1860s had no inkling of the mass non-white immigration that would engulf the country a hundred years later, but in making blacks the equal of whites as American citizens(at least in theory), they effectively did away with the idea that only white people could be Americans.
Another factor was that white births simply couldn't keep up with the demands of American development. There was too much land to settle. Too many factories to fill. When Anglo and German immigrants weren't enough, the US looked to Eastern and Southern Europe. A lot of this had to do with white Americans favoring fellow white workers than blacks, but the need to assimilate these Other Europeans further weakened the particularist elements of Americanism. With the Other Europeans also came the radicals, especially among the Jews, many of whom were anarchist or socialist. But Jews were also the most talented capitalists and gave the Anglos a run for the money. Jews wanted more immigration to bring over more of their own kind to the New Land, a more hospitable and tolerant place than the Old World. Also, the greater meritocracy in the US meant that Jews could rise faster and higher, even challenging Wasps for mastery over the nation. Then, it was in the interests of Jews to play up the universalist aspects of Americanism. And yet, the great irony is that Jews were also the most particularist people to have set foot on America. Indeed, Jews weren't aiming to join in the melting pot but to melt the goyim into a hodge-podge so that they would be too mixed and confused to take on rising Jewish Power. The Melting Pot as Jew Stew had the Jews as the chef and the goyim as the ingredients.
In a way, American Guiltism is the flipside of American Narcissism. It's the one who highly regards her own beauty who sees every little blemish as an intolerable ugliness that must be expunged. The myth of American Founding had brave freedom fighters resisting and defeating the British. Americans defined themselves as free people in a republic or democracy, as opposed to Europe that was mostly dominated by kings and aristocrats(until World War I brought an end to monarchical rule). The 'genocide' of the Indians was spun as the great Manifest Destiny, white settlers and freedom-and-opportunity-seeking immigrant folks expanding westward to tame the wilderness and build communities fit for womenfolk and children, with schools and churches, like in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. The Western genre mythologized this in Hollywood. (Jewish moguls sure funded a lot of 'genocidal' propaganda.) Americans flattered themselves as protectors of the New World(including Central and South America) from the clutches of the Old World. (Of course, Latin America saw North America as its tormentor, but that's another story.) And even though US had slavery, the Civil War Narrative redeemed America. Supposedly, no civilization had ever fought a war to end slavery. The US did because, when push came to shove, Americans are for freedom over bondage. Americans regarded themselves as saviors of Europe in World War I and II. And Americans were also full of themselves as the saviors of the world from communism. So, one of the running themes of Americanism was that United States wasn't content to be just one nation among many. No, it was different. Its destiny was grander than any other nation. America was blessed with great land and resources. It was founded on freedom. It cleansed itself of the sin of slavery with the Civil War that cost so many white lives. Not only did America break free from Old tyrannical Europe but in the 20th century stretched out to defend Europe from German Imperialism, Nazism, and Soviet totalitarianism. So, in retrospect, it seemed like America was bound to be a Nation of Destiny, a superhero nation. And of course, Jews fed on this vanity. Theodore Roosevelt ate it up when Jews flattered America as a special nation. Roosevelt was among the most racially chauvinistic presidents ever. He was a kind of 'white supremacist' even beyond the norms of the day. But even he couldn't resist the portrayal of America as the land of the free, a beacon of light unto the world, and all that.
But when a people have such high regard for themselves, they're bound to be traumatized by proof to the otherwise. It's like the Don Henley song, "End of the Innocence". Now, there was always plenty that was dark, violent, cruel, and crazy about America, but compared to the rest of the world, it wasn't a bad place to be in the 19th and 20th century. In the 19th century, it was far freer than Europe that came under aristocratic rule after Napoleon's failures. And Asia in the 19th century was the beginning of its humiliation(along with renewal). Latin America got mired in stasis and backwardness. Africa was still totally savage. And in the 20th century, even being a Negro living under Jim Crow in the US was a hell of lot better compared to what would befall the fates of those living in Ukraine, Russia, Germany, Poland, China, Turkey, and etc. So, relative to the rest of the world, America went from success to success, victory to victory. American Triumphalism became mainstay of the Narrative, and this made a lot of Americans rather naive and 'innocent'. They got to seeing America as the land of baseball, apple pie, five-and-dime stores, and milk shakes at the local drug store. Even Jews couldn't resist this. In Neil Simon's BRIGHTON BEACH MEMOIRS, Jews across the ocean are facing hell, but the lead character is mainly obsessed with baseball cards and nudie photos of women. The worst thing he can imagine is eating liver and onions for dinner.
And American Amnesia has gotten worse since the boomer 60s. At the very least, white folks prior to the boomers had it pretty tough themselves. Few grew up with privilege. Many worked on farms or factories. Or coal mines. And they had tough parents who whupped them. It's like Pat Buchanan wrote a autobio about his father using the belt on him and his brothers like they was Negroes who ain't picked cotton all day. So, even though many white folks could sympathize with Negroes on some level, they didn't go overboard with 'white guilt' crap because their parents and they themselves had to struggle to make ends meet. They figured life was often hard for them but harder for Negroes. But since the 1960s, the boomers grew up and became huggy-wuggy parents who raised their kids in a world of plenty, leisure, narcissism, and convenience. So, unlike white folks in the past whose sympathy for Negroes was tempered by their own hard knocks in life, the Millennials are 'triggered' by the fact that blacks had it tough. For past whites who had it tough, blacks merely had it tougher. But for Millennials who had it so nice, it was unimaginable that anyone could have it tough. Now, if they had real knowledge of American History, they'd know that most whites didn't have it so good. But as the academia and media are controlled by Jews, the emphasis is almost solely on black hardship(and Jews facing 'antisemitism' and homos persecuted by 'homophobia'). So, Millennials don't compare black hardship of the past with white hardship. If they did, they'd realize blacks had it worse but whites didn't have it so good either. But because they're only told of black hardship, they compare past black experience with their current good times. Instead of comparing black sharecroppers with whites toiling in coal mines, factories, or railroads, they compare blacks with their spoiled white selves immersed in the leisure of watching Netflix and playing video games.
In the past, white journalists came from the school of hard knocks. They had it tough themselves. Many didn't go to fancy schools. So, even though a good number of them were liberal-leaning and could see the fundamental unfairness faced by blacks, they didn't feel like princes with undeserved privileges over blacks. But look at today's Millennial journalists. They grew up in total affluence with huggy-wuggy parents who provided them with everything. They really don't know any hardship. Many went to tony schools and rubbed shoulders with other privileged kids. So, when they read about black reality of past or present(as blacks continue to wallow in violence and misery), they just can't believe it and go all weepy-'woke'.
At any rate, one of the main reasons why American Guilt came to matter more is Americanism has been founded on More Pride. Bigger they are, harder they fall. Bigger one's pride, bigger one's shame when the pride is pricked with evidence to the contrary. A humble man isn't much bothered by the exposure of his failings. He will readily admit, "Nobody's perfect." But a man who is so full of himself as Mr. Wonderful is due for a great fall when it's shown he's not so wonderful.
America calls itself EXCEPTIONAL. Well, exceptional guilt is the flipside of exceptional pride.
Hubris is met with Nemesis, and the lesson is America was stupid to be so full of itself. But then, a less ambitious America wouldn't have been America.
3. The third reason as to why American Slavery came to be regarded as especially evil can be illustrated by way of the Guillermo Hypothesis. The problem isn't slavery per se but the enslavement of blacks. Had the US enslaved another people, the guilt complex would be far less. Suppose Americans had decided to use brown natives of South America as slaves. Southern Plantations would have been packed with people who look like Guillermo(of Jimmy Kimmel Show). The slaves would have been more docile. There would have been less fear of slave rebellions. Being more docile, the Guillermo-like Gomezers would have made less trouble, and there would have been less reason to whip them. The slavery enterprise would have been less cruel.
Furthermore, slavery might have ended sooner with Southern initiative because the Guillermos would have been less threatening than muscled Negroes with big dongs who be yapping and hollering all the time. A civil war might have been avoided. And after Emancipation, the Guillermos would have been mostly a silent minority. White Men need not have feared Maize Fever. And whites would have continued to dominate sports. Over time, whites would look back and feel sorry about brown slavery, and there would be stuff about how America owes something to the Guillermos who picked cotton and helped build the American Economy. But whites wouldn't feel much guilt because Guillermos are, well, just a bunch of Guillermos, a mediocre bunch. So, whether Guillermos be slaves or free men, they could only amount to serving as the sidekicks of the white race.
But it's different with blacks because, after slavery, blacks became so prominent in sports and pop music. Also, blacks got them boombox voices that secularized white folks hear as the voice of god hisself. Even though US is vilified for its 'racism', the special American Guilt regarding blacks is predicated on a kind of 'neo-racism', the proggy kind. Subconsciously, whites feel they enslaved the superior race. They really feel this way because they hold blacks in awe in athletics, rapping, hollering, and humping. It's the song-dong-strong-wrong dynamics. Whites are obsessed with black musicality. White youths love rap, and European elites are most into reggae. They got jungle fever for black dongs(and twerking black buns). They worship black athleticism and believe in black girl/boy magic. And that's why what they did to blacks seem especially wrong. It's one thing to have enslaved the Guillermos of the world, but it's another thing to have enslaved the Muhammad Ali's, MLK's, Otis Redding, and Long Dong Silvers of the world. Of course, this is 'racist', or 'neo-racist'. 'Anti-racism' would demand that guilt be equal in regard to all peoples as a matter of principle: All Men are Created Equal. While whites ideologically subscribe to such notion, their visceral sense of awe regarding blacks overwhelms any consistency in logic. But then, it's the same in regard to Jews and Palestinians. Whites are so philosemitically smitten with Jews as geniuses and gurus that they are overly sensitive to any tragedy involving Jews but almost totally insensitive to the tribulations of Arabs/Muslims, even if they were mainly caused by Jews and their Western enablers.
Notice whites feel almost nothing for American Indians today even though the latter are, by far, the most tragic people of the Americas and even of the entire world. (Whereas blacks still got Africa and Asians still got Asia in the aftermath of Western Imperialism, American Indians lost their homeland forever.) But it wasn't always so. In the past, American Indians were respected as fierce warriors. Once the dust settled after the bloody and cruel Indian Wars, whites could romanticize Indians as brave warriors, fearsome and worthy foes. And so, for a time, Indians had a certain prestige in the annals of American Tragic Narrative. But with the passing of years, Indians became less visible and significant because they fail to cut it in the fields whites are most obsessed about, sports and pop culture.
Anyway, if we combine factors of 1, 2, and 3, we can understand why America has a special guilt-fixation about black slavery. Muslim World didn't let Jews take over elite institutions and industries. Had Jews gained such power, maybe they would have pushed 'Muslim Guilt' onto the young ones. Whites let Jews take over at the top. Furthermore, unlike Latin American countries that also imported black slaves(even far more than the US), the US was full of itself as the Nation of Destiny. Latin America countries were rather humdrum about their place in the world, their destinies. Americanism was predicated on becoming a world power, a nation like no other, a beacon of freedom, the one that would bring about the End of History. It was born of the contradictions inherent in British Imperialism and formulated as Enlightenment-Imperialism. America was to Britain what Christianity was to Judaism, what the Roman Empire was to Greek Civilization.
Though the Founders were mainly focused on securing the fragile republic, the seeds were there at the beginning, and the radiant(and unrealistic) idealism outshone the racial particularism of America as a white nation, much like the sun drowns out the stars. It's like Christianity could emerge only by going beyond Jewishness. Alexander the Great could forge his empire only by going beyond Greek power and prestige. In outlook, the Founders were in many regards temperate and modest men, but the creation mythos of America as a kind of New Eden freed from Old World tyranny was bound to have huge implications. America developed as a kind of experiment where European Civilization would start anew by planting its best ideas about freedom and dignity of man MINUS all the baggage of tradition and prejudice. Also, unlike cramped Western Europe, America seemed boundless in land and resources.
Of late, Europeans reversed this dynamics in the post-WWII era. Increasingly, Europeans came to see America as the land of 'racism' with its black problem. So, by importing tons of blacks and treating them right, Europeans would start Americanism Anew in the EU but without the element of 'racism' and slavery. Blacks would be welcomed as free men, and they would prosper alongside white Europeans as equals. That would show the Americans what Americanism really could have been if white Americans hadn't been so greedy and hypocritical, so 'racist' against blacks. But of course, whites in both US and EU are dummies because blacks are the destructive race, and it has nothing to do with laws coded in books. It's in the coding of DNA that drives blacks to destroy whatever whites build, regardless of whether whites are kindly or meanly disposed toward blacks. But whites are doomed to fall because they are so in awe of blackness. In 2020, blacks laid waste to so many communities. They exhibited new levels of savagery and wantonness. But after all that, whites in Milwaukee are besides themselves with Negro-worship and Negro-lust because black 'heroes' won the basketball championship for the city. Whites are dummies, or whummies.
Nicholson’s “tragic flaw” is that he does not see that his virtues only really make sense when practiced among his own people, for their benefit. In the prison camp, however, these virtues are being exploited by a ruthless enemy who aims to destroy the Empire that Nicholson so loyally fought to preserve. There’s a lesson in this for white people today, since our openness to strangers, altruism, and moral idealism are being exploited by a system that is destroying us as well.
In a way, it's not so much a personal flaw as a cultural-professional vulnerability among the Anglos. On the one hand, Anglos were imperialist and race-ist and took pride in their blood and heritage. But their empire also claimed to be different from other empires. It wasn't merely about brutal conquest and exploitation of others but bringing of civilization unto benighted folks around the world. A light for both fellow Europeans on the Continent(as the British oh-so-superior to the Teutons, Slavs, and the fallen Latins) and the darker folks around the world. So, the British Empire wasn't just about white man clobbering the darkies but elevating them to higher forms of civilization. As one of the officers in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA explains, it's about 'discipline', not just 'guns'. One could also add excellence and meritocracy. In other words, Brits are better not simply because of their identity but their ability, know-how, dedication, and commitment to quality.
There was a time when Anglos had pride of seed, creed, and deed. They were about blood, culture, and work. So were the Jews, a rival power vying for dominance with the Anglos, an uneasy partner-in-crime. Jews knew that they had to undermine the element of seed and creed to gain control over Anglos. While preserving their own sense of seed/blood, Jews increasingly convinced Anglos in UK and US that they were too good for such ugly tribalism and 'racism'. Jews flattered the Anglos as the better kind of whites who, unlike those backward Italians and Slavs, lived by a higher universal creed and took pride in deed/work than in atavistic tribalism. Anglos increasingly fell for this BS pushed by Jews, but they were especially vulnerable as they were relative late-comers to civilization. While Jews had civilization for 3,500 yrs, predating even the Greeks and Romans, Anglos had been a bunch of barbarians until relatively late in history, and they grew to greatness only after the 17th century. So, Anglos had a weaker sense of roots and identity than the Jews did, and this made Anglos rely more on creed and deed than on seed.
Then, Jews worked on the creed/culture/ideology of the Anglos. Initially, Jews flattered Anglos for developing rule of law and culture of fairness, indeed far more than any other people. Anglos took the bait. Jewish flattery set a trap, however. If indeed Anglos possessed such a wonderful creed, how come they were such hypocrites and betrayed it with their 'racism' and 'classism' and imperialism' — never mind Jews financed much of British Imperialism, and never mind Jewishness has always been race-ist. So, eventually Anglos lost out in seed and creed. Hindus also picked up on the hypocrisy angle. It's like Gandhi said, "Western Civilization. It's a good idear." So, what did the Anglos come to rely on for pride as the years passed and as their outlooks and values changed(or were altered via manipulation)? Only the pride of deed and achievement, but they were bound to lose to Jews in this as well because Jews have higher IQ and are more able. So, once Anglos fixated on achievement and ability as the most admirable things that they should support and serve, they became cucks of Jews who are best at money-making and blacks who are best at sports, something Anglos are crazy about.
The signs of this is already evident in Nicholson who is so fixated on the pride of achievement. Perhaps, David Lean sort of understood because he made movies as the British Empire was crumbling, not least under the domination of the American Empire. Also, his movies required the funding of Jewish Hollywood. He was a proud Brit who had to work for others and make compromises, like Nicholson created his masterpiece(the bridge) under Japanese control.
Nicholson's dilemmas is further complicated by the fact that it's about empire vs empire. In DURKIRK, it's about British soldiers retreating homeward to defend the motherland. That is about true patriotism(though if the British had been more patriotic than imperialistic on the world stage, they wouldn't have gotten involved in another war with Germany that had no beef with the Brits.)
Both the Brits and the Japanese are invaders in Southeast Asia. They are patriots to the extent of serving their own empires, but empires trample on the patriotism of locals, and both Brits and Japanese are violating the lands of Southeast Asians. Thus, neither Japanese nor British can be pure patriots in the movie's setting. They are for imperialism, not nationalism.
Also, betrayal is part of the logic of empire, which is premised on winner-takes-all and losers-do-as-told. British Empire maintained itself through recruiting local collaborators or compradors(or traitors). British Empire required on the treason of the local elites. Japanese were the same way and had their own local flunkies. No empire can sustain itself without encouraging treason among the locals. And this logic seems to have come full circle for the British in RIVER KWAI. Brits work as collaborators of the Japanese(who, following defeat in war, became craven collaborators of the US empire). With universal nationalism, each people/nation is loyal to their own. But under empire, there is one winner and all the losers must betray their own kind in service to the winner. British Empire needed local traitors in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. And US empire has local cucks all over, like in Poland and Ukraine and Japan and Taiwan. (Currently, as Jews are the top lords of the US empire, white elites betray their own kind and serve their Jewish masters, much like how the Hindus and Hong Kucks once served at the feet of the mighty British.) Imperialism intrinsically fosters treason. It's based on the conquered serving the conqueror. Brits demanded this of locals whom they conquered. So, it's not all that surprising that the conquered soldiers in KWAI RIVER become collaborators to the Japanese.
Of course, one could argue that Nicholson calculated that the Japanese were doomed at any rate. Bridge or no bridge, Japanese were fated to lose to the combined power of US and UK and other allies. So, it's not like the bridge he was building was a make-or-break thing in the war. IF HE REALLY THOUGHT THAT, he perhaps wouldn't have built t. But he figures the Japanese will eventually lose and the bridge will ultimately come to symbolize not Japanese might but British excellence and achievement. His style of thinking is like Temporal Imperialism. Japanese may have the whip hand but they will eventually lose the war, and the bridge will come to symbolize British triumph in the long run. Time will vindicate British virtues of hard work and dedication. It's like black slaves picked cotton and did field work for the white massuhs but, today, blacks use it as a point of pride and done say, "Sheeeeeeeiiiit, WE done built America, even done stack up the White House like a pile of hot cakes."
At any rate, pride of deed is good, but no people can survive without pride of seed and ownership of creed. Jews did a fast one on the Anglos, and it should be lesson for all the world.
The Bridge on the River Kwai is masterful at exploring the fundamental distinction between aristocratic ethos that prizes honor above all else and the bourgeois ethos that prizes comfort, security, long life, and pleasure above all else.
Aristocratic ethos maybe, but not the Aristocratic way. With the passing of years, the aristocrats went from a hardy warrior class to a bunch of tooty-fruity playboys and slouches. While peasants did backbreaking work from sunup to sundown, many aristos whittled away the hours dressing 'gay', acting 'gay', talking 'gay', and etc. They powdered their faces and dressed and acted all whoopsy-doopsy. Just look at the high-born fells in CYRANO DE BERGERAC. Look at this guy's hairdo at 1:35 of the movie. It's ridiculous.
Once the wars ended or became rare, the aristos used their leisure time for little else but comfort and powdering their noses and sniffing snuff and sneezing. Sure, there were duels over honor, but mostly over petty egotistical matters. The aristos were into gambling and putting on big parties with rich food and decadence, and borrowed lots of money from Jews. Look at the aristos in BARRY LYNDON. What a bunch of toots.
True, not all aristos were alike. The Northern Europe types, esp Anglos and Prussians, were more conscientious and responsible. Instead of wasting their fortunes on good times, they used their privilege to run relatively cleaner governments, push social reforms, advance science, and patronize culture. Still, as kids were born into pampered privilege, many turned out to be soft mama's boys and floozers, like the pathetic son in BARRY LYNDON. Or consider Edward Fox's character in THE SERVANT. What a useless clod. Many aristos were about unearned privilege as they were born into position. Others did the work, and they lived off taxing their labor; at the very least, the bourgeoisie ran enterprises and took big risks. And many aristos only cared for comfort and good times. Also, their sense of honor was less about serving the greater good than a matter of personal egotism. Duels over perceived slights or someone stepping on someone's boots.
At least in terms of ethos, the highest value among the bourgeois was respectability, not comfort and pleasure that came with the rise of modern consumerism. Bourgeoisie were into money-making but also into stuff like the Protestant Work Ethic, restraint, discipline, and frugality. They believed work was good. The ideal was to keep working even if one had sufficient wealth for relaxation and leisure. (At the extreme, it could turn into a kind of Scrooge-ism. All work and no play.) Unlike aristocrats who shunned work and preferred leisure and privilege(if they could have it), bourgeoisie felt they should never rest on their laurels and keep working even when they had lots of money. Work was constructive and good for one's character, and so, one must work. Instead of spending one's money on fun and pleasure, invest and expand the business or invest in future enterprise. Or use money for philanthropy and build libraries and universities and do 'good work'.
As the bourgeoisie rose under the aristocracy, they felt culturally inferior and sought to win respectability by emulating the style of the aristos. Some bourgeoisie married into aristo families(on the decline) or bought titles. The bourgeois sense of respectability feared scandal and disdained the shameless and uninhibited, which is why anarchists like Luis Bunuel loved to expose and ridicule bourgeois anxieties and hang-ups. The bourgeoisie were repressed, and it was only with the rise of modernism and Freud's theories that things began to loosen up among the modernist children of the bourgeoisie. Also, the logic of capitalism transformed society from virtuous hard work and productivity to vice-laden hedonism and consumerism, but that came AFTER the cultural eclipse of the bourgeoisie and the rise of impulse-driven youth culture.
The Anglos, more than others, developed a fusion of aristocratic and bourgeois ways. Anglo aristocrats were more productive than most other aristos, and Anglo bourgeoisie were more repressed and respectable than others. There is something of the aristo in Nicholson but also something of the shopkeeper. He's like both a nobleman and a shop manager who counts every last penny. He believes in pride of work. He has boss mentality but also clerk mentality. He's so eager to prove he is worthy.
Since both Saito and Nicholson are master types, albeit at times “temporarily embarrassed” master types, the film needs a well-developed slave type as a contrast.
This is all relative among both the Japanese and Anglos. Saito and Nicholson are both master and servant types. Over their own men, they are masters. But they are also duty-bound servants of men higher up. So, while they are the two highest ranking men in the movie, they are mere servants of men even higher up the chain. Bushido means to serve, and every Japanese, no matter how higher up, was in service to someone higher. Samurai served the daimyo who served a higher daimyo who served the Shogun who, at least in principle, served the Emperor. Even though the Japanese Emperor didn't have much power, he was essential to the Japanese who believed everyone must serve someone higher, finally ending with the divine ruler. Same with the Brits. Everyone served someone higher. Every master was a servant to a superior, with the hierarchy ending with the King or Queen, who though not very powerful, symbolized the highest authority.
This is where Jews are different and perhaps unique. While Jews may play servant roles in society, every Jew, via the Covenant, feels that HE HIMSELF is special and chosen. His ultimate meaning doesn't come from serving someone higher or better but in valuing his own soul and self as having all the worth in the world by his personal connection to the one and only God who chose the Jews.
This is why Jews are the only immigrant group in the US who didn't come to serve others. Everyone else came to serve the mighty Anglos, but Jews had a powerful sense of self and believed, if anyone should serve anyone, the goyim should serve them cuz they got the Covenant, not the lowly goyim. In time, even the Anglos came to serve the Jews with such powerful sense of being.
the character of Commander Shears is a brilliant encapsulation of the slave type: cowardly, dishonest, and cynical about honor. Shears’ character is brought into sharper focus by making him an American, since America is a thoroughly bourgeois society that took pride in throwing off European aristocratic civilization, although vestiges of its ethos survived among the military and Southern planters. Making Shears a womanizer to boot perfected the character.
More like the Fugitive Slave type. A true slave type loves to serve. A slave has a kind of honor of his own. He believes he exists to serve others. He believes the meaning of his life comes from serving the master. A true slave would rather die for his master than live. It's like dogs who live for the love and approval of the master. And in a way, Saito and Nicholson have this slave mentality as well. Like loyal dogs, they will die for higher authority. Saito cannot tolerate the shame of disapproval from higher up. He feels it in his bones. Nicholson is always mindful of his reputation, not only among his inferiors but superiors back home. In a way, the master type and slave type are one and the same, and one cannot exist without the other. A slave believes he must serve and die for his master. In that, he too has a sense of honor. An ideal slave is loyal to the end. Also, an ideal master doesn't merely exploit his slave but appreciates the slave's loyalty, and this binds him to the slave. He must take good care of the slave. And to prove to the slave that he is no weakling and coward, the master must be willing to die alongside the slave. It's like lots of British officers died with the lowly soldiers in World War I.
William Holden's character of Shears isn't a slave type. He has no sense of deep loyalty. He wants to be free and do his own thing. It's a cowboy mentality, and to associate this with 'slave mentality' is ridiculous. Of course, one can say he's a slave to his personal needs and desires, but then, 007 would be a slave too because he loves women and gambling and good times. By the way, womanizing was a sport among the aristos, not so much among the slaves.
Also, Shears doesn't come across so bad because he's caught between empires. If he were an American soldier sent to Iwo Jima but dodged his duties for good times, he would be a lowlife rat. After all, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and Americans had to fight back.
But Shears is like a fish out of water between the British and the Japanese in some godforsaken Southeast Asian nowhere-land. Sure, Brits and Yanks are allies, and Japanese are the common enemy, but patriotism is rather hard to sustain in the jungles of Burma or Thailand or Malaysia or whatever. He feels like American soldiers in Vietnam War: "What are we doing HERE?" As far as he can tell, it's a war between empires in Southeast Asia, and he has no feelings about what the 'Japs' or the Brits are doing. He just wants to make it out of there alive.
I wouldn't call him cowardly but resourceful. His dishonesty is a survival mechanism among peoples he doesn't care for. He has little use for the Brits and far less for the Japanese. He doesn't feel like putting his neck on the line for either side. Also, his escape took some courage, and a true coward wouldn't be so brazen. Holden sort of reprises his role in STALAG 17, and George Segal took it up a notch in KING RAT.
Besides, there are varying degrees to cynicism, which doesn't come in one flavor. Some are opportunistically cynical to justify greed and loutishness, and there is something of this to Shears. But cynicism is also a smart response to the BS all around. It'd be nice if US soldiers today were more cynical and saw through the BS about 'honor, country, duty' blah blah when, in effect, they are nothing but attack dogs of the Jewish globo-homo ruling elites. How better things would be if white Americans were more cynical and saw right through the BS of GOP. How better if white progs saw through the BS of MSM and Jewish Power. Shears is both a self-centered egotist and a savvy observer who sees through the BS of authority. And the British who blackmail him into serving the mission are cynical in their own way. If they were really into principle and honor, they would have him prosecuted and even executed for impersonating an officer and etc. But they play him in the most cynical manner. They too know it is a game.
Shears is not bourgeois. He isn't into respectability or reputation, what the bourgeoisie care about most. He cares about being an individualist, being free and his own man. This makes him self-centered and selfish at times, but he's closer to the cowboy than the slave. He wants to roam free, and he doesn't want to fight battles for which he knows little. It's like the William Holden character in THE WILD BUNCH, a film that surely took some pointers from THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. An outlaw, he's out for himself, and he will deal with any side to get his cut.
One can argue that Shears is something of a worm, but a worm seeks freedom, not slavery(though one can argue such a cretin deserves to be a slave). Not to patriotism, not to honor, not to whatever. A worm would be like the Italian character of Lina Wertmuller's SEVEN BEAUTIES who spouts about dignity and 'honor' as a petty mafia hood, but when push comes to shove, chooses to save his own skin wherever and however.
Of course, slavery, used broadly as metaphor, can signify just about anything. Even to the want of freedom because freedom can mean addiction to one's appetites such as gluttony, sloth, and lust.
But, it's so easy to be cynical in war as all sides tell lies and betray trust. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the higher-ups exploit Lawrence's idealism and vanity to goad him into accomplishing something that will then be twisted and corrupted by diplomats who shill for oligarchs of the empire.
It's like the soldiers who fight and die in Sergio Leone's THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY seem foolish compared to the three men who figure life is worth risking only for their share of gold. And yet, freedom gains meaning in attachment to something, and in that sense, Shears is also a doomed figure. He can lie, he can cheat, he can squeeze out of tight situations, but ultimately what is he if he's only for himself, if he has nothing to die for? It's like the thief in Akira Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA, once having gained a glimpse of the Takeda Clan, wants to be part of it.
Now, are we to believe that Americans embraced slave-mentality because they rejected the aristocratic ways of Europe? -???- Because Americans wanted to be free and not bound to higher authority, they were choosing to be 'slaves'?
In Europe, the general rule was only the noblemen owned land and were armed. In the US, cowboys could claim their own turf and carry their own guns. Somehow, this made the US 'bourgeois' and 'slave'-like? In Europe, freedom and privilege were hogged by the aristocrats while their subjects lived helot-like existences. In the US, every person aspired to be free and equal under the law and maybe own his own plot of land. And anyone could ride horses and own guns. Sounds more like freedom than slavery to me. If something like aristocratism survived in the American South, it was because of black slaves. In other words, aristocracy cannot exist apart from slavery. You can't have one without the other. Thus, aristocratic system is also a slave system.
Many pro-aristocratic romanticists seem to believe that they themselves would have been noblemen lording over the peasants(much like every little girl who reads fairy-tales identifies with the precious princess than with serf girls who made up the bulk of society), but the chances are they would have been peasants because noblemen made up maybe 5% or less of any population in Europe. Aristocracy is slavery because only a few enjoy privilege while the rest are subjects without equal protection of the law.
To be sure, US began as a semi-aristocratic enterprise. The Founding Fathers were bourgeois-aristocrats and landowners(and even slave-masters). And in the beginning, only land-owners could vote, which was less than 20% of the population. Thomas Jefferson believed in 'natural aristocracy' based on merit, which is a bourgeois ideal as success among the business class is determined by ability + diligence; it is earned than inherited(though children who inherit capital and live off interest are like the new aristos). He figured a smart person is a natural aristocrat and should have the freedom to rise freely.
US became something closer to a real democracy under Andrew Jackson the populist, but if we follow Trevor Lynch's logic, Jackson was the great enslaver since he dealt a blow to the quasi-aristocratic form of governance instituted by the Founders.
As for the Southern Aristocracy, what a terrible bunch. The North relied on free white labor and equality under the law. South relied on black slave labor, which made the neo-aristocracy possible, even necessary. Again, aristocracy is built on slavery. If a few are to hog all the wealth and privilege, others must toil as helots.
The North did better than the South for having equally free white folks. The North was bourgeois, the South was aristocratic. It was the South that became the source of the racial woes that came to haunt America by relying on slave labor, especially that of blacks who are more muscular and more aggressive than white folks. And Latin America was even more aristo, with Spanish elites relying on masses of brown helots. How did that turn out?
White Nationalists can fantasize themselves as aristocrats all they want. The fact is aristocracy means special privileges for the 5% and slavery for the rest. How about freedom for all, and that is what Shears represents. Granted, freedom isn't enough as people often do stupid shit with their freedom. And freedom in a degenerate post-bourgeois society like the US immersed in consumerism and vulgarity is being wasted in the worst way.
Because aristocratism means special privileges for a few, it cannot exist apart from slave mentality. For a few to be aristocrats, most must be slaves. For a few to monopolize the power and formulate policy, most must be obedient dogs. That's what we have today in the US though Jews cleverly disguise the neo-aristocratism with calls to 'diversity, equity, inclusion', and other BS. No, the US is about aristocratic rule by Jewish Supremacists who regard the rest of us as slaves or at best serfs. Whites can be either deplorable Field Honkeys who must be whipped or servile House Honkeys, like the Wasp-Cucks in the Deep State, who serve their Jewish masters, darn tootin'.
But the solution isn't aristocratism but neo-fascism, an ideology that ensures equal dignity and protection for all the volk who are served by an elite whose highest vision is the good of the nation and people than its own caste and privilege.
The fact is Nicholsons of the world in US and UK would still loyally and 'honorably' serve the globo-homo Deep State whereas someone like Shears would see the utter BS through cynical eyes. Look at all those 'honorable' men in the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Pentagon. They dutifully serve their civilian leaders who, in turn as political whores, serve their Jewish donor-master class and quasi-prophets of satanic globo-homo.
In this, the 'master' mentality is a 'slave' mentality. The master mentality always feels a need to be within the proximity of power. Thus obsessed with power and control, it doesn't really ask whether something is good or bad. What matters most is to belong in the club and be in the game. Look at the master military class in the US. All slaves of Jews.
Now, if some US soldier saw through the utter BS of the system and used whatever means to get out of the army and no longer serve the Jews, would that be a bad thing? Also, why not be dishonest with a system that is utterly corrupt and mendacious? If goons of the FBI come to your door, should you be honest when the agency is full of dirtbags?
True, Shears is too carefree and self-centered to care about truth or meaning, but he's someone who no longer wants to be a dispensable cog in the system, a slave of masters with their imperial dreams. He's like a cynical version of Dr. Zhivago who doesn't want to fight for the Whites or Red but simply wants to live. Sure, he's a 'deserter' but he never volunteered to serve the Red and has no personal beef in the fight between the Reds and the Whites.
And for someone who wrote a book called WHITE NATIONALISM that calls for universal nationalism for all people, why all this romanticism about the British Empire and sense of honor and duty? Duty to empire?
THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI covers some of the concerns of Jean Renoir's GRAND ILLUSION, which is also set in a prison camp and concerns the role of class in modern warfare. Even though it's Germans vs the French, in some ways the German aristocrats and French aristocrats have more in common. In a way, it's the last aristocratic war as well as the first truly people's war(at least on a grand scale) as all sides appeal to nationalist populism despite the outsized role of aristocratic military elements on all sides. Unlike previous wars where aristocrats fought aristocrats with soldiers used as pawns, the common man mattered in World War I. This new Modern War wasn't about lowly soldiers serving the superior classes but the higher classes fighting for the honor of the entire nation where every soldier was worthy of dignity and pride. Or so every side claimed.
Both GRAND ILLUSION and MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE suggest an aristocratism that goes beyond class. A kind of spiritual aristocratism. In the former, the French aristocrat sacrifices his life so that his men(one a prole, another a Jew) can make the escape. Why would a man of higher caste give his life for men of lower order? Because, at least in the spiritual sense, more is expected of superior men. Similarly, the anti-aristocratic attitude of Jack Celliers(David Bowie) is paradoxically intensely aristocratic, at least in the spiritual sense. Though he rejects the notion of being part of the Superior Breed, he chooses the Herculean task of sacrificing his own life so that others may live. Only a man of superior courage and will could have done that. And this brings us to the figure of Jesus Christ, often referred to as King of Kings. A crass aristo-monarch like Herod is comfy with his privilege and power. His superiority is social-political. But for a man to reach spiritual aristocracy, he must prove a higher morality, greater courage, greater compassion, and greater will to sacrifice himself for the good of others. Thus, aristocratism, at its highest spiritual reaches, sacrifices itself for others(the inferiors) than sits snug and smug in its superiority.
Then Lean ended his career with Ryan’s Daughter (1970) and A Passage to India (1984), which fail as films in part because their slighter stories were overwhelmed by Lean’s epic style of treatment, which had hardened into mannerisms.
Agree about RYAN'S DAUGHTER but not PASSAGE TO INDIA. Though I don't care for the latter, the treatment suits the subject, and it was done with considerable restraint compared to RYAN'S DAUGHTER which is pictorialism gone wild. PASSAGE is stately and measured. It's a grand work set among ancient ruins of India, but it doesn't feel monumental; it focuses mostly on characters and drama than visuals. With Lean's fingers fine-tuning the knob, it varies between intimacy and grandeur than goes for nonstop epic treatment, the failing of RYAN'S DAUGHTER, which is visually 'high volume' at every moment. PASSAGE TO INDIA is also equally literary and visual(even more so than THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI that, for all its location shooting and action, feels a bit stagy). But whether some Hindu touched a white woman or not, I simply didn't care and wished the movie featured more elephants.
It's misleading to say Lean ended his career with RYAN'S DAUGHTER and PASSAGE TO INDIA as those two works are separated by fourteen years. They shouldn't be seen as a pair. If anything, their difference owes to the harsh critical rebuke to RYAN'S DAUGHTER having led Lean's self-doubt and discouragement, which nearly ended his film-making career for good. He learned something from the criticism, which is why PASSAGE TO INDIA is so different in style and tone from RYAN'S DAUGHTER. The latter was a case of Lean laying on epic film-making thick in utter disregard of the material. In contrast, PASSAGE TO INDIA has a sense of proportion. It is big when it needs to be, but also personal and intimate in other parts, like in his earlier films(which many critics consider to be his best). Lean learned from the failure, both box-office and critical, of RYAN'S DAUGHTER, which is why PASSAGE TO INDIA was greeted mostly with applause.
Lawrence of Arabia is repeatedly ranked as one of the finest films of all time, and when one compares it to such overpraised items as Citizen Kane and Casablanca, a strong case can be made for putting it at the very top of the list.
It makes little sense to mention CITIZEN KANE and CASABLANCA together. First, most film critics don't regard CASABLANCA as one of the greatest films. They recognize it as a movie favorite, formula done to perfection. It is what is now often referred to as 'iconic'. The way Bogart and Bergman wear their hats, gaze at one another, and say those perfect lines in the misty airfield. Familiarity done to perfection seems fresh and unique. Likewise with MIDNIGHT RUN. It isn't original but done so well that it stands head and shoulders above the rest.
In contrast, CITIZEN KANE is held in high esteem because it broke the rules of the studio but established the law of what cinema could be in the hands of an artist. With Welles' bold and experimental approach, his background in Shakespearean theater, and his knack for popular entertainment(especially in radio), the film welds together modernism, classicism, and populism. And for all its quirks and innovations, it is all of one piece. One can ignore its aesthetic qualities and enjoy it like a Hollywood movie. What Welles did was unprecedented, especially at the incredible age of 26 and in his first outing as a film-director. There is more genius in the opening of CITIZEN KANE than in all of Lean's works(and many others). Of course, genius isn't necessarily best on all occasions, and at times Welles seemed more enamored of showing off his magic than focusing on the story.
CITIZEN KANE is 'overrated' in the sense that it has showed up on movie lists as the obligatory 'greatest film of all time', but it cannot over-rated because it, like several other Welles' works, is superb beyond belief. Also, it's arguable that CITIZEN KANE is the first work that fully absorbed and utilized all the earlier innovations into one package and, furthermore, added its own share of innovations that in quality and quantity equaled all that had gone before. But that's only focusing on the technical and expressive details. In writing, performance, social commentary, and psychological insight, it not only possesses grandeur but depth. Not for nothing has it been said that no other film inspired so many young men to become film directors.
It's telling that Welles compared his film-making with music above all other arts. His works are like concertos or symphonies with classical and modernist touches. The thing that makes music more 'fragile' and difficult than the other arts is the significance of every moment. One false step could be fatal. A painting, novel, and drama can be marred by intermittent flaws but still convey the overall significance and meaning. But one false note can ruin an entire performance. It sticks out as a disruptive and disjointing element. Most movies weren't made like music, and this is why they work despite the flaws. One focuses on the story and characters. But because Welles infused his visuals with a musical sense, aura and mood had to be sustained for duration of entire scenes. Images aren't merely joined together but woven together, much like elements of music. Even more remarkable was his juggling of the consonant and dissonant elements. To maintain continuity and harmony isn't difficult. It's even easier to create instant dissonance. Any dada-ist could do that. But to create dissonance and then fit the fragments into a rollicking narrative, that was something only Welles and few others could do. Not that LAWRENCE OF ARABIA would have been better movie in Welles hands as he might have gone off in tangents at odds with the central story. After all, one appreciates a Welles film more for the film-making than the film-as-story.
I am hesitant to speak of “the greatest” anything, just because I have not seen everything. But when I think of some of my personal favorites—Vertigo, Network, Rashomon—I can’t honestly rank any of them higher than Lawrence of Arabia.
Even if you've seen everything, the notion of 'greatest anything' is of course ridiculous in the arts because of 'apples and oranges' and personal preferences & biases. How can one compare Robert Bresson with Sam Peckinpah? They were different species of men. So, while we can speak of the great works, there's no such animal as the greatest work. As to why CITIZEN KANE occupied the top slot for so long, it was due as much to cultural significance as to artistic merit. It was the first of its kind in Hollywood and has inspired film-makers ever since. Also, Welles came to be regarded by critics and scholars as a tragic hero who fought the system and sadly lost. So, a tribute to CITIZEN KANE is a recognition of what Welles might have achieved had the industry had been kinder to a genius such as he. Similar considerations explain why RASHOMON is ranked so high. Akira Kurosawa's greatest achievement is SEVEN SAMURAI, but RASHOMON opened the floodgates of Japanese cinema to the world.
NETWORK strikes me as inferior Lumet. Like some of Billy Wilder's lesser works, it tries to have it both ways. It panders to the audience as pop satire; it's more bark than bite. Sidney Lumet's greatest work, I would argue, is PRINCE OF THE CITY. In 2012 Sight & Sound Poll, VERTIGO topped CITIZEN KANE, which isn't all that surprising as the two most admired film directors among critics and scholars are Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock. And many believe VERTIGO is Hitchcock's greatest work, with which I would concur even though I prefer his other, less gloomy, works.
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is undoubtedly a magnificent work, and I would count it as among the greatest. And yet, it was also when cracks appeared in Lean's reputation that would really crumble with DOCTOR ZHIVAGO. What a difference a few years make. The most notable anti-Lean voice in the US was Andrew Sarris who praised THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE over Lean's work that he found overly elaborate, predictable, tedious, and (worst of all sins to an auteurist) impersonal. Even though Sarris went overboard, there was more than a kernel of truth in the hits against Lean and his methodology. Furthermore, this was the early 60s when intellectuals, critics, and impassioned youth caught the eye of new trends in cinema, much of it foreign, mostly European(and partly Japanese). World cinema in 1960 erupted with a debate about LA DOLCE VITA vs L'AVVENTURA, and the French New Wave produced dashing works like BREATHLESS and JULES AND JIM. Even the Old Masters were moving in a new direction, e.g. Hitchcock with PSYCHO. And Bunuel was starting his great second(or third) act. To be sure, Sarris and his school admired John Ford and Howard Hawks but precisely for their personal pride in 'classicism'. Sarris admired Godard for his radical approach but also appreciated Hollywood auteurs sticking to their guns despite the changes all around them; it was seen as a kind of integrity, remaining true to their personal visions, classic or radical. In contrast, Lean came under criticism for sitting on the fence. He seemed both hopelessly old-fashioned and sensitive to shifting opinion. To his detractors, he seemed too stodgy to remain a force in film, and his effort toward greater sophistication and 'modernity' seemed half-hearted and perfunctory than genuine and committed. One might say Lean was caught between the Old and New just like Lawrence between the British Empire and Arab Aspirations. In a way, the rather muted and gloomy ending of the movie anticipated Lean's own fate.
When LAWRENCE OF ARABIA was released, the cultural shift hadn't yet been completed, and for the most part, he was praised by critics who had a 'humanist' tendency to laud serious works with important themes. They could tell it was a work of intelligence, expertise, taste, and respectability. (It was why Stanley Kramer rode so high in the 1950s and early 60s though he sucked at film-making, which can't be said for Lean. He made SERIOUS movies like INHERIT THE WIND, ON THE BEACH, and JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBURG. For some reason, Otto Preminger got a pass even though his later works were also grandiose middlebrow balancing of classic Hollywoodism and the New Sensibility. I suppose he was seen as more 'personal'.) But while the consensus praised LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, some key voices dismissed it as outdated, bloated, strained, and ultimately conventional. And by the time DOCTOR ZHIVAGO came out, the majority of the critics were hostile, even though it was a mega-hit with the audience, like SOUND OF MUSIC. (Later, with RYAN'S DAUGHTER, Lean failed with both critics and the audience and gave up film-making for 13 years until he returned with PASSAGE TO INDIA.) In a way, the anti-Lean invective that took hold in cultural circles was a replay of the Cahiers du Cinema's attack on the Cinema of Quality in the 1950s. The Cahier critics spearheaded by Francois Truffaut preferred European personal artists and Hollywood's vulgar populists(and eccentrics) but detested anything tasteful, respectable, safe, and 'bourgeois' churned out by the post-war French film industry. They appreciated the vulgar vitality of Howard Hawks, the playful perversity of Hitchcock, and the intensity of European artists like Roberto Rossellini & Ingmar Bergman. What they couldn't stand was the soulless professionals who crafted movies like Swiss watches. The Cinema of Quality wasn't without technical finesse but lacked personality, originality, the stuff of life, and creative spirit, or so the Cahier critics argued. (Of course, once the fizz went out of the French New Wave, Truffaut made films very much in the manner of Cinema of Quality, e.g. TWO ENGLISH GIRLS and STORY OF ADELE H. Perhaps the Cahier diatribe against the Cinema of Quality, which produced its share of excellent works, was mostly an expression of youthful frustration of not being able to make one's own films.)
More than anyone, David Lean was the perfect target for a Anglo/American variation of the backlash against the Cinema of Quality. After all, no one doubted Lean's technical expertise, his keen eye, and his craft. But it also implied that he was more an engineer than an artist(or even an entertainer). Also, the middlebrow sensibility(of Lean's favored writers) suggested Lean was more a moralist than an artist, and not even a honest or good moralist at that. Bolt's screenplay can be praised for thoughtful balance of perspectives, but it's a tad too fine-tuned, as if to skirt any real controversy. It touches on matters without trying to fully crack open any of them. Thus, the movie can be seen as a paean to British Imperialism and a critique of empire. Does this result from genuine complexity and thoughtful ambiguity or refusal to get down-and-dirty with the truth? Given these considerations, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is best enjoyed as a superb piece of middlebrow storytelling, the best of its kind, than a genuine work of art, if art is defined as something personal, original, bold & daring, exploratory, revelatory, and/or uncompromised. From its very conception, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA could only be a compromised work. One might even say it's a high-toned version of 007 fantasy, albeit with homoerotic overtones.
There are elements in the movie that suggest at art, especially concerning the psychological shading of Lawrence and the tormented contradictions of his motivations(and his dread and thrill in discovering the 'dark side' of his character). But they are not fully explored because the work is about archetypes(and stereotypes) than about individuals. This is also the problem with Kurosawa's HIGH AND LOW. It has artistic qualities but ultimately it's about types than traits. Despite the complexities, the kidnapper is the classic villain. In contrast, consider the deviants and psychos in Shohei Imamura's INTENTIONS OF MURDER and VENGEANCE IS MINE. Devoid of moral formulations(often pat or smug), they take a colder-eyed and sharper view of what makes the sick tick.
But then, as the characters say in THE WILD BUNCH, "I wouldn't have it any other way." Another director might have made better art with LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, but devoid of middlebrow compromises, it might have made for less entertainment. Still, it's a popular movie in service of respectability than a respectable movie in service of populism. No wonder Pauline Kael had special praise for works that blended artistic qualities with populist appeal. She loved BONNIE AND CLYDE, THE WILD BUNCH, and THE GODFATHER, but she disdained LAWRENCE OF ARABIA for its genteel restraint in service of respectability and good taste. It was more a monument than of vital moments.
At any rate, while some works are marred by artistic compromise with commercialism or respectability, others gain from the fusion of artistic truth and popular myth. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is one of those great compromises, comparable to the symphonies of Dmitri Shostakovich. Arguably, Shostakovich could have done greater work without Stalinist censorship; on the other hand, he might got lost in self-indulgent experimentation. After all, Francis Ford Coppola's greatest work is the compromised GODFATHER films whereas his full-blown creative endeavors like RUMBLE FISH and ONE FROM THE HEART got lost in the hall-of-mirrors of his 'genius'. Likewise, Peckinpah did best in the spirit of compromise with films like THE WILD BUNCH than when he did everything his way, like with BRING ME THE HEAD OF ALFREDO GARCIA, a real mess. And CHINATOWN is a real standout, far superior to most of Polanski's personal follies. And John Lennon was better as artist-entertainer than a full-blown artist.
Still, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA has to be seen as a limited work, like any giant epic made with Hollywood backing. Come to think of it, the only Hollywood-backed epic film of the 60s that could be deemed utterly uncompromised is 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. (THE LEOPARD, ANDREI RUBLEV, MARKETA LAZAROVA, and PROFOUND DESIRES OF THE GODS, true artistic masterpieces, were made outside Hollywood.) There, Kubrick conceived of and pursued his vision to the max, and he probably got away with it because the project was so unprecedented. The producers were probably too confounded or bewildered with Kubrick's concept to formulate any pointed objections against it.
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is comparable to SPARTACUS, EL CID, and CLEOPATRA. All of them have moments of awe and grandeur that only Hollywood-backing could deliver, but the general rule, then as now, was that bigger the budget, bigger the scrutiny and lesser the freedom. No one wants to spend that kind of money in a wild gamble. (Michael Cimino was one of the few directors who got both the greens and the greenlight with HEAVEN'S GATE, and it sunk a studio.) Even though LAWRENCE OF ARABIA goes somewhat further than most of its kind in terms of verisimilitude and cultural accuracy, it is still within the paradigm of what Edward Said called 'Orientalism' and Hollywood exotica. It isn't so much that Alec Guinness and Anthony Quinn played Arabs — Arabs are Caucasian, Alec Guinness was chameleon-like, and Quinn's odd features made him plausible in various guises — as the range of Arab attributes, though broader, are still within the generic range of Hollywood assumptions. One might say the character of Ali(Omar Sharif) is an exception, but he is less a character than a foil. Later, the emergence of his more humane side says less about him as character than about Arabs in general, i.e. just like the enlightened Brit Lawrence has a savage side to him, the barbaric Arabs have some good sides too. This is a bit pat, like featuring some Good Arabs in EXODUS. It's perfectly acceptable on middlebrow or 'mid-cult' grounds, however.
Everything about this film is epic
This is a plus and minus with all such works. On the plus side, there is the obvious grandeur, superior production values, and sense of awe. But it also means more supervision over the artistic process(understandable given the cost), the weight of logistics, and sheer exhaustion. Coppola lost his mind halfway through APOCALYPSE NOW. Kurosawa's RAN is tremendous in parts, but the focus on scale led to fatal neglect of the main character, which sinks the middle. Nicholas Ray who made his reputation as an outlier sensibility later got lost with production values. KING OF KINGS is essentially just a big(and dumb) Biblical epic. And he totally lost his way(and ton of money) with 55 DAYS IN PEKING. (Same goes for Carol Reed. The man who made such remarkable films as ODD MAN OUT, THE THIRD MAN, FALLEN IDOL, and OUTCAST OF THE ISLANDS later got mired in club-footed projects like AGONY AND THE ECSTASY. In a similar vein, Lean's earlier movies are in some ways more expressive and inspired than his later ones. GREAT EXPECTATIONS is probably the best thing he ever did.)
In a way, David Lean was fortunate to be making movies like THE BRIDGE ON RIVER KWAI, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, and DOCTOR ZHIVAGO. He was in the right place at the right time. Especially with the advent of TV and people moving out in droves to the suburbs, Hollywood had to offer something bigger to pull the audience back into the theaters. In the past, people went to movies to see just about anything. But, once people could see 'anything'(including movie reruns) on TV, they had less reason to go to the movies(and the main passion among youths became pop music). So, Hollywood banked on making bigger movies with ever increasing production values. If something on the scale of GONE WITH THE WIND was rarity back in the days, the super epic became the staple of Hollywood in the latter half of 50s and the 60s. In a state of crisis, Hollywood figured on making fewer but bigger movies. And some of them paid off, like TEN COMMANDMENTS, BEN-HUR, SPARTACUS, EL CID, and to a lesser extent KING OF KINGS. But some of them bombed and bombed big. CLEOPATRA drew in the crowds but still couldn't recoup its cost. Also, after awhile, people were no longer dazzled by epics. They became standard and were usually about the Roman Empire or something out of the Bible done in the usual style. Most movies based on Biblical material were dreary due to the combo of stuffy reverence(lest they offend any group) and dimwit pontificating. It reached both apotheosis and nadir with George Stevens' THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD, the snail-paced sanctimony of which was unbearable to most(but it led to Dwight MacDonald's funniest movie review). Some of the quirkier and perverse spin on Biblical material, like Robert Aldrich's SODOM AND GOMORRAH, failed with American audiences. Taking on an epic project was to take on the role of Atlas. Too much load on one's shoulders, made worse by Hollywood's pressure to keep it mid-cult, washed for the unwashed. The idea was to elevate the unwashed to the middle, flattering the middle for its interest in 'serious' stuff, and ignoring anything above that. For all that, there is enough in movies like BEN-HUR, EL CID, and even CLEOPATRA to make them memorable. And some moments rank as among the greatest in cinema. The chariot race in BEN-HUR still outshines anything of the kind done lately with CGI. EL CID is robust and roars like a lion. Who can deny the delirium of Cleopatra's entry into Rome?
Still, it's no accident that the epic not only buried the career of Nicholas Ray but stifled Stanley Kubrick to no end in SPARTACUS. It's many times bigger than THE KILLING and PATHS OF GLORY but also many times smaller in inspiration. Kirk Douglas made sure of that.
Taking on the role of Atlas with epic film-making tends to diminish the human element, eccentricity, and/or mercurial ingenuity. It's like a weightlifter can't do gymnastics. Too often, scale itself takes center-stage in epic-film-making, with everyone reduced to pieces on the chess board. This is why most Hollywood epics are dull, made worse by acme formulations. The sense of bigness infects everything. Every step, every gesture, every syllable. Everything is loaded with importance, significance, meaning, or portent. It's like watching a gigantic painting than a spontaneous narrative. It weighs everything down. It's like watching a royal procession or some pageantry than a story. It's no wonder that some of the more entertaining epics are lower-budgeted. B-movie epics with only pretensions of grandeur. They had more elbow room to convey something like life. The original 300 SPARTANS is no masterpiece(far from it), but it's more fun than Anthony Mann's THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, which is impressive but like a massive wall.
Now, it is possible to make a film both epic and intimate, grand and personal. Or big and eccentric, like with Sergio Leone's big Westerns. But then, Leone didn't quite have the budgets and had to make do with less, which afford him more freedom. Also, in having created his own sub-genre, he could make up his own rules. Another way to make an epic come alive is through intensity of focus. In many ways, SEVEN SAMURAI wouldn't qualify as an epic but for its length. Almost the entire film takes place in a single village of poor farmers. The heroes are seven swordsmen, none of them featured as larger-than-life, and the the villains are a ragtag bunch of bandits. Yet, just like a culture in a petri dish is a universe under a microscope, the crisis of one village becomes a story of epic proportions. It feels like a battle for the ages. No wonder it's been called by some as the greatest war film though technically outside the genre. THE WILD BUNCH presented another way to approach epic material. As most of the movie is about a band of outlaws on the run, it is limited in scope. And yet, with the outlaws riding through a Mexican Landscape locked in a civil war, it crosses paths with larger events. It seems incidentally epic. (And even when working big, Peckinpah directed actors to remain idiosyncratic than put on epic airs. This may have owed to his feelings about authority, like when Dutch says "Eh, 'Generalissimo', hell! He's just another bandit grabbin' all he can for himself." In other words, 'great' or not, people are people, they shit and wipe their ass. In contrast, Lean retained the English schoolboy's respect for authority.) Also, by amplifying the emotion and action, Peckinpah found epic qualities in violence itself. The opening and ending shoot-outs feel apocalyptic. He drew inspiration from Elia Kazan's VIVA ZAPATA, one of the most earthy and rip-roaring political movies. In the case of the ambitious but failed ALEXANDER, Oliver Stone sought to capture both the man and the god of his lifelong hero. Stone played an array of Greek gods to mold his vision of Alexander, mama's boy and conqueror of the world, but mixed signals go haywire.
Lean's treatment is Apollonian, and we can admire the control, the order, the meticulousness from start to finish. And yet, one could argue that Lean was too clean. Nothing seems found or spontaneous. Everything seems ordered, measured, calculated, and polished. Lean was like goldfinger. Nothing really feels natural. It's as if the Arabian desert had been combed over by an English schoolmaster for the slightest blemish. Even blood and sweat seem carefully applied, just like even rags in DOCTOR ZHIVAGO seem tailored by the costume department. Peckinpah was known as a stickler for detail, but his world seems pungent and used. You can almost smell the chili peppers hanging on the wall in PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID. In contrast, even the rough-and-tumble seem carefully choreographed in Lean's epics. Thus, the action in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, magnificent as it is, lacks the vivid spark of, say, the battle scene in Welles' CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT or Peckinpah's MAJOR DUNDEE.
It's true that LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is epic on so many levels, but this has usually been a bane than a blessing in the genre. When everything is writ large, it's more like looking at architecture or pageantry than a human story filled with intimate details and foibles that make life interesting. Consider THE LAST EMPEROR. Grandiose, impressive, and colorful, but the human story of Puyi is almost of secondary interest. History treated him like a pawn in imperial struggles, and Bernardo Bertolucci treats him like a model in a fashion show. Neither history nor the film cared to understand the real Puyi. Dismissive of anything unworthy of epic polish, the graceful John Lone was cast as Puyi, who in reality was a funny-looking guy. Thus, what was really an absurdly tragicomic story is turned into exotic romanticism. Even the quirkier moments are enveloped in the fabric of epic events, overlooking the perverse comedy of Puyi's situation from birth to death. Granted, the world of privilege is contrasted with dingy re-education in a communist prison, but even here, the result is less human story than big lesson about the meaning of it all. In contrast, FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE, despite its meandering middle, never loses touch with the tumultuous feel of life despite its journey through big events. (And Stone's NIXON is an epic political tale that moves back and forth with ease between the grand and the minute.) Rendering everything epic had a deadening effect on most giant epics of the 50s and 60s(and thereafter). LAWRENCE OF ARABIA was the rare exception because it's so stunning to look at, has tiptop acting with a memorable script, and the haunting presence of Peter O'Toole, a revelation or 'miracle'. Still, as wonderful as Freddie Young's cinematography is, I find Leone's treatment of the desert in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY more inspired. For Leone, the desert is both grand arena and a sandbox.
the script by Robert Bolt (A Man for All Seasons, Doctor Zhivago) and Michael Wilson (The Bridge on the River Kwai) is a supremely masterful screen adaptation
It is a fine script with many memorable lines. On the downside, it does feel scripted and overly rhetorical, never natural. It's like even the lowliest Arab is a vulgar Shakespearean. There's a stagy feel to the whole thing. Like Gilbert & Sullivan's MIKADO(the subject of Mike Leigh's TOPSY-TURVY), the movie remains within established conventions in dealing with the exotic. All said and done, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is staged history than explored history. Unlike Oliver Stone who really sat down and pored through Nixon materials to access and re-imagine the inner-Nixon, the creators of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA gleaned the great man's life and exploits for just enough material suited for epic entertainment. It is ultimately a survey than a surgery. Thus, despite some measure of psychological insight and political complexity, it's more about show-and-tell than seek-and-find. In a way, the movie gives the audience precious little beyond what one expects from such a work. Still, given the mediocrity of most epics of the period, it(along with KWAI and ZHIVAGO) stand out as the gold standard.
The Arabs in the movie are real enough but only 'enough', and sufficiency only goes so far. They are more than caricatures but don't quite break the mold, like the Burl Ives character does in THE BIG COUNTRY. Anthony Quinn may have the best line in movie history, but Burl Ives surely delivered the best speech ever.
Lawrence was a nationalist, not an imperialist. To fight the Turks, he favored aiding Arab nationalists rather than spending British lives to conquer territory and resources in Mesopotamia. But, against Lawrence’s own intention, Seven Pillars also makes a case for empire, a case that Lean’s film clearly reinforces.
Why not just say he was both? Indeed, most British back then were nationalist and imperialist. They were clearly nationalist in defending the Mother Country. They were proud to be Anglo and white back then. But they also took great pride in the Empire. And from the beginning, the British justified empire-building by recruiting local nationalisms or proto-nationalisms, sometimes constructed by the British themselves, not least by interpretations of archaeological findings, i.e. the British understood the natives and their histories better than the natives did themselves, and the Brits were there to restore them to their former glory. Brits took over India but also justified the takeover in terms of liberating the Hindus from the Muslim Mughals. Wherever the British(or the French) went, they aided local tribalism against regional hegemonism. But whites did the same in the Americas. They would support one Indian tribe against the more powerful tribe hostile to white settlers. In World War I, stoking Arab Nationalism was useful in justifying European takeover of what had been parts of the Ottoman Empire, just like US and Israel have toyed with Kurdish nationalism in recent years. Globalists claim to hate nationalism but have no problem encouraging ultra-Ukrainian nationalism against Russia, only to weaken Ukraine at the same time by spreading Globo-Homo there. It's sort of like STAR WARS. It's ostensibly about Rebels vs the Empire, but the Rebels are also an imperialist power that rules over diverse folks. When Germans fought French and the British in World War II, it was empire vs empire.
Furthermore, the notion of 'Arab Nationalism' was fuzzy because Arab-ness was never a clear-cut ethnicity, let alone nationality. Besides, unlike European nations, Arabs didn't even have a sense of borders. They fought more over 'whose well' than 'whose land'. Many tribes remained nomadic, not least because it's hard to put down roots in the desert where hardly anything grows. Indeed, what excites Lawrence about the Arabs is that he, in poetic reverie, regards them as the pirates of the desert, like the Brits were once swashbuckling pirates of the seas. Lawrence is a restless wanderer, and he's drawn to Arabs for their mobility. To him, the camels are like boats on sand, and he will be the Ahab of the Arabs.
Third, there is a strong element of Nietzschean self-mythologization: what Aleister Crowley calls “auto-hagiography” and the Arabs call “blasphemy.”
And yet, the Arabs don't seem to regard him as a blasphemer but a blessed man, even by Allah. Unlike Christianity that was mostly about humility and guilt, Islam has venerated the great warrior, the man of pride, the derring-do seeker of fame and fortune.
Indeed, what's fascinating about Lawrence is the ambiguity, part cynical vanity and part heartfelt passion. He is a both a loyal British agent(who stirs up Arabs against Turks for British Imperialist designs) and a semi-traitorous maverick hellbent on leading the Arabs not only against the Turks but the European imperialists as well. He's never entirely one thing or the other, which means he's always both, which in the end is too much of a burden.
The Lawrence of myth is part of a tradition: The white man who goes 'native', identifies with the other side, and fights for their cause. It's there in DANCES WITH WOLVES and THE LAST SAMURAI. Also in THE MISSION and the toddawful AVATAR. But if most such movies have the hero fully switching loyalty to other side, Lawrence remains on both sides, partly because Anglos and Arabs were uneasy allies but also because of his dual nature.
In a way, he serves his own vanity by manipulating both camps. Initially, he is having fun and thinks himself too clever by half for the others who can't keep up with his stunts. But as time passes, he comes to realize the limit of this 'fun' and comes to realize that playing 'god' isn't the same as being god. And, it dawns on him that he was being played by them as he was playing them. He's as much a pawn as the king(or queen). Also, his British superiors crack his code. They sense his vanity and stoke it to send him back into the field. They go along with the charade that Lawrence will do it for the Arabs. On some level, a man as smart and savvy as him must realize that the British promises aren't worth the paper they're written on, but he chooses to believe because his vanity blinds him to the truth.
On the symbolic plane, Lawrence overthrows the three Abrahamic faiths by rejecting their doctrines and reversing or rewriting their central stories with himself as the hero.
There is something of the classic pagan hero in Lawrence's boldness(that turns into hubris), but his success also owes to the chameleon-like ability to make himself acceptable to Arabs on their own terms. Also, in the heat of battle, few ever stuck to spiritual dogma. When did Christian Knights heed the teaching, "Turn the other cheek?" While Lawrence is clearly different, he becomes a hero among the Arabs because he's adept at playing 'more Arab than Arab'. He acts like he understands the Arab soul more than the Arabs do and goes the extra mile to get them what they really want(but don't know it yet). Also, it's wrong to bunch the three Abrahamic Faiths into one. Christianity arose as heresy against Judaism, and Islam rose as heresy against Judaism and Christianity. Thus, heresy is intrinsic to the Abrahamic tradition.
After a memorial service at St. Paul’s Cathedral attended by the crème of the British establishment, a priest asks if Lawrence “really belongs here,” which introduces the theme of Lawrence as an outsider.
Would a priest be concerned about a man's social status? After all, many saints were of humble background and spent(or gave) their lives doing undignified work among the poor and the wretched? It seems the priest's concern has less to do with Lawrence's social background or standing than considerable notoriety that accompanied the myth. Controversy always trailed him.
As for Lawrence's geo-political significance, it was surely exaggerated, especially in the context of World War I. One of the most memorable lines in the movie is "...this whole theater of operations is a sideshow! The real war's not being fought against the Turks, but the Germans. And not here, but on the Western front in the trenches! Your Bedouin Army - or whatever it calls itself - would be a sideshow OF a sideshow!"
True enough. Ottoman Empire was an insignificant power and in fast decline, comparable to Italy in World War II, more an albatross around Germany's neck than a real asset. The fate of World War I was decided in eastern France when the US finally entered the war. Lawrence's romp with the Arabs against the Turks had almost no bearing on the outcome of the war. Also, Lawrence or no Lawrence, the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I would have delivered the 'liberated' Arabs into the hands of European Imperialists(until they immolated themselves in World War II and/or were pushed out by US interests or USSR influence during the Cold War). In the larger context, it was of no consequence that Lawrence and the Arabs blew up some Turkish trains. It didn't matter if they or the British military took Damascus first. Indeed, Lawrence realizes this victory all came to naught. His ragtag bunch of Arabs can't manage anything, and the 'adults' take over in the end.
So, despite the victories and moments of glory, Lawrence wasn't a very consequential figure in history, Arab or British. He romped around not only in a sideshow(the war against the weakened Ottomans) but a sideshow of a sideshow(among the Arabs who blew up some trains and sacked a few towns after Ottoman forces had already been depleted and scattered). Then, why did he become such a famous figure? This is where the factor of personality, celebrity, hype, self-promotion, and myth come into play. It's like Yukio Mishima became world-famous not only for his writing talent but his knack for self-promotion. Same with Ernest Hemingway. Surely, other American writers were just as good or even better, but Hemingway knew how to make himself larger-than-life. Not just an author but a man of adventure, a philosopher who lived by the 'code'. It also goes for Sam Peckinpah, whom Pauline Kael called the 'youngest legendary director'. Peckinpah, like Jean-Luc Godard, understood the art of the mystique. A figure comparable to Lawrence is Che Guevara. Guevara didn't achieve much. He wasn't crucial to the victory of the Cuban revolution. His African adventure came to nothing. He made insane remarks during the Cuban Missile Crisis. His Bolivian insurgency was a complete failure and led to his death. And yet, he had the look. A handsome guy whose mug was caught in that famous photograph. Also, he always emphasized the unity of theory and practice. He was both mind and body. And he always pushed to the limits and dreamed big. So, his life and death became the stuff of legend, i.e. he didn't so much lose but sacrificed his body, Christ-like, for the Revolution, and his soul lives forever.
The real Lawrence wasn't tall like Peter O'Toole, but he was rather handsome, and he was a writer and intellectual. He was also a flamboyant narcissist who mugged for publicity. Had Lawrence been an ugly bald guy with a paunch who won battles for the Arabs but lacked charisma and didn't pontificate about his exploits in writing, would he have become the stuff of legend? Unlikely. But then, if Che Guevara looked and talked like 'Pachanga', would he have been so idolized? Also unlikely.
And part of Lawrence's neurosis and insecurity has to do with his uncertainty about the Real Him. Is he becoming famous for his actions or are his actions becoming famous because of HIM? Actions create the cult but the cult validates actions. This is certainly true in the arts. Merit makes an artist's reputation, but then the reputation alone carries him(even as the works become increasingly dubious, culminating in man-as-parody like Andy Warhol).
Peter O’Toole plays Lawrence as slightly autistic
He seems more amused and aloof than 'autistic'. An 'autistic' person is obsessively immersed in some detail, whereas there's an aura of zen-like detachment in Lawrence. It might be seen as smug but for the fact that Lawrence seems genuinely interested in matters and affairs.
He also has a masochistic side. He likes to extinguish matches with his fingers. “The trick . . . is not to mind that it hurts.” It is a small exercise in self-overcoming, a hint of greater things to come.
It also serves as contrast between theory and practice, a hard lesson he learns later. With matches, he is the master of his pain. He controls the flame and can blow it out at any time. But as a captive of the Turks, the pain(and humiliation) is beyond his control. He goes from the god of pain to its slave.
Lawrence’s commander, General Murray, despises him as an overeducated misfit, but a civil servant Mr. Dryden (a composite character played by Claude Rains) values his intelligence and language skills.
'Despises' is too strong a word. He mostly seems irritated. On the one hand, he has the advantage of rank and age, but Lawrence is clearly highly intelligent and gifted. In other words, superior. So, what is an inferior man of superior rank to do with a superior man of inferior rank? Not an uncommon problem. Besides, it was normal for superiors to dress down inferiors in British society, especially in the institutions. It began in boarding schools and reached the uppermost boardrooms, which is why Lawrence doesn't take any of it seriously. It's just the British way.
Lawrence tells Dryden that he thinks this mission will be “fun.” Dryden says that the only people who find the desert fun are Bedouin and gods. His unstated premise is that Lawrence is neither. Lawrence flatly declares, “No, it will be fun.” If Dryden is right, and Lawrence is not a Bedouin, that implies that Lawrence thinks of himself as a god.
True, Lawrence has a god complex but he also becomes a 'Bedouin' in 'cosplay' sense. After all, he becomes Lawrence of Arabia. He dons Arab clothes and prances about as a fellow cutthroat. Homos are into role-play(and trannies are into role-play with the other sex). So, Lawrence is man playing god, a white man playing Arab or 'Bedouin'. So, the 'fun' has more than one implication. The 'fun' is in the role-playing itself as if the Arab adventure is a costume-ball in the desert. Paradoxically, Lawrence feels freer in the role of an 'Arab' because, despite their tribal-traditionalism, Arabs are less orderly and thoroughgoing than the 'anal' British. Also, unlike in British society where men must be gentlemen, Arab men can do as they please simply as men. In addition, there is always an element of 'freedom' in a foreigner taking on another culture. He becomes neither his original self nor entirely the other self(as he is a foreigner). He enters a limbo or liminal state where identity becomes a matter of whimsy than fixed loyalty. No wonder Justin Trudeau loves to put on different dresses and be 'gay for a day', 'Hindu the next day', and then an 'American Indian', 'Muslim', and etc. What was once relatively novel among men like Lawrence has turned into a global cosplay. (Alec Guinness, who was homosexual, seems to have enjoyed dressing up in other cultures.)
Lawrence, especially due to his social background as bastard, has a weak sense of self and finds refuge(and fun) in playacting across cultures. Also, his homo side loves to don different dresses. It's no accident that homos love stuff like Mardi Gras. The film MISHIMA begins with the famed/notorious author donning different masks. Consider Ludwig II. He didn't just love operas but lived as if he was in one. And consider the homo-psycho in THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY. He's a master of guises.
Why are homos like this? They are naturally flamboyant and get ooh-la-la carried away. Also, their sexual ambiguity makes them feel male and female. This fluidity makes homos useful to the deep state as homos are less rooted and love to travel around the world not only to bugger different buns but to playact and have 'fun'. Take Donald Richie, the American ex-patriate in Japan who wrote books on Kurosawa and others. He loved being an outsider because the ambiguity lent him freedom that eluded him back home. Today, homos may feel less this way as they are accepted and even celebrated everywhere in the West. In the past, however, homosexuality was considered a sin and was a serious crime. So, white men like Lawrence found sexual exploits in other parts of the world where law and order were in a state of disarray. Also, among the poor, you can buy favors for a few bucks.
At any rate, Trevor Lynch's highest regard for LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and ALIEN COVENANT(as the best of the ALIEN series) is rather interesting. Both movies feature characters with a god-complex. The latter ends with the triumphant android walking down the corridor(as if its Valhalla) to Wagner no less. Does TL share in the god complex or something?
Crossing the desert to find Faisal, Lawrence’s guide Tafas is killed by Sharif Ali (Omar Sharif) for drinking at his well. You see, Tafas is from the wrong tribe. This prompts a bit of political philosophy delivered with autistic frankness that borders on the suicidal, given that it is spoken to a man holding a smoking gun
Not really. Lawrence isn't entirely green about the way of the Arabs. He knows Tafas was a small Arab. He could tell Ali is a big Arab by his attitude and demeanor, a man of some importance who knows something of the larger world. Tafas the small Araba was totally mesmerized by the sight of Lawrence's pistol. In contrast, Ali is handy with guns, hitting a man from a distance on camel-back. Ali tells Lawrence that he can drink the water and even offers guidance. So, Lawrence picks up right away that Ali is a player. He's in the fight against the Turks, and it simply wouldn't do to kill a British officer as the British are on the side of Arabs. Lawrence knows he isn't talking to some bandit but a chief whose role is to work with and aid the British. So, Lawrence's speech isn't autistic but rhetorical. It's his way of scoring some points. Ali has the gun and the status in these parts. But Lawrence can show himself to be the man of ideas and vision. Arab kills an Arab, and Lawrence shames the Arab for killing another Arab. Not that Ali cares what Lawrence says in the moment, but it reverberates later as Ali comes to realize that Arabs need something more than tribalism to overcome the threats posed by world powers. After all, the irony of Arab Nationalism was it was stoked by empires far bigger and more powerful than the Ottomans in decline. In a way, Lawrence is playing the neo-Muhammad figure. Muhammad and his followers did great things because they persuaded various Arab tribes to set aside their differences and join in the Jihad. But tribalism lingered in the Middle East, just like ethnicism remained in Europe despite Christianity, leading to various internecine wars among the Europeans, something that Napoleon and Hitler sought to overcome with a uniting message: Enlightenment principles or recognition of Aryan Supremacy.
So, at least politically, Lawrence is more a 'Muslim' than Ali is, for whom the tribe comes before common faith. Lawrence doesn't preach Islam but he offers a uniting principle by which Arabs can transcend their tribal hostilities and distrust.
Usually, a sign of autism is the failure to see the bigger picture due to immersion in minute details, like with Dustin Hoffman's character in RAIN MAN. Lawrence is the opposite of 'autism' because he sees the bigger picture.
Throughout his adventures in Arabia, Lawrence’s dream of a rising Arab nation is stymied by tribal rivalries and blood feuds.
There's a kind of irony. One might think there are seven ways of seeing the world. Individual-centrism, family-centrism, kin-centrism, tribe-centrism, nation-centrism, and universalism. Thus, to attain the wider and grander sense of identity and loyalty, one has to move up the ladder from individual to family to kinship to tribe to nation to the world(or all humanity). And yet, the agent of the movement upward is often the cult of the great individual. People into tribalism don't just move up the ladder to nationalism. Rather, a great individual comes along and makes the various tribes pledge their loyalty to HIM, the great man, and through him the transformation is achieved. At least in the movie version, the slaves couldn't unite without the leadership of Spartacus.
For tribal Judaism to birth universal Christianity, there had to be the figure of Jesus Christ. While petty individualism is about 'me', a transition to a higher plane of identity and loyalty usually requires the Great Individual whose cult and legend bring together peoples who might have distrusted and killed one another. Alexander brought together the Macedonians and Greeks. Napoleon, for a time, brought together the Europeans. Muhammad brought together the Arabs. It wasn't just a matter of universalist credo but the power of charisma. American populism went nowhere until Donald Trump arrived on the scene. And it is the cult of MLK that holds together the coalition of various peoples of color and whites of both parties. So, while one must abandon one's petty individual-centrism to arrive at a higher loyalty and wider identity, it is generally through the cult of the Great Individual. And Lawrence seems eager to play this prophetic role. It goes to show that any movement won't get anywhere with ideas alone. Those must be embodied in the figure of the Great Individual, and this is why Jews especially feared Adolf Hitler because he had that magic-touch with the masses. And in his comical way, so did Donald Trump. Jews hate 'bad' ideas but what they fear most is the coming of the Great Man who can articulate and embody those ideas. This is why Jews are eager to spread cuckery among white males so that no such figure can arise among them. Without such figures, 'white nationalism' will remain just ideas on the page. People read books but follow leaders. No leaders to follow, no movement.
An irony of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is that, even as Lawrence lectures the Arabs about their petty tribal ways, Europe itself is engulfed in a white-versus-white war that would end up killing 17 million people. Also, Germans are allied with Turks against other Europeans, and UK & France recruit nonwhites to fight Turks and Germans. It seems whites are also plagued by an inability to come together as one people and bury the hatchets.
Of course, the UK played a key role in this dilemma as its policy was the 'balance of powers'. If the moon has a stabilizing effect on geology and life on Earth, the gravitational force of UK had a disruptive and destabilizing impact on Continental affairs, i.e. just when the Continent seemed to unite around some idea or individual, the UK aided counter-veiling forces to spread dissension across the Continent once again. So, it's rather odd that the British would be preaching Arab unity in the movie. What they did to the European Continent was to sow seeds of discord.
On autistic principle, Lawrence rejects Ali’s help in finding Faisal, preferring to risk it on his own.
It's more a matter of pride than principle. Also, having pored through maps and gone on personal journeys, Lawrence isn't a complete novice when it comes to the desert. He also has a compass. In a way, he's foolish to reject Ali's service, but it's also a smart move. Their first encounter was a battle of wills and competing visions. Had Lawrence accepted Ali's offer, he would be in debt not only to Ali's guidance but graciousness. After all, Ali killed Lawrence's aid but bears no ill will toward the Englishman and offers his service. Lawrence is unwilling to let Ali gain the upper-hand. He wants to show Ali that he's a man of pride and will. Ali could have taken the compass, but Lawrence reminds him of honor, something Ali can't ignore. It's one thing for an high-born Arab to kill an Arab hick(Tafas) over a trifle, but Lawrence, an Englishman, is another matter. Ali recognizes Lawrence as a peer and hands back the compass.
When Lieutenant Lawrence reaches Faisal, he is ordered by his British military advisor, Colonel Brighton, to say nothing, observe, and report back to Dryden. But Lawrence is irrepressible. As an autist, when he has ideas, he can’t keep them to himself, which intrigues Faisal.
The autistic mind is usually trapped in a single idea or methodology. It's like Hoffman's character in RAIN MAN tries to solve the "Who's on First" joke because he has no understanding of humor and comedy. Everything to him is a matter of patterns and logic. Lawrence isn't like that at all. His mind is fluid and flexible. He listens and uses both sides of his brains and weighs all possibilities. (Hoffman's role as Jack Crabbe in LITTLE BIG MAN, another white-man-goes-native story, is closer to 'autristry', but then Hoffman had that aspergy air about him.)
Gasim’s time has come. “It is written,” meaning that it is the will of God. Lawrence declares “Nothing is written”—meaning that the will of God is nothing in the face of the will of man—then he goes back on his own to search for Gasim...
In the space of a single conversation, Lawrence rejects the written laws handed down by Moses and Muhammad. He overthrows God and lays down his own laws. Blasphemy indeed. But Lawrence’s blasphemy is not punished. It is rewarded. When he rescues Gasim, the Arabs begin to idolize Lawrence. As Lawrence sleeps, Ali burns his uniform.
When Lawrence says 'nothing is written', it borders on blasphemy but not quite. The Torah is written. The Koran is written. Those are holy words. But when Ali said it's 'written' that Gasim would die in the desert, it is an assumption, not the word of God. Thus, it's more the case that Lawrence is defying Ali's interpretation of what is 'written' than what is truly written by God. Ali, familiar with the desert, knows Gasim has little chance of making it out alive. Also, it's not just about Gasim but his other men. He can't risk their lives and the entire mission over one man. In BLACKHAWK DOWN, the mission to rescue US soldiers leads to more of them getting sucked in and getting killed. So, based on law of averages, Ali is correct. God or no god, the chances don't favor Gasim's survival and, furthermore, trying to save him would jeopardize other men and the whole mission. In that sense, Lawrence is foolish to go back to retrieve Gasim, especially as he's an amateur in the desert.
Still, Lawrence is starting out on the great venture, and he wants to prove to himself and impress others that he can do miracles. Also, at this stage of the journey, he hasn't yet killed a man, and it wasn't long ago that he registered shock at Ali's killing of Tafas. Against the Arab attitude of life(as dispensable), Lawrence wants to show that every Arab life matters. It's a continuance of his rebuke of Ali's careless killing of Tafas. He, a white man, will risk his own life to save an Arab. (Also, Gasim endeared himself to Lawrence earlier with praise.) One of the themes of THE WILD BUNCH is the leader's guilt of having left partners behind. Pike Bishop fled to save his own skin while his friend Deke Thorton got arrested. Later, he must leave Angelo to Mapache and his men. A leader of men knows that lives are expendable in battle but also feels responsible for each and every man, like with Steiner with his platoon in CROSS OF IRON. Perhaps, this Leader's Guilt is more a Western thing, and Lawrence feels it.
Besides, what can any man know about the real mind of God. Lawrence's feat doesn't necessarily defy God or Allah or whatever. From Ali and Arab's point of view, it's not blasphemous. Rather, Allah had written it so that Lawrence would pull off a miracle. He was right, they were wrong. Thus, he is among the favored of Allah. Lawrence, not being a Muslim, surely has a more egotistical interpretation of events, but he walks the thin line between blasphemy and piety. But then, this goes for Muhammad also. If he'd only cared about what is written, he would have respected the Jews as the Chosen or adopted Christianity. But, he believed the Biblical texts or what was 'written' had been corrupted. The universe is indeed 'written' by Allah, but it is he, Muhammad, who heard God's true poetry. Christianity both accepts and rejects what's written in Judaism. Islam both accepts and rejects what is written in the New Testament. In that tradition, Lawrence both accepts and rejects what is 'written'.
The notion of 'written' has ambiguous meaning in the movie. In one way, it is what is written or willed or commanded by God. But it also means man's resigned assumption of God's will, a kind of fatalism. In that sense, what's 'written' isn't so much about the holy mind of God but man's passive acceptance of his own lot which he conveniently ascribes to God. So, the rejection of what's 'written' isn't so much a defiance against God(something no Muslim could tolerate) but the rejection of the fatalist attitude. The notion of 'written' or Calvinist predestination doesn't necessarily deny 'free will' because humans have no idea what has been predetermined or predestined. It's like some physicists say everything in the universe will unfold as it was meant to, but we still act upon our 'free will'. And in GATTACA, there are outliers in the genetic determinism.
Because Lawrence is a bastard in England, he cannot inherit his father’s name or title. For Ali, that means he is free to choose his own name. He is free to found his own family, clan, or dynasty. He is free to be somebody’s ancestor, not somebody’s heir. This is the privilege that descends on all men who bring victory in battle. It is how aristocracies everywhere are born.
That's an interesting take, and perhaps in an earlier era, Lawrence would have taken up the offer. The world used to be about aristocrats, the warrior class. But after Napoleon, the aristocracy is just too small for the imagination and ambition of someone like Lawrence. Napoleon proved that the warrior class is no match for the warrior mass. He turned the entire French nation into an army, and workers and peasants who took up arms proved they could fight as well as any aristocrat, especially if they're fighting for their own freedom and rights than the privileges of the few. There are naturally aristocratic qualities about Lawrence, but he lives in the shadow of Napoleon, the man who roused up an entire people into a mass army that destroyed all aristocratic battalions across Europe rather handily. So, a clan or dynasty is too small for Lawrence.
But Lawrence has a solution. He will execute the prisoner. He will take the blame. He, not the Howeitat, will bear the brunt of the blood feud of the dead man’s tribe... Lawrence is offering himself as a scapegoat to prevent tribal conflict from spinning out of control.
Not really. The man's family has no reason to hold a grudge against Lawrence as he's an outsider. These Arabs have long grudges and feuds that go back generations. So, regardless of right or wrong, when someone of one tribe kills another, the culture of honor demands tit-for-tat, vendetta. Because of tribal grudges, justice is impossible. Even when one's side did wrong and was killed by the other side for righteous reasons, the first emotion is not 'justice happened', but 'they killed one of us, so we must kill one of them.' Lawrence exists outside this vicious cycle, therefore his execution of the man can be accepted as justice by all sides, even by the family of the dead man.
It's like with the Negroes. If one gang kills the member of another gang, there must be revenge. But if the killer is arrested and sentenced by the judge, both sides are cool with that because the judge isn't part of the grudge culture between the gangs. He just done his job, sheeeeiiiit.
Lawrence asks Gasim if he is guilty. “Yes.” Then Lawrence puts six bullets in him. When he flings away his gun in disgust, a mob converges on it, as a holy relic. Lawrence is becoming a legend. (In reality, Lawrence executed a different man. By making Gasim the killer, the screenwriters not only made the story more economical, they also increased its dramatic power.)
The mob dived for the pistol not as a holy relic but because it is precious in those parts. It's like the scene in AFRICAN QUEEN where Humphrey Bogart tosses a half-smoked cigar and black natives pile on one another for it.
I'm not surprised that the real man shot by Lawrence wasn't the one he'd saved. It seemed a bit too neatly significant, a dramatic invention. After all, what are the odds that the very man Lawrence saved would be the one he must kill. Still, it serves as a reminder that perhaps Lawrence cannot deny what is 'written'. He could forestall it, but Gasim was meant to die. It deflates Lawrence's confidence but also sobers him up for what's up ahead. One thing for sure, the great adventure before him will involve many deaths, and there won't be any more egotistical moral luxuries about saving every man.
Also revelatory is Lawrence's admission that he actually enjoyed the killing. He seemed pained and agonized, especially as he had to execute the very man he went out on a limb to save. And yet, he recounts later how it made him feel alive. It's like he 'popped his cherry', like Henry Hill getting busted for the first time in GOODFELLAS. It was like sex, a moment of ecstasy, the moment of truth!
Partly, it was the thrill of violence. But it was also a liberation from moral obligations and the Leader's Guilt. As the man who conceived of the plan, Lawrence felt responsible for the life of everyone in the mission. But upon killing Gasim, he feels somewhat free of that guilt. It's going to be a bloodbath, and it's written that many of his men will die, so be it.
Ali throws him a garland of flowers, stating “The miracle is accomplished. . . . Tribute for the prince, flowers for the man.” Lawrence replies “I’m none of those things, Ali.” When asked what he is then, Lawrence says, “Don’t know.” But he’s being coy. If he has worked a miracle, he’s a god, or on his way to becoming one.
No, he's not being coy. Lawrence is a complex man. He's both megalomaniacal and modest. He's brimming with confidence, even reckless at times, like a homo into 'rough trade'. Yet, he's also deeply insecure. He's driven by vanity but haunted by conscience. He's like a pagan god but also like a christ figure. He wants to believe he's doing something right, good and true, than merely for fame and glory. Furthermore, whatever he achieves, he is just an agent of empire, never the emperor. And, despite the Arabs' acceptance of him, he will never be one of them. Also, there is a contemplative side to him, one that reminds him that all glory is fleeting, which is the final note of PATTON.
Lawrence is really drawn to adventure and romance. Even though there is a moral component to his modern crusade, he doesn't want to be burdened with responsibility. Indeed, at the end, we notice he has a harder time with peace than with war. In battle, he could lead the Arabs. But in victory, he can't get them to agree on anything. As for the POW hospital for Turkish prisoners, what a mess that is.
When Lawrence arrives in Cairo... Naturally, he is not welcomed until he is recognized as one of their own... But when he reports that he has taken Aqaba, everyone from the top brass to the lowest guardsman knows a good thing when he sees it.
This scene is most notable for conveying the contradictions of the British Empire and Lawrence's ambiguous role in it. The British claim to be defending the Arabs, but 'dirty Arabs' are not allowed into the building. The British offer their hand but shut the door. Lawrence is mistaken as an Arab and excluded... until he is identified as a British officer but the Arab boy(accompanying Lawrence) is rebuffed until Lawrence insists he be let in. Prior to his Arab adventure, Lawrence would have thought nothing of excluding Arabs from the building, but he's been through hell and back with them, not least with the boy accompanying him. Lawrence tortured duality is revealed in this scene. He did a great thing for the empire and is thus its loyal servant. But he's also come to sympathize with the Arabs and takes personal offense at the treatment of the Arab boy.
It was something experienced by many who took part in empire, especially if of an idealistic or sentimental bent. They see the empire as benevolent and good, spreading light around the world. But they also see how the empire tramples on other peoples whom it claims to defend, protect, and elevate. Plenty of American soldiers in Vietnam believed they were fighting the good fight to defend Vietnamese from communism but were also appalled by how the 'gooks' were treated. It defined much of Oliver Stone's career. The British pioneered modern enlightened imperialism along with the French, which was later taken and advanced by Americans, especially with their own struggle with the black issue.
Lawrence carries these contradictions at all times. He is surely proud to be British and feels he, not the Arabs, can pull off a miracle for them. He feels better than them, and part of this superiority was surely racial given the times. It was also cultural as the British thought they occupied the summit of human civilization. But Lawrence also feels superior to most whites. While most of them stay in their neat British uniforms, follow orders, and do as told, he broke through the barriers of identity, loyalty, and class to achieve the unthinkable. Are his feats all for the empire or are they anti-empire, a gift to the Arabs against not only the Turks but eventually the Europeans as well? Of course, Lawrence doesn't have the power to be the ultimate arbiter, which is something of a relief as any decision will be regarded as a betrayal by one side or the other. Whatever he may want personally, others get to make the big decisions. The 'old men'. Young men fight the battle, but 'old men' make the peace, as Faisal later says. It's like actors(and to a lesser extent directors) get the glory in Hollywood, but the real decision-makers are the men in suits in the offices(though rare figures like Steven Spielberg made it as both director and producer).
In that scene, Lawrence feels both immense pride and a bit of shame. He accomplished what others said couldn't be done. He offered it on a silver platter to the British. He also pleased the Arabs. But while the two worlds are united in his personage, they remain divided politically and socially. Arabs fight for the British but your average British regards Arabs as dirty 'wogs'. Lawrence had to go out of his way to insist that that Arab boy be served a glass of lemonade. Lawrence knows the British have good reasons to detest the Arab ways. His harsh rebuke to Ali in their first encounter was evidence of that. Yet, he also knows that Arabs have good reason to distrust and resent the British who are two-faced, devious, manipulative, and often treacherous behind the civil facade. But despite his own prejudices, what separates him from other British is he has genuine curiosity and sympathy for the Other. He is like both Zhivago and Strelnikov. A romantic poet and ruthless warrior.
The scene ends on a note of irony, though not in a ham-fisted way to score cheap points about hypocrisy and 'racism'. The very Brits who'd been offended by his very presence shower him with praise and good cheers. Still, it illustrates the tensions of the empire that preached civility but also exuded contempt.
This is an interesting point, but perhaps we shouldn't confuse tribalism with nationalism though they are often used interchangeably. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the Arabs have yet to develop national consciousness and remain mired in tribalism, a far more fragile and unstable condition. Tribalism is about us-versus-them among various groups without fixed borders and well-articulated canonical sense of identity, history, and narrative. It is essentially instinctive, yet to develop into a unified community bound by laws and norms. Nationalism, with well-defined borders and mass consciousness, is a modern achievement.
Most of history was about constantly shifting boundaries. It's like in the Americas, there were many tribes but no fixed borders, which shifted constantly with the latest outcomes in battle. But with the rise of kingdoms and rooted settlements, a sense of which people owned which land bound by shared memory became better defined.
Still, the first true nationalism followed the French Revolution that deposed the aristocracy. Under the aristocratic order, the elites identified more with fellow elites in other kingdoms than with their own peoples. Even though kingdoms sometimes fought one another, it was like a family feud. They were all of related blood, and they all looked down on their peoples as subjects or the rabble, pawns in their games. But the French Revolution led to modern nationalism where the elites became one with the national masses, and this paradigm has defined modern democracy(despite its liberalism), communism(despite its universalism), Fascism, and National Socialism. Hitler cared more about volk than class. They all talked about The People.
But globalism is restoring a kind of ersatz-aristocratism where the elites of various nations feel closer to one another than with their own peoples. Biden, though a white American, serves the globo-homo club than White Americans. Obama served the globo-homo club than cared about black Americans. Various elites around the world send their kids to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and Cambridge, and they care more about joining the globo-homo club than about their own peoples. They veil this neo-aristocratic trend with 'wokeness' that provides them with the veneer of caring about 'diversity, equality, and inclusion', but diversity only increases inequality, and the elite club is more exclusive than ever. Only their favored idols, narratives, and 'values' are deemed 'acceptable' and the rest are excluded. And notice how 'wokeness' de-emphasizes the masses or the People and instead fixates on the celebration of three minorities: Jews, blacks, & homos and largely for their SUPERIOR qualities. Worship the Jews for their genius, worship the blacks for their muscle, worship the homos for their creativity. Thus, the new idolatry is essentially neo-aristocratic.
It seems Jews are the ONLY exception within the globalist empire. Super-rich Jews like Sheldon Adelson cared about the humblest Jew in Israel, and American Jews did all they could to help relatively poorer Jews in the Soviet Union. But then, Jews want it this way. If goy elites cared about their own kind, they wouldn't expend all their energies serving Jews in the globo-homo club. So, the globo-formula is goy elites snub the goy masses and serve Jewish elites who care about Jewish folk.
If Arabs in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA had nationalism, they would live in a more stable world. But they only have tribalism. Under Ottoman rule, the various tribes enjoyed a degree of stability in their common submission to the Turks. But as Turkish authority wanes, the power vacuum creates havoc, just like the fall of communism led to the breakup of Yugoslavia(that had been united more under Tito-ism than any clear sense of Yugoslavian identity, but then, the US made it worse by pouring gasoline on the fire and encouraging further breakup by dangling prizes before any ethnic group broke away from the dominant Serbs).
Nations have fought one another, resulting in shifts in boundaries(like tug-of-war over Alsace Lorraine between France and Germany), but usually stability and peace followed after the dust of war settled. In contrast, in a world of tribalism, there never really is a state-of-peace because nothing is really settled among the tribes. There are no agreed-upon boundaries, and furthermore, there is only an inchoate sense of 'us'(as opposed to 'them') within the tribe. The identity, culture, and sense of history hadn't been coalesced into something resembling a shared/mass ideology.
Jews are something of an exception in all this because they started with prophets and the Covenant than with kings and swords. Thus, Jews relied more on the power of mind than the power of might to define who they were. Also, the Covenant informed each Jew that he is the equal of all other Jews as the blessed of God. He wasn't just some peon or subject. The kings came later for the Jews, and even they were subordinate to the prophets and the Covenant. This is why the Jewish people and culture could survive even after their elites were massacred or scattered to the winds. Each Jew had a sense of self-worth and carried within his body/soul the seeds of the sacred truth. In contrast, pagan folks were mostly lowly subjects of their master-elites. Their purpose in life was wedded to specified duties and skills, like being a blacksmith. They belonged to an order as long as their elites remained, but when the elites were vanquished, they had little in terms of identity as their worth had been measured in service to their masters than in terms of autonomy from social privileges.
Allenby, Lawrence, and company sweep through the halls and down the grand staircase—past rank after rank of smartly uniformed officers and sentries, standing at attention and saluting—into the sumptuous bar, where all the officers spring to attention until Allenby put them at ease and begs their permission to drink there, as a guest of Major Lawrence. It is a perfect image of how hierarchy is oiled by magnanimity, manners, and good humor....
it is precisely the British ability to look past appearances and to recognize the talents and achievements of an outsider and misfit like Lawrence that made this victory possible.
It also suggests that Anglos, in their deference to authority and hierarchy, are lacking in autonomy and agency. They are rather like well-trained dogs. Their happy acceptance of the new odd-seeming Lawrence comes largely by the way of Allenby's commendation. If the big man says it's okay, it must be okay. So, their feelings about Lawrence have less to do with personal opinion than consensus willed by a superior. No wonder then the Anglo World switched gears so fast under the new boss, the Jewish Tribe. Jews nod this way, and Anglos nod the same way. Jews nod another way, and Anglos nod that way too. This is where Lawrence stands out among the crowd. Allenby and other British officers belong to the system and go by the book. Just like Muslims believe everything is 'written', the British go about very scripted roles, from top to bottom. Lawrence, though impeccably British in many ways, has something of the 'cowboy' in him. He doesn't always go by the book, and it is rather surprising that a man like Allenby would warm to a man like Lawrence who is headstrong with a maverick streak. Under most circumstances, Lawrence wouldn't be ideal but he's the right man for the 'wrong' world.
And yet, this is where the British were different from, say, the Japanese. Both were about hierarchy, order, discipline, and duties. But if Japanese almost always suppressed any sign of individuality, the British Order allowed just enough freedom and space that a man of special qualities was given his due. So, while Japan was 99% anti-individualist, Britain was 95% anti-individualist but allowed just enough space for a man like Lawrence to flourish. This was ideal for the British Empire because, let's face it, most people are dullards and lack any notable qualities; they would do best just to shut up, follow orders, and stick to their allotted duties. However, there is a tiny sliver in any population with special intelligence, creativity, skill, and/or imagination, and it is a society that allows such special individuals to blossom that ends with the better garden. British society was repressive but can tolerate a man like Lawrence. Japanese society couldn't.
The thing about Lawrence was he lived in a time when even a misfit had to fit in. There was no other way. The Beatles, the Stones, the British Invasion, and Punk movement were in the future. Thus, the 'misfit' qualities of Lawrence had no choice but to serve constructive ends. Not only did he have to suppress his homosexuality but he had to channel his wilder energies toward serving the system. In contrast, the future vision of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE features Alex, a young man of superior wit and intelligence, who has all the freedom to indulge his misfit fantasies. What was special about the Beatles(at least up to 1967) was they embodied both form and freedom. Then came punk that turned UK into an ugly place.
We pretty much know where David Lean stands on the empire vs. nationalism question.
Based on that scene, the movie could be construed as pro-empire. But the movie grows darker and shows the heavy burdens and messy betrayals of empire, leaving Lawrence disillusioned with just about everything. Also, considering that Lean was thinking of a Gandhi project, he surely had a critical streak about empire.
In the first half of the movie, Lawrence makes himself a legend in service of Arab nationalism. In the second half, he meets a rival myth-maker, Jackson Bentley, a fictional American journalist based on Lowell Thomas and played by Arthur Kennedy. Bentley’s goal is to use the Arab anti-colonial revolt and the romantic figure of Lawrence to build American sympathy for the war... Bentley tells Faisal, “I just want to tell your story.” The bastards still say the same thing today.
Some things never change. The Middle East has been in turmoil since the War on Terror following 9/11, or we can trace it further back to the Gulf War following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. (And before that was the bloody decade long war between Iraq and Iran, which was instigated by the West that egged Hussein on, only to turn on him later.) Syria is in utter chaos, and Libya has been utterly smashed. A century after Lawrence, it seems the Middle East hardly made any real progress in genuine national autonomy; but then, Western nations are also collapsing from idolatrous degeneracy and ideological lunacy under Jewish Supremacist hegemony. Saudis and their closest allies are total cuck-puppets of the US, which is ruled by Zionists who pulled strings to wreak havoc across the region.
At least back then, there was a remarkable figure like T. E. Lawrence to shake things up a bit. Today, just about every Western operative is a colorless craven-cuck agent of the Empire of Zion. Of course, Jews hated Lawrence for his aid to Arabs. The Middle East movie for the Jews was EXODUS by Otto Preminger.
As for the media coverage of Middle East affairs, it is nothing but Jewish-Zionist propaganda, hardly surprising when all the media are owned by Zionists who hire fellow Jews and cuck-goy-maggots. And among the cucks, the Anglos are some of the worst. In a way, Jews understand Anglos far better than the other way around, not least because 'antisemitism' has been banned, making it difficult to think critically about Jews. Jews know all about the hierarchical character of Anglos. Whereas each Jew is strong in personality, each Anglo is relatively weaker in personality and his self-worth relies to a great deal on peer perception and approval. Being apologetic is part of Anglo consciousness, whereas for pushy Jews, "shove means never having to say you're sorry." When Allenby treated Lawrence like a capital fellow, the rest instantly fell in line and toasted him as a jolly good fellow. Today, if Jews say globo-homo is cool, Anglos with weak personality fall in line first and wave the globo-homo flag. Or, consider how so many Anglo-American types were the first ones to put up BLM signs on their front lawns.
Bentley eagerly snaps pictures, which the Arabs correctly believe will steal their virtue. Bentley is stealing—and selling, and exploiting—Lawrence’s virtue, his power.
But without people like Bentley(and David Lean), there is no legend. Arabs can cheer Lawrence all they want in the moment. They have no cameras, radios, or printing presses, nothing for posterity. It's like there's no Billy the Kid legend without the newsmen and novelists who told and/or spun his tale. Also, Lawrence craves the publicity. As a warrior, he has Arabs as his audience, but with men like Bentley tagging along, he has the whole world as his audience. He is both a deeply anguished soul who wants solitude and a flamboyant narcissist who wants to be adored by the world.
Part of his insecurity derives from the fact that glory is hard-fought and increasingly harder to come by, especially as the stakes are raised. Not everything he does is successful, and the enemy is learning his tricks, making it ever more difficult to pull off the same stunts. The more his megalomania grows, the more insecure and desperate he becomes to live up to the myth as the near-infallible warrior. It's like Paul Newman's character in COOL HAND LUKE. He's introduced as a loner, but his first taste of stardom whets his appetite for more, even if his fans are a bunch of losers in a prison. He becomes addicted to his cult and keeps raising the stakes. He becomes their hero and saint, then martyr and savior as the cult turns into a death wish in search of a legend. Luke's demeanor at the outset suggest not a care in the world, but he's a social animal after all and can't resist the fawning attention of the prisoners, even if it means he has to wolf down 50 eggs or break out numerous times at risk to life and limb.
Bentley is less a 'thief' than a partner in the creation of the Lawrence myth, just like John Reed did much to spread the gospel of Lenin to American audiences with TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD and Edgar Snow did likewise for Mao with RED STAR OVER CHINA. Bentley is a necessary figure because, being American, he is neither Arab or British. Also, being American, he is more more candid and forthright than the relatively uptight British. Individuality and irreverence were more a feature of the American character, perhaps best represented by Mark Twain, though Americanism too isn't without its own myths and delusions as the history of US was undoubtedly about elites, hierarchies, and classes. Still, compared to most characters in the movie, Bentley is the skeptic who can see through Lawrence and has no illusions about his own profession. He brings the movie down to earth, just like the American character(William Holden) in THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI is the one with the least BS, precisely because he's so natural at BS, but as a tool than a conviction. Both the British and the Japanese have their hang-ups, but William Holden's character is just natural. He's most honest because he's most shamelessly dishonest without delusions of honor and duty, rather like the American character in KING RAT.
At any rate, Bentley doesn't seem to be a publicist for the Deep State but something of an adventurer himself. And his disgust at the butchering of fleeing Turks by Lawrence and his men suggests he's not without conscience. Also, his joking remark about Lawrence at the funeral indicates he understood Lawrence. He's the movie's obligatory cynic who helps create the legend but also sees right through it, not least because he understands the mechanics of myth-making. When overheard at the funeral, he is met with stern rebuke by a man who says Lawrence was a very great man. When asked, the man says he didn't know Lawrence personally but had the honor to shake his hand. He seems a decent sort but also represents the hoi polloi into earnest hero-worship, pat narratives, and reassuring tributes(like what we hear every Memorial Day about American Soldiers having died for our freedom). The irony is that this man probably got his impression of Lawrence from men like Bentley who spread the legend far and wide. It's like people who make the movies see the image differently from people who see the movies. The audience lose themselves in the myths while the makers have no such illusions as they know the tricks of the trade. For every Quixote, there is a Panza. Dreamer and deflator.
The juxtaposition of the three-dimensional Lawrence and his two-dimensional shadow and silhouette, along with the journalist’s camera, is a subtle commentary on myth-making. Lawrence is becoming one of the shadows projected on the walls of the cave of public opinion.
It has dual meaning. The shadow is like Arabic calligraphy. It seems Lawrence is 'writing' his own destiny. And yet, there is no shadow cast without the Sun. It's as if to suggest that despite Lawrence's conceits, it is the ultimate power that is really writing his fate.
The dark shadow also portends what is to come later. The light goes out in Lawrence's heart and he wants to go home, without fanfare. (But then, his speed on motorbike in Merry Old England suggests Lawrence never lost his appetite for daring and adventure.)
Then he pinches his white flesh and says, “This is the stuff that decides what he wants.” Is he referring to his race, which made it impossible for him to pass as an Arab? Is he referring to his sexuality?
The whole affair is rather odd. His whiteness is prized by the Turks. The homo-Turk wants him precisely because he looks so fair and fine. If Arab boy have exotic appeal to Lawrence, the swarthy Turks are taken by his light skin and blond hair. So, Lawrence isn't a victim of racial prejudice but racial admiration, much like the blacks in GET OUT who are the objects of fetishization by White Libby-Dibs. But the Turk's flattering homo-lust is met with scornful disgust by Lawrence, who strikes him. Thereby, he is harshly punished. This time, the pain is beyond his control. This isn't a match he can blow out at any moment. He must take the lashes(or rods) until they stop, and they break him. Earlier, he spoke of mind over matter, i.e. the trick is not to mind the pain. But the pain from the beating is too much for him to bear. He thought himself the master but is reduced to a 'bitch', like the American guy in MIDNIGHT EXPRESS.
Ironically, it turned out badly for him not because the Turks saw him as less than an Arab but more. More attractive and more desirable. So, when Lawrence laments that he can't be an Arab, it sounds like both curse and blessing. Just like it's unseemly for an inferior to pose as a superior, it's no less so for a superior to pose as inferior. Lawrence is a contradiction because he's a man of superior qualities who prefers to hang with inferiors. Back then(and perhaps even now), both Europeans and Turks regarded Arabs as inferiors, racially or culturally. But, it's also a matter of class. Increasingly, Lawrence recruits lowly cutthroat Arabs who are far beneath Ali's station. Lawrence has qualities to move up the ranks(and is promoted for his exploits), but he feels most natural among the rag-tag warriors and ruffians. Some people seek power by serving the superior. Though subordinate, they get to work within power's proximity. Others seek power by seeking out inferiors to lord over. Though among the lowly, they stand high and mighty above them. Of course, Lawrence does both in the story, serving the British Empire as a loyal subject and lording over the Arabs like Tarzan over the apes.
At any rate, the scene with the homo-Turk is humiliating for both Lawrence and Ali. It's like the hazing in DAZED AND CONFUSED. It's both bad luck and an honor to be targeted for hazing. The boy gets has ass bashed but has moved up the ranks with the upper-classman. In one respect, it's beating and/or humiliation, but it's also a recognition of your worth in a ritual of initiation, like in a fraternity. When the Turks took Lawrence but cast Ali aside, it must have hurt Ali's pride too. It was if the Turks were saying, "We want this golden boy here, not you sand ni**er, so get lost." A further irony is that Ali, though probably not a homo, has special feelings for Lawrence partly for his European qualities as well. They become like brothers of the spirit.
What is puzzling is why the Turks threw Lawrence out after having their way with him? Did they really think he's one of those rare white-looking Arabs? Surely, if they suspected him as a British officer, they would have held him as a bargaining chip with the British. Also, they surely heard of the legendary Lawrence who is leading the Arabs against the Turks. Did the homo-Turk and his men not suspect that they had the Lawrence in the flesh? If so, what a bunch of dummies.
Anyway, what is it like for a homo to be humiliated by homos? If a straight guy is buggered by a homo, the shame is understandable, like in DELIVERANCE. But might not a homo enjoy being buggered by another homo? Was Lawrence especially ashamed because a part of him enjoyed the 'humiliation', just like he was troubled by the fact that he actually enjoyed killing Gasim?
Lawrence’s goal is to beat Allenby to Damascus and install an Arab National Council. He almost loses the race when he comes across an Arab village sickeningly massacred by the retreating Turks. The cutthroats urge “no prisoners.” Ali reminds Lawrence of Damascus. When one of Lawrence’s men charges the Turks and is gunned down, Lawrence unleashes a massacre.
It seems Lawrence's main motivation for attacking the Arabs was personal vendetta for what had been done to HIM than what was done to some Arab village(as such atrocities were common on all sides). After the ordeal with the homo-Turk, the sight of any Turks fills him with burning fury. For those around him, it's a matter of tribal vengeance, i.e "Kill the Turk who killed Arabs", but unbeknownst to them, it's almost purely personal with Lawrence: "Smash the Turks who buggered my butt."
Also, the scene complicates the issue of the 'written'. By going off script and deviating from the direct advance on Damascus, Lawrence is once again writing his own destiny. And yet, he seems overwhelmed by a force beyond his control. His mind says, "No, listen to Ali, head for Damascus", but some dark force drags him towards the orgy of vengeance. Thus, he is both the writer and the written of that moment. He simply couldn't control the urges and got swept away with his passion and the mob, just like Annakin Skywalker couldn't suppress the temptations of the Dark Side in REVENGE OF THE SITH. And Lawrence's own words come back to bite him. True, the Arabs once again acted barbaric and cruel, but Lawrence not only took part but led and utterly exulted in the bloodbath, perhaps more than the Arabs.
Like the remake of THE MAN WHO SHOT TOO MUCH, Lean's movie suggests that beneath the surface distinctions between cultures, similar mechanisms operate at deeper levels. In Alfred Hitchcock's movie, Westerners don't go around veiled like Arab women, but there are various rules of what you can and can't say in the West. And despite the distinctions between the civilized West and backward Arabs, when push comes to shove in the battlefield, white men also turn animal and beast.
Allenby’s response is shrewd. He orders the British army to quarters, including the medical and technical staff. He’s going to let the Arabs muck things up, out of tribal pettiness and general backwardness. Eventually, they will get tired of playing at government and leave. Which is pretty much what happens.
Arabs are better at pillaging and plundering things than in running a city. British can actually run things, but all said and done, theirs too is a pillage-and-plunder operation; they're not there for the sand but the oil. They want it all.
The movie ends with Lawrence, now a full colonel, being sent home so the politicians can take over. Along the road, he passes a troop of Bedouins leaving Damascus and more British coming in. It looks anticlimactic, but that’s history.
This is the most haunting part of the movie and comes closest to the claim of art. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is odd for an epic in forsaking a triumphant or tragic ending with heroic/romantic overtones. People prefer catharsis. By standards of epic conventions, the coda is not only anticlimactic but bleak and melancholic. One could say it's true to history, but when has an epic been faithful to facts? LAWRENCE OF ARABIA itself plays fast and loose with historical events. So, why such an unconventional ending? The ending of THE BRIDGE OVER RIVER KWAI is both triumphant and tragic(with a dash of the absurd). Mission accomplished, the men get killed, and it all seems so 'mad'. DOCTOR ZHIVAGO is similar. Zhivago's death is so very tragic but oh-so-beautiful, and there's hope that his daughter will be united with him in spirit in New Russia. In contrast, the final part of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is like a shadow play. Triumph soon turns into chaos and recriminations. He did it for the Arabs, but the Arabs fail him, or did he fail them? They are nomads, not city dwellers and bureaucrats, but then Lawrence himself would rather be a wanderer than an office man. But even a wanderer comes to the end of his journey, and Lawrence has come to his. Everything is denied him. He isn't quite the victor because he can't hold the prize together. He is even denied madness though he comes close in the filthy P.O.W. hospital piled with dead and sick Turks. An outraged British officer mistakes him for a 'wog' and strikes him, leaving him to laugh madly at the absurdity of it all. But ultimately, he doesn't go mad enough either. Madness would at least be a refuge, a haven from the troubles of the world. Rather, he's caught in the twilight region between sanity and madness, victory and defeat, pride and humiliation, humor and sadness. He made it to the end and crossed the finish line, and alas, Arabs will be Arabs, the big powers will have their ways, and 'old men' will decide based on interests than inspiration.
In many ways, Lean made a very classic and traditional film when cinema was moving in fresh and new directions, but its youthful hero who goes 'native' surely resonated with what became the Counterculture where young whites wanted to touch Indians or join with blacks in the Revolution. And US would become embroiled in a messy imperialist game in Vietnam. Some would have noted that Lawrence was the 'rock star' of his era with his diva personality. It is one of the greatest films on the subject of White Man and the Natives, though the most enjoyable of its kind is probably THE PLANET OF THE APES.
Lawrence is relevant today because of his sense of exile. While among the British he longs for exotic adventure, but exhausted among the 'natives', he hankers for home, like Odysseus. He is restless but also longs for rest. There are glimmers of him in Benjamin Braddock in THE GRADUATE who doesn't want his life to be 'plastics'. The constant sense of being ill-at-ease. Lawrence is never quite home, even at home.
But what was once a relatively rare condition among men of some privilege who could read and travel has become nearly universalized. There once was a time when Brits were Brits and Arabs were Arabs. Today, multi-culti UK is a place where not only nonwhites immigrants are exiles but so are the native whites as their nation is no longer their homeland. And identities are confused as non-whites become new British, new French, new Europeans while whites either lose their identity or fixate on the Other as 'savior' or 'redeemer'.
Also, if Lawrence wrestled with sexual ambiguity in a rigidly straight world, sexual multiplicity and then some are the official dogma of institutions and industries all across the West. If Lawrence's mission that required courage and vision channeled his confusions toward constructive ends, today's miasma of social degeneracy and cultural decadence borne of competing identities, be they racial or sexual or whatever, is allowed to fester and pollute the air all around us.
Just like Arabs could be united only in some grand adventure, it seems white people can't seem to get their act together in the absence of such either. When the Brits had empire, the various factions and groups(even the Irish) could put aside their differences and serve to expand and rule the empire, sharing the glory and plunder. And whites were most united in their conquest of the Wild West. But without such outward directive energies, whites feel lost and bored with themselves, easily falling prey to Jews who feed them with 'meaning of life' centered around 'white guilt', BLM, globo-homo, or 'Muh Israel'. Just like Lawrence somehow managed to inspire the Arabs to unite to fight the Turks, Neocon Jews in the US somehow managed to unite all whites at least around ONE issue: We Love Israel. Whether Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham, Nancy Pelosi, or Gavin Newsom, the ONE THING they can all rally around without any doubt is WE WORSHIP JEWS AND SERVE ISRAEL. Petty and stupidly divided over so many trifles, nearly all whites across the political spectrum are united in total reverence to Jews. In that sense, some things never change.
Though LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is great throughout, the scene where the departing Lawrence catches a glance of Arabs on camel rises to another level. It is where the movie goes from epic to poetic. Back in his uniform and homeward bound, the Arabs seem so different, alien, impenetrable. A people of another world. And yet, it wasn't long before he'd been one of them, eating with them, riding with them. Unlike white people in THE SEARCHERS and other Westerns, he wasn't kidnapped by Arabs and raised as one of them, but he had been among them and got to know them from the inside. They were his friends, almost like brothers. And yet, in that poignant moment, they seem so far away. And yet, something stirs within him. The past he resolved to put behind beckons him, and a part of him wishes to return. He feels as if haunted by a ghost. For homo-Lawrence, Arabia will remain his 'Lara' even as he bids farewell. There's relief of an ended journey but also grief and sorrow. In a way, Lawrence's psychological home will always be the adventure with the Arabs, but he can't go 'home' again because, no matter whatever else he does in life, he will never reclaim the virginal excitement and romantic consummation with the desert. Time turns everyone into an exile from his most cherished memories.
That last scene may have been copped by George Lucas for THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK when the wounded Luke in the Millennium Falcon senses the presence of Darth, his father, passing by in the Imperial Ship. They are so far apart yet so close. Likewise, even though Lawrence has burned the bridges with the Arabs, there will always be a mystical link.
One film of interest that very likely owes something to both BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is Nagisa Oshima's MERRY CHRISTMAS MR. LAWRENCE. Like KWAI, it is set in a Japanese prison camp in Southeast Asia and is about the test of wills between egos and between cultures. Like LAWRENCE, it delves in the psychology of myth with homoerotic overtones. Lawrence and Jack Celliers(David Bowie) are both men of superior intelligence and ability but haunted by something dark within their psyches. Oshima's film isn't an epic, but the smaller scale makes for sharper portraiture and heightened drama.
