Progs are a funny bunch. They call for Indigenous Peoples Day and then say Diversity is great. But it was Diversity that destroyed the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Take Latin America. Spanish imperialists conquered, spread disease, carried out genocides, and committed mass rape. That led to Euro-Indigenous diversity. And then, Spanish, Portuguese, and Jews imported millions of black slaves into the Americas. More diversity. So, Diversity has been the bane of the indigenous peoples.
In North America in the 19th century, more immigration meant more diversity and less territory for the indigenous peoples who got squeezed out of their lands by expanding Diversity of Anglos, white ethnics, Jews, and black slaves. America used to be All Indian but mass immigration of whites & Jews and importation of blacks made North America more diverse, and that led to the destruction of indigenous or original peoples.
So, it is about time that White Americans stop immigration and denounce Diversity. It would be a Moral Imperative. Proper assessment of White Guilt in America must address the fact that the main victims of White/Jewish Immigration were the Indians. Therefore, because North America was once Indian land, white folks must stop further immigration-invasion and help Indians to regain their footing in their ancestral turf. It was bad enough that Indians lost the lands to whites. There is no reason for them to lose it to immigration-invaders from all around the world. Since white people took the land from Indians, their main moral duty should be to stop further invasion and be nice to Indians. Since the whites didn't take America from peoples around the world, all those non-whites have NO MORAL CLAIM on America. So, on the issue of 'white guilt', whites may feel some measure of guilt toward Indians since they took land from them, but white Americans need feel NO GUILT toward the world since whites didn't take land from non-whites around the world.
The main question is, "Does America belong to the American Indians or to the World". The answer is it belongs to the American Indians. Since whites took it from the Indians, white priority must be to defend America from further invasion and revive Indian pride and prestige. But in our crazy Ellis-Island-centric nation, there is this crazy notion that whites have some moral obligation to open the US to all the world? But why? If America once belonged to Indians and if whites took the land from the Indians, then white moral obligation should be to prevent further invasion of Indian lands and to help Indians regain footing in their ancestral-sacred homeland. (If Jews had a right to regain their sacred homeland after 2,000 yrs, then American Indians have a right to regain territorial security and resurgence of pride in America, their sacred-ancestral homeland. That calls for end to immigration-invasion and promoting Originality over Diversity. While American Indians can't take back America like Jews took back Israel/Palestine, they can regain pride and stand proud once again IF all Americans recognize Indians as the Original and Truest owners of America as a 'sacred spiritual land'.)
Another way to frame this question is, "Does America belong to the Indians or to the Jews?" If we believe that the original claimants of America are the Indians, then we must address the fact that mass-immigration-invasion has been bad for Indians. Sure, it led to the creation of a great nation, but it also led to collapse of Indian folks and cultures. So, if we believe that, in the most sacred and spiritual sense, America belongs to the Indians(who'd been here for 10,000s of yrs before whites and others), then Americans must prioritize the matter of "Is it good for the Indians?" And future policy must be predicated on IIGFTI. Since mass immigration-invasion and Diversity destroyed the Indians, we must stop further mass-immigration and Diversity-mongering. We must favor demographic defense and originality(over diversity because diversity wiped out much of the original peoples).
But the US is currently under the rule of "America belongs to the Jews". So, "Is it good for the Jews?" or IIGFTJ is the modus operandi of US policy. Because Jews figure that more non-white immigration-invasion will lead to further Diversity that makes for weaker racial-national solidarity among goyim who will be divided among themselves, they see it as being GOOD for Jews.
But if American Policy is calibrated to favor and serve Jews, it means the US belongs mainly to Jews. But why? What claim do Jews have on America? Whites didn't take it from Jews. If anything, Jews were co-conquerors of America from the Indians. So, if anything, Jews must share in the White/Jewish Guilt of Imperialism and Genocide of the Indians. (And since Jews also took part in the slave trade, they must share in Slave-Trade-Blues. Imperialism + Slave Trade = Diversity. Celebrating Diversity is to apologize for imperialism.) Indians do have ancestral claim on the Americas. They were the original peoples. But by what right do Jews claim America as theirs? Why should American Policy be predicated on IIGFTJ?
Indeed, they have even less rightful claim than do the Anglos and Germanic who'd done most to found and settle the nation. There were Jews from the beginning of America, but the mass influx of Jews came later. So, Jews have no special claim on America. Granted, Jews can say they contributed a lot to American wealth and enterprise and science and culture, and that's all true. But that is still not an organic claim. After all, China and India have invested a lot in Africa and built the economies there, BUT they can't make claims on those nations that 'spiritually' belong to black Africans.
Now, for a long time, the main claimants of America used to be Anglos and whites, and for good reason. The argument was, "Sure Indians were here first, but they were savages and there weren't too many of them. So, the America as a modern nation is a white European creation." In other words, American Civilization was not something that the Indians had built but was stolen by whites. Whites built it from scratch. So, on that basis, whites could have legitimate claim and pride of ownership. And this was a sound argument. But Jews took over media, academia, & Narrative and spread the notion that Whites are the Most Evil People. So, white pride in anything is evil. It's even controversial to say "It's okay to be white."
So, for the time being, whites are best off using the Indians as moral shield. Whites must promote Originality over Diversity. Indians were the original peoples of America. So, if White Guilt is to be properly conceived, it must address the fact that Originality was largely wiped out by Diversity(the product of imperialism) made possible by whites(who opened the New World to Diversity-Invasion). So, in order to properly atone for their historical 'sins', it is time for whites to end immigration-invasion and diversification of the Americas and focus on restoring Originality of the Indian folks. It may be the most effective way to scalp the globo-homo yarmulka.
The moral discourse can pit one form of White Guilt against another form of White Guilt. The White Guilt of "Is it good for the Indians?" or the White Guilt of "Is it good for the Jews?" In the Americas, the white guilt of "Is it good for the Indians?" is surely more legitimate since America was taken from the Indians who suffered a kind of 'genocide'. In contrast, whites using their 'guilt' to serve Jews makes NO SENSE in America because whites didn't take America from Jews. Furthermore, Jews participated in the 'genocide' of the Indians along with whites. Jewish merchants sold guns to whites to kill Indians with. Jewish banks, along with Anglo ones, financed Manifest Destiny, a lebensraum plan against the Red Savages. Emma Lazarus called on more Immigrant-imperialists.
So far, many on the Right have regarded 'white guilt' as anti-white, but it can be made pro-white. By properly assessing American History, whites can make a moral case that 'white guilt' must prioritize what is good for Indians since they were the Original Peoples with a sacred tie to the land. Also, as white expansion destroyed so much of pristine wilderness, white guilt must also commit itself to restoring more natural habitats in every state in the Union. But there is no sound 'white guilt' argument in favor of serving Jewish supremacism or allowing immigration-invasion from around the world. After all, whites didn't take America from most peoples around the world. Also, non-white ancestors around the world played no part in the building of America.
The real problem of American PC isn't 'white guilt' per se. It is the perversion of 'white guilt' to favor peoples who have no moral claim on White Americans at the expense of peoples who do have a legitimate claim on 'white guilt'. No people have a more valid moral claim on White Guilt than do the American Indians, the Original people, BUT the current 'White Guilt' is manipulated to make white support "Is it good for the Jews?" and Diversity-invasion of non-whites who are coming off to leech off the achievements of another people on a land taken from the Indians. Imagine if you killed someone, but your 'guilt' is milked not to make amends to the aggrieved family of the victim but to offer endless 'compensations' to OTHER people who weren't victimized by you. 'White Guilt' is now milked not by the aggrieved calf but by weasels and leeches from around the world.
It’s a matter of Valid White Guilt vs Corrupted White Guilt. American Indians aren’t big in numbers and don’t have much wealth and influence. But they have tremendous moral capital IF white folks were to play it right. If ‘white guilt’ is so central to the Current Political Culture, then White Patriots must raise the crucial question of "Which people have the most legitimate claim on White Guilt?" American Indians or some Asian-Indian lowlife who sucks up to Jews to gain wealth and privilege? (And let’s not confuse the Original Peoples of the America[s] with low-life weasel Hispanics who, as the First European Imperialists in the New World, pioneered the ‘genocide’ of the indigenous folks. As for blacks, why are recent African Immigrants getting Affirmative Action set-asides meant for black Americans of slave ancestry? It goes to show that White Guilt went from a semi-legitimate ideal to a get-rich-quick scheme for thieves all around the world.) The disgusting fact of PC is that most people who make claims on White Guilt have NO LEGITIMACY whatever. And yet, these Frivolous Claims are taken seriously to allow endless immigration-invasion while the True Tragedy of the American Indians go unaddressed.
Anyway, one way forward for the White Race is to do what the White Vampires do in TWILIGHT: ECLIPSE. Form an alliance with the Indians against the Nihilists of Degeneracy and Invasion.
This split between man and Nature is at the heart of liberalism in which Western Man is considered as apart from and not a part of Nature.
There are many facets to liberalism. In some ways, liberalism was about the return of nature and sexuality. Liberals saw Conservatives, especially Christians, as the suppressors of natural energies, especially of sexuality. Liberal Boomers feel nostalgia about the 60s because it was about Return to Nature, or Back to the Garden. Rock Music, Sex, and Drugs were supposed to reconnect modern man with his natural energies.
But then, there is another side of Liberalism that fears nature as the aggressive warrior-side of man that tends toward tribalism based on racial differences. Liberals had a tough time with the neo-barbarism of Hell's Angels.
This foreshadows the land's decay and the birth of Arthur's unnatural son, Mordred, to his half-sister, Morgana (in a departure from the existing Arthurian canon and a move towards incestuous themes in Der Ring des Nibelungen).
I don't think the rise of Morgana & Mordred has anything to do with Nature vs Christianity. Morgana and Mordred represent the Malevolence of Power(any kind of power) misused for vanity and megalomania. Morgana represents the dark side of the Dragon, the demonic force. She also represents the Will to become god. She has powers like Merlin, who recognized something special in her. But if Merlin uses his special knowledge to guide man, Morgana is all about vanity(and vengeance). Merlin is like half-man/half-god who cares about mankind. Morgana is half-woman/half-god who wants to be full-god and give birth to a god-man. She seeks immortality. She is about the vanity of power, or the vanity of vanity.
This of course asks questions of the Grail, what it is and what it represents, for it is noticeable that it is never referred to as 'the Holy Grail' in the entire film.
As Boorman envisioned it, the Grail is the lost truth. The Grail is also a mirage and illusion. It doesn't exist yet exists only when people realize it doesn't exist. That's the paradox of the Grail. Arthur sent his knights to seek the Grail OUT THERE in a physical quest on horseback. They thought it's a physical object that can be found like lost treasure. Later, we discover the Grail is not a thing. It is a state-of-mind, a realization. It cannot be found OUT THERE. It can only be found WITHIN. Perceval finally grasps it when he realizes that it's really about hope and reconnecting with the roots of truth and honor. So, in a way, the Grail was always right there in the hearts of Arthur, Perceval, and all the knights. They just forgot it. It's like what Joel McCrea's character tells Randolph Scott's character at the end of RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY. McCrea says goodness and honor were always there in Scott's heart, but he just forgot it, that's all.
This and Merlin's answer that "Good and evil, there never is one without the other" prompts Sir Gawain's outburst about Guinevere's lust for Sir Lancelot, an outburst that is made possible by Arthur's democratic leanings in creating the Round Table that gives a voice to all. Arthur's woes are compounded when he refuses to defend his wife's honour, as he must judge as king before fight as husband, much to the dismay of Guinevere. He therefore chooses civilization over barbarity, societal law over the Natural law of defending one's loved ones. Ultimately, Arthur has created these laws himself and they reveal a man who is increasingly willing to embrace the passivity of Christianity of his own volition. After all, why does there need to be a judge in a trial of combat?
It's not that simple. The Round Table is not democratic. It is aristocratic, solely the domain of the knights who'd been there with Arthur in the founding of Camelot. And there is hierarchy, with Arthur as King and with Lancelot as the greatest knight.
And Arthur's refusal to fight and defend Guinevere's honor makes sense because Gawain impugned not only Guinevere but Lancelot as well. His terse words dishonored both of them. So, even if Arthur were to condemn Gawain to death or fight him, Lancelot's honor would still be besmirched.
Therefore, the proper thing is for Lancelot to defend Guinevere's honor. And if not him, one of the other knights who have faith him Lancelot and Guinevere. Also, another reason why it must be Lancelot or one of the knights is that the Arthurian World is a world of magic. As Arthur says, in a duel of honor, the wrong cannot win over the right. And this is why none of the knights will come forward to defend Guinevere. They too suspect, along with Gawain, that there are certain dark feelings between Lancelot and Guinevere. And Lancelot too is uncertain about what action to take because, as he says, they(he and the queen) are innocent of body but not of heart. So, Lancelot is anxious about championing the queen because he may lose. He may be the greatest knight, but the Magic of the Arthurian World will favor the righteous over the false in a duel of honor. So, he has to purge himself of his wrongful feelings before finally arriving to defend the queen. But in his self-purging, he has seriously wounded himself. He wins the duel but with a cloud of uncertainty. Gawain begs for mercy and says the queen is innocent. Lancelot still tries to kill him, but the Magic prevents him from doing so, and Lancelot himself collapses.
Also, Arthur's action cannot be called 'passivity'. If anything, he sticks to the law because he is sincerely committed to being a just and noble king. Also, the pagan 'karma' of the Arthurian universe disfavors the rash and barbaric. Uther was rough-and-tumble, but he didn't last very long. He was not The One, and the Dragon let him die.
Equally, Guinevere is correct when she states that "In the idleness of peace, I see that gossip has spread its own evil." This is an eternal truth. As the True Right has always known, without real struggle, the human mind will artificially create struggle, hence the rise of the Social Justice Warrior from the creamy all-too-comfortable bourgeoisie and their crusades against all manner of invented abstractions that boil down to a struggle against Nature herself.
Actually, Guinevere is being disingenuous. The 'struggle' wasn't artificially created. It was always there. Indeed, when Guinevere and Lancelot first saw each other, they instantly fell in love. But they couldn't be lovers since Guinevere promised herself to Arthur, who is also Lancelot's best friend. So, Guinevere married Arthur, and they all pretended everything was hunky dory. But in fact, Guinevere and Lancelot were lovesick for one another. So, the tension that flows forth from this repressed love is not due to some idle chatter but the eventual emergence of the hidden passionate truth.
Arthur never suspected it because he loved Guinevere too much and trusted Lancelot. But others did notice it(if in silence), and Morgana exploited it to drive a wedge among the knights. The sexual dynamics are profoundly important in the Arthurian Universe since it is a world of warriors, and top alpha women go with the best knights. Arthur, as king, is the leader of knights. So, it is natural that he should have Guinevere. But there is a certain unease because Lancelot is actually the better warrior. And unbeknownst to Lancelot, he wasn't really beaten by Arthur. Arthur cheated and drew power from Excalibur to defeat Lancelot. But Lancelot thinks Arthur beat him fair and square, and that is why he pledged allegiance to Arthur. So, their friendship, beautiful as it is, was founded on a falsehood. The superior warrior Lancelot submitted to Arthur on the belief that Arthur beat him in combat.
By rule of nature, the top woman wants to go with the toughest man. But in civilization, power is gained not only through fighting but through statecraft, wit, and talent. And Arthur has those qualities, of course with the help of Merlin. So, he is king, and Guinevere went with him. But her natural womanly side still lusts after Lancelot, the greater warrior.
This is relevant to the Modern West because black men are tougher, more muscular, and more athletic than white males. This is why John Boorman appreciates THE BIRTH OF A NATION, which is about sexual anxiety, very much like Arthurian Legend. White men long ago feared the Negro man who is stronger, more muscular, and bigger-donged.
In nature, the strongest and toughest warrior-hunter gets the most desirable women.
In civilization, men can gain power with smarts and skills. So, best women often go with successful men who may not be the strongest or most attractive. That is the tension of the Modern West. White men, having higher intelligence, do better than black men economically. So, successful white men get top white women. But then, white people watch sports and watch pop culture and see the Negro Man kicking the white boy's ass. This leads to Cuck Mentality.
In a way, there is a certain logic as to why the Negro is often featured in the role of Lancelot in these new Hollywood tellings. In the Modern West, black males dominate sports and sex culture. So, they possess the Top Warrior archetype. And that is why increasing numbers of white women are into jungle fever, betraying white men, and offering their wombs to be Afro-colonized. They see black men as the superior warrior and stud. Look at Sports Illustrated. The top male athletes are black, and the bikini models are white. Look at athletes and cheerleaders in NFL and NBA. Mostly black male players and white cheerleaders.
THAT is the greatest threat facing the white race: ACOWW, or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. White guys want to believe that it's all about blacks raping white women, but in fact, tons of white women Go Negro because they got jungle fever for the superior stud.
Anyway, what happens among Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot was anticipated by Merlin who told Arthur that, yes he will marry Guinevere but will be betrayed by his best friend.
So, it goes to show that even a temperate man like Arthur can become blind to the bigger picture because of the hypnotic power of love. Even so, I think what Arthur and Guinevere feel for one another is love whereas the feelings between Guinevere and Lancelot are much stronger: it is lust.
And deep inside every woman is a desire to be saved by a hero, no matter how much she rails against 'the patriarchy'.
Yeah, but the problem is that Guinevere wants to be 'saved' from Arthur by Lancelot. In a way, the problem is that Guinevere feels 'oppressed' by the security offered by Arthur. It provides her with privilege, wealth, safety, and nice things. But what she wants most sexually is to be taken by Lancelot. In a way, she wants to be 'unsaved' from civilization and be taken by barbarism of lust. So, it's not so much that a woman wants to be 'saved' by 'patriarchy'. She wants to be swept away by the top lover-boy. This is why many Romance novels are about women being abducted and conquered by the superior man, the 'bad boys'. This is why Helen of Troy doesn't want to be saved. She finds Paris to be more dashing and desirable than her humdrum husband. She collaborated in the 'abduction'. A woman wants to be saved ONLY IF the savior is the superior man. But if the would-be-savior is the inferior man, she prefers to be taken by the superior pirate, thief, or lover-boy.
Indeed, women prove to be rather problematic in the film, which no doubt will please the Manosphere types who love to point to women as 'the enemy'. Morgana is indeed a representation of evil, but Guinevere is all too human, and her betrayal of Arthur is seen equally as stemming from Arthur's betrayal of her in the scene we have explored.
Everyone is problematic in EXCALIBUR, but things get complicated with women because their power is subtler and more mysterious. Men are problematic, but their conflicts are settled with brain or brawn. In contrast, some women have beauty-and-allure, the mysterious power of which is difficult to measure or figure out. Also, it's not just about looks. Guinevere is attractive but not the most beautiful woman. But she enchants men because of her personality. She has a special touch, a sparkle.
Also, Guinevere's betrayal of Arthur has nothing to do with his supposed 'betrayal' of her. She had subconsciously betrayed Arthur in her heart from the moment when her eyes met Lancelot's. On that wedding day, even though she was betrothed to Arthur, she was besotted with Lancelot. And when she saw the wounded Lancelot on the bed nude after the duel, the combination her lust and her compassion was just too much, and she couldn't hold it back anymore. She was caught in a conundrum. If she went off to make love to Lancelot, she would be betraying her husband and duty as queen. But if she didn't run off to Lancelot, she would be betraying her heart that wants to run off to him.
As for Morgana, she is not a simple character at all. She is the most complicated character after Merlin. In a way, we can understand her rage and bitterness. After all, Merlin conspired with Uther to have her father, the Duke of Cornwall, killed. This was especially unjust because it was Uther who'd broken the peace. Merlin was angry with Uther, but he decided to salvage the situation by having Uther 'rape' and impregnate Igraine. Merlin foresaw the death of Uther but also a new order arising from Arthur, son of Uther. But there was collateral damage in this plot. Though Merlin did this for the greater good, he had to commit an evil. He had to help Uther 'rape' Igraine and kill Duke of Cornwall. Thus, Morgana lost her father and witnessed her mother being raped by Uther. In a way, she is loyal to her father. She is avenging what was done to her family. It's like Lady Kaeda the avenger in Kurosawa's RAN. She is justified in her rage and hatred.
But Morgana is about more than vengeance. She is special, like Merlin. She has the vision, and she is consumed with vanity of power. She justifies her action on revenge for what was done to her family, but she goes way beyond vengeance because lust for power has its own logic. She can't say no power & vanity just like Guinevere cannot say no to lust.
But then, this was true of communism and Nazism. Communism justified itself as revenge of the oppressed working class, but its power-lust led to greater evils. And Nazism was initially justified on Germany's humiliation in WWI and Versailles Treaty. Hitler rose to power speaking of national justice and restoration. But he was consumed with power-lust and didn't know when to stop. Power has its own logic, like fire that always threatens to burn out of control.
Jews and Negroes also gained power in the name of righting historical wrongs, but they too became engulfed with power for power's sake. Today, black rappers are into thug power, and Jews are mad about globalist domination. Jews went from Holocaust-remembrance to acting like Judeo-Nazis.
Arthur's passivity leads to his problems with both his men and with women. His cuckolding and sexual assault leads to his impotence. In turn, this leads to the land decaying.
It's not his passivity that leads to the fall. Rather, it's his reneging on his duty as king due to personal angst. When he discovers that Guinevere and Lancelot betrayed him, the proper thing is, by the codes of that particular order, to kill them both. And indeed, he goes off to kill them.
But he just couldn't do it. He still felt too much love for them. And because he is a wise man, he can read their hearts. He understands why it happened. Merlin once said that Uther could't look into the hearts of men. Arthur can look into the hearts of others, and he realizes that Lancelot and Guinevere are not evil and didn't meant to hurt him, Arthur. It's just this crazy thing called lust/love.
Arthur could have done two things: The proper thing as king to kill them both as they slept. Or, he could have walked away with Excalibur and returned to being King.
Instead, he abandons Excalibur, Merlin's special gift to him. Merlin led Arthur to the Sword of Power to be savior and leader. A king must rise above his personal angst and think of the good of society. But Arthur, distraught over Guinevere and Lancelot, just abandons the sword and returns to his castle to wallow in misery. He forgets what Merlin told him: 'You and the Land are one.' Arthur's abandonment of Excalibur was like a betrayal of Merlin. When Arthur drives the sword into the ground and walks away, we see the sword striking into the back of Merlin, and he too becomes disoriented.
I think the idea of 'you and the land are one' has multiple meanings. It means the relation between leader and the land, but it also means the connection between mind/soul and body.
Yet for all this, the film received mixed reviews from the critics. This is largely because critics of the time all hailed from the same middle-brow liberal clique.
Actually, Ebert's criticism made some good points. Even at 2 hrs and 20 min, there is a lot of material that isn't sufficiently developed. It's a film that should have been epic in scope: one more hour would have fleshed out more details. Still, many critics were blind to the film's undeniable virtues.
Ebert, Siskel, and many critics also devalued BLADE RUNNER for the same reason. They focused so much on plot and characters that they overlooked the real stylistic and visionary aspects of the film.
I don't think Ebert's lack of appreciation had to do with politics. After all, Ebert later recommended CONAN THE BARBARIAN, RED DAWN, and RAMBO, more blatantly 'right-wing' movies. I think he focused on the wrong things: story and characters. He felt there was too many things happening without proper development, and he was right in a way.
Maverick Liberal Jewess Pauline Kael, an admirer of Boorman and who wrote a mostly glowing review, also noted that the movie has problems of continuity and characterization. Incidentally, Kael's review of the film is one of the best in film criticism. It's in the volume TAKING IT ALL IN. A snippet: http://www.geocities.ws/paulinekaelreviews/e3.html
I think EXCALIBUR is one of the greatest films ever. THE 13TH WARRIOR is one of the few films of similar theme & setting that is comparable in beauty and power, but it tragically bombed at the box office... whereas a totally worthless pile of crap like LOTR raked in big bucks. It goes to show what a dumb-dumb world we are living in.
* * * * *
With one movie, Boorman conveyed more ideas and poetry than all the STAR WARS movies combined. Boorman also made a fascinating sci-fi film with ZARDOZ, one of the most relevant films given what is happening in the world.
Boorman presented Big Ideas with poetics, romance, grandeur. And he took inspiration not only from Arthurian legends but from Germanic mythology, especially as revitalized by Wagner. And the relationship between Merlin and Arthur is among the richest on screen.
Merlin is an ambiguous character. Always anxious because he sees MORE. So, if humans are rejoicing over some victory and celebrating like it’s the End of History and their side won, Merlin foresees dangers ahead and knows that all glories are fleeting. Even at the worst of times, he sees glimmers of hope. Even at best of times, he sees disasters looming up ahead. He is like a less amoral Indrid Cold in MOTHMAN PROPHECIES. His vision is from a higher plane. He can look further over the horizon. Thus, he’s never content with apparent stability in the here-and-now. He’s always worried because to know more is to be aware that everything is fleeting, no matter how 'permanent' it may appear for the time being.
But there’s also a detached & aloof quality about him. Despite his involvement with humans, he is not of any particular world. And he’s seen it all — the cycles of rise and fall — before in other worlds. And there are other worlds after THIS ONE. This detachment is an advantage but also a sadness. Because he isn’t attached to a single time and place, he can continue in other worlds even if the current world falls into ruin. But because he isn’t loyal to a single realm, he doesn’t really belong to any one or any people. He's like a professor, not unlike Kingsfield in THE PAPER CHASE, who can't feel lasting attachment to any one class or student.
In the end, he is a wanderer, a stranger to all. Ben Kenobi and Yoda are supposed to be like Merlin figures in STAR WARS, but Kenobi is too goody-goody, and Yoda is a muppet.
Merlin tried to help Uther, but it proved hopeless because Uther was too impulsive and primal. He couldn’t control his anger, his lust. As Merlin says, Uther couldn’t look into the hearts of other men. Everything was about himself and his immediate desires. He risked everything for a romp with Igraine because he couldn't control his lust. Because he fails to look into the hearts of other men, he alienates them and makes too many enemies and falls in the end.
But the great irony is Arthur is created by Uther’s most foolhardly deed, the sexual conquest of Igraine. Merlin realizes that his failure with Uther was part of the ‘plan’ because the failure fertilized the success(if limited) with Arthur.
Arthur is smarter and more sensible than Uther. Arthur is cautious, like Michael Corleone in contrast to hotheaded Sonny Corleone. And with the aid of Merlin, he learns to look into the hearts of others. He has empathy, he has understanding. He not only battles the knights who oppose his kingship but reaches out to them in understanding. Ultimately, he wins over Euryens not by force of arms but display of virtue.
He is also capable of self-criticism. When the sword breaks in his duel with Lancelot, he confesses that his pride broke it. He was supposed to use Excalibur to unite all men, but he used it for personal vanity and vendetta. This wisdom is an advantage, and the Lady of the Lake forgives him and restores Excalibur.
But the world of EXCALIBUR Is fraught with contradictions and paradoxes. It’s like Merlin says everything has its opposites. Also, the opposite of something may actually be nearest to it or hiding within it.
It’s like Michael remembering his father’s advice in THE GODFATHER PART 2: Keep your friends close but your enemies closer. In EXCALIBUR, Arthur asks where evil is, and Merlin says it is always where you least expect it. Evil isn’t necessarily OUT THERE SOMEWHERE but just around the corner, in your own domain, right behind you, or even right in front of you. It’s like the biggest enemy of the white race is not Russia, China, or Iran, some foreign nations far away. It is the PC virus within the very core of the West. An external enemy can be fought with sword or gun. But the evil virus can be within you.
Just as evil could be right in front of you or within you without you noticing, so can the truth & redemption. The biggest truth could be invisible because it’s hidden within one’s soul or standing right in front, thus out of focus. After all, the knights who went on the quest for the Holy Grail were misguided in thinking it was out there somewhere. Perceval discovers that the truth is actually within his own soul, indeed it’s always been there. He just forgot it, as did Arthur.
Again, it's like the scene in RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY where the dying hero tells his partner that there was good within him all along: he just forgot it, that’s all. (Given the out-of-control sexual politics among youth today, RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY offers some sobering lessons about impulsive behavior among the youth, but also how excessive puritanism — like with Elsa’s father — can make things worse.) The ‘holy grail’ was within Arthur himself. He just forgot what Merlin had taught him.
And yet, there is a paradox to Arthur’s decline. It was precisely because he was wise and could read the hearts of other men. Everything has its opposites. The source of wisdom and duty could also lead to weakness and doubt. When he discovers that Lancelot, his best friend, had betrayed him(by taking Guinevere), he wants to kill Lancelot and his wife. But he can’t make himself do it because he has too much empathy. He can look into the hearts of Lancelot & Guinevere. Despite his rage, he is also understanding. So, he hesitates and finds it impossible to kill his friend and wife. His wisdom makes him understand more but also renders him ‘weak’ and lacking in resolve to carry out the execution.
But there is the tragedy. He surrenders Excalibur, the greatest gift bestowed to him by Merlin and Lady of the Lake. In doing so, he abandons his role as king. A king is supposed to serve something bigger than his ego and self. Whatever his personal foibles, he is supposed to rise higher and rule for the good of the people. But Arthur, so depressed over the Lancelot/Guinevere affair, withdraws into self-pity and becomes despondent like Scottie in VERTIGO. He just tunes out and drops out. If he were a private individual, it wouldn’t have mattered to others. But as leader, he has a kingdom to rule and must never renege on his duty and responsibility. Whatever his personal setback, he must rise higher and rule for the good of all. But he just surrenders Excalibur and walks away to hide from the world. And the moment when he drives Excalibur into the ground proves most vulnerable for Merlin who feels the blade strike into his back. His gift to Arthur has been abandoned, Arthur has violated his covenant with the sword, and there is disturbance in the Dragon. It is in that moment of confusion and distress that Morgana gains control of Merlin’s dazed wits and uses his magic against him.
* * * * *
The mythic themes of EXCALIBUR, much like those found in Greek mythology, give us a clue as to why the West broke through the 'sound barrier' of progress in ways that never occurred to non-Western cultures. It wasn't just about rise of reason and science but the heroic individual will to strive further and reach higher. It was the visionary audacity to steal fire from the gods.
PC accuses white people of having stolen from other peoples. But man-stealing-from-man has been the rule of history just like animal-stealing-from-animal is the rule of nature. Clans stole from clans, tribes stole from tribes, kingdoms stole from kingdoms, and empires stole from empires. Whether it was the Zulus, Mongols, Huns, or the Vikings, the story of mankind has been stealing from other peoples, just like wolves and hyenas steal from other animals. So, if whites had done only like the other races and only stolen from others, they couldn't have broken through the 'sound barrier' of history.
So, what set the white race apart from others? What did white individuals do that other races failed to do?
They stole the secrets of the gods in Promethean manner & unlocked the mysteries of the universe.
Whites unlocked the secrets of micro-organisms and how diseases happen.
Whites gazed into distant space and discovered galaxies and black holes.
Whites discovered the mechanism of atoms and harnessed nuclear energy.
Whites solved the secret of flight and gained mastery of the sky.
Whites cracked the secret codes of higher morality and envisioned a world of order & liberty.
So, white people stole the secrets, ideas, and values that had once belonged only to the gods. Whites stole the keys to unlock countless mysteries that had baffled, mystified, or frightened the rest of humanity.
And by unlocking the secrets known only to the gods, white people attained and then spread the higher & deeper truth to all of mankind. If not for whites, would any race be flying through the skies or probing the secrets of viruses?
That is Power. It began when Prometheus stole fire from the gods.
The real secret of white power is not that whites stole from non-whites. Whites ‘stole’ only crude rudiments like land and labor from non-whites. Every people stole such from other peoples since the beginning of time.
What set whites apart from other races is that they, in the spirit of individuality and heroism, mastered the art of picking the locks of the gods & the cosmos and walked away with priceless treasures of knowledge.
You can steal land from red savages and labor from black savages. It takes no genius to conquer territory or enslave others. All peoples could do that and did that.
Other peoples merely feared or served the gods. Only whites dared to access the vault of the gods holding the secrets of everything from the smallest atoms to the biggest stars.
That is the true source of white power. White stole everything… from the gods.
"John Boorman's films are implicitly white, as they address themes that pertain to people of White European descent, whether historical, philosophical or mythical."
Not necessarily. Boorman made HELL IN THE PACIFIC that is about cooperation between Japanese soldier and American soldier. He also made EMERALD FOREST that romanticizes the jungle natives of the Amazon as living in unity with nature. If anything, that movie is most damning of incursions of white civilization into the natural order. Boorman made a movie about Burma in BEYOND RANGOON. He also made a movie where a white woman romances a black man. So, he's not this explicitly pro-white director you make him out to be... even though his themes and treatment would be politically incorrect for many today.
"for the film is a biting satire directed at creamy bourgeois Leftists."
The Order in ZARDOZ is highly conservative, exclusive, and hierarchical. It has a clear division between civilization and barbarism. It was established on a shining ideal of eternity and wisdom, but all that power and privilege has created a society of dogmatism, consensus, asexuality, and/or jaded apathy. The people of the Order have had it so good that they can't value what they have.
Also, they fail to understand the true danger posed by the barbarians because their Order has been impenetrable and impermeable as far as they can remember. They have no reason to regard barbarians as any kind of threat.
And yet, precisely because the Order is so crystalline and immaculate in its conception and design, there is a fear of the slightest alteration or revision. It can only exist as a utopia, a perfectionist order that cannot tolerate deviance from the rule. Perfection is unnatural, therefore fragile, and must be guarded with iron resolve, like the inner mechanics of a Swiss watch. Everything must adhere to the programming.
Originally, the Order was created to expand freedom and potentiality by prolonging life into virtual eternity. But thus elevated into near-god-hood, the main priority of the Eternals came to be self-preservation, and that meant the suppression or termination of anything that threatened the basis of their exalted existence.
So, to say that the Order is just 'leftist' or 'bourgeois' misses the point. Now, it may have elements of what we might call 'leftist' by today's standards. But the Order is really about hierarchy and total exclusion. In its cult of reason and science, it be construed as 'leftist'. In the equality of men and women in the Order, it could be seen as 'leftist' too.
But then,there is no need for manliness because the Order is so secure. Also, as people are immortal, there is no need for sex and love. People are supposed to devote their energies to contemplation and leisure. But all such things have become boring without the cycles of life and without challenges to the Order.
So, it's glib to say ZARDOZ is an anti-leftist tract. It is essentially a call for reconnection with nature, the stuff of life. The World of ZARDOZ fails for the same reason the world of CAMELOT does in EXCALIBUR does. Too much success and power have led to complacency and lazy gossip and battle of egos and vanity. It is only when Arthur drinks from the Grail that he realizes he must be one with the land, with nature and the people.
Boorman isn't anti-civilization or anti-Christian(with its linear view of history), but he fears that civilization and abstract ideas can fatally sever man from nature and its cycles of birth and rebirth. Only with death and rebirth is life revitalized. Prolonging life may overcome death but could lead to boredom, enervation, and dissipation. Even decadence and degeneration. To counter decline and resignation, one may insist on the strict regimen of devotion and discipline, but this could lead to the rigid dogmatism of the Middle Ages or traditional Jewish culture that revolved around almost incestuous obsession with Ancient texts.
But more often than not, too much prosperity and security leads to a deadly combination of complacency and compassion. A carefree naivete that has forgotten the warning of 'Do not feed the animals'. Having been secure and prosperous for so long, they've come to take their well-being for granted and assume it will be painless and joyous to welcome the world with open arms. They see themselves as white jesuses taking care of lambs from around the world. They are innocent spoiled brats getting high on their own delusional virtue. They are blind to the delusion because they've had it so good for so long. They lack the experience of survival & hardship and have forgotten the lessons of their ancestors who had to struggle against great odds to secure the land and build a civilization.
And this is what has happened to Sweden. Too much ease and good life led to ZARDOZ-like conditions where overly well-fed and bored white folks welcome invasion simply because it is 'virtuous' and vibrant, the stuff of life lacking in well-ordered Sweden.
"Ostensibly, the Eternals are all at peace, free from violence and death, and forever young. Their society is democratic and imposes equality on all. (Men's) impotence has led to women becoming leaders along feminist lines in spite of the ostensible commitment to equality."
The world of Vortex is NOT democratic. It is elitist. It is equal only in the sense that Spartan Warriors were equal with one another or aristocrats are equal among themselves. But, in fact, Spartan elites lorded over the helots. And aristocrats lorded over the serfs. So, the Eternals are NOT democratic. They are equal only among themselves, an elite breed of sci-fi aristocrats.
Also, women do not rule the Vortex. Since the realm is asexual, men and women are almost the same. The women in ZARDOZ are not interested in the sisterhood or women's issues. They only identify as Vortexians.
Feminism is about women forming a sisterhood against the men. There is no such politics in ZARDOZ. Rather, female aristos in ZARDOZ work with male aristos to maintain the exclusive hierarchical order. They are more like princesses working with princes against the serfs. They are not about the Sisterhood.
"'Penic erection is one of the many unsolved evolutionary mysteries surrounding sexuality.'... The speech is a look at sexuality straight out of 1970s feminist pamphlets, with the only difference being a smugness in victory, dressed up as concern for the wellbeing of both women and men."
Actually, Boorman's point goes deeper than a critique of feminism. Boorman senses in higher spirituality, Christianity especially, the denial and repression of natural sexual drives. This goes back to the Old Testament. In Eden, Adam and Eve were nearly equal. But there was the Original Sin, and man and woman had to struggle in the world of Nature that was seen as FALLEN. And the divide between man and woman grew wide after the Fall.
In Eden, it had been peace and harmony for Adam and Eve. God provided everything. Adam didn't have to be a hunter-warrior. Eve didn't have to do women's chores. But after the Fall, Adam had to be tough and manly to hunt and procure food. And with all creatures at war with each other, Adam had to defend himself and Eve from other animals. And Eve had to be womanly and do women's things.
Christianity offered a Way out of such Fallen State. Men and women would deny the pleasures and fears of the flesh and redeem their souls to enter Heaven to be with God for all eternity. Thus, Christianity is anti-nature. It sees nature as fallen and sinful. It views human nature as a baggage of vices: lust, gluttony, greed, vanity, etc.
In EXCALIBUR, Merlin mourns that One God comes to drive out the many. Paganism is fading and nature grows silent.
Another danger is an Order becomes obsessed with more order. And this was true of Victorian England where sex was taboo as a subject. Also, the rise of effeminate style among men long predated feminism. It began within the aristocracy itself. Initially, aristocrats were warriors, tough and hardy. But as they accrued so much wealth and privilege, they got fanciful and had homos devise feathers, dress, jewelry, and etc. for them. Look at Tim Roth's character in ROB ROY. French aristocrats wore fancy wigs, used perfume, and powdered their faces.
As for feminism, it's a confused self-defeating ideology. There has been a strain of feminism that was anti-sex. But there was also another strain that emphasized little more than sex. Today's feminists are confused. They go on and on about "Don't grab my pussy" but they publicize their pussies for all too see. PUSSY-ism is new feminism. They are into slut pride and damsel-in-distress both. Also, feminists demand total happiness for women. But happiness for women comes from sexually surrendering to big tough alpha males. So, even as feminists castrate men, they also demand men with mega-dongs to hump them. As a result, we have the funny spectacle of white women castrating white men but burning with jungle fever for black mandingos who act like shameless savages. This is why feminism is self-defeating. The women in ZARDOZ are not like this. They are neo-victorian in their total denial of sexuality.
"Yet this has created anything but an idyll, with particularly the men wishing for death, as Arthur Freyn, acting as the chorus to a theatrical play, states he longs for at the beginning of the film. This introduction, however, is one of the unsatisfactory elements of the film, as it rather gives the game away, Freyn himself exposing that the film is a morality play, who he is and what the film is about. It is unnecessary and an insult to the viewer's intelligence."
No, most men don't wish for death in the Vortex. They are perfectly happy. Frayn and Friend are rare exceptions who secretly conspire against the system. But then, May the female also ends up helping Zed because a part of her also feels that the system is fatally flawed in some ways. She kept Zed alive because a part of her sympathized with him, longed for him. (Later, it becomes apparent that all the Eternals have a hidden death wish as they come to welcome the deliverance of death. But not having experienced violence for eons, they panic and run when the horror ensues. They thought it would be fun, liberating,and innocuous. It is actually brutal and ugly.)
Frayn's intro doesn't make ZARDOZ a morality play but a philosophical theorem. Frayn is not preachy or judgmental. He's a magician, a trickster, an artist. He wants to have fun toying with people. He wants to play god as puppeteer. He is the Merlin-like figure... though with only the semblance of wisdom. He'd been given the job of using the Stone godhead to fool the barbarian dummies. He had a great run messing with the yokels, and he later decides to pull a stunt on Eternals themselves.
He is not primarily motivated by morality but by creativity and artistry. The whole experiment is like a philosophical parlor game for him, and he cooks up a scheme with Friend(who is more serious). He has no idea how things will really turn out. Indeed, he dies brutally like the rest. His experiment finally engulfs him in the horror as well. The master puppeteer, the man-who-would-be-god, is reduced to a pig-for-the-slaughter for the butchers. Frayn is rendered as helpless as Ned Beatty in DELIVERANCE.
If the Eternals, in their eons of seclusion, lost all sense of horror, the Exterminators have practiced nothing but horror. It's like hungry wolves set free in a pasture of sheep.
It's like today's helpless Swedes and Germans as deer-in-the-headlights prey to the brutalized arrivals from Africa and the Muslim world.
Even though Frayn takes after Merlin, the difference is Merlin understood the nature of tragedy. He knew what it is like for an Order to fall. So, against all odds, he tried to help Uther and Arthur maintain the order from chaos. When Uther proves to be hopeless, Merlin bio-engineers a super-baby in the figure of Arthur. Frayn similarly engineers a superior figure in Zed, who has the warrior vitality of Exterminators and the intellect of the Eternals.
Even so, Frayn is like a child compared to the wise Merlin. Frayn has no idea of what it would be like for the Vortex to fall to barbarism. It's all just a game that he accelerates... until it finally happens, and then, panic-stricken & speechless, he is slashed with a sword while shitting bricks.
In a sick and dark way, one can argue that the Current Left is like the Friend-Frayn Nexus in their Afro-mania.
Even though the 'Left' pretends to believe that 'race is a social construct', they really feel that white race is deficient, inferior, and missing something. Consider the rise of Rock n Roll(and the fascination with blues), especially in once rigidly ordered and finely mannered England. It was as if whites with frozen souls were thawed, warmed, and heated by the burning souls of blacks. And overly rigid and hierarchical British Society was made looser and freer by black influence in music, style, and attitude. And this is why whites became so Afromaniacal. White boys turned cuckish in their worship of Negro athletes and badass warrior-thugs. And white women got jungle fever from watching all those big-donged black athletes beating up weaker and slower whites. But we know from Africa and Detroit that blackness = savagery and disorder.
In contrast, a people like the Japanese can create and maintain order. But white people are not excited by Japanese who come across as physically shrunken, weak-voiced, servile, lackluster, conformist, and timid. White people are excited by blacks with booming voices, bulging muscles, and dongs-and-butts. GET OUT is about whites wanting to be in black skin.
Japanese can build and maintain a modern society whereas blacks can't.
But blacks can make music and do athletics that excite whites... something that Japanese can't do. Japanese have higher IQ but blacks have more Iconic value or ICQ or iconic quotient.
So, the resolution at the end of ZARDOZ is now the template for leftist engineering via race-mixing. The bloodbath at the end of the movie makes us reject both the Vortex and the barbarism. Vortex was an elitist order divorced from nature, but the barbarism of raw nature is stupefyingly ugly.
So, what is the new hope? Zed and Consuela mate and create new humanity. Zed is a blend of natural barbarism and knowledge. And Consuela is a woman of knowledge who has regained her natural self.
In today's UK, this unity is seen as mixing of the black male as the ideal icon of manhood and the white female as the ideal icon of female beauty. The blending of tough black manhood and beautiful white womanhood is supposed to create a new superior race that finds the balance of nature and civilization.
And that was the appeal of Obama, the blend of black intuition and white intellect. He represented the ideal interracist template favored by the so-called Left. This 'Left' is race-ist in its own way but loathe to admit it. It doesn't see all races as equal or valuable. Rather, its ideal vision is the blending of blackness and whiteness. Blackness represents virility, rhythm, musicality, athleticism, and prowess. Whiteness represents reason, intellect, control, and organization. In ZARDOZ, Frayn created Zed as a kind of 'interracist' hybrid of Exterminators and Eternals. Zed has the body and toughness of the Exterminators but the mind and knowledge of the Eternals. In a similar vein, the current Left prizes the mulatto higher than both blacks and whites as he or she is supposed to represent the unity of black prowess and white proficiency.
It's pretty crazy, but today's LEFT is actually closer to Frayn-Friend's plot to bring down the Order and to create a new order formed by fusion of Afro-vitality and Euro-ability. They feel that this will result from the Negro penis and white vagina. In a way, Frayn is like a George-Soros-like figure who pushes Open Borders to bring down the ossified elite order. He is like the Loki character in German mythology who plays both sides -- gods and giants -- and finally helps breach the barrier that stands between the god realm and the world of giants.
Now, this isn't to say John Boorman had such in mind, or that he wanted Europe to be invaded by masses of Africans. But the satire of ZARDOZ goes far deeper than easy jabs at Leftism. It is about the problem of civilization itself. It is a timeless dilemma. We all want to create and be part of a Shining Order. But every Order, in order to perpetuate itself indefinitely, prolongs itself to the point of violating the cyclical way of nature and man. Thus, the order survives but loses in vitality.
And yet, the condition of man is always between Scylla and Charybdis. An order that lasts too long grows either apathetic or dogmatic. But then, the cyclical way is no circus. The stage of fall, even if necessary, is horrible and traumatic. We can't escape the tragedy of existence even if we wanted to.
