Notes on Review of RED RIVER(directed by Howard Hawks) by Trevor Lynch

https://counter-currents.com/2021/11/red-river/

In Hawks’ hands, however, a movie about an episode in the history of America’s livestock business becomes mythic, epic, and philosophical.

Especially remarkable as it was Howard Hawks' first Western. In his first foray, he revamped the Western into something more visceral and thrilling, dark and brooding, as well as quirky and hilarious. In a way, it was the 'Citizen Kane' of Westerns and may have inspired new directions for John Ford as well. RED RIVER might have been rumbling in a corner of Ford's mind when he made THE SEARCHERS. Pauline Kael who generally didn't care for Westerns liked Hawk's first venture into the genre. I'm sure she was delighted by its level of wit and repartee usually found in the screwball comedy, already mastered by Hawks who was a great woman's director.

The frontier strips away the trappings of civilization and displays human nature and the origins of society naked in all their glory and squalor. Like such great Westerns as The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance , and Once Upon a Time in the West, Red River is an origin story about the transition from savage to civil society.

It's more complicated in the American Setting. We can trace European history from savagery(like in QUEST FOR FIRE and ONE MILLION B.C. with Raquel Welch) to barbarism(like in THE VIKINGS and 13th WARRIOR) to civilization — EXCALIBUR is about the change from chaos still marked by barbarian ways to the visionary rise of higher order, with all its advantages and problems. In contrast, America was made by the most advanced civilization at the time, that of Anglos who eradicated the lands of native savages but were not themselves savage. Although some degree of reversion(to nature and barbarism) took place among white frontiersmen, it wasn't long-lasting because progress and industrialization soon followed at breakneck speed. (In late 18th century, the Founders thought it might take centuries to conquer and settle the West. It happened in a matter of decades in the 19th century.) Unlike the Russian movement eastward into Siberia that was painstakingly gradual, the Anglo-American conquest of the West happened in a blink of the eye, historically speaking. Not long after the likes of Davy Crockett made it out West, they were soon followed, in a generation or two, by bankers, railroad men, clergy, and all sorts of merchants(and of course farmers). Also, the reversion was somewhat toward barbarism but never toward savagery. It's not like white men became American Tarzans. Some picked up Indian ways, especially the mountain men, but ranchers never lost their sense of social order and status. Whites also learned a lot from the Mexicans(who weren't savage but part of Hispanic culture) who pioneered the cowboy style and techniques. Indeed, Anglo movement to the Southwest was less stark in its contrasts than the movement into the Northwest. Up there, white men really encountered savagery of nature and Indian tribes. But the Southwest had already been partially tamed and domesticated by Spanish/Mexicans, and even the Indian tribes there were somewhat more advanced than the tribes in the colder north. The case of Anglos and Mexicans(as they often got along and even inter-married) was markedly different from the Anglos vs Indians in the North. The story of the American West isn't so much about an organic transition from 'savagery' to 'civilization'(like what happened in the Old World) but a transplantation of an already developed civilizational model on once savage territory.

THE SEARCHERS, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, and ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST are less about movement from savagery to civilization than outlawry to Rule of Law(though Leone's film is more cynical as it associated capitalism and industry themselves with criminality and gangsterism, whereas outlaws led by the Mexican Cheyenne[Jason Robards] in the story become, accidentally or not, the heroes who save the woman). While the settlers in John Ford's classics are in frontier lands, they've kept their folkish sense of community intact; if anything, it's been strengthened because they rely on one other for survival far more than city people do. They haven't reverted to the natural way, even to neo-barbarism. They uphold solid Christian ways and family values. In THE SEARCHERS, they are moving into Indian lands, and the red savages retaliate against the invaders out of vengeance(and/or cruel sadism). In LIBERTY VALANCE, the Indians are gone but the outlaws take advantage, much like the hoodlums in HIGH NOON. We shouldn't confuse criminality with savagery. As vicious and blood-thirsty as savages could be, they are being true to themselves. They live in a state of nature and regard animals as fellow spirits and brethren. They kill not as criminals but as proud warriors and hunters. Just as we wouldn't condemn lions or bears as 'murderers', savages do what comes naturally to their way of existence. In contrast, outlaws are the products of civilization. They know there are rules and social norms but violate them anyway because they like to be bad. As frightful as the Indians in THE SEARCHERS are, they have a crude dignity because their way of life is about pride of warriorhood. In contrast, the outlaws in LIBERTY VALANCE really are scum because they move in and out of society. They consciously act bad in a social order governed by rule of law. Ford made it somewhat more ambiguous because Liberty Valance is at times useful to the 'respectable' men of the community who hire him as muscle. But then, is it all that different from Jewish elites giving legal and moral cover to Antifa scum and BLM thugs to intimidate white patriotic voices who demand to be heard and represented? Whether ranchers or bankers, civilized order had ways of hiring thugs and outlaws to do the dirty work. US government even hired contract killers in the mafia to take out Fidel Castro, and of course, after WWII, US found many uses of the mafia in Italy and yakuza in Japan to suppress leftist elements. The employment of outlaws as enforcers by the railroad tycoon in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST is even more sinister than the use of Liberty Valance. While red savages may be merciless, the march of civilization progress is ruthless in its own way: Eradication of natives, wholesale destruction of nature, slave trade & plantations, exploitation of cheap labor(white ethnic immigrant and Chinese), and etc. Organized crime and pervasive gangsterism took root in the heart of civilization: Italy, New York, Chicago, and etc. "I'm going to make an offer he can't refuse."
In a way, modern civilization is sort of like Neon Savagery(especially with the large presence of blacks who have savagery encoded in their very genes), the point of TAXI DRIVER. If American Indians are close to nature and act halfway like animals, modern urbanites have been uprooted from family, community, and heritage. With unprecedented freedom, the modern city dweller can indulge in excesses without inhibitions of cultural restraint or moral shame(or the retaliatory balancing act of nature). In some ways, it's a more naked kind of savagery. An urbanite may not go around scalping people or hurling spears at strangers, but he could be a soulless consumer who lives by the neo-animal instincts of food and pleasure. Indeed, what is the culture of America but sports games and idolization of celebrities as the new shamans? In nature, a savage at least faces the risk of being destroyed by the very violence he exults in. Chuck a spear at a bear, and maybe the bear will tear you to pieces. Hump everything in sight, and maybe you'll die of disease. But, modern civilization not only encourages animal appetites but offers safety nets for the indulgent, which makes the appetites grow worse, like with the trashy elements in Portland and Kenosha. HIV was nature balancing excessive homo behavior, but science has procured medicines that allow homos to act like deranged perverts without facing disastrous consequences. Whether late Roman elite society or the current West, it's as if civilization can breed decadence that allows for a worse kind of neo-savagery that is shielded from the consequences of savage behavior. Savagery with safety-nets is worse than savagery met with counter-savagery(as in state of nature). Anarcho-Tyranny works hand-in-glove with cosmo-savagery. Community, in contrast, for all its limitations and problems, seeks a balance between the individual and the larger society. No wonder communitarians are at odds with libertarians. But then, both current communitarianism and libertarianism are useless because both worship the same gods of Jew-Negro-Homo Worship.

This transition is particularly problematic for Americans, since our default programming is liberal individualism that prizes equality, personal freedom, contractual obligation, private life, and comfort above things like adventure, conquest, honor, and glory, to say nothing of holiness and truth.

Those are big words and have multiple meanings. 'Equality' can be anything from Rule of Law and meritocracy to Christian Socialism to Stalinism. It's true that modern folks tend to take certain things for granted. They talk of 'rights' as if such exists in nature, is ordained by God, or simply comes with the territory of being human. In truth, the concept of rights is a social construct, and rights are operable only insofar as they are defended and enforced by rule of law backed by threat of force. A kind of infantilism has spread among the populace due to not only constant talk of 'muh rights' and 'muh liberty' but the economics of plenty in a country where obesity is a bigger problem than starvation among the poor. It's like children who believe money grows on trees(or just pops out of their parents' wallets and purses).
Still, it's understandable why those who use brutish means to accumulate property and wealth would want to move toward a contractual method backed by rule of law. After all, what they took by force could be taken away with even greater force... like in nature where a hyena steals carcass from a jackal only to have it stolen by a leopard, which might lose it to a lion, which might lose it to a pride of lions. It's like gangsters gain loot by robbery but secure it by deals with bankers who make it all legal, which goes to show Rule of Law can also be a kind of gangsterism(like with Paul Singer and George Soros with their armies of lawyers and friends in high places).

In a way, Europeanization(or white transition from barbarism to civilization) is contradictory because it uses the modes of one to achieve the modes of the other. In contrast, Africanization(or black wallowing in savagery) is more consistent. Blacks act like savages to act like savages and keep it all savage. Unlike white folks who acted brutal and even ruthless to make way for order and civilization, blacks rampage and steal stuff to be like apes; they wallow in brutality like it be one big house party or something. Black violence is more grasshopper-like, or 'let the good times roll'. It's no wonder whites have the 'guilt complex'. Whites used violence and brutality to create order and a system of rule of law(and rights), in which they took great pride of achievement. But in associating whiteness with gentlemanly ways, whites had a tendency to overlook their brutal means or to morally justify the past as having been worth it(despite the human costs). But anti-white forces, especially verbally clever Jews, could point to the hypocrisy of how the white gentleman's world was really created by white 'barbarian' ways. Perhaps, this wouldn't have been possible but for the holier-than-thou sanctimony of Christianity that preaches brotherly love, self-sacrifice, turn-the-other-cheek, and etc.; indeed, good luck with Jews trying to guilt-bait Muslims whose Faith calls for Jihad and justifies violence in the name of the Prophet.
When blacks act violent, it is to wallow in violence and loot & burn it all down. When whites act violent, it is to create a new order in which outright violence is no longer the preferred method of doing things; violence becomes the rightful tool of the state in meting out justice against those who would disturb the peace... though in our times, the state sanctions the violence of certain groups, like Antifa and BLM, against the relatively far more orderly and peaceful people(like MAGA types) because US is now a Jewish supremacist gangster state where the Tribe is 'more equal than others'.
Come to think of it, it's rather foolish for anyone to worry about 'equality' in current US where the top 1% has more wealth than the entire middle class, where Zionists are showered with praises and endless dollars for Israel while BDS, or justice for Palestinians, is smacked down by whore politicians of both parties and in 'blue' and 'red' states alike. There is talk of 'equity', but it's not about equality for ALL groups but about MORE for certain favored groups, which makes it essentially neo-supremacist. In other words, if blacks are vastly over-represented in certain fields(like pro sports), it's never a problem but something to celebrate. If anyone says NBA is almost all black and therefore 'exclusive' and 'unequal', he will be denounced as a 'racist'. There can never be Too Many Blacks, but where blacks are underrepresented, that is a Huge Injustice because, yes indeed, Too Few Blacks is intolerable. Likewise, it's never a problem if there are Too Many Homos in certain fields. Even in areas where homos are vastly overrepresented in proportion to their population, it is to be celebrated. So, if the fashion industry is dominated by homos than by women, all better applaud... or be damned as 'homophobes'. And of course, there can never be Too Many Jews in Wall Street, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Law Firms, judicial system, and among owners of sports teams. 'Equity' isn't about equality for all but MORE for blacks where they are underrepresented because they are deemed special, indeed superior to the rest.
What governs current America(and West in general) isn't the ideology of liberal individualism(which would be something like libertarianism) but the idolatry of tribal specialness, namely those of Jews, blacks, and homos, the only groups that really matter and lord above the rest. Just ask the Palestinians if the US is about 'liberal individualism'. Indeed, things would be much better for white folks IF the US operated on the basis of liberal individualism because, at the very least, whites-as-individuals would be treated equally as individuals among Jews, blacks, homos, and other groups. But certain identities take precedence over generic individuality of Americans.

The ONLY time in US history that prioritized equal rights as general practice was maybe from the mid-50s to mid-60s when the Civil Rights Movement took off amidst booming prosperity and youthful idealism when all seemed possible(and affordable). Before that, US was really about white domination in just about all fields. Even most white 'liberals' practiced open discrimination and favored fellow whites. But just when white popular sentiments were shifting toward a fairer system for all, Jews and blacks rejiggered the system for their tribal advantages. Civil Rights Movement soon turned into Appease-the-Blacks-Lest-They-Riot Movement. And it became more obvious by the day that Jews took a leading role in the Civil Rights Movement NOT to transform US into a fairer society but to burden whites with special guilt so as to control and exploit them for purposes of Jewish Supremacism. After all, even as Jews excoriated whites into feeling sorry for the past mistreatment of blacks, they also insisted on total white support for Zionist crushing of Palestinian aspirations. It was all bait-and-switch, but because the rhetoric of 'equal rights' or 'civil rights' took hold of the Narrative, a lot of people think White Woes owe to rise in 'equality' when the real problem is the rise of Jewish/black supremacism, followed by homo neo-aristocratism.
Of course, it wasn't just the Civil Rights Movement but the result of HBD factors. Jewish exercise of superiority in wit, will, and intelligence made whites feel awe of Jews as the true master race — notice even Jared Taylor still has wet dreams of high-IQ Jews eventually joining forces with hu-whites. And black talent in popular music and domination in sports(plus jungle fever based on black buns and dongs) made whites regard blacks as the awesome superior race of Muhammad Ali's and James Browns, what with so many of the big white acts since the 50s, like Elvis, Beatles, and Rolling Stones, owing heavily to black music, but then white fascination with black music goes back to ragtime and jazz(and existed even in Roman times when Roman elite women had orgies with African gladiator champions). But many white nationalist types would rather not touch on these issues because it hurts their sensitivities that Jews and blacks can be superior to whites in anything. So, they'd rather pretend that the problem is 'equality'.

Trevor Lynch pits "equality, personal freedom, contractual obligation, private life, and comfort" against "adventure, conquest, honor, and glory, holiness and truth", but in the case of American History, the two sets of 'principles' were often complementary. Why did many more Anglos take a chance in the New World than the French did? France was ruled by aristocrats, most of whom preferred privilege and comfort of their own estates to risking a new life across the ocean; and the French subjects had less freedom and incentives for risk-taking. (Indeed, I can't think of another caste/class that is more comfort-oriented than the nobility. Whereas peasants must eke out an existence, merchants must work hard at trade, and industrialists must build & run factories, all it takes to be a nobleman is to be born one. What can be easier than to be born into privilege and pampered from childhood and dressed in 'gayish' attire? Just by birthright, one is entitled to better housing, food, clothing, and all sorts of amenities. One is doted from childhood and grows up with a sense of entitlement. If barbarian-warriors as proto-noblemen had to fight to gain a piece of turf, the established nobility was surrounded by privilege and creature comforts. They wore dainty attire designed by effete homos. Their idea of living was horse-riding, costume balls, and powdering their faces. Or hanging around salons and exchanging gossip while fanning themselves with silk fans.)

Anglos outpaced the French in colonizing the New World because they had more individual incentives. While risks were high, so were the rewards for individuals willing to take a chance in new environment. Equality for such risk-takers simply meant they had something closer to an equal chance of owning their own property. In Europe, they might be tenant-farmers, especially as all the land was claimed by the nobility whose ownership was a matter of inheritance, or living off the achievements of their ancestors. But in the New World with as-yet plenty of open territory, even a commoner could stake his claim and own property. Material incentives have always mattered, which is why capitalism beat communism. Che Guevara spoke of Moral than Material Incentives, i.e. workers on farms and factory should work selflessly for justice, progress, brotherhood of man, and other lofty utopian ideals, but emotional incentives only go so far. Just like most Christians mouthed the correct platitudes but acted more in accordance to persona/material interests, so did the nobility, most of whom would have sold their mother down the river for extra social advantage. Consider all the family feuds among monarchs and noblemen. In EL CID, the Spanish Order is constantly threatened by the battle of egos among siblings. Ideally, noblemen are supposed to serve God and King, to be brave warriors in defense of territory and justice. They are supposed to rule with a sense of noblesse oblige. But practice was something else... just like real communism was far from ideal communism. Indeed, the biggest problem of egalitarianism is not that it produces real equality(which has never been the case) but instead just another form of aristocratism, which was George Orwell's point in ANIMAL FARM. For example, campaigns against 'antisemitism' haven't made Jews equal to gentiles but unequal in being shielded from any criticism of Jewish Power. BLM isn't about equal justice for blacks but black privilege to act thuggish and criminal without consequence. Blacks are now like Savage Nobles(not to be confused with Noble Savages), i.e. the laws that apply to whites don't apply to them as they are deserving of special privileges. The fact that it's okay for blacks to kill blacks and for blacks to kill whites but not okay for whites to kill blacks(even thugs) is suggestive of the old aristocratic ways where noblemen could kill other noblemen in duels but common-folk better not touch the hair of a nobleman even when the nobleman acted abusive and rotten.

So many Anglos were willing to join in the conquest and adventure for more equality and personal freedom. And even though they knew they had to work hard at it, they hoped for comfort as the ultimate reward with a land and home/hearth to call their own. Who in his right mind would favor discomfort over comfort? Did kings sit on beds of nails? Did noblemen favor potato sacks over silk clothing? Did French cuisine result from French nobility's insistence on gruel and fish-heads? No, the rich wanted creamy stuff; they preferred cakes while the masses barely had enough bread. Even hunters risk life and limb to finally make the kill and enjoy some good eating. No pain, no gain, and the gain is comfort. Athletes strain with blood and sweat, but it is to make money and gain favors. The only profession committed to virtuous poverty and hardship is the missionary life; of course, the kind of religious folks who climb to higher positions are out for something more than virtue. In the movie HAWAII(by George Roy Hill), one missionary is committed to a life of frugality, but his compatriots take over swathes of territory and grow rich. As one cynical character says, "You came here to do good but did well for yourselves."
Spanish America was more aristocratic in conquest and development, but who would point to it as success? (If AGUIRRE: THE WRATH OF GOD is about 'glory', less of it the better.) The American South has been called quasi-aristocratic, but if aristocratic types are wise and sensible, why did Southern elites build an economy built on black slavery? They lacked foresight and thought only in terms of short-term gain. And what a bunch of idiots to think they could take on the Industrial North with 4x the population. Maybe they did it for 'honor', but honor is no substitute for sense and reason. Lynch places 'honor' and 'holiness and truth' in the same column, but honor often blinds people to the facts. Japan, for instance, had no chance against the US, but its honor-obsession led it to down a disastrous path, totally oblivious to the TRUTH of war. As for holiness, it is a much deeper concept than honor. Honor is a matter among men, whereas holiness is about man and God(or gods), which is why the warrior and the priest are two different creatures, at least in theory, because in practice it seems like the most successful generals and preachers have something in common: they are rather good at politics/business than in honor or holiness. General Milley and Joel Osteen(and the Devil Pope).

Those who romanticize the nobility tend to be either deluded or servile. Even though the nobility has comprised only a sliver of society, they believe they themselves would be part of this special elect in a noble-run order. This is fairy-tale mentality, like the little girl who always identifies with the princess. Apparently, they believe themselves to be superior. But, if nobility is based on birthright, it means a moron born into nobility has privilege over a superior person born as commoner. Another type that yearns for nobility is the toady type. Even if he understands that his chance of being a noblemen is slim, he hopes to play the role of loyal servant & flunky and be petted on the head by his master. Like a dog. He wants to play squire.

The problem is nobility as a system is only justified in times of war. Once peace prevails upon the land, noblemen end up like the Knights of the Round Table in EXCALIBUR. Fighting men without the fight just party and drink and grow indolent and argue over trifles. But at least the knights do their own fighting in EXCALIBUR. Through much of history, it was the foot-soldiers drawn from common folks who often did the bulk of fighting and dying in wars, especially once longbows and rifles rendered swords into objects more of symbolism than combat.

In a way, the cowboy myth combines the ideal of equality and the romance of nobility. In the American West, anyone could ride a horse and carry a gun. 20% of the cowboys were black, and rustling cows(and fighting Indians) must have been more fun than picking cotton. Unlike in Old Europe where noblemen rode horses and near-monopolized the right to bear arms, gun rights were universal in America and horses were plentiful. So, the cowboy was like a universal aristocrat, a common nobleman. Mere equality is a bit boring, and mere nobility is stultifying, with a few lording over the rest as helots. But a world where everyone could ride horses, carry guns, have personal pride, and stake his own territory, it had the promise of justice and privilege of good fortune. It's no wonder the Western was once the most popular genre around the world.

Unfortunately, as Red River shows, you can’t carve civilization out of the wilderness by following liberal principles—although it is increasingly evident that liberalism can wreck any society that takes it too seriously. Liberalism forces us either to cover up the illiberal origins of our society or to destroy it in a fit of self-loathing.

It depends on how one defines liberalism. In a way, what made the Modern West possible was the Liberal Spirit. All non-Western cultures were far more conservative than the West. Even among Western nations, the most adventurous ones were the most liberal ones, like Netherlands and England. Catholic Spain initially took the lead in journeys of discovery but took a deeply conservative turn and became averse to risks and concentrated on what it had than reaching for more. The ultra-conservative Byzantine Empire shrank from lack of vitality and was eventually swallowed up by the Ottomans who, in time, would also grow ultra-conservative and fail to make progress vis-a-vis the more liberal West. China once built ships to travel as far as Africa but lost the 'liberal' spirit and turned inward like a turtle so sure of its invincibility before the rude awakening in the 19th century. Japan was more liberal during its civil war period. The various clans looked to Europeans for better guns and technology. But once Japan was united under the Tokugawas, it turned extremely conservative and kept contact with foreigners to a bare minimum. It was forced into a more a liberal position in the 19th century when it realized it had to learn from the West in order to develop and defend itself. In contrast, far more conservative Korea followed the lead of China and fell under foreign powers.
So, while it's true that excessive liberalism can lead to destruction, so can excessive conservatism. It can lead to stagnation, which breeds a decadence of its own, like with the Ottoman sultans and their harems, or the Spanish monarchy with its inbred morons. Even leftist systems can turn overly conservative and fail to make necessary changes. Like Soviet Union under Brezhnev, the era of stability but also steep stagnation. The liberal outlook is curious, adventurous, thrill-seeking, risk-taking, and expansive. It's about venturing far beyond home, leaving the comfort zone. It's about taking flight, like a bird. The conservative way is more like the turtle, hiding in its own shell, or a ground hog that burrows into the dirt for security. The best order is one with liberal outlook and conservative compass, aka fascism. It's like a ship needs sail, rudder, and anchor. It's like trees need both roots(and trunk) and branches(and leaves).
The TV series SHOGUN is indicative of the difference between East and West. In Japan, the various clans are fighting for dominance to secure Japan from the rest of the world. It's all about Japanese vying for control of Japan. In contrast, Europeans in Japan are vying for control of the world: Dutch vs Portuguese/Spanish vs English(and later Russians coming across Siberia). Because the Japanese clans need advantage in weapons(via trade with Europeans), there is an understanding between Japanese and Europeans for the time being. But this kind of liberalism is merely a means, not an end. It's strategic and temporary than principled and timeless. The ultimate goal of Japan is to forge unity and then shut Japan from the rest of the world whereas the West is trying to incorporate Japan(and eventually all of Asia) into the nascent global world order. The West has the far more liberal spirit as the End of History.

Because 'liberal' is a big word and has multiple meanings, John Wayne's character of Tom Dunson may not seem 'liberal' by current definitions. But in the larger historical context, he is part of the Liberal Spirit that made the white man venture far from home in search of new frontiers. Indeed, the leading voices in favor of imperialism in Old Europe were Liberal than Conservative. Conservatives wanted to focus on matters at home and emphasized stability/security above all else, whereas the Liberals were on the look for more opportunities for discovery and investment. (Conservatism came to defend the empire only after the Liberalists created it in the first place.) Someone like Dunson would have been rare among the Hindus, Confucians, and even the Muslims.
Indeed, individualism is what fueled Anglo adventurism and frontier spirit far beyond that of any other culture. Dunson takes this to extremes and indeed is something of an outlier even among his own race, rather like Ethan in THE SEARCHERS who is a misfit among his own kind. But one thing for sure, in the context of wider historical and cultural perspective, he represents the liberal spirit. Not in the do-goody willy-nilly Ken-Burnsy sense but in the love of adventure and risk-taking, the will to push beyond known boundaries. And there's the individual pride that makes him want to be his own master, his own king, than bow down to others. In most cultures, everyone had his place and allotted duties, and the 'good life' amounted to how one fulfilled those obligations. One's individuality was subordinate to one's given role in life. In contrast, Tom Dunson defines himself and plays by his own rules. He has a neo-barbarian streak but also a sense of individuality that could only have been realized through high civilization. He isn't just some wild man tussling for turf but a man of some vision and big idea.

In a way, liberalism gave way to the rule of law precisely because it unleashed so much competitive 'barbarian' energies. In other words, smart liberalism(as opposed to various dumb ones) is fully cognizant of the 'illiberal' animal energies of man. An ultra-conservative order need not worry about these illiberal and wily spirits because of the rigid hierarchy where rulers rule and the ruled obey. In an unfree society, the only thing that matters is making sure everyone sticks to his role and does his duties, nothing more, nothing less. But liberalism allows more freedom, and more freedom means more competition among free actors for their share of opportunity, wealth, success, and status. Instead of everyone just hunkering down and doing his duty, he uses his freedom to pursue happiness. But if it's a free-for-all, the result is mayhem. Therefore, in order for liberalism to allow for more freedom/individualism and to maintain order & stability, there has to be a rule-based order. This was the genius of the Anglo Way. It's something of a paradox that the British were both pioneers of modern liberty and among the most disciplined & rule-centered people in the world. They even came up with rules for the brutal sport of boxing. This way, mankind could harness the vital animal drive as fuel for competition & adventure yet also channel those energies toward pursuits that weren't mutually destructive among the competitors, i.e. winners would win gracefully and losers would accept that the others won fair-and-square. It's the difference between Grand Prix and Demolition Derby. Both are competitive and bring out warrior spirits, but one is governed by rules while the other welcomes mayhem.

(But there’s another option as well: to embrace the truth about our origins and stop immolating ourselves before the Moloch of liberal norms.)

But embracing such a truth would nullify one's commitment to civilization. Rather, the key is to acknowledge the origins while also rejecting it as outdated(though it may become relevant once again if and when the order falls apart and things must be built from scratch). In THE GODFATHER, Vito Corleone did the dirty things so that his son, Michael, wouldn't have to. And Michael works hard to go from the underworld to the upper-world. Much of British fortunes were built on piracy when the English were upstarts faced with the greater powers of Spain and France. Slave trade also filled British coffers. Those origins of British wealth and power must be acknowledged but, in order to make the transition toward higher civilization, cannot be embraced, let alone celebrated. But the real trick is to acknowledge that ALL peoples and cultures have done the same thing and, furthermore, without reaching higher levels of organization and productivity that would allow a people to finally bid farewell to the more brutish methods of wealth-creation and power-maintenance. But even without what is known as 'liberal guilt', a system can fall apart because a people become accustomed to newly created wealth and privileges and no longer want to dirty their hands with nitty-gritty. Like the decline of the family in Thomas Mann's BUDDENBROOKS.

In the end, the problem is less liberalism per se than who controls it. After all, if the toxicity of liberalism affects all people equally, then Jews would be filled with 'liberal guilt' over their tribal supremacism, history of exploiting gentiles, role in the slave trade, domination of opium trade in China, pushing for Middle East wars, participation in communism, and etc. But Jews use liberalism to make themselves out to be the saints of history while all blame is dumped on goyim, especially Northern Europeans. In the past, American Liberalism and Progressivism were into 'scientific racism' and white pride. Even while acknowledging the tragic aspects of American History, they also reminded white Americans of their uniquely vaunted place in modern history. So, in the end, the problem isn't so much ideology as how it is used by which people and for what purpose. For example, early communism in Russia was largely controlled by Jews who used it for Jewish ethnic advantages. Later, communism came to be dominated by goyim who used it to persecute Zionists. Jews and blacks use 'liberalism' for tribal power and to blame whitey. Whites, under Jewish mind-control, have come to use 'liberalism' to spit in their own reflection. It's like religion. If you use it to mean that God is your side, you feel empowered. But if you use it to mean God favors others over you, you feel powerless.

RED RIVER is a big adventure movie than a big concept one, the biggest of which may be Michael Cimino's HEAVEN'S GATE that incredibly welds together the Ellis Island narrative with the Wild West myth. In THE DEER HUNTER, blue collar men in some Pennsylvania town go hunting and end up not in the Appalachia but in the Rockies in Washington State. Next, they are seen back home with a deer on the hood. It's as if all the territories between the East and West never registered in Cimino's mind. Likewise, it's as if the ethnic immigrants went directly from Ellis Island to some godforsaken place in Wyoming(or Montana) in HEAVEN'S GATE. It's like Twilight Zone version of US history where entire populations are suddenly transported from the docks of big East Coast cities to the vast Northwest Frontier in the blink of an eye; the Midwest simply doesn't exist. Only a director as bold and visionary(and crackpot and ludicrous) as Cimino could have conceived of such a thing. Perhaps, he wanted to pull together all the loose ends of the American Pageant, a kind of Eastern-Western, where elite Harvard boys and newly arrived impoverished immigrants do battle with rancher barons and cowboys of the Wild West. Perhaps, the biggest concept Western ever, and a favorite of the homo film critic Robin Wood. Though Cimino was Italian-American, his imagination was rather European. Vastness of Russia notwithstanding, most Europeans had a hard time wrapping their heads around how truly gigantic America is. In FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, Jews embarking on the journey to America think they will be neighbors because one is destined for NY while the other is for Chicago. In Cimino's telling, the US might as well be the size of Western Europe because the immigrants fresh off the boat end up in the Northwest sooner than later.

The leader of the wagon train doesn’t want Dunson to go. They are all safer sticking together... The leader says Dunson agreed to go to California. Dunson says he signed nothing... The leader says that Dunson is too good with a gun to lose. Dunson replies that he’s also too good with a gun to keep. In the end, it comes down to the threat of force.

The above description indicates Dunson is an outlier, representative of a certain type of the American frontier spirit but far from quintessential(which would be the characters of THE BIG COUNTRY by William Wyler who are more the larger-than-life archetypes of the men who built the West). In other words, even if the Wild West didn't have Dunsons, the job would have gotten done, just like the white folks in THE SEARCHERS would have fulfilled their historic destiny without the likes of Ethan. Still, men like Dunson spiced up the West with greater derring-do and reckless behavior. You wouldn't want him as neighbor, but his kind makes for high adventure and theatrics, like Colonel Kilgore in APOCALYPSE NOW and George C. Scott in PATTON. As such, it'd be misleading to draw general conclusions about historical processes from Dunson's (mis)adventures. In a way, it was a departure for John Wayne. Because of his manly size and air of confidence, Wayne always stood out from the rest of the cast. That said, he still stood with than apart from them. His star-making role in STAGECOACH became the template for many roles to come. He's a bigger and tougher man than most but always siding with and standing by the good folks. He serves as their pillar. Even as a suspect in STAGECOACH, he goes out of his way to show he's a good guy who would never abandon the passengers(from the Indian menace) for personal reasons.
In contrast, his character in RED RIVER is borderline pathological in his self-aggrandizement that grows into full-blown hubris. Without much reflection, he charges forward. He is tough and has many admirable qualities but also setting himself up for a well-deserved comeuppance.

This opening scene establishes that Tom Dunson is not a man to be reasoned with. Once he makes up his mind, he is immovable. Being open to persuasion, of course, is one of the principles of parliamentary democracy. Dunson, however, is quick to reach for his gun to silence his critics. He’s a budding tyrant, not a liberal democrat. But, as it turns out, it takes a tyrant to found a great ranch in the wilderness.

He's not to be reasoned with but is nevertheless a reasoning man. Also, even as he insists on going his own way, he is adaptive and pragmatic to shifting situations and has some sense of limitations. After all, he's out to grab as much as he can but not all of it. And he's not really at war with the wilderness as the Mexicans have already half-tamed the land. In a way, it's as much the result of civilization vs civilization(Anglos vs Hispanic) as between whites vs reds.

The Founding Fathers were liberal democrats relative to the far more authoritarian patriarchs who came to dominate Latin America(which continued to have caudillos well into the 20th century), but it seems the 'liberals' achieved far more than the 'tyrants' especially because of the contrasts in foundations. Also, the reason why the Anglos did so much more than the Mexicans in the Southwest was because they were less tolerant of tyranny. If most brown folks meekly submitted to the tyranny of Hispanic overlords, white men stood their own grounds. Indeed, even though Dunson builds a great ranch and hires a lot of men to work for him, they don't bow down before him as their master. He's just boss.

Furthermore, Dunson's 'tyranny' is paradoxically in service of liberty and individuality. Free movement of peoples in the West made things more competitive and conflict-prone. That means one has to be tougher to claim a piece of territory and hold it. Dunson's 'tyranny' isn't to rule over minions but to stake out a piece to call his own. Indeed, he doesn't want to deal with servile men but tough men. Sure, they must take orders from him but must also have minds of their own and be able to wing it without orders. He takes an instant-liking to the wandering boy because the kid's tough and takes no shit from no one. It's like a drill sergeant acts tough with soldiers not to beat them down into wimps but to build them into tough fighting men. In FULL METAL JACKET, the sergeant becomes partial to Joker for showing initiative, toughness, and smarts. Joker admitted he cracked the joke: "Is that you, John Wayne? Is this me?" Though gut-punched by the sergeant, he got up and made a war cry. Later, he saw through the sergeant's mind-trick and refused to reverse himself. Duly impressed, Sergeant 'promotes' him in the barracks hierarchy. This is a different kind of 'tyranny' than the Orientalist kind. In Japan, superiors tyrannized inferiors simply to make them obey and do as told. In contrast, the American Way has been to toughen young men up so that they will stand firm and show initiative, i.e. go from childhood individuality to adult individuality.

By the way, Dunson doesn't reach for the gun to silence his critics. If anything, he will listen to any man and is open to persuasion. But ultimately, HE must make the decision. He reaches for the gun not to shut people up but to threaten or blow away anyone who dares to take action against him. As long as it's a game of words, Dunson will talk and will listen to any man — he comes to a compromise with a neighboring rancher concerned about his cows being branded as Dunson's. Dunson turns to violence when talk is no longer the option.

A few hours later, the wagon train is massacred by Indians. Dunson and Groot see the smoke in the distance and prepare to defend themselves... Dunson also recovers his engagement bracelet from one of the braves, who surely killed Fen to take it.

One wonders if Dunson's action is a curse or a blessing. If his gunmanship could have saved the wagon trail(and the girl who loves him) from the Indians, he should have been there. He was most remiss in his duties to the larger community. A curse hanging over him.
On the other hand, maybe the Indians were too numerous and even his skills would have been ineffective against them, in which case he would have joined the dead. Then, it was a blessing that he went his own way. Apparently, he didn't feel for the girl as much as Ethan felt for Martha in THE SEARCHERS.

The next morning, they come upon a boy named Matt Garth (Mickey Kuhn) leading a cow... He’s gibbering from the horror. Dunson snaps him out of it with a brutal slap. It’s a rough beginning...

That's a crucial scene and sets up their final encounter in the movie. One wonders if Matt was really out of his mind(from shock) or just play 'dumb' to lower the defenses of the two men as he approached them. He recovers his wits the instant he's slapped and even quickdraws a gun on Dunson who, in turn, feints to wrest the gun from the kid. At any rate, the scene shows that Dunson is more a toughie than a tyrant. A tyrant wouldn't have tolerated a kid pulling a gun at him and staring right into his eyes with a sly grin. Dunson, in contrast, is actually impressed by the kid. Even after taking the boy's gun, his only advice is "Don't trust anyone", in other words, "Kid, you gotta be even tougher." And the boy, even after being orphaned(literally from his murdered parents or figuratively from the band he rode in with) by the Indian raid and knocked to the ground by Dunson, just dusts the dirt off and stands up. Dunson sees the kid has a spine and hands back the gun. A tyrant wants minions, submissive and obedient. A toughie wants other toughies. Even as each toughie seeks to be the alpha male, he admires fellow toughies, not wussies. And the kid passed the smell test of toughness. Almost instantly, he is more than a rescue, some helpless orphan; he is a junior partner. Dunson wants men with a streak of defiance and pride, a kind of rough dignity, than a pushover, flunky, or toady. He wants men with a firm handshake, not ones who bow down mindlessly to authority. Of course, this contradiction between his preference for tough men and his insistence on being boss later leads to tensions. Still, Anglo-American measure of manhood has been built on the ability to stand one's own ground in words, fists, and guns.

This has been the difference between Anglos and Mexicans. Though Anglos came in all sizes and demeanors, they believed in the ideal of individuality, toughness and pride. In contrast, Mexican society was about jefes on top and minions on bottom. The reason could be cultural and/or racial. Spanish society was more about hierarchy and less about individuality/initiative; it had less room for tough guys like Dunson who insisted on doing things their way. Another reason could be that the majority of Mexicans were brown folks, aka beaners or Tacoans, who were genetically predisposed to behave more like Guillermo on Jimmy Kimmel Show. Perhaps, the Aztecs got away with stuff like mass human sacrifice because so many brown folks were such submissive minions who just marched to their slaughter than ran or fought back; and today, violence in Mexico is the result of too many Nice Beaner Mexicans who don't stand up to the drug cartels and the like. They would rather keep a low profile and eat tacos and chili peppers. If black criminality is the result of Too Many Blacks acting crazy, brown criminality is often the result of Too Many Browns acting like timid scared folks of THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN; they need Gringos to come and save them from the bandits. Even in THE WILD BUNCH, Mapache and his henchmen are finally wiped out by the Gringos('otra vez') who act American than Mexican. (But it seems the Jewish War on Whites has led to the minionization of Anglos. In UK, Australia, and the US, Anglos have become some of the biggest cuckeroo dork wussies of Jews, blacks, and homos the world has ever seen. Granted, there are still many white folks who believe in freedom and pride, but the masses won't get anywhere without leadership. This is why Jews hated Donald Trump who, at least in style, played the leader role in the White Awakening. Just like cattle on their own won't make it to pasture or market, white people, no matter how angry and motivated, won't get anywhere without being steered by their own Moses figures. The question is, do the white masses have independent white elites who will lead them to green pastures or white cuck elites who will lead them to slaughter? Of course, Jews know this, which is why they focused on turning white elites into worthless cucks like Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, or Youngbungdongkin, not to mention the even bigger cucks in the Democratic Party. Alas, Trump could only play the role of White Awakener as his ultimate agenda was to serve the Jews. If whites are to survive, they need the next phases with the White Liberator and then the White Empowerer.)

If there is a disconnect between the young Matt and adult Matt(played by Montgomery Clift), the latter seems too nice and gentle compared to our first impression of the kid, who seemed not only tough but defiant and a bit impish. But then, Clift was a tooter, and there is an effeminate quality to his role. At any rate, the first encounter between Dunson and Matt was of distrust, violence, and mutual admiration, which become the basis of their later conflict and flare back up in the last scene.

When Tom finds the spot he wants to settle down on, he is greeted by two Mexican riders, who inform him that this land belongs by grant and patent from the King of all the Spains to one Don Diego, who resides 400 miles to the south. Groot thinks that’s too much land for one man. So does Tom. Groot is a Lockean, who believed that when we appropriate property from the state of nature, we should leave as much and as good for others. Tom, however, has no such notions. He wants to build his own empire.

The scene shows that, in Dunson's case, despite few pesky Indians remaining here and there, RED RIVER's origin-story is more about the clash of civilizations than civilization vs savagery. After all, Dunson points out that the Mexicans took the land from the Indians, and so, he's taking the land from the Mexicans. Then, what is the difference between the Anglo civilizational style and the Hispanic civilizational style? The Anglo expansion is more individualist and liberal. Even though Dunson is hardly a model citizen by current 'liberal' standards, his outlook and values are far more liberal than that of Spanish civilization that is more about traditional tyranny than individual enterprise. The two Mexican riders may be good with guns but they are minions who serve a tyrant with special claim over so much land. Why didn't Mexicans try to take the land from the oligarchs and big landowners? Why were they willing to be meek peons and peasants or serve as minions of the big lords? Because Hispanic World was ruled by tyranny and tradition. (Even the Mexican Revolution was a collective affair than a struggle for individual rights and freedom.) In contrast, Dunson believes that he, though a common man without an ounce of noble blood or some highfalutin lineage, is deserving of land and liberty with mettle and hard work. When he faces off against the Mexican gunman, he is risking his life for his own interests whereas the Mexican is risking his life for his superior. So, even if Dunson seems 'illiberal' by today's idea of 'liberalism', he is a far more liberal character when contrasted with the Mexican World with its rigid hierarchies and systems of who has what and what must be obeyed. Mexicans have been there for much longer than the newly arrived Anglos, but the difference is the Anglos are already staking their own claims whereas, in all that time, most Mexicans just accepted the state of affairs where a handful of Spanish-blooded tyrants claimed most of the land.

Groot is a 'Lockean'? LOL. Also, even though Dunson has bigger ambitions than Groot, they aren't all that far apart. Neither man is motivated by ideas but appetite, and Dunson simply has more. Man with bigger stomach consumes more, just like a brown bear devours more than a black bear. Dunson doesn't want an empire or think in imperial terms, like the Hispanics do. He doesn't want to rule over others but rule over his own; he just wants to make sure that what's his cut is big. There are neighboring ranchers, and he accepts their presence, just as they must accept his. If possible, he'd rather avoid a cattle war.
If anything, the arrival of men like Dunson signals the shift of Southwest Territory from Imperial Hegemony of the Spanish to the Individual Autonomy of the Anglos. Instead of some land baron laying claim to vast territories he doesn't even use, Dunson's way is to lay claim to land for use, and he knows there will be plenty of other individuals who lay similar claims to lands nearby. The violence when it flares up isn't the result of some Anglo seeking to be Emperor of the West but of vigilance of territorial disputes intrinsic to ranching. Whereas farmers could more-or-less draw clear boundaries, it was never so simple with the ever mobile cattle, which is why the Southwest Territory in its formation was the bloodiest in US history(apart from wars). In a way, there might have been less violence if US settled the Southwest in traditional imperial style. Suppose the ruling powers bestowed all the territory to some nobleman and his ownership couldn't be questioned. Then, there would have been no mass onrush by would-be settlers to grab what-is-mine. But, the Anglo Way was more liberal, meaning any individual with ambition and drive could try his luck in the new territory. It resulted in many individuals jostling for turf and spilling lots of blood, leading to the Billy the Kid legend.

Matt is the son Tom never had. But there is a strange intimacy between them... There’s more than just a hint of pederasty here. This is what happens on the frontier when women are left behind as too weak.

It's more homo-ish than 'pederasty' though it's obvious that neither man is supposed to be a homo like the toots in BROKEBACK MOUNTIN'. One might use the icky new term 'homo-social' to describe their relationship. (If such be 'homo-social', are Catholic priests and Islamic Imans 'homo-spiritual' because they are all men? Ridiculous term, this 'homo-social'.) Some have read homosexual subtexts into ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS and other Hawks' movies, but it seems to me mostly projection. Of course, it's possible that the writer meant it to be there but Hawks either didn't care or ignored it.

Still, the most homo-ish scene in RED RIVER is when Matt and another gunman, Cherry Valance(cherry LOL), compare their shooting styles and skills like two fruits in a bathhouse flexing their muscles and showing their stiffies. It's like guns and buns, toots and shoots.

By the way, as the big cattle drive in the movie takes place years after Dunson set up the ranch, women have surely settled into the community as well; besides, many of the pioneering folks were women from the get-go, and they were tougher and hardier than most men today. But they're mostly not shown because RED RIVER is a story about men and what they do. It sort of like what the college dean says in the novel THE BREAD GIVERS by Anzia Yezierska: "All pioneers must get hard to survive", he said. He pointed to an old faded painting of his grandmother. "Look! My grandmother came to the wilderness in an ox cart and with a gun on her lap. She had to chop down trees to build a shelter for herself and her children. I'm more than a little ashamed to realize if I had to contend with the wilderness I'd perish with the unfit..."
Paradoxically, the Western Frontier was both a Manly Man's World and one where women gained rough equality(or at least some degree of parity) with men before the rest of the country caught up. In the established and more civilized East, women could make nice as homemakers, but in the West, women had to learn to ride horses and shoot at Indians and varmints alongside their men; and they had to make the homes before they could go into homemaking. It's like Laurie in THE SEARCHERS has grit and spunk. She grew up doing boy stuff. So, women got the vote in the West before the rest of the country. And Howard Hawks always had a thing for tough chicks who could hold their own. He didn't like men who complained, which is why he loathed HIGH NOON filled with anxious characters who wrestle with conscience, and he liked women who could hang with the men. You either do it or don't. You slug, your hug, but either way, don't make a big deal of it.

As the drive progresses and obstacles mount up, the men become sullen and restive, and Tom becomes increasingly obsessive and tyrannical: Captain Ahab in a saddle.

Supposedly, the writer of the original story was inspired by MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY.

https://www.geocities.ws/paulinekaelreviews/r2.html

Pauline Kael: "Chase admitted, it's actually MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY turned into a Western, with Wayne as Captain Bligh and Clift as Fletcher Christian"

In a way, Dunson becomes more extreme, even unhinged. There's too much pride riding on the drive. Still, it's reasonable from his point of view because a man is only as good as his word. Those men gave their word to him. It was an oral contract: They would ride it out to the end, and he would pay them. It was understood that quitting is not an option, just like desertion is a serious crime in the military. Thus, Dunson's violence isn't arbitrary or based on whims of tyranny. It's based on mutual agreement, a sense of honor among men. Success or fail, the fact is those men gave their word to him, and he took them on based on that premise. From his perspective, they violated the 'law' and must pay. Dunson sincerely considers himself a fair man with the men. After the stampede led to one of his men's death, he tells Matt, "We'll bury him and read over him in the morning. And Matt... about his wife... see that she gets the full pay for the whole drive, just as if he finished it. And get her a... anything else you can think up." So, in his mind, he is more than just with his men. He even keeps the bargain with the dead man and his wife. So, when other men go back on their word and run off, he not only takes it personally but genuinely believes they are in the wrong. Besides, it's not like Dunson is taking it easy and basking in luxury while his men suffer. He shares all their hardships; he rides the same, sleeps the same, eats and drinks the same. If the men must drink swill for coffee, Dunson does too. In his mind, he is being on equal terms with them. He's more like a platoon leader in the field of combat than some general sitting in a posh office handing out orders.

Tom(Dunson) has no sense of being on equal footing with other men.

Yes and no. He's clearly the boss and leader. And yet, because he shares all their hardships on the journey, he believes he's on equal footing with them. He isn't just a leader of the men but one of the men.... unlike an aristocrat who wines and dines on the choicest morsels while the men must make do with grubs. This is why he especially feels betrayed by the men. In contrast, the Charlton Heston character in MAJOR DUNDEE comes across as something of a hypocrite because he doesn't always practice what he preaches.

Matt stayed with Dunson for as long as he did because he's seen both sides of the man. Dunson can be tough and ruthless but is not without a heart, a sentimental side. He even buried the Mexican he killed when he took the land and read the Bible over his grave. He made sure even his victims got proper burials. It's unlikely Dunson could have built a successful cattle operation if he were only about brutality and meanness. His men trust him because he's kept his word and been fair with them. And Matt is a bit touched by Dunson's concern for the dead man's wife. But there is the other side as well. The morning after the stampede, Dunson decides to horsewhip the overgrown child of a man whose sweet tooth set off the stampede. Sweet-Tooth-Man, though a fool, has pride enough to draw his gun(and surely get shot to death in the bargain by Dunson) than be whipped in front of everyone, but Matt comes to the rescue by shooting him first(to injure than to kill), whereby Dunson lets it be. In a way, Dunson is almost grateful that Matt intervened and arrived at a compromise position. The child-man got shot and punished but was allowed to live(and keep his pride intact). Of course, Dunson is too proud to admit Matt did the right thing.

...Matt leads a mutiny.. Tom vows to kill Matt... Tyranny might have been necessary to create the ranch and start the drive. But men are not animals, and Matt’s more democratic style of management is necessary to finish it. As the men move closer to civilization, they begin taking on some of its features. And in this case, who can blame them?

But didn't the rise of civilization lead to greater tyranny, at least for a long stretch before modernity and mass productivity allowed for more leisure and liberty for the masses? Many anthropologists believe that savages and barbarians were actually more democratic in the way they did things. Savages didn't have complex castes or classes. While some hunters/warriors had more power and prestige, they were more or less on equal footing with their peers. And they discussed matters as near-equals before a hunt, battle, or adventure. Things became less democratic with the rise of civilization, which led to the emergence of castes/classes and rigid specialization of skills, labor, and duties. A serf lived in civilization but was far less equal than a savage among his own kind. Even slavery among savages tended to be fluid, and slaves could become members of the tribe. It took complex civilization to come up with notions like the Untouchables in India. Spartans and Assyrians were highly civilized but also extremely authoritarian, though Spartan warriors, having passed the excruciating rites of passage, were at least near-equal among their compatriots(who made up an elite minority over the majority Messenians).

Dunson's problem isn't so much his toughness but its excess fueled by pride. Matt gains confidence of the men because he's willing to be more pragmatic in accordance to changing circumstances. It's sort of like what Merlin says to Arthur about Uther:

Arthur: "What kind of man was my father?"

Merlin: "Oh, he was brave, he was strong. He was a great knight."

Arthur: "Was he a great king?"

Merlin: "Well, he was rash. He never learned how to look into men's hearts. Least of all his own."

One advantage Matt has over Dunson is something called empathy.

If Dunson had been excessively indulgent with his men, that too would have been problematic, and in that case, Matt would have had to play tougher and tighten the slack. the real problem is excess, either way. This is what Oliver Stone missed in his confused morality play of PLATOON. He presents one sergeant(Tom Berenger) as overly tough, mean, and harsh while presenting the other(Willem Dafoe) as decent, kindly, and thoughtful. In truth, both men fail the test because one is too hard while the other is too soft. While it's true that the mean sergeant goes overboard, the nice sergeant's logic makes no sense: If he really believes the US should get kicked in the butt and that soldiering is about getting high on pot with Negroes, what the hell is he doing serving all these tours in Vietnam? Why not just go back to the states and join a hippie commune?

In the last act of Red River, Matt completes the drive. When his scouts find a wagon train ahead, complete with women and coffee, Matt changes the drive’s course to meet them. The men clearly need a break, and they are low on supplies. Tom never would have considered it. When the wagon train comes under Indian attack, Matt abandons the herd and rides to the rescue. Tom never would have bothered.

Matt heads for the wagons for relief but finds trouble with the Indians and nearly gets killed in the bargain(though he fears Dunson more than the Indians). I'm not sure Dunson never would have considered it, that is going toward the wagons. What matters most to Dunson is that HE's the one to make the final decision. Missouri as destination per se is less important than the fact that HE decided, and as in any organization(authoritarian or democratic), the buck stops with the boss. So, if HE decided to change course, that would have been okay. He's so used to being the leader that he's become overly confident and proud. So, had he considered it, he would done it and expected others to follow, or else.

When Matt meets and falls for a beautiful woman, Tess Millay (Joanne Dru), she asks to leave with him, but he refuses. She’s too weak for the road ahead. But he leaves her with Tom’s engagement token.

Not weak because she's a woman though. Weak because she's wounded. If anything, she's a feisty creature who more than holds her own in encounters with men. She asks questions first and doesn't like to be told what to do. She's very much a Howard Hawks staple, like Lauren Bacall in TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT. He liked tough gals who were at least the equal of men in the game of wit and wiles. And this woman is determined and makes her moves, usually before the men do. She shoots at Indians and, though not good with the gun, hardly flinches when an arrow hits her shoulder. Amidst the pain, she keeps her cool and sense of humor. Even under fire, she cares more for what she wants, handsome Matt, than worries about what may happen to her if the Indians prevail. And before she finally faints from the pain after the arrow is pulled out, she slugs Matt in the face as her savior/tormenter. John Ford also featured strong women(often fiery Irish ones), but they tended to be straight and narrow. Tess, in contrast, has something of the sultry vamp. There's the glow of the good girl but also shades of the bad, the temptress and whore. She smokes and hides a pistol in her shoulder brace in cold calculation.
And when she meets Dunson, the man determined to kill the object of her passion, she uses all manner of manipulation and even contemplates murder. Her love is aggressive. She has laid claim to Matt like Dunson once laid claim to a piece of Texas. Just like he had to have it and nothing better stand in his way, she feels likewise about her feelings for Matt. She will cajole and use her wiles to get what she wants.

She's also significant as the one who completes the circle. Dunson rode into the Southwest and lost his girl(to the Indians) because he went his own way. Tess could have ended up the same way but for the fact that Matt intervened and saved the wagon from the Indians. When Dunson lost his girl long ago, he never bothered to pick another woman(even though Groot and others found their own women and started families). Perhaps, Dunson, though low on guilt, is nevertheless haunted by regrets, and it seems he never quite forgot about the girl. And maybe his refusal to get married was a kind of subconscious self-punishment, a way of remembering the girl with whom he could have had a son. And yet, even though he lost the girl, a young boy wandered into his life and became a kind of substitute son, the boy he might have had with the girl. And what a tragedy it would be if Dunson killed Matt who saved a woman in the way the Dunson failed to do so long ago. Knowingly or not, Tess plants a seed of 'conscience' in Dunson's heart. He's still resolved to kill him but a brake's been placed in the momentum. When Tess heard of this terrifying figure Dunson, she was convinced he must be vile and monstrous because how could any decent man want to kill a good guy like Matt? So, she even hid a pistol and contemplated killing Dunson. But upon talking to him, she realizes he's not this monster but a man of real qualities who's driven more by pride than hatred. It's not hostility built on genuine hatred but on frustrated love. Also, even though she is still in love with Matt, she can see how a woman can fall for Dunson as well. Indeed, she half falls for him as well.

(Dunson) knows he is getting old. He knows that Matt is the closest thing he will ever have to a son. He knows that if he kills him, there will be nobody to carry on his vision once he has gone.

That's why he asks Tess to have his child, and she agrees to IF he chooses to end the hunt for Matt. While a woman's reproductive years are limited, a man can produce seed well into old age. Of course, her answer could have been just stalling before she could find the moment to kill him. But then, maybe she loves Matt so much that she would even have the child of Dunson to prevent Dunson's killing him. If Dunson really wants an heir, he can find some woman and still have children. But he has to finish the business with Matt. Consciously, Dunson feels betrayed and is resolved to kill him. But subconsciously, there's a sense he wants to meet up with Matt and square things because they have too much history together. Dunson is a like a house divided unto itself.

So, it's not that Matt is Dunson's only hope for a son. It's that Matt means a great deal to him. Indeed, Dunson's kind of hatred for Matt can only be the flipside of a great love. Why do family members often hate one another even more than they hate strangers? Eugene O'Neill built a cottage industry around such emotions. So did Arthur Miller with ALL MY SONS and A DEATH OF A SALESMAN. It's because of deep emotional bonds and deep love that make a sense of betrayal or failure so much more hurtful. If a stranger steals from you, you can hate him and forget him. If a son steals from you, that's really going to sting. Of course, Matt didn't really steal anything. He meant to sell the cattle and hand the money to Dunson, but what really matters is that Dunson feels his pride and authority have been taken from him, and that matters more than money.

He knows he is getting old. He knows that Matt is the closest thing he will ever have to a son. He knows that if he kills him, there will be nobody to carry on his vision once he has gone.

Sort of. But Wotan is the figure of moderation whereas Siegfried is the impetuous warrior who runs on passion and charges blindly into dangers. In RED RIVER, Matt seems more judicious and balanced(like Wotan) whereas Dunson has a tendency to allow emotions to get the better of him. Also, there is no great emotional bond between Wotan and Siegfried. More similar is the relation between Wotan and Brunnhilde. Wotan loves her dearly but must punish her for insubordination. Another comparison may be between Saul and David.

He’s a titan of industry, but at bottom he’s just a merchant. Now we see Tom willing to throw away everything he has built to avenge a very personal betrayal.

What does 'just a merchant' mean? And is it better to risk throwing everything away to fulfill a grudge(mistaken for honor)? At any rate, Dunson was never just a merchant. A merchant trades in existing goods and services. It's not the merchant who risks life and limb out in the frontier where something has to be built from ground up with his own hands. Merchant is a middleman, not a founder and builder.
Also, Dunson risked everything time and again to build the ranch. We notice he had to kill a bunch of men(who could also have killed him) to stake his claim and protect his land and cattle. And such bloodshed wasn't just for business for personal pride.

Pride is perhaps the biggest maker and unmaker of men. Pride is like a battle flag but also the shovel with which one digs his own grave. I'm always reminded of the line from THE WILD BUNCH where Pike Bishop and Dutch exchange these words:

Pike: "There was a man named Harrigan. Used to have a way of doin' things. I made him change his ways. A hell of a lot of people, Dutch, just can't stand to be wrong."
Dutch: "Pride."
Pike: "And they can't forget it... that pride... being wrong. Or learn by it."
Dutch: "How 'bout us, Pike? You reckon we learned - bein' wrong, today?"
Pike: "I sure hope to God we did."

That says so much about humanity, especially Sam Peckinpah the director, who lived and died by excess of pride and failed to learn from it.

It is an amazing buildup to one of cinema’s most anticlimactic and farcical resolutions. The mythic and heroic thrust of Red River points toward a bloody end: the unstoppable force of Tom Duson versus the unmovable object of Matt Garth.

But that's not really true. RED RIVER is folkloric and unfolds on the human level. It's not like ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST(or even THE BIG COUNTRY) that works on the level of archetypes. Leone's cosmic western is about the clash of titans. THE BIG COUNTRY is about the twilight of giant men who built the West before the dawn of the new way. Even SHANE has elements of myth. Reformed gunslinger as Kid Galahad and christ-figure.
In contrast, RED RIVER is unabashedly about Western folks. Consider the rough humanity of the cowboys hollering and hooting as the drive commences. It's not grand or mythic but earthy in its humanness. There's an air of fecundity about the movie and shouldn't be overly mythologized. It's filled with Western formulas, but the characters are exactly symbolic like the ones in DAYS OF HEAVEN.
Characters in RED RIVER have individuality and their own idiosyncrasies. It's not about fate ordained by the stars. There is a place for free will and chance. The random roll of dice. It's that kind of topsy-turvy movie where anything is possible. So, there is room for comedy along with suspense and tragedy. Nothing is etched in stone or 'written', and the American Character is not about fate and predestination but about possibility of change and learning to forgive and forget. Dunson may be unstoppable but can be slowed down, which is what Tess does. And Matt isn't unmovable. If he were so, he would have stuck by Dunson all along. After all, Dunson is like a father figure, the boss. But Matt was capable of being 'moved', of doing something as drastic as defying Dunson. It was because he was moved by the plight of the men who were pushed to the limit. Matt's good with the gun but is not a natural born killer. Indeed, there are shades of the quality of the girl Dunson failed to save in the movie's opening.

In RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, tensions come to a boil, and it seems the rivalry and resentment between two old friends, now bitter enemies, is unresolvable. The 'good' partner, Steve Judd, takes the betrayal especially hard, personal, because they were friends and had been through much together. His self-respect is the only thing he has left, but the 'bad' partner tried to rob him of even that which gives his life meaning and for what? Stolen money. The 'good' guy in HIGH COUNTRY is an arch-moralist in the way Dunson is not, but what they have in common is the iron grit to see it through to the end. Still, it's utterly believable when Judd forgives his friend in the final scene. In the end, the Western is about character, not about caste. There is always room for change, for redemption. The 'bad' partner, Gil Westrum, has come to see the light, to regain his lost moral sense. Also, the last exchange between the men in their renewed friendship applies to Dunson and Matt as well.

Gil Westrum: "Don't worry about anything. I'll take care of it, just like you would have."

Steve Judd: "Hell, I know that. I always did. You just forgot it for a while, that's all."

Likewise, in his pride and rage, Dunson forgot what has always been true between him and Matt. He loved the kid like a son. Even as he pursues Matt for a bloody showdown, there's another side of Dunson that is struggling to recover what is really the holy grail between the two men.

Tom’s wrath is too great to be turned aside by words. One of them has to die. The only really happy ending possible is Matt killing Tom. It is terrible to have to kill one’s tyrant father, but it is the only way to secure a future. It would be a powerful coming of age story.

That's the way GANGS OF NEW YORK plays out. That is tragedy where the young man kills the father figure but to avenge his real father, which complicates things a great deal. The ending of RED RIVER is very much in keeping with Howard Hawks' universe. Apart from Kon Ichikawa, I can't think of another director so versatile, so adept at juggling tragedy and comedy, darkness and gaiety. And in that spirit, the ending is a thing of glory and beauty. Besides, all throughout the movie, there was quirky funny stuff along with the heavy moody stuff. It's like Ethan in THE SEARCHERS wasn't all dark brooding passion. He was also a joker, even a child at heart at times, especially when Old Mose is around. Also, there was more to Ethan psyche that he cared to understand. He was determined to kill Debbie but, when he holds her in his arms, he can't do it. He becomes her savior and carries her home. That softer side was always there despite the simmering hatred. Likewise, there's the wrathful side to Dunson but also the softer side, one he loathes to acknowledge in a tough world.

But deep down inside, something prevents him from killing Matt. It's like God told Abraham to kill the kid but then decided otherwise. Even in real life, things don't always go according to plan. In ELENI, based on a true story, a Greek American journalist is sworn to avenge his mother who was murdered by a communist. But when the moment arrives, something happens and he can't pull the trigger. In TERMINATOR 2, Sara Connors plans to kill the evil scientist who came up with the system that led to Armageddon. But when face-to-face with the scientific genius, she just can't pull the trigger. He's a nice guy with wife and kid. Perhaps, it was also because he's black, and she just couldn't believe that some Negro is the greatest scientist in the whole world, sort of like discovering the top running back in the NFL is some nerdy Jewish kid. It'd be like killing Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. (Michael Corleone did go all the way and had his brother killed, but that didn't turn out so well.)

That Matt initially doesn't fight back suggests, despite his worst fears, he senses this side of Dunson. That for all the rage and machismo, there is too much between them for Dunson to actually kill him. Matt takes that chance, and when he finally strikes back, it's with the fist, something like Jacob's wrestling match. Also, Dunson doesn't have to die to make the point about the New West coming into being. He was loathe to admit it but at the end acknowledges that Matt has finally become a real man and may have made the right decision after all. The Old need not die and be crushed to make way for the New. It can accept the new reality and gradually fade away, like General MacArthur said.

In a way, the father figure fears and resents the rise of the sonny-boy figure. After all, it means the loss of authority. But it's also a matter to anxiety, that the sonny-boy figure may not be cut out for the tough task ahead. Vito Corleone thought Sonny was too rash and rough. Fredo was too dumb. He worried about Michael too because, though intelligent, his youngest son was kept away from the family business. But it turns out Michael has the wit and will to take over.

Dunson didn't know it at the time, but he finally realizes that Matt, in defying him, actually proved his own mettle, his fully-realized manhood. What better way than to defy the old man and bring it to a better conclusion? Too blinded by fury to see at the time, Dunson realizes that Matt's 'mutiny' was actually the biggest assurance that he is indeed the man for the job. Just as Dunson defied the odds to gain territory and build his ranch, Matt defied the big boss to steer toward what he deemed the better option.
There's a movie called DESERT BLOOM with Jon Voight and Annabeth Gish. Voight plays the father and is sometimes drunk and abusive toward his daughter. But he does love her. Problem is he feels helpless in a post-WWII world where the atomic threat looms over everyone. It's a world of technocrats and organization men, not of cowboys and individuals. His frustrations are partly a reflection of his inadequacy to protect his family from the world. When the girl finally defies him and rebels, one might think he would be upset. But actually he is relieved and makes peace with himself. Seeing his daughter self-confident and standing on her own feet, he feels less responsible for everyone.

One part of the father figure fears the rebellion by the child-figure, but another part of the father figure welcomes the rebellion because only then the child can prove that he has grown into manhood to take over the role of the new authority figure. Though Vito Corleone was distraught that Michael killed Sollozzo and the cop, he also understood that Michael is the real deal because he acted on his own initiative, just like when he'd decided to fight in the war. In defiance of the old man, he tapped into a deep well of inner strength.

The ending is fabulous. John Wayne's characters throughout his career were quick to fight but also quick to laugh and let bygones be bygones. He was not a fixed-in-stone character. Cowboys were not like samurai. And it would have seemed weird to have Montgomery Clift of all people kill John Wayne. It'd be like watching a deer kill a horse.

Wayne's style was tough but also yielding. Thus, his character is often deceptive. He smolders in THE SEARCHERS as if his hatred for the North is eternal, as if he's going to carry a personal war against the Yankees to his dying day. But, later when he encounters a Yankee cavalry, he jokes with them and gets along. Upon eyeing the grownup Marty for the first time, there's only unease and hostility. One gets the impression that he will never warm up to Marty, but he later does and even signs the deed to his property to the young man.

The whole appeal of John Wayne's character in SANDS OF IWO JIMA is he does have a heart(and even a kind of sentimentality) after all beneath the tough exterior. It's what the young man(who resented him throughout the movie) realizes as he reads the letter pulled from the fallen sergeant's pocket.

Ultimately, Dunson has to be seen as a variation of John-Wayne-ism than a historical archetype or model of political philosophy. In QUIET MAN, Wayne engages in the most brutal fist fight in movie history, but they all make up and laugh at the end. The ending of RED RIVER is so much in keeping with John Wayne's aura. A man who fights hard, drinks hard, fumes with rage, and can kill anyone at the drop of a hat but also one capable of letting bygones be bygones, forgive or accept forgiveness, and laugh about it, like a Viking. As a tough guy who admires other tough guys, he not only engages in rivalry but seeks camaraderie. In the long history of myths and legends, bonds between men start with a fight. Thus, they measure each other, and if both emerge from the confrontation relatively unscathed, they regard each other as blood brothers, and their scars become badges of honor.

In a way, RED RIVER is about the rite of passage and the anxiety of succession. There are three ways succession can take place.

1. The young man is obedient to the older man, does as told, and waits for his time on the throne. It's a peaceful transition. It's the conservative way. It's about loyalty and patience. The young man need not demonstrate toughness and initiative. Just the willingness to follow order and stick to his duties. While the old man may appreciate the young man's loyalty, he worries that his successor is too much of a dog, a flunky who never dares to stick his neck out. No sign of agency.

2. The young man is rebellious against the older man. He uses force to take over, and in the process, the old man is either exiled or killed. It's a violent transformation, radical or revolutionary(or animal as nature is about younger males thumping older males, even to death). It's about defiance and boldness. Naturally, the older man feels threatened by the young upstart. Still, he is impressed by the young man's brash confidence and outstanding qualities as an individual with mind and will of his own. Ideally, the old man would like to bend this extraordinary young man to his will. The problem is superior talents have ideas of their own.

Example 1 was typical of Oriental Despotism. Example 2 has been the staple of Modern Radicalism. The ultra-conservative succession and the ultra-radical succession.

But the Anglo and especially Anglo-American kind arrived at something in between. The succession did require some degree of loyalty and patience among those waiting in the wings. However, it wasn't sufficient to merely follow orders but required demonstration of some degree of individuality and initiative, the superior qualities of manhood. Don't just show that you're a loyal dog but that you got some wolfish genes as well.

This way is also fraught with problems, but there is some room for rebellion from below and a chance for those above surviving the change in power arrangement. It need not be like the Olympians toppling the Titans. Rather, old gods make room for new gods who nevertheless honor the former than exiling or demolishing them. Indeed, the one reason why the Anglo World relatively avoided the problems of succession of other civilizations owed to this middle ground between conservatism and radicalism. Civilizations mired in ultra-conservative succession became ruled by unimaginative flunkies who couldn't think beyond doing as told and what was expected of them. But civilizations given to ultra-radical succession led to bloodbaths, beginning with the French Revolution. UK avoided most of that by allowing enough room for both continuance and change. And even though American colonialists eventually rebelled against Great Britain, the two sides more-or-less made up their differences and remained the closest partners in world affairs, that is until Jews took over and made Israel the #1 'ally' of the US.

In a way, the ending of RED RIVER is reflective of something profoundly Anglo-American. For all the tensions, Dunson and Matt arrive at a compromise. Matt is the new man for the job, but Dunson still has a place and shall gradually fade away than being toppled like the French King or Russian Tsar.

Instead, however, Matt allows Tom to shoot at him. Is he used to this kind of abuse? Is Matt acting the role of Jesus, letting his father expend his wrath on him? But Matt can’t stop bullets or rise from the dead, so it seems like madness.

He took a gamble. Matt knows Dunson is capable of killing him. But he also knows that there is a kinder side to Dunson. Matt bets on Dunson not shooting him. Besides, even if Dunson does kill Matt, Matt knows Dunson will end up the worse filled with remorse once the rage abates. Dunson will finally realize he murdered someone he cares about most. So, either way, Matt can't lose. In some ways, Matt knows Dunson better than Dunson knows himself. Matt is smarter, more insightful, more empathetic.

So our storyteller—with flawless anti-tragic instincts—contrived to have Tom wounded by one of Matt’s friends, so his aim is off.

No, he stands way too close to Matt to be missing due to the wound. It's obvious Dunson is missing on purpose. He was so sure he'd plug Matt full of holes, but face to face, he just can't do it. Matt gambled on this and proved right. Furthermore, Matt's cool frustrates Dunson even more, like Lancelot's composure drove Arthur batty in EXCALIBUR. Composure > Combustion. Just like Gore Vidal beat William F. Buckley by not losing it, Matt beats Dunson in mind games. It's like matador and the bull.

And then, funnily enough, the nature of Dunson's rage turns from vengefulness to a teachable moment. Dunson fumes that Matt isn't man enough, that he's a coward. All those years of working under Dunson, but Matt won't fight like a man and just stands there like a statue. But once this emotional shift has taken place in Dunson, who then tosses away the gun and uses his fists, Matt knows murder and revenge are no longer part of the equation. It's about Dunson teaching Matt to be a man and about Matt finally showing that he's man enough to sock it to Dunson.

The duel to the death over honor has been replaced by a scuffle in the dirt.

What honor? It was never about honor but about pride. Honor is more than about personal angst, grudge, pride, and vendetta. There's an element of humility in honor. A man may risk his life in the name of honor because he believes in ideals, values, or codes higher than himself. In contrast, Dunson's anger was purely about his personal ego and pride. He felt humiliated by Matt because he was accustomed to being boss and being the leader of men. So, even though it wasn't a real mutiny — Matt defied Dunson not to take anything from him but to finish the job faster — , Dunson's pride just couldn't take it. Pride puts one's ego before the code, whereas honor puts the code before the ego. So, it's not like some lofty pursuit of honor turned into a rowdy slug-fest. It's just that nasty pride, filled with rage and even pigheaded stupidity, finally burned out. So, nothing valuable was lost and something genuine was gained for both men.

Having averted tragedy, the movie then plunges headlong into farce. Tess Millay breaks up the fight by firing off a gun.

It's a great comic moment and one helluva way to a happy ending.

Tom and Matt are breathless, bloody, and sprawled on their asses amid a peddler’s pots and pans. But they seem most stunned by the fact that they are being scolded like naughty children by a woman waving a gun around. Tess’s ravings are a classic case of dismissing the masculine struggle for honor—which basically encompasses the whole field of human history—as just a childish game.

Now, that's a childish insight. In a way, men ARE like children, which was also the point of Anthony Mann's WINCHESTER 73, where two grown men act like two boys fighting over a toy gun. In a way, much of what we call heroic or noble behavior is rooted in animal instincts and child play. It's like government is really just another version of high school politics. Also, it's not necessarily a bad thing that adults remain childlike in some way. It's like what the old man says in THE WILD BUNCH: "We all dream of being a child again." The appeal of the Western was partly to return to childhood dreams of heroes and adventure. Lion cubs playfight and grown lions really fight. There is a connection between cub behavior and adult lion behavior. Also, it is children who are most moved by stories of heroes and villains, action and adventure. In THE ILIAD, even the gods often act like children, and so much happens on the level of 'boys will be boys'. Achilles is often egotistical and petulant. The god Ares is sometimes like Bam Bam of THE FLINSTONES. When thrashed by Athena, he goes whining to Zeus who laughs in his face. The humor in the sword-pulling scene in EXCALIBUR owes to ruffian knights acting like bullies in a playground. Merlin said of Uther(who stuck the sword in the stone), "It's easy to love folly in a child."

It is a naive childlike notion that masculine struggles through history were really about honor. More often than not, it was about power and advantage. It's like childlike mentalities in America believe US military men are about honor, duty, service, yadda yadda yadda. No, they are toy soldiers, grocery clerks, or dupes of the cynical men of power. Indeed, so many stupid wars and mayhem could have been avoided if people acted a bit more adult-like and less childlike, less manipulated by call to 'honor and duty'.

Also, Tess isn't dismissing masculinity. If anything, she's drawn to Matt because he's a tough strapping young man. If he were a wimp or wuss, would she even care for him? And she's also impressed by Dunson because he too is one tough hombre. She is impressed with both men. She loves Matt but would consider producing a son for Dunson.
She lashes out at them because she's come to appreciate and care for them both, just like Bella in TWILIGHT don't want Edward the vampire and Jacob the wolf kid to beat the crap out of each other.
And she's right about another thing. Despite or especially because their rolling in the dirt and slugging each other(after all, they dispensed with guns and bullets), they do love one another. And she especially knows it because she's seen the softer sides of both men. Men are often loathe to show this softer side to each other. It may come across as effete, wussy, wimpy, soft, and 'gay'. So, men often wear emotional armors among each other. All tough exterior that hides the softer self. Men tend to lower their guard with women. Tess has been with both men and has seen the soft side of Matt(which completes his hard side) and the soft side of Dunson(who in his quiet moment acknowledges he never forgot the girl he lost long ago). Dunson and Matt never showed this side to one another but they bared it to Tess. So, Tess puts 2 and 2 together and spells out that they are not all about toughness. They do have a soft side and have feelings for one another.

Another thing is Tess is something of a tomboy, so her rebuke isn't exactly the female principle putting down the male principle but about someone who can straddle both realms. Earlier, it was obvious she's not a typical woman. She's the type to hold her own among menfolk. Because she's between masculinity and femininity and because she's between Matt and Dunson, she can serve as the bridge. It's like the Toshiro Mifune character in SEVEN SAMURAI. Precisely because he's 1/3 peasant, 1/3 samurai, and 1/3 bandit, he can serve as conduit among the groups. Samurai are rigidly set in their ways of warrior code and the peasants are set in their mode of survival; they arrive at an impasse that seems unresolvable, but Mifune's character breaks the ice because he has experienced both sides.

To borrow a line from Camille Paglia, if Tess Millay had her way, we’d still be living in grass huts. Hilariously, Tom suggests that Matt ought to marry her. I find this sudden transformation from embittered, slow-burning murderer to great big softie completely implausible.

Tess isn't some feminist. She is a pioneer. She is right there alongside the men in the building of a new order. She admires men of courage and mettle. She worships Matt as her white knight. It's just that her X-ray eyes see through the obvious. Dunson is blinded by pride but really loves Matt. And Matt didn't take up the challenge of the gun duel because the last thing he wants to do is kill Dunson. They settled for a non-lethal slug-fest to knock each other and clear their heads. Even without Tess spelling it out, Dunson and Matt surely realize that the war is over between them. They exorcised the demons like boys do in school yard fashion. But her words do put a finishing touch.

Also, it's not like Dunson goes from total blood-thirsty murderer to a humanitarian. Even at his angriest, he was repressing genuine affection for Matt, just like Ethan, even in his darkest mood, had some feelings for Debbie as the daughter of the woman he loved in THE SEARCHERS. The love was always there in Dunson for Matt but it was clouded by rage, but once the gloom-and-doom has cleared, the light shines again between them. It's just human. Many of us have sworn to hate someone forever only to see the anger eventually pass. Even between white men and the Indians, many learned to bury the hatchet and respect each other's worth as fellow warriors. After the most grueling boxing matches, the fighters sometimes embrace and appreciate each other. Men are quick to slug but also quick to hug.

in the last few minutes, it whisks us straight from barbarism to decadence.

Two men blowing off steam by duking it out and then the older man giving sound advice to the younger man to marry a tough-minded gal with X-ray eyes is 'decadence'? If so, we need more such decadence, which makes more sense than some delusional fantasies about 'honor'.

Also, what does honor via violence prove? Suppose Richard Spencer or Matt Forney called Trevor Lynch a piece of shit. What should Lynch do? Call for a duel? If Spencer bloodies Lynch's nose or if Matt Forney sits his fat ass on Lynch's face, does that mean Spencer or Forney is the better man? A duel proves who has better skills in combat. It doesn't prove who is in the right. (Indeed, even the Greeks acknowledged Hector was the better man despite losing to Achilles who horribly abuses the body.) Honor via violence has become especially pointless in a Negro-fied West. At least when the West was all white, regardless of who won the duel, the man with honor/glory was a white guy. But if things are resolved by violence today, blacks will own the 'honor' as they can easily beat up white guys. What is white flight but fleeing from black attack? Worse, Negroes, due to their jungle nature, cannot even win with grace but must showboat and act like apes. So, it's doubly humiliating for whites. Not only do they get thumped by blacks but must watch black booties shaking over them.

In a way, the ending makes perfect sense because the dam bursts for all three characters. Each had been holding something back but it finally pours outs. Dunson, in his great rage, held back his even greater love for Matt. Matt, in his lifelong deference to Dunson, held back all the resentments and grudges, which finally explode in the sock to Dunson's jaw, something that Groot himself has been waiting for all these years. Tess, the frontier woman, held back her softer womanly qualities and acted tough like the men. She even acted cool and nonchalant despite being shot with a poison arrow. Still, she's a woman after all, and her feminine qualities finally overflow into tears. It's all so joyous. Human moods can sometimes change like the weather. What looks like storm clouds can break into sunshine. Hawks captured this tragicomic aspect of life in all its glory.

If one expects every character to be symbolic and mythic, esp laden with political philosophy, one may be frustrated by sudden shifts and turns in attitudes and emotions. But, if one sees the characters as human like the rest of us, then it's the case that our natures aren't set in stone. While we are driven by larger forces from the outside and deeper forces from within, we also do 'write' our own life stories. There is free will, the possibility that things blow over. Just like friends can suddenly become enemies, enemies can be friends. As Dunson and Matt's first encounter were as 'frenemies', there were bound to be tensions that would explode one way or another, with either both dying, one killing the other, or more happily, both surviving and coming to a fuller understanding of the other and of oneself.

By the way, Dunson's hubris on the drive is indicative of an aspect of political psychology. Dunson was always tough but pragmatic as well. Of course, when the West was less crowded and when the American economy was less saddled with crises(mainly due to aftereffects of the Civil War), he had greater leeway. Still, he couldn't have achieved so much by being rigid and overbearing all the time. He had to rely on the knowledge and expertise of others. This side of Dunson is much like the remarkable men of history on the rise to power. Napoleon gained power by being both strong-minded and malleable. He was keen to the nature of shifting alliances and changing circumstances. He had to know when to stick his neck out, when to step back. Likewise, Mao's rise to power owed to his adaptability. He had a mountain-sized will but also the maneuverability of a mouse through tight crevices. He knew when to attack, when to withdraw. When to move boldly, when to hide. And of course, Adolf Hitler had to shake many hands in his road to power. He had to compromise with various figures in institutions and industries. He had to push hard at times but also act moderate and charm the skeptics.

But once these man gained supreme power and became accustomed to mastery over their domains, megalomania came to dominate their self-image and worldview. Confidence turned into pride into hubris. Toughness turned into a kind of faith in their invincibility. Result: Invasion of Russia, Operation Barbarossa, and the Great Leap Forward(and needless provocation of the Soviet Union).
Well, lucky for Dunson, he's pulled back from the brink, but that's very much in keeping with the American Character. Anglo-Americans were great fighters but also known for making up and burying the hatchet. Not a bad quality to have but fatal with Jews whose way is to never forget, never forgive, and always regard kindness as a weakness to exploit than good will to appreciate.

In a way, unbeknownst to both Dunson and Matt, the arc of their lives has been headed toward that moment. Sure, one could have ended up killing the other, or both could have died. But this is the West, and manhood has to be proven through a rite of passage. When Dunson picked up Matt in the middle of nowhere long ago, it was like a big dog took in a feisty cat. Matt is tough but feline, not canine. So, even though Dunson meant to hand over his ranch to the younger man, there was a lingering doubt in his mind as to whether Matt could really handle it.
Paradoxically, the only way Matt can truly assure Dunson is by defying him. He rose to the occasion, made the pivotal decision, and drove the cattle to the new(and preferable) destination. Dunson was too blinded with fury to see it at the time, but Matt was really proving that he could do it, that he could take over from Dunson. He may be a cat, but he can play top dog. It’s the crisis of succession. The older man doesn’t want to be bettered by the young man, but it is only then that the older man finally willing to relinquish the title.

And what better ending can one think of than Dunson, his rage flamed out, shows pride in Matt as a doer & fighter and at last fulfills the promise he made 15 years ago? He feels Matt has indeed earned it and devises a new brand that includes an ‘M’ along the ‘D’. The arc has finally been completed. A fabulous way to end the movie. Hawks made glorious entertainment, not deep tragic art.

Also, it sort of dawns on Dunson that Matt is the way he is because he learned under Dunson. In a way, Matt's bold action on the drive parallels what Dunson did at the beginning of the movie. Dunson was part of a wagon train but chose to go his own way. He deviated from the original idea because he saw something good in Texas.
Likewise, Matt shows initiative in opting for a new destination. His action mirrors what Dunson did in the beginning of the movie. He has a strong will of his own; and, even if it causes a rift with Dunson, Matt is becoming more like Dunson, someone who not only follows but can lead with his own decisions.

Even though Dunson becomes more unstable as the drive continues(not least due to lack of sleep and leg injury), he’s not being entirely irrational. When he left the wagon train in the opening of the movie, he hadn’t signed onto anything. He had merely joined a band of pioneers but made no pledge to stick with them to the end.
In contrast, right before the cattle drive, he spelled out in no uncertain terms to the men what the drive will entail. He said he'd understand why anyone may opt not to come along and said there won't be any hard feelings, and he meant it. If he were a true tyrant, he would have forced everyone to go with him, but he’s not like that. He spelled out the troubles ahead and made sure every man put the 'X' on the agreement. In other words, make a pledge.

Also, Dunson’s insistence on sticking to Missouri as destination is based on reason as well as pride. That the railroad runs across Abilene, Kansas is based on rumor and hearsay, not on verifiable fact. So, either way, it’s a gamble ahead. The way to Missouri is fraught with dangers from Indians and outlaws. But Abilene might not have trains running through it, in which the cattle will have been taken there for nothing. Thus, the choice is as much a case of gamble vs gamble as reason vs pride.

Ann Coulter's Flawed Logic on Diversity: The Real Problem is DAW(Diversity against Whites), which need be countered with DAZ(Diversity against Zion) — Explicit Politics uber Implicit Politics

https://anncoulter.com/2021/11/03/dems-post-election-plan-send-more-immigrants-to-virginia/

Ann Coulter says the Demmies are determined to bring in MORE IMMIGRANTS to win back Virginia because, after all, peoples from Latin America and Asia overwhelmingly lean Democratic(for reasons of immigration policies and Jewish anti-white influence in media & academia).

But she’s missing the larger point. Why is ‘diversity’ damaging to whites and conservatives? It is because Jews control the US and use nonwhites against whites. Via media and academia, Jews encourage anti-white animus among whites — even among aspiring whites anxious for status, being pro-white is an instant disqualifier, as is being anti-Zionist; no wonder then that even whites with deep southern roots do nothing to defend Confederate legacy as their priority amounts to seeking the approval of their 'betters', mostly Jews, cuck white elites, and Noble Negroes(and even homos); never mind that both political parties are totally supportive of the Jewish 'genocide' of Palestinians and the various apartheid-like policies that make life miserable for Arabs in the West Bank.

All things considered, Diversity is most problematic because Jews have weaponized it against whites. Whatever goes wrong, Jews blame whites or even the essentialism of whiteness. When blacks attack Asians, Jewish-dominated media and politics blame ‘white supremacism’, and yellows, being turdy craven dogs eager for approval from authority, go with the bogus narrative. And even most 'conservative' whites don't decry this utter nonsense. And Jews encourage browns to be anti-white. Even though Latin Conquistador-whites did more than their share in the destruction of native peoples and the Atlantic Slave Trade(often in partnership with Jewish slavers), the current Jewish Power bloc allows Latino Whites to pose as 'people of color' to keep them as allies in the anti-white side of the political aisle. Such is the nature of the Jewish Mitzvah(holy race war) against whites.

The only solution to DAW(Diversity Against Whites) is DAZ(Diversity Against Zion). It’s only natural that if Jews use Diversity against whites, whites should use Diversity against Jews. Whites should spread the message that Jews rule America, Jews control the wealth, Jews control the Deep State, Jews use US power to murder tons of non-whites Arabs & Muslims. And Jews fan black rage and violence against whites and non-blacks(or Jews allow blacks to 'roll' other peoples in pogroms while the Jewish-run media and legal system look the other way). Whites should also remind the world with historical narratives of Jews exploiting blacks.

Thus weaponized against Jews, DAZ(Diversity Against Zion) can be advantageous to whites as Jewish Power poses the gravest threat to white survival. The reason why Jews themselves don't worry about Diversity is because they weaponize it against whites but, heretofore, whites haven't dared to return the favor. But if whites weaponized it against Jews, Jews will begin to shit.

But what is the state of affairs in the US? Jews employ DAW(Diversity Against Whites), but whites vow to protect Jews from 'antisemitic' elements within Diversity. It's like Jews explicitly promote anti-white rage and violence among blacks, but whites never call out the Jews on this and, instead, thump their chests about how something must be done about festering 'antisemitism' in the black community. When blacks kick whites in the ass, Jews cheer, laugh, and call for more. When blacks beat on Jews, whites stand in between and take the blows meant for Jews while giggling Jews kicks them from behind. How pathetic.

So, Ann Coulter should worry less about Diversity than how it’s turned against whites by Jews. She should urge whites to change course and start weaponizing Diversity against Jews. Begin by supporting BDS.

But fat chance of that ever happening at least in the foreseeable future. When even race-realist Jared Taylor sucks up to Jews despite persecution at their hands, it’s utterly hopeless with milquetoast conzos. Jews kick Taylor in the ass, and what does he do? He goes into bitchy hysterics about the Muslim threat, to whites and Jews alike, in the hope that Jews won’t whip him so badly.

Jews are not about siding with whites or with Muslims. Jews are about making goy fight goy. Jews use whites to invade Muslim lands and kill bushels of Arabs. And then, Jews welcome Arabs as ‘refugees’ and allies against ‘xenophobic’ white Christo-conzos. Jews use whites to support Zionist erasure of Palestine but then reach out to Arab-Americans to denounce ‘Islamophobic’ white conzos.

It’s as simple as A-B-C. Jews use Diversity against whites. When will whites use Diversity against Jews? If whites won’t, they are finished and deserve to lose because they’re too dumb or craven to stare truth in the face and do what they must.

Jews shouldn’t be regarded as just another ethnicity. They don’t see themselves that way. Greasy Italians and Dumb Poles are generic ethnics in America. In contrast, Jews regard themselves as a Chosenicity. They are Choseniks, which puts them above mere ethnic groups and races.

The assumption among many on the ‘right’ is Diversity is necessarily bad for GOP and whites. While it’s true that Too-Many-Nonwhites will lead to the erasure of white societies, Diversity in and of itself need not be anti-white or anti-GOP in the hostile or hateful sense.

It all depends on how Diversity is used and by whom. Most nonwhite goyim are like white goyim: Sheeple, easily manipulated. In the West, they are manipulated to be anti-white by Jews... just like whites are manipulated to be pro-Jewish no matter what Jews do to them.

Iran is only 50% Persian and other ethnicities make up the rest of the population. But, despite ethnic tensions within Iran, most minority groups don’t work with Jews against Persians. Why not? Because Persian nationalists control Iran. Russia has many minority ethnic groups, but Russia’s Diversity doesn't work with Jews against Russia. Why not? Russians dominate Russia. (If any group is most willing to collaborate with World Jewry against Russia, it is the white cuck population there... just like the biggest shills of Jewish Supremacist power in US and UK are white cuckeroos.) If anything, during the Cold War when USSR backed key Arab nations against Zionism, all groups within the Soviet/Russian Empire were steered to support Arabs against Zion.

If whites hadn’t ceded power to Jews in the US(and UK and the West), they could have put forth a more appropriately pro-white or white-friendly agenda and attitude for nonwhites or Diversity. As most nonwhites won't or don’t think for themselves, they tend to go with the prevailing wind. It is precisely because whites ceded power to Jews that the latter was able to make anti-whiteness the political glue among various nonwhite groups(and white cucks), especially as ideology faded in significance as the ‘End of History’ drew near. Anti-whiteness among nonwhites was NOT inevitable, especially as many nonwhite immigrants moved to the West out of preference for whites and white ways than for their own. Diversity was made anti-white by Jewish Power. In the Age of Idolatry, Jews made themselves gods and made whites the Devil in the equation.

Something similar happened in China. As communist ideology lost its luster, CCP figured it had to rely on something else to hold the people together as one big patriotic family. And it was anti-Japanese sentiments. History was dredged up to make Japan the Big Bad Wolf. (It was probably a stupid move as it alienated Japan and drew it closer to the US.) CCP figured Anti-Japanese Remembrance would be the glue holding post-ideological China together. Jews figure Anti-Whiteness will hold Diversity together. Blame whitey for everything. Even in areas where Jews dominate, the game is to blame whites, e.g. #HollywoodSoWhite. Even though Jewish mayors of blue cities pushed for tougher policing to control black crime, the rulebook is to blame ‘white racist cops’ when racial controversies flare up, as with the case of George Floyd.

Blaming Diversity is like blaming trannies as both have been weaponized by Jewish Power. Most nonwhites are clueless sheeple, and their anti-whiteness has been fed to them by Jews. Trannies on their own would have been nothing more than a marginal community of laughing stocks. They were empowered and ‘ennobled’ by Jews.
Conzo criticism amounts to harping at the puppets but never tracing the strings to the puppet master, which is Jewish Power. Diversity and Trannies are no different from Joe Biden. All puppets of Jewish Power.

There is something to be learned from Ukraine. Jews sought to use Ukraine against Russia, and in turn, Russia decided to use Ukraine against the Jews. Jews installed a puppet government that provokes Russia, but Russia took back Crimea and supports separatist elements in eastern Ukraine.

Diversity must be used like Ukraine is used by Russia. If Jews steer Diversity to be anti-white, whites must steer it to be anti-Jewish. Just tell nonwhites that Jews hog most of the power and privilege in the West. Detail the dark chapters of Jewish History and inform every group of how it is negatively affected by Jewish Power. For example, Jews and slavery in Brazil. Jewish domination of the opium trade in China. Jewish use of Pentagon to destroy Arab nations. The role of Jewish financiers in the rape of entire economies. When Jews use Diversity to attack whiteness, whites must fight back in kind. Sadly, whites are a bunch of cucky wuck pussies.

In the US, both political parties(or patsies) are about ethno-idolatry or ‘ethnodolatry’ of Jews. Demmies look to Jews as prophets and Repubbies look to Jews as gods. Suppose both parties were to vanish into the thin air. Jewish oligarchs will just create two more political fronts to create the illusion of ‘democracy’ and vet a new batch of puppet candidates like Macauliffe or Youngkin(of Virginia).

Simple Rule of History: People who weaken their own identities will end up serving people who strengthen their own identities. It’s only a matter of time. Look at whites and Jews. Whites into deracination have come to serve Jews into racial identity.

In the end, implicit politics loses to explicit politics. At most, a figure like governor Youngkin represents implicit white politics. In contrast, the other side dominated by Jews and energized by blacks(and homos) is explicit in its pride and passion, in its diatribes and demands.

What is the difference between ‘implicity’ and ‘explicity’? Implicit politics is ashamed to express and expound on what it is really about. It must conceal its identity and interests, even to itself, i.e. so many whites who vote for white interests convince themselves that they are voting for universal principles of color-blindness. So, even though implicit politics may win a few rounds, it loses in the long run without the fuel to proudly express and defend itself and go on the war path against enemies and rivals. Implicit = Timid.

In contrast, explicit politics is all about pride, confidence, and aggression. It is fired up. Even if outnumbered and disadvantaged(at the moment), it has the wind of history on its back because it has the moral and ‘spiritual’ imperative. It can preach loudly and condemn the other side that is too afraid to express itself loudly and make effective counter-arguments. Explicit = Brash. Jews are explicitly into Jewish Power, blacks are explicitly into Black Rage, and Homos are explicitly into 'Gay Pride', but even white conservatives squirm like a toad upon being reminded, "It's Okay to be White".

Implicit politics, even when victorious, is unsure of itself and dare not convey what it’s really about. If anything, it outwardly agrees, more or less, with the moral argument of the other side and claims to practice those ‘virtues’ better in moderation and caution — but, if the 'virtues' are so correct and on the right side of history, why opt for moderation than total commitment?

The implicit side doesn’t oppose the arguments and demands of the other side but merely says it is too radical… at least for the moment. So, when it comes to fundamentals, the implicitly political side hides its real interests and claims to, more or less, agree with the premise of the other side that beams with righteous rage and makes unapologetic demands. So, craven shitters like Youngkin don’t condemn CRT or call out the lie of BLM but merely mutter, “Oh gosh, you’re pushing the stuff too far too fast, and we need some time out, that’s all”, and his voters are too craven to express real outrage over what Jews and blacks have done to this country since 2020.

Jews are 2% of US whereas white Christian goyim outnumber them many times. (White Conservatives complain about how lost California due to demographics, but if this is true, how come Jews control the state when they are many times outnumbered by goyim?) Why do Jews keep winning while whites and Christians keep losing? It’s because Jews control the gods, what is holy and unholy, and that means they can be EXPLICIT in their Jewish identity, pride, agenda, and demands(and in their anti-white hostility)… whereas whites and Christians, branded with the sins of ‘racism’, ‘antisemitism’, and ‘white supremacism’, must tread carefully and at best be implicit in their defense of whiteness or Christianity. Jews angrily wield Jewishness like a hammer, whereas whites/Christians warily handle whiteness(and/or Christianity) like radioactive material; they are afraid of their own identity and interests, of their own shadows. Whiteness is to whites what Kryptonite is to Superman.

Consider the problems of implicit capitalism under communism. Even under Marxism-Leninism, some nations experimented with market economics and introduced elements of capitalism. But the capitalism in communist nations could only be implicit, always under the moral thumb of communism. It couldn’t loudly and proudly proclaim itself as superior to communism. Rather, all it could hope for was some degree of tolerance and permission to carry on with market practices to allow for incentives and efficiency. Because communism owned the pride and passion, it could stamp out vestiges of capitalism any time it wished. Implicit capitalism was always at the mercy of explicit communism, and if anything, capitalists under communism argued that capitalist practices were merely to hasten the arrival of communism(as Karl Marx himself said capitalism would lay the grounds for socialism that would lead to communism). Likewise, implicit white politics never expresses pride of whiteness but argues that whites should be treated a bit better because, all said and done, what white conservatives really want is a better kind of Diversity, a happier kind of Great Replacement.

Unless whiteness is made explicit in its identity, interests, expression, and demands, it will always be disadvantaged and lose out in the long run because pride and passion are with explicit politics. It’s like a handful of burning coal produces more power than a ton of cold coal. And a few men with swords are more effective than many men with shields. When a roller meets the dough, what flattens what?

GREENWALD EXPLAINS HOW AMERICA’S NEW ‘WAR ON TERROR’ TARGETS OWN CITIZENS

Hell with Veterans Day — Defund the Military than the Police — US troops are useless minions of Globalism who do NOTHING to defend the country while invading other countries — What about Black Guilt in US Neo-Imperialism?

With such crappy things happening with Covid Hysteria, you'd think the heroic US military would step in to protect Americans from the insane institutions. But nope, the cuck soldiers are overseas destroying other nations instead. Remember 2020 and 2021? While BLM and Antifa thugs were looting, rioting, and attacking innocent people(and burning down entire parts of cities), the US military did NOTHING to protect American lives and properties — and it took a young kid named Kyle Rittenhouse to attempt to protect his town from being set aflame by deranged lunatics, but HE has been railroaded by the system, the activist lawyers and the Jewish-run media. When some over-zealous patriots, goaded by FBI informants, breached security and entered the Capitol building for a couple of hours, tens of thousands of soldiers were soon stationed in D.C. to 'protect' the whore politicians who do the bidding of Jewish Supremacists. Whatever soldiers may think and feel as individuals, they are nothing but robots on the institutional level.

THE HELL WITH VETERANS DAY. Soldiers simply do as told. They are heroes ONLY in defense of country. Most US soldiers have been involved in invading or occupying other places around the world. They are in effect mercenaries abroad, not heroes of homeland. They are no better than the German Wehrmacht or Japanese Imperial Troops who did as told without asking questions. It's the exact same mentality.

If true patriotism is about freedom and speaking truth to power, patriots need to stop hero-worshiping military men and veterans as insta-heroes. While soldiers do put their lives on the line, it's noble only in defense of motherland, not in fantastical pursuit of 'monsters' to slay around the world; besides, for every dead American 'hero', there have been many more non-American victims, many of them women and children.
It's all the worse now because, at the very least, America once used to be a sane country with something to offer to the world(besides money and technology). But what do American soldiers unquestioningly serve and spread around the world today? The sicko zio-globo-homo-afro-maniacal anti-values of the globalist elites whose hearts-and-minds have been soul-corrupted by Jewish supremacism.

The IMAGE ABOVE(promoted by Jewish-run Google) is all you need to know what the American Empire is all about under Zionist Supremacism. It's about mindless idolization of blacks(as natural heroes and saints) and mockery of whites as whiteness has value ONLY in association with homosexuality and trans-nuttery.
Also, blacks need to shut up about BLM and 'racism'. If they are so sensitive on matters of injustice, what the hell are they doing serving in the US imperialist murder machine around the world? Where is Black Guilt on what the brothas did in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and etc? And what about all the black rapes, murders, and other crimes in US military bases around the world? Heroes? Gimme a break.
Because of the victim-historiography of blacks in the US and the Holocaust-cult around Jews, these two groups can fully take part in US imperialism and hegemonism(and reap tons of racial-tribal benefits, like white Christians used to) but also avoid all blame and responsibility. It's like they have the best of both worlds: Practice Western Imperialism but also pose as its eternal holy victims. So, even if black soldiers take part in raping and murdering some part of the world, they are not seen as US imperialists but icons of how far black Americans have come from slave-ship to championship.

US is a Jewish-supremacist crazy state that sanctifies the worthless thug George Floyd and scapegoats the police while idolizing US soldiers who've slaughtered countless innocents around the world at the behest of Jewish Supremacists. In US wars in the 20th and 21st centuries, blacks did their share in the Mass Murder Inc. because all they really care about is their own position/privilege in the US empire than about what their participation does to the rest of the world. As long as they get theirs in the system, blacks don't care.
If American Values were about true morality, we wouldn't be defunding the police but the US military that has truly been a murderer and destroyer of innocents. And yet, the life of George Floyd(who actually died of Fentanyl abuse under police care) is dearer than those of millions of lives destroyed by the Pentagon Murder Machine. But as long as American Morality = Racial Idolatry, it doesn't matter WHAT happened; the only thing that matters is WHO are involved. So, even if Jews and blacks do much that is bad, it must be 'good' because Jews and blacks are automatically holy. But whatever whites do is suspect because it is tainted with 'whiteness'. And if Jews send white cuck-soldiers and black thug-soldiers to murder bushels of Arabs and Muslims, what does it matter when the victims rank low on the ethno-idolatry hierarchy?

So, if patriots want to do themselves a favor, they need to drop the sick habit of lionizing the military or pretending that US soldiers 'serve the country'. If US soldiers were true heroes, they would defy the US government and guard the southern borders that are being inundated with freeloader 'migrant' invaders. They would be freeing most of the 1/6 prisoners. They would run to the side of Kyle Rittenhouse while waging war on Antifa and BLM thugs who do the bidding of anti-white Jewish Supremacism. Indeed, Kyle Rittenhouse's great sin is he dared to do what the US military won't do... as US soldiers are mostly cowards whose main priority is gaining benefits and career opportunities for their blood-money service to the empire.

But in reality, military men(and women) do NOTHING that serves true patriotism and instead obey orders to be shipped overseas to wreak havoc on other peoples and lands who pose NO threat to America. DEFUND THE MILITARY, and every US city should build a monument to all those invaded, bombed, raped, and/or murdered by the US military that has been, more often than not, the henchmen of US neo-imperialism(which is now controlled by Jews and promotes globo-homo celebration and Negro-worship as the highest values).

American 'heroes' at work in Abu Grahib even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, which was really orchestrated by Jewish Supremacist Cabal.

THE CAVE OF THE 'NEGROES': A BALLAD OF RAPE & REVENGE

James O'Keefe is Foolish to Appeal to the Journalistic Community for Support after the FBI Raid — The Whore-nalist Community knows what happened to Him cannot happen to Them because they are such Good-Dog Propagangsters of the Deep State that only targets 'Bad Dogs'

Project Veritas' James O'Keefe Goes On Hannity To Talk About FBI Raid On Home - https://www.bitchute.com/video/gkZFUYnespxF/

James O'Keefe of Project Veritas presents a cautionary tale. He pleads with the journalist community to support him against the Deep State with the warning that what happened to him can happen to them, to ANY journalist.

Is he a fool or just naive? If principles governed institutions and industries in the US, what he says would be correct. There would be PRINCIPLED reasons for defending him as the Deep State could abuse its power and go after ANYONE who dares to a counter-narrative or dig for the deeper truth. Why would Merrick Garfinkle(aka Garland) go after the 'good dogs' who comply with deep state demands?

But principles don't govern the US. Power is what the US is all about. It is a gangstoid state, i.e. even if deep state players aren't gangsters in the literal sense, they act more like gangsters than civil servants. And if deep state players are servants to anything, it isn't to the Constitution or the People but to the oligarchic elites and the commissars, most of them Jewish at the top. Jews tend to be rather shameless, obnoxious, and paranoid in their power-mania, and as the saying goes, fish rots from the head. Jewish supremacist slime has permeated the entirety of the US system.

So, O'Keefe is foolish to appeal to the journalistic community. If anything, they are LAUGHING at him because they know what happened to him will NOT happen to them. After all, they are propagandistic minions or propagansters of the Deep State. They do as told. They please their bosses. They're focused on careerism and status/reputation(within the closed circle of 'made men'). O'Keefe's gesture is as if Donald Trump would appeal to Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden to support him against the Deep State that might pull the same dirty tricks on them. But why would the Deep State do such to Hillary and Biden, two complete whores of the Beltway Oligarchy? Or imagine Palestinian-Americans calling on Jewish-Americans to condemn the suppression of BDS on the supposition that the silencing of Palestinian speech might affect Jewish speech as well. Why, Jews would laugh in the Palestinian face. Why should Zionists worry when they are in the position of total power to mandate pro-Zionism and anti-Palestinianism as US policy? Jews know US is governed by power, not principles.

In a system where power prevails over principles, the only thing that matters is whether the Power approves or disapproves of you. If you're approved, you are protected and shall be untouched. Why would the Power go after you when just about everything you do has its stamp of approval? And once you've taken this path of craven careerism(and mock-self-righteous virtue based on fashion-morality of 'wokery'), you don't look back. If anything, you seek more approval from the Power and do its bidding, even if it means violating the fundamental principles of free speech and attacking the rights of other journalists(who will never be part of the 'made' community).

Of course, while craven careerism is a huge incentive, it alone might sow some doubt and pangs of conscience among the opportunists. That is why Jews are so adamant about controlling the gods, the dynamics of holy vs unholy, and insisting on a mantric mentality(where certain matters become truisms based solely on rote repetition, e.g. the mantra of 'race is just a social construct'). This way, if craven careerists feel any sense of guilt about their whoring out to Power, their sense of 'moral outrage' can always serve as reminder that they themselves are at least BETTER than the other side for being 'more evolved'(on matters like homo-worship), more committed(on stuff like BLM, a total lie that bears no resemblance to facts on the ground), and more 'progressive'(because it's ahead of the curve on social issues, no matter how ludicrous, such as men-being-'women' and silly games with pronouns). Of course, the mantric and quasi-holy characteristics of 'wokery' don't allow for critical thinking or fact-based checking; some things just simply ARE because all the 'good' people repeat the platitudes over and over in 'Manchurian Candidate' fashion.

This is why patriots and truth-seekers must stop invoking the principle of "If it happened to me, it could happen to you." That would be true enough in a principle-based order but not one dominated by gangstoid power. Imagine a captured prisoner-slave in ancient times appealing to a Roman Centurion, "please free me and oppose slavery because what happened to me could happen to you." The Centurion would be totally LOL. Why would Roman Power enslave him, a centurion, who serves to execute and expand Roman power? No, captivity and slavery were for captured 'barbarians' and foreigners in war. Likewise, why would the libby-dib and even many conzo-wonzo journalists come to the defense of people like James O'Keefe and others like him — kudos to the usually useless Sean Hannity for covering this issue — when they know they themselves shall remain untouched by the Power? If anything, they know they will be the next target of the Deep State if and only if they decide to act like James O'Keefe or the more estimable Julian Assange. But as long as they do the bidding of the Deep State or dare not venture outside the Overton Window, they got nothing to worry about. They merely need to upgrade their 'wokery' so that their sense of 'moral outrage' will be up to date with the Current Year(or Month or Week).

Now, there was a time when the journalistic community did stand behind Daniel Ellsberg, but that was a special period in US history. The WASP order was in decline and Jewish power was on the rise. Also, there was a huge generation rift, not only between boomers and the 'greatest generation' but between the latter(that proudly defined itself in relation to the New Deal and victories in WWII against the radical right) and their more brazenly(and awesomely) race-ist predecessors like Henry Ford and Woodrow Wilson(who loved D.W. Griffith's masterpiece THE BIRTH OF A NATION). Indeed, on the political front, all the great changes of the 1950s and 1960s were the doing of the GG. With one social order in decline and another coming into being, there was less consolidation of power in any single institution, ethnic group, ideological faction, and etc. Thus, principles could override power for a brief period in US history as various groups and factions, unable to consolidate total power, had to invoke principles to secure their place in the system. This was when ACLU seemed most idealistic.

But since then, the end of the Cold War brought about the 'End of History', or the struggle over ideology. It was replaced by Idolatry, mainly of Jews who chose homos as main deep state partners and blacks as main symbolic allies, thereby making the Tridolatry of Jews, Homos, and Negroes the defining themes of the 21st century West. Also, Wasps have become a bunch of pathetic Anglo-cucks or Anglucks of Jewish Power. Even HBD Anglos are such saphead cucks to the Jews.

Looking back, George H.W. Bush and James Baker tried to be somewhat fair to the Palestinians, and Jews had the knives out for them. Billy Boy Clinton became president but in his second term tried to be like Jimmy Carter and make history with a peace plan for Jews and Palestinians, but the two-state solution simply couldn't work because Jews had colonized too much of West Bank and continued to build settlements; Clinton applied pressure on Israel and ended up with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Next president George W. Bush learned the lesson. According to the official narrative, W. sought to correct H.W.'s legacy by going all in on Iraq. But the real lesson was APPEASE JEWS 100%, which is why W. turned over foreign policy totally to the Neocons and kicked Palestinians in the teeth even as Israel continued to gobble up more land. But then, too much of a good thing could be a bad thing. Neocons messed up foreign policy so badly(and the Jews in Wall Street messed up the economy so spectacularly) that it paved the way for Obama. Of course, Jews blamed it all on Dubya and promoted Obama as the guy who reverse course. But what did Obama do but bail out Jewish Wall Street and serve War Street in smashing more Muslim nations and antagonizing Russia and China? What Clinton, Dubya, and Obama have in common is they ran on the Iron Lesson of "Kiss the Jewish Butt If You Want to Win". The reason why Jews hate Donald Trump so much was the wild man won despite having pissed off Jews often during his campaign. No wonder then the Jews and its deep state attack dogs did everything to bring Trump down. The tragicomedy of it all was that despite all his talk, Trump never meant to do anything but take it up the ass from Jewish Power.

Anyway, Jewish Power is now absolute in America. Even Catholicism has turned into one big 'woke' cult with that devil pope Francis. Blacks are totally in the pocket of Jews. The days of Jesse Jackson's hustle-tussle with Jews is long over. Just consider the transformation of Al Sharpton and Spike, who once used to bait Jews, into cotton-picking blucks(black cucks) of Jewish Power. Look at Obama and Kamala. And what is the new messianism of the US about when not waving the Israeli flag or BLM banner? It's the globo-homo 'rainbow' flag, and the whole 'gay' thing is totally a proxy of Jewish Power. Jews got all the academia, media, finance, entertainment, gambling, real estate, big tech, and etc. And the kind of 'journalists' who are vetted and hired by Jewish-run media conglomerates are either Jewish Zionists, craven-cuck goy types(who will sell their mother down the river to get ahead), or 'woke' idiots who are dumb enough to fall for the mantric nonsense of PC.

So, people like O'Keefe need to stop appealing to the journalistic or whore-nalistic community. The whornalists are gleefully laughing at his dilemma because their are libby-dib careerists(who would never dare displease the ruling elites) or deranged foaming-in-the-mouth 'woke' morons who really think Trump is 'literally Hitler' and O Keefe is Joe Goebbels. The whole Russia Collusion Hoax, Covid Hysteria, Assad-Gas Hoax, and Electoral 'Fortification' should tell us all we need to know about the wink-wink cooperation among big state, big tech, big media, and big finance. The master stroke by Jewish Power is having not only bought people off with money but convinced them of their righteousness with mantric mindlessness; most journalists are mantric candidates. So, the biggest whores of mendacity in the media really think they are the biggest crusaders of justice.

Instead of wasting time by pathetically pleading with the corrupt whornalistic community(and institutions like ACLU that is really nothing but a Jewish supremacist front), people like O'Keefe would do better to call out the media companies and their hirelings for what they are: Propagangsters or propagangstoids of the Deep State that do the bidding of Jewish Supremacism. They are information hitmen motivated by approval from the system. But then, even O'Keefe dare not discuss Jewish Power, and that's why he too is ultimately useless.

FBI RAID OF PROJECT VERITAS FACILITIES LOOKS LIKE POLITICAL TARGETING OF OPPOSITION JOURNALISTS - Tim Pool

Holodolatry(or Holocaust-Idolatry) need to be countered with Holo-Correction and Holo-Context — Don't Deny the Horrors of World War II but Correct the Falsehoods and Provide the Contexts

Why Not Question “the Holocaust” in Schools? - The standard narrative does not stand up to serious historical scrutiny - by PHILIP GIRALDI — https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/why-not-question-the-holocaust-in-schools/#comment-4993303

This Texas proposal might as well be a gift to Jewish Power because it defines the discussion into "Holocaust Did Happen" and "Holocaust Didn't Happen", with precious little in between. It's like posing the Soviet Question as one of "Stalin killed 30 million people" and "Stalin hardly killed anyone." What about the possibility that Stalin might have killed 20 million, 10 million, or 5 million? Should the question about the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodia Tragedy boil down to "Did Pol Pot kill 3 million?" or "Did Pol Pot kill no one"? It's a false dichotomy, the kind which has long dogged the discourse on the Shoah.

What we need is to treat the Holocaust as history, thereby opening up discussion and allowing questions, some of them inconvenient(given the current political/moral climate). The real problem is the Holocaust is treated as dogma, even a quasi-religion. We are to believe that 6 million Jews were killed(and one digit less is tantamount to 'denial') and that Jews were totally innocent and pure-as-snow, i.e. the German and other Anti-Semites just went bat-shit crazy due to history of European Christianity and 'scientific racism'.
But this is like saying 200,000 Japanese perished instantly in the nuking of Hiroshima(and don't you dare ask if the casualty number might have been less, say 100,000 or 80,000 as that would be Denial!) and that the bombing was done just for the hell of it(because America couldn't resist doing something horribly 'racist', which is part of its DNA). Now, it's true that many innocents died in Hiroshima and there was a lot of anti-Japanese and anti-Asian animus in the US. But the nuking cannot be understood without the larger context of the Pacific War and Japan's aggressive role in it. Even if one concludes the nuking was unjustified or believes that countless innocents died(even if the nuking was justified), it'd be foolish to argue that it happened simply because white Americans, riled up by anti-Asian prejudice, decided to nuke Japan for the fun of it. Japan too had been a player in the imperial conflict for hegemony over the Pacific and had plenty of blood on its hands. Of course, just because Japan did bad doesn't mean the US did good. And even if one were to argue the US did bad in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it doesn't follow that Japan was good. After all, gangsters fight and kill one another all the time. It's possible that all sides are bad in one way or another. Some may be worse, but that still doesn't make the less psychotic gangsters good. They too are thugs after all. Foreign Affairs have always been gangster politics, and genuine good guys on the international scale have been as rare as the white tiger or two-headed snake.

Then, in order to have a deeper and more meaningful discussion of World War II and Shoah, there must be an honest discussion of the historical-social-economic context. Now, care must be taken so as not to use the context as mere excuse or rationale. After all, that would be too easy. Any side can say, "We did it cuz they did it" or "They did bad, so we did bad too to get even." It's like a trial where lawyers for the prosecution and the defense frame events in such manner to favor their side.
History isn't about who is innocent and who is guilty. While it's reasonably simple and fair-minded to ascribe guilt or innocence to individuals, matters are far more complicated as players and participants in History aren't lone individuals but entire systems, vast populations, and agendas across entire eras. Thus, one can be part of a nation or population that was once victimized by aggressors but later became powerful and aggressive toward others. Americans, for instance, can see themselves as rebels against British Tyranny, 'genocidal' invaders against the American Indians, the enslavers of blacks, the liberators of blacks(and enders of slavery), spreaders of liberty(and democracy), champions of free enterprise, neo-imperialist exploiters, robbers of Mexican lands, slayers of evil German and Japanese empires(and saviors of Jews), and/or enablers of Jewish Supremacism.
And in some events, a nation could be both good and bad. Some see the US role in Vietnam as noble, an attempt to spare the Southern Half from the brutality of communism in the North. Others see US as neo-imperialist interventionists trying to prevent the natural unification of a nation that had finally freed itself from French Colonialism.

Even when it comes to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists, one will not understand history if they're merely seen as evil. If Hitler was little more than Charles Manson and if National Socialism was about nothing but murderous nuttery, how did they come to power? Why did they gain such popularity? Isn't it more likely that they had some good ideas that appealed to the long-suffering German masses and had some genuine policy triumphs before Hitler increasingly embarked on a game of 'chicken' with neighboring nations that, since late 19th century, developed a certain dread about German power? So, even if National Socialism steered toward the abyss by gambling with history, it had come to power with a measure of legitimacy because its platform and criticism struck a chord with many German folks who'd directly witnessed the degenerate dystopianism of the Weimar years. (If the Weimar era and National Socialist era demonstrate one thing, it's that neither brazen dystopianism nor radical utopianism is the answer). If National Socialism and the Germans who supported it weren't all bad, then it follows that the Jews, who became its main victims, weren't all good.

Besides, it's not as if the Germans picked on some hapless and powerless minority. It was not like a cat attacking a sparrow that poses no harm. Rather, the Germans targeted Jews as the most powerful and problematic minority group in Europe(and the UK and US). Germans felt especially betrayed by Jewish crimes during the Weimar Period because their nation, relatively speaking, had been nicer to Jews than, say, Poland and France have been. Germans-against-Jews wasn't like a cat picking on a sparrow or a dog attacking a rabbit. It was like a dog attacking a fox or weasel in the henhouse. Many Jews weren't a hapless and powerless group of kindly merchants selling toys(as depicted in THE TIN DRUM the film by Volker Schlondorff) but gangsters, financial thieves, cultural degenerates, and/or part of the global World Jewry cabal. Of course, there were nice Jewish merchants who had no part in Jewish Evil, and the National Socialism was demented in targeting all Jews, but Germans had good reasons to tackle the Jewish Question as Jews were an extraordinary people with tremendous potential for good or evil, or both, but that could also be said for National Socialism, a movement that did much good before it did much bad.

It's true that context is often invoked(especially by polemicists) to excuse a certain power and its actions, but history cannot be understood without context. Nothing just happens out of the blue. People react to conditions and events. They may misdiagnose the problem and do foolish and even horrible things. Also, the so-called response or solution may make things worse. It's like we can understand why Ugandans and other black Africans were upset with the domination of Asian Indian merchants in the aftermath of British Empire's departure. But the solution was also misdiagnosed because, while it was true enough that Asian-Indians took advantage of a world order established by British Imperialism, they also gained market dominance because blacks lacked the skills to run modern economies or even a sincere willingness to learn. And so, the forced departure of the Asian-Indians didn't lead to economic boom for the blacks but depression and shortages(that soon fueled more social strife and political crises).
Still, we can understand why the native majorities were upset with so much of the economy being dominated by a foreign minority, a sentiment also widespread in Southeast Asia and Philippines in regards to the Chinese. Part of the reason is envy, but it is also a matter of anxiety. How can any patriot be certain that the foreign minority influence, especially in bribing and corrupting politicians, may well undermine the sovereignty of the nation? (Indeed, what have Jewish wealth and power done to the sovereignty of Western nations?) And the super-rich rarely happen to be men of integrity or principles. While plenty of successful people have smarts and talent, few rarely reach the top without dirty tricks; it takes a certain sociopathy to violate so many rules for personal gain. Then, it should be of no surprise that European native majorities found Jewish Minority Power to be deeply problematic. Not only were Jews smart and successful but many of them were devious, cunning, and even downright criminal(and without scruples). Also, even if good many Jews had redeeming qualities and were capable of loyalty, their fealty and devotion were mainly tribal than for the goy nation and people in which they made their fortune. It's like Sheldon Adelson made his billions in the US and the goy world, but his stated regret is having donned the uniform of the US military than of the IDF. So, Adelson's one redeeming quality, that of patriotism and loyalty, wasn't to the majority goy America but to the Jewish Israel.

The problem with the Holocaust Narrative is it concentrates on 'Anne Frank' Jews while wholly ignoring 'Leo Frank' Jews. (Leo Frank was an American Jew, but we're using him as a metaphor here.) The Narrative would have us believe Jews were all or mostly sweet and innocent like Anne Frank, but deranged 'Anti-Semites' just went crazy and decided to murder a whole bunch of the nicest people in the world. In truth, there were many Jews who were more like Leo Frank, especially in the upper echelons of Jewish Power. Indeed, the Leo Frank case offers a glimpse into how World Jewry operates. Instead of good Jews standing with good goyim against bad people(Jews and goyim alike), Jews(even more than goyim) stick with the bad among them on the basis of tribal loyalty and supremacism.
So, the Shoah was more like goyim reacting to Leo-Frank-Jews of the world but then, tragically enough, even going after Anne-Frank-Jews.
Sadly, it's often been the case that war on one tribal pathology led to another tribal pathology, which is what National Socialism turned out to be. But then, there was a time when Neo-Conservatism was greeted with much interest as having set forth a new path for American Conservatism that had grown moribund over the years — indeed the old-school Republicans in the late Sixties and Eighties capitalized on Liberal/Democratic failures than came up with winning formulas of their own. It was at this time that Neo-Conservatism saw their opportunity as the energetic and creative wing of American Conservatism. It gained traction for valid reasons. But just like National Socialism had a pathological core, the innermost agenda of Neo-Conservatism turned out to be pathological Jewish supremacism, and once the Cold War ended and Bill Clinton's synthesis of 'economic conservatism' and 'social liberalism' was achieved(which is exactly what most Jews wanted), the so-called Neocons had little on their minds but Wars for Israel. Zionist fingerprints are not only all over the plans for war but on events like 9/11 that finally pushed the American Public over the edge in supporting massive troop deployments to the Middle East to transform the entire region into puppet-democracies(the strings of which would be pulled by US in the palm of Zion) or a ceaseless war zone where Arabs and others, driven into sectarian distrust, would end up slaughtering one another while NATO and Zion armed the various sides to further the blood-letting. But as with National Socialism, the evil of Neoconservatism cannot be understood without taking the larger context into account. One wonders if Neoconservatism was always demented at the core with future war plans to bring about Jewish-Zionist hegemony or it became demented over time because power has a way of growing bolder, more arrogant, and more reckless with every victory. Given the Zionist fingerprints all over 9/11, it suggests Neocons were always dark agents of Zion or, at the very least, inseparable from the Zionist or Yinonist Agenda. Still, Neoconservatives gained influence by proposing some useful ideas to an American Conservatism that had grown staid and stale.

Now, if Jews were a poor and powerless people, it wouldn't much matter what we believed about the Holocaust. It's like what we believe about the American Indians or Australian Aborigines hardly matters because they are a powerless group. But the Holocaust Narrative has had a malignant impact because Jews are the most powerful people in the world, not least because they tamed the Northern European stock to be their war horse. It's one thing to be willfully naive about a powerless people but quite another to be that way about the most powerful people whose megalomania, political-spiritual-moral-historical-intellectual-etc., is totally out of control. It's like the West's willful naivete about blacks-as-innocent-childlike-saints has done great harm, especially in the Era of St. George Floyd. In truth, the black comprises some of the most aggressive, most criminal, most brutal, and most savage thugs in the West, BUT the Jewish-run Narrative holds that innocent blacks are being brutalized and murdered by 'racist' white cops and whites in general. Result has been demands to 'defund the police' while defending the thugs, leading to more murders and mayhem in city after city.

Now, just because Jews are powerful and have done lots of bad doesn't mean that the Shoah didn't happen or that many innocent Jews perished in it, no more and no less than the fact that many innocent Germans and Japanese died in World War II, even those who opposed their regimes and the wars. Also, even the worst Jews deserve their day in court. It's like the dire facts of black brutality and aggression(that largely arise from black genetic character) don't mean that blacks weren't exploited as slaves and were victimized by whites in the past. It'd be fallacious to say, just because Jewish Power is currently so evil, innocent Jews weren't met with goy evil, or just because so many blacks are now deranged thugs, they didn't suffer in the past under white domination. But it's also fallacy to assume that, just because Jews experienced a great horror in WWII, Jews today are a bunch of Anne Franks radiating with victim-sanctity, or just because blacks were once slaves or faced racial discrimination, blacks today are upright and struggling for a righteous cause. If the character of a people become affixed to an event in history, it all depends on the event that is memorialized. It's like 1776 makes Americans out to be resisting tyranny and struggling for independence. If we focus on the years in which Japan invaded China, the Japanese come across as a bunch of murderous aggressors. But if we focus on post-war Japan when the nation developed into a peaceful 'democracy', Japanese seem a kindly people. But history never stands still. Just because Romans once kicked Germanic Barbarian butt didn't meant Romans/Italians were eternal victor-invaders while Germanics were eternal victim-conquered. Indeed, it wasn't long before Rome was sacked by the Germanic barbarians.

The problem is the Holocaust is treated less as history than idolatry or Holodolatry, canonization of a historical event into quasi-spiritual matter. Worse, Holodolatry forces us to speak of Jews as a single entity. So, we can't speak of powerful Jews and powerless Jews, good Jews and bad Jews, radical Jews and moderate Jews. When it comes to most peoples, we speak of the powerful and the powerless. For example, we don't blame all Japanese for all time for what happened in the Pacific War. The main blame goes to the militarist rulers. This allows for one perspective on powerful Japanese and another on powerless Japanese, such as civilians who perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course, there is no absolute dividing line between the powerful and the powerless, as so many of the powerless often support the powerful. Lines become blurred. Many Japanese supported their ruling regime, and many powerless Jews looked to powerful Jews for direction and purpose.
Still, there are decision-and-opinion-makers(the powerful) and those who blindly follow along(the powerless) because they don't know any better, have been hoodwinked, or feel obligated out of tribal loyalty. Any interpretation of events must hold to account the powerful with greater burden of responsibility. Such approach can make us understand Jewish Power and 'antisemitism' better. Some powerful Jews acted badly, and it led to anti-Jewish sentiments, not least because the Jewish Community as a whole didn't take a stance against bad powerful Jews. (And when some Jews did stand up to Jewish Greed, they took it to radical extremes with ideologies like communism that devastated societies.) If we speak of powerful Jews and powerless Jews, we can better distinguish between guilty Jews and innocent Jews. But Holodolatry forces us to look upon ALL Jews as sacred victims of 'antisemitism'. This would be like bunching together Tojo and other Japanese militarists with the Japanese victims in Hiroshima. Holodolatry has turned into trickery whereby powerful Jews morally shield their abuses from scrutiny and criticism by hiding behind the cult of Jewish Innocence. When will the world admit that bad Jews must partly answer for the plight of good Jews? If bad Jews didn't act so bad, good Jews wouldn't have gotten burned in the goyim's overreaction against bad Jews... just like so many good decent innocent Germans and Japanese would have spared the horrors of WWII if the bad and powerful among them didn't play fire with History. But if the world holds the bad/powerful Germans and bad/powerful Japanese accountable for the suffering of innocent Germans and Japanese, it has yet to do the same with bad/powerful Jews whose vile deeds led to a backlash that destroyed many good Jews. If anything, whereas all Germans, even good/powerless ones, have been tainted with the guilt of Nazism, all Jews, even bad/powerful ones, have been sainted with the aura of Holy Holocaust.

If ALL Jews must be regarded as holy-schmoly innocent victims, then ALL Germans must be regarded as evil-schrivel guilty murderers, which is why every new generation of Germans is inculcated with the cult of eternal guilt regarding Jews. Under rules of Holodolatry, even the worst Jewish thug-murderer is a holy victim while even the nicest German must bear the burden of guilt. Holodolatry has merely led to a new kind of quasi-spiritualized racial supremacism where a certain historic tragedy absolves everyone within a certain group of guilt while abasing everyone of another population to the status of forever-damned. Notice how even the foulest Jew, like Michael Cohen, seeks a way out by yammering about how his so-and-so relative may have been a 'holocaust survivor'. This is why, in the current climate, if a Jew raped and murdered a white goy's mother, the white goy is likely to praise the attack as justified because a holy Jew done it. Just ask the Palestinians how morality works in the current West. Jews can do no wrong because Holodolatry elevated them to permanent status of holy-hood.

If someone has clearly been murdered, it'd be retarded to turn the discussion into a matter of "It was the greatest and worst murder of all time" vs "It didn't happen." Rather, the murder should be investigated thoroughly and understood within the larger context. Was the victim a totally innocent saint who was killed for no good reason by some deranged nutter, or was it more complicated? Among individuals, moral simplicity is sufficient for understanding murder: A real sicko killed a perfectly nice person for no rational reason. But on the historical level where every nation/group is made up of so many individuals, some good and some bad, moral dynamics becomes far more complicated. As for WWII, it's reasonable to say the Jew acted badly and the German overreacted with brutality and even murder. Why deny the murder when it did happen? But then, was it the greatest murder of all time? And did the German really stab the Jew six million times?

Of course, many Jews will spin even the most sincere attempt to better understand WWII and the Shoah as just another kind of 'holocaust denial'. To these Jews, anything shy of the narrative claiming that "totally innocent six million Jews died at the hands of totally deranged Germans" is tantamount to 'denial'. But whatever such rabid Jews say, responsible people can and should support a new historical approach that tries to understand the context in which the horrors happened.
Indeed, this is the approach with communism. While most historians will agree that millions perished under communism, they nevertheless take into consideration the context in which these things happened. Communism gained in influence because there were real problems with capitalism. Bolsheviks did terrible things but had popular support because the Old System had failed on so many fronts(and because White Armies offered nothing new). Khmer Rouge came to power because the CIA destabilized Cambodia and the US rained tons of bombs on the country. And even though the Khmer Rouge were genuinely nuts, many Cambodians turned to them for a reason. So, even without justifying the evils of communism, one at least tries to understand the events and why they happened under the historical circumstances.

And the same kind of perspective is necessary in regards to the Holocaust. Why did so many people come to hate Jews, and not just in Germany? Was Hitler simply evil or were some of his decisions justified given the challenges? Also, should we speak of simple good guys and bad guys when the British, Americans, French, and Russians were also super-imperialists with blood on their hands in the creation of their empires? And what was the Jewish role in geo-politics(of World War I, Russian Revolution, and World War II) that made the tensions between National Socialist Germany and World Jewry all the worse and more dangerous?

In other words, we don't need the Denial Narrative to better understand WWII and the Shoah. We only need the Corrective Narrative(to revise the falsehoods about the Holocaust) and better contextual understanding to understand why such a thing could have happened. And if Jews had many enemies, why should that be surprising? Many peoples throughout history were hated or dreaded for some reason or another. Romans, Germanic Barbarians, Huns, Assyrians, Egyptians, Vikings, Mongols, Greeks, Persians, Japanese, and etc. They had fans but also haters. Given that Jews amassed vast fortunes and used influence to steer world events(to the detriment of certain peoples), why is anyone surprised that some of this led to Jew-hatred? We aren't surprised that those under British Imperialism came to hate the Anglos. Or that Poles came to hate Germans and Russians. We understand why the Chinese came to hate the Japanese. Then, it should be understandable why some peoples came to resent or hate Jews. Indeed, should Palestinians be marked as 'irrational anti-semites' for hating Jews given what Jews did to Palestinians? You see, anti-Jewish hatred can be totally justifiable. If Germans and Japanese came to be hated and died in large numbers as a result of the backlash from their enemies, then why is anyone surprised that Jews were also met with violent backlash? (Jews bitch about past pogroms against Jews but usually rationalize black pogroms against whites and non-blacks on account of black victimization in the past. But using the same logic, pogroms against Jews could be justified on account of Jewish exploitation of goyim. But of course, Jewish Morality accords Jews the power to fix or nix any narrative. So, goy violence against Jews was, is, and shall always be bad, but black violence against whites or non-blacks can be deemed justifiable on account of 'history'. It's almost as if Jews are above history as they and their favored allies cannot be judged by it even as they tirelessly judge it.)

Instead of denying the Shoah, its falsehoods need to be corrected and questions must be asked as to what role Jewish Power played in exacerbating tensions around the world that led to the conflagrations of the 20th century. While Jews shouldn't be scapegoated as the sole villains of history, neither should they be escape-boated as the only ones with clean hands who, for no reason at all, got their knuckled smashed. (Perhaps, the hope among some goyim is that smart and pushy Jews will change their nasty ways and treat them nice IF they denounce Nazis as the worst evil and defend Jews as eternal saintly victims. Fat chance. Jews will grab the mantle of eternal victimhood but not act saintly. Result is consecration of Jewish megalomania as the summit of morality.)

GOY'S GUIDE TO KEEPING KOSHER - Brother Nathanael