A Response to an Analysis of John Boorman's EXCALIBUR, Further Right than Far Right by David Yorkshire - May 13, 2017

For David Yorkshire’s Analysis, Click Here: FILM REVIEW: EXCALIBUR, Further Right than Far Right

This split between man and Nature is at the heart of liberalism in which Western Man is considered as apart from and not a part of Nature.

There are many facets to liberalism. In some ways, liberalism was about the return of nature and sexuality. Liberals saw Conservatives, especially Christians, as the suppressors of natural energies, especially of sexuality. Liberal Boomers feel nostalgia about the 60s because it was about Return to Nature, or Back to the Garden. Rock Music, Sex, and Drugs were supposed to reconnect modern man with his natural energies.

But then, there is another side of Liberalism that fears nature as the aggressive warrior-side of man that tends toward tribalism based on racial differences. Liberals had a tough time with the neo-barbarism of Hell's Angels.

This foreshadows the land's decay and the birth of Arthur's unnatural son, Mordred, to his half-sister, Morgana (in a departure from the existing Arthurian canon and a move towards incestuous themes in Der Ring des Nibelungen).

I don't think the rise of Morgana & Mordred has anything to do with Nature vs Christianity. Morgana and Mordred represent the Malevolence of Power(any kind of power) misused for vanity and megalomania. Morgana represents the dark side of the Dragon, the demonic force. She also represents the Will to become god. She has powers like Merlin, who recognized something special in her. But if Merlin uses his special knowledge to guide man, Morgana is all about vanity(and vengeance). Merlin is like half-man/half-god who cares about mankind. Morgana is half-woman/half-god who wants to be full-god and give birth to a god-man. She seeks immortality. She is about the vanity of power, or the vanity of vanity.

This of course asks questions of the Grail, what it is and what it represents, for it is noticeable that it is never referred to as 'the Holy Grail' in the entire film.

As Boorman envisioned it, the Grail is the lost truth. The Grail is also a mirage and illusion. It doesn't exist yet exists only when people realize it doesn't exist. That's the paradox of the Grail. Arthur sent his knights to seek the Grail OUT THERE in a physical quest on horseback. They thought it's a physical object that can be found like lost treasure. Later, we discover the Grail is not a thing. It is a state-of-mind, a realization. It cannot be found OUT THERE. It can only be found WITHIN. Perceval finally grasps it when he realizes that it's really about hope and reconnecting with the roots of truth and honor. So, in a way, the Grail was always right there in the hearts of Arthur, Perceval, and all the knights. They just forgot it. It's like what Joel McCrea's character tells Randolph Scott's character at the end of RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY. McCrea says goodness and honor were always there in Scott's heart, but he just forgot it, that's all.

Final Scene from RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY


This and Merlin's answer that "Good and evil, there never is one without the other" prompts Sir Gawain's outburst about Guinevere's lust for Sir Lancelot, an outburst that is made possible by Arthur's democratic leanings in creating the Round Table that gives a voice to all. Arthur's woes are compounded when he refuses to defend his wife's honour, as he must judge as king before fight as husband, much to the dismay of Guinevere. He therefore chooses civilization over barbarity, societal law over the Natural law of defending one's loved ones. Ultimately, Arthur has created these laws himself and they reveal a man who is increasingly willing to embrace the passivity of Christianity of his own volition. After all, why does there need to be a judge in a trial of combat?

It's not that simple. The Round Table is not democratic. It is aristocratic, solely the domain of the knights who'd been there with Arthur in the founding of Camelot. And there is hierarchy, with Arthur as King and with Lancelot as the greatest knight.

And Arthur's refusal to fight and defend Guinevere's honor makes sense because Gawain impugned not only Guinevere but Lancelot as well. His terse words dishonored both of them. So, even if Arthur were to condemn Gawain to death or fight him, Lancelot's honor would still be besmirched.
Therefore, the proper thing is for Lancelot to defend Guinevere's honor. And if not him, one of the other knights who have faith him Lancelot and Guinevere. Also, another reason why it must be Lancelot or one of the knights is that the Arthurian World is a world of magic. As Arthur says, in a duel of honor, the wrong cannot win over the right. And this is why none of the knights will come forward to defend Guinevere. They too suspect, along with Gawain, that there are certain dark feelings between Lancelot and Guinevere. And Lancelot too is uncertain about what action to take because, as he says, they(he and the queen) are innocent of body but not of heart. So, Lancelot is anxious about championing the queen because he may lose. He may be the greatest knight, but the Magic of the Arthurian World will favor the righteous over the false in a duel of honor. So, he has to purge himself of his wrongful feelings before finally arriving to defend the queen. But in his self-purging, he has seriously wounded himself. He wins the duel but with a cloud of uncertainty. Gawain begs for mercy and says the queen is innocent. Lancelot still tries to kill him, but the Magic prevents him from doing so, and Lancelot himself collapses.

Also, Arthur's action cannot be called 'passivity'. If anything, he sticks to the law because he is sincerely committed to being a just and noble king. Also, the pagan 'karma' of the Arthurian universe disfavors the rash and barbaric. Uther was rough-and-tumble, but he didn't last very long. He was not The One, and the Dragon let him die.

Equally, Guinevere is correct when she states that "In the idleness of peace, I see that gossip has spread its own evil." This is an eternal truth. As the True Right has always known, without real struggle, the human mind will artificially create struggle, hence the rise of the Social Justice Warrior from the creamy all-too-comfortable bourgeoisie and their crusades against all manner of invented abstractions that boil down to a struggle against Nature herself.

Actually, Guinevere is being disingenuous. The 'struggle' wasn't artificially created. It was always there. Indeed, when Guinevere and Lancelot first saw each other, they instantly fell in love. But they couldn't be lovers since Guinevere promised herself to Arthur, who is also Lancelot's best friend. So, Guinevere married Arthur, and they all pretended everything was hunky dory. But in fact, Guinevere and Lancelot were lovesick for one another. So, the tension that flows forth from this repressed love is not due to some idle chatter but the eventual emergence of the hidden passionate truth.

Arthur never suspected it because he loved Guinevere too much and trusted Lancelot. But others did notice it(if in silence), and Morgana exploited it to drive a wedge among the knights. The sexual dynamics are profoundly important in the Arthurian Universe since it is a world of warriors, and top alpha women go with the best knights. Arthur, as king, is the leader of knights. So, it is natural that he should have Guinevere. But there is a certain unease because Lancelot is actually the better warrior. And unbeknownst to Lancelot, he wasn't really beaten by Arthur. Arthur cheated and drew power from Excalibur to defeat Lancelot. But Lancelot thinks Arthur beat him fair and square, and that is why he pledged allegiance to Arthur. So, their friendship, beautiful as it is, was founded on a falsehood. The superior warrior Lancelot submitted to Arthur on the belief that Arthur beat him in combat.

By rule of nature, the top woman wants to go with the toughest man. But in civilization, power is gained not only through fighting but through statecraft, wit, and talent. And Arthur has those qualities, of course with the help of Merlin. So, he is king, and Guinevere went with him. But her natural womanly side still lusts after Lancelot, the greater warrior.

This is relevant to the Modern West because black men are tougher, more muscular, and more athletic than white males. This is why John Boorman appreciates THE BIRTH OF A NATION, which is about sexual anxiety, very much like Arthurian Legend. White men long ago feared the Negro man who is stronger, more muscular, and bigger-donged.

In nature, the strongest and toughest warrior-hunter gets the most desirable women.
In civilization, men can gain power with smarts and skills. So, best women often go with successful men who may not be the strongest or most attractive. That is the tension of the Modern West. White men, having higher intelligence, do better than black men economically. So, successful white men get top white women. But then, white people watch sports and watch pop culture and see the Negro Man kicking the white boy's ass. This leads to Cuck Mentality.

In a way, there is a certain logic as to why the Negro is often featured in the role of Lancelot in these new Hollywood tellings. In the Modern West, black males dominate sports and sex culture. So, they possess the Top Warrior archetype. And that is why increasing numbers of white women are into jungle fever, betraying white men, and offering their wombs to be Afro-colonized. They see black men as the superior warrior and stud. Look at Sports Illustrated. The top male athletes are black, and the bikini models are white. Look at athletes and cheerleaders in NFL and NBA. Mostly black male players and white cheerleaders.
THAT is the greatest threat facing the white race: ACOWW, or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. White guys want to believe that it's all about blacks raping white women, but in fact, tons of white women Go Negro because they got jungle fever for the superior stud.

Anyway, what happens among Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot was anticipated by Merlin who told Arthur that, yes he will marry Guinevere but will be betrayed by his best friend.
So, it goes to show that even a temperate man like Arthur can become blind to the bigger picture because of the hypnotic power of love. Even so, I think what Arthur and Guinevere feel for one another is love whereas the feelings between Guinevere and Lancelot are much stronger: it is lust.

And deep inside every woman is a desire to be saved by a hero, no matter how much she rails against 'the patriarchy'.

Yeah, but the problem is that Guinevere wants to be 'saved' from Arthur by Lancelot. In a way, the problem is that Guinevere feels 'oppressed' by the security offered by Arthur. It provides her with privilege, wealth, safety, and nice things. But what she wants most sexually is to be taken by Lancelot. In a way, she wants to be 'unsaved' from civilization and be taken by barbarism of lust. So, it's not so much that a woman wants to be 'saved' by 'patriarchy'. She wants to be swept away by the top lover-boy. This is why many Romance novels are about women being abducted and conquered by the superior man, the 'bad boys'. This is why Helen of Troy doesn't want to be saved. She finds Paris to be more dashing and desirable than her humdrum husband. She collaborated in the 'abduction'. A woman wants to be saved ONLY IF the savior is the superior man. But if the would-be-savior is the inferior man, she prefers to be taken by the superior pirate, thief, or lover-boy.

Indeed, women prove to be rather problematic in the film, which no doubt will please the Manosphere types who love to point to women as 'the enemy'. Morgana is indeed a representation of evil, but Guinevere is all too human, and her betrayal of Arthur is seen equally as stemming from Arthur's betrayal of her in the scene we have explored.

Everyone is problematic in EXCALIBUR, but things get complicated with women because their power is subtler and more mysterious. Men are problematic, but their conflicts are settled with brain or brawn. In contrast, some women have beauty-and-allure, the mysterious power of which is difficult to measure or figure out. Also, it's not just about looks. Guinevere is attractive but not the most beautiful woman. But she enchants men because of her personality. She has a special touch, a sparkle.

Also, Guinevere's betrayal of Arthur has nothing to do with his supposed 'betrayal' of her. She had subconsciously betrayed Arthur in her heart from the moment when her eyes met Lancelot's. On that wedding day, even though she was betrothed to Arthur, she was besotted with Lancelot. And when she saw the wounded Lancelot on the bed nude after the duel, the combination her lust and her compassion was just too much, and she couldn't hold it back anymore. She was caught in a conundrum. If she went off to make love to Lancelot, she would be betraying her husband and duty as queen. But if she didn't run off to Lancelot, she would be betraying her heart that wants to run off to him.

As for Morgana, she is not a simple character at all. She is the most complicated character after Merlin. In a way, we can understand her rage and bitterness. After all, Merlin conspired with Uther to have her father, the Duke of Cornwall, killed. This was especially unjust because it was Uther who'd broken the peace. Merlin was angry with Uther, but he decided to salvage the situation by having Uther 'rape' and impregnate Igraine. Merlin foresaw the death of Uther but also a new order arising from Arthur, son of Uther. But there was collateral damage in this plot. Though Merlin did this for the greater good, he had to commit an evil. He had to help Uther 'rape' Igraine and kill Duke of Cornwall. Thus, Morgana lost her father and witnessed her mother being raped by Uther. In a way, she is loyal to her father. She is avenging what was done to her family. It's like Lady Kaeda the avenger in Kurosawa's RAN. She is justified in her rage and hatred.

But Morgana is about more than vengeance. She is special, like Merlin. She has the vision, and she is consumed with vanity of power. She justifies her action on revenge for what was done to her family, but she goes way beyond vengeance because lust for power has its own logic. She can't say no power & vanity just like Guinevere cannot say no to lust.

But then, this was true of communism and Nazism. Communism justified itself as revenge of the oppressed working class, but its power-lust led to greater evils. And Nazism was initially justified on Germany's humiliation in WWI and Versailles Treaty. Hitler rose to power speaking of national justice and restoration. But he was consumed with power-lust and didn't know when to stop. Power has its own logic, like fire that always threatens to burn out of control.
Jews and Negroes also gained power in the name of righting historical wrongs, but they too became engulfed with power for power's sake. Today, black rappers are into thug power, and Jews are mad about globalist domination. Jews went from Holocaust-remembrance to acting like Judeo-Nazis.

Arthur's passivity leads to his problems with both his men and with women. His cuckolding and sexual assault leads to his impotence. In turn, this leads to the land decaying.

It's not his passivity that leads to the fall. Rather, it's his reneging on his duty as king due to personal angst. When he discovers that Guinevere and Lancelot betrayed him, the proper thing is, by the codes of that particular order, to kill them both. And indeed, he goes off to kill them.
But he just couldn't do it. He still felt too much love for them. And because he is a wise man, he can read their hearts. He understands why it happened. Merlin once said that Uther could't look into the hearts of men. Arthur can look into the hearts of others, and he realizes that Lancelot and Guinevere are not evil and didn't meant to hurt him, Arthur. It's just this crazy thing called lust/love.

Arthur could have done two things: The proper thing as king to kill them both as they slept. Or, he could have walked away with Excalibur and returned to being King.
Instead, he abandons Excalibur, Merlin's special gift to him. Merlin led Arthur to the Sword of Power to be savior and leader. A king must rise above his personal angst and think of the good of society. But Arthur, distraught over Guinevere and Lancelot, just abandons the sword and returns to his castle to wallow in misery. He forgets what Merlin told him: 'You and the Land are one.' Arthur's abandonment of Excalibur was like a betrayal of Merlin. When Arthur drives the sword into the ground and walks away, we see the sword striking into the back of Merlin, and he too becomes disoriented.

I think the idea of 'you and the land are one' has multiple meanings. It means the relation between leader and the land, but it also means the connection between mind/soul and body.

Yet for all this, the film received mixed reviews from the critics. This is largely because critics of the time all hailed from the same middle-brow liberal clique.

Actually, Ebert's criticism made some good points. Even at 2 hrs and 20 min, there is a lot of material that isn't sufficiently developed. It's a film that should have been epic in scope: one more hour would have fleshed out more details. Still, many critics were blind to the film's undeniable virtues.
Ebert, Siskel, and many critics also devalued BLADE RUNNER for the same reason. They focused so much on plot and characters that they overlooked the real stylistic and visionary aspects of the film.

I don't think Ebert's lack of appreciation had to do with politics. After all, Ebert later recommended CONAN THE BARBARIAN, RED DAWN, and RAMBO, more blatantly 'right-wing' movies. I think he focused on the wrong things: story and characters. He felt there was too many things happening without proper development, and he was right in a way.

Maverick Liberal Jewess Pauline Kael, an admirer of Boorman and who wrote a mostly glowing review, also noted that the movie has problems of continuity and characterization. Incidentally, Kael's review of the film is one of the best in film criticism. It's in the volume TAKING IT ALL IN. A snippet: http://www.geocities.ws/paulinekaelreviews/e3.html

I think EXCALIBUR is one of the greatest films ever. THE 13TH WARRIOR is one of the few films of similar theme & setting that is comparable in beauty and power, but it tragically bombed at the box office... whereas a totally worthless pile of crap like LOTR raked in big bucks. It goes to show what a dumb-dumb world we are living in.

* * * * *

With one movie, Boorman conveyed more ideas and poetry than all the STAR WARS movies combined. Boorman also made a fascinating sci-fi film with ZARDOZ, one of the most relevant films given what is happening in the world.

Boorman presented Big Ideas with poetics, romance, grandeur. And he took inspiration not only from Arthurian legends but from Germanic mythology, especially as revitalized by Wagner. And the relationship between Merlin and Arthur is among the richest on screen.

Merlin is an ambiguous character. Always anxious because he sees MORE. So, if humans are rejoicing over some victory and celebrating like it’s the End of History and their side won, Merlin foresees dangers ahead and knows that all glories are fleeting. Even at the worst of times, he sees glimmers of hope. Even at best of times, he sees disasters looming up ahead. He is like a less amoral Indrid Cold in MOTHMAN PROPHECIES. His vision is from a higher plane. He can look further over the horizon. Thus, he’s never content with apparent stability in the here-and-now. He’s always worried because to know more is to be aware that everything is fleeting, no matter how 'permanent' it may appear for the time being.

But there’s also a detached & aloof quality about him. Despite his involvement with humans, he is not of any particular world. And he’s seen it all — the cycles of rise and fall — before in other worlds. And there are other worlds after THIS ONE. This detachment is an advantage but also a sadness. Because he isn’t attached to a single time and place, he can continue in other worlds even if the current world falls into ruin. But because he isn’t loyal to a single realm, he doesn’t really belong to any one or any people. He's like a professor, not unlike Kingsfield in THE PAPER CHASE, who can't feel lasting attachment to any one class or student.

In the end, he is a wanderer, a stranger to all. Ben Kenobi and Yoda are supposed to be like Merlin figures in STAR WARS, but Kenobi is too goody-goody, and Yoda is a muppet.

Merlin tried to help Uther, but it proved hopeless because Uther was too impulsive and primal. He couldn’t control his anger, his lust. As Merlin says, Uther couldn’t look into the hearts of other men. Everything was about himself and his immediate desires. He risked everything for a romp with Igraine because he couldn't control his lust. Because he fails to look into the hearts of other men, he alienates them and makes too many enemies and falls in the end.
But the great irony is Arthur is created by Uther’s most foolhardly deed, the sexual conquest of Igraine. Merlin realizes that his failure with Uther was part of the ‘plan’ because the failure fertilized the success(if limited) with Arthur.

Arthur is smarter and more sensible than Uther. Arthur is cautious, like Michael Corleone in contrast to hotheaded Sonny Corleone. And with the aid of Merlin, he learns to look into the hearts of others. He has empathy, he has understanding. He not only battles the knights who oppose his kingship but reaches out to them in understanding. Ultimately, he wins over Euryens not by force of arms but display of virtue.

He is also capable of self-criticism. When the sword breaks in his duel with Lancelot, he confesses that his pride broke it. He was supposed to use Excalibur to unite all men, but he used it for personal vanity and vendetta. This wisdom is an advantage, and the Lady of the Lake forgives him and restores Excalibur.


But the world of EXCALIBUR Is fraught with contradictions and paradoxes. It’s like Merlin says everything has its opposites. Also, the opposite of something may actually be nearest to it or hiding within it.
It’s like Michael remembering his father’s advice in THE GODFATHER PART 2: Keep your friends close but your enemies closer. In EXCALIBUR, Arthur asks where evil is, and Merlin says it is always where you least expect it. Evil isn’t necessarily OUT THERE SOMEWHERE but just around the corner, in your own domain, right behind you, or even right in front of you. It’s like the biggest enemy of the white race is not Russia, China, or Iran, some foreign nations far away. It is the PC virus within the very core of the West. An external enemy can be fought with sword or gun. But the evil virus can be within you.


Just as evil could be right in front of you or within you without you noticing, so can the truth & redemption. The biggest truth could be invisible because it’s hidden within one’s soul or standing right in front, thus out of focus. After all, the knights who went on the quest for the Holy Grail were misguided in thinking it was out there somewhere. Perceval discovers that the truth is actually within his own soul, indeed it’s always been there. He just forgot it, as did Arthur.
Again, it's like the scene in RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY where the dying hero tells his partner that there was good within him all along: he just forgot it, that’s all. (Given the out-of-control sexual politics among youth today, RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY offers some sobering lessons about impulsive behavior among the youth, but also how excessive puritanism — like with Elsa’s father — can make things worse.) The ‘holy grail’ was within Arthur himself. He just forgot what Merlin had taught him.

And yet, there is a paradox to Arthur’s decline. It was precisely because he was wise and could read the hearts of other men. Everything has its opposites. The source of wisdom and duty could also lead to weakness and doubt. When he discovers that Lancelot, his best friend, had betrayed him(by taking Guinevere), he wants to kill Lancelot and his wife. But he can’t make himself do it because he has too much empathy. He can look into the hearts of Lancelot & Guinevere. Despite his rage, he is also understanding. So, he hesitates and finds it impossible to kill his friend and wife. His wisdom makes him understand more but also renders him ‘weak’ and lacking in resolve to carry out the execution.

But there is the tragedy. He surrenders Excalibur, the greatest gift bestowed to him by Merlin and Lady of the Lake. In doing so, he abandons his role as king. A king is supposed to serve something bigger than his ego and self. Whatever his personal foibles, he is supposed to rise higher and rule for the good of the people. But Arthur, so depressed over the Lancelot/Guinevere affair, withdraws into self-pity and becomes despondent like Scottie in VERTIGO. He just tunes out and drops out. If he were a private individual, it wouldn’t have mattered to others. But as leader, he has a kingdom to rule and must never renege on his duty and responsibility. Whatever his personal setback, he must rise higher and rule for the good of all. But he just surrenders Excalibur and walks away to hide from the world. And the moment when he drives Excalibur into the ground proves most vulnerable for Merlin who feels the blade strike into his back. His gift to Arthur has been abandoned, Arthur has violated his covenant with the sword, and there is disturbance in the Dragon. It is in that moment of confusion and distress that Morgana gains control of Merlin’s dazed wits and uses his magic against him.


* * * * *

The mythic themes of EXCALIBUR, much like those found in Greek mythology, give us a clue as to why the West broke through the 'sound barrier' of progress in ways that never occurred to non-Western cultures. It wasn't just about rise of reason and science but the heroic individual will to strive further and reach higher. It was the visionary audacity to steal fire from the gods.

PC accuses white people of having stolen from other peoples. But man-stealing-from-man has been the rule of history just like animal-stealing-from-animal is the rule of nature. Clans stole from clans, tribes stole from tribes, kingdoms stole from kingdoms, and empires stole from empires. Whether it was the Zulus, Mongols, Huns, or the Vikings, the story of mankind has been stealing from other peoples, just like wolves and hyenas steal from other animals. So, if whites had done only like the other races and only stolen from others, they couldn't have broken through the 'sound barrier' of history.

So, what set the white race apart from others? What did white individuals do that other races failed to do?

They stole the secrets of the gods in Promethean manner & unlocked the mysteries of the universe.
Whites unlocked the secrets of micro-organisms and how diseases happen.
Whites gazed into distant space and discovered galaxies and black holes.
Whites discovered the mechanism of atoms and harnessed nuclear energy.
Whites solved the secret of flight and gained mastery of the sky.
Whites cracked the secret codes of higher morality and envisioned a world of order & liberty.

So, white people stole the secrets, ideas, and values that had once belonged only to the gods. Whites stole the keys to unlock countless mysteries that had baffled, mystified, or frightened the rest of humanity.
And by unlocking the secrets known only to the gods, white people attained and then spread the higher & deeper truth to all of mankind. If not for whites, would any race be flying through the skies or probing the secrets of viruses?

That is Power. It began when Prometheus stole fire from the gods.
The real secret of white power is not that whites stole from non-whites. Whites ‘stole’ only crude rudiments like land and labor from non-whites. Every people stole such from other peoples since the beginning of time.

What set whites apart from other races is that they, in the spirit of individuality and heroism, mastered the art of picking the locks of the gods & the cosmos and walked away with priceless treasures of knowledge.
You can steal land from red savages and labor from black savages. It takes no genius to conquer territory or enslave others. All peoples could do that and did that.

But the art of navigation, art of medicine, art of flight, and the art of nuclear power can be stolen only from the gods. And only individuals of vision, dream, or genius could pull it off. After all, like William F. Buckley said, "You cannot paint the Mona Lisa by assigning one dab each to a thousand painters."

Other peoples merely feared or served the gods. Only whites dared to access the vault of the gods holding the secrets of everything from the smallest atoms to the biggest stars.

That is the true source of white power. White stole everything… from the gods.

A Response to David Yorkshire’s Review of ZARDOZ by John Boorman

ZARDOZ: Natural Order against the Left by David Yorkshire: https://www.counter-currents.com/2018/04/zardoz-natural-order-against-the-left/

"John Boorman's films are implicitly white, as they address themes that pertain to people of White European descent, whether historical, philosophical or mythical."

Not necessarily. Boorman made HELL IN THE PACIFIC that is about cooperation between Japanese soldier and American soldier. He also made EMERALD FOREST that romanticizes the jungle natives of the Amazon as living in unity with nature. If anything, that movie is most damning of incursions of white civilization into the natural order. Boorman made a movie about Burma in BEYOND RANGOON. He also made a movie where a white woman romances a black man. So, he's not this explicitly pro-white director you make him out to be... even though his themes and treatment would be politically incorrect for many today.

"for the film is a biting satire directed at creamy bourgeois Leftists."

The Order in ZARDOZ is highly conservative, exclusive, and hierarchical. It has a clear division between civilization and barbarism. It was established on a shining ideal of eternity and wisdom, but all that power and privilege has created a society of dogmatism, consensus, asexuality, and/or jaded apathy. The people of the Order have had it so good that they can't value what they have.
Also, they fail to understand the true danger posed by the barbarians because their Order has been impenetrable and impermeable as far as they can remember. They have no reason to regard barbarians as any kind of threat.
And yet, precisely because the Order is so crystalline and immaculate in its conception and design, there is a fear of the slightest alteration or revision. It can only exist as a utopia, a perfectionist order that cannot tolerate deviance from the rule. Perfection is unnatural, therefore fragile, and must be guarded with iron resolve, like the inner mechanics of a Swiss watch. Everything must adhere to the programming.
Originally, the Order was created to expand freedom and potentiality by prolonging life into virtual eternity. But thus elevated into near-god-hood, the main priority of the Eternals came to be self-preservation, and that meant the suppression or termination of anything that threatened the basis of their exalted existence.

So, to say that the Order is just 'leftist' or 'bourgeois' misses the point. Now, it may have elements of what we might call 'leftist' by today's standards. But the Order is really about hierarchy and total exclusion. In its cult of reason and science, it be construed as 'leftist'. In the equality of men and women in the Order, it could be seen as 'leftist' too.
But then,there is no need for manliness because the Order is so secure. Also, as people are immortal, there is no need for sex and love. People are supposed to devote their energies to contemplation and leisure. But all such things have become boring without the cycles of life and without challenges to the Order.
So, it's glib to say ZARDOZ is an anti-leftist tract. It is essentially a call for reconnection with nature, the stuff of life. The World of ZARDOZ fails for the same reason the world of CAMELOT does in EXCALIBUR does. Too much success and power have led to complacency and lazy gossip and battle of egos and vanity. It is only when Arthur drinks from the Grail that he realizes he must be one with the land, with nature and the people.

Boorman isn't anti-civilization or anti-Christian(with its linear view of history), but he fears that civilization and abstract ideas can fatally sever man from nature and its cycles of birth and rebirth. Only with death and rebirth is life revitalized. Prolonging life may overcome death but could lead to boredom, enervation, and dissipation. Even decadence and degeneration. To counter decline and resignation, one may insist on the strict regimen of devotion and discipline, but this could lead to the rigid dogmatism of the Middle Ages or traditional Jewish culture that revolved around almost incestuous obsession with Ancient texts.

But more often than not, too much prosperity and security leads to a deadly combination of complacency and compassion. A carefree naivete that has forgotten the warning of 'Do not feed the animals'. Having been secure and prosperous for so long, they've come to take their well-being for granted and assume it will be painless and joyous to welcome the world with open arms. They see themselves as white jesuses taking care of lambs from around the world. They are innocent spoiled brats getting high on their own delusional virtue. They are blind to the delusion because they've had it so good for so long. They lack the experience of survival & hardship and have forgotten the lessons of their ancestors who had to struggle against great odds to secure the land and build a civilization.
And this is what has happened to Sweden. Too much ease and good life led to ZARDOZ-like conditions where overly well-fed and bored white folks welcome invasion simply because it is 'virtuous' and vibrant, the stuff of life lacking in well-ordered Sweden.

"Ostensibly, the Eternals are all at peace, free from violence and death, and forever young. Their society is democratic and imposes equality on all. (Men's) impotence has led to women becoming leaders along feminist lines in spite of the ostensible commitment to equality."

The world of Vortex is NOT democratic. It is elitist. It is equal only in the sense that Spartan Warriors were equal with one another or aristocrats are equal among themselves. But, in fact, Spartan elites lorded over the helots. And aristocrats lorded over the serfs. So, the Eternals are NOT democratic. They are equal only among themselves, an elite breed of sci-fi aristocrats.
Also, women do not rule the Vortex. Since the realm is asexual, men and women are almost the same. The women in ZARDOZ are not interested in the sisterhood or women's issues. They only identify as Vortexians.

Feminism is about women forming a sisterhood against the men. There is no such politics in ZARDOZ. Rather, female aristos in ZARDOZ work with male aristos to maintain the exclusive hierarchical order. They are more like princesses working with princes against the serfs. They are not about the Sisterhood.

"'Penic erection is one of the many unsolved evolutionary mysteries surrounding sexuality.'... The speech is a look at sexuality straight out of 1970s feminist pamphlets, with the only difference being a smugness in victory, dressed up as concern for the wellbeing of both women and men."

Actually, Boorman's point goes deeper than a critique of feminism. Boorman senses in higher spirituality, Christianity especially, the denial and repression of natural sexual drives. This goes back to the Old Testament. In Eden, Adam and Eve were nearly equal. But there was the Original Sin, and man and woman had to struggle in the world of Nature that was seen as FALLEN. And the divide between man and woman grew wide after the Fall.
In Eden, it had been peace and harmony for Adam and Eve. God provided everything. Adam didn't have to be a hunter-warrior. Eve didn't have to do women's chores. But after the Fall, Adam had to be tough and manly to hunt and procure food. And with all creatures at war with each other, Adam had to defend himself and Eve from other animals. And Eve had to be womanly and do women's things.

Christianity offered a Way out of such Fallen State. Men and women would deny the pleasures and fears of the flesh and redeem their souls to enter Heaven to be with God for all eternity. Thus, Christianity is anti-nature. It sees nature as fallen and sinful. It views human nature as a baggage of vices: lust, gluttony, greed, vanity, etc.
In EXCALIBUR, Merlin mourns that One God comes to drive out the many. Paganism is fading and nature grows silent.

Another danger is an Order becomes obsessed with more order. And this was true of Victorian England where sex was taboo as a subject. Also, the rise of effeminate style among men long predated feminism. It began within the aristocracy itself. Initially, aristocrats were warriors, tough and hardy. But as they accrued so much wealth and privilege, they got fanciful and had homos devise feathers, dress, jewelry, and etc. for them. Look at Tim Roth's character in ROB ROY. French aristocrats wore fancy wigs, used perfume, and powdered their faces.

As for feminism, it's a confused self-defeating ideology. There has been a strain of feminism that was anti-sex. But there was also another strain that emphasized little more than sex. Today's feminists are confused. They go on and on about "Don't grab my pussy" but they publicize their pussies for all too see. PUSSY-ism is new feminism. They are into slut pride and damsel-in-distress both. Also, feminists demand total happiness for women. But happiness for women comes from sexually surrendering to big tough alpha males. So, even as feminists castrate men, they also demand men with mega-dongs to hump them. As a result, we have the funny spectacle of white women castrating white men but burning with jungle fever for black mandingos who act like shameless savages. This is why feminism is self-defeating. The women in ZARDOZ are not like this. They are neo-victorian in their total denial of sexuality.

"Yet this has created anything but an idyll, with particularly the men wishing for death, as Arthur Freyn, acting as the chorus to a theatrical play, states he longs for at the beginning of the film. This introduction, however, is one of the unsatisfactory elements of the film, as it rather gives the game away, Freyn himself exposing that the film is a morality play, who he is and what the film is about. It is unnecessary and an insult to the viewer's intelligence."

No, most men don't wish for death in the Vortex. They are perfectly happy. Frayn and Friend are rare exceptions who secretly conspire against the system. But then, May the female also ends up helping Zed because a part of her also feels that the system is fatally flawed in some ways. She kept Zed alive because a part of her sympathized with him, longed for him. (Later, it becomes apparent that all the Eternals have a hidden death wish as they come to welcome the deliverance of death. But not having experienced violence for eons, they panic and run when the horror ensues. They thought it would be fun, liberating,and innocuous. It is actually brutal and ugly.)

Frayn's intro doesn't make ZARDOZ a morality play but a philosophical theorem. Frayn is not preachy or judgmental. He's a magician, a trickster, an artist. He wants to have fun toying with people. He wants to play god as puppeteer. He is the Merlin-like figure... though with only the semblance of wisdom. He'd been given the job of using the Stone godhead to fool the barbarian dummies. He had a great run messing with the yokels, and he later decides to pull a stunt on Eternals themselves.

He is not primarily motivated by morality but by creativity and artistry. The whole experiment is like a philosophical parlor game for him, and he cooks up a scheme with Friend(who is more serious). He has no idea how things will really turn out. Indeed, he dies brutally like the rest. His experiment finally engulfs him in the horror as well. The master puppeteer, the man-who-would-be-god, is reduced to a pig-for-the-slaughter for the butchers. Frayn is rendered as helpless as Ned Beatty in DELIVERANCE.
If the Eternals, in their eons of seclusion, lost all sense of horror, the Exterminators have practiced nothing but horror. It's like hungry wolves set free in a pasture of sheep.
It's like today's helpless Swedes and Germans as deer-in-the-headlights prey to the brutalized arrivals from Africa and the Muslim world.

Even though Frayn takes after Merlin, the difference is Merlin understood the nature of tragedy. He knew what it is like for an Order to fall. So, against all odds, he tried to help Uther and Arthur maintain the order from chaos. When Uther proves to be hopeless, Merlin bio-engineers a super-baby in the figure of Arthur. Frayn similarly engineers a superior figure in Zed, who has the warrior vitality of Exterminators and the intellect of the Eternals.

Even so, Frayn is like a child compared to the wise Merlin. Frayn has no idea of what it would be like for the Vortex to fall to barbarism. It's all just a game that he accelerates... until it finally happens, and then, panic-stricken & speechless, he is slashed with a sword while shitting bricks.

In a sick and dark way, one can argue that the Current Left is like the Friend-Frayn Nexus in their Afro-mania.
Even though the 'Left' pretends to believe that 'race is a social construct', they really feel that white race is deficient, inferior, and missing something. Consider the rise of Rock n Roll(and the fascination with blues), especially in once rigidly ordered and finely mannered England. It was as if whites with frozen souls were thawed, warmed, and heated by the burning souls of blacks. And overly rigid and hierarchical British Society was made looser and freer by black influence in music, style, and attitude. And this is why whites became so Afromaniacal. White boys turned cuckish in their worship of Negro athletes and badass warrior-thugs. And white women got jungle fever from watching all those big-donged black athletes beating up weaker and slower whites. But we know from Africa and Detroit that blackness = savagery and disorder.

In contrast, a people like the Japanese can create and maintain order. But white people are not excited by Japanese who come across as physically shrunken, weak-voiced, servile, lackluster, conformist, and timid. White people are excited by blacks with booming voices, bulging muscles, and dongs-and-butts. GET OUT is about whites wanting to be in black skin.

Japanese can build and maintain a modern society whereas blacks can't.
But blacks can make music and do athletics that excite whites... something that Japanese can't do. Japanese have higher IQ but blacks have more Iconic value or ICQ or iconic quotient.

So, the resolution at the end of ZARDOZ is now the template for leftist engineering via race-mixing. The bloodbath at the end of the movie makes us reject both the Vortex and the barbarism. Vortex was an elitist order divorced from nature, but the barbarism of raw nature is stupefyingly ugly.

So, what is the new hope? Zed and Consuela mate and create new humanity. Zed is a blend of natural barbarism and knowledge. And Consuela is a woman of knowledge who has regained her natural self.
In today's UK, this unity is seen as mixing of the black male as the ideal icon of manhood and the white female as the ideal icon of female beauty. The blending of tough black manhood and beautiful white womanhood is supposed to create a new superior race that finds the balance of nature and civilization.
And that was the appeal of Obama, the blend of black intuition and white intellect. He represented the ideal interracist template favored by the so-called Left. This 'Left' is race-ist in its own way but loathe to admit it. It doesn't see all races as equal or valuable. Rather, its ideal vision is the blending of blackness and whiteness. Blackness represents virility, rhythm, musicality, athleticism, and prowess. Whiteness represents reason, intellect, control, and organization. In ZARDOZ, Frayn created Zed as a kind of 'interracist' hybrid of Exterminators and Eternals. Zed has the body and toughness of the Exterminators but the mind and knowledge of the Eternals. In a similar vein, the current Left prizes the mulatto higher than both blacks and whites as he or she is supposed to represent the unity of black prowess and white proficiency.

It's pretty crazy, but today's LEFT is actually closer to Frayn-Friend's plot to bring down the Order and to create a new order formed by fusion of Afro-vitality and Euro-ability. They feel that this will result from the Negro penis and white vagina. In a way, Frayn is like a George-Soros-like figure who pushes Open Borders to bring down the ossified elite order. He is like the Loki character in German mythology who plays both sides -- gods and giants -- and finally helps breach the barrier that stands between the god realm and the world of giants.

Now, this isn't to say John Boorman had such in mind, or that he wanted Europe to be invaded by masses of Africans. But the satire of ZARDOZ goes far deeper than easy jabs at Leftism. It is about the problem of civilization itself. It is a timeless dilemma. We all want to create and be part of a Shining Order. But every Order, in order to perpetuate itself indefinitely, prolongs itself to the point of violating the cyclical way of nature and man. Thus, the order survives but loses in vitality.
And yet, the condition of man is always between Scylla and Charybdis. An order that lasts too long grows either apathetic or dogmatic. But then, the cyclical way is no circus. The stage of fall, even if necessary, is horrible and traumatic. We can't escape the tragedy of existence even if we wanted to.

Vitalism, Not Traditionalism, is the Key to the Future

Many on the Right call for traditionalism, but what is traditionalism? There is a long history of traditions, and so much have changed over the eons. So, which tradition should we hark back to guide us in the present? The problem with invoking tradition is there is too much of it. It’s like a museum filled with all sorts of artifacts, relics, documents, mementos, and etc. Some may argue that we need to respect Living Tradition, but even a Living Tradition has undergone so many alterations, revisions, and reconfigurations. Also, the very longevity of traditionalism can be its weakness. Traditions have been strengthened via repetition through the ages. It’s like the celebration of Easter. But the seemingly endless routine makes tradition seem tired and boring, year in and year out and year in and year out again ad infinitum. It’s like Christmas for many has become just a time to shop. No one cares about what it means anymore. And Thanksgiving is just Turkey Day, just like Easter, if it’s remembered at all(not by Jews at Google), is about rabbits and eggs. After something is repeated over and over, people forget why it was commemorated or celebrated in the first place, and in time, rituals peter out to an end. Whatever happened to all the pagan celebrations of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans? And what meaning do Christian rituals hold anymore? Most Christians are so bored that they want to spice it up with Rock music, Diversity, or Homomania in the church as discoteque. When a tradition grows weak and weary, people add more color. It’s like if the meat is old and dry, you add more sauce and spice to make up for its lackluster flavor.

‘Traditionalism’ connotes rigidity, fixedness, dogmatism, predictability, and lack of spark. Perhaps, ‘Arsenalism’ is closer to what we need. An arsenal is filled with stockpiles of weapons, but what we do with them is incumbent on the needs of the moment. So, if there are guns, bombs, missiles, bazookas, tanks, trucks, and copters, there is no fixed rule that demands that such-and-such items be used in such-and-such way. Everything in the arsenal is of use, but we decide what should be used and how depending on the nature of the challenge.

In contrast, Traditionalism suggests that we stick to a successful strategy used in the past. But what if the times have changed, and the enemies have adapted to a new strategy? Suppose the once-successful strategy using certain weapons in certain way will no longer work. But the traditionalist will demand that the Proven Way still be used. What if it fails against the New-and-Improved enemy with new tricks up its sleeves? The traditionalist remains adamant and insists that the Old Way is the Only Way because it and only it is the right way. This is sure to fail in the long wrong because every method or system, however effective in certain ways, has weaknesses. It’s like the Greek phalanx system that worked so well for so long didn’t work against the Romans who came up with more effective and adaptive means of combat.
When the once-mighty Ottoman Empire was faced with New-and-Improved Europe, its Old Ways of combat, which had once been so formidable, only led to defeat after defeat at the hands of Europeans.

If Traditionalism tends to stress the Proper Way of doing things with the available material, Arsenalism argues for a more flexible, creative, adaptive, and vitalist way of using and advancing the available material to take on the enemy. The problem with Conservatism Inc. is that it got stuck in the rut of playing by the same rule book over and over. Because of the great electoral victories from 1968 to 1992, throughout which the Republicans won every presidency except four years under Jimmy Carter, the GOP got stuck with the same tropes and themes. This was during the Cold War with relatively high taxes and troublesome labor unions. But with the rise of globalism & ‘free trade’, decline of Big Labor, massive increase of non-white immigration-invasion, and the Long March through the Institutions by 60s radicals, America of the 90s and thereafter was not the America of the 70s and 80s. Just like New Deal politics wouldn’t work in current America, neither would Reaganomics of the 80s. Thus, political traditionalism isn’t enough. There has to be political vitalism.

Arsenalism is vitalist. It’s like how a game is played in sports. Suppose your team won many games last season and took the championship. So, should your team run exactly the same plays this year? But the other teams will have studied all your tricks and will have adapted to come up with their own counter-tricks. So, even if you do the same thing again in the hope of repeating last year’s success, the chances are you will lose because the rivals have adapted their strategy to overcome your strategy. The only thing that is a constant between last year and this year is that your side must win. Now, it would be stupid to reject everything that was done last year. Indeed, many such plays will surely be executed again for their proven track record. But, they will have to be revised and adapted so that the other side won’t know the when-and-what of your strategy. The other teams that lost to your team last year have learned of their own vulnerabilities and have patched them, and furthermore, they studied all your strengths and devised ways to overcome or circumvent them. So, to win once again, traditionalism isn’t enough. You need vitalism. It’s like what Arthur says in EXCALIBUR: "There are no war tricks that will fool Mordred and Morgana." And so, Merlin comes up with an ingenious way to trick Morgana into filling up the battlefield with mist. Merlin is a classic vitalist. He remembers and knows more than any other man, but he doesn’t just rely on the Old Way. It’s not that he sees no value in past events or past strategies, in Tradition. It’s just that he knows every new challenge calls for a new, creative, and ingenious way to use that knowledge once again. After all, win-or-lose is decided in the Moment of the Now. One cannot rest on the laurels of the past. Victory and Power are about keeping it Vital. Tradition and Memory are important but only as a repository of ways and lessons. There is no guarantee that an old way will work again. Every situation has to be freshly assessed and dealt with.
Also, thought process must be intuitive and instantaneous in the moment of struggle. Consider a boxer. Surely, he's trained everyday and has much experience. His intuitive skills in the ring don’t just come from nowhere but from many hours of practice and the bouts that he had. Intuition is the crystallization of experience, practice, and knowledge. A musician’s intuition isn’t possible unless he spent lots of time mastering music. Granted, there are those who study, practice, and play a lot but never gain much in the way of intuition and inspiration.
But to have intuition/inspiration, one must master an art or skill. Intuition without experience and practice is hazy at best. Still, when the boxer is in the ring, he can’t THINK of all the years of practice and experience. He can’t intellectualize. He has to be IN THE MOMENT at all times throughout the fight. If he loses the sense of the moment, he could be knocked out or could lose the chance to knock the other guy out. Intuition is related to improvisation, which also requires practice, experience, and mastery. Before you improvise with a musical instrument, you need to learn to play it first. But when you’re playing, you must lose yourself in the moment of the music. You can’t think consciously in note-for-note terms. You must become one with the music’s beat, rhythm, and harmony.

While study, practice, and experience are crucial in storing our minds and shaping our bodies in a certain way, when the moment(of challenge) arrives, we need to be in vital than traditional mode. When we are taking the test, we must know IN THE MOMENT. Our minds have to work intuitively and instantly to make the connections and recall the necessary knowledge. We can’t be in the mode of someone in the library, looking through the card catalog, filling notes, and going through the material piecemeal by piecemeal. It’s been said that when the Iranian crisis spiraled out of control and hostages were taken, one of Jimmy Carter’s first reactions was to ask for books on Iran in the library. But it was not a time for reading books. He was president, not a librarian.

Even though we are part of a long line of evolution and history, we are always IN THE MOMENT. Any organism is part of an extensive genetic 'tradition' of life that goes back billions of years, but the vitality of his life doesn’t come from contemplation of that long connection. It comes from being IN THE MOMENT. If a gopher can't run and hide from a hawk in the Moment, it is dead.
Humans are different in being able to remember more and ponder the meaning of things, but the Future is determined by those who are most intensely engaged with the Now. And even if actions in the Now are informed by past experience and knowledge, the vitality comes from the ability to intuitively and instantly engage with the world. Mere seconds determine all the years of our lives and, if possible, the lives of our children and their children.

Because conservatives tend to stress traditionalism, they lack in vitality. They understand meaning as all the material and knowledge in museums, books, and institutions, but the core meaning of life is in the power, and power derives from a vital ability to use knowledge IN THE MOMENT. Also, even though there is so much to learn from the past, Truth and Wisdom are sort of like Noam Chomsky’s theory of Universal Grammar. Just like humans are hardwired to use grammar in a certain way, humans are hardwired to access certain meanings if their minds are activated and cultivated properly. If a child is never taught language, it won’t be able to understand it. But when he is taught, his mind almost instinctively grasps the principles of grammar. So, it’s not like something totally external is being programmed in the child but more like his innate switches are being turned on by external stimulation. Without education, those switches won’t be turned on(just like without sun and water, a seed will not sprout), but once the process begins, more and more switches turn on naturally. Same goes for Meaning or Universal Meaning. Even without reading too many books or hearing too much music, many switches automatically begin to turn on in the minds of young people when they are introduced to ideas and criticism. And then more switches turn on of their own accord, and the mind begins to make connections upon connections. Granted, this happens differently and more with some people than with others. Some kids pick up chess right away after playing a few games. Some kids get music pretty fast once the switches are turned on. Consider Mozart who grasped the way of music far more than even older masters who’s spent yrs and yrs of study, practice, and performance.

Now, clearly, Mozart or Beethoven couldn’t have been possible without the glorious tradition of Classical Music. It’s not like they invented the instruments, music notations, and the basic classical forms. But they were much more than mere traditionalists.
In the East where traditionalism was stressed more than vitalism, the students and apprentices were trained to copy and master the correct way bequeathed by the old masters. Thus, even new works had a museum-quality about them. It had been the same with the Ancient Egyptians whose entire civilization just became a moribund funereal traditionalism of sticking to the proven way. Though there was a great tradition, it was petrified wood than firewood. But what is a bunch of furnaces if they can’t make fire. What is a collection of swords if no one knows how to use them? And even if one trains to use the sword in such-and-such choreography, what use are they in a real fight when there are so many unpredictable factors? In movies or choreography, the swordsman can repeat the motions over and over to make them seem impressive. But in a real fight, there is no telling what the opponent will do. One has to be trained to fight IN THE MOMENT.
Indeed, that is the difference between a mere expert and an artist. Most smart people can become an expert at something. He can read up on literature or music and expound about why Shakespeare or Beethoven is so important. Or, he could even train himself to compose Shakepeare-like Sonnets or Beethoven-like melodies. But it’s all imitation, not inspiration. There is no creative spark there. He would be a traditionalist who remembers, knows, and expounds but not a vitalist who can make new things out of old things. In contrast, Shakespeare(or whoever may have written the plays) not only was well-rounded in the tradition of literature but drew inspiration from them so that he could intuitively and instantly produce new and amazing possibilities from the traditional material. It’s like a real musical artist not only learns how to play a classic tune but finds ways to revise, rearrange, and twist them to make new possibilities.

Now, there is a need for traditionalism. Some people have to be museum curators, librarians, pedants, and teachers. After all, most people just don’t have the stuff of spark and inspiration. But all real change is created by the vitalists, not the traditionalists. Traditionalists preserve the storage of knowledge and works from the past. But they lack the ability to use the storage like an arsenal of firepower for explosions to make for the new. While everyone draws from tradition, revolutionary power comes from those who make breakthroughs. Consider Bob Dylan. Why did he have a greater impact on music than other folkies? Most folkies were just traditionalists who stuck to the tried-and-true, and they were pretty good. But the tried-and-true is also dried-and-through. It only comes to new life when someone is inspired by it to make something new. Dylan revered the traditions of American music, but he also had the vital force to digest everything and mold it into something bold and different. He didn’t just rest on tradition but drew on tradition to create a new force in music, and he changed musical history.

The problem of Conservatism, high and low, is that it tends to lack this vitalist element.
Low Conservatives tend to lack knowledge and interest in arts, cultures, and ideas. Their tradition is a simple one of faith and community. But with faith eroding and communities falling apart(due to decadence, globalization, and mass immigration-invasion), Low Conservatives are lost. Even Country Music is now just junky pop music.
High Conservatives do care about arts, culture, and history but in the mode of librarians, curators, or admirers. Admiring great art, ideas, and culture is good, but admiration alone doesn’t lead to anything new and powerful. It’s like the minor character in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA who admires Lawrence as a great man but is clueless as to all the forces, internal and external, that made Lawrence ‘great’. Bill Buckley was a charming character, but his view of history was to just hit the brakes. He was uninterested in the accelerator and the steering wheel. He didn’t like where history was going, so he just hit the brakes on and on as often as he could until they wore off. It never occurred to him that the real power is about taking the wheel and stepping on the accelerator to where one wants to go. After all, even a reactionary can’t go back to the past he longs for by just hitting the brakes. He must take the wheel and accelerator and do a U-turn, like the Islamic radicals of Iran. Buckley dreamed of the 19th century when the 20th century was hurtling toward the 21st century. And then, take an online site like THE IMAGINATIVE CONSERVATIVE. It’s a rather odd name because there is NOTHING IMAGINATIVE about anything there. It’s mostly staid and respectable, and that’s all very nice, but that’s not the kind of mindset that leads to new possibilities and new creative explosions. Creativity is ‘bohemian’ than ‘bourgeois’ even though both modes have a symbiotic relationship, as epitomized by the Gail Wynand & Howard Roark partnership in THE FOUNTAINHEAD(though, to be sure, most creative types are and must be far more flexible than the purist Roark who is almost resolutely Taliban in his vision, even blowing up an entire apartment complex in the name of principles). Wynand the bourgeois makes the money and, via Ellsworth Toohey, promotes middlebrow values and conventions for the masses. But with his great fortune, he finances Roark who can go further. Now, by ‘bohemian’, we don’t mean someone who goes out of his way to be weird. Indeed, self-expression via tattoos and piercings is almost always a crutch for those without true creativity. Having nothing to say, they seek attention with body graffiti or mutilations. In contrast, a true artist doesn’t have to do funny stuff with hair color or tattoos to demonstrate his worth. Stanley Kubrick didn’t have a nose ring, Akira Kurosawa didn’t have an ass tattoo, and John Ford didn’t have purple-dyed hair. Most of the great writers, musicians, and dramatists proved themselves with worthy work, not with silly trinkets hanging from their noses or stupid pictures injected into their skins. I doubt if T.S. Eliot had a cock-ring. I doubt if Beethoven would have been more creative had he pierced his tongue. By ‘bohemian’, we mean in spirit.

An artist in action works differently from an artist in training. It’s the same with soldiers. Boot camp is necessary to instill discipline, increase muscles & stamina, and instruct skills. And soldiers are made to march in tight formation to develop a sense of bond. But in the actual battlefield, it’s not enough to go by boot-camp instructions. A soldier has to find his own way to fight and survive. He has to learn to adapt and improvise from moment to moment. Same is true in business. Business schools teach the A-B-C’s of business, but a businessman can't make it in the field by lugging around a Business Text-Book wherever he goes and flipping through the pages for instructions in every transaction. Rather, the essence of what he learned must be an intuitive part of him so that he knows instantly what to do and what to say at any given moment. So, despite the value of what he learned from traditional business education, he will succeed or fail depending on how he acts IN THE MOMENT. Tradition of anything is long & vast and useless as a whole in any given situation. Much of tradition continues has immense value but only in relevant use to the demands of the Moment. A boxer has a host of pugilistic arsenal at his disposal, but in any given moment, he has to pick the right move. If he lunges when he should be dodging, he will be smashed in the face. If he throws a left-hook when he should be going with a right upper-cut, he will miss the chance to KO the opponent.
This should be obvious, but the invocation of Tradition among conservatives has had a way of nullifying(or at least ‘dullifying’) the sharpness of their senses. They often point to the Western Canon and take pride in the Great Tradition. But Power is about using ideas, and IN ANY MOMENT, the mind must pick the relevant ideas, retool and reinvent them, and then do combat. It’s like a chef has all sorts of utensils and pots & pans and sauces and spices, and they are all part of his ‘tradition’, but he can’t make something by using EVERYTHING at EVERY TIME. Depending on the demand or challenge, he has to find the instruments and recipes that he needs. A conservative is like a chef who says, "Look at all the wonderful utensils, sauces/spices, knives, meats, and vegetables I got" but is lost as to what to do with them when crunch time comes. There was a Japanese TV show called IRON CHEF that demonstrated the importance of vitalism. Each of these chefs were steeped in mastery of tradition. So, one could be an expert in French cooking, another in Chinese cooking, another in Italian cooking, etc. So, each knew his thing. The real challenge came with the presentation of surprise ingredients that the contestants must use creatively in conjunction with their established skills. That is demanding. A man who learned to make good lasagna can make good lasagna with his eyes closed. But what if he has to work with unfamiliar ingredients. Then, he has to make creative use of his knowledge in Italian cooking to make something worthy. The challenge calls on his knowledge of tradition, but tradition alone isn’t enough. He must intuitively grasp and use only the aspects of tradition that may complement the ingredients at hand. And it is this vitalizing(and revitalizing) and reinventing skills that are woefully absent on the Right.


To be IN THE MOMENT doesn’t mean we must reject or devalue our tradition. Rather, vitalism means having a tradition isn’t enough... just like having a closet full of martial arts weapons isn’t enough. One must know how to use them and which one when and where. The mind has to be sharp and focused. Indeed, even human brains work this way. Depending on the task, the neurons flare up only in certain parts of the brains. Not all of the brains are working all the time. Rather, depending on the tasks, dangers, challenges, or necessities, different parts of the brains kick into gear.
Consider the law student in THE PAPER CHASE. He claims to have a photographic memory, and he can memorize everything he’s read and seen. His mind is filled with a ‘tradition’ of memory. And this ability was good enough to have him enter Harvard Law School. But when challenged to think on his feet in the classroom, he is lost and flustered. He knows and remembers a lot but lacks the ‘vitalistic’ ability to focus on relevant facts for argument in the case at hand. To have traditionalism without vitalism is like that. It’s like holding a dozen swords instead of picking one, drawing it, and dueling with it. A man fine-tuned with one saber will defeat a man holding a dozen swords. Too often, Conservatives point to the Western Canon and say ‘Muh tradition’ but, in pitched battles in the Culture War, don’t know which weapon to pick and parry & lunge with.


Also, it’s not enough to inherit something from the past. It must be reinvented and revitalized. It must be re-created. Same goes with life. Life doesn’t live forever. It dies and new life is born that continues the life of its parents but also begins afresh. Now, ‘reinvention’ has negative connotations on the Right because Jews promote it to mean the West must be reinvented as a non-white mixed-race diversity empire controlled by Jews and homos. Who the hell wants Europe, the US, and Canada to become Brazil ruled by the likes of George Soros and Simon Schama?
But there is another meaning to ‘reinvention’, and all great works of art are indeed reinventions. If an artist just learns from past masters and imitates, it will be the same old same old, and vitality will seep out. But if he not only absorbs the tradition but reinvents with his creative will and spark, he will make it seem fresh and alive once again. Thus, his work will have connection to the past but also to the future. Consider what John Boorman did with Arthurian legends on EXCALIBUR. He reinvented the myth to make it live and breathe again. According to PC globalists, the West must be reinvented into a Non-West. White women must have children with black men to reinvent Europeans into a people who look like Moroccans and Yemenites. White heroes must be recast with blacks. Lancelot and Achilles must be made black. PC says whites cucking out to blacks is the New and Improved West. Jews want to gain control of whites by castrating white manhood into cuckhood and by infecting white women with Jungle Fever. That is the Jewish idea of reinventing the West.

But there is a patriotic and True European way of reinventing, retelling, and revitalizing the classics, legends, and myths. John Boorman showed what could be done. And Richard Wagner took old pagan Germanic myths and reinvented them in grand style with his DIE NIBELUNGEN RING CYCLE. It’s not enough to brandish images of Old Europe like Identity Europa does. The real key is to take the tradition and revitalize and reinvent it with creativity and originality. Indeed, why did the fallen West overtake Byzantine Europe in which classical civilization continued? Partly, it was because the East got tired and bored with its moribund traditions whereas the West found the 'lost heritage' exciting one again through the creative reinvention of the Renaissance.

And it’s not enough to invoke a great tradition in dealing with the Globalists. What is necessary is the Weaponization and Arsenalization of Tradition into a gauntlet, sword, and shield to do battle with the heinous Jewish globalists. That is the only way to win.