James Kunstler’s provocative opinion piece this year, “Call the Exorcist”, details the ways in which the current order isn’t merely corrupt, abusive, and/or tyrannical but downright insane verging on the demonic.

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/call-the-exorcist/

According to the BBC film critic Mark Kermode, THE EXORCIST is the greatest movie ever, a rather extravagant claim. Still, Kermode’s appraisal is understandable given the movie’s overwhelming impact, not only with the graphic gore/violence but the masterly way in which William Friedkin juggled real-life drama with the supernatural, with the idyllic slowly but surely giving way to the insane.

In film history, THE EXORCIST is generally to horror what 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is to science fiction, a landmark case of a well-established genre with familiar conventions(or tropes) being blown out of the water by something wholly unprecedented and unexpected. (And it probably had as much impact on Steven Spielberg’s CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND as Stanley Kubrick’s film did.) Both films ventured beyond genre conventions as Kubrick’s film goes from biology(apes) to technology(man) to mystery, a stab at cosmic metaphysics. Friedkin sounded utterly earnest when expounding on the spiritual dimensions of THE EXORCIST, i.e. he didn’t approach it as a Scary Movie but as a spiritual quest. A minor character, a guest at a party, is an astronaut, symbolizing man’s exploration of physical space in contrast to religion’s exploration of spiritual space with its own blackholes.

It was also comparable to THE FRENCH CONNECTION(also directed by Friedkin), THE GODFATHER, and CHINATOWN as inspired re-inventions of movie genres — crime thriller, gangster movie, film noir — , but its impact was far more explosive, comparable only to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY(and maybe THE WILD BUNCH directed by Sam Peckinpah); it went beyond what anyone thought was possible(and permissible). If the new violence in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and STRAW DOGS was viscerally unsettling, the horror in THE EXORCIST was the stuff of nightmares, driving some individuals to suicide, making William Friedkin the film equivalent of Orson Welles as the enfant terrible of the radio with his “War of the Worlds” stunt. Still, for all of Welles’ brilliance, his take on THE WAR OF THE WORLDS was intended as a stunt, whereas THE EXORCIST was a heartfelt expression of Friedkins’ views on spirituality and good-versus-evil.

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY’s stature has only grown vis-a-vis THE EXORCIST and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, not least because it rewards thought. The more you think about it, the more tantalizing and mysterious it seems, which cannot be said for Friedkin and Spielberg’s works, which, for all their visceral force and emotional impact, seem stupider the more you think about them. Kubrick was meticulous with details of space and science as the firm foundation of launching into fantastical dimensions beyond man’s comprehension. It isn’t called ‘beyond the infinite’ for nothing.

In contrast, one wonders why the Devil in THE EXORCIST and the extraterrestrials in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS would go about in such silly ways to either curse or communicate with mankind. Doesn’t Satan have better things to do than make a young girl puke? Don’t the ultra-advanced space aliens have more sophisticated ways of studying mankind than raiding refrigerators, later to be outdone by E.T. with a penchant for beer?
Still, upon their releases, the sheer force of horror or wonderment overwhelmed the audience that responded with ‘faith’ in their emotions as either collective rapture or defensive mechanism.

No less essential to spirituality than “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” is “render unto God the things that are God’s”. It is why 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is truly a cut above the rest as it renders unto reality what is known(and possible) and renders unto mystery what is unknown, manifested in sounds and images of dimensions beyond our own. Through extensive research, Kubrick created a literal universe of technological possibilities, i.e. all the technology on display in the film were in the realm of the possible and doable(and indeed, over the years, mankind has built space stations, computer technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, and it is theoretically possible to have manned flights to distant planets).
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is the most plausible and realistic of science fiction films, and yet, in its speculation on the powers beyond the possible or conceivable, it doesn’t pretend to understand the mystery. We go from a soluble maze to an open-ended enigma.

In contrast, for all the elements of wonderment and mystery in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, it turns out that the space aliens from the distant stars amount to little more than electronic musicians and smiley-faced people from meta-Mars. And for all the spiritual content of THE EXORCIST, it turns out the Dark Lord is essentially about making faces and acting gross like Helen Keller in THE MIRACLE WORKER.

For everything knowable, Kubrick sought answers, and for everything unknowable, he raised questions, with the HAL computer being somewhere between the knowable and the unknowable, representing the limits of man’s technology expanded to godly powers, albeit still as a servant to man.
In contrast, partly owing to box office considerations and partly to the limited imaginations of Spielberg and Friedkin, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and THE EXORCIST do reveal the mystery, the simplicity(and even stupidity) of which eluded many viewers too overwhelmed in the spectacle of the moment. Likewise, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was mistaken as a dramatic masterpiece because of the overpowering action scenes, some of the best ever.

However, if THE EXORCIST and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS fail as thought-experiments, they work their wonders as fable or allegory. Spielberg the Fable-Man pursued his science-fiction concept in the manner of Walt Disney and Cecil B. DeMille. Indeed, it’s the sense of innocence that makes CLOSE ENCOUNTERS a great piece of popular imagination, one that makes one feel like a child again. No wonder Stanley Kauffmann called it the greatest science fiction movie ever. It certainly works as fable.
As for THE EXORCIST, it works as a kind of pop conversion, especially timely upon release as everything seemed up for grabs in the early 1970s mired in the Watergate scandal and tired of The War but also dogged by the Anti-War radicalism and insipid Sixties utopianism(and the exploding crime rates).

THE EXORCIST is so well structured and paced, as well as acted and choreographed, that it’s hardly surprising it cast such a powerful spell on the masses of viewers who made it a box office smash. The escalating fright alone makes the viewer recoil in terror yet with the fascination of a gaper who can’t turn his head away. It’s like a natural disaster from which one must flee but can’t help but turn around and look. No wonder God told Lot and his family, “Don’t look back.”

Upon closer analysis(after calmed nerves), however, the movie doesn’t make much sense, even within the irrational context of spirituality. What does the unearthing of some ancient artifact have to do with what appears to be an unleashing of evil on the world? Besides, why would more evil need to be released in a world full of evil already? It’d be just one more drop in an ocean, one more flicker in a forest fire. And, what does an archaeological site in Iraq have to do with Georgetown around Washington D.C. the capital of the U.S.? A commentary on Washington D.C. as the new Babylon as part of an endless cycle of rises and falls of empires since the beginning of time?

And why would this satanic force take possession of a young girl and make her spew foul language in a hoarse voice and shit through her mouth? Doesn’t Satan have anything better to do? Also, wouldn’t it be smarter for Evil to NOT seem so obvious and instead manipulate the world through subtler means? A smooth con-man poses a greater threat than an ax-wielding lunatic spotted from a mile away. Evil in THE EXORCIST is so blatant, declaring itself as vile and hideous, that it has no chance of winning converts. Even Charles Manson would have run like a mothafuc*a.

Though lesser as cinema, the OMEN movies seem closer to how the Prince of Darkness would use his bag of tricks, even though, there too, excessive energy is wasted on silly antics with arbitrary murders that could only give the game away. Ugliness and grossness repulse than entice, and apparently the Devil in THE EXORCIST never heard of the marketing department. His effects on the girl Regan are downright ugly and stink up the place. Every drug pusher knows the shtick: The end result of drug addiction is the degradation of body and soul, but the drugs are sold as a slice of hedonic heaven. Likewise, excessive intake of sugar causes cavities and diabetes, but the marketing is colorful and alluring. But, in THE EXORCIST, Devil seems to be in turd-flinging monkey mode.

Granted, one could argue that the Devil works in myriad ways ranging from the subtle to the crude? While, ironically, evil can get away with more by adopting the semblance of virtues of diligence, patience, and civility, thus gaining entrance and elevation in the respectable world, there are countless examples of blatant savagery and brazen sadism, just like Rock culture encompasses everything from easy-listening tunes to heavy maelstroms of sound. In the Rolling Stones’ “Sympathy for the Devil”, we get both takes on the Dark Side, the refined aristocrat and the radical nihilist, as a kind of Neo-DeSade-ism.

In that sense, the Pazuzu-deviltry in THE EXORCIST could be regarded as merely one of the many manifestations of Evil, especially concocted to draw in Father Merrin, a man who will go to any length to rescue a single soul.
Indeed, the main conflict is between the Devil and Father Merrin with the girl/mother used merely as a prop by the former. The difference is that, whereas the Devil sees humans as useful but expendable — if not Regan, then another girl could have done just as well — , Merrin, as a servant of Christianity, believes everyone is unique and precious with a soul gifted by God(and offered redemption by Jesus). It’s sort of like the main conflict in the STAR WARS universe is between Obi-Wan-Kenobi(as the Merrin-like figure) and Darth Vader(as the agent of the Emperor), with the soul of Luke Skywalker caught between them. (The Devil sees no point in trying to fool Father Merrin, a good and intelligent man who can see through the ruses of Evil. Conceivably, just like even genteel folks sometimes need to let loose and go wild, the Devil really goes ‘Animal House’ by shacking up inside Regan.)

Given its genre origins, THE EXORCIST sacrifices spiritual sense for popular sensation, but, it provides a variety of metaphorical meanings, partly as a reflection of the radical, excessive, and sometimes degenerate Sixties and partly, at least in retrospect, as prescience for what was to unfold in the decades ahead, especially with the rise of Jew-Worship, Negrolatry, and Globo-Homo, as well as the descent of American Conservatism into the worship of Mammon, not least with Las Vegas as the new family-place-to-be.

Looking back, even at its harshest and most damning, THE EXORCIST’s vision of hell seems mild compared to what has taken over the West(and much of the Non-West as well). And, whereas the audience was repulsed by the gross antics of the Devil-possessed Regan in the movie, the current West goes out of its way to praise, celebrate, and even sanctify various forms of insanity from the highest echelons of power to the lowest rungs of society.
The emblematic expression of the current West is ‘twerking’, where black women(and their non-black imitators) ‘dance’ by flopping their buns up and down in what looks like a parody of sex.

Even the majority of so-called conservatives support ‘gay marriage’, aka ‘same-sex marriage’, and a good number of them have tattoos splattered on their bodies. And they get their jollies by watching women pummeling one another in MMA. Christian Conservatives who claim to be godly seem to worship Jews and Zion above all, even more than God and Jesus. And they certainly favor Zionists and Neocons over Christian Arabs destroyed by the Wars for Israel.

While some on the Right speak more truth than others do, the range of discourse is dominated by mindless(as in ignorant) or mindful(as in craven) deference to Jewish Power. It’s essentially about the gradations of permissible lies than the courage of truth against lies.
Butt-Tucker Carlson, for example, speaks more truth than most Conservative pundits, but his ilk also skirt around the JQ. It’s looking out further from the Overton Window than moving over to the Truth Window. As Danny Ciello(Treat Williams) realizes in the film PRINCE OF THE CITY, those committed to the truth and justice cannot go halfway; they must go all the way, despite the dangers and pitfalls. Telling a bunch of little truths against the Big Lie simply won’t do. Big Lie can only be defeated by the Big Truth, and of course, this is why Jewish Power has its hands on the strings(of the puppets) and the leashes(of the dogs who dare not stray from the ‘acceptable’ discourse).

If, in THE EXORCIST, the connection from an Iraqi archaeological site to an affluent celebrity mother-and-daughter in Georgetown seems opaque or contrived, there is a kind of symbolic meaning. At one time, that part of the Near East was the center of civilization, and of course, when the movie was made, the US was the premier superpower, and Washington D.C. served as the metropole of the ‘free world’. Thus, past power-and-glory and present power-and-glory are linked. Also, it’s a way of saying there is no real past and no real present. Both are merely fleeting moments in time through which the eternal themes of Good and Evil are at war.

We look upon ancient civilizations with a blend of wonderment and detachment. Even the great horrors committed in the distant past hardly trouble us today, certainly not in the way the narratives of relatively recent wars and atrocities do. THE EXORCIST reminds us right away that the problems that haunt the modern world were no less present in the past, and vice versa — after all, the 20th Century was one of the most violent in history. For Father Merrin, archaeology not only digs into the past but unearths the present.

In a way, the horrors of history impacted the US less because of its distance from Europe and Asia where World War II(and the proxy wars of the Cold War) mostly raged. Latin America and most of Africa were spared the two great wars of the 20th Century but were marked by grinding poverty, horrific internecine violence, and the problems of Diversity, racial in Latin America and racial & tribal in Africa. Therefore, relative to other parts of the world, the US seemed uniquely blessed or favored, either by God or History.

On the other hand, it is partly because of this relative peace and prosperity that, in some ways, Americans(and post-WWII Europeans who never experienced war) feel the sense of Evil more acutely and naively than the peoples of other civilizations. Take the matter of slavery, a universal practice through all of history but deemed a permanent stain on America. Or, consider how Americans once reacted to the Evil of Drink, leading to the Prohibition, unthinkable in Europe.

Of course, such sensitivities may have partly owed to the Puritan factor in the founding of the American Civilization, but one cannot discount the role of relative privilege among a substantial portion of the white American population. If US history had been far more violent and marked by extreme poverty, most people would hardly regard the Black Experience as so terrible, which has been the attitude in Latin America regarding blacks and browns. “Sure, blacks got it bad, but we got it bad too, and life stinks.”
But, America defined itself as the civilization where things always got better and better and went up and up. So, the idea that the US, the richest, freest, and most powerful country in the world, had failed to live up to its dreams and principles bound to traumatize some people, even to the point of turning them radically Anti-American, cynical, nihilistic, or recklessly utopian with social experimentation, like with the Counterculture’s naivete about sex, drugs, and Rock-n-Roll.

THE EXORCIST was part of the Counter-Counterculture that perhaps began with the election of Richard Nixon in 1968. Back then, the electoral reaction to the massive riots and social/racial unrest was to turn to the ‘law-and-order’ Right. (In contrast, the 2020 mayhem was followed by the ‘rightist’ Trump’s ouster, albeit in a funny kind of election year where the polling stats proved way off.) What had bloomed as the lovey-dovey Summer of Love in 1967 wilted by the crazy 1968 and 1969 with the Altamont Concert documented in the film GIMME SHELTER where the many drug-addled fans seem demon-possessed or zombie-like(as in NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD). Roman Polanski made a joke of horror in THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS and ROSEMARY’S BABY, but real horror entered his life with his wife’s gruesome murder, soon to be followed with himself embroiled in a demonic behavior with a twelve year old. (Speaking of demons, let’s not forget the impact of Yoko Ono on the Beatles.)

Rock culture being what it was, it kept on rocking through the degradation and decay(and even thrived on them), but the cinema told a different story. On the one hand, it was billed as New Hollywood, a radical break from the stodgy conservatism of the Old Studios and the Old Guard. But while certain films were indeed anti-establishmentarian, some of the most notable works, despite their stylistic breakthroughs and/or rejection of past prudery, had considerable appeal to those disenchanted with the social and cultural changes of the Sixties, which culturally extended up to around 1973, the year THE EXORCIST came out.

THE GODFATHER is reportedly Pat Buchanan’s favorite film. Despite Francis Ford Coppola’s ‘liberal’ tinkering to make it seem a critique of capitalism, it appealed to many for its depiction of tradition, loyalty, heritage, and family life. (Before THE GODFATHER, Coppola gained renown by winning the screenplay Oscar for PATTON, Richard Nixon’s favorite film.) For the more astute, even the Counterculture favorite THE GRADUATE ended on a note of ambiguity, suggesting that neither Ben nor Elaine could ever escape fate, which is to end up like their parents. Besides, the film is about Ben’s break from easy sex with a ‘liberated’ woman toward a courtship with a relatively ‘innocent’ young woman. Another 1967 film, IN COLD BLOOD(based on Truman Capote’s novel), purportedly contained an anti-capital-punishment message, but the lasting impression was of the mystery of evil that partnered one fella who feels too little and another who feels too much. So different but so alike.

MIDNIGHT COWBOY, released in 1969, entered a new frontier in sexuality, almost gaining an X rating, but despite all that, its depiction of liberal-cosmopolitan New York was most damning as a materialistic, decadent, and soulless wasteland of snobs, freaks, and the alienated.
Something like the precursors to THE EXORCIST were JOE and PEOPLE NEXT DOOR, both released in 1970. In both films, the daughters go astray and spiral out of control into drugs and debauchery. Even though the blue-collar doppelganger in JOE played by Peter Boyle is no hero, let alone a saint, many viewers ended up rooting for him(anticipating Paul Kersey of DEATH WISH) against what looks like a bunch of quasi-Mansonites. And at the end of PEOPLE NEXT DOOR, the only thing that works on the junkie daughter is tough love, as when the mother’s had just about enough and goes Miracle-Worker on the brat who, after being slapped some, finally regains a modicum of sanity.

No doubt sexual anxiety played a big role in the Counter-Counterculture, but then, it’s been a running theme forever as much of the violence in the animal world derives from the males ‘jousting’ for the right to mate. Greek Mythology warns of the corrupting influence of the female principle, and the Fall in the Bible begins with Eve and the fruit. The foundation of social stability is the family where man and woman are faithful to one another and protective & caring of their young, but the sexuality that brings men and women together is primarily fixated on lust and the heat of the moment than long-term tending of the hearth, and this primal side of sexuality was loosed upon the modern world not only with youth culture, hedonism, and the cult of choice but the Pill(and other contraceptives) that greatly reduced the risk of pregnancy and disease(or its fatal outcome). Sexual crisis was ameliorated in pre-modern times by arranged marriages, patriarchy, and brutal violence against young ones who dared to violate the rules. And among the aristocrats, there was the threat of the deadly duel if a man’s pride or a woman’s honor was offended.

If the Counterculture conflated brotherly love with sexual love with a boundless confidence in ‘sexual liberation’ as happiness for all, the Counter-Counterculture was dubious about such optimism.

Indeed, there was something strangely off about the Counterculture as it veered into licentiousness with innocence. Even as the culture was becoming more ‘adult’ in sexual behavior, it was becoming more childlike in its dreams of flower-power Santa Claus. John Lennon would later say that he really believed ‘love’ could save the world. Here was a guy who couldn’t keep his family together believing in the healing elixir of ‘love’.
And of course, the Beatles themselves just barely kept up the facade of camaraderie until the whole thing blew up in 1970 with lawsuits and acrimony all around. Feeling was liberated from facts, reaching new heights(or nadir) with “Imagine”, Lennon’s piece of utopian narcissism. “I imagine, therefore I am better.” It’s telling that the album IMAGINE not only has Lennon’s most utopian musings but a nasty dig at Paul McCartney: “How Do You Sleep?” He couldn’t stand his long-time friend and partner, but he was telling everyone to just go out and love.

Indeed, if anything was off-putting about the Sixties, it was this innocence and naivete. Many of the themes of Counterculture that centered on experimentation with relationships, substances, arts & creativity, man & nature, man & machine, spirituality(often Eastern Mysticism), food & health, and etc. weren’t without interest and promise.
After all, the earlier generations had been preoccupied with the basic needs of well-being and survival through the Great Depression and War to have had much opportunity for anything else. Then, the youth that came of age in the Sixties, with their superior education, nutrition, and living conditions, naturally sought new possibilities. So far so good.

But, pioneers entering unknown regions need caution as well as daring, doubt as well as excitement, responsibility as well as liberty. But, many boomers who came to define the Sixties opted for platitudes and neo-sacraments, for instant-nirvana, as if smoking pot or dropping acid to a Beatles album in a room strewn with flowers was the answer. Such willful innocence, aka stupidity, not only stumbled and fell but created opportunities for the worst elements of society to exploit for money and/or power. Consider Iris(Jodie Foster), the 12 year old prostitute in TAXI DRIVER, who considers herself ‘liberated’. No Father Merrin to save her.

Before the utopian nightmare of the free Rolling Stones concert at Altamont, there was the Apple fiasco with the Beatles. Following the death of their manager Brian Epstein, the Beatles had this ‘high-minded’ idea of forming and running a company based on Counterculture ideals of love, trust, brotherhood, and the notion that everyone was brimming with talent and creativity just waiting to be tapped. Unlike other companies, Apple would be open to all and put principles above profits.
In no time, it became a fleecing operation for parasites.
Again, the idea of trying something new and different was not the problem. Rather, it was the childlike innocence, akin to belief in the tooth fairy, which not only ignored reality but opened the door to every leech, thief, crook, charlatan, and fraudster. In the end, the biggest flaw of Counterculture was this mindless optimism sold as mindfulness because it just happened to be immersed in pseudo-spiritual mumbo-jumbo and pseudo-intellectual theories about mankind. They should have given THE BIRDS by Alfred Hitchcock a second look.

Such naivete was almost inevitable given the centrality of youth in the Counterculture, which was not a movement for the experienced(though certain elderly types with radical dispositions and/or resentful envy egged on the young ones). Besides, Rock Culture fused pop and art, especially with the near-universal praise of SERGEANT PEPPER’S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND, and the young ones took pop attitudes seriously; they somehow KNEW BETTER because they listened to the Beatles, Bob Dylan, and the Doors. And a good many were convinced they touched by the divine via marijuana and other drugs.

Yet, the ‘innocence’ was ironic because the boomers set themselves against their parents’ generation that was deemed gullible in their patriotism and trust in authority, which all came to a head with the Vietnam War. Unlike the earlier generation, Counterculture boomers wouldn’t fall for the BS dished out by The Man, which could be anyone over thirty.
But, as things panned out, the boomers were no less naive and gullible in the pursuit of their own false gods, and of course, they eventually took over as the New Boss(actually worse than the Old Boss). It’s like Mike(Meathead) and Gloria in ALL IN THE FAMILY are equally gullible as Archie and Edith but in different ways. Edith, in her traditional role as housewife, never thought to think outside the box of her duties. But, Gloria is no less foolish in her conceit of being ‘liberated’, indeed in a way, more foolish because she thinks she can rise above her essentially knuckleheaded self by repeating the platitudes she heard from her peers. And Archie Bunker may be blinded by prejudice, but ‘meathead’ is blinded by idealism.

Such naivete seems an ineradicable human condition. Whether it’s the Greatest Generation with their patriotic myths, the Boomers with their liberation myths, the 80s generation with ‘Morning in America’, the supposed expunging of the Vietnam Syndrome with the Gulf War, the Camelot Regained with Bill Clinton, the New Patriotism with Neocon invasion of Iraq, Obama’s Hope & Change, or Donald Trump’s draining the swamp, it proves P.T. Barnum’s dictum about the gullible.

Ideology assures no surefire immunity against gullibility as the supposedly cautious and sober ‘conservatives’ rushed into the Iraq War with guns blazing and utopian dreams of ‘democracy’ spreading throughout the Middle East on account of the US being the one exceptional country, rightfully the lone superpower with its wealth, freedom, and goodness. And in 2020, consider all those who naively fell for the Covid and BLM narratives. Those claiming to ‘trust the science’ went against the true grain of science.

No wonder Butt-Tucker Carlson has been nixed from Fox News. For all his limitations and betrayals(replacing Russia-Russia-Russia with China-China-China), he did plant seeds of doubt among his viewers, urging them not to rely on the party line or pat formulas, not least because both parties are essentially controlled by the same cabal of globalist ghouls and their neo-sacerdotal crew.

Video Link

Sexuality has been the source of strife forever, at least with the emergence of warm-blooded organisms. It’s less so with the fish and frogs that lay lots of eggs and spray sperm all over. So, it doesn’t really matter ‘who’ mates with ‘whom’ in the fish and amphibian world. (Still, in the case of certain species of fish such as the salmon, sexual drive leads them to an epic journey that culminates in mass death, one of the most extreme rituals in nature.)

In contrast, birds and mammals don’t produce many offspring, and it’s much more of a challenge to secure a mate than among fish and frogs that come together in a slimy pool and ‘grab’ whatever is near. Therefore, competition for mating is far fiercer among birds and mammals than among, say, snails and jellyfish. (On the other hand, certain species of insects and spiders, though far simpler life forms than fish and amphibians, tend to exhibit exceedingly complex behavior in mating.) The ‘heat’ between the sexes among birds and mammals makes for greater attraction but also more repulsion and rivalry, especially among the competing males. Unlike a male frog that could just grab onto any female and release its sperm, birds and mammals are highly attuned to territory and the mating partner(or partners among the more social species). Such attachment leads to greater affection but also greater anxiety.
Among humans, the anxiety can turn into a sense of betrayal, as in the Helen of Troy story. Also, because humans notice and prize beauty, they feel far greater outrage when their beautiful property is taken by another or goes with another. If Helen of Troy looked like Andrea Dworkin, a thousand ships would have rather sunk than set sail.

This sense of betrayal is what makes THE SEARCHERS so disturbing but also understandable. Initially, Ethan(John Wayne) sets out to save cute little Debbie from the Indian brutes. However, when, as a sexually matured young woman, she chooses the Red Tribe as her people, Ethan is overcome with a sense of betrayal and pulls out his gun. (But then, such a possibility had been lurking in his mind for some time.) Its dark but all-too-recognizable sexual themes(with racial overtones) made THE SEARCHERS a powerful and provocative work for later generations of artists and culture critics.

Similar obsessions are found in THE EXORCIST where the girl is taken not by warrior savages but by the Devil himself represented by Pazuzu with a long snake penis. And of course, TAXI DRIVER and HARDCORE, both written by Paul Schrader who, despite having distanced himself from a strict religious community, couldn’t overcome certain formative hang-ups, feature worlds in which young girls are lured into sexual slavery, albeit of their own choosing.

In a way, THE EXORCIST, for all its horror, is a more comforting work than either TAXI DRIVER or HARDCORE. At the very least, we can comfort ourselves that the Devil made Regan do it(mostly against her will) and that she could be saved by noble self-sacrificing priests. Besides, Regan under demonic possession is clearly a monstrous creature, and the girl cries out for help from beneath the ugly exterior(by etching ‘help me’ on her abdomen), much like a damsel longing for the knight to slay the dragon and take her home.

The disturbing implication of TAXI DRIVER and HARDCORE is that young girls all across America, of their own volition, may choose the bad side of town over the dull world of the straight and narrow(much like the errant son in Akira Kurosawa’s YOJIMBO opts for a short exciting life than a long life eating gruel).
In THE NORTHMAN, the hero’s search for his mother reveals that she wanted it that way, that she despised her husband as a weakling unfit to be the lord of anything and a hypocrite to boot. The ‘damsel’ can turn out to be the ‘dragon’, a gloomy thought that is at the heart of THE ILIAD, as Helen seems to prefer Paris to her husband and Troy to the backwater of Mycenae. The monstrousness is of their own choosing, their own free will. There’s no Devil in plain sight to make them do things against their own will, like puking all over or twisting one’s head 180 degrees.

Therefore, the Devil is oddly therapeutic in serving as a scapegoat, the simple source of all that is horrible in the world. In THE EXORCIST III, for example, forget about the real-world problems of black crime; instead, just pretend Patrick Ewing is an angel and that THE DEVIL goes around torturing and murdering adorable and innocent black boys.

Of course, the problem of blackness is situational and contextual. In and of itself, blackness isn’t a problem, especially if limited to where it originated and belongs. But when blackness is relocated to a world that operates according to different modes of conduct, it can be problematic and even grow into a social evil.
Likewise, wolves, gorillas, badgers, and alligators in their own habitats are not a problem. If anything, they were adapted to survive in their own natural niches. But transporting such organisms into different habitats could upset the existing natural balance and cause real harm to them and/or to the native species. And if placed in the human world, the result could be hellish for the humans and the animals(as humans will be forced to take drastic measures to cull them). Thus, what isn’t evil in and of itself in its own environment can be problematic in a different environment where the overall impact may go from bad to worse to even evil(for both sides). Dinosaurs aren’t evil, but reviving them to run wild in the human world could be a kind of evil, as in JURASSIC PARK.

Consider the impact of the Asian carp and European wild boar in North America. While the fish and pigs aren’t evil, the overall impact on the environment and native species has been devastating. While such species weren’t introduced with evil intent, the result has been downright criminal. If people did something similar deliberately to cause harm, that would be evil, akin to arson.
Blackness was adapted to Sub-Saharan Africa where blacks over the eons evolved traits suitable to their particular land and climate, to the flora and fauna. By civilized standards, black savages might have appeared crazy, but being a black savage in a savage world made perfect sense.

The evil was in forcibly transporting millions of black Africans to the New World for exploitation. It was an act of evil not only against blacks but to civilization itself because, upon the inevitable abolition of slavery, blacks would not only be free men but free men with traits more suited for jungle-jivery than to the duties of civilization. Also, as evolution made blacks tougher and more aggressive, they were bound to use their freedom to act like hunter-warrior thugs against the weaker races deemed as prey. Thus, blackness became an evil to civilization once it was displaced from its origins and placed in the heart of Western Civilization.

Now, some would argue that it’s unfair and, of course, ‘racist’ to use the analogy of invasive species in a discussion on blacks. Blacks are human after all. True, blacks are human, but the sentimental, humanistic, and/or ideological use of ‘humanity’ and ‘mankind’ obfuscates the real differences that exist among the races. Blacks are not whites with black skin, no more than whites are blacks with white skin. There are noticeable and even profound differences. Just because all human races belong to one species doesn’t mean they are all the same or equally suited for every environment. Likewise, wolves, dogs, and coyotes can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring, therefore qualifying as members of a single species, but the differences among wolves, coyotes, and the various breeds of dogs aren’t negligible.

In some ways, blacks are more dangerous than various animals to the non-black races because they have both the protection of humans(and thus are guaranteed all the rights of citizens in a civilized setting) and the propensity to act apelike. It means even when blacks act like chimps and baboons, they must be treated as the rest of us. What with Negrolatry as the new cult among whites, it’s gotten to the point where blacks, the most savage and destructive race, are regarded as divine beings and sacred objects. Yes, whites now worship the race that loots entire business districts and burns down entire building blocks.

If blacks acted human(in the civilized sense), blackness wouldn’t be much of a problem. Or, if blacks could be treated as a different category of humans, the ones with natural nasty-savage genes, blackness would once again be easier to deal with, i.e. if blacks act like wild animals, they’d be treated like wild animals. For too long, blacks have been acting like savages or animals, but whites have been treating them as civilized humans. Worse, blacks act even wilder and crazier, but whites treat them like saints, angels, and gods. Such levels of delusion can only be evil.

The notion that civilization is less threatened by various species of animals than by a certain group of humans is borne out by India. While cows and monkeys cause all sorts of problems, they are far less damaging than blacks are to the West. Monkeys can be a hassle, but they don’t create Detroits and Baltimores in India. Cows may wander the street and slow things down, but they don’t rob, rape, and burn down entire cities. If an American town had a choice between accepting raccoons and coyotes or blacks, it would do better with the wild animals than with blacks whose form of humanity is savage and oogity. Besides, if some raccoons and coyotes got out of hand, they could be culled, or treated like animals. But if blacks rape and murder in the worst ways, they would still have to be treated as fellow civilized folks, or indulged as ‘marginalized groups’. Blacks marginalized? They are placed at the center of White Imagination gone tawdry.

In a similar vein, the Terrorist Threat became a favorite bogeyman after 9/11. Unlike all the insurmountable problems at home with no solution in sight(especially as White America lost the will to stand up to Jews, homos, blacks, and illegals), the country could direct its collective rage against this thing called ‘Terror’, something all ‘good people’ could rally around.
Likewise, the ‘woke’ believe that the main source of evil is MAGA or ‘systemic racism’ or ‘homophobia’, against which the angelic and saintly forces of BLM and globo-homo rally to make for a rainbow future. Faced with a harsh reality and stifled by taboos, a Manichean formula of Good vs Evil can be a source of comfort, that is until reality finally comes around to grab one by the ankles.

As a counterpoint, the endings of TAXI DRIVER and even more so of HARDCORE present the possibility that, in a devil-less world, plenty of people could be accustomed or favorably disposed to their ‘fallen’ state. Unlike the priests of THE EXORCIST, Travis Bickle’s one-man ‘exorcism’ of the pimps to save the supposed damsel isn’t a clear-cut act of good against evil.
Martin Scorsese had already won critical accolades with MEAN STREETS, which came out in the same year as THE EXORCIST and is no less Catholic-themed. In the film, the minor hoodlum Charlie wants to make it in the mafia business but also serve God, and he is drawn in part to his epileptic girlfriend and his deranged ‘best friend’ Johnny Boy for that very reason. He figures that by ‘saving’ them, he can score some points with God. (Or maybe he envies Johnny Boy for possessing a kind of purity, even if in a bad way. Johnny Boy is 100% committed to being an delinquent, whereas Charlie straddles the fence between conscience and crime, incapable of committing to either. Thus, the attempt to ‘save’ Johnny Boy could subconsciously be a way of compromising his ‘black sainthood’.)

Among the crime movies, the Counter-Counterculture produced THE FRENCH CONNECTION and DIRTY HARRY, now considered classics, at one end of the spectrum, and DEATH WISH and its pale imitators at the other end. Even though William Friedkin and Gene Hackman made proto-PC-sounding noises about the cop Popeye Doyle being a ‘racist’, the audience ate it up precisely for that very reason, though the core of the movie is about Doyle vs. the French-Italian gangsters. With crime so out of control in the Big Rotten Apple, it was bracing to see a tough cop chase down black junkies and shake down black dealers. (According to AMERICAN GANGSTER by Ridley Scott, it wasn’t so much the Europeans but some enterprising Negro with connections to Southeast Asia who was flooding New York with heroin.)

But if in the realism of THE FRENCH CONNECTION, Doyle was merely doing his job, the violence took on mythic proportions in DIRTY HARRY. Harry Callahan vs Scorpio is more than good guy vs bad guy but a matter of Good vs Evil. No wonder Pauline Kael derisively characterized Callahan as ‘Saint Cop’. He seems to be jaded and cynical, hardly the spiritual type, but he takes on his mission as an avenging archangel against Scorpio who is more an evil incarnate than a mere villain. Unlike Ethan of THE SEARCHERS who ultimately saves(and spares) the girl, Callahan couldn’t save the girl from Scorpio’s clutches, and he’s committed to sending the Manson-clone to hell(though he dies in a splash of baptism). As with THE FRENCH CONNECTION, the main villain is white, but there’s a nod to rampant black criminality to lend it street cred with the audience, as when Callahan blows away a bunch of Negro bank robbers and gleefully torments Buckwheat-gone-bad with a game of San Francisco Roulette.

The 1980s were perhaps the last hurrah for the White Patriarch(or Father Figure), what with Ronald Reagan at the helm for two terms, followed by the weak father George H.W. Bush, after which we had three Sonny Figures in Billy Boy Clinton, George Dumbya, and Barry Obammy. (Trump and Biden come across as pimps though acting like whores, to the Jews of course.)

In cultural terms, the White Father Figure died a slow and then sudden death in the movies and TV. They went from a source of authority, stability, knowledge, and even wisdom to objects of criticism and ‘deconstruction’, albeit with some empathy(and even grudging admiration), to objects of scorn and derision, to objects of irrelevance and oblivion, and finally to objects of torture and humiliation(as with the destruction of the Robert E. Lee statue in Virginia by Negroes greenlit by Jews and white cucks). Even in the works where the patriarchal figure retained a degree of respect, especially the movies of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, they were secondary figures to young heroes whose main appeal was youthful narcissism.

Of course, the father-figure need not be a father in the literal sense, e.g. John Wayne often played a tough fatherly role to young men in movies such as RED RIVER, SANDS OF IWO JIMA, and HORSE SOLDIERS. Though usually not an ideal figure, especially in RED RIVER and THE SEARCHERS, his characters command recognition as tough guys in tough times. You can’t expect Mr. Rogers to lead a bunch of men in Iwo Jima(though, to be sure, it was the more Rogersy James Stewart who served in World War II, not the Duke). Ben Jonson’s role as a small town patriarch is most memorable in THE LAST PICTURE SHOW, a film that was as nostalgic for the old as it was a model of New Hollywood.

In the Fifties, there were shows like FATHER KNOWS BEST and LEAVE IT IN BEAVER, and TV Westerns like GUNSMOKE and BONANZA were nothing without their congenial patriarchs. The story of the West was bound to favor the neo-patriarchs as it required hierarchy and organization, not just freedom and movement, to create order out of the wilderness. While plenty of patriarchal types in Old Hollywood movies were far from perfect, what was unquestioned was the need for such men, just as it was a given that the world couldn’t do without God.
If a father-figure was bad, he needed to be replaced with a good one as the notion of a void without a chief, a boss, or a leader was inconceivable.
Even in rebellion, as in TEN COMMANDMENTS and SPARTACUS, the man of the hour with fatherly(or at least husbandly) qualities shapes a rabble into a meaningful collective. (Granted, the leader type need not always fit the patriarchal mold. Alexander the Great surely appealed to the counterculture side of Oliver Stone because the young Macedonian took charge early and, as the legend would have it, acted on visionary impulse than cautious strategizing.)

Perhaps, the over-idealization of the father figure led to a powerful sense of betrayal at both the personal and political level. Consider the moment in DEATH OF A SALESMAN when Biff finds out about his father’s infidelity, which, more than anything, leads to his disillusionment about life in general. And if the military commanders of World War II were seen as godlike patriarchs, their counterparts in the Vietnam War came to be regarded as mendacious, craven, and/or incompetent.
There had always been lousy, stupid, abusive, negligent, and irresponsible fathers in family life and father-figures in public life. But for the sake of so