Wednesday, June 30, 2021

CAPE FEAR - Scorsese's Battle of Moralities

 

By

TERRI MURRAY

    “Among all the forms of intelligence that have been discovered to date, ‘instinct’ is the most intelligent. In short, you psychologists should study the philosophy of the ‘rule’ in its battle with the ‘exception’: there you will have a spectacle fit for the gods and for divine malice!”
    Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil (1885)


Martin Scorsese’s 1991 re-make of J. Lee Thompson’s 1962 film Cape Fear gave him a perfect opportunity to explore two of the themes for which he has become renowned – male violence and religion. But it also allowed him to incorporate Nietzsche’s critique of modern morality into a narrative, using the conflict between a law-abiding citizen and a violent criminal to illustrate the opposition between the liberal values Nietzsche despised (democracy, equality, socialism), and the more primal ‘noble values’ he admired.

The original film involved a predictable Hollywood conflict between Sam Bowden (Gregory Peck), a paragon of virtue, and Max Cady (Robert Mitchum), an irredeemably depraved predator. Peck plays an upstanding citizen in every way; a small town attorney and family man who witnessed Cady’s brutal assault on a woman. His testimony helped put the brute away for eight years. By contrast, Scorsese’s remake subjects the whole system of modern Western values to an inexorably Nietzschean scrutiny, by means of which Scorsese takes us beyond the clich éd Hollywood opposition of good and evil.

 


Max Cady: Mouthpiece for Nietzsche’s ‘Noble Values’


The 1991 film opens with a close-up on Danielle Bowden’s (Juliette Lewis’) face as she reminisces on her early childhood, a time when she and her family would visit their houseboat on the Cape Fear river: “I thought the only thing to fear on those enchanted summer nights was that the magic would end, and real life would come crashing in.” The scene then cuts to the wall of Max Cady’s (Robert DeNiro’s) cell, adorned with images of Nietzsche holding a sword, a saint being pierced by arrows, and Joseph Stalin, among other items. The camera tilts down, and we see Nietzsche’s The Will to Power and Thus Spake Zarathustra amongst a few criminal law books. Cady’s muscular back comes into frame. He is exercising, and there’s a huge tattoo on his back depicting the scales of justice in the form of a crucifix, with the word ‘Truth’ on one scale and the word ‘Justice’ on the other, a Bible and a drawn sword above each word respectively.

In his exposition of noble values, Nietzsche reminds us that the ancient Greek nobility he so admired called themselves ‘We truthful ones’. The honesty of the nobles consisted in their knowledge that they were creators of value, not mere discoverers of it. The noble person feels himself as determining value: he knows that he is the one who causes things to be revered, or feared. These previous higher cultures were founded by people who were “barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, predatory humans, whose strength of will and desire for power were still unbroken,” and who “threw themselves upon the weaker, more well-behaved, peaceable, perhaps trading or stockbreeding races, crumbling cultures whose remaining life force was flickering out in a brilliant fireworks display of wit and depravity.” (Beyond Good & Evil, Aphorism 257, trans Marian Faber.)

 


Scorsese himself draws on the image of fireworks, as a symbol of modern values as espoused by the French and American revolutions, by setting the start of Cape Fear on the day before Independence Day. We see Cady sitting on the wall that borders the Bowden property, fireworks bursting in the air behind him. The following day the Bowden family attend an Independence Day parade, while wholesome spectators (the Nietzschean herd) look on. All seems right with the world until reality comes crashing in. As a float passes, we get Sam Bowden’s (Nick Nolte’s) point of view – a shot of Cady on the opposite side of the road, but he isn’t watching the parade; his eyes are devouring Sam’s wife, Leigh. Sam pushes through the herd of spectators and attempts to punch Cady, but can hardly land a blow before the astonished crowd rescue Cady from the assault. At this point Cady mocks the justice system, threatening to sue Sam while the herd nods in approval.

 



It is no accident that Scorsese sets this mockery of rights in a crowd scene. Nietzsche described the proponents of a ‘free society’ as ‘herd animals’ united by a distrust of any justice that punishes, and by their common resistance to everything exceptional or privileged: “United in their religion of pity, in their empathy… united one and all in their mortal hatred of any suffering, in their almost feminine incapacity to remain a spectator to it, to allow suffering” the herd erected a system of equal rights, which prompts Nietzsche to ask rhetorically, “who needs ‘rights’ any more if everyone is equal?” (Aphorism 202.)

To Nietzsche the noble person is in touch with his animal instincts and drives, his will to power, and he knows that this will is the true motivator beneath the veneer of social graces typical of legal and religious institutions. Nietzsche contrasted moral codes with a freedom that is ‘natural’. While moral codes allow a kind offreedom, they are a tyranny against nature. In Nietzsche’s words, they function as “one long coercion.” Instead, Nietzsche advocated a freedom which allows the tyranny of despotic laws – a freedom which allows natural superiors to dominate the weaker – and claimed that by means of such constraints, true values emerge and the human species evolves:

    “all this violence, arbitrariness, harshness, horror, nonsense has turned out to be the means by which the European spirit was bred to be strong … much irreplaceable energy and spirit had to be suppressed, suffocated and spoiled in the process (for here as everywhere ‘nature’ reveals her true colours in all her extravagant and indifferent grandeur, which is infuriating but also noble).” (BGE, Aph. 188.)

Nietzsche further describes the noble person as one who “reveres the power in himself” and in his ability to enjoy “the practice of severity and harshness towards himself, and to respect everything that is severe and harsh.” (Aph. 260.) It was also Nietzsche who originally said “Whatever doesn’t kill me makes me stronger.” In the final act of Cape Fear, Cady lights a flare and watches unflinchingly as its hot wax drips down his arm. This is a striking revelation about Cady’s endurance for pain and harshness, represented as giving him an advantage over his relatively soft opponent. As the wax begins to drip, Cady tells Leigh, “Let’s get something straight here. I spent fourteen years in an eight by nine cell surrounded by people who were less than human. My mission in that time was to become more than human. You see… Grandaddy used to handle snakes in church. Granny drank strychnine. I guess you could say I had a leg up, genetically speakin’.” In Human, All Too Human (1878), Nietzsche claimed that the task of education is similarly to “make the individual so firm and sure that, as a whole being, he can no longer be diverted from his path. But then the educator must wound him, or use the wounds that fate delivers; when pain and need have come about in this way, something new and noble can also be inoculated into the wounded places. His whole nature will take it in, and show the ennoblement later in its fruits” (§V, 224, ‘Signs of Higher and Lower Culture’), and in both Human, All Too Human and Thus Spake Zarathustra Nietzsche wrote of the individual’s self-overcoming of the species ‘human’. In Zarathustra, the notion of ‘self-overcoming’ marks a significant development of Nietzsche’s theory of the will to power: power is not just domination over others, but, in the advanced stage, is manifest as self-overcoming. And knowledge, for Nietzsche, involves a ‘will to truth’ – a passion to learn from errors which teach us lessons of self-preservation. This ‘will to truth’ is a desire to let life be our teacher, to embrace the harsh lessons of experience, and to allow these lessons to shatter the illusions of established values. We must do this positively, out of a passion for life, because the relative comfort and safety of past values has corrupted our nature. So at one point Cady says, “every man carries a circle of hail around his head like a halo. Every man has to go through hell to reach his paradise.”

In many ways Scorsese’s Cady is a Nietzschean mouthpiece, opening the all-American Bowden family’s (and the audience’s) seemingly simple modern moral presuppositions to a thorough revaluation. To the Bowden family, Cady seems like an animal. Even Cady himself uses that language, once describing himself flatteringly as “one hell of an animal.” But in Scorsese’s hands, the common idea that an animal is less than human is supplanted by the Nietzschean idea of our animal nature being an essential part of being a complete human – a part that we repress at our peril.

 


Sam Bowden: Symbol of ‘Herd Morality’


For Nietzsche, the kind of virtue represented by Gregory Peck’s heroic Sam Bowden would be just a decadent extension of Christian ‘slave values’. Scorsese’s Sam Bowden (Nick Nolte) is not so clean-cut. He acted as Cady’s defence attorney when the latter was arrested on an aggravated rape charge, but buried crucial evidence that could have reduced Cady’s sentence, or even had him acquitted. Although Bowden thus betrayed his professional duty as a public defender, he was acting according to his conscience in refusing to let the law provide cover for a man he knew to be guilty of a brutal crime. Nor is Scorsese’s Bowden an ideal husband and father figure. He has a reputation for philandering, and his mar riage is rocky, to put it mildly. His daughter wants a heroic protector figure, but instead overhears endless arguments between her parents, and questions her father’s fidelity. It is into this already fragile context that Cady appears, wreaking havoc on the family and testing their survival skills when stripped of the legal bulwarks within which Sam is accustomed to fighting.

As a public defender, Sam Bowden is particularly symbolic of modern moral values. His job is to represent the ethical norms of a modern liberal democracy – a form of life that Nietzsche described as “having lost all of its organic functions.” Yet Bowden has had serious doubts about whether the law is always just, and to defeat Cady’s Nietzschean anti-hero in his battle for survival, he must eventually go outside civilization’s protective walls and face his enemy where nature is, as Nietzsche would describe it, “still natural”. Thus the arc of the story traces Bowden’s gradual transformation from a civilized but cowardly lawyer into a primitive but redeemed beast. At the beginning of the film the lean, bespectacled Sam is a small-town North Carolina lawyer who may bend a few rules for his friends now and then, but reveres the law and is successful from it. Yet with his own legal cunning and psychological prowess, as well as his ability to evoke fear, Cady pushes Sam out of his comfort zone. Step by step, Cady forces Sam to move away from the sanctuary of the legal system, until Sam concedes that his family’s only hope of surviving Cady’s assaults will be for Sam to go outside the legal citadel and fight like an animal. At first Sam uses legal means to try to harass Cady out of town, using his connections in law enforcement to subject the ex-con to strip searches and surveillance. But Cady has been reading law books, and knows how to avoid legal traps. After Cady poisons the Bowden family dog and brutally rapes Sam’s colleague, Sam gives up on the police and hires a private detective called Kersek to watch Cady. Kersek tempts Sam to hire thugs to do a ‘hospital job’ on Cady, but Sam still clings to the hope that he can contain Cady’s power by legal means: “I’m a lawyer. Maybe two thousand years ago we’d have taken this guy out and stoned him to death. I can’t operate outside the law. The law is my business.” The scene cuts immediately to a pan of fried chicken in the Bowden home, and a close-up on Sam’s face as he arrives home – an intentional innuendo, reinforced by Leigh’s contemptuous look when Sam walks into the kitchen. However, by the end, Sam does take Cady out and stone him to death (literally), and this act of catharsis expunges all remaining civility in him. Afterwards, Sam, crouched barefoot in the wet earth like a primate, is able to wash his hands of Cady’s blood. The implication is that Sam was guilty of pretending to be civilized – of repressing his primordial nature. This evolution away from a Western ‘herd morality’ towards a primordial ‘master morality’ is depicted as an improvement in Sam’s character. It’s one Nietzsche would certainly have greeted with approval. Nietzsche regarded human progress as the move away from the moral stage of history, towards the extra-moral stage.


Before being fully transformed into a blond beast, Sam attempts to keep the violence at arm’s length, and takes Kersek’s advice and hires some men to rough Cady up. Cady outwits Sam again, by overpowering the attackers and then using a tape of a threat made by Sam prior to the assault to take him to court. As a wink to the original film, Scorsese casts Gregory Peck as Lee Heller, the prestigious civil rights lawyer who defends Cady, helping him get a restraining order against Sam. At the trial, the Judge expounds high-minded ideals, saying he will grant the restraining order against Bowden “not to validate the malice between you, but in the interest of Christian harmony.” At this point Heller/Peck chirps, “Even King Solomon could not have adjudicated more wisely.” These phrases link the moral values Nietzsche despised to their Judeo-Christian roots, and hold both up to ridicule by showing that the law is only as just as those who use it. In this case, the high ideals are expounded in the context of a miscarriage of justice, debasing them.

Under Kersek’s influence Sam finally decides to use the law as Cady does – cleverly, as an instrument of his will to power, and not as an absolute. He and Kersek attempt to lure Cady into the Bowden home, where it will be legal to shoot the intruder. To ensnare Cady, Sam must appear to be away from home, and consequently is forced to crouch down so that he cannot be seen by Cady through the windows. This provides Scorsese with a visual way to express Sam’s Nietzschean ‘evolution’ back to a more atavistic state: his transition from representing the law as valuable in itself, to his use of the law as a tool in the arsenal of his will, is simultaneous with his transition from a biped to a hominid crawling on all fours. Danielle, who thinks the plan to entrap Cady is “hideous” and “barbaric” also taunts her father sarcastically, “remember Dad, you can’t stand up” – thus implying that she thinks he’s a coward.

 
When this plan goes wrong and the Bowden family flee their home to hide away on their houseboat, Sam phones the police to explain that he is acting under force majeure (the term literally means ‘greater force’); so “legally speaking, it means all bets are off.” At this point Sam and his family have nothing to depend upon but their own wits. Sam achieves his ultimate victory over his enemy and saves his marriage by shedding his conformity to moral decency and fighting like a savage. The final scene of the film sees Sam hunched down on the ground like an ape, grunting like an animal, and fighting to the death with nothing but a stone for a weapon.
The Significance of Fear


It is only by reverting to and embracing his inner beast that Sam is finally able to defeat Cady. Chief amongst these animal instincts is fear, and Scorsese takes several opportunities in Cape Fear to explore fear from a Nietzschean perspective. Thus, when Cady speaks to Danielle in a theatre (whose set is an enchanted forest), he lists her fears, and tells her that she “can use all those fears to draw upon and learn.” In a later scene, as Sam is anxiously waiting for Cady to break into his home so that he and Kersek can lawfully shoot him, Sam expresses his misgivings about shooting another man. Kersek replies, “You’re scared. But that’s OK. I want you to savour that fear. You know the South evolved in fear – fear of the Indian, fear of the slave, fear of the damn Union. The South has a fine tradition of savouring fear.”

Nietzsche similarly claimed that slave morality, the morality of the herd, defines the ‘evil’ person as the one who evokes fear. In previous times, when groups had to defend themselves from external threats, the dangerous instincts that induced fear in opponents, such as rapacity and lust for power, were revered as beneficial to the community. Later, when society was secured against external threats, these same instincts were stigmatized, for now the danger they represented was not to a common enemy but to one’s neighbour. Thus the community erects a morality of neighbourly love from fear of one’s neighbour. Everything that raises an individual above the common crowd and causes his neighbour to fear him is labelled ‘evil’ by the herd, who now give respect to the modest, equalizing mentality that treats only the most average desires and passions as worthy of respect. Nietzsche felt that Europeans adopted this sense of ‘good’ as ‘harmless’ primarily because of fear – thus identifying fear as the mother of morality. But according to Nietzsche, the person who evokes fear, and wants to evoke it, is the ‘good’ person.

Cady the thug is adamant that the attorney Sam is no better than him. When Cady overpowers the three men hired to do the ‘hospital job’ on him, and begins to stalk Sam. The latter is visibly terrified at the possibility that he will have to face Cady one-to-one. As Cady approaches the garbage bin behind which Sam is cowering, Cady says: “I ain’t no white trash piece of shit – I’m better than you all! I can out-learn you. I can out-read you. I can out-think you and I can out-philosophize you! And I’m gonna out-last you. You think a couple a whacks to my good-ole-boy guts is gonna get me down? It’s gonna take a lot more’n that, counsellor, to prove you’re better’n me!”

 


Beyond Cape Fear

In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche contrasts ‘decadent’ modern European culture to the ‘noble’ cultures of the past. He observes that “at the beginning, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: its dominance was not due to its physical strength primarily, but rather to its spiritual – these were the more complete human beings (which at every level also means ‘the more complete beasts’).” Cady overpowers Sam precisely through his strength of will and his stamina to endure until the time is right to pounce upon his prey; and Sam triumphs only when he utilises his strength. This fits well with Nietzsche’s understanding of spiritual power as a system of constraints and self-overcoming. So love it or hate it, Scorsese’s Cape Fear succeeds in illuminating Nietzsche’s influential ideas by means of its central narrative conflict.

 Article taken from: philosophynow.org

 

Monday, June 21, 2021

Summer Solstice - The Fires of Folkish Awakening

 


"We were proud of our big solstice fire, which blazed into the heavens on the ridge opposite the hometown, announcing that a small group of boys and girls today celebrated the solstice with fervent thoughts and desires in their hearts, to awaken and arouse the people of their homeland to the holy struggle of liberation from the shackles of the nefarious Versailles Treaty. The flames should liberate us and...illuminate our way, they should warm us with the love of our great people and of its high culture and they should incinerate all discord among us Germans" 

JOSEF MENGELE - Summer Solstice with the GROSSDEUTSCHEN JUGENDBUND


 

Sunday, June 20, 2021

Father's Day - This You Can Trust!

 

 Fire and wind come from the sky, from the gods of the sky. But Crom is your god, Crom and he lives in the earth. Once, giants lived in the Earth, Conan. And in the darkness of chaos, they fooled Crom, and they took from him the enigma of steel. Crom was angered. And the Earth shook. Fire and wind struck down these giants, and they threw their bodies into the waters, but in their rage, the gods forgot the secret of steel and left it on the battlefield. We who found it are just men. Not gods. Not giants. Just men. The secret of steel has always carried with it a mystery. You must learn its riddle, Conan. You must learn its discipline. For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts... [points to sword] This you can trust.

Taken from CONAN THE BARBARIAN



Sunday, June 6, 2021

MARTIN EDEN 2019 - A Film Review

 

 

MARTIN EDEN is a Italian-French produced drama film based on Jack London's 1909 novel with the same name.

Instead of Oakland, California that the story is taking place in the original, in the film Martin Eden is placed in the old Naples, Italy.

A poor young man with no educational background is striving to become a succesful writer. The film is the journey of a man, starts as a sailor and ends with his suicide in the moment of his highest glory as a famous, rich writer who is touring the world. This and everything in between is a spiritual quest, a battle against all and even with one's self.
Its without doubt a semi-autobiographical work based on Jack London himself and its there that we will find many things taking from the life of the writer himself.

Philosophically the film is full of Nietzschean references as well as other writers. 

Firstly it is Baudelaire's Fleurs du Mal that Martin Eden consumes in nights at his bed, later he is refering to T.S. Eliot at a public meeeting. But as it seems the writer that has the biggest impact on him is Herbert Spencer, the social darwinist English philosopher of "Survival of the Fittest" and the concept of natural selection.

In politics, It also clearly protrayed in the film that Martin Eden,  rejects Socialism as well as Liberalism. Even though his close friend Russ Brissenden is a devout socialist and his lover's family (Orsini) are Liberals. Martin Eden violently opposes both sides because of their mentality thats its for the weak, the slaves and the herd.

In Martin Eden there is also elements of previous work of London such The Sea Wolf (the rough sea life if a simple sailor) and also the Iron Heel (the poor surroundings and encounters with socialists, strikes and injustices in daily work).
Also like the other heroes of Jack London, the spirit of adventure is really strong in Martin Eden too. Instead of a conventional life with the safety and good payment from a daily work, Martin Eden prefer the life of a drifter. The wanderer who goes from place to place, do mostly farming works and spend most of its time on writing.

In the end he finally become a succeful writer but at the same time more despair than ever before. He still have of his old spirit in him as it portrayed in the man to man combat scene. But in the end his publisher saved him by paying his enemy.

In the end, it is clear that Jack London write about his preferred way to die. And so he had done some years after his "Martin Eden".

All in All, "Martin Eden" is a really well made film, that approached with respect Jack London's novel.

Ranked : 7,5/10

 Below are some of the best scenes of the film

 

 
"Heroica" is the name of the magazine that published the first story of Martin Eden as a writter. The symbolism is obvious.

The spirit of the old Naples is oftenly portrayedin the movie. From its low poor districts to some of its monuments in a rainy day.
 
Martin Eden encouraged by his friend Russ Brissenden to speak at a socialist meeting. There he openly reject socialist ideas and warn the public what will happen when the weak and the slaves will take control. In the end throw him out of the hall.
"All around me I see slaves, slaves for hundreds or thousand years. The healthy people are better organized, owning slaves and control the weak. How it possible the natural law to be abolished by a moral law?"
 
 
Dinner with the Orsini family. It is there that Martin Eden now rejects also the ideas of liberalism and the economy of the free market.
 
Near to the end the feeling of despair is getting stronger. Here Martin Edden visits an old harbor.

As the end get closer, Martin Eden walks amongst ruins

The grand finale of a writter. Death in the sunset. In the final scene of the movie, the hero fell in sea and while swiming, he is lost in the horizon. Here Jack London forewarn about his own end too (but using different way).





Friday, June 4, 2021

The Selective Socialism of The Young Jack London

 

 


“There never was a good biography of a good novelist,” F. Scott Fitzgerald once observed. “He is too many people, if he’s any good.” This dictum holds particularly true in the case of Jack London (1876–1916). For biographers and critics as well, he is the most elusive of subjects. As a person, as a writer, and most of all as a man of ideas, he continually takes on different and sharply contrasting forms.

For nearly half of his short, turbulent and adventurous life he was a member of the Socialist Party. He wrote books and articles championing Socialist principles. He liked to end his letters with “Yours for the revolution.” Twice he ran as a Socialist for mayor of his hometown Oakland (he came nowhere near victory). Once, when serving as president of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, he spoke with menacing rhetoric of an imminent violent revolution at Harvard and Yale. Long revered as a patron saint of the left, he was for years the most widely read American author in the Soviet Union.

 


His best-known Socialist work is The Iron Heel (1907). Set in a future America, the novel expounds Marxist theory and vividly portrays the bloody suppression of a workers’ revolt by a Bilderbergerish cabal of plutocrats called the Oligarchy. Predictably, Iiberal-minority critics praise the book as a prophetic vision of the evils of twentieth-century fascism. Just as predictably, they deplore the shadowy presence of London the hereditarian. To him the book’s slum proletarians, “the people of the abyss,” are “the refuse and the scum of life,” a stock irredeemably inferior to the plutocrats and the Socialist elite who are the heroes and heroines of the novel.

London was usually much more explicit about the genetic coloring of his Socialism. He once horrified some fellow party members by declaring: “What the Devil! I am first of all a white man and only then a Socialist!” And he wrote a friend, “Socialism is not an ideal system devised for the happiness of all men. It is devised so as to give more strength to [Northern European] races so that they may survive and inherit the earth to the extinction of the lesser, weaker races.”

 


London became a Socialist because first-hand experience — he once worked 14-hour days in a cannery for ten cents an hour — had made him an enemy of economic injustice. But Socialist theory was just one of the three strong intellectual currents of the time that shaped his world view and found expression in his writing. He was also drawn, by his instinctive belief in the primacy of the self, to the ideas of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Max Stirner. The third, probably the most profound influence on his thinking, was Darwinism and Herbert Spencer’s application of it to philosophy and ethics. This doctrine was for London an essential key to the pattern of existence.

The contradictions’ between such divergent sources, writes London’s most recent biographer, Andrew Sinclair (Jack, 1977), “suited his divided nature. . . .  Jack was most a Socialist when he was depressed. . . . When he felt confident, he decided that the survival of the self and the race determined all human behavior.”

 



We cannot judge to what extent it is fair to describe London’s thinking in terms of manic-depressive psychology. But it is certainly true that throughout his work the writer gravitates from one theoretical matrix to another. For example, in describing his own climb to eminence, either in autobiography or in thinly disguised fiction (notably in the 1909 novel Martin Eden), he casts himself variously as a social underdog victimized by class barriers, as a man of indomitable will, and as a biological specimen superbly fitted for survival.

However he depicted it, his rise was an impressive story. He fought his way up from poverty, educated himself, served a grueling literary apprenticeship, and virtually by main force became a popular, well-paid and influential writer. Glorying in his hard-won status, he established himself in baronial (and un-Socialist) fashion on a sprawling California ranch and labored to maintain his lifestyle by grinding out an average of three books a year.




By instinct and by conviction, London was a literary naturalist-one of a new breed of writers who focused on the harsh, deterministic forces shaping nature and human society. Working at the top of his form, he had an enormous gift for graphically dramatizing primal conflict, and several of his books are classics of their kind. The most famous of these are two novels: The Call of the Wild (1903), in which the canine hero, Buck, learns “the law of the club and fang” in the Yukon; and The Sea-Wolf (1904), a complex and compelling portrait of a sealer captain who is a proto-superman.

Unfortunately, London is not at his best when he makes racial themes central in his fiction. The material, like most of his work, has raw power and vitality. But the modern reader will also find it full of operatic melodrama, stereotyped characters, and Kiplingesque assumptions about the imperial mission of the Anglo-Saxons. (Kipling was a major influence on London’s style and many of his attitudes.)


 


However, one of London’s themes, racial displacement, is more relevant now than when he wrote. It is the theme of his novel The Valley of the Moon (1913), a sympathetic study of poor, landless Anglo-Saxon Americans in California. They have lost the land to exploiters of their own kind, to more energetic immigrants, and through their own improvidence. They are “the white folks that failed.” Their salvation, London says, lies in returning with new dedication to the land that is their birthright. His prescription, simplistic as it is, merits respect as a pioneering attempt. And we should note that it has been followed in recent years by a small but significant number of Majority members, people who for various reasons have gone back to the land to start over again.

The innate superiority of Anglo Saxon stock to all others is an article of faith in The Valley of the Moon and in London’s work generally. He was himself of Welsh descent on his mother’s side, English on the side of his presumptive father, a vagabond jack of-all-trades who never married London’s mother and never admitted his paternity.

 


 
Racial displacement on a larger scale is foreseen in The Mutiny of the Elsinore (1914). The hero-narrator, obviously London’s persona, is a playwright on an ocean voyage whose atavistic instincts help him crush a mutiny of his genetic inferiors But even as he exults in his victory, he judges it as all for naught in the long historical pull; and throughout the novel he delivers twilight-of-the-gods valedictories to his own kind, the blond,“white-skinned, blue-eyed A
ryan.” Born to roam over the world and govern and command it, the paleface Aryan “perishes because of the too-white light he encounters” The brunette races “will inherit the earth, not because of their capacity for mastery and government, but because of their skin-pigmentation which enables their tissues to resist the ravages of the sun.”

This strange hypothesis the writer got from The Effects of Tropical Light on White Men, a book by a Major Woodruff. It was a theory which had been made horribly real for London by the nightmarish skin disease he had contracted on a cruise in the Solomon Islands.

London’s racial pessimism was reinforced by the decline in his fortunes in the last years of his life and by World War I, which he viewed as an orgy of racial fratricide But the writer who once had a heroine make the sensible observation that “white men shouldn’t go around killing each other” was outvoted by the inveterate Anglo-Saxon, and he became an advocate of American intervention on the side of England against Germany (One reason he left the SociaIist Party in 1916 was to protest its neutralist position. Another was his growing dissatisfaction with its dogma. “Liberty, freedom, and independence,” he wrote in his letter of resignation, “are royal things that cannot be presented to, nor thrust upon, races or classes.”)

 


Given to treating his increasing numbers of ailments, including alcoholism, with morphine and arsenic compounds, he died in 1916 of a self-administered drug overdose. Whether it was accidental or deliberate has never been determined

It is easy enough in retrospect to point out the flaws in London’s racial thinking. But the point to be stressed is that he knew, through his instinct and reason, how primary a factor race is, and he is one of the very few writers in this century who deals forthrightly with the fundamental role of racial dynamics in human affairs.

Like Proteus, London assumes different forms the Darwinian, the Socialist, the self-styled Nietzschean “blond beast,” the man of letters, the man of action, the “sailor on horseback” of his projected autobiography, and the major American author He is also reminiscent of the sea god in that he was something of a prophet. For example, the writer of such works as The Call of the Wild can be considered, to use biographer Sinclair’s words, “the prophet of the correspondences between beasts and men,” and a forerunner of Lorenz and E. O. Wilson.

Sinclair goes on to observe that London’s varied prophetic gifts make him “curiously modern as a thinker, despite the dark corridors of his racial beliefs.” Those of us who have made empirical journeys through our own “dark corridors,” will conclude that in this territory too London IS “curiously modern” and prophetic.

 Article taken from INSTAURATION Magazine - Vol. 3 no.8 (1978)

 


 SEE ALSO:

Ghosts of The Past PART 2 - The Wolf House