Immortality and Building a Metropolis: A View from Mad Max

Hype is a pernicious and all-too-prevalent phenomenon in today’s film industry – but even with that caveat it is quite difficult to overstate the quality of Mad Max: Fury Road.

While not a classic in the truest sense (for this, the exemplars would be Psycho or the Godfather, or even Shawshank Redemption), and while arguably not superior to the second instalment of the original trilogy (Mad Max: Road Warrior), it certainly is a piece of original genius and achievement that could place in the lowest ranks of a credible (say, the American Film Institute’s) “Top 100 of All Time” list. By no means is it mediocre.

I believe that the brilliance of the film speaks for itself, so there is little point in further adding to the praise it has garnered. (That’s not to say that I agree with everything in the film, or that it is without imperfection, but such flaws as it has are really few and far between.)

Instead I thought to draw out one aspect of the film which struck me – how to build a functioning society from nothing, and what that entails: treating people as meat resources, requiring a strongman to hold all in check, holding that leader in deep respect, veneration even. (Further similarities exist between this and the Sumerians, as described elsewhere in this blog, but this is not the place for elaboration.)

I looked upon Immortan Joe and I beheld our very own Old Man, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

I looked at the one / And beheld the other.

Citadel from radioactive desert wasteland / Gleaming and prosperous metropolis from mudflats, swamp, fishing village in hostile South East Asian jungle

Functioning and ordered society from apocalyptic war and conflict over scarce resources / Functioning and ordered country from racial riots, political turmoil, insecurity and chaos, economic uncertainty, Indonesian Confrontation

Green place with fresh agriculture / Garden city with booming economy and high standards of living

People as meat resources – living blood banks, milk banks, ova banks / People as economic units, economically productive, financially self-sustaining citizens, or conscript soldiery

Scarce resources (water) used as means of societal control / Scarce resources (money, land) used as means of societal control

Religious cult built around the leader / Veneration of the founding PM and his “values”

One-man rule / Benevolent dictatorship

Breeding schemes / Eugenics and graduate mothers schemes

Men coated in white as ruling class / Men dressed in white as ruling political party

A scene popped into my head:

Mr Lee Kuan Yew was on a platform on a cliff face emblazoned with the CPF symbol in place of the Immortan’s steering wheel-and-skull insignia, and he pushed titanic policy levers forward to release a spasm of CPF monies to the grasping masses far below.

“Do not become addicted to welfare,” he intoned, “It will take hold of you, and you will resent its absence."

Is there a moral lesson to this? There is obviously a moralising grain to the film but I’m not sure if this can be transplanted wholesale, unmodified, to a proper evaluation of the life and work and legacy of the late Mr Lee. What is right in film can be wrong in reality. Film is simple, real life – and real politics – is complicated, and all that. We certainly cannot justifiably measure both Immortan Joe and Mr Lee with the exact same rod. And even if we did, we would possibly find them separated (perhaps just barely) by the benchmark of strict necessity.

And yet, and yet, the similarities remain stark – and disquieting.

Stop, stop, Arsenal is already dead

Why do I keep following them?

It's just like:

Reflection: 15 Feb 2016

“The first unambiguously attested states yet known emerged round about 3200 BC in the Nile Valley and in southern Mesopotamia – ‘unambiguously’, because writing had been invented in those two areas, and we have documents instead of merely archaeological records. There must certainly have been states before this: city-states, at least, since Jericho had massive walls and a temple shrine as early as c.6500 BC – but we know nothing of its social and political life. Likewise, there were important states after this which, if we could interpret their writing, might well disclose a political order to match the Egyptian or Sumerian: Minoan Crete, for example, that flourished between 2000 and 1450 BC. These states, however, all have another characteristic besides unfathomability: they were ‘one-off’ states, dead-end states. As they arose suddenly and in mystery, so they perished suddenly, in mysterious circumstances; and, dead, left no progeny. Their very existence was unknown until their ruins were exposed by the spade within the last hundred years.

This is emphatically not true of the Sumerian or Egyptian civilisations, which passed their tradition on through space and time. In a world-historical perspective, the Middle East is the cradle of organised government, and it was to retain its cultural, political, and military supremacy even under increasing pressure for over 2000 years.”

-   Finer, Vol I, pg 99 

http://sghardtruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/lky-singapore-out.jpg

The last time I heard talk of a thousand-year polity, it did not end well.

One suspects this city state would cleave more closely to the example of Minoan Crete. Born in sudden surprise, gone quietly – or worse – into the night. Gone without meaningful trace – all physical foundations built for and on transient finance, no real attempt nor even minor success at creating lasting purpose, culture, ideas, belief. Little, therefore, beyond a study into pecuniary transaction, for the archaeologists that come digging centuries hence; nothing, thus, for those seeking high culture and classical civilisation millennia from now.

--------------------------------------

Post Script:

But, of course, none of this is to say that the Island Republic didn’t have parallels with Mesopotamian antiquity. The parallels are present. But at this point, I suspend moral valuation. The drawing of parallels which follows does not suggest measurement against ideals – good or evil, right or wrong – none of that. The history cited here simply describes what was. And, in turn, we simply find that it uncannily reflects what is.

“The terms ensi and lugal do not make their appearance before c. 2750-2600 BC (early Dynastic II)... The word lugal is, simply, lu-gal, ‘great man’. Significantly, however, ‘this is the only term available in Sumerian to express a master’s complete control over his slaves, or an owner’s over his house’. It seems to have escaped notice that this meaning is identical with the one Aristotle attaches to the Greek term ‘despot’. The fact that (later, of course) all administrative officials are ‘slaves’ (Sumerian ir) of the kings (inscribed on their seals) reinforces the point.” – pg 114

“The king of a city... sat on his throne specifically to order the people’s service to the gods and on him depended not only the routine business of the city, or even its safety and independence, but its well-being and the bounty of Nature itself. This immense responsibility of rulership implied an equally immense duty of obedience on the part of his subjects. The people had been created to serve the gods. The ensi or lugal was the surrogate of the gods. Hence the people had been created to serve the king...

The whole concept of the sacral monarchy was monist: one king over all the gods, so one king over all his subjects. We reiterate: the very word lugal signifies lord and master of a house, a field, a household (oikos) of slaves.” – pg 117

“The Sumerian city-state was an oikos... Supreme power vested in the ruler, and the oikos as a whole consisted of his palace as a master-household and a number of others, arranged hierarchically in relation to it... The Sumerian word e means, precisely, an oikos. But this was not the small, face-to-face community of Rodbertus, but a statist organisation, authoritarian and highly bureaucratic, which, outside its social and religious function, existed to satisfy the wants of the lord and master, the en and lugal – despots to the Greeks. It was, therefore, a production unit, comprising domains – lands, villages, administrative centres, dwellings, workshops, storehouses, and granaries – and it was run by bodies of administrators, accountants, supervisors, and inspectors.

Not merely that. One of its principal characteristics, implicit in the concept of oikos, is that it was a storage-redistributive organisation. Products were brought into storehouses and granaries and went out again in the form of rations, dues, and gifts. Lands, particularly the cereal lands on which the entire oikos depended, were the god’s – hence, in some sense, the ruler’s. The temple’s lands were cultivated by the temple’s servants and administered by the chief priests in the name of the god, hence, the ruler.” – pg 121