Charm vs morality

At a restaurant, Dillinger meets the love of his life, the beautiful and feminine Billie Frechette. Even though she knows quite well that he’s on the wrong side of the law, he has no trouble charming her into going out with him, which illustrates nicely that sexual attraction does not recognize morality. Dillinger’s presence, confidence and charisma easily pull the good-looking Billie into his life, without him needing to be a good, dependable or moral man. Dillinger also has has an air about him which is free from the stiffness so common in many other men, and he has no trouble dancing with a woman or authentically letting her know that she is beautiful. Obviously, Frechette’s decision to let herself flow with the attraction she feels, tells us something about her own moral code. But the lesson here is that the sexual attraction itself is not related to moral standards. Attraction is largely controlled by old parts of our brain, not the newer parts related to thinking and societal norms.

So what does Dillinger’s success with miss Frechette teach us? That presence, confidence and charisma are more important than morality and having a positive impact on the world? Of course not. The latter factors are much more important than the former ones. However, as it were, we don’t have to choose between presence and morality; we can have both. What Dillinger’s success with women teaches us more than anything is that reintegrating the bodily, emotional and instinctual side of your being is crucial, if you want to become a man with full access to your manhood. Integrating and having access to the lower parts of yourself, will supercharge your higher parts, and provide you with the energy needed to achieve the positive impact on the world that you know is possible. On the other hand, having access to your lower parts, while having inconsistent or incomplete access to our higher parts, is a recipe for disaster-as shown by the unfolding of Dillinger’s story.

Masculine culture and violence

The casual lifestyle of our charming criminal changes abruptly when J. Edgar Hoover – head of the newly formed FBI – decides that Dillinger is a public enemy who is to be tracked down and incarcerated. The FBI presents a new type of authority in Dillinger’s world; one that cannot be bribed or controlled by having powerful connections in the world of organized crime. Consequently, from this point on Dillinger is a hunted man, and the person in charge of the manhunt is FBI agent Melvis Purvis, an ambitious and talented agent who will stop at nothing to achieve his goal. With him he has a crew of young men who are eager to serve their country within this new organization-young men who have been taught that a real man uses his power for positive purposes and to protect other people, especially women and children.

Dillinger may be a person for whom we feel a lot of sympathy, since he is such a likeable person. He avoids killing people, he has a good sense of humor and he is loyal to his friends (he will even risk his life to protect a friend). There is also a vulnerability in his appearance, and you can sense that he is connected to his heart. However, at the end of the day he is still a criminal, and this very fact causes violence and gets people killed. At one point in the story, when Dillinger and a gang of his peers are on the run after a bank robbery, FBI agent Purvis and his companions manage to track them down to a hotel. The resulting shootout leads to the death of several innocent civilians who never would have died had it not been for our charismatic hero and his fellow bank robbers. So while Dillinger is likely too kindhearted to kill civilians in cold blood, the actions that stem from his lack of morality lead to the loss of innocent lives.

In our day and age, you can sometimes come across feminist analyses claiming that masculine culture is about violence, especially towards women, and that this state of affairs is appalling. However, that kind of analysis is deeply flawed. As demonstrated by the creation of the FBI, masculine culture is not about violence, it is about controlling random violence by using precise force and power where it is needed. Masculine culture is about controlling men such as Dillinger, who will not adapt to the basic rules needed for people to co-exist in a society. On a personal level, Dillinger may be kinder and more personable than the stiff FBI agents chasing him, but on an impersonal, societal level he is a constant threat to his fellow citizens.

All men are born with the ability to have a strong impact on the world, some would even say that men are born with the desire to have an impact on the world. Masculine culture has always been about older men teaching younger men to use their power for positive purposes, whether in a tribe, at a farm or at a modern day soccer practise. Our lower parts (the instinctual animal side) are with us from the day we are born, but what is passed on from man to man through history is the morality, the higher parts, that ultimately turn us into mature men. Violence has decreased signicantly since the dawn of humanity, and it is through older men teaching younger men about boundaries and ethics that this has been achieved.

Another example of male culture being about curbing violence–and especially curbing violence towards women–is what happens when Billie is captured by the police. Frustrated by Dillinger still being at large–and Billie refusing to talk–one of the FBI interrogators starts using physical violence to coerce her into revealing what she knows about Dillinger’s whereabouts. Had Billie been a man, this kind of questioning would have been more or less standard procedure to make sure that all information about a public enemy was obtained. But the rules are very different for a woman. When it is discovered what the interrogator is doing, he is stopped in a violent fashion by other men, and taken off the case. Having broken the masculine code not to use violence against a woman, he is no longer respected by his peers, and may live to see his career suffer as a result.

The feminist teachings that are attacking masculine culture are therefore incorrect in their assumptions. While feminists are very likely authentically disappointed that some men still hit women, they are wrong to accuse masculine culture of being the culprit here. As men, we know deep down in our hearts that men who hit women-or men who use any kind of random violence-are not doing it because of some masculine code; in fact, they are breaking the code. The ability to use physical violence is inherent in all humans, and perhaps more so in men than women because of testosterone. However, as boys we’ve all been taught not to hit women and not to hit any man without good reason, meaning that masculine culture is more than anything about protecting women, and accusations to the contrary from feminists would never have arisen had they been raised as boys themselves.

Telling our story

Dillinger is in many ways the quintessential example of a man who is still a boy. He is sympathetic and kindhearted, just like an innocent boy. He is charismatic and charming, like a mischievous boy. His has a serious bad boy streak, the way an unruly teenager does. For some reason, he has resisted growing up and becoming a man who cares about ethics and the lives of others. Perhaps this is due to growing up without a father (lack of boundaries), or perhaps it comes from rebelling against a father who’s overly strict (lack of love). Regardless of his background, it is evident that he hasn’t been surrounded by conditions needed to help a boy grow into a mature man.

In postmodern societies men and manhood tend to be under attack, and the proposed solution is often to resocialize men to be more like women. However, knowing what we know about innate sex differences, chances are that it would be disastrous to adopt such a policy. Men’s inherent drives, instincts, intentions and emotionality are not identical to that of women’s, and masculine culture is in many ways a direct response to those differences. Shaping boys to become good men requires somewhat different methods than shaping girls to become good women. These fundamental insights may no longer be politically correct, but that doesn’t mean they go away.

When we attack masculine structures, we attack the very things that help boys become functional men. Now don’t get me wrong; these structures could certainly be developed, refined and improved upon. They are far from perfect. On the other hand, tearing them down would likely have serious consequences for boys, and the process is seemingly already in full swing, with boys doing much worse than girls in the educational system. Over time, we risk creating more and more boys like Dillinger, who may be charming, but ultimately are unable to function with other people in a larger context.

One of the main reasons male culture is misinterpreted, is that men tend not to talk about these things. In fact, part of male culture is that men don’t talk about it. However, unless men can stand up for the male value system we will never be able to stand up to women or feminism. What men know about boys and what boys need in order to grow up to be mature men, needs to be valued and made visible–and it is up to us men to make sure that happens. This is not to say that all boys need to be raised a certain way, and all girls a different way, but on average there are differences that cannot be ignored.

Conclusion

Public Enemy demonstrates, through the combined hero and villain traits of Dillinger, what happens when a man is unable to integrate the higher and lower parts of his being. Having access to the lower, instinctual, animal side of his being leads to vitality, charisma and other people being attracted to him. But the lack of a wider view of the world and how his actions affect other people, ultimately reduce Dillinger to a simple criminal. On the other hand, the stiffness of the FBI agents chasing Dillinger, are in some ways a good example of how accessing the higher parts of your being can lead to cutting of and repressing the lower parts.

As shown by Dillinger’s lack of integration between the higher and the lower parts of his being, it has always been a challenge for men to integrate our lower drives with our higher morality. Dillinger and his likes live through his lower parts, while many well adjusted men knowingly or unknowingly suppress their lower parts.

What we need as men are other men to guide us in the delicate process of honoring our most animalistic drives, while also being able to channel them in a constructive direction. Older, wiser men who can mentor us is a real treasure, but in their absence, we at least need our fellow men to help guide us in the right direction. Men who can simultaneously both love us and hold us accountable for our actions–not only one or the other–provide a precious cradle for growth and maturity.

This male process is something we need to own, and stand up for, when it is attacked by well-meaning but misguided feminists. Yes, masculine culture is very much imperfect, and in the past it has sometimes been overly strict or suppressive. But that doesn’t mean that we throw out the baby with the bathwater. However imperfect the structures created by previous generations of men, we desperately need them as a roadmap on our way to becoming mature men.

This review uses concepts from David Deida’s work.

Give me a purpose, any purpose

The promise of greater things arrives when Yuri witnesses a Russian mobster shootout in the fancy restaurant across the road. Suddenly – as if by divine intervention – he realizes his life’s calling: trading arms. After all, his reasoning goes, arms form one of humanity’s basic needs. Who is he to deny people having their needs met?

With new-found purpose, he sets out to create a global arms trading operation. He adopts his brother as his partner and after a rather costly courtship, he marries Ava; things are looking up for Yuri.

Yuri is really living it up now, spending money he never had, and financial ruin is looming. But Gorbachev comes to the rescue and Glasnost-love sweeps the mighty Soviet off its feet. Yuri is a happy man. Dmitrij Volkoff, Yuri’s uncle, is a major general in the Red Army, which is now out of funding, out of leadership and out of direction. Soon enough, AK-47 Kalasjnikovs, tanks and combat helicopters enter Yuri’s sales directory.

It’s not my business

Yuri understands that his actions have consequences, but numbs himself to the pain of living a dishonorable life by wrapping himself in the shell of an infinite stream of rationalizations. «It’s not our business», he repeats as his mantra every time he witnesses the consequences of his actions. «I don’t want people to die. I wish that they miss, as long as they fire those bullets», he tells Interpol agent Jack Valentine – a man of integrity who is hellbent on nailing him. And he’s not even joking.

Yuri is in a cocoon. He is cranking up his bad karma, but is consciously turning away from feeling the consequences, perhaps postponing it for some time in the future, when he «spontaneously becomes a better man». There is a danger that we too sometimes succumb to the same hesitation to get real with ourselves. There is a danger that we settle for a life we don’t like, stripped of integrity, vision and proactive action, because we fear what it will mean to confront our lives with the discernment of truth. I see it often, in myself and others.

And it is here that it is helpful to explore the concept of karma a little further. This perennial wisdom comes to us from the spiritual lineages of the East and is thought of as a universal law, just like gravity, that describes cause (your action) and effect (the result of your action). Men, it seems, have a deep aversion to change. It seems to be hardwired in us. And this points to an intuitive understanding of karma: when we resist changing the deeply imprinted habits of our psyche, it’s because we know that the minute we change course, we will be confronted with all the karma we’ve saved up while denying our deepest calling for so long. We intuitively know that changing our course is not a small matter impacting just one decision, but that breaking with our pattern to make that one different choice means changing our lives altogether – working our asses off for the rest of our earthly existence to better ourselves, or to crumble up in fear, all out of integrity, living out the rest of our days as mere zombies.

Both alternatives seem to suck ass, so we don’t step up to the challenge, settling instead for the numbness and mediocrity that are the norm for many of our brothers. And then we pretend to be great in our own minds – mediocrity may lead to narcissism, as we often need a way to compensate for our lack. In Lord of War, this is subtly hinted at through the use of religious imagery – golden bullet around the neck, cross-shaped pier etc. Could it be that Yuri considers himself a martyr, taking the crucible of trading arms on himself, so that others won’t have to?

If we DO break away from our pattern, though, we will experience what the Greeks called ecstacis (standing to the side of), the physical sensation of energy-release that comes from breaking with illusion to align ourselves with truth. With ecstacis as our ally, the tables turn in our favour, unknown to the many who never experience it, or who consider it merely delightful flukes. The degree of ecstacis – ecstacy – in our lives signal the degree to which we are truly being ourselves, and as ecstacis is the process of standing to the side of ego to experience our soul, it is our own resonsibility to claim it. No-one will give it to us.

Seeking safety in what we master

Yuri is powerful and successful in his own right, but underneath the varnish of success, he is a little, vulnerable boy seeking approval. This is evident in the conversation with Ava, when she discovers the true nature of his work. As she pushes him to explain his motivations, he confesses “It’s not about the money. It’s because,” he says with the look of a twelve-year old who wants a puppy for his birthday “I’m good at it.”

This is a key scene. Yuri Orlov is supplying weapons to atrocious wars all over the world, not because he is an inherently despicable human being. Rather, he does it because he’s good at it. He does it because it gives him the sense of not being a failure. Because it lets him lead a lifestyle that people envy. He does it so that he won’t have to face up to the fact that behind the facade, he feels like a failure of a human being. This is a very vulnerable moment.

Only a woman, only Ava, could coax that confession out of him. One of the feminine’s gifts to the masculine is its ability to soften the tension to let the masculine’s heart shine through. Yuri really does love his wife. All the other encounters he has with women in the movie show him feeling empty, or showing self-restraint. Ava is a good woman, and helps Yuri retain some connection with his own heart. But there’s some truth to Jack Valentine’s claim that she is his trophy wife. They’re in a dependancy relationship (DD1), where he depends on her to look good and to receive the nurturing, feminine gifts of love, and she on him to receive money and support.

When Ava threatens to leave him (“I have failed at most things, but I won’t fail at being a human”), Yuri changes his life, going legit for sixth months. But Andre Baptiste, president of Liberia, tyrant of unmatched cruelty, and former customer, shows up on his doorstep requiring his «extraordinary resourcefulness» yet again. Yuri argues that he cannot fight his own nature, so against his better judgement, he picks up arms-trading yet again.

I want to look closer at this claim. Is it true that it is «in his nature» to trade arms? Well, it seems clear that he wasn’t as fulfilled by the drudgery of going legit as he was by being an arms trader. It seemed to be too much work and too «common». Yuri clearly wants the feeling of playing it big, of living life at the edge, of making an impact on the world, so arms trading is better than dealing in oil and timber. He knows that what he’s doing is totally wrong, and it’s eating him up inside, but he knows he would rather make a bad impact on the world than none at all, even if the cost is his soul.

This is an important and fascinating observation. The masculine thrives on being challenged and has a fascination with death, as it represents the essential masculine longing for freedom. And there seems to be something about weapons that brings forth some primal, soul-level quality of the masculine. Weapons represent the same piercing quality as the penetrating force of masculine energy. And where that piercing quality of the masculine unfolds in its full capacity in the fewest of men, weaponry provides a quick shortcut. A gun gives us the power to take lives at will, which wakes up a very primordial part of the masculine. In spiritual traditions, the primary motivation of the masculine is seen as the desire to transcend life and earthly concerns altogether, to merge with the nothingness of existence, and in essence become God. Taking lives is in most cases a perversion of this principle of transcendence.

And while I point out that, I want to emphasize that I believe guns are inherently dishonorable weapons, unlike e.g the samurai sword. The sword is a spiritual weapon, and represents a symbiotic relationship between metal and flesh, craftsmanship and battle prowess, pitting its wielder face to face with his own mortality every time he strikes his enemy to the ground. This is an intimate moment, requiring great courage. The gun, however, requires little courage, and allows its wielder to avoid the feeling of his own mortality. This, I believe, is how modern warfare ended up without honor, and just a lot of rationalizations. The further away the solider can be from his «kill», the less honor he will have, and the less he will face the reality of his own mortality.

Both my sons are dead

What happened when Yuri went legit, was that he tasted a normal, conformist lifestyle, and didn’t like it. DD1, that is the macho jerk, is inherently more masculine than DD2, the man who has become more integrated by developing his feminine. It’s a paradox that a macho DD1 man will often be truer to his word than a DD2 man, as he is more strongly masculine, and hence puts more emphasis on keeping it than adapting to the ebbs and flows of his emotions. Yuri points this out when he says «Say what you will of warlords and dictators. They tend to have a highly developed sense of order, and always pay their bills on time.»

There is a potential pitfall in early masculine development. When men who live deeply immoral lives set out to better themselves, according to DD1-2-3, he will have to go through a period of sensitizing himself to his and others’ emotions, and put more and more emphasis on what’s socially acceptable, than what he himself desires. On some level, the male psyche knows this, which is why the process of growing from DD1 to DD2 is so undesirable to the macho man. Feminine women may become less attracted to him, and he will feel lots of pain, as the karmic seeds ripen in a consciousness that is now prepared. But DD2 is fertile ground for DD3, where the masculine power re-emerges, filled to the brim with love, vision and honor.

Yuri is a little right and a little wrong when he claims it is in his nature to sell arms. But definitely it is in his nature to be a very masculine man, who is afraid of letting go of his external sources of validation, his feelings of purpose, and embracing the feeling of wimpiness of DD2.

In the end, the inevitable plays out. Yuri talks Vitaly into coming along on one final job, and they end up in Sierra Leone, supplying guns to self-proclaimed freedom fighters. «Often the most barbaric atrocities happen when both sides proclaim themselves freedom fighters,» Yuri points out. But Vitaly cannot go through with the job, as he realizes it will lead to the slaughter of a nearby refugee camp. Vitaly is a Lover archetype and cares about those people. He has a good heart, more open and feminine than his brother’s, and going through with the job is suicide of the soul. So he sabotages the job – and gets shot. At this point, Yuri becomes dead to himself and his family. He has been provided with so many chances to clean up his act, his conscience has sent him so many warning signals, yet he has pressed on with his immoral life. «Both my sons are dead,» his mother comments with great sadness as he phones them to offer his apologies.

Conclusion

Yuri considered himself merely a piece in a game he didn’t even like himself, and refused to claim responsibility for his actions, because the game would merely replace him with someone else. It’s a familiar theme in many lives. We embrace our immorality or mediocrity by failing to claim responsibility for our lives. We avoid feeling the hurt and despair for as long as possible. In the end, the habitual tendencies are so strong that even honest attempts become like turning a freight ship with a 1hp engine. Yurio is now a dead man, dead in his heart, free to live out his days as little more than a zombie. And only his unlikely tears will open the door ajar again.

«You know who’s gonna inherit the earth? Arms dealers. Because everyone else is gonna be too busy killing each other. That’s the secret to survival. Never go to war. Especially with yourself,» Yuri ends.

There is wisdom here. Never go to war with yourself. So let’s find those places where we are fighting ourselves and then hone in on them like banshees, sowing the seeds for future joy and freedom. After all, do you like the alternative?