I watched some matzo westerns lately, 'cause someone told me they were really based. Once Upon a Time in the West was a great example of the shifting nature of subversion. Everyone is really manly and tough, and (of course) it echoed throughout film history, although considering it based because there is shooting and manly independence (and homesteading!) reveals a failure of analysis. Consider:
America has and always has had crappy mass transportation. European visitors to America were frank about the reasons why in the 19th and 20th centuries: the harassment and violence they experienced when mass transit could only occur alongside blacks and indios. America's "car culture," and all of the environmental and atomizing trends that entails, arose out of this, while in white western Europe, the people were free to develop freedom of association in mass transit. The "green" movements now can't address this issue, for many reasons, some of which are how many women get raped or attacked when they try to travel in an amorphous mass of people.
The American railroads were great for business and great for people and great for settlement, but a recurrent theme throughout western media in the 20th century (since the ascendance of Reuters, AP, the NYT, Hollywood, public schools, universities, etc.) has been how evil the railroads are. Leone uses Once Upon a Time in the West to hammer home this already-popular message of "the railroads" being completely and utterly evil.
In 2016, with worldwide Jewish power directed at restricting technological development by reducing access to individualized transportation--through taxes (industry and personal and disguised), social shaming (Hummer/Corvette et. al. dick jokes), insurance, highway extortion and monitoring (tickets)--it may seem ludicrous to look back to only the 1960s, and see them demonizing mass transit. Yet that's what the movie is primarily about: the evil of railroads, for attempting to make it easy for large numbers of people to communicate, travel, and settle. In truth, the theme has been consistent: the resistance to railroads then, followed by resistance to individualized transport now, is not based on concern for human or environmental welfare, but the desire to restrict technological development. The urge to use, say, ten times the yearly consumer vehicle carbon consumption rates inside of one month, in order to kill another thousand Palestinians, is not hypocritical under the true rubric, just as the urge to shame America for fighting Siberian-Americans ("indigenous peoples" or "Indians") while still murdering indigenous Palestinians, is not hypocrisy, due to the true goal being something other than the protection of indigenous peoples.
An interesting historical side note is that much of the anti-railroad arguments made by today's scholars are framed in terms of the evil government using eminent domain to grant land to railroads for purposes of expanding public transportation. Levels of irony and hypocrisy reach their usual maximum heights when a western academic (1) criticizes the evil government for granting cheap land to railroads for mass transit expansion, while also (2) criticizing Americans as selfish for not wanting to give up their money and/or land to pay for modern government mass transit programs. Today's powerful thinkers excoriate the old-timey government for its socialist support of mass transit while insulting the current populace for wanting to only invest in its own preferred (cars) means of expansion. At once capitalists and communists, private-righters and eminent-domainers, their only consistent theme (again, like the feminist movement's vast concern for sleepy-date-rape by white men, and either mass silence or post-structural support of awake-murder-rape by Muslim Semites) is the exploitation or destruction of certain organisms.
At the time, the people, indios included, were benefited by railroad expansion, save for various indios claiming that this or that site was "sacred," or arguing that their hadron collider would've been developed if not for the evil railroads' expansion. By contrast, western cities now are cheered by the great priests for demolishing actual settled homesteads, and draining pre-existing labor-built resources (rather than empty land), to pay for transit options that merely expand the megacity by a few dozen miles.
Whether or not Charles Bronson was really cool and rugged and independent in going after Fonda is as irrelevant as whether or not the fight scenes in Matrix were well-scripted. The narrative's boundaries--the subtle perceptions of history that it creates--describe so well why America got stuck in an idiotic transportation mess where wealthy merchants take the car service home in Manhattan, while so many others are stuck in flyover nowhere, a 2-hour daily commute, or crammed into the filthy subway with red-eyed rapists off their meds.
Japan, by contrast, executed the first set of OT "Christians" to be converted on the island, and has fast, spacious trains all over the place, as well as a lack of disrespect (sic) for its rural areas, and rape largely confined to the ZOG pets let off American military bases. Employing Once Upon a Time in the West alongside 20003's The Last Samurai, we can see another strike against Japan: the Jews Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskowitz employed the token homosexual (and longtime Rothko-admirer) John Logan to write a movie about a European samurai who exemplified "true Japan" by fighting against an evil railroad company that, horror of horrors, wanted the Japanese to be able to cheaply and efficiently travel across their country. Yet again, like Reagan and the mujahideen, as ye sow so shall ye reap, because The Last Samurai was "based upon" the Meiji Restoration, in which Zionist America was brutalizing much of East Asia in service of its post-1865 imperial self. In an insanely jarring typicality of these Semitic situations, America is scolded by Jews to not be isolationist, sends warships to blast Japan open, and forces Japan to modernize, ergo railroads and the destruction of many small villages. A century and a half later, Jews are making movies about how evil European-Americans forced the Japanese to build evil railroads, while at the same time scolding the European-Americans for driving cars rather than taking railroads. Not only that, Jewish academics write book after acclaimed book on the evils of 19th century American colonialism, while simultaneously blasting Japan to open its borders to Semitic migrants from the Middle East.
Another grand and vulgar side note of this struggle is the disability angle. People interested in the life experience of the disabled--even the most bleeding-hearted of the anti-ableists--are surely aware of the trend in Semitic media to portray disabled European people in an evil light. Early movies played upon the trope of a disability as an indicator of God's displeasure, presenting disabled characters as not only villains, but as disgusting, unworthy ones, topped even by their henchmen. Consider, e.g., It's a Wonderful Life, through which Frank Capra--an "Italian American" Marrano who gained his initial fame through various stories of Jews obtaining "rags to riches" success--employs Mr. Potter as a vessel to age-shame and ability-shame wheelchair users. Potter's wheelchaired malfeasance expresses his inherent vileness, in the way that many limping, one-eyed, terminally ill, or even albino gentiles had been singled out for decades of movie mockery. If you're active in disabled communities or disability studies scholarship, this is old news to you; it's something that, like awareness of the JQ, you can't un-see once you see it: old movies, when not fellating FDR or tokenizing an orphan child, use disability as markers for evil. (Ergo we now must all pay billions of dollars providing ramps into power tool stores and gymnasiums, else face Stasi raids. What a truly nasty switchabout.)
Once Upon a Time in the West exemplifies this trend alongside its villainization of mass transportation: the railroad's figurehead Morton is a tragically pitiful character whose disability, mocked constantly by Henry Fonda and various other onscreen goys, is posited as the reason he is interested in completing a coast-to-coast railroad. The 2016 Terran perspective, surrounded by screeching environmentalists in wont of mass transportation, makes it seem almost hilarious that American history was founded on the idea of hating a disabled person struggling against his disability to complete a mass transit system for the people to use--and who doesn't respect the rights of greedy, speculating European homesteaders in blocking that expansion--and yet, it's there. A comparison of the scorn the film heaps upon greater efficiency and the common good, to the fellating of the Casino-Siberians who want to block a pipeline through their perennially tax-exempt, BIA-funded Sweetwater ("Sweetwater"--the Irish speculator's name for his intended railroad payoff town in the film), is highly indicative. Within the space of a boomer's adulthood, that much has changed. Having a disabled character be the bad goy is fine, narratively-speaking, just like it's fine to show the struggles of a woman who was raped through no fault of her own in an abortion-free society; the disgusting nature of the greater scheme, though, is brought to light when the earlier product is shown to be nothing but a lure used to set up the later product. In 1968, the rugged white man was a hero for killing disabled railroaders; in 2016, disabled indios are heroes for ambushing rugged white men.
(Refer also to The Western Patriarchy for a discussion of the ways that notions of toxic masculinity actually did exist, and were actually presented as positive characteristics, by the same Semitic producers. How ironic, now, to see disability rights, feminism, and body positivity being looked upon as "subversive" by "woke" people, when the initial mockery of the disabled, women, and fat/unfit/unattractive people were made by the Semitic forebears of the women and men now squealing about the necessity of fat acceptance and interracial erotic scenes on Coruscant!)
An embrace by Semitic pop-culture is as funereal as it is temporary, and it is only a matter of time before women, indios, queers, the infirm, or some other currently-preferred-group has the bullseye returned to it.