Response to James Lawrence's Nonsensical Piece of Misdirection on the Real Problems of Jewish Power: "AN ANTIDOTE TO THE JEWPILL (PART 2: ANTICHRISTIANITY)"

https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2021/12/an-antidote-to-jewpill-part-2.html

Why would anyone bother to argue with E. Michael Jones' political theology? It is absurd because Jones conflates spirituality with rationalism, i.e. Jesus represents objective truths of the universe. The looniness is right there. If people want to accept religion as faith, prophecy, or imagination, that's fine. But anyone who claims religion = reason has no understanding of either.

Jones is useful to our side because, in his shotgun approach to Jewish Power, he sometimes hits the right targets. Same with Rick Wiles of TruNews. Even Neo-Nazis are useful in this regard. It's like radical leftists got so much of history wrong, but their anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism sometimes hit the right targets, the rottenness of the US empire and globalist-capitalism that needs to be exposed.
Otherwise however, there's no point in addressing E. Michael Jones' worldview. He's essentially a Paleo-Catholic crank who can't tell logos apart from bogus. But then, this 'James Lawrence' sounds rather too much like Nathan Cofnas larping as a 'Christian'. But whereas E. Michael Jones is clearly and sincerely nutty, there's something weasely and disingenuous about Lawrence's piece. It reads like misdirection that boils down to "Don't blame the Jews. Goyim started it, and Jews just followed, rather haplessly."

In Europe, it was the French revolution that emancipated the Jews, not the Jews who unleashed the revolution. In America, it was the Progressive and New Deal movements that raised them into the governing elite, and set the stage for everything that MacDonald describes in The Culture of Critique. Even Zionism, contrary to popular belief on the Dissident Right, was a 19th-century Protestant religious obsession (called ‘restorationism’) before it was taken up by Jewish nationalists like Emma Lazarus and Theodore Herzl.

First of all, only a moron rightist believes that everything revolutionary is bad and caused by Jews. Only a moron rightist thinks that everything leftist is wrong and that everything right is somehow noble. True, there are moron-rightists who still dream of monarchs & aristocracy and feel triggered by anything that hints of 'revolution'. In a way, such position has more to do with the likes of Bill Buckley — National Review ran countless articles on how the French Revolution was a dress rehearsal for 20th century radicalism, not only communism but Fascism — than with Alt-Right or the New Right, many of whom see the value of socialism and the positive role that revolution and social reforms played in the development of the Modern West. After all, what distinguished the West from the Rest? West accepted and even accelerated changes, revolutions in so many areas. This dichotomy also applies to the Christian West and Christian East, especially Byzantium. While the former grew and grew, the latter declined and fell under the Ottoman Muslims. If Christian logos is a sure formula of truth and power, why did Byzantium fail? It was far more 'theocratic' than the Christian West that broke free of Medievalism and gained much from neo-paganism of the Renaissance. What really made the Modern West was the fusion of neo-paganism(that sparked creativity in the arts and Hellenistic approach to logic and science) and Christian prophecy. The 'problem'(if it is a problem) with paganism is it lacks a unified vision of the universe and the future. According to paganism, there are many gods, therefore there is no single direction to history but a contest of competing forces, like with the gods in THE ILIAD. In contrast, Christian monotheism says there is one force, God, that leads history to fulfill a certain prophecy. Thus, the Christian mindset is more committed to a linear theory of progress. Now, Christianity alone could mean Byzantine enervation or Medieval ascetism that hardly moves history forward. But when fused with neo-pagan creativity and spark, the combination could open new horizons.

Anyway, only a fool would argue that the revolutionary spirit was necessarily bad for the West. If anything, it is what made the West, relative to the far more conservative Rest(and Byzantium). Pro-Western people don't have a problem with revolution per se. Rather, the problem has been with impatient radicalism rooted in the cult of rationalism. (Radicalism isn't content with organic pace of change and seeks to bring about utopia in single leaps. Granted, change and progress aren't necessarily organic. Rather, they must be encouraged and pushed. It's like plants need sun and nutrients to grow. Children need to be pressured by parents to study. Coaches must drive athletes hard. Inertia is often the natural state of things. Leftism in sane doses can prod society to move a bit faster, hastening the pace of change. There are limits, of course. A child can learn only so much in a week, and an athlete can improve his ability only so much in a season. Leftism sometimes pushes good ideas too fast, but it is truly fatal when it blindly pushes bad ideas as the answer, like with communism.) While the emergence of rationalism was a great thing for the West(especially in science, technology, medicine, etc), it also led to the hubris that mankind could figure everything out and know, based on 'science', what must be done. The result was Marxism(with its supposed 'scientific materialism') and, more recently, Covid Nuttery.
Science is of immense value, but it also spawned 'scientism', the conceit that one's worldview or ideology is foolproof for being based on 'science'. Such Iron Rationalism actually undermines real rationalism. This usually applies to the human sciences. At one time, the 'scientistic' element favored the 'scientific racists' who were so sure of their theories of race. Today, the 'scientistic' element favors the 'scientific anti-racists' who, based on incomplete evidence or willful self-delusion, insist that race is just a social construct. In both cases, true science is clouded by 'scientism' that really amounts to misuse of science for what are ideological purposes. ('Scientific Anti-Racism' will be far more harmful to the West as it will argue that 500 million black African immigrants won't make any difference to Europe because people are just people. 'Scientific Racism' led Europeans to mistreat or murder some peoples or groups, but 'Scientific Anti-Racism' can only lead to wholesale murder of Europe.)

Maybe some extreme Anti-Jewite or ultra-rightist believes every revolutionary movement was bad(and that we should be living in the Middle Ages) or that Jews were the key players in all these events. But that's mostly a red herring because it misses the essence of the current criticism of Jewish Power among today's white nationalists or white-centrists, most of whom don't care what happened 500 yrs ago, let alone 1000 or 2000 yrs.
Of utmost importance is what is happening NOW, and who can deny that Jewish Supremacism rules the West? Furthermore, who can deny that, what Jews push onto white goyim doesn't apply to Jews themselves. If indeed ideology controls the Jews, they would judge themselves by the same yardstick with which they judge whites. But they don't. A case in point. If the ideology of 'anti-racism' is indeed dominant in the West, Jews would not only be bashing whites for past discrimination against blacks but for white support of Jewish tyranny over the Palestinians. But the very Jews who decry white treatment of blacks insist and demand that whites support whatever Israel does to Palestinians(and Arabs in outlying territories). But 'James Lawrence' is rather like Nathan Cofnas on this issue. He'd rather sweep it under the rug while yammering about some Christian theological controversy from 1000 yrs ago. Like who cares about that crap? Maybe E. Michael Jones cares, but even most people who value Jones' criticism of Jewish Power don't care to read his books or lend any credence to his notion that Logos = Worshiping Jesus. I'd argue that most white nationalists or white-centrists are, at heart, neo-pagan, and good for them!

Also, what do we mean by Jews in the historical sense? Your average Jew throughout history didn't amount to much. The real movers and shakers were elite Jews, often the bankers and others with close ties with European elites. These individuals were most certainly manipulating events for Jewish interests. FDR, for example, had the overwhelming support of Elite Jewry. It's true that Jews were absorbing lots of ideas and attitudes from Anglo-Protestants and even following their lead, but it's also true that Jews were playing a prominent role in steering Anglos toward certain goals, like war with Germany. Sometimes, Anglo and Jewish interests overlapped, but more than any other group, Jews steered events in the interests of their tribal interest. Who can deny this? Jews were pro-Soviet at one time because Jews played a key role in the Russian Revolution and because Soviet Union fought Hitler's Germany. After the war, many Jews spied for the Soviet Union. But as the Soviet Union turned more pro-Arab and anti-Israel, even so-called 'leftist' Jews grew hostile to communism, and Neocons joined and even came to lead the anti-communist crusade in the 1980s. Who doesn't see a tribal angle to this?
And if ideology matters so much to Jews, how come all those 'liberal Jews' don't condemn ultra-rightist Israel? Why are they silent about Jewish oligarchs allied with Naziesque forces in Ukraine? If they're such good 'secular liberals', why do they turn a blind eye to Israel's support of ultra-religious ISIS and other crazy Jihadists working against secular Assad of Syria? Never mind what happened 500 or 1000 yrs ago. Why can't 'James Lawrence' address the world today? Why is he misdirecting our focus from the obvious truths in the here-and-now to some mumbo jumbo theological debates centuries ago?

Alas, this theory contradicts the central dogma of white nationalism: that racial self-interest is primary, and truths, doctrines and ideas are secondary. WNs want to live in a dark fever-dream, where every race except the white one is strategising for its self-interest under a cynical veil of ideals – and we need only become paranoid enough to perceive the hidden strategies, and deceptive enough to conceal our own self-interest in the same way. They do not want to live in the light of consciousness, where ideals really motivate individuals, and solidify the cohesion of groups – because in this reality, their own dream is reduced to a narrow and paltry ideal, a cult of biological race.

What a lying piece of turd. White Nationalists don't say racial self-interest IS primary. They know it from White Decline all around. If racial self-interest were primary, whites wouldn't be in this mess. What they say is that racial self-interest MUST BE primary. In other words, it can't be taken for granted and must be embraced as a consciousness. They say identity must dictate ideology, not vice versa. Why? History shows time and again that identity has greater resilience and longevity than ideas or ideology or whatever. Any people who forget this are fated to fade away and die.
Also, white-centrists don't believe in some 'dark fever dream' where whites must conceal their own self-interests. No, they are for exposing the Jewish self-interest and for OPENLY and HONESTLY exhorting and exercising white self-interest.

Being pro-identity doesn't mean one is anti-ideological. Rather, it means ideology must complement identity. History bears this out. Every religion came to be a tool of power, of a people or an order. Thus, Catholic kingdoms fought other Catholic kingdoms. One Arab tribe, though Muslim, fought another Arab tribe, also Muslim. Russia and China were both communist, but Russian communism served Russia, Chinese communism served China. Russian history is a clear case of identity outlasting ideology, i.e. Russia was Russia before communism, during communism, and after communism. Any people, culture, or civilization can weather the rise and fall of ideologies or political systems AS LONG AS the people remain intact. It is when the people are replaced that it's really game over. The fall of Imperial Tsarist system wasn't the end of Russia. The fall of communism wasn't the end of Russia either. But if Russians were to be replaced by another people, it'd be the end of Russia regardless of ideology. This is why 'muh democracy' is so dumb. "Gee, I don't care if white nations become 90% non-white as long as it still has free markets and elections."

 
The course of current Western History goes to show that racial self-interest doesn't come naturally or first-and-foremost among a people. A people can be brainwashed to welcome their own destruction in the name of false gods of ideology. Or a people can be conditioned to believe their purpose is to serve another people. The lower castes in India were made to feel this way about members of higher caste. In the past, blacks in the South were made to believe their lot was to serve whites because, on their own, they'd just be crazy dumb ni**ers. It's like dogs can be trained to favor the interests of the master over their own dog-hood.
But any people that wants to survive into the future better put race/identity before ideology or make ideology bend to identity. China adopted universal communism but molded it to serve the Chinese people. Iran practices universal Islam, but this doesn't mean it rejects Iranian national interest. Nicaragua practices democracy, but it's a national democracy than one that bends to the US globalist world order.

According to 'James Lawrence', the cult of biological race is a 'paltry ideal'. The white race, or any race, is the product of 100,000s or at least 10,000s of yrs of evolution. White race was forged by survival through all sorts of climates and terrains. It came into existence even before white civilization. Before there was white culture/society, there was the white race. In other words, race came before all else. What we call 'history' is maybe 5,000 yrs, or at most 6,000 yrs. 'History' and high civilization came to Northern Europe much later. Perhaps, Northern European history is 1,500 or 1,200 yrs, much shorter than Egypt's, Persia's, India's, and China's. Long before the rise of European civilization, there was the European race forged by struggle in ice and fire over many eons. This is a rich biological heritage that has value regardless of ideology. After all, a European's primary value is his European being, not whether he's a 'Christian', 'atheist', 'anarchist', 'socialist', 'capitalist', 'libertarian', and etc. This isn't to discount the importance of ideas but to state the obvious: being precedes believing. So, the most valuable ideology is one that places Being before Believing. European race came into existence long before Christianity or any other idea-system. And yet, for 'James Lawrence'(a larping version of Nathan Cofnas?), white consciousness of rich and deep racial history is a 'paltry ideal'. Maybe 'Lawrence' feels this way because he happens to be a paltry specimen of the white race: an ugly stupid dork idiot.

Now, it's true that one can read too much into the supposed Jewish Plan. It can get rather silly, like with Adam Green's theory that Jews cooked up Christianity and spread it to goyim to gain power over them. Green, like E. Michael Jones, is useful as a critic of Jewish Power because he sometimes hits the right targets. But the grand conspiracy theory of Christianity is just ludicrous.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Hbt65YdfHwSi/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/bAsucAXXFbZM/

According to Green, Jews turned goyim into Christian Anti-Semites who oppressed Jews so that Jews could, 2000 yrs later, guilt-bait goyim into serving Jews. ROTFL and LOL rolled into one. It'd be like saying blacks cooked up the slave trade so that blacks could one day guilt-bait whites into kissing black ass. And maybe Japan actually planned to lose WWII to become an ally of the US and gain access to US markets.

This is where grand-theorizing can easily jump the shark. Now, there is a kernel of truth to Adam Green's view. Jews are big thinkers and tend to be more strategic than other races. Jewish personality can be glimpsed in Isaac Asimov's FOUNDATION series where some Big Mind prophesies future events and sees what the normal mind doesn't see. Stanley Kubrick's films were also conceived on the Big Think principle. Jews have been obsessed with chess, a game of strategy where the winner is usually the one who computes more moves ahead. Now, some might argue this is merely the result of higher intelligence, but intelligence isn't necessarily interested in Big Ideas or grand concepts. Anglos have been an intelligent people but their mental skills were focused on empiricism, things that could be observed, collected, and studied. Plenty of very smart people are narrowly focused on a single topic or task. Intelligence per se doesn't strive for the grand theory of everything or the grand prophecy of what will be(or what must be). In other words, most intelligent economists weren't like Karl Marx with a grand theory of history, one who tried to tie together all the past with all the future, the science with the theory of justice. So, the Jewish mindset isn't merely the product of high intelligence. Rather, it's part of the Jewish prophetic tradition(which is more accurate than the 'revolutionary spirit'). Now, what came first in a chicken-or-egg way? Jewish personality or Jewish prophecy? Was there something in Jewish personality that favored propheticism? Or did the culture of propheticism favor those Jews who claimed to be farther-seeing and more profounder in reach? I don't know.

Now, does this mean that Jews long ago looked into the future and brought about events that led to the 20th century? No. While Jews are more strategic and farther-seeing than most peoples, no people(however intelligent or strong-willed) can look into the future and plan events that happen centuries, let alone millennia, later. Kubrick's films are about 'perfect plans' that always fail due to some unforeseen X-factor. There are lots of X-factors and/or black swans in history. Karl Marx based his prophecy on economic trends in his time. He failed to see how those trends would change with new developments in science and technology. Also, he underestimated the element of individual will and the power of the irrational. Furthermore, prophecies tend to undermine themselves because they not only serve as vision of the future but alarm that wakes the enemy. Marxist prophecy forced capitalists to wake up and amend their ways and make compromises with moderate socialists lest growing unrest and radicalism lead to real revolution. Thus, most prophecies are self-defeating by alerting the enemy to what's up ahead unless something is done(to suppress the movement or to win over the moderate voices within it).

Jewish History cannot be understood apart from goy history as most of it is about Jews co-existing with the far more numerous and powerful goyim. Thus, Jews lacked the autonomy that the Persians, Hindus, and Chinese had. Persians had their dominant space. Hindus had their own cosmologically ordered society. Chinese had their own Middle Kingdom. In contrast, Jews had to exist alongside goyim, and this meant they could never practice the kind of centrism of the great goy powers.
Now, if Jews were simply aiming to assimilate and do business, this would have been no big deal. Plenty of minority cultures assimilated and became part of larger cultures. Most of the tribes mentioned in the Bible no longer exist. They became part of Persian folks, Arab folks, Turkic folks, European-Christian folks, and etc. It could have been the same with Jews but for the fact that they came up with the most powerful religious concept and the idea of the Covenant that set themselves apart from goyim. So, even as goyim were more numerous and more powerful, Jews held this conviction that, ethno-spiritually at least, they were the best because of the Covenant with the one true God.

But because Jews insisted on serving their own JEWISH interests despite lacking a secure world of their own, they had to be more esoteric, clever, shadowy, and devious in their thinking and approach. They had to latch onto goy systems, values, fashions, and trends while somehow manipulating them to favor Jewish interests. Of course, Jews themselves were profoundly impacted by these goy values and systems(though, with something like Christianity, one could debate til the cows come home as to whether it's 'semitic' or 'aryan' because it's 'semitic' as foundation but 'aryan' as edifice). But no matter how much Jews adopted goy ways and ideas, they eventually made them serve Jewish identity because the very foundation of Jewishness is the ethno-spiritual Covenant; this core concept of Jewishness is so essential that it even defines secular Jews.

In contrast, Christianity is about weakening one's tribal identity in favor of universal values. To become a better Christian, you favor fellow Christians of all color over your own kind on the basis of blood. However, to be a good Jew means to stick with the Covenant and to believe in the fusion of spirit and blood, the Jewish blood. Thus, even if Jews and white Christians adopt the same 'universal' values, they eventually go separate ways. White Christians try to make themselves less white and more universal because the core principle of Christianity is to unite all of humanity as brethren under Jesus. In contrast, given the nature of Judaism, Jews use the same 'liberal' or 'universal' ideals to serve Jewish identity and interests because the core function of Judaism is preservation of the race on account of its sacred blood.

Look at Jewish Liberals and Wasps Liberals from the New Deal era. After WWII, with each passing year, white liberals became less race-centric, less tribal, and less nationalist, whereas Jewish liberals became more race-centric, more tribal, and more nationalist(even to the point of supremacism). If the power of ideology is paramount, white liberals and Jewish liberals would have ended up the same way. But today, white liberals denounce Hungary for trying to preserve itself while Jewish 'liberals' not only support ultra-right Israel but work with neocon Jews to make sure ALL US POLITICIANS totally support Israel while kicking Palestinians into the dirt. What do Jewish 'conservatives' in the US and Jewish 'conservatives' in UK have in common? Do they care about the preservation of the white race or Christian heritage in either country? No, it all comes down to "Is it good for Jewish Power?" The fact that there is far less animus between Jewish 'left' and Jewish 'right' than between white 'left' and white 'right' goes to show that Jews put identity before ideology, whereas whites put ideology before identity, a fatal development. Now, one could argue that the relative tribal unity among Jews stems from the anxiety of minority status, but it's the same in Israel where Jews are the solid majority.

There are two reasons why Jewish Identity is easier to utilize as the basis of political conviction. Jewish ethnicity has been sacralized via the Covenant. So, according to Judaism, Jewish pride isn't based on tribal arrogance alone but on the very word of God. In contrast, there's nothing in Christianity that bestows specialness on the white race. Thus, while white Christians could feel the glow of sanctity as Christians(though not so much anymore because Jews associated the history of Christianity with 'antisemitism', 'racism', and cultural repression), they can feel no such merely as whites. In contrast, the mere fact of being Jewish means God is watching over you. He chose your kind. (This is why the only solution for whites is to forge their own covenant with the power of the universe. White blood must be sacralized, but this requires the emergence of white prophecy. Christianity, in contrast, means that your blood is hopelessly tainted with sin and can only be cleansed with infusion of Jesus's blood. Covenant binds. Goy way was to divide goyim into aristocrats and subjects. Elites and peons. Because white elites looked down on white peons, Jews could manipulate the division by aiding the goy elites in the exploitation of goy masses. In contrast, the Jewish Covenant says even the blood of the lowliest Jew is equal to that of the richest Jew in the eyes of God. One good thing about National Socialism was it valued every German as part of the national volk.)

The other reason why Jewish Identity is politically justified is ironically due to Christian morality and its emphasis on victimology as basis of virtue. Jews ran with the Holocaust Narrative and made themselves to be the biggest victims in history... at the hands of the Christian West no less. (Some will say the Nazis were neo-pagan, but Jews argue that the entire history of Antisemitism, beginning with the Christian kind, led to the horror in WWII.) Thus, Holocaustianity guilt-baits white Christians with a twist on Christian morality. Jews are suddenly the new jesuses crucified by White Gentiles/Christians as the New Romans.
This guilt-consciousness has been the Achilles Heel of Christianity, at least IF non-Christians were to gain control of the Narrative. In contrast, Muslims are immune to such psycho-emotional manipulation because Muhammad told his followers to do some Jihad, kick butt, never apologize, and convert infidels(or kill them if they get in the way). You don't see Muslims groveling before Jews or bending down to wash stinky Negro feet. Islam can be plenty repressive and dogmatic but it's not sanctimonious like Christianity with 'turn the other cheek' spiel. Muhammad told his followers to kick the other (ass) cheek of the enemy, not turn the other cheek for the enemy to slap. Of course, Christians hardly turned the other cheek and preferred to wage war and kill lots of people, but this could eventually be used to guilt-bait Christian conscience IF the enemy were to gain control of the Narrative. And Jews gained control over the Narrative, which is why the New Western or Schwestern Values are based on a litany of white historical sins, especially to Jews and blacks(as Jews don't want whites to feel sorry for what they did to Arabs and Palestinians).

Now, it's true that what we call Jewish Power is the result of interaction of Jews and goyim. It's like Jews in Italy were different from Jews in France were different from Jews in Britain were different from Jews in Russia were different from Jews in Brazil were different from Jews in America from Jews in Iran and so on. If the Anglo World never existed, Jews would not be ruling the world. Anglos were super-ambitious and highly talented as world conquerors, and Jews rode on that white horse to world power. Also, even though certain Jewish elites had considerable influence throughout Western history, it's only recently that Jews gained anything like supreme power via the Anglos, especially Anglo-Americans who, at some point, decided to get on all fours and play white horsey to the Jewish rider.
So, Jewish worldview always changed and adapted in accordance to shifting historical landscapes. It's not as if a cabal of Jews in the 12th century were planning the Bolshevik revolution of the 20th century or globo-homo parades of the 21st century. Still, whatever Jews were faced with through history, there has been a running thread of bending and twisting things to serve Jewish interests, not least by suppressing criticism of Jews while amplifying criticism of their rivals or enemies.

 
Take Hollywood. One could say Jews didn't invent motion pictures. Jews weren't the first to start the movie business. But once they gained dominance in the industry, they were mindful to make it Jewish-friendly. Of course, Jews had to make compromises. In the early 20th century when Christians and moralists(and anti-Jewish elements) had lots of power, Jews had to agree to stuff like the Hayes Code and appease the Catholic Church. Jews were also mindful not to offend the American South. Still, Jews made sure Hollywood made lots of anti-German movies in the 1930s. And Jews in Hollywood did everything to blacken Joe McCarthy's name because HUAC at one time forced Jewish Hollywood to blacklist certain Jewish writers and directors. And Hollywood also made stuff like EXODUS while not making a single pro-Palestinian movie. So, while, in one way, Hollywood is just another American Capitalist success story, it's also been a Judeo-centric enterprise. Who can deny that Jewish control had a profound impact on how so many Americans(and global audiences) came to see the world? Via Hollywood movies, countless people around the world came to see Islam as synonymous with terrorism. Via Hollywood movies, countless Europeans came to regard white Americans as mindless gun-toting 'racists' who lynch blacks at the drop of a hat.

In a way, Jews are too smart for ideology or fashion trends even as they pretend to go along or get swept up for awhile. In the Sixties, Jews and goyim alike took part in the Counterculture. But whereas many simpleminded white goyim gave themselves fully to the hippie culture and the like, many Jews soon realized how silly it was. And there was too much money to be made than rolling in the hay, wearing flowers in your hair, and searching for Indians to touch. Better to organize rock concerts and rake in the profits than wear tie-dyes and waste your days as a 'deadhead'. Be like David Geffen.

Jewish intelligence can't help but seeing goyim as dumb. Suppose someone with 100 IQ found himself among those with 80 IQ. Would he want to take orders from the dummies? Would he consider them as his equal? He might pretend to because he's outnumbered. It'd sure be dumb for the 100 IQ guy to say to the 80 IQ crowd, "You guys sure are dumb. I'm smarter, I deserve to rule, so do as I say or kiss my ass!" Even dummies will take offense and kick his ass. So, what should he do? He pretends to be for 'equality' and act in interest of the common good while slyly gaining power over them. He may also guilt-bait the 80 IQ crowd by saying they are 'privileged' over the 60 IQ crowd even though he, with 100 IQ, is the most privileged among them all.

Higher IQ simply wants to rule over lower IQ. It's just human nature. It's like blacks, being tougher, want to be the alpha race over others. Blacks will not say it but feel it just the same. Indeed, blacks would be far less anti-white IF whites were equally tough. Suppose whites were just as good at fighting and sports. Suppose NBA and NFL were majority white and blacks made up only 13% of the players. Blacks would actually respect whites and have far less problem with whites having lots of good stuff. But blacks, being obsessed with fighting and sports, look upon whites as inferior wussy fa**oty race of slow white boys. Whites are inferior, so why they gots more than blacks? This infuriates blacks who believe they, as the alpha race, should rule. Jews feel the same way but on the basis of higher intelligence.

But it's not just about brawn or brains. After all, there are big tough guys who are mellow in temperament. And there are smart people who are nice and kind. So, their superiority doesn't make them especially nasty or hostile. But blacks are naturally oogity-boogity due to evolution alongside hippos, hyenas, and lions. They be nasty. And Jews are naturally pushy-wushy due to reasons of evolutions stemming from rabbinical and merchant competition. Thus, there are lots of Jews with personalities of Albert Brooks, Alan Dershowitz, Sarah Silverman, and Howard Stern. No wonder then that black brawn consciousness often leads to jive-ass thuggery, and Jewish brain consciousness often leads to sneering contempt, so evident among the likes of Chuck Schumer, Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, Jennifer Rubin, Rob Reiner(meathead), John Podhoretz, and etc.

This is why Jews and blacks sort of see eye to eye. Being advantaged in different areas, they often fear or resent the other, but they also take pride in having extra juice for causing havoc for the rest of us. Terms of Jew-Black Alliance goes as follows: "Jews will use all their might to browbeat and guilt-bait whites into elevating blacks as the gods and idols of the New US, and blacks in turn will dump on whites and 'white supremacism' but will not call out on Jews and Zionist tyranny over Palestinians."
But then, Jews get away with such anti-white crap because whites worship Jews as either the Chosen(Christian Zionists), Holy Holocaust People, Endearing Comedians, or High IQ Geniuses. Indeed, even HBD-sphere is worshipful of Jews. Why does Jared Taylor remain silent about the very people who've done most to de-platform him? It's because he's so enthralled with Jewish Greatness. People like Taylor and John Derbyshire are not hoping for equal partnership with Jews. Rather, they are willing to be servants and sidekicks of Jews in return for Jewish tolerance of white interests. "We white goyim will serve you superior Jews, the true master race, IF you Jews permit our white interests." But why would Jews agree to that? If Jews are the master race, it's only fitting for Jews to serve their own interests, not allow white interests. Now, what if some whites argue that Jewish interests and white interests are totally aligned... like the notion of Judeo-Christian? But Jews are not stupid. They know Christianity began as an anti-Jewish religion. Also, Jews and Europeans had a long troubled history, and all of sudden, Jews and whites are Best-Friends-Forever? No way. Besides, even if whites turned over a new leaf and are sworn to be nice to Jews henceforth, Jews know it's only a matter of time before 'antisemitism' resurfaces. Why? Because bad Jewish behavior will get out of control again. Jews know this. There are good Jews who prefer to play fair and decent, but there are also bad Jews who use every dirty trick in the book. The problem is, given the nature of Jewish Identity, if good Jews had to choose between good goyim and bad Jews, they will go with the latter. It's just a tribal thing. And so, bad Jews go unchecked and give Jews a bad name, and this leads to 'antisemitism'. Good Jews may not want bad Jews to act so badly, but they just can't make themselves side with good goyim against bad Jews. So, Jews have decided to destroy every last vestige of white identity and unity because, then, there won't be any white resistance no matter how badly the bad Jews act and how much the good Jews cover for bad Jews. (Of course, if good Jews aid bad Jews, they too become bad Jews.) Besides, good Jews figure, as nasty as bad Jews are, they(the bad ones) got bigger cojones to do what good Jews wouldn't dare do. Thus, sometimes, it's the bad Jews who really make things happen, from which even good Jews can profit... like the spread of gambling and Zionic scramble for world domination.

 
It's like good Anglos often relied on the ambition and adventurousness of bad Anglos to gain more territory and loot. But whereas whites reached a point where good ones called out on bad ones, good Jews dare not call out on bad Jews. Same with blacks. There are some good blacks, but in the name of 'brotherhood', they stick together and the good ones don't call out on bad ones... which makes black behavior worse, which can lead to more 'racism'. Even though good whites are far more likely to call out on bad whites, there's a limit to white conscience(as it lacks agency). In their worship of Jews and blacks, good whites dare not call out on bad Jews or bad blacks. Why, that'd be 'antisemitic' or 'racist'. It's a vile and vicious cycle of moral blindness and hypocrisy that the West has fallen into.

THE END OF TWITTER?, MAXWELL FIX IS IN, HANUKKAH CELEBRATION, JEWS SAY SANTA IS TOO WHITE - Know More News - Adam Green

Notes on Review of RED SHOES(by Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger) by Trevor Lynch

https://counter-currents.com/2021/08/the-red-shoes/

Finally forced myself to see the whole thing. Not my cup of tea but I can see the attraction and understand its high esteem among film lovers. Martin Scorsese for one always lists it in his top five or ten of the greatest films.

A happy ending seems, however, to be in the offing until the screenwriter contrives a perversely tragic finale in which Vicky Page dies. Both Lermontov and Craster live on, but they are utterly destroyed as human beings.

Not true. As RED SHOES the movie is based on a tragic tale by Hans Christian Andersen, it was designed to end madly; 'Red Shoes' story serves as a darkly romantic metaphor for art as tragedy(and transcendence). RED SHOES isn't just about the people involved in the production of the ballet but how its tragic themes leap out into life itself. At the end, Craster is certainly heartbroken, but Lermontov, though shaken and saddened, triumphs in a way in the creation, both inadvertent and destined, of the ultimate dancer. It's like the jump-to-the-death by the priest in THE EXORCIST signifies both death and victory. RED SHOE's ending isn't 'contrived' in the conventional sense of the term: implausible, arbitrary, ludicrous, overly clever, gratuitous, etc. Rather, it's a necessary coda within a story idea that is itself one big contrivance: The Tale of Red Shoes as story, as performance, and ultimately as life itself. It has to be appreciated like Alfred Hitchcock's VERTIGO where every character operates within a logical construct of doomed love and tragedy. In such stories, characters live out their fates without any recourse to free will.

(RED SHOES) actually puts ballet on the screen, most spectacularly in the form of a 17-minute original ballet based on Hans Christian Andersen’s fairytale “The Red Shoes,”

It is impressive but also full of gimcrackery. It's fancy high-toned kitsch but kitsch just the same. Garishly arty and overdone with razzle-dazzle, rather like the later films of Federico Fellini. It's all too much. Also, Powell lacked the subliminal savvy of someone like Orson Welles whose images slipped through sensory crevices. The deft Welles was always two or three steps ahead of the viewer. With every stroke, he drew us into his hall of mirrors that reflected both classic order and cubist incongruities. In contrast, Powell was nothing if not obvious, and every trick is right in front of us, plain and simple. For all the complexity of production, the effect is rather crude, like a more elaborate version of the cinema of Jean Cocteau whose trickery was merely updated version of outdated silent cinema techniques.

The dance would have been so much more effective if Powell had relied solely on editing, lighting, sound, and pacing to convey mood shifts between art and reality. That truly would have been dreamlike and hypnotic, weaving a new way of seeing. But the bag-of-tricks-photography is so glaring at all times that it feels more like pictures in a gallery than a flow of imagery. A more effective use of cinema would have sensorially drawn us in than made us all too keenly aware of what's on the screen. It remains apart, in front of us than enveloping us. How more artful it would have been if Powell moved between reality and fantasy without laying so obviously bare the shifts. Then, we would have been lulled INTO the dance than merely looking AT it. It would have been magical than mechanical, evocation than affectation.

No doubt a great deal of care and preparation went into the much celebrated dance sequence, but it isn't quite cinematic. The overall effect is superficial than substantive because it amounts to glittery trickery than wholeness of visioin. It's like playing with fonts than with words. While pretty fonts are nice in poetry, the decisive factor is the use of words to conjure imagery and moods. Mastery of words than their stylized presentation on the page(as font) is the real heart of poetry.

The heart of cinema is composition, movement, and editing(montage). And even though Michael Powell knew the language of cinema, he had a tendency to fall back on trickery and superficial effects that cheapened his works — the kind of tricks that got tiresome already in the era of George Melies. In the case of A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH, the effects were soon badly dated and now seem gauche. The effects in RED SHOES fare better but are still register as effects, over-done, imposed, and at odds to the trance-like aspects of the dance number. The tricks are so obviously tricks(no matter how well-crafted) that they keep reminding us that it's a bag of tricks than a call to magic. They amount to fonts than the grammar of cinema.

The Red Shoes is about the relationship between art and life. Early in the film, they are likened to one another, because they are both compulsions:

Lermontov: Why do you want to dance?

Vicky: Why do you want to live?

Lermontov: Well, I don’t know exactly why, but I must.

Vicky: That’s my answer too.

Not exactly because Vicky and Lermontov see life differently. Vicky doesn't see dancing nor life as compulsions. She sees them as natural. She's happy to be alive, and she's happy to dance. She dances for joy. She dances when she wants to. It gives her pleasure. Dancing is something she's willing to give up if she tires of it and finds joy in something else. For her to say that dance is like life means it's good to be natural. It's like animals run around because it comes naturally to them. They don't run to win races or to be the fastest animal. Even though Vicky isn't without ambition and hunger for fame, she dances for joy and pleasure. It is a natural extension of her view of life. For her, life and art/dance are not in conflict. This accounts for the misunderstanding between Vicky and Lermontov.

To Lermontov, art isn't merely like life or its extension. After all, most of life is routine and humdrum. One must do what one must to live: Eat, sleep, work, and etc. Life as necessity is about going through the motions, true regardless of whether one is genius or idiot, king or serf. At any rate, art isn't necessary to life. One could live without reading a serious book or watching a single ballet and live to a ripe old age. Indeed, many people with no interest in the arts lead pretty good and happy lives, which is the story of most of humanity. So, whereas life is about necessity, art is about obsession with the unnecessary.

For Vicky, dance is an extension of her view of life: pursuit of happiness. She came to love dance, and she sees dance as an expression of her joy. So, dance need not be a compulsion with her. But for Lermontov, art/dance is a pursuit of perfection even if it means agony and torment. It must be pursued to the very end. He is the dark and extreme side of the Red Shoes as metaphor, which represents both the joy of dance(as favored by Vicky) and complete intoxication(as envisioned by Lermontov).
Same goes for sports. Most people play sports for recreation and fun. It's an extension of our natural need to run around and play. For most people, sports is merely a part of their life. But for those who seek to excel in sports and possibly be the very best, sports becomes life itself. It becomes all-consuming, even to the point of self-destruction, as when any boxer steps into the ring. This is also true of spirituality. For most people, a bit of piety is enough. But what differentiates the saint is the willingness to devote one's life entirely to God. No wonder Martin Scorsese loves RED SHOES. It can seen as yet another false-messiah parable paralleling the life and death of Jesus who went all the way.

Anyway, there is a misunderstanding between Vicky and Lermontov. When Vicky says she dances for the same reason Lermontov lives, she assumes he is like herself. Vicky is naturally a light-hearted person. She feels joy in life itself. She would have been happy even if she'd never come upon dance. In her mind, life and dance are one and the same, an expression of joy.
In contrast, Lermontov seems to find little joy or zest in life itself. He lives not for life but for art, for ballet. Without that, he would find life gloomy, absurd, and meaningless. For him, life is fallen and pointless, a world inhabited by no-talents and idiots. It is through art that human ability rises above commonness and reaches for the summit of beauty and sublimity. For Vicky dance reveals life, whereas for Lermontov dance redeems life. One might say Vicky's view is more pagan, more in tune with the natural way of things, whereas Lermontov's perspective is christo-homo, i.e. nature/reality is ugly, plain, loathsome, and dull EXCEPT when elevated toward transcendence and redeemed.

Lermontov is apprehensive about affection between lovers because everything becomes soft and fuzzy between them. It weakens the sharpness and takes away the edge. He watches with an eagle's eye as his only love is perfection. In contrast, human love means unconditional acceptance of someone despite his or her flaws. So, when Craster and Vicky fall in love, they become indulgent of one another. Craster can love Vicky the imperfect dancer, and Vicky can love Craster the flawed composer. Love, in all its mushiness and forgiveness, fills in the gaps.
Lermontov, whose vision remains unclouded by lovey-dovey, can see with clarity what is necessary for perfection. Purely from an artistic vantage point, Lermontov is correct that the three had an ideal set-up before the love happened. Craster devoted himself to composing, Vicky devoted herself to dancing, and Lermontov had his eyes on the prize. It was a perfect triangle, but love got in the way. It's sort of like Merlin in EXCALIBUR sensing that love will bring it all to ruins among Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot. (And it's Noodle's sentimentality that fogs his vision of what Max and Debra are really after in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA.)

Part of life is love, marriage, and family. Lermontov is particularly dismissive of ballerinas who allow these considerations to interfere with their art. First, it leads him to dismiss his prima ballerina Irina Boronskaja

This is only partly true as it's not a general principle with Lermontov. He knows very well that most ballerinas in his troupe will not reach greatness. They will merely be adequate, and it's doubtful that he would have fired any of them for getting married. Indeed, he doesn't expect much from most people in the business. But he has the dream of creating the ultimate dancer, and SHE must be totally devoted to the art. Thus, Lermontov has a double-take on creativity. At the basic level, art has its conventions and role in society. It is entertainment and business. But at the highest level, it is for the few who can break through the barrier of conventionality. As a businessman, he's content with the basic art that brings in the paying customers. But as a visionary, he must have total devotion from the chosen few.

It is tempting to believe that Lermontov was acting out of sexual jealously. His body language with Vicky in one scene is quite intimate... Craster accuses Lermontov of jealousy. He agrees, but says it is not sexual. He may be telling the truth.

It's obvious Lermontov is a toot, especially when he dons those 'gay'-looking sunglasses. In a way, his personage is instructive as to why homos gained such power and leverage in society. Unlike straight people whose careers and pursuits become weighed down by marriage and children, homos (especially back then when it was scandalous to be outed) were always working. Homos put in more hours because they had fewer conventional burdens of family life and sentimental attachments.
Of course, today some homos do get 'married' and have semblance of 'family life' with adopted children, and homosexuality is even associated with 'pride', but in the setting of the movie, homos would mostly have been secretive figures. Also, because homosexuality was regarded as a perversion, sickness, or sin, even most homos grew up with a degree of self-disgust, doubt, and anxiety for having particular peccadillos. Lermontov certainly isn't a 'pride-homo'. His sexuality is thus repressed.
So, it's true that Lermontov is jealous but not in a sexual way. He jealously wants to pull Vicky into his orbit so he could fulfill his dream of turning her into a total work of art. For Lermontov, whose repressed homosexuality has been channeled into total devotion to art-as-religion, it is sacrilege to allow Vicky to remain merely human in the fleshly role of wife and mother. Only through art can she reach the 'spiritual' level of transcendence. Such jealousy also crops up in Chen Kaige's film FAREWELL MY CONCUBINE. The Leslie Cheung character, being homo, does feel sexual attraction to his male performer-partner, but the jealousy goes beyond that. He wants both of them to belong totally in the realm of art(the Chinese Opera). It seems like a waste for his partner to get married to some harlot and fritter his talent away as a hubber. Lermontov resembles another character, the old man in Otto Preminger's LAURA, who is so taken with Laura's beauty that he wants to construct her into an ideal and loathes the notion of any lowlife male coming near her. Another character that comes to mind is Kirk Douglas's role in THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL where Douglas plays a S.O.B. but also an indispensable one-of-a-kind personality with the magic touch.

In a way, RED SHOES offers a glimpse into the homo-god-complex. Homos have traditionally been more into art(ifice), design, and fantasy because they were denied(and rejected) the humdrum conventionality of conjugal bliss. On the one hand, they didn't want to get married and do the normal things. On the other hand, society would have punished them(or even executed them) for acting all 'gay' and indulging in sodomy. So, homos created an alternative universe in art, decor, fantasy, so much so that it caught the eye of the privileged aristocrats who came to patronize homo creativity.
In a way, Lermontov is to Vicky what God is to Jesus. Lermontov's god-complex wants Vicky to forsake human life and totally commit to art and beauty... even if it means madness. Life is about growing old and dying. Art is forever and eternal. Likewise, in Martin Scorsese's adaptation of THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, there is a part of Jesus that wants to be normal and live as a real man and experience intimate joys. He wants a wife, family, and children. He wants to grow old and see his grand-children. But God has other plans for him. He must forsake what is human to reach a higher plane. He must become the messiah, which entails pursuing spiritual truth to the end, even if it means crucifixion, humiliation by the mob, and agony of death. Only thus could he reach immortality. And in RAGING BULL, there is much about how a true boxer must repress his sexual pangs before the bout to be strong and focused in the ring. Scorsese the renegade Catholic surely drew parallels between RED SHOES and the Christ tale. Though fascinated by these parallels, he believes there is only one true Messiah, and the rest are false messiahs as their pursuits, however amazing or inspiring, are expressions of vanity, sensuality, power-lust, or egotism than of the deepest wells of the soul.

In another brilliant, brooding scene, Lermontov comes to the realization that he has been a fool. Then Lermontov decides to approach Boronskaja, who is still happily married, and lure her back on stage. Boris has obviously concluded that art and life—in particular, married life—need not conflict. A year later, he manages to lure Vicky back on stage to dance The Red Shoes again.

That's a misreading. Lermontov never feels he was wrong. Luring back Irina was essentially a business matter. After all, he can be practical and diplomatic. With Vicky gone and his dream turned to dust, he needed someone for his company, and Irina just happens to be the one, and he had to make do. He knows the show must go on. He has to pull in the audience, make money, and pay the bills. But if he was truly content with Irina, he would not have gone out of his way to reconnect with Vicky. She is the key to his ultimate dream. He's had many successes, but he never created the perfect dancer, and he feels it in his bones that it must be her. Indeed, he recruits her not merely to perform RED SHOES but to persuade her to leave her life behind and commit totally to dance. He means to drive a wedge between Vicky and her husband Craster.

Then Emeric Pressburger’s script goes seriously off the rails.... Fixated on contriving an ending that is both gruesome and unhappy, Pressburger simply forgets about Lermontov’s character development toward accepting that his ballerinas can have private lives. He also turns Julian Craster into a petty, jealous villain—something not foreshadowed in the least. Then they drive Vicky to suicide.

This is totally wrong. First of all, the story is not a realistic portrait of people in ballet. Rather, it's been specifically constructed so that life imitates art. The story of Red Shoes must be lived out by the particulars in 'real life'. Its ending was fated to be tragic. It's almost as if their reality becomes possessed by the fantasy.

Also, there was no character development in Lermontov toward accepting the 'private life' of Vicky. Rather, Jekyll-and-Hyde-like, he can shift back-and-forth between art and business. When he re-hired Irina, it was the business side of him in action. It's the same with priests. At times, they must be political and pragmatic, even shake shady hands and take money from questionable sources. But before God, they must be pure. Likewise, while the business-side of Lermontov could seem agreeable and compromising, he never abandoned the 'religious' side of his devotion to ballet. His intention wasn't merely to hire the married Vicky to dance Red Shoes again but to ultimately wrest her from Craster and make her devote her life 100% to art.

Also, Craster doesn't come across as a petty jealous villain. His emotions are utterly understandable. He senses correctly as to what Lermontov is really up to. If anything, Lermontov comes across as the calculating villain(yet a sort-of-noble one because his vision is genuine). Craster rightfully fears that he may lose Vicky to Lermontov for good. Also, she is absent on the very day of the premiere of his opera. It is a big day for him, and he naturally wanted his wife to be with him as partner and support.
In a way, both men are possessive of her in different ways. With Vicky as wife, she will play a supportive role to Craster as the artist. Her dancing will merely be a hobby, something on the side. In contrast, with Lermontov she can reach the height of her profession and win acclaim in her own right. But she will have to give herself totally to Lermontov. He will possess her like the red shoes possesses the dancer in the Hans Christian tale. Dance as celebration will have to give to dance as tribulation. The shoes will become her cross to bear.

The fact that Vicky feels guilt in Craster's presence is proof that he isn't a villain, at least not in our eyes. In Lermontov's eyes, yes, but the full extent of Lermontov's deception emerges in Craster's presence. Earlier, he enticed Vicky as if he'd mellowed since their breakup, but he spells it all out when Craster pleads with her to return home with him. Lermontov admits it was his plan to come between them and pull Vicky totally into the dance world. The fact that Craster accepts this and walks away makes him a sad sympathetic figure than a villainous one overcome with petty jealousy. It's doubly sad for him because the movie began with his discovery that the man he admired had plagiarized his work. Once again, something of his is taken from him. In both cases, he is resigned to lose.

The whole setup is absurd. Vicky has come to Monte Carlo on vacation. On the spur of the moment, she agrees to dance The Red Shoes again. We are asked to believe that Craster’s new opera is to premiere in London the same day that Vicky dances The Red Shoes again in Monte Carlo. Why was Vicky in Monte Carlo on her husband’s big night?

Actually, it wasn't on the spur of the moment. In the back of her mind, there was always a wish to return to the stage. Despite severed ties, there was always a thread connecting Lermontov and Vicky. He wanted her back, and she wanted to be back. So, while ostensibly it seemed like a spontaneous decision, dance was always something she wanted to do and regretted walking away from, at least in part. She genuinely chose Craster out of love but also gave up something she loved. Lermontov queries as to whether she kept her body in shape and senses in her affirmative that she'd always wanted to return to ballet in a big way.

Now, did Vicky arrive in Monte Carlo ON THE DAY of her husband's opera debut? Isn't it more likely that she arrived some days earlier and planned to return before the opera date but chose to remain and dance the Red Shoes? And it was her failure to return before the opera that spurred Craster to make his own journey to confront Vicky, whom he rightly senses has been drawn into Lermontov's web?

Indeed, when Lermontov and Vicky met in the train, Vicky says the opera is only in rehearsal, and Lermontov tells her that he is PREPARING a ballet. There's no indication that both the ballet and opera will be performed on that very day. It's my understanding that the performances will take place about a week or two AFTER Lermontov and Vicky meet on the train. The reason why Craster appears so distraught is because he's been (1) worried sick and (2) surmised, correctly, that Lermontov somehow got his meat-hooks into her. He calls Lermontov jealous, but he too is jealous. Even if he knows Lermontov may be a tooty-toot after all and has no sexual interest in her, he knows she is drawn to his artistic gravity. With him, she is a wife, a mere partner and fan. But with Lermontov, she can be the star, and no one gets more love than the star in the performing arts. Lermontov, though a person of artistic sensibility, is essentially a manager, not a creator in his own right. In that, he is a bit parasitic of everyone, though he can be said to be as selfless as selfish. He's selfish in demanding that others bend to his will yet selfless in total devotion to ballet and in wanting the best of his star performers. Craster as composer can be considered a star in his own right, but a composer doesn't take the stage. It is the dancer, and Vicky-as-star is something that only Lermontov can offer. Vicky feels guilt as a wife who isn't there beside her husband in his moment of glory, but Craster feels guilt as a husband who took her chance at stardom away from his wife. As in STAR IS BORN, love-and-art is complicated.

Then Vicky, who is trying on the red shoes for that night’s performance, goes mad and hurls herself off a balcony, then gets hit by a train. The train seems like overkill, but there’s still enough life in her to beg a distraught Julian—who just happened to see her plunge to her death, even though it would have been impossible from his vantage point—to take off the red shoes.
I can’t think of a more arbitrary, ramshackle, and dissatisfying end to an otherwise great movie. It is a testimony to just how good the rest of the film is that viewers put up with it.

I'm assuming she didn't fall on the railroad tracks and was run over by the train. Rather, it seems she fell ON the moving train. Now, if she'd landed on the tracks and her legs were cut off by steel wheels, it would have more or less duplicated the grisly details in the original Hans Christian Andersen tale. But too gory for cinema, especially at the time.

Is the train overkill? Maybe, but everything in the movie is overkill, which was either Powell's strength or weakness(depending on one's taste). And yet, given the train's motif in the movie, it sort of makes sense. It was at the train station that Lermontov bid adieu to Irina. It was on the train that Lermontov and Vicky met again. Train represents both separation and union, the transience of life. Indeed, Lermontov is very much a man without a country. Though Russian in origin, he moves from place to place like a high-class gypsy.

Did Craster actually see her plunge from the balcony or did he turn his head because of the commotion of the crowd?

How is the ending arbitrary? Vicky's death and the removal of the red shoes evoke Andersen's tale. It makes total sense within the concept. Also, her death is not the final scene of the movie. The final scene is Lermontov announcing Vicky's death to the audience and the performance of RED SHOES going on without her... or with her in spirit. In that sense, Lermontov finally got what he really wanted. He turned Vicky into a spirit. It's like Jesus died on the Cross and was resurrected as Spirit with eternal life.
Indeed, even had Vicky become the dancer of Lermontov's dreams, she would eventually have aged and slowed down with injuries. Even as the best dancer, her flesh and bones would have grown weak. She would have faded. But as a spirit, she is young forever and forever tireless.

Also, the manner of her death suggests she didn't merely perform the Red Shoes but lived and died it(and transcended it). Like the heroine in the tale, she was torn between the need to dance and the wish to return to reality. The pull from both sides was so overpowering that the only solution was a kind of heightened death. It's like the Christ story. Jesus on the Cross felt all the pain of the human flesh, and He also reached out to Heaven. At that moment, He was neither just a man or just God. He was in that limbo world, the between world, and He had to die to finally cross into the spirit realm. It's tragic but also triumphant. And the same goes for the ending of RED SHOES. In a way, Vicky's real role of the Red Shoes was not on the stage as a dancer. Rather, it was her struggle between personal attachment and artistic vanity; and to play this drama to the very end, she had to end like the heroine in the story. She had to take an inspired leap from art into reality, and what is more real than a moving train? And finally, the shoes could be taken off. And yet, her death has released her spirit that can forever dance the Red Shoes.

But above all, I love The Red Shoes as a portrayal of the world of European high culture: an aristocratic, inegalitarian world devoted to the pursuit of beauty and excellence—a world whose basic principles contradict those of democracy and mass commercial entertainment.

But don't you like STAR WARS and TV shows and lots of commercial entertainment?
Also, Lermontov is aristocratic-like only in part. His nomadism suggests a gypsy-like existence. He's a hustler and businessman as well as artiste and connoisseur. All said and done, his is a business enterprise.

By the way, aristocrats were mostly dummies, hardly different from today's elites. Few created art of their own and relied on others to tell them what was hot and what was not. Most imitated the ludicrous fashions coming out of French courts, with powdered wigs, face paint, and snuff. And oh those pansy-ass dresses. Just imagine. Noblemen started out as warriors. Tough hardy men. But they amassed fortunes and got used to privilege, and their children were raised spoiled with luxury. They became obsessed with status and conformed to whatever was put before them as the latest thing. No wonder so much of aristocratic culture became 'gay' and whoopity-poo. Homos came up with all these candy-ass dresses, wigs, and make-up and whispered into idiot aristocratic ears that it was so fancy-poo to dress like fairies and strut around like girly men and speak in high-toned accents(which made British English so 'gay' sounding). This is why it's refreshing to see semi-barbarian elites of the Russian court in IVAN THE TERRIBLE. Them fellers have yet to put on pansy airs... like the Westernized Polish court in the opening of IVAN THE TERRIBLE Part 2.

Get a load of the tooty-ass Polack on the throne in this scene:

As if the culture of the Western aristocratic elites weren't tooty enough, we now have globo-homo fruits running all the culture and making 'gay' crap compulsory. This is why I can't get into ballet. Sure, it's a great work of art and a beautiful dance form... but it's also so 'gaaaaaay'. I prefer folk culture to aristo culture. Manly Russians dancing on tables is better than a bunch of pansies tip-toeing around or prancing about. It was a huge mistake for the Soviet Union to prop up the Bolshoi Ballet and make Russian guys prance around like a bunch of fruits. Chechen Lezghinka is a better dance. Though I don't like guys dancing in general(with the exception of Gene Kelly in SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and YOUNG GIRLS OF ROCHEFORT), people of Caucasus have manlier ways of dancing. Ballet should only be for girls. Any guy in ballet tights should be paddled in the butt.

Europeans emerged from 'faggy'-looking aristocratic culture with the rise of the bourgeois and the masses. It was bourgeois culture that led to the English three-piece suit that was at once stylish, economic, and modest(lacking in the aristocratic dictionary). And I'll take the cowboy look over the aristo-fruit-look any day. Those guys in dusters in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST look real good. But the Three Musketeers look like a bunch of pansies.

How Negrolatry or Afromania among Silly Whites parallels the Transformation of Worship from Pagan Cults to Judaism to Christianity — The Problems of White Psychristianity — Nature vs Nurture in the God-Myth

BASIC FACTS ABOUT RACE IN 13 MINUTES - American Renaissance

The history of the transition from paganism to Old Testament to New Testament is instructive in an understanding of how whites came to bow down to Negrolatry.

Though there were many kinds of paganism, the pagan gods weren't generally high on the moral scale. Some were downright cruel and murderous, like the gods of the Aztecs. Human sacrifice was also practiced by certain paganists of Ancient Near East. Pagans feared and worshiped power for power's sake. Their spiritual vision was far from moral. It was all about might. The gods were like the forces of nature. Floods, earthquakes, volcanos, drought, pestilence, and etc. Good or bad, it didn't matter. It was fearsome and frightening. Nature could be on your side or against your side. All you could hope for was good fortune. Hopefully, nature will favor you, and you had to do whatever necessary to earn those favors. As gods controlled nature(or nature = gods), you had to pay them tribute. It could even be in the form of ritual human sacrifice if indeed it was deemed the only way to placate and appease the gods. Gods were powerful. They were the forces behind or within nature. It was presumptuous of man to expect, let alone demand, that gods be moral and caring about feeble and flawed mankind. Gods were gods, super-beings of great power. And they did as they pleased, and the most mankind could hope for was easing their wrath(or direct it at enemy tribes). Maybe then, the gods won't kick your butt too badly. Maybe the gods will spare your kind and take out their fury on some other hapless tribe. Paganism was spiritual nihilism. Might was right.

Then arose the Jewish religion(as well as other religions that sought to morally justify, as well as bind, the spiritual forces). It winnowed the spiritual realm into the universe of one God. Judaism went even beyond 'holocausting' all the other gods. Instead of Yahweh prevailing over all other gods, vanquishing them into extinction, it argued there was never any other god than the one and only God. So, all other gods never existed. They were false, figment of the imagination, whereas Yahweh was the one true God from(or before the) beginning. Jewish Spirituality was a revolution in thought. At once, it elevated the conception of God to levels unknown to mankind. The Jewish God wasn't just the one and only God but the all-powerful and all-knowing God. Among pagan gods, some were more powerful than others but no god was all-powerful and all-knowing. But the Jewish God was the one supreme being. Jews made their God into a singularity, more powerful than all the other conceptions of gods combined. And yet, Jews also hamstrung their God more than any other people did. By moralizing their God as not only all-powerful and all-knowing but good and wise, the end-result was God that was allergic to the nihilistic temptation of might-is-right.

So, even though the Jewish God was more powerful than any god imagined before, He couldn't even demand that Abraham kill the kid. Sure, as the one and only God, it was His right to demand that Abraham sacrifice Isaac. But, if He'd really made Abraham carry out the blood ritual, He would have revealed Himself as no different from the pagan gods. So, the Jewish God was at once the lone superpower of the spiritual realm and morally owned by the Jews. (In a way, Jews played a similiar mind trick on the Anglos. Jews flattered the Anglos as not only the mightiest people in the world but also the noblest. Thus, Anglos were goaded into believing their great power must be morally justified, especially in Jewish eyes. Their might had to be right. Of course, what constituted 'good' in Jewish eyes was on the basis of "Is it good for Jews?" As Anglos became ever so mindful of Jewish sensitivities, their godlike power came to cuck to Jewish agendas, whereupon Jews eventually took over as the new gods.")

Even though Jews moralized spirituality and conceived of the one and only God(who is not only all-powerful and all-knowing but all-wise and all-just), God of the Old Testament retained some of the darker characteristics of the cruel pagan gods. The ever-fluctuating Jewish concept of God ranged from wise, caring, and compassionate TO cruel, ruthless, and murderous. Jewish God seemed to be kind of schizoid. Too often, His wrath seemed unbalanced and disproportionate to the crime of the wrongdoers. Or, his violence seemed arbitrary as far as the human mind could fathom.

Also, there was a seemingly insurmountable contradiction within the Jewish moral conception of God. On the one hand, Jews praised Him as the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, and entirely just Deity. On the other hand, they wanted Him to favor the Jews uber alles. One interpretation of the Covenant was that Jews would be favored by God if and only if they sincerely aspired to be BETTER than other peoples. In other words, Jews would strive to be wiser, fairer, and more moral than other peoples, thereby deserving the special blessing of God. This was the kindlier take on the Covenant. But, there was another interpretation that implied God would/should favor the Jews uber alles simply because Jews got Jewish blood. At best, this was rank tribalism, and at worst a kind of supremacist nihilism.

At any rate, it was frustrating for Jews that despite the manner of their deeds, good or bad, they remained weak relative to other tribes. Was God holding back his full blessing because Jews weren't good enough? Or did God intend Jews to remain politically and militarily weak because their true destiny was to formulate a new kind of power that conquers souls with words than lands with swords? By developing their spirituality, Jews would master the art of survival despite their military setbacks. Thus, while other peoples that concentrated on physical conquest would rise to greatness with victory but fade into oblivion with defeat, Jewishness would outlast all of them because its essence was soul-bound to God regardless of victory or defeat in battle. It helped that the Jewish God couldn't be represented in idol form, which would have led to at least the symbolic desecration of His Being by the enemy's sword and hammer. It's harder to destroy a mystery than a representation. (On the other hand, mystery remains dark and anxiety-inducing.) Still, it was tough-going for Jews to be surrounded by empires far more powerful than their tribe. Even if Jews licked their wounded pride with self-assurance that they alone possessed the formula for survival and longevity, even a mere century seemed like forever to the people living in anxiety and turmoil.

When Jews prayed for the Messiah under Roman Occupation, they envisioned him to be a super-warrior-prophet who would vanquish the Romans(and all other enemies of Jews, as well as collaborator-Jews) and restore Jewish independence(and maybe even bring about Jewish hegemony). But, other Jews conceived of different possibilities, and one of these led to the birth of Christianity. In a way, the Warrior-Messiah template was fulfilled by Muhammad some 600 yrs later, but he was an Arab who, in his own way, universalized Hebraism(and its link with Hellenism via Christianity).

There has long been the Utopian dream of starting anew. A new beginning without the stain and imperfections. A kind of New Eden. Even God is tempted in this direction, as when He sent the flood to drown out the wicked so that humanity could begin again with the virtuous Noah and his family... but things went badly once again.
Some of the most radical firebrands in the modern era wanted a new beginning, a kind of Year Zero experiment. Reform and even moderate revolution weren't good enough because they tolerated too many of the Old Imperfections. Instead of eradicating all old evils and starting anew, reform took a gradualist approach upon a corrupted order and succumbed to reactionary pressures and opportunistic tendencies. Instead of cutting off the hand of the Devil, reformists shook it and contracted the disease of accommodation in the name of craven pragmatism.

Communism swore to stamp out the old and oppressive in one clean sweep and replace it with the new and just. It led to Stalinist collectivization, Maoist Cultural Revolution, and most frighteningly the Year Zero experiment in Cambodia. At the root of communist theory was the idea that one could not compromise with the Old Way. Social-Democrats were denounced for having succumbed to 'moderate' bourgeois temptations. Leninism and Maoism waged war not only on the evils of the Old but on the Old itself as an evil that must be eradicated in its entirety to make way for the New. (Granted, Classic Marxism wasn't so much an attack on the Old as on the New. It believed capitalism was doing an awesome job of eradicating the old way and making way for the new, except that its contradictions and imbalances couldn't possibly be the basis for a stable social order as too few would end up with too much at the expense of everyone else.)
The shining New Order needed not be grasped for in the dark. It was not something that would gradually come into view through trial and error, steps forwards and backwards. No, this New had already been envisioned in the mind of Karl Marx. Like Zeus's head birthed the full-grown Athena in her full glory, Marx had seen the Future, how it would happen and what it would be about. For this prophecy to be fulfilled, the Old(or the Bad New)simply had to make way for the New or the Good New(that would be premised on justice prophecy than on just profits). It wouldn't be yet another chapter in the customary historical process of the old constantly ceding to the new(which becomes the new old ceding to the new new and so on) but the end of the Old for good and beginning of the New forever. It would be the End of History and the Beginning of the Future.

But seeds of such thought were there in Christianity itself(though its Utopian vision was directed toward Heaven). It imagined God born anew. For Christians, the birth of Jesus was like spiritual Year Zero. Anno Domini. In a way, it was the human equivalent of what God had attempted with the Flood but in spiritual reverse. Mankind had proved to be a disappointment, and the Flood was meant to wipe out everyone but the good man Noah and his family so that humanity would have a new flowering without the weeds.
Likewise, God turned out to be a big disappointment for many Jews though, whereas it seemed only right for almighty God to air His grievances about man, it was unthinkable for man to do likewise about God. Why were the Jews so weak? Did God fail to live up to His end of the bargain? Or was the fault with the Jews? Besides, if Jews worship an all-wise and all-knowing God, why was the Torah so full of contradictions? Why are there so many suggestions of God's imperfections even though He is supposed to be perfect? Why does God have so many contrasting 'personalities'? How come the various great prophets disagree with one another as to the nature of God and His design for the Jews and mankind?

Of course, Jews couldn't admit that the fault was with God. They couldn't say it but they nevertheless felt it. There was something wrong with God, and there was too much contradictory and bewildering baggage in the Torah. If God failed to fix the world with the Flood and the new beginning with the good man(Noah), perhaps the answer was a new beginning with the good God. A Year Zero for spirituality. But how could Jews reject the Old God when He was the one and only God, the all-perfect and all-wise Being? That would have been blasphemous. The renegade Jews who comprised the Early Christians had an idea. How about the Son of God? Even though the Narrative is that He suffers and dies for the sins of man, the crypto-narrative could be He does penance for the sins of His Father. Such can't be said because God is supposed to be perfect. But if indeed the Old God is perfect, why a need for the Son of God as the equal of God and the founder of a new religion? Why a need for the face of God(in human form) who heretofore didn't have a face to show to mankind? Ultimately, Abram was spared from having to sacrifice his son, but according to Christianity, God had to sacrifice His Son to bring about the New Faith, the ultimate one, and the Redemption. But only of man or of God Himself as well? Upon closer examination, the Jesus Narrative is about penance of both man and God.

Via creation of the Jesus Myth, spiritual Year Zero could conceive of God without the old baggage. Unlike the Old Prophets who consulted the Jewish Tradition and History to grasp God's meanings & intentions and build upon earlier wisdom(or delusions), the new prophecy of early Christians would be written on a blank slate. The newly birthed (Son of)God could be all about love, peace, and forgiveness, conceived of only the highest virtues and in a manner far more consistent than the Old Testament narrative. He would signify the end of the Old Covenant that bound volatile God to the troublesome history of the Jews. The New Covenant wouldn't be bound to any history or custom. It would be based on Faith and purity of heart and open to all mankind. Jews were so fearful of their God. God was good and just but also ruthless and terrifying. God was a helping hand but also a clenched fist. The Messiah of Christianity had bleeding hands. Christ, having felt the fleshly pain and suffering of mankind, would understand. He would be of a bleeding heart(though not the sappy kind of the 'liberals'). Furthermore, there would be not one but two Year Zero narratives around Jesus. His birth in Bethlehem heralding a new promise and the Resurrection where He would defeat death and enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

This way, mankind could hope for a more humane and loving God. Jews believed God existed before the world, long before the First Man, who only came into existence through the will of God. God created the world and always exerted a patriarchal and masterful authority over humanity. So, it wasn't the role of mankind or the Jews to mold God's nature. God molded them, and mankind could only hope to understand God a little better.
But with Christianity, mankind could nurse Christ-as-baby in their arms. Mankind could have a parental role over Christ as starchild. Mankind could mold Jesus in His formative years. Jesus, though God by nature, was Man by nurture. (Moses spent his formative years as an Egyptian but as a man turned full-Jew and destroyed many an Egyptian. In contrast, though Jesus would come to realize He is God than mere man, He would forever feel indebted to the good people who loved, nurtured, and taught Him.) Mankind, in imagining its role in the maturation and education of Jesus, could assure themselves that the Son of God as the new face of God would be fundamentally different from the Old God of the Torah who was unpredictable like the weather. Jesus would be more like the weatherman looking out for mankind.

Now, what can this teach us about the development of Negrolatry in the West? First, we must acknowledge that even modern secular white folks still think and feel in terms of Idolatry and 'psychristianity'. Even if no longer religious, a part of them is into idol-worship of all things thrilling & titillating(especially as modern culture is mostly about sports and youthful enthusiasm, with most people growing older not with pride of wisdom but resignation to irrelevance), while another part cannot shake off the guilt-complexes and redemption narratives inherited from Christianity that governed Europe for over a millennium. Also, Northern European Protestant types have long been craving for Idolatry or at least iconography that had been purged from their culture in rejection of semi-pagan Catholicism. At least German Protestants compensated for their lack of spiritual color with the power of music. Anglo-Protestants were especially vulnerable to the temptations of Negrolatry because of the dryly literary insistence of their culture.

From the white perspective, there are parallels between the developmental stages of Negrolatry AND the evolution of paganism into Jewish Religion and then the transformation of Judaism into Christianity, the universal faith, one that especially came to conquer/convert the white heathens of Europe. (From the black perspective, it could be they are aiming at something resembling Islam, a secular faith for whites where blacks-as-gods thrive less on kindly virtue than on fearsome power. If Black Muslims of the Nation of Islam seek racial separation[at least in theory], much of so-called Critical Race Theory or CRT is about whites worshiping and obeying blacks because blacks are good simply for being black.)

Like Ancient Religions and Cults, the crudest and most elemental forms of Negrolatry have to do with paganist fear-and-trembling before raw power, the might-is-right thing. This is Negrolatry #1. Before the emergence of higher moral/spiritual concepts and codes, mankind worshiped gods simply for their awesome power. Never mind right or wrong. Just bow down before the terrifying might that can smite your butt. No wonder so many tribes, in both Old World and New World, made human sacrifices to the gods. (Today, so many whites are willing to sacrifice so many whites and other non-blacks to appease the black gods. White victims are presented as sacrificial offerings to black thugs, criminals, leeches, and crooks via reduced sentencing or 'affirmative action'. Of course, stuff like BLM ends up killing more blacks due to reduced police presence, but the holy god of black egotism matters more than the mere flesh of black bodies riddled with bullets. This has to be seen as a kind of neo-human-sacrifice - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/exclusive-lawsuit-filed-wake-forest-university-coach-killed-man-one-punch/ )

In a similar vein, Negrolatry in its most primitive form is about white awe of the bigass megaton Negro. Even in the old days when blacks were slaves in the South, whites noticed that 'dem ni**ers' could carry heavy loads and holler up a storm while picking cotton. It's like Ancient Folks held powerful animals in awe and even worshiped them: Hippos among Egyptians, bulls among Persians, and etc. Negro was beastly, and even though high spirituality is at the opposite spectrum of beastliness, spirituality initially grew out of worship of beastly power. Even as gods and God evolved into higher spiritual/moral conceptions, they could never lose the element of great power if they were to hold sway over mankind; indeed, the Jesus Narrative couldn't have become a religion without the Resurrection Myth as His Death would have signified ineffectiveness than the triumph of goodness. History of both man and god(s) is about power turning good than good gaining power. Power is always the first consideration. Most people admire bad power over good weakness, though they wish for the good-and-powerful. Admiration is reserved first for power, and then comes the wish for power to be just.

It's like the crude gods preceded the more complex gods in Greek mythology. It's like refined fuel originates from crude oil. And so much of pop music, despite their complexity and sophistication, draw their core energy from wailing/hollering blues and the like.
So, even though civilized white man considered black slaves to be of a beastly lesser race, that very beastliness also impressed the white man for its raw prowess. So, on some subconscious level, white man felt about the Negro like a primitive tribe about a volcano. It's like modern man, for all his collective power and dominion over nature, still feels a certain awe when pondering a bear, lion, rhino, elephant, or killer whale. Or a hurricane or earthquake. And kids feel awe about dinosaurs, especially the T-Rex.

But just like Jews moralized spirituality from a might-is-right cult to a right-is-might faith, there was another side to white man's formulation of Negrolatry. This was the foundation of Negrolatry #2. White do-gooders wanted to regard black soulfulness as akin to spiritual grace. Blacks in the South were like Jews in bondage in Egypt. They needed a Moses to lead them to the Promised Land. This Moses figure could be black(like Frederick Douglas and later MLK) or white(John Brown or Abraham Lincoln). The beastly was idealized as priestly. According to Negrolatry #2, blacks loved to sing-and-dance not because they are a bunch of savage jive-ass bunners but because their hearts are bursting with passion for freedom, equality, and dignity.
White folks, especially of Abolitionist bent, projected their own dreams and hopes onto the Negro. These Northern folks had little first hand knowledge of the jivers and their ghastly racial nature. But they knew a lot about the Bible and projected Biblical narratives upon the Negro. Of course, the South also consulted the Bible to justify slavery. They said Ham saw his father Noah naked, and God punished him by turning him into a Negro condemned to slavery under other races.
Jews, yet to develop a universalist mentality that came with 'emancipation' of their own(in Europe), were okay with the Southern explanation as to why blacks should pick cotton for whites(and Jews). It was because Ham saw Noah naked. But the fanatical Christian Abolitionists in the North weren't satisfied with Old Testament explanations alone. They were into sanctimony and holier-than-thou-ness. And what better way to feel piety and self-righteousness than by denouncing slavery, especially of the Noble Negro? UNCLE TOM'S CABIN even has a Noble Negro as christ-like figure dying for the sins of white folks. Of course, sympathy for the Negro had an element of condescension as well. Many Northern whites thought it was bad enough to be Negro with dark skin, nappy hair, and fat lips. Why make it worse for such an unfortunate people by using them as slaves as well? Also, many whites in the North thought blacks would always remain childlike dependents and sidekicks of the white race. They had no idea they were lighting a powder keg full of gunpowder.

But UNCLE TOM'S CABIN notwithstanding, whites weren't ready to confer unto the Negro the role of Christ in the American Narrative between the Civil War Period to the Civil Rights Era. Rather, the road from slavery to freedom was deemed akin to the Exodus story, albeit one led by white saviors or White Moses, especially in the figure of Abe Lincoln. Whites, especially the do-goody types in the North, wanted to believe that Negroes had noble souls and would be grateful and use their freedom wisely. Many whites in the South thought otherwise for reasons of firsthand knowledge and/or prejudice. While many were bigoted against blacks for racial reasons, they also instinctively sensed that Negroes could abuse their newfound freedom by terrorizing white folks in a reversion to oogity jungle nature.

This phase of Negrolatry lasted roughly from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement. The latter made a difference in that MLK took on the mantle of Black Moses who would fulfill the unfinished project of the White Moses Abraham Lincoln. But, his death turned him from a dead moses to resurrected christ. Negro Narrative went from a struggle for freedom to stairway to heaven.

But then, there is a reason why whites so desperately cling to the Cult of the Black Christ or Blackrist. It somewhat akin to why some Jews deviated from the Old Religion to formulate a new one that became Christianity. God of the Jews seemed at once unstable and tempestuous AND indifferent and uncaring. He could suddenly send floods, pestilence, and disasters out of the blue. Or He could be silent and distant just when the Jews need Him most. The Jews who would become the Early Christians wanted a more consistent and principled God. Also, they wanted to feel His nearness and what better way than by imagining Him as the Son of God who lived among mankind, died, and was resurrected to be one with the Father, God Himself. It was more soothing to believe in the Christian God. While the God of Judaism was a high concept God, the Torah's spiritual vision spanned the development of gods from might-is-right to right-is-might, which is why God in the early part of the Old Testament resembles the deities of the frightful pagans. He even makes a pagan-like demand on Abraham to make a blood-sacrifice of his son, only to 'change' His mind at the last minute. Thus, God presented Himself to Abraham as a moral God. Even so, God in later parts of the Old Testament never quite shed the vestiges of terrifying pagan gods. One can never be certain with the Jewish God, as Job found out the hard way. Then, it's no wonder that certain Jews dreamed of the Year Zero God, the one who could be conceived almost from scratch with only the good qualities minus the torrid and terrifying aspects in the Torah.

There is a parallel between the renegade alt-Jews(who became the early Christians) and today's whites who dream of a Better-Blackness. They've been enthralled with black prowess and associated it with the Noble Negro Narrative... but blacks by and large haven't conformed to the Narrative, remaining ignoble or 'nignoble'. While black problems have been a tenaciously cursed element of American History, blacks were more or less kept in 'their place' until the 1960s. The South had Jim Crow laws. And the North had its own subtler means of keeping whites over here and blacks over there. There were all sorts of discrimination against blacks in the North and the West. Jews in Hollywood had their own ways of keeping the lid on blacks.
Because of white social pressures and political muscle, blacks had no choice but to at least pretend to be a 'credit to their race'. Of course, plenty of blacks were louts and thugs. Norman Podhoretz's essay on the Negro Problem shows that, even before the Civil Rights Movement and the riotous 60s, black thugs had been harassing, beating, and robbing non-blacks, Jews included. Still, white society, both liberal and conservative, had been overwhelmingly on the side of preserving white spaces denied to blacks and dealing with blacks as second-class citizens or a can-of-worms to be kicked into the future. With such odds stacked against them, blacks couldn't go totally crazy, and whites in their safe white spaces could cling to the dream of the Noble Negro doing his best and in need of white sympathy and support. The Civil War Narrative held that blacks were freed and were on the gradual path to equality and justice. It would take time but blacks would eventually reach the Promised Land. But the Civil Rights Narrative spun a counter-argument. The Emancipation had been betrayed and the Negro had yet to break free. White Moses Abe Lincoln failed, and black Moses MLK would finally finish the job and make it to the mountaintop and lead his people to milk-and-honey.

Given the actual nature of the Negro, race-ist white skeptics had reasons not to fall for the Dream. But America is nothing if not naive and idealistic in some stupid(and inspired) way. Also, most skeptics were too genteel and inhibited to spell out in graphic and grisly details as to why the Negro Experiment wouldn't work. For some reason, White America chose to forget all about Jack Johnson and propped up the cult of Joe Louis, the nice BROWN(than black) Bomber. Apparently, Louis was such a nice guy, and it was only by accident that he knocked out all those white guys who just bumped into him. It was like the 'bum of the month' was really a 'bump of the month'. He didn't want to do it, but those clumsy uncoordinated white guys were haplessly walking into his fists and falling down.
As the raw truth remained unsaid even by the race-ists, white dreamers got the upper hand with the Narrative. The Dream would be MLK would finish the job and at last America would fulfill its mission. Of course, many chose to believe the mission was derailed by the assassination of MLK, but in fact, race problems got out of control while he was alive. Massive riots broke out in 1965, three years before MLK's death and by 1968, many blacks weren't even heeding King's advice and getting more rowdy-radical.

Because of the moral-spiritual investment of so many white folks(especially the wiberals) in the Noble Negro Narrative, they were willing to make excuses for mounting black rage and violence. After all, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. And hadn't whites also rioted in the past? So, maybe it was black people's turn to rebel and turn over the apple cart. But the difference was that, while white folks made even more progress upon gaining freedom(via means violent or peaceful), black folks got even worse with more freedom. It was as if blacks-and-freedom was like drinking-and-driving. Freedom inspired white people to shoot for the stars. Freedom drove black people to dive for the mud.

In time, even do-good wiberals joined the White Flight. Jews joined the Jew Flew. (And Asians joined Chu-Too, and Mexicans did Brown-Not-Stick-Around.) It was getting ever harder to maintain the Noble Negro Narrative. White Flight was the result of Black Blight. Too much crime, too much craziness, too much ghastliness. And for those in the know, Abraham Lincoln actually had little sentimentality about blacks. His idea of playing White Moses was to lead blacks OUT of America. And MLK, for his all hammy but inspiring oratory, was a lout, punk, thug, and beast. Had he lived, he would have become just another Jesse Jackson... or worse a kind of Al Sharpton. Indeed, most Civil Rights Era blacks became crooks, thieves, and/or charlatans. It was his death that led to the myth of the Blackrist.

Now, if whites had sense and shook off the Noble Negro Narrative for good and saw the Real Negro at last, there would have been no more of this nonsense. But mental habits die hard, especially when the Jewish-controlled Media and Academia have been doing everything to elevate MLK into god-status and instill whites from cradle with Negrolatry. For most white young ones, the four most sacred people are MLK, Harriet Tubman, Oprah, and Obama. White parents have been made anxious about their kids becoming 'racist' at the age of three. According to Jewish Media, white kids have a natural inclination to turn 'racist'. It's almost as if the 'original sin' of 'racism' is hard-wired into the white DNA. Therefore, white parents must train their kids to be 'anti-racist' from the earliest age possible, and that means feeding them Negrolatry from the cradle.
So, most white kids come to awareness believing that any pro-white consciousness is evil while any pro-black consciousness is sacred. Stuff like Diversity-Inclusion-Equity training is not about instilling and/or reinforcing the same virtues of diligence, honesty, integrity, courage, and responsibility on ALL people regardless of race but about conflating goodness with certain identities. Being black, Jewish, or homo/tranny makes one automatically good, and the less fortunate groups without magic identities can only attain a measure of goodness by being especially partial to Jews, blacks, and homos/trannies. In other words, it's a total perversion of morality. Jews, blacks, and homos/trannies are good even if they act bad because their identities are 'good'. In contrast, even whites who are most diligent, honest, conscientious, and courageous are morally suspect because their identity is associated with all sorts of evils and failings throughout (selective)history. Instead of promoting 'diversity, inclusion, and equity'(or DIE) among whites(but then notice how this never calls for Jewish Guilt and Atonement for the mistreatment of Palestinians who are certainly NOT INCLUDED in the American Debate), society would do much better to promote accountability, appreciation, honesty, and humility among blacks. What US needs is not DIE but AAHH.

So, despite all the troublesome facts about blacks, whites cannot shake their 'psychristian' complexes about them. And yet, it's hard going to keep up with the pretense of the Noble Negro in a world where blacks act so ignoble. White people want to believe that black fevers of the soul, passion, and even rage are essentially driven by righteous hunger(or lust) for justice and goodness. It's like the Jews in the Old Testament are far from perfect but more blessed than other races because they got God on their side. Also, even though the Old Testament God is sometimes terrifying and unpredictable, He is the source of all that is good, as well as ultimately the great redeemer. And yet, the rise of Christianity suggest that enough Jews could no longer accept the anxiety-inducing uncertainties of the Old Narrative. Given the dire events of history, certain Jews agonized and strove for a new explanation, the Year Zero option where they could conceive of God from near-scratch.

We see something similar in the Third Phase of Negrolatry, that of the Blackrist. This is Negrolatry #3. Is it any wonder that so many whites have adopted black babies? Just like God was conceived anew through the narrative of Jesus as Baby God, molded and nurtured in part by man(and woman), white folks dream of the black starchild by way of white nurture. Negroes may be noble and all, but they are too fearsome and unstable, often scaring white folks half-to-death. So, how about if they adopt a black child and mold him to be the Noble Negro more in harmony with white fantasies? Just like the rise of Christianity tamed God into a more loving figure with a closer ear to man's problems, the cult of Blackrist seeks to 'fix' the problem of the broken Noble Negro Narrative. If blacks left to their own devices cannot live up to the Dream, whites must somehow intervene and replace the Old Negro with the New Negro.
Some do it by adoption, but it's also done by ACOWW or Afro-Colonization of White Wombs. Thus, the white woman carries the Noble Negro seed, much like Mary carried Jesus in her womb. Unlike a Negress who, though 'naturally noble', is too wild and funky for motherhood, the white woman would birth and nurture the mulatto kid to conform to the White Dream of the Noble Negro. No wonder so many whites greeted Obama as akin to black jesus. He was birthed by a white mother and raised by whites.
Another way is by Mass Immigration of Africans. Europeans have Noble Negro cult of their own. They believe America failed the blacks who turned out criminal and violent ONLY because of white tyranny and oppression traumatized the Negro soul. In contrast, Europe would welcome black Africans and treat them nice and show the world how naturally noble the blacks are. It's a variation on the Year-Zero-Negro, or Year Zegro. Europeans feel that American blacks became problematic solely due to mistreatment. It's like believing a tiger in captivity is dangerous because of abuses suffered at the hands of its owner and convincing oneself that a tiger would make the most wonderful pet if treated nice from infanthood. While it's true that a well-trained tiger raised from cub-hood can be friendly with humans, it can never be a proper pet because its very nature is wild & predatory and, furthermore, it is many times stronger than man.

Of course, there is one big difference between the transformation of God from the Old Testament to the New Testament and the transformation of Noble Negro Narrative from Troublesome Black Moses to Transcendent Black Christ. Whereas God isn't real whether one believes the Jewish version or the Christian version, blacks are all-too-real. There are tens of millions of them in the US, millions of them now in Europe, a billion of them in Africa, and there will be billions more in decades to come. Even though idea of God is a powerful concept, maybe the most powerful ever, it is still a matter to be pondered and debated. God doesn't exist in the real world. So, whether one is 'right' or 'wrong' about God, it is really a matter of theory.

In contrast, being wrong about Negroes is dangerous(and maybe fatal for Western Civilization) because countless blacks exist in reality and in ever increasing numbers, and they are by far the most aggressive, destructive, and dangerous race. Turning Negrolatry #1 into Negrolatry #2 was a big mistake. Whites noticed the raw power of blacks in muscle & music and conflated them with morality. Jack Johnson was about might-is-right, or 'we blacks be badass cuz we whup you white boys'. Upon noticing this fact, whites should have done everything to bring about permanent racial separation. But whites went with the cult of Joe Louis: the Nice Negro who uses his power as a credit to his race; he beats whites but is almost apologetic about it and, above all, wants to be liked by whites and be an American Hero in service of patriotism. But that Narrative fell apart in the 60s when blacks gained full confidence to riot and loot and scare whitey half-to-death.
But instead of waking up from the nightmare-mistaken-as-dream, whites ended up reaching for Negrolatry #3, whereby they came to fantasize about reinventing the Negro in their mind's eye. So, how did the Obama thing turn out? How are all these black kids created either by ACOWW and/or adoption turning out? Colin Kaepernick anyone? Is he the blackrist?

Can whites ever wake up? Perhaps not because of the 'viscerality' of black advantages. Jared Taylor detailed how blacks are better at certain things(like basketball) while Asians have their own niche advantages(like math and science). So, why can't people accept that blacks are better with balls and worse with ballpens? After all, most white people don't expect Asians to be good at basketball because they are better in math. White people aren't upset with Asian underperformance in America's most popular sports, and that's okay. So, why are whites upset with blacks not exceling in everything? Why not just say Asians are better at math and blacks are better at running/jumping? if whites can accept Asian inferiority in basketball, why not accept black inferiority in calculus or physics?

It is because math/science isn't visceral or exciting. In school, all the attention is on athletes, not on mathletes(even though the latter generally do better in life). So, the fact that Asians are good in math doesn't generate much excitement or convulsion about them. They are just seen as nerds.
In contrast, sports is visceral, and black dominance leads to white hero-worship of blacks as demigods or titans. Thus overwhelmed by excitement, whites have come to wish the best of their hero-race of blacks. (Likewise, white obsession with Jews has less to do with Jewish wizardry in math and science than their humor, forceful personalities, and prophetic reach that seem 'sexy'. Ayn Rand was no looker but her powerful big-think won over lots of acolytes.) This goes to show that Rationalism was bound to fail.

The perverse thing about the Cult of George Floyd is it managed to fuse Negrolatry 1, 2, 3 into a single package. He was beastly, a career thug, criminal, and druggy. He even had a stint in pornography. His fearsome beastly prowess made him like one of the crude pagan gods of dark nature. Negrolatry #1. But the Noble Negro Narrative spun his biography into something like a one-man exodus story. You see, he wasn't simply a lifetime criminal wandering across America to rob and cause more havoc. No, he was on a spiritual journey of self-discovery, in search of his milk-and-honey in a land mired in 'systemic racism'. A lone black moses in the tradition of the fugitive slaves on the run for freedom and dignity. Negrolatry #2. (Never mind Floyd was a free man and used his freedom badly. On the one hand, the Negrolators say it was a great evil to deny blacks equal rights and freedom in the past. On the other hand, Negrolators seem to imply that blacks + freedom is a bad mix because historical traumatization culturally or epigenetically drove blacks to be angrier and more dangerous; therefore, we can't expect blacks to use their freedom as sensibly as whites and non-blacks.) But then, Floyd died one day. How and why? He imbibed too much fentanyl, but the Jewish-controlled media and their minion-disciples, in a perverse variation of the feat pulled off by renegade Jews(who turned Jesus' tragedy into triumph), created the magic-myth of how Saint George Floyd was murdered by a 'white supremacist' centurion but overcame defeat and death by rising to heaven and gaining his place in the firmament. Thus, Floyd became blackrist. Negrolatry #3. We sure do live in crazy times.

COMING UP | THE GREAT DEBATE: E. MICHAEL JONES VS. JARED TAYLOR - Guide to Kulchur