Idolatry Is the Flipside of Bigotry: Consider the Case of the Jews and Blacks - Excessive idolization of one group may lead to blind hatred for whatever groups hated by the idolized group.

 

There are two ways to promote or authorize prejudice, the negative and the positive. The negative way is brutally simple. Pick any group and tar them, defame them, or dehumanize them. It could be a racial group, ethnic entity, religious community, or ideological camp. For example, consider all those Hollywood movies where Arabs/Muslims were rarely little more than Jihadis or terrorists. Present them as a bunch of ‘ragheads’, barely human ‘muzzies’ to mow down when necessary, like in William Friedkin’s adaptation of Jim Webb’s RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. (Webb, who opposed George W. Bush’s Iraq War, should have known better than to produce such a pernicious work, especially because it feigns balance before finally concluding ALL Arabs to be a bunch of towel-head scum deserving to be mowed down from old man to young girl.)
Negative prejudice is, of course, common during war-time, even though current conventions decry overt caricaturing of the enemy, as happened in World War I and World War II: The evil ‘Huns’ depicted as rapacious gorillas or the vicious ‘Japs’ as rabid rodents. Granted, there’s still a lot of fulminating about barbaric Iranians and cruel Russians, but it’s hardly up to the levels of wars of yesteryear(except when depicting ‘white supremacists’).

However, there is another(and more insidious) way to normalize and enforce official prejudice: The excessive positive elevation of a certain group to the point of quasi-idolatry. Why would this be? A mindless promotion of A doesn’t necessarily demean B, C, or D. Just because A is made more popular or special doesn’t mean others are robbed of their basic dignity and rights of humanity.
But this is true only insofar as A has no hostile agendas against B, C, D, E, F, and/or etc. If indeed A does mean harm to, say, B and C, our obsessive devotion to A inevitably blinds us to the interests, rationales, and worthiness of B and C, because all we’d ever want to care about is A-ALL-THE-WAY.

That is why idolizing certain groups is dangerous, indeed far more than certain individuals. We know from celebrity culture that idolatry turns certain figures into ‘stars’, ‘heroes’, and ‘icons’. The fans, who could number in the millions or even hundreds of millions, are so taken with their idols that they often turn a blind eye to the dark side of their demigods or, worse, even justify it as ‘cool’ or ‘badass’.
The dark side of populism was admitted when Donald Trump said that his most devoted followers will vote for him even if he murdered someone in cold blood. So many movie stars, rockers, rappers, and athletes have gotten away with murder(figuratively speaking but literally in some cases) simply because of widespread adoration. Oftentimes, bad behavior, rotten values, and stupid attitudes were normalized simply because many people tend to imitate their ‘heroes’. The weaponization of Taylor Swift was on the assumption that the Swifties will do as their goddess-princess decrees.

Idolization goes way beyond favoring something. Rather, it favors something at the expense of others, even oneself. If Bob, Bill, Peter, Jim, and Nicolas each favor the self, that’d be the most natural thing. Each individual understandably prioritizes what is essential and necessary for himself. There is fairness and balance in each of the men favoring his own interest, of course within the rule of law and principles of fair play.
The problem of idolatry arises when one of the guys, say Jim, is accorded special status and fawned over by the others to the extent that his interests, feelings, and well-being take precedence even over the self among the others. So, Bob, Bill, Peter, and Nicolas will happily sacrifice their own self-interest in order to favor Jim. But it can even get worse if Jim harbors hostility toward, say, Nicolas. Suppose Jim wants Nicholas’ house and car. Bob, Bill, and Peter’s devotion to Jim would be such that they will berate Nicholas for protesting Jim’s hostile moves against him.
Idolizing Jim didn’t necessarily dehumanize the others, but if Jim were to turn hostile against anyone, idolatry translates into a bigotry toward the target of his ire on the logic that, Jim being so awesome, he must always be right, and whatever or whomever he hates must be in the wrong, therefore even worthy of destruction. Thus, idolatry could easily be the flipside of bigotry.

If we expand the example of individuals to ethnic and racial groups in the US, there’s nothing untoward about various groups favoring their own interests. It’s hardly surprising that the Armenian-American community would be more fixated on what goes on in Armenia and its diaspora. Same goes for Greek-Americans, Italian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Polish-Americans, Burmese-Americans, and etc. Each group favoring its own kind isn’t idolatry but merely natural self-interest. After all, if Irish-Americans don’t prioritize Irishness and their culture and people, who will?

There is a kind of equality and mutuality of respect when each group emphasizes what is most important to its people and culture. Your people respect the other people’s priorities, and vice versa. Your people don’t claim that their interests are first and foremost for the entire country and neither do the peoples of other ethnic groups. The varying interests may be unrelated — it’s doubtful if anything meaning to a Pakistani-American community has any bearing on the Cuban-American community and vice versa — , divergent, or in conflict, but even if tensions arise, there is no danger of idolatry if both contentious groups acknowledge that the entirety of the country doesn’t exist to prioritize one ethnic interests or agendas uber alles. For example, the Turkish-American community and the Greek-American community may not see eye-to-eye on the issue of Cyprus, but both are sensible enough to know that the US doesn’t exist to place Greek or Turkish gripes on the front burner. Thus, both groups lobby for their own ethnic or national interests, as do all the other groups.

But what if one group is elevated to the point of idolatry? Not only does it serve its own interests(like all the others do) but insists upon other groups to shower it with special attention, then favors, then respect, then reverence, then obedience, then worship. Suppose every group is pressed upon to praise and serve this particular group, indeed care more about it than care about itself. While each group’s ethnic interests are to remain mostly a ‘petty’ or ‘private’ affair, the interests of this particularly vaunted group is mandated as a public ritual and spectacle. All must openly profess unconditional support, devotion, and loyalty to this group.
So, while Greek-Americans must go through the usual channels(mostly hidden from view) to pursue their own ethnic interests, their support for this special group must be vocal and visible, loud and unambiguous. In other words, Greek-American interests are merely ‘your business’, but the interests of this special group are ‘OUR BUSINESS’, indeed duty and mission.
Of course, the group we’re talking about is Jewish. The two other groups with similar status(though largely owing to Jewish power of selection and promotion) are the blacks and the homos.

Now, if the specially favored group only craves hugs and kisses, it wouldn’t be so bad. While undue attention showered upon it robs other groups of their own concerns, at least it won’t generate hostility and hatred for other groups. But suppose the special group not only hogs most of the positive attention but insists, indeed demands, that all the other groups direct negative rage against whatever groups it has a vendetta against. Not only must we kiss its feet but we must kick the butts of its designated enemies, even if they’ve done us no harm or harbored ill will towards us. Thus, the idolatry for the special group can easily turn into a kind of bigotry, spawning a whole bunch of Idolatrous-Bigots or Idolots.

Idolatry for the Jews have turned many Americans into idolots, often unsuspectingly so. Whereas bigots are easy to recognize, not so with the idolots whose mindless hatred are usually shrouded in words of love. In the 1980s, plenty of bigoted movies featuring ‘raghead’ Muslim terrorists were common, but such blatant propaganda have fallen out of fashion. Yet, the great majority of Americans, even those who are critical of Israel, still favor Jews/Zionists over Arabs/Muslims. It owes to the continuing idolatry of the Jews.
So, it’s no longer about hating Palestinians, Arabs, or Muslims as natural-born terrorists but emphasizing the Jews as the Holy Holocaust people, the God’s Chosen, the high IQ genius folks, or funny fellas(via comedy). If someone says, “Muzzies suck and let’s nuke them all”, that’s obvious bigotry, and everyone would notice and condemn it(except for some Republicans who hardly batted an eye when Sheldon Adelson said Iran should be nuked). But if someone says, “We love Israel so much, and Jews are so special, and we must do everything for them”, people often forget that such favoring of one group often leads to a policy of dehumanization toward any group that happens to be in the crosshairs of Jewish Power.

So much of the US foreign policy woes can be traced back to Judeolatry. Why did so many Americans become rabidly and virulently hateful toward Russians, Iranians, Syrians, and Palestinians? Why did so many people become anti-white, demeaning any expression of white identity and interests as ‘white supremacist’? Why do so many white people hate themselves, their own race, ethnicity, roots, and culture? More often than not, it’s because they put Judeolatry at the center of their lives. You see, Jews are so great, special, wonderful, wise, and awesome that whatever or whomever Jews denounce(via academia, media, and government) surely deserves all the antipathy that humanity can muster.

This is plainly evident among what still remains of the Christian community in the West, especially America. As Christians, you’d think they care about the well-being of fellow Christians in the Arab World, but they’d rather cheer on the Zionist violence against the Arabs on grounds that Jews are so special that they’re justified even in bombing and slaughtering scores of Christians on the other side of the world. And, if any Christian, white or Arab, draws attention to this madness, he or she is immediately derided as an ‘Anti-Semite’ and ‘canceled’ by the so-called Christian or Conservative community. Consider the time when Christian Arab-Americans called upon Senator Ted Cruz to address the issue of Israel’s attack on Christians in Syria. The cuck-faced turd-maggot of Texas growled and brushed them off as possible ‘Anti-Semites’. Some Christian!

It’s the truth. The main reason why so many Americans hate Russia and Iran is simply sue to Jewish animus, i.e. Russia and Iran are relatively free of World Jewry, at least by the totally cucked standards of the West.
Often, the true rationale for hatred is subconscious because no one wants to admit that he or she is a mental stooge or cuck-puppet of the Jews, but deep in their corrupted hearts is the wish to appease Jews and win their approval. So, as Jews hate Russia, we must hate it too and convince ourselves that the reason why Russia opted for military solution in Ukraine is because barbaric Slavs are hot-blooded, even though it’s more than evident that Russia has been maddeningly patient over the years despite the series of provocations by the Jewish-run West.

Judeolatry always prioritizes Jews among the non-Jews. Thus, a common question is whether one acknowledges that “Israel has a right to exist” while conveniently forgetting or ignoring the fact that Israel was created by denying the right of Palestine’s existence. The positive sympathy bordering on worship for the Jews has turned into contemptuous dismissal of all claims by peoples who were wronged by Jews.
It’s why white so-called ‘conservatives’ always turn a blind eye to those at odds with Israel, characterizing them as ‘terrorists’ or ‘Jew-haters’ simply because they resist the injustice done to them by Jewish Power.

Take Iran and the Jews. Israel has been provoking Iran to no end, even using outright terrorism to murder Iranian scientists, engineers, and diplomats. But, not only do Jewish Zionists at the NYT place quotes around ‘terrorist’(as, when Jews do it, it’s not quite terror) but the pro-Zionist goy idolots always blame Iran despite the slings and arrows hurled at it by World Jewry. If goy idolots watched a Jew strike an Iranian, they’d pretend not to notice. If the Jew then spat on and kicked the Iranian, the goy idolots would look the other way or take sick pleasure in the rightful Jewish Master meting out punishment upon the lowly ‘Muzzie’ slave. But, suppose the Iranian finally had enough and pushed back at the Jew. The goy idolots will predictably scream ‘foul’ and express outrage at such ‘brutality’.
But then, it’s the same dynamic over Jews and whites. Jews attack and defame whites constantly, but most ‘conservatives’ either pretend not to notice or blame the ‘left'(or surreally invoke ‘China’); but then, the minute a white or conservative notices what’s happening and raises the JQ, the ‘conservative’ community goes into hyper-overdrive of howling about ‘Anti-Semitism’.

Consider what Israel’s been doing to Syria and Iran forever. World Jewry and their brownnosing goy puppets pulled every trick in the book to turn Syria into a neo-Medieval ash heap nearly overrun by crazed Jihadis, but Syria was saved at the last minute by Russia and Iran. And for that reason, all Americans are obligated to hate Russia and Iran. (The very people who don’t care about and even cheer on Jews slaughtering Arabs/Muslims will then suddenly say ‘Assad must go’ for ‘gassing’ his people, which turned out to be yet another Jewish lie.) Israel can lob any number of missiles into Syria and use terror on Iran, and the goy idolots will either ignore or defend such transgressions, but the moment Iran strikes back after every last ounce of patience has run dry, the West will throw tantrums about Iranian ‘aggression’.

Likewise, Jews are allowed to spew any amount of abuse at whites, demeaning and defaming them as ‘white supremacists’ and ‘nazis’ and etc. If Palestinians, Arabs, and Iranians who resist World Jewry are ‘terrorists’ and ‘radicals’, whites who want to restore their identity and agency are ‘white supremacists’ or the ‘far right’ even though they harbor no desire to rule the world. Viktor Orban, for example, is deemed as ‘far right’ for the moderate desire to preserve his nation’s people and culture. How dare whites have an identity and agenda independent of the decrees of World Jewry.

Sadly, so many white people, in their blind worship of Jews, have internalized anti-white passions(that sometimes border on pathological hysteria whenever Jews sound the alarm bell of ‘nazi’ or ‘white supremacist’ or ‘far right’). Such white people have been conditioned to believe that whites exist to serve the Other, especially the Jew, because apparently whites serving whites is ‘supremacist’.

Now, if whites insisted not only on whites serving whites but nonwhites serving whites as well(as was the case during the Age of Western Empires), one could raise the issue of ‘white supremacy’. But most whites on the Right believe that every people should guard their own identity, preserve their own culture, and serve their own interests, e.g. whites serving whites, browns serving browns, yellows serving yellows, blacks serving blacks.
If anything, it’s the Jews who insist that all non-Jewish groups prioritize what’s-good-for-Jews over any other consideration. So, if a goy is faced with the choice of doing something that is better for his kind at the expense of Jews and doing something that is better for the Jews at his own kind’s expense, he’s obligated to choose the latter.

It’s no wonder that so many whites do things that are obviously detrimental to their own kind, often on grounds that nothing is worthier than appeasing and pleasing the awesome Jews who, being so smart and special and/or chosen, deserve to have everything on a silver platter.
Indeed, even those who defy World Jewry feel obligated to support Israel or, at the very least, not name the Jew. So, Viktor Orban and other ‘far right’ politicians in Europe support Israel, even though most Jews want to do to their nations what was done to the Palestinians. What is the ‘Great Replacement’ but White Nakba orchestrated by Jews via the migration-invasion of the West by the Third World?
And in the case of Putin and his cohorts, they dare not Name the Power that’s been most instrumental in instigating the war in Ukraine. The world seems unperturbed by countless Ukrainian Slavs having been sacrificed on the battlefield in a conflict that was really about Jews using Ukraine as their gangster headquarters in Europe and as a ramming rod against Russia. When idolatry of a group runs so deep, even its targeted enemies are afraid to spell out the plain truth and expose its evil core.

While Jews are the tops when it comes to idolatry, blacks and homos also enjoy the special group privilege of unconditional adoration and celebration. They are usually discussed in terms of tragic victimhood and/or triumphant victory, and of course, the two modes go together as people tend to feel the most sorrow for the most special. With the Jewish media having elevated homos to angel status, an average American is more likely to be triggered by some homo being called ‘fag’ than about the Zionist-led US dropping bombs and killing civilians in the Middle East. And while we hear about the persecution of homosexuals around the world, what goes undiscussed is the role of homosexuals in the US deep state to further Zionist-US aggression and mass mayhem. Homos are the main co-imperialists alongside the genocidal and supremacist Zionists.

With the worldwide goy fascination with blacks ranging from Michael Jackson to Michael Jordan, it’s easy to understand the appeal of MLK and Mandela(and now even George Floyd). Jews have played on this psychological feature of humanity to promote idolatry of blacks, especially among whites whose submission to Jewry is the indispensable foundation of Zionic hegemony. Jews must sit atop the White Horse that is robbed of agency.

Now, if blacks were mostly nice, Negro-Idolatry or Negrolatry might only have limited impact. It would draw excessive attention to stuff like the Super Bowl, college basketball, or popular entertainment at the expense of other matters, but it wouldn’t break a society.
But, in fact, blacks are the most aggressive, pathological, wild, savage, and destructive race on the planet. They’ve already leveled entire cities(like Detroit) and entire parts of cities in Baltimore, St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Oakland, and so on. If not for the ‘gibs’ provided by whites(and others) to the blacks in the US, most black communities would soon regress to the state of Haiti or, at best, Jamaica.

Yet, the idolatry of blacks means either turning a blind eye to the victims of blacks or even blaming them(or blaming others for what blacks do). So, even though the idolatry of blacks didn’t begin as hostility or hatred toward other groups, it de facto turns into that very thing because the pro-black idolots(or idolatrous-bigots) are inconvenienced by non-white victimhood that upsets the cart of Negrolatry.
The preponderance of victimhood at the hands of blacks undermines the faith in black wonderfulness, black nobility, black sanctity, black wisdom, and etc.
So, whenever blacks act badly, the Jewish-run media and their cuck consumers pretend the perpetrators are ‘youths’ or ‘lunch-time rowdies’. If a crazed Negro in an SUV rams into white people, blame the car, not the Negro. If Negroes steal too many cars, blame the car company for not making the cars more secure. There was the case of Asian-Americans blaming black-on-yellow violence on ‘white supremacists’ and MAGA. And there’s the Jewish Media’s constant reminder of Emmett Till to convey the message that, regardless of current black crime rates, the problem is all due to past ‘racism’, thereby implicitly justifying black behavior as unfortunate but all-too-understandable rebellion against a ‘systemic racism’.
Thus, the many victims of blacks are thrown under the bus, much like how the victims of Jews are ignored as either nonexistent or deserving of whatever violence meted out to them by Jews or their proxies, usually the shabbos goy US military and NATO.

 Video Link

Perversely enough, blacks sometimes sympathize with Palestinians as fellow victims and vice versa, but what would have made sense in the past no longer does today. When indeed blacks were second-class citizens in the US, one could reasonably draw parallels between the black experience and the Palestinian experience. But today, blacks are venerated in the US, innumerable programs exist to favor less-qualified blacks, tons of money are showered on the black community(much like tons of aid sent to Israel), and furthermore, most blacks in key institutions and industries are happy co-partners and co-imperialists with the US empire. Lloyd Austin, that fat fried-chicken and watermelon munching Negro, is a happy ‘Cogro’, or Co-Imperialist Negro, who is more than happy to do the bidding of Jews, of course alongside the white shabbos goy cucks, in instigating war in Ukraine, raining bombs on the Middle East, occupying one-third of Syria, and supplying Israel with more bombs to mass-slaughter women and children in Gaza and Lebanon. For every prominent Negro who sticks his head out for the Palestinians, ten other Negroes are happy to cheer on Zion and cuck to Jews to serve as Cogros for World Jewry. Most prominent blacks are more like Oprah, Obama, Lloyd Austin, Condolezza Rice, and etc. than Cornel West. And when a Negro like Ta-Nehisi Coates wanders off the plantation and talks about Jewish Evil, most prominent Negroes lend no support because their priority is to preserve their own statuses and privileges as Cogros.

Also, the US, far from being a land where rednecks round-up innocent Negroes and hang them from trees while guzzling moonshine, is now a place where most of the racial violence is black-on-white and black-on-non-white(and of course black-on-black). Thus, comparing blacks with Palestinians is now passe. Blacks in the US today are more like Jewish ‘settlers’ in the West who feel emboldened in attacking Palestinians, terrorizing Arabs, and gobbling up more and more land. Just like black violence led to White Flight(and non-white flight), Jewish-Zionist violence leads to Palestinian flight toward ever dwindling territories in the West Bank. And of course, in current South Africa, blacks act much like Jewish ‘settlers’ in Palestine. They attack white farmers, often murdering them in the cruelest ways. But if blacks at least have the right of indigenousness in South Africa, the Jews doing the terror in the West Bank are relatively recent arrivals from Europe(and America).

Because so many blacks are such ill-behaved louts in a world where so many people are invested in Negrolatry(the false fixation of blacks as holy and noble), the idolatry of blacks can only lead to the bigotry against their victims. We now live in a world that turns a blind eye to the victims of black violence(as if they don’t exist or matter) or berates them if they dare to complain. Either get brutalized and keep your mouth shut or shut the f*** up if you dare to name the problem.
And it’s not just the ‘liberals’. Remember that Mike Johnson, the GOP shabbos goy Congressman, told the country that we must understand and forgive black violence in BLM 2020. Not one word about the victims of black brutality. Predictably, he soon shilled for indiscriminate Jewish-Zionist terror against the Palestinians following Oct 7. You see, both blacks and Jews are so holy and noble that they always have reason to mete out violence to whomever, and we must comply with the way-it-is or cheer on the violence in ‘burn baby burn’ manner. Or pretend it is ‘mostly peaceful protest’. Maybe Jews and cucks will tell us the Gaza Horror is ‘mostly peaceful genocide’.

Many on the ‘Right’ have long assumed that the problem of Political Correctness and its more virulent form, ‘Wokeness’, is the Cult of Equality, but if indeed the new order was about equal justice for all, things would not be so bad because Jews, blacks, and homos would face the same standards. Some draw the distinction between ‘equality’ and ‘equity’, with the former meaning equal opportunity and the latter meaning equality of outcome, but even equity isn’t the main culprit in the current order.
After all, if equity were indeed enforced, the higher institutions would make sure that the various groups of goyim would be equally represented alongside the Jews. Or it could ensure that ‘conservatives’ are just as represented in the academia and media as the ‘liberals’ are. Or that Arab-Americans are given the same voice and representation as the Zionists. But where does anyone see ‘equity’?

No, the central theme of ‘wokeness’ isn’t equality or equity but idolatry of certain groups, mainly Jews, Blacks, and Homos. But then, most ‘right-wing’ types being brown-nosing shabbos goy cucks, they want to pretend otherwise because their strategy of ‘winning’ is always to play the dog to the Jews as masters. “Gee, maybe if we indulge Jewish Power with boundless talent and money, maybe the Tribe will choose us as the top dog.” So, as Glenn Greenwald said, the very ‘conservatives’ who decry censorship in defense of free speech will turn on a dime and call for clamping down on ‘Anti-Semitic’ speech. The very white conzos(conservative-bozos) who bitch and whine about racial preferences and the like will go out and out to demand that Jews and Israel be treated as special and sacred. And in so doing, the peoples, cultures, and nations hated by Jews get no respect.

Ironically, of course, the people most hated by Jews are the White Conservatives themselves, whose only purpose from the Zionist perspective is to serve Israel and fight & die in its wars. The likes of Ben Shapiro and useless cuck Christopher Rufo exist to shepherd the ‘conservative’ movement to uphold ‘colorblind’ values(meaning whites should reject any white identity, agency, and unity) while, at the same time, making an exception for Jews and Israel. In other words, “I see no color but the technicolor of the Jewish dreamcoat.”

https://twitter.com/dr_duchesne/status/1846947229778805209

Nick Fuentes explains how the entire right-wing is fake and controlled
 Video Link

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