Showing posts with label Luke Ford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luke Ford. Show all posts

Monday, January 6, 2020

Kevin Michael Grace vs Rodney Martin on Trump's Killing of Soleimani on THE LUKE FORD SHOW — Who Is Right?




The video above begins with Kevin Michael Grace's defense of Donald Trump's assassination of Soleimani and Iraqi militiamen as justifiable retaliation against the attack on the US embassy(which, in turn, was a response to earlier US attack on pro-Iranian Iraqi forces). Rodney Martin joins the discussion at 34:00 to condemn Trump's actions as being on behalf of Israel-Firsters, especially when, as Tucker Carlson has pointed out, so little has been done about Mexican Drug cartels and broken borders. (Of course, Carlson is too afraid to Name the Jew.)

Kevin Michael Grace as co-host on the Luke Ford Show is a man of journalistic experience and exhibits many positive attributes of the profession: Curiosity, erudition, and a critical mind. As a staunch conservative, a rare breed in journalism nowadays, he's been resistant to whims of fashion that have come to define Western culture and values. (But then, conservatism, like any -ism, comes with its own set of biases and blind-spots.) People like KMG are outliers not only because they're conservatives in an overwhelmingly Liberal profession but because they have 'liberal' tastes in arts and culture. Now, there is no reason for conservatives to be anti-art or anti-intellect, but in the modern era more liberals than conservatives have been invested in arts, culture, and ideas. One merely needs to survey the media, academia, and institutions. This imbalance has been more pronounced in America where conservatism has either a strong populist or Evangelical strain. As for conservatives committed to the arts, they've generally favored traditional arts, established reputations, or conventional genres. William F. Buckley Jr.'s idea of music was limited to classical. In contrast, KMGs' cultural sensibility and tastes are closer to those of Liberals though his analyses and judgments have a right-wing, Christian, and/or pro-white angle. Unlike the more staid culture warriors of Conservatism, KMG really gets and appreciates modernism, the avant-garde, and pop culture. He even dabbled in punk culture albeit for right-wing reasons. But KMG's inquiring mind and openness go only so far. Sometimes, he falls back on stereotypes and shopworn cliches to spout off on something he knows little or nothing about, as when he caricatured 60s Drug Culture in the manner of silly educational films only good for laughs. Though not a druggy myself — I don't even wanna try pot — , I know enough about hallucinogens from books and friends/associates that they aren't about seeing Magic Dragons. Though KMG is correct about the negative effects of drug culture(that got even worse with cocaine in the 70s, crack in the 80s, and meth in the 90s), he mis-characterizes something he knows nothing about. From Aldous Huxley's DOORS OF PERCEPTION & HEAVEN AND HELL and Jay Stevens' fascinating STORMING HEAVEN, it's clear that psychedelics weren't just escapism into a neural video-game with pink magic bunnies. Besides, doesn't Catholicism believe in miracles, a notion that has been exploited by charlatans to milk tears and dollars from suckers? KMG has interesting things to say when he opens his mind to any subject. Thus, even conservatives have something to gain from the liberal spirit; liberalism becomes a problem when it turns into dogma, as with Political Correctness, whereupon it becomes liberal-in-name-only and stuck within a iron-cast-of-mind. (Likewise, the radical leftist spirit has value insofar as it is willing to question and challenge the existing power structure. It turns sour when the spirit turns into dogma, as with Marxism-Leninism and hardens the passion into a cold iron fist.) Granted, liberals would do better with some degree of conservative anchor or roots as freedom without attachment is like leaves blowing in the wind: Free but fated to brown and wither. At any rate, one of the less appealing aspects of conservatism is to fall back on familiar biases without questioning assumptions. Sticking to the tried-and-true is usually good rule-of-thumb, but it doesn't provide all the answers. That the 60s drug culture went very wrong should be obvious to all, but to characterize psychedelia as KMG does surely misses something crucial. It's unlikely that so many people were drawn to such drugs just to lose one's sense of reality and to see objects turn into monsters. KMG's simpleminded take on Counterculture can be heard 46:00 in the video below.


Rodney Martin is an off/on guest on the Luke Ford Show, and I know little about him except that he's an American patriot, an upstanding member of Middle America. Though a regular American, he speaks more sense that most of the commentariat in Mainstream Media(that are as 'mainstream' as so-called Mainline churches are 'mainline'), and it's heartening that someone who isn't a professional in academia and government is as knowledgeable about world affairs and strives for moral consistency on US foreign policy. In the Grace-Martin discussion, Martin comes off much better because of this very consistency. To better understand the issue, consider the Politics of War in American History. The Liberal-Left opposition to Lyndon B. Johnson and the Vietnam War notwithstanding, most of the political discourse on War has been a matter of, "It's bad if your guy does it, it's good if our guy does it." We saw this with Liberals, leftists, and Progs from Bush II to Obama. While many on the Left opposed and condemned Bush II's invasion of Iraq(not least out of fear that it might turn out well), most were either silent or supportive of Obama's even worse destruction of the Middle East(Syria), North Africa(Libya), and Ukraine, not to mention the 'new cold war' with Russia. In contrast, the 'conservatives', who couldn't get enough of warmongering during Bush II's presidency, were either tepid in their support of Obama's war or even mildly voiced opposition. One of the remarkable things about Trump's 2016 campaign was his pledge to bring the troops home and make peace with Russia. He also denounced the invasion of Iraq as a total disaster. He also reiterated the obvious that the destruction of Libya and Syria only emboldened the terrorists. He did spew bile against Iran, but it was understood he had to throw some red meat to the Zionist oligarchs to get their money. At any rate, something remarkable happened as a result. The Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton became pigeonholed as the pro-war candidate, whereas Trump, for all his bluster and machismo, came across as an anti-war candidate. Thus, his supporters also became anti-war, and this angered the Neocon Jews who see the US as one giant aircraft carrier for Zion.

One of the developments since the end of the Vietnam War was the tendency to root for(or at least not oppose) war IF the commander-in-chief happens to be your guy. To the credit of the American Left, it opposed the Vietnam War when LBJ, a Democrat, was president, and then it opposed the war under Richard Nixon. There was a certain consistency in their position. But a narrative developed since then that the Progressive opposition to a Democratic administration led to the rise of Richard Nixon and Silent Majority. Therefore, the new strategy was one of vociferously opposing wars by Republican presidents while supporting or at least not-opposing wars by Democratic presidents. GOP, in turn, was likely to be far more supportive of GOP-led wars than Democratic-Party-led wars, but overall, its 'support the troops' mentality meant that its anti-war stance was weak at best. And so, Bill Clinton got away with lobbing bombs and missiles all over the place. And there was virtually no opposition to Barack Obama's war on Libya, coup in Ukraine, and aid to terrorists(labeled 'moderate rebels') in Syria. But then, Trump Phenom happened in 2016, and incredibly enough, it seemed as though American Conservatives could be the new anti-war voices and on principled than mere opportunistic basis. This was most welcome since the kind of people who are most likely to get killed in war are conservative white men. Furthermore, the Invade-Invite Strategy undermines American nationalism. By invading and destroying other nations, US loses moral credentials on nationalism, i.e. why should Americans have right of nationalism when their government violates and tramples on the sovereignty of other nations? Furthermore, the US strategy has been to give its invasions a human face with the invite-policy. "We may destroy your nation, but we are so warm-hearted and welcome you displaced folks to our nation." This has been going on since the Vietnam War. Kill millions over there but put on a human face by taking in untold numbers of refugees. This policy is especially damaging to American Conservatism since most of these newcomers end up voting for Democrats. One reason is the Democrats are for more immigration, but the other reason is, despite the fact that Jewish Democrats are the biggest globo-imperialists on Earth, the Democratic Party pays lip-service to concerns of People-of-Color and has at least some factions that speak up for Palestinian rights and oppose war(though never effectively). Thus, Democrats can enjoy their wars and imperialism while feigning 'progressive' credentials of peace and tolerance. In contrast, the GOP comes across as entirely pro-imperialist and pro-war. This was precisely why Donald Trump was so threatening to both Democrats and Republicans in 2016 when he ran, more or less, as a Peace Candidate. Though he projected power & pride(unlike spineless George McGovern in 1972) and supported the US military, he said all the wars in Middle East and North Africa have been disastrous, leading to more terrorism, more instability, more dead soldiers, more dead civilians, and the demographic invasion of Europe via Libya. He took a hardline position on Iran(unfortunately) and promised to reverse Obama's semi-conciliatory policies, but overall, he totally went off the GOP reservation to the ire of Neocon Never-Trumpers. And the passionate support for Trump among many American Conservatives(who cheered in the South when he said Bush family is responsible for the disaster in Iraq) suggested a sea-change in popular opinion. Could it be that American Conservatives are becoming Anti-War in principle? Could it be that Peace, Conciliation, and Diplomacy will become conservative positions while deranged Democrats will clamor for more wars(and cold wars)? Will American Conservatives break with the contemptible tradition of "War's okay if my guy's president, war's not okay if your guy's president." And for awhile, it seemed that way. Whenever Trump said he's about to pull out troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, many on the New Right cheered whereas Democrats, wenches like Rachel Maddow, and Never-Trump Neocons crowed. It seemed as though the Progs really were stuck on More Wars whereas the New Right was set on No More Wars.

But as Jews run the US, Trump has been unable to make peace with Russia. Not only did the Jew-run Media blast Trump for any sign of thawing with Russia but the hysteria of Russia Collusion Hoax made sane diplomacy with Russia impossible. After all, if half the nation is convinced that Trump is Putin's Puppet, Trump will be denounced as traitor for any overtures to Russia. And despite his many noises, Trump hasn't been able to pull out troops out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan because the military-industrial complex and Jewish faction in the GOP are too powerful. Still, the fact that Trump managed to avert a new major war was seen as something. But perhaps it's the 'beat the wife and kick the dog' syndrome, the one where the man who is berated by his boss at work goes home to mete out violence against weaker members. Trump, having had his manhood taken away by Jewish Zionists and Globalists, is now a castrated and cucked man. As Jews have subverted and destroyed much of his first term, the logical thing for him would be to denounce Jews and maybe bomb Israel for its endless aggression and provocations against Syria, making it more difficult for the US to bring about any closure in that part of the world. But as we know, US is idolatrous of three groups as holy-schmoly — Jews, Homos, and Negroes — , and that means the Holy Holocaust People cannot be opposed or even criticized no matter what they do. So, even though Jews have been breaking Trump's balls from day one, he has to suck their cock and bend over to take it up the ass. Having been thus emasculated, how does Trump go about demonstrating his manhood? He plays dog to the Jews and mauls Arabs/Muslims or barks at Russia(or China). But no matter how loud a dog barks and how hard it bites, its 'toughness' is in service to its master.
A typical cuck celebrates the Jew-run US's attack on Iran/Iraq. He implies that Obama was a weak appeaser while Trump is a resolute patriot. In truth, Obama destroyed Libya, wrecked Syria, and pulled a coup in Ukraine at the behest of his Jewish masters. Obama also started New Cold War with Russia. Also, the money sent to Iran was Iranian money that the US had stolen and kept as 'frozen assets'. But the Jew-run media and cuck-politicians & pundits created this false meme that Obama showered Iran with free cash. Jew-run USA is an empire of lies.
The way Trump is going, he might trigger the biggest war in the Middle East yet, something that Jews want. (Even the peace deal under Obama was really just a trick. Jews were playing good-cop/bad-cop with Iran, throwing it some meat in the hope of driving a wedge between Iran and Russia. Notice that there has hardly been much opposition from Jews and Democrats for Trump's reneging on the Iran Deal.) Trump's reckless actions go to show just how powerful the Jews are in the US. Jews attack and destroy you, and your response is to cuck to them harder. It's like a dog trying to show greater loyalty to the master that beats it up. It's like a slave yelling, "Massuh, massuh, please, massuh", as the master beats him. Jews have done most to derail and defame Trump, but the cuck-man is sucking up to Jews to the point where it might lead to another war. Provoked ceaselessly, Iran might have to respond one day, and that will serve as pretext for another general Middle East War. Trump acts tough, but he knows he's close to being check-mated by Jews, and so he cucks to one faction of Jews in the hope that they will provide him sufficient moral cover and money to survive another day. And the price demanded by this pro-Trump Jewish faction is "MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL, you mangy dog-cuck." And of course, Fox News and other GOP dogs are barking to the script, regurgitating all the talking points about how Soleimani is responsible for 600 dead Americans — I guess 600 is a neat number like 6 million — and how Iran is the main sponsor of terrorism around the world(while anti-war voices on the Right grow more silent by the day). Once again, ugly opportunism is rearing its head over principled opposition to imperialism and war. Tucker Carlson is one of the few anti-war voices left, but even he sticks with the script that Soleimani was a bad bad guy. (Yeah, he's so very very bad, unlike all those heroic US generals who invade and bomb nations thousands of miles away at the whims of Zion, the globo-homo Sodom and Gomorrah of the Middle East.) Again, we are lurching into "My guy's wars good, your guy's wars bad." How long before all those dummy populists will cheer for War with Iran because their guy Trump is commander-in-chief?

Given KMG's keen intelligence and broad knowledge, one would hope he'd know better, but the fact is sensibility and prejudice often trump logic, consistency, and principles. And it seems KMG is turning into a War-Cuck because the basis of his worldview is Western hegemonism, Crusadism, and power-worship-ism. KMG says he's a nationalist and opposed to imperialism, but that means he's for Zionism but not for Palestinian nation-hood. Nationalism only matters to his kind and peoples he likes and to NO ONE else. He opposes non-white invasion of the West, but he feels it's okay for the US to drop bombs and assassinate people in other nations as an occupying force. And even though Jewish Power has done most to castrate and destroy the white race since the end of WWII, he claims to be Philo-Semitic. In other words, nationalism for KMG is mere opportunism to protect and preserve the West and to honor Jews. It doesn't apply to Palestinians and Arabs/Muslims who apparently exist to be bombed and murdered by West's pro-Zionist war machine.
But then, why does KMG admire the Jews? Because Jews are smart, rich, and accomplished. Because Jews are a great powerful people, he dreams of an alliance with them against the non-white world. In a way, KMG's fatal attraction to Jews is akin to Adolf Hitler's mis-perception of Anglos. Hitler admired the Anglos so much that he hoped for alliance of UK and Germany against much of the world, esp. against Jews and Russia. It was a sentimentality on Hitler's part that proved fatal. As Anglos were allied with Jews against Germany, the natural thing would have been for Hitler to maintain his alliance with Stalin. But he attacked Russia instead. Hitler's Anglo-dreams proved to be utterly useless. Likewise, KMG's Philo-Semitic dreams are useless. While a handful of Jews might think well of KMG, most Jews regard him as no different from neo-Nazi ilk. After all, KMG has called out on Jewish bad behavior and interviewed Kevin MacDonald(who is allied with David Duke and Jared Taylor). To Jews, Kevin MacDonald is evil incarnate, and anyone who gives him a fair hearing must be a 'nazi sympathizer'. It doesn't matter that KMG, despite his criticism of Jews, is ultimately a cuckish Philo-Semite because the ONLY kind of Philo-Semite that is acceptable to Jews is one that never ever dares to utter a single syllable critical of Jews. KMG is a sentimentalist about Jews because he thinks his kind can form a sound, stable, and fair relationship with Jews: One where Jews criticize whites, whites criticize Jews, but where both sides respect one another and carry on more-or-less as equal partners. In fact, such isn't in the cards given Jewish personality, arrogance, and megalomania. Jews want whites to be their dog, horse, and cattle. Whites better obey and serve. KMG is willing to serve, but he wants to speak his mind about bad Jewish behavior wherever such exists, but Jews will not tolerate any such. Thus, KMG has been purged just like Kevin MacDonald and Jared Taylor, another sentimentalist about Jews, the very people most responsible for his deplatforming. KMG is right to denounce the seedier and crazier elements of 'white nationalism', but he's under the illusion that Jews regard him any differently because he denounces Richard Spencer and David Duke. No, in Jewish eyes, he's no different. As Jews got the power, it doesn't matter what KMG wishes or thinks. What matters is what Jews think, and Jewish Power says KMG is a white-nationalist-supremacist-neo-nazi-homophobic-catholic-bigot.
I can understand cultural and intellectual Philo-Semitism. Like them or not, Jews have been a great people who contributed notably to arts, culture, religion, science, ideas, and entertainment. So, naturally Jews are worthy of admiration and respect, especially among those goyim who are engaged in the life of the mind and creativity. The problem is POLITICAL Philo-Semitism, i.e. the notion that because Jews have been great in many cultural and scientific spheres, they are somehow above the law or more-equal-than-others. Such pseudo-moralism is a kind of nihilism, a perversion of meritocratism that says those with superior intelligence or achievement have the right to push others around. Consider the Germans and Japanese. Both are highly accomplished peoples with fascinating cultures. Germans made great contributions to music and science. Japanese absorbed influences from China, India, and the West and produced interesting variations. So, one can understand Germanophilia or Japanophilia. But that doesn't mean Japanese have the right to conquer and push around less accomplished peoples. It doesn't mean Germans should invade and push around, say, Bulgarians and Slovaks who are less accomplished intellectually and culturally. The problem with Kevin Michael Grace is that his Cultural Philo-Semitism has turn into Political Philo-Semitism. So, he supports Zionist Nakba of Palestinians and the Occupation. He apparently feels no sympathy for Arab victims of Jews because they're inferior culturally and intellectually. (Or perhaps, there is at work a kind of Spiritual Philo-Semitism, which is the flip side of Spiritual Antisemitism that has been identified with Christianity that long blamed Jews for the killing of Christ. If Christian Antisemitism especially blames the Jews, Christian Philo-Semitism especially blesses the Jews as the Chosen, not least to atone for the Holocaust carried out by 'Christian Europe', though Nazis were Neo-Pagans. By current standards, KMG would be a Christian Anti-Semite for his dogmatic conviction that there is no salvation for Jews in the hereafter without Conversion, but on a subconscious level, he seems to balance this 'moral deficit' via Christian Philo-Semitism that says, even if Jews-as-Jews cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they are deserving of the Holy Land and the support of the Christian community, despite the fact that Jewish-controlled foreign policy have caused grave harm to Christian Arab communities. Or, as a staunch Catholic who has never abandoned the Crusading mind-set, perhaps KMG feels that Europeanized Jews taking the Palestine from the Muslims is a kind of semi-victory for Christendom despite the fact that Jews have turned the Holy Land into Sodom-and-Gomorrah with massive globo-homo debauchery.) This is rather ironic since Jews see the white goy race as inferior in intellect, ability, and wisdom, therefore deserving to be used like horses, dogs, and cattle by Jewish masters. In other words, Jews look upon white people like KMG looks upon Arabs and Palestinians: An inferior people who deserve to be pushed around and made to obey. Kevin Michael Grace says he loves Jews and only dislikes those secular Jews who are paranoid about whites. But the fact is MOST Jews fall into the secular-and-hostile-to-white category. Most Jews voted for Hillary, and many Neocons became Never-Trumpers. And even those Jews who stick by Trump do so ONLY BECAUSE he cucks to Israel and worsened relations with Russia. Furthermore, if indeed KMG is a Philo-Semite, it is largely because of his admiration for SECULAR Jews who achieved most in the realm of arts, ideas, and science from the late 19th century. I doubt if KMG would be so awed with Jews if most of them were religious dogmatists with middling IQ who never contributed much to Modern Culture. Jewish pride and prestige since 'Emancipation' in the 19th century owe almost entirely to secular Jews, many of whom were radical and/or hostile toward whites and Christians. KMG dismisses as 'sentimental' the people in the West who sympathize with Palestinians, but it is he who is a sentimentalist about Jews. Most Jews are hostile to the white race and the West. They are pushing White Nakba and cheering for the Great Replacement. It's not Muslims or Palestinians who control the commanding heights of the West. It's the Jews. Also, KMG, like so many others like him, despair of some Jews being victimized by Diversity. But why should they care when Jews do NOT care about whites victimized by Diversity? If anything, Jews rejoice when whites are victimized by blacks, browns, and other members of Diversity. Just read the pages of the NY Times. Just watch all those TV shows that defame and vilify whites as the New Kulaks or KKKulaks. KMG is stuck in an unrequited love relationship with Jews who only piss all over guys like him. Same goes for Jared Taylor who was deplatformed by Jewish Power but still sucks up to Jews and cheers Zionism even though the grand Jewish Plan is to turn whites into New Palestinians. KMG may point out that Jews in UK and Canada now vote majority-conservative, but what does this mean? Jews have already turned 'conservatism' in Anglo-sphere nations into cuck-politics that cheers Diversity, waves the globo-homo flag, and worships Jews to high heaven. In other words, the kind of 'conservatism' that managed to win over the majority of Jews in Canada and UK is nationalist ONLY when it comes to Israeli interests and Jewish Pride. In other respects, it's hardly distinguishable from 'liberalism' that, in Canada and UK, may be a tad less enthusiastic about All-Things-Zionist. Besides, the reason why the so-called 'conservatives' are even more servile to Jews is because Jewish Elites are still on the 'liberal' side. As Jews are now revered as a holy people and as Jewish Elites got the real power & all the money — the real source of Jewish power isn't votes but money & media — and lean 'liberal', the 'conservatives' must make an extra effort to woo Jews to their side. We see the same thing in the US. Most of Jewish elite power is with 'liberalism' and the 'Democratic' Party, and that is precisely why 'conservatives' pander to Jews even harder. Why don't 'conservatives' just regard Jews as the enemy? Because Jews have been elevated to Holy Holocaust People, and it simply wouldn't do to alienate this god-men, even if they are busily attacking and defaming you and your kind.
So, does this mean that KMG should embrace Neo-Nazism and the crazier elements of Alt Right because Jews see him the same way? No, of course not. We should all keep our distance from lunatics(though, as the saying goes, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, and we should acknowledge that even someone as compromised as David Duke has made certain worthy contributions to the cause with courageous talk, as in this brilliant video). But we should also dispel the myth that Jewish Power will tolerate honest criticism and respect other groups on equal terms. Jews are in Judeo-Nazi mode and demand submission and obedience. We know this from how Jews work on Congressmen, virtually all of whom are made an offer they can't refuse: Sign a pledge to Israel or else. Jews are also the biggest hypocrites in the world. They berate whites for 'racism' and 'white supremacism' and say US/Canada belong to all the world and Diversity, but then they turn around and say ALL Americans & Canadians of all races and backgrounds must cheer for Jews(and Homos) uber alles. If indeed Jews are for racial equality and against ethno-centrism, why must all Americans favor Jews over Palestinians in the Israel-Palestinian Conflict?
And yet, KMG favors the Jews because, despite his knowledge and intelligence, he is at heart a Crusadist-imperialist, power-worshiper, and misguided in his racialism. After all, would KMG really care about Jews if they weren't so rich, so accomplished in arts & intellect? KMG's elitism favors the great peoples over un-great peoples even at the political level. Such attitude isn't much different from the Nazi notion that Germans deserve to invade and rule over the less accomplished Slavs. Jews > Palestinians, Germans > Slavs. Also, as European Jews are half-white, KMG favors them over them Ay-rabs and Muzzies. To many white pro-Zionists, Jews in Israel are 'our whites' and Palestinians are 'those niggers'. KMG even denigrates Palestinian resistance by associating the term 'intifadah' to what black thugs do in the US. Palestinians used intifadah to oppose ongoing Zionist invasion and occupation of West Bank and Gaza, but for KMG, such resistance is no different from black criminal elements wreaking havoc to rape, loot, and rob. Never mind that the Jews are robbing Palestinians of the remaining territories. KMG projects his own rather pathetic sentimentality about Jews onto those who defend Palestinian right of nation-hood. According to KMG, championing the most basic right of nationhood for Palestinians is 'sentimentalism' while sucking up to Jews who hate, defame, and smear people like him apparently constitutes moral rectitute.
Why one or the other? The current orthodoxy holds that one can be both a total tool of Jews and a New Hitler. Consider how Jews regard Donald Trump. They use all their power to ensure that Trump will be totally pro-Zionist in waging more wars for Israel and crushing the national aspirations of Palestinians. Jews make sure that Trump, as puppet of World Jewry, will worsen relations with Russia and increase tensions with Iran. But at the end of the day, despite all of Trump's cucking to Jews, he is still smeared by the Tribe as the New Hitler. Then, the same Jewish Logic applies to people like Kevin Michael Grace. In Jewish eyes, he is both a useful tool of Zionism and a 'white supremacist' far-rightist, even a 'Catholic-Nazi'. Indeed, anti-Trump Jews and 'pro-Trump' Jews play good-cop/bad-cop as they mindfuc* Trump. Anti-Trump Jews accuse him of being an evil 'white supremacist', and so, Trump needs moral protection from so-called 'pro-Trump' Jews, but this comes at a steep price: More New Cold War with Russia, more Wars for Israel, and shut down of BDS and the First Amendment. Jews cannot be appeased. KMG can cuck to Jews all he wants, but he will still be a 'nazi' or 'white supremacist' to them because he doesn't cuck 100%. That's the kind of people he is so Philo-Sentimental about.
There seems to linger a hope-against-hope among the likes of KMG and Jared Taylor(who are so besotted with Jewish power, achievements, and moral status stemming from the Shoah) that IF, maybe just maybe, whites demonstrate their fealty to Jews and Israel just one more time, the Jews will come over to the White Side. But in fact, just as Hitler's sentimentalism about Anglos was misguided, so was Stalin's misconception of Hitlerism. Just like, despite Hitler's overtures to the Anglos, the Anglosphere turned against the rise of German Imperialism, no amount of Stalin's 'trust' of Hitler was going to turn Nazi Germany into a true ally of the USSR. When the time was ripe, Hitler invaded Russia for keeps. Likewise, Jews are in supremacist mode and want to keep the white race as its dog, horse, and cattle. There cannot be mutual respect between Jews and whites. Jews think, "We win, you lose", or "We command, you serve." Jews know they got the meritocratic advantage while whites got the majority-advantage. Jews know that whites will stop serving Jews IF white elites decide to represent the white majority than cuck to the Jewish minority elite. Therefore, all vestiges of white consciousness, even "It's Okay to be White", must be banished from the public sphere. In the end, people like Jared Taylor and KMG are crit-cucks but cucks just the same. Crit-cucks are willing to notice and criticize Jewish Power but, when push comes to shove, they will side with Jews, serve Jews, and obey the Oi-Vey. They aren't like the cuck-cucks who constitute Congress & white elites who totally submit to Jewish Power like Oriental servants kowtowing before the Emperor of Wanton Mercilessness, but they will always reliably side with Jews against Palestinians and the 'muzzies' even when Jews are in the wrong.
Of course, Luke Ford himself is a crit-cuck, not least because he converted to Orthodox Judaism. Ford often speaks bluntly about Jewish Power and Jewish bad behavior, but as a Jewish Convert he is committed to Israel, Zionism, and Jewish Power. His loyalty to Jews contradicts his contention that all groups are tribal and ethno-centric. If so, why isn't Ford, a man of Anglo origin, not sticking with his own kind and fighting for Anglo-national identity? Why did he go over to the Jewish side? It's because there's something even more powerful than tribalism and nationalism. It's power-ism, the Will to Cower before the Will to Power, as when French women in droves ran into the arms of Nazi Occupiers. As Jews got the Will to Power and the Actual Power, so many white cucks(and cucks-of-color) act the bitch and bow down before Jewish Power, the new emperor of wanton mercilessness. Furthermore, obeying Jews or becoming a Jew(as Ford has chosen to do) comes not only with material benefits(or shield) but moral sanctimony as Holy Holocaust Worship has replaced Christianity, what with Anne Frank as the new madonna. Why did Ford convert to Orthodox Judaism than Reform Judaism? Partly because his conservative-leaning values are more likely to be found among Orthodox Jews. But in a way, it could be a way for Ford to compensate for his lack of Jewish roots by serving a hardcore strain of Judaism. After all, if you're born Jewish, you don't have to make an effort to be Jewish. Even if you never attend Temple or traveled to Israel, you can rest on the laurels of being Jewish by blood. But if you converted to Judaism, you must make a big show of being the Real Thing. Thus, becoming a hardcore Orthodox Jew gives Ford a chance to feel more Jewish than Jews-born-Jewish. Often, imitators without the title of originator make up for their deficit with zeal. Is it any surprise that Northern Europeans who came to Christianity later developed more puritanical strains of it?

Anyway, Rodney Martin comes across with more integrity in the discussion with KMG on the Luke Ford Show. Unlike KMG, he calls out on Trump's actions as a show of obsequiousness to Jewish supremacists, all the more pathetic since Jews are leading the charge against Trump. Also, Martin provides the context within which the attack took place. According to KMG, the US had to do SOMETHING in retaliation against the attack on the US embassy in Iraq. Now, if out of the blue Iranians/Iraqis decided to attack the US embassy for no good reason, then KMG would be correct. An attack on an embassy is a serious violation, and a superpower like the US must take action. However, we cannot ignore the context of why so many Iraqis/Iranians/Arabs/Muslims are irate with the US. The attack on the embassy didn't just happen out of the blue for no reason but because the US, as proxy-power of Zion, has been tearing the Middle East and North Africa apart. So, while purely on principles, KMG is right about violation of embassies, the fact is principles are dead in the Middle East and Jews & US killed them. Just consider. The US concocted lies to invade and occupy another nation, namely Iraq, under Bush II. Meanwhile, the nations most responsible for having created the Al-Qaeda — the US, Pakistan, and Saudis — averted responsibility. It was the Saudis and CIA that had armed the Jihadis in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with it, but Iraq got the blame. In the Clinton 90s, it was said 100,000s of Iraqi kids were killed as the result of sanctions. But the madness didn't end there. Under Obama, Libya was targeted and destroyed for trying to create a gold-based currency for Africa. KMG and others like him may accuse Obama of 'weakness' for not having defended the US embassy in Benghazi, but Obama was sure 'tough enough' to wreck an entire nation. Indeed, the attack on US embassy was the direct result of US arming and aiding the Jihadis in that nation. Obama and Jews even pulled off a coup in Ukraine by allying with Crypto-Nazi elements. And Obama and Hillary, as servants of Jews, began the process of arming Jihadis in Syria, tearing that nation apart, all the while tolerating Israel's constant attacks on that nation. Under Trump, the US lied about chemical attacks and lobbed missiles into Syria and continues to occupy oil fields.
Now, what is a greater violation of international law, norms, and decency? What the US, Israel, and Saudis have done or the hapless attack on US embassy in Iraq? Given the context, it seems what was done to the US embassy was NOTHING compared to crimes committed by Jews and the US. But even as KMG has opposed US interventionist policy in the Middle East, he has expressed little moral outrage. Rather, his real ire is about the attack on US embassy where NO ONE died. His Christian moralism is entirely racial(and misguided since the current US isn't even Christian but globo-homo as Queertianity is the new faith under Jewish hegemony). At Benghazi, only four Americans died, but that is a bigger outrage than all the Libyan cities and towns destroyed by Zio-NATO intervention. According to KMG's moral logic, the US invasions of other nations and violations of sovereignty are less outrageous than the attack on US embassies as imperial outposts.
Btw, if attacks on embassies always call for counter-strikes, would KMG have cheered China's retaliation by killing US generals following the US attack on the Chinese embassy in former Yugoslavia? US claimed it was an accident but really? Or, will KMG say the Chinese deserved it because they were doing fishy things in that part of the world? If Chinese deserved it for shady behavior via their embassy, couldn't the same be said for the US embassies in Libya(where US armed the very Jihadis who turned against them) and Iraq(where no one died by the way, in contrast to what happened to the Chinese embassy)? KMG invokes Jimmy-Carter-as-wimp as foil to Trump, but Carter had his hands tied because the Iranians were holding 55 American hostages. Also, the US was in an embarrassing situation because it had backed the much loathed Shah of Iran(hated by all sectors of Iranian society, from secular liberals to Islamists), a CIA-puppet. Also, as New Iran was both anti-American and anti-Soviet, the US risked pushing Iran into the arms of the USSR if the US waged war on Iran. This was still the era of Cold War and Post-Vietnam fatigue. An Iran allied with the Soviets would have undermined US ambitions in Afghanistan. Also, once Reagan came into office, he sealed the money-for-hostages deal with Iran. He didn't attack Iran either. And when Marines were attacked in Lebanon, Reagan's immediate reaction was to pull out all troops. Was he a wimp for opting out of more intervention in that part of the world? And speaking of craven cowardice, it was the US that did NOTHING when Israel pulled the Lavon affair, stole nuclear material from the US, and willfully attacked the USS Liberty to kill ALL servicemen. To this day, the US hasn't officially recognized what really happened on that day. This is the cuck-coward nation that the US has become under Jewish domination, but KMG laughably invokes Douglas MacArthur's quote about victory. It's the Jews who've occupied the West and are bringing it to ruin. It's the Jew-run West that's been wrecking the Muslim World and killing 100,000s of people. US under Obama and Trump have also aided Saudi Arabia's near-genocidal war in Yemen. And yet, KMG's idea of victory is cucking even harder to the Jews and attacking Iran, one of the few nations that resist the Jew-run US.
Given the context, the US has no right to speak of principles or rights. It violates all principles and all international norms to get what it wants, which is cucking to Jews. What is worse? An Iranian-backed attack on US embassy or the US plotting to bring down an entire government in Ukraine? Also, the very Jews who did regime-change in Ukraine plotted likewise in the US against Trump, pushing the crazy Russia Hoax lunacy and then finally having Trump impeached over the Ukraine comedy, but what does Trump do at the end of the day? He cucks to Israel and attacks Iran. This is 'victory'? If we lived in a world of peace and mutual respect and IF Bad Ole Iran attacked US embassies in other nations, I would agree that the US must act. But the US is now an evil globo-homo nation whose culture is rap, twerking, porn, and Jewish-made TV shows & movies that defame & dehumanize the white race as 'evil nazis who must be hunted down and killed'. But all said and done, KMG's sentimentality for Jewish Power and Awesomeness gets the better of him. He is critical but ultimately a cuck, or a crit-cuck. A crit-cuck may be preferable to a cuck-cuck like Ben Sasse, but it's still pathetic given what Jews have done to the US and KMG's beloved Canada, where the new 'conservatism' means More Diversity for whites and national-rights only for Jews and Israel.
If we go by the adage of bad nations deserving their comeuppance, then the US and Israel need to be bombed many times over. Most of their elites need to stand trial and be hanged. If Japan got what it deserved for its attack on Pearl Harbor, the US deserves far bigger punishment for its lies and invasions. But of course, the US can do as it likes because it's the sole superpower. It's not about principles but the privilege of power. While it's true that power matters and we can't expect all nations, big and small, to get the same treatment — stronger powers will always have more leeway — , there needs to be limits to the power of any nation, but the Jew-run US is now committed to doing ANYTHING to get what it wants. So, if Jew-run US is about Zionism Uber Alles, the hell with Palestinians in West Bank, the hell with Syrians who suffered so much, the hell with Iranians, the hell with Russians, and the hell with white Americans and Canadians who are fated to be replaced by Diversity at the order of Jews. And if Jews feel like cooking up total nonsense like Russia Collusion Hoax and dividing the nation politically and derailing peace with Russia, so be it. Israel, that has 300 nukes made from stolen US material, gets showered with billions while Iran that has allowed international inspections must be sanctioned to death. KMG ignores this larger context and huffs-and-puffs about the attack on the US embassy. Imagine if a black guy taunts, spits on, beats up, and cripples a white guy, but the biggest moral outrage is that the white guy, in retaliation, called the black guy a 'nigger'. That's about the level of KMG's moral integrity when it comes to the Middle East. What is a greater violation of international norms? The Jew-run West and Trump cooking up lies about Assad's chemical attacks and shooting missiles into that country or some ragtag Iraqis attacking the US embassy because the US occupation/imperialism never ends and acts more arrogant by the day?
But what kind of VICTORY? Given that the West is under Jewish Supremacist Control and that this power is pushing for White Nakba & Great Replacement, shouldn't white people be working toward national liberation via total victory over Jewish Power? As different as whites in the West and Iranians are, they have one thing in common: Both are victims of Race War carried out by Jews. Sorosian Jews are hellbent on turning all white nations into Diversity Hellholes and having white wombs be colonized by black seed. Iran, for all its faults, is defying Jewish supremacist power, whereas whites are cucking to the very power that is doing them the most harm. Whites are cheering on the very people who've devised the grand plan of great replacement. It's the Jews in media, academia, and Hollywood who've spread the most anti-white TV shows and movies. KMG complains about how Chinese and Muslim pressures have affected Hollywood products, but the MAIN censorship in US Entertainment is Judeo-centric, i.e. virtually no critical discussion of Jewish bad behavior, e.g. THE VICE blames oil companies for the Iraq War while being mum on the role of Neocon Jews. If anything, white people should take a page from the Chinese & Muslims and collectively threaten Hollywood with racial boycott unless Jews stop with the anti-white vitriol. So, if KMG is for victory, he should be calling for Total Victory over Jews. But his idea of victory is Trump being led on a leash by Zionists to attack Iran, one of the few nations that have managed to stand up to Zion and survive. Back in MacArthur's day, the US was ruled by Anglo-Americans. American Victory back then was victory for White America. In our day, the US is ruled by Jewish globalist whose ideology is essentially Soros-ism. Victory is impossible for whites as long as they are under the tyranny of Jews. No matter how many bombs Trump drops on Iraqis and Iranians to make himself look tough, the only victory will go to Jews who love to make goyim fight goyim. But KMG is too sentimental about Jews to see the big picture.
Another sicko calls for genocide against the Iranians, but this is A-Okay with Twitter that is supervised by Jewish supremacist ADL and SPLC.
Rodney Martin is the true patriot because he understands the context of what is happening. US is under Jewish Supremacist Occupation, and Trump is now little more than a globo-homo ambassador of Zionist hegemonism. He made noises about pulling out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but it was all empty talk. And though having averted a major war in the region, he is now threatening Iraq with sanctions IF it expels US troops and threatening to blow up 52 targets in Iran, even historical and cultural sites, in the service of Zion. The US and Canada are now nations where historical monuments are being torn down, where churches are vandalized & desecrated by globo-homo symbols, where tattoos & piercings are commonplace, where young white girls are conditioned for jungle fever & young white males are trained to be cucks, where 100,000s of 'white trash' have been killed by Jewish-peddled opioids, and where every white town is targeted for Great Replacement — and Jews have a key hand in all these trends — , but Trump as 'tough guy' is threatening to bomb historical sites in Iran, a nation that dares to defy Zionists and Israel. And KMG, though willing to criticize Jews, ultimately cucks to them by declaring himself a Philo-Semite with the delusion that 'secular' anti-white Jews are negligible when, in fact, they constitute the great majority of Jews, especially among Jewish elites who hold all the cards. And KMG isn't the only one to cuck thus. All these white guys who haven't the balls to to resist and oppose Jewish power flex their muscles by beating up on 'muzzies'. It's the White goy Will to Cower before the Jewish Will to Power. Jewish Power is turning people like KMG into the New Palestinians, but their idea of 'victory' is bombing and killing Muslims for the merriment of Zion. At this point, any rhetoric about sanctity of embassies ring hollow because the US violates ENTIRE NATIONS with invasion and destruction. But according to KMG's logic, invading and destroying another nation is a lesser deal than attacking an embassy. KMG claims to be a nationalist opposed to imperialist, but when push comes to shove, he is a Crusadist who cheers on MacArthurite Imperialism and sucks up to the biggest power, which now belongs to Jews. In this, there is precious little difference from KMG and lunatics like Frank Burton. In a way, Luke Ford and KMG, as crit-cucks, illustrate why Anglos lost to Jews. For all their criticism of Jewish Power, they remain Philo-Semitic toward the very people who've done the most harm to the white race since the end of WWII. Ford converted to Judaism, and KMG declares himself a Philo-Semite, as if that will temper the hatred and contempt that most Jews feel for him.
The mindset of KMG offers a glimpse into the fatal sentimentality with which so many whites in the West behold Jewish Power and Prestige. For all his critical acumen and commitment to Catholicism, it's as if KMG's life is incomplete without demonstrating that he too is very much with the Tribe despite its War on Whiteness. You see, the Problem Jews are those secular ones and just never mind that MOST Jews voted for Obama and Hillary and rub their hands with glee over the Sorosian prospect of the West becoming Diversity Central. Jews push invade-invite policy with the Muslim World because the Invite gives a human face to the Invade, i.e. "We may invade Muslim nations but look how we are welcoming and embracing them as 'refugees'." Jews spread anti-Muslim tropes among white Christ-cucks to make them fight Wars for Israel in the Middle East but then spread anti-white and anti-Christian tropes among Muslim immigrants to make them side with Jews against whites. And yet, KMG's gripe about Muslims is that might attack Jews. He cares about Muslims hurting Jews even though Jews don't care about Muslims(or any non-whites) attacking and killing whites. In the end, Crit-Cucks are as useless as Cuck-Cucks.
Frank Burton suggests that those who oppose war and resist the Zionist control over the US are looking to Iran as some savior nation. This is utter bull. Anti-War Right's position is that the US and the West are no longer in any position to be lecturing to the world about freedom and justice. US is a nation where people are fined and jailed for refusing to bake 'gay wedding' cakes. It is a nation where Jews, Homos, and Cuck cultural-vandals can desecrate Christian Churches with globo-homo victory banners, but a man is sentenced to 14 yrs in jail for burning such a vile symbol. It is a nation where white cuck dads raise their daughters to emulate Miley Cyrus and have babies with black men. UK is a nation where people are jailed for tweets, and there is an entire litany of 'hate crimes' — concocted by Jews and homos mostly — that effectively shuts down free speech and freedom of assembly. Anti-War voices don't look to Iran as some utopia. They believe the West has no moral qualification to be pushing others around. What is truly 'pozzed' is how so many whites in the West cuck to Jewish Supremacism. To the extent that Iran, for all its problems, has remained outside the globo-homo orbit and defies the Jew-run West, it is deserving of respect.
More utter BS from Frank Burton. If Mexico declared itself an ally of Iran and sent pro-Iranian forces across the border to harm Zio-American interests, you bet the US would be shutting down the border and bombing Mexico. This isn't about geographical distance but about who has the power. Jews control the US, and Jews see no sense in getting tough with Mexico because, if anything, they regard Mexico and Latin America as allies in the browning of America to reduce white power. It won't be long before it's Bye Bye Texas for the GOP. The US is at war with Iraq/Iran because Jews control the US and control its cuck-politicians. After all, if distance is the key factor in US belligerence, why doesn't it attack Israel for its war crimes, support of ISIS & terrorism, espionage against the US, ongoing occupation & oppression of Palestinians, and etc.? The reason why the US has especially been belligerent against Iran and Venezuela is because both nations are loathed by Jews who call the shots. Trump, like most US politicians, is little more than an attack dog that barks and bites for Zion.

Sunday, August 19, 2018

Notes on VERTIGO(written by Alec Coppel & Samuel Taylor and directed by Alfred Hitchcock) as Discussed by Luke Ford and Kevin Michael Grace



Luke Ford and Kevin Michael Grace discuss VERTIGO, directed by Alfred Hitchcock. VERTIGO dethroned Orson Welles' CITIZEN KANE in the 2012 Sight & Sight poll the Best Movies of All Time. Unlike Welles' masterpiece that is brimming with life and has large cast of characters, VERTIGO is remarkably one of the loneliest movies ever made. Indeed, its appeal to cinephiles is that intense feeling of loneliness. The audience shares in the experience of CITIZEN KANE together. If anything, the most subjective eye in the film, that of the reporter on the trail of 'rosebud', is rendered almost invisible. What we see is a vast array of characters, big and small, reminiscing on the most public of endeavors: Business, Media, Arts, Politics. CITIZEN KANE is more about the seen than the seeing.
In contrast, the viewer is the main protagonist in VERTIGO(as in REAR WINDOW), and his gaze fixates on one thing: Madeleine as woman, ghost, resurrection, and myth. If 'rosebud' remains vague throughout CITIZEN KANE until the very end, we know what Scotty's(James Stewart) 'rosebud' or "Carlotta's Bouquet" is. Even though VERTIGO is an ensemble piece as romance-mystery, it is emotionally a one-man-show. It is about Scotty's fascination with Madeleine that turns into obsession and yearning. The somber tones, melancholic score, and portrait of privacy(so intense and oblivious to everything but its innermost desire) all conspire to make VERTIGO into a one-man-tragedy. Scotty becomes blind and deaf to everything but the siren and her song. One might see a parallel with Liv Ullmann's character in PERSONA who is also incapacitated and admitted to a clinic, but if her ailment remains enigmatic and opaque, there is clarity to Scotty's condition. He wants Madeleine. He has a powerful and all-encompassing longing for someone who can no longer exist in the world of the real.
In a way, Scotty's eagerness to cure Madeleine of her malady is psychological compensation for his inability to overcome his own. No amount of reason can undo his acrophobia, but maybe, reason can cure Madeleine of her irrational affliction with the supernatural. Yet, a part of him doesn't want to see Madeleine cured. Its her forlorn state that makes her even more beautiful and draws him closer to her. She's a damsel in distress, but in another sense, she's the queen of dreams. Its her 'possession' that adds tragic poetry to her physical beauty and charms.
For many years, VERTIGO was unavailable to moviegoers, but upon re-release, it has rapidly gained the status of Hitchcock's greatest work(among so many to choose from). It has also inspired or influenced many notable films: LA JETEE, THE LAST EMBRACE, L'APPARTEMENT, MULHOLLAND DR., A.I: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, MOTHMAN PROPHECIES, INCEPTION, SHUTTER ISLAND to name a few.
Scotty represents the two sides of our psychology: Logical & Factual and Creative & Dreamy. Scotty's career as a hard-nosed detective tracking down criminal cases involved his logical and factual side. He lived in a world without ghosts, one where everything had a logical explanation, one where even love was a game between rational strategists. But the faculty of reason, however essential and useful, cannot 'create' or dream. In the end, it is the mist around the object than the object itself that makes us dream, inspiring us to create myths and fairy-tales. And it is upon his encounter with Madeleine that Scotty falls into a dream from which he can't wake(nor wants to). It is telling that, even after the facts are finally known about Madeleine/Judy in the last scene, he so easily falls into her embrace again as if to cling to the myth. Even if it can never be the same, he wants it to go on in another form. Dreams lead to madness but there lies the vision. It's like what William Hurt's character tells David in the final part of A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. If Scotty gradually goes from analyst & tracker to creator & maker(of dreams, albeit a forgery of Elster's sinister masterpiece), David(with the help of Gigolo Joe) uses his analytic skills to track down a dream, one that proves to be impossible as years pass.
As different as CITIZEN KANE and VERTIGO are, there is the theme of obsession at the core of both movies. Even though Kane, unlike Scotty, was a rich public figure(richer than all the Gavin Elsters of the world), he too ended up alone and lonely. And as his ultimate dreams -- becoming governor(then maybe president), being a champion of the People, and being loved -- failed to materialize, he withdrew into a dream of his own creation called Xanudu. With god-complex, he strove to create his own Edenic Ark separate from the fallen world that rejected him. And yet, even in that world, he lost all his friends and finally his wife. If any film incorporated the powerful themes of both CITIZEN KANE and VERTIGO, it'd be Sergio Leone's ONCE UPON A TIME IN A AMERICA where James Woods plays the Kane figure whereas Robert DeNiro the Scotty figure.

1. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=11m23s Kevin Michael Grace says Hitchcock blamed disappointing Box Office on James’ Stewart age but argues it made the character’s desperation all the more palpable. Akin to the elderly professor in BLUE ANGEL? Perhaps, the element of realization than desperation is more crucial as to why Stewart’s age made the story richer. Because the character of Scotty is ‘older’, he feels he’s seen it all, felt it all, been through it all; therefore, nothing can get to him or get under his skin. The passion in the movie takes on greater force precisely because it engulfs a man who seems immune to such emotions. Thus, there’s an element of surprise, as when the middle-aged professor comes upon the nymphet in LOLITA and becomes aroused with sensations novel to him despite his learning and worldliness. Kevin Michael Grace also says the movie is operatic, and it certainly has such moments, especially at the end. But most of the movie proceeds like a fugue, accented by moments that feel like tone poems.

2. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=12m40s Kevin Michael Grace says that a recurring theme in Hitchcock’s movies is the falsely accused or suspected ‘wrong man’ trying to prove his innocence. Hitchcock made a movie of that title, and oddly enough, it’s rather uncharacteristic of his works. Even though many of Hitchcock’s movies do involve the ‘wrong man’, there’s the sense that the real villain is acting out the subconscious desires of the hero, the ‘wrong man’ or ‘wronged man’. It's like what Lancelot says of himself and Guinevere in EXCALIBUR: "we are innocent...but not in our hearts." Consider STRANGERS ON A TRAIN where the hero didn’t murder his wife but almost wanted to strangle her himself. In the movie WRONG MAN, the wronged man is portrayed unambiguously as a good man wrongfully accused(almost scapegoated) by the system and the community. Perhaps, that particular movie was uncharacteristically moralistic(even a bit didactic) because it was based on a true story. But in many of Hitchcock’s movies, the villain acts out the subconscious desire of the hero. The hero has a superego firm enough to restrain his darker impulses. So, the villain, as his Id, steps in to do the job. And then, the hero and villain duke it out, with the good winning over the evil. But the perverse dynamics has the hero really battling himself as the villain's transgression eloquently represents the secret murmurs of the hero's heart. In a way, even as the villain harasses and torments the hero, he has made it doubly good for the latter. In killing the person that the hero really wants dead, the villain served as hero's emissary. And then, in being defeated by the hero, the latter can comfort himself that he’s always been on the side of the good when, in fact, his hidden soul is closer to the villain's than he would like to believe. Thanks to the villain in STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, the hero no longer has to deal with his wicked wife and move onto a new lover. The reason why ROPE doesn’t work is Hitchcock chickened out and failed to present James Stewart’s character as a true nihilist. If the movie had been more courageous, the character should have felt the full force of realization that the boys were actually ‘more’ than him because whereas he could only expound on nihilism in theory, they actually carried it out. Instead, we have Stewart's character telling the boys that, gee whiz, he hadn't mean it; he was just joshing, that’s all. (Furthermore, the story would have been more effective if the killers had been presented as truly intelligent sickos than as morons who think they're smart but really aren't. Because they are presented as essentially shallow and stupid, the murder seems more the product of 'dangerous ideas' than dark souls despite Stewart's sermon at the end about how it was in the dark nature of the boys to have done what they did.) PSYCHO is creepier because there is a sense that the Good can easily slide into Bad. When the woman is on the dark road with the stolen money, her conscience is troubled by voices inside her head accusing her of being a wicked creature, but then, we see her eyes turn radiant like headlights and her lips flicker into a smile as she begins to enjoy the realization that, yes, she is a bad woman and is capable of anything. Her psyche begins to split, and for a moment, her stare anticipates the Norman Bates’ stare at the end of the movie. Of course, Bates is a far more seriously split personality. In a way, he is the villain but also the victim, a ‘wronged man’ to the extent that he sincerely believes he is victimized by the madness of his mother whom he feels obliged to protect as a good son. Not sure if Charles Laughton was channeling Hitchcock, but the ending scene with the watch in THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER suggests that evil keeps on ticking on and on, even in the hearts of children despite receiving the love and warmth of good people, such as the grandmotherly figure.


3. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=15m22s Kevin Michael Grace says the ‘logic’ of VERTIGO is that of a dream, more precisely a ‘dream of eternal recurrence’, one where the afflicted seems incapable of escaping as every waking moment turns out to be the continuance of the dream. There is something about Scotty’s spellbound dilemma that is obsessively dreamlike. There is a scene in MULHOLLAND DR. where a man tells his friend about a dream at a diner, but it turns out he is in the dream he is talking about, and furthermore, we learn that he and his friend aren’t real but figments of dreams of another person who also happens to be a figment of another person’s dream. I don’t think Scotty’s dilemma is really of that nature, however. The guy who mentions his dream in the diner in MULHOLLAND DR. really doesn’t want to be part of that dream. If anything, he grows morbidly anxious when he begins to realize he’s in that dream again. In contrast to that normal-seeming person who just wants to get on with his life, the real problem with Diane Selwyn is not so much the recurring dream but the recurring reality. She can’t stand the reality and escapes into the dream over and over and over. It’s a dream-fantasy that she, consciously and subconsciously, steers in her preferred direction, but the reality keeps pulling her back to the dire facts of her life. Scotty has one thing in common with her in that what he fears most is not the dream, haunted as he is by it, but by the recurrence of reality. No matter how many times he wants to return to the dream, the fact is Madeleine is dead, and he wasn’t able to save her, no more than he was able to save the cop in the beginning of the story. Of course, it’s worse with Madeleine because he fell in woozy love with her. So, Scotty isn’t someone who’s trying to escape the dream and return to reality but someone who wants to take flight from reality and be with the dream. After Madeleine dies, he is committed to a mental clinic. From the outside, he seems miserable, and of course, he is mourning Madeleine’s death. But there is also a sense that he’s lost in a dream that he doesn’t want to let go. He doesn’t want to be healed because the cure would mean the rational realization that Madeleine is dead and gone forever, and there’s nothing he can do about it. His conscious mind knows this, but a part of his soul just can’t let go and remains with her in the world of dreams, just like Arthur regains contact with Merlin in the dream world in EXCALIBUR. What is the most traumatic moment in MOTHMAN PROPHECIES?

It’s when Laura Linney’s character reminds John Klein(Richard Gere) of the most basic, undeniable, and irreversible fact: His wife died two yrs ago. All these years, Klein knew this fact consciously, but his soul was never able to let it go. So, harrowing and frightening as the Mothman sightings are in the town of Point Pleasant, they offer the hope of contacting the Other World to Klein who is like Orpheus trying to retrieve Eurydice from the Underworld. Dreams can be scary, but they also allow fantasy, escape, and hope. In contrast, reality is final. As melancholic as Scotty’s dreams of Madeleine are, her ghostly presence inhabits that realm. But in the daylight world of reality, there is only the fact that she is gone forever. A story that is closer to the horror of the recurring dream is Stanley Kubrick's THE SHINING, but even there, the character comes to eventually love the dream and fears returning to reality more than anything.

4. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=19m4s Kevin Michael Grace says the reason why Scotty didn’t shack up with Midge is she was never his kind of woman. He was for ‘icy blondes’, like Hitchcock himself. Also, Kevin Michael Grace says Scotty is a deeply romantic person whose hidden romanticism finally emerges in his fantasy of being a ‘powerful man’ who transforms Judy into ‘Madeleine’. But we learn from the conversation between Scotty and Midge that the reason why the two didn’t get married was Midge called it off. If she’d been willing, they might very well have married and settled down. Of course, he was never in great love with her, and the fact that she’d rejected marriage suggests she wasn’t all that crazy about him either(despite her very real feelings for him). They liked each other as friends, and also, they relished their independence more than anything. Both like to regard themselves as modern ‘ironic’ people who are above duty and romance. If they had gotten married, it would have been as friends, as a ‘modern’ couple. The fact that they still see each other and enjoy the other’s company suggest that they are ‘married’ in a way: A marriage of friendship. They are well-educated, smart, and worldly. There isn’t a topic or issue about which they can’t joke or have a good laugh. In a way, the lack of actual marriage between them keeps them ‘married’ as good friends. Real marriage would mean duty and obligations. But their casual ‘friend marriage’ means they can see each other whenever they like but also be alone when they wish to. Each maintains his or her freedom/independence despite their affectionate bond. So, it’d be wrong to say Scotty didn’t marry her because she wasn’t his type. In a way, she was too much his type, and vice versa, as both shared a similar kind of sensibility: Modern, sardonic, irreverent, libertine, and unbound. One gets the sense that they didn’t get married because they valued their friendship more than any sentimental notion of love. She speaks of sexuality as a kind of engineering, with her bra design utilizing the same laws of physics as a bridge. The irony is that the Madeleine’s husband, Gavin Elster, thinks much the same way, albeit for sinister purposes. (One wonders if the evil husband is really romantic or a cold cynical manipulator of romanticism as a sucker’s dream for others. As P. T. Barnum said, "there’s a sucker born every minute".) Anyway, Midge didn’t want to be legally & morally attached to any one person, so she rejected Scotty’s proposal of marriage long ago, and Scotty didn’t take it hard at all since he wasn’t obsessed with her. He probably thought it would have been nice to have a wife like Midge. Midge is the kind of woman with whom things are best kept dry. It is with Madeleine that Scotty takes the plunge and gets wet. In a way, VERTIGO is about 19th century Gothicism intruding into Modernism that thinks itself too smart for old themes and passions. It’s like the modern scientist-doctor who is upended by the magician in Ingmar Bergman’s THE FACE. In a way, both Scotty and Midge get a kind of comeuppance for their modernist conceit that they are above old-fashioned emotions. Scotty does fall for romance, and his mysterious wanderings does make Midge jealous. And when Scotty falls to despair and despondency as his soul spirals into the dream underworld of the dead, Midge also feels the pull. She thought she was above irrational emotions, but she is moved by Scotty’s passion for Madeleine; she is sad that no man could ever feel such feelings for her. Indeed, it is her sensing of Scotty's deepening emotions(for someone else) that brings out the deeper emotions(for Scotty) within herself. Scotty's apparent infatuation with someone else violated the unspoken contract between him and Midge: Their lasting friendship would be premised on either's refusal to commit to any one person or thing. They'd be like two birds free in the air but never settling down to nest. Midge dreads flying alone upon sensing Scotty's choice of a particular tree as his 'home'.

Also, I’m not sure Scotty was always a romantic person. Romanticism emerges from his growing passion for Madeleine, but I think Scotty’s romantic side was latent than hidden. It was there somewhere, but he didn’t know of it and never thought that side of him could ever take shape as it did. That is why he’s so helpless under its hypnotic spell. He was taken by surprise. And it’s very possible that the romantic side of him would never have emerged if not for the artful con pulled off by the sinister husband Gavin Elster. In getting to know Madeleine, it’s not as if Scotty finally found what he’d been looking for. He found what he didn’t know that he’d been looking for, and yet, having found her, she is ‘it’, she is The One, the person who matters more than anything in the world. Also, I’m not so sure that Scotty is into Icy Blondes per se(as Hitchcock was). Rather, it was how he got to know Madeleine, and she happened to be a blonde. Having fallen for her, he associates blondeness with Madeleine, and that’s why he insists that Judy be a blonde. I don’t think any other ‘icy blonde’ would have worked for Scotty. Indeed, Scotty picks Judy out when she is a brunette. Why? She has Madeleine’s face. So, it’s not just the hair color. It’s the face, it is what Madeline wore in dress and shoes, how her face was made up, and it’s how her hair was done. Every detail has to be right. Indeed, when Judy enters the room with blonde hair, Scotty still doesn't feel the magic. He finally feels it only when she does her hair in a particular way. Scotty wants Judy to be like Madeleine in every possible detail, and yet, it is when Judy goes the extra inch to be like Madeleine with the jewelry that the mist finally lifts and Scotty comes to see her(and ‘Madeleine’) with cold eyes.
By the way, I think the significance of Madeleine’s blonde hair owed to Carlotta’s dark hair. Carlotta’s dark ghostly presence has supposedly taken possession of Madeleine’s soul, and Scotty’s role is to bring her out into the light. Thus, blonde hair is less a sexual fetish than a key motif with symbolic value in the mythic puzzle. The myth of Madeleine isn’t possible without the darkness, and in that sense, in having fallen in love with blonde Madeleine, Scotty has also fallen in 'negative' love with brunette Carlotta. Indeed, one might argue that Scotty might have been less taken with Judy Barton if she’d been blonde when they crossed path. It was her brunette hair that reminded him of Carlotta's ghost, from which he was trying to save Madeleine. Thus, in turning brunette Judy to blonde Judy or New Madeleine, Scotty gets to relive the struggle once again, the one he lost.

5. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=22m38s Luke Ford argues that the problem with Scotty is that he rejected a perfectly good woman in Midge in favor of some unattainable fantasy in Madeleine. Luke Ford says he has had the same problems as Scotty in chasing after impossible women than settling down with a Nice Girl. Luke Ford says Midge is approachable whereas Madeleine is not. So, Scotty made a big boo boo. But again, it was Midge who broke off the engagement with Scotty, not vice versa. Also, both Midge and Madeleine are approachable and unapproachable in different ways. Midge is approachable as a friend, a conversationist, a wit. But she isn’t very approachable emotionally. She keeps a certain distance with irony and aloofness. Her independence and career are too important to her. As much as she likes Scotty, she wasn’t going to give up her ‘freedom’ for a life of marriage in which she might have had kids and been a homemaker. She wants to design sexy things for modern women. So, while Scotty can call her up any day and have a good talk with her, she keeps a certain wall around her.
Now, there’s a wall around Madeleine as well. First, she is of a rich family, a socialite. People of high status tend to move around in closed circles, the sort that excludes most people, such as Scotty. Also, Madeleine is high class. (Of course, the Madeleine that Scotty meets is a fake, a fool’s gold. But like the Shadow Warrior of Akira Kurosawa’s KAGEMUSHA, she was drilled to seem as real as possible, and Scotty sure fell for it. But then, he probably never met a socialite of such high standing before, so it’s all new to him. And so very flattering that such a high-class woman would allow a man like him into her life.) Precisely because of Madeleine’s superior status, Scotty is impressed with the opportunity of entering her exclusive world in both the social and personal sense. No matter how gorgeous a whore may be, she is a whore, someone who can be had for a price. In contrast, Madeleine is like a princess, and Scotty feels fortunate to be gradually sliding into her world(like Kubrick's characters relish entry into 'forbidden' domains). And despite her high class and reserved manners, there is something very vulnerable about her. As Kevin Michael Grace argues, vulnerability is appealing to men. Playing the white knight lends status to a man over a woman, however lowly his status and highborn hers. At the end of Akira Kurosawa’s HIDDEN FORTRESS, the two lowly commoners realize that they’d played a role in saving a high-born princess, and they feel a certain pride that can’t be measured in gold. Because Madeleine plays the damsel-in-distress, she becomes approachable to Scotty. She offers an emotional opening to him that was never there with Midge, a ‘strong’ and ‘independent’ woman.

6. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=28m1s Kevin Michael Grace says, "In terms of James Stewart’s guilt, the overwhelming presence of Catholic imagery in this film is not an accident. James Stewart has committed adultery or fornication but it’s involved in an adulterous affair with a married woman... that is one aspect of his guilt." I’m not sure what Kevin Michael Grace means by this. It’s my understanding that the affair between Scotty and Madeleine was NOT consummated in Act One. Now, one could argue there was an adultery-of-the-heart because Scotty fell in love with the woman he was hired to keep an eye on. And they did share kisses. He wasn’t supposed to do that, but then, Judy-as-Madeleine was hired to make him do just that. While Scotty fell madly in love with the fake Madeline, the evil husband felt no love for the real Madeleine, his wife who was slated for murder. Anyway, as the love was not consummated between Scotty and Madeleine, there was no great reason for Scotty to feel any guilt(in regard to Madeleine's husband). Also, even as Scotty fell in mad love for Madeleine, he was trying to the very end to break her out of the spell, thus loyally carrying out the husband’s request. He was still trying to play the 'detective'. If Scotty feels any guilt, it was his failure to stop Madeleine from her death. Despite his growing passion for Madeleine and their kisses, Scotty restrained himself from going further. He held his libido in check. But when Madeleine races up the tower, Scotty is unable to overcome his fear to run after her. His fear proved stronger than his love, and there lies his guilt. (It's like Winston Smith caved to fear over love in 1984 when he freaked out over the rats. And Peter denied Jesus three times out of fear. Fear is that powerful. It's like white men will do nothing to help a white woman being robbed or attacked by black thugs in a metro train or bus because their Fear of the Stronger Negro paralyzes them.) Scotty's love for Madeleine was the kind whereby a man would be willing to give up his own life to save the woman, but when push came to shove, his body was overcome with fear, indeed irrational fear of something harmless. (Thus, it was something stranger than mere cowardice, which is at least rational. Peter was not irrational in fearing the mob that wanted to tear followers of Jesus from limb to limb. And Winston Smith was not irrational to fear the hungry rats eager to gnaw at his face. In contrast, Scotty couldn't save the Great Love of His Life because of his irrational fear of the harmless.) He felt paralyzed, indeed far worse than Peter O’Toole in LORD JIM. Also, there is something especially embarrassing about phobias. They can incapacitate the biggest man before something that doesn’t even frighten a child. Take a phobia over mice. Most children have no problem looking at mice, but even a big strong man with such phobia will shriek and panic like a little girl. A harmless garter snake may do nothing to an old lady, but a man with phobia for snakes, no matter how big and strong he is, will scream or faint like the Cowardly Lion of THE WIZARD OF OZ. Thus, what Scotty feels is not merely guilt. It’s shame. Not only did he fail to prevent Madeleine from her apparent suicide but the reason was he was afraid of heights. The damsel in distress could run up those flight of stairs in a breeze, but a big tall San Francisco detective like him was frozen in abject fear as he barely inched up the stairs step by step. Imagine Dirty Harry who is tough enough to blow away a bunch of armed Negro robbers and international terrorists but shrieks like a girl and freaks out upon seeing a spider due to arachnophobia. Phobias are like passions. They follow their own associative logic that can’t be resolved rationally. A person suffering from phobia rationally knows he is afraid of something harmless or innocuous, but he still can’t overcome his irrational panic. But then, obsessive love has a similar kind of logic. Even as Scotty is a modern rational person who knows about human psychology and the basic bio-chemistry of attraction, his feelings for Madeleine go way beyond the rational and gain total power over him. Scotty is bigger and stronger than Midge, and he would have a physical advantage over her under most circumstances, but he turns into a little child in her arms when he is stricken with a bit of height.
Kevin Michael Grace says Scotty sets a goal for himself to cure his acrophobia little by little and eventually does(and at a ‘terrible cost’). I don’t see it this way. Initially, he appears to entertain the notion of how he could be cured incrementally. He tries this at Midge’s place with the step-ladder, but he fails miserably, and throughout the rest of the movie, we don’t see him bothering to cure himself of the condition. The extent of the height he can tolerate is the ups and downs of the streets of San Francisco. One suspects he would rather not cross the San Francisco bridge. If anything, we only see him below it as he saves Madeleine. However, the diving into the water is a kind of conquering of height but unawares to Scotty. For most of the movie, Scotty is too hung up on Madeleine to think about his acrophobia. He develops a kind of reality-phobia as the real world reminds him that Madeleine is gone forever. He wants to remain in his ghostly dream world. Even though he’s finally released from the clinic/ward, his condition hasn’t really changed. Also, the return to the tower at the end had little to do with curing acrophobia. It was about exposing the truth and forcing Judy-Madeleine into confession. If Scotty is cured, it is almost by accident. Indeed, he is surprised himself that his acrophobia is gone.

7. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=30m23s Luke Ford asks why Judy-Madeleine fell to her death at the end. Kevin Michael Grace says she mistook the nun for the Evil Husband, Gavin Elster. I don’t know about this. Her fright suggests she saw a ghost. Perhaps, in that charged moment, she thought she saw the ghost of Madeleine. VERTIGO is and isn’t a ghost story. There is a rational explanation for everything that happens in the story, but to the extent that human psyches often operate mythically based on obsessions, hopes, and fears, we do lead lives haunted by subjective forces of the mind. So, objectively speaking, it was a nun, but in the fever-dream mind of Judy who’d been through so much, the figure could have appeared a ghost. And in that sense, VERTIGO is a ghost story. Science of psychology promised a more clear and objective understanding of reality, but theories of the subconscious opened up a Pandora’s Box of phantoms and spirits. So, even though Scotty exposed the truth, the myth lived on. The myth of Madeleine being beckoned by Carlotta’s ghost was followed up by the myth of Judy being beckoned by Madeleine’s ghost. And in a way, Judy was herself a ghost. The person she role-played as Madeleine was killed. It began as a hire-for-money, but she really merged with the identity of Madeleine when it worked its magic on Scotty and he fell in love with her. No man had ever fallen in love like that with her-as-Judy. But a handsome man fell deeply in love with her-as-Madeleine. So, in a way, the mask became the face. And when real Madeleine was killed, a part of Judy died with her too. She became a walking dead, and this is why, a part of her wants to be 'resurrected' by Scotty back into Madeleine while another part of her resists this because she wants to be loved as what she really is, Judy Nobody from some small town. Ironically, the resurrection is also a kind of 'murder' because Judy must be buried alive under the ghostly reawakening of Madeleine.

8. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=31m12s Kevin Michael Grace says REAR WINDOW, VERTIGO, and MARNIE have in common the situation of a man trying to transform a woman to his ideal or vision, but this seems a stretch. In REAR WINDOW, Grace Kelly’s character may be nudged in that direction(mostly by her own volition though), but there is nothing obsessive about Stewart’s feelings for her. Indeed, unlike the characters of VERTIGO and MARNIE, Stewart in REAR WINDOW isn’t obsessed with anyone. His only obsession seems to be voyeurism and adventure. He’s a thrill-seeker than a romantic. As much as he feels affection for Grace Kelly’s character, he tries to push her away because domestication means he will have less chance to travel and be free. It’s like George Bailey wanted to see the world and build things before Mary snagged him to stay and be husband-father in Bedford Falls. In a way, the neighbor across the yard is like a dark version of what Stewart's character fears turning into. The man is trapped in a loveless marriage. His wife is an invalid, and he must take care of her, and that means hardly any freedom for himself. So, in a way, the murderer and Stewart’s character have one thing in common: The want of freedom and fear of woman as chain-and-ball around the man's ankle. If the husband has no freedom because he’s stuck in a loveless marriage, Stewart’s character has no freedom ironically because of his injury from excessive freedom & risk-taking. Both want to break free as soon as possible.
If Stewart’s characters in REAR WINDOW and VERTIGO have one thing in common, it is the element of shame in being so incapacitated. In REAR WINDOW, girly Grace Kelly can freely move about while Stewart is always stuck in his apartment because of his injury. (Likewise, Oliver Stone's 9/11 is mostly about heroes who aren't able to do anything and must be saved by others. They are more like Ron Kovic than Rambo.) In VERTIGO, Madeleine and Midge are 'manlier' than Scotty when it comes to handling height. The moment when Stewart feels the most shame in REAR WINDOW is when he feels utterly helpless to save Grace Kelly when she’s attacked by the murderer-husband. But it’s not just the broken leg. He doesn’t even shout across the yard to stop the attack even though Grace Kelly is screaming 'Jeff' over and over. He just squirms with fear and hopes the cops would arrive sooner. It’s as if he was so afraid of giving himself away to the murderer-husband that he reacts like a turtle withdrawing into its own shell.

Indeed, there’s something a bit phony about the guy because, for all his love of adventure, he is a viewer than a participant. After all, he is a photographer. He may wander into danger zones, but he is first and foremost the eye than hands and feet who gets involved in the action. Indeed, his injury resulted from the far more danger-filled actions of OTHERS at the center of the maelstrom. It’s like a photographer at a boxing match getting hurt from a fighter being knocked out of the ring. His danger is nothing like the danger faced by boxers inside the ring who get punched a hundred times.
As for MARNIE, I don’t think the main problem was Tippi Hedren. Besides, Kim Novak wasn’t much of an actress in most of her roles either, and VERTIGO was an exception in her career, as BLADE RUNNER was for Sean Young. And Grace Kelly was extremely narrow in range, really just a pretty face. Problem with MARNIE is it’s both too crazy and too neat. The premise is outlandish, and the resolution is overly sentimental and moralistic. Even after the facts are revealed by means of reason in VERTIGO and PSYCHO, an element of dark mystery remains. We feel that no amount of explanation can really explain the what and why, just like no single piece of the puzzle could explain Charles Foster Kane. But MARNIE ends on a note of Problem Solved, and that’s that. And it’s the silliest kind of Freudian hokum about repressed childhood memory. The clinical psychology of MARNIE, as with SPELLBOUND, is too simple-minded. It turns out Marnie’s sexual neurosis and criminality were rooted in an incident in childhood. Once that was cleared up, she can walk into the sunlight and lead a normal life. Another problem is Sean Connery’s character is presented too straight-and-narrow when he is as perverse and crazy as Marine in his own way. He is a contradiction of being both drawn to a wild woman and wanting to cure & domesticate her. He is too alpha, whereas what makes Stewart's characters more interesting(in Anthony Mann Westerns too) is the combination of alpha daring and beta vulnerability. I suppose Sean Connery's attitude is very English(though the movie is set in America. Funny that Hitchcock was an Englishman who settled in America whereas Kubrick was an American who settled in England). The white hunter who is drawn to adventure and the wild but collects specimens and trophies for zoos and museums. That said, there is a fascinating chemistry between Hedren and Connery in MARNIE, and there are many charged moments that make for greatness. And maybe the trailer for MARNIE is the funniest thing Hitchcock ever did.


9. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=39m28s Kevin Michael Grace offers several explanations of the scene at the McKittrick Hotel where Scotty observes who appears to be Madeleine in one of the windows. Kevin Michael Grace suggests this might be just a ‘plot hole’. Or maybe the Hotel Proprietor is in on the plot. Whatever the case, it could be Hitchcock was channeling a trick used by Henri-Louis Clouzot in LES DIABOLIQUES. The conspirators are playing mind-tricks on Scotty to further subvert his sense of reality. Hitchcock greatly admired LES DIABOLIQUES, and incidentally, VERTIGO was based on a French mystery novel, and some of the Gallic sensibility does come across.


10. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=45m Luke Ford reads from Roger Ebert’s essay that touches on the ‘moral paradox’ of VERTIGO. Of course, the biggest moral paradox is the Evil Husband Gavin Elster plays god, the creator. He taketh away, but he also gaveth. Without his artful con, Scotty never would have experienced the great love of his life. He never would have realized that there was a mytho-romantic side to him, a man of poetry than mere prosaic details of detective work. (It's like something about Julie Christie's character brings out the poet in the hard-nosed businessman in MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER. A man who never did anything except for money all his life puts his life on the line to prove his manhood to fulfill a romantic fantasy.)

And if Judy had never met Gavin, she would have been just some cheap floozy all her life. It was the con that transformed her into a tragic goddess. So, even though the Evil Husband Gavin Elster took everything from James Stewart, including his sanity, Scotty never felt more alive than when swirling in a dream world with Madeleine. And even though Madeleine’s death shattered his heart and mind, he’d never known or imagined such tragic beauty could exist or what it felt like. Gavin Elster, cynical murderer-bastard that he is, was the matchmaker in hell who made Scotty and Judy share a beautiful love as a glimpse of heaven. He was like a sinister version of Clarence in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE who messes with Bailey’s mind big time.

11. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=46m41s Kevin Michael Grace recounts the scene in which Midge’s parody-painting of Carlotta Valdez deeply upsets Scotty. He explains the moment as indicative of the madness of obsessive love, one of the most tell-tale signs being the loss of humor. According to Kevin Michael Grace, Midge was just being a good sport and funny girl, but Scotty, going a bit mad over Madeleine, simply couldn’t appreciate the joke. Kevin Michael Grace also says Scotty’s glum reaction is not unlike the mentality of PC Leftists who have lost all sense of humor in their crazed commitment to certain agendas and idols.
But I’m not so sure. Even though Midge presents the painting as a joke, what were her real motives? Wasn’t she trying to hide her jealousy with humor? Indeed, it’s odd that for such an independent and modern woman, she was stalking Scotty like Scotty was stalking Madeleine. So, despite her conceit of being a liberated woman, she did feel a bond with Scotty, and she felt jealous when she suspected he might be seriously besotted with someone else. Midge is afraid to face up to this old-fashioned ‘classic’ side of womanhood, and she resorts to cheap irony to share laughter with Scotty. But it’s not so much a joke for him as a joke on him. Also, she is mocking him and trying to return him to the fold as a fellow ironist and cynic, as if Scotty isn’t capable of any emotions beyond friendship and companionship. Because her relation with Scotty was premised on shared Modern Sensibility, she tries to draw him back to the game that keeps them as bosom-buddies. But Scotty has gone past that. For the first time in his life, he’s found real passion, and it means everything to him. It’s like the realization of the Sam Robards character in FANDANGO. He pretends he’s having fun and the time of his life partying and riding around with his friends when, in truth, what mattered most to him was marrying the girl he dearly loves. And Kevin Costner’s character is like Scotty and Midge rolled into one. The fact is he madly loved her too, but they fell apart. But he still loves her and is upset that his friend is about to marry her. So, when he discovers the marriage has been called off, he tries to convince himself and his friend that it’s all for the best, and that they should all go on some wild trip. But in fact, the friend realizes he made a huge mistake, and Kevin Costner understands too, which is why he hustles a small town community into putting on the wedding for his friend and the woman he still loves.

Likewise, there is another side of Midge that she hides from Scotty and even to herself. Despite her enjoyment of freedom and career, there is a side of her that is lonely and jealous. Even if Scotty and she didn’t get married, the understanding between them was that both were too hip for old-fashioned relationships. So, they’d be best-friends-forever. But then, Scotty really does fall in deep love with another. As much as Scotty and Midge savored each other’s company, they only wet their feet at most. With Madeleine, Scotty took the plunge. And his love for Madeleine is like Catholic Iconography. The non-believers just can’t understand. Someone like Jim Goad can’t understand why the Church and its rituals hold sacred meaning to Kevin Michael Grace. For Goad, the Church is something to be mocked and joked about. From his utterly rationalist point of view, this makes good sense as religion just seems like hocus pocus superstition. But for those who felt the grace of God and are enchanted by beauty of religious iconography and rituals, it’s no joking matter. In a way, PC people are both humorless and humor-excessive. They are utterly humorless about what is sacred to them, like Holy Homo and MLK as Negro god. But they feel nothing but laughing mockery for whatever or whomever they deem to be false, wicked, or evil. So, they are the ones who are likely to laugh and cheer upon watching certain monuments torn down or smashed. It’s like Spanish anarchists were full of laughter when they went about smashing Churches and burning spiritual material.

In a way, Midge was sharing a joke, but it was also an act of desecration. Of course, she didn’t know the full implication of what she was doing, especially as she had this fixed image of Scotty as a fellow ironist and cynic. She was trying to keep him framed in the role suitable for companionship with her. In a sense, she was trying to take possession of Scotty just like Gavin Elster was. She wagered on Scotty the ironist, whereas Gavin wagered on Scotty the latent romantic. And it turns out Gavin was closer to the truth. In some ways, he understood Scotty(or perhaps any man) better than Scotty understood himself. For most of his life, Scotty would have scoffed at the notion of him being a romantic and sincerely too. After all, his chosen profession was detective work, a field that makes people cynical about humanity’s endless depravities and deceptions. When Scotty meets Gavin, he seems utterly jaded, and upon hearing the ghostly tale of Carlotta, he’s about to burst into laughter. It’s like a man who believes he can’t be hypnotized who is hypnotized and doesn’t know he’s under hypnosis. All faith is like a kind of hypnosis, which is why non-religious people can't really understand religious people or any group under some kind of deep devotion to something. But the devotion could be to anything, like idols of pop culture, as with Beatlemania or Grateful Dead Phenom. For the uninitiated, it all seems like a delusion or mania. And yet, those who note this delusion in others may themselves be under their own delusions. It's like a religious person sees the ludicrousness of other religions but not of his own that seems holy and sacred. So, Midge doesn't quite understand the extent of her desecration of what has become iconographic to Scotty. But on a sly level, she was willfully mocking something dear to him out of jealousy she was too proud to admit to.

Finally, Midge’s reaction to Scotty’s disapproval and retreat from her apartment betrays her true feelings about Scotty and the whole situation. She seems very upset that Scotty took umbrage at her antic. If she’s really a light-hearted joker, she would have been unscathed from the situation, but she is visibly upset. She is ashamed that Scotty saw through her. Despite the cover of humor, she knows, Scotty knows, and we know that she was acting out of jealousy and was striking out at the object of Scotty’s devotion. Her joke was a pretense of not caring when, in fact, she cares very much. She is jealous of the fact that Scotty has feelings for another that goes deeper than anything that existed between them. At the end of CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, Prince Hal gains authority, responsibility, and meaning that rises above the funny business he used to enjoy with Falstaff. It’s about putting away childish things. Same with Becket who rises above serving as plaything for his friend the king. Friendship jealously guards against rival attachments to other people or institutions.

The tragedy in Scotty’s case, of course, is that his discovery of great love turned out to be the child-play of an evil son-of-a-bitch.
Kevin Michael Grace says that Scotty is the sort of man who was looking for The One, the one special kind of woman. But I don’t think so. Scotty wasn’t looking for anyone for most of his life. He seems to be the kind of guy who relished being free and independent. His life seems to have revolved around work and meeting up with friends and companions. He wasn’t bound to anything. Such a life could be lonely, but it was without duties and obligations. He could live the life of a true individualist. Scotty wasn’t searching for The One. It was thrust upon him, and he was mesmerized by a kind of beauty he’d never encountered before and was overwhelmed by emotions within him that he’d never imagined could arise.

12. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=56m30s Luke Ford says Scotty is the kind of man who chases after fantasies because he can’t deal with reality. He surmises that if Scotty hadn’t come upon Madeleine, he would have found someone/something else to be obsessed about. But this is wrong. There’s no indication that Scotty has been a habitual fantasist or an obsessive personality all his life. In a way, Gavin Elster chose him because he’s a ‘virgin’ when it comes to romantic obsessions. Ironically, Scotty’s sense of irony and cynicism is what makes him so ‘innocently’ vulnerable and partial to the trick. It’s like Jack Nicholson’s cocksure cynicism that blinds him to the utter depravity of power in L.A. in CHINATOWN. He’s so sure he knows everything that he fails to see there's even more to 'everything'.
It's as if Gavin Elster sensed that Scotty, being so sure of his skepticism honed on the job as detective, would be like a deer-in-the-headlight when Real Romanticism came rushing right at him. Someone who’d been through previous obsessions might be more self-aware when he falls into another obsession. In contrast, Scotty has no past references to draw from when he falls for Madeleine. He’d never known such emotions before. He’s an amateur, a green, in this field. Luke Ford is wrong to project himself onto Scotty. Ford seems quite self-aware precisely because he’s been through certain bouts of obsession with women and other things. So, even if he were to fall into another one, he’d have a good sense of what is happening to him yet again. He'd be partially immune to the obsessive bug. In contrast, Scotty finds himself in unfamiliar territory.
Scotty is not a serial fantasist. He’s been a factualist all his life, a man of law and law-enforcement, a man who has surely pored over countless stories of crimes, betrayals, deceptions, and etc. He is a veteran in the domain of facts. What he knows nothing about is the realm of myth and fantasy. And because he’s a novice in that field, Elster is able to draw him in slowly and surely. It sort of reminds me of why Stephen Glass was able to fool so many people at The New Republic. The magazine staff was pretty good with checking factual stories. What Glass did was sell outlandish fairy-tales, something for which the editorial staff was unfamiliar in dealing with.

Luke Ford also takes a self-help approach to Scotty’s dilemma, as if the character is a real-life person who could have avoided trouble had he been more self-aware, possibly with the aid of religion and advice columns. But really, purpose of VERTIGO is to explore and poeticize the mythology of love than to offer good advice. If Scotty had been more sensible, there would be no movie.

13. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=1h1m19s Kevin Michael Grace compares Luke Ford to the psychiatrist at the end of PSYCHO who sums up in neat clinical terms what’s really driving the madness behind Norman Bates. Kevin Michael Grace says Hitchcock was winking at the audience when trotting out such explanations because the mystery of evil could never be explained with a pat theory or two. That is true, but it’s also true that Hitchcock was often overly partial to certain psychological theories. There isn’t much winking in SPELLBOUND and MARNIE. Hitchcock really seems to endorse rather crackpot Freudian theories about repressed childhood memories. The resolutions are meant to be neat and final. In SPELLBOUND, it was the repressed memory of Gregory Peck’s character having accidentally killed his younger brother in childhood. In MARNIE, the anti-heroine’s troubles were rooted in the repressed childhood memory of having killed a man who attacked her mother who, it turns out, was a hooker. So, there was the richer and darker Hitchcock who suggested at the mystery of evil, and there was the amateur-psychologist Hitchcock who resolved conflicts with some fashionable theory about the subconscious. Hitchcock was both a nihilist and a moralist. There was an air of the English bourgeoisie about him all his life. He liked form and order, minutely detailing the production from A to Z before the shooting began. Also, there’s a positivist sense in many of his movies that invaluable methods can be drawn from science and medicine to aid in the solving of crime and madness. His films are on the side of civilization, fearful of the natural forces as in THE BIRDS. And yet, another side of Hitchcock felt civilization was a veneer, a veiled masquerade over true human nature that was animal. Myth and Art were spheres where civilization and animal nature could 'safely' create friction to produce the fever-dream. Civilization is like a cage, and we are all like caged birds. We need the cage, but it holds us back from so much truth about us. And yet, without the cage, we revert to animal drives and become beastly like crazy-ass Negroes. So, how do we maintain Order but also draw inspiration from the more vital and virile side of our nature? Through the power of Myths and Art.

The strange thing about VERTIGO is Scotty is both a guardian and trespasser. He takes on the job of guarding Madeleine from madness, chaos, and suicide. His role is to uncover the truth and restore Madeleine to the light. And yet, in his immersion in the passion, his own psyche is thrown into turmoil. Even as he tries desperately to make Madeleine come to the light, he moves into the darkness. This aspect of VERTIGO surely influenced the French romance THE APARTMENT, remade into WICKER PARK. In M. Night Shyamalan's SPLIT, the doctor(Betty Buckley) is also of a dual nature. On the one hand, she wants to cure the patient and draw him into the light, but on the other hand, she is so fascinated with her patient's condition that she comes to see him and others of his kind as near demigods deserving of special admiration. Unknowingly, she is drawn into the darkness.


Anyway, Hitchcock was winking and not winking in many of his movies. A part of him was rolling his eyes at pat theories of events, but there was another side of Hitchcock that was very much like a schoolmarm and instructor. In a way, Hitchcock’s movies draw their power from the tension among the moralism, modernism, and madness. Madness upon madness isn’t very interesting. It’s like black paint on black canvas. It’s the nihilist thread that weaves through the bourgeois moralist or rationalist fabric that gives Hitchcock’s movies the sense of the Serpent slithering in the Garden of Eden. This is why DePalma's movies, for all their debt to Hitchcock, don't really feel Hitchcockian. Hitchcock, like Luis Bunuel, needed the bourgeois world as contra-canvas for his dark fantasies. Indeed, the fantasies were dark precisely because because they were set against tradition, community, and/or rationality(science & medicine). Likewise, Bunuel's bad boy antics were effective only as long as there was the bourgeoisie to mock. The difference was, all said and done, Hitchcock sided with the bourgeoisie whereas Bunuel sided with the anarchy. Despite stylistic similarities, DePalma’s world is too sordid and fallen(indeed shamelessly so) to create the kind of tension between Order and Chaos that is so integral to the Dark Bourgeois gamesmanship of Hitchcock. Also, it’s difficult to sustain romanticism in a pornographic world.

14. https://youtu.be/met1c7anQ3E?t=1h5m6s Kevin Michael Grace says the movie ends with Scotty’s triumph albeit at a tremendous cost. By ‘triumph’, Kevin Michael Grace means Scotty’s solving of the mystery and his cure from acrophobia. But perhaps, ‘triumph’ is too strong a word. Indeed, one gets the sense that maybe Scotty should have ignored the necklace and pretended to carry on as usual. After all, his greatest triumph was the resurrection of Madeleine. By revisiting the tower and making Judy-Madeleine spill the beans, he lost what he’d created. But of course, once he found out about the necklace, he just couldn’t let it go. He had to find out, just like Noodles in ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA had to come face to face with the truth even at the loss of the myth that had lent tragic meaning to his life all these years. Granted, there is both an emotional push and pull — like the camera-work employed to approximate the sensation of vertigo — as Scotty gets closer to the truth. On the one hand, he wants to hear the truth from Judy’s lips. He wants her to vomit out every last bit. Yet, at the same time, he dreads hearing every word because it’s so horrible. He wants to hear, he doesn’t want to hear. He compels her to confess but is triggered into fury by every utterance. It’s like having a bullet or arrow removed from one’s wound. One wants it out but agonizes over the unbearable pain. But finally, all the truth is 'birthed' like a decayed stillborn baby, and Scotty processes all of it. He is finally cleared of the inner illusions that fueled his acrophobia. Still, the power of the myth is such that, even after the poison has been sucked out of him and Judy, he(and she) still can’t let it go. Even though the necklace was the key to solving the puzzle, he is touched by the fact that she was so sentimental about it. And they embrace once again, and maybe that might have been a kind of happy ending. Even after the myth has been shattered, they realize they found real love in each other, and so the myth can evolve into something new. But then Judy falls to her death, and Scotty has some serious explaining to do. He just barely got away with his Chappaquidick Moment the first time Madeleine died. The board none-too-surely accepted his version of events and declared him not responsible for the death. But how will he explain the second death, especially as the woman, Judy, has been made to look just like Madeleine? He has regained sense and sanity, but if he tells the truth of what happened and why he turned Judy into Madeleine II, the world will think him mad.