When The Sleeper Wakes

April 30, 2021

ERBzine 1450: What’s Going On by R.E. Prindle

ERBzine 1662: Tarzan and the Leopard Men article by R. E. Prindle

ERBzine 1662a: Tarzan and the Leopard Men: Pt 2 review by R. E. Prindle

Another Side Of White Supremacy


R.E. Prindle

As we all know there is a tremendous reaction to White Supremacy.  All the sub-races are calling for an end to White Supremacy in which case  we can be sure that there is White Supremacy.  We’re dealing with facts here.  True Science.

Look at the clothes.  Do you see anyone walking around in Aztec dress? No?

Look at China.  Mao’s Cultural Revolution was a success.  Traditional Chinese dress has disappeared from the face of the Earth.  Replaced by…clothes that White people designed.  The whole world dresses like White People.  T-shirts with slogans on them.

Look at the cities of Asia—China, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Myanmar for Christ’s sake, India, the Arab States, Israel, what do you see?  Skyscrapers.  Skyscrapers, the iconic structure of the United States.  Made the Arabs so jealous they knocked a couple of ours down and then built one much taller than ours ever were.  Half a mile high.  Skyscrapers!  Born in Chicago before the Negroes arrived.

See anybody riding horses?  Driving ox-carts?  No?  Automobiles, trucks, trains, planes, Electric Cars.  Motor City redux.  It’s all White.  Everything.  Whites have white washed the world.  There is nothing so evident of White Supremacy than how the Rest look, act and live.

What is more ubiquitous evidence ow White Supremacy than the cell phone, created in a garage in the United States.  Took over the world in a decade..  Look at the photos, everyone walks around with a cell phone in their hand.  Push a button and you’re face to face with your friend.  Science fiction right?  Came from right here in the land of White Supremacy.

Phones, TVs, computers, the Internet, movies you name it.  White Supremacy makes the rest feel inadequate.  They’re embarrassed by it. Better to get rid of the Whites but keep the Whiteness.  Whiteness good, Whites bad.  Hey?

Even the Jews sing:  We’re not White we’re Jewish.  Sure.  The horror of living off the bennies of the US!  US monetary support ends, Israel disappears.  They’re not White but they want the Green.  Need it.  To Survive.   They won’t let you on the bus without the fare.  ‘Smartest people on the Earth’ but living off the US dole.

Suppose the Rest do remove Whiteness from the World.  What happens then?  The life goes out of the world.  The nineteenth and eighteenth centuries return.  Famines, diseases, parasites and not Paradise.  You can count the ticks of the clock while everything runs down.

Africans can’t offer any contribution.  Before the West sent them a shipment of sun glasses they were plagued with eye diseases.  Then they pleaded:  We don’t want you to send us shoes; we want you to send us people to show us how to make them.  No hope there.  They were static before the White Man arrived to pick up the burden.

The Chinese advanced a little further up the evolutionary scale but their society had always been in a condition of stasis until some Western Whites showed up and asked them :  Can you guys make this crap cheaper?  Western business practices were grafted onto Chinese stock and lo! The Chinese desert bloomed.  Without Whiteness China sinks back into apathy.

Japan! Now there was a dynamic response to the Western Challenge.  But they will get gulped down by the Chinese Godzilla.

No, People of the Rest.  Like it or not White people are your saviors.  Whiteness is the Path.  You all want to come to the US for a better life?  No room but we will be happy to export Whiteness to you and you can stay where you are and use Whiteness to make your lives better.  Try it.  You’ll like it.

George W.M. Reynolds

And Usury Great And Small

18.  Time Traveling With R.E. Prindle


R.E. Prindle

The Usurer plays a large role in the works of George Reynolds.  Indeed, in his very first novel, first composed when he was eighteen years old in 1832, then rewritten in 1847 as The Parricide, is about defrauding a usurer.  His novel The Necromancer perhaps meant as a history of usury from the fourteenth century to the nineteenth century in Europe and England portrayed the character of the master usurer, Lionel Danvers.  He is based on the real life master usurers Nathan and Lionel Rothschild.

I have reviewed The Necromancer a couple of times before but I haven’t exhausted its meaning or fascination to me.  In earlier efforts I couldn’t be certain of how familiar Reynolds was with the character of Lionel Rothschild and his later familiarity with the Jewish-English author and politician Benjamin Disraeli.

In 1998 the British historian Niall Ferguson published his history of the House of Rothschild to 1905 titled The World’s Banker a massive 1300 page, large format volume, a real five pounder.  He was commissioned I believe by the Rothschilds while given access to their archives.

This was a formidable task requiring working through a semi-load of documents.  A daunting task and one that Ferguson came through well.  I have owned the book for near twenty years but having hefted the book as Mark Twain said of Joseph Smith’s discovery of the tablets, a few times and finding it heavy in more ways than one I found a comfortable space for it on the shelf and left it there.  When the student is ready the teacher will appear.  That moment arrived and I took the book down.

At that moment, Reynolds, you know The Necromancer, it occurred to me that Ferguson must be detailing the years from 1800 to 1851 the latter year when The Necromancer was written so I took the book down and was instantly rewarded.  The Rothschilds had perfected usury.  They were the kings of usury and there was no chance that they could have been missed by Reynolds not even a slight one.  The Rothschilds must have been a nearly daily topic of conversation about town.  George may very well have been obsessive about the Rothschilds as the world’s ultimate usurers.

They worked on a scale unheard of before then. States borrowed in the millions. The Rothschilds not only bilked lone borrowers but through their transactions with States they bilked everyone in them.  Indeed, George’s villain Lionel Danvers began his career in Italy not too distant from the time of the Pope’s banning of usury for all good Roman Catholics thus giving the Jews a monopoly and the key to the highway that they put to good use.

Now, papa Rothschild,  Mayer Amschel, had five sons who he trained for the Jewish conquest of Europe.  Unless I miss my mark Mayer Amschel Rothschild, following his father’s advice, studied the career of Joseph Suss Oppenheimer, a Court Jew for the Southern German State of Wurttemberg who devised the modern Jewish approach, adapted Suss methods for the conquest of Europe.  I have written two or three articles on Suss who may have been the most important individual influencing the history of the twentieth century.  Once trained the sons were spread out to the different capitals of Europe.

As a family they functioned as one unit, thus covering all of Europe and England much as Danvers did.  The time was propitious as the evolution of banking was assuming its modern form while the Industrial Revolution was beginning g to provide unrivaled opportunities for investment.  Other minds could originate industries but through financial means their ideas and businesses could be appropriated.  The sons of Rothschild would know how to play both avenues to wealth.

While it might have appeared that being Jewish was a disadvantage because of prejudice the opposite was true.  One must remember the Jews were an international or pan-European nation.  Even though dispersed through out the nations of Europe they functioned as one nation.  E Pluribus Unum.  From many, one.

Unlike parochial peoples like the English or French nations who could only freely associate within the limits of their own countries, the Jews could operate over all borders and coordinate their activities across the whole continent.  While most parochial nations excluded at least two thirds of their natives from full participation in society any Jew could aspire to success in spite of their host nations.  The Jews of any background had access to a university education that was denied to the vast majority of the national proles.

In The Necromancer Reynolds has his villain, Lionel Danvers, a resident of Europe, not any particular country, but Europe, going to England occasionally.  The wealth of all Europe, as a usurer, is in his hands.  This situation would, of course, be suggested to Reynolds as the Rothschilds had Europe in the palm of their hands.  Thus the association between Danvers and the Rothchilds is affirmed.

In the novel Danvers is awarded his success by selling his soul to the Devil.  Satan gives him a way out of the bargain if he can find six beautiful women who love him so much that they pledge Lionel Danvers their body and soul.  While Danvers has their bodies for his use temporally, their souls belong to Satan.  Once the women consent to him he turns them body and soul over to Satan in his ruined castle on the Isle of Wight.

Now!  The Jews in England up to 1290 boasted that they built the first stone house in the kingdom, disregarding all those big stone castles,  a mark of superiority over the natives.  Because of their unbridled use of usury causing great misery to the English whose numeracy was in a primitive state while that of the usurious Jews was fairly advanced the English were easy pickings.  For myself, I didn’t understand the meaning of compound interest until well past my maturity.

Edward III expelled them in 1290.  Oliver Cromwell granted residency in about 1660.  Thus Lionel Danvers was absent from England for long periods while still retaining significant properties such as his ruined castle on the Isle of Wight.  Perhaps it was the first stone house in England.

As Reynolds opens his story Danvers is back in England although as this is the time of Henry VIII there should have been no other Jews except possibly some disguised recently arrived Sephardic Jews who had been expelled from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella.  Perhaps even that is why Danvers returned.  So, Reynolds is sailing pretty close to the facts if you have the poetic frame of mind to see behind appearances.

Indeed, Niall Ferguson tells in an academic historical manner what Reynolds poeticized.  And the Rothschilds, given the modern state of affairs are usurers deluxe.  Bilking individuals was petty cash compared to bilking national governments.  To paraphrase Nero they wished he English had one purse to snatch from them.  A loan of a few tens of pounds or waiting a long time to cash in on obits. (Loans to a debtor with expectations payable on his inherited wealth when the father dies.) compared to loaning millions to the State and reaping a large harvest.

Reynolds had a tragic tale of Ralph Faerfield in The Crimes of Lady Saxondale who ran up huge debts on expectations only to be thwarted when his father took a young wife who displanted Ralph with a new heir.  That was a cold shower for Ralph.

The career of Nathan Rothschild and his extended family spread across England and Europe was almost as fabulous of mythical character as that of King Arthur or Charlemagne and it permeated the age so that Reynolds could not have been uninfluenced.  In Reynolds’ time Rothschild doings were everyday topics of conversation.

Indeed, Isaac D’Israeli, the father of Benjamin Disraeli may have, probably did have, the Rothschilds in mind when he wrote of the supernatural Jews in his book The Genius of Judaism.  There is no reason to think he didn’t as his fellow Jews thought of Nathan as the coming of the Messiah.

Ferguson quotes the Legend of Nathan based on a magic talisman that Nathan is thought to have had.  There could be no other reason in his fellow Jews minds for his fabulous success.  That success did seem magical; as magical as Rabbi Loewe’s Golem.  In his own way Nathan was a golem.  The Golem is a magical creature designed to destroy the Goyim.

I quote Ferguson’s account of the Legend in full, pp. 324,25 and 26:


To poorer Jews in particular, Nathan’s extraordinary rise to riches had an almost mystical significance—hence the legend of the ‘Hebrew Talisman’, the magical source of his good luck, which became associated with him in Jewish lore. This extraordinary story—a version of which was published by an anonymous author in London just four years after Nathan’s death- is one of the most bizarre early examples of what might be called the ‘Rothschild myth.’  Although apparently by a Jewish author, the possibility that (like the later and much better known Protocols of the Elders of Zion) it was in fact the work of an anti-Jewish agent provocateur cannot be ruled out, so militant is its tone.  Indeed, the story anticipates many of the more fantastic allegations of the overtly anti-Rothschild French pamphleteers of the 1840s.

The story in narrated by a mysterious phantom, who describes himself as ‘detesting…the followers of the Nazarene, with a most holy and fervent detestation’ and having been doomed to long ages of agony and travail’ by ‘the avenging one of Nazareth’.  He is the custodian of a talisman, which confers on its holder magical powers. ‘Could I not command gold?  Yea…had I not the talisman? -Had I not the ineffable words?- Could I not buy the whole evil race, from the false prophet even to the lowest among the evil genii?- Could I not task them in the midnight incantation, and lo! Would not plenty make the hearts of my people glad at sunrise?’  His aim is to give the talisman to ‘a zealous hater of the Nazarenes,- a man exceedingly desirous of working their degradation and destruction…a champion to avenge the wrongs of Israel.’.

Arriving in Frankfurt during the Napoleonic occupation of the town, the narrator witnesses hideous scenes of pillage by French troops.  The Frankfurt Jews in particular are the objects of systematic extortion.  In a looted office in the heart of the Jewish quarter, he comes across a young man, ‘his eyes…red with much weeping, and his cheeks pale and haggard, as much with sorrow and long vigils’.  As he looks on a French soldier bursts into the office demanding yet more money.  ‘ “ God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob!” [the young man] exclaimed, as, kneeling, he lifted up his trembling hands to the east, how long?…How long…shall the unbeliever triumph and thy people be a jest and a bye word?” ‘  Unmoved, the Frenchman seizes his last remaining object of value, the family teraphim (household shrine).  After he departs the, the young man cursed the Nazarenes, and prayed in fervent tones that he might have the power to crush them and vowed by the ineffable name of Jehovah to lose no opportunity of despoiling their wealth, and trampling down, yea, utterly bruising, their black and unsparing and unbelieving hearts’.  ‘Here’, declares the narrator ‘was a fit servant for the great master- here a champion fit for the great cause.  His wrongs…would make him a faithful and very zealous foeman of the Nazarene of whatever nation.  Here was, at length, the man, the long hoped, the long sought, who should build up the temple of the Lord, and make Israel and Judah feared and obeyed in all the quarters of the earth.’

The phantom narrator therefore makes himself visible (clad in the flowing robes of the far East’, he is ‘pallid as a corpse…with hoary hair and beard’ and ‘great black eyes, that shot forth lurid fires, upon which no mortal could look and not tremble’).  ‘I spake the words of power, and the talisman was once more committed to a man of my persecuted race,’ on this occasion in the form of a ‘a ring holding the keys of his rifled drawers’.  ‘I gave to that ring the influence and might of the signet of the wise Solomon.  Having done this, I commanded the young man to name some wish for instant accomplishment; and ere he had thrice, according to my instructions, whirled the ring upon his forefinger, steps were heard’ A man enters (later to be revealed to be a prince), weighed down with a huge bag of gold, which he entrusts to the young man.  Needless to say, it contains ‘the very sum for which he had wished aloud while making his first essay of the power of the talisman.’

‘Men of the accursed and plundering race!’ the narrator exclaims, revealing at least the identity of the chosen one:

Ye whose estates were within a brief space to have been within his grasp; ye, whose equipages and whose liveried lacquies I so lately saw following to his premature grave the man of Israel, whom I thus enabled to war upon ye in your vulnerable quarter,- accursed and detested Nazarenes- the young Israelite, to whom I thus committed the Talisman, and who thus early and thus fully experienced its mighty power- he who for years despoiled you of the gold which ye make  to yourselves, even as a god- the man whom ye fawned upon, even while you hated him, and knew that he despised you- that man was NATHAN MEYER ROTHSCHILD.  [He] waxed wealthy, more wealthy than any who had gone before him, his riches astonished the gentiles and very justly they said, such amazing wealth could be amassed by one man, in so short a time by any human agency- and they were right, it was the agency of the talisman…

There then follows a brief but classic mythologized  account of Nathan’s rise from the ruins of looted Frankfurt to fame and fortune.  ‘He came by my direction to this paradise of loan-contracting and speculating fools, and became the leviathan of the money markets of Europe…the loan contractor, the jobber, and the money lender of the gentile kings.’ When Napoleon (encouraged by narrator) invaded Russia, ‘Rothschild was right speedy to make [his] ruin utter and inevitable—not to be repaired.’ When the Emperor returned from Elba, ‘by whom  was his hope blasted?…simply by Nathan Meyer Rothschild armed with the Talisman’.  The British government needed money not only to pay Wellington’s army at Waterloo, but also to brief ‘the Generals and the Senators of France’ to desert Napoleon.  There was but one man on earth who both COULD and would provide the millions of golden pounds, required for the instant purposes of the English minister.—‘That man was ROTHSCHILD.  By my instructions, he let the Minister have the hard gold.

But all this it transpires was for a higher purpose:  for Nathan lent money only ‘on one condition…the re-establishment of Judah’s kingdom- the rebuilding of thy towers, Oh! Jerusalem!’:

That most elaborate of bad jokes, history, will, no doubt, say that the Jew Rothschild lent the Nazarene elder called Lord Liverpool the sum necessary to crush Napoleon Buonaparte, in consideration of some such Judean motive as 25 per cent interest.  The writers of history, in that case, will, as usual, lie…Rothschild was commanded to lend the money…[in return for] the restoration of Judea to our ancient race; the guarantee of England for the independence of the kingdom of Judea…In twelve hours, the millions were in the possession of the minister, and a secret agreement, guaranteed by the sign manual of royalty, was in the possession of Rothschild, for the restoration of Judea in 21 years from the day on which Napoleon should finally be driven from France.

And here is the twist in the tale:

This very year my task should have been completed; would have been completed, but he, Rothschild…at the twelfth hour proved false…His long round o success (unchecked save once when I reproved his presumption with the loss of a hundred thousand pounds in a single day’s business in Spanish stock)…made him more and more purse proud…[so] that it was rather with grief than surprise I recently heard from his own lips that he had basely sold the agreement for the restoration of Judea for the promise of a petty English Emancipation Bill for our people, and a petty English peerage for himself.  This delectable job, this high-minded bargain, was to be completed in the ensuing years, by which time the purse-proud, haughty renegade reckoned upon being worth 5,000,000 pounds of money.  He was already above four.

But of course, having betrayed his master, these vain dreams could only be dashed.  ‘His talisman disappeared, and I took care he should know it had disappeared forever.  He never ventured upon the Exchange again, or the scribe who wrote his will should have been saved much trouble and time.’

Did I give him the talisman, to enable him like Sampson to Gideon to intrude his family and found a peerage among the Normans? Or to stifle his conscience with the weight of riches? Or to flatter it with ostentatious charities?  No Israelite can put his hand to the plough of this great work,  look back and live!

In this bizarre fantasy, Nathan’s death therefore becomes his punishment for the failure to fulfil his promise to restore Palestine to the Jews…


In this fantasy really bizarre in the circumstances?  Fantasy true but a pretty good legend and myth.  However let us consider a real, not so much fantasy as deluded hope as written by Isaac D’Israeli in 1933, the height of Nathan’s prosperity and three years before his death, and the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the Jud Suss Oppenheimer’s near takeover of the Duchy of Wurttemberg.  Suss in his failed attempt provided the template that the Rothschilds were following.  Wurttemberg is just South of Frankfurt while Suss had strong connections to it while the Judenstrasse of Frankfurt, the Jewish ghetto, was a hotbed of Jewish hopes and dreams.

It is clear that Mayer Amschel  Rothschild  and his father studied Suss’s career closely.  Nathan and his brothers grew up in the hothouse atmosphere of the Judenstrasse.  One may say that carefully indoctrinated and trained by their father and given the mission by him to conquer Europe his sons left the ghetto for the wider world to achieve that mission.  Their only talisman was their knowledge of usury.  But here is Isaac D’Israeli: The Genius of Judaism.


The existence of the “peculiar people” professing the ancient Jewish faith has long been an object of religious conviction, and of philosophical curiosity.  The Hebrew separated from the Christian, at a period of the highest civilization holds an anomalous position in society; and with some truth it may be said, that he exists in a supernatural state.  The Genius of Judaism remains immutable, requiring every concession, but yielding none; perpetuating human institutions which, from their very nature passed away, and still cherishing the prejudices of barbarous aeras. But that the Christian of the nineteenth century should remain for the Hebrew the Christian of the ninth, is a moral anachronism.

 It will be by taking a popular view of the manners of this singular people that we shall allay the fanaticism of Jew or Christian.  We must learn to feel like Jews when we tell of their calamities, and to reason like Christians when we detect their fatuity.

The history of the Hebrews developes those permanent principles which are still operating on their insulated race, and which through a long series of ages, by separating the Israelite from the Christian, have occasioned a reciprocal ignorance of their modes of thinking, their motives of conduct, their dissimilar customs, and their irreconcilable differences.  Fewer misconceptions and less erroneous opinions are formed of the castes of the Hindoos, than of the actual condition, and of the feelings, and the conduct of a whole people domiciliated among the nations of Europe, and now far more numerous than they were in their land of Palestine.


In both Ferguson’s Legend and the writing of D’Israeli there is this intense fanatical separation of the Jews and the Gentiles.  An antagonism that results In asymmetric warfare.  The Jews are actually seen as despoiling the Gentiles and the Rothschilds are kings because they are leading the pack.  Both the Jews and Gentiles imagine the Rothschilds as Kings.  Hence in Reynolds’ novel ,because Lionel Danvers can magically assume the appearance of King Henry VIII there is no difference between them and the real Henry is to be warned that his duplicate is confusing affairs.  This notion is fully developed in Ferguson’s The World’s Banker.

And then there is obscure language used by Isaac D’Israeli who, by the way, was the father of his famous son, author and politician Benjamin Disraeli.  The sentence in capital letters is the title for Chapter One requiring some thought.  Every thing is ancient and nothing is obsolete.  What can that mean?  Isaac says that the Jew is ‘supernatural’.  That means that they are not human but belong to the world of the gods. There is a Supreme God and then the host of heaven, the lowest of the host being the Angels.  The Jews place themselves beneath the Angels with the humans, that is the Gentiles, beneath them making the Jews demi-gods.

As I surmise then that the Jew embodies all that has been converting the ancient into the present and everything that has ever been exists in his mind hence not obsolete.  It still works.  ‘The Genius of Judaism remains immutable.’  This is a transcendent quality that compels the Gentile to recognize the innate superiority of the Jew requiring ‘every concession, but yielding none.’  This is an irreconcilable difference that cannot be breached.  There can be no peace between the chosen and the Gentiles unless the Gentiles submit.

Whether intentionally or not Ferguson brings this irreconcilable difference out.  So you can see that Nathan was mythologized by the his fellow Jews in the character of the failed redeemer or Messiah.  There is a great similarity here to that other failed Messiah of the seventeenth, Sabbatai Zevi.  ‘Every thing is ancient and nothing is obsolete.’

How anonymous was the author of the Legend?  During the Revolution of ’48 when many financiers lost all the Rothschilds too were on the edge, many were the people who wanted to see them go over that edge, Lionel’s wife Charlotte alleged that ‘even the Disraelis believe in the destruction of our power’ (p, 490)  That is a very revealing line.  By Disrealis she must mean Dizzy and his father Isaac D’Israeli.  When Isaac published his book The Genius of Judaism in 1833 the Rothschilds were in the full flush of success while Nathan appeared to be the Messiah, Samson slaying the multitudes with usury.  Perhaps Isaac expected him to have purchased Palestine with his money and restored the Jews while bringing the Millennium to fruition.  Three years later in 1836 when Nathan died nothing had been done to realize that dream.  Of course, the Rothschilds would go on to be instrumental in establishing Israel but Isaac couldn’t see that.

A week or so after Nathan died the Legend appeared while the author was enraged.  I have no proof but who would have been so close to the Rothschilds and preached their virtue than a disappointed Isaac.  Even then Dizzy went on to eulogize the Rothschilds in his novels Coningsby and Tancred, extravagant praise.  Still nothing happening on the reestablishment of Israel.

Isaac lived until 1849 so he was still alive when the Rothschilds were staggered.  Ah, the mighty were falling.  At that time Isaac could see the hand of God punishing the family for their failure.  And so the Disraelis publicly enough made their satisfaction known.  It would seem that some work needs to be done on who exactly Isaac D’Israeli was and how involved he was with the Rothschilds.  There would appear to be a missing link in the story.

Ferguson for some reason, possibly not to offend his employer, pretends that the legend may have been written by a goyish forger rather than a Jew.  Well, I respect Niall Ferguson as a great historian but I must say that the legend might easily have been composed by Isaac D’Israeli himself, not that I’m implying it was but the similarity is striking, identical indoctrination and education produce the same results. Both Isaac and the Legend too authentically represent Jewish magical thinking, hopes and objectives to be otherwise.

Ferguson also enters the caveat of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion as a forgery.  If Ferguson is as astute as I think he is, he knows that the Protocols are also authentically Jewish.  They were written in 1897 in a backroom at the First Zionist Congress in Vienna in anticipation of the First Russian Revolution.  All the rest is persiflage.

In the Rothschild Legend the story bears a very close resemblance to the history of Lionel Danvers as Reynolds imagines it in The Necromancer.  Written in 1851 The Necromancer incorporated aspects of both Nathan and his son Lionel, the latter described from Benjamin Disraeli’s novels Coningsby and Tancred.

There can be little question that father Mayer Amschel Rothschild derived his plan for the conquest of Europe from the career of the Jud Suss of eighteenth century Wurttemberg.  Mayer Amschel’s father was alive at the time of Suss observing all while Mayer Amschel was born in 1740 shortly after Suss’ execution. Mayer Amschel’s sons were born later in the century when Suss would still have been a hot topic in Frankfurt.  Growing up on the incredibly crowded Judenstrasse of Frankfurt in very uncomfortable circumstances, freed from the Judenstrasse only after the nineteenth century began they must have carried forth all the anger and prejudices of that infamous street.

Ferguson also retells the story of the Father Tommaso of Damascus which bears noting here.  The peculiar event occurred in 1840.  It concerns the blood libel in which Jews are said to kill Christians, usually, young boys, to use their blood in baking religious wafers.  There were several famous trials over the centuries.  Father Tomasso was said to have been murdered and his blood used for ceremony.  Now Father Tomasso, as the story goes, was on his way to the end of town that you don’t want to be in and he was never seen again.  A few weeks later a deteriorated body was found in a sewer and this was said to be the good father.

 Now, this event happened two thousand miles from France in a time of poor communications.  Nothing can be certainly known.  We don’t really know whether there was a father Tomasso and in any event he disappeared and was never seen again.  So, where’s the story?  Some one said that he was killed because the Jews needed blood for their wafers.  A horror story ensues in which several people were arrested and tortured to obtain confessions implicating Jews.  Ferguson relates the story that one man given five hundred lashes, questioned again and still couldn’t answer so they went to work on him again but with the additional lashes he broke down and said what they wanted him to say.

Five hundred lashes?  And he survived?  Nobody survives five hundred lashes.  So we have a tale here and it was all being managed by Jews from Paris.  Even the heavy hitter Adolphe Cremieux was called in to solve the problem.  Cremieux was a dishonest man.  When the French finally eliminated the Barbary Pirates and annexed Algeria as a French province Cremieux secretly altered the documents to make Algerian Jews into French citizens apart from the Arabs.  A nice little illegal coup.

Now, the Jewish defense for what was probably a bogus crime was that it was preposterous to think that Jews would eat bloody biscuits.  The plot may have been to disarm any new accusations, which did subsequently appear with this horror story. 

But let us check the psychological history of mankind and see how preposterous bloody biscuits really are.  Essentially what we are dealing with here is a form of cannibalism.  The notion is cannibalism is that by eating the human flesh of enemies you are taking their powers into your body making you twice the man.  Actual cannibalism was objectionable to the sensibilities of more advanced folk so the bull was substituted for the man making it unsafe to be a bull.  Bear in mind though that the bull was a substitute for a human.

Enemies are still enemies so there is some satisfaction in eating bloody biscuits for in the blood is the life.  Now, the Jews were Asiatics and as Asiatics they lived in Egypt.  Donald B. Redford in his interesting and book Egypt, Canaan, And Israel In Ancient Times published in 1992 tells of Egyptian parents who admonish there sons not to go to the end of town and mix with the Asiatics, slumming it, because one of the Asiatics offensive customs was to mix blood into biscuits, the Egyptians own blood. and fed them to the Egyptian lads.  They played a good joke on the lads which their parents objected to.

The Jews were Asiatics so did they participate in the sport?  Of course we have no answer but people being what people are it wouldn’t be unlikely as they hated the Egyptians.

Let us now turn to the story of Jesus and the Last Supper.  Jesus was a Jew, thoroughly familiar with Jewish customs, spent his youth in Egypt and for all we know was inducted into the Eleusinian Mysteries of Greece.  I think it likely.  It seems obvious that The Last Supper was a revelation of the ceremony of Eleusis.  Jesus was showing the world what Eleusis was all about.  So, what’s Jewish isn’t all that Jewish.

At the Last Supper with his twelve disciples, Jesus made the thirteenth of the party, Jesus holds out a wafer to the boys in the band and says:  This is my body.  Then he holds up a goblet of wine and says:  This is my blood.  So by putting his blood and flesh into their bodies they cannibalistically acquired Jesus’ characteristics just as we do today at Holy Communion.  Bloody biscuits.

So, if humanity, at least of the Western sort, find it not offensive to eat bloody biscuits and call it ‘Holy Communion’ how likely is it that the Jews as part of humanity wouldn’t.  They did it in ancient Egypt so why not in modern Europe?

It doesn’t matter to me if they did and for all we know, do, or not.  For me as with Isaac D’Israeli speaking for his people ‘everything is ancient and nothing is obsolete.’  On that level I’m as Jewish as anyone.

In The Necromancer’s Lionel Danvers Reynolds sounded a very discreet  warning that went unheeded.  As we will come back to this later, usury was the Talisman, the key to the highway that the Rothschilds wielded so well.

Note #9:  A Mention Of G.W.M. Reynolds In G.M. Young’s Compendium Earl Victorian England.


R.E. Prindle

I came across an interesting reference to Reynolds in a book titled Early Victorian England edited by G.M. Young, published by the Oxford Press in 1934.  The book is a compendium of essays covering different aspects of early Victorian England not unlike Charles Knight’s London.  The article in question is E.E. Kellett’s The Press

Each article is written by a different person and while not all are probably in their sixties and seventies most are so they were born possibly as early as 1855 while most must have been born in the 1860s and 70s so they have memories close to the period 1830-65, thus being more familiar with the way things were.

The article of interest to us is this essay on the press by Kellet.  Interestingly of all the authors he could have chosen to mention he has a page or two concerning Reynolds. 

In the quote Kellett’s discussion begins with the publisher of Penny Dreadfuls Edward Lloyd.  Here I quote pages 65, 66, 67, 68 in full and part of 69.  This is terrific background with an acknowledgement of Reynolds.  An excellent perspective.


Very different alike from Chambers, Eliza Cook, and Cleave was Edward Lloyd, the founder of the ‘Salisbury Square School of Fiction.’  Lloyd appealed to yet another class, and gave that class what it wanted, with but the pretence of a desire to elevate it in morals and in taste.  In September 1841 he started the People’s Police Gazette, a penny weekly consisting solely of what to-day are called ‘thrillers’, or narratives of some sensational crime of the day.  He did not touch on politics, and allowed no political cartoons, but made his stories still more horrible by ghastly illustrations.  The success of this paper was unprecedented, and Lloyd followed it up with another (1843).  The Weekly Penny Miscellany, sixteen closely-printed tales and novels, short or serial, saving space for these by omitting the illustrations.  This also was enormously popular.  There seemed indeed, to be no limit either to the fecundity of Lloyd’s press or to the willingness of his public to absorb its products.  In 1843, also, he brought out the Penny Atlas and Weekly Register of Novel Entertainment, while in an endless stream he poured forth penny novelettes, either selected from his magazines or quite new; not forgetting the serial, in which the ‘To be continued’ at an exciting point ensured the purchase of the next number.  The style of these works was what used to be called ‘elevated and impassioned’; and their general character may be gathered from such titles as Alice Horne, or the Revenge of the Blighted One, Ada the Betrayed.

What the refined classes thought of all this may be easily guessed.  In the Report of the Committee on Public Libraries, 1849, are many proofs of the anxiety caused by the popularity of this ‘Saturday trash.’  Lovett, who owned, however, that he had not himself read it, considered that, at least in the early stages, Lloyd’s publications were immoral and anti-social.  The evidence of George Dawson (a name well remembered in Birmingham) may carry still more weight.

‘We give the people an appetite to read, and supply them with nothing.  For the last many years, in England, everybody has been educating the people, but they have forgotten to find them any books.  In plain language, you have made them hungry, but you have given them nothing to eat; it is almost a misfortune to a man to have a great taste for reading, and not to have the power of satisfying it….The Penny stamp upon newspapers makes the cost of a good thing dear; and adds facility to the cheap people to circulate trash to an extent which is almost incredible:  the rubbish issued every Saturday is very great.’

Dawson, as we many believe, was overcolouring the picture; but it is not surprising that he spoke strongly.  Nor is it surprising that Charles Knight, who attributed the failure of the Penny Magazine to the competition of Lloyd’s papers, should have felt some indignation.  But Lloyd was quite unrepentant.  He noted with contempt, in the preface to the Miscellany (1846), the wailings of Knight; and he always insisted that his stories had an ‘elevating’ tendency.  Thus, in another of his prefaces, he declares:

‘It has ever been our aim, in the management of Lloyd’s Penny Atlas, to combine as much practical and real knowledge of human life as possible with the “’brain-woven’’ narratives, which from time to time appeared in our pages; for we hold an opinion, which in practice we have had frequent opportunities of verifying, the true morality, sound reasoning, and exalted sentiments may be more easily, more effectually, and more pleasantly conveyed to the mind through the medium of works of fiction than by any other means….We paint virtue oppressed and borne down by the wicked, and then we show the rebound of its energies: while the wild turbulence of vice has brought forth nothing but evil fruits and deep vexation of spirit.’

‘We lay before a large and intelligent circle of readers those same pleasures of the imagination which have hitherto, to a great extent, graced only the polished leisure of the wealthy.’

Nor was Lloyd without his defenders.  Thomas Frost, who made an attempt to earn the half-sovereign which Lloyd paid for each installment of his novels, considered that the Salisbury Square School, provided a useful connection link between the ballads, ‘last dying speeches’ of murderers, and terrific legends of diabolism, which had been the favourite literature of the 1790s, and the more wholesome reading of his own time.  The whole controversy was, in fact, another instance of the eternal quarrel between realism and idealism, with this curious difference, that Lloyd’s business-like realism induced him to supply his public with stronger doses of romanticism than the idealist could endure.

Lloyd had but one serious rival.  This was G.W.M. Reynolds, a strong Chartist, who thoroughly knew the taste of the people he met day by day.  As a novelist he challenged the supremacy of G.P.R. James, and was equally prolific.

[In a note Kellet adds:  Several of his novels, in double columns, paper bound, sixpenny form, were still circulating  in the present writer’s youth.]

In 1846 he started Reynold’s Newspaper, in which innumerable stories represented vice as a monster of frightful mien, yet, it is to feared, not in such a manner as to render it hateful.  There is the usual assemblage of bad baronets, designing marquises, and harassed maidens.  From time to time there are sheer horrors, outdoing Mrs. Radcliffe at her most horrible.  A typical specimen of Reynolds’s style is perhaps the following, from Ellen Percy, or the Memoirs of an actress (ii. 268):

‘ “Ah, is it so?”  I ejaculated’ and the next instant my hands were at the throat of Lady Lilla Essendene.

‘So sudden and so powerful was my attack, that she was completely overpowered in the twinkling of an eye; and she fell upon the floor.

‘ “ Let her go, Miss Percy! And don’t be a fool!” ejaculated Dame Betty.  “Those ruffians will come up and murder us.!”

‘ “Be quiet, dame!”  I said in a most peremptory manner.  “Listen!”

‘And we did listen, while my hands were still upon Lady Lilla’s throat,–my looks showing such stern determination that she evidently thought I should strangle her outright at the first indication of an attempt to cry or resist.  For several moments we listened, and still all was silent.

‘ “Now, I said, “you see Lady Lilla, that thus far the victory is my own, and the momentary conflict has not reached the ears of your myrmidons.  Answer me!—for you see I am desperate, in as much as my position was rendered desperate by your menaces.  Tell me in what part of the building is the young man confined, who was captured by your ruffians in the middle of the night?  Beware how you deceive me, for I must inform you this is not the first time I have been a prisoner in these ruins, and I am familiar with situations and details.”

‘ “That young man,” said Lady Lilla, who was just enabled to speak in a whisper as I loosed to the slightest degree the gripe which I had upon her throat,–“that young man is a certain William Lardner—”

‘ “Yes, yes, I know it,”  I ejaculated: “he is a sailor on board the yacht where you used to meet Edward St. Clair and plot your horrible schemes for my destruction.” ‘

It is clear that Reynolds’s readers would not only snatch a fearful joy out of his narratives, but also acquire some acquaintance with polysyllabic resources of the English language.  Not the least noteworthy characteristic of all the novels of the time is the way in which the heroes, at the most exciting moments, contrive to retain command of a Johnsonian vocabulary.

Whatever may be said against the ‘Salisbury Square’ School, it was clean.

End of Quote.

That account quite nicely places Reynolds in the context of this time.  It also shows from whence he found the format for his own novels and magazines.  It is interesting that while Lloyd paid half a guinea, that is 126 pence for an installment Reynolds was paid a five pound note each Friday for his.  That would seem to indicate that Stiff and Vickers knew what they had and were willing to include Reynolds in the profits.  He would have been more of a partner in the enterprise. 

That might explain why they were so miffed when Reynolds chose to abandon them and struck out on his own.

That Reynolds’ story, The Mysteries of London, was doing so well in apparently heavy traffic indicates how well he was thought of by his readers.

Kellett’s article proves valuable to myself and us because it gives an accurate and detailed account of the press in which Reynolds was working.

Note #7:

George W.M. Reynolds, John Dicks And Politics


R.E. Prindle

What I find amazing in my study of George W.M. Reynolds is that for a writer who was supposed to be the best selling author of the nineteenth century so little of his work can be found.  Endless copies of obscure nineteenth century English authors can be found on Ebay,  yet virtually nothing in earlier editions of Reynolds.  If you search John Dicks, early copies of other writers are occasionally available.  But, no Reynolds.

True, Pickwick Abroad was recently available but those fairly numerous copies have now disappeared. Bought up.  Even then the available edition was the 1864 reprint issued after Reynolds had stopped publishing new novels.  It also was not published by Dicks.  A little mystery there, perhaps?

Why did Reynolds not have Dicks publish it?  When George stopped writing there seemed to be a split between he and his printer John Dicks.  There have been questions asked about how politically aligned Reynolds and Dicks were.  I have as yet no settled opinion but I am beginning to think that they were worlds apart.

There can be little doubt that a man of Reynolds revolutionary mentality who not only had literary talent but great business ability with a superb printer for a lieutenant was a threat to the government of England.  It is impossible that he was not under close surveillance.  Reynolds quite frankly was a revolutionary while Dicks wasn’t.

Dicks had an unusual background, quite interesting really, but much more sedate, even scholarly, and conventional.  He probably saw Reynolds as his main chance, took it and was rewarded with great success.  If he wasn’t the originator of cheap reprints of literature he was still an innovator.

The crux of the problem in Dicks’ mind was the Reynolds’ magazine, The Reynolds Miscellany.  The Miscellany was a very successful publication although seen as quite violent in its political advocacy.  There had to be close public scrutiny.  This would have offended Dicks.

As a solution to the problem Dicks created a competing magazine he called Bow Bells following the format of the Miscellany but reversing its direction.  Having established Bow Bells he then persuaded Reynolds to fold the Miscellany into Bow Bells thus the Miscellany disappeared and Bow Bells went on to be a multi-decade success. I have a couple bound annual issues for the eighties.  Pretty lame stuff, but it made Dicks life more comfortable.

About 1860 Reynolds had exhausted his fund of stories.  Probably about 1856 and the termination of the fourth series of The Mysteries Of The Court Of London he began to dry up.  While his writing is still quite good in his later novels after ’56 the fire is gone.  His Empress Eugenie’s Boudoir is a mere summing up.  Perhaps the 1864 Pickwick Abroad rounded it off.

About this time either Reynolds chose to completely walk away from his novelistic career or Dicks persuaded him to sell out or forced him out.  Dicks took the company while Reynolds sold him all his copyrights and walked away.  To me, an author may burn out completely and stop writing but as the best selling author in England to sell his copyrights and walk away is incomprehensible.

Dicks had been making it harder to sell for Reynolds as he kept reducing the type size down to nearly diamond point making the books very uncomfortable to read.  The last printing in the 1880s is so small, although clear, that it is hardly worth the struggle.  That could have been a way of forcing Reynolds out.

At that point then Dicks published nearly the whole catalog of Harrison Ainsworth.  Perhaps when he signed on with Reynolds he thought that he would be another Ainsworth.  By the late seventies Ainsworth was struggling with his new works barely selling but Dicks undertook to publish one of them along with the earlier catalog.  The impression I have is that Dicks was disgusted by Reynolds’ writing.

George lived on until 1879 in a comfortable state, having amassed his fortune of 20,000 pounds, although his last few years were plagued by disease.

Dicks lived a little longer, turned his business over to his family and headed South to the Riviera to live out his last couple years

I rather suspect that the 1850s became increasingly difficult as the government found ways to turn the screws of the revolutionary writer.  Even then Athe 1880s were a far cry from Reynolds’ hey day of the 40s and 50s. It was a new England after 1860 while the mind of George was locked into the Romantic Period.  After 1859 the talk was all Evolution as Darwin published.  Time was creeping in like a tidal wave.  The ocean just swells and rises almost inperceptibly  and sweeps all before it.  The times changed, George didn’t.

George W.M. Reynolds And Benjamin Disraeli

17. Time Traveling With R.E. Prindle


R. E. Prindle

It is impossible to write accurate history if you excise the activities of the Jews. Their rise after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo cannot be ignored.  They are integral to understanding history.  Why ignore them as if they weren’t there?  One also requires an understanding of who they are and what their goals may be.  A major claim of the Jews is that they originated monotheism as though that were a good thing and the end result of religion.  The fact is that monotheism does not now nor ever has existed.  The Jews have never practiced it.

The Jewish vision of a supreme god snaps into place with existing notions at the dawn of the Age of Ares. 

I have read  of a similarity between the religious views of the Jews and those of the ancient Greeks but I could never discover it until recently.  Zeus and Jehovah are really identical except for the different interpretation the two peoples put on their supreme deity.

At the beginning of the Arien Age the god spoke to men and interfered in their activities.  As Man conceived it heaven and earth existed and both were mirror images of the other or as it was expressed:  As above, so below.

The Jewish Lord’s Prayer says:  Thy will be done as it is in heaven.  That raises the question of how Heaven is ordered and what is God’s will.  If the earth is a reflection of heaven then heaven is a very imperfect place and God’s will is frankly malicious.

In Homer’s Iliad the Greeks portray the antics of the gods led by their supreme god, Zeus, and they are identical to the men of earth.  The foibles are the same.

  In Greek mythology during the Age of Taurus which preceded the Age of Aries Zeus and the gods were thought to be much closer to men.  Select families professed to be descended from one god or another, that is, in religious terms they were angels.  For instance Achilles is the son of the goddess Thetis and she gives him divine assistance when he asks her for it.

When Achilles began to draw his sword during a dispute with his King, Agamemnon, which would have been a gross violation of divine law, Athene incredibly arrives from heaven, or Mount Olympus, seizes his hair from behind and cautions him against striking Agamemnon. Achilles heeds and desists.  It is to be noted that Agamemnon comes from a family that rules by divine right, a deputy of Zeus. 

In the Jewish tradition Israel is magically entailed to them forever while the House of David occupies the same relationship to the Jewish God as Agamemnon to his god.

But as the story takes place at the cusp of two stages of mental evolution the belief in divine origins is being superseded.  Those who profess divine origins are scoffed at.  The Greeks are transiting to an Age of Reason and proto-scientific thinking.

The Jews on the other hand wish to have a supreme god who they aver supersedes the gods of all other nations called Jehovah.  Jehovah does not deny the existence of other gods hence not monotheistic but merely the god of gods as the Persian Darius was the king of kings with dozens of other kings in his train.

Jehovah had as many subservient gods and a heavenly host called angels which have a very real existence to Jews.  Zeus resided on Mt. Olympus while Moses was said to have met Jehovah on Mount Sinai.  Both people revered high places.  Thus as the Ages passed from Taurus to Aries all peoples evolved into the same understanding of the relationship of the gods to man except for the Jews.

With the Jews Jehovah was a supreme god and he ruled a heavenly host with many minor gods called angels and between the rest of human kind the Jews were placed between them and the angels, hence they are of divine origin which they still magically believe.  The Jews, unlike the Greeks, simply refused to give up a divine connection of the whole people rather than individuals except for the House of David.  David is still semi-divine.

Thus, they never really left the beliefs of the Age of Taurus, or Saturn the ruling archetype of Taurus.  As the chosen of god, that is those who never transited from Taurus to Aries and now Pisces and soon Aquarius they believed and continue to believe that in creation they exist elevated above common mankind. Between the two species.  There has never been a transition from magic or superstition to reason.  They always infuse science with magic.  I give as an example Freud.  Psychology began as a science in the minds of the Greek successors of Europe.  The conscious and unconscious minds were being examined scientifically.   In Freud’s hands psychology became supernatural.  He chose to minimize reason, that is the conscious mind, and enthrone the unconscious mind as two different and separate entities.  As he had opted to serve Satan he made the unconscious the home of evil while even existing as a separate entity outside the body over which Man has no control.  This is magical thinking, that is subjective thinking, and it is an unshakeable characteristic of the Jews.

This attitude is nowhere better exemplified than in the character of Isaac D’Israeli, Benjamin Disraeli’s father.  Isaac 1766-1849, Benjamin 1804-1881.

Disraeli’s father Isaac, who retained the spelling D’Israeli that Benjamin changed to Disraeli, was a fanatical Jew who imbued the religious characteristics explained above although he likely did not understand them.  I will quote from his book The genius of Judaism here, published in 1833, which places Jews high above the rest of humanity.  It might seem strange in that case that he would insist that son Benjamin should convert to Christianity at the age of the Bar Mitzvah.  One wonders whether Benjamin first celebrated his Bar Mitzvah and then converted or whether he skipped his Bar Mitzvah entirely. 

There were disabilities placed on Jews and Catholics at the time that prevented them full enfranchisement thus Benjamin would not have been able to serve in politics.  As a Christion convert he could.  As Isaac had fully indoctrinated him into Judaism by the time of his Bar Mitzva Benjamin’s mind’s first loyalty was to Judaism thus his goal was to bend the Cristian’s mind to Judaism.  Like it or not the Jews seek supremacy  A good question is why they chose not to transit from Taurus to Aries.  Was it because of certain mental qualities in the Taurian mind that they thought superior that weren’t present in the Arien dispensation?  I don’t know, but it is true that the Jews remain a magical people.

Isaac himself says that a Jew of the nineteenth century could not accept the status of a Jew of the nineth century, while in 1916 the German Jew Walter Rathenau advised Europeans that when WWI ended Europe would not be returning Jews to their status in the nineteenth.  Thus the Jews advance in a quantum leap of a mere hundred years to be able to challenge the Europeans for supremacy on their own turf.  Benjamin would be instrumental in that leap.

Isaac D’Israeli had his ulterior motives.  The American Jew of the twentieth century Greil Marcus, a music critic, had his favorite song.  The lyrics went:

I wish I was a mole in the ground.

Yes, I wish I was a mole in the ground.

If I’se a mole in the ground

I’d root that mountain down.

That was the Jewish task and the role Isaac chose for his son Benjamin, so Benjamin wore the mask of a Christian while serving as a spy and conspirator to pave the way for the Jews.  Thus he worked as a mole to bring that mountain down.  Disraeli brought himself to the attention of the public by writing novels.  They aren’t very good novels but they were noticed and gained acceptance.  Especially with his 1844 novel Coningsby.

In his own character of the Mole that novel introduces a character named Sidonia.  Sidonia was based on the son of Nathan Rothchild, Lionel, who was to break down many walls containing the Jews.  Coningsby was published in 1844.  The novel, because of Sidonia who would have been easily recognizable, was something of a sensation at the time  so that it undoubtedly came to the attention of George W.M. Reynolds.  Between the preceding activities of Nathan Rothschild and the current ones of Lionel, meaning Lion of the Lord, both Isaac and Benjamin Disraeli and the growing Jewish presence, the threat of the Jews were perceived.  In response Reynolds then in 1851 wrote his novel The Necromancer that portrays the Jewish threat in a fantastic way, sort of a predecessor of Sci-fi.

Reynolds places his novel in the reign of Henry VIII.  It warns of the presence of a look alike that is a Dark government posed by Reynold’s protagonist Lionel Danvers.  Very discreet.


Let us now consider The Genius of Judaism by Isaac D’Israeli who also had literary ambitions.  This was written in 1933 so keep track of the dates.  He and son Benjamin also compiled a six volume set titled Curiosities of Literature.

By ‘genius’ Isaac means that Judaism is superior to and better than any other belief system that ever existed or could exist.  He believed that the first Jewish society called Theocracy, and he gives it special meaning, was perfection and like the Word has been lost forever.   All Jews who lived after the Theocracy ended have created a less perfect political entity.

Chapter One is titled:  ‘With the Israelite Everything is Ancient and Nothing is Obsolete.  By that Isaac means that Judaism is eternal and unchangeable unlike the others that come and go.  On Page one he begins:  The existence of the “peculiar people” professing the ancient Jewish faith has long been an object of religious conviction and of philosophical curiosity.’  Then comes a confusing sentence:  ‘The Hebrew separated from the Christian at a period of highest civilization holds an anomalous position in society.’  I take that to be two separate sentences.  The Hebrew separated from the Christian’, that sentence is backwards as, since the Hebrew came first, the Christian separated from the Hebrew.  Perhaps it reads that a period of highest civilization might mean the Roman period or it could mean, in the nineteenth century the period of highest civilization, the Jew ‘exists in an anomalous position’ at the bottom of the highest civilization and not the top.  In that case it either means that Judaism being much better should be atop the highest level of civilization then occupied by inferiors.  Difficult to determine.

Then a non-sequitur follows:  “with some truth it may be said, that he exists in a supernatural state.”  That is, Isaac believes that the Jew is not natural as are other animals but he exists in a state above them and as we have seen below the angels.  The Jewish mind then must be ruled by magic rather than reason or science. After four thousand years as a people this must be an unchangeable belief.

Then Isaac makes the bald statement: “The Genius of Judaism remains immutable requiring every concession but yielding none…”  I suppose that means that as the chosen people of God his real position is as Top Nation cannot be altered or changed by science and it is a crime to not acknowledge the ‘fact.’  The Genius of Judaism exists eternally. The European must concede all but the Jew will not give an inch. 

The sentence continues: “…perpetuating human institutions, which, from their very nature passed away [that is at the end of the Taurean Age] and still cherishing the prejudices of a barbarous aeras.”  In other words, Jewish antiquity and the present are one.  Next:  But that the Christian of the nineteenth century should remain for the Hebrew the Christian of the ninth is a moral anachronism.”  In other words, I presume, the changeable Christian is less than the Eternal Jew.

And then he restates his position “requiring every concession but yielding none”….”It will not be by taking a popular view of the manners of this singular people that we shall allay the fanaticism of Jew or Christian.  We [you] must learn to feel like Jews when we tell of their [our] calamities, and to reason like Christians when we [both of us]  detect their [our Jewish] fatuities.”

In other words:  Mourn with them over their disasters and with Christian forbearance ignore their crimes.  Very nice work if you can get it and they have.

This then, is the background of Benjamin Disraeli, born a Jew, indoctrinated and conditioned on the notion of the innate superiority of the Jew, converted to a surface Christianity as a Bar Mitzvah and sent as a Mole to undermine Christian society to raise the Jew above the Christian.

Benjamin then was a believer in his portrait of the ideal Jew, Sidonia, in his novel Coningsby.  It would seem apparent then that Coningsby and Reynolds’ The Necromancer are inspirer and inspired.  Following Benjamin’s father’s image Sidonia might seem ‘supernatural’, too good to be true, hence Reynolds’ Lionel Danvers is supernatural.

A longish quote from Disraeli:  Coningsby pp. 261-63, Wildside Press edition:

Coningsby: “But surely it would be easy to repeal a law so illiberal.”

Sidonia:  “Oh! As for illiberality, I have no objection to if it be an element of power.  Eschew political sentimentalism.  What I contend is that if you permit men to accumulate property, and they use that permission, to a great extent power is inseparable from that property [Sindonia is a Rothschild] and it is the last degree important to make it the interest of any powerful class to oppose the institutions under which they live. [The origins of the two world wars.]  The Jews, for example, independently of the capital qualities of citizenship which they possess in their industry, temperance and energy and vivacity of mind, are a race essentially monarchical, deeply religious, and shrinking themselves from a convert, as a calamity, are ever anxious to see the religious system of the country in which they live flourish; yet since your society has become agitated in England, and powerful combinations menace your institutions, you find the once loyal Hebrew invariably arrayed in the same ranks as the leveler, and the latitudinarian, and prepared to support the policy which may even injure his life and property rather than tamely continue under a system that seeks to degrade him. [Here we have blackmail insinuated: Accept us at our own evaluation or we will sink your ship of fools.]  The Tories lose an important election at a critical moment; ‘tis the Jews come forward to vote against them.  The church is alarmed at the scheme of a latitudinarian university, and learns with relief that the funds are not forthcoming for its establishment;  a Jew immediately advances and endows it.  Yet the Jews, Coningsby, are essentially Tories.  Toryism, indeed, but copied from the mighty prototype which has fashioned Europe.  And every generation they must become more powerful and more dangerous to the society which is hostile to them.  [Hence the holocaust.]  Do you think that the quiet humdrum persecution of a decorous representative of an English university can crush those who have successfully baffled the Pharaohs, Nebuchadnezzar, Rome and the Feudal Ages?  The fact is, you cannot destroy a pure race of the Caucasian organization.  It is a physiological fact, a simple law of nature, which has baffled Egyptian and Assyrian Kings, Roman Emperors, and Christian Inquisitors.  No penal laws, no physical torture can effect that a superior race should be absorbed by an inferior, or be destroyed by it.  The mixed persecuting races disappear; the pure persecuted race remains.  And at this moment, in spite of centuries, of tens of centuries of degradation, the Jewish mind exercises a vast influence on the affairs of Europe.  I speak not of their laws which you still obey, of their literature, with which your minds are saturated; but of the living Hebrew intellect.

You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the Jews do not greatly participate.  The first Jesuits were Jews, that mysterious Russian Diplomacy which so alarms Western Europe is organized and principally carried on by Jews, that mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany [Revolution of 1848] and which will be in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of the Jews who almost monopolize the professional  chairs of Germany.  Neander, the founder of Spiritual Christianity, and who is Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Berlin, is a Jew.  Benary, equally famous and in the same university is a Jew.  Wehl, the Arabic professor of Heidelberg is a Jew, years ago when I was in Palestine, I met a German student who was accumulating materials for the History of Christianity and studying the genius of the place; a modest and learned man.  It was Wehl; then unknown, since become the first Arabic scholar of the day, and the author of the life of Mahomet.  But for the German professors of this this race their name is legion.  I think there are more than ten at Berlin alone.

I told you just now that I was going up to town tomorrow, because I always make it a rule to interpose when affairs of State were on the carpet.  Otherwise I never interfere.  I hear of peace and war in the newspapers, but I am never alarmed, except when I am informed that the Sovereign wants treasure, then I know the monarchs are serious.

A few years back we were applied to by Russia.  Now, there had been no friendship between the Court of St. Petersburg and my family.  It had Dutch connections, which have generally supplied it; and our representations if favor of the Polish Hebrews, a numerous race, but the most suffering and degraded of all the tribes, have not been very agreeable to the Czar.  However, circumstances drew to an approximation between the Romanovs and Sidonias.  I resolved myself to go to St. Petersburg.  I had on my arrival an interview with the Russian Minister of Finance, Count Cancrin, I beheld the son of a Lithuanian Jew.  The loan was connected with the affairs of Spain; I resolved on repairing to Spain from Russia.  I traveled without intermission.  I had an audience immediately on my arrival with the Spanish Minister Senor Mendizibel; I beheld one like myself, the son of a Nuevo Christian, a Jew of Aragon.  In consequence of what transpired at Madrid, I went straight to Paris to consult the President of the French Council; I beheld the son of a French Jew….

The consequence of our consultations was that some Northern power should be applied to in a friendly and meditative capacity.  We fixed on Prussia; and the President of the Council made an application to the Prussian Minister…Count Arnim entered the Cabinet and I beheld a Prussian Jew.  So you see my dear Coningsby that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.

Finish of quote.

Obviously is important to lift the veil and look at what is behind it.  Some call this curiosity, others conspiracy theory, but whether Jewish or other the result is the same.  If the string pullers are Jews then the results are Jewish.  Yet, if the above had been written by other than a Jew, that writer would be called an anti-Semite.

As Disraeli shows, Jews have insinuated themselves into all levels and aspects of national governments.  As an example the Russian Rasputin is said to have been running the Russian government through his influence on the Czarina who apparently ran her husband, Czar Nicholas.

Rasputin was accused of having conspired with the Germans which he probably wasn’t, however, his secretary was a Jew,  behold, as Disraeli would say, we find a Jew. The secretary, who was privy to all that Rasputin knew or projected, was certainly dealing with German Jews much as the Frenchman Dreyfus did.

Now, by 1844 when Disraeli wrote Coningsby the Jews were rapidly growing in influence and eager to change the laws to remove disabilities.  They included the Catholics, under the same disabilities, so as not to appear merely self-interested.  It was a matter of social justice.  And that is really what Reynolds’ Necromancer is all about.

Despite slowness in full emancipation of the Jews in Central Europe, as Disraeli points out Jews were already prominent in the universities and governments.  They actually had been in modern times since the institution of the Court Jew.  While many Jews other than the Rothschilds were wealthy, if not as wealthy, so that Disraeli says if they weren’t going to get the respect due to them according to their own valuation they would act against their own interests to put a finger in the eye of those in power who did not honor them to their satisfaction.  They would root that mountain down,  Hence they were not only an irritant but a threat.  He gives one example in the latitudinarian university that was funded by a Jew when the projectors couldn’t find the funds elsewhere.  As he points out, this is the way Jews acted then and throughout history.

Disraeli then get into a confused discussion on the importance of race; his Jews being a ‘pure’ race and hence superior to all others.  Remember he was writing in 1844 when historical records weren’t as clear as they are today.  For instance the befuddled Bishop Ussher of the eighteenth century who believed that the world was created by God 4004 years previously, that is the Age of Taurus, and I believe, he even gives the hour the world came into existence.  As we know today the world evolved billions of years ago from cosmic dust. But as Isaac said, facts cannot alter Jewish subjectivity.  According to their own records the Jews separated themselves from their native Semites at the change from the Age of Taurus to Aries four thousand years ago from today.  Disraeli had to assume that the Jews were three thousand years old making them I believe coequal with the supposed Garden of Eden.

He then goes on to boast that Jews are responsible for nearly all the good things in life.  Sidonia himself is the Crown of Creation as perfect as any human has ever attained.

One must ask what effect this tirade had on the English mind.  George Eliot, as one example, took to it hook, line and sinker. In her novel Daniel Deronda published in 1876 but plotted in 1865 he is a near perfect human being who for whatever reason takes up with an English tramp that he picked up in a Monte Carlo casino.  Eliot’s novel is being touted heavily today.

That was her take.  George Reynolds saw through the scam.  However even then one had to be circumspect in criticizing Jews, that is not taking them at their own valuation as Eliot did, while there is something offensive to the Aryan intellect in direct criticism.  Certainly the English aristocracy that considered itself the crown of creation would have scoffed at Disraeli’s depiction of his people as superior to themselves.  Dizzy himself, as he was affectionately known, cut a rather bizarre figure in English society.

Let us also remember that British Israelites were beginning to claim that the British themselves were descended from the lost ten tribes.  As the ten tribes were Samaritans that wouldn’t have made the British descended from Judaism but close.

With the capture of the Bank of England by Nathan Rothschild began the rise of what is today known as Financial Capitalism.  At some point it was determined that fiscal or monetary matters were so important that they couldn’t be entrusted to revolving elected representatives with no understanding of money and finance so the currency should be in the hands of bankers, who, they imagined, did. Thus a sort of dual government arose, elected politicians on one side and semi-permanent financial experts on the other who were not under the control of the government, of which the latter functioned independently of the former.

Inevitably the bankers were Jewish or under the domination of the Jews.  As these companies such as the Federal Reserve of the US were owned primarily by Jewish bankers the currency of the world was in Jewish hands.  As Nathan Rothschild was alleged to say:  Give me control of the currency and I care not who makes the laws.

As in 1851 when Reynolds published The Necromancer the developing monetary situation wasn’t well understood still Reynolds had a very good understanding of compound interest, that is usury and as banking is merely usury on a grand scale he very likely understood well enough.

His first foray into the world was when he was sixteen and drawn into a scheme to defraud the money lenders and the lender happened to be Jewish.  He first wrote this situation up two years later when he was eighteen as The Youthful Imposter.

That novel involved the defrauding of a Jewish usurer.  In a very interesting passage Reynolds seems to lapse into the first person in observing this particular Jewish usurer chosen to be defrauded.

As a sixteen year old observer the young Reynolds carefully studied and analyzed the man in order to understand the type.  The usurer gives his interviewer a history of his life. 

In the novel the defrauding of the usurer seems improbable but if based on a true encounter the ploy must have worked.

His portrayal of the master usurer Lionel Danvers is convincing.  It would seem most unlikely that the rise of the Jew would go unnoticed by Reynolds as he and his contemporaries mention Jews frequently although without usually going into details.

Of course, his fellow writer Charles Dickens got into a scrape in his depiction of the Jewish criminal Fagin of Oliver Twist.  He found that the truth was no defense.  Unlike in the twentieth century when serious ultra violent Jewish criminals have been celebrated, even idolized, think of Bugsy Siegel, perhaps as Jews were just emerging they were a little more sensitive.

Dickens was forced to apologize and possibly rewrite passages downplaying Fagin’s nationality then sentimentalizing a Jewish character in another book.  One might contrast Oliver Twist with Daniel Deronda.

Perhaps heeding the chastisement of Dickens Reynolds was careful not to mention the nationality of Danvers even though it is fairly clear. Still by 1855 in the last series of Court of London, The Fortunes Of The Ashtons, he comes out and roundly berates a Jewish clothier from the City.  Fairly strongly too as though he would be silent no longer.

Determining the character of Musidora Sinclair on whom the novel hangs is more difficult.  The meaning of the name could be The Golden Muse, d’or in French, Muse of Gold.  Gold being  considered the most pure metal hence resistant to evil while being at the same time what the usurer most desires.  She will be the woman who defeats Lionel Danvers and sends him to hell.

The story is that in the fifteenth century Lionel Danvers sold his soul to Satan but the Devil gives him a chance to redeem his soul.  If then, he could find six women to love him body and soul so that they would die for him he could annul the deal and recover his soul.

As the story begins in the nineteenth century Danvers has seduced Clara Manners in England, his fifth victim while Musidora will hopefully be his sixth and redemption.

Musidora is a mystery girl.  Happy and carefree until she was sixteen then for the two years after, as she is now eighteen, cold and unloving.  Some distant cousins living in Greenwich, who are out of favor at court and wish to be redeemed invite her to come and stay with them.

King Henry VIII then dissatisfied with his wife Catherine of Aragon is searching for a replacement.  The Granthams, Musidora’s cousins, remember their cousin, very beautiful by repute, living on the Isle of Wight invite her to stay with them hoping to tempt Henry.  Amazingly Henry almost immediately comes to Greenwich where he finds Musidora outside the Grantham’s door helping a mendicant who turns out to be Clara Manners father.  The King quickly falls in love with Musidora.  He assiduously courts her winning her over.

Danvers, who has an ancient ruined castle on the Isle of Wight where he takes his victims to be sacrificed, also knows Musidora and in fact as we will learn near the end of the novel he was the cause of Musidora becoming an Ice Queen.  He, therefore, cannot approach her in his true form.

Aha!  Henry is called away on State business so Danvers transmogrifies himself into a fake Henry VIII.  A real shape shifter.

So here we have what amounts to an allegorical representation of the career of Suss Oppenheimer of Wurttemberg and the current career of Lionel Rothschild.  Think of Musidora as ‘England.’  Lionel Rothschild through what will be called Financial Capitalism has established himself and his fellow Jews as a shadow government.  Lionel through financial means is actually the most powerful man in England as he controls the currency and he can deny it or advance it at usury.  Remember that the management of the currency is in private, that is Rothschild, hands.  Thus Danvers poses as the actual King to woo Musidora.  Similar.

All charm, he succeeds in persuading her to elope.  He takes her for a wild ride on his magical steed down through the night to his castle on the Isle of Wight.  Here we have a uniting of two famous stories of the time, Leonor by the German, Burger and Dick Turpin’s ride from London to York from his novel, Rookwood.

Leonor, an epic poem by Burger took England by storm; several authors including a version by Walter Scott adapted for English sensibilities.  Dick Turpin’s Ride is included in Harrison Ainsworth’s Rookwood of 1832 that would have impressed Reynold’s.  Reynold’s printer, John Dicks, was quite taken by Ainsworth, even preferring his work to that of Reynolds.

At this point Danvers is confident that he has redeemed his pledge to Satan.  He leads Musidora to the secret room in his ruined castle but she having been hurt when she was sixteen now sees through Danvers disguise as Henry and now gets her revenge by refusing her body and soul.  Fire and brimstone and Danvers evaporates.

If Musidora symbolizes England and Lionel Danvers symbolizes the Jewish usurers then England is saved at the last moment.


It seems certain that Reynolds read Benjamin Disraeli’ novel Coningsby with its very flattering depiction of Lionel Rothschild.  One wonders if Reynolds also read Benjamin’s father’s book The Genius of Judaism of 1833. Isaac’s volume is a delirium of the perfection of Judaism and Jews over all mankind by more than  somewhat.  Actually Benjamin was the child of his father growing up in that happy delirium. 

In 1833 Nathan Rothschild was still alive, dying in 1836 to be succeeded by his son Lionel Nathan Rothschild born in 1808, dying in 1879, the latter year the same as George Reynolds, while Nathan’s son, six years before George so they were near perfect contemporaries.  Disraeli’s years were 1804-1881, all three then quite contemporaries.

Disraeli as a writer might be considered a talented amateur.  Coningsby, written when he was forty is as good as he gets.  Reynolds 37 in 1851 is incomparably above Disraeli while the Necromancer brought forth his brightest talent.  As a novel it is quite excellent, the brightest jewel in his diadem.

Due to his time in France and his love of things French, Reynolds is not purely an English writer, more Anglo-French or perhaps best described as a European writer as much of his historical novels have European settings.  The Necromancer seems to be an answer to Coningsby, possibly affected by Isaac D’Israeli’s Genius of Judaism if Reynold’s ever read it.

Here’s another longish quote from Disraeli describing the impossibly brilliant Sidonia, Coningsby pp231-3.  Wild Side Press.


With an imagination as fiery as his native Desert, and an intellect as luminous as his native sky, he wanted, like that land, those softening dews without which the soil is barren, and the sunbeam as often a messenger of pestilence as an angel of regenerative grace.

Such a temperament, though rare, is peculiar to the East.  It inspired the founders of the great monarchies of antiquity, the prophets that the Desert has sent forth, the Tartar chiefs who have overrun the world; it might be observed in the great Corsican, who, like most of the inhabitants of the Mediterranean isles, had probably Arab blood in his veins.  It is a temperament that befits conquerors and legislators, but in ordinary times and ordinary situations, entails on its possessor only eccentric aberrations or profound melancholy.

The only human quality that interested Sidonia was intellect.  He cared not whence it came; where it was found: creed, country, class, character, in this respect, were alike indifferent to him.  The author, the artist, the man of science, never appealed to him in vain.  Often he anticipated their wants and wishes.  He encouraged their society; was as frank in his conversation as he was generous in his contributions; but the instant they ceased to be authors, artists, or philosophers, and their communications arose from anything but the intellectual quality which had originally interested him, the moment they were rash enough to approach intimacy and appealed to the sympathizing man instead of the congenial intelligence, he saw them no more.  It was not however intellect merely in these unquestionable shapes that commanded his notice.  There was not an adventurer in Europe with whom he was not familiar.  No Minister of State had such communication with secret agents and political spies as Sidonia.  He held relations with all the clever outcasts of the world.  The catalogue of his acquaintance in the shape of Greeks, Armenians, Moors, secret Jews, Tartars, Gypsies, wandering Poles, [read Schnorrers.] and Carbonari, would throw a curious light on those subterranean agencies of which the world in general knows so little, extensive travels, his knowledge of languages, his daring and adventurous disposition, and his unlimited means, had given him opportunities of becoming acquainted with these characters, in general so difficult to trace, and of gaining their devotion.  To these sources he owed that knowledge of strange and hidden things which often startled those who listened to him.  Nor was it easy, scarcely possible to deceive him.  Information reached him from so many, and such contrary quarters, that with his discrimination and experience, he would almost instantly distinguish the truth.

The secret history of the world [read: conspiracy theory] was his pastime.  His great pleasure was to contrast the hidden motive, with public pretext, of transactions.

One source of interest Sidonia found in his descent and in the fortunes of his race.  As firm in his adherence to the code of the great Legislator as if the trumpet still sounded on Sinai, he might have received in the conviction of divine favor an adequate compensation for human persecution.  But there were other and more terrestrial considerations that made Sidonia proud of his origin, and confidant in the future of his kind.  Sidonia was a great philosopher, who took comprehensive views of human affairs, and surveyed every fact in its relative position to other facts, the only mode of obtaining truth.

Sidonia was well aware that in the five great varieties into which Physiology has divided the human species; to wit, the Caucasian, the Mongolian, the Malayan, the American, the Ethiopian; the Arabian tribes rank in the first and superior class, together, among others, with the Saxon and the Greek.  This fact alone is a source of great pride and satisfaction to the animal Man.  But Sidonia and his brethren could claim a distinction which the Saxon and the Greek, and the rest of the Caucasian nations, have forfeited.  The Hebrew is an unmixed race.  Doubtless, among the tribes who inhabit the bosom of the Desert, progenitors alike of the Mosaic and the Mohammedan Arabs, blood may be found as pure as that of the descendants of the Scheik Abraham.  But the Mosaic Arabs are the most ancient, if not the only unmixed blood that dwells in cities.

An unmixed race of a first-rate organization are the aristocracy of Nature.  Such excellence is a positive fact; not an imagination, a ceremony, coined by poets, blazoned by cozening heralds, but perceptible in its physical advantages, and in the vigor of its unsullied idiosyncrasy.

End of Quote.

So, as Benjamin’s father , Isaac, said in the first quote of the essay, he believes that Jews are a supernatural people, below the angels but above human kind.  As semi-deities, no terrestrial condition high or low can affect that.  The Jew of any status can walk, head held high, that he is superior to all non-Jews he meets.

In point of fact, Benjamin was always treated with a sense of amusement so that one must believe that confessions of faith such as this and that in Tancred, a third part of the trilogy were disdained by the English.

Reynolds himself must have read this with a raised eyebrow.  The Necromancer is his refutation of Disraeli in my reading.  Whether it was so understood at the time is unknown to me.  Nevertheless the deeper I study Reynolds, the Regency and the Romantic period the more obvious hidden things become.

ERBzine 1458: by R. E. Prindle

ERBzine 2097: R.E. Prindle