Noodling Around The Eighteen Forties:

George W.M. Reynolds And The Literary World

A Survey Of Sorts.

by

R.E. Prindle

This is one of those essays where I don’t know where to begin.  Incongruously let us begin with the nineteen sixties.  My generation (1960s) doesn’t have a literary history.  Supplanting that, our interest was focused on stereo phonograph records.  Song writing.  Electric guitars and such.

Rather than seeking a solitary literary reputation everything was put into being in a musical group, one or two electric guitars, electric bass, possibly a Farfisa or other type of keyboard and most importantly a charismatic singer.  This also resulted in a massive array of speakers.  Also a major attraction was the singer-songwriter, usually a guitar player.  To show how obsessed with songwriters was Bob Dylan, the very epitome of sixties songwriting, was awarded a Nobel Prize in Literature.  Many of us shook our head in wonder.

However this whole very large body of ‘artists’ embraced the musical ethic.  The artists  preferred variations of the same few themes thus the whole generation nodding in agreement was entranced.

Looking backward to the eighteen forties I believe the same thing happened involving literature.  The musical sixties were magnificent as so the literary eighteen-forties.  The literary phenomenon was worldwide (the world at this time being Europe with an assist from the US.  France and Germany were stellar also but I’m going to concentrate on England and the US.

Just as the musical phenomenon  of the sixties was done by performers born from 1935 to 1945 so the literary scene of the forties depended on writers born between 1800 and eighteen-eighteen.  As the sixties were thematic so were the 1840s, like thinking individuals produce like thinking results in their output.

I am no literary snob so I include all forms of literature in my valuation, from the pulp literature of that time, styled Penny Dreadful, to so-called literary fiction, the latter the peak of literary snobbery.  If anything the general tenor of the time was represented by the Penny Dreadful style.  Another name for the style  is ‘popular.’  Popular being the direct opposite and inferior to Literary fiction.

Just as Bob Dylan and Paul Simon epitomized the singer songwriter faction of the Sixties so Charles Dickens and Geoge Reynolds epitomized the literary period of the eighteen-forties.  The authors played off each other while they all had similar literary backgrounds.  English literature from Daniel Defoe was essentially a continuum to the forties period.

After the forties writers were more affected by technological advances, rising population and a better educated more prosperous workforce.  Therefore those of the changing times could not see and feel in the same way as the forties generation.  By the 1860s a new ethic was forming.  Times had changed. By the 1890s that ethic was replaced.  In many ways a new England came into existence much as is happening in the world of the twenty-first century.

Dickens gives us some idea of how his generation learned their craft, who were their great influences.

Quote:

On the other hand, if I looked for examples, and for precedents, I find them in the noblest range of English literature:  Fielding, De Foe, Goldsmith, Smollett, Richardson, MacKenzie—all these for wise purposes, and especially the two first, brought upon the scene the very scum and refuse of the land.  Hogarth, the moralist and censor of his age…

I embrace the present opportunity of saying a few words in explanation of my aim and object in its production.  It is with some sort of duty to do so in gratitude to those who sympathized with me, and divined my purpose at the time, and who, perhaps will not be sorry to have their impression confirmed under my own hand.

It is, it seems, a very coarse and shocking circumstance, that some of the characters in these pages are chosen from the most criminal and degraded of London’s population; Sikes is a thief, and Fagin a receiver of stolen goods; that the boys are pickpockets and the girl is a prostitute.

Unquote.  Quoted from the preface to the third edition as bound in the 2021 Easton Press edition in parts from the 1843 printing of Oliver Twist.

You can imagine the critics handling of George Reynolds novels that took Dickens characters a few steps further.

Another writer who one hears frequently alluded to is Charles Maturin whose most famous work is Melmoth the Wanderer. In the same vein is George Croly’s Salathiel, a story of the Wandering Jew. And for another, the greatest novelist who ever lived, Walter Scott, with perhaps the lesser known G.P.R. James who also wrote through this period but reflects the eighteenth century in style more.  Unless I am mistaken George Reynolds pays homage to James in his character from the third series of The Mysteries of London, the highwayman Thomas Rainford.  The R in GPR James is Rainsford, shortened most frequently by Reynolds to Tom Rain.

The founder of the idiom was the very famous at the time, Pierce Egan. He was essentially a sports writer.  Loved British games and pastimes. He especially covered boxing writing a multi-volume set detailing the careers of what was called the fancy, or boxing.  He had a very successful sporting magazine so that it was a natural to publish his most famous book, Life in London in parts thus establishing that method of publishing novels. 

Life in London took the country by storm much as Dickens’ Pickwick Papers would sixteen years later.  As with Dickens other writers purloined his characters for their books and especially for theatrical performances that were smashes irritating Egan who rightly felt he should have had a share in profits.

He created the characters of Tom and Jerry.  I’m sure very few people lifting a Tom and Jerry cocktail understand where the name came from.  Even in the twentieth century the characters were being used without credit in the Tom and Jerry cartoons.

Then in 1826 came the early novelists Edgar Bulwer Lytton and W. Harrison Ainsworth; both extremely popular and prolific.  Bulwer Lytton is famous still for his novel The Last Days Of Pompeii, a nearly perfect novel.  And Rienzi, the Last of the Tribunes. 

Thus the way was paved for the emergence of Charles Dickens and the literary blossoming of the generation reaching perfection in the forties.  The ethic played out in the fifties and the early sixties when the evolution of civilization made room for the next generation of authors. Having mentioned Bulwer-Lytton, Ainsworth and Dickens let us now introduce the rest of the group.  I deal here only with the most prominent and influential writers; the period is rich in authorship including Anthomy Trollope’s mother Frances who was a Liberal voice and a very interesting woman, somewhat of an embarrassment for her son.

Edward Lloyd was a publisher not a writer but his writers epitomize the pulp, or Penny Dreadful, faction.  He began a couple years before the forties.  Like many people beginning from nothing he sponged off successful authors publishing derivative novels under similar names such as Oliver Twiss instead of Dickens’ Oliver Twist.  Finding his groove he became what we today would describe as an industry powerhouse.

Others had watched Dickens success and probably Lloyds and determined to succeed in a like manner.  The key being episodic publication whereby a penny a week over twenty weeks became a pound book.  So, the savings were nil but the installment plan worked.  One of these publishers  was George Stiff who published the London Magazine.  It was he who recruited the author that gave the genre credibility.

A similar situation was occurring in France.  In 1943 a French writer, Eugene Sue began a serial publication of his novel The Mysteries Of Paris that quickly became a sensation, excellent novel then, excellent today.   Not slow on the uptake Stiff immediately thought of a counterpart, The Mysteries of London.  All he needed was the right author while he already had a printer named George Vickers.

Kicking around London since 1836 was a fellow by the name of George Reynolds.  George William McArthur Reynolds in full, alternately going by G.W.M. Reynolds.  Reynolds a young 22 year old, had been in Paris for a few years, returning to London in 1836 where he began circulating ln literary circles.  He edited the Monthly Magazine for a year or so on his return.

Reynolds is an interesting character.  He was apparently devoid of literary ideas himself but could adapt any else’s into an original sounding story.  Dickens popularity had turned him into an industry as other writers rushed to emulate him or plagiarize him.  Edward Lloyd led the way.  Without an idea, Reynolds bethought himself to write a continuation of Dicken’s smash hit The Pickwick Papers and so as Dickens had left his characters at the end of his novel, Reynolds decided to lift his cast of characters and place them in the Paris he had just left.  The result was Pickwick Abroad.

The result was an entertaining book, relatively successful, and might have stood on its own with similar but different characters.  Reynolds apparently wanting a four bagger elected to purloin Pickwick and his Club.  Reynolds followed that with a series of titles that were not particularly successful but were well written.

In 1843 then, Stiff looking around for an author settled on Reynolds and offered him the job that Reynolds accepted.  Following his first attempt with Dickens he now had Sue’s Mysteries of Paris as a matrix to embrace his skill.  Now thirty-one he set to work turning out a weekly installment for four straight years.  He was a sensational success.  Paid at the rate of five pounds a week, his annual salary of two hundred and sixty pounds was enough for he and his growing family to live fairly comfortably plus he could freelance on the side so he could easily have added fifty or more pounds a year.  If so three hundred pounds was doing alright in a small way.

In the early forties Ainsworth was at the apex of his career turning out two or three titles a year, all of an excellent quality.  Dickens was continuing his success while Bulwer-Lytton was rolling along.  Lloyd was getting along while he had a couple first rate writers in James Malcom Rymer and Thomas Prescott Press.  Between the two of them they would turn out two monster successes that may be the best known Penny Dreadfulls today:  Varney the Vampire and Sweeney Todd, The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street.  More on them later.

As I mentioned earlier all these writers read each other and were influenced by each other.  Reynolds matured overnight creating a superb style and method that resulted in a monster hit.  While he began by emulating Dickens he began to turn the table on Dickens so that Dickens began to be influenced by his style.

Dickens was not all that prolific while Reynolds was a non-stop writer who worked in several genres.  As popular as Dickens was he was very limited in style.  Thus his Our Mutual Friend was almost as emulative of Reynolds as Pickwick Abroad by Reynolds.

Another writer who was publishing his major works in the forties that I hesitate to include except for the fact that his last two novels, 1870 and 1880, indicate that he was heavily influenced by the forties ambience and may have also in a clumsy imitation have shown reading acquaintance in his 1848 novel, Tancred.

I am also going to have to add a man thought of as a literary author but who was well aware of the Penny Dreadful genre.   That would be William Makepeace Thackaray, and his novel Vanity Fair also published in 1848 that was an outstanding success then and is still read today.  But more on that later, in fact, I intend a full review.

By the end of the First Series of Mysteries of London in 1846 then, George Reynolds was the reigning Penny Dreadful author although he was at such an apex that he almost created another genre.  Ainsworth was in eclipse after 1843 when his essential creative burst played out.  Dickens was having problems coming up with story lines, and Bulwer Lytton, despite the brilliant Last Days of Pompeii was having quality problems.  Rymer began Varney the Vampire about this time.  Varney went on forever.  Rymer was not the sole author being assisted by Prest while once the story got rolling other authors, some speculate up to eight, contributed story lines.  The last story, about the best of the lot, seems to have come from a different hand.  Sweeney Todd also had a good long run of the nature of Varney.

During the forties then Lloyd and Reynolds were the major stays of the genre with the incredible prolificity of Reynolds making him the equal of Lloyd.  Reynolds had a powerful mind that could keep two or three novels separate in his mind.  This prolificity was noticed and he was accused of having a staff of writers.  Not so.

In a postscript to the The Mysteries of the Court of London he explains:

Quote:

For every week, without a single intermission during a period of eight years  has a Number under this title been issued to the public.  Its precursor “THE MYSTERIES OF LONDON” ranged over a period of four years. For twelve years, therefore, have I hebdomadally issued to the world a fragmentary portion of that which, as one vast whole, may be termed an Encyclopedia of Tales.  This Encyclopedia consists  of twelve volumes composing six hundred and twenty-four weekly numbers.  Each Number has occupied me upon an average seven hours in the composition; and therefore no less an amount than four thousand three hundred sixty-eight hours have been bestowed on this Encyclopedia of Tales, comprising the four volumes of “The Mysteries of London,” and the eight volumes of “The Mysteries Of The Court Of London.”  Yet if that amount of hours be reduced to days, it will be found that only a hundred eighty-two complete days have been absorbed for those publications which have ranged with weekly regularity over a period of twelve years!  This circumstance will account to the public for the facility with which I have been enabled to write so many other works during the same period, and yet to allow myself ample leisure for recreation and healthful exercise.

Unquote.

It may be mentioned that the other works he mentioned amounted to at least double the words of his two Mysteries.  All these books are of an even high quality.  At the same time he was married and rearing a brood of kids.

Just as with the exciting sixties of the twentieth century the period of the eighteen forties in England must have been the greatest period in English history.  They called them Penny Dreadfulls but with all the exciting reading available each week it would have taken shillings to keep up.

The forties themselves must have been an exciting period for those with eyes to see.  After the July Revolution in France and the Reform Act of 1832 in England a slow but quickening drum roll was leading up to the 1848 revolution when by coincidence several of these books were published.  While the Reform Act wasn’t properly understood as Benjamin Disraeli, the author and politician believed; it was an actual revolution with repercussions leading up to the Really Big One in 1848. Reynolds himself believed in violent revolution and promoted it in his books.

Let us turn now to William Makepeace Thackery’s Vanity Fair, as mentioned, published in 1848 while being influenced by both Dickens and Reynolds.  At this point I have to introduce two trends that influenced many of these people.  One was the immense popularity of Rabalais’  Gargantua and Pantagruel with its famous motto: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law from the sixteenth century and the works of another Frenchman the notorious Marquis de Sade: Justine and Juliette, or Virtue and Vice of the eighteenth century.  De Sade thought that the happier and more fulfilled life was enjoyed by Vice, or his heroine Julliette while Virtue was its own reward, that is, a life of misery as epitomized by Justine.

Reynolds in his Mysteries of Paris in which two brothers Richard and  Eugene Markham took the place of De Sade’s sisters and virtue won out over vice.

Thackaray weighed in with the attitude that the consequences of ‘do what wilt’ led to different consequences with more or less equal results whether vice or virtue.

Thackaray was a year older than Reynolds born in 1811 to Reynolds 1812.  Thackaray was born in India but was sent back to England by his mother when he was four.  His mother ignored him when she returned later thus perhaps provided one role model for his heroine, Becky Sharp.

Both he and Reynolds left England for France in 1830, returning in  1836.  A rare coincidence.  Both pursued literary vocations in France.  After Reynolds became prominent Thackaray was asked what he thought of Reynolds.  Thackaray laughingly said that if he was the same George Reynolds that was in Paris he was the only that ever paid him for an article, Reynolds was OK with himself.  A literary incident worthy of Isaac D’Israeli himself.

So, if you know how to look at both Reynolds’ Mysteries of London and Thackeray’s Vanity Fair the two themes, Rabelais and De Sade course through both works.

A Review of Vanity Fair by William Makepeace Thackeray

Benjamin Disraeli attempted to write a novel in the style of the forties with his last novel, Endymion.  In it he passingly discusses Charles Dickens and William Makepeace Thackeray.  He calls Dickens Gushy and Thackery Sainte Barbe.. While not the best selling author of the period Dickens style penetrated the heart of the period on down to the time of this writing.  It is futile to argue against success but Thackeray, Reynolds and any serious litterateur would follow Disraeli and call him Gushy.  Some writer comparing Dickens and Smollet said that Dickens wrote like a boy and Smollett wrote like a man.  That about sums it up and Thackeray and Reynolds wrote like a man also.

That doesn’t mean that Thackeray wasn’t impressed by Dickens’ succuss that he doesn’t do a little ‘gushy’ himself in Vanity Fair but it the weakest part of the novel.  There may also be a smidgen of Bulwer-Lytton and an attempt to wear Reynolds’ hat.  Thackeray does succeed to a certain extent in interweaving his story strands much as Reynold did.  So that, over all the story is interesting and affecting but not in Dicken warm hearted way.  The Bohemian in Thackery comes out in a gentle mockery.  As he said, he didn’t like any of his characters and he passes that message onto his perceptive readers.

Thackeray, underlain by his reading of De Sade and Rabelais had a leaning toward the Bohemian so there is a smear of the snide and mockingly sarcastic.  We, or I, don’ laugh with his characters but laugh at them.  Emmy, after all is a ridiculous character and Thackeray thought so.

My thirteen volume set of Thackeray is what is called the Biographical Edition because Thackeray’s daughter, Anne Ritchie provides biographical notes to each volume.  She quotes her father as saying that he didn’t like any of his characters in Vanity Fair with the exception of Dobbin which means he must have based that character on himself.  I think an attentive reading indicates it is so.  None of the leading characters are ‘nice’ excepting Dobbin and he’s a sap.  Really, what an approach.

Thackeray follows the format of the typical forties novel.  A couple Rakes, Osborne and Crawley botch their lives and the lives of those around them.  The female lead, Becky Crawley, nee Sharp is meant to be the most offensive character in the novel but it seems that Thackeray has a sneaking admiration for her.  As with De Sade’s Juliette she is the soul of vice while doing as she wilt.  Thackeray ends on a happy note and while giving  Juliette/Becky all her wishes.  His detestation of his counter-heroin, Emmy/Justine is apparent at the end.  He saddles Dobbin with her as a wife.  While Thackeray doesn’t say so I imagine that ‘Dob’ lived to regret it.

There are two high points to the novel.  In the first half the novel climaxes with the battle of Waterloo.  The protagonist of this half was George Osborne, your typical rich ne’er do well of the time.  Osborne’s father was a merchant so Thackeray is directed his story at the commercial middle class.  George dies at Waterloo shot through his ‘rotten’ heart as Thackeray is quoted by his daughter in the preface.  He was an arrogant, undisciplined, rotten guy too.  One catches hints of Smollett and Reynolds in his portrayal.  Very Count Fathomish.

The portrayal of the gay, party atmosphere of Brussels before the battle of Waterloo is marvelously done.  The partying went on until the very bugles called the troops to battle.  The English left wing was already engaged.  Osborne rode off to war staggeringly drunk.

Of course, the character that readers remember is the female lead, Becky Sharp, or Crawley as she was.  Apparently there was discussion at the time as to whom Becky was based on.  I think Thackeray told us when he mentioned Marianne Clarke.  Marianne who? perhaps you say.

Marianne Clarke. Now there’s a story.  As it turns out, Mary Anne, who was a sensation of her time was the great-great grandmother of Daphne Du Maurier.  Daphne was the daughter of Gerald Du Maurier and the grand daughter of the famous novelist George Du Maurier, Peter Ibbetson, Trilby, and The Martian.  Apparently Marianne was a family embarrassment so that Daphne wrote a novel about Mary Anne to expiate the shame.  An excellent novel too.

But to relate Mary Anne Clarke to Becky Sharp.  Marianne was of the courtesan class.  Her grea-greatt-grandaughter’s quasi-history titled simply Mary Anne fictionalizes that history.  If not true on all points the story line is accurate.   During the ‘teens then there were men, entrepreneurs one might say, who recruited women to be mistresses of the Lords.  The girls had to be accustomed to the manners of the upper class, and these men trained them.  Mary Anne then was taken up by George III’s second son, Frederick, the Duke of York.  Mary Anne blew it of course when she abused her relationship with the Duke.  She then exposed him which was a major scandal ending with her having to move to the continent, a ruined woman.

A sensation of the time was Harriette Wilson’s Memoirs.  Harriette was as successful as Mary Anne but in a different way.  Her memoirs give a general picture of this interesting social custom.  She was the mistress of several men so that when the bloom left her rose and men just passed her by she decided to write a tell all exposing the ‘life.’  In order to make more money she after to delete the name of anyone who paid he price.  Many did.  When she approached the hero of Waterloo, General Arthur Wellesley, the Duke made the famous comment ‘Publish and be damned.’

Becky will follow the same general course, like Mary Anne Clarke she was a married woman.  She aspired to move in the haute monde which she wheedled her way into having seduced the notorious libertine Duke Steyne.  Always duplicitous she betrays her husband Rawdon Crawley.  Even though Becky has accumulated a substantial amount of money from Steyn she conceals the money from Rawdon.  Rawdon has accumulated debts so that he is subject to arrest.  In order to be able to spend a night or two  carousing Becky and Steyn arrange to have Rawdon arrested for his debts which he was.  She could have had Rawdon released by paying the debt for which he was arrested before her caper or capers with Steyne but preferred to have her husband locked away intending to release him after the fling.

Getting no response from Becky Rawdon appealed to his sister-in-law who took pity on him and advanced the money.  Returning home the poor guy walked into the raucous party.  The tale is told to elicit the most sympathetic response for Rawdon which is done admirably well.  From then on it’s all downhill for Becky until the end of the book when we learn in the recap that she has recaptured a degree of respectability actually becoming rich, per Juliette.

Our Virtuous Justine is a woman called Amelia, a real dishrag, Thackeray actually has nothing but contempt for her but as a counterpart to Becky she is a plausible counter-heroine.

Amelia was the wife of the dashing army officer George Osborne, a rake and man about town.  He and Amelie had been betrothed from birth as her father, a successful businessman was friends with George’s father, another successful businessman at the time who helped George’s fatjer to become rich. Adverse circumstances ruined him.  Now broke and dishonored Osborne scorns him while rejecting the union of George and Amelia.  The various stories develop against the background of Napoleon’s hundred days.  The first climax of the story.  George is killed at Waterloo and the second half of the story begins that leads up to Becky’s betrayal and  Rawdon’s disgrace.

Apart from the two climaxes the story drags along inviting the reader to put down the book.  That may have been the initial response in 1848.  As a serial the book started slow and remained slow for a while until it gradually caught on and made a respectable showing.  The book too needed a kick start.  I can understand it; however as I am reading a ‘classic’ I persist to the end.  I don’t what excuse people of the time made.

We do have a good snapshot of the moment however.  And  that is worth something.   Still, there is something in Thackeray’s attitude that carries weight.  Thackery unites his story with the metaphor of Vanity Fair. Life is a tragicomedy.  A ship of fools.   He begins the novel in his own persona as a stage manager looking in at life, or Vanity Fair, as a manager of a puppet show  pointing out the characters, or actors, or figments of his imagination, before setting them in action.  He is then free to comment on all aspects of his story as a disinterested viewer.  While I was not overawed during the reading, the lingering effect and reexamination reveals a profundity not obvious in the reading.

In Vanity Fair Thackeray, then, combined elements of Dickens and Reynolds with varying success and perhaps a smattering of Smollett. There was also something new, almost a change of direction.  In 1841 Punch magazine had been established.  It called itself The London Charivari after the French magazine Le Charivari established in 1832.

A charivari is a loud raucous parade so that the puppet master satirized politics and the passing social scene.  Thus, the title Vanity Fair was suggested to Thackeray whether he realized it or not.  He then cast himself, the author, as the ring master of essentially the circus of life.  Thus in the preface he portrays himself as a sort of god looking down into his world, Vanity Fair, moving the pieces around to compose his story  or stories a la Reynolds.

The novel having run for a couple years a magazine appeared  to compete with Punch, the London Charivari, titled The Puppet Show, undoubtedly partially inspired by Vanity Fair.  In 1848 Reynolds ended  The Mysteries of London and began The Mysteries of the Court of London that run through four series into 1856.  These Forties writers looked back fondly on the post-Waterloo years, the twenties and thirties technological changes, such as the railroad, being new the writers, if they didn’t reject the changing times, clung to the sentimental period of the stagecoach.  Their period ended or began to end about 1860 as newer authors pushed to the front.

Perhaps the epitaph to the period was provided in 1880 when Disraeli who died the year after published his Endymion.  Disraeli  published his absurd novels from 1826 to 1848 then taking a hiatus until his 1870 novel Lothair then ten years later his last which is a tribute to the forties novel.  He closely follows the methods of Gushy, Dickens and Thackeray, St. Barbe while not mentioning the disreputable Reynolds.  Endymion is a pleasant sentimental novel approaching to the quality of the Big Three but ending a faint imitation.

Englishmen looked back nostalgically  on the 1840s much as we do today at the 1960s.  Both were periods of great change.

History In Its Fullness

November 15, 2021

History In Its Fullness

Origins Of World War One And Two

by

R.E. Prindle

In Flanders Fields

By John McCrae

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead.  Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie,

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If we break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

Prologue.

The above verse was written to honor those fallen in WWI, known as the Great War before WWII.  The carnage was terrible.  Between seven and eleven million soldiers would die many of them buried in the immense military cemetery of Flanders Fields.  As many as forty million Europeans as a direct consequence:  A true holocaust and a preliminary to a worse twenty years later, I do not refer to the collateral deaths of the six million.

Oh, sure.  ‘History’ tells us that an Austrian Prince was assassinated and that was the cause of the war.  That’s a sort of historical white lie.  The Prince’s assassination catalyzed the war but it didn’t cause it.  The primary cause was racial enmity and the origin was the execution of a Jewish political criminal in 1740.

Because of that execution a series of bloody revolutions occurred killing millions more.  1789,1830,1848.  After the ’48 failed the revolutionists determined that a change of tactics was necessary.  Then began an asymmetric war of assassination and agitation.  Dozens of prominent politicians and significant people hit the ground over the next 50-60 years.  The conspirators meant to have a war and by 1914 they had it.  The assassinated Prince was the excuse but not the cause.

What caused the war?  Race.  A long train of events that began, for our purposes on the lone figure of a man hanging from the gallows in an iron cage thirty full feet from the ground.  A heinous execution for a multitude of heinous crimes.  That man was named Joseph Suss Oppenheimer, by race a Jew.  Let us trace the clues that link Suss as the cause of the genocidal two European wars of the twentieth century.

1,

Grievance on Grievance

All EuroAmerican history has been falsified due to the historical sin of omission.  While all the actions of all nations but one have been taken into account the deeds of the Jews have been omitted or, at least, misrepresented.  Yet the Jews have been most influential of all the nations.  That’s an anomaly that demands explanation.

They have and had the smallest population while having no homeland other than the whole of Europe and North America throughout which they were scattered.  Sound contradictory?  It’s not. While spread primarily over the two continents the Jews maintained a tightly knit group of, essentially, conspirators. They existed under two legal systems, theirs and the gentiles with theirs being supreme in their eyes.  The Gentiles had only one which put them to the disadvantage.  The Jews could claim two loyalties but theirs took precedence in their eyes.

Their prophet or failed messiah, Sigmund Freud, proclaimed the method of group psychology and its analysis so that any coherent groups’ activities, patterns, can be determined and analyzed.  Their psychology is based on the notion of being completely distinct from all other races while their sense of superiority is based on the notion that they were the selector’s choice of all the peoples God created.  That is God, himself, did this.  As above, so below.  God would sometimes come down and have a chat with them.  At one time he chatted  and pilpuled  with his favorite, Abram.

The problem was that no other people believed this story hence they didn’t give the Jews the respect that they thought they commanded.  Hence, further, a grievance.  One history of the Jews is a list of their grievances. There were many, many, and all had to be revenged.  An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.  God didn’t go along with this last item.  He admonished his people that revenge  was his prerogative.  Revenge belongs to me, saith the Lord.  The Jews have disregarded that injunction, preferring their own adage.

Thus the grievance list and their remedy grew.  The preferred remedy was genocide.  Kill them all.  Perhaps first on the list were the Amalekites.  For the trivial offence of not allowing the long Jewish train of migrants roaming the desert to pass through their tiny country they were exterminated man, woman and child.  No one has seen an Amalekite for thousands of years now.

The particular grievance with the Amalekites was settled rather quickly but as we will see some took perhaps a couple thousand years one that ended in Flanders Fields.

Speaking of more recent grievances that can be grouped under WWI and II let us choose a beginning point of 1290 which was the time that they were expelled lock, stock, and barrel from the Kingdom of England. Woah, that one wasn’t forgotten and it took to world wars to resolve that.  Soon after King Philip Le Bel of France expelled his Jews in 1307.

The Jewish relations with the Germans had always been troubled. First they expelled, then let back in, then expelled again.  A very frustrating experience.  Of course, it was always the fault of the English, French or Germans, never their own activities.  The Catholic Church had inadvertently given them a monopoly on usury when it forbade Europeans to loan at interest.  Not a realistic ban, on the score of giving the monopoly to the Jews or in developing the economy.

The Jews had taken full advantage of the privilege and were well on the way to confiscation of the wealth of the continent when Napoleon put a stop to it.  The Jews lost their monopoly but retained their souls.

Time, the tides and evolution wait on no man, so over these years and centuries we’re discussing, European society developed at a very rapid rate.  Might not seem so if you were living during those centuries but it was.so. 

The last major expulsion of the Jews took place in 1492 when the Visigoths reconquered the final bit of Moorish territory of Granada.  The Victorious Visigoths gave the Moors and Jews the choice of accepting Christianity or being expelled.  Many stayed and many left. But after England, France and Germany Spain was the last straw.  This was one grievance too far so condign vengeance was declared.  This meant one thing:  Genocide.  The Jews would seethe for four hundred years until…Der Tag.

In the interim there was a lot of life to live.  Some twenty-six years in 1517after Spain, the Catholic priest, Martin Luther would rebel against the Church posting his 96 theses and setting off a train of disasters that would result in modern Europe.  The Central European religious war as ferocious.  Catholics vs. Protestants.  This was the famous Thirty Years War that nearly depopulated Germany.  You can believe that Central Europe was shattered, the economic system destroyed by 1648 when peace was finally established.  Peace of a sort.

Central Europe was impoverished, principalities were small yet political and economic matters were European wide.  The aristocrats savagely suppressed serfs, common people, denying them of educations.  Only one people could operate over across the borders of Europe and that people was the Jews.  So, a relationship developed between the rulers and Jews. The Court Jews provided the essential services of acquisition and distribution.  A temporary institution grew up know as Court Jews.  They were dependent on the rulers but operated between the rulers and the peoples as a semi-autonomous people but solely  able to accumulate wealth..

The factors, or merchants skinned the rulers, their profits were fabulous.  In many cases a factor might have an equally fabulous personal establishment as the rulers, sometimes better.  Thus, though always separate this separation was more conspicuous as the war ravaged Germans began to rebuild from scratch.  Then along came Suss in the 1730s in the German State of Wurttemberg.  Here’s our culprit.  Suss singlehandedly changed the equation between the Court Jews, he being one, and the rulers.  Previously to Suss the rulers had the upper hand.  When the factors flaunted their wealth too conspiculously the rulers simply repudiated their debts leaving the factors roaming the streets.

Repudiating the debt may sound extreme but so was the greed of the factors.  Their activities was essentially a transfer of the wealth from the rulers to themselves.  All the money was ending up in their hands.  So an economic redistribution of the wealth was necessary, one might say inevitable.

Enter Suss.  The wily Suss, the clever Suss.  He was the Court Jew, or factor, for Duke Karl Alexander of the largish State of Wurttemberg in Southern Germany next to Bavaria.  Within a very short time, his tenure was only four years he inveigled what we would call a Power of Attorney from the Duke to function essentially as a co-ruler.  Within the space of a few years he committed enormous crimes appropriating the wealth of the Wurttembergers for his own use enraging the citizens.  Then the Duke unexpectedly died.  Suss was arrested tried and executed in an ignoble fashion.  This infuriated the Jews already smarting from all the expulsions.  Suddenly a plan gelled in their minds.

In the seventeenth century Cromwell of England readmitted the Jews to England.  In the late eighteenth century Napoleon emancipated the Jews.  That is they allowed to function as citizens without disabilities.  But Napoleon demanded a quid pro quo, essentially that the Jews would amalgamate with the French to become one culture but retaining their ‘religion.’  Needless to say, the Jews took the emancipation but reneged on amalgamating with the French.  But, how could they?  In their terms they were a separate and peculiar people.

Now, about 1800 is when Europe’s troubles really began.  After emancipation the Jews immediately set out to revolutionize Europe, that is, to become the rulers.

The Napoleonic emancipation was meant to cover all Europe.  Emancipation was complete in the French territories but advanced more slowly beyond the French borders.  By mid-century it was more or less complete.  Then a new player entered the field, that being the United States of America.  Refugees from the ’48 flooded into the US and prospered.  Post-Civil War they were well established.  Technological inventions opened vast new fields for them.  For an instance, the sewing machine changed the way people obtained their clothes.  The machines made mass production possible so that when hordes of Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe began what amounted to an invasion, the masses of people could find ready employment.

In imitation of the Freemasonic Order, in 1843 the Jews created the Order of the B’nai B’rith which was strictly limited to Jews.  Once established the Order became international and was exported to Europe and soon had lodges in all countries.  Now coordination of activities became a simple matter from centers of conspiracy.  In 1895 the psychologist Sigmund Freud joined the Vienna Lodge where he lectured the faithful on his findings to psychologically manipulate masses, whole countries..

Unlike the goyim the Jews did not reject his findings but embraced them.  It was in the B’nai Brith lodge that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion were composed during the first Zionist convention in 1897.  Freud and Zionism were the steroids needed to produce the Russian Revolution of 1903-05 and the Soviet Revolution of 1917.

Two other events in the wake of Suss formed the Revolution.  One was the birth of Meyer Amschel Rothschild of Frankfort just above Stuttgart, Wurttemberg.   Suss was from Frankfort, the center of Jewish conspiracy in Europe.  After establishing himself as the Duke’s alter ego he spent much time in Frankfort organizing his people.  From there he toured London and Paris before meeting his fate.   Meyer must have been raised on stories of Suss.  He accordingly made plans.  As he had  five sons, his legendary five arrows, he indoctrinated them in the plan to conquer Europe.  As they came of age he sent them to five European capitals from which as kings of usury they controlled or influenced the currencies.

The two most important countries were, of course, France and England, the West of Europe.  His son, Nathan, was sent to England while the youngest James went to Paris, the two most important posts.

Being outside Continental Europe England was not affected by the emancipation, in fact English Jews had never been under European style disabilities although along with the Catholics and Dissenters they had limited civil disabilities that put an arms length between themselves and the English.  Two nations.

Remember that in addition to Suss France, England and the German principalities had all expelled the Jews and those expulsions had to be avenged.

In 1804 an English avenger was born in the person of Benjamin Disraeli. He was tutored by his father Isaac to be a man of vengeance.  To avoid the civil disabilities Isaac himself gave the appearance of rejecting Judaism so that he could find success as a writer at which he  succeeded.  So that his son Benjamin could function as an English citizen with full rights he had Ben baptized.  So while he remained racially stoutly Jewish he could function as a Christian and a mole.  When Benjamin came of age he began writing tracts that passed as novels.  From1826 to 1836 he established a reasonably good reputation as a novelist.  In 1837 he was elected to Parliament.  The mole was in place.

Now, Nathan Rothschild who founded the English branch of the clan arrived in England in 1795 with the intent to prosper in the burgeoning  textile industry.  He failed to make his mark and so went through a rough period during which he became a successful smuggler and apparently made some money which led him to become a banker.  His muse was sitting on his shoulder so that in 1807 he scored a coup that gave him some substantiality.  By this time his brother James was establishing himself in France, Paris.

Napoleon involved himself in a war in Spain so that the English intervened through Portugal to aid the Spanish.  The English General Wellington became strapped for cash to pay the troops and to obtain supplies.  Nathan supplied the gold which then had to be sent to Spain.

Even though Napoleon had emancipated the Jews making them French citizens with full rights, and even though part of that deal was that the Jews would give up their evil ways and become truly amalgamated with the French, Nathan and James conspired to use Nathan’s smuggling skills to move the gold through France to Spain helping the English to defeat Napoleon.  That avenged themselves a little on France but not enough.

Then in 18i4 as Napoleon and Wellington faced off on the battlefield of Waterloo Nathan performed perhaps the greatest coup in history.  He realized that the English currency could be manipulated to his advantage if he could get the news of victory or defeat first.  He did.  He knew it was victory but circulated the verdict as defeat amongst the City stock brokers.  A panic ensued, stock prices plummeted and as they did Nathan Rothschild bought every share he could so that when the official news of victory arrived Nathan had captured the currency of England.  He was then far and away the richest man in England.  His muse had caressed him; he was on the way and didn’t have to look back.  England belonged to the Jews but there was still the problem of civil disabilities and the English were not going to grant them easily and they never did during Nathan’s lifetime.  It would take his fully capable son Lionel to do that in collaboration with Benjamin Disraeli in1858..

Whither Europe?

As the nineteenth century began the future was momentous for Europe including North America.  An asymmetric war was in process.  The Europeans blinded themselves to the actual situation.  Disraeli mentioned once that there was a tussle going on between the Rothschilds and the Secret Societies.  Robert Blake in his biography of Disraeli scoffs at the notion, as probably Dizzies contemporaries did, thinking that he was deluded.  However, Disraeli was receiving  information from two different sources, the European conventional sources in which he was directly involved and influencing and the Jewish/Rothschild sources.  He thus had a tremendous advantage among the Parliamentarians using sources they didn’t have while at the same time giving inside information to the Rothschilds for whom he served as a mole.  A telling anecdote is that on a mission to Paris he was introduced to James Rothschild, the French patriarch.  James casually mentioned to Dizzy:  I believe you know my nephew, meaning Lionel.  Hearing that Dizzy could lean back and feel comfortable.  He was included.

He thus had obligations to fulfill.  Europeans always wondered how the Jews were so well informed, seeming to have the news before it even took place.  They always had men in high places, some were bought while the Jewish officials just shunted the info over.  The mistake the French made in the Dreyfus Affair of the nineteens was to accuse him of channeling info to the Germans.  The route was Dreyfus to the Synagogue and from there to the Germans or whoever the Synagogue thought fit.  So it was with Johnthan Pollard in the US during the latter part of the twentieth century.  Pollard funneled reams of material to the Israelis and they used it to their advantage regardless to whom.  The info was disastrous for the US Intelligence agencies so much so that Pollard, a Jew, was given a life time sentence.  Needless to say, his people got him out after twenty-five years and he went to Israel with whatever else he knew.

The Jews thought that anyone who would put their enemy into positions, such as Prime Minister or inside Intelligence Agencies, must be crazy and they were right.

Disraeli, himself, was a very nasty piece.  Naturally, as a foreigner, and Jews were considered foreigners, Disraeli endured slights and affronts.  He was asked what he did to retaliate.  He said he never carried a grudge, he said that he just brushed them off.  He noted their names and wrote them on a piece of paper, put the paper in a box, which must have been chock full and when he looked in the box again, he found that his offenders had disappeared.  One can’t know exactly what he meant by that, whether by magic they had slipped from notice or they had serious ‘accidents’ and crossed the bar.  I can only speculate but when his closest associate, George Bentinck, died shortly after reaching his and Disrraeli’s objective he disappeared so that Disraeli was able to seize leadership of the party.  I think Disraeli’s life was filled with such coincidences.  You simply didn’t want to stand in his way.

The same goes for his fellow Jews.  If someone was in the way they were eliminated in one way or another.  Hence the horrendous list of assassinations after the ’48 and into the war years of WWI and WWII which make up a thirty years war.  The asymmetric war then was on.  The Jews, the instigator knew it, but the Europeans were slow to catch on.  The Jewish bete noir, Germany, was the only country who caught on or at least said they did.

Why Germany?  The answer is Jud Suss.  Because of Jud Suss, Germany had to perish.  After a hundred fifty years or so, the scab covering Suss came off.  As the Jews became more confident of taking Germany in the nineteen twenties the issue of Suss was revived by the Jews.  They had blood in their eyes.  While little information about Suss exists in the West, Lion Feuchtwanger wrote a historical novel in 1926 called simply Jud Suss, that met with great success while Selma Stern wrote a short book about the rise of the Court Jew emphasizing Suss’ career.  Then in 1930 Feuchtwanger found financing and made a movie of his book also titled simply, Jud Suss; in the US it was titled Power.  In addition in the US a movie was made glorifying the Rothschilds.  These movies were meant to vilify the Germans.

This set off a fire storm among the National Socialists.  They countered with an excellent movie on the Suss theme and then a magnificent film called The Rothschilds.  Evidently in an attempt to set the record straight.

I have said that the Jews wanted to destroy Germany and the Germans lock stock and barrel.  This will be unbelievable I believe to readers.  However, and  this is not interpretation, there was a genocidal plan to wipe the Germans and Germany from the earth that is well documented.  In 1940 the plan was released through the American Jewish Committee by its operative Theodore Kaufman in a pamphlet called Germany Must Perish.  This was not some off the wall publication but was distributed country wide, reviewed widely, even in Time Magazine and incorporated into Roosevelt’s post-war plans.  You can buy Kaufman’s book, it’s still available.

The plan was the if you castrated all the German men, Germans would ‘disappear’ within a generation. And then German industry was to be destroyed completely and turned into a pastoral territory divided amongst the surrounding countries.  This is not to be pooh poohed and taken lightly.  The National Socialists did not take it lightly.  I don’t know how confident they were of winning this massive war but they must have realized that with the Soviet Union on their East and the US, England and France on the West under the influence of the Jews their situation was perilous.  So, this threat of genocide from the Jews was not to be taken lightly.  Genocide was part of their history.  Ask the Amalekites.

I don’t believe that their plan before this genocidal threat was received was to genocide the Jews, but after it was received they definitely decided to eliminate them before the Jews eliminated them.  That’s called a pre-emptive strike, which the Jews always employ, and self-defense.  The ugly truth comes out. The Suss execution bugged the Jews so much that the US compelled Germany to pardon Suss in the aftermath of the war.  The Suss affair dominated Jewish thinking from 1740 to 1940, or 50.  Germany and the Germans were almost completely destroyed in vengeance.  England, the Soviet Union and the US were merely tools in the hands of the Jews.

To return to Disraeli.

To understand Disraeli one must place him in the proper perspective.  He is not English, could never be English.  If you’ve seen the movie The Day The Earth Stood Still, compare Disraeil with the spaceman Klaatu.  Klaatu looks human but he comes from an entirely different planet, a whole different mindset.  He cannot think like a human.  He is a stranger in a strange land as was Disraeli.  His people occupied a space between the English and say, the Gypsies.  He knew what the English knew and he knew what the English didn’t know.  He operated in two different worlds.

Here is a quote from Disraeli’s last novel, Endymion, that illustrates the difference. Disraeli is talking about the Three Glorious Days of the July Revolution in France in 1930, Chapter VII:

Quote

The men  who have won ‘three glorious days’ at Paris, want neither civilization nor religion.  They will not be content till they have destroyed both.

‘It is possible,’ he continued. ‘that they may be parried for a time; that the adroit wisdom of the house of Orleans, guided by Talleyrand, may give this movement the resemblance, and even the character, of a middle class revolution.  It is no such thing; the barricades were not erected by the middle class.  I know these people; it is a fraternity, not a nation.  Europe is honeycombed with their secret societies.  They are spread all over Spain.  Italy is entirely mined.  I know more of the southern than the norther nations;  but I have been assured, by one who should know, that the brotherhoods are organized throughout Germany and even in Russia.  I have spoken to the Duke about these things.  He is not indifferent, or altogether incredulous, but he is so essentially practical that he can only deal with what he sees.  I have spoken to the Whig leaders.  They tell me that there is only one specific, and that a complete one—constitutional government; that with representative institutions, secret societies cannot exist.  I may be wrong, but it seems to me that with these secret societies representative institutions will disappear.  And so they have today.

Unquote.

Roughly a hundred forty years later, that is as I write in 2021, representative institutions have all but disappeared under the influence of these secret societies.  The whole notion of Republics passed through Democracy into Synarchy and that is the actual state of society today.  A minority of delirious fanatics is running society.

At another time Disraeli was quoted as saying that a struggle was going on between the Rothschilds and the secret societies.  Once again he was scoffed.  But who should know better than he?  Apparently the English secret service was not so developed as to infiltrate these secret societies.  Their blindness allowed a whole new counterculture to develop that today controls the EU and the US.

The Rothschilds knew and they did have the sense to infiltrate the secret societies and indeed to take them over and turn them to Jewish uses.  This still will not be believed today as researchers are dismissed as crack pot Conspiracy Theorists.  There is no theory involved; it is historical fact.

So Disraeli was working in constitution government while, as he says, he knew the people he was talking about.  This raises the question, how did he know them and what was his association with them.  As he said that there was a struggle between them and the Rothschilds did the latter use him as an agent to deal with them? There is something here that needs to be explained.  He is the most preeminent of men and he couldn’t get his message across but was allowed to run the constitutional government.   Things can’t get much stranger than that.

He was routinely denounced as untrustworthy and he was untrustworthy.  He repeatedly worked against English interests and in favor of Jewish interests obviously as was explained in his novel of 1847 Tancred. Few people actually read Tancred although it was in their interest to do so.  Endymion was more widely read but Disraeli was dead by that time.

He was known as an expansionist and every expansion he secured weakened the British Empire a little more.  He obtained a useless appendage in Cyprus that drained England (and Ireland) of more men.

Some of this is too incredible to be true.  Such an incident was the acquisition of the Suez Canal Company’s shares.

A little background.  None of the biographers that I have read seem to realize the connection between Disraeli and the Rothschilds.  It is totally impossible that they wouldn’t have recognized that they were kindred spirits.  Disdraeli himself worshipped the Rothschilds.  It is highly improbable that Isaac D’Israeli and Nathan Rothschild didn’t collaborate in some fashion.  Isaac’s 1933 The Genius of Judaism would indicate that.  Isaac is talking about what he considers the very genius of the spirit of Judaism, without reference to any genius of individual Jews.  He is also trying to break down the resistance of the English to Judaism.

Nathan Rothschild named his headquarters New Court.  That is, a counter court to the Court of England.  In other words he Jews were in a contest to replace the English Court.  Isaac’s book is moving in the same direction.  The appearance of his book in 1933 is an indication that he thought the plan was advancing.  By1933 also Isaac would have thought that he could recommend Benjamin as someone to be accepted and encouraged.

Benjamin as a successful author of scandalous ‘novels’ had called attention to himself.  Now after 1933 he began a number of unsuccessful attempts to enter Parliament, shifting from party to party and ideology to ideology until he was finally selected in 1937.  He was permanently lodged there for the rest of his life.

Nathan died in 1936 succeeded by his son Lionel who was almost the same age as Disreali.  As a member of Parliament then he was befriended by Lionel and the two began cooperating but Disraeli was necessarily the junior party.  His three 1840s novels, Coningsby, Sybil, and Tancred give the plan away while in his character Sidona he lauds Lionel to the skies.  Even when he became the Prime Minister, a chief of England he acknowledged Lionel as his superior.

This was no more evident than in the Suez incident.  To enlarge the field of action:  The Rothschilds acted in concert while the English and French branches of the family were the linchpins.  Nathan’s brother James in Paris died in 1866 succeeded by his sons Gustave and Alphonse.   The French under De Lessups had built the canal.  The canal itself was not for sale but the Suez Canal Company that operated the canal concession had issued shares, the majority of which were owned by  the French, the remainder by the Khedive of Egypt.  The Khedive had fallen on hard times and wanted to sell his shares for four million pounds.

It is impossible that Lionel and the Gustave and Alphonse were not in communication with each other, perhaps even to buy the shares themselves; if so they realized the impracticability of the notion.

Parliament went into recess. At this precise moment Disraeli thought it was imperative for England to acquire the shares, however as Parliament was out of session the funds could not be voted on.  As Disraelj apparently thought it was imperative to get the shares acting on his own authority he went to Lionel and asked him to loan the four million pounds to England.

Disraeli, the Prime Minister of England, went to a mere usurer, which technically was all Lionel was, to ask him to loan the four million.  Now, maybe I’m wrong but as Prime Minister Disraeli took precedence over a mere money merchant.  Disraeli was offering the deal of a lifetime, better even than Nathan’s coup.

The Jews always talk as though they are thorough Englishmen, Germans, what have you, patriotic to the core.  Lionel, coolly looked at Disraeli and asked ‘What’s your collateral?’  This is an English Patriot asking.  Disraeli laughed, ‘The British Empire.’   So, this doofus Benjamin Disraeli signed a loan agreement putting the entire British Empire up as collateral for a mere four million pounds.  At that point, if Parliament came back in session and refused to honor Benjamin’s act the Jews would have owned the British Empire.  As soon as Parliament resumed they voted the four million and retired the loan.

But, for a few weeks loan, this patriotic Englishman, Lionel Rothschild, charged 15% at an annualized rate. One hundred thousand pounds.

Think about it, Disraeli put the Empire in jeopardy to merely buy a commercial company.  As with all his foreign affairs the canal led to the assumption of the Egyptian government by England thus spreading the military even thinner.   Egypt led to the Ang;lo-Egyptian Sudanese condominium and that led to military operations in the Sudan.  It was a sad day when Disraeli became Prime Minister.

Conclusion

Benjamin Disraeli died in 1881 just after he had published his last work, titled Endymion.  In reading this it should be apparent that there was the constitutional government, for the aware it is also clear that there were clandestine plotters or, in another name, Secret Societies.  History is not made up of only the former but a combination of the latter as well.  Given human psychology it is inevitable.  Disraeli repeatedly insisted upon it in his book and who was in a better position to know.  He even tells you that he familiar with Southern secret societies even going so far as to say that Italy was mined with them. 

In Endymion he gives an example involving Napoleon III in England, where he was compelled to go in disguise lest he be assassinated as the French government feared his doing what he did, that is seizing the government and making himself dictator.  This book is a good fictional account of how things worked.  If you look beyond the fictional paraphernalia the general method is true.

This work was published in 1880 when Disraeli was nearing death.  So it has a more relaxed reminiscent feel. It has none of the frenzy of Tancred or the wild exuberance of Coningsby. The book is a roman a clef so most of characters reflect real people.  Disraeli himself is Endymion, the beautiful boy toy of Greek mythology.  The Neuchatels, New Castles that match Nathan’s New Court are the Rothschilds at the apex of their glory in 1880.

Eighteen- eighty would be a pivotal point in English and European history.  The old generation, of which Disraeli was part was dying off.  The scene had shifted from the revolutionary mode of 1789, 1830, 1848 and perhaps 1870 to one of assassination and random bombing.  Included as a secret society is the freemasonry of Judaism, the Freemasons themselves, the Jesuits and the labor movement.  Those groups are above ground but tightly knit confederations who also function clandestinely.

The passage I quote centers around the career of Napoleon III prior to his election as Premier in France and his later usurpation of the government of France.  Bonapartism was not a dead letter in this Napoleon’s life.  It was feared that he would try to establish a regime which after many trials and tribulations he did.  He spent most of his early life in England.  According to Disraeli the Jews were instrumental in putting him in office.

According to Disraeli in this portrayal, Lous Napoleon (III) attended Eton school where Endymion was his fag, or servant.  At that time he was going by the name of the Count of Otranto,  At this time he is the mysterious Colonel Albert, then Prince Florestan and ultimately Napoleon.

The speaker here is Sidney Wilton who was Napoleon’s guardian.

I quote:

‘My unhappy ward,’ said Mr. Wilton; ‘you know, of course, something about him..’

‘Well, I was at school and college,’ said Waldershare, ‘when it all happened.  But I have just heard that you had relations with him.’

‘The most intimate; and there is the bitterness.  There existed between his mother Queen Agrippina and myself ties of entire friendship.  In her last years and in her greatest adversity she appealed to me to be the guardian of her son.

He inherited all her beauty and apparently al her sweetness of disposition. I took the greatest pains with him.  He was at Eton, and did well there.  He was very popular;  I never was so deceived in a boy in my life.  I thought him the most docile of human beings, and that I had gained over him an entire influence.  I am sure it would have been exercised for his benefit.  In short, I may say it now, I looked upon him as a son, and he certainly would have been my heir; and yet all this time, from his seventeenth year, he was immersed in political intrigue and carrying on plots against the sovereign of his country, even under my own roof.’

‘How very interesting!’ said Walershare.

It may be interesting to you; I know it cost me.  The greatest anxiety and sorrow, and even nearly compromised my honour.  Had I not a large hearted chief and a true man of the world to deal with, I must have retired from the government.’

‘How could he manage it?  said Waldershare.

‘You have no conception of the devices and resources of the secret societies of Europe,’ said Mr. Wilton.  ‘His drawing master, his fencing-master, his dancing master, all his professors  of languages, who delighted me by their testimony to his accomplishments and their praises of his quickness and assiduity, were active confederates in bringing about events which might have occasioned an European war.  He left me avowedly to pay a visit in the country, and I even received letters from him with the postmark of the neighbouring town; letters all prepared beforehand.  My first authentic information as to his movements was to learn, that he had headed an invading force, landed on the shores which he claimed as his own, was defeated and a prisoner.’

‘I remember it,’ said Waldershare.  ‘I had just then gone up to St. John’s and I remember reading it with the greatest excitement.’

All this was bad enough,’ said Mr. Wilton, ‘but this is not my sorrow.  I saved him from death, or at least a dreadful imprisonment.  He was permitted to sail to America on his parole that he would never return to Europe, and I was required, and on his solemn appeal I consented, to give my personal engagement that the compact should be sacred.  Before two years had elapsed, supported all this time, too, by my bounty, there was an attempt, almost successful, to assassinate the king, and my ward was discovered and seized in the capital.  This time he was immured, and for life, in the strongest fortress of the country; but secret societies laugh at governments, and though he endured a considerable imprisonment, the world has recently been astounded by hearing that he has escaped.  Yes; he is in London and has been here, though in studied obscurity, for some little time.

Unquote.

You will notice that England and Europe sent their hardcases to the US.  The US was the great dumping ground of Europe, especially after the ’48 when hordes of revolutionaries descended on NYC, spreading out from there.  Collateral damage of that event was that it transformed the US.

As Disraeli points out operatives can infiltrate anywhere.  When the Bolsheviks took over Russia they immediately sent operatives into every Western capital.  While the Soviet Union was not a secret they used secret operatives who infiltrated every move of any government.  Deep operators entirely disguised, posing as good hearted souls trying to make the world a better place intervened to get minimal sentences or even none.

In 1917 a fully operational system in place, surfaced.  In later twentieth century the great Jewish spy Johnathon Pollard was hired in the intelligence apparatus and transferred reams of material to his home base in Israel before his screen was penetrated.  His material completely disrupted the US’ foreign relations to benefit an Israel that was receiving billions of dollars of aid per year.

The US was devastated so much so that they give Pollard a life sentence over the pleas and protestations of both US and Israeli Jews.  It took twenty-five years of incessant agitation but Pollard was finally released to freedom.  He presently resides at his home in Israel where he is handsomely rewarded.

These clandestine groups and secret societies have to be taken seriously.   Add to this Disraeli’s racial outlook of which he was fully convinced.  I quote another passage from Endymion, pp. 360-61 that fully and emphatically emphasizes his view:

Quote:

There is another great race which influences the world, the Semite.  Certainly when I was at the Congress of Vienna, I did not believe that the Arabs were more likely to become a conquering people than the Tartars, and yet it is a question at this moment whether Mehemet Ali, at their head, they  may not found a new empire in the Mediterranean.  The Semites are unquestionably a great race, for among the few things in this world which appear to be certain;, nothing is more sure than that they invented our alphabet.  But the Semites now exercise a vast influence over affairs by their smallest though most peculiar family, the Jews.  There is no race gifted with so much tenacity, and such skill in organization.  These qualities have given them an unprecedented hold over property and illimitable credit.  As you advance in life, and get experience in affairs, the Jews will cross you everywhere.  They have long been stealing into our secret diplomacy, which they have almost appropriated; in another quarter of a c century they will claim their share of open government.  Well, these are races, men and bodies of men, influenced in their conduct by their particular organization and which must enter into all the calculations of a statesman. But what do they mean by the Latin race? Language and religion do not make a race—there is only one thing which makes a race, and that is blood.    

Unquote.

Then and now, you couldn’t possibly state it more clearly except possibly with technological discoveries not known in Disraeli’s time.

The man is not always accurate.  Mehemet Ali was an Albanian and not a Semite.  Europeans acting in concert easily frustrated any plans he had.

Disraeli says that, ‘they have been stealing into our secret diplomacy, which they have almost appropriated.’  So, does anyone really believe that Dreyfus the Frenchman convicted for espionage in the nineties wasn’t guilty?  Of course he was.  Does anyone not believe that Johnathan Pollard, twentieth century US didn’t ‘appropriate’ reams and reams of secrets and give them to Israeli?  A question not worth asking.  How can one not believe that Disraeli was not cooperating with the Rothschilds?

‘An unprecedented hold over property and illimitable credit…’  Might as well say they own the world.  Disraeli’s enthusiasm gets away from him but he quite rejoices in matters that Jews today deny.

This essay cuts off at 1880 when Disraeli and his generation disappeared.  Lionel died in 1879,  James was already gone in 1866 while civilization transited from one mind set to another.

Matters are being led however to the first phase of the Great Thirty Years War of 1914-1945 that Falk predicted.

Disraeli/George W.M. Reynolds

Western Civilization After Jud Suss

by

R.E. Prindle

So, in 1740 the Wurttembergers hung the Jud Suss, Joseph Oppenheimer, high; from a special gallows thirty feet high, so that the body couldn’t be cut down or absconded with.   The shame to the Jews as the body was visible for miles was too much for them to bear.  To cover their shame a legend was invented.  It was said that the clever Jews mysteriously removed the body and substituted a Christian for it.  Jewish magic, perhaps.

The Jews were considered powerful sorcerers capable of any magic by the Europeans.  Numerous Jews roamed the country sides claiming to be the legendary two thousand year old Wandering Jew who had insulted Jesus on the way to Gethsemane and was condemned to wander until Jesus came again.  And most Europeans believed this to be true.  Sightings were reported frequently

More likely, if Suss had been replaced, they soused the guard in alcohol or mesmerized the guards so that they couldn’t see.  It may have seemed mysterious in the eighteenth century but here in the twenty-first century all magical tricks have been explained.  The Jews are magical and mysterious no more although most  believe they are.

Suss may or may not have been picked apart by the crows but the effect of his career in Wurttemberg became the stuff of legend in both Jewish and gentile worlds.  The Europeans reviewed Suss’ career with apprehension, the Jews with awe.  Suss had done it!  He had shown how to usurp a duchy, how to become the actual if not legitimate ruler.  Jewish Court Jews need no longer crawl before their goyim sovereigns or have their loans repudiated, now they could see how they could stand as equal.  And it could all be done with money and chutzpah.  If money were the issue the Rothschilds would soon show Europeans that they were superior. God bless democracy.  Who controlled the currency controlled the country.

The second half of the eighteenth century was the hustler’s delight.  Confidence men abounded.  The eighteenth century term was an adventurer.  A little esoteric knowledge, physics and chemical tricks that baffled the knowledge not only of the uneducated people, but people of prominence also.

The enlightenment and science had opened many doors.  The century was crazy with activity too.  Wars, the Industrial Revolution, astonishing scientific discoveries, many more magical than magic itself.  Things you couldn’t even see, like germs, had profound effects on people.  The seven planets moved, the Earth too: around the sun!  Telescopes and microscopes all penetrated the consciousness slowly.  Many of these discoveries are even disbelieved by large numbers today.  If the Earth moved was true, what wasn’t?  Gravity?  Who even had ever heard of that.  Even today the concept has never been well understood.

Thus the confidence men did what confidence men do—they swindled and cheated and prospered.  Long cons, short cons and all the while there was no system of personal identification.  A con could move from place to place after he had outworn his welcome in one.  Terrific.  Life was good.

The period was the field of dreams for the greatest confidence man who ever lived, the astonishing Jacques Casanova.  What a career he had.  And after he had been discovered as a confidence man in every country of Europe he sat down to write his memoirs of his astonishing exploits and what memoirs they are.  Still in demand today.  Twelve fabulous volumes, usually combined in six.  Chutzpah that would make a Jew writhe in envy.

Then there was the Jewish Casanova, a man who went by the name of Falke or Dr. Falckon, that’s a great con man’s handle.  All through the last half of the eighteenth century revenge for Suss was on the Jewish mind.  The hopes disappointed by the execution of Suss had been taken as a major crime against the people and as their hopes had been blighted so Europe’s hopes had to be blighted.  Remember the Amalekites.  After having been chased out of Egypt the Jews, or Hebrews at that time, nearly four million strong, according to biblical accounts, had asked the Amalekites to let them pass through their miniscule land.  Four million with no doggy bags. Imagine a city the size of Chicago traipsing around the desert for forty years.  Ye cods, what a mess.  It would probably have taken that many people months to pass through.  The impossibility is obvious but it’s there in the bible.  Just imagine getting four million people moving on a daily basis.  Food?  Water?  Good thing the Lord sent manna showering down on a daily basis and split rocks to provide water for four million and untold numbers of animals. 

Of course the Amalekites said no.  They didn’t want their country destroyed.  No doggy bags.  Imagine cleaning up that mess.

This minor denial was so insulting to the Jews that they never forgot and never forgave, they thirsted for revenge.  A century later they returned and put every last Amalekite, man, woman and child to the sword.  Genocide, the only expiation possible.  And now the Europeans had deprived them of Suss’ triumph.

The whole Suss adventure has to be really put into context to understand its impact.  What actually happened was that Duke Karl Alexander ceded his power to Suss by a power of attorney.  He trusted Suss.  It’s as though Suss was the President of Wurttemberg while the Duke was Commander in Chief of the armed forces.  The French were embattling the Rhineland so that the Duke had to pay attention to military affairs.  This left Suss with his power of attorney free to do as he chose.  The man was totally unscrupulous as will be shown shortly.  When the Duke returned from campaigning he found himself the Junior Partner because he was financially dependent on his controller of the currency.

Suss was no shrinking violet, he reveled in his power.  Frankfort, just North of Wurttemberg, was the Jewish power center in Germany and Europe.  Suss was connected and he built himself a magnificent palace outside the Ghetto, a rare privilege, to show off his wealth and power.  And he had the wealth or Wurttemberg Both were well known.  When he fell then, the crash was heard all over Europe in both Jewish and European centers. The crash and the whole situation must have been a major topic of conversation everywhere.

Other conmen such as Casanova, who was not Jewish, and Falk who was must have sniffed the air in wonder.  The other Court Jews must have been set to thinking while their Sovereigns must also have looked to their interests.  However, for the Jews they were not resigned to their humiliation.  Vengeance must be had.  But how.

  The Europeans too would have to be put to the sword.  Genocide, the only possible solution but how to do it.  A plan has to start somewhere.  Minds turned themselves to the problem.  The base of operations would have to be secure.  England would have been the most secure place as a base of opeations.  It was close to Europe but outside.  The police power was least evident there.  Because the Glorious Revolution expelled the Stuarts a foreign German dynasty had been placed on the throne by a select group  of families who had gained control of the country.  George I, himself, spent little time in England preferring to pass the time in his German duchy, as did his successor George II.  Thus power passed from the Crown to the Parliament.  This situation closely resembled that of the Doge of Venice who was a mere figurehead   in the control of the chief families.  This situation was recognized by a man named Benjamin D’Israeli in Venice and he saw the opportunity.  Shortly after the execution of Suss he picked up stakes and moved to London.  There he prospered mightily and gave birth to his son Isaac D’ Israeli who in his turn gave birth to his father’s namesake, Benjamin Disraeli the Younger.  In almost exactly one hundred years, three generations Benjamin the Younger would be in control of the Conservative Party.

It could be a coincidence or it could have been a hope that turned into a reality.  In any event Benjamin Disraeli would be instrumental in opening England to the Jews.

The decisive point of origin was probably Frankfort the home of the Rothschilds.  it appears that between D’Israelis and the Rothschilds the agent was this Dr. Falckon, or, Falk.  Minds must have busy on the continent, after all the Rothschilds would make the early move.  If you’re on the qui vive with a will, solutions will appear.  Suss had given the example, follow it.  Where would be the best place to begin.  England.

Falk himself barely survived to put the ball in motion.  His predations as a Wandering Jew were apparently done so openly that he was a wanted man in nearly every European country.  In Westphalia, Germany he was arrested, tried and condemned to the flames.  Burning indicates a religious offence, if so, the record of the crime hasn’t survived.  Europe became too hot to hold a confidence man of his boldness.

Fortunately for him a new land had opened in the West, far West, that is, the offshore island of England.  England had been closed to the Jews since 1290 but was reopened in 1660 by Cromwell.   It had been less than a century when Falk arrived that the island had been opened to the Jews.  It had been closed for five hundred years.  They came straggling back but even in the 1740s there was no organized community.  European Jews who perhaps thought it expedient to move had been crossing the channel to that land of freedom and liberty for eighty years when Falk trucked over in seventeen forty-two. 

England was already a wild frontier for the Jews.  According to some their population in London about the end of the century was in the neighborhood of ten thousand.  They were housed in the far Eastern boroughs of London: White Chapel, Spitalfields and others.

Whereas the Jewish populations of Europe were organized into official Communities with established governments and discipline and policing, out on the English frontier it was more individualistic.  Perhaps because of his reputation Falk lived apart from the Jewish areas as he began to develop his mystery and magical tricks as the Ba’al Shem of the Name of London.  A Ba’al Shem was styled Master of the Name, one who could use the various names of God to work marvels or wonders.  A fortune teller deluxe, a medicine man, a snake oil salesman as they said further out West in the Colonies, a confidence man.

Having emigrated from the Continent you may be sure that Falk, Dr. Falckon, knew all the fraudsters.  In fact, and this is amazing, the Czarina of all the Russias, Catherine the Great, wrote a play mocking both Falk and Casanova so it shouldn’t be too surprising that Casanova showed up in England, perhaps following in Falk’s footsteps, where he soon found out he wasn’t welcome.  One of the leading figures who helped foment the French Revolution, Joseph Balsamo, better known as the fraudster, Cagliostro, showed up also in the years preceding the Revolution. So three of history’s all time great confidence men were in the same place at the same time. The first outbreak of the Great Revolution would occur in 1789.

Was the Revolution a case of spontaneous combustion?  Don’t even think it; it was all managed, planned and while it occurred in France don’t believe for a minute that it wasn’t seconded by a great many in England.  While the Jewish community are not comfortable with the notion that Falk was a key architect, Unknown Superior, it is near certain that he was.  He had extensive relations with the pawn shop owners.  As receivers of stolen goods identifiable pieces had to be moved to the continent to avoid detection, Holland was the contact point, especially for jewels, while Hamburg was also essential.  Thus contacts between England and the Continent were facilitated.

While the next reference is from fiction it is very likely based on fact. His name was George W. M. Reynolds.  He was writing in the 1840s and 50s.  He too was a revolutionist who took part in the third phase of the Great Revolution, that of 1848.  In Vol. III of the English Writer’s Mysteries of London he has a character called Old Death, a pawn shop owner, that may have been influenced by Dr. Falckon.  Old Death has a very extensive system of European contacts.  Remember too, that this period had no passports, people moved freely about.  Policing was minimal, especially in England.  While the Jews were not keen on researching on this aspect of Falk’s career a twentieth century English woman by the name of Nesta Webster was.  She was a researcher to the point of exhaustion.  She went where no man had gone before, digging deep into the archives.  She found a connection, the Freemasons.

Oh ho, you say, the Freemasons, you say.  If it isn’t the Jews it’s the Freemasons!  I don’t say it, she said it, and she came up with a truckload of dirt.  The Freemasons!  Well, they had gone public in 1717 in England.  Prior to that they had been clandestine but in 1714 Queen Anne, the last of the Stuarts died and was replaced by George I who was brought in from Germany.  The great English families had no longer fear of being suppressed so they came out into the open.

George was not particularly interested in politics, spending a lot of time in Germany.  Thus the Parliament rose in importance staffed by the Whig Party of the Great Families.  Perhaps it was for that reason the Masons chose to enter the world of light.  Many of the members of Parliament would have been Freemasons.  From Scotland and England Freemasonry was carried to France where the Chevalier Ramsay took his Scottish Rite that renovated French Masonry and provided a base for revolutionary activity that opened the way for the Illuminati.

Falk, he too being a member, thus had another means of coordinating activities in France.  He was accused of doing so although from appearances his role was carefully disguised.  The target for revolutionary agitation wasn’t England however, it was France.  The Scottish Rite of 33 degrees had been perfected, this is very important, and established in France.  Masonic lodges became all the rage so that the undermining of French society began in earnest.  The lodges were open to all classes of society so that the commoners and the aristocracy socialized on terms of equality thus undermining respect for the aristocrats.

Masonry was hep to equality?  If you don’t think that was condemning traditional society open your eyes and mind.  Look at these things closely, a very insidious plot will bloom before your eyes.  Now, this isn’t pertinent to the times but it grew out of the Masonic policy in a manner.

Socialist demand for equality was very strong in the US at the turn of the twentieth century.  Immigration opened the doors wide.  To bring the immigrants into American society a phenomenon particular to the times was the Settlement House.  Jane Addams’ place in Chicago set the tone.  Her father was an extreme socialist.  He believed that people could never be equal until everyone dressed in the same style and quality.

This desire raged through the aughts and teens and into the Great War- WWI.  A Jewish fellow, Bernard Baruch (very famous in his time) was the Czar of the WIB (War Industries Board).  The WIB was socializing American Industry.  As part of that plan, realizing Jane Addam’s father’s wish, Baruch was about to initiate a program in which, to use women’s clothing as an example, all dress styles were to be limited to six with only one quality.  The end of the war stopped that plan.  Temporarily.  Check out the riches man of the world today who walks around in denim like everyone else and lives in a tiny house.  Very equal. 

If one looks about today one will see only one or two costumes, jeans and t’s.  Torn jeans, impersonating the poorest of the poor.  So see, today Jane Addams’ father’s dream has come true.  The Communists dictate what you can wear and you don’t know it.  Well, enough of that, back to England during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

So the wedge was driven.  Mrs. Webster was the first to make the connection of Dr. Falckon and from there she expanded his involvement in the revolution.  He was heard to say that there would soon be a thirty years war of extreme destruction and after that a peace.  That may possibly have been the revolutionary plan because the destruction of life in the French Revolution was extensive and abandoned, and an actual thirty years war took place between 1914-45.  What happened made the good doctor a prophet.

Doctor Falckon was correct in his prediction as the French Revolution burst forth in 1789 while ramping up to the holocaust of 1793, one of the most significant years in the history of mankind.

The hanging of Suss cannot be stressed enough.  The idea of a Jew on the scaffold according to Benjamin Disraeli the Younger was impossible:

Quote:

The Jew is sustained by a sublime religion.  However degraded he may be, ‘the patriarchal feeling still lingers about his heart.’ ‘The trumpet of Sion still sounds in the Hebrew ear, and a Jew is never seen upon the scaffold unless it be an auto-da-fe.’

Unquote.

This is of course fanciful but the feeling of purity is there.  Thus the intense feeling of rage and hatred for the Jews to see Suss hanging high above their heads was an outrage that had to be avenged in no ordinary way.  Remember the Amalekites.  Europeans beware.

First there was the feeling by the Jews that Suss was innocent.  Through the use of the Power of Attorney he was able to act legally  in committing his crimes in the actual persona of Duke Karl Alexander.  The Duke had split his persona and two Dukes were in the land.  In a legal fiction it was as though Suss’ crimes had been committed by the Duke even though the volition was that of Suss.  The Duke had no knowledge of what Suss was doing.

This was the same arrangement that Pres.  Woodrow Wilson had with the Jew Bernard Baruch in 1917-18 when Wilson made him co-president with full presidential powers, no need to even consult Wilson.  Very remarkable.

However, there was an old law on the books in Wurttemberg that made it a capital offense for a Jew to have sexual relations with a Christian woman.  Suss was clearly guilty of this offence which included the wife of the Duke himself.  Thus, Suss was convicted and sentenced to death.  If one law exculpated himself, another law condemned him.  Hence he was executed for his dastardly crimes but, in Jewish eyes for no offence at all.  In other words, Suss was guilty according to Gentile law but innocent by Jewish law.  Jewish law took supremacy over Gentile law in Jewish eyes hence the Germans would have a day of reckoning.

The anger of the Wurttembergers was so intense that they not only sent a Holy Jew to the scaffold but increased the humiliation a thousand fold by elevating his body thirty feet high in an iron cage and not only that they left Suss hanging for many years as a perpetual reminder.

The penalty the Jews would enact on them was horrendous, no less than the total destruction of the German land and the desolate humiliation of the Gentiles as German women were raped over and over and over by gangs of men.  If Suss were still up there, he would be smiling boldly.  So much for Germans and their law.

The question was how to bring this desideratum about.  It couldn’t be done immediately and it would take careful preparation and perhaps a hundred years or more.  The starting point, horrible enough, was the French Revolution.  Every institution of Europe had to be taken over by Jews who from the inside could direct the affairs of European nations toward this goal.

Thus the whole Jewish nation was into this first stage.  England was invaded as it offered the freedom to operate that the Jews needed.  Thus Falk managed continental operations from London. He operated through pawn shops.  At the same time he used his magus influence on that element of English society that was superstitious.  They gave him hundreds of thousands of pounds much as Jim Jones managed Jonestown in twentieth century America.

Always with a vision of Suss hanging high before them a rough plan slowly materialized.  The key to the plan was England.  As the most influential country in European affairs with the emergence of the Balance of Power politics, combined with the countervailing influence of the Liberal/Socialist/Communist ideological power that erupted in five of the most of the most vicious and murderous revolutions that were managed largely by Jews, and the invincible control of the currencies of All English and Continental countries the Jewish power was cleverly concealed until the proper moment. the Revolution of all Revolutions, WWI and II.  All was skillfully managed. 

Mayer Amschel Rothschild had been born just after the execution of Jud Suss.  The legend would be honor bright amid the conversation of his fellow Jews.  Mayer Amschel was born into and operated out of the central Jewish Community of the Frankfort ghetto; the clearing house of Jewish planning.  All opinion flowed into Frankfort.  Suss’ mansion outside the gates of the ghetto, the only Jew that had ever been allowed this favor, could be pointed to as the inspirational goal of all Judaism in the conquest of Europe.

Is it a wonder that having amassed a fortune well before the Landgrave’s millions acquired through the Napoleonic invasion, which proved his wisdom, Mayer Amshel had positioned his five sons in five key capitals to gain control of their currencies.  Things were bumbling along rather unsuccessfully until Mayer Amshel through his relationship as a Court Jew gained access to the Landgrave’s millions which he forwarded to his son Nathan in London .  Thus between 1806 and 1812, Nathan, or Natan as he preferred the Jewish form, gained control of the English currency.

Between 1812 and 1833 then, Nathan had cemented the Jewish dominant position in England.  England was still intensely disapproving of any religious organization other than the Church of England.  Catholics, Dissenters and Jews all suffered civil disabilities.  It was necessary then to remove Jewish disabilities so that they could operate freely.  This was no simple task as prejudices were strong.  Once again, they needed an inside man to work within the political organization.  That agent would have to assume the disguise of a Christian in order to be seated..

It so happened that a Jewish fellow by the name of Isaac D’Israeli had emerged to supply that agent in character of his son, Benjamin Disraeli.  Isaac was a quiet retired man devoted to his study and studies.  He was a writer, not an author nor a novelist but a compiler of the odd fact.  He first gained recognition with his series of six little books titled Curiosities of Literature.  The series did fairly well and established a reputation for him.  They would also give him an introduction to Nathan Rothschild.  And thus two conspirators with the same object came together.  Isaac married in 1802 and gave birth to a son in 1804.  That son was Benjamin Disraeli the Younger who would one day become Prime Minister and seal the fate of England.

Benjamin would turn thirteen in 1817.  Thus shortly after his Bar Mitzvah he adopted Christianity as a second religion.  One that would allow him to function as an enfranchised Englishman, able to enter Parliament as a mole for Judaism.

Actually Isaac had worked out a religious system that would have allowed Jews to function in English society as Benjamin did.  In an early version of Jews for Jesus he determined that Christianity was just another version of Judaism, thus the New Dispensation was a continuation of the first.  It completed Judaisim.  Thus, his son didn’t actually convert to Christianity  but took Christianity as a second Jewish religion while he remained wholly racially Jewish.  As he always said, race is the whole thing, as that didn’t change he never abandoned Judaism.  He embraced The Genius of Judaism whole and entire.  Neither Isaac nor Benjamin however would ever disguise their loyalty to Judaism.

While Isaac was working away in his study he was developing the creed for the ‘Christians’, that is English people, to follow in their relations with the Jews. While the Jews could use their Christian side it was impossible for Christians to pose as Jews. That creed was contained in his small book titled The Genius Of The Jews.  While never a big seller then and totally ignored now it is yet a very important book as Benjamin was able to spread the ideas without mentioning the book.

Isaac knew the importance of literature and a literary reputation so Benjamin was encouraged to develop a literary career.  Thus from the age of twenty he turned out a succession of volumes until he had established a career in Parliament by 1848, that revolutionary year, when he abandoned writing until the end of his career when he published two more books. 

At this point we should discuss Isaac’s The Genius of the Jews in some detail.

There were many reasons for Isaac D’Israeli to have written his book in 1833.  He emphasizes the Jewish concept of a creator, as in the phrase the Creator created.  A reason for this may have been that Charles Lyell had published his volumes The Principles of Geology in which he demolished the notion that the universe and earth had been created by God only some five thousand years before.  No idea had been more firmly entrenched in both Jewish and Gentile ideology.  The total destruction of the notion of creation completely destroyed the Jewish vision of history invalidating their doctrines. 

Science vs. religion would become increasingly urgent as the century progressed.  Thus, when Darwin announced his version of evolution in 1859 his son Benjamin Disraeli went ballistic.  Within two years he denounced evolution as being the apes of evolution and the angels of Jewish religion.  Which side are you on, he asked, the apes or Science, or the angels of religion?  For himself, he said, he was on the side of the angels.

Strangely enough he denounced the notion of evolution in 1848’s Tancred when he denounced a much more clear concept of evolution than Darwin’s and years before. I quote: Chapter XV,

Quote.

After making herself very agreeable, Lady Constance took up a book which was at hand, and said, ‘Do you know this?’  And Tancred opening a volume which he had never seen, and then turning to the title page, found it was ‘The Revelations of Chaos,’ a startling work just published and of which a rumour had reached him.

‘No,’ he replied; ‘I have not seen it.’

‘I will lend it you if you like: it is one of those books one must read.  It explains everything, and is written in a very agreeable style.’

‘It explains everything!’ said Tancred; ‘it must, indeed, be a very remarkable book!’

‘I think it will suit you,’ said Lady Constance.  ‘Do you know, I thought so several times while I was reading it.’

‘To judge from the title, the subject is rather obscure,’ said Tancred.

‘No longer so,’ said Lady Constance.  ‘It is treated scientifically; everything is explained by geology and astronomy, and in that way.  It shows you exactly how a star is formed; nothing can be so pretty!  A cluster of vapour, the cream of the Milky Way, a sort of celestial cheese, churned into light, you must read it, ‘tis charming.’

‘Nobody ever saw a star formed,’ said Tancred.

‘Perhaps not.  You must read the “Revelations;” it is all explained.  But what is most interesting, is the way in which man has been developed.  You know, all is development.  The principle is perpetually going on.  First, there was nothing, then there was something; then, I forget the next, I think there were shells, then fishes; then we came, let me see, did we come next?  Never mind that, we came at last.  And the next change there will be something very superior to us, something with wings.  Ah! That’s it:  we were fishes and I believe we shall be crows.  But you must read it.’

Unquote.

Lyell, who Lady Constance was quoting, had just destroyed the basis of both Judaism and Christianity, religion in general.  Science then must be rejected to preserve the fable as the Creator didn’t actually Create.  Disraeli makes a little comedy of it but as he would say thirteen years later, he was on the side of the Angels.  Interesting that Lyell had a better idea of evolution twelve years earlier than Darwin

Underlying all the political questions is the religious one of apes and angels and whatever other scientific developments that made belief in Jewish mythology an  impossibility.  This was the Jewish dilemma.  And also all religion including Catholics and Protestants.  Benjamin Disraeli himself was anti-science. He pooh poohed it.  Jewish magic came first in his mind.

In more practical terms the task Isaac had assigned himself was to undermine the Christian foundation of England.  Benjamin, perhaps, echoing his father said in his tome Coningsby that all heroes had to destroy in order to create.  In that sense then Isaac, the great literary man being master of two cultures, the Jewish and Christian, had to destroy current Christian mores and English confidence in themselves.  That is the purpose of his book, to establish Jewish supremacy as being the elder religion.  In his mind Christianity was merely a pale version of Judaism. A Junior Branch grafted onto the Senior trunk of the olive tree.  It was the Christian’s duty to honor the Jewish father.

In the opening words of Chapter one of the Genius of Judaism he lays down the law for the English to follow:

Quote:

  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 not be by taking the popular view of the manners of this singular people that we shall allay the fanaticism of Jew or Christian. [N.B.]  We must learn to feel like Jews when we tell of their calamities, and to reason like Christians when we detect their fatuity.

Unquote.

Note that he seems to say that the relationship between Jews and Christians has evolved since the ninth century and, I gather, Jews should not fear the Christian as much because, say, an institution such as the Inquisition exists.  The distance between has lessened and Christians can now be converted to a form of pure Judaism.

The above quote is the core of the book.  Christians are to place the interests of the Jews above their own.  Isaac acknowledges the New Dispensation of Christ but only by placing it side by side to the Old Dispensation.  Thus Jews can feel the Christian or New Dispensation but the Gentiles remain inferior because they have only the New Dispensation but cannot share in the Old Dispensation.  Thus armed Benjamin went out in the world in an inferior position but armed with a strong notion of superiority.

Isaac and his son formed a close alliance with the Rothschilds who would in a manner through their control of currencies be the actual Emperors of Europe.  Jewish money controlled European politics.  The Two Nations Disraeli would write about in his tract, Sybil.

Now comes the kicker.  Isaac had his son Benjamin named after his grandfather.  His Grandfather lived through the Suss episode thus Benjamin like all Jews was indoctrinated and conditioned from his infancy, this doesn’t seem clear to non-Jewish writers but it is so.  Benjamin then, was a Jew of the Jews never faltering in his Judaism even though nominally a Christian.  He was of the elder branch functioning in the Jr.

I have no doubt that Isaac had his son baptized so that he could serve as a mole in politics. Never mind the nonsense that Isaac abandoned his Judaism.  He stopped going to synagogue but he never abandoned his race and as Benjamin never tired of saying:  Race is everything. It must never be forgotten that the Jews are trying to establish the Millennium.  The thousand year Jewish Reich.  Under English laws the Jews were not enfranchised and suffered civil disabilities.  It was these civil disabilities that Lionel Rothschild, Nathan’s son, would challenge and change.  Thus, gaining a seat in Parliament as a Jew rather than an Englishman was essential.  English mores could be seriously undermined thereby.  As Benjamin would say then within twenty-five years Jews would be co-members of England.  The English would be second.

As it was important to get a mole inside the House of Commons, upon his Bar Mitzvah Benjamin ‘the Younger’ also took a Christian identity.  This was no liability because as Isaac explained because Judaism is the root of Christianity and Christianity the branch Benjamin could function as a full Jew while appearing to have a Christian identity.  This position while possible and honorable for a Jew was denied the Other, in this case, the Christian Englishman.  On the other hand statutes forebade the Jew English rights; no Jew could serve in the Parliament without taking the oath of a Christian.  In fact there were Jewish members of Parliament who had taken the oath.

The denial of not only full rights but superior rights was a crime, and one that would not be forgotten, that had to be corrected, and that by ‘any means necessary’, criminally or honorably or in combination of both.  Thus the Jewish method was to use both ends of the spectrum.  They led in the labor movement at one end and in banking at the other end.  Thus they could be pro-Communist and pro-Capitalist at one and the same time.  In the US at the beginning of the twentieth century the most famous criminals were Jewish while Justice Brandeis of the Supreme Court was the soul of respectability.  These patterns have remained the same since the French Revolution.

The Genius of the Jews is an important book to read and understand or else you don’t have a clue about what was and is going on.

Working inside and outside the establishment Benjamin and Lionel Rothschild took over England by destroying English mores and replacing them with Jewish mores.  As Benjamin predicted he was to be the Prime Minister of England.  Anyone who stood in the way was destroyed.  By century’s end England was an English majority essentially ruled by a Jewish minority,(a Synarchy) although few if any recognized this central fact.

Isaac D’Israeli thoroughly indoctrinated and conditioned his son as Benjamin says, from his infancy.

Isaac had obtained his acceptance by the English through his writing while nominally rejecting the Jews.  He therefore encouraged Benjamin to do the same.  From the age of twenty, then, Benjamin began to write books.  I wouldn’t call them novels but fanciful portrayals of his life without too much attention to actual situations although always based on them.  The stories follow quite closely Isaac’s visions of The Genius of Judaism.

Benjamin’s persona and appearance was a sort of garish dandyism with outrageous chutzpah that quite set him apart from the Parliamentarians he would associate with in later life.  Chutzpah was always his method.  His books were received well by his intended audience although not barn burners.  They barely moved the income needle.  The books did ingratiate him with the Rothschilds, especially Lionel when he succeeded Nathan in 1836.  Bejamin was a frequent guest of Lionel’s while working with him as Lionel tried to gain admittance to Parliament on his terms rather than Parliament’s.  Lionel was easily elected but as a City member of which there were six, where he had great influence.  Lionel did succeed in being sworn in as a Jewish member rather than an English member thus knocking Parliament off center as he was admitted along with the newly enfranchised Catholics.  Thus the harmony of the all Protestant Parliament was turned more hostile.

Benjamin’s early books referenced himself while always pushing the Jewish agenda.  In 1837 he succeeded in reaching Parliament.  As may be assumed he was greatly resented as a Dandy and a flashy dresser and his very forward personality as well as being a Jew.  Although nominally a Christian he acted and functioned as a Jew, as he repeatedly said, race is all, blood will out.

About 1844 he began writing his amazing trilogy Coningsby, Sybil and Tancred. After which he ceased writing stories until 1870 when he published Lothair and again in 1880 when he published Endymion.

In 1852 he published his biography of Sir George Bentinck.  All these books lauded the Jews while disparaging the English.  His flights of fancy are remarkable for someone who wished to be taken seriously.  That they didn’t destroy his career is remarkable.

Coningsby was written when he and Lionel Rothschild had become if not fast friends, close associates.  His portrayal of Lionel as the book’s hero Sidonia is so exaggerated as to be in a class with the twentieth century’s comic book Superman.  About the only thing missing in Lionel’s portrayal was the inability to leap over tall buildings.  Benjamin’s  comments on the Jews closely replicate those of his father’s The Genius of Judaism.  Benjamin said that he would not obscure his Jewishness and in these three books he succeeds in outrageously flaunting it.  The amazing thing is that they didn’t destroy his career although he did have to study to keep a bold face.

As I said Benjamin was Chutzpah personified.  His method was to attack personally, defamation to destroy credibility.  Since 1832 and England’s Reform Bill England had been in a revolutionary state with the conclusion taking place in 1848.

Society was in a period going through great changes of which the effects were generally unrecognized in England as such.  By 1841-48 the stresses were becoming apparent.

We are primarily concerned here with the years 1841-48, the years directly leading up to the third revolution of ’48.  The revolution of ’30 was incomplete in that it did not entirely terminate the monarchy of France; ’48 would do that on the Continent while failing that in England.

The revolutionists had different goals. In England a moderate group called the Chartists came into existence, then there was the Jewish revolution while the Marx-Engels Communists took up a position.  While not acknowledged as such a one man revolution worked toward the overthrow of the English Monarchy and the Aristocracy, he aligned himself with the Chartists.  His name was George W.M Reynolds.

Reynolds came to prominence as a novelist and soon became one of note.  Due to the peculiarities of the literary mind, although Reynolds is certainly the equal of any nineteenth century novelist if not superior to any.  Perhaps because he wrote in a more popular style rather than the haut ton literary style he was dismissed. 

Politically he was very active, even taking part in the English version of the ’48.  In addition to his novels he ran an activist very popular magazine, Reynolds’ Miscellany, and a well read weekly newspaper that managed to survive into the nineteen sixties.  He was considered a threat by the government.

Reynolds personal revolution clashed with the three others, more especially the Jewish revolution. The famous Benjamin Disraeli led the Jewish revolution from his seat in Parliament where after 1848 he was the leader of his party, the Tories.  His political career was actually a tour de force.  At the time prejudice toward the Jews ran high so that while Disraeli was prominent in Parliament even becoming Prime Minister in his declining years there was a strong animus against him which he encouraged by his writing which virulently advocated the innate superiority of the Jews over the English. Those of this period were titled Coningsby, Sybil, and Tancred.  They were viewed with dismay by the English.

Revolution In The Forties

Benjamin Disraeli will be our focus in the next section.  But he will have to share the limelight with certain literary persons.  The specific writers are Charles Dickens, George W. M. Reynolds, James Malcolm Rymer and Thomas Prescott Prest.  The revolutionary nature of the writings of these authors is not well understood.  As they were all social critics their revelations reflected back on the government, and reference their revolutionary activities.  These activities came into conflict with Jewish revolutionary activities because Jewish activists were noticed by them and criticized their portrayal of Jews.  The writer weren’t ‘reasoning as Christians when they detected Jewish fatuities.;

The most famous conflict took place between the innocuous Charles Dickens and his Jewish critics, the story is well known.  In his novel Oliver Twist he fashioned a criminal character based on live models he named Fagin.  While there were many real life examples of Fagins in London society, the Jews took offence that a Jewish criminal was executed.  They remonstrated with Dickens and threatened him.  Dickens then rewrote the character eliminating the scaffold scene.  As Disraeli said that one place you will never find a Jew is on the scaffold. The offensive parts no longer occur in reissues so to understand the issue a reader must obtain an early copy.  The important thing for the Jewish revolution was that they were able to establish the right to censor publications.

All writing was thus censored unless like George Eliot you made your character a saint such as in her novel Daniel Deronda currently being promoted as a perfect example of how to write about Jews.  Post Oliver Twist writers took heed with the exception of George Reynolds.  Reynolds wrote of many Jewish characters in many ways.  He humorously described them as Sons of the Scattered Race or alternatively Sons of the Scattered Tribe in Vol. III of his Mysteries of London.  Most writers simply solved the problem by writing Jews out of society or history or carefully disguising them.

Disraeli himself did not object so much that Fagin was a criminal as he explains that all peoples have criminals but what excited him was that Fagin died on the scaffold.  According to Ben you see Jews in every walk of life but never on the scaffold unless at an auto da fe.  So Dickens real sin was having Fagin suspended on the hempen necktie.  Such an attitude would give added emphasis to the fact that Suss was led to the scaffold and, adding insult to injury, suspended thirty feet high combined with being left there for years.  As Disraeli says, insults like these are so terrible that they can only be revenged by condign punishment.  Hence Germany was bombed flat two hundred years after Suss swung.

Most writers solved the problem by excising Jews from their stories.  You can read volumes of English history without knowing there was a Jew in England.  Literature and history became that distorted.

Reynolds was certainly unafraid in his details that included Jewish characters.  As an instance in his Wagner The Wehrwolf of 1847 he portrays a Jewish pawn broker take in a magnificent set of diamonds which he replaces with paste.  The diamonds are subsequently redeemed but the purchaser of the diamonds who has a very sharp eye and knowledge of diamonds sees that they are paste.  Quite simply then the pawn broker was a crook.  Nothing was made of it by the Jews apparently because as Disreali notes the issue is the gallows and not the crime.

Certainly in English opinion of the times it would have been thought that that is what Jews do.  The clearest example of Reynolds is his novel The Necromancer of 1851.  By this time a real brouhaha was brewing as Lionel Rothschild was pressing to be sworn in as a parliamentarian according to Jewish rites and not English rites.  In other words a Jew who only accepted the old half of the religion, according to the DIsraelis instead of both halves.  Sort of a modern Jews for Jesus situation.

As Benjamin Disraeli had actually been baptized as a Christian and could swear on his faith as a Christian he could serve in Parliament but still exhibit only his faith as a Jew.  It isn’t that this wasn’t noticed and it wasn’t that Disraeli concealed it but he had been baptized.  This fact did cause a deal of resentment especially as Disraeli was trying to move the levers to remove all the Jewish disabilities while  straddling the fence between the two religions.  So that was crux of the Jewish English revolution at that stage.  In 1858 both he and Lionel would triumph.

Reynold’s was certainly direct in his attack on the Monarchy, especially George IV and his father George III and the aristocracy in his own private revolution.  It should be remembered that he believed in violent revolution to sweep away the traditions of the past much as the French Revolution of 1789 and 1830 had.  Like Disraeli he thought you had to destroy the old to create the new on its ashes.  I don’t know who Reynolds thought would govern this new world but Disraeli saw it as the Millennium ruled by Jews.

We are told the Sons of the Scattered Race wanting to inherit the world is pure nonsense, a fantasy indulged in by anti-Semites, yet, consider this career of Benjamin Disraeli and Lionel Rothschild.  Disraeli’s writings explicitly say that the desert peoples, Semites, Jews, Arabs and Bedouins are the true salt of the earth, nature’s gentlemen.  He eulogizes some’ ‘Asiatic mystery’ that cannot be understood by the Europeans that makes the Arabics profoundly spiritual with mysterious powers.

From 1844 to 1847, a period leading up to the outbreak or revolution of ’48 which he may have thought would be the millennium, he wrote his revolutionary books, Coningsby, Sybil and the ridiculous Tancred. If those books hadn’t been accepted one would have to say that he politically insane, a wild enthusiast.  Yet, his ravings, and by the time of Tancred he was off balance, astounded many people yet didn’t destroy his reputation.  Of course the books were nearly ignored, the first two only sold 3000 copies each while Tancred sank to 2200, yet, they were there.

Disraeli was joined in those years by the richest man in England and Europe. Lionel Rothschild, who was trying to enter Parliament by breaching all the rules.  Amazingly by 1848 the two had turned Parliament upside down.  Having joined forces with a man named  George Bentinck the two were able to destroy the career of what to then had been the most able Parliamentarian that England had seen.

The time period was on the cusp of a great societal change; the effects of the Industrial Revolution and its concomitant commercial organization abetted by the development of railroads were beginning to be felt and to destabilize the old order.  Revolutionary times in more ways than one.  Thus while Robert Peel was a Conservative politician looking back, Disraeli and Rothschild were forward looking to Jewish domination.  Peel simply had to go.

George Bentinck was a genuine Englishman looking out for English interests, while Benjamin Disraeli was a Jewish mole posing as a Christian on the religious level but functioning as a Jewish operative on the racial level to subvert English society.  Bentinck was not aware enough to understand who and what he was actually dealing with while Disraeli took full advantage of his ignorance.  Thus, Bentinck was Disraeli’s tool.

With Robert Peel’s career destroyed by devious means, Disraeli had published a nasty defamatory picture of Peel in his published Runnymede Letters of 1836 and many defamatory speeches in Parliament, the leadership of the Tory Party was up for grabs.  This  is now the year of 1848, the year of the third revolutionary attempt.  To be clear, Disraeli said that ’48 was completely organized and executed by Jews. Vengeance for the hanging of Suss was moving right along.

The continent rose, the last of the French kings was deposed, however no joke works well the third time in succession.  European monarchs were prepared.  The revolution was squashed and the Communist movement suppressed.  This would necessitate a change in tactics to any means necessary.

The revolution of ’48 was no surprise.  Marx had announced its imminence in 1847 with his Communist Manifesto.  Surely George Reynolds and the Chartists knew the revolution was imminent.  It had been building all through the forties and built momentum every year.  Reynolds’ very influential writings promoted revolution every week of every year from 1844 on.  Disraeli boasted, everyone boasted, that the revolution of all revolutions was coming.  It is perhaps astonishing that a nerd like Disraeli working toward that goal actually achieved it on time.

Bentinck conveniently died in 1848.  The Party was in disarray at that time so that Disraeli, whose only talent was making vicious defamatory speeches was the only logical candidate to be his Party’s leader.  Taking advantage of the confusion he did so.  Not exactly selected, but allowed to assume the role.  Thus, rather ironically, Disraeli was the leader of the Conservative Party.  He had run for Parliament four times as a Radical candidate and lost but took a Tory seat on an opportunistic basis.  He was no Conservative.  His primary goal was to further the Jewish revolution and secondarily to keep the country roiled.

George Reynolds the author did want a violent revolution.  He wanted to depose the Monarchy and disenfranchise the aristocracy.  In his case the other principal Chartists were more Fabianists favoring reform.  They were better organized and more powerful than Reynolds. He was sidelined.  The crisis passed.  Reynolds took up his pen to begin a four year harangue against the monarchy centering on George III and IV.   That 5000 page novel was called The Mysteries Of The Court Of London, one of the great novels of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  In true revolutionary mode the novel was designed to undermine the Monarchy and aristocracy, to destroy them root and branch.  In that sense Reynolds and Disraeli were working toward the same end but different goals.

The difference was that when success had been attained, in Disraeli’s case the Jews would be preeminent and in Reynolds’ case society would have been renovated and the creativity of the people would be released as in the manner he interpreted the success of the 1830 or July Revolution in France.

To place Disraeli, all you need to do is read the full title of each of the volumes in his forty’s political trilogy: Coningby or the New Generation, Sybil or the Two Nations, Tancred or the New Crusade.

New as in a departure from the established or old, a changing of the guard.  The terms Disraeli uses will read differently in Jewish and English understanding.  The English will read New as in fresh while the Jews will read the word as different. i.e. the rise of the Jews.  The two nations of Sybil are not the rich and poor of the subtitle but the English and the Jews, the New Crusade is not Europe against the Moslems to reclaim the Holy Land but the Arabs against Europe to claim the Europe  Disraeli thought was appropriated by the Saxons and Sclaves.  Thus the Europeans had no more claim to Europe than the Semites of which the Jews were the chief representatives.  This is the way Disraeli thought.  The Jews were in control of the money of Europe, hence the most important nation of the continent.

The question then was how to obtain their heritance.  The answer is simpler than you might think.  Let us go back in time to the Age of Ares where everything began.  Check Herodotus for a full account.  This war probably took place between -1700 and -1500 and was concluded between -1200 to 1100.  We’re interpreting mythology now.  Back when the Minoans seduced the Asiatic Princess Europa away from Asia to Crete from which the Minoans administered their thalassocracy of the Aegean and Adriatic islands and Greece.  King Agenor king of Tyre in Asia was incensed. He gathered his three sons Sarpedon, Cadmus and Cilix and order them to retrieve their sister.  Sarpedon went to Crete, the most logical  place with his army but was unable to hold his own.  Driven into a corner he gave up and went to join his brother Cilix in Cilicia.

Cadmus, however went to Boeotia on the Greek mainland.  The Greeks were recent invaders hence still at odds with original Pelasgians.  Cadmus surveyed the situation and realized he was in the minority.  Clever guy, he threw a stone between the Greeks and Pelasgians and set them at war.  War over, he marched in, took over both peoples and established he famous city of Thebes restoring calm while being King.  So you see it is quite easy.

Back to the nineteenth century.  It took another sixty years or so, but events worked to the advantage of the Jews.  An Austrian Prince was shot and the devastation of WWI began in the same manner as in Boeotia.  The US flourished across the Atlantic and was successfully invaded by European Jews who quickly achieved a prominent, if not dominant role while in the East the Jews seized Russia and turned it into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  England had been captured so now they needed an enemy in Europe to begin the war. German was sucked into the vortex. The takeover of Germany that would have completed the takeover of Europe after 1918 failed when a young fellow named Hitler snatched Germany from their hands. Events transpired, Germany under Young Hitler was surrounded by the Soviet Union, England and the US so that the most destructive war in history, even worse than WWI, began.  Remembering Jud Suss Germany was bombed flat, Prussia was erased from the map as Germany itself would have been had not FDR died, replaced by Harry Trueman who wasn’t in on the joke, so that the actual elimination of Germany didn’t occur.  Easy wasn’t it.  The collateral damage for the Jews was that the Tribe took a serious hit when both Hitler and Stalin attempted to annihilate them.  Well, it’s not all fun and games.

In 1850 however that was a ways in the future.  Let me just point out that Disraeli and Hitler followed the same ideology.  There is small difference.

Towards Supremacy In England

Here is what Disraeli means when he says that race, that is blood, is everything.  As between Judaism and Christianity they are more or less equal although as the older and purer Judaism takes precedence.  Disraeli entertains the idea that Jewish blood is unmixed and can’t be defeated while all other races are mixed and hence inferior. This reverses the biblical situation in which Cain is elder and Abel, that is the Hebrews or Jews are the younger.  As in history the Jews split off main society at the beginning of the Age of Aries the relationship is reverse in fancy.  Four thousand years later times have changed, Judaism is now the elder and Christianity the younger, the Jews have turned the situation upside down but they have to establish themselves somehow as the superior rather than the inferior.

Here is the problem because the Anglo-Saxons, Aryans or Christians in the nineteenth century are clearly showing themselves to be superior to Judaism by releasing the marvels of nature through science.  Disraeli might pooh pooh science as being nothing compared to the spirituality of Judaism but spirituality cannot be weighed and hence has no objective existence. 

As there was no answer to science than science has to be stood on its head and subordinated to Judaism.  The reaction was fairly quick so that by 1900 every branch of science was being suborned, that is, injected with Faith.

Now then, we come to the third title of the trilogy,  Tancred the New Crusader and the New Crusade.  Disraeli is going to turn the first Crusades around and have Tancred lead the New Crusade out of Palestine to conquer Europe, that is the Jews over Europe.

The original Tancred’s title in Palestine was the Prince of Galilee so the new Tancred can march forth into Europe as the representative of the Asiatics.  What is the New Crusade then?  Quite simply, Disraeli believed that the Aryans had ‘appropriated’ Europe.  That is, they have no real title to the land. God entailed Palestine to the Jews but the rest of the world was up for grabs. Tancred and his Asiatic horde are intended to expropriate the expropriators.  Disraeli is really quite delirious and so is his book.

In his vision the Jews are to unite all the Sons of the Desert, Arabs, Bedouins, all the Children of the True Blood to the New Crusade.  In esoteric circles (see Madame Blavatsky) the world exists in seven thousand year cycles.  The first six thousand years leading up to the millennium of a new heaven and a new earth in the seventh thousand.  According to the Jewish calendar the six thousand years will be completed shortly so that the Jewish thousand-year Reich is immanent.

So, there is nothing mysterious in anything Disraeli says and does; it is all of a piece with some inevitable loose ends.  Now, Tancred was written and published on the advent of the revolution of ’48 so that Disraeli was giddy over the approach of the Millennium and his book is an incoherent mess to reflect his state of mind.  Bear in mind that Disraeli is both Jewish and Christian so that more than one of his characters can be alter egos.  As I said the story is confused.  The gist of it is that perhaps  Science has eliminated his Faith so that he is allured by the ‘spirituality of Judaism,’ Jerusalem, Sinai and that sort of thing.

He develops an overwhelming desire to visit Jerusalem and the Holy Land.  He has Tancred persuade his super rich parents to buy him a yacht to sail to the Holy sites.  He assembles an entourage to make the good impression among the mysterious peoples of the East.  All is well but first, while his yacht is being out fitted he meets a lovely woman, Lady Bertie and Bellair.  This is a strange interlude the appears to have nothing to do with the story.  As the story is of the  roman a clef sort the Lady undoubtedly represents a real person.  As Tancred is the Christian alter Ego of Disraeli we can only wonder.  She professes a desire to go with him to Jerusalem even though married.

Tancred is to be helped by Sidonia/Lionel, the Lady says she knows Sidonia getting financial advice from him, Sidonia is fairly remote so Tancred’s eyebrows are raised.  It seems that Sidonia is setting her up for a major fall.  She had somehow come into contact with Sidonia’s stooge Villebecq, also from Coningsby.  Villebecq has been guiding her into an investment which she has put her fortune into, the Northern Line, a wild speculation.  The whole investment depends on whether the line will be a narrow or a broad gauge track.  At this time in railroad history the gauge had not been settled.  She at Villebecq’s guidance, who one believes must be following Sidonias orders, had her put all her money into the expectation of the wide gauge.

In the midst of a tete a tete between she and Tancred, Villebecq bursts in and hands her a note.  She reads the note and swoons.  The decision is for the narrow gauge, she has been led into ruin by Sidonia/Rothschild’s agent Villebecq.  Tancred picks up the note she dropped and reads it. Then showing no reaction he steps over the body of the lady and goes to see Sidonia.  The story thus has no coherence to the story.  If it does it is not made clear.  Perhaps Disraeli is slamming a former acquaintance.

The scene in Sidonia’s office is reminiscent of a scene in Tobia Smollet’s Ferdinand, Count Fathom in which Fathom’s friend who needs a loan is turned down by every Christian usurer on very good grounds. Thus they need to go to the Jews.  Jewish usurers at the time were the last resort.  As Fathom’s friend has no collateral or security except his name, the usurer is about to turn him down but on talking to him he realizes he is dealing with a man of real integrity but who still has no hope of paying the loan back except a hope of recovering some.  The usurer not only relents but gives him a carte blanch for unlimited funds.

In Tancred’s place, he is the only son of fabulously wealthy Northern aristocrats, but still, he who apparently controls all the money in the world gives Tancred a letter of credit drawn on a Jerusalem usurer also of unlimited wealth worth all the money in the world.  Between the cash of his parents and the unlimited letter of credit from Sidonia Tancred is undoubtedly the richest man of the world.  The New Crusader shall have funds for his New Crusade.  That crusade will involve in the wild, delirious fantasy of Disraeli, the Semitic conquest of Europe.  Remember the story is written on the cusp of the ’48 revolution that Disraeli knows is coming, has said that it was devised and run wholly by Jews while I’m sure that he and they had no doubts of its total success.  But it was a failed run up to the two World Wars.

Back in 1666, in the day of the messiah Sabbatai Zevi,  Jewish Europe had been organized so that on the news of Sabbatai’s accession they were to rise and slaughter the Europeans.  Jews had sold all their possessions while they reveled and partied in the expectation of appropriating Europe.  ’48 was an even a better plan with a real chance of success.  Disraeli was really Dizzy at this point.

From the reality back to the story.  The book is very involved, very convoluted so my condensation leaves out a lot.  Having arrived in Jerusalem, a magical city for this is a magical fairy tale, Tancred accidently meets The Rose of Sharon (an inside joke) and her idiot friend Fakredeen. Fakredeen is a clear alter-ego of Disraeli at this point in his elation.  Word has leaked out that Tancred has all the money in the world.  Fakredeen is penniless but like Disraeli a real schemer and he has he plans to take over Europe.  He just has to guide Tancred, the Prince of Galilee, into his plot. For now Tancred is entranced by the magic of the mysteries of the East and Jerusalem.  Before he does anything else he desires to climb the Magic Mountain, Mount Sinai.

Leaving without any preparations he heads out into what Disraeli describes as a hideous desert, totally barren and black.  On the way Tancred’s party is blocked attempting to pass through a narrow defile by a body of Asiatics.  Without attempting to learn their intent, he charges them and is wounded.  As it turns out they were friendly Jews sent to escort him.

As a Roman a clef it is possible that this represented Disraeli’s first encounter with George Bentinck, his ally in the battle to gain control of Parliament.  This incident may be an allegory.  Tancred’s wound was infected and he came within a hair of dying.  Fakredeen now takes control of the story.  His brain is in a whirl.  He has all kinds of plans he cannot turn to reality because he is hopelessly in debt, as, indeed, was Disraeli.  But he now has Tancred in his power.  Is Tancred then related to Sidonia as Disraeli imagined himself related to Sidonia in the story and Lionel Rothschild in real life?  Is Lionel Rothschild connected to the revolutionists of ’48? And, if so, how?

This is confused, Fakredeen returns to his own stronghold in the Lebanese mountain after destroying all the competing religious factions, which are numerous, on his way. Now this is really interesting.  Hidden back in the woods where all people are forbidden to go lies an ancient kingdom ruled over by a legendary queen.  This people is the last remaining remnant of the Olympian religion, that of Zeus.  Fakredeen destroys this and he is ready to lead the bewildered Tancred on his crusade to appropriate Europe.  Here the story escapes his hands and even Disraeli is bewildered.

He takes the easy way out.  Tancred’s Mom and Dad arrive to pick their boy up and take him home.  It was just a dream, wasn’t it?  A  probability of why this story was so frenetic and disorganized is because that was Disraeli’s state of mind.  Just as the crisis of Bentinck’s and his plan to capture Parliament Disreali had a breakdown.  He left Bentinck in the lurch and took three months off apparently to write this story.

Europe rose in ’48 but after a short furious battle the Monarchies of Europe defeated them.  Never try a joke three times in succession.  It might work the first two times but will flop on the third and so did the revolution.  But Bentinck succeeding in capturing the Parliament in England.  But then…Bentinck suddenly died and Disraeli became the leader of the Party even though he was wildly unfavored.  Fairy tales can come true when you wish upon a star.  Amazing huh?

Who Killed George Bentinck?

The following will be slightly controversial.   I only conjecture, but on a firm foundation.  Let us go to the end of Benjamin’s Disraeli’s life.  Just before he died the aged Disraeli was feeling guilt.  He had tried to exorcise it in 1851 when he published a fairly long account of the fight to remove Robert Peel.  He called it George Bentinck, A Political Biography.  But now as the darkness gathered he invited two young descendants of George Bentinck to dinner at Hughenden, the palatial residence that the Bentincks bought for him.  The two sat across from each other while Disraeli sat at the head of the table.  All the while the two sat silently eating Disraeli sat with a biscuit slowly crumbling it away.

When the two finished Disraeli stood up and announced:  I come from a race that never forgives an injury but always remembers a favor.  Prime Minister Harald MacMillen told the story.

How do we interpret it?  Did Disraeli really believe that that bizarre dinner paid off a debt?  Race was everything to Disraeli and his race forbade Jews to eat with non-Jews.  Thus as the two ate Disraeli methodically crumbled a biscuit, perhaps timing the crumbling to coincide the last crumb with the last bite of his guests.  Did he think he was crumbling away guilt?  Did he think he had exonerated himself of some crime?  What else could it mean?  What crime and what insult or injury.  There is no question but that he used George Bentinck for his own ends.  Later in life he would call the Bentincks a strange breed.

In the heat of the crisis in Parliament Disraeli took three months off to write his preposterous Tancred.  Bentinck upbraided him for leaving him alone on the field of battle.  In Tancred Fakredeen makes the comment that he’s called a coward for running when the shooting started.  His response was ‘Running from battle?  What’s that?  Moral courage is more important.  Notice the flippant ‘What’s that?’  That’s a real indication of character.  Leaves the field of battle at the critical moment leaving Bentinck to handle the situation alone?  Bentinck should have been incensed.  Who knows what else was said?  Bentinck’s comments were taken as a mortal insult by one who’s race avenges each and every insult according to Disraeli, and the facts of history.

To give another example of when words kill let us move up in time to WWI in the US, itself vengeance for the execution of Suss.  The Jewish Wall Street speculator Bernard Baruch was instrumental in getting Woodrow Wilson elected president in 1912.  In 1917 he was given his reward by Wilson by  being made the chief of the  WIB, War Industries Board.  And, in addition was made co-president by Wilson with no oversight.  He was responsible only to Wilson but needed no pre-approval for what he did.  Jud Suss would have turned green with envy.  The Jewish world must have glowed, as the Jews then shared the power of the US.

You may be sure that Baruch took full advantage of his position and began to consolidate the entire industry of the US into one unit under his control.

He met resistance from only one quarter and that was the auto industry of Detroit.  They absolutely refused to go along with Suss/Baruch. A fierce confrontation ensued in which the Dodge Bros. insulted Baruch’s race.  Baruch said nothing at the time but in 1920 ‘ran into’ John Dodge in a New York City hotel as he was going to a bootleg gin party. 

Dodge apologized for his wartime comments, inviting Baruch upstairs.  Baruch declined.  Dodge died that night from bootleg tainted gin.  In his autobiography Baruch gloats:  John Dodge died that night from that filthy gin that night.  Then later in 1920 John’s brother Horace Dodge died an ‘accidental death’.  Two out of three wartime adversaries.  The third, Henry Ford shortly after Horace’s death was run off the road late at night returning home.  He crashed off an embankment of the Rouge River but was stopped from entering it when a friendly tree arrested his descent.  He was seriously battered but survived.  The car than ran him off was driven by the Jewish Purple Gang of Detroit.

There are hazards in ‘offending’ the Jews.  So now we swing back in time to the Disraeli-Bentinck situation.  In addition probably resenting Bentinck’s comments, with the Parliament in disarray after the battle, Bentinck stood in the way of Disraeli becoming the Party leader.  Disraeli was nearly fifty years old while never ever haveing made any distinctions other than being thought a good laugh as an orator.  Here was probably his only chance to break through.

As one of his guiding thoughts was, there comes a time when the opportunity presents itself which if taken at that moment leads to success or it not seized ends your chances.  This was that moment.  Disraeli also believed that you have to destroy to create.

In after years Disraeli would say, as mentioned by Robert Blake, that Bentinck didn’t have the qualifications to lead the party beyond the crisis.  Perhaps it was best he died.  Bentinck was only fifty-two when he died apparently from a heart attack.  He had just dined and decided to take a walk.  He never returned.  He was found face down a few hundred yards along in the bushes alongside the path he was following.

Did he have a heart attack?  It was said he did but that must have been pure speculation as they had no way of telling at that time.  So, did Baruch and the Dodges have something in common with Disraeli and Bentinck.  As David Cole would say:  cui bono?  Well, Disraeli.  Of course that’s not proof, but, there was Disraeli a decade or two later crumbling his biscuit as he watched saying nothing as two of Bentinck’s decedents ate their dinner which he contemptuously refused to share.  After the dinner he announced that he came from the race that never forgot an injury or insult but also honored those that helped them.  He was killing two birds with that stone.

That’s my interpretation of that scene.

Summary

The modern history of Jewish activities began in 1740 with the execution of Joseph Suss Oppenheimer in Wurttemberg, Germany.

The arch-criminal Samuel Falk moved from the Continent to England from which he directed continental plotting.   It may be coincidental but remember that Falk predicted that there would be a thirty years war and that war occurred from 1914-1845.

In 1798 Nathan Rotschild arrived in England of which he gained extreme financial power if not control of England’s finances.

In 1804 Benjamin Disraeli was born to Isaac D’Israeli.

In 1816 Benjamin was baptized in a Christian ceremony.  In his mind then he was a racial and religious Jew doubling as a Christian because Christianity fulfilled Judaism, Judaism being of two parts.

In 1833 Isaac D’Israeli published his book The Genius of Judaism whose content had formed Benjamin Disraeli’s Judaism.  To this he joined his racial views of Jewish supremacy.  Combined with his religious views his political career is defined.

In 1836 Disraeli published a series of letters defaming various leaders of Parliament including Robert Peel.  These collected letters he titled The Letters of Runnymede.  Runnymede was where the Barons confronted King John in 1215 to obtain the Magna Carta.  Disreali is signaling that he sees himself as a New Baron obtaining a new Magna Carta under which the Jews will be dominant.

In 1837 he was elected to Parliament and began his political career.

1826-1847 he published a series of books that seriously damaged his reputation. The most important was the trilogy of 1844-47, Coningsby, Sybil and Tancred.

In 1837 on his arrival in Parliament he began a crusade to eliminate Robert Peel the party leader.  In this crusade with longtime Parliamentarian George Bentinck the two were successful in driving Peel out of office by 1848 leaving Parliament and the Tory Party in turmoil.

In 1848 George Bentinck mysteriously died leaving the path open for Disraeli to become the unpopular leader of the Party.  Thus Disraeli opened the way to becoming Prime Minister by 1974.  While he failed as Prime Minister he had opened the door for his Race.

Some Additional Thoughts And Background

The late eighteenth century population of England had doubled by 1840.  Had the eighteenth century Industrial Revolution never occurred millions would have been idle and famine would have resulted.  It was on this basis that Malthus speculated that the population growth would always exceed the food supply.  Malthus was correct based on a pre-Industrial Revolution situation.  However industrial change created a completely new situation in which the excess population could be employed and fed.  The railroad was the main engine of employment that rescued England as well as steel ocean liners and other advancements too numerous to mention.

Being new the situation was not easily understood, hence a period of confusion and groping.  It was this situation that Disraeli took advantage of either intuitively or consciously.  The rapidly growing Jewish population was also unsettling traditional English society as they had no intention of assimilating preferring to remain absolutely separate and antagonistic.  Once again, Isaac D’Israeli’s The Genius of Judaism is essential reading to understand the Jewish point of view that was separate from the English point of view and in conflict.

The overall situation demanded a reevaluation of the society.  On the literary scene it was a scene of intense literary activity examined non-fictionally and fictionally.  Disraeli’s works may be considered as part of this examination from the Jewish point of view. 

As if they understood that a new era was developing in England men such as Charles Knight whose survey of London titled London organized the tremendous growth of London into an organic whole.  Henry Mayhew  did an large sociologic study of London’s poor that was matched by the most interesting of the students of London and its streets the afore mentioned George W.M. Reynolds who wrote immense studies disguised as novels.

Naturally any such efforts would have to include the Jews.  While not making the situation offensive he wrote extensively about the Jews throughout his very extensive corpus.  While a novelist Reynolds was also a social scientist, psychologist, scientifically aware, he was a great admirer of Franz Gall for instance.  Gall was an innovative student of the human mind, probing the areas of the brain to see how it functioned.  He was greatly misunderstood and one of aspect, that of phrenology, left him open to ridicule and no one today takes him seriously.  He was a great man however and Reynolds understood what he was doing perfectly.  He was a great student of Gall’s physiognomy using the concept continually.  But, that’s neither here nor there however the depth and breadth of Reynolds’ mind must be understood.

In 1846-47 when Disraeli was publishing his novels exalting the Jews as a race superior to all others, Reynolds wrote Vol. III of his Mysteries of London, a great work in excess of four thousand pages. Vol.III also written in 1846-7 might have been in response to Disraeli, and while untitled might have been called Tom Rainford and the Mysterious Jewess, if one were to give it a name.  Reynolds appeared to be showing the Jews the correct way of integrating into English society thus avoided the antagonism which seems to have been running very high at the time perhaps exacerbated by Disraeli’s career which was offensive to English sensibilities.  Really, his trilogy is ridiculous and offensive.

The main thread of Vol. III involves Tom Rainford and the de Medina family of a Jewish father and two sisters , Esther and Tamar de Medina who, while not twins are nearly identical.  Rain, as he is known, is involved with Tamar.  Mr. Medina is a respectable retired merchant of the Sephardic branch of Jews.  Thus, while giving the Jews an example of how to go about integrating into English society he can admonish his fellow English that not all Jews fit the stereotype. Etc., etc.  The time worn arguments.

As to Disraeli being a mole.  After being elected to Paliament he began a relationship with Lionel Rothschild that lasted until his death.  The Rothschilds with their enormous wealth essentially looted from the English people by usury were the driving force behind Jewish activities in Europe and through  August Belmont their American representative very influential in the United States.

The Jews always seemed to have decisive information almost before the events occurred and maybe before.  Much of their reputation as a  magical people is based on this.  The solution is readily apparent.  Disraeli in the early years of his career had access to classified information that he easily passed to his new friend Lionel.  Once his career achieved ministerial status all was known to him.  In the most classical case he not only passed information but openly collaborated with Lionel to mortgage the British government to the Rothschilds.  A key number of shares  to the Suez Canal were put on sale by the Egyptian Khedive.  Disraeli as Prime Minister thought it important to obtain them.  As Parliament was not in session and time of the essence and acting only on his own initiative consulting nobody, something like Bernard Baruch he immediately rushed to Lionel and requested a loan of four million pounds.  Lionel asked Disraeli what the collateral was and Disraeli proudly proclaimed, the British Empire.  The loan was made.  It was redeemed as Parliament resumed session, however.  Still, for the that brief moment the Jews were potential owners of the Empire on which the sun never set.  Imagine that.  If Rothschild had called the debt with Parliament out of session the Jews would have owned the most powerful country in the world.  Close call for the English.

Do you not think then that Alfred Dreyfus was doing the same thing in France in the 1890s, just as Johnthan Pollard did the same thing in the late twentieth century in the US?  The Suez shares were good work for a mole, don’t you think?  It’s time for a reassessment of Disraeli’s career.

The amazing thing was that while acting so openly, and openly despised, Disreali could achieve what he did.  This, then was and is the critical thing about democracy.  It is so easily used for nefarious purposes.  Was Disraeli’s rise in the English Democracy any different from Hitler’s rise in Germany?  No, both manipulated Democracy for their own ends.  Thus while both men were despised by their respective constituencies both succeeded.

To conclude: an example of Disraeli’s incredible Chutzpah.  Is it any wonder that he was despised?

Prime Minster Robert Peel was the reigning Parliamentary force when Disraeli entered Parliament in 1837 a year after he had written his scathing Runnymede Letters.  He immediately launched an all out attack to destroy Robert Peel’s authority and personal reputation by defamation  in which he succeeded thus removing an impediment to his own advancement.  With Peel out by 1848 it was necessary for him remove his close associate George Bentinck.  Without a pause he did.

In his book Coningsby he makes a sly reference to Sir Robert as he tells of a Steeplechase Race in which Coningsby rides a horse named Sir Robert. This obviously describes his vision of what he is doing in Parliament. The tale could be subconscious but, yet, it is so cleverly done that it must have been consciously malicious and mean spirited.  I quote the tale in full: Chap. XIV,

Quote:

Affairs now became interesting.  Here Coningsby took up the running, Sidonia and the Marquess lying close at his quarters.  Mr. Melton had gone the wrong side of the flag, and the stout yeoman, though close at hand, was already trusting much to his spurs.  In the extreme distance might be detected three or four stragglers.  Thus they continued until within three fields of home.  A ploughed field finished the old white horse; the yeoman struck his spurs to the rowels, but the only effect of the experiment was, that the horse stood stock still.  Coningsby, Sidonia and the Marquess were now all together.  The winning-post in sight, and a high and strong gate leads to the last field.  Coningsby, looking like a winner, gallantly dashed forward and sent Sir Robert at the gate, but he had overestimated his horse’s powers at this point in the game, and a rattling fall was the consequence: however, horse and rider were both on the right side, and Coningsby was in the saddle and at work again in a moment.  It seemed that the Marquess was winning.  There was only one more fence; and that the foot people had made a breach in by the side of a gatepost, and wide enough, as was said, for a broad-wheeled wagon to travel by.  Instead of passing straight over this gap, Sunbeam swerved against the gate and threw his rider.  This was decisive.  The Daughter of the Star, who was still going beautifully, pulling double, and her jockey sitting still, sprang over the gap and went in first; Coningsby on Sir Robert being placed second.

Unquote.

That appears to have been Disraeli’s account of his being second to Sir Robert Peel in Parliament while his Party was trying to pass a Protection bill.  As the rider Disraeli thought himself the actual driving force behind Sir Robert.  At the crucial moment in the attempted passage of the bill it would seem that Sir Robert was unequal to the task, that failed the jump and came in second, in this case, behind Sidonia/Lionel. Thus the Jewish rider on his super arab horse, sitting straight took the gate with ease.  Sidonia remarks to Coningsby that his horse, Sir Robert, wasn’t strong enough. Fairly snide and which undoubtedly drew a smile from anyone familiar with the situation.  A decisive step in the removal of the obstacle to his own rise.

As a slight aside Disraeli threw in a pronunciation test to amuse the reader. Sir Cholmondely Featherstonehaugh attended a party.  Apparently even then few people knew how to pronounce the two names.  A ridiculous pronunciation really. The two names are pronounced, Chumley Fanshawe.  Never would have figured that one out, would you?

As usual with the Jews the divisive use of the words  New and Young were employed.  Disraeli sat up a competitive group called Young England thus separating several members into a Party within the Party the better to undermine the Party.  He formed his Young England around Sir George Bentinck a respected member, unlike himself.  Thus with Bentinck as the leader of Young England Benjamin could dissociate himself as the originator.

Flailing wildly left and right, smashing anyone who got in his way while claiming to be the most intelligent member of Parliament working with mediocrities, within twenty years Disraeli temporarily reached his goal of Prime Minister. 

Apparently few if any English had read Isaac’s The Genius Of Judaism and if they had they had neither ingested nor digested the contents.  They seem to have been mystified by Benjamin’s behavior.  Had they read Isaac’s book they would have found an outline for his behavior and where it was leading.

With their man on the inside, the mole working to tear that mountain down, Lionel Rothschild began his assault on dismantling the structure of society.  Four religions were functioning in England at the time.  Church of England, Catholicism, Judaism and the various sects of Protestantism, or Dissenters as they were known, and one might almost include Libertinism.  The first was the established ideology while the latter three suffered civil disabilities not being allowed to influence Protestant institutions, that is the Universities and Parliament. 

You may be sure that both wanted to be enfranchised while their histories prevented them from being accepted.  Indeed, while they professed to object to religious discrimination both religions historically had discriminated against all others.  It was feared, with good reason,  that if allowed parity they would attempt to do so again.  The fear was justified when the Jews gained parity becoming the controlling source of the country.

Resistance was very strong.  Lionel was defeated time after time in his request to be seated not as an Englishman but as a Jew.  With Benjamin on the inside, as a nominal Christian, proposing to change to the rules and Lionel on the outside battering at the door they followed traditional Jewish strategy.

The problem was that as a member you had to take an oath as a Christian.  Lionel refused to do so wanting to take the oath as a Jew thereby changing the character of Parliament.  Lionel had no problem being elected as a City member within which Jews were the predominating influence and while Parliament was willing to seat him on his oath as a Christian he refused more than once until finally in 1858 he and Benjamin broke the door down.

At that point England ceased to be a Christian State.

By 1858 while nominally Christian it had become or was well on the way to becoming a strictly secular population.  Science had undermined religion so that it no longer had the validity it once maintained.  A year later, in 1859, Darwin would thoroughly discredit religion with his seminal work The Origin of Species, thus confirming Lyell’s work in Geology.

As mentioned earlier in the essay, within two years Disraeli was howling that he rejected Science being on the side of superstition or, as he put it, the Angels.  As his father Isaac wrote that Judaism was immutable Science not Christianity was the great enemy of Judaism.  Not only was Jud Suss to be avenged but Science had to be destroyed in favor of Jewish magic.  Those two items were the struggle of the Jews in the twentieth century.  The two world wars avenged Suss and today the core of science has been all but destroyed in favor of Jewish magic.

The struggle goes on.  One man, Jud Suss, created hell on earth.

Note #4 The Return of George W.M. Reynolds

by

R.E. Prindle

 GWMReynolds

In the twenty-first century when the public mind was focused on exorcizing the past the search was to correct or eliminate unapproved statements and thoughts from literature. This attitude was nothing new. In the nineteenth century censorship was concerned with sexual matters. In the explosive time of the 21st century anything goes as far as pornography. For this time one can be disqualified for life over racial matters.

In 1837 the seemingly immortal Charles Dickens created a criminal character by the name of Fagin in his Oliver Twist. Fagin was a Jew. As he tried to explain in his defence when he was accused of defaming the Jews, in 1837 the underworld of the nineteenth century was run by Jews. In other words, he was depicting reality. He was simply citing underworld facts.

Dickens was made to humble himself and since his works were reproduced in numberless editions he agreed that in future editions he would scrub references to Fagin as a Jew.

Historically, after the French Revolution of the eighteenth century had emancipated the Jews, the conflict between Jews and Europeans shifted in their favor. As the nineteenth century advanced they began to dominate all social and financial areas. This was universally recognized and resented. The question was alert. One of the English writers who early realized and wrote about it was the best selling author of the nineteenth century. No, it wasn’t Charles Dickens, it was an author who was wildly popular until the first world war. His name was George W.M. Reynolds.

He wrote an entire 500 page allegory about the situation, much disguised in his fabulous novel The Necromancer, readily available today. In addition and openly in about 1854-55 when the attack on Dickens was gaining intensity the following extract from his novel published by the Wildside Press, The Fortunes of the Ashtons, Vol. 1, page 201:

In one of the principal thoroughfares, so narrow, so crowded, which constitute the City of London, stood the immense establishment of Mr. Samuel Emanuel, the great clothier.

The reader will not require to be informed that this individual was of the Hebrew race; nor if we be compelled to say anything to his disparagement, it must not be presumed that we are holding him up as an invariable type of his nation. It is nothing of the sort. We yield to no one, we may without vanity affirm, in enlightened opinions with respect to the Jews, and we have the conviction that there are many excellent persons amongst them as well as many admirable traits in their national character. [Here we must acknowledge that Reynolds anticipates the twentieth century psychologist Sigmund Freud in his Group Psychology And The Analysis Of The Ego in which Freud definitely states that groups such as his own Jews do have identifiable traits, while to be in a group by definition is having similar traits. How could a group be considered a group without identifying traits? I have found Reynolds to be an excellent psychologist.]

But, there ae good and bad of all kinds and species in this world—good and bad Christians,, good and bad Musselmans, good and bad Buddhists, and therefore why not bad Israelites as well as good ones? We will even go farther and we will affirm that within the range of our own experience have met persons professing Christianity, of a viler stamp of rascality, and capable of more unmitigated scoundrelism, that ever we discovered a Jew to be guilty of.

Thus, at this time we can see to what a pass society, English society, had come because of the extreme Jewish sensitivity. I have to believe that in this openly broaching of the question that George W.M. Reynolds is coming to the defense of Charles Dickens and indirectly defending freedom of speech that is being encroached on by the Jews. Reynolds might well have asked why the Jews should be given a favored position free from any censure?

In accurately describing English society which consisted of several races and nationalities, various Anglo-Saxon tribes, Normans, Irish, Welsh, Scots, Jewish, Gypsy and we might as well throw in the French Huguenots why should the Jews be excused from the generality and given a special and higher position. How could English society be accurately portrayed without them. How could their deeds and practices be ignored. Indeed they would have complained of neglect had that been the case as they have complained in the nineteenth and twentieth and twenty -first centuries.

I ask how can a historian write accurate history if an historian is required to self-censor to favor a particular race, while at the same time that race has the privilege of censoring the conduct of all others? In the twenty-first century a writer is required to self-censor any accurate depictions of Jews, Moslems, Negroes, Women and Sexual Deviants, and actual madmen. Indeed, one is forbidden to write a factual account of something that happened to one’s self lest it should offend those sensitive perps. One must censor one’s very own life.

If so, history and many other Liberal Arts studies become meaningless.

In Reynolds’ case he was no pansy as was Dickens who cut his jib to suit the Jews. Fagin was an accurate depiction of a Jewish criminal, in fact, he was not the worst of the lot while the whole lot had a very negative impact on society. Indeed the Jews were disproportionately represented in the criminal ranks as they were in financial circles. This is a historic fact. It cannot be denied.

Perhaps after his daring confession of faith Reynolds, because he was more than capable of defending himself, was not taken on by the Jews. Perhaps also the sudden and inexplicable disappearance of his works after 1914 was because he was banned by Jewish vengeance.

There is increasing evidence that a hundred years on after his expulsion he is being rehabilitated and recognized as the great literary artist he is. There is much to be learned from his writing. George W.M. Reynolds was very nearly sui generis.

A Note And Aside On George W. M. Reynold’s Mysteries Of Old London: Days Of Hogarth

by

R.E. Prindle

 

While Old London isn’t as widely read as George’s two masterpieces it is a very interesting book. It is an historical examination of the eighteenth century period of Duke of Wharton and his Mohocks.

A comprehensive review will follow later, this note examines an interesting passage while other notes may follow. In a review of the whole, one frequently omits significant observations or ideas. In this quote that is very remarkable for its time (1848) Reynolds examines weaving in a manner that neither Dickens or Ainsworth could touch.

The quote occurs on page 14 of the British Library reprint while George is setting up his story. Chapter 5, The Two Apprentices.

It has been well said that man is the noblest work of God; but it is not equally easy to decide which is the noblest work of man. Though in contrast with the wondrous achievements of Almighty Power, the efforts of the human race are as nothing- though the most complicated, the most perfect results of mortal ingenuity are mean and contemptible when placed in comparison with the stupendous creations of the Divine Architect- nevertheless the earth is covered with monuments, which excite our astonishment and our admiration at the intelligence, the power, and the perseverance of man!

But of all the acts which in their application, constitute the distinctions between social and savage life- between a glorious civilization and an enduring barbarism- that of Weaving is decidedly one of the chief. For though the savage may affect the finery of shells and flowers- though he may study external adornment by means of natural products most pleasing in his sight- and though he may even conceal his nakedness with leaves, or defend himself from the cold by the hides of animals- yet is only in those portions of the globe where civilization has been the tutress of the human race, that comfortable clothing is known. And for this we are indebted to the LOOM which we may therefore look upon as at least one of the noblest works of Man!

How much of her prosperity,- how much of her greatness does England now owe to that achievement of human ingenuity! Amongst all the departments of National Industry, none is more ennobling in its tendency to commercial progress, than the art of weaving! Alas! That War should ever impose its barbarism in a way of the pursuit of Peace! For while Peace aspires to make our homes happy and increase our comforts, thus augmenting the enjoyments of life- War- hideous barbaric War- snatches our industrious mechanics from their looms, and our agricultural labourers from their plowshares, to place them in the ranks of armies or on the decks of fleets. And, what gain we from War after all? Glory- yes, plenty of glory; aye- and plenty of taxation also! For taxation is a vampire that loves to feast on the blood of a Nation’s heart, and to prey upon the vitals of an industrious population. It is an avaricious, grasping, griping fiend that places it finger on every morsel of food which enters into the mouth, on every article of clothing which covers the person, and on everything which is pleasant to behold, hear, taste, feel or smell! It interferes with our warmth- our light- our locomotion- the very paper which diffuses knowledge! It roams over the land to claim its share of the produce of our fields and our manufactures: and it awaits on the key of our seaports for the unlading of vessels bringing things from abroad. The moment that the industry or the intelligence of man originates something new, the fiend Taxation overshadows it with its loathsome bat like wing. It plunges it fang into the rich man’s dish and the poor man’s porringer: but the poor man suffers the more severely from this rapacious robber because he has but one porringer, whereas the rich man has many dishes. Oh! Insatiate is that Fiend; for he attends the deathbed when the will is made, and in the spiritual court when it is proven:- he has his share of the price paid for the very marble which covers the grave of the deceased-; and it is only there- in the grave- that the victim of Taxation can be taxed no more.

As the chapter is entitled The Two Apprentices and as they are apprentice weavers I suppose that touches off George’s tirades against war and taxation. His interpretation of the role of weaving in civilization manages to bring in a sort of evolutionary discussion of clothing. Just as a note of interest Thomas Carlyle’s Sartor Resartus appeared about this time, and that is a discussion of clothes so the popular imagination may have been drawn to the importance of clothes in these marvelous years of the Dandies, of which George was one, and the early years of discovery leading to the opening of the European mind.

George elsewhere brings up the arrival of the silk weaving on English shores as, as he says, forty thousand Huguenots exiled from France arrived in England and set up the industry.

The novels are full of interesting historical facts as George was a very well read guy.

A Personal Aside

 

I have now read nineteen titles of Reynolds’ novels. The major ones twice. The third and fourth series of Mysteries of London only once, all of the novels up to and including 1850. I own most of the rest. There is one novel that John Dicks lists titled Louisa, the Orphan, to which I can find no other reference.
Apparently George was really appreciated on the other side of the Atlantic in the US. Unable to get enough of George, publishers had writers write numerous titles under his name and this was being done into the1890s. I recently purchased a book titled the Countess of Lascelles or Self-Sacrifice, Part I, a sequel Bertram Vivian also in two parts published by Hurst and Company.

Here is a partial list of title, only a partial list, written and published in the US well into the eighties and nineties by a host of publishers: Caroline of Brunswick, Lord Saxondale, Count Christoval, Eustace Quentin, Banker’s Daughter, The Opera Dancer, Child of Waterloo, Robert Bruce, The Gypsy Chief, Wallace, Hero of Scotland, Isabella Vincent, Duke Of Marchmont, Life in Paris, Countess and the Page, Edgar Montrose, The Ruined Gamester, Clifford and the Actress, Queen Joanna, Ciprina or the Secrets of a Picture Gallery. I recently purchased a title called The Countess of Lascelles, a sequel to Bertram Vivian and which is followed by the two volumes of The Doom of the Burkers. Bertram, Lascelles and Burkers is a six volume series built around the same characters

This is very strange because George W. M. Reynolds was apparently very famous in his day in the US but has been totally forgotten in the history of American literature. How could this be? A firm, T.B. Peterson of Philadelphia published more that a dozen titles under Reynolds name some legit and some not. And that was in the 1880s. Another mystery to be investigated. Why is Reynolds’ popularity in US literature totally forgotten?

Now is the time for a little recapitulation.

The range of George’s interests and the seeming depth of his knowledge is quite astounding. One wonders what his sources were. I’ve mentioned many of his more obvious influences even doubling in some cases such as the Pickwick Papers as sources.

One title I have come across in six volumes is Charles Knight’s amazing title, London. I think it is pretty clear that Reynolds read the work. It was originally published serially then issued in book form when enough articles accrued to bind from 1841-1844. These were years when Reynolds wrote no novels although remaining active journalistically. I have the Cambridge University re-issue. I can do no better than to quote the Cambridge intro:

The publisher and writer Charles Knight (1794-1873) was apprenticed to his printing father but later became a journalist and the proprietor of various periodicals and magazines, which were driven by his concern for education of the poor. As an author, he published a variety of works, including The Old Printer and the Modern Press (also issued in the [Cambridge] Series. He claimed that this six volume work on the architecture and history of London, published between 1841 and 1844, was neither a history nor a survey of London, but looked at the Present through the Past and the Past through the Present. It relies on the skills of eminent artists to bring both the present and the past of London to life, and it is arranged thematically rather then chronologically or geographically. This is a fascinating account of what was the greatest city in the world.

The articles are by several different authors that lovingly describe the attributes of London past and present. George may have read the articles and then examined the sites himself in these four years in which he obviously absorbed much of the information he includes in his novels. Some details fascinated him. In Old London he mentions the Fleet Ditch which was uncovered in the 1720s.

The Fleet Ditch is what was once a stream that was turned into a muddy, foul ditch by the advance of civilization. It was later covered so that it flowed under the city itself. George mentions it here in Old London and then opens his The Mysteries of London with a description when Eliza Sydney was pitched into it by the criminals.

As fascinating as his stories are, acquiring background information then makes the stories more intelligible while opening vistas of what the deeper meanings of the works are. Fathoming the depths of Reynolds mind is important, getting the references. So while I began writing knowing little but the stories, I have worked to develop an understanding of what George saw and was describing.

The struggle or effort goes on. I am now about to begin reading the works of Reynolds mature years, those after 1850, while I have to reread The Mysteries of London, third reading, and The Mysteries of the Court of London, also third reading. It appears that the edition most people are reading of Mysteries of the Court is that published by the Oxford Society (of which there is no knowledge) in England and the Richard F. Burton Society in Boston, USA. It is an expurgated and partially revised edition. Apparently Reynolds was more racy and explicit in the original. In his The Parricide he gets really raunchy. Thus for the third reading I would like to obtain the original.

Just as Mysteries of London had a third and fourth series it is possible that John Dicks actually published a third and fourth series of Court of London. In five volumes each they were titled The Crimes of Lady Saxondale and The Fortunes of the Ashtons. Thus the Oxford edition of 1900 consists of twenty volumes containing all four series.

It seems apparent that the latter two series were not the product of Reynolds’ pen. They must have been written by others. It seems to me that Reynolds does the same thing as Charles Knight did, that is employ other writers to write according to his plan. Thus he might also have done as Alexander Dumas did and put his name on others writing. Certainly Court of London does not seem long enough to have taken eight years to publish it. The four series of The Mysteries of London are equally massive as the The Court of London and they took only four years to publish. The massive first two series must have been completed by 1846 leaving the shorter two series to finish the series by 1848 when Court began. Thus it is probable that Dicks went on publishing Saxondale and The Ashtons after Reynolds finished with George IV and the Regency. Reynolds says that he then abandoned George IV and the Monarchy years.

It seems to me that Reynolds does the same thing in relation to the Past and Present as Charles Knight did in his London and, indeed, that is the approach I am taking in my Time Traveling series.

Knight’s work in a way forms a template for Reynolds novels that in the main are historical combining the past and present. The current novel under consideration, The Mysteries of Old London pertain to the early eighteenth century just after the reign of Queen Anne and the beginning of the four Georges. More particularly does it involve the beginnings of the Hell Fire Clubs of the next hundred years from 1720-21. George specifically mentions that this story begins in 1721 and deals with the period of the historical Duke of Wharton and his Mohocks who terrorized the after dark streets of London during the period. Reynolds character Jem Ruffles certainly represents aspects of the Duke of Wharton as well, probably, of the arch criminal Johnathan Wild.

One of the studies of Charles Wright is of the locality of Spitalfields which was associated with weaving, silk weaving to be specific. The association began with the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 by order of Louis XIV by which the Huguenot sect was expelled. The Huguenots were Protestants who had evolved out of the Albigensian faiths of Provence and who were nearly exterminated in the thirteenth century. The Huguenots evolved from the earlier belief systems of the Albigensians and were in direct conflict with the Catholic Church. They were harder to deal with than the Albigensians and were constantly at war with Northern government of France. In the fifteenth century under Charles IX a truce was made with the Huguenots and their being invited to Paris to celebrate. This was a ruse and trick of Charles and the Huguenots were set upon by the Catholics and murdered in the celebrated St. Bartholomew’s Massacre. The remnant remained in their stronghold in Gascony in the South of France ruled by Henri of Bearn. Charles was murdered and replaced by his brother Henri III. At Henri III”s death he was succeed by Henri of Bearn, the Huguenot, who became Henri IV. He negotiated the Ediict of Nantes giving his Huguenots the protection of the crown. A little under a hundred years later the Edict was revoked by Louis XIV resulting in the displacement of their silk weaving industry to Spitalfields in London.

This history of the Huguenots was covered by Alexander Dumas in his novels of the Valois kings of France written in the mid forties that Reynolds would have read. Thus the mention of the Huguenots and Spitalfields in the quote from Old London. Reynolds repeatedly gives brief accounts of the various London districts such as Spitalfields following the Wright method of uniting the past and the present. Since his info is so similar to that of Wright one of his key readings must have been Charles Wright’s London.

Of course, Reynolds tramped the streets of all those districts he mentions and probably talked to old timers who may have remembered far back. As Wright lived to the 1870s one wonders whether Reynolds and he had any talks.

In the ending of the Oxford edition of the first two series of Court of London Reynolds says that he has tired of writing about George IV and chose not to follow him into his reign as monarch. He says he has other projects to follow. If those projects were Lady Saxondale and the Ashtons then he probably did hire other writers to compose the text according to his plan. Otherwise where the latter two series came from is a total mystery. The Mysteries of the Oxford Edition need clearing up.

Part XIa

Time Traveling With R.E. Prindle

 GWMReynolds

I have been having trouble finding a way into this chapter. Three efforts have been thrown aside; perhaps the fourth will succeed. I have been successful in finding a copy of The Youthful Impostor and added Vo. I of The Modern Literature of France. The latter is available under the title Georges Sand. A couple of quotes from those may possibly be a good lead in.

A preliminary quote is from David De Leon’s introduction to his translation of volume fifteen of Mystere’s du Peuple, Eugene Sue’s The Executioner’s Knife or Joan of Arc: A Tale of the Inquisition. De Leon:

Whether one will be satisfied with nothing but a scientific diagnosis in psychology, or a less ponderous and infinitely more lyric presentation of certain mental phenomena will do for him, whether the credit of history insists on strict chronology or whether he prizes in matters canonical the rigid presentation of dogma or a whether the tragic fruits of theocracy offer a more attractive starting point for his contemplation- whichever case may be (the career and novels of George Reynolds…) will gratify his intellectual cravings on all three heads.

Of course I have substituted Reynolds for De Leon’s quote of Sue. He pretty well covers the approach I am taking. The smooth or turbulent waters of a rolling river are what is meant by canonical waters, while the real history lies beneath the shining or muddy waters in the hidden river bed. With Reynolds it is necessary to penetrate the river’s surface and search beneath to understand the depth of Reynold’s thought.

Up to this time Reynolds has escaped the biographer’s pen. Fortunately for us Reynolds has left some pretty transparent clues in his writing making them fairly accessible auto-biography, more especially in the novels of his apprenticeship before embarking mid-stream as he began the fullness of his career with The Mysteries Of London. Two novels stand out in auto-biographical detail. The first is The Youthful Impostor first composed when he was eighteen in 1832 and edited before publication in 1835. The completely rewritten version of 1847 retitled The Parricide bears small relation to the first published version. The second work is his Modern Literature of France published in 1839 when he was twenty-five. The latter is non-fiction. In it he says in the introduction speaking directly to the reader p. XVII

The literature of France previous to the Revolution of 1830 resembled that of England at the present day; inasmuch as a moral lesson were taught through the medium of almost impossible fiction. Now the French author paints the truth in all its nudity; and this development of the secrets of Nature shocks the English reader, because he is not yet accustomed to so novel a style. To depict truth, in all its bearings, consistently with nature, is a difficult task; and he who attempts it muse occasionally exhibit deformities which disgust the timid mind. A glance at life in all its phases, cannot be attended with very satisfactory results; and while the age surveys much to please, it must also be prepared to view much that will be abhorrent to the virtuous imagination. The strict conventual usages of English society prevent the introduction of highly coloured pictures into works of fiction; and thus, in an English book which professes to be a history of man or of the world, the narrative is but half told. In France the whole tale is given at once; and the young men, and young females do not there enter upon life with minds so circumscribed and narrow that the work of initiation becomes an expensive and ruinous task. We do not become robbers because we read of thefts; nor does a female prove incontinent on account of her knowledge that such a failing exists. The pilot should be made aware of rocks and quicksands, that he may know how to avoid them; it is ridiculous to suffer him to roam on a vast ocean without having previously consulted the maps and charts which can alone warn him of peril. Such is the reasoning of French writers, who moreover carry their system to such a an extent, that they cannot hesitate to represent vice triumphant, and virtue leveled with the dust, for they assert that the former incredibly prospers, and the other languishes without support; whereas the English author points to a difficult moral in his fiction.

One might say that Reynolds plan of literature was formed in France while his five years there were the most significant and formative in his life. Whether he witnessed the three important days of the July Revolution that unseated Charles X is not important, what is important is that their import coalesced his own political outlook. Thus when he returned to England in 1836 it was in full revolutionary mode and remained so promoting the Revolution of 1848 by any and all means at his disposal. He directed his revolutionary effort toward ’48 by his involvement in the Chartist Movement in which he was ultimately successful. Coming from France where he believed that the July Revolution swept away ancient ways be violence, belief in violence offended the English agitators who believe evolutionary tactics the better approach. They belittled his contributions and diminished him personally. Notwithstanding his vision of Chartism triumphed changing English society and he should be rehabilitated and acknowledged as such.

Secondly the quote displays perfectly Reynolds’ literary ideals to present reality starkly as he saw it. I do not agree with many of his conclusions and in observing his usages do not necessarily endorse them in their entirety. Time has proven many of his observations fatuous and against human nature. To ignore them is to misunderstand his import. He is almost always going against the grain. Especially compared to Dickens and Ainsworth.

The French literature he discusses was prior to the effusion of the Forties, which was astonishing. In his critique he is referring to the theatrical or poetic works of Dumas and Victor Hugo. He apparently was an ardent theatre goer.

The tremendous events of the fifty years preceding 1830 were brought to a head in the July Revolution of France and the Reform Act of 1832 in England. The political and belated explosion in France in 1789 was only less significant compared to the Industrial Revolution of England and the subsequent economic reorganization. When the Napoleonic era ended modern society had been reorganized emerged complete.

Once again, Reynolds was keenly aware of changing customs and mores. This vision was held up starkly to him when he set foot in France shortly after the July Revolution. One should also note this was after the cholera epidemic of the same year. To quote him again: The +*-Modern Literature of France pp. XIII-XIV:

The literature of France since the July Revolution of 1830 is quite distinct from that under the fallen dynasty. A sudden impulse was given to the minds of men by the successful struggle for freedom which hurled the improvident Charles from his royal seat; and all aims—all views—and all interests underwent a vast change. Ages of progressive but peaceful reform couldn’t have accomplished so much, in reference to the opinions and tastes of a mighty nation, as those three days of revolution and civil war. The march of civilization was hurried over centuries; and as if France had suddenly leapt from an old into a new epoch without passing through the minutes, the hours, and the days which mark the lapse of time, she divested herself of the grotesque and gothic apparel, and assumed an attire which at first astounded and awed herself. And then men began to congratulate each other upon the change of garb; and now that they are accustomed to see and admire it, they look upon their rejected garments as characteristic of antiquity, and not as things that were in vogue only a few years since.

As a Chartist, other Chartists who were more evolutionarily minded disliked Reynolds because he was known for wanting drastic results by violent revolutionary means Reynolds retorts, p. XVI:

It is a matter of speculation whether the Reform Act (of 1832 in England) would have been even now (1839) conceded to the people of this country, if it had not been found necessary to keep pace as much as possible with the giant strides made by the French. Certainly a change has taken place in the literature of England since the passing of the Reform itself as well as that of France since the three days of July.

The change in literature in England was led by Edward Bulwer Lytton, William Harrison Ainsley, perhaps Charles Dickens, by Reynolds himself and quite probably writers like Pierce Egan and the Penny Blood and Dreadful writers as developments in printing and paper made ever cheaper editions possible making books of all qualities affordable to the rising literacy among the underclasses. Indeed by the 1850s, John Dicks, Reynolds printer and partner, would make available the complete Shakespeare for pennies. Of course, the type was so small they are virtually unreadable except to the most dedicated.

All of these writers were reformers, writing especially about the harsh penal laws.

The core attitudes of Reynolds remained unchanged from his introduction into France. It was in France that a very young eighteen year old wrote his first book, The Youthful Impostor.

-II-

Reynolds incorporates his entire life into his novels so this might be the right time to assemble a chronology of his life. For those who may have read my earlier chapters this account may seem familiar but it incorporates much new material, better organization and deeper thinking. Or so I think.

While George’s first novel, The Young Impostor was first composed in 1832 when he was eighteen the book was not to published until 1835 when he was twenty-one. There was some touching up for the 1835 version as he includes a chapter head quote from W. Harrison Ainsworth’s Rookwood that was only published in 1832 and couldn’t have been read for his original manuscript. He also chapter headed a quote from Bulwer-Lytton’s 1830 novel Paul Clifford. That novel was definitely an influence on The Youthful Impostor. The Youthful Impostor is highly autobiographical so we can form an almost biographical account of his early years. By the way the 1847 rewrite of the Impostor, The Parricide, bears almost no resemblance to the earlier version. It can read as an independent novel and not his best.

George was born July 20, 1814. His father, a naval post-Captain commanded a cruiser during the Napoleonic wars. Born in Sandwich, Kent of the Cinq Ports, the family was moved to the island of Guernsey when George was two. Six years later the family returned to Kent and its capital Canterbury. Reynolds has indelible memories of all this so references to his early life crop up frequently in his works.

Returning to 1822, at the age of eight he was saddened by the death of his father thus making him an orphan. Orphans figure prominently in his works. His mother died eight years later depriving him of both parents leaving him on his own at fifteen under the guardianship of his father’s best friend Duncan McArthur, hence George’s third name. He passed under that man’s guardianship after his father’s death. His mother was not his guardian.

His relationship with McArthur, if we judge from his writing, was not a happy one. There are other references but in 1854 writing in his novel, The Rye House Plot, which by the way is a superb novel, George had this to say about his guardian: Rye House Plot, p. 63,

This guardian of mine was a man of stern disposition; and I loved him not.

I think we can apply the quote to Duncan McArthur. He, himself, was an old Navy man, a surgeon. From the age of eight to sometime at the age of thirteen George attended a school in Ashford, a few miles from Canterbury which were happy years for him as he idolized his schoolmaster. Then, as George styles it, at the tender age of thirteen he

was placed in the Sandhurst Military Academy in Berkshire. Thirteen would indeed had been tender to have been thrown in with older boys of sixteen or eighteen and even young men heading into their twenties. Tom Brown’s School Days at Rugby by Thomas Hughes at roughly this time shows how difficult George’s situation probably was. He was impoverished while probably the majority of the cadets were from titled families having plenty of money. So from thirteen to sixteen when George was either removed or removed himself the years must have been unpleasant. The Youthful Impostor covers those years.

George’s mother died in March of 1830 when he was fifteen. He left the academy shortly after his sixteenth birthday in September. He left for France at the end of 1830, a greenhorn of sixteen. A sitting duck for sharpers one might say.

The question then is how much money did he have. Dick Collins think nothing but I think he had to have much more so I accept his statement to the adjudicator at his 1848 bankruptcy hearing when George told him that he had had seven thousand pounds. Where did they come from?

In The Rye House plot he discusses such an issue like this. His character General Oliphant is speaking. “Eighteen years ago, when I was a youth under twenty, I embarked with my uncle, Mr. Oliphant, on board a vessel bound for a Spanish port where he had some mercantile business to transact, he being engaged in commercial enterprises. Mr. Oliphant was my +

guardian, my parents having died when I was very young. I must observe that Mr. Oliphant being a man of reserved and stern disposition had kept me in the most perfect state of ignorance as to my own affairs; and although I had reason to believe that my parents had left some little property, which I should inherit on obtaining my majority, I had not the smallest conception of what amount or value it might be or what nature it was nor where situated or deposited.

As it turned out the inheritance was a couple thousand pounds payable at twenty-one. This coincides with Dick Collins researches in George’s finances. So, I think we can believe that George is describing his own situation in the above quote. While it is generally thought that George inherited twelve thousand pounds when his mother died, we can I think dismiss the account. Where, then, did George get seven thousand pounds. If The Young Impostor is as autobiographical as I think it is then George was involved in a substantial swindle and fled England in somewhat of a hurry at the end of 1830.

George does not often write about his military life but he does in YI and the Rye House Plot. The cadets were given a fair amount of liberty and traveled from the barracks to London frequently. This was George’s first acquaintance with London and it was overwhelming.

In Chapter VI of the Parricide a rewrite of The YI Reynolds quotes this verse:

Houses, churches, mix’d together

Streets unpleasant in all weather,

Prisons, palaces contiguous,

Gaudy things enough to tempt you

Showy outsides, insides empty,

Baubles, trades, mechanic arts,

Coaches, wheelbarrows, and carts,

-This is London! How do ye like it?

Sometime then at thirteen and fourteen he had his first introduction to the Big City in company with other cadets on the town. Breathtaking and terrifying. And that was my impression of London too. I’m sure he was stunned by his first vision as I was a hundred seventy years later.

He frequently mentions the Hounslow barracks. Highwaymen infested the highways from Hounslow to London and also in the vicinity of Bagshot.

Reynolds with little money in his pocket traveled from Sandhurst to London and back many times apparently following at times through Bagshot and Hounslow.

Now, as a young cadet, he has himself returning from London late one night when he is accosted by two highwaymen. Naturally he had little money and was being harassed accordingly when a third party appeared who dispersed the robbers and rescued him. It would seem apparent that as the robbers worked in parties of three that the third party also a robber who intervened for another reason. Reynolds names him as Arnold. Having read the story and reviewing it, it should be apparent that Arnold thought he had found a use for the young cadet and he and, actually the other two, were contemplating some large scale swindle but needed a naïve young man to complete the ensemble as bait. George may very probably have been that young man.

Reynolds has James, his character, and Arnold dupe a Jewish usurer named Mr. Nathanial. The amount George mentions was seven thousand pounds. This may be a coincidence or it may be where his seven thousand pounds came from when he absconded to France at the end of 1830.

It may have been at this time that Long’s Hotel became familiar to the young orphan. Long’s was apparently London’s most luxurious hotel at the time. Reynolds is almost breathless when he mentions the name. Long’s figures prominently in his pre 1844 works. Most often with criminal acts. And indeed, Reynold’s is familiar with endless hotel scams.

According to Collins there is some question as to young George’s integrity and George himself from time to time mentions that he has redeemed his youthful crimes, while swindles are frequently performed in his novels. That’s not proof of course but such a swindle would have provided the seven thousand pounds he said he had plus an incentive to leave England just ahead of the Bow Street Runners. At any rate we know that he showed up in France at the end of 1830 and we’ll take his word that he had seven thousand pounds.

If George was associated with this ‘Arnold’ who was part of the criminal underworld he must have been inducted into that society in some capacity. In that capacity he would have learned something of criminal ways of which he seems to be fairly familiar and according to Collins he did do some prison time while he went through a bankruptcy just before returning to England from France.

If I am correct, then George benefited by his and ‘Arnold’s’ swindle and absconded to France. Collins also records that he was arrested in Calais for playing with loaded dice. In Mysteries of London, first series, George gives a detailed description with diagrams of how to load dice. Of course, that may have been taken from a manual.

So, at the beginning of 1831 George landed in France where he would remain until 1836. From Calais he went straight to Paris where he remained either residing at Meurice’s Hotel or hanging around the

environs as may be indicated by his book of Pickwick Abroad. When he married he resided in different places as Collins’ research accords.

Evidence indicates that he did explore areas of France. At one point he laments never have been to Belgium, the closest he came was four miles from the border. Since one can only write about what is stored in one’s mind and one’s experience it follows that Reynolds must have been at the places he writes about or had read about them. As he frequently writes about Italy one does question his presence there. In his book Wagner, the Wehr Wolf his descriptions of Florence don’t seem to ring true so he may be working from from written accounts or pure imagination although his descriptions do resonate with the Italian period in Dumas’ The Count of Monte Cristo. Otherwise he may have traveled about quite a bit.

As a green, but initiated, sixteen year old in 1831, perhaps with money, he would have been prey to various spongers and swindlers. It is difficult to envision a sixteen year old boy brazening his way through a foreign capital but he very obviously did for five years. One imagines his first six months must have been intense orientation. Yet he says that he completed The YI in 1832 and had been able to obtain a copy of Bulwer-Lytton’s Paul Clifford, read it and incorporated it in his first novel. We’re talking of a bit of a phenom here. He must have gravitated into journalistic and literary circles, possible theatrical, very quickly in his career, and he is merely a boy not attaining his majority until the year before he left France. I find this fairly astonishing.

He says he wrote The Young Impostor in 1832 so he must have been considering the story from his very landing in France if not before. As an eighteen year old It could only portray his experience up to that year. The novel itself in excellent and precocious for an eighteen year old; nor was it ignored. The copy I have is a reprint of an 1836 US edition published by E. L. Cary and A. Hart of Philadelphia. Thus within a year of its French publication it was published across the Atlantic. Why a Philadelphia company would appropriate an unproven title by an unknown author isn’t clear to me.

According to Collins within these two years he also met, courted and married his wife Susannah Pierson. (Collins say that Pierson is the correct spelling not Pearson.) She was apparently moving in literary circles as Collins describes her as a writer. She would later, in the 1850s, write a novel titled Gretna, which is available. Gretna refers to Gretna Green across the Scottish border where those wishing to elope repaired to. In 1745 a law was passed forbidding underage couples to marry without parental permission so that couples flew to Gretna Green for their nuptials. I was something like going to Las Vegas. It’s a good story.

In The YI A Pearson who was unmarried, while having a fairy like persona, not unlike Huon of Bordeaux, took him under his wing and instructed him in seedy practice. Whether he was related to Susannah isn’t known. So, by eighteen George was married and remained so until his wife died in 1854. He apparently never remarried.

According to all the references to books George makes in his writing he was reading voraciously. Here may be an appropriate time to discuss aspects of the literary situation in England and France during the thirties and forties.

The base for the writers in both England and France was the novels of Walter Scott and the Gothic novelists along with Byron. I would say that all the English and French writers were inspired by Scott. Scott died in 1832 at the young age of 61 thus missing the joy of seeing his influence on succeeding authors, except for William Harrison Ainsworth. Ainsworth who published his Rookwood in 1832. That book is almost an homage to Scott but lacks Scotts consummate style, complexity and depth. Ainsworth followed that up in 1835 with Crichton and then began an outburst of historical novels from 1839 with Jack Sheppard and a dozen more in quick succession through about 1845. At that time Reynolds was quiescent but he read all the titles and they influenced him greatly.

Of course Charles Dickens began his career in the late thirties and turned out a few titles in the forties. Dickens wasn’t that prolific but he made the most lasting impression of the novelists of the era. It is needless to say that he made his impression on Reynolds. George despised Dickens as a lightweight, and Dickens novels are lightweights. For me they are unreadable.

Lastly comes Edward Bulwer-Lytton. He was an important writer for his period and has survived into the present as an occultist. His novel The Coming Race is a must read for any esotericist. The idea of it seized H.G. Wells mind and he used it for his excellent novel The Food of the Gods. Bulwers’ Rienzi and The Last Days Of Pompei may still have a readership. He’s not a particularly good writer however. His opening line for Paul Clifford ‘It was a dark and stormy night’ for some reason is found hilarious by a certain type of reader. A contest is held each year to see if anyone can match this imagined terrible sentence. Reynolds uses it occasionally in his books. Bulwer maintained a fair reputation at least up to the 1950s while Reynolds was heavily influenced by him. And of course Byron. George even attempted ‘A Sequel To Don Juan’ but he was no Byron. He did get it published and it did find readers. Fortunately Byron was dead by that time and unable to the show the umbrage that Dickens did.

And then there are the magnificent French writers of the Forties and into the Fifties. The incomparable Alexander Dumas, pere inspired by Walter Scott began turning out his French historical novels in machine gun style, writing so fast that he had multiple serialized novels being published at one time. And what novels! Few novels can compare to The Three Musketeers or The Count of Monte Cristo. And, of course, Dumas is popular to this day.

At the same time Honore de Balzac was publishing his Human Comedy collection of novels. Strangely compelling, Balzac’s brain had an odd construction. Love him but I always wonder: Why am I reading this? Balzac too is read widely today. My favorite story in the novella The Girl With The Golden Eyes.

Victor Hugo, also widely read today, is not a favorite of mind. I will concede that Notre Dame de Paris – The Hunchback of Notre Dame in the US, is compelling and could possibly be a great book. The US title switches the focus of the book from the architectural edifice of Notre Dame to the character of Quasimodo, the Hunchback. The movies were essential to changing the emphasis from the edifice to the Hunchback. Les Miserables is an OK read but doesn’t impress me. Hugo was a Communist and in his novel 1793 actually advocates murdering all the Royalists because they would never accept the New Order. Don’t go away because you read that; it’s just my opinion.

And then we come to the incredible Eugene Sue. Not quite as prolific as Dumas but a non-stop writer. Not quite as concentrated as Dumas, his style is more diffuse but always interesting. His two key works, neither widely read today are The Mysteries of Paris and the Wandering Jew. Both are terrific books and very long. Both books were models for Reynolds Mysteries of Paris. The Wandering Jew may have resonated especially with him because it takes place in 1830, the year of the July Revolution and the cholera epidemic.

And now I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that another key influence might have been the American Edgar Allen Poe. While Poe didn’t have that many pages to his credit, he was a prolific writer of short stories and the short stories are amazing. Mind boggling. Inventive. Concentrated. They would be very difficult to top. They crossed the Atlantic quickly and were received with open arms in France and England. I may be reaching but I find evidences of Poe in his story of Grand Manoir in his Master Timothy’s Bookcase and we are going to look more closely at that shortly.

And, of course his mind is obsessed with the works of the Marquis de Sade. He must have read De Sade’s two great studies Justine and Juliette shortly after arriving in Paris. De Sade believed that following virtue would lead to an unhappy life while pursuing vice would lead to worldly success. The contrast of vice and virtue then informs almost all his works, but he wishes to reverse De Sade’s conclusions.

To really understand Reynold’s, one must be familiar with these authors. But he was so influenced by his wide reading that I’m sure these authors are just the tip of the iceberg.

In Pickwick Abroad George is familiar with all the sights of Paris. He must have at least visited all the prisons and insane asylums both in France and England. We get tours of many. Of course George was very interested in psychology. While Phrenology and Physiognomy may not be considered psychology, they are. Phrenology, an idea of the German, Franz Gall, was a crude attempt at brain anatomy and if risible today it was more because of the misuse by ununderstanding users than Gall’s idea itself that led to its discreditization. The notion was made on the right idea, different areas of the brain control different functions, it’s a moot point today but Gall deserves more credit that he gets, Reynolds entertains an interest in both ideas, especially physiognomy He was apparently a great reader of facial expressions.

Apropos of that, a very interesting novel is the novel Master Timothy’s bookcase published in 1840.

-III-

Master Timothy’s Bookcase is very serious and it is a major book. Interestingly the book begins in Kent, then follows Reynold’s career to Berkshire and London and then to France while ending with his return to England ending in the shire of Kent.

As Reynolds was only twenty-six in 1840 his mental acuity is actually astonishing. He had what one might call a four octave mind. Reynolds quite often resorts to supernatural or, perhaps, proto-scientific elements. In this book the hero Edmund Mortimer is the seventh son so-to-speak of a family founded six generation earlier. The ‘genius’ of the family appears to each member and offers them the approach to life that they think will make them contented and happy. They choose wealth, success et al. and all end up unhappy. Edmund Mortimer chooses Universal Knowledge. This choice, of course, reflects Reynolds ruling passion. George, himself, seeks Universal Knowledge and does a good job of it. However, even he at only twenty-six, he realizes that universal knowledge does not lead to happiness as knowing all displays mankind at its worst.

The more Mortimer, and we may assume Reynolds, learns about human nature, the more disgusted he becomes and regrets his choice. His peregrinations take him through several adventures and episodes.

The ‘Genius’ then gives Mortimer a supernatural bookcase that only he can see and is always with him. Whenever Mortimer is perplexed by a situation concerning the motivations or activities of the participants he he turns to the bookcase that provides him with a manuscript that explains the true situation all its manifestations he has only to ask. However, his bookcase cannot predict the future.

Mortimer’s uncanny ability to know the complete past history of people he has only just met will have consequences because he can produce no evidence as to how he acquired the knowledge. This becomes clear in the episode of the Marquis Delaroche. Without going into inessential details in this very clever story the Marquis neglects the wife of his dead brother whose fortune had been entrusted to him. Mortimer becomes acquainted with Athalie d’Estival, her name and confronts the Marquis Delaroche, to whom he is a complete stranger, attempting to shame him into supporting his sister-in-law.

The Marquis is old and the epitome of deviousness. When Mortimer butts into the Marquis’ life and proves to him that he has misappropriated his brother’s inheritance the Marquis sets Mortimer up. He opens his safe, leaving the door open, and gives Mortimer a casket containing his wealth refusing to give a proper written authorization for Mortimer to be in possession of the casket and expels Mortimer from his house. Immediately then, with his safe left open the Marquis commits suicide by slashing his throat. His servant accosts Mortimer leaving the house with the casket under his cloak and assumes the Mortimer stole it. The dead body is then discovered and circumstantial evidence indicates Mortimer to be both a murderer and thief.

Reynolds thoroughly dislikes the authority of circumstantial evidence, and with good reason, so this story gives him an opportunity to display its fallaciousness.

Because of his ability to know personal details of other people’s lives Mortimer’s friends consider him not only eccentric but insane. This is confirmed to the judge when he interrogates Mortimer. I will quote a passage because it indicates Reynolds brilliance and knowledge of psychology at only twenty-six years of age.

The Judge of Instruction commenced the usual system of catechizing; and for some time our hero replied with calmness and precision to the various question put to him. But at length, as those questions gradually touched more nearly on the dread event itself, he became confused- his ideas were no longer defined and distributed in their proper cells in his imagination, but were collected into one heterogeneous and unintelligible mass; and, yielding to the impulse of those sentiments which were uppermost in his mind, he commenced a long exculpatory harangue, the principle subject of which was his race. The Judge listened patiently for some time, and at length shrugged up his shoulders to imply his utter ignorance of the meaning of the prisoner’s speech. At length, exhausted by the long flow of verbiage in which he had indulged, Sir Edmund sank upon a seat, almost unconscious of what he had been saying and where he was.

That’s a pretty acute description of a state of mind. Reynolds was deeply interested in psychological studies. One must bear in mind that this period was the beginning of the great opening of the European mind. I doubt if there were many who could have reproduced that analysis. The description of the whole interview is masterful and that at only twenty-six.

In any event Mortimer was convicted of murder, declared insane, and committed to the Bicetre insanity wing. George was familiar with, at least, the outside of the building, this massive Bicetre structure housing criminals, the insane and others.

It seems obvious that George toured all these insane asylums and prisons. He was up on recent developments of the treatment of the insane. He was aware of Dr. Phillippe Pinel who had very recently begun the humane treatment of the mentally afflicted.

The people of the time were placed under unbearable distress and hardship, especially women. One reads of the women that Dr. Jean Martin Charcot at the Salpetriere of Paris in the 1860s, 70s and 80s treated and their mental sufferings were appalling. Their history of abuse was incredible. Nor were all asylums as enlightened as those of Drs. Pinel and Charcot and, remember, these were pioneers.

Whether George’s description of the Bicetre is accurate is beyond me to determine, he does however tell an interesting story of one of the inmates. The story sounds like it may have been true, but, read on: Mortimer has been declared guilty but insane. Committed to the Bicetre insane wing he domiciled with three other monomaniacs. The three stories are actual psychological evaluations of the inmates. The one the interests us most is the first. The story is a Frankenstein type.

The first was an old man of sixty-five with long grey hair flowing from the back part of his head, the crown and regions of the temples being completely bald. He was short in stature, stooping in gait, and possessed of a countenance eminently calculated to afford a high opinion of his intellectual powers, he was however a monomaniac of no uncommon description. Bred to the medical profession, he had given, when at an early age, the most unequivocal proofs of a vigorous and fertile imagination. He first obtained attention towards the singularity of his conceptions by disputing the rights of the Englishman, Dr. Harvey, to the honour of having first discovered the circulation of the blood. He maintained that Harvey merely revived the doctrine, and that it was known to the ancients. This opinion he founded upon the following passage in Plato: – “The heart is the centre or knot of the blood vessels, the spring or fountain of the blood, which is carried impetuously round; the blood is the food of the flesh; and for the process of nourishment the body is laid out in canals, which is like those drawn down through gardens, that the blood may be conveyed as from a fountain, to every part of the previous system.”

William Harvey published his treatise on the circulation of the blood in Frankfurt Germany in 1628. He did not come out of the blue as others were working on the same problem. Even he was assailed by skeptics and for a time lost reputation. I have no doubt that Harvey had read Plato and unless his memory was defective he probably retained an impression of Plato’s statements.

But to the point, Plato’s description is prescient. He understood the matter which he explained in literary, not scientific, terms so the imprisoned doctor was essentially right that Harvey could not claim to be the first to understand the role of the heart in the circulation of the blood. He was the first known physician to describe the issue completely in scientific detail or nearly completely.

The young physician was laughed at for venturing to contradict a popular belief, and was assailed by the English press for attempting to deprive an Englishman of the initiative honour of the discovery. He was looked upon as an enthusiast, and lost all the patronage he had first obtained by his abilities. Being possessed of a competency, he did not regret this circumstance in a pecuniary point of view; but his pride was deeply wounded, and he resolved to accomplish some great feat which should compel the world to accord him those laurels which had hitherto been refused. He was deeply skilled in the science of anatomy; and his intimate acquaintance with the human frame led him to fashion two beautiful anatomical bodies in wax. The one was a perfect representation of the form of man, with all the muscles and nerves laid bare; and the second; which took to pieces, was the image of a female in the last stages of gestation. These models were applauded as specimens of art, but obtained no praise as evidences of Anatomical skill. Again disappointed and disgusted at the coldness of a world that knew not how to appreciate the merits of his labours, the physician urged by the perpetual contemplation of his wax models and considering himself to be sufficiently practiced in the minutiae of the human frame by the manufacture of these representations of life, resolved in attempting a more sublime task. His elevated imagination aimed at nothing less than the fabrication of an animate being! For weeks- for months- for years in the solemn silence of a chamber fitted up for the purpose, and into which he never permitted a soul to enter, did the enthusiast study his project, without being fully aware of the way in which he should commence it. At length his intellect became so far affected by his strange meditations, that he felt convinced in his own mind that his experience could never be sufficient to encompass his lofty aim, unless he examined the fountains of life in the bosom of an expiring human being. Dead to all other feeling save the morbid one which urged him on to this study, he calmly resolved to choose some victim as a model for his projected work. He one night issued forth into the streets of Paris, in the midst of a horrible winter and accosted a young man whom, by his condition he supposed to be homeless and starving. He was right in his conjecture, and with kind words he enticed the unsuspecting mendicant home. He gave him food, and then caused him to imbibe a cup of generous wine, in which he had previously infused a powerful narcotic. The mendicant fell into a deep stupor; and the physician without a single sentiment of compunction hastened to perform his diabolical operation upon the lethargic victim. He bled him in the jugular vein; and, while the poor young man’s life was ebbing away, the anatomical speculator proceeded to hack away, with his unsparing knife, at those parts which he wished to lay open and examine at his own brutal leisure. In his hurry to accomplish his mysterious designs, he had forgotten to make fast the door to his study; and the curiosity of his old housekeeper led to the detection of his crime. The woman excited an alarm in the house; and his atrocious deed, with all its circumstances, was exposed. He was tried for the murder, and was condemned as a monomaniac to perpetual imprisonment in the Bicetre. At that time Mortimer became acquainted with this singular individual, he had been an inmate of the prison for upwards of thirty years, and never lost an opportunity of declaring that, if he were provided with the proper implements and materials, he would form a human being, far more complete, and less liable to organic derangement than man.

I consider that quote quite astounding writing and the template for numerous horror films in the twentieth century. One wonders if Reynolds had experienced this situation while he could not possibly have. His residence in France doesn’t leave time, however this story must be based on real events that he either read about or was told. Throughout his way to 1851 which is all I can attest to at this time Reynolds returns frequently to stories of physicians of which he seems to have intimate knowledge of his various descriptions. Of course, his namesake, Duncan McArthur was a physician and if Dick Collins was right did operate on cadavers as fresh as he could get. It is a small step from that to imagine a doctor working on live specimens but still the psychological description of the man in Bicetre is so complete and convincing that Reynolds was a very accomplished at the age of twenty-six.

He wrote circles around Bulwer-Lytton, Ainsworth and Dickens, his contemporaries while being far more accomplished than writers who followed him like Trollope and Willkie Collins as accomplished as these writers and their fellows were. They all must have been influenced by him to some degree.

Certainly Dickens and Ainsworth were, as he by them, but the quality of his mind is much deeper and more highly developed. Ainsworth who began an amazing sequence of historical novels in the early forties when Reynolds was quiescent tried to explore historical topics in a deep way but his mind was a little light, he takes a more academic style. A comparison between the two can be found in Reynolds 1854 novel The Rye House Plot.

Both Ainsworth and Dickens gravitated toward George’s style in their later works. Reading Ainsworth’s South Sea Bubble written in the 1860s is very close to his style.

George, of course was influenced by all three writers, among many, Bulwer-Lytton, Ainsworth and Dickens. Ainsworth who had a literary salon in the late forties and through the fifties excluded Reynolds from his coterie. He and Dickens were tight and getting Dickens and Reynolds into the same room would have been hazardous.

While Ainsworth’s Rookwood and Jack Sheppard were favorites of George and Dickens interestingly all three were in decline. The social conditions that had produced them had disappeared and a new crop of writers responding to new conditions replaced them. For my own tastes I prefer these Late Georgian to early Victorian authors to what followed.

There is a charm in the three and the sporting novels of R.S Surtees and Captain Marryat and the rest, William Makepeace Thackery, who can forget him, that is lacking as the epoch changed. Still we see a certain loss of innocence as advancing knowledge turned the world more serious and complex. The greatest of historians and histories, Edward Gibbons and the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire couldn’t have been written in the same way after Darwin’s Origin of Species. Maybe the big change occurred even earlier in Prince Albert’s Crystal Palace Exhibition of 1851. The exhibition of all those machines and advance screamed: Hello to the Brave New World, as brave or maybe even braver than Aldous Huxley’s. Exhibitions became the rage until the great Columbian Expo of Chicago crowned the whole movement. What could ever top that? Nothing. Fade to modernity.

To return to George Reynolds. As I say, it was almost a tragedy that Reynold’s titled Master Timothy’s Bookcase after Dickens’ Master Humphrey’s Clock. The Magic Lantern Of The World, the subtitle, would have been much better. The Bookcase is very readable both as a novel and as a collection of stories with a great deal of philosophical matter pertinent to understanding the mind of Reynolds himself. As Dick Collins say, there is much autobiographical material in the novels and Bookcase is full of it.

End of Part XIa, Part XIb follows.

Part X, Time Traveling With R.E. Prindle

A Review

Geo. W.M. Reynolds’ The Necromancer

by

R.E. Prindle

Reynolds’ writing system was such that he could write each installment of the Mysteries of the Court of London in seven hours leaving the rest of the week open. Thus he had a seven hour work week leaving time to do a myriad other things including writing other books. He says his mind was bursting with ideas. He had a powerful compartmentalized mind so that he could keep two or three novels going at the same time so that in the year of 1851 he wrote his installments for the Court of London and The Seamstress, Pope Joan, Kenneth and the Necromancer, the last two extending into 1852. We are going to examine here his very fine novel, The Necromancer, or perhaps one might rename it the Magician.

If as seems evident that every novelist is writing his own life whether consciously or unconsciously, it is also true that the novelist reflects his own time. Ostensibly the Necromancer takes place in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries but I think we can abstract a story about what was happening currently in his day. This will require much background work.

As is uppermost in every twenty-first century White mind the question of is the author in any way anti-Semitic, non, Feminist, a racist, and as it is expressed a Homophobe. We are going to explain the Necromancer as an explanation of Semitism in the England of Reynolds and ignore the other bete noirs. You have been forewarned.

Whether you consider Semites, that is Jews, as a religion, a nation, a people or whatever they are an economic, political and social force working solely for Jewish interests to the exclusion of all others. Jews consider themselves a nation and a people. The period from 1814 through the nineteenth century saw the rise of the Jewish people as the pre-eminent people of Great Britain. The rise was especially prominent from 1815 to 1860, the period most important of Reynolds novelist life.

It is not possible that he didn’t note the situation and if he didn’t mention it directly, which he doesn’t, then there must be a reason. Why would he have to resort to a parable such as The Necromancer? The answer was that even at that time there were penalties to writing ethnographical studies such as Reynolds’ that did not show Jews to critical advantage.

If one found it necessary to include Jewish characters they must be portrayed in the most benevolent light. Reynolds does mention Jewish characters but in a peculiar way. He lauds them as long suffering, unfairly victimized as a people but then he invariably displays them as what are called anti-Semitic stereotypes. Thus the pawn broker in Wagner, the Wehr Wolf.

He is depicted as a totally inoffensive person, obsequious to the extreme as a persecuted member of the bedeviled people. After these laudatory comments Reynolds then pictures a character bearing all the so-called Semitic tropes. He changes the stones on the pawned diamonds to paste, which Reynolds justifies by his peoples ages long persecution, as well as other criminal acts. It would seem that Reynolds knew the score.

The odd thing, since Jewish activity was at a height is that Reynolds makes no reference to Jewish economic or banking activities. Let us do a brief survey of where matters stood at the time. In 1815 Nathan Rothschild seized control of English currency and the Bank of England.

To explain:

A famous European and Jewish canard is that of father Mayer Amschel Rothschild and his five arrows, that is, his five sons. They were dispatched to European capitals to form a powerful network covering the continent and England. Nathan Rothschild was sent to Manchester to engage in the booming textile industry. Nathan was no businessman and could not succeed in textiles. He therefore turned to crime becoming a smuggler which would turn out to fortuitously make his fortune.

In 1806 Napoleon was conquering the German States, moving in on the Margrave of Hesse-Cassel. The Margrave was fabulously wealthy. He wanted to conceal his wealth from Napoleon who was more than eager to appropriate it. The Margrave then employed his Court Jew, Mayer Amschel Rothshild, to conceal it. Mayer sent a substantial portion of it to Nathan who by this time was floundering around as a banker. The money immediately established Nathan as a financial force. At that time the British were engaging Napoleon in the Iberian Peninsular War. Wellington the British general in the Peninsula needed cash desperately but the usually inventive English didn’t know of a secure way to get the money to him. Nathan was then used to transport the money. Using his, by this time, well developed smuggling skills in conjunction with his brother arrow, James, in Paris, they delivered the mail.

This was known to the French authorities as Fouche, the very clever Minister of Police, was aware of exactly how it had been done. The method is well demonstrated in the German Movie, The Rothschilds. So Nathan and his fellow Jews scored a bundle on that caper.

Nathan’s most outstanding feat that brought England to its knees was his capture of the currency after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo. He spread the rumor that Napoleon had won Waterloo causing a stupendous sell off that drove prices far down. While others sold Nathan bought. Then his special couriers raced to London to carry news of the English, or allied, victory. Prices bounced back but by then using the fabulous wealth of the Margrave of Hesse Nathan owned huge amounts of securities that he sold at magnificent profit thus securing the base of the Rothschild dynasty, still going strong eight generations on.

To report this astonishing feat in history tends to mitigate the reaction of the Brits when they learned how they had been diddled out of the ruling of their country for Rothschild had pulled an astonishing cheat. Reynolds who was very well informed across the board must have known this but was constrained from portraying it for fear of Jewish retaliation which even was formidable.

We are now moving to the 1840s and Nathan who had passed was succeeded by Lionel Rothschild as the scion of the family. A most formidable and dangerous antagonist.

At this time young Benjamin Disraeli (1804-81) was attempting to establish himself as a literary wizard before entering politics. He had already written many novels when in 1844 he wrote Coningsby, Sybil in 1845 and Tancred in 1847. In Coningsby he laid bare the Jewish influence in European affairs when he wrote that the world was actually governed by different people behind the scenes than the public imagined. Thus he led the reading public to believe that the apparent rulers were mere operatives of others, that is, the Jews.

These three political novels made more of a stir than his earlier romances had so that it seems reasonable that Disraeli, Coningsby at least, had been read by Reynolds by 1851. In Coningsby Disreali lauds his Jewish mastermind as the most astounding human being since Adam. The character was based on the real life Right Honourable Lionel Freiherr Rothschild. (1808-1879) Named Sidonia in the novel.

Lionel, Lion-el means Lion of the Lord or God, what we might say, Defender of the Faith in Christian terms.

The Jews since Nathan had owned the State of England but they as a different religion from the Anglicans suffered political and religious disabilities. It was Lionel’s mission to remove them in which mission he was successful.

In 1847 he was the first Jew to be elected to Parliament. This was success but it would also have absorbed Lionel as just another member. He wanted more. He in essence did not want to be absorbed as an English member of the House of Commons but as an autonomous Jew. To be sworn in he had to take an oath of Christian formulation. This he refused to do wishing to be sworn in as a Jew.

In order to accommodate him this would have required a changing of the rules with long term consequences. Accordingly Lord Russell introduced a Jewish Disabilities Act to change the rules. In 1849 when the Act failed the German-Jewish Baron Lionel Rothschild resigned his seat. But still determined he won a bye election to keep his campaign going. Returning he still refused to swear on the New Testament demanding the Jewish or Old Testament. The oath still required him to say: ‘Upon the true faith of a Christian.’ He refused to do so on the grounds that Christianity was not the true faith, Judaism was. Once again he was compelled to resign his seat.

In 1852 he tried to bull his way through but once again was denied. Finally in 1858 Lionel Rothschild forced through the oath changes. Refusing to be bareheaded as required by English custom he demanded to wear his yarmulke or skull cap and instead of saying ‘on the true faith of a Christian’ he was allowed to say ‘so help me Jehovah.’

Thus he became the first Jewish member of the House of Commons but the first Jew in the House rather than an English member of the Jewish faith. Thus in this long battle to be seated Lionel changed the nature of the country into a country of Englishmen and nearly autonomous Jews. Already in control of English currency the Jews would now aspire to political power while moving freely through society ostensibly equal but actually superior having all English rights as well as autonomous Jewish rights that were denied the English.

Thus Disraeli’s astonishing Sidonia/Lionel cleared the way for Disraeli to serve in the Commons but also to become the Prime Minister; the intermediary between the English people and their Sovereign.

These activities were not carried on in a vacuum or beneath the observance of interested parties of which Reynolds was one. While he was only observing the struggle up to 1851-52 when he wrote the Necromancer the writing was on the wall. No doubt Reynolds had read Disraeli’s Coningsby and had watched Lionel Rothschild’s maneuvering. Being a novelist it was easy for him to shadow forth the denouement that occurred in 1858.

My reading of the Necromancer reflects Reynolds’ version of what was happening. Thus his protagonist Lionel Danvers is Lionel Rothschild. As an historical novelist he then creates a fictional history of the Danvers/Rothschild story. He combines the five arrows into one. As was commonly thought at the time the Jews were Satanic thus Danvers had sold his soul to Satan for a period of a hundred fifty years so and with the due date imminent it was necessary for Danvers to honor his commitment to Satan to redeem his soul.

Danvers existed under several names and guises as he was able to shape shift to any age at any time. Thus at various periods he was the middle aged Walter, a mature Lionel Danvers and a boyish Reginald or Conrad.

Even though he had sold his soul to the devil, Satan had given him an escape clause in that if he could find six virgins who would do anything for him, even die, he would take those six souls in exchange for Danvers’. For some reason I always read Danvers in the French form of D’enfer. Thus Danvers becomes The Lion Of the Lord of Hell. Whether correct or not it certainly fits.

Now, Lionel Danvers to use that name of his existence, had all the wealth of Europe at his command. While ostensibly an English Lord he spent all his time on the continent where he had the greatest concentrations of wealth in addition to his very large holdings in England. For him money had no other meaning than to buy power in whatever form it took by any means necessary.

In his Walter incarnation, his first, as the clearest example, Walter shows up in Genoa where he befriends the scion of the Landini trading family. He then bestows, not as a loan but for safe keeping interest free, an incredible fortune that Landini can use without any restrictions for his own benefit on the condition that whenever Danvers appears the Landinis are to return his money in full on demand or they become his slaves.

Naturally the Landinis being astute traders enjoy enormous success for several generations. Even though Danvers has never returned they still maintain his fortune. Each successor has been made aware of his obligation so that not only the trust is available ready to honor at any time but also interest. However suddenly the worst fortune descends on them and all their deals begin to sour, whole argosies are lost at sea. Danvers chooses this moment to return and demand his money. The demand can’t be honored.

But, the Landinis have a beautiful virgin daughter, Bianca. Danvers courts her, wins her heart and they set a date to be married. In the meantime, as debtors to Danvers, the Landinis have become his slaves. They are ordered to go to London and start a jewelry house, which they do.

Before leaving the marriage is arranged between Walter and Bianca. Before the marriage Danvers carries Bianca off to no one knows where. They both just vanish. Bianca becomes the first of the virgins sacrificed to Satan by Danvers. But, of course, the details that can be revealed here are mysteries to the reader.

Bianca had been abducted to Danvers ruined castle on the Isle of Wight. In the secret chamber where Danvers murders the women a score card is on the wall in fiery letters, thus Bianca becomes virgin soul #1, five more to go.

As the story opens Lionel Danvers is sacrificing his fifth, Clara Manners.

One of the deepest mysteries in this astonishingly deep book is the problem of Musidora Sinclair who Lionel has selected as his sixth victim. He seems to have had a singular attachment to the girl. Musidora had been a charming girl but at the age of seventeen she became of a very icy temperament unmoved by anyone or anything. As it turns out Lionel had attempted to lead her to his secret chamber, she lived on the Isle of Wight, but she got cold feet on the way to the chamber and fled. This event turned her heart cold. Now, after having despatched Clara Manners he decides to try again to make Musidora his final victim.

I take Musidora to mean Golden Song or music. Whether right or wrong, she is.

Lionel now has a problem because Musidora won’t allow him near her. Fortunately Lionel has a plan B. He will impersonate King Henry VIII, during whose reign the story takes place at this point, and wed her. Unfortunately her beauty overwhelms him and he impregnates her (another mystery) thus destroying her virginity. Even Lionel Danvers was not so stupid that he didn’t know that it was impossible to diddle Satan.

For Reynolds the story of the impersonation of Henry III is the central point of the story. Between Nathan and Lionel Rothschild a shadow government had been forming in England. While Queen Victoria was the apparent ruler at this time the actual rulers were, as Disraeli had written, other than the seeming rulers. Lionel lived till 1879 when he died at the age of seventy.

Granting that Disraeli was accurate then whatever power the shadow rulers had at the time, their power has gone on increasing to the present day when Evelyn Rothschild wields the power behind the throne. Prior to the Communist Revolution of 1917 Rasputin was deemed the power behind the Russian throne. He was also thought to be conspiring with the Germans. As it happened Rasputin had a Jewish secretary and we must suppose that the secretary had ties to other Jewish revolutionaries so that he was able to pass information to them much as Dreyfus had done in France in the 1890s.

In all probability the German agents Rasputin was thought to be conspiring with was actually being done by his Jewish secretary. The secretary would have been very intimate with Rasputin and would have had strong control over what information Rasputin received while having access to all or most of Rasputin’s info and plans. Thus Through Rasputin the Jews would have been able to influence the Czarina and through the Czarina the Czar.

In the US during the same period, the Wall Street speculator Bernard Baruch would become the actual co-president of Woodrow Wilson free to issue commands on his own authority subject only to correction by Wilson himself and he and Wilson were of like minds. So, at the crucial time of the Revolution both Russia and the US were subject to Jewish discipline.

Be that as it may, is it any coincidence that Lionel Danvers and Lionel Rothschild bore the same Christian name? I think not. Reynolds is trying to tell us something. So Lionel Danvers having circulated rumors that he was dead or on the continent set about to realize his lust on the body of Musidora Sinclair while posing as Henry VIII.

It will be remembered that at this time Henry was seeking a divorce from his Spanish wife Catherine, but it had not yet been achieved. Danvers has to fool Musidora into believing he, impersonating Henry, had succeeded in obtaining that divorce. First Danvers has to lure Musidora from her retreat on the Isle of Wight. He has a relative couple of Musidora living in the royal city of Greenwich invite Musidora to come for and extended visit to their castle. Then he finds a probable excuse for Henry to be a guest of the Earl and Countess Grantham, Musidora’s relatives.

There is some hint that Danvers magically transformed himself into a duplicate form of Henry. I don’t think that was necessary. At this point in history but few people would have seen Henry. So, all that Danvers would have had to have done is bought some clothes royalty would have worn and developed the persona. Of course Musidora knew Danvers well as a young girl and ought to have been able to identify his voice. But, this is Reynolds’ story and the disguise was complete although their was some uncertainty accepting face values.

Nevertheless Henry/Danvers showered Musidora with expensive gifts including a set of very expensive diamonds. It will be remembered that the Landinis from Genoa had been running a jewelry shop in London for about a hundred years.

Eventually, with continued prodding from the Granthams, who were completely fooled, Danvers/Henry break Musidora down and she agrees to marry the faux monarch. However suspicions remain and the strictest safeguards are taken. Musidora demands to see the papal bull nullifying Henry’s marriage to Catherine which matter was not resolved at the time.

Danvers has one forged. As three papal seals are needed Danvers obtains authentic seals.

As a political operative he has suborned numerous members of Henry’s household putting them on the payroll and so has one obtain seals from an authentic papal communication. The officiating priest is fooled and really has no choice but to marry Musidora and Danvers/Henry. Danvers cannot allow Musidora to circulate or talk about her marriage so he swears her to secrecy about the whole affair.

Nevertheless Henry learns of the fraud and swears his informers to secrecy because he doesn’t want the public to know that a shadow King Henry is loose in the kingdom. Reynolds here is describing the actual political condition in England that a second monarch is running the kingdom by secretive measures. This answers to Disraeli’s claim that others than the seeming rulers are directing affairs.

In fact Disraeli himself will become Prime Minister and facetiously and destructively make Victoria the Empress of India. Disraeli was ostensibly a Christian having changed from Judaism to Anglican at the age of thirteen. Thirteen is when a Jewish lad takes his Bar Mitzvah becoming a young man with a man’s prerogatives. It is very likely the change to Anglicanism was deceitfully made with political motives in mind. Disraeli became a Jew disguised as a Christian.

While there may be some objectors to my analysis one should note that Sir Piers Dunhaven the father of the second female victim had once had an extensive property in Cumberland but he had lost most of his property to usury. As Christians were forbidden usury it follows that Jews using their monopoly in usury had stripped Sir Piers of his property. There are subtle hints such as this to Lionel Danvers nationality.

What we have here then is an allegory of the subjection of England by the Jews according to Reynolds. On that level this is the shadow meaning of the novel.

On another level this is a near perfect Gothic novel. One is reminded of The Mysteries of Udolpho by Mrs. Radcliffe. As he was an old admirer of Mrs. Radcliffe I’m sure that Reynolds had Udolpho in mind as he wrote this. The story is also first class mystery and would beat out Willkie Collins for longest mystery story. And, Reynolds keeps the mystery going to the very end. Who could have guessed that Marian Bradley, Danvers last possible chance to beat the devil was his and Musidora’s daughter? Didn’t see that one coming did we?

The story is plotted out perfectly.   When we are shown the glowing signboard with the illuminated names and the blank spaces we have to wonder. That was the first mystery and the finest first mystery explained. This list of victims also gave Reynolds his opportunity to tell six tales and he loves to tell those tales.

Then there is the mystery of Danvers and where he gets his inexhaustible supply of money. His fortunes, not just a fortune but fortunes, come from over all Europe and England. An historical question often asked is how do Jews when expropriated and expelled out of one locality show up in a new one and immediately, as it seems, regain their wealth. The solution to that one is easy—usury. Aware that they may be expelled on short notice they kept jewels and portable wealth sewn into garments so that they could leave on amoment’s notice to resurface as wealthy elsewhere.

The Catholic Church and its opinion on money making money, that is usury, which is the objection to loaning on interest, penalized its own adherents and enfranchised the Jews who it politically disenfranchised. Interest in those days wasn’t six or seven percent either. Usury laws only came into existence much later. In those days interest was as much as fifty percent compounded daily or more so you can see how the money lenders, Jews, cornered the money supply wherever they were. The Danvers unlimited, renewed wealth must have come from usury, that is, legalized theft.

And Danvers applied his wealth artfully. The ruse of entrusting money to someone to be reclaimed whenever on no notice is a sure way to entrap the party. Reynolds was no dummy when it came to understanding ruses and ploys. He studied hard. The ploy that the Marquis of Leveson used to entrap Venetia Trelawney was classic.

The Marquis wanted sex from Venetia that she didn’t want to give. Not unlike Danvers, Leveson had unlimited funds that he didn’t mind losing so long as he obtained his desire. So he presented Venetia with a magnificent string of pearls. He told her he would redeem one or all at a time at a thousand pounds each on demand and with the last pearl she was his. Venetia then accepted what she thought was a guarantee that she would never be in want and never have to succumb.

However the wily Marquis set a series of matters in motion to compel Venetia to redeem the pearls. Borrowing from Eugene Sue’s Wandering Jew he has accomplices debauch the formerly steady husband of Venetia so that he turns to dissipation and gambling thus having to be bailed out frequently. Venetia soon has to bed the Marquis. The mysteries are usually tragic stories if you compassionate with the characters.

In this novel, while none of the characters has the memorability of the Resurrection Man from Mysteries of London, the whole ensemble of characters all work well together to create a memorable story.

The Necromancer is one of series of Satanic novels that Reynolds wrote from 1847 to 52. The first being Wagner the Wehr Wolf, 1846-47, Faust in 1847, The Bronze Statue in 1849-50 and then the Necromancer in 1851-52. Each is a beat the devil attempt on the part of the protagonist. Satan is a tough customer and none succeed.

The end of Danvers is a classic much exploited in novels and movies. Lionel (Walter, Reginald and Conrad) has lived for a hundred fifty years. When his attempt on the sixth maiden fails and Satan comes to receive his due, Danvers shrivels from a handsome young man into a withered old man bursts into flames and disappears.

I don’t know whether Reynolds was the first to use this dodge or not, but it becomes a classic dodge thereafter.

The estimable critic Dick Collins considers the Necromancer to be his favorite Reynolds. While I have now read twenty-five volumes of Reynolds I can’t place the volume ahead of the massive novels of The Mysteries of London, The Mysteries of the Court of London, nor, for that matter, The Mysteries of Old London. The last has a special place in my esteem; yet, as I have said, The Necromancer as a super-natural Gothic novel I think it may be near perfection. I’m sure that Mrs. Radcliffe would have been pleased with George’s effort.

Par XI of Time Travels With R.E Prindle follows.