The Beatles:

Resolving The Paul Is Dead Controversy

 by

R.E. Prindle

The Album Cover

The Album Cover

 Sometime around or after the death of Tara Browne in an automobile accident in 1966 the rumor that Paul McCartney of the Beatles had died being replaced by a double began to circulate. The rumor itself, of course, is a fact that has been a center of controversy since 1966 although it didn‘t bloom in full until 1969 when a Detroit DJ spread the rumor through the colleges via UofM.

For my part I dismiss the notion that Paul did die and can find no solid evidence that the post-accident Paul is a double. Still the rumor calls for explanation especially in connection with the cover of Sgt. Pepper’s that depicts the demise of the whole group while it is reborn as Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. The reborn group is surrounded by the pictures of, one presumes, the lonely hearts.

Paul: I'd Be Apprehensive Too

Paul: I’d Be Apprehensive Too

I can’t say that I have the solution for the rumor to be sure. What I offer here is a plausible explanation based on an interpretation of the social situation created by the phenomenal success of the Beatles. That success was too great a burden for the band members to bear. If anything caused the breakup of the band that overwhelming success was a principal cause. The success far exceeded the capability of any one of the members, in other words the whole was greater than its parts. But, to recreate the environment to some extent let us consider the members of the whole entourage.

At the base we find, I think, the notorious London criminals the Kray Twins,. Ronnie and Reggie. Their gang that they called The Firm terrorized the London of the Sixties.

The Kray twins were born in 1933 making them seven to twelve during the war years. They experienced all the bombing and hardship of the war years as well as the post-war deprivation of rationing through 1954. They came from London’s East End rising through the crime ranks in the fifties to finally come into their own from 1960 to 1968. A short reign but one that coincided with the golden age of English rock and roll. The rockers were born mainly in 1942-43 making them nine or ten years younger than the Krays but still close enough in age. The rockers missed the war but faced the deprivations of the post-war years. These were character forming years for both the Krays and the rockers, primarily for us the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.

The Krays were heavy handed protection racketeers moving into gambling. They, especially Ronnie, were enamored of the NYC and Philadelphia Mafia families. The Mafia families had many singers and performers under their control most notably at this time Judy Garland. When Garland performed in England the Mafia used the Krays for protection. Thus the Krays got used to associating with certain celebrities which they found exhilarating.

It was suggested to Ronnie by the Mafia that the Krays suborn English acts much as the Mafia had done with the US performers. For a good visualization of the process the 1958 film The Girl Can’t Help It is an accurate fictionalized account. The movie even features a couple of Mafia groups such as Teddy Randazzo And The Gumdrops. Right! We’d never heard of them either. Even the Mafia couldn’t promote them to fame.

David Baileys Portrait Of Ronnie And Reggie Kray

David Baileys Portrait Of Ronnie And Reggie Kray

Who better for the Krays to begin to build their stable than the premier English group, the Beatles?

The front line protecting the performers is always their management. The groups or singers themselves are artists not businessmen. As artists their concern is their art. They have to concentrate on their art to be successful. To realize the benefits of their art is a business. Hence managers who are businessmen enter in. The artists must trust the businessmen who are nearly all crooks so the artists were born to be fleeced. In the case of the Beatles producing all those millions and millions, they were a manager’s dream. Plus the hangers on.

Enter Brian Epstein, the manager and Robert Fraser, art dealer and hanger on.

Just as background the English managerial caste, as well as the US, were with very few exceptions Jewish and homosexual. In the late fifties and early sixties there were no groups, there were solo singer acts. These guys in most cases were not artists they were just kids off the street. Managers like Larry Parnes cast their eyes over good looking guys on the street and selected the ones that appealed to them such as Cliff Richard and the various Furys and Storms. They taught them a little stage presence, got them a good song, usually from a Jewish homosexual songwriter, put a band behind them and ballyhooed them into stardom.

Being Jewish they looked at the goi boys as so many cash cows and so they were. As Bob Dylan famously sang in Ballad Of Thin Man, ‘Give me some milk or go home.‘ However much was made from the singers efforts most went to the managers and pittances to the boys. But, then they were only created creatures, mere employees anyway.

The Beatles were dedicated artists who had a fairly long apprenticeship learning their craft in a tough environment in the red light district of Hamburg Germany. They not only developed a sound but Lennon and McCartney became a most prolifically successful songwriting team. That’s where the real money in records is and that’s where the Beatles got skinned the worst.

So they had talent but without management the talent would die on the vine. Enter manager Brian Epstein who saw their potential and acted. He was a Jewish homosexual flake but without him the Beatles would probably have become unemployed layabouts rather than wealthy rock and rollers. Brian Epstein’s rock and roll empire was born on the Beatles backs.

Brian had a couple weaknesses, drugs and gambling, other than his homosexuality that was then illegal, a crime, hence to be carefully concealed. Combined with the temptation of all those millions, there’s a recipe you’ll never find again.

Brian 'Eppy' Epstein

Brian ‘Eppy’ Epstein

Another character in the story is the avant garde art dealer Robert Fraser, also known as Groovy Bob, impeccably English but homosexual and a drug addict and, sure enough, an inveterate gambler. Fraser spent the first couple of years of the Sixties in the NYC art scene. There he was heavily influenced by Andy Warhol, less impeccably American, homosexual, but as far as we know free of the vices of gambling and drugs.

Fraser was also involved in the burgeoning Satanist scene that would take prominence beginning in 1966. He was involved with the American Satanist Kenneth Anger and through Anger the literary influence of the English Satanist Aleister Crowley and San Francisco’s Anton La Vey.

Wanting to be with it, Groovy Bob created a sort of salon for the young rock and rollers. Apparently the whole crowd, Beatles, Stones, Marianne Faithfull, Jimmy Page and the rest all hung out at Groovy Bob Fraser’s. Bob always had a plentiful supply of the best drugs.

To supply him with those drugs enter the young ambitious criminal, Spanish Tony Sanchez. Tony worked the gambling joints of the West End for the early fifties criminal Albert Dimes, an Italian. Dimes was a huge man, a fearsome enforcer, who successfully weathered his times until he died in his nineties. Either no or little jail time too.

Spanish Tony recorded his life in the Sixties in his two books, Up And Down With The Rolling Stones and I Was Keith Richards’ Drug Dealer. The latter is an updated edition of the former with additional material so the two are similar but not identical.

Mick And Marianne- Happy Days

Mick And Marianne- Happy Days

Tony met Groovy Bob in a bar before going to work his shift. The friendship developed and Tony began to hang at Fraser’s becoming acquainted with the Beatles, Stones and Marianne. Tony had access to drug suppliers.

Groovy Bob Fraser was the frivolous sort who found the minor details irrelevant. Thus while losing heavily in the Kray’s West End gambling joint, Esmeralda’s Barn, he paid for his losses with checks drawn on air. Any check may bounce once but Groovy Bob’s were the super balls of checks, they just kept bouncing.

Groovy Bob At His Grooviest

Groovy Bob At His Grooviest

I don’t have to tell you this irritated the Krays. They threatened grievous bodily harm. Bob appealed to the incipient criminal Spanish Tony to try to straighten things out. Dimes was Tony’s introduction to the Krays and according to him he worked out an agreement but Groovy Bob, well, honestly, just couldn’t find the money.

At the same time Brian Epstein had gambled and lost, gambled and lost, gambled and lost. One surmises that he made inroads into those Beatles millions that would have been difficult to explain in court. His contract with the group would expire in 1967 at which time it wouldn’t have been unreasonable for the Boys to call for an audit of the books. Not being businessmen and trusting Brian implicitly they probably wouldn’t have but the guilty Brian couldn’t count on it. Under pressure from the Krays to turn the Beatles over to them, probably suffering the pangs of guilt and befuddled by drugs, Brian either committed suicide in the summer of ‘67 or he was erased by other interested parties.

In the interim the Krays were increasing the pressure to get the Beatles from him. They had a sit down with Brian in a homosexual bar to force the issue. Brian patiently tried to explain to them that management was no bed of roses; there were a million nagging little details, heartbreaks and frustrations.

Maybe so. The Krays had earlier broached the subject of taking over the Beatles to the UK crime kingpin Arthur Thompson of Glasgow. He had advised them against it pointing out they were criminals who as a caste gave little thought to business details as did Groovy Bob Fraser and besides when it got out that the Beatles were criminally controlled it might kill their popularity. The Krays brushed the latter objection aside but paid attention to the former.

Now, the Krays had an associate named Laurie O’ Leary who had a clean record and could therefore function above ground and obtain licenses to manage clubs and an older brother Charlie who also had a clear record who could learn the management skills and establish a talent agency. That should take care of both of Arthur’s objections.

Bear in mind that part of the deal Tony worked out was that Groovy Bob was to work to bring the Beatles over to the Krays. There was a large homosexual ring recruiting young boys from orphanages for their criminal pleasure. This ring involved some notorious people of the period. One was the homosexual Tom Driberg. Driberg had made himself familiar with Mick Jagger who he tried to recruit as a politician. A fellow called Lord Boothby seemed to be the guiding light of this group. The group also included Ronnie Kray and members of the so-called Music Mafia including disc jockeys and many of those presiding over the music scene. As events have recently shown those involved in the music industry were heavily into pedophilia. How they link up to the Krays’ invasion of group management isn’t clear but I’m sure there is a connection.

At this point a group including Kevin MacDonald and Tara Browne along with George Harrison decided to open a club for the ‘hipoisie’ that was called Sibylla’s. It doesn’t seem like it was a coincidence that the club was located on Swallow St. in Piccadilly. On this same street were three clubs patronized by the mob figures and an infamous clip joint so that the Krays would be rubbing shoulders with the rockers. Furthermore the club was managed by Kray associate Laurie O’ Leary fresh from managing the bars of the Krays’ gambling joint, Esmeralda’s Barn. The opening night crowd of the club is said to have been attended by many mob figures using aliases.

Thus the club MacDonald conceived was called Sybilla’s named after the socialite Sibylla Edmonstone. That’s the way she spelled her first name. Kevin MacDonald and Associates comprised himself and George Harrison’s photographer Terry Howard and a guy named Bruce Higham. While this area is still a bit sketchy one assumes that Howard brought in Harrison.

As the Associates had no money their principal investor was a Sir William Piggott-Browne. Amember of the aristocracy, as a youth he had declassed himself enough be a jockey. He contributed 60% of the approximately 150K pounds. A disc jockey named Alan ‘Fluff’ Freeman also invested. I imagine there were a few other small investors.

MacDonald was interviewed by a reporter for the Evening Standard apparently in the club. The interview appeared in the 7/23/66 edition. Macdonald’s picture and news clip were provided by email from a former girl friend of Kevins. I quote from the article.

Kevin MacDonald

Kevin MacDonald

But the ultimate fascination of Sibylla’s lied in its interest to the amateur sociologist. The three founders Terry Howard, Kevin MacDonald and Bruce Higham, all young professional men in their twenties who arranged bankers and backers to support their dream, claim that their club symbolizes a social revolution personified by the linkup between Marshall Field’s great grand daughter, Miss Sibylla Edmonstone and Beatle George Harrison whose respective spheres of fashionability assured the club’s success, if it needs an explanation it gets one from the most eloquent of the founders, 28 year old advertising executive Kevin MacDonald, a great nephew of Lord Northcliffe, who was lyrically evangelical on what Sibylla’s is doing for Britain when he told me using finger clicking [snaps in US] for punctuation:

“Sibylla’s is the meeting ground for the new aristocracy of Britain (click) And by the new aristocracy I mean the current young meritocracy of style, taste and sensibility (click) We’ve got everyone here (click) The top creative people (click) The top exporters (click) The top brains (click) The top artists (click) The top social people (click) and the best of the PYPs (swingingese for pretty young people). We’re completely classless (click We are completely integrated (click) We dig the spades man. (click)

Relationships here go off like firecrackers. Everyone here’s got the message (click) Can you read it, Man?

I confess to having originally looked upon the above as complete gibberish. However, although it may be due to the heady atmosphere of Swallow St., after three nights of Sibylla’s I now admit to being converted to something near to Mr. MacDonald’s doctrine.

So Kevin considers himself a revolutionary. The concept of a new meritocracy was shared by the fashion photog David Bailey who in a collection of portraits of the movers and shakers dismayed the more staid by including Ronnie and Reggie Kray.

The Kray twins did consider themselves as part of Swinging London along with the rest of the glitterati. That may partially explain why the club was located on a notoriously Firm street with three clubs they frequented. Just as Bailey was fascinated by the Kray Firm so were a lot of the fashionistas. Still, the fact that Laurie O’ Leary was named manager points to a larger Kray involvement along with the whole Boothby homosexual clique Ronnie was involved with.

While O’ Leary professes a sort of innocence in regards to his connection to the Krays he quite clearly was functioning under the Kray umbrella. It It seems probable that the club was formed and the ownership group was gotten together to put pressure on the Beatles through Harrison who was drawn in by MacDonald and Browne. Further research is necessary to discover how Browne became involved.

Probably pressure was put on both to force them to work on Harrison to bring the Beatles in. MacDonald took the quick way down from the 10th floor. The fact of the matter is that Kevin was precipitated from the 10th floor of the King Charles House on Wanda Road eighty feet down to the carapace over the entrance.

Scotland Yard’s finger printers found only Kevin’s and those at the top of an open window to which he had obviously been clinging.

There were obviously no witnesses so one is reduced to speculation. There were alternate entrances that

Tara Browne

Tara Browne

allowed Kevin and his conductors to enter unobserved. It seems equally obvious that Kevin was defenestrated. A favorite trick of the Krays was to dangle their victims out the window held by the ankles

That seems like the most obvious solution to the problem to me, else why would O’ Leary be advised to keep mum over the incident. When that warning was ignored Tara Browne died in an equally suspicious way in a late night car crash. This is important because Lennon and McCartney wrote A Day In The Life included on their Sgt. Pepper’s album to describe it. It was probably this song that gave some sort of credence for Browne replacing a dead McCartney.

The only witness to the crash was Browne’s companion in the car, a tiny Lotus, a girl named Suki Potier. While there are a plethora of details circulating about the accident such as Browne was racing McCartney down the street at 106 miles an hour, there would have been no witnesses to confirm this save McCartney and Potier and neither have anything substantial to say.

The Wrecked Lotus

The Wrecked Lotus

The Lotus is said to have hit a van. The wreck of the Lotus certainly indicates a very high speed yet we have no picture of the van to indicate how the crash occurred. By van is meant I suppose what we USers would call a panel truck or something equivalent to a SUV.

While Browne was killed Miss Potier escaped the really horrendous looking crash with nothing but a few bruises. This seems incredible. As the picture shows the roof is torn off the car while the hood or bonnet is driven up. The window on her side is intact. At the very least her head should have broken the windshield. It would seem probable that she would have been thrown through it or over it. The timing of the roof ripping off would have been important there.

The question is, was there an accident or was Browne killed and the accident staged. The intent of his death may have been meant as a second warning to the Beatles to surrender. So, now, why was the Paul Is Dead rumor circulated. Perhaps the first two warnings having failed Paul was targeted as next. Of course that would have been counter productive.

But if one connects the Paul Is Dead rumor to the Sgt. Pepper’s cover a possible Kray involvement through Groovy Bob Fraser is possible. The cover of Sgt. Peppers had been assigned to a Dutch commune called The Fool and had actually been completed, but Fraser persuaded the ‘Boys’ to switch to a group of his friends who then came up with a cover depicting the whole group as dead and buried.

The symbolism of the cover had never really engaged my attention till recently. On the lower right corner is a rag doll wearing a Rolling Stones sweater. The aspiring gangster and Fraser friend Spanish Tony Sanchez now indebted to the Krays through his association with Fraser had been hired by Keith Richards of the Stones as his factotum and drug procurer at a salary of 250 pounds a week as recorded in his Up And Down With The Rolling Stones and I Was Keith Richards Drug Dealer thus putting a Kray agent in the Stones. A coincidence perhaps but a mighty good paying job. I have no evidence but it is likely that Tony was forced on Keith by the Krays.

Spanish Tony The Aspiring Gangster

Spanish Tony The Aspiring Gangster

At any rate on this bizarre, less than hip cover, the Beatles are dressed in their Sgt. Pepper’s garb standing looking down at a grave labeled Beatles. Surrounding them are pictures of a band of lonely hearts, mostly dead people. So, what is the message? Join up or your group will be dead for real? In fact Paul’s Mini was involved in a crash but it was being driven by his factotum while bringing drugs to a party Paul was attending. It was likely thought that Paul was driving.

What is clear is that Fraser was unable to pay his gambling debts and had to make some move to show he was cooperating. The cover could be a very discreet attempt to show the Krays he was working on it. As he was involved in the Redlands bust of 1967 and sent to prison that at least got him off the street for a period of time. Then the Krays were busted in May of 1968 perhaps removing an immediate threat. Fraser chose the time after his release to vanish in India perhaps to avoid punishment.

Brian Epstein, dazed and confused, by his drug taking, continuing to rack up gambling debts was making his situation worse. He was probably deep into money that contractually belonged to the Beatles. In other words he had embezzled or misappropriated vast sums.

In a desperate move to generate more cash, perhaps, he had opened a Fillmore type rock emporium that would be competing with the Roundhouse. He also apparently attempted to sell his firm NEMS to RSO the Robert Stigwood Organization. As he was giving NEMS up for the fire sale price of 500,000 pounds it would seem that he was desperate for a way out.

Post-Sgt. Peppers the Krays seem to have been no closer to annexing the Beatles than before. Epstein died on August 27, 1967 from an apparent drug overdose. He intended to spend that weekend with friends at his home but suddenly changed his mind and left to return to London. No one knows what happened in London or who he may have met. It’s possible the Krays called him and commanded a meeting. A sort of now or never thing. He returned home, locked himself in his room and died in bed. Never. The door was broken down the next morning when he was found dead in his bed.

The Krays themselves were arrested in May of 1968 and never released spending the rest of their lives in prison, or, in Ronnie’s case, Bedlam.

Prior to the Krays’ arrest in May the Beatles chose February of that year to visit the Maharishi in India thus out of the country for those months.

Spanish Tony continued with Keith Richards after the Krays were sentenced although his relationship became more strained. The Krays are said to have had influence in the underworld from prison so Keith may not have thought it wise to dismiss Tony at that time. The relationship was ended in 1976 when Tony was refused backstage entry at a concert.

When Reggie Kray died at the end of the century thus leaving Tony without any protection Tony is said to have died in 2000 also.

There is a chance his death was merely rumored. There are people who think he is still alive. I have comments from a T. at the end of my essay Who Is Spanish Tony Sanchez. The email address purports to be from Spanish Tony. My email to the address went unanswered. You may read T.’s comments and see what you think. I think it is likely that Tony is still out there. Maybe actually in Spain where all good English criminals seem to go.

If anyone has definite proof of Tony’s demise don’t hesitate to communicate the fact.

There you have it. To my mind there is no question that the man killed in the car crash was Tara Browne. I find it improbable to impossible that McCartney died somehow or was killed with his being replaced by Browne after plastic surgery while the Paul Is Dead story didn’t actually gain credence until 1969.

The murders of MacDonald and Browne have to be explained. The above is my attempt to do it. More information is certainly a desideratum.

 

Searching For Tara Browne:
The Testimony Of Laurie O’ Leary
by
R.E. Prindle

Tara Browne

O’ Leary, Laurie: Ronnie Kray: A Man Among Men, 2001, Headline Book Publishing

A key event in British rock and roll history was the death of Tara Browne on 12/18/66 in a car crash. The death was memorialized by the Beatles in their song A Day In The Life on the Sgt. Pepper’s album. This coincided with the Paul Is Dead rumor. It has been suggested, not very plausibly, that Paul McCartney died in the Browne crash and that after a little face lifting surgery Browne took his place in the band and subsequent career.

It has been said that on the night of the crash Paul challenged Tara to a race through the London streets that resulted in the crash. Rather thin story. Paul is supposed to have fled the scene of the accident. There is no doubt that there was an accident, and a spectacular one, and that presumably Browne died. I don’t think there can be much doubt that Tara Browne was the one who died but the accident does raise questions.

Browne along with the Beatles’ George Harrison was involved with the night club Sibylla’s that opened its doors on 6/26/66, six months previous to Tara’s demise. The club that attracted the cream of the rock world was extremely successful. The club was managed by Laurie O’ Leary. O’ Leary was already connected to the notorious Kray Twins having formerly managed aspects of the Krays’ West End gambling joint Esmeralda’s Barn. After Sibylla’s was closed O’Leary would move on to the very important Speakeasy Club.

In his 2001 biography of Ronnie Kray, Laurie gives the most extended account of

Sibylla’s that I have come across. While it may not solve any problems  concerning Browne’s death, in its account the book does put Sibylla’s into perspective.

Laurie O’ Leary grew up in the East End not too far from the Krays. He was friends with them from early childhood maintaining a close relationship with them all through the years until Ronnie Kray’s death in the Broadmoor Mental Hospital (insane asylum, loony bin) in 1995.

While a ‘business’ associate he claims never to have been a member of the Krays’ criminal outfit, The Firm. O’ Leary was careful never to have become involved in overt criminal activities, although there was criminal involvement, instead becoming involved in the music business from the promotion and management side. It is not impossible that he participated in the negotiations of the Krays with Brian Epstein to take over the Beatles. As one writing of sensitive matters it isn’t so much what O’ Leary says as what he doesn’t tell us; so while we learn a great deal O’ Leary carefully conceals leads to the whole story.

The Krays, for whose who are unfamiliar with them, were twin brothers, Ronnie and Reggie, who were acknowledged as the kingpins of the British underworld during the 1960s. Their older brother, Charlie Kray, while not part of their Firm, participated in schemes and benefited from the relationship. Charlie Kray too, not surprisingly, got into show business management.

Originally from the East End the Krays made an entrance into the West End of London when by dubious means they acquired a Kensington gambling joint called Esmeralda’s Barn. This was a building of three floors of which the top floor was occupied by the gambling joint while the first floor was made into a private club and the basement was what in the US would be called a bar. O’ Leary managed the lower two floors. The Kray’s were reluctant to pay their taxes thus an un-understanding Inland Revenue closed their doors. Enter Sibylla’s.

O’ Leary says of this stage of his career: p.168

By this time I was managing the society club Sibylla’s for an elite group of directors that included Beatle George Harrison, Sir William Piggot-Brown, the top amateur jockey, and the evergreen disc jockey Alan (Fluff) Freeman.

The club attracted a high profile clientele, which was cleverly orchestrated by one of its directors Terry Howard who worked in advertising.

O’ Leary does not mention two other participants in the directorship Tara Browne and Kevin McDonald. These two are the only ones who figure in the commentary from the rock and roll side. Through O’ Leary, connected to both the Firm and the Charlie Kray Agency he contracted the talent for the club. We are beginning to see a closer connection between the rock scene and the Kray led underworld.

Now, you couldn’t run a club without ‘protection’ and the protection would have to have been provided by the Krays’ Firm as well as the talent by the Charlie Kray Agency and Kray associate O’ Leary.

Ronnie and Reggie Kray

Further, the location was on a Firm controlled street, flanked by gang controlled clubs. A question then would be, who selected the site and why? O’ Leary describes the location: pp 108-109

Sibylla’s was a small restaurant discotheque situated in Mayfair’s Vine Street, a narrow, winding cobbled road suitable only for the width of one vehicle….

Entering from Regent Street, Vine Street already had three established night clubs. Al Burnet’s Stork Rooms was the most famous. Directly next door was the less famous but well-run Hirondelle.  Both were used by the Twins. At the same time, a few doors along, was Bill Bentley’s Oyster Bar, which was frequented by many a celebrity….

On the other side from Bentley’s was a rather infamous clip joint called Pipistrello’s…

Just why the directors of Sibylla’s had chosen this site for their exclusive club was actually beyond belief. The other clubs were frequently used by London’s gangsters. This kind of passing trade would have been difficult to eliminate.

So, the high flying music trade was placed cheek by jowl with the London underworld. The whole directorship must have been high on drugs while feeling immune to any threat from the Kray gang. As I stated the club would have had to have been paying protection. Tara Browne already worked for and or was associated with a car dealership and the dealerships were all ‘protected’ by the Kray gang.

A month or so previous to Browne’s accident his friend and business associate Kevin McDonald fell to his death from a high building. Kevin was either carelessly walking the ledge, high enough to think he could fly, purposely jumped or was thrown to his death by unknown parties.

Concerning McDonald’s death O’ Leary says: p. 171

Sadly after about three weeks, news drifted through that Kevin McDonald had died. I was told to keep quiet about the tragedy, and that the news would finish off Sibylla’s.  Nobody ever explained to me just what had happened to Kevin, of whom I had grown very fond. It appeared that he had leapt off a roof in, I think, Chelsea or Fulham while under the influence of something or other.

O’ Leary doesn’t indicate who told him to keep quiet or who failed to tell him what happened but I think the influence is clear that it was the Krays. Laurie doesn’t even mention Tara Browne’s death.

Perhaps, or probably, McDonald objected to some demands from the Krays while feeling beyond any threats because of the popularity of the Beatles through Harrison so that he ignored his danger. I suspect the situation was the same with Tara Browne who probably had a cognitive disconnect because of his social status.

Another jump would have been highly suspicious so an auto accident was determined. Possibly it was meant to only scare Tara but resulted in his death. If McCartney was used to lure Browne into a race through the streets then it is possible to create a scenario resulting in the Paul Is Dead rumor but, at this point it would be pure speculation.

At any rate O’ Leary’s account makes clear the Krays’, both twins and Charlie, underworld connection to Sibylla’s, McDonald and Browne. It opens an avenue to further speculation.

Sibylla’s Entrance from Sara’s blog,  Sara in picture.

 

Analysis, Critical Theory And Greil Marcus

by

R.E. Prindle

 

     Through the moral and political rhetoric of John Winthrop, the Declaration Of Independence and the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, America explained itself to itself as a field of promises so vast they could only be betrayed.  The attempt to keep the promises- of community, liberty, jutice, and equality for all, because once let loose the genie could never be put back in the bottle- in face of the betrayal became the engine of American history and the template for our national story.

-Greil Marcus

http://.powells.com/ink/marcus.html

 

     The problem I have with Mr. Marcus’ writing is that it is all skewed.  His vision is distorted by his ideologies.  Mr. Marcus purports to write about the US using terms like ‘our’ when he is in fact an Israeli citizen and places the interests of Israel above those of the United States.  This situation is exacerbated by the fact that he is an adherent of the Jewish Critical Theory or Frankfurt School while being a leader of the Situationist Internation.  Both organizations are subversiive of the ideals and goals of the United States seeking to supplant those goals with those of Israel or, in another word, Judaism.

     Mr Marcus is not clear and honest in his intentions, seeking to mislead his readers into believing that he is objectively analyzing America rather than denouncing it in favor of the Israeli point of view.  He refuses to admit that his intent is the supremacy of Israeli/Jewish interests.  I find this both dishonest and offensive.

     Further in his zeal to demonstrate that the United States is a failed society he refuses to take into account any social or scientific developments since, essentially, John Winthrop of the seventeenth century.

     Winthrop is essentially a religious bigot who because of his historical era was necessarily devoid of any scientific knowledge.  His spoutings originate in the ignorance of the Jewish Bible written some two thousand or so years before his present which he takes as the literal truth and the word of ‘God.’

     While his views may be of interest to explain his times and while his views were influential in forming New England with its inherent bigotry they in no way reflect the views of Jefferson and others who were responsible for the formulations of the DOI and Constitution.  There were worlds of difference between the East Anglian Puritans and Cavaliers of both the South of England and the US.  Further Jefferson was a Revolutionary and Freemason learning his Freemasonry in the France of the Revolution.  Whether he was a Jacobin I can’t say but he has been so accused.

     While the Framers of the founding documents used the same words such as equality that we use today they undoubtedly did not undersand them as we do today.  To refuse to understand and take that into account is willful obtuseness on Mr. Marcus’ part.  The phrase ‘all men are created equal’ was gainsaid by their counting Negroes as only three-fifths of a man.  Quite obviously they did not actually believe that all men were created equal.  Whether ‘all men’ is meant to include women is also conjectural as women were denied the attributes of citizenship being considered appendages of men as per the Biblical creation myth.  So clearly the Founders understanding of equality is quite different from that of, at least, Mr. Marcus.  On that basis his views can’t help but be skewed.

     The African in America was an insoluble problem to the society then as it is to society today.  While counting Negro men as three-fifths of a human certainly sounds ridiculous yet modern evolutionary science has proven what was evident to observation then that the Africans as the first Homo Sapiens to evolve from the Last Hominid Predecessor was necessarily left behind by future evolutionary species of Homo Sapiens or sub-species if you prefer.  Mr. Marcus and his fellow Liberals insist that equality of Blacks and Whites is denied solely on the basis of skin color.  This is nonsense.

     If Africans were equal or superior to Whites, Semites and Mongolids there could be and would be no denying the status of the African.  Furthermore such superiority would be self-evident as it must.  Instead of the so-called White Skin Privilege there would be Black Skin Privilege and then black skin would indicate superiority and be desirable.  There isn’t and the reason why is because that while equality is a fine sounding ideal it does not exist in fact in either the macro or micro example.  It cannot be made to exist by legislattion so long as differences between the five human species exist.

     So, I would object to Mr. Marcus’ characterization of ideals as promises, they are two different things, that have been betrayed.  There has been no betrayal.  Mr. Marcus misleads us with his approach of Critical Theory.  The Founding Fathers set high ideals to live up to, perhaps impossibly high ideals but ideals worth striving to realize nevertheless.  The problem now has been complicated by the scientific reallization of the incompatible differences between the species so that the original meaning of equal of the DOI seems to be the correct one.

     The Negro problem, bedeviling America from its origins, was the rock on which those ideals first foundered resulting in the Civil War between Whites, Reconstruction and the current New Abolitionist Movement proclaiming the need to exterminate Whites by any means necessary.  So, over the hundred fifty years since the Civil War Africans and their Liberal and Israeli/Jewish handlers are in a position to realize the goals of post-war Radical Reconstruction which was the elimination of Southern Whites by Africans in a larger version of the San Domingo Moment.

     As the Whites struggled to come to some resolution of the Negro Problem that has always bedeviled American history large, even huge, numbers of Southern and East European immigrants flooded the country.  It is useless to use racial arguments and say that antipathy to these peoples was somehow racial when there was no difference in color which is the only thing Liberals recognize as a barrier to assimiltion.

     Rather these peoples were culturally unable to understand the ideals that underlay the American attitude, disdained them and sought to replace them with their own.  Thus we have a tremendous criminal underworld led by Sicilians and Israelis while the Israelis seek to subvert the ideals Mr. Marcus notes as ‘promises’ to replace them with a State resembling that of Israel in which the Israelis are paramount while all others are denied humanity much as Mr. Marcus accuses the Europeans of the US in relation to the Blacks.

     One therefore has to believe that as an Israel citizen Mr. Marcus is hypocritical in his criticism of American ‘racism’ and the ‘betrayal’ of the the ideal of equality.

     Unless Mr. Marcus can reconcile his ostensible beilief with actual Israeli actions I, for one, find it impossible to take him seriously.  Critical Theory and the SI are antipathetic to the ideals he seems to be espousing.

     I too believe that we have fallen short of the ideals expressed in the Founding Documents but for different reasons than those mentioned by Mr. Marcus.  I find no betrayal of those ideals but rather the sabotage of them by competing social systems such as the Sicilian, the Israeli and the African.

     Mr. Marcus may be an expert in Critical Theory but he is no analyst.  Analysis is Science; Critical Theory is religion.  Oil and water and the two don’t mix while Science trumps Critical Theory every time.

Lipstick Traces

A Review

Greil Marcus:

A Few Back Pages

by R.E. Prindle

 

The Man Who Shook The World

For even if they should say something true, one who loves the Truth should not, even so, agree with them.  For not all true things are the Truth nor should that truth which seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true Truth- that according to faith.

 –Clement Of Alexandria

 

     Clement was a man defending orthodox Christianity against not only the Pagans but competing Christian sects.  Here he enunciates the credo  of the true believer- it is True because we believe it, any other opinion even if true, or truer, must be considered false according to the faith.

     In the twentieth century the Jewish comedian  Woody Allen has a scene in one of his movies where some Jewish men are discussing things at a seder.  Allen has one say that he would take God over the Truth.  Or, like Clement he would sacrifice reason to the Faith or, in other words, Superstition.

     There we have the crux of the matter.  To criticize Jews is to criticize God in the Jewish mind.  The inevitable result for those who do not accept the true Truth is to be labelled as anti-Semites.  Thereon hangs the whole of Jewish history, past, present and future.  It is to be devoutly hoped that the following discussion will not be defamed as Semites vs. anti-Semites but approved as Reason vs. Superstition.  After all in the age of Science one would hope that Superstition is a thing of the past.

     The argument will center on the ideas and career of Sigmund Freud- the man who shook the world.  But first the world will have to be placed in the context of competing viewpoints within a Jewish context.

     For many millennia the role of Science was given a subsidiary position below that of Religion.  The truths of Science were denied because they conflicted with the true Truth of Religion.

     In this environment the Jews were advantageously placed to dispute with Roman Catholics.  After all Catholicism used the Jewish texts as its holy scripture.  Thus in debating contests with Catholicism the Jews almost always came out the victors.  This gave them great pride as being superior to the Gentiles.  Their very high opinion of themselves seemed justified.

      Had things remained a matter of faith the Jewish opinion of themselves would probably still be unchallengeable.  However Science which had been treated by the Church more roughly than the Jews refused to be suppressed.  Actually a higher percentage of Scientists were persecuted to death by the Church than Jews but this fact has to my knowledge never been considered.

     The rise of Science in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries not only shook the faith of the religious to its roots but actually cast the Semitic faiths into the dust bin of history.  With the rise of Science Judaism became irrelevant.  It could not win any debates with Science.

     In the many crises of the Jewish soul this was a very significant one.  It caused the breakup of medieval Judaism.  For the first time the Jews left their ghettos and attempted to enter the mainstream of European life.

     The Talmud which the Jews had always considered the repository of all true wisdom and knowledge now appeared to enlightened Jews to be the collection of nonsense the goys had always claimed it was.

     As the Jews, then, began to enter the mainstream of European society they did so consciously as inferiors trying to impose themselves with their old dignity on superiors.  The raison d’ etre of Judaism had to be replaced or the faith would just fade away.

     The Talmud was useless to them in argument; they could only embrace the alien ideology of Science and try to excel the European originators of it.

     Bearing in mind their desire to avenge themselves on the Europeans by befuddling them because of their expulsion from Spain they campaigned both politically and intellectually.

     The first major attempt at establishing a science was that of Karl Marx who espoused ‘scientific’ socialism which was superior to ‘utopian’ socialism.  Thus a Jewish social system supposedly scientifically constructed was placed in opposition to a European social system.

     In the realm of Physics Einstein managed what seemed to be a more accurate description of reality.  So in politics and physics the Jews had established a seeming scientific superiority.

     At the same time as Einstein Sigmund Freud coalesced a theory of psychology that was superior to the fragmented state of psychology.

     All three men then tried to turn their achievements to the benefit of the Jewish culture.  As much as anything this was the cause of the two European wars as Hitler so accurately recognized.

     As a little aside it is interesting to note the career of Immanuel Velikovsky.  Like Einstein Velikovsky was a very competent Scientist, that is to say, working within an European intellectual milieu.  But whereas Einstein stopped short at attempting to prove the veracity of Genesis and Exodus Velikovsky plowed straight ahead.  Using his scientific skills to attempt to validate the literal accuracy of every fable he broke on the rock of superstition.  Still, he wrote some very entertaining books, somewhat along Marcusian lines.

2.

     The influence of Sigmund Freud on psychology has been immense while that influence has been almost entirely of a negative character.  The increase in crime can be attributed to the implementation of his theories.  Certainly the self-centered attitude of the homosexuals aboard the Teufelsdreck is about to lead to crimes and thwarted crimes which can be laid to Freud’s teachings.  Let us review Freud’s ideas in the light of his milieu.

3.

     One of Freud’s discoveries was the neurotic need to repeat.  In other words, the subject repeatedly acts out the encysted subconscious fixation in an attempt to exorcise or realize the fixation.  This phenomenon applies to cultures as well as individuals as Freud taught.  In cultures it is called the ‘national character.’  In other words, a people must always act out its characteristic view of reality, the true Truth of the faith vs. the actual scientific state of things.

     The Jews by and large have been a Stateless people since their origins.  If one takes Genesis as fact, and it is psychological fact for sure, the Jews enter history ‘On The Road’ having been expelled from Ur of the Chaldees seventy-five years after having come into existence as a people.  The theme of expulsion is a repeated figure in Jewish history.  They are never tolerated for long.  This is a fact, a truth, but in variance with the true Truth of the faith.

     If we take the Jewish historian, Josephus, at face value they were expelled from Ur because of the jealousy of the Chaldean astronomers who were angry at Abram’s superior skills.  The Chaldeans were known as the foremost astronomers of the ancient world so the Jewish ego must excel them at their own game.

     The Jews then went to Egypt which was the home of the greatest magicians.  After having outperformed Pharaoh’s magicians at feats of magic they take to the road again, fleeing Egypt.

     Thus the main tenets of the Jewish character are fixed.  They see themselves as an invasive people who are naturally superior to any people whose territory they invade and then they leave.  These two themes repeat and repeat.

     Thus in the nineteenth century when the Jews move West out of the Pale of Settlement into Vienna the migration must be seen as an invasion of a hostile culture intent on taking over the State as in Ur or Egypt.

     A historical characteristic  of Jewish invasions is that they are not usually militaristic but infiltratory.  Like the military invasion of Hungary by the Magyars the Jewish invasion of Vienna was no less belligerent and exhibited the same needs to impose its culture.

     In the biblical account of the invasion of Palestine the Jews put entire peoples to the sword to make living space for themselves.  Thus they committed genocide several times over.  There is no reason to believe they wouldn’t have done the same in Vienna given time and opportunity.

     The bulk of the Jewish people after 1700 had been collected in Eastern Europe in what became known as the Pale of Settlement.  This was mainly in Eastern Poland and Western Russia.  When Poland was partitioned between Russia, Austria and Germany in the eighteenth century Austria acquired a large Jewish population in Galicia and its other Eastern provinces.

     The Western Jews had already realized that the great challenge to their sense of superiority came from Science.  What is called the Emancipation of the Jews was done by the French Revolution c. 1789-93.  The Emancipation allowed the Jews to begin participation in European society.  The work of the Church was undone.  Thus the Jewish intellect came into conflict with the European intellect. In Germany this created a reaction known as the Kulturkampf.  What the Germans had done was to give their intellect a name.  They opposed German Kultur to Jewish Semitism.  Semitism is the Jewish name for their intellect.  Hence both anti-Semitism and anti-Kulturism came into existence. 

      Once within the Austrian Empire the Jews began to migrate toward its capitol, Vienna.

     The Austro-Hungarian Empire was already an unwieldy amalgam of disputing nationalities and races.  Its German governors had their hands full.  Austria was sort of an early version of the United States.

     Unable to destroy the Germans by the sword the Jews made a cultural assault on the institutions of the Empire.  They pitted the Jewish intellect, Semitism, against the German intellect, Kultur.  Freud who fully understood the meaning of Kultur wrote a book denouncing it- Civilization And Its Discontents.

     Now, Jews are not smarter than anyone else although the mythology of the West so asserts.  In fact, Jews are not under the same constraints as the indigenous peoples.  Thus, the Jews are always a free, if circumscribed, people.  The indigenous peoples were seldom as free.  Medieval Europe had been a caste society in which only certain castes had freedom of movement.  The Russian Serfs were both unfree and circumscribed until 1861 when they were at least nominally freed although not allowed to freely participate in society.  They and other European peasants had a role akin to the American Negro of 1900 in the South who were supposed to know their place and keep it.

      Thus a university education was beyond the aspirations of the indigenous lower classes but open to Jews of any class.  It doesn’t take a genius to realize that social advancement is much facilitated by a solid education.  The Jews accordingly flooded European universities in greatly disproportionate numbers to the population.  Any Jew could thus place himself above the majority of the indigenous population.

     It was inevitable that they be disproportionately represented in law, the judiciary, medicine, education, the arts and all prestigious occupations.  As Semitism was unassimilable to Kultur it was inevitable that if the invasion was not resisted that Semitism would  replace Kultur.  This left the Germans in a difficult situation.  They must either discriminate against the invaders, kill them, or go under.

     Given more freedom of movement than the indigenous population and possessing a universal language, Yiddish, the Jews could form the international business corps of any community unrestrained by the business mores of the indigenous people.  They could make their own rules, upsetting established traditions and customs as in Egypt and Chaldea.

     This too is an established Jewish custom.  Things don’t absolutely have to be done in the manner in which they are being done.  When the Jews invaded Egypt they began to slaughter the sacred animals which the Egyptians had protected for millennia.  The Jews saw no reason for the custom so they rudely pushed Egyptian mores aside.  This habit is repeated in every country they invade.  The peoples can learn to do it the Jewish way like it or not.  They feel they speak with the authority of the true Truth of God.

     By 1899 they were over 10% of the population of Vienna which is where critical mass begins.  Muscling into the cultural life of the city they acquired a disproportionate number of seats in the symphony orchestras.  As in Chaldea and Egypt they assumed that the Semitist style of playing was superior to that of Kultur.  As music in Germania occupied an analogous position to astronomy in Chaldea and magic in Egypt the Jews naturally assumed they were better musicians than the Germans although music had never played a large part in their culture before.

     As the scientific demands of music are greater than ancient astronomy and magic the Jews were never able to muster a composer of the first rank although their instrumentalists dominated the stage.  But then all the empresarios were Jewish so they would necessarily hear with the Jewish intellect.  Even today the Jews believe that without the Semitic intellect the orchestras of Europe sound nowhere as good as before the Holocaust.

     They established their own newspapers and publishing houses.  They used them to defame anyone who dissented from their program.

     Without physical resources they had to resort to psychological means to disarm their opponents.  They had to ‘psyche’ them out.  Anyone who opposed or criticized them was branded as an anti-Semite and his own people were instructed by the Jews to ostracize him.  Thus German nationalists became, if not criminals, at least, pariahs in their own land.  The Austrian reaction to Jewish nationalism was extremely violent giving expression to itself only after the Anschluss.

     These German defense forces were active and powerful during the period from approx. 1890-1914.  After 1918 resistance to the Jewish invasion crumpled everywhere.  The Millennial Revolution had gone swimmingly.  Jews assumed the top positions or became dominantly influential in nearly all governments including the United States.  The Jewish Invasion was for all practical purposes a success.

     Two men were born into this Viennese environment that would have a profound impact on world history, Sigmund Freud and Adolf Hitler.

4.

         Freud’s main desire was to become a great man.  This idea was planted in his intellect by his Christian nurse as a child.  He succeeded in realizing this in the field of psychology.  Freud was himself an immoral man nor does he advocate morality for others.  He advocates an unbridled self-indulgence.  Like he says:  Life is short.  To succeed in one’s aims it is permissable to take immoral shortcuts even to use criminal means.  The Mafia believes the same thing.

     As a young man he was schooled in the tradition of Anton Mesmer from whom modern psychology descends.  He was heavily indebted to the teaching of the French psychologist Jean Martin Charcot as well as to the school of Nancy.  His own approach was an adaptation of their methods.  He at first used Mesmerism or hypnotism as did the schools of Paris and Nancy but later abandoned it in favor of a form of self-hypnotism that he called free association.  Hypnotism as a result went into a period of disfavor although applications are being found for it once again.

     He got his real start by insinuating himself into the good graces of Josef Breuer whose work he very nearly appropriated.  Having plundered Breuer he broke off with him never speaking to him for the rest of Breuer’s life.  Thus does conscience make villains of us all.

     Unable to admit his indebtedness to his teachers he repudiated their influence acting as though he had evolved his theories out of whole cloth.  As an aspect of his character he was unable to suffer any criticism or advancement on his own ideas by others.  He eventually acrimoniously broke with any of his associates with intellegence and independence.

     Freud was a Jew which is to say devoutly so.  He did not consider himself Austrian or German but an ethnic Jew.  He believed in the supremacy of the Jewish people.

     The most revealing anecdote concerning him was that as a child he was walking with his father who told him how when a young man he was wearing a new hat when a Gentile knocked it off his head into the street.

     ‘What did you do?’  Freud asked breathlessly expecting the answer to be that his father knocked the Gentile down.

     ‘I went out into the street and picked it up.’  His father replied.

     Freud then lost all respect for his father which troubled him greatly for he wrote:  ‘I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father protector.’  His dad wasn’t it.

     So Freud’s own psychic needs distorted his approach from one of science as Jung claimed to one based on his personal needs.  He falsely maintained that the father figure is the most important in a man’s life.  When his disciple Otto Rank had the courage to correctly insist that the mother was the most important, Freud drummed him out of the ranks.

     Disappointed by his own father he took as a surrogate father figure Hamilcar Barca, the father of Hannibal.  Hamilcar Barca having suffered an injury at the hands of the Romans made his son swear on his sword, which is only a substitute for the ‘thigh’ or penis, that he would avenge him on the Romans.  Clearly Freud would have promised his dad to avenge him on the Europeans if he had asked.  Maybe he did.

     Curiously Freud doesn’t carry Hannibal’s story through to its conclusion.   The Romans exterminated the Carthaginians and razed their city.

     Freud’s lapses in the application of his psychology are very peculiar.  Having discovered the psychological compulsion to repeat he applied it neither to an analysis of himself or of his culture and people.  He might have saved the Jews much suffering if he had.  In his desire to avenge his father he became a central figure in the millennial period of 1913-28 which ended in yet another attempt to exterminate the Jews.

     Post exilic history for the Jews began rather favorably.  They returned to Palestine just as the Middle Eastern Empires were entering a time of troubles.  The succeeding Hellenistic period left them more or less independent until in 186 BC the Seleucids interfered in their internal affairs.  Under the Maccabbees the Jews were able to defeat the relatively weak Seleucid Emperors who were besieged on all sides.  The victory gave them a feeling in invincibility.

      The feeling was shattered by the Romans.

     The Jews tried again and failed in seventeenth century Europe.

     Their third repeated attempt was in 1913-28 which can be extended to the present.

     Freud made the incredible and mind boggling statement on the eve of the Bolshevik, or Jewish Revolution in Russia:  We tell ourselves that anyone who has succeeded in educating himself to truth about himself is permanently defended against the danger of immorality even though the standard of morality may differ in some respects from that which is customary in society.  He then goes on to say especially since the existing standards of morality are beneath contempt.

     Thus he advocates that a private, personal, obviously self-serving morality is superior to an ideal morality that has evolved over millennia extending those millennia anterior to the Old Testament.

     What could Freud, knowing the imperfect nature of man, have found so objectionable about the existing morality?  I don’t experience it as he did.  It can only have been that it was based on European traditions and not Freud’s Jewish heritage.

     The birth of modern Judaism was caused by the rise of the European Scientific attitude.  Science was the sole creation of Europeans with which the Jews had nothing to do.  Prior to the Enlightenment in their argument with Roman Catholicism the Jews had not only been equals but superiors.  As the creator of the corpus followed by the Church the Jews were in a better position to understand and interpret it through the repository of the Talmud.

     When as a result of the Enlightenment, scientific Europeans left the puerile biblical debates behind the Jews were hopelessly medieval.  The Talmud, so effective against the bible, was worthless against science.  The more intelligent or, perhaps, less traditional Jews began to reorganize Judaism to meet the Scientific times.  This left them second rate beneath the Europeans, a serious affront to their amour propre.

     The real challenge then was to regain their superiority.  This could only be done by excelling in Science as they could invent nothing superior to it.  The true Truth of religion broke on the rock of reality.  If they merely excelled in Science they merely excelled in an European milieu. They were clearly then no longer the Chosen People; they became lost in the ruck.  Freud at one time says that he saw no reason why the ‘wisdom’ of the Talmud couldn’t be raised to a level with Science thus bringing the Jews level with the Europeans in their dreams.

     Strangely he didn’t understand that the entry into full consciousness caused by the understanding of the workings of the psyche obviated all forms of consciousness that went before including the so-called wisdom of the Talmud.

     So, to whom was Freud speaking about educating himself against the danger of immorality?  By Freud’s own admission his fellow Jews.

     Freud’s vision of psychoanalysis is personal, dealing exclusively with the subjective workings of the subject’s mind.  He doesn’t even seem to grasp that the fixations are caused by external forces.  He seems to think the mind functions independently of the outside world.  Input does not seem important to him.

     To Jung and others Man’s relationship to his world is based more on a Challenge and Response system.  In other words, the intellect, which Freud denies, plays a very important part.

     Freud’s own intellect cast against his ideas places them in a different light.  The man was born in 1856 in a Central European Jewish milieu.  It will be remembered that the Hasidic religious movement grew out of psychological trauma that occurred in 1648.  Founded c. 1700 the Hasidic movement was only about a hundred fifty years old at his birth thus retaining much of its original vitality.

     Also arising out of the Jewish disappointments caused by the failed Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, in 1666 a movement was led by a follower of Zevi by the name of Jacob Frank.  This movement also took shape in the first half of the eighteenth century and was still flourishing during Freud’s young manhood.

     As a consequence of Zevi’s failure Frank believed that man was inherently evil thus God would never redeem him until the evil was spent.  The only way to expel evil was to commit enough crimes to get it out of one’s system.  Novel pyschology to say the least.  Thus he taught to a large and attentive Jewish audience that one must commit evil for evil’s sake and that good will come of it.  So, in a manner of speaking, one is doing good by doing evil.

     Now, one can trace the spread of this idea in various forms and guises through space and time.  One very interesting advocate who deserves more study is an eighteenth century English Jew by the name of Samuel Falk.  Another is a twentieth century American Jew  by the name of Arnold Rothstein.  And of course, Marx and Freud.

     Freud does not go into the external influences that formed his outlook or life or personal Weltanschauung but this emphasis on a personal morality that is superior to prevailing morality seems a sublimation of Jacob Frank and his evil for evil’s sake.

     Now, to whom was Freud speaking and why?  Certainly Freud considered himself a prophet of the Jewish people amidst the dawning millennium.  He had an intense desire to avenge his people on the goyim.  Did this Hannibal in that role have anything to do with organizing or directing the Jewish Revolution of the dawning millennium?

     There is no question that his statement that anyone who has educated himself to truth about himself is permanently defended against the danger of immorality (and hence a guilty conscience) could be construed as advance absolution for any acts of the Bolsheviks that would be considered crime by ‘conventional morality.’

     Freud’s statement and role resembles those a great deal of Simeon Bar Yochai, a second century rabbi of the Roman Wars.  The Roman-Jewish war of 66-135 AD was perhaps the first of the Holy Wars.  Its rationale and leadership was provided by the religious leaders of Judaism.

     Simeon Bar Yochai was a leading architect of that war, probably its guiding light.  After Bar Kochba’s defeat in 135 AD Yochai was compelled to go into hiding in a cave from which he daren’t move for many years until the Romans gave up the search.  As a tribute to his influence in the war his obituary at his death said that he was the man who shook the world to its foundations.

     Just before the bloodbath of 116 when the Jews rose up to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Gentiles a moral quandary arose in the Jewish community.  They wondered whether it was permissable to kill ‘good’ Gentiles as well as the ‘bad.’  The rabbis without a moments hesitation replied that it was permissable to kill any and all Gentiles.

     In 1666 with the expected advent of the millennium heralded by the messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, the Jews had been prepared on the strength of ‘God’s promise’ to rise up and murder Europeans much as they had done in the Roman War.

     The third repeat of the Jewish Revolution of which the millennial date was 1913-28 had come to a slow boil with the Communist Manifesto of 1847.

     It will be remembered that following Marx’ manifesto all the national Communist parties were over half Jewish.  The non-Jew, Kropotkin, as leader of the anarchists had been discredited and the anarchists disenfranchised from the Communist Movement.  The Jews than held all the leading positions.

     Thus four Jews led the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia- Lenin, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Trotsky.  All the abortive revolutions of Central Europe were led by Jews.  They actually repeated the massacres of the Roman Wars in Russia and Hungary and were prepared to do so throughout the world as the Revolution rolled on to success.

     In Russia slaughterhouses were established in which Jewish murderers ‘worked’ all day long slaughtering Gentiles until they stood ankle deep in blood and gore.  Were they able to do this because Freud and made known to them truths about themselves that prevented them from committing immoral acts?  Were they absolved of their crimes in advance as were the Jews of the Roman Wars?  They must have been or they couldn’t have performed their ‘work.’  As it was numbers of them had nervous breakdowns as a result.

     The atrocities in Hungary and the projected total annihilation in the Crimea have already been mentioned.  The similarities between the Roman and European slaughters are quite pronounced in their ferocity.  Of course all the details of the former had been recorded in that epistle of ‘science’, the Talmud.

     Did the Jews go to Freud to justify their atrocities as they had to Simeon Bar Yochai two thousand years earlier?  There is the compulsion to repeat.  The Jews were very well organized before, during and after the Great War.  Agents of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee swarmed over Central and Eastern Europe after the War in an attempt to rehabilitate their brethren first so they could assume control.  The AJC and B’nai B’rith were the leading components of the ‘Joint.’  Freud had been a member of B’nai B’rith since 1895.  He lectured to them in Austria on a consistent basis for years, even decades.  As a psychoanalyst what was he telling them?  His intellect deserves closer examination for what else can ‘anyone who has succeeded in educating himself to a few truths about himself is permanently defended against immorality’ mean except a license to kill.  If a Jewish supremacy arose out of that evil wouldn’t good have come out of it in Jewish eyes?  Yochai, Frank, Freud, there is a succession.

     Placed in that context one must reevaluate the whole period as well as the careers of Hitler and Stalin, for as Freud wrote openly in a universal idiom his rationale can be appropriated by any individual for his personal morality.

     The invasion of Vienna was preceded by and coincident with the rise of Jews in France.  At the time of the Russian Revolution a document became prominent called the Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion.  The document outlines a method for creating discord in society so that a junta can easily assume control.  It was said that this document was a Jewish blueprint for world dominion.  The provenance of the Protocols has never been established for certain.  The Jews say it is a ‘forgery’ while their opponents say it is authentic.

     Over the years the Jews have managed to discredit the document and have its study suppressed.  This is a great disservice because whoever wrote it its precepts are currently being followed by several groups.  Have you ever looked at Homeland Security carefully?  It behooves every person interested in current affairs to be conversant with the Protocols of Zion.

     In point of fact the Protocols are of Jewish provenance.

     One thing all disputants agree on is that the Protocols were based on an earlier document of Franco-Jewish provenance called in English:  Dialogues Between Montesquiou And Machiavelli In Hell.  The Dialogues are of Jewish provenance so whether the Protocols are or not is a moot point.

     The Dialogues were attributed to a French Jew by the name of Maurice Joly but internal evidence indicates several hands including that of the ‘Gibbon’ or Jewish historians, Heinrich Graetz.

     The creation of the Dialogues was coordinated by a French Jew by the name of Adolph Cremieux.  Little known outside Jewish circles but extremely important to a number of situations Cremieux also deserves further study.  He was a lawyer and politico deeply involved in the revolutions of 1830 and 1848.  If one takes the Jewish ‘Gibbon’ Graetz at his word both revolutions were the result of Jewish machinations.  On this point Graetz and Hitler are in accord.

     Cremieux was responsible during the annexation of Algeria in 1830 under cover of that year’s revolution for obtaining French citizenship for the Algerian Jews.  Thus with the annexation the barbarous medieval Jews of Algeria became full French citizens gaining precedence over the native Algerians in one fell swoop.  Clever move for the Jews bad move for France.

     As Jewish affairs were consolidating nicely in France twelve years after the 1848 revolution a Jewish central governing body called the Alliance Israelite Universelle was founded by Cremieux in 1860.  The Dialogues were supposed to have appeared in 1862.  The name means The International Alliance of Jewry or in a slightly different translation:  The International Jewish Conspiracy.  Actually the Alliance was the seat of the Jewish government until c. 1900 when the seat was transferred to the United States under the guidance of the financier, Jacob Schiff.

     Thus the Protocols arose out of the Dialogues in direct succession sometime during the 1880s.  It should be noted that the Dialogues was never seen in bookstores.  The whole printing was confiscated by Napoleon III according to report against whom they were supposedly directed.  It follows that the only people who could have known of the book and provided a copy as a model for the Protocols were its producers the Jews of France.

     Nevertheless, as masters of misinformation, disinformation and misdirection the Jewish government was able to shame the liberal parties into rejecting Jewish provenance of the Protocols.  The Liberals then condemned any Gentiles who persisted in saying so as anti-Semitic cranks.  That is actually the nature of the ‘proof’ that the Protocols aren’t of Jewish provenance.

     Jacob Schiff himself was a very effective Prime Minister.  He was able to engineer the First Russian Revolution of 1903-05 by funding the Japanese war machine from America while he and European financiers prevented funding to the Russians.

     Schiff was able to disrupt American and Russian diplomacy for the benefit of the Jews from 1900 to 1913 when he succeeded in persuading the US to break off diplomatic relations completely.  Immediately with the Bolshevik succession he rushed huge loans of American dollars to their coffers even during the Great War to shore up the regime.

     Thus absolved by Freud of guilt and supported by  world resources from 1917 to 1924 it looked as though the Jews were on the eve of success in their millennial pursuit.  With the possible exceptions of Mussolini and Ford it looked at though there were no fences facing.

     However Hitler and Stalin sensed the danger.  Hitler himself was always hostile to Freudian beliefs; it may be assumed that Hitler read at least some Freud.  He was hostile to Freud for much the same reasons that Freud was hostile to Kultur.  Living in the Vienna under the governance of the ‘anti-Semitic’ Mayor Lueger Hitler was self-educated.  He spent years in the libraries organizing his view of the world.

     In Freudian terms both he and Stalin certainly knew truths about themselves which prevented them from committing ‘immoral’ acts.  Freud’s dictum could be construed as also authorizing their crimes.

     Coming to maturity in the Red Terror of 1917-24 Hitler had a good understanding of the course of events in Central and Eastern Europe.  It is silly to think that he acted solely from his own impulses.  There was a civil war going on between Reds and Whites from 1918-33 in Germany.  Judeo-Communist atrocities were daily before his eyes.  As he said, he knew his head would roll in the sand if he lost.   That was not mere rhetoric.

     Hitler’s experience in Vienna convinced him of the nature of the war between Jews and Gentiles.  The evidence is clear that the Viennese shared his views.  Once given the upper hand over their invaders the Austrians were much more obdurate than the Germans.  Never forget that an Austrian, Hitler, directed the fate of the German nation.

     Hitler’s book burning in 1933 might be construed as nothing more than a vindictive censorship of ideas he didn’t like.  But the books burned were those of Jewish writers, expecially Freud, it should probably be seen as an attempt to eject Semitism from Kultur.  In other words the triumph of Kultur over Semitism.  In the end the Germans chose to kill the Jews rather than discriminate against them or go under.  You may be sure the Jews would have done the same.

     As Stalin usurped power from the Jews in Russia a strange thing happened.  Psychoanalytic methods assumed great importance.  Spectacular show trials ensued.

     When Freud’s disciple Otto Rank defected from the ranks of Freudian pyschoanalysts he was excommunicated.  The validity of his views was not examined; even if true they were not the true Truth of the faith.  Hence Rank was compelled to submit to criticism, confess his faults and beg for acceptance back into the faith.

     The Show Trials of 1936 were conducted in the exact same manner except that the sinners were given the death sentence.  The method surfaced again in Red China in 1966 when the Red Guards and Cultural Revolutionaries of Mao Ze Dong overturned that society.  The accused were criticized in mass meetings, compelled to confess their ‘faults’ and beg to be allowed to rehabilitate themselves through hard labor.

     Thus Marxist and Freudian ideas converged in an orgy of evil to destroy the oldest continuous civilization in the world.

     The notion prevails in Politically Correct circles in the US today.  Thus Freudianism has had a profound if unsuspected impact on the world.

     Freud remained confident through 1928, began to waver in 1930 and by 1938 the horror of the impending destruction of the Jews as a repeat of the Roman War was before his eyes as fled Austria for England.  In Moses and Monotheism he pitifully whines that the Jews had given up those notions of world dominion long ago.  Or, in other words, I’m sorry.

     Like Hannibal, his attempt to avenge his father resulted in the destruction of his people.  As in the Roman War the Nazis conducted a manhunt to find every single Jew and kill him.  Not only had Bar Kochba and Sabbatai Zevi failed the Jews as messiahs; so had the Revolution.  The Jews failed in this third attempt to take over the world but the legacy of Sigmund Freud lives on in the ambiguous words of his corpus.  His immediate political aims failed but his undermining of European society was much more successful.

     Apart from his political intent Freud had uncovered a great scientific area of study.

5.

The Shirt Of Nessus

     While Freud’s short term political goals ended in disaster for his people, as did those of his role model, Hannibal, Freud’s long term goal of destroying the social foundations of the Gentiles has succeeded quite well.

     As an innovator Freud cannot be expected to have had a complete and final idea.  Much of the information that became available after 1950 was undeveloped in Freud’s time, such as the Matriarchal and Hetairic periods, so he cannot be held accountable for not knowing them.  Physiology has made tremendous strides since his day.

     Freud’s errors do not so much lay in areas of knowledge but in the areas of intent or motive.  He was unable to separate his own psychology of hatred from that of his scientific discipline.  Hence his mistaken emphasis on the importance of the father figure and his misbegotten notions of the Oedipus Complex.  Then too, he projected his hatred of the Gentiles into his views of religion and sexuality.

     The only thing of value Freud had to offer, that of the formation of neuroses, has been rejected by the lay and medical communities alike.

     Strangely his nonsense is revered as great revelations of truth, largely because they fit in with prevailing prejudices.  In his attack on the Christian religion Freud was curiously unaware that the Scientific Consciousness displaced the anterior consciousnesses of Hetaira, Matriarchy and Patriarchy.  Thus the people who were dependent on Religion as the basis of the mentality were people whose beliefs could not be dislodged.  On the one hand were the various esoteric religions whose beliefs do not depend on the divinity of Jesus and the Fundamentalists whose belief is so secure that nothing can shake it.  For those who need a supernatural agency in their lives New Age people using science as a tool have created alien intelligence from beyond the solar system to serve as their ‘God.’

     If Freud thought dispelling Christianity as a religious belief would bring the Gentiles down he was mistaken.  The ‘illusion’ had already been replaced by a ‘reality.’  The futility of trying to dispel religious beliefs should have been clear to Freud.  The exposure of the illusion or, even delusion, of the compact between the Jewish people and their god had no effect on them; they continue to believe the compact exists and that Palestine was given to them by their tribal god inalienably.

     The most potent dissolvent in Freud’s arsenal was his sexual theory.  He was quite severely criticised for his sexual beliefs then and they should be rejected now.

     Everything Freud believed on the subject was wrong.  Basic to his misunderstanding was the physical structure of the human organism. 

     He quite correctly picked up the ovate and spermatic halves of the psyche but since he didn’t associate them with physical origins he mistakenly thought that men were part woman and vice versa.  This was a critical misconception as it opened the door to much erroneous speculation on homosexuality.

     There may be rare cases of sexual ambiguity caused by birth defects in the physical apparatus or defective hormonal systems but any other expression of ambiguity is a perversion that is not part of the most perfect specimens but comes about only when the ovate is fixated and spermatic repressed or, in other words when the organism is mentally disturbed.  Psychological perversion has nothing to do with the physical organization.

     Since Freud misunderstood the physical organism he equated sexuality not with the Power Train itself but only with sexual intercourse.  Freud actually equated fucking with mental health.  Because psychic discomfort is reflected in sexual urges he actually believed that the more fucking one did the better person one would be.  Such nonsense has not only passed unchallenged for eighty years but is actually embraced today as the Gospel of Fuck.

     Freud did not believe in the intellect or the effectiveness of intelligence.  While he made the grandiose pronouncement:  Where Id is, Ego shall be, he failed to explain how this would come about.  For whatever reason he considered the intellect nonexistent and intelligence ineffective and unimportant.  In keeping with his times he believed in the hereditary transmission of mental traits.

     More importantly he invented a whole category of affects he identified as self-sufficient ‘instincts.’  Like the Unconscious instincts do not exist.  There are no instincts, not a single one, all is a matter of learning and education.

     Even eating is not an instinct but taught at the mother’s breast.  Hunger may be a physical reality but it is not an instinct.  Assuaging hunger must be learnt and that literally at the mother’s breast.  The first lesson an infant is taught is when the mother inserts the nipple in his mouth.  His mouth is blocked he has no choice but to resist by sucking.  Imagine his surprise when the liquid emitted seems delicious and when he swallows it because he can’t spit it out the physical reaction is terrific.  It feels good.  Having learnt to eat he wants more.  Being a quick learner, from that point on the infant will demand to be fed.  But without that first infusion he would die hungry not knowing what the desire to eat meant.

     Because Freud wanted to project his own psychic vision he gave instincts precedence over all other psychic functions.  He professed that the individual was incapable of resisting or controlling what the Ancients characterized as the Raging Bull and what he called the Ego.

     Both the Church and Esoteric religions have devised rigors to control or domesticate this Bull or Ego/instincts by using intelligence.  Freud thought that to use your intelligence to control your ‘instincts’ was to incur damaging inhibitions and repressions.  Hence he was opposed to European morality.  Freud imagined this did irreparable damage to the psyche especially sexual inhibitions and repressions hence the Gospel of Fuck.

     If fucking actually made a person better, then the logical conclusion is that libertines and homosexuals would be the best people in the world.  Fucking dominates the libertine and homosexual mind.  It is not unusual for them to commit thirty or forty sex acts a day for as many days as they can sustain it.

     As the only thing that counts in this view of sexual activity is the climax it follows that if machines were placed in prominent places to masturbate the individual on an hourly basis or less that society would be darn near perfect.  I don’t know why people are leery of buying the Brooklyn Bridge when they have bought the myth of sexual intercourse.

     The fact is that libertines and homosexuals are the worst people in the world so the basis of Freud’s argument is very limp.

     The West has generally embraced Freud’s misguided sexual theory.  The United States is actually fucked.  Freud’s sexual theory was picked up by the lame third rate novelist Henry Miller who actually formulated the Gospel of Fuck during the twenties and thirties in the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.

     Henry Miller was gaining respectability during the fifties with psychotic fringe groups in the San Francisco Bay Area and elsewhere.  By the sixties he would have a profound impact on society with the reverence given his two volumes of the Tropics.

     As Freud was interpreted in the common mind repression and inhibition were the causes of psychic discomfort.  The common mind had no idea how inhibitions and repressions were caused except by not being allowed to do whatever you wanted to do.  Through the forties and fifties children of innumerable families were encouraged to indulge their whims and fancies regardless of who they might hurt.  They were given no instruction or correction lest they become inhibited and repressed.  It was thought that when they grew up they would naturally gravitate to the intelligent choice.

     The so-called ‘Me’ generation of the sixties and seventies lacked proper instruction in managing their ‘instincts.’  The pervading influence of past mores prevented them from expressing themselves with true lack of ‘inhibition’ or repression.  The wave of high school shootouts of the later century when the succeeding generation had moved out from the shadow of earlier mores were committed by the offspring of the ‘Me’ generation.  They are the logical progression of Freudian sexual theory.

     Employing metal detectors and other ‘inhibitory’ or ‘repressive’ systems will not solve the problem.  Freud has to be amended.

     Freud’s thesis was advanced by the Jewish monologist Lenny Bruce as well as furthered by Jewish interests in Hollywood who produced innumerable ‘action’ films in which the uninhibited and unrepressed protagonist attempts to solve his problems from the barrel of a gun rather than reason them out.

     So, this brings us up to Greil Marcus and the present.  Greil Marcus is himself a Jew so the question is how does Greil Marcus and his writing fit into this Jewish cultural scheme of things.  On my first reading of the book I had no idea what Mr. Marcus was talking about.  I had heard of the Situationist International but knew nothing about it.  Reading the blurbs I was under the impression that Mr. Marcus was going to explain the SI.  Not very clearly anyway.  As I turned the last page I had no idea what the book was all about.

     Second reading same as the first.  Then I read his 2006 effort The Shape Of Things To Come.  I gathered from that that Mr. Marcus considered himself in direct descent from the Old Testament Hebrew prophets and that he had conflated Israel and the United States.  Armed with that understanding I had the thin edge of the wedge.  I went back to a third reading of Lipstick Traces.  Pay dirt!  I think.

     I gather from the third reading that Mr. Marcus considers himself also a direct lineal descendent of Theodore Adorno and Herbert Marcuse, in other words The Frankfurt School or alternatively The Institute For Social Research or alternatively still The New School For Social Research.  Now we’re getting somewhere.  In addition his intellectual romance with fellow Jew Guy Debord who was the Situationist International seemed that in much the same way Dr. Baum assumed the soul of Dr. Mabuse in Fritz Lang’s The Testament of Dr. Mabuse I gather that Mr. Marcus may feel that like some Buddhist Lama the soul of the dead Debord has passed into himself and he is the new leader of the Situationist International.  So as I perceive it  Mr. Marcus views himself as an ancient Hebrew prophet, a critic in the mold of the Frankfurt School and the leader of the Situationist International.

     For some in depth background on the Frankfurt School the interested reader might try Kevin MacDonald’s  ‘The Culture Of Critique.’

     Following the above notion of who Greil Marcus might think he is and what he thinks he’s doing I will attempt an interpretation of Lipstick Traces.  Mr. Marcus as the leader of the Situationist International seems to have compiled his book which is as much a stream of consciousness impressionistic novel as anything else as a number of situations.

     I will deal with each situation as a separate entity which indeed a situation is.  Rather than begin with the first situation which as I see it should be last I will begin with the second situation, part of Version Two- A Secret History Of A Time That Passed- Legends Of Freedom.

     The theme of the book as a whole seems to be the saying of Karl Marx that Mr. Marcus refers to repeatedly:

I am nothing and I should be everything.

End of Part II.

A Review

The Lad And The Lion

by

Edgar Rice Burroughs

Edgar Rice Burroughs

Review by R.E. Prindle

30 pages,

     Now were moving into the twenties.  The trans-Atlantic cable was laid in 1859 so telegraphic communications have bridged the Atlantic.  Wireless is becoming a reality about to create the great radio networks.  Primitive commercial air routes were still a decade or so in the future while the great passenger ships could cross the Atlantic safely in a week.

     The Atlantic would be flown within a few years but as of the early twenties the speed and ease of our travel had not yet commenced.  Still, it was now possible to closely coordinate activities as was done by the American Communists and their handlers from the Soviet Union.

     By 1923 Freudian sex notions, Marxist political fantasies and the pseudo-science of Einstein’s relativity were melded into one intellectual approach by what is known as the Frankfurt school, also known as critical theory.

[ http://.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/index.htm ]

     The Institut For Sozialforschung…was the creation of Felix Weil, who was able to use money from his father’s grain busines to finance the Institut. Weil was a young Marxist who had written his Phd on the practical problems of implementing socialism.

—–

     Weil negotiated with the Ministry of Education [German] that the Director of the Institut would be a professor from the state system, so that the Institut would have the status of a University.

  The school staffed entirely by Jews was also known as the Institute for Social Research.  As you can see the sectarian nature of the school was concealed behind fine sounding screen names like Social and Research after the Freudian manner when it was a plan to implement the Jewish Revolution itself disguised as Communism.

     In a system of freedom of expression and conscience the School was no problem.  But the Jewish Culture at the same time that it claimed the rights and benefits of freedom of expression and conscience for itself denied them to the very creators of the concepts and this denial was made in terms of Orwellian doublespeak.

     Thus the so-called ‘Critical Theory’ was used to cast a pall of disrepute over the Other or the non-Jews while sanctifying the mores of the in group.  Decontruction went on in both Europe and America.

     During the Nazi era the school would be relocated first to Switzerland in 1932 from which it could operate in Germany, then in 1935 the entire school was transferred to NYC.  In 1941 the school was moved to Hollywood.

     For decades with their control of expression it was virtually impossible to examine problems from any other point of view than the Critical Theory.  I was just at Reed College.  Going through the book store it was clear that the curriculum was based on the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory.

     With the coming of the internet it became possible for opinions that had been savagely repressed to find expression.  The current bugaboo of the Semites is a professor from Long Beach State by the name of Kevin MacDonald.  He began a research into the methods by which the Jewish Culture established itself in the twentieth century as the dominant culture.  That work was titled The Culture Of Critique which has since become the bible of the Right.

     A full scale attempt to marginalize MacDonald is now in progress.  Needless to say the attack as always is ad hominem with the attempt to defame Mr. MacDonald’s scientific researches as ‘anti-Semitic.’ Nevertheless the door is open a crack, at least temporarily.

     The Jewish Culture through Freud established the concept of Multi-culturalism which states that each culture is distanct in identity with a set of objectives that it wishes to implement for itself.  We didn’t need the concept of Multi-culturalism to be aware of that but there you have it. 

     MacDonald’s title the Culture of Critique defines the Jewish cultural technique through the ages as well as that of the Frankfurt School in the twentieth century.  The Culture enters another culture immediately beginning to find fault with what up to then had been a successful effort at dealing with problems of civilization.  Whatever the response and no matter how successful the Jewish Culture criticized it, tore it down and insisted that the Jewish way replace it.

     All of the ancient cultures were grappling with nature through a system of polytheism.  Polytheism was the forerunner of science in that it identified and separated the processes of nature attempting to understand each in isolation.  As with the rise of Science in the nineteenth century there was no way for the Jewish Culture to establish supremacy.  Any argument they had to offer was just another opinion.

     So the Culture countered with monotheism which was supposed to be superior to polytheism in some way they couldn’t explain.  They just asserted it.  Once I slipped from under the conditioning of my religious upbringing that enforced monotheism without an adequate justification I came to the realization that there was nothing superior in monotheism in fact the approach negates scientific inquiry in favor of an inviolable dispensation from ‘G-d’  or, in other words, a projection of the Jewish Weltanschauung.

[ http://deoxy.org/bom.htm ]

     Having subdued polytheism with monotheism when science broke its bonds from the seventeenth to the nineteenth the Jewish Culture had to come up with an approach to contain and negate science.  Hence a number of pseudo-sciences were created to confuse and obfuscate so that these scientific sounding ‘sciences’ that nevertheless served to impose Jewish Culture could be established.

     Foremost among these attempts incorporating Marx, Freud and Einstein as aforementioned was the Institute for Social Research.  I was aware of most of the leading figures of the school such as Wilhelm Reich, Marcuse, Adorno and Fromm from my college days but I wasn’t aware of their association in the Frankfurt School although I was aware of that name. 

     Following Freud’s lead, such as in Lang’s Testament Of Dr. Mabuse the members continued the attacks Freud had launched.  Central to their issues was sexual theory.

     In order to reconstruct society along Jewish Cultural lines they had to deconstruct the existing society.  That is to say by the use of Critical Theory they had to subvert existing customs and mores.  A first step was to belittle existing beliefs attempting the substitution of ‘superior’ Jewish beliefs.  Thus beginning in the twenties a systematic debunking of American heroes and customs began.

     The world was turned upside down.  Everything that previously had been thought good was now bad which means that everything bad was good.  It was all relative; nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so.  But the maxim only cut one way in the hands of critical theory.  What you believed was bad; what they believed was good.  No one ever thought to ask: Compared to what?  And they got away with this too.  Still don’t know how it worked that way but it did.

     And then they went back and changed the past.  A sort of inverted nostalgia.  The way they wanted it to have been when managed by the other.  John Dos Passos began to turn out his USA trilogy that many people think is one of the top ten books of the twentieth century.  It’s flashy.  Even flashier if you don’t know the historical background.  The first time I read it, much younger then of course, I was bowled over.  Of course my state of mind was perhaps a little more depressed than Dos Passos’ story which is pretty depressed.  Second time I read it I began to waver.  Seemed awfully one sided.  Then I integrated my personality and like the character in Gradiva my projection began to dissolve.  My windshield got clearer and I could see more clearly.  The third time I read the trilogy I was repulsed by the complete and total negativity, the general nastiness of Dos Passos’ mind.  Well, nothing’s good or bad but thinking makes it so.  I thought the trilogy was good when I first read it, neutral the second time and terrible the last.  It’s all relative, of course, but now my opinion is that the trilogy is absolutely bad and as thinking makes it so it must be bad.  Fifty years later or so Greil Marcus’ reinforcing the USA tilogy came out with a book he titled Bad Old America.  That could have been the title of Dos Passos’ USA trilogy.  So who you going to believe novelists and memoirists who speak of the good old America or those like Dos Passos and Marcus who believed it was a bad old America.  Compared to what?  It’s all relative.  Well nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so so people like Dos Passos and Marcus can get behind their push carts and trundle off into oblivion.

     Well, that was flip and satisfying but ignores the tragedy of the people who lived through that era yet were mystified by what they saw going on around them because they were living by rules formulated thirty or forty years in the past but which didn’t work very well anymore because another culture, actually a couple cultures were changing the game before their eyes by disregarding those very rules.  There you have a multi-cultural society: if you’re not busy setting the rules you’re busy following those who are.  Quite frankly any culture that doesn’t want to set the rules is a culture of saps.  Unfortunately I belong to that sappy culture but I’m doing my best to set them on their feet and point them in the right direction.

     It was too late for Edgar Rice Burroughs back then but he was a game old bird.  This essay started in 1912 with Burroughs scribbling away at a strange story entitled Tarzan Of The Apes.  Well, from a jack to a king.  From a financial and emotional bankrupt Burroughs’ story of Tarzan improbably caught the imagination of not only the United States but pretty much the whole darn world.

     Apart from being an amusing but fantastic story that given your frame of mind is a very difficult tale to take, one is astounded at the influence of Tarzan on the world stage.  The literate were absolutely repulsed by the story and I’m not so starry eyed I can’t see why.  A certain type of mind can only see the ridiculous aspect of Tarzan.  I don’t have any good arguments to convince those who believe so, I see the reason for their revulsion but I don’t share it.

page 5.

     My first introduction to Tarzan was of course the movies.  I was entranced by Johnny Weissmuller, although watching the movies now I’m not sure why.  From there I bought what was available from Grosset and Dunlap.  I found the books better than the movies.  There was that about Burroughs, the man himself, telling his stories of Tarzan that made the stories seem very significant so that not only me but thousands of others accept Tarzan as, what shall I say, their savior, their role model, their leader, their intellectual ideal?

     Whatever it is it is the very antithesis of the Judaeo-Communist-Liberal school.  Tarzan is self-sufficient; he is his own man.  He is the very antithesis of the Liberal ideal which is, in the words of Vance Packard, an organization man, a member of the collective, subordinated completely to the ideology.  Buzzing around in the hive.

     There are many, even among his fans, who think of Burroughs as a simple minded boob who had the skill for escapist literature.  I can see how they form their attitude too but, once again, I don’t share it.

     I think it just as obvious that Burroughs was deeply interested in the social, psychological, political, religious and scientific concerns of his time.  Wisely, he decided to employ such details in a casual way without emphasizing his opinions because to call attention to them would have been beyond the scope of entertainment.  He believed the sole purpose of fiction was entertainment however he construed the word.  Still the serious reflections come through to the perceptive reader.  For instance the Oakdale Affair is a wonderful little study packed full of perceptive and fairly profound observations.

page 6.

     Burroughs had a large public who were devoted to Tarzan. the impact of the character seems to go far beyond the book sales.  Of course book sales were amplified by the movies that became the established form of fictional entertainment as Tarzan’s popularity grew from 1912 to 1920 or so.  In the late teens several very popular movies of Tarzan were made.

     Regardless of what the critics thought of Tarzan the Liberal/Communist faction perceived a threat to their collective mindset.  The ideals Burroughs infused into Tarzan that educated his public were in opposition to the Liberal collectivity.  One good Tarzan novel combined with a movie could more than offset the influence of the whole Frankfurt School plus.

     Before the October Revolution there was no political opposition to Burroughs but as the war ended and the twenties began attention was directed toward Tarzan and Burroughs.  It seems quite obvious that the Jews recognized the importance of the movies for influencing culture from the beginning.  One may argue that they took control of the movies because it was a new industry and it was open to them.  It’s a good argument but not necessarily the real one.  As the technological age dawned all industries were new and open to anybody.  The argument might equally apply to the auto industry in 1908 yet Jews shunned the formative years of the industry.

     The newspaper and publishing industries were dominated by goys yet Jews gained access to the industries and shouldered them aside.  The same may be said of department stores.  Yet Jews seized on movies and as radio became a business that industry and then television.  So there seems to be another reason for Jews seeking control of such culture forming areas as stage, screen, radio and publishing.  One hates to state the obvious.

     After the October Revolution Jews worldwide were in a position to control culture.  Thus, as in the US, they could issue volume after volume debunking older cultural heroes and national customs.  The Liberal/Judaeo/Communist coalition could control the images of current cultural figures like Edgar Rice Burroughs also.  While Burroughs always had publishing difficulties for other reasons, after 1920 it got worse until in 1930 he was forced into self-publishing.

page 7.

     It may be a coincidence that after 1922 no more Tarzan movies were made until 1928 or not.  But it was about this same time that Burroughs began having troubles everywhere.  His English publishers began to neglect him.  His Tarzan novels which were very popular in Germany came under attack because Burroughs’ novels written during he war were considered Germanophobic.  As the campaign was successful it had to be led by Communists.

     And in Russia Burroughs aroused the ire of the Communist government because the proletariat preferred Tarzan novels to Communist doctrine. So, in the period 1920 to 1924 a concerted worldwide attack was carried on against this poor fantasy writer.

     The Soviet government enlisted the services of a writer of great fame to denigrate Burroughs discreetly in print.  That writer was no less than H.G. Wells.  His opening shot across the bow was Men Like Gods which was so discreet I may be the only person who ever saw it other than Burroughs.  However Men Like Gods was followed in 1928 by a work clearly referring to Burroughs entitled Mr. Blettsworthy On Rampole Island.  As his point of departure Wells chose a 1914 novelette entitled The Lad And The Lion.  In Blettsworthy he postulated that Burroughs was insane.  That is a pretty heavy defamation of a living author if anyone read Wells’ book.  Not many did.  After 1920 Wells had a very limited appeal as a novelist.  His attack had an influence on the publishing history of the The Lad And The Lion that will require some detailed attention.

page 8.

      The original of Lad was written in February-March of 1914  immediately followed by Beasts Of Tarzan while The Girl From Farris’s begun in 1913 was finished at the same time.  The three novels then were written at the height of Burroughs recovery from the despair of his earlier failure.  They represent a response to his success as he tried to find a new footing.

     Burroughs’ father had died on February 13th, 1913.  In September, at the time of his birthday, ERB left for an extended stay in California.  All three novels were written or finished in California in the final three months of the stay.  That Lad and Girl were both completed in March indicates their close connection in his mind.  Lad being concerned with his Animus and Girl undoubtedly with his Anima.

     Wells’ analysis of Lad convinced him that Burroughs was insane as he said in his ad hominem attack in Blettsworthy.  Even if Burroughs were ‘insane’ at the time he wrote Lad that would have no effect on the influence of Tarzan.

     While Burroughs suffered from mental distress from the time the events of Lad took place, which I put as his entry into the Michigan Military Academy, to what I would call his emergence and recovery here in 1914, that is far from insanity and I might add no  worse than the symptoms of distress Wells showed in his In The Days Of The Comet.  Even Men Like Gods in 1923 is a lttle bonkers.  Nevertheless his analysis of the state of mind Burroughs displays in Lad seems to me to be fairly accurate.  That Burroughs passed through such a stage of suffering is normal, which Wells if he weren’t in a partisan attack would or should have recognized.

page 9.

     At any rate the story Wells read has to be separated from the book edition that was rewritten and published twenty-four years later.  Every other chapter has to be removed, those concerning the events in Moscow- or at least an imaginary Eastern European city.

     That leaves you with the story of Michael adrift off the Atlantic coast of Africa and his subsequent landing.  The manner in which the story relates to Burroughs’ life and state of mind is fairly transparent if one knows his life and psychology.

     George T., Burroughs father, had transferred him from one school to another jerking him out at the critical moment.  Anyone who has experienced this knows how difficult it is.  It makes you a little bit buggy.  The final straw came when George T. sent him away to the MMA.  Burroughs tried to escape but his father sent him back.  We don’t know what he said to the boy but it must have had a terrific effect on him.

     It was the feeling of rejection from this inident that lay behind the story of the Lad And The Lion.  The MMA completely declassed Burroughs so that he was able to fit in nowhere.  He characterized this feeling as one of shipwreck.  The shipwreck figures into several of his novels not least of which are Tarzan Of The Apes and Son Of Tarzan.

     So, in the story of Lad.  As usual Burroughs weaves in several literary influences.  Underlying the story is that of Mark Twain’s Prince And The Pauper that so influenced Burroughs.  In a 1923 newspaper article the writer declared that he had read Prince approximately six times.  One doesn’t read such a light weight fantasy six times unless it closely relates to one’s own experience.  Thus until the MMA one can conclude that Burroughs thought of himself as a little Prince.  In the same article he said he also had read Little Lord Fauntleroy six times.  After the MMA he lost the feeling of being a Prince and Lord to become a pauper.  In Lad then, the hero (a version of himself) is a prince who after the shipwreck becomes a pauper.

page 10.

     The shipwreck itself was influenced by the sinking of the Titanic in 1912.  Several tales of the Titanic are retold.  The young Prince Michael who because of his age was entitled to a place in a lifeboat generously and manly gives up his place to a woman.

     When the great ship rolled over we are led to believe that Michael was catapulted some distance away.  His guardian had thoughtfully put a life jacket on him so he doesn’t drown.  But just as the shipwreck repesented the second of Burroughs’ great fixations as he is in the water a life raft descending a wave crashes down on his head ‘in a glancing blow’ knocking him unconscious causing a total loss of memory that lasts for over five years.

     When he comes to an empty lifeboat is floating by him.  Not recognizing it as a boat as he has total- and Burroughs means total- memory loss yet Michael reasons that it will be more comfortable than the water.  Clever kid.

     The shipwreck and lifeboat are prominent themes taking several different forms in Burroughs’ work.  Tarzan’s parents are marooned in the opening novel of the series put ashore in a lifeboat while the ship they were sailing on was subsequently wrecked and sunk.  There were several such incidents in the sequel, The Return Of Tarzan, all of them occurring within a few miles of each other and close to where Tarzan’s parents were marooned, which is to say Burroughs himself.  These are one or two too many coincidences for most readers.  If this were a traditional adventure series perhaps that would be true, but in the psychological sense in which Burroughs is writing there is a logical imperative controlled by Burroughs’ fixations.

     Waldo Emerson Smith-Jones is a castaway in 1913’s Cave Girl while the first large scale run through of the theme is in the later novel of 1913 The Mucker.  These two novels were conceived before the father, George T. died.

     His death shifted Burroughs mind back a decade or two so that the shipwreck of Lad is psychologically the first in the sequence.

page 11.

     Discarding Freud’s interpretation of the unconscious let us view Burroughs’ shipwreck through the version of the subconscious I have outlined which is truer than that of Freud.  Now, the events of Burroughs life were filtered through his three great fixations.  Certainly up to 1914 he had been unable to relax their hold at all.  He was subject to terrifying nightmares because of the fixations and why not.  The daily happenings thus would be constellated around these fixations and distorted to meet the experience of their horrific traumas.

     Over the years as his circumstances changed even though he was apparently unable to exorcise these fixations his new circumstances were powerful enough to alter the consequences  of the experiential fixations.  Since he dwelt on these central symbols in which his traumas cast his dreams he uses the same situation over and over which causes some readers to accuse him of repitition.  While the situations do repeat the same symbolism they do not do so in a deadening manner but are variations on the theme that evolve with Burroughs’ evolving consciousness.

     Thus in Lad he is in the lifeboat alone, no Anima figure.  In the Mucker all the survivors of the shipwreck end up in one boat with the Anima figure Barbara Harding.  It must be true as this is dream material that the figures in the boat represent real people that were associated with Burroughs in these traumas.  Later in 1924 when Burroughs has edged back to a prince from a pauper there are two lifeboats, one for the gentlefolks and one for the criminal class.  Chase III, the Burroughs Animus figure was supposed to have been with the gentlefolk but in the confusion he is thrown in with the criminal class.  This undoubtedly represents the MMA.  Marcia, the Anima figure is also taken in that boat by mistake.  Thus we have another variation on the MMA fixation.

page 12.

     It must be true that these differences were reflected in Burroughs’ dreams as his fixations and his reality drew apart and conflicted.  Apparently troubled all his life by this conflict Burroughs even bought a book on scientific dream interpretation in 1932.

    Drifting along in his life boat, breathing being the only thing he can remember, he is spotted from a drifting derelict by its sole human inhabitant, a crazy epileptic deaf mute.  Add to his infirmities the fact that Michael has no memory and one has quite a combination. The old loony draws him from the lifeboat to a four or five year life on this drifting derelict.  Michael drifts thus until the old loon is killed upon which being released from his control or enchantment Michael lands on the coast of North Africa having no memory of land whatsoever.

     The dream ship was adequately provided with all the necessities for this interminable drifting about as a dream ship would.

     As they drift up and down the coast of Africa one is compelled to ask why.  Very likely Africa had taken on a mythic quality for Burroughs from the works of Stanley, Livingstone, Du Chaillu, Buel and others.  Africa was a world where the White man was supreme and unfettered much as was Tarzan.  Thus the Africa of the Tarzan novels should be considered a dream or fantasy Africa that bears little resemblance to the real geographical Africa.  Burroughs’ Africa was a place inhabited by lions and tigers and deer.  More’s the pity for the psychological reality of the continent that his fans wouldn’t allow him to populate the place with tigers and deer.  Psychologically these things were essential to the story he was telling.

     As in all dreams the most improbable coincidences have to be accepted.  Thus as unbelievable as it may be to a rational mind, this old epileptic deaf mute insano  had a very young lion cub in a cage on deck.  It is impossible for him to be there rationally but there you have it.  Psychologically he belongs there.  It is noteworthy that over five years the ship encountered no storms so the lion didn’t wash overboard as he must otherwise have.

page 13.

     The old guy is cruel and sadistic.  He beats the Lad, who no longer has any other identity which must be why he’s called the Lad, on a daily basis as well as torturing the lion.  As a lion is Burroughs’ Anima figure he naturally forms a close friendship with the cub.  Both Lad and cub grow huge with the result that the Lad challenges the old coot who never has a name.  The old coot knocks the Lad senseless with an iron bar.  That’s two blows to the head within twenty pages.  Seeing his friend threatened the lion bursts from his cage grown rickety over the years despatching the coot in one chomp as he tears the old bastard’s face away.  Thus Lad and Lion are delivered from the mastery or enchantment of the old crazy.

     Now, who in Burroughs aching life could this old monster be?  Well, his father died about a year earlier.  His father did rush him from school to school finally placing him with what Burroughs considered the juvenile delinquents of MMA.  Burroughs always professed the greatest love for his father, celebrated his birthday annually; yet on his dad’s hundreth anniversary he created the zany loony mad Doctor, ‘God’ who bears some similarity to this crazy old coot of Lad.  I don’t think there’s any doubt that Burroughs had ambiguous feelings about George T.   It is even quite probable that he didn’t recognize the crazy old coot as his father so he would suffer no guilt from ripping the old loony’s face off.  Indeed, removing his face was removing his identity.

     The Lad and Lion did not land immediately but continued to drift for a period of several months.  From that one might reason that Burroughs and his Anima figure while released from subjugation by George T.’s death took several months to move from beneath the father’s shadow.  Indeed this novel was written approximately nine months after his father’s death.

     If one construes the period from 1891 the year Burroughs entered the MMA to his father’s death as symbolic of the years of drifting under the domination of the old weirdo one might interpret Burroughs situation in this way.

page 14.

      His father had humiliated and shamed him so thoroughly that the boy was psychologically barred from following in his father’s footsteps as a businessman.  Hence from 1891 to 1911 or 12 Burroughs drifted from job to fairly disreputable job a complete failure.  Realizing he could never be a success as his father had Burroughs in desperation was forced to take another tack outside the business world.  Thus he took up pen and began to write.  Here he was successful.  It is significant that he used materials, old letterheads and pencils, from his own failed enterprises.  His father died just as Burroughs was receiving the first fruits of his new career which was probably just as well.  But now he had to get away from the proximity of the man so he packed wife, kids, car and all his belongings fleeing to the West Coast.  At the end of this voluntary exile and just before returning he completed The Lad And The Lion.  Having made the attempt to exorcise the demon he could return to Chicago which he did.

     I haven’t read the magazine version which may differ a little or quite a bit but the above story is the crux of  The Lad And The Lion.  The above must have been what convinced H.G. Wells that Burroughs was insane.

     Dream symbolism is not however an indication of insanity but the problem of the interactions of the conscious and subconscious  trying to make sense of experience it finds difficult to understand.  Contrary to Freud’s belief that dreams are a product solely of the unconscious  it is impossible for consciousness to abandon itself completely to the subconscious.

     Burroughs relation of his dream is no more a sign of insanity than Freud’s dream of Irma’s Injection.  In fact Burroughs, as one aspect of his story may very well have been dealing with his own interpretation of dreams.  As this story was modified in 1938 long after psychoanalysis had entered the popular domain the story that Wells read c. 1920 may be significantly different than the altered 1938 version.  Burroughs may very well have developed his psychological theories significantly since 1914.  This version would also have been written after he had had time to digest the scientific dream book he bought in 1932.

page 15.

     As Burroughs acquired his initial interest in psychology from Lew Sweetser in 1891 which is evidenced from his earliest works there is no reason not to believe that by 1938 he had definite ideas of dream psychology.

     Wells himself was read in Freudian psychology as his analysis of Burroughs in Blettsworthy indicates.  The depth of his undertanding appears to be somewhat superficial but, still, informed.  His attack on Burroughs is ad hominem in the Liberal tradition.  As a writer Wells should have known better than to take Lad at face value, especially as several of his own stories vary into paranoia and other mental disorders or, rather, states of mind.  One might even say that the interest of the stories rise from these projected states of mind.  Two of Wells finest novels reflect disordered states of mind.  The magnificently portrayed paranoia of ‘When The Sleeper Wakes’ is unparalled unless it be by his own ‘In The Days Of The Comet.’  Both can compete with ‘Lad’ in terms of insanity.

     Very likely ‘Blettsworthy’ was a calculated attack motivated by orders from Moscow.  Those orders were probably received about 1921 when Wells visited Lenin and the Soviet Union.  By this time Wells was religiously committed to the Revolution.  Thus, as indicated, during this period the attack on Burroughs was commenced on the international level.  His English publishers inexplicably lost interest in a key commerical product like Tarzan.  The same may be said of his American publishers and movie makers.  His German sales were destroyed on political charges and finally the Soviets ordered Wells to attack him personally to destroy his credibility.  These actions should throw some  light on Burroughs’ financial difficulties of this critical period when he lost control of the Tarzana estate.

     The period from this attack to 1928 and 1930 when Burroughs elected to self-publish has not been examined from this point of view.  Suffice it to say that Burroughs first self-published title, Tarzan The Invincible concerns an actual war between Tarzan and no less than the Soviet dictator, Josef Stalin.  This was continued in the sequel, Tarzan Triumphant, while being continued through 1934 and the release of Tarzan And The Lion Man.

page 16.

     The rewriting of The Lad And The Lion in 1938 may be taken as a heavy salvo in this war.  By 1938 the history of the two Russian Revolutions, 1905 and 1917 would have been known in their broad outlines.  The minor details have been guessed from the very beginning having been recently confirmed by research.  So, his ‘head bloody but unbowed’ Burroughs returned to the battle.

     Aware of Wells’ interpretation of the 1914 magazine version of Lad Burroughs may have altered the details to correspond with his state of mind in 1938 blending the earlier story into the later additions dealing specifically with Wells and his Soviet handlers.

     By 1938 Wells had been abandoned by his Soviet mistress Moura Budberg.  He had met her during his 1921 visit to Russia.  She had then been assigned to him by Stalin from c. 1928 to 1935, the height of the war on Burroughs.  She had abandoned him probably because his usefullness was considered minimal because of his independence and criticism of Stalin.  In 1939’s Holy Terror Wells would actually call for the assassination of Stalin in much the same way he had declared Burroughs insane.  The amazing thing is the casual way in which Wells advocates assassination as a political means.  Wells was an outstanding Liberal who here displays the absolute bigotry of Liberalism.  They denounce capital punishment unless it serves their own purposes.  Once again it is impossible to be religiously  devout without being a bigot.  It make no difference whether it is character assassination, or individual murder, or the genocide of a billion all is justified by religious bigotry, in this case Liberalism.

     Did I see eyebrows raised at the mention of genocide of a billion?  Please to follow the line of argument.

page 17.

     Liberalism began with the French Revolution.  The Liberals began by murdering aristocrats individually or as a group, genocide.  When the aristocrats resisted, revolting in La Vendee, genocidal massacres began.  Barges loaded with the royalist party were towed into the middle of rivers and sunk drowning all aboard.

     These proceedings were justified about seventy years later by the Liberal pundit Victor Hugo in his novel 1793.  He doesn’t mention atrocities like the above but he justified the holocaust in this way:

     These people stand in the way of the New Order.  So long as they live they are a threat to the New Order, therefore it behooves us to kill them all to give birth to the New Utopia.

     This notion has been the guiding principle of Liberals ever since.  At every opportunity they massacre those standing in the way of the New Order.  In the horrific aftermath of the October Revolution Jews massacred millions.  Picking up the baton Stalin engineered a famine in a genocidal attempt to murder independent farmers called Kulaks.  A few years later the Leftist Adolf Hitler attempted to exterminate a number of enemies of his New Order.  Mao added his tens of millions.  But, that’s not a billion you say?  Well, that is a possible if seemingly not probable next step.  It is already in the works.

     I don’t know how many of you have heard of Noel Ignatiev.  He is a Jewish Harvard graduate who has formed an organization called Race Traitor.  In a Winter 1991 article in his magazine called RaceTraitor  [ http://racetraitor.org/abolish.html ]  the lead article was entitled: Abolish The White Race– By Any Means Necessary.  Perhaps wisely, the article is unsigned.  The article is sheer rhetoric with so many logical flaws I can’t begin to go into them here.  The article intends to be divisive.  The intent is to persuade as many White people as possible to renounce their ‘White Skin Privilege’, whatever that might mean.  This will be a step in abolishing the White ‘race’ which Ignatiev perceives as a monolith, perhaps along the lines of his own Jewish culture.  The above notion provides Ignatiev and his Culture an escape clause because, although nominally White, they, we are led to believe, have renounced their White Skin Privilege.

page 18

     As a New Aboloitionist as Ignatiev refers to his organization the Jewish Culture is safely on the side of the colored ‘races’ of the world.  The destruction of a billion Whites still seems improbable but Ignatiev and his fellows have already induced guilt into a very large number of Whites neutralizing them while cadres of White ‘youths’ have been enlisted in the cause.  They are supposed to renounce their Whiteness by breeding with colored people thus losing Whiteness in color.

     At the same time those who seem more aggressively White, refusing to be intimidated have been defamed and castigated as ‘White Supremacists’ being reviled and hated by not only the New Abolitionists and colored peoples but also by all White People who have not been so designated.  So, if you allow for 10% of the Whites to be unrepentant that amounts to about 100 million people spread over hundreds of locations.  As this sub group has now been demonized as sub-human while standing in the way of Ignatiev’s New Order of a world without White people it is historically perfectly permissible to kill them all.

      Now, concentration camps have been set up in the US, you can find pictures of them on the internet, huge tent cities that have ostensibly been set up to house illegal immigrants.  Why anyone would want to house illegal immigrants who no one is interested in arresting anyway remains a mystery.   Then who are these camps on which a vast sum has already been expended for?  I suggest you examine certain legislation before Congress concerning ‘Hate Laws’ and draw your own conclusions.

     So, with the obstructionists of the New Order safely out of the way the next batch of the less than enthusiastic Whites can be safely dealt with by the New Abolitionists.  Diminished, disarmed and defenseless it will be a small matter to finish off a mere half billion or so, if they haven’t already had the sense to blend in with the coloreds.  As I have pointed out before the rule is to keep the women and kill the men so in reality it would only be necessary for a holocaust of a quarter billion.  Get’s easier, doesn’t it?

page 20.

     As a historical process this would complete the Semito-European war that began approximately 6000 years ago with a total victory for the Semites.

     Let us go back to the mano a mano duel between Wells and Burroughs as centered around The Lad And The Lion.  We still have two stories to deal with, one is the desert story when The Lad now known as Aziz is made a member of Arab society and the Moscow story.  Having never read the original  magazine story it still seems reasonable that Burroughs adapted the 1914 story to his 1938 needs.

     When the ship was grounded a new life began for Aziz  and the Lion.  The change was complete.  The ship drifted ashore at high tide, the tide went out so far that the ship left high and dry rolled over on its side allowing the pair to walk ashore over dry land. 

     This is a dream representation of Burroughs own transition from being adrift to realizing success as a writer.  As the old tyrant had died just previously one may believe that the death of his father  coinciding with his success released Burroughs from thrall.

     The situation now is more perfect than Tarzan, indeed this story may be a bridge between the Russian Quartet and the rest of the series.  It falls between Beasts Of Tarzan and Son Of Tarzan prefiguring the latter in many ways, while the lion may be considered the predecessor of the Golden Lion linking the rest of the series.

page 20.

     Naked came Aziz.  Not only naked but illiterate and speechless.  The epileptic deaf mute was unable to teach him anything.  The blow to his head from the raft had obliterated his memory that obviously included the memory of language.  He has learned lion talk however, he has a pretty impressive roar.  Aziz does have remarkable native intelligence however so he learns with an alacrity that is astonishing.

     Actually both he and the lion have no survival skills whatever not even knowing how to hunt.  Contrary to most feral children Aziz is able to evaluate a situation and come up with an appropriate solution.  Thus when he and the lion fail at chasing the prey down Aziz does a quick analysis then places himself above the prey and lion driving the beasts into the jaws of the lion.  Not bad for a complete novice.

     In a scene reminiscent of the Percival story of King Arthur Aziz when he sees his first Arab horsemen is as entranced as Percival was when he first saw the knights.  By 1914 I doubt if Burroughs had read much of the lore of King Arthur but by 1938 he may have, must have.  One odd item that may be coincidence of course is that when Percival is asked his name by the knights in Chretien de Troyes’ Grail he replies that it is ‘darling boy’ which is how his mother referred to him.  When Nakhla names the Lad she calls his Aziz which in Arabic means ‘beloved.’  The French officer’s daughter when she learns his name remarks that he must have been named by his mother or a sweetheart as she explains the meaning of Aziz to him.  Aziz has obviously mastered French within a couple weeks having kicked off his linguistic skills with lion and Arabic.

     Aziz’ romance with Nakhla had been abandoned when he was told she had married.  Thus when with the French woman and a group of French soldiers they visit Nakhla’s Arab camp the young woman is devastated to see Aziz in the company of another woman, dressed as a European soldier.  Burroughs likes the comedy of errors approach.

page 21

     The situation changes rapidly when Aziz overhears the Captain describe himself in an uncomplimentary fashion as unfit for his daughter.  Stripping down to loin cloth Aziz heads back into the desert as the wid beast he is, although by this time he knows lion, Arab and French which places him two languages ahead of most civilized people.  On the way back his two lion friends pounce on him which must have hurt not a little.  Kind of like being embraced by a speeding freight train.

     Burroughs begins to describe Aziz as a lion man.  I think this would be the first reference to a lion man in the corpus unless the reference was only included in the rewrite of ’38.  Tarzan is described as a lion man while at the same time he has parallel indenties as a Monkey Man and an Elephant Man.  In this case Aziz is solely a lion man.  He left the ship with the male lion who has no name and acquired a female lion who was attracted by the male at about the same time Aziz became aware of Nakhla.  As with De Vac of the Outlaw Of Torn the lion seems to be associated with Aziz’ Anima.  With the arrival of the female the Anima shifts to the female with the male moving to the Animus while Aziz makes a ‘real life’ connection to a living female forming the appropriate quaternity.

     Having left the French where he also learned that Nakhla wasn’t married he visits the Sheik’s encampment to make up.  Here the Sheik is indignant at Aziz presumption called him worse names than the Captain did.  Aziz is so crushed that one wonders if Burroughs himself wasn’t grossly insulted by old Mr. Hulbert, Emma’s father.  While he is debating with himself Nakhla is captured by his rival Ben Saada.

     At this point it would be good to have read the magazine version for comparison.  As this story is running parallel with the Moscow story Burroughs may have coordinated the two, changing the orginal version considerably.  If that were the case then the desert story is almost certainly influenced by E.M. Hull’s 1921 novel, The Sheik and the movie of the same year starring Rudolph Valentino.

page 22.

     In any event in the denouement Burroughs does his usual action razzle dazzle but Aziz still has no memory of his origins.  In a battle with the outlaws he gets clubbed with a rifle on the forehead.  He is out of it for a couple days.  There is concern whether he will survive.  His skull is torn open the familiar way.  This is the third major blow Aziz has received in this story and it’s a short one.  When he comes to his head is being bathed on the lap of Nakhla and wonder of wonders his full memory has returned.  He knows who he is: he is no longer a pauper but a Prince.  Little Lord Fauntleroy has come into his own.

     We will leave Aziz at this point and turn to the parallel story of Prince Ferdinand, Hilda de Groot and the Revolution.

     Prince Ferdinand and Hilda is a retelling of George W.M. Reynold’s second series subtitled, Venetia Trelawney.  Hilda is Venetia while Ferdinand represents George IV.  Hilda’s brother Hans probably represents Venetia’s husband, Horace Sackville.  If I am correct in supposing that Burroughs read The Mysteries Of The Court Of London c. 1898 then the memory of the story surfaces here forty years later in 1938.  Not bad.

     Burroughs telling of the story here may be a parody on H.G. Wells.  Like George IV who had rather womanize than pay attention to affairs of State Ferdinand does also.  Unlike George who maintained the throne Ferdinand is caught in the Revolution being murdered, perhaps a reference to Nicholas II.

     I am sure the story is replete with references and insults I am not getting or they are tenuous enough to prevent certainty.  The first revolutionary chieftain for instance is named Meyer which is not too far from Mayer perhaps referring to Louis B. Mayer of MGM.

page 23.

     Burroughs is writing this in 1938 after he has been under attack for twenty years.  This book is addressed to Wells who began his literary attack in 1923.  There is no reason to doubt the major battles took place from 1930 to 1934.  In 1931 MGM whose President was the highest paid executive in the US, Louis B. Mayer, filched control of Tarzan’s image from Burroughs.  By 1934  when the second MGM Tarzan was released Burroughs was thoroughly beaten.

     You know, a man has to think about things.  You have to be pretty slow or psychologically sanguine to think that things just happen.  As we can see from Lad Burroughs was well aware of Wells’ involvement.  The studio heads did not stand in the way of the Red infiltration of Hollywood.  They welcomed the Red movie makers who fled Hitler into the studio system.  They had no trouble blending in the Frankfurt School when it arrived in Hollywood in 1941.  If as John Howard Lawson said that the studio heads approved of every single scene and line in every single movie then while they may have rejected some overt Red inferences it may not have been because they were Red but because they believed the country wasn’t ready for them.

     Even though everyone talks about the Hollywood Black List of HUAC there was always a Hollywood Black List.  After the so-called post-1950 Black List most people who weren’t objected to for other reasons eventually found their way back into movie work.  It didn’t take that long.  This could not have been done if these ultra-authoritarian studio heads hadn’t permitted it.  So while I have never heard that Louis B. Mayer was following a Red agenda yet talking movies have always had a Red tinge becoming more open as the decades wore on.

     Mayer was subservient to the ‘money’ men in New York City.  The actual control of the movies came from that quarter so Mayer in no way was an independent operator.  One would have to examine Loew’s in New York City for Communist influence before one cleared Louis B. Mayer.  I have the feeling that Burroughs may have been telling us something.

page 24.

     In the intervening twenty-four years from the first version of Lad Burroughs was not idle.  Even though not considered a serious writer yet he allows serious topics to creep in that indicate wide reading if not study.  There were two items I found interesting.  The first is a psychological reference.  Even though I was laughed at for suggesting Burroughs had psychological interests consider this:  Lad, p. 56:

     “Meyer was too rabid and too radical,” said Carlyn.  “He wanted to accomplish everything at a single stroke.  I can see now that he was wrong.”

     “Meyer wanted to be dictator,” said Andresy.  “He was mad for power, and too anxious to obtain it quickly.  That came first with Meyer, the welfare of the people second.  It is strange what small, remote things may affect the destiny of a nation.”

     “What do you mean?” asked Carlyn.

     “Because Meyer, as a child, was suppressed and beaten by his father; because on that account, he had a feeling of inferiority, he craved autocratic power that would permit him to strike back in revenge.  Meyer did not realize it himself; but when he struck at government, he was striking at his father.  When he ordered the assassination of the king he was condemning his father to death in revenge for the humiliation and brutalities the father had inflicted on him.  Now the king is dead and Michael and Meyer and Bulvik and hundreds of men and women who believed in Meyer; but Meyer’s father is still alive, basking in the reflected glory of his martyred son.  Life is a strange thing, Carlyn.  Civilization is strange and complex.  The older I grow the more I realize how little any of us know what it is all about.  Why do we strive?  Everything we attain always turns out to be something we do not want, and then we try to change it for something else that will be equally bad.  Oh well, but I suppose that we must keep on.  How do you plan to kill the king?”

page 25.

     Carlyn strarted, as though caught red-handed in a crime.

     “God!” he exclaimed.  “Don’t spring it on me like that.”

     Andresy laughed.  “You have nerves, don’t you?…I shall put it in an emasculated style.”

     In the first place we have a full blown psychoanalysis of Meyer’s motives that demonstrates study and thought.  What is of more interest to me is Carlyn’s reaction to Andresy and the latters unusual joking of let me emasculate my comment for you.  That is a very unusual way of expressing the point.  That would indicate to me that Burroughs has been studying and thinking about emasculation possibly from reading Freud himself or magazine articles discussing Freud’s concept of emasculation.  In any event Burroughs is much deeper into psychology at this point than readers have been willing to acknowledge.  As a response to Wells’ ‘Blettsworthy’ this is turning into a psychology duel to which Burroughs gives the coup de grace in the very short and pointed last chapter.  That chapter would lead me to believe that Burroughs had rewritten the whole of Lad from stem to stern to deal with the Wellsian attack.

     One can imagine Burroughs with Blettsworthy in one hand and the first Lad in the other musing on what course to take.

     Apropos of assassination in general the story of Wesl is a general blueprint.  This gets into a little speculation but in 1937 a year before book publication of Lad Burroughs lived in an apartment building also lived in by the Chicago Outfit mobster Johnny Roselli.  Roselli would later figure in Burroughs’ war novel, Tarzan And The Foreign Legion as Johnny Rosetti.  It would seem more than probable that Roselli would make it a point to get to know the world famous author of Tarzan.  Roselli would wish to impress Burroughs with inside criminal information.  From my study of Burroughs I have come to the conclusion that he borrowed a significant amount of detailing from elsewhere.  I have already mentioned the Venetia Trelawney aspects of th Ferdinand/Hilda story.  If one reads the Wesl story one will notice a general resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald’s supposed assassination of John F. Kennedy.  There are those who maintain the assassination was a mob hit.  As the assassination fits so well with the Wesl story one is led to believe that the Outfit had a general assassination plan that Roselli related to Burroughs.  I have no proof of this other than the fact that Roselli knew Burroughs and that the latter would probably have borrowed the plan rather than have invented it.

page 26.

     In the story Wesl (pronounce it, Weasel) is told by the revolutionaries to enter the palace grounds at a certain hour and stand in a certain place.  He is told to wear gloves and be unarmed.  He is the Fall Guy.

     The crime involved here is the assassination of King Otto.  Carlyn enters the kings room which was just above Wesl’s post and shoots the King.  Tossing the gun out the window it lands at Wesl’s feet.  While Wesl dithered Carlyn using another gun, different caliber, shot at him.  Wesl began to run.  As he reached the gate Carlyn dropped him.  Thus all the testimony of ‘eye witnesses’ and the circumstantial evidence pointed to Wesl.  Case closed.

     If the outfit were involved in the Kennedy Assassination, which is more than probable, then following the Roselli scenario it is more than probable that Oswald was the Fall Guy as he himself said on television.  He would have realized this as he watched the action in Dealy Plaza from his prime vantage point.  He immediately realized he was the expendable fall guy, threw down his rifle and raced to his apartment to get his hand gun.  Officer Tibbets was on the way to assassinate him but Oswald got the drop on Tibbets first then entered a public place where the hit on him would be obvious.  It therefore follows that like Wesl he had to be eliminated.  It was therefore made easy for Jack Ruby to make the hit on Oswald.  That Ruby was connected to the Outfit makes his ‘patriotic’ story wash ‘thin as piss on a rock’ to use President Nixon’s expression.

page 27.

     While the above proves nothing about the Kennedy Assassination  it should give food for thought.  Johnny Roselli claimed to have risen out of the sewer to deliver the actual shot that did Kennedy in.  I just love this stuff.

     At any rate it is almost certain Burroughs got the assassination plan from somewhere else.  If not from Roselli than from some forgotten short story or elsewhere.  I’m betting on Johnny Roselli.

     So, there we have the Ferdinand/Hilda story adapted from G.W.M. Reynolds and the revolutionary story from events in Russia from 1905 to 1917 and beyond.  A third influence seems to be the Ruritania/Graustark stories of Burroughs first novels which would be constellated around the magazine version of Lad.  The combination with later events gives a nice illusion of continuity.

     The account is very generalized so that there is no obvious reason to retaliate on Burroughs.  There can be no mistaking that Meyer was meant to be a Jew as Meyer is a Jewish name.  That would have been daring enough for Louis B. Mayer to know who Burroughs was referring to.

     The evidence is that this was Burroughs last intended shot in the war as at the very end in reference to Wells he throws in the towel.  It might be well to quote the entire chapter 25 with some commentary.

     Quote:

Chapter Twenty-five.

     Magazines from civilization seep into many far corners of the world.  One such, an illustrated weekly of international renown found its way into the douar of an Arab sheik.  The son-in-law of Ali-Es-Hadji was reading therein an account of happenings in a far-off kingdom.  He read of the assassination of King Ferdinand and Hilda de Groot, and he examined with interest their pictures and pictures of the palace and palace gardens.  There was a full page picture of General Count Sarnya, the new Dictator.  There was also a picture of an elderly, scholarly looking man, named Andresy who had been shot with many others by order of Sarnya because they had attempted to launch a counter-revolution.

     One day General Count Sarnya received a cablegram.  It was from from Sidi Bel Abbes.  All it said was, “Congratulations! You have my sympathy.” and it was signed, “Michael.

That’s a well packed paragraph that might have been expanded to three pages or so.  It weems too compact to me yet I suppose it contains all the information to make its point even if it lacks color and shading.

     The opening sentence is a direct reference to E. M. Hull’s The Sheik.  In that novel the heroine, Diana, is presented in nearly the exact scene.  She was the captive wife of the Sheik; Michael is the husband of the Sheik’s daughter.  So we have a reversal of roles.  I believe Burroughs is an adept at this.

     The question is to whom is the paragraph addressed.  It is obviously meant to be read by someone:  is it Stalin? is it Wells? or is it intended for both?  You may be certain that both men read it.  Let us take Wells first.

     By 1938 Wells had had a definite falling out with Stalin.  As I pointed out, in next year’s Holy Terror He would call for the assassination of Stalin.  Wells had reason to be bitter.  He was definitely in love, even dependent on the Soviet state prostitute, Moura Budberg.  Stalin had sadistically let him see Budberg and Maxim Gorky together when Budberg told him she was somewhere else.  Then Stalin ordered Budberg to break off with Wells.  One can’t be certain but I most certainly believe Burroughs was keeping up on these details of Wells’ life which, while not perhaps common knowledge, were no secret while probably being an item of gossip among the cognoscenti.

page 29.

     Now, Burroughs had recently taken a new young wife so that he was able to flaunt her to a broken hearted Wells.  In Blettsworthy that hero who had been living a fantasy life along the lines of Burroughs’ stories has been under the care of a psychiatrist.  When he regains his sanity he learns he hasn’t been living on Rampole Island but in his imagination in New York City.  New York City?

     As the Lad is an answer to Blettsworthy, consider:  Michael as a child  has a raft fall on his head giving him total amnesia.  Unlike Blettsworthy he is actually living the fantasy at sea and in the African desert.  Than, a la Tarzan, not to mention Burroughs self, he gets his forehead bashed and torn open suffering excruciating head aches, as did Burroughs in real life.  Then Aziz’ collapse.  When he recovers, voila! his memory is completely restored but rather than being in New York City he is still in his exotic location in the desert his head in the lap of his beauteous new wife,  Nakhla.  So we have a probable sneer at Wells who will read the novel.

     To Stalin:  As remote a possibility as it may seem there is every evidence of some kind of duel between Stalin and Burroughs.  There is no other reason for him to introduce Stalin into Invincible and Triumphant by name.  The alternate Russian story of Lad is a fictional account of the two Russian Revolutions.  Count Sarnya is obviously meant to be Stalin.  The execution of Andesy and the counter-revolutionists must refer to the show trials of 1936.

     So here we definitely have a sneer at Stalin.  Burroughs waves both men off as though he’s finished with them.  Burroughs had had enough, he will be content to tend his own garden.

page 30.

     By 1938 Burroughs had been pretty thoroughly plundered in a fight that was not of his own makiing.  MGM had Tarzan, his writing career was effectively over.  If the pulps were inflitrated by Reds giving him trouble the talkies had him on the ropes.  When Burroughs said he no longer read fiction he was still watching many volumes of fiction on the screen.  The fiction laden pulps couldn’t compete with the movies.  That market if not closed was no longer lucrative.  He was out of radio.  The only steady income he had came from the comic strips.  Within a couple years he would be run out of Hollywood.

     All the bright new young writers were Communists, no one else could get their foot in the door.  As one of the old dinosaurs Burroughs had pretty effectively been cut from the tree.

     The America he had known in the nineteenth century was gone.  The last buffalo robe had been sold in the twenties.  Even the America of the first and second decades were gone.  Heck, the twenties were only a fond memory.  The grim Communist politics of FDR had arrived with the Dust Bowl.  Hitler had flushed out all the Freudian Jewish psychoanalysts of Europe into New York and Hollywood.  The Frankfurt School that had fled to Switzerland in 1932 gave up Europe in 1935 fleeing to New York City.  In 1941, probably to escape any danger from a Nazi invasion of New York they fled further West to Hollywood to find Santa Barbara shelled by the Japanese in 1942.

     The extermination camps of Hitler accellerated the success of the Jewish Revolution by more than somewhat.  In 1946 a direct frontal attack on America began with the release of the movie, Gentlemen’s Agreement.

     That tall thin guy watching The Testament Of Dr. Mabuse in 1943 and The Iceman Cometh in 1946 staged his The Death Of A Salesman in 1949.  the play had a curious affect on the nation seeming to undermine its confidence although it is difficult to understand why.  That is the reason Arthur Miller is lauded as a genius not from any ablility as either a thinker, or a playwright.

     From then on the deconstruction of America was a piece of cake.  The reconstruction along Jewish Cultural lines began in earnest in the sixties being nearly complete today except for some counte-revolutionaries in the odd nook and cranny, here and there.