A Review

Reconstruction:

Foner, Du Bois, Bowers

by

R.E. Prindle

Bowers, Claude:  The Tragic Era, 1929

Du Bois:  Black Reconstruction In America:  1860-1880, 1935

Foner, Eric:  Reconstruction:  America’s Unfinished Revolution 1988

 

     While race, or species, is the cental problem of Reconstruction none of the above writers bothers to really examine the issue.

     On the one hand the United States was settled by the highest exemplars of human development at that time.  The evolutionary nature of the European settlers was unfolding at a rapid rate that was to blossom in the nineteenth century although still at a relatively low stage of development.

     Added to his species of Homo Sapiens was the infusion of diverse African populations fresh from the jungles of Africa.  The African peoples are believed to be the first Homo Sapiens to evolve.  they had been in Africa for 150,000 years and had attained no indigenous level of civilization.

     Not all African peoples are the same age.  For instance, the Bantu peoples who came into existence in the Sahel near Ubang-Chari are an obvious Negro-Arab hybrid.  The hybrid developed about 1000AD spreading South and East across the continent.  The Bantus drove the indigenous Bushmen before them eventually forcing the remnant into the Kalihari.

     The West Africans may be tha stock on which the Arab was grafted.  Now, the anthropologists tell us that at some point the hominid strain evolved into Homo Sapiens I, which is to say the Black African.  But, they don’t tell us, nor are they capable of it, exactly what separates the Last Hominid Predecessor from Homo Sapiens.  We don’t know what those indicators are.  Either the Last Hominid Predecessor has disappeared without a trace or the Bushmen may be the LHP or even the West African.  Certainly there are marked differences between the African and the Semite, Caucasian and Mongolid.  The difference is of an intellectual character as well as a number of physical ones, which is to say, genetic.

     No one will deny the physical differences, they are maintained as merely cosmetic.  It is in the intellectual field we encounter resistance.

     Science has given ample proof that there is a difference in mental capacity between Africans and Caucasians, Mongolids and Semites.  There is an emotional problem with the Biblically oriented because the bible says God created man and The Declaration Of Independence of the United States says that:  ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…’

     So we have the statements of men against the scientific evidence of nature.  I opt for science.

     The European discovered Ameica and invaded it or settled it depending on how you choose to see it.  Following the scientific approach of Darwin I understand that the Europeans invaded the continent driving the earlier settlers before it in the exact same way that one species of bird, for insance, supplants another.

     The Europeans had not yet developed the notion of free labor the way they would in the nineteenth century so they brought indentured White ‘servants’ over who were in fact, slaves.  Shortly thereafter a sea captain unloaded a cargo of Africans as laborers who also became slaves.  Over a period of decades the Africans displaced the Europeans as slaves but not before extensive interbreeding as both species were used as field hands.

     In Darwinian terns then, as a competing human species Europeans displaced the Native Americans, or Indians, while at the same time introducing the African species which by the time of Reconstruction would enter into competition with the Caucasians for possession of the the continent.  The difference in species was an irreconcilable difference, an either-or situation.  This is the tragedy of the United States of America and the Western Hemisphere.

     Africans were always a signficant portion of the population of the United States, moreso in the South but they were not inknown in the North where they were treated little differently than in the South.  Edgar Allan Poe recors an instance of Negro slavery in Pennsylvania that was not all that unusual.

     Prior to 1793 the ratio of Black to White was much smaller but in that year Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin.  This invention opened the black lands across the South from the coast through Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas to Texas to cotton cultivation.  Black lands does not refer to Negroes but to the soil.

     Thus from 1793 to 1860 the importation of Africans increased greatly.  The African population skyrocketed.  At the time of the Civil War Du Bois estimates that 10% were African born.  That is one in ten.  The percentage born to mothers from from Africa and first Generation Africans must therefore represent a full 25% of the African population.  Thus, at the time of Emancipation at least one in four can be said to be African in culture.

     Indeed, Mark Sullivan (1874-1952) in his wonderful multi-volume popular American history, Our Times, recalls the charm of the Africanisms of the Negro that had disappeared by the turn of the century.

      Contrary to common belief the number of slaveholders in the South was relatively small.  Non-slaveholders outnumbered slaveholder by a considerable margin.  Also contrary to common belief Whites, Blacks and Indians all owned slaves.  As one progressed from East to West conditions became more barbarous.  Relatively benign in the East by the time one reached Louisiana where the majority of Black slave owners domiciled according to Du Bois slaves were actually worked to death, the owners then buying replacements.  Although it was denied and covered up Kentucky bred Africans for sale to the Deep South.

     There are those who say that slavery was a dying institution that would have disappeared on its own.  Whether it would have or not I see little to indicate such a development.

     The plantations could huge affairs of a hundred thousand acres or more; self-contained cotton growing duchies.  Having the economic power the Planters controlled politics.  The much larger non-slave owning White majority was despised by both Planters aand Blacks while being bent to the will of the Planters.  It is interesting to watch Du Bois twist and turn trying to explain why it was right for the slaves to despise the ‘po’ white trash.’

     The Planters built up a very pleasant situation for themselves on the backs of both Blacks and Whites.  ‘Oh, Darkies, how my heart grows weary’, Br’er Rabbit, Br’er Fox and that sort of thing.  Disney’s Song Of The South really cranked out the Blacks.  The Planter-Black alliance against the Southern Whites has evolved today into the Liberal-Black alliance against ‘Whiteness.’

     At the time the Planters had abundant opportunity to study the Blacks.  They came to the conclusion, without using the term, that the Africans were a different species, since corroborated by science.

     Thus, when Reconstruction began we had a two species competing for the same territory.  The species were inherently unequal.  Equality of intellect could only be obtained by education, if at all.  In addition, as I noted, fully 25^ or, one in four, had but recently been removed from the African jungles.  The remaining three quarters had been in the state of slavery for generations.  They were thoroughly cowed.  Any hope of freedom they had was hundreds of years old.  They were in a body illiterate.  Indeed, it was against the law to school them.

     As Du Bois points out because of its hitorical relation to the French Caribbean Louisiana had the largest group of educated and cultured Blacks.  Indeed, the early cultural history of New Orleans is worth of study.  There were things going on there that weren’t going on in other places.

     At one stroke then in 1863 the bonds of the community were broken apart and this Black population nearly equal in size to the Whites, in some places exceeding it, was placed on a political parity by Northern bayonets.  Truly a secon Civil War in the South between Blacks and Whites was the only possible result.  The first result as Eric Foner says was the Unifinished American Revolution.

2.

         The argument of Du Bois depends on the character of the Negro.  That it is both wrong to enslave another and that the introduction of the Negro into the Americas as the greatest error of all goes without saying.  The point is that we have two Homo Sapiens species competing for the same land.  The dirrerences are irreconciable and can only be solved by the elimination of one or the other.  The problem as an evolutionary one is beyond reason.  No amount of good will can resolve it.  Tor those who haven’t thought this situation through the statement may sound strong but the current New Abolitionist movement is dedicated to the genocide of Whites.  That simple fact cannot be denied.

     Du Bois, who writes as a Black apologist and not an historian, has , or ast least displays absolutely no psychological understanding of the participants.  He believes he is an excellent historian but I’m not prepared to allow him that without a grasp of psychology.

     In his view which he shares with Liberals the Negro is by nature an inoffensive, happy-go-lucky fellow who wouldn’t harm a fly.  Why, during the war didn’t he stand by the Missus and the kids while the menfolk were off shooting the Negroes who had joined the Yankee war machine and made it work?  According to Du Bois the war couldn’t have been won if those Negro soldiers hadn’t joined up. 

     Supposing that Blacks in the heart of the South did remain quiescent?  Does that mean it was because they were happy and contented or does it mean they were waiting for the results before stirring? Actually the Southern states were the only place Africans in the world were so quiescent so we have to look for other reasons than good natured loyalty.

     Earlier in the century when a majority population of Africans revolted against a small minority of Whites in Haiti the Africans slaughtered the White males while retaining the White females as sex slaves. 

     In Jamaica where the small minority of Whites couldn’t control the large majority of Africans, Africans escaped to the hinterlands where they formed their own district and carried on guerilla warfare from there.

     Their earlier African heritage had been no different than the Africans of the South.  Tribal wars of extermination were the sole constant of African life.  Tribal centers rose and fell.  Livingstone and others discovered burnt over ruin after burnt over ruin, formerly populous lands entirely deserted. 

     In today’s Africa Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has completely demolished the civilization Whites had built up.  One of his first acts upon taking office was to attempt the extermination of the Matabele Zulu over a hundred and fifty year old grievance.

     Now that the Africans in South Africa have been granted power over the Whites they are committing genocide against them while dismantling the civilization the Whites built up.  They simply cannot sustain it.

     In the United States today the Blacks of New Abolitionism are calling for the disappearance of Whiteness now that the United States’ unfinished revolution, as Foner expresses it, is rushing to its conclusion.  Unless the Whites of America wake up Whiteness will disappear and the unfinished revolution conclude in their destruction.  In other words, in the Darwinian sense the African species of Homo Sapiens in competition with the White Homo Sapiens species will eliminate them completely.  Human abilities to speak and reason mean nothing compared to the forces of nature, especially when those forces go unrecognized.

     Thus the major weakness of Du Bois’ thesis is that he fails to understand, at least state, the causes of irreconcilable differences.  African people are not as he discribes them.  Nor are Whites.

     Bowers makes it more clear that from the White point of view the battle between Whites was the great tragedy.  From that point of view the whole purpose of Reconstruction was to reconcile the Whites without any reference to Africans.  The Africans were an unpleasant reality that cvould be disposed of in only one way and extermination was too horrible for the Whites to contemplate while, as we have seen, it wasn’t for the Africans of Haiti and isn’t for the Africans of today not only in Zimbabwe and South africa but in the United States of America.  New Abolitionism means the genocide of Whites.

     Bowers wrote in 1929 with popular success so that Du Bois’ volume seems to have been conceived in answer to Bowers.  Bowers takes a pessimistic view of the capabilities of Africans while Du Bois stoutly defends their abilities.  One is led to believe that there was no public edcuation in the South before the war while the bulk of the Whites were as illiterate as the Africans by Du Bois.  The Africans in their desire for learning then organized the entire public school system generously including Whites who promptly segregated the schools. 

     A.W. Tourgee in his novel Bricks Without Straw that Du Bois refers to constantly has an interesting passage in which this notion apparently began and persists to this day.  Bricks Without Straw p. 127:

     As they rode away the two representatives of antipodal thought discussed the scenes they had witnessed that day, which were equally new to them both, and naturally enough drew from them entirely different conclusions.  The Northern man enthusiastically prophesied the rapid rise and miraculous development of the colored race under the impetus of free schools and free thought.  The Southern man only saw in it a prospect of more “sassy niggers,” like Nimbus, who was “a good enough nigger, but mighty aggravating to the white folks.”

     With regard to the teachers, he ventured only this comment:  “Captain, it’s a mighty pity them gals are teaching a nigger school.  They’re too likely for such work- too likely by half.”

      The man whom he addressed only gave a low, quiet laugh at this remark, which the other found it difficult to interpret.

          Over the succeeding century and a half the Africans seem to have lost their zeal for education while being less cpable of it than the Northern man thought.  No miraculous development of Africans has ocurred.  The facts seem to be that the average intelligence as measured by IQ testing of the African species is fifteen or twenty points below that of the Whites while being even higher in Africa where the Africans have not come into direct contact with Western Civilization.

     That this fact is true can be seen by the institution of Affirmative Action.  Blacks have access to equal education but in order to get ‘equalization of results’ the Liberal reactionaries have essentially given Africans a fifteen to twenty point handicap and the declared results equal. 

     I wonder what Tiger Wood would thing about Affirmative Action in golf where his oppoents where given a ten or fifteen point handicap?

     The Liberals tacitly acknowledge the unbridgable gap in intellectual capabilites between the two species by the institution of Affirmative Action.

     Thus following the defeat of the South, Northern troops were garrisoned in the South to establish equality on the point of a bayonet which was the only way it could be done.

     Both Bowers and Du Bois point out the hyprocrisy of the North forcing recial equality on the South when they denied such equality to Africans in the North.  The hypocrisy was stifling.  While the North insisted on the enfranchisement of the Africans in the South there were very, very few places in the North where Africans were allowed to vote.

     Du Bois repeatedly refers to Tourgee’s (with a soft G) Bricks Without Straw in corroboration of his view.  I have since read Bricks Without Straw which I found a good novel and historically valuable but my reading of the story doesn’t produce the same results as does that of Du Bois.  It seems that there is more than one way to approach the story.

     Tourgee was a carpetbagger who went South to make his fortune.  While I have faith that his representation is accurate he still describes two different species, as in the above quote, competing for the same space within the framework of the recent past.  If he is speaking his own thoughts through the mouth of the Captain then if he were alive today he would have to admit his error.

     The Africans were still a freed people with a two hundred year history of subjection. There was no way they could function in a free society.  The situation was impossible.   Ante-bellum laws had made it a crime to school slaves so that according to Tourgee not one African in a thousand could read or write.  Du Bois in his depiction of the African’s eagerness for education places the figure much higher.  It is difficult in the circumstances to understand how the millions of African in the black belt of the Cotton Kingdom could have gotten even a smidgeon of education.  It was against the law.  Laws are wonderful things, watch out for them.

     Even freed it is impossible to believe that many adults could learn to read or write.  Education requires the pliable minds of the yung.  It takes real determination to learn to read and write as an adult which very few have.   To be law abiding can be criminal under certain laws.  Witness the lawful Naze society.

      Bowers gives a feel for the conflict between the species with atrocities on either side.  Du Bois takes theposition of the poor suffering amiable negro who was harassed and brutalized by the Whjites while patiently relying on the courts for justice.  Remember he believes this the Negro nature.

     Bowers is closer to the truth but that is irrelevant.  As Foner says this was the beginning of America’s  unfinished revolution.  Reconstruction was the first phase followed by the counter revolution of the Jim Crow period.  That period ended, to use a convenient date in 1954 with the Supreme Court decision in Brown Vs. The Board Of Education.

     Thus the African revolt began into the present time.  The candadicy of Barry Dunham-Obama signifies the completion of Foner’s unfinished revolution.  If elected the Liberal-African combine will begin in earnest to eliminate Whiteness in America.  The genocide of Whites which has already commenced and is fairly well advanced will be prosecuted in earnest. 

     Open your eyes and actually see what is happening.

 

                                                          

 

Exhuming Bob IX

Chronicles Vol. I

Pensees 3

by

R.E. Prindle

 

     …I needed to get my own place, one with my own bed, stove and tables.  It was about time.  I guess it could have happened earlier, but I liked staying with others.  It was a less of a hassle, easier, with little responsibility- places where i could freely come and go, sometimes even with a key, rooms with plenty of hardback books on shelves and stacks of phonograph records.  When I wasn’t doing anything else, I’d thumb through the books and listen to records.

     Not having a place of my own was beginning to affect my super-sensitive nature, so after being in town close to a year I rented a third floor walkup apartent…

Bob Dylan, Chronicles Vol. I

     Yes. Bob’s super-sensitive nature needed his own bed.  He and Suze Rotolo were an item soon after he met her in July of ’61.  He had to give up the the comfort of other people’s books and records in other people’s digs.  He needed his own privacy now.

     Suze would be an important influence in his life.  She came from a long line of Communist agitators.  She was not only Red to the- but was working for- CORE there in New York City.  Bob wasn’t writing much as yet since his major influences hadn’t come together.  While Bob doesn’t mention all those old C&W records as a songwriting influence he nevertheless has always written within a Country and Western context.  Guthrie, his first attested major influence rose from a C&W milieu.

     From being an apparent pauper, one reason Suze’s mother didn’t like him, Bob suddenly had the affluence to rent an apartment while being able to furnish it, even buying a used TV.  He and Suze moved in.  Suze is putting out an autobiography this month (May, 2008) so we’ll see if we can see what Bob saw in the girl.

     As a Communist lass working for CORE Suze must have talked up Civil Rights and other Reconstruction views a bit so we may probably accurately assume that she influenced Bob’s songwriting direction when he gets his songwriting attitude organized here in a paragraph or two.

     Bob came from small town Mid-West Hibbing.  I do know where that’s at.  While he was interested in records there was no indication he was ever interested in any other cultural areas.  He doesn’t seem to have evidenced any interest in the varied cultural life of New York City before he met Suze.  He was no habitue of museums although he does tell us he haunted the library where he read newspapers- those from 1855 to 1865.  No news like old news.

     His mind had been little prepared for what Suze had to show him.  Mid-West small towns can be stifling and that’s no joke.

     As Bob says:  I began to braoden my horizons, see a lot of what the world was like, especially the off-Broadway scene.  Then he mentions Le Roi Jones’ (Amiri Baraka) and the Living Theatre play, The Brig.  Bob may have seeen those plays with Suze but he didn’t see them within the time limits of his story so they could have had no influence on his songwriting development at this time.  Dutchman and The Baptism of Jones that he mentions were first performed in 1964 as was the Living Theatre’s, The Brig.  It is interesting that Jones’ The Bapstism is described as anti-religious when Jones turned Moslem and became Baraka shortly thereafter.  Baptism must have been more anti-White.

     Jack Gelber’s The Connection was made into a movie in  ’62 so he could have seen the play within this time period.  I couldn’t find any time period for the play but it ran for over two years.  I didn’t come up with anything for the Comedia Del Arte.

     The Brecht-Weil show drew a blank but as he seems to have been knocked out by the song Pirate Jenny that may have influenced his song When The Ship Comes In,  while he gives it prime importance as an influence that formed his skills  he must have seen that sometime in the Fall of ”61 or the Spring of ’62.

     He and Suze did visit the artist hangouts she was familiar with while broadening Bob’s horizons by trips to MOMA and the Metropolitan.    Bob probably saw Picasso’s Guernica at MOMA where it was on display at the time.  Bob developed a real interest in painting during this period.

     So, we have the book thumbings from his freeloading days, the records, Suze and her art influences and then when John Hammond signed him he gave Bob an acetate of the first Robert Johnson album, which didn’t sell for beans I might add.  The first Robert Johnson LP was released in 1960 so I don’t understand why Bob was given an acetate unless it was just lying around and Hammond picked it up or else acetates were a sop to new signees who had just been contractually screwed.  You think managers are bad, try record companies.

     Johnson was a revelation for Bob.  He saw something in the LP which only a few people ever have.  I’ve listened to it a couple of times and I’m with Dave Van Ronk.  So What?  There’s nothing to the vocals and he’s obviously a beginner on guitar.  It’s not that he’s inventive he just doesn’t know how to play.

     The story Bob tells is that a teenage Johnson is hanging around some Blues heavies and they shoo him off.  Johnson then meets a supposed guitar wizard nobody’s ever heard of who teaches this very receptive student mega volumes of guitar lore so that Johnson returns to the Blues heavies a year later to knock their socks off with his virtuosity.  As Van Ronk says:  ‘…oh that lick’s from here, this one’s from there; that song is a reworking of another and so on.  Greil Marcus quotes Johnson’s lyrics extensively in his Mystery Train.  Wow!  I guess too much of nothing can be a good thing.

     But anyway Bob learned three or four times as fast from Johnson as Johnson learned from the old coot who taught him.  Bob was up and running within three months.

     However Superbob the Songwriter wasn’t ready to step forth from the phone booth yet, there was something else lacking, what was it, something or other.  That’s it, in French, l’ autre.  Bob had discovered that he was someone else.  I know where that’s at too; I’ve been called somethin’ else a couple times I can remember.  So Bob was somewhere between Bob1 and Bob2.  The transition from Bobby Zimmerman to Bob Dylan had to be completed.  Bob picked up a copy of Arthur Rimbaud.  The book fell open in his hands and the words ‘Je suis un autre’ floated up before his eyes and were sucked into his soul.  Bob too realized that he had or was un autre.  Now Bob was ready to rock and roll.

     This is a pretty story and I like it.  I like it a lot.  It might even be true, I’m sure I don’t know and maybe Bob isn’t real positive.  Anyway the songs began to roll out.  John Hammond who had seen only a couple when he suspicioned there might be more in Bob’s head so  he sent the underaged lad to be signed by Lou Levy.  Songs were in the air I guess and Albert Grossman had his radio tuned to Bob’s brain and must have heard them.  Like a vulture spotting a dying man from several thousand feet in the air the eagle eyed Albert, and that is not meant as an insult, descended on Bob and scooped him up.  Wish I’d been there with the gift of gab, a shovelful of chutzpah.   A dream of a life time and Albert split it in two to come up with Bob and Peter, Paul And Mary.  The Fearsome Foursome.

     Although Bob was to have difficulties with Albert in later years when Albert’s cut was growing larger than Bob’s he seemed to have been welcome at this time.  Peter Yarrow says that without Albert Grossman there wouldn’t have been a Bob Dylan and this may be God’s own truth.  So how much did Bob really owe Albert?  But like The Colonel and Elvis a manager seems to inevitably believe the whole belongs to him.  The manager’s cut just seems to get larger and larger while the artist he’s working over gets to lick the plate.  But, those problems were in the future and as Bob’s songwriting skills matured Albert got him much more money than he could have gotten otherwise.

The Deconstruction Of

Edgar Rice Burroughs’

America

by R.E. Prindle

Part IV

The Red Triumph

How long, how long,

Has that leetle old evenin’ train

Been gone?

How long, how long,

Oh baby,

How long?

Trad.

     A pall fell over the world when the Communists assumed power.  Joy left the planet in favor of the sour envy of that ilk.  There were no happy Communists.  They knew no contentment.  They were as disaffected, dissatisfied with life, civilization and themselves, especially themselves as psychologically possible.  Misfits, envious with no prospects in life they were.  They were incapable of generating wealth; they could only appropriate and waste what others had created.  The spirit of vengeance which had been their dominant characteristic in the French Revolution would remain their goal throughout their existence.  There has been no Red government from the France of 1793 to the present that hasn’t believed in wholesale massacres of ‘enemies’ at the the least, genocide at the worst.  Quite frankly they can only think in terms of crime no matter how they rationalize it and they can rationalize like nobody’s business.

     Murder is part of their psychotic nature.  I do not exclude Hitler  and the Nazis as Red organizations.  Placed in the context of Redism Hitler and the Nazis are perfectly understandable.  The Nazis were National Socialists.  One can’t be socialist without being Red; one can’t be Red without believing in mass exterminations.  History speaks the for the truth about Reds; I merely repeat history.

     No one Red faction can be held  less accountable than others.  All participated equally and as joyously as their sour temperaments allowed.  Mild mannered college professors and sanctimonious ministers of the social gospel wholeheartedly supported the murders and atrocities of Communist regimes just as today they raise no outcry against the genocide and crimes against Whites taking place in Africa because they think the ‘right side’ has the upper hand.  Reds never did and never will have a disinterested concept of morality.  The Red idea of law and morality is merely a projection of their subconscious desire.

page 1.

     In the giddiness of the Russian success the Revolutionaries believed that the world revolution had arrived so that it was a matter of a few months before they assumed control of the world.

     Post-war success in Hungary encouraged them on.  Revolutionaries flowed back into Germany from Russia intent on bringing to fruition the ‘German’ revolution.  Success in Germany eluded them.  There the world revolution stalled.  It was going to a tougher job than anticipated.  The United States especially was not as ripe for their plans as they had projected.

     Resistance was prompt if somewhat flaccid.  Wilson’s program, while Red was opposed to that of Bolshevism.  Some have said that Wilson was merely envious of Lenin as the leader.  His Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude, cracked down hard on the Red cadres deporting a very few while putting the rest in disarray as a law was passed that outlawed the Communist Party temporarily.

     But all the Parlor Pinks, Fellow Travelers and Liberals interested in their form of ‘social justice’ and the ‘true American Way’ had the ban repealed.  As usual they misrepresented their motives.  The task now became one of subverting the ideals the country held sacred.

2.

Heroes And Villains

     We must now delineate the sides in the American struggle for supremacy as it stood in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution.

     The Liberal Coalition had gained the power of the Presidency in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson was inaugurated.  Although not appreciated as such this was an occurrance for the both the Jewish and World Revolution as significant for America as that of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.  The Wilson administration began the ‘partnership’ between America and the Jews as celebrated by Irving Berlin in his song, God Bless America, while this year of 1913 was the inaugurating year of the Jewish Revolution.  Off on the right foot.  At this point in 1913 for the first time the Jews became influential in the US government.  In 1916 Wilson created the ‘Jewish seat’ on the Supreme Court when he appointed the confirmed Zionist, Louis D. Brandeis, to the bench.

     During the War the Jews played an ambiguous or perhaps duplicitous role.  So long as Czarist Russia was in the War they refused to support the Allies.  This refusal led the British to attempt to buy their cooperation with the Balfour Declaration involving Palestine.  This was unnecessary as  after the Spring Revolution the Mensheviks dethroned the Czar effectually taking Russia out of the War.  At the time of the October Revolution of the Bolsheviks the Jews threw their support to the Allies against Germany.  As they had no troops to offer one wonders what this support was worth.  Perhaps a cessation of sabotage?

     In the US the Socialistic Wilson administration used its window of opportunity to attempt to impose it version of ‘equality’ on the American people.  The key agency was the WIB- War Industries Board- headed by the Jewish financier- the bear of Wall Street- Bernard Baruch.

     I’m not sure that the ultimate or secret plans of Wilson have ever been revealed but Baruch in his autobiography drops a few helpful hints.  The plan depended on the continuance of the War so that when that ended prematurely in 1918 the plan was aborted.

     At that time Wilson, through the WIB had orders ready for execution that would have limited the styles of shoes and clothing to just three or four styles within a definite price so that everyone would be dressed alike without distinction.  Wilson deemed inequality to be based on differences in dress.  Obvious, hey.

     If you think the Liberals discarded the plan just because the war ended all you have to do to look around you today and observe everyone in jeans or sports outfits of one kind or another.  The plan is about seventy per cent or so implemented.  It was done through infiltration of the fashion industry.

     Most troublesome for the leaders of industry was that the WIB required all businesses to submit financial and other data to the WIB for their evaluation.  Most significantly a center of resistance came from the auto industry of Detroit.  Noting all the Jews on the board who essentially had the industrial base of the US in their hands the auto makers demurred.  Of course the Masters of Denial deny that Jews were that involved but if the matter was noted who are you going to believe the Jews or the auto makers?  One of the other must have it wrong.  I’m betting on the auto makers against the Masters of Denial.

     The resistance of Detroit would have consequences.  The Jews never forget.  Significantly Henry Ford was not in thrall to the Eastern bankers thus being independent.  Now, Henry Ford and the Dodge Brothers, accurately noting the number of Jews on the WIB correctly divined their purpose.  Remember, if the War had gone on for another year or two Wilson would have been able to complete the revolution in toto changing the American character in one stroke while Jews would have assumed the role of Commissars or the role they had enjoyed in pre-expulsion Spain, that of middlemen under the crown administering to the general populace.  This is the ultimate cultural dream.

page 2.

     Objecting vociferously to the Wilson plan some intemperate remarks concerning the nature of Jews were made by the Dodge Brothers allowing the administration to play the race card with AS for anti-Semite up there in the corners.  Both the Dodges subsequently died in mysterious circumstance in 1920 while a strenuous effort was made to destroy Ford by bringing his company under the control of the New York bankers, that is to say, the Jews.  Thus there was very little cranky about any of Ford’s supposedly eccentric beliefs.  Such a characterization is mere defamation by his enemies.  Failing to break Ford the anti-Semitic race card was played against him that resulted in his excommunication from society.  They haven’t been able to flush him out of history yet but that may be just a matter of time.  I wouldn’t be suprised to see the marque changed to something other than Ford.

     The Jewish culture shifted the onus from themselves to the ‘anti-Semites’ in a clever damage control move to exonerate themselves.  Internationally the damage controllers also shifted the onus from themselves to ‘anti-Semites.’

     The Liberals, continuing the Reconstruction policy, now set the Jews, Negroes and immigrants over what we may call the Conservatives precisely as they had set the Negroes over the Southern Whites during the Reconstruction after the Civil War.  This was extended to the international field where the Liberals self-righteously adopted an anti-colonial policy.  As European colonialism was equated with Southern slaveholding in Liberal minds they took the side of the colonials, that is to say the colored Third World peoples against the Europeans.  Thus as Charles De Gaulle despairingly noted that America while a White country behaved as though they were a colored or Third World country.  Europeans then were classed with the Southern Whites and Conservatives of the United States.

     The Jewish Culture continued the ultra self-righteousness based on their projection that they were an exceptional people chosen by god to administer the affairs of the people of the world.  Although patently absurd and scientifically impossible the Jews were able to impose this notion on both the Liberal and conservative religious cultures of the US.  Thus although the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith was organized in 1913 as a terrorist organization and the NAACP came into prominence as a terrorist organization as members of the Coalition these patently racist outfits were considered virtuous.

     On the other hand Nativist organizations in reaction such as the APA- American Protective Association- or the the KKK- Ku Klux Klan- were considered kranky or actually terrorist.  In reality there was no difference in intent between any of these organizations.  You may call them protective or terrorist as you wish but they all functioned with the same goal in mind but for different sides.  That intent was to intimidate all others into submission.

     These were cultural wars, in other words, Cold Wars, not shooting wars so the battles were for the control of the dissemination of information, opinion and institutions.  In this the Jews were particularly effective having a clear idea of their objectives effectively seizing control of the key publishing units, the film industry and the emerging radio-television industries.

     Thus the Jews in the US were uniquely positioned to implement Freud’s program of cultural domination.  Now, all of this was done in the light of day so that it was impossible for the program to pass unperceived.  A firestorm of indignation against the Jewish culture ensued after the Russian Revolution.  It might be noted here that culturalism is merely latter day nationalism.  Its defense is patriotism.  So let’s keep the meanings of the terms straight.  The damage controllmen went to work successfully silencing all opposition while censoring the entire media over the next few years except in Germany.

      I will here examine a few literary voices that saw the nature of things but in different ways.  One novel, three movies and one short story that was turned into a TV show.

page 3.

     The short story was by Charles Beaumont published in 1959 then made into a TV script for Rod Serling’s Twilight Zone.  In the TV script the time is set just after the Great War.  A traveler while staying at a monastery unintentionally releases Satan whom some monks were holding captive.  Among various possible interpretations one is that the Bolsheviks represented Satan.  An allegory was necessary as a more direct representation would never have been published as Edgar Rice Burroughs found to his chagrin in 1919.

     The horrors of Communism immediately presented themselves to that writer’s mind who quickly composed an anti-Communist polemic.  Politics was nothing new to Burroughs who sniped at various political affairs from the time he began writing.  About the time he took up his pen in 1912, the Socialist convention of that year took umbrage at the nascent IWW- Industrial Workers Of The World- booting them out of the congress.  The Socialists were led by Jews while the IWW, also known as Wobblies, were Americans of the true working class, the people the Socialists were supposed to represent.  Must have been a culture clash when American workers met European style Jewish intellectuals.

     Now, the Wobblies were the Real Thing compared to the Socialist ‘labor fakers.’  Under the leadership of Big Bill Haywood  the Wobblies took direct action in an attempt to shut down industry and bring the government to heel as the United States was entering the Great War.  These guys meant business.  Their role in this period as well as the whole period has been misrepresented and distorted by Liberal control of the media.

     Burroughs whose anti-Left attitude can be traced back to his boyhood cast the IWW as villains in several of his novels from 1915 to 1924.  Nothing was more natural than Burroughs pillorying the Bolsheviks.  As publishing was controlld by the Reds his effort came to nothing in 1919.  He rewrote the theme in his dystopian novel, The Moon Maid, that was published in 1926.

      The third and most interesting examination of the Red assault on civilization was made by the Jewish-German film maker, Fritz Lang.  While the notion of conspiracy is derided by the conspirators nothing can be more obvious than that events from 1913 through this period were not merely spontaneous.  I doubt if there ever has been a period of history that has not been directed by a cabal or any number of cabals and conspiracies.  Check out your own neighborhood.  You just don’t call them conspiracies, that’s all.  Even the Trojan war was a conspiracy headed by Agamemnon.  You don’t think Ulysses wasn’t coerced by the cabal do you?

     One can call anyone who disagrees with you, bigots or anti-Semites as Liberals do but that doesn’t change the facts.  There is no one group of people more sensitive to subterranean movements than artists.  Paranoia rightly channeled is a gift of the gods not a curse as Freud himself discovered.  He thought he succeeded where paranoiacs failed.  Does that say something?  Lang being himself a Jew from Austria might be expected to be a little more aware of what Freud was up to.  It might be interesting to check to see  if Lang was a member of B’nai B’rith.  Hitler himself was an Austrian who had lived in Vienna at the time Freudianism was being formulated while he was highly critical of  ‘Jewish psychology.’  Hitler was at least as intelligent and aware as either Freud or Lang.

     Lang first tried to land the directorship of the 1919 movie titled The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari.  Although silent this is a great film and great art.  As great art the movie must be allegorical.  As with Lang’s films there is a war being directed against civilization from a mysterious source.  Civilization is represented here as a fair or carnival, a common device of the artist.

     Dr. Caligari is some sort of showman who doubles as an agent of the conspiracy or is the ‘unknown superior.’  He is obviously intended to be Jewish as he has a Golem, a sort of Frankenstein’s monster, to carry out his dirty work.

     When he would be exposed by the injured party it turns out that Dr. Caligari is also the director of an insane asylum, in other words a psychoanalist not unlike Herr Doktor Freud.  In the denouement rather than he being exposed his accuser is committed to the insane asylum.  Obviously an ‘anti-Semite.’  An unexplained crime wave directed at civilization continues.  One believes that Dr. Caligari is responsible.

page 4

    Lang didn’t get to direct this picture but having fought for it he was familiar with the story line which had on influence on him if he, indeed, wasn’t part of this particular cabal.  He converted Dr. Caligari into Dr. Mabuse.  Dr. Mabuse was based on a novel by Norbert Jacques.  I haven’t read the novel so I can’t compare how Lang adapted the character for his uses. 

     While depicting a gambler, which in a way I suppose Freud was, Mabuse is nevertheless a psychologist and master hypnotizer not unlike Freud.  Like Caligari and Freud he is at war with civilization doing everything he can to undermine it.  In this case that favorite dodge of counterfeiting money is used.  He is able under cover of a gambler (one of many guises) to direct several people to destruction by his use of hypnotism.  It will be remembered that Freud was a master hypnotist.  In a stunning scene Mabuse, presenting his act on stage, mass hypnotizes the audience into believing they are seeing a parade not unlike the episode of the Lotharians in Burroughs’ Thuvia, Maid Of Mars.  In the end Mabuse is captured, but his ravings are such that unlike Caligari he himself is committed to an insane asylum.

     He, one imagines, pined there until 1932 when Lang chose to make his masterpiece and the first Mabuse sequel, The Testament Of Dr. Mabuse.  During the intervening several years Mabuse has been catatonic sitting up in his pajamas in bed saying and doing nothing.  And then one day he takes up his imaginary pen simulating writing on an imaginary pad.  The astute head of the asylum, one Dr. Baum, realizes what he is doing giving him a real pen and paper.

     The master criminal Mabuse/Freud then writes out his manifesto or testament for the destruction of civilization non-stop.  As a master hypnotist he is able through his writing to hypnotize and take control of Dr. Baum’s mind who then sets in motion an incredible series of crimes including the counterfeiting of money meant, naturally, to undermine civilization.

     Mabuse having delivered his testament dies.  His ghost then merges with Dr. Baum who becomes in effect Dr. Mabuse executing his Testament.  In the end Baum certifiably insane is incarcerated in Mabuse’s room with all his papers taking his place as head of the conspiracy.  One assumes that another will eventually replace Baum and once set in motion the plot will continue of its own accord, so to speak.

     So, we have a neat allegory of Freud’s goal of destroying civilization.   That Lang chose 1932 to revive the character would correspond neatly with the direction of Freud’s writing at the time which included his attack on Christianity ‘The Future Of An Illusion’ and Civilization And Its Discontents.  While Lang would later say that Mabuse was an attack on the National Socialists when the same character with the same goals was introduced in 1922 there was no National Socialist Movement of consequence to pin the crimes on.

     No.  Both films of Dr. Mabuse were about someone and something else.  The use of psychology points more directly to Freud than it does to Hitler.  How involved Lang was in the conspiracy I leave to your conjecture.  That he made a copy in French and that that French copy was smuggled into the US in 1943 when the Nazi defeat became not only apparent but certain would imply that he too was one so discontented with civilization that he wanted his blueprint for destruction brought to the attention of the American Communist cadres.  By 1943 Lang had been in the United States for about ten years.

     As a footnote Dr. Mabuse became a franchise with many sequels including one by Lang, The 1000 Faces Of Dr. Mabuse.  There is a Mabuse/Tarzan  connection.  The former Tarzan, Lex Barker, who spent the rest of his career making movies in Europe was involved in Mabuse sequels himself.  So, in that way Mabuse and Tarzan are connected.

     Freud’s intent then was divined by many people including Fritz Lang.

     The question then was how to go about undermining European Civilization.  Ostensibly the most ‘pacifistic’ culture in the world while having neither numbers, territory or means for a frontal attack, just in case the disaster of the Great War didn’t present an object lesson, Freud and his culture would have to use surreptitious or clandestine means, in other words, an international conspiracy.

page 5.

     Even on a cultural level Freud was shrewd enough to understand that a mere frontal attack on the cultural traditions would be met with stern resistance so that first the effort must be made to deconstruct the culture according to the desires and needs of the minority culture.  Freud was a master of reduction.

     One doesn’t know whether the signal failure of the Anglians in the South when they merely tried to impose their will on the Southern Whites influenced Freud or his culture but the failure was certainly an object lesson before them of what not to do.

     As I say the Coalition was already in possession of the publishing and news apparatus of the United States.  Through the Jews it controlled the movies and would control Radio.  Thus they controlled access to the media.  Only those writers who met their apporval stood a chance of being published.  As the Red slogan had it:  All things are permissible to Revolutionaries, all others are to be denied.  This while they availed themselves of the freedoms of the Constitution which they claimed to respect.

     While the older authors posed a problem the editorial function can be wielded in such a way that content can be substantially altered while publication of a novel might no longer be able to be taken for granted.

     Overnight, almost miraculously, the nature of the authorial community changed.  While the percentage of Jews and homosexuals was relatively small prewar, after the War non-Jews and heterosexuals seem to have lost the talent to write while Jews and homosexuals miraculously acquired it.  As the editors explained it:  All the best new writers seem to be of the Left.  Thus what people were allowed to read tended to shift their opinions from Right to Left.

     The Social Gospel was preached from the pulpit while college professors subtly rewarded Left thinking students while punishing those of the Right.  Of course it would take time to turn the universities into the Red seminaries they are today but from 1917 to the present is only ninety years.  Once can judge the indredients from the pudding so there is no reason for the Left to deny the results as they did the process for at least seventy of those ninety years.

     Make no mistake the Cold War began with the October Revolution of 1917.   It broke out into a shooting war only because the National Socialists refused to accept the Judaeo-Communist yoke.  It matters not what anyone else says, the reason for WWII was the German volkist refusal to accept Jewish volkism under the religious guise of Communism.  That the leaders of the resistance turned out to be Hitler and the National Socialists may be only coincidental.  They understood the problem and had the will to resist.  It was inevitable that there should be casualties but the extent of destruction was truly phenomenal.

     Only after WWII when the American Right had regrouped under cover of the War essentially exercizing a hegemony over Western Europe did the West acknowledge the Cold War.  The American resistance only solidified after the death of FDR when his less ideological successor Harry Truman took the helm.  What took place before FDR’s death was maneuvering in the Culture Wars.

     The maneuvering took many forms, all of which tended to undermine or destroy the existing culture.  While Jews and Liberals were the key elements in the Coalition each was in competition with the others to impose its culture as supreme.  You can read culture as nationalism by another name.  The contest was both temporal and spiritual.  While I am primarily concerned with the spiritual or culture aspect one may look at the temporal event of the Crash of ’29 and its resultant Depression as the work of the Liberal Coalition.

     While I’m sure there were many reasons for the Crash there were also many ways to make it worse than it need have been.  The restraints that were thrown off the Stock Market are worth investigating.  For instance it was at this time the Jews invented the Holding Company.  Now, I will not tolerate charges of anti-Semitism.  I attempt a scientific analysis of a religious culture, one of only a great many in the US, and refuse to kowtow to any cultural projection.  If Christianity which is a Semitic religion is thought to be ridiculous then how much more ridiculous must the other two Semitic religions, Judaism and Moslemism, be?  One must have at least a modicum of consistency.  So, as I say, the Jews, as an instrument of their particular cultural revolution invented the Holding Company.  A holding company owns a number of producing companies.  Therefore the value of the stock of a holding company is dependent on the dividends it receives from the producing companies.  If there are no dividends  the holding company has no source of income.  then the Jews invented Holding Companies of Holding Companies whose stock was based on value at all.  But these stocks were traded and purchased with bonafide capital.

     Now, when the market crashed if you owned your stock outright you may have taken big paper losses but you weren’t wiped out.  Your stocks still had considerable value.  If you bought on margin that is to say if you put a small amount down when your margin call came you couldn’t meet it and you were wiped out.  The Holding and Holding Holding companies were a total loss as it was all phony money.  And the bankers called Henry Ford a fool!

     I don’t know if a study has ever been done on winners and losers but a survey of those left standing might provide some interesting insights.

     But to return to culture.  The Freudian attack was primarily centered on sex, that is, the destruction of Euroamerican morality.  It is important to bear in mind that Freud was a despicable person, a master hypocrite.  He was a homosexual, Libertine and dope addict.  It should hardly come as a surprise that the ‘morality’ he wished to impose on civilization was precisely the morality of homosexuals, Libertines and drug addicts.

     The key to such morality is sex.  Western morality from the time of Homer was based on the control of sexual apetites or, at the very least, channeling sexual energy into productive habits.  The sexual story of Homer’s Odyssey is Odysseus’ conquest of his sexual nature.  First he resisted the wantonness of Circe, then the allure of the Sirens.  He stayed for some time with Calypso who was the most complaisant of females but who demanded his full attention and finally a vision of the peacful home before his return to Penelope.  Even then he immediately left his wife after taking twenty years to get back to continue his wanderings or his search for salvation, meaning or whatever.  The Roman Catholic Church reinforced these sexual attitudes.

     The ruling attitude then was what Freud wanted to overturn.  In the destruction of the goyim’s culture to be reconstructed on the Semitic cultural model was the most important step.  First the ‘prudish’ ‘Puritan’ attitude toward sex had to be dismantled.  Censorship of explicit sexual material had to be removed.  Hence a campaign ensued to impugn anyone who ‘didn’t appreciate the beauty of the nude human body.’  Sounds reasonable doesn’t it?  But what does it mean?  It means the legitimization of pornography.  ‘There shouldn’t be any shame connected with sex.’  The Freudians said.  Well, that’s an opinion not a fact.

     The first effort was to legitimize literary works of questionable morality or, at least, which contradicted the prevailing morality.  So, books such as Madame Bovary, Lady Chatterly’s Lover and James Joyce’s Ulysses were promoted as the highest form of literary attainment, whatever exactly that might be, rather than as salacious novels.  Literary,  well there’s a thought to be considered.  Eventually they were all legalized.  ‘They started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff.’  The standards of society had been breached.   Then came the Marquis de Sade whose ‘literary’ value was said to override his sadistic psychosexual content.  Literary, hmm?  From thence we passed through Esquire Magazine to Hugh Heffner’s Playboy.  The latter magazine opened the floodgates of pornography which of course legitimized homosexuality; but, Playboy published stories of the highest literary quality.  Literature, yup, but everyone looked at the dirty pictures.

     So that, as of today we have this peculiar, need I say disgusting, homosexual and Libertine sexual morality.  One judges the tree by its fruits.  What the Satan Freud cut loose which has come to fruition today must have been his intent.

     The driving wheel for this transformation was the film industry of Hollwood.  The very essence of the film is hypnotic suggestion.  While it is true that poetry and novels also serve as suggestion there is a great quantitative and qualitative difference.  One’s intellectual distance and guard are always present while reading while with movies the opposite is always true.  Since one could maintain distance in the silent era being always able to discuss the movies with others while viewing them without disturbing people the suggestive power of any film required the same degree of consent as ‘literature.’

page 7.

     This was not true with sound movies.  Talking was not tolerated as it disturbed concentration.  Thus the mind was left open in a hypnoid state to visual and audio stimulation.  What goes in the mind stays in the mind.  Nothing is forgotten.  During the thirties and forties suggestion was employed but without the effectiveness of the technical changes that began in the fifties.  Huge wrap around screens began to fill the entire visual field enveloping the viewer in the suggestion.  Huge, powerful surround sound speakers filled any void left by the screen.  The volume was overpowering, virtually blocking out critical attention, actually placing the viewer very deep into the hypnoid state, almost the same as the feeling of terror wherein the suggestion becomes implanted in the subconscious somewhat on the order of a fixation.  Then the movie going audience was being hypnotized without being aware of it.

     Realizing that young minds were somewhat more malleable than older ones movies were directed at the ‘critical audience of from twelve to twenty-five.’  this age group also has the most leisure for movies.  Yeah, I know there were good reasons to direct movies at the age group but I’m interested in the real reasons.

     As the Jewish culture had a near hammerlock on the making of movies it could control the content.  Thus while having to ‘pander’ to the dominant culture, especially in the thirties and forties, the Jewish culture could subtly condition the viewers to their own cultural goals.

     Naturally this had to be done openly if not obviously  so that there was always a sizable minority who understood what was being attempted; voices were raised in objection.  Once again the Jews and the Coalition denied this was so deriding any objections as anti-Semitism or in violation of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and conscience.  The dissidents allowed themselves to be silenced too easily although the charge of anti-Semite was and is indefensible.  Unless you just dismiss it as a joke like I do.

     Thus by the process of gradualism control was established so that no movie not passing a very strict Jewish censorship could be shown.  Christian movies depicting Jesus were absolutely forbidden hence the huge flap over the Mel Gibson movie led by the Jewish culture who, that’s right, denounced Gibson as an anti-Semite.   The key word here is culture, not individual Jews but the entire culture denounced Gibson.  That’s why they call them culture wars.    

     In the thirties and forties the studio heads abjured movies with Jewish themes even in some cases refusing to employ actors because they looked too Jewish.  That’s the legend anyway.  Gentlemen’s Agreement broke that taboo although the lead characters were all goys playing goys but posing as Jews.  Interesting ploy.  Elia Kazan directed.  During the fifties movies that Jews considered purely reflected Jewish culture although the goy audiences were too oblivious of the fact were successful.  Two big films of this genre were A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum and Cabaret.

     Gradually what Jews called ‘Christians’ were made the butt of the jokes while Jewish characters became heroes.  Then as in the Adam Sandler movies he as a Jew although it was never made clear he was acting as a Jew put down ‘Crhistian’ characters, treating them as buffoons and fools while abusing goy women who were portrayed as sex crazed sluts and bimbos.

     Of course criminal behavior and sleazy approaches were used to condition the viewers mind in the direction of Freudian criminal and sex crazed morality.  The ‘Christian’ family was always attacked, fidelity, honor and uprightness demeaned.

     This attack was paralleled by a similar attack made on TV and also significantly in recorded popular entertainment.  First Vinyl records and then more openly on CDs.  Thus the public mind was constantly bombarded by propaganda reflecting the desires and needs of the Jewish culture. 

     So that, if in 1918 you had stood up and said that it was the intent of Freud and the Jewish culture to hypnotize the entire American population they wouldn’t even have had to call you an anti-Semite to discredit you, you would have been laughed to scorn.  Yet here it is.  You are all hypnotized. Except for a small disregarded and vilified minority, a small body not unlike the excommunicated heretics of the Middle Ages, everyone has been conditioned to accept the value system of the Jewish culture.  Of course when you abandon control of your culture to another you can’t expect anything else.

     As a side excursion let us consider the field of pornography.

page 8.

3.

     Let me say that while I deplore the Jewish culture’s methods I vastly admire their chutzpah.  it is the same as the admiration I have for the great Midwestern bandits like Jesse James, the Youngers, the Daltons or Pretty Boy Floyd The Outlaw.  Well, let’s exclude Pretty Boy, he has a special place in my affections.  While their careers were based on a false premise yet there was a dauntless courage and actual justification for the Outlaws’ choice of means to redress their grievances.  While I am aware that it was necessary for society to terminate their careers in one way or another, still I have that secret admiration for their attempt.  So it is with the Jewish culture.  While I can’t endorse their ideals and feel their methods will always doom them to failure, much as those of the Outlaws did,  like the Western train and bank robbers there is something thrilling in the attempt.

     But the return to the question.  Freud in his essay ‘The Aitiology Of Hysteria’ which is certainly approriate here, said:  Collected Papers Vol. I, p. 194:

     Quote:

     (I) am prepared to let my belief outrun the evidential force of my discoveries for the present time.  Besides, I am influenced by another motive, which for the moment is merely subjective value.

     Unquote.

     I am not quite so ready to allow my beliefs to outrun my evidence nor am I willing to abandon objectivity as was the good Herr Doktor Professor Sigmund Freud.  No. No.  We must adhere more closely to our science than that.  While Freud doesn’t tell us what his subjective motives were I think I can guess.

     As a Libertine and homosexual Freud would have been a proponent of the distribution of pornography.  We have seen that Freud made advanced studies into the nature of emasculation.  Well, pornography is what emasculation is all about.  It seems certain that Freud misinterpreted the nature of the Anima following rather the lead of his friend Fliess, of nose fame, that there was an inherent bisexuality.  In other words in keeping with his homosexuality he believed that a man desired sexual relations with either men or women.  Any port in a storm, or even fair weather.

     In fact an affect of emasculation is the estrangement of the Animus from the Anima.  In the process of emasculation the Animus apparently has the understanding that the Anima failed in its duty therefore wishing to punish it.  Indulging his or her hatred then the homosexual is attracted to pornography with is attendant sadomasochism.  Indeed the mainstay of the pornography business is the homosexual by which I include Lesbians.

     In use then terms from individual psychology to group psychology the same Freudian rules apply.  Freud realized his own emasculation, probably that of the Jewish culture, and therefore sought to emasculate the Euroamerican culture in return.  We have seen through the media of movies, TV, radio and recordings how successful he was.    There is a French film entitled Dr. Petiot.  Dr. Petiot was a real person who realized his full potential under the Nazi occupation of France.  A bonafide psychotic as well as a physician Petiot lured those seeking to escape France to his home under the pretense that he would smuggle them out of France.  Instead he murdered them but before he did he mocked and ridiculed them deriving full enjoyment from their humiliation.

     Now, in the Winter 2004 edition of the European magazine The Jewish Quarterly an essay was published by a lecturer of American History at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland by the name of Nathan Abrams.  His bit is entitled Jews In The American Porn Industry.  What this essay shows is the divorcement of the cultural or group Animus from the Anima of the Jews.  This should come as no surprise because Semites in general suppress the role of women, or the Anima in favor of the Male Animus which is an expression of the Culture’s unhealthy Anima-Animus relationship.  Here Mr. Abrams mocks and ridicules Euroamerican civilization.

page 9.

     Mr. Abrams begins his essay thus:

     Quote:

     A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film  industry.  Perhaps we’d prefer to pretend that the ‘triple exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews have played (and still continue to play) a disproportiate role throughout the adult film industry in America.

     Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States as Jews have helped transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana.  These are the ‘true blue Jews.’

     Unquote.

     The most virulent anti-Semite couldn’t have expressed it more succinctly.  At the same time we have a cultural confession of emasculation.  I haven’t been able to discover the exact meaning of ‘triple-exthnic’ but the term is probably just another obfuscation  in terminology.

     While everyone has known of the Jewish role in the ‘sex industry’, where they are as over represented as they are in Hollywood itself, for a hundred years, only Jews have been permitted to write about it.  The goys have been so thoroughly emasculated in their turn that they would rather leave it alone than be denounced as anti-Semites thereby being excommunicated or thrust out of society so Mr. Abrams has the field to himself.  However one is free to criticize the content of the essay.

     When Mr. Abrams identifies pornography as the seedier cousin of the Hollywood film industry he tacitly admits that Hollywood itself is seedy to which conclusion I heartily assent.  All, or nearly all films, are pornographic in intent.  The only area in the world in which the production of pornography is legal is right here in these United States Of America and that place is within a twenty mile radius of Hollywood where you know who is over heavily represented.  Not American but Israeli, Jewish.  Hollywood is an Israeli colony in the United States.

     Mr. Abrams says that Jews have helped transform a ‘fringe subculture’- read criminal- into what has become a primary constituent of Americana.  Further he says that this legitmization of crime has been the work of the Jewish culture.  Mr. Abrams is projecting badly when he believes that pornography has anything to do with Americana, rather by his own admission he should say Judaica.  He further states that these pornographers are ‘true blue Jews.’  In other words, the best that Judaism has to offer.  If so, then the Jewish culture must be analyzed with this notion in mind.

     Pornography is essentially an extension of prostitution.  That is to say, the degradation and exploitation of the Anima, let alone women.  To keep the business running there must therefore be procurers and procuresses.  Men may volunteer but women by and large have to be dragooned.

     As an expression of emasculation one finds a disproportionate number of homosexual also involved which means sadomasochism and drugs.  Sadomasochism is an affect of emasculation.

Thus the seedier cousins of seedy Hollywood itself are governed by a psychotic state of mind.  In fact Hollywood movies are psychotic visions of a psychotic sadomasochistic projection on the world as examples of American culture or as Mr. Abrams would have it, Americana; quite falsely so.

     How far they represent other cultures than the Jewish is open to question.

page 10.

     Pornography was taken mainstream by the goy, Hugh Heffner, who developed this affect of a mental disease in the guise of Hedonism rather than Libertinism which is its true guise.  He was joined by the major ‘players’ Larry Flynt of Hustler Magazine and Bob Guccione of Penthouse Magazine.

     Although Jews had been instrumental in kicking down the doors of sexual censorship, most notably with the legitimization of Joyce’s Ulysses, it was Heffner beginning in 1953 who paved the way for the porn film industry which arose in the sixties.  In competition with Heffner, Flynt and Guccione constantly stretched the limits from Heffner’s Hedonism to outright pornography.  The three magazines above were sold openly across the counter which meant high grosses.  It should be noted that while tremendous effort was made in lifting censorship of obscene material at the same time the same effort was made to censor political and social thought by the same parties.

    The smut industry of peep shows and whatnot Mr. Abrams quite correctly identifies as being primarily Jewish.  Mr. Abrams then gets involved with the motivations of the smut peddlers.  As is consistent throughout Jewish writing he distinguishes between ‘secular’ Jews and ‘religious’ Jews as though they were two separate entities.  The distinction will undoubtedly confuse those who haven’t scientifically studied the culture.  In point of fact crime and prostitution had a significant hand in financing Jewish political activities from the beginning of the Revolution from 1913 and before to the present.

     The Revolution didn’t come free and it didn’t come cheap; there’s a price tag on everything and a very high price tag on this one.  On the financial and banking level it was fairly easy, the bankers just used other people’s money.  Loans are loans and expenditures are expenditures; loans have to be repaid while expenditures are cash out of hand.  So for expenditures the money came largely from vice.  One usually thinks of organized crime as Italian or Sicilian while in actuality the organizers were Jewish.  Enormous sums were raised by crime especially under the kingpins Arnold Rothstein and Lepke Buchalter.  But, lo and behold, when these men died the vast sums that passed through their hands which they could not possibly have spent were nowhere to be found.  To all intents and purposes these men died penniless.

     On the other hand men like Julius Rosenwald who became a principal of Sears, Roebuck contributed millions upon millions of dollars to Jewish ‘charities’, read- political organizations.  While there is no reason Rosenwald couldn’t have become rich from his position at Sears still the amounts of money he contributed seem well in excess of any possible earnings.  While Jewish criminals were donors to Jewish causes, and very welcome ones too, it seems probable that the money pouring into their coffers which, after all was a joint Jewish effort, may well have been funneled thrugh intermediaries like Rosenwald as a money laundering scheme.

     After all men like Rosenwald maintained magnificent establishments while making these contributions.

     The Liberal position from 1815 or so when Liberalism per se came into existence had always been that crime and prostitution were the result of the inequitable distribution of wealth.  Always on the qui vive for another utopia it was assumed that when the working class had its share crime and prostitution would disappear.

     For all practical purposes that particular utopia was realized in the United States.  Lo and behold, instead of crime and prostitution having disappeared they have prospered mightily.  Indeed, rather than being repulsed by this particular form of prostitution women have apparently embraced it.  Yes, as Mr. Abrams so quaintly puts it:  Once (women) had laid down, they could stand on their own two feet, particularly as female performers typically earn twice as much as their male counterparts.  Once they had laid down that is.  Good paying prostitution is still prostitution, but at least the girls were paid better than the boys.  I’d still rather be a boy in those circumstances.

     So, if not driven into prostitution by poverty it seems that women are lured into it by the pursuit of wealth or as Mr. Abrams insultingly puts it, in pursuit of the ‘American Dream.’

      Nor are these entrepreneurs of porn from poverty backgrounds.  Mr. Abrams proudly claims that these porn pros come from ‘upper class’ and prosperous Jewish families.  What motivations does Mr. Abrams attribute  to these Libertine criminals other than the pursuit of the buck.

     Mr. Abrams:  Porn is just one expression of [the] rebellion against standards, against the disciplined life of obedience to the Torah that marks a Jew living in Judaism.

     So, their rebellion is really culturally internal and has nothing to do with the mainstream culture.  They find Judaism too restricting.  Indeed, ‘America provided the freest society Jews had ever known.’ Adds Mr. Abrams.  Including his own Judaic culture one assumes.  One might think the Promised Land had been realized.  But, read the sentence carefully and it is made evident that the Jews still consider themselves strangers in a strange land but now they have the freedom to rage at all, even themselves.

     Quote:

     Extending the subversion thesis, Jewish involvement in the X-rated industry can be seen as a proverbial two fingers to the entire WASP establishment in America.  Some porn stars viewed themselves as front-line fighters in the spiritual battle between Christian America and secular humanism.  (read- the Jews)  According to Ford (Luke Ford) Jewish X-rated actors brag about their ‘joy in being anarchic sexual gadflies to the puritanical beast.’  Jewish involvement in porn by this argument is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority:  They are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.

     Unquote.

     Quite right.  While the revolution or 1913-28 has been extended that War still rages on.  Furthermore it is being waged on the terms laid down by Freud.  The Jewish culture permits even encourages these pornographers toward that goal.  One doesn’t really believe that a bunch of scum criminal pornographers were able to get a law passed legalizing their criminal behavior does one?  Of course one doesn’t.  Such a law could only be passed by very influential ostensibly respectable people of porn’s less seedy cousin.

     This area of legal pornography is Hollywood.  Whether fronted by goys or not Jewish moguls passed this law.  Are they taking a rake-off as a reward for providing the pornographers a legal sanctuary of are they sleeping partners of the pornographers or has it made it possible to release such racist pornographic filth as Shadow Boxing as legitimate entertainment in mainstream theatres.  Gosh, let me think long and hard on that one.

     So , we have the results so far of Freud’s psychological program for the conquest of Euroamerica.  Of course along the way his program would be reinforced.  Here’s Mr. Abrams again:\

     Quote:

     Those at the forefront of the movement which forced America to adopt a more liberal view of sex were Jewish.  Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s.  Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required reading.  Reich’s central preoccupations were work, love and sex, while Marcuse prophesied that a socialist utopia would free individuals to achieve sexual satisfaction.  Goodman wrote of the ‘beautiful cultural consequence’ that would follow on legalizing pornography.  It would ‘ennoble all our art’; ‘humanize sexuality.’

     Unquote.

     I’d put those statements in quotation marks too.  These writers might be considered the second wave after Freud to refreshen the program and keep it moving forward.  There is a particular reason why these writers should have been published and lauded over others and it isn’t literary value.  As we will see in the next section, when a book was to be promoted a cadre of boomers ran through the universities and cities touting this stuff.

     Thus this very powerful organization was very effective.  The effectiveness was made total when any who objected could be isolated and harassed by teams of damage controlmen.  Not only could an individual be silenced and marginalized by a whispered imputation of ‘anti-Semitism’ but the entire population could be emasculated by the same charge.

     Freud then had devised the means to emasculate the hundreds of millions of Euroamericans and that purely by their own acquiescence.  Rather than be known as anti-Semites they willingly abandoned their sexuality.  This abandonment was conditioned and reinforced by the entire media of the land.  Most especially Hollywood.

page 12.

     Do not think I condemn the Jewish culture, or nationality in fact, for this fait accompli.  On the contrary I applaud it.  Imagine this atavistic religious consciousness projecting a state of ignorance over the most enlightened population on the planet.  Think about it.  It stuns one to silence.  This achievement is so amazing it leaves one standing with mouth gaping.  If the entire Euroamerican population is willing to voluntarily surrender not only their intelligence but their manly and womanly sexuality to another culture why should the receiving culture be blamed?  No force was used.  Only psychological manipulation that any fool could have seen and easily rejected.

     Further, just like Dr. Petiot with his victims, the Jewish culture humiliates its slaves via the media.  I have pointed out Adam Sandler movies where he plays a vacuous nerd who triumphs over athletic men and humiliates nubile women.  If the past is any guide to the future one can look forward to a gulag system where opponents are mass executed.

     I can say no more on the topic here.  Suffice it to say that on the sexual level Edgar Rice Burroughs’ America hs been deconstructed per Sigmund Freud’s plan and reconstructed to the complete advantage of the Jewish culture and to the complete disadvantage of the Euroamerican culture.  All it took, and this the most astonishing fact of all, was a little chutzpah.

     All credit belongs to the Jewish culture and I say that to the shame of my own.

 

The Deconstruction Of

Edgar Rice Burroughs’ America

Part II

Organizing The Unorganizable

 

Don’t you leave me here,

No, don’t you leave me here.

If you must go, Sweet Pollyanne,

Well, leave a dime for beer.

Trad.

 

     There has at present been no good history of America written.  All histories have been written by partisan Liberals with no real attempt to deal with multi-culturalism in an objective manner.  While I offer no comprehensive history here I do attempt to get at some underlying cultural motives of what was and is actually being attemped by the various cultures and the ends they pursue.

     The key problem for American history is why the Civil War was fought.  Contrary to propaganda it wasn’t over the issue of Black slavery.  None of the cultures involved had ever been opposed to slavery historically or on principle, although the moral issue did evolve in Europe and the United States leading to the abolition of the slave trade at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

    The cultural roots of the conflict do not being in the US but go back to the conquest of England by the Norman, William The Conquerer, in 1066.  Nor do either of the cultures involved talk about the real issue; they project a false or surrogate issue.  The issue is not the issue and seldom is.  Underline that:  The issue is not the issue.

     The conflict began when the conquering Normans enslaved the Anglo-Saxons, especially those of East Anglia.  The issue then is that like the biblical Hebrews the Anglo-Saxons objected to their ill treatment only.  None of the cultures objected to slavery per se.  The Hebrews not only held slave but in order to finance the building of Solomon’s Temple Solomon sold his countrymen into slavery.  The Normans held English slaves until within a hundred years of the regicide of Charles I.  The East Anglians themselves under Cromwell expatriated tens of thousand of Irish to the Caribbean Ilands as slaves to work cheek by jowl with the Negro slaves, no distinctions because of race or species.  In addition, the South took no part in the procurement of Negro slaves.  The slave trade was run in part by New England Puritan seamen who took the profits from the trade.  Thus both the Puritans of New England and the Cavaliers of Virginia had no particular aversion in principle to slavery.  The true issue was not whether but who.

page 1.

     The scepter of the chosen people had been literally transferred from the Hebrews to their successors the inhabitants of England in the years following the conquest of 1066.  This is a fact.  The substance of the story of how the transfer was made can be found in the Lancelot-Grail.  The complete Lancelot-Grail.  The monarch of England are annointed according to the Jewish rites of David as administered by the high priest Zadok.

      When printing made inexpensive bibles possible the East Anglians immediately associated themselves with the Israelites who according to the bible had been slaves in Egypt.  Already of the new chosen people of England the East Anglians identified completely with the Hebrews of the bible becoming, if not in fact, at least as a mental projection the same.  They adopted Hebrew customs, or attempted to, to the letter.

     As stiff-necked as the originals they made themselves as unpopular among the other colonials who despised them and even ran them out of their communities from time to time.  Their arch enemies the Norman Cavaliers of the southern counties of England followed the East Anglians to the New World when Charles I was beheaded and Cromwell and the Puritans seized power.  They established themselves in Virginia and the South.  The East Anglians glared at them over the barrier of the Middle Colonies.  And then at some point they found a casus bellus in Negro slavery.

     Negro slaves were not the issue- they were the good reason; the former enslavement of the East Anglians was the real issue.  Othrs might fight for the former reason but not the latter.

     I doubt if few Westerners can be found to defend slavery yet slavery was the natural order of things.  If you are a Liberal your view of slavery will be very narrow concentrating on the Atlantic trade.  Facts don’t matter the religious mind and Liberalism is a religion but they do to the Scientific mind.  Thus slavery was endemic to Africa.  Every African was a slave and possession of their king who could and did dispose of their bodies in any way he chose.  It was also just as natural for the African to enslave any other people who came in his way who were not strong enough to maintain their freedom.  Thus while African slaves poured out of Africa, having been sold by their chiefs, into the Atlantic trade other millions if not tens of millions gushed from Africa to the Semitic East destined for Arabia, Iran and India.  The Semites paid for nothing; they merely shot up the tribes and took what they wanted.

     While Africans were leaving Africa, Africans raided the shores of Europe abducting Europeans to endure worse treatment than Africans ever did in the South.  Needless to say the Africans paid for nothing.  If any reparations are due they are due from Africa to Europe.

     Yes, slavery is wrong, is bad, but there are absolutely no innocents.  All, all are guilty of the same crime against humanity.  Now that we’ve got that straight we can deal with the attitude of the East Angians toward the Cavaliers of the South during the period called Reconstruction that ran in its first form from 1865 to 1877.  Edgar Rice Burroughs was two years old when Reconstruction ended.

     The term chosen for this period is instructive.  What changes were to be made?  How was the South to be reconstructed and according to whose vision?  Why, according to the whims and fancies of the South’s arch enemy the East Anglians of New England- read New East Anglia.  If 1865 these people had been souring their intellects on the Hebrew writings for four hundred years or so.  Let that fact sink in.  For four hundred years- that’s a long time- these people had been chanting refrains like- the Lord shall deliver mine enemy to me and I shall smite him hip and thigh.  Take a moment to dwell on this bitter, dare I say evil, doctrine of the hateful Anglians.  I grew up with this horrid doctrine and maybe you did too.  Well, the Cavaliers could expect no mercy from these deep dyed bigots and they didn’t get any.

     At the same time the Anglians were self-righteous, that is to say, dis-honest.  They considered themselves the most virtuous of men and women just as did their fellow biblicals, the Hebrew Children.  You have to remember that nearly everyone believed that God literally rescued the Hebrew Children from the fiery furnace.  The Puritan was a justified sinner, wrong in their hands became right by virtue of their sanctity.  They had united the will of God with their own.  What they chose to believe was just; there could be no other oinion, no reasonable objection.  The essence of bigotry.

page 2.

     At this precise psychological moment American Liberalism came into existence.  Liberalism was equated with virtue; opposition to as evil.  It is that simple.  In the classic mode:  If you’re not with ’em, you’re against ’em.  If you’re against ’em then you have to be destroyed.  In order for Liberals to believe this false religion no one can be allowed to call them on it, so opinion must be strictly controlled; no dissenting allowed.  Anyone thinking other wise must be demonized.  Thus the conflict that will run throughout American history.

     The Anglians had their enemy where they wanted them.  Left to their own untrammeled desires I have no doubt that they would have annihilated every White person, that is to say, Norman Cavalier, in the South.  Genocide runs like a red thread through the Liberal left from La Vendee throught the European aftermath of the Great War through the Hitler/Stalin genocidal programs to Mao, Pol Pot and beyond.  It must be remembered that members of theFDR administration pressed for the genocide of German after WWII.  Genocide is part of the Liberal mentality.

     But the more placid people of the Middle Colonies limited Anglian hopes for a genuine holocaust.  If the Anglians had been able to succeed in their ‘reconstruction’ plans the crime against humanity would have exceeded anything that happened up to 1950, or after, even exceeding the Liberal atrocities of Chairman Mao.

     The reconstructed society would have reversed the pre-war situation dispossessing the Southern Whites while making them the virtual slaves of the Blacks.  You see, if slavery was the issue it wasn’t Black slavery but how to impose slavery on the descendants of the Normans of the latter had imposed slavery on the Anglians hundreds of year before.

     As with all Leftists the Anglians were unscrupulous disregarding all conventions and rules.  That they didn’t disregard the Law was only because they were able to make the laws to serve their purposes.  Hitler who had studied the period fairly closely probably learned a lot from them.  Quite simply, right was equated with their desires, wrong with anything that refused to follow them.  You can see the making of the Old Testament Hebrew based reliigion slowly displacing that of the Founding Fathers.  As I have said before, religion equals bigotry, which is what religion must be.

     The Anglian program was so unjust and transparent that reasonable men in the country instinctively opposed it while the men of the South who were directly affected took up cover armed resistance as they ought to have and must have.  Just as we will have to soon.

     Liberal denial of their program began with their defeat while the true horrors of this genocidal holocaust have been sswept under the rug and never discussed historically.  Quite similar to the Armenian Holocaust and the Hungarian Holocaust.  The Liberals, however, did not give up the war because they lost this battle.  They continued to vilify the South and Southerners.  One has only to look at how the South has been portrayed in movies of the last eighty years or so to understand the slander.  Much  of the trouble in the South today is the result of the implacable hatred  of the Anglians now converted to the arrogant hatred known as Liberalism.  The Second Reconstruction goes on today under the Leftist understanding of multi-culturalism.  You can read Left Multi-Culturalism as the Second Reconstruction.  This program calls for the abolitionof the entire ‘white race.’

     The enemy of the Liberal religion became, just as with the Hebrew bible, anyone who refused to endorse and follow the program.

     Prominent among these was a man of the generation of the 1850s who was revered by the people of his and the next couple generations.  The tumultuous times of the twentieth century took their toll on this man who attempted to live the ‘strenuous life,’ Theodore Roosevelt.  Too close to the men and the times to see it clearly, this man led such a full life, inreflected in his too short autobiography, to remember to tell all that much about it.

page 3.

      Born in 1859 TR had seen America during Reconstruction and before the vast influx of immigration that began in the 1870s.  He had seen the America of legend and even took part in it.  He had been a rancher in the Dakotas when the West was still unwon.  He had been the Police Commissioner of New York City at the height of its corruption in that most wide open town where anything went and did.  I tis only by some strange myopia that untrammeled vice in the major cities of the United Sates is not recognized for far exceeding whatever vice has gone on before.  Very peculiar.  De Sade could have learned something from Hollywood.  TR had been President of the United States from 1900 through 1908 riding in on the coattails of the assassinated President McKinley whose VP he was.

     These were tumultuous times, sure, when weren’t they, as America sought to adjust to rapid changes, assimilating the Western conquests of the nineteenth century, trying to absorb scientific, technological and economic changes occurring with bewildering rapidity, while trying to reconcile differences in a rapidly growing immigration of diverse cultures.

     Everyone who came to America seemed to be nursing a centuries or millennia old grudge they couldn’t give up against someone and possibly everyone.  They call it multi-culturalism.  The East Anglians had a half millennium old grudge against the Norman Cavaliers.  The Irish had an even longer grudge against all the English.  The Sicilians had a grudge that went on no one knows howlong against whomever.  Perhaps the grudge was antediluvian going backt to when the sunny Mediterranean was unflooded.  Probably even before the Sicels were known as Sicels.  And then there was the paragon of grudge holders going back four millennia against all mankind, the Jews.  Not to mention the Negroes who had only begun to to nurse their grudge against the Whites of America.  The United States became a seething cauldron of hate with all these haters joining forces with the Liberals to form a coalition to Reconstruct anyone who disagreed with any of their programs out of existence.  The coalition was coming together during TR’s presidency.

     While Tr might have run for president in 1908 he instead ‘appointed’ a successor he believed ould continue his policies then went off to shoot lions and tigers in Africa.  (Oops, did I say tigers?  Everyone knows there are no tigers in Africa.)  By the time he came back and realized his error he wanted to be President again.  Rejected by the Republican Party he foolishly decided to run on a third party Progressive, or Bull Moose, ticket.  Disastrously splitting the Republican vote he allowed the ineffably destruction Woodrow Wilson to become the first Liberal or, even Red President.  At this point democracy in America began to deconstruct.

     He threw himself into ineffective oppostion although too late.  When the War began in 1914 he was for immediate intervention on the side of England and France in a European struggle that could have no real influence on the United States.  The status quo would have assumed a different temporary form, that is all.  If the Soviets couldn’t impose their will on subject Europeans for more than a very few decades how then could have the Germans?  The consequences of the War would have had to have been dealt with one way or another, that’s all.  When the US did enter how effective was the Liberal Wilson’s intervention?  The next twenty-five years tell the story.  More tens of millions of deaths.  Furious with Wilson for staying out TR vociferously berated him.  Quite violent language.

     When war came to America, inflaming the American population, so diverse and multi-cultural, questions of loyalty arose.  TR, who like so many had never examined the motives of the immigrants but expected them to embrace ‘American’ iceals, asked whether America was no more than an international boarding house.  And he might have added, nothing more than something to be merely plundered.

     And then in 1919 he died.

     Backing TR all the way was that writer in Chicago.  He’d been writing away furiously.  His best selling Tarzan Of The Apes was followed by numerous other books as well as a steady stream of Tarzan sequels.  In 1919 when TR pulled up stakes and left the planet Edgar Rice Burroughs pulled up his Chicago roots heading for LA to begin his second or was it his third, lifeteem.  He was riding a crest of popularity as his creation, Tarzan had become a household word.

     Burroughs had always been an admirer of TR.  He had even tried to join the Rough Riders during the Spanish American War.  Growing up in the eighties and nineties as he did, TR and his generation made an impact on his own development.  The Wild West was real to him.  The memory of the Wild West was a major influence on America through my youth until Hollywood began to demythologize American culture in favor of Post-WWII Jewish influences drifting away from the moral and heroic model to cringing guilt and angst.

     During Burroughs’ early Hollywood years real Western badmen and lawmen, real cowboys men who had been there when it was happening, so rapidly the West came and went, served as advisors and consultants for Western movies.  An important fact too easily glossed over is that Edgar Rice Burroughs experienced that West.  He had seen it first hand.  First in the midst of the Johnson County War in 1891 and in 1896-7 during his brief stint in Arizona when he took part in suppressing the Apache raids.

     I don’t know if Burroughs scholars have yet related his first stay in Idaho with the Johnson County War going on in Wyoming.  There is a good chance that the murderer Burroughs talks of having known at that time was a fugitive from Wyoming’s Johnson County.

     Burroughs was a great admirer of Owen Wister reading his Virginian six or seven times.  That book was about the Johnson County War in which the big ranchers tried to squeeze the little ranchers out.  It was a shooting war.  In Wister’s book the big ranchers purseued a member of the small ranchers into Idaho and lynched him as a ‘murderer’.  Of course Wister and TR were great friends.

     Then too, Burroughs would have been familiar with the fabulous career of Buffalo Bill.  What a live Buffalo Bill led.  A showman capitalizing on his career in the West before Little Big Horn in 1876, he returned to the West the next year to serve in the punitive campaign engaging and killing a Dioux cheif by the name of Yellow Hand in hand to hand combat then displaying the fancy clothes he had worn in the fight in his show.  Mind blowing.  Bill reenacted the Little Big Horn with the real Sitting Bull as an actor.  How mindblowing must that have been to a seventeen year old Edgar Rice Burroughs watching the show at the Columbian Expo in 1893 with all the intenseness of youth.  One imagines Burroughs hanging around the show hoping to get a glimpse of the hero up close and personal, perhaps even brushing past him with a shy, “Hello, Bill.”

     So this vision of what Greil Marcus is pleased to call Bad Old America was deeply graven on the character of Edgar Rice Burroughs, nor did he consider it Bad Old America.  That was the immigrant experience surfacing in Marcus.

     At the same time, as a cross current, while he lived in Chicago he was to witness the tremendous immigrant invasion that took place from 1870 until the Great War did what no agitation could.  It stopped immigration.  Burroughs witnessed the beginnings of the conflict between Marcus’ Bad Old America and the American Cesspool since created by the culture that Marcus apprently believes is the Good New America.  He may be surprised that there are dissenters to his opinion.

     As a young boy at the time of the Haymarket Riot Burroughs watched immigrants, German in memory, marching throught the Chicago streets waving red flags and shouting: Down with America.  He visited the tremendous Jewish community of Halsted and Maxwell streets in which people were piled on top of people to create the most densely populated location on the face of the earth in an attempt to prevent the dilution of their culture.

     One need only read Upton Sinclair’s novel of the stockyards, The Jungle, to get an idea of what sights, sounds and smells seared the consciousness of a young man growing up in what was then considered the freest and and greatest nation in the world; and it was regardless of what a legion of Greil Marcuses might think.  It was the Bad Old America that Greil Marcus ancestors considered The Promised Land.  How attitudes change with circumstances.

page 5.

     It was the freest but these immigrant cultures who were to make the United States the most polyglot nation in the world were chronically dissatisfied.  They brought their clotted politics with them projecting them on their new home before they even discovered what it was.

     A conflict between the Western dream of TR, Wister and Burroughs and the immigrant projection of America took shape.  There was still that conflict within in the ranks of oldtime Americans however.

     After Reconstruction was terminated, Liberals, who still projected the destruction of their Southern enemies, began to align themselves with the incoming discontented and hateful cultures to form a strange vision of utopia.  A fantastic dream that disregarded all reality.  The Liberals asked:  What if apples were oranges?  And then decided they could be.

     Perhaps H.G. Wells writing his 1921 effort The Salvaging Of Civilization, the title displays his own personal angst, expressed the essence of the fantasy.  P. 14.

     Quote:

     It is, if people will but think steadfastly, inconceivable that there should be any world control without the a merger of sovereignty, but the framers of these early tentatives toward world unity have lacked the courage of frankness in this respect.  They have been afraid of bawling outbreaks of patriotism, and they had tried to believe, that they contemplate nothing more than a league of nations, when in reality they contemplate a subordination of nations and administration to one common rule and law.

      Unquote.

     Wells here presents a masterly example of the studied disingenuous of the Liberal or in Orwellian terms, doublethink.  Wells doesn’t explain to which one common rule of law we are all to submit ourselves.  In point of fact the nationality the Liberals claim to despise did not disappear.  They merely changed the name to multi-culturalism.  Thus each culture is trying to impose its law on all the others.  Thus the Jews, thus the Moslems, thus the Africans.  But there is and will be no actual synthesis.

     The Liberal always denies his real intent preferring subterfuge to honest discussion.  In point of fact no Liberal objective will stand up to examination so, convinced of their rightness, or rather preferring their pleasant daydream of their vision of a utopia they feel the need to mislead and deny.

     In this quote Wells is actuall admitting that Liberals are lieing about their objectives, further it is perfectly obvious they are lieing.  As Wells admits here it is inconceivable that there should be any world control without a merger of sovereignty.  But what does he mean by a merger of sovereignty.  That the rest of the world shall submit to Jewish or Moslem rule?  Is that a merger?  Disbelievers have called the Liberals on this issue.  Liberals have been lieing says Wells.  Why?  Because they have been afraid of ‘bawling outbreaks of patriotism.’

     Here, with consummate skill Wells defames those who disagree with him as irrational dissenters mired in a ‘superstition’ of the past.  Their objections are not reasonable nor presented in a rational manner but are ‘bawling outbreaks’, hysterical, shrieking objections, one might say, of ‘patriotism.’  Patriotism we have all been informed elsewhere is ‘the last refuge of the scoundrel.’  Samuel Johnson, if I remember correctly.  Thus Wells characterizes any dissenters as irrational hysterical scoundrels.  When you can’t convice, defame.  The old ad hominem.  Wells might as have come right out and called the dissenters ‘anti-Semites’ and gotten it over with.

     Wells and his ilk, and I know he didn’t honestly believe this, assume not only that all people are equal but that they are at the same level of civilization and psychology.  What is clear to anyone with a grain of sense is that they aren’t.   The Asia psychology is incompatibleto the Western and the African.  The Africans first made contact with more than a stone age culture, come into real contact with higher civilization only about one hundred fifty years ago.  They still have no concept of civilization  as is evidenced by Zimbabwe and the congeries of tribes in South Africa who when they have committed genocide against the Whites will renew the old tribal conflicts.

     The only way to merge cultures is to the lowest denominator and that is the African.

     Wells assumes that all people see the problem as he and his Euroamerican Liberals see it.  They don’t.  China has always considered itself the Middle Kingdom- that is the country around which all others revolve.  And it always has been except for the last couple hundred years.  Currently it is using economic means to reestablish that position.  I’ll put it before you as plainly as I can.  People with that attitude don’t merge with anybody; they assume overlordship of subservients. 

page 6.

     The same is true of the Semites who believe they have a mandate from god to rule mankind.  These are facts no one can dispute, you just have to apply them.

     On top of that each bears grudges against the others that they are unwilling to either forgive or forget.  Do the Liberals really believe the Africans don’t want to avenge the ignominy of subjection to White, and White is the key problem, Euroamericans?  Five hundred years of resentment against the Normans by the Anglians led to the bloodiest war of all time and it isn’t over yet.  Are the Liberals really so naive as to believe that Africans are going to forgive or forget a mere hundred years after the fact?  They are mad, obtuse, crazy projectors.

     And then there’s the question of the Law.  Wells and Liberals apparently assume that Western Law will prevail.  Well, they forgot to ask the Moslems abut that, who since their declaration of war against the world in the seventh century will accept nothing less than their barbaric Sharia code.  How smart do you have to be to figure that one out?  Lothrop Stoddard had no difficulty.

     The Jews work quietly to overturn Western Law in favor of the Talmudic.  The Chinese certainly favor authoritarian rule and African notions of Law are real howlers. 

     Is the recognition of these problems an outbreak of ‘bawling patriotism’?  I don’t think so.  Unless Wells and his Liberals are will to defame intelligence itself.  Bad enough to defame another simply because they disagree with your blather.

     Immigration was a mistake from the beginning.  By what mode of reasoning men like Theodore Roosevelt believed that dozens of cultures could be mingled with their own without conflict is a mystery.  There was and is no possibility that such cultures with no attempt to define and understand them or even with it can be introduced without changing the dominant culture.  When TR asks is America just an international boarding house one has to regard him with some surprise.  Why, of course, how could it be otherwise?

     Even a population monster like China which discourages immigration for obvious reasons is finding it must give way to militant Moslemism.  Even while ti seeks to destroy a number of other relitions it is accommodating Moslems.  Strange isn’t it?  Must be some kind of consanguinity in outlook.

     Thus Americans really surrendered their country when Red President Wilson assumed the presidency.  That was when the Liberal Coalition took over.  A settlement house mentality of government where the superior Liberals looked after the not inferior but permanently less capable Negroes and immigrants.  The Libereals didn’t yet think in terms of multi-culturalism, ne nationalism, that was an immigrant Jewish invention, but they gave preference to Negroes and immigrants over Bad Old Americans who couldn’t quite agree with them.  All who disagreed were equivalent to the Southern Cavaliers.

     In future years Liberals would pervert the Law, to  isolate those not of their merry band and submerge them beneath the rest just as they attempted to do during Reconstruction: Affirmative Action = Reconstruction.

     In latter days they constructed a ladder of minorities which included even a majority like women and sexual psychotics like homosexuals while isolating the non-Liberal heterosexual White male.  These madmen poured out their hatred and scorn on these surrogates of the Norman invaders of 1066.

     Little of this was clear at the time, however it suddenly dawned on some of the ‘advanced’ thinkers like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard that there was indeed a new direction to America that they didn’t like.  A brief flurry of anti-immigration literature appeared from 1915 into the twenties but that was vigorously opposed by the Judaeo-Communist propagandists.

     We can see how Wells and his Open Conspiracy functioned fairly clearly.  Let us tuen now the more obscure Revolution

Go to Part III.  Organizing The Revolution