An Open Letter To The Anti-Defamation League

Attn: Johnathan Greenblatt, Pres.

Greetings and regards:

Let me introduce myself:  I am R.E. Prindle an historian and blogger who has come to some attention by your organization.  Your org. has defamed me as an anti-Semite.  The charge is completely erroneous and malicious.  I am an historian, but not your sycophant.

In my studies I have found it necessary to study the history of the Jews because of their undeniable impact on world affairs during all times and Ages. Like all peoples they have positive and negative points.  Your organization obviously doesn’t wish to have attention called to the negative points.  However, to fully integrate history it is necessary to include a key player, namely, the Jews.  They cannot be omitted without stultifying and falsifying history.  Nor can I stultify myself by excluding the negative facts.

Your organization’s methods have been to act as a vigilante group on a search and destroy mission.  Actual manhunts.  As vigilantes your organization has been judge, jury and executioner, that is, your organization has lynched, that is discredited your victims. solely on your own whim without defense.

Recently our President, Joseph Biden has passed an anti-lynching law and that changes the situation.  That is, your org.’s method of character assassination, equivalent to lynching, is now illegal, a crime, and a crime of some magnitude.  Quite frankly, the ADL is now a criminal organization.

I consider myself to have been lynched by the ADL.  There is nothing in my historical writings that isn’t factual.  That the history of Jewish activities may be unpalatable to the Jewish intellect, history without those negative facts you wish to excise is incomplete inaccurate and defamatory.  This cannot stand.

While an apology is small compensation for what you have done to me, I expect at least that compensation for myself.  To prevent further crimes your org. should reevaluate your methods and change them.  There can be no exception for your organization to continue its vigilantism and intimidation, indeed, terrorism, while lynching, or character assassination, has now been confirmed as a crime with criminal consequences.

Hoping for the best,

Sincerely,

R.E. Prindle

An Open Letter to the American Jewish

Committee

David Harris C.E.O.

Harriet Schleifer President

Sir and Madam:

Greetings and Regards,

Let me introduce myself:  I am R.E. Prindle, an historian and internet blogger as well as user of the social media.  I have over five hundred scholarly articles, posted over fifteen years on my blogs.  As an historian I post the results of studies without fear or favor.  What is, is.

The comments I have received have been more often than not favorable. For some time now I have been branded an anti-Semite by your associates at the ADL and the SPLC.  The claim that I am an anti-Semite is blatantly false.  I am an historian.  I cannot censor accurate results.  Neither the ADL or SPLC has ever contacted me to question my results. Nor do I think it proper to exclude from the results of my studies the activities of a major global player such as the Jews.  Yet, the two organizations have acted as vigilantes and falsely portrayed me as an anti-Semite.  As you know being labeled as an anti-Semite is a defamation of the strongest sort.  Imagine an anti-defamation organization that defames. As vigilantes they have lynched my character.

As you know vigilantism is discouraged by US mores while President Joe Biden has just passed an anti-lynching law.  Consequently I  feel that I have the authority to complain to the AJC as the central Jewish organization in the US and the world.

I ask you therefore to restore my articles to their original state and to lift the censorship, known as shadow banning, preventing them to be found

I don’t propose legal action at this time.  I will be content to have my articles restored by the search engines.

I cannot tolerate my works and efforts being  silenced on false charges that have never been investigated.  I have written nothing that cannot be verified from Jewish sources.  No ‘conspiracy theorizing’ is involved.  Just pure history.

Thanking you in advance, I remain,

Yours truly,

R.E. Prindle

Time Traveling #19

George W. M. Reynolds And Politics

by

R.E. Prindle

One thing that seems to have escaped we Reynolds Scholars is just how political Reynolds’ novels are; nor do we realize how revolutionary the years from 1830 to 1848 were.  English society was undergoing a huge political transformation.  Since the introduction of the potato into the diet the population had exploded and the people of the time understood it.   The potato without the Industrial Revolution would have been a disaster.

Was it not inevitable that Malthus made his dire prediction at this time?  To the casual observer Malthus’ view must have seemed inevitable.  The excess unemployed and unemployable was huge both in England and Ireland.

What saved England was first the emergence of railroads. The iron rails absorbed the idle creating a huge new workforce where none was before.  Further applications of steam also required new brigades of workmen and they were handy.  A large proportion of labor was skilled, requiring a fair education and demanding higher pay thus creating the phenomenon of the middle class which hadn’t existed before.

Railroads worked so well in England that it was assumed they would do the same for Ireland so rails were laid.  Ireland had no industry, being an agricultural economy, so very poor results.

Out of this English economic activity commerce developed apace.  English society was being overturned.  These money based businesses had a tendency to displace the old balance of the country on agriculture.  This challenged the old institution of aristocracy.  With numerous new workers clamoring for parliamentary representation the power of the old aristocracy was breaking.

Even as Reynolds in his novels railed against an hereditary aristocracy, and this was constant, he didn’t realize that his object was very near realization.  As he lay down his pen in 1860, Disraeli was proclaiming that the Reform Act of 1832  had rendered the aristocracy obsolete; they were toothless tigers.

In this transitional period (1830-48) the problem of a new political arrangement was paramount.  Contrary to Reynolds who found democracy sufficient there was much unease in accepting such an unpalatable solution.

As Disraeli examined political systems, he saw a descent from monarchy to Aristocracy to Parliament to a coming democracy with England in a mixture of all leading to the triumph of democracy and from there to total political failure such as we have now in both England and the US.

Political thinkers of doctrine all decried democracy.  Disraeli, learning from his father, believed the Jews had once had the perfect political system, and that the Jews had the true aristocracy, thus he despised democracy.

In the four series of Mysteries of London through the career of Richard Markham Reynolds devised utopian visions of the perfect democracy that was located in the Italian principality of Castelcicala.  Perfect democracy along with a perfect environment.  And, one might add, perfect people.

As Reynolds looked out at the squalor of London he divided the population into two classes, the rich and the poor.  The plight of the poor was desperate indeed.  Sanitation in the poor neighborhoods was deplorable indeed.  Reynolds’ picture of young children playing in  the streets of decaying garbage and filth, picking morsel from here there from the filth to eat are terrifying to today’s reader.

The scrounging class was very large, remember the population was struggling for the means of sustenance at the time Reynolds was writing. People earned what they could in any way they could, often quite despicable, the scourge of prostitution was everywhere prevalent.  At the time the Thames was so filthy that the stench from the pollution was such that a horrid odor spread from its banks.  At the time the sewers drained directly into the river.  A class of scroungers entered the sewer mouths at low tide penetrating as far as they safely could before the tide turned .  They rooted about in the oozing muck of frightful consistency to find objects of value.  They did find enough to actually make a satisfying living. 

A curious thing was in the dark tubes of insufficient oxygen they never caught any of the respiratory diseases, no flues, no colds.  The obvious lesson for us in the age of covid 19 is that the cure for flues and colds and respiratory viruses is to deny them oxygen.

Reynolds along with many others then and now believed that the raging crimes of London could be solved by sanitation, good jobs and education.  In his ideal democracy of Castelcicala mere democracy turned the principality around overnight, actually it only took the announcement that Castelcicala was a democracy.  Reynolds’ millennium had arrived.

Of course, as we know today, in a society of affluence, good education and good to excellent jobs, the criminal impulse is not rooted in poverty but in the souls of a portion of mankind.  Large portion.

Richard Markham’s story is actually a fantasy or fairy tale.  A sci-fi story that might as well be taking place in a parallel universe.  However, the progression of Markham’s life in terms of virtue vs. vice is an interesting tale, or, actually a novel within the novel.  The story begins with a good boy and bad boy, two brothers Richard and Eugene. (Eugene could be a tip of the hat to Eugene Sue and his Mysteries of Paris). 

Eugene, after an angry quarrel with his father over money, quits the house going off to make his fortune by any available means, which is to say criminal, or vice.  He is the bad boy.  Richard implores him not to leave but saying virtue would be his own way in life.  Just like Justine representing virtue in De Sade’s novel everything goes wrong for him.  In the opening segment of Series one he, a naif, is lured into a criminal group, set up as the fall guy, is arrested, tried and sent to prison for two years while having been fleeced of most of his fortune leaving him only two hundred pounds a year to get by on.

I’m going to have to insert some spoilers along the way but the writing of the story is the essential part.  As Rudyard Kipling said in his poem ‘When ‘Omer Smote His Bloomin’ ‘Arp’ all the stories were old already.  Since Eugene had already disappeared into numerous aliases his name doesn’t appear again until the end of Series Two.

It is obvious that he must be some other character in the novel which Reynolds skillfully conceals.  Suspicion falls on Montague/Greenwood.  Reynolds’ use of names was the giveaway for me.  Montague in the type of name he would have used.  His use of names would be a good study.  Laura for instance is the lovable girl gone bad.  Yes, Montague/Greenwood is Eugene.  Green wood, always trying, always failing because in Reynold’s book Vice must lose although Eugene has a memorable ride.  George Reynolds enjoys what is vulgarly known as the low life.  ‘This sportin’ life ain’t no life, but it’s my life…’ as the song says.  It was Montague/Greenwood, through ignorance that nearly destroyed his brother’s life.

Richard and Eugene, or two sides of Reynold’s personality.  An alter-ego also enters the story in the character of Tony Tidkins, the Resurrection Man.  Reynolds tries desperately to kill off Tidkins, ever going so far as to blow him up but Tony hangs on and turns on Reynolds/Richard much as in William Wilson’s dual personaity in Edgar Allan Poe’s story.  The duel between the two is the most interesting story in the Mysteries.

For those who may not know a Resurrection Man was a criminal who exhumed newly deceased bodies to sell to physicians for scientific study.  As a dual personality one might consider the Resurrection Man/Doctor as a parallel to Richard/Eugene.  Reynolds really likes his doctors with whom he is unfailingly admiring.  Each has his cabinet of curiosities, freaks of nature rising, as it were, from the dead. And, in fact, in The Crimes of Lady Saxondale one does.

‘Don’t go out tonight, they’re bound to take your life.’  Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?  The Shadow knows.  George the Shadow.

.3.

Mysteries of London quickly turned into an autobiographical fantasy in which Reynolds seeks redemption for his youthful criminality.  When his father returned into England from Guernsey his intent was to settle in Kent near the Cinque Ports, thus the recurring locality of Walmer, one of the ports and an important naval base, figures prominently in Reynold’ imagination.  In 1854 he moved from London to Ramsgate, one of the Cinque Ports.  He and his family lived there in some style until his wife, Susannah passed away in 1858.

Back to Walmer.  That town was a major naval station with a large hospital attached.  Reynolds’ father, who died upon his return in 1822, had a great friend, a naval physician named Duncan McArthur, hence George William McArthur Reynolds.  Dick Collins in his preface to the Valancourt edition of The Necromancer speculates that McArthur was a physician living in Walmer who experimented on dead bodies provided by Tidkins’ father.  Thus, Tidkins was initiated into exhuming dead bodies, condemned thereby to the criminal life as he was permanently excluded from polite society.

Reynolds gives a very sympathetic biography of Tidkins, extended biography.  This in my estimation means that he identified in some way with the Resurrection Man as his alter-ego.  In one resurrection within a church, described in great detail, the resurrectionists, accompanied by the doctor and a young boy exhume a young girl.  It could be just a good story or the doctor could have been McArthur and the boy Reynolds.  In any event there appears to be a love/hate relationship with Tidkins but Tidkins must be destroyed.

The first two years, 104 issues of Mysteries was an extended war between Richard/Reynolds and Tidkins/Reynolds. The story is a terrific psychological thriller.  Ultimately as the two series end Richard personally finally succeeds in ridding himself of Tidkins who had been the monkey on his back through five thousand pages.

An interesting thing, I digress,  is that the listings of his works on the title page of his books does and sometimes doesn’t list the first two series of Mysteries but he never ever mentions series three and four.  Probably why these two are so little known.  He also consistently mentions a book entitled Louisa the Orphan that is listed in his works nowhere else.  I’m dying to have a copy of Louisa, The Orphan. I have located a 1798 book titled Louisa the Lovely Orphan which is either a coincidence or perhaps George read it and rewrote it.

Perhaps when George finished series one and two he thought he had finished the story. But, then, perhaps George Stiff, his employer, didn’t want to give up a roaring success., so he asked for series three and four.  Reynolds wouldn’t have had worked out a story line so he had to scramble to come up with something.  Series three and four give evidence of such a situation.  While good, even excellent in parts, they show a fair amount of improvisation.

In the latter two stories of which the story of the Norwood Builder is a major stream one wonders where he got the story.  His contemporary and friend James Malcolm Rymer also included a short version of the Builder in his Varney the Vampire.  And then fifty years later, Conan Doyle retold the story in his Case of the Norwood Builder, based closely on that of Rymer.  Was the builder a real person?

A second stream is the continuation of Richard Markham’s career as the democratic leader of Castelcicala.  In this stream Reynolds  goes wild with fantasies of democracy.  While the earlier story in the first two volumes seemed to end satisfactorily, George now revives the story elaborating all his ideas on the perfection of democracy as a political system.  Now, a recap of how Richard arrived in the Italian principality of Castelcicala.

Richard, his early life destroyed, now an ex-con, stumbled around while waiting to turn playwright.  He hit the jackpot right out of box penning the only successful tragedy in modern English history.  Apparently after Shakespeare, no successful English tragedy succeeded, although not from trying.  As he stood up to honor the request for Author, Author Tidkins stood up bellowing ‘That’s Richard Markham who spent two years in Newgate Prison.  He is a felon.’  That, of course, ruined Richard’s theatrical career just as the wheel of fortune was turning in his direction.  Back to the drawing board.

.4,

At this point Richards star begins to rise, once again almost blighted by the Resurrection Man.  Richard is almost sunk in despair.  At this point the Duke of Castelcicala and his beautiful daughter Isabella arrive in exile in England.  Richard and Isabella are attracted to each other but Richard has his past hanging over his head that Tidkins does not fail to exploit.

Richard’s fortunes take a bound as the Duke recognizing his innate merit accepts his explanation of his past embracing him as his future son-in-law.

During this period Eugene under his various aliases pursues his criminal career. At first successful enough to put on a show of wealth, as time goes by and people become familiar with his style he slowly descends from a successful con man to the point where no one believes him.  The descent is skillfully handled by Reynolds.  Here Vice shows its true face.  It might be noted that the avatar of Vice, the Marquis de Sade himself spent a large amount of his adult life behind bars or in insane asylums, so, while touting vice, vice did little for him.  Justine and Juliette are astonishing stories nevertheless.

Castelcicalan affairs metamorphose so that the Duke is recalled to assume control bringing Richard with him.   Richard follows, engaging in a wild and successful military career exhibiting genius that Napoleon could have died for.   From this point on Richard is a made man.  Virtue triumphs in Spades.

The story closes back in London where Richard is pursuing the Resurrection Man.  He succeeds in terminating Tidkins’ career.  Hopefully for Reynolds that side of life dies with him.

Eugene returns to the old homestead to keep the appointment he made with Richard twenty years before to see whose career had been the most successful.  However as he arrives a man Eugene swindled sometime in the past chances to ride by.  He leaps out of the coach, pulls the trigger, Eugene lies dead.  Vice does not pay.

As noted earlier, the Mysteries were a roaring success, selling as many as forty thousand copies weekly.  One imagines that perhaps George Still his publisher and George Vickers the printer were reluctant to give up such a gold mine.  He or they implored Reynolds to write another series or two.

Reynolds was reluctant, wishing to branch off on his own, as he will soon but not affluent enough as yet. He must balance his aspirations against a reliable five pounds a week.  He accepted the task.  It would be interesting to know whether he had already worked out a plan for his next big project the Mysteries of the Court of London, at any rate he had to come up with something for the present.

As Stiff had the rights, he and Vickers could do with the Mysteries as they liked. I haven’t seen the printing history of the Mysteries but as Reynolds will to on to dominate the Penny Dreadfuls for eight years with his equally successful Mysteries of the Court of London one imagines that they sold well in book form.  Perhaps Reynolds decision to leave at the end of the Mysteries with the loss of future income irritated Stiff and Vickers enough that they filed bankruptcy proceedings against Reynolds in 1848 in what appears to have been a malicious act.

If Reynolds thought that he had ended the Mysteries at the end of series four he now had to quickly invent a continuation from scratch.  Series five and six  (Vols. three and four) definitely show a writer struggling to find a story line as there is a certain looseness and lack of real continuity such as was found in series one-four.  Reynolds falls back on the old reliable highway man to begin the new series in what seems to be a middle.  Might be called, in media res.

George needs a horrible villain to match the Resurrection Man so he fixes on naming his Old Death.  Rather lame.  I found the name repellant so that it took a second reading to begin to get into the story, or stories.  The two volumes turn into a rather discontinuous series of episodes while when stuck George throws in long short stories, almost novellas such as the very long tale of Tim the Snammer.  A good story but reminiscent of Capt. Marryat.

George does manage to weave the adventures of his hero, Tom Rain, into a few interlocking series of adventures- Tom and the Jews, Tom and Lady Georgiana, Tom and Old death, Tom and the Norwood Builder and the Norwood Builder without Tom.  Apparently up against the wall for copy he reintroduces Richard Markham and his further adventures as the savior of Castelcicala.  While barely kept within the story context, not sure that it was, this section is a very long tract on Reynolds’ utopian vision of democracy. As with all utopias the scheme depends on human beings acting as angels who are each a puppet on strings.

Of course, this was written in ’46 or ’47 while the revolutionaries were quivering in anticipation of the Revolution of ’48.  This revolution was no secret.  Karl Marx who lived in London at there time where he wrote the Communist Manifesto literally announced the revolution.  There is no evidence that Reynolds met Marx but Marx knew who he was.  Marx described him as a rich capitalist, this description must come from the 1850s.

Now, according to Benjamin Disraeli the ’48 was wholly planned and executed by the Jews so its advent would been no surprise to him.  Already in Parliament for ten years one wonders if he advised his fellows of the shape of things to come.  If not, he was complicit.

While bloody and difficult to suppress on the continent, in England it was only a series of wild demonstrations.  Reynolds took part to the extent of making public speeches which were so well received in Trafalgar Square that he was carried home on the shoulders of the demonstrators where he made another speech from his balcony.

In England the Jewish element was silent.  Instead, Reynolds as a Chartist was the star of revolutionary England.  In England the revolution was led by a political group called the Chartists.  Chartists because they had a list of demands compiled as a chart.  The Chartists were more an evolutionist group while Reynolds was a Red Republican, that is he favored a violent takeover of the government not unlike the 1793 Jacobin phase of the first French revolution or what was happening on the Continent of ’48.  He was shunned by the Chartist leaders.

Reynolds must have known the ’48 revolution was imminent, probably at the same time that he began writing the Mysteries in ’44.  The coming revolution was more or less an open secret.  Thus his writings are anti-monarchy and anti-aristocracy.  From the Reform Act of ’32 there was a steady drum roll to enfranchise the entire male population, that is for democracy. 

The desire for democracy was not universal however.  Democracy did not enjoy the sacred status it has today.  Disraeli who was about to lead the Conservative Party was adamantly opposed to democracy and throughout his long ascendency tried to prevent it.  The history of democracy was such that it always ended in disaster, something like socialism does, and, for that matter, what has happened today as chaos envelopes us.

Reynolds was strictly utopian.  He wanted democracy and democracy now. He had always favored a compete break with the past, an abrupt overturn of society wiping away the old and installing the new.  He applauded the first French Revolution for its violence.  Victor Hugo, the French writer, known today for his two novels, the Hunchback of Notre Dame and Les Misérables, writing in 1874 published his novel 1793, written after the disappointment of the Paris rising of 1870, called the Paris Commune, Hugo openly advocated the extermination of counter-revolutionaries as he believed the ‘old’ mentality would never accept revolutionary ideals.

In writing his Castelcicalan fantasy Reynolds disposed of such gory details.  He does portray a complete break with Castelcicala’s monarchy and aristocracy but they voluntarily surrender their stations to accept pure democracy

In this vision Richard Markham steps into the role of a savior who is embraced by an adoring population.  In a couple years he would actually enjoy this sort of adulation on the shoulders of the Chartists carrying him to his home.  One wonders how long it took him to come down from that elation and how it affected his attitude as he began his magnum opus The Mysteries of the Court of London that castigate the monarchy and aristocracy.

The population, of which perhaps the majority may have never even heard of democracy, rose in a universal shout of joy.  As a true democrat Richard rejected all emoluments becoming as the Roman Emperor Augustus did, the first among equals.  He even insisted on a first name basis.  Crime, ignorance and civil disobedience disappeared under his rule, or perhaps, counsel or just the shout of democracy. 

The failure of ’48 probably damped his ardor, but his novel is a great fairy tale.

.5.

We usually think of Reynolds as a novelist but he was also a very successful newspaper man with both a paper and a magazine, The Reynolds Miscellany.  As the newspaper was considered a radical sheet it therefore follows that he would be politically well informed.  As some of his novels deal with the Jewish presence, his journalism must have been attentive to Jewish activities.

Make no mistake English society was sensitive to the Jewish presence.  As fate would have it the lives of Reynolds and the most famous Jews of the period ran parallel, the top politican and novelist Benjamin Disraeli and the top Jewish financier, Lionel Rothschild who all died within two years of each other’

As they were working at cross purposes Reynolds and they would have been at odds.  Disraeli and Rothschild would have come under close scrutiny from Reynolds’ eye.  The question concerning Disraeli is, was he simply a Jewish politician or was he a prime agent in the Jewish conspiracy to win Europe for themselves.  Remember that Disraeli said that the Revolution of ’48 was wholly a Jewish enterprise.  Would they have shared the fruits with the Europeans if the revolution had been successful?  Not very likely.

When the crisis came in ’48 Disraeli had been successful in upsetting parliamentary organization, put it into confusion.  In vicious verbal attacks he had been successful in removing Prime Minister Robert Peel as the leader of the opposition.  Peel’s probable successor George Bentinck, a close associate of Disraeli’s, died a mysterious death while out walking thus leaving the way open for Disraeli to seize the opportunity to become leader of the Tory, Conservative, Party for the rest of his life.

It is a fact that Disraeli was tight with the Rothschilds. I don’t think it should offend anyone to say that the Rothschild family lacked integrity.  Disraeli was a habitue at the dwelling of Lionel Rothschild, who died in the same year as Reynolds, 1879,.  Disraeli also lived in Alfred Rothschild’s house after his wife Maryanne died. So there was a close relationship between Disraeli and the Rothschilds who were considered Messiahs who would return the Jews to Jerusalem in which they actually succeeded.

As I have pointed out in other articles Benjamin Disraeli’s father, Isaac D’Israeli, wrote a book titled The Genius of Judaism in which he posited that Jesus came to fulfill the Law and that having done so the Old Testament and the New Testament become the fulfillment of the Law in two volumes.  Thus Jesus was the completion of the law and thus Jews could assume a dual identity as Jew and Christian.  But Jesus was only a Jewish prophet while the Christ was a Greek notion attached to Jesus only much later to satisfy the gentiles.  Christian then is not a Jewish concept but they both use the same figurehead.

Is it coincidental that Ewald whose text is central to this essay was also a ‘complete’ Jew who had accepted Christianity as his second religious identity?  As always the Jews needed a huge propaganda unit to counter the antipathy they aroused.  There were many outfits set up to proselytize to Christianity, such as the British Society for the Propagation of the Gospel Among the Jews.  Is it a coincidence that the men who ran these organizations were most frequently Jewish completist Christian converts.

Was not their intent to convince as many Jews as possible to disguise themselves as Christians?  Thus they would open doors to society as Christians while remaining Jews.  That was how Disraeli lived his life although the Jewish side of the coin was always uppermost.  That said, would they not have conspired together with interested parties such as Disraeli and the Rothschilds as well as other rich and influential Jews in England and on the Continent?  In fact, they would have been connected to Disraeli through his father’s book perhaps forming a Jewish sub-group..

Disraeli certainly performed miracles for his Jewish people while actually undermining and injuring the prospects of England and his Christian fellows. To fathom Reynolds and clearly understand Reynolds’ novels would require a thorough examination of his journalism over the decades.  It

Group Psychology And The Ukraine

by

R.E. Prindle

Let us ask ourselves a single question about the situation in the Ukraine.

That question is, who is the central player in this enormous critical game?  Who is the motive force?  Which nation is directing the action and to what goal?  It is an easy answer, but one that will still surprise you and which you will immediately deny.  Yes, you guessed it,  the Jews.

This issue is not specifically the Ukraine but includes it; nor is it Russia; nor the US; nor Europe.  This issue is all of them streaming out of Germany in the eighteenth century of the Affaire Jud Suss.  Of a people that cherishes grievances, this issue in the Ukraine represents Ultima Judaica.  Nor is this the first time in the last hundred years that the Jews have tried to destroy all.  They almost succeeded with the one-two punch, WWI and WWII.  Totally shattered by the results of the latter of those two wars the Jews needed a few decades to regroup.  If this is intended to be WWIII it may succeed where the first two wars failed.

The whole of Europe West from England, East to the Soviet Union the continent then lay in ruins.  The unexpected collateral damage was that both Hitler and Stalin nearly terminated the Jewish career.  Amid the holocaust of Europe there was the Jewish holocaust.

The result was that they played a revived Germany, Europe and the US to finance their own recovery.  Then they had to figure out a way to continue the destruction of Europe, Russia, the US and perhaps Western Civilization.  Jewish civilization must not only reign supreme but alone.

Events transpired in their favor.  When the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1980s and disintegrated, a window was opened.

Israel, established in 1948 was now a mature State, over populated to the gills.  The State had to move people to other shores,  they had to populate another country.  The US, Russia and Western Europe were out.  That left the Ukraine, an old haunt of theirs going back hundreds of years.  Jews began migrating to the Ukraine.

Accordingly if accounts are correct they have created the largest and most vibrant Jewish colony in Europe.  Europe had, or has, a loose confederation of States under the government of the EU combined with that of NATO, both heavily infiltrated by Jews.  NATO then was used as an irritant against Russia.  Jews hatred of Russia prevented the new Russian State, now that the USSR had disappeared, from prospering so that NATO and Europe were their enemies.  The Ukraine was then a Jewish colony, historically a Russian province i.e. Ukraine was placed within historically Russian borders. 

The Ukraine under Jewish domination then cultivated a relationship with the US and NATO to install missiles essentially within Russia around the perimeter of the Ukraine facing Russia. 

I don’t know whether the missiles were only planned or actually installed but I suspect the latter.  If one looks at Russian war plans they seem very odd.  Russia attacked Ukraine along the entire perimeter within Russia and then bombed the entire perimeter at once.  Why?  Very probably to destroy those very missiles before they could be fired.

As Ukraine was not supposed to have the missiles they would naturally be disguised in public buildings, perhaps hospitals.  It appears that Russia has destroyed them so that that game is up.

But now, using a different tactic that dates back to the Semite, Cadmus and Grecian Thebes in ancient Boeotia about 1700 BC, used again in Sarajevo in WWI, that is, as a third party getting two other parties fight each other to extinction then picking up the pieces, the Jews have or are setting up a fratricidal war between NATO and Russia that will, at the very least, flatten the entire continent from England to Russia leaving only the US to be finished later if it wasn’t lost as collateral damage.

Israel will remain standing.  Thus a project dating back a millennium will have been achieved.  Remember the Amalekites.

Note #13:  George W. M. Reynolds

A Curious Reference

by

R.E. Prindle

The following quotation is taken from Alexander Charles Ewart’s ‘The Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli, Earl Of Beaconsfield, K.G. And His Times, Div. 3 of 5. Vol. II. P.25.

I have no dates for Ewald, but since he died in his nineties in the 1890s it must have been c. 1800.  He was born in Jerusalem and like Disraeli, possibly in emulation of him, he also accepted Jesus of Nazareth as completing the Jewish ethos.  He makes no point of being Jewish and/or Christian.  He is, however, a near worshipper of Disraeli.

If he had been born c. 1800 he was forty-eight  in ’48 and a witness to the Trafalgar Square demonstrations.  In 1883 he was still indignant.

Quote:

Mr. Disraeli had, as we have seen, expressed himself with equal caution upon the subject, though in more encouraging tones; but the masses, turbulent, ignorant, and out of work, and completely under the influence of their unscrupulous agents, had made up their minds that the Conservative party was hostile to the cause of reform, and that their object could only be attained  by assuming a threatening  attitude.  Meetings were held at Primrose Hill and at Trafalgar Square, where speakers who could obtain notoriety after no other fashion than a base and disloyal agitation, vehemently denounced the policy of the government, of which they knew nothing, to a rabble composed of the scum and outcasts of London, who no more represented the sober, intelligent working classes desirous of the franchise than our convicts represent the honesty and industry of the country.  It was arranged that a monster meeting should be held in Hyde Park, when certain conclusions, based upon spite and inspired by ignorance, which were termed “resolutions,”  were to be passed condemnatory of all opposition to the cause of reform.  The government, however, fully alive to the dangers which might ensue from the assembling in our chief public park of all that was vile and disorderly, promptly forbade the meeting.  A notice to that effect was delivered  to Sir Richard Mayne, the chief commissioner of police.  “There is nothing,’ said Mr. Walpole the home secretary, in defence of the instructions he had issued,  ‘there is nothing in the notice signed by Sir Richard Mayne to imply that processions, orderly conducted, are illegal–to prevent persons from holding meetings in the usual way for the purpose of discussing politics or ;any other subject but I think that any one holding the office which I have the honour I hold is bound to attend to the public peace of this metropolis; and if he believes that the parks, which are open by the permission of Her Majesty for benefit of all Her Majesty’s subjects, are little to be devoted to any purpose that would interfere with the quiet recreation of the people, and might lead to riot and disorderly demonstrations, he would be most blamable if he did not issue an order similar to that which I have given.”

Unquote.

You will notice that there was no reference to the ’48 revolution going on in Europe.  Nor did he mention any names, although George W.M. Reynolds’ name must have been on his mind.  Reynolds as the key speaker who was carried home on the shoulders of the Demonstrators must have called attention to himself as a key agitator ‘having no other way to call attention to himself.’  Likely that Ewald couldn’t force himself to eighter speak or write the name

Anyway, there is an official account of the demonstrations.

A small point of interest.

Note #12:  George W.M. Reynolds: Passing Through Time.

by

R.E. Prindle

Texts:  Ewald, Alexander Charles, The Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli, EARL OF BEACONSFIELD, K.G. And His Times, William MacKenzie, 1883

Reynolds, George W.M., Works 1844-1860

.1.

In order to understand an author correctly one must have some idea of his cultural milieu.  I am offering some here, I am not being comprehensive.  I am going to take a longish quote from Alexander Charles Ewald’s ‘The Right Hon. Benjamin Disraeli, First Earl of Beaconsfield, K.G., And His Times to begin.

Ewald was especially suited to interpret Disraeli in great detail and length.  The work is divided into five divisions, two volumes in a beautifully designed book designed to honor Ewald’s great man.  Each page is a wonderfully detailed, almost day by day, hour by hour, account of Disraeli’s political career. The social, cultural and historical context is amazing.

Ewald was especially suited to interpret Disraeli as he too was a converted, or in Disreali’s term, ‘completed Jew’, observing both the new and old testament.  His understanding is that Jesus came to fulfill the law.  Ewald was born in Jerusalem, converting to, or assuming a complementary, Christianity.  Something like the contemporary Jews for Jesus.  I’m just guessing but I’m going to put his assumption at about the age twenty after he had time to recognize Disraeli and imitate him.  In his book her he assumes the role of Disraeli’s Boswell.

He provides magnificent detail, worshipping every word the Disraeli spoke in Parliament.  Below he is setting the stage, discussing electoral matters.  Division 1, p. 47

Quote:

During the present generation the House of Commons, owing to the development of the reforms that have been effected in its constitution, has lost many of the characteristics which it formerly possessed.  It is now a practical, business-like, but, it must be confessed, a somewhat dull assembly.  The elements of youth and wit are conspicuous by their absence, while municipal eloquence and vestry-like personalities reign in their stead.  Before the abolition of nomination boroughs, a young man of great ability—like the second Pitt, Canning, Macauly and others—was taken by the hand by some powerful minister, and launched upon a parliamentary career in the easiest and most inexpensive fashion.  The leaders of the great parties, who swayed the opinions of parliament were always on the watch for talent that might serve their political ends.  Many a young man by his clever speeches at the debating-club of his university, by a happy pamphlet, or by a bitter and opportune squib, found himself safely seated on the green benches of the House of Commons as a representative of a borough in the hands of a powerful lord, or of a large-acred  squire without his election having cost him more than the issue of his address or the delivery of a few speeches before a sympathetic audience.  Commerce had not then assumed the high position it now occupies, nor had the banker’s book usurped the influence of  the pedigree chart.  The lower house was in a large measure, filled by the representatives of the landed gentry, who knew little of science of the laws of political economy, but who shuddered if they heard a false quantity, and piqued themselves that they were as familiar with the classics as a priest is with his breviary.  A few merchants of the highest class, a few successful lawyers, a few Irish, then as now not held in much esteem, and several clever young men who were the little deities of their university, completed the list. The constitution of such an assembly, though it might not offer the same scope as now exists for the exercise of those talents which especially appeal to what Mr. Disraeli called the “parochial mind,” yet afforded every opportunity for the display of culture.  A classical and a literary flavour penetrated the parliamentary eloquence of those days.  A speech delivered in the House was a solemn undertaking, and not to be lightly entered upon; its periods were carefully dismissed in stately terms worthy of the occasion; the gestures and attitudes of the speaker were studied with a Chatham-like view of effect; whilst his words were listened to by an assembly which never forgot, even in the most feverish times of party heat, that it represented the gentry of England.  Then on the following day the details brought forward were fully reported and discussed in the leading journals.  Eloquence was thus the most powerful weapon that could be wielded in parliamentary warfare, and it consequently became the favorite and most cultivated of all studies.  To be a showy speaker or a ready debater, no matter how incorrect or superficial the sentiments expressed, was to be on the high road to the cabinet; whilst the erudite and the thinker, who could never address a few words to the Speaker without confusion, were completely ignored. 

The Reform Bills and the development of a newspaper press have, however, ushered in a new state of things. The abolition of pocket boroughs has rendered it impossible for clever but impecunious youth to obtain a seat in parliament.  The competition that arises upon every vacancy in the House of Commons, and the rigid measures now most properly dealt out of those guilty of bribery and corruption, make it a matter of necessity at the present day for the candidate for parliamentary honours  to be not only a rich man, but one who has long been courting the favours of a constituency.  Those who derive their wealth from industry seldom have attained to fortune till past middle age and consequently the House of Commons will become more and more the assembly of elderly men; in other words, more grave, more practical, more dull.

Unquote.

.2.

What Ewart describes is the grey ease of the transition point between a change of scale, the changing of the guard.  As Greg Allman lyricist for the Allman Bros. Band described it:  ‘See that clock upon the wall?  Time can make it fall.’  Time flows it doesn’t run.  One era was ending, another beginning.

Disraeli’s career can be divided into two parts, 1837 to 1860 and from 1860 to his death.  The first period ended in success as in 1858 he and Lionel Rothschild breached the British square to allow Jews to seated in Parliament as Jews and not English thus creating the real Two Nations contending for mastery.  The Rothschilds succeeded in extending their power over all Europe while operating in the US initially through their agent August Belmont, who proved to independent and after  with the full cooperation of the J.P. Morgan organization and Kuhn-Loeb on the Jewish side.

By then Disraeli had established himself as the leader of the Conservative Party.  He was then instrumental in managing English political affairs until his death.

Reynolds’ destiny seems to have been written out of both literature and history.  The deeper I get into his study the more convinced I am that he was much more influential in promoting his agenda than he has been accredited for even by his literary admirers.  His entire political agenda was effected by the time he died.  The Chartist program which I am sure he must have had a hand in forming and which in his utopianism he thought was going to produce the perfect world had been realized.

  Disraeli seemed aware, as he was promoting the change was able to transition from one period to the other with some success.  Ewart in his political biography quotes from a Disraeli speech: Division II, p.423:

Quote:

But I think that the reform of the House of Commons in 1832 greatly added to the energy and public spirit in which we had then become somewhat deficient.

But, sir, it must be remembered that the labours of the statesmen who took part in the transactions of 1832 were eminently experimental.  In many respects they had to treat their subject empirically, and it is not to be wondered at if in the course of time it was found that some errors were committed in that settlement; and if, as time rolled on, some, if not many deficiencies, were discovered.   I beg the House to consider well those effects of time, and what has been the character of the twenty-five years that have elapsed since 1832.  They form no ordinary period.  In a progressive country and a progressive age, progress has been not only rapid, but perhaps precipitate.  There is no instance in the history of Europe of such an increase of population as has taken place in this country during this period.  There is no example in the history of Europe or of America, of a creation and accumulation of capital so vast as has occurred in this country in those twenty-five years.  And I believe the general diffusion of intelligence has kept pace with that increase of population and wealth.  In that period you have brought science to bear on social life in a manner no philosopher in his dreams could ever have anticipated; in that space of time you have, in a manner, annihilated both time and space.  The influence of the discovery of printing is really only beginning to work on the multitude.  It is, therefore, not surprising that in a measure passed twenty-five years ago, in a spirit necessarily experimental, however distinguished were its authors, and however remarkable their ability, some omissions have been found that ought to be supplied, and some defects that ought to be remedied.  In such a state of things a question in England becomes what is called a public question.

Unquote.

Disraeli seems to handle space and time well is that excerpt.  Satisfied me anyway.

 Reynolds on the other hand was fairly rooted in the departing era that he examined in great detail handling time and space well for the period 1826 to 1848 .  When the break point came in 1859-60 he knew he couldn’t adapt to the new era.  Gave it up, handed his pen and ink to the younger generation to drift off ostensibly to do newspaper work on his newspaper, involving himself in political affairs anywhere he was welcome, wandering in the wilderness for nearly twenty years, while the new generation of novelists such as Anthony Trollope took his place as political and social commentators.  His earthly travails ended at seventy-nine.  His time had been well spent.

Disraeli died a couple years later, if I’m not mistaken, a bitter vengeful old man nursing his delusions of being a ‘great man.’  Lionel Rothschild also died in 1980 thus topping off the period.

Time Traveling 18:

George W. M. Reynolds And The Two Nations

by

R.E. Prindle

The Forties were a momentous period in nineteenth century England. It was one of their transition points from one societal organization to another.  The people of England were stumbling out of the eighteenth century into the nineteenth with all its technological and scientific revelations. The Napoleonic wars had put a period to the eighteenth and the nineteenth blossomed.

Perhaps unnoticed for what it was the emancipation of the Jews begun by Napoleon was about to transform the face of Europe and England.  Nowhere was this more clearly evident than in the country of England.

By the 1840s it was clear to the perceptive that there was a coming cultural clash between the Jews and English. As is usual with great changes, artists and writers were the first to grasp that there was a culture war in progress.  Pre-eminent among the writers concerned with the two nations was the great novelist George W. M. Reynolds, the author of Mysteries of London.

From the Jewish side the most overt writers were the future Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli and his father Isaac D’Israeli.  Both writers blazed across the decade of the Forties.

In this essay we will be concerned with Reynolds’ four series of Mysteries of London.  I follow the Valancourt two series, two volumes  edition.  The first two series or volumes have current publication  while the latter two series have been eclipsed by the passage of time.  Reynolds himself had been eclipsed by the passage of time but English scholar Louis James’ effort seems headed for a revival of interest.  Valancourt Press has released  : The Mysteries of London Series I&II, Wagner the Wehrwolf and The Necromancer.  In 1919 a San Bernardino firm with no name published a printing of III and IV, which I have, but the edition has sold through and is no longer available at this time.  Several different volumes published by the British Library can still be had, they are discontinued, the Library seems to have lost interest in Reynolds and remaindered the lot.  Some are still readily available at Ebay and possibly Amazon.

A problem might be that the end of second series seems to indicate the end of the Mysteries but such is not the case for while Series Three doesn’t pick up where Series Two ended is nevertheless a long continuation along with Series Four bringing the total number of pages of the four series  to nearly five thousand.

The volumes of Benjamin Disraeli to figure prominently in this essay will be his trilogy Coningsby, Sybil and Tancred.  Benjamin Disraeli was of course the most prominent politician of the English nineteenth century. Being in Parliament in the forties he published these three political novels then ended his writing career until 1870 when Lothair appeared followed in 1980 by his Endymion.

Of stellar importance will be his father Isaac D’ Israeli’s, Genius of the Jews, whose teaching formed his son’s understanding of the Jewish Nation.  The book was also meant a manual for non-Jews as to how they were to perceive the Jewish Nation.  At this time in England little was known of the Jewish Nation.

.2.

 From the year 1290 to 1660 Jews were banned from England.  Allowed re-entry in 1660, immigration to England began slowly, by the end of the eighteenth century there was a small colony of perhaps several thousand who, staying within their colony in the East End were not disrupting English society.  That situation had changed dramatically by the 1840s when the culture clash arrived with a bang.

By the 1840s the Rothschild banking family of the Nation was the richest family in England eclipsing preeminent families of the English Nation by far.  The modern palace of Mentmore Towers built in 1854 excelled all English manors in splendor.  Built in the Vale of Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire, the Vale became the location of many Rothschild mansions.  Isaac D’ Israeli establish himself at Bradenham in Bucks. while his son would establish himself at neighboring Hughenden.  Thus the Vale became a Jewish principality.  The Vale would figure prominently in the writings of Reynolds.

The rise of the English Jewish Nation began in 1806 when the dynasties founder, Nathan Rothschild, made his first coup by smuggling English gold across France and Spain to General Wellington’s army on the Spanish Peninsula.  Nathan’s next coup, that established the family fortune, came with the success of British arms against Napoleon at Waterloo.

When Nathan died in 1836 he turned the dynasty over to his son Lionel who was a worthy successor.  Lionel would rule the roost from 1836 to 1880 paralleling the career of Benjamin Disraeli in the heart of the nineteenth century.  It was he who broke the British square.  Shortly after Nathan’s death Disraeli was given a safe seat in Parliament in 1837, after having placed last in balloting four consecutive elections.

The Rothchild/Disraeli link would last until Lionel died.  Now linked with the Rothschilds and in Parliament Disraeli quickly wrote the trilogy that outlined the Jewish Nation’s position- Coningsby, Sybil and Tancred.  These novels lauded his Nation while in Tancred he proposed a New Crusade leading from Palestine across Europe to England.

Every member of Parliament had to take an oath as a Christian, while Disraeli, as a Jew, took Jesus’ view that he came to fulfil the law of the Old Testament.  Thus, while accepting Jesus as a Jewish savior becoming a nominal Christian he could take the oath in good conscience while maintaining a dual religiosity.

There were already Jewish members of Parliament but they had falsely taken the oath.  Lionel ran for Parliament, was elected to one of the six City seats, but refused the oath desiring to be admitted as member of the Jewish Nation only.  He was refused but repeatedly ran and was reelected as one of the six City members.  Finally in the mid fifties he was able to corrupt the procedures of the English Nation seating himself as a member of the Jewish Nation, but not the English Nation.  The Jews at this point had parity as the Jewish Nation functioning within the English Nation.  The two nations had come into existence.

.3.

George W.M. Reynolds was also a revolutionary but an English national.  Born in 1814 to an English Navy Captain, he spent the years between two and eight on the island of Guernsey where his father was stationed.  The family returned to England in 1822 in which year his father died.  The next five years he was under the guardianship of his father’s best friend, Duncan McArthur, who was a Naval physician stationed at Walmer, Kent.  At the end of the period McArthur placed the thirteen year old boy as a cadet at the Sandhurst Military Academy.  George had apparently been at odds with his father, but hated Duncan McArthur, who, as his father and mother’s executor, probably defrauded him of a large part of his inheritance.

No longer able to stand military discipline, after his mother died in March of 1830, Reynolds removed himself from Sandhurst.  He exiled himself to France at the end of 1830.  Eighteen-thirty was the year of the second French revolution, called the July Revolution, with its three glorious days. In France, Reynolds became a thorough revolutionary favoring violent revolution.  In 1836 he was asked to leave France under a criminal cloud.  Returning to England he began his literary career as the editor of the Monthly Magazine.

In 1832 the first Reform Act was made law in England.  As a consequence of the Reform Act a worker’s party called the Chartists emerged in which Reynolds served a prominent role.  Having written several creditable novels between 1835 and 1842 but which failed  to establish him as a successful author he was invited by the publisher George Stiff to serialize a novel for his magazine the London Journal.  The novel was to be patterned on The Mysteries of Paris by the French author Eugene Sue.  Reynolds accepted the offer and began the serialized Mysteries of London.  The series lasted for four years, 1844-48.

Probably to the wonderment of Reynolds, and maybe all, his writing was a runaway success.  Mysteries of London sold as many as forty thousand copies per weekly installment.  Made his eyes sparkle.  He now had a platform to promulgate his social ideas and  political platform.

By 1844, when the series began, the Jews were pushing off English social mores seeking to create a counter Jewish Nation within the English Nation.

The significance of the Jewish Nation within England was recognized in 1809 by the reformer William Wilberforce.  While Wilberforce was battling to end slavery he also helped found the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews.  Thus the presence of the Jews has become conspicuous.  By the 1840s their presence had been duly noted.  While the Jews received scant notice in the first two series of Mysteries of London, in the third and fourth the Jewish issue quite emphatically took Reynolds attention.

Disraeli’s trilogy was published in 1844, ’45 and ’47 so that Reynolds obviously read them but doesn’t reference Disraeli by name although he does reference Lionel Rothschild.

.4.

The years 1830 through 1848 were years of revolution and revolutionary schemes in Europe and England.  In Europe the revolutions were violent indeed with perhaps a hundred thousand or more meeting their deaths until the revolutionary period from1789 through 1848 was vanquished, until 1903 and the first Russian Revolution.

In England the violence was minimized while the revolution was compelled to accept limited success.  Both the crown and the aristocracy were stripped of most of their privileges while the Commons became the most important of the three estates. 

Reynolds remained a dedicated violent revolutionary believing that only a revolution such as France’s 1793 episode in which the past was swept away in one fell swoop.  Reynolds admired and approved of this most violent revolution as it swept away the past allowing for an attempt to build back better.  Thus when the Chartist movement after 1839 was formed Reynolds was a charter member of the extremist sort.  While every effort has been employed to reduce his importance in the movement the rumbles are that he was positively disliked for his extremism, while the main body favored fabian tactics.  Disraeli, now a member of Parliament was content to bore from within.

I quote from Monypenny and Buckle’s The Life of Disreali, six volumes in two p.141:

Quote:

The quintessential issue was between an aristocratic government in its proper sense of the term—that is a government of the best men in all classes—and a democracy.  The English were a peculiar people.

Disraeli wrote:  ‘You have an ancient, powerful, richly endowed Church and perfect religious liberty.   You have unbroken order and complete freedom.  You have landed estates as large as the Romans, combined with commercial enterprise such as Carthage and Venice united never equalled.  And you must remember that this peculiar country, with these strong contrasts, is not governed by force; it is not governed by standing armies; it is governed by a most singular series of traditionary influences, which generation after generation cherishes because it knows they embalm custom, represent law.  And with these, what have you else?  You have created the greatest empire of modern time.  You have amassed a capital of fabulous amount. You have devised and sustained a system of credit still more marvelous.  And abroad, you have established and maintained a scheme so vast and complicated of labor and industry that the history of the world affords no parallel to it.  And all these mighty creations are out of all proportion to the essential and indigenous elements and resources of the country.  If you destroy that state of society, remember this—England cannot begin again.

Unquote, unquote.

Disraeli might as well have been describing the United State of the twentieth century.  Disraeli would then set about to dismantle what he had just described as his fellow Jews have done to the United States.  It must be remembered that the Old Testament of the Bible predicts that the Jews will inhabit houses that they didn’t build.  That means that they will move country to country (The House of Egypt, The House of England, France, Germany, the US etc.) and trash each moving on to the next.  Next in line is China.

Reynolds, on the other hand, favored a utopian fantasy of Chartist democracy.  A vision as absurd an any democratic fantasy as all democracies must ultimately fail as they dumb down the population to the lowest level.  Thus, the Jews while demanding an aristocracy of Judaism promotes democracy for everyone else.  The elite of a Nation and the Jewish Nation within the Nation ultimately work toward the same end with different results.

As of 2020 both England and the US have been trashed,

Reynolds then, ignorant of the inevitable results of democracy, and the tendencies of Judaism, wrestles with the problems in Series III and IV of the Mysteries of London.

.5.

Perhaps the trigger that led to the content of Series III & IV was the publication of Coningsby in 1844 at the same time that Reynolds was beginning Mysteries of London.  Coningsby was subtitled the New Generation, probably meaning the arrival of the Jews, while the meaning of Coningsby is that of the king’s manor or village, two significant names.  Compare the terms with Nathan Rothschilds, New Court.  Coningsby, the hero, then means a natural king. The story line of the two volumes must have begun germinating after that book’s,

 publication.  The second of Disraeli’s trilogy, Sybil was published in 1845 adding its impetus.  Thus Reynolds; mind masticated  the stories when he began the third series in 1846.

Coningsby must have been a startling book for England as Disraeli raved about the natural superiority of the Jews.  His portrait of Sidonia was based on Lionel Rothschild.  Sidonia was so outrageous as to be unbelievable.  Sidonia was characterized as a real superman; while Disraeli’s description of Jewish infiltration of all European governments must have been as shocking as Reynolds’ reaction indicates.

Indeed, those Jews were so many spies collecting information to be sent to the Rothschilds as the new messiahs of Europe.  The Rothschild story is so fabulous that they might well be considered the Jewish redeemers. With those means of collecting information it is no wonder that the Jews were informed of political developments almost before they were put into execution.  Inside information was a major source of their financial wizardry.

This Jewish seeming prescience was considered wonderful and baffling to Europeans.  The reasons are quite obvious today.  Only in the matters of the Dreyfus case in France was anyone caught.  The French correspondingly accused Dreyfus of passing info to the Germans which he certainly was not doing; he was passing info to the synagogue which used it for their own ends.

The cultural conflict in England more or less began when Charles Dickens published his novel Oliver Twist which featured the Jewish criminal character, Fagin.  It was not the portrayal of a Jew as a thief that directly set the Jews off as we all believe.  No, it was the fact that Fagin suffered the shame of being executed on the scaffold.  This was taken as an insult for all Jewry.  As Disraeli expressed it, all nations had criminals, Jews were to be seen everywhere with the exception of never, never being seen on the scaffold.  This was a crucial matter.  In twentieth century US when New York DA Thomas Dewey finally managed to arrest the originator of Murder Inc., the master criminal Lepke Buchalter, his fellow Jews worked like demons to prevent his conviction.  Once convicted on Federal offense and sentenced to be electrocuted, in a frenzy Jewish operative worked to their utmost to prevent the execution.  One can only imagine the machinations behind the scenes to send Buchalter to the chair.  Resistance failed and Buchalter was burned.

The indignity of a public execution as a common criminal was too much for them to endure.  That very likely explains what was the supreme insult when the aristocratic Jewish criminal Joseph ‘Jud Suss’ Oppenheimer not only was hanged but the authorities used a thirty foot high scaffold and an iron cage that could be seen for miles and remained up for years that was a constant shaming not to be endured without revenge.

Dicken’s was compelled, that is ordered, to remove the passage describing Fagin’s exposure from all future editions.  Undoubtedly word was put out to the literary community to not offend again.  The culture war was on.  The Jewish right to censorship was quietly established.

While Dickens either buckled, or his publishers did,  Reynolds was made of sterner stuff.  The only question was what course to take.  In Series III then,  He tried to show the Jews how to integrate into English society.   This they couldn’t take as they saw themselves as superior to the English.  Both father and son published books demanding English submission.  At the same time Isaac D’Israeli explained that they wished to remain exclusive in his book, The Genius of Judaism.  While the Frankfort ghetto, from when the Rothschild came, was certainly exclusive it was also demeaning. 

Now, in England, with their already enormous wealth the Rothchilds began creating dozens of palaces that outrivaled the English estates putting them far above the English aristocrats to maintain obvious exclusivity.

Reynolds then laid out an example of how to integrate with the English. As his Mysteries was selling tens of thousands of copies weekly his message was noticed by the Jewish community.  He was well read there and noted in the Jewish newspapers.  From their side, it is suspect that they resented this attempted indoctrination as much as they did the hanging of Fagin.  After all Reynolds was essentially telling them to integrate, that is, to abandon Jewish mores for English.  This was probably too close to the Catholic Church’s age old attempt to convert them.

Whether pressure was put on Reynolds I can’t say, nevertheless as the novel approached its end in a petulant outbreak Reynolds drew an extremely deprecating portrait of the meanest Jewish usurer that he could imagine.  Quite shocking really.  Devastating.

.6.

In the first and second series Reynolds was heavily under the influence of De Sade’s Justine and Juliette.  Virtue and vice.  Richard Markham then, was the male counterpart of Justine, or virtue, while Eugene Markham represented vice, or Juliette.  As the second series closes Eugene in assassinated as the result of his vice while Richard is exalted by his virtuous activities in Italian Castelcicala.  Thus Reynolds reversed De Sade’ notion of the superiority of vice.  For the story to be plausible it must be remembered that Italy was not yet united into a single State.

The ending of Series two implies the end of the story so that there is no reason to expect more hence a complete surprise when a reader discovers two more series or volumes.  Volumes that history had more or less swept under the rug.

In Reynolds’ terms he is redeeming himself for his youthful criminality as recorded in The Youthful Impostor, or a Youths Career In Crime.  In 1847 he  rewrote that book, first written when he was eighteen, as The Parricide, a much darker version.

Richard Markham’s redemption at the end of Series Two was imperfect and not completely satisfying to him so that Series Three begins with a complete mystery and surprise.  The new series built around the continuation of Richard Markham in Castelcicala and Reynolds’ fantasy of a complete and perfect triumph of democracy.

The main character amid  a host of very strong characters Serie three is a criminal by the name of Thomas Rainford, the last of the highwaymen. As the story opens Thomas Rainford, known as Tom Rain, stops a coach that contains Lady Georgiana  Hatfield and her friend.  Rain gallantly relieves Lady Hatfield of her cash but allows her to keep her jewellery.  As he disguises his voice while robbing the women we are left with the impression that he knows Lady Hatfield, she too thinks there is something familiar about the man.  Thus the story begins with a mystery that will take some time to resolve.

There may be some dark humor here that one will only get if one can connect the resolution of the mystery with this beginning.  Remember that Rain left the Lady with her jewels.  As we will learn Rain had robbed the Lady Georgiana once before.  At that time her beauty was so great that he lost control of himself and forced himself on her, raped her, that left her pregnant.  She bore the child but gave it way to conceal the fact that the greatest treasure of a women, her must valuable jewel, is her virginity, her purity.  Rain smirkingly telling her that he will leave her her jewels is a naughty reference to the fact that he had taken her most valuable jewel from her earlier.  While the joke is definitely in the text, if Reynolds planned that, he was a first rate genius.

Rain proceeds to London where he links up with the international criminal, Old Death—hideous looking fellow.  Old Death, perhaps the least impressive of Reynolds, great criminals—Tony Tidkins, the Resurrection Man, Old Death, Chiffen the Cannibal of the Lady Saxondale volume, and the Burker of the Fortunes of the Ashtons.  The Burker is closest in evil to the best, The Resurrection Man.  These criminals will leave you gasping for breath.

Through Old Death we learn that Rain  has a mistress, the beauteous Jewess, Tamar.  A little alarm goes off when we learn she is a Jewess, that this isgoing to be a Jewish story in the heart of the forties and in the middle of Disraeli’s trilogy.  Subsequently we are introduced to her sister Ester de Medina and her fine old Jewish parents Mr. and Mrs. de Medina.

Tamar and Ester are not twins but as the two were born nine months apart, perhaps they were almost twins because they were so close to each other in birth that they didn’t completely differentiate as Reynolds amusingly speculates.  So Ester and Tamar only appear to be twins to the careless eye.

So, now that we can connect the rest of the family to Tamar it looks like a full fledged Jewish story, and they do occupy three or four hundred pages of the mammoth novel.

So, Reynolds engages the Jews.  I speculate that Reynolds had read Isaac D’Israeli’s ‘The Genius Of Judaism’, and his son’s Coningsby and possibly Sybil, Tancred not have been issued at the time of writing,  and that he is in reaction to those writings.  Jews will occupy his attentions in III and IV as well as in The Wehrwolf also of 1847 and The Necromancer of 1851.

While he characterizes different types of Jews in his volumes, at this point, perhaps in reaction to The Genius of Judaism he appears to be showing the Jews how to integrate into English society rather than maintaining the complete separation described by Isaac in The Genius of Judaism. His son’s version of Jews and English is a reflection of Isaac’s vision.

According to Isaac in his The Genius of Judaism a whole set of procedures were put in place to guarantee separation of Jews and Gentiles.  Actually, since Jews inhabit Houses they don’t build, that is other nations, a rigid set of regulations is necessary.  Yet, every year a large percentage falls away else the Jewish population would be much larger.  Only the dedicated remain; those who recognize the fatuousness of the belief system move on.

The Rothschilds themselves were considered messiahs, with some justification, by the faithful.   Thus, Reynolds attempting to show his set of Jews how to assimilate perfectly is committing the Catholic crime of proselytizing.  His attitude seems somewhat ambiguous.  The greatest challenge to Mr. de Menil, who by the way, appears to be Sephardic not Ashkenazi.  The difference is important since non—Jews considered the Sephardics much more respectable than the Ashkenazi, as did  Jews themselves.  The de Menils may have lived in England for four hundred years, living in disguise.  The D’Israelis themselves according to Benjamin must have been Sephardics because their ancestors were expelled from Spain in 1492, exiled to Venice, while arriving in England about 1740 where the picking were better, I mean, for a better life.  The Rothschilds were Ashkenazi so that Isaac’s ancestry was superior to the Rothschild’s riches.

Reynolds was a Liberal and he exhibited all the faults that Liberals do today.  For instance he had some very strange notions of criminal reformation.  In a critical situation he had imprisoned his adversary, Old Death in one of Old Death’s subterranean cells completely denied light.  Apparently Reynolds’ sincere belief was that that if a criminal was imprisoned in darkness for a period he would ponder the error of his ways and hence reform when the blessed light was restored.  Then he could be guided to complete restoration of honesty if treated decently.  Old Death had been imprisoned with a few of his gang.  According to Reynolds, his scheme of reformation worked perfectly, except for Old Death.  The rest were completely reformed and released into society ever thankful to Rain.

So, Rains scheme worked well for those former criminals.  Old Death however was an inveterate, hardened criminal.  He knew well how to dissimulate and fool Rain.  The next part is so nutty that one would have to question Reynolds’ intelligence.  Believing that the tender attention of the female sex might jolly Old Death along he employed the beautiful and sympathetic Ester de Menil to lead Old Death on.  Ester speaks to Old Death through a grate in the door.  Old Death is laughing up his sleeve as he deludes Ester and Rain that the plan to convert him is succeeding.  The great prize of having the door opened is obtained by Old Death.

However  before this circumstances call Rain and Ester away so that he substitutes his wife Tamara for Ester  Remember she looks like a twin.  Tamara without instructions is naïve.  Old Death persuades her to open the door and actually come inside.  He then pounces on her and beats her to death, smashing her beautiful face in on vengeance to Rain.  Because the two women look so alike he believes he is killing Ester not Tamar.

What is going on in Reynolds’ mind here?  In a few months Rain and Georgiana Hatfield will become reconciled and marry.  It is necessary then for Tamara to be put aside some how and murdering her was the solution.  Old Death’s hatred of Rain would explain the brutal murder of Tamar and her defacement as Old Death believed Esther was Rain’s wife but still the murder is so repulsive that one is led to believe that Reynolds had an ulterior motive.  The irony of Old Death thinking that Ester was Rain’s wife and then killing his actual wife by mistake is one of those little twists that Reynolds employs continually that keeps the reader on his toes.

.7.

After having turned the grateful De Menils into English people Reynolds goes on into a longish diatribe on Judaism.  While Reynolds is supposed to have been read mainly by the working class or read to illiterates by professional readers that may been exaggerated.  Consider this passage:

Quote:

We have been much gratified in observing that our attempts to vindicate the Jews against most of the unjust charges that it seems to be a traditionary fashion to level against them, haven’t passed unnoticed.  All the Jewish papers have quoted the passage at page 172 of the series of “The Mysteries of London”.  Many provincial journals have transferred it to their columns; and in No. 173 pf Chambers Edinburgh Journal (New Series) it was printed with the following record of approval on the part of the editors of that well considered periodical: 
 We cordially agree in the openly defense of a cruelly misrepresented people.

Unquote.

Obviously his readers included a fair number of Jews including Jewish newspaper editors which may indicate that he was being monitored to detect anti-Jewish tendencies.  In the Shires he also must have had a readership among those following literature.  If editors of the Two Nations snipped excerpts out of the installments he was taken quite seriously.

Indeed, in these two series he frequently appears to preach and in quite elevated language and concepts.  It is difficult to believe that installments that professional readers read to illiterate listeners could be understood by them.  Or perhaps they ended up like Richard Markham’s butler who admired and humourously mispronounced big words but little understood them.

I, myself, have dealt with illiterates who quite cleverly listened closely to what I was saying and then cleverly paraphrased my words and contents back seeming to further the conversation.  Remarkable to myself, while if they heard me and repeated me I was quite impressed with my own original delivery.

Having then done the honors to the Jews, he later in the volume  presents the Jews that were not righteous and apparently not misrepresented.  He turns to a usurer, which type he seems to be very familiar with, who grinds his debtors into the dust with great pleasure and no remorse.  A quite savage attack compared to his adulation of the de Menils.  One wonders how Jewish editors reacted to this version of the Jew.  The Jewish usurer is represented many times in the corpus, each of a different type.

But English society was evolving.  Coningsby was published in 1844 while his Tancred was published in 1847 that cast the Jewish situation in an updated light just before the revolution of 1848.  One must believe that Disraeli was aware of the machinations set to occur in 1848. The coming of that revolution seems to have been an open secret. In ‘Tancred or the New Crusade’ the new crusade was to originate in the Middle East and roll over Europe reversing the old crusade.  While, to my knowledge the 1848 revolution didn’t originate in the Middle East it was certainly difficult to suppress.  Disraeli says the ’48 was originated and executed wholly by the Jews, for what that’s worth.

Floods of defeated revolutionaries fled for the safety of the United States.  That was the first really large number of Jews to emigrate to the US.  As fortune would have it the US was in the midst of an unparalleled   industrial, technological and territorial expansion that provided unheard of opportunities.  The ’48 Jews prospered accordingly so that when the Eastern Jews of the Pale began to be transferred from Europe to America in the 70s and 80s they were rapidly absorbed in what become Jewish industries, among them the needle trades and movies.

With the failure of ’48 hope seemed to vanish from Reynold’s breast.  Terminating his Mysteries of London in 1848 he began his next great work, moving back from a disappointing present to the days of George III and the Regency of George IV. 

His fantastic vision of Richard Markham’s successes in Castelcicala and utopian views of the perfect democracy freed from hereditary aristocracy and monarchy by Richard take up a fair portion of  Series III and IV.

While his mind was occupied by those visions, the Jewish situation was reaching crisis proportions.  His novel was apparently read, discussed and pondered by the Jewish population but they disregarded his assimilationist advice.  He became disillusioned and an alarmist when he realized that the Jewish desire was, for the nonce anyway, a dual monarchy.  Remember that Nathan Rothschild’s establishment was titled The New Court.

Lionel bullied his way into Parliament as a Jew on his own terms in the mid-fifties.  The probability was noted as early as 1851 when George published his novel The Necromancer.  Using an allegorical approach, placing the novel in the time of Henry VIII he warned of the arrival of the dual kingship.

Perhaps warned away, one can’t confirm it as yet, George turned more to historical romances and his ‘biographical’ novels.

By 1860 England had entered into a more mature or post phase of the Industrial Revolution moving into the Scientific Revolution heralded by Darwin’s Origin of Species published in 1859.  Reynolds was no futurist, he left that to men like Jules Vern, his specialty was the past. George ended his career as a novelist to concentrate on his famous newspaper that survived until 19, that’s nineteen, 67.  Disraeli  prospered through the period realizing his life’s dream to become Prime Minister.  Reynolds died in 1879 having realized his dream of becoming a Man of the World.  Disraeli died in 1881, Lionel Rothschild in 1880, closing the era.

Time Traveling 18:

George W. M. Reynolds And The Two Nations

by

R.E. Prindle

The Forties were a momentous period in nineteenth century England. It was one of their transition points from one societal organization to another.  The people of England were stumbling out of the eighteenth century into the nineteenth with all its technological and scientific revelations. The Napoleonic wars had put a period to the eighteenth and the nineteenth blossomed.

Perhaps unnoticed for what it was the emancipation of the Jews begun by Napoleon was about to transform the face of Europe and England.  Nowhere was this more clearly evident than in the country of England.

By the 1840s it was clear to the perceptive that there was a coming cultural clash between the Jews and English. As is usual with great changes, artists and writers were the first to grasp that there was a culture war in progress.  Pre-eminent among the writers concerned with the two nations was the great novelist George W. M. Reynolds, the author of Mysteries of London.

From the Jewish side the most overt writers were the future Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli and his father Isaac D’Israeli.  Both writers blazed across the decade of the Forties.

In this essay we will be concerned with Reynolds’ four series of Mysteries of London.  I follow the Valancourt two series, two volumes  edition.  The first two series or volumes have current publication  while the latter two series have been eclipsed by the passage of time.  Reynolds himself had been eclipsed by the passage of time but English scholar Louis James’ effort seems headed for a revival of interest.  Valancourt Press has released  : The Mysteries of London Series I&II, Wagner the Wehrwolf and The Necromancer.  In 1919 a San Bernardino firm with no name published a printing of III and IV, which I have, but the edition has sold through and is no longer available at this time.  Several different volumes published by the British Library can still be had, they are discontinued, the Library seems to have lost interest in Reynolds and remaindered the lot.  Some are still readily available at Ebay and possibly Amazon.

A problem might be that the end of second series seems to indicate the end of the Mysteries but such is not the case for while Series Three doesn’t pick up where Series Two ended is nevertheless a long continuation along with Series Four bringing the total number of pages of the four series  to nearly five thousand.

The volumes of Benjamin Disraeli to figure prominently in this essay will be his trilogy Coningsby, Sybil and Tancred.  Benjamin Disraeli was of course the most prominent politician of the English nineteenth century. Being in Parliament in the forties he published these three political novels then ended his writing career until 1870 when Lothair appeared followed in 1980 by his Endymion.

Of stellar importance will be his father Isaac D’ Israeli’s, Genius of the Jews, whose teaching formed his son’s understanding of the Jewish Nation.  The book was also meant a manual for non-Jews as to how they were to perceive the Jewish Nation.  At this time in England little was known of the Jewish Nation.

.2.

 From the year 1290 to 1660 Jews were banned from England.  Allowed re-entry in 1660, immigration to England began slowly, by the end of the eighteenth century there was a small colony of perhaps several thousand who, staying within their colony in the East End were not disrupting English society.  That situation had changed dramatically by the 1840s when the culture clash arrived with a bang.

By the 1840s the Rothschild banking family of the Nation was the richest family in England eclipsing preeminent families of the English Nation by far.  The modern palace of Mentmore Towers built in 1854 excelled all English manors in splendor.  Built in the Vale of Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire, the Vale became the location of many Rothschild mansions.  Isaac D’ Israeli establish himself at Bradenham in Bucks. while his son would establish himself at neighboring Hughenden.  Thus the Vale became a Jewish principality.  The Vale would figure prominently in the writings of Reynolds.

The rise of the English Jewish Nation began in 1806 when the dynasties founder, Nathan Rothschild, made his first coup by smuggling English gold across France and Spain to General Wellington’s army on the Spanish Peninsula.  Nathan’s next coup, that established the family fortune, came with the success of British arms against Napoleon at Waterloo.

When Nathan died in 1836 he turned the dynasty over to his son Lionel who was a worthy successor.  Lionel would rule the roost from 1836 to 1880 paralleling the career of Benjamin Disraeli in the heart of the nineteenth century.  It was he who broke the British square.  Shortly after Nathan’s death Disraeli was given a safe seat in Parliament in 1837, after having placed last in balloting four consecutive elections.

The Rothchild/Disraeli link would last until Lionel died.  Now linked with the Rothschilds and in Parliament Disraeli quickly wrote the trilogy that outlined the Jewish Nation’s position- Coningsby, Sybil and Tancred.  These novels lauded his Nation while in Tancred he proposed a New Crusade leading from Palestine across Europe to England.

Every member of Parliament had to take an oath as a Christian, while Disraeli, as a Jew, took Jesus’ view that he came to fulfil the law of the Old Testament.  Thus, while accepting Jesus as a Jewish savior becoming a nominal Christian he could take the oath in good conscience while maintaining a dual religiosity.

There were already Jewish members of Parliament but they had falsely taken the oath.  Lionel ran for Parliament, was elected to one of the six City seats, but refused the oath desiring to be admitted as member of the Jewish Nation only.  He was refused but repeatedly ran and was reelected as one of the six City members.  Finally in the mid fifties he was able to corrupt the procedures of the English Nation seating himself as a member of the Jewish Nation, but not the English Nation.  The Jews at this point had parity as the Jewish Nation functioning within the English Nation.  The two nations had come into existence.

.3.

George W.M. Reynolds was also a revolutionary but an English national.  Born in 1814 to an English Navy Captain, he spent the years between two and eight on the island of Guernsey where his father was stationed.  The family returned to England in 1822 in which year his father died.  The next five years he was under the guardianship of his father’s best friend, Duncan McArthur, who was a Naval physician stationed at Walmer, Kent.  At the end of the period McArthur placed the thirteen year old boy as a cadet at the Sandhurst Military Academy.  George had apparently been at odds with his father, but hated Duncan McArthur, who, as his father and mother’s executor, probably defrauded him of a large part of his inheritance.

No longer able to stand military discipline, after his mother died in March of 1830, Reynolds removed himself from Sandhurst.  He exiled himself to France at the end of 1830.  Eighteen-thirty was the year of the second French revolution, called the July Revolution, with its three glorious days. In France, Reynolds became a thorough revolutionary favoring violent revolution.  In 1836 he was asked to leave France under a criminal cloud.  Returning to England he began his literary career as the editor of the Monthly Magazine.

In 1832 the first Reform Act was made law in England.  As a consequence of the Reform Act a worker’s party called the Chartists emerged in which Reynolds served a prominent role.  Having written several creditable novels between 1835 and 1842 but which failed  to establish him as a successful author he was invited by the publisher George Stiff to serialize a novel for his magazine the London Journal.  The novel was to be patterned on The Mysteries of Paris by the French author Eugene Sue.  Reynolds accepted the offer and began the serialized Mysteries of London.  The series lasted for four years, 1844-48.

Probably to the wonderment of Reynolds, and maybe all, his writing was a runaway success.  Mysteries of London sold as many as forty thousand copies per weekly installment.  Made his eyes sparkle.  He now had a platform to promulgate his social ideas and  political platform.

By 1844, when the series began, the Jews were pushing off English social mores seeking to create a counter Jewish Nation within the English Nation.

The significance of the Jewish Nation within England was recognized in 1809 by the reformer William Wilberforce.  While Wilberforce was battling to end slavery he also helped found the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews.  Thus the presence of the Jews has become conspicuous.  By the 1840s their presence had been duly noted.  While the Jews received scant notice in the first two series of Mysteries of London, in the third and fourth the Jewish issue quite emphatically took Reynolds attention.

Disraeli’s trilogy was published in 1844, ’45 and ’47 so that Reynolds obviously read them but doesn’t reference Disraeli by name although he does reference Lionel Rothschild.

.4.

The years 1830 through 1848 were years of revolution and revolutionary schemes in Europe and England.  In Europe the revolutions were violent indeed with perhaps a hundred thousand or more meeting their deaths until the revolutionary period from1789 through 1848 was vanquished, until 1903 and the first Russian Revolution.

In England the violence was minimized while the revolution was compelled to accept limited success.  Both the crown and the aristocracy were stripped of most of their privileges while the Commons became the most important of the three estates. 

Reynolds remained a dedicated violent revolutionary believing that only a revolution such as France’s 1793 episode in which the past was swept away in one fell swoop.  Reynolds admired and approved of this most violent revolution as it swept away the past allowing for an attempt to build back better.  Thus when the Chartist movement after 1839 was formed Reynolds was a charter member of the extremist sort.  While every effort has been employed to reduce his importance in the movement the rumbles are that he was positively disliked for his extremism, while the main body favored fabian tactics.  Disraeli, now a member of Parliament was content to bore from within.

I quote from Monypenny and Buckle’s The Life of Disreali, six volumes in two p.141:

Quote:

The quintessential issue was between an aristocratic government in its proper sense of the term—that is a government of the best men in all classes—and a democracy.  The English were a peculiar people.

Disraeli wrote:  ‘You have an ancient, powerful, richly endowed Church and perfect religious liberty.   You have unbroken order and complete freedom.  You have landed estates as large as the Romans, combined with commercial enterprise such as Carthage and Venice united never equalled.  And you must remember that this peculiar country, with these strong contrasts, is not governed by force; it is not governed by standing armies; it is governed by a most singular series of traditionary influences, which generation after generation cherishes because it knows they embalm custom, represent law.  And with these, what have you else?  You have created the greatest empire of modern time.  You have amassed a capital of fabulous amount. You have devised and sustained a system of credit still more marvelous.  And abroad, you have established and maintained a scheme so vast and complicated of labor and industry that the history of the world affords no parallel to it.  And all these mighty creations are out of all proportion to the essential and indigenous elements and resources of the country.  If you destroy that state of society, remember this—England cannot begin again.

Unquote, unquote.

Disraeli might as well have been describing the United State of the twentieth century.  Disraeli would then set about to dismantle what he had just described as his fellow Jews have done to the United States.  It must be remembered that the Old Testament of the Bible predicts that the Jews will inhabit houses that they didn’t build.  That means that they will move country to country (The House of Egypt, The House of England, France, Germany, the US etc.) and trash each moving on to the next.  Next in line is China.

Reynolds, on the other hand, favored a utopian fantasy of Chartist democracy.  A vision as absurd an any democratic fantasy as all democracies must ultimately fail as they dumb down the population to the lowest level.  Thus, the Jews while demanding an aristocracy of Judaism promotes democracy for everyone else.  The elite of a Nation and the Jewish Nation within the Nation ultimately work toward the same end with different results.

As of 2020 both England and the US have been trashed,

Reynolds then, ignorant of the inevitable results of democracy, and the tendencies of Judaism, wrestles with the problems in Series III and IV of the Mysteries of London.

.5.

Perhaps the trigger that led to the content of Series III & IV was the publication of Coningsby in 1844 at the same time that Reynolds was beginning Mysteries of London.  Coningsby was subtitled the New Generation, probably meaning the arrival of the Jews, while the meaning of Coningsby is that of the king’s manor or village, two significant names.  Compare the terms with Nathan Rothschilds, New Court.  Coningsby, the hero, then means a natural king. The story line of the two volumes must have begun germinating after that book’s,

 publication.  The second of Disraeli’s trilogy, Sybil was published in 1845 adding its impetus.  Thus Reynolds; mind masticated  the stories when he began the third series in 1846.

Coningsby must have been a startling book for England as Disraeli raved about the natural superiority of the Jews.  His portrait of Sidonia was based on Lionel Rothschild.  Sidonia was so outrageous as to be unbelievable.  Sidonia was characterized as a real superman; while Disraeli’s description of Jewish infiltration of all European governments must have been as shocking as Reynolds’ reaction indicates.

Indeed, those Jews were so many spies collecting information to be sent to the Rothschilds as the new messiahs of Europe.  The Rothschild story is so fabulous that they might well be considered the Jewish redeemers. With those means of collecting information it is no wonder that the Jews were informed of political developments almost before they were put into execution.  Inside information was a major source of their financial wizardry.

This Jewish seeming prescience was considered wonderful and baffling to Europeans.  The reasons are quite obvious today.  Only in the matters of the Dreyfus case in France was anyone caught.  The French correspondingly accused Dreyfus of passing info to the Germans which he certainly was not doing; he was passing info to the synagogue which used it for their own ends.

The cultural conflict in England more or less began when Charles Dickens published his novel Oliver Twist which featured the Jewish criminal character, Fagin.  It was not the portrayal of a Jew as a thief that directly set the Jews off as we all believe.  No, it was the fact that Fagin suffered the shame of being executed on the scaffold.  This was taken as an insult for all Jewry.  As Disraeli expressed it, all nations had criminals, Jews were to be seen everywhere with the exception of never, never being seen on the scaffold.  This was a crucial matter.  In twentieth century US when New York DA Thomas Dewey finally managed to arrest the originator of Murder Inc., the master criminal Lepke Buchalter, his fellow Jews worked like demons to prevent his conviction.  Once convicted on Federal offense and sentenced to be electrocuted, in a frenzy Jewish operative worked to their utmost to prevent the execution.  One can only imagine the machinations behind the scenes to send Buchalter to the chair.  Resistance failed and Buchalter was burned.

The indignity of a public execution as a common criminal was too much for them to endure.  That very likely explains what was the supreme insult when the aristocratic Jewish criminal Joseph ‘Jud Suss’ Oppenheimer not only was hanged but the authorities used a thirty foot high scaffold and an iron cage that could be seen for miles and remained up for years that was a constant shaming not to be endured without revenge.

Dicken’s was compelled, that is ordered, to remove the passage describing Fagin’s exposure from all future editions.  Undoubtedly word was put out to the literary community to not offend again.  The culture war was on.  The Jewish right to censorship was quietly established.

While Dickens either buckled, or his publishers did,  Reynolds was made of sterner stuff.  The only question was what course to take.  In Series III then,  He tried to show the Jews how to integrate into English society.   This they couldn’t take as they saw themselves as superior to the English.  Both father and son published books demanding English submission.  At the same time Isaac D’Israeli explained that they wished to remain exclusive in his book, The Genius of Judaism.  While the Frankfort ghetto, from when the Rothschild came, was certainly exclusive it was also demeaning. 

Now, in England, with their already enormous wealth the Rothchilds began creating dozens of palaces that outrivaled the English estates putting them far above the English aristocrats to maintain obvious exclusivity.

Reynolds then laid out an example of how to integrate with the English. As his Mysteries was selling tens of thousands of copies weekly his message was noticed by the Jewish community.  He was well read there and noted in the Jewish newspapers.  From their side, it is suspect that they resented this attempted indoctrination as much as they did the hanging of Fagin.  After all Reynolds was essentially telling them to integrate, that is, to abandon Jewish mores for English.  This was probably too close to the Catholic Church’s age old attempt to convert them.

Whether pressure was put on Reynolds I can’t say, nevertheless as the novel approached its end in a petulant outbreak Reynolds drew an extremely deprecating portrait of the meanest Jewish usurer that he could imagine.  Quite shocking really.  Devastating.

.6.

In the first and second series Reynolds was heavily under the influence of De Sade’s Justine and Juliette.  Virtue and vice.  Richard Markham then, was the male counterpart of Justine, or virtue, while Eugene Markham represented vice, or Juliette.  As the second series closes Eugene in assassinated as the result of his vice while Richard is exalted by his virtuous activities in Italian Castelcicala.  Thus Reynolds reversed De Sade’ notion of the superiority of vice.  For the story to be plausible it must be remembered that Italy was not yet united into a single State.

The ending of Series two implies the end of the story so that there is no reason to expect more hence a complete surprise when a reader discovers two more series or volumes.  Volumes that history had more or less swept under the rug.

In Reynolds’ terms he is redeeming himself for his youthful criminality as recorded in The Youthful Impostor, or a Youths Career In Crime.  In 1847 he  rewrote that book, first written when he was eighteen, as The Parricide, a much darker version.

Richard Markham’s redemption at the end of Series Two was imperfect and not completely satisfying to him so that Series Three begins with a complete mystery and surprise.  The new series built around the continuation of Richard Markham in Castelcicala and Reynolds’ fantasy of a complete and perfect triumph of democracy.

The main character amid  a host of very strong characters Serie three is a criminal by the name of Thomas Rainford, the last of the highwaymen. As the story opens Thomas Rainford, known as Tom Rain, stops a coach that contains Lady Georgiana  Hatfield and her friend.  Rain gallantly relieves Lady Hatfield of her cash but allows her to keep her jewellery.  As he disguises his voice while robbing the women we are left with the impression that he knows Lady Hatfield, she too thinks there is something familiar about the man.  Thus the story begins with a mystery that will take some time to resolve.

There may be some dark humor here that one will only get if one can connect the resolution of the mystery with this beginning.  Remember that Rain left the Lady with her jewels.  As we will learn Rain had robbed the Lady Georgiana once before.  At that time her beauty was so great that he lost control of himself and forced himself on her, raped her, that left her pregnant.  She bore the child but gave it way to conceal the fact that the greatest treasure of a women, her must valuable jewel, is her virginity, her purity.  Rain smirkingly telling her that he will leave her her jewels is a naughty reference to the fact that he had taken her most valuable jewel from her earlier.  While the joke is definitely in the text, if Reynolds planned that, he was a first rate genius.

Rain proceeds to London where he links up with the international criminal, Old Death—hideous looking fellow.  Old Death, perhaps the least impressive of Reynolds, great criminals—Tony Tidkins, the Resurrection Man, Old Death, Chiffen the Cannibal of the Lady Saxondale volume, and the Burker of the Fortunes of the Ashtons.  The Burker is closest in evil to the best, The Resurrection Man.  These criminals will leave you gasping for breath.

Through Old Death we learn that Rain  has a mistress, the beauteous Jewess, Tamar.  A little alarm goes off when we learn she is a Jewess, that this isgoing to be a Jewish story in the heart of the forties and in the middle of Disraeli’s trilogy.  Subsequently we are introduced to her sister Ester de Medina and her fine old Jewish parents Mr. and Mrs. de Medina.

Tamar and Ester are not twins but as the two were born nine months apart, perhaps they were almost twins because they were so close to each other in birth that they didn’t completely differentiate as Reynolds amusingly speculates.  So Ester and Tamar only appear to be twins to the careless eye.

So, now that we can connect the rest of the family to Tamar it looks like a full fledged Jewish story, and they do occupy three or four hundred pages of the mammoth novel.

So, Reynolds engages the Jews.  I speculate that Reynolds had read Isaac D’Israeli’s ‘The Genius Of Judaism’, and his son’s Coningsby and possibly Sybil, Tancred not have been issued at the time of writing,  and that he is in reaction to those writings.  Jews will occupy his attentions in III and IV as well as in The Wehrwolf also of 1847 and The Necromancer of 1851.

While he characterizes different types of Jews in his volumes, at this point, perhaps in reaction to The Genius of Judaism he appears to be showing the Jews how to integrate into English society rather than maintaining the complete separation described by Isaac in The Genius of Judaism. His son’s version of Jews and English is a reflection of Isaac’s vision.

According to Isaac in his The Genius of Judaism a whole set of procedures were put in place to guarantee separation of Jews and Gentiles.  Actually, since Jews inhabit Houses they don’t build, that is other nations, a rigid set of regulations is necessary.  Yet, every year a large percentage falls away else the Jewish population would be much larger.  Only the dedicated remain; those who recognize the fatuousness of the belief system move on.

The Rothschilds themselves were considered messiahs, with some justification, by the faithful.   Thus, Reynolds attempting to show his set of Jews how to assimilate perfectly is committing the Catholic crime of proselytizing.  His attitude seems somewhat ambiguous.  The greatest challenge to Mr. de Menil, who by the way, appears to be Sephardic not Ashkenazi.  The difference is important since non—Jews considered the Sephardics much more respectable than the Ashkenazi, as did  Jews themselves.  The de Menils may have lived in England for four hundred years, living in disguise.  The D’Israelis themselves according to Benjamin must have been Sephardics because their ancestors were expelled from Spain in 1492, exiled to Venice, while arriving in England about 1740 where the picking were better, I mean, for a better life.  The Rothschilds were Ashkenazi so that Isaac’s ancestry was superior to the Rothschild’s riches.

Reynolds was a Liberal and he exhibited all the faults that Liberals do today.  For instance he had some very strange notions of criminal reformation.  In a critical situation he had imprisoned his adversary, Old Death in one of Old Death’s subterranean cells completely denied light.  Apparently Reynolds’ sincere belief was that that if a criminal was imprisoned in darkness for a period he would ponder the error of his ways and hence reform when the blessed light was restored.  Then he could be guided to complete restoration of honesty if treated decently.  Old Death had been imprisoned with a few of his gang.  According to Reynolds, his scheme of reformation worked perfectly, except for Old Death.  The rest were completely reformed and released into society ever thankful to Rain.

So, Rains scheme worked well for those former criminals.  Old Death however was an inveterate, hardened criminal.  He knew well how to dissimulate and fool Rain.  The next part is so nutty that one would have to question Reynolds’ intelligence.  Believing that the tender attention of the female sex might jolly Old Death along he employed the beautiful and sympathetic Ester de Menil to lead Old Death on.  Ester speaks to Old Death through a grate in the door.  Old Death is laughing up his sleeve as he deludes Ester and Rain that the plan to convert him is succeeding.  The great prize of having the door opened is obtained by Old Death.

However  before this circumstances call Rain and Ester away so that he substitutes his wife Tamara for Ester  Remember she looks like a twin.  Tamara without instructions is naïve.  Old Death persuades her to open the door and actually come inside.  He then pounces on her and beats her to death, smashing her beautiful face in on vengeance to Rain.  Because the two women look so alike he believes he is killing Ester not Tamar.

What is going on in Reynolds’ mind here?  In a few months Rain and Georgiana Hatfield will become reconciled and marry.  It is necessary then for Tamara to be put aside some how and murdering her was the solution.  Old Death’s hatred of Rain would explain the brutal murder of Tamar and her defacement as Old Death believed Esther was Rain’s wife but still the murder is so repulsive that one is led to believe that Reynolds had an ulterior motive.  The irony of Old Death thinking that Ester was Rain’s wife and then killing his actual wife by mistake is one of those little twists that Reynolds employs continually that keeps the reader on his toes.

.7.

After having turned the grateful De Menils into English people Reynolds goes on into a longish diatribe on Judaism.  While Reynolds is supposed to have been read mainly by the working class or read to illiterates by professional readers that may been exaggerated.  Consider this passage:

Quote:

We have been much gratified in observing that our attempts to vindicate the Jews against most of the unjust charges that it seems to be a traditionary fashion to level against them, haven’t passed unnoticed.  All the Jewish papers have quoted the passage at page 172 of the series of “The Mysteries of London”.  Many provincial journals have transferred it to their columns; and in No. 173 pf Chambers Edinburgh Journal (New Series) it was printed with the following record of approval on the part of the editors of that well considered periodical: 
 We cordially agree in the openly defense of a cruelly misrepresented people.

Unquote.

Obviously his readers included a fair number of Jews including Jewish newspaper editors which may indicate that he was being monitored to detect anti-Jewish tendencies.  In the Shires he also must have had a readership among those following literature.  If editors of the Two Nations snipped excerpts out of the installments he was taken quite seriously.

Indeed, in these two series he frequently appears to preach and in quite elevated language and concepts.  It is difficult to believe that installments that professional readers read to illiterate listeners could be understood by them.  Or perhaps they ended up like Richard Markham’s butler who admired and humourously mispronounced big words but little understood them.

I, myself, have dealt with illiterates who quite cleverly listened closely to what I was saying and then cleverly paraphrased my words and contents back seeming to further the conversation.  Remarkable to myself, while if they heard me and repeated me I was quite impressed with my own original delivery.

Having then done the honors to the Jews, he later in the volume  presents the Jews that were not righteous and apparently not misrepresented.  He turns to a usurer, which type he seems to be very familiar with, who grinds his debtors into the dust with great pleasure and no remorse.  A quite savage attack compared to his adulation of the de Menils.  One wonders how Jewish editors reacted to this version of the Jew.  The Jewish usurer is represented many times in the corpus, each of a different type.

But English society was evolving.  Coningsby was published in 1844 while his Tancred was published in 1847 that cast the Jewish situation in an updated light just before the revolution of 1848.  One must believe that Disraeli was aware of the machinations set to occur in 1848. The coming of that revolution seems to have been an open secret. In ‘Tancred or the New Crusade’ the new crusade was to originate in the Middle East and roll over Europe reversing the old crusade.  While, to my knowledge the 1848 revolution didn’t originate in the Middle East it was certainly difficult to suppress.  Disraeli says the ’48 was originated and executed wholly by the Jews, for what that’s worth.

Floods of defeated revolutionaries fled for the safety of the United States.  That was the first really large number of Jews to emigrate to the US.  As fortune would have it the US was in the midst of an unparalleled   industrial, technological and territorial expansion that provided unheard of opportunities.  The ’48 Jews prospered accordingly so that when the Eastern Jews of the Pale began to be transferred from Europe to America in the 70s and 80s they were rapidly absorbed in what become Jewish industries, among them the needle trades and movies.

With the failure of ’48 hope seemed to vanish from Reynold’s breast.  Terminating his Mysteries of London in 1848 he began his next great work, moving back from a disappointing present to the days of George III and the Regency of George IV. 

His fantastic vision of Richard Markham’s successes in Castelcicala and utopian views of the perfect democracy freed from hereditary aristocracy and monarchy by Richard take up a fair portion of  Series III and IV.

While his mind was occupied by those visions, the Jewish situation was reaching crisis proportions.  His novel was apparently read, discussed and pondered by the Jewish population but they disregarded his assimilationist advice.  He became disillusioned and an alarmist when he realized that the Jewish desire was, for the nonce anyway, a dual monarchy.  Remember that Nathan Rothschild’s establishment was titled The New Court.

Lionel bullied his way into Parliament as a Jew on his own terms in the mid-fifties.  The probability was noted as early as 1851 when George published his novel The Necromancer.  Using an allegorical approach, placing the novel in the time of Henry VIII he warned of the arrival of the dual kingship.

Perhaps warned away, one can’t confirm it as yet, George turned more to historical romances and his ‘biographical’ novels.

By 1860 England had entered into a more mature or post phase of the Industrial Revolution moving into the Scientific Revolution heralded by Darwin’s Origin of Species published in 1859.  Reynolds was no futurist, he left that to men like Jules Vern, his specialty was the past. George ended his career as a novelist to concentrate on his famous newspaper that survived until 19, that’s nineteen, 67.  Disraeli  prospered through the period realizing his life’s dream to become Prime Minister.  Reynolds died in 1879 having realized his dream of becoming a Man of the World.  Disraeli died in 1881, Lionel Rothschild in 1880, closing the era.

Note #11

George W. M. Reynolds And George Stiff

by

R.E. Prindle

When I first suggested that Reynolds’ inspiration for The Mysteries of London was a commission by George Stiff who published The London magazine I thought I was making a mere speculation.  I can now confirm that speculation to be fact.

At the end of the fourth series Stiff posts an ad for the coming fifth series to be written by Thomas Miller to be subtitled Lights and Shadows of London Life.

The ad quoted in full following:

Quote:

The Proprietor of ‘Mysteries of London’ having at present, his opportunity of carrying out his original design –viz. that of presenting the public with faithful and unexaggerated sketches of every class of society forming the “world of London” has determined on submitting  to his readers a new series of “Mysteries of London” and which will be from the pen of a writer of the eminent reputation.

THOMAS MILLER, Esq.,

[A list of Miller’s titles]

The new series will be entitled “Mysteries of London, or Lights and Shadows of London Life.”

Unquote.

Sriff’s ad says a great deal.  First off, he calls the readers his, rather than Reynolds.  A cardinal mistake.  Then he wears the mask ‘Proprietor’ rather  then announcing himself as George Stiff, the proprietor.  Then he quietly castigates Reynolds for perverting his original design of a genteel survey of London along the lines, one supposes, of Charles Wright, Henry Mayhew or even, Charles Dickens.  Instead of a polite portrayal of ‘every class’ he got a writer who pretty much dealt realistically with the criminal class and sordid stories.  It seems pretty clear that his and Reynolds’ relationship was rather stormy as he considered Reynolds’ work ‘unfaithful and exaggerated.’ 

Thus he is offering ‘his’ readers a new story from the pen of ‘a ‘writer of the most eminent reputation.’  Thus, he implies that Reynold’s was a disreputable writer with a terrible reputation, one with which he didn’t care to be associated.

Stiff then, owns the title Mysteries of London and Reynolds was writing for him on hire hence unentitled to the copyright.  Reynolds wrote his masterpiece for five pounds a week payable on delivery of his copy every Friday night.  While Reynolds undoubtedly did read Eugene Sue’s Mysteries of Paris perhaps basing his version of London on it, he only began on Stiff’s employment of him as is evident from the wobbly beginning.

It appears that no matter how successful, and Reynold’s work was, and he was very successful, Stiff detested it as too racy; he desired something respectable along the lines of Dickens’ Household Words.  As with most ‘proprietor’s he thought that now that he had a successful proprietor which, he, after all, suggested to ‘his’ writer he could dispense  with the disreputable Renolds, also a violent revolutionist and probably under surveillance with the Secret Police who, may indeed have questioned him.

If Reynolds submissions were expurgated, who expurgated them?  Why Stiff himself.    One would like to see the racy passages eliminated by the Editor to see how they matched up today’s ieas.  That meant that there were many unpleasant encounters when Reynolds checked each issue to see the editing.  Reynolds was apparently too true to life.

Stiff suffered I imagine when his more polite friends bothered him with questions like:  Why are you publishing this pornography?  One might note that Susannah Reynolds, George’s wife, published her novel, Gretna Green, which was denounced as pornography and she no lady.  George became quite indignant at these attacks on is wife.  I have only a current OCR edition of the novel and that is unreadable due to printing errors of magnitude.

One gathers from the last sentence that Stiff was saying goodbye to Reynolds and good riddance.

George had made up his mind to leave Stiff at the completion of Series IV in 1848 having already begun publishing his own magazine, Reynolds’ Miscellany in 1846. If Stiff believed Reynolds was a pornographic disreputable writer one can’t blame him for discontinuing his services however he did give up a winner who was to begin The Mysteries of the Court of London but then he would have, at least, had to make Reynolds his partner.  Each went their way.

Note #10

George W.M. Reynolds And The Norwood Builder

by

R.E. Prindle

In Vols. III & IV of the Mysteries of London George Reynolds included his version of The Norwood Builder.  Writing at the same time James Malcomb Rymer, included the same story in his Varney The Vampire.  Reynolds and Rymer were friends so they either worked the story up between them, were reacting to a true incident in Norwood at the time, or may have been aware of some sort of legendary Norwood Builder.

Rymer’s and Reynolds’ stories are quite similar while Reymer’s is a short story but Reynold’s saga is strung over seventeen hundred pages.  One wonders what could have inspired these two men.  Brainstorming, or a real incident?

Forty some years later  Arthur Conan Doyle retrieved the story publishing it in his Sherlock Holmes story, The Case of the Northwood Builder.  The story must have tickled Doyle’s funny bone too.  As his story closely follows that of Rymer I imagine that it was the source for Doyle.  It is possible that he was also familiar with Reynold’s version but except for the core story they aren’t even close.

I suppose Vols. III and IV of Reynolds might even be titled The Norwood Builder as the same characters carry the story throughout the whole work of 1700 pages of my copy published by the House in San Bernadino, Cal. That provides no other information about publication except the exact date of printing, 14 July 2019.

I suppose Vols. III & IV might even be titled The Norwood Builder as the same characters carry the story through the whole work.  The two volumes are deceptive.  I didn’t think much of it the first time as the novel takes a long time to build while integrating the characters, while their individual stories don’t connect until integration time.  Then the mustard seed of the highway robbery becomes important.

Our highwayman Tom Rainford or Rain as he is known, stops a coach that carries Lady Georgiana Hatfield.  I let that silly incident throw me.  That seeming frivolous incident was the mustard seed from which the tremendous story developed.

I’m not going to give a full review here.  I’m going to let the story sink in a littler further first.  It is quite a study.  If you don’t have a copy pick up one if you can find it.  This is as fine a novel as you will ever see.

In Pursuit Of Youth:

Edgar Rice Burroughs

And

Samuel Hopkins Adams

by

R.E. Prindle

Sources:  Warner Fabian (Samuel Hopkins Adams): Flaming Youth 1923.

Macintyre, F. Gwynplaine: Personal interview.

As the 1920s dawned Edgar Rice Burroughs, the author of Tarzan, was becoming increasingly restless in his marriage to Emma.  That he wished out and was looking around is evidenced by 1918’s Tarzan The Untamed in which he had Jane (Emma) murdered and burnt beyond recognition, identifiable only by her jewelery.  Late in the novel he has Tarzan eyeing another woman.  Perhaps his constant moving contained a notion of losing Emma.

While societal changes had been brewing for a few decades it seemed that they all matured under cover of the Great War emerging like a phoenix in its aftermath.  Most importantly sexual attitudes had changed most dramatically.  Representatives of the changes was the appearance of the Flapper.  Thought of as a devil-may-care anything goes girl they were enough to excite any man in his mid-life crisis.

In 1920, ERB at forty-five would have been in the midst of his.  Life was passing while he was evidently in an unsatisfactory marriage.  Perhaps it had been unsatisfactory since 1903-04 when he had committed the faux pas which shattered his wife’s confidence in him.  He was never to regain her confidence during their marriage although her love for him never did cease.

While he was in this state of mind a book was published followed by its movie which lustfully inflamed ERB’s imagination.  In 1923 Samuel Hopkins Adams, himself in a mid-life crisis, Samuel Hopkins Adams, using the pseudonym, Warner Fabian, perhaps wisely, published his very successful novel Flaming Youth.  While the book doesn’t show up on the best seller lists of either 1923 or ’24, from January to June it had gone through nine printings of which my copy is of the ninth,  for the year perhaps fifteen or more.  Still couldn’t reach the top ten of the charts, must have been a couple good literary years.  Before the year was out the movie had been made and was in the theatres.

ERB had a copy of the book in his library and had seen the movie at least once, possibly even several times.  If his search for a hot number had been latent before it certainly flamed after he saw the movie.  In 1927 he found his flapper ideal in Florence Gilbert Dearholt.

While ‘Flaming Youth’ was a major success in 1923-’24 reading it today makes understanding why difficult.  It is not a particularly good book nor, really, very well written.  Adams appears to have dashed it off taking no pains with it.  Thus rather than being a literary novel it is more of a pulp romance of the type Bernarr Macfadden would make famous in his pulp magazines like True Romance, a genre he invented at this time.

Samuel Hopkins Adams had an interesting career.  Four years older than ERB he lived eight years longer.  He began his career as a journalist writing several articles in 1906 about the patent medicine business which were instrumental in the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of that year.  The articles were later issued in book form as The Great American Fraud.  Burroughs’ own life would be seriously affected by the Pure Food and Drug Act through his relationship with Dr. Stace.

Adams career prospered as he was very proficient in writing for the movies.  In ‘Flaming youth’ he had a double barreled hit.

While his title ‘Flaming Youth’ has entered the vocabulary even as modern youth attempt to ‘flame’, I found the title somewhat misleading and far better than the story.

Perhaps Adams proves the adage of H.L. Mencken who flourished at this time when he said ‘No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.’  Actually the story reminded me a great deal of Grace Metolius’ 1954 novel ‘Peyton Place.’  Adams book was definitely aimed at the erotic zone of America.

In a rather clever framing device worthy of ERB’s best efforts Adams palms Warner Fabian off as a family physician.  I’ll quote the frame in its entirety.

Quote:

A WORD FROM THE WRITER TO THE READER

“Those who know will not tell; those who tell do not know.”

The old saying applies to woman in today’s literature.  Women writers when they write of women, evade and conceal and palliate.  Ancestral references, sexual loyalties dissuade the pen.

Men writers when they write of women do so without comprehension.  Men understand women only as men choose to have them, with one exception, the family physician.  He knows.  He sees through the body and soul.  But he may not tell what he sees.  Professional honour binds him.  Only through the unaccustomed medium of fiction and out of the vatic incense-cloud of pseudonymity may he speak the truth.  Being a physician, I must conceal my identity, and not less securely the identity of those whom I picture.

There is no such suburb as Dorisdale…and there are a score of Dorisdales.  There is no such family as the Fentrisses…and there are a thousand Fentriss families.  For the delineation which I have striven to present, honestly and unreservedly, of the twentieth century woman of the luxury-class I beg only the indulgence permissible to the neophyte’s pen.  I have no other apologia to offer.

To the woman of the period thus set forth, restless, seductive, greedy, discontented, craving sensation, unrestrained, a little morbid, more than a little selfish, intelligent, uneducated, sybaritic, following blind instincts and perverse fancies, slack of mind as she is trim of body, neurotic and vigorous, a worshipper of tinsel gods at perfumed altars, fit mate for the hurried, reckless and cynical man of the age, predestined mother of-what manner of being?:  To her I dedicate this study of herself.

                                                                   W.F.

Whether ERB got sucked in by such persiflage is open to question.  A writer using such flim-flam himself he certainly should have seen through it.  Having been a victim of Samuel Hopkins Adams once when the Pure Food and Drug Act drove he and Stace out of the patent medicine business it is kind of a joke that Adams got him a second time with such drivel under the pseudonym of Dr. Warner Fabian.  It is mind-boggling that Adams did it posing as a medical quack.

Adams must have learned something about snake oil lines by investigating the patent medicine business.  His ‘Word to the Reader’ is certainly a lesson in promising much and delivering little.  It appears to be a conscious attempt too.  One must ask if the term Writer in his headline is meant to refer to him or his alter ego Warner Fabian.  I rather think Fabian as a ‘neophyte’ would refer to himself as an author while Adams considered himself a professional writer so that Adams may be speaking in his own persona to the reader when he says ‘Those who know will not tell…’ so that if he does know he won’t tell it alerts the perceptive reader to the fact that what he is about to read is a fraud or a put on, ‘those who tell do not know.’ Or alternatively he doesn’t know so what you are about to read is pure fiction.

Further along he says that there is one exception to the rule, as why not? there’s always an exception to the rule.  That one exception is the family physician.  He knows.  The only problem with that is that Adams is lying- he is neither the Dr. Warner Fabian he purports to be nor is he a family physician.  This book is a total medical fraud no less than the patent medicine dealers Adams shut down.  Adams carries the fraud further using the purple prose he employs through out the work: ‘…only through the unaccustomed medium of fiction and out of the vatic-incense cloud of pseudonymity may he (the doctor) speak the truth.’

Anybody here know what vatic means?  Our old friend Mr. Webster says that it relates to the seer and prophecy.  So much for the concept of medical science.  I haven’t figured out what the phrase ‘vatic-incense cloud of pseudonymity’ means yet or maybe we weren’t supposed to.  If anyone knows drop a line.  However, it sounds not only good but spectacular.  Fabian is only pseudonymous, whatever that means, still he must conceal his identity.  A careful reader understands the pseudonymous doctor is not really Warner Fabian so one wonders why he stresses the point so.  Adams does tell that he is not telling the truth as he frankly admits that there is no Dorrisdale but in the metaphoric sense that are twenty of them.  Only twenty in the whole US?  Or twenty in the immediate vicinity?   Anyway we are to imagine twenty is an infinitude, something like the stars in a clear cold night sky.

Adams tells us these are very decadent times.  He doesn’t compare them to any former times like pre-war Dorrisdales but the times are definitely more decadent than they ever have been before.  There is no actual Fentriss family, closer to the truth, but there are an allegorical thousand Fentriss families (and while he doesn’t say it, he implies that  allegorically that might include the reader whatever his name.  Figure it out, do the math.  Twenty goes into a thousand fifty times.  There are fifty such families in each of these small Dorrisdales, the population of which is what?  Two thousand?  Fifty times six family members is three hundred.  We now have twenty decadent Dorrisdales.  The whole universe as it were.  Since all these families are apparently having nude parties by their swimming pools as in the novel so where’s the news?  Who is there to be shocked?

The book went through nine printings in six months so somebody didn’t get an invitation to these orgies.  I don’t know who.  Oh well, not everyone can be in the luxury-class.  Proto Jet Set.  Andy Warhol’s Factory.  People need orgies for mental health, don’t they?  Or, do they?

Let’s just say the vatic-incense cloud must have been the devil weed itself burning which sent Adams off on this flight of fancy that captures the imagination of a nation.  Poor old prurient America.  Oh, Dr. Freud, turn off the sex spigot.

I found the masterful title a misnomer.  The title purports to reveal the antics of flaming youth but the only flaming youth in the story is in the imagination of fourteen year old Patricia Fentriss-she’s a fast one in her imagination but she doesn’t go all the way.

Adams is good at setting things up then not delivering.  Robert Heinlein must have sat at his feet.  In perhaps the book’s most famous quote on page thirteen—13? Adams dips his pen into his purple ink well to write:

“That’s the measure they dance to, the new generation.  Doesn’t it get into your torpid blood, Bob?  Don’t you wish you were young again!  To be a desperado of twenty?  They’re all desperadoes, these kids, all of them with any life in their veins; the girls as well as the boys; maybe even more than the boys.  Even Connie with her eyes of a vestal.  Ah!”

Ah, indeed!

So who’s Adams writing this tripe for?

The title may be Flaming Youth but the story is about Sputtering Age.  This is a May-September romance.  Burroughs was forty-eight in 1923 and Adams was fifty-two.  What yearning for a younger woman occurs in those ages.  Anything to stave off the march of time.  Both men had been raised essentially in the nineteenth century; they must then have been thoroughly aroused by the short-skirted flapper of the post-war era.  What lusts did these girls call forth?  Sam may as well have been standing next to ERB at the dance asking:  “Doesn’t it get into your torpid blood, Ed?  Don’t you wish you were young again?”

Darn right Ed wished that he was young again, but as that wasn’t about to happen the next best thing for an old timer to do to revive that torpid blood is to get next to one of those red hot young flappers.

That is what Adams does for himself in Flaming Youth.  The book is not so much about flaming youth as to return to the flame of youth.  Adams acquaints Pat Fentriss with a forty-or-so year old ultra sophisticate, hyper intelligent man of the world named Cary Scott.  Obviously a simulacrum of himself.  As Scott carefully explains to Pat, a good looking body may be enough for the ‘the First Dreaming’ but she will soon tire of that, as her mind in the ‘Second Dreaming’, this is the family physician talking, will require something more stimulating like himself.

The story then actually concerns the trials and tribulations of this romance until it come to happy fruition in the end.

ERB as he was entering the ‘Second Dreaming’ reached out to a hot young firebrand which he found a short three years later in 1927.

That was the book.  Hardly a great or even a very good novel but successful enough to cement Adams’ reputation.

The movie which was rushed out by year’s end was apparently somewhat different from the book.  The movie made the career of the actress Colleen Moore with whom ERB was to have contact a decade later when he wrote the miniature book Tarzan Jr. for her miniature library of her doll house.

In researching the movie the consensus was that no copy had survived.  Then I read that one reel survived.  And then I came across a review at www.imbd.com/title/tt00145045/usercomments by F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre, seemingly a London based journalist who seemed to have viewed the movie.

I contacted him and he advised me that a print did indeed exist.  He advised me by email that:  ‘I have viewed a partially deteriorated  nitrate print of Flaming Youth in Europe, in the private collection of an individual who does not wish to be publicly identified.  The partly deteriorated film includes a few frames of a faded image that appears to be a British exhibition certificate.’

As an example of what ERB saw Mr. Macintyre describes the action: 

Quote:

“Moore plays Pat Fentriss, the spoilt daughter of well-to-do (luxury class in the book) parents who are the 1920s equivalent of “swingers”.  Pat’s parents are always throwing wild parties, with jazz band and (illegal) Prohibition booze and orgies.  Pat wants to join in on the fun, even though she’s just barely at the age of sexual consent.  One young man at the parent’s pool party shows a sexual interest in Pat until he finds out her age, then he curtly tells her:  ‘Baby must go back to her cradle.’

Unquote.

The high point of the movie is a scene at the pool party which shows the male and female party guests undressing together for the nude swimming.  The film makers probably wanted to show the guests in full nudity, but didn’t dare.  So we get a lot indirect lighting and camera angles, with everybody dressing in half-shadow.”

That part more or less follows the book.  The movie apparently doesn’t concentrate on the May-September romance between Cary Scott and Pat.  The nudity would be enough to get one’s torpid blood flowing like Niagara.

According to Mr. MacIntyre in the movie Pat runs away with a fiddler, hopping a yacht for Europe.  When the violinist, to be culturally correct, makes his move young Pat leaps overboard to escape his advances.  Pretty flaming, huh?  With a rare good fortune a sailor passing by fishes her out.

In the book Pat meets a violin player or ‘artiste’, Leo Stenay.  Adams shows his distaste for the Bohemian style by having Pat reject him because she feared he wore dirty socks.

As with most writers of the period Adams shows his respect for the Diversity by including and referring to many different types.

Thus the stimulating part of the movie for a revivifying ERB would have been the nude swimming party.  One would think they would have been much easier to find in Hollywood than in the score of Dorrisdales with their fifty luxury-class families but not for Ed, even though he had just written The Girl From Hollywood dealing with just such licentiousness.

Combining the movie version with Cary Scott of the book ERB became a lonely hunter until he met Florence Gilbert Dearholt, a married woman with two kids, when he discovered the perils of the Second Dreaming.

One wonders what course his life would have taken if there had been no Samuel Hopkin Adams, no Great American Fraud and no Flaming Youth.  It is strange indeed that a man we have no reason to believe that he had ever met could have had such a profound effect on his life.  First with his articles condemning the patent medicine manufacturers which may have introduced ERB to the police  and secondly with Flaming Youth that undoubtedly completed ERB’s dissatisfaction with his marriage.

I wonder if ERB ever gave Samuel Hopkins Adams a second thought.

F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre., An Afterthought

Gwynplaine and I were continuing to correspond about Flaming Youth when the line went dead so to speak.  Strangely we were both using London email addresses.  So each of us believed the emails were crossing London.  He finally admitted that he was in Brooklyn. I stunned him by confessing that I was writing from Portland, Oregon.  I was trying to reach him when I received an email from his friend advising me that Gwynplaine was no more.  He had apparently set his apartment in flames burning wall to wall.  Fortunately for other tenants the building was insulated well.

I knew that Gwynplaine was eccentric by his assumed name.  Gwynplaine was a character in Victor Hugo’s novel The Man Who Laughs.   The man who laughed was a man who was kidnapped as an infant.  When he became old enough his captors slit his cheeks from the corners of his mouth ear to ear thus when healed he gave the impression of man with a huge grin.  The captors could then exhibit him.  The assumed character indicated that Gwynplaine masked a world of sorrow.  From the internet, Wikipedia, I read that he adopted many costumes in an effort to get away from himself.  He claimed to have viewed many impossible to find films thus creating a furor among silent movie buffs who challenged him.  A major brou ha ha was in progress when I contacted him.  His detractors claimed that the story about the European collector was false and that Gwynplaine merely copied out movie reviews of the time.

I don’t know, but I hope that Gwynplaine did know collectors who had rooted out some impossible to find copies.  Perhaps being rudely attacked threw Gwynplaine into a severe depression and he decided to free his soul and translate himself to an alternate universe where things were ordered better.  His body was not found in the ashes so possibly he just ran away from himself.God bless you Gwynplaine wherever you are and may your sorrows turn into a real smile.